Haydn's Haus

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I doubt Haydn had a few moments for rest and refreshment in 1799! I have scratched the surface of the year this time, but plenty left to keep an old man busy (yes, me & Haydn both! ). I called this one 'Alone at the top' because on this, the 50th anniversary of his being a composer, that is exactly where he is, at the pinnacle of his career.

A monster year!

Thanks,

But great interest also lies in the presentation of context, as in this (anonymous) letter which was appended to the article containing van Swieten's letter:

...About the work itself, we have nothing to add except that all the opinions of connoisseurs and amateurs that have arrived here bear out [Swieten's] opinion; they describe the work as Haydn's greatest, most sublime and most perfect — that means, surely, the greatest, most sublime and most perfect of the newest period of music? [snip] ...and finally it can suggest once more that Germany still leaves the most perfect works of its greatest artists to the foreigners and at best can receive such works from them ex gratia [italics mine]. And to give an idea of the plan of the whole, we [will] include as a supplement to the next issue the German text by Freiherr van Swieten.

Back in ca. 1775, we saw how Haydn was considered a 'foreigner' by the Viennese because he came from the countryside in or near Hungary. And even now, having achieved international fame and the pride of Austria, Haydn was still considered a foreigner. You may think I am tossing this in gratuitously, but it is actually there as something to ponder for the many of you who still believe 'German' and 'Austrian' are the same thing. Apparently the commonality of language wasn't quite enough to pull that trick off, even in 1799.

If I may, I'm wondering if there is some confusion that's arisen here. Sounds to me as though the excerpt you cite very MUCH contents that Haydn is in fact German. And that it's a shame for a German place (like Vienna) to leave it to foreigners (England?? Except Die Schoepfung was premiered in Vienna, after all, so that bit is unclear) to perform the greatest German works.

Haydn surely was not a foreigner in Vienna... just not a native Viennese (despite his growing up in Vienna [8-25?]). (At that point, I believe, he was at liberty to live in Vienna - something that Mozart never officially was; you would know better.) In any case, it is the notion that you content that "German" and "Austrian" are not the same thing that I would like to add some nuance to. Different, of course, in that they didn't mean the same thing. But not different in the sense that they didn't describe the same people. German was the culture -- and every German-speaking Austrian was German in that sense. And every Salzburgian and so forth. German[y], the nation, didn't exist, after all. The deeply felt Germanness of a large swath of Austrians (and the subsequent loss of that identity after WWI) is something that held over for a long time... Notably, Vienna's Konzerthaus (built in 1913; the height of the rule of Franz Joseph I of Austria), has written unto its facade: "Honor Your German Masters". Apart from being a Wagner quote, that was a perfectly serious display of how the Viennese considered themselves. Austrian by localized politics, but German in any greater (cultural) sense. (And even "Austria" as a name for the country we now know as Austria didn't start until 1915. (Previously it had been "Cisleithanien" or more cumbersomely "Die im Reichsrathe vertretenen Königreiche und Länder" -- although since 1867, all citizes of these countries had a right to "Austrian Citizenship". On Facebook, the country/culture/political body status would have been given as: "It's complicated".

[Florestan]

I'm with Gurn on this: Austria and Germany at the time were two different concepts, not only politically, religiously and culturally, but also linguistically: imagine an echt-Austrian peasant met an echt-Prussian peasant in 1820. (Both countries claimed to true Germanness). Would they have understood each other's talk? AfaIk, and please correctly me if I'm wrong, not very much (similar perhaps to a Neapolitan peasant meeting a Milanese one around the same time --- with the marked difference that the Italians still shared the same religion)

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I'm with Gurn on this: Austria and Germany at the time were two different concepts, not only politically, religiously and culturally, but also linguistically: imagine an echt-Austrian peasant born in 1800 (not even 1732, mind you!) met an echt-Prussian peasant in 1820. (Both countries claimed to true Germanness). Would they have understood each other's talk? AfaIk, and please correct  me if I'm wrong, not very much (similar perhaps to a Neapolitan peasant meeting a Milanese one around the same time --- with the marked difference that the Italians still shared the same religion)

Peasant-communication notwithstanding, that is not correct. Austria wasn't so much a concept as it was a small part of a larger Empire ("Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation") that consider itself German -- German being the umbrella term for a culture to which Austria and many other parts unequivocally belonged.

[Florestan]

Peasant-communication notwithstanding

I beg to differ. What defines a Volk is the customs, religion, culture and language of the majority of that Volk. If in different parts of the pretended Volkstum they are different, then there is actually no Volkstum. 

Austria wasn't so much a concept as it was a small part of a larger Empire ("Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation") that consider itself German -- German being the umbrella term for a culture to which Austria and many other parts unequivocally belonged.

