The Beethoven sketchbook Landsberg 6 is often referred to as his ‘Eroica’ Sketchbook, since nearly half of it is devoted to sketches for the Eroica Symphony. It is perhaps the most celebrated of all his 70 or so sketchbooks, and has been well known ever since Gustav Nottebohm devoted a monograph to it in 1880, including numerous short extracts.Footnote ¹ It belonged then to the Royal Library in Berlin, but it disappeared for a time at the end of World War II. By the time it resurfaced in Krakow in the late 1970s it had been the subject of a detailed bibliographical study by Rachel Wade,Footnote ² based on a microfilm. It has taken until now, however, for a complete facsimile and transcription to become available. Volume 1 of the edition by Lewis Lockwood and Alan Gosman consists of an extended introductory Commentary and complete transcription, while Volume 2 contains a full-colour facsimile, with each page shown with the inner margin of the facing page to prevent risk of loss between them. It concludes with an index of works and a meticulously prepared line-by-line inventory for each of the 182 pages, of which only six are blank.

Apart from the Eroica, the main works represented are the ‘Waldstein’ Sonata, with its original slow movement the Andante favori and a possible minuet for it (WoO 57 and 56); the abandoned opera Vestas Feuer; the first few numbers of Leonore; some lesser piano works, notably the ‘Rule Britannia’ Variations and three Marches, Op. 45; the song Das Glück der Freundschaft; and a few sketches for the Triple Concerto, the oratorio Christus am Oelberge, the Fifth Symphony, the Fourth Piano Concerto, and some ideas eventually taken up in the Pastoral Symphony. There are also numerous jottings that were not obviously intended for any known work, such as piano figurations and fragmentary song sketches.

In general, the transcription is excellently done and shows great expertise at making sense of the sketches. Unlike in some sketchbook transcriptions, the editors have retained the precise layout of the original pages, greatly facilitating comparison between facsimile and transcription, and one must hope that future sketchbook transcriptions will adopt this layout, even if it means numerous blank staves or even whole blank pages. Conventional editorial indications such as dotted bar-lines and bracketed accidentals have been added to clarify the text (very occasionally an addition has not been shown as editorial, such as a flat on page 123 stave 9, bar 4, and the final bar-line on page 126 stave 7); and nearly every page also has at least one footnote discussing a problematical reading. Particularly difficult were some of the words, which are sometimes abbreviated and barely legible but have been convincingly deciphered. In the music notation, some of the most difficult problems occur in the sketches for Vestas Feuer, where Beethoven varies between treble, soprano, tenor and bass clefs, often without indicating which. The solutions proposed for these sketches are almost invariably correct or plausibly so, even in very short sketches of only one or two notes. Many of the sketches in this part of the book are written in very pale ink, adding to the difficulty of transcribing them.

So as not to clutter the pages unduly, the editors have been sparing with their use of footnotes, and many pitches transcribed without comment are far from certain. This is evident as early as the second sketch on page 1, where an abandoned song (‘Zur Erde sank’) is listed in the inventory as being in E major. If one assumes a treble clef, the fourth note looks like B and the last two like G and F, all of which make good melodic sense if read in this key; yet each has been transcribed one note higher and the whole sketch presented without key signature, as C major. There is even doubt about the clef, for Beethoven sometimes used soprano clef for songs, and Paul Reid's transcription adopts this clef.Footnote ³ With such uncertainty, the footnote used for the previous sketch, ‘The clef and key signature are conjectural’, should surely have been repeated. The transcription of several unmarked notes elsewhere is also less than convincing – for example, on page 162 stave 6, bar 4, the second note is transcribed as D but looks like E, which would also make much better melodic sense. On page 122 stave 3, among sketches for the ‘Waldstein’ Sonata, notes 7–9 are shown as A G F, but B A G seems more probable both visually and melodically. Unfortunately this highly doubtful reading reappears in Example 25 in the Commentary, where it is used to support an analytical argument that must now be called into question.

Inevitably there are a few misreadings or misprints, which could and ideally should have been eliminated before publication. Here is a selection (shown as page/stave/bar/note number).

