Of far greater importance to the art of violoncello playing was Duport the younger’s pupil, Nicolas Joseph Platel, who was born in the year 1777 at Versailles, and received his first musical instruction in the Institution of royal pages. There was then no attempt at violoncello playing, but about the tenth year of the boy’s age the inclination for it was developed. Louis Duport, who discerned a disposition favourable to it, devoted himself with special zeal to his training. These relations were broken off, when Duport, at the end of 1789, left France in order to seek a position in Berlin. From that period Platel was thrown for a long time upon his own resources. In the year 1793 he was drawn into close relations with Lamare, who sought in every way to forward him. In 1796 Platel became a member of the orchestra of the “Théâtre Feydeau.” He was deprived of his post on account of a love affair with an actress of that institution, with whom he went to Lyons at the end of 1797. When he returned to Paris in 1801, he appeared several times at concerts with great success. He was then reputed the best violoncellist in Paris, and the absence of Duport and Lamare abroad stood him in good stead.
Platel might now have made his fortune in the French capital. However, on account of the carelessness of his disposition and his unpractical nature, he knew not how to turn his opportunities to advantage. In 1805 he left Paris in order to undertake a concert tour, but at Quimper, where he made the acquaintance of a cello playing dilettante, he remained quite two years. He then finally came to the resolution of again beginning his wanderings. When he had appeared in concerts at Brest and Nantes with great success, he went North with the intention of visiting Holland and thence Germany. This plan, however, was not carried out. Platel settled himself down, on the way to the former place, at Ghent, remained there giving lessons several years, and then went to Antwerp. An opera troupe was there at the time who engaged him as first violoncellist. About six years later he undertook the same function in the theatre at Brussels. This was the turning-point which decided Platel’s destiny. The Prince of Chimay engaged him for the Royal Music School of the Belgian Court, which was opened in 1831. By accepting this office, to which he devoted himself until his death on August 25, 1835, he became the founder of the Belgium school of violoncello playing, from which emanated, under his direction, such artists as Batta, Demunck, and Servais.
Platel’s compositions consist of five Concertos, of which the last is entitled “Le Quart d’heure,” also of three books of Sonatas with bass accompaniment, and eight “Airs Variés” of “Caprices ou Préludes,” and six Romances with piano accompaniment. Besides these he wrote six Duets for violoncello and violin, and three Trios for violin, viola, and violoncello.
We must mention here three French cellists of the second half of last century, whose master is not known—namely, Chrétien, Haillot, and Raoul.
Gilles Louis Chrétien, born in 1754 at Versailles, and died in Paris, March 4, 1811, at the age of twenty-two found a position as Royal band musician. He possessed great readiness and a good tone, though he played without expression. He lost his place by the Revolution, but was indemnified in 1807 by being received into the Imperial orchestra. He does not seem to have occupied himself with composition, but as a writer on music, though without much success.
Haillot belonged to the orchestra of the “Comédie Italienne,” and was also engaged in private teaching. By his arrangements of operas in the form of duets he supplied the wants of amateur cello players.
Finally, Jean Marie Raoul, an enthusiastic friend of art—who besides his official position as crown lawyer and, later, as Justice at the Paris Cour de Cassation, cultivated zealously the violoncello, on which he distinguished himself—must be mentioned in this place as the author of a violoncello school. It appeared under the title of “Méthode de violoncelle, contenant une nouvelle exposition des principes de cet instrument.” Raoul composed also some Sonatas and “Airs variés” for his favourite instrument. His efforts, supported by Vuillaume, the well-known Parisian violin maker, to restore the gamba to practical use were in vain. Raoul was born in Paris, in 1766, and died there in 1837.
When we survey the progressive development of violoncello playing from its commencement to the close of the eighteenth century under all aspects, the following facts are presented to us: violoncello playing was taken up, as we saw, in the first half of the seventeenth century, and even before, by the Italians. It was at first used only as an orchestral instrument and as a harmonised accompaniment of recitative singing in the place of the gamba. But in the second half of the seventeenth century there were some Italian artists, as Gabrieli, Ariosti, and Bononcini, who endeavoured to elevate the violoncello to the rank of a solo instrument. Then appeared Franciscello, who worked with uncommon success to the same end. By the last three named artists violoncello playing was presented to the German nation with the idea of artistically treating it, while in France Giov. Battista Struck, called Baptistin, exercised an influence in the same direction.
