The Growth of a Musical Idea-Beethoven's Opus 96 Mary Rowen Obelkevich One of the most fascinating aspects of Beethoven scholarship is an examina- tion of his extant manuscript sources for a composition from the first rough ideas to the polished work of art. In this study I shall concentrate upon the various factors which played a role in his creation of the G major sonata for violin and piano, Opus 96, including the borrowing, manipulation, and revision of musical ideas within the structural fabric of the composition. There are four main manuscript sources which contain Beethoven's progressive work on Opus 96-Beethoven Autograph Ms. 41 of the Gesell- schaft cler Musikfreunde, Vienna; the Petter sketchbook; Ms. 60 of the Conservatoire National, Paris, Collection Malherbe; and the autograph score of the sonata owned by the Pierpont Morgan Library of New York City,! The earliest of these documents, Ms. 41, contains a draft of the melody which Beethoven utilized as the theme of the Finale of Opus 96, as well as sketches for the Chorfantasie, Opus 80, and the beginning of the Goethe song, fXAMPU I .. ,;,- --. .. - . . . C .J I '"'Q 'I' ]IT ... ¢ !f : - ..,.4- 1-4\-- ......... • ..... + .-v. fit I I I "Kennst du das Land" (in its second version). I call the presentation of the Opus 96 melody a draft rather than a sketch, because it is not a broad scheme for the structure of an extended musical area, nor does it represent detailed work on a problematic compositional section; rather, it has the appearance of a small, well-determined musical entity. The incomplete 91 elements in the notation of the melody's setting seem to be abbreviations employed by Beethoven to facilitate the copying-out process rather than omissions of content due to creative indecision on his part. Key signature, meter, and clefs are self-evident. The manuscript is undated and is not known to have been part of a specific conglomerate of sketches. However, Beethoven completed the third sketched item, "Kennst du das Land," during the summer of 1810, before his first meeting with Bettina von Arnim. Therefore, it is likely that the sheet was compiled during the prior months, perhaps from the endofl809. 2 (Ex. I). The accompanied tune bears a striking resemblance to Jobsen's song, "Der Knieriem bleibet, meiner Treu!" from Der lustige Schuster, the second part of the comic opera Der Teufel ist los, with text by C. F. Weisse and music by J. C. Standfuss. Both parts of this Singspiel survive only in a revised and augmented version by Johann Adam Hiller. Standfuss may well have taken the folk-like tune from the second strain of a song, "Ich bin nun wie ich bin," found in Sperontes' collection Der singende Muse an der Pleisse. Only specula- tions may be made as to the precise origins of the melody.3 (Ex. II). $i,; ; J J 1 11, $ 1, 1; I, '1 1"'11 1'2 ) ) IDI) #111 af. Iqr-ltes- -le Ar-xe. be,! d4 I1t", Iiki __ bltr l4-d' ", .• 9 ¥J* m 1, 'it 111 t 11 It] \1 J I, 'J 1 J J' J I J 1 1 ei - ne Q 1£b I t3 lU 1$ U 11' D I@ 1 I; ele . .f.r,.' _________ .. _ ____ _ _ . _____________________ "eJ There are, of course, many means by which Beethoven may have become acquainted with this well-circulated tune. Neefe, who was one of Beethoven's earliest teachers, was a student, admirer, and close friend of Hiller. 4 Un- doubtedly, Beethoven heard his instructor praise Hiller, and probably studied some of Hiller's vocal compositions. Also, some of Hiller's immensely popular Singspiele were among the operas presented at the court of Bonn during Beethoven's youth. 5 In fact, Hiller's operas were on the boards well into the 19th century. It is plausible that Beethoven attended a production of Der Teufel ist los given in December 1809 in Vienna. Although surviving 92 records indicate that only the first part of this work was presented, it is very likely that, according to custom, the second halffollowed a day to a few weeks later. At this time, Beethoven may well have become attracted to the rollick- ing tune with its earthy quality, humor, and potential for artistic manipu- lation. 