His Life and Works (Part 2)

Evaluation of Contemporary Biographical Material

The dearth of information from incontestable sources about Wanhal points up the need to examine every aspect of his musical and personal activities. The following observations and pre-suppositions provide the bases for my interpretations of the source material. They fill in some of the gaps in information about the man and his times, and provide a better understanding of the events that occurred during each of the five periods in his life.

• Wanhal's Family
• The First Period (Bohemia, 1739-1760-61?)
• The Second Period (Vienna, 1760-61?-May 1769)
• The Third Period (May 1769-September 1771)
• The Fourth Period (Vienna and Varaždin, September 1771-Early 1780s)
• The Fifth Period (Vienna, Early 1780s-1813)

Wanhal's Family

At the outset there are two related questions. They concern his ancestry, and his immediate family, including the proper spelling of his family name. Margarethe von Dewitz, in her pre-World War II dissertation on the keyboard works of Wanhal, reported that in answer to her letter of inquiry, the Pfarramt in Neu-Nechanice wrote that Wanhal was born on May 12, 1739.²² The accuracy of that date has been confirmed by successive researchers in Czechoslovakia,²³ but the questions of his ancestry and also the most appropriate spelling of his family name have aroused speculation. In my dissertation I reported having found eleven different spellings of Wanhal's name, including a single print which contained three different spellings. One spelling "van Hall" ("vanHal, Van Hal") was found several times, e.g., on prints issued by J. J. Hummel in Amsterdam, and on a cartouche published in AMZ.²⁴ This may have been the basis for the belief that his family ancestry was Dutch.

The question is raised in WeinmannWanhalCat wherein Weinmann discusses the problem at some length. He considers the possibility that, somewhere in the family's past, there might have been a connection with a noble family named "van Halle" in Brabant, as reported by A-a, and that they had been forced to move to Bohemia. FrantiÅ¡ek FiÅ¡er's dissertation,²⁵ to the contrary, had previously reported that a large family with the name Vaňhal existed in Dobreniče in 1676, that Johann's father, Jan, was born there on April 28, 1704, and went from there to Nechanice. FiÅ¡er also suggested that Wanhal's mother was born into a family named VoleÅ¡ovský, whose members were predominantly musicians.²⁶ Regardless, Weinmann wryly reminds us that Bohemia was actually a member state of the Hapsburg empire, so Wanhal could not "emigrate" to Vienna.²⁷

In Appendix F of BryanWanhal, I explain in some detail my reasons for choosing to spell the family name as did Wanhal himself. A shorter explanation seems appropriate here. Alexander Weinmann points out that the name is spelled the same way on the title pages for several of Wanhal's compositions issued by Viennese publishers. He notes that Ignaz Sauer, one of the leading Viennese publishers, who was personally very close to Wanhal, was careful to spell it that way. Weinmann explained: "He [Wanhal] changed the initial letter from V to W merely on phonetic grounds because people in Vienna pronounced W in the same manner as those at home pronounced V . . . and he strenuously maintained the use of the háček (Weichheitszeichen) in the form of a dot over the n in the first editions issued by his chief Viennese publisher, Ignaz Sauer."²⁸ Artaria, the best known and longest lasting of the Viennese publishers, also carefully spelled the name on the title page of Wanhal's op. 33 quartets issued in 1785.

Note: Due to a combination of factors — including your browser, the fonts installed on your computer, and the browser options you have chosen — the dot over the n in Wanhal's last name cannot be represented in the text of these pages. The reader is therefore asked to kindly ignore this discrepancy.

Extract from a print by Sauer and Wanhal's signature made in 1792.

Wanhal obviously preferred the German spelling himself, but it should instead be recognized as a logical and practical occurrence—the solution to an age-old problem whereby a realistic person acknowledges that to overcome the disadvantages of an established identity he must establish a new one. The adopted spelling for his family name went hand-in-hand with the process of becoming free from bondage. It was part of the "germanization" necessary for a poor and generally unrecognized bonded person from a little town in Bohemia to establish himself in the great metropolis of Vienna.²⁹ Doubtless Wanhal soon realized that both had to happen if he were to be accepted into the Viennese circles to which he aspired. To become free of his Leibeigenschaft must have been one of his first goals in Vienna. Even though the notion of doing away with the practice of bondage was already in the minds of many, including the more enlightened nobility, Josef II's abolition of bondage [Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft] was still twenty years in the future.³⁰

Similarly, Wanhal's concern for practical solutions to life's problems are seen in other very important ways such as his deciding not to become Baron Riesch's Kapellmeister in 1770 and his ceasing to compose symphonies in the late 1770's. But his high regard for and pride in his Bohemian heritage is demonstrated in his use of the old Bohemian dot-over-the-n háček as part of his germanized signature.³¹

Dlabacž also vacillated by not including that symbol in the Lexikon's article about "Wanhal" even though he did use its equivalent in the "Vorrede" where he thanked "Herr Johann Bapt. Waňhall Komponist und Virtuos in Wien" for his assistance. Dlabacž also used it in connection with other names in the KünstlerLexikon. His use of two ll's [Wanhall] seems surprising, although it might have been because the "Vorrede" was completed later than the article, (perhaps even by someone else), or it might have been a careless error, or even because he later considered it unimportant.

The First Period (Bohemia, 1739-1760-61?)

There is little to supplement the accounts from the two basic sources about the initial twenty-two years of Wanhal's life. His parents' providing him special instruction in music, as well as in the German language, showed their recognition of his potential to rise above the financial and social levels of Nechanice, just as other young musicians had done and were doing in other towns in Bohemia.³² His industriousness and rapid advancement as an organist and violinist, as composer of music for those instruments, and as director of the choir at Niemežcowes made it obvious to all that a brilliant career was ahead of him. A-a tells that Wanhal composed concertos for both violin and organ which he himself played, and further that he could even be called a virtuoso violinist; he also relates that Wanhal played cassations for viole d'amour which an older colleague, Novák, had composed and given to Countess Colloredo.³³

The Second Period (Vienna, 1760-61?-May 1769)

Wanhal's career from 1761-69 must have encompassed some of his happiest and most exciting years. But the sources disagree on almost all details of how the period began, i.e., when and with whom he went to Vienna and his activities during his stay there. At the end, they point out that he went to Italy, but the details are sketchy and confusing. Dlabacž tells that the Countess Schaffgotsch summoned him to Vienna in 1760. She apparently did not have a musical entourage in Vienna, so her taking him there must have been motivated by pride in the accomplishments of one of her subjects and her desire to provide better opportunity for him to advance. It might also have been motivated by his attractive personality, for, in addition to being a fine performer and a composer at the age of twenty-one, he was handsome, well-behaved, good-natured, cheerful, extraordinarily modest, and energetic; and, furthermore, he had a fine sense of humor. That he was soon invited to become the teacher of keyboard, singing, and violin to members of the best noble families was perhaps to be expected.

A-a, on the other hand, says that the Countess Colloredo—not the Countess Schaffgotsch—took him with her household when they returned home to Vienna (presumably at the end of the summer season) and that Wanhal remained in Vienna, at the palace of her sister, the wife of Frera, the Portugese ambassador.³⁴ A-a does not specify the date of that move, but his observation that Wanhal was then twenty-four years old seems to indicate the year 1763. In both regards, however, Dlabacž was probably correct: he went with the Schaffgotschs to Vienna, and the early Viennese period of Wanhal's life lasted from 1760 (or 1761) until 1769.³⁵

The decades from 1750-80 mark one of the most active and interesting periods in the history of music in Vienna. The active musical interests of the imperial court prior to the succession of Maria Theresia in 1740 had helped to engender an extremely high level of interest in music and a society of sophisticated nobility to whom musical performance was important, both for itself and for its possible social and political advantage. But the Empress was soon preoccupied with political and financial problems which prevented her from supporting expensive extravagances in the manner of her forebears. Meanwhile the more ambitious of the increasingly well-to-do aristocracy assumed control of musical life in Vienna as well as in other parts of the empire, especially in Bohemia.

Although extensive archives of the Esterházy family are extant, comparable documentation for most of the other nobility, their hierarchy and their activities, is now lacking. Unfortunately, not even a simple summary estimates how many soirees, academies, etc., took place in palaces, large and small, during the years ca. 1750-80, when the phenomenon was most actively running its course. Even though the pace of these musical events can only be speculated, the actual competition among both the noble and nouveau riche families for positions in top level society must have been enormous, and their feverish activity must have been accelerating at the time Wanhal arrived in Vienna.³⁶

Dlabacž and A-a do contribute to comprehending the activity of the times, but they provide few details regarding Wanhal's activity during this time of his musical maturation. Nevertheless, significance may be attached to A-a's remarks that in Vienna Wanhal began his career as composer by writing various types of instrumental music (cassations, symphonies, and concertos) and that he was invited to conduct his symphonies for Baron Riesch and Count Erdödy. He emphasizes the importance of Wanhal's symphonies by twice referring to Wanhal as a composer of symphonies. By associating Wanhal with Count Erdödy and Baron Riesch, A-a places him in the midst of the highest level of society and with the richest nobility, who could afford to maintain their own orchestras.³⁷

Quite apart from Dlabacž and A-a, there is abundant evidence that Wanhal composed a variety of music during the years from 1760-69: dated catalogs, such as the Breitkopf and Göttweig Catalogs; the records of French publishers; the contents of church related collections such as those at Vorau monastery; and the collections of the noble families, such as those of Counts Clam Gallas and Waldstein. Together they provide terminal datings of 1769 or earlier for some thirty-one symphonies. In addition there were concertos, cassations and other genre of orchestral music such as divertimentos, notturnos, serenades, etc., written before Wanhal traveled to Italy. The sources for data on music of this period are considered in detail in Chapter 3 of BryanWanhal.

Wanhal's interaction with other musicians in Vienna is revealed in a number of sources. A-a recounts his meeting and performing together with the child Mozart in Vaterländische Blätter. Dittersdorf, in his Autobiography reports that Wanhal was his student, presumably in com-position, during this period, probably during 1762-3, when Ditters[dorf] was in Vienna. Wanhal's apparent failure to mention it to Dlabacž indicates that it could not have been very important to him. The two young men were the same age, and it seems more likely that Wanhal, already an experienced composer, probably welcomed Ditters' suggestion, but did not undertake any extensive study with him. Given the difference in their backgrounds and training—Dittersdorf being a sophisticated native who knew his way around Vienna—and based on observations made about Wanhal during his later years—it seems more likely that Wanhal, the pragmatist and new to Viennese musical circles, wanted to learn the political process from first hand. The advantages of consorting with the person who was recognized as the leading virtuoso violinist, and who, in addition, held an established court position, is also not to be over-looked.³⁸ Another person probably encountered by Wanhal at this time in Vienna was the Parisian publisher, Anton Huberty. As will be explained later, I believe he played a more significant role in Wanhal's future than did Ditters.

For Wanhal it was the best of times, the peak of a prosperous period, when the uppercrust of society placed the highest accolades upon those of its members who provided the finest orchestras and the most brilliant soirees. He must have been a bright star, the center of attention, a lion of society. He obviously possessed all the qualities of musical talent and personal qualities to be a successful Kapellmeister. With a little more training he would have appeared to be the perfect person to gather together, to train, and to lead the members of a new Kapelle.

Baron Riesch, who chose Wanhal for just such a position, is a shadowy figure, and little is known about him other than that he was very much in the middle of Viennese society sometime during the decade of the sixties.³⁹ Clearly, he had, or was gathering together, a Kapelle for his palace in Dresden.⁴⁰ If it was to be comparable with the musical establishments of the Viennese nobility, its leader had to be thoroughly acquainted with the Italian language as well as the latest in musical styles.⁴¹ The choice of the attractive Wanhal and the decision to send him to Italy where he could become conversant with opera and the Italian manner were most astute. Riesch's assuring Wanhal's acceptance by financing the expenses of the trip was equally wise, because he could expect that Wanhal would be obligated to assume the leadership of the Kapelle.