In both these countries this new branch of Art soon received a great impulse by means of native talent. The Germans brought to it more that was empiric, the French what was methodic—consequently at the beginning, it must be acknowledged, the latter gained a certain advantage. It is very noteworthy that they made great efforts to arrange systematically and establish the technique of violoncello playing by instruction books and methods, and Corrette led the way with his violoncello school, published in 1741, which was followed in the course of the second half of the last century by similar works by Tillière, Cupis, and Müntzberger.95 In Italy and Germany, as far as one can see, the first attempts at instruction books for the violoncello were initiated after Corrette and Tillière had published their Schools.
But in spite of the laudable efforts which were made, especially in France, to establish the science of cello playing on a sure and suitable basis, it made very slow progress. A substantial hindrance existed from the circumstance that the method of violin playing, which, at the time, had already reached a high state of cultivation, had been in a measure used as a model without taking into consideration the important difference in the dimensions of the fingerboard in the two instruments. Not only had the fingering of the diatonic and chromatic scales, but also the principles of the so-called positions, been transferred from the violin to the violoncello. With reference to the first point, the necessary directions were given by description in the Method of Corrette. As to the latter point it must be observed that for the lower portion of the fingerboard four different positions were adopted analogous to the technique of the violin. To this position-theory, which has come down to the present time and is treated of in some of the old as well as the new violoncello schools, no special authority, strictly speaking, should be attached.96 For the violin it has to a certain extent a meaning, as on that instrument it is possible to play a complete scale on all parts of the fingerboard without moving the hand. On account of its wider dimensions the violoncello admits of this only by the help of the thumb position, with the exception of the C major scale by using the open strings. But even here, where an indication of position would be applicable, it is not usual. Evidently there is something inconsistent in this.
There was a singular conjuncture with regard to finger technique in the use of the thumb, as we have already seen from Corrette’s violoncello school. The fourth finger was excluded from co-operation as soon as the use of the thumb was introduced, because it was thought that it was too short. This view of it prevailed up to the end of last century. In the method published by the Belgian violoncellist, Müntzberger, it is literally said: “When the fourth position has been passed over, only three fingers are used.” Later indeed, where Müntzberger speaks of the use of the thumb, he somewhat modifies this rule, since he remarks: “Many professors, when using the thumb, do not need the fourth finger. I am of opinion that its use should not be rejected, in that he, who by nature is endowed with a long finger, can make it available in certain cases.”
In exceptional cases, therefore, Müntzberger advocated the use of the little finger when playing with the assistance of the thumb. But it is evident from his expression that the use of it was not usual at the end of the last century. This is undoubtedly to be gathered from the “Méthode de Violoncelle,” published conjointly by Baillot, Levasseur, Catel, and Baudiot. In it is the following observation: “The use of the fourth finger in the different positions of the thumb was not known to the older violoncello teachers of France. It has only been introduced a few years, since the necessity for it has been felt.” As this violoncello school was in 1804 accepted as an instruction book for the Conservatoire by a resolution of the General Committee, it is clearly evident that in France at least the fourth finger had for the most part remained unused until shortly before the close of the last century. The cause of this was plainly an incorrect manipulation. Concerning the practice pursued in Germany during the second half of the last century with regard to the fourth finger, Joh. Bap. Baumgartner’s Tutor, mentioned page 69, would alone be able to give an explanation, if it were still extant. With some probability, however, it may be assumed that the same opinion was held in reference to it as on the other side of the Rhine. The influence of France on German violoncello playing in the second half of the last century made itself felt in other ways. This was chiefly through the means of the brothers Duport. The succeeding sections will show in what way the further cultivation of this branch of the art progressed.
