cooper_beethoven and the double bar

Music & Letters,Vol. 88 No. 3, The Author (2007). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1093/ml/gcm003, available online at www.ml.oxfordjournals.org

BEETHOVEN AND THE DOUBLE BAR

BY BARRYCOOPER*

WHERE IN HIS MUSIC DID BEETHOVEN put double bars, and what design did he use forthem? These might seem naive questions, for which the answer could surely be found inany good modern edition of his music. The questions might equally be viewed asabstruse and esoteric ones of no conceivable practical interest. Both these assumptionsprove to be erroneous, however, and an investigation of Beethovens double bars unveilsfar more issues than might initially have been expected.Any modern edition of Beethovens music, indeed of most music, shows final double

barsthose at the end of a movement or workas a thin line followed by a thick line,and intermediate double bars as two thin lines. Before a repeated section there are dotspreceded by a thick^thin pair of lines (often omitted if it is the start of a work), matchedby dots and a concluding thick^thin pair of lines at the end of it. These conventions areso familiar that they are hardly worth recording, and they have been almost univer-sally adopted by publishers for well over a century. Many musicians, faced with suchconsistency, will no doubt assume that the same conventions were observed inBeethovens day. This is not the case, however. They date back much less than twocenturies, and what happened before then has not been properly documented. Somecomposers, copyists, and engravers used more ornate double bars than those commontoday, and certainly Beethovens specimens cannot be expected to look the same in hisautograph scores as they do in modern editions. A glance at any of these autographscores quickly confirms that the shape of his double bars differs from modernconvention.If the design of his double bars is less than straightforward, the actual location of

themother than those at the ends of movements or worksis an even bigger pro-blem, despite the best efforts of recent scholarly editors. Many recent editions ofBeethovens music, especially those that describe themselves as urtext, make a pointof indicating how carefully they preserve the composers original text. They suggestthat this text is altered only in a few specified situations, where editorial material isclearly indicated by such means as square brackets or small notes. A notable example isthe new complete edition currently being produced under the auspices of theBeethovenhaus, Bonn, in which the more recent volumes (after 1991) include ErnstHerttrichs statement of the latest editorial policy, containing the following passage:The edition reproduces the music text largely in line with the notational style in theauthentic sources. Characteristic scribal idiosyncrasies of Beethoven are retained evenif they initially appear unfamiliar to the reader. Modernizations are undertaken only if

*University of Manchester. Email: [email protected]

458

at Harvard University on July 25, 2010

http://ml.oxfordjournals.org

Dow

nloaded from

they are necessary for the better readability and understanding of the text. But they arenot allowed to alter its sense.1

Herttrich explains the various ways in which Beethovens text might be altered, butsays nothing about double bars, leaving readers to assume that they have not beenchanged, since any addition might conceivably change the sense of the music. Despitethis professed editorial policy, however, double bars are routinely inserted at all changesof key signature or time signature, and occasionally elsewhere. This has been doneapparently so as to conform to the house style of G. Henle, the publishers, withoutany evident recognition that it contradicts Beethovens text.A similar situation occurs in Jonathan Del Mars justly acclaimed and meticulously

prepared edition of Beethovens symphonies, published by Ba renreiter. Here the editorstates in each study score: Wherever possible, Beethovens own notation, nomenclature,clefs, spelling of dynamic and tempo markings, and note-groupings have beenretained.2 Since it would be perfectly possible to retain Beethovens original barring,which forms an integral part of his own notation, the reader might well assume thatthis had been done here.Yet it has not. In the score of the Ninth Symphony, the Prefacestates: It was not Beethovens practice to write double bars at tempo or key changes, butthis modern convention has been allowed.3 Thus in the finale of this symphony, forexample, the edition includes twenty-four internal double bars, none of which is in theautograph. The question of whether this might make a difference to the readersperception of the music is not considered, and the distinction between places whereBeethoven did and did not use an internal double bar becomes obscured.The intention to retain Beethovens original notation is less explicitly articulated in

Peter Hauschilds recent edition of the piano sonatas, published by Schott and Universalin their Wiener Urtext Edition, but the edition still gives every impression that thisnotation is being faithfully reproduced. Even the staccato signs are printed in anunusual shape that attempts to mimic the composers handwriting, and the prefacestates: Occasional editorial additions to the musical text are indicated by squarebrackets.4 Once again, however, double bars are added liberallywithout squarebracketsat most changes of tempo or key signature, even if the music is continuous.Thus three important and recent scholarly critical editions of Beethovens music

prepared by different editors and issued by different publishers have all disregardedthis aspect of his notation. These editions are typical of most others in this respect. Attimes it seems as if editors and publishers have not even noticed what was being done toBeethovens notation, since they rarely mention double bars. Meanwhile any user ofthese editions would be likely to assume, wrongly, that the modern conventions fordouble bars were just as stable in Beethovens day, and that no changes had been made.If the double bars in modern editions differed from those in Beethovens autographs

merely through insertions of them at routine changes of key signature or time signaturewithin a movement, as implied by Del Mar, such insertions would often cause no

1 Die Ausgabe gibt den Notentext weitgehend entsprechend der Notierungsweise in den authentischen Quellenwieder. Charakteristische, ausdrucksbedingte Schreibeigentu mlichkeiten Beethovens, auch wenn sie dem Leserzuna chst ungewohnt erscheinen, werden beibehalten. Modernisierungen werden nur dann vorgenommen, wenn siezur besseren Lesbarkeit undVersta ndlichket des Textes notwendig sind. Sie du rfen aber dessen Sinn nicht vera ndern.See e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven, Musik zu Egmont und andere Schauspielen, ed. Helmut Hell, Beethoven Werke, ix,7 (Munich, 1998), p. ix.

2 See e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony 9 in D minor (study score), ed. Jonathan Del Mar (Kassel, 1999), p. vi.The wording varies slightly in the other eight scores.

3 Ibid.4 Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonaten fu r Klavier, ed. Peter Hauschild, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1997^2001), i, p. viii.

459



Dow

nloaded from

problem, and might even help by drawing attention to a change that could otherwisebe overlooked. Sometimes, however, they can affect the interpretation of the music.A good example occurs at bar 91 of the finale of the Ninth Symphony. Here Beethovenwrote a strong perfect cadence, followed by a single bar-line and then immediately thefirst note of the famous Freude theme.Yet at this point many conductors make a pause,often of several seconds, and it seems highly probable that the presence of a spuriousdouble bar here in modern editions has influenced this decision. Interestingly, JamesWebster has already argued on purely analytical grounds that there is no true caesurahere, and that this cadence leads (or should lead) without break or loss of momentuminto the Ode to Joy.5

Another problem is that many of Beethovens works were composed in sections ormovements that are not quite independent but join on to what follows in some way thatvaries from work to work, thus offering a variety of boundaries with different levels ofstructural significance. In the Waldstein Sonata, Op. 53, for instance, the final Rondois preceded by an Introduzione that ends with a pause on the dominant in preparationfor the Rondo theme. The theoretical question of whether Introduzione and Rondoform two separate movementsa slow movement and a finaleor a single movementlike the slow introduction and Allegro in a first movement, is complemented by thepractical question of whether there should be a momentary silence between the two orwhether the first note of the Rondo should be struck as the last note of the Introduzioneis released. The same sort of issue is raised in many of Beethovens other works, such asthe Appassionata Sonata, the Violin Concerto, and the Emperor Concerto, where,although the music is not completely continuous, the finale follows the end of theprevious movement without a perfect cadence, usually with the word attacca to confirmthat little or no break is envisaged. In the Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, meanwhile, thefirst chord of the finale actually concludes a phrase at the end of the previous move-ment, so that no break is really possible, whether or not Beethoven wrote a double bar.A slightly different situation occurs at the end of the first movement of the MoonlightSonata, where there is a firm perfect cadence in the tonic but Beethoven has added thewords attacca subito il seguente. A particularly celebrated case where the movementsare mostly run together, but to differing degrees, is the String Quartet in C sharpMinor, Op. 131, with its seven movements or sections. In works such as these, shouldthere be an additional beat or two between movements, where possible, or should therhythm continue uninterrupted? Sets of variations also raise the same issue. Should theunderlying pulse continue smoothly from one variation to the next, as would be neces-sary if they were accompanying a dance; or should there be a brief pause or silence atthe end of each one, perhaps preceded by a slight rallentando and emphasis on thecadence, as in consecutive verses of a strophic song or hymn?The kind of double bar that Beethoven wrote at all these structural boundaries, and

whether he used a double bar rather than a single bar-line (or nothing at all), mightthrow light on these questions. It follows, therefore, that the theoretical question ofwhat types of double bar he habitually used in his manuscripts, either at the end of orin the middle of movements, could in some cases have significant implications forperformance. This raises further questions that have not previously been addressed in

5 James Webster, The Form of the Finale of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, Beethoven Forum, 1 (1992),25^62 at 46.Websters music example (p. 47) actually shows the single bar-line, though he does not use this as part ofhis argument.

