Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony Author(s): Maynard Solomon Source: 19th-Century Music, Vol. 21, No.

2, Franz Schubert: Bicentenary Essays (Autumn, 1997), pp. 111-133 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: Accessed: 11/01/2010 07:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to 19thCentury Music.





Portions of a short score sketch of the B-Minor Symphony survive, containing a draft of the Allegro moderato starting with m. 249 (i.e., just before the modulation to the second subject in the recapitulation), the entire Andante con moto, 112 measures of a scherzo, marked Allegro, as well as sixteen measures of the trio.' The title page of the full score reads, "Symphony in B Minor by Franz Schubert, Vienna, 30 October 1822" (Sinfoniain H moll von Franz Schubert m. p. Wien den 30 Octob. 1822),2a date that probably refers, in conformity with
? 1997 by MaynardSolomon. I am grateful to Kristina Muxfeldt, Richard Kramer,and LawrenceKramerfor their stimulating comments and suggestions. References to Schubert:A Documentary Biography, ed. Otto Erich Deutsch, trans. Eric Blom (London, 1946), are abbreviated as Deutsch, SDB; references to Schubert: Memoirs by His Friends, ed. Deutsch, trans. Rosamond Ley and John Nowell (London,1958), are abbreviated as Deutsch, Memoirs. 'The autograph is in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna (A 244); see Sinfonie in h-Moll ("Die Unvollendete"): Franz Schubert: Vollstandiges Faksimile der autographen Partitur und der Entwiirfe, ed. Walther Duirr and Christa Landon, Publikationen der Sammlungen der Gesellschaft der Musikfreundein Wien, ed. Otto Biba,vol. III(Munich, 1978). 2Fora facsimile of the title page, see Deutsch, SDB, p. 256.

the composer'scustom, not to the date on which sketching of the composition was started, but to the date on which he began to write out the full score. If one assumes the work on the sketches and score to have been more or less continuous, the Symphonywas almost certainly written in the weeks shortly before that date and started, it would appear, immediately following completion of the second version of D. the Mass in AN, 678, the last page of which The existence bearsthe date "September1822."3 of a partial full score and extensive sketches for the scherzo make it certain that, whatever his original intentions may have been, Schubert was now planning to write a four-movement work and thus-at that moment-regarded the Symphony as unfinished. The ongoing state of the work is strikingly self-evident in the fact that the last page of the full score contains the first nine measures of the scherzo. And Schu3Thepaperbearsthe same watermarkas a paperused, among others, for the "Wanderer Fantasy,"D. 760-the autograph of which is dated November 1822 by Schubert-and the Lieder,Die Mutter Erde, D. 788, and Pilgerweise, D. 789, both datedApril 1823. See RobertS. Winter, "PaperStudies and the Futureof SchubertResearch,"in Schubert Studies: Problems of Style and Chronology, ed. Eva Badura-Skoda and Peter Branscombe(Cambridge,1982), pp. 222, 224. 111


1 9TH

bert's failure to inscribe the Symphony on a list of his recent compositions, in a letter dated 7 December 1822 to his friend Josef von Spaun, also implies that as of that date he did not view the work as finished. That is why, in the most prevalent account, it is said that Schubert set out to compose a four-movement symphony but, aftera false start on the scherzo, abandoned the work as a fragment. But that does not altogether settle the question, for there are other ways to account for Schubert's shifting intentions in the course of writing his B-MinorSymphony. Forexample, it is conceivable that in the course of its working out the Symphony took an unexpected structural and rhetorical turn that made a continuation unnecessary, even impossible. In this reading, one can presuppose that Schubert, finding the "original" four-movement plan no longer relevant to his purposes and having decided against completing the draftedscherzo, carefully excised from the full score the page containing the continuation of the scherzo (mm. 10-20)4 and dispatched the Symphony-which he had come to regardas complete in two movementsto be considered for a concert performance. Thus, the existence of the sketches and partial full score for the scherzo need not be taken as definitive indications that the B-MinorSymphony is indeed unfinished, although they surely do tell us that at some point in the course of its composition Schubert contemplated casting the Symphony in four movements. But the meaning of the scherzo is not transparent;it can be understood in a variety of ways: by leaving those measures in the full score he may have meant to signal that a scherzo was intended along the lines indicated and that he would furnish the remaining installments if asked to do so.5 On the other hand, when he

4The manuscript is now in the Wiener MannergesangVerein, facs. in Christa Landon, "Neue Schubert-Funde: Unbekannte Manuskripteim Archiv des Wiener Mannergesang-Vereines," Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift 24 (1969), 299-323 (at p. 316). Landon, who discovered it, writes that it "appearsto have been kept by Schubert,and to have remained with his family afterhis death"(Landon, "New Schubert Finds," Music Review 31 [1970], 215-31 [at p. 226]). 5As suggested in Peter Giilke, Franz Schubert und seine Zeit (Laaber,1991), p. 201. 112

broke off his effort to orchestrate the scherzo, Schubert may have reached a crux: he would have to decide either to pick up where he had left off or to explore an alternative solution-or to abandonthe effort altogether, either for lack of a performanceopportunity or because he no longer considered a continuation to be a compositional necessity. His failure to complete the orchestration of the third movement or to sketch a last movement could signify that he had not been able to visualize a finale appropriate to the already completed movements, or even as dissatisfaction with the traditionalsymphonic structure. Thus, although the interruption of the scherzo in the autographs can be read to validate the idea that the B-MinorSymphony remains unfinished, that is far from being the only reasonable reading. On additional reflection, moreover, it turns out that even Schubert'soriginal intentions can be thrown into question: it may be hypothesized that he actually set out to write a twomovement symphony, intending to create an unusual symphonic form, analogous to, inspired by, or in competition with Beethoven, whose innovative Piano Sonatas in E, op. 109, in AS, op. 110, and in C Minor, op. 111, the last of which is a two-movement sonata, were completed by mid-1822. In this improbablebut not entirely excludable-scenario, Schubert temporarily drew back from the implications of so risky a prospect and tried to compose a conventional scherzo with the purpose of adapting the unusual opening movements to the requirements of a four-movement cycle. Unsuccessful in this endeavor, however, he reverted to the two-movement plan, leaving the evidence of his conflicted feelings on the last page of the manuscript, on which he had boldly left the opening of the scherzo, as though to underscore his refusal to retreat from his original conception. To carrysuch speculations even further, one can visualize the possibility that Schubertmay early on have thought about the Allegro moderato as a dramatic concert overture-his "Coriolan"or "Egmont"or "Iphigenie in Aulide"-and then converted it into the first movement of a symphony. The
movement's tierce de Picardie ending in the

sketches (ofwhich, more later)could be adduced as evidence of such an intention.

I shall try in what follows to determine if there is anything in the historical and documentary record that may enable us somehow to choose among these alternative explanations for Schubert's two-movement Symphony and to see what such an investigation may imply about the aesthetic structure of the work. II It isn't known what prompted Schubert to compose his B-Minor Symphony, whether it arose from an inner compulsion or was written in hope or anticipation of a public performance. In earlier years, he had sketched movements or even complete outlines of symphonies that he presumably might have taken up and completed, given an appropriateperformanceoccasion. Such were two symphonic movements in D, D. 615 (datedby him "May 1818"),sketches for a Symphony in D, D. 708A (ca. 1821), and the continuous draft of a Symphony in E, D. 729 (dated "August 1821"). Certainly, it was Schubert's ambition to give a grand concert along the lines of Beethoven's public "Akademien," as is known from an 1824 letter to his friend, the artist Leopold Kupelwieser, in which he expressed the hope of giving such an Academy featuring his own large-scale works, including a symphony: "I wrote two Quartets and an Octet, and I want to write another quartet, in fact I intend to pave my way towards grand symphony in that manner.-The latest in Vienna is that Beethoven is to give a concert at which he is to produce his new Symphony, three movements from the new Mass and a new Overture.-God willing, I too am thinking of giving a similar concert next year."6 Or, perhaps, Schubert, who had been an auxiliary member of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreundein Vienna since 1821, had learned later in 1822 that he was soon to be proposedfor honorary membership in several other musical societies, which might be inclined to mount performances of some of his more ambitious compositions.7 And, indeed, Schubert was
6Letterof 31 March 1824 to LeopoldKupelwieser,Deutsch,
SDB, p. 339.

shortly thereafter elected an honorary member of two Austrian musical societies-one in Linz, the other in Graz. The Linz Musikverein, foundedin 1821 andheadedby such close friends of Schubert as Josef von Spaun and Albert Stadler, named him an honorary member in August 1823 along with court singer Johann Michael Vogl during their visit there.8 To the Linz Society, however, he sent only a tenor aria-from Das Zauberglockchen, D. 723which was publicly performed in due course.9 The Styrian Musikverein, founded in 1815 in Graz,was much more distinguished, numbering among its honorary members such luminaries as Beethoven, Salieri, Abbe Stadler,Eybler, and Moscheles, along with lesser notables like Mosel, Diabelli, Mayseder, Haslinger, Kiesewetter, and Josef Sonnleithner. Although by then it had performedonly one of Schubert's works-the vocal quartet, Das D6rfchen, D. 598-there was immediate approval of Johann Baptist Jenger'snomination, on 10 April 1823, of his friend,"the composer,HerrFranzSchubert of Vienna, for admittance as a nonresident honorarymember, the said composer, although still young, having already proved by his compositions that he will one day take a high rank as tone-poet, and be sure to show gratitude to the Styrian Musical Society for having first made him an honorary member of a not unimportantassociation."Schubertwas notified of his election by a letter of mid-April 1823, which read: "The services you have so far renderedto the art of music are too well known for the Committee of the Styrian Musical Society to have remained unaware of them. The latter, being desirous of offering you a proof of their esteem, have elected you as a nonresident honorary member of the Styrian Musical Society. A diploma to that effect as well as a copy of the Society's Statutes is enclosed herewith."10

