The Creation of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies 1783277912, 9781783277919

Citation preview

THE CREATION OF BEETHOVEN’S NINE SYMPHONIES

THE CREATION OF BEETHOVEN’S NINE SYMPHONIES

Barry Cooper

THE BOYDELL PRESS

© Barry Cooper 2024 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Barry Cooper to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2024 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978 1 78327 791 9 hardback ISBN 978 1 80543 203 6 ePDF The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate Cover design: Toni Michelle

CONTENTS

List of music examples viii List of tables and figures xiii Preface and acknowledgements xiv Abbreviations xvi

Introduction Symphony biography Beethoven and the eighteenth-century symphony Sketching the symphonies Commissions and performances Publication

1 1 3 6 9 14

1.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21 First steps along the road Symphony No. 0 The middle movements of No. 0 The finale problem The abandonment of the sketches Completion of the First Symphony

19 19 21 25 27 28 30

2.

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36 Preliminary work and first movement The middle movements The finale Missing sketches Performance and publication

35 35 45 50 55 57

3.

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55 Disputed origins Main work on the first movement The slow movement The Scherzo The finale Performance and publication

61 61 65 73 77 79 84

vi

Contents

4.

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60 Genesis and context The autograph score Performance and publication

94 94 100 107

5.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67 C minor Early sketches Intermediate sketches The autograph score Complications in transmission

111 111 112 122 131 135

6. ‘More an Expression of Feeling than Painting’: The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68 A characteristic symphony Early ideas The Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook The later movements From autograph score to publication

142 142 144 148 154 165

7.

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92 Initial plans Further work on the first movement, and ideas for later ones Completion of the slow movement The last two movements The autograph score

171 171 176 186 189 192

8.

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93 The symphony that began as a concerto Transformation of the second movement A traditional minuet The protracted finale The amended autograph score Performance and publication of the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies

197 197 210 213 216 220 222

9.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125 Earliest ideas The Philharmonic Society Resumption of sketching The main sketchbooks The finale The autograph score Copying, performances and publication

228 228 233 239 242 250 260 262

Contents



10. Epilogue After the Ninth: A Tenth? The nine symphonies as musical monuments Losses of source material Diversity Bibliography Index of Music Manuscripts Index of Beethoven’s Works General Index

vii

269 269 272 276 277 281 291 294 297

MUSIC EXAMPLES 1.1 Bar 11 of sketch for Symphony in C (Bsb, Autograph 28, f. 14v)

23

1.2 Sketch for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 128v)

25

1.3 Later sketch for Symphony in C (Bsb, Autograph 28, f. 17r)

25

1.4 Sketch for Minuett for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 59r)

27

1.5 Sketch probably for finale theme for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 43r)

29

1.6 Op. 21.IV, bars 6–14

32

1.7 Op. 21.III, bars 1–4, first printing

34

1.8 Op. 21.III, bars 1–4, corrected version

34

2.1 Sketch for opening of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38)

36

2.2 Sketch for opening of main theme of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38)

36

2.3 Sketch for second subject of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38)

37

2.4 Sketch for introduction for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 40)

38

2.5 Sketch for Allegro for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 40)

38

2.6 Sketch for introduction for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 44)

40

2.7 Sketch for coda for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 51)

43

2.8 Sketch for Op. 36.II (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 63)

47

2.9 Op. 36.II, bars 142–61, outline

47

2.10 Sketch for Op. 36.II (Wgm, A 34, f. 8v)

48

2.11 Op. 36.IV, bars 26–30 (violin 2, viola, cello)

53

2.12 Op. 36.IV, bars 52–6 (clarinet, oboe, violin 1)

53

2.13 Op. 36.IV, bars 82–6 (oboes, lower strings)

53

2.14 Sketch for Op. 36.IV (Wgm, A 34, f. 15r)

53



Music Examples

ix

3.1 Preliminary sketch for opening of Op. 55 (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44)

63

3.2 Preliminary sketch for main Allegro of Op. 55.I (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44)

63

3.3 Preliminary sketch for Op. 55.I (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44)

64

3.4 Op. 55.I, bars 144–53

64

3.5 Sketch for Op. 55.I, retransition (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4)

67

3.6 Sketch for Op. 55.I, development (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4)

67

3.7 Sketch for Op. 55.I, closing theme (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4)

69

3.8 Sketch for Op. 55.II, opening (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4)

73

3.9 Sketch for Op. 55.II, opening (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 43)

75

3.10 Sketch for Op. 55.II, bars 51–6 (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 53)

75

3.11 Sketch for Op. 55.II, bars 209–14 (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 52)

76

3.12 Sketch for Op. 55.III, Trio (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 42)

79

3.13 Preliminary synopsis sketch for Op. 55.IV (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 70) 82 4.1 Sketch for Op. 60.IV (BNba, HCB BSk 17/65a, f. 2v, staves 1–2)

96

4.2 Sketch for Op. 60.IV (BNba, HCB BSk 17/65a, f. 2v, stave 5)

97

4.3 Sketch for Op. 60.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 58, staves 5–6, amended)

99

4.4 Sketch for Op. 60.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 58, staves 7–8)

99

4.5 Op. 60.I, bars 88–90, draft score (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 53)

102

4.6 Op. 60.III, bars 66–77: shorter, early version (bars 66, 67*–70*, 77) in autograph score (Bsb, Mendelssohn 12, pp. 163–4)

105

4.7 Op. 60.III, bars 67–74, intermediate version, violin 1 (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 47, before alterations)

106

5.1 Sketch evidently intended for a Fantasia in C minor (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32r)

113

5.2 Earliest (?) sketch for Op. 67.I (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32v)

114

5.3 Continuation of sketch for Op. 67.I (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32v)

115

5.4 Preliminary sketch for a finale for Op. 67 (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 33r)

117

5.5 Sketch for Op. 67.I (Kj, Landsberg 6, pp. 157–8)

119

x

Music Examples

5.6 Sketch for Op. 67.III (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 155)

121

5.7 Original version of sketch for Op. 67.II, bars 16–22 (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 68)

126

5.8 Sketch for start of Op. 67.III (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 73)

127

5.9 Sketch for part of retransition at the end of trio of Op. 67.III (Pn, Ms 44, f. 2v)

129

5.10 Sketch for start of Op. 67.IV (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 2)

130

5.11 Op. 67.IV, autograph score (Bsb, Mendelssohn 8, pp. 297–8): original violin 1 part for bars 398–404; the second and sixth bars were subsequently deleted.

135

5.12 Op. 67.III, bars 236–9 with two redundant bars, 238a–239a (BB-465)

139

6.1 Unlabelled sketch (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 64)

145

6.2 Unlabelled sketch (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 118)

146

6.3 Sketch for ‘lustige Sinfonia’ (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 159)

147

6.4 Sketch for Op. 68.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 48)

148

6.5 Sketch for Op. 68.III (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 161)

152

6.6 Sketch for introduction for Op. 68.I (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 123)

152

6.7 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.I (Lbl, Add. 31766, f. 8r)

154

6.8 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.II (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 151)

156

6.9 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.II (Lbl, Add 31766, f. 25v)

157

6.10 Sketch for main theme of Op. 68.V (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 153)

162

6.11 Later sketch for main theme of Op. 68.V (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 119)

163

6.12 Final version of Op. 68.IV, bars 21–2

169

7.1 Sketch for Op. 92.I, introduction (BNba, BH 105, f. 1v, stave 6)

173

7.2 Sketch for Op. 92.I, Vivace (BNba, BH 105, f. 1v, staves 7–8)

173

7.3 Sketch for Op. 92.I, Vivace (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 4r, stave 6)

174

7.4 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 5v, staves 8–9)

176

7.5 Sketch for Op. 92.II, coda (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 11v, stave 15 – f. 12r, stave 5)

180

7.6 Sketch for Op. 92.III, trio (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 13v, staves 10–13)

182



Music Examples

xi

7.7 Sketch for Op. 92.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 15r, staves 5–8)

184

7.8 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, BH 123, f. 1v, staves 5–6)

186

7.9 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 30r, staves 1–2)

188

7.10 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 30r, stave 8)

189

7.11 Original version of autograph score of Op. 92.III, bars 13–24, violin 1 and bass (Kj, Mendelssohn 9, pp. 128–30)

194

7.12 Original version of autograph score of Op. 92.III, bars 99–106, violin 1 (Kj, Mendelssohn 9, pp. 138–9)

194

8.1 Sketch for Op. 93.I as piano concerto (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 40r) 200 8.2 Main themes from Op. 93.I

201

8.3 First sketch for Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 41v)

202

8.4 Sketch for Op. 93.I as symphony (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 44v)

205

8.5 Sketch for Op. 93.II, abandoned Adagio (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 49v)

211

8.6 Sketch for possible third movement for Op. 93 (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 51r)

214

8.7 Sketch for Op. 93.III (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 53r; last note in bar 1 was written as crotchet)

215

8.8 Sketch for trio section of Op. 93.III (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 53v)

215

8.9 Sketch for main theme of Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 57v) 217 8.10 Sketch for Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 66r)

218

9.1 Sketch for abandoned work in D minor (BNba, HCB BSk 12/60, stave 4)

231

9.2 Sketch for ‘Fuga’ theme in D minor (PRscheide, 30.14, p. 51)

231

9.3 Sketch for (trio?) theme in D major (PRscheide, 30.14, p. 51)

232

9.4 Theme for fugue in abandoned string quintet (BNba, NE 114, and Bsb, Artaria 185a, f. 2v) 235 9.5 Sketch for ‘Finale’ (Bsb, Grasnick 20b, f. 2v)

238

9.6 Sketch for ‘3rd movement’ (BNba, HCB Mh 60, p. 24)

244

9.7 Sketch for Op. 125.II, bars 408–18 (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 40, staves 6–8; p. 41, stave 1)

247

9.8 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Andante theme (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 11) 247 9.9 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Adagio theme (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 16)

248

xii

Music Examples

9.10 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Adagio to Andante link (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 102/100)

250

9.11 Sketch for Op. 125.III, bars 127–30 (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 58/56) 250 9.12 Sketch for Op. 125.IV, introduction (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 71/69); for translation see main text

252

9.13 Sketch for Op. 125.IV, ‘Turkish’ section (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 105/103)

257

10.1 Sketch for unfinished Tenth Symphony (Bsb, Autograph 24, f. 13r, staves 1–3) 271

TABLES AND FIGURES Tables 0.1 Principal public performances of Beethoven’s symphonies under his direction

11

0.2 First publication of Beethoven’s symphonies

15

0.3 First publication of piano versions of Beethoven’s symphonies

17

1.1 Phases in the sketching of introduction and exposition in No. 0

23

1.2 Early sketches for finale of Symphony No. 0

27

2.1 Summary of drafts for first movement of Second Symphony

41

2.2 Probable chronology of sketches for Op. 36 during winter 1801–2

49

3.1 Summary of drafts for exposition of first movement of the Eroica 67 3.2 Main sections in the finale of the Eroica

81

4.1 Form of third movement of Fourth Symphony

104

5.1 Form of second movement of Fifth Symphony

125

8.1 Sketch material for symphonies on folios 35–45 of the Petter Sketchbook

207–8

8.2 Form of finale of Eighth Symphony

217

9.1 Sketchbooks for Ninth Symphony, January 1823 – September 1824

242

Figures 3.1 Key scheme for development (bars 153–397) of first movement of the Eroica in draft (upper row) and final version 9.1 Portions of the text of An die Freude set by Beethoven in the Ninth Symphony

71 254

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T

he starting-point for this book was the series of introductions that I was asked to write for the miniature-score version of Jonathan Del Mar’s magnificent new edition of the nine Beethoven symphonies, published by Bärenreiter around the end of the last century. My brief introductions were bound to pose more questions about the genesis of the nine symphonies than could possibly be answered in such limited space, but they prompted the desire for a much fuller study. Even a full-length book such as the present one cannot hope to cover every detail, but it should provide more than enough material for all but the most assiduous reader. Such a study would have been much more difficult to accomplish at the time I wrote those introductions, but with the digitisation and online availability of most of the manuscript and printed sources in the last twenty years, my task has been greatly facilitated. The symphonies themselves should need no introduction for most readers, but scores are readily available, both online and in print, for those who wish to consult them. Not all the sketches, however, have yet appeared in transcription, and however many I were to include in the present book, some readers would have appreciated more, and I have pointed to many other publications that contain further transcriptions. My own transcriptions provided here have been checked against the manuscript originals, and they show what Beethoven is believed to have intended to write when he made the marks on the paper – by rationalising nonsensical discords, for example, where his quill slipped too high or too low. They follow current conventions, with editorial material being shown in brackets and added only to clarify possible ambiguities, leaving some notational imperfections where his intentions are obvious. I am enormously indebted to the numerous people who have provided me with useful information or practical help over many years, while I have been studying these symphonies. Without their assistance and contributions this volume could not have been written. They include Theodore Albrecht, Otto Biba, the late Sieghard Brandenburg, Erica Buurman, Jonathan Del Mar, Siân Derry, Raymond Dodd, Mine Doğantan-Dack, William Drabkin, the late Joseph Kerman, William Kinderman, Lewis Lockwood, Nicholas Marston, William Meredith, Marten Noorduin, Matthew Pilcher, Julia Ronge, Christine Siegert, the late Alan Tyson, Jos van der Zanden, David Ward and Douglas Woodfull-Harris. Also to be thanked are the staff of Boydell & Brewer and



Preface and Acknowledgements

xv

particularly Michael Middeke; the anonymous reviewer who read both my original proposal and the first complete draft, making many useful suggestions; the staff of libraries and institutions that have provided me with copies of source materials or access to the originals, with suitable working space – in particular the Beethoven-Haus, Bonn; the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies, San Jose; the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna; the British Library, London; and the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Finally I must thank in particular my wife Susan for her unswerving support and practical help throughout this period, and also for reading through the first complete draft of my text, correcting many slips and making valuable suggestions for improvement. Barry Cooper University of Manchester May 2023

ABBREVIATIONS Literature

A-

Letter no. in: Emily Anderson, trans. and ed., The Letters of Beethoven, 3 vols (London: Macmillan, 1961). Alb- Letter no. in: Theodore Albrecht, trans. and ed., Letters to Beethoven and Other Correspondence, 3 vols (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1996). AMZ Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1798–1848). BB- Item no. in: Sieghard Brandenburg, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, 7 vols (Munich: Henle, 1996–8). BKh Karl-Heinz Köhler and others, eds, Ludwig van Beethovens Konversationshefte, 11 vols (Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1968–2001). JTW Douglas Johnson, Alan Tyson and Robert Winter, The Beethoven Sketchbooks, ed. Douglas Johnson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). KC Klaus Martin Kopitz and Rainer Cadenbach, eds, Beethoven aus der Sicht seiner Zeitgenossen, 2 vols (Munich: Henle, 2009). LvBWV Kurt Dorfmüller, Norbert Gertsch and Julia Ronge, Ludwig van Beethoven: Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis, 2 vols (Munich: Henle, 2014). [Revised and expanded edition of Georg Kinsky (completed Hans Halm), Das Werk Beethovens (Munich: Henle, 1955).] N-I Gustav Nottebohm, Beethoveniana (Leipzig: Peters, 1872). N-II Gustav Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana (Leipzig: Peters, 1887). SV Hans Schmidt, ‘Verzeichnis der Skizzen Beethovens’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 6 (1965–8 [1969]), 7–128.

Abbreviations



TDR TF WR

xvii

Alexander Wheelock Thayer (rev. Hermann Deiters and Hugo Riemann), Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, 5 vols (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1907–23). Elliot Forbes, ed., Thayer’s Life of Beethoven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd edn, 1967). Franz Wegeler and Ferdinand Ries, Remembering Beethoven, trans. Frederick Noonan (London: André Deutsch, 1988; originally published as Biographische Notizen über Ludwig van Beethoven, Koblenz: Bädeker, 1838).

Library sigla

BNba Bsb

Bonn, Beethoven-Haus Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung Kj Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska Lbl London, British Library Mcm Moscow, Glinka Museum NYj New York, Juilliard Collection NYpm New York Public Library Ob Oxford, Bodleian Library Pn Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France PRscheide Princeton, Princeton University, Scheide Library SMf Stockholm, Stiftelsen Musikkulturens främjande SPma Spokane, Moldenhauer Archives SPsc St Petersburg, Rossiyskaya Natsional′naya Biblioteka (Russian National Library, formerly the M. E. SaltïkovShchedrin Library) Wgm Vienna (Wien), Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde WRgs Weimar, Nationale Forschungs- und Gedenkstätten Other abbreviations

Hess r

Item no. in James F. Green, trans. and ed., The New Hess Catalog of Beethoven’s Works (see Bibliography) recto (right-hand page)

xviii

Unv v WoO

Abbreviations

Unvollendet (unfinished): item no. in LvBWV verso (left-hand page) Werk ohne Opuszahl (work without opus number): item no. in LvBWV

Pitch: C–B, c–b, c1–b1, c2–b2, c3–b3; c1 = middle C.

Introduction Symphony biography

A

lmost throughout his life, the symphony held a special fascination for Beethoven. His earliest known attempt to write one (Hess 298 or Unv 1) dates from about 1788. Then at the end of his life the completion of his unfinished Tenth Symphony was to have been one of his next major projects. Between these two uncompleted works, he composed a large number of fragments and concept sketches that were intended for possible symphonies, in addition to the nine completed symphonies themselves.1 The symphony was for him the noblest and grandest of instrumental genres, so that at one stage he was considering devoting himself almost entirely to ‘operas, symphonies, church music’.2 Conversely, his musical style was particularly well suited to symphonic composition, since many of his most striking and personal features – intensive motivic development, teleological drive and continual flux – are characteristic of symphonic style in its purest form. Since Beethoven is such a central figure in Western musical culture, therefore, it is hardly surprising that there have been many studies of his symphonies. Some of these studies are of individual works or movements; others can be found in broader accounts of all his music, or of Classical music as a whole. In addition, there are several monographs devoted specifically to the nine symphonies, by authors ranging from George Grove in 1895 to a much more recent scholarly study by Lewis Lockwood.3 These tend to 1 Gustav Nottebohm conjectured that, counting all finished and unfinished works, there are at least fifty Beethoven symphonies in total (see N-II, pp. 12–13). This figure appears to be a fairly accurate estimate: see Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81, which lists thirtythree unfinished symphonies (some barely begun) and several other possible examples that bring the total very close to Nottebohm’s fifty. 2 BB-1516; A-1111; Beethoven also added the possibility of string quartets, but almost as just an afterthought. 3 George Grove, Beethoven and his Nine Symphonies, 2nd edn (London: Novello, 1896); Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017). See also, for example, Hector Berlioz, A Critical Study of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies … [selected from Berlioz’s A travers chants], trans. Edwin Evans (London: W. Reeves, 1913, repr. 1958); Jacques-Gabriel Prod’homme, Les symphonies de Beethoven (1770–1827) (Paris: Delagrave, 1906); Martin Geck, Beethoven’s Symphonies: Nine Approaches to Art and Ideas, trans. Stewart Spencer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017; originally published as Die Sinfonien Beethovens:

2

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

focus on the musical content of the finished works, rather than their historical background. In contrast, biographical studies of Beethoven tend to relate the circumstances surrounding the first performances of the symphonies, but not their content nor how they came into being.4 His manuscripts have rarely been given much attention in biographical studies, even though the process of writing his sketches and autograph scores formed a major part of his everyday life and a huge number of sketches still survive. Lockwood’s account of the symphonies covers more of this ground than others, with much detail about both the symphonies themselves and their biographical context. But even his account is far from comprehensive, particularly with some of the later symphonies. As he points out: ‘The full sketch material for the Eighth Symphony remains to be transcribed, published, and evaluated’; and ‘Much remains to be done to elucidate the sketches that survive for the Ninth.’5 Similar statements could be made about most of the other symphonies. There have been detailed studies of the sketches for some individual movements and occasionally for a whole symphony, as will be seen later. Even here, however, the sketches have a habit of revealing fresh insights at each new investigation, and are therefore worth re-examining. Accordingly the present study aims to explore in detail the circumstances behind each symphony – how it came into being, and especially how it was composed, with the aid of sketches, autograph scores, and the late amendments that led eventually to its final published form. This means investigating the links between the notes on paper and the environment in which they were conceived. While it is well-nigh impossible, apart from in a few exceptional situations, to forge convincing connections between life in early nineteenthcentury Vienna and individual passages within these symphonies, or even between Beethoven’s personal life and such passages, connections between biography and musical substance can be found very clearly at the interface between the work and the historical context, namely in the manuscripts on which the symphonies were first sketched and written out. What emerges is less a biography of the composer than one of each individual symphony, from the moment of its conception to its final flowering in its first performances and publication. Many new biographical details about Beethoven himself, however, also become apparent. Most biographies, as implied above, concentrate on his personal relationships and on what he composed, rather than the nuts and neue Wege zum Ideenkunstwerk, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2015); David Young, Beethoven’s Symphonies Revisited: Performance, Expression and Impact (Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press, 2021). 4 The most detailed and up-to-date account of the origins of each symphony, including three unfinished ones, numbered Unv 1–3, can be found in LvBWV. This also provides full lists of the sketch sources, but says little about the sketch content. 5 Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies, pp. 254 and 172.



Introduction

3

bolts of how he set about composing the individual notes and silences in each work – what notes he wrote in particular manuscripts at particular times. Yet it was this detailed everyday activity that ultimately resulted in his subsequent renown and therefore deserves exploration, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the composition of the symphonies. How these symphonies have fared subsequently, in performances, arrangements, adaptations – effectively a biography of their after-life – is more a reflection of the tastes of those who have responded to the symphonies than of the works themselves, and consequently lies outside the scope of the present study. Beethoven and the eighteenth-century symphony The symphony genre had developed the characteristics in which Beethoven first encountered it in the 1770s only after a long and somewhat complex evolution over the previous two centuries.6 The word ‘symphony’ as a genre was initially applied to works for voices and instruments (or occasionally just instruments), as in Giovanni Gabrieli’s Sacrae symphoniae (1597) and Heinrich Schütz’s three volumes of Symphoniae sacrae (1629–50). By the end of the century it had come to be used mainly for instrumental passages or movements in an otherwise vocal work, such as the ‘symphonies’ in some of Purcell’s verse anthems. In Italy this applied particularly to operas, and the most common location for an instrumental movement in an opera was as the overture, which was sometimes known as the sinfonia avanti l’opera, symphony before the opera. In the early eighteenth century, with composers such as Alessandro Scarlatti, this ‘symphony’ usually fell into three movements, fast–slow–fast. Such symphonies could be played independently, and Italian composers also wrote chamber symphonies following the same pattern, though not necessarily called symphony or sinfonia. The most notable composer here was Giovanni Battista Sammartini of Milan (c. 1700–75), who wrote numerous such symphonies. The genre then spread to German-speaking cities such as Mannheim, where the first major symphony composer was Johann Stamitz (1717–57), and Vienna, with Matthias Georg Monn (1717–50) and Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715–77). The popularity of the minuet at that time meant that it was sometimes substituted for one of the movements, or even included as an additional movement. The four-movement pattern became established with Joseph Haydn (1732–1809) in the 1760s and 1770s, although three-movement symphonies remained a possibility up to the 1780s and beyond. Large numbers of symphonies were being written by that time, 6 For a more extended summary of the origins and development of the symphony before Beethoven, see Jan La Rue, rev. Eugene K. Wolf, ‘Symphony: I. 18th Century’, in Grove Music Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.27254 (accessed 2 August 2023).

4

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

and were evidently being played in Bonn as Beethoven grew up there. An inventory of the music owned by the local ruler and Elector of Cologne, Maximilian Franz, probably dating from shortly after Beethoven’s departure to Vienna in 1792, lists symphonies and related works (overtures and serenades) by over sixty composers, including Haydn, Stamitz, Johann Christian Bach, Mozart, Pleyel, lesser-known composers such as Mysliveček and Vanhal, and others hardly known today.7 Beethoven probably heard symphonies by many of these composers, and perhaps played the viola in them, but from an early stage he seems to have singled out Mozart and Haydn as exceptional, and it was these two whom he visited in far-off Vienna to study with them in 1787 and 1792 respectively. Which particular symphonies of theirs made the greatest impression on him, however, is a matter of speculation. The four-movement structure that Beethoven inherited from Haydn and others remained the underlying model in each of his nine symphonies. Following tradition, his first movements are invariably in sonata form, with the exposition repeated (except in the Ninth Symphony) but never the rest of the movement; and in four cases there is a slow introduction (Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7). The finale is often also in sonata form, again following tradition, but in Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 Beethoven devised a more complex, hybrid form, while the finale of No. 6 is in sonata rondo form, and is preceded by an extended introduction that is generally regarded as an extra movement (the ‘Storm’). There was no fixed form for the slow movement of earlier symphonies, nor for Beethoven’s. The minuet movement, however, traditionally used a fairly standard pattern of minuet and trio (each with internal repeats), which Beethoven broadly followed, although nearly all of his are essentially scherzos – a title not found in earlier symphonies but already used by Haydn in his string quartets Op. 33. Thus, compared with his piano sonatas and late string quartets, Beethoven’s symphonies are quite conservative in overall structure, although sketches for his unfinished Tenth Symphony point to a novel approach, with a composite first movement reminiscent of his Piano Sonata Op. 27 No. 1. The three periods into which his music is customarily divided fit well with his symphonic output: Nos. 1 and 2 owe most to eighteenth-century models; No. 3, the Eroica, marks a remarkable new departure into his so-called middle period, while the Ninth clearly belongs in his late period. The three divisions, however, relate to processes within the movements rather than the overall structure of whole symphonies. Thus Beethoven’s symphonies can readily be seen as a natural continuation of the development of the model established during the eighteenth century, with expansion of size rather than major structural innovation. The abovementioned style of continuous motivic development and teleological thrust is 7 See Juliane Riepe, ‘Eine neue Quelle zum Repertoire der Bonner Hofkapelle im 18. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 60 (2003), 97–114.

Introduction



5

a characteristic of the Mannheim school and in particular Johann Stamitz, and it was picked up by Beethoven to a greater extent than by Haydn or Mozart. This symphonic style was already recognised to some extent by theorists at an early stage. Johann Adolph Peter Schulz, writing in Johann Georg Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Kunste (General Theory of the Fine Arts, 2 vols, 1771–4), described the symphony as ‘most excellently suited to expressions of grandeur, passion, and the sublime’.8 For Schulz, some symphonies still had associations with both church music and operas, while the ‘chamber symphony’, or what would now be called the concert symphony, was a different type; but it quickly became the dominant type during Beethoven’s youth, so that by 1800 a ‘symphony’ normally indicated a concert symphony rather than an opera overture or instrumental movement in a sacred vocal work. Beethoven was familiar with Sulzer’s book, at least by about 1803,9 and he presumably read Schulz’s article as part of the formation of his artistic outlook. Schulz’s description of the symphony as suited to grandeur and the sublime chimed well with Beethoven’s artistic aims to ‘raise mankind to the godhead’ and to write music that would find acceptance ‘by the noblest and most cultured people’.10 Somewhat later than Schulz, Heinrich Koch took up the idea of continuity and forward thrust within symphonies, particularly their opening movements. He states that, unlike sonatas, the symphony’s expression must be ‘more carried away with itself than highly detailed’, with cadences mostly avoided so that the melody ‘streams forth’.11 This passage was published in 1793, not long before Beethoven embarked on his first substantial attempt at writing a symphony and putting these ideas into practice.

8

See Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Thomas Christensen, eds and trans., Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlgihtenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 106; for evidence of Schulz’s contribution, see ibid., p. 14. 9 See Owen Jander, ‘Exploring Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie as a Source Used by Beethoven’, The Beethoven Newsletter, 2 (1987), 1–7; and Richard Kramer, ‘Beethoven and Carl Heinrich Graun’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 18–44, which discusses Beethoven’s copy made around 1803 of an excerpt from Sulzer’s book in BNba, HCB BSk 11/59. 10 BB-585, BB-2003; A-376, A-1405. 11 Heinrich Christoph Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Adam Friedrich Böhme, 1793), p. 384. For further discussion of the differences between sonata style and symphony style in the late eighteenth century, see Michael Broyles, Beethoven: The Emergence and Evolution of Beethoven’s Heroic Style (New York: Excelsior, 1987), pp. 9–36.

6

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Sketching the symphonies In order to compose his symphonies, Beethoven made numerous rough drafts and sketches, sometimes as brief as just a few notes or words, but each one could extend to a page or more. Initially he used loose leaves, derived from large sheets of paper that were folded horizontally then vertically before being cut along the horizontal fold, to create four leaves or eight sides of paper. Such four-leaf gatherings remained his most common unit of paper for his sketches and autograph scores throughout his career, though there were exceptions. The pages were then ruled with staves – most often sixteen staves but sometimes fewer or occasionally more. Most of his early sketches that still survive were collected together before being divided after his death into two large sketch miscellanies covering the period up to 1798, known as the Kafka and Fischhof Miscellanies.12 These contain many sketches for his early abandoned symphony in C (sometimes known as ‘No. 0’).13 From 1798 onwards Beethoven mainly used whole sketchbooks, but he continued using loose leaves intermittently; and from 1815, if not before, he also used pocket sketchbooks, which he evidently took with him when out on long walks.14 These, unlike the desk sketchbooks, were written almost entirely in pencil. He generally used the pages of sketchbooks in consecutive order, but sometimes he jumped ahead to the top of a blank page to note an unrelated idea, which then had to be bypassed when he reached that part of the book. Less often he turned back to an earlier page to fill in a blank space. All these preliminary sketches were usually notated on a single stave with only occasional indications of harmony, dynamics, articulation or instrumentation. Thus they consisted primarily of melodic outlines, although Beethoven sometimes resorted to two-stave sketches, or tried to indicate melody and harmony on a single stave. Many sketches are very short, not much more than a bar or two, but there are also longer drafts, sometimes known as continuity drafts, which might cover half a movement or more. The pitch of the noteheads is often somewhat approximate; accidentals are often omitted and cannot always be guessed, while verbal comments are often hard to decipher. Thus any transcription, including all those in the present book, includes a certain 12 Facsimile and transcription of the Kafka Miscellany is in Joseph Kerman, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Autograph Miscellany from 1786 to 1799 … (the ‘Kafka Sketchbook’), 2 vols (London: British Museum, 1970); transcription of most of the Fischhof Miscellany is in Douglas Johnson, Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the ‘Fischhof’ Miscellany: Berlin Autograph 28, 2 vols (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1980). 13 See Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel, eds, Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten: Wege zu Beethovens Symphonien [From No. 0 to No. 10: Ways to Beethoven’s Symphonies] (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008). 14 A complete list and description of all Beethoven’s known sketchbooks is in JTW.

Introduction



7

amount of interpretation and guesswork; they can, however, be checked against the original sources, which are now almost all available online.15 The principle adopted here, as in most sketch studies, is to indicate what are believed to be the pitches intended when Beethoven made the marks on the paper, even if the marks themselves appear to show a higher or lower note. Editorial rests or accidentals are occasionally added in brackets for clarification purposes, but notational inconsistencies have been retained where such addition seems inappropriate or unnecessary. Stem directions have also been retained, even though they often have no significance. Although sonata form had been widely used in symphonies of the late eighteenth century, most of our modern analytical terms had not yet been established.16 Beethoven therefore devised his own nomenclature, in a variety of languages. These terms included ‘2ter Theil’ or ‘2da parte’ to denote the start of the development section in a sonata-form movement; ‘d.c.’ to denote the reprise of the main theme in a sonata-form or rondo movement, or any other form that included a return to the main theme; and ‘m.g.’, which has been interpreted as ‘mitte Gedanke’ (‘middle idea’). This denotes a prominent, usually lyrical theme that occurs in the secondary key area and is often referred to as the ‘second subject’; this term is not entirely satisfactory and is avoided by some analysts, but as it corresponds directly to Beethoven’s concept of ‘m.g.’ it will be used here. For the coda or final bars he used a variety of terms in German, French, Latin or Italian: ‘Ende’, ‘Schluss’, ‘fin’, ‘finis’, ‘fine’ and ‘Coda’. There are many difficulties in making sense of Beethoven’s sketches, even when they are accurately deciphered and transcribed. They are often open to more than one interpretation, and they provide only a series of snapshots of his thought processes. Moreover, many sketch leaves and even whole sketchbooks are now lost: there are hardly any known sketches for the First and Fourth Symphonies, but it is highly improbable that Beethoven did not make many, for even quite minor works were subjected to extensive sketching. Even where extensive sketches survive, many ideas were surely never written down, but 15 Those

in the British Library are currently available at: https://www.bl.uk/ manuscripts/BriefDisplay.aspx; those in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin at: https://digital. staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/?mode=new&formquery0=beethoven; those in the Beethoven-Haus Bonn at: https://www.beethoven.de/en/archive/list/5110862327054336/ Works; those in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France at: https://catalogue.bnf.fr/index. do (all accessed 2 Aug. 2023); those in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna, have not yet been digitised and put online. 16 For a discussion of modern terminology and the various ways in which sonata form had been used before Beethoven, see James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and Deformations in the Late-EighteenthCentury Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

8

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

were perhaps tried out at the piano and refined extensively before being notated on paper. Beethoven evidently kept sketch leaves near his piano, and when extemporising in private he would jot down any ideas that he thought worth preserving and perhaps using.17 Some of these ideas may well have been incorporated into his symphonies, even if they were not initially designed as such. Despite all these drawbacks, Beethoven’s sketches are of inestimable value in any study of his creative process. They enable us to see the finished symphonies from his point of view, rather than that of a modern analyst who may present an idiosyncratic interpretation of a work; and they sometimes point within a work to fascinating motivic or other relationships that have been previously overlooked. Comparing early sketches for a work with the final version also reveals the great distance that Beethoven’s ideas had to travel before he was satisfied; and all the changes on the way help to explain why a work turned out as it did, and how else it might have turned out with a lesser composer. As well as such purely analytical insights, the sketches provide extensive historical documentation of his everyday life, which was largely devoted to writing music – a fact easily overlooked in Beethoven biographies, which so often devote more attention to his love life, his disputes, his travels and his performances than to his composing activities. When the sketching process for a work was nearly finished, and sometimes earlier, Beethoven began writing out an autograph score. Despite all the preliminary work, these scores were subject to substantial revision, with numerous deletions, additions (usually of articulation or dynamics) and whole-page replacements. He may sometimes have made a rudimentary preliminary score, but the main working out of the details was apparently always left to the final stages of the full score. Autograph scores survive for each of the last six symphonies, but not for the first three. Various specimens of deleted pages from them reveal that initially Beethoven normally wrote out a mainly single-line draft into the score, usually of the first-violin part unless another instrument had the main melodic line. He then added the remaining parts, while dynamics and articulation were sometimes added still later, along with any missing accidentals. He generally included more detail of this kind than his contemporaries, since he was evidently determined to create an artwork in which all the essentials were present. In this he differed from most earlier composers, who tended to treat the musical text more as a recipe for performers than a set of fixed instructions. He generally insisted that his text should be played without alteration, telling Czerny on one occasion that a composer ‘would rather have heard his work performed exactly as it is written’,18 although there was still scope for varying interpretations of the 17

See BB-1686; A-1203, in which Beethoven instructs Archduke Rudolph to operate in this way. 18 BB-902; A-610.

Introduction



9

written text. He was also very concerned that works should be performed at the intended speed, and after the metronome had been invented he even went to the trouble of specifying and publishing metronome marks for all his first eight symphonies in 1817.19 He later added them for the Ninth before sending a score to its dedicatee. Commissions and performances Concert symphonies were composed in great numbers for private patrons such as Haydn’s patron Prince Esterházy during the 1770s and 1780s – not just by Haydn and Mozart but by many lesser composers. Yet by the time Beethoven wrote his First Symphony in 1800 there was far less demand for works in this genre, at least in Vienna. There were several reasons for this decline, the main one probably being that many aristocrats who had previously employed private orchestras for private performances disbanded them in the 1790s,20 partly due to rising costs and threats of war with France. Public concerts in Vienna where symphonies might be performed were few and far between, with the Tonkünstler-Societät putting on just two large charity concerts a year (each repeated), containing a varied repertoire. During the 1790s, an average of only about ten symphonies a year received public performances in Vienna – far fewer than in certain other cities such as London, Paris and Leipzig where there was a much stronger concert tradition.21 In Vienna, public musical performances were dominated by opera, so that concerts tended to be squeezed into the short periods such as Holy Week when opera was forbidden. There was no concert hall as such, and so such concerts were performed in a variety of venues – most often a theatre (when these were closed for opera) but sometimes in a ballroom, the university hall, a large restaurant or even the open air.22 A series of Liebhaber concerts took place in the winter of 1807–8, and included Beethoven’s Second, Third and Fourth Symphonies,23 but it was not until 1812, with the foundation of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, that continuous regular series of concerts were set up. These frequently included a Beethoven symphony, alongside works in a variety of genres by many different composers. Apart from such series, and 19

The metronome marks appeared in the AMZ, 19 (Dec. 1817), cols 873–4. See Johann Ferdinand von Schönfeld, Jahrbuch der Tonkunst von Wien und Prag (Vienna: Schönfeld, 1796), p. 77. 21 See David Wyn Jones, The Symphony in Beethoven’s Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp, 51–2. 22 See Otto Biba, ‘Concert Life in Beethoven’s Vienna’, in Beethoven, Performers, and Critics: The International Beethoven Congresss Detroit, 1977, ed. Robert Winter and Bruce Carr (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980), pp. 77–93. 23 TF, p. 428. 20

10

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the intermittent charity concerts, composers had to rely on occasional benefit concerts (known as Akademien), in which the composer made the arrangements and received any surplus income from the event after expenses had been paid. Obtaining permission to hire a suitable venue for an Akademie was often problematical. Such concerts were generally arranged at short notice – usually just a week or two – and occasionally announced so late that not all the potential audience became aware of them until too late, as happened with the second performance of the Ninth Symphony. The concerts were also sometimes postponed at short notice. For example, Beethoven announced a benefit concert for 20 November 1814, but it was postponed to the 22nd, then the 27th, and it was finally given on the 29th.24 With so few opportunities for performances until after 1812, there was no great incentive for Beethoven to compose symphonies. Moreover, although most of the works he wrote in Vienna were the result of commissions, this does not apply to his symphonies. The only ones known to have been commissioned are the Fourth and Fifth, commissioned by Count Oppersdorff, and the Ninth, commissioned by the Philharmonic Society of London. The Eroica may have been commissioned by Prince Lobkowitz but there is no confirmation that he asked for the work until after it was written. Arranging a benefit concert could be a good way of earning income, but it was fraught with uncertainty. Although Beethoven earned a substantial sum from his benefit concert of 1803, he earned next to nothing from those of 1824. Thus the desire to compose symphonies came to him very much from within, rather than from external circumstances or pressures. Despite the difficulties, Beethoven managed to take part in public performances of all his symphonies in Vienna, either in charity concerts or benefit concerts, and a list of these is shown in Table 0.1. As can be seen, all the symphonies except the Fourth were performed in benefit concerts, although the benefit concert for the Eroica was not for Beethoven himself but for the violinist Franz Clement. The only other symphony that did not receive its first public performance at a Beethoven benefit concert was the Seventh, which was first heard at a charity concert before being repeated at a benefit concert. The table also shows that the Seventh was the most immediately popular of all Beethoven’s symphonies, being repeated several times within a few months. Among the venues, all five that he used were tried more than once – three theatres, one ballroom and the university hall – but none was found to be completely satisfactory.

24

TF, p. 599.

11

Introduction



Table 0.1. Principal public performances of Beethoven’s symphonies under his direction. Date 2 Apr. 1800 5 Apr. 1803

Concert type benefit benefit

7 Apr. 1805 15 Nov. 1807 22 Dec. 1808

benefit charity benefit

8 Dec. 1813 12 Dec. 1813 2 Jan. 1814 27 Feb. 1814

charity charity benefit benefit

25 Mar. 1814 29 Nov. 1814 2 Dec. 1814 25 Dec. 1814 7 May 1824 23 May 1824

charity benefit benefit charity benefit benefit

Work First Symphony (premiere) First Symphony, Second Symphony (premiere) Third Symphony (premiere) Fourth Symphony (premiere) Sixth Symphony, Fifth Symphony (premieres) Seventh Symphony (premiere) Seventh Symphony Seventh Symphony Seventh Symphony, Eighth Symphony (premiere) no Beethoven symphonies Seventh Symphony Seventh Symphony Seventh Symphony Ninth Symphony (premiere) Ninth Symphony

Venue BT TW TW BT TW UH UH GR GR KT GR GR GR KT GR

Key BT: Burgtheater GR: Grosse Redoutensaal KT: Kärnthnerthor Theater TW: Theater an der Wien UH: University Hall

Private or semi-private matinees or soirees involving instrumental music were more frequent than public concerts, especially during the early part of Beethoven’s time in Vienna. They usually took place at the homes or palaces of members of the aristocracy, but they were relatively little documented, and sometimes their existence is known only through chance references in diaries or archives.25 The Eroica was given some initial trials at Prince Lobkowitz’s 25

See, for example, Rita Steblin, Beethoven in the Diaries of Johann Nepomuk Chotek (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2013); however, Chotek does not mention any private performances of Beethoven symphonies.

12

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

palace, as was the Fourth; and the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies were similarly tried out at Archduke Rudolph’s before the public premiere (see Chapters 3, 4 and 8). Similar early trials of the Fifth and Sixth may have taken place at Prince Lobkowitz’s, but there was clearly none for the Ninth, other than rehearsals for the public premiere. The First and Third Symphonies were heard (before the public premiere of the latter) at private performances at the house of Joseph Würth in January 1805, during a series of concerts held there during 1803–5;26 and all of the first four symphonies were performed at Prince Lobkowitz’s in March 1807.27 As well as such private performances, public performances of Beethoven’s symphonies took place with increasing frequency in other cities such as Leipzig and London. The first London performance of a Beethoven symphony came as early as 18 May 1803, and subsequent years saw increasing performances there, especially after the founding of the Philharmonic Society, which gave twenty-five performances of Beethoven symphonies during its first eight years, 1813–20.28 The size of orchestra in Beethoven’s performances varied considerably. For the trial run of the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies on 21 April 1813 he asked for a minimum of four first violins, four seconds, four violas, two cellos and two double basses.29 This is not very different from the size for the first trial run of the Eroica, for which there were seven violins (presumably divided four and three), two violas, two cellos and two double basses.30 The abovementioned concert at Würth’s in January 1805 used ten violins, three violas, two cellos and two double basses,31 whereas the Liebhaber concerts of 1807–8 apparently had a much larger string complement of 13 – 12 – 7 – 6 – 4.32 For the public performance of the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies at the Grosse Redoutensaal in February 1814, however, Beethoven noted that the figures were larger still: 18 – 18 – 14 – 12 – 7, plus two contrabassoons.33 In larger performances such as this one, the woodwind instruments were frequently doubled (two first flutes etc.). For a later performance of the Seventh Symphony by the 26

Jones, Beethoven’s Vienna, pp. 118–22. TF, p. 416. 28 See Nicholas Temperley, ‘Beethoven in London Concert Life, 1800–1850’, Music Review, 21 (1960), 207–14. 29 BB-640; A-330. 30 Tomislav Volek and Jaroslav Macek, ‘Beethoven’s Rehearsals at the Lobkowitz’s’, The Musical Times, 127 (1986), 75–80, at 78; these numbers include five regular members of Lobkowitz’s orchestra, the remaining players receiving separate payment as recorded. 31 Alb-95. 32 Biba, ‘Concert Life’, p. 88. 33 Maynard Solomon, ‘Beethoven’s Tagebuch of 1812–1818’, in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 193–288, at 222 (entry 18). 27

Introduction



13

Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in February 1817 Beethoven sent the director Vinzenz Hauschka a set of parts consisting of six first violins, six seconds, four violas and eight ‘bass’ (i.e. cello or double bass) plus double wind.34 This implies that a standard size for strings at that time was approximately 12 – 12 – 8 – 10 – 6, assuming written parts were shared and that there were more cellos than double basses, and it thus indicates a similar size to that of the Liebhaber concerts. A significantly larger number of strings was used at the premiere of the Ninth Symphony in 1824, as indicated by a set of copies of ten first violin parts, ten seconds, eight violas and ten ‘bass’.35 Thus the main conclusion to emerge from these figures is that there was no set size, and Beethoven certainly did not prescribe one; and big public concerts used much larger orchestras than private trial runs. The instruments themselves were similar to but not identical to their modern equivalents; for example, the highest note used in Beethoven’s flute parts is a‴, whereas modern flutes readily reach to c⁗. For violins, the Tourte bow was by no means universal but was becoming increasingly prevalent. Horns and trumpets had no valves, and so their parts were mostly confined to the harmonic series, though Beethoven knew how to exploit stopped notes effectively from time to time to give other pitches with a different colour. This is strikingly illustrated in his famous passage for fourth horn in the slow movement of the Ninth Symphony. Wind instruments in his day were far more variable than strings, and there were constant efforts to remedy their perceived deficiencies.36 He therefore ensured that what he wrote suited almost any instrument of a particular type, even if the music was very awkward for some. Thus he rarely strayed beyond what was possible for them all, a notable exception being the use of bottom B♭ for contrabassoons in the finale of the Ninth Symphony (see Chapter 9), a note not available on many contrabassoons of the day. For timpani he never used more than two, which was then the norm, though he was at times inventive in their tuning, placing them in octaves on F in the finale of his Eighth Symphony and the second movement of the Ninth. So-called Turkish percussion was a standard group (triangle, cymbals and bass drum), and he used it in the finale of the Ninth Symphony but in no other symphony. Orchestras at the time did not have a regular conductor, and Beethoven himself directed at the premieres, after one or perhaps two rehearsals, indicating 34

BB-1026; A-716. See Beate Angelika Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien V, ed. Beate Angelika Kraus, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/5 (Munich: Henle, 2020), p. 260. 36 See Colin Lawson, ‘Beethoven and the Development of Wind Instruments’, in Performing Beethoven, ed. Robin Stowell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 70–89. 35

14

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the expression by means of gestures that seemed wildly exaggerated at the time but have since become common with conductors.37 By the time of the Ninth Symphony, however, his deafness was so profound that he could do little more than set the initial tempo. Audience responses at the premieres, though ranging from the hostile (from some people attending the Eroica premiere) to the wildly enthusiastic, were generally positive. It was normal for audiences to applaud between movements, and sometimes even during movements if they heard a particularly appealing passage. Movements that were highly successful at a performance were sometimes given an immediate encore. Publication Beethoven’s immediate aim on completion of a new symphony was to arrange a public performance, which could provide a valuable source of income. Publication, however, was an equally important consideration and another source of income. Negotiations with publishers were rarely straightforward, and the nine symphonies were issued by no fewer than five different publishers, as shown in Table 0.2. The table also shows that publication always followed the public premiere, often by over a year. This system had the advantage that the parts could be checked for copying errors during rehearsals and performance, as well as giving Beethoven the opportunity to make last-minute revisions, before the final text was sent for publication. The Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, however, were actually handed over to the publisher well before the premiere, and Beethoven had to send a list of revisions after engraving had begun. The publishers generally received a professionally copied score, checked by Beethoven, from which the engraving was done, although occasionally they might receive instead a set of parts or even the autograph score. Engraving was done on metal plates, and Beethoven usually, though not always, was given a chance to make corrections in a proof copy before publication. Sometimes mistakes were noticed after publication, and the plates could then be amended for a reprint. With the Ninth Symphony, the second printing included metronome marks, which were originally absent.

37 For two contemporaneous accounts of Beethoven’s conducting style, see TF, pp. 371 and 565; for further discussion of the role of the conductor in Beethoven’s day, see Julia Ronge, ‘Anmerkungen zur Dirigierpraxis der Beethoven-Zeit’, in Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten, ed. Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008), pp. 39–49.

15

Introduction



Table 0.2 First publication of Beethoven’s symphonies. No. 1 2

Premiere 2 Apr. 1800 5 Apr. 1803

3

7 Apr. 1805

4

15 Nov. 1807

5 6 7 8 9

22 Dec. 1808 22 Dec. 1808 8 Dec. 1813 27 Feb. 1814 7 May 1824

Publisher Hoffmeister, Leipzig Kunst- und IndustrieComptoir, Vienna Kunst- und IndustrieComptoir, Vienna Kunst- und IndustrieComptoir, Vienna Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig Steiner, Vienna Steiner, Vienna Schott, Mainz

Date Dec. 1801 Mar. 1804

Language French French

Oct. 1806

Italian

late 1808

French

Apr. 1809 May 1809 Nov. 1816 1817 Aug. 1826

French French German German German

It was fashionable around 1800 for title pages in Germany and Austria to be printed in French or Italian (other than for vocal works with German text), and Table 0.2 shows that five of Beethoven’s first six symphonies had a French title page, the exception being the Eroica. It is unclear why this title page was in Italian (as also in the copyist’s manuscript), especially as the apparent inspiration, Napoleon, was French. Even the publisher’s name was sometimes translated: thus the Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoir referred to themselves as the ‘Bureau d’Arts et d’Industrie’ for the Second Symphony and the ‘Contor delle arte e d’Industria’ for the Third. After 1814 and the defeat of Napoleon, however, the German language was energetically promoted by many, not least by Beethoven himself, and the last three symphonies all received German title pages. Symphonies were traditionally published only as a set of parts, to be directed in performance by the leader of the first violins; but the increasing complexity of the music led to demands for printed scores. For the first three symphonies, the earliest published scores appeared in London in 1808–9, issued by Cianchettini & Sperati on the basis of existing published parts, with no input from Beethoven. Scores of the middle three symphonies appeared much later – No. 4 in 1823 (from Simrock) and Nos. 5 and 6 from the original publisher Breitkopf & Härtel, again based on published parts.38 With the final three symphonies, however, awareness of the demand for scores prompted the original publishers to issue them at the same time as the sets of parts. 38

For details, see LvBWV, passim.

16

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Despite the numerous performances of the symphonies during the nineteenth century, and the availability of scores and parts, familiarity with Beethoven’s symphonies derived for many musicians mainly from arrangements for smaller forces, a situation that persisted until the advent of recordings in the twentieth century. There was, however, no regular system for producing such arrangements, which tended to appear as a result of individual initiatives by arrangers and publishers.39 A great variety of instrumental combinations might be used, with piano solo or piano duet being only one possibility. For example, the earliest published arrangement of the First Symphony was an anonymous one for string quintet issued by Mollo in 1802, which was followed by arrangements for several other instrumental combinations from various publishers in subsequent years.40 Mollo’s publication actually implied that the work was an original quintet rather than an arrangement, drawing an angry response from Beethoven, issued in the Wiener Zeitung.41 The first published arrangement of the Second Symphony, in contrast, was issued by the original publisher, the Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoir, in 1806, in a version for piano trio that was claimed to have been prepared by Beethoven himself, though this appears not to have been strictly the case;42 he merely approved (and perhaps revised) an arrangement made by an assistant. The symphony then appeared in arrangements for various other combinations in subsequent years. A similarly irregular pattern holds true for the next four symphonies, but with the Seventh and Eighth the publisher, Steiner, tried to increase his profits by issuing arrangements of the symphonies for several combinations of instruments at the same time as the original publication. Perhaps the most common type of arrangement was one for piano, either solo or piano duet (four hands on one piano), or occasionally for two pianos. A full list of the first published piano arrangements is shown in Table 0.3.43 Comparison with the dates in Table 0.1 shows that in some cases (Nos. 1, 2 and 6) there was a quite long period between the first performance and the publication of the piano arrangement, during which time the public had limited opportunity to become familiar with the music. In these cases the arrangement was issued by a different publisher from that of the original 39 For a consideration of some aspects of such arrangements, see Michael Ladenburger, ‘Aus der Not eine Tugend: Beethovens Symphonien in Übertragungen für kleinere Besetzungen’, in Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten, ed. Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008), pp. 17–28. 40 See LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 130–2. 41 Ludwig v. Bethoven [van Beethoven], ‘Nachricht’, Wiener Zeitung, 30 October 1802, pp. 3916–17. For translation, see A- App. H(1). 42 See Chapter 2 and Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 2 in D major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1998), pp. 10–11. 43 The information is derived from LvBWV, passim.

17

Introduction



edition. In other cases (Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9), however, the original publisher oversaw the arrangement and it was published simultaneously with or not long after the original set of parts. In common with other arrangements, there was clearly no regular system for producing a piano arrangement of a new symphony, and the task was carried out by a number of different musicians, as listed in Table 0.3. There must have been a ready market for these and other arrangements, however, since many were made and some were printed in large numbers,44 but any performances were presumably given privately and are generally undocumented. After these initial piano arrangements, further ones were often made by other musicians, leading to Franz Liszt’s famous set for piano solo for all nine symphonies. Table 0.3 First publication of piano versions of Beethoven’s symphonies. No. 1 2 3 4

Arranger Abbé Gelinek Anton Diabelli August Müller Friedrich Stein

Scoring piano solo 2 pianos piano duet 2 pianos

5

Friedrich Schneider William Watts Anton Diabelli Tobias Haslinger Carl Czerny

piano duet

6 7 8 9

piano duet solo and duet solo and duet duet + voices

Publisher and date Cappi, Vienna, 1804 Steiner, Vienna, c. 1810 Kühnel, Leipzig, 1807 Kunst- u. IndustrieComptoir, Vienna, 1810 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, 1809 Watts, London, c. 1815 Steiner, Vienna, 1816 Steiner, Vienna, 1817 Schott, Mainz, and Probst, Leipzig, 1829

The success of such arrangements for piano or small instrumental combinations suggests that Beethoven could have derived considerable amounts of income from making them himself, but he never did so (although he began a piano arrangement for the Seventh Symphony), and most arrangements were made without his express approval. He disliked the principle in general and made only a few arrangements in exceptional circumstances, such as the Piano Sonata Op. 14 No. 1, where he was earnestly requested to arrange it for string quartet;45 the Piano Trio Op. 1 No. 3, where he was shown such a poor arrangement for string quintet that he felt obliged to make an improved 44 45

See Ladenburger, ‘Aus der Not eine Tugend’, p. 25. See BB-97, A-59.

18

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

version, published as Op. 104; and the Grosse Fuge, where again he was dissatisfied with someone else’s arrangement for piano duet and published his own version as Op. 134. Once a symphony was ready and tried in performance, his inclination was always to move on to the next one, or to some other commission.

1

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21 Adagio molto – Allegro con brio Andante cantabile con moto Menuetto: Allegro molto e vivace Adagio – Allegro molto e vivace

First steps along the road

T

here is no evidence that anyone else requested, let alone commissioned, a first symphony from Beethoven. The reason he attempted to write one appears to have been purely internal: his sense of obligation to compose, and his desire to master all branches of composition from the simplest to the most advanced, with special concern for the latter.1 The symphony was, in his mind, the foremost branch of instrumental music, as already noted, and so it was natural that he would gravitate towards it. Sketches for the actual First Symphony are almost totally lacking – the relevant sketchbook must be lost, but it is worth tracing the long road that Beethoven took in preparation for his first attempt at this pre-eminent instrumental genre. With the models of Haydn and Mozart before him, he was surely hesitant to rush into competing with them, and so his preparations were lengthy and diverse. Orchestral music was mastered through other genres – concertos, orchestral dances, and vocal music with orchestral accompaniment; meanwhile what was regarded as purest symphonic style – short motifs developed intensively, rather than long, lyrical phrases or a parade of different ideas – was explored in other genres such as the piano sonata.2 At 1 See Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 19–21. 2 See Michael Broyles, Beethoven: The Emergence and Evolution of Beethoven’s Heroic Style (New York: Excelsior, 1987), pp. 9–36, on ‘The Two Instrumental Styles of Classicism’.

20

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the same time, Beethoven was also sketching themes for possible symphonies, as a third strand in his preparations. Beethoven’s earliest known idea for a symphony is a draft in C minor and 3/4 metre in piano score (Hess 298 or Unv 1), headed ‘Sinfonia’ and dating from some time between 1786 and 1790 – most probably 1788. It occupies the whole of one side of a page and proceeds almost to the end of the exposition of the first movement.3 The draft of 111 bars begins on what was originally a verso, and so it may well have continued on the now lost opposite page of a bifolio – perhaps even to the end of the movement on another page. Two variant sketches for short passages appear on the recto (the current verso). The first subject is borrowed direct from the main allegro movement in his Piano Quartet in E flat (WoO 36 No. 1) – originally the second in a group of three piano quartets that are dated 1785 in the autograph score.4 Only the opening phrase is borrowed verbatim, however, transposed from E flat minor to C minor, and the rest of the movement proceeds quite differently. The stormy mood is retained, but the way the material is handled is far more symphonic than before, with the use of overlapping phrases, more direct rhythms and absence of pianistic figuration.5 Whether any further progress was made with the work at that time is uncertain, since large numbers of Beethoven’s sketches and scores from this period must be missing. Although the key of C minor in the ‘Sinfonia’ sketch was prophetic of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, and its opening theme even foreshadows that of the third movement of that symphony, there is no sign that Beethoven gave any further thought to the draft in the next few years, for his next known symphony sketch, dating from about 1790, is in C major.6 It has no motivic connection with the First Symphony, but its key is significant, for Beethoven retained it as the main key of the work in all subsequent symphonic sketching, as far as is known, until the First was complete. The extended introductory Allegretto contains a noteworthy passage for wind instruments (‘blasende In.’), anticipating the prominent use of wind in the opening of the First Symphony, while the first theme of the ensuing Presto begins on middle 3

The draft is in the Kafka Miscellany (Lbl, Add. 29801), f. 70r; see Joseph Kerman, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Autograph Miscellany from 1786 to 1799 … (the ‘Kafka Sketchbook’), 2 vols (London: British Museum, 1970), vol. 2, pp. 175–6. For dating, see Douglas Johnson, Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the ‘Fischhof Miscellany’: Berlin Autograph 28, 2 vols (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1980), vol. 1, p. 222. 4 Bsb, Beethoven Artaria 126. 5 See Broyles, Beethoven, pp. 40–3. 6 Kafka Miscellany, f. 88v; see Kerman, ed., Miscellany, vol. 2, pp. 228–9. The C minor and C major sketches are listed respectively as U1 and U2 in Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81.



The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21

21

C before rising an octave and more, as in the First Symphony. Any further connections between this sketch and the symphony, however, are tenuous and not retained in subsequent symphony sketches. Symphony No. 0 Beethoven’s first sustained attempt to compose a symphony – a work in C major dating mainly from 1795–6 – was far more long-drawn-out, and extended over many sketches for a period of around two years. The sketches were eventually abandoned, apart from the main theme of the first Allegro, which was reused in the finale of the First Symphony in 1800. But they were not set aside until he had made very substantial progress; indeed no other unfinished work of his of comparable size came so close to completion – the only ones where a higher proportion was completed are short piano bagatelles and such like. It is also significant that there are more sketches for this work than for any other – finished or unfinished – before 1798. This proto-symphony is sometimes known as ‘No. 0’, using the zero in a similar way to such cases as Haydn’s quartet ‘Op. 0’ (Hob. II.6) and Bruckner’s ‘Symphony No. 0’, and it now bears the catalogue number Unv 2.7 A very detailed account of the sketches was included in Douglas Johnson’s 1978 dissertation, but most of it was unfortunately omitted in the published version two years later.8 Johnson established the approximate order and date of the sketches, and demonstrated that although there is no explicit ‘Sinfonia’ heading for most of them, they all relate to plans for a symphony in C. Beethoven evidently began the symphony about the spring of 1795,9 and made some more sketches towards the end of the year. When he went to Prague and Berlin in early to mid-1796 he took his sketches with him and made some more on Berlin paper while there. The latest sketch hitherto identified is a draft for a Minuet and Trio (Kafka Miscellany, folio 59r), made on Viennese paper some time after his return to the city in summer 1796. Beneath this sketch is one for the Wranitzky Variations, WoO 71, which must have been made between September 1796, the date of Wranitzky’s ballet containing the theme, and April 1797, when the variations were published. Also on the same page is the marginal note, ‘geschrieben und gewidmet der Con. B. C. als Andenken 7 See Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel, eds, Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten: Wege zu Beethovens Symphonien [From No. 0 to No. 10: Ways to Beethoven’s Symphonies] (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008); and LvBWV, vol. 2, pp. 580–2. 8 Douglas Johnson, ‘Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the “Fischhof Miscellany”: Berlin Autograph 28’, Ph.D. diss. (University of California, Berkeley, 1978), pp. 785–1037; cf. Johnson, Fischhof. 9 It may have been begun as early as 1794 (see LvBWV, vol. 2, p. 581), but the evidence is unconvincing, for it depends on uncertain dates for other works.

22

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

seines Aufenthalts in P.’ Gustav Nottebohm plausibly suggested that ‘B. C.’ denoted Babette Keglevics (but then it should have been ‘B. K.’) and that ‘P.’ denoted Pressburg (Bratislava), which Beethoven visited in November 1796.10 But Nottebohm was surely mistaken, for ‘B. C.’ must denote BrowneCamus, to whom the Wranitzky Variations were dedicated. Thus the inscription presumably means: ‘Written and dedicated to the Countess Browne-Camus as a souvenir of his stay in Pressburg’. These features together point to a date around the end of 1796, and certainly before April 1797, for this minuet draft. The symphony was abandoned soon after, and not until about late 1799 did Beethoven begin work on his actual First Symphony. Most of the extant sketches for No. 0 are in the Kafka Miscellany or in the Fischhof Miscellany in Berlin, while a few supplementary ones can be found elsewhere.11 They relate mainly to the slow introduction and exposition of the first movement, and it is useful to divide Beethoven’s work on this into eleven main phases (some of which could be subdivided or grouped together). A few of these eleven phases concentrate almost exclusively on either the introduction or the exposition, but most of them include significant sketches for both parts. They are listed in Table 1.1, which shows nine separate attempts at the introduction and also nine for the Allegro exposition (labelled I.1–9 and A.1–9 respectively). Phases 1–5 probably date from early to middle 1795, phases 6–7 from middle to late 1795, and phases 8–11 from mid-1796, when Beethoven was in Berlin. In a few cases the order of the phases is not quite certain, as with phases 3–4 and 9–10. The most striking feature of the eleven phases is their diversity of material. In later works, a series of drafts will typically tend to show gradual evolution from one to the next, with some elements kept and others altered. Here, however, each phase shows enormous differences from the previous one, often to the extent that the two have almost nothing in common beyond their key and general character. Even in the latest stages, by which time the main themes had been established, there are substantial differences between two drafts. Meanwhile in the early phases there are merely a few tenuous connections, and nothing that could be even called two different versions of the same idea.

10 N-II, pp. 511–12. Nottebohm proposed ‘das Concert’ for the words before ‘B. C.’ but this makes no sense and it must be ‘der Contesse’. The ‘P.’ could also denote Prague or even Pest. 11 For example, there is a short draft in Wgm, A 75 (for contents of this and other Beethoven manuscripts in Vienna, see Ingrid Fuchs, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Musikautographe in öffentlichen Wiener Sammlungen (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2004). A full list of sources for No. 0 appears in Johnson, Fischhof, vol. 1. p. 461, and LvBWV, vol. 2, pp. 581–2. All the sketches are transcribed in Kerman, ed., Miscellany, vol. 2, or Johnson, Fischhof, vol. 2.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



23

Table 1.1 Phases in the sketching of introduction and exposition in No. 0. Phase 1 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7.

Source, folio/stave K 127v/12 K 127v/14, 15 K 128r/13, 15 K 158v/ 9, 10 K 128v/5, 8 K 56r/5, 12 K 159v/6

Intro. draft (no. of bars) I.1 (7) I.2 (15) I.3 (29) I.4 (22) I.5 (58) I.6 (44)

8.

F 14v/7

I.7 (31)

9. 10. 11.

F 9r/1 F 17r/10, 1 F 17v/1

(fragments) I.8 (8) I.9 (31)

Allegro draft (no. of bars) A.1 (4) A.2 (11+6+8) A.3 (fragments, total c. 92) A.4 (13 + fragments) A.5 (57 + fragments) A.6 (75 + fragments: total c. 114) A.7 (182) A.8 (156) A.9 (175)

Key K: Kafka Miscellany (Lbl, Add. 29801) F: Fischhof Miscellany (Bsb, Beethoven Autograph 28)

For the slow introduction, the first four attempts have almost nothing in common beyond a 3/4 time signature and intermittent use of dotted or doubledotted rhythms. Sketches I.5 (which is the only sketch in full score) and I.6 pick up the melodic outline C–E–A of the opening of I.4 but in duple rhythm, as do I.8 and I.9, but the continuations differ, as do the rhythmic patterns. Occasionally a figure appears that relates to something in the First Symphony, such as bar 11 of sketch I.7 (Example 1.1), which uses the same notes as the first four in bar 4 of the symphony; but the similarity is more fortuitous than intrinsic, and the motif is not found in other sketches. The underlying harmonic direction of the introduction remains the same in all the phases, moving from tonic to dominant, with a diversion to the flattened submediant in the later

Example 1.1 Bar 11 of sketch for Symphony in C (Bsb, Autograph 28, f. 14v).

24

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

sketches, as Johnson points out;12 but these connections can hardly be regarded as significant, since a similar strategy appears in the slow introductions in the Second and Seventh symphonies, for example. For the following allegro there is comparable diversity of ideas. Again the first five themes have little in common with each other or with the symphony, although A.5 resembles the symphony to the extent that it begins with a phrase based around middle C that is then repeated a note higher in D minor (Example 1.2). Despite their melodic differences, however, they possess similar rhythmic features, including use of ₵ (notated or implied) and mainly crotchet movement. They function to establish the character of the movement rather than its actual melodic shape,13 and Beethoven had effectively composed the fundamental idea of the movement, even though he had not yet worked out the themes.14 This fundamental idea and character, including the ₵ time signature, remained in place when the Allegro con brio of the First Symphony was finally composed a few years later. Sketch A.6 is lacking its head motif, presumably sketched on a lost leaf, but the continuation indicates that it was essentially the same as A.7. This shows a rising scale that then becomes firmly established as the main theme in A.8, A.9 and a few sketches found outside the Kafka and Fischhof Miscellanies.15 The opening gesture, shown in Example 1.3 (the first twelve bars of A.9), is familiar as the start of the main theme of the finale of the First Symphony, in slightly different notation. Beyond this opening gesture, however, the material in the sketches A.6–A.9 is less distinctive. The alternation of G and A in bars 4–7, followed by a simple reprise of the opening and then alternation of A and B♭, seems bland and unadventurous – not untypical of an early stage of Beethoven’s sketching for a work, and far less striking than the opening of the first allegro in the symphony. The sketches for the latter part of the exposition are distinctly prolix and meandering, even more so than in the two cello sonatas Op. 5 that are exactly contemporary. The exposition drafts in A.7–A.9 all reach beyond 150 bars (see Table 1.1), whereas in the First Symphony the exposition in similar rhythm and tempo is a compact 97 bars. There is little solid material sketched for the development section, although the coda is rather better represented. Thus quite a lot of work would have been needed in 1796 to create a truly imposing movement, and this may be one reason why the symphony was set aside.

12

Johnson, ‘Fischhof’ 1978, pp. 798ff. Ibid., p. 817. 14 Compare Ravel’s comment that he had finished a work ‘except the themes’; see Roger Sessions, The Musical Experience of Composer, Performer, Listener (New York: Atheneum, 1962), p. 52. 15 Johnson, Fischhof, vol. 2, pp. 165–9. 13

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



25

Example 1.2 Sketch for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 128v).

Example 1.3 Later sketch for Symphony in C (Bsb, Autograph 28, f. 17r).

The middle movements of No. 0 While working on the first movement of a multi-movement work, Beethoven habitually looked ahead to later movements and jotted down possible themes for them. Hence one would expect to find ideas for a slow movement, a minuet and a finale among sketches from 1795–6. Johnson quotes concept sketches for eight movements that, from their position, keys and thematic material, appear to have been intended as possible slow movements for the symphony.16 They are in a variety of keys – C minor, and A, G, F and E flat major; additionally there are some sketches in A major and 3/4 time that may have been intended for the slow movement (folios 56–7 of the Kafka Miscellany). But by far the longest relevant sketch is a draft in E major in 2/4, headed ‘Sinfonia’, written in Berlin on folio 81v of the Kafka Miscellany. It extends to about ninety bars including the repetitions indicated, but although it looks fairly complete, with an implied rondo form and extended coda, it lacks body in the middle. Later, Beethoven decided to transpose it, adding at the head the instruction ‘in f.’ Some further sketches on the opposite page of the bifolio (folio 82r) appear to be for the same movement in its F major version, and they show concept sketches for minore sections in D minor (headed ‘Zum andante’) and F minor. As it stands, the main draft is too short for a whole slow movement of a symphony; but if the two minore episodes were inserted and fully developed, the result would be a full-sized symphonic slow movement of quite substantial proportions. There is, however, no sign of further progress with this movement, and nothing was retained for the First Symphony from any of these early sketches except the key of F. None of the sketches for possible slow movements uses the 3/8 time signature of the final version. 16

Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 174–5.

26

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Surprisingly, sketches for the following Minuet and Trio are even more extensive. There are two early drafts from 1795, found adjacent to sketches for the first movement on folios 158v and 159r of the Kafka Miscellany. Both drafts are specifically headed ‘Minuett’ and show the opening bars of both a Minuet and an ensuing Trio. The main sketches for the movement, however, are much later. One is on Berlin paper (Fischhof Miscellany, folio 16v), again headed ‘Minuett’, with a following ‘trio’. It appears alongside other sketches for the symphony, immediately after a theme for an ‘Adagio’ in F, and before a ‘Presto’ in C, as part of a synopsis for the last three movements, with ideas for the first movement sketched further down the page.17 This Minuett movement was then amplified in a much longer sketch (Kafka Miscellany, folio 59r), which shows essentially the same minuet but a different trio. This is the sketch mentioned earlier as dating from around the end of 1796, after Beethoven had returned to Vienna from Berlin, and it shows a complete minuet, consisting of 8 + 44 bars, with both sections repeated, and beginning as in Example 1.4. Its gradually rising contours echo the rising scale of the main theme of the first movement of No. 0, and they also anticipate the rise to a high d3 in the theme of the Menuetto in the First Symphony. Although the draft is not as long as the Menuetto in the First Symphony (which is 8 + 71 bars), it is clearly intended to be played more slowly, for the rhythm of a dotted quaver plus semiquaver would be ineffective at the very fast speed Beethoven later indicated for the First Symphony (dotted minim = 108). Thus in terms of duration the Menuetto in the First Symphony would be only slightly longer. The second part of the draft includes a digression to A flat major, anticipating one to D flat major in the First Symphony. There are a few other similarities between the two minuets, in terms of character and rhythm, but nothing very close. The trio section here is almost complete, too: a sixteen-bar first part, beginning in A minor and moving to C major, followed by a development-like middle section and a reprise of the main theme, leading to a brief coda. The trio is dominated by running quavers, which are used as an accompanying figure as in the Trio in the First Symphony, but there are no direct melodic connections between the two movements. Like the Minuett draft, the trio draft is slightly shorter in duration than that of the First Symphony. The Minuett movement was almost certainly intended to follow rather than precede the slow movement, especially as the sketch on folio 16v of the Fischhof Miscellany indicates an Adagio before the Minuett. Yet it would be most uncharacteristic for Beethoven to make such a lengthy draft for a third movement unless the first two were more or less complete. It therefore seems highly likely that some substantial material for these two movements has been 17 This synopsis for the last three movements, one of Beethoven’s earliest such sketches, is transcribed in Erica Buurman, ‘Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement Structures in his Instrumental Works’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Manchester, 2013), p. 64.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



27

Example 1.4 Sketch for Minuett for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 59r).

lost – perhaps even a rudimentary score – and that what survives is little more than the tip of the iceberg. It may even be that so much material survives for this symphony compared with most other early works, not because Beethoven took extra care to preserve it but because he had made such a large number of sketches and drafts that a reasonable quantity was likely to survive. In other words, he probably spent far more time and energy on the symphony than has hitherto been assumed. Although it would be wildly over-optimistic to expect that a score of these first three movements might be found, it is important not to underestimate the very considerable role that this proto-symphony must have played in his compositional development in the mid-1790s.18 The finale problem There is no sign that Beethoven made much progress with the finale during the period 1795–6, but he did apparently make several attempts at an opening theme, as would be expected. Even if one counts only themes in C major with a finale-like character (interpreted broadly) that appear adjacent to sketches for another movement of the symphony, at least eight can be identified. They are listed in Table 1.2 in approximate chronological order, as far as this can be established. In most cases, instead of a continuous draft there are two or more fragments that belong together but do not join up. There may of course be other sketches intended for this movement that are not identifiable as such. Table 1.2 Early sketches for finale of Symphony No. 0. Item (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 18

Source, folio/stave Kafka, f. 128r/1–2 Kafka, f. 158v/1, 3, 5 Kafka, f. 56r/10–11 Kafka, f. 56v/10–15 Kafka, f. 57r/7–11 Kafka, f. 159r/3, 12–13 Fischhof, f. 13r/3–5 Fischhof, f. 16v/5

Metre [2/4] 6/8 2/4 6/8 [6/8] [6/8] [3/4 – 2/4] [4/4]

See Johnson, ‘Fischhof’ 1978, pp. 913ff.

No. of bars 9 4+6+2+3 32 14 + 7 + 4 37 + 5 + 4 8+6 16 + 37 4+8

28

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The eight themes have nothing significant in common with each other or with the themes of the First Symphony, and function in a similar way to the diversity of ideas for a first-movement theme, though without the consistency of metre present there. Sketch (g) is marked ‘anstatt leztes allegro’, before being followed by a rhythmic transformation marked ‘zulezt presto’. The word ‘anstatt’ (‘instead of’) suggests that the idea is an alternative to another finale theme sketched elsewhere; and the rhythmic transformation could imply a theme and variations, with the final variation a presto. Sketch (h), part of the synopsis mentioned above, resembles the theme of the finale of the Piano Sonata Op. 49 No. 1 of 1797, which the sketch predates since it is written on Berlin paper. Evidently Beethoven transferred the theme from symphony to sonata some time after returning to Vienna; such transfers of material from one work to another are often encountered among his sketches. The abandonment of the sketches Why did Beethoven abandon such a large body of sketches? Michael Broyles has suggested that it was ‘probably abandoned for practical reasons – the projected performance in Prague did not materialise’,19 while Johnson has conjectured that ‘there was some prospect of a performance in Berlin’, which also did not materialise.20 But the leisurely pace at which Beethoven proceeded, first in Vienna (long before he set out for Prague and Berlin), later while in Berlin and then again back in Vienna, negates any hypothesis that the work was being prepared for some immediate opportunity, and there is no indication that a performance of a new symphony was planned in either city. In particular, the notion that he sketched the work in Berlin because he intended using it there must be dispelled: he could hardly have afforded such slow progress and so much retracing of his steps if he were trying to complete the symphony within a matter of weeks. This was to be his longest and most impressive work yet, and he must have been aware that it could not be completed in such a short time for a local performance. Indeed, his reluctance to complete the work or even a single movement in Berlin may have been due to the fact that there was no pressing deadline at the time. No doubt he hoped eventually to be able to use the symphony at an Akademie (benefit concert) in Vienna, but it seems there was no immediate prospect of one at the time he made the sketches. The work was evidently being composed as a labour of love and as an attempt to master the grandest of instrumental genres, rather than opportunistically with an immediate performance goal in mind. Since external factors did not cause these sketches to be abandoned, their musical content and Beethoven’s compositional development around this 19 Broyles, 20

Beethoven, p. 63. Johnson, Fischhof, vol. 1, p. 161.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



29

time must come under scrutiny. This development was extremely rapid, as is evident from his Second Piano Concerto. He returned to this repeatedly during the 1790s, on each occasion making improvements – even to the extent of apparently replacing two entire movements in 1795.21 This situation was likely to occur at this period with any large-scale work that took long to write. Thus the batch of symphony sketches would only have to be set aside for a few months for any inherent defects to become evident to Beethoven. Some of these could be put right by further sketching or even a substitute movement, but the real stumbling block was probably the finale, the only movement for which no substantial draft is known. Beethoven was evidently the first of many to appreciate the magnitude of the difficulty facing the composer of a symphonic finale, once the symphony as a genre had taken on its late-Classical characteristics, and the problem confronted him as early as 1796. The finale ideally needed to be light, tuneful and dance-like, but still function as the culmination of the previous three movements. His own personal propensity for creating forward thrust and teleological drive to an ultimate, satisfying conclusion, evident in so many of his other works, merely exacerbated the problem of creating a satisfactory finale, and his ingenious solutions in later symphonies, notably the Eroica and the Ninth, tend to obscure the magnitude of the difficulty. If the finale was indeed a stumbling block in 1796, there are likely to have been further attempts at a finale theme dating from after the minuet draft from the end of 1796 but before the First Symphony. Such a sketch would probably be unlabelled, like most of the other finale attempts, and probably would not be found beside sketches for earlier movements. Thus one would not expect it to have been previously identified, or be readily identifiable. But it would be in C major, with finale-like characteristics. Just such a sketch appears on folio 43r of the Kafka Miscellany, probably dating from around the end of 1797;22 see Example 1.5. It even has tenuous but explicit links, unnoticed by previous writers, with the earlier symphony sketches, for the rising steps of its opening motif act as a kind of response to the repeated falling steps in bars 4–7 of the first-movement Allegro (see Example 1.3 above). Moreover, it is Example 1.5 Sketch probably for finale theme for Symphony in C (Lbl, Add. 29801, f. 43r).

21 22

Ibid., pp. 364–85; Cooper, Creative Process, pp. 283–303. Johnson, Fischhof, vol. 1, p. 185.

30

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

sketched on the same folio as an unfinished song in G,23 and further sketches for the song appear on a contemporary folio with the same paper type (Kafka Miscellany, folio 67v), directly beneath a sketch headed ‘andante zur sinfonie’. Thus Beethoven was considering not just the finale but a replacement slow movement for the symphony – this one in the unlikely key of B minor with a coda in B major. There can consequently be little doubt that the C major sketch does indeed represent yet another attempt at a finale – the latest yet discovered – and it shows Beethoven coming to grips with the concept of long-range motivic connections in a manner foreshadowing the First Symphony, where the rising semitone at the start is answered by a falling semitone in the third and fourth movements. Beethoven had still not forgotten his symphony project when 1798 arrived, for among the sketches for the violin sonatas Op. 12, which date from that year, there is a synopsis sketch for a new symphony in C. He had evidently decided to reject all previous ideas and start again with fresh ones, jotting down a series of ideas for a ‘Symphony with an Adagio in which doubt is expressed’.24 It seems that his doubts about his symphony were now to be expressed in the symphony itself. The four-bar sketch for the slow movement is actually marked ‘andante’ rather than ‘adagio’ and is in 6/8, but the first movement is in ₵ metre, though there is no slow introduction. The ‘presto’ finale is also in ₵, unlike any of the previous finale sketches, and Beethoven did not bother to show a minuet, though he presumably envisaged having one. Completion of the First Symphony During much of the period 1798–1800 Beethoven was preoccupied with composing a set of six string quartets, Op. 18, but he interrupted this project in 1799 to compose his Septet and the First Symphony. The symphony was apparently restarted near the end of 1799, but unfortunately the relevant sketchbook, which must have contained sketches for the Septet, the First Symphony, the Third Piano Concerto, the Horn Sonata and the String Quartet Op. 18 No. 4, is lost. Thus not a single known sketch, autograph fragment or corrected copy is known for this final stage of the symphony. The only possible exception is a five-bar fragment showing the end of a movement in

23

The song has recently been identified as the long-lost ‘Ich wiege dich in meinem Arm’ (Hess 137); see Mark Zimmer, ‘Liebe: The Discovery and Identification of a Beethoven Song Lost since 1822’, The Musical Times, 157/1937 (Winter 2016), 13–34. 24 ‘Sinfonie mit einem adagio worin der Zweifel ausgedrückt ist’, Fischhof Miscellany, f. 46r; see Hans-Günter Klein, Ludwig van Beethoven: Autographe und Abschriften: Katalog (Berlin: Merseburger, 1975), p. 106. The planned symphony is listed as U4 in Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



31

C – probably C major.25 It consists of a twelve-stave orchestral score, but only the first-violin part is filled in. The score is headed ‘=de’, the second half of Beethoven’s ‘Vi=de’ cross-reference sign, indicating it is a substitute for some other page, but it was then itself discarded before any lower parts had been added. It has been described in detail by Federica Rovelli, who argues that it belongs to the First Symphony, due to its similarity to the last five bars of the first movement of this.26 There are chronological problems, however. The watermark matches that of the Kessler Sketchbook, which was not begun until about December 1801,27 after the First Symphony had been performed and printed. The reverse of the leaf contains sketches for the third movement of the Second Symphony, a movement that is thought to date from winter 1801–2. Most significantly, the handwriting also points to this date, for the double bars are of the m-type that Beethoven did not use in 1801 until around the end of the year, but they became the norm from 1802 onwards.28 It is difficult to explain why he would write out such a score at that date if it related to the already published symphony, although it does not obviously relate to any other work. In the absence of surviving sketches, one can only speculate whether the first sketches in late 1799 related to some of those already abandoned. In the final version, the only material salvaged from those earlier periods, other than general features such as key, structure and the first allegro’s time signature, was the first two bars of the finale theme, as mentioned earlier. Having earlier toyed with at least ten possible finale themes (the eight listed in Table 1.2, the one from 1797–8 shown in Example 1.5 and the presto finale from the 1798 synopsis), Beethoven concluded that the best finale theme he had was the one he had originally planned for the first movement. Thus he decided to transfer the theme from the first movement to the last and start the rest from scratch. At the same time he modified the theme so that it would much better suit a finale. Whereas the theme was originally somewhat open-ended, pregnant and unstable (see Example 1.3 above), he now made it regular, foursquare and more dance-like, as befits a finale (see Example 1.6), and only the first two bars were kept more or less intact. With this stroke of genius he was thus able to overcome the impasse to completion, and his work on the First Symphony then must have proceeded with extraordinary rapidity before reaching a successful conclusion early in 1800. It was ready in time to be

25

Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 127. Federica Rovelli, ‘Eine autographe Spur zu Beethovens 1. Symphonie op. 21’, Bonner Beethoven-Studien, 12 (2016), 103–6. 27 JTW, p. 125. 28 See Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven and the Double Bar’, Music & Letters, 88 (2007), 458–83. 26

32

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 1.6 Op. 21.IV, bars 6–14.

performed at his first-ever benefit concert or Akademie, which took place at the Burgtheater in Vienna on 2 April 1800. The concert consisted entirely of music by Mozart (an unspecified symphony), Haydn (excerpts from The Creation) and Beethoven (First Piano Concerto, Septet, an extemporisation and the First Symphony). A brief review of the concert in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung commended the symphony for ‘very much art, novelty and richness of ideas’ but complained that the wind instruments were used too much, so that it sounded more like wind-band music than music for full orchestra.29 The work does indeed make greater use of wind instruments than was the norm with Haydn and Mozart, though most people would now dispute the claim that they were ‘used too much’. Beethoven probably made some small alterations to the score after the performance, as was his wont, and perhaps investigated possibilities for publication in Vienna. The first known reference to publication, however, appears in a letter dated 15 December 1800. In response to an enquiry from the composer and publisher Franz Anton Hoffmeister in Leipzig, Beethoven wrote to him offering four works, including the First Symphony (the others were the Septet, the Second Piano Concerto and the Piano Sonata Op. 22).30 Hoffmeister replied on 7 January 1801, inviting Beethoven to name his price, and Beethoven proposed 20 ducats for the symphony, to which Hoffneister readily agreed.31 The work was sent to Hoffmeister & Kühnel in Leipzig on 20 April 1801,32 and was printed during the following months. As usual with his major works, Beethoven thought carefully about an appropriate dedicatee, and he decided 29 AMZ, 3 (Oct. 1800), col. 49: ‘… worin sehr viel Kunst, Neuheit und Reichthum an Ideen war; nur waren die Blasinstrumente gar zu viel angewendet, so dass sie mehre Harmonie, als ganze Orchestermusik war’. See Stefan Kunze, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Werke im Spiegel seiner Zeit (Laaber: Laaber, 1996), p. 22. 30 BB-49; A-41. 31 BB-53, 54, 55; A-47. The letters from Hoffmeister are lost but some of their contents can be deduced from Beethoven’s replies. 32 BB-61, a letter from Hoffmeister’s Viennese agent Caspar Josef Eberl, dated 25 Apr. 1801.

