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 . The trajectory of Janin’s criticism demonstrates the connection between altrusism and artistry in nineteenth- century . 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. Discussing another of the French school founders, Pierre Rode, Blanchard stated that «independent of the brilliant qualities of an artist, he showed goodwill, sweetness, and generosity toward his students»15. In this case, pedagogy itself was a form of philanthropy.

12. Gooley 2004, pp. 237-238. 13. Liszt 1840: «Que l’artiste de l’avenir renonce donc, et de tout coeur, à ce rôle égoïste et vain dont Paganini fut, nous le croyons, un dernier et illustre exemple». 14. Journal des débats 1833: «avec trois coups d’archet, pouvait sauver de leur ruine des artistes ses confrères, des étrangers comme lui». 15. Blanchard 1839: «Indépendamment de ces brillantes qualités d’artiste, il était d’une bienveillance, d’une douceur et d’une bonté parfaites pour ses élèves. Pour eux ils [sic] se montra toujours un excellent père». 22 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry As opposed to the well-rounded education of violinists at the Conservatoire, the training and career path of a virtuoso soloist was often portrayed as self- serving. In 1798, just a few years before Kreutzer, Rode, and Baillot officially established the French school of playing, the French Minister of the Interior spoke at the Conservatoire, portraying the figure of the soloist as immoral. In his speech he argued that the soloist was a traitor to his country because of his extensive travels and lack of contribution to musical activities in his native country»16. The French school took this sentiment to heart, as did the next generation of students and critics. The French school encouraged students to contribute to French musical activity and pedagogy in order to perpetuate its own lineage. Resistance to foreign performers therefore was common and many critics not only favored French violinists, but also viewed generosity as an essential component of artistry. In Paganini’s case, critics used his alleged lack of philanthropy to further distance him from French school violinists. Not only did critics like Janin point out Paganini’s selfishness and foreignness to demonstrate his lack of artistry; they also pointed out his grotesque physical features, for a lack of humanness and a lack of humanity went hand in hand. Along with demonstrating Paganini’s self-serving priorities, Janin was also quick to point out the violinist’s physical abnormalities such as his «pale figure», «immobile eyes», «long and pale face», and awkward posture, noting that he «sinks his long fingers into the string [and] his large foot into the ground»17. Similarly, the same anonymous critic who reprimanded Paganini’s unwillingness to help the troupe of British actors claimed that French audiences valued acceptance and were always willing to help those less fortunate — even someone with a pale face, strange grimace, flat and greasy hair, and a foreign accent — an undoubted reference to Paganini18. The violinist’s odd stature and physique were the subject of much scrutiny, not only amongst critics, but also in contemporary iconography such as the famous portrait by Eugène Delacroix in Ill. 1. Indeed the painting highlights — and potentially exaggerates — Paganini’s strange posture, lean to his left, and uneven distribution of weight on his feet.

16. Tisdall 2010, p. 398. 17. Janin 1832: «à la tête penchée, aux cheveux flottans, au corps brisé et qui plie sur la hanche droite […] il enfonce ses longs doights sur la corde, son large pied dans le sol». 18. Journal des débats 1833. 23 Kristen Strandberg

Ill. 1: Eugène Delacroix, Paganini (1831 or 1832). Phillips Collection.

24 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry Such physical abnormalities additionally served as a means of asserting Paganini’s amoral nature, for scientific trends of the period turned to moral explanations for a monstrous physical appearance. Many believed that a person’s physical anomalies were simply an external manifestation of underlying moral and behavioral forms of monstrosity19. In consequence, for some critics, Paganini’s physical appearance was inextricably linked to his amoral character20.

