Frey nach dem

Franzosischen bearbeitet:

Fidelio and the Viennese

Vogue for Opera-comique,

1802–1805

MICHAEL C. TUSA

The importance of Revolutionary-era opera-comi-que for the origin and conception of Beethoven’s Fidelio has been wellestablished. Inspired by what he called the light of the sensible and cleverFrench operas (das Licht der gescheiden und Sinnigen franzosischenOpern [original emphasis]) that had come to dominate the repertoriesof the Court Theater and the Theater an der Wien since 1802, Beethovenabandoned his work on Emanuel Schikaneder’s libretto for Vestas Feuerby the start of 1804 and turned instead to J. N. Bouilly’s Leonore ouL’amour conjugal (1798), which he had Joseph Sonnleithner adapt forhis own use.1 Furthermore, while working on his first opera, Beethovencopied out at least two passages from Cherubini’s Les deux journees, one ofthe most beloved operas in the Viennese repertory.2

Yet studies of Fidelio have paid little attention to the Viennese pro-ductions of French opera that earned Beethoven’s admiration. Theseproductions did not present the original versions. Instead, Vienneseaudiences witnessed German-language adaptations, generally prepared

1 Beethoven’s letter of 4 January 1804 to Friedrich Rochlitz in Ludwig van Beethoven,Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Munich: G Henle, 1996), 1:205,letter no. 176. Throughout the essay all English translations are my own.

2 The extracts from Les deux journees, drawn from the act 1 trio and the act 2 finale, arewritten on leaves that also contain sketches for Leonore and extracts from Die Zauberflote(D-BNba [Beethoven-Haus, Forschungszentrum Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn], Sammlung H.C. Bodmer, HCB BSk 17/65a).

498

The Journal of Musicology, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 498–534, ISSN 0277-9269, electronic ISSN 1533-8347. © 2018by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissionto photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permis-sions web page, www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/JM.2018.35.4.498

from published French scores and libretti. Beyond translating the text,the poets and musicians in the Viennese theaters typically made changes,sometimes quite radical, in the spoken dialogue and music to accommo-date such factors as Austrian censorship, singers’ strengths and limita-tions, and audience sensibilities.3 Although Beethoven probably studiedpublished scores of French operas, one can assume that he also famil-iarized himself with the practices in the Viennese theaters.4 After all, hewas a composer-in-residence at the Theater an der Wien in 1803 and1804 and would have had access to performance materials used in itsproductions, a supposition supported by the excerpts that Beethovencopied from Les deux journees, taken not from the published French scorebut from a manuscript source transmitting the version of the operaperformed at the Theater an der Wien.5

This study illuminates the French repertoire that Beethoven andViennese audiences had the opportunity to witness between 1802 and1805, the peak of the vogue for French opera in Vienna as well as theformative years of Beethoven’s first opera, and in so doing sheds new lighton the 1805 version of Fidelio.6 Beethoven’s artistic debt to Cherubiniand other composers in Paris is not at issue here; instead, the focus ison the ways in which his opera participated in Viennese practices ofadaptation.7 This article adds to the extant scholarship on Sonnleithner’s

3 For a broad study of the performance of French opera in Vienna at the turn of thenineteenth century see Carolyn Kirk, “The Viennese Vogue for Opera-comique,1790–1819” (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Andrew’s, 1985).

4 The auction catalogue of Beethoven’s estate shows that at the time of his death heowned the scores of several operas-comiques. See Alexander Wheelock Thayer, Thayer’s Life ofBeethoven, rev. and ed. Elliott Forbes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 1062–70.

5 The underlaid texts in the copied excerpts correspond to the translation used at theTheater an der Wien, Die zwey unvergeßlichen Tage (Vienna: Schonfeld, 1802). Manuscriptperforming materials for the version performed at the Theater an der Wien in 1802 seemnot to have survived. A partial piano-vocal score of the Theater an der Wien version waspublished, but it does not contain the passage that Beethoven copied from the act 1 finale.See Luigi Cherubini, Ausgewahlte Stucke aus der Oper Graf Armand, oder die Tage der Gefahr([Vienna]: Kunst-und-Industrie-Comptoir, n.d.).

6 Although scholars normally call the 1805 and 1806 versions of his opera Leonore todifferentiate them from the 1814 version, I refer to the 1805 version as Fidelio to distinguishit from Bouilly’s Leonore and also because Sonnleithner’s libretto was published and theopera was premiered under the title Fidelio.

7 On the French influences on Fidelio see Winton Dean, “Beethoven and Opera,” inThe Beethoven Reader, ed. Denis Arnold and Nigel Fortune (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971),331�86, esp. 373�79; and David Charlton, “The French Theatrical Origins of Fidelio,” andMichael C. Tusa, “Music as Drama: Structure, Style, and Process in Fidelio,” both in PaulRobinson, Ludwig van Beethoven: Fidelio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996),51�67 (Charlton) and 101–31, at 102, 104 (Tusa). On the likelihood that Beethoven drewinspiration from Pierre Gaveaux’s setting of Bouilly’s original libretto see RainerCadenbach, “Die ‘Leonore’ des Pierre Gaveaux—ein Modell fur Beethovens ‘Fidelio?,’” inCollegium Musicologicum. Festschrift Emil Platen zum Sechzigsten Geburtstag, 2nd corrected edi-tion, ed. Martella Gutierrez-Denhoff (Bonn: Beethoven-Archiv, 1986), 100–121.

tusa

499

libretto by pointing out similar phenomena in Viennese versions of otherFrench works and interpreting such adaptations in light of the growingbody of research on censorship in turn-of-the century Vienna. Knowledgeof these other adaptations also clarifies the horizon of musical expecta-tions for opera in Beethoven’s Vienna and brings to light a possiblemodel for one of the most famous moments in the operatic repertory,the off-stage trumpet call in Fidelio’s dungeon scene.

Adaptations of Dramatic Content: Plot, Characterization, and Ideology

In many respects the 1805 Fidelio was shaped by principles—many ofthem established in the eighteenth century—that guided the Vienneseadaptations of operas-comiques. Sonnleithner’s libretto adheres closely toBouilly’s plot, characterization, and dialogue, and even approximatesthe poetic structures of several of Bouilly’s texts for solo and ensemblepieces, a feature necessary to adapt a German text to pre-existing music,but hardly required in a newly composed work.8 A number of Sonnleith-ner’s deviations from Bouilly also parallel the practices of the Vienneseadapters. For instance, like the Viennese versions of such works asMehul’s Helena and Cherubini’s Eliza and Les deux journees, Sonnleith-ner’s libretto converts the hint of dialect for working-class charactersMarceline, Jacquino, and Roc in Bouilly’s text into High German.9 Ofparticular significance are three categories of revisions that Sonnleithnermade to Bouilly’s text—presumably with Beethoven’s approval—thatresonate with the political and cultural sensibilities guiding the opera-comique adaptations. We will explore each category in turn below.

8 Compare, for instance, Marzelline’s aria to the French original. For the French seeJean-Nicolas Bouilly, Leonore, ou l’amour conjugal (Paris: Barba: [1798]), act 1, scene 1, 4. ForSonnleithner’s version see act 1, scene 1 in Joseph Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio; reprintedin Adolf Sandberger, Ausgewahlte Aufsatze zur Musikgeschichte (Munich: Drei MaskenVerlag, 1924), 2:327–28. Rainer Cadenbach hypothesizes that Sonnleithner at first followedBouilly’s versification closely to facilitate a conversion of Beethoven’s opera back intoFrench for the composer’s contemplated move to France in 1804�5; see his “Die Leonorevor der Leonore oder: ‘das Licht der gescheiden und Sinnigen franzosischen opern,’” in Vonder Leonore zum Fidelio: Vortrage und Referate des Bonner Symposions 1997, ed. Helga Luhningand Wolfram Steinbeck (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000), 93–119, at 116–17. For anoverview of the practices of making German translations of French operatic texts seeHerbert Schneider, “Die deutschen Ubersetzungen franzosischer Opern zwischen 1780und 1820: Verlauf und Probleme,” in Kulturtransfer im Epochenumbruch: Frankreich-Deutschland 1770–1815, ed. Hans-Jurgen Lusebrink (Leipzig: Universitat Leipzig, 1997),593–676.

9 Schneider, “Die deutschen Ubersetzungen,” 630�31, notes the elimination ofdialect in the French originals as a general phenomenon in German adaptations of opera-comique.

the journal of musicology

500

1. Political Orthodoxy

Sonnleithner revised Bouilly’s text to modify its political implications,hardly surprising in view of the Austrian guidelines for censorship pro-mulgated in a number of documents from the late-eighteenth centuryand spelled out in detail in a memorandum of 1795 from the Viennesecensor Franz Karl Hagelin to the theater authorities in Hungary. Theseguidelines sought to ensure that plays and operas would uphold princi-ples of monarchical rule, hierarchical class structure, and the honor ofthe Hapsburg dynasty, principles threatened by the events of the FrenchRevolution and the ensuing wars.10 Such concerns account for bothobvious and subtle changes to some imported French works of theperiod. For instance, to avoid portraying a challenge to Hapsburg rule,Der Thurm von Gothenburg, the Viennese version of Dalayrac’s Leheman, ouLa tour de Newstadt (Theater an der Wien, 31 March 1803), shifts anuprising of Hungarian nobles against Hapsburg domination to Scandi-navia, where Danish independence fighters oppose Swedish rule.11

Boieldieu’s Beniowski, based on the memoirs of a Polish adventurer wholed a group of exiles in a Russian prison camp to freedom, loses all itsreferences to Poland (which in Austrian eyes no longer existed) in G. F.Treitschke’s adaptation, Die Verwiesenen auf Kamtschatka (Hoftheater, 20June 1804); Treitschke also expunged the explicit criticisms of the Rus-sian empress and her imperial penal system in the same opera.12

Treitschke makes more subtle changes to Bouilly’s libretto for Mehul’sHelena, eliminating gestures that could be construed as lessening thedifference in social rank between Constantin and Helena, count andcountess Arles, and Maurice, the commoner who works to keep themand their young son safe from hostile authorities.13

10 For Hagelin’s memorandum see Carl Glossy, “Zur Geschichte der Wiener Thea-tercensur. I,” Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft 7 (1897): 238–340, esp. 298–340. On thebroader background of censorship policies in Vienna during the Revolutionary and Napo-leonic eras, see Friedrich Schembor, Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur und Druckforderung inder Napoleonischen Zeit. Eine Dokumentation auf Grund der Akten der Obersten Polizei- und Zensur-hofstelle, Habsburg Digital, Elektronische Veroffentlichungsreihe der OsterreichischenGesellschaft zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts 1 (Vienna: Osterreichische Gesellschaftzur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts, 2010), https://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:62678 (ac-cessed 24 February 2018).

11 Der Thurm von Gothenburg (Vienna: Schonfeld, 1803). For the French version seeBenoıt-Joseph Marsollier des Vivetieres, Leheman, ou La tour de Newstadt (Paris: Masson, 1801).

