Beethoven's Piano Sonata in F Major Op.

54, Second Movement: The Final Version and

Sketches
Author(s): Martha Frohlich
Source: The Journal of Musicology , Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter 2001), pp. 98-128
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jm.2001.18.1.98

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of Musicology

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beethoven’s Piano Sonata
in F Major Op. 54,
Second Movement:
The Final Version
and Sketches*
M A RT H A F R O H L I C H

“Cela est tombé de la grande plume

de maître quand il était Dieu sait
de quelle humeur!”
98 Wilhelm von Lenz
(Beethoven et ses trois styles)

I. Final Version
Falling chronologically between the most famous
“grand” piano sonatas of the Middle Period—Op. 53 in C major (“Wald-
stein”) of 1803 and Op. 57 in F Minor (“Appassionata”) of 1804–05—
Op. 54 was written in 1804 and published in Vienna in April 1806.1
Beethoven’s Ž rst important two-movement piano sonata, 2 it elicited a

Volume XVIII • Number 1 • Winter 2001

The Journal of Musicology © 2001 by the Regents of the University of California

* An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Beethoven

Conference held at Harvard University in November 1996.
1
The earliest mention of the sonata in Beethoven’s correspondence occurs in his
letter of 26 August 1804 to the publisher Breitkopf & Härtel offering them Op. 54 along
with Opp. 53, 57, 55, 56 and 85. See Sieghard Brandenburg, ed. Ludwig van Beethoven:
Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe (Munich: Henle, 1996), Vol. 1, No. 188. Negotiations with this
Ž rm subsequently broke down and all of these works, with the exception of Op. 85, were
eventually published by the Bureau des Arts et d’Industrie in Vienna. Op. 54 was pub-
lished without a dedication.
2
Other important piano sonatas in two movements (excluding the lighter works,
Op. 49 Nos. 1 and 2 and Op. 79) are Opp. 78, 90 and 111.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

mixed critical reception.3 One of the more vigorous reactions was that
of Wilhelm von Lenz, who called the sonata “bizarre,” and claimed that
“this shapeless production has the defects of the third style without hav-
ing its beauties.”4 Lenz’s suggestion that Op. 54 exhibits features typi-
cally associated with Beethoven’s late style is provocative. Perhaps he
was responding to the unique formal plan of the Ž rst movement, or to
the eccentric proportions and broad harmonic scope of the Ž nale; or
perhaps he was struck by the sonata’s expressive stance, which is neither
preeminently “heroic” nor lyric, but rather, as Tovey has observed, “sub-
tle and deeply humorous.” 5
In this latter respect, the sonata belongs to a well-established tradi-
tion of the Classic period in which humor and wit were incorporated
into a serious instrumental piece as a characteristic “topic” for a work.6
Haydn was particularly appreciated by his contemporaries for his inge-
nious manipulation of form and phrase structure.7 It seems natural,
3
The critic in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (8 July 1806), for example, admit-
ted that the work was created in “an original spirit with an unmistakably mature har-
monic artfulness,” but characterized both movements as “little pieces,” and complained
of the sonata’s “ineffectual peculiarities” and “artiŽ cial difŽ culties.” See cols. 639–40:
“Diese Sonate bestehet nur aus einem Tempo di Minuetto und einem eben nicht langen 99
Allegretto, beyde schwer auszufuhren, beyde in originellem Geiste und mit unverkenn-
barer gereifter harmonischer Kunst geschrieben . . . er zeigt jedoch . . . dass er—wie hier
—ganz wirkungslose Sonderbarkeiten und gesuchte Schwierigkeiten selbst in kleinern
Stücken, folglich nicht blos da anbringt, wo er seinen Stoff ganz und auf alle nur
mögliche Weise zu wenden und zu erschöpfen sucht . . .”
4
Wilhelm von Lenz, Beethoven et ses trois styles (St. Petersburg: Bernard, 1852–53;
new edn., ed. M. D. Calvocoressi, Paris: Legouix, 1909), 232: “Cette sonate en deux
morceaux qui sont deux fragments . . . n’est que bizarre. C’est d’abord un temps de
menuet qui n’est pas un menuet, dont le motif, si motif il y a, bruit un instant dans les ex-
trêmes profondeurs des basses pour se perdre dans une forêt d’octaves, entassées les unes
sur les autre et qui excluent toute idée mélodique. L’allegretto n’est pas plus intéressant.
Cela est tombé de la grande plume du maître quand il était Dieu sait de quelle humeur!
quand il n’y pensait seulment pas, quand il avait à contenter dans le plus bref délai
un éditeur. Cette 22 sonate montre les premiers vestiges du style de la troisième manière
de Beethoven . . . Cet inform production a les défauts de la troisième manière sans en
avoir les beautés . . .” For a brief overview of the critical reception afforded Op. 54, see
Christoph von Blumröder, “Klaviersonate F-Dur Op. 54,” in Beethoven: Interpretationen
seiner Werke, eds. Albrecht Riethmüller, Carl Dahlhaus, Alexander Ringer, Bd. 1 (Laaber:
Laaber Verlag, 1994), 380–85. As Blumröder notes, the sonata has lately enjoyed more
appreciation. For a provocative discussion of how biographical issues may have in u-
enced the early critical reception of Beethoven’s late style, see K. M. Knittel, “Wagner,
Deafness, and the Reception of Beethoven’s Late Style,” Journal of the American Musicologi-
cal Society LI (1998), 49–82 (von Lenz is discussed on pp. 55–56).
5
Donald Francis Tovey, A Companion to Beethoven’s Pianoforte Sonatas (London: Asso-
ciated Board to the Royal Schools of Music, 1935), 169. On the nineteenth-century pref-
erence for Beethoven’s works in the “heroic” vein, see the recent study by Scott Burnham,
Beethoven Hero (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
6
On the subject of musical styles or genres as “topics” in Classic music, see Leonard
Ratner, Classic Music: Expression, Form and Style (New York: Schirmer, 1980), 9–29.
7
For this aspect of Haydn’s music, see the excellent study by Gretchen Wheelock,
Haydn’s Ingenious Jesting with Art: Contexts of Musical Wit and Humor (New York: Schirmer,

