The Virtuoso Liszt

DANA GOOLEY

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 Introduction: a virtuoso in context

Virtuosity is about shifting borders. The musician, the athlete, and the
magician are potentially virtuosos as soon as they cross a limit-the limit
of what seems possible, or what the spectator can imagine. Once this act
of transgression is complete, the border shifts, and the boundaries of the
possible are redrawn. If the performer does not cross a new, more chal­
lenging one, he will no longer be perceived as a virtuoso. He can move
the border along either a qualitative or quantitative axis. A magician,
for example, may astound his audience by pulling a dove out of a black
hat resting on the table, then go on to pull two doves out of the hat. And
then, to top it all off, he might pull three doves out of a hat that is not
resting on the table, perhaps even with his coat off. But this movement
of the border to the next quantitative level of difficulty, however integral
to virtuoso performance, cannot go on for long. Soon the spectator will
demand a new trick, indeed a whole repertory of new tricks: the bor­
der must be moved qualitatively. So the virtuoso magician then makes
things float, disappear, reappear, or explode. He reads hidden cards. He
detaches limbs from the body. It is all amazing, and yet these tricks, still,
are only the cliches of the professional magician - mere craft. To be a
truly surpassing virtuoso, he must have his own tricks, inventing new
impossibilities to be transcended, for these are the only impossibilities
that will any longer seem truly impossible.
Franz Liszt remains the quintessential virtuoso because he was con­
stantly and insistently mobilizing, destabilizing, and reconstituting bor­
ders. In terms of sheer skill of pianistic execution - the quantitative
border - he was evidently surpassed within his lifetime. None of his
proteges and imitators, however, came even close to him in extend­
ing the virtuoso's relevance qualitatively-beyond the sphere of music
and into the social environments he entered. It is well known that the
range of musical materials Liszt absorbed and reconstituted through his
virtuosity was unusually wide, encompassing nearly every genre and
style in the contemporary world. Yet he also absorbed a great deal from
his non-musical environment - social styles, literary currents, politi­
cal movements, ethical fashions - and worked these elements into his

1
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

persona and performing style. He was constantly redefining himself, not peacefully coexist and came into conflict with one other. 1 intention­
playing off and adapting to the varied local contexts he encountered. ally throw the spotlight on controversies he provoked to show how the
Described this way, Liszt can sound like a figure of absolute omnipo­ lar ger social, political, and cultural debates of the time played them­
tence - a supreme master of himself and of everything in his environ­ selves out in his reception. Furthermore, I counterpoint the reception
ment, a manipulator of the symbolic resources of his day. The virtuoso of Liszt with his own, considerably self-conscious attempt to construct
Liszt has, in�eed, always served as a figure for fantasies of omnipo­ and control his public identity, an endeavor in which he did not always
tence: over pianos, women, and concert audiences. His concert career succeed. Liszt's virtuoso identity was in perpetual flux as he and his
is imagined as an effortless march from one capital to another, where audiences tried to make him mean different things. Each chapter tells a
audiences wait to drink in his transcendent genius and send him off story of how he, journalists, and audiences together negotiated his sig­
with roars of appla�s�. A cursory reading of Liszt's correspondence, nificance or identity. Not all of the multiple layers of his identity were
however, exposes this image as a fantasy. Reading his letters, it becomes rooted directly in his virtuoso performances. They also emerged from
clec1r that he was constantly watching his audiences, measuring out his his social affiliations, personal behavior, literary publications, concer­
prospect� for success, �nd actively shaping his reputation in the press. tizing strategies, and press publicity. But in chapters 1, 2, and 5, I make
He worried _ abo_ut audiences, approaching every new city with a mea­ efforts to show how Liszt's performing style - both its visual and aural
sure of trepidation. If he felt uncertain that a concert or concert series dimensions - became infused with social meaning and addressed the
would be well attended, he would cancel it, look for a smaller hall or symbolic needs of his audiences.
turn it into a private concert. On several occasions he suspected ;hat
opp�nents were conspiring to ruin his concerts with sneers or booing, The biographical tradition
and in some cases these suspicions turned out to be justified.
Liszt's _ relationship to audiences was thus far from omnipotent. He Until recently, nearly all studies of the virtuoso Liszt emerged from
had to wm them over. He expl�red the resources for gaining the public's the biographical tradition established by Lina Ramann and recently
approval, and beca_use the au�1ences were so varied from place to place, updated by Alan Walker. 1 The vision that informs these biographies
_ is the "greatness" of Liszt's concert career, just as "greatness" serves as
he developed multiple strategies. Aristocrats and intellectuals, men and
women, wealthy bourgeois and poor beggars, learned connoisseurs and master theme of all traditional biography. To convey the greatness of
humble amateurs, Frenchmen and Germans all looked to him for some­ his virtuoso travels, it sufficed to describe the episodes with the high­
thing different, and he rarely failed to deliver. Liszt became one of the est public profile, such as the Liszt-Thalberg contest of 1837, the return
most widely admired figures of his time not because his enormous musi­ to Pest in 1839, and the "Lisztomania" of Berlin in 1842. Ramann and
cal talent made such popularity inevitable, but because his audiences Walker, the most important biographers, left many gaps in the chronicle
made symbolic demands upon him that he was willing and able to fulfill. of Liszt's concert tours, and numerous recent studies have filled in these
He successfully carved out identities specific to the different worlds he gaps. They form the foundation on which this book builds. Geraldine
entered. f-!is relation_ship to the social world was one not of mastery, but Keeling has uncovered many previously unknown Parisian concerts,
of dynamic, responsive contact. We know that Liszt possessed a remark­ Michael Saffle has filled in huge gaps in the German chronicle, and
the Liszt Society Journal has traced his English tours thoroughly. 2 The
able capacit _ � t� pick up musical materials and recast them according to
his own md1�1dual s�amp. Bu� in the virtuoso years, he was working more we find out about his concert career, however, the less glamorous
almost exclusively with materials not of his own invention materials it appears. We encounter shabby, out-of-tune pianos, half-empty halls,
th�t form a �eritable compendium of contemporary musical life. Viewed tiny provincial towns where Liszt played only to pick up extra cash,
this way, Liszt appears to be a carte blanche on which the world of the petty local musicians who plot against him out of professional jealousy,
1�30s a�d 1840s wrote itself. Liszt can seem to stand above and beyond audiences who can't make heads or tails of Weber's KonzertsWck, and
his e �v1ronm_ent, but to an important extent he was a product of it, and 1 Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt nls Kiinstler 11nd Me11sc/1 (Leipzig, 1880-94), 3 vols. Alan Walker,
occas1onally 1t swc11lowed him entirely.
Franz Liszt (Ithaca, 1987-97), 3 vols.
This book is a reconstruction of the virtuoso Liszt through the eyes 2 Geraldine Keeling, "Liszt's Appearances in Parisian Concerts, 1824-1844," Liszt Society
and ears of contemporary audiences, critics, and readers. The result is fo11rnnl 11 (1986), 22-34, and Liszt Society fo11rnal 12 (1987), 8-22. Michael Saffle, Liszt
several _ Liszts, ea�h developed according to the priorities and emphases in Germnny, 1840-1845 (Stuyvesant, NY, 1994). The documents on Liszt in England are
of particular audiences and writers. Many of these constructions could found under various titles in volumes 6-13 of the Liszt Society Jo11rnal.

2 3
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

devastating financial losses. The thoroughness of the biographical tra­ Liszt's virtuosity in relation to romantic philosophy, with its remarkable
dition has, paradoxically, nearly undone the premise of Liszt's "great" privileging of music over language. Drawing from the theoretical per­
concert career. spective of Paul de Man, Bernstein _a_rgues that hi� per��rma�ces and
But if Liszt's concert career was not uniformly great and spectac­ published writings radically destabilized the mus1c-wntmg hierarchy
ular, what made the great moments truly great? Biographers implic­ that served as a precondition for elevating music to the status of pure,
itly answer this question with reference to his merits as an artist. His self-originating meaning. 3
genius and his virtuosity are the generators, the engines of his great The hermeneutic, cultural, and historical emphasis of these studies
moments. Audiences appear in biographies only to pay witness to, and has shed entirely new light on Liszt and the cult of the virtuoso, and
affirm, the artist's supreme talent, while we, the readers, are implic­ the dialectical methods they employ are particularly well suited to their
itly asked to clap along. Yet we only know of Liszt's great moments subject. While my interests are similar, my approach and results are
at all because we have traces of the public enthusiasm they generated. _
more expository in character. I am concerned to present the universe
Biographers deduce Liszt's greatness, that is, from the demonstrations of discourse that surrounded Liszt in its documentary richness, bor­
of his audiences. They are thus caught in a circular logic: on the one dering sometimes on anthropological "thick description" of single co�­
hand, Liszt's audiences applaud enthusiastically because he is a great certs or episodes, as well as the diachronic trajectory of his career. This
artist; on the other, Liszt is a great artist because the audiences applaud book is thus less explicitly theoretical, and more historically detailed,
enthusiastically. than these other recent studies. And although I share the anti-subjective
The only way to break out of this circle is to show that the applause of premises of recent studies, Liszt-as-subject remains an important, active
his audiences does not simply reflect the artist's genius, but also reflects contributor to the discursive matrix that surrounded him. I emphasize
the interests and values of the applauders. I begin from the assumption that Liszt was directly engaged in public discourse about himself. In
that Liszt's great moments can only be explained by taking into account the cultural field he was just one among many players wrestling for
the tastes, dispositions, and symbolic needs of contemporary audiences. the authority over his significance, but he was an unusually important
His appeal was rooted in aspects of the social and public life of the 1830s one.
and 1840s that have nearly disappeared from view. Contemporary audi­
ences cared deeply about charity for the poor and unfortunate, marveled
at Napoleon's prowess and brilliance, attended theatres where aristo­ Sources
crats and bourgeois were battling for social terrain, or witnessed their The historical emphasis of this study has led me to draw on an eclectic
countries developing into nation-states - and each of these things pow­ range of documents from Liszt's time -scores, periodicals, illustrations,
erfully mediated their reactions to Liszt. Much of this book is devoted correspondence, memoirs, and monographs - to recover major themes
to reconstructing these historical trends, in an attempted archaeology and debates in the press, previously unexplored dimensions of Liszt's
of Liszt's phenomenal popularity. It thus lays emphasis on his public performing language, individual episodes of his career, and audience
faces and personas, which look quite different from the dreamy romantic dispositions. The body of evidence I am working with is unusually
artist we encounter in various young portraits. fragmented. Its main unit is the concert review or concert report, usu­
Traditional biographies place Franz Liszt, conceived as a person or ally just a few paragraphs or a column in length. My reconstruction of
self, at the center of attention. Here I consider Liszt, in contrast, as a larger patterns therefore entails a citation-heavy accumulation of details
figure of public discourse - a cluster of ideas, meanings, and projec­
tions that led critics and audiences to react to him in particular ways.
This anti-subjective move has been made in several recent studies. 3 Lawrence Kramer, "Franz Liszt and the Virtuoso Public Sphere: Sight and Sound in the
Rise of Mass Entertainment," in Musical Meaning: Toward a Critical History (Berkeley,
Lawrence Kramer, adopting a broadly new historicist approach, inter­ 2002), 68-99. Richard Leppert and Stephen Zank, ''The Concert and the Virtuoso," in
weaves Liszt's virtuosity with various strains of contemporary cultural Piano Roles: Three Hundred Years of Life with the Piano, ed. James Parakilas (New Haven,
practice, including theatrical life, the carnivalesque, balls, and monar­ 1999), 237-Sl. Susan Bernstein, Virtuosity of the Nineteenth Century: Performing Music
chical ritual. Richard Leppert and Stephen Zank assess the virtuoso and Langrmge in Heine, Liszt, and Baudelaire (Stanford, 1998). Jacqueline Bellas' study of
Liszt as a figure of the emergent modernity of the early nineteenth cen­ Liszt's trip toward the Iberian peninsula ("Un virtuose en tournee: Franz Liszt dans le
Sud-Ouest en 1844" [Litteratures 9 (1960), 5-50)) is unique among Liszt studies in that
tury, focusing on industrialization, masculine domination, militarism, it includes analysis, in the style of traditional literary criticism, of the motifs and ideas
and the formation of bourgeois subjectivity. Susan Bernstein discusses that appear in the press reports.

4 5
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

from diverse sources. This has the disadvantage of leaving less room emphasizes the "universal" Liszt and romanticizes his wandering vir­
for the analysis of verbal rhetoric and of the motivations of individual tuoso existence.
authors. Such fragmentation has the advantage, however, of offering a
greater diversity of viewpoints. Furthermore, concert reviews are usu­ Who were Liszt's audiences?
ally loosely framed, lacking a strong agenda. They respond to the con­
cert event with little intellectual mediation. Unconstrained by specific To study the symbolic investments of contemporary audiences in Liszt,
demands or themes, reviewers often isolate the details that strike them, it is necessary to get a sense of who attended his concerts. In the absence
and these details can be the most valuable ones. The more synthetic of detailed records showing who bought tickets, we can only deter­
books and pamphlets on Liszt that appeared during his career - those mine who they were by conjecture. Studies of concert life in the early
of d'Ortigue, Christern, Duverger, Schober, and Rellstab, for example - nineteenth century have consistently emphasized the prominence of the
were mostly written by his close friends and probably in consultation prosperous bourgeoisie in concert �udiences, an� it is often assumed
with him. They are in many ways less reliable, as an index of more that Liszt's audiences were accordmgly bourgems. In terms of sheer
general perceptions, than individual concert reviews. numbers, it seems incontrovertible that the middle bourgeoisie was the
The greatest difficulty of using periodicals extensively is gauging the core of his audience. He filled his halls with hundreds of people, and the
degree to which they reflect opinions and attitudes of the larger public. middle bourgeoisie was by far the most numerous social level among
Determining the relevance or authority of periodical articles demands those that had the financial means to attend.
consideration of the author's priorities, the journal's profile, and the There are, however, major problems with assimilating Liszt's audi­
prospective readership. Musicological studies have too often offered ence to that of the growing sphere of public concerts, for his concerts
journal citations to describe how past musical cultures "thought" about bore a distinctive, and rather exclusive, social tone. Tickets to his con­
an artist or a work, or about music in general. Katherine Ellis, in her certs were typically slightly more than double the going prices for public
study of the Revue et gazette musicale de Paris, has challenged this ten­ concerts, and he usually restricted the prices to two levels. Such prices
dency by showing the wide range of institutional and economic pres­ filtered out those families from the lower bourgeoisie that did attend
sures to which the editor and publisher, Maurice Schlesinger, had to public concerts, and were even a strain for the middle bourgeoisie_- The
respond. While it is important to approach journals skeptically when lower social classes, however, did occasionally have the opportumty to
writing music history, however, their contents cannot be reduced to the hear Liszt in performance. When he played in very large halls, such
idiosyncratic impressions of individual writers. In general I consider as Vienna's grosser Redoutensaal or the theatre in St. Petersburg, there
motifs and patterns that appear repeatedly in contemporary writings were a number of quite inexpensive tickets available, probably to fill in
to reveal a more general cultural interpretation of Liszt, and in dis­ areas that would otherwise remain empty (due to bad lines of vision or
cussing such motifs I give less attention to individual writers. At other an association with the lower classes). Such occasions are not nearly as
times I focus on highly idiosyncratic writings about Liszt, in which he is common as concerts with two price tiers. Liszt tended to place them at
blatantly appropriated for particular ideological ends. the end of an extended stay in a single city, to help give his departure a
Although my historical approach is not narrative, much of the mate­ grand public profile.
rial to be presented is anecdotal. At times I accumulate anecdotes in While the high ticket prices of his normal concerts siphoned off the
order to show the recurrence of certain responses to Liszt, and in such lower bourgeoisie, they in no way scared away the more prosperous
places the reader may note a certain disconnectedness. This disconnect­ middle level of the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, the prices made his
edness is inherent in the subject matter, for Liszt was constantly playing concerts most attractive to this class by conferring high prestige upon
to new audiences, each of which was forming fresh impressions of his the event. The elite classes, too, sought social distinction at Liszt's con­
playing. In pursuing Liszt's relationship to audiences, my main unit certs, but they were able to generate it in private contexts as well, and
of analysis is not the individual concert, but his visit to an individual did not particularly need a virtuoso for this purpose. The middle bour­
locale -which I refer to as an "episode." Liszt's visits tended to become geoisie, on the other hand, was excluded from the private halls of high
civic events, accompanied by a wealth of press reports and public activ­ prestige, and Liszt's concerts compensated for this exclusion, making
ity, and this is the framework within which it is most useful to eval­ it available to them for the purchase of a ticket. Liszt incarnated the
uate his public identity. My presentation of detailed "local" studies concert hall as a temple of prestige through several means. He often
contrasts sharply with the traditional biographical approach, which surrounded himself on stage with a semicircle of distinguished women,

6 7
 The Virtuoso Liszt lntroduction

or c1lternatively, reserved the first few rows of the orchestra section for purpose, and must be treated as representations. For Liszt's concerts
them. During the pc1uses he would circulc1te and converse with them. On raised the question of the legitimacy of audience behavior to an unprece­
several recorded occasions he mingled with the women in the orches­ dented degree. His audiences displayed levels of enthusiasm that
tra section be_f�re p!aying, and made his entrance onto the stage from appeared aberrant or excessive even by the more relaxed standards of
�here. In th_e cities with a frc1ncophone aristocracy (most of the large cap­ concert etiquette that then prevailed. Most critics evaluc1ted public enter­
itals) or with ii court, these women were the same people with whom tainments-musical or otherwise -along a continuum between aesthetic
he had been circulc1ting in private society. 4 This importation of the aris­ pleasure and sheer sensual pleasure, the former legitimate and the latter
tocratic sc1lon into the concert hc1ll is unique to Liszt, and constitutes illegitimate. All virtuoso concerts evidently fell somewhere in the mid­
one of the unrecognized valences of his famous invention: the solo dle: they were neither too severe nor too light, neither high art nor low
recital. entertainment. Liszt's concerts, however, starkly posed the endpoints of
Wl il the middle bourg�oisie predom�nated numerically among this continuum against one another. His performances seemed at once
. } � drenched in fantasy and overcharged with nerve-shaking stimulation,
Liszt s listeners, then, they did not predommc1te symbolically. The tone
of the concert was built around an idea of exclusive, elite distinction making it difficult to separate the aesthetic and the corporeal, the legit­
to which th� middle bourgeoisie could aspire only in fantasy.5 Ther� imate and the illegitimate.
was thus a difference between who Liszt's audiences actually were and Faced with this destabilized hierarchy of legitimacy, critics made
who they c1ppec1red to be. In reality they were a shade more prosperous redoubled efforts to maintain it. They urged audiences to remain civil,
than the general concert-going public, but otherwise they were not sub­ or mocked those who let their enthusiasms stretch too far. Gradually
stantially different. What is crucially different with Liszt's audiences is they were installing in contemporary audiences what I would call a
how they were represented, for this representation inflected their experi­ "concert-superego" - an internal voice that would say "no" to the sen­
ences c1nd symbolic investments. sual transports of exciting virtuosity. This resonates strongly with the
Liszt's audiences include not only those who heard him in the con­ larger cultural project of promoting the model bourgeois subject: an indi­
cert hall or the private sc1lon, but also those who read about him in vidual who masters his pleasures and maintains a modest demeanor in
newspap �rs c1nd j�urnals, an� those who heard about him in public public. Yet critics declared the behavior of Liszt's audiences illegitimate
con �ersc1t1on, for �1szt was a figure of public discourse independently for other reasons, and in the chapters that follow we will see the cate­
of his concerts. His fame always preceded his arrival, and audiences gory of "bad enthusiasm" being put to various ends. The Parisians will
wait�d for his performances with immense anticipation. This made it use it to affirm their superiority over the "provincial" Hungarians; the
possible for people who could not afford his concerts -namely students south Germans will reaffirm their liberal political orientation by criti­
and the lower classes - to participate in his reception. They lined the cizing the Berlin public; and within Berlin, many critics will rescue the
streets when he left a city, ?r gathered around his hotel balcony and legitimacy of their own pleasures by assigning the excesses of enthu­
cheered or sang songs for him. They gave his reception a public scope siasm to women. The management of pleasure is, in short, one of the
that ticket prices precluded. main themes of the story of Liszt's reception. Because of this, we have
Concert reviews of Liszt include many comments about the behav­ to treat portrayals of his audiences as figures of discourse. In doing so,
ior of his audiences. While these comments are sometimes believable we will find out as much about the newly developed authority of the
as plain facts, they more often bear an implicit polemical or rhetorical music critic as about Liszt's virtuoso powers.

4 There were ofrourse also men - intellectuals and aristocrats- with whom Liszt mingled Liszt and the listener
private society, but they were not part of the stage scenery in his concert hall. The figure of the listener, a newcomer to musicology, inhabits sev­
s m _
For quite some lime Liszt himself measured his success according to his popularity
"'.rn'.ng the anstocrallc women. From Vienna he wrote to Marie d' A goult: "Tout le public
eral pages of this study. Studies of how people in the past listened is
femmm et anstocratique est pour moi partout, et chaudement et violemment. Avec cela motivated principally by a rejection or suspicion of idealist aesthet­
nn va loin" (Corrcsponrln11ce rle Liszt et rle Madame rl'Ago11lt, ed. D. Ollivier (Paris, 1933-­ ics, according to which the listener and the music come into contact
�5), 2 _ vols., I: 382; lette � of 12 Febma�r 1840). Shortly thereafter he wrote from Prague: in the disinterested realm of pure mind or Geist. This model of listen­
L anstocrat1e de Boheme, la plus fiere de la Monarchie a ete charmantissime pour ing is institutionalized in the customs of today's concert life, and it is
_
11101. lci, com me illlleurs, les femmes sont pour moi" (Correspondance de Liszt et de Mme
d'A:,:<lult, I: 405).
only through historical investigation of the concert event that we can

8
9
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

understand how people in the past experienced music differently. James connoisseurs, men of letters, the Parisian dilettantes, and amateurs all
H. Johnson, focusing on Paris in the years 1750-1850, shows listening as ntered into the experience of Liszt with different eyes and different ears.
a mode of social behavior aimed at the production and reproduction of �iszt's performances presented a plethora of visual and sonic data, and
social status. 6 Leon Botstein has proposed that silent reading was such listeners took in this information through differently configured filters.
a pervasive activity among concert audiences in the nineteenth century Second, I discuss the role of unaestheticized sound (the sheer volume
that literature mediated their understanding of instrumental music.7 and density of sonority) and unaesth€ticized sight (his violent approach
However incomplete these studies may be, they have begun to iden­ to the keyboard) in shaping the listener's experience. My method for
tify the assumptions, priorities, and investments with which audiences reconstructing the listener's experience might loosely be described as
came into the concert hall, and the perceptual filters through which they phenomenological, as it attempts to represent how an individual listener
processed musical information. processed all the stimuli coming from Liszt's virtuoso performance.
In this book I will propose no general theory of how Liszt's audi­ Carolyn Abbate has shown how the interpenetration of opera's �epa­
ences listened, but I will often discuss larger cultural dispositions that rate discursive levels - sight, sound, voice, orchestra, plot, narrative -
directly affected their perceptions of him in performance. Chapter 1, for renders opera's meanings radically overdetermined and often internally
example, delves into the vocally centered listening preferences of some contradictory. The range of discursive variables in Liszt's performance
factions in Paris, which played an important role in Liszt's rivalry with is narrower than in operatic performance: my analyses will work mainly
Sigismond Thalberg. In chapter 2 I explain how the cult of Napoleon with the elements of sound, sight, and musical codes. I will argue, never­
and the celebration of military valor bolstered Liszt's popularity. And theless, that Liszt's virtuosity was, like operatic performance, an indeter­
in chapter 4 I emphasize the pervasiveness of charity in the everyday minate, untidy discourse with a surplus of meanings, posing the very
lives of Liszt's audiences, which made them respond enthusiastically difficulty of reading rather than presenting to listeners an object for
to his aura of benevolence and Christian virtue. All of these audience reading.
dispositions have faded since Liszt's time. In examining them we see The experience of Liszt in performance was as much about watch­
elements of his virtuoso identity that are today obscure, and we see his ing as about listening, and this study returns repeatedly to t�e vis �al
popularity not as an inevitable consequence of a transcendental genius, dimension of his virtuosity. Lisztians have been shy about d1scussmg
but as contingent upon circumstances specific to his historical period. this side of his playing because, from the perspective of idealist aes­
Although Liszt's audiences brought symbolic and aesthetic dispo­ thetics, the visual is inherently a compromise of sound. Furthermore,
sitions with them to the concert hall, he had a remarkable ability to attention to the visual threatens to compromise his legitimacy, since
make listeners focus their attention on him and him alone. He absorbed his bodily movements were often caricatured and criticized as charla­
his listener so completely in the sound and spectacle of his virtuosity tanism. The suppression of the visual, however, poses a major block
that the listener lost all awareness of the concert environment. With the to a full understanding of what he meant for his audiences, and the
institution of solo recitals he reconstituted the performance space to recent studies by Kramer and by Leppert and Zank have helped redress
encourage the highest degree of visual, aural, and psychological con­ the balance. There is very little evidence that Liszt's audiences felt
centration. Even when he played with an orchestra, I argue in chapter 1, a conflict of interest between the visual and the aural. On the con­
he could hold in check the orchestra's diffuseness by projecting himself trary, several writers claimed that Liszt's appearance in performance
as the leader, hierarchically subordinating the other performers to his was essential to comprehending his music, and no one listened to him
performing self. In this study, then, I also consider the effect of Liszt's with closed eyes.8 There were critics who invoked idealist aesthetics
playing on the "absorbed" spectator, bracketing off levels of mediation to delegitimate his facial expressions and active body, but their vic­
implicit in the concert as a social event. tory over public opinion had to wait well into the era of recorded
This does not constitute a return to the assumptions of idealist music.
aesthetics. First, I account for differences in habits of spectatorship:
8 Schumann's words on this point are often quoted: "But he must be heard - and also
6 James H. Johnson, Listening in Paris: A Cultural History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995). seen; for if Liszt played behind the screen, a great deal of poetry would be lost" (Robert
7 Leon Botstein, "Listening through Reading: Musical Literacy and the Concert Audi­ Schumann on Music and Musicians, ed. Konrad Wolff, trans. Paul Rosenfeld [New York,
ence," 19th Century Music 16 (1992), 129-45. 19461, 156).

10 11
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

Liszt as strategist teps to foster his connections with these locations in ways that might
�ffer oppor tunities for the future. Yet described this way, Liszt's virtuoso
In spite of my emphasis on synchronic history, Liszt's reception in Paris career sounds like a mere stepping stone toward the achievement of his
requires an occasional turn to the narrative historical mode. His rela­ compositional goals. It does not leave room to consider how Liszt might
tionship to the French capital extends from 1824, when he arrived as have gained satisfaction, or felt he was making an artistic statement,
a prodigy, to at least 1845, when he tried to make an impact with his through his activities as a virtuoso. We still lack an interpretation of
Beethoven Cantata (the failure thereof nearly extinguished his hopes of Liszt's strategizing that does not reduce it to mere vanity, on the one
rescuing his reputation there). His struggle to maintain a reputation in hand, and does not suppress it defensively in favor of Liszt's goals as
Paris over this long period is a tormented narrative, filled with upswings a composer, on the other. And yet these are the alternatives offered
and downswings, ill-willed plotters, heated confrontations, and an out­ by the biographical tradition, with its emphasis on Liszt as a moral
come with a nearly tragic protagonist. This narrative is especially valu­ being.
able for challenging the myth of Liszt's easy victory over contemporary My view is that Liszt's goals as a virtuoso were fundamentally nega-
audiences and critics. The Parisian story reveals, furthermore, just how tive. He transformed himself, diversified his affiliations, and intervened
self-consciously he was managing his public identity. He tailored his in the formation of his reputation in reaction to a major crisis in the musi­
repertory and ticketing practices to particular audiences, asked journal­ cal life of his time. This crisis merits a brief exposition. Liszt came of age
ists and publishers to write certain things about him, and took other during the most intense period of anti-virtuosity backlash in the history
steps to shape himself as a particular type of public figure. of instr umental music. Both of the major music journals that established
The Liszt that emerges from the Parisian narrative is a strategist, work­ themselves around 1830 - the Leipzig Neue Zeitschrift far Musik, and
ing within the constraints of a skeptical, critical public to maximize his the Parisian Revue et gazette musicale - made opposition to instrumental
impact as a virtuoso. Although Paris offers the clearest case study, Liszt virtuosity a cornerstone of their aesthetic and professional platforms.
was strategizing throughout his concert travels. He was constantly on This war against virtuosity, which was coterminous with the elevation
the lookout for ways to broaden and deepen his appeal. At times he can of Beethoven's works as the standard of musical value, merits a study
even appear to be a chameleon, assuming whatever identity seems most of its own. It began in the reviews of newly published compositions,
suited to his audience's wishes. In chapter 3, for example, I describe a with Schumann (at the Neue Zeitschrift) and F.-J. Fetis (at the Revue
rapid metamorphosis from a thoroughly cosmopolitan identity (marked musicale) taking full-fisted swipes at the compositions of Henri Herz.
to some degree as French) to a personality rich in characteristics coded Around 1840, critics started waging the war more directly against per­
German. Toward what end was all of this strategic activity aimed? formers and the entire profession of the touring virtuoso, culminating in
There is a line of Liszt biography (Newman and Perenyi, for example) Carl Gollmick's condemning article "Virtuosity Today" ("Das heutige
according to which the virtuoso travels were largely an exercise in self­ Virtuosenwesen"), which appeared in the Neue Zeitschrift on 2 December
aggrandizement, and this has left a strong imprint on the popular image 1842.
of Liszt. It has unfortunately put Liszt's admirers on the defensive, pro­ The wave of anti-virtuoso polemics that swept into the music world in
voking the overstated counterclaim that he placed little value on his the 1830s could only have shaken Liszt to the core. His executive skill was
popularity as a virtuoso, and that his true desire was to compose. such a remarkable element of his talent that it threatened to overwhelm
It is true that Liszt had a long-range plan of settling down to devote him - to become his mark of distinction. Such an achievement, toward
himself more fully to composition. As he traveled he was considering in which he had devoted most of his youth, was being declared illegitimate
what location, and in what capacity, he could best realize this goal. There from all sides. Liszt absorbed the values that debased "sheer virtuosity,"
is evidence that Pest, Vienna, Weimar, and Paris were all prospective and he announced it publicly in his essays. In his obituary of Paganini,
sites for the continuation of his musical career.9 He manifestly took for example, he made the extraordinary gesture of accusing the violinist
of vanity. It is one of the baldest imaginable examples of the need to kill
9 In the early 1840s Liszt thought that he would probably settle down in Vienna or Pest
the father - not Paganini the person, but the bad demon of unproduc­
within a few years. Sharon Winklhofer has shown that as late as 1846 Liszt was angling
to replace Donizetti at the Vienna Royal Opera, thus revising the idea that he had been
tive, self-directed virtuosity that the violinist seemed to emblematize.
set on Weimar for some years (Liszt's Sonata in B 111i11or: A Study ofAutograph Sources and Thalberg's compositions provided Liszt with yet another occasion to
Dow men ts [Ann Arbor, 1980), 15ff.). As Liszt's concert career came to an end there were knock down the edifice of superficial virtuosity. Clearly, sheer executive
also rumors that he might settle in Paris and start a school for piano instruction. skill was something Liszt felt he had to define himself against.

12 13
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

1824 to 1828, when

The first step Liszt took to carve out a space for himself beyond that 1835, the most concentrated performing period was
of executnnt was his essay "De la situation des artistes" (1835), in which he ap pea red often as a child prodigy in London, Paris, and the French
he fused the role of the virtuoso with that of the priest, prophet, and provin ces. From 1829 to 1834 he kept a relatively low profile on the
humamtanan. However effective this essay might have been, it could public conc ert scene of Paris, making cameo appearances at the benefit
not re�listically define his public identity during his concert travels. Its conce rts of other musicians, but not mounting his own public concerts.
rhetoric speaks to and from the heady utopian ferment of artistic Paris Jn the seas on of 1835, however, he made a decisive "comeback," after
in the early 1830s, ch a lengthy biography of him appeared in the Revue et gazette musi­
_ �nd would have been nearly incomprehensible to whi
readers outside Pans. The surest way for a virtuoso to avoid sinking in cale. This biography recognized and established Liszt as an artist of
the quicksand of "mere virtuosity" was to distinguish himself as a com­ international stature. It gave him a degree of public exposure - espe­
poser. Thal�e:g, for e�ample, rose to preeminence in Paris by convincing
_ cially in Paris but also abroad - that he had not previously enjoyed, and
a lead mg cnhc that his co �posi�ions were of outstanding quality. Liszt
_ it effectively capped off his youthful achievements. For these reasons
tned bolstenng his '.eputation with compositions, but as I show in chap­ 1835 serves as a useful starting point for the consideration of Liszt's
ter 1, this_ strategy simply did not work. He was therefore constantly on mature reputation.
the lookout for ways to ex pand his significance beyond his keyboard Liszt's years of itinerant concertizing did not begin until late 1839, but
_
frow �ss. ,� variety of possible roles offered themselves: interpreter of in the intervening years he gave two groups of highly publicized con­
classical works, German patnot, _ Hungarian patriot, man of letters the certs (Paris in 1837, Vienna in 1838), and he performed not infrequently
composer-pianist, the artist as aristocrat, as prophet, as humanitarian, in Switzerland (1836-37) and Italy (1838-39). He was thus less dormant
or as revoluhonary. He took on all of these guises self-consciously in the during these years than the usual "years of pilgrimage" image suggests.
co�rse of his _ concert career. This is not to say that he bore the cynical The "years of pilgrimage" were less a retreat from his life as a virtuoso
athtude that he would simply give the people what they wanted. He than a period of experimentation, in which he attempted to complement
wanted, '.ather, to make the virtuoso pianist mean something more than his keyboard virtuosity with comparable achievements in the spheres
the ongomg debasement of super-virtuosos seemed to allow. of composition and letters. They were therefore extremely important in
It i� worth emphasizing here that Liszt's motivations were largely the development of his public reputation, although this reputation was
negative. He had a strong vision of the virtuoso he did not want to be, still disseminated largely in Paris . Most of my discussion concerns the
but he was not so clear what form the new virtuoso might take. He years 1837 to 1843, the period in which his international reputation was
therefore experimented, m _ an ad hoc fashion, with the virtuoso's iden­ in formation and therefore most unstable. By 1844 writers were saying
�ity, trying out ?ifferen t possibilities for making him newly significant little about Liszt that had not already been said.
m the world. It 1s for this _ reason that his roles and identities have a mis­ A few critics are cited especially often in the chapters that follow, and
cellaneous quality to them, and on some occasions even contradict one they merit brief introductions here. Heinrich Adami, who wrote for the
an�ther. His identity was not informed by a singular, sharply focused Allgemeine Theaterzeitung of Vienna, left the single largest body of concert
v1s1�n that he set out to realize. As he traveled around the world his reviews.10 He tried to cover every concert Liszt played in Vienna during
audiences asked him to mean dif'.erent things, offering him a variety his three extended concert series (1838, 1839-40, 1846). Adami knew
_ very little about music, and after the first four or five reviews he ran
of resources for shapmg his _ identity.
_ The fluid, chameleonic nature f
iszt's id entit doe not so much evince his supreme self-mastery �s out of things to say. His reviews are valuable because he makes a point
� � �
it� oppos1_ te. His environments and audiences pressed themselves upon of commenting on each individual piece Liszt played, leaving behind
him, servmg _ materials from which he could construct an identity, and some fascinating details, and because he is attentive to the social tone
also defining the borders he would have to work within, or transc;nd. of the concerts. Another Viennese writer who wrote often about Liszt
was Moritz Saphir, editor of Der Humorist. Saphir was obviously very
fond of Liszt and his playing, and his florid essays are probably the best
Orientations example we have of how Liszt could animate a writer's fantasy.
Tl �e time per:od of this study, 1835-47, marks approximately the bound-·
anes of Liszt s c�reer as mature virtuoso performer. The latter date, 1847,
1s un �r�blematic because he ceased giving public concerts for his own 10 Many of Adami's reviews are printed in Franz Liszt: cmbekannfe Presse 1111d Briefe a11s

benefit m the fall of that year. The earlier date is more arbitrary. Before Wien, 1822-1866, ed. Dezso Legany (Vienna /Graz, 1984).

14 15
 The Virtuoso Liszt Introduction

The largest number of concert reviews in Paris were written by Henri the critic's independence or authority. Nevertheless, Liszt's friendship
Blanchard, who covered many concerts for the Revue et gazette musicale. with these critics had a muffling effect on the negative voices that might
His reviews are markedly literary, sprinkled with references to classical have left us with a more complete picture of contemporary responses
literature and rich in piquant metaphors. His writing is impressionistic, to his playing. There are a few cases, such as his dealings with Ernest
attempting to evoke the mood or feeling of a musical event. Musical Legouve and Maurice Schlesinger, where Liszt was demonstrably try­
learning is almost entirely absent from his comments. He did not show ing to silence negative opinions from the press, and biographers have
a decided preference for Liszt over other virtuosos. Parisian readers also naturally tended to follow suit. Here I will emphasize negative and
read several reviews by Berlioz and Jules Janin, all of them uniformly controversial views of Liszt not to discredit him, but because they help
positive. Janin, in particular, went to extra lengths to defend Liszt in reveal the value systems that critics and writers brought to their work.
print when the Parisian press turned against him. Heinrich Heine's three In chapter 1 I revisit the famous Liszt-Thalberg rivalry of 1837, show­
essays from Paris are, in my opinion, the richest and most insightful ing how the performing styles of the two pianists addressed rather dif­
writings about the virtuoso Liszt.11 He clearly felt the imaginative power ferent listening habits within the Parisian audiences, and delving into
of Liszt's playing, but he also found it unpleasantly overbearing, and their complex social affiliations. In chapter 2 I show how Liszt's virtu­
his ambivalence toward the pianist never disappeared. Heine was one osity projected an image of heroic military domination, epitomized in
of the only writers who, in metacritical style, followed and commented his performances of Weber's Konzertstii.ck, and consider its place in a
upon the development of Liszt's international image. larger cultural valorization of military prowess, especially the cult of
In the German states the reviews of Robert Schumann, Carl Gollmick, Napoleon. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss Liszt's national affiliations with
and Ludwig Rellstab were probably the most widely read. Rellstab France, Hungary, and Germany, which led to several controversies that
wrote many reviews and essays during Liszt's visits to Berlin and pub­ changed the course of his future career. Chapter 3 focuses on conflicts
lished them in book form shortly thereafter. He harbored a strong bias that surrounded the famous "sabre of honor" concert in Pest, which
against traveling virtuosos, but Liszt's playing won him over. He only served as a cornerstone of Liszt's relationship to Hungary. Chapter 4
kept his reservations with regard to Liszt's performances of Beethoven. explains how Liszt's concerts in Germany bound him to the German
Rellstab's book is an unusually thorough presentation of Liszt and his national movement, paving the way toward the prestigious position he
virtuosity, and it contains several insights found nowhere else in the eventually occupied in Weimar. In chapter 5 I investigate why Berlin was
review literature. A final critic worth introducing is Henry Chorley, home to the most intense public enthusiasms of Liszt's career, giving rise
who wrote about Liszt for English audiences. Chorley was principally to the word "Lisztomania." Readers looking for detailed discussions of
an opera critic, but he wrote lucidly about Liszt's personality, his cre­ Liszt's playing will find them in chapter 1, chapter 5, and to a lesser
ative goals, and his place in the international artistic scene. He is far extent chapter 2.
more useful with regard to Liszt than the influential London critic John These chapters do not even come close to exhausting the possibili­
Davison, whose hard line on classical musical values led him to reject ties for studying Liszt's relevance to contemporary social, political, and
Liszt almost out of hand. musical life. I deal mainly with the well-known highlights of his career­
With the exception of John Davison, all of the critics just described his extended visit to Berlin, the "duel" with Thalberg, the "sabre of
were personal friends of Liszt. There is hardly a negative comment to honor" concert in Pest - and investigate them in the context of Euro­
be found in all of their writings combined. When they hint at dissatis­ pean history. I work almost exclusively with German-, French-, and
faction, as Chorley and Rellstab occasionally do, they usually employ English-language sources, and with Liszt's visits to places where those
euphemistic or evasive phrases. Berlioz helped Liszt with exaggeratedly languages were spoken. A complete study of Liszt and his audiences
glowing reviews, partly in friendly exchange for efforts to propagate his would require a scholar who could cross borders and press boundaries
compositions. Liszt also provided his journalist-friends with free tick­ as effectively as he did with his virtuosity. I will have accomplished
ets to his concerts, a favor that to some extent obliged them to write my goal if I have offered at least some new ways of getting around the
positive reviews. Mutual support of this kind was standard for its time, instrument.
and it would be anachronistic to view such practices as a travesty of

11 These essays are collected in Heinrich Heine und die Musik, ed. Gerhard Muller (Leipzig,
1987).

16 17
 Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Tha]berg together during that spring of 1837, and turned them into symbols

1 of her purpose, she would doubtless have found other pianists through whom
to w ork out her age-old dialectical ritual.
1

If Liszt was weakened by the challenge of Thalberg, in this account he

is strengthened by a quasi-Hegelian historical will.
Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian Interpreting the Liszt-Thalberg rivalry according to the question
"who was better than whom?" - whether in 1837 or in the long run -
publics can only produce limited results. It reduces Thalberg and Liszt to their
executive skill, and attributes the enthusiasms and passions of their
fans to small-minded partisanship. Here I would like to reexamine the
contest in the context of Parisian musical life, in hopes of restoring the
Virtuoso contests and rivalries are sprinkled throughout the music­ musical, ethical, and social dimensions that gave the controversy such
historical lore. Handel and Scarlatti had a youthful confrontation in weight. I argue that the rivalry was closely related to pianistic styles,
Rome, J. S. Bach and Louis Marchand were said to have sparred in to the social physiognomy of the Parisian concert scene, and to the lis­
Dresden, Clementi and Mozart alternated rounds at the Vienna court tening habits of Paris audiences. A discussion of the visual and sonic
Beethoven dueled with Joseph Wolffl, and Paganini and Lafont traded properties of Liszt's and Thalberg's playing forms the first part of the
solos before the public of Milan in 1816. The narratives through which chapter. Each virtuoso had a unique way of relating musical sound,
these contests are related all thematize rival musical idioms and per­ the performing body, and the listener. Thalberg's playing, by virtue of
for�ng traditi?,ns of their times. Handel represented the church style its sonority and melodic construction, conjured up an operatic singing
agam�t Scarlatti s court style. The Bach-Marchand contest, which prob­ voice, and his immobility at the keyboard made the vocal presence stand
ably did not take place, was a narrative about the ongoing battle between out with particular relief. His playing was addressed to the Parisian lis­
galant and contrapuntal styles. Clementi and Mozart staked out claims teners whose musical pleasures centered on opera and voice: the dilet­
for the two major keyboard schools of the time, the English and the Vien­ tanti. Liszt's virtuosity, on the other hand, assaulted the listener with a
nese, while Lafont and Paganini juxtaposed the two dominant schools dense, scattered sonorous field, and a performing body on the brink of
of violin playing, the French and the Italian. physical dismemberment. It demanded that the listener seek coherence
The sensational meeting of Liszt and Sigismond Thalberg at a Parisian among this barrage of signals, through an imaginative engagement in
soiree in 1837 is by far the best known and most fully documented the performance. His playing was in this way aimed at the sensibilities
of all such contests. Yet it is hardly better understood than its histori­ of the literati, the artistes, and the younger musicians of Paris. Thalberg's
cal predecessors. What stake did the organizers and audiences have in vocality tapped into a strong, already existing aesthetic predilection of
stagi�g such a� event? What aesthetic or stylistic currents were being the Parisian publics, while Liszt asked his audiences to listen in new
negotiated? Without answers to these questions the contest seems to ways, and thereby presented a challenge to his general acceptance. For
represent littl� more than a battle of egos, a highly charged game of this reason Thalberg posed a powerful challenge to Liszt's reputation in
o�e-upmansh1p between two popular public figures. For generations, Paris. Indeed, Thalberg gained the upper hand in the rivalry of 1837, a
b10graphers presented it just that way. It was a triumph of art over charla­ possibility biographers have never even entertained.
tanism, with Liszt brushing away his rival like an annoying flea. In their The second part of this chapter offers a social interpretation of the
zeal to demonstrate Liszt's superiority, they completely passed over the Liszt-Thalberg contest. Its social meaning followed partly from aesthetic
aesthetic and social dimensions of the contest. When Alan Walker tack­
led the affair, he refreshingly pointed out that in 1837 Liszt did not 1 Alan Walker, Franz Liszt (Ithaca, 1987-97), 3 vols., I: 237. Although Walker goes out of
really "win" the contest. But citing posterity's judgment, he crowned his way to presentThalberg more fully, there remain strong traces of the condescending
Liszt with a still greater victory: attitude that characterizes earlier biographies. He writes: "Liszt was asked his opinion
ofThalberg's playing and retaliated, 'He is the only man I know who plays violin on the
The "battle" was a perfect illustration of that deeper historicaf process which
piano.' Such comments set the whole of Paris laughing" (ibid.). Walker thus interprets
governs change throughout all human activity; the Old had to defend itself Liszt's comment as an insult, and assumes that it encouraged the Parisians to mock
against the New, and the New won. If history had not brought Liszt and Thalberg. Liszt's comment strikes me, however, as a generous compliment.

18 19
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Table 1.1 011t/ine of the Liszt-Thalberg rivalry defend themselves. Cristina Belgiojoso sought to resolve this social ten­
sion by staging the famous contest at her home. The beau monde needed
Prelude a ritual to affirm its fundamental unity as a political, social, and intellec­
June 1835 Joseph d'Ortigue's lengthy biography of Liszt tual elite, which the contentious debates over Liszt and Thalberg were
appears in the Gazette 11111sicale. l'wo weeks later, putting under stress. By framing the contest as a charity function - an
Liszt begins an extended absence from Paris. inherently collective elite effort - Belgiojoso thought she could fill this
Winter 1836 Thalberg concertizes in Paris and the public need.
lionizes him.
May 1836 Liszt makes an unexpected return to Paris, gives Prelude: Liszt's Parisian reputation in the 1830s
two concerts at the Erard salons for an exclusive
audience. He programs his most recent fantasies, The rivalry between Liszt and Thalberg was ignited by an article Liszt
and the "Hammerklavier" Sonata of Beethoven. published in the Gazette musicale on 8 January 1837. If the article had
December 1836 Liszt returns to Paris for the concert season and never been published, it is likely that no controversy would ever have
appears on a Berlioz concert. flared up. In it, Liszt methodically attacked Thalberg's music, describ­
Rival ry ing it as vapid, uninspired, and mediocre. That Liszt would be accused
8 January 1837 Liszt publishes article in Gazette musicale judging of professional jealousy and faulted £or bad journalistic ethics was pre­
Thalberg's compositions harshly, enraging dictable enough. Why, then, did he feel compelled to publish such a
Thalberg's fans and even some of Liszt's. strongly worded article? Why was he willing to put his reputation at
January-Febrnary 1837 Liszt puts on four concerts featuring Beethoven's risk? Answering this question requires some biographical preliminaries.
piano trios, with Urhan and Batta. In the middle 1830s Liszt had little reason to be insecure about his
March 1837 Thalberg and Liszt each give their big benefit Parisian reputation. In the public's opinion he was unquestionably the
concert of the season. On 31 March, the two appear leading virtuoso of the city. An 1834 article in the Gazette had declared
together at a charity concert at the salon of Cristina him the peak of a pyramid of virtuosos consisting of Chopin, Hiller, and
Belgiojoso. Bertini.2 Yet he was far from being unanimously accepted or admired,
23 April 1837 Long article by Fetis, comparing Liszt and Thalberg, and he was anything but indifferent to public opinion. His manner
sparks off a hot polemical exchange between Liszt of speaking, dressing, and behaving were often mocked in the cari­
and Fetis in the pages of the Gazette musicale. cature press. 3 The powerful critic F.-J. Fetis insisted that his playing still
Postlude suffered from the same faults as in earlier years, claiming that Liszt
Spring 1838 Liszt and Thalberg simultaneously concertizing in lost control of color and expression through bodily convulsions, and
Vienna. that he destroyed the intentions of the classical masters.4 Even Joseph
Spring 1840 Liszt returns to Paris for the first time since 1837. d'Ortigue's 1835 biography-which is overwhelmingly positive - spoke
frankly of the young virtuoso's faults, singling out exaggerations of
expression, modifications of tempo, and "a certain charlatanism in his
differences between the two virtuosos, and partly from their methods of manner and in his playing." 5
social networking. Prominent among the dilettanti who adored Thalberg
were conservative aristocrats, while Liszt's strongest advocates were in 2 A. Guemer, "Execution musicale: Liszt, Ferd. Hiller, Chopin et Bertini," Rein1e et gazette
the worlds of literature and music. The rivalry thus pitted two distinct musicale 1 /1 (5 January 1834), 4-7.
3 J. Duverger, Notice biograplziq11e s11r Franz Liszt (Paris, 1843), 27.
factions of the beau monde against each other - the "aristocracy of birth"
4 Two of Fetis' s most cutting reviews are in the following issues: Revue 11111sicnle, 26 January
and the "aristocracy of talent." The divisiveness that emerged between
1833 and 16 March 1833. Fetis dropped his reservations when Liszt, in the same season,
these groups, however, stemmed less from aesthetic differences than minimized his bodily motions, apparently in direct response to Fetis's criticism (Rev11e
from a moral issue. Liszt's condescending article on Thalberg's composi­ 11111sicale, 30 November 1833, 349). It is easy to imagine that this too would be dissatisfying
tions, published early in the 1837 concert season, offended the conserva­ to Liszt: he was not temperamentally suited to letting someone like Fetis dictate his
tive aristocrats who had lauded Thalberg; and because their influence in performing style.
5 Relllte et azette musicale 2/24 (14 June 1835), 196.
the beau monde had recently become distressingly weak, they needed to g

20 21
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Although these criticisms were not a serious threat to Liszt's pre­ had decided that his touring career would begin in the year 1840.9 The
eminent status, they unsettled him. In the early 1830s especially, he intention never left his mind, for he reiterated it in letters from 1836 and
needed affirmation that his artistry had been positively transformed by 1839, and he realized it with uncanny precision, launching his itinerant
the inspiration of Paganini, by his vaunted commitment to Beethoven, 10
career late in 1839. According to this master plan - it was nothing less
and by the dramatic intellectual and literary ferment he was experi­ than that- he would set aside the latter part of the 1830s for the purpose
encing. He held an uncompromising attitude toward the sympathy of establishing himself as a man of letters and as a serious composer.
and support of his friends and critics that led him to exaggerate the These transformations, as he saw it, would prepare him for a spectacular
bad intentions of his detractors. F.-J. Fetis, for example, had always performing career _far more sig�ificant th�n that of the
found things to praise in his playing, and his critical remarks are clearly _ usua! vi�tuoso.
When in the sprmg of 1835 Liszt and his comparnon Mane d Agoult
stated with a constructive purpose. Yet Liszt found the criticisms unac­ planned an extended absence from Paris, he had barely begun this pro­
ceptable: "up until this period in his artistic life [1835]," Fetis wrote, cess of transformation. He could no longer afford to delay, because in his
"M. Liszt considered me his enemy because I tainted his triumphs with absence he would only be able to sustain his visibility and status in Paris
my severe criticism." 6 by means of articles and music publications. It is thus not surprising that
These insecurities led Liszt to downplay his identity as a "mere" virtu­ his first major statements as a man of letters coincide with his departure
oso pianist. He did not give even one public benefit concert for himself from Paris. The first three installments of "De la situation des artistes"
between 1828 and 1835, astonishing for a virtuoso of his stature . He appeared in the Gazette musicale the month before he left, and the remain­
occasionally appeared at benefit concerts for other musicians, but was ing installments were published at regular intervals throughout the rest
not making conspicuous public appearances and asserting himself as a of the year. As if to keep the literary ball rolling, he published the first
professional musician. In a discussion of this phase, Fetis noted: "There of the "Lettres d'un bachelier es musique" just a few weeks after the
is reason to think that he was himself little satisfied with the effect that last installment of "Artistes." A further publishing event that coincided
he made, because his appearances in public as well as in society were with his departure was the appearance of Joseph d'Ortigue's biography
rare." 7 Where Liszt was asserting himself in these years was in the salons of Liszt in the Gazette musicale (14 June). The exceptional length of the
of the literati. He preferred to be recognized by a rarified, educated elite document, fifteen columns in unusually small print, was far beyond the
than by a concert-hall audience; he wanted to be thought of as an artiste, ordinary for the Gazette. It served as a consecration of Liszt - still only
not just a pianist. He even seems to have developed a disdain for his twenty-three years old - as a major figure in the Parisian artistic world,
identity as a virtuoso. The following report from 1843 could easily have and it was exactly what he needed to secure his musical position while
surfaced a decade earlier: "M . Liszt has declared that he considers a he was away from the city. In these ways Liszt was using his connections
pianist's talent a talent of such little importance that he would much and editorial influence at the Gazette to protect and reshape his Parisian
prefer to be known as a good writer capable of handling musical mat­ reputation.
ters than a celebrated performer on the piano." 8 After all these efforts to keep himself in the Parisian public eye, to
Liszt's dissatisfaction with his Parisian reputation provoked him to minimize his insecurities, and to preserve his position, the worst possi­
transcend his identity as a "mere virtuoso" by distinguishing himself ble thing happened: in late 1835 Thalberg appeared in Paris, and within
in pursuits that were accorded more prestige - namely composition a few weeks the public had lionized him. Three aspects of Thalberg's
and letters. He pursued this goal not with a sense of vague aspiration, reception were particularly troublesome for Liszt. First, praise for Thal­
but in the form of a premeditated master plan. As early as 1833, he berg was unanimous, something he could not claim for himself. There
is not a single negative comment to be found in any of the 1836 reviews
of Thalberg. Second, the Parisian audiences had shown that they could
universally admire a virtuoso who was not in any sense a literary or
6 Revue et gazette musicale4/17 (23 April 1837), 137-42. Ernest Legouve, in a letter to Liszt
from around 1840, apologized for having placed Chopin above Liszt in a published
article. Legouve had learned from a mutual friend, a certain Schoelcher, that Liszt was 9 The letter in which he states this is from October 1839; Liszt tells Cristina Belgiojoso
upset by this. that he made the decision "six years ago." See Auto11r de Mme. d'Agoult el de Liszt, ed.
7 Revue el gaze/ le musicale 4 /17 (23 April 1837), 137-42.
D. Ollivier (Paris, 1941), 181.
8 La Belgique 11111sicale, 9 March 1843; quoted in Charles Suttoni, An Artist's Jo11mey: Lei/res JO Jacqueline Bellas, "La tumultueuse amitie de Franz Liszt et de Maurice Schlesinger,"
d'un bachelier es musique (Chicago, 1989), xii. Litteratures 12 (1965), 13.

22 23
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

philosophical artiste, throwing into severe doubt the value and outcome made in the 1836 and 1837 seasons, Parisian audiences could not get
of Liszt's master plan. Third, Thalberg was praised for his compositions enough of the fantasy. Publishers raced to capitalize on its popularity
as well as his virtuosity, whereas Liszt had not yet received recognition "simplified" editions. 16 By 1838 it was palpably
b y pro ducin g several
as a composer. intruding upon the glory of other virtuosos. Theodor Dohler's benefit
The third of these problems, Thalberg's success as a composer, needs concert, attended by Thalberg, was interrupted by a note dropped onto
special emphasis, because Liszt's fateful article-the document that initi­ the stage: "'Mr. Thalberg is requested by the public to play the fantasy
ated the rivalry-was aimed directly at Thalberg's compositions. Almost on Moise. - Bravo! bravo! yes, Moise, Moise!'-And Thalberg, responding
instantly upon his arrival Parisians were reading that "M. Thalberg is to these flattering invitations, came with that modest air you know in
not only the leading [premier) pianist in the world, he is also a very dis­ 17
him and played the piece with his two hands." Dehler could not have
tinguished composer."11 Liszt could not yet compete as a composer, and resented the request too much: without Thalberg's presence the concert
this was a source of intense anxiety. The original large-scale composi­ hall might have been half empty from the start.
tions he had published by 1835 -the Apparitions, the Harmonies poetiques The Moise fantasy is still the basis for Thalberg's reputation. He is
et religieuses, and the Clochette fantasy - had convinced Parisians that best known for supposedly inventing the "three-hand technique," in
he could not compose.12 Just after hearing about Thalberg's successes which a melody is sustained in the middle register using both hands,
18
in Paris, Liszt sent an article he had clipped from a Geneva newspa­ while arpeggios cloud around it from above and below (Example 1.1).
per to the editor of the Gazette, Maurice Schlesinger, and asked him to The association of Thalberg with the three-hand technique was codi­
publish it. It spoke of his gifts as a composer, and not only his "tours fied in an article Fetis wrote in 1837, and because of Fetis's emphasis
de jonglerie musicale," as he deprecatingly put it.13 It was the perfect on compositional technique and historical development, this technique
vehicle to counteract the force of Thalberg in Paris. Schlesinger refused has drawn the most attention from musicologists. Yet the lionization of
to print it, and Liszt wrote back angrily: "My position is not that of just Thalberg in Paris began in 1836, and the articles from that season are
anybody; the same goes for my talent and my ambition. I'm asking you again much more concerned with the sound and feeling of his playing. Henri
for my three or four years - then we shall see." 14 Thalberg, evidently, Blanchard's article of May 1836 - presumably a resume of ideas that
was ruining Liszt's master plan. What brand of virtuosity did he offer had been circulating in the salons during the concert season - makes
up that was capable of making such a potent impact on the Parisians? no reference at all to the technical "advances" of Thalberg's art. Fur­
thermore, the novelty of Thalberg's innovation does not explain why
1. Liszt and Thalberg in comparison this particular technique triggered a reaction much more profound than
the innovations of other virtuosos in Paris. We must therefore look
Thalberg's vocality beyond the technique-centered emphasis of Fetis and open our ears
Thalberg's early reputation in Paris centered on a single composition: to Thalberg's sonorous aesthetic, for it was ultimately his vocality, not
his fantasy on themes from Rossini's Moi'se. People were talking about the three-handed technique per se, that anchored his reception in Paris.
it in the salons not long after his arrival: "The fantasy . .. is, according to Indeed, when he was eventually prevailed upon to produce a treatise,
all the connoisseurs, ingeniously composed . .. never was the melody he entitled it L'art du chant applique au piano.
interrupted."15 Although they heard it at virtually every appearance he Thalberg's vocality-his manner of sustaining the chant (both "song"
and "voice") throughout a piece - gave his playing a character quite
11 Menes/re/ 3/15 (13 March 1836). distinct from Liszt's. It was already noted by the Gazette's Vienna cor­
12 This is shown in Dieter Torkewitz, "Die Erstfassung der 'Harmonies poetiques et respondent in 1834, when Thalberg's existence was barely known to
religieuses' von Liszt," Liszt-St11dien 2 (Munich, 1981), 228. The reception of these pieces Paris: ''When he plays the theme Uz ci darem la mano on the piano, it is
in Germany was also unfavorable. impossible not to think you are hearing the same song being sung; the
13 Bellas, ''Tum ltueuse amitie," 11; undated letter. The article praising Liszt's composi­
�
tions was by Emile Prym. 16 Katharine Ellis, "Female Pianists and their Male Critics in Nineteenth-Century Paris,"
14 Ibid., 13; emphasis original. This letter also shows that Schlesinger had given Liszt fo11rnal of the American M11sicological Society 50 (1997), 356n.
"advice" on his compositions, which is probably a euphemism for criticism. The refer­ 17 Revue et gazette 11111sica/e 5/16 (22 April 1838), 168 (H. Blanchard).
ence to three or four years shows that Liszt still planned to start concertizing around 18 For a full discussion of the three-hand technique, which was in fact not invented by
1840. Thalberg, see Isabelle Belance-Zank, ''The Three-hand Texture: Origins and Use," Jour­
15 Gazelle des salons (1836), 190.
nal of the American Liszt Socieh; 38 (1995), 99-121.

24 25
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Example 1.1 Thalberg, Ce/ebre fantaisie pour le piano sur "Moise" or Rubini ... No one has ever sung on the piano like Thalberg." 20 The
vocality ofThalberg's playing was singled out as its distinguishing mark
just a couple of months after his arrival:
All of these difficulties, which seem to play themselves under his fingers, are
only the accompaniments and embellishments of a firm song, sustained and
penetrating, which despite the prodigious traffic of notes seduces the ear and
charms the heart like the sounds of Rubini's or Mlle. Falcon's voice.
21

This vocal aesthetic had such appeal for the Parisian audiences that he
was almost immediately named "le premier pianiste du monde," the
phrase that, after finding its way around the salons, prompted Liszt to
come back to Paris and find out who this mysterious rival was. 22
The vocality of Thalberg's playing did not consist in a "singing tone"
of the kind Cramer, Field, and Chopin were famous for, and which had
a firm hold in piano pedagogy. The traditional "singing tone" was pro­
duced by a legato touch, phrasing, fingering, and nuanced dynamics.
Thalberg, however, played the internal melody of his compositions bien
marcato; it had to be hammered out firmly in order to emerge above the
acoustic wash of the arpeggios and figuration. The sense of connection
in the melody was created not by the fingers alone, but by the sonorous
tissue, mainly arpeggios, between the melodic tones. As Fetis later let
on, "the vocal character that he managed to give to the singing part
[was achieved] by the resources of the pedals." 23 By opening up a wide
range of sympathetic vibrations and by placing the melody in a lower
register than usual, Thalberg evoked the voice as a sonorous plenitude
rather than as an elegantly shaped line. Thalberg's voice was also differ­
ently gendered. While the "singing tone" voice was almost invariably
a soprano, Thalberg evoked on the piano the sound of a male voice,
filling in the registers of tenor and contralto (as Fetis pointed out). The
"singing tone" voice was analogous to the voice heard in private salons­
in genres such as the Lied, the romance and the nocturne. Thalberg's
voice, in contrast, was full and rich, able to project into large spaces;
it was the voice of an opera singer.24 And to the extent that Thalberg's
reputation was made and sustained on the basis of a fantasy on themes
from Rossini's Moise, it was a voice from Italian opera.
Contemporary writers rarely commented on Liszt's tone, suggesting
�1!1 sounds, her delayed submission, the piano expresses all of that as that tone per se was less central to his aesthetic. And the few comments
if 1t were the '.11os! dramatic voice." 19 Blanchard was impressed by the
same, nearly 1co111c presence of the human voice: "you forget the d ry­ 20 Revueet gazet te musicale 3/19 (8 May 1836), 153-54 (H. Blanchard). De Beriot's place in
ness of this mechanical i�strument, and you are completely surprised this list can be explained by the fact that he was a noted representative of the French
_
to hear the sound held, smgmg, crying like Grisi, Malibran, de-Beriot, violin school, which took pride in its melodic, vocal approach to the instrument.
22
21
Abeil/e 11111sicale (March 1836), 3. Menestre/ 3/15 (13 March 1836).
23 Rev11eet gazet te 11111sica/e8/32 (9 May 1841), 261-64 (Fetis).
24
Adjectives such "powerful," "penetrating," "full," and "sonorous" appear repeatedly
19 Gn::�/fc 11111,irnlt• de Pnris 1 /43 (26 October 1834), 346-48 (A. Z.). in descriptions of Thalberg's delivery of melodies.

