Review

Reviewed Work(s): Ludwig van Beethoven. Autograph Miscellany from circa 1786-1799.
British Museum Additional Manuscript 29801, ff. 39-162 (The "Kafka Sketchbook") by
Joseph Kerman
Review by: Richard Kramer
Source: Notes , Sep., 1971, Second Series, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Sep., 1971), pp. 31-34
Published by: Music Library Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/939315

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Music Library Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Notes

This content downloaded from

193.144.2.38 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:31:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS

Compiled and edited by NEAL ZASLAW

4&

Ludwig van Beethoven. Autograph Miscellany from circa 1786-1799.

British Museum Additional Manuscript 29801, ff. 39-162 (the "Kafka
Sketchbook"). Edited by Joseph Kerman. London: Trustees of the British
Museum with the co-operation of the Royal Musical Association, 1970. [2
vols.: Facsimile xxxix, 250 p.; Transcription xxi, 296 p., £25. Available in
the United States from Columbia University Press for $85.00]
In the context of the handful of major Of the substance of the "Kafka" mis-
sketch documents to have appeared in cellany, the most conspicuous items, in
print, the present contribution will hold some sense the most valuable, are those
a very special place, for while the "Kafka" autograph scores and torsos whose pres-
miscellany is not an integral book, and ence here is the unique witness for their
existence; the so-called Augengldsern Duo
only minimally a witness to compositional
procedure as we understand it from later(WoO 32) is the most substantial of these.
Other scores range from nearly spotless
sketchbooks, it is nonetheless the single
most important source for the study of Reinschriften and aborted attempts at
Beethoven's musical activity spanning his clean copy, to rejected pages from what
adolescence in Bonn through the first half- were very probably "working" autographs
dozen years in Vienna. -these among the more provocative pages
In fact, the "Kafka" miscellany forms in the collection. For the rest, the con-
only part-though indeed the more con- tents divide into two general categories.
siderable part-of an original portfolio of On the one hand are networks of sketches
which record a discernible evolutionary
scores and fragments to which would be
added other discarded work sheets and
thread from early incipit to larger sense
of continuity-sketches,
from which, in later years, Beethoven was that is, in the
more use-
to withdraw leaves with potentially conventional sense, of which the
able material. A pendant miscellany in
most numerous are those for the E major
Piano the
West Berlin (MS autogr. 28), covering Sonata (op. 14 no. 1) and the finale
same period as the London source, con- of the B-flat Concerto (op. 19). No less
significant are the profuse entries for an
tains several leaves which were originally
contiguous with those in London, and abandoned C major Symphony, ca. 1796-
many more whose content is complemen- 97, sketches for which had been publicized
tary in a more general sense. Ideally, weby Gustav Nottebohm (Zweite Beethoven-
should want to have a collateral recon- iana, Leipzig, 1887, p. 228-29) and Erich
struction of these two sources-the present Hertzmann (The Musical Quarterly,
division is clearly an artificial one-keep- XXXII, 1946, p. 174-78); the extent and
range of material for this piece had
ing in mind that roughly thirty-five isolated
leaves and bifolia scattered across several scarcely been intimated, and Kerman's
continents may also have belonged here. brilliant reconstruction to the advanced
Kerman's resourceful compilation of stages of its development deserves deep
standard diplomatic evidence is of great study. As an additional measure of their
help, and (to take but one example)significance,
it these sketches constitute a
permits him an impressive demonstration kind of matrix for the growth of Beetho-
(11:295) that a single gathering no longer ven's symphonic thought to the First
intact comprised several incongruous Symphony, for which neither sketches nor
leaves in "Kafka" as well as several ad- autograph score have been mentioned in
ditional leaves now housed elsewhere. the literature. In any case, the historian
31

