UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________

I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

Beethoven’s Two-Movement Piano Sonatas and Their Predecessors

A document submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the degree of

DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS

in the Keyboard Studies Division of the College-Conservatory of Music

2008

by

Jun Kwon 7075 Windword Way Apt. 191

Cincinnati, OH 45241 jinsong916@yahoo.com

B.M., Seoul National University, 1991

M.M., University Mozarteum Salzburg, 1997

Committee Chair: Prof. Frank Weinstock

Committee: Prof. Eugene Pridonoff

Committee: Prof. Michael Chertock

ii

Abstract

In the literature of keyboard solo music, the two-movement sonata has occupied a

unique place in both structure and aesthetics. The great flowering of this type of sonata took

place during the first half of the eighteenth century, contributed by a great number of Italian

composers. Although the decline of Italian keyboard music in the second half of the century

resulted in the drastic decrease of the production of the two-movement sonata, its musical

substance and the structural capacities continuously developed and expanded by the hands

of several masters with diverse nationalities, and finally reached its culmination in

Beethoven’s sonatas, especially in his last piano sonata, Opus 111.

This project first traces the historical background that paved the way for Beethoven

(chapters 1, 2, and 3), and then investigates Beethoven’s six sonatas, focusing on the close

formal and musical interrelationships between two movements from each single sonata

(chapter 4). Hence, the purpose of this project is twofold: to bring events in the

development of the two-movement keyboard sonata, a formal scheme in the history of

sonata yet not part of the mainstream, into fresh relief, reliving its significance for keyboard

literature; and to highlight the way that Beethoven’s six two-movement piano sonatas

represent monumental works that serve to maximize the formal possibilities of its structure.

iii

iv

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my advisor Prof. Frank

Weinstock for his encouragement and expert guidance throughout this project. As my major

instructor, he has also inspired me to reestablish my thinking about the true musicianship. I

am also grateful to Mrs. Ann Dunn, who has been a great supporter of this project, being

always there whenever I needed her help. A special thank is due Peter Kim for his

willingness to the laborious reproduction of the musical examples. My most heartfelt

acknowledgment goes to my beloved wife Jeewon, who has shared the hope and dream

with me, enabling me to complete my doctoral studies. Also to my wonderful two sons

Jinsong and Jinhyung for their big smiles that helped me forget all difficulties during this

process. Finally I thank my Heavenly Father, who has strengthened me in every step to this

point and will fulfill his purpose for my life.

v

Table of Contents

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………. 1

1. The Early Development …………………………………………………………….. 4

A. Italian Pioneers ………………………………………………………………... 7 Domenico Alberti / Francesco Durante / Pietro Domenico Paradisi / Baldassare Galuppi /Giovanni Rutini

B. Scarlatti’s keyboard sonatas and pair theory ………………………………… 24

2. Johann Christian Bach and Other Composers, To 1785 …………………………… 30 Carlos de Seixas / Antonio Soler / Manuel Blasco de Nebra / Carlo Antonio Campioni / Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi / Johann Christian Bach

3. Franz Joseph Haydn ………………………………………………………...……… 46

A. General prospect ……………………………………………………………... 46

B. Two-movement sonatas ……………………………………………………… 51

a. Formal diversity …………………………………………………………. 52

b. Musical character ………………………………………………………... 59

c. Balance and unity ………………………………………………………... 65

4. Ludwig van Beethoven …………………………………………………………….. 71

A. Two Sonatas, Opus 49 ……………………………………………………… 74

B. Sonata in F major, Opus 54 ……………………………………………….….. 83

C. Sonata in F sharp major, Opus 78 ……………………………………………. 93

D. Sonata in E minor, Opus 90 ………………………………………………… 101

E. Sonata in C minor, Opus 111 ……………………………………………….. 108

5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….. 122

Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………… 124

vi

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Sonata form in Johann Christian Bach’s sonata Op. 17 No. 3 in E flat major …….….. 44

Table 2. Timeline of Haydn’s two-movement sonatas ……………………………………….. 52

Table 3. Forms of Haydn’s two-movement sonatas …………………………………………. 53

Table 4. Double variation forms of Haydn’s three piano sonatas, Nos. 54, 56, and 58 ………. 55

Table 5. The number of measures and the tempo markings of Haydn’s two-movement piano

sonatas …………………………………………………………………………………. . 66

Table 6. The number of movements in keyboard sonatas of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven …72

Table 7. Timeline of Beethoven’s sonatas ……………………………………………………. 73

Table 8. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 49, No. 1 in G minor …………………… 76

Table 9. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 49, No. 2 in G major …………………… 81

Table 10. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 54 in F major, 2nd Movement ….…….. 88

Table 11. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 78 in F sharp major …………………… 98

Table 12. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 90 in E minor ………………………... 104

Table 13. Forman scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 111 in C minor ……………………... 120

Figure 1. The lengths of three sections of sonata movements from Haydn’s six two-movement

sonatas ……………………………………………………………………….……….... 53

１

Introduction

Concerning the last piano sonata Op. 111 by Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827),

Kenneth Drake, a specialist of Classic-period keyboard repertoires, wrote that

The sonata became the measure against which the interpretation of any other sonata of Beethoven – or, for that matter, the depth of any other sonata – is judged. In actual fact, Op. 111 becomes the standard beyond measure to which one’s own idealism as a musician and depth as a human being will be compared.1

Considering its rich musical contents and spiritual profundity, which give it a secure place

as the “final testimony”2 among Beethoven’s thirty two piano sonatas, one might take it for

granted that a great deal of admiration for this C minor sonata has continuously been given

by numerous scholars and performers.

From a structural viewpoint, however, it is somewhat ironic that this work

containing only two movements could hold such a decisive position in the domain of sonata

composition, where the two-movement design has rarely come to the fore, being

overshadowed by other structural schemes. That is, the most common sonata structure in

the earlier part of Baroque era was four or five movement cycle in both the church and

court types, exemplified by works of Arcangelo Corelli (1653-1713), the greatest

contributor to the standardization of Baroque sonata form, and then three or four movement

design – especially, three movement – has dominated from the late Baroque era, when

1 Kenneth Drake, The Beethoven Sonatas and the Creative Experience (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 304. 2 Alfred Brendel, Music Sounded Out: Essays, Lectures, Interviews, Afterthoughts (London: Robson Books Ltd., 1990), 71.

２

keyboard instruments began to occupy the center of the sonata composition.

In this respect, Beethoven’s Op. 111 provides an inspiring starting point, leading us

to reconsider the structural capacities of the two movement sonata design, which has

developed and expanded musical substances within its own structural logic in the history of

keyboard literature. This fact can be first traced in the musical life of an individual

composer, Ludwig van Beethoven, who explored this particular form in six of his piano

sonatas spanning almost thirty years, which corresponds to the whole period of his thirty-

two piano sonatas.

Beethoven’s six sonatas in two movements, which will be dealt with in the last

chapter of the present study, are masterful testimony to the way the composer was able to

take advantage of what is the most essential in this unique structure, infusing it with his

personal language. At the same time, those works were produced with a relatively constant

time gap – two sonatas in Op. 49 (1795-98), Op. 54 (1804), Op, 78 (1809), Op. 90 (1814),

and Op. 111(1821-22) – reveal his meticulous procedure of his stylistic creativity.

Eventually, as a result of Beethoven’s hand, the two-movement sonata cycle became an

unprecedented and extremely powerful structural vessel, in which the movements

communicate with and confront each other, eventually integrating as a whole.

From a lager scope, one should remember that behind Beethoven’s great

achievement there had been numerous composers who paved the way for Beethoven.

Therefore, beginning with the earliest contributors of this realm, including Domenico

Alberti (ca.1710-46), Francesco Durante (1684-1755), Pietro Domenico Paradisi (1707?-

３

91), Baldassare Galuppi (1706-85), and Giovanni Rutini (1723-97), the present study will

investigate composers whose works play a significant role in the development of the two-

movement sonata in the eighteenth century. Particularly, the third chapter will be devoted

solely to Joseph Haydn (1732-1809), who, more than any other composer, had the genius to

recognize the potential of the two-movement sonata design, thereby elevating the two-

movement sonata to a much higher level.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to bring the development of the two-

movement keyboard sonata, a non-mainstream formal scheme in the history of the sonata,

into relief, refreshing its significance in the keyboard literature, and, at the same time, to

highlight Beethoven’s six two-movement piano sonatas as the monumental works

maximizing the formal possibilities of the two-movement sonata structure.

４

1

The Early Development

The keyboard instrument, which had served mainly as the basso continuo in the

Baroque sonata, began to emerge as a solo instrument occupying the center of sonata

composition during the1730s. Certainly, since Adriano Banchieri’s organ sonata of 1605, a

considerable number of sonatas had already been composed for keyboard instruments alone

by various composers including Del Buono (d in or before 1657), Gregorio Strozzi (1615-

1687), Bernardo Pasquini (1637-1710), and Johann Kuhnau (1660-1722).3 The great

flowering of the keyboard solo sonata, however, took place during the two decades

spanning the1730s and 1740s, the period marked as the dawning of the Classical era in

music history.

In light of both the structure and the stylistic idiom, the early keyboard sonatas of

this time reflected strong influences of the other genres, such as opera, concerto, and string

chamber music, all of which had already developed to a remarkable point throughout the

Baroque era. For instance, the keyboard sonatas of Benedetto Marcello (1686-1739), who

contributed to the earliest establishment of the genre, display many aspects affected by

other genres, particularly involving string instruments, in that he employs “rhyming” binary

scheme, wide leaps, or rapid repetitions.4

3 William S. Newman, The Sonata in the Baroque Era, 4th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton &

Company, Inc., 1983), 56. 4 Daniel E. Freeman, “Johann Christian Bach and the Early Classical Italian,” in Eighteenth-Century

Keyboard Music, ed. Robert L. Marshall (New York: Schirmer Books, 1994), 234-35.

５

The same principle was also applied to the method of organizing movements

constituting the whole sonata cycle; having been influenced by diverse musical forms and

styles, including sonata da chiesa (church sonata), sonata da camera (chamber sonata), and

Italian overture (also called Sinfonia), the early Classical keyboard sonata eventually took

the structure of a cycle consisting of single- or multi-movements.5 Although it is hard to

say that there was the standardization of the number of movements or their arrangement,

the largest number of keyboard sonatas followed the three-movement outline of Italian

overture: fast-slow-fast.

The three-movement design was broadly cultivated by early keyboard sonata

composers, such as Johann J. Fux (ca.1660-1741), Giovanni B. Platti (1690-1763),

Giovanni B. Pescetti (ca. 1704-66), and Giovanni B. Martini (1706-84), and then, taken

over particularly by Austro-German composers including W. F. Bach (1710-84), C. P. E.

Bach (1714-88), J. C. F. Bach (1732-95), George Benda (1722-95), and Christian G. Neefe

(1748-98). In fact, even in sonatas of three Viennese masters, Haydn, Mozart, and

Beethoven, the three-movement plan occupies the largest proportion in the whole body of

their piano sonatas. In other words, it was the three-movement design that maintained its

superiority over other possible structures throughout the whole classical period.

Nevertheless, the literature of eighteenth-century keyboard music also reflects

considerable development of other structural schemes by many composers who undertook

sincere exploration of them; keyboard sonatas in a one-movement scheme, for example, are

5 Gordon Stewart, A History of Keyboard Literature (New York: Shirmer, 1996), 56-57.

６

exemplified by C. P. E. Bach’s six “Neue Sonatinen” W. 63/7-12, Hinrich Philip Johnson

(1717-79)’s set of six sonatas for harpsichord, and Andrea Lucchesi (1741-1801)’s set of

six Sonatines; the development of the keyboard sonata consisting of more than four

movements, mostly produced by German composers including Franz A. Maichelbeck

(1702-50), Johan J. Agrell (1701-65), Konrad F. Hurlebusch (1691-1765), and Jacob W.

Lustig (1706-96), demonstrates a strong bond between the concepts of sonata and that of

the Baroque suite at that time.6

By comparison with the above-mentioned sonata schemes, the development of the

two-movement keyboard sonata, the subject of this study, is noticeable for its relatively

strong influences in the germinating period of the newly emerging genre of keyboard

sonata. There is no doubt that a few examples of two-movement sonatas are found in the

early history of the sonata, from Giacomo Gorzanis (1520-d. between 1575-79)’s sonata for

lute, also known for the earliest literal usage of the term “sonata” as an actual title,7 to

Giuseppe Tartini (1692-1770)’s trio sonatas. However, one can say that the popularity of

the two-movement structure in the keyboard sonata of the pre-classic era was so rare that it

recalls the great fashion of the pair dances of the sixteenth century, represented by pavan

and galliard (or, passamezzo and saltarello), which foreshadows the basic structural idea of

the two-movement sonata.

6 Newman, The Sonata in the Classical Era, 3d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1983), 134-35. 7 Ibid., 18.

７

Two-movement sonatas at this period have some unique features. With this scheme,

the two movements are in the same key, mostly major, although sometimes in the opposite

modes. Rather than in tempo, the two movements are contrasted by pairing the first

movement in duple or quadruple meter, with the second movement – most often a minuet

or rondo – in simple triple or compound duple meter. Structurally speaking, both are

usually cast in binary form, with the first often anticipating sonata form, while the second

movement features modest proportions and the simple design of a dance movement.8

Following this general outline, many composers of the mid-eighteenth century

wrote considerable numbers of keyboard sonatas, contributing to the early development of

this particular structural scheme.

A. Italian Pioneers

The main reason for the extensive application of the two-movement design to pre-

classical keyboard sonata lies, most of all, in the fact that it was favored particularly by

early Italian keyboard masters, who played a leading part in keyboard music of the first half

of the eighteenth century. These Italian masters include Domenico Alberti (ca.1710-46),

Francesco Durante (1684-1755), Baldassare Galuppi (1706-85), Pietro Domenico Paradisi

(1707?-91), and Giovanni Rutini (1723-97), all of whom contributed to the early

development of the two-movement sonata, so-called “Italian sonata” style.9

8 Michael Talbot, “Alberti, Domeico,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music an Musicians,

edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 1. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 304. 9 Newman, The Sonata in the Classical Era, 134.

８

Domenico Alberti (ca. 1710-1746)

With regard to the two-movement sonata design, one could find the most proper

historical starting point in the works of the Venetian Domenico Alberti, who thoroughly

adhered to this structural plan in writing keyboard sonatas. German researcher Wilhelm

Wörmann found Alberti’s thirty-eight keyboard sonata movements and identified them by

making a thematic index. According to this index, Alberti wrote his Op. 1, a set of eight

two-movement sonatas for harpsichord which was posthumously published in London by

John Walsh in 1748, and six additional two-movement sonatas as well as ten separate

movements, several of which may have been paired.

Although one may not say that Alberti was the inventor of the two-movement

sonata scheme,10 his sonatas are cast in a considerably standardized frame, demonstrating

the hallmark of the two-movement Italian sonata style. William Newman summarizes that

All fourteen of the “complete” sonatas that are extant are in two movements. The keys are always the same in each pair of movements. In none of these or the other movements does Alberti exceed three sharps or flats, and only once does he use a minor key (Sonata. No. 4 in G minor). The paired movements usually balance in length, ranging from 40 to over 100 measures each in the different sonatas. Every first movement is in simple duple or quadruple meter, whereas 8 of the 14 second movements identifiable as such are in simple triple meter and three more are in compound duple or quadruple meter. Most of these second movements are dances, often in title (“Minuet” or “Giga”) and still more often in spirit. Furthermore, the tempo marks, inserted in most of the movements and ranging largely from moderate to fast, differ more often than not in pairs of movements. Thus, heard as cycles these sonatas ordinarily afford adequate contrast between movements.11

10 Newman remarks that both musicologists Fausto Torrefranca and Wilhelm Wörmann seem to give too much credit to Alberti for the establishment of the two-movement scheme. Unless some of his sonatas date from earlier than 1730, the two movement sonata design was anticipated by Durante and Paradisi. See William Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 180. 11 Ibid., 179-180.

９

In addition to those various contrasting elements characterizing the two movements,

Alberti’s individual sonata movements display some noticeable features. First, many of

them are in binary form with the second half section, in which opening material of the first

repeated section returns in tonic after modulatory passages, exemplified in the first

movements of Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 from the Op. 1. Despite the lack of clear thematic

contrasts, this structural scheme implies the ternary principle, preparing the way for the

modern sonata form.12

Also, Alberti’s sonatas feature some important stylistic aspects during the early

Classical era. Most of all, his peculiar pianistic texture focusing on the right-hand melody

line resulted in a prototype of the “singing allegro style,” characterized by stepwise

contours, restricted range, and frequent use of “singing” appoggiaturas.13 This melody-

dominated texture is even more reinforced by combining with the harmonic background of

repeated arpeggio patterns played by the left hand often referred to as the “Alberti bass,” as

shown in Example 1.

Example 1. Domenico Alberti: Sonata in B flat Major Op. 1 No. 4. 1st mov. mm. 24-26

12 Klaus Ferdinand Heimes, “The Ternary Sonata Principle before 1742,” Acta Musicologica, Vol. 45, (Jul.-Dec., 1973), 244. 13 Freeman, 240.

１０

To sum up, the significance of Domenico Alberti in the history of the keyboard

literature is twofold; he was the catalytic figure for the popularization of the two movement

Italian sonata style during the mid-eighteenth century, and, at the same time, he brilliantly

developed the new keyboard idioms, being “a prime landmark in the evolution of

Mozartean and even Beethovenian styles”.14

Francesco Durante (1864-1755)

The Neapolitan Francesco Durante’s extraordinary interests in instrumental music,

including concerto and sonata, differentiate him from other Neapolitan contemporaries who

were mostly fascinated with opera composition. His most important achievement in the

realm of keyboard music is the famous Sonate per Cembalo divise in Studii e Divertimenti,

dedicated to one of his harpsichord students, Giacomo Francesco Milano Franco d’Aragona,

and published between 1747 and 1749.15 In this set of six sonatas for harpsichord, each

sonata consists of two movements named “study” and “divertimento,” respectively, which

exemplifies the looser usage of the terminology of the “sonata” in the early developmental

stage of the genre. Generally, long studies (72 to 115 measures) in fugal texture are

contrasted with the following short divertimentos (22 to 38 measures) in lighter, lively style.

14 Ibid., 175.

15 Some scholars, including William Newman and Daniel Freeman, have been assumed that this set of six sonatas was published in Naples in 1732. This study, however, follows the opinion of Hanns-Bertold Dietz who argues that “they were published between January 1747 and December 1749, since the dedication refers to the Principe d’Ardore as ambassador to France (which he was between 1741 and 1749) and as Cavaliere di Santo Spirito (which he was named in January 1747).” See Hanns-Bertold Dietz, “Durante, Francesco,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 7. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 742.

１１

Each sonata faithfully follows the conventional element of the two movement

design by employing the same key in both movements. Noticeable is the fact that, in the

whole set, each sonata is contrasted to its adjacent one by alteration of major – minor mode

(g, D, c, A, f, B♭ ). Also, it is somewhat exceptional that, of twelve movements, only three

divertimentos (1, 2, and 6) are in binary cast “at this late date.”16

Most strikingly, these sonatas demonstrate the composer’s deep exploration of

keyboard virtuosity, which enables the expansion of the instrumental expressiveness. Rapid

hand crossing, extensive use of thirds and sixths, sudden registeral shifts, large number of

scales and arpeggios, and succession of trills (sometimes double trills by both hands)

characterize Durante’s sonatas, shown in Example 2.

Example 2. Francesco Durante: Sonata in B flat Major 2nd mov. (Divertimento) mm. 26-31

Furthermore, Durante’s sonatas exhibit his musical originality integrating the solid

contrapuntal techniques inherited from Palestrina’s style, based on his study in Rome, with

his own highly expressive modern style. Example 3 shows the composer’s effective use of

rich harmonic progressions, chromaticism, diminished chords, and rhythmic vigor,

16 Freeman, 241.

１２

demonstrating his style in which “the late Baroque anticipates the Classical, and

contrapuntal dexterity was tempered by a natural amenity.”17

Example 3. Francesco Durante: Sonata in G Minor 1st mov., (Study), Allegro, mm. 1-5

Pietro Domenico Paradisi (1707-91)

Neapolitan composer Paradisi wrote twelve keyboard sonatas published in 1754

during his expatriate period in London. The artistic achievement of these sonatas, all in a

two-movement structure, is significant enough to compensate for the composer’s series of

failures in opera writing in his earlier career. The works gained wide popularity, so much

that six editions were successively published in London and Paris during the composer’s

life time. Some of them, for instance the finale movement of the sixth sonata in A major

titled “Toccata,” are still highly esteemed today.

Paradisi’s sonatas bear several aspects displaying the conventional outline of the

two-movement sonata plan in his time. In general, the paired movements are not contrasted

in tempo, being either both fast (Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12) or both slow (Nos. 4 and 11).

Like in the works of Alberti, major mode is dominant in Paradisi’s sonatas, only five

17 Hanns-Bertold Dietz, “Durante, Francesco,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 7. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 742.

１３

movements of which are in minor keys, and three of these (sonata Nos. 4, 9, and 10) are

paired with the movements in parallel major. The binary design with two repeated sections

prevails except for the three finale movements of the sonata Nos. 3, 9, and 11, all of which

are in slow tempo with rondo form. Three of the sonata finales are gigues in the standard

compound meter (Nos. 2, 5, and 12), and one is a minuet (No. 4).

The most prominent feature of these sonatas that distinguish Paradisi from other

keyboard sonata composers of his time is his ingenious formal inventiveness. Despite some

controversies about Pardisi’s anticipation of the sonata form,18 it is undeniable that the

structural experiments in his sonatas are so progressive and substantial that, from them, one

can find some essential features of the sonata form principle in the high-Classic era.

Musicologist Donald C. Sanders remarks that

A more modern attitude views sonata form as a structural principle rather than a rigid mold. From such a standpoint this movement is both formally logical and musically satisfying. The composer can be considered to have moved past the essentials of sonata form and to have made the form relevant to the thematic material of the movement.19

Indeed, in light of the sonata form, Paradisi’s structural originality is effectively

demonstrated in each opening movement, especially in his treatment of the recapitulation

where the materials of the first half are reintroduced in diverse manners. In the sonata

No.12 in C Major, for example, the recapitulation (m. 67) begins with the second theme 18 Newman criticizes that in Paradisi’s first sonata movements contrasting ideas and real developmental procedure, including dissection, expansion and reorientation of ideas, in the later sense are hardly found. See Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 689-90.

19 Donald Clyde Sanders, The keyboard Sonatas of Giustini, Paradisi, and Rutini: Formanl and Stylistic Innovation in mid-Eighteenth Century Italian keyboard Music, (Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, 1983), 162.

