Beethoven 'Pastoral' Symphony - Berlioz Comments

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


So it isn't that I'm trying to make cheap points - it's simply that these things are proving to be very tough nuts to crack. I'm sure the solution will be found though it is as you say a real puzzle.

I'm glad Robert that you acknowledge this as a valid point and certainly something you need to address in your further investigations.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

Yes Peter, it's a very good point which I certainly acknowledge. (Rather like that of the intitials of the copyist on manuscripts at Bonn in 1784 - which before we also agreed was a serious problem - but now not so. For Reicha's arrival after the Inventory of that year has not affected anything).

There are various explanations why we have no reference being made to Luchesi by Beethoven or Luchesi. Let's also accept that overall this seems to be a strange feature of Luceshi as a whole. He does what he does in a very key music post in Germany but is almost deleted from the record. That begs an explanation and I will not let it go until its resolved.

Had Luchesi, in Bonn, been ostracised by his colleagues he would not have carried on living in Bonn until the year of his death in 1801. By that year Beethoven was a famous man. Luchesi had retired in 1794 from the Bonn chapel at the time of its closure. But what he did in those last 7 years is still unknown. The one thing I do know is that in 1792 'Ferdinand D'Anthoin' again begins writing stage works (this after the death of Mozart) and that in 1790 a Chamber Theatre started to be constructed in Bonn close to where Luchesi lived.

Most puzzling of all is the lack of any contemporary reference to meetings with him or any of the normal things surviving that we typically associate with a learned and venerable composer. Luchesi's funeral in 1801 - is that recorded ? Again, I do not know.

I know that Luchesi's manuscripts were auctioned off after his death by his daughter and that all works by 'D'Antoin' (of which there were many from the 1770's onwards) have vanished. So too many of Luchesi's own works. It's an absolutely intriguing puzzle.

But now at least I know where he lived, his address.

(The three men who had an agenda at Bonn chapel around the mid-1780's were -

Niklaus Simrock
Neefe
D'Anthoin(e)

I can't elaborate on this here. (I will now see how early Simrock opens his publishing branch in Paris).

Just one question - when Beethoven first writes the 'Eroica' are his republican sentiments 'safe' ? This has always intrigued me too. That politics may have featured in all this cannot be ruled out.

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Frank H:

For reasons I gave in my post in the "Berlioz on Beethoven" thread, I cannot view Berlioz as a "truly great man". He was a rather silly, and very arrogant, man, who was nevertheless, in many people's estimation, a great composer.

On the other hand, Wagner, who also loved the music of Beethoven, was a very silly, and rather evil, man, who was certainly a very, very great composer (ranking only after the great trinity of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, in my opinion).

So Wagner is "very silly", whereas Berlioz is merely "rather silly"?

Isn't this just, well, silly?

[Droell]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Just one question - when Beethoven first writes the 'Eroica' are his republican sentiments 'safe' ? This has always intrigued me too. That politics may have featured in all this cannot be ruled out.

Robert

Hello Robert,

I would guess - knowing nothing myself, as always - that for Beethoven, any opinions were "safe", so far as that goes. He had spent the previous years storming in & out of exclusive drawing rooms & as a result, I doubt anyone took his political opinions seriously. Defense of the Empire is a serious task & those charged with it do not waste their time with hot heads with no following. Had he a penchant for writing politically inflammatory operas, I expect he would have had a different reception.

Which brings up the issue of how the Eroica was initially received, and where & how widely it was performed in its early years. It seems to have had a number of private performances. A work glorifying the ruler of a foreign country will not go down well, if, in fact, it was initially perceived as such.

The first movement is a lot to grasp on one or two hearings. The second movement is "obvious" (except that it isn't), the third movement is clearly about Napoleon, which would have been easily understood at the time (though no longer to us), the fourth is clearly Napoleon from a strictly musical point of view, but not so clear to a casual listener.

The Funeral March is clearly about the death of some famous person. I have no idea who, but I would guess that many would have known at the time. It is not Napoleon's imaginary death, nor is it a romantic wail about the composer's own death. There is far too much detail in it, it is not abstract. By contrast, the funeral march that forms part of an early sonata is an abstraction, written at "death", in general.

The opening & general motif of the 3rd movement mimics a beehive, which was one of Napoleon's personal symbols. The trio section with its horns are clearly the queen bee at the center of it all.

So, taken as a whole, the first movement is a mess, the second in honor of that guy buried over there, the third, well, that's Napoleon no doubt, the fourth is the life's story of The Hero. Could be any hero. It's painted in broad, general strokes. Might as well be in honor of the Austrian throne. So if Beethoven himself doesn't make a big deal about Napoleon & bees, he might just get away with it. And it's so very long. By the time the 3rd movement arrives, everyone's asleep anyway.



[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:
The following list of (mainly German) composers invited to compose variations for Diabelli alone shows this (of course there are numerous other examples of fine composers such as Hasse now forgotten)


Franz Liszt

Franz Schubert

I'm surprised you included these composers as 'now forgotten'. I don't think Liszt or Schubert is in anyway forgotten unless I read your post wrong for which then I need to be corrected.


------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Peter]

Originally posted by Joy:
I'm surprised you included these composers as 'now forgotten'. I don't think Liszt or Schubert is in anyway forgotten unless I read your post wrong for which then I need to be corrected.

Joy I meant the majority - after all reading down that list how many are known today?, obviously Liszt, Czerny, Hummel, Moscheles and Schubert are exceptions!


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Droell:
And it's so very long. By the time the 3rd movement arrives, everyone's asleep anyway.

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 02-18-2006).]

The third movement is indeed pretty long however just in anticipation of the great 4th movement I am more than able to stay awake!


------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:

Joy I meant the majority - after all reading down that list how many are known today?, obviously Liszt and Schubert are exceptions!

Hi Peter, looks like we're on at the same time! Thanks for clearing that up! Some of those names I certainly did not ever hear of or know of off hand.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[This message has been edited by Joy (edited 02-18-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Joy (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Just one question - when Beethoven first writes the 'Eroica' are his republican sentiments 'safe' ? This has always intrigued me too. That politics may have featured in all this cannot be ruled out.

Robert

Beethoven was tolerated - but a decade later Schubert's literary friends were not. The fact that Beethoven was able to speak his mind on so many matters (and did so)including politics makes it even stranger that he did not acknowledge Luchesi either as teacher or composer, especially if he was as great as you claim. Reicha in Paris would have been under no political or religious restraint regarding Luchesi - quite the contrary as Napoleon would surely have loved to have had such a weapon against the Hapsburgs! That none of this happened is again a problem for your theories.

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Droell:



The opening & general motif of the 3rd movement mimics a beehive, which was one of Napoleon's personal symbols. The trio section with its horns are clearly the queen bee at the center of it all.

Interesting, never heard that before!

So, taken as a whole, the first movement is a mess,

How do you arrive at that conclusion for one of the most shatteringly original pieces of music conceived?

By the time the 3rd movement arrives, everyone's asleep anyway.

You might be - that 2nd movement is astonishing in its power and it certainly doesn't send me to sleep. Nothing like it exists in music before.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Droell:



The opening & general motif of the 3rd movement mimics a beehive, which was one of Napoleon's personal symbols. The trio section with its horns are clearly the queen bee at the center of it all.

Interesting, never heard that before!

I once toured a Napoleon museum somewhere near Paris & there were bees & beehive images everywhere. Many, many, many years later I connected them to the Eroica.

So, taken as a whole, the first movement is a mess,

How do you arrive at that conclusion for one of the most shatteringly original pieces of music conceived?

The first movement of the Eroica is a mess. It was designed that way. Keeping with my theory that Beethoven, at this point in his career, is writing nothing but descriptive music, what he is here trying to describe is a rather unruly meeting of revolutionary citizens. First one person shouts for attention, then another, then a third, etc. This is shown as both fragmentary themes, as well as constantly changing orchestration. Napoleon's footsteps can be heard in the background, but only in the background. As music, it makes sense, very good sense, but it takes more than one hearing to get the hang of it. At least, I needed more than one, many years ago. At the end, the citizens have banded together to face the world (well, so to speak), which sets them up as eager worker bees in the Scherzo. Musical notes do not appear on the score by accident.