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

therefore, that Beethoven, who was Haydn’s pupil for a time,8 and
whose own delight in musical puns and jokes is well known,9 should
choose to demonstrate his mastery of the comic style in the genre that
served as the matrix for his artistic development.
In Op. 54 Beethoven explores the humorous possibilities latent in
the notion of contrast:10 maximum contrast between musical elements
in the Ž rst movement is countered by minimum contrast in the Ž nale.
As in two other works that resonate with Haydnesque wit—the early
Piano Sonata Op. 10 No. 2 (1796–97) and the last String Quartet Op.
135 (1826)—Op. 54 is set in the key of F major. Here, as is typical in
this type of cycle, both movements share the same key.11 Less usual per-
haps is the reversal of expected movement types. Beethoven’s listeners,
familiar with Haydn’s two-movement sonatas, might have found it an
amusing contradiction to begin a sonata “In tempo d’un Menuetto”
and end with a sonata form, rather than vice versa.12

1992); also valuable is Steven Paul, “Comedy, Wit and Humor in Haydn’s Instrumental
Music,” in Haydn Studies, ed. Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Sewer, and James Webster (New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), 450–56. A general discussion of the comic style in the
Classic period is found in Hans H. Eggebrecht, “Der Begriff des Komischen in der Musik-
100 Ästhetik des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Die Musikforschung IV (1951), 144–45; Ratner, Classic Mu-
sic, 386–89; and Tilden Russell, “Minuet, Scherzando, and Scherzo: The Dance Move-
ment in Transition, 1781–1825” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1983),
Chapter 3.
8
Beethoven’s relationship with Haydn is explored in Douglas Johnson, “1794–1795:
Decisive Years in Beethoven’s Early Development,” Beethoven Studies III, ed. Alan Tyson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 1–28; and James Webster, “The Falling
Out Between Haydn and Beethoven: The Evidence of the Sources,” Beethoven Essays: Stud-
ies in Honor of Elliot Forbes, ed. Lewis Lockwood and Phyllis Benjamin (Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press, 1984), 3–45. For a recent interpretation of their relationship
from a sociological point of view, see Tia DeNora, Beethoven and the Construction of Genius:
Musical Politics in Vienna, 1792–1800 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995),
83–114.
9
Humor in Beethoven’s music is discussed in Theodor Veidl, Der musikalische Hu-
mor bei Beethoven (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1929); John Kucaba, “Beethoven as Buf-
foon,” The Music Review XLIV (1980), 103–20; Janet Levy, “Something Mechanical En-
crusted on the Living: A Source of Musical Wit and Humor,” in Convention in Eighteenth-
and Nineteenth-Century Music: Essays in Honor of Leonard Ratner, ed. Wye J. Allanbrook, Janet
M. Levy, and William P. Mahrt (New York: Pendragon Press, 1991), 225–26; and William
Kinderman, “Beethoven’s High Comic Style in Piano Sonatas of the 1790’s, or Beetho-
ven, Uncle Toby, and the ‘Muck-Cart’ Driver,” Beethoven Forum V (1996), 119–38.
10
That the notion of contrast forms the basic organizing principle is also suggested
by Blumröder in “Klaviersonate F-Dur Op. 54,” 383.
11
Sustaining the same tonic for both movements is a standard eighteenth-century
practice. See, for example, László Somfai, The Keyboard Sonatas of Joseph Haydn: Instruments
and Performance Practice, Genres and Styles (Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1995), 205, where Somfai notes that nine of Haydn’s mature two-movement piano
sonatas have both movements in the same key. In the later sonatas Op. 90 and Op. 111
Beethoven contrasts minor and major modes of the same tonic.
12
For a valuable overview of the structures found in Haydn’s mature two-movement
sonatas, see Somfai, 194–95. Somfai shows that when Haydn pairs a minuet-like form with
a sonata form, the latter is generally placed Ž rst. For some examples of this format see CL
20 in B , 28 in D, 32 in g, and 40 in E . Haydn’s late three-movement sonata in E

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

In the Ž rst movement Beethoven juxtaposes the restrained, elegant

gesture of a galant minuet with a boisterous, trio-like foil that incorpo-
rates triplet rhythm, canonic texture, and surprising modulations.13
The unexpected conciliation of this incongruous pair and the proces-
sive redistribution of weight between them forms the central narrative
thread of the movement. The action unfolds in a unique framework
that integrates aspects of three forms: the minuet and trio, the rondo,
and the alternating theme and variation format. The minuet theme re-
curs twice, each time decorated with successively smaller note values as
in a set of diminution variations. In response to this progressive ampliŽ -
cation, the originally ebullient trio contracts, and in its second presen-
tation dwindles to less than half its initial length. The climax occurs in
the coda with a fusion of these two themes and the surprising preemi-
nence of the more dainty minuet. The only vestige of the trio’s irre-
pressible energy that remains is its triplet rhythm, now Ž rmly relegated
to the accompaniment.14
This essay will focus on the Ž nale because it is the only movement
for which sketches still survive. I begin by reviewing some salient fea-
tures of the Ž nal version. Surely one of the oddest pieces in Beetho-
ven’s oeuvre, the entire movement evolves from a single phrase of melody 101
and almost consistently maintains a two-part polyphonic texture.15 This
economy of means is central to Beethoven’s strategy, which is to de-
velop his material through the use of unexpected harmonic digres-
sions, ingenious motivic variants, and unpredictable shifts in harmonic
and phrase rhythm. As in the scherzo of the later String Quartet Op. 59
No. 1, the source of the movement’s wit lies in the incongruity between

(1789–90) also ends with a Tempo di Minuet. Beethoven also uses this indication for the
Ž nale of his lighter two-movement Piano Sonata Op. 49 No. 2 (1795/96).
13
A more detailed analysis of this movement is found in this writer’s Ph.D. disserta-
tion, “Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas Op. 54 and Op. 57: A Study of the Manuscript Sources,”
(Bar-Ilan University, 1987).
14
For some different interpretations of the form of this movement, see: Tovey, 161–
68; Jürgen Uhde, Beethovens Klaviermusik, Vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1974), 180; James
Kidd, “Wit and Humor and Tonal Syntax,” Current Musicology XXI (1976), 70–82; Irwin
Moe, “The Implied Model in Classical Music,” Current Musicology XXIII (1977), 43–55;
Richard Rosenberg, Die Klaviersonaten Ludwig van Beethovens (Ölten: Lausanne: Urs Graf
Verlag, 1957), Vol. 2, 281–83; Paul Badura-Skoda and Georg Demus, Die Klaviersonaten
von Ludwig van Beethoven (Wiesbaden: Brockhaus, 1970), 129–33. It should be noted that
the tonal plan of the movement argues against the sonata-form framework suggested by
several analysts, because the second theme opens in the tonic and the modulation to the
dominant occurs only in the middle of the theme.
15
See Lawrence Kramer, Music as Cultural Practice 1800–1900, 21–71. In Kramer’s
view, the Ž nale provides an example of “expressive doubling,” a term borrowed from lit-
erary theory, which he deŽ nes as a “. . . reinterpretation and reevaluation . . . of some-
thing that at Ž rst seems complete in itself ” (24). Kramer suggests that the Ž nale serves as
“an expansion and a liberation” of the trio theme from the Ž rst movement. Here, the
mood of the theme is “no longer aggressive, but energetic and uninhibited and this in de-
cidedly physical terms . . .” (39).