6 The next important source of Opus 96 consists of some sketches found in the Petter sketchbook. This manuscript is composed of two sections which, although unrelated in physical characteristics and content, were bound together. The first of these is short, containing 12 folios, and probably dates from the winter of 1808-09. The second, however, is much more extensive; it consists of 65 folios representing work from the middle of 1811 into the following year. 7 Sketches of Opus 96 come from this latter portion of the compilation, occupying much of the last pages of the manuscript (721', 73v-r, 74v). Immediately preceding the sketches of Opus 96 are some for the 8th Sym- phony, which was completed in October 1812. Following the sonata (74r) is a sketch of the song "An die Geliebte," first setting, Wo 0140. These folia contain ink sketches which serve as melodic guides to the last three movements of Opus 96. As far as I know, this is the first place where Beethoven wrote out a broad outline for the sonata. The main themes, continuity between movements, and some melodic detail are fairly well established. In addition to these sketches, there are some crayon sketches- which seem to be different in purpose-for the Adagio on 72r and the Allegro Moderato on 73v. The crayon Adagio sketches are modifications of the ink ones. The Allegro sketches also appear to be revisions of an earlier model, but no set of ink sketches for this movement is present in the Petter sketch- book. It seems likely that the crayon sketches were written a good deal later than the ink ones, perhaps after Beethoven had started to write out his autograph score of Opus 96, and that, having referred to the Petter sketch- book for this purpose, he found it necessary to experiment with some of the musical ideas before composing his finished version. 8 (Ex. III). A comparison of the above version of the Poco Allegretto theme with that in Ms. 41 presents some features of great interest. The themes are quite similar in overall contour, despite the striking divergences. The beginning of the second section of the melody (m. 9) reveals a combination of a mis- leadingly innocent melodic alteration with what might be called a harmonic insertion between the simple tonic and subdominant harmonies of Ms. 41 (mm. 8 and 9 respectively). In the Petter version, Beethoven alters the melody by retaining the shape of his opening motive, that is, leaping up a fourth from to B rather than ascending a half-step to G. The scalewise descent of a tetra chord is retained in both versions. This tetra chord has, of course, the same intervallic construction as either tetrachord of a major scale. Thus, the first in Ms. 41 functions as the third of a lower tetrachord starting on D, and so implies the scale/harmonic color ofD major. Beethoven enters the subdominant key area, and maintains it until the dominant of the 93 penultimate measure. In the Petter version, the F$ functions as the first tone of an upper tetrachord carrying the harmonic implication of the dominant ofB major, the majored mediant area ofG major. A closely related change that Beethoven makes from the Petter theme to his final version in the Morgan autograph is that of altering the first F$ of m. 9 to an A$. In contrast to the preceding harmonic simplicity, this A$ leading- tone, remote from the system of G major, reinforces the turning point in harmonic emphasis. The A$-B leading-tone-tonic implication is paralleled in m. 13, where Beethoven gains the subdominant by using B as the leading tone of C. Consequently, he attains this main structural area of the earlier 94 N oK S)· ltr4d.:ds A. 5HTCll£S of AI>MIO ", iwr 'l$' I 't!1 ru 1::3 I t1l:J I 'Ij;j ]1[: [$,If r t:l±1 I 0 , , lIi' i!L , r , "Ij 1 vl.s16L.f IN Tke FAoC--SIMllf] .. 01 V1.J 1-:11 UO 1-3 ,"res -;:- ;41" " V -U -;T' .fori" .. . . .. --V 1:.J -, 1 1 1 p/4"D m-..-- - '" .- .. XVi 0 I , b 0' FACSIMILE 95 [for Adagio] FACSIMILE ,:'i;"";. , .... r1J 0;;::-.. ,Jlkll. Hv " 1 1 1'" " f f , F' .. .. FACSIMILE 96 D. FACSIMILE. Morgan autograph score, opening of the Poco Allegretto, p. 29. version after a "delay" of four measures, a harmonic extension which adds a sophisticated polish to the charming folk-like quality of the tune. Another of the differences between the settings of Ms. 41 and the Petter sketchbook is that in the earlier version Beethoven terminates the melody on the tonic final, whereas in the Petter sketch, on the third degree. The tonic final brings the melodic motion to a halt, giving the tune its aspect of com- pletion, a short but fulfilled musical entity. In