１４

(mm. 8-12) in tonic minor, not with the first theme. In the recapitulation of the sonata No.3

in E major, the first theme returns in the tonic in measure 115, omitting only its first

segment (mm. 1-12). Finally, complete recapitulation of all materials of exposition appears

in sonatas Nos. 1 (m. 41), 7 (m. 105), 9 (m. 63), and 10 (m. 101).

Moreover, compared to his contemporaries, Paradisi is quite successful in creating

thematic differentiation, which is evident in the opening movements of the sonatas Nos. 2,

7, 8, 10, and 12. In these movements, two contrasting themes are effectively introduced in

his unique harmonic language, including frequent use of minor dominant and colorful

passages of diminished chords. This can be found in the D-major sonata, one of the finest

examples, as shown below.

Example 4. Paradisi: Sonata No 10 in D major

a. 1st Mov., vivace, 2nd theme, mm.17-22

b. 1st Mov., vivace, mm. 73-76

１５

In addition to the formal sophistication, the melodic expressiveness characterizes

Paradisi’s sonata writing, reflecting his Neapolitan operatic background. This is revealed

particularly in slow movements, such as the second movements of the sonatas Nos. 3 and 8.

Here we can find a rich harmonic progression supported by an ascending chromatic bass

line recalling the Italian aria (Ex. 5a), and a long lyrical stepwise melodic motion in four-

part writing (Ex. 5b), both demonstrating the instrumental assimilation of vocally

conceived ideas. Paradisi’s keyboard sonata writing captures such lyricism influenced by

late Baroque opera style, which is to be continued later in the works of Johann C. Bach and

Wolfgang A. Mozart.20

Ex. 5a. Paradisi: Sonata No. 3 in E Major, 2nd Mov., Aria, mm. 13-16

Ex. 5b. Paradisi: Sonata no. 8 in E Major, 2nd Mov., Andante, mm. 1-8

20 Rupert Mayr and Karin Heuschneider, The piano Sonata of the Eighteenth Century in Italy, Contribution to the Development of the Piano Sonata, vol. 1 (Amsterdam, 1967), 41.

１６

Baldassare Galuppi (1706-85)

The historical position of Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi, remembered

chiefly for his contribution to the genre of opera buffa, is significant in the development of

the keyboard sonata of the mid-eighteenth century, primarily due to his prolific outputs next

to those of Domenico Scarlatti. The whole body of Galuppi’s keyboard sonatas is still not

clarified, but as a result of the studies of several scholars of the twentieth century, including

Fausto Torrefranca, Van den Borren, Felix Raabe, and Hedda Illy, the knowledge of his

keyboard music has continuously expanded; the latest catalogue, which lists one hundred

twenty-five sonatas, was compiled by David Pullman in 1972.21 Even after Pullman‘s list,

some newly discovered sonatas22 have been added, making the total about one hundred

thirty sonatas.

Although the chronology of Galuppi’s sonatas has been a controversial issue, which

resulted from the large number of works extant in undated manuscripts, most scholars,

including Torrenfranca, Rabbe, Daniel Freeman, and Dale Monson, believe that they were

written around or before 1750,23 inferring that from their stylistic features.

Unlike the above-mentioned three composers, in writing keyboard sonatas Galuppi

did not confine himself to the two-movement structure, employing various cyclic outlines

from one to five movements. Moreover, a recent study on the Galuppi sources reveals the

21 Graziella Di Mauro, A Stylistic Analysis of Selected Keyboard Sonatas by Baldassare Galuppi,

(Ph.D. Diss. University of Miami, 1989), 13. 22 Dale Monson, “Galuppi, Baldassare,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,

edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 9. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 486. 23 Newman is one of scholars who do not agree to this view, concluding that most of Galuppi’s

sonatas were written between 1755 and 1785. See Newman, The Sonata in the Classical Era, 191.

１７

surprising “preponderance of the single-movement sonatas.”24 Nevertheless, the

considerable number of Galuppi’s two-movement sonatas shows his unique treatment of

the structure, forming a group that is one step close to structural sophistication.

First of all, relatively frequent use of minor modes, particularly C minor and D

minor, is in contrast with the sonatas of Alberti and Paradisi, demonstrating Galuppi’s

musical individuality focusing on musical expressiveness. Furthermore, more obvious

temporal differentiation between two movements plays an important role in enhancing

dramatic effects in Galuppi’s sonatas, in which slow (Andante, Adagio, or Largo)

movements usually precede fast ones.

Along with the tempo, the stylistic distinction endows both movements with the

clear musical characters, evident in the sonata in C major in which the French overture style

of the first movement is combined with the second one with Scarlattian virtuosity.

Most significantly, Galuppi creates musical unity between the two movements by

using the same material for their opening motives. The idea of unifying the whole work

through the head motive is not a totally new phenomenon in music history, going back to

the Renaissance mass cycle. Yet one can find an early model applying this unifying method

to the genre of keyboard sonatas in Galuppi’s works, exemplified in his sonatas Op.1 No. 3

in A minor, Op.1 No. 6 in A-flat major, and Op. 2 No. 2 in D minor, all of which were

published by John Walsh in London in the 1750s. Each opening section shown in Ex. 6

reveals his fine technique of extracting two different moods from a single idea.

24 Freeman, 250.

１８

Ex. 6.1. Baldassare Galuppi: Sonata Op. 1 No. 1 in A minor

a.1st mov., Largo, mm.1-4

b. 2nd mov., Allegro, mm. 1-3

Ex. 6.2. Baldassare Galuppi: Sonata Op. 1 No. 2 in A-flat major

a. 1st mov., Andantino, mm.1-4

b. 2nd mov., Allegro assai, mm. 1-2

１９

Ex. 6.3 Baldassare Galuppi: Sonata Op. 2 No. 2 in D minor

a. 1st mov., Allegro, mm.1-4

b. 2nd mov., (Giga) mm. 1-4

Despite some critical views about his sonatas,25 Galuppi’s contribution to the

development of the two-movement keyboard sonata is undeniable, in that he explored the

closer relationship between both movements, expanding its structural possibility.

Giovanni Marco Rutini (1723-97)

Rutini’s international fame in most of the European musical centers particularly

resulted from his fine keyboard sonatas, produced during almost forty years from 1748

when his first three sets of cembalo sonatas were written. He wrote eighty-two sonatas,

seventeen (Opp. 10, 11, 14, plus two more sonatas) of which are accompanied sonatas.

25 Donald Sanders points out the weak tonal sense, monotonous and unimaginative accompanying

lines, and perfunctory developmental sections, whereas Daniel Freeman criticizes the lack of clear thematic function and thematic creativity in Galuppi’s sonatas, See Sanders, 73; Freeman, 250-52.

２０

Except for five additional sonatas from Raccolta musicale, all solo sonatas were published

in sets of six, from Op. 1 to Op. 13, in Nuremberg, Bologna, or in Florence.

Rutini’s sonatas in the two-movement structure occupy about half of his whole

composition, and a large number of them tend to appear in his later opuses. The Opp. 7 and

8, for example, are exclusively composed of works in two-movement design of typical

Italian sonata style, in which a fast-fast or fast-moderate plan is displayed. This is primarily

due to his intentional stylistic adjustment focusing on accessibility for amateur musicians,

which took place in the later part of his life. In the preface of Op.7, published in 1770 and

dedicated to “Signori dilettanti di cembalo,” he notes that he has tried to make those

sonatas natural, avoiding technical difficulties, so that a little lady of ten years could play

them.26

The suitability of keyboard sonatas in a two-movement scheme for pedagogic or

dilettante use is quite understandable because of their short length and relatively narrower

emotional range resulting from the frequent absence of extreme temporal contrasts between

movements. Moreover, the composer’s comments on the technical lightness of those

sonatas might give the impression that they are artistically inferior to his sonatas with three

or four movements.

Nevertheless, one may not underestimate the musical accomplishment of Rutini’s

two-movement sonatas. In fact, the artistic value of Rutini’s two-movement sonatas from

his whole sonata compositions, which are commonly categorized into two groups, one more

26 Newman, The Sonata in the Classical Era, 214.

２１

“inventive,”27 from Op.1 through Op. 6, and the other “less adventurous,” from Op.7

through Op.14, by scholars including Daniel Freeman, Donald C. Sanders, Giorgio Pestelli,

and Robert L. Weaver,28 are comparable to that of his other sonatas in three- or four-

movement design. In other words, to this composer the number of movements seems not to

be critical in realizing his musical ideas.

First of all, it is interesting that, instead of using the opposite modes in two

movements, a conventional method for contrast between the movements, Rutini inserts a

quite long section in tonic minor either at the end of the opening movement (Op. 1 No. 3 in

C major) or in the beginning of the second one (Op. 2 No. 4 in A major), creating a sense of

tension and release in a larger tonal scope.

More importantly, in Rutini the movements titled “minuet” or “rondo” are

significantly treated, being in clearer stylistic contrast with the opening movements in

either binary or sonata form. Donald Sanders gives special attention to Rutini’s inventive

use of the sonata-rondo form, which was surprisingly progressive for his time. Taking the

minuet finale of the two-movement sonata Op.2, No 6 in G major as an example of Rutini’s

innovative formal concept, he says that,

…This movement is in a Classic seven-part sonata-rondo form in which the middle section (mm. 45-60), primarily in the relative minor key, is developmental. The final repetition of principal material occurs in a coda which begins in the tonic minor, but quickly shifts to the major mode. This movement clearly illustrates Rutini’s imaginative treatment of the minuet.29

27 Sanders, 178. 28 Freeman subdivides this categorizing into the three groups, separating the first group of opp.1 and

2, “a sample of the indeterminate motivic writing,” from the second one of opp. 3, 5, and 6. See Freeman, 209. 29 Sanders, 202.

２２

Certainly, Rutini’s use of the sonata-rondo form in this finale movement is

significant as a fine example showing the structural evolution of the sonata form, which has

taken place at the mid-eighteenth century. Sanders asserts in his later article that both tonal

and developmental aspects of Rutini’s sonata-rondo form were probably modeled by

Mozart who adopted them for the finale of his piano sonata K. 281 composed in 1774-75.30

This was, moreover, also a meaningful process in that it laid the groundwork for a

more balanced two-movement sonata structure in the high-Classic era, in which the second

movement gains more structural weight, even as much as its musical content surpasses that

of the opening one, typified in Beethoven’s Opp. 90 and 111.

Rutini’s structural concern for two-movement sonatas continues in his later sets,

generally regarded less adventurous both technically and expressively. In spite of their

simplicity, musical substances are enriched by his more frequent use of a rondo finale and

short, but insightful preludes, along with his natural, elegant melodic treatment.

In dealing with the rondo finale, usually in five-parts, he creates contrasting tonal

colors by employing tonic minors for the episode just before returning to the last ritornello

section (Op. 8 Nos. 1 and 3, Op. 9 Nos. 2 and 3). On the other hand, a somewhat trite mood

of opening movements from Opp. 7 and 9 are flavored by carefully designed brief preludes,

not exceeding six measures. Sometimes those preludes present subtle thematic hints for the

rest of the work. In example 7, one can find that characteristic dotted rhythm and three-note

stepwise motivic motion are foreshadowed in the prelude of the sonata Op.9 No.2. This

30 Sanders, Early Italian Prototype of the Classic Sonata-Rondo Form, The Music Review, vol. 53,

no.3, (Aug. 1992), 179-190.

２３

technique is to be used later in a more convincing way in Beethoven’s F-sharp sonata Op. 78.

Ex. 7. Giovanni Marco Rutini: Sonata Op. 9 No. 2 in A major

a. prelude

b. 1st mov., Andante, mm.1-2

c. 2nd mov., Grazioso, mm.1-2

Therefore, two-movement sonatas of Rutini demonstrate how his formal

refinement paves the way for the structural solidity in which both movements stand on an

equal footing, holding their aesthetical peculiarity. This musical balance between two

movements is to be more elevated by Joseph Haydn, whose early piano sonatas betray the

“stylistic inheritance” from Rutini.31

31 Giorgio Pestelli and Weaver, Robert Lamar, “Rutini, Giovanno Marco,” in The New Grove

Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 22. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 40.

２４

B. Scarlatti’s keyboard sonatas and pair theory

In observing the early development of the two-movement sonata plan, one can find

an interesting, but controversial issue concerning keyboard sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti

(1685-1757), who was active in both Portugal and Spain as the most distinguished Italian

keyboard composer of the period. In his more than 550 keyboard sonatas, Scarlatti

demonstrates deep exploration of the keyboard techniques as well as unique formal features.

The most significant study on Scarlatti’s life and music in the twentieth century was

accomplished by Ralph Kirkpatrick (1911-84), an American harpsichordist and

musicologist. In 1953, in his extensive study “Domenico Scarlatti,” Kirkpatrick

investigated general musical aspects of Scarlatti’s keyboard sonatas, creating a complete

catalogue with ‘K.’ numbering system. Furthermore, he brought up a fresh scope through

which one can reconsider their arrangement. Noticing the fact that in two important sources

of Scarlatti’s keyboard sonatas, the Venice and Parma manuscripts, many are grouped on

the same tonic, he concluded that of 555 sonatas at least 388 are intended to be grouped in

pairs, and 12 are in triptychs.32 His belief in the validity of pairwise arrangement of most of

Scarlatti’s sonatas is reflected in his affirmation that “the real meaning of many a Scarlatti

sonata becomes much clearer once it is reassociated with its mate.”33

The criteria of pairing taken by Kirkpatrick are not much different from the

customary outline for most other two-movement sonatas of the time. The two movements

are in the same key, with an occasional paring of the opposite mode. Many of them show

32 Ralph Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 143. 33 Ibid.

２５

the combination of the first movement in duple and the second in triple. In terms of the

relationship between the paired sonatas, some sonatas display overall unity, others are quite

different in mood, which Kirkpatrick called “complementary pairs” and “contrasting pairs,”

respectively. Therefore, Kirkpatrick’s theory is in accord with the general features of two-

movement keyboard sonatas in the pre-classic era. As he mentioned, “it should be

remembered that the coupling of two movements was a common practice in the keyboard

sonatas of Scarlatti’s Italian contemporaries – Alberti, Durante, and Paradies, for

example.”34

The pairwise arrangement proposed by Kirkpatrick has been a controversial issue

among many scholars during the second half of the twentieth century. Although the theory

has received strong or tacit support by several scholars, such as Richard Crocker, William

Newman, Donald Sanders, Roberto Pagano, Howard Schott and Frederick Hammond,35

Kirkpatrick’s paring has often been criticized for its somewhat unreasonable attempt to

apply the pair principle to almost the whole body of Scarlatti’s sonatas.

David D. Boyden raises a question about the insufficient musical relationships

between the pairs,36 while Lionel Salter points out the paring’s ineffectiveness on the

34 Ibid., 141 35 Richard L. Crocker, A History of Musical Style (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 349; William

Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 267; Donald C. Sanders, 104; Roberto Pagano, “Scarlatti, Domenico,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol.22. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 402; Howard Schott, review of Scarlatti, by Emilia Fadini, The Musical Times 129, no 1748 (October, 1988), 539; Frederick Hammond, “Domenico Scarlatti,” in Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed. Robert L. Marshall (New York: Schirmer Books, 1994), 179.

36 David D. Boyden, review of Scarlatti: Sixty Sonatas in Two Volumes, ed. by Ralph Kirkpatrick, The Musical Quarterly 40, no. 2 (April 1954): 262.

２６

performance stage.37 More scholarly examination was undertaken by Joel L. Sheveloff

who pays attention to the documentary weakness of Kirkpatrick’s theory. In 1970, in his

doctoral dissertation,38 Sheveloff pointed out that the pairings are not consistently the

same among the various sources, exemplified in the fact that the K. 119 (D major), paired

with K. 118 in the same key in Venezia 1749, is paired with K. 120 (D minor) in the later

Parma copies. Also, some pairings such as K. 160-161 (both in D major) and K. 167-168

(both in F major), in which the order of the pair is reversed in the later copies, provide one

of the important evidences strengthening his skeptical view toward Kirkpatrick’s theory.

For this reason, Sheveloff criticizes that, in spite of the lack of a convincing way of

winnowing “true” pairs, Kirkpatrick is “unwarrantedly optimistic on this point,” suggesting

that the pairing was probably “the later processes in many cases than the composition.”39

Furthermore, he insists that the grouping of Scarlartti’s sonatas should be left to the

performer’s discretion, except for the case of clear evidences indicating particular pairing,

for instance, K. 347 and 348, or K. 526 and 527, as he remarked that

Though we must accept the pairing principle, for the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, in the case in which the grouping is uncertain, the editor of any future Gesamtausgabe ought to indicate the various possibilities so that the performer can experiment and choose any he may prefer.40

The criticism currently suggested by W. Dean Sutcliffe, the lecturer at the

University of Cambridge, goes further: he asserts that Kirkpatrick’s pair theory is now a 37 Lionel Salter, “In Search of Scarlatti,” The Concsort, no.41 (1985), 48.

38 Joel L. Sheveloff, The Keyboard Music of Domenico Scarlatti: A Re-Evaluation of the Present State of Knowledge in the Light of the Sources, (Ph.D. Diss., Brandeis University, 1970).

39 Ibid., 316. 40 Ibid., 319

２７

“dead issue, both from a documentary and aesthetic point of view.”41 Comparing two

primary sources of Venice and Parma manuscripts with several later sources, including the

Turin, Madrid, Cambridge, Vienna, and Lisbon manuscripts, Sutcliffe confirms that

occasional documentary disparities among them provide “damning evidence about the

status of particular pairs in the primary sources.”42

Moreover, he unyieldingly insists on the aesthetic vulnerability of Kirkpatrick’s

pair theory. Taking Scarlatti’s two early sonatas, K. 73 and K. 83, both originally written in

a two-movement structure in which the first ‘main’ movement is followed by Minuet

movement, as clear examples showing the composer’s great capability of vital connections

in a multi-movement works, Sutcliffe notes that

From the viewpoint of such works as these, would so self-conscious a composer as Scarlatti not have calibrated his pairs more precisely if they were really conceived as such? Even on the rhetorical level, there is rarely any sense of necessary connection. … So many sonatas appear to trace an entirely self-sufficient progression of ideas that they demand no continuation.43

Sutcliffe has a negative view toward particular pairing, even when he investigates

several pairs, such as K. 246-247 (C-sharp minor), K. 318-319 (F-sharp major), and K. 495-

496 (E major), in which both sonatas apparently share considerable musical associations.

This results partly from his view that these pairs lack an intrinsic relationship between two

41 W. Dean Sutcliffe, The Keyboard Sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003), 367. 42 Ibid., 369. 43 Ibid., 372-73.

２８

complementary sonatas, the so-called “rhetorical coherence,”44 an essential element

creating a strong musical bond in multi-movement structure.

The ongoing tension between two opposite views on the pair theory is reflected not

only in the scholastic sphere, but also in today’s performance practice, which is most

clearly shown in the great number of recordings of Scarlatti’s sonatas by many keyboardists.

In arranging the order of sonatas, recordings of some harpsichordists, such as Virginia

Black and Trevor Pinnock45, quite faithfully reflect Kirkpatrick’s view, while others are

free from it, as seen in Vladimir Horowitz’s album,46 containing Scarlatti’s eighteen

sonatas, each standing as an independent work; he even eschews the adjacency of sonatas

in the same tonic.

In general, Kirkpatrick’s pairwise arrangement is considered one of persuasive

possibilities based on scholastic investigation, rather than an authentic way of approaching

Scarlatti’s sonatas. This tendency is clearly found among many performers. Except for

some complete Scarlatti sonata recordings strictly following the Kirkpatrick’s catalogue,47

a majority of pianists including Maria Tipo, Ivo Pogorelich, Mikhail Pletnev, and Christian

Zacharias,48 either rearrange the combinations of pairing according to their own musical

44 Ibid., 369. 45 Domenico Scarlatti, Domenico Scarlatti: Sonatas for Harpsichord, Virginia Black, CRD 3442,

CD; Scarlatti Sonatas, Trevor Pinnock, DG Archiv 4776736, CD. 46 Domenico Scarlatti, The Complete Masterworks Recordings Volume. 2 - The Celebrated Scarlatti

Recordings, Vladimir Horowitz, Sony Classical SK 53460, CD. It is said that Horowitz deeply devoted to research on the ‘correct’ performing style for Scarlatti, consulting with Ralph Kirkpatrick. Nevertheless, the recording noticeably does not present any pairwise arrangement proposed by Kirkpatrick.

47 The keyboardists who recorded the complete Scarlatti sonata include Scott Ross (Warner Classics compact disc 2564 62092-2), Jan Belder (Brilliant Classics compact disc 93546), and Richard Lester (Nimbus compact disc IN 1730)

48 Domenico Scarlatti, Domenico Scarlatti: Keyboard Sonatas, Maria Tipo, EMI Classics 5069392, CD; Domenico Scarlatti: Sonaten, Ivo Pogorelich, Deutsche Grammophon DG 4358552, CD; Domenico

２９

ideas for their recordings, or treat each sonata as an individual work as Horowitz does. This

situation becomes even more obvious in actual performances on stage, in which the number

of Scarlattian works is usually limited to five or six at the most.

Nevertheless, in dealing with the development of the two-movement sonata structure,

Kirkpatrick’s scholastic achievement is quite substantial. First of all, he provided a new

structural and aesthetic interpretation of the sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti, the most

original and prolific composer of keyboard sonatas of his time. Also, the prosperity of the

two-movement structure in the pre-classic era is corroborated regardless of the genuineness

of specific pairs suggested by Kirkpatrick, since one can grasp the considerable popularity

of the two-movement structure at that time through the primary sources in which most

sonatas published after 1749 are intentionally paired whether by composer or by scribe.

Furthermore, the documental disparities among diverse sources serve as an apt example of

the flexible structural aspect of the two-movement sonata at this developmental stage, in

that one movement does not exist as an indispensable counterpart to the other.

Scarlatti Sonatas, Mikhail Pletnev, Virgin Classics 5619612, CD; Scarlatti Sonatas, Christian Zacharias, MDG 3401162, CD.

３０

2

Johann Christian Bach and Other Composers, to 1785

Having been explored by a generation of Italian composers, the structural

capacities of the two-movement sonata continued to be expanded by several composers

with diverse nationalities. Maintaining the essential features of the structure, such as tonal

unity, contrasts in mood and meter, preference of binary scheme, and frequent use of

minuet movement as the finale, two-movement sonatas produced from around 1750 to 1785

present not only each composer’s musical individuality, but also the general characteristics

anticipating the mature musical style of the classical era. In other words, they indicate

important high-classical stylistic elements, including regular phrasing, harmonic polarity

resulting from tonic-dominant relationships, thematic concentration, and formal refinement

toward sonata form, which is prominently exemplified in the works of Johann Christian

Bach (1735-82), famous for his strong musical influences on W. A. Mozart.

