The Saga of Boehm’s 1847 “Essay”
Introduction
In 1847, Theobald Boehm had just completed the
acoustical studies and experiments which led him to the creation of his
groundbreaking metal cylinder-bored flute that was to lay the foundation
for the development of the modern concert flute. Being a methodical
individual, he had recorded the various stages of his development work
in a document which was apparently completed at about the same time as
the development work on his new flute design. This “Essay on the
Construction of Flutes” [the “Essay”] was initially published
in 1847 in Boehm’s native Germany and shortly thereafter in France.
Subsequently, an Italian-language edition was published in 1851.
Among other things, the document
was expressly intended by Boehm to constitute his own defence against
the charge that he had copied major aspects of his original 1832
ring-keyed conical-bore design from the misleadingly-named Swiss amateur
Captain James Gordon. This charge had been aired both in France and in
London, and clearly caused Boehm considerable personal distress.
But the “Essay” was not
published in England at or anywhere near its time of writing, despite
the fact that an English-language text apparently written out by Boehm
himself was undoubtedly sent to George Rudall of the firm of Rudall &
Rose for the express purpose of its being considered for publication by
Rudall & Rose, who had just acquired the English rights to the new
design. The circumstances surrounding this apparent anomaly have never
been fully resolved.
As matters transpired, the
English language version of the “Essay” only finally saw the
light 35 years later in 1882 after the death of Boehm, when an edition
prepared by Boehm’s long-time friend and correspondent Walter S.
Broadwood was finally published by Rudall, Carte & Co. Its publication
at that time was evidently directed at refuting the charges of
plagiarism from Gordon which had been openly renewed by Richard S.
Rockstro as soon as Boehm was safely dead.
As Boehm had intended, the “Essay”
incorporated the elements of a highly credible defence against those
charges and, together with additional material included by Broadwood,
ensured Rockstro’s eventual discomfiture. But its publication 35 years
after it had been written, and in the year following Boehm’s death at
that, did nothing to provide Boehm himself with the personal
satisfaction and vindication that he appears to have sought from its
intended publication at its time of writing in 1847.
It has been argued that the
basic document as written by Boehm is of a somewhat tedious and
technical nature and was thus unlikely to attract mass sales, despite
its obvious relevance to anyone interested in flute development. On
these grounds, a decision by Rudall not to publish in 1847 may be seen
as understandable, and this has been a commonly-advanced reason for
Rudall’s decision not to publish. If this were as far as the matter
went, we might agree that there would be little basis for any further
discussion.
But this view does not take into
account a number of other circumstances which relate to this matter. Our
purpose here in setting out the various factors stems from our view that
the unravelling of this matter requires that the full
range of related circumstances must be factored into any discussion of
the issue.
Accordingly, our first step will
be to present the full range of facts as we are presently aware of
them. We will then set out the shortcomings of the traditional views of
this matter in relation to those facts, and will offer our own
explanation for consideration. In doing so, we wish it to be very
clearly understood that we are not claiming the complete
accuracy of all aspects of the explanation that we will present. What
we do claim is that our reading of the matter addresses
the full range of known facts surrounding this issue. We
invite the presentation of alternative explanations which acknowledge
and accommodate these facts equally completely. We also encourage the
sharing of any new information of which we are presently unaware.
The circumstances surrounding the matter
Here we will attempt to summarize the circumstances
that appear to us to have some bearing upon this discussion.
-
Although first
raised in France in the late 1830’s, notably by Victor Coche in
1838, the open charges of plagiarism against Boehm in London appear
to have originated in the period 1843-44, with the chief protagonist
at that time being the well-known flute-maker Cornelius Ward.
Richard S. Rockstro was closely associated with Ward at this time,
and his lifelong antipathy towards Boehm may have originated during
this period.
-
Boehm was clearly
well aware of these charges of plagiarism. In his description in the
“Essay” of the manner in which he came to develop his 1832
model, Boehm freely admits having made the acquaintance of Gordon
during a stay in London in 1831, and then comments that “someone
[presumably Ward] found it also convenient to ascribe my
invention to the above-named Gordon, who could no more protest
against the compliment, as he had died before [in around 1838].”
