Franz Schubert and His World
Page 16
44. Ottenwalt to Spaun, 27 November 1825, my translation and emphasis (see also SDB, 476). Kupelwieser married on 17 September 1826 (SDB, 554), and thereafter he and his wife made only one (recorded) appearance at a function of the Schobert circle, namely on 15 December 1826, at Spaun’s first festive Schubertiade (SDB, 573–74).
45. At the very least the Lesegesellschaft met on 5, 12, 19, 26 January 1828; 2, 9, 15 February 1828, with Karl Enk von der Burg, Franz von Hartmann, Ferdinand Sauter, and Hieronymus von Kleimayrn in attendance; 23 February 1828; 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 March 1828; 5, 23, 26 April 1828, 21 June 1828; 12, 19 July 1828; 2 August 1828 with Enk, Josef Bayer, and Franz von Hartmann.
46. See SDB, 662. In 1827, for example, Schwind did not attend a tavern (Beisel) with his friends in January, attended only three times in February, three times in March, once in April, and once in June, not again until he left for Munich in August, and not again after he got back in October. By comparison, Schubert, Schober, and Spaun frequented a Beisel together between two and three times a week whenever they were in town. Bauernfeld attended these gatherings even less frequently than Schwind. His diary entry of 21 February 1826: “This week I receive the last of the Shakespeare money from Trentsenski. — Now what? Unde vivam? — Otherwise I spend a lot of time alone working hard. The friends have nicknamed me “Caveman” [Spelunk] since I seldom creep out of my cave in Landstraße [a suburb of Vienna]” (Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 38).
47. Witteczek married Wilhelmine Watteroth (b. 1800) in 1819; she was the daughter of law professor Heinrich Josef Watteroth, who had taught Spaun (SDB, 302). Witteczek was a Hof- und Staatskanzleikonzipist (SDB, 573–74). In 1825 Enderes was Konzipist in the Finanzministerium (SDB. 397), a Konzipist being someone with an academic education waiting for an appointment to a civil service post with life tenure (a Beamte) (SDB, 569).
48. The one exception was a Schubertiade hosted by Karl Hönig on 16 December 1826 (SDB, 573). Outside of Vienna there was a Schubertiade at Retz near the Moravian border, hosted by Prof. Vincentius Weintridt and Schwind, and several in Graz, hosted by the Pachlers.
49. For many of these Schubertiades we have a fairly complete guest list. The evening at Spaun’s on 15 December 1826 is representative (SDB, 571–72).
50. See Herwig Knaus, Vom Vorstadtkind zum Compositeur (Vienna, 1997).
51. DsL, 64–65, 592–93. CM refers to Conventionsmünze; four florins CM were worth ten florins WW (Wiener Währung).
52. The titles are not redundant: “Freiherr” was better than “Ritter,” which was better than “Edler,” which was better than plain “von.”
53. SMF 230; “Jugendfreunde,” 81.
54. On Mayrhofer, see Lorenz, “Dokumente zur Biographie Johann Mayrhofers,”and Spaun, “Aus den Lebenserinnerungen des Joseph Freiherrn von Spaun,” 294.
55. Both a week before and two days after the great victory over Napoleon at Leipzig in October 1813, the “Völkerschlacht,” Emperor Franz found the time personally to approve papers granting a continued scholarship to Schubert, on the condition of raising his mathematics grade from a “2” to a “1” (SDB, 34–37).
56. Constant von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 60 vols. (Vienna, 1856–91), 13:292–96. Kupelwieser needed to start earning his own money at the age of seventeen when his father died on 27 May 1813. See Rupert Feuchtmüller, Leopold Kupelwieser und die Kunst der österreichischen Spätromantik (Vienna, 1970), 12.
57. Bauernfeld’s diary, August 1826: “Schubert without money, as are all of us” (SDB, 548). See also SDB, 451, 805–6; and Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 56.
58. SMF, 228–29; “Jugendfreunde,” 77.
59. Kupelwieser wanted to get married as soon as possible upon his return, and initially seems to have planned to stay with Schober until the wedding (SDB, 451), but plans must have changed, since he did not get married until September 1826 (SDB, 554), although he had moved out of Schober’s apartment almost a year earlier (SDB, 462).
60. See Maynard Solomon, “Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini,” 19th-Century Music 12 (1989): 193–206; and a special issue of that journal entitled Schubert: Music, Sexuality, Culture, edited by Lawrence Kramer, and including Rita Steblin’s response, “The Peacock’s Tale: Schubert’s Sexuality Reconsidered,” 19th-Century Music 17(1993): 5–33; as well as Kristina Muxfeldt, “Political Crimes and Liberty, or Why Would Schubert Eat a Peacock?” 19th-Century Music 17(1993): 47–64; and Maynard Solomon, “Schubert: Some Consequences of Nostalgia,” 19th-Century Music 17 (1993): 34–46; and Charles Rosen, New York Review of Books, 20 October 1994.
