THE TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF BEETHOVEN'S

VIOLIN CONCERTO
By ALAN TYSON
In an article that appeared in Music & Letters in April 1962 I
reviewed a number of corrupt passages in Beethoven's Violin Con-
certo, and attempted to explain in each case how the error had
originated. Further work on the text of Op. 61 has revealed several
more faulty passages and, more important, has led to a clearer view of
the- extremely complex textual tradition of the work. This seems to me
to merit a general discussion, partly because of the concerto's intrinsic
importance, and partly because it obliges us to face some fundamental
questions about the possibilities open to an editor and the limits
imposed on him.
1
Four sources are at present available for establishing the text of
Op. 61 that is to say, of the violin concerto, and also of the
arrangement of it as a piano concerto, which needs to be considered at
the same time:
1
1. The autograph score, now in the Nationalbibliothek, Vienna.
(A)
2. A full score in the hand of a copyist, now in the British
Museum (Add. 47851). (M)
' On these sources see especially Paul Mies, Die Quellen des op. 61 von Ludung van
Beethoven, in Berichl uber den siebenten internationalen musikwissenscha/Uichen Kongress
Koln 1958, Kauel, 1959, p. 193; my own article, The Text of Beethoven's Op. 61 in Music &
Letters, XLIII (1962), 104; Fritz Kaiser, Die avthentische Fassungen des D-dur-Konzertes op.
61 von Ludung van Beethoven, in Bericht uber den internationalen musikunssenschaftlichen
Kongress Kassel 1962, Kassel, 1963, p. 196; Eduard Melkus, Zur Interpretation des Violinkon-
zertes Opus 61 von L. v. Beethoven, in Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift, XIX (1964), 159. I
had unfortunately not seen Mies's congress report when I discussed some of the sources in
1962.
482
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 483
3. The first edition (parts only), published by the Bureau des Arts
et d'Industrie, Vienna, in August 1808. (B)
4. An edition (parts only) published by Clementi & Co., London,
in 1810. (C)
A description of these four sources and of their relationships must
now be given.
1. The autograph (A) represents the first full-scale writing-down
of the work; and as is so often found in Beethoven autographs it
exhibits at the same time the final stages of composition. There is little
reason to doubt the statement of Carl Czerny (Pianoforte-Schule, Part
IV, Op. 500, p. 117) that the concerto was written very rapidly and
was performed scarcely two days after it had been completed; the
autograph bears witness, particularly in the last movement, to rapid
composition. From a textual point of view the orchestral parts and the
two solo parts of A need to be discussed separately.
(a) The orchestral parts can be seen to have undergone a great
many changes in A; in some places, indeed, legibility has been partly
sacrificed with some consequences to the integrity of the text. But
what has remained after these changes is (with very minor quali-
fication) the definitive form of the parts. By the definitive form I
mean the form in which the text has come down to us: in effect, the
version of the first edition. The question of how far that version is
authentic and corresponds in every way with Beethoven's wishes is
discussed below.
(b) The solo violin is treated very differently in A. This part is
written on a staff near the bottom of the score; under it are the two
staves for the cellos (left blank wherever they are playing "col bassi")
and for the basses. Under these are three extra staves which are not
assigned to any instrument. On one of these three blank staves
usually the middle one and very occasionally on more than one,
Beethoven has in a great many passages written alternative versions
for the soloist. Thus in a large number of measures (in the first move-
ment, in over a third of the measures played by the soloist, and in the
last movement, in over a quarter) there are two co-existing versions of
the solo part, and very occasionally there are three. What significance
is to be attached to the preservation of these alternatives in A is far
from clear, and requires discussion presently. Here it is only necessary
to add that although the definitive version of the solo violin part is
usually to be found either in the main solo staff or on a staff lower
down, this is not always the case: thus it follows that the solo part was
484 The Musical Quarterly
given its final form in another place and (we cannot doubt) at a later
date from that at which the alternatives were written in A.
(c) The solo piano part is not written out in A. But at many places
in the first two movements there are jottings on the lowest staff of the
score that can be seen to be suggestions for the piano version; such
suggestions are naturally for the most part (though not exclusively)
ideas for the left hand of the piano since the solo violin part itself
contains the substance of the right hand. Other jottings on the lowest
staff in the last movement, and in a few places in the first movement as
well, are of a different kind: they are a rough aide-memoire for
writing out the work in score.
The Violin Concerto was first performed by Franz Clement at a
concert on December 23, 1806; and the autograph bears a dedication
to Clement and the date "1806." It seems reasonable to connect the
autograph as a whole, and the general state of the text that it contains,
with the first performance even though it is indisputable that the
autograph has undergone certain changes and additions since
December 1806.
2. The score (M), written by a copyist,
2
is complete except for the
first page (four measures). Besides the orchestral parts, M contains
both solo parts in their definitive form. The orchestral parts are
copied from the autograph: directly so, in fact i.e. the copyist had
A before him while copying out M.