According to their contract, Baron Riesch gave Wanhal a travel advance of 2,000 florins and the assurance that he would send more money as it was needed. The additional money was to be repaid by Wanhal, at least in part, by special compositions he would compose for the Baron. Those conditions seem to have been most generous; Wanhal could hardly have hoped for better. If more were known about Riesch's aspirations for his musical establishment, it would be easier to understand Wanhal's mission in going to Italy. There are no indications that he went there specifically to compose opera, but his first hand acquaintance and hands on experience with Italian opera are documented by Dlabacž for the period of his stay in Rome.

The Third Period (May 1769-September 1771)

The accounts of Wanhal's stay in Italy from 1769-71 are meager, but he must have taken copies of his symphonies to be performed for his hosts, and have consorted with the most important people in the main musical centers. A-a reports that in Venice, Wanhal's first residence in Italy, he was in the company of Gluck; later he also worked with and for Gassmann, the leader of the Viennese court opera, who was then in Rome composing Ezio, based on Metastasio's libretto.⁴² At this time Wanhal, according to A-a, composed two operas, Il trionfo di Clelia and Demofonte, also based on librettos by Metastasio. Dlabacž says nothing in his biography about them, merely that Wanhal wrote some arias for operas by Gassmann; but he includes the titles of these two operas in his list of Wanhal's compositions that follows the article. Further, Dlabacž says that in various Italian cities Wanhal studied composition "after the best models" and wrote a number of musical works. If Wanhal actually did compose the operas, they have disappeared. Doubtless he wrote symphonies for local patrons during this time, but the provenance of the ones now held in Italian archives cannot be established. It seems further probable that he would have composed symphonies to have available for the publisher Huberty and also for Baron Riesch when he returned home.

In retrospect, there are indications that all was not well with Wanhal, that he seemed to be dawdling in Italy, especially in view of the position which awaited him in Vienna and Dresden. Baron Riesch would have reason to wish, even to be impatient, that this much heralded young friend, whom he expected to become his Kapellmeister, would returnóand contribute to raising Riesch's stature in the ranks of upper level society. Wanhal did not go to Naples, as he had planned; perhaps the Baron may have been applying pressure to make him return.⁴³ Had he chosen to think about it, Wanhal would have perceived that he was still in a kind of Leibeigenschaft.

The Fourth Period (Vienna and Varaždin, September 1771-Early 1780s)

There are no descriptions of what happened when Wanhal returned to Vienna, but it was manifestly a crucial time in his life, with developments affecting both his immediate career and his lasting reputation. In this regard, differences in the reports about the effect of a debilitating illness which occurred upon his return suggest a different interpretation than that reached by former biographers.

Dlabacž, after his statement that Wanhal "was overcome by a mental disturbance that hindered his musical work not a little," continues with a quotation from Burney about the high quality of Wanhal's symphony that he heard in Dresden on 21 September 1772.⁴⁴ Then Dlabacž further tells that Wanhal, since his recovery, had produced great works, and that his more recent [1795] compositions, works for keyboard (instructional music, sonatas, concertos, variations, etc.), have (as always, he adds) nobility, solidity, delicacy, and melodiousness plus those qualities akin to his disposition—i.e., honesty, gentleness of character, and agreeableness.

Burney opines that Wanhal's early compositions, especially those for "violins" were "wild" and "new" and that, at the beginning of his career, Wanhal was fortunately somewhat flighty ("a little perturbation of the faculties"). Such enthusiasm, he continues, is absolutely necessary, since music depends upon fancy and imagination. To the contrary, however, in 1772-3 he gives the opinion that, unfortunately, Wanhal's recent music lacks its former inspiration: because of his present cold, sedate, and wary disposition, his mind is now calm and tranquil. Therefore, his recent compositions are uninteresting because they lack the "extravagance" they formerly had and are now limited by "too great economy of thought." The physicians who cured his "insanity" did him a disservice. This line of opinion continues in his writings later in the same year; while reporting about a concert he heard in Dresden, Burney reports that he heard "an admirable symphony of Vanhall, produced in those happy moments of effervescence, when his reason was less powerful than his feeling."⁴⁵

The Anonymous-author, in his obituary of 1814, discusses the situation at considerable length and vividly spells out some of the terrible things that had happened to Wanhal: that his former tendency toward bigoted fanaticism was so exaggerated by the illness that it led him to a complete nervous breakdown; and in that state of mania he had the strangest of visions, one of which caused him to tear his clothes and cut off his hair and, furthermore, to burn a symphony and some other just completed compositions.⁴⁶ And, finally, he required the help of doctors for a long period of time.

The difference between the accounts of Dlabacž and A-a regarding the severity of the sickness is substantial. Dlabacž might easily have been protecting his much admired friend from the stigma which might surround him, and which must have been among the juicier bits of gossip common in Viennese musical circles. If some of A-a's observations were not so different from Dlabacž's, one might take them at face value. On the other hand, there seems to be a tone of malevolence in A-a's description which blunts the force of his remarks. It reflects the attitude of Burney who seems always to be preaching or in some way demonstrating his own erudition—or his tendency to be a busybody.⁴⁷ Burney's, and in turn, A-a's remarks were undoubtedly the source for the notion that Wanhal was never again able to compose music comparable to his early works. But the quality and the quantity of the serious works he composed after 1770 belie that assertion. Such a notion has been disproved by countless inspired works by depressed composers, from Mozart to Tchaikovsky.

I believe a more accurate assessment of the reasons for Wanhal's breakdown and the severity of its results should be made. It may be comprehended by reconsidering and contrasting his outwardly pleasant and easy-going nature as re-ported by various writers, with the psychological and sociological qualities revealed by the decisions he made throughout his life.

Dlabacž reports about his extraordinary modesty (which prevented Wanhal from telling Dlabacž about his many kindnesses to friends and associates, well-known by people in Vienna) and his strict honesty. He comments that Wanhal was a zealous Christian, and a true patriot and an affectionate father to unfortunate mankind (he more than once gave the shirt off his back to a needy musician). Other writers concur, and Wanhal emerges as a "dear man," who composed requiems for each of his parents, a hard worker who conscientiously taught his students, and composed music for their use and for the needs of the church. He apparently never embraced Freemasonry as did other musicians, including Mozart and Haydn, who were apparently also seeking to join in the struggle for social reforms as well as seeking the opportunity to consort with the nobility.

