Musical patronage in Vienna in 18th century:

A Reflection on Haydn and Beethoven’s Careers

Lien Nguyen

MUS302 History of Music

Dr. Jose Rocha

March 15th, 2018

 Nguyen 2

The city of Vienna prides on being the home of some of the most celebrated composers of

not only the classical period but also Western music in general, namely Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang

Amadeus Mozart, and Ludwig van Beethoven. Interestingly, the three composers were in Vienna

when its patronage system experienced many changes. Unlike Mozart who completely fell out of

place with the current system and could hardly secured any significant or long-term support,

Haydn and Beethoven managed to establish their careers and make a living from music with the

help of aristocratic patronage in Austria in their own way. While Haydn’s career is often

associated with his diligent service at the Esterhazy family, Beethoven’s success is credited to his

determination and autonomy. However, the role that aristocratic patrons played in their career

makes it incomplete to credit their success to their hard work and characters alone. In other

words, Haydn and Beethoven’s musical careers not only speaks about themselves as musicians,

but is also a reflection of a broader picture of the changing Viennese patronage system they lived

in.

The Esterhazys is a recurring name throughout Haydn’s career. Haydn served the

Esterhazy for two separated periods of time, from 1761 to 1776 and after he returned from

London. This essay only discusses the first 18 years under Prince Paul Anton and Prince

Nicholaus Esterhazy, since this period was representative of the traditional practice of patronage

in Austria. Active in the Viennese musical scene as a choirboy and later freelance composer, it

was not until his official appointment as Vice-Kapellmeister in 1761 at the Esterhazys that Haydn

established a significant career. The Esterhazy were a symbol of high-ranking political and social

status of the Holy Roman Empire, having royal connections, owning extravagant properties and

promoting the arts. As Vice-Kapellmeister under Prince Anton, Haydn received an annual salary

and had access to the instruments and musicians to practice his crafts. In return, Haydn was
 Nguyen 3

expected to be responsible for a great amount of duties, from overseeing the court’s musical life

to being the role model for other musicians and resolve any issues that arose among them. These

responsibilities were detailed in a written agreement preserved in the Esterhazy archives, “The

said Joseph Heyden shall be considered and treated as a house officer. […] He must be

temperate, not showing himself overbearing toward his musicians, but mild and lenient,

straightforward and composed”.1

The Esterhazy had tremendous control over Haydn’s career and creative output. In the

same document mentioned above, “the Prince reserves the right dismiss Haydn at any time he

liked. 2 All music that Haydn composed belonged solely to Prince Esterhazy, and the composer

was not allowed to make copies of or communicate about his compositions with anyone unless

he had the Prince’s permission to do so. 3 As a result, the Prince often required Haydn to

compose at his disposal, be it for his own studies and enjoyment or a special occasion in the

household, and it was Haydn’s obligation to tailor, even make considerable changes, his works to

the Prince’s preferences. 4 Under Prince Nicholaus, Haydn’s contract improved. His

compensation increased; the terms regarding the Prince’s right to disband Haydn and to the

possession of Haydn’s works were abolished. 5 Occasionally expressing the lack personal and

artistic freedom, Haydn was still a devoted officer to the Esterhazy. He enjoyed the security and

prestige of being employed by the courtly Prince.

1
Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer, Haydn, A Creative Life In Music (Sydney: Allen and Unwin,

1982), 43-45.
2
Ibid., 45.
3
Ibid., 44
4
Ibid., 62.
5
Ibid., 72.
 Nguyen 4

Haydn’s service at the Esterhazys is exemplary for “Hauskapelle” – literally “house

ensemble”, the kind of musical activities held within aristocratic households that thrived in the

first half of 18th century and closely associated with the current political changes. This practice in

Vienna traces its development back to early 17th century under the reign of Emperor Ferdinand II,

who made Vienna the capital of his empire and as a result, a center for court ensemble, or

“hofkapelle”, practice.6 The next hundred years witnessed an increase in the number of

musicians employed in the court each time a successor took the reign. In 1680, under Leopold I,

there were 44 musicians in his hofkapelle. In 1705, Joseph II doubled the retinue, making it 98.

