Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph Read online

  After the emotional part of music comes the formal, the abstract, the structural scaffolding. In my discussions of Beethoven’s music I don’t play the influences game as much as many writers do. Saying that this tune echoes Mozart, that keyboard figure Clementi, and so on, may often be true, but that does not tell us much about the work at hand. Each work is conceived as an individual by a composer who was, in his more serious efforts, trying to do something new. For me every one of Beethoven’s major works is a boldly painted individual with an unforgettable profile. I’ll note influences here and there, but on the whole with each piece I’ll mainly be interested in what is special, not what is typical.

  Likewise, in much commentary there is a tendency to look at every work in a given form, such as sonata form, as just one more example of that form, perhaps with a few quirks. From a composer’s perspective, that is a backward view of the matter. For a composer of Beethoven’s era, the idea of a work comes first, and then it is mapped into a familiar form that has to be cut and measured to fit the idea. The “quirks” in a given piece are clues to the distinctive nature of that piece. Sometimes for the composer the fundamental idea is such that a new, ad hoc form has to be invented.

  Like many musicians I consider our art ultimately an emotional language beyond words—which is to say, a mystery. I hope I have conveyed that too. The success of a given work is ultimately unanalyzable. A clever scaffolding can hold up a dull building just as well as a beautiful one. I’ll also admit that the kind of analysis I indulge in, Beethoven himself didn’t care for. He considered his workshop a private matter, and I have some appropriate regret at having snooped into it. But I’ve spent the writing part of my career trying to explain music and musicians to nonmusicians, and that effort continues in this book, whose research and writing consumed some dozen years of my life.

  I add that I don’t expect anyone to take my interpretations and analyses of the music as any sort of final word. No reader will have precisely the same responses I do. Music is not mathematics. The individuality of responses to music is one of its greatest virtues. While I talk sometimes about Beethoven’s creative process—indeed, a central chapter is devoted to the Eroica—when I envision him creating, I am not saying it happened like this but rather it happens like this and something in this direction seems to have given rise to this idea, this piece.

  I offer my interpretations and analyses of the music as a point of view, and as a gesture in the direction of what I believe Beethoven expected his listeners to do: be sensitive and knowledgeable enough to sense the spirit in which his music was offered, then respond to it creatively, as an individual. I consider it my job here to get as far as I can in understanding what Beethoven had in mind before his work reached the public, to report the response of his audience mainly via contemporary critics, then to add my own responses. What an artist thinks he or she is doing, what the general public thinks they are doing, and what I surmise they are doing are three different things. Biography, I believe, is properly concerned with all three.

  My own encounters with Beethoven were early and deep, as with most musicians. He is so ingrained that most of us don’t entirely remember how his work and his story reached us. In classical music I was first involved with Brahms and Copland and Handel and Bach, because they are what I first happened to encounter. But I knew Beethoven was supposed to be great, so when one day in my teens I ran across a record of the Eroica sitting inexplicably in a rack at Pruitt’s Supermarket in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I bought it, took it home, and eagerly listened. It went in one ear and out the other. I kept listening, a couple of dozen times as I remember, until it started to make sense.

  Around that time I read Romain Rolland’s legendary study, Beethoven the Creator. In it, every sketch of the Eroica becomes a heroic act. Undoubtedly, that book and its high-Romantic image of Beethoven helped nurture in me a desire to compose. Otherwise it was, in fact, not a useful model. It inflicted on me ambitions beyond my age and skill, a conviction that every idea must be born in suffering and voluminous sketches, and so on. When later I read Stravinsky saying something to the effect that “Every great genius does great harm,” I knew what he was talking about. Schubert had been one of the first composers to groan, “Who can do anything after Beethoven?” Thousands have echoed him since. In order to write my own music less encumbered, I had to divest myself of the Romantic myth of Beethoven. Only later did I come to a more thoughtful critique of that myth.