the second version, however, the function of the tune has changed-it is now the theme of a continuous chain of variations. Thus, Beethoven's simple change has had a far-reaching effect on the artistic utility of his musical subject. The third extant source of Opus 96 is Ms. 60 of the Conservatoire National, Collection Malherbe. Max Unger catalogued and briefly annotated these holdings. Ms. 60 contains Beethoven's work on two compositions, Opus 96 (the last movement only) and the C major Mass, Opus 86. The work on the sonata was independent of that on the Mass, which was composed during 1807 and performed on September 12 of that year. Unger characterizes the section on Opus 96 as a "Bruchstiick aus dem Finale der Sonate in G dur fUr Violin u. Klavier, W. 96, unbekannte Fassung, in Partiturmassigen Niederschrift."9 I wish here to identify these fragments in greater detail. 4-C •M • 97 In the following example, parts A and B are reproductions of the two pages in Ms. 60 containing work on Opus 96, highly dissimilar both in appearance and in function. (Ex. IV). A is on a sheet of paper ruled with twenty staves. There are five triple staves of score, with every fourth staff left blank. This format is also used 98 EXAMPLE IV Part A Part B I " l .......... ' • ,I; ; throughout most of the Morgan autograph. The paper, scoring, and style of handwriting of these two sources are strikingly similar, with meticulous indications of dynamics, rests, and accidentals. As was often Beethoven's practice in fair copy, clefs and key signatures are indicated only in the first measure (of the movement or folio). The writing is, for Beethoven, extremely neat and legible; even the few minor revisions are notated with care-in short, we have Beethoven's fair copy. B, in Querjormat, contains three systems of score, each separated by a blank staff. Both handwriting and musical content are far less finished than in A. B is a composing score, a working draft, no longer a sketch but not yet a finished copy. It is a musical continuation of A, but not part of the fair copy. There may have been a more polished version ofB which was, indeed, in fair copy and corresponded to the second page of the Finale in the Morgan autograph. From various documents surrounding the first two performances of Opus 96, we know that Beethoven composed two versions of the last movement. These concerts took place on December 29, 1812, and January 7, 1813, with the Archduke Rudolph pianist, Pierre Rode violinist. Rode, from all accounts, disappointed everyone's expectations. Apparently, he was well past his prime by 1812, and even critics who had been his 99 admirers in earlier years failed to find the same fine qualities in his playing. For instance, Louis Spohr, no light appraiser of other violinists' abilities, wrote of the young Rode that the more he heard him perform, the more over- come he was by his playing. In a letter, however, written several months before the first concert, Spohr warned the Archduke that he missed Rode's former boldness in conquering great difficulties. Spohr's review of Rode's recital in the Viennese Redoutensaal, which took place one day before the second performance of Opus 96, was far less diplomatic. He found the playing cold and mannered, the violinist's technical security shattered, his passage work sloppy and unsure. 10 Beethoven must have been all the more disappointed since he had gone out of his way to accommodate the whims and abilities of his violinist. It is very likely that the Archduke was excited and flattered at the prospect of per- forming with a famous foreign artist and that Beethoven, whose income depended almost exclusively upon Rudolph's generosity, had no wish to jeopardize the success of the performance. In a letter written to the Archduke shortly before the first performance,ll Beethoven mentions the care taken in revising portions of the last movement and assures him that all will go well: " ... In view of Rode's playing I have had to give more thought to the composition of (the last) movement. In our Finales we like to have fairly noisy passages, but Rode does not care for them-and so I have been rather hampered ... " Nevertheless, the performance did not go very well. According to a review in Gl6ggl's Musikzeitung, "The piano part was played with more soul than the violin