For the summer term of 2011 Matthew Taylor gave a series of Lectures on the History of the String Quartet. It was to be the first of an intended series ” and covered Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. The notes produced for the series were intended to be more biographical than analytical. That latter aspect was after all supplied by Matthew. There were doubts by some as to whether the series would be a draw. Happily It turned out to be the best attended to date.
THE STRING QUARTET – JOSEF HAYDN
Matthew Taylor will this term be giving the first in a projected series of the history of the string quartet and his first two lectures are based on quartets of Josef Haydn.
Haydn very deservedly has been merited with the name, Father of the Symphony. Yet this may not be strictly applicable. There can be no question however that he would have been entitled to the name, Father of the String Quartet. There were symphonies before Haydn, although it was he who put the symphony on the map with 104 of them. There were no string quartets before Haydn. There was chamber music, frequently with two violins and harpsichord or cello continuo but the string quartet was devised, almost by accident, developed and sculpted into shape by one man, Josef Haydn (1732-1809).
It came about round about 1754-57 when Haydn was teaching the children of Baron Furnberg and was making a career as a freelance musician. Furnberg, a gifted amateur musician, wanted some music for him and his colleagues to play. The instrumentation available happened to be two violins, viola and cello. For this combination Haydn wrote what he called divertimenti and they were an absolute hit. (Just as well it wasn’t piccolo, bassoon, double bass and kettledrum as the string quartet would have turned out differently). Early versions contained usually five or more movements including two minuets. Soon it settled into the standard four movements, two outer ones fast and in between a slow movement and minuet, following sonata form as in the symphonies which he did not embark upon until the Esterhazy years.
Haydn kept to this formula in the 83 quartets he was to write afterwards apart from the Seven Last Words of Jesus Christ Op 51 which was a quartet rendering of an orchestral version of 1786 and also his last quartet, op 103, during the composition of which he felt, after managing two movements, too tired to finish and decided there and then to call it a day. The combination was taken up by Mozart and Beethoven with the latter, in his last quartets, sometimes adding further movements. The instrumental combination remained the constant nucleus although there were additions to the numbers. An extra viola by Mozart gave rise to the string quintet. In the case of Schubert on the other hand it was an additional cello. Schumann added a piano to have been attributed with the invention of the piano quintet – (actually Boccherini had done this some fifty years earlier with the fortepiano). The fact remains that underlying these expansions was the basic string quartet as we still know it. There was a tendency in the early 19th century to widen the range of the combination with the addition of the double bass. We best know it in Schubert’s Trout Quintet but it can be found in some lesser known composers such as Ferdinand Ries and Louis Spohr. Mendelssohn’s sextet contains the double bass. This addition changed the centre of musical gravity to give a deeper sonority. However, Schumann, and then Brahms following him, stuck to the pure Haydn-Beethoven form and it has remained a staple compositional form since.
A word as to the character of the string quartet by one of the audience and not a musicologist. One’s reception and appreciation are bound to differ from person to person. Each has his/her own experiences. It is generally accepted that most people first encounter music through the orchestra and there can be no doubt that orchestral music has a far greater range of colour and dynamics than the chamber models. It is not that one is better than the other but that one is quite different to the other. An orchestra usually has a conductor directing the others and the players follow him/her and not each other. Quartet players play off each other and one can visibly see the eye to eye communication and the fleeting smile in an act of joint communion. They are playing for themselves and not for us. One can’t imagine in an orchestra the cellist on the third desk making eye contact with the second flute unless he plans on taking her to dinner afterwards and for whatever coda there may then follow.
In an orchestra some instruments are silent for whole movements or for many bars and then entering at the composer’s will to add a touch of colour to heighten the atmosphere. The triangle player having a little tinkle in the third movement of Brahms fourth symphony comes to mind. In Sibelius’s Swan of Tuonela the oboist has one note only, just the one note, which is too high for the solo cor anglais. This is an example of the best economic use of the orchestral palette. None of this however could be found in the string quartet. Here there are four players who are soloists and an ensemble at the same time. Each member is playing for most of the time and everything which is played has relevance. There is no room for waffling in the string quartet as there can be in an orchestral work.
On the other hand, a solo recitalist, particularly a pianist, whilst not having recourse to variety of sound and colour has the floor to him/herself and can indulge in showing off and showmanship which end with the audience in raptures at such display. This would be anathema in a string quartet and to its audience.