Paganini and Berlioz: 1838

After several years of writing sensationalist criticism about Paganini’s alleged immorality, Janin’s crusade against the violinist came to an abrupt end in December, 1838. Janin suddenly and explicitly retracted his portrayals of Paganini, following the violinist’s praise and financial support of Hector Berlioz. Paganini allegedly praised Berlioz after a concert of the composer’s music, proclaimed him the next Beethoven, and shortly thereafter gave him a large monetary gift. Janin recounted the incident in Journal des débats a few days after it took place, stating that Berlioz had been feeling underappreciated and fell into a reclusive depression. Janin claimed that, «his friends said to him: sing again Berlioz! […] [but] Berlioz didn’t even want to write anymore»21. Finally, Berlioz gave a concert. Janin wrote that «he [Berlioz] himself led the ; but […] it was no longer the hardy young man filled with enthusiasm»22. Yet, Janin recounts, both Berlioz and his audience were moved as the composer «seemed to reanimate, his eyes filled with sweet tears, his heart beat most beautifully, the blood circulated in his veins, his audience, emotional like him, gave him emotion for emotion»23. Finally, Janin turned to Paganini, who was not only present at Berlioz’s concert, but apparently very moved:

19. Gill 2009, p. 253. 20. I should also note that many Romantics also saw the grotesque as an indicator of genius. The grotesque’s malleable meaning allowed for differing — and at times contradictory — interpretations of artists and musicians. 21. Janin 1838: «Ses amis lui disaient: Chante encore, Berlioz! […] [mais] Berlioz ne voulait même plus écrire». 22. Ibidem: «il menait lui-même son orchestre; mais […] ce n’était plus ce hardi jeune homme tout rempli d’enthousiasme». 23. Ibidem: «l’artiste se sentait ranimer, ses yeux se mouillaient de douces larmes, son coeur battait de plus belle, le sang circulait dans ses veines, son auditoire emu comme lui, lui rendait émotion pour émotion». 25 Kristen Strandberg what did he [Berlioz] conclude when, in an obscure corner of the room, he discovered a dark and impenetrable man who was crying? Yes, he had tears in his eyes! […] Was it really Paganini who abandoned himself so to this uncharacteristic emotion? It was in fact Paganini24!

Janin, clearly very surprised to find that Paganini was not the heartless monster he had always assumed, continued with the story of Paganini’s quasi- consecration of Berlioz:

When the entire work was finished […] Paganini came to Berlioz and in the presence of everyone Paganini knelt before Berlioz. You would be amazed that Paganini couldn’t speak anymore — he had lost his voice but not his enthusiasm. I don’t believe that ever again would enthusiasm be more eloquent than this. And moreover what was Berlioz doing? He looked around him as if he were in a dream25.

Janin claimed that Paganini sent Berlioz a letter the next day proclaiming him the new Beethoven. Included in his letter was twenty thousand francs — enough to allow Berlioz to do nothing but compose for the following three years26. Several factors surrounding the concert help to shed light on Paganini’s alleged enthusiasm and his words to Berlioz. First, one of the works performed that evening was Berlioz’s Harold en Italie — a work for viola and orchestra that Paganini commissioned. Berlioz completed the work four years earlier, in 1834, but because it was more of a than a concerto, with the solo viola playing a minimal role, Paganini never played it himself. Yet, in spite of his initial rejection of the work, Paganini was apparently moved upon hearing it. Also, the work marked the composer’s second major foray into the symphonic genre, following his 1830 Symphonie fantastique. French composers

