Did Beethoven really "fulminate" over Ries's Abschieds-Concert?

[Wyresider]

I have read something I don't understand and can't find the material that might clarify it. Can anyone help?

In Schindler's Life of Beethoven, we find (pp.177-178 of the Moscheles translation), re Ries's Abschieds-concert von England: "Beethoven was so singularly displeased with this work, that he addressed a fulminating letter to the editor of the Leipzig Musikalische Zeitung, wherein he enjoins Ries no longer to call himself his pupil." Schindler went on to say that he (and others) persuaded "the enraged master to refrain from any further demonstration of his displeasure."

Now, I know that The Life of Beethoven could well be subtitled How Important I, Anton Schindler, Was to the Great Master and How All His Other Friends Were Cads, Cheats and Rotters, and that Schindler had an especial down on Ries, but even so ... given that he cited an entry in a widely-read publication, there was presumably something on which he based the story? (even if we can disregard the discredited Schindler's "fulminating" and "enraged"). What on earth was the matter with the concerto? What had B actually written?

Photo-scans of Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung are available at www.digitale-sammlungen.de, and I had a go at locating the "fulminating letter" in the issues from 1824 to 1827, but failed. I don't speak German, the search engine was working on an OCR version and therefore liable to miss things, and I couldn't realistically look through nearly 2,000 scanned pages the hard way (and it might stretch my download limit).

Does anyone know what, if anything, caused (or might have caused) B's displeasure, and whether his displeasure was anything like as great as Schindler wanted us to believe?

[Peter]

Schindler claims that he, Schuppanzigh and Kanne prevented Beethoven from sending the letter to the Leipzig Musikalische Zeitung, so any searches there would be fruitless. There may be something in Schindler's story because Beethoven had been thinking of dedicating either Op.110 or Op.111 to Ries or the Diabelli variations to Ries's wife, but obviously nothing came of this and the cause was probably the Ries concerto. Schuppanzigh (according to Schindler) said that 'Ries steals too much from Beethoven' and this may be the cause of the displeasure. However it can only have been a temporary rift as they remained in friendly communication.

[Roehre]

IF such a letter ever existed, it hasn't survived.
It doesn't appear in the Brandenburg Beethovens Briefe Edition (Bb).

What's more however, is the fact that Bb not has mentioned it at all.
This means that there doesn't exist the smallest shred of evidence that such a letter to the LMZ even ever existed. The Bb mentions every letter of which any reliable evidence could be found:
-a reference in other people's correspondence
-a reply
-a minimum of two independent sources other than the above mentioned, e.g. being mentioned or related to in at least two memoires or something similar.

This means that Schindler seems to be the only source - and whether such a letter has ever existed is therefore doubtful to say the least.

This -as Peter rightly says- doesn't mean that the story itself is a complete schindlerian fabrication. There is evidence that Schindler "created evidence" regarding situations which really took place, but weren't recorded [on paper] somehow.There is a strong possibillity that Ta ta ta lieber Mälzel... WoO 162 is such a case.

There are AFAIK no schindlerian fabricated stories around in which more people were involved than just Beethoven and Schindler alone- the more as in 1860 (as the 3rd edition of his biography was published) there were still a lot of people around who could prove that Schindler's recollections were corrupted.

[there exists only one letter to the Leipziger Musicalische Zeitung - written on Beethoven's behalf by his brother Karl in the early 1800s]

[Wyresider]

Thanks, Peter. I took "refrain from any further demonstration. But, in the meantime, Ries had received his reprimand" to mean that Ries got the letter via AmZ and that no action was taken beyond that. But if he meant that they had prevented Beethoven from sending the letter at all, that would explain it -- Schindler would be unlikely to claim that quite such a memorable letter had been published if it hadn't.

It wasn't just the variations that Beethoven thought of dedicating to Ries. In a letter to Ries re his intended visit to London and the delivery of the 9th to the Phil. Soc. (the start of the letter is missing but the date is probably 1823) he wrote (assuming that Ries was not in the Schindler business of forging evidence): "You will receive the new symphony (the Ninth, with choral parts) with the dedication to yourself." That the dedication went in the end to the King of Prussia might have been the result of B's annoyance with Fred or maybe just Realpolitik.