26 27
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

a melody
we do have tend to be negative. Henry Chorley, who was fond of Liszt The clarity with which Liszt realized the dramatic character of
and his pianism, put it most diplomatically: "In uniform richness and was enhance d by his facial and bodily expressions, which often mim­
sweetness of tone he may have been surpassed." 25 Another commenta­ icked the feeling or emotion in the music:
tor noted this weakness, but drew attention to the compensating advan­
tages: "Liszt has no touch, but he makes the tones awaken, live, grow, Laci darem la mano he rendered in a way that I shall never forget ...Everything he
did on the keys was mirrored in his features, flashed in his eyes and electrified
and soar through a subtle handling of the keys." 26 This evocation of
by all his movements; especially in the duet between the Don and Zerlina, in
a living being, of an animated character, is the main feature separating which at one moment he looked timid and the next leapt from his seat into the
Liszt's approach to melody from that of Thalberg and that of the "singing 29
air for joy .
tone" school. Compare the above description of Thalberg playing tl1e
melody of Laci darem la mano with descriptions of Liszt playing the same The dramatic, character-centered orientation of Liszt's playing, evi­
melody (in his Don Giovanni fantasy). Thalberg's performance evoked a dent in these descriptions of the Don Giovanni fantasy, extends beyond
material icon of the singing voice, and only secondarily the character's his approach to melody. Drama was basic to his aesthetic even when
feelings. Liszt's performances, however, evoked the dramatic character there was no specific dramatic subject. In his rendition of the Scherzo
singing the song, rendering it even more sharply than the original oper­ of Beethoven's sixth symphony, a piece he played often in public, he
atic scene: "No, you have never heard the motif of the duo La ci darem slowed down to about half the previous tempo when he arrived at the
la mano sung with such soul and tenderness, never heard the song Fin D major melody at measure 9 (Example 1.2).30 He thereby treated the two
ch'an d'al vino! with such gaiety and wildness. And the applause and eight-bar phrases as two radically opposed images or characters, rather
acclamations often interrupted the artist." 27 A Vienna critic was simi­ than as a pair of complementary syntactical units that must temporally
larly swept away by the vividness of character in Liszt's performance, balance each other. Although Thalberg performed the Moise fantasy at
signaled here by a plethora of adjectives: almost every concert he gave in Paris, not one critic ever mentioned the
stage characters whose melody was being sung, or the emotional quality
How tasteful and charming sounded the "La ci darem la mano" under his hands, of the melody, either in its operatic or pianistic context. The difference
how it sang ever more beautiful, more intimate, more sweet; how serious and between Liszt and Thalberg's delivery of melodies, then, was not only
forceful arose the stone guest's warning voice in pressed chords of the strings, that Thalberg's was more stamped with a vocal element. More impor­
then in between the cheerful loose joke of the happy couple, and at the close
tant still, Liszt made his melodies paint a character, or signify, whereas
the energetic champagne song, performed with all fire, stirring in the highest
degree through boldness and bravura.28
with Thalberg the melody was presented for the sake of gorgeous vocal
sonority alone - the grain of the voice.
25 Henry Chorley, M11sic and Manners in Fra11ce and Germany (London, 1844), 3 vols., Ifl:
45n. Chorley was kind enough to put this comment in a footnote. The disregard of tone Thalberg and the dilettantes
in the Parisian press may result from the fact that almost all the virtuosos in Paris, like
Liszt, had emerged from the Viennese "brilliant" school, which laid much less emphasis According to this interpretation of Thalberg's aesthetic, his ideal listener
on melodic continuity and beauty than the rival English school. This is also suggested was the fan of vocal music, especially Italian opera. In Paris such listeners
by the unusual focus on his tone and touch in the English reception, of which Chorley's were abundant. Instrumental music had on the whole made much less
comment is a trace. A Norwich critic claimed that "his tone is inferior to Thalberg's, headway there than in other musical capitals, and Beethoven was only
whose means are aU adapted to the one end of making the most of his instrument, and
beginning to be heard on a regular basis.31 Because listening habits of
towards which tone is the first requisite" (Norwich Merwry, 26 September 1840; quoted
in Liszt Society Jo11rnal 7 [1982), 13). the Parisian concert-going audiences were still quite thoroughly opera­
26 Pester Tageblatt, 31 December 1839. "Liszt hat keinen Anschlag; sondern <lurch gradu­ centered, Thalberg appealed to them at the core of their tastes and prefer­
elles Betesten der Klappern macht er die Tone entstehen, leben, wachsen, und ences: "enveloping like a region the theme, which M. Thalberg usually
entschweben."
27 Revue el gazette musicale 11 /26 (30 June 1844), 223 (P. Smith). 29 Curd von Schloezer, Riimische Briefe, 1864-1869 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1926); quoted in
28 Allgemeine Thenterzeitung, 3 March 1846. Yet another example of the same idea appears "Liszt in Rome (iii)," Liszt Society Journal 10 (1985), 30. Schloezer wrote this in a letter
in the Leipzig Zeitrmg fiir die elegante Welt, 17 December 1841: "As he played the arias from Gottingen dated 29 November 1841.
from Don fuan, they stepped palpably forward into the scene, the tones became action, as 30 The A11tobiograpliy of Charles Halle, ed. Michael Kennedy (London, 1972), 58. The date
though the figures, Zerlina and the others, wanted to emerge out of them." The remark­ of Halle's recollection is apparently 1836.
able consistency of this response to Liszt's Don Giovanni fantasy is also attributable to 31 On the limited presence of instrumental music in France, see chapter 6 in Jean
the familiarity of the opera. Mongredien, La m11siq11e en France des l11111ieres au ro111antis111e, 1789-1830 (Paris, 1986).

28 29
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
Example 1.2 Beethoven, Symphony no. 6, III, opening
Jl fans of Italian opera were as demonstrative as the dilettantes, but the
Allegro �ilettante revealed most explicitly the aesthetic priorities of the Italian
opera listener. . .
The dilettante listener was fixated on melody and the v01ce, less on
the words, dramatic emotions, or stage machinery. As James H. Jo�n­
son has put it, Rossini's music at the Italien� "aroused gr�at �m�tion
without conveying it. It created an effect without wrapping 1t m an
• age."34 The dilettante disdained a "learned" way of listening; for
:-'m the musical response should be based exclusively on sentiment.
�e strove to acquire, and to display in the theatre, a direct, unmediated
response to the melody. He demonstrate� his uninhib�ted r sponse by
�
sending out resounding bravos at every high note or vrrtuosic passage.
_
In between these climactic moments he was qwet and concentrated,
visually absorbed in the music.
Although not all dilettantes were aristocrats, dilettante listening was
socially coded as "aristocratic." They held court at the Theatre des Ital­
')I
...,
t9 "� .ec • & ... . "I I r,--, iens, the public theatre in Paris most identified with the nobility, and the
"house composer" Rossini was symbolically linked with the Restoration
tJ 1 1 ,. 1 ... political order. The dilettante's demonstrations of enthusiasm wer th1:1s
�
a social gesture, signaling that he possessed an elevated taste, which m
:
I I I I I I I J I
turn defined or confirmed his elite social status. Other listeners at the
r r r r .., Italiens who listened intensely and claimed an elevated taste - namely
the men of letters who frequented the orchestra region of the theatre -
also laid claim to dilettante status. It is precisely because dilettante listen­
has the good sense to choose from Rossini or Meyerbeer, [he makes) ing was socially coded, available for approp�iation b� non-ari tocrats,
an infallible call to the applause of the Parisian public, always happy � _
that it preserved distinct, consistent boundanes, allowing us to identify
to discover in concert music its memories of the Theatre-Italiens and it as a "type" of listening.
the Opera." 32 Thalberg's choice of thematic material for his fantasies, There was thus in Paris a distinct segment of listening public, housed
indeed, stands out for its nearly exclusive focus on opera, avoiding the at the Theatre des Italiens, that was predisposed to the aesthetic Thalberg
popular songs or folk songs other virtuosos were drawing upon. presented. This helps explain his very unusual decision to give his first
Yet Liszt, too, was playing many fantasies on opera melodies, so opera public concert in Paris at the Italiens. While it was not uncommon for
alone was insufficient to anchor Thalberg's reception. To understand the house singers to give their benefit concerts in the hall, it was unheard
Thalberg's special appeal we need to look at a particular kind of opera of for a piano virtuoso to give his benefit there, especially since so many
listener addressed by his playing: the dilettante. Beginning in the late new spaces for piano concerts had recently opened.35 Thalberg's choice
eighteenth century the word "dilettante" was being used to designate was both a recognition that his aesthetic would appeal to the dilettantes
passionate fans of Italian opera.33 The enormous success of Rossini dur­ and a strong gesture of affiliation with the aristocracy that lorded over
ing the Restoration increased both the number of dilettantes in Paris the theatre. He continued to play at the Italiens as often as he could
and the degree of enthusiasm they displayed. Although the dilettantes when he revisited Paris. Indeed, he established the hall as the venue for
were often mocked, they had considerable power as trendsetters, and
were able to spread the taste for Rossini to a larger social spectrum. Not
34
32 Johnson, Listening in Paris, 220.
Le monde 4/7 (6 April 1838). 35 Concert spaces commonly used by virtuosos included the Salle Pleyel, the Conserva­
33 This discussion of the di/el/anti is based mostly on James H. Johnson, Listening in Paris:
toire, and the Gymnase musicale. As a young boy Liszt had in fact played at the Italiens,
A C11/t11ra/ History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995), 190-92. but these concerts were presented between acts of an opera performance.

30 31
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

the very top virtuosos of the future, starting with Dehler in 1838 and This passage is a distillation of the priorities of the dilettante. He has a
list of favorite moments from Italian opera performers, his taste is ele­
continuing with Liszt in 1844.
Liszt was aware of Thalberg's appeal for the Parisian dilettantes, and vated ("right appreciation"), he focuses on sentiment ("go to the heart,"
had no desire to try to win them over to his own aesthetic. In an out­ "so entirely satisfies"), and his response is passionate (his enthusiasm
line for an article he asked Marie d'Agoult to complete, he wanted it becomes a prejudice that he refuses to give up). That Chorley should
mentioned that the audience at his four chamber music soin�es of 1837 drop Thalberg's name alongside those of the most famous singers of
which featured Beethoven's music, were evidence of a substantial pub� Italian opera is an unmistakable sign that the virtuoso is being valued
lie for serious music, and that his concert programs "were not of the sort for his vocality. The three-hand technique could not be further from his
to seduce the dilettantes or the dandies in the balcony of the Italiens."36 mind.
This was written at the height of his rivalry with Thalberg. Liszt was The other dilettante who clearly preferred Thalberg to Liszt was Count
d�fining himself against his rival by associating himself with a distinctly Armand de Pontmartin, an aristocrat. In his book Souvenfrs d'un vieux
d1ffe:ent, more serious-minded listening public. Thalberg's dilettante melonume (1879) -whose title itself gives away his dilettante bias- Pont­
public was further mentioned in a review of his 1837 benefit at the Con­ martin talks almost exclusively about singers of Italian opera, waxing
servatoire: his fantasy on God Save the Queen "did not make much of particularly rhapsodic over Malibran. Like Chorley, Pontmartin bore an
an impression, a deduction gathered from the obligatory enthusiasm aversion to the romantics, and this led him to prefer Thalberg to Liszt:
of the dilettantes, who so insisted on behaving like dilettantes."37 And "In 1840 romanticism still dominated, and an illustrious example per­
when Thalberg came back to Paris in 1838, a German journal admir­ suaded us that a pianist who was not frenzied [i.e., Thalberg] could only
ingly _ reported, his pu�lic concerts at the Italiens were attended by "all be considered mediocre."41 Pontmartin gives a poetic account of Thal­
the dilettantes of the !ugh aristocracy." 38 berg enrapturing a small audience at his Avignon home with the fantasy
Two great dilettantes, both Iegitimists and both high on the social on Moise. He describes the three-hand effect, but as though to remind
scale, betrayed a musical preference for Thalberg over Liszt: Henry the reader of his unprofessional, dilettante orientation, he attaches a
Chorley and Count Armand de Pontmartin. Chorley was descended footnote attributing the "technical details" to another author. In another
anecdote, Pontmartin recalls a concert by Liszt at the home of Emile Zim­
from the Lancashire gentry, and his social circles were significantly
_ merman. On this occasion, Pontmartin offered a merely tepid opinion of
h1� her tha'.1 t�ose of i:nost music critics of his time.39 Chorley genuinely
enioyed Liszt s playmg, but he could not give himself over to Liszt Liszt's playing. Zimmerman was baffled, and Pontmartin was forced to
entirely because he associated him with the French romantics, for whom explain himself by alluding to Thalberg's concert at his home: "since my
last trip to Paris I have heard another virtuoso quite as extraordinary,
he had a distaste typical of his social class. He was able to enjoy Thalberg,
however, without restraint: and in circumstances much more suited to exalting the imagination."42
Pontmartin highlights his preference for the private context, the aris­
There are things the right appreciation for which no comparison is needed - tocrat's privilege that allows him to listen in a nobler, more exalted
such as the "Sono innocente!" of Pasta in "Otello" . .. [Chorley gives examples manner.
of passages sung by Duprez, Malibran, and Lablanche] .. . or Thalberg's hand Chorley and Pontmartin represent the dilettante orientation in its
upon the piano. T!1ey go to the heart at once as supreme, and not to be surpassed purer form, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Paris was filled
_ _
?f then_:_kmd; and 1f our enthusiasm for them becomes a prejudice, it is one which, with vocally centered listeners who did not share the dilettante's social
m the_ hrst mstance, has been startled into life by some display which so entirely
_ status or habits, but who leaned heavily toward Thalberg, and their
s;ihsf1es as well as startles, that a slight tenacity in yielding it up on any new
temptation is surely excusable.40 tastes found voice in several of the widely circulating journals. Henri
Blanchard of the Revue et gazette musicale was Thalberg's most enthusi­
astic fan, and although his main task was to review concerts, the human
11' Corn·s1101uf1111cr d,• Liszt el de M11da111r d'Ago11/t, ed. Daniel Ollivier (Paris, 1933-35)'
2 vols., I: 193.
voice was at the center of his listening pleasures. In a sonnet he wrote for
17 C"',r ·i r d,·s //,N res, 13 March 1837. The review is generally negative. This critic, dearly
'. c H
desp1s111g the virtuoso phenomenon as a whole, has no kinder words for Liszt. 41 Count Armand de Pontmartin, Souvenirs d'un vieux critique (Paris, 1881), 10 vols.,
,
11' E11rop11 (1838/2), 140.
i<1 Jennifer Lee Hall, "The Refashioning of Fashionable Society: Opera-going and Socia­ I: 271-72. In the passages that follow this quotation, the identities of the musicians
bility in Britain, 1821-1861" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1996),284,288. being discussed are revealed to be Liszt and Thalberg.
42 Ibid., 296.
�tl Chorley, M11sic 1111d Manners, Ill: 17.

32 33
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Cristina Belgiojoso, he lauded the pianist alongside the leading opera with an article that was by far the most extended and intellectual article
singers: "To listen to Rubini, Thalberg, or Damoreau / Is to know the to appear in the journal, and its peroration was the first appearance in
most beautiful things in the art."43 His articles on Thalberg are stamped rint of the ban mot that would set off Liszt's reaction: "M. Thalberg is
with a dilettante orientation: he elaborates on the aura of Thalberg's �ot only the best pianist in the world, he is also a very distinguished
personality and on his vocality, or on the sentiment he conveys to his 47
com poser." The Menestrel became a permanent supporter of Thalberg
audiences, and they are for the most part void of musical learning.44 and a critic of Liszt. A satire of Liszt appeared in November 1836, some
Blanchard's reviews of Liszt's concerts, while generally positive, are months after Thalberg's first wave of success in Paris. At the height of
uninspired in comparison. the virtuoso rivalry in 1837, it reprinted a segment of one of Fetis's dam­
Thalberg was also the favorite of La France musicale. From its earli­ 48
aging articles on Liszt. The Menestrel, furthermore, hailed T�alberg's
est issues (1838) this journal made itself the headquarters of Thalberg return to Paris in 1842, after an absence of four years, as a ma1or event.
advocacy, and in the 1840s it acquired an institutional weight matched He was praised for his "suavity, sensitivity, expression and warmth
only by the Gazette musicale. As the organ of the publishing firm of the without impetuosity," the latter comment clearly implying a compar­
Escudier brothers, it focused on Italian opera and vocal music, and its 49
ison with Liszt. At about the same time, the journal began report­
criticism reflected the Italian emphasis.45 Its main readership, we can ing on Liszt with restless mockery, and continued to do so f�r sev:ral
therefore presume, was the dilettante-derived Italian opera public. The years. The Menestrel's conspicuous advocacy of Thalberg against Liszt
Escudiers took advantage of Thalberg's appeal to the Italian opera fans may have been tied to commercial interests, since the editor Heugel
by publishing his compositions and promoting his talent in the journal might have been publishing Thalberg's compositions. Nevertheless, it
with large articles and regular reports.46 helped forge a bond with its vocally oriented readership by promot­
The vocality of Thalberg's playing also gave him a more powerful ing a pianist whose aesthetic was more voice-centered than that of his
stronghold among amateurs of vocal music than Liszt. This is evident contemporaries.
in the outstanding support that he received in 1836 from the jour­ Thalberg's vocality was the secret of his immense success in Paris.
nals Menestrel and Abeille musicale. Both were romance journals, whose He had come to Paris at a time when the Parisian publics had not
primary purpose was to offer regular installments of a song or vocal yet had a depth of experience with instrumental music. They remained
romance. Their subscribers were amateurs of vocal music. Articles and voice-centered, opera-centered, and nothing could have disposed them
news items in the Menestrel were customarily very short and often light better to Thalberg's aesthetic of singing on the piano. The journals cir­
or humorous, but an exception was made for Thalberg. He was blessed culating among the vocally inclined segments of the Parisian public -
be they old-fashioned aristocratic dilettantes or modern sheet-music
43 Revue et gazette musicale 9/17 (24 April 1842), 181 (H. Blanchard). "Ecouter Rubini, consumers - disseminated his reputation and strengthened his support
Thalberg ou Damoreau, / C'est connaitre de l'art ce qu'il y a de plus beau." base. Fetis's claims about Thalberg's historical importance and com­
44 Blanchard's writing style is that of the dilettante critic: his criticisms are consistently
positional innovations strengthened his status, especially among the
sensitive to social implications, inteFlaced with classical references, literary in tone, and
prone to brief summarizing phrases.
more serious-minded musicians and listeners in Paris, but they did not
45 Ellis, Music Criticism, 46. provide its foundation.
46 It should be noted, however, that l.n France musicale championed Thalberg with little
reference to his vocality. It derived much of its rhetoric about Thalberg from Fetis's
articles from 1837, thematizing the novelty of his pianism and its connection with a Liszt's orchestrality
classical "school." It is surprising that a journal with vocally oriented readers would Liszt's playing was altogether more diverse, and poses more problems
not have taken advantage of Thalberg's vocality to promote his compositions. A pos­
for characterization. Yet just as the leading metaphor for Thalberg's
sible explanation is that the Escudiers had a purely commercial interest, and did not
particularly care on what grounds they promoted him. Another possible explanation playing was the voice, so Liszt's playing drew in the metaphor of the
is that Leon Escudier, the author of the Thalberg articles, felt the authority of Fetis's orchestra. Shortly before leaving Paris in 1835, he thrilled audiences at
musical expertise - rooted in uncompromising professionalism - to be stronger than the Conservatoire with his arrangement of the "Bal" and "Marche" from
his more impressionistic, dilettantish writing style. The France 11111sicale and the Gazette
were in the midst of heavy competition, and Escudier could not risk falling behind. In
spite of their lack of emphasis on Thalberg's vocality, the articles in the France musicale 47 Menes/re/ 3/15 (13 March 1836) . This article is likely to have been commissioned from
had the effect of spreading and buttressing his reputation among the broader Italian outside or lifted from another source, as the Menestre/ occasionally did in later years.
opera public. 48 Menes/re/ 4/22 (30 April 1837). 49 Menes/rel 9/19 (17 April 1842).

