Beethoven's Maelzel Canon. Another Schindler Forgery?

Author(s): Standley Howell

Source: The Musical Times, Vol. 120, No. 1642 (Dec., 1979), pp. 987-990
Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/963501
Accessed: 09-02-2016 23:52 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical Times.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:52:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Beethoven's
MaelzelCanon
AnotherSchindler ?
forgery
StandleyHowell
Anton Schindleris best rememberedtoday as
Beethoven'sbiographer,but he himselfattached
greaterimportanceto his role as an authority
on the proper understandingand correctper-
formanceof Beethoven'smusic.He feltthathis
close association with the composer qualified
himuniquelyto preserveand fosteran authentic
performance tradition, and throughout his
careeras a conductor,piano teacherand writer
on music he vigorouslypromotedhis vision in
the face of what he considered the decadent
practices of his time. He became particularly
famous for his polemical criticismsof contem-
porary performances,includingthose by such
prominent Beethoven interpretersas Felix
Mendelssohnand LudwigSpohr.
The aspect of performancethat concerned
Schindlermost was tempo,forhe believedthat
the wrong tempo could distortthe expressive
characterof Beethoven'smusic. The principal
targetof his complaintsin thisregard,however,
was no living musician,but Beethoven's own
metronomemarkings.Of the many arguments
he used to discredittheseindications,the most
effectivewas his contentionthatBeethovenhad
vacillated in his preferencesfor the tempos of
his works. Schindlerrecalleda numberof con-
versationsin which the composer changed his
mind about his temposand, afteran initialen-
thusiasmforthemetronome,ultimately decided
to stop using it altogether.Such evidence for
Beethoven's intentionsmust be treated with
some caution,since it runs counterto the atti-
tude expressedin his correspondenceeven at
the end of his life.' There are, it is true,seem-
ingly corroborative passages in Beethoven's
conversationbooks which suggest that some
tempo alterationswere made in the course of
discussionswith Schindler.But it has recently
been proved that many of Schindler'sconver-
sation-bookentries,includingat least some of
those relatingto tempo and the metronome
markings,are forgeries;thatis, theywereadded
to thevolumesafterBeethoven'sdeath,to imply
discussions that never took place.2 We must
1Especially his letter of 18 December 1826 to Schott: 'In our
century such indications are certainly necessary. Moreover I
have received letters from Berlin informing me that the first
performance of the [Ninth] Symphony was received with
enthusiastic applause, which I ascribe largely to the metronome
markings', no. 1545 in E. Anderson, ed. and trans., The Letters
of Beethoven (London 1961)
2see D. Beck and G. Herre, 'Einige Zweifel an der Uberlieferung
der Konversationshefte', Beethoven-Kongress: Berlin 1977; also
P. Stadlen, 'Schindler's Beethoven Forgeries', MT, cxviii (1977),
549-52, and idem, 'Schindler and the Conversation Books',
Soundings, no. 7 (1978), 2-18
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:52:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
wait for furtherclarificationon this subject
beforeitsfullimpacton thecredibility ofSchind-
ler'sargumentscan be assessed.
In themeantime,thereis one pieceofevidence
for Beethoven'sfluctuatingtempo choice that
has attained officialstatus throughits preser-
vation in the Breitkopf& Hdirtelcomplete
edition. This is the discrepancybetween the
metronomemarkingsassignedto theAllegretto
scherzando of the Eighth Symphony(quaver
= 88) and to the canon based on the same
thematicmaterial,Ta ta ta ta WoO162(quaver=
72). It may be argued that the polyphonictex-
tureof the canon demandsa somewhatslower
tempothan is appropriateforthe melody-plus-
accompanimentof the symphonymovement,
but thiswould be insufficientto accountforthe
magnitudeof difference betweenthe two tem-
pos. Anyattemptto assert the validityof Beet-
hoven's metronomemarkingsmust come to
termswiththisproblem.It will therefore be of
some value to re-examinewhat we know of the
sources for these works and theirtempo indi-
cations.
The EighthSymphonywas composed in the
summerand autumn of 1812; the autograph
is dated October of that year. Score and parts
were publishedby S. A. Steiner& Compagnie
of Vienna in 1817, and metronomemarkings
forthefirsteightsymphoniesweretabulatedin
the Leipzig Allgemeinemusikalische Zeitungof
17 December 1817. This listwas reprintedin a
pamphletissued by Steinerat about the same
timeor slightlylater.In his pioneeringstudyof
the sources for Beethoven's metronomicindi-
cations, Gustav Nottebohmsaw no reason to
doubt the authenticity of these markings,and
no-one has ever seriouslychallengedhis con-
clusion.3
For WoO 162 the situation is less clear. No
autograph or contemporaryprintedsource is
extant. It was first published in Hermann
Hirschbach's Musikalisch-kritischesReper-
toriumin February 1844, and later appeared
with an article by Schindler4in the Nieder-
rheinischeMusik-Zeitung(1854) and in the
3G. Nottebohm,'MetronomischeBezeichnungen', Beethoven-
iana (Leipzigand Winterthur, 1872),126-37
4'Notiz zu Beethoven'sachterSinfonie',Musikalisch-kritisches
Repertorium allerneuenErscheinungen im GebietederTonkunst,
i (1844), 55; A. Schindler,'Traditionelles:Das Allegretto
scherzandoin Beethoven'sachterSinfoniebetreffend', Nieder-
rheinischeMusik-Zeitungffir Kunstfreunde und Kiinstler,ii
(1854), 385-8; idem, Biographievon Ludwig van Beethoven
(Muinster3/1860),i, 196, Eng. trans.by C. Jolly,ed. D. W.
MacArdle,as Beethoven as I KnewHim (London, 1966), 170
987
third edition of Schindler's Beethoven biog-
raphy(1860). Schindlerwas thesole sourcefor
all of theseeditions.But when was it written,
and how did he come byit?
What we know about the circumstancessur-
rounding the composition of the canon also
comes entirelyfrom Schindler.According to
his well-knownstory,it was improvisedin the
springof 1812 at a dinnerparty(attendedby
Count Franz von Brunsvik,Stephanvon Breun-
ing, and others)celebratingthe impendingde-
parturefromVienna of the guests of honour,
Beethovenand Maelzel.5 The latterwas to have
gone to London on a concerttour to promote
his mechanicaltrumpeter;but, Schindlersays,
his tripwas delayed. Beethovenwas bound for
Linz, to visithisbrotherJohannbeforerepairing
to theBohemianbathsforthesummer,wherehe
would workon theEighthSymphony.Thus the
canon, inspiredby Maelzel's recentlyinvented
chronometer(forerunnerof the metronome),
precededthe symphonyand providedthe the-
matic germ for the Allegrettoscherzando. As
forSchindler'sacquisitionof the music,he left
two conflicting accounts. In the articleaccom-
panying the canon's second printingin 1854,
Schindlerstatedthat he was permittedto copy
the work 'fromparts in Beethoven'shand' in
1815; by thetimehe publishedthethirdedition
of his biographysix years later, however,the
date of hiscopyhad become 1818.
This is not the only chronologicaldifficulty
attendingSchindler'sversion of these events.
Thayer showed that Beethoven remained in
Vienna until the end of June 1812, when he
travelledto Bohemia by way of Prague; he did
not visitLinz untilOctober.In additionCount
Brunsvik,whom Schindler acknowledged to
have been his main sourceof information about
this period, was absent fromVienna between
March 1810 and February1813,and thuscould
not have attendeda farewelldinnerat any time
in 1812.6
Thayer was not contentmerelyto point out
Schindler's errors, however. The inherent
plausibilityof thecanon's relationshipto Mael-
zel and to the symphonyprompted him to
attempta reconstruction of thechronology.He
speculated that while there was no possible
occasion for a farewellpartyin 1812, such an
eventwould have been eminently appropriatein
February 1813, when Beethovenand Maelzel
wereplanninga joint tripto London. This date,
of course,places the canon's compositionafter
completionof the symphony.Thayer was also
able to ignoreboth of Schindler'sdates forhis
5firstrelated in Schindler, 'Traditionelles', 386; retold in his
i,
Biographie, 195-7, Eng. trans., 170-71
6A. W. Thayer, Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, completed by
H. Deiters and H. Riemann (Leipzig, 3/1917-23), iii, 305, 316,
348-9
988
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:52:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
copy of thepiece by locatingtwo conversation-
book entrieswhichassociate Schindlerwiththe
canon.7The firstofthese,in a book used during
Februaryand Marchof 1820,runsas follows:
SCHINDLER:The canon-motif fromthe second
movement oftheEighthSymphony. I cannotfind
theoriginal.
Wouldyoube good enoughto writeitoutagain?
HerrPintericssangthebassthattime,theCaptain
secondtenor,Olivasecondbass.8
Furtherdetail is providedin a book fromthe
end ofApril 1824:
SCHINDLER: I am now in the secondmovement
oftheEighthSymphony.
Ta ta ta ta,thecanonaboutMaelzel.
It was a verymerryeveningwhenwe sang this
canonintheKamehl.Maelzelthebass.
AtthattimeI stillsangsoprano.
I believeitwastheendofDecember1817.
The timewhenI was alreadyallowedto appear
oftenbeforeYourMajesty.9
Thayerpresumedthatthe performance referred
to here took place at a second party on the
occasion of Maelzel's return to Vienna in
Novemberor December 1817, in an attemptto
establish an Austrian market for the metro-
nome. He also used this revivalto explain the
fact that the canon textcalls Maelzel's device
a metronome,a term not coined until 1815.
Thus he was able to save Schindlerfromhim-
self, and establisha clear connectionbetween
the publishedcanon and Beethoven.Although
some scholarshave been reluctantto accept the
idea thatthecanon was not writtenfirst,and so
does not necessarilyembody the fundamental
characterof the music, Thayer's has remained
the only coherentpresentationof the available
evidence.
Unfortunately we can no longer be content
with Thayer's version,either,for both of the
relevantconversation-bookentriesare among
the recentlydiscovered Schindler forgeries.10
Hence, rather than clarifyingthe canon's
history,these documentsserve only to muddy
the watersstillfurther.Now we must consider
whatmaybe thecontentof theselinesthatmade
7Beethoven's initial sketch for the Allegretto scherzando in the
'Petter' sketchbook (Bonn, Beethovenhaus, SBH 639, p.104;
transcr. in Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana: nachgelassene
Aulfdtze (Leipzig, 1887), 113) exhibits a simpler form of the
melody than was ultimately adopted. This evidence is consistent
with an assumption that the canon did not precede work on the
symphony but does not constitute proof one way or the other.
If the canon had been writtenearlier, Beethoven might simply
have been experimenting with variants of a theme already fixed
in his mind.
8K.-H. K6hler and G. Herre, eds., Ludwig van Beethovens
Konversationshefte(Leipzig, 1968-), i, 312 (my translation)
9ibid, v, 232-3 (my translation)
10see the partial list of Schindler's forgeries,ibid, vii, 3 and 5
themworthforging.The second passage carries
the implicationthatSchindlerwas on close per-
sonal termswithBeethovenby theend of 1817.
But as a recentreassessmentof thisrelationship
concludes,'one can be quitecertainthatSchind-
ler had no access to Beethoven at least until
September1820 and probablyuntilmuch later'
-perhaps not until1822.11If therewas a party
for Maelzel in 1817, for which there is no
authenticevidence,Schindlerwas certainlynot
present, despite the precision of his 'recol-
lection'. Indeed, the verydetail of his account
betrayshim: Franz Oliva, whom Schindlerin-
cludes among the revellers,had leftVienna in
1813,and seemsto have returnedonly in 1819.12
And ifeitherof Thayer'spartiesevertook place,
itis astonishingthatMaelzel failedto seize upon
thecanon as ideal promotionalmaterialforthe
metronome. Maelzel was always eager for
testimonialsfrom composers, and one major
reason behindhis tripto Vienna in 1817 was to
secureBeethoven'ssupport.
Both of the forgeriesalso had anotherfunc-
tion, which they have served well up to the
presentday: to demonstratethecanon's authen-
ticity.Schindlerneed not have bothered;thanks
to the indisputable source of its thematic
material,the authorshipof the work was never
doubted. But if Schindlerthoughtit necessary
to falsifyevidence to prove this point, we are
compelled to entertainthe possibilitythat he
mighthave forgedthe canon as well. We have
already seen that he was unable to presenta
consistentor historicallyplausiblestoryforthe
work's origin or the provenanceof his copy,
even withThayer'shelp. As forthe piece itself,
itcan scarcelybe arguedthatwritinga canon on
a theme which is essentiallya repeated note,
withsome ornamentationand a briefcadence,
would have been beyond Schindler's intel-
lectualpowers.Schindler,afterall, fanciedhim-
self somethingof a composer. But what could
his motivehave beenforinventing such a work?