B had been on at Fred for some time for sight of the symphony that Fred had dedicated to him, and was getting quite impatient, dropping hints that seeing it was a condition of a reciprocal dedication. I don't know which symphony it was, but I suspect it was either no.4 or no.5, composed 1818 and 1813 respectively and both published in 1823.

Now, I am going to tread on ground that is very dangerous for someone who merely likes tunes and has no musical training or knowledge ...

As far as I can tell, no.4 is intensely Beethovenian, but also intensely Riesian -- a perfectly proper effort for a pupil -- while no.5, written five years earlier, is a pastiche of B's 3 and 5, although an imaginative one. (Ries's no.3, of 1815, seems to be modernist Mozart and is probably not relevant to the present discussion -- it's very good, though.) If the 5th was the one dedicated to B, and bearing in mind that it was a fairly early symphony, it could be seen as a pupil's work of homage to his teacher, and Ries's reluctance to send B a copy could be put down to embarrassment at it being more pastiche than homage, however it was intended. But if it was not dedicated to Beethoven, it could be seen as mere plagiarism, and B might well have been very cross. Both symphonies were published (at last) in 1823, and B could read them.

I played the Abschieds-concert again, and I can't see (hear) anything to which B could have taken exception. It was published early in 1824. Was Schindler essentially telling the truth but got the wrong work?

Thank you also, Roehre, for a lot of very useful info.

I take your point that Schindler fabricated evidence but not complete original stories. On the other hand, it is clear from many things that he said about Ries (and others) that he would twist and exaggerate to suit his purpose. If Beethoven gave a teacherly tut-tut of disapproval, especially if he did so with any hint of impatience or annoyance, I have no doubt that Schindler would report the matter as dismissal from court of a worthless hanger-on.

I didn't know about WoO 162. So I looked it up in Grove Online, which says it's of doubtful authenticity and suggests that it might be by ... Schindler.

[Peter]

I think Schindler's version is probably as usual an embellishment of what happened - I doubt Beethoven would have considered going to the lengths of writing to the Leipzig Musikalische Zeitung in order to disown a former pupil, one whose father he also had greatly respected from his Bonn days. Whether it was 'The farewell to London' concerto that caused the problem or not I don't think we can be sure, but Beethoven probably did resent Ries's immitation of his style and we also have to remember that he didn't really have a good word to say about most of his contemporary composers (Cherubini excepted). He was also prone to impetuous flare ups that he later regretted, but it is clear that no long term damage was done to their relationship.

Schindler really was a malign influence and played a big part I'm sure in worsening Beethoven's relationship with his sister in law and nephew karl. When Karl was stationed at Iglau and Beethoven lay bed-ridden, it was probably Schindler who made it difficult for him by sending Beethoven's letters to karl marked 'postage due'!

[Roehre]

When Karl was stationed at Iglau and Beethoven lay bed-ridden, it was probably Schindler who made it difficult for him by sending Beethoven's letters to karl marked 'postage due'!

I am afraid here I have to defend Schindler
In the days before the postage stamps (1840 in Britain, 1849 iirc in the Austrian Empire) generally speaking only re letters sent abroad the postage (and then to the border only) was paid in advance (and Iglau was within the then Austrian imperial borders) .
The norm was: postage has to be paid by the receiver.

[Peter]

I am afraid here I have to defend Schindler
In the days before the postage stamps (1840 in Britain, 1849 iirc in the Austrian Empire) generally speaking only re letters sent abroad the postage (and then to the border only) was paid in advance (and Iglau was within the then Austrian imperial borders) .
The norm was: postage has to be paid by the receiver.

Maybe, but Karl in a letter to Beethoven requested specifically that 'you place postage on your letters' as he had difficulty in making his money stretch to pay bills. Schindler would have been in charge at this stage of Beethoven's illness of the correspondence and obviously chose to send the letters marked 'postage due'.