FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]Probably the Quintet for Pianoforte and Wind-Instruments, Op. 16, published in March, 1801.[2]“Cäcilia.” IX, p. 219.[3]The English editor of this biography found trombone parts written out by Beethoven among Mr. Thayer’s posthumous papers; they belonged to the Trio in the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, and Beethoven’s instructions to the copyist where to introduce them in the score plainly showed that they were an afterthought.[4]It was not the case this time, for the manuscript of this Concerto bears in the composer’s hand the date “1800.”[5]In a Conversation Book from the year 1825, Holz writes that till then “Christus am Ölberg” had always drawn full houses, but that the court official in charge of musical affairs (Hofmusikgraf) had not allowed further performances to be given.[6]Anton Kraft was 14½ years old at the time.[7]The following observation on the sonata by Czerny is also interesting: “In the Sonata written for Bridgetower and dedicated to Kreutzer, Op. 47 (of which the first movement was composed in four days and the other two [?] added from a sonata already completed), the concluding passageAscending dotted motifis said to be borrowed from a piece of Kreutzer’s already in print. I had this assurance immediately after the publication of the Beethoven Sonata from a French musician (1805). It would be worth while to investigate the matter. Perhaps therein lies the reason of its dedication.” And further: “Bridgetower was a mulatto and played very extravagantly; when he played the sonata with Beethoven it was laughed at.”[8]Letters and other documents, some of which were placed in Mr. Thayer’s hands by Samuel Appleby, Esq., relative to Bridgetower, are printed in an appendix to Vol. II of the first German edition of this biography and as foot-notes and otherwise in Vol. III. What is essential in the memoranda and documents can be put into a much smaller compass. The subscription for the concert amounted to 1140 florins and the list was headed by the English envoy. Bridgetower’s father was known in England as the “Abyssinian Prince,” and Mr. Thayer speculates whether the title was genuine or but a sobriquet given to him suggested by Dr. Johnson’s “Rasselas”; but it will appear presently that he was called an “African Prince,” not an Abyssinian; how his father got to Biala in Poland, where Bridgetower was born, or whether his mother was a German or a Pole, remains a mystery which has not yet been cleared up. The first memorandum of information in Mr. Thayer’s collection was in the shape of an excerpt from a communication from London written by Abt Vogler and printed in Bossler’s “Musikalische Correspondenz” on July 7, 1790. Abt Vogler’s letter bears date London, June 6, 1790; in it he said:“Last Wednesday, June 2nd, I attended a concert here in Hanover Square where two young heroes contested with each other on the violin and all music-lovers and cognoscenti found most agreeable entertainment for three hours. The two played concertos alternately and both won the warmest applause. The quartet, however, which was played by young virtuosi whose combined ages did not reach 40 years, by virtue of a fine, cheerful, witty and yet harmonious performance exceeded all the expectations that experienced players could gratify. The first violin was played by Clement of Vienna, eight and one-half, the second by Bridgetower of Africa, ten years of age.”The Prince of Wales, afterwards King George IV, took the youth into his service as first violinist in the Pavilion at Brighton. The next piece of information which reached Thayer told of Bridgetower’s first concert in Dresden on July 24, 1802. A second concert was given on March 18, 1803, at which a brother of the violinist, who played the violoncello, took part. A letter from Friedrich Lindemann, a member of the Prince of Wales’s orchestra, dated January 14, 1803, contained the information that a letter of Bridgetower’s forwarded to Brighton by a certain “Billy” Cole had been placed in the hands of the Prince, who read it at once, appeared to be highly satisfied, and granted the writer’s request to be permitted to go to Vienna. Thayer did not learn the dates of Bridgetower’s birth or death, but Dr. Riemann in his revision of the second Volume says that he died “between 1840 and 1850.” This is an error.In the May number for 1908 of “The Musical Times” (London) Mr. F. G. Edwards printed the results of an investigation into Bridgetower’s life, and provided some new and definite information from a collection of letters and documents in the possession of Arthur F. Hill, F.S.A. From this article it appears that Bridgetower was a pupil of Barthélemon, Giornovichi, Thomas Attwood and—as he claimed—Haydn. If he really was a pupil of Haydn, he must, as Mr. Edwards pointed out, have been in the neighborhood of Vienna before he had completed his tenth year. To this the present writer adds that if he had been a pupil of Haydn’s the latter would not have omitted his name in the list of names which he made of the London musicians on his first visit to the English metropolis, for he included “Clementpetit,” who was then between ten and eleven years old. (See, “Music and Manners in the Classical Period,” by H. E. Krehbiel, p. 77.) He made his first public appearance in Paris at a Concert Spirituel on April 13, 1789. In the announcement of this concert he was described as “Mr. Georges Bridgetower,né aux colonies anglaises, âgé de 9 ans.” (Yet his passport issued by the police authorities, gives Biala in Poland as his birthplace.) A concert for his benefit was given on May 27, 1789, at theSalle du Panthéon. Soon thereafter he crossed the channel and, if his father is to be believed, he played for the first time in England before George III and his court at Windsor Castle. Next he appears at Bath, the “Morning Post” of November 25, 1789, reporting “Amongst those added to the Sunday promenade were the African Prince in the Turkish attire. The son of this African Prince has been celebrated as a very accomplished musician.” The same newspaper, on December 8, a fortnight later, tells of a concert given on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the publication which was “more crowded and splendid than has ever been known at this place, upwards of 550 people being present. Rauzzini was enraptured, and declared that he had never heard such execution before, even from his friend La Motte, who was, he thought, much inferior to this wonderful boy. The father was in the gallery, and so affected by the applause bestowed on his son, that tears of pleasure and gratitude flowed in profusion.”It would seem as if the modern methods of advertising musical artists is far behind the old in the impudent display of charlantanry. The plain “Georges” of the first Paris concert, the later George Polgreen, in the announcement of his first concert in Bath becomes George Augustus Frederick. Why? The Christian name of the Prince of Wales was George Augustus Frederick. In this announcement he is described as “a youth of Ten Years old, Pupil of the celebratedHaydn.” The newspapers were amiable or gullible, or both.The lad played a concerto between “the 2d and 3d Acts” of “The Messiah” at a performance of Handel’s oratorio given for the benefit of Rauzzini on Christmas eve of the same year. He gave a concert in Bristol on December 18, 1789, leading the band “with the coolness and spirit of a Cramer to the astonishment and delight of all present,” and on New Year’s day, 1790. Next he went to London, where, at Drury Lane Theatre on February 19, 1790, he played a solo at a performance of “The Messiah.” Referring to the Lenten concerts of that year, Parke says in his “Musical Memoirs”: “Concertos were performed on the oboe by me and on the violin for the first time by Master Bridgetower, son of an African Prince, who was attended by his father habited in the costume of his country.” The concert described by Abt Vogler was under the patronage of the Prince of Wales. At the Handel Commemoration of 1791 in Westminster Abbey, Bridgetower and Hummel, in scarlet coats, sat on either side of Joah Bates at the organ and pulled out the stops for him. He played in the orchestra at the Haydn-Salomon concerts in 1791, at several of the Lenten concerts in the King’s Theatre in 1792, and on May 28 he performed a concerto by Viotti at Mr. Barthélemon’s concert, the announcement stating that “Dr. Haydn will preside at the pianoforte.” (Haydn’s note-book contains no mention of the concert, which would in likelihood have been the case had Bridgetower ever been his pupil.) He was plainly on terms of intimacy with such musicians as Viotti, François Cramer, Attwood, and later of Samuel Wesley, who wrote of him in a tone of enthusiastic appreciation.In 1802, being then in the Prince of Wales’s band at Brighton, he obtained leave, as Thayer notes, to visit Dresden and take the baths at Teplitz and Carlsbad; eventually, too, as we have seen, to visit Vienna. The passport issued to him in Vienna for his return to London described him as “a musician, native of Poland, aged 24 years, medium height, clean shaven, dark brown hair, brown eyes and straight, rather broad nose.” He seems to have become a resident of London and to have continued in favor with musical and other notables for a considerable space, for Dr. Crotch asks his aid in securing the patronage of the Prince Regent for a concert.He received the degree of Bachelor of Music, on presentation of the usual exercise, from the University of Cambridge in 1811. There follow some years during which his life remains obscure, but in which he lived on the Continent. He was in Rome in 1825 and 1827; back in London in 1843, when Vincent Novello sent him a letter which he signed “your much obliged old pupil and professional admirer.” John Ella met him in Vienna in 1845, but he was again in London in 1846, and there he died, apparently friendless and in poverty, on February 29, 1860. In the registry of his death, discovered by Mr. Edwards, his age is set down as 78 years; but he must have been eighty if he was nine when he played at the first concert in Paris in 1789. He was born either in 1779 or 1780. He published some pianoforte studies in 1812 under the title “Diatonica Armonica” which, with a few other printed pieces, are to be found in the British Museum. A ballad entitled “Henry,” which was “Sung by Miss Feron and dedicated with permission to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales,” was evidently composed in 1810.[9]“Hr. Karl v. Beethoven lives auf-der-Wien 26.” “Staats-Schematismus,” 1803, p. 150; andibid.1804, p. 154. “Hr. Ludwig van Beethofen, auf-der-Wien 26.”—See “Auskunftsbuch,” 1804, p. 204.“An-der-Wien, No. 26. Bartolomä Zitterbarth, K. K. Prin. Schauspielhaus.”—See “Vollständiges Verzeichniss aller ... der numerirten Häuser, deren Eigenthümer,” etc., etc., Wien, 1804, p. 133.[10]A letter printed in 1909 by Leopold Schmidt in his collection from the archives of the Simrock firm, confirms the change of lodgings to the theatre and also brother Karl’s activity as correspondent and arranger. In it he offers a grand Sonata for violin, to appear simultaneously in London, Leipsic, Vienna and Bonn, for 30 florins; a grand Symphony for 400 florins. When the “Kreutzer” Sonata was published (it was announced by Träg on May 18, 1805) Karl acknowledged the receipt of a copy in a letter to Simrock, adding that all the other publishers sent six copies of the works printed by them and asking for the remaining five. Simrock took him to task rather sharply for what he considered a piece of presumption, in a letter which he enclosed to Ferdinand Ries with the statement that he might read it if he wanted to. “I bought the Sonata of Louis van Beethoven,” says the indignant publisher, “and in his letter concerning it there is not a word about giving him six copies in addition to the fees—a matter important enough to have been mentioned; I was under the impression that Louis van Beethoven composed his own works; what I am certain of is that I have fully complied with all the conditions of the contract and am indebted to nobody.” In the note to Ries he calls Karl’s conduct “impertinent and deserving of a harsher treatment, for Herr Karl seems to me incorrigible.”[11]Thayer considered the “first street to the left” to be the Herrengasse. J. Böck (Gnadenau) argued in “Die Musik.” Vol. II, No. 6, that the house in which the “Eroica” was composed was the present Hauptstrasse No. 92 of Döbling and bore the old No. 4 of the Hofzeile. In 1890 the owner of the house and theMännergesangsvereinof Döbling placed a tablet on the “Eroica” house, whose occupants “were still in possession of a tradition concerning Beethoven’s occupation of it.” So says Dr. Riemann.[12]Th. von Frimmel discusses the Beethoven portraits in his “Neue Beethoveniana,” p. 189et seq., and “Beethoven-Studien,” Vol. II (1905).[13]A copy of this portrait which belonged to Thayer is now in the possession of Mrs. Jabez Fox, and is presented in photogravure as frontispiece to the present volume.[14]The publication of a complete edition of his composition frequently occupied the mind of Beethoven. In 1806 Breitkopf and Härtel tried to get all of Beethoven’s works for publication by them; it is likely that similar efforts on the part of Viennese publishers date back as far as 1803. Later the plan plays a rôle in the correspondence with Probst and Simrock. As late as 1824 it was urged by Andreas Streicher. It has already been said that Beethoven at an early date desired to make an arrangement with a publisher by which he might be relieved of anxiety about monetary matters. He wanted to give all his compositions to one publisher, who should pay him a fixed salary.[15]Nottebohm, “Skizzenbuch, etc., 1803,” p. 56, says “quartet.”[16]Kreutzer came to Vienna with Bernadotte in 1789.[17]“Orpheus,” 1841, p. 248.[18]Allg. Mus. Zeit.XXIV, p. 320.[19]But Ries says that Beethoven hired these lodgings besides those in the theatre.[20]See, in the “Allg. Mus. Zeit.” III, a criticism of “Nelson’s Great Seabattle,” for pianoforte, violin and violoncello by Ferd. Kauer. Years afterward this piece may have been confounded with the Symphony in Dr. Bertolini’s memory. From Otto Jahn’s papers we learn that Dr. Bertolini told him that the first idea of the “Sinfonia eroica” was suggested to Beethoven by Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt (May, 1798); and the rumor of Nelson’s death at the battle of Aboukir (June 22), at which Nelson was wounded in the head, was the cause of the funeral march. Czerny wrote: “According to Beethoven’s long-time friend, Dr. Bertolini, the first idea of the ‘Sinfonia eroica’ was suggested by the death of the English general Abercrombie; hence the naval (not land-military) character of the theme and the entire first movement.” Music of a naval character to celebrate the death of an army officer! Czerny seems to have been at least temporarily weak either in history or logic.[21]Dr. Schmidt is of opinion that this anecdote was contributed to his journal by Hieronymus Payer, certainly good authority.[22]“Full moon, July 22,” almanac of 1804.[23]This honorarium was a share in the receipts.[24]In the second (German) edition of Thayer’s “Life,” etc., Dr. Riemann amends this statement in the text as follows: These statements of Treitschke’s prove to be inaccurate, inasmuch as it has definitively been determined that Beethoven began work on “Leonore” before Paër’s opera had been produced in Dresden, i. e., October 3, 1804. This is proved by the discovery of sketches for the early numbers of the opera among sketches for the “Eroica” symphony, and is confirmed by Ries. The latter says: “When he composed ‘Leonore’ he had free lodgings for a year in the Wiedener Theatre; but as these opened on the courtyard they were not agreeable to him. He therefore hired,at the same time, quarters in the Rothes Haus on the Alserkaserne.” “Now,” Nottebohm continues, “Beethoven lived in the Theater-an-der-Wien in May, 1803, and later in the Rothes Haus in the spring of 1804.” Consequently he must have worked on the operabeforethe spring of 1804. Nottebohm assumes that between the abandonment of work on Schikaneder’s text and the beginning of work on “Leonore” there could not be more than a quarter of a year. It is very probable that Beethoven dropped work on Schikaneder’s text when the latter’s activity as director came to an end on February 11, 1804; but it does not follow that he may not already have approached the setting of Bouilly’s text, as translated into German by Sonnleithner, who now undertook the work of administration. At any rate it is an error to assert that the commission to compose the book was not offered to him until the fall of 1804. Indeed, the question is whether or not Beethoven’s occupancy of lodgings in the theatre was interrupted at all. It ought also to be borne in mind that in view of his relations with Baron von Braun and Sonnleithner, Beethoven may have known before the conclusion of the contract that Schikaneder’s direction was to be terminated—reasons enough for believing that there is nothing improbable in the theory that the composer began work on “Leonore” before the end of 1803.[25]Dr. Riemann here inserts: “If this was not the case the explanation lies in the fact that the attention of Sonnleithner, who had to provide texts for both Beethoven and Cherubini, had previously been directed to the ‘Léonore’ of Bouilly and Gaveaux, and Beethoven had already begun work on it.”[26]It was not until February 8, 1809, that Paër’s opera was performed in Vienna, long after Beethoven had withdrawn his opera and when Baron von Braun was no longer Intendant. The story to which Ferdinand Hiller gave currency about the production of Paër’s opera and the attendance of Beethoven upon it in company with the composer must be rejected for chronological reasons. (Riemann.)[27]In September, 1804, Muzio Clementi, who was not only a fine musician but also a clever business man, made an arrangement with Breitkopf and Härtel, by which he secured all the compositions which Beethoven might bring that firm, for England at one-half the honorarium paid to the composer. (See an article by Max Unger in “The Monthly Record,” Nov.-Dec., 1908.)[28]Nottebohm’s researches (cf.“Zweite Beethoveniana,” p. 416et seq.) show that Beethoven sketched all the movements of the Triple Concerto, Op. 56, in 1804; that the beginning of the work on the “Waldstein” Sonata. Op. 53, dates back to 1803, or at the latest the early part of 1804; sketches for Op. 54 are missing, but the three numbers of Op. 57 are so fully represented among the opera sketches that Schindler’s statement that the so-called “Appassionata” Sonata was composed at Count Brunswick’s in 1806 is to be understood as referring only to its definitive working out and the making of a fair copy; the date of the performance of “Leonore” (“Fidelio”), taken in connection with a revision of the air in E major, show that the “Leonore” sketchbook, between which and the book of 1803 there seems to have been another, of which no trace has been found, may have extended to the beginning of 1805.[29]Again played by him at the opening of Schuppanzigh’s Augarten concerts in the Spring.[30]See Nottebohm’s study of the sketches for “Fidelio” in “Zweite Beethoveniana,” p. 409et seq.; also what Jahn has to say, and the results of Erich Prieger’s labors in connection with the reprint of the original form of the opera.[31]Jahn, “Gesammelte Schriften,” p. 244.[32]To the opinions of the reviewers some attention must be given; it does not seem advisable to quote themin extenso. The “Freymüthige” describes the military occupation of Vienna, the officers quartered in the city proper, the private soldiery in the suburbs. At first the theatres were empty, but gradually the French began to visit them and at the time of writing were more numerous in the playhouses than the Austrians. “Fidelio,” the new opera by Beethoven, did not please. It was given a few times only and the house was empty after the first performance. The music did not meet the expectations of the cognoscenti and music-lovers, lacking the passionate expression which is so compelling in Mozart and Cherubini. The music is beautiful in places, but as a whole the opera is far from being a perfect or successful work. The “Zeitung für the Elegante Welt” records that the music is “ineffective and repetitious,” and did not add to the writer’s opinion of Beethoven’s talent for vocal writing formed on hearing his cantata (“Christus am Ölberg”). In its issue of January 8, 1806, the correspondent of the “Allg. Mus. Zeitung” says that he had expected something very different, in view of Beethoven’s undisputed talent. Beethoven had often sacrificed beauty to newness and singularity and therefore something new and original had been expected, but these were the qualities which were least noticeable. The music is distinguished neither by invention nor execution. The overture is not comparable with that of “Prometheus.” As a rule there is nothing new in the vocal parts; they are generally too long, the text is ceaselessly repeated and the characterization misses fire, as, for instance, in the duet after the recognition. A canon in the first act and an aria in F [E] are more successful, though the pretty accompaniment with its three hornsobbligatoand bassoon is somewhat overloaded. The choruses, especially the song of the prisoners, are a failure. Dr. Henry Reeve, of Norwich, England, one of the earliest collaborators on the “Edinburgh Review,” then a young man of 25, was in Vienna at the time of the French invasion and attended the second representation of the opera on November 21st. Sir George Grove sent a copy of a page from his journal to Thayer. He thought the plot a sad mixture of bad action and romantic situations, but the airs, duets and choruses worthy of all praise. The “overtures,” of which there was one for every act, were too artificial to be generally agreeable and an appreciation of their beauties would require frequent hearing. Beethoven sat at the pianoforte and conducted the performance—a little, dark, young-looking man, who wore spectacles.[33]“Signale für die Musikalische Welt,” June 21, 1866.[34]Twice only.[35]In the chapter immediately preceding the present one in the revised German edition of this biography, Dr. Riemann introduces the following: “Through the efforts of Otto Jahn, Gustav Nottebohm and Erich Prieger, it has been made possible measurably to observe the transformations which ‘Fidelio’ underwent between its first production and its publication. The mysterious disappearance (possibly theft) of several scores made it extremely difficult to determine the form in which it was represented—‘Fidelio’ in three acts in 1805, ‘Leonore’ in two acts in 1806, and ‘Fidelio’ in two acts in 1814—the statements touching the omissions and restorations of single numbers being insufficient and not free from contradictions. About 1850, however. Otto Jahn succeeded in putting together a score of the second revision of 1806 from the separate parts; of this he published a vocal score with pianoforte accompaniment towards the close of 1853 through Breitkopf and Härtel. He also gave some hints concerning its variations from the score of 1805. After another half-century Erich Prieger collected the material for a restoration of the work as it was at the first production in 1805, compiled a vocal score and gave it to the public through Breitkopf and Härtel. More than that—he occasioned its performance at the centennial celebration in the Royal Opera House in Berlin.” From Prieger’s preface we take in part the following statements:“In 1807 Breitkopf and Härtel published three numbers from the second revision of 1806—viz: the Trio in E-flat, ‘Ein Mann ist bald gewonnen’ (afterwards elided), the canon quartet, and the duet ‘Gut, Söhnchen, gut’; not until 1810 was a vocal score of the second version published. It came from the press of Breitkopf and Härtel, but was without overtures and finales. The overture in C, No. 3, which was performed with the opera in 1806, was published by Breitkopf and Härtel, also in 1810; the overture in C, No. 2, with which the representation of 1805 began, edited by Otto Jahn, was published by B. and H. at the end of 1853. (It was performed in Leipsic on January 27 of that year.) Nottebohm notes the performance of the four overtures on January 11, 1840, and a publication in 1842; but this refers to the work as disfigured by cuts. The so-called ‘first’ C major overture found amongst Beethoven’s posthumous effects and published by Haslinger as Op. 138 is in reality the first of the series, the one which, according to Schindler’s report (third edition, I, 127), was tried over once at Prince Lichnowsky’s and put aside as too simple, but purchased at once by Haslinger. It is true that Nottebohm discovered sketches for the overture in company with sketches for the symphony in C minor and, from this fact, argued that the overture had been composed between April, 1807, and December, 1808 (see ‘Beethoveniana,’ pp. 60et seq.): but in his analysis of the sketchbook of 1803, extending from October, 1802, to April, 1804, he shows the presence of sketches for ‘Leonore’ among such for the ‘Eroica,’ which proves that Beethoven worked on the opera as early as 1803 and that ‘these labors were so far advanced when the performance of Paër’s opera became known (October 3, 1804) that there could be no thought of an abandonment.’ But this demolishes the theory that Op. 138 must have been composed in 1807-08, and we are compelled to believe with Kalischer that Schindler’s account is correct and that Haslinger (Steiner and Co.) had for years been in possession of the first overture to ‘Leonore’ which ‘had been laid aside after a trial in 1805,’ and that in 1823, at a time when Schindler was Beethoven’s confidant, the composer demanded that it be published and Haslinger refused, saying: ‘We bought those manuscripts and paid for them; consequently they are our property, and we can do with them as we will.’ Only one thing remains problematical, and that is, what could have persuaded Haslinger to state that he had found the overture in a packet of dances which he purchased at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. Kalischer calls attention to a letter from Fanny Hensel to Rebekka Dirichlet, written after the music festival at Düsseldorf in 1836 under the direction of Mendelssohn (see ‘Die Familie Mendelssohn,’ II, 9): ‘Oh, Becky! We have got acquainted with an overture to ‘Leonore’; a new piece. It is notorious that it has never been played; it did not please Beethoven and he put it aside. The man had no taste! It is so refined, so interesting, so fascinating that I know few things which can be compared with it. Haslinger has printed a whole edition and will not release it. Perhaps he will do so after this success.’ That seems to have been the case; but Haslinger permitted the work to be played as early as February 7, 1828, at a concert of Bernhard Romberg’s and elsewhere. In his book ‘Beethoven’s Studien im Generalbass, etc.,’ 1832, Seyfried connects this overture with the project, never carried out, of a production of the opera in Prague in 1807. ‘For the theatre in Prague,’ he says, ‘Beethoven wrote a less difficult overture which Haslinger, afterward R. I. Court Music Dealer,acquired at auction’; to which Haslinger replied: ‘This overture is already engraved in score and orchestral parts and, together with other arrangements of it, will yet appear in the course of this year.’ Nottebohm, too, convinced that the sketches for the overture had to be placed in 1807, and doubtless influenced by Seyfried’s statement, accepted the theory that it had been intended for Prague. Seyfried’s statement, however, in view of the involved story of the manuscript in the hands of Haslinger, lacks credibility, and is probably to be charged to the account of Haslinger, who may not have wanted to tell the truth for fear that it might lessen the market value of the work.”—To this the English editor feels in duty bound to say that Nottebohm’s argument seems to him at all points invulnerable. The autograph of the overture is no longer in existence. The score bought by Haslinger and the parts are copies which Beethoven corrected. On the first violin part the copyist had written “Ouvertura”; Beethoven added “in C, Characteristic Overture.” Under this title the composition was announced by Haslinger in 1828. He did not publish it at the time, but there were many references to it at its performance at Romberg’s concert and at other times as a “Characteristic” overture which had been found among Beethoven’s posthumous papers. Between 1828 and 1832, when Haslinger finally gave the work to the public, somebody made the discovery, which ought to have been made at sight of the manuscript, certainly at the first performance in 1828 (the melody ofFlorestan’ssong occurring in it as one of the themes), that there was a connection between it and “Fidelio.” When Haslinger published it, therefore, he abandoned the title under which he had announced it four years before, and called it: “Overture in C, composed in the year 1805 for the opera ‘Leonore,’ etc.” Every student knows how valuable Nottebohm’s studies of the sketches are in the determination of dates. Composers usually write the overtures to their operas last; indeed, they must do so when utilizing thematic material drawn from the vocal numbers. Mr. Thayer has already called attention to the fact that the vocal numbers were taken up in the order of their occurrence, as Beethoven’s sketches show. They also show that the overture was sketched after all the vocal numbers had been planned. And the overture thus sketched was that known as No. 2. There is no hint of the overture No. 1 in the sketches made in 1804 and the beginning of 1805. Schindler says that Haslinger bought the overture immediately after it had been laid aside by Beethoven. That would have been in 1805. But Haslinger was not in Vienna till 1810. If Steiner and Co., with which firm Haslinger associated himself shortly after his arrival in the Austrian capital and of which the firm of Tobias Haslinger was the successor, was meant by Schindler, it remains a mystery that the publishers, so intimately connected with Beethoven, should have kept an overture under lock and key for 23 years and then have given it out as a work bought at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. That circumstance could only awaken the suspicion that the composer did not think it worthy of his name and fame. If he did so think, he would not have demanded that Haslinger publish it in 1823. Judging by internal evidence the overture certainly seems to be an earlier work than the overtures which the world knows by the titles “Leonore,” Nos. 2 and 3; but contemporary reports (a letter from Vienna printed in the “Journal des Luxus und der Moden,” Weimar, 1808) offer evidence in addition to the testimony of Seyfried that Beethoven did write a new overture for the projected Prague performance. No doubt Beethoven was convinced, soon after the revival in 1806, that the third “Leonore” was too long and too severe a piece for its purpose; he was still of that opinion when he revised the opera for the revival of 1814, as is evidenced by his composing the “Fidelio” overture in E, and, more than that, consenting to the use of the overture to “The Ruins of Athens” at the first performance. Mr. Thayer was quite as capable of judging of the value of the evidence in the case as his editors; he was familiar with Nottebohm’s contention; and in his history of the year 1807 he unhesitatingly sets down the overture known as “Leonore, No. 1” as that designed for Prague. There is no new evidence so far as this writer knows which could justify a reversal of the opinion which has prevailed amongst musical scholars since 1872.[36]Frimmel, in his “Beethoven” (second edition, 1893 p. 42), tells the story in essentially the same manner on the authority of a grandson of Dr. Weiser, house physician of Prince Lichnowsky; Dr. Weiser’s version had previously been printed by Franz Xaver Bach in the “Wiener Deutsche Zeitung” of August 31, 1873. In both cases the story ends with Beethoven’s sending a letter to Lichnowsky containing this passage: “Prince, what you are you are by accident and birth; what I am I am through myself. There have been and will still be thousands of princes; there is only one Beethoven.” Authentic or not, the expression might well have come from the lips of Beethoven in a fit of anger.[37]Thomson’s memory was a little at fault when this preface was written; the proposal was made to Beethoven before Haydn’s death.[38]But on March 27, 1806, Beethoven offered the Concerto to Hoffmeister and Kühnel together with “Christus am Ölberg” for 600 florins. The work, if not completed, must have been well under way early in the year.[39]See the “Grenzboten,” April 3, 1857.[40]Young Wilding: “Oh how they [the women] melt at the Gothic names of General Swapinbach, Count Rousoumoffsky, Prince Montecuculi and Marshal Fustinburgh.” (“The Liar.”)[41]In June, 1906, Dr. Kalischer published two short notes written by Beethoven to Bigot. They are without date. The first explains Beethoven’s departure from Bigot’s house on the occasion of a visit as due to a sudden attack of fever; the second, accompanying some music, reads as follows: “I intended to visit you last night, but recalled in time that you are not at home on Saturdays—and I discover that I mustvisit you very oftenornot at all—I do not yet know which shall be my choice, but I almost believe the latter—because by so doing I shall evade all compulsion of having to come to you.”[42]Here Dr. Riemann has introduced into the text: “The serious interest which Beethoven felt for Therese could be questioned or ignored by the biographers so long as certain letters of Gleichenstein were accepted as belonging to the year 1807, which we must certainly now assign to the spring of 1810, a time when Therese had passed her 18th year and may have been 20 since (if the record of her age at her death is correct) she may have been born in 1791, so that, in view moreover of the Italian origin of her family, it was scarcely apposite to speak of her as ‘half a child’ in 1810.”[43]Quid licet Jovi non licet bovi; the maxim ought to be repeated every time this familiar story is told. Moreover, those who repeat Beethoven’s remark oftenest always omit a very significant word in it: “Und so erlaube ich sie!” i. e., “When used in the manner illustrated in the measure in question, I allow them.” Beethoven gave no general license.[44]Seyfried’s memory has here in part played him false.[45]Another slight mistake. Schindler was in possession of Beethoven’s glasses and they were by no means “very strong.”[46]One of Beethoven’s puns, the point of which is lost in the translation: “SchönereNotenbrächten mich schwerlich aus denNöthen.”[47]The genesis of the fourth symphony, in B-flat, Op. 60, is but imperfectly known. Nottebohm’s studies of the sketchbooks, which are so frequently helpful, fail us utterly here. The autograph score bears the inscription, “Sinfonia 4ta, 1806, L. v. Bthvn.” Having been played in March, 1807, at one of the two subscription concerts at Lobkowitz’s, it was, of course, finished at that time. Beethoven referred to it in his letter to Breitkopf and Härtel from Grätz on September 3, 1806. This is not convincing proof that it was all ready at the time, but certainly that it was well under way. On November 18 he wrote to the same firm that he could not then give them the promised symphony, because a gentleman of quality had purchased its use for six months. It is within the bounds of possibility that this reference was to the symphony in C minor, the sketches for which date back at least to 1805, though it was not completed till March, 1808, at the earliest. It would seem that work on the C minor symphony was laid aside in favor of the fourth, which was either written or sketched in the late summer and fall of 1806, and completed in Vienna in time for the performance in March, 1807.The symphony is dedicated to Count Oppersdorff, a Silesian nobleman. The castle of the Counts Oppersdorff lies near the town of Ober-Glogau, which in early times was under their rule. Count Franz von Oppersdorff, who died in Berlin in 1818, was a zealous lover of music who maintained in his castle an orchestra which he strove to keep complete in point of numbers by requiring all the officials in his employ to be able to play upon an orchestral instrument. Partly through bonds of blood and marriage, partly through those of friendship, the family of Oppersdorff was related to many of the noble families of Austria—Lobkowitz, Lichnowsky, etc. The castle of Lichnowsky at Grätz, near Troppau, was scarcely a day’s journey from Ober-Glogau. Thus it happened that Prince Lichnowsky, in company with Beethoven, paid a visit to Count Oppersdorff at his castle, on which occasion the orchestra played the Second Symphony. This, as the evidence indicates, was in the fall of 1806.[48]Dr. Riemann, who introduced this letter in the body of the text of this biography, preceded it with the following observations on the significance of the transaction between Beethoven and Clementi: “This business plays an extraordinarily important rôle in the next three years of Beethoven’s life (until the spring of 1810). The publication of its details has made portions of the account in the first edition of this work wholly untenable, since those portions were based on the assumption that the conclusion of the contract with Clementi had been followed also by the prompt payment of the honorarium (in 1807), whereas, as a matter of fact, the payment was delayed for three years, as has been plainly shown by the correspondence between Clementi and Collard. Clementi, it would seem, spent the eight years following 1802, when he went to St. Petersburg with Field, till 1810, entirely on the Continent (in St. Petersburg, Berlin, Leipsic, Rome) and sojourned several times in Vienna. We know from Ries’s account that he did not come into contact with Beethoven during his extended stay in 1804, but we also know that as early as the fall of 1804, he tried to secure the right of publishing Beethoven’s works in England.”