In his 1854 articleSchindlerwritesat some
length to explain his reasons for wanting to
bring the canon beforethe public. The inter-
pretativetraditionforBeethoven'ssymphonies,
he laments,is in a sorrystate.The fundamental
character of the music is distortedby con-
ductors who take many movementsat an ex-
cessivelyrapid pace, followingin the footsteps
of Felix Mendelssohn,who was famousforhis
fast tempos. All of Schindler'sattemptsto ex-
plain thetruecharacterand appropriatetempos
forthismusicweremetwithnothingbut scorn.
He relatesthat duringan argumentover tem-
pos for the Seventh Symphonyin December
liStadlen, 'Schindler's Beethoven Forgeries', 551
12see D. W. MacArdle, editorial note in Schindler, Beethoven
as I Knew Him, 338 (n.135)
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:52:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1843,Hirschbachwentso faras to insistthatif
Beethovenhimselfwere to rise fromthe grave
and tell him thatSchindlerwas correct,he still
would not change his mind.13A few weeks
later Schindlersent the canon to Hirschbach
for publicationas an illustrationof thejocular
characterof the Allegrettoscherzando,which
can be fullyunderstoodonly in relationto the
canon,14and which demands a relativelyslow
tempo for its expression.The whole thrustof
Schindler's article makes it obvious that the
canon was also beingpresentedas a vindication
of his warningagainst fast tempos in general,
and as an underliningof his insistencethatthe
key to comprehendingBeethoven's music lay
in knowingthe basis for its inspiration,know-
ledge to which he, Schindler,alone was privy.
The firstappearance of the canon had little
effect,Schindlersays,partlybecause insufficient
explanationof the occasion for its originwas
given,15and partlybecause eitherSchindleror
Hirschbach forgotto include the metronome
marking,which makes the slower tempo ex-
plicit. This indicationwas supplied as a cor-
rectionin thenextissueof Hirschbach'sjournal,
whereit wentunnoticed.16 It was because these
omissionsobscured the broadersignificanceof
the canon that Schindlerdecided to reissue it
in 1854.
And how did Schindleraccount for the dis-
crepancybetweenquaver = 88 and quaver
72? His 1854 articleraised the issue but failed
to confrontit directly,
deemingany explanation
superfluousin lightof theevidenceprovidedby
the canon. Instead he contentedhimselfwitha
generalattackon Beethoven's1817 metronome
markings.He claimed that Beethovenchanged
many of these indications in the following
decade, citingas an example the different tem-
pos in Tobias Haslinger'seditionof theSeventh
Symphony.AlthoughSchindlerknew that this
score was published 'several years afterBeet-
hoven's death'i7(in fact,it appeared in 1831),
he chose to assumethatitsmetronomemarkings
wereauthentic,whichis extremely unlikely.He
also neglectedto mentionthat the 1815 date
given for his acquisition of WoO 162 in this
13This incident is recounted more fully in Schindler's travel
diary for December 1843; see M. Becker, ed., Anton Schindler,
der Freund Beethovens: sein Tagebuch aus den Jahren 1841-43
(Frankfurt am Main, 1939), 119-20.
14But in a programme note Schindler wrote for a performance of
the Eighth Symphony under his direction at Aachen in 1835
(reprinted in R. Zimmermann, 'Schindler fiber Beethovens 8.
Symphonie', Neue Musik-Zeitung, xlii (1921), 124-5), he
described the underlying meaning of each movement without
any mention of the canon, Maelzel or the metronome.
15The introductorylegend stated only that it had been writtenat
a time when Maelzel intended to go to London. There was no
reference to the 1812 party, perhaps because one of the reputed
guests, Count Brunsvik, was still alive. Brunsvik died in 1849,
so in 1854 Schindler was able to proceed without fear of
contradiction.
16Musikalisch-kritischesRepertorium,i (1844), 142
17A. Schindler, Beethoven in Paris (Muinster, 1842), 138
989
articleprecedes the date of Beethoven's pub-
lished markings.This is probably the reason
why he redated his copy to 1818 in the third
editionofhisBeethovenbiography.
In a laterarticleSchindlertook anothertack
to accountforconflicting metronomemarkings,
thoughwithoutspecificreferenceto the Eighth
Symphony.s8He pointed out that there were
two models of the metronome,the original12-
inch size firstdistributedin 1815,and an eight-
inch versionmarketedat Vienna in the 1820s.
