Sonata E, Op. · 2015-04-09 · Schenker and Forte Reconsidered: Beethoven's Sketches for the Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109 NICHOLAS MARSTON The first of Heinrich Schenker's Er- liiuterungsausgaben

Schenker and Forte Reconsidered:

Beethoven's Sketches for the

Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109

NICHOLAS MARSTON

The first of Heinrich Schenker's Er- liiuterungsausgaben of Beethoven's late piano sonatas to be published, in 1913, was that devoted to the Sonata in E, op. 109.1 As a textual study this was an important landmark; it was the first edition of the work to be based on the autograph, a fact which led Schenker to describe it as an "excavation" (Ausgrabung).2 But it is somewhat overshadowed by its successors in two other respects. First, it is the only one not to include transcriptions and discussions of se-

lected sketches for the sonata; and second, it must be said to contain the least sophisticated musical analysis. Schenker's theoretical formu- lations advanced considerably during the following years; indeed, it was in the op. 101 Er- liiuterungsausgabe (1920) that the concept of the Urlinie was first introduced.

However, the op. 109 Erliduterungsausgabe is by no means uninteresting from the analytical point of view. One of Schenker's most striking observations concerns the end of the first movement. "Consider the second quarter-note beat of m. 97," he wrote. "One has the impression of an inversion of the [sonata's opening] upbeat! The end of the movement is incomplete."3 The two parts of the movement alluded to by Schenker are quoted in ex. 1.

19th-Century Music X/1 (Summer 1986). ? by the Regents of the University of California.

1Beethoven: Die letzten Sonaten: Kritische Einf/ihrung und Erliauterung von Heinrich Schenker, ed. Oswald Jonas (Vi- enna, 1971-72). The original edns. appeared in 1913 (op. 109), 1914 (op. 110), 1915 (op. 111), and 1920 (op. 101); no Erlijuterungsausgabe of op. 106 was prepared because the autograph was, and still is, lost. 2Beethoven: Die letzten Sonaten: Sonate E Dur Op. 109, ed. Oswald Jonas (Vienna, 1971), p. 1.

3Ibid., p. 25: "Betrachtet man in T. 97 das 2. Viertel, so erhalt man das Bild einer Umkehrung des Auftaktes! Der Schluss des Satzes ist ein unvollkommener." This observation

24

NICHOLAS MARSTON Schenker and Forte

[Upbeat figure] [mm.97-99]7

P dolce

at, -LL -Ti: w

Example 1: Op. 109, movt. I.

Schenker's interest in op. 109 continued long after the publication of the Erliauterungs- ausgabe. Later he came to see that the first- movement upbeat figure played an important structural role throughout the entire movement. A diary entry dated 22 October 1922 reads: "Made marvelous discoveries in op. 109; in the Urlinie, beginning and end of the first movement and development: g#-b!"4 These discoveries were presented more fully in his essay "The Organic Nature of Sonata Form," published in 1926:

In the development of the first movement of the piano sonata op. 109, Beethoven establishes the following peaks:

m.21- -42

The way in which he suddenly abandons the g'"' register in m. 21 and leaps down to do" has always seemed startling: what might be the significance of this leap, this abruptness? Even if one manages to perceive a connection--specifically a displacement of g#"' by b'" (m. 42), which is later to become the principal ntoe of the recapitulation (m. 48)-between the two peaks set so far apart, the full extent of the mat-

ter has still not been grasped; this emerges rather from the following connections:

Upbeat figure m. 21 42 48 95 96 97

a b c d e

(Dev.) (Recap.) (Coda)

[Beethoven's] innate improvisatory powers fix upon the two notes of the upbeat figure in the development and the coda! They compel him; simply by them- selves they represent a motive for him, the key to a world of unity and coherence.5

Over thirty years after Schenker's essay was written, his observations on the role of the first- movement upbeat figure were elaborated upon by Allen Forte in his book The Compositional Matrix. Forte remarks: "To a considerable extent the melodic development of the [first] movement resides in the composing-out of relationships which are inherent in the upper third of the [tonic] triad [in other words, the upbeat figure g# '-b'], where A plays a primal role."6 But Forte sees the unifying power of the upbeat figure as extending beyond the first movement. At the beginning of the analysis of the third movement he remarks that his analytical syn- opsis "points up the many characteristics which this movement shares with the preceding movements. Here the relationship between triadic third and fifth is composed-out even more directly, more concisely."7 Thus the "world of unity and coherence" that Schenker perceived in the first movement of op. 109 is considered by Forte also to encompass the third movement of the sonata.

The Compositional Matrix was the first post- war analytical study to deal in any detail with

seems rather odd; it is surely the return of the original upbeat figure in m. 97 (g#"'-b"') rather than its inversion (b"- go") that creates a sense of incompleteness, in that it suggests a return to the opening of the movement. Indeed, Schenker's 1926 remarks (see below) give priority to the original figure rather than to its inversion. 4Ibid., p. 18 (fn.): "Prachtvolle Entdeckungen in op. 109 ge- macht; zur Urlinie, Anfang und Schluss des 1. Satzes und Durchfiihrung: gis-h!" The Urlinie is also mentioned in two further diary entries quoted in the footnote, but Jonas adds that "die Urlinien-Studie ist jedoch nicht erhalten."

5"Vom Organischen der Sonatenform," in Das Meisterwerk in der Musik 2 (Munich, Vienna, Berlin, 1926; rpt. Hildesheim and New York, 1974), 51 (translation mine). A translation of the complete essay, by Orin Grossman, appeared as "Organic Structure in Sonata Form," in Readings in Schenker Analysis and Other Approaches, ed. Maury Yeston (New Haven, 1977), pp. 38-53. 6Allen Forte, The Compositional Matrix (Baldwin, New York, 1961; rpt. 1974), p. 19. 7Ibid., p. 71.