460



Dow

nloaded from

the literature: how many different kinds of double-bar sign did he use, and was theirselection on each occasion made thoughtfully or randomly?Beethoven himself was aware of the problems that double bars could generate.When

George Thomson sent him some folksong melodies to harmonize, Beethoven noticedthat many had a double bar in the middle, which might imply a repeat of each half.After hinting at the problem in a couple of letters, he eventually asked explicitly forclarification: Note down for me in each song . . .whether there are any repetitions :k:which are sometimes very badly notated by these two k lines.6 Thus he was clearlyaware that the precise design of the double bar could have significant implications, andit is therefore to be expected that he was careful about how he drew his own and wherehe placed them. To understand what options he had for the sign, however, it isnecessary to explore briefly its history and use before his time.

DOUBLE BARS IN OTHER SOURCES

Double bars, despite their familiarity or perhaps because of it, have hardly ever beenthe subject of scholarly investigation. In New Grove II, the article on double bar saysmerely this: Two vertical lines drawn through the staff to mark off a section of a piece.7

Thus the entire history and usage of a sign that has been widely employed for manycenturies is reduced to less than a sentence. A detailed search through the literature,using a number of standard search mechanisms, failed to reveal a single article or bookin which the term double bar (or Doppelstrich) appeared in the title.A few scholars, however, have used double bars as an integral part of an investiga-

tion, and five recent cases are worthy of note. Michaela Zackova Rossi has discussedthe use of signs such as the corona and the double bar as separation signs in the ballataand early madrigal; an article by EllenTeSelle Boal describes Purcells use of fermatasigns and double bars to mark sections of a work; Paul Cienniwa has noted howCouperins markings in binary-form movements have been replaced in modern editionsby standard double bars with dots, which may be misleading; Christine Martinexplains that the two sections of the final chorus in Handels anthem O praise the Lordwith one consent are not separated by a double bar in the autograph and should beregarded as continuous; and Simon Perry has observed that Musorgsky uses doublebars in his Gnomus to indicate new sections where the notation of accidentals ischanged.8 Even these rare studies, however, do not specifically focus on double barsbut merely bring them into the general argument. In the context of double-bar study,they are noteworthy in three main ways. They reveal first that the investigation ofdouble bars can yield important insights that cannot be achieved by other means.Second, works in which double bars have some real significance are not limited to asingle composer or period but can come from a wide variety of periods and genres,

6 note s moi a chaque chanson . . . sil y a des re pe titions :k: qui Sont quelquefois tre' s mal note par ces deux k lignes.Letter of 29 Feb. 1812. See Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg, 7 vols. (Munich,1996^8), ii, item no. 556.

7 See New Grove II, vii. 519. A cross-reference to the article on baroffers nothing fresh, apart from giving the phraseup to the double baras one example of how the word bar can be used.

8 Michaela Zackova Rossi, Ballata Form in the Early Madrigal, in Anne-Emanuelle Ceulemans andBonnie J. Blackburn (eds.),The orie et analyse musicales: 1450^1650 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001), 149^93; Ellen TeSelle Boal,Tempo Indications in Purcells Fantasias and Sonatas: A Performers Guide to New and Conflicting Signatures,Journal of the Viola da Gamba Society of America, 31 (1994), 9^24; Paul Cienniwa, Repeat Signs and Binary Form inFrancois Couperins Pie' ces de clavecin, Early Music, 30 (2002), 94^103; Christine Martin, Zur Form desSchlusschores von Ha ndels Chandos-Anthem O praise the Lord with one consent (HWV 254), Go ttingerHa ndel-Beitra ge, 7 (1998), 179^81; Simon Perry, Mussorgskys Gnomus: Composers Score as Analytical Text, Context,15^16 (1998), 5^20.

461



Dow

nloaded from

ranging from the medieval ballata to Musorgsky. And third, these studies indicate thatany problems arising from double bars have been overlooked in the vast proportion ofthe musical repertory. Thus these writers demonstrate that the issue of double barsoffers much opportunity for exploration.The double bar does have a long and fairly complex history. It originated around the

end of the thirteenth century, as an extension of the Franconian idea of a single bar-lineor finis punctorum, which had been introduced by Franco of Cologne (fl. 1280) to indicatethe end of a piece or section. In the Ars Nova period, a double or even triple bar-linewas sometimes used to show the conclusion of an individual voice-part.9 The implica-tion, perhaps, was that the space between the two lines of the double bar represented aperiod of silence that must occur at the end of every piece before the start of anotherone. Since that time, the sign has taken on a variety of forms and uses. Sometimes itindicated a repetition of a section, as Beethoven mentioned in his letter to Thomson,and in such cases it was often, though not always, accompanied by two or more dotsbefore and/or after the sign. This usage can be seen, for example, in the virginalcollection Parthenia (1612^13), where repeats are indicated by two short vertical linessurrounded by dots on both sides, which are in turn surrounded by two more verticallines. In this collection, the ends of pieces that do not finish with a repeat sign aremarked by a line of near-vertical zigzags on each stave, gradually diminishing in heightfrom left to right, and finishing with a final flourish. Such a sign is not untypical ofmany scores of that period. Other sources use two plain vertical lines, thin or thick,sometimes followed by further lines of smaller height. In Book I of Bachs Daswohltemperirte Clavier (1722), each prelude and fugue ends with two plain vertical lineson each stave, though Bachs pen stroke sometimes joins them together and occasionallyextends them with an additional shorter vertical line or flourish, thus tending towardsthe zigzag design in Parthenia. In addition, he places a zigzag line (of gradually dimin-ishing height) further to the right, between the two staves, at the end of each fuguewhere there is room, but only at the end of about half the preludes. At the end of thelast fugue this zigzag is much larger and bolder, and is followed by the word Fine.Thushe is not wholly consistent, and further investigation in his other manuscripts is needed.In Mozarts Requiem a rather different picture emerges. The opening Introit ends witha half-close followed by a plain double bar (two long vertical lines), but the Kyrie fugueends with a single bar-line (divided in the middle), decorated by four pause-marks atvarious heights and followed by two w-shaped squiggles at different heights thatemphasize a stronger conclusion. The Dies irae, like the Introit, also ends with a plainlong double bar before the Tuba mirum; but later the Confutatis movement ends withjust a single long bar-line and segue before the Lacrymosa.10 Su ssmayrs contribution isnotated differently: he concludes movements with short and often rather ornate doublebars, usually one on each stave though sometimes covering 2^4 staves, and each with afinal diagonal line up to the right.Thus sources exhibit considerable variation on the basic design, which is two vertical

lines that may be joined together and may be followed by shorter ones, often with somekind of final flourish, and perhaps with some other kind of decoration. A full survey ofthe range of designs and uses of double bars obviously cannot be attempted here,

9 See Richard Rastall,The Notation ofWestern Music (London, 1983), 55 and 62.10 Even in Christoph Wolff s diplomatic transcription of the manuscript, this last detail is not preserved and a

thin-thin double bar is substituted: see ChristophWolff, Mozarts Requiem: Historical and Analytical StudiesDocumentsScore, trans. MaryWhittall (Oxford, 1994), 217.

462



Dow

nloaded from

but the above examples show that Beethoven was faced with a number of optionswhen he started writing music down and having to make a conscious decisionabout how to indicate the end of a work, movement, or section. His solution in individ-ual cases varied considerably, but a survey of a large selection of his autographsprovides a clear picture of his usual procedures. Once this picture has been established,it can be used as a yardstick against which to measure anomalous examples. It can alsobe used as a means of illuminating the meaning of individual double bars (or theabsence of them) in particular works, with results that are sometimes surprising andsignificant.

BEETHOVENS NORMAL DOUBLE-BAR DESIGNS

The present survey of Beethovens double bars has been greatly assisted by tworesources that have recently become available: one is the microfiche publication of allthe Beethoven manuscripts in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek (including those currently inKrako w); the other is the online digital archive of the sources in the Beethoven-Archiv,Bonn,11 which enables anyone with Internet access to view numerous examples ofBeethovens different designs of double bars. Between them these two collections con-tain a large majority of his extant autograph scores, but some additional autographshave also been examined to amplify the picture. The only previous extended study ofthe subject appears to be by Douglas Johnson,12 who is one of the few scholars to havediscussed Beethovens double bars at all. Johnson constructed an impressive list of thefinal double bars in all Beethovens autographs up to 1798, in an attempt to use them(along with other notational features) as an aid to dating the early works.The principlewas perfectly sound and worked well with certain handwriting features, although withdouble bars it proved in the end more a matter of using the works, dated by othermeans, as a way of dating Beethovens use of particular designs. Precisely how thesedesigns were used when they appeared in the middle of works was not part of Johnsonsinvestigation, and the categories he used for classifying the different types of double barhave needed to be adjusted for the present study, for he does not always distinguishbetween different versions of a general design.Altogether Beethoven used four main designs of double bar during the course of his

life (see Pl. 1). The first consisted of a pair of vertical lines on each stave of the system,with each pair superimposed by a reverse s-shape. This type (Johnsons type C) will bereferred to hereafter as the s-type. Since Beethoven almost invariably drew each of hissingle bar-lines across all the staves in a systemwith a single stroke of the pen, the use ofan individual sign like this on each stave is quite striking visually. This sign is usuallyfound in roughly the same places as the modern thin^thick double bar, and was hismost common conclusion sign for whole movements and complete works up to 1801. Itfirst appeared as early as 1786 in his Trio for piano, flute, and bassoon (WoO 37),13 butat this stage it invariably took on some irregularity: in the first movement, a single longpair of vertical lines was combined with a reverse-s on each stave; the second move-ment concludes with a different type of double bar (see below); and in the third, a set

11 Musikhandschriften der Staatsbibliothek zu BerlinPreuischer Kulturbesitz, Teil 3: Die Beethoven-Sammlung [microfichesand accompanying booklets] (Munich, 2002^5).The Bonn sources are accessible at5www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de4.