The Art of Violoncello Playing In the Nineteenth Century
IV.—ITALY
The most important epoch of Italian violoncello playing came to a close with Boccherini. His early withdrawal from his native land caused a loss all the more sensibly felt because there was no one of equal importance to compensate for him in the further development of the art, from the point to which he had attained both in its executive and productive aspect. This task fell principally to Germans, French, and Belgians, whilst Italy was deprived of the position of pre-eminence in regard to violoncello playing which she is asserted to have held for a long time in the previous century. The same phenomenon consequently was repeated here as in regard to violin playing.
Already towards the end of the eighteenth century Art, and especially instrumental music, in which the Italians had accomplished so much that was praiseworthy, fell into decline on the Apennine Peninsula—although Italy brought out some important productions, particularly in the department of opera compositions. The Musical Almanack for Germany, of 1783, contains the correspondence of an anonymous German artist who travelled in Italy in the year 1782. It is there said: “At Naples I found in the Conservatoire97 a veritable horror. Caffaro98 is here with Milico, whose music gave me the most pleasure. As for the rest it is all miserable, heavy, modern Italian opera music, as well as in the churches. I hoped to find a great deal at Venice, but it is no better there. Above all, the execution in the whole of Italy is less good than formerly.... But what astonishes me most is the extraordinarily little appreciation of music in Italy now. It is almost a miracle to see people of position who have a love of music. It created a great sensation when we gave concerts in Rome which were frequented by sincere admirers and friends. Instrumental music is at such a low ebb that it is almost beneath any criticism.”
At the beginning of the present century things were not changed in this respect. Louis Spohr, who was in Italy in 1816, expresses himself in his autobiography concerning the condition of music there much in the same manner as the anonymous writer cited above, and, a little later, Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy likewise.
Under these conditions it cannot excite surprise if Italy in consequence did not produce so many representatives of violoncello playing in the highest sense of the word as hitherto.
Luigi Venzano must be mentioned as one of the first distinguished Italian cellists of this century. He was born in Genoa about 1815, and was solo cellist in the orchestra of the Theatre Carlo Felice, as well as teacher at the musical institute of his native town. He died on January 27, 1878. As a composer he devoted himself to vocal and stage compositions.
An incomparably more important player than the preceding artist, or his countrymen to be subsequently mentioned, is Alfredo Piatti, born at Bergamo on January 8, 1822, and not in 1823, as Fétis says. His father, who died on February 27, 1878, and who early instructed him in music, was not a singer but a violin player.99 The boy soon decided for the violoncello, on which he received his first lessons from his great uncle, Zanetti, who was engaged as music master at Bergamo.
Later he was sent to Milan for the benefit of the Conservatoire. Here the excellent violoncellist, Merighi, conducted his further education. Piatti attended the above-named Institution until September, 1837, after having appeared previous to this date at one of the concerts with decided success. In April, 1838, he gave a concert of his own in the Teatro della Scala, at Milan, with the profits of which he supplied himself with the means of undertaking a concert tour. Soon after he was heard very favourably at Venice and Vienna. In the latter town he remained some time; then he returned to Italy and gave concerts at Milan and Padua. In 1843 he went to Munich and joined in a concert with Liszt there. In the following year he presented himself at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, Berlin, Breslaw, and Dresden, when he afterwards visited Paris. In 1845 he was in St. Petersburg, where his performances met with unusual appreciation. Having returned to Milan, the post of teacher was offered to him, in 1846, at the Conservatoire. He did not, however, accept the offer, but established himself in the same year in the English capital, which from that time he has only left occasionally, either to undertake concerts or journeys to recruit his health. In London he soon became one of the most distinguished artistic celebrities, and he still remains in full favour with the public. His performances are proportionably marked by fine tone, the greatest purity, tasteful rendering, as well as by a perfect mastery of all technical difficulties. He is not only the most important cellist in England, but belongs altogether to the highest rank of artists of the present time. He wrote for his instrument two Concertos (Op. 24 and 26), a Concertino (Op. 18), a “Fantasia romantica,” Capriccios (Op. 22 and 25), a “Sérénade Italienne” (Op. 17), “Airs Baskyrs” (Op. 8), as well as a long list of other works, consisting of Themes with variations and drawing-room pieces of various kinds. Further he has brought out new editions of old cello compositions and six Sonatas by Boccherini. He has also published original songs with violoncello obbligato.
