eow-chin ongapparently initiated events that led to publication the fo - PDF document

eow-chin ongapparently initiated events that led to publication the following year. But that wasnot the case, for the composer had offered it to Breitkopf and HŠrtel soon after itApril 1811Why that venerable Leipzig Þrm didnot publish it then is evident from another letter written several years later, iron-ically at the time when both Steiner and Birchall were busy preparing to issue theirÞrst editions of the work. Writing to HŠrtel on in response to repeat-ed offers to include new Beethoven compositions in the catalogue of the Þrm,Beethoven reminded the publisher that HŠrtel had refused to pay him the sum of100gulden for the work, even though elsewhere the composer could have ob-tained, as he claimed, Òor even gold ducats for that kind of composition.ÓHŠrtel, Beethoven pointedly remarked, Òcannot expect me to be a loser.ÓThe unusual delay in the publication of the ÒArchdukeÓ Trio accords well withthe Þnding made by both Sieghard Brandenburg and Alan Tyson that the workÕsautograph actually dates from 1814a time closer to the publication of the music,and not from 1811the year of the ÒArchdukeÓ TrioÕs completion.sion is now contradicted by new evidence indicating that early 1811is, in fact, thedate of the autograph. In the present essay I will introduce and discuss the newvidence, following a summary of the case for 1814I will then examine twoparticularly extensive and interesting revisions in the autograph, one in the scher-zo and one in the Andante, as evidence of the composerÕs apparent dissatisfactionwith the earlier versions.1. The Date of the AutographIn an article published in Brandenburg argues that the autograph of Beet-hovenÕs last violin sonata, the Sonata in G Major, op.dates from the winter andspring of en though the music was completed in widely accepted as correct.Brandenburg, II, 184 (letter no.492). Translated in Anderson, I, 319 (letter no.or information on equivalencies of Viennese currency during BeethovenÕs time, see Julia Moore,ÒBeethoven and Inßation,Ó Beethoven Forum1992), Anderson, II, 586(letter no.642). The original text of the letter is in Brandenburg, III, 274 (letter no.950See Sieghard Brandenburg, ÒDie Quellen zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Beethovens Streich-quartett Es-Dur Op.127,Ó 1983), 223jtw, p.198Sieghard Brandenburg, ÒBemerkungen zu Beethovens Op.,Ó ), See, for example, Richard KramerÕs review of Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonata for Piano and Vi-olin, G Major, Op.96: Facsimile of the Autograph Manuscript1978), 226 eow-chin ongPreserved in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York, the autograph of op.is an unusual document.In contrast to the sort of Querformatpaper measuring230x 320mm that Beethoven often used, it comprises larger Hoch-formatpaper measuring about 356x 244mm. Still rarer is the distinctive wa-termark shown in Þgure which identiÞes the paper as originating from thecentral Italian town of Fabriano rather than from a paper mill located within theHabsburg empire as was usually the case with Beethoven. The initials ÒPMÓ in theatermark indicate the manufacturer of the Fabriano paper was Pietro Milani17441817Among the thousands of folios of BeethovenÕs extant manuscripts, only a scantforty-nine folios are known to be distinguished by watermarks similar to that of ÞgureSigniÞcantly, these include the sixteen folios (whose watermark appears as Þgure) that make up the second volume of the two-volume autograph of the ÒArch-duke.Ó Housed together with volume in the Biblioteka Jagiello«nska, Krak—w, vol-of the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph contains the last two movements of the work(the Þrst two movements are found in volume It is entirely made up of largerHochformatpaper (measuring about 327x 225mm), with each folio forminghalf of a full sheet as opposed to the typical division of a sheet of Querformatinto four folios (the structure of the volume is laid out in Þgure On the basis of two presumptive conventions of watermark study that have beenvital to the considerable progress made in the study of Beethoven manuscripts since1960sÑthat papers with the same watermark date from the same time, andthat Beethoven would normally exhaust his current supply of manuscript paperbefore he would buy moreÑBrandenburg has concluded that the ÒArchdukeÓautograph originated, like the autograph of op.from the winter and spring ofam grateful to J. Rigbie Turner, Mary Flagler Cary Curator, at the Pierpont Morgan Library,for allowing me access to the manuscripts