12 Douglas Johnson, Beethovens Early Sketches in the Fischhof Miscellany: Berlin, Autograph 28, 2 vols. (Ann Arbor,1980),esp. i. 39^41, 60^3.

13 For the location of this and other autographs discussed, see the Appendix.

463



Dow

nloaded from

of variations, the s-type is used only in combination with dots signifying repeats(Theme, Var. 1where the dots follow the s-typeand Vars. 3, 4, and 6).14 The workends with an irregular type, a set of four long vertical lines superimposed by a series ofloops that form a coil. The s-type was used regularly during the 1790s, however, andJohnson lists seventeen works up to 1799, in addition toWoO 37, where it can be found.It continued in common use in autographs around 1800, as in the finales of the con-certos Opp. 15 and 19, the first, third, and fourth movements of the Piano Sonata, Op.26, the G major Violin Romance, Op. 40, and the finales of the Piano Sonata Op. 28and String Quintet Op. 29. At this stage, however, it was less common at the ends ofnon-final movements, such as those of Opp. 15, 19, 28, and 29, where other types areused instead.The last regular use of the s-type may be in the six Gellert Lieder, Op. 48,which were probably composed not long before a copy of them that is dated 8 March1802. The surviving portion of the autograph contains only the last two songs, with no.6 appearing in two versions, but the s-type appears consistently in all three settings. Bythe time Beethoven came to write out the autographs of his Three Violin Sonatas,Op. 30, however, around spring 1802, he was no longer using the s-type at the ends ofmovements, and from this date onwards any use of this type must be regarded asirregular and deserving special attention.One particularly interesting anomaly is theThird Piano Concerto, Op. 37. The date

of this work has long been a matter of dispute, for there is evidence that it was largelycomposed in 1800, in preparation for a benefit concert that spring, but it was not finallyperformed until April 1803. Virtually all the sketches are missing, and the date on theautograph appears to be 1803, though it was for a long time misread as 1800. LeonPlantinga has argued that the most likely date for the missing sketches is summer 1802,and that none of the score was written out until early 1803;15 but there is insufficient gapin the sketching record to allow for the composition of a large-scale orchestral work insummer 1802, for Beethoven was composing three piano sonatas (Op. 31) at that time,having interrupted two sets of variations (Opp. 34 and 35) to complete these quickly.Indeed any proposed date in 1802 or 1803 is problematical in this respect, for thesketching record shows no major gaps. The double bars offer some dating evidence notpreviously considered: both the second and third movements of Op. 37 end with thes-type. It is extremely unlikely that Beethoven would revert to this type for this onework in early 1803, having abandoned it so thoroughly and consistently almost a yearearlier. Thus the concerto must have been written out in score by early 1802 at the

PL. 1. Beethovens notation of double bars

14 Johnson asserts that the s-type is not normally used with dots as a repeat sign (Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 40), butthere are actually quite a few cases in addition to WoO 37, viz. Op. 103, 3rd mvt., WoO 1, 6th mvt., WoO 33, no. 5,WoO 52, and Hess 48.

15 See Leon Plantinga, Beethovens Concertos: History, Style, Performance (New York and London, 1999), 113^35, wherethere is a detailed discussion of the dating problems of Op. 37.

464



Dow

nloaded from

latestmore likely 1800 or 1801with the final bar reached at this stage, whateveradditions and amendments were made later (and there were many). This conclusion is,incidentally, strengthened by the form of system brace used in the score. In 1800Beethoven was already moving to his most mature form of system brace, in whichthere is no separate arc at the top, and a mixture of this and earlier forms can befound in the Piano Concerto in C, the present score of which dates from 1800.16 By 1801the form with the arc was rarely used, as can be seen in such autographs as Opp. 27 No.2, 28, 29, 40, andWoO 46 from that year,17 and by 1802 it hardly ever appears; yet it canbe found almost throughout the score of the C minor Piano Concerto. It seemsimpossible to believe that Beethoven would suddenly and briefly return to his olderform of system braceand his older form of double barfor a single work, and theconsistency with which the system brace with separate arc is used suggests early 1801 asthe latest possible date for the main outline of the score, with 1800 more probable. Thedate 1803 on the score must therefore have been added by Beethoven only whenmaking late revisions around the time of its premiere that year. His double bars,together with his system braces, therefore provide crucial evidence for dating one ofhis major works.The second type of double bar found in Beethovens autographs corresponds

approximately, like the s-type, to the modern thin^thick double bar, and is describedby Johnson as a single stroke, beginning with a vertical line which spans one staffand continuing to the right as a squiggle of gradually diminishing height.18 Thedesign most often has three, but sometimes two or four, vertical strokes alternatingwith oblique ones, and can often resemble a roughly drawn letter m; it will thereforebe referred to here as Beethovens m-type of double bar. Like the s-type, it was drawnseparately for each stave of a system. It was used for a short time in 1794, appearing in apiece for musical clock (WoO 33 No. 4), the revised score of Der freie Mann (WoO 117),and the first two movements of Beethovens copy of Haydns String Quartet Op. 20 No.1, all of which appear to date from that year.19 There is also a puzzling use of the m-type in a work dating from c.1791theVariationsWoO 67; an explanation can be foundfor this anomaly, however, for the sign appears only in a correction added on the titlepage.20 This correction was surely made in 1794, for Beethoven wrote to NikolausSimrock in Bonn on 18 June that year, offering to send the score of this work andadding that various improvements had been made in this score.21 Simrock publishedthe work later that year.The m-type was quickly abandoned that same year, but it began to reappear around

the end of 1801. Its reappearance was not entirely sudden, for there are a few transi-tional specimens from that date. One of the earliest is the first movement of the PianoSonata in D, Op. 28, where the sign on each stave has two downstrokes linked by anoblique, and thus resembles a short plain double bar. A similar form appears at the endof the second movement of the String Quintet Op. 29, of roughly the same date.

16 Johnson, Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 37, 358. The work was originally composed five years earlier.17 It does appear frequently in the solo part of Op. 19 written out in April of that year; but this manuscript was a

fair copy intended for a printer, and Beethoven habitually tended to use an older, more formal style of writing infair copies than in composing scores; see e.g. Johnson, Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 34^5.

18 Ibid. 40. He classifies this sign as type E.19 A further example occurs in a sketch in the Kafka Miscellany, fo. 141v: see Ludwig van Beethoven: Autograph

Miscellany from circa 1786 to 1799, ed. Joseph Kerman, 2 vols. (London, 1970). Johnson dates this leaf as 1794 on othergrounds (Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 102), and the m-type of double bar supports his conclusion.

20 Johnson, Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 484 n. 10.21 Briefwechsel, ed. Brandenburg, i, item no. 15.