The difference in size, he claimed, produced a
different tempo on each for the same numeral
on themetronomescale. This is patentlyabsurd,
since all metronomesare calibrated to the
numberof beats per minute.But thisapproach
would not have helped Schindler with the
Allegrettoscherzandoeven if it were true,for
both of the supposed parties for Maelzel, all
threeof Schindler'sdates forobtaininga copy
of the canon, and Beethoven's metronomi-
zation of the symphoniesall took place before
thesmallermetronomeappeared.19
We have seenthatforSchindlerthecanon was
18A. Schindler, 'Milzel's Metronom erster und zweiter Con-
struction', NiederrheinischeMusik-Zeitung, iv (1856), 57-9; see
also his Biographie, ii, 249, Eng. trans., 425
19Furthermore,the metronome Beethoven owned at the end of
his life was still the 12-inch model; see Theodor von Frimmel,
Beethoven-Handbuch (Leipzig, 1926), i, 407.
The DeliusBirthplace
The factsabout the exact location of Delius's
birthplacein Bradfordare far fromclear. This
uncertaintyhas an historical base in Delius
scholarship; the confusion can be traced
throughall the published biographies of the
composer.' Many of these biographies are
factuallycorrect,for the most part, in their
dating and placing of the composer's birth:
the Delius familydid live at 1-3 Claremont,
Bradford; Frederick Delius was born at 6
Claremont; and 1 Claremontwas annexed to
form the larger familyhome. But the dates
of theseeventsand the factssurroundingthem
have notbeenaccuratelyassessed.
Delius's birthcertificate,
obtainablefromthe
registrarof births,marriages and deaths in
Bradford,shows that on 7 March 1862 a boy,
Fritz Theodore Albert,was registeredborn on
29 January1862 to JuliusDelius, a stuffand
yarn merchant, and Eliza Paulina Delius
(formerlyKr6nig) at 6 Claremont, in the
districtof Horton, Bradford,in the County of
York. This documentdoes not clarifythe cir-
1biographies by Peter Warlock, Clare Delius, Arthur Hutchings,
Sir Thomas Beecham, Eric Fenby and Alan Jefferson
990
This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:52:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
merelya means of lendingdocumentaryauth-
orityto his side of an argumentover theproper
tempo and characterof Beethoven'smusic. It
was but one of many such argumentsover the
years, in which Schindler'sself-serving distor-
tion of factsand his conspicuous lack of taste
earned him the almost universal disdain of
contemporarymusicians. His convenientpro-
ductionof the canon specificallyto supporthis
view, on top of the shambles he created in
attempting to account forits originand preser-
vation, leaves no basis for faithin its authen-
ticity.It is too much to expect that Schindler
would have provided us with definitiveproof
that the work is a forgery;nonetheless,the
suspicions raised here should be sufficient
cause for reclassifyingit among Beethoven's
spuriousor doubtfulworks.At the same time,
we may eliminateone more instanceof Beet-
hoven's purported inconsistencyin assigning
metronomemarkingsto his works. But most
importantly,this case representsa new order
of magnitudein our awareness of the lengths
to whichSchindlerwas willingto go in serving
his own ends,evenwhentheseinvolveda know-
ing distortionof Beethoven'sbiographyand his
music.
I wish to thank Professor Hans Lenneberg for his generous
advice at all stages in the preparation of this article.
PhilipJones
cumstancessurroundingthe birthat 6 Clare-
mont; afterall, 1-3 Claremonthas alwaysbeen
regarded as the familyhome. It is therefore
necessaryto go back severalyearsand examine
the fortunesof JuliusDelius so thatthe site of
thebirthplacemaybe properlyestablished.
Juliuswas born on 6 January18222in Biele-
feld, Westphalia. Like many young German
merchantsin the mid-19thcentury,he emi-
grated to the north of England. His naturali-
zation papers3were writtenin Bradfordon 17
March 1851 and state that he had been in the
countryfor five years. Thus he firstcame to
England in 1846 and was in Bradfordby 1851.
Sir Thomas Beecham's biographyof Freder-
ick states that Julius's brotherErnst was the
firstof the familyto arrive, in Manchester;
the earliestevidence of his whereaboutsis in
1847 whenhe was livingin IrwellPlace, Lower
2records of the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche, Bradford
3Deeds of 1-3 Claremont and other relevant documents held by
Legal Department, Texaco Ltd (now on loan to the University
of Bradford); these include Julius Delius's naturalization
papers, an appendage to which indicates that since his naturaliza-
tion Julius had adopted the middle name of Augustus instead of
the correct names Friedrich Wilhelm (his reason was that he had
forgotten them and had been wrongly told the middle name by
one of his brothers).