  I’ll add one more personal detail. The mother of my grandfather Lawrence Swafford came from a western Tennessee family of dirt farmers named Edgemon. Their ancestry is Dutch, and their name is a southernized version of “Egmont.” From that, I’ve long noted with due irony, I possess a family relationship to a play by Goethe and an overture by Beethoven. Given that I set out to be a composer and teacher and nothing else, who knew that someday I would write about both of them in a book.

  For my thanks, I’ll begin with writers who have inspired me, above all Thayer as amended and expanded by Elliot Forbes (under whose baton I sometimes played trombone at Harvard). I have made ample use of classic studies including the irreplaceable but long out of print Der Junge Beethoven by Ludwig Schiedermair, and H. C. Robbins Landon’s collection of original sources in Beethoven. Recent biographies and studies by William Kinderman, Lewis Lockwood, Barry Cooper, Leon Plantinga, and Maynard Solomon have been valuable as sources of information, correction, and thought. Thanks to Beata Kraus of the Beethovenhaus in Bonn, who directed me to the sixty-volume collection of regional historical studies never mined in English biographies, the Bonner Geschichtsblätter. In those studies I found answers to a good many questions about Beethoven’s youth and Bildung. Belated thanks to the late Dorothy DeLay, celebrated Juilliard violin teacher, who in a long interview gave me her thoughts about and experiences with musical prodigies. That interview has informed all my biographies. The operative line of hers: “They know how to play the piano or the fiddle, but they never learn how to live.”

  Thanks to my musicologist readers Teresa Neff and Elizabeth Seitz, who vetted the book and saved me from any number of blunders. The remaining ones are entirely my responsibility. Thanks to Ben Hyman for consistently astute editing. Writer friend Zane Kotker contributed many suggestions, Boston Conservatory colleague Jim Dalton gave me advice on matters of tuning, and my German Ivesian friend Dorothea Gail found me items from the Bonn newspaper of the day. My brother Charles Johnson contributed his verbal expertise. Conductor and Ives editor James Sinclair looked over chapters and cheered me on. Marc Mandel, my editor for Boston Symphony program notes, was encouraging and understanding when he knew that my Beethoven notes were really aimed at this book. Thanks to the people at Slate for permission to use bits and pieces of articles I wrote for them. Michael and Patricia Frederick of the Frederick Historic Piano Collection provided invaluable information on and recordings of Michael’s exquisitely restored period instruments. My pianist friend Andrew Rangell is an endless source of fascinating and provoking late-night conversations about Beethoven and music in general. My students in Beethoven classes over the years have provided a steady flow of ideas in every direction. I have fine memories of an afternoon with Beethoven editor Jonathan Del Mar, talking shop and looking over his materials.

  Finally, I thank and apologize to the authors and friends whose ideas I have made use of without realizing it. What I know about Beethoven goes back some fifty years, research for the book goes back a dozen years, and in some cases I no longer know where an idea came from, whether it is my own or something I encountered a long time ago.

  This book is dedicated to the late painter Frances Cohen Gillespie, who inspired me, as she did all her friends, with the passion, commitment, and beauty of her work. Of all the artists I’ve known personally, Fran most reminds me of Beethoven. During the long labor of this book, I lost more friends and inspirations whom I’d like to remember here: writer Norman Kotker; composer and hiking partner Dana Brayton; teaching
colleague and hiking partner Ginny Brereton; physicist and oldest friend Mike Dzvonik; singer, violist, and cousin Cathy Bowers. They are all remembered and mourned by their family and friends, and all of them have echoes in this book.

  I’ll finish with one more personal detail. Some years ago I ordered a used copy of the rare Schiedermair Junge Beethoven and received a nearly century-old book. Only months later did I open to the first page and discover it was once owned by Elliot Forbes. I like to call that a good omen.

  1

  Bonn, Electorate of Cologne

  As he lay dying, he remembered Bonn.