465



Dow

nloaded from

Both these works show the s-type at the end of the finale, but the one in Op. 29 couldalso be considered transitional, since the two vertical strokes are somewhat linkedtogether, thus creating something of a hybrid between the m-type and s-type. Beforelong, however, the fully-fledged m-type was appearing regularly, and can be found atthe end of each of the ten movements in the Violin Sonatas of Op. 30, apart from theScherzo of No. 2, which ends with repeat signs. It also appears at the end of each of theseven bagatelles, Op. 33, and the two sets of variations, Opp. 34 and 35, which all datefrom later that year.Thus the transition from regular s-type to regular m-type seems tohave lasted around six months, with Opp. 28 and 29 showing both types, Op. 48showing only the s-type and Op. 30 No. 1, written about April 1802, showing only them-type. Thereafter one finds the m-type at the end of practically every work, and ofnearly all movements that end with a firm tonic cadence. This feature remained con-sistent throughout the rest of Beethovens output, and the very few exceptions appear tohave special circumstances (as with the Third Piano Concerto, discussed earlier). Them-type does not normally appear, however, at the end of inconclusive movements orsections such as those mentioned earlier, where a different sign is used. The inescapableconclusion, therefore, is that from about April 1802 Beethoven normally treated them-type as signifying and confirming a strong closure. It can even appear occasionallyat a major structural point within a movement, where there is a firm tonic cadenceand change of metre. An example occurs in the long final movement of Christusam Oelberge, Op. 85, in a revision apparently made in 1804.22 Here the initial recitativeends at bar 25 with a firm perfect cadence before the ensuingTerzetto, and Beethovenunexpectedly uses an m-type. This suggests a very strong termination, and that asubstantial pause was envisaged before the start of the Terzettoproviding a goodexample of how the use of a particular double-bar sign can affect the way a work isperceived and performed. In a modern edition, a thin-thick double bar would beequivalent, and should surely be used here.In a few late works, Beethoven saved time by writing the m-type double bar only on

the first-violin stave.This procedure can be seen, for example, in the Kyrie of theMissasolemnis, Op. 123, and the first movement of the Ninth Symphony. It never became hisnormal habit, however, and there does not appear to be any musical significance in thisvariant of the sign.Beethovens third type of commonly used double bar is his repeat sign, consisting of a

pair of short vertical lines on each stave, preceded and/or followed by dots, dependingon which passage was to be repeated (as in modern notation).This sign could appear atthe end of a movement instead of one of the other types, or in the middle in place of abar-line, or even between two bar-lines in the middle of a bar. It was sometimesdecorated by two pairs of slanting slashes, one above and one below the stave. Since itprovides no clues on its own about the division of a work into sections or movements, ithas no real structural significance and can therefore be excluded from the followingdiscussion. If a repeat occurred at the end of a movement, the dots of the repeat signwere occasionally combined with the s-type of double bar, as mentioned above, or withthe m-type, but the latter combination was very rare (see below for its use in Opp. 34and 35).The fourth type of double bar frequently found in Beethovens autographs is the

plainest: two long vertical lines, each drawn through all the staves of a system

22 See AlanTyson,The 1803 Version of Beethovens Christus am Oelberge, Musical Quarterly, 56 (1970), 551^84, esp. 568and 578. The original 1803 autograph is missing.

466



Dow

nloaded from

(Johnsons type A). Beethoven used this extensively in his sketches throughout his life, tomark the end of a section or movement, and it proved a good way of distinguishingsuch sketches from the majority that needed some continuation. Sometimes it was alsoused to mark the beginning or end of some fragment, and it is the most common type ofdouble bar in his sketches, although other types are occasionally found. In finishedscores, however, it is much less common, and is used almost invariably to denote aninternal division or structural boundary, signifying that there was more to come. Thusit is somewhat like the modern thin^thin double bar, but was used less often. Johnsonlists only three early works where the sign appears at the end, and all are special cases.One is the very early set of three piano quartets, WoO 36 (1785), written beforeBeethoven had established his normal patterns; here he used a short pair of verticallines on each stave at the end of each movement, adding dots for repeats wherenecessary. Another is in the Duo, WoO 32 (c.1797), where again there are pairs ofshort vertical lines on each stave, but only at the end of the Minuet; since this isfollowed by a Trio, it is not really a proper ending (the Trio itself ends with a repeatsign). The third is the end of theVariations,WoO 74, where there was very little spacefor any bar-line, let alone a decorated double bar, and Beethoven drew two squashedand superimposed long bar-lines, with an additional squiggle to suggest a trueconclusion.In contrast to these three special cases, Beethovens normal use of the double bar as a

sign of incompleteness emerged as early as c.1786, where it can be found in the fragmen-tary orchestral Romance, Hess 13, and the Trio,WoO 37. In the Romance, he unchar-acteristically drew all his bar-lines on single staves rather than using long ones across allthe staves, and the same applies to his double bars, which he added to mark the start ofa solo section and again before a maggiore section. InWoO 37, the slow movement endson an imperfect cadence, and Beethoven added just a long plain double bar, followedby two linking chords and rests, then only a single bar-line before the start of the finale.Thus in both these works he already demonstrates a perception of a plain double bar asa non-ending, unlike in the earlierWoO 36 trios.This perception continued in later life,and typical examples of the use of this sign at incomplete endings include theIntroduzione in the Waldstein Sonata; the Allegretto section in the finale of the samesonata, immediately before the final Prestissimo; individual variations inWoO 74; theCoda that precedes the Finale in the PrometheusVariations, Op. 35; the third movementin the oratorio Christus am Oelberge; the slow movement of the Violin Concerto, Op. 61,before Attacca subito il Rondo; and the third movement of the Fifth Symphony, whichhas the sign at the end of both the minore section and the whole movement. The signalso appears in many other works in similar contexts. In the String Quintet Op. 29,when the music changes to 3/4 towards the end of the finale, Beethoven unusually put ashort double bar on each of the five staves, but no further double bars are used at thesubsequent time changes. The same sign was used about the same time in theContredanse,WoO 14 No. 10, at the end of both the main section and the Trio section.Here Beethoven probably considered that neither section was a proper conclusion, sincethere was a da capo to follow, and the two sections would be played in alternation for aslong as was required by the dance that the music was intended to accompany; a plaindouble bar was therefore appropriate. (The other contredanses written at this time,nos. 9, 7, and 2, all use repeat signs.)Beethovens use of this fourth type of double bar is the most variable and interesting,

and his habit of reserving it mainly for sketches and for incomplete endings has impor-tant implications for places where it appears unexpectedly. There are several of these,

467



Dow

nloaded from

and they need special consideration. Its use in sketches seems to have extended beyondtrue sketches to some complete compositions that he evidently did not regard as properworks. Thus they appear at the end of both formal counterpoint studies23 and othercompositional exercises. These include the Fugue in C of c.1795 (Hess 64), a shortAdagio for three horns (Hess 297) written in 1815, and even the substantial recitativeand aria No, non turbarti (WoO 92a). This last work was written around the beginningof 1802 during Beethovens study of Italian word-setting with Salieri, and the fact thathe did not regard it as a proper composition is evident not only from Salieris correc-tions but from Beethovens own heading: Esercizi. The final plain double bar reinforcesthis view.One place where a plain long double bar appears unexpectedly is the end of the

second movement of the C major Piano Concerto. Although the word attaccadoes notappear, the use of this double bar rather than a proper termination sign may havesignified that the finale should continue with very little break.The sign would thus haveserved as a visual reminder when Beethoven was performing and conducting from thisscore. There would be no problem in omitting a break at this point, since the thirdmovement begins with piano solo and the horns have time to change crooks before theyenter.24 One could of course suspect that Beethoven was merely being inattentive orcasual about what kind of double bar he put here, but for the fact that he used exactlythe same sign in the corresponding place in his next concerto, the Third PianoConcerto. Here he initially wrote a plain long double bar, but then drafted the lasttwo bars again, using conventional s-type signs, as noted above; the supplementarybars, together with the s-type signs, were later cancelled, leaving the plain long doublebar at the end of the movement. This was clearly not casual or through inattention butwas a conscious decision that must have had some meaning. Either he was experiment-ing with using a different type of double bar for non-final movements, or more probablyhe intended the sign as a reminder to proceed without delay to the solo passage thatbegins the finale. Again this would cause no problems for the horns, for they do notchange crooks at this point (and the trumpets and timpani have been silent during theslow movement). The musical effect of continuing promptly here is to emphasizethe connection between the G sharp at the end of the slow movement and the A flatat the opening of the finalean enharmonic relationship that has intrigued severalcommentators. The first movement of this concerto also ends with a plain double bar,and so again it must be supposed that a prompt continuation may have been envisaged.Many more double bars also appear during the course of this work, but these weresimply to mark off the solo sections from the tutti ones, and seem to have been addedto aid the copyist, though they do not appear with complete consistency.25 Their usein similar places can also be found in the fragmentaryViolin Concerto in C,WoO 5,of c.1791, and in the first movement of the Piano Concerto in B Flat, but these areexceptional cases.A plain double bar can also be found at the end of a middle movement in the Piano

Sonata Op. 28, second and third movements. At the end of the third movement this isjustified since there is a da capo, but there seems no obvious musical reason why the

23 Facsimiles of some examples can be seen in Alfred Mann, Beethovens Contrapuntal Studies with Haydn,Musical Quarterly, 56 (1970), 711^26, pl. I^III.

24 The time allowed for a change of crook in bars 1^20 is almost exactly the same as in the finale of theThird PianoConcerto, bars 229^48.