He goes on to say that, although he himself placed no particular
value upon his invention and had not patented it, “…..I am not
inclined to be deprived of the authenticity of my invention. I find
myself obliged, therefore, to show my relations with Mr. Gordon more
clearly”. Some 4 pages of the “Essay” are specifically
devoted to this topic.
-
In a subsequent
paragraph, Boehm states that “the surest proof of the
authenticity of my invention may be a statement of my motives for
constructing a new flute, and the explanation of the acoustical and
mechanical principles I made use of; for he alone is capable of
producing a rational work who is able to account for every detail,
from its conception to its completion”. The bulk of the
remainder of the “Essay” constitutes just such an accounting,
and was clearly and expressly intended to serve as the foundation of
Boehm’s own defence.
-
The above quotes,
written in 1847, make it clear that one of Boehm’s chief motives in
completing the “Essay” at that time was to defend himself
against the charges of plagiarism which he personally felt were
still dogging his reputation at the time of writing. But this goal
could only be achieved if the “Essay” was in fact published.
-
It has been
suggested that, as of 1847, Boehm’s reputation was no longer under
threat in London and that hence he needed no defence at that time.
Others had defended Boehm already, and there was thus no need for
him to do so himself. Whether or not this is objectively true (and
it appears impossible to prove one way or the other at this distance
in time), Boehm himself clearly did not take this view
– the above quotes were written by him in 1847 and expressed his own
feelings at that time. It is surely Boehm’s own beliefs that should
concern us here when discussing his actions and motivations. And
his own comments show very clearly that, rightly or wrongly, he
himself felt that some kind of published defence written by himself
remained necessary as of 1847 despite the prior efforts of others.
The obvious level of effort which the writing of this 12,500 word
document in English would have required (writing by hand in a
foreign language, and no word processors or photocopiers back then!)
is indicative of the importance which he attached to this effort.
-
Boehm met with
Rudall & Rose in London in early or mid August, 1847 and concluded a
deal whereby they would take out an English patent on Boehm’s
behalf. They would thereafter hold the exclusive rights to the
manufacture of his new flute design and other designs utilizing
Boehm’s technology for the next 14 years (after which the Patent
would expire). Although no actual details survive, this agreement
was apparently concluded through a lump sum payment to Boehm, who
thereafter had no financial interest in the use made by Rudall &
Rose of his ideas. He had a similar contemporary arrangement with
Godfroy & Lot in Paris, details of which have survived.
-
On September 2nd,
1847, (over two weeks after Boehm had left London to return to
Munich), George Rudall wrote to Boehm encouraging him to send a
revised and shortened version of the “Essay” which Boehm had
evidently already told Rudall that he had prepared. The stated
purpose was so that Rudall could “see about its publication”.
At this time, the idea of an imminent publication was apparently
alive and well. This letter has recently been published in Robert
Bigio’s book “Readings in the History of the Flute” (London:
Tony Bingham, 2006)
-
It has been
suggested that Rudall (to whom the manuscript was
presumably sent) subsequently decided against publication on the
grounds that the nature and content of the document were such as to
be unlikely to attract large sales. The validity of this view is
perhaps supported by the sales of the “Essay” in Germany and
France, which were evidently far from brisk, although this is by no
means definitive regarding the sales potential in England. However,
it must not be forgotten that this factor had not prevented
the publication of the document in those countries and subsequently
in Italy. The non-publication in London therefore remains an
anomaly, especially in view of Boehm’s own clearly-stated wish to
clarify the Gordon matter through the publication of the document.
-
Richard S. Rockstro,
writing years later, suggested that the “Essay” was so full
of errors that Rudall’s decision not to publish was out of his “kindly
regard” for Boehm’s reputation. However, apart from the fact
that in the context of its times the “Essay” actually
contained remarkably few errors and hence would have
done nothing to harm Boehm’s reputation in that
context, this conclusion is also inconsistent with Boehm’s own
stated view that an active defence of his reputation
was required as of 1847. This would surely appear to have
constituted a strong inducement for Rudall to express any “kindly
regard” for Boehm’s reputation by publishing the document!
Viewed in this context, Rockstro’s comments are nonsense, like so
many of his comments regarding Boehm.