25

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

the relationship of the sketches to the final version of a Beethoven composition. Forte's method was to approach the sketches from the vantage point of a Schenkerian analysis of op. 109, the "primary purpose of the study" being "to define certain significant aspects of Beethoven's compositional technique with ref- erence to a single complete work."8 Since it was not possible to reproduce all the sketches, he "selected those which in my opinion are most interesting and pertinent. However, no sketches have been omitted which have a significant bearing upon the evolution of the composition. "'

But by what criteria is the significance of a sketch to be judged? In practice it seems that Forte's selection was made on the basis of simi- larity between sketch and final version. Almost all of the sketches dealt with have obvious counterparts in op. 109, while those whose relationship to the finished work is obscure are passed over. Thus Forte writes about a certain sketch, which he considers to be for the development of the second movement: "Since the degree of correspondence between this and the final version is minimal, extended discussion seems pointless." And he simply dismisses as "problematic" the content and key of "an adja- cent sketch of a [development] section in E major (Beethoven's key signature)."10

In fact these two sketches are parts of a single continuity draft for the entire movement that departs quite radically from plans outlined in earlier sketches." In this draft, the exposition second group is in G major and is recapitulated in E major. Clearly derived from the descending bass octave in mm. 1-8 of the movement, its recapitulation in the tonic major sets up connections both with the first movement and the third-movement theme. That Beethoven was interested in establishing such inter-movement links is attested by many other sketches for the sonata (see below). The degree of correspondence between this draft and the final version may indeed be "minimal," but it is precisely be-

cause of this that the draft is of great significance for "the evolution of the composition."

Forte's insistence upon filtering his sketch interpretation through his analysis of the final version is an important methodological draw- back. The reader is ultimately presented with a series of transcribed sketch fragments that have been lifted out of their proper context and made to seem more or less flawed approximations of what Beethoven was eventually to decide upon at any given point in the work. But even if one accepts his methodology, Forte's book has other shortcomings. In addition to being largely frag- mentary, the transcriptions often contain inac- curacies, some of them serious; and despite Forte's claim to have presented "sketches of selected passages in what I assume to be correct chronological order,"'12 this order is jumbled in some examples. The reader may check both these points by comparing Forte's transcription of the sketches for the third-movement theme (ex. 34, pp. 76-77) with the transcriptions below (Appendix: sks. 15-20). Two sketches transcribed here (sks. 18 and 20) are not transcribed by Forte; and his ex. 34d is actually part of the sketch he transcribes as ex. 34g and occurs at a much later point in the sketchbook than exs. 34c and 34e.'3

Writing in 1961, of course, Forte did not have the advantage of the pioneering research of Alan Tyson, Douglas Johnson, and Robert Winter, which over the past fifteen years has made possible a new and much more informed under- standing of Beethoven's sketchbooks and compositional procedures. The Compositional Matrix was itself a pioneering study. Ulti- mately, however, it has to be said that Forte did not really understand the sketches for op. 109. And his verdict on Nottebohm's view of the second-movement sketches-"one must conclude that Nottebohm's study of the sketchbook [Ar-

8Ibid., p. 11. 9Ibid., p. 11, fn. 1. 10Ibid., pp. 66-67. "For a full transcription and analysis of this draft see Ni- cholas Marston, "Beethoven's Sketches for the Piano Sonata in E, Opus 109" (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1986), chapter 3, sk. 28.

12The Compositional Matrix, p. 11. 13The sketch corresponding to Forte's ex. 34g is not fully transcribed in the Appendix. Forte's ex. 34b should not prop- erly be regarded as a sketch for the theme; it is an idea for a thematic reprise and belongs less with the sketches for the theme than with sketches for a variation set that occupy pp. 50-53 of the sketchbook. Even if it were a sketch for the theme, it would be misplaced in Forte's example. His example 34a occurs on p. 36 of the sketchbook, not on p. 53 as given in his Appendix II (p. 89). Full transcriptions and details of the sketches for the third movement of op. 109 appear in chapters 4-6 of my dissertation.

26


taria 195] was somewhat less than thor- ough"'4-today reflects ironically upon his own work.

The time is ripe, then, for a new study of the sketches for op. 109. The present article is based on an intensive scrutiny of all the sketches which has involved sketchbook reconstruction, complete transcription, and detailed manu- script study to ascertain the order in which the sketches were made.'5is The aim of the sketch analysis presented below is threefold. I hope to show that Beethoven intentionally left the end of the first movement "incomplete," to use Schenker's word, and that Forte's contention concerning the relationship of the first and third movements is reinforced by a series of striking parallels between the evolution of the first movement and that of the third-movement theme. Finally, I shall suggest that the relationship between these two movements is directly related to the incomplete ending of the first movement.

II The very first pair of sketches for the opening

movement of op. 109 is of key importance to my argument (sks. 1 and 2: see Appendix). As I in- terpret them, they present three compositional ideas that were to play a central role not only in the evolution of the first movement, but also in that of the third-movement theme.

1. The first idea is that seized upon by Schenker: the use of the upbeat figure as a structural element in the upper voice. A reduction of the first phrase of sk. 1 shows that the upbeat figure b'-g#' spans the phrase and is filled out by a triadic descent to e', followed by a linear ascent through f#' to the final g#'. Meanwhile, the linear descent through the sixth g#'-b in the middle voice fills out an inversion of the reversed upbeat figure (ex. 2a).