Before paying attention to J. C. Bach, however, one needs to survey several other

composers who wrote substantial keyboard sonatas in two movements during this period.

Portugal and Spain would be the most proper countries to discuss first, in that on their

fertile musical grounds the two-movement structure was wholeheartedly cultivated by three

chief Iberian keyboard composers – Carlos de Seixas, Antonio Soler, and Manuel Blasco de

Nebra – all of whom have noticeable stylistic associations with Domenico Scarlatti.

３１

Carlos de Seixas (1704-42)49

As a distinctive Portuguese composer Carlos de Seixas, who served as an organist

and harpsichordist for the royal chapel at the court, left more than 150 keyboard works,

which exist only in hand-written copies. Of his “88 survived sonatas”50 and around 60

separate minuets, Seixas’s two-movement sonatas occupy more than half of his whole

sonata compositions, and they adhere to the conventional outline in which an allegro

movement is followed by a minuet.51

In spite of his professional association with Domenico Scarlatti, which lasted

almost ten years between 1720 and 1729, and actual stylistic similarities between them,

most scholars acknowledge Siexas’s own musical individuality differentiating him from his

Italian senior. Retaining some Baroque principles, such as modulating sequences, binary

design, irregular phrasing, and thematic development, at the same time, his music reflects

his openness to the new musical trend characterized by Alberti bass, drum bass, and simple

two-part texture.52 Seixas’s musical originality is, however, obviously shown in his strong

favor of minor modes, which occupy more than half of his whole sonata compositions, and

his writing style of the slow movements pervaded with rich chromaticism, rests, and long

melodic lines, foreshadowing the ‘Emphindsam’ style.53

49 Despite the earliness of Seixas’s birth date, which precedes most of ‘Italian pioneers,’ he is treated at

this point to emphasize his association with Scarlatti and to categorize him with the other two Iberian composers. 50 Heimes F Klaus, “Seixas, Carlos de,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,

edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 23, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 53. 51 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 273-74. 52 Macario Santiago Kastner, foreword to Carlos Seixas: 25 Sonatas para instrumentos de tecla,

Carlos Seixas (Lisbon: Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1980), 16-17. 53 Brian Jerome Allison, Carlos Seixas: The Development of the Keyboard Sonata in Eighteenth-

Century Portugal, (DMA diss., North Texas State University, 1982), 7.

３２

Although in Seixas’s two-movement sonatas the same binary-designed movements

are occasionally paired with different following minuets in various sources,54 generally, his

intention of combining two movements into a sonata cycle is clearly demonstrated in the

“related mottos of movements as well as indications of ‘segue’ between movements.”55

Example 8 shows some of his stylistic aspects, including simple texture and highly

expressive quality, and the motivic association between movements.

Example 8. Carlos de Seixas: Sonata No. 8 in C Minor

a. 1st Mov., Allegro, mm. 1-4

b. 2nd Mov., MinuetⅠ, mm. 1-4

c. 2nd Mov., MinuetⅡ, mm. 1-4

54 Kastner assumes that this happens when “two movements are not connected by a clear common

motive or theme.” See Kastner, 15. 55 Allison, 16.

３３

Antonio Soler (1729-83)

In contrast to that of Seixas, the chief Spanish keyboard composer, Antonio Soler’s

personal relationship with Scarlatti was formed toward the end of the old Italian master’s

life during Soler’s first five years as organist and choirmaster at the Escorial monastery.

Although the autographs have not been found, and their chronology is unknown, his

keyboard sonatas total around 120. As in the case of both Scarlatti and Seixas, many

parings of Soler’s sonata movements are obscure, since all of around 160 movements exist

only in “later collections assembled by copyists,”56 being sometimes listed by separate

movements and sometimes grouped together in two to five movements under a single title.

In spite of such obscurity, it is believed that many of Soler’s sonatas are intended to

be paired according to the Spanish musical trend of that time. In his preface to the selection

of Soler’s sonatas, Kenneth Gilbert remarks that

Of the 27 sonatas (published by Robert Birchell of London in 1772, the only printed volume during the eighteenth century), 20 appear to have been arranged in pairs, and these include the possibility of two triptychs.57

W. S. Newman also points out the great predominance of the two-movement structure in

Soler’s whole sonata compositions, saying that

56 Almarie Dieckow, “A Stylistic Analysis of The Solo Keyboard Sonatas of Antonio Soler,” (Phd.

Diss., Washington University, 1971), 10. 57 Kenneth Gilbert, foreword to Antonio Soler: 14 Sonatas from the Fitzwilliam Collection, Antonio

Soler (London: Faber Musical Ltd., 1987), 6.

３４

… About a fifth of the groups, in two to four movements, come under single titles, leaving no doubts as to the groupings; and at least half of the remaining sonatas are paired.58

In fact, some of Soler’s two-movement sonatas show related thematic materials

between the ending section of the first movement and the opening of the second one (No.

79, Ex. 9) or his clear intention of paring movements by using similar incipits (Nos. 10 and

11, Ex. 10). Particularly, taking the former as an example, Klaus Heimes, a specialist of

Spanish music, emphasizes that such interconnection between the two movements presents

“an evolutionary step toward the later multi-movements sonatas.”59

Example 9a. Antonio Soler: Sonata No. 79 in F-sharp Major, Cantabile, mm. last four bars

Example 9b. Antonio Soler: Sonata No. 79 in F-sharp minor, Allegro, mm. 1-4

58 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 281-82. 59 Klaus F. Heimes, Antonio Soler’s Keyboard Sonatas, (MM diss., University of South Africa,

1965), 27.

３５

Example 10. Antonio Soler: Sonata No. 10 in B Minor, Allegro, mm. 1-3; No. 11 in B Major, Andantino, mm. 1-2

Generally, Soler’s sonatas show binary design and virtuoso elements, such as

extensive use of broken chords, large leaps, repetitions, and hand-crossing, as Scarlatti’s

music does. However, his harmonic language is considered more daring, which resulted

from “modulation into distant keys, flexible and rapid harmonic sequences, or from the

simple juxtaposition of different tonalities,”60 and his phrase grouping tends to be more

symmetrically structured than Scarlatti’s.61

Manuel Blasco de Nebra (1750-84)

Little is known about Manuel Blasco de Nebra, except that he was a nephew and

pupil of Spanish composer Jose de Nebra (1702-68) and served as an organist at Seville

Cathedral until his death. As a prominent keyboard performer, he wrote around 170

compositions, of which six Pastorelas and 24 sonatas have survived.62 The latter includes

the Seis sonatas para clave y fuerte-piano Op. 1 published in Madrid in 1780, twelve

60 Lorenzo Bianconi, Program Notes to Iberian Followers of Domenico Scarlatti, Luciano Sgrizzi,

Stereo MHS 1051, 1972, LP. 61 Frederick Marvin, “Soler, Antonio,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,

edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 23, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 633. 62 Jose Lopez-Calo, “Blasco de Nebra, Manuel,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and

Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 3, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 690.

３６

sonatas found in the monastery of Montserrat and published by Bengt Johnson in 1980, and

the other set of six sonatas published in Madrid in 1987.

Unlike in Scarlatti, Seixas, and Soler, the two-movement structure of Nebra’s

sonatas is clearly shown in well-documented sources in which no documentary vagueness

is found. With few exceptions, most sonatas of Nebra faithfully follow the conventional

two-movement design with the slow-fast outline. Whereas Op.1, containing six two-

movement sonatas, presents “no thematic relationship between incipits of the paired

movements,”63 the later discovered manuscripts reflect Nebra’s clear idea of linking the

two movements. In sonata no.1 from Johnson’s publication, for instance, the long,

expressive opening material of the first movement reappears in the following movement,

now in the jaunty character with the short-breathed melody line. Also, the openings of both

movements are introduced by a single voice played by the right hand (Ex. 11).

The Sonata No. 5 in D Minor from the same volume is particularly noteworthy, in

that the opening theme of the finale movement is not from the first movement’s initial

motive, but from its second theme in almost intact form (Ex. 12). Even more strikingly, the

two movements of Sonata No. 8 are in different keys (C major and E-flat major) and in the

same meter (both in 4/4), breaking the traditional scheme of the two-movement structure,

which might imply that they are not intended to be paired.64 Yet, their close rhythmic and

melodic similarities imply his independent experimental approach to the structure (Ex. 13).

63 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 307. 64 Alexander Sibinger, review of 6 Pastorelas y 12 Sonatas para Fuerto Piano: Ms. 2998 Arxiu de

Montserrat by Manuel Blasco de Nebra, by Bengt Johnson, Notes, 2nd Ser., Vol. 42, No.4 (Jun., 1986): 852-53.

３７

Example 11. Manuel Blasco de Nebra: Sonata No. 1 in A Major, from 6 Pastorelas y 12 Sonatas

a. 1st Mov., Adagio, mm.1-3

b. 2nd Mov., Allegro, mm. 1-4

Example 12. Manuel Blasco de Nebra: Sonata No. 5 in D Minor, from 6 Pastorelas y 12 Sonatas

a. 1st Mov., Adagio, mm.6-8

b. 2nd Mov., Allegro, mm.1-3

Example 13. Manuel Blasco de Nebra: Sonata No. 8 from 6 Pastorelas y 12 Sonatas

a. 1st Mov., Andante in C Major, mm.1-2 b. 1st Mov., Andante in C Major, mm. 23-24

３８

c (continued). 2nd Mov., Allegro Moderato in E-flat Major, mm.1-3

Sharing some folk elements, such as passages recalling guitar techniques and

Spanish dance rhythm, with Scarlatti, Seixas and Soler, Nebra’s musical style is generally

contrasted with his Iberian predecessors by his sharp harmonic dissonances involving 7ths

and 9ths, frequent use of appoggiaturas, abrupt textural and registral changes, complicated

voice leading, and more regularized formal aspects, all of which contribute to his music

being more original and “youthful.”65

Carlo Antonio Campioni (1720-88) / Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi (1728-1804)

In addition to the above-mentioned four Iberian composers, two Italian composers

are important for the literature of the two-movement sonata of this period. French born

composer and violinist Carlo A. Campioni, who spent his last 25 years as a maestro di

cappella in Florence, wrote around 60 chamber sonatas and a set of six harpsichord sonatas.

While he chose the three-movement plan for the former, all of his six solo sonatas

published in 1763 in London, the sixth of which adds a violin obbligato, are in two-

movement design with the first allegro movement followed by a gigue or minuet.

In his The Sonata of the Classic Era, Newman highlights virtuoso aspects of

65 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 306-10,

３９

Campioni’s solo sonatas. As “the Liszt of his day,”66 his six sonatas are full of brilliant

keyboard techniques, including large leaps, rapid alteration of the hands, elaborated

arpeggio passages, hand-crossing, and repeated notes played by both hands.67

On the other hand, Neapolitan Pietro A. Guglielmi, chiefly remembered for his

contribution to the development of the genre of opera, especially of the opera buffa, left a

set of six sonatas, all of which are in two movements. Compared to Campioni, he favored

minuet or rondo as the finale movement following the fast first one.68 Published as Op. 3 in

1772, these sonatas reflect the composer’s strong inclination to the characteristics of the

opera buffa, such as light and uncomplicated texture and frequent repetition of thematic

materials.69

Due to his musical style largely conceived in operatic ideas, Guglielmi’s keyboard

sonatas reveal some weaknesses. Newman points out their lack of melodic distinction and

developmental interest, in spite of his idiomatic keyboard writing including indications of

dynamic contrast,70 quoting Charles Burney’s judgment that they “are full of froth and

common passages and have little other merit than appearing difficult, though of easy

execution.”71 Nevertheless, these sonatas are significant, in that they are fruits of his

London period from 1767 to 1772, when he acquired a brilliant career as a music director

66 Ibid., 234. 67 Ibid., 233-34.

68 James L. Jackson, Kay Lipton, and Mary Hunter, “Guglielmi: (2) Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 10, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 512. 69 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 726-27. 70 Ibid., 727. 71 Charles Burney, “A General History of Music,” vol. 2 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935): 874, quoted in Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 727.

４０

of the King’s Theatre, having a close relationship with one of his colleagues and the leading

figures of his time, Johann Christian Bach.

Johann Christian Bach (1735-82)

The unique feature of the two-movement keyboard sonata design, which had

flourished on the musical soil of Italian tradition, appeared in the works of J. C. Bach in

highly mature style anticipating Haydn, Mozart, and even Beethoven. His sonatas

demonstrate some quintessential aspects of the high Classic era, such as the subtle

treatment of phrase syntax, more sophisticated harmonic progression including well-

prepared modulation, and above all, a sense of thematic function in more expanded

structural scope.72

As Freeman notices, it is “ironical” that the style of Italian keyboard composition,

in which the two-movement sonata form stands at the center, was culminated “at the hand

of the German-born J. C. Bach.”73 Considering his musical background, however, one can

be convinced of this result. Born as the last survived, and evidently a favorite son of Johann

Sebastian Bach, his early music training was supervised by his father, whose second

volume of the Well-tempered Clavier was probably used as an instructional manual for J. C.

Bach.74 After his father’s death in 1750, he studied with C. P. E. Bach, his half-brother

who was nineteen years his senior, in Leipzig.

72 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 711-14; 53-54; Freeman, 261. 73 Freeman, 257. 74 Stephen Roe, “BachⅢ: (12) Johann Christian Bach,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 2, (London: Macmillan, 1980), 413.

４１

J. C. Bach’s music underwent decisive stylistic changes in 1755, when he left for

Italy and studied with Padre Martini (1706-84), assimilating the traditional Palestrina style,

and, at the same time, being influenced by Italian opera seria. This influences widened his

musical vocabulary, giving his music more light and smooth qualities.

His strong association with the Italian style music continued in his London period

starting in 1762. The musical life of London in the eighteenth century had been dominated

by many leading composers from other countries. In particular, Italian musical influence on

England was noticeable in the domain of keyboard music, to say nothing of opera, proven

by the fact that the music of the previously-mentioned keyboard composers including

Alberti, Paradisie, Galuppi, and Rutini were widely popular in this country. In this

circumstance, J. C. Bach’s infatuation with two-movement sonatas seems natural, even

inevitable, as Freeman remarks that

Before his arrival in England, all of J. C. Bach’s multi-movement keyboard works followed three-movement formats based on German keyboard traditions or the Italian sinfonia. Yet, as soon as he needed to market works in England, Bach wholeheartedly adopted the Albertian two-movement patterns in all of these genres, most consistently of all in the accompanied sonatas.75

J. C. Bach’s solo keyboard sonatas comprise a sonata in A minor, two sonatas in B

flat major and A flat major, all of which were written in his early days, and most

importantly, two sets of six sonatas Op. 5 and Op. 17, both specifically written for

pianoforte and published in London in 1766 and 1779, respectively. Of the twelve sonatas

75 Freeman, 259.

４２

from these two sets, seven (Op. 5 Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and Op. 17 Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5) are in the

two-movement plan, all of which are, characteristically, in major keys. With a single

exception (Op. 5 No. 3), the two-movement sonatas are contrasted by the first movement

being in duple or quadruple meter followed by the second in triple meter.

In contrast to Galuppi and three above-mentioned Iberian composers, J. C. Bach’s

strategy of two-movement scheme does not lie in the unification through the same initial

motives for both movements, nor in dramatic temporal contrasts between movements.

Rather, one can see that Paradisi’s formal refinement and Rutini’s sense of balance between

both movements are inherited by J. C. Bach, whose works display more solid structural

stability.

First of all, the opening movements show the standard traits of the Classical sonata

form, characterized by the exposition with clearly articulated sections (for example, Op. 5

No. 4, mm. 1-16/17-28/29-36/37-43), various developmental devices such as quotation of

materials from the exposition (Op. 5 No.3, mm. 33-45), sequencing (Op. 17 No. 3, mm. 62-

72), “changes in phrasing”76 (Op. 17 No. 4, mm. 49-53), and the recapitulation presenting

the complete return of the first theme in the tonic (Op. 17 Nos. 4 and 5).

Corresponding to the formal intensification of the opening movements, the

following finale movements also exhibit more expanded, and at the same time, more

distinctive features. First of all, in terms of length, in all seven sonatas both movements are

surprisingly well balanced, with the finales being slightly longer.

76 Rupert Mayr and Karin Heuschneider, 50.

４３

In addition, the finale movements are cast in special formal designs, giving more

structural weight to them. A prominent example is the theme and variation technique used

in two sonatas Op. 5 No 3 and Op. 17 No 1, both in G major. In the former, the theme of 8

+ 8 measures, each half to be repeated, is followed by four variations whose harmonic

structure consistently remains the same. The variations follow the conventional scheme in

which the theme is decorated with increasingly shorter note values (sixteenth-notes in

variations 1 and 2, then sixteenth-note triplets in 3 and 4). Interestingly, it concludes with

the restatement of the theme by the indication of Da capo sign after the last variation, an

idea favored by Mozart later.

The similar procedure is presented in the later sonata Op. 17 No. 1. This time,

however, it consists of five variations with the recurring theme written out at the end,

featuring a more formal expansion. Also, the fourth variation suddenly slows down the

pace, and then slips into the last variation of busy 16th-note figurations, anticipating

Mozart’s strategy of a slow, expressive quality for the penultimate variation.

Most prominently, this G-major sonata combines the variation technique with the

minuet, displaying one of J. C. Bach’s judicious formal concepts of bringing the second

movement to the forefront. In spite of its straightforward and predictable variation

procedure following the theme, this movement shows how he created formal freshness by

incorporating two conventional musical concepts, as seen in its indication of “Minuetto con

Variatione.” In this respect, it reminds of Rutini’s grafting rondo form into the minuet

finale, and at the same time, of Haydn’s varied and creative treatment of his minuet

４４

movements. Indeed, this hybrid form is cultivated further by Haydn, who demonstrated his

command of minuet movements in his piano sonatas No. 32 in G minor (Hob. 44), No. 34

in D major (Hob. 33), No. 37 in E major (Hob. 22), and No. 45 in A major (Hob. 30).

While it is with the theme-and-variation technique that Bach achieves both

structural expansion and flavorful musical distinctiveness for the second movement, in the

Sonata Op. 17 No. 3 in E-flat major he employs the sonata principle for both movements,

minimizing formal differentiation between them, as seen in table 1.

Table. 1. Sonata form in Johann Christian Bach’s sonata Op. 17 No. 3 in E-flat major

1st mov., Allegro assai 2nd Mov., Allegro Exposition 1st section 1-13 1-16

transition omitted 17-33 2nd section 14-34 33-40 closing area 35-49 40-50

Development 50-78 51-66

Recapitulation 1st section omitted 67- 78 transition 79-94

2nd section 79-99 95-101 closing area 100-104 102-112

It is noticeable that the second movement features the standard scheme of the sonata form

more completely than the first one does. As a result, despite its lighter character of 3/8 meter,

this finale gains considerable structural weight to counterbalance its preceding movement.

In addition to the above-mentioned examples, the substantiality of Bach’s finale

movements is also shown by a well-structured rondo form (Op. 5 No. 4, where both

movements have exactly the same length), or by vividly distinguished character (Op. 17

Nos. 4 and 5, with perpetual-motion finales). With all of these structural and musical

４５

strengths, his two-movement sonatas have an equal footing with the remaining three-

movement sonatas capable of richer musical possibilities, such as lyrical slow middle

movements (Op. 5 No. 5), use of double fugue (Op. 5 No. 6), and “vigorous gigue finales

(Op. 17 Nos. 2 and 6).”77

In conclusion, J. C. Bach’s two-movement sonatas present the quintessential of the

Italian keyboard sonata style, reflecting the approach of the ripe Classic style, as well as his

own musical qualities marked by his cosmopolitan tendency combining “Italianate thematic

material, enlivened by contact with French and British melodies and ideas and allied to

German strength and rigor.”78 However, along with the drastic decline of Italian keyboard

music in the last three decades of the eighteenth century, unfortunately the two-movement

sonata design faded, being considered as an unusual format, incapable of incorporating

emotional variety and artistic depth. The few exceptions are in the works of two masters of

the high-Classic era: Franz Joseph Haydn and Ludwig van Beethoven.

77 Stephen Roe, 53. 78 Ibid.

４６

3

Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)

A. General prospect

Haydn’s approximately sixty keyboard solo sonatas reveal his great stylistic

development, spanning almost a half century from his earliest days to his second visit to

London in the mid 1890s, which covers the whole life of Mozart. Despite their musical

substance, reflecting Haydn’s ongoing evolution throughout his musical career, and which

can only be compared with his symphonies, his keyboard sonatas have been neglected both

in academic and performing areas with few exceptions.

Many scholars have offered two reasons for neglect: first, enormous, even

excessive, interest in Haydn’s gigantic achievements in two other genres – the symphony

and the string quartet; and second, Haydn’s two most significant contemporaries in the

same genre, Mozart and Beethoven, whose piano sonatas occupy more secure places in the

keyboard literature.

Fortunately, the last few decades have born the noticeable fruits of deep research

on Haydn’s keyboard sonatas. On the basis of two most important editions, the Wiener

Urtext Ausgabe of Universal edition (1963)79 and the Henle edition based on Joseph

Haydn Werke (1963 and 1969 revised),80 cataloged by Christa Landon and Georg Feder,

79 Franz Joseph Haydn, Sämtliche Klaviersonaten, prepared from the autographs and earliest printed

sources by Christa Landon (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1963). 80 Franz Joseph Haydn, Samtliche Klaviersonaten, prepared from the autographs and earliest printed

sources by Georg Feder (Munich: G. Henle, 1972).

４７

respectively, many Haydn researchers, including Peter Brown, John McCabe, James A.

Taggart, Elaine R. Sisman, and László Somfai, have explored and revaluated this “untapped

gold mine,”81 bringing up refreshed academic views toward Haydn’s sonatas.82

Most of all, regarding the importance of the keyboard sonatas in Haydn’s whole

oeuvre, most scholars pay attention to the centrality of the keyboard instrument in his

creativity. In other words, the keyboard was the primary source inspiring Haydn to embody

his musical ideas in sonic reality, which is proven by the composer’s confession to his

friend and biographer, Georg August Griesinger, that

“I sat down (at the clavier), began to improvise, according to my mood, sad or happy, serious or playful. Once I had seized upon an idea, my entire endeavor went toward putting it into effect and sustaining it according to the rules of art.”83

Indeed, that “the improvisation (phantasieren) at the keyboard” was the first step of

Haydn’s compositional process suggests the significance of the instrument “representing

the purest form of (his) inspiration,”84 in his musical life. In this respect, it is quite

understandable that he consistently engaged in keyboard works throughout his musical

career.

