Analysis: Haydn Hob. XVI:52 Keyboard Sonata no. 62 in E-flat Movt. I, Allegro 

Written in 1784 during Haydn’s second escapade in London, this monothematic Sonata was one of a number of works he dedicated to the resident German pianist Therese Jansen-Bartolozzi, who ‘must have been a first-rate player’, inspiring ‘wonderful and highly demanding compositions from Clementi [of whom she was a pupil], and Dussek’ (Komlós, 1995, p.77). The work represents a remarkable symbiosis of Haydn’s Viennese experience, his exposure to English society and style, and the instruments native to both; the ‘joint presence of the two kinds of instrumental idiom becomes the very source of the textural variety of the music’ (Komlós, 1995, p.76). Haydn must have ‘had certain qualms’ (Landon, 1976, p.441) about the Sonata as it was not until December 1978 that the work was first published by the Venetian Artaria in 1798 – four years after its composition – and, coincidentally, also the year that Jansen-Bartolozzi and her family temporarily relocated to Vienna. Beghin (2007, p.170) commented on the fact that performers ‘became increasingly professional’ (Beghin, 2007, p.170), and it is, therefore, perhaps possible that Haydn doubted the saleability of the sonata to the citizenry, and held off from publishing for this reason. It would, however, be more likely that, as with the C major sonata, Hob. XVI:50, no. 52 was withheld for the express use of Jansen-Bartolozzi, before its eventual publication with the ‘fashionable title… Grande Sonate’ (Somfai, 1979, p.173). 

Despite the Artaria printing being labelled ‘pour le Clavecin ou Piano-Forte’ (for the Harpsichord or Piano-Forte), the work ‘was obviously written for the pianoforte, and was thus described in the London first edition’ (Harrison, 1997, p.8), although Ratner (1980, p.413) suggests that ‘strong flavour of the harpsichord style’ could perhaps be viewed as Haydn imitating the harpsichord ‘as a topic’ – a performance on the harpsichord itself, however, would be quite lacking in substance. Harrison (1997, p.8) suggests commercialism as the ulterior motive behind ‘Haydn’s, and his publishers’, view of the keyboard idiom’ although he points that this was primarily a consideration in the early 1780’s. Beghin (2014, p.567) also expresses apprehension regarding performance on a harpsichord, as well as Ratner’s proposed ‘harpsichord topic’, suggesting that analysts instead ‘take “Englishness” as a premise’. 

The sonata opens with a grand French overture (Ratner, 1980, p.412) gesture ‘foreshadowing Beethoven’ (Somfai, 1979, p.247), Ex. 1, which is Haydn’s ‘most robust [thematic] construction for a keyboard instrument’ (Komlós, 1995, p.76); it is, however, a ‘conventional I⁷-IV-V-I opening gambit’ (Spitzer, 1998, p.194) over a tonic pedal, and Komlós (1995, p.76) also points out that beginning with a single dense chord is not uncommon for Haydn, citing Hob.XVI:12, 14, & 17 – which all also include dotted themes. However, Hob. XVI:52 derives its unique powerfulness from having several seven-part chords in succession, and Beghin (2014, p.567) proposed that such ‘assertiveness has become a topic of its own’ rooted in the English style, also commenting on the remarkable similarities of Hob. XVI:52 with Dussek’s (who was based in London from 1789-1799) Sonata Op.13, No.3 – which was also dedicated to Jansen-Bartelozzi.  

It is the repeated use of ‘thick’ chords that is ‘the most conspicuous sign of the influence of English pianos on Haydn’s keyboard style’ (Komlós, 1995, p. 74). Beghin (2014, p.568) also sees the grand opening as an ‘equivalent of the English custom of rising to speak’ – something to which he will have been exposed during his visits to London, along with the ‘performance of a solo piano sonata as part of a larger concert’ (Vienna had no purpose-built concert hall until 1831). Previously, Haydn’s Sonatas were composed primarily for a domestic audience, such as the 1790 E-flat Hob. XVI:49 sonata composed for his friend Maria Gennzinger; however, in this case it is a ‘Grande Sonate’ destined for the talented fingers of a renowned pianist, rather than the amateur, and, therefore, an introduction suited to its concert venue is required and delivered: ‘a public sonata on the grand scale’ (Landon, 1976, p. 450). 

Such introductions as of no. 52 would have been hugely powerful on the ineffectively damped, ‘more orchestral sounding’ (Beghin, 2014, 568) English pianoforte, with its’ murky bass add[ing] enormous sonority (Oort, 2000, p.87) , and the dense English texture is not confined to the introduction, nor the first subject as evidenced in the codetta (bb.39-43) , Ex.2,  – please see table 1 for an overview of the structure – where the left hands’ broken octaves create a ‘tremendous wash of sound’ (Lock, 2004, p.28) as well as the punched chords (b.39), and rising octaves (b.41). The brilliant style demisemiquaver runs (bb.40-42) which require such precise finger work in a competent performance will partially be consumed by the resonance of the English pianoforte – although as Haydn was ‘captivated by a type of instrument so very different from the Viennese piano’, and ‘always composed at a keyboard instrument’ (Burnett, 2004, p.179), this effect will have been intended. Indeed, Lock (2004, p.29) suggests that the rests in bars 43 and 46 allow the accumulated sound of the instrument to dissipate; bar 39 is another example of rests being used in such a manner.

Structural Frame	Section	Bar Numbers	Material	Key
Exposition	First Subject	1-10	Theme 1 (bb.1-5) Theme 2 (bb.6-8)	I
	Transition	10-16	Theme 2	I-V
	Second Subject	17-33	Theme 3 (bb.17-26) Theme 4 (bb.27-33)	V
	Codetta	33-43	Theme 1 (bb.33-37) Cadential Passage (bb.39-43)
Development		44-79	Theme 4 (bb.46-47) Theme 3 (bb.48-49) Theme 4 (b.50) Theme 3 (bb.51-67) Theme 4 (bb.68-72) Theme 2 (bb.72-78)	VI (b.46) II (b.48) iii (b.51) vi (b.56) IV (b.61) V/VI (b.67) ♮II (b.68) V/I (b.78)
Recapitulation	First Subject	79-86	Theme 1 (bb.79-83) Theme 2 (bb.84-93)	I
	Transition	86-93	Theme 2
	Second Subject	93-104	Theme 3 (bb.93-97) Theme 4 (bb.98-104)
	Coda	104-116	Theme 1 (bb.104-108) Cadential Passage (bb.111-116)

In Sonata no. 52 Haydn also adopted other English elements into this Sonata. Often its’ virtuosity is inherent in the English Style. For example, the brilliant runs in thirds (b.5), Ex. 3, see Haydn seamlessly integrate ‘characteristic[s] of the London idiom’ (Komlós, 1995, p. 74) into his own humorous style. The pattern stutters into existence at the end of bar 3 as an echo of the empfindsamer (Ratner, 1980, p.412) material at the opening of the bar, which is itself an echo of the opening fanfare. The left hand ‘up-skip’ in bar 3, which leads to the completion of the perfect cadence, is unexpected as one presumes Haydn will continue his chordal accompaniment; however, this neatly allows for the thirds and accompanying figure to organically seed from the preceding material – initially unsure in contrary motion, before bursting out forte and quickly depreciating into a piano singing allegro/stile legato.  

This rather pleasant melody is accompanied by an oscillating bass that hints of the stile antico through its series of suspensions, and of the English style in its application of sixths; however, this is juxtaposed by the more forward-looking chromatic accented D-flat which lushly descends. When the melody reaches the B-flat in bar 7, Haydn subverts the listeners expectation, and reverses the direction of the melody, leading up to the G. This unleashes an unexpected ‘skip’ to the rhythm, which before felt almost mournful. The long continuous nature of the melody lends itself to the English pianoforte, with ‘legato playing suit[ing] English pianoforte more than Viennese instruments’ (Komlós, 1995, p. 139); this is partially due to the damping system of the piano: ‘Viennese pianos were equipped with dampers all the way up to the highest f, …to avoid “a confusion of sounds”’ which resulted in ‘great dryness’ (Oort, 2000, p.76) – Viennese grand pianos rarely featured a sustain pedal before the nineteenth century (Komlós, 1995, p. 23). The phrase ends ‘with a Tacterstickung’ (the tonic E-flat serves both as the arrival and departure) (Ratner, 1980, 413), b.9, where the gentle beginning of the cadence is closed with a bold propositio of the opening fanfare.

Haydn’s use of dynamics in no. 52 is another indication of the influence that the English pianoforte had upon the composer. Whilst the Viennese pianoforte was capable of great subtlety in dynamic contrast, the English pianoforte had a ‘fuller, more powerful tone’ (Oort, 2000, p.75), albeit a heavier touch and greater key dip. The greater volume of the English piano is partly due its inefficient damping and, therefore, greater resonance – ‘reverberation can last several seconds after a fortissimo staccato chord’ (Oort, 2000, 75) –  although many aspects of piano construction affect the resultant tone – for example, the hammer of the Viennese action and English action hit the string in a completely different region. As previously mentioned, the opening is echoed in bar 3 in a much weaker form in ‘registral opposition’ (Sisman, 2003, p.299), and at a piano dynamic marking. However, this is just one of five such brazen dynamic juxtapositions in the first 10 bars alone. Only one gradual dynamic indication – the diminuendo of bar 5 – is given, and this was missing, likely by mistake, in the Artaria edition of 1798. In the virtuosic, brilliant style, passagework displays of the second subject (Ex. 4) off-beat chordal sforzandi stabs are given with no preceding warning – one of the many instances where Haydn expands his characteristic humour to a new instrument. The passage ends with a familiar Viennese figure (Ex. 5.1, b. 26) similar to a figure in Mozart’s K.309 Sonata in C major (Ex. 5.2, bb.79-81).

The Viennese pianoforte had a better bass region (in comparison to its treble), which ‘created a much admired difference in tone between the two registers’ (Oort, 2000, p.76), whilst the English pianoforte, partly thanks to Broadwood’s invention of the divided bridge, had a more uniform tone colour – although treble region was still regarded as superior to its bass. Flamboyant virtuosic displays, such as bars 9-10 (Ex. 6) explore vast registral swathes of the piano, with Haydn experimenting with the capabilities of the unfamiliar instrument. The transition, beginning in bar 10, arises out of the reverberation of this cascade down the instrument, with only a brief resolution on the tonic elided instead of a more satisfying emphasis expected from the restatement of the opening fanfare in bar 9.

Perhaps Haydn’s most experimental treatment of the available registrar is the second theme of the second subject (bb.27-33, Ex. 7), which was described by Ratner (1980, p.19) as a ‘piano imitating a musical clock imitating a fanfare’. The wealthy eighteenth-century citizens were indeed fascinated by automaton, and it highly probable that during his time in the Esterházy Court Haydn will have seen some impressive clockwork pieces; one may wonder as to whether he also saw English automata such as the silver swan (1773) during his time in London. This theme is deployed in the ‘music-box’ (Sisman, 2003, p.300) register of the piano, that ‘seems to echo wie aus der Ferne (as though from a distance)’ which was a ‘common nineteenth-century trope’ (Sisman, 2007, p.294). However, as the music-box was not commercially available until 1811 (although many similar devices had been produced prior to this, such as the singing bird (1780)) it is unlikely that quite as literal as Ratner suggests – although the effect remains the same. 

This ‘music-box’ theme is used in one of the most jarring modulations that Haydn must have written. In the middle of the development, (b.67) a highly virtuosic passage ends on a G major chord, which should function as a dominant chord to C – as it did at the beginning of the development (b.45). Haydn maintains an air of control over both situations by his use of a fermata; however, the second time, the music box theme is rather mockingly elided in the Neapolitan major (Ex.8). This is partly done to humorously subvert the expectation of the listener; however, this ‘flirtation with the flattened supertonic’ (Landon 1976, p.428) prepares the second movement which is also in E major. The extended mysterious fantasia (ombra) element first heard in bar 38 is extended in the recapitulation (Ex.9, bb.109-110) and also teases the Neapolitan major. ‘Haydn prepares the E major movement of the E flat major Sonata by an emphasis on the remote key to come’ (Rosen, 1997, p.115). 

Haydn’s Sonata Hob.XVI:52 has justifiably received numerous plaudits from many venerable authors, and is a work that summarises many of his experimentations with the English school of pianoforte playing and building – although ‘the syntax of the opening movement, the high rhetoric of the Adagio, and the Contratanz of the finale speak the personal language of an Austrian composer’ (Komlós, 1995, p. 76). Many elements of the Sonata foreshadow traits often associated with more ‘romantic’ or ‘innovative’ composers such as Beethoven. Landon (1976, p.451) credits this, saying that Hob.XVI:52 is one of three of the ‘most influential piano sonatas the eighteenth-century’s final quarter’. As a 1799 review by Magdalen von Kurzböck wrote: ‘Haydn is inexhaustible and will never grow old’ (Landon, 1976, p.452). It is also interesting to note that Kurzböck, who lived in Wien, would have been more familiar with the Viennese piano, and, therefore, one must presume that many contemporary to its publication will have enjoyed the work regardless of the instrument it was performed on.

---

Bibliography

Beghin, T. (2007). Delivery, delivery, delivery: crowning the rhetorical process of Haydn’s keyboard sonatas. In Beghin, T, & Goldberg, M (Eds.), Haydn and the performance of rhetoric. (pp.131-171). London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd.. 

Beghin, T. (2014). Recognizing musical topics versus executing rhetorical figures. In Mirka, D. (Ed.), The oxford handbook of topic theory. (pp.551-567). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Burnett, R. (2004). Company of pianos. Kent: Finchcocks Press. 

Grover, D. S. (2017). Piano history. retrieved from: https://www.piano-tuners.org/history/d_grover.html 

Harrison, B. (1997). Haydn’s keyboard music: studies in performance practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Haydn, J. & Feder, G. (1972). Sämtliche klaviersonaten: band III. Munich: Henle Verlag 

Heaton, B. (2017). A history of the piano. retrieved from: https://www.piano-tuners.org/history/history_1.html 

Komlós, K. (1995). Fortepianos and their music: Germany, Austria, and England, 1760-1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Landon, H.C.R. (1978). Haydn in England 1791-1795. London: Thames and Hudson. 

Lock, C. (2004). Different stylistic voices in Haydn’s piano music. (Batchelors Thesis). Oxford University. Retrieved from: http://www.haydnproject.org/index.php?id=32 

Ratner, L. (1980). Classical music: expression, form, and style. New York: Schirmer Books. 

Rosen, C. (1997). The classical style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. (2^nd ed.). New York: Faber and Faber Ltd.. 

Schiavonetti, L. (1792). Dr. Joseph Haydn. [Etching]. Retrieved from http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3297545&partId=1 

Sisman, E. (2003). Haydn’s solo keyboard music. In Marshall, R. L. (Ed.), Eighteenth-century keyboard music. (pp.270-307). London: Routledge. 

Sisman, E. (2007). Rhetorical truth in Haydn’s chamber music. In Beghin, T, & Goldberg, M (Eds.), Haydn and the performance of rhetoric. (pp.281-326). London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd.. 

Somfai, L. (1995). The keyboard sonatas of Joseph Haydn. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd.. 

Spitzer, M. (1998). Haydn’s reversals: style change, gesture, and the implication-realisation model. In Sutcliffe, W. D. (Ed.), Haydn studies. (pp.177-217) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Van Oort, B. (2000). Haydn and the English Classical Piano Style. Early Music, 28(1), 73-89. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stable/3518973 

Discography: 

Haydn, J. (1999). Keyboard Sonata No. 62 in E-Flat Major, XVI:52: I.Allegro. Joseph Haydn: London sonatas.  [Recorded by Ronald Brautigam] [Spotify Stream]. BIS