{"id":5892,"date":"2020-06-01T08:00:51","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T06:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=5892"},"modified":"2020-06-02T08:57:40","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T06:57:40","slug":"beethovens-hammerklavier-sonata-the-stony-path-to-a-reliable-music-text","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2020\/06\/01\/beethovens-hammerklavier-sonata-the-stony-path-to-a-reliable-music-text\/","title":{"rendered":"Beethoven\u2019s \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata \u2013 The stony path to a reliable music text"},"content":{"rendered":"

Almost exactly 20 years ago \u2013 as I had just finished my editorial work on the Missa solemnis<\/em> for the Complete Edition [GA<\/em>] \u2013 the Beethoven-Haus approached me about whether I might be interested in co-editing the GA<\/em>\u2019s final piano-sonata volume. Besides the three late sonatas I was also offered the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata. Who wouldn\u2019t want to seize the opportunity there!<\/p>\n

Alas, my initial enthusiasm then turned out to be unwarranted. I did my work, but my co-editor \u2013 I\u2019m not mentioning any names \u2013 did not deliver. The volume has yet to be published in the GA<\/em> in its entirety, I already withdrew as editor many years ago. I was at least able to publish the knowledge gained then regarding the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata\u2019s genesis and sources in an extensive article within the Bonn Beethoven-Studien<\/em> (volume 2).<\/p>\n

Today, by contrast, I am working with the most wonderful partner imaginable, Murray Perahia. Twenty-two sonatas<\/a> have already been published with him in new Urtext editions, and we\u2019ve been dealing now for awhile with what is probably the most demanding project of all: the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata! Time now to get my 20-year-old article out again and to unfold the complicated situation surrounding this sonata\u2019s sources and the unforeseen consequences for an edition.<\/p>\n

The manuscripts<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Archduke Rudolph of Austria, in whose music collection part of the op. 106 autograph found a home for at least awhile.<\/p><\/div>\n

One of the tragedies of music history is that the autograph of the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata can no longer be located. Does it still exist? We don\u2019t know. It had already been lost track of during Beethoven\u2019s lifetime. The composer presented part of it in March 1819 to Archduke Rudolf, his patron and piano student (who certainly could not have played the sonata), but it was not entered into the catalogue of the archduke\u2019s music collection \u2013 perhaps Beethoven even reclaimed it for proofreading copies or prints of the sonata. There\u2019s not even a trace in the composer\u2019s estate listing of 1827 \u2013 conceivably, his Viennese publisher Artaria and Comp. obtained it as a proof of ownership, in addition to a copy that was to serve as engraver\u2019s model.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Anton Gr\u00e4ffer, Ludwig van Beethoven\u2019s estate listing with Jacob Hotschevar\u2019s entries, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, NE 79<\/a>, here the beginning of the section \u201cEigenh\u00e4ndige Manuskripte schon gestochener Werke [Autograph Manuscripts of Already Engraved Works]\u201d. (Illustration with kind permission.)<\/p><\/div>At least two copyist copies must once have existed, for Beethoven sold the sonata to two publishing houses, Artaria und Comp. in Vienna and Regent\u2019s Harmonic Institution in London. In correspondence with his former student and subsequent composer colleague Ferdinand Ries, of whom more details later, he describes the difficult situation of producing these copies:<\/p>\n

\u2018I find it incredible how there could be so many errors in the copy of the sonata, haste may be to blame, and that the copyist did not do the work himself but had someone else do it, only upon playing through the exemplar that is still with me [Ries lived in London] were the errors found, some of them may perhaps also have been corrected earlier, [\u2026] the incorrect copying is probably owing to the fact that I can no longer keep my own copyist, as before<\/u>.\u2019 (Beethoven Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe<\/em> [Complete Correspondence Edition<\/a>], letter no. 1294)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Publishing houses had long since stopped accepting for publication any autograph manuscripts \u2013 his handwriting was an imposition for the engraver and in many details ultimately no longer decipherable. Required, therefore, were copies that Beethoven himself proofread before despatching them, though we know that he was largely a miserable proofreader. And if the whole matter still occurred under time pressure, it obviously went doubly askew, as in the case of the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata.<\/p>\n

