Introduction
This
is a most interesting contribution to the pages of the “Musical Opinion
and Music Trade Review” for March 1890 by a Manchester correspondent
styling himself “Mancuniensis” (Latin: "of Manchester"). It was
referred to by Richard S. Rockstro in Article 912 of his “Treatise on
The Flute” published later in the same year, since the Rockstro Model
flute is mentioned several times.
The
letter incorporates a number of extracts from various letters of Theobald
Boehm written in the years 1878 and 1879. These letters are of
considerable interest. Even at this late stage of his long life (he was
84 years old in 1878) Boehm was clearly still very active as a flute maker
despite his failing eyesight, which he mentions repeatedly. The clearly
unedited letters demonstrate that Boehm’s command of English as a (to him)
foreign language was very good indeed, and the task of editing his
writings into colloquial English represented no great challenge. This
makes the failure of Rudall & Rose (probably under the influence of
Richard Carte) to publish Boehm’s 1847
English-language “Essay on the Construction of Flutes” all the more
difficult to understand.
The
letter from “Mancuniesis” is here reproduced in full. Boehm’s
letters appear in italics for clarity. All emphasis indications are the
original writers’ as per the original text. The comments of the present
authors appear in [brackets].
Letter from the “Musical Opinion and Music Trade
Review”
No. 150, Volume XIII, March 1, 1890
To the
Editor, Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review;
Sir:-
I have
read with considerable interest the correspondence which has appeared in
your columns on the subject of flutes.
Boehm,
your readers will recollect, died in 1881, and about three years before
his death I purchased from this celebrated maker a flute of cocus wood.
Its mechanism is of a finer quality and finish than any English flute I
have ever seen, excepting, perhaps, a “Rockstro” of recent make, which is
of exquisite manufacture. All the other instruments of the celebrated
firm [Rudall, Carte & Co.] who make
the “Rockstro” – at all events that I have seen - have been of a heavier
style; perhaps better suited for rough orchestral work than the lighter
finished ones.
As a
result of the necessary correspondence in connection with the purchase of
my Boehm, I have in my possession various letters from the great flute
maker, the originals of which I forward to you, sir, for inspection, and
extracts from which I make for the interest, I hope, of your flute playing
readers.
[One wonders where those
originals are now! Perhaps “Mancuniensis” should have kept them
…………….]
In the
spring of 1878 – I had previously ordered an instrument – I wrote to him
asking him to make the holes as large as possible; in reply
to which I received the following characteristic letter:-
Munich, March 1, 1878
SIR, - The holes on my flutes are made as large as possible, according to
my system: and if others make them still larger, so it is simply nothing
than humbug.
[The holes on the Rockstro
model, which “Mancuniensis” clearly admires, were very large
indeed. Boehm seems to be saying that his holes are made as large as
necessary and that there is nothing to be gained in making them any
larger]
I
have not heard anything yet of Rockstro’s model.
[Rockstro challenged this
statement in Article 912 of his Treatise, claiming that Boehm’s
flutes made after 1864 showed clear traces of having been influenced by
Rockstro’s own designs].
Probably it is again an addition to the many “improvements” made on
my flutes, all of which have not lasted long.
Yours Truly,
Theobald Boehm
Another enquiry of mine procured me the following reply:-
Munchen, April 24, 1878
SIR, - I send you herewith another price list, whereupon I have marked
with (*) what I would recommend to you. The key mechanism of my flute
must be very carefully worked, and therefore the difference of the price
between fine silver and German-silver is only in the value of the metal;
and, being only about 50 marks, it is not advisable to choose a metal
which wears not well: silver is much preferable.
What I find not necessary is the lever for the C natural key. I have
never used it, and prefer to play the shakes with my thumbs.
As
I know nothing about the Rockstro flutes, I would be very much obliged to
you for sending me some explanation.
[Repeating the statement later
challenged by Rockstro]
So
many flutes have been made and called improved Boehm flutes; but all have
not lasted long, as my system is founded on scientific principles, and
cannot well be improved.
Yours very truly,
Th.
Boehm
Excuse my bad writing; I am suffering very much in my eyes.
Further correspondence brought me, about a month later, the following:-
Munich, May 20, 1878
MY
DEAR SIR, - Many thank for your communications. As I believe you will
easily find some friend for translating from German into English, I send
you herewith a treatise, which I had published (1847) at Paris and Mayence.