The sound of the string quartet is both unique and intense. For those coming to the quartet seeking the same frisson as in the orchestra or the bravura of the soloist there may well be disappointment. One needs to listen to a quartet from a different perspective. The difference is like that between watching a great theatrical drama or otherwise a great soliloquy and, contrasted with either of those, listening to four people in a debate on the same wavelength.
Most people, except contestants on University Challenge, seem to know something about Haydn. An accomplished composer with a good sense of humour, father of the symphony (although most people are only familiar with some of the London symphonies) who was a bit second fiddle to Mozart and finished up as a forerunner to Beethoven, like a two litre car follows a one litre. This is a fairly standard take which gives no credit to the fact that here was the greatest and most revered composer of his age.
He was born, the son of a wheelwright, at Rohrau bang in the middle of Austria Hungary and is claimed by both of them. His birthplace was on the Austrian side of the river. His education was Viennese. His working career was in both as the Esterhazy family was Hungarian. So what? Although he was hardly a wunderkind à la Mozart his talent was recognized and through recommendation he became a boy member of the Cathedral choir at Vienna and top soloist. He was eventually dropped at the age of 14 according to one account for the prank of cutting another choirboy’s pigtail but in reality because his voice was breaking. This career might have continued as there was a proposal afoot to make him a permanent soprano to which his father objected. I dare say that in retrospect Haydn himself also preferred the eventual outcome. Certainly the world was left with a better legacy (as was Haydn) with the output of one of the greatest of composers than in the loss of possibly a great castrato.
On leaving he lived very rough in Vienna for some twelve years. For those who perceive Haydn as a musical lackey as opposed to the freelancing of Mozart and Beethoven it should be known that Haydn was teaching, playing in street bands and looking for odd commissions. He also took lessons from Nicola Porpora, a crusty old opera composer, to improve on his technical knowledge of playing and composing. His compositions for Furnberg led to a recommendation in which he was appointed kapellmeister to Count Morzin in 1758 and in charge of an orchestra of 12.
At this time Haydn married but wives were not allowed and Haydn had to conceal the fact, something that probably was a relief to Haydn even if a bone of contention with Mrs H. There are various references to the marriage being not particularly a happy one, most significantly in the later accounts of Haydn’s two London visits, each of eighteen months in 1791 and 1794 and his lack of enthusiasm at the prospect of his return. Mrs Haydn is said to have been a shrew and a religious bigot. At the same time both of them were said to be carrying on their private affairs and doubtless opportunity presented itself to Haydn in his teaching sessions with young trainee sopranos. Perhaps posterity has been unkind to Mrs Haydn. She probably saw irritating aspects of her husband unperceived by others. Who knows what life is like living with a genial genius!
In 1761 Morzin had to dismiss his orchestra as his profligacy was fast making him broke. Fortunately Haydn was engaged as a vice Kappelmeister to Gregor Josef Werner by the even richer Prince Paul Esterhazy at twice his previous salary. In fact this involved taking over the whole job except for religious music. Records show that a bit of under the counter money laundering went on to hide the fact that Haydn was paid more than Werner. Haydn was able to augment the orchestra to 18 having probably recruited some of players from the Morzin band. In 1762 Prince Paul Anton died and was succeeded by his brother, Nicholas. His musical requirements were as mammoth as the Esteharzy schlosses which he expanded as well as building the Esterhaza palace including its own opera house in the Hungarian plains. In 1766 Werner died and Haydn stepped into his shoes. He was given a three year contract renewable at will by the prince, an arrangement which continued until the Prince’s death in 1790. After that Haydn was still retained and received a pension for life.
His years with the Esterhazys were contented and busy. His duties which he took in his stride included all matters musical. He attended on the Prince twice a day to discuss the musical requirements. He was in charge of the purchase of musical instruments, looked after the library, edited the music of others, took the Sunday services at the organ, rehearsed the orchestra, became their virtual shop steward in handling their grievances, took choir practices, gave music lessons, rehearsed operas both those which he wrote and those of others. In the evening there were performances of the music including at one time 150 opera performances a year. And on top of this he composed a bit of music including a weekly baryton trio especially for the Prince to play, about 70 quartets, numerous sonatas, about 90 symphonies, various concertos and masses. He also found time to carry on an affair over 12 years with Luigia Polzelli, a rather untalented Italian opera singer, with a much older asthmatic husband , and who claimed Haydn to be the father of her second son. Little wonder he would return home to the moans of his unmusical and querulous wife and lucky for there to be left out a plate of cold wiener schnitzel.