-
Regardless of who
actually made the decision and their motivations in doing so, the
consequence of the decision not to publish was that
Boehm’s own laboriously-prepared defence of his right to priority as
the true originator of his own flute design remained unpublished in
English, a situation which was to persist for the following 35 years
until after Boehm’s death. This was certainly not supportive of
Boehm’s own statement, written in 1847 as noted above, that he felt
himself “obliged” to defend his reputation against the Gordon
charges at that time.
-
The ongoing
importance that Boehm attached to the “Essay” in the above
regard is underscored by the fact that, as late as 1878, Boehm was
still relying on the “Essay” as his main
defence against the Gordon charges, but in the continuing absence of
an English translation was reduced to sending a copy of the
published German version to an English correspondent having an
interest in the matter in the hope that he could get it translated.
The relevant letter may be found elsewhere on this website at
(link).
-
Whether by direct
communication from Rudall or simply through the non-publication of
the document as time slipped by, there can be no question that Boehm
must quickly have come to realize that the document was not going to
be published, by Rudall & Rose at least. If the document was to see
the light of day, further intervention by Boehm would clearly be
required – Rudall & Rose had let him down.
-
The clearest
evidence that has so far been uncovered with respect to Boehm’s
subsequent actions comes in the form of two letters written to the
afore-mentioned Walter S. Broadwood, a long-time friend and
correspondent of Boehm’s. The first of these is dated March 17th,
1866 and includes the following statement: “If Mr. Carte had read
or had not forgotten what I had written in my brochure on flute
making and improvements 1847 – of which he refused in a shameful
way to return me my English translation as you will remember
yourself [our emphasis]– he might know that
I had said: - As the holes must substitute the cuttings of the tube,
they ought to be as large as possible. You may be sure that I have
tried everything years before and much more, as Carte and such will
think upon!” This letter is preserved at the Royal Academy of
Music in London, together with other letters in the same series. We
are greatly indebted to Theobald Boehm’s descendant Ludwig Boehm of
Munich, Germany, for bringing this long-overlooked letter to our
attention. The full text of this previously-unpublished letter may
be found elsewhere on this web site at
Letter to
Broadwood from Theobald Boehm, 17 March 1866.
It includes a reminder from Boehm to
Broadwood that the text of the “Essay” remains available in
German, indicating Boehm’s continuing reliance upon it and clearly
implying his ongoing frustration at its continuing unavailability in
English.
-
In a subsequent
letter to Broadwood dated November 15th, 1868, Boehm
included the following statement: “At the Paris
Exhibition [of 1868], unfortunately, the Jurors, being
unfamiliar with the subject [the Schema], declined to go into
it; wherefore, at the request of the Committee of the Bavarian
Polytechnic Society, I had my diagram published in their “Kunst und
Gewerbeblatt”. This work cost much time and trouble, without
bringing me one penny of profit; nor did I receive anything for
my pamphlet on the Construction of the Flute, of which Mr. Carte
took possession [our emphasis]” This letter is also
preserved at the Royal Academy of Music in London, but unlike the
previously mentioned letter of March 17th, 1866, it
was included in a collection of Boehm’s letters which
formed an appendix to Broadwood’s 1882 edition of the “Essay”.
-
These letters are
noteworthy for their internal consistency – both statements reflect
a view on Boehm’s part that at some point prior to 1866 Carte had
not only taken possession of the manuscript (presumably from Rudall,
who was still very much alive at this time) but had refused to
return it to Boehm upon request in a manner which Boehm
characterized as “shameful”. Boehm’s sense of grievance is
very obvious here.
-
It has been
suggested that Boehm might have been in error in attributing the
refusal to return the document to Carte rather than Rudall, to whom
the document was presumably sent originally. We believe that Boehm
was in a far better position to know the truth than we are –
certainly, he was the one person most likely to know
at first hand to whom the request for the return of the document had
been directed as well as who had refused to return it and in what
manner. If the guilty party was Rudall, how could Boehm not have
known this and why would Boehm not then have said so?? We are also
cognizant of the fact that Boehm’s other writings are remarkably
free from major errors or unwarranted assertions. In view of these
observations, it is our view that if the above statements by Boehm
are to be discounted, as some have suggested, then the onus is on
those advocating that approach to clearly demonstrate why
they should be discounted and how Boehm could have got the facts so
wrong regarding a matter that concerned him so closely. We remain
open to the production of any new evidence in this regard.