24. Ibidem: «mais que devint-il, quand dans un coin obscur de la salle, il découvrit un homme noir et impassible qui pleurait? Oui, il avait des larmes dans les yeux! […] Etait-ce bien Paganini qui s’abandonnait ainsi à cette émotion surnaturelle? C’était en effet Paganini!». 25. Ibidem: «Quand l’oeuvre entière fut achevée […] Paganini vint à Berlioz, et en présence de tous — Paganini se prosterna devant Berlioz. Vous savez que Paganini ne peut plus parler, la voix lui manque, mais non pas l’enthousiasme. Je ne crois pas que jamais enthousiasme ait été plus éloquent que celui-là. Et cependant que faisait Berlioz? Il regardait autour de lui, comme s’il eût été le jouet d’un songe». 26. Ibidem. 26 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry in the 1830s were much better known for writing opera than any other genres, and Berlioz’s two symphonic works signified the first major French responses to Beethoven’s . The composer had heard Beethoven’s third and fifth symphonies in the spring of 1828 in Paris and composed the Symphonie fantastique under the influence of Beethoven’s narrative-driven symphonic form27. Thus, both the Symphonie fantastique and Harold en Italie were a victory for French music and seen as a long-awaited response to the legacy of Beethoven, now confirmed by Paganini’s consecration. Paganini must have known that French critics, eager to see Berlioz succeed, would deeply appreciate his comments and donation to Berlioz and see the gesture as a great compliment to French music. Berlioz himself recounted the story of Paganini’s words and actions in his Memoirs, which were first serialized inJournal des débats. Berlioz acknowledged discrepancies in the narrative, stating that «this was the occasion of the famous incident around which so much controversy and malicious gossip have collected»28. The composer noted that he composed Harold en Italie because Paganini had asked that he write a work for viola, and that the violinist had not yet heard the work before the December 16, 1838 concert. Paganini, along with his son Achille, went to see Berlioz backstage after the concert. According to Berlioz, Paganini, «suffering from the disease of the larynx which killed him […] had completely lost his voice», and whispered to his son, who announced that his father had never been so affected by a concert29. Berlioz wrote that Paganini «dragged me back to the platform, where many of the players still lingered, knelt down and kissed my hand»30. Berlioz then went out into the street, where he met Armand Bertin, owner of Journal des débats, and told him what had just happened. Two days later, according to Berlioz, Achille Paganini paid him a visit, bearing a letter from his father, likening Berlioz to Beethoven and including twenty thousand francs. The anecdote is reminiscent of Beethoven’s alleged consecration of the young , though in this case, Paganini named Berlioz not as his own successor, but as Beethoven’s successor. Berlioz then noted that following the event, «Janin wrote to me […] and published a magnificent article in the Journal des débats»31. The journal had good reasons to promote Berlioz.

27. Macdonald 2001. 28. Berlioz 1969, p. 240. 29. Ibidem, p. 241. 30. Ibidem. 31. Ibidem, p. 243. 27 Kristen Strandberg First, the composer had written for the journal’s music column for several years, providing extensive coverage of Paris’s musical events32. Berlioz’s ties to Journal des débats were further strengthened by his connection to the Bertin family. Two years earlier, in 1836, Berlioz oversaw the rehearsals for the opera L’Esmeralda, composed by Louise Bertin, daughter of the journal’s owner33. Not only did the exchange between Paganini and Berlioz benefit Berlioz, but more importantly, it also changed Paganini’s status in Parisian musical circles, as he became increasingly accepted as an artiste. Janin noted in 1838 that audiences and critics used to believe that «there is nothing human in this person […] one doesn’t know, by looking at him, whether he is raised from the dead […] I was always afraid of this man»34. But Janin stated that upon seeing Paganini praise Berlioz,

for the first time, we understood that in effect Paganini was a man like other men, that in effect this heart beat like our hearts, that these eyes knew how to cry, that this soul knew how to understand, and that in this way there was nothing supernatural in the talent of this man other than his talent itself 35.

Not only was Paganini worthy of conferring such a status onto Berlioz, but also the act humanized Paganini, who had long been described as supernatural, heartless, and even demonic. Janin states that by helping Berlioz, Paganini

placed himself in the first rank of this glorious brotherhood of artists. It is at the present, above all, that we understand all his genius, so much goodness and intelligence has he shown. And who accused him of hardness! What more noble vengeance could he take against or unjust reproaches! […] This man is a great artist36.