Having summed up nearly thirty years in one paragraph it came to an end with the death of Prince Nikolaus in 1790 who was succeeded by Prince Anton. He decided to let Haydn go but surprisingly retained him on full salary for life. In turn, this opened the way for Haydn to take up offers previously turned down and, like the Olympics, London, through Johann Peter Salomon, won the bid. 1791 and 1794 were good years for which Haydn produced, inter alia, his twelve London symphonies, his Opus 64 quartets, and was inspired on hearing the choral tradition of Handel to write, on returning to take up residence in Vienna, his two great oratorios, The Creation and The Seasons. Now that, Lord Coe, is what I call some legacy.
Prince Anton died in 1794 and was succeeded by Prince Nikolaus II. Haydn remained titular Kapellmeister but the demands upon him were modest, an annual names day mass for Nicholas’s wife, Princess Marie Herminegild. There succeeded until 1802 a series of the most powerful masses that Haydn wrote. These were not just standard ecclesiastical sacred masses (which they were) but more in the nature of choral symphonies. He also returned to freelance composition which included his string quartets, opus 71,through to opus 77. His wife died in 1800 and he became frail giving up composition in 1802. He lived on till 1809 and died much at the same time as Beethoven was writing his Emperor piano concerto and to the background of yet another Napoleonic bombardment of Vienna.
Matthew will deal with the twists and turns of each of the quartets which he will be illustrating and adding further background to the little I append below.
There is something wonderfully original and improvisatory in all of Haydn’s music giving each work a unique freshness. One always finds new ideas appearing, strange expressions and never the feeling of “I have heard this before”. His quartets have a classical form but never is there a feeling that each work has been written to fit the same template apart perhaps the minuets when they come from the stable of the hotel owning O’Reilly, as to which Matthew himself will enlighten your curiosity!!
String Quartet in D, Opus 20 No 4. The opus number 20 might lead you to believe these are early works but Haydn’s numberings are confusing. Only quartets appear to have been accorded opus numbers, presumably by publishers, not by Haydn or his cataloguer Antony van Hoboken . The symphonies were largely written for Esterhazy consumption and only have their numbers referred to and then not always in accurate time order. The Opus 76 quartets were written well after the last of the 104 symphonies and they cannot therefore be 76th in order of output. The opus 20’s are reputed to be the onset of the mature Haydn quartet and were written in 1772, some ten years after the opus 17’s and 12 years after Haydn entered service with Esterhazy.
Like the majority of Haydn’s quartets, the opus 20’s come as a compilation of 6. None of the individual quartets has a name but the package is called “The Sun”, not to be confused with “the Sunrise” opus 76 No 6. These are not Haydn bursting into sunlight but somewhat darker than hitherto. The only reason for the name is that the front cover of the publication by Ataria of Vienna contained a picture of a sun. This note does not set out a satnav description but of interest is the minuet, called Allegretto a Zingarese. Haydn had a penchant for using gypsy music better known in his gypsy piano trio (no 25).
It is interesting that the best known works are often those given names like Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. Haydn’s works contain a number of interesting appellations like “How Do You Do” in his Opus 33’s. I have accorded Op 20 No 4 my own name which I hope will cotton on. I call it “the Bus Conductor” because following the opening of the scherzoid last movement there is a short staccato phrase followed by a curious buzzing like a bus conductor pressing the bell and presumably calling out “Hold very tight please”. Of course Haydn would not have known what a bus conductor was and nor perhaps would some younger members of our audience.
String Quartet in D, No 5 Op 64 (The Lark). The Op 64’s were written in 1790 at the time of the death of Niklaus and dedicated to Johann Tost. He had been leader of the second violins in the Esterhazy Orchestra. Haydn had written his Op 54’s for him as well and therefore must have had some admiration for his playing. Tost had been previously dismissed but had got his job back. Haydn’s contract made him the exclusive property of Esterhazy and he could not write for others but his works did get out and reached Paris and London. Tost himself appears to have been something of a wide boy who was active in pirating Haydn’s works and selling those of others, Michael Haydn for instance, as those of the more celebrated older brother. Whether Tost was to be the sole recipient or not Haydn was not averse to promising his exclusive products to more than one outlet at a time and he brought three of the Op 64’s to London as well. This one owes its name to the obvious singing violin tune at the beginning, more melodious (but less ornithological) than the ascending lark of Vaughan Williams. The advance on the Op 20’s is remarkable for the variety of ideas these quartets contain. Mendelssohn would surely have heard the last movement which is a forerunner of the fluttery light scherzi for which he became renowned..