The upbeat figure spans more than the first phrase. At the end of the second phrase there is an implied modulation to the dominant, and b"

is reached in the upper voice. During the third phrase a return to the initial register of the sketch is effected, and the progression b'-a'-g#' occurs. The arrival on g#' implies a simultane- ous return to the tonic key (ex. 2b). Thus the upbeat figure b'-g#' spans the first three phrases, during which B functions both as 5 of E major and I of B major while G# functions as 3 of E major.

Beethoven subsequently modified the later phrases of sketch 1 in a revision marked "oder." Harmonically speaking, the revision is an ex- pansion of the original third phrase, in that a modulation from B major back to the tonic E major is implied. It is interesting to observe that the revision is again bounded by the two notes of the upbeat figure and that further use is made of the linear connection between B and G# that had been explored in the original third phrase (see ex. 2b).

Turning now to sk. 2, which is clearly a re- working of the first two phrases of sk. 1, the first important feature we observe is the reversal of the form of the upbeat figure in sk. 1: b'-g#' be- comes g# '-b', and the direction of the intervals on the following beats is reversed accordingly. The effect of this small change was to create a filling-out of the new upbeat figure that spans the modulation to the dominant. The initial g#' is transferred up an octave to g#" at the beginning of the fourth measure, and b" is subsequently reached via the passing note a#" (ex. 3).

The addition to the upbeat figure of a passing note to form the ascending linear progression G# -A#-B balances the descending linear progression B-A-G# that was similarly derived from the upbeat figure in sk. 1.

Two main facts emerge from the preceding discussion. First, it is clear that Beethoven decided to use the triadic third and fifth of E major as the upbeat figure of the first movement at a very early stage in its evolution. Second, he explored ways of using the upbeat figure to structure longer spans of music. In particular, sks. 1 and 2 show how he added a passing note between Gk and B to create the linear progressions G#-A#-B and B-A-G# (see exs. 2 and 3). These two progressions encapsulate melodically a modulation from the tonic to the dominant, and from the dominant back to the tonic. They were to play a crucial role in the evolution not only of the first movement but also of the third-

14The Compositional Matrix, p. 57. "5A brief description of the sketch sources for op. 109, together with transcriptions of all the sketches analyzed below, appears in the Appendix (pp. 36-42). A more detailed examination of the sources appears in chapter 1 of my dissertation.

27

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

a. b.

W- V

kIF

o

0,!...t• - • /I I f LTI I

MLE" 1

Example 2 (cf. sketch 1).

.W bt l TI b


Uipheat B-tonicizingE-toniciZing

tigurc progression progression

B: V I E: V7

Example 4

movement theme. For the sake of convenience, they may be termed the "B-tonicizing" and the "E-tonicizing" progressions (ex. 4).

2. The reversal of the upbeat figure b'-g#' in sk. 1 to become g#'-b' in sk. 2 bears on the second compositional idea I wish to identify. The reversal had important consequences for the relative emphasis given to G# and B in the first phrase. In sk. 1, B receives more weight than GO: b' is the first note heard, and the repeated middle-voice b is articulated at the beginning of each beat, while the g#' at the end of the phrase occurs only after the beat. But in sk. 2 g#' exerts a much greater control over the phrase (see ex. 3), and the repeated b is now relegated to the weak part of each beat.

The initial g#' in sk. 2 is given even greater emphasis by being articulated as a downbeat rather than an upbeat (compare sk. 1). But this change causes the g#' at the end of the first phrase to be shifted to a weak part of the bar, whereas the corresponding note in sk. 1 occurs within a downbeat. In sk. 3 Beethoven considered a rather unorthodox solution to this metri- cal problem: he retained the 4 meter and downbeat beginning of sk. 2 but shortened the second bar by one quarter-note beat, so that the g#' at the end of the first phrase also occurs within a downbeat!

A glance at the first phrase in the final version strengthens the impression that Beethoven

was intent on articulating the triadic third very strongly at the opening of the movement. Al- though the upbeat beginning of sk. 1 is reinstated, the middle-voice linear descent now spans the octave g# '-g#, and the arrival on g# co- incides precisely with the return to g#' in the upper voice (ex. 5; cf. ex. 2a).

It is this special solicitude for G# in sks. 1 and 2 that I identify as Beethoven's second compositional idea. The presence of G# in the upper voice in places where E-major harmony is implied suggests that Beethoven intended to use GO as the principal upper-voice note-a sort of upper-voice substitute tonic note-in those parts of the movement in which the prevailing tonality was E major. In this connection, it is significant that in the final version he eschewed almost entirely root-position tonic triads supporting E rather than G# in the upper voice: only two such triads occur, in mm. 87-88. There is,

E P

Example 5 (cf. op. 109, movt. I, mm. 1-4).

28


however, one important instance in which the tonic note is used in the upper voice in the context of an implied root-position tonic triad. This occurs in sk. 4, which is an idea for the very end of the movement. It appears that Beethoven intended to use the tonic note (e"') as the final upper-voice note of the movement-although even here g#" is articulated at the beginning of the beat, and the final e"' follows it. Later sketches suggest that Beethoven retained the plan of closing the movement with the tonic note in the upper voice until an advanced stage in its evolution.

The reversal of the upbeat figure from sk. 1 underlines the close interrelation between the first two compositional ideas. For the concept of G# as an upper-voice substitute tonic note is crucial to the B-tonicizing and E-tonicizing progressions, in which melodic motion between G# and B, the two notes of the upbeat figure, is used to encapsulate harmonic motion between the tonic and the dominant. Given these prem- ises, it was logical for Beethoven to change the upbeat figure from b'-g#' to g#'-b': b'-g#' represented V-I in harmonic terms, while g#'-b' represented I-V and thereby projected the dy- namic harmonic progression fundamental to the exposition.

