LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN BEETHOVEN AND MAELZEL 1814

From The Letters of Beethoven, Anderson, St. Martin’s Press, Inc. 1961, New York Letter #485 pg 459 Vol 1 of 3 [Autograph in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin] To Dr. Carl, Edler von Adlersburg (1) Vienna, July, 1814 On my own initiative I had composed for M[aelzel] a movement of the S[chlacht] s[ymphony] (2)for his panharmonicon without being paid for it -- When he had had it for some time he brought me the score from which he had already begun to engrave the work, and wanted to have it arranged for full orchestra -- Previously I had already hit on the idea of a battle, which, however, could not have been used for his p[anharmonicon] -- We came to an agreement to have this work, and several more of mine, performed for the benefit of the w[ounded]. But just then I was plunged into the the most dreadful financial embarrassment -- When I was forsaken by the whole world here in Vienna and still awaiting a bill of exchange etc., M[aelzel] offered me 50 ducats -- I took them and told him that I would either pay him back the 50 ducats here in Vienna or, in the event of my not travelling with him myself, give him the work to take to London – and that in the latter case I would give him a draft to an English publisher who would pay him the 50 ducats. I received back from him the score as it had been composed for his panharmonicon. Well, during the season c[oncerts] were in full swing; and it was then that H[err] M[aelzel]’s scheme and his character were revealed – Without my consent he had a notice entered on the posters that the work was his property. As I was enraged at this, he had to have those posters removed. He then inserted ‘out of friendship and for his journey to London’. This I permitted, still thinking that I was free to choose the conditions on which I would give him the work – I remember that during the printing of the notices we had violent arguments, but there was too little time to do anything about the matter (3) -- I was still composing the work and in the heat of imagination was wholly absorbed in my task – and scarcely gave the matter a thought – Meanwhile immediately after the first c[oncert] in the U[niversity] (4) I was informed from all quarters and by reliable people that everywhere he had spread the report that he had paid me 400 gold ducats – Whereupon I sent the following notice to the daily paper, but the journalist did not insert it (5) – because M[aelzel] is on very good terms with everybody – Immediately after the first c[oncert] I returned his 50 ducats to M[aelzel] – and informed him that having now become acquainted with his character in Vienna I would never travel with him. I had every reason to be furious that without consulting me he had inserted in the notices that all the preparations for the c[oncert] had been badly made. Even his low and disloyal character is displayed in expressions such as the following: ‘I shit on V[ienna] and I’ll see to it that people in London are told that here in V[ienna] one is paid 10 gulden; I did not do this for the wounded but for the sake of the moneyh’ – Furthermore, I told him that I would give him the work to take to London, but only on certain conditions – of which I would inform him – He then maintained that it was a friendly gift, and, without consulting me at all about it, had this wording inserted in the paper after the second concert (6) -- As M[aelzel] is an ill-bred fellow, quite uneducated and without refinement, one can imagine how he behaved to me during that time and thus infuriated me more and more – and who would allow himself to be compelled to give a friendly present to such a man? (7) -- Well, I was then given the opportunityh of sending the work to the Prince Regent – So it was no longer possible to give Maelzel this work unconditionally. He then went to you (8) and made certain proposals. He was told on what days he could present himself to fetch the reply. – But he never came – He left Vienna and had the work performed at Munich. How did he get hold of it? It was impossible to steal it – Well, Herr M[aelzel] kept a few separate parts at home for some days – and he then employed an inferior musical mechanic to put the work together with the help of these parts; and he is now hawking the work throughout the world – Herr M[aelzel] promised me certain hearing aids. (9) And in order to encourage him I arranged the Siegessymphonie for his p[anharmonicon] – At last his mechanical aids were completed, but they were not of any real use to me – In return for this small service Herr M[aelzel] considered that once I had arranged the Siegessymphonie for a large orchestra and had composed the Schlacht as well, I ought to have made his the sole owner of the latter. Well, even though I had felt that to a certain extent I was under an obligation to him in consideration of his mechanical hearing aids, this debt has now been discharged, seeing that at Munich he made a profit of at least 500 gulden A.C. with the Schlacht which he had either stolen from me or patched up in a mutilated form – So in this way he has recouped himself – Even here he had the impudence to declare that he possessed