32. Murphy 1988. 33. Prod’homme 1927, p. 100. See also Holoman 2002. 34. Janin 1838: «Il n’y a rien d’humain dans sa personne […] One ne sait, à le voir, si ce n’est pas un ressuscité qui marche […] j’ai toujours eu peur de cet homme». 35. Ibidem: «pour la première fois, nous avons compris qu’en effet Paganini était un homme comme les autres hommes, qu’en effet ce coeur battait comme nos coeurs, que ces yeux savaient pleurer, que cette âme savait comprendre, et qu’ainsi il n’y avait rien de surnaturel dans le talent de cet homme que son talent même». 36. Ibidem: «Il s’est place au premièr rang dans cette glorieuse confrérie d’artistes. C’est à présent surtout que nous comprenons tout son génie, tant il a montré de bonté et d’intelligence. Et nous qui l’avons accusé de dureté! Quelle plus noble vengeance pouvait-il tirer de nos injustes reproches! […] Cet homme est un grand artiste». 28 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry Paganini not only declared Berlioz the successor to Beethoven, but the violinist had now joined the «brotherhood of artists» himself. Janin asserted that because Paganini had shown his humanity, he was now a true Artiste. While the story of Paganini’s donation confirms the connection between altruism and artistry, and Berlioz’s close ties to the Journal des débats help to explain Janin’s sudden change of heart, it does not entirely explain the critic’s prior hostility toward the violinist. As I have noted, many French critics were quick to place foreign performers outside the realm of artistry, and certainly that must have been one of Janin’s intentions. Yet, the critic likely had his own self-serving agenda in his brutal hostility toward the violinist prior to 1838. First, it is important to note that Paganini had, in fact, made generous charitable donations throughout the 1830s while Janin made accusations to the contrary. In spite of Janin’s (and later, Liszt’s) accusations, numerous documents praised Paganini for his generosity to the poor and underprivileged of Paris, demonstrating that Janin’s assertions of the violinist’s selfishness were exaggerated. An 1831 letter from a representative of the Administration of Hospitals of the city of Paris, for instance, thanked Paganini for his generous donation of eight thousand francs37. Another letter from the Minister of the Interior in 1832 thanked Paganini for his concert benefitting cholera victims (a concert that Paganini himself apparently proposed), saying that the city of Paris would never forget his good deed or his talent38. Also in 1832, Paganini received a letter from the President of the Committee of Orphans, regarding the use of the violinist’s generous donation39. The letter states that Paganini had continued to financially support orphans over the past year, at one point giving twelve thousand francs. The writer thanked Paganini and expressed his admiration for the violinist’s «immeasurable talent, and for the noble use to which you have put it»40. Contrary to Janin’s claims, Paganini clearly did not withhold his finances and talents when it came to benefitting the poor. Of course, Paganini must have known that his gift to Berlioz would not only help the composer, but would advance his own reputation as well. He must have known that the French would be eager to place Berlioz in such an esteemed position, and he also must have realized, in an atmosphere in which altruism and

37. Letter 1831. 38. Letter 1832B; also see Letter 1832A, responding to Paganini’s initial offer. 39. Letter 1832C. 40. Ibidem: «mon admiration pour votre inimitable talent, et pour le noble usage auquel vous le consacrer». 29 Kristen Strandberg artistic status were closely aligned, that a high-profile act of generosity would advance his own reputation in a way that his past donations to hospitals and orphanages did not.

Janin’s Literary Aesthetics and Agenda

If Janin’s accusations of Paganini’s selfishness were unfounded, then why was he so determined to assert the violinist’s lack of generosity and artistry prior to 1838? Significantly, Janin was not only a music critic; he was also known for his fictional short stories, which perpetuated themes of the grotesque and the uncanny within non-linear, dreamlike narratives. Janin’s criticism, therefore, mirrored the aesthetics and themes of his own fictional literature. For example, in one of Janin’s stories, he described a violinist who was «deformed and superb». His «music is from another world», while «his violin cries and demands vengeance»41. This fictional account was very similar to Janin’s discussions in Le Journal des débats, suggesting that his writings about the violinist were conceived with a similar purpose and readership in mind. Janin’s colleagues at the Journal des débats also perpetuated similar themes aimed toward a similar readership. An article by Castil-Blaze published in 1831, for instance, called Paganini an «enchanter», «sorcerer», «demon», and «magician», saying that his bow was «under a charm», directly connecting the violinist’s capabilities to the supernatural42. Not only did Janin and his colleagues at the journal perpetuate these ideas of the supernatural and the grotesque, but their literary aesthetic aligned closely with broader literary trends in 1830s Paris. Janin was closely affiliated with a group of bohemian writers promoting a similar style, including , Théophile Gautier, , , and Honoré de Balzac. This group of writers rebelled against government-promoted literature highlighting themes of bourgeois conformity and morality43. The works of these writers, including those by Janin, instead featured dream- like narratives and supernatural themes in their fictional works — the same

41. Janin 1863, p. 163. Although neither Hoffmann nor Paganini is mentioned within the story’s text, the title clearly indicates the story’s relationship to the violinist. The story follows a conversation between two friends who talk about this Paganini-like violinist. 42. Castil-Blaze 1831: «enchanteur […] sorcier […] démon […] magicien […] son archet tenait déjà l’assemblée sous le charme». 43. Gluck 2005, p. 41. 30 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry themes that figured so centrally in Janin’s and his colleague’s discussions of Paganini’s performances. For example, Janin described Paganini in 1834 as «neither alive nor dead […] it is impossible to have seen and to have heard him without having been at the same time surprised, troubled, and charmed»44. Bohemian French literature of the 1830s similarly featured figures who were neither dead nor alive. Gautier’s «Arria Marcella», for instance, follows a young man who becomes enamored with the statue of an ancient woman45. When he travels back in time to be with her, he discovers that she is neither completely alive nor dead. While she appears alive, and the man is initially fascinated by her beauty, she is cold to the touch and eventually turns to ashes. Similarly, in «The Dead in Love», also by Gautier, the protagonist falls in love with a woman who he later learns is a vampire. He describes her beauty in detail, and barely seems to notice the suspicious characteristics, such as the «transparent bluish-white hue» of her forehead, that he lists among her physical assets46. Interestingly, the «neither dead nor alive» fictional figures are typically the female love interest of a male protagonist. As a performer, Paganini was typically in a similar position of being the object of an audience’s voyeuristic gaze as a pale and monstrous figure as we recall, for instance, descriptions from Janin of the violinist’s« pale figure» and «immobile eyes»47. Not only were Janin’s discussions of Paganini similar to the supernatural and grotesque themes in contemporary fictional literature, but significantly, the timing of Janin’s attitudes toward Paganini aligns with a major literary debate in the critic’s circle. Janin’s initial attacks on Paganini, highlighting the violinist’s grotesque qualities and physical abnormalities, took place in 1834 just a few months after the critic found himself in the center of a major literary debate. The debate began when Désiré Nisard, who promoted the government-backed moral literature, attacked the bohemian writers’ works for being «light» and catering to the populace48. Janin acted as a representative for the bohemians, claiming that their brand of creative, spontaneous, and escapist literature represented modernity. Janin’s biggest concern was aesthetics, and

44. Janin 1834B: «ni vivant ni mort […] il est impossible de l’avoir vu et de l’avoir entendu sans avoir été à la fois étonné, troublé et charmé […]». 45. Gautier 1995B. 46. Gautier 1995A. 47. Janin 1832. 48. Gluck 2005, p. 38. 31 Kristen Strandberg he opposed the government’s literature not because of its representation of bourgeois morals, but rather because of its generic inhibition and lack of creativity49. Janin’s concern with Paganini’s morals, therefore, was not about ethical responsibility at all. Rather, via the themes and aesthetics of popular literature, Janin aimed to demonstrate that the violinist’s selfish qualities contributed directly toward this nonhuman image. Janin had indeed aligned himself with many French music critics who aimed to establish foreign violinists as lacking artistry, but he did so within the genre of literature he had recently worked so hard to defend.

Conclusions

Critical discussions surrounding Paganini’s morals, as we have seen, reflect and perpetuate several complex cultural issues of the era. Janin’s brand of criticism, heavily influenced by his own literary ties and aesthetics, aimed to portray the violinist as monstrous and amoral, in spite of evidence to the contrary. The Journal des débats, as we have seen, occupies a central position in this discussion. The journal’s writers — most prominently Jules Janin — worked to perpetuate themes of Paganini’s unethical behavior through the generic markers and themes of popular literature, while the publication also served a general readership fascinated with sensationalism. And by 1838, the journal’s close relationship with Berlioz resulted in its promotion of the composer as the next Beethoven, while also praising Paganini and proclaiming his rank as an artist. The criticism surrounding Paganini, along with its cultural contexts, demonstrates the close alignment of artistry and generosity, while also highlighting the ulterior motives of critics and journals in mid-nineteenth-century Paris.

