Harmony of Hearts: Marital Love in Beethoven's Leonore of 180

145

ROBERT D.PEARSONHarmony ofHearts

19th-Century Music, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 145–168 ISSN: 0148-2076, electronic ISSN 1533-8606. © 2014 by the Regents ofthe University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce articlecontent through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/ncm.2014.38.2.145.

ROBERT D. PEARSON

The reception of Beethoven’s Fidelio was in-separable from its complicated revision historyfrom the beginning. Widespread knowledge ofthis history inevitably meant that later ver-sions would be measured against standards setby earlier ones. Like Beethoven’s contemporar-ies, modern writers have generally understoodeach successive version as an improvement overthe previous one, an evolutionary model of therevision history of Fidelio that makes a lot ofsense for anyone primarily interested in thefinal version.1 That said, this attitude toward

the two early versions of 1805 and 1806 (collec-tively known as Leonore to distinguish themfrom the gold standard Fidelio of 1814) limitsthe kinds of questions we can ask of them (e.g.,Why did Beethoven change you?) and conse-quently the kinds of answers we receive (e.g.,Because I wasn’t good enough). Existing criticalstudies of the early versions thus avoid inter-preting those versions unless such readings shedlight on the final version. The early versions

I wish to express my gratitude to Lawrence Kramer, Mar-garet Notley, Paul Robinson, and Michael Tusa for offer-ing helpful comments on various drafts of this article.

1One exception is Amadeus Wendt, “Gedanken über dieneuere Tonkunst, und van Beethovens Musik, namentlichdessen Fidelio,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 17, nos.21–26 (24 May, 31 May, 7 June, 14 June, 21 June, and 28June 1815); rpt. and trans. in The Critical Reception ofBeethoven’s Compositions by His German Contemporar-

Harmony of Hearts: Marital Lovein Beethoven’s Leonore of 1806

ies, ed. Wayne M. Senner, trans. Robin Wallace, vol. 2(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), 185–222.Wendt lamented that Beethoven’s music was subordinatedto the needs of an inferior text during the revision process.He even claimed that “since the dramatic content of theopera gains little from this transposition of the scenes, andindeed the disparity between the acts is only increased, wewould advise every director rather to allow this opera tobe performed essentially in the original arrangement”(Senner, 202–03). Most of the critical reviews cited in thisarticle are at least partly translated in The Critical Recep-tion of Beethoven’s Compositions. When not otherwiseindicated, the translations in this article are mine.

146

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

are treated with the kind of analytical hesita-tion with which one treats Beethoven’ssketches: sketches often include material thattheir composer subsequently rejected as inad-equate.

But early versions are not sketches; theytransmit a higher degree of internal coherencethan most sketches made during the composi-tional process. In other words, early versionspresent the composer’s vision for a work that iscomplete when it comes into existence, as dif-ferent as it may be from the final one. Al-though the 1806 version of Leonore has beenthe object of much scholarly work along theselines, English-language scholarship has largelyneglected the 1806 version. In this article, Ipropose a new reading of the 1806 Leonorebased on Beethoven’s reactions to the failedfirst performances of the 1805 version. Thisreading emerges from a consideration of thecritical reception of those first performances,much of which centered on dramatic problemsrelating to the depiction of marriage in theopera. Beethoven’s revised vision of marriage isbest understood in the context of larger ideasabout marital love that were circulating at theturn of the nineteenth century. The revisionsalso afford an opportunity to examine the kindsof struggle that an independent, individualisticcomposer like Beethoven faced while collabo-rating with others who were genuinely inter-ested in helping him improve his work.

First, a basic timeline of events. The initialversion, with a libretto based on JosephSonnleithner’s translation of Jean-NicolasBouilly’s Léonore, ou l’amour conjugale, pre-miered on 20 November 1805 but was canceledafter only three performances. Over the nextfew months Beethoven revised the opera foranother production that premiered on 29 March1806. He compressed three acts into two, rear-ranged several numbers, and made manysmaller-scale changes. Following a dispute withthe theater director, Beethoven pulled his op-era after the second performance on 10 Apriland tabled the project for seven years. In 1814he collaborated with the librettist GeorgTreitschke on yet another version, which firstappeared on May 23. This version is the Fidelioknown to audiences today.

Ample mythology accompanies the early re-

vision history of Fidelio.2 Most notable is theintervention that the tenor Joseph Röckelclaimed initiated the first revisions. Accordingto Röckel, who wrote vividly about this meet-ing on two occasions, after the opera’s failureat the end of 1805, a number of Beethoven’sfriends and colleagues invited him to PrinceLichnowsky’s palace to try to convince him torevise. The participants cautiously suggestedthat he make some cuts to the first act toimprove it for a performance four and a halfmonths later. With characteristic stubbornness,Beethoven at first refused. Röckel explains howthe guests began to get impatient:

Eyes sought the clock, and Beethoven was impor-tuned to drop some of the long-drawn sections ofsecondary importance. Yet he defended every mea-sure, and did so with such nobility and artistic dig-nity that I was ready to kneel at his feet. But whenhe came to the chief point at issue itself, the notablecuts in the exposition which would make it possibleto fuse the two acts into one, he was beside himself,shouted uninterruptedly ‘not a note!’ and tried torun off with his score.3

Beethoven finally relented after CountessLichnowsky begged him: “Beethoven! No—yourgreatest work, you yourself shall not cease toexist in this way! God who has implanted thosetones of purest beauty in your soul forbids it,your mother’s spirit, which at this momentpleads and warns you with my voice, forbids it!Beethoven, it must be! Give in! Do so inmemory of your mother! Do so for me, who amonly your best friend!”4 The guests’ anticipa-

2The literature on mythologies surrounding Beethoven isextensive. A good starting place is Scott Burnham, “TheFour Ages of Beethoven: Critical Reception and the CanonicComposer,” in The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven,ed. Glenn Stanley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000), 272–91. Other useful discussions of the Beethovenmyth include K. M. Knittel, “Pilgrimages to Beethoven:Reminiscences by His Contemporaries,” Music & Letters84 (2003): 19–54; and Allan Keiler, “Liszt and Beethoven:The Creation of a Personal Myth,” this journal 12 (1988):116–31.3Beethoven: Impressions by His Contemporaries, ed. Os-car G. Sonneck (New York: G. Schirmer, 1926; rpt. NewYork: Dover, 1967), 61–62. Röckel later told his story toAlexander Wheelock Thayer in 1861, who transmits it inThayer’s Life of Beethoven, rev. and ed. Elliot Forbes(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 388–89.4Sonneck, Beethoven: Impressions by His Contemporar-ies, 63.

147


tion of what Röckel, in his 1861 letter to Thayercalled an “impending battle,” suggests theysensed Beethoven was not accustomed to ced-ing control over his compositions to outsideinfluences.5 Yet he finally relented because hebelieved that the suggestions were right, andhe even ended up celebrating the collaborationover a meal.6

Four and a half months are not much time,and so it may not be surprising that Beethoveneventually welcomed assistance to completethe task on schedule. The variety of roles repre-sented among the meeting’s participants in De-cember 1805 demonstrates the collaborativenature of opera production at the turn of thenineteenth century: Prince Lichnowsky and hiswife were among Beethoven’s biggest financialsupporters, Röckel would sing the role ofFlorestan in the revised version of 1806,Treitschke would extensively revise the opera’slibretto in 1814, Stephen von Breuning wasBeethoven’s lifelong friend and colleague andcontributed numerous changes to the libretto,Franz Clement was the orchestral director atthe Theater an der Wien, and Sebastian Mayerwas an assistant to the theater director andsang the role of Pizarro. Also present were Jo-seph Lange, a court actor and Mozart’s brother-in-law, Heinrich von Collin, for whose playCoriolan Beethoven would compose theCoriolan Overture, and Beethoven’s ownbrother Kaspar.7

Even though the collaborators’ recommen-dations were well intentioned and Beethovenevidently accepted many of them, modern crit-ics tend to view these revisions as a rushedsolution to the most serious problems posed bythe original version of the opera. That Beethovenreturned several times to the work only fuelsthe unusually hot critical flames. Winton Dean,for example, commented that “while the effectof these alterations must have been beneficialin speeding up the action, they did not go tothe root of the problem, the undue prominenceof Marzelline, and some of them were ill judged.It is not surprising that Beethoven returned to

the attack eight years later.”8 Even the biggestchampion of the 1805 version, John EliotGardiner (who recorded it in 1996) writes thatFidelio was “savagely cut and revised in 1806.”9

The negative responses to these revisions notonly privilege the final version but also tacitlyassume that Beethoven could not possibly havetaken the revisions seriously if he was forced tocollaborate.10 Yet many of the more elaboraterevisions, including those for “O namenloseFreude!,” survived until the final version, andthis in itself suggests that Beethoven did notsimply act in haste.

Whether Röckel’s story is embellished, mis-dated, or even untrue (his account misidentifiesthe specific numbers cut from the opera in1806),11 it nonetheless resonates with the net-work of mythologies surrounding Beethoventhat were already coming into existence whenhe left Bonn for Vienna in 1792 and that con-tinued to dominate discourses surrounding himin the mid-nineteenth century (when Röckelfirst wrote about the event).12 One aspect of the

5Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 389.6Sonneck, Beethoven: Impressions by His Contemporar-ies, 63–64.7Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 388.

