|
Article Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
In her article on the "International Dissemination of Printed Music during the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century," Sarah Adams describes three paths to publication. (1) The composer instigated two of these routes, either through negotiation directly with a publisher or indirectly through a publisher's agent. The most prevalent method of dissemination, however, particularly for works in high demand, was migration from publisher to publisher. By the 1780s, at the beginning of Beethoven's career, music publishers had forged international trade alliances that allowed them to expand their local businesses into the export market. (2) "Examples of international trading and connections between publishers," Adams states, "support a view of the eighteenth-century music trade as having been much more well-established and internationally based than has been traditionally believed. Acceptance of such a view calls into question some of the commonly-held beliefs about the distribution of music at this time, particularly the nature of piracy, multiple publication of a given work, and the isolation of places like Vienna from the trade." (3) The acclaim that Beethoven earned during his lifetime owed much to the wide dissemination of his music through legitimate trade between publishers.
Pirated copying, however, remained an economic and legal dilemma for both Beethoven, at home in Vienna, and his publishers near and far well into the nineteenth century, with all parties complicit to some degree. Because the composer's involvement with the spread of his music from publisher to publisher was at best uncertain, the editions produced by these means are often dismissed as unauthorized printings whose value as both historical documents and textual sources is negligible. With multiple editions of the same work appearing nearly simultaneously in distant cities, it is not surprising that some conveyed widely divergent and errant readings of the text. Bias against reprint editions, however, whether produced through legitimate or spurious means, ignores their important role as records of publishing and performing practices in the early nineteenth century. By studying the relationships between these variant reprints, the origins of the textual changes, and their impact on later editions, we gain a clearer picture of the transmission and reception of major works.
This study presents the case of Beethoven's three sonatas for piano, opus 2, to reconsider these issues. It begins by reviewing Beethoven's opinions on corrected editions, his efforts to control publication of his music during his first decade in Vienna, and his connections to the reprint publishers. Some documented examples of publisher partnerships as well as unauthorized copying provide a historical background for the case study. The dominant concerns, however, are the origins of the textual variants in the reprint editions and their transmission across international boundaries. Lacking manuscript sources and other primary evidence of editorial involvement with the reprint editions of opus 2, our sole means of determining the validity and influence of the textual differences is through meticulous collation. (4)
Beethoven and his opus 2 sonatas are prime candidates for this study for several reasons. One is the multitude of editions that appeared in response to Beethoven's growing fame and the resulting demand for his music. Following Artaria's original edition of the sonatas issued in 1796, at least twenty-two other editions of one or more of the sonatas were advertised before 1828. Of these, nine were published in Germany, six were announced in Paris, and seven London publishers offered editions for sale. Appendix 1 provides a list and an approximate chronology of these editions based on plate numbers, publishers' catalogs and announcements, imprint addresses, and physical evidence.
Another reason why the opus 2 sonatas offer a valuable case study was their publication by Artaria, a leader in the music trade with international connections. By 1779, only one year after setting up its music printing business, Artaria was also operating as a distributor of foreign music. At first active as an importer, Artaria soon also began negotiations with other firms for discounted exchanges of stock and distribution of music in other countries. (5) One indication that Artaria intended the opus 2 edition for an international market was the use of the instrument designation "pour le clavecin ou piano-forte" on the title page (fig. 5, p. 75). Sandra Rosenblum pointed out that "such titling was presumably intended to avoid limiting sales by stating a preferred instrument, or conversely, to try to reach as broad a market as possible." (6)
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
The potentially wide distribution of Artaria's editions raises the question of why other publishers felt compelled to engrave their own editions. One answer, and a third reason that promotes opus 2 as a case study, may lie in the poor quality of Artaria's publication. In the March 1795 announcement advertising the sale of the first edition, Artaria proclaimed a "diligence for correctness." Examination of the variant states shows that this edition indeed went through at least three stages of plate revisions--one stage involving Beethoven's corrections marked on a proof copy--before it was issued to the public. Despite Artaria's efforts, however, the first edition remained a faulty and problematic source for the text of these sonatas. (7) Did other publishers create and market their own editions as improvements over Artaria's publication? Later publications that printed "corrected edition" on the title page suggest this possibility. By 1830, when Artaria issued a "new original edition," the text had evolved into a state more closely matching our modern editions.