String Quartets Opus 76, No 2 in D minor (Fifths) and No 3 in C (The Emperor)
This set of six quartets were written nearly ten years on at the time Haydn was established in Vienna and writing “The Creation”. The fifths owes its name to the descending intervals of the opening violin theme. The last movement is full of improvisatory ideas and contains some similar braying to that in Mendelssohn’s Midsummer Night’s Dream Overture
The Emperor is well known for the use Haydn made of the Emperor’s hymn which he wrote. He uses it in the second movement as a theme and variations although it is probably better described as a Theme with Four Repetitions and Added Figuration. The first movement has particular interest not least for its drone effect.
Four quartets are not a lot to represent Haydn. So how about us answering the cuts and promote a cycle of all 83 of his quartets!!!
I would like to end this note with an item of local interest:
Haydn in Greenwich;
When Haydn first visited London in 1791 he became interested in anatomy and met John Hunter, the leading surgeon of his day, who lived in Lincoln’s Inn Fields in what is now the Sir John Soane Museum. His wife, Anne Hunter, was a prototype women libber writing poetry. Their friendship flourished and John Hunter offered to remove the polyps in Haydn’s nose although Haydn turned his offer down.
In 1793 John Hunter had a heart attack and died. He made little provision in his will for Anne as he wanted to give his large collection of specimens to the nation. This left Anne with their two houses in Earls Court and Leicester Square being sold to pay John’s debts and Anne had to find a position as a companion to two ladies living in Maze Hill, Greenwich. Later Parliament ordered the sale of the specimens and Anne’s situation recovered.
In 1794 Haydn returned for his second visit to London and picked up again on his relationship with Anne which was one of their singing together. Haydn would visit Anne at Maze Hill. He set her poetry to song and these are still played and recorded. They are also said to have had a keen, albeit strange, interest in anatomical parts. In addition to a polyps in his nose Haydn also had a roving eye. We shall never know what went on behind the curtains at Maze Hill but for curious neighbours, both then and now, one can say that plus ça change.
LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN (1770-1827)
BACKGROUND TO THE OPUS 18 STRING QUARTETS
Matthew Taylor has in three flying visits remarkably covered the quartets of Haydn and the quartets Mozart dedicated to him. The first of five lectures on Beethoven’s quartets is devoted to his opus 18’s. Opus numbers may leave some in a numerical no man’s land. So to begin with here is a résumé of the sixteen quartets (and the grosse fugue) which Beethoven produced between 1800 and 1826
————
Early period – Opus 18 No. 1 in F · No. 2 in G · No. 3 in D · No. 4 in C minor · No 5 in A · No. 6 in B♭
Middle period – No. 7 in F major · No. 8 in E minor · No. 9 in C major – Opus 59 (Rasumovsky) No. 10 in E♭ major, Op. 74 (Harp) · No. 11 in F minor, Op. 95 (Serioso)
Late quartets – No. 12 in E♭, Op. 127 · No. 13 in B♭, Op. 130 · No. 14 in C sharp minor, Op. 131 · No. 15 in A minor, Op. 132 · Grosse Fuge, Op. 133 · No. 16 in F, Op. 135
Beethoven’s early period is considered to be from 1792 when he finally left Bonn for Vienna to 1802 ending with his second symphony and the writing of his will, the Heilingenstadt testament written in a near suicidal state in having to cope with his deafness. This is the period when his music still shows the influence of Haydn and Mozart. He did not however wake up one morning and declare that he was then in his second period. The distinctions become blurred and a perfect example is the third piano concerto which is the most perfectly classical of concerti which might (just) have been written by Haydn or Mozart but wasn’t and yet it looks forward to the big boned Beethoven. Is it a more mature early work or is it the middle period under way?
This middle period runs to about 1814 with the 7th and 8th symphonies, the Archduke trio as well as the Serioso quartet. From then he became very much embroiled in litigation with his deceased’s brother’s widow over the adoption of his nephew – very good for the solicitor – and there was a fallow period before he cranked up again round about 1817. His last period, by then in total deafness, encompasses the hammerklavier sonata, the Missa Solemnis, the ninth symphony and those last quartets.