8Winton Dean, “Beethoven and Opera,” in Ludwig vanBeethoven: Fidelio, ed. Paul Robinson (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1996), 42.9John Eliot Gardiner, “The Case for Beethoven’s ‘Leonore’:A Work in Progress,” in Complete Beethoven Edition (Ham-burg: Deutsche Grammophon, 1997), vol. 4 (Leonore–Fidelio), 15. Later in the program booklet, David Cairnssimilarly writes that in 1806 Beethoven revised the opera“hesitantly and crudely.” See David Cairns, “The Case forBeethoven’s ‘Fidelio’—Struggle and Achievement,” 207.10Nicholas Mathew suggests that the critical understand-ing of Beethoven as anticollaborative echoes the “dynamicof perpetual resistance” that characterizes both the com-positional struggles that play out in his sketches, and thenarratives of struggle that have characterized analyticalapproaches to his music. See Nicholas Mathew, PoliticalBeethoven, New Perspectives in Music History and Criti-cism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 5.11Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 389–90.12Helga Lühning calls the story’s authenticity into ques-tion on the basis that the first source for the story (Röckel’sinterviews with Ferdinand Ries in 1837 for his biographi-cal study on Beethoven) dates from thirty years after thefact. In 1861 Röckel told the story again in a letter toThayer, who printed it in his biography. The letter is tran-scribed and discussed in Lühning, “Vom Mythos der Ur-Leonore,” Von der Leonore zum Fidelio: Vorträge undReferate des Bonner Symposions 1997, ed. Helga Lühningand Wolfram Steinbeck, Bonner Schriften zurMusikwissenschaft 4 (Frankfurt: Lang, 2000), 47–53. Seealso Franz Wegeler and Ferdinand Ries, BiographischeNotizen über Ludwig van Beethoven (Koblenz, 1838; rpt.Berlin: Schuster & Loeffler, 1906). Tia DeNora points outthat, already in 1792, Count Waldstein’s famous commentabout Beethoven going to Vienna to “receive the spirit of

148

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

Beethoven myth that emerges from the story isthe image of a composer who worked in com-plete isolation from outside influences. Thisview is especially irreconcilable with the reali-ties of opera, which required that many peopleshare the same aesthetic vision. Given theserealities, the intervention at Prince Lichnow-sky’s could hardly have come as a completesurprise to Beethoven.13

Tia DeNora has demonstrated Beethoven’sawareness of published music criticism and hisrecognition of the potential stakes for his pub-lic reputation and career in the emerging areaof music journalism, which were particularlyhigh in the realm of opera.14 Along these lines,we might say that Beethoven’s friends and col-leagues were not the only collaborators in theroom during the meeting described by Röckel.Music critics were there in spirit, shapingBeethoven’s approach to the revision processthrough their published commentary on the1805 performances of Leonore.

The Core Problems of LEONORE

Any discussion of the opera’s early versionsmust take into account not only the elaborateseries of revisions that led from Leonore toFidelio but also the contexts in which the revi-sions were made. The dramatic problems asso-ciated with the opera’s earliest version wereimmediately conflated with its de facto failure,which was primarily a result of political cir-cumstances. After news reached Vienna of thedefeat of Austrian forces by Napoleon’s army

in Ulm in October 1805, the official court evacu-ated, effectively leaving the city open to occu-pation by the French army. On 3 November1805 Arthur Paget, a British diplomat appointedto Vienna at the time, wrote a letter to hismother evoking the sense of panic in Vienna ascitizens who were wealthy enough scrambledto flee: “You can have no idea of the consterna-tion which prevails here at this moment. I don’tknow which is the most feared, the arrival ofthe Russians or their retreat, or that of theFrench. Every body who possesses or can hire aHorse is moving off, and all the Horses are putin requisition by the Government, as well asthe Boats on the Danube. There never was suchwork.”15 Because of this sudden evacuation ofthe city, most of the Viennese nobility andwealthier citizens did not attend Beethoven’shighly anticipated first operatic production; intheir place was a large number of French offic-ers.16

Among those present at the first performancewas one reviewer who, returning to Viennaafter a long absence, observed abnormally largecrowds gathering in the streets:

Thus I came to the lines of Vienna, where, after Ishowed my passport, I was allowed to proceed un-hindered. To be sure, it was strange to see those bluecoats and tall rough hats instead of the Viennesepolice soldiers. In the suburbs, the throngs of peopleseemed stronger than usual. Chasseurs on foot andon horseback, guards, grenadiers, officers, all surgedaround in the colorful hubbub to look at the peopleand the streets. Among them appeared, more beauti-fully and richly uniformed Viennese citizens whohelped to supply the garrison with guards. A crowdof people had gathered around the soldiers, and ob-served them with attention that resulted in somevery different impressions. Most peoples’ hopes weredirected at the Archduke Karl, who was said to beapproaching with his army, and would surely beatthe enemy. In the city itself, I met almost only

Mozart from the hands of Haydn” set in motion a view ofBeethoven as channeling musical genius. See DeNora,Beethoven and the Construction of Genius: Musical Poli-tics in Vienna, 1792–1803 (Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press, 1995), 83–114.13As a violist in Bonn’s opera orchestra, Beethoven wouldinevitably have witnessed such collaborative conversations.Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 95–99. Much scholarly workon opera production has focused on Italian opera. See JohnRosselli, The Opera Industry in Italy from Cimarosa toVerdi: The Role of the Impresario (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984). For an interesting discussion ofhow opera companies employed collaborative approachesto adapt works to new locales and audiences, see MargaretR. Butler, “Gluck’s Alceste in Bologna: Production andPerformance at the Teatro Comunale, 1778,” Journal ofthe American Musicological Society 65 (2012): 727–76.14DeNora, Beethoven and the Construction of Genius.

15The Paget Papers: Diplomatic and Other Correspondenceof the Right Hon. Sir Paget, G. C. B., 1794–1807, ed.Augustus B. Paget, vol. 2 (London: William Heinemann,1896), 239.16Almost six months before the first performance, onewriter described the excitement thus: “Man ist sehrgespannt auf diese Arbeit, in welche Beethoven zuerst alsdramatischer Komponist auftreten wird.” “Nachrichten:Wien,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 7 (29 May 1805):572.

149


officers; they were quartered in the wealthiest housesand were satisfied with the service. In the evening Iattended the theater, and here I felt for the first timethat all was not as before.17

The reviewer goes on to criticize what he per-ceives to be problems in the music, such as thelength and repetitiveness of the third act. Hisreview paved the way for other critics to conflateLeonore’s failure at the opera house with thedramatic issues that motivated Beethoven’s re-visions. Although some early reviewers madeastute observations about the music’s dramaticproblems—problems that Beethoven aimed toaddress in his revisions—we cannot know howthe Viennese public would have responded tothe opera under normal circumstances; the pres-ence of the French army shaped every criticalreport in some way. Another writer, reviewingthe opera’s second version, made this pointvery succinctly in his recollection of the cir-cumstances surrounding the first performance:“At that time the circumstances were as unfa-vorable as possible, so that the audience lackedthe unbiased attitude, with which a work of artmust be judged.”18

Any production would have struggled to suc-ceed under such circumstances, which makesit imperative to disentangle those circumstancesfrom the musical and dramatic problems thatinform much of the critical reception. The cen-tral and most widely noted problem pertains tothe incongruity between the first two acts andthe third act of the 1805 version (in 1806Beethoven condensed acts I and II into a singleact). Characters that have for the most partbecome irrelevant by the end of the opera domi-nate the first act of the 1805 Leonore.19

Marzelline, the jailer’s daughter, begins the op-era with an aria in which she fantasizes aboutdomestic bliss (“O wär ich schon mit dirvereint”). Following this is a duet in whichRocco’s assistant Jaquino begs Marzelline tomarry him (“Jetzt, Schätzchen, jetzt sind wirallein”). Once Fidelio (Leonore in disguise) hasentered the picture, Marzelline falls in lovewith him. The idealistic themes of marital loy-alty and freedom from tyranny that dominatethe final act eventually overshadow this light-hearted subplot at the beginning of the opera.Though this shift in dramatic focus is not aproblem in itself, it does bring about a scenariowhere Marzelline joins in the celebratory cho-rus in the finale to congratulate Leonore andFidelio even though she now knows that Leo-nore has deceived her. Even in the final versionof 1814, Marzelline’s obsession with domestic-ity presented a tricky subject for some critics,including Donald Francis Tovey, who, com-menting cheekily on what he called the music’s“impossibly bourgeois subject,” writes that Fi-delio is “the opera to which every right-think-ing married couple goes on the anniversary oftheir wedding.”20

Although Tovey was ultimately willing toaccept what he called the “defects” in Fidelio,other writers have gone to elaborate lengths toexplain them away. Paul Robinson writes aboutthe opera’s sudden change in moral tone as

