|
The last six years of Johann Heinrich Heil’s life are documented in three sets of primary sources extant at the Landeshauptarchiv Sachsen-Anhalt in Dessau, Germany. Specifically, they detail the audition and appointment process in 1758, shed light on how the Consistory dealt with Heil’s alcohol dependence between 1762 and 1764, and, finally, relate what happened to the organist’s estate after his untimely death.
In the summer of 1758 six musicians put their names forward - Johann Friedrich Kolbe, Johann Gottlieb Ulich, Gerhard Heinrich Schumann, Christian Ernst Kallenbach, Christian Lebrecht Zimmermann, Johann Heinrich Heil - for the vacant organist’s position at St. Bartholomäi Church, formerly the court church of the princely family of Anhalt-Zerbst:
Johann Heinrich Heil, who hailed from outside of Zerbst, had most likely heard about the vacancy from concertmaster Höckh, with whom he had stayed prior to being appointed and possibly already when preparing his application in Zerbst on September 3, 1758. Heil’s letter to the Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst (not the Consistory!) indicates that he had previously served “as a chamber musician at various courts, including Eisenach, Anspach and Mirow.” This, he argued, made him the best qualified applicant by far. Curiously, Heil did not mention his proficiency on the violin and prior knowledge of the local musical scene: he had played (the violin) at the Zerbst court on the occasion of performances held to celebrate the nuptials of Archduchess Catherine of Russia in 1745. But professional musicians, including organists, were generally expected to be proficient on more than one instrument.
The musical abilities of the four finalists - Kolbe, Schumann, Kallenbach, and Heil - were put to the test on September 17, 1758. Court organist Röllig, concertmaster Höckh (replacing an ailing Johann Friedrich Fasch) and Superintendent Dr. Johann Daniel Kluge, court preacher, and pastor at St. Bartholomäi Church, each filed a report. During auditions the candidates had to improvise “preludes,” i.e. elaborate hymn introductions, play congregational chorales, and accompany a small ensemble. These were all standard requirements for 18th-century organists auditioning for a church job. As a fellow-organist Röllig was impressed by Heil’s preluding and improvising-composing skills, found his playing of congregational hymns decent, and considered his accompanying abilities sufficient. Concertmaster Höckh specifically emphasized that Heil possessed the musical knowledge required for this post, and could, if necessary, also compose sacred music.
The most informative report by far, however, was that of Superintendent Kluge. He noted that Kantor Stich as well as civic musician Reinsdorff and his ensemble had been present at the audition. Most importantly, an unnamed, but famous composer (berühmter Tonkünstler) from Berlin had also been in attendance. This must have been Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, second-oldest composer son of Thomaskantor J.S. Bach, who probably remembered Heil as a former student of his father. Bach junior, accompanist to the flute-playing King Frederick the Great of Prussia, had left war-torn Berlin in the summer of 1758 and fled to Zerbst, together with his colleague Carl Friedrich Christian Fasch, son of the local court Kapellmeister. According to Kluge, Bach considered Heil to be the most skillful musician amongst the applicants and praised his talent for composing. In contrast, Röllig and Höckh failed to mention the visitor in their reports.
A week after the auditions had taken place the Consistory sent a detailed summary report to the court of Anhalt-Zerbst. Johann Heinrich Heil was officially appointed a month later, on October 27, 1758. This may have surprised Röllig who preferred the blind organist Schumann, and especially Superintendent Kluge, who liked Kolbe best, also because he was a graduate of the St. Bartholomäi School. However, offering a life-long, tenured position to a church organist from out-of- town who had local connections and could compose large-scale vocal music was appropriate for a (former) court and collegiate church. The court also ordered Heil to substitute for the court organist if the latter was away or indisposed - a new (and smart) decision, given that the elderly Kapellmeister Johann Friedrich Fasch was very ill and Röllig ready to succeed him. Finally, like his predecessor Johann David Heinichen before him, Heil was to “skillfully accompany on the keyboard concerts taking place at the court.” These were organized by Höckh and involved a number of highly trained members of the court Kapelle. How often chamber music performances took place at the palace when Heil was appointed, is a good question: Prince Friedrich August had left Zerbst for Paris in April 1758 to avoid an altercation with the Prussian King over housing a French spy at the Zerbst court. Regardless of the frequency and location, working with others was going to be part of Heil’s job duties.
What nobody could have anticipated in autumn 1758 were Johann Heinrich Heil’s future struggles with alcohol. Minutes prepared by civil servants, letters of complaints received by the Consistory, and recommendations sent to the reigning Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, all detailHeil’s questionable behaviour and its impact on others. How compassionate and charitable was the Consistory of Anhalt-Zerbst toward the organist before he died, and what can we learn from its course of action today?
Heil was questioned by the Consistory for the first time on December 16, 1762. He had to be coaxed into admitting that his supervisor, Superintendent Dr. Kluge, had already warned him several times about his lack of work ethic and told to stop overindulging in alcohol. What kind of person was Kluge? According to a biography from 1848, the Superintendent was a collegial and energetic individual, but less forgiving and lenient than his predecessor. Kluge also took his duties very seriously, especially maintaining “good ecclesiastical order.” Having to report one of his own congregational members to the authorities must have been embarrassing for him as a pastor. Thankfully, Heil offered an immediate (and probably heartfelt) apology to the Consistory for having “caused several [unidentified] disturbances” during a worship service at St. Bartholomäi Church on 10 December “due to [human] weakness.” When he promised to better himself, the Consistory only threatened Heil with suspension and removal in mid-December should his behaviour not improve.
Less than six months later a reliable source – Kluge again? – informed the Consistory that Heil had been intoxicated all day long (!) on Sunday, May 1, 1763, and consequently could not carry out his duties at the church. Heil denied that accusation on May 19, but admitted to possibly over-imbibing the night before as part of the fun time (“so eine erfreuliche Zeit”) he had enjoyed with an (unidentified) violinist from Mecklenburg. Then the Consistory asked, “why did you not wear any clothes underneath your Roquelaure [a knee-length coat] when going to the early service?” Heil replied that he “did not believe this to be a crime,” and was merely “following in the footsteps of his ancestors.” The Consistory was not amused and felt a suspension was in order. When Heil promptly swore to better himself, it was agreed to let the matter go “this time” (dieses Mahle); if it happened again, Heil would be suspended.
It is intriguing that the organist of St. Bartholomäi Church was not penalized in May 1763. Heil had clearly crossed the line by missing work repeatedly and making a public spectacle of himself. What compelled the Consistory to give him another chance? I would argue that Heil knew (or had been told) that if he apologized in person to the Consistory and promised to try harder, its members - who were bound to follow Jesus’s teachings about compassion and forgiveness - would have to excuse his shortcomings. Moreover, finding an immediate and suitable replacement for Heil would be difficult (if not impossible), and could have serious and far-reaching implications on the quality and type of music to be offered at the church.
Two months later, the Consistory probably regretted its decision. On June 30, 1763, when Heil admitted that he had been no shape play the organ on the preceding Sunday, he was also unable to “move his tongue”, i.e. he was slurring his speech. Such behaviour would no longer be tolerated, decided the Consistory, and told Heil that he had only himself to blame for whatever happened next – in his case, a scathing complaint lodged by Kantor Stich on July 1. Heil was apparently now inebriated on a daily basis, and had recently shown up “excessively drunk” (höchst betrunken) for a rehearsal. As a result, special music scheduled for the two following Sundays had to be cancelled, much to the Kantor’s dismay and frustration. When questioned by the Consistory on July 7, Stich begged for “this public nuisance to be corrected” - and who could blame him, given that Heil had also been caught depositing “his filth” (seine Unflath), i.e. defecating, on the organ bellows on June 24.