Bibliography

Berlioz 1969 Berlioz, Hector. The Memoirs of Hector Berlioz, English translation by David Cairns, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.

Blanchard 1839 Blanchard, Henri. ‘Physiologie du violon’, in: Revue et gazette musicale de Paris, 25 August 1839.

49. Ibidem, p. 39. 32 Altruism and the Artiste: Jules Janin, Nicolò Paganini, and the Ethics of Artistry

Castil-Blaze 1831 Castil-Blaze. ‘Chronique Musicale’, in: Journal des débats, 13 March 1831.

Gautier 1995A Gautier, Théophile. The Dead in Love, in: Demons of the Night: Tales of the Fantastic, Madness, and the Supernatural from Nineteenth-Century France, English translation by Joan C. Kessler, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1995. pp. 91-117.

Gautier 1995B Id. Arria Marcella, in: ibidem, pp. 118-144.

Gill 2009 Gill, Miranda. Eccentricity and the Cultural Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Paris, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Gluck 2005 Gluck, Mary. Popular Bohemia: Modernism and Urban Culture in Nineteenth-Century Paris, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 2005.

Gooley 2004 Gooley, Dana. The Virtuoso Liszt, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Holoman 2002 Holoman, D. Kern. ‘Berlioz, (Louis-)Hector (opera)’, in: Oxford Music Online, 2002, accessed April 2018.

Janin 1832 Janin, Jules. ‘Les Consolations’, in: Journal des débats, 23 April 1832.

Janin 1834A Id. ‘Paganini et les Pauvres de Saint-Etienne’, in: Journal des débats, 15 September 1834.

Janin 1834B Id. ‘Paganini et les Pauvres de Saint-Etienne’, in: Journal des débats, 22 September 1834.

Janin 1838 Id. ‘Paganini et Berlioz’, in: Journal des débats, 24 December 1838.

Janin 1863 Id. ‘Hoffmann et Paganini’, in: Contes fantastique et contes littéraires, Paris, Michel Lévy Frères, Libraires Editeurs, 1863.

Letter 1831 Letter to Paganini, 19 March 1831, Washington, Library of Congress, Gertrude Whittall Clarke Foundation Collection. 33 Kristen Strandberg

Letter 1832A Letter to Paganini, 11 April 1832, Washington, Library of Congress, Gertrude Whittall Clarke Foundation Collection.

Letter 1832B Letter to Paganini, 2 May 1832, Washington, Library of Congress, Gertrude Whittall Clarke Foundation Collection.

Letter 1832C Letter to Paganini, 9 May 1832, Washington, Library of Congress, Gertrude Whittall Clarke Foundation Collection.

Liszt 1840 Liszt, Franz. ‘Sur Paganini’, in Revue et gazette musicale de Paris, 23 August 1840.

Macdonald 2001 Macdonald, Hugh. ‘Berlioz, (Louis-) Hector’, in: Oxford Music Online, 2001, accessed April 2018.

Murphy 1988 Murphy, Kerry. Hector Berlioz and the Development of French Music Criticism, Ann Arbor (MI), UMI Research Press, 1988.

Poriss 2012 Poriss, Hilary. ‘Prima Donnas and the Performance of Altruism’, in: The Arts of the Prima Donna in the Long Nineteenth Century, edited by Rachel Cowgill and Hilary Poriss, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 42-60.

Prod’homme 1927 Prod’homme, J. G. Paganini, Les Musiciens Célèbres, edited by Henri Laurens, Paris, Librairie Renouard, 1927.

Journal des débats 1833 ‘Théatre de L’Opéra: Paganini’ in Journal des débats, 22 April 1833.

Tisdall 2010 Tisdall, Diane. ‘“Violoniste Chanteur” versus “Violoniste Virtuose”: Contextualising the Technical Demands of Viotti’s Violin Repertoire’, in: Nicolò Paganini: Diabolus in Musica, edited by Andrea Barizza and Fulvia Morabito, Turnhout, Brepols, 2010 (Studies on Italian Music History, 5), pp. 375-398.

34