On the other hand it is evident from the decisions Wanhal made in later years, that he was astute about the ways of the world, practical, without a family to feed, a person who only really needed to look out for himself. And, although he was cheerful and well-liked, he was actually something of a "loner," who increasingly preferred to stay within his own circle of friends. The apparent lack of any notices which tell of his performing in public after 1784 shows that he probably ceased performing in public at age forty-five, while still relatively young. His withdrawal from public appearances is further tacitly supported by the reports of J.F. Reichardt whose letters of 1808-09 from Vienna fail to even mention Wanhal's presence on the local scene.

The aforementioned combination of characteristics and the stresses of the situation he faced might account for the violent actions A-a ascribes to Wanhal during the period immediately following his return from Italy. They were a logical result of the conflict between his serious side—his sensitivity and conscientious sense of responsibility—with his easy-going side—his cheerfulness and his hearty disposition, exacerbated by his awareness that he had extraordinary talent and that so much was expected of him, and perhaps even his realization that he was still not a free man. Regardless, however, his relation to Baron Riesch and his not assuming the position, for which he was presumed to have been preparing himself, must have caused a crisis in his life.

Wanhal's arrival back in Vienna seems to have closely coincided with the return to Vienna of another person seeking to make his fortune, the French publisher Anton Huberty. I have not found evidence which directly connects them personally. Indisputably, however, from ca. 1770, Wanhal derived considerable income from the music publishing industry, and Huberty, the first publisher of Wanhal's music, gave up his business in Paris and came to Vienna.⁴⁸ This coincidence together with other information about Huberty's career and Wanhal's productivity at that time, suggests to me a kind of miniature drama, a sub-plot, featuring Huberty and a probable connection with Wanhal. Like the discussion of Huberty's publishing career in Appendix E of BryanWanhal, the plot is based upon factual time-and-place circumstances and the following interpretation.

I infer that Huberty and Wanhal had met in Vienna ca. 1767-1768, just before Wanhal departed for Italy. Huberty, who was much harassed with his lot in Paris, had come to Vienna with a mission: to become acquainted with the newer Viennese composers and to establish a foothold for himself. He saw Vienna as a place to which he could return and set up his own business as engraver and printer of music. During his visit he met the young Wanhal, became friendly, and eventually purchased or commissioned some of the latter's quartets. He took these works with him when he returned to Paris, where he published them in 1769, as two sets of six "Sinfonie" (a poorly defined genre-terminology at the time). Wanhal may have also provided him with some symphonies at the same time. Concluding the first episode in the drama, Huberty planned to return to Paris to sell his business, so that he could return to Vienna as quickly as possible. Thus, for the young composer, Wanhal, a cooperative music publisher would be available right at home in Vienna, a most happy circumstance to contemplate.

The hopes raised in Huberty's first episode, however, were dashed in the second, between August 2nd, 1770 and September 5th, 1771 (corresponding to the same time Wanhal returned from Italy), when Huberty returned to Vienna, but was unable to establish himself. It would have been a blow to both of them. Coming at that specially sensitive moment in Wanhal's career, it would certainly have contributed to guilt feelings concerning the decision he had doubtless previously reached: not to accept the position as Baron Riesch's Kapellmeister.

At the beginning of the third Huberty-Wanhal episode, Huberty was forced to return to Paris where he remained until 1777, during the same time that Wanhal was pursuing the course of the fourth period (ca. 1771-80) of his career. Huberty's continuing influence on Wanhal during this time may be seen because he issued five more opus number groupings of Wanhal's compositions during his final sojourn in Paris—the third episode of our subplot.

Another of Huberty's probable influences, significant for this study, can be detected. It concerns twenty-four of Wanhal's symphonies which have been preserved as four sets of six—the normal opus grouping. Two of these sets have been found together in a variety of sources, both manuscript and printed. All four display the characteristics of opus number groupings, both in their complementary aspects and in the consistent way they have been preserved. They are identifiable as a grouping or partial grouping of manuscript copies in Breitkopf catalog supplements and in several archives, most notably the Clam Gallas collection.⁴⁹ Three of them are also found among the symphonies published by the Parisian publishers between 1771, when Huberty returned to Paris from his aborted move, and 1777 when he finally moved to Vienna to stay—the beginning of the fourth and last act in the drama of Wanhal and Huberty. It seems strange that neither Huberty nor any other publisher actually issued any of these opus-type groupings with an opus number. An explanation is not likely to be found; but there is no reason to question that Huberty would have encouraged Wanhal to create symphonies in sets of six, as usually issued by publishers in Paris, or that he would have hoped to publish them himself.

If one accepts that precept, another is suggested—that some datings can be related to Huberty's two visits to Vienna. I am inclined to believe, with considerations of their style, that Huberty could have brought some symphonies such as, C1, along with the quartets op.1-3 when he returned to Paris from his first visit. At any rate, C1 was published in Paris by Hugard, who could have obtained it from Huberty. The obviously opus-grouped set of symphonies designated as Clam Gallas 6a = Br 71 (II.A) was certainly available at the time of Huberty's second visit in 1770-71 and perhaps earlier.⁵⁰

Another set of six symphonies, C.G. 6b = Br 72 (II.B), could have been taken by Huberty to Paris in 1771. Their style differs from C1; it suggests a change in Wanhal's concept of the symphony, perhaps as a result of his experiences in Italy. Further changes are evident in the symphonies of the third set. C.G. no.7 (III.A); four of them were published as op. 18 by the Bureau d'abonnement in 1775. I have not been able to find how they were obtained, although Huberty could have been an agent acting as liaison. He was not prospering during his final years in Paris and probably needed money whenever it was available.

There is no concrete evidence that Wanhal and Huberty collaborated in 1768 and 1770 or even after Huberty finally established his home in Vienna in 1777. Thereafter, however, they were inevitably thrown together since they worked—Huberty as engraver and Wanhal as composer—with the publishers Torricella, Artaria, and Hoffmeister in Vienna beginning in 1777-78. A bit of supporting evidence of their cooperation is supplied by his first advertisement of 1778 which includes [newly engraved?] versions of Wanhal's opp. 3-8. The evidence is circumstantial, but persuasive, and I believe that Huberty's final move to Vienna was undertaken with the expectation that he would again publish Wanhal's compositions.

Poor Huberty was destined to be a loser. He was clever enough to realize the great potential for music publishing in Vienna, which in a very few years became one of the leading centers of music publishing in Europe, but his personal hopes were thwarted in the long run.

If Huberty' return to Vienna was responsible for optimistic thoughts in Wanhal's mind when he returned from Italy, his premature return to Paris in 1771 must, in contrast, have been a blow to Wanhal's hopes and expectations for his future. At the very least, the success of their venture could have mitigated the personal conflicts Wanhal experienced after returning from Italy—turning his back on a generous patron, and having to endure the shame and probable ridicule of all who were expecting so much.

Burney and his followers were aware of Wanhal's unpleasant circumstances, but I believe they considerably overstate the case. Wanhal must have been distressed and depressed, but, apart from Burney, I find no evidence of insanity. It seems not impossible that he might even have been clever and calculating—depressed rather than sick—and looking for a way out of his quandary.

Wanhal's problems after he returned from Italy, are identified by both Dlabacž and A-a, but the latter seems to have known little about what occurred during that time—the fourth period of Wanhal's life. He merely says that, after Wanhal gave up the idea of going with Baron Riesch, he again found the protection of Count Erdödy and that he composed quartets for the Count and for subscribers and thus added considerably to his income. A-a further adds that thereafter most of Wanhal's compositions consisted of church music, written to praise his Maker for granting his recovery. But he provides no more clues that point to Wanhal's whereabouts in the years that ensued before the year of his death. The comprehensive list of Wanhal's compositions presented by A-a includes the 100 symphonies and quartets listed by Dlabacž, but it is a much more general listing than Dlabacž's—further evidence that he had little or no contact with Wanhal.

Dlabacž provides an outline of what actually happened during the fourth period and a few reference points which can be augmented by other sources. After his recovery, Dlabacž tells, Wanhal wrote various great works that were played by practically all orchestras. Evidence affirming that these "great" compositions were symphonies is provided by a variety of dated or dateable sources: catalogs, collections, publishers records, etc. Dlabacž also mentions that Wanhal traveled as guest of Count Erdödy to Hungary and Croatia. The brief mention of Hungary seems to indicate that Wanhal visited the Erdödy estate in Pressburg. Dlabacž makes no further reference to any reason to go there. His catalog also tells that Wanhal wrote a variety of church music, including a "great oratorio," for the Erdödys. Its listing in the catalog includes a notation that it was for the Ursulin Convent in Varaždin. The convent, which is located a short distance from the Erdödy palace in Varaždin, is still active. The oratorio is no longer in its collection, but a few of the several Wanhal manuscripts (which I examined there in 1967) are dated, ranging from 1773-79. As Dlabacž reported, several (actually seven) items of church music are included.⁵¹ In addition there is a set of parts for a little one-movement "Synphonia" for strings in Wanhal's own hand; he must have written it ad hoc for the nuns to play and copied the parts himself (an unusual practice).⁵² The convent's collection also includes a non-autograph set of parts (one each) for an earlier four movement symphony: G7.⁵³ The set lacks oboe parts, as do all the compositions in the collection—showing that the convent's orchestra was very small; the available parts would allow for only the basic number of players.

Thus Wanhal must have functioned as an occasional Kapellmeister at the convent—on his own terms and in a congenial atmosphere—as he could not (or would not) for Baron Riesch. Other than the copy of G7, there are now no traces of orchestral compositions; they may have disappeared from the convents modest collection or simply not have been performed there.⁵⁴ Wanhal's compositions in the collection provide evidence of his visits to Count Erdödy during the years 1773-79 during which he continued to compose symphonies. They also show that he was not the Kapellmeister at the convent continuously from 1771 until 1780 at least partially because the collection contains so few of the many compositions he wrote during those years.⁵⁵

Dlabacž says no more about the time between ca. 1770 and 1795 (the fourth period and more than the first decade of the fifth). After mentioning Wanhal's visits to Count Erdödy, he abruptly launches into a characterization of the style of Wanhal's music, abandoning his recitation of Wanhal's activities—thereby perhaps giving the impression that Wanhal spent most of his time away from Vienna while recovering from his illness. But, while there is little to demonstrate Wanhal's actual physical presence on the Viennese scene during the 1770s, the large number of his symphonies, quartets, and other substantial works listed in the Breitkopf and Göttweig catalogs and a number of other sources for that period, show that he could not have functioned from such a distance; he must have been actively on the scene in Vienna to be in touch with the commissioners and subscribers for whom he composed much music—in addition to the forty odd symphonies.

There are only a few contemporary accounts which place Wanhal in Vienna during the 1770s. The well-known one was provided by Burney who tells of his difficulty and final success in tracking Wanhal to his "bower" on Saturday September 12, 1772. At that time, about two years after returning from Italy, Wanhal would have been poor, peripatetic and alone. He was probably between visits with the Erdödy family, and had moved from the apartment outside the gates of the city to which Burney was at first directed. Burney's picturesque description of the abode where he finally found Wanhal is itself a classic: "in an obscure corner of the town, and in a more lofty than splendid situation. . . up a totally dark, winding stone staircase, at the summit of which was his bower."

Other observers of that time refer to Wanhal. The German writer, C. F. D. Schubart, was consistently friendly. He first wrote in 1774⁵⁶ that "Vanhal has recently produced six sonatas for Klavier with obligatory (willkürlich) accompaniment of a violin and a violoncello. Vanhal is known not to be a performer; so one should not expect a natural keyboard style; but one finds here the most delightful kind of melody that one could think. His compositional style (Satz) is light, flowing, and full of grace; therefore his compositions are best recommended for amateurs, and especially the ladies. Another of Schubart's remarks quoted by Dewitz from the Deutsche Chronik shows that Wanhal was suffering the not unusual pains a popular composer faced in those times, i.e., seeing his work pirated by a publisher: "When a man in whatever trade acquires a good name for himself he stands always in danger that someone will steal his efforts in some way. And so it is with Herr Graaf; console yourself with Haydn and Vanhal, worthy man; it is no better for them."⁵⁷

Burney's presence can be seen lurking behind the comments of a less friendly German writer, Karl Ludwig Junker. His influence can even be seen in the way Junker metaphrases his remarks in his Zwanzig Componisten, eine Skizze of 1776. After saying that Wanhal's compositions represent two periods Junker states: "Formerly Vanhal's imagination was inclined toward madness—then the character of his pieces was naivety, flow, melody, lightness—now his mind is calm and tranquil, his pieces shallow and common."⁵⁸

Johann Nicolaus Forkel included a review of Junker's pamphlet in his Musikalischkritische Bibliothek, III published in 1779.⁵⁹ Regarding Junker's article on Wanhal, he paraphrases Junker's words and then scathingly criticizes Junker's ability to judge composers. Forkel may have approved of Wanhal's music, but his opinion is paradoxical because he singles out Burney's reference to Wanhal's "uberschnappende Imagination" [Junker!] as worthy of discussion even while making negative remarks about Burney during his review of the latter's General History of Music. The situation seems ludicrous, since Forkel wanted to criticize both Junker and Burney with Wanhal as a buffer in the middle. Regardless, Burney's writings were obviously widely read and highly influential—especially regarding Wanhal's reputation.

In spite of the convincing circumstantial evidence that Wanhal composed ca. forty symphonies during the 1770s, only a few pieces of direct evidence of his activity have been found: Burney's report of his visit in Vienna in 1772, Wanhal's autograph dated 1773 in the convent at Varaždin, and a report that court copyist Wenzl Suckowaty was paid for copying two symphonies by Wanhal for the Burgtheater in 1776.⁶⁰ The dated, but non-autograph, compositions at the convent in Varaždin, probably witness his presence in 1774, 1777, and 1779, along with the 1773, written on the title page of the previously-mentioned autograph Synphonia. The 1779 dating written on the title page of a Salve Regina, the latest dated work ascribed to Wanhal that is preserved in the collection, perhaps indicates the end of Wanhal's visits to the convent in Varaždin.

There are no other indications that his visits to Varaždin ceased after 1779 (or that they continued), but the date might be significant because it was the same year in which J. J. Hummel issued the op. 10 symphonies. It marks the end of his fourth period, eight or nine exceedingly active years during which he participated in the Viennese musical scene and produced the majority of his symphonies. How frustrating that some bystanders did not leave an accounting of the Viennese performances given—the music, the performers, and the location.

During those years, however, Wanhal would have observed the Viennese market for symphonies as it grew dramatically, and then gradually diminished, due to the ebb and flow of a fickle societies interest and perhaps stimulated by the disdain of the Emperor. Simultaneously Wanhal was also in position to observe the beginnings of the Viennese music publishing industry and to participate in it. Wanhal's failure to follow up on Cramer's plea that he continue to provide symphonies after op. 10⁶¹ might seem surprising, but Cramer was referring to the market in Germany whereas Wanhal was in position to control the situation in Vienna, where the interest in symphonies was rapidly drying up. The year 1779, in which J.J. Hummel issued Wanhal's op. 10 symphonies in Berlin, was only a year before Artaria issued the first of forty-nine compositions by Wanhal (none of them symphonies) that he published in Vienna. Wanhal's career in Vienna had switched gears into the publishing mode. Poor Huberty never managed to get to that next level.

In retrospect the factors which catapulted Wanhal into the difficult fourth period of his life are somewhat similar to those which led him to its end—when he stopped composing symphonies and quartets, the most serious genres of instrumental music. His decision ca. 1779 to compose no more symphonies, or quartets a few years later, doubtless caused him far less mental anguish than he experienced in 1771 when he decided not to go with Baron Riesch to Dresden. At both times one sees a sensitive, but realistic and unambitious man who was not driven by the opinions of others and who composed primarily for the needs of the church, his students, and the requests of patrons and publishers. The compositions he wrote during those years included serious instrumental genre, such as concertos and sonatas, and a large quantity of various compositions (masses, offertoria, etc.) for the religious community.

The Fifth Period (Vienna, Early 1780s-1813)

The two basic contemporary biographical sources, Dlabacž and A-a, do not recognize that the 1780s began the final period in Wanhal's life span. Nor do they tell much about events in Wanhal's life during this time; Dlabacž's stay in Vienna (1795) occurred after it was well under way, and his article does not report on Wanhal's situation at that time. He says that, Wanhal was old, having lived in Vienna for more than fifty years, and his lack of vigor prevented him from writing larger works. The article must, therefore, have been written sometime after 1810, when Wanhal had been in Vienna fifty years; thus, it appeared within a few years of his death.⁶² Dlabacž continues, saying that in recent years Wanhal had mainly occupied himself with his teaching, providing suitable compositions for the use of his students, and occasionally writing other pieces of a non-instructional nature: "a considerable number of very beautiful piano sonatas, variations, caprices, concertos and other essays . . . ." His avoiding mention of Wanhal's programmatic pieces and having little to say about the large quantity of his church music are surprising; both categories are included in his compilation of works. A comparison of the quantity of church works listed in Dlabacž's list with music in the estate (Nachlass) and Weinmann's catalog of 1988 shows, however, that Dlabacž's inventory was incomplete.

The obituary by A-a enters the fifth period of Wanhal's life in the middle of a paragraph, so abruptly that the reader might be confused. At the place where he cites the list of music Wanhal had written, however, A-a is retrospectively summing up the situation. His listing of works is shorter and much more general than Dlabacž's, and, even though he gives the same number of symphonies and quartets as Dlabacž, he apparently had no direct access to Wanhal and had made little attempt to ascertain the accuracy of his report. He suggests that Wanhal himself could not remember how many small church works or concertos he had composed. A-a says very little regarding the enormous quantity of music Wanhal wrote for entertainment and instruction during the final roughly thirty years of his life, merely that he wrote a much greater number of sonatas and variations than larger works. His report about these works is cast in friendly terms: since Wanhal was so well qualified in both theoretical and practical terms, (i.e., he knew the instruments so well—especially the clavier), the pieces he wrote for his young students to practice were good; one might say that his contribution was epoch making. A-a's parting shot is also a pleasant nod of approbation to Wanhal: he was restlessly active to the end, and just before his death he completed four masses, which had been commissioned of him.

