It is significant that although all were agreed that Nissen's book was unreadable without alteration and adaptation, no writer in Germany undertook the task, and that it was left to foreigners to turn the treasure to account. Fétis undertook
it in his "Biographie Universelle des Musiciens," IV., p. 432 (Brussels, 1840), VI., p. 222 (2nd edit., Brussels, 1864), so far as it could be done within the narrow limits of a general work of the kind.
But the obvious task of compiling an interesting and readable biography by means of an orderly arrangement of the really interesting portions of Nissen's materials was first undertaken by Edward Holmes, in his "Life of Mozart, including his Correspondence" (London, 1845).
Holmes has arranged the essential portions of the LIFE OF MOZART. correspondence with intelligence and discrimination, and has connected them by a narrative built upon previous notices; he has thus produced a trustworthy and, as far as was possible, an exhaustive account of Mozart's life. Holmes has, moreover, made use of André's published Catalogue of Mozart's Works, and the indications there given of their date of appearance. He undertook a journey through Germany to inspect the original manuscripts in André's possession, and to collect stray oral traditions. He took care to make himself acquainted with musical literature, and the result is a work which must be considered as the most trustworthy and serviceable biography that could be produced by a skilful employment of the materials generally accessible. Holmes has not attempted to draw from hitherto unknown sources; he neither carries his researches to any depth, nor offers any original opinions or explanations.
The letters of both Mozarts, father and son, were edited by J. Goschler in a spirit which is indicated clearly enough by the title of his book, "Mozart; Vie d'un Artiste Chrétien au XVIII. siècle." Paris, 1857.
Alexander Ulibichefï proceeded from quite another point of view in his work, "Nouvelle Biographie de Mozart, suivie d'un aperçu sur l'histoire générale de la musique, et de l'analyse des principales ouvres de Mozart" (Moscow, 1843), in three parts, which is generally known in Germany in the translations of A. Schraishuon (Stuttgart, 1847), and of L. Gantte (Stuttgart, 1859). The enthusiastic reverence of the author for Mozart speaks from every page, and involved many years of study and many real sacrifices; but this must not blind our judgment as to the intrinsic value of his work. I do not fear your reproaching me in the words of the old proverb about the kettle reproving the pot, if I express myself freely as to what I consider the weak points of this book. Ulibicheffs main object has been a critical and aesthetic analysis of Mozart's later works, on which his fame mainly rests, and which bear the most perfect impress of his genius. The author's observations, therefore, are confined to a definite portion of Mozart's compositions—the best known, because the greatest—and any idea of extending INTRODUCTION. them does not seem to have occurred to him. Anything further in his works is meant to serve only as a foundation for those observations. He does not fail to perceive that the greatness of perfected genius can only be apprehended by a knowledge of the gradual stages of its achievement, and that, since Mozart takes his place in the history of music by something more than mere chance, the whole process of musical development is necessarily incorporated in his progress.
Ulibicheff is content to extract all that seems to point to his conclusions from Nissen's account of Mozart's development. He makes up for his reticence in this direction by expatiating freely on the general history of the art. In fact, his review of the whole history of music results only in the observation that since any exceptional phenomenon is the sum and crown of all that has gone before, therefore the development of modern music in every direction, from Guido of Arezzo, onwards, has its raison d'etre in the production of Mozart, who is to be considered as its perfect expression.
No one knows better than yourself, my friend, the false conclusions to which this exaggeration of an idea, true and suggestive in itself, has led. The partiality of enthusiasm and dilettantism join issue here. It needs no great penetration to discover that Ulibicheffs epitome of the history of music is not the result of impartial research, or of a practical knowledge of even the more important works of past ages, but that it is compiled from a few easily recognised works with the express object of demonstrating that all that has gone before has its end and consummation in Mozart. An author who can seriously maintain that the great masters of counterpoint, Palestrina, Bach, and Handel were only called into being in order that the Requiem might be produced, an author who can only grasp and develop the idea of natural progress up to a certain point and no further—that author has surely mastered neither the idea of progress, nor the nature of the art, nor the work of the master whom he seeks to honour. Such a partial and exclusive appreciation of any artist may satisfy individual taste, for which it is proverbially impossible to account; but scientific investigation, LIFE OF MOZART. which can always be accounted for, seeing that it proceeds from a rational basis, rejects it at once and altogether. You will, I know, agree with me that the critic who, like Ulibicheff, depreciates Beethoven in order to maintain Mozart on his pedestal, does not understand Mozart. The distortion and exaggeration of such an idea leads further to the neglect of those clues to a right understanding of Mozart's development which exist in the circumstances of his life, in his youthful works, and in the conditions of his age and surroundings. These had all direct effect upon his genius, and, in so far as they are disregarded, our conception of the man and the artist will be defective.
I am, of course, far from denying that Uübicheff has brought to the performance of his task considerable power of delicate aesthetic analysis, together with much spirit and ingenuity. But his analysis of particular works does not start from artistic form, the specific basis of all works of art; he never seeks to demonstrate how the universal laws of art, under certain conditions, govern all concrete forms according to the individuality of the artist (a difficult task in music, but still essential to its true understanding); instead of this he contents himself with giving us his own reflections on the various compositions he analyses, and the feelings and ideas which they suggest to himself. Such reflections are pleasant and entertaining when they proceed from a clever and cultivated mind; but they are usually more characteristic of the author than of his subject, and are mainly satisfactory to those who fail to grasp the substance of a work of art, and are fain to content themselves with its shadow.
Uübicheff invariably displays both intellect and cultivation, but it is the cultivation of a man of the world, not that of a musician, which has no bias of enthusiasm or dilettantism; his remarks seldom reach the root of the matter, and are often deceptive in their brilliancy, thus accomplishing little for a better appreciation of his subject.