Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry

Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry Kristen Strandberg (University of Evansville, IN) [email protected] Jules Janin was among Nicolò Paganini’s harshest Parisian critics, known for his scathing reviews which dehumanized the violinist by portraying him as a deformed, demonic, and immoral being. Janin connected Paganini’s alleged lack of humanness to a lack of humanity. He, along with many other critics of the period, believed that generosity and strong morals were a necessary component of artistry, and throughout the early 1830s Janin and his colleagues at the Journal des débats asserted — both directly and through depictions of his monstrosity — that Paganini lacked such morals. Yet, Janin’s view of Paganini shifted drastically in December 1838, after the violinist presented a generous monetary gift to Hector Berlioz. The trajectory of Janin’s criticism demonstrates the connection between altrusism and artistry in nineteenth- century France. These factors, however, do not fully explain Janin’s damning portrayal of Paganini prior to 1838. As I will show, Janin’s literary affiliations and agenda provide an additional explanation for his journalistic approach, as the writer was at the center of an intense debate over literary aesthetics just as his most damning articles on Paganini appeared. THE ETHICS OF ARTISTRY Throughout much of the 1830s, critics consistently reprimanded Paganini for his alleged refusal to play for the benefit of the poor. Janin was particularly critical, writing several articles for the Journal des débats denouncing the violinist for his lack of generosity. In September 1834, Janin launched an attack on Paganini in a series of two articles. In the first, following a detailed description Journal of Music Criticism, Volume 3 (2019), pp. 19-34 © Centro Studi Opera Omnia Luigi Boccherini. All rights reserved. Kristen Strandberg of a grotesque, ghost-like Paganini, Janin accused the violinist of financial and artistic greed, claiming that he would only play for large sums of money1. Furthermore, Janin stated how easy it would be for Paganini to hold a benefit concert, specifically for the poor of Saint-Étienne, which Janin described as a hard-working community whose homes were recently destroyed by flood: My plan, I tell you, is simple and easy; the artist doesn’t have to do anything but take his violin on the days of this week, at seven o’clock at night, and go to a theater that he will choose and that he will alert that morning and play whatever he wants there for the benefit of the poor workers of Saint-Étienne2. Janin continued by telling the reader how such an act would change audiences’ views of the violinist, saying that «after this concert, we will have a completely different Paganini, a Paganini unknown in Europe, a Paganini that plays the violin for the cities in mourning»3. In other words, an act of kindness would create a sympathetic, perhaps even human, Paganini. According to Janin, Paganini wrote to the journal in response, stating that he had already given two concerts for the poor, and that he was ill and leaving Paris4. Yet, Janin rejected Paganini’s claim and in his follow-up article the next week Janin discussed the attributes of a true artist, which, he claimed, had as much to do with morals as talent. Paganini, according to Janin, doesn’t have enough soul and spirit, [nor] the heart of an artist; his instrument is full of passion […] but as soon as the instrument is returned to silence, you search in vain for the man who brought it to life […] there is no more man, there is no more artist: there is an Italian who counts his receipts5. 1. JANIN 1834A. 2. Ibidem: «Mon moyen, je vous le dis, est simple et facile; il ne s’agit pour l’artiste que de prendre son violon un des jours de cette semaine, le soir, à sept heures, et de se rendre au théâtre qu’il aura choisi et qu’il aura fait prevenir le matin et là de jouer ce qu’il voudra au bénéfice des malheureux ouvriers de Saint-Étienne». 3. Ibidem: «Après ce concert, nous aurions un tout autre Paganini, un Paganini inconnu à l’Europe, un Paganini qui joue du violon pour les villes en deuil». 4. JANIN 1834B. 5. Ibidem: «il n’a pas assez l’âme et l’esprit, et le coeur d’un artiste; son instrument est rempli de passion […] mais une fois que l’instrument est rentré dans le silence, vous cherchez en vain l’homme qui l’animait […] il n’y a plus d’homme, il n’y a plus d’artiste: il y a un Italien qui compte sa recette». 