part; Mr. Rode's greatness does not lie in this type of music but in the performance of the concerto."12 The letter to the Archduke hints at two elements guiding Beethoven's newer version: Rode's playing, with, one assumes, its growing unreliability, and his preference for the legendary "French tradition" of violin writing. This style features mannered rather than bravura passages, polished har- monic and melodic embellishments, delicate phrases, an overall gloss of highly controlled brilliance-elements characteristic of the compositions (especially the concerti) of Rode himself. The rondo-like variation form is fully in keeping with the concerti of Viotti, Kreutzer, Baillot, Rode, Spohr, and others of that school, although it was certainly not bound to the French influence. However, the Allegretto of Beethoven's sonata was conceived prior to and independently of any specific consideration of Rode's musical person- ality. The kinds of changes which Beethoven made from Ms. 60 to the version in the Morgan autograph confirm these observations. The basic structure of the composition has been fully retained, despite the alterations. These latter fall into three categories: technical simplification of the violin part; refinement of the piano part, giving more finesse to the left hand by soften- ing the reiterated rhythmic pulses of the octaves (especially in mm. 4, 5, 8, 16) and filling in the harmonic colors formerly supplied by the violin; 100 and changing of several details of melodic figuration (especially from m. 19 on). In m. 17 the first note is still the F# of Ms. 41 rather than the A# of the Morgan autograph. A of Ms. 60, nonetheless, is very similar to the final version. The most important late manuscript source of Opus 96 is Beethoven's autograph score of the sonata.l 3 This document, signed and dated by the composer, is exceedingly well preserved. The score comprises twelve large sheets of paper, each folded over to provide four pages. These four-page gatherings were, in turn, sewn together into the present order. Two sets of small, rough-edged holes, punched through the bulk of the manuscript, give evidence of an earlier, more rudimentary binding, quite possibly improvised by Beethoven himself.l4 A piece of thread may have been pulled through these punctures in order to hold the individual gatherings together, but to allow sheets to be removed and inserted without difficulty. Someone other than Beethoven has numbered the upper outside corner of each page of music in pencil. Aside from these penciled numbers, the first six pages of the last movement (29-34) were numbered 1 to 6 by Beethoven in ink, presumably when he replaced the earlier version with this one. Some pages of the score have been left blank, as indicated in the following chart: Allegro Moderato, pp. 1-8 Scherzo, pp. 17-21 Adagio, pp. 25-28 Poco Allegretto, pp. 29-44 p. 9 blank, beginning of gathering which extends through p. 12 pp. 14--16 blank, completion of gathering which starts on p. 13 pp. 22-24 blank, completion of gathering which starts on p. 21 one gathering, no blank pp. pp. 45-46, which complete the final gathering, are blank. Most of these blank pages seem to indicate revisions of the sonata which were too extensive to be made directly in the text. Beethoven copied these passages onto fresh gatherings in order to assure a neat manuscript which could be bound by joining the four-page units. Thus, he avoided tearing out a rejected page when he could have done so without detaching good material as well. He probably found it necessary to copy music retained from the replaced gathering onto the new one, and then to continue with the revised music. For this reason, we usually cannot determine where alterations begin, although we assume that they probably end very near to the blank portion of each gathering. Page 9 was left blank under different circumstances. There are numerous corrections throughout p. 8, indicating that Beethoven had more difficulty in writing out the music (of mm. 172-90) than he had anticipated. He seems to have proceeded to the following measures, and to have left a blank page for possible further changes. The above chart also indicates that in the Morgan autograph, the Scherzo 101 is bound in front of the Adagio. This order is the reverse of the position of these movements in