BEETHOVEN AND HIS PUBLISHERS: ATTITUDES ON PIRACY AND CORRECTED REPRINT EDITIONS
Because Beethoven's attempts to control the publication of his works relate to the question of authority in the reprinted editions, a review of his efforts is expedient here. Before 1807, his usual method was to negotiate an acceptable payment for a new work with a single publisher. In Carl van Beethoven's letter of 1802 to Breitkopf & Hartel, he advised that Beethoven would grant the publisher "exclusive possession for a half or a whole year, or even longer, and binds himself not to give the manuscript to anybody; after this period the author is free to do as he wishes with the piece." (8) Dissatisfied with these limitations, however, in 1804 Beethoven contacted George Thomson in Edinburgh offering to sell his works at a reduced fee if they could be published simultaneously in "Paris, London, Vienna, or some other towns in Germany." (9) The previous year his brother Carl had broached a similar arrangement with Nicolaus Simrock, who rejected the plan. (10) In 1807, Beethoven first successfully negotiated such a deal with Muzio Clementi in London.
Beethoven's motive for retaining control over publication of his music was largely economic. Unauthorized reprinting of music in high demand made his fee negotiations all the more difficult because publishers saw potential for financial loss. Beethoven's opinions about piracy may well have been influenced by his unsuccessful negotiations with Breitkopf & Hartel, who in 1802 had set down rather strict terms in an unsuccessful attempt to become Beethoven's exclusive publisher. The firm complained about the high price demanded by Beethoven for his new works, commenting that "if ... (five or six pirate editions) did not immediately follow every original printing of a new, good musical work," the publisher would be less restricted in the fee they could offer. (11) In a second letter, the publisher further explained:
it has unfortunately come to pass that in Germany the profit from the publication of a significantly new original work benefits many publishers but not the rightful one. Since he cannot sell his work as cheaply as the pirate reprinter can, the rightful publisher thus finds far less market for the original edition, less than that reprinter who moreover has the advantage of producing the work of one author in a consistent series; as, for example, Simrock and several Parisian publishers who produce your works [for sale].... Just recently a well-known Viennese publisher [Artaria] sent us a work published by us in its original edition and reprinted by him from ours, among several others, with a letter in which he complained about the unfairness of pirate printings. (12)
The conflict worsened with Artaria's printing of Beethoven's String Quintet op. 29 after the work had already been sold to Breitkopf & Hartel. The firm asked Beethoven to return the fee paid for the work and blamed the composer for giving Artaria access to the manuscript after the composer had given assurances in writing that the quintet would be Breitkopf & Hartel's exclusive property. (13)
That firm's disputes with Artaria over unauthorized reprints may explain why no Breitkopf & Hartel edition of opus 2 appeared in Beethoven's lifetime. In 1803, Breitkopf & Hartel asked Beethoven to take control over the piracy situation specifically in regard to earlier editions of his piano music. "For music lovers," the publisher suggested,
it is far more pleasant to [be able to] obtain the works of a popular composer from one publisher and in a uniform edition than to collect them with difficulty from many publishers and to own them in very different formats and styles of engraving, whereby [pirate] reprinting will only be encouraged all the more, and every single legitimate publisher will be placed at a disadvantage. For just these reasons, the friends of your piano compositions will be very pleased if you would come to an agreement with the publishers of your earlier piano pieces and authorize a new edition uniform with your latest ones. Those publishers who have already gotten their profits from the [publication] rights would probably not make this arrangement very difficult, or you yourself could facilitate this if you made as one of the conditions of the reassignment of rights that you would transfer to them one of your newer instrumental pieces. (14)
Although Beethoven later approached several publishers regarding an authorized collected edition of his piano music, this plan never materialized.
Breitkopf & Hartel's complaints encompassed some unnamed Parisian publishers. Although French publishers such as Ignaz Pleyel attempted to protect their publications by registering them at the depot legal, their rights did not extend to any works not by French citizens. Both Simrock (in 1807) and Breitkopf & Hartel (in 1810) attempted to explain this to Beethoven: "the possibility of my entering into an agreement with a French publisher in order to prevent the engraving of that music in France ... is in no way correct.... Vain attempts have only too often taught me that it is impossible to prevent the pirate reprinting of German original works in France, or to make a French publisher co-owner and coproducer of such works, because according to legal decision no one, not even a French publisher, can acquire and maintain exclusively the ownership of a work whose composer is not a French citizen." (15)
Simrock, too, was a target of Breitkopf & Hartel's criticism. But for some of Simrock's reprint editions, Beethoven himself was in collusion with this publisher. In these cases, Beethoven's involvement in reprint editions appeared to have been motivated by a desire for continued control over the text. In the earliest case, from 1794, Beethoven learned that Simrock planned to engrave the Eight Variations in C Major for Fortepiano, Four Hands, on a Theme by Count Waldstein, WoO 67, originally published by Artaria around August 1794. At first Beethoven chastised Simrock for not seeking his permission, asking "what if I were to act in the same way and sell these variations to Artaria, although you are now engraving them?" In his next breath, however, he added, "However, do not let this cause you any anxiety. The only point on which I insist is that you either give up your idea of engraving them or just let me know whether you have really begun the work. In that case, as soon as I have an opportunity of doing so, I will send from here to my friend Count Waldstein, to be delivered to you, the manuscript of the variations, from which you can then engrave them. For I have made various corrections in the MS and I do want to see my compositions appear at any rate in as perfect a form as possible." (16) In 1803, Beethoven offered Simrock thirteen works already recently published, for reduced fees. The letters from Ferdinand Ries to Simrock implied that the sources sent for these sonatas were copies of the editions published by other firms, not manuscripts:
I am sending you here several of Beethoven's works that I do not remember having seen [published] by you. The reason I did not answer your letter before rests with the Beethoven variations and songs. The publication has been postponed from one day to another, until finally they are to be available. Before long, Mollo [actually Artaria] will issue six sacred songs [the Gellert Lieder, op. 48] and Breitkopf 24 grand variations [actually the Fifteen Variations on Prometheus, op. 35], to which I look forward with each passing day. As soon as they arrive I shall send them right on to you. (17)
In December, after discovering imperfections in Breitkopf's edition of the opus 35 variations, Beethoven asked Ries to send Simrock a list of corrections. (18) Beethoven also turned to Simrock when he discovered serious engraving errors in Nageli's edition of the Piano Sonatas op. 31, nos. 1-2, published in 1803. Beethoven asked Ries to send the sonatas with a list of corrections to Simrock for a new publication with "edition tres correcte" indicated on the title page. From his study of the Piano Sonatas op. 10, William S. Newman suggested that Beethoven made improvements in a source copy for Simrock's reprint of those works). (19) Given Simrock's documented service as Beethoven's authorized reprint publisher, particularly during the composer's early career, it is quite plausible that Beethoven also turned to Simrock for a new edition of his opus 2 sonatas that incorporated corrections supplied by the composer. The textual evidence outlined below supports this theory.
Though the supporting documentation is lacking, two other editions may possibly have benefitted from corrected sources supplied by Beethoven. One was edited by J.P. Milchmeyer and published by C. C. Meinhold in Dresden in 1799. Milchmeyer (1750-1813) was a teacher and instrument maker who built harpsichord-pianos and other hybrid instruments. He lived in Dresden during Beethoven's visit on 23-29 April 1796, when Beethoven performed as a fortepiano soloist at the palace for the elector of Saxony. A year later, Milchmeyer used excerpts from all three of the opus 2 sonatas as examples of ornamentation and other performance practices in his Die wahre Art das Pianoforte zu spielen (Dresden: Carl Christian Meinhold, 1797). For his piano method Milchmeyer had two potential written sources available to him--a manuscript or Artaria's edition--and one possible aural source: Beethoven's performance. We can only speculate if the two men met and discussed music during Beethoven's stay in Dresden. (20) Milchmeyer, however, was sufficiently impressed to include Beethoven in his second issue of the Piano-forte Schule in 1799, a "collection of the best pieces for this instrument, selected from the works of the most famous composers, arranged in increasing difficulty, with fingering, expression, and ornaments" marked by the editor (my trans.; see appendix 1 for title transcription). Part six of this publication contained the first of Beethoven's opus 2 sonatas in its entirety with Milchmeyer's editorial additions, including phrase markings and realized ornaments. Milchmeyer's edition may well have been influenced by Beethoven's own interpretation of the sonata.
The other publisher with direct connections to Beethoven at the time it reprinted the opus 2 sonatas was Ambrosius Kuhnel. Breitkopf & Hartel's reluctance to reprint Artaria's edition opened the door for this Leipzig firm, founded with Franz Anton Hoffmeister of Vienna as the Bureau de Musique. After 1805, Kuhnel ran the Leipzig shop alone and began direct negotiations with Beethoven for publication of new works. In a letter to Beethoven from 1806, Kuhnel advised Beethoven that "when determining the fee, always keep in mind that I spend more for elegance and correctness than other publishers do." (21) To proofread his editions Kuhnel hired trained musicians such as Friedrich Schneider and Johann Ludwig Bohner. E. T. A. Hoffmann worked as a proofreader for Kuhnel as early as 1807, and therefore could have been responsible for Kuhnel's reprint of opus 2, an intriguing prospect. (22) The reprint appeared in 1808 in separate editions for each sonata. Kuhnel could also have had access to a corrected source supplied by Beethoven, either directly or through an agent such as Carl van Beethoven, who was corresponding with the firm at that time on Beethoven's behalf. After C. F. Peters took over the firm in 1814, he reissued the sonatas sometime before 1817 using Kuhnel's plates but with a new tide page indicating "edition correcte" (fig. 1a-b).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Among the German publishers known by Beethoven, Karl Zulehner earned the dubious distinction as a pirate publicly chastised by the composer. The Zulehner case shows Beethoven's continued concern for accuracy in the reprint editions. Zulehner began working for Bernhard Schott in 1788 as an arranger, and later set up his own shop in Mainz. He printed opus 2 around 1805-6 as part of a planned collection of Beethoven's piano sonatas. Beethoven denounced Zulehner's edition in a notice published in the 22 October 1803 issue of the Wiener Zeitung by stating he had "nothing whatever to do with this edition" and would not undertake such a project without "discussing the matter with the publishers of the individual works and arranging to ensure that accuracy which is lacking in the editions of the various separate compositions." (23) Beethoven's emotions were likely inflamed by Breitkopf & Hartel's letter of 20 September, in which the publisher informed Beethoven of Zulehner's intention:
From the enclosed advertisement of Herr Zulehner in Mainz you will see, insofar as it is not already known to you, that he announces your collected compositions for violin and piano by subscription. Any legitimate publisher of your works is now certain to see in advance that the works, which he takes from you for an agreed-upon fee, are [pirate] reprinted not only in Bonn, Offenbach, and by several other German and French publishers, but also most certainly in Mainz; thus he sows in order that others can reap. If these circumstances, because of the distance, are less disadvantageous for Viennese publishers, they make it impossible for a dealer situated in the middle of Germany to offer you terms for your works that you could find agreeable. (24)
Zulehner's unauthorized edition of opus 2 traveled beyond German borders, however; a pasted label on at least one copy reveals that Erard sold the edition at his Paris shop between 1805 and 1806, very soon after it first appeared in Mainz. B. Schott's Sohne, which Beethoven eventually enlisted as publisher of some of his major late works (including the Ninth Symphony and the Missa solemnis), bought Zulehner's plates and stock beginning in 1814 (25) and reissued the opus 2 sonatas using Zulehner's plates around 1818 as part 5 of the Collection complette des oeuvres de musique pour pianoforte by Beethoven.
BEETHOVEN AND THE PUBLISHERS: OTHER CONNECTIONS
Although Beethoven's associations extended to other publishers of opus 2, it is much less likely that he was aware of these reprints. One firm with whom Beethoven had no known connections was Johann Peter Spehr's Musikalisches Magazin auf der Hohe, established in Brunswick in 1791. Very little is known about Spehr and his connections to other publishers, although a surviving letter from 1803 to the Bureau de Musique in Leipzig reveals a collegial relationship between the two firms. (26) By 1825 Spehr was distributing his stock widely to music and booksellers. The firm's edition of the opus 2 sonatas, assigned plate number 90, could have been published before 1800 (the date cited by Johannes Fischer in his critical edition); (27) if so, Spehr either kept copies in stock or reissued the edition, as it was still listed in the firm's catalogs twenty-five years later. (28)
Berlin publisher F. S. Lischke, with whom Beethoven had no known connection, offered a reprint of the sonatas as an "edition correcte" in 1818 (see fig. 1c), about the same time the Schott reprint of Zulehner's unauthorized edition appeared. Lischke was the successor of Julie Concha and worked for that firm as early as 1813. Correspondence between Lischke and Kuhnel from that year implied an association between the two firms. (29)
A great deal more source material exists for the firm of Johann Anton Andre (1775-1842), a musician and composer whose father Johann Andre (1741-1799) established the publishing business in Offenbach in 1774. Beethoven's first contact with the firm dates from 1802, when Carl van Beethoven approached Andre on his brother's behalf to offer new works for publication, including the Symphony no. 2, op. 36, and the Piano Concerto no. 3, op. 37. (30) Both works were published instead in 1804 by the Bureau des Arts et d'Industrie in Vienna, and Andre never gained distinction as one of Beethoven's original publishers. The composer's disdain for the younger Andre was recorded in a letter of 1823 to Ernst Christian Schliermacher, private secretary to the grand duke of Hesse: "Herr Schlosser, who is in the service of H.R.H. the Grand Duke, will not fail to inform you in what a cordial and friendly manner I received him as a young and talented artist. Unfortunately I had to treat Herr Andre, the Kapellmeister and Hofrat, very differently. For his behavior was so brutal that I wrote to tell him not to call on me again." (31) The cause of the dispute is a mystery. Nevertheless, some years earlier Andre began producing reprint editions of Beethoven's works, starting with the Serenade for String Trio, op. 8, around 1800. Hartel's letter to Beethoven in 1803 mentioned a pirate reprinter in Offenbach, likely Andre himself. (32) In 1805, Andre reprinted the symphony and concerto that Beethoven unsuccessfully tried to sell to him in...
|