So, we are lacking the autograph and both engraver\u2019s models. It is hardly a consolation that preserved has been a fragment of a list of corrections which Beethoven sent to Ries in London, together with the above quoted letter.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ludwig van Beethoven, part of his letter with a list of errors sent to Ferdinand Ries in London, Vienna, 19 March 1819, autograph, Beethoven-Haus Bonn, Collection H. C. Bodmer, HCB Br 198<\/a>. (Illustration with kind permission.)<\/p><\/div>\n

This list mentions 144 measures where addenda and corrigenda are to be made. Predominantly listed are references to accidentals (50 measures are in error, 28 measures with Beethoven\u2019s added cautionary accidentals). But there are also additions and\/or deletions of notes and rests, corrections of pitches, note values, pedal markings, etc., though strikingly absent are any sort of changes or revisions by Beethoven in dynamics and articulation markings.<\/p>\n

Another copy of this correction list must also have been available to the Viennese publisher, for corrections from this list have been made in both Vienna and London original editions \u2013 with a few minor errors.<\/p>\n

An unusual document can perhaps provide a little surprise. In the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge there is a brief Beethoven notation, consisting of the 1st<\/sup> and 2nd<\/sup> measures of the slow movement, with the indication: \u2018Nb: valid here must be the 1st<\/sup> measure, the 2nd<\/sup> remains as before.\u2019 The leaf with this annotation comes from the Artaria publishing house. It proves beyond any doubt that the first measure of the slow movement was inserted into the sonata as a later afterthought. In a letter Ries also received notice of this inserted measure for the London edition (Beethoven Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe<\/em>, letter no. 1309).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

\u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata, 3rd movement, mm. 1 and 2, manuscript from the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Music Ms 288.<\/p><\/div>\n

Sketches of the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata abound, though the majority have yet to be deciphered and legibly transcribed. Take a look at the works\u2019 catalogue<\/a> of 2014 where there are 34 entries alone for this sonata\u2019s sketches that are scattered all over the world.<\/p>\n

In terms of manuscripts for sonata op. 106, the source situation is therefore extremely poor. Also, the miserable condition of the engraving models described above by Beethoven himself, leads to the fear that original editions produced from them will not be gratifying to us in preparing the edition.<\/p>\n

The original editions <\/em><\/p>\n

So it is! Let\u2019s start with an assessment of the \u201csimpler\u201d case, the Viennese original edition:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Illustration with kind permission by the Beethoven-Haus Bonn<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

It presents the sonata with the movement order that is generally accepted today as certainly intended by Beethoven \u2013 by no means a matter of course, see below, \u2013 including the slow movement\u2019s first measure that was added very late, and also the metronome markings that were likewise probably first added late, and are hotly debated even today (they were despatched to London some four to five months after the engraver\u2019s model). All changes from the list of corrections have also been incorporated. Arising from Beethoven\u2019s letter to Artaria in July 1819, two months before publication, is also the fact that the composer proofread at least once a galley proof of the print (\u2018Enclosed I am despatching the proofs and believe [them to be] error-free.\u2019 Beethoven Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe,<\/em> letter no. 1317). For Beethoven\u2019s qualities as proofreader, see above! Consequently, there is an original Viennese edition with numerous errors and ambiguities in the music text. Almost 50 accidentals are missing, and there are two obvious errors in the print. After this issue of the print had been released, Beethoven intervened again in three places, though this did little to enhance the generally poor text status of this print.<\/p>\n

No autograph, no proofread copies, a problematic Viennese original edition. Yet it gets still worse!<\/p>\n

In May 1818, thus more than a year before the editions appeared, Beethoven contacted Ferdinand Ries in London to support his sale of two compositions within the English jurisdiction of London:<\/p>\n

\u2018I would wish that you would see the following 2 works, a large solo sonata for piano [op. 106] and a piano sonata<\/u> that I myself transformed into a quintet for 2 violins, <\/u>2 violas 1 cello [op. 104] brought to a publisher in London\u2019 (Beethoven Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe<\/em>, letter no. 1258)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Beethoven must have sensed that he had entrusted Ries with a difficult task in conveying this revolutionary sonata. He was prepared to make astonishing compromises:<\/p>\n

