This innovation was not altogether suffered to pass as such; it was asserted that Beethoven had already availed himself of these means in his sonatas; and blame was now cast upon the very exaggeration which gave a certain uniformity, perhaps more, to the structure and effect of his compositions. This view is only made prominent in order to obtain for Liszt the proper point of sight, from which to measure his reaction, and the gigantic height he gained.
Liszt had already left Paris, when Thalberg appeared there, but the rumor of his success and triumph reached his ears. It caused him sleepless nights. Let us imagine the feelings of an artist, conscious of his own power, knowing himself without a rival, yet seeing another suddenly elevated in popular opinion to an equality with him—perhaps generally judged to be his superior! Liszt felt that wrong had been done him, and hastened back to Paris. Thalberg was no longer there; but there was a division of opinion and judgment among the Parisians, as once there had been between the Gluckists and Piccinists. The talk was now of Lisztians and Thalbergians; strife ran high between the parties; and to observe it and hear their disputes was the most interesting amusement of the fashionable world. Liszt did not this time go before the public, to become acquainted, perhaps, only with his own enthusiastic partisans; but indulged his speculations in solitude. His clear spirit could discover the folly and worthlessness of popular idolatry, and scorn to win it by means he felt to be unworthy his genius.
Three years passed, in which the name of Liszt was but seldom, and at intervals, heard. The lives of gifted men seem to need such pauses to prepare for a full development of what is within them. The electric fluid must be gathered in secret, before the lightning of genius can break on the dazzled eyes of men, and its thunder amaze the world.
What he did during this interval, says Fétis, few know, notwithstanding the enthusiasm he everywhere excited. The charming “Lucia fantaisie,” and the wonderful combination of fantasies upon “Robert the Devil”—give but incomplete evidence of his employment. Even those who heard him improvise at the concert at Liege an admirable capriccio on a thema to all appearance barren, given him by the audience; those who heard his performance, prima vista, of the most difficult passages in accumulated pieces from illegible manuscripts, which he executed with so much readiness as to astonish the authors themselves, and with infinite ease; those who know how many great compositions are impressed on his memory, so that he can execute any one of them at any moment; those who know him for the most complete musician of our time, and the most gifted in his way; even they have no idea of the thorough change which took place in his creative power during the three years spent by him in retirement.
Fétis goes on, in his philosophical manner, to explain how the doings of Thalberg, suggesting new combinations to the mind of our artist, already busy with improvements, wrought a change in him, and impelled him upon a path that was quite his own. The victory was accomplished; and triumphantly could the question now be answered—“Is Liszt also distinguished as a composer?”
Liszt has recorded his new views, and the forms invented by him, in an immense work, entitled “Three years of wandering.” The first part contains recollections of Switzerland, the second recollections of Italy, the third of Germany. Fétis says, “I was indulged by the artist with a hearing of some portions of it; and must do him the justice to say, that these displayed most uncommon attainments in art. Perhaps it will be said, when the work appears, that the composer has had the orchestra more in view than the piano—yet I know not if this objection is not praise rather than blame. However it may be, I will not forestall the judgment of competent critics by recording my simple impressions. I merely quote the ‘Etudes d’execution transcendante,’ which have particularly led me to this long exposition,” &c.
We have found it necessary to follow this writer so far, because his remarks help to develop the personal history of Liszt, and to place his individuality with regard to art in a strong light. Fétis is, besides, such a well known and universally respected authority in the higher musical studies, that he will be gladly listened to in his observations on a genius so remarkable.
Those who venture to deny Liszt a general talent for composition, will find they have measured him by false and inapplicable rules. The foundation of composition is Imagination, the living, powerful creative faculty. Let us take only those works which show most clearly Liszt’s art, and the subtlety of his spirit—the Transpositions[11] of Beethoven’s symphonies, and the songs of Schubert. It cannot be doubted that a power of imagination has here been displayed by him, such as would not be needed for another original work.
Liszt in these has not merely copied; he has emulated with creative power; and so successfully that there is a second birth. These transpositions, grand in the symphonies, tender in the songs—are the culminating point of musical plastic power. It is impossible to particularize the expression with more subtlety; to express the spirit more accurately and fully. Therein lies a brilliant conception of harmonious completeness, that fills the heart and soul alike, when those spiritual graces press upon them. In truth, one should only hear that genesis of pastoral symphony—those wonderful pictures, called into life by the powerful and magic touch of Liszt. Any other virtuoso, were he the most accomplished and excellent of players, would have given us, instead of divine poetry, only massive, or at best, tasteful prose!