97

Only a few months after Ludwigvan Beethoven’s death in Vienna

on March 26, 1827, this little book—which reads more like a pamphlet thana full volume—was published in Pragueand began circulating throughoutEurope and America. Little is knownabout its author, except that he was anenthusiastic admirer of the great com-poser, and that he was probably notacquainted with him personally. Thematerial he hastily gathered, was takenfrom a mixture of published musicallexicons, and conversations with some ofBeethoven’s closest friends. InSchlosser’s preface, he is also quite openabout an ulterior motive for bringingout the book; namely, to raise funds forthe erection of a monument to JosefHaydn, with whom Beethoven hadstudied during the early 1790’s.

But although the author’s hasteintroduced some minor factual errorsabout Beethoven’s career, these are faroutweighed by the freshness and lack ofdeliberate falsification and distortionwhich characterized many other biogra-phies to follow, such as the one by thevain Anton Schindler, who had func-

tioned as Beethoven’s amanuensis in hisfinal years. Not surprisingly, Schindler,in a letter to Ignaz Moscheles, describedSchlosser’s book as “a highly wretchedbiography.”

The bulk of Schlosser’s account ofBeethoven’s early education, for exam-ple, properly places emphasis on theinfluence of Johann Sebastian Bach(whose biography he also sketches in anextended footnote). Later, Schlosserremarks that, “Those who admire Bachcomprehend Beethoven most readily,for the two are kindred spirits.”

Schlosser’s biography is also unen-cumbered by the Romantic, “ClockworkOrange”-like image of the morallydepraved but brilliant artist—the imagethat movie-goers have been subjected toin such perversions as “Amadeus” andthe recent “Immortal Beloved.” Instead,Schlosser argues that, “Great asBeethoven’s art was, his heart was yetgreater. It was filled with an ineradicableloathing of hypocrisy, obsequiousness,vanity, and avarice. . . . Those whoshared these feelings readily recognizedhim as a man in the fullest sense. Hisattachment to his family was one of his

most attractive qualities.” [Emphasisadded] This evaluation flies in the faceof every other published account ofBeethoven’s life—including, incidental-ly, the “authoritative” biography pub-lished later in the Nineteenth century byAlexander Wheelock Taylor.

Perhaps the most endearing part ofthe book, is where Schlosser discusses

Beethoven: The First Biography

by Johann Aloys Schlosser,edited with an Introduction and

Notes by Barry Cooper,translated from the German

by Reinhard G. PaulyAmadeus Press, Portland, 1996196 pages, hardbound, $22.95

Beethoven, ‘Da Capo’

Lyndon LaRouche, who embodiesand transcends the best of the AmericanSystem school of thought, takes directaim in the Epilogue at the core ofSmith’s bestial notion of man: “[N]ovariety of higher ape known or conceiv-ably comparable to mankind could haveattained the population of more thanseveral millions individuals. . . .”

Where in any of the axioms of freetrade, or in Smith’s view of the animal-like behavior of human nature, is thereany location of that, which is responsiblefor the phenomenal growth of humanpopulation over the last five hundredyears? Nowhere in Smith’s matrix offree trade ideas, is the quality of creativementation, which is the unique govern-ing quality of human behavior, to befound. All of Smith’s gobbledygook canbe boiled down to the practice of makingmoney, i.e., making a “profit” by robbing

your neighbor; “buy low to sell dear.”In LaRouche’s conclusion, he

addresses the actual source of newwealth—real profit for society: “Thecentral principle of both economic sci-ence and a science of history is the cre-ative principle of cognition, by means ofwhich the individual person may bedeveloped to generate, to impart, and toreceive those mental acts by means ofwhich valid axiomatic-revolutionarydiscoveries in principles of art and sci-ence are made available for humanknowledge and practice.” Only a humanbeing endowed with potential for cre-ative reason can “add” new wealth tothe economic process. Only through theinput of human beings can “more” comeout of the system of production than isput into it.

Thus, one of the biggest frauds inmodern history has been the acceptance of

the free trade dogma, a theory which can-not account for the actual progress of thehuman race, because it fails even to recog-nize the role of the creative powers of thehuman mind; what List refers to as “intel-lectual capital” or “capital of the mind.”

It is no exaggeration to state, that it isprecisely because so many silly peoplestill worship at the altar of free trade,that our planet is in the mess it is intoday. It may only be under the force ofthe onrushing implosion of the bankingand monetary system, that the fraudu-lent doctrine of free trade is relegated tothe “dustbin of history.” Under condi-tions of such a conjunctural crisis,responsible leaders who wish to havetheir nations survive, will be compelledto turn to List’s American System,which is uniquely represented today byLyndon LaRouche.