needed for this study.The illustrations of the watermarks in all the Þgures were drawn freehand. No attempt hasbeen made to ensure that they are scaled proportionately to the sizes of the papers.See Brandenburg, ÒBemerkungen,Ó p.aper has been a chief product of Fabriano sincemedieval times.Besides the autograph of op.manuscripts with the same paper type include the autographAn die Hoffnung,op.in the Houghton Library, Harvard University (Lowell ); the two au-tographs of ÒDie Laute Klage,Ó WoO 135gdm, A sbkMus. ms. autogr. Beethoven Grasnick), and a rejected score draft for the last movement of op., Noam grateful to Prof. Dr. Krzysztof Zamorski, Director of the Biblioteka Jagiello«nska, and Mrs.Agnieszka Mietelska-Ciepierska, Head of the Music Department, for making it possible for me tostudy the manuscript. eow-chin ong 1814That both op.and the ÒArchdukeÓ were published only in 1816, seeral years after they were completed, in parallel Þrst editions by Steiner and Bir-chall, are matching facts that seem to support BrandenburgÕs single date for theautographs of the two works.Notwithstanding these similarities, however, the date of 1814fortably with certain features of volume of the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph. Of the sev-enteen folios of this volume, all of which are in the usual Querformatthe Þrst threeare prominently differentiated from the rest by both their narrower widths and theirsingle-leaf statusÑnone of them may be linked to either a bifolio or a gathering inolioPaper Type 2 MoldFigure ÒArchdukeÓ Trioautograph: structure of vol-Tabolio measurements of volume 1 of the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph (Biblioteka Jagiello«nska, Krak—w). oliosHorizontal (mm.)Vertical (mm.)131222523102253316223 4Ð17327225Brandenburg, ÒDie Quellen.Ó w-chin ongIn an attempt to explain the aberrant watermarks of folios taining his theory of a later date for the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph, Alan Tyson spec-ulates that these Þrst two folios might have been ÒsurvivorsÓ from an earlier and(presumably) lost original autograph that Beethoven wrote out soon after he com-pleted the work.Indeed, Beethoven had inscribed ÒTrio am 1811Ó atthe top of the Þrst page and Ògeendigt am 1811raph, with ÒMŠrzÓ replacing a crossed-out ÒAprilÓ to indicate, perhaps, that theMarch date was entered into the manuscript at some time after the autograph wasmade.But TysonÕs speculation of a great hiatus in the making of the ÒArchdukeÓ Figure quadrant): ÒArchdukeÓ Trioautograph, volume Figure quadrant): ÒArchdukeÓ Trioautograph, volume jtw, pp198One suspects that the ever-cautious Tyson would have liked further to in- as another ÒsurvivorÓ if there had been a watermark.These dates match the events Beethoven mentioned in his letter to the Archduke, quoted earlierwherein he reported his completion of the music. Sketch folio for Beet-hovenÕs ÒArchdukeÓ Trio,op.The Pierpont MorganLibrary, New York, MaryFlagler Cary Collection(Cary ). Reproduced bypermission. The Autograph of BeethovenÕs ÒArchdukeÓ Trio, Op.97and now housed in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna (denburg reports that the two string parts from the set are missing;preserved together with the piano part in a bundle.Except for the Þrst folio of the piano part, this set of ÒArchdukeÓ parts is writ-ten out entirely by Wenzel Schlemmer (17601823), BeethovenÕs trusted copyist.They contain corrections and other entries in the composerÕs hand, as well asÞngering markings in the violoncello part to indicate that they were once used inperformance, perhaps by Beethoven, Ignaz Schuppanzigh, and Joseph Linke at theorkÕs Þrst public performance on April 1814the occasion of the composerÕslast public appearance as a pianist. As far as my inquiry is concerned, SchlemmerÕsparts are important for two reasons: () they may be dated to 1811the year of theÒArchdukeÓ TrioÕs completion;) the text of the Andante is identical to thatof the autograph and thus presents the Þnal version of the music.The old siglum for this manuscript XI 4677, Q 16976cited by Sieghard Brandenburg in ÒDieBeethovenhandschriften in der Musikaliensammlung des Erzherzogs Rudolph,Ó Zu Beethoven: Auf-sŠtze und Dokumenteed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1988), p.168in use. My thanks to Dr. Otto Biba, Director of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, for his kind hos-pitality and for allowing me access to this manuscript.Brandenburg, ÒThe Beethovenhandschriften,Ó p.168The origin of the Schlemmer parts may be traced to BeethovenÕs request expressed in a let-ter to Archduke Rudolf to have parts of the work made: ÒDa ich troz aller angewandten MŸhe keinenopisten, der mir im Hause schrieb, erhalten konnte, schicke ich ihnen mein Manuscript, sie brauchenschlemmer um einen Tauglichen Kopisten zu schicken, der das Trio jedoch nur inihrem Palaste kopiren mŸste.