Two other pupils of the Milan Conservatoire are Guglielmo Quarenghi and Alessandro Pezze. The first, born on October 22, 1826, in Casal Maggiore, was pursuing his studies during the years 1839-1842. Arrived at maturity he was first violoncellist at the Teatro della Scala, at Milan, and from 1851 he gave instruction also at the Conservatoire to which he was indebted for his education. In February, 1879, he took the place of Boucheron as Choirmaster at the Cathedral. He enjoyed this position only a few years, for he died February 3 or 4, 1882. Amongst his compositions the most noteworthy are—Six Capriccios, a “Chant elégiaque,” with piano accompaniment; two Romances, a Scherzo, “Un pensiero al lago,” and some Fantasias on Motifs from Italian operas.
Alessandro Pezze, born 1835, at Milan, received from his father, a clever dilettante, his first musical instruction, after which, in 1846, he went to the Conservatoire of his native town. Merighi directed his violoncello studies. After he had been for some time first cellist at the Teatro della Scala, he was engaged by the English impresario, Lumley, for Her Majesty’s Theatre in London. Pezze belonged to it until 1867, in which year the theatre was destroyed by fire. Later this artist was employed in the orchestras of the Philharmonic Society and Covent Garden. He is still living in London.
The Naples Conservatoire produced Gaetano Braga, born on June 9, 1829, at Guilianuova in the Abruzzi. He was originally destined for the church, but the inclination for music came out so strongly that he could not be kept back from it. His parents now wished that he should be educated as a singer; he, however, decided for the violoncello, on which Gaetano Ciandelli directed his studies. He soon became a pupil of Mercadante for composition. In the year 1852 he had finished his studies at the Conservatoire. Soon after he undertook a concert journey to the North of Italy, and from thence to Vienna, where he formed a connection with Mayseder, and was a member of his String Quartet for a short time. In 1855 he betook himself to Paris, where he was much in request as a favourite solo player. He is at present living in Florence. As a composer Braga devoted himself by preference to stage compositions. For the violoncello he only wrote a Concerto, and some smaller pieces with piano accompaniment, and a Serenade for voice with cello accompaniment.
Other Italian violoncellists at the present time worthy of notice are—Ronchini and G. Magrini in Milan, Pini in Venice, Serato in Bologna, Toscanini in Parma, Sbolci and Castagnoli in Florence, Furino in Rome, Centola in Naples, Montecchi (who lives at present at Rennes in Bretagne as a music teacher), and Mattioli, now in Cincinnati.100
V.—GERMANY
German violoncello playing had, during the second half of last century, found unusual opportunities for expansion in consequence of the demand for numberless competent artists for the various princely households, as well as for the larger towns. Amongst the cellists mentioned in the second part of this work, there were already some specially prominent personages to distinguish. The branch of art, however, to which this book is devoted first received a really important and sustained impulse through means of Bernhard Romberg. This artist acquired for German violoncello playing a significance similar to that which Louis Spohr gained for German violin playing, only with this difference—that the latter master was far superior to the former as a composer. While certain violin compositions of Spohr (not to speak of his other works), on account of their intrinsic worth, are calculated to appear in concert programmes, and will presumably do so in the future, the cello pieces by Romberg have already for some time completely disappeared from them. Yet they have, from a scholastic point of view, proved to be of value even to the present day. In regard to this, what Romberg did for the cultivation and perfecting, as well as the fine manipulation of his instrument, merits for him the appellation of founder of the German school of violoncello playing. His Concertos and concert pieces have been of more importance, however, for taking such a direction than his violoncello school, which by no means belongs to the best instruction books of the kind, and is a proof that a man can be a distinguished teacher—and Romberg was in any case this—without having the capacity for the production of a thoroughly satisfactory instruction book. The examples and music pieces in Romberg’s violoncello school are indeed excellent, but some of the maxims which he enunciates seem peculiar, and he goes too much into extraneous matter, instead of bringing forward the more substantial principles with the necessary precision and accuracy.