[This can be none other than the
German text (published in 1847, as Boehm says) of Boehm’s afore-mentioned
“Essay on the Construction of Flutes”, an English manuscript of
which was provided to George Rudall in 1847 but which was to remain
unpublished in English until 1882 when Walter Broadwood rescued it from
the oblivion of Richard Carte’s old papers. Broadwood’s edition appeared
after Boehm’s death in 1881 and four years after Boehm wrote
the letter quoted here. So at the time when Boehm was writing, no English
translation was generally available.]
You
will find in the pages 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, marked with red ink, that I
never had used anything of M. Gordon, but that he had to thank me for what
I had done for him.
[Most interesting!! “Mancuniensis”
had clearly raised this matter with Boehm in 1878, probably as a result of
the continued and ultimately unsuccessful efforts of Richard S. Rockstro
to prove that Boehm had stolen his original 1832 flute design from the
Swiss national Captain James Gordon. This charge originated in 1844 with
Cornelius Ward, who published it in his treatise “The Flute Explained”.
Boehm clearly remained as anxious as ever to clear his name, an
opportunity which had been denied him 31 years earlier in 1847 when Rudall
& Rose failed to publish his Essay, despite the fact that he had
gone to the trouble of preparing an English-language manuscript for them.
The fact that the Boehm/Gordon issue was Boehm’s focus in sending this
Essay to “Mancuniensis” is proved by the very fact that it was
his Essay that he sent rather than his later work “The Flute
and Flute Playing” (which had been published in German in 1871 but was
not to be published in English until 1908, when Dayton C. Miller published
his own translation). The later work does not deal with the Boehm/Gordon
controversy, and therefore sending the German text of that work would not
have answered the case. Boehm may have been quite surprised and doubtless
extremely annoyed to find that the old controversy was still
dogging his reputation in 1878!! He would have been even more annoyed to
know that, thanks to Rockstro, it was to continue to dog his memory for a
further 14 years until Christopher Welch finally disposed of Rockstro’s
allegations once and for all in the 1892 Second Edition of his “History
of the Boehm Flute”!!]
In
regard of a flute for your own use, I think I can now make a good
proposition. I am just finishing a flute for a friend, who has got so
very ill some days ago that there is no hope for his playing again for
many weeks. Therefore I can offer that flute to you, and make another for
him. The flute is of cocoawood
[cocus wood],
with keys of silver. It is in the English pitch
[presumably English High
Pitch (A=452) in 1878 when Boehm was writing] down to C1,
and marked in the price list, No. II., at 375 marks; and including the
requisites, the price is, for you – allowing you ten per cent – 350 marks,
or seventeen pounds ten shillings in English money. You know, perhaps,
that you can send to me any amount by paying the money at the post office,
under my address, and you have only a trifle to pay for the sending. The
flute is very good and fine, and made true to my system,
just so as I play now more than twenty years myself.
If
my proposal is not convenient, I will make for you another in about a
month, having a shake key, an octave key (Schleifklappe) and gold springs,
at the price of twenty pounds ten shillings.
I
like simplicity myself, and I can play any music just as good on the
simpler instrument. Please to give me an answer as soon as possible, as
there are others who will be glad to get a flute without waiting. My eyes
are very bad, and I must cease writing.
Yours truly,
Th.
Boehm
“My
best thanks”, says Boehm in another letter, “for sending me the
price list of----------. There is a good deal of nonsense and humbug in
it”.
[It is very difficult to resist
the conclusion that this was Rudall, Carte & Co.’s illustrated catalogue
given that “Mancuniesnsis” was apparently a good customer of theirs
and had been discussing their “Rockstro Model” with Boehm! He had
probably sent the catalogue to Boehm in response to Boehm’s request in his
letter of April 24, 1878 (see above) that “Mancuniensis” send Boehm
some “explanation” of the Rockstro Model. An illustrated catalogue would
answer this request very well. There is reason to believe, beginning with
the non-publication of his 1847 Essay, that Boehm may have had little time
for Carte’s firm by this stage in his life! This may in part explain his
expressed views on the claims presumably made in the catalogue regarding
the various models included].
“Alterations”
he continues, “can be made ad infinitum, but nothing has, as yet, been
better than my system, which will very likely remain the best”.
[Boehm is probably referring
here to the breathtaking array of different models, many of them based on
his system, that Rudall, Carte & Co. were then offering. History has
proved his verdict to be completely correct in terms of public acceptance]
The
old fellow says what he means, and gives his opinions on the goods of
other makers very freely. His next letter urges me to prompt
decision:-
Munich, June 3, 1878
DEAR SIR:- As I have waited for your last decision, so I have still the
cocoa flute in hand, but I can wait only a few days longer for a definite
answer. I think I have written in my last that I cannot make a better
flute but only add another shake
lever, an octave key and gold springs, at the difference of three pounds
in the price. I cannot decide if a silver flute is better for you. If
you don’t like the feeling of metal on your lips, and also prefer the
sound of a wooden flute – then it is surely better to get a wooden flute.
You
want a certificate to the perfection of the flute. There is my name on
the flute, and it is known in the whole world that I never send off an
instrument which is not as perfect as a flute can be made. Anybody
who understands anything of acoustics or mechanism knows that nothing
is perfect, and that all what is said about it is only humbug.
[The acoustical impossibility of
making a truly perfect flute was a life-long mantra for Boehm. His
steadfast honesty in this regard is striking given that he was in the
business of selling flutes and that “perfection” was a pretty standard
claim by competing flute makers everywhere! The only other
flute maker to consistently express a similar view was the London-based
Irish flautist and flute maker John Clinton, who at one point in his life
was a close associate of Boehm’s]
As
to mentioning my name in regard to -------------, you can be perfectly
quiet. I never dispute with others about their improvements. I leave the
judgement always to the sense of the public, and I have always got the
preference.
[It seems that “Mancuniensis”
was trying to drag Boehm into an open debate on the merits of one of the
many Boehm variants then going the rounds, quite possibly the
aforementioned Rockstro Model. Boehm very wisely declines to be drawn
into any such debate – he feels that time will prove the soundness of his
system, as indeed it has.]
Yours truly,
Th. Boehm
And
now, as will be seen by the following communication, my flute is on its
way!
Munich, June 9, 1878
DEAR SIR:- I thank you for sending me the seventeen pounds ten shillings.
The flute is already on its way to Manchester. You cannot get a better
flute. If you follow my advice, given in my work on the flute, you have
nothing to fear, because the cleaning is the best preservative against
cracks, &c.
I
have published Twenty-four Etudes (with and also without accompaniment of
pianoforte) by A. Schott , of Mayence; and also Twelve Etudes, as an
appendix to my work, by Jos. Aibl, in Munchen. You will find them in
London surely.
[“Mancuniensis” has
clearly inquired regarding the availability of any of Boehm’s compositions
for the flute]
I
hope you will give me soon notice of the arrival of the flute, and of your
contentment with it. I can write no more!
Yours truly,
Th.
Boehm
Further correspondence ensued, the replies to which are here given:-
Munich, July 7, 1878
MY
DEAR SIR, ~ You will allow me to correct your notions about flute making
and acoustic principles. A lining of a wooden head-joint with metal is an
absurdity, as two heterogen (sic) substances of very different
capacity of vibrating – like wood and metal – cannot vibrate together, and
therefore make the tone stiff and hard, and destroy all sonority of tone.
Those makers in London, New York, and Vienna, who have made such lined
heads, show only that they know nothing of acoustics. Also, facing the
cork with metal is good for nothing.
[Another very interesting point
– Boehm was opposed to the use of a metal lining in a wooden head joint!
This is very much in step with many modern makers of wooden flutes for
Celtic music and historical performance. The lining has another drawback
not mentioned by Boehm – it tends to cause cracks in the head joint as the
wood shrinks with age around the inflexible lining].
About the crutch, as you call it, I see that you have not read with
attention my work on the flute, or you would have found on page 17, line
3, that I had made it since I reformed the flute.
[“Mancuniensis” must have
expressed a belief that the infamous crutch was a new invention of
Boehm’s! Boehm is certainly well launched into schoolmaster mode here!]
As
the stem of the crutch is always long enough for a large hand, it must be
adapted to the length of the fingers, and therefore it is not fastened in
the other part; but when it has the right length, then it is a great
advantage, and when you have used it only about a week, then you will
never more play without it.
[The crutch for supporting the
flute independent of the left thumb while playing went back to the 1840’s,
when Boehm first promoted its use. It seems that he had never abandoned
it despite the fact that it had not achieved public favour, being
generally dismissed as a “useless” contrivance!]
As
to the gold springs, I advise you to keep the steel springs, as long as
they do not break. There is always time for sending the flute when
something more important is to be repaired.
I
hope you will soon find that I am right in all I say.
Yours very truly,
Theobald Boehm
Munich, February 16th, 1879
DEAR SIR:- A piccolo or octave flute of silver costs 300 marks; and of
wood, with silver, 250 marks. I think you will get one cheaper and much
quicker from Mr. Louis Lot, at Paris, as we are so much occupied that I
could not make one before several months.
I
cannot understand that the low notes at the foot of your cocoa flute
should be too low. It must be the embouchure. The low notes must be right
if you draw out a little (three millimetres) at the head. We make the
middle pieces a little shorter, that the flute can be drawn in a
little if the pitch is very high.