Ó See Brandenburg, II, 183(letter no.491), where the date of the letter isspeculated to be ÒAnfang April 1811A somewhat earlier date of Òend of March 1811the translation of this letter in Anderson, I, 316(letter no.301) as follows: ÒSince in spite of all myefforts I have not been able to secure a copyist who will copy at my home, I am sending you mymanuscript. All you need to do is kindly to send to Schlemmerfor a good copyist who, however, mustcopy the trio at your palace.ÓBrandenburg (ÒDie Beethovenhandschriften,Ó p.168) identiÞes the hand of the Þrst folio asthat of Aloys Fuchs (17991853), an Austrian scholar and collector of musical autographs who wasappointed to the board of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in page and (in the verso) the Þrst twenty-one measures of the Þrst movement. Brandenburg suggeststhat the original Þrst folio might have contained an attractive dedication in BeethovenÕs own handand was removed as a keepsake.Brandenburg (ibid.), too, gives the same date in his examination of the piano part. Details ofthe watermarks of the Schlemmer parts will be included in my forthcoming essay ÒAspects of theGenesis of BeethovenÕs String Quartet in F Minor, Op.The String Quartets of Beethoven,illiam Kinderman (Champaign: ÒArchdukeÓ Trioautograph, volume , pptranscription of excised eow-chin ongThe most signiÞcant point about the Morgan Library manuscript to my inqui-178a, an eight-measure passage in the draft of the coda (brack-), are absent from the Schlemmer copy of 1811But it appears, althoughin a variant version, in the autograph in mm.178), where it is fully scoredin ink, before Beethoven crossed it out with bold strokes of the quill, together with185x, which he had already written out. (Measures 185x, which cor-186a in the Morgan folio, are crossed out, not because Beet-hoven rejected them, but because they stand in the way of the revision of mm.178x that Beethoven wanted to make starting at the Ò=deÓ referent.) Since the musicthat replaces mm.178x in the autograph is reproduced in the Schlemmer copy,the cancellation in the autograph must have been done the Schlemmer parts1811The autograph therefore cannot have been written later thanthat year. Consequently, and despite the correspondence of the rare watermarkbetween the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph and the autograph for the Violin Sonata, op.there is no reason not to take the composerÕs inscribed dates of ÒTrio am 1811and Ògeendigt am 1811in the former manuscript at face value,en though March 1811is a good twenty-odd months earlier than 1812the date of the Þrst performance of op.The prevailing wisdom that pa-pers with the same watermark date from about the same time does not hold truein this instance. But a more signiÞcant point concerning the new date of the ÒArch-dukeÓ autograph is that it calls into question the view that the ÒArchdukeÓ is clos-er than previously recognized to works that Beethoven completed in 1815including the two Cello Sonatas of op.102the Piano Sonata in A, op.101die ferne Geliebte, op2. Attempts at RevisionAs the Þrst complete text of the work, the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph naturally servedas the source for the Schlemmer parts. These, in turn, became the basis for the(presumably lost) Stichvorlagefor the Steiner and Birchall editions,a fact attestedSee Brandenburg, ÒDie Quellen,Ó pp.The inscription ÒS. A. Steiner und Comp. Nr. 2582at the top of many pages in both vol-umes of the autograph has led Kinsky and Halm to conclude, incorrectly, that the autograph servedStichvorlagefor the Steiner edition; see Kinsky-Halm, p.272Written in the neat hand of TobiasHaslinger (who took over the Þrm under his own name in 1826), it served merely to indicate Stein-erÕs ownership of the manuscript (Ò2582is SteinerÕs publication plate number), which he had ob-tained as part of the agreement he made with Beethoven; see the draft of the contract of sale in Ludwig eow-chin ongment, appear only in the Steiner proof copy and not in the autograph or in Schlem-mer. Clearly, then, no single early sourceÑnot even the autographÑtransmits whatmight be considered a deÞnitive text of the work.Nevertheless, the autograph remains uniquely signiÞcant because of the manyAs mentioned previously, two revisionsÑone in the scher-zo