It is noteworthy that Romberg advocated a simplified notation for violoncello music. Primarily (besides the bass clef), in Italy and Germany, only the tenor clef was used, and the alto clef in France. But as the compass of violoncello playing was more and more extended up to the high parts of the scale, by the use of the thumb positions, keys used for the discant and violin were added. Boccherini, for the notation of many of his compositions, made use altogether of five clefs, sometimes indeed in one and the same piece—as, for example, at the opening Allegro of his Concerto (C major). There was nothing arbitrary in this procedure. Boccherini had far more in view the object of giving to the player starting-points for the finger positions to be used in each case. In his later compositions, however, he abandoned this, as the use of so many different clefs had its inconveniences; and he restricted himself to the use of the bass, tenor, and violin clef. This notation was subsequently generally accepted, particularly also by Romberg, and is still in use up to the present time. In opposition to the earlier favourite manner of writing the notes—by the use of the violin clef an octave too high for the violoncello, as is the case in Mozart’s and Beethoven’s compositions—Boccherini, by the application of the clefs mentioned, wrote everything as it would sound. By this means he gained the advantage that he was not obliged to make so much use of ledger lines in the writing of his passages—which were continually moving in the soprano part—as he must have done if he had followed the custom of his contemporaries and had adhered to the higher system of notation. It is readily understood why Romberg in his cello school should declare himself in favour of the change introduced by Boccherini, for he also, with special predilection, made use of the higher regions of the fingerboard for his playing; wherefore it was said of him that his handling of the violoncello was often after the manner of the violin. From this point of view it is thoroughly rational that Romberg, in regard to notation, should follow the example given by Boccherini. In later times the too frequent and continuous use of the soprano clef—in which a broad, energetic volume of tone, full of expression, is nearly excluded—has been abandoned without, however, being neglected entirely; while to the most beautiful and effective clef—namely, the tenor—has been accorded its right place.
Bernhard Romberg was the son of the bassoon player, Anton Romberg, of some note in his time, and was born on November 11, 1767, in the village of Dinklage, near the little Prussian town of Quakenbrück. It is unknown whom he had as teacher for the violoncello. It was probably an orchestra musician in Münster, to which place his parents had removed their home. In any case, Romberg’s talent caused him to make the most of it, for before he had passed his youth he was able to undertake with his cousin, Andreas Romberg,101 who was about the same age, a concert tour which led them through Holland, and was extended to Paris, where they were both heard with such success in the house of Baron Bagge102 that they were engaged in 1787 for the “Concert Spirituel.” After his return from Paris Romberg devoted himself eagerly to progressive studies, and at the same time worked in the orchestra at Münster.
Münster belonged then, as is known, to the Electorate of Cologne. The Elector Maximilian Franz, who on his accession to his dominions (April 27, 1784) resided often in the Westphalian town, had his attention drawn to the two Romberg artists, and engaged them for his Royal band at Bonn. The announcement of the appointment bears the date of December 19, 1790.
When the Elector, in the autumn of the following year, went to reside at Mergentheim, then the seat of the German order—whose Grand Master he was—he caused about twenty members of his band to follow him from Bonn. Amongst them, besides Beethoven, who in addition to his office as organist was also tenor player at the Court, were also the two Rombergs. In one of the musical entertainments which took place in the apartments of the Elector, Bernhard Romberg was heard in a Concerto. Boszler’s Musical Correspondence of the year 1791 contains a notice of it in which is said103: “Romberg, the younger, combines in his violoncello playing extraordinary rapidity with charming rendering; this rendering is the more marked and decided when he is heard in connection with the greater number of violoncellists. The tone which he produces from his instrument is, moreover—especially in the expressive parts—extremely clear, firm, and penetrating. Taking into consideration the difficulty of the instrument, a thoroughly marked purity of tone, in the extraordinarily quick rendering of the Allegro, must be attributed to him in the highest degree. Yet this after all is mere mechanical readiness; the connoisseur has another standard by which he measures the greatness of artists; and this is, the manner of playing, the perfection of expression or the spiritual interpretation. Once on this point, the connoisseur will pronounce in favour of the expressive Adagio. It is impossible more deeply to penetrate into the more delicate hues of feeling—impossible to colour them with more variety—to enhance them, moreover, by greater light and shade—impossible to hit more exactly the very tones through which this feeling has utterance, tones which appeal more directly to the heart than Romberg succeeds in doing in his Adagio.”
