Many times Beethoven began large‑scale works only to abandon the project later. This is the case with this concertante in C major, a double or triple concerto—perhaps for violin, violoncello (piano), and orchestra—which predates by several years the well‑known Triple Concerto, Opus 56.

Beethoven began working intensively on this concertante in the sketchbook known as the “Kessler,” which he used from the first half of 1802. Some sketches already appear on folios 38 verso and 38 recto, continuing densely up to folio 41 verso. From this point onward, the composer was probably becoming dissatisfied with the progress, rewriting the second half of the work in a manner far more disorderly than before.

At the same time, Beethoven also began preparing a complete orchestral score, written on paper bearing the same watermark as the Kessler sketchbook. This score, which has come down to us as a 12‑page fragment, has been catalogued as Artaria 183 and is preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. The first pages have been lost, and what remains corresponds to bar 43 of the Kessler project, continuing with the solo entry up to bars 113–126.

Some ideas for further “solo” passages were found on folio 41r of the sketchbook, but the corresponding passages in the score are much more fully developed. What clearly emerges is that the Artaria 183 manuscript lacks its opening pages. Indeed, the very first surviving note is a viola bar with a slur that must necessarily have begun on a preceding (now lost) page.

Whether Beethoven continued writing after bar 126 remains an open question. The last bar of the solo violin part coincides with the end of the page, but from that point onward the score—which until then had been fairly polished (though not complete)—gradually declines into a sketch. Little was developed beyond the first exposition: a few conceptual ideas, only lightly worked out. It is important to note that one of these ideas is marked “for the Concertante,” specifying precisely the aesthetic form Beethoven had in mind for this composition.

The principal study of this material was carried out by Richard Kramer. His work was published in 1977 in the volume Beethoven Studies. Kramer observes:

“The very existence of a fragmentary score for the first movement of the concertante stands as evidence that Beethoven would work intermittently between sketchbook and score within a single movement… Much remained to be worked out in the sketchbook: the solo exposition is not sufficiently drafted; the development has not even been attempted; the recapitulation would surely require at least some sketching. With fundamental aspects of the first movement still unsettled, Beethoven has begun the transfer from sketchbook to score.”

Many times Beethoven began large‑scale works only to abandon the project later. This is the case with this concertante in C major, a double or triple concerto—perhaps for violin, violoncello (piano), and orchestra—which predates by several years the well‑known Triple Concerto, Opus 56.

Beethoven began working intensively on this concertante in the sketchbook known as the “Kessler,” which he used from the first half of 1802. Some sketches already appear on folios 38 verso and 38 recto, continuing densely up to folio 41 verso. From this point onward, the composer was probably becoming dissatisfied with the progress, rewriting the second half of the work in a manner far more disorderly than before.

At the same time, Beethoven also began preparing a complete orchestral score, written on paper bearing the same watermark as the Kessler sketchbook. This score, which has come down to us as a 12‑page fragment, has been catalogued as Artaria 183 and is preserved at the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. The first pages have been lost, and what remains corresponds to bar 43 of the Kessler project, continuing with the solo entry up to bars 113–126.

Some ideas for further “solo” passages were found on folio 41r of the sketchbook, but the corresponding passages in the score are much more fully developed. What clearly emerges is that the Artaria 183 manuscript lacks its opening pages. Indeed, the very first surviving note is a viola bar with a slur that must necessarily have begun on a preceding (now lost) page.

Whether Beethoven continued writing after bar 126 remains an open question. The last bar of the solo violin part coincides with the end of the page, but from that point onward the score—which until then had been fairly polished (though not complete)—gradually declines into a sketch. Little was developed beyond the first exposition: a few conceptual ideas, only lightly worked out. It is important to underline that one of these ideas is marked “for the Concertante,” specifying precisely the aesthetic form Beethoven had in mind for this composition.

The principal study of this material was carried out by Richard Kramer. His work was published in 1977 in the volume Beethoven Studies. Kramer observes:

“The very existence of a fragmentary score for the first movement of the concertante stands as evidence that Beethoven would work intermittently between sketchbook and score within a single movement… Much remained to be worked out in the sketchbook: the solo exposition is not sufficiently drafted; the development has not even been attempted; the recapitulation would surely require at least some sketching. With fundamental aspects of the first movement still unsettled, Beethoven has begun the transfer from sketchbook to score.”

These considerations indeed prompt reflection on Beethoven’s compositional method. But why, then, did Beethoven ultimately abandon this project?

Kramer believes that the answer may be found in a letter dated 22 April 1802 from Beethoven’s brother Karl to Breitkopf & Härtel:

“My brother would have written in person, but he is unwilling to do so at the moment, since Baron van Braun is a stupid and coarse theatre director and has refused the use of the theatre for the Akademie, turning it instead into a stage for utterly mediocre performers.”

If Beethoven was preparing the concertante for this Akademie and for that theatre, the incident may have discouraged him.

We find Karl again in another letter to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 14 October 1803, offering a “Konzertant für alle Instrumente für Klavier, Violonzello und Violino.” Since the earliest known sketches of the Triple Concerto Op. 56 date from the first months of 1804, it is entirely plausible that Beethoven considered returning to work on this concertante.

Beethoven’s dissatisfaction with this first attempt at a concertante may be attributed to the limited potential of the chosen material. Even though the solo entries are beautiful and interesting, as Kramer notes, the principal theme is at once short and poor, and probably not suited to support a large‑scale composition.

Kramer sees the Triple Concerto as:

“at once a reaction to the failed attempt, and… a realization of images and concepts latent in the fragment. The muted opening bars, barely articulate in the low strings, are common to both works (though we must infer some of this quality from the inconclusive sketches in ‘Kessler’). In both cases, this initial idea is detached from, or introductory to, a principal thematic event, though in Opus 56 the two are motivically akin.”

The Concertante in C major thus seems to have been abandoned when the circumstances that justified its immediate realization ceased to exist. The bitter taste of that disappointment may have reinforced Beethoven’s dissatisfaction with the flaws in the conception of the work—flaws he may have considered irreparable.

Yet it is reasonable to view the Triple Concerto as a definitive stage in the gestation of the same project. The important and fundamental concepts of the earlier concertante are not simply rejected; rather, they are assimilated—consciously or not—into a work that embodies the completion of a temporarily set‑aside undertaking.

Composition

Composed in the first months of 1802, up to April at the latest. The orchestral works drafted in the “Kessler” notebook at the beginning of 1802 (see Brandenburg/Keßler vol. 1, pp. 32f) can almost all be seen in connection with an Akademie that Beethoven planned for April 1802 and which did not take place (see letter BGA 85). Among the unfinished works, the Concertante is the most advanced; Beethoven had already begun to elaborate the exposition of the first movement. There also exist brief sketches and ideas for the other movements.

Sieghard Brandenburg assumes that Beethoven probably would not have been able to complete the work in time, even if the Akademie had taken place (Brandenburg/Keßler vol. 1, p. 14). Perhaps for this reason he had already abandoned the Concertante. Richard Kramer postulates musical reasons for the abandonment, reinforced by the failed Akademie plan (Kramer/Concertante).

In 1803 Beethoven tried again with the same instrumentation in a Concertante in F major (see BGA 163 and Op. 56), and finally composed the Triple Concerto Op. 56 in 1804. For possible musical relationships between Op. 56 and Unv. 5, see Kramer/Concertante and Ferencz/Op56.

Sketches and Drafts

A‑Wgm, A 34 (“Kessler”), folios 38v–39r, 40v–43r, and 71r. Dating: from the first months to April 1802. Facsimiles and transcriptions: Brandenburg/Keßler, Kramer/Concertante.

Autograph Score, 1st Movement

Key: D major – B‑flat. Shelfmark: Mus. SM. autogr. Beethoven Artaria 183. Missing folios at the beginning and possibly at the end; the score is incomplete. Extent: 12 folios; 24 pages in score, 1r–12v. Paper: horizontal format, 23.5 × 32 cm, double‑spaced.

Provenance: Purchased by Artaria at auction in 1827. Artaria publishing house archive, Vienna. Erich Prieger, Bonn, from 1897. Acquired in 1901.

Facsimile of folios 1r and 10v and partial transcription: Kramer/Concertante. Complete facsimile: SBB.

Descriptions: Bartlitz/Catalogue; Johnson/Artaria p. 21ff.; Kramer/Concertante. Biography: Brandenburg/Keßler; Ferencz/Op56 pp. 134–145; Kramer/Concertante.