25 In the first movement they appear after bars 111, 130, 171, 179, 226, 257, 322, and 347, but not e.g. 402.

468



Dow

nloaded from

second should proceed to the third any more rapidly than usual. This may be whatBeethoven wanted, however; alternatively he may simply have been experimentingwith a sign to differentiate a middle movement from a final one: a reminder to con-tinue, but not necessarily with an attacca. This unusual case occurred during the periodof his transition from s-type to m-type, when some experimentation might be expected.A particularly notable use of a plain double bar is in the Violin Romance in F,

Op. 50. The score of this was written out in 1798, but there are several reasons forsuspecting that the work may be a revision of the missing slow movement of the violinconcertoWoO 5, of which only a fragment of the first movement survives: the Romancehas the right title, key, speed, scoring, and theme for this purpose,26 and independentinstrumental Romances were scarcely known at that time, although many slowmovements had that title. Moreover there are no sketches for Op. 50 in Beethovenssketchbook of 1798, as there should have been if the work were newly composed.The heading in the autograph provides a further clue, for it looks like that of a middlemovement, with no proper work title and no composers name. What really seemsto clinch the matter, however, is the use of a plain long double bar at the end, just asin the slow movements of several other concertos (Opp. 15, 37, 61), for among all theautograph scores examined, no other examples of this sign have been found at the endof a self-contained work that was not an exercise. The one apparent exception is theSixth Symphony, but here the last bar, including the double-bar sign, is actually inthe hand of a copyist, the original page having disappeared. Thus the double bar inOp. 50 evidently signifies that there must have been a movement to follow. The Op. 40Romance in G, by contrast, has a standard s-type of conclusion sign, as already noted.It must be deduced, therefore, that Beethoven revised his early C major violin concerto,or part of it, in 1798, then extracted the Romance for a separate performance; and thatthis won so much admiration that some patron commissioned another Romance, whichBeethoven duly provided by composing Op. 40 as an independent work.One other case of a plain double bar at the end of a movement is worth noting. This

occurs with the first movement of the Piano Sonata Op. 109. Here Beethoven originallywrote his customary m-type, but immediately smudged it out and replaced it with aplain double bar on each stave, plus an attacca. As Nicholas Marston has pointed out,What Beethoven did at the end of the first movement of Op. 109 was to replace thisdouble barline [the m-type] with the more provisional form consisting of two ordinarybarlines placed close together. . .. That he substituted this form for the more conven-tional one clearly indicates that he imputed different meanings to the two signs.27 Theheightened continuity was then confirmed by a pedal mark on the last chord of the firstmovement, and matching pedal-off sign on the first chord of the next movement,ensuring there was no silence between the two (hence Beethoven felt free to delete theattacca that he had added). Beethoven also used a plain long double bar at the end of thesecond movement. This implies that the whole sonata is more unified and continuousthan usual.28 In the two companion sonatas, however, Beethoven used firm m-typedouble bars at the end of all three movements in Op. 110 and both movements inOp. 111. Thus those pianists (and there are a few) who make no break between move-ments in either of these sonatas are not playing what Beethoven wrote. Although theend of the second movement of Op. 110, for example, with its prolonged F major chord

26 See Barry Cooper, Beethoven (Oxford, 2000), 75^6.27 Nicholas Marston, Beethovens Piano Sonata in E, Op. 109 (Oxford, 1995), 10.28 See ibid. 9^11, where some of the analytical implications of the plain double bars are developed.

469



Dow

nloaded from

and widespread sonority, neatly prepares for the next movement, the m-type doublebar is reinforced by the absence of any attacca, confirming that Beethoven did notintend immediate continuity (the m-type seems never to have been used in conjunctionwith an attacca). In any case, the close tonal relationship cannot be used as an argu-ment, for it resembles that between the end of Op. 10 No. 1 and the beginning of Op. 10No. 2, which one would not expect to be played without a break.

IRREGULARTYPES

Apart from his four main types of double-bar sign, Beethoven used a few others, thoughonly irregularly and mainly in his early works. The use of a set of short plain doublebars each covering just a single stave has already been mentioned, as has a coil of loopssuperimposed on four long vertical lines. In what is probably the earliest autograph ofall, the Fugue WoO 31 of c.1783, there is a unique ending with pairs of vertical linesadorned by horizontal rather than vertical zigzags (Johnsons type F), but the coiledloops at the end of WoO 37 could be seen as an elaboration of the horizontal zigzags.Further examples of a coil of loops, combined with two long vertical lines, appear insome scores of c.1790^2: the first movement of the Duo for Flutes, WoO 26; certainvariations in the set for piano, WoO 64; and the song with orchestra Mit Ma deln sichvertragen, WoO 90. The loops, however, could easily degenerate when Beethoven waswriting more hurriedly, leaving just a descending wavy line (usually about four waves)over the two straight vertical lines. This type is found at the end of the first movementof the Ritterballett of 1791 (WoO1), although the other movements all have the ordinarys-type (as do most of those in the autograph piano reduction). It also appears in somevariations inWoO 64, and in two works for voice and orchestra from about the samedate: Pru fung des Ku ssens and Primo amore (WoO 89 and 92). Occasionally Beethovencombined waves and loops within a single design: this occurs in the second and fourthmovements of the Wind Octet, Op. 103, of 1793, where in both cases the two longvertical lines are superimposed by a wavy line in which the waves become looped inits lower half. This suggests that he regarded waves and loops as interchangeable at thisperiod. Both types virtually disappear after 1793, though a rare later example,with only two to three waves, can be found in the first movement of the PianoConcerto in C (1800).A different design found during the 1790s is a pair of long vertical lines decorated by

a single elongated reverse-s; hence it can be referred to as a long S-type.29 This type,usually drawn quite neatly, is uncommon, and its function is rather variable. Often itdenotes a specifically non-final ending, as in the following: the sketchy accompanimentfor the Lamentations of Jeremiah (c.1791), where the sign appears at the end of the firstverse but not most of the later verses; the trio section of No. 6 in the piano score of theRitterballett, where it is followed by a da capo; one variation in the set on La' ci darem,WoO 28 (c.1795); two variations in the first movement of the sonata Op. 26; and the firstmovement of the Moonlight Sonata, where the sign is accompanied by the wordattacca. The sign also appears in the score of the Piano Concerto in B flat at the endof the first two movements, whereas the finale uses the short s-type. In these works,therefore, the symbol distinguishes some intermediate endings from the final one.

29 Johnson (Beethovens Early Sketches, i. 40) places this in the same category as double bars with loops or waves,claiming that the backwards S could become a long wavy line when more than two or three staves were involved.These categories are better treated separately, however, for they are not very similar, and the wave type can also befound with only two staves (e.g.WoO 64), while the long S-type sometimes appears across more than three staves.

470



Dow

nloaded from

Occasionally, however, the reverse is more the case. In the piano score of theRitterballett, where most movements end with the short s-type, the finale ends with thelong S-type, decorated with a pause and the word fine. A nearly complete fantasia-likepiano piece in D (c.1793) also ends with the long S-type, after intermediate sections hadended with plain double bars; and the symbol is used for all three movements in thesolo part of the Piano Concerto in B flat, Op. 19, which was written out in April 1801 togo with the orchestral score completed earlier. Nevertheless, the sign appears to be usedat the end of a complete work only in piano reductions (e.g. of Op. 19) and sketchyworks (e.g. the piece in D) where some continuation might have been planned. Henceits general meaning seems to be that the score is in some way less than complete at thatpoint. The latest use of the sign yet discovered occurs in an incomplete attempt atconcluding the slow movement of the Second Razumovsky Quartet (1806). WhenBeethoven rewrote the final bars he substituted his normal m-type of double bar. Thusthe long S-type here may have been a reminder to himself that the first attempt wasonly a provisional draft to be replaced. If so, the sign again signalled that the work wasless than complete, but in a different sense than usual.Since Beethoven sometimes stretched his single-stave s-type across several staves to

form a long S-type, it is not surprising that he also extended his m-type across morethan one stave.This is infrequent, however, and appears mainly in the sketchbooks (e.g.Landsberg 5, p. 50; Wittgenstein, fo. 41v), normally on just two staves. It can also befound at the end of the set of bagatelles Op.126, whereas the rest of the bagatelles in thisset, and those in the previous set (Op. 119 Nos. 1^6), end with the usual m-type on eachstave. In this case, therefore, Beethoven was treating the two-stave m-type as more finalthan the one-stave m-type.

EXCEPTIONAL ANDUNEXPECTEDUSAGES

In general, then, Beethoven usually used an s-type or m-type double bar, but occasion-ally some other type, for the end of a work or a movement with a clear perfect cadence,and he used a plain double bar for inconclusive endings, where something else was tofollow promptly if not immediately. Exceptions to this pattern deserve greater scrutiny,since there may well be some underlying intention that caused the irregularity. By farthe most common exception is the complete absence of a double bar between closelyadjoining sections of a work. A double bar was omitted not only at temporary changesof key or metre, as in the finale of the Ninth Symphony (see above), but sometimes atmore substantial boundaries.The absence of any double bar in such places subliminallyconveys to the performer a much greater sense of continuity, and offers much lesstemptation to slow down or make a slight break for a boundary in the music. Thissituation occurs, for instance, before several finales. Although Beethoven used a plaindouble bar before the finale in works such as the Waldstein Sonata, the ViolinConcerto in D, the Fifth Symphony, and the third Razumovsky Quartet, he avoidedone altogether in certain other works, using just a single bar-line immediately beforethe start of the finale, as in the Appassionata Sonata, the Sixth Symphony, and theFifth Piano Concerto.Is there any reason for differentiating these three finales from the others just men-

tioned? Musical features suggest that there is, and that Beethoven was being moresystematic than might be expected. In the Appassionata, the opening diminished-seventh chords of the finale are prefigured in the last two bars of the precedingAndante, so that in a sense the finale has already begun before the change of keysignature and time signature. Moreover the pedal at the end of the Andante is probably

471



Dow

nloaded from

intended to be held right through (as in the first two movements of Op. 109); althoughthere is a fresh pedal mark at the start of the finale, it is probably to be interpreted assempre pedale, since the previous pedal mark two bars earlier has no cancellation. In theFifth Piano Concerto the situation is somewhat similar. The main finale theme isprefigured in the last two bars of the Adagio, the modulation to the original tonichaving already taken place, and so once again the finale has effectively already begunbefore the change of metre. Thus a double bar would be less appropriate. Indeed thisprinciple was already foreshadowed in the very earlyTrioWoO 37, as noted earlier.TheSixth Symphony is somewhat different. It is always regarded today as having fivemovements, but the fourth, the Sturm, is shorter and less well developed than theothers, and lies outside the traditional four-movement structure. Its structural prece-dents are introductions to finales such as those in Beethovens Septet and his First andThird Symphonies, and especially La Malinconia in the Quartet Op. 18 No. 6, and heseems to have been building on this tradition. Although the Sturm is longer than theseintroductions, with a clear musical narrative, it is only slightly longer than the slowintroduction at the start of the Seventh Symphony (about seventeen seconds longer, ifone observes Beethovens metronome marks); this introduction also has a clear musicalnarrative but has never been considered a separate movement. The single bar-line atthe end of the Sturm (in contrast to the plain double bar at the end of the precedingmovement, Lustiges Zusammensein der Landleute) is therefore appropriate, and itstrengthens the view of the Sturm as in some ways a prolonged introduction to thefinale rather than simply a full-scale movement in its own right, thus providing aninteresting alternative perspective to the works overall structure. It is certainly anoversimplification to suggest that the Sixth Symphony has five proper movements butthe Seventh only four, as is commonly asserted.There are many other places where only a single bar-line is used at a transition

between sections of a work. Early examples include the joins between the march andthe trio (and back to the march) in the Marcia funebremovement of the Piano SonataOp. 26, and that between the orchestral introduction and opening recitative in Christusam Oelberge. Several other cases occur in the bagatelles Op. 33. If such a transition to anew section took place during a bar, Beethoven wrote no bar-line at all but just a freshset of key or time signatures. Similarly, at the end of the Scherzo of Op. 26, where theTrio ends on the second beat of the bar, there is no bar-line after the last note, but just ada capo instruction. In the multi-sectional Fantasia Op. 77, there is not one double barthroughout the piece until the customary m-type at the end. This results in some veryodd bar lengths and unexpected absences of bar-lines, especially near the end, wherethere is no bar-line immediately before the tempo 1mo mark, where the main themereturns in C major.In the multi-sectional works of Beethovens later years, there are further places in

which modern editions customarily add a double bar where there is none in the auto-graph. In the Piano Sonata Op. 101 there is no bar-line after the Adagio movementbefore theTempo del primo pezzo, and just a single bar-line between this and the finalAllegro. In the Cello Sonata Op. 102 No. 1, a single bar-line is drawn between theAdagio and Tempo d Andante, and again between this and the ensuing Allegrovivace. The end of the first movement is more complicated: Beethoven put a plainlong double bar and attacca indication, but he cancelled the latter in the copyistsscore; an attacca would anyway have been somewhat weakened by the final bar of thefirst movement, which is a whole-bar rest with pause. Had he rewritten the autograph,he might well have replaced his plain double bar with an m-type at this point.

472



Dow

nloaded from

The companion sonata, No. 2 in D, has no bar-line at the end of the second movement,but just Atacca [sic] and a fresh set of signatures (clef, key, and time). Thus the lastchord of the Adagio and first note of the Allegro are part of the same bar in theautograph score. Similarly, in the multi-sectional finale of the Piano Sonata Op. 110there are no internal double bars, and changes of key or time within a bar take placewithout any added bar-line; hence the first note of the Fuga falls within the same bar asthe last chord of the preceding Adagio.30

One of the most extraordinary scores from this point of view is the String Quartet inC Sharp Minor, Op. 131. As mentioned earlier, this has seven movements which adjoinin different ways. At the end of the first movement there is no attacca sign, butBeethoven links the two movements even more closely together: there is not even asingle bar-line between them, and the first chord of the second movement comes in thesame bar as the last chord of the first movement. Although the page shows a large spacebefore the second movement, a fresh set of clefs that might imply some sort of break hasbeen deleted. A similar level of continuity occurs at the end of the next two movements,although they both happen to terminate at the end of a bar, and so a single bar-lineseparates them from what follows. At the end of the fourth movement, however,Beethoven wrote a firm m-type conclusion sign, the type used at the end of wholeworks, thus indicating a very strong caesura before the rest of the quartet. (There aretwo autograph scores for this part of the work, and in the later one he wrote the m-typeonly on the first-violin stave, as in the first movement of the Ninth Symphony, but thishas no evident difference in meaning.) The fifth and sixth movements once again endwith only a single bar-line in the autograph, although Beethoven drew a long plaindouble bar two bars before the end of the fifth movement, signifying that this move-ment really ends here and that the following two bars form a link to what follows. Thiswas not a new procedure, for it had appeared as early asWoO 37 (c.1786), as alreadynoted.The links between movements therefore differ from what one would deduce from

modern scores, which add a spurious double bar after each of the first three move-ments, creating a stronger division, but imply some continuity at the end of the fourthmovement instead of a full-scale break.The biggest surprise in the autograph, however,is the end of the finale: there is no bar-line or other conclusion sign at all! DidBeethoven really just forget to put one in, and never notice the glaring omissionwhen going through his score? This seems unlikely. Was he uncertain about whetherto add an additional eighth movement that appears in his sketches, and planned toinsert whatever bar-line or double bar was appropriate once he had reached a decision?One would still expect him to put in some kind of sign, and then change it later ifnecessary, as in other cases. Whatever the explanation, the absence of any double barbeautifully matches the unstable and ambiguous ending in the music itself, where theC sharp major chord can be heard either as a strong tonic or as a weak dominant of Fsharp minor that had been heard a few bars earlier, and Beethoven may have beenresponding almost instinctively to this inconclusiveness.Apart from the m-type sign at the end of the fourth movement, and the long

double bar just before the end of the fifth, the only double-bar signs in thisquartet appear during the fourth movement, at the end of the theme and each ofthe first four variations, though not after the fifth or sixth. There is no break in the

30 In this movement, for once, Hauschilds edition (see n. 4 above) mostly follows the autograph score, adding veryfew redundant double bars.

473



Dow

nloaded from

flow of the music at these points, and Beethoven may have decided to insert thesedouble bars (which are not in his earlier autograph) merely to help orientate theplayers, and perhaps to encourage them to strengthen the sense of cadence at each ofthese five points. It is quite noteworthy, however, that the variations are more separatedfrom each other visually by double bars than any of the first four movements or thelast three.

OTHER SETS OF VARIATIONS

In the variation movement in Op. 131, musical continuity between variations isgenerated by the use of short note values on weak beats and half-beats at the end ofthe theme and each variation, and Beethoven used either plain double bars or singlebar-lines. But what did he use in his earlier sets of variations, where each section(theme or variation) often ends with a strong cadence and long note or rest? In somecases the section ends with a repeat sign, giving little clue about continuity since, as hasbeen seen, this sign can appear equally at the end of a movement or in the middle ofa bar with no difference in design; but where there is no repeat at the end, the typeof double bar used might provide clues about how much continuity he appears to haveenvisaged between variations. One of the earliest sets of variations surviving inautograph score is WoO 64. Here, the theme and each variation end with a firmcadence and no link to what follows; as already noted, at each point Beethoven drewa long double bar decorated by either loops or waves. All but two of these doublebarsthose for the theme and Var. 2are also decorated by a pause. Although suchpauses do not appear in later sets of variations, they imply that he considered a slightbreak between variations to be normal, as with consecutive verses of a song. It ispossible, therefore, that he wanted less break or even no break after the theme andVar. 2, where there is no pause. Although there is no obvious reason why this shouldhappen, it would be quite effective. The theme ends with a long three-beat note, andone might want to press on to Var. 1 with little or no delay after this. Var. 3 is theminor-key variation, and so again one might want to avoid delay at the end of Var. 2,so as to enhance the sudden change of character. Conversely, at the end of the ratherserious minor variation a slightly longer pause than usual would suit its contemplativecharacter well. Thus it could be significant that Beethoven uses a different type ofdouble bar here than before. This and the final double bar are the only two that usewaves rather than loops, which might mean that he imagined a stronger terminationhere than elsewhere, although the change of design could of course be just a randomdeviation.Some similarly irregular double bars, which could be interpreted as either deliberate

or random deviations, occur in several later sets of variations. In the woodwindvariations on La' ci darem (WoO 28) of c.1795, the theme and all but one of thevariations have the short s-type of double bar (if one regards the coda as belongingwith the final variation), and they are normally followed by a space on the page. Theexception is Var. 3, where Beethoven used the long S-type, and left no space after itbefore Var. 4. Perhaps, therefore, he was using a different type of double bar to implygreater continuity than after the other variations, as implied by the absence of a space.It may also be significant that no new time signature is written at the start of Var. 4(though this is also true of Vars. 2, 6, and 7), which might suggest closer continuity. Themusic does cadence properly at the end of Var. 3, butVar. 4 is the first to begin with anupbeat before the main downbeat, and this could have prompted him to use a different