34 35
 The Virtuoso Liszt
Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
Ber lioz's Symphonie fantastique, thus inviting audiences to compare the
original with his transcription. Joseph d'Ortigue, perhaps prompted by delicate nuan· Ces53 '
the most fleeting intentions with an incredible charm, relief,
this recent event, observed that an orchestral conception pervaded his and penetration:
.
piano music: "in everything Liszt has had the goal of applying orches­ It is because of this richness of color' character, and detail that Liszt was
tration to the piano, that is, to render the piano instrumental and diver­ best heard Solo rather than accompanied by orchestra:
sified [concertant] with itself."50 The main orchestral transcriptions in
The .tntervention or rather cooperation of the orchestra· often prevents .
the appre-
Liszt's repertory in these early years were the excerpts from Berlioz's . ti• on of a thousand finesses, a thousand lovely capnces, 11·ke fleetmg thought s,
c1a
Symphoniefantastique and the last three movements of Beethoven's sixth va n ·ed an d fleeting like the nuances with which the sun colors th e · wh.1ch
mist
symphony, the latter appearing much more frequently than the former. .
nses around rushing cascades' and these ·mt·mite · d e1·1cac1es
· so rareI y accom-
· ·
Every time he was in Paris audiences heard either the Beethoven or the paru"ed Y b strength ' and which Liszt
54 '
the strongest of all pianists, nevertheI ess
Berlioz. Critics were consistently amazed at how perfectly Beethoven's poss esses to the highest degree.
orchestra was transferred to the piano:
As these passages show, Liszt's orche�trality consisted i� sonorous and _
Just listen to Liszt, orchestra on the piano! See in each of his fingers the capac­ expressi·ve multiplicity, in the dispersion and restless shift of sensations
.
ity of a whole association of people! ... He successively conjures up in their and impressions. The metaphors that come up repeatedly are images
magnificence all the faces, the grandiose monologues of the winds, the demonic of violent fragmentation: cascades, sparks, flames, met�ors, and_ storm�.
pizzicatos of the basses; from the trembling pianissimo to the fortissimo tempest! This splintering effect is registered in visual representations of his music
and you will admit that Liszt has transformed the piano, that he has metamor­ (Figures 1.1 and 1.2).
phosed it into an orchestra.51 . . .
Liszt's Grande Jantaisie di bravura sur la clochette de Pagamm, _which he
Liszt was equally successful at capturing the varied effects of Berlioz's performed often in the 1830s, is a composed-out �xample of his orches­
_
tral approach to the piano (Example 1.3). There is hardly � moment in
more colorful, more variegated orchestra: "It is really prodigious to hear
the fantasy where the texture does not have three or four independ�nt
the piano reproduce so powerfully and with such charm all the effects of
layers. A single hand can be responsible for managing two contrasting
[the Symphoniefantastique], all the little details of the instrumentation."52
Yet the impression of a reproduction of orchestral sound, however types of attack or articulation (mm. �8-89, 95-98, 118-20). Bot _ h_ hands
are constantly shifting registers, crossing each other, and _ switching r?les
prominent in these descriptions, was not the most important aspect of
(mm. 91-93, 99-104, 118-25). Liszt's notation �rachces are reveahng:
Liszt's orchestrality. In these quotations, as in most other reviews, the .
there is an almost ridiculous density of notated mformahon on dynam­
orchestra is evoked in its heterogeneity and multiplicity - as a potpourri
of sounds, characters, and dynamic levels - rather than as an organic ics, accentuation, articulation, tempo, and character. Measur� 127 al�ne
contains four types of articulation marks, a separate dynam1: marking
unit. It was thus Liszt's tendency-both in his compositions and his play­
ing - to multiply timbres, stratify registers, differentiate dynamics, and for the lower voice (just one shade down from the other v01ces), spe­
cific pedaling indications, and four verbal instructions : T�e score reads
recompose textures that made the orchestra an appropriate metaphor for
more like a transcription of a performance than a pres�nphon for per�or­
his playing as a whole. Theophile Gautier drew attention away from the
mance. This is a virtuoso style that pursues complexity of tex�re, :ic�­
literalness of the orchestral comparison, highlighting in Liszt's playing
ness of detail, and bodily choreography to the maximum. Continmty is
the richness of details, the sheer quantity of impressions, each of them
undesirable: no pianistic idea is pursued for more than four measures,
forcefully evoked:
and abrupt shifts are the rule (mm. 109-12, 125-�7, and 131-�6).
.
Not that he enticed from the body of his piano a volume of sonority equal to the Writers also brought in the orchestra to describe Thalberg s playing,
noise of all the instruments, but he articulated all its melodies, evoked the most but it was an orchestra of a different kind. When Fetis wrote of Thal­
berg: "the instrument acquired under his fingers the power and fullness
50 Gazette 11111sicale de Paris 2/24 (14 June
1835), 202 (J. d'Ortigue); emphasis origina
(ampleur) of a large orchestra,"55 he was thinking of the orchestra as a
Vienna critic Heinrich Adami drew the same l.
conclusion: "many passages from his 53 La presse, 13 May 1844 (T. Gautier).
c omp ositions s uggest that one of his primary
goal s is to orchestrate the piano as much . . .
as possible" (Allgemeine Theaterzeitrmg, 5 May 1838). 54 Revue et gazette musicale 4/13 (26 March 18�7), 103; mphasis ong1n�!- The piece under
51
,, 7
review is Liszt's Divertissement srir la cavatme I 11101 frequent, palp1t1.
Rev11e et gazette musicale 6/67 (12 December 1839),
531.
52 Monde
musical 5/19 (9 May 1844), 76. 55 Revue et gazette musicale 4/17 (23 April 1837), 137-42. This was als o the basis for the
occasional comparison o f Thalberg's sonority to that o f the organ.

36
37
 Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Example 1.3 Liszt, Grand fantnisie di brav11ra s11r In cloc/1ette de Paganini

t f -·

full-bodied, integrated sonority that activated several registers simulta­

neously. Another Gazette writer made the same comparison:
We don't know how to express with what charm the deeply melancholic and
impassioned melodies of the andante [from Beethoven's fifth symphony) were
exhaled from Thalberg's piano. It is to be wondered whether the orchestra of
the Conservatory, whether the human voice has more intimate eloquence, more
true, penetrating accent.o6
Figure 1.2 '"General Bass' is taken unawares in his fixed Jines and
'
overpowered by Liszt," 1842 "6 Rev11e et g nzette 11111sicalc 5/12 (25 March 1838), 131-32 (E. M.).

39
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
Example 1.3 (cont.) Example 1.3 (cont.)

Liszt's playing, however, conveyed an image of the orchestra quite

different from that of the Conservatoire orchestra, which was the preva­
lent ideal in the minds of contemporary Parisians. From a single per­
former emerged the sounds of a multitude of enunciators usually dis­
tributed among the orchestra: "Liszt, orchestra on the piano! See in
every finger the capacity of a whole association of people." In this
Thalberg's playing could only evoke comparison with the orchestra as passage Liszt's fingers are singled out as the bodily analogy for that
a unified whole. The orchestra cited here, that of the Conservatoire, was division of self, or dispersal of enunciation, that his pianistic style
legendary throughout Europe for its precision ensemble and homo­ enacted.58 Through the involvement of his body in his performing style,
geneous power. It performed as if with a single "voice," facilitating
the comparison to a human voice in this quotation. The Conservatoire performances. Habeneck was not a modern conductor, and did little more than keep
orchestra appeared as a mass of performers whose coordination pro­ time. He was the symbol of the Conservatoire orchestra's unified utterance, not its source.
58 The term "enunciation" here refers to the effect of a subject or speaker, a speaking
duced a unified enunciation, and this unity was often symbolized by
reference to the orchestra's leader, Fran�ois Habeneck.57 "!," being present in the material signs of language. Linguist Emile Benveniste theo­
rized enunciation in relation to the grammatical "[," and Susan Bernstein has used his
ideas to explore Liszt's problematization of the "I" in his writings. See especially the
57 It is important to differentiate this sense of enunciation from that conveyed by modern
introduction, and the chapter "Liszt's Bad Style," in Virtuosity of the Nineteenth Century:
conductors, who have come to embody near complete authorial power in orchestral Performing Music and l.Jinguage in Heine, Liszt, and Baudelaire (Stanford, 1998).

40 41
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Figure 1.3 Parisian caricature of Liszt, 1855

Liszt maximized the sense of dispersal already inherent in his sound.

When he played "La ci darem la mano," we have seen, he "became"
Zerlina temporarily, then "became" Don Giovanni. Liszt realized the
dialogue as if he was himself two characters, a dispersal of enunciation
Figure 1.4 "Galop chromatique, " 1843
effected partly by mimetic facial gestures.
Bodily dispersal is a common theme in contemporary caricatures of
Liszt. Such images almost always focus on the hands, for obvious rea­ rather dogmatic aspect of piano pedagogy. A close associate of Liszt in
sons a concentrated site of visual attention in virtuosic performance. Vienna observed that he achieved his effects "through a quite personal
Not only do Liszt's fingers multiply, but they also divide within them­ method of fingering, in which the thumb assumes a wide variety of
selves; their joints become detached and take on a radically independent functions." 61
movement (Figures 1.3, 1.4, 1.5). With this division the fingers challenge The independence that characterized Liszt's hands and fingers
the sovereignty of the hand, and by extension Liszt's sovereignty over extended to his body as a whole. In performance he stamped his feet,
his body: "his fingers seem to lengthen and stretch out by means of a lifted his arms far above the keyboard, and on the whole denied his
spring, and often to separate from the hands." 59 Liszt contributed to body a stable center of gravity. In the caricatures his limbs and hair
this effect by experimenting with "incomprehensible interweavings of are in restless motion: one foot is in the air, the other on the ground,
the fingers" such as crossing the fourth finger over the fifth.60 These the toes pointing different ways, his hair blowing in one direction,
experiments were radical at a time when "correct fingering" was still a his head looking upward while his limbs spread out, octopus-like,
in all directions (Figures 1.4 and 1.5). This is a body on the verge of
09 Europa (1836/1), 381. The article quotes this passage from a French source that I have
not identified.
60 Musical World 10/138 (1 November 1838), 134-35. 61 Humorist, 28 May 1838 (M. Saphir).

42 43
 Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

11')
,.....
�
So
u::
Figure 1.6 J.-P. Dantan, "Liszt"

complete dismemberment, a body abandoned by a sovereign will.

Dantan's well-known sculpture epitomizes this sense of sovereign
breakdown by burying Liszt's head - the site of rational control - alto­
gether in his hair (Figure 1.6). Liszt's bodily division, moreover, was
never easily separated from the sonorous complexity of his music:

45
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
No system of words can accurately describe the power which Liszt possesses of source of his virtuosic discourse, then, was double: it was Liszt fused
dividing himself, as it were, into two, or sometimes, even, three performers ...
obviously unreachable extensions; playing figures of opposite character, widely­ with, and vastly expanded by, an exogenous, transcendental force.
The unusually powerful subjective force of Liszt's playing, I am argu­
contrasted power, and running through and intersecting each other with the
utmost freedom of motion, an arpeggio bass of large dimensions meanwhile ing, was an effect created by the involvement of his body in his per­
continuing uninterrupted.62 forming style.For those listeners who did not read his body language
in the way above described, his playing lacked subjective force and was
Liszt's bodily motions - surely one of his most remarkable contri­ simply strange or incoherent.For those who did follow his discursive
butions to the history of performance in general - provoked mixed logic, the visual aspect of his playing was crucial.Many writers, even
responses.There were critics who said the motions were the result of a someone with good ears such as Schumann, asserted that he could not
willful bizarrerie that he had adopted through his association with the be fully understood until he was seen; the sounds themselves did not
romantics, and they occasionally urged Liszt in print to get rid of the communicate what it was that Liszt had to communicate: "he must be
excessive motions (F.-J.Fetis and A.Specht are examples) .These critics heard - and also seen; for if Liszt played behind the scenes, a great deal
assumed that Liszt had control over his bodily motions, that he could stop of the poetry of his playing would be lost." 66 A Vienna critic pointed
them, that they were indeed subordinate to his sovereign will.As listen­ out in quite explicit terms how Liszt's subjectivity compensated for the
ers they were doomed to dislike Liszt's playing, since they perceived the fragmentation and incoherence of the sounds of his music:
fragmented, disjointed language of his virtuosity as an artistic intention.
The people who enjoyed Liszt's playing most were those who felt that, As a composer Liszt is distinguished by deeply-grasped contents and an ener­
in performance, his body was in fact abandoned by a sovereign will and getic wealth of ideas.Yet the exemplariness of the form leaves something to be
wished ... He has perhaps not found the time to make his works more vocal
occupied by a new force, usually described as inspiration or enthusi­
and more comprehensible to the general public through a greater degree of
asm: "the artist's fever seemed to take him as if by an electric commo­ polish. Perhaps it is simply because of his all-powerful subjectivity that they are in
tion from the instant his hand touched the keyboard." 63 It is important their perfection only comprehensible and playable by him.67
to emphasize that Liszt's inspiration was always, in descriptions of his
playing, inferred back from his bodily motion, not from the sounds The subjective power of Liszt's playing would not have been greater
of his playing.Once the inspiration had been inferred, it was then rein­ if the sonorous aspect of his music had projected a more unified mode
scribed as the origin of the musical sounds.What listeners called "Liszt's of enunciation (such as Thalberg's).On the contrary, the subjective force
inspiration " thus stood in for the unified enunciating source that the of his performance was directly proportional to the degree to which his
sounds of his playing lacked; it was his inspiration that brought unity, musical discourse resisted rendering a coherent "voice." The sheer quan­
in their minds, upon the dispersive sonorous mass he delivered. tity of information he put forth was far beyond what audiences were
Descriptions of Liszt's inspiration locate it both within him and out­ accustomed to hearing and seeing at a virtuoso concert, and exceeded
side of him.This double source could also give rise to confusions: "what what their minds could reasonably process.Listening to him was the
he plays comes so completely out of his soul; it is the expression of the aural equivalent of the experience of the sublime, often overwhelming
highest passion, fiery inspiration. It is quite natural that such unre­ or terrifying the listener: "When his keys tremble ...his audience is sud­
strained playing, originating outside of himself ...would make a deep denly dominated by the unheard-of power of the artist." 68 In reaction to
impression." 64 In a strange circulation of power, Liszt was both source this unsettling experience, the listener would reflexively participate in
and recipient of his music, both creator and audience: "Whatever he a search for coherence, a search for the enunciating voice: "after the first
plays, he truly does not play to show his virtuosity, but-this is clear from blank astonishment with which he is listened to . ..the mind as well
his whole manner of execution - because the composition stirs him up,
and among his listeners he is perhaps the most inspired." 65 The enunciating 66 Robert Schumann on Music and Musicians, ed. Konrad Wolff, trans. Paul Rosenfeld
62
(New York, 1946), 156. An English journalist, arguably working from Schumann's
Musical World 13/220 (11 June 1840), 361--M. article, observed that Liszt's playing "is of that extraordinary character that cannot
63 Revue musicale 6/52 (26 January 1833), 413. be described; it must be heard and witnessed to be truly appreciated" (Clteltenham
64 Allgemeine Theaterzeitrmg, 1 May 1838, 383 (H. Adami). Quoted in D. Legany, Franz Liszt:
Looker-On, 5 September 1840).
Unbekannte Presse und Briefe aus Wien, 1822-1866 (Vienna, 1984), 31-32. 67 Carl Tausenau, "Liszt und Thalberg," Allgemeine musikalisclte Anzeiger, 7 February 1838;
65 Allgemeine Tlteaterzeitung, 5 May 1838, 399-400 (H. Adami); emphasis original. Quoted
emphasis added. Quoted in Legany, Franz Liszt, 53-56.
in Legany, Franz Liszt, 399-400. 68 Revue et gazette musicale 7/35 (10 May 1840), 301 (A. A.).

46 47
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

as the ear are perpetually on the alert, to enter into the story he means
to tell."69 This psychological mechanism, drawing the listener into the
drama of his playing, had no parallel in Thalberg. As one German critic
put it, "[Thalberg] turns the heart increasingly away even while he is
astonishing the mind [Verstand], whereas his rival Liszt, when he con­
jures a forceful sea-storm in notes, at least brings forth an animation of
7
the mind." 0
Carl Dahlhaus has made a similar interpretation of how piano vir­
tuosos brought coherence into their improvisations: "the fantasy . ..
was dominated by expressive rhetorical gestures, played with a subjec­
tive verve that swept over the cracks and fissures inherent in rhapsodic
form ... lines of fracture were hidden by the expressive powers of
the improviser." 71 But do "subjective verve" and "expressive powers"
lie outside and apart from musical fissures and cracks, as Dahlhaus
implies? In Liszt's virtuosity the interruptions of continuity were not a
threat to, but rather the very condition of, the subjective impact of his
playing. This aspect of his virtuosity was not a projection or emanation
of Liszt's powerful mind or persona, although that is exactly how lis­
teners experienced it. It was an effect created on and in the minds of his
listeners by means of his bodily motions and his dispersive, orchestral
approach to the keyboard.
Thalberg, to offer a counterexample, had his own way of commu­
nicating inspiration. Contrary to received wisdom, his calm demeanor
at the keyboard did not translate into expressive frigidity. Many of his
contemporaries saw glimpses of inspiration and emotion through his
Figure 1.7 Caricature of Thalberg, c. 1840
serenity:
Th;ilberg sits very close to the pi;ino. His p osture is severe ... In the most virtuosic
internal emotions; rather, it exerted "pressure" upon them. By visibly
moments he does not ;illow ;iny contortion. But his fe;itures, ordinctrily rnlm and
holding back the emotions, he preserved himself as a sovereign sub­
imprinted with ;i modest dignity, gradually become animated and betray the
violent commotion that he feels.n ject, and gave inspiration a location within the body, as well as within
the domain of the subject - something internal to be resisted or con­
Thalberg's appearance was a mix of inspiration and Apollonian calm: quered. The difference between Liszt and Thalberg was thus not that
"[it] is the symbol of profound but calm conviction, of ardent but con­ one appeared to be inspired, and the other cold. This is a view that
centrated enthusiasm, of fire without smoke, but not without heat." 73 has been perpetuated by an overly rigid opposition between the two
Joseph d'Ortigue continued the list of antinomies by describing Thal­ pianists. Inspiration was crucial to both, but the inspiration was chan­
berg's "calm force, this tranquil power, this exaltation at the same time neled differently in their respective virtuosities. Thalberg let the traces of
measured and serene." 74 Thalberg's calmness did not cancel out his inspiration show on his face, but whatever disruptive power that inspi­
ration might carry was firmly centered in, and contained by, a nearly
69 Norwich Merrnry (1840, no date specified); quoted in Liszt Society Journal 6 (1981), 13. motionless body.
70 Vossische Zeil1111g, 14 February 1842. We can take this point to a more general level: Thalberg's virtuos­
71 Carl Dahlhaus, Ni11eteent/r-Ce11tury Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Berkeley and
ity did not completely lack the sonorous and bodily dispersiveness we
Los Angeles, 1989), 137.
72 France musicale 1/12 (18 March 1838), 1. observed in Liszt, as some of the caricatures show (Figure 1.7). In an
73 Revue el gazette 111usicnle 3/22 (29 May 1836), 180-81 (E. M.). important sense bravura is inherently dispersive. The speed and density
74 Revue et gazette 11111sicnle 4/12 (19 March 1837), 96-98 (J. d'Ortigue). of his right-hand activity placed him technically far beyond the pianism

48 49
 Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
The Virtuoso Liszt

of the previous generation, leading writers to call him a "romantic"

musician in spite of Fetis's emphasis on the "classical" elements of his
playing. His way of maintaining a texture in several registers simulta­
neously inspired dispersive images such as "twenty harps in a piano."
It was often observed that Thalberg had a remarkable independence
of the fingers, inspiring the sculptor Dantan to render him with twenty
fingers. The name of his three-handed technique itself conveys the sense
in which he was dividing or redistributing the body.
Yet in Thalberg's playing, unlike Liszt's, each of these elements was
subject to recuperation. His runs and arpeggios were hierarchically sub­
ordinated to the melody: "in all his compositions the mechanism is
always the servant of the melody... the idea is the melody; the form
is the melody; the inspiration is the melody; the music altogether is
the melody."75 Writers never independently analyzed the non-melodic
components of his music, which were simply "everything else," and this
"everything else" pointed insistently back to the melody:
M. ThaIberg preserves, in the middle of the most rapid execution, the purest taste
and style; all the difficulties which play under his fingers are only the accompani­
ments <1nd embellishments of a firm, sust<1ined, and penetrating melody, which
despite the prodigious traffic of notes seduces the ear and charms the heart. 76
At the level of the body, we find a recuperation in Dantan's famous bust.
The pianist's twenty fingers are towered over by his large, concentrated,
controlling head, so that the fingers preserve the unity of purpose and
obedience to a sovereign will so conspicuously absent in Liszt's body
and fingers (Figure 1.8). Liszt's head, tellingly, was never rendered this
way.
We have seen, in this analysis of their respective performing styles,
that Liszt and Thalberg had very different ways of establishing the
performer-spectator relationship. Thalberg's virtuosity delivered a
highly refined vocal conception that required only of its audience that
it be receptive to vocality. The depth of vocally centered listening in
Paris made it effortless for him to win unanimous applause. Liszt's
style worked on its audiences assertively and psychologically, and its
vocal elements were subsumed under the more general dramatic, ges­
tural orientation of his playing. It demanded that the listeners activate
their minds to find coherence in a radically dispersed musical field.
If the listener misinterpreted Liszt's bodily motions, or did not wish
to listen actively, or had his eyes closed, Liszt would lose his listener.
Liszt's ideal listener was one predisposed to letting his virtuosity pro­ Figure 1.8 J.-P. Dantan, "Thalberg"
voke a flight of the imagination. Berlioz and George Sand can be cited

7' Frn11cl' 11111sicnle 3/40 (4 October 1840), 359-60 (L. Escudier).

7n 11/willc 11111sicale, March 1836, 2-3; emphasis added.