\u2018if the sonata should not be right for London, then I could send another one, or you can omit the Largo and immediately begin the last piece right at the fugue [following here is an incipit of the fugue subject], or the first piece then the Adagio and for the 3rd<\/sup> the Scherzo and omit entirely no. 4, together with the largo<\/em> and Allo risoluto<\/em>, or just take only the first piece and Scherzo as [the whole sonata]. I leave this to you, as you find it best, for the moment it would really be too much for me to write a new one\u2019 (Beethoven Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe<\/em>, letter no. 1295).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To recapitulate once again the options he offers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Movements 1-2-3-4, without the introduction to the 4th<\/sup> movement<\/li>\n
  2. Movements 1-3-2, without the 4th<\/sup> movement<\/li>\n
  3. Movements 1-2, without the 3rd<\/sup> and 4th<\/sup> movements<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    There was, in fact, a publisher in London, the Regent\u2019s Harmonic Institution. The second option was exercised, the 4th<\/sup> movement was published separately.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Are there still musicians today who think that this set of movements can be performed as a work constellation?<\/p>\n

    Another anomaly in the London print: The subsequent pitch restriction of the musical text to c<\/em>4<\/sup>, taking into account the instruments of the time. Passages going beyond this range were banished to ossia staves, other solutions were to be found in the main music text \u2013 certainly not by Beethoven himself.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

    Weighing in more heavily for an edition are, however, the numerous direct \u201ceditorial\u201d interventions made in the music text in London:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. It was systematically checked for \u201csuperfluous\u201d accidentals that were deleted \u2013 once an accidental was placed in an octave register, the accidentals in other octave registers were eliminated. A not unproblematic undertaking.<\/li>\n
    2. Changes in the general accidental sign were eliminated or rearranged, thus, to simplify the music notation (creating a muddled picture of Beethoven\u2019s intentions regarding the modulatory progression).<\/li>\n
    3. In the last movement, numerous ff<\/em><\/strong>\u2019\u2019s were changed to sf<\/em><\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Finally, the most problematic intervention from today\u2019s perspective: The London print contains much more articulation than the Viennese. Signs were not only added sporadically but also frequently systematically. A particularly striking example, the already mentioned added 1st<\/sup> measure of the 3rd<\/sup> movement:<\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/a>

      Viennese original edition.<\/p><\/div>\n

      \"\"<\/a>

      London original edition, corrected issue.<\/p><\/div>\n

      Today, we have to assume that all these \u201ceditorial\u201d interventions in the music text were done without Beethoven\u2019s authorisation. Rather, in the article I mentioned at the outset, I compiled numerous indications that Ferdinand Ries, to whom Beethoven wrote \u2018 I leave everything to you\u2019 (letter no. 1258), supposing that he had the composer\u2019s trust, would probably have \u201chelpfully\u201d lent a hand here from the perspective of the pianist, composer colleague, proofreader and friend \u2013 and yet unfortunately, as in the Viennese original edition, overlooked numerous errors. Through his action, he produced, though, a \u201ccontaminated\u201d source that compels us to devalue it accordingly for the edition.<\/p>\n

      To summarise briefly: The original Viennese edition is the only source that can be used as the main source<\/u> in a modern edition for creating the music text of the \u201cHammerklavier\u201d sonata. Owing to the indirect dependence of the London edition on the autograph \u2013 via the missing engraver\u2019s model despatched to Ries \u2013 it must be considered as a secondary source<\/u>. Some sections of the text that raise questions in the Vienna source may be confirmed or corrected by the London source. (Once the sketches are completely transcribed, we could get further clues for clarifying unresolved textual problems.)<\/p>\n

      Does this whet your appetite for more? I did, of course, have to be brief here and neglect many aspects that I could delve into more deeply in my article. You\u2019ll find the article in the Bonn Beethoven-Studien<\/em>, volume 2, of 2001 in your well-stocked library or here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      And, of course, the new edition from the Gertsch \/ Perahia workship will also follow soon!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Almost exactly 20 years ago \u2013 as I had just … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[737,276,3,322,272],"tags":[7,738],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5892"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5908,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5892\/revisions\/5908"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}