In 1723, under Charles VI, the number was 127.7 From 1740 to 1765, under Empress Maria

Theresa, Vienna became an even more politically centralized, with the presence of a high number

of high aristocrats. As a result, the practice of hofkapelle in the royal court “trickled down” to

these households as “hauskapelle”, or house emsemble. 8 Modeled after hofkapelle, hauskapelle

also employed musicians on salaried, full-time posts with a Kapellmeister. The Kapellmeister

would compose according to the requests by his employers for casual after dinner

entertainments, special parties or guest visits. 9 Hauskapelle reached its peak in popularity

between 1750 and 1775. Together with hofkapelle, the thriving hauskapelle made Vienna a

center of private musical performance.

6
Tia DeNora, Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1997), 38.

7
David Wyn Jones, Music In Vienna 1700, 1800, 1900, 1st ed. (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press,

2016), 11-19
8
Julia Virgina Moore, "Beethoven And Musical Economics" (Ph.D, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, 1987).
9
Mary Sue Morrow, Concert Life In Haydn's Vienna (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1989).
 Nguyen 5

It is evident that these aristocratic patrons all had a strong interest in music. Empress

Maria Theresa was a singer and dancer; while Prince Anton and Prince Nicholaus of the

Esterhazys were avid instrumentalists. However, interest alone does not explain the excessive

financial resources they put in the acquisition of musical personnel. Neither does it explain the

mass disbanding of hauskapelle in the late 18th century when the royals started to lose their

ground. Thus, a better-grounded argument is that the extravagant investment in music was not

made merely to satisfy the upperclass’ appreciation for music but rather to enhance their prestige.

For example, in a visit Maria Theresa made to the Esterhazy, she remarked on their hauskapelle,

“If I want to enjoy a good opera, I go to Esterhaza.” 10 By holding high artistic standards in

music, aristocrats like the Esterhazys were certainly in favor of the Empress who shared the same

interest, raising their status in the powerful circles. The acquisition of good musician even

became an ongoing competition these wealthy households, which was described as “akin to a

cultural arms race.” 11 Since music was a medium for the elevation social status, musicians were

treated as servants whose life and career were controlled by their masters. The role of hofkapelle

and hauskapelle was summed up by David Wyn Jones, “The Hofkapelle, like the court as a

whole was not a permanent corpus of individuals that served successive emperors, but was the

creative privilege of each new emperor, who could, if he wished, change its constitution entirely,

even abolish it; in that way the court became the image of the ruler.” 12 It is not an overstatement

to say that the creation and enjoyment of music was in the hands of people of wealth.

10
Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer, Haydn, A Creative Life In Music (Sydney: Allen and

Unwin, 1982), 63.

11
F. M Scherer, Quarter Notes And Bank Notes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
12
David Wyn Jones, Music In Vienna 1700, 1800, 1900, 1st ed. (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press,

2016), 17.
 Nguyen 6

Beethoven moved to Vienna in 1792 when the city, as did the rest of Europe, underwent

many political and cultural changes. In the same year, the French monarchy was abolished and

replaced by a republic government. This posed an extreme threat to all neighboring feudal

regimes. In Austria, the Holy Roman Empire bestirred for another decade under the ruling of

Leopold II and Francis II, grand successors of Maria Theresa. However, their attempt at political

repression could not resist the permeating influence from the French Revolution.13 As the upper

class started to lose ground, the practice of hofkapelle and hauskapelle also declined in the last

decades of the 18th century. In 1790, Prince Anton Esterhazy disbanded the entire ensemble,

except for Haydn and some church musicians, due to financial shortage. 14 And although Haydn

still received an annual stipend, he was not tied to any official obligations with the Esterhazy. In

fact, by 1796, most of hauskapelles in Vienna had been dismissed. 15 Despite the political

upheavals, Vienna remained a musical center where musicians like Beethoven could hope for

support. However, the practice of musical patronage was never the same.

The decline hofkapell and hauskapell gave way for the emergence of salons and public

concerts. As soon as his Viennese arrival, Beethoven established himself as a virtuoso pianist

who was extremely well received in the salon. This was a gateway for Beethoven to enter the

aristocratic circles and become known for his compositions as well. Beethoven might have come

to Vienna seeking for a permanent employment in a court, instead he found himself in favor of

more than just one aristocrat who wanted to support him. The number of Beethoven’s supporters

13
Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven (New York: Norton, 2003), 72.
14
Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer, Haydn, A Creative Life In Music (Sydney: Allen and

Unwin, 1982), 96.

15
Tia DeNora, Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1997), 42.

 Nguyen 7

topped thirty, 16 including some of the most wealthy and influential names such as Prince Joseph

Lobkowitz, Baron Gottfried van Swieten, Count Waldstein. Among Beethoven’s many patrons in

Vienna, the foremost and longest-standing were Prince Karl Lichnowsky and his wife, Princess

Christiane. 17 Prince Lichnowsky provided Beethoven with a yearly salary and accommodation at

his home, introduced him to his circles and arranged for him an international tour. 18 In addition,

Beethoven was treated as a friend and a family member by both the Prince and the Princess. 19 In

return, they received many dedications as well as the composer’s “deepest affection and

gratitude”. 20 The Lichnowskys even earned the right make suggestions in Beethoven’s works,

which was extremely rare given the composer’s personality.21

Beethoven might have a vast network of patrons, yet none of them, even Prince

Lichnowsky, became a definitive factor to his musical career the way the Esterhazy did to

Haydn’s. The nature of musical patronage had forever changed. It had become history that one

aristocrat exclusively employed one or a group of musicians and asserted complete control over

their career. Although Beethoven was sponsored by Prince Lichnowsky, he could engage in

musical activities from outside the family and was even encouraged to do so. Patronage had now

evolved into what David Wyn Jones called an “ad hoc” basis, where there are more than one way

that a patron can support a composer. One could commission works from composers individually

16
Tia DeNora, Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1997), 21-23.

17
Maynard Solomon, Beethoven (New York: Schirmer Books, 2001), 83.
18
Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven (New York: Norton, 2003), 76.
19
Maynard Solomon, Beethoven (New York: Schirmer Books, 2001), 83.
20
Ibid., 83.
21
Ibid., 83.
 Nguyen 8

or as a group, subscribe to copies of newly published compositions through music dealers, and so

on. 22 These new practices not only allowed more freedom and flexibility for the composer, but

also opened the doors to patronage, which used to be exclusive to the courts, to people who are

not able to afford a salaried position but still want to contribute. This phenomenon was described

as a “social broadening” in Viennese musical scene. 23 The new patrons no longer consisted of

only courtly princes, but expanded to the emerging professionals such as court servants, lawyers,

bankers, and other groups of different backgrounds who are capable and willing to take part.24

This also means that one could become patrons to more than one composer, since the new

practices of patronage no longer requires their resources being concentrated on one composer or

ensemble.

What are the reasons for this new dynamic in the patronage system? Back in Haydn’s

time, owning a retinue of musicians led by a Kapellmeister was a symbol of status. The courts

spent extravagantly in their domestic musical practice in their heyday but disbanded most of their

musical personnel when they no longer had as much resources. However, with the participation

of the new upper middle class, patronage seemed to play a new role. To put in context, the newly

emerging patrons were not likely to surpass, if they ever rose to, the wealth and prestige of the

long-standing royals, even when their fortune had declined. Therefore, there must have been

other reasons than financial capabilities for the new participants to take part in musical

22
David Wyn Jones, Music In Vienna 1700, 1800, 1900, 1st ed. (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press,

2016), 5
23
Tia DeNora, Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1997), 49.

24
David Wyn Jones, Music In Vienna 1700, 1800, 1900, 1st ed. (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press,

2016), 5.
 Nguyen 9

patronage. Tia De Nora argues that in addition to the old aristocrats whose motivation behind

their patronage is to sustain their status, the support from the new aristocrats derived from their

genuine “appreciation of greatness”. 25 She wrote, “The sources of distinction shifted from

simple quantitative expenditure to qualitative demonstrations of discernment and "good taste"

[…] Through the pursuit of the greatest composers, Vienna's social aristocrats could themselves

be identified as aristocrats of taste.” 26 Although the new aristocrats were likely to be aware of

their role as leaders of public taste, that “praising Beethoven was simultaneously, albeit

implicitly, praising his aristocratic patrons”, this is very different from the way the former courts

invested in their hauskapell to define their prestige. 27 There was a shift from focusing on

enhancing their own status to maximizing the composers’ mastery. Thus, the competition over

the recruitment of master musicians was also replaced by new patrons’ joined effort to support.