3. The third compositional idea stands apart from the other two. It is the choice of the submediant, CO minor, as an important subsidiary harmony in the first movement. It appears already in sk. 1, which breaks off abruptly with the remark "fillt ein Cis moll in eine[r] Fantasie u.[nd] schliesst darin." The precise meaning of this is difficult to ascertain; it is possible that at this early stage Beethoven was considering CO minor as the key of the second group. At all events, the remark clearly foreshadows the character and content of the eventual dominant-key second group, in which the tonality is momentarily forced away from B major toward Ce minor. In the first-movement sketches Beethoven gave the submediant much greater prominence than it was to receive in the final version; some of its more important appear- ances will be discussed below. For the present it may be regarded as a kind of given element whose potential was to be explored throughout the evolution of the movement.

Beethoven's plans for the use of the upbeat

figure g# '-b' as a large-scale structural element first become really clear with the appearance of a sketch for the retransition (sk. 5). By the time he made this sketch he had already fixed the main features of the exposition. The modulation to the dominant, together with the use of the B-tonicizing progression in the upper voice, had been introduced in sk. 2; in a subsequent sketch Beethoven had introduced an early version of the second-group material, which delays the completion of the B-tonicizing progression until the end of the exposition by preventing the resolution a#"-b" at the end of the first group (compare mm. 8-9 of the final version: the b" expected in m. 9 arrives only with the beginning of the development at the end of m. 15). Thus, with B now fixed both as the governing tonality and as the principal upper-voice note of the development, it was perfectly logical for Beethoven to underpin the upper voice in the development and retransition by the E-tonicizing progression, in order to reestablish GO as the principal upper-voice note simultaneously with the return of the tonic key at the beginning of the recapitulation (see the progression a"-g#", implying V7-I, in sk. 5). This plan for the large- scale use of the B-tonicizing and the E-tonicizing progressions created a broad symmetrical arch structure derived from the upbeat figure (ex. 6).

But although the idea of underpinning the development and retransition by the E-tonicizing progression survived as Beethoven's conception of the movement became more concrete, it was ultimately to be abandoned. In fact, it was forced out of the movement by the growth in importance of a relatively insignificant element in sk. 5: the use of the submediant toward the end of the development. Sketches 6-8 record three crucial later stages in the evolution of the end of the development and the retransition.

Sketch 6 differs little from sk. 5. The melodic

Upb'cit B-tonicizing E-tonicizing Ifigure progression progression

A I -I a I I 11/ s

Exposition Development Rctransition Recapitulation

Example 6

29

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

resolution a"-g#" appears clearly again. But the dominant seventh of E is emphasized much less than before; the rhetorical scalar flourish has disappeared, and the dominant harmony remains undifferentiated by melodic or rhythmic means. The submediant, on the other hand, is given greater weight than before.

The tendency to assert the submediant strongly at the end of the development culmi- nates in a detailed continuity draft for the exposition and development. Sketch 7 is taken from the end of this draft; it shows that Beethoven now intended the development to reach a cli- max on the dominant of CO minor. The retransition was to consist of a dominant seventh of E supporting an upper-voice scalar flourish, as in sk. 5. The substitution in sk. 7 of the dominant of the submediant for the submediant triad itself calls for some comment. Doubtless this was connected with Beethoven's exploration and manipulation of G#, which was one of the principal factors in the evolution of the movement. By replacing CO minor in sks. 5 and 6 by its dominant, Beethoven was able to retain the refer- ence to the submediant while also exploring one of the possible harmonic meanings of G#.

Sketch 8 represents the final stage: the development ends quietly with a reiterated dominant of CO minor, and after a silence the recapitulation begins. The dominant seventh of E (cf. sks. 5-7) is completely omitted. By omitting it at this point Beethoven forfeited the opportunity of completing the E-tonicizing progression, by which G# would be reestablished as the principal upper-voice note at the beginning of the recapitulation. And the absence of this progression also left incomplete the upper-voice arch structure shown in ex. 6.

That Beethoven was fully aware of the consequences of the omission of the dominant seventh immediately before the recapitulation, and that he was concerned to complete the E- tonicizing progression in the upper voice, is shown by a striking alteration in his plans for the end of the movement. Sketch 8 is taken from a continuity draft for the recapitulation. The end of the draft shows that at this stage Beethoven still intended the upper voice to close on the tonic note (cf. sk. 4). But sks. 9 and 10, both written some time after the continuity draft, tell a different story. In both cases the final upper-voice note is G#, preceded by A.

Sketch 10, indeed, ends with a bald statement of the complete E-tonicizing progression. The sud- den appearance here at the end of the movement of precisely that progression which had been suppressed at the beginning of the recapitulation can hardly be coincidental. Beethoven had now decided to delay the reestablishment of G# as the principal upper-voice note, and with it the completion of the symmetrical arch structure, until the last possible moment in the movement.

But an even more radical change in his thinking about these matters was yet to come. Inher- ent in Beethoven's scheme to employ the upbeat figure of the movement in structurally important ways was a sense of conflict or polar- ity between its two notes: G# was chosen as the principal upper-voice note in the "tonic" sec- tions of the movement (the exposition and the recapitulation), and B was to function in the same role in the "dominant" section (the development). But by virtue of its being a member both of the B- and E-major triad, B might of course also serve as a principal upper-voice note in a "tonic" section. Beethoven was playing on this possibility when he avoided reestablishing G# as the principal upper-voice note in sk. 8: he left unclear the relative structural weight of GO and B at the beginning of the recapitulation.

Ultimately he avoided reestablishing G# as the principal upper-voice note even at the end of the movement, and thereby left the conflict between G# and B unresolved. Sketch 11 shows one manifestation of this new plan. The final resolution A-G# in sks. 9 and 10 is replaced here by the figure B -G#: an inversion of the upbeat figure of just the kind that Schenker was to point out in the final version. Although GO is the final note of the movement in this sketch, its sense of real finality is undermined by the absence of the E-tonicizing resolution A-G#. In- stead, both B and G# are left in the air, in a sort of inconclusive parity.

The final stage in the evolution of the end of the movement may be traced in the pocket sketches (see Appendix). It is clear from the foregoing that Beethoven's radical change of plan for the retransition affected profoundly his plans for the ending. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to find that the majority of the pocket sketches are concerned with these same two important structural events.

30


The pocket sketches for the retransition all show that Beethoven had abandoned the idea of asserting the dominant of CO minor at the end of the development and had reinstated an em- phatic dominant of E, with a prominent B in the upper voice. In none of these sketches, however, is A introduced in the upper voice to connect B with the GO at the beginning of the recapitulation. And the idea of leaving the conflict for primacy between GO and B unresolved at the end of the movement surfaces again in sketch 12. Al- though gO is the final note, no E-tonicizing progression occurs (cf. sk. 10), and b" is stressed both by register and repetition.

Sketches 13 and 14, both for the ending, are the last pocket sketches. In both, B rather than GO is the final upper-voice note. But sk. 13-es- pecially the notation on staves 10/11 -includes an added subtlety: B and G# are now stated not successively, as in previous sketches, but simultaneously. Here Beethoven found the per- fect means whereby the relative structural weight of these two notes might be left unde- cided right to the end of the movement. And although only B is present at the end of sk. 14, it seems likely that Beethoven actually intended GO to be paired with it, as in sk. 13, but did not trouble to indicate this. In any case, it was sk. 13 that provided the inspiration for the ending in the final version.

To summarize: Beethoven's initial plan was to create a symmetrical arch structure in the upper voice based on the complementary linear progressions G#-A#-B and B-A-G#, both of which were derived from the upbeat figure of the movement. The G# -A -B progression was to be completed by the beginning of the development, and B, established now as the principal upper-voice note, was to be quitted at the retransition, where a descent through A would lead back to G# at the beginning of the recapitulation. Eventually Beethoven decided not to employ the B-A-GO progression until the very end of the movement, in order to exploit the inherent conflict between G#, the "true" principal upper-voice note of the recapitulation, and B, which could also fill that role. The last sketches for the movement show that he was considering abandoning the progression alto- gether, so as to leave the conflict for primacy between G# and B unresolved and the upper-voice symmetrical arch structure incomplete.

In the final version of the first movement, as we know, the B-tonicizing progression GO -A -

B is interrupted by the remarkable intrusion of the second group (documented in sketches not transcribed here) at m. 9; the a#" reached at the end of m. 8 does not finally resolve to b" until the beginning of the development at the end of m. 15. This b" is subsequently replaced by b"', which is repeated throughout mm. 42-48.

Although the recapitulation begins with the go"' on the second beat of m. 48, the E-tonicizing progression does not occur: b"' and g."' are not connected by a"'. This means of avoiding the E- tonicizing progression is less radical than that illustrated in sk. 8, but Beethoven's aim is never- theless the same: G# is not unequivocally reestablished as the principal upper-voice note.

In the coda, the E-tonicizing progression occurs twice in structurally unimportant places (mm. 66-67 and 72-73). Further on, in mm. 77-78, the "tonic" force of G# is undermined when the upper-voice motion a'-g#' is harmo- nized not in an E-major, but in a C#-minor (submediant) context. And in mm. 92-97 both GO and B are constantly reiterated until, on the second beat of m. 97, they are the only notes heard. They are left unconnected by A or A#, just as in the upbeat figure, and this lack of connection is carried over into the low-register final tonic triads. Now GO and B are stated simultaneously rather than successively (cf. sk. 13); they are left in an inconclusive parity, their relative structural weight undefined.

For Schenker, the incompleteness of the end of the first movement of op. 109 derived from the reappearance of the upbeat figure in m. 97.16 But viewed from the perspective of the sketches, it is clear that this return of the upbeat was only a detail-albeit a telling one-in Beethoven's strategy. The movement is incomplete because after the exposition no structural E-tonicizing progression occurs to reestablish GO as the principal upper-voice note and to close the symmetrical arch-structure illustrated in ex. 6. The suppression of the E-tonicizing progression leaves B, established in place of G# as the principal upper-voice note at the beginning of the development, unresolved back to G# at the beginning of the recapitulation. In this connection, it is noteworthy that in "The Organic

160n this point see fn. 3.

31

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

Nature of Sonata Form" Schenker refers to B as the "principal note" (Kopfton) of the recapitulation. The reappearance of the upbeat figure in m. 97, then, merely reaffirms the continuing po- larity and conflict of its two constituent notes.

III Allen Forte, as I have observed, draws atten-

tion to characteristics that the third movement shares with the preceding movements: "Here the relationship between triadic third and fifth is composed-out even more directly, more concisely."17 He does not elucidate any further connections between the third-movement theme and the first movement, beyond pointing out that "particular emphasis is given to III in m. 12 [of the theme], recalling the operation of that harmony in the development section of the first movement."18 An examination of the sketches for the theme, however, reveals many shared characteristics with the first-movement sketches, suggesting that these two parts of op. 109 are closely connected on a genetic level.