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

the simplicity of the basic thematic material—in this instance, a rising

phrase in parallel sixths—and the highly sophisticated treatment that
Beethoven accords it.16
A perpetuum mobile that sounds more like an étude or toccata than a
sonata-form,17 the movement exhibits an architectural plan that is sin-
gularly appropriate for furthering this strategy. While the Ž rst half is
unusually terse (the exposition is 20 mm., or 40 mm. with the repeat),
the second half is extremely long (the development is 94 mm.; the re-
capitulation is 47 mm., and the whole 141 measures are repeated); Ž -
nally, the coda is 27 mm., only slightly longer than half the size of the
repeated exposition. The overall proportions are thus in a distorted re-
lationship of 1:7:1/2.18 By weighting the movement so heavily in the
midsection, Beethoven allows ample space for the broad range of mod-
ulation that takes place in the development and recapitulation. The
radical compression of the exposition also signals his intent to make
much out of very little.
Indeed, the vast scope of the key scheme is striking (see the Time-
line, Example 1). Although it begins modestly with a “normal” tonic to
dominant relationship between the Ž rst and second themes, a sudden
102 drop of a third (from C to A as the V/vi) at the beginning of the devel-
opment initiates an extensive chain of modulations that seems unable
to stop.19 By the end of the recapitulation, Beethoven touches on 17
out of a range of 24 possible keys. This profusion of modulation chal-
lenges the centrality of the tonic-dominant polarity established in the
16
The kinship between these two movements is mentioned by many scholars.
See, for example, Erwin Ratz, “Beethovens Grosse dargestellt an Beispielen aus seinen
Klaviersonaten,” Beethoven im Mittelpunkt: Beiträge und Anmerkungen. Festschrift Interna-
tionales Beethovenfest (Bonn: Gert Schroens, 1970), 48. On the nature of humor and wit as
expressed in eighteenth-century essays, see Wheelock, 19–32.
17
Many analysts have suggested that the style of the passagework in this movement
may have been in uenced by the études of J. B. Cramer. Evidence of a connection
between the two composers is found in Franz Gerhard Wegeler and Ferdinand Ries, Bi-
ographisches Notizen über Ludwig van Beethoven, which mentions that the two met in Vienna
in 1799 (99–100). Beethoven is reported to have admired Cramer’s playing and to have
considered his études good preparation for the playing of his own works. According to
Anton Schindler, he may even have annotated twenty-one of them for the beneŽ t of his
nephew, Karl. An evaluation of the authenticity of these annotations is found in William
Newman, “Yet Another Beethoven Forgery by Schindler,” The Journal of Musicology III
(1984), 397–422.
18
Erwin Ratz notes that the length of the exposition combined with that of the re-
capitulation and coda exactly equals the length of the development. He further suggests
that this symmetrical plan is a legacy from Bach. See his “Analysis and Hermeneutics
and Their SigniŽ cance for the Interpretation of Beethoven,” trans. Mary Whittall, Music
Analysis III (1984), 246. This symmetry disappears, however, if we consider the repeats
marked for each half of the form.
19
The progression to V/vi is probably intended as another harmonic joke, because
the key of vi (in this case, D minor) is frequently the point of furthest remove in a “nor-
mal” development section.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

EXAMPLE 1. Op. 54, Second Movement: Timeline**

Exposition
(P) (P) (P)
P T S K
mm.: 1 9 13 17
Keys: F C

Development: Pt. I Pt. II

(S)
P T 1N* P1 T 2N*
mm.: 21 29 36 37 44 45 61 64 65
Keys: A = V/d V7/d V7/G G c/C f V7/D (c–f–b –e –a –d )
Pt. III Pt. IV
(S) (3N) (P, T)
3N 4N T RT
mm.: 75 79 87 89 96 99 109
Keys: V/D D (G =F ) (b–e–a–d–g–c–f ) F C F

Recapitulation *
P2 T 1N1 3N1 3N2 KT
mm.: 115 121 123 129 130 134 145 152
103
Keys: F B /b V/D (f/F) V/F (E –D –A –G –e –D –b ) V/F

Coda
P2 S1 S2
mm.: 162 180 185 188
Keys: F

Abbreviations: The following abbreviations stem from Jan LaRue, Guidelines for Style Analy-
sis, 2nd ed. (Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1992), 154–55.
P = primary theme in primary-key area
T = transition theme connecting the two
main key areas
S = theme in the secondary-key area
K = cadential or closing theme in the
secondary-key area
KT = transition from end of K to start
of development
RT = retransition
N = new material occurring after
the exposition
capital letters = major keys
lower-case letters = minor keys
( ) = derivations for functi ons and
passing harmonies for keys
* = harmonic digressions

**This is a simpliŽ ed Timeline; for details of the many phrase variations, see my
dissertation, pp. 276–78

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

exposition, necessitating extended areas of dominant preparation at

the close of both the development and the recapitulation, as well as a
strong tonic afŽ rmation in the coda. It also provides an extreme con-
trast to the narrow concentration on the tonic key found in the Ž rst
movement, and thus may have been intended as a humorous effect.
Beethoven intensiŽ es the sense of tonal diffusion by interpolating a
series of harmonic digressions incorporating elements from the fanta-
sia style such as chromatic bass motion, tonal ambiguity, fast modula-
tory rhythm, and metrical displacement. These interruptions suspend
the central harmonic discourse and expand the formal structure of the
movement. Beethoven’s long-range harmonic plan nevertheless remains
clear, because he  anks these areas with passages restoring harmonic
simplicity and symmetrical phrasing. The relationship between these
two contrasting procedures—clarity versus ambiguity, or stability versus
disturbance—forms the basic emotional groundplan of the movement.
Still another prominent feature is the intensive motivic concentra-
tion. All the themes in the exposition derive from some aspect of the
primary one and the secondary theme generates material for the Ž rst
and third harmonic digressions (see the Timeline).20 In addition to the
104 many thematic derivations, the persistent recurrence of the main theme,
albeit in new guises, might well have been perceived as yet another
comic effect by Beethoven’s listeners.21 Formally, it dilutes the sonata-
form thrust of the movement and lends it a rondo-like character; it also
reinforces the obsessive effect created by the perpetuum mobile rhythm
and frequent modulation. Some of the thematic modiŽ cations gener-
ated from this simple phrase of material are illustrated in Example 2.
Rhythmic interest results from the deftness with which Beethoven
breaks up the steady  ow of the texture. Metrical ambiguity, immedi-
ately evident in the opening theme,22 is exploited for comic effect, not
only in the repeated alla zoppa rhythm animating the pedal-point in the
second theme (mm. 13–16, left hand), but also in the subtle rhythmic
shifts elaborating the basic structural line of the melody (see, for exam-
ple, the descending line in the soprano in mm. 29–32). Later, these