  IN THE FREEZING entrance of St. Remigius, the family watches the priest make the sign of the cross on the baby’s head and on his breast as he mewls in his grandfather’s arms. It is the newborn’s name day, when his name is registered in the book of the church and eternally in the book of heaven.

  The priest breathes three times on the face of the infant to exorcize the Demon, acknowledging the presence of original sin. After the first exorcism, the blessed salt is placed in the mouth of the child, so he may relish good works and enjoy the food of divine wisdom. Prayers, the second exorcism. “Credo in Deum,” the priest chants, “Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae.” I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

  The family shuffles into the chapel behind the priest. To complete the third exorcism he moistens his right thumb with spittle and, in the form of the cross, touches the right and left ear of the child, proclaiming, “Adaperire.” Be opened.

  The group arrives at the massive marble christening font. This is not the first Ludwig van Beethoven to be baptized in this family; it is the third. The elder Ludwig van Beethoven stands as godfather to his newborn grandson and namesake. Both grandfather and godfather, the older man is the distinguished figure among them. As godmother stands not old Ludwig’s sad wife, the baby’s grandmother, but a neighbor’s wife. The mother Maria, the father Johann shift on their feet in the cold as the priest drones on, his hands moving over the child, weaving ancient spells.

  Inescapably the family feels hope and also fear for this baby. Half or more of one’s children will die in infancy. The year before, there had been another baptism, of Ludwig Maria van Beethoven, named both for the patriarch of the family and for the baby’s mother and grandmother. That second Ludwig lived six days. When Maria was seventeen, her first child had died before his first birthday, followed a year later by her first husband. Three deaths. Now with hope and fear Maria watches the christening of her third child, the second Ludwig, with her second husband. In two days, Maria van Beethoven will be twenty-four years old.

  The first anointing, the profession of faith, the holy water poured three times: “Ludovicus, ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spritus Sancti.” I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The second anointing, the lacy baptismal cap placed on the infant’s head. “Go in peace,” the priest concludes, “and the Lord be with thee.”

  The name day of the composer Ludwig van Beethoven is December 17, 1770. The mother is Maria Magdalene van Beethoven, born Keverich, formerly Leym. The father is Johann van Beethoven, thirty, tenor in the court chapel choir under his father, Kapellmeister Ludwig van Beethoven. The date of the composer’s birth, a day or two before his name day, is lost to a history that will be interested in everything to do with this child. He will grow up nominally Catholic and, in his fashion, close to God, but he will be no lover of priests, ritual, or magic. Near the end, through the words of the liturgy, Beethoven will proclaim his credo in the maker of heaven and earth that, like everything else in his life, is an image of his own imagining.

  The first Ludwig (or Louis, or Lodewyck, or Ludovicus) van Beethoven that history documents, grandfather of the composer, was Flemish, born in the town of Malines, or Mechelen, in the duchy of Brabant. His father Michael van Beethoven began his career as a baker but then developed a prosperous business in luxury goods. Michael and his wife had four sons, of whom Ludwig and brother Cornelius survived. Backward from that point the family history is uncertain.

  In Brabant the name Beethoven was common in assorted spellings: Betho, Bethove, Bethof, Bethenhove, Bethoven.1 Most of those bearing the name were tradesmen, tavern keepers, and the like. The origin of the name is obscure. An area near the town of Tongeren was called Betho, which might account for it. In Flemish, beet means “beetroot” and hof, “garden,” so the name could mean “beet garden,” a farmer’s name. It could be derived from Flemish words meaning “improved land.”2 The Flemish van means “from,” implying a place one hails from. So the Flemish van nominally means the same as the German von. But the German word implies “from the house of” and therefore indicates nobility, which van does not. One day that difference in one letter would cause the composer Ludwig van Beethoven a great deal of trouble.

  The youth of the elder Ludwig van Beethoven is traced in church records starting in many-steepled Malines, a town celebrated in his time for the blaze of its carillons and the glory of its church music.3 This Ludwig was baptized at St. Katherine’s Church on January 5, 1712. At age five he became a choirboy in the cathedral of St. Rombaut. When Ludwig was thirteen, his father hired the town’s leading organist to give the boy keyboard lessons.4 Ludwig must have demonstrated impressive ability in both music and leadership; at nineteen he became a singer and substitute Kapellmeister—music director—at St. Peter’s in Louvain. A year later he was listed as a singer at St. Lambert’s in Liège, where his admirers may have included Clemens August, Archbishop Elector of Cologne, Lord of the Electoral Residence in Bonn.5

  In 1733, Elector Clemens August summoned Ludwig van Beethoven to become a singer with his court chapel in Bonn. In September of that year, settling into his new home, the first Ludwig married a young woman from an old Bonn family, Maria Josepha Poll. Then twenty-one, Ludwig would serve the Bonn court under two Electors for the next forty years.

  A fine bass singer, able keyboard player, formidable presence in the chapel or on an opera stage, Bonn’s first Ludwig van Beethoven became a fixture at the palace, where music had a long history as part of the splendor of the Electoral Court. When Ludwig arrived in Bonn, the town was undergoing a glorious makeover under the reign of his employer, the gracious and sublime Prince-Archbishop Elector of Cologne, Clemens August.

  The title Elector meant that the Archbishop of Cologne, residing in Bonn, belonged to the group of traditionally seven princes granted the privilege of voting for the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, whose throne lay in Vienna. Though the Holy Roman emperor was therefore elected and not hereditary, the throne had been held by Habsburgs in all but a few years since 1438. The polyglot Habsburg Empire included Hungary, lands in Italy, and in the future Belgium and Yugoslavia.

  In the eighteenth century there had never been a country of Germany or Austria. Rather there was a mélange of three hundred mostly small German-speaking states ruled by 250 sovereigns. These states contained around twenty million German speakers, some Catholic and some Protestant. The Holy Roman Empire, which geographically had nothing to do with its name, was a regime based in Vienna that mediated among and protected the German states but exercised little control over them. Most of the states ruled themselves and took pride in their own history and heritage, their food and wine and traditional dress. Most minted their own currencies, maintained their own police and armies. Most considered themselves specially smiled upon by God.

  For centuries the sovereigns of each German state had possessed the privilege to spend and enjoy, to erect and tear down, to exalt and execute, tax and torture their subjects, as they pleased. The Holy Roman Empire traced its lineage back to Charlemagne in the ninth century; the Electorate of Cologne dated from the thirteenth century. As the prince-bishop of little Speyer instructed his people, “The commanding will of his majesty is none other than the commanding will of God himself.” Outside their territories, few of these proud princes ever had any
power at all.6 A progressive spirit emanating from Vienna challenged traditional staples of the social order like torture and feudalism; but no more than anyone challenged the church did anyone question the existence of the thrones or the expenditures of the ruling princes.

  All the same, the patchwork of states that constituted Germany under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire never constituted any kind of rational order. The welter of small German states were like bubbles on the surface of history. They existed because they apparently had always existed, so surely they were there by the will of God. Of the German states, sixty-three were ecclesiastical, ruled by an abbot, bishop, or archbishop. These prince-bishops had the same sorts of privileges and powers as secular rulers of the Holy Roman Empire.

  The most prominent ecclesiastical states lay on the Rhine, the main trade artery of German lands: the electorates of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne. The latter city had thrown out its archbishop in 1257, to preserve its status as a “free city.” The archbishop’s successors had since ruled their lands and cities from nearby Bonn, upriver to the south. For centuries the people of sunny and progressive Bonn and those of conservative and priest-ridden Cologne (which gave its name to the Electorate) had despised each other. The atmosphere of old Cologne was captured in a bit of doggerel by an English visitor, Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

  In Köhln, a town of monks and bones,

  And pavements fang’d with murderous stones,

  And rags, and hags, and hideous wenches;