“How acquainted he is with all the beauties of detail, which lie in the nature of the piece in the peculiar kind of expression to be given, and for which the composer has no signs for recognition? What effects he is able to produce by the crescendo of his tone, swelling up to the strongest fortissimo, and then again by its dying away to a scarcely audible pianissimo!!”
From this enthusiastic announcement we must conclude that Romberg’s playing at that time—he was in his twenty-fourth year—showed already a high degree of perfection. It is therefore quite conceivable that he cherished the wish of obtaining a position in life adequate to the merit of his performances, for in Bonn he received only a yearly salary of 600 florins, and, moreover, the existence of the Cologne Electorate, the complete dissolution of which was accomplished in the autumn of the year 1794, had fallen into a very doubtful condition from the time of the appearance of the revolutionary army on the Rhine (October, 1792).
Romberg therefore accepted with his cousin, Andreas, at Easter, 1794, an engagement at the Schröder Theatre in Hamburg, but he did not long remain there. Three years later they undertook together a concert journey into Italy, gave concerts on their return at Vienna, supported by Beethoven, and again betook themselves to Hamburg, whence, after a two years’ residence, Bernhard Romberg visited London. He next travelled in Portugal and Spain, in 1800 returned again to Paris, and performed this time at the concerts of “La Rue de Cléry” and the “Théâtre des Victoires” with such great success that he became teacher at the Conservatoire. Romberg does not, however, appear to have felt comfortable in this position, for after two years he withdrew from it and again turned to Hamburg. In 1805 he responded to an invitation to be solo cellist at the Berlin Hofcappelle. The calamities of war, which broke over Prussia in the following year, compelled him once more to become a wanderer. He next visited the Austrian States. After the conclusion of the peace of Tilsit, he found himself again in Berlin, remained there up to the year 1810, and then undertook a journey through Silesia, Poland, and Russia. At St. Petersburg he met with Ferd. Ries, and in conjunction with him gave concerts in the Southern provinces of the Czar’s dominions. The artists wished to arrange a visit to Moscow, but were prevented by the memorable burning of the Kremlin which compelled the French army to retreat. They then turned to Stockholm, and from thence went to Copenhagen and Hamburg. Here they separated—Ries went to London, which he reached in March, 1813, and Romberg took his way by Bremen to Holland and Belgium. From the latter country he again visited Paris for a short time. Returned to Germany, Romberg prepared for a second journey to Russia. On this occasion he lingered two years at Moscow. After he had been, from 1815-1819, in the service of the Berlin Court, he chose Hamburg as his settled residence. Wherever Romberg played his highly finished performances excited great enthusiasm. In this his violoncello compositions—which were entirely in accordance with the taste of that period in a virtuoso point of view, and which, moreover, were distinguished by their solid quality above all other cello compositions of the time—had a substantial share.
During his many journeys through European countries, Romberg had collected national airs, of which he availed himself in various ways for his compositions under different names. Amongst them are to be found Caprices on Swedish, Polish, Moldavian, Wallachian, and Spanish songs, as well as a “Fantaisie” on Norwegian and a “Rondo brilliant” on Polish melodies, besides four books of Variations on Russian national airs. He further wrote ten Concertos, three Concertinos, a Fantasia with orchestra, Polonaises, as well as Duets and Sonatas, with bass accompaniment for the cello. He was also very productive in the sphere of chamber music, and composed also for the stage. These last compositions have, however, not survived him, while, on the other hand, his cello pieces, as already noticed, maintain even at this time a certain value for teaching.