20
For an extended analysis of the motivic connections in this movement see Uhde,
181–88.
21
Tilden Russell points out that the motivic style could be related to the comic in
music. See his “Minuet, Scherzando and Scherzo,” 273ff. The Ž nale of Haydn’s Piano
Sonata in D, CL 56 (dated as ca. 1782/84), which Somfai characterizes as a “scherzo
sonata form,” shares many features with this movement. It displays eccentric proportions
(the Ž rst part is 8 mm. long, the second part 93 mm., and both parts are repeated), in-
tensive motivic concentration, predominantly two-part polyphonic texture, and harmonic
unpredictability.
22 See Charles Rosen, The Classical Style (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 61, which

points out that the syncopated accents appearing alternately on the second and third six-
teenth notes of the beat (compare m. 3 and m. 5) “provides two contradictory forces that
challenge the weight of the downbeat.”

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

example 2. Op. 54, Second Movement: Some Variants of the Primary

Theme
Primary Theme
x y z

3 y
1 x

(z combined with x and y)

z

45 z’
(augmentation)
2

y
x z
105

51 y’
x (descent)
3

z’

shifts open the door to extended passages of metrical displacement

(see, for example, mm. 65–74 and 145–51).
Finally, as many analysts have pointed out, Beethoven integrates the
cycle by recalling a motive from the Ž rst movement (I/mm. 62–68) in
the transition to the coda (II/mm. 152–61). In both cases, the motive
functions similarly, as a connective ostinato leading to a return of the
primary theme.

II. Sketches
The extant sources relating to the genesis of the
sonata consist of ten pages of sketches for the second movement. No
sketches are known for the Ž rst movement and the autograph is lost.
The best estimate of a date for the surviving material is the summer
( June or July) of 1804, an assumption based on its position at the be-
ginning of the sketchbook Mendelssohn 15 (pp. 8–14 and pp. 18–21).

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

example 2. (continued)
115 162
4
(’’murkey bass’’ (thirds+ pedal point)
pedal point)

121
5

(partial mirror)
x y’

166
6
x
(invertible counterpoint)
y2
106

This source, which is primarily devoted to work on the 1805 version of

Beethoven’s opera, Leonore, has been widely discussed elsewhere and re-
quires only a brief comment.23 The largest of Beethoven’s desk-size
sketchbooks, it also contains ideas for the song “An die Hoffnung” Op.
32, the Triple Concerto Op. 56, the String Quartet Op. 59 No. 1, and
the Piano Sonata in F minor Op. 57.24

23
For a comprehensive study of the sketchbook, see Alan Tyson, “Das Lenore-
skizzenbuch (Mendelssohn 15): Probleme der Rekonstrucktion und der Chronologie,”
Beethoven Jahrbuch IX (1977), 469–99. See also Tyson’s summary, “Mendelssohn 15,” in
Douglas Johnson, Alan Tyson and Robert Winter, The Beethoven Sketchbooks: History, Recon-
struction, Inventory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 146–55. More re-
cently, Theodore Albrecht has suggested a new chronology, which posits a date of May 1
for the beginning of the book. Albrecht’s reasoning here involves the sketches for Op.
56/II, which intervene between the two continuity drafts for Op. 54/II (the Op. 56
sketches are found on pp. 14–17). Evidence that Op. 56 was copied out for a trial perfor-
mance that occurred in late May or June forms part of Albrecht’s argument. See his
“Beethoven’s Leonore: A New Compositional Chronology,” Journal of Musicology VII (1989),
165–90. In an unpublished paper Sieghard Brandenburg has suggested that the Op. 56
sketches on pp. 14–17 were entered on those pages Ž rst, before those for Op. 54/II.
24
The contents of the sketchbook are detailed in Hans-Günter Klein, Ludwig van
Beethoven: Autographe und Abschrifte, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kataloge
der Musikabteilung, ed. Rudolf Elvers, Erste Reihe: Handschriften, Vol. II (Berlin, 1975),
231–77.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

Entries for the Ž nale of Op. 54 include two comprehensive conti-

nuity drafts with accompanying constellations of smaller sketches. The
latter focus primarily on the several harmonic digressions within the de-
velopment and recapitulation sections and on the transition to the
coda (see Table 1, with an inventory of the sketches).
The Ž rst continuity draft (hereafter abbreviated as CD 1) is clearly
the earlier of the two; it is primarily monolinear and the “etc.” indica-
tion in the development section suggests that even though all the main
ingredients of the movement are present, Beethoven was still unsure
about many particulars. In addition, the dimensions of each section are
compressed: the exposition is half as long as the Ž nished section be-
cause the primary theme is abbreviated and the transition is lacking.25
The development is similarly laconic. The second draft (CD 2) is more
inclusive; it is frequently written in full piano score and incorporates
several dynamic indications. Here, with the exception of the Ž rst har-
monic digression, which is greatly expanded in the draft, and the re-
peat of the second half of the form,26 the basic proportions of the
movement are achieved.
All of this material re ects a relatively advanced phase of work.
While the loss of earlier sketches is unfortunate, studying the remnant 107
of what was certainly a more elaborate process proves valuable for at
least two reasons. First, it offers an opportunity to bridge the gap we of-
ten encounter when comparing earlier drafts with their analogues in
the Ž nal work. Second, when taken in conjunction with the two drafts,
the ancillary sketches shed light on two broader aspects of Beethoven’s
compositional strategy: proportion and harmonic rhythm.27