3
For the two solo parts, however,
he obviously had to turn elsewhere since, as we have seen, the solo
piano part is not written out in A, and the solo violin part appears
there in more than one version. Of the manner in which these solo
parts were given their final form we know nothing. And. unfortunate-
ly the manuscript sources from which the copyist transcribed the two
solo parts have not survived: unfortunately, since it is likely that he
"Possibly Schlemmer. An illustrated account of Beethoven's chief copyists is overdue. A
score of the Fourth Piano Concerto, Op. 58, apparently in the same hand, which must have been
copied at about the same time, is now at the Gesellschaft der MusildYeunde, Vienna. For a
description of it and of Beethoven's autograph entries in it cf. G. Nottebohm, Zweite Beethove-
niana, Leipzig, 1887, p. 74, and Paul Badura-Skoda, Eine wichtige Quelle zu Beethouens 4.
Klavierkonzert, in dsterrdcfasche Musilkzdtsc)irifi, XTH (1958) 418 (with illustration). Op. 58
was published in Vienna at the same time as Op. 61.
Thi s assertion is based on a whole number of impressions. Particularly convincing are those
instances in which a particular feature of A has been misread by the copyist. For example, in I:
167 Beethoven put the letter "h" ( - BIO over the first violin's b'
(
which being written a trifle
too low might be mistaken for an a". The copyist mistakenly read and transcribed this "h" as
"tr" ( - trill).
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 485
made errors in transcribing the solo parts, just as we can see that he
did in copying the orchestral parts.
In M there are a number of additions and corrections in Beetho-
ven's hand, in pencil or in red crayon. (Most of the pencil marks have
been inked over, perhaps by the copyist.) There are also two other
kinds of marking in red crayon: bold check-marks at the beginning of
each staff (except, significantly, the solo violin's staff, and also that
of the trumpets)
4
on every page, and, occasionally, a squiggle across
the staff of a single part, usually with a number beside it. The
position of the squiggles corresponds to the page-endings of the first
edition (B), and they are evidence that the score was the Stichvorlage
of B. The check-marks were probably made by Beethoven in looking
through the proofs. Moreover, it can be demonstrated rather
elegantly that Beethoven's pencilled corrections were inserted before
the score was sent to the engraver, and that his entries in red crayon
were made after the parts had been engraved but before they were
issued, i.e. at the proof stage. For if the parts of B are examined
closely in those places where changes in red crayon have been made
in the score, it will be found that the plates have been altered to
incorporate the change (indicated by irregularity in the engraving, or,
in the case of the addition of expression marks etc., by the use of a
different engraving punch, clef, or lettering style). The pencilled
changes, on the other hand, have not necessitated changes on the
plates, and were therefore entered in M before it was used for the
engraving of the parts.
5
M remained in Beethoven's possession for several years and was
given by him as a present to Charles Neate (1784-1877) when the latter
left Vienna for London in 1816 (see Beethoven's letter to Neate of
early February 1816 in Anderson, Letters of Beethoven, No. 606a).
In 1911 it was included in the sale of Neate's effects at Sotheby's,
being bought by Bertram Dobell for seven shillings. In 1914 E. H. W.
Meyerstein purchased it from James Tregaskis for thirty-seven shill-
ings and sixpence; he bequeathed it to the British Museum in 1953.
3. The parts (only) of the first edition (B) of the concerto in both
its forms were issued by the Bureau des Arts et d'Industrie in Vienna
4
Cf. the illustration facing p. I l l , Music & Letters, XLIII (1962).
'Some examples of plate-changes or additions necessitated by Beethoven's red crayon:
viola, I: 376; violin 1 and viola, I: 152 ("p" made with a different punch); viola, I: 440 ("arco");
flute, III: 29 (additional notes); bassoon 2, III: 74 (clef in a different style).
486 The Musical Quarterly
in August 1808 (for details, see Kinsky/Halm, Das Werk Beethovens,
1955, pp. 147-49). These, as has been said, are copied from M. But
there is one unimportant exception, the trumpet parts, and one very
important one, the solo violin part. This part indeed closely resembles
what is written in the solo violin staff in M, but it is not directly copied
from it. Not only are there no check-marks at the beginning of each
staff of the solo violin in M, but the squiggles do not entirely corres-
pond to B's page-endings.
6
It seems plausible that the squiggles corres-
pond to the page-endings in a manuscript copy of the part, now lost;
and that this lost copy was the Vorlage both of B's solo violin part, and
also of the solo violin staff in M. In the same way there must have
been a lost manuscript copy of the piano solo part which served as the
Vorlage for the piano staff in M; but in the case of the piano part M
then served directly as the Vorlage for the first edition of the part
(whereas it is clear that the first edition of the violin solo is not copied
from M).
4. The London edition (C) of the violin concerto, published by
Clementi & Co., has survived in a, single set of parts, in the Royal
College of Music, London; and of the piano version too only one copy
survives, divided between the Royal College of Music (solo part) and
the British Museum (orchestral parts).