12 Alexandre Duval, Beniowski, ou Les exiles du Kamschattka (Paris: Barba, 1802); andGeorg Friedrich Treitschke, adapt., Die Verwiesenen auf Kamtschatka (Vienna: J. V. Degen,1804). Treitschke’s version also changes Beniowski’s name to Edwinsky.

13 In both act 2, scene 8 and the closing chorus of act 3, Treitschke alters stage in-structions so that the nobles do not join hands with the commoner Moritz to show theirgratitude for his courageous service to them; see Georg Friedrich Treitschke, adapt., Helene(Vienna: Wallishauser, 1803), 42, 63; cf. Jean-Nicolas Bouilly, Helena (Paris: Barba, 1803),act 2, scene 8, 39, and act 3, scene 12, 59.

tusa

501

Sonnleithner’s political modifications to Bouilly’s Leonore impingeon two elements of the plot. First, as commentators have noted, Sonn-leithner tweaks the denouement of Bouilly’s Leonore to make the point thatultimate authority lies with the monarch.14 Ignoring the pleas ofLeonore and Florestan for leniency, Bouilly’s Dom Fernand decides tosubject Pizarre to the same treatment that Pizarre had inflicted on Flore-stan (to be chained to a rock in the dungeon for two years)—a sentencethat he will pass on the basis of laws. Sonnleithner’s Don Fernando alsointends to chain Pizarro to Florestan’s rock, but when Florestan andLeonore plead for leniency, Don Fernando refers judgment and punish-ment to the king, an alteration that suggests that a monarch’s integrityand wisdom are better safeguards for justice than abstract lois.15

Et bientot je le ferai condamner au Der Konig wird sein Richter seyn;nom des lois, a supporter pendant le Kommt Freunde, laßt zu ihm uns eilen,meme tems [sic], les tortures qu’inventa Er wird mit mir die Wonne teilen,sa barbarie. Verfolgte Unschuld zu befreyn!

And soon I will have him condemned in The King will be his judge; come friends,

the name of the law to endure for the let us hurry to him. He will share with

same length of time the tortures that me the joy of liberating persecuted

his barbarity invented. innocence!

A similar point is made in the Viennese adaptation of Berton’s Aline,reine de Golconde (Hoftheater, 6 March 1803). In this opera the title charac-ter, a French woman who had become the favorite of the late king, is nowthe ruler of an Eastern kingdom, beloved by her subjects for implementinga number of Western-style laws that have promoted the happiness of therealm (a thinly veiled allegory for the benefits of French imperialism in thelater days of Napoleon’s consulate).16 In Treitschke’s translation (whichmakes Aline a native of southern Italy), references to Aline’s new laws areeliminated or replaced by references to her personal qualities. For exam-ple, a chorus of homage in act 2 exchanges the original praise of legalreforms with words that seem to attribute the improved conditions in Gol-conde to the personal virtues—seriousness and leniency—of the regent.17

14 See, for instance, Martin Ruhnke, “Die Librettisten des Fidelio,” in Opernstudien.Anna Amalie Abert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Klaus Hortschansky (Tutzing: Hans Schneider,1975), 121–40, at 128.

15 Bouilly, Leonore, act 2, scene 5, 39; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandber-ger), act 3, Letzter Auftritt [scene 5], 365. In this and later examples, bold type is used todraw attention to significant differences (e.g., omissions, additions, alternatives) betweenthe French and German versions.

16 Schneider, “Die deutschen Ubersetzungen,” 649–50.17 Edmond de Favieres and Jean-Baptiste-Charles Vial, Aline, reine de Golconde (Paris:

Masson, 1803), act 2, scene 2, 26; and Georg Friedrich Treitschke, adapt., Aline, Koniginnvon Golkonde (Vienna: Wallishausser, 1804), act 2, scene 3, 26.

the journal of musicology

502

[CHŒUR] GOLCONDOIS CHOR [DER GOLKONDIER UNDGOLKONDIERINNEN]

Aline fait cherir ses lois,Pour elle on peut tout

entreprendre . . .

Wie schon ist’s in Alinens Reich,Wo Ernst und Milde gleich sich finden . . .

Aline makes us cherish her laws; onecan undertake anything for her . . .

How fair things are in Aline’s realm,where seriousness and mildness existin equal measure . . .

Less conspicuous are alterations to a second plot element in Fidelio,where Sonnleithner eliminates references in the spoken dialogue toPizarro’s deception of the minister Don Fernando and to Pizarro’s polit-ical manipulations to have himself appointed prison governor shortlyafter Florestan’s disappearance, as well as to the minister’s expressionof remorse for having allowed himself to be duped by Pizarro. Thesechanges seem to address a concern evidently raised by the censor thatPizarro’s actions could be interpreted as state-authorized persecution ofa just man. Whether a product of anticipatory self-censorship (likely, inthe alteration in the act 3 finale) or even a response to the censor’sconcerns (possible, in the small adjustments to the prose dialogue),Sonnleithner’s changes minimize the role of state complicity, even unin-tended, in Florestan’s persecution.18

Bouilly, Leonore Act 1, scene 4 Sonnleithner, Fidelio, Act 2, scene 1

PIZARRE PIZARRO

. . . Ministre si vante, je saurai tetromper encore et me soustrairede ta vigilance . . .

. . . Gepriesener Minister, ich werdemich doch deiner Wachsamkeit zuentziehen wissen . . .

Minister praised so highly, I will be ableto deceive you again and shield myselffrom your vigilance . . .

Praised minister, I will know how toshield myself from your vigilance . . .

18 On 30 September 1805, Austrian censors prohibited the imminent premiere ofFidelio. Sonnleithner’s petition for reconsideration, noting the empress’s fondness for thesubject and assuring that Pizarro’s actions are motivated solely by personal reasons,changed the censor’s mind. See Carl Glossy, “Zur Geschichte der Theater Wiens.I (1801–1820),” Jahrbuch der Grillparzer Gesellschaft 25 (1915): 1–334, at 83–84. For thelibretto excerpts see Bouilly, Leonore, 14, 36, and 39; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio, (ed.Sandberger), 341, 362, 364. Robin Wallace has recently expressed the opinion that, thanksto the empress’s backing of the project, the censors ultimately had no effect on the 1805libretto; see “The Curious Incident of Fidelio and the Censors,” in The Oxford Handbook ofMusic Censorship, ed. Patricia Hall (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 221–34, at221–22, 228, 232.

tusa

503

Bouilly, Leonore, Act 1, scene 4 Sonnleithner, Fidelio, Act 3, scene 4

FLORESTAN, par mots entrecoupe.Mais dis-moi donc . . . par quel moyenque je ne puis comprendre . . . par quelprodige as-tu pu penetrer jusqu’a moi ?

FLORESTAN. O Leonore sprich! durchwelches Wunder ist es dir gelungen,zu mir zu dringen?

LEONORE, de meme. A l’empressementque mit Pizarre . . . aussitot ta disgrace. . . a se faire nommer gouverneur decette fortresse, je ne doutai plusque tu y respirois encore . . . je quittaiSeville sans faire part de mon projeta personne . . . .

LEONORE (schnell). Ich verließ Sevilla— ich kam zu Fuß — in Mannskleidern —

FLORESTAN, with interrupted words.But tell me then . . . by what meansthat I cannot understand . . . by whatmiracle were you able to reach me?

FLORESTAN. Oh speak, Leonore! bywhat miracle did you succeed inreaching me?

LEONORE, in the same way. With thehaste that Pizarre took . . . immediatelyupon your humiliation . . . to havehimself named governor of this fortress,I no longer doubted that you stillbreathed within it . . . I left Sevillewithout sharing my plan with anyone . . .

LEONORE (quickly). I left Seville—Icame on foot—in men’s clothing.

Bouilly, Leonore, Act 2, sc. 5 Sonnleithner, Fidelio, Act 3, letzterAuftritt [Finale]

DOM FERNAND . . . Ah! que je merepens d’avoir cede a vos conseilsperfides, et que les grands sont aplaindre, quand ils sont malenvironnes. (a Roc.) Detachez les fersde cette victime respectable. . . . Non, non;donnez-moi les clefs de ses chaines sipeu meritees. (Roc detache de sontrousseau plusieurs clefs qu’il remet aDom Fernand.) C’est a vous, femmerare et magnanime, c’est a vous seulequ’appartient l’honneur de delivrervotre epoux.

DON FERNANDO (zu Rocco)Du grubst des edlen Mannes Grab—Jetzt nimm ihm seine Ketten ab—Doch halt—euch, edle Frau allein,Euch ziemt es, ganz ihn zu befreyn!

DOM FERNAND . . . Ah! how I regrethaving yielded to your treacherousadvice; and how the great are to bepitied, when they are badlyassisted. (to Roc) Remove theirons of this honorable victim . . . No,no; give me the keys of theseundeserved chains. (Roc removes

from his bunch of keys several that

he hands to Dom Fernand.) To youalone, rare and magnanimouswoman, belongs the honor of freeing your husband.

DON FERNANDO (to Rocco) You dug thegrave of the noble man—Now removehis chains—But wait—it’s fitting thatyou alone, noble woman, free himcompletely.

the journal of musicology

504

Similar changes, shielding state officials and institutions from sus-picions of abuse and corruption, can be found in Viennese versions ofvarious operas-comiques, for one of the cardinal principles of Austriancensorship was to uphold respect for the established social and gov-ernmental order.19 For example, as Christine Siegert has shown, theproduction of Les deux journees at the Hoftheater as Die Tage der Gefahr(14 August 1802) revises the original text, also by Bouilly, to removeCount Armand’s account of his denunciation of Cardinal Mazarinas a despoiler of the country and shift the blame for his persecutionfrom Mazarin to an otherwise unspecified schwarze Bosheit.20 Althoughthe production of the same opera at the Theater an der Wien,an adaptation titled Graf Armand oder Die zwey unvergeßlichen Tage(13 August 1802) that transplants the action from France to anunnamed German duchy, blames Armand’s persecution on a namelessminister, the libretto nevertheless takes pains to clarify that the duke,beloved by the people as a good ruler, is ignorant of the minister’scorruption.21

Changes shielding state officials and institutions from suspicionsof corruptibility and venality can be found in Viennese adaptations ofother French works as well. The anonymous translation of Dalayrac’sLeheman eliminates a passage expressing a regent’s distrust of his ownjudicial system to deliver the verdict that he desires.22 In a lightervein, Treitschke’s adaptation of Berton’s Aline reworks the chorus ofunhappy government officials and jurists to eliminate mention oftheir own financial losses that have resulted from Queen Aline’s re-forms, a complaint that could hint that their justice has been for sale;the revised wording implies instead that Aline’s rule has proved sobeneficial that there is no longer a need for administrators andjudges.23

19 Hagelin’s guidelines advise against criticism of entire classes or groups, includingthe authorities, noting that fault should always be placed only on individuals. Glossy, “ZurGeschichte der Wiener Theatercensur,” 313. Schembor cites a reiteration of this principlein 1803 in a set of instructions to censors responsible for the suburban theaters; see hisMeinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 232–33.

20 Christine Siegert, “Bruderlichkeit als Problem. Zur Rezeption von LuigiCherubinis Les deux journees,” in Early Music: Context and Ideas II (Krakow: Institute ofMusicology, Jagiellonian University, 2008), 306–35, at 316–20. For the excerpts see Jean-Nicolas Bouilly, Les deux journees (Paris: Barba, 1802), act 1, scene 4, 13; Georg FriedrichTreitschke, adapt., Die Tage der Gefahr (Vienna: Joh. Bapt. Wallishausser, 1802), act 1,scene 4, 10.

21 Die zwey unvergeßlichen Tage, act 1, scene 1, 7.22 Marsollier, Leheman, act 3, scene 4, 67; Der Thurm von Gothenburg, act 3,

scene 4, 75.23 De Favieres and Vial, Aline, reine de Golconde, act 1, scene 4, 9; Treitschke, adapt.,

Aline, Koniginn von Golkonde, act 1, scene 4, 8.

tusa

505

LES AGAS ET LES CADIS CHOR [DEPUTATION DER ZOLL-EINNEHMER, RICHTER UNDRECHTSGELEHRTE]

Il faut il faut quitter Golconde,Plus de proces,

D’arrets,De frais,

Bald muß Golkonda untergehen,Man streitet nicht,Fragt kein Gericht,

On vit dans une paix profonde.Un bien sans frais, sera vendu,

Un jugement gratis rendu,

Un Plaideur sans frais entendu,

On va s’aimer, tout est perdu!

Prozesse schwinden im Entstehen,Versprechen halt man ewiglich,Die Feinde leben bruderlich,Und Herr und Knecht vertragen sich.Es schlaft das Volk, nichts rettet mehr.

We’ve got to leave Golconde. There are

no more trials, no more arrests, no

more fees; people live in profound

peace. A commodity will be sold

without fees; a judgment will be

rendered without charge; a plaintiff

will be heard without a fee; people

will love each other, all is lost!

Golkonda will soon go to ruin; people

don’t fight, and don’t go to court. Trials

disappear as soon as they start, people

keep their promises, enemies love

each other like brothers, and master

and servant get along well. The people

sleep; nothing can rescue us.

2. Providential Benevolence

Another area where Sonnleithner subtly revises Bouilly concerns reli-gion, in particular the expression of belief in a protecting and just Prov-idence. To be sure, Bouilly’s text is not devoid of religious sentiment, asLeonore’s Air, the Prisoners’ chorus at the end of act 1, and the act 2 trioall call on divine power for assistance or future reward. Sonnleithner,however, increases the number of such utterances, and his charactersexpress not just hope for divine assistance or reward, but certainty thatthe divine plan is just. At the start of the dungeon scene, Bouilly’s Flore-stan asks God whether his sufferings will ever end (N’est il donc point,grand dieu, de terme a ma souffrance?/ Dois-je finir mes jours dans cesindignes fers!); by contrast, Sonnleithner’s Florestan knows that God’swill is just (O schwere Prufung!—Doch gerecht ist Gottes Wille! / Ichmurre nicht!—Das Maß der Leiden steht bey dir!).24 In the final sceneBouilly’s off-stage chorus approaches Florestan’s dungeon only with criesof vengeance, cries that are misinterpreted by Florestan and Leonore as

24 Bouilly, Leonore, act 2, scene 1, p. 24; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sand-berger), act 3, scene 1, 351. For a comparison of Bouilly’s and Sonnleithner’s Florestans seeMichael C. Tusa, “The Unknown Florestan: The 1805 Version of ‘In des LebensFruhlingstagen,’” Journal of the American Musicological Society 46 (1993): 175–220, at 180–82.

the journal of musicology

506

personal threats, whereas Sonnleithner’s chorus proclaims a philosophyof divine justice (Gott schutzet die gerechte Sache / Und straft dieGrausamkeit).25 The same belief is expressed later in the reaction toLeonore’s removal of Florestan’s chains, a moment that in Bouilly’sspoken dialogue elicits no verbal response at all other than Marceline’ssurprise on learning that Fidelio is in fact a woman.26

MARCELINE, a part, pendant queLeonore dechaıne Florestan.

LEON., FLORESTAN, FERNANDO,ROCCO, MARZELLINE

Qui jamais auroit cru que c’Fidelioetoit une femme?

O Gott—o welch ein Augenblick!Ach unaussprechlich sußes Gluck!Gerecht, o Gott, ist dein GerichtDu prufest, du verlaßt uns nicht!

MARCELINE, aside, while Leonorereleases Florestan. Who would haveever thought that Fidelio was a woman?

LEONORE, FLORESTAN, FERNANDO,ROCCO, MARZELLINE. Oh God . . . whata moment! Oh inexpressibly sweet delight!Just, oh God, is your tribunal. You test us,but you do not abandon us!

From the point of view of official policy, nothing in Bouilly’s textwould have been considered questionable with respect to religion. Aus-trian censorship’s primary concerns were to avoid theatrical representa-tions of clerics, religious practices, and objects and to uphold orthodoxCatholic beliefs, and one does find examples in Viennese opera-comiqueadaptations that respond to such strictures. 27 Treitschke’s Die Verwiesenenauf Kamtschatka, an adaptation of Boieldieu’s Beniowski, removes a refer-ence to the priestly blessing of the Russian Orthodox wedding of Edwin-sky (Beniowski in the original) and Aphanasie, the daughter of theprison governor.28 Das Schloss von Montenero, the adaptation of Dalayrac’sLeon, ou le Chateau de Montenero (Theater an der Wien, 1 December 1804),eliminates the villain Leon’s critique of Christian marriage rites as “desformes superstitieuses et pueriles.”29 The Viennese theater censor Hage-lin is known to have been concerned that the brethren of the famous

25 Bouilly, Leonore, act 2, scene 4, 37; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandber-ger), act 3, scene 4, 363.

26 Bouilly, Leonore, act 2, scene 5, 39; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandber-ger), act 3, letzter Auftritt [scene 5], 364.

27 Glossy, “Zur Geschichte der Wiener Theaterzensur,” 305�9; see also Schembor,Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 232.

28 Cf. Duval, Beniowski, act 2, scene 4, 25; and Treitschke, adapt., Die Verwiesenen aufKamtschatka, act 2, scene 4, 30.

29 Francois-Benoıt Hoffman, Leon, ou Le chateau de Montenero (Paris: Vente, 1798), act2, scene 11, 54. Cf. Johann Jakob Ihlee, adapt., Das Schloß von Montenero (Vienna: MathhiasAndreas Schmidt, 1804), act 2, scene 11, 36.

tusa

507

abbey-hospice on Mont St. Bernard who figure prominently in the plot ofCherubini’s Eliza, ou Le voyage aux Glaciers de Mont St. Bernard not beportrayed in clerical garb. Joseph von Seyfried, evidently anticipatinga potential objection on this point, changed the role of the abbey’s Prieurin the French score to a secular character named St. Preux in his adap-tation, Der Bernhardsberg (Theater an der Wien, 18 December 1802), andassured the censor that the costumes worn by the workers at the hospicewould not be associated with any religious order.30

Instead, as Martin Nedbal has suggested, the more pointed expres-sions of trust in Providence in Fidelio echo didactic impulses in Enlight-enment Viennese theater that seek to represent superior morality andpiety as characteristics of the Austrian nation.31 Somewhat paradoxi-cally, the same impulse is evident in Der Bernhardsberg. As if to compen-sate for the secularization of the Prieur, Seyfried puts in the mouth ofSt. Preux a number of pious utterances not expressed by his Frenchcounterpart. Early in act 2, for instance, St. Preux notes God’s omnip-otence and benevolence as he seeks to unite the separated lovers Lauraand Florindo.32

LE PRIEUR. ST. PREUX.

Il sort dans la campagneDes l’aurore; peut etre est-il sur

la montagne;C’est lui; (a Laure.) volons, tachons de

l’offrir a ses yeux.Ce jour commence bien, je vais faire un

heureux.

Dem Vater aller Wesen ist nichtsunmoglich. Er gieng heute Morgensin die Geburge, und ist vielleicht inunserer Nahe. (zu Laura) Eilen wir, dieLiebenden zu vereinigen. Gott! ichdanke dir fur diesen Tag—wo die ersten Strahlendeiner Sonne ein Paar einleuchten,welches ich glucklich machen kann.

30 Glossy, “Zur Geschichte der Theater Wiens. I (1801–1820),” 30. Seyfried based histranslation on the published score, which included all of the spoken text: Luigi MariaCherubini, Eliza, ou Le voyage aux glaciers du Mont St. Bernard (Paris: L’imprimerie duConservatoire, n.d.); facsimile reprint, ed. Charles Rosen (New York: Garland Publishing,1979). For Seyfried’s adaption, see Joseph von Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg (Vienna:Schonfeld, 1802). The printed French libretto by St. Cyr differs significantly from theprinted score; for example he turns the Prieur into a secular character called l’econome,probably to accommodate anti-clerical sensibilities of the Terror.

31 Martin Nedbal, Morality and Viennese Opera in the Age of Mozart and Beethoven (NewYork: Routledge, 2017); see also idem, “How Moral is Fidelio? Didacticism in the Finales ofBeethoven’s Leonore Operas,” Musical Quarterly 95 (2012): 396–449.

32 Cherubini, Eliza, act 2, scene 2, 271; and Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg, act 2,scene 2, 38. Throughout Seyfried’s adaptation the original Alexandrines of the spokenFrench dialogue are translated as prose.

the journal of musicology

508

LE PRIEUR. He [Florindo] went out into

the countryside at daybreak; perhaps he is

on the mountain; it is he; (to Laure.)

Let’s fly, let’s try to offer him to her

eyes. This day begins well, I am going

to make a man happy.

ST. PREUX. Nothing is impossible for

the father of all beings. He [Florindo] went

into the mountains this morning, and

perhaps he’s in our vicinity. (to Laura)

Let’s hasten to unite the lovers. God! I

thank you for this day—where the first

rays of your sun will shine on a pair that

I can make happy.

The end of the opera was also revised to reinforce pious sentiments:whereas in the French version the last speech before the concludingChœur general is given to the artist Florindo to express his renewed satis-faction with life, in Der Bernhardsberg St. Preux has the final say, thankingGod for having rescued the lovers and allowed him to be the tool ofdivine benevolence.33

FLORINDO, avec feu. ST. PREUX.

J’aime a present la vie! et je l’auraisperdue! . . .

Mes bons amis, o vous qui me l’avezrendue,

Je vous dois tout . . . . Ce lieu me seratoujours cher!