-
The March 17th,
1866 letter also clearly confirms Boehm’s understanding at the time
that Broadwood already knew about
Carte’s refusal to return the manuscript. The wording of the
November 15th, 1868 letter gives no indication that
anything had occurred in the interim to alter Boehm’s views. If
Boehm was in error regarding Carte, and Broadwood knew him to be in
error, then surely he would have corrected his friend subsequent to
the 1866 letter?? It appears that he did not do so.
-
In the preface to
his 1882 edition of the “Essay”, Broadwood makes no reference
to what amounts to the suppression of Boehm’s English-language
manuscript by Carte. It has been suggested that this alone proves
that Boehm was in error. But this view fails completely to take into
account the fact that Broadwood was wholly dependent upon Carte for
access to the document as well as for its publication and that these
facts may very well have influenced the content of the publication.
-
In fact, Broadwood
confines himself to commenting that Rudall received the document
(which we do not doubt) but “did not care” to publish it (for
reasons which are not given by Broadwood) and that it was “laid
aside and forgotten” until made available to Broadwood by Carte
in 1882 for editorial purposes. There is no mention of Carte having
“taken possession” of the document at any time. Moreover,
Broadwood does not state by whom it was
“forgotten” - it was certainly not forgotten by
Boehm, as Broadwood undoubtedly knew from his correspondence with
his friend!! Nonetheless, we do not doubt that, as far as it goes,
this statement could well be basically true. However, Broadwood is
notably silent on the issue of when
Carte took possession of the document (he definitely had it in 1882,
so he definitely did take possession of it at some
point after 1847 but prior to 1882) and also regarding whether or
not Boehm had attempted to recover the manuscript in the interim and
what Carte’s reaction might have been. So his evidence is
fundamentally incomplete and hence neither confirms nor refutes that
of Boehm himself.
The shortcomings of the “traditional” view
As
stated at the outset, the explanation of this affair that has been
advanced most often in the past (setting aside Rockstro’s highly
unconvincing “explanation”) is that the content of the document was such
that large sales could not reasonably be anticipated. While this is a
perfectly acceptable reason for any individual such as Rudall to make a
decision not to publish, it is a totally unconvincing explanation
for an outright refusal by either Rudall or Carte to return the
manuscript to its author for him to do with as he saw fit.
The
traditional view of the matter also fails to accommodate the fact that,
whatever anyone else may have thought, in Boehm’s own clearly-stated
opinion there was a need to place a persuasive defence to the charges of
plagiarism from Gordon before the English-speaking public as of 1847.
If Boehm’s own wishes counted for anything, this should have encouraged
Rudall’s co-operation in getting the work published. If Rudall was
nonetheless unwilling to publish for his own reasons, then surely he
would have freed Boehm to make other arrangements, given that it was his
own reputation that Boehm evidently saw as being under a cloud? The
traditional view ignores this factor.
The
traditional view also completely overlooks the comments made by Boehm on
two occasions in letters to Broadwood regarding Carte’s role in the
matter. In fact, the most direct of these comments appears to have been
effectively suppressed until now – we are not aware that the letter of
March 17th, 1866 has been published previously. In that context, it is
interesting to note the fact that, although many of Boehm’s letters to
Broadwood were published in a very interesting Appendix to Broadwood’s
1882 edition of the “Essay”, Boehm’s March 17th, 1866 letter containing
his initial and most direct accusation against Carte was not included,
despite the fact that it is part of the same letter sequence as the
others and undoubtedly remained in Broadwood’s possession along with all
the others at the time of publication. If the allegation made by Boehm
against Carte in that letter is well-founded, its omission from a
publication by Carte’s own company would become readily understandable.
Otherwise, this omission is difficult to understand – it would just be
another letter from Boehm with a single correction or clarification
required – an opportunity to set the record straight, in fact.