—Lawrence K. Freeman

Click here for Full Issue of Fidelio Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 1997

© 1997 Schiller Institute, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

98

Lea Salomon Mendelssohn startedher daughter Fanny on piano, five

minutes at a sitting, extending it asinterest grew. At thirteen, Fanny mem-orized the whole of Bach’s Well-Tem-pered Clavier, while studying science,languages, geography, history, poetry,and reading Schiller and Lessing. Atfourteen, she sang alto in the famous(adult) Singakademie. At fifteen,Goethe responded to lieder she had com-posed, with “To the Distant Girl.”Fanny and her three siblings playedgames by composing poems, riddles,lieder, and plays.

Her mother Lea read Homer in theoriginal Greek. She raised her childrenon Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, andBeethoven. Lea’s aunt, Sara Levy, a

student of W.F. Bach, played J.S. Bachconcerti for the Berlin Singakademieconcerts. One Christmas Eve, Sara lefta present for Fanny’s fourteen-year-oldbrother Felix—a copy of Bach’s long-forgotten St. Matthew Passion. Anotherof Lea’s aunts, Fanny Arnstein, provid-ed Mozart with his copy of MosesMendelssohn’s work, Phaedon, whichcontained a reprise of Plato’s argu-ments in his Phaedo dialogue. Ofcourse, Lea had married into the illus-trious Mendelssohn family. Her poofhusband Abraham, son of Moses andfather of Felix, would later lament:“Until now I was known as father’sson; henceforth, I shall be known as myson’s father.”

Françoise Tillard, a pianist who has

recorded Fanny Mendelssohn’s works,published this biography in French in1992. There is no lack of rich materialfor the author to develop, to make this

Fanny Mendelssohnby Françoise Tillard

translated by Camille NaishAmadeus Press, Portland, 1996339 pages, hardbound, $39.95

Product of a World of Genius

Beethoven’s marvelous sense of humor.“Often he would mention only a singlekey word pertaining to an anecdote,believing that it was sufficient to conveyhis meaning. Those who were unfamil-iar with the anecdote, or who did notimmediately catch the allusion, wouldbe puzzled, but those who caught onwould quickly burst into laughter.”

For example: Beethoven might besitting in the audience at a concert, lis-tening to a singer who is performingpoorly on stage, and would nudge theperson seated beside him, saying the sin-gle phrase, “Da capo!” [Encore!] Thistraced back to the following story: “InParis, a mediocre singer, with a weakvoice, slight chest, and so forth, per-formed an interminable bravura aria.Everyone longed for it to end. It finallydid, and the singer was roundly booed.Only one person in the audience calledout ‘Da capo.’ The singer, listening onlyto that one voice, bowed humbly, andgratefully repeated the entire aria,though he could hardly hear himselfbecause of the ensuing uproar in thehouse. When he ended, the hissing andbooing was worse than before, but as itdied down, the same low male voiceshouted very loudly again, ‘Da capo!’

Indeed, the singer bowed once more andlaunched into the aria for the third time.The other listeners were about to turnagainst the man who had caused all thetrouble, when he exclaimed, ‘Je voulaisfaire créver cette can[aille]!’ [I was hop-ing the wretch would sing himself todeath!].”

Schlosser’s biography also publishes aprivate letter by Beethoven, whose con-tent is useful for clearing up yet anotherpopular myth, that Beethoven was insen-sitive to “proper” bel canto singing, and to“proper” setting of musical texts. It is aletter dated Feb. 6, 1826, addressed to hisfriend Abbé Stadler, who had just pub-lished an in-depth defense of the authen-ticity of Mozart’s Requiem, which hadbeen called into question by the composerGottfried Weber (not the famous operacomposer). After thanking the Abbé pro-fusely for his paper, Beethoven adds,with irony, that it is hardly surprisingthat Weber’s “extraordinary knowledgeof harmony and melody” also resulted inthe following clumsy passage in one ofWeber’s own works:

Just what Beethoven is objecting to inthose places he has marked with an “x,”only becomes clear when we compareBeethoven’s own setting of this samepassage in his two Masses: first, in the“Gloria” of his Mass in C Major, Op. 86:

and in the “Agnus Dei” of his MissaSolemnis, Op. 123:

If you sing these three musical exam-ples in succession, it becomes clear that inthe Weber settings, Beethoven has placedan “x” near the two eighth-notes on thesyllables “tol-” and “ca-,” in order to indi-cate that these syllables must be sung overa single note, and not tied over two ormore notes. Weber’s phrasing destroysthe unity of the phrase as a whole: “Quitollis peccata mundi” [Thou who takestaway the sins of the world], not to men-tion the rising notes on the syllable “-lis”of “tollis,” which completely throw offthe poetic stresses in the phrase.

—John Sigerson&

b

b

4

3

J

œ

qui

œœ

.œb

J

œn

tol - lis pec -

œœn

œ

ca - ta

&b

b

b

b

4

3

œ

qui

˙

j

œ

j

œ

tol - lis pec -

˙œ

œ

ca - ta

œ

œ

mun- di

&

#

#

4

2œ

J

œ

R

œ

R

œ

qui tol- lis pec -

J

œ

R

œ

R

œ.

J

œn

R

œ

ca- ta, pec- ca - ta

J

œ

j

œ

mun- di