The Long and Hazardous Road to the First Symphony, Op. 21



33

on his former patron and employer the Elector Maximilian Franz (1756-1801), who was living in Vienna at the time and had supported him so strongly during his youth, including paying for two trips to Vienna to study with Mozart and then Haydn. Beethoven evidently wanted his greatest work to date to go to his foremost patron, and sent the dedicatory text to Hoffmeister on 22–3 June 1801: ‘dediée á son altesse Serenissme Maximilién franҫois Prince Royal d’hongrie et de Boheme Electeur de Cologne’ (‘dedicated to his serene highness Maximilian Franz, prince royal of Hungary and Bohemia, Elector of Cologne’).33 He was evidently aware that the title page would be printed in French, which was common at the time and could prompt wider circulation than a German title. Unfortunately the Elector died soon after,34 and so Beethoven eventually substituted Baron Gottfried van Swieten (1733– 1803), another staunch supporter. This was communicated to Hoffmeister in October,35 and Swieten’s name duly appeared as dedicatee. Five printed exemplars of the first edition were then sent as complimentary copies to Beethoven on 2 December 1801.36 Since the symphony was published not in score but as a set of instrumental parts, as was normal at the time, Beethoven had sent in a set of manuscript parts, and they proved to have contained numerous errors.37 Presumably the set sent was that used in the first performance, which must therefore have been far from accurate. Beethoven indicated to Hoffmeister a number of errors, asking for them to be corrected. In some exemplars corrections were then made by hand at the publisher’s; the plates themselves were also altered for a second, more correct printing.38 For example, the first-violin part of the opening of the third movement was initially printed with consistent staccato dots (Example 1.7),39 which are reproduced in some modern editions; but the handwritten alterations erased the staccato marks from the minims, while the revised plates showed staccato dashes rather than dots on the crotchets (though not the removal of the staccatos from the minims). These two sets of corrections combine to give the version shown

33

BB-64; A-50. On 27 July 1801: see BB-64, note 11; Anderson gives 26 July (A-50, note 4), while LvBWV (vol. 1, p. 127) states 27 June. 35 BB-69. 36 BB-74. 37 BB-75, another letter by Eberl to Hoffmeister & Kühnel, dated 12 Dec. 1801. 38 See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 1 in C major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997), p. 8, which gives a complete list of both the handwritten and printed corrections. See also Armin Raab, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien I, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/1 (Munich: Henle, 1994), pp. 147–53, which describes in detail the various states of the edition, including some later reprintings, and indicates their current locations. 39 The relevant page is reproduced in facsimile in BB, vol. 1, p. 95. 34

34

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 1.7 Op. 21.III, bars 1–4, first printing.

Example 1.8 Op. 21.III, bars 1–4, corrected version.

in Example 1.8.40 Quite a few details were left uncorrected, however, and so some editorial guesswork is needed about Beethoven’s precise intentions in certain places, although the notes themselves are more or less secure. Later reprintings showed further slight alterations, but no sign of Beethoven having intervened. His only subsequent involvement with the text came in 1817 when he provided metronome marks for all his first eight symphonies, as mentioned in the previous chapter. Thus the First Symphony took many years of preliminary work, but once the final version was begun it was completed with great rapidity. This is in contrast to the Fourth Symphony, which was probably completed without much preliminary work, and the Fifth and Ninth, which emerged over much longer periods but with the opening fixed at a relatively early stage. In the First Symphony, Beethoven appears to have been trying to establish his credentials as a symphony composer on a par with Haydn and Mozart. Haydn’s ‘London’ symphonies and Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ – which is in the same key as Beethoven’s First – are obvious models, while the theme of Beethoven’s second movement recalls that of Mozart’s G minor symphony (No. 40). Without the sketches, however, one can only speculate how Beethoven arrived at his final version.

40 This version is given in Raab, ed., Symphonien I; see also Del Mar, Symphony No. 1: Critical Commentary, pp. 8 and 26, and the accompanying edition.

2

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36 Adagio – Allegro con brio Larghetto Scherzo: Allegro Allegro molto

Preliminary work and first movement

H

aving achieved considerable success with his Akademie (benefit concert) of April 1800, which a reviewer described as ‘probably the most interesting Akademie for a long time’,1 it was natural that Beethoven should want to repeat his success with a new symphony the following spring, which was almost the only time when theatres in Vienna were available for such concerts. Accordingly he set to work on his Second Symphony towards the end of 1800. In contrast to his First Symphony, numerous sketches survive for the Second, and they have been discussed in considerable detail by Gustav Nottebohm, Kurt Westphal, Cecil Hill and Nicholas Marston,2 in addition to brief accounts elsewhere. These authors, however, do not provide the full biographical context, which must be obtained from other sources. The first surviving sketches for the symphony appear in the sketchbook Landsberg 7. This book was begun around September 1800, though no very precise date is available and it could have been a month or two earlier or 1 AMZ, 3 (Oct. 1800), col. 49: ‘wahrlich die inetessanteste Akademie seit langer Zeit’. See Stefan Kunze, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Werke im Spiegel seiner Zeit (Laaber: Laaber, 1996), p. 22. 2 Gustav Nottebohm, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, [1865]); Kurt Westphal, Vom Einfall zur Symphonie: Einblick in Beethovens Schaffensweise (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965); Cecil Hill, ‘Early Versions of Beethoven’s Second Symphony’, Musicology, 6 (1980), 90–110; Nicholas Marston, ‘Stylistic Advance, Strategic Retreat: Beethoven’s Sketches for the Finale of the Second Symphony’, Beethoven Forum, 3 (1994), 127–50.

36

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

later.3 The first part of the book is devoted mainly to two violin sonatas, Opp. 23 and 24, which had apparently been commissioned by Count Moritz Fries, but Beethoven suddenly left off work on them, with Op. 24 far from finished, to work on the new symphony, starting on what is now page 38. Something, perhaps a proposal for a new Akademie the following spring, may therefore have prompted him to make this rapid change of direction. The earliest sketches seem far from tentative, for page 38 includes an extended continuity draft covering virtually the whole of an introduction and ensuing exposition, albeit in a somewhat compressed form of only about fifty-five bars altogether (the final version of this section occupies 133 bars). It must be suspected, therefore, that either some earlier sketches are lost, or that Beethoven worked on the movement at the piano and in his head for some time before writing anything down. Another possibility is that, just as he could improvise a piece fluently without preparation, the draft is a writtendown improvisation, where what came into his head was written rather than played on the piano. There are several striking features in this initial draft. First, the introduction is not necessarily an adagio, for it begins with the same motif as the main theme on the next stave (see Examples 2.1 and 2.2); whether or not a change of speed was intended, the use of the same motif in both locations is surprising. The introduction is also notable for being centred around triadic themes (those using just the notes of a triad, but in any order), with the opening notes outlining the pattern doh – mi – soh, a pattern that underlies the main themes of all four movements of the final version (though this pattern was not planned in advance but became evident only at a late stage). Moreover, the descending figure in bars 3–4 of the sketch seens to anticipate a prominent Example 2.1 Sketch for opening of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38).

Example 2.2 Sketch for opening of main theme of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38).

3

JTW, p. 106. A transcription of the complete sketchbook (Bsb, Landsberg 7) is in Karl Lothar Mikulicz, ed., Ein Notierungsbuch von Beethoven aus dem Besitz der Preussischer Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1927).

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



37

motif in the finale of the symphony (see especially bars 236–8),4 though the sketches show no connection between the two. In the final version the main theme of the first movement is given to the lower strings, accompanied by upper instruments. Such a texture will hardly surprise listeners familiar with the opening of the Eroica Symphony or the First ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet, but in 1800 such a texture for the opening of a symphonic allegro was almost unprecedented; it recalls the continuo-aria style of the Baroque period, where the opening theme in the bass instruments is overlaid by non-thematic figured-bass chords from the chordal instrument (usually the harpsichord). It is therefore remarkable that Beethoven had already settled on this texture in this very early sketch, as shown in Example 2.2, even though he had not yet found the actual thematic material that he was to use. The letter V above the stave presumably indicates violini, implying that the violins would have a tremolando accompaniment to a cello theme, as occurs in the final version and again in the Eroica Symphony. Although the draft as a whole is quite extended, suggesting some preliminary work, the only thematic material that comes close to the final version is the opening four-bar phrase of the second subject (Example 2.3; cf. bars 73–6 of the final version). Its opening motif and the use of repeated notes in its third bar are in place, but the rest is in a preliminary form, and the answering phrase in the sketch, though outlining an F sharp minor chord as in the final version, remains in the tonic instead of moving towards E major.5 Example 2.3 Sketch for second subject of Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 38).

On the opposite page (39), among a series of short, developmental sketches, none of which were used in the final version, Beethoven made another attempt at the opening Allegro theme, slightly closer to the final version and again in the bass clef, but this sketch stops after eleven bars. Ideas for the introduction are still based on triadic melodies, and a version of them overleaf (page 40) 4

The transcription in Mikulicz, ed., Notierungsbuch, reproduced in Westphal, Vom Einfall, p. 47, places the notes in bars 4–6 one degree too low, bringing the motif in bars 3–4 in line with that in the finale; but bar 4 clearly shows b, with only one leger line, and the other notes also appear to be as shown in Example 2.1. 5 Mikulicz’s transcription shows the second note of the second phrase as E, not F, thus outlining an A major rather than F sharp minor chord; this seems less likely in terms of what appears on the page, as well as in relation to later sketches.

38

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 2.4 Sketch for introduction for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 40).

Example 2.5 Sketch for Allegro for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 40).

confirms a slow tempo. This ‘adagio’ sketch, whose first four notes have a rhythm identical to that of the second subject, begins with a five-bar phrase that is then repeated in sequence (Example 2.4), and is followed by another draft of the exposition. This continues only as far as the end of the second subject (cf. bar 88), but is now much more expansive than before, for it is actually longer, at sixty-six bars, than the final version of only fifty-five bars for this section. The first eight bars of the main theme (Example 2.5) now match the final version very closely, apart from a few details of rhythm and accompaniment, and the draft also includes a restatement of the main theme in the treble clef, marked ff, presumably for violins (cf. bar 47), though in the sketch there are two extra bars before the restatement. In addition, the transition and preparation for the second subject are greatly extended, though without much melodic detail, the harmonic progressions being represented mainly by semibreves. The second subject is an advance on the previous version, and so the two main themes were now in place apart from fine details; but the transition still needed much work, and the section after the second subject does not appear at this point. The next page (41) shows limited progress. The slow introduction appears in a fifteen-bar version at the top of the page, still with the same initial five-bar phrase, and ending on a dominant chord. A longer version (23 bars), with similar opening and again ending on the dominant but still no nearer to the final version, then leads straight into a third attempt at drafting the Allegro exposition, as if Beethoven repeatedly wanted to start at the beginning and see where it took him, as in an unprepared improvisation. The exposition is complete, and the material before the restatement of the main theme is considerably expanded from the previous draft, with the transition to the second subject correspondingly reduced. The melodic outline of the exposition, however, still differs almost completely from the final version, apart from the

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



39

two main themes established in the previous sketch. The extended section after the second subject (bars 89–131 of the final version) is of about the right length, but it consists almost entirely of unused ideas or, at best, of ideas that were greatly revised later. It includes a brief digression into B flat major that was soon abandoned, which recalls a similar abandoned modulation to A flat major in the corresponding place among the sketches for Symphony No. 0.6 The closing theme consists of a descending chromatic line in the bass, leading to some final A major chords and a double bar signifying the end of the exposition. Overleaf (page 42), beneath some shorter ideas, is a fourth continuity draft, which continues on the opposite page to the end of the exposition. This time the slow introduction contains eighteen bars, with the two initial five-bar phrases of previous sketches not much altered. It had now been sketched four times (with succesively 13, 15, 23 and 18 bars), each time with the same opening, but was never to be seen or heard again, for it was replaced on page 44 with an introduction in 3/4 that Beethoven developed into the final version. The Allegro exposition in this fourth draft begins exactly as in the final version, and the theme then reappears two octaves higher; but after this the continuation is different from before. There are now hints of D minor and A minor that anticipate the final version, but the passage is still some way from this. The draft continues with the now familiar second subject, and the next four bars correspond closely to the final version (bars 88–91: bar 88 overlaps with the end of the second subject). What follows, however, is a continuation of similar material, lacking the dramatic changes of pace and dynamic of the final version. In this section, only the last six bars of the exposition are in place. Thus again there is a complete exposition, and the key moments – first subject, second subject and conclusion – are in place; but the sections between them are some distance from their final form. Such a pattern is common but by no means invariable in Beethoven’s sketching process. As so often happens during the early stages of a work, much of the linking material is here rather bland, lacking in distinctive ideas and figuration. Whether Beethoven planned things this way, creating proportions and tonal direction first, with a view to inserting more striking material later, or whether he noticed defects only after such drafts were sketched, is uncertain. It would, however, have been perfectly possible for him to write out an orchestral score based directly on this sketch, and many composers might have been satisfied with the result. The next page (44) contains variants for several short passages of the Allegro exposition, but its main feature is the new slow introduction in 3/4 (Example 2.6). It begins with a two-note gesture, a semiquaver followed 6

See Douglas Johnson, ‘Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the “Fischhof Miscellany”: Berlin Autograph 28’, Ph.D. diss. (University of California, Berkeley, 1978), pp. 850–60.

40

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 2.6 Sketch for introduction for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 44).

by a much longer note at the same pitch – a gesture retained for the final version, and one that plays such an important role in the Allegro section there, appearing prominently at bars 57–60 and elsewhere. There is also a similar two-note rhythm at the start of the finale, the difference being that there the two notes are a semitone apart instead of at the same pitch. The listener, therefore, would hear these subsequent appearances as ‘derived’ from the initial figure, and this would be true for the finale; but the gesture had already featured prominently in sketches for the Allegro exposition on pages 40 and 43. Thus any ‘derivation’ of the opening motif is in the opposite direction in terms of its creation. Beethoven, by cunningly placing the motif at the very beginning of the symphony, has drawn attention to one in the Allegro whose importance might otherwise be overlooked. After the two-note gesture, the five-bar phrases of the previous sketches have now been replaced by two four-bar phrases in standard period structure (a b a c). These show a rather primitive version of what Beethoven elaborated into a much more sophisticated shape in the final work; such elaboration is typical of the change between the earliest form of his idea and its eventual realisation. At this stage the introduction occupies only twenty bars, and there is no suggestion of a modulation to B flat major, although the appearance of an augmented sixth on B♭ in the latter part of the sketch might have sparked the idea of such a modulation at a later stage of composition. Further down the page Beethoven also considered extending the introduction with runs of semiquavers, but this idea was soon abandoned. The Allegro sketches on the same page significantly show several attempts at developing the two-note gesture that Beethoven had placed at the head of the movement. The following pages (45–6) contain no further sketches for the introduction but show a fifth attempt at the Allegro exposition, again complete. Here the two-note gesture that had become prominent even infiltrates the main theme, where the third bar was written with double-dotted crotchets and semiquavers instead of four equal crotchets. This was quickly restored to the original rhythm, but the two-note gesture does figure conspicuously later on, during the transition and again during the passage after the second subject (cf. bars 57–60 and 96–101 of the final version). The second subject was by now so familiar to Beethoven that he simply represented it by blank bars rather than writing it

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



41

out in full. The section after this theme, which had been variable, now shows a rudimentary version of what eventually emerged, and nearly every bar of the draft corresponds at least loosely to the final version. The ending, however, has been changed, and Beethoven later reverted to his previous draft for the last six bars. The transition, too, was still unsettled. At this stage, therefore, Beethoven had made five attempts at drafting the exposition, and the drafts, numbered CD1–5, can be summarised as shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Summary of drafts for first movement of Second Symphony. CD1 (p. 38): introduction, 4/4 (10 bars); complete exposition (45 bars) CD2 (p. 40): introduction, 4/4 (13 bars); exposition to end of second subject (67 bars) CD3 (p. 41): introduction, 4/4 (23 bars); complete exposition (102 bars) CD4 (pp. 42–3): introduction, 4/4 (18 bars); complete exposition (103 bars) CD5 (pp. 44–6): new introduction, 3/4 (20 bars); complete exposition (97 bars)

The sense of progression between each of the five drafts, with various preliminary ideas gradually abandoned, confirms that they were written in the order in which they appear in the sketchbook. It is noteworthy that the introduction and exposition were developed concurrently rather than separately, with little overlap. Apart from CD1, the expositions did not vary much in length – there is no sense of gradual increase in size such as sometimes occurs. The introductions, however, were all much shorter than the final version, and the first four were discarded completely. The order in which the different portions of the exposition fell into place is somewhat surprising. First to be established was the second subject, then the first subject, followed by the closing phrase, then the material after the second subject, and finally the transition from first to second subject, which was still not fixed after at least five attempts.7 By now Beethoven evidently felt that he had the introduction and exposition more or less in place, and so at last he turned his attention to the rest of the movement. At the foot of page 46 there is an extended sketch for the development section. Its main features are an opening in D minor, some semiquaver figuration outlining a series of broken chords and an appearance of the second subject in C major, followed by triplet figuration. The D minor start and the use of triplets towards the end of the development were preserved into the final version, but the second subject was eventually to be moved from C to G major, and other details were soon discarded. The opposite page (47) shows some brief ideas for the coda, headed ‘finis:’, but they, too, were discarded. 7

See Westphal, Vom Einfall, pp. 53–4.

42

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

At the top of the following page (48), perhaps entered somewhat earlier, is a draft for a complete minuet in D, headed ‘M.’ It is possible that at this stage the minuet was intended as the second movement, for there is no sign of a slow movement here. The minuet sketched is a relatively slow, stately one rather than a scherzo, for it includes semiquaver runs that preclude a very fast pace and suggest one comparable to the minuet in the Eighth Symphony. A melodic line for the whole minuet is present, complete with repeat signs, and so too is the whole of the trio section apart from the reprise of the opening (the trio is evidently in the form A :||: B A :||). Both minuet and trio are quite short, however, and do not seem fully symphonic in scale: the minuet is 8 + 16 bars, while the trio is 8 + 26, including the implied reprise of the A section. Perhaps this minuet was intended as a ballroom dance rather than for the symphony, but it is in the right key and surrounded by symphony sketches. Rather than intermingle minuet sketches and first-movement ones too much, however, Beethoven evidently turned ahead several pages shortly after this, to page 65, to draft an alternative minuet and trio that have little in common with the previous pair. Once again a melodic line for a complete movement is shown, apart from the last sixteen bars of the minuet, which are represented by an ‘etc.’ that implies a reprise of the opening, to be adjusted to end in the tonic. Some other sketches in this part of the book, probably added about the same time, may be intended for a possible slow movement in D minor and a rondo finale for the symphony.8 The D minor sketches seem to belong more with the 9/8 slow movement in the String Quartet Op. 18 No. 1; but the ‘presto Rondo’ sketch on page 65 looks like an early attempt at the symphony finale, since it begins with a similar two-note gesture, though nothing else from these sketches was incorporated into the symphony. Beneath the first minuet draft, on page 48, is another draft for the development section of the first movement, with the second subject again in C major, but most of the draft is crossed out and it comes no nearer to the final version. Then on the opposite page, beneath an apparent continuation of this second draft, is a third one (page 49, continuing on to page 50), this time starting on the dominant of E minor, then going through G major and G minor before settling in D minor as the tonal goal. This time there is no sign of the second subject but intensive development of bars 3–4 of the main theme, followed by equally intensive development of the semiquaver figure of bars 1–2 (cf. bars 158–80 of the final version). The draft represents a complete development, concluding with an ‘adagio’ bar on the dominant, but

8 See Mikulicz, ed., Notierungsbuch, ‘Einleitung’, pp. 26 and 28; Sieghard Brandenburg, ed., Kesslersches Skizzenbuch, 2 vols [transcription and facsimile] (Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1976–8), vol. 1, p. 32. Sketches on pp. 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 might relate to the symphony.



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

43

there is little direct relationship to the final version, and more drafts would be necessary. Beethoven seems to have been provisionally satisfied that the development section was under control, for he turned his attention to the coda on page 51, writing out a complete draft for this, starting with the last few bars of the recapitulation. The draft is almost identical in length to the final version of the coda, and as usual it keeps close to the tonic key, any digressions being quickly counteracted by a return. But there is little other similarity to the final version, even though both are based on the same preceding material. The descending scales that start the coda in the final version had not at that time been sketched in the earlier part of the movement, and so the coda begins with several iterations of that opening two-note gesture. Thereafter most of the material in the draft is derived from the main theme, with the two-note gesture reappearing in the final three bars, so that the whole movement ends as it began, with two repeated Ds. There is no slowly rising bass line that plays such a prominent part in the final work (bars 326–35); the nearest thing is a short series of semibreves that descends instead of ascending. Just before the end there are some rising semiquaver scales (Example 2.7), which bear a striking resemblance to those in Mozart’s ‘Paris’ Symphony, also in D major. Example 2.7 Sketch for coda for Op. 36.I (Bsb, Landsberg 7, p. 51).

The next page-opening is devoted to a fresh draft of the development section and one for the coda headed ‘fine’ (pages 52 and 53 respectively). The development draft is provided with a completely new tonal goal – B flat major, which is marked by an appearance of the second subject in that key, a theme that had been withdrawn from the previous development sketch. The draft begins in E minor and passes through various minor keys without settling in them, before reaching B flat. After the appearance of the second subject, triplet quavers are introduced as before, leading to tremolando arpeggio semiquavers akin to those in bars 206–11 of the final version. Again the draft is more or less identical in length to what emerged, without coming very close to it. As with the previous exposition and coda sketches, Beethoven was not building towards a larger movement by drafting condensed versions to be expanded, but writing full-sized sections that could be regenerated by substituting new ideas for previous ones instead of simply adding to them. The same applies to the following coda draft, which shows some progress but is in places more similar to the previous draft than to the final version. It is actually longer

44

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

than either, and still bears echoes of Mozart’s ‘Paris’ Symphony near the end. Perhaps Beethoven noticed the similarity now, for the Mozart motif does not appear again. Having now made a draft for a complete slow introduction of 20 bars (page 44), a complete exposition of 97 bars (pages 45–6), a development section of 76 bars (page 52) and a coda of 70 bars, including the last four of the recapitulation (page 53), Beethoven had all the ingredients for a complete movement. The missing recapitulation could easily be modelled on the exposition, if it were regular. Thus it would have been possible for him to harmonise and orchestrate a movement direct from these sketches. In many of his works from this period, the latest draft in the sketchbook matches the final version very closely, often bar by bar for many bars in a row. This is not the case here, however, in any of the four sketched sections of the movement (introduction, exposition, development and coda). The section where the sketches are closest to the final version is the exposition (bars 34–131), but even here the bars that are very closely matched in the draft are relatively few: 34–41 (first subject), 47–8 (start of restatement of first subject), 61–3 (part of transition), 73–102 (second subject and following bars of figuration), 112–19 (part of closing material). One would therefore expect to find further sketches on the following pages, showing a much closer relationship to the final version, where prominent use of the key of B flat is transferred from development to slow introduction. Instead, however, Beethoven suddenly set the symphony aside, and there are no sketches for it further in the book, apart from those mentioned above for possible later movements, which were probably entered in advance. The reason for the sudden abandonment of the symphony must be that he was asked by Salvatore Viganò to compose music for a large-scale new ballet, Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus (The Creatures of Prometheus), which was planned for early spring 1801. It was an offer that he evidently felt he could not refuse, and the ballet music would have to be composed quickly and intensively to be ready for March. The date of Viganò’s request is unknown, but there is evidence that it may not have been before mid-January 1801.9 Accordingly, Beethoven turned over numerous pages in the sketchbook (pages 54–72) to allow room for further sketching for the symphony, and started his first sketches for the ballet on page 73.10 Since he could not hope to put sufficient works together for an Akademie in spring 1801 and also compose a large ballet score, he presumably decided to delay the symphony for a year and 9

LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 232. Page 73 is the first page of a different paper type, and page 72 has the grubby appearance that can be associated with its being the final page of a fascicle; see JTW, p. 104. Thus page 73 may not have been bound with the previous section until later, but chronologically it makes sense where it is, and so it makes little difference in practice whether it was bound or not at this stage. 10



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

45

have it ready for spring 1802. The ballet music (apart from the overture) must have been ready well before the premiere on 28 March, to allow time for the choreography to be worked out; but once all the numbers had been sketched, Beethoven filled up the rest of the sketchbook, including the largely blank section on pages 54–72, with other material more urgent than the symphony. This included further work on the Violin Sonata Op. 24, early ideas for a ‘Sonate pour M. – ’, which later emerged as Op. 26, and various unused fragments. The last five pages of this section (68–72) remained empty. This implies that, by the time Beethoven returned to the symphony, the sketchbook was no longer in use. The symphony could be left till the following winter and it probably was, since there is no sign of it in the surviving portions of the next sketchbook, the Sauer Sketchbook, which was used for Opp. 27–9 (piano sonatas and a string quintet) during the summer and autumn of 1801. Thus there appears to have been a large gap of anything up to a year between the early drafts for the first movement and the resumption of work around the end of 1801. The middle movements It was Beethoven’s habit to use loose leaves from time to time between one sketchbook and the next, and he did so after he had filled the Sauer Sketchbook. The remaining first-movement sketches that must have existed at one stage were presumably made on such leaves and probably date from late 1801, but they are now lost.11 Once he had the first movement in shape he turned his attention to the later movements, if he followed his normal procedure. He had already noted some tentative ideas for later movements in Landsberg 7, as mentioned above, in line with what he usually did for multimovement works, but these preliminary ideas were now abandoned and he proceeded to detailed work on the last three movements, using fresh ideas, still on loose leaves. All three movements are represented on such leaves, and these sketches were followed by much further sketching for the finale in his next sketchbook, the Kessler Sketchbook.12 It would be incorrect, however, to assume automatically that all the loose leaves preceded the book, for an overlap between loose leaves and sketchbook was possible. The main surviving batch of loose leaves is a gathering of four leaves13 incorporated into the sketch miscellany Landsberg 12 as pages 59–66 after 11 A large number of sketches for various works from around late 1801 – nearly enough for an entire sketchbook – are lost, as listed in JTW, pp. 117–18. 12 Wgm, A 34; see Sieghard Brandenburg, ed., Kesslersches Skizzenbuch, 2 vols [transcription and facsimile] (Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1976–8). 13 Richard Kramer, ‘The Sketches for Beethoven’s Violin Sonatas, Opus 30: History, Transcription, Analysis’, Ph.D. diss. (Princeton University, 1973), p. 192.

46

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Beethoven’s death. The gathering was evidently folded the opposite way initially, with pages 63–6 before 59–62. On the front page of this gathering (page 63) Beethoven worked on the second movement, which like the first is in sonata form. There is no sign of the exposition here, which must have been drafted slightly earlier and in some detail on pages now lost. Instead, beginning at the start of the development section (corresponding to bar 100 of the final version) Beethoven wrote out an extended draft, occupying all sixteen staves except the bottom one; he then unfolded the paper so that he could continue with the rest of the draft on the opposite page (now page 62), starting with the closing theme, and from there the draft continues into the coda and on to the end of the movement.14 Beneath it is a faint and tentative concept sketch for a ‘trio’ in 3/4 in D major, with ‘oboe’ and ‘fagotti’.15 This may have been intended as a possible dance for the winter season of 1801–2 rather than the third movement of the symphony, since Beethoven had already drafted two almost complete minuets with trios for the symphony a year earlier in Landsberg 7. There are sketches for similar dances in triple time at the start of the Kessler Sketchbook. Much of the development section in the draft for the slow movement already corresponds approximately to the final version, notably in its tonal direction, and so Beethoven had probably already made at least one draft of this passage, as well as more than one of the exposition. As in the final version, the music moves through C major, E minor and A minor before settling in F major, which functions as the tonal goal (cf. bar 128 of the final version). A brief move to F minor and then C minor leads to a retransition and a return of the opening theme (Example 2.8). The retransition, as in the final version, rises chromatically from g to d1, implying a brief modulation to F sharp minor before a series of chords gives way to the start of the recapitulation. The final version as summarised in Example 2.9 is similar in general outline, but is both more sophisticated and syncopated rhythmically, and also slightly more expansive: after completing the draft Beethoven decided he needed a few extra bars, notably just before the return of the main theme, where two bars were inserted between the d1 climax and the start of the recapitulation. What is extraordinary at this point in the draft, however, is that the main theme as shown in Example 2.8 has not reached its final form but begins on c2 rather than e1 and omits the e2 in its second bar; the same occurs when the phrase is repeated eight bars later. This is all the more remarkable since the rest of the draft of recapitulation and coda corresponds almost exactly, bar by bar, to the final version (apart from the single omission of bar 242). The similarity suggests that, as with the development section, there had already been earlier drafts now lost. When the theme appears in the coda (page 62, 14 15

The sketches on page 62 are overlooked in Westphal, Vom Einfall, pp. 60 and 85. Kramer, ‘Opus 30’, p. 191.

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



47

Example 2.8 Sketch for Op. 36.II (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 63).

Example 2.9 Op. 36.II, bars 142–61, outline.

stave 4), however, it resembles the final version, now beginning on e1, and this version was later incorporated into the initial statement of the theme. As in the first movement, therefore, the precise shape of the main theme was not established until much of the remainder was in place; and this time nearly the whole movement was ready for writing out before the last detail of the theme was established. Instead of proceeding to the third movement, Beethoven jumped straight to the finale, with an extended draft of around eighty bars on the next right-hand page (page 65). The two adjacent pages (64 and 66) were used for variants and revisions for the slow-movement and finale drafts respectively, with some supplementary finale sketches on page 64.16 It is most unusual to find intensive work for a second movement and fourth movement in the same group of pages, without anything significant for the third, and some explanation must be found (see below). This finale draft wanders through several keys, including A minor, D minor and G major plus some that are less clearly defined. Much of the material in the draft is unfamiliar and was later rejected, but the initial two-note gesture, the following trill motif and fragments of the main theme can be seen – not in their pristine state as at the start of the movement, but developed in various ways among rejected ideas. Thus the draft clearly represents part of the development section in a sonata-form movement. This means that a preliminary exposition draft must have been sketched elsewhere already. Such a draft can indeed be found, on the verso of a loose leaf that is now part of the miscellany Landsberg 10 (page 128). It clearly precedes 16

Since page 59 was by now the front page of the gathering, Beethoven used it for another work (Variations on ‘Rule Britannia’, WoO 79), and he never got round to entering anything on the following two pages (60–1).

48

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the development draft on page 65 of Landsberg 12, for it is notated in 2/4, whereas all other sketches for the finale have four crotchets (or equivalent) per bar. The note values correspond, but the draft has twice as many barlines (Beethoven was to make a similar change, omitting half the barlines, in the trio section of his Ninth Symphony, where even in the autograph score the music is still notated in 2/4 with twice as many barlines as in the published version). The finale draft on page 128 of Landsberg 10 begins on stave 5, preceded on staves 1–4 by a draft for the last fifty-eight bars of the third movement (bars 73–130) – the last twelve bars of the Scherzo plus the entire trio section. This third-movement draft omits six bars (97–100 and 127–8) that Beethoven added later to fill out the movement slightly, but otherwise it matches the final version so closely (after slight amendment) that no further sketching would have been necessary and he could have proceeded straight to the autograph score. The first part of the draft (bars 1–72) was evidently made on another missing leaf, but the extant portion adds further to the chronological confusion of the sources. The most plausible explanation is that Beethoven worked on the second movement and the first part of the third on lost leaves, wrote out this draft for the third movement (of which the last fifty-eight bars survive), then moved immediately on to the exposition of the fourth on the next stave, but before proceeding to the development section he returned to the second movement, making a final draft of what he used to call its zweiter Theil (second part, i.e. development, recapitulation and coda), after which he concentrated on the finale. There is a further chronological complication. At the top of folio 8v of the Kessler Sketchbook is a concept sketch in G major headed ‘andante sinfonia’, in 3/8 time (Example 2.10). It was first transcribed by Gustav Nottebohm, who described it as undoubtedly intended for the Second Symphony.17 This view has, however, been challenged by Sieghard Brandenburg, on the grounds that the sketch is ‘probably later’ than the slow-movement sketches in Landsberg 12 and therefore is not connected with the Second Symphony.18 This seems impossible to believe, on internal grounds. The theme is strikingly similar to that of the slow movement of the symphony, in 3/8 metre with similar rhythms and melodic contours but less developed. It would not make sense for Example 2.10 Sketch for Op. 36.II (Wgm, A 34, f. 8v).

17 Nottebohm, 18

Skizzenbuch, pp. 11–12. Brandenburg, ed., Kessler, vol. 1, pp. 32–3.



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

49

Beethoven to compose an excellent slow movement in A major, then sketch the opening of such a similar theme as a preliminary idea for a slow introduction for a new projected symphony in G. It also cannot be an attempt to replace the A major slow movement with one in G major with a similar but less developed theme, for Beethoven would have reworked what he had rather than starting from scratch with something not much different. Thus this sketch must precede all those known for the slow movement of the Second Symphony, despite its position in the sketchbook. Significantly, it is more similar to the early version of the slow-movement theme, as found in Landsberg 12 (see the last four bars of Example 2.8), than to its final version, and so there is a logical progression from the andante sketch to the Landsberg 12 version and thence to the final version. The location of the andante sketch at the top of the page means that it could well have been one of the first things entered in the sketchbook, before material on the previous fifteen pages; and it was certainly written before the material on the previous two pages, which continues beneath it. There was clearly an overlap between the start of the sketchbook and Beethoven’s use of loose leaves for the symphony sketches – a possibility already suggested above. The chronology of Beethoven’s sketching for the symphony during the winter of 1801–2 is therefore presumably as shown in Table 2.2. The only other possibility is that, if the faint ‘trio’ sketch in Landsberg 12 was intended for the symphony, then after working on the slow movement and this sketch on page 62 (no. 7 in Table 2.2), Beethoven drafted the actual third movement elsewhere, concluding in Landsberg 10 (no. 5 in Table 2.2) and proceeding to the finale exposition there, before moving back to Landsberg 12 to sketch its development section. This would assume a very convoluted use of sketch leaves, returning to the Landsberg 12 gathering some time after setting it aside. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the movements were composed in any other than the usual numerical order, apart from the one possible chronological anomaly outlined above. Table 2.2 Probable chronology of sketches for Op. 36 during winter 1801–2. 1: late sketches for first movement (loose leaves, lost) 2: concept sketch for slow movement, ‘andante’ (Kessler Sketchbook, folio 8v) 3: main sketches for slow movement (loose leaves, lost) 4: main sketches for third movement (loose leaves, lost) 5: late draft for third movement (concluding in Landsberg 10, page 128) 6: first draft for finale exposition (Landsberg 10, page 128, from stave 5) 7: final draft for second part of slow movement (Landsberg 12, pages 63–62 [sic]) 8: first draft for finale development section (Landsberg 12, page 65) 9: later drafts for finale (Kessler Sketchbook, from folio 17r)

50

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The finale The earliest draft for the finale (Landsberg 10, page 128) shows a sonata-form exposition consisting of seventy-one bars in 2/4 metre, plus an unsketched transition represented by an ‘etc’ after the first subject. The exposition ends with a strong cadence in the dominant, complete with double bar, and is followed by the first sixteen bars of a development section plus a few bars for the coda, marked ‘fin’. Thus the exposition at this stage was less than half the length of the final version, and it seems to lack a proper second subject or mitte Gedanke. After the unsketched transition the music moves briefly to F major and A minor for a short subsidiary idea that can hardly count as a second subject, then to A major for figuration and a closing theme. At the foot of the page, however, is a theme in A major with accidental G♯s and the lyrical character of a typical second subject. Presumably it was intended to supply what was missing, though how it was to be fitted into the draft is unclear. It was probably added a little later, since by this time the 2/4 notation had been supplanted by 4/4 or 2/2. Unlike in the first two movements, where the main theme reached its final form only after much sketching of later passages, here the theme is already in place in all its principal details – the initial two-note gesture, the following motif with the trill, and the first two bars of the main quaver theme – in the first known sketch, though the continuation is different. Nothing of what follows in the rest of the draft, however, or in the putative second subject at the foot of the page, was retained. Although Beethoven could have created a perfectly decent exposition direct from these sketches, he chose to discard everything except the opening. The same applies to the early development draft in Landsberg 12, where the only recognisable motifs are based on the three that initiate the exposition in Landsberg 10. Among the surviving sketches there are altogether five main drafts for the exposition of the finale, including the one in Landsberg 10, plus several short sections representing variants, revisions or additions.19 The first draft continues into the first part of the development section as mentioned above, while the last one continues to the end of the movement. The five drafts are located as follows: Draft 1: Landsberg 10, p. 128, staves 5–11 Draft 2: Kessler, f. 17r, staves 1–11 Draft 3: Kessler, f. 17v, staves 7–14 Draft 4: Kessler, f. 18r, staves 12–16 Draft 5: Kessler, f. 19v, staves 1–15; f. 20r, staves 1–13; f. 20v, staves 1–12

19 The second, fourth and fifth drafts have become quite well known since being published complete in 1865 in Nottebohm, Skizzenbuch, pp. 13–18.



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

51

The very short exposition implied in the first draft is expanded considerably in the remaining drafts. In the second draft, the main theme is taken as read, with bars 3–11 represented by an ‘etc’, resulting in an implied total of 58 bars for the exposition (plus two at the end showing a reprise of the main theme); as in the first draft, this is followed by a double bar and the start of the development section.20 The third draft begins with the transition, around bar 20, and contains 57 more bars of exposition, implying a total of about 76. The fourth draft omits only the first two bars (again taken as read) and is continuous thereafter but is more compact, giving a total of only 63 bars, while the fifth draft contains a complete exposition, amounting to 70 bars altogether. Thus, unlike the first movement, where early drafts of the Allegro were of similar length to the final version, here they are conspicuously shorter than the 107 bars that eventually materialised. Extra bars were presumably incorporated in some sketching that has not survived. All the sketches, including even the earliest ones in Landsberg 10 and Landsberg 12, imply a movement in sonata form. This is confirmed by ‘2da parte’ in a sketch on folio 19r, since Beethoven used this term for the ‘second part’ of sonata-form movements. There is also a ‘d.c.’ sign at the end of the early development sketch in Landsberg 12 (page 65, stave 14), Beethoven’s sign for the start of a recapitulation. In terms of sonata form, the main irregularity in the final version is that there is no firm cadence in the dominant at the end of the exposition, but a lead-back to a reprise of the start of the main theme. This does not happen in the first draft, where there is a clear cadence and double bar to mark the end of the exposition; in the next three drafts there is a fairly strong cadence in A major but the flow of the music continues uninterrupted into a lead-back to the main theme, and in the final draft the cadence itself is avoided, with the music proceeding through the lead-back into a reprise of the main theme at the start of the development section, as happens also in the final version. This return to the main theme in the tonic at the start of the development section might seem to obviate the need for a repeat of the exposition, and Beethoven used this device in the first movement of other works where there is no repeat, notably the first ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet and the Ninth Symphony; several later composers such as Brahms and Dvořák used a similar strategy in sonata-form movements on occasion. On the other hand Beethoven sometimes used it in addition to a repeat of the exposition, as in the first movements of the piano sonatas Op. 14 No. 1 and Op. 31 No. 1. There is, however, no sign of such a repeat in the finale of the Second Symphony except a double bar in 20 The double bar and following bars are omitted in Nottebohm, Skizzenbuch, p. 14; the transcription in Brandenburg, ed., Kessler, vol. 1, p. 58, shows a final-type double bar instead of an intermediate one, and presents the start of the development section as a separate sketch.

52

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the first two drafts, and even here there is no explicit repeat sign. The reprise of the main theme immediately after the exposition has misled some into seeing a type of rondo or sonata-rondo form,21 especially as there is a corresponding return to the main theme at the start of the coda. These features and the absence of an exposition repeat are certainly elements more typical of a rondo than a sonata form; but the sketches show no evidence that Beethoven was thinking other than in terms of sonata form, as in the other works where the main theme reappears in the tonic at start of the development section. In a true sonata-rondo form such as the finale of the Pathétique Sonata the rondo theme would normally appear intact at its first reprise, whereas here only the first six bars reappear before developmental material; and the central section would use contrasting material rather than development of existing themes as here. In terms of content, the exposition drafts are best examined in the light of the three main thematic ideas that appear in the final version after the opening twelve bars. Unusually, each of the three consists of more than one melodic strand heard simultaneously. They appear as a transition theme (bars 26ff.: see Example 2.11), a second subject in the dominant (bars 52ff.: see Example 2.12) and a closing theme (bars 82ff.: see Example 2.13). None of these appear in the draft in Landsberg 10, as noted above, nor in the second draft of the exposition. A version of the second subject does appear earlier in Kessler than this second draft, on folio 15r (Example 2.14), but it shows several anomalous features. First, it is in D major, whereas the second subject would normally be sketched in the dominant. Second, it runs straight into the transition theme that modulates to the dominant (cf. bars 26–33),22 suggesting it was to be a subsidiary idea after the first subject, rather than a second subject. Third, only one of the two melodic strands is sketched – the one shown on the lower stave in Example 2.12, and arguably the less important and prominent one in the final version. And finally, the version sketched shows a kind of inversion of the motif in the first three bars, with only the last bar corresponding to the final version. More strangely, the theme remains virtually unchanged in all its subsequent appearances in the sketches, never taking on the uninverted form of the final version nor appearing along with the more lyrical countermelody, which is nowhere to be found in the existing sketches. The second draft contains a hint of the closing theme, in the form of an arpeggio just before the closing cadence in the dominant (Kessler, folio 17r, stave 7), an arpeggio that somewhat resembles the lower stave of Example 2.13, though two octaves higher. The exposition in this draft closes with a 21

Two such writers are mentioned in Marston, ‘Stylistic Advance’, p. 134. two themes are contiguous in the sketch, though this is unclear in Brandenburg’s transcription (Brandenburg, ed., Kessler, vol. 1, p. 54), which also omits the upper-stave note in bar 5 of Ex. 2.14. 22 The



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

53

Example 2.11 Op. 36.IV, bars 26–30 (violin 2, viola, cello).

Example 2.12 Op. 36.IV, bars 52–6 (clarinet, oboe, violin 1).

Example 2.13 Op. 36.IV, bars 82–6 (oboes, lower strings).

Example 2.14 Sketch for Op. 36.IV (Wgm, A 34, f. 15r).

double bar but is immediately followed by the theme that became the second subject (cf. Example 2.12 above), in roughly the same inverted form as before. This time, however, it leads into a passage in B minor. The strong implication, therefore, is that Beethoven was now considering placing this theme not in the exposition, before the transition theme, as on folio 15r (see above), but at the beginning of the development section.

54

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

In the third draft, the arpeggio motif again appears shortly before the closing cadence in the dominant (Kessler, folio 17v, stave 12), this time in the bass clef, but it is no more developed than before and is not significantly thematic in its context. Since this third draft begins at the transition, the transition theme itself may have been intended to precede the draft, but it is not shown. The second subject now appears in the dominant as a second subject for the first time, though still in a shape similar to before (as in Example 2.14 above). Thus there is a possible hint of all three themes in this draft, but nothing very definite. In the fourth draft the arpeggio motif associated with the closing theme reappears, but this time in the transition, instead of the transition theme, which is absent. The second subject is in the dominant again, and the implication is that it has now been fixed firmly in place. But in the fifth draft Beethoven moved things around again. The transition theme has been restored, and the closing theme is at last in place, though only the lower melodic strand – the upper one appears not to have yet been created. Between the transition theme and the closing theme, however, there is no significant melodic material but just eight bars of quaver figuration, which dutifully reappears in the recapitulation. This figuration is quite elaborate, implying a slower tempo than presto. A ‘Vi-de’ sign directs to an alternative passage after the transition theme in the exposition, but again the music consists largely of quaver figuration that leads into the closing theme. The second subject has not disappeared altogether, however, for it makes an unexpected appearance in D minor towards the end of the development section, and again, at last in D major, in the coda. Thus, despite all the previous shifting around of material, the last surviving draft for the exposition is still a long way from the final version, with the second subject in an unexpected location and without any sign of its countermelody. The closing theme also lacks its countermelody. The development section is no closer than the exposition to the final version. Although the initial tonal direction has been established – D minor to G minor, passing through C minor and F major en route to B flat major – the tonal goal of F sharp minor (bars 155–81) is not visible. A short sketch on the previous page (folio 19r, staves 4–5) does show a short passage in F sharp minor, apparently leading into the recapitulation, and it is headed ‘2da parte’, confirming that it was planned for the development section. But it was evidently only one possibility and was omitted from the main draft that follows on folios 19v–20v. The key does not even appear in a later sketch for part of the development on folio 21r. In the coda, the dramatic F sharp major chord (bars 336–7) first appears in a sketch on folio 18r, before the fourth exposition draft, and it is already shown as preparing for a descending scale marked pp. Both the chord and the scale are retained thereafter, at least by implication. Some of the bars preceding them (bars 294–335) appear in coda sketches around this point, and the equally dramatic diminished-third chord at bars 372–3 also makes an appearance (folio 20v, staves 15–16). Thus some of the most important elements of the coda had



A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36

55

been created by this stage; but the extension to the coda (bars 414 to the end, 442), beginning with a return of the dramatic F♯, is another passage which, like the end of the development section, is still not in evidence. It is unusual to find during Beethoven’s early period such uncertainty after so many sketches. He clearly wanted to avoid a finale that was in any way perfunctory, under-sized or anti-climactic. The ‘finale problem’, which he had apparently already encountered in the previous symphony, where he had restarted the entire work after vainly seeking a suitable finale theme, emerges here in a different form. He seems initially to have tried to avoid anything too conventional by rejecting the idea of a gentle, lyrical second subject, so as to keep up the energy level throughout. Dispensing with a central cadence in the dominant was another way of retaining momentum, while the avoidance of an exposition repeat may have been adopted for the same purpose. The result, however, was a rather compressed exposition that would not balance the breadth of the previous three movements, which were considerably longer than their counterparts in his previous symphony. The solution shown in the final version lay, paradoxically, in using fewer notes around the middle of the exposition. The second subject was restored to it former location as in the fourth draft, and the closing theme was also retained intact, thus keeping up the energy level, but both themes were superimposed with countermelodies in longer notes, starting with a semibreve (Examples 2.12 and 2.13 above), resulting in a more streamlined effect and thus implying a faster tempo. The development section also needed expansion, and Beethoven’s introduction of a modulation to F sharp minor as a tonal goal cleverly echoed similar turns to this key near the end of the development section in the first and second movements. One might have expected this kind of long-range tonal interconnection to have been planned at an early stage, but it was evidently introduced almost as an afterthought, to provide additional cohesion that could work alongside motivic and expressive interconnections between the movements. Missing sketches Thus the drafts for the finale, like those for the first movement, show only limited similarity to the final version, with much material later discarded. If the same pattern of multiple drafts occurred for the middle movements, a large number of sketches must be lost – three or four early drafts for each movement, plus variants. This is in addition to late first-movement sketches that were presumably made in either early 1801 (before Prometheus intervened) or late 1801, just before the second-movement sketches that culminated in those in Landsberg 10. There must also have been much sketching for the finale after the last sketches on folio 22r of the Kessler Sketchbook. Most of the rest of the book was taken up with the vocal trio Tremate, empi, tremate, Op. 116, and three violin sonatas, Op. 30, while the last few pages are occupied by sketches

56

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

for the first of three piano sonatas in Op. 31, which were commissioned by the Swiss publisher Nägeli around June 1802 and begun shortly thereafter. The sketch record from the period early 1802 to early 1804 is fairly continuous, with the Kessler Sketchbook being followed by the Wielhorsky Sketchbook (roughly September 1802 to May 1803) and Landsberg 6 (roughly June 1803 to April 1804).23 But no further sketches survive for the symphony after those in the Kessler Sketchbook. Although further sketching must have taken place, at least for the finale, it was done on loose leaves that have disappeared. These remaining sketches could have been made at almost any time between early 1802 and March 1804, when the symphony was finally published. The autograph score is also lost, along with any corrected copies and sets of parts. A consideration of external factors provides some clues to when these missing sketches were most likely to have been made. The earliest known reference to the symphony is in a letter of 28 March 1802 to the publisher Breitkopf & Härtel from Beethoven’s brother Carl, who was assisting Beethoven in business dealings at that time. Carl states that a grand symphony and a piano concerto would be ready ‘in three to four weeks’.24 There were two possible reasons for this delay. Beethoven’s works were often mentioned to publishers before they were finished, and the implication is that he was still working on them. Thus he was probably working on the symphony in late March 1802, on leaves that have since disappeared. The second reason was that Beethoven was evidently expecting an Akademie, similar to that of 1800, during Holy Week, 11–17 April. The manuscripts would be needed for that, and could only then be sent to a publisher, three to four weeks after the initial letter. The Akademie did not take place. It was cancelled by the theatre director Baron von Braun, and Carl wrote on 22 April that Beethoven was inclined to do nothing as he was so annoyed that the theatre had been allocated to ‘utterly mediocre artists’.25 The cancellation was evidently made at a very late stage, when preparations for the Akademie were well in hand, since Beethoven was still so distressed a week later. This implies that the symphony was complete, with instrumental parts already copied out ready for a rehearsal. The Akademie would probably also have included the Third Piano Concerto and the vocal trio Tremate, empi, tremate, which was sketched in detail in the Kessler Sketchbook, almost immediately after the sketches for the Second Symphony. Thus all three works would have had to be prepared for performance in 23

JTW, pp. 130–42. BB-81; Alb-37. Carl’s reference to ‘one of my brother’s most excellent works’ applies to the String Quintet, Op. 29 (which was offered in the same letter), and not to the symphony as stated in Marston, ‘Stylistic Advance’, pp. 127–8. 25 BB-85; Alb-38. 24

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



57

April. Once the parts were copied, any further substantial revisions or new sections would be difficult (although something similar did occur for the Eighth Symphony). Carl mentioned in the letter of 22 April that the Second Symphony and concerto might be needed for a different concert – probably a private one or even just a trial run, since he uses the term Musick [sic] rather than Akademie. Again the implication is that performing parts were ready and waiting. No such event is known, although it is possible that it took place unrecorded. The missing sketches for the finale were therefore probably made in February and March 1802, with only very minor adjustments thereafter. Thus the frequently made contrast between the cheerful character of the symphony and the despair expressed in Beethoven’s Heiligenstadt Testament of October that year26 fails to take into account a gap of over six months between the two (and rather longer in terms of the initial conception of the movements), during which Beethoven’s mood must have changed several times. He was, however, undoubtedly experiencing intermittent feelings of despair long before the Heiligenstadt Testament, as is evident in some of his letters,27 and the contrast between such feelings and the character of the new symphony is palpable. Performance and publication During the summer of 1802 there was no reason for Beethoven to give any attention to the symphony, and he engaged in other works, mainly for piano (three sonatas, Op. 31, and two sets of variations, Opp. 34 and 35). The symphony would have next claimed his attention in the following spring, when he prepared for another Akademie, this time successfully. There seems to have been something of a rush to have everything ready in time for the main rehearsal at 8.00 a.m. on the day of the performance, 5 April 1803. Ferdinand Ries found Beethoven in bed at five o’ clock in the morning, writing out trombone parts that were used later that day for the newly composed oratorio Christus am Oelberge.28 The piano concerto was also barely ready, for Ignaz Seyfried reports that he turned pages for Beethoven, who evidently played from the autograph score, but many of the pages were still largely blank apart from a few incomprehensible hieroglyphs, as Beethoven played largely from memory, ‘because time was too short to commit it completely to paper’.29 That no such problems are recorded for the symphony, and that Beethoven was struggling to have the other two works ready in time, suggests that the symphony had been ready long since, and that he would not have had time 26

TF, p. 306. See, for example, BB-65 and BB-67; A-51 and A-53, of June–July 1801. 28 WR, pp. 65–6. 29 KC, vol. 2, p. 881. 27

58

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

to start revising this as well. Thus lost sketches from this period can probably be ruled out. Although the autograph score is missing, it was at one time in the possession of Ferdinand Ries, who comments on some intriguing alterations in the second movement. The design was indeed from the beginning as it is now. However, in the second violins, almost in the very first lines, a most significant part of the accompaniment was changed in many places and at some points also in the violas. But everything is so carefully crossed out that I could never discover the original idea despite great effort. I also questioned Beethoven about it, who retorted drily: ‘It is better this way.’30

Ries’s reference to the ‘design’ denotes the form and phrase structure, which were created during the sketching process. But as the sketches are mostly single-line drafts, details of texture could not be worked out until Beethoven wrote out the score. When he did so in other works he sometimes had second thoughts about the texture and made substantial alterations, without adding or omitting any bars, or changing the main melodic line derived from the sketches.31 This appears to be what happened here, and it is the earliest known example of Beethoven making such changes in a symphony. His explanation of his reasoning is disarmingly simple: he had simply made an aesthetic judgement that the revisions sounded better. The amendments were apparently more substantial and conspicuous in the slow movement than elsewhere in the symphony, thus drawing Ries’s attention. Since Ries mentions just the inner parts, the harmony probably remained the same, and the changes were to chord spacing and figuration. They must have been made before the parts were copied out, or Ries would have been able to consult the parts to see the early version, and so they were probably made even before the cancelled performance of 1802. The performance in April 1803 was at the Theater an der Wien, where Beethoven had been installed as composer in residence. The concert began at 6.00 p.m. and was a great success, at least in financial terms, for he earned enough (1,800 florins) to last over a year. The standard of performance, after just one rehearsal and doubtless with copying errors in the parts, cannot have reached perfection, but the critics were in general favourably disposed towards the symphony: one described it as ‘very beautiful’, and another noted its ‘striking and brilliant passages of beauty’, although he felt that its striving for

30

WR, p. 67. A classic case is Beethoven’s Cello Sonata Op. 69; see Lewis Lockwood, ‘The Autograph of the First Movement of Beethoven’s Sonata for Violoncello and Pianoforte, Opus 69’, The Music Forum, 2 (1970), 1–109. 31

A Creation in Two Parts: The Second Symphony, Op. 36



59

the new was too much in evidence.32 Later reviews of further performances and the published score tend to be even more enthusiastic. Publication of the symphony was quite protracted. After Carl had offered Breitkopf & Härtel the symphony, which was to be delayed for a possible performance (see above), the firm responded with a proposal of ‘200 banco’, presumably paper florins, on 10 June 1802.33 This was evidently insufficient in Carl’s view, and the symphony was not mentioned to them again in subsequent correspondence that year. Instead Carl offered it to Johann André of Offenbach on 23 November, with an asking price of 300 florins, which André declined.34 Carl then returned to Breitkopf & Härtel, asking them for 300 florins each for the symphony and Third Piano Concerto, but they offered only 500 florins for the two works.35 Carl eventually responded on 26 March 1803 that he considered 600 florins to be an ‘extremely moderate price’, and that he had now sold the two works to another publisher for 700 florins.36 Thus it had taken almost a year to sell the symphony for a suitable price, though the work was still awaiting its premiere at the time. The publishers who accepted the symphony were the Kunst- und IndustrieComptoir, established in Vienna in 1801 and better known by their French name of Bureau d’Arts et d’Industrie, which they used on most publications. It appears that, as with the First Symphony, the printed edition was engraved from a set of parts rather than a score, since the edition contains details ‘which point persuasively to its having been copied from a set of parts’.37 These parts must have been those used at the first performance, and they were probably passed to the Comptoir shortly thereafter. Much care was taken with checking the printing, resulting in an edition much more accurate than that of the First Symphony, and copying or printing errors are relatively minor.38 This was one reason why there was quite a long delay before the symphony was published. Another reason was that the Comptoir were preparing several other Beethoven works for publication. Ries mentioned in a letter of 11 December 1803 that he expected the symphony and other works to appear within a fortnight,39 but

32

TF, p. 330; Kunze, Werke, p. 233. BB-92; Alb-42. 34 BB-113; Alb-49. BB-117 provides André’s conjectured reply. 35 BB-125 and 126; Alb-52 and 53. 36 BB-129; Alb-57. 37 See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 2 in D major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1998), p. 10. 38 Ibid. 39 BB-173; Alb-75. 33

60

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

it was not finally announced in the Wiener Zeitung, along with three other Beethoven works, until 10 March 1804.40 The work quickly acquired an enviable reputation, for several arrangements for other combinations of instruments were soon being published, including one for piano trio purportedly made by Beethoven himself, according to the Comptoir’s title page. Textual analysis, however, indicates that this arrangement was based on the published set of parts, and must therefore have been made by someone else – perhaps Ferdinand Ries – with Beethoven doing no more than giving it a cursory check and perhaps making some slight adjustments of scoring.41 The announcement in the Wiener Zeitung on 13 August 1806 states merely that the arrangement was ‘reviewed and corrected’ by the author.42 The symphony as a whole represents a major advance on its predecessor, and as one of the longest symphonies yet written by any composer it stands midway – perhaps a little more than midway – between the First Symphony and the soon-to-be-composed Eroica.

40 LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 209, 246; the other works were three Marches (Op. 45), Variations on ‘God Save the King’ (WoO 78) and the song Der Wachtelschlag (WoO 129). 41 Del Mar, Symphony No. 2: Critical Commentary, pp. 10–11. 42 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 212.

3

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55 Allegro con brio Marcia funebre: Adagio assai Scherzo: Allegro vivace Finale: Allegro molto – Poco andante – Presto

Disputed origins

B

eethoven’s Symphony No. 3 is such a pivotal work, with such a large number of surviving sketches, that it has been the subject of numerous studies, and there are no doubt many more to come. The present account attempts merely to provide an overview of its evolution from conception to publication. There are conflicting accounts of how it originated. According to the ever-inventive Anton Schindler, it was Napoleon’s General Jean Bernadotte (later King Karl XIV of Sweden) who suggested to Beethoven that he compose a work in honour of Napoleon, and Beethoven responded with the Eroica Symphony.1 Unfortunately the only time when Bernadotte could have met Beethoven was when the general was in Vienna in early 1798, at a time when Beethoven had not written his First Symphony and was clearly not contemplating his Third. Moreover, at that time Napoleon was not the pre-eminent ruler of France that he had become by the time Beethoven was writing his Second Symphony, and was therefore unlikely to be suggested as the subject for a symphony. Carl Czerny gives a quite different account. He states that, according to Beethoven’s friend Joseph von Bertolini (1784–1861), ‘the death of the English General Abercrombie gave Beethoven the initial idea of the Eroica 1 Anton Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, trans. Constance Jolly, ed. Donald W. MacArdle (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), pp. 111–12. Napoleon Bonaparte was generally known by his surname until he became emperor, after which the use of ‘Napoleon’ gradually became the norm, in line with the first names of other emperors, and it is used here.

62

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Symphony’.2 Ralph Abercromby (1734–1801), who was Scottish (Czerny used ‘English’ in the sense of English-speaking), died as a result of a wound at the Battle of Alexandria. But this too was well before the Second Symphony had been completed or the Third contemplated, and so Bertolini’s claim seems unlikely, especially as he probably did not know Beethoven at the time. Czerny also claims that the original version of the opening theme was as it appears near the end of the movement, with no dramatic descent to C♯.3 This claim is not supported by Beethoven’s sketches. The sketch record is both more prosaic and more dramatic. Beethoven’s Wielhorsky Sketchbook,4 begun in summer 1802, shows sketches for the Piano Sonata Op. 31 No. 3 followed by some for two sets of piano variations – Op. 34 in F major and Op. 35 on a theme from the finale of his ballet Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus – up to page 43. These are immediately followed by preliminary sketches for what became the Eroica Symphony, on pages 44–5, after which other works take over. Since Beethoven offered the two sets of variations to Breitkopf & Härtel in a letter of Monday 18 October 1802, giving a description that implies they were more or less finished, it seems probable that his last sketches for them, and therefore the first sketches for the new symphony, were written around that time. Nothing in the sketchbook contradicts this date. This means that almost immediately after expressing his despair over his deafness, in the Heiligenstadt Testament of 6 and 10 October that year, Beethoven resolved to compose a grand new symphony in E flat. It could even be interpreted as a response to his crisis, as a heroic attempt to overcome his disability. While it is hazardous to resort to presuming cause from co-existence, the chronological proximity of the two events is certainly suggestive. The connection between the sketches on pages 44–5 of the Wielhorsky Sketchbook and the Eroica Symphony is not obvious, since the main themes are entirely different, but it was recognised by Nathan Fishman, and the sketches have since been examined in detail, notably by Lewis Lockwood.5 They show an abundance of ideas for the first movement and ideas for the next two, but nothing for the finale. Since Beethoven had just been sketching his piano variations on a theme from his Prometheus on the previous pages of the sketchbook, and since this theme was eventually used for the finale 2

Carl Czerny, On the Proper Performance of All Beethoven’s Works for the Piano, ed. Paul Badura-Skoda (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1970), p. 12. 3 Ibid. 4 Mcm, F. 155 No. 1; see facsimile and transcription, with commentary, in Nathan L. Fishman, ed., Kniga eskizov Beethovena za 1802–1803 gody, 3 vols (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal´noe izdatel´stvo, 1962). 5 Fishman, ed., Kniga eskizov, vol. 2, p. 187. Lewis Lockwood, ‘Beethoven’s Earliest Sketches for the “Eroica” Symphony’, The Musical Quarterly, 67 (1981), 457–78.



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

63

of the Eroica, it can be concluded that he had already decided at this early stage to base his finale on this theme. Thus, as with his First Symphony, the finale theme was composed before any of the rest of the symphony. Whether he intended any element of heroism at this stage is unclear, but the projected use of a theme from his ‘heroic allegorical’ ballet about the hero Prometheus suggests that already there was an underlying element of heroism implied in the embryonic symphony. As in the Second Symphony, the earliest known sketch, found on page 44 of the Wielhorsky Sketchbook (Example 3.1), shows a slow introduction with a triadic theme, and it is placed in the bass clef, as with the main Allegro theme of the Second Symphony and the opening theme of the Third. The first two notes are even identical in pitch to those in the Eroica theme, but beyond that the connection between this sketch and the symphony is tangential. After a few more bars of what is obviously slow introduction comes the main Example 3.1 Preliminary sketch for opening of Op. 55 (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44).

theme, in 3/4 time (Example 3.2). After an initial E♭, the next four notes correspond precisely to the bass line that Beethoven had highlighted at the start of his newly composed Prometheus Variations, thus providing additional confirmation that the finale of the Prometheus ballet provided the background for the symphony from its initial conception. Although this four-note motif is not unrelated to the final version of the opening theme of the symphony, where the first phrase also begins and ends on E♭ after ranging between the low and high B♭s, the relationship is somewhat distant. The same applies to other first-movement material sketched on this page and the one opposite. There is an abundance of triadic motifs, some of which bring to mind those in the final version, while a rising quaver scale (page 45, stave 3) seems to anticipate those in bars 62–4 of the final version. The closest similarity, however, occurs in one version of the closing theme in B flat (Example 3.3), where descending triads over a repeated B♭ pedal lead to a cadence and dominant seventh, before Example 3.2 Preliminary sketch for main Allegro of Op. 55.I (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44).

64

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

a repeat sign. This closely matches the general melodic and harmonic outline of the final version (bars 144–53), shown in Example 3.4, although many of the details are different. Despite the broad similarities of these sketches to the first movement of Example 3.3 Preliminary sketch for Op. 55.I (Mcm, F. 155 No. 1, p. 44).

Example 3.4 Op. 55.I, bars 144–53.

the final version, the early sketches for the second and third movements are completely different. The second-movement sketch shows an Adagio in C major in 6/8 metre, with no hint of a funeral march. It is a gentle, lyrical movement, though with some chromaticism in a middle section, which appears to veer briefly into B flat minor. Thus any sense of the death of a hero had not entered Beethoven’s mind for this symphony at the time, even though he had recently written a piano sonata movement with this title (Op. 26: ‘Marcia funebre sulla morte d’un eroe’) and his ballet had included the death and resurrection of Prometheus (which is absent in the original classical sources). Sketches for the third movement are even briefer, occupying a single stave. They show a ‘Menuetto serioso’ in E flat, followed by a ‘trio’ in G minor that makes use of semiquaver figuration, thus implying a far slower tempo than in the Scherzo of the previous symphony or the yet-to-be-written Scherzo in the Eroica. A draft of the complete first-movement exposition (page 44, staves 10–14), which incorporates Example 3.3, shows nothing out of the ordinary. It consists of just sixty-six bars, plus a short passage marked by an ‘etc’, perhaps worth about eight bars. This means it is only about half the length of the exposition of the Eroica. Further sketching for the exposition on the opposite page offers numerous alternative ideas, but no indication of any greater length. Thus here, in October 1802, Beethoven seems to be planning simply to write a third symphony, serious but not exceptionally grand, some time before the premiere of No. 2. It would be natural, therefore, to store up these ideas until the following summer, after the Second Symphony had received a public performance. Thus no further work on the symphony can be



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

65

found in the rest of the Wielhorsky Sketchbook (pages 46–174), most of which is occupied by the vocal duet Nei giorni tuoi felici (WoO 93) and the oratorio Christus am Oelberge. The latter was performed at Beethoven’s Akademie on 5 April 1803, and the latest sketches in the sketchbook are for the ‘Kreutzer’ Sonata (Op. 47), which received its premiere on 24 May 1803. The symphony appears to have lain dormant during this entire period. Main work on the first movement The next known sketches for the symphony appear in Beethoven’s next sketchbook, known as Landsberg 6 or the ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook. This has become perhaps the most celebrated of all his sketchbooks since being described in a monograph by Gustav Nottebohm in 1880, and has more recently been published in facsimile and transcription.6 Between the preceding sketchbook and this one Beethoven evidently made use of some loose leaves, for several groups of sketches from April–May 1803 are unaccounted for.7 These leaves may have overlapped with the end of the Wielhorsky Sketchbook and with the start of Landsberg 6, although there is no evidence that the two sketchbooks themselves overlapped.8 Thus the new sketchbook was probably begun around the beginning of June 1803. Beethoven continued the occasional use of loose leaves during the composition of the symphony, for a few passages in it are not found in Landsberg 6 and were presumably sketched elsewhere. Only one such leaf survives, containing a fairly insignificant sketch for the end of the Scherzo.9 It was in Heiligenstadt that most of the symphony was composed, as stated by Ferdinand Ries and recently confirmed by other evidence.10 Sketches for 6 Gustav Nottebohm, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven aus dem Jahre 1803 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880). Lewis Lockwood and Alan Gosman, eds, Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, 2 vols (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013). This includes an extended discussion of the Eroica sketches (vol. 1, pp. 29–48). Many other studies of the symphony also include references to the sketches, taking advantage of Nottebohm’s publication. 7 These include sketches for the song Der Wachtelschlag (WoO 129), the piano variations on ‘God Save the King’ (WoO 78) and the final sketches for the 1803 performance of Christus am Oelberge. See JTW, p. 139. 8 The evidence for an overlap presented by Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, pp. 6–7, is thoroughly flawed; see my review in Nineteenth-Century Music Review, 12 (2015), 131–5, at 134–5. 9 Bsb, Artaria 153, p. 12; see Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, pp. 41–2. 10 WR, p. 67; Jos van der Zanden, ‘Reassessing Ferdinand Ries in Vienna: Ramifications for Beethoven Biography’, Nineteenth-Century Music Review, 17 (2020), 1–20, esp. 13–16. The so-called ‘Eroica-Haus’ in Oberdöbling is a misnomer.

66

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the new symphony make their first substantial appearance on pages 4–5 of Landsberg 6, after three pages of other material and some missing leaves.11 Significantly, however, those on page 4 are not tentative sketches for the exposition, like the early sketches for the first movement and finale of the Second Symphony, but concentrate on disconnected passages for the development section, headed ‘2ter Theil’. They show the head of the main theme already established and susceptible to intensive development in another key. The opposite page, meanwhile, may have been written earlier and contains ideas for the exposition, which spill over to the foot of page 4; but the opening theme is not present and had presumably been worked out on the loose leaves now lost, or entirely in Beethoven’s head or at the piano. Nottebohm proposes that the exposition draft on page 11 was written earlier than these development sketches,12 but since these sketches are surrounded and followed by material that is more rudimentary than that on page 11, this seems unlikely. Either way, however, concentrated work on the symphony was evidently not begun until around late May or the beginning of June 1803. Remarkably, these sketches on page 4 include two of the most extraordinary passages in the movement. A new theme in the remote key of E minor, which appears unexpectedly in the symphony (bar 284), is sketched on the top stave, suggesting that it was of primary concern for Beethoven. He decided on this key long before he had worked out how to reach it from the B flat tonality of the end of the exposition, and the two voices of the theme, treble and high bass, survived with little modification through to the final version. The second extraordinary passage sketched here is the early entry of the main theme immediately before the recapitulation, where it clashes with the prevailing dominant-seventh harmony (bars 394–5). In the sketch (Example 3.5), the dominant-seventh harmony is represented by a repeated A♭, which persists even to the first note of the recapitulation before resolving to G in the first two bars of the recapitulation, where they are followed by a double bar as shown. The passage preceding this discordant effect, though clearly related to bars 370–81 of the final version, actually shows a much stranger harmonic progression than finally emerged (Example 3.6), moving from an E flat minor or C flat major chord to an E minor chord, and thence to a diminished fourth leading towards F minor before slipping onto the dominant of E flat major in preparation for the recapitulation. Here on this page, then, Beethoven reveals his decision to aim for a boldly innovative symphony that, unlike the one sketched some six or seven months previously, raises the genre to a new level. The bounds of convention are being stretched to breakingpoint in three ways: the use of a very remote key for a new theme, a weirdly 11

On the missing leaves, see JTW, p. 137. There are a few notes for the bass theme of the finale on page 3, but these were probably added later. 12 Nottebohm, 1803, p. 6.

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



67

Example 3.5 Sketch for Op. 55.I, retransition (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4).

Example 3.6 Sketch for Op. 55.I, development (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4).

chromatic chord progression, and an irregular discord that superimposes tonic and dominant-seventh harmony. The opening theme reappears in some disjointed fragments for the movement on page 7, but there is still no sign of the disturbing C♯ until the first extended draft for the exposition, which appears on page 11. This shows the opening section of the exposition already more or less in place, and some ideas for the remainder that were taken up and developed in later sketches. It includes an opening two-bar dominant seventh, which does not appear in later drafts, but some kind of introduction was probably intended throughout, emerging as two tonic chords in the final version. The draft has a substantial alternative after its first thirty bars, found on the opposite page and linked to the main draft by a ‘Vi=de’ sign. Altogether there are four main drafts for the exposition, transcribed by Nottebohm with substantial commentary,13 and a few shorter drafts for sections of the exposition (plus some brief fragments). The drafts can be summarised as shown in Table 3.1.14 Table 3.1 Summary of drafts for exposition of first movement of the Eroica. Draft 1 (p. 11): incomplete exposition (106 bars, including 2 preliminary bars) Draft 1a (p. 10): complete exposition (126 bars), if bars 1–30 of Draft 1 are included Draft 2 (p. 12): exposition (132 bars, omitting 2 preliminary bars) Draft 3 (pp. 14–15): exposition (c. 160 bars, but with alternatives) Draft 4 (pp. 20–1): exposition (c. 167 bars, second half deleted) Draft 4a (p. 22): exposition, second half (replacing that in Draft 4) Draft 4b (p. 26): exposition, second half (replacing those in Drafts 4 and 4a) 13 Nottebohm,

1803, pp. 6–14. See also Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, p. 33, where a chart includes a few more drafts for the end of the exposition. 14

68

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

In terms of size, therefore, the exposition grew gradually up to Draft 3, by which time it was actually slightly longer than the final version of 153 bars (including the two preliminary bars missing in all drafts except the first). Thus Beethoven’s sense of boldness and innovation in this work is evident in the sheer size of the exposition, which is about 25 per cent longer, in terms of performance duration, than that of the Second Symphony (according to the speeds indicated by his metronome marks). For the opening theme, Beethoven had doubts about whether it should be heard three or four times, perhaps with its last appearance placed in the dominant, but he eventually opted for just three statements, all in the tonic. The disturbing C♯ at the end of the theme appears only once during the exposition, but it is a permanent fixture in all the drafts for the first statement of the theme. Its long-range possibilities, however, where it could be reinterpreted as D♭, varied. There are occasional brief appearances of D flat major, within the second main theme (cf. bars 92–4 of the final version), and the ‘2ter Theil’ sketch on page 4 begins in D flat major if it is read in the treble clef, though this is uncertain. The key of C sharp minor is seen as early as page 5 (stave 15), where the four-bar main theme is stated in C major, then C sharp minor, then D minor, elaborating on the C♯–D motif in the main theme and anticipating bars 178–89 of the final version. After the main theme, the exposition could be regarded as possessing several more thematic ideas, all in the dominant: the off-beat dotted rhythm heard immediately after the modulation to the dominant (bar 45); the rising scales (bar 57); the repeated-note theme that could be regarded as the main second subject (bar 83, though Beethoven does not label it ‘m.g.’); a closing triadic theme (bar 109); a series of loud, off-beat chords (bar 123); and the cadential figure (bar 144) sketched in the Wielhorsky Sketchbook (Example 3.3 above). There is also an energetic dactylic figure with unstable tonality starting at bar 65. Surprisingly, none of the thematic ideas begins with one upbeat, nor do they do so in the sketches; but they are distinguished as much by their rhythm as by their melodic shape. It was important to enliven the plain rhythm of the main theme by using irregular rhythmic effects later on. These could be achieved by extra-quick notes (as in bar 65), strong beat rests (bars 100–2, 124–30), off-beat accents (bars 110–15, 119–21) or ties across the barline (not used, but sketched in several places). Where do these motifs emerge in the sketches? Those up to and including the main second subject are already present in Draft 1, at least in rudimentary form, and the cadential figure from the Wielhorsky Sketchbook appears in Draft 1a; but here, instead of the triadic closing theme, there are long arpeggios ranging over two or three octaves, and these reappear in several later sketches. Attempts to enliven the rhythm can be found as early as page 4, with some off-beat sforzandos later abandoned, but Drafts 1 and 1a show no such irregular rhythms. A few strong-beat rests (cf. bars 100–2) can be found below Draft 1



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

69

on page 11, but here they are placed before the second subject instead of after it. Later they are placed as in the final version, while the striking syncopation caused by a 2/4 rhythm of alternating chords and rests (bars 128–31) is not found until a relatively late stage, on page 16, after Draft 3. The theme that eventually appeared in bar 109 makes its first appearance in a preliminary form at the foot of page 4 (Example 3.7), perhaps added there somewhat later, but it is not incorporated into Drafts 1–3. It reappears in some early forms on page 13, and then reappears on several subsequent pages, including Drafts 4 and 4a, but Beethoven tried it in several different versions, sometimes using quavers, sometimes with a tremolando as in Example 3.7, and sometimes in plain crotchets as in the final version. It is recognisable by its context in the sketches, by its repeated four-bar phrase and by its alternation of two bars of a B flat triadic motif followed by two of dominant-seventh harmony. Its first phrase does not reach its final shape until Draft 4b, and the repetition with dotted rhythms (bars 113–16) does not appear at all in the surviving sketches. Example 3.7 Sketch for Op. 55.I, closing theme (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4).

Beethoven also devoted much effort to the lead-back to the repeat of the exposition. There are more sketches for this than for perhaps any other passage in the movement – about twenty altogether – with the repeat sign nearly always present. Thus at this stage Beethoven clearly intended the exposition to be repeated, and he spent much effort trying to make the return to the tonic as smooth yet interesting as possible. When the sketches are compared with those of the Second Symphony, it is remarkable how much of the exposition was already fixed in some form at an early stage, but also how much longer it took Beethoven to mould it into its best shape. There are many more pages of exposition sketches here than are known for the Second Symphony, even if allowance is made for a few lost leaves there. This provides further evidence that Beethoven was aiming for something out of the ordinary, rather than just another symphony. Yet some passages in the exposition are still not shown in their final form in the sketches. Bars 113–16 have already been mentioned, and the final version of the lead-back to the first-time bars and repeat also differs in detail from any of the numerous sketches. The only passage where the final version is a major advance on the sketches, however, is the chromatic ascent in the bass shortly

70

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

before the final cadence (bars 136–43), where the sketches are strikingly bland and plain by comparison, using relatively static harmony or long arpeggio motifs, or omitting these bars altogether. The final version has a much greater density of material at this point. Having sketched some brief ideas for the development section on page 4 of the sketchbook, Beethoven resumed it in earnest on page 30. Here, as elsewhere, the evidence suggests that the sketches were mostly written in the order in which they appear, though they sometimes imply a slight jumping ahead or backwards.15 Thus it is best to consider each page-opening in turn as usual, while being alive to the possiblity of forward or backward jumps. Beethoven’s biggest task for the development was perhaps to achieve a satisfactory tonal and motivic sequence of events so that the new E minor theme, already sketched on page 4, should appear in a suitable context before leading towards the retransition. Page 30 is taken up mainly with the beginning and end of the development section. The modulation to C sharp minor and D minor sketched earlier has temporarily been set aside, with the music moving from C minor towards A flat, confirmed by the words ‘as dur’ (= A flat major). This key remains prominent in the development in the final version, acting as its first tonal goal, one of the few keys where the music settles for more than a dozen bars (bars 216–32). The end of the development section is shown on page 30 by a modulation from B flat to D major and thence to the harmonic clash between tonic main theme and dominant-seventh harmony just before the recapitulation, a clash already sketched on page 4 (Example 3.5 above). This clash is consistently represented in the sketches by the first four notes of the main theme against a background of either A♭s (pages 4, 32, 33, 35 and 39) or Ds (pages 30 and 31). Thus there is a semitone clash between either G and A♭ or D and E♭, and the underlying dominant-seventh harmony that creates both clashes is always implied. Alongside work on the beginning and end of the development on page 30, sketches on page 31 begin halfway through the development. Here an F major chord moves to A minor and thence to E minor for the new theme, represented by just two bars and an ‘etc’; the remainder no longer needed to be written out. The sketch then moves even further towards the sharp side, to an unexpected B minor, before progressing through C major and C minor to E flat minor for a restatement of the new theme, eventually working its way to the harmonic clash at the end of the retransition. The start of the recapitulation is also included here, in a sketch that demonstrates that Beethoven had 15 For a fuller discussion of this section, see Lawrence Earp, ‘Tovey’s “Cloud” in the First Movement of the “Eroica”: An Analysis Based on Sketches for the Development and Coda’, Beethoven Forum, 2 (1993), 55–84; Earp (pp. 61–6) gives some examples of sketches possibly out of order.



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

71

Figure 3.1 Key scheme for development (bars 153–397) of first movement of the Eroica in draft (upper row) and final version. Vertical or diagonal lines indicate motivic connections.

B♭-c-c♯-d-g-c-(A♭)-c-G-b-f♯-(b)-e—C-c-e♭-a♭-e♭-E♭—E♭ B♭-c-C-c♯-d-g-c-f-A♭—f-c-g-d-a-e—a-C-c-E♭-e♭-G♭-e♭—E♭ already decided on the extraordinary digression to F major that appears in the final version, using the C♯ from the main theme as a D♭ that descends to C as the dominant of F. Thus this digression, like the E minor theme, was established while much of the earlier part of the development section remained unsettled. It is yet another indication that Beethoven was aiming from an early stage to break with convention. The rest of the recapitulation, however, is largely regular and therefore required hardly any further sketching.16 On the next two pages (32–3) Beethoven persists with unconventional ideas. The E minor theme is presented in A minor and D minor, as an alternative to the E flat minor statement; and a harmonic shift to E major is proposed, just before a shift back to E flat for the by-now-familiar harmonic clash at the end of the recapitulation. There is also further work, but not much progress, on the retransition. Beethoven now felt ready to write a draft for the development section, starting at the top of page 34. The key scheme was the biggest challenge, as suggested above, and an interesting comparison can be made between that used in this draft and that of the final version, as shown in Figure 3.1. Keys not fully established in the draft are shown in parentheses in the table, while those established for a substantial period are shown by a prolonged horizontal line. Motivic connections between the two versions are shown by connecting lines, and the final key shown represents the start of the recapitulation (bar 398). At the start of the development, bars 152–63, the draft more or less matches the final version, moving from B flat to C minor, but these bars are immediately followed by what became bars 178–209. The missing section, a C major interlude (bars 164–77), appears somewhat later in the draft, and in G major, as shown in Figure 3.1. The key of A flat major, so prominent in the previous sketch and in the final version, is suggested but never established in this draft, for the music moves instead via B minor and F sharp minor to the new theme, fixed as always in E minor. There are strong, off-beat rhythms shortly before 16 See ibid., p. 60, for a connection between an exposition sketch and bars 430–9 of the recapitulation.