25 Excised measures at the opening of the recapitulation (in the MS., p. 9/st. 3)

give the Ž rst indication of the transition as a section to be recalled from the exposition.
The small size of the exposition is typical of Beethoven’s early drafts. See, for example,
drafts for expositions in the Ž rst movements of Op. 10 No. 3, Op. 14 No. 1, Op. 29, Op.
30 No. 2, Op. 55, Op. 57 and Op. 111.
26
This repeat re ects Beethoven’s experimentation with ways of enlarging formal
proportions during this period. Of many possible examples, one might mention the Ž nal
version of Op. 57/III, where the second half of the movement is also repeated; in Op. 59
No. 2/I both halves of the movement are repeated. The autograph score of Op. 59 No.
1/I shows that originally Beethoven contemplated a repeat of both the development and
recapitulation there; see Alan Tyson, “The ‘Razumovsky’ Quartets: Some Aspects of the
Sources,” in Beethoven Studies III, ed. Alan Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1982), 132. From the sketches for Op. 53/I we also learn that Beethoven considered,
and then later rejected, a repeat of the development and recapitulation there as well; see
Barry Cooper, “The Evolution of the First Movement of Beethoven’s ‘Waldstein’ Sonata,”
Music and Letters LVIII (1977), 170–91.
27 On the importance of harmonic rhythm in Beethoven’s art, see the illuminating

studies by Jan LaRue, “Harmonic Rhythm in the Beethoven Symphonies,” The Music Re-
view XVII (1957), 8–20; and Bathia Churgin, “Beethoven’s Sketches for his String Quin-
tet, Op. 29,” Studies in Musical Sources and Style: Essays in Honor of Jan LaRue, ed. Eugene K.
Wolf and Edward H. Roesner (Madison: A-R Editions, 1990), 473–75. For a discussion of

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

TA B L E 1
Inventory of Sketches for Op. 54/II in Mendelssohn 15
Continuity Draft 1: p. 8/sts. 1–15 to p. 9/sts. 3–14

Exposition (mm. 1–20): P : p. 8/st. 1; T: none

S and K: p. 8/st. 1
Development, Part I (mm. 21–44): p. 8/sts. 2–7
Part II (mm. 45–74): p. 8/sts. 7–10
Part III (mm. 75–98): p. 8/sts. 11–13
Part IV (mm. 99–114): p. 8/sts. 13–15
Recapitulation (mm. 115–61): p. 8/st. 15 to p. 9/sts. 3–9
Coda (mm. 162–88): p. 9/sts. 9b–14b

Ancillary Sketches:
1N (mm. 37–44): p. 9/st. 14a; p. 9/st. 15; p. 10/sts. 3–4
3N (for mm. 95–98): p. 9/st. 16b, 16c
KT (mm. 152–61): p. 9/st. 1; p. 10/sts. 1/2

Continuity Draft 2: p. 12/st. 1 to p. 13/st. 16; p. 18/sts. 2/3–14 to p. 20/st. 12

inclusive
108
Exposition: P: p. 12/sts. 1–2a; T: p. 12/sts. 2/3b–4/5a;
S: p. 12/sts. 4/5b; K: p. 12/sts. 6/7
Development: Part I: p. 12/sts. 6/7b to p. 13/sts. 5/6a
Part II: p. 13/sts. 5/6b–15/16; p. 18/sts. 2/3–4/5a
Part III: p. 18/sts. 4/5b–10/11
Part IV: p. 18/sts. 12/13–14; p. 19/sts. 1/2
Recapitulation: p. 19/sts. 1/2b–16 to p. 20/sts. 1/2–3/4a
Coda: p. 20/sts. 3/4b–11/12

Ancillary Sketches:
1N: p. 13/st. 12a, “oder”; p. 13/st. 15, “Vide”; p. 13/st. 16a, “oder”
2N: p. 14/st. 15a; p. 18/st. 1; p. 18/sts. 15/16; p. 21/sts. 1/2–3/4
3N: p. 14/st. 16a (m. 98)
3N 2: (mm. 148–51): p. 14/sts. 15/16b

Sketches where the function is unclear:

p. 10/st. 15 (for mm. 71ff.?); p. 14/st. 14 (T ?); p. 20/st. 15b (T ?)

Sketches transcribed by Nottebohm (NII, 417–18):

1N, p. 12/st. 15 to p. 13/sts. 1–6: mostly the bass line only with an editorial
Ž gured bass added.
2N, p. 13/st. 16 to p. 18/sts. 2/3 (selective)

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

I begin with a brief comment on tempo. There is ample evidence

in the literature that for Beethoven tempo was an inherent part of the
character of any composition.28 Thus, we must ask why the indications
found in CD 2—“Moderato” for the beginning of the movement and
“Presto” for the coda—were changed later to “Allegretto” and “più Alle-
gro” respectively (see Figure 1). Beethoven’s revision probably relates
more to style and expressive character than to speed. According to the
18th-century theorist, Heinrich Christoph Koch, moderato was a rather
neutral word used mainly as a modiŽ er to one of the Ž ve principal
tempo indications.29 Allegretto, on the other hand, not only indicated
that the music was to be played in a lively manner, but also carried the
connotation of “agreeable cheerfulness” (“angenehmen Heiterkeit”).30
Having decided to specify this good-humored expressive affect, Beetho-
ven may have found the acceleration to presto too stringent for the
coda, and decided to maintain a closer connection between the two
tempo markings.
In order to illustrate the kinds of small reŽ nements that Beethoven
tackled in the two drafts, I turn now to two melodic changes in the reca-
pitulation. First, his concern for creating cross references within the
movement is re ected in revisions of the melodic proŽ le in the main 109
theme. In the Ž nal version (mm. 115–22) this theme opens with a
strong tonic statement that is rhythmically intensiŽ ed and tonally
grounded by pedal points. There are four entries of the opening two-
measure unit. In CD 1 (Example 3a) we notice that the tail of the
melody ascends in all four entries, paralleling the exposition.31 In CD 2
(Example 3b), on the other hand, the tail descends in the third and
fourth entrances, coordinating with the double presentation of the

proportions in another important middle-period work see Lewis Lockwood, “Process ver-
sus Limits: A View of the Quartet in F Major, Opus 59 No. 1,” Beethoven: Studies in the Cre-
ative Process (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1992), 198–208.
28
See the discussion of tempo in Sandra Rosenblum, Performance Practices in Classic
Piano Music (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 305–62. In particular, note
her remarks concerning Beethoven’s efforts to clarify his intentions through the more
extensive use of qualifying clauses (322–23), the various important metronomizations of
Beethoven’s piano sonatas (320–28), and the “In tempo d’un Menuetto” indication for
the Ž rst movement in the context of Beethoven’s other uses of the term (346–48).
29
Heinrich Christoph Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon (Frankfurt: Hermann dem
jungern, 1802. Facsimile, Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), col. 972.
30
Ibid., col. 130. Beethoven also uses this tempo marking for the perpetuum mobile
Ž nale of Op. 31 No. 2 (1802). For the Ž nale of Op. 26 (1800–01)—a work often com-
pared to Op. 54/II for the similarity of its passagework—Beethoven chose instead the in-
dication Allegro.
31
The third entrance is only implied; Beethoven notates just the syncopated
dominant-pedal accompaniment for the right hand.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

Ž gure 1. Mendelssohn 15, p. 12: CD 2 for Op. 54/II. Reproduced by permission

110
of Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

example 3. Op. 54/II: Sketches for Recapitulation/P (mm. 115–22)

in Mendelssohn 15
CD 1 [T]
p.8 st./15 p.9/st.3
(ascent) (ascent)
a)

st.4
(MS: )

(ascent)
CD 2
p.19 st./1 (ascent) st.3 (ascent)
b)

st.2 st.4
( )
(MS: A)
111
( ) (descent)
st.3

(Ž rst version)

( )

st.5

st.6

(descent)

modulation to the subdominant. 32 This change of contour derives from

the development, where the descent is used to round off the theme and
afŽ rm an upcoming modulation (in the Ž nal version, mm. 51–52, from
G major to C minor; in mm. 59–60, from C minor to F minor). In the
32
Both the third and fourth entrances modulate to the subdominant; therefore, it
is not clear whether they were thought of as musically continuous by Beethoven, or if they
are to be read as alternative options for a single entrance of the subject.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

Ž nal version of the recapitulation Beethoven retains the development

model, limiting the descent and its attendant modulation to a single ap-
pearance. By doing so, he uniŽ es the two sections because in both cases
the change of contour signals a change of key.
Second, Beethoven’s concern for strengthening structural coher-
ence is re ected in his work on the subsequent transition section (mm.
123–29). A comparison of the right-hand melody in the Ž nal version
and both drafts is presented in Example 4. Here, we see that his revi-
sions concentrated on two aspects: contour patterning within each of
the two phrases, and the clarity of the articulation separating them. The
final melody exhibits the most balanced design (the series of shapes in
phrase 1 is paralleled in phrase 2; see the arrows in Example 4), and
projects the clearest differentiation in shape for the beats  anking the
articulation point (m. 126, beat 2 and m. 127, beat 1). Both of these
factors offset the destabilizing effect of the sudden compression in
phrase length (from four measures in phrase 1 to three measures in
phrase 2), and the unexpected swerve to D major at the close of the
second phrase. These changes also further Beethoven’s long-range
strategy: by steadying the action, they create a more level trajectory
112 from which to launch the Ž nal and most extended harmonic digression
of the movement (3N 2, on the Timeline, mm. 130–51).
I move now to a closer consideration of sketches for the Ž rst two
harmonic digressions in the development section. In the Ž nal version
both sections are built over a descending chromatic bass line. In the Ž rst
digression (mm. 37–44; Example 5a), an arpeggiated countermelody
rises in contrary motion against the bass, gradually enlarging the musi-
cal space. Formally, this eight-measure passage delays the progression
from the V7/d minor in m. 36, to V7/G major in m. 44. Beethoven sug-
gests a change of atmosphere in two ways. He slows the harmonic
rhythm and complicates the harmony with the use of augmented-sixth
chords (mm. 37 and 40) and diminished-seventh chords (mm. 39 and
42). Nevertheless, the goal remains clear because the interval of the tri-
tone, C–F , which strengthens the pull to G major, appears in Ž ve of
the eight measures (mm. 37, 39, 41, 42, 43). Textural enrichment (oc-
taves in the left hand where possible on Beethoven’s piano), maximum
dynamics (the Ž rst forte of the movement occurs in m. 37 and sf accents
reinforce all the bass notes), and a striking deceleration-acceleration
pattern in the surface rhythm of the left hand (from sixteenths to half
notes and back again) all play principal roles in highlighting the paren-
thetical nature of this section.
Of the seven sketches related to this passage, all but one focus ex-
clusively on the bass line (see Example 6). Collectively, they demon-
strate that Beethoven was able to decide on its Ž nal length only after he

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

example 4. Op. 54/II: Sketches for Recapitulation/T (mm. 123–29)

in Mendelssohn 15
Final Version *

a)
(phrase 1)

(phrase 2)

* arrows connect parallel melodic patterns

CD 1, p.9
st.4
b)
(phrase 1)

st.5 113
(phrase 2)
() ()

CD 2, p.19
st.5 st.6
c)
(phrase 1)

(phrase 2)
()
()

had thoroughly explored more expansive options.33 Sketch 1 immedi-

ately alerts us to this issue of proportion. The different stemming as
well as the several cancellations in the midsection of the sketch suggest

33
The process by which the Ž nal version is distilled from a much more discursive
conception is re ected in sketches for many other works. See, for example, the sketches
for the transition section in the Ž nale of the String Quartet Op. 131, discussed in Robert
Winter, Compositional Origins of Beethoven’s Opus 131 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press,
1982), 187–91. As Winter notes, “these so-called excesses . . . seem to form a necessary
middle stage in a number of Beethoven sonata-form movements” (191).

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

example 5. Op. 54/II/Development, Harmonic Digressions 1N and

2N. Measure numbers:
a) mm. 33–49

33
(T)

cresc.

38
(1N)

114 (V7/d)
41

(V7/G)

45

(G:I)

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

example 5. (continued )
b) mm. 62–77
(T)
62 (2N)

cresc.

(V/D )

66

70 115

74
(3N)

(V/D )

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 116
example 6. Op. 54/II: Sketches for Development/1N (mm. 37–44) in Mendelssohn 15
p.8/ sts.5–7
phrase 1 phrase 2 phrase 3 phrase 4
1

(version 2)
(as above) (incomplete)

(version 3)
(all intermediate material probably cancelled)

p.9/ st.14
2 ()
(phrases 1–3 as in sketch 1, version 1)
(incomplete?)
( 8va ) (MS: )
p.9/ st.15

This content downloaded from

3

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC

(mm. 1–4 as above) (incomplete)
()

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

p.10/ sts.3–4
4
() ()
 ()
()
(st.16: version 3)

()
()

()
117
:
p.12/sts.14/15 to p.13/ sts.1–6
example 6. (continued )

( )

()
(version 1)

(version 2)

()
:

()
5

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 118
example 6. (continued )
5

(version 2) (version 2)
(MS:
()

(version 1) (version 1) as (=A ) Vi: (to st.15a)

(version 2 = notes)
)
()
() ()

This content downloaded from

?

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC

()

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

p.13/ st.15a =de
6
(mm. 1–16 as in sketch 5)
oder (to st.12a)

p.13/ st.12a oder

7
(mm. 1–16 as in sketch 5)
 f ro h l i c h

that at least three versions, each with a different length, are inter-
twined. While versions 1 and 2 spin the passage out to 22 and 18 mea-
sures respectively, version 3 hints at the more concise eight-measure di-
mensions of the Ž nal section.3 4
Apparently unconvinced by any of these options, Beethoven seems
to have worked toward a solution by allowing his imagination free
reign. As he improvised, new features that would be made signiŽ cant in
the Ž nal passage begin to emerge.35 In sketch 3, for example, the bass
line extends downward from a low E to D, followed by an upward oc-
tave leap—a gesture that would be reserved to signal closure in the
Ž nal version (see mm. 43–44). In sketch 4, we Ž nd a change of the
opening pitch from A-natural to A . This idea was retained, probably
because it highlights the opening of the digression by pulling us
abruptly out of the reigning key of D minor into foreign territory. Al-
ready nascent in the Ž rst seven measures of this discursive sketch are
the exact pitches of the Ž nal bass line.
Two additional ideas emerge in later sketches. First is the notion of
dynamic intensiŽ cation indicated in sketch 5, which otherwise regresses
back to A-natural for the opening pitch. Second is the closing decelera-
tion in harmonic rhythm signalling a return to the main discourse, 119
found in sketch 6. Note that here Beethoven inverts the octave leap on
D and prolongs it for three measures, rather than the two-measure
length he chose for the Ž nal passage. Material for the right-hand coun-
termelody surfaces only in sketch 5 (excerpted from CD 2).36 While
Beethoven’s basic harmonic scheme remained unchanged, revisions in
several measures show him working to eliminate excessive pitch repeti-
tion, to Ž nd the most effective position for the melodic peak, and to en-
hance the effect of growing dynamic power by sharpening the direc-
tional focus of the line.
In attempting to determine why Beethoven curtailed this passage, it
is useful to consider it in context. A review of all thematic units in the
exposition and development sections of the Ž nal movement shows
that the chosen length replicates the eight-measure dimensions of the

34
Version 1 comprises all the downward-pointing stems; version 2 diverges in the
third phrase with the upward-pointing stems; the exact measures involved in the com-
pressed version 3 are unclear; I have tried to present the best musical connection be-
tween the notes, but my interpretation is only a hypothesis.
35
Sketches 2 and 3 present alternatives for fragments of the longer bass line out-
lined in sketch 1. My hypothesis as to where the fragments belong in relationship to this
main sketch are based on what appears to be the most musically apt solution.
36 See Gustave Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana: Nachgelassene Aufsätze (Leipzig: C. F.

Peters, 1887), 417 (referred to in Table 1 as NII). Note that in his transcription Notte-
bohm abbreviated the right hand with a Ž gured bass.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

surrounding functions (see the Timeline). Maintaining the same pro-

portions thus serves to stabilize, counterbalancing the disturbance
caused by the unexpected interpolation of a sustained patch of chro-
matic harmony. We can surmise that Beethoven transferred his more
spacious conception to the recapitulation, where the broad sweep of
the Ž nal digression opens with a recollection of the same material. Per-
haps it is no coincidence that from this moment in which the recapitu-
lation radically deviates from normal expectations (m. 130), until it
returns to the conventional dominant prolongation indicating stabili-
zation of the tonic (m. 152), the proportions exactly match the 22-
measure length of Beethoven’s initial sketch for this passage.37
I move now to the second harmonic digression. In the Ž nal version,
this section (mm. 65–74; see Example 5b) acts as a foil to an impend-
ing lyric plateau in D major (mm. 75–88). The digression’s central
position, almost exactly at the midpoint of the development (44 mea-
sures precede it and 40 measures follow until the recapitulation) and
its predominantly low register, which creates a dark, misterioso mood,
mark it as a kind of sub-climax. Formally, it stands as a parenthesis be-
tween two Ž rm statements of the dominant of D major. Within its bor-
120 ders, Beethoven reduces the melodic material to a bare minimum, us-
ing simple broken fourths and Ž fths, so that the main focus is on the
acceleration in harmonic action. Here the music touches brie y on six
keys (see the Timeline). Tension is maximized by increasing the fre-
quency of dissonant chords (the dominant of each key is prefaced by a
diminished supertonic),38 and by withholding the expected tonic reso-
lutions of each dominant. Additional pressure results from the sus-
tained metric displacement, which is intensiŽ ed by heightened activity
in other elements. Two-measure groupings of the dynamics ( ff-p in
mm. 65–68) accelerate to one-measure groups as a result of the sf ac-
cents on the second beats of mm. 69–72; the melodic contour suddenly
shifts from a steady descent (mm. 65–69) to a zig-zag shape (mm.
69–74); and the phrase lengths Ž rst expand (from two measures, mm.
65–66, to two-and-a-half measures, mm. 67–69) and then contract (to
one-measure groups, mm. 69–72). Pressure mounts at the close, where
a Ž nal phrase expansion supports the dominant prolongation eliding
with the lyric plateau (m. 75).

37
A Ž nal point of interest in these longer sketches may be found in their kinship
with the opening of the String Quartet Op. 59 No. 3/I (1806). In both cases a sustained
passage of harmonic ambiguity results from the contrapuntal harmonization of a chro-
matic descent in the bass.
38
The chords are not always found in the same inversion, so that the level of disso-
nance is affected by the resultant changes of color.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

While the basic tonal scheme and rhythmic outline of the passage
were established by CD 1, the sketches show Beethoven still grappling
with issues of proportion, harmonic rhythm, melodic contour and har-
monic detail. I shall restrict my discussion to the aspect of harmonic
rhythm.
Table 2 charts the harmonic rhythm for the Ž nal version and each
of the sketches (a transcription of all the sketches is offered in Example
7).3 9 The variety of options displayed in this table conŽ rms that for
Beethoven, careful plotting of harmonic rhythm was crucial to achiev-
ing his compositional aims.4 0 While the strong metrical displacement
and overall acceleration-deceleration design found in the Ž nal version
is not duplicated exactly in any of the sketches, the Ž rst version of
sketch 5 comes quite close. Among the other alternatives considered
here, sketch 2 stands out because it has the slowest harmonic rhythm
(note the half-note motion in the center), with an acceleration rather
than a deceleration to highlight the approach to the cadence. Sketches
3 and 6 go to the other extreme, offering a more exaggerated decelera-
tion than the one Beethoven Ž nally adopted.
Although the Ž nal version avoids any suggestion of the tonic of
D major until m. 79, thereby de-emphasizing the hinge between this 121
section and the adjacent one, the sketches reveal how intensively
Beethoven experimented with other options. The strongest articulation
occurs with a resolution to the tonic marking the thematic boundary in
sketches 3 and 6; but even in the several instances where dominant pro-
longation blurs the break (see, for example, sketches 2, 4 and 5), the
tonic chord appears momentarily in the vicinity of the joint. Beetho-
ven’s Ž nal choice generates maximum continuity, enhancing the effect
of the subsequent section as a momentary point of repose.