51
50
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics
as examples; they were among his most earnest devotees and left some The continuation of this article went beyond all others in subjecting
of the most eloquent testimony to the power of his playing. Outside the Liszt's Serenata e Orgia to the same type of analysis Liszt had carried
artistes, however, there was no group in Paris whose listening dispo­ out on Thalberg's compositions. The author singles out "unparalleled
sitions made Liszt's reception unproblematic like Thalberg's. He was monotony" in the second motive, a "lack of ideas," a "new idea that
demanding new habits of listening and experiencing music.He had to has no relationship to the previous ones," and transitions that are "too
win audiences over to his aesthetic, with the result that his reception brusque" or "bizarre." With Thalberg as the implicit comparison, the
was much more ambivalent and conflicted than that of his rival. writer complains that Liszt "destroys the simplicity of the melody" by
placing dense chords in the bass.His a�al�sis _clo�es w��h ��ckery of
Press comparisons the excessive pedal and verbal expressive md1cahons, tlus immense
romantic and fantastic nomenclature."
Thalberg's vocality, I have been arguing, gave him significant advan­
Objections such as these had a long-term impa�t on Liszt's recepti�n
tages over Liszt by addressing a wider social base in the Parisian publics.
as a composer. The compositions he published m the later 1830s did
It stacked the rivalry in Thalberg's favor, and if Liszt knew this, he was
powerless to change it.More importantly, Thalberg retained his advan­ little to improve things, and the comparisons to Thalberg continued.
The France musicale sharpened its stance against Liszt's compositions
tage throughout the 1837 season in spite of Liszt's efforts to challenge it.
because it was promoting Thalberg's music. An 1839 performance of
The duel did not end in a "draw" as is often claimed.On the contrary,
Liszt's Niobe fantasy by Messemaeckers prompted one of its writers to
Thalberg remained the favorite of the Parisian publics at least until 1840.
reflect on Liszt as virtuoso and composer.The author associated him
In order to see how these circumstances affected Liszt's ambitions and
with everything awful in the virtuoso phenomenon, and regretted that
the virtuoso rivalry, we need to return to the main problem: Thalberg's
he had not transcended his virtuoso identity in his compositions.Thal­
reputation as a composer. Liszt was not yet prepared to compete as
berg was not only cited as a cou�terexample, but �as _also strongly
a composer, and he strategically decided to wage his battle with the
implied in the peroration: "We will only say that Liszt 1s not a com­
resources he had: the pen and the piano.
poser, that he has no school and that he will never form one, because
Liszt's use of the pen did not help at all. Early in the 1837 concert sea­
he has no method." 79 Escudier, the journal's chief editor, could not have
son he published his critique of Thalberg's compositions in the Gazette,
made his own opinion plainer: "M. Liszt was born a pianist, but only a
and it was soon notorious. With this article he not only opened himself
pianist ...Thalberg is a composer ?f the first rank.' '.8� With �is artic�e
to attack on ethical grounds, but also invited critics to consider his own
on Thalberg, Liszt had virtually rumed the compositional wmg of his
achievements in composition. None of the responses to Liszt's article,
master plan - he unwittingly spotlighted his weaknesses as a compo�er.
not even Fetis's, attempted to demonstrate the real merits of Thalberg's _
compositions. Rather, they focused on Liszt's own defects as a composer: Liszt's initial strategy for challenging Thalberg as a virtuoso p1amst,
rather than as a composer, was to advance himself as a proponent of
The great accusation formulated by M. Liszt against Thalberg consists in Beethoven.Before 1836, the only Beethoven he had ever performed in
reproaching him of playing mediocre compositions with genius. Let me just public, as far as we know, was the "Moonlight" sonata. In Thalberg's
ask you this: What then is M. Liszt himself, if not an able performer of very wake, however, he gave two unplanned concerts and made the extraor­
mediocre compositions? Where are the culminating and fulminating works of dinary move of programming the "Hammerklavier" sonata. It was a
M. Liszt? ...Liszt's way of writing in music is a stew of languages, and the eighth
gesture of separation from Thalberg and his dilettante public, which
and sixteenth notes ... resemble the accompaniment of a barbarous song, which
was least likely (he thought) to be interested in the Beethoven. He was
he sings anyway with enough skill.77
asserting himself as a serious artiste in order to make Thalberg l�ok
The exact same rhetoric appeared in another major counterattack: like a charlatan.His four chamber music seances of 1837, also featurmg
nearly unknown large-scale works by Beethoven, were part of the same
We call directly upon the grand judge, the public, which has already decided
on the incontestable merit of Thalberg's works, but which does not yet know strategy. Le monde described the audience of the first seance in a :'ay
_ ,
exactly what those of Liszt contain ... What then has M. Liszt done to judge so that is conspicuous for its absence of aristocrats: "The famous pianist s
severely his colleague or his imitators?78 name had attracted a brilliant crowd, among whom were many of our
77 Vert-vert, 16 January 1837. 79 France musicale 2/6 (20 January 1839), 478.
78 Christian Baumgartner, "Thalberg et M. Liszt," Gazette des salons, 25 January 1837. 80 France musicale 3/40 (4 October 1840), 359.

52 53
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

literary and political figures." 81 It is possible that Liszt was using his Whether it was sureness and control, a certain poesie, or melodiousness,
close connection to the editors at Le monde to propagate the impression all these critics felt in Thalberg's music something that made it difficult
that he was not playing for superficial, dilettante aristocrats.He had in for them to accept fully Liszt's playing.
fact specifically instructed Marie d'Agoult to make that very point in an Liszt's playing, in turn, drew attention to Thalberg's deficiencies.
article she was in the process of writing for him.82 Joseph d'Ortigue, in a generally positive review ofThalberg's 1837 bene­
Liszt's attempt to separate himself from Thal berg could not, however, fit, wrote: "We cannot ask of M.Thalberg a fire, an impetuosity, a passion
have kept critics from making comparisons when both virtuosos were in which are clearly not in his temperament; but one might hope that his
Paris in 1837.Thalberg's presence made Liszt's deficiencies more obvi­ playing gain in variety; it is to be feared that the too-continuous ringing
ous and easier to criticize.The most severe criticism of Liszt's playing of the same strings will only result in engendering monotony." 86 Criti­
during the 1837 season came not long after the famous contest: cal recognition of Thalberg's weaknesses, however, was not enough to
We will say to M.Liszt that it is time he temper his hot enthusiasms with order
prevent him from coming back to Paris with complete success during
and method ... W hen M.Thalberg is at the piano, one feels sure of him, as the following season. Furthermore, Liszt was more injured by the com­
he feels sure of himself; one feels that he sees from the beginning the goal that
parison than Thalberg.Thalberg's playing realized a sharply delimited
he seeks and will attain, for the route is planned in advance; it is not the same conception with great refinement; it did not aspire beyond that, so it
with M.Liszt; he is a bold navigator who throws himself into the sea with his was not tainted by what it lacked. Liszt's playing, however, aspired to
boat and his sail, and who seeks his route in the stars of the sky; but if the inclusiveness at all levels, including those at which Thalberg excelled.
sky gets cloudy the navigator loses his way; M. Thalberg, for his part, carries a As a result, his playing suffered from the aural comparison to a greater
compass. 83 degree.
Liszt thus began the rivalry in 1837 with a disadvantage relative to
Critics had voiced disapproval of Liszt's entrafnements before, but the
Thalberg.He made it worse with his article on Thal berg's compositions,
experience of Thalberg made them less tolerant.This critic's empha­
and competed with only moderate success as a pianist. His attempt
sis on the listener's feelings is important; Thalberg had opened up a
to challenge Thalberg was simply a failure. It was Thalberg who had
range of musical feeling and pleasure that seemed outside the scope of
the majority of the public favor in 1837, and he held on to it for fully
Liszt's playing. On the occasion of Liszt's 1840 return to Paris, Escudier
three years.In 1840 Blanchard explained this in completely unambigu­
compared the two virtuosos and found this basic, easy pleasure miss­
ous terms: "Previously Liszt was only the Pompey, the Antony, the
ing: ''M.Liszt still lacks this perfumed poetry which charms and makes
Moreau of the piano vis-a-vis Thalberg, who was its Caesar, Octavian,
one dream ... this natural expression of the pleasures or the sorrows
or Napoleon." 87 The anxiety this produced in Liszt is evident in his let­
of the soul, which soothe you while at the same time raising your
ters to Lambert Massart, who was something of a publicity agent for
enthusiasm." 84 Blanchard's report from the same season is intended
Liszt during his absence.Massart suggested strategies for keeping his
to praise Liszt's delivery of melody, but it misses its mark and uninten­
reputation alive in the Parisian press, but Liszt had lost his trust in the
tionally divulges a preference for Thalberg:
Parisian critics:
It is his transformation into a melodist that is really astonishing.This is not at all
to say that he has that plastic, large, and tranquil melody which cradles you with I wrote to d'Ortigue because I feel like he is a friend.The same cannot be said
confidence and quietude; you feel the nervous man, impatient, tight [I'homme of several other people to whom you would like me to perhaps make great
11erve11x, impatient, sec], wanting above all to dazzle, to win approval by assault advances (I'm not naming them, but you know whom I'm talking about). These
and not to conquer by sweetness and persuasion: it is in no way the melody of fine men have never been but three-quarters on my side ... I need frank and
the soul which emerges from him, it is that of the mind, of the imagination.s.." devoted friends who, when the occasion arises, have the courage to say in front
of anyone, as you did, that I am incapable of a vile act [,me bassesse].88
81 Le 111011de, 29 January 1837. 82 Correspondance de Liszt el de Madame d'Agoult, I: 193.
83 Lil presse, 10 April 1837 (F. Soulie).
84 France 111usicale 3/40 (4 October 1840), p. 359. The date of the concert is not given,
but it was clearly late in the season. Escudier had since 1838 been heavily promoting 86 Revue et gazette musicale 4/12 (19 March 1837), 96-98 (J. d'Ortigue).
Thalberg, but never explicitly at Liszt's expense. 87 Revue et gazette musicale 7/33 (26 April 1840), 285-86 (H. Blanchard).
85 Revue et gazelle 111usicnle 7/33 (26 April 1840), 285-86 (H. Blanchard). This praise sounds 88 Franz Liszt: /'artiste, le clerc, ed. J. Vier (Paris, 1950), 54. Schlesinger is probably implied
so forced as to raise the suspicion that Liszt, or one of his advocates, may have solicited in the comment in parentheses. The "bassesse" to which he refers is most likely his
a puff from Bl,rnchard. article criticizing Thalberg's compositions.

54 55
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

The rivalry, therefore, did not cease with the legendary duel, nor with newly recognized as a major compositional talent, nor because he had
the close o� the 1837_ seaso�. Lisz� had to continue to deal with Thalberg's established himself as a man of letters. Furthermore, there is an impor­
effect on his status m Pans, not m the least because the Viennese virtu­ tant sense in which Thalberg's pianistic aesthetic achieved deeper pen­
oso had scored another wave of triumphs in 1838. He first concentrated etration among the Parisian publics: Thalberg's playing, much more
on defeating Thalberg as_ a virtuoso. Under the pretense of responding than Liszt's, became the ideal toward which many young virtuosos
to the trng1c 1838 flood m Budapest, he left from his retreat in Italy and aspired, as well as the conception Parisian audiences most responded
gave a "spontaneous" series of concerts in Vienna in 1838. His letter-­ to. Almost every pianist who made an impression in Paris was seen as
to Marie d' Agoult, however, show that he was watching the lines of a disciple of Thalberg. Theodor Dohler appeared on the scene in 1838,
support in Vienna's �udi�nc:s ve? closely, and �hat he was competing when Thalberg was again in Paris and Liszt in Vienna. La France musi­
more successfully with his nval: A good ma1onty of people have pro­ cale frankly described Dohler as Thalberg's imitator. Dohler not only
no�nced themselves unanimously in my favor. The Ostrogoth has been played like Thalberg, but also apparently had the personal graceful­
qmte relegated to the second rank."89 This observation was confirmed ness of character so central to his appeal. The Gazette musicale attempted
by London's Vienna correspondent: "The effect of his performance at to carve out an independent space for Dohler, and established Liszt,
Vienna has certainly been such as to unseat Thalberg from the throne Thalberg, and Dohler as the "trinity" among pianists. Yet the claim of
o� the piano."9° Finall �, after conf�onting Thalberg on his home ground, Dohler's distinctiveness was made with a conspicuous lack of explana­
Liszt felt able to put him out of his mind as a serious virtuoso rival. tion and detail. The summary statement subtly assimilates him to Thal­
lmmediately after playing in Vienna, Liszt returned to his objective berg: "[he is) above all an elegant melodist and an original harmonist."94
_ The assimilation of Dohler to Thalberg was especially marked during
of producmg a steady wave of music publications in Paris. His letters
�o '."'as�art are urgent: the Grand galop chromatique and Hexameron, he the 1841 season, since Liszt was also part of the Parisian soundscape that
ms1sts m 1838, must be published as soon as possible: season.95
After Dohler the examples multiply. Henri Blanchard and Leon Escud­
Get to it then, so that the same will be dom� in Paris and we don't have to speak ier, in particular, could hardly miss an opportunity to make comparisons
_ _
;i ny more ;ibout th1� unfortunate piece, which many case will not really be pub­ with Thalberg. In 1839 Clara Wieck was described, in Thalberg's absence,
_
lished until I play 1t m Pans. For some years this will be the inevitable misfortune
as "the musical lion of the moment, the feminine Thalberg of the piano."
of all the pieces I write; I call it a misfortune, but it's also an advantage. As J have
told you often before, for me everything is future. But it's not necessary that this
Both Escudier and Fetis associated Emile Prudent, who made a pow­
erful impression in the 1842 season, with the Thalberg school. The lion
�uture be forever put off. /'.1 tw� or three years, my cause will be definitively lost or
,pa11, at least as far as the piano 1s concerned.91 of the 1843 season was Alexander Dreyschock. His playing fell some­
where "between" Thalberg's and Liszt's, but reports from both London
Thi _s is the most explicit articulation
_ we have of Liszt's master plan: and Paris said that the balance tipped in Thalberg's direction. 96 Even
.
he 1s planning a return to Pans around 1840, and its success or failure Charles Kontski, who was once described as a "diabolic pianist," was
depends on the publication of his compositions. In his 1839 letters to credited with "placing himself, by his sure and brilliant style, in the first
Massart he has settled definitively on 1840: "I would like Bernard to rnnk of the school of Thalberg." 97 And who was Mlle. Guenee? "It is
publish [the Album d'un voyageur] next autumn so that my return to Paris
is somewhat prepared."92 Later in the same letter he adds the Hexameron 94 Rem1e el gaze/le 11111sicale 5/16 (22 April 1838), 166-67 (S.).
and the transcriptions of Beethoven's fifth and sixth symphonies: "All 90 Artiste, Ser. 2, No. Vll/16 (1841), 268-69 (A. Specht).
96 Re1•11eet gazette m11sicale 10/4 (22January 1843), 27-29 (H. Blanchard). A London corre­
of tlus ... must appear m the course of this year."93
Did Liszt's master plan succeed? He did make up for ground he had spondent reported: "He is more likeThalberg than Liszt ... His passages in the amorous
and tender style came out ravishingly beilutiful" (Rev11e et gazelle musicale 10/18
lost to Thalberg, especially by the year 1844, when he made his last [30 April 18431, 152). The comment on Clara Wieck is from the Re1,11e et gazette 11111sicale
Parisian appearnnces as a virtuoso. Yet this was not because he was 6/16 (21 April 1839), 125.
97 Frn11ce 11111sicale 2/25 (28 March 1839), 197. This is surely an example of the France
·�N Correspc111rln11ce rlr Liszt et rle Mnrlnme d'Ago11/t, I: 227-28 . 11111sicale's pro-Thalberg propaganda, but it in fact seems closer to the truth than the
� M11siml Wndrl 10/138 (1 November 1838), 134-35. earlier passage. Kontski made his career primarily in aristocratic salons. In a report on
91 V1cr, Frn11z L'1szt, 48-49; a concert at which both he and Liszt played, it is suggested that Liszt appealed to the
. emphasis original. This letter is undated, but is from 1838. His
111structions ilbout the Granrl galop are from il letter dilted 3 June 1838. male public and Kontski to the female, this coded through a contrast between bravos
92 Ibid., 50. 9J Ibid. and bouquets.

56 57
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Thalberg himself who, like a new Tiresias, has become a woman."98 An

1847 overview added to the list of Thalberg disciples almost all the other 2. Virtuosos in the Parisian beau monde: the social significance
major virtuosos of the middle 1840s: Schulhof, Rosenhain, Heller, and of the Liszt-Thalberg contest
Ravina.99 Only rarely was a pianist seen as a disciple of Liszt, and none In the 1830s and 1840s, Parisian audiences and critics were ideally sit­
of them - Louis Messemaeckers, Henri Litolff, and Leopold Meyer- had uated to survey the world of pianism. Paris was the principal city in
the prominence of Dahler, Prudent, or Dreyschock.100 which virtuosos made and sustained their reputations, and even the
It was thus Thalberg who made a deeper mark on his profession, and most established pianists were obliged to make regular visits to pre­
whose aesthetic was being propagated in Paris and the rest of Europe serve their place. Starting in the later 1830s, virtuoso traffic in Paris
during the late 1830s and 1840s. This does not mean that Thalberg was was so heavy that one could count on at least two or three of the most
necessarily more popular or better liked; Thalberg's reputation as a outstanding European performers every concert season. By 1845 the
pianist, in fact, fell steadily in the course of the 1840s. Yet the degree saturation had become so high that the socialite Mme. Girardin could
to which his aesthetic was adopted by other virtuosos strengthened the write: "This week was the week of pianists: each day was designated
sense that he had founded a "school," a theme that had been intro­ for one of their names. Everyone talked only about the piano, quality of
duced by Fetis in 1837, was heavily promoted by the France musicale, sound, style and method: there were quarrels without end."101
and was becoming a commonplace opinion. This gave Thalberg what As Girardin's words suggest, the appearance of so many virtuosos
Liszt had always wanted and never quite achieved: recognition by an made them the subject of fashionable or even learned conversation in
official or semi-official organ in the Parisian musical or artistic estab­ salons. A virtuoso was not just somebody to listen to, but someone to talk
lishment, some kind of permanent foothold to mark his status there, about, a figure around whom people could negotiate style and status.
such as the Legion of Honor or the exclusive support of the Gazette This was especially true when the virtuoso had not yet been heard in
musicale. the city. As Leon Escudier wrote not long after Alexander Dreyschock's
In this examination of the effects of Thalberg's reception on that of arrival:
Liszt, we have seen just how deeply and lastingly Thalberg cut into
Liszt's status as a composer and pianist. Liszt had reserved the years As soon as you walk into a salon you are asked: Have you heard Dreyschock?
before 1840 for transcending, through writing and composing, what he What is he like? Does he have long or short fingers? Is he like Thalberg, or
E. Prudent, or Liszt? Is he big or small? 102
considered his "mere" virtuoso status. Thalberg affected Liszt's Parisian
publics in ways that made it much more difficult for them to accept that It was thus in the forum of salons that the reputation of a virtuoso was
he was in fact achieving this transcendence. Liszt felt this, and made his created, shaped, contested, andpotentially lost. Music journalists, who
anxiety evident in his letters and negotiations with the press. He wanted were not yet professional music critics in the way we understand them
the public to feel he had transcended his virtuoso identity before he went today, picked up the ideas and opinions heard in salon conversation
on his concert tours. As it turned out, he achieved that goal fully only and spread them among the larger public. Only a highly professional
by ending his concert tours and reinventing himself as a composer in organ such as the Gazette musicale could compete with salon conver­
Weimar. sation for authority over general musical opinion. Through this con­
versational activity, each virtuoso developed a "performing identity"
that determined his or her future reception. At one salon, a prominent
98 Revue et gazette musicale 7/2 (5 January 1840), 16-17 (H. Blanchard). judge was heard comparing the Parisian pianists as follows: "At the
99
France musicale 10/ 45 (7 November 1847), 366. piano, Thalberg is a king, Liszt is a prophet, Chopin is a poet, Herz is a
1 00 Litolff had the misfortune of making a major public appearance in 1840, thus com­ judge, Kalkbrenner is a minstrel, Madame Pleyel is a sibyl, Dahler is a
peting with Liszt. The Gazette saw in Litolff a Liszt imitator who simply lacked pianiste."103 The map of pianists was even richer in the early 1830s, when
his artistic completeness. The most obvious point of resemblance was his physi­
cal comportment at the keyboard, for which he, like Liszt, was taken to task in the
Monde musical (December 1840): "Mr. Litolff is a young, talented pianist who unfor­ 101 Delphine Girardin, Oeuvres completes (Paris, 1860), 6 vols., V: 399; journal entry from
tunately has a habit of exerting himself too much in public. What is the point of these 5 May 1845.
rollings of the eye, these turns of the head, these waves of blond hair that cover his 2
10 France musicale 6/7 (12 February 1843), 40-50.
face?" 3 e
10 Girardin, Oeuvres complets, V: 400.