72

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the E minor theme, as in the final version, but the harmony and tonality are different. Thus it would appear that the rhythmic aspect of the preparation was more fundamental for Beethoven than the precise harmonic route to E minor, a route found only with difficulty. The latter part of the development comes closer to the final version, but there are significant differences. An excursion to A flat minor was subsequently replaced by the beautifully contrasting G flat major (bars 330–5) with similar thematic material. The retransition, standing on the dominant, is prolonged, but the major mode is established nearly twenty bars before the harmonic clash of the premature main theme. Introducing the tonic major so early might undermine the surprise of the premature entry of the main theme, and so Beethoven later placed the tonic major just briefly as a passing key at bars 316–19, hinting at the recapitulation but clearly sounding transitional. In the sketch, the corresponding passage remains in E flat minor. Here, therefore, is a complete development section, with many bars corresponding to the final version but also many not doing so. The early modulation through C sharp minor to D minor, set aside in the previous sketch, has been restored, but A flat major has instead been set aside, and there is still no sign of the contrapuntal section that gradually modulates around the circle of fifths from F minor to E minor (bars 231–60). In terms of length, the draft is already exceptional. Development sections at that time were on average about two thirds of the length of the exposition, though Beethoven’s were usually longer or shorter than this. In his first two symphonies, they were respectively 70 per cent and 82 per cent of the exposition, and in his other works up to this period the development was rarely longer than the exposition. Here, however, the draft shows a development of 204 bars, well in excess of the final exposition length of 153 bars. The use of a remote key as a tonal goal would tend to demand a prolonged development, to reduce abruptness of transitions, and an extended development would also tend to heighten the effect of innovative grandeur that Beethoven was evidently trying to create. It is no surprise, then, that he increased the development section still further, to a massive 244 bars, by the time he reached his final version. A second attempt at the development section (pages 38–9) comes much closer to the final version, but several alternatives are sketched for certain passages and not all of them were retained. Nearly all the elements of the final version can be found here, but not always joined together in a continuous line. For example, the G flat passage (bars 329–32 of the final version) appears separately near the foot of page 39, rather than as part of the main draft. Conspicuously absent in the sketches, however, are the harsh discords (superimposed E and F♮) of bars 276–9, and the subsequent minor-ninth chords that herald the E minor theme. The harmony shown in the sketch is quite conventional by comparison, and it was a remarkably bold step to intensify the climax with such extraordinary discords.



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

73

On page 37 Beethoven had already made a draft for the coda, and much of this corresponds approximately to the final version. It includes the initial shift from E flat to a D flat major chord and thence to C major (cf. bars 553–64). Near the end, however, there is only a threefold statement of the main theme, rather than fourfold as in the final version (bars 631–62). Further coda sketches on page 41, headed ‘Fine’, appear to be more primitive and were presumably made before the drafts on pages 36–7. Thus once Beethoven had reached page 39, having completed two main drafts for the development section and one, with variants, for the coda, he probably felt ready to begin writing out the autograph score, if he had not already started, and there is no significant further sketching for the first movement in Landsberg 6. The slow movement The first indication of the Eroica’s slow movement in Landsberg 6 appears at the top of page 4 (see Example 3.8), alongside the E minor theme from the first movement. Although the theme differs completely from the final version, the key of C minor (the tell-tale B♮ confirms that this is not C major), the 2/4 metre and the lamenting character17 are sufficient to reveal this sketch as a starting point, whereas the C major slow movement in 6/8 sketched in the Wielhorsky Sketchbook was a quite different concept. The rising arpeggio in the first bar has tenuous links with the theme of the first movement, and is even written in the same register. The music is potentially funereal, and its dotted rhythms are characteristic of a march, though they are in quavers rather than semiquavers as in subsequent sketches.18 Example 3.8 Sketch for Op. 55.II, opening (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 4).

17 The key of C minor is associated with ‘lament, pathos, funereal’ in what is described as its ‘first praxis’ in Beethoven’s music; see Paul M. Ellison, The Key to Beethoven (Hillsdale: Pendragon Press, 2014), p. 56. 18 When soldiers are marching together, one or other sometimes catches his heel on the ground as they step forward; the sound of this creates the characteristic dotted rhythm associated with marches.

74

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

A theme closely resembling the final version, complete with dotted semiquaver rhythms, then appears on page 6, in two versions, one notated in 4/4 time with doubled note values (thus with dotted quavers). It is evident, therefore, that Beethoven decided to intensify the character of the movement by creating a funeral march; the motivic connection with the first movement is still evident,19 and the underlying triadic outline of the theme is preserved in various forms through to the final version. The fact that he was sketching the second-movement theme before intensive work on the first movement no doubt helped to cement the relationship between the two. A binary-form main theme is already visible in the sketch, with the first part modulating to G minor (not E flat as in the final version), and the second, much longer part returning immediately to the tonic. Both parts are repeated by wind instruments, an idea preserved to the final version. There is no sign here of the maggiore section, but on page 9 Beethoven sketched a ‘trio’ in A flat major, using staccato semiquavers, and a ‘fugato’ using a theme that he preserved in modified form as a fugato in the final version (bar 114). It is unclear whether this represents a rondo form, in which the two episodes are the ‘trio’ and the ‘fugato’, as proposed by Lockwood and Gosman,20 or whether the trio would include the fugato in a ternary form. What is clear, however, even at this stage, is that this was going to be a funeral march on a grand scale. Having already written a ‘Funeral March on the Death of a Hero’ two years earlier, as noted above, Beethoven now planned an even more imposing funeral march; this would imply an even greater hero (perhaps Prometheus or even in anticipation of Napoleon?), although there is nothing explicit to this effect in the sketches. A few more fairly primitive second-movement sketches are entered on page 19, perhaps in advance of Beethoven reaching this point in the sketchbook, but intensive work on the movement does not appear until pages 42–3, after the final sketches for the first movement. Here the opening section appears three times. This could be interpreted as three attempts at drafting the main binary-form theme, with the second draft particularly full, but in the light of subsequent sketches it seems that Beethoven was planning a five-part rondo form (A B A C A) and was here sketching its three refrains.21 In the first attempt at the main theme here, the first note after the anacrusis, previously a low G, is replaced by C (see Example 3.9), but the low G is restored in most of Beethoven’s later attempts. As in the slow movement of the Second Symphony (cf. Example 2.8 in the previous chapter), the first main note was found to work better as a low dominant rather than a tonic. Other noteworthy features in Example 3.9 are the rests in bar 3, which create a slightly too fragmented effect and could be held back to the end of the 19

See Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, pp. 35 and 37. Ibid., p. 35. 21 Ibid., p. 37. 20



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

75

Example 3.9 Sketch for Op. 55.II, opening (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 43).

movement (cf. bar 241); the cadence at bar 4, where Beethoven soon substituted E♭ for B♮; the sforzando in bar 6, intensifying the expression of anguish on the flattened sixth degree; and the rather perfunctory cadence at bars 7–8, typical of early sketches for a theme and later elaborated. The second section, beginning in E flat major (cf. bar 17), is also represented in all three drafts, but it took rather more sketching, with a greater variety of ideas, before the final version was established. In none of these drafts nor in later sketches is there a modulation to E flat at bar 16, as in the final version; but the second section of the theme does begin in this key before moving back to C minor. Between the first two drafts (both on page 43) the first part of the maggiore section, moving from tonic to dominant, appears for the first time, and it is remarkably close to the final version (bars 69–79). Beethoven evidently had little difficulty with this passage, although the second part of the maggiore section took longer to work out. On the opposite page are some ideas, mostly abandoned, for what follows the maggiore. There is a statement of the fugato theme (cf. bars 114–16), but no subsequent counterpoint. The opening section appears again on page 49 (pages 44–7 are taken up with some sketches for marches), where after many alterations and surrounding alternatives it comes close to the final version of the complete first section (bars 1–56), with some suggestions for the codetta at the end of this section (bars 56–68). The only substantial later innovation for this first section, apart from the abovementioned cadence in E flat at bar 16, is the modulation back from F minor to a cadence in C minor at bars 31–6 and 51–6. Here the sketches persistently show the music remaining in F minor for a little longer, as in Example 3.10, with a leap of only a fifth rather than the striking octave jump that appears in the final version (bars 33 and 53). Example 3.10 Sketch for Op. 55.II, bars 51–6 (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 53).

Plans for the overall form of the movement are outlined at the top of page 48: ‘nach der ersten widerholung welche nur in einmal Theil besteht folgt’, followed by the fugato theme and ‘Hiezwischen noch einmal’,

76

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

followed by the maggiore theme.22 Here Beethoven was thinking that ‘after the first reprise’ of the main theme, which would be played ‘only once’, meaning without the internal repeats, there would be the fugato, followed by a reprise of the maggiore section, ‘yet again, between’ the fugato and an implied second reprise of the main theme, creating an even more extended structure (A B A C B A) than eventually emerged. Thus the movement was now planned on a very grand scale, and he eventually found that it would be a hugely impressive movement even with a curtailed first reprise and no restatement of the maggiore section. As with the first movement, Beethoven concentrated on fixing the first main section before any detailed work on subsequent sections, although there are brief ideas for these, including the coda (one sketch on page 49 showing triplet semiquavers is marked ‘zu Ende’). The C major episode eventually appears in full on page 50, though the second part is still rather different from the final version. It is followed here by a complete statement of the refrain theme without internal repeats, just as planned on page 48 and thus amounting to about thirty bars. What comes after this is left unclear, with only a few notes sketched. Whether there was to be an extended coda or a second episode followed by a return of the refrain is not clarified at this point, and the opposite page (51) contains variants for the same sections as on page 50. The coda is sketched more extensively on page 52, headed ‘fine’, and further down the page Beethoven sketches the transition into the coda. This is marked ‘vor dem Ende’, and shows the brief excursion into an elegiac D flat major (cf. bars 209–17), using staccato quavers (see Example 3.11). The new key provides a striking contrast to the funereal C minor that prevails in the surrounding material. There are hints of the fugato section on the opposite page (53), after another statement of the refrain, but no semiquaver countersubject appears here. Example 3.11 Sketch for Op. 55.II, bars 209–14 (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 52).

22 Ibid., vol. 1, transcription p. 48. Nottebohm, 1803, p. 40, misread the lightly deleted ‘einem’ and replacement ‘einmal’ as ‘einem Minore’, which would have made sense. Beethoven’s original phrase ‘in einem Theil’ would have meant using only ‘one part’ of the main theme; by substituting ‘einmal’ he confirmed he wanted the whole theme, but ‘only once’.



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

77

The fugato is developed on the following page (54), though still without the semiquaver countersubject, and it leads to a cadence in G minor (cf. bars 153–4), with a fragment of the main theme in this key (page 55). The idea of a second statement of the maggiore section, proposed on page 48, is no longer present, and the end of the second episode leads to a reprise of the ‘tema’, which is again written out in full on pages 55–6 (the draft proceeds from page 55 stave 9 straight to the top of page 56). The draft then continues on page 56 to the end of the movement. Conspicuously absent is the diversion to D flat major, sketched on page 48 (Example 3.11 above) and presumably not inserted there until after the draft on page 56. Also missing is the disintegration of the main theme into short fragments (bars 238–45). Beethoven was clearly not fully satisfied with this coda draft, which is a mere twenty-one bars, whereas in the final version it is almost twice as long (bars 209–47). Some of the additional bars – those corresponding approximately to bars 223–38 – were worked out a little later, on page 61, and come close to the final version. The passage with the thematic disintegration, however, does not appear until page 92, the page after the last known sketches for the finale, and was clearly a very late inspiration – a particularly fine way of ending a funereal movement. Endings of movements often gave Beethoven particular trouble, and this one is a good example of how a fairly commonplace ending was transformed by something exceptional at a late stage. There are no further sketches for the slow movement in the sketchbook. Thus, as with the first movement, certain passages, particularly towards the end of the movement, do not quite reach their final form here and were presumably worked out elsewhere or at the piano. It is also noteworthy that there are far fewer drafts for the coda than for the opening section of the movement – again matching the procedure in the first movement. The Scherzo The three pages following the last slow-movement sketches are filled with extraneous material, and intensive work on the third movement does not begin until page 60 of Landsberg 6. Either Beethoven began on this page after leaving more space for the slow movement than proved necessary, filling it later, or the extraneous material was inserted before he reached that part of the sketchbook with his Eroica sketches, and he had to bypass it; or he took a short break from the symphony before turning to the Scherzo. Preliminary ideas for the movement had been entered much earlier. The first indication is on page 7, where what appears to be a minuet sketch makes use of some semiquavers, indicating a relatively slow speed similar to that of the ‘Menuetto serioso’ sketch in the Wielhorsky Sketchbook. At the top of page 10, however, the essence of the actual Scherzo theme appears, headed ‘M.’ (= Menuetto). It was entered before the first-movement sketches on the opposite page, since

78

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

these continue beneath the Scherzo theme. The introductory part of the theme is marked ‘Violin[i] Viole V[iolon]celli’, which exactly matches the scoring of the final version. It leads to the repeated-note oboe motif, which is here placed in the tonic rather than the dominant. Beethoven also wrote a puzzling comment above the sketch: ‘am Ende Coda eine fremde M.’ Nottebohm read the ‘M.’ as ‘St.’ for ‘Stimme’, indicating a strange instrument (literally ‘foreign voice’), which makes sense but is not what is written, as pointed out by Lockwood and Gosman.23 Whatever Beethoven intended, he was clearly thinking about how to end the movement, using a strange effect of some sort. Beethoven’s first recorded thought for the Trio section was in the key of A flat (page 27), with tonic triads supporting a flowing melody. Another group of early ideas for Scherzo and Trio appears on page 36, opposite some firstmovement sketches. It includes the first complete draft for Scherzo and Trio, but both sections are at this stage quite short, the Scherzo consisting of 19 + 23 bars (plus repeats) and the Trio 14 + 15 (plus repeats). The Scherzo remains in the tonic up to the first double bar, with the oboe theme in E flat as before. The theme then appears in B flat during the second section, followed by a reprise in E flat. This sequence in the second section was actually retained in later sketches, and reappears more or less exactly in the final version at bars 85–100, even though the first part of the Scherzo had by then been altered to end in B flat. Although the Scherzo was making some progress, however, the Trio section in this group of sketches is completely different from the final version, beginning in C minor before settling in A flat major, which is used for the main cadences at the ends of both sections. Another brief appearance of the Scherzo theme is on page 42, where at last is found the first inkling of the Trio theme, moving in arpeggios across the tonic triad (Example 3.12). Its similarity to the main first-movement theme is conspicuous, in both rhythmic and melodic shape, and it represents a kind of halfway house between that theme and the Trio theme that eventually emerged. The beginning of detailed work on the third movement, on pages 60–1, shows a more or less complete Scherzo section, headed ‘presto’, though it is still considerably shorter than the final version. The oboe theme of bar 7 (bar 9 in the sketch) now appears in B flat as in the final version, and in the central part of the Scherzo section Beethoven tries this theme in both D flat major and F major, before opting for the latter in later sketches. The Trio section, however, is much less advanced at this stage. The use of three horns, so striking in the final version, is clearly indicated here (page 60 stave 3, and page 61 stave 15), but the two themes tried bear little resemblance to the final version in terms of actual notes. The bold character is unmistakable, 23 Nottebohm,

1803, p. 44; Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, pp. 39–40. Lockwood and Gosman suggest that the ‘M.’ was written earlier, and that Beethoven intended the word Stimme after fremde but omitted to include it.



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

79

Example 3.12 Sketch for Op. 55.III, Trio (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 42).

however, and the striking introduction of a D♭ and then F♯ during the reprise of the theme also emerges at this stage (page 60, stave 6; cf. bars 236–41).24 Further expansion of the Scherzo appears on page 64, and by page 66 there is a complete draft of it that mostly matches the final version, with variants and a coda sketched on the opposite page. Here, for the first time, the reprise of the Scherzo theme is prepared by a modulation to the dominant of G minor (cf. bars 55–72). Progress on the Trio, however, is still laboured. Something approaching the main theme of the final version is tried on page 65, with matching answering phrase; and further down the page the answering phrase is very close to the final version, while the opening phrase is not. This is a curious reversal of Beethoven’s normal process of thematic construction, where the opening phrase is often established well before the answering phrase. There is also an attempt at the central portion of the Trio, but it is very different from the final version, using runs of quavers, with no sign of the curious unison woodwind passage of bars 206–16. A similar picture obtains at the next two attempts at the Trio, on pages 68–9, where the theme is still not properly established, and there is also uncertainty about the answering phrase. The central section still uses some quaver runs, but there is some indication of the unison woodwind passage in the second of the two drafts (page 69). After this page-opening, however, Beethoven moved on to the finale. Thus the main theme of the Trio never appears in its final form in the sketchbook. With hindsight the opening of this theme seems perfectly straightforward and unsophisticated, and so it is remarkable that Beethoven spent so long trying so many other ideas for it, some of which are much less obvious, without reaching a satisfactory solution until after he had moved on to the finale. The finale The main sketches for the finale are very extensive, occupying most of the staves on pages 70–91 of Landsberg 6 (excluding pages 86–7, which are blank). Since they begin on the page immediately after the last sketches for the Scherzo, they probably followed promptly chronologically too, for otherwise 24 This passage is discussed at some length in Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, p. 41.

80

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

one would expect there to be intervening pages with extraneous material. The account by Nottebohm is surprisingly brief, and his comment that ‘the composition of the last movement of the symphony cost relatively less time than that of the other movements’25 is misleading, since the sketches are much more numerous than those for either of the two middle movements. There is a much more detailed account of the finale sketches by Lockwood, in addition to the one in the facsimile edition of the sketchbook.26 The finale is the prime example (along with that of the Ninth Symphony) of Beethoven blending simplicity with complexity, combining the lightness of a Classical symphony finale with the sense of culmination and climax characteristic of a Beethoven finale, by using a plain, almost naive main theme in a highly sophisticated formal structure. The form of the movement can be analysed in more than one way – for example, as a set of variations on a theme and its bass line, with various interludes; or as a rondo or ritornello form; or as some kind of ternary form in which the initial variations section is reprised at a slower pace after a central section of developments, fugato and other techniques; or as a hybrid of all these forms. Lockwood divides the movement into nine segments, some of which are subdivided, but later he shows twelve segments.27 For present purposes it is clearer to divide it into fourteen segments, as in Table 3.2. Whether there is any poetic or symbolic element in this form or in Beethoven’s re-use of a theme from Prometheus has been the subject of much speculation,28 and it is possible that he wanted audiences to make the connection with the ballet: hints of an initial storm, statues that come to life (a statuesque bass line, or Basso del tema, as Beethoven had called it in his Prometheus Variations, Op. 35, gradually acquiring counterpoints and a melody), and a subsequent presentation of various arts, match the narrative of the ballet. The sketches, however, provide no indication of any extramusical element – unlike in the Pastoral Symphony. Instead they confirm that the theme, together with the Prometheus Variations based on it, forms the starting point for the whole symphony. Whereas there are ideas for each of the first three movements in the Wielhorsky sketches and again the early part of Landsberg 6, there are none for the finale in the former book and 25 Nottebohm,

1803, p. 50. Lewis Lockwood, ‘The Compositional Genesis of the “Eroica” Finale’, in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. William Kinderman (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 82–101; Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, pp. 42–8. 27 See his Tables 7.1 and 7.3 in Lockwood, ‘Compositional Genesis’, pp. 86–7 and 89. 28 See especially Constantin Floros, Beethovens Eroica und Prometheus-Musik: Sujet-Studien (Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen, 1978). 26

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



81

Table 3.2 Main sections in the finale of the Eroica. Bar 1 12 44 75 107 117 175 211 257 277 348 380 396 431

Description Introduction, G minor to V of E flat Basso del tema with varied repeats 2 variations on Basso with repeat signs Tema with varied repeats Transition 1 Fugato 1, starting in C minor Variation 1 in D with varied repeats and codetta March in G minor (32 bars + codetta) Transition 2, starting in C major with bars 1–8 of Tema Fugato 2 (theme inverted), starting in E flat Andante: Variation 2 with varied repeats Variation 3 with no repeats Codetta (continuing andante) Presto coda

virtually none in the latter – just the first four notes of the Basso del tema, on page 3 and possibly page 2. Thus the Prometheus theme was clearly in his mind for the finale as he set to work on the first three movements both in October 1802 and around June 1803. In addition, the opening strategy for the movement is equally clearly based on the variations Op. 35, for both present an unaccompanied bass line followed by variations (three in the piano work, two in the symphony) in which various counterpoints are added to the bass line, before the main theme enters as if a further variation on the bass. Only the details are different. The very first sketch on page 70 is the most interesting and important, for here Beethoven provides a preliminary synopsis of the whole movement (Example 3.13). In a movement in a standard sonata or minuet-and-trio form such a synopsis was unnecessary, and thus the one here shows that from the outset he intended an irregular, hybrid form. The opening four notes represent the whole Basso del tema and probably also the ensuing build-up of counterpoint until the main theme is reached, as in the Prometheus Variations. This idea was therefore planned from the outset and retained to the final version. The following ‘Var:’ implies variations for clarinet and then horn solo. These ideas were dropped, but the use of wind instruments for variations survived. Variation 1 in D is dominated by the flute; Variation 2 (Poco andante) is led by the oboe; and in the final slow variation (there are only three regular

82

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 3.13 Preliminary synopsis sketch for Op. 55.IV (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 70).

variations of the theme) the melody is played by clarinets, bassoons, first horn, cellos and basses in octaves – thus with prominent wind instruments. Beethoven evidently felt he needed something before the bare initial bass line, and something more than the single chord of the Prometheus Variations. Thus the beginning (labelled ‘principio’) was sketched on the second stave, and was clearly a later idea than the use of the bass line. Although it begins in the bass clef and has a different contour from the final version, the tonal direction is the same, working from a D chord in G minor to the dominant of the home key. The ‘etc’ at the end of this section must refer to the Basso del tema and following material, which did not need writing out. The ensuing ‘Fuga’ in the sketch could be read in C minor in the treble clef, but as there are no naturals for a B it is probably intended in the bass clef, in E flat. In the final version both keys are used, one for each of the two fugatos. There are further references to wind instruments (Blas Instrumente, shown twice as ‘B. I.’), and a slow variation (‘un poco adagio’) with double-dotted rhythm, preserved into the final version (bar 349). The music was then to be varied and developed (‘varie e deduce’) towards the end. The precise nature of any coda was left undecided, but much of the rest of the page is devoted to sketches for this final section, from the start of the adagio. Thus the idea of an irregular form, combining bass line, variation, fugato, slow variation and developments, was present at the outset, and many but not all of the initial details were retained. One feature of the final version conspicuously absent in this preliminary sketch is the march-like section in G minor (bars 211–56); but a complete draft of it appears on the opposite page, along with a continuation to the start of the following transition (Transition 2) that begins with the start of the main theme in C major. This draft, quoted in full by Nottebohm and therefore quite well known, needed little adjustment before it appeared in the final version,



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

83

and this section of the movement does not appear again in the sketchbook. Earlier on the same page is a second attempt at the start of the movement, this time showing a strikingly close relationship to the march theme. By the time of the final version the relationship is not quite so conspicuous, but both passages begin in G minor with a descent down the scale from a long or repeated D to G.29 Thus the march theme can be heard as derived from the opening of the movement, with the initial wildness of the semiquaver runs transformed into a regular four-square march over the four-note bass theme, and the sketches confirm the closeness of the connection. Another idea on this page was to place the following slow section in 3/8 metre, using ‘corni fagotti’, before a concluding ‘pres[to]’ section back in 2/4. The presto section was later worked out, but the idea of using 3/8 does not appear again, and subsequent slow sections are back in 2/4. Beethoven was now ready on the following page (72) to begin longer drafts, and had little trouble drafting the introduction, Basso del tema, two variations on it (with minimal indication of counterpoints), the theme and a possible transition to follow it, although at this stage this final passage remains in E flat and functions more as a codetta to the theme than a transition towards a fugato. The opposite page (73) shows ideas for both fugatos, separated by a statement of the theme in G major (rather than D as in the final version). Presumably the recently sketched march section was also intended to come here. In the rest of the sketches a large amount of attention is devoted to the final andante codetta and subsequent presto coda, thus bars 396–473. The last ten pages of sketches are occupied almost entirely by this section, whereas sketches for the middle of the movement are fairly few. Variations need little sketching in general: with an established theme and phrase structure, once the opening bars of the variation are fixed the rest tends to follow naturally. At one stage Beethoven tried out the theme in the improbable key of A major (pages 78–9), but again there are few sketches. Transition 1 appears on page 77, partly matching the final version, and again on page 89, where it coincides with the final version. There are some sketches for Transition 2, though no completely continuous draft. The G minor march was already more or less in place. The two fugatos, however, are strikingly under-represented, with no full draft of either – not even one just showing the main thematic entries. Nearly all the sketches for the movement as a whole are on single staves, and mostly only one voice at a time is shown. The fugatos would require two or more voices to be sketched simultaneously, sometimes on two or more staves, and so they must have been worked out separately on loose leaves now lost. In contrast, the codetta and coda (bars 396–473) needed much working out, but this could be done largely on single staves, and so the sketching for 29 The relationship between the two passages is discussed at length in Lockwood, ‘Compositional Genesis’, pp. 94–7.

84

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

them appears disproportionately extensive. It was common for Beethoven to expend much effort on endings – one reason why they are always so striking and innovative – but here the proportion was greater than usual, for the above reasons. There are no fewer than five full drafts for the andante codetta and presto coda, plus shorter fragments, as noted by Lockwood.30 Particular attention is given to the passages with semiquaver sextuplets and passages marked ‘più allegro’, and many bars of the sketches approximately match the final version. Even in the last sketch, however, the ending lacks the two rising scales and three tonic chords that conclude the work. As so often with Beethoven, the last few bars in particular required extra thought to avoid sounding conventional, and they may not have been finally worked out until he was writing out the autograph score. Performance and publication The first reference to the whole symphony appears in a letter from Beethoven’s brother Carl to Breitkopf & Härtel, dated 21 May 1803, offering them ‘a new symphony’.31 This cannot be No. 2, for he had already told them on 26 March that he had sold this to another firm (see Chapter 2); thus it must be the barely started No. 3. The offer was repeated to Simrock four days later, and Ries wrote to Simrock on 6 August that Beethoven was planning to write two symphonies, ‘one of which is practically finished already’.32 If one allows for some exaggeration on Ries’s (and thus Beethoven’s) part, and interprets the statement as indicating ‘conceptually practically finished’, then this ties in well with the sketchbook evidence for the Eroica. The second of the two symphonies, however, was a mere projection of intention, for there is no evidence of a post-Eroica symphony in this part of Landsberg 6. Ries also mentions that Beethoven is planning to go to Paris within eighteen months – which would help account for the plan, not yet then declared, to dedicate the Eroica to Napoleon. A further offer of two new symphonies was made on 14 October,33 but the first solid evidence that a new symphony was actually ready appears in Ries’s letter of 22 October to Simrock. The work is offered for 100 florins, but as this is far less than the price received for the Second Symphony plus Third Piano Concerto (700 florins), Ries may have meant 100 ducats (about 450 florins). He then adds: It is according to his own statement the greatest work that he has yet written. Beethoven played it to me recently and I believe Heaven and Earth must

30

Ibid., p. 92. BB-138; Alb-59. 32 BB-152; Alb-65. 33 BB-163; Alb-70. 31

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



85

tremble beneath it when it is performed. He is much inclined to dedicate it to Bonaparte; if not, since Lobkowitz wants to have it for half a year and will give 400 florins, it will be entitled ‘Bonaparte’.34

There are some significant comments here. It seems Beethoven had little difficulty in assessing the symphony as his greatest work yet – a view that would surely be shared by most commentators today. Beethoven had evidently played the entire work on the piano for Ries, and so the work was certainly complete, at least in draft, by 22 October 1803. This date concurs well with the sketchbook evidence, for the last sketches for the symphony (page 92) are followed very shortly (page 96) by the earliest ones for Beethoven’s projected opera Vestas Feuer, and Beethoven indicated in a letter of 2 November that he was just beginning to work on the opera.35 Ries’s comment that ‘Heaven and Earth must tremble’ indicates that he immediately became acutely aware what a powerful and ground-breaking work this was, and how much more powerful it would be when played by a full orchestra instead of a weak pianoforte (even if Beethoven used his newly acquired Erard piano for the occasion). This is the earliest known reference linking Napoleon to the Eroica, but the intention to dedicate the work to him fitted in with Beethoven’s previous plan to visit Paris. Prince Lobkowitz, however, who had perhaps also heard it on the piano and recognised its extraordinary qualities, evidently persuaded Beethoven to give him the dedication, leaving ‘Bonaparte’ as the title. The procedure of a patron purchasing a new work for six months before it could be made public was common with Beethoven’s works at the time, and Lobkowitz was here exploiting this system. The fee of 400 florins was generous, and the same as Lobkowitz had paid for the entire set of string quartets Op. 18.36 The autograph score, which is lost, was probably written out over quite an extended period of time, and perhaps one movement at a time, reflecting the sketching process. All that is known about it is Ries’s brief description: I, like several of his close friends, have seen this symphony already written out in score lying on his table, where right at the top of the title page stood the word ‘Buonaparte’, and right at the bottom ‘Luigi van Beethoven’, but not a word more. Whether and with what the space was to be filled, I do not know.

Ries then relates the famous story of how he had brought the news to Beethoven that Napoleon had declared himself emperor, and Beethoven in a fit of rage had

34

BB-165; Alb-71. BB-169; A-85. 36 Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Beethovens Streichquartette op. 18’, in Beethoven und Böhmen, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg and Martella Gutiérrez-Denhoff (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1988), pp. 259–309, at pp. 275 and 286. 35

86

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

torn up the title page and thrown it on the ground.37 Thereafter Beethoven’s attitude to Napoleon was very ambivalent, variable and not totally clear.38 Napoleon’s proclamation was issued on 20 May 1804, and news reached Vienna a few days later. By that time, not only was the autograph complete but also a fair copy, written by Benjamin Gebauer,39 but Ries does not mention it. Gebauer’s title read: ‘Sinfonia grande intitolata Buonaparte del Sigr Louis van Beethoven’. This, too, evidently received a violent attack from Beethoven, for Napoleon’s name was so heavily scratched out that there is a hole in the paper. It is always asserted that the deleted name was ‘Bonaparte’, but the spacing of the letters seems to indicate the Italian form, ‘Buonaparte’, which would match the Italian in the rest of the title. It also matches Ries’s recollection about the form of the name on the autograph score – he evidently had a very clear memory of the inscription. Once the name had been defaced in the fair copy there was no necessity to preserve the elegance of its title page, and so it was presumably after this that instructions for the copyists of the instrumental parts were added in the upper and lower margins, along with other annotations discussed below. Instrumental parts were copied out at some stage in preparation for a trial run at Prince Lobkowitz’s palace in Vienna, and a few of the original ones still survive (flutes, oboe 2 and clarinets), with ink corrections by Beethoven. The rest of the set of manuscript parts preserved in Vienna was copied slightly later (some with corrections by Ries), from other parts now lost.40 None of 37

WR, p. 68 (translation amended). For discussions of Beethoven and Napoleon, see, for example, Thomas Sipe, Beethoven: Eroica Symphony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 30–53 (‘The Dedication to Napoleon Bonaparte’); Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven: The Music and the Life (New York and London: Norton, 2003), pp. 181–7 (‘Napoleon and Self-Made Greatness’); Maynard Solomon, Beethoven (New York: Schirmer, 1977), pp. 132–42 (‘Bonaparte: The Crisis of Belief’). 39 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 299; folios 141–2 are in a later hand, probably replacing damaged pages. See also Theodore Albrecht, ‘Benjamin Gebauer, ca. 1758–1846: The Life and Death of Beethoven’s “Copyist C”, with Speculation Concerning Joseph Arthofer, ca. 1752–1807’, Bonner Beethoven-Studien, 3 (2003), 7–22. The score has been published in facsimile, along with the original instrumental parts, in Otto Biba, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonie Nr. 3, Es-Dur, op. 55 ‘Eroica’: Partitur-Manuskript (Beethovens Handexemplar). Vollständige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat. Orchesterstimmen der Uraufführung und früher zeitgenossischer Aufführungen: Verkleinerte Reproduktion, 4 vols (Vienna: Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien, 1993). 40 See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major ‘Eroica’: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997), p. 16. For details, see Michael Tusa, ‘Die authentische Quellen der “Eroica”’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 42 (1985), 121–50. 38



Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55

87

those that survive contain any reference to Bonaparte, and the earliest ones do not even name the composer but just the instrumental part, except for the first flute part, where ‘Sinfo: Beethoven’ has been added in red crayon. Some of the slightly later parts indicate that this was his third symphony, but none give the title Eroica. The first two rehearsals or trial runs are indicated in a payment authorised by Prince Lobkowitz on 11 June 1804, and they probably took place on that date and the previous day, after a trial of a Salieri work on 9 June.41 Why did they not take place until more than seven months after Ries had heard the work on the piano? A possible clue is provided by Ries’s letter to Simrock of 11 December 1803: ‘The new symphony of Beethoven he will now definitely not sell and will save it for his journey.’42 Thus it seems that at this stage Beethoven had preferred to take his chance in Paris with Napoleon rather than with Lobkowitz. Once Napoleon had proclaimed himself emperor, however, Beethoven ruled him out and turned to Lobkowitz. It is perhaps significant that the first trial run took place within about two weeks of Ries bringing Beethoven the news about Napoleon. For these rehearsals Prince Lobkowitz provided the orchestra of twentyeight players,43 as well as the venue. The receipt for payment of players indicates a third horn, thus confirming that one of the works rehearsed was the Eroica (the other was the newly written Triple Concerto). Ries was present at the first rehearsal, which he says went appallingly, although he was mistaken when he thought the second horn had entered early in its famous false entry just before the recapitulation in the first movement.44 The poor performance was no doubt partly due to copying errors in the instrumental parts. Gebauer’s score, from which they were copied, originally had numerous minor errors and omissions, and Beethoven made hundreds of alterations,45 which included corrections, clarifications and revisions, with numerous added slurs and accidentals (some cautionary). Some of these changes were added

41 Tomislav Volek and Jaroslav Macek, ‘Beethoven’s Rehearsals at the Lobkowitz’s’, The Musical Times, 127 (1986), 75–80, at 78–9; see also Theodore Albrecht, ‘“Mit Verstärkung des Orchesters”: The Orchestral Personnel at the First Public Performance of Beethoven’s Eroica’, in The New Beethoven, ed. Jeremy Yudkin (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2020), pp. 161–202, at 166–7. There is no reason to suppose the rehearsals took place actually on 9 June, as is sometimes claimed. 42 BB-173; Alb-75. 43 Their names are provisionally identified in Albrecht, ‘Orchestral Personnel’, pp. 166–8. 44 WR, p. 69. 45 See Bathia Churgin, ‘The New Editions of Beethoven’s Symphonies 3 (Eroica) and 4’, Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 13 (2015), 85–92, at 85, where the author refers to ‘what seems like a thousand corrections’.

88

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

to the orchestral parts after they had been copied, suggesting that they were made during the first rehearsals, as errors and omissions came to light; others, however, were made before the parts were copied, indicating that Beethoven spent some time proof-reading the score first. Nevertheless, many minor errors remained in the score and instrumental parts. In bar 92 of the first movement, for example, the ‘cresc.’ for bassoons was omitted from the score, though it appears in the copied parts (it was also omitted in the corresponding place in the recapitulation, but was inserted by Beethoven). The second oboe in the same bar is marked ‘decresc.’ instead of ‘cresc.’, Gebauer evidently misreading the last two letters of ‘2do’ as the first two in ‘decresc.’ (although he wrote ‘2do’ as well); the error is preserved in the instrumental part. In the following bar the portato marks for clarinets and bassoons were omitted, though again they are supplied in the copied parts (which, however, omit the portato for first bassoon in the previous bar). Two of the most significant alterations in the score concern repeats. At the end of the exposition in the first movement, the whole first ending is deleted, along with the two preceding bars (150–1) and the first four bars of the second ending (152–5). Bars 150–1 were restored by Beethoven’s ‘gilt’ (= stet), but not the other bars, and the whole passage had to be written out on a separate sheet, now lost. The changes reflect Beethoven’s indecision about whether or not to include a repeat. This is mentioned in a letter by his brother Carl dated 12 February 1805: ‘At first, before he had yet heard the Symphony, my brother believed it would be too long if the first part of the first movement were repeated, but after several performances he found it was actually disadvantageous if the first part were not repeated.’46 Perhaps he felt that there were so many ideas in the exposition that they needed to be heard again in order for their interconnections and development to be fully appreciated; or perhaps a continuous movement might paradoxically seem too long unless broken up by a repeat of the exposition. The repeat was, however, initially in the original score and parts, rather than simply added at a later stage, and Beethoven had clearly tried the movement both ways, probably more than once. The original score and set of parts also show a repeat in the reprise of the Scherzo (after bar 420), matching that in the first statement (bar 166). Curiously, however, there is no sign at bar 289 to mark the start of the repeated section. The repeat must have been intended initially, for Beethoven saw the score and allowed the repeat sign to be copied into the parts (as shown by the surviving flute, oboe and clarinet parts), whereas a repeat of the first thirty bars of the Scherzo in the score was deleted before the parts were copied. At the first rehearsal the absence of a sign at bar 289 would have caused confusion, and so it was

46

BB-212; Alb-98.

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



89

presumably at this stage that the repeat at bar 420 was deleted. It does not appear in later instrumental parts or printed sources. Carl’s reference to ‘several performances’ corroborates Ries’s account: Ries states that some time after the first rehearsals Lobkowitz bought the work for his own use and that it was played several more times at his palace,47 presumably before publication. Lobkowitz evidently also arranged private performances elsewhere, such as at his palace in Raudnitz (Roudnice), where Prince Louis Ferdinand is reported to have heard it with great admiration.48 Lobkowitz’s purchase is confirmed by Beethoven’s receipt for 700 florins, dated 3 November 1804, and another for 80 ducats (= 360 florins), dated 5 November.49 The first fee, ordered by Lobkowitz while in Raudnitz (which would therefore tie in with the report about Prince Louis Ferdinand), was already rather more than that originally mentioned by Ries, and the two fees probably covered both dedication and exclusive use for a year. Meanwhile, Beethoven offered the symphony and some other works to Breitkopf & Härtel in a letter dated 26 August 1804.50 It may be because of this letter that the date ‘August 1804’ was added by an unknown hand to the title page of Gebauer’s score, perhaps indicating the date when Beethoven was finally satisfied that all necessary revisions were in place after the trial runs and that he was ready to have it published. His letter asks for the symphony to be published ‘as soon as possible’, noting that some other publishers had been very dilatory and believing that Breitkopf & Härtel could be much quicker. This implies that Lobkowitz had not yet purchased an exclusive agreement, or at least not one that would last beyond about November, when the work might appear. The letter describes the symphony as follows: ‘The symphony is really entitled Ponaparte [Beethoven often interchanged P and B]; as well as all the other usual instruments there are specifically three obbligato horns. I believe it will interest the musical public. I would like you to issue it in score instead of engraved parts.’51 The reference to Napoleon is an indication of Beethoven’s continuing ambivalence towards the new emperor, and it may have been about this time that Beethoven wrote faintly in pencil on Gebauer’s score: ‘geschrieben auf Bonaparte’ (‘written on Bonaparte’), perhaps thinking that the score might be sent to Leipzig. His masterly understatement that the symphony would merely ‘interest’ the public contrasts well with Ries’s 47

WR, pp. 68–9. See. Sipe, Eroica, pp. 27–8. 49 Volek and Macek, ‘Rehearsals’, p. 79. Both fees were for the symphony, according to a letter 24 November by Georg August Griesinger (BB-200), though the second one, or part of the first, may have been for the Triple Concerto, also dedicated to Lobkowitz. 50 BB-188; A-96. 51 Ibid. 48

90

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

previous suggestion that Heaven and Earth would tremble beneath it. The request for publication in score is an indication of Beethoven’s awareness that this work was something quite out of the ordinary, and would need studying in score to be fully appreciated. This was evidently more important than the production of sets of parts for performances, which for such a challenging work might be quite rare. Gottfried Härtel, replying on behalf of the firm, initially agreed to Beethoven’s proposals, and the works were to be sent in batches. The symphony was sent in early January 1805 as planned,52 presumably in score, since this is how Beethoven had asked for it to be published; yet it could not have been the Gebauer score, which Beethoven would have needed for performances, but a different one now lost. A set of parts was also now expected to be printed, for on 12 February Carl sent instructions about cues for wind instruments being inserted into the first-violin part.53 There were delays with some of the other works, however, and Härtel found he could not publish anything as soon as anticipated, nor for the originally agreed fee. Beethoven therefore asked for the return of the manuscripts unless the publishers agreed to this fee. Härtel, for his part, had become exasperated by delays to the other works and by Beethoven’s reluctance to send an official bill of sale; and so, despite his admiration for Beethoven’s works, he duly sent back the manuscripts (all now lost), as he indicated in a letter of 21 June, apparently even before he received Beethoven’s request to do so.54 Beethoven therefore turned to the Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoir (Bureau d’Arts et d’Industrie), who had already published his Second Symphony, and the firm agreed to publish the Eroica. This agreement was probably made very promptly, shortly after Beethoven’s letter requesting the return of the manuscripts and before he even received them. This is what happened with the ‘Waldstein’ Sonata, one of the other works sent and returned.55 Whereas Breitkopf & Härtel had received a score of the symphony, the Comptoir were supplied with a set of parts for their engraver, and two of these parts appear to have survived (second bassoon and first horn).56 The symphony took its place in the queue for publication at the Comptoir, behind two piano sonatas returned by Breitkopf & Härtel and works by other composers. Engraving 52

BB-209; A-108. BB-212; Alb-98; Carl also sent a replacement sheet covering the exposition repeat in the first movement, and instructions for the insertion of a start-repeat sign at bar 3; these comments also imply that a score, but not the Gebauer score, had been sent. 54 BB-223, B-226; A-118, Alb-104. 55 See Barry Cooper, The Creation of Beethoven’s 35 Piano Sonatas (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), p. 135. 56 See Del Mar, Symphony No. 3: Critical Commentary, p. 16. 53

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



91

and proof-reading of such a large-scale work would have taken much time; thus the work did not finally appear for over a year, in October 1806. The printing was quite carefully done, but some minor errors and one major one (the duplication of bars 150–1) were corrected in a second impression a year or two later.57 Other minor errors, chiefly of dynamics and articulation, remained uncorrected, and have had to be rectified by modern editors. In addition to the performances or rehearsals already mentioned, a further private performance took place in August 1804 at Lobkowitz’s country retreat at Eisenberg. Others may have followed, and a semi-public performance was held in Vienna on 20 January 1805 at the house of Joseph Würth, who ran a series of Sunday concerts that winter.58 Although held in a private house, the concert was sufficiently public to enable a review to be published in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung of 13 February. Beethoven’s First Symphony and Anton Eberl’s Symphony in E flat, which opened and closed the programme and were both already known to the reviewer, received high praise. The Eroica in the middle, however, though recognised to contain striking (‘frappant’) and beautiful passages, was alleged to contain ‘too much that is harsh and bizarre’, with almost no sense of overall unity.59 The symphony finally received its first public performance at a benefit concert for the violinist Franz Clement at the Theater an der Wien on 7 April, with Beethoven conducting, presumably using the Gebauer score. Also in the programme were a concerto by Clement and some works by Cherubini and Nasolini. Everything in the concert pleased the reviewer except Beethoven’s symphony, about which he found no reason to amend his earlier judgement.60 A longer account of the symphony in the journal Der Freymüthige of 4 August 1806 (thus still before publication of the work) is in a somewhat similar vein, and notes that although the work is regarded by Beethoven’s admirers as his masterpiece, others thought it had no artistic value or at best lacked cohesion and was too long.61 Beethoven eventually heard about the reviews in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung and, without actually reading them, wrote to its publishers Breitkopf & Härtel on 6 July 1806, asserting that such reviews brought discredit to the journal.62 Thereafter, however, negative comments about the symphony were rare, and, 57

Ibid., pp. 16–17. LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 298–9; TF, p. 375. Not 23 January as stated in Alb-95, note 1; this was the date of a repeat performance of the symphony at Prince Lobkowitz’s Viennese abode: see LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 298. 59 The full review is in TF, p. 375; translation here amended. For a modern assessment of Eberl’s symphony, see David Wyn Jones, The Symphony in Beethoven’s Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 110–15. 60 AMZ, 7 (May 1805), cols 500–2. 61 The full review is printed in TF, p. 376, and Sipe, Eroica, pp. 54–5. 62 BB-254; A-132. 58

92

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

as if to make amends, Friedrich Rochlitz, editor of the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, published a sixteen-column analysis of the symphony, perhaps authored by him, on 18 February 1807, describing it as the most lengthy and ingenious work that Beethoven had yet produced.63 Up to the time of the work’s publication the title ‘Eroica’ had never been mentioned. The only descriptive title that had been used was ‘Bonaparte’, which does not appear again after Beethoven’s letter of 26 August 1804 to Breitkopf & Härtel. The work is referred to variously as ‘Symphony in E flat’, as ‘Symphony No. 3’ or simply, as in the reviews, as ‘Beethoven’s new symphony’. Thus there must have been some surprise when the published set of parts bore the title ‘Sinfonia eroica … composta per festeggiare il sovvenire di un grand Uomo’ (‘Heroic symphony … composed to celebrate the memory of a great man’). Who was this ‘great man’, and why was the symphony described as ‘heroic’? As noted earlier, there was always an element of heroism underlying the work, from the moment when Beethoven decided to use a theme from his heroic ballet in the finale. His admiration for the heroes of ancient Greece had been developed over many years, through reading of Plutarch’s Lives and Homer, both of which he probably knew well by 1802. Since such heroes often met their death in spectacular ways, there had to be a funeral march, and more extensive and profound than the one in his Piano Sonata Op. 26, even though Napoleon was still very much alive. He initially saw Napoleon in the same mould as the ancient heroes, and as a man who was changing the political and social world irrevocably. Beethoven evidently intended to do something similar in the musical world, with a monumental instrumental composition of unprecedented scope and power. But once Napoleon’s name had been withdrawn, the lack of any evident explanation for the unprecedented scope of the work was conspicuous. Simply calling it ‘Symphony No. 3’ or even ‘Grand Symphony’ (like Nos. 1 and 2) would lead to false expectations that the work was in the same mould as previous symphonies. Such misguided expectations were probably one of the reasons for negative responses from many early listeners. Thus Beethoven’s descriptive title, clearly written long after the music itself, was designed to help listeners understand the kinds of emotions embodied in the symphony – a work to be admired as monumental and larger than life, and one that elevated the genre, and instrumental music as a whole, to new heights. The ‘great man’ did not need to be Napoleon, and the phrase was a way of making the work more universal. It could be any great man – perhaps, as is sometimes suggested, Prince Louis Ferdinand, who had died in battle on 10 October 1806, only days before publication of the symphony was announced in the Wiener Zeitung (29 October); or perhaps Beethoven himself, emulating Napoleon in the composer’s own sphere. But

63 Sipe,

Eroica, p. 57; AMZ, 9 (Feb. 1807), cols 319–34.

Elevating the Genre: The Third Symphony (Eroica), Op. 55



93

the symphony certainly could not have been ‘composed’ in memory of either the prince or Beethoven. Instead, it was composed so that the memory of any great man – any successor to the hero Prometheus – could be celebrated. Beethoven chose his words carefully. He also added a further statement to the first edition, on an inner page, stating that the symphony had been deliberately made longer than usual – thus he confirms that the enormous size had been part of the early planning of the work. This was perhaps in response to the reviewer of Clement’s concert complaining that the symphony lasted a full hour and should be shortened; the Freymüthige reviewer had similarly observed that the ‘inordinate length’ was ‘unendurable’ to many.64 Beethoven’s statement then recommends that on account of its length the symphony should be performed near the beginning rather than the end of a concert, so that the audience would not have been too fatigued by what had been heard earlier. This comment may have been in response to the concerts mentioned earlier, where the symphony was performed only after at least one other major work. The statement also draws attention to the third horn. Horn players of the time specialised either in high, first-horn parts or in low, second-horn parts. Beethoven states that the third horn is written in such a way that it can be performed by either type of player. And this is indeed the case: the third horn part generally plays notes between the first and second horns, as for example at the start of the Trio section, when the third horn always plays the middle notes of the triads. Thus in the published version Beethoven made considerable efforts to deflect possible criticism. The symphony did indeed change the musical world, perhaps as much as Napoleon had changed the political world.

64

TF, p. 376.

4

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60 Adagio – Allegro vivace Adagio Menuetto: Allegro vivace – Trio: Un poco meno allegro – Tempo I [etc.] Allegro ma non troppo

Genesis and context

B

eethoven had originally planned the Eroica Symphony as one of two that were to be offered to Breitkopf & Härtel. After completing it in autumn 1803, however, he turned to other works: first the opera Vestas Feuer, which he quickly abandoned, and then to piano sonatas, the Triple Concerto and most notably the opera Leonore or Fidelio. These occupied much of the remainder of the sketchbook Landsberg 6, which was finished around the end of March 1804; but at a stage when plans for the opera were held up or in abeyance, he inserted a few new ideas for what was intended to be his next symphony. They are in C minor and eventually emerged in the Fifth (see the next chapter). He also noted down in the sketchbook a few tentative ideas that were later absorbed into the Sixth (Pastoral), but there is no sign of the Fourth here. His next known sketchbook, Mendelssohn 15, contains no confirmed sketches for any symphony.1 It was probably begun about July 1804, for there is a significant gap in the sketch record for Leonore between the sketches for its earliest numbers (up to No. 5) in Landsberg 6 and sketches for No. 12 onwards in Mendelssohn 15.2 Although the latter contains sketches for the Triple Concerto, which had been performed on or before 11 June, as noted in the previous chapter, these sketches must postdate the original performance 1 See complete inventory of Mendelssohn 15 in Hans-Günter Klein, Ludwig van Beethoven: Autographe und Abschriften: Katalog (Berlin: Merseburger, 1975), pp. 231–77. 2 JTW, p. 149. Mendelssohn 15 also includes revisions for earlier numbers, but detailed work only from No. 12.

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60



95

and reflect a very thorough revision that the concerto received thereafter. Such a revision is confirmed by a violin part for the original version, which differs markedly from the one eventually published.3 Between Landsberg 6 and Mendelssohn 15 there may be a lost sketchbook containing Nos. 6-11 of Leonore, but Beethoven also used loose leaves, including a batch of ten that has since been split up and resides in four different locations. The batch has been dated to around April–June 1804, since it includes sketches for two Petrarch sonnets in a translation that was not published until 24 May 1804.4 Late May–July would seem more likely, however, since there are no sketches for the Triple Concerto. The batch also contains much other material, including harmonisations of folksong melodies, sketches for the Fifth Symphony, extracts from operas by Mozart and Cherubini and sketches for the duet for Marzelline and Jaquino (No. 2 in the 1805 version) in Leonore. Most significantly for present purposes, it contains what appear to be the earliest known sketches for the Fourth Symphony, which appear on folio 2v of HCB BSk 17/65a in Bonn and are the only known sketches for the symphony that may date from this period. These two sketches could therefore have been entered on the otherwise blank page two years later, shortly before the symphony was completed,5 even though nearly all the material on the surrounding pages can be dated to spring 1804. Surprisingly, both of the sketches are for the finale. If, therefore, they do date from 1804, it seems likely that at this stage Beethoven intended them as part of the first movement (which he normally composed first), and only later decided that the movement would function better as a finale. This would resemble what had happened with his First Symphony (see Chapter 1). Both sketches are of intermediate length, neither short concepts or variants nor extended drafts – which is relatively unusual. The first (see Example 4.1) corresponds to bars 64–84, a passage between the second subject and the closing theme. The sketch is typical of early sketches for a passage, in that it represents the general direction of the finished product but is conspicuously less sophisticated. The plain crotchet descent of the first two bars later gave way to a three-beat chord followed by a semiquaver descent. The following four bars, in which the natural applies to all four bars (Beethoven rarely repeated an accidental for a note of the same pitch immediately after a barline), were later converted from plain minims to weak-beat sforzando crotchets, and the following note was also moved to a weak beat, thus providing a much 3

LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 308. See Alan Tyson, ‘Das Leonore-Skizzenbuch (Mendelssohn 15): Probleme der Rekonstruktion und der Chronologie’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 9 (1973–7), 469–99, at 489–90. 5 See Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017), p. 82. 4

96

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 4.1 Sketch for Op. 60.IV (BNba, HCB BSk 17/65a, f. 2v, staves 1–2).

livelier and more irregular rhythm overall. The following semiquaver figures match the final version, except that in the third bar (bar 10 of the sketch) the first two notes are G F, not A G, in the final version (bar 73). Curiously, however, in the recapitulation (bar 251) the passage matches the sketch, not the autograph version of bar 73, in all sources. Some editors have therefore substituted the version matching the exposition, with the written version deemed ‘too improbable’ and presumably a ‘hasty error’ by Beethoven.6 It could be that the sketch and the recapitulation are actually correct, and that bar 73 was the ‘hasty error’. Alternatively, Beethoven may have revised the original idea when writing bar 73, but forgotten to include the revision in the recapitulation; or deliberately made the two passages different; or not worried whether they matched exactly, so that the difference functions as a ‘random minor variant’ such as occurs in most of his works. Whatever the explanation, the version in bar 251 is not simply a straightforward error. The next part of the sketch shows that bars 74–7, a reprise of the diminished-seventh chords of bars 66–9, were a late interpolation. The last five bars of the sketch were eventually judged by Beethoven to be too repetitive, and so the final version is once again more sophisticated, while still largely alternating tonic and dominant harmony in a two-bar pattern. The mark at the end of the sketch is hard to decipher, and may represent ‘usw’ (= und so weiter or et cetera), which sometimes appears in other Beethoven sketches, or ‘NB’ as a cross-reference to another sketch. The second sketch (Example 4.2) shows an attempt at the final bars, as is clear from the last few chords, and corresponds roughly to bars 345–55. Once again the sketch is noticeably less sophisticated than the final version, but moves in the same direction. Beethoven had evidently worked out the main theme elsewhere, but here the second bar, consisting of simple scales, is less imaginative than the final version. The idea of restating the main theme just before the final chords, implicit in the sketch, was destined to survive, but in the final version it is slowed to half speed, with pauses, before picking up again just before the final chords. In the sketch the upper notes of these 6 See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 4 in B-flat major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1999), p. 58.

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60



97

Example 4.2 Sketch for Op. 60.IV (BNba, HCB BSk 17/65a, f. 2v, stave 5).

chords are to be read in the treble clef and the lower notes in the bass – it was not uncommon for Beethoven to imagine two different clefs on a single stave as here. It is noteworthy that both sketches, though slightly unsophisticated, are fairly close to the final version, and that they do not represent the start of the symphony or even the start of the movement but two much later passages. If Beethoven was following his normal pattern, therefore, he would have already made quite a few sketches for the earlier parts of the movement; and the second sketch shows that the main theme had been established in almost its final form. Moreover, if the movement had been intended all along as the finale, the previous three movements would have been sketched in detail, too, before he reached this stage in the finale. The time-span of the gap in the sketchbook record in spring 1804, however, seems too short to accommodate three symphonic movements in addition to much of the Triple Concerto and the first four vocal numbers of Act II of Leonore, plus early sketches for the symphony’s finale. Thus it seems highly probable that, if these sketches date from 1804, this movement was the first to be sketched and was initially intended as an opening movement. It is more likely, therefore, that they date from 1806 and were inserted on older paper. Surprisingly, almost no further sketches are known for any part of the symphony. It must be assumed that such sketches were made fairly quickly in a short space of time, and at a later date. Had they been made intermittently until late 1806, when the symphony was completed, the probability is that several would have survived, including some in Mendelssohn 15, even if most had disappeared. Since Beethoven was busy with Leonore and the ‘Appassionata’ Sonata during the latter part of 1804 and most of 1805, and then with the Fourth Piano Concerto, revisions to his opera, and the ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets in 1805–6, it seems probable that he had made little if any progress on the Fourth Symphony by the time he set out with Prince Lichnowsky to the prince’s castle at Grätz (Hradec) in Silesia in summer 1806. On 5 July he wrote to Breitkopf & Härtel, while still in Vienna, offering several new works, including some string quartets (the ‘Razumovskys’), the first of which was allegedly complete; but there is no mention of a new symphony.7 On 3 September, however, he wrote to them from Grätz, mentioning the same 7

BB-254; A-132.

98

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

works but also ‘a new symphony’, which could be sent ‘immediately’, once the publishers had responded to his proposals about joint publication of his works with publishers in other countries.8 Thus, allowing for his customary exaggeration about his progress on new works, and the time it would take for a response, he must have made very considerable progress on the symphony during July–August but was still some way from completing it. Shortly before or after the date of this letter, Beethoven and Lichnowsky visited Count Franz von Oppersdorff (1778–1818) at his castle near Oberglogau (Głogówek), some thirty miles away, and heard the count’s orchestra perform Beethoven’s Second Symphony, according to a later report by one Herr Albrecht, who was born in Oberglogau and whose father had taken part in the performance.9 It was probably during this visit that Beethoven agreed to write the Fourth Symphony specifically for Oppersdorff and dedicate it to him, for a receipt dated 3 February 1807 indicates that Beethoven had received 500 florins from him ‘for a symphony which I have written for him’.10 By the time Beethoven returned to Vienna from Grätz, some time during October, most of the symphony was probably complete, for the autograph score is dated 1806 and he apparently spent much of December composing his Violin Concerto. It is possible that, during his return journey to Vienna, the main batch of sketches for the symphony became so badly damaged by water from a storm that they were discarded, for some of his other manuscripts from that period show water damage (notably the autograph of the ‘Appassionata’ Sonata). Alternatively, they could have been left behind when Beethoven made a hasty and unscheduled departure.11 One sketch for the symphony, however, does survive from this period, and it is an interesting and little-known one, found on a single leaf (now Landsberg 12, page 58). Alan Tyson notes that it is a sketch for ‘the end of the development section’ of the first movement of the Fourth Symphony, and that the paper type is the same as in the first six folios of the autograph of the Violin Concerto and many of the sketches for the ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets, works

8

BB-256; A-134. TDR, vol. 3, pp. 10–11. For a summary of Oppersdorff’s connections with Beethoven, see Peter Clive, Beethoven and his World: A Biographical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Clive’s conclusion that Oppersdorff was about to receive the Fourth rather than the Fifth Symphony in November 1808, however, seems unconvincing, as will be seen. 10 TDR, vol. 3, p. 12; TF, p. 432. This cannot have been advance payment for the Fifth Symphony, as is sometimes suggested, since there is a separate receipt from March 1808 (see TF, p. 433) that must refer to this symphony. 11 See TF, p. 403, for an account of Beethoven’s sudden departure from Grätz. 9



The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60

99

which date from the second half of 1806.12 The leaf therefore presumably dates from the same period. The sketch consists of a single-line draft of some sixty bars, and the ‘=de’ at the beginning indicates that it is the last part of an even longer draft, the beginning of which is missing and would have ended with ‘Vi=’. It starts with the end of the retransition, and despite Tyson’s description it continues into the recapitulation of the first subject and preparation for the second. An ‘etc’ at the end implies that the second subject or the material immediately preceding it would appear at this point and match what was already sketched for the exposition, thus not needing to be repeated here. The sketch shows several significant differences from the final version. It begins on an ambiguous B♭ (see Example 4.3), followed by a quaver motif13 that was dropped from the final version at this point but was derived from the exposition (bars 66–8 of the final version). The ambiguous B♭ is revealed by the final version to be part of a G flat or F sharp chord (cf. bars 281–304). The chord is implicitly sustained in the sketch when the melodic line moves to C♯, which becomes notated as a D♭ in the final version; but both sketch and final version then move surprisingly to a D♮, resolving an augmented-sixth chord on G♭ to a second inversion of the tonic chord (6-4 chord). In the sketch the implied 6-4 chord eventually resolves to the expected dominant seventh (Example 4.4), leading to the start of the recapitulation, which approximately Example 4.3 Sketch for Op. 60.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 58, staves 5–6, amended).

Example 4.4 Sketch for Op. 60.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 58, staves 7–8).

12 Alan Tyson, ‘The Problem of Beethoven’s “First” Leonore Overture’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 28 (1975), 292–334, at 311. The sketch is incorrectly described as part of a draft score in LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 335. 13 Beethoven erroneously notated the first appearance of the quavers as semiquavers in the sketch; he also wrote a minim instead of a semibreve in bar 5.

100

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

matches the start of the exposition of the final version. In the final version of the recapitulation, however, this dominant seventh has been elided, replaced by an immediate tonic chord in root position (bars 333–6). Thus the first part of this extraordinary passage, where the music moves from B major to B flat major, was already present in the sketch, at least by implication; but the omission of the normal dominant chord before the dramatic return of the main theme was a late idea. Whereas in the Eroica Symphony a tonic triad was superimposed on dominant harmony just before the recapitulation, here the tonic chord replaces dominant harmony altogether, although this was not Beethoven’s initial plan. At the start of the recapitulation, the most notable feature in the sketch is that the main theme is stated complete, as in the exposition, and is immediately repeated in a shortened version, whereas in the final version it is truncated after only four bars, after which a full but soft version is heard, led by the oboe. After this the sketch proceeds in the same general direction as the final version, up to the equivalent of bar 369, where it ends, although the details are different. Whether it was to be followed by the syncopated material of bars 369–76, or whether that was a later idea, is uncertain. On the other side of the leaf (Landsberg 12, page 57) is an extended sketch in B flat in 3/4 metre. This may, as Tyson suggests, have been intended as a possible scherzo for the symphony,14 but it bears no melodic resemblance to the actual third movement. Beethoven must have made many more sketches for all four movements before proceeding to the autograph score. The autograph score The autograph score of the Fourth Symphony, which is preserved in Berlin (Bsb, Mendelssohn 12), is worth describing briefly as regards its layout, since it is the first to survive for a Beethoven symphony.15 It is written on twelvestave paper, with violins and viola occupying the top three staves as in other Beethoven scores of this period (he later adopted the modern layout with all the strings at bottom). They are followed by four staves for woodwind, three for horns, trumpets and timpani, and the bottom two allocated to cellos and double basses. Where these lower strings have the same notes, Beethoven usually left the cello stave empty. Three barlines were drawn first, on each page of the score, heavy and straight, though not always quite vertical and sometimes extending beyond the lowest stave. They can be found even on otherwise 14

Tyson, ‘Leonore Overture’, p. 311. For a fuller description, see Bathia Churgin, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien II, ed. Bathia Churgin, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/2 (Munich: Henle, 2013), pp. 193–253, at 228–31; see also Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, p. 15. 15



The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60

101

blank pages such as page 12, and are typical of Beethoven’s orchestral scores of this period; they may have been prepared by an assistant before the writing out began. Beethoven sometimes added extra barlines – making anything from four to eight bars on a page. These are drawn freehand and generally thinner. Unusually, in this score the wind and timpani are provided with tutti and solo markings, added in darker ink, indicating where these instruments were or were not to be doubled in a performance with an uncommonly large orchestra that was equipped with double woodwind, brass and even timpani. These markings did not appear in the published edition and were evidently entered only at a later date. The score contains a few additions and corrections in Beethoven’s customary red crayon or Rӧtel, mainly of missing slurs, staccatos or accidentals (some just cautionary). These were made at a very late stage, when he was checking for errors rather than thinking of revisions. There are also many small alterations made earlier in the original ink, as he meticulously worked out the best orchestration and figuration for every bar. In general, however, the alterations are relatively few by Beethoven’s standards: many pages have only slight changes or even none at all, and there is far less evidence of revision than in the autograph of the Mass in C, for example, composed only a year later. There may therefore have been a lost composing score in which most of the overall shape was worked out, with this present autograph functioning as a fair copy. Evidence for just such a composing score appears in Landsberg 12, pages 53–6, which contain bars 85–95 and 112–22 of the first movement, covering the transition and the material immediately after the second subject, though the second subject itself is missing. At first sight these look like pages rejected from the autograph score itself, but there are subtle differences that indicate they must represent preliminary work in the form of a draft score. The barlines are all drawn freehand instead of three being pre-ruled on each page, and the bars are more closely spaced than in the autograph score. Moreover, the bar numbers of these preliminary pages do not correspond to those in the autograph, thereby indicating that they were never part of it. Pages 53 and 54 contain bars 85–90 and 91–5 respectively, whereas the corresponding section of the autograph score (pages 23–6) contains bars 83–6, 87–9, 90–2 and 93–5. Similarly, pages 55 and 56 contain bars 112–16 and 117–22, while the autograph score shows bars 111–26 spread across three pages. There must also have been an intervening leaf, or probably two, in the composing score, showing bars 96–111 or an early version of them, with some deleted bars occupying any remaining space. Although the four pages of this composing score were drawn up as a twelvestave full score, only the first violin part was entered, on the top stave (the empty staves were later used for sketches for the Pastoral Symphony). On the first page the only significant difference from the final version is note 3 of bar 89, which the draft score shows as F, making a fairly regular sequence

102

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 4.5 Op. 60.I, bars 88–90, draft score (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 53).

with bars 88 and 90 (see Example 4.5). In the autograph score this note has cunningly been replaced by a less obvious E♮, a note that is actually quite important, for not only does it prevent a rather weak bare fifth at that point but it is the first sign of the impending modulation to the dominant for the second subject. Making a passage more unusual and less orthodox at a late stage was common in Beethoven’s compositional procedures, as already noted. The notes on the following page match the final version, but were crossed out before being restored by the word ‘gut’ (‘good’), which he often used for restoring deleted material. Beethoven’s main concern on the last two pages, containing bars 112–22, was about the register of the melodic line. In bars 112–16 this was initially placed on the violin stave (stave 1) but was then deleted and rewritten on the flute stave (stave 4), an octave higher, as in the final version (apart from two small differences: equal minims in bar 114 and no grace note in bar 116). Bars 117–22 matched the final version initially, but the melodic line was then deleted and written an octave lower, before being restored to its original pitch through a wavy line placed above (another device Beethoven commonly used for restoring a deletion). The upper octave was then confirmed by a pencilled ‘8va’ on stave 2. It must be assumed that the whole of the first movement and perhaps of all four movements were written out in this draft format and contained similar changes of texture or small adjustments of melodic line on most of the other pages. Once the autograph score had been written out, however, the draft score could be safely discarded, and it is surely pure good fortune that a small portion of it has happened to survive. Other examples of similar composing scores for orchestral music are also extremely rare. The autograph score itself is mostly free from substantial changes, but there are a few, where additional leaves needed inserting. The way the introductory Adagio merges into the main Allegro, with the final rising motif in the introduction continuing at a faster pace at the start of the Allegro before the main theme appears, is particularly original, and is one of several places in the first movement where the sectional joins are obscured. It is here that the first major change in the autograph score can be found. The first two bars of the Allegro, bars 39-40, initially appeared in the autograph as a single bar at the end of the Adagio, but Beethoven then inserted an extra page (page 11, with a blank verso) containing the final version. Since the crotchet speed

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60



103

between Adagio and Allegro more than quadruples, according to Beethoven’s later metronome marks, he more than doubled the speed of this material when moving it from a single bar of Adagio to two bars of Allegro. Another change of speed, this time in the opposite direction, occurs at bars 61–4, where string and wind chords originally alternated on every crotchet beat instead of being separated by crotchet rests, as shown on another inserted page. It is possible, however, that Beethoven intended the final version all along, but temporarily lost track of the intended speed and used incorrect notation – an error sometimes found among his sketches (cf. Example 4.3 above and the accompanying note). That this was indeed his intention is suggested by the horn, trumpet and timpani parts, which were already correctly notated in the initial version. A particularly interesting revision occurs early in the recapitulation at bars 341–4, where the first bassoon was initially given a theme, or rather a countermelody, that otherwise appears only during the development section (bars 221–32). There is, however, a hint of this theme in the above-mentioned recapitulation sketch on page 58 of Landsberg 12.16 Thus the theme may at some stage have been included in the exposition too, before being removed from there and from the recapitulation, leaving the development section with apparently new material. Two other substantial alterations in the first movement consisted of short deletions: four fairly insignificant bars in the retransition were deleted after bar 276, and two more after bar 312, as Beethoven worked hard to obtain exactly the right proportions for this section, which had already appeared in an earlier version in the sketch described above. It probably gave him more trouble than almost any other part of the movement, for in other works linking passages such as this were often sketched more extensively than thematic ones.17 In the second movement there are no major changes in the autograph, but several minor ones. One of the most notable is at the second subject (bar 26), where the clarinet melody was at first provided with accompaniment not just by strings but also by the other woodwind instruments. They have been deleted in bars 26–8 but were never entered in bar 29; thus Beethoven evidently changed his mind by the time he reached this bar. Bars 96–7, containing the final appearance of the main theme in the coda, were originally scored for strings, but this was cancelled by a large X and the word ‘aus’ (‘out’), with the theme rescored for woodwind, accompanied by pizzicato strings, giving a beautifully expressive sonority. The replacement bars were written in the adjacent space, thus indicating that the change was made immediately, before bar 98 was written out.

16

See Churgin, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 238. See Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 261–2. 17

104

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The third movement is essentially a typical scherzo, with disruptive rhythms and very fast tempo; but in the autograph it is headed simply ‘3tes Stück’, while in later sources it is headed ‘Menuetto’, like the scherzo in the First Symphony. The tempo mark was initially ‘Presto’, but has been altered several times and appears finally to have been intended to read ‘Allegro vivace’ (‘Allegro’ abbreviated as usual to ‘Allo=’), though this has also been read as ‘Allegro molto e vivace’.18 As in several other works composed before the invention of the metronome, Beethoven struggled to find the exact words to describe the speed he wanted. Later sources including the first edition confirm ‘Allegro vivace’ as apparently his final intention, along with the word ‘Menuetto’. If he had not wanted this title and tempo mark, it is highly unlikely that he would repeatedly have left them uncorrected when checking these sources, since he often changed such headings at this stage. One must therefore consider both authorised. The form of the movement is based on the traditional minuet and trio, but with some irregularities. The Menuetto is in the customary form of exposition (repeated), followed by a middle section and recapitulation repeated en bloc, but the Trio is without repeats, although there are written-out varied repeats of some of the material. A four-bar link (bars 175–8) leads to a reprise of the Menuetto and Trio, but without repeats in the Menuetto. A varied version of the four-bar link (bars 353–6) leads to a second reprise of just the recapitulation section from the Menuetto, followed by a very short coda. The form can therefore be summarised schematically as in Table 4.1 (a). The autograph score, however, even in its latest stage, shows something different. The Menuetto and Trio are the same, but after the four-bar link there is a da capo sign (‘D:C:M:’), added by the copyist (Joseph Klumpar), returning the music to bar 1. This would mean that the repeats of the Menuetto were to be included again second time around, followed by the Trio and four-bar link. Immediately after the four-bar link, the first-violin part of the recapitulation in the Menuetto is written out in full in rough (no dynamics) and the lower parts marked ‘come sopra’, indicating that the recapitulation was to be the same as before. The coda is written out in full, starting at the second beat of bar 394, resulting in an overall form that is summarised in Table 4.1 (b). Table 4.1 Form of third movement of Fourth Symphony. a: final version b: autograph

18

A :||: B Aʹ :|| Trio | link | A B Aʹ | Trio | linkʹ | Aʹ | coda A :||: B Aʹ :|| Trio | link ‘D:C:M:’ | Aʹ | coda

Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, p. 46; Klein, Katalog, p. 230. Del Mar’s arguments that ‘Allegro molto e vivace’ was Beethoven’s final intention for the movement are unpersuasive.

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60



105

What is missing in the autograph score, therefore, is any indication that the Menuetto repeats should be ignored at the second hearing; and the varied version of the four-bar link (bars 353–6) is completely absent. Yet the first version of the link does not join on well to the recapitulation of the Menuetto as it appears in the autograph. There was probably an earlier version with a better join, and Beethoven must have written out bars 353–6 (the varied link) on a separate leaf now lost, as well as giving verbal instructions to Klumpar about the repeat signs.19 Since the overall form has no known precedent, it is not surprising that he was still modifying it at a late stage, when he had a clearer overview of the entire movement. There is a further complication. The ten bars 67–76, early in the recapitulation in the Menuetto, were originally written on pages 163–4 of the score as only four bars, which might be called bars 67*–70*. This passage and the preceding three bars were at this stage scored just for strings. Example 4.6 shows how the string parts in bars 66–77 appeared in this early, shorter version (in bar 69* the first note for violin 1 was altered from a quaver a1 plus quaver rest, and for violin 2 from a quaver f1 plus quaver rest, when Beethoven added the lower two parts). This version was still in place when Beethoven came to write out the reprise of the recapitulation of the Menuetto after the four-bar link, though of course only the first-violin part was written down. Having reached the end of the movement in the autograph, and with a chance to see everything in place, he decided this section needed altering and expanding. It may have been partly due to his sense of proportion, with a desire for a slightly longer recapitulation than he had; or he may have felt that Example 4.6 Op. 60.III, bars 66–77: shorter, early version (bars 66, 67*–70*, 77) in autograph score (Bsb, Mendelssohn 12, pp. 163–4).

19

Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, p. 46.

106

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 4.7 Op. 60.III, bars 67–74, intermediate version, violin 1 (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 47, before alterations).

an arpeggio motif that had first appeared in bars 4–8 had been underdeveloped and would benefit from additional exploration. Whatever the reason, he deleted bars 67*–68* and wrote out an eight-bar replacement, with a rising and falling arpeggio passage scored for first violins and violas in octaves (the violin part as in Example 4.7); the remaining staves were left blank apart from one bar for second violins. The passage was written on a loose leaf (now Landsberg 12, p. 47) that was intended to become part of the autograph score. After making a minor change to the melodic line in bars 69–70 and 73–4, however, Beethoven then decided to give this passage to the woodwind instead, with the strings providing a sustained accompaniment. The first-violin and viola parts were rescored for clarinet and bassoon respectively, with the flute added an octave higher. This version was then written out on a separate bifolio and inserted into the autograph score (now pages 159–62, of which pages 160–2 are blank apart from the customary three barlines). Woodwind parts were also added to the three preceding bars (64–6), which had previously been just for strings. Finally bars 69*–70* (on page 164 of the autograph score) were thoroughly revised to create bars 75–6. Thus the loose leaf in Landsberg 12 containing the intermediate version was never part of the autograph score, although it was at one time intended to be incorporated into it. The passage on it does not quite join on to any version of bar 75, and the verso of the leaf, which was left blank apart from the three pre-ruled bars, was later used for sketches for other works. It is only by studying this loose leaf in conjunction with the autograph score that one can see the full course of events. In the finale, in addition to minor changes of scoring, most of which seem to have been made while Beethoven was writing out particular bars, there are a few revisions that are more substantial, involving bars added or deleted. The most significant of these concerns the second subject, which was initially to be heard only once, on oboe, answered by flute, with bar 43 followed immediately by bar 52 (page 196 of the score). Beethoven then inserted a restatement of the theme in the cellos and basses, answered by violins (bars 44–51), written on a separate sheet (now page 197). This change was evidently made before he had reached the recapitulation in the autograph, however, for the later version appears there with no sign of a corresponding revision. Enabling the theme to be heard twice in succession, but with different orchestration, helps to draw attention to its importance, without it becoming too repetitive.

The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60



107

A slight reduction in length was made early in the development section, where bar 112 was originally repeated twice, matching repetitions at bars 104–6 and 108–10; Beethoven soon decided that having the same effect three times was unsatisfactory (as is so often the case), and so he deleted the repetitions of bar 112. Further on in the development section bars 145–9 are also a late revision on an inserted leaf (page 215), but the earlier version is lost. In the recapitulation, the transition has been heavily altered at bars 207–10, shortly before the second subject. Beethoven evidently found the progression from an E flat broken chord (bars 205–6) straight to a diminished chord based on A (bars 209–10) too abrupt, and added bars 207–8, containing a C minor broken chord, on another extra leaf (page 227). This required also adjustment of the layout of the broken chord in bars 209–10, which was achieved by deletions and insertions within these bars. Thus, even after all the sketching that Beethoven must have made for this symphony, the autograph score in its original state was still some way short of the finished version. Apart from many details of figuration or texture that were amended as he wrote out each passage, every movement except the second contains added and/or deleted bars that affect its total length. The third movement in particular, with its innovative deviation from a standard minuet-and-trio form, was subjected to late revisions that altered both its internal proportions and its overall shape. As for the miscellany Landsberg 12, which includes sketches and other material from various dates, the pages relating to the Fourth Symphony tend to be described loosely as rejected material for the autograph;20 but there are actually three different types, none of which is simply a discarded page of the autograph score. Page 58 contains an extended sketch for the first movement; pages 53–6 contain two short sections of a preliminary composing score; and page 47 was intended to be incorporated into the autograph score but never made it after being supplanted by a different insertion. It is surprising that all three fragments ended up in the same sketch miscellany. Performance and publication It is not known precisely when in 1806 Beethoven completed the autograph score of the Fourth Symphony, and his normal habit was to continue making small revisions even after he had reached the final double bar. A clue is provided, however, in his letter to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 18 November 1806, in which he offers them the ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets and the Fourth Piano Concerto but adds: ‘The promised symphony I cannot yet give you, as a 20

See LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 335; Alain Frogley, ‘Beethoven’s Struggle for Simplicity in the Sketches for the Third Movement of the “Pastoral” Symphony’, Beethoven Forum, 4 (1995), 99–134, at 104.

108

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

distinguished gentleman has taken it from me.’21 The ‘distinguished gentleman’ must have been Count Oppersdorff, for whom the symphony was written and who was shortly to pay Beethoven 500 florins for a copy, as noted above, rather than Prince Lobkowitz, as has been suggested elsewhere.22 The implication, therefore, is that Oppersdorff had by that time received a copy, which would have been perfectly possible for a symphony written in August to October and copied in early November. It is possible, however, that Oppersdorff had merely reserved a copy at that stage, and received it slightly later, though certainly by the time of the payment on the following 3 February. Beethoven then adds that the sponsor had the customary six months of exclusive use, after which the symphony could be published, and observes that engraving could begin even sooner, as he could send a copy in advance of the earliest permitted publication date. Oppersdorff’s copy has not survived, however, and Breitkopf & Härtel declined Beethoven’s request to publish the three works.23 During the period when Oppersdorff had exclusive use of the symphony, it may have been tried out in private more than once, but the only known performance took place in March 1807 at Prince Lobkowitz’s palace, where the Eroica had earlier received its first trial runs. A report dated 27 February in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung indicated that, along with Beethoven’s first three symphonies, a ‘fourth, hitherto completely unknown symphony by him’ would shortly be performed before a ‘very select company, which has subscribed very considerable contributions for the benefit of the author’.24 Thus Beethoven had clearly acquired a circle of enthusiastic admirers among the rich residents of Vienna. Oppersdorff, having bought the symphony, must have been involved in setting up the performance, but there is no documentation confirming this or whether he was present. In preparation for the performance, a set of instrumental parts was copied. Yet curiously, the set of parts that survives in the Lobkowitz archives today is not the original set but was copied from it, while the original set is lost.25 The surviving parts contain Beethoven’s annotations, as does a copyist’s score, which was prepared by Klumpar and an unidentified copyist slightly later; it was evidently also based on the original set of parts rather than on the autograph score.26 A third set of parts was retained by Beethoven, and Jonathan Del Mar states that it was 21

BB-260; A-137. BB-260, note 9. 23 BB-261. 24 AMZ, 9 (Mar. 1807), col. 400. 25 Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, pp. 15–16. The Lobkowitz parts are in Nelahozeves Castle, shelf mark X.G.c.18 (see ibid.). 26 Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, pp. 16–18; the second copyist was not Ferdinand Piringer as stated there: see LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 336. The score is in Wgm, A 26a. 22



The Oppersdorff Connection: The Fourth Symphony, Op. 60

109

copied ‘at roughly the same time’ as the Lobkowitz set.27 The watermark, however, suggests that a date of 1809–10 is more likely.28 It is unclear why a new set of parts would have been needed then, with publication complete or imminent, but these parts continued to be used for many years and they include some markings by Beethoven, including some of the solo and tutti indications found in the autograph score. Which of the three sets of parts was used for the first performance in 1807 has been disputed, but it was probably the set now in the Lobkowitz archives. The first public performances took place in Vienna later that year, on 15 November and 27 December.29 Since Beethoven conducted them and the work had not yet been printed, the set of parts used on these occasions could have been the one that Beethoven retained for himself, in which case the watermark evidence is misleading. Meanwhile Muzio Clementi, the London-based pianist, composer and publisher, had arrived in Vienna that spring (1807), and quickly began negotiating with Beethoven for the purchase of his latest works, for publication in England. In a contract dated 20 April 1807 Beethoven agreed to sell six works to Clementi for £200 sterling, while retaining the right to sell them to a continental publisher for an additional fee. Two days later a courier set off with three of these six works, including the Fourth Symphony, on a hazardous journey to London via Russia, but it appears that the manuscripts never reached their destination, for there is no sign of them thereafter.30 Which source the courier took is uncertain, but it was probably the lost set of parts from which other sources were copied, as suggested by Del Mar.31 If so, it means that both the Lobkowitz parts and the copyist’s score must have been copied by March or early April 1807. The existence of two sets of parts, both prepared before the copyist’s score that was to be used for printing, strongly suggests there were several early, undocumented performances or trial runs of the work in various places. Oppersdorff surely heard some of these performances, for he was sufficiently enthralled by the music that he commissioned another symphony from Beethoven in June that year (see next chapter), soon after the expiry of his six-month privilege for the Fourth. The source he received in exchange for the 500 florins was probably a lost score rather than a set of parts. 27 Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, p. 15; the set is in WgM, XIII 6148. 28 Bathia Churgin, ‘The New Editions of Beethoven’s Symphonies 3 (Eroica) and 4’, Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 13 (2015–16), 85–92, at 86. 29 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 335. 30 See Barry Cooper, ‘The Clementi–Beethoven Contract of 1807: A Reinvestigation’, in Muzio Clementi: Studies and Prospects, ed. Roberto Illiano, Luca Sala and Massimiliano Sala (Bologna: Ut Orpheus, 2002), pp. 337–53. The contract is in Bsb, Autograph 35,8. 31 Del Mar, Symphony No. 4: Critical Commentary, p. 18.

110

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Having disposed of the British publication rights for the six works, Beethoven was eager to sell them also to a French publisher and a Viennese one for simultaneous publication, so that the publishers could have them at a reduced rate and he could obtain three fees. Accordingly he contacted the publishers Pleyel in Paris and Simrock in Bonn (which was then under French occupation) in letters dated 26 April 1807, offering each of them the six works for 1,200 florins.32 Neither publisher agreed to this, however, and Simrock’s offer of a lower fee, most of it not payable for two years and with other conditions attached, did not gain Beethoven’s approval. For a Viennese publisher Beethoven turned once again to the Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoir, who had published his previous two symphonies. The fee agreed was 1,500 florins for the six works;33 but since one of them, the piano arrangement of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto, had only been commissioned by Clementi during his visit, the agreement cannot have been completed until then and was probably made around the same time as the offers to Pleyel and Simrock. The symphony score already prepared by Klumpar and another copyist was finally delivered to the Comptoir in July, to be used as the printer’s copy.34 Judging by the plate number of the printed edition, 596, the symphony was the last of the six works to be engraved, for the others have numbers from 580 to 592; and there is no confirmation that it was published until 1809, whereas most of the others had appeared by August 1808.35 The reasons for such a long delay are unclear, but by the time it was first announced in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in April 1809 Beethoven had composed and performed two more symphonies, the Fifth and Sixth, which have overshadowed it ever since.