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

7For a suggestion along these lines, see Martin Chusid, "The Historical Background,"in Franz Schubert, Symphony in B Minor ("Unfinished"): An Authoritative Score,

ed. Chusid, A Norton Critical Score (rev. edn., New York, 1971),pp. 7-8. 8SeeDeutsch SDB, p. 288. 9On 15 November 1824; see Deutsch, SDB, pp. 383-84. I?Deutsch,SDB, pp. 274-75. Jenger,a military official and an excellent pianist, served as Secretary of the Graz Musikvereinfrom 1819 to 1825;he then moved to Vienna. The letter was signedby Jengerand JohannNepomuk Ritter von Kalchberg,respectively secretary and chairman of the Society's executive committee. 113



The diploma itself expressed the Society's satisfaction at having "the honor of apprising you, Franz Schubert, Esq., by the present diploma of your nomination as a non-resident honorary member, in full recognition of your already generally acknowledged merits as a musical artist and composer"; and the appended statutes noted that "honorary members in absentia . . . are expected to do their best to further the Society's welfare, even at a distance."'1 Schubert was pleased to receive the honor and took it as a potential offer of a valued performance opportunity. His response, in a letter of 20 September 1823, could not have been clearer in stating the manner in which he intended to express his gratitude:
Worshipful Music Society [L6blicher Musikverein]

I am very greatly obliged by the diploma of honorary membership you so kindly sent me, and which, owing to my prolongedabsence from Vienna, I received only a few days ago. May it be the rewardof my devotion to the art of music to some day become wholly worthy of such a distinction. In order to give musical expression to my sincere gratitude as well, I shall take the liberty as soon as possible of presenting your worshipful Society with one of my symphonies in full score. With the highest regards,I remain, the most grateful, devoted and obedient servant of a worshipful Society [Einesloblichen Vereines] FranzSchubert12 'Deutsch,SDB,pp.276,275. '2Letter 20 September of 1823to the Styrian Musikverein, Die Dokumente Deutsch, SDB, pp. 289-90; Schubert: seines Lebens,ed. Deutsch (Kassel,1964),pp. 199-200 "Der Wickenhausser, (trans.amended) ( Richard in steiermarkische Musikverein Graz," Neue Zeitschrift ffirMusic 72 [1905],466-69;Beilage, 499).As a goodp. natured letterwas designed look like a to jest, Schubert's certificate diploma or by granted him to the Musikverein, with the words "LoblicherMusikverein"and "Eines in across loblichenVereines" appearing bold calligraphy the top of the letter and aboveSchubert's exaggeratedly in formalsignature cursivescript.Missingthe humorof a Schubert's has that response, recentpaper proposed the letteris inauthentic, fabricated copied Josef or by allegedly Huttenbrenner. See R. Bozic, "FranzSchubert, die u. in 'Unvollendete' der Steiermark. Musikverein," 175
JahreMusikverein ffir Steiermark,ed. E. Kaufmann(Graz,

in 1990),with facs. on p. 34. The matteris summarized Schubert ed. Hilmar Margret and Lexikon, Ernst Jestremski as (Graz,1997),p. 203 (see also pp. 118, 444). Proffered evidencearethe unusualdesignandthe signature, which is said to have been copied from the "Unfinished" score. But the similarityin the Symphony's autograph resultsfromthe factthatbothwerewrittenby signatures

Thus, Schubert promised to supply a symphony to the Styrian Music Society. He may have delayed sending the two movements until sometime after August 1824, and, inasmuch as they were already conveniently at hand at the time of his election, this suggests that he may not initially have considered them wholly appropriate for the purpose. But in the course of time he did fulfill his commitment by forwarding the B-Minor Symphony in full score as it has come down to us. One conceivable inference from these particulars is that Schubert himself may have considered the work to be complete as of the date he forwarded it to Graz. After all, he had explicitly informed the Society that he would send a symphony in full score, and he subsequently sent a two-movement symphony in full score, the title page of which unequivocally reads "Symphony in B Minor"-" Sinfonia in H moll." But several scholars have understandably found it difficult to imagine that Schubert would send an incomplete work and thereby risk offending or alienating members of an important musical association, one that numbered on its rolls many celebrities and several of his personal friends. Better, it would seem, not to send any work than to send one that might have had the untoward effect of diminishing the prospect of in Graz, not only of this performances but of other of his works. Still better, symphony, in its place Schubert could in relatively short order have scored the already drafted Symphony in E of 1821 or supplied another work from his stockpile of manuscripts. Schubert left a large number of fragments, lone movements, and unfinished works, but so far as I can tell he never sought to have an incomplete work publicly performed. By contrast, the B-Minor Symphony was actually sent to a patron in reciprocation for a high honor; it was sent in the hope of a major performance and was sent after considerable deliberation and as a conscious choice. Scholars who are convinced that the Symphony is unfinished have therefore been confronted with a dilemma, for

the same author; and the numerous minor points of differencein detail between them indicates that they were done independentlyof one another.

their belief appearsto be inconsistent with the fact that Schubert sent the score to the Styrian Music Society. Would he have sent a work that he himself considered to be a fragment? One renowned scholar, Alfred Einstein, answered this question most forcefully when he wrote that it is "quite unthinkable that Schubert,with all his tact and discretion, would ever have presented the Society with an unfinished fragment."13And the dean of Schubert studies, Otto Erich Deutsch, added: "It does not seem credible . . . that Schubert should have thought of the possibility of a performance of the work in its fragmentary state."14One way out of this impasse has been to deny that the Symphony really was sent to the Styrian Musikverein. And that is the turn the argument has taken in recent decades, with contributors to the standard music encyclopedias asserting that the Symphony actually was given not to the Musikverein, but to one of its leading members, composerAnselm Hiittenbrenner, in whose private possession it remained, unknown and unperformed, until 1865. Writing in The New Grove, Maurice J. E. Brown confidently asserted that
recent disclosure of documents from the Huittenbrenner family archives shows that Schubert gave the manuscript .. . in its incomplete state, to some time in 1823, to pass it on JosefHuittenbrenner to his brother Anselm as a private gift (not, as long believed, as an acknowledgment of his election to the Styrian Music Society). This was probably in payment for a debt or an obligation; Anselm had a perfect right to retain the score.15 Even earlier, Hellmut Federhofer, the author of the Hittenbrenner entry in the standard German music encyclopedia, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, claimed that Anselm Huttenbrenner had been unjustly maligned for having suppressed Schubert's work and for
'3AlfredEinstein, Schubert:A Musical Portrait(New York, 1951), p. 202. '4Deutsch,SDB, p. 290. '5Maurice E. Brown, "Schubert,Franz,"The New Grove J. Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (London, 1980), vol. 16, p. 761. Brown's authority is Felix "Anselm Huttenbrennerund SchubertsHHuittenbrenner, moll Symphonie," Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines ffir Steiermark52 (1961), 122-37.

keeping the manuscript as his private possession: "That Schubert meant the Unfinished Symphony as the symphony which he was to send to the Styrian Musikverein in Graz in 1823 in thanks for naming him an honorary member is not proven."16Despite these and similar contentions, which I shall take up in further detail, a powerful chain of documentary evidence leads from Schubert's election as a member of the Society to his letter affirming his intention to send a symphony, to the fact that the B-MinorSymphony did end up in Graz, and in the hands of the man who became President of the Musikverein in 1825 for a period of fourteen years and thus was ideally situated to appropriateit. It is not known precisely when Anselm Huiittenbrennerreceived the score from his brother Josef, who reportedly was assigned to carry it to Graz. The first mention of the Symphony's existence occurs in a letter dated 4 April 1842 from Huittenbrennerto Josef, who had served Schubert as a helpful amanuensis for several years up to the spring of 1823.17 it, In Anselm included the Symphony on a list of five

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

16Hellmut Federhofer, "Hiittenbrenner," Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. FriedrichBlume (Kassel, 1949-86), vol. 6, col. 850. This same position is taken by Otto Biba, who suggested that the work might not have been sent to the Musikverein because "one can hardly imagine that a fragmentarycomposition would have made a particularly fitting gift" (Otto Biba, Franz Schubert: Ausstellung der WienerStadt- und Landesbibliothek zum 150. Todestag des Komponisten [Vienna, 1978], p. 238). Most recently, ErnstHilmar discounts the possibility that Huttenbrenner "consciously suppressed" the Symphony and finds it "not unusual" to own a Schubertmanuscript, which, he claims, were not particularly valued in midnineteenth-century Vienna. See Schubert Lexikon, p. 202. See also John Reed, Schubert, The Master Musicians (London,1988), p. 103; M. J. E. Brownand Hans Ferdinand Redlich, "FranzSchubert,"Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 12, col. 119; Brown, "Anselm Huttenbrenner,"The New Grove,vol. 8, p. 829. 17There little evidence of a continuing close association is between Schubertand JosefHuttenbrenner afterApril 1823; however, the Hittenbrenner brothers joined Schubert for dinner at Sophie Miller's in May 1826; they and Schubert may have visited the dyingBeethoventogetheron 19 March 1827; and Schubert used Josef to transmit a letter of 27 September 1827 to Frau Marie Pachler in Graz. See Deutsch, SDB, pp. 505, 527, 618, and 670-73. A report to Kreissle maintained that Schubert found Josef Hiittenbrenner "almost repugnant," despite his "undeviating veneration and readinessto serve" the composer (Deutsch, Memoirs,p. 175). 115