81 This is a subtitle of James A. Taggart’s book; James A. Taggart, Franz Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Sonatas: An Untapped Gold Mine (Lamperter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988). 82 Peter Brown, Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); John McCabe, Haydn’s Piano Sonatas (London: BBC Publication, 1986); James A. Taggart, Franz Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Sonatas: An Untapped Gold Mine (Lamperter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988); Elaine R. Sisman, “Haydn’s Solo Keyboard Music,” in Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, edited by Robert L. Marshall (New York: Shirmer Books, 1994); László Somfai, The Keyboard Sonata of Joseph Haydn, trans. Charlotte Greenspan (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995). 83 Vernon Gotwals, Two Contemporary Portraits (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), 61. 84 Sisman, 270.

４８

The lack of reliable documentation, however, has been a great challenge to Haydn

scholars. Many sonatas seem to be lost and some exist only as fragmentary forms.

Determining the correct order of survived sonatas, particularly the early sonatas written

before mid 1760, mostly titled “Partita” or “Divertimento,” is extremely difficult due to the

absence of the primary sources. Regarding the authenticity, several sonatas, including L. 7

(Hob. 1) in D, 8 (Hob. 5) in A, 10 (Hob. 1) in C, 17 and 18, (Hob. ⅩⅥ: Es2 and Es3, both

in E♭), or 57 (Hob. 47) in A-flat, are thought doubtful by some scholars.85

All of these problematic issues concerning the chronology and authenticity of

Haydn’s keyboard sonatas are exemplified, most of all, in the disparity of numbering

systems between the two above-mentioned critical editions; The Henle edition contains 54

sonatas in three volumes, grouping them according to various criteria, such as dates of

composition or publication, functions, or scales, whereas C. Landon’s Universal edition

lists 62 sonatas with chronologically arranged numberings reflecting her extensive research,

with the latter’s numbering corresponding to the following reference of the sonatas in the

present study.

Despite such undiscovered domains of Haydn’s keyboard sonatas, one can grasp

the large picture by categorizing them into four groups according to a rough chronological

order.

1. The early sonatas: This category comprises around eighteen works written

before around 1765 including the earliest ones composed before Haydn was appointed as

85 Brown, Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music, 110.

４９

the Vice-Kapellmeister of Price Paul Anton Esterhazy in 1761 and other “transitional works

leading to Haydn’s mature style.”86 As stated previously, these works are labeled “partitas”

or “divertimentos,” only four of which – Nos. 9 in D, 13 in G, 14 in C, and 16 in D – are

considered “absolutely authentic,”87 causing many documentary problems. Written as

teaching materials for his pupils, these sonatas are typified by mid-century Viennese

elements, such as two-part texture, simple harmonic progressions, binary design, and the

preference for a three-movement plan including a minuet movement, which often brings

comparison with Georg C. Wagenseil’s six divertimentos op.1 demonstrating considerable

musical interaction with Haydn.88

2. The late 1760s and early 1770s: From this point, Haydn began to find his mature

style. Seven lost sonatas (Nos. 21-27) whose incipits are listed in Haydn’s own Entwurf-

Katalogue (1765), one newly founded as the fragmentary form (No. 28), and seven

survived ones (Nos. 20, and 29-34) are included in this group. As to Sonata No. 19 in E

major, Sisman and Somfai consider it as the first piece indicating Haydn’s new direction in

that it presents the expanded “dimensions of the three- movements”89 and “the elaborated

idea of repetitions.”90 In particular, sharing many stylistic affinities with C.P.E Bach,

sonatas of this period reflect his deep explorations of expressiveness of the keyboard

instrument by presenting varied textures, dynamic indications, virtuosic figurations,

86 Gordon, 95. 87 Somfai, The Keyboard Sonata of Joseph Haydn, 153. 88 H.C. Robbins Landon and David Wyn Jones, Haydn: His Life and Music (London: Themes and Hudson, 1988), 68-70. 89 Somfai, 159 90 Sisman, 275-76.

５０

unusual keys: B major (No. 23), D minor (No. 21), and D-flat major (the 2nd movement

from No. 31), and above all, innovative formal design, such as rondo-variation movement

(No. 30) or alternating variation (No. 32).

3. Three sets of six sonatas, 1773-1780: During this period Haydn produced the

bulk of his sonatas, all of which are in the three-movement plan, with a single exception

(No. 40 in two movements). As the first authentic publication of his sonatas, a set of six

sonatas (Nos. 36-41), dedicated to Prince Nikolaus in 1773, was written for more

professional musicians. The next cycle (Nos. 42-47), catalogued by Haydn as the “Anno

1776,” exhibits his more adventurous application to the keyboard instrument, in terms of

both stylistic and expressive range.91 The last set of six (No. 48-52 and 33, the latter having

been written in earlier time), dedicated to excellent pianists, the Auenbrugger sisters, in

1780, “vary enormously in technical and interpretative demands.”92

4. Late sonatas after 1780: Of three sonatas (Nos. 34, 35, and 53) published

together in 1784, only No. 53 in E minor is considered the output of this period. The

remaining final eight sonatas mark diverse aspects of Haydn’s maturity in his late days:

imaginative formal exploration, deep understanding of piano sounds, and technical

brilliance. Particularly, the importance of the last three sonatas (Nos. 60-62) in Haydn’s

sonata compositions has always been recognized. Written in London, they reflect the

composer’s deep impressions of the English fortepiano, demonstrating expanded keyboard

range and orchestral effects.

91 Ibid., 285. 92 Landon, 167.

５１

It is especially worth noticing that Haydn’s exploration of the two-movement

sonata structure is more intensified in this late period, producing five substantial works

(Nos, 54-56, 58, and 61). As will be discussed later, László Somfai distinguishes those two-

movement sonatas, labeling “Damensonate (ladies’ sonatas),” from remaining large-scale

“concert sonatas” in three-movement design.93

B. Two-movement sonatas

Of Landon’s 62 Haydn’s solo sonatas, 10 sonatas, including No. 28 in D major,

whose opening movement is survived only in fragmental form, are structured in two

movements, being around 15 percent of the total output. Although this might be a small

percentage compared to the outputs of the composers, who have been discussed in the

previous chapters, the musical weight of the ten sonatas are substantial in Haydn’s sonata

oeuvre; this is particularly significant when one considers the trend of the 1770s and 1780s

when the popularity of Italian sonata style was so rapidly declining that Muzio Clementi

(1750-1819), one of the greatest of Haydn’s contemporaries of keyboard music, converted

“from the modest two-movement cycles to the grander three-movement works.”94 Table 2

is the rough timeline of Haydn’s ten two-movement sonatas; each of them being placed

within boxes.

93 Somfai, 178-79. 94 Daniel E. Freeman, Johann Christian Bach and the Early Classical Italian, 265.

５２

Table 2. Timeline of Haydn’s two-movement sonatas

1765 1770 1775 1780 1785 1790 1795 9 D (?) 40 E♭(1773) 58 C (1789) 61 D (ca.1794) ca.18 early six “Anno” 59 E♭(1789-90) sonatas sonatas (1776) 53 e (ca.1782) 60 c & 62 E♭

35 A♭(1772?) (1794-95) six “Esterhazy” six “Auenbrugger” 7 lost sonatas (21-27) sonatas (1773) sonatas (1780) & 19, 29-34

As shown above, Haydn’s output of two-movement sonatas is relatively evenly

scattered throughout his productive years of the keyboard sonatas, except for about a ten-

year gap between 1773 and 1884 when he mainly devoted himself to the three sets of six

sonatas. Furthermore, that the five sonatas out of nine written after 1780 are in a two-

movement design implies his deep affirmation of its structural properties. Therefore, the

remaining part of this chapter will be focusing on various aspects of these sonatas,

including formal diversity, musical character, and balance and unity between movements,

highlighting how they reflect his stylistic originality, as well as formal inventiveness.

a. Formal diversity

In the development of sonata history, the importance of Haydn lies, above all, in

his broadening of the formal possibilities. In his hands every single movement gained its

structural individuality, many of them going far beyond the standard formal definition.

Enhancing the minuet movements as an essential component of the whole sonata cycle, he

28 D 32 g 20 B♭

(ca. 1770)

54 G 55 B♭ 56 D (1784)

５３

varied them in surprisingly different ways. Variation became one of the most effective

formal vessels conveying emotional depth, as well as formal sophistication.

Haydn’s two-movement sonatas reveal many such amazing aspects. As table 3

shows, in earlier works written up to the 1770s, the opening movements cast in the sonata

form are followed by minuet-type ones without exceptions. The combination of these two

movements is actually the common element of the whole sonata compositions in this period.

Table 3. Forms of Haydn’s two-movement sonatas

Before 1780 1st Mov. 2nd Mov. After 1780 1st Mov. 2nd Mov.

9 D sonata minuet 54 G double var. ternary var. 20 B♭ sonata minuet (sonata form) 55 B♭ sonata ternary var.

28 D sonata (?) minuet 56 D double var. sonata (scherzo)

32 g sonata minuet var. (Hybrid) 58 C double var. sonata rondo

40 E♭ sonata minuet (sonata form, canon)

61 D sonata (irregular)

sonata (scherzo)

Despite their outwardly similar formal combination, each sonata varies in structure.

For instance, the proportional variety among three sections – exposition, development, and

recapitulation – in sonata movements is quite striking, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The lengths of three sections of sonata movements from Haydn’s six two-movement sonatas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9 (D) 20 (B flat) 32 (g) 40 (E flat) 55 (B flat) 61 (D)

Exposition

Development

Recapitulation

Note. The numbers at the left perpendicular line indicate the lengths of sections (mm.)

５４

Even between sonatas with the same sectional relation of lengths, such as 9 and 20, or 40

and 61, formal differences obviously exist: As a movement showing the embryonic stage of

sonata form, the opening movement of sonata no. 9 does not clearly present a second theme,

whereas the sonata in B-flat major has two distinct thematic groups, later fully recapitulated.

Also, the first movement of sonata no. 61 is cast in irregular form, having no repeat sign.

Also, in cases of minuet style movements, Haydn’s individualization is noticeable.

First of all, the Tempo di Minuet of the sonata No. 32 is the most distinctive one among this

group, “adumbrating Haydn’s later alternating-variation series.”95 Set in ABA´B´ structure,

the A and B sections are derived from almost the same motivic materials, being contrasted

by opposite modes. In the second half, each of the written-out repeats undergoes variation

procedure, displaying the “hybrid variation form with minuet character.”96 On the other

hand, minuet movements of No. 20 and No. 40 differ from the common minuet-trio type

movement, in that both have no trio section, being structured in the ternary outline similar

to the sonata-allegro form. Moreover, the strict canonic texture provides the Tempo di

Minuet of the sonata No. 40 with considerable musical weight, compensating for its short

length.

With the single exception of the opening movement of sonata No. 55, Haydn

eschews the standard sonata-allegro design for his sonata movements composed after 1780.

Instead, the variation principle emerges as the most effective device, being used in five

movements out of ten. Also, for the fast finale movements he incorporated sonata-allegro

95 Sisman, 280. 96 Somfai, 316.

５５

structure into the rondo (no. 58), or into the vigorous scherzo character (Nos. 56 and 61).

When the variation technique is applied to the opening movements (Nos. 54, 56,

and 58), Haydn uses the double-variation format alternating a major theme and a minor

theme, or vice versa, one of his most personal devices also utilized in his other genres:

symphony, string quartet, and piano trio. As in his other movements in the allegro-sonata or

minuet form, his double variation also shows considerable diversity, which can be

represented as follows:

Table 4. Double variation forms of Haydn’s three piano sonatas, Nos. 54, 56, and 58.

A. No. 54 in G major, 6/8, Allegretto innocente

A (G major) 48 ∥: a :∥∥: b :∥

B (G minor) 24 ∥: c :∥∥: d :∥

A 1 (G major) 48 ∥: a’ :∥∥: b’ :∥

B 1 (G minor) 24 ∥: c’ :∥∥: d’ :∥

A 2 (G major) 54 ∥: a” :∥∥:b” :∥

B. No. 56 in D major, 3/4, Andante con espressione

C. No. 58 in C major, 3/4, Andante con espressione

A (C major) 52 ∥: a :∥∥: b :∥

B (C minor) 29 c c’ + 9 (trans.)

A 1 (C major) 42 a b’ b”

B 1 (C minor) 11 c”

A 2 (A♭major-C major) 27 a” a”’

Note: Numbers in boxes are the performing lengths of sections (mm.).

As the table shows, it is noticeable that the level of formal irregularity is getting

intensified; while sonata No. 54 presents the prototype of the double-variation principle, in

sonata No. 56 the minor section appears only once without its later variation; in the C-major

sonata, as the variations proceed, the lengths of both A and B sections are shortened, but

A (D major) 40 ∥: a :∥∥: b :∥

A 1 (D major) 40 ∥: a’ :∥∥: b’ :∥

B (D minor) 39 ∥: c :∥∥: d :∥+ 3 (trans.)

A 2 (D major) 44 a a” b b” + 4 (coda)

５６

disguised in highly ornamented forms, reinforcing the musical propulsion and finally,

maximizing dramatic effect in the sudden A flat major section (mm. 109-20).

In addition to the double-variations, Haydn’s formal variants run a wide gamut. In

the fast finale movements (Nos. 54 and 55), he employed the ternary-variation structure

(ABA´), in which the minor-mode B section, thematically related with the A section, is

followed by the embellished reprise. For the “scherzo-type finales”97 of Nos. 56 and 61, the

sonata-allegro principle is freely adopted, the proportion between two reprises being highly

unusual, especially evident in no. 56, “the most unbalanced ever written”98: ∥: 8 :∥∥: 93 :∥.

The finale of the C-major sonata demonstrates Haydn’s novel treatment of the traditional

sonata rondo form (ABACABA); materials of the B section are directly derived from the A

section, and the C section also develops the main materials, as James Taggart puts it “the

movement proceeds in an entirely unpredictable manner, with practically every note

growing out of germ motives contained in the first eight bars.”99

However, the significance of the formal variety in Haydn’s two-movement sonatas

does not lie only in the fact that they are participating in his great achievement of formal

extensiveness, the general aspect found in his whole compositions including other genres

and three-movement keyboard sonatas. Rather, one should not overlook the fact that these

two-movement sonatas surprisingly typify his new stylistic changes, going far beyond

being merely byproducts of his formal experimentations.

97 Somfai, 299-303. 98 Sisman, 292. 99 Taggart, 51.

５７

The D major sonata No. 9, the first work written in this structure, not only

establishes the standard pattern combining 4/4 allegro-sonata form movements with the

minuet ones, but also exemplies the “most mature early sonata,”100 by its opening sonata-

form movement in which many aspects of the composer’s early mastery, such as elaborated

harmonic, thematic rhythms, well-balanced formal proportion (∥: 19 :∥∥: 16 + 22 :∥ ),

subtle thematic relationships, and the bold use of the seven- measure primary theme, are

found.101

The arrival of Haydn’s maturity is traced in the B-flat major sonata showing

influences of emphindsamkeit style. In this work, the new approach to the solo keyboard

sonata is observed by its lyrical quality characterized by melodic richness, sudden rests,

and expressive harmonic elaboration. Moreover, the first appearance of Haydn’s

dynamic markings in this sonata indicates his increased interests in the expressive style,

as well as the emergence of the new instrument, fortepiano.102 In the similar stylistic vein,

sonata No. 32, the only two-movement sonata in the minor mode, is pervaded with

emotional depth and delicate use of keyboard timbres, presenting the highly personal

intimacy.103

The position of the E-flat sonata No. 40 is peculiar in that it is the only sonata cast

in two movements among the set of six Esterhazy sonatas published in 1773, the time

100 Somfai, 155. 101 Regarding the tightly organized syntax of the sonata no. 9, Somfai gives a special attention. See Somfai, 223-28. 102 Gordon, 101. 103 John McCabe, Haydn’s Piano Sonatas, 39.

５８

being marked as Haydn’s “retreat”104 from the expressive Sturm und Drang style to a more

“conservative and conventional”105 galant style. In this respect, this sonata represents

Haydn’s ongoing exploration integrating the dramatic grandeur with the galant-style

lightness, evident in the first movement “looking forward to Haydn’s last E-flat sonata”106

as well as in the final minuet movement with the strict canonic procedure showing his deep

absorption in Baroque- style counterpoint at the time.

The next three sonatas, Nos. 54, 55, and 56, published by Heinrich P. Bossler,

hence sometimes called the Bossler sonatas, exemplify Haydn’s extensive application of

the various variation principles to the sonata movements in his later days. Particularly, Nos.

54 and 56 (along with No. 58) opens with the moderate or slow movements cast in double-

variation structure, demonstrating his novel organization of the sonata cycle. Regarding this,

László Somfai says that “Haydn found double-variation form to be a satisfactory substitute

for sonata form in late two-movement sonatas.”107

As the only example labeled “rondo” among the sonata movements, the 292-

measure long finale of No. 58 presents an amazing example of Haydn’s assimilation of

orchestral ideas into the keyboard sounds, called “symphonic rondo” by Charles Rosen.108

In the final two-movement sonata composition No. 61, on the other hand, he broke one of

the most enduring rules of the allegro-sonata form by eliminating the repetition of

104 Michael Spitzer, “Haydn’s Reversals: Style Change, Gesture and the Implication-Realization Model,” in Haydn Studies, edited by W. Dean Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 207. 105 Sisman, 28. 106 McCabe, 52. 107 Somfai, 199. 108 Charles Rosen, The Classical Style (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1998), 45.

５９

exposition, creating an unexpected formal irregularity.

Considering all of these marvelous aspects, the formal variants exhibited in

Haydn’s two-movement sonatas show how the potential of the structure was broadened by

his hands, and at the same time, how he aggressively utilized it as a powerful way of

conveying his new formal innovations throughout his musical life.

b. Musical character

Since Haydn’s two-movement sonatas are widely varied in form, style, and

emotional range, discussing the general musical character of Haydn’s two-movement

sonatas risks oversimplification. In fact, sonatas Nos. 9 and 28 hardly show distinct musical

characteristics, which differentiate them from other sonatas in a three-, or four-movement

plan. Sonata No. 9 presents Haydn’s early personal style associating his intention of

composing it as a teaching method, as other early sonatas do, and No. 28 whose only

surviving minuet movement is “almost in military mood”109 is quite different in character

from two other contemporary two-movement sonatas (Nos. 20 and 32). In the case of No.

40, on the other hand, its musical character is somewhat ambivalent in that it shares stylistic

homogeneity with the other five three-movement works in the same set, and at the same

time, it features the expressive style characterized by embellished melodic lines and

rhythmic delicacy shown in Nos. 20 and 32.

From the rest of the works, we can extract some strong musical affinities by

109 Gordon, 102.

６０

observing critical elements that create a characteristic consistency among them.

Approaching this subject, one could say that the characteristic homogeneity of these

sonatas is, eventually, generated from the formal uniqueness of the two-movement sonata

itself; compared to the sonata cycle with more than two movements, the two-movement

sonata is modest in scale and handicapped by the limited number of movements. Especially,

the absence of a real slow movement could cause the deprivation of the opportunity to

express more polished feelings by the performer. In fact, those formal “handicaps” have

resulted in the preconception of regarding this form merely as a suitable structure for a

pedagogical or dilettante piece with light and easy musical content, the view being held

even when the Italian style sonata enjoyed its popularity.

In this respect, Haydn provides an extraordinary prospect toward the two-

movement sonatas, consistently combining the structure with certain musical qualities: rich

lyricism, internal elegance, and emotional intimacy. These primary impressions are largely

given by their opening movements (Ex. 14), pervaded with smooth melodic contours,

modest two-part textures, decorative singing lines, effective use of pauses, and rhythmic

intricacy. In particular, Haydn’s own tempo markings “Allegretto innocente” (No. 54) and

“Andante con espressione” (Nos. 56 and 58), rarely used in his other works, indicate his

concrete musical ideas for these sonatas.

６１

Ex. 14. Joseph Haydn: incipits of the first movements from the seven two-movement sonatas

a. Sonata No. 20 in B-flat major, Allegro moderato. b. Sonata No. 32 in G minor. Moderato.

c. Sonata No. 54 in G major, Allegro innocente. d. Sonata No. 55 in B-flat major, Allegro.

e. Sonata No. 56 in D major, Andante con espressione. f. Sonata No. 58 in C major, Andante con espressione

g. Sonata No. 61 in D major, Andante.

Such characteristic consistency found throughout these sonatas leads most Haydn

scholars to distinguish them from other sonatas, most obviously seen in László Somfai’s

outlining of Haydn’s solo sonatas. In his extensive study on Haydn’s keyboard sonatas,

Somfai systematically categorizes them into several groups according to their chronological,

sociological, and stylistic backgrounds110; he subdivides the seven two-movement sonatas

into two groups: chamber sonata (im Kammer Stil) exemplified by Nos. 20 and 32, and

ladies’ sonata (Damensonate) designating the other five.

110 Dealing with Haydn’s “thirty-six mature solo sonatas,” Somfai characterizes “seven main types.” See Somfai, 170-80.

６２

As to the chamber sonata type, one needs to remember C.P.E. Bach’s influences

on Haydn in the late 1760s, as Somfai asserts that

Its style is akin to a noble branch of the emphindsamer Stil of the age. The flexible progression of musical motives, rich in sentiment and marked by sudden pauses, depends on the performer’s eloquence and elevated taste for its effect instead of the vitality and glitter of the concert-style sonatas〔 i.e., 30, 31, and 33〕.111

In sonata No. 20 in B-flat major, musical flexibility is particularly evident in its

final movement marked Moderato. Here, three appearances of a fermata on the dominant

chord in almost identical passages (m. 35, 58, and 99, in F-major, g-minor, and B-flat major,

respectively) provide a surprising enhancement of emotional intensity by its long

preparation on a pedal tone and the following motive in a somewhat shivering manner.

Perhaps the most effective one is found in the second appearance (Ex. 15)

Ex. 15. Joseph Haydn: Sonata No. 20 in B-flat major, 2nd Mov., Moderato, mm. 54-60.

Whereas the spirit of the expressive emphindsam Stil is represented by melodic

charm and effective silences in the B-flat sonata, its serious characteristics expressing

emotional depth is fully imbued in sonata No. 32 in G minor. The opening theme, based on

111 Somfai, 173-74.

６３

a simple triplet upbeat followed by descending stepwise five notes, gradually develops the

textural complexity, finally arriving at the end of the development section with a dramatic

outburst (Ex. 16). Indeed, the movement, filled with “nervous rhythmic surface and intense

introversion,”112 demonstrates quintessential proof of Haydn’s masterful assimilation of

the musical trend of his time.