the Petter sketches, the Steiner first authentic edition of the sonata, and the early Birchall edition.15 Furthermore, the former order- ing defies musical logic. In the Morgan score, the key signature of the Scherzo is notated , indicating that this movement follows one written in three fiats. The first movement, in G major, hardly satisfies this requirement. The Adagio, however, is in the fiat submediant area ofG, namely E fiat. The most convincing musical proof of the sequence of movements is offered by a revision at the end of the Adagio, the bridge section leading to the Scherzo. (Ex. V.) £XAMVlE i "1,Ir' .,.. .. ,Ic-, J. p. 102 FACSIMILE The chief difference between this passage and its final revision lies in the metric structure. The discarded section may be divided into the following broad phrase units, determined primarily by rate of harmonic motion. (Ex. VI.) , (4- *' #- j c.:1 I"'" t ... , (#1 Two features of the above scheme work against a fluid and tightly unified transition into the Scherzo: m. 62 falls on the weakest part of the phrase, and the spondaic organization ofmm. 62-64 is abandoned in m. 65, reverting to the less assertive trochees featured throughout the earlier portion of the movement. As early as the Petter sketches, Beethoven seems to have been striving for an unbroken union of the Adagio with what is now the Scherzo. No distinction is made between the movements; they are not independently labeled, or separated by double bars. Moreover, the harmonies glide into one another in a remarkably smooth progression. However, Beethoven does not commit himself to a written statement of the transition itself. Perhaps his first attempt to compose the passage is represented by this deleted section of the auto- graph score. 103 Measure 62 of this earlier version anticipates the Scherzo through its metric organization. The Adagio, up to m. 62, contains two main pulses to the bar, a stressed and an unstressed. The Scherzo, on the other hand, has only one pulse per measure. Thus, the spondaic pattern introduced in m. 62 links these schemes; the tempo of the Scherzo is set by the half-measure pulses ofm. 62 which, in turn, derive from the duple meter of the Adagio. These same features are prominent in Beethoven's revision of the passage. Measure 62 no longer shares the harmonies of m. 61, but is set in the tonic. Thus, the structural harmonic weight of the tonic coupled with the new rhythmic organization combine to draw our attention to m. 62. This latter measure is now established as the beginning rather than the end of a phrase grouping. (Ex. VII.) (vnOIW3U MJ d3V;Jj:H 3W:JtbS j" fl/OIl''tlJ..IYCJ) Y/10IWJH "''''JnNIWIJ EXAMPLE VII .. •. 1;1' , fI,,t D; " ""';' l' In the final version Beethoven alters the metric scheme to unify it with that of the Scherzo. The hemiolia figure, now shifted to the cadence, is extremely effective, for whereas it does not break the metric continuity between movements, it differentiates them and gives the impression of slowing down without actually slackening the tempo. This device permits the rhythmic scheme to end in a state of uncertainty, which, coupled with the harmonic ambiguity of the tritone, is resolved by the Scherzo. One might say that measures 62 ff. are as much a part of one movement as the other. It is this unusual kind of bridge-and there is an analogous instance leading to the final Poco Allegretto-that gives the sonata its remarkable inner unity, its seamless flow of music, a quality shared by many of Beethoven's later works. Although the Morgan autograph is a fair copy, some extensive insertions, corrections, and revisions demonstrate that Beethoven was still in the process of composing the sonata. I shall discuss some of the most important of these in the order in which they occur in the final version of the composition. The first major revision is found in the Allegro Moderato, p. 5 of the auto- graph score. (Ex. VIII.) Beethoven may have discarded this draft ofmm. 101-08 because it antici- pates a return to the opening motive of the composition and a harmonic progression to the dominant, both of these features tending to diminish the scope of the development section and the impact of the recapitulation. Therefore, in the final version of this passage, he introduced an additional melodic element (m. 102) taken from