Page 235 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2023. Glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo ▪︎ Music societies in the long 19th century: Between amateur and professional culture. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 6
P. 235
the foundation of a free state is a free (music) association? continuity and change ...
For me, the yearly signing of the Namenlisten points to the direction of
its organisational form before 1908 falling under the state regulation on pri-
vate law. For a legal historian, it is of a particular interest that such a reor-
ganisation, as befell the orchestra in 1908, happened after the gentle, albe-
it firm inducement, coming from the courts of law. Had the orchestra not
followed the path of reorganising, the estate of Rudolf Putz might very well
have been lost to them. Namely, Rudolf Putz left the orchestra his estate
en tant que – Gesellschaft. The only way that they could have proven to the
court that they, in fact, were led by a common goal in favour primarily of the
association, overriding those of the individuals, was to reconstitute them-
selves as a Verein in the sense of the 1867 Act. The archival material shows
that they had to prove that first to themselves,49 which, after some weeks of
deliberation with a minority of dissenting voices, they successfully did, and
reached the unanimous decision on reconstitution on June 19, 1908.50
Following Hellsberg, it is well known that the orchestra in 1908 was
not faced with a motion to reconstitute itself for the first time. Soon after
the adoption of the 1867 Act, not only was such a proposal given, but it was
in 1872 also successfully passed, though never afterwards carried through.51
It is my surmise, that in their eyes, it was not that the format of an associa-
tion according to the so-called liberal 1867 Act would grant them more (or
even the essential) autonomy, but rather to the contrary! In other words, I
would like to suggest that they did not choose to reconstitute themselves
into an association in the sense of the 1867 Act in order not to lose the vast
autonomy that they had already developed and got used to enjoying.
It is only a matter of historic coincidence that in the very year when
the Philharmonische Konzert-Unternehmung in Wien transformed itself to
an association proper under the name of Wiener Philharmoniker, Ljublja-
na got its first full civil symphonic orchestra that it had been lacking until
49 Cf. the advice of the orchestra’s lawyer on the matter HA/Wph, A-Pr-015–49. In case,
a member of the orchestra would pursue a single course of action to recover part of
the estate, the relatives might successfully use that argument against the orchestra
in court. They could argue that the orchestra failed to demonstrate its commitment
to the common goal, and with that not, in fact, being a Gesellschaft, for the sole pur-
pose of which Rudolf Putz had left them his estate.
50 Hellsberg, Demokratie, 368–70. For the minutes of this important general assembly,
passed on 19 June 1908 which Hellsberg counts among the most important dates in
the history of the orchestra, cf. HA/Wph, A-Pr-015-50a (Erster Punkt der Hauptver-
sammlung, die nach eingehender Debatte die Gründung des Vereins “Wiener Phil-
harmoniker” einstimmig beschloss; 19. Juni 1908).
51 Ibid. HA/WPh, A-Pr-001-22 (Otto Dessoff, im Jahre 1873).
233
For me, the yearly signing of the Namenlisten points to the direction of
its organisational form before 1908 falling under the state regulation on pri-
vate law. For a legal historian, it is of a particular interest that such a reor-
ganisation, as befell the orchestra in 1908, happened after the gentle, albe-
it firm inducement, coming from the courts of law. Had the orchestra not
followed the path of reorganising, the estate of Rudolf Putz might very well
have been lost to them. Namely, Rudolf Putz left the orchestra his estate
en tant que – Gesellschaft. The only way that they could have proven to the
court that they, in fact, were led by a common goal in favour primarily of the
association, overriding those of the individuals, was to reconstitute them-
selves as a Verein in the sense of the 1867 Act. The archival material shows
that they had to prove that first to themselves,49 which, after some weeks of
deliberation with a minority of dissenting voices, they successfully did, and
reached the unanimous decision on reconstitution on June 19, 1908.50
Following Hellsberg, it is well known that the orchestra in 1908 was
not faced with a motion to reconstitute itself for the first time. Soon after
the adoption of the 1867 Act, not only was such a proposal given, but it was
in 1872 also successfully passed, though never afterwards carried through.51
It is my surmise, that in their eyes, it was not that the format of an associa-
tion according to the so-called liberal 1867 Act would grant them more (or
even the essential) autonomy, but rather to the contrary! In other words, I
would like to suggest that they did not choose to reconstitute themselves
into an association in the sense of the 1867 Act in order not to lose the vast
autonomy that they had already developed and got used to enjoying.
It is only a matter of historic coincidence that in the very year when
the Philharmonische Konzert-Unternehmung in Wien transformed itself to
an association proper under the name of Wiener Philharmoniker, Ljublja-
na got its first full civil symphonic orchestra that it had been lacking until
49 Cf. the advice of the orchestra’s lawyer on the matter HA/Wph, A-Pr-015–49. In case,
a member of the orchestra would pursue a single course of action to recover part of
the estate, the relatives might successfully use that argument against the orchestra
in court. They could argue that the orchestra failed to demonstrate its commitment
to the common goal, and with that not, in fact, being a Gesellschaft, for the sole pur-
pose of which Rudolf Putz had left them his estate.
50 Hellsberg, Demokratie, 368–70. For the minutes of this important general assembly,
passed on 19 June 1908 which Hellsberg counts among the most important dates in
the history of the orchestra, cf. HA/Wph, A-Pr-015-50a (Erster Punkt der Hauptver-
sammlung, die nach eingehender Debatte die Gründung des Vereins “Wiener Phil-
harmoniker” einstimmig beschloss; 19. Juni 1908).
51 Ibid. HA/WPh, A-Pr-001-22 (Otto Dessoff, im Jahre 1873).
233