and another in the AndanteÑare quite extensive and will be discussed belowin some detail. The remaining revisions are comparatively small. Of these, the mostinteresting concerns the tempo marking of the slow movement. Copied out asÒAndante cantabileÓ in Schlemmer and engraved the same in the two Þrst edi-tions, it appears as ÒAndante cantabile ma per˜ con motoÓ in the autograph, withÒma per˜ con motoÓ inscribed in a distinctively smaller script in lighter ink. Thechange was apparently made after Beethoven had proofread the Schlemmer parts,perhaps following a rehearing of the music that alerted him to the potential forthe music to drag. The revised tempo marking appears in the text of the published by Breitkopf and HŠrtel in the 18603. The Revision of the ScherzoReplete with ink cancellations and erasure patches caused by scraping (perhaps witha small blade), mm.of the scherzo make up the most difÞcult passage to readin the ÒArchdukeÓ autograph. The corrections affect only the string parts; in ex.the erased music (insofar as it can be made out) is placed above the revised versionfor comparison.In place of the background series of running eighth notes that now occupywhat Beethoven once had in mind was a more playful idea: starting atthe tossing back and forth of the pervasive subthematic anapestic motivesbetween the strings and the piano, in a manner similar to the motivic interplaybetween the two hands of the piano part in mm.This much is clear fromThese revisions do not (of course) include corrections of copying errors, some of which stillemain in the autograph to bear striking testimony to the mechanical and workmanlike approachthat Beethoven sometimes adopted while writing out the manuscript. The omission of two mea-sures in the scherzo (mm.213) I have mentioned previously (see n.). Also worth noting is theinsertion of an Eaccidental in the violin part in m.a of the Þrst movement exposition to create anonsensical major-seventh double stop with the F below in place of a dominant seventh. This errorcame about because Beethoven had apparently mistaken the redundant Eaccidental in the previ-ous measure to be foreign to the key signature. One copying error that the composer he had written out the autograph was the omission of mm.352in the rondo Þnale. To correctthis error, Beethoven copied out the missing measures into an additional folio (fol.) and insertedit into the manuscript. ÒArchdukeÓ Trio:Andante coda, mm.159 eow-chin ongThis revision may be summarized as follows. In ex.and prior to the cancella-tion of the music, Beethoven made small pencil crosses in the free adjunct staff below178x to signify that they were to be eliminated. With mm.178180177 followed immediately by m.x, the music approaches morenearly the stretch of mm.178the passage of paraphrase in octave trip-lets in the piano right hand. But whereas this paraphrase lasts seven measures init plays for only four (mm.181x), and Beethoven sought twice tobroaden it.The Þrst attempt at extending the paraphrase appears in ex.in the sketch inthe adjunct staff below mm.183184x. By replacing the last two beats of m.184with this sketch of one measure and two beats, the paraphrase is prolonged by amodest one measure of cadential elaboration.The second attempt involves the sketch in the adjunct staff below mm.185x. A real intensiÞcation of the paraphrase rather than a token cadential prolon-gation, this more substantial four-measure sketch, which Beethoven marks for theviolin, is meant to replace just one measure, m.184x. Consequently, the paraphrasepassage now lasts seven measures (mm.x, followed by the sketch in theadjunct below mm.185x), and this length is retained in the Þnal version. Acomplete, but modiÞed, version of this second attempt is then written out in theautograph (the ÒVi=Ó at m.178x is linked to the Ò=deÓ at m.178), following thecancellation of the original passage. As ex.shows, the Þnal version combines twothe sketch in the adjunct staff for the violin but now rescored forthe piano, and the string parts of mm.178The questions that must be asked concerning the cancellation and revision arethese: why did Beethoven abandon his original conception of the passage so latein the genesis of the movement? And how does this passage compare with the Þnalsion in terms of its function in the coda?In spite of BeethovenÕs revisions, the length of the coda in the autograph re-mains unchanged: the number of measures removed is the same as the number ofmeasures added. Rather, what has changed is the comparative weight of the vari-ous tonic cadences in the paraphrase passage and, consequently, the way