m. 84 of the exposition. He also altered 104 the harmonic color of the later version; the earlier passage seems to attain the dominant in m. 108, whereas in the second the mediant is prolonged through- out mm. 104-07 and the dominant delayed until m. 124, the start ofa passage derived from mm. 79-83 of the exposition. Measures 124-39 extend the dominant into the recapitulation (the last beat ofm. 139). Although no passage corresponding exactly to the preliminary version of mm. 101-08 is found elsewhere in the movement, Beethoven seems to have retained much of its motivic shape and modulatory function in a revision of the end of the recapitulation (mm. 247-59). This change is of special interest, since it reveals successive stages in Beethoven's compositional process. I think that Beethoven arrived at the final version of mm. 246-60 in the following manner. The first version of this passage led directly from a con- tinuation of the arpeggios of mm. 242-46 into the cadenza-like runs in mm. 260-67. From m. 260 to the end of the movement, both versions coincide. The cadenza ends with a return to the arpeggios (in the tonic as opposed to the earlier diminished-seventh chords) in mm. 268-75. These lead to a last 105 FACSIMILE glimpse of the opening motive (mm. 275-79), which culminates in the up- ward sweeping scale ending the movement. The newer version postpones the end of the movement, by presenting the opening motive on chromatically ascending degrees of the scale; this passage crescendos towards the excite- ment of the cadenza. (Ex. IX.) The earliest sketches for the final shape of mm. 247-59 seem to be in the beginning of the mysterious crayon sketches for the Allegro Moderato on f. 73v of the Petter sketchbook (see Ex. III). I believe that after Beethoven crossed out the rejected measures in the autograph score, he jotted down his new ideas on some systems which he had left blank on folios in the Petter sketch- book containing work towards the sonata. These sketches are also very similar, in part, to the first version of mm. 101-08 (see Ex. VIII). Beethoven's final version ofmm. 248-59 (Ex. X, p. 109) begins with a similar melodic motive, and a diminished chord which might have resolved inwardly to a chord. However, this progression is denied, and the harmony glides through the C:jf passing tone into an ex- tended (to m. 261) (through the end ofm. 271) I (from m. 271 to the end of the movement) progression. Thus, the harmonic motion of the final version is prolonged far past the scope of Beethoven's earlier projections. Although it may be that Beethoven made additional preliminary sketches for this passage, I do not think that this was necessarily so. Further stages 106 FACSIMIJ,E by no means full, nor does it extend over the entire movement. In addition, the sketch for the coda is very different from its present form. The Trio commences with 14 deleted bars. (Ex. XI, p. 110.) Beethoven's decision to shift the disposition of the melody (from the piano to the violin and vice versa) forced him to rewrite these measures. He appears to have observed the following procedure for scoring this passage: (1) he wrote in bar lines; (2) copied out the melody-the continuous feature of the music; (3) either added harmonic substance (realizing the implications of the linear motion) and/or worked out melodic refinements. He may have worked from a previously sketched, drafted or composed source, or composed the score directly. Elements of the structural continuity take precedence over details of inci- dental importance. Always allowing for exceptions, one might even recognize a similar procedure for the composition of the entire sonata. The Coda brings us again to the Petter sketchbook where the section marked "coda," separated from the brief sketch of the Trio by a double bar, is very different from the finished version. (Ex. XII, p. Ill.) The latter is closely derived from the Scherzo; however, it is in the major mode rather than the minor, and ends with a trill reminiscent of the first movement. Measures 48-51 of the earlier concept of the Coda are retained in the present form. Per- haps mm. 48-82 were once a bridge passage leading directly into the Poco Allegretto, and the opening 16 bars of the Trio were to be continued in a 108 EXAMPLE .I r • i,- i,_ b I' .;- +- 41+ :---!: .... . .... - " f,J, .. , i, f-- ir )JQlj1 1'\!jt 1 j/.i '*il r _ i,_ -.. . ' • 4I'*' I.J' _ ':iJ '7' '-'"' ''''f: - -- 1----- r ilI7 ... ; r., J g f,J·GrtS; _ -- - - -- --- r :I : C J #1 ,. l:l'f I..,ji 1 FACSIMILE 109 IJO' r [ 1$4 tiUlj 1/',=./ " oN) , " •• Til'" ......... Nf31 q tiiili 11 ,1 'OPA CODA \tnill I, liN B) 11 'U IJ n I J n I J -0 I sw OttMJAlAAIT different manner (mm. 33-48). Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved from the sources at present. The Poco Allegretto contains only two remnants of major revision, neither of which is self-contained in the autograph. The first, already discussed at some length, is the rewriting of the opening portion of the movement, pp. 29- 34 of the autograph. The second, which appears to have given Beethoven a good deal oftrouble, occurs on p. 41, mm. 227-28. (Ex. XIII, p. Ill.) It seems as though the movement, from m. 227 to the return of the opening theme at m. 245, originally continued in a different manner. The Morgan autograph shows a certain hesitation on Beethoven's part-many smudges, messy alignments, occasional changes of a note or an ornamental figure. Beethoven, not satisfied with his earlier version, abandoned the score to work out an alternative, then finished the details of his composition directly on thefair copy. (Ex. XIV, p. 112.) This article has attempted to follow Beethoven's composition of Opus 96 from its beginning as an isolated musical borrowing to the completed form of the sonata. Although it is not possible to resurrect a man's creative processes, at least their marks can sometimes be deciphered. In the case of 110 EXAMPLE XlI -- -- f IS f;---- . 1!t.:!: I--' '\ / 1i \ / \ / ..... It .L.OG" I - I f---- /\ ---+-- - -- 4- 8·' ... hiJ, GU/.. J;J ",f b'H, ... \,riic -- y * \ V / / '\ =- EXAMrLE m A " r J n.t. v,,,"'" r,uf """.. ",+ ,u," of .. h,u'il W(.H utatet-e4' fifher it ,."1't\4ilteJ r l 0' ihf""'j"C .. t the rlltviSj" .. s "" J AS: ",ore l;I'd.,. + - I J "'.,,( be'h ur't4 ..,Ii .... /3eefh""ett .:d4ucd. r;""" rt4d. Ir , ----- f-.- .I ) LINI] 111 EXAMPLE XIV Beethoven, these manifest themselves as the traces of a burning force bound by artistic logic. A man's last works in a genre, or in a phase of his creative activity, are likely to be imbued with a special significance by posterity, as are most manifestations of finality in a transient world. Opus 96 is such a creation. Unlike the earlier sonatas for violin and piano of Opera 12, 23, 24, and 30, Opus 96 is not a composition essentially pianistic in nature with the added color of a violin, a composition which could easily be reworked for keyboard alone (e.g., Opus 23 in A minor). Nor is Opus 96 an exploitation of one instrument, the pianoforte, echoed and somewhat contrasted by the violin, as in the sonatas of Opus 3D-especially in the variation movement of the A major sonata, the entirety of the C minor sonata, and (to a far lesser extent) the first movement of the G major sonata. On the other hand, the Kreutzer Sonata, with its concertante element, is also of different ilk. This work presents two virtuoso parts of equal impor- tance in a contrasted, "competitive" manner. Opus 96 also has moments of brilliance. The final scale of the first movement and the runs in the Trio, thrown back and forth between violin and piano, make great demands upon the players. Yet, the listener welds these feats of technical prowess into the 112 whole, hears them not as bursts of power but flights of soaring lyricism. Even the double cadenza at the end of the Allegro Moderato, commencing with sparkling figuration shared by both instruments (m. 262) and ending with them combined in an extended trill, achieves a complete blend of instrumental color and musical substance, a great artistic union. NOTES 1 The writing of this paper was largely inspired by discussions with Alan Tyson during his professorship at Columbia University in the spring of 1969. I should like to acknowledge, with deep appreciation, permission granted by Mrs. Evelyn Hertzmann and Professor Edward Lippman of Columbia University to use materials assembled by the late Eric Hertzmann. I am also indebted to the trustees of the Pierpont Morgan Library and its librarian, Herbert Cahoon, for allowing me to study the Library's signed autograph score of Beethoven's Sonata in G for Violin and Piano, Opus 96, and to use some photographic reproductions of this score for illustrations. I am also grateful to the librarian of the Columbia University Music Library, Thomas Watkins, and his staff. 