61. Schwind to Schubert, 14 August 1825 (SDB, 451), and Bauernfeld’s diary entry, August 1827 (SDB, 548).
62. SMF, 85–87. Note that Kenner considered Schober’s whole family “depraved,” including his mother.
63. From Schober’s courtship of Marie von Spaun prior to 1819 (SMF, 350), to Bauernfeld’s diary in March 1827 when he reported spats between Schwind and Schober over Schober’s relationship with a “woman from our circle” (Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 60).
64. Schwind first became interested in Hönig on 22 February 1824 (Stoessl, Schwind Briefe, 27–28), in part because she had the same name as his earlier infatuation, Netti Prunner (SDB, 196; Stoessl, Schwind Briefe, 22, 24, 25); the earliest indication of a relationship between Schwind and Hönig in the Deutsch documents is April 1825 (SDB, 411–12). They announced their engagement in March 1828 (SDB, 754); in October 1828 Schwind moved to Munich to study at the Academy there “for Netti’s sake” (SDB, 817); the affair ended in October 1829 due to religious differences and Schwind’s impecuniousness (SDB, 539). See also Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 38.
65. We do not know Clotilde’s full name or identity. Most of Bauernfeld’s diary entries concerning Clotilde were edited out by Glossy. In the foreword to his edition, Josef Bindtner, in Erinnerungen aus Alt-Wien: Mit 28 Bildern (Vienna, 1923), ix–xi, published the diary entries for 7 February 1821, when Bauernfeld first mentioned Clotilde and his infatuation with her; May 1822, a physical description of Clotilde; December 1823, 4 January 1824, and April 1825, the only entry concerning Clotilde that made it into SDB, 413. Further diary entries mentioned by Bindtner concern 17 April 1826, when Bauernfeld embraced Clotilde for the last time, and 25 April 1827, when she married someone else. My thanks to Kristina Muxfeldt for bringing the Bindtner foreword to my attention and making it available to me.
66. Steblin, “The Peacock’s Tale,” 31n69.
67. See ibid., 16; and Bauernfeld’s diary entries for 14 May 1825 and June 1825 (Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 30).
68. Steblin, “The Peacock’s Tale,” 16; and Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 45.
69. SDB, 573–74 (17 December 1826).
70. Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 46.
71. See Schwind to Schubert, 2 July 1825 (SDB, 424–25), 1 and 6 August 1825 (SDB 443–44), and 1 September 1825 (SDB 451–52).
72. SDB, 401–2, 14 February 1825.
73. SDB, 414, 18 April 1825 (rev. trans.).
74. Schubert and Schwind continued to visit Mme Lacsny when her health permitted. Schubert met Hiller and Hummel at her house in March of 1827 (SDB, 619). He possibly also met Luigi Lablache at her house (SDB, 667). She died before Schubert, on 3 July 1828 (SDB, 789).
75. SDB, 561; and Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 57. Kristina Muxfeldt’s chapter on the opera, “The Matrimonial Anomaly (Schubert’s Opera for Posterity),” in Vanishing Sensibilities: Schubert, Beethoven, Schumann (Oxford, 2012), 41–83, attempts, as nearly as possible given the available sources, to understand why the censor forbade the opera, given that the story had been around since the thirteenth century and had been treated many times in German literature, most recently (1824) in a libretto for Carl Eberwein.
76. Richard Kramer, “Posthumous Schubert,” 19th-Century Music 14 (1990): 197–216 traces connections between the opera and Winterreise (Nebensonnen) and Schubert’s 1815 setting of Goethe’s poem “Wo
nnen der Wehmut”; he also discerns the influence of Fidelio and Figaro at crucial points in the music.
77. In his diary, June 1828, Bauernfeld noted a debate between Schober and Ferdinand von Mayerhofer, who later married the pious Anna Hönig (Litschauer, Neue Dokumente, 69). On Schober’s courtship of Marie von Spaun, see SMF, 350.
78. “Jugendfreunde,” 30.
79. SDB, 597, 25 January 1827.
80. John M. Gingerich,”‘To how many shameful deeds must you lend your image’: Schubert’s Pattern of Telescoping and Excision in the Texts of His Latin Masses,” Current Musicology 70 (Spring 2002): 61–99. The discussion here of Schubert’s Mass text quotes freely from this article.
