Opus 29 Quintet in C major for two violins, two violas and cello
I) Allegro moderato – II) Adagio molto espressivo – III) Scherzo – Allegro – IV) Finale – Presto.
Opus 29 – Quintet in C major for two violins, two violas, and cello, Op. 29, dedicated to Count Moritz von Fries, December 1800 – 1801, published in separate parts in Leipzig by Breitkopf & Härtel, December 1802; full score published in Berlin by Schlesinger, 1828. GA no. 34 (series 5/3) – B. 29 – KH. 29 – L. II, p. 94 – N. 29 – T. 85.
Although the original manuscript, preserved at the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, is dated 1801, the work was begun at least before the end of the previous year, as is evident from a letter Beethoven wrote to the publisher Hoffmeister on 15 December 1800. Sketches of the first and second movements were already noted by Frimmel in 1908 as belonging to a collection of Max Kalbeck in Vienna; others, of the first movement, are held in the archive of the Society of Friends of Music in Vienna; still others, of the first and last movements, are kept at the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin.
Chronologically, this Quintet is the second of the four compositions for two violins, two violas, and cello left to us by Beethoven. However, compared to the other three (the Quintet in E-flat major, Op. 4, from 1795–1796, a reworking of the Wind Octet of 1792, published posthumously as Op. 103; the Quintet in C minor, Op. 104, an arrangement completed in August 1817 of the Piano Trio Op. 1 No. 3; and the Fugue in D major, Op. 137, from November 1817), it can be considered the only genuine work conceived and written for such a defined ensemble within the traditional four-movement sonata structure.
Some have placed it at a lower level, both formally and expressively, compared to the typical model of the string quartet for two violins, viola, and cello, arguing that Beethoven was not driven by a substantial necessity to use the five-instrument ensemble, but rather by external reasons aimed at achieving greater sonority and instrumental colour effects; which would also have influenced the character of the musical ideas, not marked by a strict unity of development and structural continuity. Nevertheless, the work should be considered in its artistic reality, not by what it ought to have been according to certain rules that the composer deliberately did not follow in order to do something different.
In the Allegro moderato, we believe it is worth noting, besides the particular sweetness and fluidity of the two main themes, the auxiliary triplet phrase which immediately follows the first theme like a whimsical commentary, gradually assumed and developed especially in the development section (where the second theme does not reappear) and in the concluding section after the recapitulation, serving as a unifying element for the whole movement in terms of both motion and expression, thus contributing significantly to the character of the entire movement.
In the Adagio, the cantabile and adorned serenity of the main melody alternates with a contrasting episode that might be called a moment of romantic agitation, mostly entrusted to the first violin over a typical tremolo figure of repeated chords from the other instruments. The lively and whimsical element, characteristic of Beethoven’s style, is largely explained in the third movement by the playful, bouncing figure passed between the instruments in the Scherzo, and then by the insistence of a three-note rhythmic figure and a cadence tension stretched almost to the point of exasperation in the Trio.
The Presto opens with the sparkling vivacity of a fireworks display, followed by the swirling legato figurations that make up the second thematic section.
The development is rich and original, featuring the introduction of a fugato episode based on a third theme of martial character, around which slightly livelier elements from the first theme intertwine. The elements from the second theme eventually lead to another entirely different episode, an andante con moto and playful section resembling almost the instrumental introduction to a lighthearted opera. Then follows a faithful recapitulation of the first part; but at its conclusion, and connected to it like a natural continuation—also by the customary transposition to the tonic key of C major—the melody of the Andante returns once again. Finally, with the return of the original tempo, there is a quick and festive conclusion of the two main thematic elements.
In 1911, three German magazines published what was then hailed as a discovery: a so-called letter from Beethoven dated “July 8, afternoon,” addressed to an unknown recipient and written in the style of the universally known “Immortal Beloved” letter. Among other things, it contained these words (which we translate into English here): “Oh, if only I could tell you in music how much you mean to me, it would be easier for me. This theme came to me, which is not badly done.
But the words beneath it I must keep silent, while I wish I could shout them out full of joy…” The musical theme adapted, perhaps not very successfully, to the expressive meaning of the words is precisely that of the Andante con moto and playful section, which De Lenz had already thought to interpret, within a hypothetical “illustrative clarification” of the entire finale, as an “image of love,” particularly referring to Beethoven’s passion for Guicciardi. Now, the new letter—which could not have been mistaken for a different period because it included the theme from a work composed in 1800–1801 and published in 1802—would have easily supported the opinion that the famous “Immortal Beloved” letter (similar in passionate tone, but still hypothetical today regarding its date and recipient) also belonged to that same period and should consequently be considered addressed to the same person: who, at that time, could only have been Giulietta Guicciardi.
A somewhat later critique quickly demonstrated with abundant arguments that the letter was a clever but imperfect forgery of Beethoven’s style and handwriting; it is no longer mentioned today by scholars and biographers.
[By Biamonti Giovanni – Catalogo cronologico e tematico delle opere di Beethoven comprese quelle inedite e gli abbozzi non utilizzati, Torino, ILTE 1968]
Official title: Opus 29 Quintett (C-dur) für zwei Violinen, zwei Violen und Violoncello Widmung: Moritz Johann Christian Graf von Fries NGA VI/2 AGA 34 = Serie 5/3
Creation and Publication: Completed in 1801 according to the autograph date on the manuscript. The original edition in parts was published by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig in December 1802. In December 1800, Beethoven informed the Leipzig publisher Franz Anton Hoffmeister: “a little later, you may have a quintet for string instruments, as well as possibly quartets and other works which I do not have with me at present” (BGA 49). Perhaps Beethoven — like Haydn (see Biba/Griesinger pp. 30f and 86f) — received a commission from Moritz Graf von Fries. Beethoven had probably not yet begun composing, as the known sketches date from 1801. It is not possible to determine exactly when the composition was completed. In a statement to the k.k. Oberpolizeidirektion on 1 September 1803, Beethoven declared: “namely, about a year and a half ago I sold the Quintet in C major to Count Fries on the condition that after six months I could resell the same quintet and publish it publicly in print. Now, after the lapse of this half-year, I have without further ado sold the aforementioned quintet to the publishers Breitkopf and Härtel in Leipzig” (TDR II pp. 595f). This statement is unreliable, as Breitkopf & Härtel had already acquired the work in April 1802 — around the same time Beethoven is said to have first presented it to Fries. It is also unclear whether Beethoven really waited only six months before offering the work to a publisher. Georg August Griesinger reported to Breitkopf & Härtel: “Beethoven had assigned it to Count Fries under the condition that after six months he could dispose of it. After the lapse of a year [!] it was purchased by you” (BGA 120, 8 December 1802). The delivery date of the manuscript to the dedicatee (and probably also the commissioner) is between March and October 1801. The offer to Breitkopf & Härtel was made on 28 March 1802 via Kaspar Karl van Beethoven, who wrote: “Now it is our pleasure to offer you a new large quintet for 2 violins, 2 violas, and cello, for which we cannot ask less than 38 ducats in Viennese currency […]. I ask you to hurry somewhat, as we would like to see it printed soon, since it is one of my brother’s finest works” (BGA 81). The publisher agreed, and by early April the quintet was sent to Leipzig (probably before 22 April). On 3 November, Breitkopf & Härtel reported that the quintet had been engraved and that proof copies for review would be sent with the next post (BGA 109).
However, after Beethoven informed the publisher that Artaria had produced a pirated edition, printing was delayed until the end of December. The edition became available in Vienna on 22 January 1803 (BGA 125). Breitkopf & Härtel announced the availability of parts and the piano four-hands arrangement as early as late October 1802 (Leipziger Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (5, 1802/03, Intelligenzblatt 2, October 1802), the Wiener Zeitung of 30 October 1802, and the Michaeli 1802 Messkatalog). According to the ledger, the edition was completed on 29 December 1802; this roughly corresponds to the announcements appearing in the AmZ (Intelligenzblatt 7 December 1802) and the Reichsanzeiger of 8 December 1802.
Regarding the Artaria edition, the composer, who was surprised to be portrayed negatively by Breitkopf (BGA 110, 13 November 1802), later declared in the Wiener Zeitung on 22 January 1803 that he had not participated in the “Artaria und Mollo” edition, which he described as “highly flawed, incorrect, and completely unusable for the player.” A lawsuit brought by Artaria led to a dispute before the Vienna police authority, which dragged on until the end of 1803 and was finally settled in 1805 before the magistrate with an essentially ineffective agreement. Artaria had received a copy of the decorative vignette for the engraving based on a description by Beethoven — a circumstance that remained unproven and was not recognised by the judicial authorities. Thanks to Fries’ mediation, Artaria committed to wait before selling their edition “until the original edition has circulated for 14 days here in Vienna.” Furthermore, Beethoven agreed, albeit reluctantly and incompletely, to prepare corrigenda for the Artaria edition.
The French nickname “L’Orage” appears in the title of the Sieber père edition, Paris. “L’Orage” is based on the final movement of the work (Presto), which shows musical correspondences with “Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus” Op. 43 (the introduction “La Tempesta”). Later interpretations of the work by Wilhelm von Lenz, Alexandre Oulibicheff, and others follow a similar line.
The numerous sketches and drafts will be addressed in a separate article.
First edition 1802 (December). Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel, PN 94. — Title:
“QUINTET / For / 2 Violins, 2 Violas / and Cello / composed and dedicated / to Monsieur le Comte / MAURICE DE FRIES / BY / L. VAN BEETHOVEN. / Op. 29. Price 2 Florins / IN LEIPZIG, / at Breitkopf & Härtel”.