This content downloaded from

193.144.2.38 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:31:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
having learned the remarkable implica- the 1790's through fragile legendary ac-
tions of the slow introduction to the 1797
count. And I do not think that the pre-
scriptions to be found, for example, in
fragment will find it difficult to hear the
opening bars of op. 21 without some new Turk's Klavierschule (1789)-a volume
awareness of their genesis. listed in Beethoven's Nachlass-were of
At the other extreme is a sea of isolated, very much help, for nearly all those pre-
self-contained entries, mostly keyboard cepts are happily transgressed in a fas-
trials-experiments in timbre, virtuosity,cinating keyboard cadenza in G evidently
thematic shape, and attempts to translate designed for the early C major Violin
aural image to written symbol (not alwaysConcerto (WoO 5), a diffuse, harmonically
an easy matter for Beethoven in the earlyexperimental work which we know only
years). There are even some very rare in- as a fragmentary first movement. To my
dications for use of the damper pedal at thinking, there are good grounds for rec-
a time when composers had not yet begunonciling the "Kafka" cadenza with a very
to publish this advice (Haydn's C major unusual cadential pause in the Concerto
Sonata, 1794, is the well-known exception). fragment at mm. 205-06 (in the domi-
nant), which in turn lends credence to the
One of the fascinating suggestions in
view that Beethoven entertained plans to
Hertzmann's study of Op. 129 (ibid.) was
that Beethoven carefully worked out on perform the Violin Concerto (a late Bonn
paper the main lines of his public impro-
work) as a piano concerto-not an out-
rageous theory if we accept that the
visations. No doubt many of the entries
in "Kafka" are pertinent here, and while quality of the Concerto fragment defines
it as the single large-scale piece with
there is nothing quite so artistically com-
which Beethoven could have ventured
plete as op. 129 (though Kerman suggests
before a Viennese audience in 1792-93.
that the highly developed draft for a
"cyclic" piano fantasia in D is just such Very much part of the larger puzzle
a case), we are in a better position to comprising the works which Beethoven
estimate Beethoven's fertile imagination,may have been preparing for public per-
as well as the nature of the pianistic formance in the early 1790's is the history
of an earlier version of the op. 19 Con-
mechanism during his years of greatest
certo. I shall not attempt to review the
public activity. Nottebohm, again the first
to recognize the value of this material,conflicting external accounts for those
early performances, nor the arguments
published a handful of examples in a brief
notice titled "Clavierspiel" (reprintedwhich
in surround the chronology and func-
Zweite Beethoveniana, 356-63), with a tion
la- of the B-flat Rondo (WoO 6)-Ker-
conic commentary which ought to suggest man's notes are efficient here, if not quite
the direction of further exploration. flawless. But the fragmentary musical
documents for the first movement need
Of more immediate consequence are the
numerous entries for concerto cadenzas, further scrutiny. Probably due to an odd
another form of improvisation for which engraver's error (not at all characteristic
Beethoven left himself extended memo- of this superb volume) the transcription
randa. Together with two particularly of the score fragment on fol. 89r, showing
im-
an early reading for mm. 282-285, omits
portant cadenza drafts in related sources
a vacant staff between viola and cello-bass.
-Paris: MS autogr. 70 (op. 19) and Berlin:
MS autogr. 28, fol. 30 (op. 15)-"Kafka"I think we can read some meaning into
that staff, for a much earlier score frag-
provides a considerable body of evidence
for what in fact Beethoven performed ment (Paris: MS autogr. 61) of a passage
extempore in the 1790's. That cadenza somewhat earlier in the development
studies for the first movement of op. (roughly,
19 mm. 248-66) clearly reports two
are more numerous than are entries for obligato viola parts, each on its own staff
the work itself may be some small indi--a provincial peculiarity in scoring to
cation of how acutely Beethoven felt this
which the autograph scores of the C major
single blind spot in the Mozartean tradi- Violin Concerto and the E minor Ro-
tion, for if Mozart's concertos were ac-
mance (Hess 13) also attest. A later frag-
cessible to Beethoven as models for his
ment for the same passage (Bonn: Beetho-
venhaus MS 121) apparently withdrawn
own work (which we know to be the case),
his cadenzas could only have survivedfrom
in a full score, dispenses with the
32