20 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry Janin again claimed that Paganini’s only interest was financial compensation, saying «his [Paganini’s] response would have been completely different if one had offered him ten louis [gold coins] for each bow stroke […] above all [is] his interest in money»6. Janin continued by saying that Paganini’s lack of generosity proved that he was not a true artist, and went on to clearly establish a connection between generosity and artistry. An artist, according to Janin, gives to others his life, his soul, his fortune, and above all his talent. It is a life of passion and not of calculation; a life of chance, not the life of a merchant; a life of glory and not a lucrative life […] he [Paganini] is not worthy of being an artist, because he does not have the heart 7. As a final blow, Janin stated that Paganini’s violin «only sounds when it is full of gold»8. Janin’s comments attest to the importance of morality in the construction of an artiste. This was not Janin’s only public stance on the subject of artistic generosity, nor was he alone in his view that artistry and generosity went hand in hand. He helped to promote the famous pianistic duel between Liszt and his rival Thalberg, which took place in Paris in 1837 and was staged as a charity event for the aid of Italian refugees. Most Parisian papers, in fact, emphasized the charity more than the music, since philanthropy was seen as a moral and social obligation of the elite, and also a sign of genuine artistry9. Performing artists were not only encouraged, but also expected to perform for charity and to donate to charitable organizations. Leading sopranos of the period such as Jenny Lind and Maria Malibran, for instance, were well known for their charitable acts10. As Hilary Porris has shown, these acts of generosity were often exaggerated in the discourse surrounding the prima donna in particular, as critics stated that these sopranos gave nearly everything they had to the poor, when in reality they lived rather lavish lifestyles11. 6. Ibidem: «Sa réponse eut été tont autre si on lui avait offert dix louis par coup d’archet. […] surtout [est] son intérêt d’argent». 7. Ibidem: «Il jette à qui les veut sa vie, son âme, sa fortune, et sourtout son talent. C’est une vie de passion et non pas de calcul; une vie de hasard et non pas une vie de marchand […] il n’est pas digne d’être une artiste, parce qu’il n’en a pas le coeur». Emphasis added. 8. Ibidem: «ce violon qui ne sonne que quand il est plein d’or». 9. GOOLEY 2004, pp. 73-74. 10. PORISS 2012, p. 43. 11. Ibidem, pp. 43-44. 21 Kristen Strandberg Certainly, performing artists were aware of the professional benefits of altruism. Dana Gooley argues that Liszt’s charitability was largely motivated not by true sympathy, but by the need to construct his own public image, in part against that of Paganini. Gooley states that the public’s enthrallment with Liszt was no less intense than their excitement over Paganini, although Liszt had a positive energy about him that the violinist lacked12. In his obituary of Paganini for Revue et gazette musicale de Paris, Liszt dedicated a good amount of space to a rather self-serving argument that the violinist did not do enough for charity. Liszt argued that isolated acts of charity were not enough, and after reprimanding the late Paganini’s apparent lack of generosity, Liszt asked other artists to learn from Paganini’s example: «May the future artist, thus, wholeheartedly give up the egotistical and vain role of which Paganini was, we believe, a final and famous example»13. Janin and Liszt were not the only critics to assert Paganini’s alleged lack of generosity. Other Parisian critics made similar accusations, most frequently and most severely in the Journal des débats. In 1833 — two years after Paganini’s first visit to Paris — an anonymous critic for the Journal des débats complained about Paganini’s refusal to play for the benefit of a troupe of poor English actors who were in Paris with their ill director. The violinist’s alleged refusal, in spite of his wealth, angered the critic who claimed that «with three strokes of his bow, [he] could save these artists from their ruin, his colleagues, foreigners like him»14. Meanwhile, the critic noted that Baillot, whom he mentions is one of our (i.e., French) artists, was both a great artist and an admirable person who possessed both genius and a generous heart. Indeed, not only were French critics concerned with performers’ willingness to donate their time and money to those less fortunate, but Baillot himself — one of the founders of the French school of violin playing — stressed the importance of philanthropy.

Load more