7
By his own account it was Muzio Clementi himself who persuaded
Beethoven to arrange the concerto for the piano. In a contract signed
on April 20, 1807, Clementi agreed to publish Op. 61 in its two
versions and four other works (Opp. 58, 59, 60, 62); the text of this
contract and of the entertaining letter that Clementi wrote two days
later to Collard, his colleague in London, will be found in Thayer's
Life (ed. Forbes, 1964, I, 417-19). The letter describes Op. 61 as "a
concerto for the violin which is beautiful, and which at my request he
will adapt for the Pianoforte with and without additional keys," and
adds: "Remember that the violin concerto he will adapt himself and
send it as soon as he can." Collard was to send money to Beethoven
(via bankers in London and Vienna) as the works were received in
London: 200 for all six works, or 100 for three. Manuscripts of three
s
In M the squiggles occur after the following measures in the solo violin staff (measure-
numbers of first edition page-endings in brackets): I: 71 (71); 125 (128); 167 (178); 208 (208);
268 (268); 319 (319); 363 (365); 415 (414); 462 (452); 510 (510); 535 (535); II: 42 (42); 91 (91);
III: 70 (70); 126 (117); 176 (171); 247 (237); 299 (299); 360 (360).
7
Cf. Alan Tyson, The Authentic English Editions of Beethoven, London, 1963, pp. 55-58.
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 487
of the works from the contract it seems that those were the Violin
Concerto; Op. 60, the Fourth Symphony, and Op. 62, the Coriolan
Overture were apparently sent to London about April 22; accord-
ing to the letter "today sets off a courier for London through Russia,
and he will bring over to you two or three of the mentioned articles."
The other three works the piano arrangement of the violin con-
certo, the Op. 59 quartets and Op. 58, the Fourth Piano Concerto
were evidently not ready for dispatch, and on May 11, 1807 Beetho-
ven had to write to Count Franz Brunsvik for the return of the parts
of the Op. 59 quartets so that they could be copied for Clementi
(Anderson, letter No. 143; cf. also No. 142). Whether they were sent
to London at a later date is uncertain.
What is all too clear is that for the works that he had sent
Beethoven received no payment before the end of 1809 (at the
earliest), in spite of several appeals by Clementi, still on the Conti-
nent, to his London partner: "A most shabby figure you have made
me out in this affair! and that with one of the first composers of
this day! You certainly might have found means in the course of two
years and a half to have satisfied his demands! . . . Don't lose a
moment, then, pray, and send me word what you have received from
him, that I may settle with him." Finally, in the late summer of 1810
i.e. nearly two years after the first editions of Op. 61 had appeared
in Vienna dementi' s editions of the Violin Concerto and of its
piano arrangement were published in London.
8
The above complicated narrative of dementi' s relations with
Beethoven in the years 1807 to 1810 is necessary if the differing
textual status of the various portions of his edition of Op. 61 is to be
made intelligible. The orchestral parts of C are textually quite inde-
pendent of B; and they were evidently based on a manuscript set of
parts copied directly from A (and presumably sent to England about
April 22, 1807).
9
Apart from errors in transcribing there are at least
' Op. 58, Op. 60, and Op. 62 were not published in London after all. Clementi did publish
the Op. 59 quartets, probably in 1809: but this edition is simply a Nachdruck of the Viennese
edition, and may well have been stimulated by the activity of another London firm (Astor) in
copying the Viennese one (Tyson, he. cit., pp. 53-54).
*The evidence for such direct transcription is once again (cf. footnote 3) the nature of
certain copying errors. Thus the four notes in III: 323 that lie between the viola part and the
flute part immediately below it in the autograph are in fact leger-line low D's in the viola part;
but they also appear in C aj A'j in the flute part, instead of the measure's rest that is correct.
A single part of thij manuscript set of parts teems to have been preserved by accident. One side
4 8 8
The Musical Quarterly
two important ways in which C's orchestral parts differ from those of
B. First, C's parts do not benefit from the corrections or alterations
that Beethoven marked in pencil or crayon into M, on which B is
based. Secondly, any changes that Beethoven made in A after it was
copied for Clementi but before it was copied to make M will not be
found in C's parts, though they will of course be in B. But even if they
were no more than a testimony of the state of the autograph in April
1807 C's parts would be of interest; in fact their value, it will become
clear, is greater than that.
C's solo parts, on the other hand, are a disappointment; unlike
the orchestral parts they seem to be derived textually from the solo
part of B. The solo piano, for instance, follows B in the faulty reading
"sempre fortissimo" in I: 301. Since that error, as I have pointed out
elsewhere (Music & Letters, XLIII, 108), arose from a misreading of
the word "espressivo" in M, its recurrence in C's piano part indicates
sufficiently clearly that that part is derived (directly or indirectly)
from B. C's solo violin part also seems to go back to a copy of B's
part but it has in addition singularities of its own. In certain places
C has assimilated the violin part to the piano part, possibly in the
belief that the piano part represented the true version and that the
divergent violin notes in these passages were unintentional dis-
crepancies. It is obvious that, even if there were other ways in which
C's solo part was of especial value and I can find none , a text
that has been tampered with in this way must be used with great
caution.