This content downloaded from

193.144.2.38 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:31:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
second viola staff altogether, and an in- (5) Evidently, the watermark for paper
formative error on the cello staff will only lOd ought to read "GAF," and "GFA"
make sense when we substitute viola clef for paper 16s. A somewhat later paper
-an indication of the source of that error.uses a mold nearly identical to the latter.
The Beethovenhaus leaf, then, reflects a Strangely, Kerman's references here (Ei-
late stage in the early history of op.neder, 19 Heawood, Tromonin) do not sup-
when the second viola part had been re- port his readings. And I suspect that
distributed, a decision not yet reached at papers 16s and 16k project complementary
the stage which "Kafka" fol. 89 repre-quadrants of the watermark molds for
sents. (Kerman argues that the "Kafka" one and the same paper.
fragment, unlike the Bonn leaf, could notThe transcription volume, a masterpiece
have been "discarded from an early auto- of musical engraving and a model of
graph" [11:279], but I fail to see the logic
accuracy (a virtue hard won where Beetho-
in support of that distinction.) ven's script is in question), is likely to
The "Kafka" miscellany is bound to provoke some controversy with regard to
excite scholarly interest on another level:method. We have had Kerman's own
it is rich in problems of identification views on the diplomatic transcription of
which range from the unknown sourcesthe Beethovenhaus publications ("Beetho-
for several song texts, to the model forven a Sketchbooks at the British Museum,"
baffling piece in C minor, written in Procedings of the Royal Musical Associa-
piano score, which Kerman believes to be tion, XCIII, 1967, p. 78, footnote), where
a reduction of an overture by another Kerman aligns himself with the views
composer. Alas, anyone wishing to test expressed by Lewis Lockwood in his re-
this proposal will have to inform himself view of one of those publications (MQ,
of the pertinent leaf in Berlin autogr. 28LIII 1967, p. 127-36). It is clear that
(fol. 20r) containing its continuation (andthe editorial policy responsible here for
with it, the strongest arguments in Ker-grouping sketches according to a postu-
mian's favor). lated reconstruction of their Entstehungs-
Some addenda: (1) To an unidentified geschichte-a policy which has good musi-
(and uninformative) oboe part in Beetho-cal sense to recommend it-is partly a
ven's hand (fol. 124) should be added a reaction to the disturbing lack of response
cello part for the same piece (Bonn: which the Bonn publications have elicited
Beethovenhaus, Bodmer BSK 17/65c), and in the larger forum of Beethoven research.
I suspect that these parts refer to another While a parallel facsimile volume frees
(unrecovered) version of the aria "Fliesse,the editor from the loathsome burden of
Wonnezahre, fliesse" from the "Elevation" the kind of critical notes which are the
Cantata (WoO 88)-though this is far backbone of the Beethovenhaus transcrip-
from conclusive. (2) To the list of sources tions, there seems to me another issue
with sketches for Op. 14, no. 1, should be worth considering. The "Kafka" miscel-
added a leaf recently acquired by the lany, by its very nature, projects a chaos
Library of Congress (L. of C. Quarterlywhich has no textual authority. To have
Journal, XXII/1, 1965, p. 31) with sketches preserved that chaos on the grounds of
for the outer movements. (3) There is no authenticity would have been unthinkable.
evidence that the "mutilated sketchbook" But integral sketchbooks do transmit a
Berlin MS autogr. 19e (11:279) was eversequence which has textual authority, even
anything more than a miscellany which if that sequence is often terribly difficult
to reconstruct. And the more the editor of
received discarded score fragments (very
much like "Kafka"). (4) A very curious a primary document imposes his own in-
notation on fol. 154v, a page ruled into
terpretation (no matter how convincing)
upon the contents of that document, the
score system for a keyboard concerto, with
a conflict in signature between winds and
less likely that the conscientious "second"
strings, may well have been an experi- reader will be able to see it any other way.
mental notation to reconcile a problemWhile
in this is hardly a problem in the
variable pitch standards (a problem which
"Kafka" miscellany, where there are never
certain other evidence documents)-a no-more than several pages of sketches for
tion which seems worth entertaining, anyif single movement, it might well be-
only to provoke fresh ideas on the matter.
come a problem in dealing, for example,
33