Only eight sketches for the theme are known to exist today. They occur on pp. 36-37 and 53 of the sketchbook Artaria 195 (see Appendix). The six sketches on pp. 36-37 (sks. 15-20) represent the main stage of work on the theme. It is important to bear in mind that these sketches were made directly before the main sketching for the second movement, which occupies pp. 37-50 of the sketchbook; the third-movement theme was the next part of op. 109 to be composed after the completion of the first-movement sketches.

Of the two later sketches, on p. 53, the first is essentially a transcription of the bass line of one of the sketches (sk. 17) on p. 36, and the second is a very detailed and heavily corrected draft for the entire theme. This is very similar to the final version and probably represents the last written work on the theme prior to the writing- out of the autograph. Save for a small revision in ink, the sketches on pp. 36-37 are written entirely in pencil, while those on p. 53 are in ink; the transcription on p. 53 of part of an earlier sketch, and the ink revision on p. 36, suggest that Beethoven looked back at the main body of sketches just prior to writing the final detailed

draft. The ink revision on p. 36 may therefore safely be regarded as belonging to a late stage in the evolution of the theme.

Sketches 15 and 17 suggest that Beethoven never had any doubts about the opening upper- voice interval g# '-e'. And the revised version of sk. 15 reveals that at this stage he intended a linear progression through that opening interval to underpin the upper-voice motion of the entire theme (ex. 7).

Example 7 also reveals the extent to which the upper-voice motion in sk. 15 involves descending linear progressions from the triadic third to the tonic or beyond. And ex. 8 shows that the original versions of both sks. 15 and 16 make use of similarly directed motion: the predominantly disjunct ascending motion in the former may be understood as an elaboration of the linear descent g '-f0 '-e'-d#', while the latter is underpinned by a linear descent through the fifth b'-e'.

Sketch 17 marks a radical change in Beethoven's thinking about the upper-voice structure. Here the predominantly descending motion in sks. 15 and 16 is replaced by ascending motion. (This can be seen particularly clearly in the bass voice, which climbs steadily through a range of two-and-a-half octaves from E to b'.) The change from descending to ascending motion makes possible for the first time the linear connection between the triadic third and fifth that Forte emphasized in his analysis of the theme. The initial g#' rises through a#' to b' in m. 4, and this progression is repeated one octave higher in mm. 7-8. Beethoven's revisions to these latter two bars illustrate well his concern to articulate the progression g#"-a#"-b" espe- cially clearly (ex. 9).

Beethoven's decision to introduce the 3-5 linear ascent in the first half seriously affected his ideas about the end of the theme. Sketches 18 and 20 are both concerned with the final three bars, and show that Beethoven had now decided to use g# ', preceded by a', as the final upper-voice note. The 3-i linear descent employed in sks. 15 and 16 was abandoned.

But this was not the last stage in the evolution of the end of the theme. For the - I linear descent reappears both in the late ink revision in sk. 16 and in one layer of the final sketch (the detailed draft of the complete theme on p. 53: sk. 21). In the other layers of this draft the theme

'7The Compositional Matrix, p. 71. "8Ibid., p. 72.

32


Example 7 (cf. sketch 15, revised version).

a. (cf. sketch 15, first version)

b. (cf. sketch 16)

Example 8

he p' •a)1 1" t en

li.,


ends with a'-g#' in the upper voice, just as in sks. 18 and 20 and the final version. Neverthe- less, the ink revision in sk. 16 and the ending of sk. 21 both show that at a late stage in the evolution of the theme Beethoven had second

thoughts about the close on the triadic third, and considered reinstating the descent to the tonic note.

What might have induced such a volte-face at this late stage? Possibly Beethoven considered

33

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

G# to be an essentially unstable melodic note requiring "resolution" to the tonic at the end of the theme. However, the spacing of the final two chords of sk. 21 suggests that he was attempting a compromise ending here rather than abandoning the close on the triadic third alto- gether. For the f#"-e" progression may be regarded simply as an octave doubling of the inner voice f '-e', while the true upper voice remains a'-g# '. It is difficult to explain the registral leap in the last two measures in any other way, for apart from the isolated e" in m. 3 the e" register is not used anywhere else in the upper voice. There is a case, then, for arguing that in sk. 21 Beethoven was attempting to suggest a 3-1 structural descent in the upper voice while leaving the "real" close on the triadic third intact.

To summarize: in his first sketches for the theme, Beethoven employed a 3-i linear descent as the basic structural progression in the upper voice. In his third sketch (sk. 17) he began to explore linear connections between 3 and 5, and he subsequently decided to use these to structure the upper voice. A 3-4-5 (G#-A#-B) progression in the first half of the theme was to be reversed in the second half (B-A-G#), and the upper voice was to begin and end on g# '. At a late stage, however, Beethoven reverted to his earlier idea of a close on i in the upper voice, and also considered a compromise ending involving both i and 3.

There are at least two obvious relationships between the evolution of the upper-voice structure of the theme and that of the first movement. First, the derivation of structural linear progressions from the initial melodic pair is common to both. Second, Beethoven's decision to employ ascending and descending linear progressions between 3 and 5 in the theme im- parted to the upper voice the same symmetrical arch structure as that envisaged for the first movement (ex. 10; cf. ex. 6).

(mm. 1-8) (mm. 9-16)

TeMIlt

A? ? ?

Example 10

But there are other less obvious relationships also. In both sets of sketches Beethoven initially chose 1 as the final upper-voice note but then replaced it by 3; and in both cases he had subsequent doubts about the suitability of this ending. Another relationship concerns the submediant. As has already been observed, this is suggested as an important harmony in the very first sketch for the first movement (sk. 1). Likewise, it appears as an important harmonic goal in the first sketch for the theme (sk. 15). Al- though Beethoven eventually replaced this central modulation to the submediant by one to the dominant (just as he substituted a dominant cli- max in E major for the submediant one in the first-movement development sketches), he nev- ertheless tried to retain the submediant as a significant harmonic feature in the theme. This is made clear by sk. 19, which replaces the second half of sk. 17 to create the eight-bar first half shown in ex. 11.

