N.B. If you find it necessary to change or improve anything you have my entire permission.
That by the “large variations,” whose number (30) Breitkopf and Härtel seem to have called in question, Beethoven meant his Op. 35, is made plain by a third letter running as follows:
Vienna, April 8, 1803.
I have wanted to write to you for a long time, but my business affairs are so many that they permit but little correspondence. You seem to be mistaken in your opinion that there are not as many variations (as I stated) only it would not do to announce the number as there is no way of telling how in the large set three variations are run into each other in the Adagio, and the Fugue can certainly not be called a variation, nor the Introduction, which, as you may see for yourself, begins with the bass of the theme, then expands to 2, 3 and finally 4 parts, when the theme at last makes its appearance, which again cannot be called a variation, etc.—but if this is not clear to you, send me a proof-sheet along with the manuscript as soon as a copy is printed, so that I may be guarded against confusion—you would do me a great favor if you would omit from the large variations the dedication to abbé Stadler and print the following, viz.: dediées etc. À Monsieur le Comte Maurice Lichnowsky; he is a brother of Prince Lichnowsky and only recently did me an unexpected favor, and I have no other opportunity to return the kindness, if you have already engraved the dedication to abbé Stadler I will gladly pay the cost of changing the title-page, do not hesitate, write what the expense will be and I will pay it with pleasure, I earnestly beg you to do this if you have not sent out any copies—in the case of the small variations the dedication to Princess Odescalchi remains.
I thank you very much for the beautiful things of Sebastian Bach’s, I will preserve and study them—should there be a continuation of the pieces send them to me also—if you have a good text for a cantata or other vocal piece send it to me.
In spite of Beethoven’s warning, Op. 34 was printed without the proof having been read by him; this provoked another letter calling attention to a large number of errors in the publication, of which Beethoven promised to send a list. He also expressed a fear that the “large variations” would also be faulty, the more since his own manuscript had been put into the hands of the engraver, and asked that the fact that the theme was from his ballet “Prometheus” be indicated on the title-page, if there were still time, offering, as in the case of the dedication, to pay the cost of the change. Again he begged to be permitted to correct a proof copy—a request which was ignored in this instance, as it had been in the first. The result was a somewhat gentle protest in another letter (October, 1803), in which Beethoven offered the firm the Variations on “God save the King” and “Rule Britannia,” the song “Wachtelschlag” and three Marches for the Pianoforte, four hands. The conclusion of the letter, with its postscript, has a double value—as an exhibition of Beethoven’s attitude towards the criticism of his day and as a contribution to the debated question touching the illicit printing of some of his early compositions. We quote:
Please thank the editor of the M.Z. (“Musikzeitung”) for his kindness in giving place to the flattering report of my oratorio in which there is so much rude lying about the prices which I have made and I am so infamously treated, which is I suppose an evidence of impartiality—for aught I care—so long as this makes for the fortune of the M.Z.—what magnanimity is not asked of the true artist, and not wholly without impropriety, but on the other hand, what detestable and vulgar attacks upon us are permitted.
Answer immediately, and next time another topic.
As always your devoted
L. v. Beethoven.