Most importantly, a highly intoxicated Heil had failed to express regret for his conduct in the past. This omission (and Stich’s passionate plea) could have been the catalyst for a lengthy missive that was sent to the court on July 7, with the Consistory asking for a three-month suspension. The court official disagreed: Heil was only going to be sent to the main guard house for eight days of arrest with bread and water, undoubtedly to sober up. Was this the court’s customary rehabilitation approach to dipsomaniacs? If so, then the utterly convincing and detailed rationale provided by the Consistory must be viewed as an attempt to ensure that Heil would definitely be suspended. Or had the court official tried to convey to the Consistory that more, rather than less compassion was the correct course of action? After all, Jesus himself had told Peter to forgive others “seventy times seven” (Matthew 18: 22). The lengthy reaction time on the court’s part – a reply was prepared only on August 27 and reached the Consistory on September 5 - appears somewhat conspicuous as well. But court officials were very busy carrying out the wishes of Prince Friedrich August, who ruled Anhalt-Zerbst from exile.
As a result, the starting date of Heil’s confinement was set for October 18, 1763, more than three months (!) after the Consistory’s recommendation to suspend him. That Heil’s behaviour had improved between July and October is possible; no further complaints against him were filed. A worried Consistory, however, also ordered Stich and Wilcke to contact the Consistory immediately, should Heil manage to get himself into trouble again.
He did, in summer 1764. According to a letter by Stich to the Consistory from August 16, Heil had been unable to work due to his “inhumane boozing” (unmenschliche[s] Brandtwein Sauffen). Unidentified boys - in other words, amateur musicians, mostly likely students at the St. Bartholomäi School - had carried out Heil’s duties for the past six weeks. Worse, on Prince Friedrich August’s birthday (August 8), Heil never reported for duty at the morning service, Stich’s son had to substitute for him during the main service, and during the Vesper Heil barely managed to finish the assigned chorale. Enough is enough, argued Stich, and beseeched the Consistory to replace Heil with a decent and competent church musician immediately.
The Consistory let another six weeks pass (!) before it followed up on Stich’s report. Specifically, two more individuals who corroborated the Kantor’s accusation were questioned. Had the Consistory waited so long because it felt there was no more hope for Heil? I would argue the opposite: its members wanted to give Stich a chance to cool off and Heil yet another opportunity to overcome his ongoing substance abuse problem. After all, his imposed “visit” to the main guard house in October 1763 had clearly made a difference. It took the Consistory only one week, until September 27, 1764, to agree that Johann Heinrich Heil was to leave his post as soon as possible. He died three short weeks later, on October 18, 1764, leaving behind a mountain of debts and thirteen creditors, whose demands kept the Consistory busy until May 1765.
Neither personal letters penned by Johann Heinrich Heil nor descriptions of his character by others appear to be extant. This makes it difficult to determine whether his personality had changed since being appointed by the court of Anhalt-Zerbst. The audition reports from 1758 confirm his superior musical skills which suggest that he was a disciplined individual with a creative side. Given that Heil rented a place by himself in Zerbst, he was either unmarried or widowed. Nothing is known about family members or close friends he could have turned to in times of need. It is also impossible to say why - and even more importantly, when - Heil had begun to drown his sorrows in alcohol, i.e. before he came to Zerbst or after. Perhaps his job duties bored him or he found working with Kantor Stich challenging. The latter had had no say in the selection process and could have made the new organistfeel very much unwanted. Yet Heil had never tried to blame his colleagues, at least not in front of the Consistory. Finally, it is entirely possible that the organist knew (or was told) how to manipulate the Consistory, albeit gently. As long as Heil stressed his human imperfections and showed a willingness to change, the Consistory would be compelled to postpone judgment on his actions in light of his seeming self-knowledge. The court, in contrast, simply tried to sober him up: prior to the 20th century, alcohol dependence was viewed predominantly as a character flaw or a bad habit, not a disease.
Organists who find themselves in a similar situation today would have probably considered suing the court for wrongful dismissal. In the 1760's Heil’s case would have been a weak one, and being strapped for cash he would not have been able to pay for legal assistance. Due to continued alcohol dependence, Heil’s health, especially his liver, must also have suffered greatly, and he may have been self-medicating with food prior to his death in 1764 as well. The Zerbst Consistory arguably dealt this gifted musician a huge blow by removing him from his position. At the same time, the compassion and grace its members showed Johann Heinrich Heil throughout his tenure was exemplary because they put mercy before justice.
References: Koska: A-24; GND: 1067084886; Bach Digital: 00006465 |