Gott! du hast dieses liebende Paargerettet—ich danke dir, daßdu mich das Werkzeug deinerunendlichen Gute werdenliessest.

(Au Prieur.) (A Eliza.)La vertu m’y L’amour vint m’y

recut! . . . chercher.

FLORINDO, with fire. I now love life! and

I could have lost it! . . . My good friends,

you who have given it back to me, I owe

everything to you . . . This place will

always be dear to me! (to the Prieur)

Virtue welcomed me here! . . . (to Eliza)

Love came to look for me here.

ST. PREUX. God! you rescued this

loving pair—I thank you for having

let me become the tool of your infinite

goodness.

3. Moral Probity

Sonnleithner also makes changes to Bouilly’s text that align the operawith Austrian policies that sought to treat German theater as a school for

33 Cherubini, Eliza, act 2, final scene, 369; and Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg, act2, scene 8, 54. Elsewhere in his version Seyfried adds pious utterances in act 1, scene 1, 5,and act 2, scene 3, 39. Further, Seyfried rewrites the rustic couplets of the muleteer Michel/Jonas (Cherubini, Eliza, act 1, scene 3; and Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg, act 1, scene 3,13�15) to emphasize his contentment with the life God has given him.

tusa

509

morals, a notion demonstrated throughout Nedbal’s recent study.34

Viennese censors were concerned, for instance, that plays and operasnot portray or suggest immoral acts, particularly pre- or extra-maritalsex.35 In this respect, Bouilly’s libretto would seem to have offered littlethat could have been deemed objectionable. Even here, however, squea-mishness about sex may have led Sonnleithner to remove from Marzel-line’s aria her thoughts about having children with Fidelio.36 Nor dothe rescue operas from France offer many occasions for the risqueencounters common in comedy. Nevertheless, small changes in theViennese versions of Parisian operas-comiques reinforce the notion thatGerman adaptations should exhibit a higher standard of moral proprietythan the Parisian originals.37 Delicacy about sex, for instance, is appar-ently behind the elimination of a contemplated rape in the Hoftheaterproduction of Les deux journees.38 Laura, the heroine of Das Schloss vonMontenero does not say, as does her French counterpart in Leon, ou Lechateau de Montenero, that she might have feigned interest in the villain inorder to save her lover, whom she believes to have died in an attempt torescue her (“Pour sauver mon amant, je t’eus flatte peut-etre, cette ideeme fait horreur”).39 Treitschke’s adaptation of Helena replaces an allu-sion to the illegitimate birth of the orphan Paul (the alias for the youngAnton, the son of Count Constantine and Countess Helena) with a neu-tral explanation of the alleged peasant origins of the boy.40

But Sonnleithner goes beyond eliminating the sexually suggestive tounderscore the essential decency of all of the characters, save Pizarro.

34 Nedbal, Morality and Viennese Opera; on the 1805 Fidelio see especially 193–96.35 Glossy, “Zur Geschichte der Wiener Theaterzensur,” 317–19. The recent discovery

of manuscript copies of Hagelin’s memo by Lisa de Alwis shows that Glossy omitted certainpassages in his transcription that, taken together, suggest that Glossy was even more prudishthan Hagelin; see Lisa de Alwis, “Censorship and Magical Opera in Early Nineteenth-centuryVienna” (Ph. D. diss., University of Southern California, 2012), 24–52.

36 Ruhnke sees this change, and a similar de-emphasis on child-bearing in Marzel-line’s duet with Leonore, as Sonnleithner’s concessions to burgerlichen Moralbegriffen. See his“Die Librettisten des Fidelio,” 128.

37 Nedbal shows that this attitude was already present at the time of the establishmentof a French theatrical troupe at court during the reign of Maria Theresia. See Ruhnke,Morality and Viennese Opera, 22–26.

38 In Bouilly, Les deux journees, act 3, scene 7, 51, the premier soldat says of Constance(who is passing herself off as Mikeli’s daughter), “Si nous pouvions l’engager a faire avecnous une petite promenade . . . la . . . a l’ecart. (Il designe les rochers).” These sentences areomitted in Treitschke’s translation for the court theater, Die Tage der Gefahr, act 3, scene 5,47; and as Nedbal notes, the rival translation at the suburban Theater an der Wien retainedthe gist of this dialogue. See his Morality and Viennese Opera, 159.

39 Hoffman, Leon, act 2, scene 5, 41; and Ihlee, adapt., Das Schloß von Montenero, act 2,scene 5, 43.

40 In the French libretto Maurice calls Paul “l’fruit d’quequ’amourette d’village”; inTreitschke’s adaptation Moritz simply explains at this point: “Paul . . . ist ein gewohnlicherBauernname.” Cf. Bouilly, Helena, act 2, scene 10, 46; and Treitschke, adapt., Helene, act 2,scene 10, 48.

the journal of musicology

510

Sonnleithner mitigates some of the hard edges of Bouilly’s Roc, lessen-ing perceptions that he is overly concerned with money or that years ofservice in the prison have made him indifferent to the suffering of Flore-stan.41 The librettist reinforces Leonore’s remorse about deceiving Mar-zelline in a new aside at the start of act 2, scene 2 (“O daß ich sie tauschenmuß!—Schreckliche Lage!”).42 And in the ensuing duet between Marzel-line and Leonore, he rewrites a passage in which the French Marcelineexpresses trust in Fidelio’s eternal truthfulness so as to shield his Leo-nore from the necessity of giving an evasive, studied response, allowinghis heroine instead to continue to focus on Marzelline’s virtue.43

MARCELINE MARZELLINE

Faut avec ca d’la confiance. Nur was du willst, wird stetsgeschehen,

Jamais tu ne me tromperas! Ich gebe deinem Willen nach;Und wie die Steinch[e]n in dem BachSollst du, was ich mir denke, sehen.

LEONORE, etudiant la reponse LEONORE

Jamais tu ne me tromperas? Dein Herz ist ja so spiegelrein;Man kann mit dir nur glucklich seyn.

MARCELINE, avec abandon.

Comme au fond d’un ruisseau,mon ami tu liras

Tout au fond de ma conscience.

MARCELINE. Along with that, one

needs trust. You will never deceive me!

MARZELLINE. Whatever you want will

always happen, I yield to your will; and

like the pebbles in the brook, you’ll see

what I’m thinking.

LEONORE, studying the reply. You will

never deceive me?

LEONORE. Your heart is pure like a

mirror; one can be only happy with you.

MARCELINE, with abandon. As at the

bottom of a stream, my friend, you’ll

read all the way to the bottom of

my conscience.

41 According to Ruhnke, Sonnleithner’s revisions change Rocco from a “gewissenlosenOpportunisten” into “einen biederen Hausvater.” See his “Die Librettisten des Fidelio,” 129.

42 Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandberger), 344; cf. Bouilly, Leonore, act 1, scene5, 14–15.

43 Bouilly, Leonore, act 1, scene 5, 15; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandber-ger) act 2, scene 2, 344.

tusa

511

At the start of the opera Marzelline becomes more forthright in herrejection of Jaquino’s affections than her French counterpart. In herduet with Jacquino, Sonnleithner removes the stage instruction avec mal-ice (with mischief) that might lead an actress to suggest that her interac-tions with Jaquino are playful or ironic, and he converts an ambiguousreply that the French Marceline gives to his offer of love—that she willmarry only the one who will be able to please her—into an outrightrejection (in so doing he also eliminates a potential double entendre aboutwhat it might take to please her).44

MARCELINE MARZELLINE (bey Seite)

Pour moi, je n’epouserai O weh, er verbittert mein Leben!(zu ihm)

Que celui qui saura me plaire. Jetzt, morgen, und immer nein, nein.

JACQUINO, ricanant JAQUINO

Oh! si c’nest qu’ca, je te plairai. (Du bist ja wahrhaftig von Stein(Kein Wunschen, kein Bitten dringt ein.

MARCELINE MARZELLINE (fur sich)

C’est queuqu’ fois difficile a faire. (Ich muß ja so hart mit ihm seyn.(Er hofft bey dem mindesten Schein.

MARCELINE. As for me, I will only marry

the one who knows how to please me.

MARZELLINE (aside) Woe is me, he’s

making my life bitter! (to him) Now,

tomorrow, and forever: no, no.

JACQUINO, snickering. Oh! if it’s only

that, I will please you.

JAQUINO. You are truly made of stone;

no desire, no pleading gets through.

MARCELINE. That’s hard to do sometimes. MARZELLINE (aside) I have to be harsh

with him. He draws hope from the

least glimmer.

Later in the scene Sonnleithner expands the spoken dialogue to make itclear that Marzelline has no intention of exploiting Jaquino’s unwantedattention for her own benefit.45

44 Bouilly, Leonore, act 1, scene 1, 5–6; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sand-berger), act 1, scene 1, 329–30.

45 Bouilly, Leonore, act 1, scene 1, 6; and Sonnleithner, adapt., Fidelio (ed. Sandber-ger), act 1, scene 1, 330. Arnold Jacobshagen notes that Sonnleithner apparently reducedan intended difference in age between Marzelline and Jaquino by having her address himas du rather than Sie (which would be equivalent to Bouilly’s vous); see his “BeethovensLeonoren-Libretti: Ubersetzung und Bearbeitung bei Joseph von Sonnleithner, Stephanvon Breuning und Georg Friedrich Treitschke,” in Librettoubersetzung. Interkulturalitat imeuropaischen Musiktheater, ed. Herbert Schneider and Rainer Schmusch (Hildesheim: GeorgOlms, 2009), 43–59, at 55–56.

the journal of musicology

512

MARCELINE, elle a fini de repasser. (apart) Faut decidement que j’lui parleferme, et que j’lui donne son conge.(A Jacquino qui revient tout essoufle.)Tenez, Jacquino, je suis trop franchepour vous tromper plus long-tems.Vous ne pouvez m’convenir; j’vousl’dis a coeur ouvert et vrai, si vousvoulez vous marier, vous ferezbien d’vous adresser a une autrequ’a moi.

MARZELLINE. (Sie hat zu arbeitenaufgehort, bey Seite.) Es ist keinanderes Mittel ubrig; ich mußstandhaft und entschieden mit ihmreden; sonst macht er sich immernoch Hoffnung. (Zu Jaquino, derganz außer Athem kommt.) Hore,Jaquino, ich bin ein gutes, offenherzigesMadchen! –Manche andre wurde sicheine Lust daraus machen,dich einige Zeit am Bandeherumzufuhren, aber mir ist daszuwider; mir ists nicht moglich. –Ich muß dir rein heraus sagen, wiemirs ums Herz ist.—Du bist ein guterMensch, aber ich kann dich nicht rechtlieb gewinnen, was ich mich auchschon damit gepeinigt habe. –Gewißund wahrhaftig, Jaquino, wenn duheirathen willst, mußt du dich nacheinem andern Madchen umsehen. –Wir zwey taugen nun einmahl nichtfur einander.

MARCELINE, she has finished ironing.

(aside) It’s really necessary that I speak

with him firmly, and that I give him his

leave. (To Jacquino, who comes back

completely out of breath.) Listen,

Jacquino, I am too sincere to deceive you

any longer. You can’t suit me; I tell you

with an open and true heart, if you want

to get married, you’ll do well to find

someone other than me.

MARZELLINE (She has stopped working,

aside.) There is no other way; I must

speak firmly and decisively with him;

otherwise he’ll continue to harbor some

hope. (To Jacquino, who enters

completely out of breath.) Listen,

Jacquino, I am a good, open-hearted

girl.—Many another girl would have fun

leading you around by a string, but that

is repugnant to me; it’s impossible for

me to do that.—I must simply tell you

what my heart feels.—You are a good

person, but I cannot exactly grow fond

of you, about which I’ve tormented

myself.—Truly, Jaquino, if you want to

get married, you’ll need to look around

for another girl.—The two of us simply

are not made for each other.

The vehemence of her rejection of Jaquino in the first act of Sonnleith-ner’s version perhaps explains why the 1805 Fidelio makes no attempt atall to effect a reconciliation between Marzelline and Jaquino after therevelation of Leonore’s true identity in act 3—a possibility that is at least

tusa

513

suggested in Bouilly’s denouement—as this would call the sincerity ofMarzelline’s earlier utterances into question.

Perhaps implicit in the censors’ guidelines and in many of theserevisions is an assumption that women, particularly German women,should embody a higher standard of moral probity than men. Josephvon Seyfried’s translation of the Guide’s folksy Ronde in his adaptation ofEliza reflects such a view, turning a song about a woman who accepts andthen betrays her well-to-do betrothed into one about a man who woosand then abandons a woman who is impressed by his wealth; in theformer the moral that money does not guarantee a lasting marriage isa warning for future couples, whereas in the latter a similar message isaimed at fathers, presumably of prospective brides.46

Sound, Structure, and Dramatic Effect

In addition to modifications of the types discussed thus far, Vienneseproductions of opera-comique frequently also made changes to the music.Might Beethoven have taken note of the Viennese adaptations as he con-templated his own opera? As Carolyn Kirk notes, twentieth-century no-tions of fidelity to musical texts were not a priority for early nineteenth-century Viennese stages, and Viennese theaters modified the music of theimported works for a variety of reasons: to accommodate the strengths oftheir casts, to adapt pieces to the available resources for performance, tomodernize older repertory, and to appeal to the local audience’s tastes.47

Although certain types of modifications—transpositions, cuts withinpieces, and omissions of solo pieces for minor characters—would probablynot have attracted the attention of a composer writing an opera fromscratch, several features of the Viennese versions of opera-comique may wellhave made an impression on the first-time opera composer.

For one thing, the sound of opera-comique in Vienna occasionallydiffered from what was specified by the French scores, as Viennese adap-ters, particularly those active at the Theater an der Wien, often re-touched the orchestration. Orchestral scores stemming from thissuburban theater include extra wind and brass parts in various piecesin Lodoıska, Der Bernhardsberg (Eliza) and Der Thurm von Gothenburg

46 Cf. Cherubini, Eliza, act 2, scene 1, 256–58; and Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg,act 2, scene 1, 32–33. On the other hand, Seyfried seems to have no problem impugningthe morality of French women in his expansion of the Guide’s comments on social life inParis: “Die Pariserdamen sind auch nicht unempfindlich gegen das gefallige Betrageneines muntern, wohlgebauten Landmanns. Wenn ihr es so weit bringt, in einem solchenHause, den Wohnsitz einer hubschen Dame Eintritt zu erhalten, so ist euer Gluck schongemacht.” Seyfried, adapt., Der Bernhardsberg, act 2, scene 1, 30.

47 Kirk, “The Viennese Vogue,” 559–60.

the journal of musicology

514

(Leheman), generally in order to reinforce the original instrumentation.48

Anton Fischer’s extensive revision of Gretry’s Raoul Barbe-bleue as Raoul derBlaubart (Theater an der Wien, 14 August 1804), a rare case where themusical adapter was identified in the publicity for the production, goeseven further, not only adding instruments to Gretry’s score, but alsorevoicing pieces to produce a more up-to-date sound.49 In particular, theincreased use of trombones in the Theater an der Wien versions of bothDer Thurm von Gothenburg and Raoul der Blaubart may have caught Beetho-ven’s attention, as the 1805 and 1806 versions of Leonore make use of twoor three trombones in a number of pieces, especially those associated withPizarro: Pizarro’s aria, the Pizarro-Rocco duet, the conclusion of the act 2(1806: act 1) finale, the introduction and recitative at the start of act 3(1806: act 2), the grave-digging duet between Rocco and Leonore, andthe act 3 (1806: act 2) Quartet.50 In addition three trombones are presentin the Leonore Overtures of 1805 and 1806 and various sections of the act 3(1806: act 2) finale.51

48 In the manuscript score for Lodoıska (A-Wn Mus.Hs.25049/1–3) the orchestrationfor Titzikan’s aria in act 1 adds trumpets and timpani and expands the horn section fromtwo horns to four. The act 3 quartet also expands the horn complement from two horns tofour. In the act 2 finale of Der Bernhardsberg the Theater an der Wien score (A-WnMus.Hs.16162/1–2) adds two horns in D to the two horns in F that Cherubini’s scorespecifies. The Theater an der Wien score of Der Thurm von Gothenburg (A-WnMus.Hs.25053/1–2) increases the number of trombones from one to three in the Ouver-ture, the Terzett no. 3, the Morceau d’ensemble no. 4, the act 1 finale no. 5, and the act 3finale no. 9. In a paper presented at the 2016 Congress of the Gesellschaft fur Musikthe-orie, Martin Skamletz showed on the basis of surviving performing parts that the practice ofrevising the orchestration at the Theater an der Wien was already in effect in its adaptationof Della Maria’s Le prisonnier (Die Ahnlichkeit, oder Der Gefangene, 11 May 1801), the first opera-comique produced in the new theater. I am grateful to Mr. Skamletz for sharing his paper,which will appear in the forthcoming proceedings of the 2016 GMTH congress. A contem-porary review noted that winds were also added to Della Maria’s Oncle valet at the Theater ander Wien (Der Onkel als Bedienter, 3 November 1803), in contradistinction to the adaptationperformed at the Hoftheater a few days earlier. See Zeitung fur die elegante Welt, no. 153 (22December 1803): col. 1219.

49 Practically every piece in Fischer’s version is re-orchestrated to a greater or lesserextent. For Fischer’s version see A-Wn OA 63/1–3, a score used in the 1821 revival of theopera at the Karntnertortheater (with the young Wilhelmine Schroder in the role ofMarie). The main text of this score seems to have been prepared after the version pre-miered at the Theater an der Wien in 1804 and possibly is a score originally used at theTheater an der Wien; new music for the 1821 production is present on leaves of a differentpaper type. Another source for Fischer’s version, D-Slub MUS 3486-F-502 (used by CarlMaria von Weber in the 1817 Dresden production), closely agrees with the original layer inOA 63/1–3.

50 For the use of trombones in Der Thurm von Gothenburg, see note 48. WhereasGretry’s Raoul Barbe-bleue does not use trombones at all, sources transmitting Fischer’sversion employ three trombones in five pieces in Raoul der Blaubart: the Overture (a newlycomposed piece), No. 1 (Quartet), No. 8 (Marie’s scene), No. 11 (Raoul’s rage aria), andNo. 13 (Battaglia e Coro finale).

51 Because of the loss of sources through multiple stages of revision, it is impossible toreconstruct fully the musical text of the 1805 version of Fidelio. For the use of trombones in

tusa

515

Other adaptations of opera-comique point to the well-known Italian-ate proclivities of Viennese operatic culture. The Theater an der Wienproduction of Lodoıska that ignited the local craze for opera-comique in1802 embodied these tendencies in several ways. Much of the spokendialogue was converted into orchestrally accompanied recitative.52 TheTheater an der Wien version also gave more emphasis to bravura sing-ing styles than does Cherubini’s original, most likely to show off thelead singers in the 1802 production, Antonia Campi and GiuseppeSimoni, the Lodoıska and Floreski, respectively.53 The conclusion ofLodoıska’s act 2 aria (“Que dis-je, o ciel”) was rewritten so as to replacethe original ending in F minor with a bravura conclusion in F majorthat gives the soprano coloratura passagework that leads up to F two-and-one-half octaves above middle C (ex. 1).54 Less spectacularly, theconclusion of the famous Polonaise duet between Floresky and hiscomic companion Varbel in act 1 was revoiced to shift the coloraturafrom Varbel’s bass part to the tenor Floreski. Bravura singing alsofeatures in two pieces that replaced original arias by Cherubini: anextended scena for Floreski in act 2 comprising a recitative followedby a multi-tempo aria, and a comparably big recitative and aria withchorus for Lodoıska in act 3.55 Yet another solo for Floreski was added

-the 1805 version I have relied on the reconstruction by Erich Prieger and Willy Hesspublished in Beethoven. Leonore. Oper in drei Aufzugen. Partitur der Urfassung vom Jahre 1805,ed. Willy Hess, Beethoven. Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vols. 11�12 (Wiesbaden:Breitkopf & Hartel, 1967).

52 The manuscript score A-Wn, Mus.Hs.25049/1–3 contains a large amount of newlycomposed accompanied recitative for the dialogues in acts 2 and 3. Because of the use ofverse rather than prose, the earliest printed libretto for the Vienna Lodoıska implies that anearlier stage called for even more recitative than present in Mus. Hs. 25049. See Lodoıska(Vienna: Matthias Schmidt, 1802). A second edition of the libretto, also dated 1802 butwithout mention of Schikaneder, seems textually to postdate the aforementioned score; seeLodoıska (Vienna: Schonfeld, 1802).

53 Another factor behind the use of recitatives in Lodoıska at the Theater an der Wienmay have been Simoni’s poor German diction, as contemporary reports complain aboutthe tenor’s inability to recite German dialogue intelligibly. See, for instance, the report inAllgemeine musikalische Zeitung 5, no. 22 (23 February 1803): col. 369�70, on the productionof Der Bernhardsberg at the Theater an der Wien, where the lead tenor’s pronunciation ofGerman—Simoni is not named—is mercilessly mocked. See also Zeitung fur die elegante Welt,no. 153 (22 December 1803), col. 1219, which criticizes Simoni’s German diction ina performance of Seyfried’s Cyrus.

54 All of the changes discussed in this paragraph are contained in A-Wn,Mus.Hs.25049/1–3. Unfortunately, the revised ending of the Theater an der Wien versionof Lodoıska’s act 2 aria cannot be reconstructed in full because a leaf containing ninemeasures has been removed in vol. 2 between fols. 203 and 204.

55 This is probably the piece identified (and praised) in a contemporary report as an“im 3ten Acte eingelegte Arie des Hrn. Nasolini.” See “Neuerbautes k.k. priv. Schau-spielhaus an der Wien, in Wien,” in Joachim Perinet, Wiener Theater Almanach auf das Jahr1803 (Vienna: Ios. Riedl, [1803]), 82.

the journal of musicology

516

in act 1, a recitative and cavatina in the sentimental style of thearia d’affetto.56

The addition of recitatives to convert Lodoıska into something akinto a grand opera was an experiment in adaptation that was not repeatedin any subsequent Viennese productions of opera-comique. But replace-ment arias and additional arias (Einlagearien), often in a more bravura

example 1. Cherubini, Lodoıska, revised ending for Lodoıska’s act 2aria (A-Wn Mus.Hs.25049, fols. 202v–203v)

56 On the aria d’affetto as a type see James Webster, “The Analysis of Mozart’s Arias,” inMozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 101–99, at 107.

tusa

517

style than the native pieces in the host opera into which they wereinserted, are a common feature of the opera-comique adaptations per-formed at both the Theater an der Wien (Der Bernhardsberg has addi-tional arias for the hero Florindo and the heroine Eliza) and the CourtTheater (which added two arias for the title role in Mehul’s Helena andintroduced four new arias and part of another in Boieldieu’s Die Verwie-senen auf Kamtschakta).57 Cherubini himself provided yet another

example 1. (Continued)

57 For the Theater an der Wien version of Der Bernhardsberg see A-Wn, Mus.Hs.16162/1–2. The added arias for Helena at the Hoftheater are transmitted in A-Wn, KT.207/4, a so-

the journal of musicology

518

example 1. (Continued)

-called Soufflierpartitur containing only vocal parts and bass line. It is not clear when thesewere added as they are not contained in the printed libretto nor in the original layer of themanuscript libretto A-Wn, Mus.Hs.32622, the manuscript approved for performance andpublication by the censor Hagelin prior to the premiere. Nor do they appear in themanuscript full score, A-Wn, KT.207/1–3.The replacement pieces in the Hoftheater scorefor Die Verwiesenen auf Kamtschatka (A-Wn, KT.462/1–4) include one each for the lead rolesof Edwinsky/Beniowski (act 1) and Aphanasie (act 2) as well as two for the secondary roleof the villain Stephanow/Stepanoff (act 1 and act 3). In addition, the first section of the act1 aria of the character Geslin (Gelin) is replaced with a section allegedly based on anauthentic Swiss melody, as Treitschke’s libretto converts the Parisian Geslin into a Swisscitizen named Hermann.

tusa

519

replacement aria for Floreski when he came to Vienna in 1805 andconducted Lodoıska at the Theater an der Wien.58

Although one cannot literally speak of an Einlagearie in a piece thatis composed from scratch, in a certain sense Beethoven’s approach toLeonore mirrors the adapters’ practice of increasing the opportunitiesfor big arias for the lead characters. Like the Einlagearien for Floreskyand Helena in Lodoıska and Helene, respectively, Pizarro’s aria (“Ha!Welch ein Augenblick!”) is inserted into spoken dialogue as a way toelaborate character and feeling at a crucial moment in the drama. AndBeethoven’s arias for Florestan and Leonore realize quintessentiallyFrench texts with more Italianate solutions. Whereas Bouilly conceivedFlorestan’s aria as a strophic Romance preceded by an accompaniedrecitative (a conception that is followed in Gaveaux’s setting), Beetho-ven in 1805 set Sonnleithner’s text as a large-scale scena in which therecitative leads to an aria in three contrasting tempi: an Adagio in A-flatmajor; a Moderato with obbligato flute in F major, and a concludingAndante un poco agitato in F minor.59 And at a very late stage in thecomposition of the 1805 version—seemingly after Sonnleithner’slibretto had gone to the printers—Beethoven obtained from his libret-tist a revision of Leonore’s aria text that converted another strophicRomance text in Bouilly’s libretto into one that laid the groundwork fora big solo for the star soprano Anna Milder, comprising accompaniedrecitative and a slow-fast aria.60

One facet of the 1805 Fidelio that at first glance would seem not tohave much to do with the Viennese revisions of opera-comique is its empha-sis on ensembles, evidently a particular point of interest for Beethoven,who made a study of various operatic ensembles by Cherubini and espe-cially Mozart in his preparatory work for the opera.61 Beethoven and

58 See the report on Cherubini’s revisions of Lodoıska in Vienna in Allgemeine musi-kalische Zeitung 7, no. 51 (18 September 1805): col. 811. The new aria for Floreski is verylikely the piece preserved in the manuscript score, A-Wn, KT.265/1–5, Bd. 4, whichmatches the critic’s description of an aria in C minor that is prefaced by an accompaniedrecitative in C major. KT 265 also contains entr’actes at the starts of act 2 and act 3 that wereadded by Cherubini when he conducted the opera in 1805. On Cherubini’s visit to Viennain 1805�6 see Michael Jahn, “Aspekte der Rezeption von Cherubinis Opern in Wien des19. Jahrhunderts,” in Festschrift Leopold M. Kantner zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Michael Jahn(Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2002), 213�44, esp. 223–25.

59 For what can be known about the lost original version of Florestan’s aria, see HelgaLuhning, “Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Arie des Florestan,” in Festschrift Christoph-Hellmut Mahling zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Axel Beer, Kristina Pfarr, and Wolfgang Ruf(Tutzing: Schneider, 1997), 771–94; and Tusa, “The Unknown Florestan.”

60 On the relatively late arrival at the formal solution for the 1805 version of Leo-nora’s aria see Helga Luhning, “Beethovens langer Weg zum Fidelio,” in Opernkomposition alsProzeß, ed. Werner Breig (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1996), 65–90, esp. 67–69.

61 In addition to the examples from Les deux journees cited above, Beethoven copiedpassages from ensembles in Die Zauberflote and Don Giovanni. For a list of Beethoven’s copies

the journal of musicology

520

Sonnleithner significantly altered Bouilly’s dramaturgic conception byincreasing the number of ensembles (table 1), in some cases expandingmoments within the dramatic action to deepen feeling or portray char-acter (the act 1 Quartet and both Trios in act 1), and in others givingmusical realization to dramatic actions that unfold or are narrated inBouilly’s spoken dialogue (the Rocco-Pizarro duet, the act 3 Quartet, andthe finales to acts 2 and 3).62

By contrast, Viennese adapters did not generally add ensembles tothe imported works or even revise such pieces beyond occasionally short-ening them, focusing their energies instead on providing suitable ariasfor the principal singers as discussed above. An exception in this regardoccurs in act 3 of Boieldieu’s Die Verwiesenen auf Kamtschatka (Beniowsky),where the original duet between Edwinsky (Beniowsky) and his rivalStepanoff (Stephanow) is replaced by a different piece for the corre-sponding characters; that the Viennese adapters of this opera convertedthe role of Stepanoff from a tenor part in the French original to a basspart sung by Johann Michael Vogl probably prompted this substitution,as the two original arias for Stepanoff in the opera were also replaced byarias for low voice.63

One Viennese production of opera-comique does, however, exhibitinteresting points of contact with Fidelio with respect to the treatmentof ensembles: Raoul der Blaubart, Anton Fischer’s reworking of Gretry’sRaoul Barbe-bleue. As mentioned above, Fischer (1778�1808), a singer-composer-conductor at the Theater an der Wien from 1800 until hisdeath, extensively modified the scoring and textures of Gretry’s opera,giving the piece a more modern and at times heavier sound.64 YetFischer went beyond mere re-orchestration by altering vocal lines andphrase structures and even composing new music (including a new over-ture) to augment or replace what Gretry had written; in these cases heseems to have worked with an uncredited Viennese collaborator to revisethe pre-existing German translation by Heinrich Gottlieb Schmieder that

-of Mozart’s works see Bathia Churgin, “Beethoven and Mozart’s Requiem: A New Con-nection,” Journal of Musicology 5 (1987): 457–77, at 475–77.

62 Wolfram Enßlin suggests that Ferdinando Paer’s Leonora, an Italian adaptation ofBouilly’s libretto that premiered in Dresden in October 1804, may have influenced Bee-thoven’s thinking about ensembles as well, as Beethoven’s and Paer’s versions both prog-ress from aria to duet to trio to quartet at the start of the first act. Enßlin hypothesizes thatBeethoven and Paer met during the latter’s visit to Vienna in May 1804 and shared ideasabout their respective adaptations of Bouilly. See his Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichnis derWerke Ferdinando Paers (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2004), 510.

63 A-Wn KT.462/1–4.64 Fischer’s contemporaries acknowledged that his revisions contrasted noticeably

with Gretry’s style. See for instance the review of the partial piano-vocal score of Fischer’sversion in Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 7, no. 18 (30 January 1805): col. 291–92.

tusa

521

TABLE 1.Musical Structure of Leonore vs. Fidelio (1805)

Bouilly/Gaveaux.Leonore (1798) Sonnleithner/Beethoven. Fidelio (1805)

Act 1 Act 1

1. Couplets (Marceline) 1. Arie (Marzelline)2. Duo (Marceline,

Jacquino)2. Duetto (Marzelline, Jaquino)

3. Terzett (Marzelline, Jaquino, Rocco)4. Canon [Quartet] (Marzelline, Leonore,

Rocco, Jaquino)3. Chanson (Roc) 5. [Arie] (Rocco)

6. Terzett (Rocco, Marzelline, Leonore)

Act 2

7. Introduzione del IIdo Atto, WoO 2bi

8. [Arie] (Pizarro)9. Duetto (Pizarro, Rocco)

4. Duo (Marceline,Leonore)

10. Duetto (Marzelline, Leonore)

5. Romance (Leonore) 11. Arie (Leonore)

6. Air (Leonore)7. Chœur (Prisonniers) 12. Finale (table 3)

Act 2 Act 3

8. Recitatif./Romance(Florestan)

13. Recitatio./Arie (Florestan)

9. Duo (Roc, Leonore) 14. [Melodram?]/Duett (Rocco, Leonore)10. Trio (Florestan, Roc,

Leonore)15. Terzett (Florestan, Rocco, Leonore)

16. Quartett (Pizarro, Florestan, Leonore,Rocco)

11. Duo (Florestan, Leonore) 17. [Recit. &] Duetto (Florestan, Leonore)12. Choeur (þ Florestan,

Leonore)18. Finale

13. Finale (Chœur general)

iThe “Introduzione del IIdo Atto” WoO 2b was formerly thought to havebeen composed in 1813 for Christoph Kuffner’s play Tarpeja, but Clemens Bren-neis argues persuasively that it was composed for the 1805 Fidelio when Sonn-leithner and Bouilly decided at a relatively late stage to split Bouilly’s first act intotwo acts. Brenneis, “Beethovens ‘Introduzione del IIdo Atto’ und die Leonorevon 1805,” Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft 32 (1990): 181–203.

the journal of musicology

522

served as the starting point for the Theater an der Wien production.65

For instance, at the start of act 2 Fischer replaced Gretry’s duet betweenRaoul and his major domo Ofman (renamed Kurt in the Viennese ver-sion) with a new duet to set up the more sympathetic role that Kurtwould play in the subsequent action of Fischer’s version.66

Two of the ensembles that Fischer revised in Raoul der Blaubart are ofparticular relevance to the 1805 version of Fidelio. First, Fischer and hisanonymous collaborator expanded Gretry’s conclusion to act 2 intoa multi-section finale, a revision that gives Kurt a more prominent rolein the plot and aligns the revised opera with the Italianate and Mozarteantraditions of concluding the middle act of an opera or Singspiel withsignificant action realized in an extended musical piece (table 2).67 InRaoul der Blaubart, the act 2 finale starts with the sequence of dances andsongs that closes Gretry’s second act, a kind of divertissement with whichRaoul’s gardeners pay homage to their new mistress, Isaure (Fischer’sMarie); during the closing dance, Ofman (Kurt) returns to the stage toindicate with gestures that he has sent a plea for help to Marie’s brothers.Fischer’s finale omits Gretry’s concluding sections and continues insteadwith newly invented plot elements exposed in a succession of new, musi-cally contrasting sections: Kurt reports on his success in conveying theappeal for help to a messenger in a section that is sung, not mimed;Marie, Kurt, and Marie’s admirer, the knight Vergy (disguised asa woman), pray for divine help while the gardeners look on and wonderwhy their new mistress seems disturbed; Kurt decides to try to enlist thesupport of the gardeners, who are unaware of Blaubart’s evil deeds; hereveals to them the chamber holding the corpses of Raoul’s previouswives and asks for their help; Blaubart’s soldiers arrive to investigate thecommotion and restore calm; and after the soldiers leave, Kurt dismissesthe gardeners, who pledge their support as Marie and Vergy pray fordivine assistance.

65 The Vienna libretto credits Schmieder as the translator of the Fischer version, butdoes not acknowledge that a number of significant changes have been made to Schmie-der’s text. For Schmieder’s version see Dr. [Heinrich Gottlieb] Schmieder, adapt., FurstBlaubart (Altona: Friedrich Bechtold, 1802). For the Theater an der Wien version set byFischer, see Dr. [Heinrich Gottlieb] Schmieder, adapt., Raoul der Blaubart (Vienna: Mat-thias Andreas Schmidt, 1804).

66 Cf. Schmieder, adapt., Furst Blaubart, act 2, scene 1, 33–35, with Schmieder, adapt.,Raoul der Blaubart, act 2, scene 1, 24–25.

67 Nedbal calls attention to the start of this trend in Viennese German opera in earlymodest, multi-sectional finales in a handful of works performed at the Nationalsingspiel inVienna between 1778 and 1783, including the quartet that concludes act 2 of Mozart’sEntfuhrung aus dem Serail. See Nedbal, Morality and Viennese Opera, 64–65. For the revision ofthe conclusion of act 1 of Raoul der Blaubart, cf. Schmieder, adapt., Furst Blaubart, act 2,scene 9, 53–54, with Schmieder, adapt., Raoul der Blaubart, act 2, scene 9, 41–46. Fischer’ssetting of the revised finale is preserved in both A-Wn OA 63/1–3, vol. 2 and D-Dslub MUS3486-F-502, vol. 2.

tusa

523

TABLE 2.Raoul Barbe-bleue vs. Raoul der Blaubart, Conclusion of Act 2

Gretry. Raoul barbe-bleue.Act 2 conclusion

Gretry-Fischer.Raoul der Blaubart. No. 9

Allegretto 6/8 a - A - a Allegretto 6/8 a - A - a

Shepherds present gifts. same action

Andante 6/8 F Andante 6/8 F

A gardener sings of happiness. same action

Andante 2/2 d - D [omitted]

Brief exchange between Isaureand Vergy.

Danse finale 6/8 d [omitted]

While the shepherds dance,Ofman returns to indicatethrough gesture that he hassent the call for help.

Allegro moderato 4/4 B-flatKurt returns and tells Marie and

Vergy that he has sent the call forhelp.

Andantino 3/4 GMarie, Vergy, and Kurt pray for

divine help; the gardeners lookon with concern.

Mosso [3/4] B-flatKurt plans to enlist the help of the

gardeners, who are unaware howevil their master is.

Allegro moderato 4/4 B-flatKurt informs the gardeners that

Blaubart has murdered his priorwives and will do the same toMarie.

Allegretto 3/8 FFour soldiers arrive to investigate the

commotion; they order the people tobe quiet.

Andante 4/4 FKurt, Marie and Vergy pray for

divine assistance; the gardenerspledge to help them.

the journal of musicology

524

Sonnleithner and Beethoven did something very similar, append-ing new material to Bouilly’s act 1 conclusion to create a finale (table 3).The 1805 Fidelio act 2 finale begins with Beethoven’s setting of Sonn-leithner’s translation of the prisoners’ chorus that ends Bouilly’s firstact—a text that passed the scrutiny of the censor despite foregroundingthe word Freiheit (freedom).68 To extend this into a multi-partite finale,Sonnleithner repositions and versifies the dialogue from Bouilly’s act 1,scene 7, in which Rocco informs Leonore of Pizarro’s permission forFidelio to marry Marzelline and accompany Rocco on his rounds (andto assist with the preparation of Florestan’s grave) so that it takes place

TABLE 3.Leonore vs. Fidelio (1805), Conclusion of Act 1 (2)

Bouilly. Leonore Sonnleithner. Fidelio (1805)

Act 1, sc. 9 Act 2, sc. 4

CHŒUR (Prisonniers de tout age) [CHOR] DIE GEFANGENENThe prisoners emerge from their cells to

enjoy briefly the open air. They expressa hope for freedom but know that theymust speak quietly because they fearthe governor.

same action and sentiments

Fin du premier acteAct 2, sc. 5

Rocco–Leonore conversation concerningPizarro’s permission for the marriage ofMarzelline and Fidelio and order toprepare a grave for the prisoner [shiftedfrom Bouilly’s Act 1, sc. 7].

Act 2, sc. 6Marzelline enters to warn of Pizarro’s

approach [newly invented action].

Act 2, sc. 7Pizarro reproaches and dismisses Rocco,

and exhorts his officers and soldiers tobe loyal to him [newly invented action].

68 Perhaps the censors understood freedom here solely as an expression of hope ofrelease from prison (a permitted use of the word Freiheit according to Hagelin’s memo)and not in a political sense (which was not allowed). See Glossy, “Zur Geschichte derWiener Theatercensur,” 328–29.

tusa

525

after the prisoners’ chorus, where it is now sung rather than spoken. Toconclude the act, Beethoven’s librettist then introduces a new sequenceof events that, as Matthias Brozska notes, do little to further the dra-matic action.69 Preceded by a frantic Marzelline who warns of hisapproach, Pizarro storms onto the stage, angry that Rocco has not yetstarted his work in Florestan’s dungeon; Rocco, Leonore, and Marzel-line timidly leave the stage, whereupon Pizarro calls on the prisonofficers and soldiers to serve him loyally; and the soldiers and officersassure him of their fidelity.

Even more striking is the relationship between the act 3 trio forMarie, Vergy, and Blaubart in Fischer’s Raoul der Blaubart and thequartet in the last act of Fidelio. The trio occurs at a dire momentin Gretry’s opera: from off-stage Raoul summons his third wife, Isaure(Fischer’s Marie), to descend into the chamber where he will kill herfor breaking her promise not to unlock the forbidden room, the onecontaining the corpses of Bluebeard’s prior wives. Isaure and Vergi(Vergy) look outside for signs that help is on the way and see a cloudof dust in the distance from the direction of her brothers’ lands.Raoul is insistent, however, and the trio ends as it began, with theoutcome in doubt.

Fischer’s version follows Gretry’s music (and Schmieder’s transla-tion) very closely in the first part of the trio (up through the sightingof clouds of dust on the horizon), changing only details in thescoring, extending the opening orchestral ritornello by a couple ofmeasures, and adjusting the length of one vocal phrase. What happensnext in Fischer’s version, however, is different: new text in the Vien-nese version indicates trumpet fanfares that allow the protagonists torealize that rescue is at hand, prompting a brief prayer of thanks beforethe action resumes with a close translation of the original text, return-ing to the threatening situation and urgent tone with which the triobegan: Bluebeard impatiently demands that Marie come to her death,Marie resigns herself to her fate, and Vergy expresses anger at his owninability to save her.70

69 Matthias Brozska, “Beethovens Leonore und die Tradition der franzosischen Re-volutionsoper,” in Die Geschichte der Musik. II: Die Musik der Klassik und Romantik, ed. MatthiasBrzoska and Michael Heinemann (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2001), 246–49. Brzoska notesthat Paer’s Leonora also fashioned a finale at this point, but that to do so it drops Bouilly’sprisoners chorus (and the idea of freedom) in order to create a more conventional finalethat progresses from solo to duo to ever larger forces.

70 For the French text as found in Gretry’s score see Andre Ernest Modeste Gretry,Barbe bleue (Paris: Chez l’Auteur, n.d.), 126�27; for a French libretto, see Jean-MichaelSedaine, Raoul, Barbe-bleue (Brussels: Loiseau, 1791), act 3, scene 8, 36. For the respectivetexts of Schmieder’s translation and the Viennese adaptation, cf. Furst Blaubart, act 3, scene8, 66–68, with Raoul der Blaubart, act 3, scene 8, 57–60.

the journal of musicology

526

VERGI VERGY

Tout au pied de la montagne,J’appercois dans la campagne,Un nuage s’elever.

Ha dort seh ich von den HohenSich den Staub in Wolken drehn;Eine Wolke schwebt daher.

ISAURE MARIE

Un nuage s’elever? Eine Wolke schwebt daher?

VERGI VERGY [and MARIE]

Un nuage de poussiere Immer naher kommt [schwebt] dieWolke;

Qui s’eleve de la terre.Et vers nous semble arriver.

Dort seh’ ich den Glanz von Speeren,Wie von einem Reuterheer.

ISAURE MARIE

Un nuage de poussiereQui s’eleve de la terre.O ciel! si c’etoit mes freres . . . O, wenn’s meine Bruder waren !

VERGI VERGY

C’est du cote de leurs terres. Der Staub scheint sich dort zu mehren;Sie sind’s, die Reteer [sic] in der Noth.

(Man hort Trompetenstosse.)

MARIE

Wir sind gerettet, guter Gott!

RAOUL RAOUL

Eh bien! veux-tu descendre? Fort! komm herab!—du harrestvergebens!—

ISAURE MARIE

Ah ! Seigneur, je descends, [etc.] Ja, ich komme jetzt herab, [etc.]

VERGI. At the base of the mountain I

perceive a cloud arise in the countryside.

VERGY. Ha! There from the heights

I see the dust swirling in clouds; a

cloud hovers over there.