It is incredible that in those early years Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven virtually over-lapped, breathing the same Vienna air, and that all three actually met each of the others. They all differed. Mozart largely composed in his head. Music pretty well came out of his pores and the score was just the print out; Haydn appeared to compose with an improvisatory facility as he went along. Beethoven was quite different to the other two. For him composition was a struggle to perfection. He recorded his ideas in sketchbooks to which he reverted, often many years later. He sculpted and chiselled his themes until he was satisfied with the finished product. Yet never is there any sense of there having been any obstacle or compositional difficulty and one feels one is hearing the finished product as fresh as the day it was first conceived .
Beethoven was born in Bonn, the son of the kappelmeister of the Court orchestra of the Elector of Cologne and of which Beethoven became a member at the age of 12 at which time he wrote three sonatas dedicated to the Elector. His teaching by his father, who was himself no Leopold Mozart, was rigorous. He did not encourage Beethoven’s emerging compositional ability but his instrumental skills. As a young adolescent he took lessons from the court organist, Neefe and his compositional skills were sufficiently recognized by the Elector who allowed Beethoven, then 18, to travel to Vienna in1788 where he met Mozart and played to him. The stay was short as Beethoven’s mother became ill and died soon after his return. His father went to pieces with drunkenness. The young Beethoven found himself having to look after his younger siblings and needed to take his father to court to have his salary attached. Beethoven’s early compositions come from this period and in particular two cantatas, one on the death in 1790 of the Joseph II and the other for the coronation of Leopold II They were not in the event played and only became discovered nearly a hundred years on. These works and some from the early Vienna years were always not therefore accorded an opus number. However there is a catalogue number for these with the letters WoO., (werke ohne opus) (work without opus)
In December 1790 Haydn, then approaching 60, accompanied by Salomon, passed through Bonn on their way to London for the first Haydn visit. Haydn was feted by the Elector but it is not known if Beethoven, being one of the very junior members of the orchestra, would have been introduced. The following year Mozart died aged 35.
Another important influence on events was Count Waldstein who encouraged the Elector to finance Beethoven for a second trip to Vienna where previously he had hoped to take lessons in composition from Mozart. By 1792 the west bank of the Rhine was occupied by the French and Bonn was in turmoil and overrun by refugees. Beethoven left for Vienna in November with a letter from Waldstein stating “Through your diligence receive Mozart’s spirit from the hands of Haydn”; Beethoven’s father died a month later and Beethoven was never to return to Bonn.
Beethoven’s principal object was to learn more of the basics of those areas of composition where he knew himself to be lacking, and in this respect Haydn was just too easy going as a teacher. Beethoven revered Haydn but later admitted to his own pupil, Ries, that though he had received instruction from Haydn he had never learned anything from him. The fact was that Beethoven was a self disciplinarian who knew what he needed and Haydn was not the teacher he needed for the purpose. Some commentators say the two men did not get on but that does not appear to be the case. However, whilst they may have breathed the same Vienna air, they inhabited different universes. Haydn was a man of the ancien régime and for instance wore a perruque all his life. Mozart, although younger than Haydn, had shared the same social world and values. Beethoven was making his entrance against the background of revolution in France and spreading republican values. If one had to accept patronage he was not prepared to be someone else’s skivvy.
Beethoven therefore decided to take lessons elsewhere without telling Haydn. First he went to one Johann Schenk for guidance in counterpoint and theory; then his notebooks show him taking lessons from Ignaz Schuppanzigh, famed for the string quartet which gave the first performances of the great string quartets of the day. More assiduously Beethoven took lessons in counterpoint from Albrechstsberger, the “most famous teacher of that science”. He may be long forgotten but every time we hear the Grosse Fuge or the Hammerklavier sonata we owe Albrechtsberger a vote of thanks. One other teacher to whom Beethoven turned was none other than Antonio Salieri, known to give free instructions to musicians of small means and who went on giving lessons to Beethoven till as late as 1802 by which time Beethoven had his own pupil. Salieri also gave lessons to Schubert and deserves more meritorious recognition than the libel perpetuated by the likes of Peter Schaffer.
During these years Beethoven should not be seen as just a composer awaiting the opportunity. He did not sit there composing whatever took his fancy until someone decided to play it. He needed commissions and wrote for the combination which was required. Doubtless he had ideas and these would get saved to his sketchbooks. He did have a modest annuity to help him pro tem from Count Lichnowsky but he he needed to earn his living. He did possess one great skill which had all the appearances of being a better money earner, playing the piano. His reputation grew as one of the great pianists of his day. The growing attraction of an audience for the piano, which had emerged from the more restrictive capabilities of the harpsichord, gave rise to the virtuoso and the appetite of the listener was fed not simply by concert performance but also by rivalries and concourses as to who could give the best or the fastest of displays and who was number one in extemporising.. There was a virtual Vienna Has Talent competition going on and Beethoven became a star much in demand.
However the commissions began to come from the odd count or prince that one tends to meet from time to time. This was going to be in the field of chamber music as a look down the early opus numbers shows. In fact Beethoven did not rush to publication until he felt the occasion was right to do so. To begin with his Opus 1 was a set of three piano trios, one of which Haydn advised against publication; various piano sonatas, ten before the opus 18 quartets; string trios worth more outings than we hear; a string quintet, two cello sonatas, the first of his violin sonatas, a horn sonata and a wind quintet. Orchestral music on the other hand would have to be mounted in a suitable venue and needed an audience. The only possibility there was for Beethoven to write his own piano concertos and to play them himself. He began composition of the first two piano concertos as early as 1795 and the second which was the earlier was opus 17 with the premier of the first taking place in 1800. All was beginning to go well but?
As early as 1796 Beethoven first encountered the tinnitus which would have frustrated his playing and composition. He noticed his hearing gradually deteriorating but kept it to himself as best he could. It was to drive him to anguish and despair. Over the years he would visit Harley Strasse and spend a fortune on ear trumpets to little effect. It is against this background that the six opus 18 quartets were written between 1798 and 1800.
Some commentaries suggest that Beethoven had held back from writing quartets until being more sure of himself and had contented himself with string trios. I question the rationale of this. Beethoven had copied out quartets of Haydn and Mozart and knew the medium. The opus 18 quartets themselves were dedicated to and, it must be assumed, commissioned by Prince Lobkowitz. Had he asked for a quintet, a sextet or a septet Beethoven would undoubtedly have delivered whenever on the basis of he who pays the piper. One writer, Bernard Jacobson, in an EMI booklet mentions that the true order was 3, 1, 2, 5, 4 and 6 and suggests that one should listen to them in that order to obtain a much clearer and exciting view. He points out that re-arranging the sequence would have been decided on commercial, and not musicological, considerations. What tosh! The practice of dedicating a compilation of quartets reflected first the generosity of the composer; secondly the opportunity for the dedicatee to play the whole shebang to an audience whose musical appetite was voracious and who had no chance of going out to buy the compact disc. As to the order, the compositional process can start and finish anywhere. On this spurious argument it would mean that if a composer started with the third movement and then wrote the first one, one should listen in that order. I think that Mr Jacobson should at least accept Beethoven’s artistic integrity in knowing the best order to present them as a set.
If one comes to this set after having made acquaintance with later Beethoven they would leave the impression of belonging to the sound world of Haydn who himself was still then actively composing. Mr Jacobson mentions the advances made by thematic links between movements and the different key relationships which not many of us, not even Prince Lobkowitz if he were with us, would notice. One does hear an undoubted Beethoven melodic line. The last movement of the first quartet for instance could have been out of the fourth symphony. Slow movements usually maintain their tempo but, in the second quartet Beethoven without apparent precedent switches almost inexplicably to a scherzo in the middle section. Rachmaninoff did this in his third symphony over a hundred years later but that was because it contained no separate scherzo movement. For the most part the quartets are cheerful and one would not imagine the composer being assailed by turbulent and stressful problems such as one would hear in Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique symphony or Mahler’s ninth. And yet in the slow movement of the first quartet there is the most beautiful and melancholy of tunes in which Beethoven adds what can only be called stabs of pain. Was this an unconscious musicological coded message?
Soon afterwards there were to follow the first two symphonies before this early period comes to an end. The Heilingenstadt testament, which was not discovered until after Beethoven died, was the testimony of a courageous man. Beethoven was then facing the likelihood that his affliction would end all he had so far achieved. He had reached the point of contemplating ending it all. He had confronted his own demise and the world can only be thankful that Heilingenstadt was the turning point. All wills have a beneficiary. That of the Heilingenstadt Testament was Posterity itself. To follow very soon there was the Eroica, originally to be dedicated to Napoleon, but the real hero was Beethoven himself who had confronted his demons…. and won.