Familiarity with these four sources puts us in a stronger position
than that of previous editors; and in two ways. In certain passages we
can for the first time produce a correct text; while in several others,
where the passage is unsatisfactory in the form that Beethoven left it
in, we can at least understand the way in which the confusion or error
originated, and decide whether it is better to emend it or to leave it as
irremediable.iThe best-edited text of Op. 61 that has hitherto appeared
is undoubtedly the one published in Breitkopf & Hartel's Gesamt-
ausgabe (July 1863). The GA had no critical report; although no
editor is named, it is virtually certain that Ferdinand David was
of it contains mm. 475-535, first movement, of the first oboe; the other side, evidently blank,
waj later used by Clementi to sketch a movement for one of his duettini (piano, four hands),
and has thua survived among the Clementi manuscripts that are today in the Library of
Congress.
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 489
responsible for Op. 61. From the published text it can be seen that the
general problem posed by the differences between the autograph and
the first edition were clearly understood. The GA was evidently based
on a comparison of A and B alone. A large number of the errors found
in B were corrected; and had it not been for the publication of this
well-edited score, and of the widely distributed set of orchestral parts
that Breitkopf & Hart el subsequently based on it, it may be even
doubted whether such important passages as the cello's theme in the
coda of the first movement (I: 525 ff.) would ever be heard in the
concert hall today. All modern scores of Op. 61 that are not textually
derived (usually without acknowledgment) from the GA i.e. from a
comparison of A and B appear to be based on B alone, although
obvious slips may have been removed. For this reason they often
perpetuate errors in B that were corrected by the GA. For instance, all
the miniature scores that I have consulted omit the cello's theme in the
coda of the first movement, and till recently most of them omitted a
measure after III: 216.
10
But these are only the most obvious of a great
many errors or dubious passages that survive to the present day.
Let us look at some of these faulty passages in the orchestral parts,
and see how far our sources can throw light on their origin.
Some of the small and teasing inconsistencies in the work are
undoubtedly a consequence of the haste with which the autograph was
written. In general these flaws in A were carefully copied by C and by
M, and passed into the first edition and into the scores and orchestral
parts of today (only a few were eliminated by Beethoven when correct-
ing M). Further scrutiny of our sources will not therefore resolve
them, and if we are looking for consistency we must make Beethoven's
mind up for him:
Passage 7: All parts, I: 29, 31, 35 (and parallel passages I: 225,
227, 231; I: 498, 500, 504).
The problem of whether the first note in any of these measures is a
quarter note or an eighth note cannot be resolved by consulting A, for
that is quite inconsistent not only from measure to measure, but in the
'"Recent reissues of the Eulenburg miniature score have tacitly restored this measure. See
Music & Letters, XLIII, 112, n. 14 (and for the cello passage, see p. 110, n. 12).
490 The Musical Quarterly
different parts within the same measure. M, B, and C simply follow A,
and an editor must act on his own account.
Origin of difficulty: inconsistencies in A due to haste.
Proposed solution: read quarter notes throughout.
Problems of inconsistencies that are due merely to haste tend to
merge into more general, and more interesting, problems of the non-
parallelism of "parallel" passages. We have to steer between the twin
pedantries of producing exact recapitulations (probably by some Pro-
crustean treatment) on the one hand, and of preserving the most
meaningless vagaries of our sources on the other. In Passage 1, for
instance, the first violin in A has an eighth note in I: 500 and a quarter
note in 1:31; but it is plain that Beethoven conceived of the two
passages as identical since in I: 499-507 he copied out only the first
violin and wrote across the rest of the score: "come sopra." In
considering non-parallelisms there are worse tests than to apply the
hypothetical question: "If Beethoven's attention had been drawn to
the inconsistency, would he have done anything about it?"
Any light that the sources can throw on the cause of non-paral-
lelisms apart merely from "haste" is valuable. It is, for
instance, noticeable that omissions are particularly prone to occur at
the beginning of a new page in A. The following illustration shows
this, and also Beethoven's attempt to restore the omission:
Passage 2. Horns, III: 68-73 and parallel passage III: 243-48.
Once again the problem arises in A, which reads:
Ex.'l
NtK pag*
243 244 245 246 247 248
(The slight inconsistency in the ties is ignored here.) A is followed
by C, and also by M. But Beethoven then corrected M by adding in red
crayon (i.e. at the proof stage) a quarter note in 73 (the tie from 72 was
already in M). That the horns should play something in 73 was really
indicated by the parallel of m. 248 and by the forward-looking tie
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 491
from m. 72; and the fact that m. 73 was the first measure of a new
page in A probably caused the note's omission. Beethoven evidently
saw the gap while correcting the proofs; but he plugged it with a
quarter note instead of with an eighth note a discrepancy that is
without point.