Ex. 16. Joseph Haydn: Sonata No. 32 in G minor, 1st Mov., Moderato, mm. 48-51.

The compositional background of the later five two-movement sonatas helps us

appreciate more deeply their musical character, justifying Somfai’s naming them

Damensonaten. Of these, the set of three Bossler sonatas (Nos. 54-56), published in 1784,

were dedicated to Princess Marie Hermengild, the wife of the Prince Nikolaus, the sonata

No. 61 was supposedly dedicated to Rebecca Schrötter for whom Haydn also wrote piano

trios Hob.ⅩⅤ : 24-26, and the sonata No. 58 “bears no dedication, although its first

movement clearly proceeded to refine the type〔of Damensonaten〕 . 113

Even though these sonatas follow the convention of the mid-eighteenth century that

the composition of keyboard music – not to mention that of the two-movement design in 112 Michelle Fillion, Intimate Expression for a Widening Public: the Keyboard Sonatas and Trios, in The Cambridge Companion to Haydn, edited by Caryl Clark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 128.. 113 Somfai, 178.

６４

small size – was usually intended for a female musician, Haydn’s treatment of this sphere

shows his marvelously innovative thoughts. Again, according to Somfai:

The sonatas are not easy or superficial salon pieces. They give expression to “feminine,” capricious, refined feelings – one of the great innovation of Haydn’s music. The double variation form, with one theme in major and the other in minor, replaces the sonata form as an opening movement in 54 G, 56 D, and 58 C. When the first movement is in sonata form, the primary effect is caprice, as in 55 B♭, or a kind of lyricism far removed from sophisticated motivic elaboration, as in 61 D. The second movements, unlike those of the early two-movement chamber sonatas, are fast, brilliant, capricious, technically difficult, and sometimes written in a surprising form, as, for example, 56 D.114

Conceiving a sonata in two movements – under the situation that the true Adagio is

eliminated – one might choose between two possibilities: one is to graft the Adagio

character into one of the movements, holding the idea of “adequate contrast between

movements,”115 as most composers do; and the other is to find a new possible way, giving

up the conventional treatment. Haydn’s intensification of the former is exemplified in Nos.

56, 58, and 61, the first two with the expressive Andante movements in the double variation

form, and the last with the lyrical “Schubertian”116 opening movement. On the other hand,

Haydn gave cheerful, but sensitive, character throughout the cycle of the sonatas No. 54

(6/8, Allegretto innocente – 4/4, Presto) and 55 (2/2, Allegro – 2/4, Allegro di molto),

daringly removing the traditional combination of a duple- or quadruple-meter fast

movement with a moderate triple meter one.

114 Ibid., 179. 115 Newman, Sonata in the Classic Era, 180. 116 The attempt to associate this D major sonata’s opening movement with Schubert’s style seems to be common among scholars. See McCabe, 80; Sisman, 297; Fillion, 135.

６５

Furthermore, from a formal viewpoint, while Haydn created the musical originality

in his earlier sonatas – Nos. 20 and 32 – by filling their fixed structure, which combines a

sonata form movement with a minuet-type one, with delicate inner feelings, now he

endows these five sonatas with the unprecedented formal flexibility, letting them radiate

their own formal aesthetics. In this respect, Micelle Fillion’s comment that “rondo or

double-variation forms are the musical emblems of the feminine”117 is considerably

persuasive, since they are ideal vessels capable for “capricious, refined feelings” by

presenting delicate or abrupt emotional changes in the framework of the repetition of

certain musical ideas.

Therefore, the excellence of Haydn’s characterization of two-movement sonatas

can be seen as a result of his judicious matching of rich expressiveness to the proper

structure, deeply understanding its formal capabilities. Indeed, now the two-movement

sonata structure expands its unique beauty, being released from the limited view of

molding it to a light and easy piece for a keyboard-playing dilettante.

c. Balance and unity

Above all, Haydn’s sense of balance for his two-movement sonatas is prominent

from the viewpoint of the length of movements, one of the most external criteria.

Following is the number of performed measures and the tempo markings for twenty

movements:

117 Fillion, 135.

６６

Table 5. The number of measures and the tempo markings of Haydn’s two-movement piano sonatas

It is noteworthy that two movements are considerably well-balanced in the earlier

sonatas which include the minuet style finales. Here, Haydn’s concern for the minuet

movements is remarkable, particularly evinced in two minuet movements from sonatas 20

and 28; the latter is the longest minuet and the former is the third longest one among all the

minuet movements in his solo sonatas.118

Haydn’s expansion of minuet movements seems to be a natural result; unlike the

three-movement sonata, in which a minuet movement usually plays a role of “lightening”

the previous large-scale opening or serious slow movement,119 the two-movement

structure requires a more extended minuet comparable to the large-scale opening sonata-

allegro movement. On the contrary, the briefness of the minuet of Sonata No. 40 is

complemented by its rigorous canonic procedure, obtaining sufficient musical substances,

as previously mentioned.

118 Somfai, 318. 119 Of course, there are some three-movement sonatas having considerable musical weights in minuet movements. The sonata no. 45 in A major typifies this category.

1st movement 2nd movement 9 D 114: Allegro? 110: Minuet

20 B flat 232: Allegro moderato 220: Moderato 28 D ? 252: Minuet 32 g 154: Moderato 133: Allegretto

40 E flat 142: Moderato 88: Tempo di Minuet 54 G 198: Allegretto innocente 120: Presto

55 B flat 151: Allegro 164: Allegro di molto 56 D 163: Andante con espressione 202: Vivace assai 58 C 161: Andante con espressione 293: Presto 61 D 111: Andante 170: Presto

６７

In the last three sonatas opening with slow movements, Haydn took the temporal

difference between two movements into consideration, regulating their performing time.

On the other hand, the G-major sonata’s exceptional feature, in that its two movements

show a big gap in length, can be explained by its peculiar formal aspect: it is the only work

with both movements in the variation procedure. Haydn might feel that balancing the

length of movements conceived by the similar structural principle could give a

monotonous impression to his listener.

Regarding key relationships, unlike other two-movement sonata composers,

Haydn wrote both movements in the same key for his ten sonatas, without giving major-

minor contrast. Only in the G minor sonata can we catch a glimpse of mode contrast in that

the minuet presents the oscillation between the opposite modes; it begins with G minor and

ends with G major. Haydn’s adherence to the same key throughout the whole cycle

suggests his preference for strong unity in terms of key relationships. Moreover, this modal

unity tends to absorb the heterogeneity caused by the formal, stylistic diversity of

movements, as Somfai points out that it “provides a counterbalance for the inner structure

of the movements that, owing to the great variety of rhythmic vocabulary, textures, and

thematic material, was extremely dynamic.”120

Interestingly, Haydn hardly relies on the device of unifying movements through

the thematic associations. His avoidance of the reuse of the same materials between two

movements121 might result from his inclination to the unification within movements,

120 Somfai, 206. 121 Haydn’s reuse of the same material for different movements is usually found in other genres in

６８

attested by his two inventive formal concepts: monothematic treatment of the sonata-

allegro movement and the double-variation technique, both based on the concentration of a

single basic idea. When he relates both movements with the same musical idea, the

relationships are attained in quietly subtle manners, such as melodic augmentation

(Example 17), or shifting voices (Example 18), creating strikingly distinctive moods in

each movement.

Ex. 17. Joseph Haydn: Sonata No. 28 in G minor. a. 1st Mov., Moderato, mm. 1-3

b. 2nd Mov., Allegretto, mm. 1-4

Ex. 18. Joseph Haydn: Sonata No. 56 in D major. a. 1st Mov., Andante espressione, mm. 5-8

four movements, such as symphonies (nos. 31, 46, or 103) or string quartets (op.20 no.2, op.54 no.2 and op.74 no.3), a more extended structure allowing room for the cyclic treatment.

６９

b (continued). 2nd Mov., Vivace assai, mm. 1-4

These changes of character are so intensely presented that it bewilders even

listeners acquainted with the two-movement formal plot. Sonata No. 56 represents a good

example showing the dramatic confrontation between paired movements,122 as Sisman

remarks:

How can Haydn follow up such a〔i.e., the first〕 movement? With a restless Vivace assai that establishes no clear tonic at the onset – indeed, moving immediately to the dominant – and remains harmonically in motion.123

The emotional polarity between two movements is generated by Haydn’s strategy

of depending on intrinsic relationships between movements, such as tonal stability versus

instability (No. 56), simple two-part texture versus textural variety in diverse registers (No.

58), and consistent melodic flow versus repeated accents on upbeats (No. 61). Moreover,

pianissimo endings of the first movements enhance the feeling of abrupt emotional reversal,

alluding Attacca effects. The result is the closer adherence between paired movements that

exist as complementary counterparts, which anticipates the mastery of Beethoven, who

122 A detailed rhetorical analysis of the Sonata no. 56 in D major is examined by Tom Beghin, who applies a rhetoric model appeared in Johann Beer’s “Musical Discourse” published in 1719 to this sonata. In this “rhetorical reading” he views the unusual formal aspect of the finale movement as a logical consequence in the context of the art of oratory. See Tom Beghin, “Haydn as Orator: A Rhetorical Analysis of his Keyboard Sonata in D Major, Hob. : 42” in Haydn and his World, edited by Elaine Sisman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 201-54. 123 Sisman, 291.

７０

imbued this unique structure with superb drama.

Summing up, in Haydn’s sonatas in two-movements, on the basis of a wide-range

formal spectrum, every single movement obtains strong individuality with characteristic

affinity, and finally combines with its counter-movement in more solid internal logic.

Therefore, one can say that it was Haydn who elevated the two-movement structure to the

level of highly artistic format demanding “the utmost precision and much delicacy in

performance.”124 Eventually, he can be seen as the most significant innovator of this

structure, and at the same time, the catalyst who saw the dramatic potentials in it, paving

the way for the culmination of the structure achieved by Beethoven.

124 Carl Frierich Cramer, Magazin der Musik, 1785, 535; quoted in Brown, Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music, 27.

７１

4

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

If, to Haydn, the keyboard instrument was a sonic fountainhead from which the

primary musical inspiration flowed out to other genres, to Beethoven it was the very soil in

which his creativity was to grow and bear fruits throughout his musical life. Whereas the

value of Haydn’s keyboard works has been downplayed, partly caused by his modesty as

he expressed himself as “not a poor Klavier player,”125 that of Beethoven’s keyboard

works has received full recognition of the composer’s command of the instrument; as the

foremost pianist of his time, Beethoven began his musical career as a child prodigy and

“remained the greatest pianist of all”126 until his later days, showing the essence of the

pianist-composer’s life.

Of his keyboard works, the whole body of thirty-two sonatas, spanning almost

thirty years from 1795 to 1822, is at the heart of Beethoven’s development as a composer.

The piano sonata was, in other words, the most powerful medium in which he could

experiment with form, harmony, motivic development, and piano color, expanding the

expressive capability of the instrument to its limits. Eventually, in these monumental works,

one can see that the composer’s formal mastery and imaginative approach to the piano

sounds meet the emotional and spiritual profoundness reflecting his personal inner life. 125 Georg A.Griesinger, “Biographische Notizen über Joseph Haydn,” (Vienna: Kaltschmid, 1954), 63; quoted in Brown, Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music, 3.

126 Joseph Kerman and Alan Tyson, “Beethoven, Ludwig van,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie, vol. 3. (London: Macmillan, 1980), 78.

７２

In regards to the organization of movements, Beethoven’s sonatas show greater

flexibility, compared to sonatas of two other Viennese masters – Haydn and Mozart, as

follows:

Table 6. The number of movements in keyboard sonatas of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.

The three-movement plan dominates Haydn’s fifty-five sonata compositions, excluding

the seven lost ones, being around 80 percent, and appears exclusively in Mozart’s

sonatas, with no exception. On the contrary, in Beethoven, three possible sonata designs

are found with relatively even distribution. If one classifies the Waldstein Sonata Op. 53,

whose middle movements is often seen as an introduction to the finale, into the two-

movement sonata group, the difference of proportion among the three becomes even

narrower.

As to the sonatas in two and four movements, Haydn and Beethoven present

similar aspects; four-movement sonatas were largely written in the early part of both

composers’ lives, and two-movement sonatas are scattered throughout their outputs. The

following is the time line of Beethoven’s sonata composition:

Haydn (55 sonatas) Mozart (19 sonatas) Beethoven (32 sonatas) 2 movements 10 0 6 (7) 3 movements 43 19 15 (14) 4 movements 2 0 11

７３

Table 7. Timeline of Beethoven’s sonatas

1795 1800 1805 1810 1815 1820 2 mov. 49 g, G 54 F 78 F# 90 e 111 c (1795-98) (1804) (1809) (1814) (1821-22) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-1 c, 10-2 F 27-1 c# (1801) 79 G (1809) 109 E (1820) 3 mov. (1796-98) 31-1G, 31-2 d (1801-02) 81a E♭ (1809-10) 110 A♭ (1821) 13 c, 14-1 E, 14-2 G 53 C (1803-04) (1798-99) 57 f (1804-05) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 (f, A, C) 26 A♭, 27-1 E♭ 101 A (1816) (1795-96) (1800-01) 106 B♭ (1817-18) 4 mov. 7 E♭ (1796-97) 28 D (1801)

10-3 D (1796-98) 31-3E♭ (1801-02) 22 B♭ (1799-1800)

In Table 7, we can find two interesting aspects, regarding Beethoven’s two-

movement sonatas. First of all, they were produced with surprisingly constant gaps, which

suggest their strong potential of being a window through which one can view a large

picture of a composer’s stylistic evolution. Moreover, each two-movement sonata appears

at a meaningful point of time throughout Beethoven’s sonata production. The two sonatas

of Op.49 (1795-98) and Op.111 (1821-22) appear at the two extreme points, respectively,

enclosing the remaining sonata compositions. Op. 54 (1804) is sandwiched between two

contemporary gigantic sonatas, the Waldstein and the Appassionata. Op. 78 (1809) and Op.

90 (1814) were, most interestingly, written just after two long breaks (both, four-year)

taking place in the genre of piano sonata, ushering in new directionfor the composer. In

this respect, Beethoven’s six two-movement sonatas provide a useful access to the general

understanding of his piano sonata writing.

Nevertheless, the primary concern of the present study lies in how Beethoven

７４

strove for the essential beauty of the two-movement sonata structure. Hence, to define a

certain sonata in the light of particular period concerning Beethoven’s stylistic

development will not be taken up here. Rather, this chapter will focus on each two-

movement sonata’s distinguished formal and emotional features, and furthermore,

investigate Beethoven’s laborious compositional process of endowing them with the

cohesive power between paired movements. In particular, his intensification of the

aesthetics of contrast will be highlighted as a centripetal force generating solid structural

cohesion. After observing six two-movement sonatas in chronological order, one could

perceive that they correspond to the overall process of Beethoven’s stylistic evolution.

A. Two Sonatas, Opus 49

Opus 49 is the only one whose opus number is out of accord with its date of

composition in Beethoven’s piano sonatas. They were written several years before they

were published in 1805 in Vienna. Without the composer’s knowledge, his brother, Caspar

van Beethoven, presented these sonatas to the printer, allowing them to see the light. Titled

Leichte Sonaten, the two sonatas Op. 49 are small and technically easy pieces, which

results in frequent underestimation of their musical substances.

Certainly, they seem “elementary and retrogressive,”127 compared to other sonatas

written in the same period, including the first seven ambitious sonatas Opp. 2, 7, and 10.

Nevertheless, we should not overlook that, from these early days, Beethoven already

127 Barry Cooper, Beethoven and the Creative Process (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 37.

７５

presented his own personal languages, such as wide-ranges of modulation, dramatic

dynamic contrasts, elegant melody lines, and subtle organic relationships within and

between movements, clearly observed in three piano trios Op. 1, two piano concertos Nos.

1 and 2, and renowned songs Adelaide and Seufzer eines Ungeliebten.

Thus, the modesty and economy both in scale and technique found in Op. 49

should be interpreted not as an unevenness of musical quality in the composer’s early days,

but as his different focal point on the performer-to-be; it is commonly agreed that they were

intended for teaching materials or “commissioned by a pianist of mediocre ability.”128 In

this respect, Op 49 stands on a diverging point looking back to the old tradition of Italian

style sonata generally regarded as lighter sonatas for pedagogic or dilettante use, and at the

same time, “pointing the way to new means of expression to be developed more broadly

after 1800.”129

1. Op. 49, No. 1 in G minor

The retrospective manner of Op. 49 can be read in their standard formal plan

combining the sonata-allegro form first movement with the rondo (No. 1) or minuet-type

(No. 2) finale. Even here, however, one can see subtle formal elaboration, particularly in

their finales, which shows the composer’s originality. The formal feature of the G minor

sonata is as follows:

128 Barry Cooper, Beethoven, The Master Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 64. 129 William Drabkin, “Early Beethoven,” in Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed. Robert L. Marshall (New York: Schirmer Books, 1994), 394.

７６

Table 8. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 49, No. 1 in G minor

1st movement 2nd movement ∥: Exp. :∥

Dev.

Recap.

• Main theme: mm. 1-15: (cadence onⅤ/ B♭) • Second theme: mm. 16-29 (Ⅲ:B♭) • Closing: mm. 30-33 on B♭

• Unison on the second theme: mm. 34-38 (move to E♭)

• Trans.(4+4): mm. 39-46 (E♭) • Sequence on the second theme: mm. 47-53 (E♭-c-g) • Retrans. mm. 54-63 (pedal on Ⅴ)

• Main theme mm. 64-75 (g) • trans.: 76-79 (Ⅴ/ g) • Second theme: 80-97 (g) • Coda: mm. 98-100

A (G major) B (G minor) C (B♭ major) B (G minor) A (G major) C (G major) A (Coda) (G major)

mm. 1-16 (+ 4) mm. 21-32 (cadence on B♭) C1. mm. 33-48 (8+8) C2. mm. 49-64 (8+8+4) mm. 69-80 (10+2) (cadence on G)

mm. 81-103 (16+7) C1. mm. 104-109 (8+8) C2. mm. 110-135 (8+8) mm. 136-164

Whereas the opening movement follows the standard sonata-allegro form, in which the

minor tonic – major mediant key relationship is retained, the finale, in spite of Beethoven’s

own indication “Rondo,” modifies the conventional rondo design. Not only rearranging the

order of sub-sections, Beethoven also gives more musical weight to the two episodes B

and C, each appearing twice with substantial lengths and harmonic functions. In particular,

episode C, derived from the melodic materials of episode B, plays an important role in

terms of tonal procedure; it appears first in B-flat major, the lowered mediant of G major,

and then reappears in G major, “as if it had been the second part of a sonata exposition.”130

As a result, the movement incorporates rondo character emphasizing the periodicity of

130 Charles Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 179.

７７

recurring thematic materials with the sonata-form principle based on the tonal tension and

its relaxation.

Despite its formal straightforwardness, the first movement exhibits rich emotional

depth, which is generated by a simple melodic profile containing the smooth turn-shaped

melody line, followed by an upward leap. Beethoven’s intention of creating the expressive

quality in this motif is clearly shown through its articulation, long note value, and above all,

sforzando effects. From the very beginning of the work, one can see also how Beethoven

increases the melodic expressiveness, deliberately using different dynamic indications.

Ex. 19. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata Op. 49, No. 1 in G minor, 1st Mov., Andante, mm. 1-14.

The expressive quality of melodic leaps, furthermore, provides a larger shape

throughout the whole movement by propelling their dramatic power with increasing

intervals, found in two critical moments: at the ends of both development and

recapitulation (Ex. 20). Especially, in the latter, the appearance of almost a two-octave

interval with sforzandos, supported by the harmonic background of the diminished seventh

７８

chords, reminds us of the climatic moments in the opening movement of the C minor

sonata Op. 111 (Ex. 21).

Ex. 20. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata Op. 49, No. 1 in G minor, 1st Mov., Andante.

a. mm. 54-64.

b. mm. 90-92

Ex. 21. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata Op. 111 in C minor, 1st Mov., mm. 48-50.

７９

The organic relationship between two movements of Op. 49 is mainly created by

alterations and refinements of thematic materials, which characterize Beethoven’s early

compositional style. Even though one should remember William Drabkin’s warning that “it

is dangerous to hunt for obscure relations, thematic or otherwise, merely to claim unity for

a multi-movement work,”131 the thematic relationships found here are considerable,

particularly when we compare the opening phrases of the two movements of the G minor

sonata (Ex. 22).

Ex. 22. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata op. 49, No. 1 in G minor.

a. 1st Mov., Andante, mm. 1-8.

b. 2nd Mov., Rondo, Allegro, mm. 1-4.

More significantly, from a tonal viewpoint, the effect of these thematic interactions

between two movements tend to be reinforced by melodic substances implying the tension

between two opposite modes; that is, the D-B♭-G melodic lines in the first movement

131 Drabkin, 410.

８０

contrasts with D-(G-A)-B-G in the second one. Moreover, the tension between major- and

minor tonic is reaffirmed within the finale movement by sudden appearance of B♭ in the

right hand at bar. 3, whose diminished- seventh harmony with sforzando recalls the

passage just heard in the last part of the preceding movement (Ex. 20.b).

2. Op 49, No. 2 in G major

Probably composed about a year before No. 1 in the same opus, this sonata

“enjoyed a faddish popularity in Vienna,”132 primarily due to its famous minuet finale.

Beethoven reused the whole melody of the minuet later in the third movement of the Septet

in E flat Op. 20, “his only chamber work including the double bass,”133 written in 1779.

Structurally speaking, the work is not remarkable, except the fact that the minuet is

actually in five-part (ABACA) rondo form, not in traditional minuet-trio form, only using

the minuet rhythm. The harmonic scheme of the opening movement is, on the other hand, a

fine example showing that Beethoven’s harmonic language is deeply rooted in that of the

eighteenth-century convention; Charles Rosen asserts that

Two of the stereotypes that held sway in the 1770s and 1780s are a move to the relative minor or its dominant at the end of the development section

〔 mm. 59-66〕and an emphasis on the subdominant soon after the beginning of the recapitulation〔 mm. 73-79〕. … More important, however, is the latent expressive force of the convention – the move towards the greater tension of the dominant in the exposition can be countered near the moment of recapitulation by the lesser tension of the subdominant, and this serves to reaffirm the return to the tonic an the feeling of resolution. The opposition of sharp (dominant) and flat (subdominant) directions on

132 Gordon, 169. 133 Cooper, Beethoven, 86.

８１

the circle of the fifths is crucial in the late eighteenth century, although the feeling for it disappears almost completely with the generation of Chopin and Schumann. Beethoven, however, never lost his sense of this opposition.134

In fact, the traditional harmonic scheme, in which the relationship among tonic, dominant,

and subdominant functions as a driving force of musical expressiveness, becomes the

structural framework of the minuet movement almost in a naïve manner; two departures

(section B and C) are in the key of the dominant and subdominant, respectively, creating a

clear tonal outline. The overall structural scheme of the G-major sonata is as follows:

Table 9. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 49, No. 2 in G major

1st Movement 2nd Movement ∥: Exp. :∥

Dev.

Recap.

• Main theme: mm. 1-20 (cadence on Ⅴ) • Second theme: (Ⅴ: D) S1: mm. 21-36 S2: mm.37-48 • Closing: mm. 49-52 • Material of the main theme: mm. 53-58 • Retrans. mm. 59-66 (circle of fifths: V/vi-ⅵ-ⅱ-Ⅴ7 ) • Main theme: mm. 67-87 (Ⅰ) - S2 is inserted: mm. 77-81 (Ⅳ) • Second theme (Ⅰ) S1: mm. 88-103 S2: mm. 88-115 • Coda: mm. 116-122

A (Ⅰ: G)

B (Ⅴ: D)

A (Ⅰ: G)

C (Ⅳ: C)

A (Ⅰ: G)

Coda (Ⅰ: G)

mm. 1-20 mm. 21-42 (+5) mm. 48-67 mm. 68-85 (+2:Ⅴ7 ) mm. 88-107 mm. 108-120

The primary theme of the first movement consists of a declamatory blocked chord

in tonic followed by a triplet-figure broken chord (m. 1) and a stepwise lyric melody line

134 Charles Rosen, The Classical Style, 460-63.

８２

(mm. 2-4), which strongly suggests their dynamic contrasts between forte and piano.135

These two contrasting elements serve to weave the whole sonata, giving unity within and

between movements. In the Allegro movement the triplets are always used for dashing,

lively passages, while the smooth eighths involve the lyrical ones.136 Particularly worth

noticing is a simple motivic germ of the lower neighboring tone (G-F#-G), a lyrical part of

the principal theme, which provides the main musical ideas for two other important

thematic areas indicated S1 and S2 in the table 9 (Ex. 23).

Ex. 23. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata Op. 49 No.2 in G major, 1st Mov., Allegro, ma non troppo, mm. 21-22 & 36-37

Strikingly, the opening material of the minuet movement is derived from this

three-note motivic germ (Ex. 24a). Also, the main ideas of two episodes demonstrate the

close thematic relationships to the first movement (Ex. 24b and 24c).

Ex. 24. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata Op. 49, No. 2 in G major, 2nd Mov., Tempo di Menuetto

a. mm. 1-2 b. mm. 28-31

135 There are no dynamic markings in this sonata, with only exceptions of two pianissimos in the finale. 136 Kenneth Drake, The Beethoven Sonatas and the Creative Experience, 194.

８３

c (continued). mm. 68-73

B. Sonata in F major, Opus 54

After the so-called Heiligenstadt period, from April 1802 to October in the same

year, the most dramatic turning point in Beethoven’s life, he produced many of his most

significant works in diverse genres: the Eroica symphony, the oratorio Chriristus am

Oelberge (Christ on the Mount of Olives), the Violin Sonata Op. 47 “Kreutzer,” and the

Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor, all of which point to the composer’s new stylistic

direction. Particularly, in 1804, Beethoven embarked on his ambitious work, the opera

Leonore, later known as Fidelo. As regards to Beethoven’s piano sonatas, the year also saw

two important events: completion of the Op. 53 “Waldstein,” and a sketch for Op. 57

“Appassionata.”

Overshadowed by such gigantic works written during the same period, the musical

value of the Piano Sonata No. 22 Op. 54 in F major has been hardly appreciated. Aside

from its modest scale compared to its immediate neighbors, the sonata’s unconventionality

in form and the lack of overwhelming drama have been obstacles for performers to include

it in their repertoires. When we look into the hidden musical substance of the sonata more

８４

closely, however, its unpopularity on the actual performing stage becomes a somewhat

dubious one;137 “as a hidden poetry,” Charles Rosen says, “that will not reveal itself easily,

but that will withstand a challenging examination.”138

First of all, retaining the traditional framework of two movements sharing the

same tonic, but in contrasting tempo and meter, Beethoven reverses the conventional order,

in which the minuet comes as a finale movement as we have already seen in his own

sonata Op. 49 and Haydn’s five earlier two-movement sonatas. Probably, he felt that the

minuet movement as a finale would be insufficient to create a weighty conclusion for the

whole sonata cycle containing only two movements. In fact, a tendency to push towards

the finale movement is consistently apparent in three later two-movement sonatas Opp. 78,

90, and 111.139 With Op. 54, this tendency is strengthened by its finale movement cast in

sonata-allegro form, a structure usually assigned for the main movement in a sonata cycle.

Nevertheless, the opening movement of Op. 54 also demonstrates Beethoven’s

novel approach to the minuet, being neither musically lighter, nor structurally plainer than

the finale. The movement, marked ‘In Tempo d’un Menuetto’ consists of two distinctive

thematic groups alternating each other (ABA´B´A´́ ), concluding with the coda in

substantial length. While the opening minuet theme A (Ex.25a) is increasingly decorated in

each appearance with successively smaller note values, the recurrence of trio B’ (Ex. 25b)

is noticeably shortened (12 bars) compared to its first presentation (45 bars), and the coda,

137 Robert Taub, Playing the Beethoven Piano Sonatas (Portland: Amadeus Press, 2002), 168. 138 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, 189. 139 Barry Cooper, ed., The Beethoven Compendium: A Guide to Beethoven’s Life and Music (London: Themes and Hudson, 1991), 207.

８５

on the other hand, presents elements of both groups merging together. The result is a

highly refined hybrid form; Martha Frohlich observs that the movement is “in a unique

framework that integrates aspects of three forms: the minuet and trio, the rondo, and the

alternating theme and variation format.”140

Ex. 25. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 22 in F major, Op 54, 1st Mov., In Tempo d’un Menuetto.

a. mm. 1-4

b. mm. 94-105

140 Martha Frohlich, “Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in F Major Op. 54, Second Movement: The Final

Version and Sketches,” The Journal of Musicology 18 (winter 2001): 101.

８６

Such formal freshness of the first movement seems the natural result of the

composer’s calculated musical plot, in which the concept of contrast is to come to the fore;

from the beginning one can easily grasp how sharply two thematic groups are contrasted in

rhythm (dotted rhythms – triplets), dynamic (piano – forte), harmony (stable – instable),

texture (four-part homophony – canon in octaves), and in phrasing (regular – irregular).

The effect of contrast between the two groups is even reinforced by abrupt interruptions of

the second theme (m. 24 and 93). As the music proceeds, however, the aggressiveness of

the second theme is subdued, attested by its briefness, dynamic fluctuation, and consistent

tonal focus on the dominant in its second appearance (Ex. 23b). Eventually in the coda,

introduced by several measures in which florid melodic prolongation (mm. 127-131)

change to the improvisatory passage (mm. 132-136), the melody of the first theme

integrates with triplet accompaniment derived from the second theme, achieving “musical

reconciliation.”141

Hence, one of main reasons why the sonata draws attention is that the structure of

the first movement strongly reflects Beethoven’s deep concern about the dramatic conflict

and eventual resolution between two contrasting characters, which marks a new phase of

shifting his interests to the overall drama also found in other contemporary works

including the opera Fidelio and the Eroica Symphony. Regarding this point, William

Kinderman remarks that “in this movement Beethoven thus explores a directional process

and an ongoing synthesis of experience – qualities he further developed in many later

141 Drake, 197.

８７

works.”142

On the other hand, the second movement is in strong contrast to the previous one in

that, without presenting clear contrasting elements, the musical idea of the entire movement

evolves from the material of the opening section consisting of incessant sixteenths (Ex. 26),

creating perpetual motion in two-part polyphonic texture throughout the piece.

Nevertheless, the work is so remarkably structured that without any of the strong contrasts

or of the melodic attractiveness the movement attains highly dramatic momentum

throughout.

Ex. 26. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 22 in F major, Op 54, 2nd Mov., Allegretto, mm. 1-5

It is in sonata-allegro form, but with extraordinary proportions; the exposition is

extremely short (20 measures, or 40 measures with the repeat), whereas the second half

with the repeat sign including the development and the recapitulation is enormously

expanded (94 and 47 measures, respectively), displaying tightly compressed motivic

development carried out in the extensive harmonic palette, as shown in the Table 10.

142 William Kinderman, Beethoven (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 96.

８８

Table 10. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 54 in F major, 2nd Movement, Allegretto.

∥: Exp. :∥ F Ⅴ/F

• Primary theme: mm.1-8 • trans: mm. 9-12 • Secondary theme (derived from the primary one): mm.13-15 • Closing: mm. 16-20

∥: Dev. Ⅴ-Ⅴ7/d Ⅴ7/G

Ⅰ/G-Ⅴ7/c-Ⅴ/f-Ⅴ7/ D♭ C-F-B♭-E♭- A♭- D♭ (circle of 5ths)

Ⅴ7/ D♭-Ⅰ/ D♭ F#-B-E-A-D-G-C-F (circle of 5ths)

C (Ⅴ/F)

• Primary theme + trans.: mm. 21-36 • E1: mm. 37-44 (chromatic bass line: A♭-G-F#-F-E-E♭-D) • Primary theme + trans.: mm. 45-64 • E2: mm. 65-74 • E3: mm. 75-87 • E4: mm. 88-98 • Retransition ( Primary theme + trans.): mm. 99-114

Recap. :∥ Ⅰ/F-Ⅳ/F-ⅵ/F-Ⅴ7/ D♭ ⅰ/f-ⅶ˚/C

Ⅴ/F- Ⅴ/ E♭-Ⅴ/ D♭

Ⅴ/F

• Primary theme + trans.: mm. 115-29 • E1’: mm. 130-33 (chromatic bass line: D- D♭-C-B) • E5: mm. 134-45 + trans. mm. 146-51 (G♭-e♭-D♭-b♭) • Trans. (return to the beginning of Development): mm.152-61

Coda (Più Allegro)

F F

• Codetta 1 (Primary theme): mm. 162-79 • Codetta 2 (Secondary theme): mm. 180-88

Such “bizarre”143 proportion of the movement recalls the finale of Haydn’s sonata

No. 56 in D major.144 In Beethoven, however, the range of modulation is much broader, as

well as harmonically more colorful than Haydn’s. Moreover, the motivic variants in

Beethoven consistently provide a thrust for the entire movement, being the very structural

substance itself. That is, new thematic elaborations (designated as E in Table 10) derived

from materials of the exposition are succeedingly interpolated after the repeat sign,

expanding the formal structure.

Although it is uncertain whether Beethoven’s somewhat excessive emphasis on the

midsection of the movement was a calculated one taking the precise proportion into his

143 Cooper, Beethoven, 140. 144 The similarity between these two movements is also observed by Martha Frohlich, who mentions “eccentric proportions, intensive motivic concentration, predominantly two-part texture, and harmonic unpredictability.” See Frohlich, 104.

８９

consideration or not,145 most scholars agree that the expansion of the second half section

in this movement has significance in his stylistic evolution; Charles Rosen notes:

This is an essential work in the development of Beethoven’s style. It is his first attempt to repeat a very long second half with a first section less imposing by comparison. The experiment was tried again immediately afterwards with the finale of the “Appassionata,” where the repeat of the first section was omitted and that of the second required.146

To Beethoven, the expansion of development and recapitulation through wide-range

modulations and introduction of new thematic materials was the vital element for imbuing

his works with dramatic intensity. Therefore, we can say that this movement exemplifies

Beethoven’s intellectual exploration to extract musical meaning from structural perfection

without relying on strong character, which differentiates this work from any other piece.

In this respect, two exceptional structural features found in each movement of this

sonata represent two different musical worlds in Beethoven; one achieved by symbolic and

dramatic elements, and the other by “purely structural tensions.”147 This is, however,

nothing but one aspect revealing Beethoven’s deep thought about two-movement structure.

With the Sonata op. 54, the two movements stand in striking contrast in terms of tempo (In

Tempo d’un Minuetto – Allegretto), form (modified minuet-trio – modified sonata),

harmonic range (narrow – wide), texture (alternation of homophony and canonic motion –

145 Barry Cooper pays attention to the fact that the point where the reprise of the main theme (m. 115) appears coincides with the point of the Golden Section, “about three-fifths of the way through,” and Erwin Ratz point out, on the other hand, that the total sum of the length of the exposition (20), recapitulation (47) and coda (27) exactly equals the length of the development (94). See Cooper, Beethoven, 140; Erwin Ratz, “Analysis and Hermeneutics, and Their Significance for the Interpretation of Beethoven,” trans. Mary Whittall, Music Analysis, vol.3, no. 3 (1984): 246. 146 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, 192. 147 Ratz, 244.

９０

two-part polyphony), emotional contents (mixture of grace and aggressiveness –

excitement), and above all, “the degree of contrast between musical elements within a

movement.”148 In other words, here the contrast between paired movements is much more

multilayered than any other two-movement sonata ever written.

It is astonishing that, in spite of dramatic contrasts, the coexistence of these two

movements does not look discursive. Rather, when they are performed together in the

right order, the musical meaning of each individual movement seems to be more

persuasively delivered to its listeners. If so, the contrasting elements should be seen as

something enhancing musical coherence in the sonata cycle, not diffusing it, as Drabkin

remarks that “sonatas seem to hold together more by contrasts between movements than by

common features.”149 This would be even more true in the case of the sonata cycle, whose

formal aesthetic is based on the confrontation of only two movements.

Certainly, similarity contributes to the unification of the whole sonata cycle.

Motivic or thematic relationship, for instance, is the most explicit device to produce

musical unity, which device has been used by most sonata composers we have investigated

hitherto. Beethoven himself also displays his deftness of the technique throughout his

compositions including this F-major sonata; a three-note motive from the first movement

(mm. 62-68) is reused in the second one (152-61), both in connective passages preparing

the reappearance of the primary theme (Ex. 27), which has been observed by many analysts.150

148 Frohlich, 100. 149 Drabkin, 410. 150 See Drake, 199; Frohlich, 105

９１

Ex. 27. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 22 in F major, Op 54, a. 1st Mov., mm. 62-65 b. 2nd Mov., m. 152

In this sonata, however, the internal solidarity between the two movements does

not depend heavily on the thematic relationships, which seems partly because Beethoven’s

concern about thematic manipulation tends to be focused more on content within the

second movement. Instead, they seem to be connected more in an emotional and

psychological way, creating one musical narrative; that is, in the first movement sharply

contrasting characters conflict with each other, and then gradually converge toward the

coda, in which the lingering tension is expressed by a sudden outburst of dissonance, and

eventually become a musical oneness in the second movement, whose initial marking

dolce strongly suggests the emotional continuation of the previous movement (Ex.28).

Ex. 28. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 22 in F major, Op 54, 1st Mov., mm. 147-54; 2nd Mov., mm. 1-2

９２

In fact, starting from Op. 54, the tendency of emotional unification is so

consistently apparent in Beethoven’s sonatas in two-movement structure that many

scholars and performers have tried to infer the internal connections between two

contrasting movement, approaching them rhetorical analysis or interpretation. (It seems

that such attitude gains wider approval, particularly when the last C minor sonata, op. 111,

is concerned, which will be discussed later.) Perhaps, the finest example would be the

concept of “expressive doubling,”151 suggested by Lawrence Kramer, a Professor of

English and Music at Fordham University. In the literary romanticism represented by

William Wordsworth (1770-1850), Kramer pays special attention to the practice of

expressive doubling “closely bound up with the utopian esthetic and subject/object polarity

of early Romantic culture.”152 Inspired by this unique literary structure, in which the same

pattern is repeated in contrastive versions, he points out the similar artistic procedure in

Beethoven’s sonatas, saying that

Beethoven’s two-movement sonatas pursue expressive doubling in both utopian and inverted forms, and this in a consistent way. In the earlier pieces, Opp. 54 and 78, there is a descent from high to low: the second movement travesties the first. The contrary pattern informs the later sonatas, Opp. 90 and 111, where the second movement transfigures the first. … In the sonatas of travesty, the effect of the doubling is to break down a blindness or obstruction that appears, in retrospect, to set the first movement awry. … In the sonatas of transfiguration, the doubling patiently undo the underlying terms of a violence that fills the first movements with angular textures and brutal dissonances.153

151 Lawrence Kramer, “Beethoven’s Two-Movement Piano Sonatas and the Utopia of Romantic

Esthetics,” in Music as Cultural Practice, 1800-1900 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 22. 152 Kramer, 30. 153 Ibid., 37-38.

９３

In short, as “the sonata of the travesty,” according to Kramer, the finale of Op. 54 functions

as an “expansion and liberation” of the trio theme (B) from the first movement, that shares

textural (two-part counterpoint) and characteristic (energetic and uninhibited) affinities

with the finale, and was seemingly suppressed by the minuet theme.154

From a practical viewpoint, drawing a unified emotional, or psychological thread

from Beethoven’s two-movement sonatas is, despite a risk of falling into somewhat

pedantic subjectivity, considerably penetrative in the actual performing space, providing

profound insight to both performers and listeners for understanding these works. Moreover,

in light of the subject of the present study, Kramer’s view emphasizing on internal direction

between extremely contrasting movements verify how dexterously the concept of contrast

was realized by Beethoven, within and between the movements in the Sonata Op. 54.

C. Sonata in F sharp major, Opus 78

In April 1807 Beethoven established a friendship with Muzio Clementi, a

renowned pianist-composer and publisher in his time, who arrived in Vienna on his way to

Rome, and they closed a publication contract including the commission of three piano

works (three sonatas, or two sonatas and a fantasia). Beethoven fulfilled this by completing

Fantasia Op.77 and two piano sonatas Opp. 78 and 79 in October 1809, which brought the

resumption of his composition of piano sonatas after four-year break.

Dedicated to the Countess Therese Brunswick, the composer’s piano pupil, Op. 78

154 Ibid., 39.

９４

captures the essential characters of the two-movement structure, represented by emotional

intimacy and refined feeling, cultivated in Haydn’s hand. Its two movements are full of

Beethoven’s graceful lyricism and delightful humor, respectively, the combination being

already explored in the Fourth Piano Concerto (1806, cadenzas composed in 1809), a work

also stipulated in the contract. Moreover, the musical warmth and colorful pianistic sounds

are marvelously enriched by Beethoven’s choice of the unusual key, F-sharp major. To put

all these features together, Op 78 totally differentiates itself from its immediate predecessor,

Op. 57 “Appassionata,” revealing an aspect of the composer’s inner delicacy.

At the same time, the sonata points to a new way to be explored more deeply in

Beethoven’s late days; its formal eccentricity reinforces Beethoven’s more “personal,

deliberate approach to the composition,”155 foreshadowing the great structural freedom of

his last style. Also, sophisticated motivic relationships strengthen the dramatic unity within

each movement and, at the same time, between the two movements, demonstrating

Beethoven’s mastery of drawing two totally different characters from the same musical

idea.

The opening movement is in sonata-allegro form in moderate length (105 total

measures), with a very condensed development section (18 measures). The actual

performance time is, however, considerably expansive because of the tempo (Allegro ma

non troppo) and the repetition of both half sections.

Despite its briefness, the beautiful four-bar introduction (Adagio cantabile) is one

155 Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 507. Here, Newman classifies this sonata as the start of the fourth of the five creative periods that he suggested.

９５

of the most outstanding features of this movement, which has drawn the attention of many

scholars. Charles Rosen, for instance, stresses its musical completeness, asserting that

The four-bar Adagio cantabile that opens the work is like no other introduction – or, rather, it is not an introduction at all, but a fragment of an independent slow movement. It is a fragment only because it is too short to exist on its own, but it is, indeed, complete.156

The musical significance of the introduction lies in its full characteristic

implication: it immediately establishes the overall character of the piece. Beginning with

c#, its melody line rises to the same pitch an octave higher, ending with the expressive turn

figure. Its contemplative mood is created by obstinate deep F# in the bass, and at the same

time, the recurred rhythmic pattern combining a quarter note and two notes in shorter value

(mm. 1-3) provides rhythmic impulse, enabling to bind the four bars in a single musical

line. The three-voice melody line moving on the parallel sixth recalls the tender horn-call,

setting the “pastoral”157 scenery (Ex. 29).

Ex. 29. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 24 in F-sharp major, Op 78, 1st Mov., mm. 1-4

156 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, 197. 157 Robert S. Hatten, Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 83. He suggests that the introduction can be interpreted as “sunrise” with the pedal tone acting as “horizon,” associating the whole opening movement with the concept of “pastoral.”

９６

In addition, the introduction contains important motivic germs to influence on the

whole movement. Its melody line is based on a simple idea of four ascending seconds (f# -

g# (m. 1), g# - a# (m. 2), a# - b (mm. 3-4), and b - c# (mm. 4-5)), of which the

combination of the last two (a# – b – c#) becomes the head motif of the Allegro section.

Based on these ascending two- or three notes, different themes are closely interconnected,

unifying the movement (Ex. 30).

Ex. 30. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 24 in F-sharp major, Op 78, 1st Mov., Allegro ma non troppo

mm. 5-8

mm. 9-12

mm. 13-16

mm. 22-23

９７

(continued) mm. 47-49

In contrast with the first movement, the finale is in a very fast tempo (Allegro

vivace) having no repetition, with its first impression being momentary. Regarding the

form, scholars’ views vary from the modified rondo form to the sonata form.158 In practice,

not in theory, the formal feature of the finale verges on rondo format, in which substantial

retransitional passages159 appear twice (15 and 17 measures, respectively). Particularly

noteworthy in this movement is the prominence of the augmented sixth chords. As the first

harmony among the striking three chords ( It+6 -Ⅴ-Ⅴ24 ) opening the movement, its

instable nature represents the character of the finale. From a larger structural view, it

provides the harmonic basis for above-mentioned two retransitions, replacing the function

of the conventional dominant. As a result, the movement obtains a highly excited and

unsettled mood, free from the classical tonal outline summarized as the preparation in

dominant and the return of the theme in tonic. Also, abrupt shifts between major and minor

(subito ff / subito p) in the B sections can be seen as a similar harmonic effect enhancing its

musical character. Consequently, the formal outline of Op. 78 can be represented as follows:

158 For example, Gordon considers its form as ‘a rondo with but one departure,’ whereas Kramer suggests the sonata form omitting the development section. See Gordon, 178; Kramer, 40. 159 Rosen refers this passage to an ‘excursion.’ See Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, 200-201.

９８

Table 11. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 78 in F-sharp major.

1st Movement 2nd Movement ∥: Exp. :∥

∥: Dev.

Recap. :∥

• Introduction: mm.1-4 (Pedal tone on F#)

• Primary theme: mm. 5-8 • Var. on the primary theme: mm. 9-17 • Trans.: 18-27 (move to Ⅴ/Ⅴ) • Secondary theme: mm. 28-38 (Ⅴ) • Thematic material of the primary theme: mm. 39-44 (f#-A-g#)

• Sequences based on three-note motive: mm. 45-51 (d#-c#-B) • Retrans. using descending scales onⅤ: mm. 52-56 • Primary theme: mm.57-60 (Ⅰ) • Var. on the primary theme: mm. 61-76 (move to Ⅳ) • trans.: mm. 77- 86 (move to Ⅴ) • Secondary theme: mm. 87-98 (Ⅰ) • Coda: mm. 99-105

A (Ⅰ-Ⅴ)

A (Ⅰ-Ⅴ/Ⅴ)

B

(Ⅴ/ⅴ) Retrans. (+6/Ⅳ)

A (Ⅳ-Ⅴ)

B

(Ⅰ/ⅰ) Retrans. (+6/Ⅰ)

A (Ⅰ)

Coda (Ⅰ)

• Consists of two thematic groups: a. opening one derived from the

2nd theme of 1st movement (mm.1-11)

b. theme based on two-16th note groups (mm. 12-21)

• trans.: mm. 22-31 (Ⅴ) • mm. 32-50 • trans.: mm. 51-56 (Ⅴ/Ⅴ) • mm. 57-73 (D# major/minor) • mm. 74-88 • mm. 89-109 (B major:Ⅳ) • trans.: 110-15 (Ⅴ) • mm. 116-32 (F# major/minor) • mm. 133-49

• mm. 150-59 • theme based on bar 11: mm. 160-74 • improvisatory passage: mm. 175-77 • cadence: mm. 178-83

In Op. 78, Beethoven’s main strategy of creating the musical cohesion between

movements is the thematic relationships, which was relatively temperate in Op.54. As

Example 31 shows, the opening theme of the finale (b) is, both melodically and

characteristically, derived from the bursting three chords in forte from the second theme of

the first movement (a). Also, rhythmically, it is the augmented form of the dotted-note

９９

figure ( ), the most prominent rhythmic pattern in the opening movement. Later, two

rhythmic figures – one in original form and the other in augmented one – are superimposed

between outer voices and inner ones in the coda (mm. 160-67). On the other hand, the pairs

of slurred sixteenth notes (c), the movement’s predominating motive expressing “the

untamed nature,”160 share their embryonic musical idea with the ascending seconds of the

opening movement.

Despite such strong thematic concentration covering both movements, Beethoven

succeeds in creating totally different characters for each movement, by using the similar

thematic ideas in contrasting musical contexts, such as texture (diverse – limited), register

(narrow – wide), and the level of thematic reworking (highly modified – raw).

Ex. 31. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 24 in F-sharp major, Op 78,

a. 1st Mov., mm. 31-32 b. 2nd Mov., mm. 1-2

c. 2nd Mov., mm. 20-25

In the coda of the finale, Beethoven inserted a three-bar improvisatory passage, in

160 Drake, 203.

１００

which two blocked chords are followed by a broken one, interrupting the breathless musical

flow hitherto. This sudden mood change is effectively supported by a pianissimo marking,

deep pedal, and fermatas. Regarding the relationship between two movements, one can find

a double musical meaning in it; primarily, the passage functions as the musical reminiscence,

which brings the dramatic unification with the first movement; also, through this small passage,

the following six-bar final cadence gains its maximum blustering effects achieving “the

furthest possible remove from its evocative opening,”161 even though those two contrasting

passages have no additional temporal indication. Moreover, the melodic outline of the three

chords (C#-D#-E#) corresponds to the main thematic substance of the opening movement,

as Elaine Sisman points out. Focusing on the sonata’s fantasia character, he notes that:

In fact, the storyteller returns with an image of peroration, designed to recall the opening of the sonata: three fermatas, with three chords whose upper notes ascend (mm. 175-77) from the final C# of the slow introduction, C#-D#-E#. … An outburst of the movement’s signature figuration leads to the finale chord, resolving the upward scale with a conclusive F#. The shape of the first movement’s introduction is, after the strongly directional figuration leads to the finale, here completed.162

From the beginning to the end of the piece, Beethoven’s command of the motivic

technique endows the whole sonata cycle with an unprecedented musical unity. At the

same time, in Op. 78, one encounters a wide-range emotional journey, from an inner

tranquility to an almost flippant lightness. Certainly, this sonata is one of the most brilliant

examples displaying the two-movement sonata’s unique aesthetic: an emotional straight

161 Kramer, 46. 162 Elaine Sisman, “After the Heroic Style: Fantasia and the “Characteristic” Sonatas of 1809,” Beethoven Forum, vol. 6 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 95-96.

１０１

line removing the possibility of its revolution easily found in the sonatas with three- or

four movements.

D. Sonata in E minor, Opus 90

After another four-year break from piano sonata writing, Beethoven returned to

the same genre, again in two-movement structure, by producing Op. 90 in 1814. As it

reflects the composer’s severe personal crisis – 1812 was the time of the letter of the

Immortal Beloved remembered as “a profound turning point in his emotional life”163 – the

sonata shows the composer’s deepening introspective manner represented by new musical

qualities, such as simplicity and inner calmness. Also, the composer’s detailed expressive

indications in German for both movements, “Lively, but with sentiment and expression

throughout,” and “Not too fast and very songful,” respectively, exemplify his “extremely

personal involvement in the expressive aspects of his late music.”164 For this reason, many

musicians think that this piece has close kinship with Beethoven’s last five sonatas.165

Sonata Op. 90 presents Beethoven’s new approach to the two-movement structure

to be fully exploited later in Op. 111; the combination of the first movement depicting

emotional turmoil in minor key and the second one in stable and lyrical mood in parallel

major key, defined as a musical framework in which “the second movement transfigures

163 Joseph Kerman and Alan Tyson, 87.

164 Gordon, 181. 165 Robert Taub, for example, considers the sonata to be “the first in the group of the six late, transcendent Beethoven sonatas.” See Robert Taub, 155.

１０２

the first.”166 This differentiation between movements is further explained by the story that

Beethoven told the dedicatee of the sonata, Count Moritz Lichnowsky, who was about to

marry a young lady beneath his social station, that its first movement could represent “a

conflict between the head and the heart” and the second “a conversation with the beloved.”

Unlike in Opp. 54 and 78, the general structural outline is not unusual in the E

minor Sonata; its first movement is cast in well-balanced sonata allegro form without

repetition and the finale in rondo format in which there are four returns. Investigating in

more detail, however, one can find that both movements display fresh formal ingenuity

that eventually reinforces the musical characteristics of each movement.

The formal division among the exposition, development, and recapitulation is

blurred in the first movement. In the beginning of the development (m. 82), the single pitch

B sounds like an extension of the previous minor dominant chords. The feeling of

continuation is even more enhanced by the correspondence of three B minor chords with

three single Bs, both in pianissimo, which creates an echo effect, as example 32 shows:

Ex. 32. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 27 in E minor, Op 90, 1st Mov., mm. 78-85.

The return of the recapitulation, on the other hand, is prepared through a fourteen-

measure passage (from the second beat of bar 130 to 143) containing extremely economic

166 Krammer, 37.

１０３

pitch contents (G-F#-E-D#-E, from bar 136 a motif is even curtailed to three notes G-F#-

E) in two-voice canon. Despite its lean texture, the passage splendidly gains dramatic

effects and musical continuity toward the return of the main theme by the composer’s

judicious use of diverse keyboard registers, the successive rhythmic augmentation and

diminution, and wide dynamic range. Most of all, the feeling of distinction between the

development and recapitulation is considerably weekend due to the passage’s static

underlying harmony on the tonic, an unusual tonal preparation for the recapitulation (Ex.

33). Such thematic and harmonic overlapping between the sections results in delicate

emotional change and dramatic tension throughout the movement.

Ex. 33. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 27 in E minor, Op 90, 1st Mov., mm. 130-44.

The lyrical finale movement is in rondo form with three departures and a

sophisticated coda. The cantabile rondo theme is outlined as aa´bb´aa´, in which a and a´

are four measures each, b and b´ eight measures; the sum is a thirty-two measure long

spacious theme. The main theme’s suave musical quality is drawn from its smooth melodic

１０４

contour, constant flowing of sixteenth notes, textural uniformity, and tonic closing for each

phrase. Because of the full repetitions of the theme (except for the fourth appearance in

which the last aa´ is replaced by melodic extension derived from b) and generally

unchanged musical quality of three episodes, the finale is frequently mentioned in the

connection with the music of Schubert by many musicians.167 Table 12 shows the formal

scheme of both movements.

Table 12. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 90 in E minor.

1st Movement 2nd Movement Exp.

Dev.

Recap.

• Primary theme: mm. 1-24 (cadence on PAC) • Transition: mm. 25-44 (e-C-a-N/a) • Secondary theme: mm. 45-67 (ⅴ) • Closing: mm. 68-81 (ⅴ): ends with

three B minor chords (mm. 79-81) • Beginning with three single Bs: mm.82-84 • Thematic material of mm. 1-8: mm. 85-109 (move toⅤ/C) • Thematic material of mm. 9-16: mm. 110-29 (C-F-a-e) • Retrans. : two-part canon (Ⅰ) mm. 130-43 • Primary theme: mm.144-67 (Ⅰ) • Transition: mm. 168- 87 (e-C-a-N/e) • Secondary theme: mm. 188-210 (Ⅰ) • Closing: mm. 211-31 • Coda: mm. 232-45

A (Ⅰ)

B (Ⅴ) A (Ⅰ) C

(move toⅥ) A (Ⅰ) B´ (Ⅰ)

A´ (Ⅰ)

Coda (Ⅰ)

• a (4) a ́(4) + b (8) b ́(8) + a (4) a ́(4): mm. 1-32; each phrase ends with authentic cadence. • mm. 33-69 (c#-B) • mm. 70-100 • mm. 101- 39 (C-c-c#-C#-Ⅴ/E) • mm. 140-71 • mm. 172-229 (interpolation based on theme A; mm.212-29: move toⅤ7 ) • mm. 230-64

(melody in tenor, an extension of b) • mm. 265-90 (an abbreviated statement of A)

167 For example, Barry Cooper and William Newman mention the movement’s Schubertian aspect. See Cooper, Beethoven, 232; Newman, The Sonata in the Classical Era, 526. More detailed investigation on this topic can be found in Edward Cone’s essay, in which he examines the close association between this movement and Schubert’s two works: Rondo in A for Piano Duet, Op. 107 and Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566. See Edward Cone, “Schubert’s Beethoven,” The Musical Quarterly, no. 4 (October 1770): 788-93

１０５

The two movements are subtly related by common features. The tenor part plays

an important role of creating textural variety, carrying a melody line in the middle of both

movements (mm. 113-29 and mm. 229-45, respectively). The C major key has significant

meaning in both movements (mm. 109-13 and mm. 109-17), in that, as a remote key, it

provides a “tonal goal” to the whole music. In both movements, the opening section is self-

contained, ending with the perfect cadence (m. 24 and m. 32), which is particularly rare in

a sonata-form first movement.168 Most obviously, the two movements are paralleled by

their head motif based on the interval of the third, resulting in clear contrast; the falling

minor third (G-F#-E) of the opening movement reappears in its reversed form in major (E-

F#-G#) on the second one, which recalls the same major-minor thematic interaction

between movements exhibited in Op. 49 No. 1.

However, one can say that the musical coherence found in Op. 90 is the outcome

of more internal, emotional contrasts between the two movements. As in Op. 54, the E

minor sonata opens with music full of strong conflict between two characters, which is

seen in its primary theme consisting of the dramatic declamation in upward motion (mm.

1-8) and the descending lyrical response (mm. 9-16), and concludes with the finale

movement in narrower emotional range. Furthermore, all of the contrasting aspects

presented in both movements, such as formal, temporal, textural, and emotional contents,

contribute to the sonata’s typicality of the two-movement design.

If one could find something that brings a new experience to the listener in this

168 Cooper, Beethoven, 232.

１０６

sonata, it would be the fact that Beethoven suggests the finale movement as “the resolution

of the turmoil of the first.”169 In other words, the first movement’s internal disturbance and

the “spasmodic continuity”170 are overcome by inner peace, or even by a sense of

transcendentalism in the finale, which is totally differed from the emotional direction

presented in the two preceding two-movement sonatas, in which the whimsical (Op. 54) or

idyll (Op. 78) first movement is converted to the constantly witty and lively second one.

Finally, the cohesive power unifying movements in Op. 90 is strengthened by the

musical continuity implied in the transitional moment between movements and the

composer’s careful design of the ending sections of each movement. Notice in Example 34

the ending of the first movement and the beginning of the second.

Ex. 34. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 27 in E minor, Op 90, 1st Mov., mm. 242-45; 2nd Mov., mm. 1-2

First of all, the motivic relationship between two passages is prominent; last five

notes F#-A-G-F#-E in the ending of the first movement is echoed by its reversed form E-

F#-G#-(B)-A-G#-F# in the opening motif of the second. Of course, this interaction is also

found between the opening motives from each movement, as previously observed. In

169 Drake, 207. 170 Ibid.

１０７

deeper sense, the last short note E obtains a feeling of continuation to the next note, the

opening E of the second movement, through a long pause indicated by a fermata, or, to put

it another way, the silence paradoxically becomes an “emotional link”171 between

movements. Moreover, the deletion of ritardando at the last bars of the final version – the

marking is originally found in the sketch – manifests Beethoven’s clear intention of

enhancement of musical continuity between movements. Regarding the actual performance

of this moment, the renowned pianist Robert Taub remarks:

There is a fermata over the last rests if the first movement, and I do not pull back from the keyboard when the music stops. Rather I focus on preparing to begin the second movement without any interruption, allowing its first sounds – the ascending major-third F-F#-G# – to emerge from the pool silence into which the last E minor chord of the first movement dissolved.172

Whereas a sudden ending of a short last note without any temporal preparation

creates a strong feeling of absence necessitating the musical continuity in the opening

movement, the similar device in the finale, in which the ending shows extreme brevity,

presenting neither slowing down and nor conclusive gesture (Ex. 35), intensifies a “subtle,

exquisite effect, a touch of subdued humor in a lyrical context.”173 Played in pianissimo,

endings of both movements display the great simplicity and unpretentious manner, an

aspect of the composer’s newly discovered inner world. Such musical delicacy of the ending

sections unifying a sonata cycle is hardly found in the whole literature of piano sonata.

171 Ibid., 209. 172 Taub, 154. 173 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas, 212.

１０８

Ex. 35. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 27 in E minor, Op 90, 2nd Movement mm. 284-90

D. Sonata in C minor, Opus 111

Along with the monumental Diabelli Variations Op. 120 (1823) and two

collections of Bagatelles Opp. 119 (1822) and 126 (1824), the C-minor Sonata Op. 111

(composed in 1822, published in 1823) forms the latest group of compositions for piano.

Above all, as the last of Beethoven’s piano sonatas, its implied musical meaning has

widely recognized, as Alfred Brendel remarks that “Op. 111 leaves a dual impression – it is

the final testimony of his sonatas as well as a prelude to silence.”174

At the same time, countless musicians’ and writers’ commentaries on Op. 111

suggest that the significance of this last sonata goes far beyond the fact that the sonata

simply finalizes Beethoven’s piano sonata composition. Approaching this work, most

researches and writings give a great stress on how profoundly it reflects or symbolizes the

composer’s arduous physical, emotional, and spiritual journey. William Kinderman

eloquently describes the philosophical meaning of Op. 111:

174 Brendel,71.

１０９

Beethoven’s last piano sonata is a monument to his conviction that solutions to the problem facing humanity lies ever within our grasp if they can be recognized for what they are and be confronted by models of human transformation.175

Kenneth Drake’s observation is also very perceptive:

Op. 111 was written to define an answer to a dilemma of epic proportions. It is not to be performed, it was written to be lived.176

The profundity of the work has been explained even further with a religious scope. In the

chapter entitled “Intimation of the Sacred” from his book, Maynard Solomon refers to

some of these religious views concerning this sonata:

Many of Beethoven’s close observers have always heard intimation of the sacred in the Sonata in C minor, Op. 111 – “a visionary aura that had never been known in music before” (Kerman); “a magic alternation of darkness and ethereal lightness” (Matthews); “a continuous striving to the heights … like a silver thread … woven between earth and heaven” (Baker); “an ethereal atmosphere, as if the music has entered a transfigured realm” (Kinderman). Rolland referred to it as “This white on white, this immobile lake,” and he was reminded of the “almost impassive smile of Buddha.”177

At the very heart of such recognitions of philosophical and spiritual meaning

found in Op. 111 is the aesthetic of the two-movement sonata design that reaches its

culmination in this masterpiece. In other words, diverse symbolic, metaphysical

interpretations concerning the piece emanate primarily from the perfection of balance

and the entirety of complementary nature between two movements, as Philip Barford

notes:

175 Kinderman, Beethoven, 236. 176 Drake, 309. 177 Maynard Solomon, Late Beethoven (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003), 210-11.

１１０

Beethoven’s last sonata defines with absolute assurance the two polarities within which his creative consciousness evolved. … The two movements completely symbolize the two primary functions of the mind – dialectic and theory; or, to put it another way, analysis and synthesis of conflicting elements on the one hand and the transcendence of all oppositions on the other.178

Indeed, here we can see how splendidly Beethoven presents his compositional mastery that

allows two dramatically contrasting musical words to face as the indispensable counterpart

of each other, which ultimately endows the whole work with the powerful musical

coherence. Of course, the incorporation between two extreme characters has continuously

embodied throughout in his earlier five two-movement sonatas as we observed hitherto.

However, it has never been more prominently realized than in this last sonata; Op. 111

displays the totality of contrast and unity between two movements at every possible level:

formally, thematically, harmonically, and emotionally. Hence, “the unity within contrast”

would be one of the most essential keywords to approach his last piano sonata.

Beethoven’s choice of form reflects the contrasting characters between movements.

The first movement of Op. 111 is structured in the combination of sonata form and fugue,

“the most energetic and intense musical structures,”179 which demonstrates the composer’s

bold and original aspect. That is, he integrates these two formal elements with a first

movement, departing from the conventional solution in which fugal texture is usually

confined to the development section of the sonata form, or to the “harmonically less

178 Philip Barford, “The Piano Music -Ⅱ,” in The Beethoven Companion, ed. Denis Arnold and Nigel Fortune (London: Faber and Faber, 1971), 179. 179 Joanna Goldstein, A Beethoven Enigma: Performance Practice and the Piano Sonata, Opus 111 (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 77.

１１１

ambiguous” finale movement.180 As a result, the movement gains an unprecedentedly

strong character, possessing dramatic power and textural richness.

On the other hand, the second movement is cast in the theme and variation, “the

form most exemplary of repose and stability.”181 After the main theme consisting of two

repeated eight-bar phrases, each being symmetrically divided into two four-bar phrases,

five variations follow, with an improvisatory interlude inserted between the fourth

variation and fifth, and the movement finally concludes with the coda, in which the first

eight measures of the theme are heard under the chain of trills. In spite of its expansiveness,

the music follows the traditional variation scheme, in which each variation brings

increasingly short note values, creating gradual rhythmic acceleration to the point where

the trill ultimately culminates this process, which reminds us of the same technique already

applied to his Op. 109. However, here we find the most sublime example showing how the

composer’s rigorously logical thinking on the variation principle – the basic tempo is

maintained throughout the movement, without having any indications of tempo change

such as ritardando and accelando – creates the subtle gradations of musical character

shifting from “the celestial calm” to the “tremendous exaltation.”182

Beethoven’s formal mastery goes further. Structured in a clearly contrasting

framework, each movement mirrors the formal idea of its counterpart. In the first

movement, all thematic elements are primarily derived from the interval of the diminished

180 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas, 242-43. 181 Goldstein, Ibid. 182 Dennis Mathews, Beethoven Piano Sonatas (London: BBC Publications, 1967; reprint, London: Ariel Music, 1986), 55 (page citation is to the reprint edition).

１１２

seventh, the germinal idea of the Maestoso introduction, being closely involved each other.

Put it differently, the musical development of the whole movement is firmly based on the

diverse transformation of the main thematic material, similar to the variation principle. The

Adagio movement, on the other hand, can be divided into three parts (the first section up to

the fourth variation, the developmental interlude, and the last one beginning from the fifth

variation), with the last part playing a recapitulatory role. Kenneth Drake describes this as:

Although a variation movement is not built on a large-scale plan of departure and return, as is a sonata-allegro, the beginning of the fifth variation sounds like a reprise. Conversely, the sonata-allegro, which is largely monothematic, relies more heavily on variation procedure and contrapuntal development than departure and return ...”183

In addition to the formal element, the organic interrelationships between two

movements are reinforced by two important factors: theme and harmony. In the Maestoso

introduction, the arresting opening theme, beginning with large octave leaps of the

diminished seventh on F# followed by ascending diatonic line B-C-D, is sequentially

repeated in the two other possible diminished-seventh harmonic contexts (on B and E).

As mentioned above, the role of the diminished sevenths in the first movement is critical,

in that its main theme is based on the interval of the diminished seventh (Ex. 36a), and the

rest of the movement is tightly interwoven by the three possible diminished chords (Ex.

36b-d).

183 Drake, 297.

１１３

Ex. 36. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, 1st Movement a. mm. 21-22

b. mm. 76-82

c. mm. 85-92

１１４

d (continued). mm. 146-49

In his renowned book The Classical Style, Charles Rosen shows how solidly the

movement is constructed on the basis of those chords that occur in the fixed order

throughout, saying that

Yet none before the Sonata Op. 111 fixes an order for these chords so firmly throughout a movement (the three chords and their inversions exhaust the range of possible diminished sevenths), derives the principal melodic material so directly from their sonority, and makes such a consistent attempt to integrate the whole movement by their means. It is this concentration upon the simplest and most fundamental relationships of tonality that characterizes Beethoven’s late style most profoundly.184

The predominance of the diminished sevenths in the first movement not only exhibits

Beethoven’s marvelous thematic concentration of his later days, but also maximizes

dramatic tense and emotional turbulence by the chord’s highly suspended sonic quality.

On the contrary, the opening theme of the second movement (Ex. 37) titled

“Arietta”, whose initial four notes C-G-D-G are frequently referred to the close kinship

with the theme of the Diabelli Variations due to their melodic resemblance,185 suggests

inner serenity and spiritual purity, the character even being strengthened by considerably

slow tempo and simple harmonic background outlined by three basic triadic chords: C

major (tonic), G major (dominant), and A minor (relative minor). Maintaining this 184 Rosen, The Classical Style, 444. 185 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas, 246; Cooper, Beethoven, 290; Barford, 181; Mathews, 55.

１１５

harmonic and thematic skeleton almost throughout the movement, the music is fully

imbued with sonic transparency and a contemplative atmosphere. In this respect, Barford’s

observation that “ideally symbolizes” the whole sonata as the resolution from the

diminished seventh chord on D (the first movement) to the C major tonic chord (the second

movement) is memorable.186

Ex. 37. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, 2nd Movement mm. 1-16

Even in the improvisatory episode (Ex. 38), where the harmony finally digresses

from the long-lasted C major tonality, the general mood is still sustained by the long trill

(mm. 108-17), which implies no certain harmonic direction. After this long trill passage

reaches to the E♭major chord (m. 118), the ensuing espressivo section (mm. 120-30)

undergoes the modulation on the descending diatonic scale. However, here the continuous

harmonic changes are compensated with almost motionless chromatically sunken inner

186 Barford, 181.

１１６

voice in constant sixteenth triplet rhythm and highly controlled outer voices. The result is

“the long series of tiny harmonic movements that prolong this immense inner expansion

serve only as a harmonic pulse and in no sense as a gesture,”187 which gently makes way

for the return of the C major harmony (m. 130).

Ex. 38. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, 2nd Movement mm. 106-30

`

187 Rosen, The Classical Style, 447.

１１７

Also, through the espressivo section, Beethoven gives a subtle harmonic hint which

becomes a meaningful link between both movements; the diminished seventh chords, which

demonstrated their full harmonic force in the first movement, now appear in all three possible

chords again, but in disguisedly illusionary form. Consequently, the passage reinterprets the

violent nature of the diminished sevenths in a totally different emotional context, suggesting

“thereby a moment of regression in the developmental unfolding of the whole.”188

While the first movement is recalled in the espressivo passage of the second one by

harmonic recurrence, the second movement is anticipated in the second subject of the first

one by emotional and characteristic affinity, the latter being taken as a prominent example of

“parenthetical enclosure” typifying Beethoven’s latest style by William Kinderman.189 After

relentless agitation of the fugal subject (mm. 35-47), the music reaches its highest point at

the two-bar passage (mm. 48-49), where left hand tremolo and large leaps over four octaves

by right hand consummate dramatic gesture. Interrupting this emotional intensification, the

lyrical second subject abruptly appears in the A♭ tonality (the submediant) at bar 50 (Ex. 39).

Kinderman comments:

Here we have reached a kind of lyrical oasis, wholly removed in its character and musical substance from most of the rest of this turbulent movement, and more akin to the Arietta.190

More astonishingly, all musical elements of the earlier passages are completely restored at

bar 56, showing the clear continuation between those two sections enclosing the 188 Kinderman, 234. 189 William Kinderman, “Thematic Contrast and Parenthetical Enclosure in Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas, Opp. 109 and 111,” Zu Beethoven 3, ed. Harry Goldschmidt and Georg Knepler (Berlin: Verlag Neue Musik, 1988), 43-59. 190 Ibid., 50.

１１８

‘parenthetical’ six-bar A♭ major theme. As a result, “the contrast between this fragile

lyrical utterance and the surrounding passages is thereby brought even more strongly into

relief.”191 The emotional connection between the first movement’s second subject and the

second movement is even more strengthened in the recapitulation, where the lyrical second

theme reappears in C major (mm. 116-21), the home key of the second movement.

Ex. 39. Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, 1st Movement mm. 47-56

The nine-bar coda of the first movement presents Beethoven’s idea of the musical

continuity between both movements through his elaborated treatments. Juxtaposing F

minor (minor subdominant) and C major (major tonic), the passage prepares the tonality of

the ensuing movement. Dynamically, the forte sounds dramatically subside, making way

for the beginning of the second movement in p. The broad melodic outline, C (m. 150)… E

191 Ibid.

１１９

(m. 152)… G (m. 154), is exactly corresponds to that of the Arietta theme (mm. 1-8). With

the carefully planned register and inversion, the first C major chord of the second

movement is heard as an answer to the last one of the preceding movement. Consequently,

this continuity enables a smooth transition into the finale movement, which results in the

enhancement of the unity of the whole work.

In a deeper sense, the coda is also a converging point in which the first movement

is remembered and the second movement is anticipated. The three possible diminished

chords in the Maestoso introduction are responded by three phrases, each containing plagal

cadences on C major, here.192 The continuous flow of the sixteenth notes heard in the bass

presents the reminiscence of emotional turbulence of the first movement.193 The three

resolutions from minor or diminished seventh chords to C major, on the other hand, allude

the liberation from struggle which is to come in the Arietta. In particular, the last three bars

dramatically represent the ultimate release of tension, as Michael Davidson describes:

The last three measures present a microcosm of the entire sonata; m 156 the diminished-seventh represents all the strife of the first movement, m 157 the second movement, and the final measure the sense of complete peace at the conclusion.194

Despite its moderate length, the coda is one of the most intense spaces, in which all musical

elements, including theme, harmony, and dynamic level, transform into profound extra-

musical effects, synthesizing the past and the future, and the outer world and the inner one.

To put all these features discussed above together, Op.111 is represented as follows: 192 Ibid., 50-51. 193 Rosen, Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas, 246. 194 Michael Davidson, The Classical Sonata: from Haydn to Prokofiev (London: Kahn & Averill, 2004), 185.

１２０

Table 13. Formal scheme of Beethoven’s sonata Op. 111 in C minor.

1st Movement Maestoso – Allegro con brio ed appassionato

2nd Movement (Arietta) Adagio molto semplice e catabile

Intro. (Ⅴ)

∥: Exp. :∥ (ⅰ)

(♭Ⅵ )

Dev. (ⅴ)

(ⅰ)

Recap.

(Ⅰ)

(ⅳ)

(ⅰ)

Coda (Ⅰ)

• Three possible diminished chords and their resolutions: 1. F#-G (mm. 1-2) 2. B-C (mm. 3-4) 3. E-F (mm. 5-10) • Dominant preparation on G: mm. 11-18 • Primary theme - unison (mm. 19-28) - harmonized (mm. 29-35) • Trans.: mm. 35-49 - Fugato (move to A♭ major; lowered submidiant ) • Secondary theme: mm. 50-55 (A♭ major) - Parenthetical Enclosure • Closing: mm. 56-69 - thematic material of the primary theme

• Transition: mm. 70-75 - unison (move to Ⅴ/ⅴ) • 2 Sequences using the three diminished seventh chords in the same order 1. double fugue: mm. 76-85 (g-c-f) 2. chordal texture: mm. 86-91 - dominant pedal on G (Retransition) • Primary theme: mm. 92-99 (ⅰ-Ⅴ/ⅳ)

• Trans. : mm. 100-15 (f – b♭ – D♭ – c) • Secondary theme: Parenthetical Enclosure

- 1. C major: mm. 116-23 - 2. F minor: mm. 124-27 + extension: mm. 128-31

• Closing: mm. 132-49 - thematic material of the primary theme

- Four-bar transition (mm. 146-49) using three diminished seventh chords in the same order

• Phrase 1: ⅳ-Ⅰ(mm. 150-52) • Phrase 2: ⅳ-Ⅰ(mm. 152-54) • Phrase 3: ⅶ˚65 /Ⅰ-Ⅰ(mm. 155-58)

Theme ( Ⅰ)

Var. 1 ( Ⅰ)

Var. 2 ( Ⅰ)

Var. 3 ( Ⅰ)

Var. 4

( Ⅰ)

Episode

( ♭Ⅲ )

modulation

(Ⅴ)

Var. 5 ( Ⅰ)

Coda

( Ⅰ)

• mm. 1-16 ∥: a (4+4) :∥∥: b (4+4) :∥ Ⅰ Ⅴ ⅵ Ⅰ • mm. 17-32 • mm. 33-48 • mm. 49-64 • mm. 65-96: double variation a (8) a´ (8) b (8) b´ (8) • mm. 97-130 - Extension of var. 4 (mm. 97-105) - Improvisatory trill (mm. 106-117) leading to E♭ major (m. 118) - espressivo section (mm. 119-30): ( modulation on descending diatonic scale – E♭-c-A♭-G-F-E♭-D-c-B♭-A♭- G

– with intermittent three diminished seventh chords) • mm. 131-46: recapitulatory halved variation : a (8) b (8) • mm. 147-59: Extension of var. 5 • mm. 160-77: extended trill with the first eight bars of the theme (Var. 6?)

１２１

When Moritz Schlesinger, the publisher of this sonata, asked whether Beethoven

had forgotten to send a concluding third movement, Beethoven evaded a direct explanation,

only giving an enigmatic answer that he had “no time to write a finale, and so had

therefore somewhat extended the second movement.”195 Perhaps, the fictional character

Weldell Kretzschmar from Thomas Mann’s novel Doctor Faustus speaks for the composer

most poignantly:

A third movement? A new approach? A return after this parting – impossible! It had happened that the sonata had come, in the second, enormous movement, to an end, an end without any return. And when he said ‘the sonata,’ he meant not only this one in C minor, but the sonata in general, as a species, as a traditional art-form. … It had fulfilled its destiny, reached its goal, beyond which there was no going. …196

The contrast found in Op. 111 is total. The two movements confront as perfect

opposites each other: minor – parallel major; sonata form with fugal treatment – theme and

variation; themes in angular shapes – themes with “hymnic and solemn”197 character;

diminished sevenths – triadic chords; and spiritual instability – transcendental

contemplation. Interwoven by highly elaborated interrelationships, however, the two

dramatically contrasting movements converge, mirroring and reinforcing each other, and

eventually become a musical whole; nothing else is imaginable. Indeed, Beethoven

captures the essence of the formal beauty in Op. 111.

195 Elliot Forbes, ed., Thayer’s Life of Beethoven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 786. 196 Thomas Mann, Doctor Faustus, 1949; trans. H. T. Lowe-Porter (London: Vintage, 1996), 52; quoted in Michael Davidson, The Classical Sonata: from Haydn to Prokofiev (London: Kahn & Averill, 2004), 197. 197 Hatten, 14.

１２２

5

Conclusion

From a general viewpoint, one might think that the composition of two-movement

keyboard sonatas was on a declining trend throughout the eighteenth century, which

becomes undeniable, when he or she compares the considerable popularity of the two-

movement sonata during the early- and mid-century with the rare production at the end of

the century. With respect to the musical substance, however, the two-movement sonata

design developed and expanded the structural vocabulary within its own logic, based on

the contrast between paired movements.

On the foundation laid by many outstanding Italian composers, such as Alberti,

Durante, Paradisi, and Galuppi, the two-movement structure continued to be cultivated in

the hands of numerous composers, who incorporated their own musical languages in this

unique format. In particular, Johann Christian Bach’s contribution to the structure is

significant, in that his works show a great sense of formal balance. The structural power of

the two-movement sonata was enormously strengthened by Joseph Haydn, who enriched it

with the formal inventiveness, clear thinking of musical character, and close relationship

between two movements, which paved the way for Beethoven.

Beethoven infused dramatic power into the framework, intensifying the aesthetics

of ‘the unity within contrast,’ the principle governing throughout his earlier five sonatas

and finally consummating in his last sonata Op. 111. Furthermore, his six two-movement

１２３

sonatas occupy quite suggestive positions in his overall piano sonata composition, in that

they demonstrate Beethoven’s stylistic evolution, forming a meaningful group as a

miniature reflection of his ongoing journey of self-affirmation.

Nevertheless, it is suggested that the value of two-movement piano sonatas has not

been fully appreciated on performance stages, with the sole exception of Beethoven’s Op.

111, which reflects a certain prejudice and tends to cast doubt on the musical depth and

artistic quality of the other two-movement sonatas. In this respect, a rediscovery of the

two-movement sonatas will not only provide a great opportunity to enrich today’s

performing repertoire, but also help professional or nonprofessional musicians attain a

deeper and more balanced view of the piano literature.

１２４

Bibliography

Alberti, Domenico. 8 Sonate für Cembalo. Ed. Giorgio Hanna. Stuttgart: Cornetto, 2003.

Allison, Brian Jerome. “Carlos Seixas: The Development of the Keyboard Sonata in Eighteenth- Century Portugal,” DMA diss., North Texas State University, 1982.

Arnold, Denis and Nigel Fortune, ed. The Beethoven Companion. London: Faber and Faber, 1971.

Barford, Philip. “The Piano Music -Ⅱ.” In The Beethoven Companion, ed. Denis Arnold

and Nigel Fortune, 126-93. London: Faber and Faber, 1971. Beethoven, Ludwig van. Klaviersonaten vol 2. Ed. Bertha Antonia Wallner. Munich: G.

Henle, 1980. Beghin, Tom. “Haydn as Orator: A Rhetorical Analysis of His Keyboard Sonata in D

Major, Hob. 42.” In Haydn and His World, ed. Elaine Sisman, 201-254. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Bianconi, Lorenzo. Program Notes to Iberian Followers of Domenico Scarlatti. Performed

by Luciano Sgrizzi, harpsichord: Stereo MHS 1051, 1972, LP. Blasco de Nebra, Manuel. 6 pastorelas y 12 sonatas para fuerte piano: ms. 2998 Arxiu de

Montserrat. Ed. Bengt Johnsson. Danmark: Edition Egtved, 1984. Blom, Eric. Beethoven’s Pianoforte Sonatas Discussed. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,

1938. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press. 1968. Boyden, David D. Review of Scarlatti: Sixty Sonatas in Two Volumes, ed. By Ralph

Kirkpatrick. The Musical Quarterly 40, no. 2 (April 1954): 260-266. Brendel, Alfred. Music Sounded Out: Essays, Lectures, Interviews, Afterthoughts. London:

Robson Books Ltd., 1990. Brown, A. Peter. Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1986. Burney, Charles. “A General History of Music,” vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935,

874. Quoted in William S. Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 3d ed., 727. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1983.

Cone, Edward. “Schubert’s Beethoven,” The Musical Quarterly 56, no. 4 (October 1770):

779-93 Barry, Cooper. Beethoven, The Master Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2000. --------. Beethoven and the Creative Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

１２５

--------, ed. The Beethoven Compendium: A Guide to Beethoven’s Life and Music. London: Themes and Hudson, 1991.

Cramer, Carl Frierich. Magazin der Musik, 1785, 535. Quoted in Peter Brown A., Joseph

Haydn’s Keyboard Music, 27. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Crocker, Richard L. A History of Musical Style. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Davidson, Michael. The Classical Piano Sonata. London: Kahn & Averill, 2004. Dieckow, Almarie. “A Stylistic Analysis of The Solo Keyboard Sonatas of Antonio Soler.”

Phd. Diss., Washington University, 1971. Drabkin, William. “Early Beethoven.” In Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed. Robert

L. Marshall, 394-424. New York: Schirmer Books, 1994. Drake, Kenneth. The Beethoven Sonatas and the Creative Experience. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press. 1994. Fillion, Michelle. “Intimate expression for widening Public: the Keyboard Sonatas and

Trios.” In The Cambridge Companion to Haydn, ed. Caryl Clark, 126-37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Forbes, Elliot, ed., Thayer’s Life of Beethoven (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964)

Freeman, Daniel E. “Johann Christian Bach and the Early Classical Italian.” In Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed. Robert L. Marshall, 230-69. New York: Schirmer Books, 1994. Frohlich, Martha. “Beethoven’s Piano Sonata in F Major Op. 54, Second Movement: The

Final Version and Sketches.” The Journal of Musicology 18 (winter 2001): 98-128. Gilbert, Kenneth. Foreword to Antonio Soler: 14 Sonatas from the Fitzwilliam Collection,

Antonio Soler. London: Faber Musical Ltd., 1987. Goldstein, Joanna. A Beethoven Enigma: Performance Practice and the Piano Sonata,

Opus 111. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1988. Griesinger, Georg A. “Biographische Notizen über Joseph Haydn,” Vienna: Kaltschmid,

1954, 63. Quoted in Peter Brown A., Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music, 3. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Gotwals, Vernon. Two Contemporary Portraits. Madison, WI: Universit of Wisconsin Press,

1968. Hammond, Frederick. “Domenico Scarlatti.” In Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed.

Robert L. Marshall, 154-90. New York: Schirmer Books, 1994. Hatten, Robert S. Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and

Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.

１２６

Haydn, Joseph. Sämtliche Klaviersonaten. Ed. Christa Landon. Wien: Universal Edition, 1963.

Heimes, Klaus Ferdinand. “Antonio Soler’s Keyboard Sonatas.” MM diss., University of

South Africa, 1965. --------. “The Ternary Sonata Principle before 1742.” Acta Musicologica 45 (Jul.-Dec.1973),

222-48. Heuschneider, Karin. The Piano Sonata of the Eighteenth Century in Italy. The

Development of the Piano Sonata, ed. Rupert Mayr and Karin Heuschneider, vol. 1. Amsterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1967.

--------. The Piano Sonata of the Eighteenth Century in Germany. The Development of the

Piano Sonata, ed. Rupert Mayr and Karin Heuschneider, vol. 2. Amsterdam: A. A. Balkema, 1970.

Jones, David Wyn and H. C. Robbins Landon. Haydn. London: Themes and Hudson, 1988. Macario Santiago Kastner, Foreword to Carlos Seixas: 25 Sonatas para instrumentos de

tecla, Carlos Seixas. Lisbon: Fundao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1980.

Kinderman, William. Beethoven. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. --------. “Thematic contrast and parenthetical enclosure in the piano sonatas, op. 109 and

111." In Zu Beethoven3: Aufsatze und Dokumente, 43-59. Berlin: Neue Musik, 1988. Kirkpatrick, Ralph. Domenico Scarlatti. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.

Kramer. Lawrence. “Beethoven’s Two-Movement Piano Sonatas and the Utopia of

Romantic Esthetics.” In Music as Cultural Practice 1800-1900, 21-71. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1990.

Landon, H.C. Robbins and David Wyn Jones. Haydn: His Life and Music. London:Themes

and Hudson, 1988.

Mann, Thomas. Doctor Faustus. 1949. Translated by H. T. Lowe-Porter. London: Vintage, 1996, 52. Quoted in Michael Davidson, The Classical Sonata: from Haydn to Prokofiev, 197. London: Kahn & Averill, 2004.

Mathews, Dennis. Beethoven Piano Sonatas. London: BBC Publications, 1967. Reprint, London: Ariel Music, 1986.

Mauro, Graziella Di. “A Stylistic Analysis of Selected Keyboard Sonatas by Baldassare

Galuppi.” Ph.D. Diss., University of Miami, 1989. McCabe, John, Haydn’s Piano Sonatas, London: BBC Publications, 1986. Newman, Williams S. The Sonata in the Baroque Era. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company Inc., 1983.

１２７

--------. The Sonata in the Classical Era. 3d ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1983.

Ratz, Erwin. “Analysis and Hermeneutics, and Their Significance for the Interpretation of

Beethoven.” Translated by Mary Whittall. Music Analysis 3, no. 3 (October 1984): 243-54.

Rosen, Charles. Beethoven’s Piano Sonatas. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. --------. The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. 4th ed. New York: W. W.

Norton & Company, Inc., 1997. Salter, Lionel Salter. “In Search of Scarlatti,” The Concsort, no.41 (1985): 47-51. Sanders, Donald C. “Early Italian Prototypes of the Classic Sonata-Rondo Form.” The

Music Review 53, no. 3 (August 1992): 179-190. --------. “The keyboard Sonatas of Giustini, Paradisi, and Rutini: Formanl and Stylistic

Innovation in mid-Eighteenth Century Italian keyboard Music.” Ph.D. diss., University of Kansas, 1983.

Scarlatti, Domenico. Domenico Scarlatti: Sonatas for Harpsichord. Virginia Black. CRD

3442, 2004. Compact disc. --------. Scarlatti Sonatas. Trevor Pinnock. DG Archiv 4776736, 2007. Compact disc.

--------. The Complete Masterworks Recordings Volume. 2 - The Celebrated Scarlatti

Recordings, Vladimir Horowitz. Sony Classical SK 53460, Compact disc.

--------. Domenico Scarlatti: The Complete Keyboard Sonatas. Scott Ross. Warner Classics 2564 62092-2, 1984-85. Compact disc.

--------. Scarlatti: The Complete Keyboard Sonatas. Jan Belder. Brilliant Classics 93546,

2008.Compact disc. --------. D. Scarlatti: The Complete Keyboard Sonatas. Richard Lester. Nimbus IN 1730,

2007. Compact disc. --------. Domenico Scarlatti: Keyboard Sonatas. Maria Tipo. EMI Classics 5069392,

Compact disc. --------. Domenico Scarlatti: Sonaten. Ivo Pogorelich. Deutsche Grammophon DG 4358552,

1992. Compact disc. --------. Domenico Scarlatti Sonatas. Mikhail Pletnev. Virgin Classics 5619612, 2001.

Compact disc. --------. Scarlatti Sonatas. Christian Zacharias. MDG 3401162, 2003. Compact disc.

１２８

Schott, Howard. Review of Scarlatti, by Emilia Fadini. The Musical Times 129, no 1748 (October, 1988): 539.

Sheveloff, Joel L. “The Keyboard Music of Domenico Scarlatti: A Re-Evaluation of the

Present State of Knowledge in the Light of the Sources.” Ph.D. Diss., Brandeis University, 1970.

Sibinger, Alexander. Review of 6 Pastorelas y 12 Sonatas para Fuerto Piano: Ms. 2998

Arxiu de Montserrat by Manuel Blasco de Nebra, by Bengt Johnson, Notes, 2nd Ser., Vol. 42, no.4 (June, 1986): 852-53

Elaine R. Sisman, “After the Heroic Style: Fantasia and the “Characteristic” Sonatas of

1809,” Beethoven Forum, vol. 6 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 95-96.

--------. “Haydn’s Solo Keyboard Music.” In Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed.

Robert L. Marshall (New York: Shirmer Books, 1994) Solomon, Maynard. Late Beethoven. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Somfai, László. The Keyboard Sonatas of Joseph Haydn. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1995. Spitzer, Michael. “ Haydn’s reverals: style change, gesture and the implication-realization

model.” In Haydn Studies, ed. Dean Sutcliffe, 177-217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Stewart, Gordon. A History of Keyboard Literature. New York: Schirmer, 1996. Sutcliffe, W. Dean. The Keyboard Sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003. Taggart, James L. Franz Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Sonatas: An Untapped Gold Mine.

Lamperter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988. Taub, Robert. Playing the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press,

2002.