474



Dow

nloaded from

type of double bar and no following space, to emphasize the greater continuityrequired.Some sets of variations from the late 1790s show no significant pattern of double-bar

design; for example the variations WoO 74 all use long plain double bars, while thevariation movement in the Septet Op. 20 uses an appropriate mixture of the s-type(which implies a break between variations) and repeat signs. In the Piano SonataOp. 26, however, we find a pattern that recalls those inWoO 64 andWoO 28. At theend of theTheme, as at the end of Vars. 1, 3, and 5 (if one counts the short coda as partof Var. 5), Beethoven used his normal s-type, implying a firm ending plus short silence.Yet at the ends of Vars. 2 and 4 he used the long S-type, which was normally reservedfor non-final or provisional endings, as established above. At precisely the same twoboundaries he also omitted the time signature that he normally included in eachvariation in a setVars. 3 and 5 are the only two that lack one. Thus the double barsand the time signatures concur in implying that he may have wanted a shorter breakhere than at the end of theTheme or the other variations. There is no obvious musicalcontinuity at the ends of Vars. 2 and 4, but it may be significant that his pupil CarlCzerny later singled these two variations out as the two that should be performedslightly faster than the rest.31 If this reflects Beethovens own view, as is very possible,then it would make sense for them also to lead on more quickly to what follows, in linewith the implications of the double bars and time signatures. It is also noteworthy that,as in WoO 64, the implication is for a shorter break before the minore variation anda longer one after it.By the time Beethoven composed his next set of variations within a sonata, in the

finale of theViolin Sonata in A (Op. 30 No. 1) of 1802, his normal conclusion sign wasthe m-type of double bar. This sign appears not only at the end of each movement, butalso at the end of each variation, except Vars. 1 and 5. Thus one must assume asignificant break after most of the variations. Since Var. 5 ends with a pause on thedominant, it is not surprising to find just a plain double bar, before the change to 6/8 forVar. 6 and coda, and the implication is that Var. 6 should follow almost immediately.The end of Var. 1 is more intriguing, for Beethoven used the short s-type on all threestaves, and it is followed by the only variation for which he did not write a fresh timesignature. More significantly,Var. 1 is the only variation, apart fromVar. 5, that ends onthe weak fourth beat, thereby inviting a more immediate continuation. Thus, as inOp. 26, a different kind of double bar is combined with an absence of following timesignature and greater musical continuity with what follows. In Op. 30 No. 1, however,the m-type had supplanted the s-type as the standard conclusion sign, releasing thelatter so that it could imply a less conclusive ending than formerly, while the longS-type could be abandoned altogether. Thus the consistency with which Beethovenvaries his double-bar signs in several different sets of variations, including WoO 64,WoO 28, Op. 26, and Op. 30 No. 1, strongly suggests that the distribution of irregularsigns is not merely random but relates to the music itself, with implications for how suchvariations might be performed.Later in 1802 Beethoven composed two major new sets of variations for piano,

Opp. 34 and 35. Op. 34 is highly innovative in that each variation is followed by achange of key and time signature. The theme and Var. 1 both end with an m-type ofdouble bar, but the next three variations all end with repeats. Beethoven here created

31 Carl Czerny, On the Proper Performance of all BeethovensWorks for the Piano, ed. Paul Badura-Skoda (Vienna,1970), 37.

475



Dow

nloaded from

an unusual combination of repeat sign and the m-type, as if to signify that he wanted aproper pause at the end of each variation, after the repeat. He originally put the samesign at the end of Var. 5, where there is a firm cadence in C minor, but he then deletedthe sign and substituted an ordinary repeat sign, followed by a few supplementary barsthat lead to a pause on a dominant seventh of F major in preparation forVar. 6 (whichis preceded, as expected, by a long double bar). This change confirms that his use ofrepeats combined with an m-type signified something different from and moreconclusive than an ordinary repeat sign, since he felt it necessary to delete the signwhen adding a linking passage straight after it.The unusual combination of m-type with repeat sign reappears in Op. 35, the

so-called Eroica Variations or, more properly, the Prometheus Variations. Here theinitial Basso del Tema ends with a normal m-type, while the next three sections,a due, a tre, and a quattro, end with conventional repeat signs. The following Tema,however, ends with repeat plus m-type, suggesting that Beethoven wanted a breakbefore the main numbered set of variations is begun.Variations 1^3, 5, and 7 concludewith ordinary repeat signs that might or might not suggest a slight break, while Var. 4has a separate second-time bar followed by an m-type double bar; a break here wouldbe quite effective before the next variation, which begins pianissimo. Variation 14 runsinto Var. 15, and consequently concludes with a long plain double bar, but the othervariations all end with an m-type (supplemented by repeats in one case). Thus a slightbreak between these variations seems to be the intention. But there is an anomaly:Var. 6 leads into Var. 7 with a run of semiquavers and must obviously join on withouta break, yet there is a firm m-type double bar. If Beethovens double bars have anysignificance, this must be regarded as an oversight, for the m-type elsewhere almostinvariably coincides with a strong ending and implies at least a slight break.Thus the answer to whether Beethovens variations should be played with or without

a break after each one depends on the precise context. A break seems to have beenexpected more often than not, and the types of double bar used provide additional cluesin some cases. This interpretation applies in most of the later sets of variations too.In the slow movement of the Appassionata Sonata, Op. 57, the Theme ends withambiguous repeat signs but the first variation ends with the m-type of double bar, andboth of the first two variations are given a fresh set of clefs and signatures.Thus a slightbreak before each of them is strongly implied by the autograph. The remainingvariations, however, proceed without a break, and without any further double bars.In the third movement of the Archduke Trio, Op. 97, every variation follows onwithout any break in the music, and there is only a single bar-line each time, with nofresh signatures. Even the end of the movement concludes with only a single bar-linesince, as with certain works already mentioned, the first chord of the finale is alreadyheard before the change of time signature. The autograph score of the DiabelliVariations, Op. 120, is in private hands and inaccessible, but a single replacement pagesurvives in Bonn; this shows the end of Var. 31, with no double bar or bar-line at theend before the start of the fugal Var. 32. The continuity here is also emphasized by anattacca sign.Probably the most complex relationship between variations occurs in the finale of the

Piano Sonata, Op. 109. The Theme ends with repeat signs, but none of the variationsdoes; nor do any of them have a firm m-type sign (except, of course, after the reprise ofthe theme at the very end).Variations 1 and 4 end with a plain long double bar and ashort space afterwards; Vars. 2, 3, and 5 end with a single bar-line and no space,implying that Vars. 3, 4, and 6 must begin immediately. This implication is supported

476



Dow

nloaded from

by the music, for Vars. 2, 3, and 5 all end on the final quarter-beat of the bar, whereastheTheme andVars. 1 and 4 have an implied caesura, either through a stable cadenceor (Var. 4) a short rest. Musically the link is strongest between Vars. 3 and 4, wherethere is a note tied across the bar-line, and this is the only place where Beethoven didnot add fresh clefs and key signature for the start of the new variation. He did actuallybegin writing them, but promptly smudged them out, and so the decision was clearlydeliberate. Thus the double bars at the end of Vars. 1 and 4, and perhaps the repeatsigns at the end of theTheme, may imply a bigger break than occurs at the ends of theother variations. Marston has reached the same conclusion (although his reasoning isbased just on the double bars and not the space after certain variations or the rhythmof their final bars); and he has gone on to argue that this interpretation is also structu-rally plausible, with Var. 1 somewhat isolated while Vars. 2^4 form a connectedgroup.32 One must guard against too much sense of isolation here, however. Thelargest separation between variations is represented only by a plain long double bar,which is much less strong than the m-type used in some other sets, and presumably lessstrong than the various modified forms of quasi-final double bar found in sets such asOp. 26 and Op. 30 No. 1.

THETRANSMISSION OF BEETHOVENS DOUBLE BARS

Once Beethovens music began being copied and printed, his complex range and choiceof double bars was unlikely to be reproduced exactly, and there are numerous placeswhere it has been distorted. He seems either not to have noticed or not to havemindedpartly, no doubt, because he had more important matters to deal with, suchas wrong notes and missing accidentals. He knew, too, that copyists and engraverstended to have their own idiosyncratic designs for double bars and would not usuallydraw them precisely the same way as he did anyway. In general, however, Beethovenscopyists reproduced his notation rather closely. Their job was to copy what they saw,however much they suspected an error, and so if he put a single bar-line where onemight expect a double bar, they tended to do the same. A good example occurs in thecopyists score of the Cello Sonata, Op. 102 No. 1, where the scribe, like Beethoven, putonly a single bar-line after the Adagio, and again after the Tempo dAndanteunlikemodern editions, where a double bar is inserted. Copyists were liable to change verybizarre notation, however. In the next sonata (No. 2), where Beethoven had left anempty space at the end of the second movement, signalling that the music runs on intothe finale, the copyist could not resist adding a double bar, which Beethoven leftunchanged when he corrected the manuscript. The final exposed bar at the endof Op. 131 was also closed off in the copyists score by a conventional conclusionsignthe same as the one he used at the end of the fourth movement (and differentfrom the more provisional signs at the ends of the other movements, which mostlymatch the autograph).In contrast to copyists, many publishers in Beethovens day felt it their duty not

merely to print the music supplied but to edit it in various ways. This seems to havebeen true more for German publishers such as Simrock of Bonn and Breitkopf & Ha rtelof Leipzig than for some of theViennese publishers, but individual publishers also hadtheir own idiosyncrasies and no generalizations about this are absolutely firm. Changessuch as added slurs, revised titles, and altered layout were not uncommon in the early

32 Marston, Beethovens Piano Sonata in E, 10^11 and 239.

477



Dow

nloaded from

nineteenth century, and double bars were among the signs likely to be edited. Mostconventional music at that time did not change key signature or time signature exceptat major structural points, where a double bar was likely to occur anyway.Thus doublebars probably became associated in many editors minds with such changes, so thatbefore long these editors were liable to feel it necessary to add a double bar wheneversuch a change occurred, so as to create an additional visual aid for the performersperception of the music. Hence the insertion of double bars by publishers at all changesof key signature or time signature became an increasingly common convention, whichsurvives to the present day. Beethovens music was unusual for its period in being morelikely than most to change key or time at a point that was not structurally significant,and this could give rise to spurious double bars being inserted by publishers withoutproper justification.These problems become particularly acute in Beethovens later music. In Op. 109,

Adolph Schlesingers engraver added two double bars not in Beethovens autograph inthe first movement. The connection between the first two movements was alsocompletely lost, since the engraver used a thin^thick double bar to conclude the firstmovement, and omitted the pedal-off sign at the start of the second movement, therebyimplying that the two movements were completely separate. Meanwhile the subtlestructure of the finale suggested by the use of single and double bars was obscured,with every variation ending with either a thin^thick or thick^thin double bar(the latter type appears at the ends of Vars. 3^5). Adolphs son Moritz was no betterwhen he came to publish the sonata Op. 111. At bar 44 there is a change of keysignature, and in the first printing the engraver followed Beethovens manuscript inhaving just a single bar-line; yet when the sonata was re-engraved by the same firmonly a few months later this was replaced by a double bar, although Beethovenscorrection list made no such request. This change well illustrates how double barswere infiltrating new editions at that time.Schotts So hnen, of Mainz, were equally ready to add spurious double bars. In the

bagatelle Op. 126 No. 1, there is a short passage of only nine bars in 2/4 time, with therest in 3/4, but the publishers felt obliged to surround this passage with double bars oneither side, although there are none in the autograph and the music is completelycontinuous.33 They made similar insertions in their original edition of the NinthSymphony, so that, of the twenty-four double bars added to the finale in Del Marsedition noted above, twenty-two are already in the Schotts edition.When engraving theinstrumental parts for Op. 131 (plate no. 2628), Schotts also inserted unauthorizedthin^thin double bars between most of the movements; but they did at least retainBeethovens (and his copyists) clear division between movements 4 and 5, printing athick^thick double bar and indenting the start of movement 5. Yet when they came toengrave the score a little later (plate no. 2692), this boundary was wrongly treated thesame as the other movements, with a thin^thin double bar and immediate continua-tion. This change has probably contributed to the confusion in later editions, andgreater continuity in many performances than Beethoven envisaged. Of course, somemusicians may prefer to have no break here, just as some may prefer a long break afterbar 91of the finale of the Ninth Symphony, or no breaks between movements in Op.110(see above); but personal preferences of this sort are a separate issue.

33 Facsimiles of both autograph and first edition are in Ludwig van Beethoven, Sechs Bagatellen fu r Klavier Op. 126,ed. Sieghard Brandenburg, 2 vols. (Bonn, 1984).

478



Dow

nloaded from

The way Beethovens notation could become distorted is well illustrated in the finaleof the sonata Op. 110. Here the end of the first Arioso (bar 26) happens to occur at thefoot of a page in his first autograph, but the bar, or rather half-bar, is left open at theend, and the Fuga begins at the top of the next page with a change of key signature andtime signature.When Beethoven copied this into his second autograph (the one now inBonn), the boundary happened to occur in the middle of a page, and so within a singlebar one finds the end of the Arioso, changes of signatures, a new title and the first noteof the fugue. The copyist, however, used the first autograph when preparing a score forthe printer, and on seeing an open-ended bar at the end of the Arioso he added a plainlong double bar (this was the same copyist, Wenzel Rampl, who added double bars toopen-ended bars in Op. 102 No. 2 and Op. 131). In addition, he indented the start of thefugue on the next system, thus giving the impression that this was a completely newmovement. In the original edition, Moritz Schlesingers engraver adopted the samelayout, strengthening the boundary still further by using a thin^thick double bar atthe end of the Arioso. The boundary was still not quite as strong as at the end of thethree main movements, where a thick^thick double bar was printed, but it neverthelesslooks fairly conclusive and seems to invite a substantial break before the fugue, creatinga four-movement structure instead of a three-movement one. As usual, Beethoven madeno attempt to modify this layout when he corrected the proofs. Surprisingly, however,most modern editions print this particular boundary correctly without any bar-lines,as in the autograph scores.Not all publishers treated Beethovens bar-lines in such cavalier fashion. When the

first edition of the Appassionata Sonata was printed inVienna, the engraver correctlyput only a single bar-line at the end of the slow movement. Meanwhile, in theHammerklavier Sonata, the original Viennese edition included not one double barthroughout (apart from those at the ends of the four movements and at one repeatsign), despite numerous changes of key and several changes of time. This doubtlessreflected Beethovens own notation in the lost autograph. Most modern editions havenot been so faithful here, with many double bars inserted.The original London edition,prepared from a now lost manuscript sent by Beethoven, also adds a few double barsalways thick^thick (a common design at that period), and normally at changes oftimebut not as many as most modern editions.In his autograph scores Beethoven often used abbreviated notation that he expected

publishers to print in full (as he occasionally indicated in his letters). But he evidentlydid not expect them to add double bars in a similar way, since extra ones are not foundin editions such as the Viennese one of Op. 106. The omission of a double bar in anautograph was therefore not made to save time but reflected something about thenature of the music. On the other hand, the fact that he was prepared to toleratealterations to double bars by his copyists and publisherseven to the extent of allowinga movement to be split in two by Schlesingerwithout ever commenting on them inhis letters or correction lists, or correcting or changing them in copyists scores orpublishers proofs (as far as is known) reveals that he did not attach great significanceto them. Thus one should be wary of becoming too obsessed by them, or insisting thateach type should be reflected precisely in any performance. Double bars cannotactually be played, or conveyed reliably to listeners, and the amount of difference theycan make to any performance is strictly limited.Nevertheless, Beethovens double bars formed an integral part of his compositional

conception, and should therefore always be taken into account in the preparation ofeditions and performances of his music, if we are to come as close as possible to

479



Dow

nloaded from

understanding his musical thoughts. As Roger Sessions has said, Understanding ofmusic, as relevant for the listener, means the ability to receive its full message.34

If, as Sessions and others would aver, music involves communication between composerand listener, then any clues to what the composer was trying to communicate are worthuncovering; and the precise form of notation in an autograph, including the types ofdouble bars (as well as such matters as beaming and stem direction), can be veryrevealing, for it throws light on how Beethoven envisaged the music at the time whenhe was most deeply involved in creating its final shape.35 Adding an unauthorizedinternal double bar might easily affect the implications of the music concerning itsphrase structure and continuity, leading to subtly altered perceptions by performersand resultant modifications of how they play the passage. The presence or absenceof internal double bars, as well as their actual design, clearly does impinge on thesense of the music.

BEETHOVENS SYSTEM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

If Beethovens use of double bars had been entirely regular, investigation of themwould have been straightforward. Equally, if it had been completely random anddisorganized, investigation could have proceeded little further than simply establishingthat this was the case. Instead, his use of double bars, like his music itself, is extremelycomplex and sometimes impossible to predict even after study of related scores, with abewildering variety of patterns that has necessitated extensive investigation. It is,however, very largely consistent and systematic, once its complexities have beenu