Origin of difficulty: careless omission of note in A at beginning of
new page, restored by Beethoven at proof stage, but inaccurately.
Proposed solution: read eighth note in III: 73.
The following instance is very similar, but the cause is perhaps not
quite so certain or the remedy quite so obvious:
Passage 3. Wind, I: 191 and parallel passage I: 465.
In A, and also in M, I: 191 is the first measure of a new page. It
would not be difficult to add a chord for oboe, clarinet, and bassoons
here to correspond with that for oboes and clarinets in I: 465. Probably
they were simply forgotten in I: 191. Yet I: 465 is not entirely beyond
suspicion in A : the oboe parts were first written on the flute's staff,
and the clarinets' parts in 465 were at some stage garbled in A
(probably after they had been copied for C). In any case the wind
scoring is different in the two passages.
Origin of difficulty: Uncertain: probably omission of chord in A at
beginning of new page (I: 191), but also confusion in I: 463-65.
Proposed solution: Accept traditional (first edition) text. The pas-
sages will not however be parallel.
It might be asked at this point why Beethoven did not do more to
eliminate such defects in looking through M either before or after it
went to the engraver. The fact is that he was not a good corrector of
proofs; and he seems to have been much more on his guard against
wrong notes than against wrongly omitted ones. For some details, e. g.
accidentals, he appears to have had a very sharp eye; yet he quite
failed to see that M had omitted (by haplography) m. 217 of the finale
an error that naturally disfigured the first edition. (C is correct
here.) It is not surprising, therefore, that he failed to perceive the
omission of certain notes, which an editor should supply, near the
beginning of the development section of the first movement:
Passage 4. Strings, I: 304-14. This passage has been much cor-
rected and rewritten in A, and partly because of the extent of the
crossings-out there are several directives to instruments to follow
another part, always a potential source of confusion. The autograph
can be represented roughly as follows:
492 The Musical Quarterly
Ex.2
V I . 1J
Vcl
a,
-HIM'
_ J J _ .
i
r
Ntxfr
*
rvvv
i
=

'D i! n ir ^
304 305 306 307 308 309
Nn> paft
310
j M ' ' J' ' Ji '
9r
m
P ' P
311
V V
312
313 314 315
Thb is reproduced with more or less literal correctness, with only
slight variations, by M and B, and by C; and something like it is found
in all modern editions. The abbreviations of the autograph may be
expanded as follows:
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 493
Ex.3
VI. 1
II
C. y , , J
Cb
J' T J' T J ' 1
304 305 306 307 308 309
r
j n j n j)7 JIT
V V V V
JH
1
^
310 311 312 313 314 315
It is impossible to accept that this represents Beethoven's inten-
tions. The entry of the second violin in 307, rather than two measures
earlier; the independent cello part in 308, when otherwise that instru-
ment plays col basso from 172 to 361; the silence of the viola in 312-14:
all these are very strange.
Scrutiny of A makes clear what happened. Beethoven wrote
"unis" in the second violin in 307, the first measure of a page, but
neglected to turn back and mark the two preceding measures in the
494 The Musical Quarterly
same way; he deleted an unwanted figure in the cello in 307 and 309,
directing attention to the bass staff, but neglected to cross out the
single quarter note in 308 which accordingly survived as an inde-
pendent cello part in this one measure; and, by writing a quarter note
in the viola in 311 and in the second violin in 313 (in order to lower the
octave of the doubling in each case), he technically cancelled the
instructions to the second violin to play in unison with the first violin,
and to the viola to play with the cello.
Origin of difficulty: extensive changes in A, leading to: omission
of second violin in 305-06, failure to delete redundant cello part in
308, and inadvertent cancellation of instructions to second violin in
314 and to viola in 312-14.
Proposed solution: 1. Second violin to play unis. with first violin in
305-06. 2. Delete cello's quarter note in 308: cello to play col
basso. 3. Second violin to play unis. with first violin in 314, and viola
to play col basso in 312-14 (there is a possible doubt about the pitch
of the D in 313-14).
Many other examples could be given of errors, flaws, or incon-
sistencies in the text that arise from rewriting and extensive correc-
tions in A: e.g. first violin, II: 22-24 and bass, II: 25-27: quarter notes
or eighth notes? Sometimes the changes are radical enough to leave
some genuine doubt as to what the composer intended:
Passage 5: Flute, III: 88. A much-changed passage in A
(especially in the first violin, flute, and bassoons): originally the flute
probably doubled the first violin at the octave. At any rate the flute
had g's in 86-91, those in 87, 88, and 89 being tied. In restoring the
passage in A, Beethoven deleted the g"s in 86, 87, 89, 90, and 91, but
he left the g" in 88, together with the ties to 87 and 89. M' s copyist
assumed the g* was to remain, and copied it into M (he even included
the now meaningless tie to 89, a rest); and accordingly the isolated g*
passed into the flute part of B and into all modern scores and parts.
On the other hand the copyist of the set of parts on which C is based
evidently assumed the note was to be deleted, probably correctly; in
C the flute is accordingly silent from 85 to 113.
Origin of difficulty: extensive changes in A, leading to doubt
about what had been deleted.
Proposed solution: delete the flute's g" in III: 88.
Even if a reading in A is clear, and has been correctly copied by
M and B, and by C, doubt sometimes remains whether it is really
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 495
what Beethoven intended. Yet our capacity to restore a passage may
be limited:
Passage 6. Second bassoon, I: 279 etc. What originally stood in A
in measures 274-81 on the bassoons' staff was something like this:
Ex.4
, p. Stwpagt
. ft ft . I I J J hi II * -^ II J
11 i ' - ' i r II" ^ = f = s
274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281
Beethoven subsequently crossed out the second bassoon in 274, 275,
and 278, and wrote in 274 and 278: "f fagotti I 2do col B. " He did not
however cross out the second-bassoon note in 279, or the tie tying it
to 278, or the notes in 280 and 281 (which are at the beginning of a
new page in A). Accordingly in M and B, and in C, the second-
bassoon part in 274-81 runs as follows:
Ex.5
lfi
i s f ( i W r ^ i ^ r n f r ^ u i ^\~ i * r * r H Y ^ I
274 275 276 277 278 . 279 280 281
But Beethoven probably intended 278 etc. to run:
Ex.6
I ' I etc etc
278 279 280 281 282 283
The pitch of the second bassoon in 280-81 in A prevents us from
changing 279 alone; and we may be unwilling to write a new second-
bassoon part in 279-88.
Origin of difficulty: A insufficiently revised by Beethoven.
Proposed solution: accept traditional (first edition) text.
A should be looked at carefully in any passage in which C differs
from B; often the reason for the discrepancy is seen at once. In I: 75
the flute's first note in C is a'", and in M and B it is HT". Two of the
four leger lines in A have run together, but Beethoven has spotted this
and has written the letter "a" under the note. In I: 122 the oboes in M
496 The Musical Quarterly
and B have (i) in Ex. 7; in C they have (ii). Inspection of A confirms
that (ii) was intended; in copying out M, the copyist's eye must have
slipped to the clarinets' staff (iii) immediately below (an error that
might not have arisen, or have survived, if it had not fortuitously
resulted in euphony):
Ex.7
r p "i ''g r 9
a) do (in)
In some passages there is evidence that A has been altered after it
was copied for C but before M was copied out from it; in others there
is evidence that notes were added or deleted after M had been copied.
An instance of the former is the indication "uno violino" in the first
and second violin parts of C in II: 87; this was later deleted in A so
that there is no trace of it in M. An instance of the latter is the horns'
notes in I: 78. They are in A today (in the first measure of a new
page), but C has a rest in this measure, and in M they were added by
Beethoven in pencil, so the copyist evidently did not find them in A.
Another probable instance:
Passage 7: Viola, III: 41-43 and parallel passage 214-16. Here are
our sources:
Ex.8
tP
r ^ r ' rr^ r ir
41 42 43 44 45
The small notes were mdded to M in pencil.
The discrepancy has to be explained. It seems plausible that the
bracketed notes were not in A when it was copied for C, or even later
when it was copied for M. But C remedied the omission by assuming,
sensibly enough, that the viola was to continue to double the cello, as
in the previous four measures; M's copyist on the other hand left the
viola staff blank in 41 and 42 and Beethoven added the notes to M in
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 497
pencil. Subsequently Beethoven repaired the gap in A, but the notes
he added were at the lower octave. (Measure 41 is the first of a page
in A, which may explain their original omission.)
Origin of difficulty: notes omitted in A, subsequently restored by
Beethoven in two versions.
Proposed solution: there are really no grounds for preferring the
present reading of A, which the GA follows, to the traditional text,
which Beethoven wrote into M.
Before leaving the orchestral parts, it is worth noting a peculiarity
in M that has had an influence on some details in the text. If M is
compared with A, from which it was copied, we see that often the
copyist or copyists? for I am not sure that only one hand is involved
in this has added to all the parts in a given measure a dynamic sign
or an expression mark found in A in only one (or in only a few). Since
the score was to be used for engraving the separate parts, this had an
obvious utility. Yet my impression is that this was done much too
indiscriminately (and without Beethoven's express instructions), so
that it often resulted in a mild banality or in the obscuring of a
nuance.
11
Some examples:
I: 35-38, etc. In A, only the quarter notes are marked "sf"; in M,
" s f is added to the parts with sixteenth notes as well.
II: 11, 20. In A the clarinet is marked "dolce" in 11, and the
bassoon in 20: no doubt to indicate that it has the solo. In M, "dolce"
is added to the accompanying parts as well: i.e. to horns, first and
second violins in 11, and to viola and cello in 20.