17“Wien von den Franzosen besetzt,” Zeitung für dieelegante Welt 6 (4 Jan. 1806): 12. “So kam ich an dieLinien von Wien, wo man mich, nachdem ich meinen Paßvorgezeigt hatte, ungehindert fortfahren ließ. Allerdingsaber ließ es ungewohnt, statt der Wiener Polizeisoldatenjene blauen Röcke, und hohen rauhen Mützen zu erblicken.In den Vorstädten schien das Volksgedränge noch stärkerals gewöhnlich. Chasseurs zu Fuß und zu Pferde, Garden,Grenadiers, Offiziers, alles wogte im bunten Gewimmelherum, die Menschen und die Straßen zu betrachten.Dazwischen kamen wieder mehrere schön und reichuniformirte Wiener Bürger, welche der Garnison dieWachen versehen helfen. Eine Menge Volks war um dieSoldaten her versammelt, und betrachtete sie mitAufmerksamkeit, deren Resultate sich in mancherlei sehrverschiedenen Reflexionen äußerten. Die Hoffnungen derMeisten waren auf den Erzherzog Karl gerichtet, welchermit seiner Armee nahe sei, und die Feinde sicher schlagenwürde. In der Stadt selbst traf ich beinahe nur Offiziers,sie waren in die reichsten Häuser verlegt, und mit derBewirtung zufrieden. Abends besuchte ich das Theater,und hier fühlte ich zum ersten Male, das nicht alles wievorher war.”18“Theater und Musik in Wien in den letztenWintermonaten 1806,” Journal des Luxus und der Moden21, no. 5 (May 1806): 287. “Damals waren die Conjunkturenso ungünstig, als nur immermöglich; die unbefangeneStimmung, in der ein Kunstwerk beurtheilt werden muß,fehlte jedem Zuschauer.”

19Fidelio’s various dramatic problems are discussed else-where. Here I briefly summarize only those relevant to mydiscussion of the opera’s 1806 revisions. See Dean,“Beethoven and Opera,” 22–50.20Donald Francis Tovey, “Dungeon Scene from ‘Fidelio’,”in Essays in Musical Analysis, vol. 5, Vocal Music (Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1937), 185.

150

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

reflecting certain intellectuals’ conception ofhistorical time after the French Revolution, ac-cording to which a sudden moment carries thepotential to change everything for the better.21

M. H. Abrams explained this conception of his-torical time on the part of Romantic poets who“envisioned a dark past, a violent present, andan immediately impending future which willjustify the history of suffering man by its cul-mination in an absolute good.”22 The Revolu-tionary idea that a single fateful moment couldrescue humanity from its oppression corre-sponds to Florestan’s own trajectory: thoughhis wife risks everything to rescue him fromunjust imprisonment, the benevolent minister’ssudden appearance rather than his wife’s ac-tion is what ultimately saves him.23 Robinsonwrites that this interpretation “turns what hasgenerally been regarded as a weakness of theopera into a strength” and that therefore theincongruity is “very much to the point.”24

Most critics, including Robinson, locate thisturning point at the trumpet’s announcementof the minister’s arrival, because in the 1814version this moment signals the imminence ofthe couple’s rescue. A series of celebratory“stretched moments” then serves to monumen-talize the characters’ various perspectives onthe resolution now that the drama per se hasceased to unfold. Nicholas Mathew views criti-cal disapproval of the finale’s lack of dramaticmovement as evidence of a confirmation biasinformed by Beethoven’s instrumental music:the finale is undramatic only for critics whoare conditioned by “canonical Beethoven-cen-tered music theory” to expect continuous te-leological unfolding.25 Much of Beethoven’smusic is so constantly engaged in what Janet

Schmalfeldt calls a “process of becoming” thatthe finale’s series of celebrations comes acrossas inherently un-Beethovenian.26 The opera’scelebrated “stretched moments” are difficultto understand as processual within the largercontext of the unfolding plot, though individualnumbers may still show a processual approachto form, as Joseph Kerman has shown withregard the first-act canon “Mir ist soWunderbar.”27

Although in the familiar 1814 version thelovers sing the duet “O namenlose Freude!”when they are finally safe from harm, in the1805 and 1806 versions several threats still per-sist at this point. The reason for Pizarro’s sud-den departure when the trumpet sounds is amystery to the couple; Rocco leaves with thepistol, rendering them defenseless; and ex-hausted, Leonore and Florestan teeter on thebrink of unconsciousness. In this context, theduet’s G-major tonality functions as a large-scale dominant of the opera’s primary key of C,the yet-unresolved dominant conveying the ten-sion perfectly. For Mathew, the revisions thatremoved these tensions enhance the sense ofdramatic incongruity because the celebratoryfinale in 1814 is significantly longer than it isin the previous versions, now that it includes“O namenlose Freude!” as an honorary mem-ber. Mathew interprets this long celebration asa concert of the sort Beethoven’s audienceswould have been familiar with during the Con-gress of Vienna.28

Both Robinson and Mathew view Fideliofrom angles that present the opera in its bestpossible light. One reason their readings arecompelling with regard to the 1814 version isbecause they offer a positive aesthetic perspec-tive on Fidelio’s dramatic incongruity. But thisweakness-as-strength approach cannot extendto the revisions that led to the 1806 version,whose express purpose was to smooth out thedramatic transition between the opera’s twodramatic worlds. To understand Beethoven’s

21Paul Robinson, “Fidelio and the French Revolution,” inLudwig van Beethoven: Fidelio, ed. Paul Robinson (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 80–83.22M. H. Abrams, Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition andRevolution in Romantic Literature (New York: Norton,1971), 332.23Joseph Kerman’s reading of Fidelio echoes Robinson’s.According to Kerman, Fidelio is characterized by momentsin which the drama changes suddenly: “The instant be-comes a turning-point, an epiphany, or an aporia.” Kerman,“Augenblicke in Fidelio,” in Ludwig van Beethoven:Fidelio, 132.24Robinson, “Fidelio and the French Revolution,” 82–83.25Mathew, Political Beethoven, 66.

26Janet Schmalfeldt, In the Process of Becoming: Analyticand Philosophical Perspectives on Form in Early Nine-teenth-Century Music (New York: Oxford University Press,2011).27Kerman, “Augenblicke in Fidelio,” 138–41.28Mathew, Political Beethoven, 59–68.

151


revisions in 1806 on their own terms meansaccepting the incongruity in 1805 as a problemdemanding a solution.

Another core problem regarding the earlyversions of Fidelio concerns their sources. Al-though numerous scholars have studied the sur-viving sketch material for the 1805 version, the1806 material still needs attention; many of itsfeatures are still unknown.29 This problemstems from the complexities that beset thesources for the opera’s three versions—sourcesthat are not only spread far and wide but alsooverlap considerably with each other. Beethovensometimes recorded revisions from differentphases of his work in the same manuscript;some sources thus contain multiple layered ver-sions of individual numbers representing dif-ferent steps in the revision process. Somesources even transmit intermediate stages be-tween the opera’s versions. Existing work onthe 1805 sketches has revealed Beethoven’s in-debtedness to preexisting operatic models,which helped to guide his novice hand at oper-atic writing.30 But because scholarship hastended to take a teleological view of the opera’sevolution, it has typically downplayed thesemiddle stages in favor of emphasis on the be-ginning and ending points.31

The state of the manuscript sourcesproblematizes the 1806 version’s status as a

fixed text. Modern editing and performing stan-dards privilege documents in the composer’sown hand because they are putatively closestto the composer’s intention.32 The sources forthe 1806 Leonore in Beethoven’s hand surviveas a collection of instructions and other mark-ings scattered among the surviving materials ofthe 1805 version rather than as a separate com-plete autograph. Their fragmentary nature ne-cessitates the reconstruction of the materialsfor both early versions from multiple sources.33

This is not to say that no fixed text for the1806 version exists. An edition of the librettopublished by Anton Pichler, available for the1806 performances, shows the new arrangementof the numbers.34 Furthermore, Breitkopf &Härtel published the score twice in piano re-duction: without overtures or finales in 1810and with the overture included in 1815.35 OttoJahn reconstructed the vocal score of the 1806version on the basis of surviving parts (nowlost) from an 1815 Dresden production.36 Fi-nally, documents surviving from a planned per-formance of the opera in Prague in 1807 (prob-ably based on the 1806 version) help greatlywith the reconstruction of the 1806 text, the

29The one exception is Lühning’s important work on theearly versions of Fidelio. Lühning’s frequent calls for amore flexible approach to the text of the opera resonatewith the approach to the 1806 version I take below. Inaddition to works by Lühning cited below, see also Lühning,“Fidelio zwischen Oper und Opus: Über BeethovensRevisionen des Quartetts ‘Er sterbe’,” Musiktheorie 14(1999): 121–41; and “Beethovens langer Weg zum ‘Fidelio’,”in Opernkomposition als Prozeß: Referate des SymposiumsBochum 1995, ed. Werner Breig (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1996),65–90.30The most prominent examples include Philip Gossett,“The Arias of Marzelline: Beethoven as a Composer ofOpera,” Beethoven-Jahrbuch 10 (1978–81): 141–83; MichaelC. Tusa, “Beethoven and Opera: The Grave-digging Duetin Leonore (1805),” Beethoven Forum 5 (1996): 1–63; andidem, “The Unknown Florestan: The 1805 Version of ‘Indes Lebens Frühlingstagen’,” Journal of the American Mu-sicological Society 46 (1993): 175–220.31I deliberately avoid employing such a narrative in orderto train my focus on Leonore of 1806, which was under-stood as a fixed text at the time of its performance. Forthis reason, I will not systematically compare the revi-sions for 1806 with those for the opera’s final version.