58 59
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

members of the older generation were still around: "We have Bertini, Saint-Honore (old aristocracy with more liberal politics), and the
the dramatic pianist; Liszt, the fantastic pianist; de Kontsky, the diabol­ Chaussee d'Antin (wealthy bourgeoisie).106
ical pianist; Chopin the elegiac; Henri Herz, brilliant and dry; Dahler, The divisions of opinion, taste, and lifestyle within the monde were
clear, limpid, not less brilliant and more inspired; Thalberg the singing substantial, but as a unit they were distinct from the middle bour­
enchanter; Rosenhain's prudent manner ..."104 0
geoisie.1 7 It can even be said that the monde defined itself against the
The oral character of a pianist's reputation needs special emphasis if lack of cultivation and refined manners it perceived in the middle bour­
we are to understand the rivalry of Liszt and Thalberg.Salon conversa­ geoisie.The distinction between the monde and the middle bourgeoisie is
tion was stimulated by comparisons, and the simultaneous presence of important to keep in mind, because the virtuoso phenomenon of the first
the two leading virtuosos in 1837 was bound to become a major affair. half of the nineteenth century straddled the two social spheres. Music
More importantly, the social context of the salon gave such conversations historians have long observed that the rise of popular piano virtuosos
special significance within the beau monde, the world of elite socializing. was connected with the development of an enlarged middle class.108
Both Liszt and Thalberg had a special relationship to the monde - Liszt The prosperity of the middle class led to an explosion in the industries
as a friend of the Parisian romantics, Thalberg as a friend of the legit­ of piano manufacture, sheet music for piano amateurs, and public vir­
irnist aristocrats. This created a complex layering of their performing tuoso concerts.But the multiple ways in which the culture of pianos and
identities with their social affiliations, and it gave the famous virtuoso of piano virtuosos developed out of middle-class economic conditions
contest a competitive subtext in the elite world.Something similar had should not lead us to misread virtuosity as symbolically bourgeois or
occurred forty years previously, when the young Beethoven and Joseph mass-oriented. As James H.Johnson has put it:
Wolff! kicked up some dust in the salons of Vienna. As Tia DeNora
The artist-as-iconoclast is a well-worn cliche of Romanticism, but seldom are
has shown, this pianistic contest became a symbolic battleground for the effects of that image upon the public considered, a public composed of so
different groups within Viennese society, who linked themselves to many stock traders, lawyers, bureaucrats, well-to-do merchants, who wouldn't
the two pianists, and to musical styles, in ways strongly tied to their dare risk dashing clothes or displays of passion. They just might have harbored
social status.105 Liszt and Thalberg were thus not the first performers to a touch of jealous admiration for those who did. 109
engage the link between musical and social politics.
Johnson's emphasis on the disjunction between the virtuoso's projected
image and the self-image of bourgeois listeners is a welcome revision of
The monde after 1830 traditional cliches about Liszt's popular appeal.The appeal of virtuoso
The term "monde" is used here to designate the Parisian elites generally. concerts to the middle bourgeoisie rested significantly on the fleeting
The various factions of the monde were unified by a range of contexts access it gave them to ban ton glamor. And ban ton, in turn, was created by
(salons, balls, opera houses, cafes, etc.) in which their members typi­ the virtuoso's status in the world of high society, transmitted top-down.
cally met, by certain coded patterns of behavior (such as dress, con­ Virtuosos remained, in spite of the social changes that had transformed
versation, applause, consumption), and perhaps most of all by their the musical world, symbolically elite.Their popularity was in this way
possession of financial, political, legal, and intellectual power. During fundamentally different from that of today's popular-music stars, who
the 183Os the members of the monde were described in two rather differ­ if anything derive their appeal from the oppositional relationship to
ent ways. ln one description it consisted of three "aristocracies": the aris­ "legitimate" prestige.
tocracy of birth (nobility), the aristocracy of wealth (primarily bankers
106 Anne Martin-Fugier, l.n viei!li!gante, ou lafor111alio11 du Tout-Paris, 1815-1848 (Paris, 1990),
and merchants), and the aristocracy of talent (artists, men of letters, doc­
107-8. This latter triad conceals the close social relationships that existed between the
tors).In another description the monde consisted of the Faubourg Saint­ Saint-Germain and Saint-Honore groups, which were basically unified in spite of their
Germain (the old aristocracy with ultra-royalist politics), the Faubourg political differences.
107 William Weber, M11sic and the Middle Class (New York, 1975), 7-9.
108 The better among these studies are Arthur Loesser, Men, Women, and Pianos: A Social
104 Revue et gazette 11111sicale 6/28 (7 July 1839), 217-19 (G.-E. Anders). History (New York, 1990 [1958)); Marc Pincherle, Le monde des virtuoses (Paris, 1961),
105 See the chapter "The Beethoven-Wolff) Piano Duel: Aesthetic Debates and Social and Robert Wangermee, "Tradition et innovation dans la virtuosite romantique," Acta
Boundaries," in Tia DeNora, Beethoven and the Constmetion of Geni11s (Berkeley and Musicologica 42 (1970), 5-32.
Los Angeles, 1995). 109 Johnson, Listening in Paris, 268.

60 61
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

I make this point bernuse Liszt and Thalberg have too often been been enough to guarantee him an enthusiastic welcome from the ultras,
interpreted as polar opposites, so that if Thalberg was the "aristoc­ but he was also in possession of a virtuosic style with a clear dilettante
rncy's pianist," Liszt must have been a populist, or the "bourgeoisie's orientation, which made him even more attractive to their class.
pianist." In a comparison of the two pianists, for example, Ralph Locke Thalberg was soon circulating in the Parisian ultra circles. Rudolph
has claimed that Liszt resented the upper classes and willingly allied Apponyi, the secretary to the Austrian embassy and the embassy's main
himself with large public audiences and the working classes. 110 Liszt representative in the monde, paved Thalberg's way into the salons of
did once vaunt his sympathy for the oppressed workers of Lyons, but the Faubourg Saint-Germain. This is significant because the Austrian
he never wanted in any general sense to associate himself with the bour­ embassy had forged a new alliance with the Parisian aristocracy after
geois masses or the general public. Indeed, he made efforts to distance the events of 1830. After the revolution Apponyi was circulating among
himself from the bourgeois public. In the following discussion of Liszt's aristocrats who wished to avoid social events in which they would have
and Thalberg's social connections, it will become evident that the two to mix with the newly empowered bourgeois elites. In 1832, for example,
pianists shared much more social space than is usually acknowledged, the embassy held a concert in self-conscious Restoration style: Rossini
and that it was precisely the proximity of their social spheres that gave held the piano and accompanied the three top singers at the Theatre­
their rivalry such intensity. Italiens, while the leading piano virtuosos of the city were also invited.
Apponyi wrote of his pleasure at the exclusiveness of the affair: "all the
people of the same rank, of the same caste, no mixing, you could greet
Thalberg's social network everyone, something which seems no longer possible in a non-public
From even before the French revolution, aristocrats and wealthy non­ event since the Glorious Days." 112
aristocrnts in Paris had bonded socially into a unified elite and shared Although there is no proof that Apponyi served as Thalberg's pro­
territory in the monde. The revolution of 1830, however, was overwhelm­ tector, it is hard to imagine otherwise in light of the fact that virtuosos
ingly favornble to the bourgeois elite and generated a violent, if tempo­ were typically introduced into Parisian society by their compatriots. In
rary, feeling of hostility between the two groups. The bitter aristocrats addition, Apponyi often went out of his way for Thalberg. He attended
retreated, wishing to distance themselves as much as possible from the the pianist's public debut in 1836 and wrote about it with enthusiasm,
new order, and taking refuge in their newly narrowed sphere. Not all in spite of the fact that he was not fond of public concerts. During the
aristocrats had this reaction; it was mainly those who belonged to the intrigues of 1837, Liszt noted that Apponyi was championing a team
older, higher lines of nobility, and whose legitimist opinions had been of support in Thalberg's favor: "The Apponyis are caballing (that is
left unmodified by the revolution, that most felt a need to retreat. In the the only word for it) for Thalberg and against me." 113 The fact that
ensuing discussion they will therefore be referred to as the "ultras." The Apponyi turned against Liszt in the rivalry is all the more remarkable
socializing habits of the bourgeois elites were less altered by the revo­ because he had been a friend of Liszt from his earliest days in Paris,
lution: they had nothing to lose from continuing to mix with aristocrats and remained benevolent toward him in later years (by facilitating his
and to imitate their manners of socializing. bid for the Legion of Honor). It suggests that taking sides in the Liszt­
The ultras, cut off from the monde and living under a regime that Thalberg rivalry had less to do with musical aesthetics than with social
did little to recognize their noble status, needed new resources for partisanship.
affirming their distinction.It was into this context that Sigismond Thal­ We have seen that the Theatre-Italiens, as the home of the dilettantes,
berg stepped in November 1835. Thalberg was the court pianist in was the perfect setting for Thalberg's vocal aesthetic. His choice of the
Vienna, thus a representative from the most powerful legitimist regime Italiens for his public debut was also ideal for consolidating his affiliation
in Europe.He had been furnished with a noble lineage, and his manners with the aristocracy. For aristocrats, public virtuoso concerts had become
were elegant and unaffected. His appearance, as related by Blanchard, virtually off limits, since one was likely to encounter a mixed, lower­
recalled that of a classical Greek deity: "the blond streaks of his hair, status public. The audience at the ltaliens had always been aristocratic,
softly tossed to one side of his head ... the rose tints of his smooth and
fresh cheeks." 111 These aspects of Thalberg's persona alone would have 112 Rudolph Apponyi, Jo11rnal. Vingt-cinq 1111s ii Paris (1826-50) (Paris, 1914), 3 vols., I: 305.
The Austrian embassy preserved its exclusiveness partly by its refusal to recognize
11'' TIit' Enrl Ro111n11fir Em, ed. Alexander Ringer (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990), 67ff. titles conferred during the empire.
y
111 RcPII<' ,•/ sazrtte 11111sicalr 3/22 (29 May 1836), 180 (Ed. M.). 113 Correspondance de Liszt et de Madame d'Ago11/t, I: 198.

62 63
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

but after 1830 the theatre's importance for the aristocracy was magni­ 18
types of occasions, especially for the sake of charity. 1 Ferdinand Hiller
fied because it was one of the few venues where audiences had not featured him at his music soirees, where the musical elite of Paris gath­
become substantially mixed.114 This was perhaps the one public space 19
er ed and where Liszt had often appeared. 1 Finally and most signifi­
in Paris where an aristocrat, especially an ultra, could still feel com­ ca ntly, he made several appearances at the salon of Mme. Girardin, a
pletely at home. Thalberg chose the Conservatoire for his 1837 benefit literary salon, at the very height of the rivalry with Liszt.120 These activ­
solely because he wanted his concert to be on the same date as Liszt's, ities suggest that, although Thalberg had a definite alignment with the
and the Theatre-Italiens was not available. The relatively small size and ultras, he hardly closed his doors to other social affiliations.
elite status of the Conservatoire made it the best alternative for his ultra
fans.
Liszt's aristocratic connections
Two of the journals that enthused over Thalberg, the Abeille musi­
cale and the Gazette des salons, were aristocratic in tone. Both focused IfThalberg was claimed symbolically by the high aristocrats, what social
their reporting on private salons, turning their eyes away from the Jess group claimed Liszt? In an obvious way, Liszt became the token virtuoso
exclusive spheres of socializing. It is unlikely that their readers included of the world of letters-the "aristocracy of talent." 121 In the public concert
many aristocrats; the editors were probably trying to make their product spaces of Paris, the artists, literati, and musicians made their presence
attractive by offering a slice of bon ton to those who did not have direct most felt at the Conservatoire, both at the famous subscription concerts
access to it. Nevertheless, it is a sign of Thalberg's association with the and at Berlioz's "appendixes" to the series. Liszt only performed once
aristocracy that he was given special attention in these journals. The at the Conservatoire Concerts, but he was associated with the Conser­
Gazette des salons was unusual in covering Thalberg's activities in high vatoire and its artiste public by conduit of Berlioz. In the 1835 season,
society: his appearances at the court, his playing and behavior in private just before he left Paris, Liszt had effectively declared his alliance with
soirees, and even an anecdote about a princess who sought piano lessons the young composer before the Parisian public. Not only did he play in
from him. The journal was an early and passionate Thalberg advocate, Berlioz's benefit concerts of December and May, but he also played parts
describing him on several occasions as superior to all other pianists. 115 of the Symphonie Jantastique and the newly written Lelia fantasy at his
In response to Liszt's article on Thalberg's compositions, it published own concerts. Berlioz became from this point forward an important insti­
three harshly critical articles on Liszt as a person, as a composer, and as tutional support for Liszt. Not only did he continually praise Liszt in the
a pianist, respectively. 116 press, but he also made Liszt a regular guest of honor at his self-mounted
Although information on Thalberg's private appearances is scarce, orchestra concerts. The Conservatoire thus became a forum in which
we know that they were not exclusively concentrated in the salons of Liszt could make public appearances and preserve his alignment with
ultras. In 1836 he was the featured artist on a concert at the home of a Paris artiste. Liszt's symbolic association with the Conservatoire was
music pedagogue, certainly a low-status event.117 Another journal from by 1837 strong enough to have become material for a satirical article.1 22
the same season praised his willingness to lend his talents on various Liszt's public at the Salle Erard also included many artists. The literati
were in force at his last benefit concert of the 1837 season - a crucial
114 moment in the public eye, since it took place soon after the duel: "it
The new bourgeoisie had plenty to keep itself occupied at the new Opera. Louis Veron,
who was admittedly prone to exaggeration, said that the high aristocracy "fled" to was among all the poets, all the intelligent writers, all the famous and
the Theatre-ltaliens (Geraldine de Courcy, Paganini tlte Genocse [Norman, OK, 1957]. eminent men, all the elegant and enthusiastic women contained within
2 vols., II: 10-12). the capital, that Liszt made his farewell to the public."123 His audience
115 Gazette des salons, 22 February 1836. In this article there appears for the first time the was described in almost identical terms at a Salle Erard appearance three
idea that would precipitate the rivalry with Liszt: "when one has heard Thalberg, one years later: "a small audience composed of his friends, which made a
can say, without fear of being wrong, that he's the best [premier) of them all." It should
be pointed out that both the Gazelle des salons and the Abeille musicale were small­ very large group assembled in the Erard salons. In the middle of the
scale publications whose content was fo r the most part controlled by a single editor.
Their advocacy of Thalberg thus amounted to the favoritism of two individuals, who 118 Abeille musicale, March 1836, 3. 1 19 Europa (1836/2), 333.
may have been motivated by a desire to sell Thalberg's sheet music. This does not 120 La presse, 10 April 1837.
change the fact that the journals served as a channel for the dissemination of Thalberg 121 Liszt's relations with the literati are thoroughly explored in Leon Guichard, "Liszt et la
advocacy among the public. litterature fran,;:aise," Revue de musicologie 1 (1970), 5-34, and in Therese Marix-Spire,
116 Gazelle des salons, 18 January, 25 January, and 8 February 1837. Les romantiques et La n111siq11e: le cas George Sand (Paris, 1954).
117 Gazette des salons (1836), 188-90. 122 1 23 Le monde, 10 April 1837.
Gaulle des salons, 18 January 1837.

64 65
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

most intelligent and most beautiful women, the celebrities of the day, was circulating almost exclusively with the Faubourg Saint-Germain.127
perfumes and flowers, Liszt played five pieces all himself." 124 In 1833, Liszt was playing regularly to a small company at the house of
In both of these passages Liszt's public is represented as a combi­ Marqui se Le Vayer of the Faubourg Saint-Germain, and it is there that he
nation of literati and aristocratic women. Liszt's symbolic affiliation met Marie d' Agoult, also of Saint-Germain caste. Whatever sympathy
with aristocrats was, indeed, equally as strong as his affiliation with Liszt felt for the revolution, then, it did not keep him from visiting or
Paris artiste. It is even arguable that aristocrats, by their greater number perfo rming in aristocratic salons.
and more stable position in social life, constituted his main affiliation. In the early 1830s Liszt was developing a new channel of access to the
Delphine Girardin, writing in 1844, noted that Liszt's concert attracted a toc rats. Where he previously networked with them as an in-demand
ris
an outstandingly elite crowd: piano teacher, he was now emerging as a �igure in inte�lectual and liter­
It is important to point out that there were many attractive women the other day ary society. This was not an easy e� try, smce some anstoc_r�ts, most of
at Liszt's concert. All circles [tous /es mondes] and all nations came together there; them ultras, bore an aversion to artists. Rudolph Appony1 1s an exam­
each society was represented by its famous beauty. This soiree was wonderful. ple. He was revolted upon encountering Liszt and other artistic com­
Fashion is not inconstant as some say; since his childhood, Liszt has been its pany at a salon of Cristina Belgiojoso in 1836: "I was so astonished and
favorite. It admired him then by calling him the little Liszt, now it admires him dumbf ounded by all these. extravagances
.
surrounding me that I could
8
in proclaiming him the great Liszt. That cannot be called a change. All the rivals scarcely start a conversation . .. m the end one p1·t·1es her. "12 Mane ·
that were supposed to have challenged him have only confirmed his glory. 125 d'Agoult remembered hearing the same prejudice against artists from
a member of the Le Vayer family: "Her relative, a discreet and sober­
If Liszt's aristocratic support had undergone a significant change dur­
minded man, ventured a few remarks on the eccentricities of artists and
ing the thirties, Girardin would have been the first to notice it, since she
the inconvenience of admitting them to one's home on an equal footing.
was one of the most astute social observers of her time. What stood out
These observations displeased me, and I was grateful to the Marquise
for her was the long-term continuity of Liszt's social affiliation. That 9
for ignoring them." 12 Yet aristocrats had much to gain from cultivating
she is talking specifically about the aristocratic public here is evident
relationships with artists. An alliance between the "aristocracy of birth"
not only from the mention of Liszt's Restoration public (who called him
and the "aristocracy of talent" reached back into the 1820s, when the
"le petit Litzi"), but also from her mention of the various nations rep­
latter had emerged as an independent social group. The bond was pos­
resented, a sign that this audience was the international, cosmopolitan
sible in spite of their ideological differences because artists possessed
elite of Paris, the highest of the aristocrats. The fact that both of Liszt's
the qualities of intelligence and verbal brilliance - esprit - that were
benefit concerts of 1844 were held at the Theatre-Italiens strengthened
so central to the self-definition of the aristocracy. As the examples of
his symbolic association with the aristocracy, since that theatre was still
Belgiojoso and Le Vayer suggest, most of the aristocrats who linked
aristocrat-identified. themselves with artistic circles were women. It was they who presided
Liszt kept up his appearances in aristocratic salons throughout his
over the salons, and because men were more likely to center their con­
career. Henry Chorley marveled at "his unsparing prodigality of his versation on politics, male aristocrats and artists did not easily come to
talent in private society," implying not only the number of salon perfor­ terms.
mances but also his lively participation in salon conversation. 126 Liszt There was a group of younger aristocratic women who responded
had played regularly at the Apponyis' private concerts before the revo­ to the 1830 revolution creatively by opening up their salons to non­
lution, and was still appearing there after the revolution, when Apponyi aristocrats and artists, Marie d'Agoult among them.130 The main dif­
ference with pre-1830 times was that the artists were received as equal
124 Artiste, Ser. 2, No. V /18 (1840), p. 316. The aristocratic tone of the Erard salons was
casually mentioned in France m11sica/e 1 /2 (7 January 1838), 3: "salons aristocratiques 127 Apponyi recorded two embassy concerts at which Liszt appeared in 1832.
de M. Erard." 128 Apponyi, Journal, III: 265; entry from 8 June 1836.
125
Girardin, Oeuvres co111pletes, V: 269; journal entry from 20 A pril 1844. 129 Agoult, Comtesse d', Memoires 1833-1854, ed. D. Ollivier (Paris, 1927); quoted in Por­
126 Chorley, Music and Manners, III: 43. It is possible that Chorley's impression is derived trait of Liszt: by Himself and his Contemporaries, ed. A drian Williams (Oxford, 1990), 56.
specifically from Liszt's visits to London, when he dabbled in dandyism. He spent In addition, the aristocrats who lorded over the prestigious Jockey Club showed their
much time in the company of the Comte d'Orsay, who virtualJy defined the dandy aversion to artists by refusing admittance to even the most admired men of letters. See
style, and Lady Blessington, who played a major leadership role in the elite social life Martin-Fugier, l.n vie elegante, 366.
of London. 130 Jacques Boulenger, Sous l..o11is-Philippe: /es dandys (Paris, 1932), 190ff.

66 67
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

p<1rticipants among the regul<1r aristocratic salon company. One such were both, in rather different ways, "pianists of the aristocracy." They
woman who_ had Liszt as a guest was the Duchess of Rauzan (again were "the two great names that share the admiration and the applause
_
Faubourg Samt-Germam)_Bl Rauzan, continuing a practice initiated by of the musirnl world of salons."134
her mother (the Duchess of Duras) during the Restoration, reserved her Liszt did not, of course, only play to aristocrats and artists. He was
afternoon salons for conversations with prominent men of letters.132 also part of the world of public concerts, especially from the year 1833,
She val �led conversing_ with arti�ts because philosophical and literary and was therefore playing for middle bourgeois listeners as well. Yet
_ he seems to have assiduously avoided the bourgeois-identified world
d1scuss1on helped cultivate esprit and thereby reaffirm her social dis­
tinction. That Liszt possessed the quality of esprit in abundance was of public concerts at this time. As noted earlier, he did not offer even
undoubtedly the reason he was invited to Rauzan's salon; he did not a single concert for his own benefit between 1828 and 1835, although
1�ecessarily make any music there. Thus, while Liszt was clearly identi­ he fulfilled his obligations to other musicians by participating in theirs.
fied as a member of the artistic elite, this identity kept him much closer Had he given concerts, he would undoubtedly have had the choice of
to the aristocratic world than to the world of the bourgeois elite. As an the best musicians and attracted full houses, but he preferred not to.
artist he was especially valued by that part of the aristocracy that took Furthermore, Liszt did not take ad vantage of his virtuoso popularity to
advantage of artists to reinforce social prestige, rather than shying away exploit the sheet-music market, an extraordinary choice given the con­
from them as a threat. ventions of the day. Pianists such as Kalkbrenner and Herz had become
For further evidence of Liszt's social proximity to the aristocracy we favorites of the bourgeois audiences largely through the momentum
need l�ok no further t!1an his notorious supporter Cristina Belgiojoso. of sheet-music publishing. In these ways Liszt prevented himself from
The pnnce�s was to Liszt what Apponyi was to Thalberg: a symbolic being claimed by the bourgeois public. He kept his social networks and
r:presentat'.ve �n the monde, a protector and champion. With the excep­ activities thoroughly elite.
tion of Mane d Agoult, she was Liszt's closest and most faithful friend Liszt shared with his romantic colleagues, notably Berlioz, a contempt
in Parisian high society. Liszt made many musical appearances at her for the bad taste of the bourgeoisie, and this is reflected in some of
salons, and he seems to have spent time with her whenever he was his concert practices. 135 He tried to siphon out the middle bourgeoisie
in Paris. Belgiojoso's society was that of the Faubourg Saint-Honore - with high ticket prices. In 1837 he was heavily criticized for char�ing
aristocrats with a more liberal political orientation than their Saint­ a barely affordable twelve francs for his chamber-music concerts.L 6 In
Germain counterparts. Differences between the two aristocratic quar­ 1840, upon his long-prepared return to Paris, he avoided the larger pub­
ters, however, remained minimal, and they mixed with little conflict.13-1 lic altogether by giving only private concerts. In 1841 he returned to the
public, but announced a ticket price of twenty francs. The price was so
!he fact that th: Belgioj_osos _had fought passionately against the legit­
imacy of Austnan rule m Milan, for example, or that the princess had high that Schlesinger reproached hin1 in the pages of the Gazette and
many left-leaning intellectual guests in her salon, did not prevent them suggested that he lower it, an act that cost him Liszt's friendship.137
from cfrcul�ting primarily among the highest aristocratic society. The His 1841 appearances at the Erard salons were by invitation only, an
_ unprecedented practice there. Finally, he capped off his Parisian career
Belg101osos status as members of the nobility was more important,
as far as their position in the monde is concerned, than their political
views. lJ4 France 11111sicale3/ 40 (4 October 1840), 359-60 (Escudier).Jennifer Hall has made a simi­
lar argument with regard to London's opera houses in this time period. She shows that
Aristocratic socie�y, in_ sum, had two different social tendencies. Many
Covent Garden was pitted against Her Majesty's T heatre as bourgeois vs. aristocratic,
of them found traffic with artists uncomfortable if not disturbing, but even by critics who probably knew it was an exaggeration.The audiences at the two
othe�s �ought out their company, whether because of shared political theatres are much more accurately described,she shows, as different segments of the
c�nv'.ct1ons or for the sake of cultivating esprit. It is along this social aristocracy. See Hall, 'The Re-fashioning of Fashionable Society," 384-403.Together
_
d1v1s1on - very far from an aristocrat-bourgeois dichotomy - that the with recent work by William Weber,Simon McVeigh,Tia DiNora,and others,there has
emerged a strong sense of the continuing power of aristocrats in the musical life of the
respective social affiliations of Liszt and Thalberg should be understood.
period 1780-1840,and correspondingly, a revision of the notion that the bourgeoisie
And although it was a division, it was a difference of degree that did assertively and abruptly appropriated that power.
not subst<1nti<1l1y affect the unity of the aristocracy. Liszt and Thalberg 135 For Berlioz's anti-bourgeois attitude, see The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz, trans. David
Cairns (London,1969), 271,286.
111 Serge Gut,Franz Liszt (Paris, 1989), 35. 136 Gazelle des salons, 8 February 1837.
132 Martin-Fugier, Ln vie elegante, 92.
137 The details of this affair are related in Bellas, "Tumultueuse amitie."
111 Boulenger, Sn11s l..o11is-Plrilippe,190ff.

68 69
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

in 1844 at the Theatre-Italiens, which had not at all lost its aristocratic
identification. Charity and social reconciliation
Liszt was not entirely unwilling to play for mixed audiences, but it The Parisian beau monde had its internal divisions, but these factions
had to be on terms that set him apart from the "usual" virtuoso. In May were not supposed to come into conflict over musical issues. Music,
1835 he was the featured artist in a concert celebrating the opening of the as a non-verbal and non-representational art, was valued as a force
Gymnase musical. The Gymnase was the first hall in Paris built for the of reconciliation among the divergent political opinions within the
purpose of public concerts. It was conceived as a democratic, bourgeois elite world. Recalling the politically and socially mixed salons of the
answer to the Conservatoire Concerts. Its series would feature works by 1830s, Virginie An�elot thus wrote: "We saw the adversaries gathered
the classical masters and therefore carry special prestige, but the ticket together under the charm of the harmonious improvisations of Chopin
prices and availability of seats would not be so exclusive.138 According to and the irresistible voice of M. Duprez." 142 It is because music played
Liszt, the middlebrow social profile of the Gymnase had turned Thal berg such an important role in healing social divisions that Liszt's article on
off: "he does not yet know where he will give his concert. It seems Thalberg's compositions caused so much trouble. Liszt had insulted not
that the Gymnase musical is not aristocratic enough for him." 139 Liszt only his rival but the entire Parisian monde, which had lionized Thalberg
was willing to play for the larger audiences as long as he could do the previous season. In the years after 1830, social cohesion was fragile
so as artist and educator, and not in "the role of public amuser," as enough without such provocations.
he once put it. 140 In keeping with this principle, he consecrated the It is therefore not surprising that no one but Liszt himself defended the
Gymnase with the one major "classical" work in his repertory, Weber's article. Several journals that normally kept relatively quiet on musical
Konzertstuck. matters raised their voices against him, and nearly all of these reproaches
This discussion of Liszt's social connections and concertizing practices ignored the musical substance of Liszt's critique. Their argument with
shows that his reputation as a "popular" virtuoso, turning away the Liszt was moral and social, not aesthetic. In the weeks immediately fol­
upper classes and allying himself with the large public, is misleading, lowing the appearance of the article, a dark cloud o! social disharmony
at least in relation to Paris.141 His social profile was consistently and descended upon the beau monde. At the salon of Emile Zimmerman,
deliberately elite, and he took measures to ensure that it remained that Thalberg played with Liszt in the audience. One listener was disturbed
way. In private society he circulated among literati and aristocrats, and it by the tense air that resulted from the simultaneous presence of the two
was these two groups, themselves forming something of an alliance, that virtuosos: they seemed to avoid each other "instead of mutually appreci­
"claimed" him for their own interests. For this reason the Liszt-Thalberg ating each other and offering a fraternal hand, as these two young artists
contest could not have been socially coded along a bourgeois/ aristocrat should." 143 The same person explicitly pointed his finger at Liszt's arti­
axis, as has often been implied. The contest did have an important social cle as the cause of the problem.
meaning, but it was precisely because Thalberg and Liszt occupied a The article also had the effect of making people take sides who nor­
common territory within the monde. Having established this, we are now mally would have supported both virtuosos. Rudolph Apponyi had
in a position to examine the social thematics of history's most famous been on good terms with Liszt but suddenly made himself an exclusive
musical contest. Thalberg supporter, and was using his power in the monde to turn others
against Liszt. Fetis, never an enemy of Liszt, was motivated to exagger­
ate Thalberg's superiority. The most interesting case of partisanship is
138 Weber, Music and the Middle Class, 99-100. that of Delphine and Emile Girardin. The Wednesday-evening salons
139 Correspondance de Liszt et de Madame d'Agoult, I: 191. at the Girardin residence had immense prestige in the monde, and they
14o Ibid., I: 194. were exactly the kind of event at which Liszt might have been welcome.
141 It is of course true that Liszt resented the low status some aristocrats accorded to Featuring music and dramatic readings, they were frequented by aris­
musicians, but this did not give over into a general resentment toward the aristocracy. tocrats and the most famous men of letters. Liszt was in fact a favorite
Caroline Boissier wrote, to the contrary, that "he sees the savants, the celebrated men
of letters, the artists, the fashionable women, and talks about it all in the most piquant
manner, claiming that society offers him a thousand different ways of enriching and
developing his art" (La Comtesse Agenor de Gasparin et sa Jami/le: Correspondance el 142 Virginie An�elot, Les salons de Paris (Paris, 1858), 245.
souvenirs 181�1894 [Paris, 19021, 2 vols., II: 199; quoted in Portrait of Liszt, 50). 143 Menestrel 4/12 (19 February 1837).

70 71
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

guest of the Girardins in later years. 144 Yet it was Thalberg whom they In the long run, Liszt's reputation was apparently more harmed by
featured in 1837, inviting him for several salon appearances at the peak his article than Thalberg.Tickets to his four Beethoven-centered soirees
of the rivalry with Liszt. The fact that the Girardins were one-sidedly of chamber music did not sell well, perhaps also because of the high
prices. Thalberg was confident enough of his greater public support
in favor of Thalberg is evident from the appearance in their newspa­ 151
per, La presse, of the strongest anti-Liszt and pro-Thalberg polemic of to schedule his benefit concert for the same day as Liszt's, even though
the season. This article makes it clear that Liszt's article, now months it meant he would not be able to play at his favorite hall, the Italiens.
old, was still considered the origin of the debates: "M. Liszt was wrong Evidently recognizing the severity of the competition, Liszt responded
to publish in the Gazette musicale an excessively critical article against by postponing his benefit one week. His choice to play his benefit at
his rival M. Thalberg, a man of superior talent."145 These words were the Opera has always been interpreted as a bold gesture, "outdoing"
penned by Frederic Soulie, a man of letters: Liszt had even estranged Thalberg by venturing a much larger concert space. But upon closer
members of his own social network.146 inspection, it turns out to have been a safe choice, and a brilliant piece
The pro-Thalberg faction, then, was anchored in the elite world. The of damage control. It was quite unlike Liszt to schedule a concert at
pro-Liszt faction, from what we can tell, consisted primarily of profes­ the intermission of a ballet performance, as he did on 19 March. Yet by
sional musicians, and was thus situated outside the beau monde proper. choosing the Opera he was assured of a large audience, for the extremely
While Thalberg was appearing at the Girardin salons, Liszt was appear­ popular celebrity dancer Maria Taglioni would be performing that
ing at benefit concerts of Labarre, Massart, Batta, and Geraldy- Iocal vir­ evening.
tuosos all -and apparently not in the salons. His one exclusive supporter In order to understand the social thematics of the Liszt-Thalberg con­
in the press, Berlioz, represented the younger musicians' establishment cert it is essential to acknowledge its charity function. The concert closed
and had a relatively weak influence in the monde. 147 Liszt had courted the off a three-day event initiated by Cristina Belgiojoso for the benefit of
Parisian musicians in February by featuring Beethoven's chamber music the Italian refugees in Paris. Walker dismisses the charitable significance
in a series of four concerts, and Schlesinger helped promote the concerts of the event: "Shrewdly observing the mounting tension between the
among the musically educated readership of the Gazette by publishing Liszt and Thalberg factions, she invited both pianists to play in her
regular, positive reports. 148 Liszt attempted to elicit additional support home, together with other artists, in aid of the Italian refugees. Every­
152
within the left-wing faction of the monde by means of the liberal press - body in Paris saw through this piece of diplomatic bluff." According
Le temps, the Journal des debats, and Le monde -but among them only Le to Walker the real motivation for the concert was a public hungry for
monde took a decidedly partisan approach in his favor.149 Liszt was on a virtuoso confrontation: "So fierce was the demand to see Liszt and
good terms with the editors of Le monde because of his friendship with Thalberg 'take turns' that the princess was able to charge 40 francs a
its editor-in-chief, Alphonse de Lamartine. It is thus not surprising that ticket." 153 If the concert was as charged with competitive significance
the most significant pro-Liszt and anti-Thalberg article of the season, as Walker suggests, why were many newspapers and journals unin­
signed by Louis de Ronchaud, appeared there. 150 terested in the contest itself? The Constitutionnel mentioned that Liszt
and Thalberg played but said nothing in relation to their rivalry; the
Journal de Paris did not even mention the musical portion of the charity
144 This is evident in an 1844 caricature of the Girardin salon (Robert Bory, Ln vie de Franz events; and Girardin reported with a yawn in La presse: "a fashionable
1
Liszt par /'image [Geneva, 1936], 122). Delphine Girardin was also publishing positive soiree but rather cold .. . too expensive." 54 These and other reports
reports on Liszt in Ln presse during the 1844 season.
145 Ln presse, 10 April 1837.
do mention, however, the fund-raising sale and the huge sum of money
146 Liszt had only one exclusive supporter in the press: Berlioz. Liszt's delicate man­ brought in for the sake of the Italian refugees. The charity function of the
agement of the rivalry in the press is evident in his correspondence with d' Agoult concert was neither unnoticed nor irrelevant to the rivalry of Liszt and
(Correspondance de Liszt et de Madame d'Ago11/t, I: 183ff.). Thalberg.
147 The key article Berlioz contributed to the rivalry appeared in the Chro11iq11e de Paris on

19 March, the day of his concert at the Opera.

148
Liszt wrote to d'Agoult that "Schlesinger is also going a little bit out of the way for
me" (Correspondance de Liszt el de Mme. d'Ago11/t, I: 183). 151
Ellis, Music Criticism, 151. The bad ticket sales might also have motivated Berlioz's
149 Liszt's dealings with the press are described in his correspondence with Marie
puffs in the Gazelle.
152 103 Ibid., I: 239.
d' Agoult (Correspondance de Liszt et de Madame d'Agoult, I: 182ff.). Walker, Franz Liszt, I: 238.
150 Bernard Gavoty, Liszt: le virt11ose (Paris, 1980), 183. 154 Constit11tion11el, 2 April 1837; Journal de Paris, 2 April 1837; Ln presse, 6 April 1837.

72 73
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Charity events were numerous and highly important to the self­ The next pair of names, Thiers and Berryer, forms a similar opposition.
justification of the Parisian monde. Almost any disaster that came to Adolphe Thiers, minister of foreign affairs and chief of the government
their attention could become an occasion for a charity ball, concert, between 1836 and 1840, symbolized the liberal direction of the Juste
or drama_�ic reading among the elites, usually initiated by aristocratic Milieu government. Pierre-Antoine Berryer, on the other hand, was a
women. 1'""' Philanthropy was an aristocratic tradition practiced partly legitimist lawyer and an orator whose extraordinary eloquence made
to show that financial privilege did not ruin their moral sensibility.It him the chief spokesman for Iegitimist politics, both in and outside the
gave them a sense of moral distinction and portrayed the elites -always chambers.
in danger of being considered useless - as a socially productive force. Janin thus strove to paint the contest as a peaceful and affirmative
Charity was thus heavily loaded with social significance: "To practice meeting of the two diverging political factions in Paris.But his picture
philanthropy was to legitimate oneself as a member of the directing smacks of idealization. Girardin's comment that the concert was "rather
class." 150 The attraction of the concert, then, did not consist in the rivalry cold" suggests that there was not much social warmth in the audience.
of Liszt and Thalberg alone.Belgiojoso was able to charge forty francs The word "cold" was standard vocabulary for describing the tone of
per ticket partly because charity was legitimating to the members of social settings in which strong political rivals met.161 Janin may also
the 111011de. ff we recall that Schlesinger, a few years later, reproached have been idealizing when he reported that the audience applauded the
Liszt for charging twenty francs for a public concert, we get a sense of virtuosos in the "same admiration and same sympathy." For according
just how exclusive the audience must have been. The contest was an to another report, the applause was indeed equal, but only because
event of unusually high status and relatively low public profile.157 In half the audience applauded for Liszt and the other half for Thalberg,
the ben11 monde, musical events functioned like charity events, bridg­ meaning the audience remained divided.61 2Janin presents a rosy picture
ing political divisions and reaffirming the fundamental unity of the of the event not as a reporter, but to fulfill the uplifting requirements of
elites as a cultural and political leadership. The charitable significance thefeuilleton genre.
of Belgiojoso's concert was thus the perfect setting in which to resolve The setting of the concert in Belgiojoso's salon gave Liszt a significant
the social disharmony that had emerged from the rivalry of the two home field advantage. This important fact was noted in a useful article
virtuosos. from the journal Vert-vert:
This is probably how Belgiojoso envisioned the concert, and Jules The applause was frenetic for both of them ... It is hard to say which way the
Janin helped her out with his press report: "In this brilliant crowd were balance tipped. One part of the public preferred Mr.Liszt, the rest of the audience
mixed, in the same admiration and same sympathy, M.and Mme.Apponyi, pronounced itself in favor of Thalberg, so that there was an equal division of
Mme. the Duchess of Sutherland .. . M.Thiers, M. Berryer, Mme.de bravos ... We would note here, however, that if the advantage was to one side,
Mouchy, all the opinions that divide the monde, and who reunited on it was that of Thalberg, who might not have expected such a great favor from
this neutral territory of philanthropy and benevolence."158 A close look an audience composed almost entirely of exclusive admirers of Liszt. 163
at this list of attendees shows thatJanin is deliberately pointing up oppo­ The princess's regular salon company was composed of literary and
sitions.The Apponyis represented the Austrian embassy; the Duchess intellectual figures, including Liszt, and as a close friend she may have
of Sutherland the English embassy.159 Since the events of 1830 these two been able to arrange that the audience be favorable to Liszt.Belgiojoso
embassies, the most important in Paris, had been politically opposed: was in fact credited with the famous bon mot that spread the rumor
"The two great embassies had separated political colors: at the Aus­ of Liszt's triumph over his rival: "Thalberg est le premier pianiste du
trian the legitimists, at the English sympathizers of the new regime."160 monde, Liszt est le seul." But she admitted to Liszt a few years later, as if
to retract the phrase, that she had been unfairly biased against Thalberg:
1
" M;irtin-Fugier, Ln 11ie elegnnle, 162.
100 Ibid., 155. "I often tell myself that I was unjust with regard to Thalberg, and that
my admiration for you muddled my judgment."164 Furthermore, the
1'7 The concert received far less coverage in newspapers than, for example, Liszt's four
chamber-music soirees. The concert and the baza11r were covered more fully in peri­
nd 1cals targeted at exclusive readerships. 161
1'R /011mnl dl'F di'lmls, 2 April 1837; emphasis added. Apponyi once described the salons of the Comtesse de Segur, famous for their mixed
1 '" The Duchess of Sutherland was the niece of Lady Granville, wife of the English ambas­ attendees, as "horribly cold" (quoted in ibid., 185; journal entry dated 9 March 1836).
162 Vert-vcrt 1 April 1837.
, 163 Ibid.
sador and the keeper of the Granvilles' position in the Parisian world. 164 A11/011r de Madame d'Agoult el de Liszt, 184; letter dated 9 November 1841.
lr"l Martin-Fugier, Lil 1>ic eleganle, 153.

74 75
 The Virtuoso Liszt Liszt, Thalberg, and the Parisian publics

Vert-vert passage confirms that Belgiojoso may not have been speaking intellectual and political elites of Paris, who remained the city's cultural
for the opinion of the audience as a whole when she uttered her ban mot. trendsetters. By offering up his poor opinion ofThalberg's compositions
If the concert did not entirely succeed in its purpose of achieving social in print, Liszt styled himself as a public intellectual and hence claimed
reconciliation, then, it may be because the setting was heavily weighted his place among those elites. From that point forward, he was not just
in Liszt's favor. a pawn in a struggle for social power, but an active contributor to that
Belgiojoso's concert, in sum, invoked charity in order to heal a social struggle.
wound that Liszt had inflicted in the beau monde with his article on
Thalberg. The mixed and unusually exclusive composition of the audi­
ence gave the event great potential as a symbolic affirmation of the unity
of the elites. Yet the concert did not close the social infighting, and neither
did it mark the end of the virtuoso rivalry. Most press debates over the
two pianists, including the heated exchanges between Liszt and Fetis,
were waged after the famous duel took place. Liszt and Thalberg incar­
nated virtuoso identities of such a pronounced individuality that even
the pressing needs of elite social power could not find between them a
common ground.

Musicians and writers have often had a difficult time taking the virtuoso
Liszt seriously. If he famously rode the line between the sublime and
the ridiculous, we tend to opt for the ridiculous. We seem to be more
convinced by the rollicking caricatures than by the proud, ennobling
portraits, and we balk at the extreme virtuosity or inflated rhetoric of
those interminable opera fantasies. Audiences who heard Liszt during
his concert career were evidently of a different frame of mind. They
not only accepted but vociferously affirmed his seriousness and ideal­
ism. There exists, then, a basic historical disconnection between how
Liszt appears to us today and how he appeared to his contemporaries.
Something in the fabric of social life made figures like Liszt orThalberg
richer and more meaningful to their contemporaries than we can easily
imagine.
In this chapter I have attempted to restore some of this social dimen­
sion to Liszt and his pianistic style. The Liszt-Thalberg contest needs
such treatment because it has always been imagined in the preferred
humorous vein. It circulates popularly as a sensational, appealingly
trashy episode in which Liszt briefly steps away from his utopian pulpit
and enters the earthy terrain of professional competition and personal
jealousy. I have argued here that the contest was neither so isolated nor so
insulated an event. Each pianist's musical style and social network estab­
lished a particular position for him within a fractured Parisian world,
so that an apparent instance of musical gamesmanship became infil­
trated with aesthetic and social competition. Liszt's career predates the
full development of mass culture in important respects, and he is often
misunderstood as the pianist of the homogeneous bourgeois masses.
As the rivalry shows, his reputation derived from his nearness to the

76 77