39
Sketch 1 (p. 8/st. 10) is extremely difŽ cult to read; I have tried to suggest a logi-
cal harmony for this passage. Nottebohm’s transcription of sketch 2 (p. 13/sts. 15/16 to
p. 18/sts. 2/3–4/5, NII, 417–18) includes only the crossed-out notes in the Ž rst two mea-
sures, and omits the third and fourth measures entirely. In the remainder of the sketch
he also omits or adds several accidentals. Sketch 3 (p. 18/sts. 15/16) is cued into the sev-
enth measure of sketch 2, but it seems to link logically with the fourth measure and this is
how I have interpreted it. Sketch 6 (p. 21/st. 3/4) is lacking the “=de” referent that
would link it with the “Vi:” found in sketch 5; nevertheless, the harmony suggests it is in-
tended as an alternative for mm. 6–9 of sketch 5. Sketch 7 (p. 18/st. 1b) is unique in sev-
eral ways: the dominants of F and E are resolved to their respective tonics; the modula-
tory plan moves by step rather than in a circle of Ž fths; and the keys after the initial
minor harmony are all in the major mode. The function of this sketch is unclear and it
may relate to mm. 137ff. in the recapitulation rather than to the development.
40 Finding the right harmonic rhythm is also the focus of Beethoven’s concern in

his sketches for the end of the Ž nal digression (mm. 145–51). On the evolution of this
passage, see my dissertation, 317–22.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

TA B L E 2
Op. 54/II:2N (mm. 65–75): Timeline of Harmonic Rhythm in
the Final Version and the Sketches in Mendelssohn 15*
Final version
3N
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

HR:
Passing
Harmonies: c f b e a d /D : V7 VI-V /V-A 6 -V
prolongation of V

Sketch 1 (CD 1: p.8/st. 10)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3N

c E A D A D :V- V/V- V
?

122
Sketch 2 (CD 2: p. 13/sts. 15/16 to p. 18/sts. 2/3–4/5)

Vi: 3N
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

c f b e a D : I- V /V -V

Sketch 3 (“Vide” from above to p. 18/sts. 15/16)

=de: oder 3N
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

f b e a D :ii -V V7- I

Sketch 4 (“oder” from above to p. 18/st. 1a)

oder 9 10
3N

D : V- V7- I- V7/V -V

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 f ro h l i c h

TAB L E 2 (continued )
Sketch 5 (p. 21/sts. 1–4)

9 10
3N

(1st version)

I- VII/V -V
(?)
VI:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3N

c f b e a D : V- I- V /V -V

Sketch 6 (“Vide” from above to p. 21/sts. 3/4)

6 7 8 9
3N

(=de)

(e ) a D : ii -V -I

123
Sketch 7 (p. 18/st. 1)

f: ii -V F:V -I E : V7- I D : V7

Key to symbols:

= root change = ornamental chord change

= sustained harmony A6 = augmented-sixth chord

*Harmonic implications in the sketches are open to several interpretations.

The passing harmonies and speciŽ c chords indicated here are intended as logi-
cal possibilities.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 124
example 7. Op. 54/II: Sketches for Development/2N (mm. 65–75) in Mendelssohn 15

p.8/ st.10 ?
1 ()
() ()
()
()
Vi: (to st.15/16)
p.13/sts.15/16 to p.18/ sts.2/3
2

? ?

? (3N)
1
()
() () () ()
(etc.)

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
() () st.4 ( ) (3N)
2

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

() (etc.)
st.5

()
()
 (etc.)
(etc.)
()
()
(3N)

(3N)
()
()
()
()

()
()
125
(MS: E)
()

()

oder
+oder (to st.1a)
=de:
example 7. (continued )
p.18/ sts.15/16

p.18/st.1a
3

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (etc.)
Vi: (to sts.3/4 ?)

(3N)
()

()

()
()

()
126
(1st version ?)

()
(as below)

D)
D
example 7. (continued )

()
(MS: D
p.21/ sts.1/2

()
5b

5b
5a

5a

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (con sordino?)
c.s.
(3N)
()
()

()
()
()
()
C)

()
(MS: B

(MS: )

127
()

()
(=de)
example 7. (continued )
p.21/ sts.3/4

p.18/ st.1b
6

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 t h e j o u r n a l o f m u s ic o lo g y

Also signiŽ cant in this respect are the speciŽ c chords Beethoven se-
lected to articulate the half cadence closing the section. While none of
these sketches clearly indicate either the VI in D major found in m.
73, nor the augmented-sixth chord found in m. 74 of the Ž nal version,
the crucial pitch, B (the root of the augmented-sixth chord in D ) oc-
curs as part of other chromatic harmonies, where it is always spelled as
A-natural (see, for example, sketches 3 and 6).41 Beethoven’s Ž nal deci-
sion in favor of the augmented-sixth chord underscores his concern for
integration, because it anticipates the important role of this harmony
both in the ensuing interlude (mm. 75–86) and in the measures pre-
ceding the retransition (mm. 150–51).
These sketches reveal Beethoven’s painstaking approach to issues
of tempo, melodic contour, phrase organization, proportion and har-
monic rhythm. Observing the depth of detail that preoccupied him
prior to writing out the autograph, and how he labored to make these
details echo and comment upon one another, we are reminded of his
remark to the Edinburgh publisher George Thomson (1757–1851). In
a letter of 1813, Beethoven wrote that he was “profoundly convinced
that every change of detail changes the character of the composition.”42
128 These sketches are testimony to that conviction and to his enormous ca-
pacity for self-dissatisfaction. In estimating their potential to enhance
our own appreciation of the Ž nished work, I would like to conclude by
reiterating Lewis Lockwood’s cogent assessment at the close of his essay
on the Ž rst movement of the String Quartet Op. 59 No. 1: “. . . the
study of a masterwork with cognizance of its authentic sources is no
mere act of piety but a way to see the work as a product of craft and
imagination tempered by relentless self-criticism.”43

Welleet, Massachusetts

41
It is possible to interpret the chord in the tenth measure of sketch 5, version 1 as
an inversion of the augmented-sixth chord in D major. The G in the bass would then re-
solve by moving inward to A .
42
Brandenburg, Briefwechsel, II, No. 623 of Feb. 19, 1813: “Je ne suis pas accoutumé
de retoucher mes compositions; Je ne l’ai jamais fait, pénétré de la vérité que tout
changement partiel altère le caractère de la composition.”
43
Lockwood, “Process versus Limits,” 208.

This content downloaded from

60.241.223.83 on Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:19:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms