WoO 059 – Bagatella in A minor
Poco moto
WoO 59 – Bagatella in A minor: For Elisa, 27 April 1810, published by L. Nohl, Neue Briefe Beethovens, number 33, 1867. G.A. number 298 (series 25/35) – Bruers 173 – Kinsky-Halm (WoO 59) – Biamonti 515.
The original manuscript is now lost; it appears to have been given by Beethoven himself to Therese Malfatti, for whom he harboured tender feelings at the time (it is believed that the dedication was originally “Für Therese”, and that the name may have been changed later owing to a misreading). A small, graceful page, universally known today, it recalls somewhat the theme of the Finale of the Piano Sonata Opus 31 No. 2.
“Professor Nohl in München hat neuerlich eine bisher völlig unbekannte kleine Beethoven’sche Klavierkomposition (in A-moll 3/8 mit zwei Zwischensätzchen) mit der Aufschrift: ‘Für Elise, 27. April’ im Originalmanuskript aufgefunden und steht mit Breitkopf und Härtel in Leipzig wegen Einreihung derselben in die Gesammtausgabe in Unterhandlung.”
That is: “Professor Nohl of Munich has recently discovered a hitherto completely unknown piano composition by Beethoven, in A minor, 3/8 time, with two short interludes, bearing the inscription ‘Für Elise, 27 April’ on the original manuscript, and is negotiating with Breitkopf & Härtel of Leipzig for its inclusion in the complete edition of Beethoven’s works.”
This report from the Viennese journal Recensionen of 5 August 1865 is the first information we have concerning a piano piece that is today one of Beethoven’s most famous compositions. Ludwig Nohl’s negotiations with the music publisher Breitkopf & Härtel came to nothing: the piece was not included in the Gesamtausgabe (24 volumes, 1862–1865), since its authenticity could not be definitively confirmed. Consequently, Nohl himself published it two years later as number 33 in his book Neue Beethovens Briefe, within a correspondence with Ignaz von Gleichenstein.
In the thematic catalogue compiled by Georg Kinsky and Hans Halm, it is rightly listed among the WoO (Werke ohne Opuszahl) as WoO 59.
And here is Nohl’s original description: Zur Herkunft des Stückes gibt Nohl an:
„Das nachstehende bisher unbekannte, zwar nicht eben bedeutende aber recht anmuthige Klavierstückchen stammt […] aus dem Nachlaß der Frau Therese von Droßdick geb. Malfatti, die es der Frl. Bredl in München geschenkt hat. Es ist zwar nicht für Therese geschrieben, sondern enthält von Beethovens Hand die Aufschrift: „Für Elise am 27 April zur Erinnerung von L.v. Bthvn,“ — welcher Elise sich Freifrau von Gleichenstein nicht erinnert. Es möge aber hier gleichsam als Zugabe zu dem anmuthigen Verhältniß des Meisters zu der schönen braunlockigen Therese auch eine Stelle finden.“
“The following piano piece, hitherto unknown, though not particularly significant, is nevertheless quite charming, and comes […] from the estate of Mrs Therese von Droßdick, née Malfatti, who gave it to Miss Bredl of Munich. It was not written for Therese, but bears in Beethoven’s own hand the inscription: ‘Für Elise, 27 April, in remembrance of L. v. Bthvn.’ … It may, however, find a place here (among these letters, editor’s note) as a kind of addendum to the gentle relationship of the master with the beautiful, dark-haired Therese.”
Unfortunately, the original manuscript, Beethoven’s autograph, disappeared without trace after Nohl’s publication. This deprives us of the possibility of verifying the accuracy of the scholar’s claims. When the old Gesamtausgabe eventually decided to include the piece in the Supplemente zur GA (volume 25) in 1888, the only available source was Nohl’s edition, which was certainly rather uncritical.
At this point, one might wonder whether Nohl was actually able to interpret Beethoven’s handwriting correctly. The title “Für Elise” gives reason to doubt it. If the piece had indeed been dedicated and given by Beethoven to Therese Droßdick, née Malfatti (1 January 1792 – 27 April 1851), should not the title rather have read “Für Therese”, as another scholar, Max Unger, already suggested in 1923? Nohl himself seems to have asked this very question at the time, for he sought information about the mysterious “Elise” from Therese’s younger sister, Anna von Gleichenstein, née Malfatti (6 December 1792 – 25 September 1869), whom he visited in 1865 in Freiburg and in Oberrotweil am Kaiserstuhl, but found no confirmation.
That this composition was not originally intended for Therese is suggested by a sketch found in a notebook containing the Pastoral Symphony from the spring of 1808, which, incidentally, Nohl did not know. (Example 1) The melody, extending for 16 bars in Lied form, is clearly recognisable as the germinal nucleus of the Klavierstück WoO 59. By inserting a double bar after the E in bar 12 and extending the ending in analogy with the opening (bars 1–8), the theme could easily be expanded to the 22 bars that correspond exactly to WoO 59. In the spring of 1808 Beethoven had not yet met the Malfatti family. According to the testimony of his friend Ignaz von Gleichenstein, it was he who introduced Beethoven to them in the spring of 1810, as we can conclude from his biography. Gleichenstein became engaged to Anna Malfatti, while Beethoven became infatuated with her elder sister. He gave Therese some piano lessons and provided both sisters with exercises suited to their abilities. We might therefore suppose that, on this occasion, the composer could have presented Therese with the Klavierstück, by then already two years old. It is well known that Beethoven frequently set aside musical ideas only to return to them later — sometimes decades afterwards.
This hypothesis is supported by a double sheet of sketches now held by the Beethoven-Haus (BH 116). On pages 1 and 4 it contains an extensive draft for the aforementioned piano piece, from which Beethoven could easily have produced the missing autograph. Examination of the paper (watermark: Kiesling JJ) and its dating to spring 1810 leads us to page 2, where there is a note referring to the incidental music for Goethe’s Egmont Op. 84: “Der Tod könnte ausgedrückt werden durch eine Pause.” And another short note on page 4 may also relate to the same work: “indem der Vorhang aufgezogen wird[,] wird gleich wieder angefangen.” Finally, on pages 2–4 there are further sketches (in pencil and ink) referring to the Military March in F major WoO 19, completed on page 3, whose autograph is dated “Sommermonath”, that is, June 1810. The corrections for our WoO 59 on pages 1 and 4 (in ink) may have been the first entries written on the double sheet. The date Beethoven placed on the now-lost autograph would therefore have been “27 April (1810).” This corresponds precisely to the period of Beethoven’s closest and most intimate contact with the Malfatti family.
In summary: did Beethoven, or did he not, intend a dedication to Therese?
Ludwig Nohl (Iserlohn, 5 December 1831 – Heidelberg 15 December 1885)
Landsberg Notebook 10, page 149.
The essential point to understand is whether Nohl reproduced the notation correctly. The general impression is that in Neue Briefe Beethovens there was no particular editorial care. Even without access to the lost manuscript, several details give us reason to doubt this; for example: bar 7, the second note E; bar 9, the double bar and repeat sign; bar 14, the semiquaver note with its corresponding rest; bar 35, the missing dot on the eighth note, and so on. (Example 2)
However, it cannot be said with certainty whether these are transcription errors on Nohl’s part. The mistakes, omissions, or alterations could already have been present in his source — Beethoven’s lost autograph.
In recent years, the sketches on the two leaves BH 116 have been variously used as a source for restoring a supposedly more “accurate” version. Yet this, too, raises the question of whether such an approach is methodologically sound. Should there not be a fundamental distinction between sketch and autograph? A sketch is a provisional, unfinished structure, meant only for the composer’s use, subject to change or cancellation at any time. The autograph, on the other hand (in the strict sense), is a complete and definitive form, released by the composer for general understanding.
Nevertheless, these definitions are somewhat “academic”; compositional practice often differs. The boundary between autograph and sketch is fluid and permeable. The sketches for WoO 59 on the double leaf BH 116 represent, as already mentioned, a very advanced stage of composition: they are written on a double stave, not entirely coherently, and are sometimes interrupted. This occurs, for example, in the section intended as the da capo of part A. At the beginning of the central section B, a notation that was clearly meant to be discarded has been crossed out (BH 116, page 1, end of lines 6/7 to beginning of lines 9/10). The later pencil notes (lines 8 and 10) indicate that Beethoven intended to return to these ideas afterwards. An alternative transitional passage, probably from part B back to part A (page 1, lines 15/16, right-hand side, in pencil), marked by an “= de” without a corresponding “Vi =”, was probably rejected and erased immediately after being written. (12)
Sketches BH 116 – pagina 1
Sketches BH 116 – pagina 4
Beethoven probably wrote the lost autograph shortly after completing the BH 116 sketch, dating it 27 April [1810]. This draft follows the working methods familiar to the composer and therefore it seems methodologically acceptable to use all those passages from the sketch as a source for the score, since they could have been transferred almost mechanically into the fair copy of the autograph. However, it should be noted that the writing in BH 116 is not uniform, but combines three distinct working phases that can be recognised from one another.
The first working phase, executed in brown ink with a very fine nib, establishes the basic structure of the entire composition. The second phase serves partly as correction, partly as completion of the first: the repetition of the two sections in the opening part A is clarified; in the central section B (bars 23–34), the left-hand accompaniment is completed, and a new upper part is inserted at bar 25. The original version was deleted.
In this second phase, Beethoven used the same fine pen and the same brown ink as in the first. The two versions are likely to have been written close in time and should both be dated to April 1810.
The third working phase can be dated twelve years later. The pencil insertions are rough, faded, and hasty. In the autumn of 1822, Beethoven was occupied with the idea of publishing a collection of piano pieces—Bagatelles. Several publishers had shown some interest. Beethoven therefore went through his old sketches and pulled out any material that might still prove useful. During this search, however, he probably had some reservations, since certain pieces were already quite old and no longer met his artistic standards. He began revising several of them and numbering them in a satisfactory cyclical order. WoO 59 was to have been the twelfth in some series, as indicated by the number written at the top left of page 1 of BH 116. The revision project, however, was eventually abandoned; WoO 59 already existed in an autograph that Beethoven no longer possessed since 1810. By 1822–23, he only had the “sketch” written on BH 116.
How should this third phase of the BH 116 project be evaluated? Apparently, the composer was seeking a degree of refinement. The sketch initially lacks a tempo indication; in the 1810 autograph, “poco moto” was added. In 1822, Beethoven characterises the piece as “molto grazioso” (BH 116, page 1, top centre, above the first system). He also alters the left-hand accompaniment figure in part A to semiquavers. The 1822 revision leaves the structure of the piece largely intact. However, the four unused bars at the beginning of the central section appear to have been somehow reinstated.
After the triplets (bars 78–81), there is another obscure reference from the 1822 revision, perhaps marking the start of a repeat, as in the 1810 version. Following this comes the indication “una corda”, possibly intended for the entire recapitulation, and three final chords.
In summary: a close examination of the BH 116 draft reveals that it contains two versions of the Bagatelle WoO 59 — a Version I from 1810 (phases one and two, corresponding probably to the lost autograph discovered by Nohl with the date 27 April [1810]) and a projected version from autumn 1822 (phase three).
Barry Cooper’s edition, Three Bagatelles (Novello, London, 1991), also includes discarded sketches and reconstructs a six-part structure from the original five-part version. Part A is repeated three times, with the intermediate section C divided. (See also Barry Cooper’s essay, “Beethoven’s Revisions of Für Elise,” in The Musical Times, October 1984, pp. 561–563.)
Several title pages from early editions of the Klavierstück or Albumblatt “Für Elise” WoO 59, dating from around 1870. The first was published in Pest, the second in Leipzig by Kahnt. Note the reference to Nohl and his Briefe Beethovens, as well as the incorrect date “27 April 1808” (the correct date, as mentioned, is 27 April 1810).
WoO 59 is part of the “Research Becomes Art” project
A New Life for the Unknown Works of Ludwig van Beethoven: An Artistic Exploration by Pianist Maestro Francesco Gussago
WoO 59: When Research Becomes Musical Storytelling
Musical tidbits, curiosities, short listening guides, and anecdotes from the world of “Classical Music”
By DIANA RE – Music Communicator