the musicpaces itself as it draws gradually to a close. This change needs to be examined inPrior to the cancellation in ex.the paraphrase passage begins with a tonic180x. Because this cadence is preceded by an evaded tonic177x and the powerful pull to the tonic in the ensuing three-measure cadential delay, it acquires an added weight that Þrmly establishes it as thefundamental closing cadence of the movement. As a result, the attempt to height- w-chin ong(I have witnessed this phenomenon more than once) weeping violently, Þerce-ly, and convulsively. That is what you may call a musical effect. Here is a lis-tener overwhelmed and intoxicated by the art of sound, a human being lift-ed to heights immeasurably far above the plane of ordinary life.Something of Òheights immeasurably far above the plane of ordinary lifeÓ may,indeed, be glimpsed here. The soft and delicate triplets in the high register in slowtempo that sparkle in the paraphrase passage create a Þguration rarely encounteredin BeethovenÕs music. It does, however, appear in the winds in the Þnale of theNinth Symphony, at the concluding measures (mm.650) of the section begin-ning ÒIhr stŸrzt nieder Millionen?ÓÑthe section of the Þnale imbued with animposing religious aura. In that music, which Beethoven had instructed to be playedÒdivotoÓÑdevoutlyÑthe triplets of the woodwinds give subtle point to shimmer-ing tremolos in the strings, thus lending musical imagery to the words Òabove thestarry Þrmament he must surely dwellÓ (Ÿber Sternen mu§ er wohnen).it was a similar imagery that inspired Adolf Bernhard Marx to describe the ÒArch-dukeÓ Andante as Òlofty and calm as the starry night, still as a prayer,ÓfurtherHector Berlioz, The Art of Music and Other Essays (A Travers Chants),trans. and ed. ElizabethCscicsery-R—nay (Bloomington: Indiana 1994), p.The original text in Hector Berlioz, A traversth edn. Paris: Calmann LŽvy, 1886), p.ÒAu millieu de lÕandante, au troisime retour de cethme sublime et si passionnŽment religieux, il peut arriver ˆ lÕun dÕeux de ne pouvoir contenir seslarmes, et sÕil les laisse un instant couler, il Þnira peut-tre (jÕai vu le phŽnomne se produire) parpleurer avec violence, avec fureur, avec explosion. Violˆ un effe[t] musical! violˆ un auditeur saisi,enivrŽ par lÕart des sons, un tre ŽlevŽ ˆ une hauteur incommensurable au-dessus des rŽgions ordi-naires de la vie!Ó For a discussion of issues concerning Berlioz and heightened musical experiences,see Katherine Kolb Reeve, ÒPrimal Scenes: Smithson, Pleyel, and Liszt in the Eyes of Berlioz,Ó 1995), 211Pulsating triplets also lend musical imagery to blazing stars at one point in the songunterm gestirnten Himmel, W150, wrwhen the composer was in the midst of work onMissa solemnis,op.123Like the slow movement of the second ÒRazumovskyÓ Quartet, whichsupposedly came to Beethoven when he was Òcontemplating the starry sky,Ó this song is in E major;ÒDas Andante ist erhaben und ruhig, wie die Sternennacht, still wie ein GebetÓ (Adolf Bern-hard Marx, Ludwig van Beethoven: Leben und Schaffen,ols. [1859edn. Berlin: Otto Janke, 1875II, p.). In making this link between the ÒArchdukeÓ Andante and the Ninth Symphony Þnale,Marx probably had in mind CzernyÕs report that the broad and serene E-major Adagio of the sec-ond ÒRazumovskyÓ Quartet, which has a hymnlike opening theme and a soaring Þrst violin partthat preÞgures the solo violin in the Benedictus of the Missa solemnis,came to Beethoven when heas Òcontemplating the starry sky and thinking of the music of the spheresÓ; see Thayer-Forbes,pp. w-chin ongSee, for example, Joseph Kerman and Alan Tyson, The New Grove Beethoven(New York: W. W.Norton, 1983), p.wis Lockwood, Beethoven: The Music and the Life(New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), p.Something of this Òreßective, pensive lyricismÓ may already be heard in such earlier works as theslow movement of the ÒPathŽtiqueÓ Sonata and the Þrst movement of the ÒMoonlightÓ Sonata.ploitation of trills as an intrinsic part of the expression; the slick and glassy dance-like character of the trio, and so on. Evidently, then, the transition from the Òhero-icÓ to the late style had already begun at least by 1810three years earlier than usu-ally acknowledged.And it could be earlier still if we take into account the kinshipbetween the sort of lyrical of the ÒArchdukeÓ Andante and parts of theand the late quartets with the Òreßective, pensive lyricismÓ that LewisLockwood senses in some middle-period works including the Mass in C, the slowmovements of the Violin Concerto, and the slow movements of the Þrst two ofthe three op. Quartets.