That is not correct. For centuries, "Austria" was and embodied the "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation"; Prussia proper was indeed a small --- and until the 18th century, quite insignificant --- part of the Empire (even the authenticity of their Germanness is highly questionable, since it was an area where Slavic presence was heavily felt and documented). It's only in the 19th century, and especially in its second half, that Prussia gained the technical, political and miitary upper-hand to the point of identifying herself only with Germany, in competition with, and contrast to, the Austrian Empire.

[Gurn Blanston]

To more fully explain my own understanding of the situation: there was no Germany per se at the time, there was Austria, a part of the HRE, and there was Prussia, and there were lots of small independent states, many (most) of  whom spoke German. They did have a common language (if you want to call Viennese 'German'!), but culturally they seem to have been quite different.

When Haydn tried to join the Tonkünstler-Societät (Musicians' Society) in 1778, after he had composed Il ritorno di Tobia for them in 1774-5, when he applied for membership, he was asked to pay 368 gulden as an admission fee because he was a foreigner.  (Landon volume 2).  So that's why I mentioned that particular episode in his life. In 1796 when he returned from London the second time, Wranitzky and Salieri sent him a hugely apologetic letter for past mistreatment, and invited him to be a member now, waiving the admission fee.

The way I read the letter in the AMZ, the (anonymous) writer was pleased that the oratorio was so good, but disappointed that it wasn't written in Prussia by a German composer there. I may have misunderstood, I am just explaining that's what I did understand. There are several other instances one could cite (I have done a few in various essays) where the Prussians were culturally critical of the Austrians, and Haydn in particular, using him as a symbol of all that was wrong with the southerners. Once again, though, after London he was suddenly persona grata.

I think I have a little chip on my shoulder about this, because in many discussions I have had with music-lovers over the years, whenever I have tried to differentiate Austrian music from German, I have been essentially rebuffed. I think one could take the Congress of Vienna, or better yet, 1848, as a dividing line between 2 different countries/cultures followed by a blending.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I beg to differ. What defines a Volk is the customs, religion, culture and language of the majority of that Volk. If in different parts of the pretended Volkstum they are different, then there is actually no Volkstum. 


That is not correct. For centuries, "Austria" was and embodied the "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation"; Prussia proper was indeed a small --- and until the 18th century, quite insignificant --- part of the Empire (even the authenticity of their Germanness is highly questionable, since it was an area where Slavic presence was heavily felt and documented). It's only in the second half of the 19th century that Prussia gained the technical, political and miitary upper-hand to the point of identifying herself only with Germany, in competition with, and contrast to, the Austrian Empire.

That is - in fact - not what defined "Germany" throughout its history. As simple as that. And it certainly did not any longer apply after the Luther Bible and printing press did much to make the German language more cohesive among those who mattered. The concept of a "German people", you will agree, precedes the country Germany by almost 1000 years.

I'm not sure how you got on the topic of Prussia when we are discussing the Germanness of Austria. If anything, you are making my point by emphasising that the idea of "German" back then had much less to do with a nation (or Prussia, which sort-of grew into the role, when the "Kleindeutsche Loesung" was favored in the making of the German Empire, as opposed to the "Grossdeutsche Loesung" that would have included the Austrians (with or without their non-German brethren) as the dominant force of the new German empire. When Hitler came to power, the call throughout Austria was not for nothing "HEIM ins [Deutsche] Reich". I'm merely trying to establish what should be nearly self-evident... that Austrians always considered themselves as Germans and that the notion that they are separate from Germans (because Germany is now a nation, not just a culture and a people) is only a few decades - not even a century - old.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

The way I read the letter in the AMZ, the (anonymous) writer was pleased that the oratorio was so good, but disappointed that it wasn't written in Prussia by a German composer there. I may have misunderstood, I am just explaining that's what I did understand. There are several other instances one could cite (I have done a few in various essays) where the Prussians were culturally critical of the Austrians, and Haydn in particular, using him as a symbol of all that was wrong with the southerners. Once again, though, after London he was suddenly persona grata.

Without trying to offend - Yes, I think you did misunderstand the letter. You don't happen to have the German original around? That might clarify it.

[Florestan]

I think I have a little chip on my shoulder about this, because in many discussions I have had with music-lovers over the years, whenever I have tried to differentiate Austrian music from German, I have been essentially rebuffed. I think one could take the Congress of Vienna, or better yet, 1848, as a dividing line between 2 different countries/cultures followed by a blending.

Certainly not the Congress of Vienna, where the Austrian-to-the-boots Metternich called the tune.  1848 is more like an overture; the real turning point was 1866 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War)

[Florestan]

The concept of a "German people", you will agree, precedes the country Germany by almost 1000 years.

I do agree. My only question is, what did people from different part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation have in common? Specifically, what did people in Austria ca. 1800 had in common with people in Prussia ca. 1800? And by people I mean people as in common folks, people in the streets, John and Janet Doe in their, say, Viennese or Berliner guise.