the Schlacht. Nay more, he showed a copy of it to several people – but I did not believe his story – and I am right in so far as the whole work has not been composed by me but has been pieced together by somebody else – Moreover the honour he claims for himself alone might in itself be a sufficient reward. The Hofkriegsrat never once mentioned me. Yet all the items on the programmes of the two c[oncerts] were my compositions – And if Herr M[aelzel], as he has given out, has postponed his journey to London on account of the Schlacht, that statement too is a good joke. Herr M[aelzel] stayed on until he had finished his patchwork, because the first attempts had not been successful (10) – Beethoven ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Dr. Carl, Edler von Adlersburg (1774-1855), an eminent Viennese lawyer, was Beethoven’s adviser in his disputes with Maelzel and Prince Lobkowitz, and to a certain extent in his litigation with his sister-in-law over the guardianship of her son. 2. The autograph of this letter, which may only be a draft, is full of abbreviations of various kinds. 3. In the autograph this sentence is added at the foot of the page. 4. On December 8, 1813 5. This notice, which Beethoven may have attached to his letter to Adlersburg, has not been traced. [NOTE: See below for text from another source: Beethoven’s Letters 1926] 6. On December 12, 1813. After this sentence there is another one which has been deleted but can be deciphered: ‘Everything now goes to prove that his scheme was to get possession of the work for 50 ducats, a thing which I myself never suspected’. 7. This sentence is added at the foot of the page. 8. This clause is followed by a sentence which has been deleted but is still legible: ‘You will recall that I myself offered him some other compositions of mine’. 9. Cf. Letter 459 10. See also Appendix H (12) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ From Beethoven’s Letters, Ed.: A. Eaglefield-Hull. Translated by J.S. Shedlock J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. N.Y. E.P. Dutton & Co.1926 [Printed in Great Britain] #165 Explanation and Appeal to the Artists in London Vienna, July 25, 1814 Herr Maelzel, who is at present in London, on his way thither performed my Siegessinfonie und Wellingtons Schlacht bei Vittoria in Munich, and, according to report, will also give it at concerts in London, just as he had intended doing in Frankfort. This induces me openly to declare: That I did not ever in any way give or surrender the works named to Herr Maelzel; that nobody possesses copies of them, and that the only one given away by me, I sent to his Royal Highness, Prince Regent of England. The performance of these works by Herr Maelzel is therefore an imposition on the public, since he, according to the explanation here given, does not possess them, or if he does, has injured me, seeing that he has got possession of them illegally. But even in the latter case, the public will be deceived, for what Herr Maelzel offers to it under the title: Wellingtons Schlacht bei Vittoria und Siegessinfonie, must evidently be a spurious or a mutilated work, for of these works, with exception of a single part for a few days, he has never received anything from me. This suspicion becomes a certainty if I add the assurance of composers here, whose names, in case of necessity, I am empowered to publicly mention, that Herr Maelzel on his departure from Vienna told them that he had these works in his possession; also that he showed them some parts, which, as I have already shown, can only be mutilated or spurious. Whether Herr Maelzel is capable of doing me such injury? -- is answered by the fact that he announced in the public papers, without any mention of my na me, that he alone undertook the concerts which I gave in Vienna for the benefit of those who were wounded in the war, at which only my works were performed. I therefore call upon artists in London, as their art colleague, not to suffer such injury to be done to me, by the intended performance of the Schlacht bei Vittoria und Siegessinfonie arranged by Herr M., and to prevent the London public being deceived by him in the aforementioned way. [The original of this explanation is not in Beethoven’s handwriting; it was first printed by Nohl. But among the Beethoven papers bequeathed by Schindler to the Berline Library, there is a special vindication of Beethoven. The following is an exact copy:] We the undersigned testify for the sake of truth, and are ready if necessary to swear, that several meetings took place here at the house of Dr. Adlersburg between Herr Louis van Beethoven and the court mechanician Her Maelzel, concerning theBattle of Vittoria, and the journey to England. Several propositions were made by Herr Maelzel to Herr van Beethoven in reference to the above-named work, or at least acquiring the right of first performance. As however Herr Maelzel did not appear at the last appointed meeting, nothing was settled about the matter, as he had not accepted the first proposals made to him. In proof of which my own hand Vienna, October 20, 1814 Joh. Freih. v. Pasqualati, privileged wholesale merchant, Carl Edler von Adlersburg, Court barrister and notary.