I must now give some account of the cordial relations which, ever since
my departure from Dresden, I had maintained with Theodor Uhlig, the
young musician of the Dresden orchestra, which I have already
described, and which by this time had developed into a genuinely
productive association. His independent and indeed somewhat
uncultivated disposition had been moulded into a warm, almost boundless
devotion to myself, inspired both by sympathy for my fate and a
thorough understanding of my works. He also had been among the number
of those who had visited Weimar to hear my Lohengrin, and had sent me a
very detailed account of the performance. As Hartel, the music-dealer
in Leipzig, had willingly agreed to my request to publish Lohengrin on
condition that I should not demand any share in the profits, I
entrusted Uhlig with the preparation of the pianoforte arrangement. But
it was more the theoretical questions discussed in my works that formed
the chief link that bound us together by a serious correspondence. The
characteristic which especially touched me about this man, whom from
his training I could regard merely as an instrumentalist, was that he
had grasped with clear understanding and perfect agreement those very
tendencies of mine which many musicians of apparently wider culture
than his own regarded with almost despairing horror, as being dangerous
to the orthodox practice of their art. He forthwith acquired the
literary facility necessary for the expression of his agreement with my
views, and gave tangible proof of this in a lengthy treatise on
'Instrumental Music,' which appeared in Kolatschek's German monthly
journal. He also sent to me another strictly theoretical work on the
'Structure of Musical Theme and Phrase.' In this he showed the
originality of his ideas about Mozart's and Beethoven's methods, to an
extent which was only equalled by the thoroughness with which he had
mastered the question, especially where he discussed their highly
characteristic differences. This clear and exhaustive treatise appeared
to me admirably adapted to form the basis for a new theory of the
higher art of musical phrasing, whereby Beethoven's most obscure
construction might be explained, and elaborated into a comprehensible
system that would allow of further application. These treatises
attracted the attention of Franz Brendel, the astute publisher of the
Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik, to their brilliant young author. He was
invited by Brendel to join the staff of his paper, and soon succeeded
in changing his chief's previous attitude of indecision. As Brendel's
aims were on the whole perfectly honourable and serious, he was quickly
and definitely led to adopt those views which from this time began to
make a stir in the musical world under the title of the 'New Tendency.'
I thereupon felt impelled to contribute an epoch-making article to his
paper on these lines. I had noticed for some time that such
ill-sounding catch-phrases as 'Jewish ornamental flourishes'
(Melismas), 'Synagogue Music,' and the like were being bandied about
without any rhyme or reason beyond that of giving expression to
meaningless irritation. The question thus raised regarding the
significance of the modern Jew in music stimulated me to make a closer
examination of Jewish influence and the characteristics peculiar to it.
This I did in a lengthy treatise on 'Judaism in Music.' Although I did
not wish to hide my identity, as its author, from all inquiries, yet I
considered it advisable to adopt a pseudonym, lest my very seriously
intended effort should be degraded to a purely personal matter, and its
real importance be thereby vitiated. The stir, nay, the genuine
consternation, created by this article defies comparison with any other
similar publication. The unparalleled animosity with which, even up to
the present day, I have been pursued by the entire press of Europe can
only be understood by those who have taken an account of this article
and of the dreadful commotion which it caused at the time of its
publication. It must also be remembered that almost all the newspapers
of Europe are in the hands of Jews. Apart from these facts, it would be
impossible to understand the unqualified bitterness of this lasting
persecution, which cannot be adequately explained on the mere ground of
a theoretical or practical dislike for my opinions or artistic works.
The first outcome of the article was a storm which broke over poor
Brendel, who was entirely innocent, and, indeed, hardly conscious of
his offence. This erelong developed into a savage persecution which
aimed at nothing less than his ruin. Another immediate result was that
the few friends whom Liszt had induced to declare themselves in my
favour forthwith took refuge in a discreet silence. As it soon seemed
advisable, in the interests of their own productions, to give direct
evidence of their estrangement from me, most of them passed over to the
ranks of my enemies. But Uhlig clung to me all the more closely on this
account. He strengthened Brendel's weaker will to endurance, and kept
helping him with contributions for his paper, some of them profound and
others witty and very much to the point. He fixed his eye more
particularly on one of my chief antagonists, a man named Bischoff, whom
Hiller had discovered in Cologne, and who first invented for me and my
friends the title of Zukunftsmusiker ('Musicians of the Future'). With
him he entered into a prolonged and somewhat diverting controversy. The
foundation had now been laid for the problem of the so-called
Zukunftsmusik ('Music of the Future'), which was to become a European
scandal, in spite of the fact that Liszt quickly adopted the title
himself with good-humoured pride. It is true that I had to some extent
suggested this name in the title of my book, Kunstwerk der Zukunft; but
it only developed into a battle-cry when 'Judaism in Music' unbarred
the sluices of wrath upon me and my friends.