Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph (10 page)

Of course, these French philosophes could not have been more wrong. Reason would not reign, princes did not depart, the Punch-and-Judy quarrels of theology endured. But for a few decades in the eighteenth century, an overwhelming sense of hope gave the Enlightenment a singular radiance. The age envisioned the end of fanaticism and tyranny, when not only would the understanding of nature be completed by science and reason, but government, society, humankind itself would be perfected. Philosophers spoke of the “science of government,” the “science of man.” When humanity illuminated by reason was free of the chains of superstition and submission to tyranny both secular and sacred, when every individual was free to find his or her way to happiness, then, as Schiller and Beethoven sang, earth would become an Elysium.

In the 1780s, that spirit reached a climax. There was a fever of revolution in the air, an intoxication of hope, a conviction that humanity was about to turn a corner into an exalted age, the birth of true civilization and a final understanding of the universe.
¹⁷
Hope and excitement vibrated everywhere, in philosophy and literature and poetry and in the pages of the
Intelligenzblatt
, the town paper in Bonn.

Just after Immanuel Kant published
Critique of Pure Reason
, in 1781, which set philosophy on a new course of asking what is possible to truly know on earth, the philosopher wrote a popular article on the topic, “What Is Enlightenment?” He answered:

 

Enlightenment is mankind's exit from its self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity
is the inability to make use of one's own understanding without the guidance of another.
Self-incurred
is this inability if its cause lies not in the lack of understanding but rather in the lack of the resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another.
Saper aude!
Have the courage to use your
own
understanding! is thus the motto of Enlightenment.

 

Kant continued: “Rules and formulas, these mechanical instruments of a rational use (or rather misuse) of [humankind's] natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity.”
¹⁸
Could “a society of clergymen,” he asked, demand an unquestioning obedience to dogma?

 

I say that this is completely impossible. Such a contract, concluded for the purpose of closing off forever all further Enlightenment of the human race, is utterly null and void even if it should be confirmed by the highest power . . . It is absolutely forbidden to unite . . . in a permanent religious constitution that no one may publicly doubt, and thereby to negate a period of progress of mankind toward improvement.

 

Beyond this resounding credo that freedom of thought and rejection of religious dogma are the essence of Enlightenment, Kant in his work put an end to the traditional muddling of philosophy and natural science. He made the declaration, at once radical and commonsensical, that while the objective world certainly exists, we can never truly comprehend it, because as human beings, we are limited in the means we possess to grasp reality. We can think only in
appearances
that make sense to us. We can make representations of the world only in terms of time, space, causality, and our other human categories, which may or may not apply to any
Ding an sich
, thing-in-itself.
¹⁹

The implications of these ideas were epochal not only in philosophy but also in the realm of ethics, aesthetics, and morals. The essence of the things outside ourselves that humanity cannot understand is God. “The desire to talk to God is absurd,” Kant wrote. “We cannot talk to one we cannot comprehend—and we cannot comprehend God; we can only believe in Him.” For that reason, we also cannot accept the unquestionable authority of scripture or any other dictates divine or earthly. We must live by our own free and individual understanding, discover our own rules for ourselves. As Beethoven later put it, “Man, help yourself!” If we are believers, then, how do we serve God? When men “fulfill their duties to men, they fulfill thereby God's commandments; that they are consequently always in the service of God, as long as their actions are moral, and . . . it is absolutely impossible to serve God otherwise.”

So as individuals on our own, Kant asked, what can we truly know, and how can we know it? By what ethics and morals can we find our way for ourselves? What are the Good, the True, the Beautiful? For Kant, the moral part came down to what he called the “categorical imperative”: every person must “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” Every act should be done with the conviction that if everyone did likewise, life would be good. Each person's actions become a mirror of all moral law, and thereby each finds freedom and happiness apart from the dictates of gods or princes. And to serve humanity is to serve God.

Kant touched off a revolution in humanity's sense of itself and its imperatives. In Bonn, as in other German intellectual centers, Kant was in the air thinkers and artists breathed. The people around Beethoven were aflame with these ideas. In the end, Kant the man of the eighteenth century became the bridge between the Enlightenment and the Romantic era—which is to say, in the early nineteenth century, Kant occupied the position in philosophy that Goethe did in literature and Beethoven in music.

The first practical political fruit of the Enlightenment was the American Revolution, its eternal expressions of enlightened ideals laid out in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That sentence distilled the secular and humanistic ethos of the age. Jefferson's words echoed philosopher David Hume: “Every man . . . proceeds in the pursuit of happiness, with as unerring a motion, as that which the celestial bodies observe.” “The entire pursuit of reason,” wrote Kant, “is to bring about . . . one ultimate end—that of happiness.” This made human well-being a joining of head and heart, a spiritual quest for joy not in heaven but on earth.
²⁰

Jefferson's declaration also shows that the Enlightenment did not do away with God but rather placed Him at a remove from His creation: the Creator as cosmic watchmaker who crafted the perfect machinery of the universe and sat back to let His cosmic experiment run, like a wise parent leaving humanity free to find its own path. The goal of life is the pursuit of
happiness
, here and now. Religion and state are different realms.

The Enlightenment's determination to separate church and state was a radical departure in any society, Western or otherwise, but, as the founding fathers of the United States recognized, it was a fundamental principle of an enlightened state. An established church and enforced dogma were a guarantee of tyranny, and tyranny of any stripe was anathema to Aufklärers. “To do good wherever we can,” Beethoven would say, “to love liberty above all things, and never to deny truth though it be at the throne itself.”