32

BB-277 and 278. BB-287; A-148. 34 BB-288; A-146. 35 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 334. 33

5

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67 Allegro con brio Andante con moto Allegro – Allegro

C minor

B

eethoven had a particular fascination for the key of C minor, which he used far more often than any other minor key.1 It was the key of his first published composition (the Dressler Variations, WoO 63, of 1782), the key of his final piano sonata (Op. 111 of 1822), and a key that reappears right up to his very last page of sketches in 1827 (Bsb, Autograph 10/2, f. 6r). It was also the key of his earliest known sketch for a symphony (Hess 298; see Chapter 1), written around 1788. Although this sketch was abandoned, the key must have remained at the back of his mind for a possible symphony, finally re-emerging in spring 1804, when he made his earliest sketches for the Fifth Symphony. At this date his Eroica Symphony, with its colossal funeral march in C minor as second movement, was still unperformed, although Ries had heard a version on the piano (see Chapter 3). When Beethoven embarked on his new C minor symphony he seems to have planned another symphony that would similarly shock the musical world and push the boundaries of symphonic writing to new limits, for the famous opening motif, utterly unconventional for the start of a symphony, was present from the outset (see below). Schindler’s claim that the motif represents Fate knocking at the door, however, is surely fictional,

1

For Beethoven’s fascination with and use of C minor, see, for example, Michael Tusa, ‘Beethoven’s “C-minor Mood”: Some Thoughts on the Structural Implications of Key Choice’, Beethoven Forum, 2 (1993), 1–29; Joseph Kerman, ‘Beethoven’s Minority’, in Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven: Studies in the Music of the Classical Period – Essays in Honour of Alan Tyson, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 151–73; and Paul Ellison, The Key to Beethoven (Hillsdale: Pendragon Press, 2014), pp. 56–63.

112

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

like so many of his similar anecdotes.2 Czerny’s claim that Beethoven derived the motif from the call of the yellowhammer,3 which consists of a series of repeated notes (not necessarily three) followed by a longer one of different pitch, is only slightly more plausible. Many of Beethoven’s works in C minor conclude in C major, including the Dressler Variations and the Sonata Op. 111 mentioned above, as well as his Third Piano Concerto and some quite minor works such as his folksong setting ‘The Miller of Dee’, where the change has poetic implications,4 as it does also in his Choral Fantasia. Even where a C minor work does not end in C major, the latter key usually appears at some point, as in the second movement of the Eroica Symphony. Moreover, during a period from late 1806 to late 1807, when the Fifth Symphony was well under way but not completed, almost all his compositions were written in C major or C minor, including the third ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet, the Piano Variations WoO 80, the Coriolan Overture, the Mass in C and Leonore Overture No. 1, as well as many sketches for the Fifth Symphony. Thus when he began work on the Fifth in 1804, he was doubtless aware that the major mode would play a prominent role, though its precise function had yet to be established. Early sketches The earliest known sketches for the symphony appear in two groups. One group is found in Landsberg 6, pages 155–8, while the other appears on folios 32–3 of Autograph 19e, which come from what was once a batch of ten leaves that also contained sketches for the Fourth Symphony (see previous chapter). This batch has been dated to the period April to June 1804, whereas Landsberg 6 was apparently finished by April that year.5 Since the sketches in Landsberg 6 appear well before the last page (182), one might assume that they were made before the other batch, perhaps in March, but internal evidence shows that the reverse must be true (see below). All the sketches in Landsberg 6 appear on the lower portions of the relevant pages, beneath other material 2

Anton Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, trans. Constance Jolly, ed. Donald W. MacArdle (London: Faber & Faber, 1966), p. 146. 3 KC, vol. 1, pp. 216 and 226. 4 See Barry Cooper, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings: Chronology, Sources, Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 83. 5 For the end date of Landsberg 6, see JTW, p. 140; for the evidence for the date of the batch of ten leaves, see Alan Tyson, ‘Das Leonore-Skizzenbuch (Mendelssohn 15): Probleme der Rekonstruktion und der Chronologie’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 9 (1977), 469–99, at 489. The sketches in Landsberg 6 are transcribed in Lewis Lockwood and Alan Gosman, eds, Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, 2 vols (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013), vol. 1, pp. 155–8.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



113

Example 5.1 Sketch evidently intended for a Fantasia in C minor (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32r).

(mainly sketches for Leonore), and could easily have been added some time after Beethoven reached the end of the book, as appears to have happened. The earliest known appearance of a motif clearly related to the opening of the Fifth Symphony appears in Autograph 19e, folio 32r (see Example 5.1). This sketch contains fourteen bars (plus a marked repeat), of which Gustav Nottebohm quoted the first ten.6 Although the opening four bars match the melodic contours of the start of the symphony (apart from the key), it is their rhythm that is developed intensively in close imitation in the subsequent bars. Surprisingly, however, the sketch is not for the symphony but for an unfinished ‘Fantasia’ for piano in C minor that begins immediately above it.7 This piece begins with a section in 3/8 ending on a dominant seventh of E flat major, with the immediate continuation not indicated. Instead, Beethoven proceeded with the next section of the fantasia; and as one would expect such a piece to change metre from time to time, he included a 2/4 time signature to highlight the change. But he also repeated the three-flat key signature to emphasise that the motif, though starting in G minor, is still within the C minor context, and it soon works its way back to the tonic. Thus, remarkably, the earliest appearance of the famous four-note (or eight-note) motif was evidently intended not for the symphony at all, nor for the start of a work, but for the second part of a piano fantasia quickly abandoned. The intensive motivic development found in this sketch is more characteristic of a symphony than of a fantasia, and Beethoven may therefore have 6

N-I, pp. 10–11. See Barry Cooper, ‘The Origins of the Opening Motif in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony’, Ad Parnassum, 37 (Oct. 2021 [2022]), 1–19. 7

114

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 5.2 Earliest (?) sketch for Op. 67.I (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32v).

begun thinking of a symphony as a better location for the material. At any rate, he evidently left his fantasia sketches at this point and perhaps moved to the piano for further improvisations and experiments, before deciding that the motif he had conjured up was strong enough to function as the start of a C minor symphony. Returning to his sketches and turning over to the next page (folio 32v), he wrote out an extended draft that outlines the first movement of the new symphony. The smaller, finer script and different nib suggest that this was some time later than the previous sketches. Although the familiar opening motif is already present, the rest is strikingly different from the final version, despite developing the motif intensively in the following bars, and the whole layout is thoroughly typical of an initial sketch for the very beginning of a new work (Example 5.2).8 Such sketches often start at the top of a page and on two staves, complete with clefs, to include the harmony. They are also likely to include title, tempo mark, key signature and time signature.9 All seven features are found in his early symphony sketch of c. 1788 (Hess 298), and all appear again in the present sketch except the time signature – unnecessary because it had appeared on the previous page and was anyway obvious from the notation. The combination of features provides overwhelming evidence that this was indeed the initial concept for the symphony, and must therefore precede the sketches for the symphony inserted in Landsberg 6. The heading ‘Sinfonia All[egr]o 1mo.’ confirms that the theme sketched on the previous page as part of a piano fantasia has now become the beginning of the first movement of a new symphony, though the actual tempo mark is shown separately as ‘presto’, 8

All the sketches for the Fifth Symphony in Autograph 19e are transcribed in William Meredith, ‘Forming the New from the Old: Beethoven’s Use of Variation in the Fifth Symphony’, in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. William Kinderman (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 102–21. 9 See Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 104.



Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67

115

slightly faster than the ‘Allegro con brio’ of the final version. The familiar eight-note theme is prominent and is rapidly repeated at different pitches in bars 5–8 and 9–12 before being fragmented as four-note and then two-note patterns in typical developmental fashion. This is a much more traditional start for a symphony than the final version, chiefly because of the absence of the two pauses, which are highly abnormal at the opening of an allegro movement. Example 5.3 Continuation of sketch for Op. 67.I (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 32v).

The transition section is represented by an ‘etc’, and the second subject first appears, bizarrely, in C major, before being repeated in A flat major and then G minor (Example 5.3).10 This is followed by a fourth statement, now in C minor, but this functions merely as chord IV before an F♯ settles the music back in G minor,11 which is the implied tonal goal of the exposition. This second subject is completely different from anything in the final version, and this section is little known since it was not transcribed by Nottebohm. The rest of the movement is represented by another ‘etc’, except for the last nineteen bars of the coda, the first eight of which were transcribed by Nottebohm without comment.12 Here the opening rhythm is played on four repeated notes, which keep recurring in the bass at a gradually rising pitch until the final extended cadence. Nottebohm does, however, draw attention to the fact that on the opposite page (folio 33r) there is a sketch for the start of the Fourth Piano

10 In Example 5.3, one can assume there is a bar missing after the seventh bar; and the use of a dot after a barline in the eleventh bar, indicating the previous note was to be sustained, was a common notational device until well into the nineteenth century, although eight bars later Beethoven incorrectly placed the dot before the barline. The repeat sign at the end of the A flat phrase may signify a repeat of just these eight bars, and it is followed by four deleted bars before the G minor phrase. 11 Not E flat, as stated in Meredith, ‘Forming the New’, pp. 110 and 120. 12 N-I, p. 11.

116

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Concerto, which utilises a similar rhythmic motif but with entirely different effect.13 For a short time the two works were evolving together.14 The coda sketch is immediately followed on the same stave by a sketch in A flat for the second movement, widely known since being quoted by Nottebohm.15 The melodic differences from the final version are surprisingly slight, although the starting note is the tonic rather than the lower dominant as in the final version. The main difference is the implied structure, for the sketch shows an ‘andante quasi Menuett’ followed by a ‘quasi trio’. A slightly slower tempo is implied by ‘andante’ and a 3/4 time signature than by the ‘Andante con moto’ and 3/8 time of the final version, where a fairly brisk speed is confirmed by Beethoven’s metronome mark of 92 per quaver, noted in 1817. Only the first four bars of the Andante theme are shown in the sketch, and so it is unclear whether a standard minuet form with repeats was planned at this stage. The ‘quasi trio’ section, however, which corresponds to the passage beginning at bar 22 in the final version, appears as two segments of 8 and 9 bars respectively, each repeated. The sudden move to C major in the second half of this ‘trio’, corresponding to the passage beginning at bar 31 in the final version, is prominent, complete with indication of trumpets and horns. Both segments begin with a strong four-note motif which, though preceded by an anacrusis, must recall the rhythm of the four-note opening of the symphony (three short notes and a longer one), regardless of the difference of speed and accentuation. Thus Beethoven may have sensed, even at this early stage, that the opening rhythm could permeate the rest of the symphony. Whether the Andante was intended at this stage to take on the traditional A B A form of a minuet movement, or a double-variation form closer to what finally emerged, is not indicated. Some variant of an A B Aʹ form such as appears in some of Haydn’s slow movements (e.g. Symphony No. 104) was perhaps intended, for if Beethoven had intended a normal minuet-and-trio pattern, he would not have needed the word ‘quasi’. Alternatively, he may have been intending something more complex, as in the recently completed slow movement of the Eroica. This group of sketches for the Fifth Symphony concludes with one in 6/8 for a finale in C minor, headed ‘l’ul[t]imo pezzo’, appearing immediately after the slow movement. An eight-bar passage in what is sometimes called ‘period’ structure (A B Aʹ C), with a unison opening, is followed by a striking brokenchord motif (Example 5.4). Surprisingly, this same motif appears in almost identical form in Landsberg 6, page 177, as a concept sketch for a Symphony 13 At the time of writing, Nottebohm did not know that this theme had already been sketched in Landsberg 6 (top of page 148). 14 See especially Martha Frohlich, ‘Sketches for Beethoven’s Fourth [Piano Concerto] and Fifth [Symphony]: A Long Neglected Source’, Bonner BeethovenStudien, 1 (1999), 29–48. 15 N-I, pp. 14–15.



Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67

117

Example 5.4 Preliminary sketch for a finale for Op. 67 (Bsb, Autograph 19e, f. 33r).

in D minor (‘Sinfonia in d moll’). This must predate the C minor sketch, for it seems almost inconceivable that Beethoven would take a motif from a nascent C minor symphony and use it as the start of a D minor symphony that never progressed beyond the first two bars.16 The D minor sketch can be dated fairly precisely, for it is found among sketches for a revised version of Christus am Oelberge that was performed on 27 March 1804. The symphony sketch is neither at the top of the page (where it might have been entered weeks in advance) nor at the bottom (where it might have been entered weeks later), but embedded in the middle, on staves 8–9, thus fixing it chronologically around mid-March 1804. Hence Beethoven probably began work on the Fifth Symphony not long after this, around April 1804 and shortly after the March concert, sketching the present three-movement synopsis that shows much detail for the first movement but rather less for the slow movement and finale, while incorporating the D minor motif sketched slightly earlier. The absence of a scherzo has led some to suggest that perhaps he intended only three movements at this stage,17 but this seems improbable, for there are no clear cases where he intended only three movements for a symphony or string quartet. His general approach to a new work was apparently to fix the character of the movements first, without too much concern for melodic detail. The character of the scherzo varied little from one work to another, compared with those of the outer movements and slow movement, and so there was less necessity to sketch a 16 The C minor sketch is transcribed in C major in Meredith, ‘Forming the New’, p. 109; but there are no E♮s in the source, and the appearance of the theme explicitly in D minor in Landsberg 6 proves that C minor was intended. 17 E.g. Meredith, ‘Forming the New’, p. 108.

118

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

scherzo or minuet at an early stage. It was therefore sometimes omitted at the preliminary stage: there are several cases where one is missing from a batch of sketches showing the other three movements, such as the synopsis for the Sonata Op. 26 in Landsberg 7, page 56, one for the Seventh Symphony in the Petter Sketchbook, folio 5r, and the sketches for the Sonata Op. 31 No. 3 in the Wielhorsky Sketchbook.18 The sketches for the Fifth Symphony on pages 157–8 of Landsberg 6 are strikingly similar in layout to the batch in Autograph 19e. Again they form a homogeneous group that includes a detailed summary of the first movement, with many of the main cornerstones evident, followed by a possible theme for a slow movement and then one for the finale. The opening includes the title ‘Sinfonia’, but unlike the previous group of sketches, this one is not at the top of the page, and lacks clef, key signature and tempo mark. It is also more sophisticated and much closer to the final version than the sketch in Autograph 19e, not least in including the pauses in bars 2 and 4 (see Example 5.5),19 and is written on single staves, apart from a single bass c in bar 6 (not shown in Example 5.5). Thus this batch of sketches is certainly later than those in Autograph 19e. This might seem to be contradicted by the presence of the theme for the actual slow movement in Autograph 19e but a quite different slow movement in C major headed ‘adagio’ in Landsberg 6. However, Beethoven was in the habit of sketching the beginning of more than one possible movement before deciding which, if any, he would use. He most often chose the latest idea but here, unusually, he chose the earlier of the two when he eventually came to work on the slow movement. The reason why he wrote the batch of sketches in an empty space in Landsberg 6 rather than on the next page of Autograph 19e is probably that he had temporarily mislaid these loose leaves. His manner of storing his papers was somewhat chaotic, and he had admitted in 1801 that his things were not always found in the best order.20 It is easy to imagine him turning to his recently completed sketchbook, which would have been easier to spot than a small batch of papers, and finding an empty space to add an updated group of sketches for the incipient symphony. By starting at the bottom three staves of page 157, he could turn over to the largely blank page 158 (where only the first two staves had been used) and find enough space for the rest of the group. The sketchbook would probably still have been lying around soon after being finished, whereas some months 18

See also Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81, at 54–5, where another three-movement synopsis for a symphony is mentioned where the minuet/scherzo is omitted. 19 The second pause is omitted in the transcription in Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook. 20 BB-60; A-47.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



119

Example 5.5 Sketch for Op. 67.I (Kj, Landsberg 6, pp. 157–8).

later it might well have been mislaid, and so this group of Fifth Symphony sketches was probably written very shortly after the other group, in early to mid-April 1804 – especially as the structure of the two groups is so similar. The first-movement sketches (Example 5.5 above) require closer examination. The opening bars are already as in the autograph score, and in the following few bars (7, 10, 11) it is unclear whether Beethoven intended three repeated notes as in the final version, as proposed by Lockwood and Gosman,21 or a stepwise descent as shown here and as assumed by Nottebohm. Either way, this stepwise pattern appears clearly in the thirteenth bar (bar 14 in the final version). This pattern is an inversion of the four main notes in the second theme of the second movement (A♭–A♭–B♭–C; bars 23–4 of the final version), but the sketches show that the latter appears to have been conceived first. Nevertheless, Beethoven would surely have noticed the motivic connection. The sketch continues with a very rapid transition to the second subject, in E flat, not seen in Autograph 19e. Such compression is typical of Beethoven’s

21

See Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, p. 81.

120

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

early sketches for a work. The E flat theme is then restated in C minor (surely not C major as assumed by Lockwood and Gosman, for there are no A♮s). It is likely, therefore, that this passage was at this stage envisaged as still part of the first group in C minor, with a temporary turn to E flat and back, since the motivic material is closely related to the opening; in that case, a second subject had still to be invented. Either way, the rest of the exposition is represented by an ‘etc’, and the movement appears to be resumed somewhere in the development section, for the music wanders through several keys towards the more distant D flat major, evidently envisaged as the tonal goal of the development at this stage. The flat sign before the G in the fourth bar of this section may be intended to continue in the following bars (as shown in brackets in Example 5.5). These bars appear overleaf on page 158 (stave 3) and fit so well as continuation, in both pitch and figuration, that this was surely Beethoven’s intention, though he may have planned to insert a bar or two to make a smoother harmonic join. The idea of runs of quavers was later transferred from development section to the last part of the exposition (bars 95–109), but Beethoven clearly sensed at this early stage that runs of quavers in some form would be needed, such as had not appeared in his initial sketch for the movement. The next section is indicated by another ‘et[c]’, followed by what must surely be an attempt at the retransition, with a chromatically rising bass as the music moves from A flat major to chord V of C minor, with a pause on the bass B♮ that could form an excellent preparation for the recapitulation. The passage bears a conspicuous resemblance to the retransition to C minor in the piano sketch in Example 5.1 above, suggesting that Beethoven still had this at the back of his mind. The following two staves22 show a short sketch that is best interpreted as an alternative for the retransition, in which the music heads from D flat major to that same low B♮. After another short gap on the page, the final section of the synopsis remains in C minor, underpinned throughout by a low G, and therefore probably represents an early idea for part of the coda, with the recapitulation taken as read. Thus we have here a coherent plan for the movement, in which the first section needed little revision by this stage, but the latter part of it required much further work. The coda sketch breaks off mid-phrase, but is followed immediately by a double bar and the sketch for the ‘adagio’ in C major mentioned earlier. The instrumentation, which mentions cello and also wind instruments, confirms it is for an orchestral work, and its location confirms it is part of the same symphony. Moreover, it followed by a sketch for the ‘leztes Stück’ (‘last movement’), indicating that it is an internal movement before the finale. This finale sketch, like the previous one, is in 6/8. This time, however, its theme uses rapid quavers that exploit that four-note descending quaver motif from 22 Not shown here; they are transcribed in Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, vol. 1, p. 158.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



121

the first movement (see bars 7–8 of Example 5.5 above), though with different accentuation. The rhythms resemble those of many scherzos, however, and would therefore not work well after the scherzo that Beethoven eventually composed. He had therefore almost certainly not devised his scherzo theme at this stage; moreover, if he had done, he would surely have included it in this synopsis of the symphony, where a scherzo is conspicuous by its absence, as in the previous synopsis. The finale sketch extends to only five bars, after which Beethoven noted: ‘könnte zu L z [zulezt] endigen mit einem Marsch’ (‘could finally end with a march’). Here is the first inkling of the march-like movement that was to end the symphony. This would surely not be a funeral march in C minor, since he had just written one in his recently completed Symphony No. 3, and so C major must have been intended, although not yet specifically indicated. Although the scherzo had evidently not been conceived at this stage, this must have happened soon after, when the sketchbook was still to hand and probably open at the right place, for an extended synopsis for it appears on the preceding pages (155–6). The movement is not called ‘Scherzo’ here or anywhere else, and strictly speaking it is not a scherzo since its character is too serious: Beethoven’s genuine ‘scherzos’ are typically in a major key, with light textures and much staccato, as in the Second and Third Symphonies. It is convenient, however, to refer to the first part of the movement as a scherzo, as has been done by other writers.23 Several features of this early group of scherzo sketches are worth noting in particular. The opening (Example 5.6) is, unusually, less conventional than the final version, which starts with a traditional ‘Mannheim rocket’ device (rising arpeggio), similar to those in such works as Beethoven’s Sonata in F minor (Op. 2 No. 1); the finale of Mozart’s G minor Symphony (K. 550), part of which Beethoven copied out while working on the Fifth Symphony;24 and Beethoven’s own early attempt at a symphony in C minor (Hess 298) of c. 1788, which in turn was based on a theme in his Piano Quartet in E flat (WoO 36 No. 1). The prominent horn motif Example 5.6 Sketch for Op. 67.III (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 155).

23

E.g. Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017), pp. 111–14. 24 N-II, p. 531; the source is Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 67.

122

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

(bars 19–20 of the final version), whose four repeated notes recall the rhythm of the start of the symphony, is already present later in the sketch; indeed the whole twenty-bar passage beginning at bar 19 underwent no significant change between this initial sketch and the final version. The section headed ‘trio’ is in C major, which is not specifically indicated but is implied by the absence of naturals before the Bs. As in the final version, it begins with running quavers, but the melodic shape is quite different. More striking is the end of the trio, which does not conclude with a confident cadence in C but peters out before a reprise of the scherzo (marked ‘d.c.’) – an idea that was maintained right through to the final version. In sum, therefore, the chronology of Beethoven’s early sketches for the Fifth Symphony is evidently as follows. First he sketched an idea for a symphony in D minor around mid-March 1804 (Landsberg 6, page 177). Around April he sketched a Fantasia for piano in C minor that included the famous four-note motif that opens the symphony, though at different pitches (Autograph 19e, folio 32r). A day or two later, having experimented at the piano, he turned over the page and sketched his first ideas for the C minor symphony, incorporating both the motif from the now abandoned fantasia and, in the finale, a transposition of his sketch for a symphony in D minor. A few days later, when his recently completed sketchbook was more accessible than the loose leaves, he sketched a replacement overview of the symphony (Landsberg 6, pages 157–8), in which the first movement was more advanced than before but the slow movement and finale were new. Shortly afterwards, perhaps even on the same day, he turned back a page and sketched the previously missing scherzo and trio. This scenario is of course conjectural, but it is based directly on the evidence; and it is absolutely clear that the sketches in Autograph 19e postdate the D minor sketch on page 177 of Landsberg 6 yet predate the group of sketches on pages 157–8. It is noteworthy that these early sketches project a much stronger overview of the whole work than early sketches for previous symphonies, apart from the single early plan for the Eroica in the Wielhorsky Sketchbook (see Chapter 3). At a later date Beethoven actually commented: ‘As I am accustomed when writing, even in my instrumental music I always keep the whole in view.’25 Intermediate sketches Having made a start on the symphony, Beethoven then turned his attention to other works, notably the Triple Concerto and Leonore, with the symphony saved up for later development. The next known sketches for the Fifth Symphony are probably those found on a loose bifolio known as the Friskin

25

BB-707; A-479.



Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67

123

bifolio, which also contains early sketches for the second movement of the Fourth Piano Concerto.26 Since the concerto was ready to be taken to Leipzig in July 1806,27 these sketches could date from around April 1806 or even late 1805. They show various short ideas, partly based on the opening motif, for what appear to be the later part of the exposition and the start of the development, as well as some more chromatic material that probably belongs later in the development. If what became the actual second subject was at this stage still regarded as part of the first thematic group, as suggested above (see Example 5.5, staves 3–4), then the three exposition sketches in the Friskin bifolio (folio 1r, staves 2–4) can be interpreted as ideas for a main second subject, for they are gentle, lyrical phrases that would fit well in such a context. Beethoven had already used a ‘dummy’ second subject before the main one in other works,28 and perhaps contemplated a similar strategy in the Fifth at this stage, before deciding that this strategy would be too prolix in such an intensely concentrated movement and moving the planned ‘dummy’ to be the real second subject. None of these sketches in the Friskin bifolio were incorporated into the final version, but they illustrate something of the range of possibilities that he explored for developing the initial material, to which they are closely related. Further sketches, seemingly a little more advanced, appear on a bifolio bound in the volume Landsberg 9. Most of this volume consists of a sketchbook from 1814, but the final four pages (69–72) are clearly much earlier. Alan Tyson has asserted that these pages were written ‘certainly no later than 1806 and probably one or two years earlier’.29 He does not provide evidence, but among the sketches for the Fifth Symphony are some F minor sketches that appear to be very early ideas for the slow movement of the first ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet. Although the notes are different, it would be uncharacteristic of Beethoven to write sketches so similar to a movement that he had already composed. The quartet was composed in spring 1806, shortly after he had finished revising Leonore, which was performed on 29 March, and Beethoven indicated that he began the autograph score of the quartet on 26 May that year,30 by which time the third movement was probably more or less finished. Thus the preliminary sketches for the quartet, and therefore also the adjacent ones for the 26 The bifolio (SV 350), with the symphony sketched on what was probably its original first page, is currently in private hands. See Frohlich, ‘Fourth and Fifth’, which includes a facsimile and transcription of the sketches, and a detailed discussion of them. 27 BB-254; A-132. 28 See Barry Cooper, The Creation of Beethoven’s 35 Piano Sonatas (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), p. 43. 29 JTW, p. 220. 30 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 326.

124

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Fifth Symphony, probably date from about April 1806. An earlier date is also possible, as suggested by Tyson. These sketches for the symphony are entirely for the first movement and concentrate on the exposition. They show the opening four-note motif being developed very intensively at various pitches, including many that do not appear in the final version. There are also some sketches for the answering phrase in the second subject, and the last page includes the following passage too (bars 75–97), up to and including the start of the quaver runs. A few of the sketches may have been intended for the development section or coda, but there are no very distant modulations, nor any clear sign of C major – features that were to appear prominently in the final version. Later in 1806 Beethoven was still trying to polish up the opening of the symphony, writing a twelve-bar sketch that closely matches the final version apart from the still absent bar 4 of the latter.31 The sketch immediately precedes some for his Violin Concerto, which was completed and performed in December 1806. These concerto sketches are quite early, exploratory ones, perhaps from the previous month, and as the symphony sketch is in a different ink at the top of the page, it could have been written a few weeks earlier still. Thus Beethoven was dabbling with the symphony intermittently during 1806, yet felt unready to bring it to fruition when Oppersdorff commissioned a symphony, and wrote No. 4 instead – a decision that has never been adequately explained despite several hypotheses. Perhaps Oppersdorff specified the type of symphony he wanted; or perhaps Beethoven felt he needed much more time to work on his C minor symphony, sensing that it might cause as much of a stir as the Eroica had done. It is not known when Beethoven finished working on the first movement, but his efforts were probably given a boost by a payment by Oppersdorff in June 1807 of 200 florins towards a new symphony, as noted on a later receipt of 29 March 1808.32 After working on his Mass in C during summer 1807, Beethoven returned to the symphony in the latter part of the year. His sketchbook for that period is a scrappy, homemade one that uses a variety of left-over papers. It has since been dismembered, but the consistency of the stitch holes and musical content suggests that it was intact for at least a short time.33 Since it does not contain the first movement or the first part of the second, these sections may well have been completed around the time when Beethoven received the first instalment of the new commission in June. 31 32

Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 64; transcribed in N-II, pp. 532–3. The receipt, now lost, is transcribed in TDR, vol. 3, pp. 12–13 (see also TF, p.

433). 33 JTW, pp. 160–4. Pages with sketches for the Fifth Symphony include Wgm A 59, A 37 and A 38A, Pn Ms 45, and pages now in Bsb Landsberg 10 and Landsberg 12.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



125

Table 5.1 Form of second movement of Fifth Symphony. Bar 0–22 22–38 38–49 49–98 98–123 123–84

Theme A Theme B Retransition Varied restatement of bars 0–49 3 variations of bars 0–8, plus slight extension Developments, including part of C major section, plus passage in A flat minor 184–204 Variation of bars 0–22 (theme A), slightly abridged 204–47 (end) Coda, with closing gestures based on theme A

The form of the second movement can be summarised as in Table 5.1. Essentially it is a hybrid between double-variation and rondo forms, as A – B – A – B – developments – A – coda. Perhaps the nearest equivalent is the slow movement of the Ninth Symphony. Theme A is the one labelled ‘quasi Menuett’ in Beethoven’s original sketch in Autograph 19e, and B is the one labelled ‘quasi trio’, modulating to C major and back, but now without a final cadence, which is replaced by a retransition to a restatement of A. This whole scheme is repeated with slight modifications in bars 49–98, and is followed by three variations of bars 0–8, with a slight extension at the end. This first part is structurally fairly straightforward and rarely appears in the surviving sketches after the initial ones of 1804. The second part, however, from bar 123, is much more complex, incorporating developments of the opening material, an incomplete restatement of the C major section, a passage in A flat minor loosely modelled on the first part of theme A, and a retransition, followed by a final complete statement of theme A (slightly varied again) and an extended coda. This second part required at least eight drafts, which appear on sketch leaves now in Vienna (A 38A) and Berlin (Landsberg 10), as described by William Meredith.34 Probably preceding all eight are two brief sketches (alongside some for the third movement) on another leaf from the dismembered sketchbook.35 These show what appear to be an early sketch for a retransition, and one for the final bars. 34 Wgm, A 38A, ff. 4–6, and Bsb, Landsberg 10, pp. 68–72. See Meredith, ‘Forming the New’, pp. 112–18. 35 Wgm, A 37. This is described in detail in Alan Tyson, ‘The Problem of Beethoven’s “First” Leonore Overture’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 28 (1975), 292–334, at 299; Tyson’s article also indicates (p. 319) that the

126

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The first four drafts of the second part of the movement in A 38A consistently include the reprise of the C major section (cf. bars 147–58), with Beethoven trying to work out the best way of approaching it. This procedure is not unusual in his sketching process: a remote key is chosen before he has worked out how to reach it (it was E minor in the first movement of the Eroica). In the first two drafts here he considered going to C major via D flat major and B flat minor, as also in the fourth draft, whereas in the third draft the transition to C major is much shorter. In the fourth draft the transition to C major also includes a passage in A flat minor for the first time – a passage later placed after the C major reprise.36 Eventually he opted for a more direct route from A flat to C major, by working towards F minor, where the dominant chord, C major, becomes a new tonic. The fifth and sixth drafts are of shorter passages within the second half of the movement, but the seventh (Landsberg 10, pages 68–72) is the only one showing the complete movement. The first part corresponds quite closely to the final version, although there are numerous minor changes, such as a crescendo moved from bar 16 to bar 17, and some brief indications of instrumentation. The opening theme is written in equal quavers rather than dotted ones,37 but this was probably to save time, for a dotted rhythm had been present in the initial sketch of 1804. Interestingly, bars 17–20, and their repetition at bars 66–9, initially showed a different version (Example 5.7), which was later displaced to the coda (bars 225–8). In the actual coda the phrase sounds like an intensification of bars 17–20, and it seems that Beethoven eventually decided to use a more subdued version first and keep the intensified idea back till the coda – a kind of reverse development. He therefore went back and amended bars 17–20 and 66–9 in the sketch so that it now shows a version corresponding to the final one. The four repeated notes that conclude section A and which provide a subtle anticipation of the horn motif in the next movement are present in the sketch at bars 21–2 (see Example 5.7) and even more clearly at bars 70–1. The rapid repeated notes that provide an accompaniment at bars 76–7 and again at Example 5.7 Original version of sketch for Op. 67.II, bars 16–22 (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 68).

leaf is the one mentioned in N-I, p. 62, where the sketches are transcribed in full on pp. 62–4. 36 See Meredith, ‘Forming the New’, pp. 113–16. 37 It is quoted in N-II, p. 534.



Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67

127

bar 88, audibly related to the opening four-note motif of the symphony, are also shown in the sketch. Beethoven was therefore not going out of his way to stress the motivic unity of the symphony, but was nonetheless retaining echoes of the start of the symphony as a kind of subtheme of the second movement. From bar 123 onwards there is much less certainty in this seventh draft, with wholesale cancellations and redrafting. The one firmly fixed passage is the reprise of the C major bars and their immediate successors up to bar 164. Thereafter the main draft (Landsberg 10, page 71) shows only thirty-two bars more to conclude the movement (as opposed to eighty-three in the final version), and no sign of the section in A flat minor. This section and the immediately following bars were finally sketched overleaf in the eighth draft, along with several other ideas, some of which remained unused. The ending as usual proved troublesome, and an alternative on page 73 is marked ‘finis’, but neither this nor any other sketch here corresponds exactly to the final version. This ending is immediately followed by a draft for the third movement. Beethoven had been working on these two movements somewhat in alternation, for both appear intermingled on the leaf A 37. On this leaf there are only short passages for the third movement – both scherzo and trio. Further short sketches for the scherzo and the trio appear in Landsberg 12, pages 1–3. These must all precede the sketches in Landsberg 10, where there are extended drafts for the third movement on pages 73–6 that incorporate or supersede the passages in A 37 and Landsberg 12. The first scherzo draft in Landsberg 10 (page 73) proceeds up to about bar 60 and is already close to the final version in most ways. It differs in two important respects, however. There are some introductory bars before the opening theme, as if it is hesitating to get off the ground (see Example 5.8). These had not appeared in the initial idea for the movement, in Landsberg 6 (Example 5.6 above), although the theme there was somewhat different. The second notable feature in the draft in Landsberg 10 is that much of it is in the subdominant in relation to the final version. The motif of repeated Gs (bars 19ff. in the final version), which had appeared in the sketch in Landsberg 6, is sketched here a fourth higher on C, and the subsequent bars are all a fourth higher (or fifth lower) up to bar 52. Thus the music moves to A flat major, A flat minor and E flat minor, instead of E flat major, E flat minor and B flat minor, with the principal tonality heavily undermined on the flat side for a prolonged period, and Beethoven later decided this was unsatisfactory. From bar 53 the music corresponds to the final version, but bar 60 is immediately followed Example 5.8 Sketch for start of Op. 67.III (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 73).

128

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

by the equivalent of bar 101, and then soon after by an ‘etc’, suggesting that he had not worked out this part of the movement yet. What appears to be the continuation, though it may have been written first, appears on a different page of the dismembered sketchbook.38 This shows a continuous draft from bar 56 to the end of the scherzo (bar 140), with only slight differences from the final version, such as the omission of bars 92–3 (which repeat bars 90–1) and the inclusion of an extra bar before bar 96. The trio section is not found here, but it appears in almost its final form in a lengthy draft of almost the complete movement up to bar 196, on pages 74–6 of Landsberg 10. This is very similar to the final version: the hesitant introduction has gone, and bars 19–52 are now in the same key as the final version. There is some uncertainty around bars 53–5, where the rising arpeggio theme is sketched in F minor, then replaced by the B flat minor version, partially deleted and eventually restored, thus matching the final version. Bars 121–2, a repetition of bars 117–18, are not included, but the rest of the sketch is almost an exact match for the autograph of the scherzo and was probably used as the basis for it. The scherzo is immediately followed by the trio section (page 76, stave 2), again very similar to the final version, although the F in bar 145 has a sharp, giving a rather different effect to the main theme. The draft continues to the very end of the page, with Beethoven squeezing in the whole of the first part of the trio, including the repeat sign, and also the whole of the first statement of the second part of the trio (bars 161–96). The rest of the trio and the lead-back to the scherzo are found on a leaf that was not part of the dismembered sketchbook but clearly dates from the same period.39 The sketch starts at bar 197, the beginning of the repeat of the second part of the trio, and continues right through to the start of the reprise of the scherzo. The main part of the trio matches the final version, but Beethoven had already planned in his 1804 sketches that the trio would not end with a solid cadence in C major but with a gradual retransition to the reprise of the scherzo, and this plan was retained consistently in all the known sketches. Accordingly there is a retransition here from bar 224 onwards; but it is much longer than the final version, consisting of nearly thirty bars rather than a mere thirteen (bars 224–36). It begins with a descending arpeggio similar to that in the final version, but then proceeds to numerous repetitions of the four-note motif at various pitches, low in the bass clef, as in the short excerpt in Example 5.9. When the rising chromatic line reaches C the pitch switches down to low Gs, which are repeated until the return of the scherzo theme. There is no sign in this sketch or any other of the ghostly, truncated, pianissimo version of the scherzo that appears in the final version – this highly original section was clearly a late idea. In the sketch the reprise of the scherzo was apparently 38 39

Pn, Ms 45, f. 1r. Pn, Ms 44, f. 2v (not 1r, as stated in SV 194).

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



129

Example 5.9 Sketch for part of retransition at the end of trio of Op. 67.III (Pn, Ms 44, f. 2v).

planned to be unchanged, and it is simply marked ‘etc’, followed by the last three bars of the scherzo (marked ‘fine’) and an extended transition towards the main theme of the finale. Unlike so many other movements, most of the scherzo and trio reaches its final form already in the surviving sketches; but the transition to the finale was to give Beethoven a great deal of trouble, and there are many sketches for it. Although Nottebohm claims that the finale was initially intended to enter without any such transition, the sketch in Landsberg 10 that he quotes in support shows the end of the first statement of the scherzo,40 not its second statement as he assumed. This point in the sketch is significantly marked ‘2ter’, which relates to a ‘2ter’ in Landsberg 12 (page 1) that heads a passage leading into the finale. Thus the ‘2ter’ in Landsberg 10 indicates that, although the first statement of the scherzo leads to the trio sketch on the next stave, the ‘second’ time it joins with the ‘2ter’ in Landsberg 12, the lead-in to the finale. Moreover, earlier sketches for the end of the scherzo, such as those in A 37, already show an attempt at a transition to the finale.41 Beethoven had linked together the final two movements of a work in several recent compositions, such as his Violin Concerto, the first ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet and the ‘Appassionata’ Sonata, and the procedure had also occurred in several works in the Baroque period, but this was the first time he had used it in a symphony, and the decision to do so was made almost from the start. The early attempts at the transition are rather unsophisticated, consisting of repeated Cs, perhaps with an occasional G, with a change of metre from 3/4 to common time at some point. This approach can be found in sketches in five different places: A 37, A 59 (which shows the first three bars of the finale theme), Ms 45, the above-mentioned one in Landsberg 12 labelled ‘2ter’ and one on page 3 of Landsberg 12. An alternative idea, using repeated Gs, appears further up the page in Ms 45.42 A more sophisticated link to the finale is found in Landsberg 12, page 2, and consists of a build-up of dominantseventh chords followed by short descending scales that anticipate those in 40

N-II, p. 529, quoting from Landsberg 10, p. 76. This sketch is quoted by Nottebohm (N-I, p. 64); he does not consider the chronology, but A 37 clearly precedes pages 73–6 of Landsberg 10, as indicated above. 42 All five sketches except the one in Landsberg 12 are quoted by Nottebohm: N-I, p. 64 (A 37); N-I, p. 66 (A 59); N-II, p. 529 (the two in Ms 45). 41

130

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

bars 19–21 of the finale.43 Nottebohm conjectured that this sketch was for the second transition, in the middle of the finale, but this seems improbable since Beethoven had not yet reached that point in the work and was still struggling with the first transition. This sketch is the first to show the complete finale theme, but at this stage the theme is in an early version (Example 5.10) that differs significantly from the final one. Bar 3 in the sketch was clearly added later, and may have been intended as a replacement for bar 4. Thus at this stage even the opening theme had not reached its final form, where bar 4 has a dotted-minim C. Example 5.10 Sketch for start of Op. 67.IV (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 2).

A later sketch (Ms 44, folio 2v) shows an even more elaborate link to the fourth-movement theme. This is the extended sketch that shows the end of the trio and a retransition to the scherzo (Example 5.9 above), followed by an implied reprise of the complete scherzo, ending with three bars headed ‘fine’. These bars are followed by a lengthy transition of nearly sixty bars, quoted in full by Nottebohm,44 before the finale theme. The rising chromatic figure of Example 5.9 reappears, shortly followed by some long chords using suspensions and concluding with several bars of a dominant-seventh chord. Nottebohm notes that the sketch extends from the second part of the trio to well into the finale, and claims that, with the exception of part of his excerpt, it ‘agrees almost completely and in essence with the printed version. From this one might conclude that when the sketch was written the whole symphony was fully sketched in its main features.’45 This is not strictly accurate, for the sketch for the start of the finale shows only the first twenty-one bars roughly coinciding with the final version, after which it diverges completely from it, concluding after about another dozen bars with a first-inversion dominantseventh chord above a G♯, implying a modulation to A minor. Thus one can conclude that the first three movements were by this stage fully sketched, but there was still a long way to go in the finale; and none of the sketches for the transition to the finale comes at all close to the final version. They all show either repeated Cs or implied dominant sevenths, but Beethoven cunningly combined the best of both worlds in the autograph score, using repeated Cs 43

N-II, p. 530. N-II, pp. 529–30. 45 N-II, p. 529n. 44

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



131

for the timpani superimposed by dominant sevenths for most of the orchestra. All in all, therefore, the sketching of the third movement and its link to the finale was a highly complex process, scattered across several sources that are not easily disentangled and more than once caused the generally reliable Nottebohm some confusion. Although the decision to create a link between the movements was made early on, the precise shape of the link was achieved only after much effort. In the homemade sketchbook of 1807–8 there are no sketches for the finale apart from its opening bars.46 Almost all the later sketches for the movement are in fact missing, apart from a brief sketch for the last few bars, slightly shorter than the final version, written in red crayon (Rötel), upside down, on a loose leaf.47 In the autograph score there are also a few sketches for the end of the coda (see below). Thus either a large portion of the sketchbook has been lost, or Beethoven wrote these finale sketches on loose leaves. The autograph score Beethoven completed the symphony and wrote out the autograph score in the early weeks of 1808, as is indicated in an important letter that he wrote to Count Oppersdorff in March 1808. The letter includes a date stamp of 18 March, which probably indicates the date it was received at the count’s castle at Oberglogau (Głogówek).48 Beethoven begins by lamenting that the count had departed from Vienna without informing him, and continues: ‘Your symphony has been ready for a long time, but I will now send you it by the next post.’ In this context ‘a long time’ probably indicates several weeks; and a date of early 1808 for completion of the score is supported by a discarded leaf from the autograph. This leaf contains sketches for one of Beethoven’s settings of Goethe’s song Sehnsucht (WoO 134 No. 2), the autograph of which bears the censor’s date 31 March 1808.49 Thus these song sketches must date from well before the end of March, and the discarding of the leaf from the score must be considerably earlier still. A remarkable innovation in the symphony, and one not indicated in the surviving sketches, is the appearance in the finale of a piccolo, a contrabassoon and three trombones – rarely if ever found in a symphony before, and certainly not all together. Beethoven’s letter to Oppersdorff refers to this innovation: ‘The last movement is with 3 trombones and piccolo – albeit not 3 timpani, 46

JTW, p. 164. Bsb, Artaria 153, f. 9v. 48 BB-325; A-166. The date stamp is mentioned in the notes to BB-325. 49 The sketches are in Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 70. The score of WoO 134 is in BNba, HCB Mh 33; the censor’s date is given as 31 March 1808 in LvBWV, vol. 2, p. 316, though it has previously been misread as 3 March 1808. 47

132

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

but will make more noise than 6 timpani and indeed better noise.’50 The implication is that he had considered, or been asked to use, three timpani but had decided against it. His music never uses more than two, although that of his contemporaries occasionally did. The letter also mentions the question of a fee. Beethoven indicates that he is now due 150 florins (including 50 for copying),51 and Oppersdorff is asked to indicate whether he wants to take the symphony. If he does, he is asked to send 300 florins due to Beethoven as soon as possible. This would be instead of, not additional to, the 150 florins guaranteed. Thus Beethoven’s promise to send the symphony by the next post was evidently dependent on receiving this fee. Oppersdorff, however, arranged for only the basic 150 florins to be sent, as is confirmed by Beethoven’s receipt for this sum, dated 29 March 1808,52 and so the count did not receive the symphony at this stage. This was perhaps fortunate, for the creation of the final version of the symphony was a protracted affair that lasted even beyond the public premiere of 22 December 1808. The autograph score contains numerous alterations53 – far more than the previous symphony. The first change appears as early as the first two bars, where the famous motif was originally to be doubled by the flutes an octave higher. Since they do not appear in the next two bars, the revision was probably done immediately. There are further changes of texture or instrumentation in the next few pages; and although the horn entry of the second subject was left untouched, Beethoven changed the order of the answering instruments, necessitating an inserted page in the score. Thereafter, every bar contains alterations until bar 110, nearly the end of the exposition. A similar picture holds in the rest of the movement, although nearly all the changes are minor adjustments of texture or spacing. A repetition of the last bar before the recapitulation (bar 247) is cancelled, as it would have disrupted the large-scale rhythm of this passage, and a short passage in the coda at bar 469 is also cancelled. In

50

BB-325; A-166. In Thayer’s transcription (TDR, vol. 3, p. 11) the figure 150 was misread as 50, which was reproduced in A-166; for BB-325, Brandenburg was able to consult the original and confirmed it as 150. 52 TDR, vol. 3, p. 12; TF, p. 433. 53 Bsb, Mendelssohn 8; facsimile in Rainer Cadenbach, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Fünfte Symphonie c-moll opus 67: Faksimile nach dem Autograph in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Laaber: Laaber, 2002). For a full description, see Jens Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien III, ed. Jens Dufner, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/3 (Munich: Henle, 2013), pp. 207–329, at 216–18; see also Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 in C minor: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 1999), pp. 21–2. 51

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



133

addition, Beethoven removed several bars from the end of the movement, an area that frequently gave him trouble.54 The autograph of the second movement contains far fewer alterations, at least until towards the end, but in the third movement, in addition to numerous minor alterations of texture or instrumentation, Beethoven made substantial revisions of the form at such a late stage that confusion has reigned about it ever since. The sketches show a three-part form – scherzo, trio, scherzo – followed by a transition to the finale, as noted earlier. The autograph, however, shows a five-part form – scherzo, trio, scherzo, trio, followed by a shortened version of the scherzo, somewhat like the Fourth Symphony, though the means of truncation is different here: instead of omitting the whole exposition and middle section, Beethoven omitted just bars 27–78, representing the section partly in E flat minor and B flat minor. The sections that remain are also scored differently from their first appearance, and so Beethoven could not simply write a skeleton score marked ‘come sopra’ as in the final reprise in the Fourth Symphony but had to write it out in full. He did, however, write out a skeleton score of the first reprise of scherzo and trio this time (though without marking it ‘come sopra’), to show the five-part form. This twelve-stave skeleton score, which has since become detached from the main autograph,55 shows just the main melodic outline, written on whichever stave represents the instrument containing the melody. Beethoven wrote it out rather carelessly, omitting bar 26 of the final version but writing bar 88 twice.56 One might wonder why he needed to write out this score rather than simply marking a dal segno at the appropriate point in the original score. A likely explanation is that he contemplated making a structural adjustment, for pages 11–16 of the score are clearly a later insertion, and the score originally jumped from bar 59 (which is essentially the same as bar 99) to bar 100, omitting bars 60–99 by accident or more likely by design.57 The omission matches a similar one noted above in the first scherzo draft in Landsberg 10. The skeleton score contains bars 2–235, but with bars 2–3 deleted so as to join up correctly with the end of the first statement of scherzo and trio on page 54

The original ending is transcribed, with commentary, in Peter Gülke, Zur Neuausgabe der Sinfonie Nr. 5 von Ludwig van Beethoven: Werk und Edition (Leipzig: Peters, 1978), pp. 25–7. 55 It is now Bsb, Mendelssohn 20, but was kept with the main autograph until after Beethoven’s death, for it bears an old label with the same shelf mark, Mendelssohn 8: see Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Once Again: On the Question of the Repeat of the Scherzo and Trio in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony’, in Beethoven Essays: Studies in Honor of Elliot Forbes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 146–98, at 166. 56 It is transcribed on two staves in Gülke, Zur Neuausgabe, pp. 39–41, but equally carelessly, with bars corresponding to 78 and 123 of the final version omitted. 57 Brandenburg, ‘Once Again’, pp. 168–72.

134

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

185 of the main score. Bar 235 then joins on to bar 236 on page 188 of the main score, which contains a complex series of adjustments on pages 185–8, and with one leaf now bound in back to front, so that page 188 precedes page 187 musically and page 187 links to page 189.58 Having decided definitely on an exact reprise of scherzo and trio, Beethoven indicated this in the main score with his Rötel, placing a repeat sign after bar 239 of the original score (which was identical to bar 3), along with ‘X/1’, linking back to an initial repeat sign and ‘X/1’ inserted in Rötel in bar 4. To make his intentions absolutely clear he added in Rötel beneath the score of bars 234–9: ‘si replica l’allo con trio e allora si prende 2’ (‘repeat the allegro and trio and then go to 2’), the ‘2’ referring to an ‘X/2’ added in Rötel, at bar 237, linking to an ‘X/2’ inserted at the second-time bar 238. This five-part form, not written out in full but shown by the marked reprise, is still evident in the autograph, but at a later stage Beethoven decided on a three-part form, omitting the reprise of the scherzo and trio (see below). The link between the coda of the scherzo and the start of the finale was another passage that was still undecided when Beethoven was writing out the autograph score, despite the numerous sketches he had made for this passage. The first part shows some rescoring and several bars deleted, some of which were then restored as he tried to judge what was exactly the right length for this almost motionless passage. The rest of the link shows no substantial alterations apart from much rescoring, but this was only after a bifolio containing the last fourteen bars of the movement had been removed while still unfinished. This bifolio shows just the first violin, timpani, cello and contrabass, and differs from any of the known sketches. The violin outline also differs significantly from the final version, as Beethoven had difficulty in deciding the best route for approaching the high F of the final seven bars. The cello and bass are nearly the same as the final version, though not identical as claimed by Nottebohm.59 The second page of the score (Landsberg 12, page 70) was later superimposed by the sketches for Sehnsucht mentioned above, while the third page was used for transcribing part of the finale of Mozart’s G minor Symphony (K. 550). Nottebohm was quick to point out that this movement begins with the same melodic outline as the scherzo theme in the Fifth Symphony (though key and rhythm are different).60 But this may be largely coincidental. Beethoven did not copy the theme but the middle part of the development section (bars 146–74), where the music gradually modulates 58 The revisions can be seen in the facsimile and are described in detail in Brandenburg, ‘Once Again’, pp. 158–73. 59 The bifolio was later incorporated into the sketch miscellany Bsb, Landsberg 12, bound inside out at pages 69–70 and 67–8. See N-II, p. 531, which quotes the violin part. 60 N-II, p. 531.



Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67

135

in an extraordinary way from F minor to C sharp minor in the space of fewer than twenty bars. It was probably these modulations that fascinated him, with the rest of Mozart’s development section evidently of less interest: the score does not continue to the next page, which was left blank apart from the three previously drawn barlines. The finale in the autograph is more straightforward, for although there is some rescoring on almost every page, no bars are added or removed before the coda. Here bars 337–8, a rescoring of bars 335–6, are a late insertion, and an early stage of the coda can be seen further on, when Beethoven had written out just the first-violin part, before adding the other instruments – his usual practice in orchestral works: bars 398–404 were originally drafted with two extra bars (see Example 5.11), but these were cancelled before the other instruments were added. Many people have noticed the unusually extended ending, with several false endings before the real one. One of these false endings, at bar 420, was originally going to be the real one, but again only the first-violin part was written at that stage, plus the double bar. Beethoven then decided to extend the coda still further, and made some sketches for the extension in the empty space under the discarded violin line in that bar. He rewrote the bar on the next page, followed by the remaining twenty-four bars up to bar 444. Thus in all four movements Beethoven gave extra attention to the ending, but whereas he truncated the ending in the first movement, he extended it in the finale. Example 5.11 Op. 67.IV, autograph score (Bsb, Mendelssohn 8, pp. 297–8): original violin 1 part for bars 398–404; the second and sixth bars were subsequently deleted.

Complications in transmission When Beethoven informed Oppersdorff in March 1808 that the symphony had long been finished, he indicated that a score could be sent very soon. Thus a fair copy was evidently prepared at that time by Joseph Klumpar, Beethoven’s chief copyist during this period. The copy was destroyed by a bomb in 1943, but photocopies of some pages survive, and there is also a brief description of it by Georg Schünemann, made shortly before it was destroyed. From this and other evidence, Jonathan Del Mar has cunningly proved that the reprise in the third movement, indicated merely by a repeat sign and instructions in the autograph score (as noted above), was written out in full by Klumpar,

136

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

which is what Beethoven expected his copyists to do when copying out such dal segno or da capo passages. An incomplete set of parts copied from this score also contains this written-out reprise, resulting in the five-part form.61 On 8 June 1808, in response to an enquiry transmitted by Georg August Griesinger, Beethoven wrote to Breitkopf & Härtel offering the Fifth Symphony and a few other works.62 The firm had previously published several of his works, but he had become dissatisfied with them and had little expectation of success on this occasion. However, after receiving a positive reply from them, he sent two further letters confirming that he was willing to sell them the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies and other works.63 This would require a second copy of the Fifth to be made, and Klumpar duly wrote one. There are marks by Klumpar in the autograph score that reveal that this second copy was made directly from the autograph rather than from the first copy.64 It might be assumed that this copy was made only after the first copy had been passed to Breitkopf & Härtel,65 but there are chronological problems with this scenario (see below) and this second copy was probably made before then. In his letter of 8 June Beethoven asked the publishers not to issue the work for six months (counting from 1 June), and it therefore seems likely that Prince Lobkowitz had bought six months’ exclusive use of it, so that he could try it out at one of his residences,66 as he had done for Beethoven’s previous two symphonies. This would have made the first score unavailable as a source for the second, since Lobkowitz was habitually away in Bohemia during the summer and the score would have been sent there. As it happens, Klumpar also copied a second set of instrumental parts (the set mentioned above and now incomplete) at an early stage, instead of duplicating a single set, perhaps because the first set was ‘already in use at Prince Lobkowitz’s palace and could not conveniently be extracted’;67 something similar probably happened with the score. The second set of instrumental parts is still in the Lobkowitz archives, although Beethoven retrieved the score. Whether any trial of the symphony took place

61 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, pp. 55–8. Del Mar refers to this set of parts as PY; Dufner (‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 219) calls it B2. 62 BB-327; A-167. Griesinger is referred to by Beethoven merely as the tutor to Count Schönfeld, but is identified in the notes to BB-327. 63 BB-329 and 331; A-168 and 169. 64 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 28; Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 221. Del Mar (pp. 26–8) refers to the first and second scores respectively as B and C; Dufner (p. 215) as C and [D]. 65 Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 230; Del Mar proposes a date of November/ December 1808: see Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 28. 66 See Benedetta Saglietti, La Quinta sinfonia di Beethoven recensita da E. T. A. Hoffmann (Rome: Donzelli, 2020), p. 21. 67 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 25.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



137

in Lobkowitz’s palace in Vienna or at his summer residence during summer 1808 is not recorded. Klumpar’s markings in the autograph indicate that the second score, like the first, included a written-out reprise of the scherzo and trio,68 which indicates that it must have been copied out at a relatively early stage before the reprise had been excised. Gottfried Härtel, proprietor of Breitkopf & Härtel, visited Vienna that summer, arriving on 24 August and concluding an agreement with Beethoven that is dated 14 September.69 This gave him publication rights, excluding Britain, for the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, the Cello Sonata Op. 69 and the two Piano Trios Op. 70. Shortly after this date, Beethoven’s servant delivered scores of both symphonies to Härtel, accompanied by a brief undated note, the bulk of which says: I’m really annoyed with myself to have missed you yesterday. Perhaps we can meet in town today – just write to me what time you are departing. Here’s one symphony, my servant will bring the other around 11.00 or 11.30. The copyist is still correcting the mistakes in it which I pointed out.70

Thus Beethoven was anxious to deliver the two symphonies before the publisher left Vienna for Leipzig, and was busy checking them during the morning of Härtel’s departure. The score of the Fifth delivered to Härtel was the earlier of the two copies that had been made. By this time the third movement was almost certainly reduced to its three-part version, for this is the version that appears in the printed edition, even in its earliest state. Indeed, all extant sources except the autograph show the reprise of the scherzo and trio either deleted or absent.71 This shortened version would match Beethoven’s already noted desire for the symphony to be concise and intense rather than prolix and drawn out. If the revision had been made only after Härtel returned to Leipzig, Beethoven would have had to send a detailed letter explaining what should be cut. Härtel retained Beethoven’s letters quite meticulously – even the scrappy note sent to him on the day of his departure. No such letter survives, nor any other evidence that one was ever sent: had it been destroyed in 1943 along with the score it would have been noted by earlier scholars. Moreover, the revision to the score would have required Härtel to destroy thirty-eight pages (19 leaves) and patch up the remainder so that nothing was obviously missing, which Jens Dufner rightly considers ‘highly improbable’.72 Schünemann, too, reported no sign of the five-part version in the final state of the manuscript score; and the pagination, which was done in Leipzig probably 68

Ibid., p. 56. BB-335, note 2; TF, p. 435. 70 BB-335; A-174 (translation amended). 71 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 55. 72 Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 238. 69

138

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

shortly after the manuscript’s arrival there, does not indicate any excision. Thus the revision must have been made before Härtel received the score; therefore the second copy, which originally included the longer version, must have been prepared before then, as proposed above.73 Unfortunately this second copy has disappeared. It probably ended up, like the missing score of the Fourth Symphony, with Oppersdorff, to whom it had been promised. Beethoven wrote to the count on 1 November 1808: ‘Necessity compelled me to sell the symphony written for you [No. 5] and yet another one [No. 6] to someone else [Härtel]. But be assured that you will soon receive the one which is intended for you [No. 5].’74 Although there is no record that Oppersdorff did receive it, nor of his payment of the final 150 florins due to Beethoven, no such document would be necessary; for once Beethoven had the payment and Oppersdorff had the score, both parties would have been satisfied. In the light of Beethoven’s assertion, suggestions that he never received the payment, nor Oppersdorff the score, are unconvincing. The fact that the second copy of No. 5, like one score of No. 4, has vanished, whereas that of No. 6 still survives, is a further clue that Nos. 4 and 5 were both passed to Oppersdorff and were probably kept together before disappearing. If either were to turn up, it would probably be alongside the other. The first public performance of the Fifth Symphony took place in Vienna at Beethoven’s famous benefit concert of 22 December 1808 in the Theater an der Wien. The symphony was the first item in the second part of the programme, which had begun with his Pastoral Symphony. The latter was therefore designated No. 5 on this occasion, though the numbers were reversed for publication, since the Fifth had been composed first. For directing, Beethoven must have used the second manuscript score, the one that presumably went to Oppersdorff afterwards in exchange for the 150 florins still owed. Subsequent performances took place in Leipzig on 23 January 1809 and again shortly afterwards.75 The Leipzig performances presumably used manuscript parts copied from the score that Beethoven had presented to Härtel the previous September, unless the orchestral parts had been engraved by then (no printed score was prepared at that stage). After engraving had been completed, 73 This scenario differs from those proposed by Del Mar and Dufner, each of which has insurmountable problems. Del Mar (Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, pp. 55–8) has to invent that ‘lost’ letter to accommodate his suggestion that the excision was made after Härtel had received the score. Dufner (‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 238–40) proposes that in the score passed to Härtel the repeat was not written out but indicated by repeat signs, which Del Mar has already proved was not the case. 74 BB-340; A-178. The notes to both these editions of the letters identify the symphony ‘intended for you’ as No. 4; but this is not possible, as Oppersdorff had long since received a score of No. 4 already. 75 Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 232.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



139

however, Breitkopf & Härtel received a letter from Beethoven dated 4 March 1809 promising to send a few revisions that he had made ‘during the performance’ in Vienna. He gave the following as explanation: ‘When I gave you them [Symphonies Nos. 5 and 6], I had not heard anything from them – and one must not wish to be so godlike as [not] to improve something here or there in his creations.’76 The revisions were then sent with a letter dated 28 March, although the list of revisions is lost. The most important change was the insertion of bar 4 (and the corresponding bars 23, 127, 251, 481), prolonging the second pause in the opening phrase. These additional bars are not found in the first printing and had to be inserted for the second, whereas the third movement was already in its shorter version in the first printing and must therefore have been abridged before the first performance, as already suggested. One further important textual issue had not been resolved at this stage. In the third movement two extra bars (referred to here as 238a–239a) were erroneously included in the printed edition, at the beginning of the shortened reprise of the scherzo (before bars 238–9). Beethoven eventually noticed the mistake and, in part of a very long letter dated 21 August 1810, he drew attention to it, quoting six bars from the passage where the minore section resumes after the trio in C major (Example 5.12).77 He stated that the middle two bars, which he marked with a large X, must be deleted, along with the corresponding rests in the other instruments. The publishers, however, took no action; and when they came to publish a full score in 1826, the error was repeated. It was not until 1846 that it was brought to light, evidently through Felix Mendelssohn,78 who by that time had ready access to the autograph score and may even have owned it: it had apparently been owned by Heinrich Beer of Berlin, who died in 1842, and the manuscript passed then or soon after to the Mendelssohn family.79 Mendelssohn was regularly travelling between Berlin and Leipzig at that time. When the publishers investigated the discrepancy that he had pointed out between the autograph and the printed edition they found Example 5.12 Op. 67.III, bars 236–9 with two redundant bars, 238a–239a (BB-465).

76

BB-359; A-192. BB-465; A-272. 78 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 30. 79 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 367. 77

140

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Beethoven’s letter of 1810. They then printed a facsimile of the relevant part in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung. They had evidently seen the autograph, for they noted in the article that Beethoven had originally planned a five-part structure for the movement.80 They referred loosely to a printing error, and subsequently amended their edition, but it was actually a transmission error, for it appears in both the set of printed parts from 1809 and the printed score of 1826. These derive independently from the manuscript score supplied by Beethoven, which must therefore have included the error, and Schünemann confirmed that ‘the error was not corrected’ in that score.81 It is clear, therefore, that when the reprise of the scherzo and trio was removed from the printer’s manuscript, before it was sent away, insufficient care was taken, leaving the duplication. But how did Beethoven come to overlook the error, when by his own assertion he had checked it very carefully? If one is reading a text and a word appears twice in a row, the duplication is obvious; but if a word appears at the end of a page and again overleaf at the top of the next page, the error is far more likely to be overlooked. Something similar evidently happened with the score. We happen to know that bars 238a–239a were at the end of a page, and that bars 238–9 were overleaf.82 Beethoven, as usual, checked carefully for missing accidentals, articulation and dynamics, but evidently missed the faulty layout, since the music on both sides of the leaf sounded good in his mind. This explanation fits well with the assumption that the excision had been done very neatly in the manuscript before it was sent to Hӓrtel, and that Beethoven really intended it as his final artistic decision. The inconsistency between sources has led to endless controversy about which is the ‘correct’ version of the third movement. Among various writers who have addressed the problem, Peter Gülke has deduced that the five-part version is most authoritative,83 and his edition includes this. Sieghard Brandenburg argues both ways, claiming that the ‘final version’ was the three-part one but that ‘Beethoven’s artistic intentions’ were for the five-part one.84 Del Mar concludes persuasively that ‘the overwhelming mass of evidence’ points to the 80

AMZ, 48 (July 1846), cols 461–2; reproduced in Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 16. Dufner (‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 239–40) assumes they had not seen the autograph, but their description, together with that of a later Russian commentator that he cites, indicates that they had done, for it does not match what was in the manuscript used by the printer. 81 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 57; Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 238. 82 Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 57. 83 Gülke, Zur Neuausgabe, pp. 43–9. The views of earlier writers have been superseded by those mentioned here. 84 Brandenburg, ‘Once Again’, p. 198.

Motivic Intensity: The Fifth Symphony, Op. 67



141

three-part version as Beethoven’s final artistic intentions,85 and presents just this version in his edition. Dufner, however, confuses the issue by mistaking the autograph score for the printer’s copy in one part of his account,86 and his edition shows both versions. Both versions were in fact in use during Beethoven’s lifetime, as is clear from a comment by his friend Franz Oliva in a conversation book of 1820, when he referred on 10 April to a performance that he had heard the previous day: ‘The Dilettantes abridged your symphony yesterday: in the 3rd movement they left out almost half; – the fugato middle section was played only once, then the passage where the violins have pizzicato entered at once …’.87 Although Beethoven’s reply is not recorded, he seems not to have made any effort to suppress either version, and Oliva’s comment confirms that both were in use. In a modern performance either version would therefore be legitimate; but it should always be acknowledged that the longer version was Beethoven’s earlier intention and not his final one, which was established before he gave the printer’s manuscript to Härtel.

85

Del Mar, Symphony No. 5: Critical Commentary, p. 59. Dufner, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 239; Dufner assumes that a description of the relevant part of the autograph really referred to the printer’s copy, since he did not realise that the autograph was available in Leipzig for a time. 87 BKh, vol. 2, p. 53. 86

6

‘More an Expression of Feeling than Painting’: The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68 Allegro ma non troppo: Angenehme, heitre Empfindungen, welche bey der Ankunft auf dem Lande im Menschen erwachen (Pleasant, cheerful feelings which awaken in one on arrival in the countryside) Andante molto moto: Scene am Bach (Scene by the brook) Allegro: Lustiges Zusammenseyn der Landleute (Merry gathering of country people) – Allegro: Donner. Sturm (Thunder. Storm) – Allegretto: Hirtengesang: Wohlthätige, mit Dank an die Gottheit verbundene Gefühle nach dem Sturm (Shepherds’ song: glad feelings combined with thanks to the Godhead after the storm)1

A characteristic symphony

B

eethoven’s Sixth Symphony differs from all his others in having explicit poetic reference in every movement, in a genre known as the ‘characteristic symphony’, and with the overall title Pastoral-Sinfonie, given in French or Italian in some of the sources as ‘Sinfonie pastorale’ or ‘Sinfonia pastorale’. The term ‘characteristic’ in this sense denotes a work or movement in which a single explicitly named character or emotion prevails throughout, and it was defined as such in various writings of the period.2 It differs from a ‘programme symphony’ in that it has no narrative, although both genres rely on poetic content for an understanding of their meaning.

1 The spelling and punctuation of the movement titles vary slightly in the sources; the versions given here are based on the autograph, BNba, BH 64. 2 See F. E. Kirby, ‘Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony as a Sinfonia Caracteristica’, The Musical Quarterly, 56 (1970), 605–23, esp. 108–9; Richard Will, The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Beethoven (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

143

Beethoven’s only previous characteristic work was his Sonate pathétique, and his only previous use of the concept in a symphony was the ‘Marcia funebre’ in the Eroica. One might argue that the Eroica as a whole was a characteristic work, but Beethoven did not describe it as such, and it must be remembered that the work did not initially bear this title, which was added only when it was being published. Haydn and Mozart, too, had not composed explicitly characteristic symphonies apart from a few with rather general titles such as Le matin and La chasse (Haydn’s symphonies Nos. 6 and 73), and the pastoral elements in the present symphony owe little to the symphonies of either composer, though Haydn’s oratorio The Seasons was surely influential. Characteristic symphonies by other Viennese composers were written in the 1790s, however, including two by Anton Wranitzky (Aphrodite and a birthday symphony) and three by his brother Paul (Joy of the Hungarian Nation, Symphony for the Peace and a wedding symphony).3 Beethoven knew both brothers, and probably encountered at least some of their characteristic symphonies. In choosing the pastoral idiom for his Sixth Symphony, Beethoven was following a long tradition of pastoral music. The pastoral concept can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks and their portrayal of Arcadia as an idealised rural landscape. This idea was much espoused in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the notion flourished of shepherds and shepherdesses enjoying a peaceful existence, as in Henry Purcell’s chorus ‘How blest are shepherds’ in King Arthur (1691), with words by John Dryden. Particular musical characteristics gradually evolved during this period and became embedded as the pastoral style, which was firmly encapsulated in Corelli’s popular ‘Christmas’ Concerto (Op. 6 No. 8), where the finale was designed to portray the shepherds at Christ’s nativity. The characteristics of this style then persisted throughout the eighteenth century, most often in works associated with the Christmas shepherds, as in Handel’s Messiah and Bach’s Christmas Oratorio. Pastoral music sometimes also occurred in instrumental movements (perhaps headed ‘sinfonia pastorella’) within a mass setting, and from here there developed some independent works labelled as pastoral symphonies, sometimes in several movements.4 Typical features included major keys (almost invariably – most often G, but sometimes F, D or C major); medium pace, often in 6/8 metre 3 See David Wyn Jones, The Symphony in Beethoven’s Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 78–95; see also Will, Characteristic Symphony, pp. 249–303, for a comprehensive list of characteristic symphonies of the period, including some orchestral works that were not described as symphonies. 4 For a useful summary of such eighteenth-century pastoral works before Beethoven, see especially David Wyn Jones, Beethoven: Pastoral Symphony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 14–16; and Will, Characteristic Symphony, pp. 85–97.

144

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

with dotted siciliano rhythms; parallel thirds in upper voices; drone basses – sometimes a double drone (tonic and dominant) in imitation of bagpipes; homophonic textures; styles derived from peasant dances; conspicuous use of flute, oboe or horn, suggesting rural instruments; imitation of birdsong or herding calls; and hints of flowing streams. The style was described briefly in the article ‘Pastorale’ in Heinrich Christoph Koch’s Musikalisches Lexicon of 1802,5 which Beethoven may have consulted, and he would have been thoroughly familiar with the tradition. He had sometimes used elements from it in his own compositions – most notably in his Grand Sonata in D (Op. 28), which contains so many of these elements that it has acquired the nickname ‘Pastoral’ Sonata. His fondness for the countryside is well known, and he told Therese Malfatti in May 1810: ‘No one can love the countryside as I do.’6 The idea of writing a specifically pastoral symphony in several movements in strictly symphonic form with descriptive titles for each movement, however, seems not to have previously occurred, and the most notable precursor of Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony is probably an orchestral work in five movements by Justin Heinrich Knecht entitled Le portrait musical de la nature, published in 1784. Beethoven may have encountered this work, which was issued by the same firm (Bossler of Speyer) that had published his three earliest piano sonatas (WoO 47) a year earlier; or he may have encountered it after arrival in Vienna.7 It is no more that its title suggests, however: a musical portrait of nature with no conspicuous symphonic elements but simply an attempt at description, including a storm in the middle movements. Beethoven’s work inevitably includes many of the same elements, but fuses them with symphonic processes to form a genuine symphony. It is essentially in the standard four movements, if the ‘Storm’ is interpreted as just an introduction to the finale, for such introductions, albeit generally much shorter, occur in several of his other works.8 Early ideas The idea of writing a pastoral symphony took a long time to develop. First inklings of a work of this type appear sporadically in the sketchbook Landsberg 6 in early 1804, during or shortly after the completion of the Eroica Symphony, and are unrelated to each other. There are four main sketches that can be 5

Heinrich Christoph Koch, Musikalisches Lexicon (Frankfurt: August Hermann, 1802), col. 1142. 6 BB-442; A-258. 7 See Jones, Pastoral Symphony, pp. 18–19. 8 See, for example, the piano sonatas Op. 27 No. 1, Op. 53, Op. 101 and Op. 106, the First, Third and Ninth Symphonies, and the string quartets Op. 18 No. 6, Op. 95 and Op. 135.



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

145

related to the Pastoral Symphony, on pages 64, 96, 118 and 159. Other possible connections are so tenuous that they can be dismissed.9 The one on page 64 was written on the top stave, during the time when Beethoven was working on the Eroica in summer 1803. As previously noted, when he had an idea for something other than the main composition that he was working on, he often turned ahead a few pages and wrote it on the top stave. On this occasion, he sketched a song, Das Glück der Freundschaft (Op. 88), turning ahead to pages 62–3, while working on the Eroica, then turned on to page 64 to jot down the idea that was to surface in the Pastoral Symphony. Sketches for the third movement of the Eroica therefore had to jump from page 61 to stave 2 on page 64 when he added them later. The theme he wrote down on the top stave (Example 6.1) does not show the normal features of the Classical style, for it has a strangely unstable sense of tonality more typical of some folk music, with an irregular ending on E♭ after emphasising the notes B♭ and F, and a line that does not lend itself readily to conventional harmony, suggesting it may have a monophonic origin. It seems quite possible, therefore, that Beethoven actually heard this melody played on some folk instrument, perhaps accompanying dancing, while out on a country walk near Heiligenstadt, where he composed the Eroica,10 and that he was sufficiently intrigued by it to note it down in his sketchbook when he returned to his lodgings. At any rate, he used the melody intact, with only minor modification, in the context of a folk dance in the third movement of the Pastoral Symphony (bars 165–8 plus repetitions) when he came to compose this movement five years later, and it sounds suspiciously like an interpolation borrowed from elsewhere, as indeed it was. There is, however, no indication that he was intending the theme for this purpose when he noted it in Landsberg 6, and he may even have considered the possibility of using it in the Eroica,11 since it is notated in the right key, though it would sound even more incongruous there. Example 6.1 Unlabelled sketch (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 64).

9 See, for example, Jones, Pastoral Symphony, p. 27, which suggests that a passage on p. 178 of Landsberg 6 is relevant; but the passage is marked ‘Adagio’ and bears no clear connection to the symphony. 10 WR, p. 67. 11 See Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017), pp. 126–7.

146

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The second precursor of the Pastoral Symphony in Landsberg 6 appears on page 96, again at the top of a page (the previous two pages are blank), and it was probably entered some time before Beethoven reached that part of the sketchbook. It is only a few pages after the last sketches for the Eroica (page 91), and was therefore probably written shortly before he completed these. This would place it around August or September 1803, at a time when he was beginning to consider what he might compose after the Eroica. Headed ‘Murmeln der Bäche’ (‘Murmuring of the brooks’), it consists of quaver figuration in 12/8 rhythm marked ‘andante molto’. The figuration, marked ‘1mo’, is based mainly on middle C, and on the stave beneath there is similar figuration a fifth lower and in the bass clef, marked ‘2do’.12 On the third stave is the curious remark ‘je grӧsser der Bach je tiefer der Ton – ’ (‘the bigger the brook, the deeper the tone’). This provides a useful clue to the size of brook Beethoven had in mind in the Pastoral Symphony; but there is no hint at this stage that the figuration was to be part of a symphony at all. On page 118 of Landsberg 6, a page devoted to a series of oddments, the last of these provides a foretaste of the opening theme of the symphony (Example 6.2). Judging by its location, it dates from late autumn 1803, around the time Beethoven was abandoning his opera Vestas Feuer and starting work on his ‘Waldstein’ Sonata. The instruments mentioned – violas, cellos, and horn or contrabass – indicate an orchestral work, thus possibly a symphony. It is less likely to be an orchestral passage in Vestas Feuer, sketches for which seem to have petered out two pages earlier. Several features in the sketch were to be taken up in the Pastoral Symphony, even if the sketch was not intended for this purpose. They include the key of F major; a low initial chord that is the same as in the symphony except for having an extra A rather than a bare fifth, F–C; and most conspicuously, the first four notes of the opening theme in the symphony, A–B♭–D–C, which appear in exactly the same rhythm. Its typically pastoral use of parallel thirds is not found at the start of the symphony but appears at the second statement of the main theme (bars 33–4). The pitches are an octave lower than in the symphony, and the continuation is different, Example 6.2 Unlabelled sketch (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 118).

12 See Lewis Lockwood and Alan Gosman, eds, Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, 2 vols (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013), vol. 1, p. 96; the sketch was first published in Gustav Nottebohm, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven aus dem Jahre 1803 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880), p. 56, and has been frequently cited since.

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



147

but the resemblance is striking and suggests that Beethoven already had the motif in mind as a possible opening for a symphony in F. The other sketch in Landsberg 6 that can be related to the Pastoral Symphony appears on page 159, and is headed ‘lustige Sinfonia’ (‘merry symphony’). The only elements that reappear in the Pastoral are the words ‘lustige’ (in the third-movement heading) and ‘Sinfonia’ (in the overall title), plus the key of F major, for there is no clear thematic resemblance (see Example 6.3).13 Example 6.3 Sketch for ‘lustige Sinfonia’ (Kj, Landsberg 6, p. 159).

Although there is a different sketch (for a Kyrie) below it, it could nevertheless be a late interpolation, added some time after Beethoven had reached the end of the sketchbook. If so, it raises the intriguing possibility that it was inserted about the same time as a group of sketches for the Fifth Symphony on the previous four pages, around April 1804, and that it was at this stage that Beethoven conceived the idea of a pair of contrasting symphonies, one stormy and one merry, which is how they eventually emerged four years later. After these sketches the two symphonies were laid aside while Beethoven concentrated on Leonore and other works, and he is not known to have returned to ideas for a symphony in F major until 1807. At this point the disparate ideas sketched in Landsberg 6 began to coalesce into what became the Pastoral Symphony. Taking the leaf mentioned in Chapter 4 that had been intended for the Fourth Symphony but had not actually been used (Bsb, Landsberg 12, pages 47–8), Beethoven made some sketches for the Pastoral Symphony, and also, perhaps a little later, some for the Mass in C that he composed that summer. The symphony sketches look like initial ideas for a new work – typically, they appear at the top of a page (page 48) – and are headed ‘Sinfonia pastorella’. They show just the opening four-bar melody, which already matches the final version, followed by the end of the exposition (headed ‘Schluss des 1ten Theil’). There is also a short sketch for ‘Donner’ (‘thunder’), obviously intended for the storm movement.14 It shows a tremolando passage in F minor for ‘Bassi’. Here, then, is the first clear indication that Beethoven planned 13

The sketch is unaccountably transcribed in the bass clef, thus in A major (and not quite accurately), in Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook. 14 All the sketches for the symphony on this page are transcribed in N-II, p. 370.

148

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

to write a pastoral symphony, and the storm was to be an integral part of it. Particularly interesting is the sketch for the end of the exposition (Example 6.4). The triplet oscillations between A and G from the sketch’s fifth bar onwards are the only feature that survived intact to the final version (bars 83–6), apart from the pedal point on C at the very end of the exposition. Example 6.4 Sketch for Op. 68.I (Bsb, Landsberg 12, p. 48).

The hesitant start to the oscillations, however, initially with quaver rests and then with paired quavers before the triplets begin, is strikingly similar to the hesitant start to the call of the nightingale at the end of the second movement, where the figure is also interrupted by quaver rests at first, followed by paired quavers (though in reverse direction) and a speeding up of the oscillations. In both cases, the notes used are the fifth and sixth degrees of the scale. Thus the sketch draws attention to the similarity between the two passages in the final version (first movement, bars 83–6, and second movement, bars 129–30). The Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook No further sketching for this symphony is known from 1807, but in 1808 Beethoven acquired a new sketchbook, much of which is devoted to this work. Unlike his previous sketchbook, made up of left-over papers, this one was an integral volume consisting of twenty-four regular gatherings of four leaves, making ninety-six in total. Unfortunately it became partly dismembered after his death, with fifty-nine leaves now preserved in the British Library and the remainder elsewhere, in some cases lost altogether, and it took the ingenuity of Alan Tyson to work out the book’s original structure, using watermarks and musical content as the main clues.15 Twenty-eight leaves were removed from 15

Alan Tyson, ‘A Reconstruction of the Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook (British Museum Add. MS. 31766)’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 67–96; information slightly updated in JTW, pp. 166–73. Both accounts include a chart showing the precise structure of the sketchbook, page by page. A further update is noted in LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 375, by which time two more missing leaves (privately owned after being auctioned) had been located. The portion in the British Library (formerly in the British Museum) is available



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

149

various parts of the original book and are now in the Berlin State Library,16 but in a completely jumbled order. Six more leaves are known in various other locations, including two privately owned; and three are still missing. The original structure of the book is best thought of as twenty-four gatherings, of which I–XVIII, or the first seventy leaves, are devoted very largely to the Pastoral Symphony.17 The remainder of the book is occupied mainly by sketches for two piano trios, Op. 70. The sketchbook was apparently begun straight after Beethoven had completed the main work on the Fifth, thus about February 1808, and he wrote the date ‘1808’ at the head of the first page, which seems to mark a resumption of work on the Pastoral Symphony. Sketching of the symphony must have been completed by July or August, for the piano trio that follows it in the sketchbook (Op. 70 No. 1) was almost ready by September.18 As usual, the movements of the symphony were sketched in order, but with some overlap, particularly between the first two movements and also between the last two. For the first movement, there is no indication of significant sketching from this period outside this sketchbook.19 It is of course possible that Beethoven made substantial earlier sketches before establishing the main themes,20 but equally he could have found them fairly quickly or experimented at the piano rather than using written sketches. In the later movements, however, he occasionally made sketches on separate loose leaves, for no obvious reason. Three such leaves are known. One contains a draft for part of the slow movement, as well as some sketches that may have been early ideas for the third movement, while the fourth movement is represented by a single tremolo D♭ and there is nothing definite for the finale.21 The other two leaves are a bifolio removed digitally at https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/BriefDisplay.aspx (accessed 2 August 2023), and a transcription is in Dagmar Weise, ed., Beethoven: Ein Skizzenbuch zur Pastoralsymphonie Op. 68 und zu den Trios Op. 70, 1 und 2 (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1961). See also Lewis Lockwood’s review of Weise’s edition, in The Musical Quarterly, 53 (1967), 128–36. 16 Bsb, Landsberg 10, most of pp. 103–62. 17 Of these 70 leaves, 47 are in Lbl, Add. 31766; 20 are in Bsb, Landsberg 10; one is in BNba, HCB Mh 74, and the other two are privately owned. 18 JTW, p. 167. 19 See Philip Gossett, ‘Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony: Sketches for the First Movement’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27 (1974), 248–84, at 249. 20 As suggested by Nottebohm; see N-II, p. 253. 21 BNba, HCB Mh 73; the watermark is the same as that in the first three movements of the autograph of the symphony, but the leaf is ruled differently, with 16 instead of 12 staves; see Sieghard Brandenburg, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Sechste Symphonie F-dur Opus 68: Sinfonia pastorale; Faksimile nach dem Autograph BH 64 im Beethoven-Haus Bonn (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2000), pp. 41–3 and 54.

150

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

from the preliminary composing score for the Fourth Symphony, described in Chapter 4.22 They contain well-developed sketches for the third movement and early ideas for the fourth and fifth.23 On the first page of the sketchbook Beethoven noted that the symphony was to be a ‘Sinfonia caracteristica – or recollections of country life’, which may have been added to the page at a later stage. Thus the concept of a ‘characteristic’ symphony was very much in his mind. While sketching, however, he showed repeated concern for the problems of excessive pictorialism in such works: ‘One leaves it to the hearer himself to discover the situations’ (Gathering I, page 1); ‘All painting, if driven too far in instrumental music, loses out’ (II/2); ‘a recollection of country life’ (V/1); ‘Sinfonia pastorella. Even someone who maintains just an idea of country life can without many headings think for himself what the author [intends]’ (a final thought that appears just after the last sketches, in XVIII/5).24 These ideas filtered through to the final published version, where Beethoven used a subheading for the whole symphony: ‘More expression of feeling than painting’. A further comment is often mentioned in this connection: ‘Even without description one can perceive the whole, which is more feeling than tone-painting’ (Landsberg 10, p. 77); but this page, which is now located in the same miscellany as part of the sketchbook, does not come from the sketchbook and was used in 1816 for a sketch for the folksong setting ‘Wann i in der Früh’. Whether Beethoven was thinking back to the Pastoral Symphony or had a different work in mind is unclear. The emphasis on feeling, however, did not mean that pictorialism was eschewed: the rippling motion of the brook, followed by bird calls, in the second movement; the country dance in the third; and most strikingly the storm, with thunder, lightning and rain in the fourth, are all highly pictorial; but they are kept in check within the overall symphonic scheme. 22

p. 6.

Bsb, Landsberg 12, pp. 53–6. See also Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie,

23 They are discussed briefly in N-II, pp. 371–2, but Nottebohm treats them in the same paragraph as the 1807 sketches mentioned earlier (Landsberg 12, pp. 47–8), as if they belong to the same group, whereas they are clearly later. 24 Sources are respectively: Add. 31766, f. 2r (‘Man überlässt es dem Zuhörer sich selbst die Situationen auszufinden’); Landsberg 10, p. 161 (‘Jede Mahlerei nachdem in der Instrumentalmusik zu weit getrieben verliehrt’); Add. 31766, f. 13r (‘eine Erinnerung an das Landleben’); Landsberg 10, p. 107 (‘Sinfonia pastorella – wer auch nur je eine Idee vom Landleben erhalten, kann sich ohne viele überschriften selbst denken, was der autor’). These views echo some of those expressed in articles about musical tonepainting in Johann Georg Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste (1771–4), a book that Beethoven was familiar with, as noted earlier. For these articles see Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Thomas Christensen, eds and trans., Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 89–91.

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



151

The sketchbook begins with a few isolated ideas for the early part of the first movement, and an extended draft for the whole exposition follows shortly (Add. 31766, folios 4r–5r: Gathering I).25 It is sometimes claimed that Beethoven may have derived the main theme from a Serbian/Croatian folksong, ‘Sirvonja’, which was discovered and published around 1880 and was said to have been known for many years.26 Beethoven’s sketches, however, give no indication that he was borrowing a pre-existing melody, and there are significant differences even in the first bar. It seems clear that the folksong melody was adapted from the symphony some years after the latter had been published in several arrangements. The folksong melody derives from bars 1–4, 3–4 (again) and 41–8 of the symphony, and these never appear as an integrated group in the sketches. Another such folksong, ‘Kad sam v Sopron’,27 is similarly derived from bars 86–92 of the finale. The exposition draft already matches the final version quite closely in several places, notably the first and second subjects (bars 1–48 and 65–114), but the proto-minimalist repetitions in bars 19–25 are not yet present: bar 18 is followed by bar 26, though the intervening bars were added a few pages later (Landsberg 10, page 123: Gathering II). The transition and closing material are also significantly different from the final version, though they are similar to it in character and sense of direction. Perhaps the most striking feature, however, is the detailed articulation in the opening passage. Beethoven rarely included slurs and staccatos in his sketches, but here nearly all the first nineteen bars have detailed articulation marks, often but not always the same as in the final version. The combination of staccatos and short slurs was evidently an integral part of Beethoven’s attempt at conveying contentment on arrival in the country, whereas too much of either staccatos or slurring would be less effective. The closing section of the exposition is an advance on that of 1807 (Example 6.4 above), but uses mainly triplets rather than the dactylic rhythms found in the final version. The triplet version was eventually used in the coda (bars 428ff.). After a few ideas for the development section on the next two pages, Beethoven noted a synopsis for the rest of the symphony (Landsberg 10, page 161: Gathering II, page 2). The accompaniment figure of the start of the slow movement appears almost as in the final version, but is notated in semiquavers, implying a 12/16 time signature. Underneath, however, he wrote ‘or quavers’ (‘oder 8tel’), which would match the quaver notation of the 25

This section is discussed in some detail in Christoph F. Lorenz, ‘Beethovens Skizzen zur “Pastorale”’, Die Musikforschung, 38 (1985), 95–108. 26 See e.g. Martin Geck, Beethoven’s Symphonies: Nine Approaches to Art and Ideas, trans. Stewart Spencer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), p. 107. See also Anon., ‘Folk-Songs in Symphonies’, The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular, 34/609 (1893), 652–3, which quotes the whole ‘Sirvonja’ melody. 27 Also quoted in Anon., ‘Folk-Songs in Symphonies’, p. 653.

152

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

‘Murmeln der Bäche’ sketch in Landsberg 6, and this notation was adopted in all later sketches. For the third movement, he sketched a ‘Men[uett]’ theme that shows some affinity with the final version (see Example 6.5, though a few of the pitches are uncertain). The eight-bar phrase structure is already in place, as is the scoring in octaves (here marked ‘in 8’), but bar 1 was to be discarded and the following notes displaced by a bar. The pizzicato marking was to be replaced by simple staccatos, and the theme in the sketch heads towards C major rather than the unorthodox D major of the final version. Often the idea of writing something less orthodox emerged only later in the sketching process, as here. There are some brief ideas for the fourth movement (labelled ‘Sturm’), with an F minor indication, alongside a four-bar theme in 3/4 headed ‘Andante Variationen’, which is presumably an early idea for a finale. It bears no melodic resemblance to the final version, but the notion of a theme that was subject to variation was retained, for in the final version each of the many statements of the theme is scored differently. Example 6.5 Sketch for Op. 68.III (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 161).

On the opposite page (now Landsberg 10, page 123), Beethoven briefly considered a short introduction to the first movement (Example 6.6). Placing the first bar of the Allegro at the end of this sketch leaves no doubt about its intended location. Here the idea seems to have been to portray the sense of rising optimism as one approaches the countryside, with initial hesitancy giving way to increasing excitement, culminating on a B♭, a note that was to have such prominence in the work. But Beethoven quickly rejected this idea, preferring to portray from the start a sense of ‘arrival in the countryside’ (‘Ankunft auf dem Lande’). Example 6.6 Sketch for introduction for Op. 68.I (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 123).

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



153

Sketches for the development soon follow, with three attempts on page 159 of Landsberg 10 (Gathering II, page 6) and more later. The core section of the development required relatively little sketching as the harmony is fairly static with much motivic repetition, but at least fourteen sketches are known for the retransition.28 In the first draft, which covers the whole development, Beethoven planned a relatively short core followed by a lengthy retransition of nearly sixty bars (compared with 32, bars 247–78, in the final version). This retransition begins in G major and repeatedly modulates to the subdominant until it settles in B flat major for a time, before moving through G minor to implied C major chords, as chord V of F major. Here the music stands on the dominant for nearly twenty bars, resulting in a harmonically conventional approach to the recapitulation.29 On the opposite page (Add. 31766, folio 6r), however, Beethoven decided to use a B flat chord immediately before the recapitulation, thus giving a highly unusual subdominant preparation for the return of the main theme and emphasising chord IV in a much more striking way. He then incorporated this idea into a longer draft overleaf (folio 6v), which covers the whole retransition and start of the recapitulation.30 This draft begins in A major instead of G, and already matches the final version quite closely (bars 247–82), except for having eight extra bars, later eliminated, between bars 262 and 263. Thus the retransition had already been substantially reduced in size and was to be reduced still further. Use of A major gives more scope for modulating repeatedly to the subdominant without reaching and going beyond the home key of F, and the sketch uses the key sequence A – D – G – C (G major was later to be replaced by G minor, bars 257–60; but in the sketch D minor rather than D major is implied). C major is then used to prepare for the tonic, before dropping to the unusual B flat chord to give the subdominant approach mentioned. However, Beethoven did not adopt this scheme until he had tried something quite different. In the early part of his recapitulations he often takes the music to the flat side of the main key in a short digression before the tonic is restated.31 Hence the next draft (folio 7r: Gathering III)32 shows this approach, using some of this retransition material early in the recapitulation, which moves quickly into B flat. From there, the A major to D major material from the previous sketch (and the final version) is transposed up a semitone – to B flat and E flat – from where it moves via a C major chord back to F major in preparation for the second statement of the main theme. This would necessitate 28

Gossett, ‘Sixth Symphony’, p. 254. The draft is quoted ibid., p. 256, Ex. 5. 30 See ibid., p. 257, Exx. 6 and 7. 31 See, for example, the First, Third, Seventh and Ninth Symphonies, though each explores the flat side of the tonic in quite different ways. 32 Gossett, ‘Sixth Symphony’, p. 258, Ex. 8. 29

154

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

a different retransition, and Beethoven experimented with one added at the foot of the opposite page (folio 6v: end of Gathering II) that moves from A major to D minor harmony, and thence directly to the B flat chord in preparation for the recapitulation.33 This was no mere passing thought, for he considered both versions side by side for a time (folios 8v and 9r: Gathering III) before finally deciding to revert to a modified version of the earlier plan. Inserting a modulation to the subdominant near the start of the recapitulation, as well as near the start of the development section and of the coda as in the final version, would surely have seemed too repetitive. Many of the remaining sketches for the first movement are for the coda, and as usual Beethoven spent much effort on the ending. A fairly early sketch for the end, marked ‘finis’, shows many features already in place (Example 6.7). Example 6.7 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.I (Lbl, Add. 31766, f. 8r).

There is a final statement of the opening theme (cf. bars 492–4), followed by an echo an octave higher and a rise to a high F (cf. bars 498–502), concluding with a few repeated chords (cf. bars 509–11). Quite a few details, however, were amended later, and the section expanded from fourteen to twenty-one bars. The use of an A rather than the normal F for the first violins on the final chord appeared only late in the sketching process, apparently after Beethoven had decided also to conclude the second movement with the third of the chord on top.34 Thus most of the movement fell into place fairly quickly, but several very different ideas were considered for the end of the development and start of the recapitulation. The later movements For the second movement Beethoven envisaged from the outset a ‘Scene by the Brook’, and used figuration similar to that noted for the ‘brook’ motif some years earlier in Landsberg 6. There has been much debate about which particular brook, if any, he had in mind. Schindler claims that it was the brook 33 34

Ibid, p. 259, Ex. 9. Ibid., pp. 265–7.



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

155

at Heiligenstadt, which they allegedly visited together in April 1823. But every verifiable detail of his account has proved to be fictitious.35 Moreover, the brook in question, known as the Schreiberbach, is tiny – it would take little agility to jump right across it. Bearing in mind Beethoven’s above-mentioned observation, ‘the bigger the brook, the deeper the tone’, and the relatively low pitch of the accompanying figuration in this movement (the lower octave is well down in the bass clef), the brook portrayed in the symphony is surely much larger than the Schreiberbach. Another possibility is the brook in Dornbach, to the west of Vienna, for Beethoven wrote ‘Bach in Dornbach’ in the upper margin of Landsberg 10, page 135 (Gathering IX). He had finished sketching the second movement by this point in the sketchbook, although the comment could have been entered earlier. However, the brook in Dornbach is scarcely any bigger than the Schreiberbach, which makes it unlikely to have been his inspiration for the movement. Thus he probably intended no particular brook when sketching the music, but certainly one bigger than the Schreiberbach. The sketches for the second movement are quite protracted. Although it is considerably shorter on paper than the first movement, it occupies almost twice as many pages in the sketchbook, and still does not come very close to the final version. The main theme and its quaver countermelody were in place from an early stage, and before long the first twelve bars were in place, along with what might be considered the second subject (bars 27–8), but with a much shorter transition between them and with uncertainty about the end of the exposition (Add. 31766, folio 15r: Gathering V). The rest of the exposition was never well settled in the sketchbook, despite numerous drafts. The same applies to the development section. Joseph Kerman identified eight drafts, most of which modulate to G major but initially no further – thus without the move to E flat, G flat and thence B major.36 After introducing these keys in later development sketches, however, Beethoven considered using an extended digression to the flat side early in the recapitulation, just as he had done in the first movement. This again meant transferring some of the latter part of the development section into this new location, with an extended passage in E flat, but again he eventually decided against this plan, so that the start of the recapitulation in the final version is entirely regular apart from some rescoring, and leads via a shortened transition to the second subject in the tonic (bar 99). It is certainly surprising that he considered the same strategy in both of the first two movements but in both cases decided against it. The coda is renowned for its use of three bird calls – nightingale, quail and cuckoo – which raise the question of how soon in the sketching they 35 See Barry Cooper, ‘Schindler and the Pastoral Symphony’, The Beethoven Newsletter, 8/1 (1993), 2–6. 36 Kerman, Joseph, ‘Beethoven Sketchbooks in the British Museum’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association, 93 (1966–7), 77–96, at 87–92.

156

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

appeared, and whether they appeared one by one or all simultaneously. Hints of the nightingale had already appeared in the first movement (for example, bars 83–92, based on the nightingale-like sketch in Example 6.4 above), and falling thirds that might suggest a cuckoo call are prevalent in parts of the second movement (for example, bar 39); but these motifs seem incidental rather than definite references to bird calls, which become explicit only in the coda. As usual, the sketches for this movement include many attempts at an ending. Most of them, like the final version, end with a D rather than B♭ in the upper melody, evidently influencing the A at the end of the first movement, as mentioned above. The idea of introducing bird calls, however, is absent in all the early attempts for the coda. The first suggestion of possible bird calls appears to be a series of high B♭s, some decorated by trills, which could suggest a bird, on page 153, stave 4, of Landsberg 10 (end of Gathering VI) and folio 20r, stave 13, of Add. 31766 (start of Gathering VII). Both passages are marked ‘Ende’. Further repeated high B♭s with bird-like trills, though they could be just a descant or inverted pedal, appear in some but by no means all of the sketches for the ending on the following pages: they are not in evidence in sketches for the ending on folios 21r and 22r; but they reappear in sketches on folio 23v and the page originally opposite it (Landsberg 10, page 151, at the start of Gathering VIII). Here they are beginning to take on the distinctive features of a stylised nightingale, not far distant from the final version, though still at the higher pitch: repeated notes gradually speed up and are followed by a trill (Example 6.8). Example 6.8 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.II (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 151).

The absence of barlines suggests a cadenza-like passage, with the rhythmic freedom characteristic of much birdsong. The other two birds, however, are still not in evidence. The combination of three bird calls finally appears almost as an afterthought in one of the last second-movement sketches in the book (Add. 31766, folio 25v: Gathering VIII/6; see Example 6.9). Thus, whereas the brook was the starting-point for the whole movement, the other explicit portrayal in it – the birds – appeared only very late on, with the nightingale leading the way. As in the previous example, the rhythms are far from clear in the sketch, and the barlines are highly irregular, but the nightingale, quail and cuckoo motifs are all discernible, although they are not named here – only in the final version. They appear in the same order as latterly, with the nightingale trilling on F and

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



157

Example 6.9 Sketch for the end of Op. 68.II (Lbl, Add 31766, f. 25v).

the quail making a single appearance (as opposed to four in the final version, where it is an octave higher), followed by two or three cuckoo calls. In the final version the nightingale at one point picks up the opening ‘brook’ motif, F–G–F quavers, but this subtle connection was not part of Beethoven’s initial idea. A repeat sign in the sketch shows that the passage is to be heard twice, as in the final version, and the bird calls are to be followed both times by a main motif from the movement, which the second time leads to a closing final cadence. Whereas the nightingale and cuckoo are archetypal birds whose calls had been used by many earlier composers, the quail is a less obvious choice. Its use here recalls Beethoven’s song Der Wachtelschlag (The Quail Call, WoO 129), where it appears many times, and this is probably what prompted him to introduce it in the symphony. In the song, the poet interprets the quail as addressing God in various ways, such as ‘Fürchte Gott!’, ‘Liebe Gott!’ (‘Fear God!’, ‘Love God!’), and the idea of nature being in communion with God was very much part of Beethoven’s thinking. Around 1810 he noted down: ‘It seems as if in the country every tree said to me “Holy, Holy!”’37 And in later years he showed great interest in Christian Sturm’s Betrachtungen über die Werke Gottes im Reiche der Natur (Reflections on the Works of God in the Realm of Nature, 1773), annotating his copy of the 1811 edition in no fewer than 117 places.38 Thus his use of the quail call can be interpreted as nature’s response to God, counterbalancing man’s response to God in the finale, where Beethoven’s title refers to ‘thanks to the Godhead’. Several adjustments still had to be made to this ending in the sketchbook, but it contains the gist of the final version, whereas far more work was needed 37

TF, p. 501. The annotations were apparently made in 1816; see Charles Witcombe, ‘Beethoven’s Markings in Christoph Christian Sturm’s Reflections on the Works of God in the Realm of Nature and Providence for Every Day of the Year’, The Beethoven Journal, 18/1 (2003), 10–17. 38

158

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

earlier in the movement, where some sections were not yet close to being ready. This particularly applied to the latter part of the exposition (bars 37–53) and the latter part of the development. Yet the sketchbook contains very little sketching for the second movement after this page, apart from another draft for the retransition and start of the recapitulation (Add. 31766, folio 27r), still not very close to the final version. The following few pages are devoted mainly to the third and then fourth movements. Thus further substantial sketching must have been done on loose leaves, and one such leaf survives, as noted earlier – BNba, HCB Mh 73. This contains on the recto an extended draft that covers bars 27–64 of the final version, thus from the second subject to several bars of the G major passage in the development section, and much of it is very close to the final version. Thus it must postdate any of the secondmovement sketches in the sketchbook. Further work on these bars appears on the verso, along with some early ideas for the third movement, which must predate most of the third-movement sketching in the sketchbook. Similar leaves that include late sketches for the rest of the second movement were probably used about the same time, though they are lost. Thus Beethoven set aside his sketchbook for a time – perhaps it was mislaid or not to hand – while he continued sketching on loose leaves. The third movement’s unusual form consists of a minuet/scherzo (bars 1–86) followed by a trio-type section that is interrupted by an interpolation in 2/4 (bars 165–204) that might be called a second trio, using the theme sketched five years earlier in Landsberg 6 (Example 6.1 above). This whole scheme is then repeated, followed by an abridged reprise of the minuet/scherzo and short coda. Thus the form somewhat resembles that of the third movements of the previous two symphonies (when the large-scale repeat in the Fifth was still in place). The third-movement sketches on the verso of Mh 73 appear to be two rudimentary attempts at a main theme (staves 1 and 11), and can be interpreted as such only because they are adjacent to those for the second movement and are in a fast 3/4 metre in F major. Similar ideas for possible third-movement themes that bear little relation to the final version also appear in the early part of the sketchbook (Gathering V, page 2, V/5, VI/1, VI/3 and VIII/6),39 among sketches for the second movement. Since the very early sketch in Gathering II (Example 6.5 above) is much closer to the final version than any of these, Beethoven either inserted it at a later stage (which is possible, given the layout) or returned to this theme having experimented with several less satisfactory alternatives. The final version of the theme then appears quite abruptly on the page that follows the last false start, thus Gathering VIII/7 (= 39 Lbl, Add. 31766, ff. 13v, 15r, 17r, 18r and 25v. A full inventory of the thirdmovement sketches is given in Alain Frogley, ‘Beethoven’s Struggle for Simplicity in the Sketches for the Third Movement of the “Pastoral” Symphony’, Beethoven Forum, 4 (1995), 99–134, at 111–13.

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



159

Add. 31766, folio 26r). Here both the first phrase and, after a bit of revision, the answering phrase in D major already approximate to the final version.40 Thus the third-movement sketches in Mh 73 must predate this sketch, even though the second-movement sketches on the same leaf postdate those in the sketchbook. The sketches in Mh 73 can therefore be placed fairly precisely in relation to the chronology of the sketchbook, near the end of Gathering VIII. The main third-movement theme at the top of Gathering VIII/7 gives rise immediately to a draft of almost the complete movement, though the spacing and variety of scripts suggest that the draft was completed piecemeal. The draft resembles the final version in most details up to bar 58, but the closing theme of the minuet/scherzo is absent – there are just a few repeated As and a held G. There is then an extended idea for an unused trio section, but the 2/4 interpolation is already present and corresponds to the first sixteen bars of the final version (bars 165–80): a four-bar phrase is written out twice, followed by a repeat sign. There is no development of this material at this stage, however, but just a two-bar codetta followed by a ‘d.c.’ return of the minuet/scherzo. A short coda, labelled ‘finis’, surprisingly ends with a perfect cadence and final double bar, rather than a sudden D♭ interruption, even though this note had been anticipated in Mh 73. An addendum at the top of the following page, marked ‘leztemal’ (‘last time’), shows the important deviation from D major to F major that eventually appeared in the concluding abridged statement of the minuet/scherzo (bars 419–26). The theme in 2/4 remained unchanged in all sketches and into the final version (apart from details of articulation and dynamics), and it differs from the theme sketched five years earlier only in three unimportant notes. Why Beethoven changed these but did not attempt to refine the theme further is unclear. One possibility is that he had heard the theme while on a walk, as suggested earlier, and now decided to include it in the symphony without alteration, but slightly misremembered it, and did not search through his sketchbooks to check every last detail. The theme certainly sounds extraneous, though entirely appropriate in this context. In the sketch the 2/4 passage was so short, with only ten written bars, that it seems more like a tailpiece to the trio than an independent section with its own development, which appeared only at a later stage. Whereas the main minuet/scherzo seems to have caused Beethoven relatively few problems, and the main theme of the 2/4 interpolation required no adjustment, the trio section of the movement evidently gave a great deal of trouble. He drafted and discarded at least three possible trios, including the one mentioned above, and there are a few other themes in the sketchbook that might have been intended for this purpose. In some of this rejected material there are suggestions of hunting motifs, for a hunt would be entirely appropriate 40

The pre-revision version is quoted in N-II, p. 372 (first example).

160

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

in a portrayal of countryside activity. But he abandoned this idea, perhaps because hunts were associated with aristocracy and the military rather than the peasants and their dancing that he wished to evoke in this movement.41 A first glimpse of the trio theme finally used (bars 91ff.) is squeezed in on IX/2 (Landsberg 10, page 149), and is actually headed ‘trio’. Already present is its curious syncopation that suggests the oboe has entered two beats late and has to catch up, and although two of the other trios appear on the same page, this one became established shortly afterwards (IX/4–5 = Add. 31766, folios 27v-28r). This did not immediately solve all the problems, however, and altogether Beethoven drafted nine versions of the theme, some of which were altered further, on this and the following pages.42 The final version can be picked out from different bars in the different attempts, but the last attempt is scarcely any closer to it than the first one. On the same leaf as the first trio sketch (IX/1–2) Beethoven began drafting possible titles for the first three movements: ‘Scena ankunf[t] auf dem lande wirkung aufs gemüth’ (‘Scene: arrival in the country, effect on the spirit’) for the first movement; ‘Scene am Bach’ for the second; and ‘Scena festliches Zusammensein’ for the third, in which the word ‘festlich’ (‘festive’) was replaced in the final version by ‘lustig’ (‘merry’), the word he had originally used in his ‘lustige Sinfonia’ sketch in Landsberg 6 in 1804. Another sketch on this leaf is headed ‘gebeth’ (‘prayer’), and although the sketch is in 3/4 rather than 6/8 it was probably intended for the finale, whose theme had not emerged in the sketchbook at this stage. Several other puzzling 3/4 sketches around this part of the sketchbook may also be for a finale, since they do not fit well in the third movement.43 Mh 73, written slightly earlier, also has a theme in 3/4 intended for the finale, for it is headed ‘leztes’, and the music is clearly not for the third movement as it uses different note values – far more quavers and even dotted quavers – implying a slower pace. Thus, while working on the third movement, Beethoven was also looking both forward and backward to the other movements. A few further third-movement sketches appear in Gathering X, by which time Beethoven was beginning to concentrate on the fourth movement. Apparently later than all of them, however, is a group of sketches on the above-mentioned bifolio discarded from the Fourth Symphony (Landsberg 12, pages 53–6). The state of progress on the third, fourth and fifth movements on these pages suggests they are contemporary with Gathering XII of the sketchbook, though the precise page cannot be confirmed with confidence. The 41 See Frogley, ‘Beethoven’s Struggle’, pp. 120–2; the three rejected trios are discussed there. 42 All nine versions and revisions are quoted ibid., pp. 126–8. 43 They are quoted ibid., p. 119 (Ex. 5), which probably contains a mixture of ideas for the third movement and some for a possible finale in 3/4.



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

161

third-movement sketch shows a draft of the end of the minuet/scherzo and the beginning of the trio, and closely resembles bars 67–98 of the final version (but for the omission of bars 83–6, which are clearly a late interpolation). The trio (bars 91–8) is then interrupted by a tremolo D♭ heralding the start of the ‘Storm’. This is the same as the plan already sketched in slightly earlier form on Gathering IX/8 (Landsberg 10, page 136), which also shows what must be a reprise of the trio interrupted by the storm, here labelled ‘donner’. The final version, where an accelerando leads to a cadence in the minuet/scherzo interrupted by the tremolo D♭, does not appear in the sketches and must have been worked out on other loose leaves. In contrast to the other movements, the fourth, which is sketched mainly in Gatherings IX–XII, is more painting than expression of feeling, as the storm builds up with representations of thunder, lightning, rain and wind. The portrayal of storms in instrumental music has a long history, going back at least to the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book of the early seventeenth century (the third piece in the manuscript is a Fantasia by John Munday with passages depicting ‘lightning’ and ‘thunder’ – the latter using rapid left-hand scales). In later music, thunder is regularly portrayed by tremolos in the bass instruments, while storms in general are typically represented by rushing semiquavers, mostly in the form of descending scales. Beethoven employs bass tremolando figuration even in the earliest sketches for the movement, starting on D♭ as in the final version but in the context of F minor. Descending semiquaver scales also appear in the early sketches, in Gatherings IX–XI, and in one place they are actually labelled ‘regen’ (‘rain’; Add. 31766, folio 33r). Although semiquavers also appear in later sketches, they become relegated to the bass, as repeated figuration rather than scales (see bar 145, for example), as Beethoven develops more sophisticated ways of portraying the storm. What might be interpreted as a ‘raindrop’ motif (bars 3–4) appears at an early stage and is ever present at least by implication, as is the crotchet countermelody (bars 5–6). Anything resembling a standard melody, however, such as one in F minor (Gathering X/2 = Add. 31766, folio 29v), was quickly abandoned, and the various other motifs for the movement gradually emerge in turn: the descending arpeggio motif (bars 23–4) and lightning motif (bars 33–4) on XI/2; the chromatic scales perhaps representing a storm wind (bars 95ff.) on XI/6; the unison quaver motif that is initiated by a dotted crotchet (bars 35–41) on XII/7; and the procession of minims that transforms the ‘raindrop’ motif of bar 3 into what might be interpreted as a rainbow at the end of the movement (bars 146–54) on XII/4. The idea of using longer note values, including minims, to indicate the subsiding of the storm had appeared in earlier sketches, but it was only at this relatively late stage that the transformation of the ‘raindrop’ motif first appeared. The piccolo is mentioned occasionally, but not the trombones, the other instruments added to the normal orchestra. Beethoven finally put all these ideas together in an extended draft (XIII/8–XIV/1) that covers virtually

162

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the whole movement and comes quite close to the final version. After a short supplementary draft on the opposite page (XIV/2 = Landsberg 10, page 144), there are hardly any further sketches for this movement in the sketchbook. While working on the fourth movement in Gatherings X–XII Beethoven repeatedly turned his attention to a theme for the finale (X/3, 5–7; XI/1, 3, 7; XII/1, 3–8). Some of the earliest ideas, as mentioned above, had been in 3/4, including the ‘Andante variationen’ that came as part of a synopsis for the symphony (II/2), and the ‘leztes’ theme in Mh 73. Others, however, were in 6/8, the metre eventually adopted. The earliest is a ‘siciliana’ (V/3 = Add. 31766, folio 14r), of which only four bars are shown, followed by ‘varièe’,44 indicating that he still had variations of some sort in mind. Here nearly all the melodic movement is stepwise, as is the case for another early idea for the theme (X/3 = Add. 31766, folio 30r). By this time, however, Beethoven had considered the possibility of using mainly disjunct motion with broken-chord outline, as in a sketch on VI/7 (Landsberg 10, page 153: see Example 6.10). Though this differs considerably from the final version, it shows many of its features, including the eight-bar phrase structure (4 + 4), the initial upbeat, the prevalence of iambic rhythms, the absence of Sicilian dotted quavers Example 6.10 Sketch for main theme of Op. 68.V (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 153).

such as had appeared in the ‘siciliana’ theme, and extensive disjunct motion (though not as extensive as in the final version of the theme, where only three of the twenty-three pitch changes are conjunct). The first three bars indicate tonic harmony, while the Gs in bar 4 imply a dominant chord; after that the harmony is more mobile, as in the final version. Thus the harmony of bars 1–4 matches that of the first movement. This pattern I–I–I–V is fairly common for the start of a theme, and it was quite some time before Beethoven had the imaginative idea of replacing the dominant with subdominant harmony, with a B♭ instead of G in bar 4 (see below). The next attempt at a finale theme in 6/8 is somewhat later (X/5 = Landsberg 10, page 119) and shows a major advance towards the final version (Example 6.11). The character of the theme is now well established, and many of the

44

‘varièe’ sic; Beethoven’s French accents are notoriously inaccurate.



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

163

Example 6.11 Later sketch for main theme of Op. 68.V (Bsb, Landsberg 10, p. 119).

notes correspond with the final version: bars 1–2, 5 and the first half of 8 are the same, and most of the rest is not very different: the main notable feature is the retention of G in bar 4, as in the previous sketch. Once Beethoven had decided on the type of theme and some of its main features, creating an effective link from the previous movement became important. Beethoven had already decided to end the‘Storm’ on a C major chord; to link this to the finale theme, he inserted an eight-bar passage related to it which resembles a typical cow-herding call, known as a ranz des vaches, that might be heard in the country, especially in Switzerland. This eight-bar passage already appears immediately before Example 6.11 (in Gathering X/5), and it remained unchanged in the final version (except for one note in the last triplet, which in the sketch is G but was later cunningly raised to A to foreshadow the main theme). Remarkably, the first four bars reproduce an actual ranz des vaches, known as the Rigi Ranz,45 but whether this was a conscious quotation or simply that both sources drew on a common stock of motifs is debatable. Other versions of the ranz figure appear on subsequent pages, either as an alternative introduction (e.g. XIII/5 = Landsberg 10, page 139, headed ‘Einga[ng]’) or for possible use in later parts of the movement. Some of these appear to be for the end of the movement, which was so often a concern for Beethoven from an early stage. One is marked ‘piano schliessen’ (‘softly close’, XII/1) and others are followed by a double bar to signify the end of the movement. The final version does indeed end with an allusion to the ranz, although he did consider other possible endings, including a ‘più presto’ conclusion (XIII/1). At the same time as he was exploring possible uses of the ranz Beethoven was also experimenting with different versions of the main finale theme. The sketch in Example 6.11 above may have been added retrospectively, since the next few attempts are no more advanced and sometimes further from the final version. Assuming the layout of these sketches is chronological, however, it seems that Beethoven was not fully satisfied with this version, and tried varying it in a number of ways. For a while the first phrase repeatedly ends 45 See Alexander Hyatt King, ‘Mountains, Music and Musicians’, The Musical Quarterly, 31 (1945), 395–419, at 403.

164

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

on G: X/7 (stave 9), XII/7 (double-length theme, both times with G in the fourth bar46), XIII/3, XIII/4, XIII/5, XIII/6. Other notes were occasionally tried: C (X/7, stave 1) and C or D (XIII/2). Finally on XIV/1 (= Add. 31766, folio 40r) the G is deleted, and the B♭ replacing it appears on the stave below. This change is one of the most notable melodic revisions in Beethoven’s entire output, and is all the more remarkable for having occurred only after numerous attempts at the earlier version ending on G. It changes a conventional tonic-to-dominant progression into something rare and exquisite, using the subdominant, in line with so many other uses of the subdominant in the symphony to create a relaxing effect. The following page shows the B♭ well established, although the change generated considerable uncertainty about the surrounding bars, causing Beethoven to try various slight modifications in bars 3 and 5–7 in order to create a smoother melodic line. This change helps to date fairly precisely a sketch for the theme in Landsberg 12, page 53. The sketch is mostly close to the final version but it still shows the G, and so it must postdate the early versions of the theme on VI/7 (shown in Example 6.10) and probably X/7, but predate the version with the B♭ on XIV/1–2, thus most likely dating from around Gathering XII. This supports the date suggested earlier for the third-movement sketches found on the same page immediately below the finale theme; and the fourth-movement sketches on the same bifolio (pages 53–6) concur with this, thus providing a more precise date for this batch of sketches than has previously been obtained. In the sketchbook itself, the remaining sketches for the symphony (Gatherings XIV–XVIII) show intensive work on the finale, but this was intermittent rather than continuous, as indicated by the variety of nibs (and occasional pencil). There is the usual variety of ideas and preliminary versions, often in quite short fragments, but there are some longer drafts. For example, the Sotheby’s leaf (XVI/3) shows a draft for the first transition and episode plus the reprise of the theme (bars 32–71), as well as ideas for the third episode (roughly covering bars 150–74), while a later draft (XVII/5–6 = Add. 31766, folio 46r–v) begins in bar 67 and covers the end of the first reprise, the second episode, the ensuing decorated reprise and beyond. Even the latest sketches do not always match the final version, and further work on loose leaves can be assumed. Thus the sketchbook, though showing many aspects of the creative process, is far from comprehensive even in terms of written sketches, especially in relation to the final stages of most of the movements.47 It is therefore possible that Beethoven was already using pocket sketchbooks alongside the desk sketchbook, though none have survived from such an early date.

46

This double version of the theme, with open and closed endings, is quoted in N-II, p. 374, last example. 47 See also Lorenz, ‘Beethovens Skizzen’, 95–108, esp. 100–1.



The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68

165

From autograph score to publication Beethoven probably began writing out the autograph score in late spring or early summer 1808. The work is first mentioned in a letter to Breitfkopf & Härtel dated 8 June 1808, in which he offers them two symphonies (Nos. 5 and 6).48 Such offers were often made well before he had actually completed the works in question, and although No. 5 had been ready for some months (see previous chapter), No. 6 was probably still in progress. Nevertheless it was certainly completed by September, for in that month copies of both symphonies were delivered to Härtel while he was in Vienna.49 The first three movements of the autograph were written on twelve-stave paper, and in the first two movements only the top ten staves were needed, as there were no trumpets and timpani. Trumpets appear in the third movement, leaving only one spare stave at the foot, while piccolo, timpani and trombones enter during the fourth movement. Thus for this movement and the finale Beethoven used fourteen-stave paper, leaving no spare staves in the fourth movement, although the piccolo is omitted in the finale, leaving an empty stave at the foot. On the spare staves Beethoven sometimes entered a correction, linked to the score by a ‘Vi=de’ sign; elsewhere on these staves he occasionally worked out detailed figuration or alternatives, which might then be incorporated into the score or simply disregarded. The spare staves were not used, however, for a cue-staff – a single-line draft that might function between sketch and autograph; the jottings on these staves do not match such a role. Instead, the intermediate stage as in previous symphonies was the single-line draft, usually of the first-violin part, which was mostly written in a different ink and clearly preceded the rest of the score. In all the movements except the fourth, the manuscript was prepared initially with three ruled barlines per page, as in the previous two symphonies. These barlines were presumably ruled by an assistant, perhaps at the shop where Beethoven obtained the paper. He then drew extra barlines as necessary if he could fit more than three bars on a page. In the fourth movement, however, all the barlines were drawn freehand, and the movement was also written in a different ink, on paper with different stitching and a different gathering structure; hence it must be a replacement for an earlier score,50 and it shows few revisions. It was, however, a fairly immediate replacement, since it was used for preparation of copies, and it has the same paper type as the finale. The autograph score contains far fewer alterations than that of the Fifth Symphony. Many pages have none or at most very few minor ones, and the 48 BB-327; A-167. The autograph score is in BNba, BH 64; facsimile in Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie. 49 BB-335; A-174; see previous chapter for further details. 50 Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie, p. 44.

166

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

first one does not appear until bar 15, where the last note of the viola part is amended. The most substantial change in the first movement occurs at the end of the exposition and the corresponding part of the recapitulation, where a four-bar passage was extended into eight bars (bars 127–34 and 406–13), necessitating the insertion of an additional leaf. In the second movement, four bars at the end of the development section (after bar 90), and an additional one after bar 96, were eliminated at the preliminary stage, when only the second violin had been entered; two more were removed at the same stage at the end of the recapitulation (after bar 123), and another (after bar 132) at a slightly later stage in the coda. Thus Beethoven made efforts to tighten up a movement that was in danger of becoming too prolix. Even after the cuts the movement lasts considerably longer than the first movement. Beethoven also had difficulty with the ending, as in so many movements. Having introduced bird calls only at a late stage of sketching, he had no significant problems with them in the autograph score, and named them prominently on a page that has often been reproduced. The last three bars were written out in full before being cancelled and replaced by a four-bar ending.51 This in turn was cancelled and the original version restored by the word ‘bleibt’ (‘remains’) and a wavy line above the passage. Beethoven seems to have regarded the ‘Storm’ movement as an introduction to the finale, somewhat similar to finale introductions in the First and Third Symphonies, albeit a great deal longer. Whereas the third movement ends in the middle of a page (folio 88r) and is followed by a double bar (thin-thin), then a blank page (88v) before the fourth movement begins on a new bifolio, indicating clear separation despite an ‘attacca’, the ‘Hirtengesang’ follows on from the end of the ‘Storm’ on the same page, separated by only a single barline as if a continuation of the same movement. Viewed this way, the traditional four-movement structure of the symphony is preserved, and the composite finale anticipates several other composite finales in Beethoven’s late works – not least the Ninth Symphony. The ‘Hirtengesang’ shows rather more small changes in the autograph than the earlier movements, but no major revisions, although two bars near the end (bars 258–9) are clearly a late insertion. The page containing the final bar has long since disappeared, and was replaced at an early stage by a copy of the bar written out by Anton Graeffer.52 Soon after the autograph had been completed, Beethoven had a copy prepared by Joseph Klumpar, who did much copying for Beethoven during this period. This score, which was to be used as the printer’s copy for the first edition and is now in the Beethoven-Haus,53 was evidently delivered to 51 This version is transcribed in Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 6 in F major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 1998), p. 27. 52 Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie, p. 44. 53 BNba, NE 146.

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



167

Härtel just before he left Vienna for Leipzig in September 1808, as noted in the previous chapter, and was still being corrected by Beethoven that morning.54 Beethoven attempted to ensure that the autograph score was amended to match any changes (whether correction, clarification or revision) that he made to the copy at that stage, although he was not completely successful with every detail.55 He also had a set of parts copied by Klumpar, of which the first three movements were copied from the autograph but the last two from the copy that went to Härtel.56 Thus a complete set of parts was ready by September, which suggests Beethoven was contemplating a trial run at that time – perhaps even with just the first three movements initially, then another with all five movements. When and where would this trial performance have occurred? David Wyn Jones and Jonathan Del Mar suggest that it was in October or November, arranged by Prince Lobkowitz,57 as had occurred with previous Beethoven works. But the urgency with which the parts were copied, before Härtel left Vienna, suggests a more immediate performance in August or September. This earlier date supports the suggestion in the previous chapter that the Fifth Symphony was also tried out at Lobkowitz’s palace during summer 1808. This would have been at one of Lobkowitz’s residences in Bohemia,58 where he customarily spent the summer, and so Beethoven would probably not have had a chance to hear the music at that stage. Once the first copy had gone to Leipzig, a second score would have been needed as Beethoven’s working copy, to be used for performance. Since Klumpar had been preoccupied with copying and correcting the first score and parts, up to the time when the score went to Härtel, he had to prepare the second copy directly from the autograph rather than the neat first copy. This was probably done in October. An invoice from Klumpar to Lobkowitz for copying Beethoven’s ‘Symphony in F’ still survives and is dated 17 October 1808; but it mentions 160 sheets (bifolios) of music, which is far in excess of the 226 sides in the second score and so it must relate to something else. Sieghard Brandenburg has calculated that a full set of parts would occupy about 640 pages, exactly equivalent to 160 bifolios.59 Thus the invoice was sent some weeks after the copying had been finished. The symphony, like the Fifth, received its public premiere in the Theater an der Wien on 22 December 1808, and as it came at the start of the programme it was designated No. 5 on this occasion, though by the time of publication its 54

BB-335; A-174. Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie, p. 49. 56 Del Mar, Symphony No. 6: Critical Commentary, p. 51. 57 Jones, Pastoral Symphony, p. 41; Del Mar, Symphony No. 6: Critical Commentary, p. 22. 58 Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie, p. 49. 59 Ibid., pp. 49–50. 55

168

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

chronological number had been substituted: ‘No. 6 des Sinfonies’ appears on the title page. Beethoven must have used Klumpar’s score at the performance, though before long he had no further use for it and eventually in 1818 or 1819 sent it to the Philharmonic Society in Laibach (now Ljubljana, Slovenia), where it is still held.60 As with the Fifth Symphony, Beethoven made some changes ‘during the performance’, as he told Breitkopf & Härtel in a letter of 4 March 1809, and in a subsequent letter of 28 March the publishers received a list of revisions (now lost).61 These revisions were entered in the score he had used, but unlike with the Fifth Symphony most of this score has survived and so the contents of the list can be surmised. These fresh revisions, also generally entered in the performing parts but not readily distinguishable there from earlier changes, were not incorporated into the autograph as earlier ones had been, since the new score had now superseded it textually and was regarded by Beethoven as authoritative.62 He asked the publishers to amend the plates for both symphonies, to include the revisions, which they did for the Fifth. But the Pastoral had evidently not yet been engraved when the letter was received, and so the amendments were made to the manuscript score. An example is bar 50 of the second movement, where the third note in the first flute was changed from B to C, and portato marks added, in dark red ink (similarly the first oboe in bar 122).63 Among all the revisions, one in particular stands out. In the fourth movement, the autograph score contains several passages (bars 21–32, 68–9, 72–7 and 106–10) in which the cellos and double basses play semiquaver quintuplets in unison. In the published version, however, the double-bass part has been simplified and consistently shows groups of four regular semiquavers (the first two bars are shown in Example 6.12), creating a most extraordinarily dissonant and thunderous effect. The score sent to the publishers shows the autograph version, neatly amended into the later version, and Del Mar perceptively observes that the change must have been made when the parts were tried out by the double-bass players: ‘as soon as the players were actually faced with this [the quintuplets] it became clear that it would need to be revised’.64 Thus this remarkable passage was not part of Beethoven’s original conception but a highly innovative solution to a practical necessity, after the performers 60

LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 377. BB-359, A-199; BB-370, A-204. 62 Brandenburg, ed., Sechste Symphonie, pp. 51–2. 63 Ibid., p. 52. Del Mar states that these changes are in Beethoven’s hand, but this is surely not the case as he did not use this ink, and there would be serious chronological problems if the changes had been made by him. 64 Del Mar, Symphony No. 6: Critical Commentary, p. 51; Del Mar is in incorrect, however, in asserting that these revisions were made ‘before [the score] was sent to Breitkopf & Härtel’. 61

The Sixth Symphony (Pastoral), Op. 68



169

Example 6.12 Final version of Op. 68.IV, bars 21–2.

found the initial version virtually unplayable. These amendments to the score were clearly made in Leipzig, for the same dark red ink is used as in the flute alteration in the second movement, and the absence of any change to the autograph corresponds with the scenario that it was no longer regarded as textually significant. Thus they were among those sent in Beethoven’s list of revisions in March 1809. The changes were, however, inserted into the set of parts, and no doubt also into the second (Ljubljana) score; unfortunately the fourth movement of this score was lost at an early stage and replaced by a copy with no textual significance.65 Since the revisions sent in March 1809 were incorporated into the Leipzig score, no plate corrections would have been necessary in the original edition prepared from it, and none appear to be visible at the relevant points.66 One revision does, however, appear to have resulted in a plate correction. At the start of the second movement, Beethoven originally had all the cellos playing quaver figures, accompanied by just the double basses playing pizzicato, but after trying it out he decided the balance could be improved by having just two solo cellos for the quavers on the upper stave and the remaining cellos doubling the double basses on the lower stave. Thus he sent this revision to Leipzig, as ‘due Violoncelli Solo 1mo e 2do con Sordino gli Violoncelli tutti coi Bassi’. However, this revision appeared only in his letter and evidently not in the list of corrections, and so it was initially overlooked by the publishers. Thus instead of inserting it into their manuscript they amended the relevant plate: the musical text was left unchanged in both manuscript and printed plate, but Beethoven’s inscription was squeezed in verbatim at the foot of the printed page.

65

Ibid., pp. 22 and 51. Jens Dufner claims to have detected plate corrections here (‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien III, ed. Jens Dufner, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/3 (Munich: Henle, 2013), pp. 286 and 311), but Del Mar strongly disputes that there were any at this point (Symphony No. 6: Critical Commentary, p. 51). In any case, had the plates already been engraved before Beethoven’s letter arrived and were therefore in need of amendment, there would have been no need to alter the manuscript as well. 66

170

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Before publishing the work, the publishers had it performed at a concert in the Leipzig Gewandhaus on 26 March 1809,67 thus before they had received the list of revisions. A report of this event on 12 April shows that they had already modified some of Beethoven’s movement titles (Beethoven’s are listed at the head of this chapter): the first movement was referred to as ‘Erwachen heiterer Empfindungen bey der Ankunft auf dem Lande’ (‘Awakening of cheerful feelings on arrival in the countryside’); the fourth as ‘Sturm und Ungewitter’ (‘Storm and tempest’); and the finale as ‘Hirtengesang. Frohe und dankbare Gefühle nach dem Sturm’ (‘Shepherds’ song: happy and thankful feelings after the storm’). By the time the symphony was published, the fourth movement had been changed again, to ‘Gewitter. Sturm’ (‘Thunderstorm. Storm’), with the other two new titles retained. These titles were never approved by Beethoven, who was not sent proofs despite requesting them,68 but they remained the norm until Del Mar drew attention to their lack of authenticity.69 Particularly regrettable is the suppression of Beethoven’s reference to ‘the Godhead’ in the title of the finale, which matches the quail’s implied appeal to God in the second movement. Curiously, both the Fifth and the Sixth Symphonies were dedicated jointly to Count Razumovsky and Prince Lobkowitz, as Beethoven explicitly indicated in his letter of 4 March.70 Such a joint dedication of two works was a unique occurrence for Beethoven, and it smacks of compromise between the two patrons. Lobkowitz’s role in supporting the two symphonies in their early stages can be deduced from what was said earlier, but Razumovsky’s connections are less clear. The two men were distantly related: Razumovsky’s wife’s maternal grandmother was Lobkowitz’s father’s sister.71 The symphony duly appeared with this dedication in May 1809, a month after the Fifth Symphony. Beethoven had specified the opus numbers as 60 and 61,72 but the publishers, evidently aware that Opp. 60–2 had already appeared, and suspecting that others might also have been allocated, took the safe option of jumping to 67 and 68. Opp. 63–6 remained unallocated for several years and were eventually filled up with earlier works.73

67 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 375. The event was reported in the AMZ, 11 (Apr. 1809), cols 435–7, where the precise location is named. 68 BB-370; A-204. 69 Del Mar, Symphony No. 6: Critical Commentary, pp. 25–6. 70 The translation in A-199 does not make this clear. 71 See Konrad Küster, Beethoven (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1994) inside cover. 72 BB-359, A-199. 73 The present numbering of Opp. 63–6 derives from an 1819 catalogue of Beethoven’s works, published by Artaria; see LvBWV, vol. 2, pp. 657 and 784.

7

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92 Poco sostenuto – Vivace Allegretto Presto – Assai meno presto – Presto [etc.] Allegro con brio

Initial plans

A

fter the concert that included public premieres of Beethoven’s Fifth and Sixth Symphonies in December 1808, it was nearly three years before he embarked on the Seventh. In the meantime, much had changed. He had been offered a permanent position as Kapellmeister at Kassel in late 1808, but this had prompted several noblemen in Vienna to make a counter-proposal early in 1809, consisting of an annuity of 4,000 florins per year, designed to keep him in the capital city. They had surely been impressed by Beethoven’s extraordinary concert of 22 December 1808 in which so many new works, including the two symphonies, had been performed. The contract, drawn up by Baron Ignaz von Gleichenstein, with funds to be provided by Archduke Rudolph, Prince Ferdinand Kinsky and Prince Franz Lobkowitz, recognised Beethoven’s ‘extraordinary talents and genius’ (‘ausserordentlichen Talente und Genie’), and that he should be freed from financial anxiety so as to enable him to produce ‘great, exalted works that ennoble art’ (‘grosse, erhabene, und die Kunst veredelnde Werke’).1 Beethoven received the contract from Archduke Rudolph on 26 February, and it was signed by the sponsors on 1 March. The implied expectation was, therefore, that Beethoven would continue composing more symphonies, among other great works, but the next symphony was delayed by various factors; the invasion of Vienna by the French in May 1809 disrupted society so much that Beethoven felt unable to compose

1

TF, p. 457; TDR, vol. 3, 125.

172

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

anything significant for several months; and inflation reduced the value of his annuity almost immediately. He was also asked to fulfil several commissions – two piano sonatas and a fantasia for Clementi, incidental music to Egmont for the court theatre, fifty-three folksong settings for George Thomson, and in spring to summer 1811 two one-act singspiels, König Stephan and Die Ruinen von Athen, for Pest2 – plus some works that were probably commissioned, including the Fifth Piano Concerto, two string quartets (Opp. 74 and 95) and the ‘Archduke’ Trio. As soon as he had finished sketching the two singspiels, he began work on his Seventh Symphony, and the final sketches for Die Ruinen von Athen actually appear on the same leaf as some of the first known sketches for the symphony (BNba, BH 105), directly above them. Beethoven claimed to have sent off the two singspiels, which were shortly due to be performed in Pest, on 13 October, although it appears from a later letter that he did not send them until Monday 16 October.3 Either way, these dates provide good evidence that he began work on the Seventh Symphony towards mid-October 1811. The earliest idea that might have been intended for the symphony is a four-bar sketch that appears in a pocket sketchbook among work on Die Ruinen von Athen.4 It shows a link from E chords in 4/4 metre to the characteristic dotted 6/8 rhythm of the Vivace section of the symphony, with repeated Es, and resembles the transition at the end of the slow introduction in the symphony. The sketch may therefore represent Beethoven’s first inkling of a new symphony, emphasising rhythmic features rather than a firm thematic idea, and displaying a characteristic concern for links between sections; or it may have been just a random idea that he later incorporated into the symphony. This idea for the link does not appear again among the earliest sketches for the symphony, but the combination of a slow introduction in common time and a fast 6/8 movement using dotted rhythms is already present there; in these sketches he was concerned with the material on both sides of the link, rather than the link itself. Almost all known sketches for the symphony were written in the Petter Sketchbook, most of which is now in the Beethoven-Haus, Bonn (HCB Mh 59), although several pages of the book were removed before the main portion reached its present location.5 Of the section devoted to the Seventh Symphony, 2

These singspiels are sometimes incorrectly described as ‘incidental music’. BB-523 and BB-525; A-325 and A-327. 4 Bsb, Artaria 205/2, p. 12: see John K. Knowles, ‘The Sketches for the First Movement of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony’, Ph.D. diss. (Brandeis University, 1984), pp. 6 and 866. 5 For a complete list of sketches for the symphony, see LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 591, and Knowles, ‘Seventh Symphony’, pp. 5–10; this dissertation also transcribes all the sketches for the first movement and examines each in great detail. An early description 3



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

173

nine leaves have been located elsewhere, and Alan Tyson has deduced their original position in the book, on the basis of stitch holes, ink blots, watermark quadrants and musical content.6 The precise position of BH 105 is uncertain, however, and it may even precede the book and not belong to it, since no other leaf from the sketchbook contains sketches for both the symphony and Die Ruinen. The sketches on this leaf appear to show a three-movement synopsis for the symphony, with the minuet or scherzo omitted. This was fairly common in Beethoven’s early synopses for four-movement works, as mentioned earlier (see Chapter 5), probably because this movement had a fairly standard character that was unnecessary to show in the earliest synopsis. The slow introduction already begins as in the final version (Example 7.1), and the passing of the opening five-note motif through four different instruments is clearly shown, ultimately being realised as passing from oboe to clarinets to horns to bassoon in the final version, though the sketch lacks the sudden modulation in bar 8, which is as far as it proceeds. The recurring dotted 6/8 rhythms of the following Vivace are also in place, but the melodic shape is entirely different from the final version (Example 7.2). Beneath these ideas is one for a ‘finale’ in 2/4, with more strong dotted rhythms, and on the next stave there appears what must be an idea for a slow movement in F major, also in 2/4. The key is significant, for it was eventually transferred to the third-movement scherzo. This sketch has incessant semiquavers marked Example 7.1 Sketch for Op. 92.I, introduction (BNba, BH 105, f. 1v, stave 6).

Example 7.2 Sketch for Op. 92.I, Vivace (BNba, BH 105, f. 1v, staves 7–8).

of the Petter Sketchbook and a selection of a few sketches from all four movements is in N-II, pp. 101–10. 6 See JTW, pp. 215–7; this builds on Sieghard Brandenburg’s earlier study: ‘Ein Skizzenbuch aus dem Jahre 1812. Zur Chronologie des Petterschen Skizzenbuches’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Annotationen, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1979), pp. 117–48.

174

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

‘staccato’ as accompaniment, though the shape of the theme above is less clear. Thus even at this preliminary stage Beethoven had decided on a symphony in which the frequent repetition of short rhythmic cells was an important element throughout, and this underlying idea was maintained through to the final version. In the sketchbook itself, folio 9 was originally situated immediately before folios 1–8, and at least three folios preceded it, but it contains no sketches that can be definitely associated with the Seventh Symphony, and the same is true of a miscellany of ideas on folios 1 and 2r. On folio 2v there appears a great variety of melodic patterns using the characteristic dotted 6/8 rhythm that was preserved in the final Vivace. The melodic shapes here and in a few following sketches are so diverse that Gustav Nottebohm observed that it was hard to tell where sketches for the symphony really began,7 since the dotted rhythms only gradually came to resemble the melodic shapes found in the symphony. It seems reasonable, however, to regard the figures on folio 2v as preliminary work. Beethoven had evidently decided on the opening theme of the slow introduction, but so far had fixed only the key and rhythmic character of the Vivace, and was trying out a variety of melodic shapes that embody this character. After considering other works on folio 3, he returned to the symphony on folio 4r (assuming the pages were filled in the order they appear). Here, however, he introduced a new motif (Example 7.3), which he eventually reworked in 3/4 metre as the main theme of the third movement rather than the first, as Nottebohm observed.8 Although the sketch shows the rhythm in 6/8 and thus belonging to the first movement, the semiquaver grace notes and rising triadic shape of the theme are significant as anticipation of the third-movement theme. Example 7.3 Sketch for Op. 92.I, Vivace (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 4r, stave 6).

The next page-opening, folios 4v–5r, shows further progress. The opening eight bars were written out again (folio 5r, stave 4), almost exactly as in Example 7.1 above, and further down the page Beethoven wrote out a second synopsis on staves 9–12.9 On stave 9 the opening theme is abbreviated to just 7

N-II, p. 101; some of the melodic patterns are transcribed on p. 102. N-II, p. 102, which includes the sketch as the second example on the page. 9 The whole synopsis sketch representing three of the four movements is transcribed in Erica Buurman, ‘Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement 8



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

175

the first five notes (it was unnecessary to show more, since the continuation was already present further up the page), and on the next stave appears the characteristic 6/8 dotted rhythm, beginning with repeated notes on E as in the start of the Vivace (bars 63–4) of the final version. A possible continuation was added later in darker ink on the stave above, using the rising triadic theme of Example 7.3 but adapted to the dotted 6/8 rhythm. Then on stave 11 the slow movement is represented just by ‘adagio in c’ with no actual theme, followed by a ‘Finale’ in 2/4 that bears a slight similarity to the finale theme that eventually emerged. Thus at this stage, as in the earlier synopsis, Beethoven had no firm idea about the nature or even the key of the slow movement, and showed no concern for the scherzo movement, but he already had the idea that the finale would contain strong rhythms in 2/4, as indeed it does. Some further sketches on the lowest four staves are almost the same as some in BH 105. It seems likely that they were copied from it,10 and the synopsis as a whole seems slightly more advanced than the one in BH 105. This suggests that, although the watermark of the paper of BH 105 matches the later part of the Petter Sketchbook, from folio 10 onwards, rather than the paper type of folios 1–9, it falls chronologically before folio 1, rather than between folios 8 and 10 as proposed elsewhere.11 Beethoven also tried another new theme for the Vivace, squeezed in at the right-hand edge of staves 5–6, but this was quickly superseded by one he added on the opposite page (folio 4v, staves 8–10), which has also been squeezed in on the right-hand side after most of the rest of the page had been filled. This new theme is actually marked ‘Thema’ and ‘piano’, and the first two bars at last resemble the final version.12 The use of repeated notes on E for the main Vivace theme perhaps reminded Beethoven of a sketch that he had made in 1806, which consists of the first thirteen bars of a theme in A minor in 2/4. This had also begun with E repeated several times, and was probably intended for a possible slow movement for the Third ‘Razumovsky’ Quartet.13 Beethoven had then decided instead to use a different theme in A minor for the quartet, leaving the theme with repeated Es available for future use. It was now revived and adopted for the slow movement of the Seventh Symphony, as is evident on the next page (folio 5v). Structures in his Instrumental Works’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Manchester, 2013), p. 159, with commentary. 10 See Knowles, ‘Seventh Symphony’, pp. 36–7. 11 In JTW, p. 216. Knowles (‘Seventh Symphony, pp. 41–9) provides evidence that the sketches for Die Ruinen von Athen in BH 105 preceded folio 1 of the sketchbook, but that the sketches for the Seventh Symphony further down the page were made a little later, perhaps between work on folios 4 and 5 of the sketchbook. 12 The sketch is quoted in N-II, p. 103. 13 As suggested in N-II, where the sketch is quoted on p. 86 and again on p. 106. The original sketch is in Wgm, A 36, p. 1, stave 4.

176

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 7.4 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 5v, staves 8–9).

It appears to have been so familiar to him that he did not even write it out again in the sketchbook at this stage but promptly began sketching the start of a possible variation (Example 7.4) and a passage marked ‘Ende’, where quaver triplets are introduced before a final perfect cadence marked ‘f:’. As was common with variation sketches, he needed only to sketch the first few bars of a variation, since the remainder would readily fall into place, combining the original harmonic progression with the newly sketched figuration. The melodic line in Example 7.4 shows repeated Es, while the harmonic progression in the sketch is the same as in the theme of the final version (I–V6–V–I), making the connection unmistakable, despite the absence of the theme itself on this page or the one opposite. Although it does not coincide with any of the final variations, the use of ‘ff:’ at the start of the variation sketch implies the culmination of a build-up of dynamics and corresponds to bars 75–8. Thus the initial plans for the symphony clearly presage a ‘great, exalted’ work – one designed to function as a fitting successor to his previous symphonies in terms of scale and complexity, yet differing markedly from them in such features as the use of a 6/8 Vivace for the first movement, in a key that Beethoven had not previously used for a symphony. The starting points were the key, the contrast between slow introduction and ensuing Vivace, and the theme of the slow introduction, which was in place well before any of the other themes in the work, while the emphasis on repeated rhythmic cells was also evident early on, though used in a completely different way from that of the Fifth Symphony. Further work on the first movement, and ideas for later ones The next few pages of the Petter Sketchbook (folios 6r–8r) show Beethoven working on the slow introduction and the early part of the main Vivace in alternation. The theme of the introduction is now notated in crotchets (and even once in quavers, folio 6r, stave 5, where it was altered back to ‘4tel’ (‘crotchets’)). The uncertainty between notating the theme in minims or crotchets persisted throughout the sketches, affecting subsequent sketches

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92



177

for the introduction and creating much rhythmic inconsistency.14 The problem evidently arose because Beethoven was concerned that a notation in crotchets would be performed too fast, but one in minims would be performed too slowly, and before the invention of the metronome there was no sure way of indicating the speed. He may also have been uncertain exactly what speed he wanted, or imagined different phrases moving at slightly different speeds that would have to be reconciled. Having finally opted for minims for the opening theme in the autograph score, he faced the problem of whether to use Ⅽ or ₵ as the time signature. He opted for the latter, but later changed his mind, writing ‘Nb: 4/4tel Takt’ beside the time signature of the violins and timpani, and carefully erasing the vertical stroke in his incomplete piano arrangement (Hess 96); later sources preserve this final decision.15 The invention of the metronome enabled him to specify a crotchet speed of 69,16 thereby overcoming all his previous uncertainty, and there is no reason to suspect that this figure was erroneous. The rapid modulation to C major in bar 8 of the final version, and also the secondary theme in that key (as in bar 23) can already be seen on folio 6r. After some further sketching, a draft for most of the slow introduction appears on folio 7r, and there is a fuller one overleaf, both showing secondary ideas in both C major and F major. Thus the two keys considered for the slow movement but supplanted there by a movement in A minor were instead incorporated into the slow introduction; both keys, however, were to have long-range ramifications later in the work. The draft on folio 7v is the only one covering the whole introduction, and it already resembles the final version in its general direction. In places it is a little more compressed, as is typical of Beethoven’s preparatory work, but the secondary theme appears four times in both C major and F major, which is slightly more expansive than the final version, where the F major statement appears only three times (bars 42–9). The draft concludes with numerous repeated Es as in the final version, moving into a 6/8 metre, and this linking passage is much more advanced than the early one in the pocket sketchbook. Although the draft is notated with halved note values (crotchets, not minims, for the opening theme), the rising scales 14

See Knowles, ‘Seventh Symphony’, pp. 80–4. See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 7 in A major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 2000), p. 34. The autograph score is in Kj, Mendelssohn 9; facsimile in Oliver Korte, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie Nr. 7, A-Dur, op. 92: Faksimile nach dem Autograph aus der Biblioteka Jagiellońska. Kraków (Laaber: Figaro-Verlag, 2017). The piano arrangement is in Pn, W. 7, 1; facsimile in Willy Hess, ed., Original-Klavierauszüge eigener Werke, Beethoven: Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1964), frontispiece. 16 Beethoven’s metronome marks for all his first eight symphonies were published in the AMZ, 19 (Dec. 1817), cols 873–4. 15

178

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

are still notated as semiquavers, not demisemiquavers, thus moving only half as fast as in the final version, relative to the opening theme. This may have been a notational error rather than an alternative version. Beethoven had sketched the theme of the Vivace on folio 4v as noted above, but there only the first two bars are recognisable. On folio 7v, however, the whole of the eight-bar theme appears intact, plus its immediate six-bar continuation (apart from bar 77 of the final version, which was added at a later stage). There are minor differences, chiefly in ornamentation, between this sketch and the final version, but the latter is not completely consistent in the various statements of the theme. The grace notes, however, are consistently notated there as demisemiquavers, after being notated as semiquavers in the sketch. For the first time in his symphonies, Beethoven’s main theme for the first movement is a regular eight-bar period (A B A B′) concluding with a perfect cadence, and it was essentially in place even before the final draft of the introduction had been worked out. This implies that Beethoven regarded the introduction as part of the movement, rather than as a separate movement in its own right to be worked on first, despite its unusual length (almost as long in duration as the whole fourth movement of the Sixth Symphony). The rest of the exposition fell into place fairly quickly, and a lengthy pencil draft on folio 10 covers almost the whole exposition. The idea of starting the development section with an extended passage in C major, recalling that key in the introduction, also emerged at an early stage, on folio 11r. On the same page Beethoven also drafted a possible coda, continuing overleaf until a concluding double bar was reached on stave 3. Much of this draft was subjected to later revision in different ink, but he often took an early look at how a movement might end, so as to keep some idea of the whole movement in view. Some brief ideas even earlier in the sketchbook were probably also intended for the coda.17 The idea of keeping the whole in view sometimes extended to later movements, with Beethoven looking ahead to possible later movements while sketching the first, noting an idea that he developed later. Usually this amounted to no more than brief sketches, which might even be rejected eventually, but in this symphony his concern for the later movements at an early stage, when he had scarcely proceeded beyond the exposition of the first movement, was much greater than normal. Immediately beneath the end of the coda sketch on folio 11v he noted a theme in 2/4 labelled ‘mol’ to indicate A minor. This theme was not used, but surprisingly the whole of the rest of the page, the one opposite and much of the following one were then taken up with sketches for the A minor sections of the second movement, for which the theme had already been fixed earlier. To devote such an extended set of 17 Knowles, ‘Seventh Symphony’, pp. 729–38; see also a sketch marked ‘Ende’ in BH 105.



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

179

sketches to a second movement while barely halfway through sketching the first was distinctly unusual; yet there is no clear evidence that these two pages were drafted out of sequence, since they clearly followed the coda sketch at the top of folio 11v, while the development sketch on folio 11r was taken up again on folio 12v after the preliminary second-movement sketches. As before, the theme of the second movement did not need writing out, as Beethoven had it firmly in his head. Instead he drafted a series of seven possible variations. The first (staves 5–7) shows a single quaver in each bar, outlining the basic sixteen-bar melody (but omitting the final bar here), with the bars alternating between ‘f:’ and ‘p:’.18 The next variation (‘danach’ = thereafter) shows repeated semiquaver chords marked ‘pp:’, but with an alternative idea (‘X oder’) on stave 11, where the theme is decorated by descending scales. Another variation has ‘violoncello solo’ playing the bass line of the theme in sustained minims (stave 8), followed by what is presumably the next variation, shown with the original dactylic rhythm of the theme in halved note values, as quaver-and-semiquaver chords. A sixth idea shows the theme on the viola, with semiquaver flourishes above it, and a final variation shows triplet quavers in the bass clef, marked ‘ffmo’, with the first six bars followed by ‘etc’, as is typical of Beethoven’s variation sketches. He also considered the question of internal repetitions within variations. In the final version the theme and each of the first four variations repeat the second half but the last variation (bars 255–70) omits the repeat. This scheme is partly foreshadowed in a comment on this page of the sketchbook: ‘Generally first part once, second part twice; soon after, each part twice, soon after once.’19 The last of the above variations is linked by ‘Vi-de’ to an interesting and extended draft for a coda of forty-four bars plus an internal repeat, starting at the foot of the page and continuing onto the next page (Example 7.5). As with the first movement, Beethoven evidently felt it desirable to consider the ending at an early stage. Marked ‘Ende’, the draft begins with two bars (really four) of presumably A minor chords followed by a new motif, still based on the original dactylic rhythm, which is developed for several bars, leading to trills on the dominant. The main theme is then reprised complete but chopped into two-bar fragments played at different octaves, some marked ‘ander’ (‘other’) to indicate changes of instrument, though not precisely which ones. The first two bars of this section show chords underneath, and the next two are marked ‘accorde’ to show that similar harmony should continue. 18 The sketch is quoted in Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Beethovens Skizzen zum zweiten Satz der 7. Symphonie Op. 92’, in Bericht über den Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress, Bonn 1970, ed. Carl Dahlhaus et al. (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1971), pp. 355–7, at 356; the transcription unfortunately omits the striking dynamic marks. 19 ‘1ter Theil einmal 2ter Theil 2mal überhaupt bald jeder Theil 2mal bald einmal.’

180

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 7.5 Sketch for Op. 92.II, coda (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 11v, stave 15 – f. 12r, stave 5).

The first eight bars of the theme proceed from high to low register, and the pattern is then repeated for the second half of the theme, with both halves ending with pizzicato bass instruments (‘pizz: Basso’ or ‘Bassi pizz:’). This whole scheme, which recalls the passing of the theme between instruments at the very opening of the symphony, was actually retained with very little modification in the final version (bars 255–70), and was thus the first section to be established apart from the theme borrowed from the 1806 sketch. The movement is then rounded off with a ten-bar conclusion (which was reduced to eight bars in the final version). The sketch ends with a final 6-4 chord. Although Beethoven probably envisaged a bass A beneath it at this stage, it is perhaps significant that the final version does actually conclude with a 6-4 chord – a highly unorthodox ending. Having worked out some idea of the contents of the movement, Beethoven then went right back to its beginning, as he often did at this stage. The form, which eventually became an extraordinary blend of variation, rondo, fugato and other elements, was originally to be simply ‘Variations’. This heading appears on folio 12r immediately after the long coda sketch described above, and the start of the movement is here labelled ‘Anfang’ (‘Beginning’), with the theme at last being written out in full. A first variation for wind instruments is deleted, and replaced by a different variation in which the theme appears decorated by quavers and suspensions. A second variation is in 6/8,

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92



181

but without the dotted rhythms characteristic of the first movement. Again the theme itself is varied, rather than provided with varied accompaniment, which here consists just of repeated broken chords and implied 6-4 harmony. A third variation does use dotted figures but is back in 2/4, while another variation (staves 14–15) shows four sustained minim chords, similar to the sketch marked ‘violoncello solo’ on the previous page, and continues overleaf (folio 12v), with minims persisting in the bass, decorated by rising semiquaver scales above, retaining the harmonic structure of the theme but only hints of the melody. This variation is immediately followed by the opening bars of at least two further variations. These six variations are entirely new and additional to the seven represented on the previous page. Thus Beethoven was building up a remarkably large collection of possible variations for his ‘Variations’ movement. Throughout this batch of sketches there is no sign of the countermelody that appears in the final version from the first variation onwards (bar 27), nor of the A major sections that were still to be conceived, nor any other complexity of form beyond plain variations. As mentioned above, devoting so much attention to the second movement so long before the first was finished was unusual, and suggests that Beethoven was particularly concerned with how this highly original movement would fit into the overall scheme. Alternatively, having jotted down a few basic ideas, he may have become carried away with the endless possibilities for it, and wanted to record them at once while they were still fresh in his mind. At any rate, after this excursion into the second movement, he returned to the first on the lower half of folio 12v, below the sketches for the second movement, resuming from where he had left off, with the early part of the development section in C major. From there he proceeded to work intensively on the first movement for about another thrity pages of the sketchbook, but only after a second interruption, when he noted down ideas for the third and fourth movements on folios 13v–15v. It is possible that these ideas were noted down at a later date after the pages had initially been left blank, but this argument is hard to sustain. The third movement, like the second movement, is sketched here in considerable detail, with several extended drafts for different parts of the movement. The first, marked ‘presto’, is for the opening passage in F major (seventeen bars including internal repeats).20 The opening three bars, derived from an earlier sketch for the first movement (Example 7.3 above), are close to the final version, but thereafter the melodic shape is rather different, although the rhythms of rapid crotchets continue. The next sketch, slightly longer and apparently marked ‘Ende’, does not reach any kind of conclusion, while the following one begins in C major and is marked ‘2ter Theil’ (i.e. second part,

20

Quoted in N-II, p. 107.

182

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

after an implied double bar and repeat). It continues on the opposite page (folio 14r, staves 13/14), through the connecting word ‘NO’, and moves to D minor then back to C major.21 Beethoven presumably intended a reprise of the opening in F thereafter, as normal in a minuet/scherzo movement. At this stage, therefore, Beethoven had not devised the striking modulation at the end of the first section to A major, nor to any other remote key. Instead, he planned to use A major for the trio section (Example 7.6), which is sketched on folio 13v immediately beneath the one for the Presto labelled ‘2ter Theil’. The trio draft, which continues to the next page, is remarkably extensive, representing the complete section and containing over 100 bars, which actually makes it longer than in the final version. The start of the sketch matches the final version very closely apart from the key, and the loose quaver on the lower stave in bar 2 (shown in Example 7.6) probably represents an antiphonal effect between melody and bass, as was realised somewhat differently in the final version. A one-bar rest was probably intended after bar 7 (counting the repeat separately), and is clearly notated at the end of the answering phrase, which is slightly more discursive than the final version. The middle section is designated for wind instruments (‘B. I.’ = ‘Blase Instrumente’), though in the final version they dominate almost throughout the trio. The section includes an extended passage in E major before the reprise of the opening theme in A major. This passage did not find its way into the final version, which remains in the tonic throughout the trio. Towards the end of the sketch the music appears to modulate back towards F major for a reprise of the Presto, indicated by ‘d.c.’ as usual. Example 7.6 Sketch for Op. 92.III, trio (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 13v, staves 10–13).

21

The complete sketch is quoted in N-II, p. 108.

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92



183

The theme of the trio may have an unusual origin. According to a letter to Thayer from Edward Speyer dated 14 February 1876, Abbé Maximilian Stadler (1748–1833) told Speyer’s father, during a visit by the latter to Vienna in 1832, that this theme matched the tune of a pilgrimage hymn which Stadler ‘had frequently heard sung’ in Lower Austria.22 The report gains credence from the fact that Stadler was a first-rate musician and composer, who was working as a priest in Grosskrut, Lower Austria, when the symphony was being composed, before returning to Vienna in 1815, and he would therefore be likely to have repeatedly heard pilgrimage hymns from the area. The sketches do not contradict this claim, for the opening bars are already intact in the first sketch and remained unchanged, as if the theme were borrowed, whereas some of the other themes in the symphony reached their final form only gradually. On the other hand, the theme seems to be noted down in the same way as other new ideas, with no indication that it was pre-existing, and Beethoven is not known to have visited that part of Austria. The said hymn was never mentioned by other observers and has not been found in any known source, and so its supposed connection to this trio section must be regarded as uncertain. Chance similarities between some of Beethoven’s themes and those found elsewhere are inevitable, and when he did explicitly borrow themes, as in the ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets and Variation 22 of the Diabelli Variations, he acknowledged the source. Having made a few further sketches for the Presto (but not the trio), Beethoven turned his attention to the finale. Again there are more sketches for it than one would expect at this stage, though no extended drafts. According to one theory, he derived the main theme of the finale from his setting of an Irish folksong which he produced around that time and which bears the words ‘Save me from the grave and wise’.23 The chronology, however, makes this impossible, for he did not compose the setting until at least late 1812, whereas the symphony was being composed in 1811 and these finale sketches probably date from that autumn. Moreover, the sketches do not show such a borrowing, but begin with a somewhat different theme which only gradually took on the form that resembles the folksong. What evidently happened is that Beethoven noticed around late 1812 that the last two bars of the folksong melody, if performed in reverse order and developed in a particular way, could mimic the theme of the symphony, and so he provided this subtle allusion to the symphony in the postlude to his setting.24 22

TF, p. 527. The setting is no. V/13 (indicating that it was the thirteenth setting in the fifth group that Beethoven composed) in Barry Cooper, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings: Chronology, Sources, Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Its connection to the symphony was first noted by Charles Stanford: see George Grove, Beethoven and his Nine Symphonies, 2nd edn (London: Novello, 1896), pp. 261–2. 24 The process is illustrated in Cooper, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings, p. 177. 23

184

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 7.7 Sketch for Op. 92.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 15r, staves 5–8).

The first finale sketch begins on folio 15r, stave 5, beneath some material unrelated to the symphony. The theme is rather different from those sketched in BH 105 and on folio 5r of the present sketchbook, but is still in 2/4 and retains the idea of a group of four descending semiquavers (Example 7.7), though in a different context from previously. One of the most important features is the repeated pedal point on E, which was retained into the final version. It recalls the repeated Es at the start of the Vivace and the theme of the slow movement, but here the notes are transformed into a completely different character as a kind of drone bass, reminiscent of a wild country dance. Beethoven had composed settings of fifty-three folksongs (Groups I and II) in 1809–10, and completed another nine, all Irish (Group III), in February 1812, during work on the Seventh Symphony; in some of these he saw fit to accompany the melody with a drone bass, at least for the first two bars and sometimes for as many as eight bars (Groups II/8, III/1 and III/3). Thus it is perhaps not surprising that some of the ethos of these folksong melodies infiltrated the Seventh Symphony at this point, even though the connection with ‘Save me from the grave and wise’ is untenable. The main finale theme in the sketch is also readily recognisable, though the continuation differs from the final version; and the opening two bars were later to be dramatised by the insertion of whole-bar rests and slightly different melodic shape, but they show the same anapaestic rhythmic pattern that launches the main theme. Another striking feature in the sketch is the amount of articulation marked, and especially the staccato semiquavers. These staccato marks are replaced by longer slurs in the final version, and they would be largely lost at the speed envisaged there (minim = 72); the staccatos in the sketch imply, therefore, that Beethoven initially envisaged a slightly slower speed than he eventually prescribed. The rest of the page contains further short ideas based on the same material, which continues overleaf (folio 15v) in the same vein. Here, however, is a sketch marked ‘m.g.’ (= mitte Gedanke), indicating a second subject, which

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92



185

is in E major and consists of continuously running semiquavers that maintain the energy of the main theme and are marked ‘sempre staccato’. This is completely different from the C sharp minor theme that eventually emerged as the mitte Gedanke. Meanwhile, having run out of space on folio 15r, Beethoven squeezed in a revised version of the main theme near the foot of the opposite page (14v). This includes the two bars of silence (bars 2 and 4) as in the final version, but the fourth bar of the main melody is different and the sketch terminates at that point.25 After this brief excursion to the later movements, Beethoven returned to the first movement, concentrating mainly on the development section. Much of the movement has a fairly regular structure and so he could to some extent follow the traditional pattern, even though he characteristically showed much inventiveness and introduced numerous original small details. The development section, however, had no set pattern to follow and had to be worked out. Having started sketching with the beginning of it, Beethoven proceeded gradually further into the section in successive sketches and longer drafts, while revising and gradually fixing more firmly the earlier passages in it, and the final shape was not achieved until a very late sketch, on folios 24v–25r.26 Recapitulations were regarded by Beethoven as part of the same ‘2ter Theil’ as the development, rather than as separate units, and so the recapitulation sketches here tended to be drafted as continuations of the development, after most of the latter had been completed. Thus once the development sketches had reached into the recapitulation, Beethoven concentrated more on this, mainly on folios 20–5 (including the displaced leaf BNba, BH 123).27 Inevitably most of the recapitulation sketches were for the passages that differed significantly from the exposition. As for the coda, Beethoven had already sketched an extended draft on folio 11 as noted above, and returned to this draft to amend it at a later stage. A few further brief coda sketches were followed by a final draft on folios 21v–22r, at the end of a draft for almost the whole of the second part of the movement. Here for the first time appears the sudden and striking excursion to A flat major (bars 389–94 in the final version), where the G♯ is interpreted enharmonically to produce a remote modulation. Earlier sketches for the coda had been much more conventional at this point, touching on the subdominant, as is common in codas, and avoiding remote keys.

25

The sketch is quoted in full in N-II, p. 110. Knowles, ‘Seventh Symphony’, pp. 422–6. 27 Ibid., pp. 654–6. 26

186

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Completion of the slow movement Having nearly finished sketching the first movement on folio 22r, Beethoven returned briefly to the second on the next page-opening: folio 22v was originally opposite the now detached leaf BH 123, and both pages contain sketches for this movement. The two pages were clearly contiguous, for an ink blot beyond the outer edge of stave 4 is visible on both.28 The sketches here begin with the opening woodwind chord already in place, duly marked ‘B. I.’ and complete with the dynamic indication f: followed by a long diminuendo hairpin covering two bars, just as in the final version. The only difference is that the chord in the sketch is in root position rather than an unstable 6-4 chord. This chord is followed on this page and the opposite one with a series of around eight possible variations, some showing just part of a variation while others show the complete sixteen-bar structure. More ideas for variations appear overleaf on the upper half of the verso of BH 123 before work on the first movement resumes on the lower half of this page. Since the theme itself in the slow movement is strikingly plain, with very limited variety of rhythm, one might expect variations to be increasingly decorative and rhythmically varied, but as in the earlier sketches they are conspicuously restricted. Some are even plainer than the theme itself. The first one shows just an unaccompanied bass line for the full sixteen bars, either in minims or using the recurring rhythm found in the theme (the idea recalls the finale of the Eroica Symphony, which similarly presents the unaccompanied bass line before the main theme). Other sketches here show slightly greater variety, including one which contains the dactylic rhythm at double speed – thus with quavers and semiquavers – but still with the original harmonic pace. The last variation in this group is particularly austere, consisting entirely of minim octaves in a severely reduced version of the theme, but displaced in different registers (Example 7.8). Beethoven seems to have miscounted the bars, for the first half consists of nine rather than eight bars (and the notes in Example 7.8 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, BH 123, f. 1v, staves 5–6).

28 This connection is surprisingly not noted in Tyson’s reconstruction of the sketchbook, JTW, p. 216.

‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92



187

bar 8 look more like A than G, which would make little sense). The sketch is marked ‘immer andre Stimmen’, indicating that each bar would be played by a different instrumental group. It consists of a more extreme form of registral displacement than those in Example 7.5 above and the opening of the symphony, and in this respect it strikingly foreshadows a passage near the end of the Eighth Symphony (bars 458–66), where a two-note chord is played successively in five different octaves, on flutes, oboes, clarinets, horns and bassoons, then in reverse order. Thus the idea of direct multiple-octave transposition of single chords on different instruments. as seen in this sketch, was not completely lost but adopted in the next symphony. After returning to complete the sketches for the first movement on the next few pages, Beethoven resumed the Allegretto on folios 26v–31r. This part of the sketchbook has been substantially dismembered, with five leaves now missing, but fortunately most of them have been located and can be replaced conceptually as follows:29 BNba, HCB Mh 59 (Petter Sketchbook), ff. 26–9 BNba, BH 120 (2 folios) BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 30 NYpm, Fuld Collection, SV 353 (1 folio, lower half only) BNba, NE 110 (1 folio) BNba, HCB Mh 85 (1 folio) BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 31

This group of sketches begins with opening chord (represented just by its top note) and unaccompanied bass line as in the previous sketch (BH 123), followed by four variations that more or less correspond to the first four statements of the theme in the final version (bars 2–98), rising an octave each time. The unaccompanied bass passage has been deleted, but the opening chord and each of the first three variations are marked ‘le meilleur’ (‘the best’) – a common marking in Beethoven’s later years. The comments were probably added only after some later sketches that he found less satisfactory. In each of these variations there is some attempt at providing harmony or a countermelody, but nothing very consistent and certainly nothing resembling the prominent countermelody that is heard several times in the final version (bar 27 onwards). At this stage Beethoven seems to have been more concerned with developing the initial motif in a rather obsessive way, rather than decorating or varying the theme itself. In subsequent sketches there are numerous attempts at different variations: Sieghard Brandenburg estimated that there are around a hundred attempts at the beginning of a variation for this movement,30 an estimate that cannot be far wrong, and most of the attempts are for cantus 29 30

JTW, pp. 216–17. Brandenburg, ‘Skizzen zum zweiten Satz’, p. 356.

188

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

firmus variations in which the melodic line and implied harmony of the theme remain intact, apart from the occasional adjustment of one or two notes, although the melodic line might be varied either by octave displacement or by some countermelody or accompanying figuration. One melodic adjustment that Beethoven tried for the main theme at a surprisingly late stage was to replace any pairs of crotchets in even-numbered bars with three quavers plus quaver rest.31 The resulting rhythm is equally inexorable but different from the other sketches, and he soon abandoned it, evidently preferring the version marked ‘le meilleur’. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that he should contemplate such a change after drafting so many possible variations on his original idea resurrected from a sketch from 1806. Among the variations that dispense with the cantus firmus, the most elaborate appears at the top of folio 30r of the sketchbook (Example 7.9). Example 7.9 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 30r, staves 1–2).

Here the underlying harmonic progressions are still clearly implied, but the melody has disintegrated into florid pairs of semiquavers flying down from great heights every four bars (only the first eight bars are sketched). It is possible, however, that an unwritten cantus firmus was intended to be heard simultaneously. Beethoven also tried using dotted or even double-dotted rhythms in a few sketches, either decorating the theme or appearing alongside it; but he abandoned the idea, aware that dotted rhythms (or their triple-time equivalent of minim plus crotchet) are prominent in each of the other three movements, Among various countermelodies, one that crops up in some form in several sketches consists of an elegant series of crotchets. In one sketch Beethoven even shows both this and the main theme, plus triplet decoration, with all three parts crammed on a single stave (on folio 30r); Example 7.10 shows the first eight bars, resolved for clarity onto two staves, though the triplets disappear after four bars. Extraordinarily, the haunting countermelody that is so prominent in the final version, appearing four times with almost no alteration (bars 27, 51, 75 and 150), is absent in the sketchbook and must have 31

355.

BNba, BH 120, f. 1v, quoted in Brandenburg, ‘Skizzen zum zweiten Satz’, p.



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

189

Example 7.10 Sketch for Op. 92.II (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 30r, stave 8).

been worked out elsewhere. However, a few individual bars or motifs that were later incorporated into it can be found (notably on folio 30r, stave 12), and show Beethoven working slowly towards the idea of a flowing countermelody to accompany the main theme. The contrasting maggiore (A major) sections fare rather better. In none of the sketches does Beethoven add the key signature or the word maggiore, but it is clear that some sketches are in the major and intended for this section. It does not figure in the early sketches, but is evident intermittently from folio 28v onwards and actually begins at the bottom of the previous page. In this first sketch, the A major music modulates enharmonically to F major before turning to A minor for a reprise of the main theme (marked ‘d.c.’ as usual); but in later sketches, as in the final version, the striking modulation is to C major (then A minor, bars 131–49). Preparation for the modulation, using a diminished-seventh chord, would have enabled the music to modulate to practically any key equally easily. Almost the entire maggiore sections are represented among the sketches, but there is little sign of the fugato section (bar 183 onwards) at any point. Beethoven shows much more concern for the coda and the ending, as noted earlier. Thus the second movement did not reach its final form in the sketches, and further work on it was evidently necessary. He may therefore have been using a pocket sketchbook simultaneously that has since been lost, having already used one for Die Ruinen von Athen, as noted above, containing a tiny fragment used in the Seventh Symphony; but there are no known pocket sketchbooks between this one and one dating from 1815.32 It seems highly probable that he used others during the intervening period. The last two movements While concentrating on the Allegretto, Beethoven occasionally sketched ideas for the following movements. Three different themes, in three different keys – A major, C major and F major – are sketched for the scherzo at one point, 32 See JTW, pp. 332–3, for a chronological list of Beethoven’s known pocket sketchbooks.

190

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

with the one in F actually marked ‘Scher[zo]’,33 but none of them matches the theme he had already devised earlier. Another idea for the theme appears a few pages later (folio 31r, staves 8–9), immediately beneath sketches for the finale. These finale sketches include the second half of the main theme (stave 6), already recognisably similar to the final version (cf. bars 13–20), even though not identical, and squeezed in on stave 7 is an idea presumably intended for the next section of the finale. The scherzo theme here, however, shows little advance on those a few pages earlier, except that it is now based far more on triadic shapes, anticipating later versions. Thus at this stage, unusually, the finale and the trio section were further advanced than the main scherzo. Overleaf, however, the scherzo theme appears in something like its final form (staves 4 and 8), and another important passage sketched here (stave 13) is the link from the end of the trio, which is now in D major rather than A as originally, back to F major (via D minor) for a reprise, represented as usual by the initials ‘d.c.’ The modulation to A major for the end of the exposition of the scherzo also appears, as a late insertion (staves 14–15), along with an attempt at an ‘Ende’ for the movement. The modulation is based on alternating minims and crotchets (bars 14–16 of the final version), and this rhythmic pattern is developed later (bars 32–43); but these bars actually exploit an idea originally sketched two years earlier for the ‘Namensfeier’ Overture but abandoned there.34 Further sketches for the movement appear on the next leaf,35 but the following two leaves, which would surely have shown the movement at a much more advanced stage, are unfortunately missing. The finale may also have been sketched on this missing bifolio, and it is developed further on the next five leaves. The first of these has been removed from the sketchbook, with the upper portion now in Bonn and the lower portion in St Petersburg.36 It begins with the complete sixteen-bar theme, still not quite in its final form, preceded by a single bar, which in a pencil sketch (stave 5) is expanded to four bars as in the final version. Beethoven also looked at later parts of the movement further down the page, including ‘Ende’ (stave 16), and a significant comment between staves 14 and 15: ‘2ter Theil in d moll’, probably indicating a plan to take the music to D minor as the tonal goal of the development section in a sonata form. The final 33

BNba, BH 120, f. 1r. N-II, p. 109. 35 Now in Bologna; see JTW, p. 215. 36 BNba, NE 128, and SPsc, Autograph 438/2, N 50; see JTW, p. 217 and LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 591. For the fragment in St Petersburg, see Abraham Klimowitzki, ‘Autograph und Schaffensprozess: Zur Erkenntnis der Kompositionstechnik Beethovens’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Annotationen, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1979), pp. 149–66, at 157–63, and Abb. 9 and 10 (facsimiles of both sides of the fragment). 34



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

191

version, however, moves to C major in this section for a statement of the sixteen-bar main theme, complete with its two internal repeats (bars 146–61), before moving to other keys, with only a brief excursion to D minor (bars 172–9). But D minor is used for a significant passage in the recapitulation (bars 253–67), and this may be what Beethoven intended all along, though it was not unusual for him to change his mind about the tonal direction of the development section during sketching – thus perhaps transferring the use of this key from development to recapitulation. Another sketch on this page (stave 13), presumably for the development, shows the theme in D flat major, moving abruptly to D major, which does not match anything in the final version. Beethoven was also often concerned about repeats, and after his comment ‘2ter Theil in d moll’ he added ‘beyde ohne Widerholung’ (‘both without repeat’),37 the word ‘both’ referring to the two ‘parts’: exposition and development/recapitulation. Again he changed his mind, for the final version does include a repeat of the exposition. The reverse of this page, and also the following leaf (Petter Sketchbook, folio 32), show Beethoven working on various parts of the movement including the development section. He also noted the keys for the latter part of the exposition: ‘geht zuerst in fis moll dann in cis moll’ (‘goes first to F sharp minor then C sharp minor’, foot of folio 32r).38 These were unusual choices for a movement in A major, and it is significant that he noted them down at this early stage. The above-mentioned D minor passage in the recapitulation corresponds to one in F sharp minor in the exposition (bars 43–56), which then moves to C sharp minor for the main secondary key as planned in the sketch. The next few pages (folios 33r–35r) contain various short sketches, many for the development section. Beethoven experimented with modulating to F minor in the development section, or developing the transitional motif of descending crotchets, but few sketches come close to the final version. The main work on the rest of the movement must therefore have been completed elsewhere, for on folio 35v he switched to preliminary work on what was to become the Eighth Symphony. Thus it is clear that, as with the previous two movements, he must have used loose leaves, or one or more pocket sketchbooks too. He may also have worked on a preliminary outline score, like the one for the Fourth Symphony, before beginning the final autograph score. The autograph score itself, however, is the next known document in the creation of this symphony.

37 Klimowitzki (‘Autograph und Schaffensprozess’, p. 162) transcribed Beethoven’s almost illegible scrawl here as ‘bringen zur Durchführung’, which is entirely incorrect apart from the first letter and the last three. 38 This is quoted in N-II, p. 110, but without reference to the folio number.

192

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The autograph score Beethoven wrote out the autograph score for the symphony during the first half of 1812, but it is hard to assess how long he took or to give precise dates. The only definite date is the one that he wrote at the head of the first page, and unfortunately much of it was trimmed off during binding in the nineteenth century: the year can be deciphered as 1812, along with the date ‘13ten’, but the month has almost entirely disappeared. The foot of the first letter appears to be part of an A, suggesting April, and the foot of letter p is also evident, confirming that the month is ‘clearly “April” and not “May”’.39 It cannot be August, since the symphony was already copied before 19 July 1812,40 and the copy must have been made before Beethoven left Vienna for Prague around 29 June. The inscription was clearly added after the music on the page, and was probably inserted when Beethoven finished the score rather than when he began it. This would then have allowed him to compose the Eighth Symphony from April to October, which seems likely. The paper type of the Seventh is uniform throughout (with two matching moulds as usual) and differs from those in the Petter Sketchbook or any other known sketchbook, but the first movement was copied on single bifolios whereas the other three were copied on pairs of gathered bifolios.41 This suggests that all the movements were written out within a fairly short space of time, but that the first movement may have been written out well before the others. None of the pages has three pre-ruled barlines such as had appeared in the previous two symphonies. All four movements were initially kept separate, for the outer pages of each are more worn than the rest, and the blank back page of the first movement was used for two sketches for the finale. Compared with some of Beethoven’s other autograph scores, that of the Seventh Symphony has surprisingly few alterations, although their precision shows that he was paying no less attention to detail than usual. In addition to immediate changes in the original ink, there are some typical late clarifications and minor modifications added in pencil, darker ink or occasionally red crayon. Some of these were made much later, for they do not all show up in early copies.42 The music in general evidently flowed from his pen more easily than usual, unless he made a preliminary rough score, which he may have done for a few pages, notably the end of the finale, from page 245 onwards. This section, written with a slightly thinner nib than the preceding pages, contains strikingly few corrections; but there are also

39

JTW, p. 212. BB-387; A-378. 41 Korte, ed., Sinfonie Nr. 7, pp. 22–3. 42 Del Mar, Symphony No. 7: Critical Commentary, pp. 21–4. 40



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

193

very few on the preceding pages, and so the suggestion that they replaced an earlier draft is hazardous.43 After any such preliminary score, Beethoven as usual began by writing out a mainly single-line draft within the autograph score, showing just the first violin or sometimes another instrument or even two instruments. When he came to fill up the score of the first movement, however, he deleted a few bars of this single-line draft here and there.44 At two other points in the movement he left four bars more or less blank in the single-line draft to allow for another possible internal repetition, but eventually just deleted them when filling up the score.45 Thus the initial draft contained twenty-nine bars that were later removed, making the movement significantly more concentrated, with fewer repeated phrases. The score also contains four replacement pages pasted in at different parts of the first movement: pages 5, 12, 43 and 70 (the reverse of each insertion, pages 6, 11, 44 and 69, is blank). They were still pasted down when the original folio numbers were added at a later date, but they have since been separated and a fresh pagination added that numbers each page individually. Thus the music on page 7, for example, was replaced by that on the paste-over page 5, resulting in pages 5–8 functioning as a single leaf and hence page 9 being previously numbered as folio 4. The revisions in the paste-overs, however, were fairly slight. In the first case three bars were added (bars 29–31), extending part of the second theme of the slow introduction. The second change, at bars 44–8, was due to the insertion of some rests instead of longer notes for the first and second violins. At bars 218–25 the flute and oboe were rescored for the paste-over, while at bars 358–63 only the second violin part was revised. Thus a paste-over was almost unnecessary in these last three cases and the changes could probably have been made through Beethoven’s typically untidy alterations; but, with spare paper and paste to hand, he decided to write out the relevant bars a second time to improve legibility. The second movement has fewer alterations, with little scope for revision in the first section once the variation pattern had been set up in the sketches. The fugato (bars 183ff.) was more susceptible to revision, but the only excision was of two sketchy bars between bars 186 and 187, since Beethoven originally 43 This suggestion is made in Del Mar, Symphony No. 7: Critical Commentary, p. 21, where the gathering structure of the manuscript is inaccurately described as a final twelve-page gathering, whereas according to Korte (Sinfonie Nr. 7, pp. 22–3) there is an eight-page gathering followed by a single bifolio. 44 These deletions consisted of four bars between bars 167 and 168, and the corresponding place in the recapitulation (bars 367–8); eight bars in the recapitulation (between bars 322 and 323); and five bars in the coda (at bars 431–2 and 445–6). 45 At bars 133–4 and 345–6; see Benito V. Rivera, ‘Rhythmic Organization in Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony: A Study of Cancelled Measures in the Autograph’, 19th-Century Music, 6 (1983), 241–51.

194

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

considered starting the fugato in bar 184 rather than bar 183, where it overlaps with the previous cadence. The scherzo and trio are not named as such but they function in the same way as other examples of scherzo and trio, and can conveniently be referred to by these titles. In the scherzo a remarkable revision can be found at the end of the exposition, bars 13–24, where in the original outline draft, which here shows just first violin and bass, the music modulated to C major rather than A major, although the passage after the repeat sign begins abruptly in A major (see Example 7.11). Thus the sketch in A major for the end of the exposition, mentioned earlier and found as a late insertion on folio 31v of the Petter Sketchbook, was not added there until after this draft of the autograph score had been written. It can be associated with the stage when Beethoven came to fill up the autograph and amended the first-violin and bass staves to their present version. Example 7.11 Original version of autograph score of Op. 92.III, bars 13–24, violin 1 and bass (Kj, Mendelssohn 9, pp. 128–30).

The early version going to C major resembles the final version of the recapitulation (bars 111–18), where the music again modulates to C major instead of A. Yet curiously this passage was not in the original single-line draft for first violin, which showed a much more chromatic version at this point. From bar 99 the music modulated towards D minor before moving into a strange, chromatic descent (Example 7.12), and this eight-bar passage was then repeated in bars 107–14 with minor modifications. This whole scheme Example 7.12 Original version of autograph score of Op. 92.III, bars 99–106, violin 1 (Kj, Mendelssohn 9, pp. 138–9).



‘Great, Exalted’ Work: The Seventh Symphony, Op. 92

195

was then deleted, however, when Beethoven came to fill up the other instruments, and he transferred the early version of bars 13–24, modulating to C major, to this point instead. Even then he had not finished revising, for at a very late stage he inserted two extra bars (115–16), on a separate leaf (page 141), complete with bar numbers – a very unusual feature in his autographs. Thus the exposition and recapitulation, which diverged substantially in the single-line draft in the autograph, still diverge in the final version, but in a more complex way, and still differ in both key and phrase structure. The overall effect is more direct, with a rapid modulation to A in the exposition, and a harmonically more straightforward passage in the recapitulation. For the reprise of the scherzo and trio, creating a five-part rather than three-part structure, Beethoven merely left instructions for the copyist, and this part of the autograph score is in the hand of Wenzel Rampl, added a little later on a different paper type.46 The intended structure, however, was slightly more complicated than simple A B A B A, for the dynamics and internal repeats were changed, and the instructions attempted to indicate this, though Beethoven still had to add ‘sempre piano’ at bars 260–1 of the copied section, to distinguish it from dynamic marks in the previous twenty-four bars.47 The finale has relatively few revisions, though four empty bars after bar 172, allowing a possible repeat of the previous four, were later cancelled, like those cancelled internal repetitions in the first movement. The slight change of script at bar 354 suggests that the last twelve pages were written out slightly later than the rest of the work. Once the autograph score was finished, a copy was prepared, as noted earlier. This initial copy of May–June 1812 is now lost, but it was the source for a much later copy by Anton Diabelli that survives and was used for preparing the first edition.48 Instead of arranging an early performance or trial run of the Seventh Symphony, however, Beethoven turned immediately to the Eighth, which in the Petter Sketchbook follows the last sketches for the Seventh without a break. Performance parts for both symphonies were not prepared until the following year, and printing was delayed even further, as will be outlined in the next chapter. Despite these delays, it was soon recognised that the Seventh Symphony was a ‘great, exalted’ work as desired by his sponsors, and he himself described it as ‘one of my most excellent’ symphonies.49 He was particularly pleased when he saw it described as ‘difficult to play’, observing that ‘what is difficult is also beautiful, good, great etc., so

46 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 591. Del Mar, Symphony No. 7: Critical Commentary, pp. 21 and 51, conjectures Wenzel Schlemmer as copyist. 47 Full details in Del Mar, Symphony No. 7: Critical Commentary, pp. 21 and 57. 48 Ibid., p. 22. 49 BB-809; A-544.

196

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

everyone will perceive that this is the highest praise that one can give’.50 It is certainly a work that fulfilled his sponsors’ wishes, in helping to ennoble the art of composition; and the sketches, particularly those for the second movement, exhibit a great deal of deliberation in his efforts to achieve such a successful result.

50 BB-1061; A-749. Beethoven was responding to a comment in the new Viennese Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, mit besondere Rücksicht auf den österreichischen Kaiserstaat, 2 (9 Jan. 1817), col. 13, which mentioned a performance of ‘Beethovens schwer zu exequirende Simfonie aus A dur’.

8

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93 Allegro vivace e con brio Allegretto scherzando Tempo di Menuetto Allegro vivace

The symphony that began as a concerto

B

eethoven’s Seventh and Eighth Symphonies are often seen as a pair, and they were composed consecutively. Although the Seventh has always been more popular and more highly regarded by most observers, this may not have been Beethoven’s view: according to Czerny, when they were first performed together and the Eighth was less well received, Beethoven said angrily, ‘Just because it is much better.’1 Despite its greater brevity, its sketches occupy about as much of the Petter Sketchbook as those for the Seventh, which might imply that he actually expended more energy per bar in the Eighth than in the Seventh, even if he did not genuinely believe it was ‘much better’. The last known sketches for the Seventh, on folio 35r, are followed on the verso of the same leaf by the earliest known sketches for the Eighth, and almost all known sketches for the Eighth appear in the rest of the sketchbook or on leaves that have since been removed from it. Studies by Sieghard Brandenburg and Alan Tyson indicate that four such leaves are known.2 The proximity of the two 1 ‘Eben weil sie viel besser ist’: KC, p. 222. Not ‘so much better’, as often quoted, e.g. Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017), p. 169. 2 Smf, MMS 273; and BNba, BH 122, NE 126 and BH 119, which originated after folios 45, 46, 48 and 52 respectively. See Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Ein Skizzenbuch aus dem Jahre 1812. Zur Chronologie des Petterschen Skizzenbuches’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Annotationen, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1979), pp. 117–48; JTW, pp. 209–18, which indicates the probable original construction of the sketchbook. The MS number of Smf is taken from LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 601.

198

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

symphonies, with the main sketches for both confined to a single sketchbook, was unprecedented, and might suggest that Beethoven was planning a pair of symphonies from quite an early stage. The obvious purpose for such a pair of symphonies would be as part of plans for a future benefit concert (Akademie). Each of his three previous benefit concerts, in 1800, 1803 and 1808, had followed the same broad pattern. There were always two symphonies: the First Symphony and one by Mozart in 1800; the First and Second in 1803; and the Sixth and Fifth in 1808. There was also a piano concerto – No. 1 in 1800, No. 3 in 1803 and No. 4 in 1808 – and at least one vocal work: excerpts from Haydn’s Creation in 1800; the oratorio Christus am Oelberge in 1803; and several vocal movements including two from the Mass in C in 1808.3 Having completed the Seventh Symphony in April 1812, therefore, Beethoven would need to compose a new symphony and a piano concerto for a forthcoming concert. No new vocal music was required, however, since some was already available in the form of one or more movements from his two recently completed singspiels of 1811 – König Stephan and Die Ruinen von Athen. These had been performed in Pest but not yet in Vienna. His subsequent benefit concerts did not adhere rigidly to the previous pattern, but most of them kept close to it, as will be seen. Despite the proximity of the sketches for the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies, the genesis of the latter was not nearly as straightforward as might be expected, for two factors complicate the picture. The first is the presence of sketches for several other possible symphonies, scattered among those for the Seventh and Eighth.4 The second is the fact that the earliest sketches for the Eighth show it as a piano concerto rather than a symphony.5 Although both features have been known for some time, the relationship between them needs to be explored in order to gain a greater understanding of the origins of the Eighth as a symphony. The first five ideas sketched for a symphony intended as the successor to the Seventh appear intermingled with sketches for that symphony.6 If the relevant pages of the sketchbook were compiled in numerical order – which is by no means certain but on this occasion highly plausible, since there is no obvious contrary evidence – then Beethoven kept thinking ahead to the next 3

TF, pp. 255, 329, 446. Most of these possible symphonies were first noted in Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 120. 5 First noted in Brandenburg, ‘Skizzenbuch’, pp. 135–9. 6 Petter Sketchbook, ff. 15v, 23r, 29v, 35r, and BNba, BH 120, f. 1r (originally part of the Petter Sketchbook, located after f. 29: see JTW, p. 217). For the themes, see U12–U16 in Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81, at 78–9. 4



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

199

symphony while finishing the Seventh. Although the five sketches show no thematic or tonal resemblance to the Eighth, most of them have a similarly light, bright character, as far as can be judged: the first includes the piccolo while the second is without timpani, and the one on folio 35r is specifically labelled ‘2te Sinfonie leicht C’ (‘2nd symphony, light, in C’). Keys used include C major and B flat major, but there is also a more serious-looking theme in D minor (folio 29v), headed ‘2te Sinfon[ie] d moll’, foreshadowing the Ninth rather than the Eighth Symphony. The numbering of two of these sketches shows that Beethoven was specifically searching for a successor to the Seventh, and noting down various possibilities without committing to any. Instead of developing any of these five symphonic ideas on the pages following the last sketches for the Seventh Symphony, Beethoven began sketching what was clearly planned as a piano concerto, although the main themes were eventually used in the Eighth Symphony. The evidence is unequivocal: although the earliest ideas on folios 35v–36v could indicate either a symphony or a concerto, extended drafts of forty-two and sixty-nine bars respectively on folios 37r and 37v show an opening orchestral ritornello that remains in or around the tonic of F major, as in a concerto exposition, rather than moving to another key for the second theme, as in a symphony.7 Both continuity drafts, which can be labelled as CD1 and CD2, are then followed by piano-type figuration such as one would expect in a concerto. The next three pages contain short ideas and much piano figuration, and are followed by a third continuity draft (CD3) on folios 39v–40r, written on two staves throughout (though the lower one is largely blank), again showing an orchestral ritornello that remains in and around F major. This one extends to seventy-two bars, with bar 70 marked ‘Solo’, indicating the start of the solo exposition after the orchestral ritornello and thus confirming the genre of concerto. The first part of it, up to about bar 40, closely follows the previous draft, but the continuation is different, though no closer to the version in the symphony. Again it is followed by short ideas of piano figuration, which can be interpreted as possibilities for the solo exposition. Some are conspicuously virtuosic, notably one that requires rapid octave leaps (Example 8.1). These provide a foretaste of the alternating octaves at the end of the symphony’s exposition (bars 100–3) as well as the orchestral leaps across five octaves near the end of the finale (bars 458–69). Beethoven then turned his attention to a draft (CD4) for the second section of the movement – the link to the solo exposition, and the solo exposition itself. There appear to be two attempts at the link, the first on folio 40r, 7 The second draft, on folio 37v, is transcribed in Brandenburg, ‘Skizzenbuch’, pp. 135–6, though bar 39 is omitted, being on a lower stave. There is a leaf missing between folios 35 and 36 (see JTW, p. 217), which may have contained further ideas for the new work.

200

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 8.1 Sketch for Op. 93.I as piano concerto (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 40r).

staves 15–16, and the second starting with the last two bars on folio 40r and continuing overleaf down to stave 6. Since the first one stops with an ‘etc’ at the point where the soloist enters, and the second begins with the last six bars of the opening ritornello, the two might be run together as a single draft.8 The second draft, or section of draft, shows solo-type material soon interrupted by a short statement of the opening theme marked ‘tutti’. A short tutti interruption in the tonic early in the solo exposition is very common in concertos (for example, bars 89–92 of Beethoven’s Fourth Piano Concerto), and so a concerto was still clearly in Beethoven’s mind. The soloist would presumably have been expected to re-enter shortly afterwards, and the music eventually modulates to the dominant as expected in a solo exposition, by a rather circuitous route, moving towards B flat and E flat majors before hinting at C minor, which then becomes C major. Moving so far to the flat side of the tonic so early is of course unorthodox, but it is precisely what happens in the symphony itself, which also moves towards E flat major (bars 28–31) before sidestepping into D major and thence to C major. Thus the capricious turn in the ‘wrong’ direction was an important idea transferred from the concerto sketches to the symphony. After leaving a small gap on staves 7–10 of folio 40v, Beethoven returned to the last part of the orchestral exposition, picking up the thread from bar 49 of CD2 and proceeding quite differently for thirty-six bars, at the end of which there is once again a ‘solo’ marking.9 This draft develops the closing theme of the exposition much more extensively than before, somewhat resembling bars 90–7 of the symphony. The passage is followed by a prolonged series of cadential figures before the solo entry. At this stage, therefore, the work was still clearly a concerto, and Beethoven had made four extended drafts for all or part of the orchestral exposition. These drafts make interesting comparison with the symphony exposition, in which there are seven main themes, which can be labelled (a) to (g) as in Example 8.2. Themes (a) and (b) are already 8 9

Transcribed as such in Brandenburg, ‘Skizzenbuch’, pp. 138–9. This draft is transcribed ibid., p. 137.



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

Example 8.2 Main themes from Op. 93.I.

201

202

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

present in more or less their final form in CD1, along with an alternative version of theme (c). Themes (d) and a variant of (g) are added in CD2 and CD3, while CD4 includes a more advanced version of (g), and the draft that runs into the start of the solo exposition (folio 40r) includes a version of (e), though without the syncopated element. Thus it was not just a single theme or phrase that was to be transferred from a sketch for one work to a symphony, as with the slow-movement theme of the Seventh Symphony. Here a whole cluster of themes, consisting of six of the seven listed and representing more than half an exposition, originated outside the symphonic field, as did the unorthodox tonal procedure of moving to the subdominant of the subdominant at an early stage. On the page opposite the thirty-six-bar draft (folio 41r) there are no lengthy drafts but around a dozen concepts, nearly all in 3/4 metre and apparently intended for the solo exposition or development. Here is also the first appearance of the three-crotchet figure that was to become so prominent in the coda of the first movement of the symphony. The ideas in other metres (2/4 in G minor, stave 3; 4/4 in C minor, staves 7–8; and 2/4, key uncertain, staves 15–16), however, suggest Beethoven was beginning to lose focus on the concerto he had been sketching. The same pattern occurs overleaf (folio 41v), where there is further extraneous, unused material (staves 1–2, 10–11), suggesting possible further reservations. Alongside some motifs for the first movement (staves 8–9, 12–13) appears the first sketch for the finale (Example 8.3). This is a less complex version of the finale theme in the symphony, but the similarity is close, and the first bar was presumably intended as sextuplets (as in bar 3), although the dots are missing. The latter part of the sketch (not shown) even includes an intrusive D♭, which was to play such an important part in the final version. It will be noticed that the theme has a very similar outline to theme (g) from the first movement, already sketched, and Beethoven surely derived it from this. A version of theme (g) had at this stage been sketched only in F major, making the resemblance even closer. Example 8.3 First sketch for Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 41v).

Any reservations that Beethoven had while sketching on folio 41v seem to have been greatly intensified on the opposite page. It contains ideas so different from folio 41v that one might suspect that the pages do not belong together, but



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

203

the bibliographical integrity of the sketchbook at this point confirms that they do.10 Beethoven might have reserved folio 42r for random jottings to be entered at different times, but the relative uniformity of ink and script throughout the page suggests otherwise. Thus it seems that he had indeed come to a halt with his embryonic piano concerto, and was trying to find alternative ideas, to break free from the impasse and clear his mind, rather than building on his early work on the first movement as he had done with the Seventh Symphony. The page is devoted mainly to a three-movement synopsis sketch for an entirely different piano concerto from the one previously sketched. It begins with a theme (headed ‘Concert in G’), partly crossed out, played on second violin, then first violin, then basso. There follows an Adagio in E flat, and then some pianistic figuration for a concerto in G (major) or E minor, perhaps the same work as before. Next comes a ‘finale’ in G for what is obviously the same work, with alternation of ‘tutti’ and ‘solo’. The choice of G major is surprising, since it is the same key as that of his Fourth Piano Concerto. The synopsis as a whole clearly implies misgivings with the concerto in F that he had been sketching. At the foot of the page are two verbal descriptions of other ideas – a polonaise for solo piano, and a plan to work out an overture on ‘Freude schöner Götter Funken Tochter’, the text later used in the Ninth Symphony.11 The following page-opening, folios 42v–44r,12 contains an equally disparate array of ideas, although the script and ink are again fairly uniform. As well as three or four ideas for symphonies (see below), there is another Adagio in E flat, unrelated to the previous one; a theme for a ‘Fuga’; another idea for a ‘Polonaise’;13 an Andante, an Adagio, an Allegro and, most surprisingly, a three-bar theme headed ‘Postillon von Karlsbad’.14 This suggests the page was written towards the middle of July 1812, since Beethoven was in Teplitz from 5 July 1812, the date on which his friends Franz and Antonie Brentano arrived in nearby Karlsbad, although such a late date raises chronological difficulties (see below). Among the fragmentary ideas is a short passage for 10 JTW, p. 217. Folio 42 was actually torn out of the sketchbook at one point and then reinserted in the correct place, whereas folio 43 was torn out from after folio 68 and reinserted in the wrong place, next to folio 42; see Brandenburg, ‘Skizzenbuch’, pp. 127–8. 11 The overture in question was the ‘Namensfeier’ Overture, already sketched in 1809 but eventually completed in 1815 without use of Schiller’s An die Freude. See N-I, pp. 39–41. 12 Folio 43 does not belong here, as noted above. Beethoven often worked on opposite pages concurrently, and so it is best here to consider the content of pageopenings rather than individual sides. 13 Apparently the Polonaise was this time for piano and orchestra: see Brandenburg, ‘Skizzenbuch’, p. 140. 14 This was noted in N-II, p. 289, and has frequently been mentioned in connection with Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved, whom he believed to be staying in Karlsbad.

204

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

the embryonic piano concerto in F (folio 42v, staves 8–12), which includes a figure resembling the quaver motifs in bars 74–9 of the final version of the symphony, and is thus the earliest material relating to theme (f). The passage is still in F major, however, indicating that it would form part of an initial concerto ritornello rather than a symphonic exposition. There is another short fragment from the movement, relating to theme (g) and again in F major, on the opposite page (folio 44r, stave 3). Thus Beethoven had clearly not completely abandoned the concerto at this stage, and was still looking for a way forward with it. By this time versions of all seven main themes of the movement as it was to appear in the Eighth Symphony had appeared in one or other sketch for the concerto. No new symphony sketches appear among the early drafts for the concerto movement. When he began having apparent reservations, however, his thoughts turned once again to a symphony, and there are three sketches on folios 42v–44r marked as possible symphonies. The first (folio 42v, stave 5, headed ‘Sinfoni’) implies a light-hearted work in C major, with staccato marks; the second (folio 42v, staves 13–14, ‘Sinfon’) begins more seriously in G minor but the main allegro appears to be in B flat major, while on the opposite page (folio 44r, staves 3–4) there is another attempt at a D minor symphony, headed ‘Sinfonie in d moll’ – a solemn ‘moderato’ movement that foreshadows something of the character of the Ninth Symphony. Immediately beneath the title ‘Sinfoni’ for the C major sketch is a musical repetition symbol, which Beethoven probably intended as a ditto mark. In other words, the sketch on the next stave (staves 6–8) would be for another ‘Sinfoni’, this time in D major and stretching to nearly twenty-three bars.15 Thus Beethoven was at this stage clearly looking for a symphony to go with the Seventh and the planned piano concerto in F, for which there are further sketches immediately after the D major sketch; but he had come to no decision on either the character or the key, and was casting around for alternatives. When Beethoven finally turned over a new leaf to folio 44v he did so figuratively too, with a fresh approach to the work in progress. On staves 1–8 he wrote an extended draft for a new work: after an initial series of triadic motifs, some marked for ‘corni’ or ‘trombe’, a main theme appears on stave 3 (Example 8.4), taking up the same idea. But the material is uncomfortably close to the previous concerto sketches: both the new work and the concerto are in 3/4 in F major, with implied tonic harmony for the first two bars, while bars 3 and 4 have identical melodic outlines. Thus the two works could hardly exist side by side, and so the extended draft must represent a radical reassessment of the material previously intended for a concerto. Moreover, there is no sign of any piano figuration, and the draft moves into C major for a version of 15 The three sketches labelled as symphonies are U17–U19 in Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’; the one with the ditto mark is U17a.



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

205

Example 8.4 Sketch for Op. 93.I as symphony (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 44v).

theme (g), thus implying a symphony exposition, rather than remaining in F major for this theme as in earlier sketches. That this new work was to be a symphony instead of a concerto is confirmed by a sketch for a D minor work on the opposite page, headed ‘3te Sinfon’. This is the first concept sketch to be labelled as a third symphony, thus indicating that Beethoven now had in mind a group of three, including the Seventh and embryonic Eighth. Thus by this point the idea of a concerto in F major must have been transformed into a symphony in that key. The ‘third symphony’ sketch consists of an opening ‘Poco sostenuto’ followed by an Allegro and then a ‘Deutscher’ in F major in 3/8 that appears to have been envisaged as the second movement.16 Like the previous D minor symphony sketch, it shows affinities with the theme of the Ninth Symphony,17 but was now to succeed an F major symphony rather than one in A major. The draft for the symphony exposition in F major, though beginning with a new theme, gradually begins to incorporate ideas already conceived for the concerto. The concept of semiquaver runs that had appeared on folio 42v (stave 16) reappears on staves 3–4 of the draft (though the notes are different), and theme (c) enters on stave 6. As before, it is in D major, but this time instead of moving back to F major as in a concerto ritornello, it moves on into C major to lead into theme (g) in that key. Thus in the course of the draft the musical material seems gradually to be working its way towards what was actually used in the Eighth Symphony, as well as adopting the form of a symphony exposition. The most distinctive motif found in the final version but not yet sketched is the octave-leap figure that concludes the exposition (bars 100–4), but a sketch for this appears at the beginning of stave 6, where it is marked

16 All three ideas for the symphony are quoted in Erica Buurman, ‘Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement Structures in his Instrumental Works’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Manchester, 2013), p. 164. The Poco sostenuto and Allegro are also quoted in Erica Buurman, ‘Three Symphonies in One Year? Beethoven’s Sketches of 1812’, Ad Parnassum, 16/31 (Apr. 2018), 35–48, at 38. The symphony sketch is U20 in Cooper, ‘Unfinished Symphonies’. 17 The relationship between the three D minor symphony sketches and the Ninth Symphony is explored in Peter Cahn, ‘Beethovens Entwürfe einer d-moll Symphonie von 1812’, Musiktheorie, 20/5 (2005), 123–9. See also Erica Buurman, ‘Three Symphonies’, pp. 35–48.

206

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

‘L[etzte] Parti[e]’ (‘last part’), which confirms its intended location in the exposition. The draft is immediately followed by a fifteen-bar sketch for an Andante and an eight-bar sketch for what is presumably a minuet for the symphony, since it is in F major and 3/4 metre. The Andante is in C major (Beethoven rarely chose the dominant key for his slow movements), while the theme of the minuet is very close to the Tempo di Minuetto in his Violin Sonata Op. 30 No. 3. The similarity would surely have precluded its use in the Eighth Symphony. The minuet theme is followed by one for a ‘trio’ and another for a ‘2tes trio’, indicating that he was planning two different trios, rather than one trio used twice as in the Seventh Symphony. The presence of a minuet movement confirms that he was now thinking of a symphony rather than a concerto, where such movements never appear. No finale theme appears at this point, since one had already been sketched earlier (Example 8.3 above).18 If this sketch is included, he now had the beginnings of all four movements, plus some ideas for a ‘third’ symphony. Beethoven’s new plan to compose ‘three new symphonies’ (rather than two and a piano concerto) is mentioned in a letter to Breitkopf & Härtel, which reached them on 1 June 1812 and was presumably written in late May (letters normally took about six days from Vienna to Leipzig).19 This date, however, if applied to folio 44v, creates a chronological anomaly, for the inscription about Karlsbad on folio 44r was supposedly written after 5 July (see above), whereas the next two pages clearly match the letter from late May, with a sudden decision for three symphonies instead of two and a concerto. There are several possible explanations. Beethoven may have already decided on three symphonies immediately after finishing the Seventh, but then it would be difficult to account for his starting work on a piano concerto, abandoning it only after reaching Teplitz; perhaps he changed his mind, only to change it back again. Alternatively the sketches for the Eighth and the ‘third’ symphony on folios 44v–45r were made around the time of his letter of late May, with the entry about Karlsbad inserted on the previous page over a month later – such doubling back within a sketchbook is not unusual. The Karlsbad entry, however, clearly precedes the material on the staves immediately beneath it. This would mean that the whole of the lower portion of the page was written in July, which seems unlikely since these sketches relate to some material on preceding pages, such as the above-mentioned polonaise for piano and orchestra, and a motif from the not-yet-abandoned piano concerto. Since his 18 The sketches for the Andante and for the minuet and trios are transcribed in Buurman, ‘Compositional Approach’, pp. 162–3. Buurman observes that, as often happens, Beethoven’s first ideas for the outer movements were closer to the final version than those for the inner ones. 19 BB-577 (including an editorial discussion of dating); A-370.



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

207

last sketch for the Seventh Symphony, the autograph of which is dated 13 April, appears on folio 35r, one would expect Beethoven to have reached folio 44 by late May rather than early July. This dating matches the date of the letter referring to three symphonies. The Karlsbad theme would therefore be anomalous. The most likely explanation, then, is that it was actually written in Vienna from memory in May, after Beethoven had heard it while in Teplitz the previous year, and he perhaps now wrote it down in anticipation of his forthcoming visit, while trying to break free from his compositional impasse by noting anything that came into his head. A summary of the sketches for the Eighth Symphony (whether or not as piano concerto) and any abandoned symphonies on folios 35r–45r is shown in Table 8.1 (unused material not apparently belonging to any symphony is omitted here). The table illustrates how ideas for a new concerto followed immediately after the Seventh Symphony, and gradually grew over several pages before being converted into a symphony around the same time as he contemplated other possible symphonies. Table 8.1 Sketch material for symphonies on folios 35–45 of the Petter Sketchbook. Folio/stave 35r

Brief summary Last sketches for Seventh; idea for ‘2te Sinfonie’; nothing clearly for Eighth 35v Very early ideas for Eighth (staves 1–3 and 14–16), probably as piano concerto 36r Early ideas for Eighth, mixed with some piano-type figuration 36v Main theme of Eighth, plus other concepts for it 37r CD1 for Eighth (42 bars), ending in F, clearly as concerto, with some piano figuration 37v CD2 for Eighth (69 bars), ending in F, with further piano figuration 38r Ideas for Eighth (some new, few clear themes), and piano arpeggios and scales 38v A few new, unused ideas for Eighth 39r More ideas for Eighth 39v/5–40r/8 CD3 for Eighth (72 bars), ending in F with ‘Solo’ marking (bar 70) 40r/9–16 Mainly piano figuration, probably for solo exposition, continuing to f. 40v 40v CD4, showing end of orchestral exposition, followed by ‘Solo’ marking 41r Mainly piano figuration, some in 3/4 apparently for Eighth

208

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Table 8.1 cont. Folio/stave

Brief summary

41v 42r

First idea for ‘finale’ of Eighth, plus motifs for first movement Various ideas including for a concerto in G or E minor; nothing for Eighth Short sketch for Eighth, apparently as concerto; ideas for two or three other symphonies [f. 43 belongs elsewhere]

42v

44r 44v

45r

Two motifs for Eighth; idea for symphony in D minor Symphony in F, with new theme (stave 1), leading into older secondary themes but going into C, not F; then Andante in C 2/4, then trio and 2tes trio (for Eighth Symphony) ‘3te Sinfon’, in D minor; short idea for Eighth

Beethoven’s decision to abandon the F major piano concerto and indeed piano concertos in general was explicitly stated only a few pages later in the sketchbook: ‘gar keine Klawir sachen als Konzerte andere bloss wenn ich drum angegangen werde’ (‘absolutely no piano things such as concertos’, to which he added: ‘other things only if I am approached for them’).20 He had perhaps realised that the notion of performing a piano concerto successfully in public was no longer feasible in view of his increasing deafness. Beneath the comment is a sketch for two movements of a symphony in E minor, presumably intended as another possible replacement for the abandoned concerto.21 On the verso of the leaf is another related inscription that rejects performing on the piano: ‘quintett in c moll fürs fortepian mit clarinett violoncell Horn fagott senza toccar il Clavi-cembalo misera/bile’ (‘quintet in C minor for the fortepiano with clarinet, cello, horn, bassoon, without playing the wretched keyboard’). That his deafness was having serious effects on him is suggested by another inscription, on folio 1r of the sketchbook (not the original first page): ‘Baumwolle in den Ohren am Klavier benimmt meinem Gehör das unangenehm rauschende –– ’ (‘Cotton wool in the ears at the piano takes away from my hearing the unpleasantly noisy –– ’). Since he needed cotton wool to relieve the tinnitus (which for some reason he did not name), he 20 BNba, BH 119, f. 1r; the leaf originated in the Petter Sketchbook after f. 52 (JTW, p. 218). The inscription is transcribed in Hans Schmidt, ‘Die Beethovenhandschriften des Beethovenhauses in Bonn’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 7 (1969–70 [1971], 1–364, at 312 (item 702). 21 The symphony sketches are transcribed in Buurman, ‘Compositional Approach’, p. 167, and listed as U21 in Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’.

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



209

would have even less chance than otherwise of hearing any orchestra that was accompanying him. Any further piano compositions would have to be specifically requested, and all the remaining ones probably were, though there is documentation for only some of these works, such as the Diabelli Variations and the last three piano sonatas.22 The remainder of the first movement was sketched without major interruptions or setbacks on the following pages (folios 45v–48v, plus two leaves that have since been removed from this section23). Here Beethoven concentrated mainly on the development section, though a new theme in F, in 3/4 metre, on folio 46r suggests that he was still not completely convinced by his original theme. However, he stuck by it thereafter. By the time he reached folio 48r he was ready to make an extended draft of the whole of the development section, which was headed with his customary ‘2ter Theil’ (‘2nd part’). The draft begins with the last four bars of the exposition (bars 100–3 of the final version), and up to bar 154 it anticipates the final version fairly closely, though it diverges substantially thereafter. Overleaf a draft shows the retransition and well into the recapitulation, roughly bars 188–245, and it already includes the double statement of the main theme (bass then treble) that raises ambiguities about where the recapitulation actually starts – bar 190 or 198. On folio 49r Beethoven drafted a complete exposition, headed ‘1ter Theil’ (‘1st part’).24 Most of this draft corresponds very closely to the final version, but a twenty-bar passage (bars 70–89) is absent: what corresponds to bar 69 runs straight into bar 90, thus omitting themes (e) and (f) completely. As noted earlier, material relating to both themes had actually been sketched while the movement was still a concerto, although in neither case was the resemblance very close to the final form. Thus it is curious that there is nothing comparable in the draft here. Short expositions that were later amplified by more material were, however, quite common in Beethoven’s compositional procedures: a classic case is the ‘Appassionata’ Sonata, where the entire lyrical second subject was absent from the first draft but added later.25 In the Eighth Symphony the passage omitted from the draft is not quite so important 22

In 1815 he did begin a new piano concerto in D (Hess 15) but he left it unfinished; see Nicholas Cook, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Piano Concerto: A Case of Double Vision?’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 42 (1989), 338–74. It was probably intended for Archduke Rudolph, who instead received the ‘Hammerklavier’ Sonata a little later. 23 Smf, MMS 273, and BNba, BH 122, as noted above. 24 The complete draft is transcribed in N-II, pp. 111–12, with minor inaccuracies and omissions. Nottebohm notes that it is worth comparing the sketch with the score, but does not do so. 25 See Martha Frohlich, Beethoven’s ‘Appassionata’ Sonata (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 59–65.

210

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

strategically, but it is useful for filling out an otherwise very short exposition; even in its expanded state it is one of his shortest symphonic expositions. It must have been slightly later that Beethoven wrote out the missing passage on the opposite, left-hand page – a page that has since been removed and is now incomplete.26 He sketched the passage as part of the recapitulation, however, thus in F major rather than C major. The passage is still not quite as in the final version – conspicuously absent are the dotted rhythms of theme (e), but the two-beat syncopation is present, with equal rather than dotted quavers. The sketch shows the full twenty bars and even continues a little further into the recapitulation. Thus by this time almost all the main parts of the movement were in place, and no further extended sketching for the first movement is known. As for the coda, one of Beethoven’s first ideas was a ‘Coda kurz’ (‘coda short’), as noted on folio 46v. The sketch here shows only a twelve-bar coda, but later sketches expand this. Nevertheless, he did not work out the final ending until after he had written out the autograph score (see below). Transformation of the second movement Whereas the first movement of the Eighth Symphony began life as a concerto movement, and was transformed into a symphonic movement while retaining most of the thematic material, the second movement was sketched in some detail as an Adagio before being transformed into an Allegretto with very different thematic material. After noting a brief concept sketch for a possible Andante in C (folio 44v; see Table 8.1 above) and another possible slow movement slightly later (folio 46r), Beethoven set to work in earnest on a slow movement on folio 49v – thus immediately after the latest extended sketching for the first movement. There are also a couple of related ideas for the second movement at the foot of folio 49r, perhaps added later. Although they are not marked ‘adagio’, the extensive use of demisemiquaver figuration combined with a melody using much longer note values indicates a slow tempo. This slow movement, in B flat major and 2/4 metre, was not a mere passing thought but was sketched extensively on the next six pages of the sketchbook (folios 49v–52r) and was clearly intended as the second movement of the symphony.27 There are numerous short fragments of around two to seven bars, plus a few longer drafts of up to twenty-four bars. Altogether there are nearly a hundred different bars, as well as repetitions, duplications and refinement of the material. The movement appears to be in ternary form, with a central minore 26

BNba, NE126, which contains only the top nine staves; see JTW, p. 217. See Kathryn John, ‘Das Allegretto-Thema in op. 93, auf seine Skizzen befragt’, in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), 172–84. 27



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

211

section in B flat minor that makes much use of dotted rhythms and a slightly menacing timpani part (folio 49r, stave 16), followed by a varied reprise of the main theme (folio 51v, stave 15) – a theme sketched several times.28 The first statement (folio 49v) extends to twenty-four bars, as shown in Example 8.5. Example 8.5 Sketch for Op. 93.II, abandoned Adagio (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 49v).

The demisemiquaver figuration of the accompaniment is somewhat pianistic in style, but it must be assumed that the notion of a piano concerto had been abandoned by this time. Nevertheless, demisemiquaver figuration of this type appears in many of the sketches, almost always on the lower of two staves, and Beethoven seems to have planned to create a prominent role for cellos, or solo cello, in this movement. The only indication of instrumentation for this figuration, however, is in a short sketch at the top of folio 49r, where one bar is marked ‘Violen’ (‘violas’), the next is unmarked but too low for violas (thus presumably cellos), and the following one marked ‘Bassi’. The 28 The opening bars of the five different versions of the theme are quoted ibid., p. 179.

212

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

motif on the lower stave in bar 4 in Example 8.5 is perhaps to be read in the treble clef. The disturbing chords with C♯ in bars 10 and 13 are retained in later sketches, though it is not always clear how they were meant to resolve. What looks like a large X at the start of bar 11 perhaps indicates that bar 10 was to be followed by bar 13, where there is a kind of resolution of the chromatic notes, similar to what happens in a later sketch. The second part of the sketch, from bar 15, begins with a rising triad as in bars 1–3, but this time filled in with passing notes; and the striking G♭s near the end already hint darkly at a minore section to follow. In addition to this opening section, a decorated version of it that may be a reprise, and various fragments whose intended location is uncertain, there appears a draft for an extended coda on the lower half of folio 52r. Thus altogether there is enough material here for Beethoven to have created a complete movement without the invention of any further themes, and the only section still needing substantial development was the minore section. It is certainly unusual to find such a well-developed movement set aside. Yet there is evidence that he was not working on the movement very intensively. The relevant pages show changes of implement, from quill to pencil and back, and tell-tale changes of script, plus the sporadic appearance of extraneous material, all of which could imply that he had misgivings about the movement that was unfolding. These misgivings surfaced on the following page (folio 52v), where a new theme appears, though not quite as suddenly as was once thought. According to Anton Schindler, the theme of the second movement was originally created in a canon in praise of Johann Nepomuk Maelzel (1772–1838) and his metronome, and Schindler actually quoted the canon (‘Ta ta ta’, WoO 162). There are some anomalies in Schindler’s account, however – not least the fact that the word ‘Metronom’ in the canon had not been coined when the Eighth Symphony was being written. It was eventually shown by Standley Howell that Schindler had fabricated the entire account and had composed the canon himself many years after Beethoven’s death.29 If Schindler had been a generally reliable witness, one might have been tempted to surmise that there was an element of truth somewhere in his account – which may account for the question mark in Howell’s title. But in view of Schindler’s other inventions, it is clear that the whole account is fictitious, as emphasised by Harry Goldschmidt.30 Nevertheless, by the time the forgery was recognised, Nottebohm had noticed the theme on folio 52v of the Petter Sketchbook, labelled ‘Thema’ 29 See Standley Howell, ‘Beethoven’s Maelzel Canon: Another Schindler Forgery?’, The Musical Times, 120 (1979), 987–90. 30 Harry Goldschmidt, ‘“Und wenn Beethoven selber käme …”: Weitere Aspekte zum Mälzelkanon’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Dokumente 2 (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), pp. 185–204, at p. 185.

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



213

and closely resembling the theme of the final version, and he concluded that it did not contradict Schindler’s account.31 Had he looked at the page more carefully, however, he would have observed that there were preliminary efforts at establishing the theme further up the page and not quite matching the final version – thus indicating that it was not a pre-existing theme.32 Even the ‘Thema’ quoted by Nottebohm does not quite match either the canon or the theme of the symphony. A little later, on a leaf that followed folio 52 but has now become separated from the sketchbook, Beethoven even tried reintroducing his triadic theme from the abandoned Adagio along with the new figuration and repeated-note accompaniment;33 but this idea was quickly abandoned and the new theme with its motivic repetitions became firmly established. The bifolio that followed the leaf in question, however, is missing,34 and so Beethoven’s development of the sketches for the Allegretto scherzando cannot be traced in detail. By the time he reached what is now folio 53 of the sketchbook, much of the movement was in place, and the recto shows an extended draft for the recapitulation and coda, as well as ideas for the next movement. The recapitulation is very similar to the final version, except that in the draft on folio 53v the barlines are displaced by one crotchet beat. The later revision of this feature highlights the metrical ambiguity that is inherent in most of this music, where the second beat can often be interpreted as stronger than the first beat, especially where it is a heavily accented tonic chord, as in bars 28 and 30 (and 56 and 58 in the recapitulation). This metrical ambiguity is one of many humorous effects in the movement, along with the staccato figuration, the sudden dynamic changes, the ticking effect that recalls Haydn’s ‘Clock’ Symphony and the disruptive five-semiquaver figure that conflicts with the underlying metre. The coda seems to have given more trouble, with several alternative versions tested; and the final bar was repeatedly sketched as a rapid two-octave descending scale, not just repeated demisemiquavers and hemidemisemiquavers, which create a concluding humorous effect, neatly answering the repeated semiquavers of the opening. A traditional minuet No minuet movement would be needed while the work was envisaged as a concerto, and so the first hint of a minuet sketch does not appear until the one on folio 44v mentioned above, which follows a sketch for a second-movement 31

N-II, p. 113. John, ‘Allegretto-Thema’, p. 183. 33 Ibid., p. 182; the sketch appears on BNba, BH 119, f. 1v, a folio that was probably adjacent originally to folio 52. 34 JTW, p. 218. 32

214

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Andante in C. Another possible minuet sketch for the symphony appears on folio 46r;35 but its position at the top of the page suggests it was entered somewhat earlier, and it may be another idea for the first movement, also in 3/4 metre, judging by its rhythmic similarity to this. The next sign of a third-movement sketch appears on folio 51r, staves 12–15. Since the second movement was at this stage a slow movement, the sketch is, not surprisingly, headed ‘Scherzo’. It is a sixteen-bar sketch on two staves, with a double bar in bar 8 implying a possible repeat of the preceding section (Example 8.6). The octave leaps on the lower stave in bars 6–8 recall a similar figure at the end of the exposition in the first movement (bars 100–3), but there are no other direct relationships with the two movements already sketched. Example 8.6 Sketch for possible third movement for Op. 93 (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 51r).

As soon as Beethoven had decided to write an Allegretto scherzando instead of a slow movement, however, a typical third-movement scherzo was out of the question. The structural precedent would now be the Piano Sonata in E flat Op. 31 No. 3, which likewise has a 3/4 opening movement, a 2/4 scherzando and a stately minuet for the third movement, before a very fast finale. Signs of the new third movement first appear on folio 53r, where the main theme was apparently already fixed, for its first bar is followed by an ‘etc’ implying that the rest is known (stave 5) – though the lost bifolio preceding this leaf may have contained preliminary work. The next sketch on the same stave develops some of the material, concentrating on the motif in the third bar of the theme (Example 8.7), while a pencil sketch added later on the staves above seems to relate to the end of the minuet before the trio section.

35

It is identified as a third-movement sketch in JTW, p. 215.



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

215

Example 8.7 Sketch for Op. 93.III (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 53r; last note in bar 1 was written as crotchet).

Overleaf is another sketch of the main theme, followed by a minore passage in D minor that was surely intended as a possible trio. Beethoven had already sketched two trio themes at an early stage (folio 44v – see Table 8.1 above), and another one on folio 53r headed ‘trio’. All three of these themes are in F major and with no very distinctive features, but the new one on folio 53v is a three-voice canon at the octave in D minor, starting on d with a ‘middle voice’ (‘Mittelstimme’), then d1 then d2 (Example 8.8). This is followed by a chordal passage in D minor, probably part of the same sketch, for violins, violas and cellos on their own, perhaps alternating with wind instruments (‘Violini Viole Violoncello solo / Vieleicht Blasende I. / zwischen Violin / Viola Violoncell abwechselnd’). A trio section in the relative minor would have been unique in a Beethoven symphony, though it occasionally occurs in his other works. On this occasion, however, he held back D minor until his next symphony, and none of these ideas for the trio found their way into the finished version. Example 8.8 Sketch for trio section of Op. 93.III (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 53v).

Instead, when Beethoven turned to the next page-opening (folios 54v–55r), he wrote out two complete drafts of the whole third movement, which correspond closely to the final version. The one on the left-hand page is nearly all in pencil whereas the one on the right, which seems to be a copy, is nearly all in ink. There are, however, a few ink annotations to the pencil draft and pencil alterations (mainly dynamic changes) to the ink draft. In both drafts the trio (as it is called in both sketches, but not in the final version) appears fully formed, including its remote modulation to A flat major. Differences from the final version are mostly fairly minor, such as the possible removal of some dotted rhythms. The triplet accompaniment of the final version is already envisaged (‘acc: Triolen’: folio 54v, stave 9), but no details are worked out, and a link to another sketch suggests substituting running semiquaver scales

216

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

(folio 55r, stave 8). It seems, therefore, that once Beethoven had decided what kind of trio he was to have, he was able to write out a complete draft with a rare fluency. Perhaps he worked on it elsewhere or at the piano. Another draft and supplementary material on the following page-opening (folios 55v–56r) come no nearer to the final version and are in some respects further away, with several deleted bars that leave the text unclear. The last eight bars of the main minuet, which had appeared in variant versions in the previous two drafts, are now missing altogether, although the appearance of the word ‘coda’ at this point (folio 55v, stave 12) suggests that Beethoven may have intended such a conclusion. The end of the trio section also created difficulties and appears in several versions, without ever quite matching the final one. As often occurs in Beethoven’s sketches, the ending seems to have required more effort than any of the main sections of the movement. The protracted finale In terms of pages the finale is much the longest of the four movements, occupying 72 pages in the autograph score as opposed to 102 pages for the other three movements put together.36 Thus it predictably occupies a larger portion of the sketchbook than any of the other movements, with concentrated work throughout folios 56–71, including the misplaced folio 43 (originally located after folio 68).37 The movement displays Beethoven’s characteristic finale combination of light, dance-like theme and complex form. The form can be summarised briefly as in Table 8.2. Thus there are elements of sonata form, such as the reappearance of the subsidiary theme in the tonic, as occurs with the second subject in traditional sonata form. But there are also elements of rondo form, with the multiple appearances of the main theme. When Beethoven was composing a movement in an unusual form he sometimes sketched a synopsis or plan for the whole movement, but no such synopsis for the finale appears in the sketchbook, and the form of the movement seems to have emerged only gradually. Beethoven had already created a viable finale theme before composing the middle movements (see Example 8.3 above), but when he returned to it as he finished off the third movement he surprisingly jettisoned the theme’s first four bars, creating a new theme, again headed ‘Finale’ but based on bars 5–8 of Example 8.3, which are treated in a rising sequence (folio 54r). The first appearance of the complete main theme in something like its final form comes on folio 57v (Example 8.9).38 The notation of the rhythm is inaccurate in the 36

LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 602. JTW, pp. 215, 218. 38 Two other early versions of the theme, taken from the preceding page and the following page, are quoted in N-II, p. 117, but neither shows the two-octave displacement. 37

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



217

Table 8.2 Form of finale of Eighth Symphony. Bar 1 48 97 110 161 224 273 277 355 373

Main theme (+ upbeat in preceding half-bar) Subsidiary theme, in A flat then C False reprise in F Development, leading to main theme in A Reprise in F Subsidiary theme, in D flat then F False reprise in B flat Second development, leading to main theme in D Second reprise, truncated Coda, starting in F sharp minor

Example 8.9 Sketch for main theme of Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 57v).

first five bars of the sketch, but Beethoven probably already intended what he later actually wrote, and simply omitted a quaver rest after each three-quaver group, as indicated in a shorter sketch further down the page. At this stage the feature of octave displacement, so prominent in the symphony as a whole, is actually woven into the theme itself, in the quaver-quaver-crotchet motif, as shown in Example 8.9. This idea seems to vanish in a sketch headed ‘meilleur’ (‘better’) on the opposite page, where there is no octave displacement;39 but in the final version Beethoven obtained the best of both worlds, keeping the main motif at a single register but doubling its second appearance an octave lower on violas and its third an octave higher on flute and oboe. As in the previous movement, the second part of the main theme is less well established than the first part during the early sketches; and there is no sign in this sketch of the intrusive C♯ that receives such prominence in the final version (from bar 17), but just a dramatic rest at the corresponding point. The note appears not

39

The ‘meilleur’ version is quoted in N-II, p. 117.

218

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

long after, however (folio 58v, stave 15, as D♭). Beethoven also considered a different intrusive note – E♭ (folio 58r, stave 7) or A♭ (folio 59r, stave 14). On the following pages there are repeated appearances of sections of the main theme and occasionally a version of the second subject, but these recognisable phrases are interspersed with much unused material such as rising or falling scales. Even when this material resembles sections of the final version, the correspondence is usually not exact. For example, on folio 66r appears an extended sixteen-bar series of minims (staves 1–4), as in Example 8.10.40 These are similar to phrases in bars 286–335 of the final version in terms of motif and harmony – especially bars 322–9 – but the pitch and tonal direction do not match. Thus this basic idea of minims in contrary motion, though surviving to the final version, needed much modification and expansion. Example 8.10 Sketch for Op. 93.IV (BNba, HCB Mh 59, f. 66r).

These pages (folios 56–71) occasionally include extraneous material, such as an idea for a symphony in C minor (folio 61v) and some sketches for what became the ‘Namensfeier’ Overture, but here incorporating phrases from Schiller’s An die Freude.41 Most of the sketches, however, are for the finale of the Eighth Symphony. Yet they show remarkably little progress with the movement in nearly thirty pages. The idea of reintroducing the main theme in the remote key of D major (cf. bar 345), thereby subtly recalling the early excursion to D major in the first movement, does not appear until the displaced folio 43r; and the theme’s appearance in the even more remote A major (cf. bar 151) emerges later still, on folio 69v. By folio 71 more extended passages 40 In the first four and a half bars the bass part is on stave 1 and the upper part on stave 2, after Beethoven had attempted to write it in the blank space above stave 1 and promptly rubbed it out. Thereafter the staves are as normal. 41 N-I, p. 41, transcribed from the displaced f. 43r.



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

219

resembling the final version are starting to appear, but there was clearly much work still to be done, with many passages not yet sketched, and there are no more sketches for the symphony on the remaining three leaves of the sketchbook. The picture, therefore, is very different from that of the first three movements, where most of the material in the final version relates closely to at least one extended continuity draft. The rest of the sketching for the finale must therefore have been made on loose leaves or in a missing pocket sketchbook. It is beneficial at this point to remember Beethoven’s activities during this period. During the whole time, or almost the whole time, when he was working on the finale he was away from Vienna, departing at the end of June 1812 and travelling to Prague, Teplitz and other Bohemian spas before making his way to Linz, where he arrived on 5 October and where he wrote out the autograph of the Eight Symphony, dated ‘linz im Monath october 1812’.42 Whereas he would have wanted to keep a whole sketchbook that might contain useful material, he would have been less likely to hang on to loose sketch leaves devoted entirely to a newly completed symphony, and may well have discarded them to reduce his load while travelling around. One loose leaf, however, does survive and it supports this argument: it contains late sketches for the finale of the Eighth Symphony, but also a synopsis of themes for all four movements of a symphony in E flat that might follow it, headed ‘Sinfon 3’.43 This would be a leaf worth preserving, in case he decided to build on these ideas, and indeed they do show an affinity with the sketches for his unfinished Tenth Symphony made some ten years later, especially in the initial emphasis on the notes G and A♭.44 It has been suggested that Beethoven may have deliberately sketched this ‘Sinfon 3’ on a separate sheet, ‘rather than burying it in a sketchbook’, so that it could be more easily retrieved later.45 In actual fact, however, he preserved the leaf for other reasons, for he had stopped using the Petter Sketchbook for his symphonies well before he used this leaf. This is evident from the fact that the sketches for the finale of the Eighth Symphony here are markedly more advanced than any in the sketchbook. One sketch shows a continuity draft that corresponds exactly to bars 294–317 of the finished version; other sketches show the striking modulation to the improbable key of F sharp minor 42 A summary of Beethoven’s travels in summer 1812 can be found, for example, in Barry Cooper, ed., The Beethoven Compendium (London: Thames & Hudson, 1991), p. 22. The autograph date is given in LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 602. The autograph itself is in Bsb, Autograph Beethoven 20/1–4, though the third movement (20/3) has been removed and is currently in Kj. 43 BNba, HCB Mh 86. 44 Barry Cooper, ‘Subthematicism and Metaphor in Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony’, Ad Parnassum, 1/1 (Apr. 2003), 5–22, at 19. 45 Buurman, ‘Three Symphonies’, p. 44.

220

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

(cf. bars 377–81), a key never suggested in the Petter sketches. It was once thought that this leaf might have originated in the Petter Sketchbook, like several others, since it has the same watermark and stave ruling, but the absence of any stitch holes indicates that the leaf ‘was never part of it’.46 This bibliographical evidence can now be supported by the internal evidence of the sketch material, which has not previously been considered. In all probability the leaf was filled while Beethoven was in Linz, shortly before he wrote out the autograph score of the finale. The amended autograph score The autograph score that was written out in Linz in October 1812, according to Beethoven’s inscription, contains numerous alterations – some in pencil and some in ink. Most of the changes are of minor details such as dynamics and articulation, but there are also some changes of texture and orchestration.47 One very substantial change has attracted much attention. This is the ending of the first movement, which survives in three very different versions. The earliest version shows five rather perfunctory bars after bar 331, and has been crossed out in the main autograph score (page 52) with only the string parts in place and nothing for the wind.48 This version was therefore probably never performed, although bars 333–6 are preserved in Beethoven’s hand in a first-violin part that also contains the final version of bars 332–73,49 which confuses the picture somewhat (why did Beethoven himself write out an orchestral part, and then revise it himself?). A slightly more substantial ending, showing a ten-bar conclusion that would follow after bar 331, has been discarded from the original autograph and is preserved in a leaf now in Bonn.50 A timpani part now in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna, also shows this ending, though it has been crossed

46

JTW, p. 211. See Oswald Jonas, ‘The Autograph of Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony’, Music & Letters, 20 (1939), 177–82. 48 This version is published in Willy Hess, ed., Werke für Orchester, Beethoven: Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vol. 4 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1961), p. 102. 49 Pn, Ms 19. 50 BNba, HCB BMh 8/48. This version was first published in Alfred Orel, ‘Der ursprüngliche Schluss des 1. Satzes in Beethovens VIII. Sinfonie’, Schweizerische Musikzeitung, 90 (1950), 50–3. See also Willy Hess, ‘Zum ursprünglichen Schluss des 1. Satzes von Beethovens Achter Symphonie’, Schweizerische Musikzeitung, 101 (1961), 112–14. Hess included the ten bars in Werke für Orchester, p. 70. This version is known as Hess 1 in James F. Green, The New Hess Catalog of Beethoven’s Works (West Newbury: Vance Brook Publishing, 2003), p. 1. 47



‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93

221

out and replaced by the final version.51 This timpani part was first noted by Nottebohm, but unusually he made two basic errors.52 He omitted two whole-bar rests and therefore concluded that the movement contained only 339 bars – 34 shorter than the final version – instead of 341.53 Secondly he concluded that this early version was included at the public premiere of the work in 1814, and that the final version was therefore not composed until the first half of that year. But Sieghard Brandenburg has drawn attention to an earlier, private performance in April 1813,54 and it is more likely that the changes were made after this, rather than after the later public premiere, since this second ending is not found in any of the other original performing parts. The final ending, which appears in all the main sources with only minor variants, is far more subtle than the loud block chords of the first two versions, surprisingly bringing back the opening gesture of the movement in a Haydnesque manner, after a much more extended coda recalling some of the earlier material. The first movement was not the only one where the ending was revised. As noted above, the end of the second movement did not reach its final form in the sketches, and endings in the last two movements were revised even more. The end of the trio section in the third movement was originally one bar longer, with an extra bar of motivic repetitions before the last two bars.55 The finale, meanwhile, also shows signs of late revisions to the coda.56 Beethoven’s original score became so messy with corrections that he wrote out the ending afresh, from bar 458 to the end (bar 502), but very hurriedly, on four leaves of a different paper from the rest of the score.57 Bars 458–63 of the original score still survive, and so the earliest, deleted version can be made out. It shows that the striking displacement of a chord over five different octaves, passing from flutes to oboes, clarinets, horns, bassoons and back, was originally allocated to the strings, with upper wind sustaining a held chord and the bassoons and horns remaining silent. The rest of the original score is lost, and it may have 51 Wgm, XIII 2457 Faszikel A; see Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 8 in F major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997), pp. 15–16. 52 N-I, p. 24. 53 See Del Mar, Symphony No. 8: Critical Commentary, p. 29, which points out Nottebohm’s mistake. 54 Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Die Beethovenhandschriften in der Musikaliensammlung des Erzherzogs Rudolph’, in Zu Beethoven 3: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1988), 141–76, at 160. Brandenburg, however, implies that the early version in Pn, Ms 19 also matches this version. 55 The extra bar is reproduced in facsimile in Del Mar, Symphony No. 8: Critical Commentary, p. 3. 56 Ibid., pp. 15, 21, 43–4. 57 Ibid., p. 15.

222

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

initially contained a different number of bars before being revised and then recopied. Some instrumental parts used at one of the original performances were copied from it, but only after any revisions that Beethoven had made.58 They differ slightly from the final autograph, and further changes made before publication complicate the issue of the text that Beethoven finally intended, but only concerning minor details.59 Performance and publication of the Seventh and Eighth Symphonies After returning to Vienna from Linz in November 1812, Beethoven may have continued making minor revisions to the Eighth Symphony, for he made no immediate effort to arrange a performance of his two new symphonies. By the following spring, however, he was ready to do so. His initial plan was to put on two charity concerts, which would presumably have contained the two new symphonies; but because annuity payments from Prince Lobkowitz and Prince Kinsky’s estate had not materialised he felt obliged to make them benefit concerts for himself instead.60 As usual, the problem of venue arose, and Beethoven hoped to obtain the University Hall, but he was refused; other venues were also considered – the Kärnthnerthor Theater, the Theater an der Wien and the Augarten61 – but with no more success. Archduke Rudolph, however, was evidently keen to hear the new works, and arranged a trial run at his palace. This was originally proposed for perhaps Thursday 15 April, but as this was Holy Week the copyists would have been too busy to reproduce all the parts in time, and so Beethoven proposed the Saturday.62 Eventually the trial run of the two symphonies was set for 21 April. He asked for at least four first and four second violins, four violas (?), two cellos and two double basses – a useful guide for small modern performances. He also asked for musicians to be chosen who could create ‘more of a performance than a rehearsal’, but in this he was deeply disappointed, referring the following day to ‘particularly bad playing’.63 Beethoven probably made some minor adjustments to the scores as a result of the performances, as he had done with his previous two symphonies, and it is most likely that many of the numerous pencil alterations in both autograph scores date from this time, but it is impossible to be certain. There may have been further trial runs, but none are documented. A 58

Ibid., p. 21. Details are given ibid., pp. 24–44. 60 BB-635; A-439, written on 16 (or possibly 15) April 1813. 61 BB-638; A-416, written on 19 April. 62 BB-634; A-415. 63 These details are taken from a series of letters from this period, BB 639–42; three of these are misdated in Emily Anderson, ed. The Letters of Beethoven, 3 vols (London: Macmillan, 1961), A-331, A-330, A-332; the fourth (Alb-172) was omitted altogether. 59

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



223

performance of the Seventh Symphony was projected for an Augarten concert on 1 May, but the Fifth Symphony was performed instead.64 Beethoven was finally allowed a charity concert – but still not a benefit concert – in the University Hall on 8 December 1813, after the university had appointed a new rector in November.65 By this time he had composed a new quasi-symphonic work: Wellingtons Sieg oder die Schlacht bei Vittoria (Wellington’s Victory, or the Battle of Vittoria), celebrating the Duke of Wellington’s victory over the French army on 21 June 1813, which marked a turning point in the Napoleonic Wars. Though not a symphony in the conventional sense, and not regarded by Beethoven as one, it is sometimes known as the ‘Battle Symphony’, and the first English edition actually bore the title Beethoven’s, Grand Battle Sinfonia.66 This work and the Seventh Symphony received their public premieres at the charity concert, which was repeated four days later. The concerts also included marches by Dussek and Pleyel. There were around a hundred players in the orchestra, and both Beethoven works received tumultuous applause and seemingly universal admiration.67 Beethoven was finally granted a benefit concert on 2 January 1814, held in the Grosse Redoutensaal. The programme was the same as in the two charity concerts, except that the works by Dussek and Pleyel were replaced by two movements from Beethoven’s one-act singspiel Die Ruinen von Athen, which had not previously been heard in Vienna.68 The programme was much shorter than his previous four-hour benefit concert of 1808, even allowing for the encores that took place. A full-scale benefit concert followed, however, on 27 February, and this was constructed like those of 1800, 1803 and 1808: two symphonies (the Seventh and Eighth), another orchestral work (Wellingtons Sieg replaced the usual concerto) and some vocal music – the single item Tremate, empi, tremate, a trio for three voices and orchestra; Beethoven had intended to perform a new cantata, Europens Befreiungsstunde, but this did not pass the censors and no score survives.69 Two more benefit concerts followed towards the end of the year (29 November and 2 December). These again 64

BB-646, note 3. A-440; see also BB-639. 66 LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 582. 67 Stefan Kunze, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Werke im Speigel seiner Zeit (Laaber: Laaber, 1996), pp. 267–71. 68 Thayer identified these movements as the last three composite numbers (6–8) of Die Ruinen von Athen (TF, p. 569), but the reports in the Wiener Zeitung (9 Jan. 1814), p. 1, and the AMZ, 16 (Feb. 1814), col. 133, make clear that only an entry march (No. 6 but without the following recitative) and a bass aria with chorus (the C major section of No. 7) were heard. 69 See Michael Ladenburger, ‘Der Wiener Kongress im Spiegel der Musik’, in Beethoven: Zwischen Revolution und Restauration, ed. Helga Lühning and Sieghard Brandenburg (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1989), pp. 275–306, at 294–5. 65

224

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

featured Wellingtons Sieg and the Seventh Symphony, to which was added the newly composed cantata Der glorreiche Augenblick, and a charity concert with the same programme was held on 25 December.70 Thus within the space of just over a year Beethoven had performed the Seventh Symphony seven times, but the Eighth only once. This may have been partly in response to public demand, but it suggests he had misgivings about the Eighth, feeling it was less successful than any of his previous three symphonies. The lack of a dedicatee for the symphony points in the same direction. Nearly all of his major works plus a few minor ones appeared with a dedication, except where there was some oversight; hence the lack of one or even a proposal for one for the Eighth Symphony is striking. Equally suggestive are Beethoven’s attempts to sell the work to an English publisher. Although it was included in a long list of suitable works that was sent to Sir George Smart in March 1815, and another sent to Johann Peter Salomon in June,71 it was not mentioned in later correspondence. Smart was told that the Seventh Symphony and certain other works had been performed ‘with the greatest applause’, but Beethoven made no such claim about the Eighth. His letter to Salomon describes the Seventh Symphony as ‘one of my most excellent’ but says nothing positive about the Eighth; and when Charles Neate took the scores of ten sizeable works back to London in 1816, including the Seventh Symphony, the Eighth was not among them, nor among three works sent to the publisher Robert Birchall around that time.72 Thus it would be unwise to take at face value Beethoven’s reported assertion that the Eighth was ‘much better’ than the Seventh. If he did say this, it was more likely just bravado or an attempt to save face, for all other evidence suggests that he preferred the Seventh and regarded it as much superior. Publication of both symphonies, as with other works composed around the same period, was held back for some time after their composition and first performance, and no convincing reasons have ever been given for the long delay. Eventually, however, an agreement was reached with the local publisher Sigmund Anton Steiner to publish a large batch of works for 250 ducats. Beethoven received a draft of the agreement on 1 February 1815, but asked that the fee should not include any piano transcriptions of orchestral works; he had not made any, and proposed that Steiner should find someone else to

70

TF, pp. 599–600. BB-790, A-534; BB-809, A-544. 72 BB-983; A-664 (works brought by Neate); BB-854 and 895; A-572 and 604 (works sold to Birchall). Neate’s copy of the Seventh Symphony, which contains many corrections in Beethoven’s hand, is now in Ob, Ms Tenbury 777: see Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 7 in A major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 2000), p. 25. 71

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



225

create them.73 The draft agreement is now lost, but a later draft, prepared by Steiner’s assistant Tobias Haslinger and dated 29 April 1815, still lists the piano transcriptions of the orchestral works, including the two symphonies. The final version of the agreement, however, dated 20 May 1815, which lists exactly the same works, omits all reference to piano transcriptions.74 Beethoven’s wish had been granted. In October 1815 Steiner published an announcement that the two symphonies were being prepared for publication, and the following March he announced subscription prices.75 Fresh scores of both symphonies were written out as printer’s copy or Stichvorlage by Anton Diabelli, who was working as an assistant to Steiner at the time, and, for the first time, Beethoven’s symphonies were to be published in score and parts at the same time. In an attempt to maximise the sale of the symphonies, Steiner also had them arranged for a variety of forces: nine-part wind band (Harmonie), string quintet, piano trio, two pianos, piano four hands and piano two hands. Beethoven himself began making the two-hand arrangement (Hess 96), as noted in the previous chapter, but progressed only as far as bar 46 before abandoning the task.76 The two-piano versions were prepared by Czerny, while the piano-duet and piano-solo arrangements were made by Diabelli for the Seventh Symphony and by Haslinger for the Eighth. The arrangements were said to have been checked by Beethoven, but how thoroughly he did so is uncertain.77 A copy of Diabelli’s piano-solo arrangement of the Seventh Symphony was also sent to the publisher Robert Birchall in London on 22 November 1815, but Beethoven later stated that the arrangement had been made very hastily and that he had since made a few changes, which he would send on (though he seems not to have done).78 After some delay, partly caused by attempts to synchronise Birchall’s and Steiner’s publications of the Seventh Symphony, Steiner finally published it 73

BB-780; A-527. The draft of 29 April is reproduced in facsimile in Sieghard Brandenburg, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, 7 vols (Munich: Henle, 1996–8), vol. 3, p. 140, and is translated in Anderson, ed., Letters, vol. 3, p. 1423. The final draft is not included in either edition of Beethoven’s letters, but there are plans to include it in a supplementary volume to Brandenburg’s edition. Both drafts are preserved in the Bodmer Collection in BNba: HCB BS II/2a and BS II/2b. 75 LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 576, 587–8. 76 The manuscript (Pn, W. 7, 1) is reproduced as a frontispiece in Willy Hess, ed., Original-Klavierauszüge eigener Werke, Beethoven: Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1964); see transcription by Mark Zimmer in Green, New Hess Catalog, pp. 247–50. 77 Details of the various sources and arrangements are in LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 591–5 and 601–5. 78 BB-854 and 940; A-572 and 639. 74

226

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

in its many versions in November 1816, while Birchall’s publication of the piano arrangement, the only version published in England at that time, was registered as published on 7 January 1817. Steiner’s edition of the various versions of the Eighth Symphony appeared somewhat later that year, although the precise date is uncertain and the publication was not announced until 24 December.79 Whereas the Eighth Symphony lacked a dedication, as mentioned, the Seventh was dedicated to two different people. The score and instrumental parts bore a dedication to Count Moritz von Fries, a long-standing supporter of Beethoven and other musicians; but the three piano arrangements (two pianos, piano duet and piano solo – including Birchall’s edition) were dedicated to Empress Elisabeth of Russia, who had been very generous to Beethoven during her time in Vienna in 1814–15. The revisions to the piano arrangement of the Seventh Symphony were not the only changes made during printing of the two symphonies. In the Seventh Symphony the main problem lay with printing errors in the score, resulting in three different states of this edition. The first state, which appears to have been a preliminary draft of which only a single exemplar is known and was probably a trial run, has numerous mistakes. The second state was considerably better but had still not been checked by Beethoven when it was published. He wrote to Steiner in exasperation: ‘Neither the printed parts nor the score are free of errors. … This is the result of not wanting to make corrections, and of not previously having given me oversight.’80 Beethoven sent Steiner some marked-up copies with corrections, asking for all existing copies of score and parts to be amended in ink, and for a complete list of errors to be published. Instead Steiner arranged for just one existing exemplar to be amended, with numerous corrections made in red ink by an unknown hand. Most of the alterations probably derive from Beethoven, but some were additional and a few were actually incorrect.81 The final state of the printed score incorporates the red-ink corrections and, surprisingly, a few additional ones that may have been transmitted verbally by Beethoven, who often frequented Steiner’s shop. The set of printed parts was also reissued in an improved state with dozens of corrections applied.82 The Eighth Symphony underwent slightly more substantive changes at a late stage. Diabelli’s Stichvorlage shows almost no sign of direct intervention by Beethoven, but nevertheless includes many alterations and corrections. Most of these were probably made under verbal instruction from Beethoven, but in obvious cases this would not be necessary, while in a few cases the 79

LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 594–7, 604–5. BB-991; A-675. 81 Del Mar, Symphony No. 7: Critical Commentary, p. 28. 82 Ibid., pp. 28–30. For evidence of Beethoven’s verbal corrections, see Alan Tyson, ‘Beethoven in Steiner’s Shop’, Music Review, 23 (1962), 119–27. 80

‘Just Because it is Much Better’: The Eighth Symphony, Op. 93



227

alteration was faulty, perhaps through insufficient explanation from him.83 This time a proper proof copy was prepared, and a fragment of this survives. It includes corrections in Beethoven’s hand and that of another proof-reader. These corrections and others were incorporated into the final published score, and so no revised printing was necessary this time, unlike with the Seventh Symphony. The printed instrumental parts, however, were copied from existing manuscript parts, and contain fewer of Beethoven’s late revisions than the score. Surprisingly, however, the score shows a few very late revisions and corrections that are not even in the Stichvorlage and must have been made at the proof stage, notably in the bassoon and cello parts of bars 132–9 of the finale.84 Altogether, then, it is possible to identify at least seven stages of corrections between the initial drafting of the score of the Eighth Symphony and the publication of a printed version nearly five years later.85 How these relate to the two known performances (trial run and public premiere) is uncertain, but the initial changes in the autograph were probably made promptly, almost while the ink was still wet, whereas most of the numerous pencil corrections in the autograph were probably made in relation to the first trial run, after the instrumental parts had been copied. The changes in Diabelli’s copy and the printed proof, however, were clearly made much later, during preparation of the printed edition. By the time this edition of the Eighth Symphony was belatedly announced in the Wiener Zeitung in December 1817, Beethoven’s thoughts had already turned towards his next two symphonies.

83

Del Mar, Symphony No. 8: Critical Commentary, p. 17. Ibid., pp. 18, 39. 85 Del Mar, Symphony No. 8: Critical Commentary, p. 20. 84

9

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125 Allegro ma non troppo e un poco maestoso Molto vivace – Presto [etc.] Adagio molto e cantabile – Andante moderato [etc.] Presto … Allegro assai … Allegro assai vivace: alla Marcia – Andante maestoso [etc.]

Earliest ideas

B

eethoven’s Ninth Symphony, sometimes known as the ‘Choral’, belongs in a different world from the previous eight. It took far longer to compose than any of them – more than six years from start to finish, with some ideas stretching back further still; its complexity on several levels – motivic, tonal and structural – is conspicuously richer than theirs; and it is on a much larger scale, lasting over an hour in performance and requiring larger forces, notably four vocal soloists, a chorus and added percussion instruments in the finale. Czerny’s summary impression, written on 8 June 1824, shortly after the first two performances, was highly perceptive, noting that the work ‘for the most part breathes such a fresh, lively, indeed youthful spirit, as much power, innovation and beauty as anything from the head of this original man’.1 As noted in the Introduction, in the eighteenth century the word ‘symphony’ had come to mean either a self-standing instrumental work or a purely instrumental movement within a vocal work. Thus a symphony incorporating voices was almost a self-contradiction, until Beethoven embraced the concept during the course of work on the Ninth Symphony. Even then, it took much further time for him to move from initial idea to its final fruition, in which the voices sing sections of the poem An die Freude (To Joy) by Friedrich Schiller (1759– 1805). The poem is often known as the ‘Ode to Joy’, although it is not strictly

1

TDR, vol. 5, p. 97.



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

229

an ode. The symphony has since been the subject of several general accounts,2 as well as studies of specific aspects of its creation, but the sketches are so extensive that no complete account of the work’s creation has yet appeared, and the present one is necessarily selective. A broad overview of the sketch sources has been provided by Sieghard Brandenburg,3 but creative activity continued long after Beethoven had first drafted the autograph score. Beethoven’s earliest known sketch for a symphony in D minor appears in Landsberg 6, page 177, and dates from around March 1804, but it was quickly transposed and incorporated into some preliminary sketches for the Fifth Symphony (see Chapter 5, Example 5.4) before being abandoned altogether. Beethoven returned to D minor while working on his Seventh Symphony in the Petter Sketchbook in 1811–12, as noted in Chapter 8, where he considered five possible ideas for a companion for the Seventh.4 One of these is in D minor, and once he had decided on F major for his Eighth Symphony he considered adding a third symphony to the group. Again he considered a variety of keys, making sketches for several possible symphonies, and two of these are also in D minor.5 Thus D minor was already the leading possibility, though far from the only one, for his next symphony, and all three D minor symphony sketches in the Petter Sketchbook show signs of pointing in the direction of the Ninth Symphony itself. All three start with a descending figure (scale or arpeggio), as in the first theme of the Ninth, and all emphasise, at the start of the second phrase, a prominent B♭ – a note that was to play a prominent role in the symphony. The third sketch (Petter Sketchbook, folio 45r), actually headed ‘3te Sinfon’, shows a ‘poco sostenuto’ introduction followed by the

2 See, in particular, Heinrich Schenker, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: A Portrayal of its Musical Content, with Running Commentary on Performance and Literature as Well, trans. John Rothgeb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992; originally published as Beethovens Neunte Symphonie, Vienna: Universal Edition, 1912); Nicholas Cook, Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); David B. Levy, Beethoven: The Ninth Symphony (New York: Schirmer, 1995; 2nd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). 3 Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen zur Neunten Symphonie’, in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), pp. 88–129. A more complete list of all known sketch sources for the Ninth is in Beate Angelika Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien V, ed. Beate Angelika Kraus, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/5 (Munich: Henle, 2020), pp. 246–7. 4 BNba, HCB Mh 59. The five are listed as U12–U16 in Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81, at 78–9. 5 Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, U17–U23. The two in D minor are U19 and U20.

230

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

first five bars of an allegro.6 A ‘deutsche’ in F, in 3/8, immediately beneath it, may well be an idea for a second movement, though it is far removed from anything in the Ninth Symphony. By the time he had finished sketching the Eighth Symphony in 1812, Beethoven had abandoned any idea for an immediate successor. Instead he turned his attention the following year to a quasi-symphony, in the form of the programmatic orchestral work Wellingtons Sieg, taking up a suggestion by Maelzel for a composition to celebrate the Duke of Wellington’s victory. The work could be considered a symphony, but Beethoven never regarded it as such, as noted in the previous chapter. Although it is multi-sectional, none of the sections corresponds to a movement from a standard symphony, and it belongs more in the genre of what would later be known as a symphonic poem. Beethoven continued to note down intermittently various ideas for possible symphonies during 1814–16,7 but they bear little relationship to the Ninth Symphony. Among the sketches from about summer 1815, however, is a D minor idea that takes up the general shape of the three D minor symphony sketches of 1812 and the opening theme of the Ninth.8 It is not specifically labelled as a symphony, but again it places an emphasis on B♭ at the start of the second phrase, and shows mainly descending melodic contours. At this stage Beethoven was using the so-called Scheide Sketchbook, but the leaf containing this sketch has become detached from the book.9 On the preceding leaf, also now detached, are more brief sketches in D minor, apparently for the same work, and a note ‘dopo trombe’ suggests an orchestra, but they show no clear connection to anything in the Ninth apart from their general character and mainly descending contours in the opening phrase (Example 9.1).10 Thus all that can be concluded is that Beethoven was at this point considering a new and substantial work in D minor, perhaps a symphony; but the sketchbook contains many other undeveloped ideas in various keys.

6 It is transcribed in Erica Buurman, ‘Three Symphonies in One Year? Beethoven’s Sketches of 1812’, Ad Parnassum, 16/31 (Apr. 2018), 35–48, at 38. See Peter Cahn, ‘Beethovens Entwürfe einer d-moll Symphonie von 1812’, Musiktheorie, 20/5 (2005), 123–9, for a more extended discussion of these D minor sketches. 7 See Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, U24–U30. 8 The sketch is quoted in Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 93. 9 See JTW, 243; the leaf, now in SPma, can be accessed at: https://www.loc.gov/ collections/moldenhauer-archives/?fa=contributor:beethoven,+ludwig+van (accessed 2 August 2023). The main portion of the Scheide Sketchbook is in PRscheide, 30.14 (also cited as M. 130), accessible at: https://dpul.princeton.edu/scheide/catalog/9019s254t (accessed 2 August 2023). 10 This leaf also comes from the Scheide Sketchbook (see JTW, p. 243), but is now in two pieces (plus a missing fragment): BNba, HCB BSk 12/60 and BSk 7/55.



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

231

Example 9.1 Sketch for abandoned work in D minor (BNba, HCB BSk 12/60, stave 4).

A more significant set of sketches appears a few pages later, on page 51 of the Scheide Sketchbook. On staves 3–12 is an extended two-stave draft for a movement in B flat, of which the first four bars appear to be a slow introduction and the remainder an allegro. It appears to be intended for a symphony, for a comment directly beneath it states: ‘Symphony beginning initially in just 4 voices – 2 violins, viola, bass – in between, forte with other instruments and if possible every other instrument gradually entering’.11 Following the end of the B flat sketch is a seven-bar phrase in D major, while at the top of the page is a ‘Fuga’ in D minor. It is therefore possible that Beethoven envisaged the ‘Fuga’ as a second-movement scherzo theme, and the D major theme as its trio section. At any rate, the ‘Fuga’ theme (Example 9.2) eventually became the fugato theme for the second movement of the Ninth Symphony, with only slight alteration, while the D major theme (Example 9.3) bears a slight but distinct melodic resemblance to the trio section of the same movement, consisting initially of rising steps with an emphasis on the note F♯. Although there is much uncertainty about how these three sketches should be interpreted, it is clear that what became the theme of the second movement was not initially conceived in the context of a D minor symphony. Moreover, it

Example 9.2 Sketch for ‘Fuga’ theme in D minor (PRscheide, 30.14, p. 51).

11 ‘Sinfonie erster anfang in bloss 4 stimmen 2 Vlin Viol Basso dazwischen forte mit andern stimmen u. wenn möglich jedes andre Instrument nach u. nach entreten lassen’. The comment and surrounding material are discussed in N-II, pp. 157–8 (including quotation of the first nine bars of the B flat sketch) and 328–9. The sketch is discussed in more detail in Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 91, and as U29 in Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, pp. 67–8. The whole sketch page is shown in facsimile in Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, Abb. 5.

232

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 9.3 Sketch for (trio?) theme in D major (PRscheide, 30.14, p. 51).

underwent several modifications in the next few years before returning to almost its original form in the symphony (see below). Czerny has a curious account of the origin of this theme: ‘Once, according to his own story, he was walking in the Augarten on a spring morning and heard the birds twittering back and forth; there occurred to him the scherzo theme of the Ninth Symphony. This proves that he could still hear while he was planning that movement.’12 It is tempting to doubt such fanciful accounts, and to question whether Beethoven could still hear birdsong as late as 1815. But Czerny claims elsewhere that Beethoven could still hear loud conversations in 1814 and that it was in 1816 that his hearing deteriorated seriously; Czerny adds that Beethoven ‘frequently’ related the anecdote about the origin of this scherzo theme.13 One problem, however, is that page 51 of the Scheide Sketchbook was not written in springtime but in early autumn, for a few pages earlier (pages 42–3 and 48–9) Beethoven had made sketches for two folksong settings (‘Robin Adair’ and ‘O thou art the lad’ respectively) whose melodies he did not receive until September 1815, and which he completed the following month.14 It is possible, however, that the scherzo theme did occur to him in the Augarten that spring, but that he carried it around in his head before eventually jotting it down in October when he found a possible context for it as a fugato theme in the second movement of a putative symphony in B flat that was sketched on the same page. The appearance of the theme on page 51 as a disembodied sketch suggests it was a sudden occurrence; such ideas must have occurred to him in all sorts of places, most of which remained unidentified or unrecalled, and were not necessarily written down at once.

12 Carl Czerny, On the Proper Performance of All Beethoven’s Works for the Piano, ed. Paul Badura-Skoda (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1970), p. 12; the original German is in KC, p. 226. Beethoven did not actually call this movement a scherzo, but Czerny, like many others, refers to it as such. 13 KC, pp. 242–3. Beethoven’s first known conversation books, used for communicating when his hearing had deteriorated further, date from later still, in 1818. 14 Barry Cooper, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings: Chronology, Sources, Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 24.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



233

The theme does not actually portray twittering, but allegedly just occurred to him when he heard some unusually loud birdsong in the Augarten, and it was apparently written down later. Hence it is entirely plausible that the event did occur more or less as Czerny reported it. The Philharmonic Society Beethoven’s intention to compose a new symphony re-emerged in his Tagebuch (personal notebook) around March 1817, when he considered leaving Vienna: ‘only a symphony – and then away, away, away’;15 but little if any further progress had been made when he received a letter from Ries dated 9 June 1817 inviting him to travel to London for the following concert season starting in January and to bring two new symphonies with him. The fee would be 300 guineas, with opportunities for additional earnings. Beethoven accepted the proposal in a letter dated 9 July 1817, agreeing to appear in London in the first half of January 1818, with two completely new symphonies ‘ready’.16 The initial request was made on behalf of the Philharmonic Society of London, which had been founded in early 1813 to promote performances of the finest instrumental works, especially symphonies. Ries had settled in London shortly afterwards, and quickly became one of the society’s leading members, liaising with Beethoven in 1815 and arranging for three unpublished overtures (Die Ruinen von Athen, ‘Namensfeier’ and König Stephan) to be acquired by the society. Manuscripts of the three works were brought back to London personally by Charles Neate in 1816 after a visit to Vienna.17 Beethoven then indicated in a letter to Ries of 8 May 1816 that he would welcome further commissions from the Philharmonic Society,18 and the invitation to London that he received the following year may have been made partly in response to this suggestion. It is difficult to tell whether the invitation prompted a sudden spate of sketches for the Ninth Symphony, since the sketch record is very patchy around this date. The sketchbook following the Scheide Sketchbook, known as Autograph 11/1, shows no sign of the symphony, but only the first half of the book – possibly less – survives and it proceeds only up to about November 1816.19 After this there are no further desk sketchbooks known until 1819. 15

‘nur eine Sinfonie – – – – – und dann fort fort – fort’: Maynard Solomon, ‘Beethoven’s Tagebuch of 1812–1818’, in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 193–288, at 267 (entry 119). 16 BB-1129 and 1140; Alb-239 and A-786. 17 TF, pp. 620, 636–7. 18 BB-933; A-632. 19 Bsb, Autograph 11/1; line-by-line description in Hans-Günter Klein, Ludwig van Beethoven: Autographe und Abschriften: Katalog (Berlin: Merseburger, 1975), pp. 50–2; for dating, see JTW, p. 250.

234

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Beethoven was also using pocket sketchbooks during 1816–18, but the only one known from 1816 is very fragmentary, and the next one, the Boldrini Sketchbook, was not begun until late 1817.20 There are several loose leaves from around 1816–17 that contain sketches for the Ninth Symphony, however, and a few evidently date from the period before or just after Beethoven received Ries’s invitation. Likely candidates include a leaf now in Weimar; a leaf formerly in Mainz and now in the Juilliard Collection, New York; and a page in the pocket-sketch miscellany Mendelssohn 2.21 These preliminary sketches for the symphony are adjacent to ones for works known to date from this period, but they could have been added to the pages later or they could have been ideas not intended for a symphony at that stage. They contain figuration based on the bare fifth A-E, as in bars 1–16, and/or the main D minor arpeggio theme of bars 17–20 in a form quite close to the final version, but after that they diverge from it and from each other. The Weimar leaf also contains a variant version of the theme that had reportedly occurred to Beethoven in the Augarten. Although this version appears in string-quintet format and was later considered for a string-quintet movement (see below), its proximity to the symphony sketch suggests that Beethoven may also have considered it as a possible second movement for the symphony (as it ultimately became), as an alternative to a string quintet. Beethoven’s intention to compose two new symphonies between June 1817 and January 1818 was hopelessly optimistic, even if one symphony had already been tentatively started. And he had reckoned without taking into account an illness that had greatly impeded his output since the previous October – most probably post-viral fatigue.22 It was not until towards the end of 1817 that he recovered his compositional energy, and by that time the plans for travel to London were in abeyance. In his letter of 9 July Beethoven had asked for an additional 100 guineas, saying he would need a travelling companion (presumably his nephew Karl), but the Philharmonic Society did not accept this and merely reiterated its offer of 300 guineas.23 His health, too, had not improved sufficiently to make a long journey to London, as he informed Ries in a letter of 5 March 1818. Nevertheless he indicated his hopes to be able to make the journey later that year and meet the conditions specified by the society, and he repeated his intention in a letter of mid-May.24 20

JTW, pp. 344–7. SV 389, in WRgs, 60/Z33; a leaf (not in SV) from the Schott archives in Mainz, now in NYj; and Kj, Mendelssohn 2, p. 67. See LvBWV, vol. 1, pp. 821–2, and Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 95–101, which includes transcriptions from all three sources. 22 See Barry Cooper, Beethoven (2nd edn, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 273–4. 23 BB-1170, note 2; the original letter from the society is lost. 24 BB-1247, A-895; and BB-1258, A-898. 21

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



235

These intentions seem to correspond with some renewed sketching for the Ninth Symphony, found in his next pocket sketchbook, the Boldrini Sketchbook. Unfortunately this book disappeared in the 1890s, and so virtually all that is known about it derives from descriptions by Nottebohm, but the symphony sketches that appeared in it could be seen as an explicit response to the invitation from the Philharmonic Society.25 The part of the sketchbook that contains these sketches (pages 92–109) dates from about February to April 1818, and thus coincides with the date of Beethoven’s letter to Ries.26 For the first movement, the opening theme and preceding tremolos are sketched and already resemble the final version. The rest of the movement, however, is hardly evident except, crucially, for the important horn motif in D major (bars 469–70), which provides an important hint of the D major tonality that was to become increasingly prominent during the symphony. It is striking that these bars appear so early in the sketching process, when so little of the movement had been drafted. Already at this stage Beethoven planned a finale in D major, though the theme sketched is in 3/8, nothing like what eventually emerged and somewhat reminiscent of the trio theme in the Fifth Symphony and the finale theme of the D major Cello Sonata (Op. 102 No. 2). For the middle two movements of the symphony Beethoven also had no firm ideas established. He had already taken up the alternative version (Example 9.4) of what became the scherzo theme, with a different shape but roughly the same rhythm, which had appeared in string-quintet format in the Weimar leaf. This was now developed near the beginning of the Boldrini Skechbook as part of an actual string quintet (Hess 40 or Unv 7),27 but this work was soon afterwards abandoned, when he decided to compose a different string-quintet movement in D major, also found in the sketchbook and later published as Op. 137. This substitution left the D minor theme still available, and Beethoven Example 9.4 Theme for fugue in abandoned string quintet (BNba, NE 114, and Bsb, Artaria 185a, f. 2v).

25

A general description of the sketchbook is in N-II, pp. 349–55; discussion of the sections devoted to the symphony, with several music examples, appears on pp. 159–63. 26 Dates of these pages are derived from JTW, pp. 347–50. 27 The incomplete quintet is in Bsb, Artaria 185a, and the fugue theme is also sketched in BNba, NE 114.

236

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

now considered both versions (Examples 9.2 and 9.4) for possible use in the symphony, without any final decision on which to prioritise. At this stage he considered the scherzo as the third movement, preceded by a slow movement in B flat, featuring four horns, but this idea soon disappeared. One idea that did survive, however, was the use of a sudden silence in the scherzo. In the Boldrini Sketchbook the end of the scherzo is suddenly broken off with a three-bar rest, followed immediately by a trio section in B flat.28 In the final version of the scherzo a sudden rest is treated as an actual motif, appearing in bars 2 and 4, being developed as a two-bar rest (bars 7–8) and three-bar rest (bars 148–50 and 156–8) before being unexpectedly reprised four bars from the end of the movement. This motivic use of sudden silence is one of the most remarkable features of the movement, and it is noteworthy that it was one of Beethoven’s earliest ideas for it. Still with the Philharmonic Society evidently in mind, Beethoven began thinking about the second symphony that he might take to London the following winter. On a sketch leaf written about the same time as the symphony sketches in the Boldrini Sketchbook, Beethoven noted down an oft-cited description for a ‘second’ symphony to go alongside the Ninth: Adagio cantique / Pious song in a symphony in the old modes / either on its own or as an introduction in a fugue – Herr Gott dich loben wir alleluja // Perhaps the whole second symphony characterised in this way, where then the voices enter in the last movement or already in the Adagio / the orchestral violins etc. in the last movement are increased tenfold; or the Adagio is repeated in some way in the last movement, where first the voices enter one by one – In the Adagio text Greek myth, ecclesiastical canticle – in the Allegro festival of Bacchus.29

There is much of interest in this plan, parts of which were to be fulfilled in the Ninth rather than the Tenth Symphony. This is the first suggestion 28

See N-II, pp. 161–2. ‘Adagio Cantique / Frommer Gesang in einer Sinfonie in den alten Tonarten / entweder für sich allein oder als Einleitung in einer Fuge – Herr Gott dich loben wir alleluja // Vieleicht auf diese Weise die ganze 2te Sinfonie charakterisirt, wo alsdenn im lezten Stück oder schon im adagio die Singstimmen eintreten / die orchester Violinen etc werden bejm lezten Stück verzehnfacht: oder das adagio wird auf gewisse weise im lezten Stücke widerholt wobej alsdenn erst die Singstimmen nach u. nach eintreten – im adagio text griechischer Mithos Cantique Ecclesiastique – im Allegro Fejer des Bacchus.’ BNba, HCB BSk 8/56; the sketch leaf also contains advanced sketches for Op. 106.II, which Beethoven later claimed to have completed before Archduke Rudolph’s name-day, 17 April 1818 (see BB-1292; A-948); this date is supported by other sketches for the movement (see Barry Cooper, The Creation of Beethoven’s 35 Piano Sonatas (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), p. 168). Thus the ‘Adagio Cantique’ sketch was written around March or early April 1818. 29



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

237

of introducing voices into a symphony, and the reference to ‘ecclesiastical canticle’ seems more suggestive of a chorus than a ‘pious song’ for a solo voice. The proposed text ‘Herr Gott dich loben wir’ is the German text of the ecclesiastical canticle known as the Te Deum, which one would expect to be set for chorus, possibly with solo voices. The prospect of using a German text for a symphony destined for London does not seem to have bothered Beethoven either at this stage or later. Although the German Te Deum was not eventually used, several ideas from the plan did filter through to the finale of the Ninth Symphony. In line with many of Beethoven’s other works, the finale is treated as the culmination and climax of the work, as is implied here, even though the strings were not ‘increased tenfold’, which must quickly have struck him as excessive. The adagio section of the finale (bars 627–54) evokes the sound of an ecclesiastical canticle, and does serve as the ‘introduction to a fugue’, or at least a fairly strict fugato (bars 654–729), although this adagio is just a subsection of the finale rather than a separate movement as in the plan. The ‘Greek myth’ foreshadows parts of Schiller’s poem referring to the ‘gods’ and ‘Elysium’, while other parts of the poem refer to the divine Schöpfer (‘Creator’), corresponding to the ‘Lord God’ mentioned in the plan. Despite these connections between the sketch and the poem, however, Beethoven does not seem to have had Schiller’s text in mind for the work at that stage. There is very little sign of further sketches for the symphony in 1818, though a variant of the idea for the opening theme appears in a pocket sketchbook of late summer.30 The paucity of sketches at this stage indicates that Beethoven had no serious intention of bringing two symphonies to London the following winter, and he indicated in a letter of 30 January 1819 that he could not travel at that stage as he had so much to attend to (he was probably thinking mainly of the welfare of his nephew).31 Another small group of sketches formerly believed to be from 1818 appears on the back of the autograph score of two variations for Op. 107 No. 4, for flute and piano.32 These variations, however, were added to the work only in early 1819, somewhat after the rest of the set had been composed,33 and the symphony sketches probably date from a little later still. They may therefore be roughly contemporary with Beethoven’s letter to Ries of 25 May 1819, when he again expressed the hope of visiting

30 Kj, Mendelssohn 2, p. 94; this was originally part of the sketchbook A 44: see Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 102, where the sketch is dated to late August or September 1818; a slightly earlier date of July–August for the sketchbook is suggested in JTW, p. 357. 31 BB-1285; A-935. 32 Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 103. 33 Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Ukraine Connection: New Light on the Creation of his Flute Variations Opp. 105 and 107’, The Beethoven Journal, 36 (2023), forthcoming.

238

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

England the following winter.34 But it was not to be, and his letter of 11 October (misdated November) conspicuously does not mention anything about a visit.35 After this he apparently did not write to Ries again till 1822. During most of 1819 and into early 1820 Beethoven was fully occupied with the Diabelli Variations and then the Missa solemnis, and was frantically trying to finish the latter in time for a scheduled performance on 9 March 1820, as well as dealing with a difficult court case concerning the guardianship of his nephew. When he realised in late February that he was not going to complete the mass in time, he began diversifying his attention, composing a song (Abendlied, WoO 150) and a piano piece that became the first movement of the Sonata Op. 109. He also made a few more sketches for the Ninth Symphony, on a page that was originally part of the Wittgenstein Sketchbook but has become detached and is now in Grasnick 20b.36 This page includes another variant of the opening theme but nothing more for the first movement. The scherzo theme has disappeared, replaced by a ‘Tempo di Minuetto’ in B flat for the second movement, followed by an ‘Andante’ in G major and a finale in ₵ time with no suggestion of voices; its theme, which was quickly abandoned, is actually labelled ‘Finale von der Sinfon in D’ and is in D minor (Example 9.5), although Beethoven may have planned to introduce the major later in the movement.37 Thus he was no closer to the final version of the symphony than he had been two years earlier – in fact further away, as the scherzo theme had been temporarily set aside. Interestingly, further down the same page is a sketch based on the Dead March from Handel’s Saul, with the comment ‘TodtMarsch Instrumente / zulezt Singstimmen’ (‘Dead March Instruments / at the end voices’), plus a few words of text to be sung. This links perfectly to Beethoven’s comment in his conversation book on 11 March 1820: ‘Variations on Handel’s Funeral March for full orchestra for the Example 9.5 Sketch for ‘Finale’ (Bsb, Grasnick 20b, f. 2v).

34

BB-1302; A-944. BB-1341; A-982. 36 Bsb, Grasnick 20b, f. 2v: see Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 104. 37 The group of sketches is transcribed in Erica Buurman, ‘Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement Structures in his Instrumental Works’. Ph.D. diss. (University of Manchester, 2013), p. 209. 35



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

239

Akademie perhaps later with voices’.38 Thus the idea of voices infiltrating an instrumental genre towards the end, after a series of variations, is found beside but is not yet part of sketches for the Ninth Symphony. A few pages later there appears another sketch for an instrumental finale, similarly labelled ‘Finale der Sinfonie in D moll’, this time showing a movement in 2/4 in D minor followed by a section in D major, but again not at all resembling anything in the actual finale.39 Resumption of sketching Beethoven finally returned to the long-dormant symphony in October 1822. He had already written to Ries in July, enquiring what the Philharmonic Society might offer for one symphony, not two, and adding that he was still thinking of coming to London if his health permitted.40 The Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna had already commissioned an oratorio that he had not begun, and was therefore unlikely to commission a symphony too, but the Philharmonic Society would be more likely to respond positively. Before he had received a reply he returned to the Ninth Symphony, and even began sketching a second new symphony. The main source showing the resumption of the symphony is his desk sketchbook Artaria 201, where symphony sketches are resumed on page 111. Since the previous pages and indeed the top of that page contain sketches for Die Weihe des Hauses, which received its first performance on 3 October 1822, and the pages are not noticeably out of order, the symphony sketch at the foot of that page presumably dates from that month, though probably a few days later than the top of the page.41 The main theme of the first movement had long been decided, and so the sketch concentrates on what follows, starting with the scherzo theme. This shows the string-quintet version of the scherzo theme (as in Example 9.4 but in 3/4 with note values doubled), marked ‘very fugal’, followed by a description of what might follow: ‘the symphony in four movements, in which the second in 2/4 time as in the sonata in A flat [Op. 110], this [deletion] could be in 6/8 major and the 4th movement [followed by a cross-reference ‘Vi=de’ to a different stave] Finale Freude schöne[r] Götter Funk[en] Tochter 38 ‘Variationen über Händels TrauerMarsch für ganzes orchester für die Akademie vieleicht später dazu Singstimmen’: BKh, vol. 1, p. 322; cf. Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 104–5, and Buurman, ‘Compositional Approach’, pp. 210–11. The words to be sung, ‘Herr Gott unser treflicher Fürst’, curiously recall those previously proposed for one of the new symphonies: ‘Herr Gott dich loben wir’. 39 Bsb, Grasnick 20b, f. 6v. 40 BB-1479; A-1084. 41 Brandenburg (‘Die Skizzen’, p. 107) offers several other reasons for dating the sketch to this month.

240

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

aus Elysium’.42 This is the first indication that An die Freude would form part of the symphony, although Beethoven vacillated over this decision for a time before confirming it. The idea fulfilled his long-standing ambition to set parts of Schiller’s poem. As early as 26 January 1793, Bartolomäus Fischenich had written that Beethoven intended to set the poem,43 and a sketch (or possibly two) for a single phrase is known from 1798.44 In 1803 Ries referred to an apparently finished song by Beethoven that uses the text,45 but this setting is lost. In 1812 Beethoven considered incorporating phrases from the poem in what became his ‘Namensfeier’ Overture (Op. 115),46 but this idea, too, fell through. Now, at last, his intention was beginning to bear fruit. The new idea also fulfilled much of his plan of 1818 to add a vocal finale to a symphony. The notion of ‘Greek myth’ reappears in the reference to ‘Elysium’ in the second line of the poem; ‘pious song’ and ‘ecclesiastical canticle’ could be developed in a slow section (‘Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?’, etc.); and the ‘festival of Bacchus’ could relate to exuberant expressions of ‘joy’ during the movement. Thus the gist of the original sketch is retained, even though the details, and even the symphony concerned, are very different. It is striking that the first two phrases of the melody are already in virtually their final form. In some vocal works Beethoven spent some time sketching alternative melodic shapes for the opening phrase,47 but here he found it without apparent effort; perhaps it derived from his original lost setting mentioned in 1803. A few later sketches show a different melodic line,48 but these may have been intended as developments rather than alternatives. With this sketch, the main theme of each of the outer movements was now in place, with a fugal movement in triple time between them, but the overall structure is not clear. If the second movement were to be in 2/4 as 42 The text reads: ‘recht fugirt die Sinfoni[e] aus 4 / Stücken d[a]rin das 2te Stück in 2/4 Takt / wie in der son[ate] aus As dies könnte / in 6/8tel dur sein u das 4te Stück Vi=100 / =100de Finale Freude schöne[r] Götter Funk[en] Tochter aus Elysium’. The text is transcribed in Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 109, with facsimile of the page in Abb. 6; Brandenburg reads ‘d[a]rin’ as ‘oder’ (‘or’), which more closely resembles what the word looks like but makes less sense; only the letter d can be confirmed. 43 TF, pp. 120–1; TDR, vol. 1, p. 303. 44 Bsb, Grasnick 1, f. 13r; see N-II, p. 479. 45 BB-155; Alb-67. 46 BNba, HCB Mh 59, ff. 42r and 43r; see N-I, pp. 41–2. 47 See especially Lewis Lockwood, ‘Beethoven’s Sketches for Sehnsucht (WoO 146)’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 97–122. 48 Two of these, on pp. 119 and 121 of Artaria 201, are in 3/8; see Robert Winter, ‘The Sketches for the “Ode to Joy”’, in Beethoven, Performers, and Critics, ed. Robert Winter and Bruce Carr (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980), pp. 176–214, at 185–90.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



241

in Op. 110, this would suggest a fast movement (the movement in Op. 110 is marked ‘Allegro molto’), which would not fit well alongside a fast fugato and would have to replace it. The reference to ‘6/8 major’ probably refers to a following slow movement, but the deleted words have not been successfully deciphered and the passage remains ambiguous. It is clear, however, that the finale theme was conceived before all but the main themes of the first two movements, and before the entire slow movement. This order of events would enable Beethoven to bear in mind the ‘Freude’ theme while working on the first three movements, and plant hints of it in each of them.49 The next sketch (page 116) addresses the two middle movements. The ‘2nd movement’ is a Presto in 2/4 in D minor, with a suggestion that it might be in another key, while beneath it is what is presumably a possible third movement, in B flat and 3/4, headed ‘alla autrichien’.50 The opposite page has early ideas for the first movement, and two pages later is a reference to a ‘Sinfonie allemand’, along with the start of the ‘Freude’ text, with or without variations, and with Turkish music (‘türkische Musick’) towards the end.51 Thus the idea of introducing Turkish style into the finale (cf. bar 331 of the final version) was one of his earliest ideas for the movement. This style might have been intended to represent music from the rest of the world, as suggested by Schiller’s ‘Alle Menschen’ and ‘der ganzen Welt’ (‘All men’ and ‘the whole world’), although this is not explicitly indicated in the sketches. A few further sketches appear on the following pages, leading to a fresh synopsis on page 123.52 Here the first movement is represented only briefly, followed by the original version of the scherzo theme (as in Example 9.2 above), but in the bass clef and marked ‘Bassi comincia’. It was this version (though without the quaver figure in the fourth bar) that was to be retained for the finished work. The third movement is simply an ‘Adagio’ with no key or music indicated, and the idea of a 2/4 ‘presto’ in D minor reappears as a fourth movement, though with a different theme from the one on page 116; finally comes the ‘Freude’ theme for a fifth movement. Thus Beethoven was thinking here of interpolating an extra movement before the finale, and a 2/4 movement would work better here than straight after the first movement, also in 2/4, as proposed in an earlier sketch. Thus the overall structure of the final version is here nearly in place, the only substantial change being the replacement of the extra ‘presto’ with a lengthy instrumental introduction before the vocal entries in the finale – an introduction that does actually begin 49

337.

50

These adumbrations of the ‘Freude’ theme are listed in Cooper, Beethoven, p.

Both sketches are transcribed in N-II, p. 166. This sketch is transcribed in N-II, p. 167. 52 The synopsis is transcribed in N-II, p. 167, and more accurately in Buurman, ‘Compositional Approach’, p. 212. 51

242

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

‘presto’. No further sketches for the symphony appear in Artaria 201, though there are a few for an embryonic Tenth Symphony in E flat. Both symphonies are also sketched briefly on a loose bifolio that dates from the same period.53 The main sketchbooks There is a gap in the sketch record between October 1822 and about January 1823, and it was during this period that the Philharmonic Society of London resolved on 10 November to offer Beethoven £50 for one new symphony. The decision was conveyed by Ries, and Beethoven responded belatedly but enthusiastically on 20 December.54 Thus he probably began sketching in earnest before starting on his next known sketchbook. At this stage his desk sketchbooks and pocket sketchbooks ran in parallel series, and the approximate dates of those that include material for the Ninth Symphony are as in Table 9.1.55 Table 9.1 Sketchbooks for Ninth Symphony, January 1823 – September 1824. Date January–March 1823 March–April 1823 May 1823 – June 1824

Desk sketchbooks Engelmann (BNba, HCB Mh 60) Landsberg 8/1 (Bsb) Landsberg 8/2 (Bsb)

Date April–May 1823 Late summer 1823 Autumn 1823 Winter 1823–4 February–September 1824

Pocket sketchbooks Artaria 205/5 (Bsb) Rolland (BNba, NE 111) Autograph 8/1 (Kj) Autograph 8/2 (Kj) Artaria 205/4 (Bsb)

The first section of the pocket sketchbook Artaria 205/5, which contains mainly first-movement sketches (development section onwards), corresponds roughly to the last sixteen pages of Landsberg 8/1 and the first eight pages of Landsberg 8/2, while the subsequent section containing mainly secondmovement sketches corresponds to the next sixteen pages of Landsberg 8/2; and a canon (WoO 184) dated to 26 April 1823 appears just beyond the mid-point 53 BNba, HCB BSk 20/68; see Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 110–12, and the next chapter. 54 BB-1479, note 8; BB-1517, A-1110. 55 Dates are derived mainly from JTW, pp. 279–96 and 397–414.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



243

of Artaria 205/5.56 Landsberg 8/1 was therefore probably begun in February or March,57 and Engelmann, which precedes it, probably around January. Immediately before this, around the turn of the year, Beethoven appears to have been working on both the Diabelli Variations and the symphony, but the relevant sketches for both are missing;58 they may have been located in a pocket sketchbook preceding Artaria 205/5. At present there are thirty-eight pages in the Engelmann Sketchbook, plus three leaves known elsewhere that originally belonged to the sketchbook.59 The first six pages are occupied mainly by the last variation and coda of the Diabelli Variations, concluding with the final chord and double bar at the end of page 6. Thereafter, most of the book is devoted to the first movement of the Ninth Symphony, and the early pages show Beethoven still vacillating between the two versions of the scherzo theme. For a finale theme, headed ‘leztes’ (‘last’) on page 10, he revived a motif in D major from page 41 of the Scheide Sketchbook;60 whether this was intended to precede or replace the ‘Freude’ theme is unclear. For the first movement, he concentrated first on extending the main theme beyond its first statement, and by page 13 of the sketchbook he had drafted the first thirty-five bars in a form close to their final version, with the following bars appearing in rudimentary form on the next page.61 On page 15 the march-like dotted figure (cf. bars 102–3) appears, whereas the main second subject (bar 80) and preceding material are bypassed for the moment. Further fragmentary work on the first movement is interrupted on page 24 with a new 3/8 idea for the third movement (headed ‘3tes Stück’) – a theme using repeated chords in B flat major – and one for a second movement (‘2tes Stück’) also in B flat and 3/8 (Example 9.6), though marked ‘oder 3/4’ for alternative notation. This second-movement theme is a transformation of one previously sketched in 2/4 in E flat as an Andante opening for the embryonic Tenth Symphony. Once again, as with the vocal ‘Adagio Cantique’, Beethoven was evidently prepared to swap ideas between the two symphonies, and the B flat theme was later transformed beyond recognition, now in common time, to 56

Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 121. There were at least 24 pages in Landsberg 8/1 before the section that parallels Artaria 205/5: see JTW, p. 291. 58 See William Kinderman, Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 47. 59 JTW, p. 285. 60 See Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 92–3. 61 See Jenny Kallick, ‘A Study of the Advanced Sketches and Full Score Autograph for the First Movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, Opus 125’, Ph.D. diss. (Yale University, 1987), pp. 40–1 and 81–3. Many of the subsequent sketches for the first movement are transcribed and discussed in detail in this dissertation; they will not be referred to individually here. 57

244

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 9.6 Sketch for ‘3rd movement’ (BNba, HCB Mh 60, p. 24).

become the third-movement theme for the Ninth. An attempt at the complete exposition of the first movement (pages 30–1) shows the first section, up to the transition, fairly well established, but the rest of the exposition is very far from the final version, and was worked out only in the next sketchbooks. The rest of the sketches in Engelmann show no major progress but short ideas and variants of those already sketched. Beethoven’s next sketchbook, Landsberg 8/1, is chronologically contiguous with Engelmann, and may at one time have also been physically contiguous since it has similar stitch holes. Of its sixteen leaves, the first four (pages 1–8) belong at the end, but otherwise only one leaf is missing and can be found in Paris Ms 57/2.62 The eight-page gathering Paris Ms 96 was formerly thought to belong with Landsberg 8/1 too, but these sketches evidently preceded Engelmann.63 At the beginning of the book Beethoven is taking another look at the symphony as a whole. The first page (page 9) is devoted to ideas for the first movement, but he clearly had still not decided what would follow. On page 10 there appears a quick 3/8 theme in B flat, preceded by timpani oscillating between F and B♭ or even using both notes simultaneously. It is extraordinary that this timpani idea was later transferred to the very end of the third movement (bars 151–7). Beneath the B flat sketch is the first appearance of what became the Andante theme in D in the third movement, but here it is sketched in A major, and is extended well beyond its finished version: two varying statements of the main four-bar phrase are followed by an answering passage in the dominant, followed by an implied reprise of the opening one, making about twenty-eight bars.64 At this stage there is no suggestion of it being paired alongside the Adagio theme that had already begun to emerge.65 The following page returns to the first movement and shows the striking horn motif in D major from the coda (bars 469–70), complete with accompaniment for the second horn, almost exactly as it had appeared in the Boldrini 62

JTW, pp. 280–2, 290–1. Kallick, ‘Advanced Sketches’, p. 36. 64 The whole sketch is quoted in N-II, p. 174. 65 The heterogeneous origins of the Adagio and Andante themes of the third movement are discussed in detail in Nicholas Marston, ‘Beethoven’s “Anti-Organicism”? The Origins of the Slow Movement of the Ninth Symphony’, in The Creative Process (New York: Broude Brothers, 1992), pp. 169–200 (no named editor). 63

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



245

Sketchbook some five years earlier.66 A brief indication for the ‘finale’ (page 12) shows a theme in D minor and 3/4, marked ‘vor der Freude’ (‘before the Freude [theme]’).67 Thus Beethoven was already contemplating an instrumental prelude for the finale, with the ‘Freude’ theme firmly established in his mind but entering only later in the movement. At this stage he began planting hints of the theme in the earlier movements, for on the next page occurs the first known appearance of what might be called the ‘pseudo-Freude’ motif of the first movement (cf. bars 74–9). This is a clear anticipation of the actual ‘Freude’ theme, having the same melodic contours as its first phrase; the similarity is particularly clear in bars 76–7, and even more so in the recapitulation (bars 341–2), where the key and pitches are the same.68 Having considered again all four movements, Beethoven returned to the first to make a draft of the whole exposition (pages 14–17) that is much more advanced than anything in the Engelmann Sketchbook. The second subject (bars 80ff.) appears for the first time, with the fourth note clearly D as in all sources of the finished work, rather than B♭ to match the recapitulation (bar 346), as in some later editions. The excursion to B major, however (cf. bars 108–15) lasts barely a single bar at this stage and was among the last passages in the exposition to be established, being worked out in pencil at the foot of page 17 after the main ink draft. With the principal thematic material for the movement now established, Beethoven devoted the rest of Landsberg 8/1 to polishing up these ideas and working on the remainder of the movement,69 for which he had already made a few sketches. A similar picture can be seen in the pocket sketchbook Artaria 205/5, the beginning of which is contemporary with the end of Landsberg 8/1. In this part of the pocket book the sketches tend to be disjointed and follow no obvious overall pattern, but they cover mainly the later parts of the movement. The development section in particular, with its contrapuntal intricacy, took a great deal of time to work out. Whereas the first part of Artaria 205/5 (pages 1–7) is devoted to the first movement of the symphony, the middle section (pages 8–38) shows sporadic ideas for all three later movements, along with further work on the first, and the last part (pages 39–48) concentrates exclusively on the second movement. A similar picture emerges in the early pages of the next desk sketchbook, Landsberg 8/2, which follows on from Landsberg 8/1. Its early pages are contemporary with the latter part or possibly almost the whole of Artaria 205/5. Unfortunately its pages are now in completely the wrong order, while some have been removed and can be found elsewhere, but the original 66

See above and N-II, p. 159. Quoted in N-II, p. 187; further sketches for this section lower down the page are not quoted in N-II, however. 68 See Cooper, Beethoven, p. 337. 69 See Kallick, ‘Advanced Sketches’, pp. 51–68, for details. 67

246

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

structure of the book has been worked out by Robert Winter and reaffirmed by Brandenburg.70 It is best treated as a series of gatherings in their original order, and Gathering I (pages 31/29–38/36) contains a two-stave draft for the whole of the development, recapitulation and coda for the first movement. Beethoven was then in a position to write out the autograph score of the whole movement, and he is thought to have done so shortly afterwards.71 Gathering II (plus the lower part of page 38/36) shows a variety of ideas for later movements, before intensive work on the second. This intermediate phase exhibits much uncertainty about the middle two movements, and some intriguing possibilities are evident. At first Beethoven was still vacillating between the two main versions of the scherzo theme (as in Examples 9.2 and 9.4 above), with the string-quintet version making its last appearances on pages 25–6 of Artaria 205/572 and page 38/36 of Landsberg 8/2. In the former sketch a sudden interrupting rest in the scherzo theme, in this case three whole bars, shows that this idea was still retained firmly in Beethoven’s mind. The above-mentioned canon (WoO 184) appears in Artaria 205/5 lower down the same page (26). Thereafter, the final version of the scherzo theme, or something very close to it, became established in the sketches. With either version, the answering voice in the fugato in the early stages often entered after eight bars (Artaria 205/5, pages 25 and 45; Landsberg 8/2, pages 46/44 and 49/47), rather than after four bars as in the final version. As for the introduction before the fugato, an early sketch (Landsberg 8/2, page 49/47) shows the first four bars as in the final version, but with the dotted motif on the tonic in bar 5, followed by a three-bar rest, recalling the similar sudden rest in the Boldrini Sketchbook mentioned above. The introduction of the timpani on F in bar 5, followed by a bar on the tonic and only a two-bar rest, was a later, more sophisticated variation of this idea, but the importance of the sudden silence, which acts almost as a motif in its own right, is striking in each case. As with the first movement, the opening section of the scherzo is sketched repeatedly before much attention is given to the rest of the movement, but a version of the second theme, in C major, appears shortly before the end of the pocket book (Artaria 205/5, page 46). About the same time, Beethoven confirmed in Landsberg 8/2 (page 44/42) that the scherzo would move to C major for the second theme, writing ‘1ter Theil in A moll’ (indicating the 70 Winter, ‘Ode to Joy’, pp. 210–11, and JTW, pp. 296–7; Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 123–4. An added complication is that the pages preserved in the main sketchbook have two paginations: 31–110 (used by Brandenburg) and 29–108 (used by Winter). The library’s index uses the former, while the latter appears on the odd-numbered pages themselves. To avoid confusion, both numberings will be used here. 71 Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 122. 72 See ibid., Abb. 7, and N-II, p. 171, first example.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



247

first part going to A minor) before altering the key to ‘c dur’. This was an unusual choice of secondary key, even for Beethoven, for the triads of the two keys, D minor and C major, have no notes in common, although there is a precedent in the D minor slow movement of his ‘Ghost’ Trio, Op. 70 No. 1. Nevertheless, C major is a surprising choice as the key plays so small a part in the rest of the symphony. Example 9.7 Sketch for Op. 125.II, bars 408–18 (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 40, staves 6–8; p. 41, stave 1).

Beethoven was also beginning to consider the trio section by this stage. What became the lower voice of the main theme in the final version was initially the top voice and in 3/4 metre, in an interesting sketch showing the link between the end of the scherzo and the start of the trio (Example 9.7: Artaria 205/5, pages 40–1). This sketch shows that, at this stage at least, two trio notes had the same duration as three crotchets of the scherzo, a ratio that has important implications for the speed of the trio in the final version, as noted below.73 Among occasional ideas for the third movement during this intermediate phase, Beethoven sketched the Andante theme in D major (Artaria 205/5, page 11) instead of its previous A major as in Landsberg 8/1, and in a slightly more decorative form (Example 9.8). He still intended an extended version of the theme at this stage, for although he sketched only the first four bars here, the theme appears in a similar version to the A major one, but even longer, Example 9.8 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Andante theme (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 11).

73

See Erica Buurman, ‘New Evidence in an Old Argument: Beethoven’s Metronome Mark for the Trio of the Ninth Symphony’, The Musical Times, 152/1917 (Winter 2011), 15–30, esp. 24–9.

248

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

in Landsberg 8/2, pages 39/37–40/38, showing thirty-seven bars altogether, including a passage in the dominant as before and then the start of a reprise of the theme.74 There also appears another attempt at appropriating the theme originally sketched in E flat for the Tenth Symphony. It is now back in its original 2/4, but again in B flat major as in Example 9.6 above. Beethoven was for a long time undecided about whether the third bar should rise (3–5–8–9) or fall (3–2–1–2), and the sketch on page 16 of Artaria 205/5 shows it doing both simultaneously (Example 9.9). The two versions then continue briefly before coming together again, and they were presumably intended as alternatives rather than as two separate voices. The upper line appears to have been added later, in firmer pencil, and its stems point downwards (though for clarity they are shown upwards in Example 9.9). The tentative nature of this sketch, marked ‘molto ad[a]g[io]’, is shown by the suggestion that the theme might instead be in 6/8 metre (‘oder in 6/8tel Takt’), as indicated in a comment below the lower stave. A further idea developed from this theme appears near the beginning of Landsberg 8/2 (page 38/36), where the first two bars of the theme reappear on stave 8, marked ‘forse 3tes Stück’ (‘perhaps third movement’), followed by the C minor theme taken from the allegro section of the earlier sketch for the Tenth Symphony, but here transposed to D minor.75 This is followed immediately by the string-quintet version of the second-movement theme, marked ‘oder’ (‘or’), clearly an alternative to the previous theme and therefore confirming that the C minor theme from the embryonic Tenth Symphony was being considered as a second-movement theme in the Ninth. This would have Example 9.9 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Adagio theme (Bsb, Artaria 205/5, p. 16).

74

Transcribed in full in N-II, pp. 175–6; this is followed in N-II by the sketch quoted in Example 9.8. 75 Marston, ‘Anti-Organicism’, p. 178; the sketch page is reproduced in facsimile in Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, Abb. 9.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



249

resulted in almost nothing left for the Tenth Symphony, which would then have had to be restarted completely. Fortunately this idea was abandoned, and the Tenth Symphony themes were left to be used in a separate work; but it is curious to see how closely these two symphonies were linked at one stage. Progress on the Adagio theme of the Ninth was finally made in a sketch near the end of Artaria 205/5 (page 38),76 where the opening notes of the theme were no longer D–C–F–E♭–D but D–A–B♭–F descending to a low D, suggesting a more introspective character, as in the final version of the third movement of the Ninth Symphony. The rising version of bar 3 of the Tenth Symphony theme (D–F–B♭–C) was, however, preserved as the third bar of the theme in the Ninth Symphony. Thus a single group of sketches gave rise to themes in two different symphonies,77 even though one of the symphonies was left incomplete. The intermediate phase of miscellaneous sketching after the end of the first movement soon gave way to detailed work on the second movement, which occupies most of the second and third gatherings of Landsberg 8/2 (pages 39/37–54/52 and 95/93–102/100). The trio section remained in 3/4 for a few pages, but was eventually tried in 2/4 (pages 49/47–50/48), and after further vacillation this metre was established in the third gathering. The trio then remained in this metre until after the autograph score had been written, when Beethoven instructed alternate barlines to be removed and the music renotated in ₵ time, as appears in the final version (see below). At the end of Gathering III the third movement takes over, at a point that can be dated to late July 1823.78 Here Beethoven was still undecided about the start of the Adagio theme, sketching a version in 2/4 that is a kind of hybrid between the D–C–F and D–A–B♭ versions, before settling on a melody close to the final version, in C metre instead of 2/4, on the following page.79 This page (102/100) may also be Beethoven’s first attempt at including the Adagio theme and the D major Andante theme in the same movement. Whereas in the final version the modulation is effected through the bass F, supporting a dominant seventh, rising a semitone to F♯ supporting a D major chord (bar 23), in this earliest sketch the equally abrupt modulation results from the bass falling a semitone, from a B flat chord to an A that supports either unison As or an implied 6-4 chord of D major, just before the change of metre from C to 3/4 (Example 9.10). Thus the key relationship was in place long before Beethoven had worked out the precise means of modulating from B flat to D major. The sketches on the next two gatherings (IV–V) are devoted to the 76

Facsimile in JTW, p. 398. Cf. Cooper, Beethoven, pp. 330–1. 78 JTW, p. 294. 79 Landsberg 8/2, pp. 101/99–102/100; the two version are transcribed in N-II, pp. 177 and 178, though as usual Nottebohm does not identify their precise source. 77

250

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 9.10 Sketch for Op. 125.III, Adagio to Andante link (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 102/100).

third movement, and show gradual progress towards the final text. Notably, a thinly disguised version of the ‘Freude’ theme appears as a descant to bars 2–4 of the Adagio theme, on page 58/56 (Example 9.11). This ingenious combination was to appear, somewhat further developed, in bars 127–30 of the final version, as perhaps the clearest anticipation of the theme of the finale in the earlier movements. The third-movement sketches in Landsberg 8/2 were supplemented by many more in the pocket sketchbooks Rolland and Autograph 8/1 listed above.80 Example 9.11 Sketch for Op. 125.III, bars 127–30 (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 58/56).

The finale From Gathering VI (pages 87/85–94/92) onwards in Landsberg 8/2, Beethoven concentrated on the finale, apart from a few third-movement sketches, apparently quite early and out of sequence, in Gathering VII (on pages 73/71–75/73). He attended first to the ‘Freude’ theme, whose apparent simplicity belies the efforts behind it. In a detailed study, Winter quotes nineteen different attempts at the theme, mainly from Gathering VI.81 Beethoven had fixed the first four phrases (lines of text) in earlier sketches, but sketches in Gathering VI show much 80

See Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 127–8, and Marston, ‘Anti-Organicism’. Winter, ‘Ode to Joy’, pp. 183–91. One sketch, whose original source Winter could not locate, was taken from N-II, p. 182; it is a very early one, found in Bsb, Artaria 201, p. 121, stave 1. 81



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

251

uncertainty about the second half of the stanza, and he considered a possible thematic structure of A A′ B B′ and A A′ B C as well as the A A′ B A′ structure of in the final version. Another uncertainty was whether to cadence in A major or B minor at end of the sixth phrase, and it was some time before he solved the problem by moving to A major via B minor. Similarly, the premature start to the seventh phrase, on the word ‘Alle’, arguably the most original feature of the melody, also appeared only in the later sketches. There are one or two still later attempts than the nineteen quoted by Winter, such as one in Landsberg 8/2, page 78/76, described below. Even in this one, Beethoven made changes to the cadence at the end of the sixth phrase, although the final version appears in subsequent stanzas sketched further down the same page. After tackling the main theme Beethoven turned to the introduction in Gathering VII. He had made several previous sketches for possible beginnings to the movement, generally in D minor but mostly very different from the final version. Now on the first page of Gathering VII (page 71/69) he drafted a vocal introduction with extensive verbal text that gives clues to interpreting the meaning of the instrumental recitatives that emerged much later. The passage is so intriguing that it was transcribed almost in full by Nottebohm, and again by Hugo Riemann.82 Both transcriptions come close to deciphering a particularly difficult, barely legible (and occasionally illegible) set of sketches. As Hugo Riemann says, what Beethoven wrote here was ‘mostly very unclear’, and ‘even Nottebohm is not totally accurate’;83 but Riemann’s improved transcription is also not quite perfect. On stave 1 Beethoven drafted a short orchestral opening in D minor and triple time with running quavers similar to, but not the same as, the final version, and without an initial discord. This is followed immediately by a quotation in A minor of the fugal theme from the second movement, and then further running quavers. After further brief sketches of a similar type, including a brief quotation of the third-movement theme and a version of the ‘Freude’ theme, Beethoven appears to make a fresh start on the verbal text on stave 9, which clearly explains the underlying thinking behind the brief quotations of earlier movements, and is partly set as recitative (see Example 9.12): ‘Today is a festal day, my friends; let it be celebrated through/with song and play.’ Then after a brief instrumental interlude, which quotes the opening motif of the first movement (on an E rather than A chord), there appears another portion of recitative: ‘O no not this; something different, pleasing, is what I require.’ Later, Beethoven added in pencil in the upper margin: ‘nein diese würde unss erinnern an unsern Verzweifl. …’ (‘no, this would remind us of our despair …’). This is probably 82 N-II, pp. 190–1, reprinted almost exactly in Lewis Lockwood, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017), p. 216; and TDR, vol. 5, pp. 27–30, reprinted in TF, pp. 892–4. 83 TDR, vol. 5, p. 27.

252

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Example 9.12 Sketch for Op. 125.IV, introduction (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 71/69); for translation see main text.

an attempt at more specific characterisation of the first movement and of the reason for rejecting it. After ‘what I require’ the first four bars of the second movement are found, in A minor, followed on the next stave by the first few notes again, this time in D minor. The response in further recitative is: ‘also not this – it is mere sport’. The word ‘Posse’ is uncertain, and Nottebohm misread what is probably ‘nur Posse’ as ‘nicht besser’ (‘no better’). Whatever the precise wording, it is clear that the theme is being rejected. The first two bars of the third-movement theme then appear on the bottom stave, and are also rejected in some recitative; but this recitative was then itself supplanted by a revised text on the next page, with a cross-reference to it (the figure 1000). The new text states: ‘also [not] this, it is too tender, one must seek something more rousing’. At this point there are hints of the ‘Freude’ theme,



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

253

somewhat like those in the orchestral introduction in the final version (bars 77–80), and in a separate recitative the words are announced: ‘this is it, hey, it is now found’ (‘dieses ist es ha es ist nun gefunden’). A further bit of text was later added in pencil: ‘I myself shall lead the singing’ (‘ich selbst werde vorsingen’). Beethoven then crossed out this whole concept of vocal recitatives with large Xs, clearly not satisfied. Such a banal series of comments would surely have been out of place in the symphony, but they helped him work towards a more elevated concept in which the orchestra, rather than a voice, rejects the previous three movements and enthuses about a hint of the ‘Freude’ theme, using instrumental recitative for cellos and basses. The words discarded in the sketches confirm the meaning implied by the instrumental recitative, whereas the baritone solo in the final version is provided with just a brief summary, ‘O Freunde, nicht diese Töne’ (‘O friends, not these tones’) in a second passage of recitative (bars 216–36). The scheme of using two passages of recitative, one orchestral and one vocal, emerged only later, for after sketching the extended passage of vocal recitative in Example 9.12 at the start of Gathering VII, and making a few further sketches for the last three movements (perhaps entered earlier),84 Beethoven turned his attention to the first instrumental variations, at the end of Gathering VII (page 78/76). Here the theme is presented in the bass clef unaccompanied, as in the final version, bars 92–115;85 the main difference is that it is shown in ₵ time and marked ‘Moderato’, whereas in the final version it is in C time and marked ‘Allegro assai’. These are probably two different ways of indicating the same speed, and without turning to his metronome Beethoven was evidently uncertain how best to indicate this speed using Italian terms combined with time signatures. After the theme, the first variation appears with the melody an octave higher, accompanied by a bass line in minims that is rather plainer than the final version (bars 116–39). The second variation shows the theme an octave higher still, again as in the final version (bars 140–63) and with a single-line accompaniment, and it continues into Gathering VIII (page 103/101). It is followed immediately by the third variation, a further octave higher as in the final version, and then a brief attempt at a short developmental passage, rather different from that in the final version (bars 188–207). Thus these instrumental variations, with four statements of the ‘Freude’ theme at different octaves, always with the second half of the tune repeated, were the first section of the finale to reach approximately its final form. 84 One such sketch, quoted in N-II, p. 188 and deriving from Landsberg 8/2, p. 74/72, shows the start of the ‘Finale’ in 2/4 and surely precedes the 3/4 sketches on p. 71/69. 85 The sketch is quoted in N-II, p. 184.

254

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

At this stage Beethoven began to deal in detail with the main vocal section and engage with Schiller’s text. Schiller had originally published An die Freude in 1786, having written it the previous summer, but had issued a revised version in 1803. Although it became very popular and appeared in many editions, Schiller seems to have regarded it as not one of his better works and little more than a convivial drinking song (Gesellschaftslied in the 1803 edition).86 Accordingly, he structured it as such, with each of the eight stanzas (originally nine) consisting of a verse of eight lines in the rhyme scheme ABAB CDCD, followed by a ‘chorus’ that used a different text in each stanza and had the rhyme scheme EFFE, with a syllable count of 8–7–7–8 instead of alternating eight and seven syllables. Thus it invited a strophic setting, with the verse sections sung by a soloist and with the option of others joining in for the chorus sections. By 1823, many composers had set the text in this manner, including Schubert (D. 189); but Beethoven, as usual, saw things differently. He clearly had no plan to set the complete text in the Ninth Symphony, for even in 1812 he had considered including only certain phrases in his ‘Namensfeier’ Overture, noting: ‘disconnected phrases like Princes are beggars etc., not the whole’.87 In the end he selected only the verse sections from stanzas 1–3 for the main theme, plus the chorus sections of stanzas 1, 3 and 4 (see Figure 9.1). This selection and the order in which they were eventually presented was not completely decided at the outset, but no sketches have yet been found for other passages in the poem. Figure 9.1 Portions of the text of An die Freude set by Beethoven in the Ninth Symphony.

1. Freude, schöner Götter Funken, Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum. Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng getheilt. Alle Menschen werden Brüder,

86

Joy, beautiful spark of the gods, daughter from Elysium, we enter, drunk with fire, your sanctuary, heavenly one. Your magic powers reunite What custom strictly separated. All men become brothers*

See Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 318. ‘abgerissene Säze wie Fürsten sind Bettler u.s.w. nicht das Ganze’; Petter Sketchbook (BNba, Mh 59), p. 85. The phrase ‘Fürsten sind Bettler’ was an inaccurate recollection of the line ‘Bettler werden Fürstenbrüder’ (‘Beggars become princes’ brothers’) in the earlier version of Schiller’s poem, later replaced by ‘Alle Menschen werden Brüder’. 87



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.   Seid umschlungen, Millionen!   Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!   Brüder – überm Sternenzelt   Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen. 2. Wem der grosse Wurf gelungen Eines Freundes Freund zu seyn, Wer ein holdes Weib errungen, Mische seinen Jubel ein! Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele Sein nennt auf der Erdenrund! Und wer’s nie gekonnt, der stehle Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!

255

where your gentle wing tarries.   Be embraced, you millions!   This kiss for the whole world!   Brothers, above the starry canopy   there must dwell a dear Father.

Whoever has the great fortune to be the friend of a friend, whoever has won a lovely wife, join in with his jubilation. Yes, whoever calls even one soul his own on the whole earth! And whoever has never known it, let him steal away weeping from this band!

[Chorus not set] 3. Freude trinken alle Wesen An den Brüsten der Natur; Alle Guten, alle Bösen Folgen ihrer Rosenspur. Küsse gab sie uns und Reben, Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod; Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben, Und der Cherub steht vor Gott.   Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?   Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?

All creatures drink joy at Nature’s breasts; all who are good, all bad, follow her rosy track. She gave us kisses and vines, a friend tested in death; delight was given to the worm, and the cherub stands before God.   Do you sink down, you millions?   Do you sense the Creator, world?

  Such’ ihn überm Sternenzelt.   Über Sternen muss er wohnen.

  Seek him above the starry canopy.   He must dwell above the stars.

4. [Verse not set; Chorus:]   Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen

  Gladly, like his suns fly

256

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

  Durch des Himmels prächt’gen Plan,   through heaven’s magnificent design,   Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,   brothers, run your course   Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.   joyfully, like a hero to victory. * The word ‘men’ denotes homines, i.e. male and female people of all ages, not viri or adult males; similarly ‘brothers’ is used figuratively and denotes male and female people; the word werden is sometimes translated ‘will be’, but here is clearly intended to denote ‘become’ in the present tense, matching ‘binden’ two lines earlier.

Which of the many editions Beethoven consulted for the text is uncertain, but it seems probable that he relied mainly on one published by Anton Doll in 1810.88 On the other hand he probably often worked from memory, for at one point he accidentally substituted ‘willkommen’ (‘welcome’) for ‘umschlungen’ (Landsberg 8/2, page 72/70). For the first part of his setting of the text he placed the first three verse sections together as further variations after the instrumental ones, and this scheme is already apparent in the draft in Gathering VIII of Landsberg 8/2. For the first verse he wrote out just the tune, with the words understood (and with the choir marked for the repeat of the second half of the tune); with the second and third verses, however, he wrote out some of the words underneath. The third verse is provided with running quavers, similar to but not the same as in the final version. After the third verse one might expect to find sketches for the ‘Turkish’ section as in the final version (bars 331ff.), but instead Beethoven made sketches for ‘Seid umschlungen’ (page 105/103), the first chorus from Schiller’s text. Thus it would appear that at this stage he intended the music to proceed straight from verse 3 to chorus 1. These ‘Seid umschlungen’ sketches are marked ‘presto’ and apparently in ₵ metre. This differs markedly from the first appearance of these words in the final version, where they are in slow 3/2 time, and so these sketches should be interpreted as precursors of the double fugue in 6/4 time (bars 654ff.). Beethoven had already made brief attempts to combine a version of ‘Seid umschlungen’ in minims with the ‘Freude’ theme (page 72/70), and was to make further attempts shortly afterwards (page 110/108), but at this stage he was unsuccessful as the two themes did not yet fit together effectively. More curiously, he noticed the textual similarities between choruses 1 and 3, and tried interspersing them, set in minims with alternate lines in bass or treble clef, giving a very curious result (pages 105–6/103–4):89 Sei[d] umschlungen Millionen Ihr stürzt nieder Millionen diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt! 88 89

Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 327–8. The first six phrases are quoted in Winter, ‘Ode to Joy’, p. 202.

The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125



257

Ahnest du den Schöpfer Welt? Brüder überm Sternenzelt Such ihn überm Sternenzelt. Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen Über Sternen muss er wohnen

Lest one might think this an aberration, Beethoven immediately wrote out the whole idea again, with the same text and again set in minims, but with slightly different melodic lines, even though the text scarcely makes sense in this order. The absence of chorus 4 (‘Froh’) among these sketches is striking, but Beethoven had already planned in Artaria 201 to introduce ‘Turkish music’ at some point, as noted earlier, and the idea had not been abandoned. Squeezed into the upper margin above the end of the sketch for verse 3 of the text (page 105/103) is the comment ‘Mit Türkischer Musik 6/8 presto’, and the inscription is repeated near the foot of the page, with some quaver figuration in 6/8. This is followed by the ‘Freude’ theme in dotted crotchets in D major (still 6/8), first for orchestra, marked ‘Ritornel’ (which denotes an instrumental passage), then for voices, shown by the word ‘Freude’ and corresponding to bars 543–4 of the final version, where the voices return after the long orchestral interlude. These bars were therefore the first fragment of the ‘Turkish’ section to reach its final form. Another version of the ‘Freude’ tune appears in D major in the bass clef on the bottom stave, accompanied by ‘Trommel’ (‘bass drum’): see Example 9.13.90 The bass drum (one of the three percussion instruments, along with triangle and cymbals, associated with the so-called Turkish style) is represented by trills in minims on a bass A, accompanying a 6/8 version of the melody played on low bass instruments – a preliminary idea that was quickly abandoned. ‘Türkische Musik’ reappears two pages later (page 107/105; Gathering IX), after a sketch for ‘vor Gott’ on a high A; again it is in 6/8 but this time the key appears to be F major, with a pencil comment in the margin confirming ‘F dur Freude’. But the notes are not provided with any text and appear to be an instrumental passage, closely anticipating the instrumental fugato that begins in the final version at bar 431, thus omitting Example 9.13 Sketch for Op. 125.IV, ‘Turkish’ section (Bsb, Landsberg 8/2, p. 105/103).

90

The sketch is also quoted in Winter, ‘Ode to Joy’, p. 204.

258

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

a complete 6/8 statement of the ‘Freude’ theme. The music then suddenly moves to B major (‘h dur’) before lapsing into B minor and a series of F♯s in preparation for a return of ‘Freude’ in D major, closely anticipating the final version (bars 529–42). Hence the order in which the elements of the ‘Turkish’ section were conceived is not entirely straightforward. First Beethoven decided to include Turkish style, perhaps in response to the words ‘ganzen Welt’; then he decided on a fast 6/8 metre, employing and developing some variant of the ‘Freude’ theme. Then he placed it in a remote key – initially F major – modulating from there to B major and back to D via B minor for a reprise of ‘Freude’ in 6/8 as in bar 543. All this time he apparently envisaged the ‘Turkish’ section as instrumental, with no sign of chorus 4 from Schiller’s poem, ‘Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen’. In the following gathering (Gathering X: Landsberg 12, pages 15–18) Beethoven developed this 6/8 instrumental passage into a more elaborate fugato, now in B flat, after a few more brief attempts at other passages. The instrumental fugato modulates towards those same F♯s that prepare for the return of ‘Freude’. This time, however, it leads into an extended draft of the ‘Freude’ theme in 6/8 (Landsberg 12, pages 17–18), as in bars 543–95, with only slight differences from the final version. The words are all omitted except the first three letters of ‘Freude’, which are sufficient to imply that verse 1 of the text was to be reprised at this point. This extended draft is then followed by another one, which continues into the next gathering and covers the whole of the slow section, corresponding to bars 595–654, and the start of the ensuing double fugue that combines ‘Freude’ and ‘Seid umschlungen’. By now, therefore, the main building blocks of the movement were in place: the instrumental variations, the vocal variations for verses 1–3, the ‘Turkish’ fugato and its continuation into a 6/8 version of ‘Freude’, the two slow sections (‘Seid umschlungen’ and ‘Ihr stürzt nieder’), and the start of the double fugue. The remainder of the sketches were devoted to devising suitable opening recitatives; adding chorus 4 of the poem, with the syncopated Turkish march that accompanies it; working on the final section, and refining all the details in preparation for the autograph score. The last pocket sketchbook for the symphony, Artaria 205/4, contains sketches only for the end of the finale. They appear on pages 37–44, which were originally at the beginning of the book,91 and represent the end of the coda. From about bar 910 they closely match the final version, but the preceding bars are somewhat different and clearly needed further work, on pages now lost. Also missing are the text of chorus 4 and its accompanying march (bars 375–431), which are not found in any of the sketchbooks. Since the following fugato is sketched, but there is

91

JTW, pp. 412–14.



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

259

no indication of the join from chorus 4, the passage containing the latter was clearly not conceived until a very late stage and must have been sketched on loose leaves or a lost pocket sketchbook, though perhaps before the abovementioned sketches for the end of the finale. When it was finally introduced, it served to intensify the extraneous nature of this ‘Turkish’ section – extraneous in metre, key, instrumentation and eventually also in text, which does not return later in the symphony. Throughout this time and beyond, however, Beethoven had occasional misgivings about using voices at all for the finale, and made several attempts at drafting the opening theme of a ‘Finale instromentale’. Some of these are in the pocket sketchbook Autograph 8/2, and they range from quite an early to quite a late stage, showing that he retained the idea in his mind throughout the sketching of the finale.92 Czerny reportedly told both Leopold Sonnleithner and Nottebohm that some time after the first performance in 1824 Beethoven had told him that he had come to regard the vocal finale as a mistake and that he wanted to reject it and replace it with a purely instrumental finale, for which he already had an idea in his head.93 Had Beethoven done this, the original finale would no doubt have been issued as a separate work (as occurred a few years later with the original finale of the String Quartet Op. 130). The sketches show that Beethoven did indeed have an idea for such an instrumental finale, thus confirming the last part of Czerny’s claim. The notion that Beethoven considered the vocal finale a mistake, however, is less certain, for Ignaz Seyfried gives a different explanation: the planned instrumental finale was to be intended for use with the first three movements at performances where a good choir and solo singers were not available, leaving performers with a choice of which version to use, depending on circumstances.94 If Seyfried’s report is correct, it helps explain why Beethoven continued toying with the idea of an instrumental finale at a late stage: the theme for it reappears right at the end of Autograph 8/2 (folios 36v–37r), and again, after the last sketches for the vocal finale, on page 5 of Gathering XIII of Landsberg 8/2.95 Whatever the intention, the instrumental finale was not written, and Beethoven later salvaged the theme for the finale of his next minor-key work, the String Quartet in A minor, Op. 132.

92 See Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 129. Some of the attempts at an instrumental finale are quoted in N-II, pp. 180–1, but Brandenburg notes that there are more. 93 N-II, p. 182; here Nottebohm also cites Sonnleithner’s report that had been published in 1864. 94 Caecilia, 9/36 (1828), 236; also cited in Stefan Kunze, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Werke im Spiegel seiner Zeit (Laaber: Laaber, 1996), p. 532. 95 This is now p. 13 of Wgm, A 50, since this gathering is no longer part of the sketchbook known as Landsberg 8/2; See JTW, p. 297.

260

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

The autograph score Most of Beethoven’s autograph scores consist of a single document, but the autograph of the Ninth Symphony was not constructed as a uniform set of pages and is now in several sections, not all of which are in the same library. The bulk of it is in Berlin, but short sections are in Bonn and Paris, while two very short passages are missing altogether (bars 650–4 and 814–21 of the finale). Fortunately a facsimile of all the surviving portions has now been assembled and published.96 Detailed descriptions of it have also appeared which explain all its anomalies and inconsistencies.97 It appears to have been written out intermittently over several months, with each movement probably written out while Beethoven worked on the next. Thus the first movement was probably written out mainly in May–June 1823,98 at a time when he was seriously impeded by an eye infection that prevented him from working normally.99 Similarly the second movement was probably written out mainly during August and early September, while some sketches for instrumentation of the third movement in Autograph 8/1 indicate that he was working on the score while finishing the main sketching process, around October.100 The finale was evidently completed (subject to revision) around February 1824, enabling copying to proceed from around the beginning of March. As usual, the autograph score contains many revisions, which were being made right up to the time of the first performance and possibly beyond, and nearly every page is affected to some extent. Among the more important ones, three are particularly noteworthy. The trio section of the second movement was written out in 2/4 metre, but at a late stage Beethoven decided to remove every alternate barline to leave the music in ₵ metre, as noted earlier. This would imply a slightly faster speed, but the speed of this section is problematical in other ways (see below). At an even later stage, he added a new coda for the movement on separate sheets, which show the new layout of barlines already in place. It probably replaced an earlier coda, for the instructions to proceed to it (autograph score, page 162) appear to date from an earlier phase and are in 96 Lewis Lockwood, Jonathan Del Mar and Martina Rebmann, eds, Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie No. 9 Op. 125 Autograph: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, Bibliothèque nationale de France (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2010). 97 See Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 250–2 and 272–3; Jonathan Del Mar, ‘Composing the Ninth’, in Lockwood et al., eds, Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie No. 9 Op. 125 Autograph: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, Bibliothèque nationale de France (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2010), pp. 7*–10*. 98 Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 121–2, 125. 99 BB-1650, BB-1661; A-1180, A-1182. 100 Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, pp. 125, 128.



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

261

a different ink. When Beethoven sent the score to Peter Gläser to be copied, he mentioned that the coda had not been altered but that he had forgotten to add it.101 But this may mean that it had not been altered a second time, and that he had forgotten to include the first revision. The coda has since become detached from the main score and is the section now in Bonn.102 A third important change was the insertion of the thirty-two-bar Turkish march in the finale (bars 343–74). In the passage that uses Schiller’s chorus 4 (‘Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen’), the first thirty-two bars are accompanied by a Turkish march that uses a syncopated version of the ‘Freude’ theme (bars 375–406). After writing out this passage in the main autograph, with a long gradual crescendo, Beethoven decided to use it twice – the first time without voices and pianissimo throughout, followed by the existing version with added tenor. This was the last major structural alteration to the work, and again the insertion was written on separate sheets that have since been separated and are the section now in Paris.103 The ‘Turkish’ section as a whole, therefore, sounds in performance like an instrumental march, which is then repeated and developed with voices added, followed by further development with a fugato and ensuing homophonic ‘Freude’ chorus; but it was actually composed in the opposite order: first the fugato and ‘Freude’ chorus were sketched, then the ‘Froh’ section was added at a very late stage, as noted earlier, and finally the initial instrumental march was inserted into the autograph. In many of Beethoven’s scores the trombone parts were written on separate sheets, usually because of insufficient space in the score. In the Ninth Symphony, however, the autograph had plenty of space for trombones in the second movement, but initially they were not present. Beethoven then added just the bass trombone on the stave below the string bass. This was done only after he had removed alternate barlines and changed the time signature. It is extraordinary that the first note (bars 414–15), which is so important in heralding a change of key and a more elevated style that is associated with trombones, was therefore not included in the original version of the score. The new coda, however, must have been added even later, for it shows the bass trombone in its proper place among the brass instruments. The alto and tenor trombones, which play a much less important role in this movement, were added after the bass trombone, and there was sufficient room in the score for them to be placed below the bass trombone. This might have looked confusing, however, and instead Beethoven wrote them out in a separate manuscript.104 They do not appear in the coda, and so it is uncertain whether their addition preceded or followed the inserted coda. In the finale all three trombones are 101 BB-1814;

A-1275. HCB BMh 5/45. 103 Pn, Ms 43. 104 BNba, HCB Mh 28. 102 BNba,

262

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

included in their proper place among the brass instruments for their appearance at ‘Seid umschlungen’ (bar 594). There was room for them at this point, for two horns and trumpets remain silent during this passage. With the double fugue at bar 654, however, so many staves were needed for other instruments that Beethoven wrote out the three trombone parts in a different manuscript, the same one as contained the added trombones for the second movement. The contrabassoon part is even more confusing. It appears only in the finale, where it is merely outlined by brief indications in the autograph. Beethoven wrote out a second manuscript with fuller indications, which would have been sufficient for a copyist but not for a performer. When the copyist had completed the part, Beethoven must have checked it for errors, but unfortunately this manuscript is lost and so there is considerable uncertainty about his final intentions. This particularly applies to the bottom B♭ at the start of the ‘Turkish’ section (bars 331ff.): the note was available only on a few instruments at the time, but Beethoven clearly intended it, since it is indicated in all the surviving sources that he wrote or corrected.105 One late printed source that he did not see shows it an octave higher, but this was probably the result of performers informing the publisher that they did not have the note on their instrument.106 Copying, performances and publication Even before Beethoven had fully finished scoring the symphony he was considering arranging for its premiere to be in Berlin rather than Vienna, which had been taken over musically by something of a craze for Rossini. But he was persuaded in a petition by various Viennese noblemen, published in February 1824, to keep it in Vienna.107 Preparations for the event, however, were long and arduous, and are documented extensively in Beethoven’s conversation books. Various venues were considered, notably the Grosse Redoutensaal (a ballroom), the Burgtheater and the Theater an der Wien,108 but the Kärnthnerthor Theater was eventually chosen. Copying of the score inevitably took a long time. Copying of the first three movements could have been begun as early as 1823, but there is no indication of it from before the end of February 1824. Around the beginning of March, Tobias Haslinger estimated 105 See Jonathan Del Mar, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 in D minor: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1996), p. 71. 106 See Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 312–18, for an extended discussion of the contrabassoon part and its sources; Kraus’s edition avoids this low B♭, but see my review in The Beethoven Journal, 35 (2022), article 6, p. 7. 107 The petition is given in full in TF, pp. 897–8. 108 Suggested respectively by nephew Karl, both Schindler and Karl, and Count Moritz Lichnowsky; see BKh, vol. 5, pp. 213–14, 259–60, and vol. 6, p. 46.



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

263

it would take at least another month for the copying to be completed.109 First a neat score was needed, which could be used for performances and then as printer’s copy for publication. From this, instrumental parts had to be copied and then duplicated where necessary, for a planned premiere. For strings, Schuppanzigh proposed 6 copies for first violin, 6 second, 4 viola and 5 cello/bass, plus 10 copies for each chorus voice.110 This would tally well with Schindler’s statements in the conversation books that there would be 20 to 24 singers per part, and that there were 32 boys (16 per part) and 34 men in the Kärnthnerthor choir.111 The singers would therefore have generally shared copies in pairs, and some members of the choir may not have been available. Haslinger suggested, around 9 March, that it would be cheaper to reproduce the chorus parts by lithography, but around 27 March a copyist claimed that this would take longer and not actually save any costs.112 By that time a fresh score, though possibly not complete, was clearly ready. In the end, slightly more copies of the parts were produced than Schuppanzigh had proposed, according to a note from 24 November 1824, which recorded the available string parts as 10 – 10 – 8 – 10, and the voices (SATB) as 10 – 9 – 11 – 9.113 Nearly all these parts became worn out during the nineteenth century, leaving only nine string parts today, which were produced by no fewer than seventeen different copyists.114 As well as a score and parts, another score was needed for sending to the Philharmonic Society of London, preferably before the first performance. The agreement with the society allowed Beethoven to perform the work in Vienna, but stipulated that he must not publish it until at least eighteen months after the society had received it.115 He duly kept to this condition, but was naturally keen to send a score as soon as possible. The score was eventually handed over to Franz Christian Kirchhoffer, a book dealer, in exchange for the equivalent of £50 sterling at the current exchange rate, as indicated in Beethoven’s receipt dated 27 April 1824.116 Curiously, the score seems not to have reached London until December, with Charles Neate’s acknowledgment 109 BKh,

vol. 5, p. 182. vol. 5, p. 205. 111 BKh, vol. 5, p. 235; vol. 6, p. 63. 112 BKh, vol. 5, pp. 204 and 252. 113 See Sigrid Bresch, ‘Kompositorische Änderungen in der Partitur der 9. Symphonie nach den ersten Aufführungen 1824?’, in Probleme der symphonischen Tradition im 19. Jahrhundert: Internationales Musikwissenschaftliches Colloquium Bonn 1989, Kongressbericht, ed. Siegfried Kross (Tutzing: Schneider, 1990), pp. 113–43, at 120. 114 Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 260. 115 BB-1479, note 8. 116 Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 281. 110 BKh,

264

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

of its arrival being dated 20 December 1824.117 This raises three possibilities. Perhaps Beethoven actually held on to the score for a time, so as to make possible revisions, knowing that the Philharmonic Society’s season ran from February to June and so they would not need it before autumn; however, it does not contain his latest revisions, made presumably during or after the premiere.118 Alternatively, the score sent in April was lost, and the one that survives is a second copy: Sigrid Bresch claims that the paper of the surviving copy is associated with late 1824 rather than April, although she provides no clear evidence and does not account for the absence of the revisions.119 A third possibility is that transmission took unduly long: although it was suggested that a courier might be able to take the score almost straight away, there could have been delays on the way, and it seems likely that it was sent via Trieste and travelled very slowly by sailing ship.120 Regarding the language for the finale, nephew Karl observed that Schiller’s poem was already available in English and he thought it would not be difficult to adapt this to Beethoven’s music. In the event, Clementi’s son Charles was asked to make a fresh English translation, but the result was unsatisfactory and so a Mr Pagliardini was charged with producing an Italian version, which was used at the first London performance on 21 March 1825.121 Dates for irregular concerts in Vienna were often fixed at short notice, and possible dates for the premiere of the Ninth Symphony were being discussed from early March 1824, when it was decided that two performances would be preferable. They would help to cover the high copying costs, give Beethoven a better chance of making a surplus and enable a larger number of people to attend what promised to be an important event. Schuppanzigh indicated that the week before Easter Day, which that year fell on 18 April, would be unsuitable (even though it had been the week chosen as the best for the premieres of Beethoven’s first two symphonies in 1800 and 1803), and around 13 March he suggested the best date would be 8 April.122 By the end of March Haslinger was indicating that the concert should be after Easter, as so much time was needed for correcting copies and essential rehearsals.123 Schindler later proposed 22 April, but when Beethoven proposed 25 April Schindler pointed out that this would clash with another concert.124 The first main rehearsal was eventually held on Sunday 2 May, with Michael Umlauf directing. He received the score 117 BB-1914;

Alb-388. Mar, Symphony No. 9: Critical Commentary, p. 15. 119 Bresch, ‘Kompositorische Änderungen’, p. 121. 120 Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 281. 121 Ibid., p. 283. 122 BKh, vol. 5, pp. 196 and 210. 123 Ibid., p. 255. 124 BKh, vol. 6, pp. 18 and 46. 118 Del



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

265

only the previous evening, and evidently suggested that the scherzo should be renotated in 6/4 without so many barlines, perhaps aware that alternate ones had been removed in the trio section;125 but Beethoven clearly thought otherwise. Wednesday 5 May was then rejected for the premiere, and as a Rossini opera was being performed in the Kärnthnerthor Theater on 6 May the premiere was at last fixed for 7 May, at 7.00 p.m.; large or small rehearsals were agreed for each of the intervening days, Monday to Thursday.126 The concert also included Beethoven’s overture Die Weihe des Hauses and three movements from his Missa solemnis. Other works had been considered and rejected, including another symphony or some vocal arias or duets.127 Umlauf conducted from Beethoven’s working manuscript copy while Beethoven followed from the autograph, which he had attempted to revise to match the copy. Schuppanzigh led the orchestra, and both choir and orchestra from the theatre were supplemented by members of the Musik-Verein. The soloists were Henriette Sontag, Caroline Unger, Anton Haitzinger (Franz Jäger having declined) and Joseph Seipelt, the last a late replacement for Joseph Preisinger. Extended accounts of the occasion are readily available and do not need repeating here, and the touching story of Unger having to draw Beethoven’s attention to the applause that he could not hear is well known.128 The audience was packed, but the royal box was empty as the emperor and his retinue had left for the countryside on the Wednesday before. The second performance, on Sunday 23 May, at 12.30 in the Redoutensaal, was much less successful in terms of audience, who largely kept away. Some had already gone to the country for the summer, while others were informed of the date too late to attend. For this concert, Beethoven’s vocal trio Tremate, empi, tremate (Op. 116) and a Rossini aria were included, but two of the three movements from the Missa solemnis were omitted. Beethoven’s next task was to arrange for publication. He had already offered the symphony to Moritz Schlesinger in Paris, on 25 February, and to both Heinrich Probst, Leipzig, and Schott’s Sons, Mainz, on 10 March, in each case proposing a fee of 600 florins (which would be 1,500 florins in paper money).129 To all three he mentioned that the symphony included a vocal finale that was similar in some ways to his Choral Fantasia (Op. 80) but on a grander scale and setting Schiller’s An die Freude. No reply from Schlesinger is known, while Probst’s reply was non-committal, but Schott’s expressed enthusiasm for the work, and Beethoven therefore agreed to send 125 Ibid.,

pp. 108 and 116. pp. 116–7 and 399. 127 BKh, vol. 5, p. 185. 128 See, for example, TF, pp. 908–10; Cook, Symphony No. 9, pp. 21–5; and most recently Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 275–80. 129 BB-1782, 1787, 1788; A-1267, 1269, 1270. 126 Ibid.,

266

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

it to them. Since the manuscript copy used for the two concerts was to be reused for printing, there should have been no delay, but Beethoven evidently wanted to send it at the same time as the Missa solemnis, which Schott’s had also offered to publish, and this work needed a fresh copy as the previous one had become so unclear. Copying and checking this new manuscript took a long time, and so it was not until 16 January 1825 that the two works were finally delivered to the bankers Fries for despatch to Mainz.130 Because of Beethoven’s agreement with the Philharmonic Society, Schott’s were unable to publish the symphony until summer 1826, but without any assistance from Beethoven they arranged for performances to take place in Frankfurt (1 April 1825) and Leipzig (6 and 30 March 1826),131 to check the text for accuracy, using parts copied from the manuscript that he had sent. These parts were then the main source for the printed edition, which finally appeared in August and September 1826 in three formats: score, parts,and vocal score of the finale. Beethoven had no inclination to proof-read the edition, and this task fell to Ferdinand Kessler, who was based in Frankfurt.132 Despite great efforts to obtain an accurate text, there were still a few faults, as Beethoven indicated in his letter of 27 January 1827.133 Before the work appeared in print, Beethoven had a few other matters about it to attend to. Ries wanted to perform it in Aachen in May 1825 as part of the Lower Rhine Festival. He was by then living just outside Bonn, some distance from Aachen and even further from Vienna. A score had to be sent, but none was available, and one had to be prepared specially. Beethoven’s autograph, which he retained till his death, was deemed too hard to decipher, and so the new score was prepared from the existing parts used at the premiere.134 There was also the question of the dedication, which had not been decided when the various manuscripts were sent away. Beethoven first considered Ries, which made some sense while Ries was still associated with the Philharmonic Society, but Beethoven soon decided to look for a more prominent dedicatee for such a major work. Eventually in 1826 Friedrich Wilhelm III, King of Prussia, was chosen and permission obtained.135 A fresh manuscript on extra-fine paper had to be prepared, and was once again copied from the performing parts. The other issue needing attention was metronome marks. Not long after Maelzel had invented the metronome, Beethoven supplied metronome 130 The

detailed correspondence is in BB-passim, Alb-passim and A-passim. ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 292–4. 132 Ibid., p. 290; Del Mar, Symphony No. 9: Critical Commentary, p. 19. 133 BB-2253; A-1548. 134 A detailed account of the sources sent, and the performance itself, is provided in Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, pp. 284–7. 135 For Ries, see BB-1641; A-1175; all seven potential dedicatees considered are named in Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 287. 131 Kraus,



The Philharmonic Connection: The Ninth Symphony, Op. 125

267

marks for each of his first eight symphonies, and the list was published in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in 1817.136 Schott’s had therefore asked for metronome marks for the Ninth, but none had been received when they published the work in August and September 1826. By that time the copy for the King of Prussia had been prepared, and Samuel Spiker, the Prussian librarian, who was in Vienna at the time, had offered to take the score back to the king. Beethoven, for his part, was preparing to depart with Karl on 28 September to stay with his brother Johann in Gneixendorf, and so the metronome marks were urgently required for inserting in the king’s copy. On the day before departure, Beethoven finally found time to work out the figures, and Karl wrote them down in the current conversation book.137 They were then copied into the score for the king, and were also sent to Schott’s the following month. Schott’s published them in their journal Caecilia in December,138 and then incorporated them into a reprint of the first edition of the score the following year. Apart from minor anomalies there are three significant inconsistencies in the metronome marks. In the sketches for the second movement, three crotchets in the minore section have the same duration as two in the maggiore trio (cf. Example 9.7 above), and this appears to be confirmed by the metronome mark of 116 for both, with minims specifically shown in the conversation book as the unit for the second section, resulting in a relatively slow speed. Yet the first section is marked ‘Molto vivace’ while the second is marked ‘Presto’, implying a faster speed, especially as there is a stringendo leading into the Presto. There is no satisfactory way of reconciling these contradictions, and Beethoven’s intentions remain unclear.139 Secondly, at the start of the finale, the conversation book shows the figure 66, which was also entered into the manuscript for Prussia and the list sent to Schott’s. In Caecilia, however, this was erroneously changed to 96 (the printer evidently placed the first figure upside down); the error was then copied into Schott’s edition and also into the list that Beethoven later sent for the Philharmonic Society, who duly inserted the faulty figure into their copy. The third major error occurred at bar 331 of the finale, the start of the Turkish march. Here Karl wrote ‘84’, adding the time signature 6/8 to signify that the speed applied to the whole bar. This would make the ‘Freude’ theme, here marked ‘Allegro assai vivace’, very slightly faster than its initial appearance (bar 92), where it was only ‘Allegro assai’ and a speed of only 80, rather than 84, for every two notes of the ‘Freude’ theme. When Karl copied the figure into the manuscript for Prussia, 136 AMZ,

19 (Dec. 1817), cols 873–4. 122; see BKh, vol. 10, pp. 243–5. 138 Caecilia, 6/22 (Dec. 1826), 158. For a full list of all sources containing the metronome marks, see Kraus, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, p. 306. 139 See Buurman, ‘New Evidence’. 137 Heft

268

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

however, he assumed the figure applied to dotted crotchets, giving a speed half that intended, and this error has been reproduced in nearly all sources and editions since then.140 With the reprint of Schott’s edition, the creation of the original sources for the Ninth Symphony came to an end. Although the work had been enthusiastically received in its initial performances in Vienna, it was less well appreciated when the Philharmonic Society first performed it in London, and it was some years before it gained widespread acceptance. Since then, however, it has become recognised throughout the world as one of the greatest works in the repertoire, and its ‘Freude’ theme has been used, or occasionally misused, in a huge range of contexts,141 by people who have little or no idea of the protracted genesis of the work, the ingenuity with which it was put together or the textual ambiguities that still perplex us today.

140 It is corrected with explanation in Del Mar, Symphony No. 9: Critical Commentary, pp. 56–7. 141 See, for example, Cook, Symphony No. 9, pp. 81–99; William Kinderman, Beethoven: A Political Artist in Revolutionary Times (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2020), pp. 205–19.

10

Epilogue After the Ninth: A Tenth?

A

lthough Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony proved to be his last, this was not his intention or expectation when he composed it. As noted in the previous chapter, he had been commissioned in 1817 to write two new symphonies, and while he was drafting the Ninth he noted down occasional ideas about its successor. The first known idea in 1818 was purely verbal and proposed adding voices to the finale of this second symphony, but this plan became absorbed into the Ninth, and it seems hardly probable that he would have wanted to use the idea in both new symphonies. In 1819 he implied to Ferdinand Ries that the two symphonies were at least partially written, saying that he would bring them with him to London the following winter.1 Then in July 1820, when Franz Xaver Gebauer visited Breslau (now Wrocław), he heard that Beethoven had two new symphonies in progress, and reported this in Beethoven’s conversation book the following month.2 The earliest known musical sketches for the work, however, are those noted previously that date from about October 1822, appearing near the end of Artaria 201 (pages 124–5) and on a separate bifolio now in Bonn.3 They show a slow introduction in E flat major leading to a fast section in C minor, plus ideas for three possible later movements. Beethoven considered incorporating both main themes from the first movement into the Ninth Symphony (see Chapter 9), as he had done with the plan for a vocal finale, but he quickly abandoned this idea, leaving them available for future development as the Tenth. In the theme of the slow introduction the first five notes – even the first seven in some sketches – are identical to the Adagio theme in the Pathétique Sonata, apart from the key (see Example 9.9 above, which shows both versions of the theme at a time when they were being considered for the Ninth Symphony). 1

BB-1285; A-935. BKh, vol. 2, p. 219: ‘Ich habe gehört, dass Sie 2 neuen Symfonien im Werke haben? / in Breslau hat mans gesagt.’ See also ibid., p. 425. 3 BNba, BSk 20/68; see Sieghard Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen zur Neunten Symphonie’, in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), pp. 88–129, at 110–12. 2

270

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

Beethoven must have noticed this similarity, and may well have had some poetic reason for reusing this theme so conspicuously. A comment among the sketches on the Bonn bifolio, ‘Come, come, take me away to transfiguration’ (‘komm – komm – nimm mich ab zur Verklärung’), indicates that he was here contemplating his own life and death, for by ‘transfiguration’ he meant life after death, and the comment seems to be somehow connected with the musical content of the first movement, sketched alongside it. Reference to a theme concerned with pathos from his earlier life might therefore have seemed appropriate; and the two contrasting styles of the movement, slow and fast, can be interpreted as representing Heaven and Earth. So can two contrasting motifs, one rising (G–B♭–E♭) and one falling (G–F–E♭), thus creating a remarkable non-musical link between structure and motif.4 Both motifs occur in various unstable or distorted forms among the sketches, but in a stable form only in passages apparently intended for the end of the movement (stabilising an initially unstable motif is a strategy that occurs in several other Beethoven movements). Beethoven left these sketches in abeyance until 1824, just after he had finished sketching the Ninth, when he returned briefly to the embryonic Tenth, sketching the slow introduction again, this time in C major but with a note that it might be in E flat, followed by a new fast section also in C major and in 3/8 (unlike the earlier C minor theme in 6/8).5 He then returned to the work around October 1825, when he was nearing completion of the last of his three string quartets written for Prince Galitzin (working on the finale of Op. 130, later detached as the Grande fugue or Grosse Fuge, Op. 133) and contemplating what might follow them. The themes from the 1822 sketches were revived, slightly modified, in their original keys of E flat and C minor, with some additional ideas for the composite first movement and also what appear to be themes for a possible scherzo in C minor and trio in C major.6 The last known sketch for the symphony appears on folio 13r of Beethoven’s final desk sketchbook (Bsb, Autograph 24). Since a sketch for the canon ‘Freu dich des Lebens’ (WoO 195), the autograph of which is dated 16 December 1825, appears on folio 10v, the symphony sketch probably dates from the end of December 1825, though it is sketched at the top of the page and could have been entered a little earlier. It appears just after the final sketches for the Grosse Fuge and shows the first eight bars of the main theme of the slow introduction (see Example 10.1), similar to previous sketches. The sketch indicates that Beethoven still had the symphony in mind and intended to complete it, and 4 See Barry Cooper, ‘Subthematicism and Metaphor in Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony’, Ad Parnassum, 1/1 (Apr. 2003), 5–22. 5 Wgm, A 50, p. 12; Brandenburg, ‘Die Skizzen’, p. 126. 6 Bsb, Autograph 9/1, ff. 1v–5r. See Barry Cooper, ‘Newly Identified Sketches for Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony’, Music & Letters, 66 (1985), 9–18.



Epilogue

271

Example 10.1 Sketch for unfinished Tenth Symphony (Bsb, Autograph 24, f. 13r, staves 1–3).

in this respect it differs from all his other sketches for unfinished symphonies, of which there are over thirty, which were merely passing thoughts that were either abandoned immediately or occasionally transformed into an actual symphony, as with his First Symphony.7 According to Karl Holz, Beethoven played the complete composite first movement to him on the piano, and Holz described it as a gentle introduction in E flat followed by a powerful Allegro in C minor,8 a description that perfectly matches the sketches. Holz did not mention a return of the E flat section at the end of the movement, but this is indicated in the sketches for 1825. E flat major was Beethoven’s most frequently used key in previous works, with C minor his most frequently used minor key, and the sketches imply a work thoroughly characteristic of him. At the same time they suggest a highly personal, introspective one that contrasts directly with the all-embracing Ninth, just as much as the Sixth contrasts with the Fifth. There is in fact enough sketch material for this first movement to make possible a tentative completion of a version of what Beethoven had in mind, without the invention of any new thematic material – a situation that does not arise with any of the possible later movements.9 Unfortunately he died some fifteen months after the last known sketch, having been diverted into composing more chamber music – two string quartets (Opp. 131 and 135) and an incipient string quintet (WoO 62). He probably intended this symphony to be his last, judging by his comment about ‘transfiguration’ that appears among the sketches, and it would have made a neat set of ten symphonies altogether. Moreover, he had a number of other large projects in mind, including an opera, an oratorio, a requiem and another mass,10 which would have left no room for another symphony after No. 10 for many years. Although he managed to complete only nine symphonies, 7 For a complete list of his unfinished symphonies, see Barry Cooper, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81. 8 TF, p. 986. 9 A tentative completion appears in Barry Cooper, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonie Nr. 10: Erster Satz, vervollständigt von Barry Cooper (Vienna: Universal Edition, 2nd edn, 2013). 10 See Beethoven’s price list of 1822, compiled by Tobias Haslinger (Bsb, Autograph 35,69), printed in Alb-288; it differs from the one in BB-1468 from the same period.

272

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

however, these have proved sufficient to have formed a cornerstone of the orchestral repertoire ever since their creation. The nine symphonies as musical monuments The role of the symphonies in establishing the concept of musical monuments as great works of art must not be underestimated, for this concept had not previously existed. For centuries, instrumental music was regarded mainly as an adjunct to other activities, chiefly dancing, song or worship, and could at best be considered on its own merits as just an ephemeral pastime – pleasant and perhaps moving or soothing to listen to but generally of little or no lasting value. Occasionally an individual such as Beethoven’s patron Baron van Swieten (1733–1803) developed a great fondness for music of former times; and some vocal music, such as Handel’s Messiah, quickly developed a permanent place in the repertoire, as had some church compositions going right back to Gregorian chant. Even major operas, however, rarely stood the test of time, and most went rapidly out of circulation after no more than a few years. As for purely instrumental compositions, they had rarely been considered as designed for posterity. Although, as early as 1768, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had asserted that ‘instruments form the most important part of music’, with voices not much more than an accessory,11 thus indicating the growing importance of instrumental music, there is no implication here of any longevity. Some of Bach’s late instrumental works written on a large scale, such as his ‘Goldberg’ Variations and his so-called Kunst der Fuge, possess a monumental quality that implied an intention to act as models for many years; but these were the exceptions rather than the norm. Music was not generally composed for the purpose of demonstrating lasting value, and museum-type publications such as the six-volume The Scots Musical Museum (1787–1803) were created to preserve music not originally designed for this purpose. The same desire for preservation of music that was admired but in danger of disappearing had resulted in van Swieten’s collection and certain others, some dating as far back as manuscripts of troubadour songs of the twelfth century, but it is hard to believe that this was the main intention of the composers. Similarly, Mozart’s personal thematic catalogue of his compositions suggests he placed some value on their durability, but perhaps more for his own interest rather than that of posterity. The notion of purely instrumental compositions being artworks constructed on a grand scale and of lasting value, comparable to great paintings or monuments of literature and designed as such, was emerging only gradually around 1800, and appears to have been partly or even perhaps mainly the result 11 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Dictionnaire de musique (Paris: Veuve Duchesne, 1768), p. 459.

Epilogue



273

of Beethoven’s influence. Writing in the late eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant notoriously considered that music was the lowest of the arts, relatively trivial, and needed to be combined with text to achieve any great value.12 This was evidently the prevailing attitude at the time, and it is entirely understandable in the light of the instrumental music that he would have been familiar with, most of it being short and unchallenging to listen to. From Beethoven’s time, however, the notion of ‘great’ instrumental music gradually emerged. It is already adumbrated, for example, in Hans Georg Nägeli’s series Répertoire des clavecinistes, where he collected piano works ‘in the grand style, of great scope, with diverse differences from the usual sonata genre’,13 including Beethoven’s three piano sonatas Op. 31. Notions of ‘greatness’ were soon being coupled with those of longevity. Beethoven himself is said to have described his ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets as intended ‘for a later age’, while George Thomson noted that in Beethoven’s folksong settings ‘he composes for posterity’.14 The notion is expressed even more explicitly in Steiner’s Museum der Klaviermusik, in which he announced in the first volume (1817), significantly containing a work by Beethoven (the Piano Sonata Op. 101): ‘Only musical products of recognised worth … will find a place in this Museum for Piano-Music …. In this way we hope to found not just an ephemeral work but a Repertory for Longer Time’.15 Even before this, in 1816, Beethoven was able to be regarded as being a ‘great master’ in music, comparable to Michelangelo in the field of painting and Shakespeare in the field of drama,16 with the implication that music was now being regarded as on a par with other great arts. How far Beethoven was responsible for this shift in aesthetic values, rather than merely a reflection of them, is of course open to debate. Writers such as Ludwig Tieck, Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder and Friedrich Wilhelm Josef von Schelling had already pointed tentatively towards a greater regard 12

See, for example, Samantha Matherne, ‘Kant’s Expressive Theory of Music’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72/2 (2014), 129–45, esp. 135. 13 ‘im grossen Styl, von grossem Umfang, in mannigfaltigen Abweichungen von der gewöhnlichen Sonaten-Form’: Intelligenzblatt no. 23 (Aug. 1803), col. 98, from AMZ, 5 (May 1803), col. 579. 14 TF, p. 409; Barry Cooper, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings: Chronology, Sources, Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 209. 15 ‘Nur musikalische Produkte von anerkanntem Werthe … werden in diesem / Museum für Klaviermusik / eine Aufnahme finden … Auf diese Weise hoffen wir nicht etwa ein ephemeres Werk, sondern ein Repertorium für längere Zeit’. 16 Maynard Solomon, ‘Beethoven’s Tagebuch of 1812–1818’, in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 193–288, at 251 (entry 79), where Beethoven is evidently quoting an unidentified source. Solomon notes even earlier comparisons between Beethoven and either Michelangelo or Shakespeare, from 1808 and 1815 respectively.

274

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

for music, especially instrumental music, around the turn of the nineteenth century.17 The sponsors of Beethoven’s annuity contract of 1809 appear to be even more in line with this aesthetic shift, in requesting ‘great, exalted works’ from him (see Chapter 7). Yet it may well be that they did so only because he himself had shown them previously unimagined possibilities on this level in his first six symphonies and other works. Since his piano sonatas, string quartets and folksong settings were being regarded as great artworks of lasting value, his symphonies, being the highest type of instrumental music,18 still more obviously belonged in this new culture, on a par with great paintings and literature, and he did more than anyone to raise the symphony to a level that it has retained ever since. Its new stature was due partly to the extended length of the symphonies, for even the Second Symphony was already longer than virtually any previous symphony, and the next, the Eroica, was much longer still, creating a sense of imposing grandeur absent from earlier symphonies or other instrumental genres. An even more important factor was the sophistication and complexity of the musical procedures in the symphonies. These were a direct result of the intensity of Beethoven’s sketching, which carried his works to new heights, and they could not have been achieved without such sketching. As has been seen, the sketches are enormously complicated to comprehend, becoming increasingly elaborate over the years, and they went much further than any preliminary preparations by previous composers, enabling the creation of works on a new level. As a result, anyone with doubts about whether instrumental music was capable of functioning as the embodiment of the ‘great artwork’ to be preserved as monuments designed for posterity could readily be persuaded by his symphonies, which had contributed so much to the ‘ennoblement’ of the art of music, as had been desired by Beethoven’s sponsors in his 1809 annuity contract. Kant could surely not have retained his former opinions, had he experienced the power and grandeur of Beethoven’s symphonies, brought about by the elaborate sketching processes coupled with a high level of originality. The addition of voices in the Ninth did not undermine this new stature for pure instrumental music or the symphony genre. For Wagner, use of voices in this work pointed the way to the Gesamtkunstwerk where voices were inevitable and indispensable, and all of Wagner’s major works rely partly on the voice. For Beethoven, however, the addition of voices was merely an option that demonstrated alternative approaches to the symphony, just as the Pastoral Symphony showed the possibilities of a ‘characteristic’ work that was still thoroughly symphonic and exhibiting elements of grandeur, rather than being just a tone poem or portrait of nature. After the Ninth was completed, 17

See Erica Buurman, ‘Beethoven and the “Work-Concept”’, The Beethoven Journal, 26/2 (2011), 4–9, esp. 5. 18 BB-1516; A-1111 (20 Dec. 1822).

Epilogue



275

there is no indication that Beethoven considered retaining the use of voices in the Tenth Symphony. The new artistic level that all these symphonies achieved is evident in the well-known awe and admiration for them felt by the next generation of symphony composers, such as Berlioz, Schumann and Mendelssohn, and later by Brahms and others. The new level can also be seen by comparing Beethoven’s symphonies with those of the two leading symphony composers of the previous generation – Mozart and Haydn. Whereas Mozart had famously written his final set of three symphonies in 1788 in only six weeks, and Haydn returned from London in 1795 with six new symphonies written within a couple of years, for Beethoven a single symphony was a major event. This is evident already from the enormous labour he expended in sketching his first symphony in 1795–6, only to abandon it almost completely the following year as inadequate for the lofty aims he had in mind; and it took another three years or more for him to realise these aims to his own satisfaction. If music was able to ‘raise mankind to the godhead’, as Beethoven claimed in a letter of 1812,19 then the symphonies were best placed among instrumental works to achieve this, being on a larger, more elevated scale than any others. This approach necessitated the score being brought as close to perfection as possible, and hence all the numerous preparatory sketches for every symphony. Even after the main sketching of a symphony was finished, Beethoven’s striving for perfection led to minutely detailed changes that can be seen in all the surviving autograph scores of the symphonies. The score of a symphony was no longer just a recipe for performers to interpret in any way they thought fit, but became the essence and embodiment of the artwork itself, and any single performance was no more than an imperfect realisation of this artwork. As a result, therefore, every significant detail had to be precisely indicated in the score, and more had to be specified by the composer than previously, in such matters as dynamics, articulation and tempo. Sometimes these details were even included in the sketches as an integral part of the creation of the work. As has been seen, Beethoven particularly struggled with indicating the tempo that would enable a work to be seen in its best light, and he even changed the time signature of the opening of the Seventh Symphony at a very late stage, to clarify his intentions. Then, when the metronome became available, he ensured that he gave metronome marks for every movement of his symphonies, whereas only one of his piano sonatas (the ‘Hammerklavier’) received similar markings; and he even failed to provide metronome marks for his Missa solemnis. On the other hand, however, the score could not specify everything, and many realisations of it were and are possible within the rigorously circumscribed limits, just as an epic poem can be read out in

19

BB-585; A-376.

276

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

more than one way, by more than one type of voice and accent. This did not negate the stature of the score as the essence of the artwork. Losses of source material The large numbers of sketches that survive must have been supplemented by far more that have been lost, as indicated in each of the previous chapters. It seems wholly improbable that Beethoven would have spent so long on sketching certain passages but not made a single sketch for other equally complex passages where no sketches survive, and the extent of lost symphony sketches can only be estimated as many hundreds of pages altogether, if not thousands. The conceptual gap between the latest sketches for most of his symphonies and the earliest versions of the autograph scores suggests that he may well have been using pocket sketchbooks or pocket leaves, quickly discarded, long before the main body of those that survive – probably as early as the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies in 1807–8. In the Sixth Symphony in particular, as well as the Seventh and Eighth, there appear to be conspicuous gaps in the sketching process, even though the relevant sketchbooks survive largely intact. It is also necessary to make allowance for Beethoven’s tendency to increase amounts of sketching as he grew older, so that although large numbers of sketches survive for the Ninth, a substantial number can be assumed to be missing. The symphonies with the lowest amount of lost sketches are probably the Eroica, the Pastoral and the Eighth Symphonies, where most of the obvious gaps in the sketch record are relatively small. Some other symphonies have fared far worse, as already indicated – notably the First, for which there are no sketches from the main sketching period (though plenty from Beethoven’s preliminary work), and the Fourth, for which there are very few sketches altogether. There is also a conspicuous absence of significant sketches for the middle two movements of the Second, and of many passages in the finales of the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth. It seems impossible to believe that Beethoven wrote these passages without some preliminary sketching. Other important source material is also lost, including the autograph scores of the first three symphonies, a copyist’s score of the Fifth that survives only in an incomplete set of photocopies, and the final version of the contrabassoon part in the Ninth. In addition, Beethoven must have had countless ideas that he did not write down, perhaps improvised at the piano, or invented but did not notate during one of his long walks. Added to these losses is the fact that the sources are often open to more than one interpretation, and sometimes even to more than one reading of his nearly illegible scrawl. Thus any account of the creation of the symphonies is bound to be both partial and somewhat speculative. Further research might add new details but it will never come close to providing a complete picture for even one of the symphonies. Nevertheless, it is perhaps surprising how much insight can be and has been deduced from



Epilogue

277

the sketches and finished scores that do survive, and some general conclusions can be obtained despite the seriously incomplete state of the sources. Diversity One of the most remarkable features of the nine symphonies – and the incipient Tenth – is their diversity of style. Though all are thoroughly characteristic of Beethoven, they are all completely different from each other. This applies even to the opening bars of each, and to the final cadence, over which Beethoven typically worked long and hard to achieve exactly the right effect. Such diversity is also found in the composing of the symphonies. One might expect an account of their creation to be essentially the same story told nine times, but in fact the sketching processes vary enormously, even when allowance is made for missing sketches, which exacerbate the differences between the different sets, and the sources generate nine very different accounts of how a Beethoven symphony was composed. Some constant features can be seen. Beethoven usually produced some kind of overview or synopsis of the work at an early stage, though not always including the minuet/scherzo until later, since this had a character that varied relatively little between symphonies. Then his detailed work always followed the movements in chronological order, though with some looking ahead to later movements or the work as a whole. Sometimes such looking ahead was quite extensive, as was seen in the case of the Seventh and Ninth Symphonies. Within individual movements, he also tended to work from the opening section onwards, though often with frequent glances at the coda and possible endings. The later stages of the sketching process of a movement tend to be refinement of detail, but sometimes they show a change of direction at a surprisingly late stage. The introduction of bird calls in the slow movement of the Pastoral Symphony is a case in point, and was perhaps prompted partly by Beethoven’s earlier song about the call of the quail (Der Wachtelschlag, WoO 129). Similarly, the broad countermelody in the slow movement of the Seventh Symphony was conceived so late that it does not figure in the extensive surviving sketches. Another example of a late change of direction is the introduction of the verse ‘Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen’ in the finale of the Ninth, which was added to the ‘Turkish’ section only after most of this had been sketched without text. An even later change occurred with the Fifth Symphony, where the third movement was drastically abridged so late that both earlier and later versions have gone into circulation. The autograph scores were often begun before the sketching was finished, but it is hard to tell how long before, or how often this happened, and it could have been a regular occurrence. Each movement in the scores was begun on a separate leaf, and so the individual movements could have been written out at different times, even if the paper is uniform. The one exception is the

278

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

finale of the Pastoral Symphony, which continues on the same leaf as the end of the ‘Storm’, implying that Beethoven saw them as composite parts of a single final movement, thus preserving the underlying four-movement structure characteristic of his symphonies. In most cases the autograph score was probably initiated with a mainly single-line draft, showing the first violin or any other instrument with important material, and it was then filled up at a slightly later stage, at which point the violin line might be altered. Again, however, it is not always possible to see whether this occurred. There is also occasional evidence of a preliminary outline score, as with some discarded pages for the Fourth Symphony, and such scores may have been more common than is generally assumed. Despite these constant features, the process of composition varied considerably between the symphonies. Whereas the main early ideas for the First Symphony, sketched so extensively in 1795–6, were set aside when Beethoven resumed work on it in 1799–1800, with the original first-movement theme transferred to the finale, the Second Symphony, written on an even larger scale than the First, had no such false start. Here, however, its extensive sketches were set aside for a period in 1801, rather than being hurriedly completed to a lesser standard; the finale was composed only after a gap of several months during which other works were written, and the precise chronology of the middle two movements remains uncertain. The Eroica had a gestation period of at least a year, and as in the First Symphony the starting-point was the theme of the finale, though for quite different reasons. Early ideas for the first three movements, however, sketched in autumn 1802, were almost completely abandoned when the work was taken up the following summer. Although the Fourth Symphony was evidently written quickly, at the prompting of Count Oppersdorff, the next two symphonies did not emerge until some four years after the earliest ideas found in them, for there are signs of both among Beethoven’s sketches of early 1804, before any clear indication of the Fourth, though they were not ready for performance until 1808. By this time his symphonies were becoming widely recognised for their monumental quality, and the sketches had played a major role in achieving the new status for the symphony as a genre. The opening of the Fifth was, bizarrely, derived from a secondary theme in an abandoned fantasia for piano, and the motivic unity of the work emerged only gradually during the sketching process; yet the work’s iconic stature and striking coherence were quickly recognised after E. T. A. Hoffmann’s famous review of 1810. The starting-point for the Sixth was entirely different and reflected Beethoven’s love of the countryside, as embodied in a series of random jottings: a folk dance; a comment about the sound of a brook; and an idea for a ‘lustige Sinfonia’. Like the abandoned piano fantasia, the first two of these ideas appear not to have been intended initially as the beginnings of a new symphony, while the actual theme of the ‘lustige Sinfonia’ was not used.



Epilogue

279

Sketches for the Seventh Symphony began in a relatively conventional way, although Beethoven seems to have decided at an early stage to place an emphasis on repeated rhythmic patterns. The sketches also show that he developed ideas for the later movements more fully than usual while working on the first movement. The earliest sketches for the Eighth Symphony indicate a piano concerto, which was transformed into a symphony only after a few pages of sketching. The second movement was transformed in a different way, starting out as a conventional adagio before being replaced after a few pages by a whimsical Scherzando. The Ninth, though begun with conventional sketching in 1817 after a request from the Philharmonic Society of London, eventually incorporated an earlier idea for the second movement, supposedly conceived in the Augarten and intended at one time for a string-quintet movement; and the early sketches were set aside for even longer than they had been with any of his earlier symphonies, not being taken up again until near the end of 1822, which is when the first signs of Schiller’s An die Freude appeared among them. Apart from possibly the Second and Fourth Symphonies, all of the nine draw on material originally intended for a very different context. An abandoned first-movement theme was borrowed for the finale of the First, and a ballet theme for the finale of the Eroica. A motif for piano became the startingpoint for the Fifth, and a country-dance theme and the sounds of a brook, plus some bird calls, were extraneous ideas incorporated into the Pastoral. An abandoned slow-movement theme was revived for the Seventh (though we may probably dismiss the pilgrim hymn that has been associated with the third movement, and we can certainly dismiss the Irish folksong as the basis for the finale). Themes for a piano concerto were transformed for the Eighth (though again we can dismiss the supposed origin of the Scherzando, clearly a Schindler fabrication); and the Ninth, besides borrowing a theme from an abandoned string quintet, adapted a text by Schiller that Beethoven had already attempted to set many years earlier, now combined with a structure adumbrated in the Choral Fantasia of 1808. This pattern of Beethoven using earlier material in some way in his symphonies continued with the sketches for the Tenth and its recall of the theme of the Adagio of the Pathétique Sonata, creating yet another type of origin for material incorporated into a symphony. Yet from such disparate ideas Beethoven was able to generate highly original and inspiring compositions, by means of intensive sketching unparalleled by earlier composers, achieving a sense of unity of character for each of the nine symphonies, coupled with remarkable diversity between them. Much still remains to be investigated, especially with the later symphonies, where many of the sketches have not yet been published in transcription. Moreover, those that have been transcribed with commentary are often open to fresh interpretation, regarding both their implications and their chronology, as well as their actual readings. Meanwhile the autograph scores contain numerous changes which, though fairly insignificant individually, all contribute to the

280

The Creation of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies

overall effect of the symphonies, and these changes still await full documentation and assessment. There is also scope for making further connections with other Beethoven works or even those by other composers, whether earlier, later or contemporary with him. The symphonies and their sources provide almost limitless scope for further exploration beyond the present study. As a corpus they remain unmatched, and they have probably done more than any other work to transform perceptions of the art of music.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Music manuscripts See Index of Music Manuscripts, below. Literature Albrecht, Theodore, ‘Benjamin Gebauer, ca. 1758–1846: The Life and Death of Beethoven’s “Copyist C”, with Speculation Concerning Joseph Arthofer, ca. 1752–1807’, Bonner Beethoven-Studien, 3 (2003), 7–22. ––, ‘“Mit Verstärkung des Orchesters”: The Orchestral Personnel at the First Public Performance of Beethoven’s Eroica’, in The New Beethoven, ed. Jeremy Yudkin (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2020), pp. 161–202. ––, trans. and ed., Letters to Beethoven and Other Correspondence, 3 vols (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1996). Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1798–1848). Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, mit besondere Rücksicht auf den österreichischen Kaiserstaat (Vienna: Steiner, 1817–24). Anderson, Emily, trans. and ed., The Letters of Beethoven, 3 vols (London: Macmillan, 1961). Anon., ‘Folk-Songs in Symphonies’, The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular, 34/609 (1893), 652–3. Baker, Nancy Kovaleff, and Thomas Christensen, eds and trans., Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Beethoven, Ludwig van, ‘Nachricht’, Wiener Zeitung, 30 Oct. 1802, pp. 3916–17. Berlioz, Hector, A Critical Study of Beethoven’s Nine Symphonies … [selected from Berlioz’s A travers chants], trans. Edwin Evans (London: W. Reeves, 1913, repr. 1958). Biba, Otto, ‘Concert Life in Beethoven’s Vienna’, in Beethoven, Performers, and Critics: The International Beethoven Congresss Detroit, 1977, ed. Robert Winter and Bruce Carr (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980), pp. 77–93. ––, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonie Nr. 3, Es-Dur, op. 55 ‘Eroica’: PartiturManuskript (Beethovens Handexemplar). Vollständige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat. Orchesterstimmen der Uraufführung und früher zeitgenossischer Aufführungen: Verkleinerte Reproduktion, 4 vols (Vienna: Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien, 1993). Brandenburg, Sieghard, ‘Beethovens Skizzen zum zweiten Satz der 7. Symphonie

282

Bibliography

Op. 92’, in Bericht über den Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress, Bonn 1970, ed. Carl Dahlhaus et al. (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1971), pp. 355–7. ––, ‘Beethovens Streichquartette op. 18’, in Beethoven und Böhmen, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg and Martella Gutiérrez-Denhoff (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1988), pp. 259–310. ––, ‘Die Beethovenhandschriften in der Musikaliensammlung des Erzherzogs Rudolph’, in Zu Beethoven 3: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1988), pp. 141–76. ––, ‘Die Skizzen zur Neunten Symphonie’, in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), pp. 88–129. ––, ‘Ein Skizzenbuch aus dem Jahre 1812. Zur Chronologie des Petterschen Skizzenbuches’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Annotationen, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1979), pp. 117–48. ––, ‘Once Again: On the Question of the Repeat of the Scherzo and Trio in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony’, in Beethoven Essays: Studies in Honor of Elliot Forbes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 146–98. ––, ed., Kesslersches Skizzenbuch, 2 vols [transcription and facsimile] (Bonn: Beethovenhaus, 1976–8). ––, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, 7 vols (Munich: Henle, 1996–8). ––, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Sechste Symphonie F-dur Opus 68: Sinfonia pastorale; Faksimile nach dem Autograph BH 64 im Beethoven-Haus Bonn (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2000). Bresch, Sigrid, ‘Kompositorische Änderungen in der Partitur der 9. Symphonie nach den ersten Aufführungen 1824?’, in Probleme der symphonischen Tradition im 19. Jahrhundert: Internationales Musikwissenschaftliches Colloquium Bonn 1989, Kongressbericht, ed. Siegfried Kross (Tutzing: Schneider, 1990), pp. 113–43. Broyles, Michael E., Beethoven: The Emergence and Evolution of Beethoven’s Heroic Style (New York: Excelsior, 1987). Buurman, Erica, ‘Beethoven and the “Work-Concept”’, The Beethoven Journal, 26/2 (2011), 4–9. ––, ‘Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement Structures in his Instrumental Works’, Ph.D. diss. (University of Manchester, 2013). ––, ‘New Evidence in an Old Argument: Beethoven’s Metronome Mark for the Trio of the Ninth Symphony’, The Musical Times, 152/1917 (Winter 2011), 15–30. ––, ‘Three Symphonies in One Year? Beethoven’s Sketches of 1812’, Ad Parnassum, 16/31 (Apr. 2018), 35–48. Cadenbach, Rainer, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Fünfte Symphonie c-moll opus 67: Faksimile nach dem Autograph in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Laaber: Laaber, 2002). Caecilia, eine Zeitschrift für die musikalische Welt (Mainz: Schott, 1824–48). Cahn, Peter, ‘Beethovens Entwürfe einer d-moll Symphonie von 1812’, Musiktheorie, 20/5 (2005), 123–9. Churgin, Bathia, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien II,



Bibliography

283

ed. Bathia Churgin, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/2 (Munich: Henle, 2013). ––, ‘The New Editions of Beethoven’s Symphonies 3 (Eroica) and 4’, Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 13 (2015), 85–92. Clive, Peter, Beethoven and his World: A Biographical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Cook, Nicholas, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Piano Concerto: A Case of Double Vision?’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 42 (1989), 338–74. ––, Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Cooper, Barry, Beethoven (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; 2nd edn, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). ––, Beethoven and the Creative Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). ––, ‘Beethoven and the Double Bar’, Music & Letters, 88 (2007), 458–83. ––, Beethoven’s Folksong Settings: Chronology, Sources, Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). ––, ‘Beethoven’s Ukraine Connection: New Light on the Creation of his Flute Variations Opp. 105 and 107’, The Beethoven Journal, 36 (2023), forthcoming. ––, ‘Beethoven’s Unfinished Symphonies’, in Beethoven Studies 4, ed. Keith Chapin and David Wyn Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 44–81. ––, ‘The Clementi–Beethoven Contract of 1807: A Reinvestigation’, in Muzio Clementi: Studies and Prospects, ed. Roberto Illiano, Luca Sala and Massimiliano Sala (Bologna: Ut Orpheus, 2002), pp. 337–53. ––, The Creation of Beethoven’s 35 Piano Sonatas (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017). ––, ‘Newly Identified Sketches for Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony’, Music & Letters, 66 (1985), 9–18. ––, ‘The Origins of the Opening Motif in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony’, Ad Parnassum, 37 (Oct. 2021 [2022]), 1–19. ––, Review of Lockwood and Gosman, eds, ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, in NineteenthCentury Music Review, 12 (2015), 131–5. ––, ‘Review of Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphonien V: Nr. 9 d-Moll Opus 125, ed. Beate Angelika Kraus’, The Beethoven Journal, 35 (2022), article 6. ––, ‘Schindler and the Pastoral Symphony’, The Beethoven Newsletter, 8/1 (1993), 2–6. ––, ‘Subthematicism and Metaphor in Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony’, Ad Parnassum, 1/1 (Apr. 2003), 5–22. ––, ed., The Beethoven Compendium (London: Thames & Hudson, 1991). ––, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonie Nr. 10: Erster Satz, vervollständigt von Barry Cooper (Vienna: Universal Edition, 2nd edn, 2013). Czerny, Carl, On the Proper Performance of All Beethoven’s Works for the Piano, ed. Paul Badura-Skoda (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1970). Del Mar, Jonathan, ‘Composing the Ninth’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie No. 9 Op. 125 Autograph: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ed. Lewis Lockwood, Jonathan Del Mar and Martina Rebmann (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2010), pp. 7*–10*.

284

Bibliography

––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 1 in C major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 2 in D major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1998). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major ‘Eroica’: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 4 in B-flat major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1999). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 5 in C minor: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 1999). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 6 in F major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 1998). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 7 in A major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bӓrenreiter, 2000). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 8 in F major: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1997). ––, Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 in D minor: Critical Commentary (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1996). ––, ed., Beethoven: Symphonie Nr. 1(–9), 9 vols (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1999-2001). Dorfmüller, Kurt, Norbert Gertsch and Julia Ronge, Ludwig van Beethoven: Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis, 2 vols (Munich: Henle, 2014). Dufner, Jens, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien III, ed. Jens Dufner, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/3 (Munich: Henle, 2013). Earp, Lawrence, ‘Tovey’s “Cloud” in the First Movement of the “Eroica”: An Analysis Based on Sketches for the Development and Coda’, Beethoven Forum, 2 (1993), 55–84. Ellison, Paul M., The Key to Beethoven (Hillsdale: Pendragon Press, 2014). Fishman, Nathan L. ed., Kniga eskizov Beethovena za 1802–1803 gody, 3 vols [facsimile, transcription and commentary for Wielhorsky Sketchbook] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal´noe izdatel´stvo, 1962). Floros, Constantin, Beethovens Eroica und Prometheus-Musik: Sujet-Studien (Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen, 1978). Forbes, Elliot, ed., Thayer’s Life of Beethoven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd edn, 1967). Frogley, Alain, ‘Beethoven’s Struggle for Simplicity in the Sketches for the Third Movement of the “Pastoral” Symphony’, Beethoven Forum, 4 (1995), 99–134. Frohlich, Martha, Beethoven’s ‘Appassionata’ Sonata (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). ––, ‘Sketches for Beethoven’s Fourth [Piano Concerto] and Fifth [Symphony]: A Long Neglected Source’, Bonner Beethoven-Studien, 1 (1999), 29–48. Fuchs, Ingrid, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Musikautographe in öffentlichen Wiener Sammlungen (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2004). Geck, Martin, Beethoven’s Symphonies: Nine Approaches to Art and Ideas, trans. Stewart Spencer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017; originally published as Die Sinfonien Beethovens: Neue Wege zum Ideenkunstwerk, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2015). Goldschmidt, Harry, ‘“Und wenn Beethoven selber käme …”: Weitere Aspekte



Bibliography

285

zum Mälzelkanon’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Dokumente 2, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), pp. 185–204. Gossett, Philip, ‘Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony: Sketches for the First Movement’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 27 (1974), 248–84. Green, James F., The New Hess Catalog of Beethoven’s Works (West Newbury: Vance Brook Publishing, 2003; originally published as Willy Hess, Verzeichnis der nicht in der Gesamtausgabe veröffentlichten Werke Ludwig van Beethovens, Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1957). Grove, George, Beethoven and His nine Symphonies (London: Novello, 1896). Gülke, Peter, Zur Neuausgabe der Sinfonie Nr. 5 von Ludwig van Beethoven: Werk und Edition (Leipzig: Peters, 1978). Hepokoski, James, and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Hess, Willy, ‘Zum ursprünglichen Schluss des 1. Satzes von Beethovens Achter Symphonie’, Schweizerische Musikzeitung, 101 (1961), 112–14. ––, ed., Original-Klavierauszüge eigener Werke, Beethoven: Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1964). ––, ed., Werke für Orchester, Beethoven: Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe, vol. 4 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1961). Hill, Cecil, ‘Early Versions of Beethoven’s Second Symphony’, Musicology, 6 (1980), 90–110. Howell, Standley, ‘Beethoven’s Maelzel Canon: Another Schindler Forgery?’, The Musical Times, 120 (1979), 987–90. Hyatt King, Alexander, ‘Mountains, Music and Musicians’, The Musical Quarterly, 31 (1945), 395–419. Jander, Owen, ‘Exploring Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie as a Source Used by Beethoven’, The Beethoven Newsletter, 2 (1987), 1–7. John, Kathryn, ‘Das Allegretto-Thema in op. 93, auf seine Skizzen befragt’, in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsätze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1984), 172–84. Johnson, Douglas, ‘Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the “Fischhof Miscellany”: Berlin Autograph 28’, Ph.D. diss. (University of California, Berkeley, 1978). ––, Beethoven’s Early Sketches in the ‘Fischhof’ Miscellany: Berlin Autograph 28, 2 vols (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1980). ––, Alan Tyson and Robert Winter, The Beethoven Sketchbooks, ed. Douglas Johnson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Jonas, Oswald, ‘The Autograph of Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony’, Music & Letters, 20 (1939), 177–82. Jones, David Wyn, Beethoven: Pastoral Symphony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). ––, The Symphony in Beethoven’s Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Kallick, Jenny, ‘A Study of the Advanced Sketches and Full Score Autograph for the First Movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, Opus 125’, Ph.D. diss. (Yale University, 1987).

286

Bibliography

Kerman, Joseph, ‘Beethoven Sketchbooks in the British Museum’, Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association, 93 (1966–7), 77–96. ––, ‘Beethoven’s Minority’, in Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven: Studies in the Music of the Classical Period – Essays in Honour of Alan Tyson, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 151–73. ––, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Autograph Miscellany from 1786 to 1799 … (the ‘Kafka Sketchbook’), 2 vols (London: British Museum, 1970). Kinderman, William, Beethoven: A Political Artist in Revolutionary Times (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2020). ––, Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). Kirby, F.E., ‘Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony as a Sinfonia Caracteristica’, The Musical Quarterly, 56 (1970), 605–23. Klein, Hans-Günter, Ludwig van Beethoven: Autographe und Abschriften: Katalog (Berlin: Merseburger, 1975). Klimowitzki, Abraham, ‘Autograph und Schaffensprozess: Zur Erkenntnis der Kompositionstechnik Beethovens’, in Zu Beethoven: Aufsätze und Annotationen, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1979), pp. 149–66. Knowles, John K., ‘The Sketches for the First Movement of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony’, Ph.D. diss. (Brandeis University, 1984). Koch, Heinrich Christoph, Musikalisches Lexicon (Frankfurt: August Hermann, 1802). ––, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols (Leipzig: Adam Friedrich Böhme, 1782–93; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969). Köhler, Karl-Heinz, and others, ed., Ludwig van Beethovens Konversationshefte, 11 vols (Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1968–2001). Kopitz, Klaus Martin, and Rainer Cadenbach, ed., Beethoven aus der Sicht seiner Zeitgenossen, 2 vols (Munich: Henle, 2009). Korte, Oliver, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie Nr. 7, A-Dur, op. 92: Faksimile nach dem Autograph aus der Biblioteka Jagiellońska. Kraków (Laaber: FigaroVerlag, 2017). Kramer, Richard, ‘Beethoven and Carl Heinrich Graun’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 18–44. ––, ‘The Sketches for Beethoven’s Violin Sonatas, Opus 30: History, Transcription, Analysis’, Ph.D. diss. (Princeton University, 1973). Kraus, Beate Angelika, ‘Kritischer Bericht’, in Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien V, ed. Beate Angelika Kraus, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/5 (Munich: Henle, 2020). Küster, Konrad, Beethoven (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1994). Kunze, Stefan, Ludwig van Beethoven: Die Werke im Spiegel der Zeit (Laaber: Laaber, 1996). Ladenburger, Michael, ‘Aus der Not eine Tugend: Beethovens Symphonien in Übertragung für kleinere Besetzungen’, in Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten, ed. Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008), pp. 17–28. ––, ‘Der Wiener Kongress im Spiegel der Musik’, in Beethoven: Zwischen Revolution und Restauration, ed. Helga Lühning and Sieghard Brandenburg (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1989), pp. 275–306.



Bibliography

287

–– and Bernhard R. Appel, eds, Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten: Wege zu Beethovens Symphonien [From No. 0 to No. 10: Ways to Beethoven’s Symphonies] (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008). La Rue, Jan, rev. Eugene K. Wolf, ‘Symphony: I. 18th Century’, in Grove Music Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.27254 (accessed 2 August 2023) (oxfordmusiconline.com). Lawson, Colin, ‘Beethoven and the Development of Wind Instruments’, in Performing Beethoven, ed. Robin Stowell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 70–89. Levy, David B., Beethoven: The Ninth Symphony (New York: Schirmer, 1995; 2nd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Lockwood, Lewis, ‘The Autograph of the First Movement of Beethoven’s Sonata for Violoncello and Pianoforte, Opus 69’, The Music Forum, 2 (1970), 1–109. ––, ‘Beethoven’s Earliest Sketches for the “Eroica” Symphony’, The Musical Quarterly, 67 (1981), 457–78. ––, ‘Beethoven’s Sketches for Sehnsucht (WoO 146)’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 97–122. ––, Beethoven’s Symphonies: An Artistic Vision (New York: Norton, 2017). ––, Beethoven: The Music and the Life (New York and London: Norton, 2003). ––, ‘The Compositional Genesis of the “Eroica” Finale’, in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. William Kinderman (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 82–101. ––, Review of Dagmar Weise, ed., Beethoven: Ein Skizzenbuch zur Pastoralsymphonie Op. 68 und zu den Trios Op. 70, 1 und 2, in The Musical Quarterly, 53 (1967), 128–36. –– and Alan Gosman, ed., Beethoven’s ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, 2 vols (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013). ––, Jonathan Del Mar and Martina Rebmann, eds, Ludwig van Beethoven: Sinfonie No. 9 Op. 125 Autograph: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, Bibliothèque nationale de France (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2010). Lorenz, Christoph F., ‘Beethovens Skizzen zur “Pastorale”’, Die Musikforschung, 38 (1985), 95–108. Marston, Nicholas, ‘Beethoven’s “Anti-Organicism”? The Origins of the Slow Movement of the Ninth Symphony’, in The Creative Process (New York: Broude Brothers, 1992), pp. 169–200 (no named editor). ––, ‘Stylistic Advance, Strategic Retreat: Beethoven’s Sketches for the Finale of the Second Symphony’, Beethoven Forum, 3 (1994), 127–50. Matherne, Samantha, ‘Kant’s Expressive Theory of Music’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72/2 (2014), 129–45. Meredith, William, ‘Forming the New from the Old: Beethoven’s Use of Variation in the Fifth Symphony’, in Beethoven’s Compositional Process, ed. William Kinderman (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), pp. 102–21. Mikulicz, Karl Lothar, ed., Ein Notierungsbuch von Beethoven aus dem Besitz der Preussischer Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin [transcription of Landsberg 7] (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1927). Nottebohm, Gustav, Beethoveniana (Leipzig: Peters, 1872).

288

Bibliography

––, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, [1865]). ––, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven aus dem Jahre 1803 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880). ––, Zweite Beethoveniana (Leipzig: Peters, 1887). Orel, Alfred, ‘Der ursprüngliche Schluss des 1. Satzes in Beethovens VIII. Sinfonie’, Schweizerische Musikzeitung, 90 (1950), 50–3. Prod’homme, Jacques-Gabriel, Les symphonies de Beethoven (1770–1827) (Paris: Delagrave, 1906). Raab, Armin, ed., Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonien I, Neue Beethoven Gesamtausgabe, I/1 (Munich: Henle, 1994). Riepe, Juliane, ‘Eine neue Quelle zum Repertoire der Bonner Hofkapelle im 18. Jahrhundert’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 60 (2003), 97–114. Rivera, Benito V., ‘Rhythmic Organization in Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony: A Study of Cancelled Measures in the Autograph’, 19th-Century Music, 6 (1983), 241–51. Ronge, Julia, ‘Anmerkungen zur Dirigierpraxis der Beethoven-Zeit’, in Von der Nullten bis zur Zehnten, ed. Michael Ladenburger and Bernhard R. Appel (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2008), pp. 39–49. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Dictionnaire de musique (Paris: Veuve Duchesne, 1768). Rovelli, Federica, ‘Eine autographe Spur zu Beethovens 1. Symphonie op. 21’, Bonner Beethoven-Studien, 12 (2016), 103–6. Saglietti, Benedetta, La Quinta sinfonia di Beethoven recensita da E. T. A. Hoffmann (Rome: Donzelli, 2020). Schenker, Heinrich, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: A Portrayal of its Musical Content, with Running Commentary on Performance and Literature as Well, trans. John Rothgeb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992; originally published as Beethovens Neunte Symphonie, Vienna: Universal Edition, 1912). Schindler, Anton, Beethoven as I Knew Him, trans. Constance Jolly, ed. Donald W. MacArdle (London: Faber and Faber, 1966; originally published as Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven, Münster: Aschendorff, 1860). Schmidt, Hans, ‘Die Beethovenhandschriften des Beethovenhauses in Bonn’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 7 (1969–70 [1971], 1–364. ––, ‘Verzeichnis der Skizzen Beethovens’, Beethoven-Jahrbuch, 6 (1965–8 [1969]), 7–128. Schönfeld, Johann Ferdinand von, Jahrbuch der Tonkunst von Wien und Prag (Vienna: Schönfeld, 1796). Sessions, Roger, The Musical Experience of Composer, Performer, Listener (New York: Atheneum, 1962). Sipe, Thomas, Beethoven: Eroica Symphony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Solomon, Maynard, Beethoven (New York: Schirmer, 1977). ––, ‘Beethoven’s Tagebuch of 1812–1818’, in Beethoven Studies 3, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 193–288. Steblin, Rita, Beethoven in the Diaries of Johann Nepomuk Chotek (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 2013). Temperley, Nicholas, ‘Beethoven in London Concert Life, 1800–1850’, Music Review, 21 (1960), 207–14.



Bibliography

289

Thayer, Alexander Wheelock (rev. Hermann Deiters and Hugo Riemann), Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, 5 vols (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1907–23). Tusa, Michael, ‘Beethoven’s “C-minor Mood”: Some Thoughts on the Structural Implications of Key Choice’, Beethoven Forum, 2 (1993), 1–29. ––, ‘Die authentische Quellen der “Eroica”’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, 42 (1985), 121–50. Tyson, Alan, ‘Beethoven in Steiner’s Shop’, Music Review, 23 (1962), 119–27. ––, ‘Das Leonore-Skizzenbuch (Mendelssohn 15): Probleme der Rekonstruktion und der Chronologie’, Beethoven-Jahbuch, 9 (1973–7), 469–99. ––, ‘The Problem of Beethoven’s “First” Leonore Overture’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 28 (1975), 292–334. ––, ‘A Reconstruction of the Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook (British Museum Add. MS. 31766)’, in Beethoven Studies [1], ed. Alan Tyson (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 67–96. Van der Zanden, Jos, ‘Reassessing Ferdinand Ries in Vienna: Ramifications for Beethoven Biography’, Nineteenth-Century Music Review, 17 (2020), 1–20. Volek, Tomislav, and Jaroslav Macek, ‘Beethoven’s Rehearsals at the Lobkowitz’s’, The Musical Times, 127 (1986), 75–80. Wegeler, Franz, and Ferdinand Ries, Remembering Beethoven, trans. Frederick Noonan (London: André Deutsch, 1988; originally published as Biographische Notizen über Ludwig van Beethoven, Koblenz: Bädeker, 1838). Weise, Dagmar, ed., Beethoven: Ein Skizzenbuch zur Pastoralsymphonie Op. 68 und zu den Trios Op. 70, 1 und 2 (Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1961). Westphal, Kurt, Vom Einfall zur Symphonie: Einblick in Beethovens Schaffensweise (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965). Will, Richard, The Characteristic Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Beethoven (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Winter, Robert, ‘The Sketches for the “Ode to Joy”’, in Beethoven, Performers, and Critics, ed. Robert Winter and Bruce Carr (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980), pp. 176–214. Witcombe, Charles, ‘Beethoven’s Markings in Christoph Christian Sturm’s Reflections on the Works of God in the Realm of Nature and Providence for Every Day of the Year’, The Beethoven Journal, 18/1 (2003), 10–17. Young, David, Beethoven’s Symphonies Revisited: Performance, Expression and Impact (Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press, 2021). Zimmer, Mark, ‘Liebe: The Discovery and Identification of a Beethoven Song Lost since 1822’, The Musical Times, 157/1937 (Winter 2016), 13–34.

Websites (all accessed 2 August 2023) The Beethoven Gateway website: https://www.sjsu.edu/beethoven/resources/ beethoven-gateway.php Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Digitalisierte Sammlungen: https://digital. staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/?mode=new&formquery0=beethoven Bonn, Beethoven-Haus, Digital Archive: https://www.beethoven.de/en/archive/ list/5110862327054336/Works London, British Library: https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/BriefDisplay.aspx

290

Bibliography

New York, Juilliard Collection: https://juilliardmanuscriptcollection.org Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Catalogue général: https://catalogue. bnf.fr/index.do Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Library, Digital Library: https://dpul. princeton.edu/scheide/catalog/9019s254t Spokane, Moldenhauer Archives: https://www.loc.gov/collections/moldenhauerarchives/?fa=contributor:beethoven,+ludwig+van

INDEX OF MUSIC MANUSCRIPTS Named sketchbooks Artaria see Berlin Autograph see Berlin and Krakόw Boldrini (lost) ​234–6, 244–6 Engelmann see Bonn, HCB Mh 60 ‘Eroica’ see Krakόw, Landsberg 6 Fischhof Miscellany see Berlin, Autograph 28 Grasnick see Berlin Kafka Miscellany see London, Add. 29801 Kessler see Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, A 34 Kullak see Berlin, Autograph 24 Landsberg see Berlin and Krakόw Mendelssohn see Berlin and Krakόw Rolland see Bonn, NE 111 Sauer (composite) ​45 Scheide see Princeton Wielhorsky see Moscow Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung (Bsb) Available digitally at: https://digital. staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/?m ode=new&formquery0=beethoven Artaria 126 (WoO 36 autograph) ​20 Artaria 153 (sketch leaves) ​65, 131 Artaria 185a (incomplete string quintet) ​ 235 Artaria 201 (sketchbook) ​239–41, 250, 269 Artaria 205/2 (pocket sketchbook) ​172 Artaria 205/4 (pocket sketchbook) ​242, 258 Artaria 205/5 (pocket sketchbook) ​242–3, 245–9

Autograph 2 (Op. 125 autograph) ​48, 246, 260–2, 265 Autograph 9/1 (pocket sketchbook) ​270 Autograph 10/2 (pocket sketchbook) ​111 Autograph 11/1 (sketchbook) ​233 Autograph 19e (sketchbook plus loose leaves) ​112–19, 122 Autograph 20/1, 2, 4 (Op. 93 autograph, except III) ​219–22 Autograph 24 (Kullak Sketchbook) ​270–1 Autograph 28 (Fischhof Miscellany) ​6, 22–4, 26–8, 30 Autograph 35,8 (Clementi-Beethoven contract) ​109 Autograph 35,69 (price list) ​271 Grasnick 1 (sketchbook) ​240 Grasnick 20b (sketch leaves) ​238–9 Landsberg 7 (sketchbook) ​35–46, 118 Landsberg 8/1 (sketchbook) ​242–5 Landsberg 8/2 (sketchbook) ​242, 245–53, 256–9 Landsberg 9 (sketchbook plus loose leaves) ​123–4 Landsberg 10 (sketch miscellany) ​31, 47–52, 124–9, 133, 149–64 Landsberg 12 (sketch miscellany) ​45–51, 98–103, 106–7, 121, 124, 127, 129–31, 134, 147–50, 160–1, 164 Mendelssohn 8 (Op. 67 autograph) ​ 131–7, 139–41, 147 Mendelssohn 12 (Op. 60 autograph) ​ 100–7 Mendelssohn 15 (sketchbook) ​94–5, 97 Mendelssohn 20 (Op. 67 fragment) ​ 133–4 Bologna, Accademia Filarmonica (Baf) Sketch leaf (see JTW, p. 215) ​190

292

Index of Music Manuscripts

Bonn, Beethoven-Haus (BNba) Digital Archive: https://www. beethoven.de/en/archive/ list/5110862327054336/Works BH 64 (Op. 68 autograph) ​165–8 BH 105 (sketch leaf) ​172–5, 184 BH 119 (sketch leaf) ​197, 208, 213 BH 120 (sketch bifolio) ​187, 190, 198 BH 122 (sketch leaf) ​197, 209 BH 123 (sketch leaf) ​185–7 HCB BMh 5/45 (Op. 125 fragment) ​ 260–1 HCB BMh 8/48 (Op. 93 fragment) ​220 HCB BS II/2a and BS II/2b (agreement with Steiner) ​225 HCB BSk 7/55 (sketch fragment) ​230 HCB BSk 8/56 (sketch leaf) ​236–7 HCB BSk 11/59 (excerpts from Sulzer) ​5 HCB BSk 12/60 (sketch fragment) ​230–1 HCB BSk 17/65a (sketch leaves) ​95–7 HCB BSk 20/68 (sketch leaves) ​242, 269–70 HCB Mh 28 (Op. 125 fragments) ​261–2 HCB Mh 33 (WoO 134 autograph) ​131 HCB Mh 53 (Op. 92 corrected copy) ​195 HCB Mh 59 (Petter Sketchbook) ​118, 172–91, 194, 197–220, 229–30, 240, 254 HCB Mh 60 (Engelmann Sketchbook) ​ 242–4 HCB Mh 73 (sketch leaf) ​149, 158–60 HCB Mh 74 (sketch leaf) ​149 HCB Mh 85 (sketch leaf) ​187 HCB Mh 86 (sketch leaf) ​219–20 NE 110 (sketch leaf) ​187 NE 111 (Rolland pocket sketchbook) ​ 242, 250 NE 114 (sketch leaf) ​235 NE 126 (sketch leaf) ​197, 210 NE 128 (sketch fragment) ​190–1 NE 146 (Op. 68 corrected copy) ​166–9 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska (Kj) Published in microfiche in Musikhandschriften der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Munich: Saur, 2002-5)

Autograph 8/1 (pocket sketchbook) ​242, 250, 260 Autograph 8/2 (pocket sketchbook) ​242, 259 Autograph 20/3 (Op. 93.III autograph) ​ 219–22 Landsberg 6 (‘Eroica’ Sketchbook) ​56, 65–84, 94–5, 112–14, 116–22, 127, 144–7, 152, 154, 158 Mendelssohn 2 (pocket sketches) ​234, 237 Mendelssohn 9 (Op. 92 autograph) ​177, 192–5, 222 Ljubljana, National and University Library (Lng) MZ 1765/1955 (Op. 68 second corrected copy) ​167–9 London, British Library (Lbl) Available digitally at: https://www.bl.uk/ manuscripts/BriefDisplay.aspx Add. 29801, ff. 39-162 (Kafka Miscellany) ​ 6, 20–30 Add. 31766 (Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook) ​148–64 Moscow, Glinka Museum (Mcm) F. 155 no. 1 (Wielhorsky Sketchbook) ​ 56, 62–5, 73, 77, 80, 118, 122 New York, Juilliard Collection (NYj) Available digitally at: https:// juilliardmanuscriptcollection.org Sketch leaf (Op. 125) ​234 New York Public Library (NYpm) Fuld Collection (SV 353) ​187 Oxford, Bodleian Library (Ob) Ms Tenbury 777 (Op. 92 corrected copy) ​ 224



Index of Music Manuscripts

293

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Pn)

Stockholm, Stiftelsen Musikkulturens främjande (SMf)

Available digitally through Catalogue général: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ index.do Ms 19 (Op. 93 fragment) ​220–1 Ms 43 (Op. 125 fragment) ​261 Ms 44 (sketch leaves) ​128–30 Ms 45 (sketch leaves) ​124, 128–9 Ms 57/2 (sketch leaf) ​244 Ms 96 (sketch leaves) ​244 W. 7, 1 (Op. 92 piano arrangement) ​177, 225

MMS 273 (sketch fragment) ​197, 209

Princeton, Princeton University, Scheide Library (PRscheide) 30.14 (also cited as M. 130: Scheide Sketchbook) ​230–2, 243 Available digitally at https://dpul.princeton. edu/scheide/catalog/9019s254t St Petersburg, Rossiyskaya Natsional′naya Biblioteka (Russian National Library, formerly the M.E. Saltïkov-Shchedrin Library) (SPsc) Autograph 438/2, N 50 (sketch fragment) ​ 190–1 Spokane, Moldenhauer Archives (SPma) Sketch leaf (unnumbered) ​230 Available digitally at https://www.loc.gov/ collections/moldenhauer-archives/?fa =contributor:beethoven,+ludwig+van

Vienna (Wien), Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (Wgm) A 26a (Op. 60 corrected copy) ​108, 110 A 34 (Kessler Sketchbook) ​31, 45–6, 48–57 A 36 (sketch miscellany) ​175 A 37 (sketch leaf) ​124–7, 129 A 38A (sketch leaves) ​124–6 A 49 (Op. 107 No. 4 plus sketches) ​237 A 50 (part of Landsberg 8/2 sketchbook) ​ 259, 270 A 59 (sketch leaves) ​124, 129 A 75 (exercises and sketches) ​22 XIII 2457 Faszikel A (Op. 93 timpani part) ​220–1 XIII 6148 (Op. 60 performing parts) ​ 108–9 Weimar, Nationale Forschungs- und Gedenkstätten (WRgs) 60/Z33 (sketch leaf) ​234 Privately owned Friskin bifolio, SV 350 (sketches for Opp. 58 and 67) ​122–3 Nelahozeves Castle, shelf mark X.G.c.18 (Op. 60 performing parts) ​108–9 Sotheby’s leaf (Op. 68 sketches: see LvBWV, vol. 1, p. 375) ​148, 164

INDEX OF BEETHOVEN’S WORKS Canons

Choral music

‘Falstafferel’ (WoO 184)  242, 246 ‘Freu dich des Lebens’ (WoO 195)  270

Choral Fantasia  112, 265, 279 Christus am Oelberge  57, 65, 117 Mass in C  101, 112, 124, 147 Mass in D (Missa solemnis)  238, 265–6, 275

Chamber music (i) with wind folksong variations (Op. 107 No.4)  237 Horn Sonata (Op. 17)  30 Septet (Op. 20)  30, 32

Folksong settings

(ii) for piano and strings Cello Sonata in A (Op. 69)  58, 137 Cello Sonata in D (Op. 102 No.2)  235 3 quartets (WoO 36)  20, 121 3 trios (Op. 1)  17 2 trios (Op. 70)  137, 149, 247 Trio in B flat (‘Archduke’, Op. 97)  172 3 violin sonatas (Op. 12)  30 Violin Sonata in A minor (Op. 23)  35 Violin Sonata in F (Op. 24)  35, 45 3 violin sonatas (Op. 30)  55, 206 Violin Sonata in A (‘Kreutzer’, Op. 47)  65

Orchestral music

(iii) for strings alone Fugue for String Quintet (Op. 137)  235 Grosse Fuge (Opp. 133, 134)  18, 270 6 Quartets (Op. 18)  30, 42, 85 3 ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets (Op. 59)  37, 51, 97–8, 107, 112, 123, 129, 175, 183, 273 Quartet in E flat (Op. 74)  172 Quartet in F minor (Op. 95)  172 3 ‘Galitzin’ Quartets (Opp. 127, 130, 132)  259, 270 Quartet in C sharp minor (Op. 131)  271 Quartet in F (Op. 135)  271 Quintet in C (Op. 29)  45, 56 Quintet in C minor (Op. 104)  18

‘Miller of Dee, The’ (XVI/4)  112 ‘O thou art the lad’ (VII/3)  232 ‘Robin Adair’ (VII/2)  232 ‘Save me from the grave and wise’ (V/13)  183–4 ‘Wann i in der Früh’ (IX/4)  150

Overture ‘Namensfeier’  190, 203, 218, 233, 240, 254 Piano Concerto No. 1:  32 Piano Concerto No. 2:  32 Piano Concerto No. 3:  30, 56–7, 59, 84 Piano Concerto No. 4:  97, 107, 115–16, 123, 200, 203 Piano Concerto No. 5 (‘Emperor’)  172 Symphony No. 1:  11, 15–17, 19–34, 72, 91, 108 Symphony No. 2:  11, 15–17, 35–60, 69, 72, 98, 108, 274 Symphony No. 3 (Eroica)  10–11, 14–15, 17, 61–93, 108, 111, 124, 143, 145, 274 Symphony No. 4:  11–12, 15, 17, 94–110, 112, 124, 147 Symphony No. 5:  11, 15, 17, 111–41, 147, 170, 223 Symphony No. 6 (Pastoral)  11, 15, 17, 101, 136–8, 142–70



Index of Beethoven’s Works

Symphony No. 7:  11–12, 15, 17, 171–99, 207, 223–7 Symphony No. 8:  2, 11–13, 15, 17, 197–227 Symphony No. 9:  2, 10–11, 13–15, 17, 51, 199, 203, 228–69, 271 Triple Concerto  87, 94–5, 97, 122 Violin Concerto  98, 110, 124, 129 Wellingtons Sieg  223–4, 230 see also Unfinished, lost and projected works Piano (i) sonatas 3 sonatas Op. 2:  121 Op. 13 (Pathétique)  52, 269 Op. 14 No. 1:  17 Op. 22:  32 Op. 26:  45, 64, 92, 118 2 sonatas Op. 27:  4, 45, 144 Op. 28:  45, 144 3 sonatas Op. 31:  56–7, 62, 118, 214, 273 Op. 49 No. 1:  28 Op. 53 (‘Waldstein’)  90, 144, 146 Op. 57 (‘Appassionata’)  97–8, 129, 209 Op. 101:  144, 273 Op. 106 (‘Hammerklavier’)  144, 209, 275 Opp. 109–11:  111–12, 209, 238–9, 241 WoO 47:  144 (ii) variations Op. 34 in F:  57, 62 Op. 35 (Prometheus)  57, 62–3, 80–1 Op. 120 (Diabelli)  183, 209, 238, 243 WoO 63 (Dressler)  111–12 WoO 71 (Wranitzky)  21–2 WoO 78 (‘God Save the King’)  60 WoO 79 (‘Rule Britannia’)  47 WoO 80 (C minor)  112 (iii) marches 3 marches for piano duet (Op. 45)  60 Songs and music for solo voices Abendlied (WoO 150)  238 Das Glück der Freundschaft (Op.88)  144 Der Wachtelschlag (WoO 129)  60, 157

295

Nei giorni tuoi felici (WoO 93)  65 Sehnsucht (WoO 134 No. 2)  131, 134 Tremate, empi, tremate (Op. 116)  55–6, 223, 265 Stage music Coriolan Overture  112 Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus  44–5, 62–4 Die Ruinen von Athen  172–3, 175, 198 223, 233 Die Weihe des Hauses  239, 265 Egmont  172 Fidelio (or Leonore)  94–5, 97, 112, 122–3, 147 König Stephan  172, 198, 233 Leonore see Fidelio Unfinished, lost and projected works Adagio in E flat (1812)  203 dances (1801)  46 Europens Befreiungsstunde (1814)  223 Fantasia in C minor (1804)  113, 120, 122 Kyrie (1804)  147 Piano Concerto in D (Unv 6, Hess 15)  209 Piano Concerto in G (1812)  203 polonaises (1812)  203 sketch in D minor (1815)  230–1 song An die Freude (1798)  240 song Ich wiege dich (Hess 137)  30 String Quintet in C (WoO 62)  271 String Quintet in D minor (Unv 7, Hess 40)  234–5 symphonies (U12–U16, 1812)  198–9, 229 symphonies (U17–U19, 1812)  204, 229 symphonies (U24–U30, 1814–16)  230–1 Symphony No. 0 (Unv 2)  6, 21–31, 275 Symphony No. 7, arr. for piano  17, 77, 225 Symphony No. 10 (Unv 3)  1, 4, 219, 236, 239, 242–3, 248–9, 269–71 Symphony in C minor (U1, Unv 1, Hess 298)  1–2, 20, 111, 114, 121 Symphony in C (U2, 1790)  20–1 Symphony in C (U4, c. 1798)  30 Symphony in F (lustige Sinfonia, U7, 1804)  146

296

Index of Beethoven’s Works

Symphony in D minor (U8, 1804)  117, 122 Symphony in D minor (U20, 1812)  205, 228–9 Symphony in E minor (U21, 1812)  208

Symphony in C minor (U22, 1812)  218 Symphony in E flat (U23, 1812)  219 Variations on a funeral march from Saul  238–9 Vestas Feuer  85, 94, 146

GENERAL INDEX Aachen  266 Abercromby, General Ralph  61–2 accidentals  8, 87, 95, 101 Albrecht, Herr  98 Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung  32, 91–2, 108, 110, 140, 170, 267 André, Johann (publisher)  59 antiquity see Greece, Ancient arrangements  16–18, 60, 225 articulation  8, 33–4, 151–2, 174, 184 artistic aims  1, 5, 8, 19 Augarten  222–3, 232–4 autograph scores  8, 58, 85–6, 100–6, 131–5, 139, 165–8, 177, 192–5, 220–2, 227, 246, 260–2, 266, 275–8 see also Index of music manuscripts Bach, Johann Christian  4 Bach, Johann Sebastian  143, 272 Beer, Heinrich  139 Beethoven, (Caspar) Carl van (brother)  56–7, 59, 84, 88–90 Beethoven, Karl van (nephew)  234, 238, 262, 264, 267 Beethoven, (Nikolaus) Johann van (brother)  267 Berlin  21, 25, 28, 139, 149, 262 Berlioz, Hector  275 Bernadotte, General Jean  61 Bertolini, Joseph von  61 Birchall, Robert  224–6 birdsong  144, 148, 150, 155–7, 166, 170, 232–3 Bonaparte see Napoleon Bonn  4 Bossler, Heinrich (publisher)  144 Brahms, Johannes  51, 275 Brandenburg, Sieghard  48, 52, 132, 140, 167, 187, 197, 229, 246 Bratislava see Pressburg Braun, Baron Peter von  56

Breitkopf & Härtel  15, 17, 89, 136, 139, 168 see also correspondence Brentano, Franz and Antonie  203 Bresch, Sigrid  264 Breslau (Wrocław)  269 Browne-Camus, Countess Anna Margaretha von  22 Broyles, Michael E.  28 Bruckner, Anton  21 Burgtheater  11, 32, 262 Bureau des Arts et d’Industrie see Kunstund Industrie-Comptoir Caecilia  267 Cappi, Giovanni (publisher)  17 ‘characteristic’ music  73, 80, 92, 142–4, 150, 161, 270, 274 Cherubini, Luigi  91, 95 Chotek, Johann Nepomuk  11 Cianchetti & Sperati  15 Clement, Franz  10, 91 Clementi, Charles  264 Clementi, Muzio  109–10, 172 Clive, Peter  98 codas, coda sketches  43–4, 54–5, 73, 76–8, 83–4, 96–7, 115, 120, 154–8, 179–80, 185, 213, 220–2 commissions  9–10, 98, 124, 132, 233–4, 239, 242 concerts see performances conversation books  141, 262, 267, 269 copies, manuscript  86, 108, 136, 138 for performers  86–90, 108–9, 136, 167, 263–4 for publishers  33, 59, 90, 109, 136–8, 140, 166–8, 195, 224–7, 266 Corelli, Arcangelo  143 correspondence personal  57, 131–2, 138, 144, 172, 183, 224, 233–4, 237–9

298

General Index

with Breitkopf & Härtel  56–7, 59, 62, 84, 88–91, 97–8, 107–8, 136–9, 165, 168–9, 172, 206 with Hoffmeister  32–3 with Schott  265–7 with Simrock  84–5 with other publishers  59, 265 Czerny, Carl  17, 225, 228 recollections  61–2, 112, 197, 224, 232–3, 259 deafness  14, 62, 208–9, 232, 265 dedications  22, 32–3, 85, 98, 170, 224, 226, 266 Der Freymüthige  91, 93 Diabelli, Anton  17, 195, 225–6 Doll, Anton  256 Dornbach  155 Dryden, John  143 Dufner, Jens  137–8, 141, 169 Dussek, Jan Ladislav  223 Dvořák, Antonín  51 dynamics  8, 176, 179, 186, 195, 215 Eberl, Anton  91 Eberl, Caspar Josef  32 editions, first  14–15, 33, 59, 92, 110, 139–40, 168–70, 226, 266–8 editions, other  139–40 Eisenberg  91 errors  14, 33–4, 59, 87–8, 91, 139–40, 221, 226, 267–8 Beethoven’s  96, 99, 103, 178 Esterházy, Prince Nikolaus  9 extemporisation  32, 36, 276 extramusical influences see ‘characteristic’ music finale problem  27–31, 55, 80 finances see income Fischenich, Bartolomäus  240 folk music  145, 151, 183–4 see also Index of works: Folksong settings form  4, 39, 74–7, 80–2, 125–7, 180, 216–17, 258 minuet-and-trio form  42, 104–5, 116, 122, 133–4, 137, 158–9, 195, 206 rondo form  23, 74 sonata form  4, 7, 47–8, 50–1, 185, 209 France, wars with  9, 171

Frankfurt  266 Friedrich Wilhelm III, King  266–7 Fries, Count Moritz von  36, 226, 266 fugue, fugato  74, 76–7, 81–3, 194, 231, 236–7, 239, 246, 258 Gabrieli, Giovanni Sacrae symphoniae  3 Galitzin, Prince Nikolas  270 Gebauer, Benjamin  86 Gebauer, Franz Xaver  269 Gelinek, Abbé Joseph  17 Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde  9, 13, 239 Gläser, Peter  261 Gleichenstein, Baron Ignaz von  171 Goldschmidt, Harry  212 Gosman, Alan  74, 78, 119–20 Graeffer, Anton  166 Grätz (Hradec)  97–8 Greece, Ancient  143, 236–7, 240 Griesinger, Georg August  136 Grosse Redoutensaal  11–12, 223, 262, 265 Grove, George  1 Gülke, Peter  133, 140 Haitzinger, Anton  265 Handel, George Frideric  143, 272 handwriting  31, 192, 251–2, 266, 276 Härtel, Gottfried  90, 137–8, 140–1, 167 Haslinger, Tobias  17, 225, 262–4, 271 Haydn, Joseph  3–4, 33 Creation, The  32 Seasons, The  143 string quartets  4, 21 symphonies  34, 116, 143, 213, 275 Heiligenstadt  65, 145, 155 Heiligenstadt Testament  57, 62 Hill, Cecil  35 Hoffmann, E. T. A.  278 Hoffmeister, Franz Anton (publisher)  15 see also correspondence Holz, Karl  271 Homer  92 Howell, Standley  212 humour  213 illnesses  234, 260 improvisation see extemporisation income from patrons  85, 89, 98, 124, 132, 138, 171, 263



General Index

from performances  10 from publishers  59, 109–10, 224, 265 influences see models innovations in style see originality instruments orchestra  120, 146, 165, 187, 208, 215, 231, 236 percussion  132, 257 strings  12–13, 37, 78, 180–1, 211, 222 wind  12–13, 32, 46, 78, 81–3, 93, 116, 131–2, 161, 182, 261–2 Jäger, Franz  265 Johnson, Douglas  21, 28 Jones, David Wyn  145, 167 Kant, Immanuel  273–4 Karlsbad  203, 206–7 Kärnthnerthor Theater  11, 222, 262–3, 265 Kassel  171 Keglevics, Countess Babette von  22 Kerman, Joseph  155 Kessler, Ferdinand  266 key scheme (for movements)  25, 39, 41–2, 46–7, 54, 66, 70–2, 76, 78, 115, 126–7, 153, 155, 177, 182, 189–91, 200, 218, 246–7 key scheme (for works)  25, 30, 64, 118, 173, 206, 235, 238 Kinsky, Prince Ferdinand  171, 222 Kirchhoffer, Franz Christian  263 Klumpar, Joseph  104–5, 110, 134, 136–7, 166 Knecht, Justin Heinrich  144 Knowles, John K.  175 Koch, Heinrich Christoph  5, 144 Kühnel, Ambrosius (publisher)  17 Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoir  15–17, 59, 90, 110 Leipzig  12, 137–9, 169–70, 266 letters see correspondence Lichnowsky, Prince Karl  97–8 Lichnowsky, Count Moritz  262 Linz  219–20 Liszt, Franz  17 Lobkowitz, Prince Franz von  10–12, 85–7, 91, 108–9, 136–7, 167, 170–1, 222 Lockwood, Lewis  1–2, 62, 74, 78, 80, 84, 119–20

299

London  12, 224, 233–4, 237 Louis Ferdinand, Prince  89, 92 Maelzel, Johann  212, 230 Malfatti, Therese  144 Marston, Nicholas  35 Maximilian Franz, Elector  4, 33 Mendelssohn, Felix  139, 275 Meredith, William  117, 125 metronome marks  9, 104, 177, 212, 253, 266–7, 275 Mikulicz, Karl Lothar  37 mistakes see errors models  34, 134–5 Mollo, Tranquillo (publisher)  16 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus  4, 33, 95, 272 symphonies  32, 34, 43–4, 121, 134–5, 143, 275 Munday, John  161 Mysliveček, Josef  4 Nägeli, Johann (Hans) Georg Répertoire des clavecinistes  273 Napoleon  15, 61, 74, 84–7, 89, 92 Neate, Charles  224, 233, 263 notation  6–7, 48, 74, 103, 115, 176–8, 260 Nottebohm, Gustav  1, 22, 35, 48, 65–7, 76, 80, 82, 113, 115–16, 119, 129–31, 134, 150, 174, 209, 212–13, 221, 235, 251–2, 259 Oberdöbling  65 Oberglogau (Glogówek)  98, 131 Oliva, Franz  141 Oppersdorff, Count Franz von  10, 98, 108–9, 124, 131–2, 138 originality  37, 66–8, 71–2, 84–5, 131, 164 ornamentation  178 Pagliardini  264 paper, manuscript  6, 20–1, 28, 46, 98, 106, 109, 118, 148, 158, 165, 175, 192, 220 Paris  84–5, 87 performance practice  12–14 performances private  12, 89, 91, 98, 108 public  9–13, 32, 58–9, 91, 109, 138, 167–8, 170, 198, 223–4, 227, 264–6 trial  11–12, 87–9, 167, 222, 227

300

General Index

periods see stylistic periods Pest  172, 198 Petrarch  95 Philharmonic Society (of Laibach = Ljubljana)  168 Philharmonic Society (of London)  10, 12, 233–6, 239, 242, 263–4 Piringer, Ferdinand  108 Pleyel, Ignaz  4, 222 as publisher  110 politics  92 Prague  21–2, 28, 192, 219 Preisinger, Joseph  265 Pressburg (Bratislava)  22 Probst, Heinrich (publisher)  17, 265 proofreading  14, 33, 88, 91, 226–7 Purcell, Henry  3, 143 Rampl, Wenzel  195 Raudnitz (Roudnice)  89 Ravel, Maurice  24 Razumovsky, Count Andreas  170 register  73, 102, 186–7, 199–200, 217 repeats  51–2, 64, 69, 88–90, 191 rests see silences reviews  32, 35, 58–9, 91, 93, 195–6, 278 Riemann, Hugo  251 Ries, Ferdinand  59–60, 84–5, 87, 233–4, 240, 242, 266, 269 recollections  57–8, 65, 85–6, 89 Rochlitz, Friedrich  92 Rossini, Gioachino  262, 265 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques  272 Rovelli, Federica  31 Rudolph, Archduke of Austria  8, 12, 171, 209, 222 Salieri, Antonio  87 Salomon, Johann Peter  224 Sammartini, Giovnni Battista  3 Scarlatti, Alessandro  3 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Josef von  273 Schiller, Friedrich An die Freude  218, 228, 237, 239–41, 254–6 Schindler, Anton  61, 111, 154–5, 212, 262–4 Schlesinger, Moritz (publisher)  265 Schott’s (publisher)  15, 17, 265–7 Schreiberbach  155 Schubert, Franz  254

Schulz, Johann Adolph Peter  5 Schumann, Robert  275 Schünemann, Georg  135, 137, 140 Schuppanzigh, Ignaz  263–5 Schütz, Heinrich Symphoniae sacrae  3 Scots Musical Museum, The  272 Seipelt, Joseph  265 Seyfried, Ignaz  57, 259 Shakespeare, William  273 silences  68–9, 74, 236, 246 Simrock, Nikolaus (publisher)  15, 84, 87, 110 sketches see Index of music manuscripts sketching process  6–8, 26, 28, 39, 45, 95 slow introductions  4, 22–4, 36–41, 63, 152, 172–4, 176–7 Smart, Sir George  224 Solomon, Maynard  273 sonata form see form Sonnleithner, Leopold  259 Sontag, Henriette  265 Speyer, Edward  183 Spiker, Samuel  267 Stadler, Abbé Maximilian  183 Stamitz, Johann  3–5 Stanford, Charles  183 Stein, Friedrich  17 Steiner, Sigmund Anton (publisher)  15–17, 224–6, 273 structure  3–4, 42, 117, 144, 166, 173, 239–41, 243 Sturm, Christian Betrachtungen über die Werke Gottes  157 stylistic periods  4 Sulzer, Johann Georg  5 Swieten, Baron Gottfried van  33, 272 synopsis sketches  26, 28, 30, 62, 81, 117–22, 151–2, 174–5, 203, 206, 238–40, 277 technical demands  13, 168–9, 195–6 Teplitz  203, 206–7, 219 Thayer, Alexander Wheelock  132, 223 Theater an der Wien  11, 58, 91, 222, 262 thematic transformation  83, 161 Thomson, George  273 Tieck, Ludwig  273 Tonkünstler-Societät  9 Trieste  264 Tyson, Alan  98–100, 123–4, 148, 173, 197



Umlauf, Michael  264–5 Unger, Caroline  265 University Hall  11, 222 Vanhal, Johann Baptist  4 variants, random minor  96 Viganò, Salvatore  44 Vienna  passim

General Index Wackenroder, Wilhelm Heinrich  273 Wagenseil, Georg Christoph  3 Wagner, Richard  274 Watts, William (publisher)  17 Westphal, Kurt  35 Wiener Zeitung  16, 60, 92, 223, 227 Winter, Robert  246, 250–1 Wranitzky, Anton and Paul  143 Würth, Joseph  12, 91

301