By the time the 3rd movement arrives, everyone's asleep anyway.

You might be - that 2nd movement is astonishing in its power and it certainly doesn't send me to sleep. Nothing like it exists in music before.

I am of course not being serious! But seriously, by the end of the 2nd movement we have already had around 25 minutes of music. Overall, the Eroica is twice the length of any previous symphony. Halfway through, early audiences must have been getting tired, not only from the length, but from Beethoven's insistence on continually throwing up new material, which he does throughout the first two movements.

It's my belief that Beethoven justifies the extraneous material in the first two movements in that expositions introduce "characters", the development sections show what becomes of them. When themes become motifs, this would be a logical way of handling them.

Beethoven titled a sonata "quasi una fantasia", but not this symphony. Which hints that he thought it strictly formal in character.

[robert newman]

Thanks for your interesting post Peter. If a theory runs in to problems is this so unusual ? I know very well that certain things surrounding those times are very complex and that we often work only with fragments. But, provided they are not forced in to a shape a solution exists and can be found, in time.

Leaving temporarily to one side the question of Luchesi being involved in writing music for Haydn, Mozart and 'the glory of the Empire' we still (as you say) have the same curious problem without it - why neither Beethoven nor Reicha (in fact hardly anyone) refers to Kapellmeister Luchesi - who was undisputed head of one of the greatest centres of music study in Germany during the 18th century, this for virtually 2 decades and a man of indisputable talent as a composer, theorist and administrator.

Some interesting information has again come my way today on this issue. See what you think about it. It MIGHT be part of the solution so I'll float it here. Here goes anyway -

In the 1780's the Empire ruled over by Joseph 2nd was under challenge from many different areas. Some of these were internal (such as reaction to his far reaching reforms in society) and others included 'ultramontane' opposition to his idea of a national church. Still others were the views of the emerging middle class caused by early industrialisation. And of course republican ideas from France, the news of the ongoing battle against British empire rule in America, for example. This was a time when the ruling elite (both secular and religious) had plenty of things to worry about.

Here's my suggestion. Please don't be too hard on it since certain parts are only a few hours old !

Beethoven and Reicha did not speak of Luchesi because.....

If we go back to the early teens of Beethoven - to, say, around 1784 (which is when the notorious music inventory was made at Bonn Chapel) we find that a new Elector had just arrived to rule over the Principality, Max Franz. Fine. He represented of course the 'status quo' within the Empire as anyone can appreciate. But at Bonn and other major cities during this time (circa 1784) there was undoubtedly a movement towards German nationalism. Centred on German language, for example. (This in contrast to the typical use of Latin that had been so widely taught - even to the exclusion of German in schools run by the Jesuits up to around 1773). And Joseph 2nd (though I'm not sure of the exact date) even believed German should become the 'lingua franca' throughout all countries of his Empire. Now, this idea (which ran parallel with that of a national church - one not ruled as before by cardinals from Rome but by churchmen answerable to him within his own territory) found some support, especially in German speaking lands. We see an early example of him trying to impose this idea in his short-lived idea of a German opera in Vienna (which was criticised by, amongst others, a conservative but so-called 'Italian faction'). But that idea appealed to some German Catholics, sometimes to German Protestants and those indifferent to religion altogether.

So, around 1784 there was already a certain antagonism towards Italians and also (at the same time the seeds of German nationalism). This is well documented. Criticism in the arts towards Italy occurred at a low level even in Mozart's Salzburg (where it was often a cause of complaint that native German musicians were being overlooked by Italians imported for the best jobs). It's perhaps not so difficult to see how Luchesi in Bonn would have been caught up in this.

Secondly, we had, at this same time, the rise within Freemasonry (Freemasonry being of no real threat to anyone) a small faction of determined men in Bavaria who pushed for the ideas of what became known as the 'Illuminati'. Their ideas were eventually regarded as a threat to the state and (around 1790) were so serious that a law was passed making it a capital offence to recruit for the 'Illuminati'.

(The beliefs of 'Illuminatists' have been a source of great speculation. They certainly at this time involved in Germany (starting in Bavaria) the idea of a transition from the old regime to a society more democratic, even one that was more republican. Only later was it realised that the founders of this strange movement were militants who actually believed in a rigidly enforced Catholic Germany. But the architects of the 'Illuminati' did not emphasise this as the real underlying reason for their existence. They were therefore able to recruit people of sometimes very different beliefs).

There are surviving documents from the 1780's that have a bearing on this. They tell us that some members of this movement lived in Bonn. Each member had a membership name. And some (as it happens) were members of the Bonn chapel or associates of it. Of this I am quite sure. The Bonn membership included -

* Ferdinand D’Anthoine - ‘Hermogenes’

Johann Joseph Eichoff - ‘Desiderius’

Franz Wilhelm Kauhlen - ‘Tassilo’

* Christian Neefe - ‘Glaucus’

Bonifaz Oberthur -

* Franz Ries – ‘Parmenio’

Klemens August von Schall -

‘Anaxagoras’/’Chabrias’

Priester Schmidt – ‘Japhet’

Eulogius Schneider -

* Niklaus Simrock – ‘Jubal’

Johann Velten - ‘Bernouilli’

Karl Joseph von Wreden

'Well', you might say, 'what has this got to do with Luchesi and with Beethoven/Reicha' ?

Let us say that Luchesi really was in some way involved in writing music for Haydn and for Mozart. Not the only one. But one of them. (That argument is ongoing as you know). Let's say that others were involved elsewhere. And even that Luchesi acted in some way as an 'agent' for such deals.

We then come to the music inventory of 1784, made while Luchesi and his concert master are on leave in Italy. Beethoven (of course) has no part in this. Nor does Reicha (who, as you have pointed out, has not even yet arrived at Bonn).

Let us say further that in some way the following people were involved in that Inventory. Well, we know for absolutely sure that one of them was -

Ch. G Neefe

Neefe is not a Catholic. In fact he is a Protestant. Yet he is a member of this movement. So too is Niklaus Simrock (though at this time he is a Horn Player, soon to be owner of a copyist and later music publisher in Bonn and in Paris). And so too is the most curious of the three, the very brother in law of the chapel, Ferdinand D'Anthoine.

The documents of the 1784 Inventory survive till now. And we know that a great deal of music from this very inventory is now at Modena attributed to Haydn and to Mozart. We also know that many works by Luchesi and by this 'Ferdinand D'Anthoine' have disappeared.
We know that Mozart's name does not even appear in the inventory. And we know that neither Reicha nor Beethoven are recorded as speaking to Luchesi.

Neefe oversaw the Inventory but its actual findings were ratified by the Court Notary.
Let us assume he worked honestly - that he, not seeing signatures on manuscripts therefore lumped them all together as the official record shows as 'by various authors'. And that the Court Notary made no objection.

Of course this should never have happened. Such unsigned works should always, as a matter of practice, have been attributed to Luchesi. But they were not.

And so, at the very time that nationalism is in its infancy in Germany, here is an Italian writing music to glorify (through Haydn and Mozart) the 'status quo'. Luchesi has his agenda. And Simrock, D'Anthoine, and Neefe have their very own. They are not compatible.

I won't bore you more on that point. I would like to move forward in time to 1794 (3 years after Mozart's death and several years after the arrival in Vienna of Beethoven). French troops occupy territory on the left bank of the Rhine. In the 'Peace of Basel' (1795) Prussia cedes her territories on the west bank. The Bonn chapel (evacuated before the arrival of the French) is now closed. Luchesi remains in Bonn.

But on 28th August 1797 a 'republic' is declared for all territory on the left bank of the Rhine, including Trier, Mainz, Cologne, the Electorate Palatine, the Duchies of Julich and of Kieve etc. A French General (Hoche) arrives to be the new governor of this 'republic'. He dies shortly after.

But this new republic is not, strictly speaking, French. It has been called the so-called 'Cisrhenian Republic' and, as it happens, it existed for only about 2 to 3 months in total ! For this same short-lived republic was officially annexed to France by the Peace of Campo Formio and came under direct French rule on 23rd September 1802.

(In 1815 most of this same territory came in to Prussian hands).

It is entirely possible that Luchesi, living in both this short-lived 'republic' despite being devoted to the agenda of Hapsburg glory became a 'non-person' in the sense that he represented something very different than the actual conditions of the time.

He is shunned by German history because his career was so involved with Habsburg glory. And this in contrast to Beethoven and to Reicha (neither of whom knew much about Luchesi's real project).

Beethoven (despite being surrounded by the 'status quo' back in Vienna - men such as Lichnowsky and despite being urged to follow the compliant route taken by Haydn and Mozart) is able soon enough to voice ideas very different from theirs. Republicanism ! Even to have a more 'pantheist' religion than would ever have been described by Haydn or Mozart. In this sense Beethoven played it really 'cool'. He went along with the opportunity given to him through Haydn and the 'status quo'. But he increasingly broke away from them and may even have undergone some isolation for this in his later career.
But in his early years in Vienna these political issues were of no great importance to him.

The 'Eroica' makes perfect sense when we bear in mind that Bonn is at this time firmly in French hands.

He did not speak of Luchesi and nor did Reicha because (I suggest) that man represented an age that was already over.

Well, that's my suggestion.

RN



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-18-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


He did not speak of Luchesi and nor did Reicha because (I suggest) that man represented an age that was already over.

Well, that's my suggestion.

RN

I won't be too hard Robert except it sounds nothing like Beethoven, a man who valued artistic integrity very highly indeed. Nor does this square with your own observation which I quote again "Truly great men praise others of their kind. It seems to be a precondition to the living of their own lives." In Beethoven's case these words are very true which is why you really need a better explanation than Luchesi represented an era that was over - what about Palestrina, Bach and Handel who he praised to the skies?

You have made the case that Luchesi was a key figure in the life of the young Beethoven. Taboga claims he wrote the greatest masterpieces of the classical era now attributed to Mozart and Haydn, yet Beethoven who knew this man for nearly 18 years is silent - not only is he silent but he instead ackowledges the greatness of Mozart and Haydn, two composers who surely also represented an age that was over by the 1820s? he goes further and as late as 1826 described himself as "amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and will remain so until my dying breath". Beethoven even expresses admiration for Italian composers Spontini, Cherubini and Clementi, but no mention of Luchesi.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:

You have made the case that Luchesi was a key figure in the life of the young Beethoven. Taboga claims he wrote the greatest masterpieces of the classical era now attributed to Mozart and Haydn, yet Beethoven who knew this man for nearly 18 years is silent - not only is he silent but he instead ackowledges the greatness of Mozart and Haydn, two composers who surely also represented an age that was over by the 1820s? he goes further and as late as 1826 described himself as "amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and will remain so until my dying breath".

Hello Peter,

At exactly this moment the Widow Mozart & her second husband (whoever he is) are in Salzburg putting the final touches on their massive Mozart project. It was probably all the buzz in Vienna, and probably had been ever since their return from Denmark a few years earlier. Luchesi did not have such cheerleaders. Which still does not solve the overall problem.

[robert newman]

Hi Peter and Droell,

It remains a mystery, for sure. I am mystified too that William Shakespeare can have written all he did with hardly anyone refering to him during the time he was in London and no reference to his death.

It's strange that textbooks, even on Beethoven at Bonn say virtually nothing, that Thayer and others give only fleeting reference to him who, even as a composer of symphonies is described in 1780 as being in 'great demand by the princes of Germany' - a thing not said of Haydn at this time and certainly not of Mozart. That Beethoven said nothing we know of, etc. Perhaps we can agree the fog is lifting over this period of time - that of Beethoven's youth at Bonn if only slowly. Was Luchesi's death in Bonn even mentioned ? Wsa there a Necrology, a newspaper report of him ? Anything ? These are things I hope to discover in the next few days.