I: 50. In A, the trumpets are marked "pp"; the horns are " p" and
the timpani are "sempre p. " In M, "pp" is extended to horns and
timpani surely quite wrongly.
I: 346. In A, the trumpets are slurred and staccato. In M the slur
and staccato are extended to the timpani (this being the only measure
in the work in which the timpani have any phrasing).
The importance of these often superfluous and occasionally harm-
ful additions to M is that they naturally passed into B and almost
always into our modern scores. (For obvious reasons they are not to be
11
Occasionally the copyist seems to have been aware of his excess of zeal. In I: 301, where the
solo violin is marked "espressivo" in A, something has been added in M to the first and second
violins and the basses, and has then been scraped out: probably the quite inappropriate
"espressivo "
498 The Musical Quarterly
found in C.) It seems clear that many of them should be judiciously
removed by an editor. But it is delicate work, like removing the
disfiguring varnish or overpainting on an old master: one must be
careful not to damage the original paintwork.
The impression may have been given that the orchestral parts of
the concerto are riddled with corruptions. They have some grave
faults. But in the passages where we feel that something is amiss, we
can at least turn to our four sources; we can then study what has gone
wrong, and decide, on the lines illustrated in the previous section,
whether or not the passage can be corrected. And it will, I think, be
clear that the chief value of the sources is in exposing the psy-
chopathology of error: inconsistencies from mere haste, careless cor-
recting, obscurity resulting from excessive revision or deletion, copy-
ing from the wrong staff, omissions at the start of a new page, and so
forth. Where we cannot understand what has gone wrong, or cannot
account for a discrepancy, our confidence in reshaping the passage is
much reduced.
This is the unfortunate position that we are in with regard to the
two solo parts. We cannot trace the pedigree of any error. We have to
accept the piano part in the form that we first meet in M. If we do not
like it if for instance we are sceptical that Beethoven could ever
have written the following (I: 519-23)
Ex.9
8va-
i=i
we may choose to emend it (i.e. to rewrite it), or we may decide that
Beethoven's contribution to the piano part was minimal (a plausible
viewin spite of the cadenzas, which are in his handwriting
recently well argued by Fritz Kaiser, loc cit.); but we have nothing
that bears on its history.
12
The most that we can do with any
1!
Writer from Nottebohm on have commented on the fact that in the measures where
there is more than one version of the solo violin part, the piano adaptation lends to adopt the
version on the main solo staff (i e. Beethoven's first idea); and they have explained this
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 499
confidence to improve the text is to remove errors that arose when B
was engraved from M (e.g. the error, already referred to, by which
"espressivo" in M in I: 301 became "sempre fortissimo" in B).
Needless to say, it is in regard to the solo violin part that our
impotence is most distressing. In the vast majority of points B agrees
with M; but since neither was copied from the other, nor from A, and
since C is here of no independent value (and is ignored in the
following discussion), we cannot account for the discrepancies be-
tween them. Some examples from the first movement:
I: 158, triplet eighth notes. The tenth note is d* in M, b' in B. A
also has b' (in the version of the two sketched in this measure that
was adopted); and although the recapitulation of the whole passage is
very different, the parallel of I: 432 suggests that M is right and that
d" should be played. B's reading is unexplained.
I: 341. Are the last three eighth notes triplets? Since none of the
sources marks them with a " 3 , " it depends on the preceding rest,
which is a quarter rest in M, an eighth rest in B. In A there are two
versions: four sixteenth notes on the main staff, and three eighth
notes written on the penultimate staff as an alternative (which was in
fact adopted): in both, the notes are preceded by a quarter-note rest.
Thus M agrees with A; we cannot tell if B's version is a change on
Beethoven's part to make 341 agree with 333 and 335 rather than
with 343 or merely.a slip.
I: 526. In M the last note is c?"; in B it is e". In A the triplet
version on the penultimate staff, adopted by the violin, has e"; but the
rather different sixteenth-note version on the main staff, retained in
the piano part, has c#". Certainly c#* gives somewhat better counter-
point between solo violin and cello here: if only we knew from where
M got it!
Occasionally we may feel that both M and B are wrong. It seems
plausible, for example, that the soloist in I: 83 should play an octave
higher than in the traditional version which would put 83 in the
same relation to 84 as 81 now is to 82.
13
We find moreover that in the
piano version the right hand, otherwise identical with the solo violin
in 81-88, plays 83 at the higher octave. But in the solo violin part
both M and B have the lower octave. The two versions of the violin
part in A are worth reproducing (83, by the way, is the first measure
of a page):
.variously (Music & Letters, XLIII, 109). Perhaps the simplest explanation u that when the
adapter went to work the other versionj were not yet in the autograph.
Thi s was first suggested to me by D r. Roger Fiske.
500 The Musical Quarterly
New page
85 etc.
Clearly confusion about the pitch of a measure might come out of this:
but we lack the crucial intermediate document that would prove that
the notes had in fact been transcribed at the wrong octave in 83.