[1]Probably the Quintet for Pianoforte and Wind-Instruments, Op. 16, published in March, 1801.

[2]“Cäcilia.” IX, p. 219.

[3]The English editor of this biography found trombone parts written out by Beethoven among Mr. Thayer’s posthumous papers; they belonged to the Trio in the Scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, and Beethoven’s instructions to the copyist where to introduce them in the score plainly showed that they were an afterthought.

[4]It was not the case this time, for the manuscript of this Concerto bears in the composer’s hand the date “1800.”

[5]In a Conversation Book from the year 1825, Holz writes that till then “Christus am Ölberg” had always drawn full houses, but that the court official in charge of musical affairs (Hofmusikgraf) had not allowed further performances to be given.

[6]Anton Kraft was 14½ years old at the time.

[7]The following observation on the sonata by Czerny is also interesting: “In the Sonata written for Bridgetower and dedicated to Kreutzer, Op. 47 (of which the first movement was composed in four days and the other two [?] added from a sonata already completed), the concluding passageAscending dotted motifis said to be borrowed from a piece of Kreutzer’s already in print. I had this assurance immediately after the publication of the Beethoven Sonata from a French musician (1805). It would be worth while to investigate the matter. Perhaps therein lies the reason of its dedication.” And further: “Bridgetower was a mulatto and played very extravagantly; when he played the sonata with Beethoven it was laughed at.”

Ascending dotted motif

is said to be borrowed from a piece of Kreutzer’s already in print. I had this assurance immediately after the publication of the Beethoven Sonata from a French musician (1805). It would be worth while to investigate the matter. Perhaps therein lies the reason of its dedication.” And further: “Bridgetower was a mulatto and played very extravagantly; when he played the sonata with Beethoven it was laughed at.”

[8]Letters and other documents, some of which were placed in Mr. Thayer’s hands by Samuel Appleby, Esq., relative to Bridgetower, are printed in an appendix to Vol. II of the first German edition of this biography and as foot-notes and otherwise in Vol. III. What is essential in the memoranda and documents can be put into a much smaller compass. The subscription for the concert amounted to 1140 florins and the list was headed by the English envoy. Bridgetower’s father was known in England as the “Abyssinian Prince,” and Mr. Thayer speculates whether the title was genuine or but a sobriquet given to him suggested by Dr. Johnson’s “Rasselas”; but it will appear presently that he was called an “African Prince,” not an Abyssinian; how his father got to Biala in Poland, where Bridgetower was born, or whether his mother was a German or a Pole, remains a mystery which has not yet been cleared up. The first memorandum of information in Mr. Thayer’s collection was in the shape of an excerpt from a communication from London written by Abt Vogler and printed in Bossler’s “Musikalische Correspondenz” on July 7, 1790. Abt Vogler’s letter bears date London, June 6, 1790; in it he said:“Last Wednesday, June 2nd, I attended a concert here in Hanover Square where two young heroes contested with each other on the violin and all music-lovers and cognoscenti found most agreeable entertainment for three hours. The two played concertos alternately and both won the warmest applause. The quartet, however, which was played by young virtuosi whose combined ages did not reach 40 years, by virtue of a fine, cheerful, witty and yet harmonious performance exceeded all the expectations that experienced players could gratify. The first violin was played by Clement of Vienna, eight and one-half, the second by Bridgetower of Africa, ten years of age.”The Prince of Wales, afterwards King George IV, took the youth into his service as first violinist in the Pavilion at Brighton. The next piece of information which reached Thayer told of Bridgetower’s first concert in Dresden on July 24, 1802. A second concert was given on March 18, 1803, at which a brother of the violinist, who played the violoncello, took part. A letter from Friedrich Lindemann, a member of the Prince of Wales’s orchestra, dated January 14, 1803, contained the information that a letter of Bridgetower’s forwarded to Brighton by a certain “Billy” Cole had been placed in the hands of the Prince, who read it at once, appeared to be highly satisfied, and granted the writer’s request to be permitted to go to Vienna. Thayer did not learn the dates of Bridgetower’s birth or death, but Dr. Riemann in his revision of the second Volume says that he died “between 1840 and 1850.” This is an error.In the May number for 1908 of “The Musical Times” (London) Mr. F. G. Edwards printed the results of an investigation into Bridgetower’s life, and provided some new and definite information from a collection of letters and documents in the possession of Arthur F. Hill, F.S.A. From this article it appears that Bridgetower was a pupil of Barthélemon, Giornovichi, Thomas Attwood and—as he claimed—Haydn. If he really was a pupil of Haydn, he must, as Mr. Edwards pointed out, have been in the neighborhood of Vienna before he had completed his tenth year. To this the present writer adds that if he had been a pupil of Haydn’s the latter would not have omitted his name in the list of names which he made of the London musicians on his first visit to the English metropolis, for he included “Clementpetit,” who was then between ten and eleven years old. (See, “Music and Manners in the Classical Period,” by H. E. Krehbiel, p. 77.) He made his first public appearance in Paris at a Concert Spirituel on April 13, 1789. In the announcement of this concert he was described as “Mr. Georges Bridgetower,né aux colonies anglaises, âgé de 9 ans.” (Yet his passport issued by the police authorities, gives Biala in Poland as his birthplace.) A concert for his benefit was given on May 27, 1789, at theSalle du Panthéon. Soon thereafter he crossed the channel and, if his father is to be believed, he played for the first time in England before George III and his court at Windsor Castle. Next he appears at Bath, the “Morning Post” of November 25, 1789, reporting “Amongst those added to the Sunday promenade were the African Prince in the Turkish attire. The son of this African Prince has been celebrated as a very accomplished musician.” The same newspaper, on December 8, a fortnight later, tells of a concert given on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the publication which was “more crowded and splendid than has ever been known at this place, upwards of 550 people being present. Rauzzini was enraptured, and declared that he had never heard such execution before, even from his friend La Motte, who was, he thought, much inferior to this wonderful boy. The father was in the gallery, and so affected by the applause bestowed on his son, that tears of pleasure and gratitude flowed in profusion.”It would seem as if the modern methods of advertising musical artists is far behind the old in the impudent display of charlantanry. The plain “Georges” of the first Paris concert, the later George Polgreen, in the announcement of his first concert in Bath becomes George Augustus Frederick. Why? The Christian name of the Prince of Wales was George Augustus Frederick. In this announcement he is described as “a youth of Ten Years old, Pupil of the celebratedHaydn.” The newspapers were amiable or gullible, or both.The lad played a concerto between “the 2d and 3d Acts” of “The Messiah” at a performance of Handel’s oratorio given for the benefit of Rauzzini on Christmas eve of the same year. He gave a concert in Bristol on December 18, 1789, leading the band “with the coolness and spirit of a Cramer to the astonishment and delight of all present,” and on New Year’s day, 1790. Next he went to London, where, at Drury Lane Theatre on February 19, 1790, he played a solo at a performance of “The Messiah.” Referring to the Lenten concerts of that year, Parke says in his “Musical Memoirs”: “Concertos were performed on the oboe by me and on the violin for the first time by Master Bridgetower, son of an African Prince, who was attended by his father habited in the costume of his country.” The concert described by Abt Vogler was under the patronage of the Prince of Wales. At the Handel Commemoration of 1791 in Westminster Abbey, Bridgetower and Hummel, in scarlet coats, sat on either side of Joah Bates at the organ and pulled out the stops for him. He played in the orchestra at the Haydn-Salomon concerts in 1791, at several of the Lenten concerts in the King’s Theatre in 1792, and on May 28 he performed a concerto by Viotti at Mr. Barthélemon’s concert, the announcement stating that “Dr. Haydn will preside at the pianoforte.” (Haydn’s note-book contains no mention of the concert, which would in likelihood have been the case had Bridgetower ever been his pupil.) He was plainly on terms of intimacy with such musicians as Viotti, François Cramer, Attwood, and later of Samuel Wesley, who wrote of him in a tone of enthusiastic appreciation.In 1802, being then in the Prince of Wales’s band at Brighton, he obtained leave, as Thayer notes, to visit Dresden and take the baths at Teplitz and Carlsbad; eventually, too, as we have seen, to visit Vienna. The passport issued to him in Vienna for his return to London described him as “a musician, native of Poland, aged 24 years, medium height, clean shaven, dark brown hair, brown eyes and straight, rather broad nose.” He seems to have become a resident of London and to have continued in favor with musical and other notables for a considerable space, for Dr. Crotch asks his aid in securing the patronage of the Prince Regent for a concert.He received the degree of Bachelor of Music, on presentation of the usual exercise, from the University of Cambridge in 1811. There follow some years during which his life remains obscure, but in which he lived on the Continent. He was in Rome in 1825 and 1827; back in London in 1843, when Vincent Novello sent him a letter which he signed “your much obliged old pupil and professional admirer.” John Ella met him in Vienna in 1845, but he was again in London in 1846, and there he died, apparently friendless and in poverty, on February 29, 1860. In the registry of his death, discovered by Mr. Edwards, his age is set down as 78 years; but he must have been eighty if he was nine when he played at the first concert in Paris in 1789. He was born either in 1779 or 1780. He published some pianoforte studies in 1812 under the title “Diatonica Armonica” which, with a few other printed pieces, are to be found in the British Museum. A ballad entitled “Henry,” which was “Sung by Miss Feron and dedicated with permission to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales,” was evidently composed in 1810.

“Last Wednesday, June 2nd, I attended a concert here in Hanover Square where two young heroes contested with each other on the violin and all music-lovers and cognoscenti found most agreeable entertainment for three hours. The two played concertos alternately and both won the warmest applause. The quartet, however, which was played by young virtuosi whose combined ages did not reach 40 years, by virtue of a fine, cheerful, witty and yet harmonious performance exceeded all the expectations that experienced players could gratify. The first violin was played by Clement of Vienna, eight and one-half, the second by Bridgetower of Africa, ten years of age.”

The Prince of Wales, afterwards King George IV, took the youth into his service as first violinist in the Pavilion at Brighton. The next piece of information which reached Thayer told of Bridgetower’s first concert in Dresden on July 24, 1802. A second concert was given on March 18, 1803, at which a brother of the violinist, who played the violoncello, took part. A letter from Friedrich Lindemann, a member of the Prince of Wales’s orchestra, dated January 14, 1803, contained the information that a letter of Bridgetower’s forwarded to Brighton by a certain “Billy” Cole had been placed in the hands of the Prince, who read it at once, appeared to be highly satisfied, and granted the writer’s request to be permitted to go to Vienna. Thayer did not learn the dates of Bridgetower’s birth or death, but Dr. Riemann in his revision of the second Volume says that he died “between 1840 and 1850.” This is an error.

In the May number for 1908 of “The Musical Times” (London) Mr. F. G. Edwards printed the results of an investigation into Bridgetower’s life, and provided some new and definite information from a collection of letters and documents in the possession of Arthur F. Hill, F.S.A. From this article it appears that Bridgetower was a pupil of Barthélemon, Giornovichi, Thomas Attwood and—as he claimed—Haydn. If he really was a pupil of Haydn, he must, as Mr. Edwards pointed out, have been in the neighborhood of Vienna before he had completed his tenth year. To this the present writer adds that if he had been a pupil of Haydn’s the latter would not have omitted his name in the list of names which he made of the London musicians on his first visit to the English metropolis, for he included “Clementpetit,” who was then between ten and eleven years old. (See, “Music and Manners in the Classical Period,” by H. E. Krehbiel, p. 77.) He made his first public appearance in Paris at a Concert Spirituel on April 13, 1789. In the announcement of this concert he was described as “Mr. Georges Bridgetower,né aux colonies anglaises, âgé de 9 ans.” (Yet his passport issued by the police authorities, gives Biala in Poland as his birthplace.) A concert for his benefit was given on May 27, 1789, at theSalle du Panthéon. Soon thereafter he crossed the channel and, if his father is to be believed, he played for the first time in England before George III and his court at Windsor Castle. Next he appears at Bath, the “Morning Post” of November 25, 1789, reporting “Amongst those added to the Sunday promenade were the African Prince in the Turkish attire. The son of this African Prince has been celebrated as a very accomplished musician.” The same newspaper, on December 8, a fortnight later, tells of a concert given on the Saturday morning immediately preceding the publication which was “more crowded and splendid than has ever been known at this place, upwards of 550 people being present. Rauzzini was enraptured, and declared that he had never heard such execution before, even from his friend La Motte, who was, he thought, much inferior to this wonderful boy. The father was in the gallery, and so affected by the applause bestowed on his son, that tears of pleasure and gratitude flowed in profusion.”

It would seem as if the modern methods of advertising musical artists is far behind the old in the impudent display of charlantanry. The plain “Georges” of the first Paris concert, the later George Polgreen, in the announcement of his first concert in Bath becomes George Augustus Frederick. Why? The Christian name of the Prince of Wales was George Augustus Frederick. In this announcement he is described as “a youth of Ten Years old, Pupil of the celebratedHaydn.” The newspapers were amiable or gullible, or both.

The lad played a concerto between “the 2d and 3d Acts” of “The Messiah” at a performance of Handel’s oratorio given for the benefit of Rauzzini on Christmas eve of the same year. He gave a concert in Bristol on December 18, 1789, leading the band “with the coolness and spirit of a Cramer to the astonishment and delight of all present,” and on New Year’s day, 1790. Next he went to London, where, at Drury Lane Theatre on February 19, 1790, he played a solo at a performance of “The Messiah.” Referring to the Lenten concerts of that year, Parke says in his “Musical Memoirs”: “Concertos were performed on the oboe by me and on the violin for the first time by Master Bridgetower, son of an African Prince, who was attended by his father habited in the costume of his country.” The concert described by Abt Vogler was under the patronage of the Prince of Wales. At the Handel Commemoration of 1791 in Westminster Abbey, Bridgetower and Hummel, in scarlet coats, sat on either side of Joah Bates at the organ and pulled out the stops for him. He played in the orchestra at the Haydn-Salomon concerts in 1791, at several of the Lenten concerts in the King’s Theatre in 1792, and on May 28 he performed a concerto by Viotti at Mr. Barthélemon’s concert, the announcement stating that “Dr. Haydn will preside at the pianoforte.” (Haydn’s note-book contains no mention of the concert, which would in likelihood have been the case had Bridgetower ever been his pupil.) He was plainly on terms of intimacy with such musicians as Viotti, François Cramer, Attwood, and later of Samuel Wesley, who wrote of him in a tone of enthusiastic appreciation.

In 1802, being then in the Prince of Wales’s band at Brighton, he obtained leave, as Thayer notes, to visit Dresden and take the baths at Teplitz and Carlsbad; eventually, too, as we have seen, to visit Vienna. The passport issued to him in Vienna for his return to London described him as “a musician, native of Poland, aged 24 years, medium height, clean shaven, dark brown hair, brown eyes and straight, rather broad nose.” He seems to have become a resident of London and to have continued in favor with musical and other notables for a considerable space, for Dr. Crotch asks his aid in securing the patronage of the Prince Regent for a concert.

He received the degree of Bachelor of Music, on presentation of the usual exercise, from the University of Cambridge in 1811. There follow some years during which his life remains obscure, but in which he lived on the Continent. He was in Rome in 1825 and 1827; back in London in 1843, when Vincent Novello sent him a letter which he signed “your much obliged old pupil and professional admirer.” John Ella met him in Vienna in 1845, but he was again in London in 1846, and there he died, apparently friendless and in poverty, on February 29, 1860. In the registry of his death, discovered by Mr. Edwards, his age is set down as 78 years; but he must have been eighty if he was nine when he played at the first concert in Paris in 1789. He was born either in 1779 or 1780. He published some pianoforte studies in 1812 under the title “Diatonica Armonica” which, with a few other printed pieces, are to be found in the British Museum. A ballad entitled “Henry,” which was “Sung by Miss Feron and dedicated with permission to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales,” was evidently composed in 1810.

[9]“Hr. Karl v. Beethoven lives auf-der-Wien 26.” “Staats-Schematismus,” 1803, p. 150; andibid.1804, p. 154. “Hr. Ludwig van Beethofen, auf-der-Wien 26.”—See “Auskunftsbuch,” 1804, p. 204.“An-der-Wien, No. 26. Bartolomä Zitterbarth, K. K. Prin. Schauspielhaus.”—See “Vollständiges Verzeichniss aller ... der numerirten Häuser, deren Eigenthümer,” etc., etc., Wien, 1804, p. 133.

[10]A letter printed in 1909 by Leopold Schmidt in his collection from the archives of the Simrock firm, confirms the change of lodgings to the theatre and also brother Karl’s activity as correspondent and arranger. In it he offers a grand Sonata for violin, to appear simultaneously in London, Leipsic, Vienna and Bonn, for 30 florins; a grand Symphony for 400 florins. When the “Kreutzer” Sonata was published (it was announced by Träg on May 18, 1805) Karl acknowledged the receipt of a copy in a letter to Simrock, adding that all the other publishers sent six copies of the works printed by them and asking for the remaining five. Simrock took him to task rather sharply for what he considered a piece of presumption, in a letter which he enclosed to Ferdinand Ries with the statement that he might read it if he wanted to. “I bought the Sonata of Louis van Beethoven,” says the indignant publisher, “and in his letter concerning it there is not a word about giving him six copies in addition to the fees—a matter important enough to have been mentioned; I was under the impression that Louis van Beethoven composed his own works; what I am certain of is that I have fully complied with all the conditions of the contract and am indebted to nobody.” In the note to Ries he calls Karl’s conduct “impertinent and deserving of a harsher treatment, for Herr Karl seems to me incorrigible.”

[11]Thayer considered the “first street to the left” to be the Herrengasse. J. Böck (Gnadenau) argued in “Die Musik.” Vol. II, No. 6, that the house in which the “Eroica” was composed was the present Hauptstrasse No. 92 of Döbling and bore the old No. 4 of the Hofzeile. In 1890 the owner of the house and theMännergesangsvereinof Döbling placed a tablet on the “Eroica” house, whose occupants “were still in possession of a tradition concerning Beethoven’s occupation of it.” So says Dr. Riemann.

[12]Th. von Frimmel discusses the Beethoven portraits in his “Neue Beethoveniana,” p. 189et seq., and “Beethoven-Studien,” Vol. II (1905).

[13]A copy of this portrait which belonged to Thayer is now in the possession of Mrs. Jabez Fox, and is presented in photogravure as frontispiece to the present volume.

[14]The publication of a complete edition of his composition frequently occupied the mind of Beethoven. In 1806 Breitkopf and Härtel tried to get all of Beethoven’s works for publication by them; it is likely that similar efforts on the part of Viennese publishers date back as far as 1803. Later the plan plays a rôle in the correspondence with Probst and Simrock. As late as 1824 it was urged by Andreas Streicher. It has already been said that Beethoven at an early date desired to make an arrangement with a publisher by which he might be relieved of anxiety about monetary matters. He wanted to give all his compositions to one publisher, who should pay him a fixed salary.

[15]Nottebohm, “Skizzenbuch, etc., 1803,” p. 56, says “quartet.”

[16]Kreutzer came to Vienna with Bernadotte in 1789.

[17]“Orpheus,” 1841, p. 248.

[18]Allg. Mus. Zeit.XXIV, p. 320.

[19]But Ries says that Beethoven hired these lodgings besides those in the theatre.

[20]See, in the “Allg. Mus. Zeit.” III, a criticism of “Nelson’s Great Seabattle,” for pianoforte, violin and violoncello by Ferd. Kauer. Years afterward this piece may have been confounded with the Symphony in Dr. Bertolini’s memory. From Otto Jahn’s papers we learn that Dr. Bertolini told him that the first idea of the “Sinfonia eroica” was suggested to Beethoven by Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt (May, 1798); and the rumor of Nelson’s death at the battle of Aboukir (June 22), at which Nelson was wounded in the head, was the cause of the funeral march. Czerny wrote: “According to Beethoven’s long-time friend, Dr. Bertolini, the first idea of the ‘Sinfonia eroica’ was suggested by the death of the English general Abercrombie; hence the naval (not land-military) character of the theme and the entire first movement.” Music of a naval character to celebrate the death of an army officer! Czerny seems to have been at least temporarily weak either in history or logic.

[21]Dr. Schmidt is of opinion that this anecdote was contributed to his journal by Hieronymus Payer, certainly good authority.

[22]“Full moon, July 22,” almanac of 1804.

[23]This honorarium was a share in the receipts.

[24]In the second (German) edition of Thayer’s “Life,” etc., Dr. Riemann amends this statement in the text as follows: These statements of Treitschke’s prove to be inaccurate, inasmuch as it has definitively been determined that Beethoven began work on “Leonore” before Paër’s opera had been produced in Dresden, i. e., October 3, 1804. This is proved by the discovery of sketches for the early numbers of the opera among sketches for the “Eroica” symphony, and is confirmed by Ries. The latter says: “When he composed ‘Leonore’ he had free lodgings for a year in the Wiedener Theatre; but as these opened on the courtyard they were not agreeable to him. He therefore hired,at the same time, quarters in the Rothes Haus on the Alserkaserne.” “Now,” Nottebohm continues, “Beethoven lived in the Theater-an-der-Wien in May, 1803, and later in the Rothes Haus in the spring of 1804.” Consequently he must have worked on the operabeforethe spring of 1804. Nottebohm assumes that between the abandonment of work on Schikaneder’s text and the beginning of work on “Leonore” there could not be more than a quarter of a year. It is very probable that Beethoven dropped work on Schikaneder’s text when the latter’s activity as director came to an end on February 11, 1804; but it does not follow that he may not already have approached the setting of Bouilly’s text, as translated into German by Sonnleithner, who now undertook the work of administration. At any rate it is an error to assert that the commission to compose the book was not offered to him until the fall of 1804. Indeed, the question is whether or not Beethoven’s occupancy of lodgings in the theatre was interrupted at all. It ought also to be borne in mind that in view of his relations with Baron von Braun and Sonnleithner, Beethoven may have known before the conclusion of the contract that Schikaneder’s direction was to be terminated—reasons enough for believing that there is nothing improbable in the theory that the composer began work on “Leonore” before the end of 1803.

[25]Dr. Riemann here inserts: “If this was not the case the explanation lies in the fact that the attention of Sonnleithner, who had to provide texts for both Beethoven and Cherubini, had previously been directed to the ‘Léonore’ of Bouilly and Gaveaux, and Beethoven had already begun work on it.”

[26]It was not until February 8, 1809, that Paër’s opera was performed in Vienna, long after Beethoven had withdrawn his opera and when Baron von Braun was no longer Intendant. The story to which Ferdinand Hiller gave currency about the production of Paër’s opera and the attendance of Beethoven upon it in company with the composer must be rejected for chronological reasons. (Riemann.)

[27]In September, 1804, Muzio Clementi, who was not only a fine musician but also a clever business man, made an arrangement with Breitkopf and Härtel, by which he secured all the compositions which Beethoven might bring that firm, for England at one-half the honorarium paid to the composer. (See an article by Max Unger in “The Monthly Record,” Nov.-Dec., 1908.)

[28]Nottebohm’s researches (cf.“Zweite Beethoveniana,” p. 416et seq.) show that Beethoven sketched all the movements of the Triple Concerto, Op. 56, in 1804; that the beginning of the work on the “Waldstein” Sonata. Op. 53, dates back to 1803, or at the latest the early part of 1804; sketches for Op. 54 are missing, but the three numbers of Op. 57 are so fully represented among the opera sketches that Schindler’s statement that the so-called “Appassionata” Sonata was composed at Count Brunswick’s in 1806 is to be understood as referring only to its definitive working out and the making of a fair copy; the date of the performance of “Leonore” (“Fidelio”), taken in connection with a revision of the air in E major, show that the “Leonore” sketchbook, between which and the book of 1803 there seems to have been another, of which no trace has been found, may have extended to the beginning of 1805.

[29]Again played by him at the opening of Schuppanzigh’s Augarten concerts in the Spring.

[30]See Nottebohm’s study of the sketches for “Fidelio” in “Zweite Beethoveniana,” p. 409et seq.; also what Jahn has to say, and the results of Erich Prieger’s labors in connection with the reprint of the original form of the opera.

[31]Jahn, “Gesammelte Schriften,” p. 244.

[32]To the opinions of the reviewers some attention must be given; it does not seem advisable to quote themin extenso. The “Freymüthige” describes the military occupation of Vienna, the officers quartered in the city proper, the private soldiery in the suburbs. At first the theatres were empty, but gradually the French began to visit them and at the time of writing were more numerous in the playhouses than the Austrians. “Fidelio,” the new opera by Beethoven, did not please. It was given a few times only and the house was empty after the first performance. The music did not meet the expectations of the cognoscenti and music-lovers, lacking the passionate expression which is so compelling in Mozart and Cherubini. The music is beautiful in places, but as a whole the opera is far from being a perfect or successful work. The “Zeitung für the Elegante Welt” records that the music is “ineffective and repetitious,” and did not add to the writer’s opinion of Beethoven’s talent for vocal writing formed on hearing his cantata (“Christus am Ölberg”). In its issue of January 8, 1806, the correspondent of the “Allg. Mus. Zeitung” says that he had expected something very different, in view of Beethoven’s undisputed talent. Beethoven had often sacrificed beauty to newness and singularity and therefore something new and original had been expected, but these were the qualities which were least noticeable. The music is distinguished neither by invention nor execution. The overture is not comparable with that of “Prometheus.” As a rule there is nothing new in the vocal parts; they are generally too long, the text is ceaselessly repeated and the characterization misses fire, as, for instance, in the duet after the recognition. A canon in the first act and an aria in F [E] are more successful, though the pretty accompaniment with its three hornsobbligatoand bassoon is somewhat overloaded. The choruses, especially the song of the prisoners, are a failure. Dr. Henry Reeve, of Norwich, England, one of the earliest collaborators on the “Edinburgh Review,” then a young man of 25, was in Vienna at the time of the French invasion and attended the second representation of the opera on November 21st. Sir George Grove sent a copy of a page from his journal to Thayer. He thought the plot a sad mixture of bad action and romantic situations, but the airs, duets and choruses worthy of all praise. The “overtures,” of which there was one for every act, were too artificial to be generally agreeable and an appreciation of their beauties would require frequent hearing. Beethoven sat at the pianoforte and conducted the performance—a little, dark, young-looking man, who wore spectacles.

[33]“Signale für die Musikalische Welt,” June 21, 1866.

[34]Twice only.