After 1780 when Artaria issued his op. 28, more than 270 of his compositions were published in Vienna alone. He was able to choose the Viennese publishers with whom they were placed. He had also gained a much better vantage point regarding the problem of pirating. He may also have sold some of his compositions to publishers away from Vienna; I have not attempted to identify them. Until, and even after he died, the following publishers issued his compositions in Vienna: Artaria (Torricella), forty-nine items; Hoffmeister, twenty-one items beginning in 1784; Traeg, ten items beginning in 1795; Eder, fifty-eight items beginning in 1796; Sauer, seventy-four items beginning in 1796; Koželuch, seven items beginning in 1798; and Sennefelder-Steiner (Chemische Druckerei) fifty-two items beginning in 1805.

Even though Dlabacž and A-a tell little about Wanhal's activities during his final period, there are brief glimpses of him from other observers (cited below), more from this period than the others. They reveal the outlines of how he changed—from a man who was very much in the middle of the Viennese action to one who ceased public activities, but lived comfortably, and finally died in an apartment owned by the diocese of St. Stephens cathedral, leaving his belongings, in gratitude for her kindnesses, to the wife (widow?) of a prominent Viennese book dealer. Wanhal is depicted as a respected composer-performer whose serious works were in great demand and who, in 1784, played quartets with Mozart, Haydn, and Dittersdorf. His career evolved to being the composer of smash hits of the nineties (whose confident countenance is depicted in the oil painting reproduced at the beginning of this article), to the teacher of pianoforte (who composed hundreds of pieces for his students and the entertainment oriented public), and, finally, to the composer of preludes, fugues, and a text for teaching General-bass—the kindly old man depicted in Adamek's engraving of ca. 1810. All the while he produced a large quantity and variety of serious compositions for the church.

Chronological List of References to Wanhal's Activities and Performances of his Music During his Fifth Period

Â

Jan. 30, 1778: performance of Symphony C7 at Eszterháza.

1779: J. N. Forkel's Musikalishe-kritische Bibliothek reports on and criticizes Burney's judgement about Vanhall's mad [crazy] imagination ("überschnappende Imagination" derived from the German translation of Burney's The Present State . . . [BurneyTagebuch]). He also criticizes Junker's ability to judge composers—which presumably included Wan_hal.

1780: As one of his first publications, Artaria issues Wanhal's op. 28; [plate number 9].

1781: F. Nicolai Beschreibung einer Reise durch Deutschland u. die Schweiz im Jahre 1781 (published in 1784): "In Vienna I heard symphonies by Haydn and Vanhal played almost as I had heard them in Berlin."63

1781: the publisher, Madame Heina, advertises in AM: "Six Quatuor oe. 1 par C. F. Fiala Eléve de Wannhall."

1781-82: performance[s] in Dresden.64

1782: J. N. Forkel's article in his Musikalisher Almanach für Deutschland. "Vanhall (Johann) privatisierender Tonkünstler in Wien. Hat viele Sinfonien, Quartet-ten und Trios stechen lassen."

1783: C. F. Cramer gives his opinion of the three symphonies in Wanhal's op. 10 published by J. J. Hummel: "These three symphonies are distinguished above all others of the hitherto engraved symphonies of this well-known and celebrated man and are full of good ideas and choice accompaniment. They are almost like the newest Haydn symphonies . . . May Mr. Vanhall not be prevented by a lessening of his faculties due to approaching old age from presenting other such symphonies, which will be the more welcome, however spoiled we have become by the charming ones of Haydn.65

October 3, 1783: Joseph Martin Kraus in his Diary calls Wanhal "as dear a man as [Hoffstetter]."66

1784: The famous quartet party: Haydn, Mozart, Dittersdorf, and Wanhal perform for a soirée attended by the upper nobility of Vienna as well as the poet Casti and the composer Paisiello, who was then in Vienna to attend a performance of one of his operas.

1784: C. F. D. Schubart in Ideen zur einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst (published 1806 in Vienna) writes: "Vanhal is among the latest (modish) composers, unquestionably one of the noblest and best. He has thoroughly studied composition, possesses individual style and a taste which recommends him to all listeners. Since he understands how to combine sound harmony and lovely melody with such intelligence and insight it is no wonder that he is equally favorably received by foreigners. He has written much, some in gallant style, and has always received the approval of those who are artistically astute."67

August 31, 1784: Georg Forster's diary reports " . . . at 10:30 in the evening with Lichnowsky to the home of the Sonnenfels in the city. Lichnowsky, Count Nostitz, Count Wrbna, and Vanhal . . . at 11:30 Sonnenfels departed with his wife and Vanhal for Bohemia."68 Forster also tells that at the home of Count Thun he met his former friend Prince Karl Lichnowsky, through whom he met van Swieten and the composer and violinist Vanhal.69

Autumn 1786: C. G. Breitkopf visits Vienna and becomes acquainted with Haydn, Vanhall, et al.70

Winter 1786: performance[s] in Leipzig of Wanhal's symphony[ies] on Sunday subscription concerts.71

October 19, 1786 and Feb. 28, 1787:72 Symphony C6 performed at the city tavern in Philadelphia.

1787: The well-known eighteenth-century singer Michael Kelly relates "I went one evening to a concert by the celebrated Koželuch, a fine com-poser for the piano forte . . . I saw there the composers Vanhall and Baron Dittersdorf . . . and was introduced to that prodigy of genius—Mozart."73

1788: Symphony C17 (and others by Wanhal?) performed at Eszterháza.

1789: Charles Burney in A General History of Music, concerning the situation in England, comments that "The spirited, natural, and unaffected symphonies of VANHAL seem to have preceded those of Haydn, at least in England. The quartets and other productions by this excellent composer certainly deserve a place among the first productions, in which unity of melody, pleasing harmony, and a free manly style are constantly preserved."74 "In less than ten years [in Prussia and Saxony, Vienna, Mannheim, and London] Haydn, Ditters, and Vanhal [have become the most performed composers]. At present Rosetti, Mozart, and Pleyel share with them the public favor."75

June 25, 1790: John Bland, the English publisher, publishes a notice that he has visited Vienna and personally established a connection with Haydn, Hoffmeister, Mozart, Koželuch, Paradies, and Vanhall . . . .76

1790-93: Performances in Dresden.77

November 30, 1791: performance of "Symphony-Vanhal" at Town Hall in Cambridge, England.78

1791(?): the composer Carl Czerny refers to a visit[s] from his father's countryman, Wanhall.79

1792: E. L. Gerber observes that Wanhal's only concern is to please the masses ["dem grossen Haufen"] and to attract as many buyers as he can.80

1792 and 1794: Wanhal composes the dances for the masked balls in the famed and prestigious Imperial Ballrooms (k. k. kleinen Redoutensaal) for the Faschings season.