original Schubert manuscripts in his possession, namely Die Forelle, D. 550, Der ziirnende Diane, D. 707, Thirteen Variations in A Minor on a theme by Anselm Hfittenbrenner,D. 576, the Deutsche in Al Major("Trauerwalzer"), D. 365, no. 2, and the Symphony, about which Anselm noted, "The unfinished symphony in B minor is marked: Vienna, 30 October 1822." Deutsch established that the list was prepared for possible use by Viennese collector Aloys Fuchs, who in the years 1842 to 1849 was compiling material for a thematic catalog of Schubert's works.18Thus, it is revealing that Fuchs's list, while it optimistically made available two blank staves for incipits of a symphony to follow those for the symphonies in C and E, eventually contained no reference to the B-Minor Symphony, suggesting that in the end JosefHuttenbrennerchose not to furnish any further details about it. It is remarkable-especially in light of the furor that followed the emergence from obscurity of the C-Major Symphony in 1839-that Anselm did not mention the Symphony in his lengthy "Fragmentsfrom the Life of the Song Composer Franz Schubert," which he laboriously preparedand furnished to Franz Liszt in 1854, or in his letters about Schubertto wouldbe biographer Ferdinand Luib (1858). Nor did he communicate the fact of the Symphony's existence to FerdinandSchubert,who had been trying to arrange for posthumous publication and performances of his brother's works. He did not even mention that he had prepareda complete piano four-hands arrangementof the Symphony in about 1853, which was never put to any use.19To Liszt, he avowed: "With regard

to my friend, I am only putting on paper what still remains accurately in my memory after such a long time; the things I only dimly recall about him I leave untouched";20 there is no but reason to believe he had forgotten Schubert's Symphony. His failure to mention the work is a transparent sign of his uneasiness about his
right to it.

"Deutsch, Memoirs, pp. 401-02, 407-11. "After No. 8 of the symphonies two staves are left unused, clearly for the B minor Symphony" (p. 410). '9Thearrangement,the manuscript of which is presently is in the archive of the WienerMannergesang-Verein, listed Werkverzeichnisof 29 October 1858. in Huittenbrenner's See Deutsch, Memoirs,p. 443; and Landon,"New Schubert Finds,"p. 228. Accordingto RudolfFeigl,Klarum Schubert: Beseitigung von Irrmeinungen, Fehlangaben usw. (Linz, 1936), p. 27, the arrangement may actually be in Josef hand. See also Schubert Lexikon, p. 203. Huittenbrenner's If true, it probably indicates not that Josef wrote the arrangement,which he always attributed to Anselm, but simply that he made a fair copy of his brother's arrangement,whose name is on the title page. 116

From the start, of course, Anselm had found himself in the typical quandary of those who acquire valuable propertywithout any demonstrable proof of ownership. And he responded to his predicamentin the customary ways: first, by suppressing the information that it was in his possession; and later on, by promoting a convenient claim that it was given to him by its author.By the late 1850s, the Hittenbrenners were thinking about surrendering autograph, the but hoping to gain some personal advantage from doing so. It is to their credit that they never made an attempt to profit financially from the autograph, whose great musical and commercial value was clear to them. Anselm remained mute from first to last and never personally set forth what he knew about the Symphony or the provenance of the autograph. The silence was eventually broken in a series of communications from Josef Hittenbrenner, presumably with his brother's authorization. In response to an 1858 questionnaire from Luib, Josef wrote, "To Anselm Schubert also dedicated a symphony in B Minor, which, however, is not finished; it can Two hold its own with any of Beethoven's."21 his brother years later, Josef, who considered Schubert's peer as "the spiritual heir and successor of Beethoven and the Mozart of this century,"22set in motion an effort to release the "Unfinished" Symphony from its sequestration in return for performances of Anselm's works by the distinguished Viennese conductor and Kapellmeister Johann Herbeck, who directed the concerts of the Gesellschaft der

Memoirs, p. 185. 20Deutsch, Huttenbrennerto Luib,ca. 1858, Deutsch, Memoirs, 21Josef p. 76 (trans.amended). Hiittenbrenner to Alexander Wheelock Thayer, 8 22Josef October 1860, Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 190. Josef called himself in this letter "Schubert'sprophet, singer, friend and pupil" (ibid.).

Musikfreunde as well as those of the Wiener Mannergesang-Verein. He wrote to Herbeck, extolling his brother as the inheritor of Schubert's mantle as a master composer of Lieder and ballads, listed his brother's operas and symphonies, promised to describe his church music in a subsequent letter, and urged Herbeck to "make a selection" from "this treasure trove" for performance. In an obvious signal that he was seeking a quid pro quo, he then conveyed his startling news: He [Anselm] possesses a treasure, however, in Schubert's "B minor Symphony," which we place on a par with the great C major Symphony, his instrumental swan song, and every one of Beethoven's. Only it is not finished. Schubertgave it to me for Anselm, as thanks for having sent him, through me, the honorary diploma of the Graz Musikverein.23 It is not clear why it took Herbeck, who was a frequent visitor to Graz, five years to pursue the matter to a conclusion. Perhaps he was not sanguine about the outcome of negotiations with the Huttenbrenners about performances of Anselm's compositions, which he regarded as "obsolete and pedantic." This is gleaned from Herbeck's biographer, his son Ludwig, who got the impression from his father that Anselm Huttenbrenner, "who had anxiously guarded the manuscript in his desk for full forty-three years, would rather consign the work to destruction than to publish it."24 Meanwhile, the Hiittenbrenners began publicly to acknowledge the existence of their prize: an article on Anselm in the Graz Tagespost for 8 August 1863 reported that he "arranged for pianoforte four-hands a symphony in B [sic] by his departed friend Schubert, unfinished though it was."25 And for its entry on Anselm Hittenbrenner, Josef provided Wurzbach's standard Austrian biographical dictionary information about the Symphony: "Schubert, Hiittento 2-JosefHfuttenbrenner Johann Herbeck, 8 March 1860, cited in Ludwig Herbeck, JohannHerbeck:Ein Lebensbild (Vienna, 1885), pp. 164-65. See also Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 430. 24Herbeck, JohannHerbeck, Ein Lebensbild, p. 166. 25Anon.,"Ein steirischer Tondichter," Tagespost (Graz),8 August 1863, quoted in Felix Huttenbrenner, "Anselm Huttenbrennerund SchubertsH-moll Symphonie,"p. 133.

brenner's friend, whom he [Schubert] usually called his musical mainstay, dedicated to him a symphony, unfortunately unfinished, which is to be found in Hittenbrenner's possession
and which is arranged for piano four-hands."26

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

The matter threatened to become a scandal in 1865, when Heinrich Kreissle von Hellborn, in the first major biography of Schubert, expressedhis dismay that the Symphony had been held under "lock and key" for forty years by a man who claimed to be Schubert's faithful friend. In a listing of the composer's greater works for the year 1822, he wrote:
A Symphony for orchestra in B Minor, which Schubert presented in half-finished conditionnamely, the state in which it still remains-to the director of the Musikverein at Graz, Anselm Huittenbrenner,in gratitude for granting him a diploma as an honorary member of that society. According to information furnished by Josef the Huittenbrenner, first and second movements are entirely finished, and the third (scherzo)partly. The fragment, in the possession of Herr Anselm of Huittenbrenner, Graz,is said to be of greatbeautyespeciallythe first movement. If this be so, Schubert's intimate friend would surely do well before long to emancipate from lock and key the still unknown work of the master he so highly honours, and introduce the symphony to the devotees of Schubert's

Kreissle's exhortation led to the release of the Symphony from its long obscurity. Stirred to action at last, Herbeck arrivedin Graz on 30 April 1865 and on the very next day had so satisfactory a meeting with Anselm Hiuttenbrenner that he came away with Schubert's score in exchange for a promise to perform Huttenbrenner's C-Minor Overture in Vienna. It is worth reproducingHerbeck's recollection of the climactic moment of the event: "I still have a quantity of things by Schubert,"said the seventy-year-old Huttenbrenner: "Therewith

26Constantinvon Wurzbach,Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 1750-1850 (Vienna, 1856-91), IX, 406ff., quoted in Felix Huittenbrenner, "Anselm Huttenbrennerund SchubertsH-moll Symphonie,"p. 133. 27Kreisslevon Hellborn, Franz Schubert (Vienna, 1865), pp. 255-56; abridgedtrans. in Kreissle von Hellborn, The Life of Franz Schubert, trans. Arthur Duke Coleridge (London,1869),vol. I, pp. 257-58 (trans.corrected). 117



the old gentleman went to an old-fashioned desk stuffed with papers from which he drew one forth. At Herbeck's first glance he recognized Schubert's handwriting. Written on the cover was 'Symphonie in H-moll.' It was the sought-after work. Quietly, Herbeck took the manuscript in his hands and attentively leafed
through it."28 "That will be appropriate," said

Herbeck and swiftly departed with the score, promising to have it copied at his own cost. Of course, this must be a simplified version of that day's events, which apparently also included the reaching of a written agreementconcerning the publication of both the Symphony and the Overture, with proceeds from the sale to go to charity and to Schubert's surviving relatives. Anselm, as the scion of a well-to-do landowner, was no doubt sufficiently embarrassed by Kreissle's rebuke and had no desire to be seen as making a profit from the "Unfinished" Symphony. On the back of Herbeck's visiting card,he wrote: "Visitedme in the morning of 1 May 1865 in the Strafierhof. I consigned to him for performance:the original of Schubert's B-Minor Symphony, along with the overtures to Armella and Die Rduber and several Lieder.I empowered him to performmy CMinor Overture for the benefit of poor relatives
of Schubert."29 The premiere of the Symphony took place on 17 December 1865 at a concert of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. Herbeck kept his promise by opening the program with Huiittenbrenner's Overture in C Minor. From Herbeck the manuscript of the Symphony went to the collector Nikolaus Dumba, and it was bequeathed by him to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde.30 Spina published it in full score and parts, and in arrangements for piano and piano four-hands, in Vienna in early 1867 (see

plate 1). Hiittenbrenner seems to have been content with the settlement: he made no attempt to retrieve the manuscript, although it allegedly was his private property. Later on, Herbeck prepared another contract, this one for publication of Schubert's Thirteen Variations in A Minor on a theme by Hiittenbrenner, D. 576, which he had also obtained during his visit to Graz in a manuscript copy made by Huittenbrenner in 1853.31 If Anselm was relieved to have concluded the arrangement, Josef Huttenbrenner at first found his brother's deal with Herbeck "most annoying"32 and later became enraged by it, complaining to his brother Andreas in 1867 that Anselm had permitted himself to be duped: Herbeck has treated me and him [Anselm] deceitfully. He collected the Overture, with transcribed parts, from me. The Schubert Symphony, too, I had for many years, until in the end Anselm took it to Graz and arrangedit for piano duet in Radkersburg. This duet arrangement I lent to him [Herbeck]. Schubert gave me the Symphony, outside the Schottentor, for the Graz Diploma of Honour, and dedicated it to Anselm. Herbeck did not even give me a ticket for the rehearsals. .... It makes no difference about the Overture, although Herr von Kreisslesaid it was magnificent. The WienerZeitung and other papers praise it.-Even at the final rehearsal they did not want to let me in. Why did Herbeck not want to let me in? Because I did not lend him two Schubert operas, which he saw when he visited me. Anselm was absolutely wrong to give him the Symphony. He should have forked it over only after they had given ten of his overtures and a symphony!33

JohannHerbeck, Ein Lebensbild,p. 168. 28Herbeck, 29Felix Huttenbrenner, "Anselm Huttenbrenner und Schuberts H-moll Symphonie," p. 132. The orchestral works are the Overture to Huttenbrenner'scomic opera Armella, oder die beiden Vizekonigennen (1824); the Overture to Schiller's drama Die Rauber (1857); and the Overturein C Minor (1837). 30Deutsch,Memoirs, p. 467. Herbeckdied in 1877, Dumba in 1900, and the manuscriptwas enteredon the "GeschenkBuch" of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde on 7 March 1901. See Durr and Landon,Sinfonie in h-Moll, pp. II-III. 118

Herbeck to Anselm Huttenbrenner, 9 October 31Johann 1866, Deutsch, Memoirs,p. 440. Huttenbrennerto his brotherAndreas,6 June 1865, 32Josef Deutsch, Memoirs,p. 439. Huttenbrennerto his brotherAndreas, 11 February 33Josef 1867, Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 442 (trans. corrected: the originalpresumablyshould read, "Esmachte die Ouverture nichts," not "Ermachte die Ouverturenicht," as given in Deutsch, Schubert: Die Erinnerungen seiner Freunde [Leipzig, 1967], p. 390). Josef failed to mention that Hanslick, in his review of the concert in the Neue freie Presse, ridiculed Anselm Huttenbrenner as one who had kept Schubertmanuscripts "locked in a trunk" and taken the key "to bed" at night. Eduard Hanslick, Aus dem Concertsaal: Kritiken und Schilderungen (Vienna, 1870), p. 350.

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

Plate 1: B-Minor Symphony, published by Spina (1867).
Courtesy of the Music Division, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations. 119



From this, it is evident that Josefregrettedthat they had not continued to hold the Symphony hostage. Nor was this the only time that he acted against Schubert's interests: he also refused to provide Schubert's youthful operas, Des Teufels Lustschloss (1813-14) and act I of Claudine von Villa Bella (1815),for performance at the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde.34 Moreover, he failed to keep those manuscripts safe from destruction: Kreissle learned from him that the second and third acts of Claudine von Villa Bella were used "by his servants to light a fire" in 1848.35 In subsequent accounts, which were not free from serious inconsistencies, Josef continued to try to justify his and his brother's retention of the autograph score of the Symphony. In a letter of circa 1868 to an unidentified woman, he again stated that the score had been in his own ratherthan Anselm's possession,36 strongly implying that Schubert had intended him to have it. I possessedthe Symphony manyyearsandthen for it Anselmarranged as a pianoforte duetwhichI also lent to Herbeck. Schubert gave it to me out of gratitudefor the Diplomaof Honourfrom the GrazMusic Society, I anddedicated to the societyandAnselm; brought it the diplomato Schubert. thattime the Societyin At Vienna and Graz did not like the C majorSymand phony.The B minor,which my brother I place on a parwith Beethoven, couldnot findan orchestra to acceptit anywhere!37

It is noteworthy that, unlike the Hiittenbrenners' present-day defenders, Josef always acknowledged that the Symphony was given in return for Schubert's election to the Styrian Musikverein; in attempting to explain the suppression of Schubert's masterpiece for forty years, he never went beyond asserting that the work was dedicated (wholly or jointly) to Anselm. As for that alleged dedication, there is no reference to Anselm Hfittenbrenner on the score, no accompanying dedicatory letter, no confirmation of such a dedication in contemporary memoirs, and no letter of acknowledgment, thanks, or appreciation from the supposed dedicatee to the composer. And, decisively, Huittenbrenner's biographicalnotes and letters about Schubert referredto above are silent about the B-Minor Symphony, which, as music historiansMax Friedlander Ferdinand and Bischoff perfectly understood, "could hardly have been the case if Schubert had dedicated that work to Huittenbrenner."38 In any event, the rationale for such a dedication rests on a false assumption-that it was Anselm Huittenbrennerwho obtained the Diploma of Honor for Schubert-and on Josef's inaccurate statement that it was his brother who sent the honorary diploma to Schubert. But Anselm did not become President of the Musikverein until two years after Schubert's election. Moreover, Schubert's name was put
38Cited from Max Friedlander, Beitrdge zur Biographie Franz Schuberts (Berlin, 1887), p. 44n., in Ferdinand Bischoff, Chronik des steiermdrkischen Musikvereines (Graz, 1890), p. 71n. The plain fact is that the score bears no dedication of any kind. Schubert'snormal practice was to dedicate works on their publication, although he often inscribed autographs or fair copies of smaller works to intimate friends. During their early years of association with Schubert,both Hiittenbrennerbrothersreceived such dedications,to Anselm of the Deutscher Tanz in A; Major, and D. 365, no. 2 ("Trauerwalzer"), Josefof Die Forelle, D. 550 (third version), the Deutscher Tanz in C# Minor and Ecossaise in D; for Piano, D. 643, and an Overture in F for Piano Four-hands, D. 675. In this context, it is worth considering that of all Schubert's published dedications Deutsch calls attention to the absence of documentation in only two instances: he notes that Schubert's 1817 manuscript of his Thirteen Variations in A Minor on a D. theme by Anselm Huittenbrenner, 576, does not confirm the dedication to Anselm that is to be found on the latter's 1853 manuscript;and he remarks that "the same may be D. true"of the dedicationto Josefof Erwartung, 159, second version. Deutsch, SDB, p. 949. In the latter instance, the manuscriptis not extant.

34"Herbeck hostile to me because I did not let him have is two opera fragments by Schubert; he would have given them with orchestra in the Gesellschaft" (Josef Huttenbrenner to a young lady, ca. 1868, Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 193; trans. amended). 35Kreissle,Franz Schubert, p. 71, n. 1; see also Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 194. 36It is difficult to evaluate the truth of this statement: what is certain is that the score was in Anselm Huittenbrenner'shands by 4 April 1842, that being the date of his letter to Joseflisting Schubertautographsin his possession (see p. 116 above). Hiittenbrennerto a young lady, ca. 1868, Deutsch, 37Josef Memoirs, p. 193. Deutsch finds the claim that orchestral performances were sought by the Hiittenbrenners, "an inappropriateexpression, seeing that the two brothershad kept the B minor Symphony to themselves for forty years" (Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 194). 120

in nomination by Johann Baptist Jenger, and the letter announcing his election was signed by three officers of the Verein, none of whom was Anselm Hiittenbrenner, for he, according to the official history of the Musikverein, "was at that time not yet even a member of the executive committee of the Verein and consequently had nothing to do, or was at most very indirectly involved, with Schubert's nomination as an honorary member."39 Maurice J. E. Brown's speculation that the Symphony was given to Anselm Hiittenbrenner "probablyin payment for a debt or an obligation" (see p. 115) is without any factual foundation and goes far beyond the plain meaning of Josef Hiittenbrenner's statements. And, contrary to Brown's other assertions, the 1961 article by Felix Hiittenbrenner on which he relied for what he described as its "recent disclosure of documents from the Hiittenbrennerfamily archives" in fact contained no new documents revealing when, why, to whom, and for what purpose the manuscript was transmitted. Its defense of the Hiittenbrenners rests wholly on already published statements by Josef Hiittenbrenner and succeeds in demonstrating only that he made certain claims, not that they are true. In the absence of appropriateevidence, Felix Hiittenbrenner promoted a series of questionable hypotheses, among them, that his forebears "vainly endeavored" to get Schubert to complete the work; that Schubert didn't have a public performance in mind and didn't care what happened to the Symphony; that Anselm Hiittenbrenner had no reason to pursue a performance in Graz because "it wouldn't serve much purpose to have a poor performance of the B-MinorSymphony"; that after 1839, when Hiittenbrenner resigned from the Musikverein, there was no opportunity for him to obtain a performance; that he ought not be blamed for suppressing a symphony to which he had a perfect property right, and, moreover, that Herbeck ought to be held responsible for the five years between 1860 and 1865 and Josef for "many" earlier years as well; and, not least,
39Bischoff,Chronik des steiermdrkischen Musikvereines, p. 71. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that Anselm, as a leading member of the Verein, influenced the decision.

that the brothers are to be lauded for preserving the Symphony for posterity: "No one would have known of its existence had not the Hiittenbrenner brothers brought it to the world's attention."40In sum, the responsibility for neglecting Schubert's Symphony is not to be assigned to Graz,the Musikverein, or the Hittenbrenners, but to the composer himself, who was willing to consign it to oblivion, and to the uncaring,uncomprehendingworld he inhabited. In light of the documented circumstances, however, there is no reason to doubt that Schubert intended the Symphony in B Minor for the Musikverein rather than for Anselm Hiittenbrenner personally, and, furthermore, that he sent the autograph to Graz in hope of achieving what for him would have constituted a rare concert performance of one of his major orchestral works by a distinguished, proficient Musikverein. III An examination of the concert programs of the Styrian Musikverein from its founding in 1815 until 1829 sheds some light on Schubert's prospects of achieving his main goal. At the same time, the programsyield unexpected answers to the question of whether, when he forwarded it, Schubert considered the Symphony to be complete or incomplete.41
40Forthe above quotations, see Felix Hfittenbrenner, "Anselm Hiittenbrenner und Schuberts H-moll Symphonie,"pp. 128-29, 130, 131-32, 127-28. The author even neglects to quote Schubert's letter of acceptance to the Musikverein with its promise to send it a symphony in full score, relegating it to a glancing reference in a secondarysource quoted in his n. 9 (p. 135). For an earlier article on the subject by Felix Hiittenbrenner, see "Zur Geschichte der H-moll-Symphonie," Sangerzeitung des Steirischen Sdngerbundes8, no. 2 (February 1928), 31-32. 41The informationin what follows is drawnprimarilyfrom Bischoff,Chronikdes steiermirkischen Musikvereinesand ErikaEisbacher, Das GrazerKonzertlebenv. 1815 bis Mdrz 1839 (diss., Karl-Franzens Universitat Graz, 1956), supplementedby datain Deutsch, SDB and FranzSchubert: Dokumente, 1817-1830, ed. Till Gerrit Waidelich, vol. I (Tutzing, 1993).The statistics are subject to some variance because some programshave not survived;allowance must also be made for incomplete or ambiguous listings, insufficiently described compositions, and disagreements between the sources. See also E. Krempel, Anfdnge der Universitat GrazerKonzertgeschichte(diss., Karl-Franzens Graz, 1950); and Bischoff, "Beethoven und die Grazer musikalischen Kreise,"in Beethovenjahrbuch,ed. Theodor von Frimmel (Munich, 1908), I, 6-27. 121

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony



Each year the Society offered a wide variety of public musical events, the most important of which were the "Musikalische Akademien des Musikvereins," these being "grand concerts" for charitable purposes, which were often, though not exclusively, scheduled for the Easter and Christmas seasons. There were also frequent "Gesellschaftsconcerten" offered mainly in summertime, regularconcerts by pupils of the Society's music conservatory, concert presentations of full operas,and occasional performancesof oratorios or other majorchoral works. If to these are added memorial services for deceased members and performancesof sacred music at the annual St. Cecilia festival celebrations, we have the framework of an extraordinarily active musical life, wholly apart from the numerous Akademien by touring virtuosos and composers as well as music performed before and between the acts at the Schauspielhaus. Excluding Musikverein conservatory concerts for its pupils and concerts at which members of the Musikverein served as supporting musicians, sixty-nine Musikverein events are recorded for the years 1815-29, for an average of just over 4.5 per year, and a large percentage of the programs survive or can be partially reconstructed from reviews. About 395 separate performances of works by ninety-three different composers made up the concert programs during these years. A tally indicates that the composers most frequently performed were Beethoven (50 separate performances),Rossini (38), Mozart (32), Haydn (16), Cherubini (17), Spontini (13), Mehul (10), Hummel (10), Meyerbeer (10), Weber (10) Mercadante (8), Schubert (7), Pixis (7), Boieldieu (6), Moscheles (6), Nicolini (6), and Paer (6).42 The grand concerts were typical nineteenthcentury gala entertainments, featuring a potpourri of hit numbers from popular operas by such composers as Boieldieu, Rossini, Spontini, Pavesi, Mehul, Mercadante, and Meyerbeer; overturesby Mozart,Beethoven,Weber,Rossini,
42Astatistical tally of most frequently performed composers at all events in Graz between 1815 and 1838 shows a total of 1384 works, among them Rossini (140), Beethoven (87), Mozart (74), Hummel (31), and Haydn (19). Eisbacher, Das Grazer Konzertleben v. 1815 bis Mirz 1839, p. 86. 122

Cherubini, Spohr, and Spontini; movements of concertos and virtuoso showpieces for solo instruments by various lesser composers; and occasionally interspersed Lieder, vocal quartets, choral numbers, and declamations. Although the main drawing cards were operatic arias, ensembles, and choruses, these constituting about a fourth of the programs,opera and concert overtures for orchestra were by far the most popularindividual genre, with 119 on the programs.Thus, there was no dearth of orchestral music. Symphonies, however, were rarely heard: after 1815, Haydn, Mozart, Fesca, and Huiittenbrenner, EduardLannoy were each represented at Musikverein concerts only by individual symphonic movements; and complete symphonies-possibly one each by Haydn, Schoberlechner, and Mozart-were heard only at Akademien of visiting virtuosos or between acts at the Schauspielhaus (see Table 1). The sole, great exception was Beethoven, whose devoted admirers-led by JosephVarena, a founding member of the Musikverein, and the noted professor and author Julius Franz Schneller-pursued the tradition in Graz of complete performances of Beethoven symphonies, which had been inauguratedin 1805 with the Second Symphony, followed by the Eroica and the Pastoral Symphonies in 1809, and the Pastoral and the Fifth in 1811 and 1813 respectively. The tradition was continued by the Musikverein with an unspecified symphony in 1815, the Seventh Symphony in 1816, the Eighth in 1818, the Second in 1821, and both the Pastoral and Fifth Symphonies (the latter not quite complete) in 1824 (see Table 2). In addition, individual movements from his symphonies were programmed with some frequency. (Wellingtons Sieg was also a great favorite, with five complete performances-three in 1816, and one each in 1817 and 1819, along with several separate performances of the Siegessymphonie.) There was, however, a falling off in performances of Beethoven symphonies after 1819, and the absence of any complete symphonies by him on the programs for more than fifteen years after 1824 suggests that the appetite for them had diminished in Graz starting aroundthe time that Schubert sent his Symphony there. And even the greatest piety toward Beethoven had its limits. When his

Table 1 Performances of Symphonies and Symphony Movements Graz 1815-30 (Excluding Beethoven) DATE 5 July 1815 29 December 1815 13 January1816 30 May 1816 2 December 1816 25 December 1816 7 August 1818 10 October 1818 14 October 1818 25 December 1818 8 September 1819 5 July 1820 8 September 1822 27 September 1822 25 December 1822

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

COMPOSER Haydn Schoberlechner Beethoven and Mozart Haydn Mozart Not identified Fesca Pucitta Mozart Feska Hiittenbrenner Mozart Lannoy Legnani Mozart

DETAILS "Symphonievon Haydn" at Akademie for actor Heinrich Herbst. "einen neuen Symphonie" at Akademie for Franz Schoberlechner. "einer gehaltvollen Symphonie von Beethoven und Mozart."Between acts of a play at the Schauspielhaus. Allegro and Andante from Symphony in D At ("Schwanengesang"). Morgenconcertdes Musikvereins. "eine groge Symphonie von Mozart."Between acts of a play at the Schauspielhaus. "EinTheil einer Simphonie" at Akademie for clarinetist Weissgarber. Introductionand Allegro from Symphony. At Akademie des Musikvereins. "Symphony."Between the acts of a play at the Schauspielhaus. "Ein Stuck einer Sinfonie von Mozart."At Akademie for Mad. Plomer. At Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins. An overture or first movement. "Sinfonie."Akademie des Musikvereins. An overture. At First movement of Symphony in ES. Akademie for FranzXaverWolfgangMozart. Movement from C-MajorSymphony. Akademie des Musikvereins. opening each half "Symphonie mit orchester-Begleitung" of Akademie for guitar virtuoso Legnani. "ersterSatz der grofien"Symphony in D. Akademie des Musikvereins.