[35]In the chapter immediately preceding the present one in the revised German edition of this biography, Dr. Riemann introduces the following: “Through the efforts of Otto Jahn, Gustav Nottebohm and Erich Prieger, it has been made possible measurably to observe the transformations which ‘Fidelio’ underwent between its first production and its publication. The mysterious disappearance (possibly theft) of several scores made it extremely difficult to determine the form in which it was represented—‘Fidelio’ in three acts in 1805, ‘Leonore’ in two acts in 1806, and ‘Fidelio’ in two acts in 1814—the statements touching the omissions and restorations of single numbers being insufficient and not free from contradictions. About 1850, however. Otto Jahn succeeded in putting together a score of the second revision of 1806 from the separate parts; of this he published a vocal score with pianoforte accompaniment towards the close of 1853 through Breitkopf and Härtel. He also gave some hints concerning its variations from the score of 1805. After another half-century Erich Prieger collected the material for a restoration of the work as it was at the first production in 1805, compiled a vocal score and gave it to the public through Breitkopf and Härtel. More than that—he occasioned its performance at the centennial celebration in the Royal Opera House in Berlin.” From Prieger’s preface we take in part the following statements:“In 1807 Breitkopf and Härtel published three numbers from the second revision of 1806—viz: the Trio in E-flat, ‘Ein Mann ist bald gewonnen’ (afterwards elided), the canon quartet, and the duet ‘Gut, Söhnchen, gut’; not until 1810 was a vocal score of the second version published. It came from the press of Breitkopf and Härtel, but was without overtures and finales. The overture in C, No. 3, which was performed with the opera in 1806, was published by Breitkopf and Härtel, also in 1810; the overture in C, No. 2, with which the representation of 1805 began, edited by Otto Jahn, was published by B. and H. at the end of 1853. (It was performed in Leipsic on January 27 of that year.) Nottebohm notes the performance of the four overtures on January 11, 1840, and a publication in 1842; but this refers to the work as disfigured by cuts. The so-called ‘first’ C major overture found amongst Beethoven’s posthumous effects and published by Haslinger as Op. 138 is in reality the first of the series, the one which, according to Schindler’s report (third edition, I, 127), was tried over once at Prince Lichnowsky’s and put aside as too simple, but purchased at once by Haslinger. It is true that Nottebohm discovered sketches for the overture in company with sketches for the symphony in C minor and, from this fact, argued that the overture had been composed between April, 1807, and December, 1808 (see ‘Beethoveniana,’ pp. 60et seq.): but in his analysis of the sketchbook of 1803, extending from October, 1802, to April, 1804, he shows the presence of sketches for ‘Leonore’ among such for the ‘Eroica,’ which proves that Beethoven worked on the opera as early as 1803 and that ‘these labors were so far advanced when the performance of Paër’s opera became known (October 3, 1804) that there could be no thought of an abandonment.’ But this demolishes the theory that Op. 138 must have been composed in 1807-08, and we are compelled to believe with Kalischer that Schindler’s account is correct and that Haslinger (Steiner and Co.) had for years been in possession of the first overture to ‘Leonore’ which ‘had been laid aside after a trial in 1805,’ and that in 1823, at a time when Schindler was Beethoven’s confidant, the composer demanded that it be published and Haslinger refused, saying: ‘We bought those manuscripts and paid for them; consequently they are our property, and we can do with them as we will.’ Only one thing remains problematical, and that is, what could have persuaded Haslinger to state that he had found the overture in a packet of dances which he purchased at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. Kalischer calls attention to a letter from Fanny Hensel to Rebekka Dirichlet, written after the music festival at Düsseldorf in 1836 under the direction of Mendelssohn (see ‘Die Familie Mendelssohn,’ II, 9): ‘Oh, Becky! We have got acquainted with an overture to ‘Leonore’; a new piece. It is notorious that it has never been played; it did not please Beethoven and he put it aside. The man had no taste! It is so refined, so interesting, so fascinating that I know few things which can be compared with it. Haslinger has printed a whole edition and will not release it. Perhaps he will do so after this success.’ That seems to have been the case; but Haslinger permitted the work to be played as early as February 7, 1828, at a concert of Bernhard Romberg’s and elsewhere. In his book ‘Beethoven’s Studien im Generalbass, etc.,’ 1832, Seyfried connects this overture with the project, never carried out, of a production of the opera in Prague in 1807. ‘For the theatre in Prague,’ he says, ‘Beethoven wrote a less difficult overture which Haslinger, afterward R. I. Court Music Dealer,acquired at auction’; to which Haslinger replied: ‘This overture is already engraved in score and orchestral parts and, together with other arrangements of it, will yet appear in the course of this year.’ Nottebohm, too, convinced that the sketches for the overture had to be placed in 1807, and doubtless influenced by Seyfried’s statement, accepted the theory that it had been intended for Prague. Seyfried’s statement, however, in view of the involved story of the manuscript in the hands of Haslinger, lacks credibility, and is probably to be charged to the account of Haslinger, who may not have wanted to tell the truth for fear that it might lessen the market value of the work.”—To this the English editor feels in duty bound to say that Nottebohm’s argument seems to him at all points invulnerable. The autograph of the overture is no longer in existence. The score bought by Haslinger and the parts are copies which Beethoven corrected. On the first violin part the copyist had written “Ouvertura”; Beethoven added “in C, Characteristic Overture.” Under this title the composition was announced by Haslinger in 1828. He did not publish it at the time, but there were many references to it at its performance at Romberg’s concert and at other times as a “Characteristic” overture which had been found among Beethoven’s posthumous papers. Between 1828 and 1832, when Haslinger finally gave the work to the public, somebody made the discovery, which ought to have been made at sight of the manuscript, certainly at the first performance in 1828 (the melody ofFlorestan’ssong occurring in it as one of the themes), that there was a connection between it and “Fidelio.” When Haslinger published it, therefore, he abandoned the title under which he had announced it four years before, and called it: “Overture in C, composed in the year 1805 for the opera ‘Leonore,’ etc.” Every student knows how valuable Nottebohm’s studies of the sketches are in the determination of dates. Composers usually write the overtures to their operas last; indeed, they must do so when utilizing thematic material drawn from the vocal numbers. Mr. Thayer has already called attention to the fact that the vocal numbers were taken up in the order of their occurrence, as Beethoven’s sketches show. They also show that the overture was sketched after all the vocal numbers had been planned. And the overture thus sketched was that known as No. 2. There is no hint of the overture No. 1 in the sketches made in 1804 and the beginning of 1805. Schindler says that Haslinger bought the overture immediately after it had been laid aside by Beethoven. That would have been in 1805. But Haslinger was not in Vienna till 1810. If Steiner and Co., with which firm Haslinger associated himself shortly after his arrival in the Austrian capital and of which the firm of Tobias Haslinger was the successor, was meant by Schindler, it remains a mystery that the publishers, so intimately connected with Beethoven, should have kept an overture under lock and key for 23 years and then have given it out as a work bought at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. That circumstance could only awaken the suspicion that the composer did not think it worthy of his name and fame. If he did so think, he would not have demanded that Haslinger publish it in 1823. Judging by internal evidence the overture certainly seems to be an earlier work than the overtures which the world knows by the titles “Leonore,” Nos. 2 and 3; but contemporary reports (a letter from Vienna printed in the “Journal des Luxus und der Moden,” Weimar, 1808) offer evidence in addition to the testimony of Seyfried that Beethoven did write a new overture for the projected Prague performance. No doubt Beethoven was convinced, soon after the revival in 1806, that the third “Leonore” was too long and too severe a piece for its purpose; he was still of that opinion when he revised the opera for the revival of 1814, as is evidenced by his composing the “Fidelio” overture in E, and, more than that, consenting to the use of the overture to “The Ruins of Athens” at the first performance. Mr. Thayer was quite as capable of judging of the value of the evidence in the case as his editors; he was familiar with Nottebohm’s contention; and in his history of the year 1807 he unhesitatingly sets down the overture known as “Leonore, No. 1” as that designed for Prague. There is no new evidence so far as this writer knows which could justify a reversal of the opinion which has prevailed amongst musical scholars since 1872.

“In 1807 Breitkopf and Härtel published three numbers from the second revision of 1806—viz: the Trio in E-flat, ‘Ein Mann ist bald gewonnen’ (afterwards elided), the canon quartet, and the duet ‘Gut, Söhnchen, gut’; not until 1810 was a vocal score of the second version published. It came from the press of Breitkopf and Härtel, but was without overtures and finales. The overture in C, No. 3, which was performed with the opera in 1806, was published by Breitkopf and Härtel, also in 1810; the overture in C, No. 2, with which the representation of 1805 began, edited by Otto Jahn, was published by B. and H. at the end of 1853. (It was performed in Leipsic on January 27 of that year.) Nottebohm notes the performance of the four overtures on January 11, 1840, and a publication in 1842; but this refers to the work as disfigured by cuts. The so-called ‘first’ C major overture found amongst Beethoven’s posthumous effects and published by Haslinger as Op. 138 is in reality the first of the series, the one which, according to Schindler’s report (third edition, I, 127), was tried over once at Prince Lichnowsky’s and put aside as too simple, but purchased at once by Haslinger. It is true that Nottebohm discovered sketches for the overture in company with sketches for the symphony in C minor and, from this fact, argued that the overture had been composed between April, 1807, and December, 1808 (see ‘Beethoveniana,’ pp. 60et seq.): but in his analysis of the sketchbook of 1803, extending from October, 1802, to April, 1804, he shows the presence of sketches for ‘Leonore’ among such for the ‘Eroica,’ which proves that Beethoven worked on the opera as early as 1803 and that ‘these labors were so far advanced when the performance of Paër’s opera became known (October 3, 1804) that there could be no thought of an abandonment.’ But this demolishes the theory that Op. 138 must have been composed in 1807-08, and we are compelled to believe with Kalischer that Schindler’s account is correct and that Haslinger (Steiner and Co.) had for years been in possession of the first overture to ‘Leonore’ which ‘had been laid aside after a trial in 1805,’ and that in 1823, at a time when Schindler was Beethoven’s confidant, the composer demanded that it be published and Haslinger refused, saying: ‘We bought those manuscripts and paid for them; consequently they are our property, and we can do with them as we will.’ Only one thing remains problematical, and that is, what could have persuaded Haslinger to state that he had found the overture in a packet of dances which he purchased at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. Kalischer calls attention to a letter from Fanny Hensel to Rebekka Dirichlet, written after the music festival at Düsseldorf in 1836 under the direction of Mendelssohn (see ‘Die Familie Mendelssohn,’ II, 9): ‘Oh, Becky! We have got acquainted with an overture to ‘Leonore’; a new piece. It is notorious that it has never been played; it did not please Beethoven and he put it aside. The man had no taste! It is so refined, so interesting, so fascinating that I know few things which can be compared with it. Haslinger has printed a whole edition and will not release it. Perhaps he will do so after this success.’ That seems to have been the case; but Haslinger permitted the work to be played as early as February 7, 1828, at a concert of Bernhard Romberg’s and elsewhere. In his book ‘Beethoven’s Studien im Generalbass, etc.,’ 1832, Seyfried connects this overture with the project, never carried out, of a production of the opera in Prague in 1807. ‘For the theatre in Prague,’ he says, ‘Beethoven wrote a less difficult overture which Haslinger, afterward R. I. Court Music Dealer,acquired at auction’; to which Haslinger replied: ‘This overture is already engraved in score and orchestral parts and, together with other arrangements of it, will yet appear in the course of this year.’ Nottebohm, too, convinced that the sketches for the overture had to be placed in 1807, and doubtless influenced by Seyfried’s statement, accepted the theory that it had been intended for Prague. Seyfried’s statement, however, in view of the involved story of the manuscript in the hands of Haslinger, lacks credibility, and is probably to be charged to the account of Haslinger, who may not have wanted to tell the truth for fear that it might lessen the market value of the work.”—

To this the English editor feels in duty bound to say that Nottebohm’s argument seems to him at all points invulnerable. The autograph of the overture is no longer in existence. The score bought by Haslinger and the parts are copies which Beethoven corrected. On the first violin part the copyist had written “Ouvertura”; Beethoven added “in C, Characteristic Overture.” Under this title the composition was announced by Haslinger in 1828. He did not publish it at the time, but there were many references to it at its performance at Romberg’s concert and at other times as a “Characteristic” overture which had been found among Beethoven’s posthumous papers. Between 1828 and 1832, when Haslinger finally gave the work to the public, somebody made the discovery, which ought to have been made at sight of the manuscript, certainly at the first performance in 1828 (the melody ofFlorestan’ssong occurring in it as one of the themes), that there was a connection between it and “Fidelio.” When Haslinger published it, therefore, he abandoned the title under which he had announced it four years before, and called it: “Overture in C, composed in the year 1805 for the opera ‘Leonore,’ etc.” Every student knows how valuable Nottebohm’s studies of the sketches are in the determination of dates. Composers usually write the overtures to their operas last; indeed, they must do so when utilizing thematic material drawn from the vocal numbers. Mr. Thayer has already called attention to the fact that the vocal numbers were taken up in the order of their occurrence, as Beethoven’s sketches show. They also show that the overture was sketched after all the vocal numbers had been planned. And the overture thus sketched was that known as No. 2. There is no hint of the overture No. 1 in the sketches made in 1804 and the beginning of 1805. Schindler says that Haslinger bought the overture immediately after it had been laid aside by Beethoven. That would have been in 1805. But Haslinger was not in Vienna till 1810. If Steiner and Co., with which firm Haslinger associated himself shortly after his arrival in the Austrian capital and of which the firm of Tobias Haslinger was the successor, was meant by Schindler, it remains a mystery that the publishers, so intimately connected with Beethoven, should have kept an overture under lock and key for 23 years and then have given it out as a work bought at the sale of Beethoven’s effects. That circumstance could only awaken the suspicion that the composer did not think it worthy of his name and fame. If he did so think, he would not have demanded that Haslinger publish it in 1823. Judging by internal evidence the overture certainly seems to be an earlier work than the overtures which the world knows by the titles “Leonore,” Nos. 2 and 3; but contemporary reports (a letter from Vienna printed in the “Journal des Luxus und der Moden,” Weimar, 1808) offer evidence in addition to the testimony of Seyfried that Beethoven did write a new overture for the projected Prague performance. No doubt Beethoven was convinced, soon after the revival in 1806, that the third “Leonore” was too long and too severe a piece for its purpose; he was still of that opinion when he revised the opera for the revival of 1814, as is evidenced by his composing the “Fidelio” overture in E, and, more than that, consenting to the use of the overture to “The Ruins of Athens” at the first performance. Mr. Thayer was quite as capable of judging of the value of the evidence in the case as his editors; he was familiar with Nottebohm’s contention; and in his history of the year 1807 he unhesitatingly sets down the overture known as “Leonore, No. 1” as that designed for Prague. There is no new evidence so far as this writer knows which could justify a reversal of the opinion which has prevailed amongst musical scholars since 1872.

[36]Frimmel, in his “Beethoven” (second edition, 1893 p. 42), tells the story in essentially the same manner on the authority of a grandson of Dr. Weiser, house physician of Prince Lichnowsky; Dr. Weiser’s version had previously been printed by Franz Xaver Bach in the “Wiener Deutsche Zeitung” of August 31, 1873. In both cases the story ends with Beethoven’s sending a letter to Lichnowsky containing this passage: “Prince, what you are you are by accident and birth; what I am I am through myself. There have been and will still be thousands of princes; there is only one Beethoven.” Authentic or not, the expression might well have come from the lips of Beethoven in a fit of anger.

[37]Thomson’s memory was a little at fault when this preface was written; the proposal was made to Beethoven before Haydn’s death.

[38]But on March 27, 1806, Beethoven offered the Concerto to Hoffmeister and Kühnel together with “Christus am Ölberg” for 600 florins. The work, if not completed, must have been well under way early in the year.

[39]See the “Grenzboten,” April 3, 1857.

[40]Young Wilding: “Oh how they [the women] melt at the Gothic names of General Swapinbach, Count Rousoumoffsky, Prince Montecuculi and Marshal Fustinburgh.” (“The Liar.”)

[41]In June, 1906, Dr. Kalischer published two short notes written by Beethoven to Bigot. They are without date. The first explains Beethoven’s departure from Bigot’s house on the occasion of a visit as due to a sudden attack of fever; the second, accompanying some music, reads as follows: “I intended to visit you last night, but recalled in time that you are not at home on Saturdays—and I discover that I mustvisit you very oftenornot at all—I do not yet know which shall be my choice, but I almost believe the latter—because by so doing I shall evade all compulsion of having to come to you.”

[42]Here Dr. Riemann has introduced into the text: “The serious interest which Beethoven felt for Therese could be questioned or ignored by the biographers so long as certain letters of Gleichenstein were accepted as belonging to the year 1807, which we must certainly now assign to the spring of 1810, a time when Therese had passed her 18th year and may have been 20 since (if the record of her age at her death is correct) she may have been born in 1791, so that, in view moreover of the Italian origin of her family, it was scarcely apposite to speak of her as ‘half a child’ in 1810.”

[43]Quid licet Jovi non licet bovi; the maxim ought to be repeated every time this familiar story is told. Moreover, those who repeat Beethoven’s remark oftenest always omit a very significant word in it: “Und so erlaube ich sie!” i. e., “When used in the manner illustrated in the measure in question, I allow them.” Beethoven gave no general license.

[44]Seyfried’s memory has here in part played him false.

[45]Another slight mistake. Schindler was in possession of Beethoven’s glasses and they were by no means “very strong.”

[46]One of Beethoven’s puns, the point of which is lost in the translation: “SchönereNotenbrächten mich schwerlich aus denNöthen.”

[47]The genesis of the fourth symphony, in B-flat, Op. 60, is but imperfectly known. Nottebohm’s studies of the sketchbooks, which are so frequently helpful, fail us utterly here. The autograph score bears the inscription, “Sinfonia 4ta, 1806, L. v. Bthvn.” Having been played in March, 1807, at one of the two subscription concerts at Lobkowitz’s, it was, of course, finished at that time. Beethoven referred to it in his letter to Breitkopf and Härtel from Grätz on September 3, 1806. This is not convincing proof that it was all ready at the time, but certainly that it was well under way. On November 18 he wrote to the same firm that he could not then give them the promised symphony, because a gentleman of quality had purchased its use for six months. It is within the bounds of possibility that this reference was to the symphony in C minor, the sketches for which date back at least to 1805, though it was not completed till March, 1808, at the earliest. It would seem that work on the C minor symphony was laid aside in favor of the fourth, which was either written or sketched in the late summer and fall of 1806, and completed in Vienna in time for the performance in March, 1807.The symphony is dedicated to Count Oppersdorff, a Silesian nobleman. The castle of the Counts Oppersdorff lies near the town of Ober-Glogau, which in early times was under their rule. Count Franz von Oppersdorff, who died in Berlin in 1818, was a zealous lover of music who maintained in his castle an orchestra which he strove to keep complete in point of numbers by requiring all the officials in his employ to be able to play upon an orchestral instrument. Partly through bonds of blood and marriage, partly through those of friendship, the family of Oppersdorff was related to many of the noble families of Austria—Lobkowitz, Lichnowsky, etc. The castle of Lichnowsky at Grätz, near Troppau, was scarcely a day’s journey from Ober-Glogau. Thus it happened that Prince Lichnowsky, in company with Beethoven, paid a visit to Count Oppersdorff at his castle, on which occasion the orchestra played the Second Symphony. This, as the evidence indicates, was in the fall of 1806.

The symphony is dedicated to Count Oppersdorff, a Silesian nobleman. The castle of the Counts Oppersdorff lies near the town of Ober-Glogau, which in early times was under their rule. Count Franz von Oppersdorff, who died in Berlin in 1818, was a zealous lover of music who maintained in his castle an orchestra which he strove to keep complete in point of numbers by requiring all the officials in his employ to be able to play upon an orchestral instrument. Partly through bonds of blood and marriage, partly through those of friendship, the family of Oppersdorff was related to many of the noble families of Austria—Lobkowitz, Lichnowsky, etc. The castle of Lichnowsky at Grätz, near Troppau, was scarcely a day’s journey from Ober-Glogau. Thus it happened that Prince Lichnowsky, in company with Beethoven, paid a visit to Count Oppersdorff at his castle, on which occasion the orchestra played the Second Symphony. This, as the evidence indicates, was in the fall of 1806.

[48]Dr. Riemann, who introduced this letter in the body of the text of this biography, preceded it with the following observations on the significance of the transaction between Beethoven and Clementi: “This business plays an extraordinarily important rôle in the next three years of Beethoven’s life (until the spring of 1810). The publication of its details has made portions of the account in the first edition of this work wholly untenable, since those portions were based on the assumption that the conclusion of the contract with Clementi had been followed also by the prompt payment of the honorarium (in 1807), whereas, as a matter of fact, the payment was delayed for three years, as has been plainly shown by the correspondence between Clementi and Collard. Clementi, it would seem, spent the eight years following 1802, when he went to St. Petersburg with Field, till 1810, entirely on the Continent (in St. Petersburg, Berlin, Leipsic, Rome) and sojourned several times in Vienna. We know from Ries’s account that he did not come into contact with Beethoven during his extended stay in 1804, but we also know that as early as the fall of 1804, he tried to secure the right of publishing Beethoven’s works in England.”

Back to Index Next