5/9/10/1: semibreve rest (not repetition sign)

45/10/1/2–3: dotted quaver, semiquaver (not quaver, demisemiquaver)

45/10/3/2–3: the same (not quaver, quaver)

47/1/1/2: double-dotted quaver (not double-dotted semiquaver)

61/2/5–7: three quaver repetition signs are omitted

77/15/5/2: quaver (not crotchet)

97/10/8/2–3: blank space, implying omitted passage (not two crotchet rests)

107/14/1/2–6: 6 demisemiquavers (not quaver plus 4 semiquavers)

116/7/3: flat is spurious (misreading of a grace note, though the note is also shown)

120/2/1: bar-line missing

120/14/1–2: slur is for left hand (not stave 13)

155/9/1: slur missing

157/18/last chord: middle note is G flat (not F); thus lowest note must be C, not B

Stem directions are occasionally reversed where the direction is insignificant (for example, page 5/1/4/4–6), despite the claim that the ‘stem directions are the same as in Beethoven's manuscript’ (Commentary, p. 92). There are also a few dubious editorial insertions, such as a sharp (25/2/6), natural and flat (70/2/5), initial repeat sign (72/4/8 – it should be a bar later), two-flat key signature (117/1–2/5), and rest (166/9/6 – it should be two beats earlier). A clefless sketch for a ‘lustige Sinfonia’ (159/11) has been put in A major in the bass clef, whereas F major and treble clef seem more likely, resulting in an idea that could be associated with preparatory concepts for the Sixth Symphony. Considering the amount and complexity of the material, however, the editors have reached an impressively high standard of accuracy.

The introductory Commentary devotes a long chapter to the Eroica and a shorter one to each of the other main works. There is even one on extracts copied from C.P.E. Bach's Litanies, as well several more on the ‘origins, structure, and significance’ of the sketchbook. The sketches are provided with illuminating comments and a discussion of how they relate to sketches elsewhere (if any) and to the finished works (if completed). This is particularly useful in the case of the Fifth Symphony, where the chronology of the early sketches has never been satisfactorily established, despite the present discussion. Lockwood and Gosman convincingly argue that some sketches in Aut. 19e ‘constitute an earlier stage in the evolution of the work than those in Landsberg 6’, even though the former include a sketch for the slow movement whereas the latter propose a different slow movement, in C major and (p. 83). The chronology of the symphony sketches within Landsberg, however, has been left open, and it seems probable that sketches for the first movement, a slow movement and a finale on pp. 157–8 of the sketchbook predate those for the third movement on pp. 155–6.

The chronology of the sketchbook in general, in fact, has not been handled entirely convincingly, and one could take issue with a number of points. Regarding the Triple Concerto, the editors state: ‘As Tyson points out, the Op. 56 sketches provide no definite evidence of dating’ (p. 6). This was true when Tyson wrote it in 1985, but it is now clear that Op. 56 was performed shortly before 9 June 1804.Footnote ⁴ Its sketches come at the very end of the book, straight after those for a revision of Christus, which was performed on 27 March 1804, but they are very early ones and therefore probably date from almost immediately after the Christus performance. Thus the book must have been complete by about early April that year, though Beethoven may have continued to fill up gaps after that date.

Another chronological problem is the suggestion that the Op. 45 marches were entered in Landsberg 6 before the previous sketchbook (the Wielhorsky) was finished (see p. 7). Such an overlap would be surprising since it was contrary to Beethoven's normal practice. To support the argument, reference is made to Christopher Reynolds's ‘demonstration’ that there was an overlap between the previous two sketchbooks.Footnote ⁵ Unfortunately Reynolds's evidence was seriously flawed, as was pointed out long ago, and his theory is ‘as untenable as it is improbable’.Footnote ⁶ For Op. 45 the editors suggest, based on a hypothesis by Katherine Syer, that Beethoven could have begun the sketchbook as early as October 1802, and entered the Op. 45 sketches then, long before the previous sketchbook was even half finished.Footnote ⁷ Why he should enter them on pp. 44–7, however, could be explained only if he had already filled in at least some earlier pages with Eroica sketches at that time (creating the need to turn several pages ahead). The editors admit that ‘the question cannot be resolved with certainty’ (p. 7), but their hypothesis seems extremely improbable: Beethoven's concert of 5 April 1803 included premieres of several major works, which required huge amounts of sketching and preparation beforehand (the second half of the Wielhorsky Sketchbook is filled largely with sketches for Christus am Oelberge). Thus he could hardly have started detailed work on the Eroica (which occupies most of pp. 4–91 of its sketchbook) or on the marches until after this concert. Moreover, Ferdinand Ries relates that Op. 45 was commissioned only after he had improvised a march at a music meeting in Vienna; and Jos van der Zanden has produced strong evidence that Ries did not arrive in Vienna until early 1803.Footnote ⁸ This evidence is completely disregarded here, but it would confirm that Op. 45 could hardly have been sketched until after the April concert (since Beethoven was short of time before then), and probably not until after completion of the ‘Kreutzer’ Sonata (also sketched in Wielhorsky) the following month. There is absolutely no clear evidence that there was any overlap between Wielhorsky and Landsberg 6 – it is more likely that there was a short gap.

A further complication comes from a Beethoven letter to Ries that Ries dates to 1802. It refers to the possibility that two marches, presumably from Op. 45, had been engraved. The letter indicates that Beethoven was staying in Heiligenstadt, which supports Ries's dating, and it is described here as the ‘main evidence’ for dating two of the marches in Op. 45 to 1802 (p. 6). But since Ries was apparently not in Vienna that summer, this letter must date from 1803, when Beethoven stayed just outside Heiligenstadt (at Oberdöbling). Thus the letter must signify that he was staying merely in the vicinity of Heiligenstadt. It seems inconceivable that the marches were ready for engraving as early as summer or early autumn 1802, and dating the sketches for them on pp. 44–7 of Landsberg 6 to that period or earlier causes seemingly insurmountable chronological difficulties. The suggestion that these march sketches were entered a little before the surrounding pages, however, is persuasive, since the Eroica sketches neatly bypass them. These marches were therefore sketched probably a month or two earlier than previously supposed, and their most likely date would seem to be around May–June 1803, with the surrounding Eroica sketches a month or two later.

Many pages of the sketchbook have vertical folds, presumably made by Beethoven at the time. They can scarcely be seen in the facsimile, but Gosman describes them in much detail, offering some plausible though far from convincing reasons for their purpose. For example, he suggests that Beethoven wanted to view the themes of the first three movements of the Eroica, sketched on pages 6, 10 and 11, simultaneously to form a kind of synopsis for these movements. To achieve this effect Beethoven should have used an outward fold for pages 7 and 9 near the left margin, and an inward fold about halfway along, resulting in the left half of pages 6, 10 and 11, containing the three themes, being adjacent. Yet page 7 has an inward fold about halfway along, and an outward fold near the right edge, while page 9 has an inward fold towards the left margin and an outward fold near the middle (and another nearer the right edge). Thus either Beethoven had limited spatial skills or, more probably, he made the folds for some other purpose.

Three sketch pages contain curious designs in the margin. These designs could be interpreted in many ways, and Lockwood's suggestion that they are connected to Freemasonry seems highly speculative. Beethoven made similar designs (never exactly the same) on sketch leaves elsewhere, such as on folios 50r, 106r and 157r of the ‘Kafka’ Miscellany, and it would be rash to assume they are anything more than pen trials or doodles. If Beethoven were known to have expressed great interest in Masonic symbolism, Lockwood's theory might have some support, but this is not the case; Beethoven's writings indicate far more interest in Christianity and oriental religions than in Freemasonry, and one could just as easily attempt to interpret these designs as connected to religious symbolism.

Some of the interpretations of the sketches themselves are equally dubious, and so all in all it is not difficult to find fault with both the narrative chapters and the transcriptions. Nevertheless this is an excellent publication, which should stimulate and facilitate further studies of the works represented. There are many useful and penetrating insights in the Commentary; the identification and indexing of the material has been executed efficiently; and the transcriptions are largely accurate, even for the most intractable material.