32Underlying this assumption is the notion that a musicalwork is at its most accurate at the moment of its creation,and that reproductions of the work (editions or perfor-mances) aim to re-create this conception as exactly aspossible. For a discussion of the aesthetic implications ofeditorial values, see James Grier, The Critical Editing ofMusic: History, Method, and Practice (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1996). For a discussion of the work-concept, see Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Mu-sical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1992), especially chap. 4, “TheCentral Claim,” 89–119.33For a complete discussion of the sources for the 1806version of Leonore, see Willy Hess, “Revisionsbericht,” inLudwig van Beethoven, Supplemente zur GesamtausgabeXIII, Dramatiche Werke 3, ed. Willy Hess, 27–37; Hess,Das Fidelio-Buch: Beethovens Oper Fidelio, ihreGeschichte und ihre Drei Fassungen (Winterthur: Amadeus,1986), 66–81.34Joseph Sonnleithner, Leonore, oder der Triumph derehelichen Liebe: Eine Oper in zwey Aufzügen, composedby L. van Beethoven (Vienna: Anton Pichler, 1805).35L. van Beethoven, Leonore: Oper in Zwey Aufzügen, ed.Carl Czerny (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1810); Beethoven,Ouverture und Gesänge aus der Oper Fidelio / Leonore(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1815).36L. van Beethoven, Leonore: Oper in zwei Akten von L.van Beethoven: Vollständiger Klavierauszug der zweitenBearbeitung mit den Abweichungen der ersten, ed. OttoJahn (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1851).

152

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

modern libretto of which was published by theBeethoven-Haus in 1996.37

The absence of a single authoritative sourcemakes it difficult to understand the 1806 ver-sion as a stable “work.” The aesthetic of Werk-treue did not exert its effect on opera until thetwentieth century, as Lühning points out, so itwould be anachronistic to search for an “Urtext”of Fidelio.38 Treitschke’s 1814 letter to the di-rector at the Hoftheater in Darmstadt serves asa case in point. Faced with a dilemma as towhether to include Rocco’s “Gold Aria,” whichhad been cut in 1806, Treitschke’s noncom-mittal advice to the director was that “reten-tion or omission are equally feasible.”39

Two Views of Marriagein LEONORE of 1806

The theme of heroic marital faithfulness thatwill dominate the opera’s final act is nowhereto be found in the opening number. Rocco’sinnocent daughter Marzelline fantasizes aboutmarriage to Fidelio as a kind of simple domes-tic bliss: “In rest and quiet domesticity, I awakeeach morning, we greet each other with tender-ness, and hard work drives away our worries.”40

In contrast to Leonore’s determination to save

her husband’s life, Marzelline naively dreamsof a marriage that is unthreatened, unburdenedby anything but routine. The opera’s emphasison Marzelline’s naivety at the beginning even-tually gives way to the celebrations of Leonore’sheroism at the end. The tension between thetwo views of marriage exacerbates the opera’sdramatic incongruity, so it is not surprisingthat Beethoven and his collaborators focusedtheir revisions on marriage in an effort to re-lieve the problem.

The opera’s competing attitudes toward mar-riage coincide with a major transformation over-taking the institution in Western and CentralEurope at the turn of the nineteenth century.Historians of the family attribute this transfor-mation to the web of economic changes broughtabout by industrialization and urbanization.41

The pre- and proto-industrial working-class fam-ily took many forms, but the family’s means ofsubsistence always shaped those forms. In onecommon proto-industrial family model, urbanmanufacturers developed relationships withrural family workshops that could supplementfactory production to meet demand. Such fami-lies earned very low and insecure wages andworked long hours, which meant that the en-tire family, including women and children, hadto pitch in. Under such circumstances, a well-chosen spouse or even illegitimate childrencould supply a family with the economic edgerequired for survival.42 Marriages between fami-

37Leonore: Oper in zwei Aufzügen von Ludwig vanBeethoven, ed. Helga Lühning (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus,1996). For a discussion of the 1807 planned performancesin Prague, see Lühning, “Fidelio in Prag,” in Beethovenund Böhmen: Beiträge zu Biographie und Wirkungs-geschichte Beethovens (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1988), 349–91.38Lühning writes, “Fidelio wird analysiert, interpretiert,kritisiert und aufgeführt, als wurde man in der Peters-oder der Eulenburg-Ausgabe einen definitive Werktext, dasVermächtnis Beethovens vor sich haben, die authentischenAnweisungen des Autors, die in ihrem Sinn zu ergründenund ‘werktreu’ zu befolgen sind.” See “Leonore und die‘Goldarie’: Überlegungen zu Dramaturgie und Philologiedes Fidelio,” in Vom Erkennen des Erkannten:Musikalische Analyse und Editionsphilologie, ed.Friederike Wißmann, Thomas Ahrend, and Heinz vonLoesch (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 2007), 200.39“Es ist demnach die Beybehaltung oder Weglassung gleichthunlich.” Treitschke’s letter is printed in Lühning,“Leonore und die ‘Goldarie’,” 202.40“In Ruhe stiller Häuslichkeit, / Erwach ich jeden Morgen;/ Wir grüßen uns mit Zärtlichkeit; / Der Fleiß verscheuchtdie Sorgen.” In this article, quotations from the libretto’s1806 version are taken from Lühning, Leonore: Oper inzwei Aufzügen. The librettos for the 1805 and 1806 ver-sions are published side by side in Willy Hess, Das Fidelio-

Buch, 277–325. The English translations of the opera’slibrettos are mine unless otherwise indicated.41Much of this summary comes from Martine Segalen,“The Industrial Revolution: From Proletariat to Bourgeoi-sie,” in A History of the Family, vol. 2, The Impact ofModernity, ed. André Burguière, Christiane Klapisch-Zuber,Martine Segalen, Françoise Zonabend, trans. Sarah HanburyTenison (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996;first French edn. 1986), 377–415.42Despite the obvious benefits of large families under thiseconomic system, authorities often saw illegitimacy as amoral problem in need of revised legislation. By 1828 theproblem was sufficiently severe that Emperor Franz con-ducted a survey of local authorities in Venezia, LowerAustria, and Bohemia requesting legislative suggestionsfor reducing illegitimacy. The results of the survey pro-vide a glimpse of views on marriage in the early-nine-teenth-century Habsburg empire. See Edith Saurer, “Gen-der Relations, Marriage, and Illegitimacy in the HabsburgMonarchy: Venice, Lower Austria, and Bohemia in theEarly Nineteenth Century,” trans. J. A. Underwood, inFamily History Revisited: Comparative Perspectives, ed.Richard Wall, Tamara K. Hareven, and Josef Ehmer, with

153


lies with the same trade or craft specializationcould be particularly advantageous, so decisionsabout whom to marry were made in consulta-tion with the entire extended family. Conse-quently marriages were understood primarilyas a means of economic empowerment for bothfamilies involved, and even for entire commu-nities. The South Tyrolean town of Innischen,for example, enacted laws forbidding any manfrom marrying unless he could prove he hadeconomic potential from which the whole com-munity could benefit; in general this meantowning property.43 Though impractical and un-popular in more urban locales such as Vienna,similar laws were enacted early in the nine-teenth century throughout Tyrol and LowerAustria. They reflect an attitude toward mar-riage as a kind of business contract that couldsecure the well-being of a community alongwith that of the new family.

As industrialization spread, first in Great Brit-ain and then quickly through Western and Cen-tral Europe, new family models adapted to thechanging economic system. The pre- and proto-industrial family workshop in which the fam-ily both lived and worked gave way to a newseparation between the public sphere, in whichone worked and handled civil matters, and pri-vate domestic space, in which one cultivatedone’s family. This well-known separation heldtrue for both working class families who la-bored in factories and the bourgeois familieswho managed and owned factories, althoughthe ability to cultivate a domestic space was amarker of nineteenth-century middle-classachievement emulated across the board. Thefoundation of this private domestic space wasthe family, and at its heart was a marriagebased on love and affection. As MichaelMitterauer and Reinhard Sieder write: “Thisnew idea of marriage and the family found itsclearest expression in the period of Romanti-cism. For the first time, broad sections of thepopulation regarded the family as fundamen-

tal, and home became increasingly an intimatehaven, closed to outsiders.”44 This new view ofmarriage was naturally antithetical to the oldcontractual model, although both views coex-isted in Beethoven’s time, much as they con-tinue to coexist uneasily today.

A series of laws across Europe at the end ofthe eighteenth century codified the contractualmodel, inviting criticism from legal philoso-phers who theorized about marriage based onlove. In 1794 the Allgemeines Landrecht fürdie preußischen Staaten regarded marriage asessentially a business contract ratified by thechurch. Similarly, the French Code Civil of1804 made marriage a civil institution. Ideal-ists and Romantics, in contrast, cultivated aview that marriage did not require external jus-tification, but rather occurred autonomouslybecause the unification of two people engen-dered an entirely new being. As Adrian Daubexplains, “By unmooring [marriage] from stateor ecclesiastical structures, the Romantics gaveit something ‘anarchic’. . . . The autonomy ofmarriage constituted a protuberance of the au-tonomy of the subject. The institution of mar-riage was not an other that checked the subject’sautonomy, it extended that autonomy; but byextending it, it turned the lone transcendentalsubject into a being-together.”45

Philosophers who developed this new meta-physical view of marriage defined it in opposi-tion to how they understood the bourgeois viewof marriage, an essentially utilitarian contractmade for the benefit of each individual: “TheRomantics and Idealists rejected any attemptto justify or explain marriage by referencing itssupposed teleology, its usefulness for the per-petuation of the species (or society), or its util-ity for the individual. Not that they thought itpossessed no such uses, but they thought itcheapened the union to explain it in the utili-tarian terms preferred by bourgeois civil soci-

the assistance of Markus Cerman (Newark: University ofDelaware Press, 2001), 93–121.43Margareth Lanzinger, “Homogamy in a Society Orien-tated towards Stability: A Micro-study of a South TyroleanMarket Town, 1700–1900,” International Review of So-cial History 50 (2005): supplement, 123–48.

44Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder, The EuropeanFamily: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Agesto the Present, trans. Karla Oosterveen and ManfredHörzinger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982;first German edn. 1977), 129–30.45Adrian Daub, Uncivil Unions: The Metaphysics of Mar-riage in German Idealism and Romanticism (Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 2012), 6.

154

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

ety.”46 As one of the first to articulate such aview, Johann Georg Fichte argued in 1795–96that external forces such as the state cannotdetermine a marriage at all—the union firstmust define itself as such on an internal ba-sis.47 For Fichte and other Romantic philoso-phers, this internal basis was love: “Each of thetwo wants to give up his own personality sothat only the personality of the other prevails;they each find their own satisfaction only inthe satisfaction of the other, and the exchangeof hearts and wills is complete.”48

Hegel also protested against the contractualmodel of marriage, arguing that a contract isentered into for the self-centered benefit of theindividual, whereas marriage is entered intowith the conscious intent to create a new frame-work within which each individual’s identitytakes on new meaning.49 He echoes Fichte’sidea that a marriage is a relationship formedwhen two individuals exchange part of them-selves with their partner: “The ethical aspectof marriage consists in the parties’ conscious-ness of this unity as their substantive aim, andso in their love, trust, and common sharing oftheir entire existence as individuals.”50

Beethoven’s revisions to Leonore offer us aglimpse of his position in the marriage debate.By revising so as to downplay Marzelline’s viewof marriage as defined through hard work, do-mesticity, and a spouse in the family business,

Beethoven was in effect protesting against thecontractual notion of marriage. The marriagebetween Leonore and Florestan exemplifies theIdealist and Romantic conception of the insti-tution because Beethoven defined this uniondramatically—and musically—only in referenceto the participants’ love for each other, andcertainly not to hard work or even a civil wed-ding ceremony.

Two major changes that Beethoven made inthe first act suggest that this new view of mari-tal love shaped the 1806 revisions (see Table 1).First, Beethoven cut the “Gold Aria” (“Hat mannicht auch Gold beineben”) in which Roccosings about the importance of financial stabil-ity, obviously the least of Leonore’s worries.51

Second, Beethoven preceded the first-act finalewith the two numbers most at odds withMarzelline’s fantasy of domestic bliss. This newarrangement prepares for the more serious con-ception of marriage that dominates what wasnow the second, but had been the third act. Inthe duet between Marzelline and Leonore (“Umin der Ehe froh zu leben”), Marzelline, believ-ing that Fidelio loves her, expresses her com-plete trust in him, affirming that “to be happyin marriage, one must, above all, be true, onemust never give grounds for suspicion.”52

Marzelline’s expression of blind trust in Fideliois met only by more deception as Leonoreagrees—ironically, given her disguise—that“yes, suspicion is marital pain.”53 MeanwhileLeonore rationalizes the deception by reassur-ing herself (and the eavesdropping audience)that “heaven will forgive me!”54

Second, Beethoven followed up this numberwith the trio “Ein Mann ist bald genommen,”in which Rocco advises Marzelline and Jaquino

46Ibid., 19.47J. G. Fichte, Foundations of Natural Right: According tothe Principles of the Wissenschaftslehre, ed. FrederickNeuhouser, trans. Michael Baur (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000), 275. For a more thorough discus-sion of Fichte’s role in shaping philosophical thought onmarriage at the beginning of the nineteenth century, seeDaub, Uncivil Unions, chap. 1: “The Metaphysics of Dig-nity: Marriage in Kant and Fichte,” 36–70.48Fichte, Foundations of Natural Right, 272.49Hegel’s other reasons for protesting against the contrac-tual model include the problem that contractual relation-ships only engage that aspect of the individual pertinentto the contract. Marriage required individuals to completelyand willingly reinterpret their own subjectivities in anentirely new light. Hegel also protested because contractsare nonessential to human experience, whereas marriagewas constitutive of subjectivity. See Merold Westphal,“Hegel’s Radical Idealism: Family and State as Ethical Com-munities,” in The State and Civil Society: Studies inHegel’s Political Philosophy, ed. Z. A. Pelczynski (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 78–80.50Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1952), 112.

51The main source for this number presents several layersof revision and two distinct texts, which led Willy Hess toclaim incorrectly that a new text had been intended forthe aria in 1806. Beethoven used the second stanza of thecrossed-out text as the basis for the number when he re-stored it in 1814. He never used the first stanza. Lühningdiscusses the multilayered nature of this source (BerlinStaatsbibliothek, Beethoven-Sammlung, Autogr 26, Stück23) in “Leonore und die ‘Goldarie’: Überlegungen zuDramaturgie und Philologie des Fidelio,” 199–212.52“Um in der Ehe froh zu leben, / Muß man vor allem treusich seyn, / Muß nie sich Grund zum Argwohn geben—.”53“Ja, Argwohn ist der Ehe Pein.”54“Der Himmel wird es mir verzeihn.”

155


Table 1Large-scale revisions to Leonore between 1805 and 1806

Format Text Singer(s) No. in 1805 No. in 1806

Aria O wär’ ich schon mit dir vereint! M 1 1Duet Jetzt, Schätzchen, jetzt sind wir allein! M, J 2 2Trio Ein Mann ist bald genommen M, J, R 3 10Quartet Mir ist so wunderbar M, L, R, J 4 3Aria Hat man nicht auch Gold beineben R 5 cutTrio Gut, Söhnchen, gut, hab’ immer Mut! R, M, L 6 4

act II ˜March 7 5Aria + Chorus Ha, welch ein Augenblick! P 8 6Duet Jetzt, Alter, jetzt hat es Eile P, R 9 7Duet Um in der Ehe froh zu leben M, L 10 9Recit. + Aria Ach, brich noch nicht, du mattes Herz L 11 8Finale 12 11

act III act IIIntro. + Recit + Aria Gott, welch’ Dunkel hier! F 13 12Melodrama + Duet Nur hurtig fort, nur Frisch gegraben R, L 14 13Trio Euch werde Lohn in bessern Welte F, R, L 15 14Quartet Er sterbe! P, F, L, R 16 15Recit. + Duet O namenlose Freude! F, L 17 16Finale 18 17

F FlorestanL LeonoreJ JaquinoM MarzellineP PizarroR Rocco

not to get married because marriage requires alevel of commitment that neither is preparedto make. Rocco sings: “A husband is soon ob-tained, one easily takes a wife. But after thediversion, regret can soon come.”55 The kind ofmarriage Rocco advocates instead is more alongthe lines of that between Florestan and Leonore:“Only through harmony of hearts can one besatisfied, solemnity is not to be trifled with.”56

This trio originally followed the duet betweenMarzelline and Jaquino at the beginning of the

opera (“Jetzt, Schätzchen, jetzt sind wir allein!”),but because of its new placement after Leonoredeceives Marzelline, Rocco is no longer simplydismissing Jaquino’s desire to marry Marzelline.Instead, his comment has become an outrightrejection of Marzelline’s old-fashioned ideasabout marriage. It thus allows a smoother tran-sition to what is now the second act, in whichLeonore’s modern marital faithfulness will pre-dominate. This dramatic situation offers a newperspective on Marzelline’s joy when Leonoreand Florestan are reunited at the end. Havinglearned from Leonore’s example of marital fi-delity, Marzelline can embrace the Romanticview that marriage is more than simply “quietdomesticity” achieved by hard work. In therevision of 1806, Marzelline indicates this

55“Ein Mann ist bald genommen, / Leicht nimmt man sichein Weib, / Doch nach dem Zeitvertreib / Kann bald dieReue kommen.”56“Durch Eintracht nur der Herzen / Kann man zufriedenseyn; / Mit Ernst ist nicht zu scherzen.”

156

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

change of attitude in the finale by turning toLeonore and graciously acknowledging the awk-ward situation she has found herself in, sing-ing, “I cannot help myself but be surprised;still, I’m happy for your joy.” She then turns toJaquino and exclaims, “Perhaps now I will notsay no!”57 These lines did not survive whenBeethoven revised the finale again in 1814.