The transformation in Viennese musical patronage not only occurred to its participants

but also to the relationship between musicians and composers. To the new patrons, their

relationships with musicians they sponsored were likely to be intrinsically quite balanced

because of their backgrounds. However, the changes in the relationship between musicians and

the old aristocrats are quite evident. Beethoven’s interaction with his patrons was an example. In

his early exposure to the Viennese nobility, he “certainly was lionized by the aristocracy, petted

and spoiled be the sensitive and wealthy”. 28 When Beethoven lived with the Lichnowskys, he

was not treated as a servant the way Haydn was by the Esterhazys, but as a member of the family

25
Tia DeNora, Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1997), 48.

26
Ibid., 48.
27
Ibid., 48.
28
Maynard Solomon, Beethoven (New York: Schirmer Books, 2001), 80.
 Nguyen 10

instead. Prince Lichnowsky was even said to direct his servants to serve Beethoven first

whenever the composer and himself happened to ring at the same time. 29 The affection, more

often than not, became suffocating to Beethoven, who possessed a strong wish to be

independent. He would usually avoid eating with the Prince, although the Prince might have

wished him to be there, because of all the etiquettes required if he did. 30At times he even refused

to play for his patrons if it was against his will. 31 Beethoven asserted complete control over his

creative output, and although in rare occasions the Lichnowskys could make suggestions, it was

a right to be earned for all the affection and respect they had for him. Although one may argue

that the support from the high aristocrats like Prince Lichnowsky for Beethoven was an effort to

maintain their status, it is rather naïve to believe that supporting a musician could save their

faltering power in a politically unstable period. Another argument is that a relationship of this

nature is entirely due to Beethoven’s defying characters and his strong sense of autonomy.

However, it would be incomplete if we discredit his patrons’ tolerance. The Lichnowskys and

other Beethoven’s patrons could have invested in some other composer or pianist whose

behaviors and characters might have been much more pleasing to them. But instead, they chose

to accept Beethoven’s unconventional personality in exchange for the opportunities to help him

maximize his crafts. The change in the patron-composer relationship again reiterate the new

meaning of aristocratic musical patronage, which focus on the nurture of the composer and his

music rather than employ them as a status symbol.

The late 18th century of Vienna experienced not only the thriving of the greatest talents in

Western music but also significant changes in the society, specifically in musical patronage. Both

29
Ibid., 84.
30
Ibid., 84.
31
Ibid., 85.
 Nguyen 11

Haydn and Beethoven found resources they needed to further their career from the aristocrats,

but their aristocrats are different. For Haydn, it was exclusively the courtly princes. For

Beethoven, it was both the princes and the growing number of upper classmen. Both Haydn and

Beethoven valued financial security and permanent employment, but the changes in Viennese

patronage system in Beethoven’s time presented him more options. Both Haydn and Beethoven

valued freedom, but Haydn adapted to the disciplines that his patrons expected of him while

Beethoven challenged them. Haydn’s career was exemplary for the height of private music

performances in the courts and aristocratic households with the popular hofkapelle and

hauskapelle. Beethoven’s career represented a new musical life in Vienna, with the growing of

public concerts and upper middleclass patrons who supported musicians like him with a serious

appreciation for taste and greatness. Both Haydn and Beethoven’s achievements in Vienna are

result of their talent as well as reflections the politics and culture of their time.

Bibliography

DeNora, Tia. Beethoven And The Construction Of Genius. Reprint, Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1997.

__________. "Musical Patronage And Social Change In Beethoven's Vienna". American Journal

Of Sociology 97, no. 2 (1991): 310-346. doi:10.1086/229781.

Geiringer, Karl, and Irene Geiringer. Haydn, A Creative Life In Music. Reprint, Sydney: Allen

and Unwin, 1982.

Jones, David Wyn. Music In Vienna 1700, 1800, 1900. 1st ed. Reprint, Woodbridge: The Boydell

Press, 2016.
 Nguyen 12

Lockwood, Lewis. Beethoven. Reprint, New York: Norton, 2003.

Moore, Julia Virgina. "Beethoven And Musical Economics". Ph.D, Reprint, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, 1987.

Morrow, Mary Sue. Concert Life In Haydn's Vienna. Reprint, Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press,

1989.

Scherer, F. M. Quarter Notes And Bank Notes. Reprint, Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2012.

Solomon, Maynard. Beethoven. Reprint, New York: Schirmer Books, 2001.