2 Franz Grasberger, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien. Die Handschriften der Meister. Beriihmte Werke der Tonkunst im Autograph, Vienna, 1966, p. 114, identifies the motive on line I of Ms. 41 as "der Entwurf eines Themas flir Streich-quartetts." I was not able to verify this statement. The copy of Ms. 41 at my disposal is a diplomatic transcription among Dr. Hertz- mann's notes. Kinsky-Halm gives the time of composition for "Kennst du das Land" (second version) as 1809. This is confirmed by Thayer-Forbes I:493ff. The song was published as "Mignon" by Breitkopf und Hiirtel in October 1810, as the first of six songs with pianoforte accompaniment, Opus 75, dedicated to Princess Caroline von Kinsky. 3 J. Standfuss, Der lustige Schuster, oder Der Teufel ist los, zweyter Theil. Eine comische Oper in drey AufZilgen, hrsg. von Johann Adam Hiller, Leipzig, 1771, pp. 14-15. For further infor- mation about the intriguing, folk-like tune, see Georgy Ca1mus, "Die ersten deutschen Singspiele von Standfuss und Hiller," Publikationen der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft. Beihefte. 2. Fo1ge, Hft. VI, especially p. 3; Max Seiffert, "Die Sperontes-1ieder 'Ich bin nun wie ich bin'- 'Ihr schonen horetl an' und Seb. Bach," Festschrift, Fritz Stein zum 60. Geburtstag ilberreicht von Fachgenossen Freunden und Schillern, hrsg. von Hans Hoffmann und Franz Rlih1- mann, Braunschweig, 1939, pp. 65-70 (facs. p. 67); Johann Sigismund Scholze, Sperontes Singende Muse an der Pleisse, in DDT 1. Fo1ge, XXXV-XXXVI, hrsg. von Edward Buhle, Leipzig, 1909, p. 52; Philipp Spitta, "Sperontes 'Singende Muse an der P1eisze'. Zur Ge- schichte des deutschen Hausgesanges in achtzehnten Jahrhundert," Vierteijahrsschrift filr Musikwissenschaft 1 :35-126, especially pp. 86-95. 4 "C. G. Neefe's Lebens1auf, von ihm selbst beschrieben," (1799) AMZ 16:241-45, 17: 257-61, 18:273-78, especially pp. 243f., 245, 258ff., 260, and 273. On p. 259 Neefe charac- terizes his regard for Hiller, his mentor: "Er ist die Quelle, woraus ich meine bessern musik- a1ischen Kenntnisse geschopft." 5 Thayer-Forbes I: 67. 6 Alfred Loewenberg, Annals of Opera 1597-1940, 2nd ed., Geneva, 1955, p. 267. 7 Max Unger, Neues Beethoven Jahrbuch (1933) 5:445f, presents a brief catalogue of the "grosse Pettersche Skizzenbuch," named after the Viennese collector Gustav A. Petter, who possessed it around the mid-19th century. This catalogue is superseded by Unger's useful and thorough Eine Schweizer Beethoven Sammlung, Zurich, 1939, p. 164. The sketchbook now forms part of the Bodmer collection owned by the Beethovenhaus in Bonn. S For a transcription of the main body of the ink sketches of Opus 96 in the Petter sketch- book, as well as a brief discussion of the sonata, see Gustav Nottebohm, Beethoveniana I, Leipzig, 1872, pp. 26-30. To my knowledge, the crayon sketches have not been transcribed or analyzed. 113 9 "Die Beethovenhandschriften der Pariser Konservatoriumsbibliothek," NBJ (1935) 6: 87. 10 Selbstbiographie, Cassel and Gottingen, 1860-61, Vol. I, pp. 67,177. n Emily Anderson, The Letters of Beethoven, New York, 1961, letter No. 392. 12 Boris Schwarz, "Beethoven and the French Violin School," MQ(1958) 44:441. 13 The Pierpont Morgan Library acquired this manuscript from Leo S. Olschki in 1907. See the latter's account of the sonata's "discovery" and sale, "Decouverte du manuscrit autographe de la dixieme sonate de L. van Beethoven," Bibliofilia IX. Some facsimile copies of pages from the autograph are published in Bibliofilia IX, op. cit., frontispiece; Walther Lampe and Kurt Schaeffer, editors, Beethoven Sonaten, Klavier und Violine, Urtext, G. Henle Verlag, Munich-Duisburg, 1949, Vol. I, frontispiece; Emanuel Winternitz, Musical Auto- graphsfrom Monteverdi to Hindemith, New York, 1965, Vol. 2, plates 84-86. 14 The uppermost of these holes is approximately 4.1 em. from the top of the page, the lower 5.5 em. from the bottom. 15 Alan Tyson, The Authentic English Editions of Beethoven, London, 1963, pp. 20, 89f., I 44f. The New York Public Library, Music Division-Special Collections, owns a copy of the Steiner print. 114