The Critical Reception of FIDELIO

of 1805 and the Revisions of 1806

Beethoven’s revisions during the four and ahalf months between productions offer an un-usual opportunity to see him considering andincorporating the ideas of critics and friends. Aclose reading of these revisions, particularlythose for the love duet between Leonore andFlorestan, “O namenlose Freude!,” in light ofpublished criticism of the first performances ofthe 1805 version, suggests that critical reac-tions to Leonore were a point of a departure forBeethoven’s continuing efforts to refine his dra-matic vision of the opera in 1806. The progres-sion of “O namenlose Freude!” from its earliestappearance as the opening scene of Beethoven’sabandoned opera Vestas Feuer to its place inthe 1805 and 1806 versions of Leonore offers avivid example of his revision process and hisevolving conception of the latter. This duetwas one of the most heavily revised numbersbetween 1805 and 1806. Figure 1 summarizesBeethoven’s changes to the number during thistime and shows the complexity of his revi-sions. As shown here, Beethoven sought to sim-plify and shorten the duet. In addition to mak-ing three major cuts, he shortened most sec-tions and introduced virtually no new mate-rial.

Beethoven had originally associated the mu-sical material of “O namenlose Freude!” withmarital love in 1803 in Vestas Feuer, where thetwo main characters sing a brief love duet onthe words “Never was I so happy as today,never have I felt this joy!”58 (See ex. 1.) Criticshave in general overstated the musical connec-tions between the two duets; in reality theyshare little beyond a main motive and a generalcharacter of celebration. This overestimationprobably came about because GustavNottebohm, who was primarily interested inVestas Feuer as a precursor to the duet inFidelio/Leonore, transcribed only the measuresthat made the cut in Fidelio and did not men-tion most of the rest.59 Still, it is telling thatBeethoven always intended for the G-majormelody that would eventually become the“namenlose” motive in Leonore to be a musi-cal expression of love; he was content to dis-card the rest of Vestas Feuer.60 Moreover, “O

57“Zu staunen kann ich mir nicht wehren, doch will ichihres Glücks mich freuen. [Zu Jaquino] Vielleicht sag’ ichnun nicht nein!”

58“Nie war ich so froh wie heute! / Niemals fühlt ich dieseFreude!” For the complete libretto by Schikaneder, withan introduction by Willy Hess, see Hess, “‘Vestas Feuer’von Emanuel Schikaneder,” Beethoven-Jahrbuch 3 (1957–58): 63–106. The work’s librettist, Emanuel Schikaneder,was the prominent Vienna theater manager who foundedthe Theater an der Wien in 1801 and subsequently servedas its director until 1806. Anton Bauer, 150 Jahre Theateran der Wien (Vienna: Amalthea-Verlag, 1952), 53–68; andTadeusz Krzeszowiak, Theater an der Wien: Seine Technikund Geschichte, 1801–2001 (Vienna: Böhlau, 2002), 31–51.59Gustav Nottebohm, Beethoveniana (Leipzig: Verlag vonC. F. Peters, 1872; rpt. New York: Johnson, 1970), 82–99.60After the purchase of the Theater an der Wien by Baronvon Braun in 1804, Beethoven’s agreement to composemusic for its former owner Schikaneder’s Vestas Feuerbecame void. Meanwhile Schikaneder enlisted Joseph Weiglto set the libretto to music and the completed score wasperformed on 10 August 1805. Many of the same singerswho participated in Weigl’s Vestas Feuer also sang themain roles in Beethoven’s Leonore in 1806. This is dis-cussed in more detail in Willy Hess, “Vestas Feuer,” 63–58. See also Lewis Lockwood, “Vestas Feuer: Beethovenon the Path to Leonore,” in Variations on the Canon:Essays on Music from Bach to Boulez in Honor of CharlesRosen on His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Robert Curry, DavidGable, and Robert L. Marshall (Rochester: University ofRochester Press, 2008), 78–99.

Figure 1: Revisions to “O namenlose Freude” of 1805.

77 87 128 132 147 158 178 199 220 225 289

no change altered material cuts

157


� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � �

�

�

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Nie war ich so froh wie heu - te, nie mals fühlt’ ich die - se

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Nie war ich so froh wie heu - te, nie - mals fühlt’ ich die - se

� � ��

�

�

Volivia

Sartagones

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

Vln. I

Vln. I

146

150

(unison)

namenlose Freude!” was the obvious opportu-nity for him to present a distinct view of mari-tal faithfulness in Leonore. Sung in private, theduet is the final expression of Leonore andFlorestan’s love, conveying joy beyond wordsin a marriage tested by adversity, in stark con-trast with Marzelline’s mere fantasy of domes-tic bliss.

Even so, on 8 January1806, the correspon-dent at the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitungsingled out this number as musically problem-atic:

Whoever was following the recent progress ofBeethoven’s otherwise undoubted talent with atten-

tion and quiet success, had to hope for somethingvery different from what was given. Beethoven hadup until now at times sacrificed beauty for the newand unusual; so one had to expect above all peculiar-ity, newness, and a certain original creativity fromhis first operatic production—and precisely theseproperties are the ones least encountered therein.

The whole thing, when considered calmly andwithout prejudice, stands out neither for its inven-tion nor execution. The overture consists of a verylong Adagio that rambles through all the keys, fol-lowed by an Allegro in C major, which is not excel-lent either, and does not bear comparison withBeethoven’s other instrumental compositions—in-cluding, for example, his overture to the balletPrometheus. The vocal pieces remain usually based

Example 1: Beethoven, Vestas Feuer, mm. 146–59.The musical examples in this article are adapted from L. van Beethoven,

Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, ed. Willy Hess.

158

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC � � � � � � � � �

Freu - de!

� � � � � � � � �Freu - de!

� � � � � �� Gu - te Güt - ter, blickt her ab! Seg net ih - re rei - nen Trie - be;

� � ��

�

�

Volivia

Porus

Sartagones

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

Vln. I

155

on no new idea, they are for the most part too long,the text is constantly repeated, and finally charac-terization sometimes conspicuously fails as well—one can thus cite for example the G-major duet inthe third act, after the recognition scene. For thealways continuous accompaniment on the higheststrings of the violin expresses the loud, wild jubila-tion, rather than the calm, deep feeling of havingfound each other again in these circumstances.61

In addition to commenting on the number’srepetitiveness and length, this critic also per-ceives the music’s “loud, wild rejoicing” asunsuitable for the dramatic situation, which in1805 was still unresolved while the lovers awaittheir rescue.

Other reviews did not specifically mentionthe duet, but they did echo the criticism ofrepetitiveness. In the 4 January 1806 issue ofthe Zeitung für die elegante Welt, a reviewertakes issue with the scope of Beethoven’s thirdact, as well as with his vocal writing, which didnot live up to Beethoven’s reputation: “Indeed,the third act is very stretched out, and themusic, without effect and full of repetitions,did not enhance the idea of his talent as a vocalcomposer that I had formed from Beethoven’scantata.”62

61“Nachrichten: Wien,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung8 (8 Jan. 1806): 237–38. “Wer dem bisherigen Gange desBeethovenschen, sonst unbezweifelten Talentes mitAufmerksamkeit und ruhiger Prüfung folgte, musste etwasganz anderes von diesem Werke hoffen, als gegeben worden.Beethoven hatte bis jeztz [sic] so manchmal dem Neuenund Sonderbaren auf Unkosten des Schönen geopfert; manmusste also vor Allem Eigenthümlichkeit, Neueheit undeinen gewissen originellen Schöpfungsglanz von diesemseinen ersten theatralischen Singprodukte erwarten—undgerade diese Eigenschaften sind es, die man am wenigstendarin antraf.

Das Ganze, wenn es ruhig und vorurtheilsfrei betrachtetwird, ist weder durch Erfindung noch durch Ausführunghervorstechend. Die Ouvertüre besteht aus einem sehrlangen, in alle Tonarten ausschweifenden Adagio, woraufein allegro aus C dur eintritt, das ebenfalls nicht vorzüglichist, und mit andern Beethovenschen Instrumental-kompositionen—auch nur z. B. mit seiner Ouvertüre zumBallet, Prometheus, keine Vergleichung aushalt. DenSingstücken liegt gewohnlich keine neue Idee zum Grunde,sie sind grösstentheils zu lang gehalten, der Text ist

unaufhörlich wiederholt, und endlich auch zuweilen dieCharakteristik auffallend verfehlt—wovon man gleich dasDuett im dritten Akte, aus G dur, nach der Erkennungscenezum Beispiele anführen kann. Denn das immer laufendeAccompagnement in den höchsten Violinkorden drückteher lauten, wilden Jubel aus, als das stille, wehmüthig—tiefe Gefühl, sich in dieser Lage wiedergefunden zu haben.”62“Wien von den Franzosen besetzt,” Zeitung für dieelegante Welt 4 (4 Jan. 1806): 13. “In der That ist der dritte

Example 1 (continued)

159


Finally, in a review of 14 January 1806 inDer Freymüthige, the reviewer compares Beet-hoven unfavorably with Mozart and Cherubini,two of the most popular opera composers of thetime: “The music as well is truly far below theexpectations to which connoisseurs and ama-teurs felt entitled. As learned as everything init is, both melody and characterization never-theless failed to achieve that happy, striking,irresistible expression of passion that grips usso irresistibly in Mozart’s and Cherubini’sworks.”63 This reviewer again echoes com-plaints by other critics that the music hasnot successfully conveyed the action. Thereviewer’s comparison with Cherubini is par-ticularly interesting not only because of Beet-hoven’s own well-known praise for thiscomposer’s works, which he admired through-out his life, but also because beginning in 1802Cherubini’s operas were performed regularly inVienna, ushering in a period in which Frenchopera was of great interest to German-speakingaudiences.64 The libretto of one of Beethoven’sfavorites, Les deux journées, was written bythe very same Bouilly whose Leonore was thesource for Beethoven’s opera.65 The reviewer’scomparison demonstrates that Fidelio was im-mediately recognized as part of the tradition of

“rescue operas” that had recently begun todominate French opera in Vienna.66

The first significant revision in the duet takesplace in the introduction, which is condensedin 1806. In both versions, the introduction con-sists of an extended arpeggiation of a G-majortriad in the strings, which rises until it finallygives way to the main motive in m. 85, sup-ported by the winds and horns. In the 1805version (ex. 2), the string arpeggiation lasts tenwhole measures and is accentuated throughthe addition of a new instrument every twomeasures. In the 1806 revision (ex. 3), Beethovencut the number of measures in half by adding anew instrument every measure instead of ev-ery two measures.

The ten-measure introduction of 1805 ex-emplified the type of music that the reviewerin the Zeitung für die elegante Welt describedas “without effect and full of repetitions.” Thetexture of the strings at fortissimo in mm. 85–87 is the kind of problem the reviewer at theAllgemeine musikalische Zeitung described as“always continuous accompaniment on thehighest strings of the violin,” especially be-cause the “namenlose” motive completely satu-rates the music in both the strings and thevoices.

An even more important revision signifi-cantly alters the form of the duet. In the 1805version, the ubiquitous presence of the“namenlose” motive was felt to be one of themusic’s major weaknesses. Beethoven’s solu-tion was to tighten the piece by cutting thesecond tonic appearance of the motive in m.158. The cut reshapes the exposition into amore typical form and focuses the tonal struc-ture because there is no tonic return until therecapitulation.

Both of these revisions also respond to thecritics’ charge of mischaracterization. By re-

Akt sehr gedehnt, und die Musik, ohne Effekt und vollWiederholungen, vergrößerte die Idee nicht, die ich nachBeethovens Kantate mir von seinem Talente zurGesangskomposizion gebildet hatte.” The cantata Christusam Ölberge, which was first performed at the Theater ander Wien at Beethoven’s own academy on 5 April 1805,provided the Viennese public with one of its first expo-sures to Beethoven’s vocal music. See Theodore Albrecht,“The Fortnight Fallacy: A Revised Chronology forBeethoven’s Christ on the Mount of Olives, Op. 85, andWielhorsky Sketchbook,” Journal of Musicological Re-search 11, no. 4 (1991): 263–84.63“Review,” Der Freymüthige 4 (14 Jan. 1806); rpt. in TheCritical Reception of Beethoven’s Compositions, vol. 2,ed. and trans. Senner, 175–76.64Lodoïska was produced at the Theater an der Wien on 23March 1802, followed by Les deux journées (under thetitle Graf Armando) on 13 August. Anton Bauer, 150 JahreTheater an der Wien.65While working on Fidelio, Beethoven copied passagesfrom Cherubini’s Les deux journées, Beethoven-Haus Bonn,Sammlung H. C. Bodmer, HCB BSk 17/65a. A very inter-esting introduction to French opera in Germany at thebeginning of the nineteenth century is John Warrack, Ger-man Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2001), 191–213.

66The term “rescue opera” is employed here because thecritic draws a comparison between Fidelio and Cherubini’soperas, probably Lodoïska and Les deux journées, whichare exemplary of rescue opera and which share dramatic,moral, and political significances associated with the cat-egory. On the problematic nature of the term “rescue op-era,” see David Charlton, “On Redefinitions of ‘RescueOpera’,” in Opera and the French Revolution, ed. MalcolmBoyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 169–88.

160

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC � � ��

� � � � � � ��

� ��

�

�

�

�

�

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Vln. II

Vla.

Florestan

Vc. & Cb.

��

��

�

�

� � � � ��

� � � ��

� � ��

� ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � �

�

�

�

�

�

Fl.

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

� ff

ffffffff

ffff

ff

��

��

77

82

Vln. I

Vln. I

Allegro vivace

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

�

Example 2: Beethoven, Fidelio “O namenlose Freude!” (1805 version), mm. 77–91.

161


� � ��

� � � � � � � ��

� ��

� � � � � ��

O na - men-, na - men - lo - se Freu - de! O na - men - ,

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� O na - men - , na - men - lo - se Freu - de! O na - men - ,

� � � � � � � � � � � ��

�

�

�

�

�

Fl.

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Vln. II

Vla.

Leonora

Florestan

Vc. & Cb.

� �

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

87

Vln. I� � � �

��

��

��

��

�

ducing the frequency with which the“namenlose” motive is heard, Beethoven re-sponded to the Allgemeine musikalische Zeit-ung correspondent’s complaint that the music’s“loud, wild rejoicing” was inappropriate to thesituation. Beethoven also rewrote a section atthe end of the development. The 1805 versioncontains a sequential move through the keys ofE� and B� that concludes with a chromatic as-cent by the soprano to a high C, which laststhree full measures and ends on a fermata. Oneimagines that Beethoven’s Leonore, AnnaMilder, with whom he collaborated on all threeversions of the opera, may have suggested thathe rewrite this passage to make it less shrill,just as she succeeded in influencing Beethoven’s

revisions of “Abscheulicher!” in 1814.67 Thecorresponding passage in 1806 contains neitherthe modulation nor the high C.

The closing theme, during which Leonoreand Florestan sing “Du bist’s” and “Ich bin’s,”contains particularly interesting revisions. Inthe 1805 version (ex. 4; see p. 165), Leonore andFlorestan sing the same melody in canon, but

67According to the account she told to Anton Schindler, in1814 Anna Milder refused to go onstage until Beethovenagreed to rewrite the “ugly, unsingable passages thatstrained her voice” in “Abscheulicher!” See Anton FelixSchindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, ed. Donald W.MacArdle, trans. Constance S. Jolly (New York: W. W.Norton, 1966), 133; cited in Robinson, “An InterpretiveHistory,” in Beethoven: Fidelio, 146.


162

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

although the two voices enter separately, theyrejoin in m. 164 to sing “o himmlischesEntzücken” together. This process takes placeover a G pedal in the basses, which resolves toC on the repetition of “Entzücken” in m. 165.

In the 1806 revision (ex. 5; see p. 166),Beethoven rethought the relationship betweenthe two voices. Here Leonore and Florestannever sing together. Instead, their music con-sists of short fragments that alternate with eachother. Whereas the 1805 version symbolizesthe union of the two characters by mergingtheir voices at the cadence, the 1806 versionsuggests a more comprehensive bond. The twoindividuals’ melodic fragments form a singlecoherent melody when sung together.

Beethoven revised the melodic fragments inorder to draw attention to this new relation-ship. In 1805 Leonore and Florestan sing amelody with fragments that leap upward. Onthe first “Du bist’s!” the voices leap from G tothe leading tone, B�, and then, on the second“Du bist’s!” they leap from G to C, therebyresolving the leading tone. The harmonic ten-sion implied by the melodies is both posed and

� � � � � � ��

� � � � � ��

� � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Fl.

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Vln. I

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

��

�

��

�

61

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

cresc.

Example 3: Beethoven, Leonore, “O namenlose Freude!” (1806 version), mm. 61–71.

resolved by each individual voice independentof the other. In 1806 the contrapuntal relation-ship is tightened. The fragments now leap down-ward: Florestan sings “Du bist’s” on a leapfrom D to the leading tone, F�, and Leonoreresponds by singing “Ich bin’s” with a leap toG, thereby resolving the leading tone posed byFlorestan. One character’s harmonic tension isresolved by the other.

With this musical depiction of marital one-ness at the moment of reunion, Beethoven addsa layer of meaning to the drama that was ab-sent in the 1805 version while addressing thecritics’ charge of mischaracterization. This mo-ment of contrapuntal ingenuity also occurs be-tween the words “Ich bin’s!” and “Du bist’s!”(It’s me! and It’s you!) and recalls Rocco’s mari-tal advice to Marzelline at the end of act I:“Only through harmony of hearts can one besatisfied.” It also recalls the emerging viewamong Romantics and Idealists that marriageunifies the subjectivities of two lovers and cre-ates an entirely new being; as Fichte put it,“Each of the two wants to give up his ownpersonality so that only the personality of the

163


� � ��

� � ��

� � ��

O na - men - , na - men - lo - se

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��O na - men - , na - men - lo - se

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Fl.

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Leonora

Florestan

Vln. I

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

ffffffff

��

� �

ffffff

ff

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

65

�

��

�

��


other prevails; they each find their own satis-faction only in the satisfaction of the other,and the exchange of hearts and wills is com-plete.”68

Beethoven’s incorporation of suggestions fromhis colleagues and critics challenges the myththat he composed in isolation. Perhaps the shortturnaround between the 1805 and 1806 produc-tions impelled him to turn to others for helpwith his ambitious revision project. Beethovenwas not ordinarily inclined to collaborate mu-sically, but, faced with the challenge of makinglarge- and small-scale revisions that would im-prove the opera’s success in Vienna, he appar-

ently welcomed the input. The positive criticalreviews published after the 1806 version’s twoperformances demonstrate that Beethoven hadmet the critics’ expectations. The Allgemeinemusikalische Zeitung’s critic wrote on 16 April1806 that “Beethoven has brought his operaFidelio back to the stage. . . . A whole act isthus dead, but the piece has won and now alsopleased better.”69 And on 20 May 1806 theZeitung für die elegante Welt critic wrote (af-ter blaming the librettist), “Mr. B. is certainly

68Fichte, Foundations of Natural Right, 272.

69“Nachrichten. Wien, den 2ten April,” Allgemeinemusikalische Zeitung 29 (16 April 1806). “Beethoven hatseine Oper: Fidelio, mit vielen Veränderungen undAbkürzungen wieder auf die Bühne gebracht. Ein ganzerAkt is dabei eingegangen, aber das Stück hat gewonnenund nun auch besser gefallen.”

164

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC � � � ��

� � � ��

� � � ��

� ��

Freu - de! O

� � � � � � � �Freu - de! O

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Fl.

Ob.

Bsn.

Hn. in G

Leonora

Florestan

Vln. I

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc. & Cb.

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

69


not wanting in high aesthetic insight into hisart, since he understands excellently how toexpress the sentiment lying in words to be set,but the ability of oversight and judgment of thetext with a view to overall effect seems en-tirely to be lacking in him.”70 Though this re-viewer criticizes Beethoven’s sense of the over-all effect, the praise for his ability to expressthe emotional meaning of the text contrastssharply with the criticism of the 1805 version’s“failure in characterization.”

The critics evidently liked the revised opera,but the composer himself was still unhappywith it. The unusually intense circumstancesof the 1806 production apparently took theirtoll on Beethoven, who pulled out of the projectafter only two performances following a dis-pute with Baron von Braun over payment.71

Complicating matters further, a series of let-ters to Sebastian Mayer indicates that Beethovenwas frustrated with the number of rehearsalsallotted for his opera, and even went so far as tosuggest that Braun had mounted a conspiracyagainst him. In one letter he complains aboutthe quality of the orchestra: “At all events mypatience will not then be so severely tried as it

70“Korrespondenz- und Notizen-Blatt. Aus Wien,” Zeitungfür die elegante Welt 56 (10 May 1806): 455. “Er sehltHrn. B. gewiß nicht an hoher ästhetischer Einsicht in seinekunst, da er die in den zu behandelnden Worten liegendeEmpfindung vortreflich auszudrücken versteht, aber dieFähigkeit zur Uebersicht und Beurtheilung des Textes inHinsicht auf den Totaleffekt scheint ihm ganz zu fehlen.” 71Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 397–98.

165


� � � � ��

� � � � ��

Du bist’s, du

� � � � � � � � � � � � ��

�

�

�

Vln. II

Vla.

Leonora

Florestan

Vc. & Cb.

�

��

��

�

��

� ��

��

� � � ��

Ich bin’s, Ich bin’s, o himm - lisch-es Ent -

� � � � � � �� bist’s, o himm - li - sches Ent - zü - cken, o himm - li - sches Ent -

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Vln. II

Vla.

Leonora

Florestan

Vc. & Cb.

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

157

161

Vln. I

Vln. I

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

� �

Freu de-

Freu de-

Example 4: Beethoven, Fidelio “O namenlose Freude!” (1805 version), mm. 157–69.

would be if I were near the orchestra and had tolisten to the murdering of my music!—I cannotbut think that this is being done on purpose.”72

Thayer blames Beethoven for being insensitiveto the needs of an orchestra that was confusedby the changes in the new version, but perhapsthere is more than meets the eye here. Oneclue is again to be found in Röckel’s account ofthe quarrel between Beethoven and Baron von

Braun, in which Röckel claims to have heardBeethoven utter “I don’t write for the galler-ies!” in response to Braun’s request to writemusic that would attract a larger audience tothe revised version of the opera.73 DeNora in-terprets this comment as evidence thatBeethoven composed with the intention of mu-sically distinguishing himself among theViennese nobility through a learned or elevated

72Emily Anderson, ed. and trans., letter no. 130 in TheLetters of Beethoven, 3 vols., 148–49 = letter no. 248 inBeethoven, Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, ed. SieghardBrandenburg, 7 vols. (Munich: G. Henle, 1996), 282.

73Thayer’s Life of Beethoven, 398. The comment is ren-dered in Sonneck, Beethoven: Impressions by His Con-temporaries as “I do not write for the multitude—I writefor the cultured!” (66).

166

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

zü - cken! Komm, lass, komm, lass an die - ses

� � � � � � � � � � � � � �zü - cken! Komm, lass an die - ses Herz dich drü - cken! O

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Vln. II

Vla.

Leonora

Florestan

Vc. & Cb.

�

�

�

� � �

� �

�

165

Vln. I

�

� �

� �

�

� � �

� �


Example 5: Beethoven, Leonore, “O namenlose Freude!” (1806 version), mm. 123–36.

74Tia DeNora, “Beethoven, the Viennese Canon, and theSociology of Identity, 1793–1803,” Beethoven Forum 2(1993): 34.

musical style.74 Yet the revised Leonore of 1806left exactly the opposite impression for at leastone reviewer: “Beethoven, whose works are de-cried by many as too difficult, intimate, learned,and transcendent, revealed in this opera that heunderstands how to bring together the loveliest

grace with power and an inexhaustible rich-ness of ideas in the most beautiful balance.”75

It would be easy to dismiss Beethoven’s pro-

� � � � � � � � � � � � � �Brust! Ich bin’s! Du

� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Brust! Du bist’s O himm - li - sches Ent - zü - cken!

� � � ��

� � � ��

� � � � � � � ��

�

�

�

Leonore

Florestan

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc.

Cb.

�

��

��

123

Vln. I

� �

� �

�

�

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

75“Theater und Musik in Wien in den letzten Winter-monaten 1806,” Journal des Luxus und der Moden 21, no.5 (May 1806): 287. “Beethoven, dessen Arbeiten von vielenals zu schwierig, zu tieffinnig, gelehrt und transcendentverschrieen sind, zeigte in dieser Oper, daß er die lieblichsteGrazie mit Stärke und einem unerschöpflichen Reichthumevon Ideen in das schönste Ebenmaas zu bringen verstehet.”

167


� � � � � �� Flo - re - stan! Flo - re - stan!

� � � �� no - re! E - le - o - no - re!

� � � � � ��

� � � � � ��

�

�

�

Leonore

Florestan

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc.

Cb.

�

��

ffffffffff

�

��

132

Vln. I

� � � � � � � � � � �� bist’s! O himm - li- sches Ent - zü - cken!

� � � � � � � � � � � � ��Ich bin’s Le - o -

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

�

�

�

Leonore

Florestan

Vln. II

Vla.

Vc.

Cb.

�

�

128

Vln. I

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

� ��

��

� ��


test to Braun as just another Romantic embel-lishment by Röckel, or as an expression of frus-tration at the quality of the orchestra, the num-ber of their rehearsals, and the payment hereceived. But we should also take into accountthat the months leading up to the 1806 perfor-

mances of Leonore entailed a collaborative modeof composition that Beethoven was willing toentertain for the sake of rescuing his operaticfortunes but that on the whole he found in-compatible with his compositional process. Forthe composer who played such a central role in

168

19TH

CENTURYMUSIC

establishing the artist-as-genius trope thatwould come to dominate nineteenth-centurymusical aesthetics, the collaborative mode ofcomposition required by his Fidelio project mayhave tried his patience too far. After all, eventhough he revised the opera once more in 1814,he remained highly protective of his composi-tional independence and never attempted a col-laborative project on thisscale again.

Abstract.After the failure of Beethoven’s opera Fidelio, oderdie eheliche Liebe in 1805, a series of reviews criti-cized the dramatic layout of the opera andBeethoven’s musical setting. Much of the criticalresponse to the first version focuses on an incongru-ity between the opera’s first two acts and its finalact. This incongruity manifested itself above all inthe suddenness with which the bourgeois maritalfantasies of the character of Marzelline gave way to

the marital ideals of Leonore in the final act. Theduet “O namenlose Freude!” was singled out alongthese lines for failing to achieve an appropriate mu-sical characterization. Beethoven revised the operafor a production in early 1806 that was much moresuccessful. The revisions he made in the 1806 ver-sion are almost always understood as rushed solu-tions to the most serious problems posed by theoriginal version of the opera. Yet the fact that manyof the more elaborate revisions survived until thefinal version of 1814 suggests that Beethoven andhis collaborators did not simply act in haste. As theopera’s climactic expression of marital love, “Onamenlose Freude!” offers a particularly revealingwindow on how his ideas about marriage motivatedthe revision process. In this article I propose a newreading of the 1806 Leonore based on the criticalreception of the opera’s first performances of 1805and an examination of ideas about marital love atthe turn of the nineteenth century.Keywords: Beethoven, Fidelio, marriage, reception,revision

l

Harmony of Hearts: Marital Love in Beethoven's Leonore of 180

Documents

Transcript of Harmony of Hearts: Marital Love in Beethoven's Leonore of 180