It is unlikely, therefore, that textual criticism has much more to
contribute to the actual notes of the solo violin. The process whereby
the two (occasionally more) alternative versions were reduced to the
definitive part, largely by the adoption of one or the other version but
occasionally by the incorporation of new material, has left no
document behind. Something still perhaps remains to be done in such
matters as slurring: the autograph shows that Beethoven often con-
ceived of a passage of three or four measures as having one slur or
phrase-mark, but in M and B this has frequently been broken up into
several short slurs, often only one measure long or significantly,
into slurs terminating at the end of a page in M or of a line in B. The
traditional phrasing has struck many violinists as mechanical. Much
of it is not in A, but we must accept that we lack criteria for its
removal or modification. I doubt if it is any more logical to strip I: 157
The Textual Problems of Beethoven's Violin Concerto 501
of its staccatos and slurs (which are not in A) than to deprive I: 154 of
its sixteenth notes (which are not in A).
A much more fundamental criticism of the definitive version of
the solo violin part has recently been made by Fritz Kaiser (loc. cit.J:
it amounts to the view that that version is not authentic. His 1962
congress paper should be studied in full, but the portion that con-
cerns this aspect may be summarized here:
1. The solo violin part exists in two autograph forms.
2. The "revisions" or "variant readings" of the autograph, when
assembled, form a complete, self-contained second version (II).
II differs from I chiefly in the figuration. There is only one
version of the slow movement, though in two places the auto-
graph has figuration variants.
3. Within each version parallel passages are dealt with analog-
ously; the second version is altered consistently, and the two
versions are thus logically distinct. This is important.
4. The traditional (printed) version corresponds neither with I
nor with II, but is assembled from parts of both versions, in some
places changing from measure to measure; and passages and
figures are inserted that are not in the autograph at all.
5. The printed version raises the suspicion that it is not by
Beethoven at all, because in comparison with I and II its form is
confused, un-organic, not self-contained and consequently less
effective. A thorough comparison shows that it is not authentic
and cannot be regarded as valid. It is a sort of garbling of the
original text, which rules out Beethoven as its author. Its lack of
stylistic unity is of a degree of illogicality that is not to be found
in any of Beethoven's concertos, and in particular is without
parallel in any solo part.
Kaiser's paper goes on to suggest the name of a possible candidate for
the preparation of the solo parts (Franz Alexander Possinger). Publi-
cation of the "two hitherto amalgamated versions" of the violin part,
edited by Kaiser, is promised by Breitkopf & Hartel in one of their
forthcoming Supplemente zur Gesamtausgabe.
The fourth of the above points can be accepted unreservedly; but
the others seem to me much more dubious.
502 The Musical Quarterly
First, as to the basic facts: although in general there are no more
than two versions, in a very few measures there are three (I: 173-74,
III: 343); in many more, two remain where a third has been deleted
(e.g. I: 164-65, 182-87, 438-39); and occasionally two remain after two
have been deleted (III: 305). There are also a great many measures
where only one version remains after another usually the one
written on the main solo staff has been deleted (e.g. I: 100, 128-31).
This state of affairs seems to me best summarized not by saying that
the solo part exists in two autograph versions, but by saying that
although Beethoven sketched alternative versions of the solo part
throughout the work up to as many as four he very rarely
permitted more than two to survive undeleted.
Secondly, the self-contained nature of the first and second versions
and the "consistent" or "logical" treatment of parallel passages are
exaggerated. Take for example the second subject of the first move-
ment, where the soloist plays triplet eighth notes in a decorative
counterpoint to the theme of the orchestral violins. In the solo line on
the main solo staff (presumably the "first version"), mm. 426-39
correspond pretty closely, though by no means exactly, to 152-65;
since the figuration has a harmonic and decorative, rather than a
melodic, function, this is what we might expect. Lower down in the
score in most of these measures Beethoven writes alternatives (the
"second version"); but this time 426-39 corresponds much less closely
to 152-65. Once again these alternatives are decorative; in both ver-
sions, it is evident, melodic outline is less important than the tone-
color that they lend to this impressive passage. That the definitive
version should be assembled from measures of Kaiser's I and II is not
therefore quite the artistic crime that he implies; in fact, the suspicion
arises that Beethoven allowed the alternatives to stand in the auto-
graph precisely to enable such a synthesis to be made.
Thirdly and lastly: it is no doubt true that the Violin Concerto
exhibits some stylistic features, including a certain triviality, even
redundancy, in the passagework, that is without parallel in the piano
concertos. It suggests that much of the work was not wholly imagined
in terms of the violin, and may even have been among the reasons why
the concerto was at first coldly received. The point is that this is
something that goes much deeper than the alternative versions, and
would not be resolved, for instance, if either of Kaiser's versions were
substituted for the traditional text. It remains as something that
cannot entirely be evaded by violinists and their audiences in coming
to terms with this serene masterpiece.