The Ludlamshöhle Petition, February, 1824

The petition that Beethoven received was of indeterminate authorship, signed by thirty of Vienna's most prominent music lovers and dated simply as “Vienna, in February, 1824” (see Appendix B). It is long and written in the most flowery, convoluted, and self-important language possible. It declares that the signers are representatives of Vienna's wide circle of lovers of art, that they know that Beethoven has great new works that have not yet been heard, and that they hope that he will not allow these works to be performed elsewhere (implying Berlin or even London) until they have been heard in this, his second native city. With the exception of a half-dozen members of the nobility, including Prince Eduard Lichnowsky, Count Moritz Lichnowsky, and Count Moritz von Dietrichstein, most of the signers are wealthy (or at least prominent) lovers of music and theater, music dealers, government officials, and so on. With the exceptions of Carl Czerny, Anton Halm, and Abbé Stadler, no one in the list could be considered a professional musician.

Thanks to Beethoven's conversation books, we now know the document's origins. On May 1, 1824, Joseph Carl Bernard, the editor of the Wiener Zeitung, told Beethoven that the “letter” was “a product of the Ludlamshöhle” group, who met in “a beerhouse next to the Trattnerhof, where Castelli, Kuffner, Deinhardstein, Bäuerle, and many others congregated. They wanted to strike a blow against the Italians with it.” And sure enough, the poet and playwright Ignaz Castelli (1781–1862), poet Christoph Kuffner (1780–1846), and poet Johann Ludwig Deinhardstein (1794–1859) were among the signers. Earlier, on Tuesday, April 27, Schindler had told Beethoven that Carl Czerny had assured him that Stainer von Felsburg was the author, but the document's length and tone suggest that several hands had a role in drafting it.

Similarly, we can now be clearer about when it was delivered. On Wednesday, February 25, nephew Karl told Beethoven that there had been a visitor while he (Beethoven) was gone from his apartment. The implication was that the visitor had brought Beethoven an important message and was somewhat irritated at not finding the composer at home so he could deliver it personally.