1793: Wiener Schriftsteller und Künstlerlexikon describes "Wanhall" as "A very tasteful and famous composer. Everything that he has produced for many years both in music for the church and other music as well, is masterful and reveals a man of knowledge and practicality. His masses and his church music are especially excellent and are a treat for the ear and the heart. It is a pity that this artist does not continue to give us further proof of his talents; for it is now a long time since anything has appeared [i.e., been published] from him."81

January 15, 1794: Johann Traeg, owner of a Viennese copying firm and a publisher, advertises "1 Grand Symf. mit Viol. princ. [von] Wanhall."82

February 3, 1794: the program of the opening night of the Boston Theatre contains a "Grand Overture by Signor Vanhall" together with "Grand Symphonies" by "Signor Charles Stamitz," "Signor Haydn" and "Charles Ditters."83

1794: Dlabacž's short article about Wanhall appears in Materialien zur alten und neuen Statistik von Boehmen: ". . . at the present time he lives in Vienna. His many masses, arias, offertories, symphonies, and concertos etc. are known, [and] make his name immortal [unsterblich]. See Gerber." [GerberLex of 1792].84

1795: Dlabacž spends some time in Vienna where Wanhal helps him gather material for his forth-coming Allgemeines historisches Künstler-Lexikon.

December 30, 1795: Traeg, advertises "1 Sinf. in Es von Wanhall," and on March 23, 1796 "Concert Sinf. in D, Wanhall" for sale.85

February 11, 1796: Eder and Sauer publish "Die Schlacht bei Würzburg" for pianoforte. The first of several such programmatic works composed by Wanhal, it was also the first piano composition in that genre to strike the public fancy. The piece became so popular that it was re-engraved and reissued by both publishers.

1796: Jahrbuch der Tonkunst von Wien und Prag describes Wanhal's as "one of the oldest of our composers, who seems however, to have gone out of public favor. That is not true abroad [in Prague?] where his works are held in very high regard . . . for some time nothing new has appeared from him, and one might think that he wants to be forgotten.86

1796: Francesco Galeazzi refers to Wanhal as "among the best writers of instrumental music of the day."87

October 31, 1797: J. J. Gerning's Reise durch Oesterreich (Frankfurt, 1802) comments: "vanHall and Koželuch also live here [Vienna]. Who doesn't know these great symphonists?"88

1798: performance in Dresden.89

1798-99: Musikalisches Magazin [Koželuch], issues six works of Wanhal, opp. 60-64, 66.90

October 30, 1799: Allgemeine Musikalisches Zeitung publishes a cartouche which includes "Van Hall" among the names of thirty-two German composers.

1800: performance in Dresden.91

1802: Musikalisches Magazin includes an advertisement for op. 65.92

February 2, 1805: review in Zeitung für die Elegante Welt (Leipzig)93 notes that in Vienna the Sunday morning concerts usually have "true music," i.e., the quartets of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven . . . The easier keyboard music of a Pleyel, Vanhall, Koželuch is entirely out of style . . . ."

1805-1818: Sennefelder and successors, including the Chemische Druckerey, issue the first of fifty-two works by Wanhal.

1806: Carl Czerny tells that "old Wanhall . . . occasionally gave me some useful hints".94

1808: the publisher T. Mollo includes Wanhal among the composers invited to contribute a variation to his collected set of variations on "In questa tomba oscura Arietta con acc Composta in diverse maniere da molto Autore e dedicata a S.a.u.Sig. Principe Giuseppe di Lobkowitz."

1812-14: E. L. Gerber's Neues Historische-Biographisches Lexikon . . . explains that Wanhal still lives and continues to write in Vienna. The article was, therefore, written shortly before Wanhal's death and was published later. Gerber continues: "In recent years he has limited himself to merely serving the needs of lovers of piano music for whom he, in his light and pleasing manner, has written sonatas, divertimentos, but even more variations on popular opera arias, for instruments both with and without accompaniment. A pair of the most remarkable works among them appears to be: (1) "The Battle of Würzburg on the 3rd of September 1796," a heroic-military musical composition for piano, published by Eder, 1799, and (2) "The Menacing or Liberation of Vienna," a heroic-military piece to complement the "Battle of Würzburg," likewise 1799. "Kühnel [in Berlin] has published op. 41-43."95

July-December 1813: vol. 2 of Vaterländisches Blätter includes Johann Wanhall as the first entry under Nekrolog auf das Jahr 1812[sic]. See Vaterländisches, 476-78 [p 477 mis-numbered].

January 19, 1814: obituary by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz's appears in AMZ; it was published five months after Wanhal's death; the delay, he explains, was due to unfortunate circumstances, including the distance from Vienna to Leipzig.96

1815: Dlabacž's Allgemeines historisches Künstler-Lexikon für Böhmen . . . , issued in Prague with an article on "Wanhal, Johann Baptist."

after 1814: Gerber issues supplements to his two lexicons; they have a section of "Additions and Corrections"97 including an article: Wanhal (Johann). In it he acknowledges and paraphrases most of Rochlitz's obituary from AMZ (including the items of information the latter had derived from A-a). He also repeats his assertion (which varies from all other sources) stated in GerberLex (1792), that Wanhal's fortunate marriage had enabled him to have a life free of care. This revelation is unique; I have found no other references to a marriage. Regarding the question of Wanhal's illness, Gerber says that "indeed he didn't lose his mind completely . . . ."98 His previously negative criticism about the kind of music Wanhal was producing during his later years is greatly softened: now, he tells us, that fortunately Wanhal never lost his artis