Summary of the alternative explanation
If
the two statements by Boehm set out above may be taken as correct, as we
believe they may unless evidence to the contrary becomes available, then
several things appear to be true:
-
Boehm was not content to leave his
“Essay” unpublished in English (regardless of the reason) and
languishing in Rudall’s or Carte’s filing cabinets. He evidently
made an attempt (or perhaps multiple attempts) to secure the return
of the manuscript for his own purpose(s). Unless such a request was
made, there was no occasion for it to be “refused”. The timing of
this request is unclear, but it must have been prior to 1866
for Boehm to write as he did in that year, and could have
been at any time after 1847 once Boehm had become aware of the
decision by the Rudall & Rose interests not to publish.
-
Upon his application for the return of the
manuscript (presumably initially to Rudall, since it was most likely
to Rudall that he had sent it originally), Boehm learned that Carte
had “taken possession” of the document. Accordingly he applied to
Carte for its return, or had Rudall do so on his behalf.
-
Carte refused outright to return the document
to Boehm, even though it was undoubtedly there to be returned if a
decision to do so had been taken. Carte’s reasons for doing so are
not made clear by Boehm, who confined himself to characterising the
circumstances as “shameful”.
The
above factors strongly suggest to us that Boehm attempted to recover his
English-language manuscript, presumably to promote it or use it
elsewhere, but was prevented from carrying out this plan by Carte’s
refusal to return the document. In our opinion, this amounts to
suppression of the English-language version of the “Essay”, and places
Richard Carte as the prime suspect unless clear evidence surfaces to the
contrary.
The reasons for Carte’s actions
The
single most illuminating question that can be asked when attempting to
clarify the actions of any historical figure is - why? Generally
speaking, once we understand the reasons for an individual’s
actions, we are in a far better position to evaluate those actions and
perhaps elaborate on our reading of the facts.
The
reader who has stayed the course to this point will have observed that
none of the above factors shed any light whatsoever on the possible
reasons that Carte might have for refusing to return Boehm’s
manuscript. However, we can state with some certainty that these
reasons must surely have seemed compelling to Carte for him to have
taken such a drastic step and hence incur the obvious displeasure of
someone as well-known, well-respected and well connected as Boehm.
Carte’s potential motivations appear to divide themselves into three
categories:
-
Personal antipathy toward Boehm. We
find this totally unconvincing – we are aware of no reason why Carte
would hold such a view of Boehm, and many reasons to the contrary,
including numerous statements by Carte himself. Also, if this were
the reason, it would imply a degree of sheer underhand spitefulness
and pettiness on Carte’s part which we are highly reluctant to
attribute to him and for which there is no evidence whatsoever as
far as Boehm is concerned.
-
Temporary misplacement of the document
so that Carte was (at the time at least) unable to return the
document. This is inconsistent with the fact that the manuscript
undoubtedly remained among Carte’s papers all along and was found
easily enough much later in 1882 for Broadwood to edit. And if
Carte had temporarily mislaid the document and had told Boehm as
much, there would be nothing in that for Boehm to characterize as
“shameful”. Careless, perhaps, but no more than that. And
certainly not a “refusal” as characterized by Boehm – an inability,
rather. In any case, Carte would surely have gone on looking until
he found the manuscript if his genuine intention had been to return
it – after all, it definitely remained there to be found!
-
A wish to suppress the document for
commercial or business reasons. This appears to us to be by far
the most likely reason for Carte’s refusal to return the document,
especially given his well-documented business mindset. The tentative
identification of a clear business motive is not an insuperable
challenge. In 1847, when Rudall was pressing Boehm for the updated
document, his expectation was no doubt that his company would
benefit from the publication of a document relating to and
expounding on their revolutionary new product line. But Carte’s
subsequent actions show that his mind was already running in
different directions – the development and promotion of two new
flutes based on Boehm’s bore, head-joint and hole arrangement but
not using Boehm's fingering.
So rather than ask the question “why would Carte suppress Boehm’s
document?”, perhaps we should be asking the question, “what possible
advantage to Carte would accrue from its publication?” If Carte was
to become the man of the moment in London flute society, better he
publish his own document than Boehm’s, surely?!? And indeed he did
so - Carte’s “Sketch of the Successive Improvements in the Flute”
was published in 1851, while Boehm’s own “Essay” remained both
unpublished and unavailable even to its originator.
|