I
have now finished a new flute model, which is the best flute I ever had in
my hands. By a little alteration, in the acoustic proportion, the tone,
the intonation and the emission of tone is greatly improved.
[Now here is an
interesting observation! Even as late as 1878, it seems that Boehm was
still fine-tuning his design! And it is fascinating to read Boehm’s claim
that his latest “alterations” have “greatly improved” the tone and
intonation! What does that say for the tone and intonation of his earlier
products??!? It would take a detailed examination of representative
examples of his work over the decades to determine the nature, extent and
effectiveness of any changes]
Yours very truly,
Th.
Boehm
The
last letter is in response to a wish of mine to possess an octave flute of
similar make to the larger instrument; and it having been discovered by a
friend to whom I had lent the flute that the lower notes – C1
and C# - were not so well in tune as when the instrument first
came from Boehm, I sent the flute back to Munich to have it made right,
also the extra keys added. This was done, and the “fault” discovered to
be due to my careless friend in “boring” out the face of the cork when
thrusting the rough end of a flute cleaner into it after each time of
playing on the instrument.
[Seems to be an argument
in favour of using a metal facing on the cork, contrary to Boehm’s
opinion expressed earlier! But presumably Boehm was limiting his
views to acoustical considerations.]
The
leading English makers till lately lined the flute heads with metal. I
possess specimens of the best models of English make, and the only one
not lined is the beautiful Rockstro in ebonite mentioned above,
and made about five years ago. From this
[presumably “this” being the Rockstro] I gather that the English
are finding out that the lining was a mistake. The French makers, Lot and
Millereau, I believe, never lined the heads of their flutes. The New York
flute maker, Badger, has always lined his; - at least, I have never seen
one without.
Yours,
&c.,
“MANCUNIENSIS”
February 18, 1890
Commentary
So
there we have it – in effect, the final written testimony of one of the
great innovators of all time in the field of musical instruments in
general and the flute in particular. The above collection of letters is of
the greatest interest in that it provides direct first-hand evidence of
Boehm’s thinking just three years before his death and during the final
year of his flute-making activity – his workshop ledgers (a copy of which
has been very kindly provided to us by his descendant Ludwig Böhm, an
invaluable friend and colleague) show that he sold his last flute on April
11th, 1879, just two months after the writing of the final
letter in the above sequence. No doubt the failing eyesight to which he
refers so consistently made a major contribution to this unhappy
conclusion.
Of
particular interest is the evidence that right up to the last, and despite
his failing eyesight, Boehm was still working on detail
improvements to his basic design. We are certainly indebted to “Mancuniensis”
for taking the steps that he took to ensure that these letters would
remain available to us.
In
hindsight, though, it does seem unfortunate that “Mancuniensis”
forwarded the originals of these letters to the “Musical
Opinion”. It is clear that there were others that are not quoted and
also that some of the quotes are only fragments of the complete
originals. It would be fascinating to know where the originals are now
located, if indeed they survive at all……...
Which
leads us to the final question - who was “Mancuniensis”?
It is impossible to be certain at this distance in time, but the content
of the above letters coupled with the information contained in the ledgers
seem to offer some possibility of at least a tentative identification.
The
letters provide the following information:
1)
“Mancuniensis” bought a cocus-wood flute from Boehm “about
three years before his (Boehm’s) death”, i.e., in mid or late 1878.
This is clearly the flute referred to in the above letters from Boehm.
2)
The flute in question had originally been made to the order of
another customer who had fallen ill and was temporarily unable to play the
flute as a result. This flute was nearing completion on May 20th, 1878
and was still in Boehm’s possession on June 3rd, 1878. Boehm
had put in the hours required to make this instrument and was doubtless
keen to receive his due compensation for his efforts.
3)
As of June 3rd, 1878, Boehm was still awaiting a
decision from “Mancuniensis” regarding the purchase of this flute
and was becoming a little impatient! It is clear that he received
confirmation of the sale, along with the asking price, only a few days
after sending his June 3rd, 1878 letter. The letters probably
crossed in the mail.
4)
At the time of the sale, “Mancuniensis” was unquestionably
resident in Manchester – at least, that is where Boehm sent the flute to
which reference is made. This must surely have been at the specific
request of “Mancuniensis” himself. And the writer’s nom de
plume clearly reflects this location!
5)
Boehm sent the flute to Manchester sometime after the 3rd
but before the 9th of June 1878. It is clear that it must have
arrived safely.
6)
Despite Boehm’s failing eyesight, he was still clearly making fine
instruments, given “Mancuniesnsis’s” subsequent praise for the
quality of this example.
Referring now to the ledger, we find only one English
customer recorded for the year 1878, as follows:
{date unclear} - Cocuswood flute, C foot, octave key (Schliefklappe),
gold springs, high pitch, Mr. Mills in London [our emphasis].
Selling price 286.25 marks.
This
must surely be W. P. Mills, who is known to have been in correspondence
with Boehm at exactly this time. Letters from Boehm to Mills dated
November 8th, 1873 and July 1878 had previously appeared in the
letters section of Walter Broadwood’s 1882 edition of Boehm’s “Essay on
the Construction of Flutes”. The text of the July 1878 letter as
published by Broadwood appears to be only a partial quote and reads as
follows:
Munich, July, 1878
To W. P. Mills
The head-joints of our wooden flutes must be oiled, but never the
middle or the foot-joint
[Boehm’s emphasis throughout]. You can apply a little oil (the best
is oil of Provence) with a feather, when the head is perfectly
dry, and when you have taken out the cork. The best time is to oil it in
the evening, that the wood may have time to absorb the oil before the
morning. Then you wipe it dry with some linen before playing. If you
oil the head once a fortnight at first it is quite enough, and
afterwards only every month.
I
am quite well in my old age of eighty-five years, only my eyes are very
bad.”
This
text is clearly incomplete, but a few conclusions may be drawn regardless.
The letter reads very much like a piece of advice provided at the request
of a new purchaser of a wooden flute from Boehm. It appears to refer to
the oiling of a new wooden flute built by Boehm, since Boehm
speaks of “our wooden flutes” and refers to fortnightly oiling “at
first” with a later reversion to a monthly oiling
schedule. This fits in perfectly with the concept of Mills having
received a new flute from Boehm in June 1878 and having subsequently asked
for his advice regarding maintenance of the new instrument. The style of
this letter is very much in keeping with that of the letters published by
“Mancuniensis”. So far, it all fits………this may well be one of the
additional letters referred to by “Mancuniensis” but not included
in his piece in the “Musical Opinion”.
Against that, the letter of May 20th, 1878 to “Mancuniensis” quotes
a price of 350 marks, which is not in accordance with the ledger value of
the instrument sold to Mills. Also, Mills is specifically stated to be a
resident of London, not Manchester.
Of
course, there are a number of possibilities here. With respect to the
discrepancy between values, Boehm could have been in the habit of
recording the net value of his instruments in his ledger
(selling price minus cost of materials and cost of mailing). This would
reflect his actual compensation for his efforts. Or he could have been in
the habit of understating the selling prices of his instruments for
taxation or other purposes……….. Finally, and in our view most probably,
he could have made an error in his initial May 20th, 1878
“sales pitch” calculation of the exchange rate at the time between marks
and pounds sterling. Perhaps he was anxious to sell the flute and just
“guesstimated” the figure very loosely at the time. The remarkably precise
recorded value of 286.25 marks strongly suggests a re-calculation
following receipt of the requested price in pounds Sterling (perhaps when
he presented the draft at his financial institution for exchange) and a
more precise (and perhaps disappointing!) figure having been arrived at.
Perhaps he forgot to include the bank charges in his initial quotation
……….
Even
the Manchester address is by no means an insurmountable barrier – Mills
could have been temporarily resident in that city for family or business
reasons despite a permanent address in London. Since the two men appear
to have been corresponding since at least late 1873, Mills would certainly
have been well established as a Londoner in Boehm’s eyes if he had
previously been writing from that city, and in such a case a temporary
residency in Manchester would not have changed Boehm’s view of Mills as a
Londoner. Indeed, there is nothing else anywhere in these letters to
suggest that the correspondence overall had been carried on from a
Manchester address – merely that the buyer wished the flute to be sent
there. This could easily have been due to a temporary residency in
Manchester for business or family reasons. To us, the choice of the
nom de plume of “Mancuniensis” strongly suggests a family
connection.
Anyway, where does this leave us?? Well, all we can say at present is
that Mills appears to be the sole currently-identifiable
candidate for the identity of “Mancuniensis”. Due to the
inconsistencies noted above, the identification cannot be regarded as
firmly established, but no alternative candidates are discernable from the
records. It would be helpful if we knew a little more about Mills and his
connections. Did he have a family connection with Manchester, for
instance, or did he reside there in a business context during the period
in question while residing in London at other times?
We
agree with anyone out there who holds the view that it really doesn’t
matter much after all this time, but nonetheless we’re insatiably
curious!! So if anyone has anything to add to this discussion, please
don’t be shy about joining in …….
Back to
McGee-Flutes Home Page
|