ISAURE. A cloud arise? MARIE. A cloud hovers over there?

VERGI. A cloud of dust that arises from

the earth. And seems to come toward us.

VERGY [and MARIE] The cloud gets

[hovers] ever closer; I see there the

gleam of spears, like that of the cavalry.

ISAURE. A cloud of dust that arises from

the earth. O heaven! If it were my

brothers . . .

MARIE. Oh, if it were my brothers.

tusa

527

VERGI. It’s from the direction of their

lands.

VERGY. The dust seems to be increasing;

it is they, the rescuers in our time of need.

(One hears trumpet blasts.)

MARIE. We are rescued, good God!

RAOUL. Very well! will you descend? RAOUL Away! come down!—you’re

delaying in vain!—

ISAURE. Oh! My lord, I’m coming down, [etc.] MARIE. Yes, I’m coming down now [etc.]

In Fischer’s version, as in Gretry’s original, the initial sighting ofthe cloud of dust in the distance is set over a prolonged Fs pedal (V ofB minor), but at measure 53 the singers and pit orchestra are inter-rupted by an offstage trumpet call in D major, the key in which Marieand Vergy sing their respective reactions to the prospective rescue(ex. 2).71 Following this, Fischer writes an extended conclusion, thirtymeasures longer than the corresponding section in Gretry’s original.

The points of contact with Beethoven’s quartet are striking: a life-and-death situation is interrupted by a trumpet fanfare in an unpre-pared key that temporarily suspends the forward progress of the pieceand instills hope of rescue in the threatened protagonists. Nevertheless,the idea that Beethoven’s quartet could owe anything to the work ofa Kleinmeister like Fischer may at first glance seem preposterous. Beetho-ven’s handling of the trumpet signal and its aftermath far surpasses themusico-dramatic effect in Raoul der Blaubart. What is more, on- andoffstage trumpet fanfares and horn calls are common in the rescueoperas of the Revolutionary era. Winton Dean points to the offstagetrumpet fanfares that announce the arrival of the Gouverneur in the act1 finale of Mehul’s Helena, and in fact, Gretry’s original score for RaoulBarbe-bleue has an offstage trumpet signal—a single held note on thedominant pitch—in the duet between Isaure (Marie) and Vergi nearthe start of act 3 to signal the imminent return of the villain Raoul,a device omitted in Fischer’s version of the duet.72 But to my knowledgeno other example in the repertory so closely anticipates Beethoven’sfamous quartet as does Fischer’s trio with respect to situation, thesequence of dramatic and musical events, and the hopeful symbolism

71 The music example is transcribed after A-Wn OA 63/1–3, vol. 3, f. 44v–45v. ForGretry’s original see Gretry, Barbe bleue, 127.

72 Dean, “Beethoven and Opera,” 374. The trumpet fanfares in the Helena finale differfrom the effect in the Gretry-Fischer Raoul der Blaubart and in Leonore/Fidelio because theyoccur after the preceding section has come to a full stop on tonic. Mehul’s overture, bycontrast, bears a close connection to the Leonore Overture No. 2 (and No. 3), in which thetrumpet calls (in the orchestra) interrupt the music with a deceptive cadence; see Dean,“Beethoven and Opera,” 378–79. David Charlton suggests that the trumpet call in the act 3duet of Raoul Barbe-bleue is the progenitor of all such later effects. See his Gretry and the Growthof Opera-comique (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 360, note 11.

the journal of musicology

528

of the trumpet fanfare. And there are reasons to suspect that the sim-ilarities may be more than a coincidence.

For one thing, it cannot have escaped Beethoven’s notice that theGretry-Fischer Raul der Blaubart was very successful: between its premiereon 14 August 1804 and the end of that year it was performed no fewerthan twenty-seven times.73 But Beethoven could have known about

example 2. Gretry-Fischer, Raoul der Blaubart, Act 3 Terzett (excerpt)(A-Wn OA 63, vol. 3, fols. 44v–46r)

73 I have taken this statistic from the manuscript register of performances at theTheater auf der Wieden and the Theater an der Wien kept by Ignaz von Seyfried between

tusa

529

Fischer’s opera prior to its premiere through at least three channels.First, Beethoven and Fischer could easily have shared ideas about theirrespective opera projects, as Fischer was also on the staff of the Theateran der Wien in various capacities at the same time as Beethoven’sappointment as resident Compositeur in 1803 and 1804.74 Second, the

example 2. (Continued)

-1795 and 1829. Theaterjournal des Freihaustheaters (Wiedner Schauspielhaus) und des Theaters ander Wien. A-Wst B H.I.N.-64445.

74 The roster of personnel at the Theater an der Wien in 1802 as listed in the WienerTheater Almanach auf das Jahr 1803 shows Fischer as a composer (Compositor) for the company.

the journal of musicology

530

bass Sebastian Mayer (Meier) provides a notable link between Fischer’sopera and Fidelio, as Mayer, the Pizarro at the premiere of Fidelio in 1805,had previously sung the title role in Fischer’s version of Gretry’s opera.75

example 2. (Continued)

-The Wiener Theater Almanach auf das Jahr 1804 (the same volume that shows Beethoven andGeorg Joseph Vogler as Compositeurs for the theater) lists Fischer on the roster of malesingers. The 1806 issue of the same yearbook indicates Fischer’s appointment as one of theKapellmeister at the theater, and in the 1807 issue he is again listed as a composer.

75 According to Schindler, Beethoven had some fun at Mayer’s expense with thesyncopations in the aria con coro for Pizarro that closes the act 2 finale of the 1805 Leonore.

tusa

531

Third, and most important, is the strong likelihood that none other thanBeethoven’s own librettist, Joseph Sonnleithner, was Fischer’s uncred-ited collaborator in the revision of Gretry’s opera. A review of Raoul derBlaubart in Die Zeitung fur die elegante Welt of 27 September 1804 callsattention to the fact that this was the last new production directed bySonnleithner in his capacity as artistic director of the Theater an derWien, a position he held from Februrary 1804, when he was appointed bythe new theater owner Baron von Braun, until the end of August 1804.76

That Sonnleithner could have introduced similar dramatic strategies andeffects into parallel projects on which he was working at approximatelythe same time seems entirely plausible. Indeed, it may well have been theoff-stage trumpet call announcing the arrival of the Minister in Bouilly’slibretto (which happens during spoken dialogue) that provided theimpetus to incorporate a similar effect into the climactic piece in Raoulder Blaubart. Yet just as he did in Gretry’s trio, in shaping Bouilly’sdialogue into an ensemble for Beethoven, Sonnleithner added anelement not present in Bouilly: Leonore’s and Rocco’s hopeful reactionsto the fanfare.

* * *

As we have seen, in crafting the 1805 version of Fidelio, Sonnleithner andBeethoven employed many of the same strategies as the poets and mu-sicians responsible for adapting the imported French opera comique rep-ertory for Vienna. This should come as no surprise. As artistic director ata leading theater, it was Sonnleithner’s job to be aware of the censors’guidelines, the strengths and weaknesses of his casts, and audience ex-pectations. For his part, Beethoven, eager for success in a field that wasnew to him, must have been open to impressions made by the localproductions of such popular works as Lodoıska, Les deux journees, andRaoul der Blaubart. The relationships between Fidelio and the Vienneseversions of operas-comiques do, however, raise two points about Beethoventhat are worth keeping in mind.

-The performance of his Symphony No. 2 and Christus am Olberge on Mayer’s benefit concertat the Theater an der Wien on 27 March 1804 also suggests a relatively close relationshipbetween the composer and the singer. Lastly, Mayer acted as a go-between for Beethoven in1805 in transmitting scores to the copyists at the Theater an der Wien. See Thayer’s Life ofBeethoven, 331, 383, 386.

76 “Neues vom Theater an der Wien,” Zeitung fur die elegante Welt 4, no. 121 (9 October1804): col. 967. Kirk identifies Sonnleithner as Fischer’s librettist, without citing a source tosupport an identification that, in the event, seems to be correct. See her “The VienneseVogue,” 474–75. Perhaps she inferred this from Anton Bauer’s statement that Raoul derBlaubart was Sonnleithner’s only success as artistic director at the Theater an der Wien. SeeAnton Bauer, 150 Jahre Theater an der Wien (Zurich: Amalthea Verlag, 1952), 70.

the journal of musicology

532

First, that Sonnleithner’s subtle revisions to the political, moral,and religious messages of Bouilly’s libretto—presumably made withBeethoven’s blessing—find precedents and parallels in the Vienneseadaptations of operas-comiques should give us some pause about readingFidelio as a profession of Beethoven’s own political and ethical beliefs.To be sure, Beethoven may well have subscribed to the views on monar-chical authority, morality, and the benevolent justice of Providenceexpressed in Sonnleithner’s revision of Bouilly. Yet given the similarrevisions to other French texts, it is just as possible that he acquiescedpragmatically to changes that were deemed necessary to passAustrian censorship or to appeal to local sensibilities about religionand morality.

Second, Fidelio’s ties to the contemporary operatic scene and toRaoul der Blaubart in particular invite us to pay attention to Beethoven’srelationship to the music of his time. We are accustomed to regardingthe great composer as generally condescending toward his contempor-aries (Cherubini excepted), reserving his admiration and attention forthe music of his illustrious predecessors Haydn, Mozart, Bach, and Han-del. Yet Beethoven lived and worked within a vast and vibrant musicalculture whose practices and products impacted his creative outlook andagenda in ways that merit further exploration.

ABSTRACT

The importance of the Revolutionary-era operas-comiques for the ori-gin and conception of Beethoven’s Fidelio is well established. The Vien-nese productions that earned the composer’s admiration did not,however, present the French versions transmitted in published scoresand libretti. In addition to translating the texts from French into Ger-man, the Viennese versions typically entailed changes, sometimes quiteradical, to accommodate such factors as Austrian censorship, singers’strengths and limitations, and audience sensibilities.

The present study seeks to illuminate the French repertoire thatBeethoven and Viennese audiences had the opportunity to witnessbetween 1802 and 1805, the peak of the vogue for French opera in Viennaas well as the formative years of Beethoven’s first opera. In so doing it castsnew light on the 1805 version of Fidelio. At issue are the ways in whichBeethoven’s opera participated in the Viennese practices of adaptation.The study adds to the extant scholarship on Joseph Sonnleithner’slibretto by pointing out similar phenomena in Viennese versions of otherFrench works and interpreting such adaptations in light of the growing

tusa

533

body of research on censorship in turn-of-the-century Vienna. Knowledgeof the adaptations also clarifies the horizon of musical expectations foropera in Beethoven’s Vienna and brings to light a possible model for oneof the most famous moments in the operatic repertory: the off-stagetrumpet call in the dungeon scene in Fidelio.

Keywords: Ludwig van Beethoven, censorship, Fidelio, opera-comique,opera adaptations, Vienna

the journal of musicology

534