Austrians always considered themselves as Germans and that the notion that they are separate from Germans (because Germany is now a nation, not just a culture and a people) is only a few decades - not even a century - old.

If this is true then why did Austrians not enthusiastically and en masse push for joining the newly-proclaimed German Republic after WWI? Why do they not do it today?

[Gurn Blanston]

Without trying to offend - Yes, I think you did misunderstand the letter. You don't happen to have the German original around? That might clarify it.

No, just Landon's translation (I scanned that quote out of his book so there is no mistyping or anything). But damned anonymous letters leave a lot to be desired. Was it written by a Leipziger? A Viennese?  It would make a world of difference to know that. I took it to be by a Prussian because I have never read anything by a Viennese from this period which calls any country 'Germany', even though it is understood to be in the sense of cultural pan-Germany. It is a Prussian thing. If that is indeed the case, then calling Haydn a foreigner would be a natural thing (although frightfully provincial). If it was a Viennese, it would be even more provincial and a throwback to the Joseph II days when Eisenstadt was considered 'outlands'.

When I included that I was curious, it is why I did it. So it is no problem for me to hear differing opinions. Lots of people, yourselves included, know a lot more about this than I do. 

[Florestan]

I guess a lot of confusion and misunderstanding stems from equating "people" with "nation" --- a disease which is French in origin but manifested itself most dangerously in post-1870, pre-1945 Germany.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I do agree. My only question is, what did people from different part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation have in common? Specifically, what did people in Austria ca. 1800 had in common with people in Prussia ca. 1800? And by people I mean people as in common folks, people in the streets, John and Janet Doe in their, say, Viennese or Berliner guise.

If this is true then why did Austrians not enthusiastically and en masse push for joining the newly-proclaimed German Republic after WWI? Why do they not do it today?

On the latter point, I will suggest that Georges "The Tiger" Clémenceau, would have disapproved. The Versailles Treat did not allow for this. Hitler was the first opportunity and they took it, gently encouraged by the tips of machine guns, where hesitance was to be found.

On the first: The idea of Germanness, the language, the literature, the music, the history. The Luther Bible. (Which wasn't a "Lutheran bible"; simply a bible in the vulgate.) More people were proud of Lessing and Goethe than read them. Hans Sachs, Johann Fischart, shared stories like D. Johann Fausten and Till Eulenspiegel... Grimmelshausen & Simplicissimus, Leibnitz... the universities... oh my, the list is long.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

No, just Landon's translation (I scanned that quote out of his book so there is no mistyping or anything). But damned anonymous letters leave a lot to be desired. Was it written by a Leipziger? A Viennese?  It would make a world of difference to know that. I took it to be by a Prussian because I have never read anything by a Viennese from this period which calls any country 'Germany', even though it is understood to be in the sense of cultural pan-Germany. It is a Prussian thing. If that is indeed the case, then calling Haydn a foreigner would be a natural thing (although frightfully provincial). If it was a Viennese, it would be even more provincial and a throwback to the Joseph II days when Eisenstadt was considered 'outlands'.

When I included that I was curious, it is why I did it. So it is no problem for me to hear differing opinions. Lots of people, yourselves included, know a lot more about this than I do. 

As I am trying to point out, the use of using "German" was not in the least a Prussian thing. It was a pan-German thing. It had NOTHING to do with nation.

The critique sounds like Swieten himself - or someone close to him - actually. Trying to rile against his backwards fellow countrymen for ONCE AGAIN missing greatness that's under their noses only because it shares their own nationality is too close to home ... and foreign nations having to pick up the slack. The author is trying to shame his people into giving Haydn his due. It could have been written in Vienna in 2018, come to think of it, so typical is it of this place.

Vienna has this thing where anything that comes from within isn't deemed worth much until appreciated abroad (i.e. Concentus Musicus & Harnoncourt who, despite all his connections, didn't really attain wider admiration at home until he was well admired abroad). The other thing is that something that's big in Vienna and anything the Viennese love is considered naturally GREAT at which point they totally stop caring about anything that might happen anywhere else... deeming themselves sufficient unto their own. Hence the nasty and totally accurate snide remark of someone being "world famous in Vienna".

[Gurn Blanston]

As I am trying to point out, the use of using "German" was not in the least a Prussian thing. It was a pan-German thing. It had NOTHING to do with nation.

The critique sounds like Swieten himself - or someone close to him - actually. Trying to rile against his backwards fellow countrymen for ONCE AGAIN missing greatness that's under their noses only because it shares their own nationality ... and foreign nations having to pick up the slack. The author is trying to shame his people into giving Haydn his due. It could have been written in Vienna in 2018, come to think of it, so typical is it of this place.

Which may well be the crux of the misunderstanding...