To the philosophes, God was a figure beyond the stars, watching all and knowing all, a transcendent moral influence, but one who did not deign to meddle with the perfection of His physics to make miracles. Science had opened the path to that conviction. Isaac Newton made the epochal discovery that the physical laws that rule the whole universe are the same that rule our lives on earth. For the first time in history, the heavens and the earth became part of the same immutable mechanism.
²¹

If the Enlightenment was Christian in its foundation and in much of its tone, no longer was any religion presumed to have a monopoly on the divine. Religions were unique to the cultures that shaped and sustained them; in their myriad voices, all religions worshiped the same transcendent and unknowable reality. For the mainstream of the Enlightenment, the most immediate revelation of divinity was in nature, and the truest scripture was found not in a book but in science.
²²
Let God rest out beyond the stars in His sublime perfection; it is up to us to understand ourselves and rule ourselves. “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,” wrote Alexander Pope. “The proper study of Mankind is Man.”

This rationalistic, antidogmatic, searching, secular humanist sense of the divine came to be called “deism.” The term helps describe the convictions of Voltaire and Rousseau, Jefferson and Franklin—and, to a degree, Beethoven. He was no churchgoer; in his maturity, he studied Eastern religion and scripture. “Only art and science,” he wrote, “can raise men to the level of gods.”
²³
He never claimed that God imbued him with his gifts. He believed his talent came from nature—God's nature, to be sure. At the same time, Beethoven would be no more a conventional deist than he was a conventional anything else, and his ideas of God evolved along with his life and art. The older he got, the more he turned toward faith in a God who was present and all-seeing, who listened to prayers (though none of this was anathema to deists).

All eras pass, and in the end, the Enlightenment's dream of an earthly Elysium did not endure. It was overturned in Europe by forces including the limitations of science, the limitations of reason, the fear of social chaos, the resistance of religions to giving up their monopoly on truth. The Enlightenment's shibboleth of reason toppled at last. The founding Romantic poet and philosopher Novalis condemned the “harsh, chilly light of the Enlightenment” and exalted the mythical and mystical.
²⁴
Beethoven, for his part, did not share that spirit; he never really absorbed the Romantic age. At the same time the Enlightenment birthed ideas whose reverberations would not disappear in the world, or in Beethoven's mind and music.

So many excesses of the Enlightenment, in all its forms great and terrible, rose from excesses of hope.

 

If the methods of reason and science that were applied (and often misapplied) to all things united the whole of the Enlightenment—and among progressives everywhere there was a sense of boundless human potential about to be unleashed—there were still essential differences between the way the Enlightenment was translated and transposed in France, England, and America, and how it took form in German lands: Aufklärung.

In most regions, philosophical and ethical ideals quickly became political. In an age that prided itself on rationality, it was natural to conclude that the institutions and extravagances of the ancient courts had little reason behind them. Enlightenment criticism of church and aristocracy, the unchallenged privilege once granted to Electors and petty princes, and the power wielded and abused by the clergy would, in France, lead to revolution, then to an avalanche of murder and an attempt to wipe away the aristocracy and the church. But, like most of Germany, Bonn never challenged the system of princes and courts. In stark contrast to the French, German Aufklärers wanted strong governments, efficient bureaucracies, strong armies, powerful and enlightened princes. The German ideal of enlightened reform was top-down, achieved by edict.

Thus the celebration of what came to be called “benevolent despots,” most famous among them Frederick the Great in Berlin (for whom Voltaire was house philosopher) and Joseph II in Vienna. In a letter, Frederick wrote a virtual definition of enlightened despotism: “Philosophers should be the teachers of the world and the teachers of princes. They must think logically and we must act logically. They must teach the world by their powers of judgment; we must teach the world by our example.”
²⁵

While Aufklärers often tended to the anticlerical, they were not against religion. By the time Beethoven left Bonn, he had experienced little but cultured and enlightened aristocrats and clerics, many of them his admirers and patrons. Partly for that reason, he never despised the church and nobility in their existence—or at least he held them in no special contempt compared to the rest of the world. His disgust with the Viennese aristocracy would be based on its behavior. In any case, nobles paid much of his rent.

In a later century, the trust in bureaucracy and armies and despots benevolent or otherwise would lead Germany to catastrophe, but still a monumental achievement of the Aufklärung was the science of government. Progressive ideas created state bureaucracies in Vienna and Berlin and elsewhere that supported, at first, the liberal goals of the Aufklärung—and only later the goals of police states. It was the time of the rise of the
Hofrat
, the court privy councillor, and a welter of other titles. The courts' demand for skilled administrators in turn created a new educated and ambitious middle class, hungry for power and also hungry for literature and ideas and music. This bureaucratic middle class was a primary engine of the Aufklärung in German lands.
²⁶

In the age of reason, German literature bloomed, some of it in the spirit of Aufklärung and some opposing it—one example of the opposition being the Sturm und Drang decade of the 1770s. The next generation in Germany turned against it all. If the resonating ideas of the Enlightenment were reason, truth, nature, order, and objectivity, those of the coming Romantics would be the subjective, the instinctive, the uncanny, the sublime, and nature in its great and terrible face. As one essential Romantic writer, E. T. A. Hoffmann, put it, “Beethoven's music sets in motion the mechanism of fear, of awe, of horror, of suffering, and wakens just that infinite longing which is the essence of Romanticism.” The Aufklärung looked to a radiant future of social and scientific perfection; the Romantics looked to the fabled, mysterious, ­unreachable past. The eighteenth century longed for freedom and happiness. The nineteenth century was caught up not in longing toward an end but in longing for the delirium and pain of longing itself.