81. The notion that Schubert copied an unorthodox master text was supported by Otto Wissig, Franz Schuberts Messen (Leipzig, 1909), 34; Alfred Einstein, Schubert, trans. David Ascoli (London, 1951), 61; and Paul Badura-Skoda, “Schuberts korrumpierte Meßtexte—Absicht oder Versehen? Gedanken zum Buch von Hans Jaskulsky Die Lateinischen Messen Franz Schuberts,” Das Orchester 38 (1990): 132.
82. SDB, 740, 21 February 1828.
83. Walther Dürr, “Dona nobis pacem: Gedanken zu Schuberts späten Messen,” in Bachiana et Alia Musicologica: Festschrift Alfred Dürr zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. März 1983, ed. Wolfgang Rehm (Kassel, 1983), 62–73.
84. For an interpretation of the particular kind of pantheism present in Die Allmacht, see Walther Dürr, “Die Allmacht (D852): Schubert, Schelling und der Pantheismus,” in “Laudato si, mi Signore, per sora nostra matre terra”: Zur Ästhetik und Spiritualit¨at des ‘Sonnengesangs’ in Musik, Kunst, Religion, Naturwissenschaften, Literatur, Film und Fotografie, ed. Ute Jung-Kaiser (Bern, 2002), 103–16.
85. See Susan Youens, Schubert’s Late Lieder: Beyond the Song Cycles (Cambridge, 2002), 93–144, for a description of Pyrker as a champion egotist, self-promoter, and opportunist. By the early 1830s he had already become much more conservative than when Schubert knew him, and after Emperor Franz’s death Pyrker completed his transition from emperor-worship to pope-worship, and from having been a pantheist and Josephinian he became a staunch advocate of supreme papal authority—an Ultramontanist.
86. Adam Bunnell, Before Infallibility: Liberal Catholicism in Biedermeier Vienna (Rutherford, 1990), 42; Robin Okey, The Habsburg Monarchy: From Enlightenment to Eclipse (New York, 2001), 43–44, 58, 66, 100.
87. On Mayrhofer, see Spaun, “Aus den Lebenserinnerungen des Joseph Freiherrn von Spaun,” 296; on Vogl, SDB, 99.
88. Philo-Hellenism seems to have generated surprisingly little enthusiasm of the Byronic sort in the Schubert circle for the modern Greek war of independence (1821–29), or at least generated surprisingly few records of such enthusiasm.
89. Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 193. Dürr, “Schubert, Schelling und der Pantheismus,” 108, speculates that Bruchmann’s “Totalitäts-Philosophie” refers to Schelling.
90. Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 218–19.
91. “Die Deutschen als vollendete Griechen.” Ibid., 220.
92. Ibid., 128.
93. In a letter to his sister Sybille, 23 July 1819, Bruchmann called Schelling “den grösten [sic] Menschen, den unsere Erde je trug.” Ibid., 284, emphasis Bruchmann’s.
94. See Friedrich Schlegel’s “Vorrede,” Concordia 1 (1820): 1; and “Signatur des Zeitalters,” Concordia 1 (1820): 59-62.
95. SDB, 187–88; Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 135. After the Carlsbad decrees of 1819 university students were not permitted to study abroad for much the same reason Senn had been arrested, because the Austrian head of police Sedlnitzky was leery of the contagion of German nationalist university fraternities (see SDB, 129–30).
96. SDB, 254. In a letter to his father, 7 May 1822, Bruchmann explained that as much as he admired Schlegel and his friends, he personally still found it impossible to convert to Catholicism (Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 297).
97. All five of Bruchmann’s poems set by Schubert (D737, 738, 746, 762, 785) are dated to sometime in 1822 or 1823 by Otto Erich Deutsch, Franz Schubert: Thematisches Verzeichnis seiner Werke in chronologischer Folge (Kassel, 1978).
98. SDB, 287; Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 146.
99. Schubert to Schober, 30 November 1823, SDB, 300.
100. “Wie die Askese in Person”: this according to Rudolph von Smetana, who became her brother-in-law (Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 158).
101. SDB, 303; and Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon, 55:208ff.
102. Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 158, 222.
103. Ibid., 223.
104. See especially Stoessl, Schwind Briefe, 31–32, for Schwind reading and reacting to their letters to each other. Ibid., 35–36.
105. See SDB, 342, 314–15, 330–31 for letters from Schwind to Schober and Justina; see Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 315, for a letter from Bruchmann to Schober.
106. A long letter from Schwind to Kupelwieser in Rome, sent on 9 June 1824, indicates that by that time Justina had ended the affair with Schober, but that Schwind as yet had no inkling of Franz von Bruchmann’s role in Justina’s change of mind. Feuchtmüller, Leopold Kupelwieser, 31.
107. SDB, 384, 405–6.
108. The term “positive Christianity” is from Enzinger (Franz v. Bruchmann, 155) and Deutsch (SDB, 569) and probably refers to ideas put forward by Friedrich von Schlegel in his journal Concordia (1820–23), rather than to Schelling’s “positive” philosophy.
109. Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 155–56.
110. Ibid., 158–59.
111. Ibid., 157. Also worth noting is that Bruchmann addressed his father, Senn, and Schober with “Sie,” and Kupelwieser with “Du.” (See the letters at the end of Enzinger’s volume, 283–358.)
112. Rudolf Bachleitner, Die Nazarener (Munich, 1976), 19.
113. Jonas Veit (b. 1790) and Philipp Veit (b. 1793).
114. Bachleitner, Die Nazarener, 161: “In Rom wurde Kupelwieser Nazarener—er blieb es bis zu seinem Ende.” Feuchtmüller, in Leopold Kupelwieser, emphasizes Kupelwieser’s differences from other Nazarenes (113–21), and his individual working out of influences both German and Italian, in which, for example, Raphael’s predecessors play a larger role than do Raphael’s followers (116). Unlike the religious works, the commissioned portraits Kupelwieser painted in the first years after his return from Rome were done not out of inclination but for the money (118).
115. Although Schwind “probably” had regular lessons with L. F. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, he definitely learned how to paint in oils from Kupelwieser, who was thus both friend and teacher, and whose absence in Rome in 1824–25 left Schwind at loose ends. See Andrea Gottdang,”‘Ich bin unsern Ideen nicht untreu geworden’: Moritz von Schwind und der Schubert-Freundeskreis,” Schubert: Perspektiven 4 (2004): 3.
116. In a letter to Schober, 3 September 1827, Schwind described his first conversation with Cornelius in Munich, in which Cornelius was critical of Friedrich von Schlegel, and critical of the direction in which Schlegel had taken L. F. Schnorr (Stoessl, Schwind Briefe, 53).
117. Bunnell, Before Infallibility, 95.
118. Eduard Hosp, “Hofbauer, Clemens Johannes Maria,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed. (Freiburg, 1960), 5:413–14.
119. Bunnell, Before Infallibility, 47.
120. Catholic Encyclopedia, “Redemptorists (Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer),” http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9891.
121. Bunnell, Before Infallibility, 47.
122. Ibid., 47–48.
123. SDB, 254.
124. However, the names of the characters in Bauernfeld’s skit, Pantalon, Columbine, and Harlequin, had a long history in the traditions of the Viennese “Hanswurst-Komödie.” Eduard Bauernfeld, “Intermezzo—Die Wiener-Volks-Komödie,” in chap. 3 of “Aus Alt- und Neu-Wien,” in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 12, 34.
125. Friedrich Schlegel, Lucinde (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1963), 34–35 (translation mine). This passage should be compared with Scene 8 of Bauernfeld’s Sylvest
ernacht (1825) satire, SDB, 493–94.
126. Praised by the “Jungdeutscher” Karl Gutzkow in 1835, and condemned by Søren Kierkegaard in 1841. Karl Konrad Pohlheim, Postscript to Lucinde, 116.
127. Frederick C. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790–1800 (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 260, from Fragmente nos. 31, 34.
128. SDB, 411–12, 2 April 1825. Schwind had managed to work characters from Lucinde and from Der Graf von Gleichen into sketches illustrating The Marriage of Figaro.
129. Enzinger, Franz v. Bruchmann, 188.
130. Ibid., 198.
131. Schwind to Schober, 6 January 1824, in Stoessl, Schwind Briefe, 26, my translation.
132. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism, 231–34.
133. Ibid., 229–34.
134. Ibid., 261. Beiser dates the shift back to 1799. It was a shift for the Romantics in guiding texts from Schiller’s Aesthetische Briefe to Schleiermacher’s Reden über die Religion (239–40).
Schubert’s Kosegarten Settings of 1815: A Forgotten Liederspiel
MORTEN SOLVIK
In 1815 Franz Schubert composed twenty vocal works to poems by Gotthard Ludwig Kosegarten. This in itself is not a remarkable observation about a time period in which the composer produced an enormous number of Lieder, at least 138 in that year alone. But there is something unique about these works that has, until recently, been overlooked by music historians: collectively they share both a clearly constructed plot and musical devices that connect them into a coherent whole, suggesting the rather surprising conclusion that the songs belong together as a unified set, even as a type of cycle. Although some of the research presented here is known to specialists, the major points of evidence that support such an argument have yet to reach a wider audience.1 The following is an account of that discovery, a summary of the pieces of the puzzle as they came to light and how they fit together.