[Florestan]

On the latter point, I will suggest that Georges "The Tiger" Clémenceau, would have disapproved. The Versailles Treat did not allow for this. Hitler was the first opportunity and they took it, gently encouraged by the tips of machine guns, where hesitance was to be found.

Gently encouraged... well said. 

On the first: The idea of Germanness, the language, the literature, the music, the history. The Luther Bible. (Which wasn't a "Lutheran bible"; simply a bible in the vulgate.) More people were proud of Lessing and Goethe than read them. Hans Sachs, Johann Fischart, shared stories like D. Johann Fausten and Till Eulenspiegel... Grimmelshausen & Simplicissimus, Leibnitz... the universities... oh my, the list is long.

Look, I don't claim there was not a consciousness of Germanness among educated elites --- on the contrary, there were several competing ones, out of which the Austrian and the Prussian emerged as the only ones in the late 19th century and which Prussia managed to win militarily and, most importantly, ideologically. But among commoners I doubt it was such a clear-cut case.

Let's forget for a moment Austria and Prussia. How about Switzerland? Do a good part of them not speak German? Yet, not even Hitlker dared to Anschluss them. And: can you think of a more polar opposition than between Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse?

[Gurn Blanston]

The critique sounds like Swieten himself - or someone close to him - actually. Trying to rile against his backwards fellow countrymen for ONCE AGAIN missing greatness that's under their noses only because it shares their own nationality ... and foreign nations having to pick up the slack. The author is trying to shame his people into giving Haydn his due. It could have been written in Vienna in 2018, come to think of it, so typical is it of this place.

Interesting idea. Certainly the attitude is reflective of Swieten's. He was a real nudge when it came to advancing the country culturally. I'll see what else I can find out about it. There is a ton of backstory, mostly untold. But I find new sources all the time (because I look for them all the time!), and I could get lucky here.

[Florestan]

Which may well be the crux of the misunderstanding...

I agree. I might be wrong but it's my understanding that "Austria" has always been much more cosmopolitan than "Prussia"; heck, they even adopted Beethoven and Brahms as their own --- which led to the famous "German" bon mot that the Austrians have stolen Beethoven from Germans and gave them Hitler instead...

...which all means that history is much more complicated than we might ever think. 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I agree. I might be wrong but it's my understanding that "Austria" has always been much more cosmopolitan than "Prussia"; heck, they even adopted Beethoven and Brahms as their own --- which led to the famous "German" bon mot that the Austrians have stolen Beethoven from Germans and gave them Hitler instead...

...which all means that history is much more complicated than we might ever think. 

Prussia was a little backwater for most of its history -- while the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the empire in which the sun never set. Vienna was FAR more cosmopolitan; Berlin was the sticks until, oh... various Freddies tried to change that. And even then it took until about 1900-1920 for Berlin to seriously challenge Vienna as a city of any reputation or notoriety. (Berlin was far more liberal and offered a good foil for the grimy-creative-yet-stifling empirial capital.) We would be making a mistake in looking only at this apparent duopoly of Prussia-vs-"Kakanien" in talking about Germanness. The small states out West, the consensus-building politics, the particular brand of "Rhine capitalism" and the society that grew out of those towns and duchies and principalities is just as important... even if they didn't make any momentous decisions as political actors.

[Florestan]

Prussia was a little backwater for most of its history -- while the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the empire in which the sun never set. Vienna was FAR more cosmopolitan; Berlin was the sticks until, oh... various Freddies tried to change that. We would be making a mistake in looking only at this apparent duopoly of Prussia-vs-"Kakanien" in talking about Germanness. The small states out West, the consensus-building politics, the particular brand of "Rhine capitalism" and the society that grew out of those towns and duchies and principalities is just as important... even if they didn't make any momentous decisions as political actors.

Oh, yes, I certainly agree. Speaking of music, would you agree that Weimar during Liszt's Kapellmeister years was more important than both Vienna and Berlin back then? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Prussia was a little backwater for most of its history -- while the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the empire in which the sun never set. Vienna was FAR more cosmopolitan; Berlin was the sticks until, oh... various Freddies tried to change that. And even then it took until about 1900-1920 for Berlin to seriously challenge Vienna as a city of any reputation or notoriety. (Berlin was far more liberal and offered a good foil for the grimy-creative-yet-stifling empirial capital.) We would be making a mistake in looking only at this apparent duopoly of Prussia-vs-"Kakanien" in talking about Germanness. The small states out West, the consensus-building politics, the particular brand of "Rhine capitalism" and the society that grew out of those towns and duchies and principalities is just as important... even if they didn't make any momentous decisions as political actors.

But the question is, how far back did those attitudes extend? For my purposes, nothing that happened after 1800 has happened yet, so I am looking to take a snapshot in time. My interest extends into the 19th century, but Haydn's only extends as fr as getting subscribers for his Creation publication...