Sources for Tables 1-3: Schubert: A Documentary Biography, ed. Otto Erich Deutsch, trans. Eric Blom (London, 1946); Franz Schubert: Dokumente 1817-1830, ed. Till Gerrit Waidelich, vol. I (Tutzing, 1993); Erika Eisbacher, Das Grazer Konzertleben v. 1815 bis Marz 1839 (diss., Karl-Franzens Universitat in Graz, 1956); Ferdinand Bischoff, Chronik des steiermirkischen Musikvereines (Graz, 1890); Bischoff, "Beethoven und die Grazer musikalischen Kreise, " in Beethovenjahrbuch, ed. Theodor von Frimmel (Munich, 1908), I, 6-27; 0. E. Deutsch, Beethovens Beziehungen zu Graz (Graz, 1907), esp. pp. 4-11. 123


Table 2

Performances of Beethoven Symphonies in Graz, 1805-39


DATE 19 April




Symphony (not specified;probably Second Symphony in D)

"Eine neue Simphonie von Beethoven" at fourth in first series of LiebhaberConcerts at standische Redoutensaal. A "grogfe Sinfonie von Beethoven" at second in fourth series of LiebhaberConcerts. Deutsch believes the Eroica Symphony had been previously performedat Graz. A "grogfe Sinfonie von Beethoven" at seventh in fourth series of Liebhaber Concerts. The Pastoral Symphony had been published in May 1809. Benefit Akademie in in Wurmbrand-Garten honor of Prof. Julius FranzSchneller, producedby JosephVarena. Benefit Akademie producedby Varena. Akademie des Musikvereins. At the Schauspielhaus. Between acts of a dramaat the Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins. At the Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins. Morgenconcertdes Musikvereins. Beforeperformanceof a drama at the Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins. Beforeperformanceof a drama at the Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie for Marie Therese


17 February

Symphony (not specified;probably Eroica Symphony in ES)

15 December

Symphony (not specified; probably PastoralSymphony in F)


25 July

PastoralSymphony in F

1813 1815 1816

6 June 6 June 13 January 14 April (Easterevening) 24 April 4 July 12 December 25 December

Symphony (not specified;probably the Fifth in C minor) Symphony (not specified) Movement of a symphony (not specified)
Wellingtons Sieg

Wellingtons Sieg PastoralSymphony in F, excerpts from First Symphony in C Seventh Symphony in A
Wellingtons Sieg


7 February

Second Symphony in D Wellingtons Sieg. Allegro, probablyfrom the Seventh Symphony in A Symphony (probablyonly in part) Eighth Symphony in F, perhapsomitting finale. Eighth Symphony:Tempo di Menuetto

5 June 25 December 22 March (EasterSunday) 8 June



Table 2 (cont.) Performances of Beethoven Symphonies in Graz, 1805-39 YEAR 1818 DATE 14 October 25 December 1819 1821 1824 12 November February 4 July 13 August SYMPHONY Andante from "einer grofIenSinfonie" Wellingtons Sieg: Siegessymphonie Wellingtons Sieg Second Symphony in D 3 movements from the Fifth Symphony in C Minor Pastoral Symphony in F (dividedin three parts as "ErsterSatz," "Zweyter"und "Letztes Stuick") Fifth Symphony in C Minor:finale Fifth Symphony in C Minor:finale Wellingtons Sieg: Siegessymphonie movement from Seventh Symphony Fifth Symphony in C Minor:finale Eighth Symphony in F: Allegro vivace e con brio and Tempo di Menuetto Wellingtons Sieg None DETAILS Akademie for CatharinaHyde Plomer. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Gesellschaftsakademie des Musikvereins. Morgenconcertdes Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Akademie des Musikvereins. Musikverein event. Musikverein event. Musikverein event.

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

8 September 24 December 1825 1826 1827 1828-30 25 December Unknown Unknown Unknown

1831 1832-39

8 September

Akademie des Musikvereins.

"Consecration of the House" Overture, op. 115, was performed at the Society's concert on 19 March 1826, it was viewed as too difficult, the reviewer in the Grazer Zeitung commenting: "It would be better appreciated if it were performed as the high point of a classical oratorio rather than in a concert where, nowadays, one expects more easily comprehensible ingredients."43
43Waidelich, Franz Schubert: Dokumente, p. 276. The

man heutiges Tages leichter fafliche Bestandtheile erwartet." The concert took place on 19 March (not 19 April), and the review is dated 29 April (not 26 April);the erroneous dates are in Deutsch, SDB, p. 522. Beethoven's in dominationof symphony performances Viennawas quite similar: of symphonies performedat the first one hundred concerts of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde between

original reads: "Sie wuirdebesser an der Spitze eines als classischenOratoriums, eines Concertesstehen, wo

One can well imagine, then, that the directors of the Styrian Musikverein would not have been overly enthusiastic at a prospect of performing Schubert's Symphony. They would have had little desire to subject their audience of patrons and substantial citizens to a symphony consisting of a lugubrious opening movement followed by a melancholy second movement. By the same token, knowing about the conventional makeup of the Musikverein programs, Schubert could not have been altogether sanguine about his prospects of achieving a

1815 and 1840, Beethoven led with thirty-five, followed by Mozart (twenty), Krommer (five), Haydn (four), Lachner (three),and a handfulof others with one or two. See Eduard Hanslick, Geschichte des Concertwesensin Wien (Vienna, 1869),p. 292. 125



performance. And that may explain why he delayed for so long in sending the symphony to Graz: it wasn't necessarily because he was remiss, as his own family suspected,44but because he calculated that the work had only the slimmest chance of being performed. Schubert had good reason for that calculation, for his influential friends in Graz had not managed to achieve any serious representation for his works on the programs of the Musikverein. Although he had been off to an auspicious start in Graz with a performanceof one of his orchestral overtures (probablythe E Minor, D. 648) in 1820, this was not under Musikverein auspices but at an Akademie for Viennese violinist EduardJaell,who was a stalwart proponent of Schubert's music, responsible in 1818 for the first public performanceof any of his works, in 1819 for the first public performance of any of his Lieder, and, with Jaell'sGrazAkademie, for the first performance of any of his works outside Vienna. Thereafter, on Schubertappeared Grazprogramsexclusively as a composer of small-scale vocal music. Between 1820 and 1828 approximatelynine of his vocal quartets and four Lieder were performed there, of which three vocal quartets and three Lieder were at Musikverein Akademien (see Table 3). And if one discounts the three works performed on 8 September 1827 during Schubert'svisit, the Musikverein performances shrink to a total of three Liederand vocal quartets during Schubert's lifetime: one each in 1822, 1825, and 1826; to this, after his death, can be added only one for 1829. His name was altogether absent from the Musikverein's programs in 1820, 1821, 1823, 1824, and 1828. It was a paltry harvest for a major composer, indicative of his limited status in Graz, despite his honorary diploma. During the last ten years of Anselm Hiittenbrenner's tenure as President of the Musik44In a letter of 14 August 1824, Schubert's father and stepmother asked, "How do you stand aboutyour honorary distinctions by diploma from the Styrianand Linz Musical Societies?" and continued with a paternal remonstrance: "If, contrary to all expectation, you should not yet have done so, let me urge you most earnestly to thank them in a worthy manner. These noble societies show you exceptional love and respect, which may be very important for you" (Deutsch, SDB, p. 368). 126

verein, the situation worsened, with only two of Schubert's compositions performed-one each in 1835 and 1836-and these at secondary concerts without orchestra. Had it not been for the presentation of nine Lieder and vocal quartets at concerts by the visiting Friedrich Beer between 1833 and 1835, Schubert's music would have been almost wholly unrepresented in Graz in the 1830s. It is difficult to say why Htittenbrennerdid virtually nothing to promote his friend's music. It certainly gives one pause to consider that, despite his protestations of devotion to Schubert,he had reservations about departures from older musical traditions: indeed, in an unguarded remark, which he instantly modified, he once wrote, "The world of music should have stopped with Gluck."45 The pattern of neglect was firmly established, so that even in later decades Schubert was infrequently performed in Graz: his C-Major Symphony was not played until 1862, almost a quarter century after its rediscovery, and the "Unfinished" Symphony not until 1871, six years after its Vienna premiere. Keenly aware that he was stereotyped as a Liedercomposer,Schubertsurely was also aware of the remarkable Graz tradition of Beethoven symphony performances and yearned for that kind of recognition. When he delivered his "symphony in full score" to the Musikverein, he was not just settling an obligation but was asking for a hearing equal to that previously affordedonly to Beethoven. If so, here may be a dramatic sign of Schubert's ambitious and adamant character, so different from the hapless Schubert of nostalgic legend. He could readily have sent a more ingratiating work, one with a better chance of being acceptable to audiences in Graz, such as several recently written opera overturesor the incidental music to Rosamunde (produced20 December 1823). But to a composerwho aspiredto be a symphonist, for whom it was galling to be regardedonly as a Lieder

45Anselm Huttenbrennerto FerdinandLuib, 7 March 1858, Deutsch, Memoirs, p. 70. Huttenbrenner tried to soften this peremptory statement, continuing: "But 'sunt certi denique fines' cannot be applied to music; and it would have been a thousand pities if we were never to have heard anything by Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Cherubini."

Table 3 Schubert Performances in Graz, 1820-30 YEAR 1820 1822 DATE 7 April 8 September 13 September WORK A "New Overture" (probablyOverturein E minor, D. 648) Das D6rfchen, D. 598, vocal quartet Die Nachtigall, D. 724, vocal quartet
Erlk6nig, D. 328

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

DETAILS Akademie for EduardJaell in the Redoutensaal. Akademie des Musikvereins, in the Redoutensaal. Vocal Recital by Demoiselle Therese Sessi, with Anselm Huittenbrenner, piano. Akademie for J. B. Amerbacher, at the Schauspielhaus. Evidently private performances.See Grazer Zeitung for 7 June 1823, cit. Waidelich, Schubert Dokumente, I, 159-60. Akademie des Musikvereins in Landhaussaal. Akademie des Musikvereins in the Rittersaal. Performedby JakobWilhelm Rauscherwith Anselm Huttenbrenner,piano. Akademie by the Pupils of the PragueConservatory,at the Rittersaal. Akademie des Musikvereins at the Schauspielhaus. Schubertat the piano. Akademie for flutist Franz Zierer. Sung by Friedrich Schmezer, tenor. Akademie for basset hornist FranzSchalk at Schauspielhaus. Akademie des Musikvereins at Schauspielhaus.

18 October 1823 prior to 7 June

Das D6rfchen, D. 598, vocal quartet Male vocal quartets, unspecified

1825 1826

2 June 19 March

Der ziirnenden Diana, D. 707

Der Wanderer,D. 489 or D. 649


25 March

Two vocal quartets, unidentified, but presumablyDas D6rfchen, D. 598, and Die Nachtigall, D. 724 Normans Gesang, D. 846 Gott in der Natur, D. 757, vocal quartet Geist der Liebe, D. 747, vocal quartet Lied, unspecified

8 September


27 August


16 February

Male vocal quartet, title and composer unspecified Vocal quartet, unspecified

18 June

composer, such alternatives were evidently unacceptable. Instead, heartened by the experience of Beethoven, the intensity of his own desire, and his hope for acknowledgment at least by a minority of connoisseurs within the Society, he chose to play for high stakes, willing to risk almost certain rejection. This new look at the Styrian Musikverein's

concert programs also now permits reconsidering the question that has troubled several scholars, whether Schubert would have sent a fragmentary work for performance.46 It has, however, become evident that Schubert had no rea-

46See 13 and 14. nn.




son not to send two individual symphonic movements, or a two-movement symphony, to the Musikverein. A performanceby the Musikverein of either or both of the movements was the best he could hope for. There was no need to furnish a scherzo or a finale because there was not even a remote possibility that these would be scheduled. In brief, inasmuch as the Musikverein did not perform "complete" symphonies other than those of Beethoven, the belief that Schubert would not have presented an "unfinished" or a two-movement symphony to the Musikverein for performancefalls away. Einstein's and Deutsch's perplexity has been found to rise from a false premise. On the other hand, it can also no longer be asserted that because a rational Schubertwould not have sent an unfinished work to the Musikverein, the work was, to his mind, already complete as it stood. What seemed to be a promising avenue for demonstrating that the work was not unfinished is now closed. In the end, then, after examining the historical record, we are left with an open question. No assumption about Schubert's ultimate intentions is safe, except one, that we cannot be certain what they might have been. We do know that they had already undergone two major shifts: he considered the Symphony as a work in progresswhen he draftedthe scherzo in 1822; and when he sent it to Graz later on, he had probably decided against finishing it, at least for the time being. But further shifts in his intentions were still possible. At every moment of Schubert's life after October 1822, this Symphony had the potentiality to become a different work from the one that exists. Given an appropriateperformanceopportunity, Schubert could have let it stand in two movements, or recast those movements, or finished the sketched scherzo and composed a finale, or written a new third movement, either as a minuet/ scherzo or as a finale. Indeed, had the Musikverein (orany other orchestra)expressedinterest in performing the work as a four-movement cycle, Schubertmight well have written closing movements. Or he could have arranged the present music for a different combination of instruments, or used the Symphony's materials in other compositions. A host of unrealized possibilities were latent in those two move128

ments; nothing was foreclosed until the moment of Schubert's death. It may be best to speak, not of an unfinished work, but of an unpredictable, unfinished process, one whose outcome could be determined only by the exercise of Schubert's creative will, by his unpredictable decision to continue or to leave off. IV The nineteenth century heard.Schubert'sBMinor Symphony as unfinished not simply because it is in two movements (there are many works called symphonies in one or two movements) but because it was labeled "unfinished" at the very outset-by the Hiittenbrenners in their first descriptions of the work; by the authors of the first published references;by the early biographers and commentators. At its premiere, the Symphony was listed as "Unvollendete" ("Unfinished") and fitted out with a finale from an earlier Schubert And we may hazardthat it was so symphony.47 because it "ended"with an Andante, designated an idea not easily reconcilable with ordinary conceptions of the Classical symphony. When Beethoven himself sent his two-movement Piano Sonata in C Minor, op. 111, to the press in 1822, his ParispublisherMaurice Schlesinger was worried that the finale might be missing: "I take the liberty, prior to my sending it to be engraved, to obediently ask you whether this work is written only as 1 Maestoso and 1 Andante, or whether perhaps the Allegro was

by accidentally forgotten the Copyist."148
Although it has no authority in Schubert, the title "Unfinished" is inextricably part of the Symphony, from which it can never be disentangled, any more than one can remove the posthumous title "Moonlight" from Beethoven's sonata, which acquired its nickname by an accident of publishing history. And the title has shaped our perception of the Sym47TheSymphony No. 3 in D, D. 200, according to Durr and Landon,Sinfonie in h-Moll,p. II.The first performance of the two movements by themselves was presented by Herbeck in a Gesellschaft concert of 4 November 1866. C. F. Pohl, Die Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde. .. und ihr Conservatorium(Vienna, 1871),p. 86. 48Maurice Schlesinger to Beethoven, 3 July 1822, Ludwig van Beethoven:BriefwechselGesamtausgabe, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Munich, 1997), IV, 506 (no. 1476).

phony: we hear it as an unfinished work, as an extended fragment, like the Sonata in C ("Reliquie"), D. 840, the String Quartet in C Minor ("Quartett-Satz"),D. 703, or the Symphony in E, D. 729. This perception dictates the nature of the questions that we pose to the work and that the work poses to us. An "Unfinished" Symphony opens up the connections between Schubert and that aspect of the Romanticist aesthetic that valorizes ruins, fragments, longing, sudden death, and every other idea of incompletion; it is emblematic of an inability to achieve conventional patterns of archetypal transcendence-those bearing on homecoming, triumph, closure, happy ending. Contemplating an unfinished masterpiece, some have imagined in Schubert an indifference to immortality, thinking of the supreme irony of composing such a work and then permitting it to languish in obscurity, incomplete, unheard, unfulfilled. The "Unfinished" Symphony readily turns into a metaphor for Schubert's very existence-his bachelorhood, his disease, his early death, his brief, "unfinished" life. The composer Hugo Wolf wrote: "The B Minor Symphony, a true reflection of the artistic individuality of its creator, was unfortunately left a fragment. So it compares in its form with the external existence of the master, who in the flower of his life, at the height of his creative powers, was snatched away by Death. Schubert lived only half a lifetime, as a man and also as an artist."49The notion of a Schubertunable to complete this supreme work or even to recognize his own greatness meshed perfectly with the conventional image of him as tempest-tossed, helpless, incapable of action: the genius as a doomed schlemiel. The "Unfinished" Symphony is seen as embodying a composer's sense of futility, his fear of achievement, his supposed inability to compete with a more vital, manly Beethoven, his perceived inability to "bring to the finale a sense of consummation and catharsis," in biographerJohn Reed's formulation.50The "Unfinished" Symphony is central to the tenacious Biedermeier
49HugoWolf, in the Wiener Salonblatt, cited in Frank Walker, Hugo Wolf: A Biography (New York, 1952), p. 150. Schubert,p. 105. 50Reed,

myth of an "unfinished" Schubert, which sees him as marginalized, victimized, and misunderstood, a composer who created automatically or in a somnambulistic trance, who inevitably succumbed to melancholia and despair. Critics have had well over a century to probe these kinds of implications about Schubert's Symphony as an intentionally unfinished work. Our examination of the documentary record may now authorize us to hear it in different ways, including as a complete or potentially complete work, with all that such a way of hearing it may imply about issues of closure in art and in life. If we perceive the Symphony as unfinished, we ask, "Whatkind of continuation and finale would be appropriate to it? What kind of ending could it have?" If, on the other hand, we perceive it as finished, we ask a different question: "What kind of finale has Schubert alreadywritten?" With the knotty issue of Schubert's intentions, whether provisional or ultimate, set aside, the coda of the Andante con moto of the "Unfinished" Symphony conveys the deep impression of closure that defines the sense of an ending: it has achieved a state of repose that calls for nothing beyond silence and inner reflection. It is distinctly an ending, if by that we mean that it propounds a statement that does not necessarily require further discourse. Nothing in it intrinsically demands a continuation or the breakingof its well-earned silence. And this has not been overlooked by several eminent commentators, who have felt a sense of structural coherence or sufficiency in Schubert's two movements and argued for the wholeness of the symphony in its present form, although without trying to ground their observations in the documentary evidence. For example, WalterDahms believed that Schubert "put aside his pen" in the midst of the trio of the scherzoprecisely because the work "seemed to its creator himself, sufficiently finished for him to dispense with the completion of the usual plan of a symphony."'5 Similarly, Herbert Peyser emphasized the "unequivocal and infinitely assuaging completeness" that Schubert

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony

"Walter Dahms, Schubert (6th-9th edn., Berlin, 1918), p. 130. 129



had achieved, making furthermovements irrelevant; he saw the scherzo as "a superfluity ... an egregious interloper, utterly alien, infinitely remote."52The insufficiently elaborated issue in such observations is whether we ought to view the work from an aesthetic of the fragmentaryor from an aesthetic of coherence. The two positions are perhapsmost clearly represented by Joseph Muiller-Blattau,who saw the Symphony as a "fragment" or "torso," which its "own creator . . . counted as a valid work of art in itself, "53and by Paul Henry Lang, who asserted that Schubert-like Beethoven in his two-movement sonatas-was satisfied with two movements because "the mood was completely exhausted" and who suggested "it is high time that its name be changed," for, "far from regarding it as a magnificent torso, we should treasure the B minor symphony as a consummate work of art, free from all formalistic restrictions."54 Most recently, Susan McClary has interpreted the symphony as a refusal of a narrowly drawn "heroic narrative," observing that "Schubert concludes with a gentle yet firm refusal to submit to narrative conventions that would have achieved closure only at the expense of his integrity."55
52Herbert Peyser, "The Epicof the 'Unfinished',"Musical F. Quarterly 14 (1928),659-60. "Itsvery incompleteness may be due to Schubert'srecognition of its tragic sense, to his unwillingness to mitigate the thrust and the deep appeasement thereof" (p. 644). Muller-Blattau,"Schuberts'Unvollendete'und das 53Joseph Problem des Fragmentarischenin der Musik," in his Von der Vielfalt der Musik: Musikgeschichte,Musikerziehung, Musikpflege (Freiburgim Breisgau, 1966), pp. 285-301 (at p. 288). See also Hansgeorg Maier, "Anmerkungenzum Wesen des Fragments,"Die Literatur38 (1935-36), 55557, cited by Muller-Blattau,p. 288, n.3. 54PaulHenry Lang, Music in Western Civilization (New York, 1941), p. 783. 55Susan McClary, "Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music," in Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology, ed. Philip Brett, ElizabethWood, and Gary C. Thomas (New York, 1994), pp. 224, 227. Finally, Arnold Schering, in an outlandish reading that ignores the import of the sketches, proposed that the Symphony was written from the start in two movements as a musical realization of Schubert's "Mein Traum,"his brief prose narrative dating from earlier in 1822. The argumentrests shakily on the propinquityof the two works and on Schering's mistaken reading of "Mein Traum" as being, like the Symphony, in two sections. See Arnold Schering, Franz Schuberts Symphonie in h-moll und ihr Geheimnis, Kleine deutsche Musikbiicherei, vol. 1 (Wuirzburg-Aumuihle, 1939),pp. 14-16. 130

Nevertheless, such perceptions have run up against substantive objections. It has been argued that "had Schubert intended to write a two-movement symphony he would surely have cast the second movement in either B minor or B major."56 But it may be countered that the "Unfinished"Symphony is an anomalous work to begin with, raising highly particular issues that cannot be settled by an appeal to the absence of precedent. A symphony in B minor is already, as John Reed observed, "a novel concept in itself," without serious precedent in the mature symphonies of Schubert's main predecessors.57 And the choice of what appearsto be the subdominant in the major mode for the Andante con moto is also highly unusual. Thus, we ought not to rule out the possibility that a symphony characterized by anomalies of key, tempo, rhetoric, and texture might be equally anomalous in harmonic structure. And if this is so, we might want to entertain the possibility that a tonal trajectorythat proceeds from B minor to E major may be construed in a different way than the title page suggests, as a move from an initiating unstable dominant minor to an E-major tonic, perhaps offering a clue to why the Andante con moto provides so profound an impression of closure. To pursue this idea for a moment, the score sketches show that Schubert initially proposed to end the Allegro moderatowith a wide-sweeping arpeggiated B-minor passage in contrary motion that eventuates in an expected B-minor chord, which then is surprisingly transformed into a B-majorchord,pianissimo, sustained for three measures up to the final fermata (ex. 1).58 It is a tierce de Picardie, rare enough in Schubert's time, which almost invariably conveys a heightened sense of finality, but which here tends to create the effect of an attacca, reinforcing the implication of an overarching trajectorytoward an E-majortonic. The inflection of the D# in the closing measures of the

56Mosco Carner,"The OrchestralMusic," in The Music of Schubert,ed. GeraldAbraham(New York, 1947),p. 63. Schubert,pp. 104-05. 57Reed, 58The B-major ending in the score sketches was first discussed in Maurice J. E. Brown, Essays on Schubert (London,1966),p. 10.


MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony



9:# :





1-ii^i l
p pPP

i7 i

1 -^



Example 1: B-MinorSymphony, piano sketches, mm. 328-50.

score sketch unseats B minor as a tonic, revealing a kind of dominant that, in RichardKramer's formulation, "simultaneously makes explicit and heals the connection between the movements."59 Perhaps this idea was not subtle enough to convey Schubert's drive to establish a coherent linkage between these movements; or he may have preferred not to settle for a premature or preemptive resolution of the Symphony's long-rangeinstability; or, perhaps, the arrival of B major-and the potential for a permanent displacement of B minor-had already been sufficiently established at the climax of the recapitulation (mm. 303-21). Whatever the reasons, the intended shift to the major mode at the close was canceled, and the scored movement ended swiftly with contending claims to displace the precarioushegemony of B minor still fully in play. The "arrival"in E major discloses and endorses a narrative structure that had originated with an uncanny twisting melody in the depths of the orchestra and now has found its way into the light. The listener retrospectively feels the sensation of release that comes with the resolution of so momentous an instability. In the main, it seems fair to say, the Symphony has been stamped as an unconsummated work because it doesn't have a conventional Classical era ending, such as those in which Haydn expressed an Olympian, mirthful cel59Personal communication.

ebration of the ways of God and man, or those rondos in which Mozart rejoiced in the emergence from the reflectivity and inwardness he had plumbed in his Andantes and Adagios, or those representations of resolute, irresistible motion toward an exalted goal whose archetypal example is the finale of the "Jupiter" Symphony. And especially it is not like Beethoven's powerful, overwhelmingly insistent affirmations in some famous works of his middle years, which are called the exemplars of his "heroic" style because they seem to embody his attempt to translate into music ideas and narrativesof suffering, struggle, resistance, and victory. It may be that Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony unpremeditatedly lays bare the exhaustion-or even the possible irrelevance-of the traditionalfour-movement symphonic layout for him and others of his generation. The affirmative, heaven-storming finale, which reached its most characteristic formulations in the instrumental music of Beethoven's middle period, seems to have taken on an arbitrary character, lost its internal conviction. Against the backdropof an uneasy existence in the post-Napoleonic age, it became increasingly difficult for a Viennese Romantic dissident to bear witness to great social undertakings; the outermost limits of affirmation seemed to reside in the survival of individual conscience and refined sensibility. Beethoven's own failure to pursue another symphony to completion for more than a decade after 1812 perhaps implies that he himself had no clear idea of how



Fl. Fl. 90




b. Ob.

E-.I~ --

E -




k . -.-

a I- -

b _.' ,._- - , . 4


k -

b. L LPpp

. -. ,

f X



$f _










^ ^-^W^

, .~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffz


t j'v.tL?


^ ^ j ^~~~~~~~~~90MO-LLLJ


Pl >

P str________ str.


LiLL ^'''i^ngfrn^rnj-,,,


V ~JI i



Example 2: Andante con moto, mm. 90-116.

to extend the tradition; and his Ode to Joy may be evidence of his conclusion that a radical turn was necessary, including a conversion of the Classical model into mythopoesis and Gesamtkunstwerk. But Beethoven's late quartets and Schubert's late chamber music and CMajor Symphony also show that neither composer was ready to dispense with the affirmative finale, and that there was no shortage of imaginative ideas for conclusions, arrivals, and

every variety of leave-takings, even within the confines of the Classical layout. The miscarriage of Schubert's scherzo may have given him an unanticipated and unplanned opening toward a unique conception of the Symphony, one that condensed the array of contrasting affects usually found in a full symphonic cycle into the span of two lengthy movements. The most striking example of this is in the Andante con moto, which erupts into mo-

ments of triumphant exaltation like those usually associated with the Beethovenian symphonic finale (ex. 2).60

The "Unfinished"Symphony therebyappears to place on the agenda a potential reconfiguration in symphonic structures of the expected order of aesthetic events. The affects of inwardness, contemplation, meditation, and loss associated with Andante movements retain their centrality, as do touches of pastoral and aristocratic nostalgia usually located in minuets or scherzos. Farfrom omitting ideas of conflict and transcendence, however, Schubert has retained them in all their fury, but summoned them to materialize in an unexpected temporal sequence, functioning as transitional stages rather than as imperative emblems of permanent achievement. We know that art's affirmative endings, in their infinite variety, and with their insistence

60Einsteinobserved that "Beethoven's mighty orchestral crescendi always culminate in correspondingly mighty outbursts. With Schubert these outbursts are shorter, as it were more dangerous, and the contrasts are sharper and more clear-cut. Beethoven is full of pathos; Schubert possessed of a daemon" (Einstein, Schubert,p. 203).

on the renewability of human experience, their faith in resurrection and salvation, represent singular images of hope or of possibility, rather than of the uncertain order of things in life, where tragic and transcendent moments succeed one anotherin no particularfixed sequence. Art is already a reconfiguration of the order of things, a rearrangementof life. In the "Unfinished" Symphony, Schubertrearrangesthe customary rearrangement,not ruling out resurrection but choosing for the time being to settle for Faust's "Tarry awhile, thou art so fair," rather than to insist on Fidelio's trumpet call. Or, perhaps,it may simply be that he elected to close a chapter rather than a book. Alternatives like these may now be set alongside-though they cannot displace-the traditional readings of the "Unfinished" Symphony. Our perception of the structure of the Symphony hinges on whether or not we choose to view it as a complete work. This does not signify that we are at an impasse, with its implication of limited possibilities. Rather, by a further exploration of what is assuredly an open question, we may eventually be able to broaden the perspectives within which Schubert's a^ Symphony-and his life-can be viewed. Na-W.

MAYNARD SOLOMON Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful