Quintet for 2 violins, 2 violas and violoncello (C major) op. 29
Listening samples
Dedication
Composition
April 1801?
Beethoven composed his String Quintet op. 29 in the first half of 1801. The person to whom it is dedicated, Count Moritz von Fries, had probably commissioned it. In October 1801 Fries received a copy of the music and sole rights to the quintet for a limited period. Only after a six-month period had expired was Beethoven allowed to sell the work to a publisher. So at the end of March 1802 his brother Kaspar Karl offered the quintet to the Leipzig publishers Breitkopf & Härtel, who accepted. Everything should now have been sorted out. But in actual fact there followed a long and bitter legal battle between Beethoven and the Viennese publisher Artaria concerning the ownership and publication of op. 29. The problem arose due to a lack of clarity regarding the copyright.
Fries held the rights to the quintet for six months because he had commissioned it. However, Beethoven had already secured the right beforehand to sell his composition once this half year had passed. While Count Fries held the sole rights, he had given a copy of the manuscript to the Viennese publisher Carlo Artaria and granted him permission to engrave the work. Beethoven did not know about the deal between Fries and Artaria and sold it to Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig. Shortly before both editions were published in autumn 1802 a difficult legal situation presented itself. Breitkopf & Härtel had paid and considered themselves the rightful publisher. Artaria had not paid, which is why Beethoven felt cheated (after all he had been done out of his payment for the composition). Yet Artaria had produced an engraving, in a sense not unlawfully (nevertheless Artaria's was a pirate edition, even if the master copy itself was not 'illegal'.) When Beethoven learnt about the Artaria edition he at first tried to prevent it. Artaria did not feel himself to be in the wrong and did not withdraw his edition. Finally Count Fries acted as a mediator and Artaria agreed to hold back his edition for two weeks so that the only lawful edition available in Vienna would be the Breitkopf & Härtel print. For his part Beethoven also agreed to proofread Artaria's edition, thus becoming involved in the publication and giving it authenticity. Dispute settled? By no means!
On 22 January 1803 Artaria read Beethoven's explanation in the Wiener Zeitung, 'To music lovers. / By informing the public that my long advertised original quintet in C major has been published by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig, at the same time I declare that I have no part in the edition of this quintet by Artaria & Mollo in Vienna, which appeared at the same time. I have particularly been forced to make this declaration because this edition contains a great many errors, is wrong and quite useless for the player, whereas Breitkopf & Härtel, the lawful owners of this quintet, have done their utmost to deliver the work as well as possible. Ludwig van Beethoven.' Following this Artaria issued a complaint to the royal police, to force Beethoven to take back his accusations. The composer was, of course, not prepared to do so. There was a court case. Beethoven lost and on 8 March 1805 received his sentence, to publicly retract his claim – which, however, he did not do. The conflict smouldered. Count Fries once again got involved and mediated between the two parties. Central to the settlement on 9 September 1805 was another quintet which Beethoven was to compose for Fries and which was then to be published by Artaria. Although the suggestion to compose a new quintet came from Beethoven, in the end Artaria was the loser: Beethoven never composed another string quintet for Fries and Artaria came away empty-handed. (J.R.)
Fries held the rights to the quintet for six months because he had commissioned it. However, Beethoven had already secured the right beforehand to sell his composition once this half year had passed. While Count Fries held the sole rights, he had given a copy of the manuscript to the Viennese publisher Carlo Artaria and granted him permission to engrave the work. Beethoven did not know about the deal between Fries and Artaria and sold it to Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig. Shortly before both editions were published in autumn 1802 a difficult legal situation presented itself. Breitkopf & Härtel had paid and considered themselves the rightful publisher. Artaria had not paid, which is why Beethoven felt cheated (after all he had been done out of his payment for the composition). Yet Artaria had produced an engraving, in a sense not unlawfully (nevertheless Artaria's was a pirate edition, even if the master copy itself was not 'illegal'.) When Beethoven learnt about the Artaria edition he at first tried to prevent it. Artaria did not feel himself to be in the wrong and did not withdraw his edition. Finally Count Fries acted as a mediator and Artaria agreed to hold back his edition for two weeks so that the only lawful edition available in Vienna would be the Breitkopf & Härtel print. For his part Beethoven also agreed to proofread Artaria's edition, thus becoming involved in the publication and giving it authenticity. Dispute settled? By no means!
On 22 January 1803 Artaria read Beethoven's explanation in the Wiener Zeitung, 'To music lovers. / By informing the public that my long advertised original quintet in C major has been published by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig, at the same time I declare that I have no part in the edition of this quintet by Artaria & Mollo in Vienna, which appeared at the same time. I have particularly been forced to make this declaration because this edition contains a great many errors, is wrong and quite useless for the player, whereas Breitkopf & Härtel, the lawful owners of this quintet, have done their utmost to deliver the work as well as possible. Ludwig van Beethoven.' Following this Artaria issued a complaint to the royal police, to force Beethoven to take back his accusations. The composer was, of course, not prepared to do so. There was a court case. Beethoven lost and on 8 March 1805 received his sentence, to publicly retract his claim – which, however, he did not do. The conflict smouldered. Count Fries once again got involved and mediated between the two parties. Central to the settlement on 9 September 1805 was another quintet which Beethoven was to compose for Fries and which was then to be published by Artaria. Although the suggestion to compose a new quintet came from Beethoven, in the end Artaria was the loser: Beethoven never composed another string quintet for Fries and Artaria came away empty-handed. (J.R.)