This content downloaded from

193.144.2.38 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:31:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
with
with thetheforty
fortyodd
oddpages
pages
of ofsketches for for will
sketches will perhaps
perhapsgrieve
grievethethegeneral
generalreader
reader
the
the first
firstmovement
movement ofof
the
the"Eroica"
"Eroica"
Sym-Sym-more than the scholar, who would not
phony
phony (formerly
(formerlyBerlin:
Berlin:MSMS Landsberg
Landsbergturn to a facsimile in any case for the
6).
6). But
But Kerman's
Kerman'sreasoned
reasoned prolegomenon
prolegomenonpurpose of studying ink and paper." The
(II:xi-xiii)
(II:xi-xiii)speaks
speaksstrongly
stronglyforforhishis
point of ofquestion is not of the scientific observa-
point
view,
view, andandthe
thedesign
design ofof
future
futuresketch
sketch tion of different inks (for which far more
publications
publicationswillwilldepend
dependvery
verymuch
much upon
uponthan a conventional "scholarly" examina-
the
the additional
additionalweighing
weighing of of
those
those
ideas.
ideas. tion of the original will be necessary any-
When Beethovenhaus published its ex- way), but rather of the simple identifica-
traordinary facsimile edition of the "Wald- tion of discrete entries which may only
stein" Sonata, the philosophy which mo-appear to have been part of the same
tivated that achievement was expressed written gesture-a task preliminary to
in a related article by Dagmar Weise even the most modest sketch inquiries.
(Beethoven-Jahrbuch II, 1967, p. 107-111), This is something of a pity, for the
in which she took the trouble to describe
"Kafka" volumes will take their place on
our seminar tables beside the other monu-
the complex technological decisions which
had to be made (by a musicologist!) at facsimile editions which have been
mental
every stage of the photographic process.
so central to our graduate curricula. And
And this for a sonata which, after all, isit will be a very long time before we have
no longer very problematic. But the work-exhausted the riches of Kerman's excellent
shop papers are problematic, and I must scholarship.
dissent from a bit of sophistry which mars RICHARD KRAMER
Kerman's apologia on the decision to State University of New York at
forego a color process (I:xxi): "The loss Stony Brook

Negro Folk Music, U. S. A. By Harold Courlander. New York: Columbia

University Press, [c1963; 5th printing and Columbia Paperback Edition
1970]. [324 p., paper $3.25]

Hard Hitting Songs for Hard-Hit People. Compiled and edited by Alan
Lomax. New York. Oak Publications, 1967. [368 p., $12.50]

Shanties and Sailors' Songs. By Stan Hugill. New York: Frederick A

Praeger, [c1969]. [243 p., $7.50]

The American Folk Music Occasional. Compiled and edited by Chri

Strachwitz and Pete Welding. [New York: Oak Publications, c1970].
[80 p., paper $2.95]

Festival: the Book of American Celebrations. By Jim Marshall, Baron

Wolman, and Jerry Hopkins. London: Collier-Macmillan Ltd., [c1970]
[191 p., paper $3.50, cloth $7.95]

Bob Dylan. By Daniel Kramer. New York: Pocket Books, [1968]. [210 p.,
paper $.95]
A spate of books on folk music and the rather than formal musical characteristics.
present pop scene has come off the press Probably the most significant is Negro
lately, and some of them are reviewed Folk Music, U.S.A. by Harold Courlander.
here. They are offered in order of their Issued originally in 1943 in hard cover,
importance to serious folk music students this book is still one of the most reliable
rather than to the seasoned specialist. Allsources of rural black folk music available
the books tend to stress sociological, his-to the general reader. Novelist, folklorist,
torical, and stylistic aspects of folk musicand journalist, Courlander has done on-

34

This content downloaded from

193.144.2.38 on Sun, 17 Dec 2023 11:31:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms