Opus 5 Two Sonatas in F major and G minor for Piano and cello
Opus 5 – Two Sonatas in F major and G minor for Piano and Cello, Op. 5, dedicated to Frederick William II, King of Prussia, composed mid-1796, published in Vienna by Artaria, February 1797. GA nos. 105 and 106 (series 13/1–2) – B. 5 – KH. 5 – L. I, p. 60 – N. 5 – P. 69 – T. 44
According to Ferdinand Ries, and as accepted by Thayer-Riemann, the Op. 5 sonatas for piano and cello—of which the original manuscript has been lost—were begun in the autumn of 1795 and subsequently worked on by Beethoven throughout the following winter. Their composition may have been prompted by chance circumstances: in June 1796, Beethoven, still contemplating a concert career, travelled to Berlin, where King Frederick William II—an amateur cellist (Mozart had composed the “Prussian” Quartets for him, and Boccherini had written numerous quartets)—employed one of the most skilled cellists of the time, Jean-Louis Duport, who is credited with the development of thumb-position technique. It was likely in Berlin, in June 1796, that Beethoven refined and completed the sonatas, possibly with Duport’s assistance (the works are, in fact, marked à l’intention de Duport), and they were performed there—on either the 21st or 28th of that month—by Duport and Beethoven himself.
As a token of gratitude, Beethoven received not just any gift, but—as was customary—a gold snuffbox filled with coins:
“(…) not just any snuffbox, but one of those objects that might be presented to an ambassador.”
This fact is further supported by the study of the surviving sketches (held in London and Bergamo), which were written on Berlin-type paper. Concerning these sketches, Shedlock noted that those related to the second sonata are of particular interest for showing the gradual formation of the work, and especially for certain anticipations of the Trio from the Seventh Symphony.
From a musical perspective, these two sonatas are of considerable importance. At the time they were conceived, the cello was still a secondary instrument. Beethoven’s decision to feature it in a chamber work of such ambition signals a turning point for the instrument’s future.
Even during his Bonn years and early period in Vienna, Beethoven had interacted with several cello soloists, including the renowned Bernard Romberg. However, as Lewis Lockwood has demonstrated (Beethoven’s early works for violoncello and contemporary violoncello technique in Beethoven-Kolloquium 1977), the Op. 5 sonatas contain many technical features in the cello part that can be directly attributed to Duport—features he would later codify in his Essai sur le doigté du Violoncelle et la conduite de l’archet, published in 1806 but developed over more than twenty years. These sonatas thus show Beethoven engaging deeply with the most advanced cello techniques of his time.
More significantly, however, the sonatas were groundbreaking in terms of instrumental balance. As mentioned earlier, the genre of the sonata for piano and cello had not yet been firmly established. The combination of piano with a low-register instrument posed particular compositional challenges, since the cello’s sound could easily be overpowered by the piano. As a result, the traditional form was still that of the sonata for cello and basso continuo.
In the Op. 5 sonatas, however, Beethoven achieves true parity between the two instruments—a bold and forward-looking aim, especially considering that this opus represents the composer’s first example of a duo sonata.
The fact that the piano and cello sonata lacked a tradition shaped by Haydn or Mozart gave Beethoven the freedom to experiment. In particular, he expanded the dimensions of the form: while the sonata was traditionally rather short, Beethoven reduced the structure to just two movements, omitting the usual central slow movement (perhaps due to the challenge of fully exploiting the cantabile qualities of the bowed instrument). Each sonata opens with a slow introduction followed by an expansive sonata-form first movement, and ends with a rondo. The proportions anticipate the revolutionary works of 1803–1804: the first movements of both sonatas are exceptionally long (400 and 553 bars respectively). The slow introductions, which were rare at the time and usually brief, are also extended (34 and 44 bars).
Typical textural combinations include:
- The cello carrying the melodic line in the upper-middle register, with the piano in the lower-middle register;
- The cello in its lower register, with the piano in the upper-middle register;
- Both instruments playing in the same register but with highly differentiated rhythmic patterns.
Despite being part of the same opus, the two sonatas differ markedly from each other. The Sonata No. 1 in F major shows more hesitation in the cello writing, with tentative excursions into the higher register and frequent accompanimental figures, while the keyboard part clearly dominates. In contrast, the Sonata No. 2 in G minor reveals a more advanced harmonic language and a much more carefully integrated relationship between the two instruments.
The sonatas were published by Artaria in Vienna in February 1797 and, though dedicated to the Prussian king, they are clearly intended for a virtuoso performer.
Origin and Publication: Composed in May/June 1796 during Beethoven’s stay in Berlin, the original performing edition of the two sonatas was published in parts by Artaria in Vienna in February 1797.
Ferdinand Ries wrote:
„In Berlin spielte er [Beethoven] einigemal bei Hofe (beim Könige Friedrich Wilhelm II.), wo er auch die zwei Sonaten mit obligatem Violoncello, Opus 5, für Duport, (ersten Violoncellisten des Königs), und für sich componirte und spielte“ (Wegeler/Ries, p. 109)
Translation: In Berlin [Beethoven] played several times at court (of King Frederick William II), where he also performed the two sonatas with obbligato cello, Opus 5, which he composed for Duport (the King’s principal cellist), and for himself.
The description of Duport’s role as a court musician does not, however, refer to Jean Louis Duport, but rather to his brother Jean Pierre, who held the position of Intendant der Musik during Beethoven’s stay in Berlin (Parker/Wilhelm, p. 46). Nonetheless, Lewis Lockwood identifies stylistic elements and technical idioms in the sonatas that reflect the influence of Jean Louis Duport’s cello school.
Douglas Johnson’s research confirms that Beethoven wrote sketches (at least those that have survived) on paper purchased in Berlin. Although he may have already conceived the idea for the cello sonatas while in Vienna, the final compositional work appears to have been undertaken in Berlin. It is worth noting, however, that some sketches—such as those found on folio 119 of the “Kafka” Miscellanea at the British Museum (see images)—were probably made later, possibly in connection with preparations for publication.
Unlike Op. 1, 3, 6 and other works that were transferred to the Mollo and Cappi catalogue when Artaria’s holdings were sold between 1798 and 1802, two groups of works retained their original ownership. The first group—including Op. 5, Op. 51 No. 2, and others—was passed in 1802 by Carlo Artaria (who had controlled the publishing house up to that point) directly to his nephew Domenico Artaria. The second group—including Op. 8, 46, 51/1, WoO 45 and 122—was first passed from Carlo to his associate and cousin Francesco in 1801, and then from Francesco to Domenico in 1804/05. During his not entirely clear partnership with Mollo between 1802 and 1804 (see e.g. the Quintet Op. 4), and later with new shareholders, he continued to trade under the name Artaria & Comp. (See Slezak/Originalverleger pp. 13–15 and Weinmann/Artaria.)
Dedication: The sonatas were dedicated to Frederick William II, King of Prussia, born 25 September 1744 in Berlin and deceased 16 November 1797 in Potsdam. He was the nephew and successor (from 1786) of Frederick the Great. Frederick William was an accomplished cellist and an enthusiastic performer of chamber music. He studied with Ludwig Christian Hesse (1716–1772; violinist), Carlo Graziani (–1787), and Jean Pierre Duport (1741–1818). In January 1786, he appointed Luigi Boccherini (1743–1805) as court composer. Numerous compositions were dedicated to Frederick William II, including Haydn’s six string quartets Op. 50 (Hob. III:44–49). Mozart had originally intended to dedicate his three quartets KV 575, 589, and 590 to him (for additional cello-related compositions for the Prussian king, see Parker/Wilhelm). According to a letter from Jean Louis Duport to Beethoven dated 16 September 1798 [?] (BGA 34a)—no longer extant and possibly misrepresented in secondary sources—the composer may have initially considered dedicating the sonatas to Duport (Duport presumably thanked him in the letter for the honour). For the claim—discussed several times during Beethoven’s life—that Beethoven was the illegitimate son of Frederick William II, see Clive/Dictionary p. 118f and BGA 2100, note 17.
First Performance: The sonatas were first performed in May/June 1796 at the court of Frederick William II in Berlin, with Beethoven at the piano and most likely Jean Louis Duport on cello (see Wegeler/Ries, p. 109, and Lockwood on Op. 5).
Thayer suspects another performance may have taken place in Vienna during a musical academy hosted by the Romberg cousins on 29 or 30 December 1796 (TDR II, p. 35; for further context on academies, see Op. 15, First Performance). In the spring of 1799, Beethoven performed the Op. 5 No. 2 Sonata privately with the double bassist Domenico Dragonetti (TDR II, p. 76f).
Sketches
(1) No. 1: GB-Lbl, 29801 (“Kafka”), fols. 83v, 142, and 119. Date: fols. 83v and 142 – May/June 1796; fol. 119 – second half of 1796. Sources: Kerman/Kafka vol. 2, p. 276; Johnson/Fischhof vol. 1, p. 322.
Facsimile and transcription: Kerman/Kafka.
(2) No. 1: D-B, Mus. SM. autogr. Beethoven 28 (“Fischhof”), fols. 13, 14v, and 43r(?). Date: May/June 1796. Source: Johnson/Fischhof vol. 1, p. 322. Facsimile: SBB.
(3) No. 2: I-BGi, a bifolio. Date: May/June 1796. Facsimile and transcription: Holschneider/Bergamo.
(4) No. 2: GB-Lbl, Add. Ms. 29801 (“Kafka”), pp. 83 and 119v. Date: May/June 1796. Facsimile and transcription: Kerman/Kafka.
(5) No. 2: D-B, Mus. SM. autogr. Beethoven 28 (“Fischhof”), fol. 13v. Date: May/June 1796. Facsimile: SBB.
(6) No. 2/1: Private collection, a single leaf. Facsimile: Sotheby’s, London, catalogue 14.12.1988, lot 198. Reference: Weber-Bockholdt/entry.
First Edition: Published February 1797 in Vienna by Artaria et Compagnie, VN/PN 689.
Title: “DEUX GRANDES SONATES / pour Le Clavecin ou Piano=Forte / avec un Violoncelle obligé / Composées, et Dédiées / À Sa Majesté / FREDERIC GUILLAUME II / ROI DE PRUSSE / par / LOUIS VAN BEETHOVEN / Œuvre 5me / À Vienne chez Artaria et Compagnie. / [1.:] 689. [r.:] 3 f.” — horizontal format. Piano part: title page (verso blank) and 42 pages. pages 1–21: “Sonata I”, pages 22–42: “Sonata II”; Cello part: 16 pages (p. 1 blank), pages 2–8: “Sonata I”,pp. 9–16: “Sonata II”. Advertisement: Wiener Zeitung, 8 February 1797 (see also Op. 3, origin and publication).
Opus 5 no.1 Sonata in F major for Piano and Cello
I) Adagio sostenuto ed espressivo- Allegro – II) Rondo – Allegro
The Sonata in F major was likely the first to be composed. This is suggested by the hesitancy and unease with which Beethoven seems to navigate a genre that was, at the time, new to him.
The piano bears the greater weight in the overall structure of the work—reflecting, on the one hand, the fact that it was composed by a musician who was primarily a pianist, and on the other, still revealing a certain subordination to the performance conventions of the time, which were reluctant to grant the cello an equal standing with the keyboard. All too often, the piano asserts itself overwhelmingly as the driving force and principal bearer of musical substance in the Sonata, relegating the cello to accompanying roles; too rarely are the instrument’s virtuoso potential and its capacity for lyrical expressiveness fully exploited. Yet, throughout the Sonata, there remains a latent drive to construct a framework of genuinely concertante dignity, in the modern spirit of chamber music. This, together with the undeniable beauty of many thematic ideas and the solidity of the structural design, ensures the Sonata’s enduring value, and lays the groundwork for clearly more accomplished results in the future.
The First Movement
In the first movement, Beethoven draws in part on experiences gained in the opening movement of Op. 2 No. 3—for example, the insertion of a cadenza, which here becomes even more extended.
The introductory Adagio sostenuto sets the instruments on an ideal plane of equality and serves as an effective prelude to the Allegro, which is admirable for the breadth of its themes and the richness of its development.
The internal “dialectic” of the Allegro is not so much thematic—since the two main themes are closely related, both being “dolce” and cantabile in character—as instrumental, as demonstrated by the tight “pursuit” between instruments in the development section. The beginning of the cadenza is especially striking: Beethoven treats it as a canon, prefiguring—in a flash—the contrapuntal conception of the piano-cello relationship that will later characterise the Sonata Op. 102 No. 2.
As previously noted, the first movement is architecturally expansive, and this naturally entails large proportions and complex thematic articulation: the second theme, for instance, consists of three thematic groups, and the closing section of four. While the development is not particularly extensive relative to the movement as a whole (60 of 376 bars, excluding the introduction), it is harmonically very engaging: it begins in A major, passes through D minor, G minor, C minor, A-flat major, F minor, and culminates in a long episode (from bar 205) in D-flat major, featuring wandering harmonies. This passage—and several bars leading into it—is also notable for its use of the cello’s low register.
Second Movement
The “dignity” of the first movement is followed by a Rondo (Allegro vivace) in the bright, typically Haydnesque style. Its character, by turns hunting and pastoral, partly recalls the finale of Op. 2 No. 3. The cello is treated with greater virtuosity than in the first movement, and is pushed at times into the extreme upper register.
Two moments of fusion between the piano and cello timbres are especially noteworthy: the pizzicato passage (beginning at bar 85), and the use of sustained double-stops (beginning at bar 117). In both cases, the cello sonority is conceived, implicitly, in response to the character of the piano sound: sparkling in the first instance, sustained with the resonance pedal in the second.
Following the exposition of the principal theme in canon between the two instruments, two further episodes appear, interspersed with the return of the main theme. The more remarkable of these is undoubtedly the second episode, characterised by that typical Beethovenian energy and culminating in a central alla turca section—charming and delightful. While on one hand it is clearly situated within the musical atmosphere of bourgeois salons of the time, it nevertheless manages to convey moments of originality, particularly in the enchanting modulatory passage. Some brief anticipations of the later Sonata Opus 102 n. 1. may also be discerned.
The refrain, in some respects, anticipates the Scherzo of the Seventh Symphony. The coda concludes with a brief Adagio based on the main theme.
Opus 5 no. 2 Sonata in G minor for Piano and Cello
I) Adagio sostenuto ed espressivo-allegro più tosto presto. II) Rondò – allegro.
The Sonata in G minor shows, when compared to its sister work in F major, features of greater interest.
Here too, of course, the historical constraints of the cello’s subordinate role remain evident: the instrument had not yet been fully emancipated from its past as a continuo bass line, and remains subject to the dominance of the piano—which continues to be the main expressive vehicle, carries the greater virtuosic burden, and serves as the structural backbone of the musical discourse.
However, there is no doubt that in this second engagement with the cello-piano duo, Beethoven demonstrates significant progress in terms of chamber-music integration. Most notably, a more active dialogue begins to emerge between the two instruments, with greater structural and expressive weight increasingly given to the cello’s contributions. The instruments collaborate with equal commitment in achieving a unified expression, resulting in a more melodically fluid work than the preceding Sonata.
First Movement
The expansive Adagio that opens the first movement—marked by the solemn tread of dotted rhythms and brief lyrical effusions—is a page of great expressive intensity and composed, sober pathos. Bars 22–27 correspond directly to bars 34–46 of Mozart’s Fantasia K. 396.
The main Allegro does not betray the character established by the slow introduction, merely lightening its intensity and, if anything, broadening its expressive range through the grace of certain melodic inflections. According to Carli Ballola, this first movement is “one of the most captivating creations of Beethoven’s youth: one of those works whose unrepeatable felicity is achieved through the ingenuous and enthusiastic use of a language inherited, one from which the artist draws liberally, as from a treasure whose interest he has not yet begun to collect.”
A comparison between the opening of this Allegro and that of the first Sonata clearly shows Beethoven’s progress: the two instruments are now fully integrated, and the traditional concertante patterns are transcended through a series of questions and answers resembling a two-part fugue exposition. The cello now enjoys a far more autonomous role, concentrated in lyrical expression, while the agitated triplet accompaniment that spans the entire movement is entrusted to the piano.
In this Allegro, Beethoven revisits the formal model of the first movement of Mozart’s Sonata K. 457, with its two traditional repeats, but adds an unusually extensive coda following the second repeat.
The proportions are large:
| Introduction 44 bars |
Exposition 171 bars |
Development 99 bars |
Re-exposition 166 bars |
Coda 73 bars |
The melodic integration between the two instruments is maintained; not so the rhythmic integration, given that the rhythm of quaver triplets is reserved for the piano alone, as such figuration would have been unplayable—at the end of the eighteenth century—by the cello’s bowing technique.
The melodic material is distributed with such perfection that any criticism regarding the incomplete rhythmic integration appears academic and abstract. A particular detail of the piano writing is worth noting: at bars 466–470, by doubling the cello’s repeated notes, Beethoven employs alternating octaves in the piano part—very sonorous and destined to become a commonplace technique of Romantic piano playing; for a similar effect, in the first movement of Op. 2 No. 3, Beethoven had instead used the eighteenth-century broken octaves (bars 85–88 and 252–255).
The cello has the task of announcing the first theme, sombre and subdued in tone, and it is also primarily responsible for presenting the theme of the Allegro assai, which is deeply mournful and introspective. The cello’s prominence continues with the vigorous and fiery expansion of this first theme—in short, in a thoroughly Beethovenian manner. The second theme is of truly remarkable melodic beauty and sweetness. Della Croce writes of this passage: “(…) It is perhaps the most seductive musical image Beethoven has produced so far, contradicting those who claim he was not a great inventor of melodies (…).”
The Second Movement:
Brilliant, flowing, and varied in its episodes, with a rustic and cheerful character, the Rondo ranks among the most accomplished humorous pages of the young Beethoven. It is fully consistent with the atmosphere of the first movement, though it takes a different direction, dedicating wide spaces to virtuosic passages for both piano and cello, which here present no small technical challenges, and adopting a decidedly brilliant tempo, with a mannered elegance that borders on the folksy.
The cello is required to undertake a very demanding role, balancing lyricism with rhythm. This is especially evident in the beautiful central episode, where it must move to the upper register as an absolute protagonist while executing highly virtuosic passages.