The hypothetical bass part added here reveals that mm. 5-6 are controlled by submediant harmony. Furthermore, the linear ascent from b' in m. 4 to e" in m. 6 strongly recalls the similar ascent in mm. 15-19 of the first movement, where the submediant and its dominant are also stressed. (This linear ascent in ex. 11 is in fact only part of a longer one that begins with the initial g#' of the theme. This ascending sixth survives in m. 7 of the final version as the leap g# -e'. And there, as here, the upper-voice tonic note is supported by a root-position submediant triad.)

A third link between the evolution of the theme and that of the first movement concerns the conflict between G# and B. In the first movement, Beethoven had exploited this conflict at some length in the recapitulation by withhold- ing the reestablishment of G# as the principal upper-voice note at the outset and subsequently avoiding any clear definition of the relative structural weight of G# and B. Such treatment was not possible within the smaller confines of a sixteen-bar variation theme. The final sketch for the theme shows that Beethoven decided at one stage to replace the gently moving bass line (which had already been present in the earliest sketches) by a much more static accompani- ment involving an inner pedal on B (sk. 22). This pedal was to sound until the first beat of m. 7, and was to appear an octave higher in mm.

34


r--- Vi= [11 = de oder 60 [2] oder 60

[Sk. 171 [Sk. 191

o, F-I F

1

L""iii]=eF ' I I i r •, ,H,, , -ri

Example 11

OPi

i•1r tl=v7

Example 12 (cf. op. 109, movt. III, theme).

9-11; thus Beethoven sought to suggest the po- larity of GO and B by presenting B in an inner voice from the outset of the theme, where GO is the principal upper-voice note. Ultimately he abandoned the idea, perhaps because the pedal was not compatible with the moving bass line, which he had decided to reinstate. A last vestige of the idea, however, survives in mm. 9-11 of the final version.

IV The several relationships outlined above sug-

gest that Beethoven was not simply attempting to evoke details of the first movement in the third-movement theme. He appears rather to have taken up again the structural issues with which he had been concerned in the composition of the first movement as a whole. If the

sketches for the theme convey a sense of diuij vu, this is only natural, for in them Beethoven was directly retracing his earlier steps. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the third- movement theme is in a sense a recomposition of the first movement of op. 109.

But what was the reason for this recomposition? It is very likely to have been prompted by the incompleteness of the first movement, which was sensed by Schenker, and which has been examined from the perspective of the sketches in section II above. It is clear from the sketches that Beethoven was actively concerned for the completion of the first movement: he abandoned the E-tonicizing progression at the retransition, but then shifted it to the end of the movement so that the symmetrical arch structure projected for the upper voice

35

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

might still be completed. Eventually, as has been shown, he decided to leave the arch structure incomplete even at this point. Might not the reason for the recomposition have been his continuing desire for completion-albeit a completion which took place beyond the first movement itself? The sketches for the third- movement theme show how Beethoven gradu- ally shaped the upper voice around the symmetrical arch structure which he had originally envisaged for the first movement. In the theme, however, the arch is completed in the upper voice and is reflected in miniature in the lower voices (ex. 12). What was left incomplete in the first movement is completed here; the arch structure is expressed with the utmost clarity and simplicity.

Ultimately, Schenker's sense of the incompleteness of the first movement and Forte's ob-

servation of links between it and the third movement are subtly interrelated. To put it another way, the links are a direct consequence of the incompleteness. But Schenker did not look to the sketches to support and expand his conception of the first movement; and Forte did not explore to the full their potential for supporting his arguments for inter-movement links. Fi- nally, the evidence presented here of the close genetic relationship between the first movement and the third-movement theme throws new light on the structural function of the thematic reprise at the end of the third movement. For when that reprise closes with the upper- voice progression a'-g#', not only is the third movement brought to an end: those two notes also represent the true ending of the first movement, completed now at the very last possible moment.

!W.#

APPENDIX: SOURCES AND TRANSCRIPTIONS

The extant sketches for the first movement are located in three sources: Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbib- liothek, Grasnick 20b (SV 54: G), fols. 3r-5V and 6"; Bonn, Beethovenhaus, BH 107 (SV 81:BH), pp. 39-41 and 43; and Bonn, Beethovenhaus, BSk 27/75 (SV 182).19 The four Grasnick 20b leaves are loose leaves of desk sketchbook size; the other two manuscripts are a pocket sketchbook and a single pocket leaf.

None of these three sources was in its present state when Beethoven used it.20 The four Grasnick 20b leaves, along with Grasnick 20b fol. 2, originally belonged near the end of the so-called Wittgenstein

sketchbook (Bonn, Beethovenhaus, BSk 1/49, SV 154), in the following sequence:21

Wittgenstein fol. 44 (present last leaf) Grasnick 20b fol. 2 Grasnick 20b fol. 3 Grasnick 20b fol. 4 sketches for the first Grasnick 20b fol. 5 movement of op. 109 Grasnick 20b fol. 6

BH 107 and BSk 27/75 are closely connected, since BSk 27/75 originally belonged to BH 107 and was located between pp. 42 and 43. On stave 9r of this "missing" leaf there is a tiny sketch for the first movement of op. 109. A reconstruction of BH 107 reveals that at least four more leaves must originally have followed pp. 43/44, which today make up the last leaf of the book.

'9SV numbers refer to Hans Schmidt, "Verzeichnis der Skiz- zen Beethovens," Beethoven-Jahrbuch 6 (1969), 7-128, in which the op. 109 sketches on Grasnick 20b fol. 6v and BSk 27/75 are not listed; they appear hitherto to have escaped notice. 20In the following discussion, details of sketchbook reconstruction are limited to those which bear directly on the sketches for op. 109. Full reconstructions of all the sketchbooks referred to in this article appear in Douglas Johnson, Alan Tyson, and Robert Winter, The Beethoven Sketch- books: History, Reconstruction, Inventory (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985). I am indebted to Professor Winter for making his reconstructions of the Wittgenstein sketchbook and of BH 107 available to me prior to publication.

21 According to Winter, Grasnick 20b fols. 4 and 5 may originally have been separated by Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS 77 (SV 229), pp. 9/10 and 11/12, all of which are unused. But since there is a clear ink-blot offset between Grasnick 20b fols. 4 and 5, it seems likely that the two MS 77 leaves were removed prior to the writing of the op. 109 sketches. See The Beethoven Sketchbooks, p. 255.

36


It is possible to date all three sources quite accu- rately by means of cross-references between sketches, letters, and conversation books;22 but it is clear simply from the content of the sketches that those in BH 107 and BSk 27/75 postdate those in Grasnick 20b. Furthermore, the pocket sketches ob- viously belong to a very advanced compositional stage. It is of course possible that the leaves missing from the end of BH 107 contained further sketches for the movement.

Nearly all the sketches for the other movements of op. 109 are contained in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Artaria 195 (SV 11: A). This was the desk sketchbook Beethoven began using after he had filled up the Wittgenstein book. The first thirty-five pages of Artaria 195 are devoted to sketches for the Credo of the Missa solemnis. Sketches for the second movement of op. 109 appear on the lower half of p. 35 and on pp. 37-50; a final sketch occurs on p. 55, below sketches for the third- movement variations. Sketches for the third-movement theme occur on p. 36 and the bottom three staves of p. 37, below early work on the second movement. The final sketch for the theme occurs on p. 53, interrupting the main sketching for the variations, which begins at the bottom of p. 50 and continues to

p. 73. Further isolated variation sketches occur on pp. 36, 75, and 78.

Apart from those in Artaria 195, no further sketches for the second movement are known to exist today. But two further manuscripts contain sketches for the third-movement variations: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Artaria 197 (SV 12), p. 1 contains a sketch for the last variation, and detailed drafts of variations 2 and 3 are to be found in Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, A 47 (SV 277). In addition, the autograph of the third movement contains numerous revisions and correc- tions, particularly for variations 3 and 4.23

In the following sketch transcriptions, manu- script stave numbers appear to the left of clefs when required at the beginning of a system, and above staves elsewhere. All material in dotted lines (barlines, slurs, ties, deletions, etc.) or in square brackets is editorial. Deletions are indicated by an oblique stroke (\), questionable readings as follows: - ?-. Compositional layers are separated where nec- essary and clarified by numbers: [1], [2], etc. Small- scale revisions are indicated by small notation; the original reading, in normal-size notation, is followed by the revised one.

22Full details of this evidence appear in chapter 1 of my dissertation.

"The autograph of op. 109 is located at the Library of Con- gress. A facsimile of it, with an introduction by Oswald Jonas, was published in 1965 by the Robert Owen Lehman Foundation, New York.

G. fol. 3r

f) _ -o-1\L" oder,

fllt in ii Tl in in F nt se nd scIliet dr n

ododr

faltclnI iO sioll Inlneli- I Fantasi '?.tid - t-chliegt

ddrin

, 'op -

• , ,,4

Sketch 1

37

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

G. fol. 3r

Sketch 2

G. fol. 3r

[ills:

#1 ZA ~ 1

Sketch 3

G. fol. 3v

Sketch 4

G. fol. 3v

1 l l tIPiA I

3 r-1_.E.

s

Sketch 5

G. fol. 4r

1l'31 13 .

-] [.]

[-]

9 -'I - [.

Sketch 6

38


G. fol. 4v

E: 116 II113 V7

Sketch 7

G. fol. 5r ims: ]

PP _ns

p 13

Sketch 8

G. fol. 5v

3

a -op-

Sketch 9

G. fol. 5v

6

6 ,

II

Sketch 10

G. fol. 5v

4: f: f: p: p6

Cso t f

Sketch 11

39

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

BH, p. 40

o---?-9-

Sketch 12

BH, p. 41

rAi

I I

it LD" I

.10

9 9 8

[3] [ms: all"j?]

7 1 :99

Sketch 13

BH, p. 43

8 [ms:

, ' l : I I

Sketch 14

40


A, p. 36 Variationi

6[ms: [S ]:

L .J m" -?- Vi=

7 Varia

8 =de • "•?,• I , -J . .b

J •- . - ,• -- . • ,-ie-

', ? - - . . ..

Sketch 15

[2: ink] 14

A, p. 36

h I i.e.. B major] 10[1

11 [1]13

Sketch 16

A, p. 36 oder 60

[---sk. 19]

131- a )-,&*- . , - .

l

Sketch 17

41

19TH CENTURY

MUSIC

A, p. 36

15" - a

Sketch 18

A, p. 37 [-sk. 171

is

['1 = d [2] oder 6X

Sketch 19

A, p. 37

16

w~ r rFr

Sketch 20

A, p. 53

L,. J id 4

Sketch 21

A, p. 53

127I

Sketch 22

42

Documents

Sonata E, Op. · 2015-04-09 · Schenker and Forte Reconsidered: Beethoven's Sketches for the Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109 NICHOLAS MARSTON The first of Heinrich Schenker's Er- liiuterungsausgaben