Selected Example: Opus 2/3/i, m. 222–233
- Patricia Stroh
- Oct 31, 2025
- 4 min read
Updated: Nov 14, 2025
I chose this passage for two aspects: notation of the arpeggio (particularly the top note) in mm. 222–227 and interpretation of the cadenza passage at m. 232.
Regarding the arpeggio
QUESTION: Should the top notes of the arpeggios be held through the bar, or should they be held only through half of the bar, with the lower notes of the octave articulated on the third beats?
Beethoven’s autograph manuscript is lost, and extant sketches do not contain this passage, so the first edition is the earliest surviving source. However, the existence of several proof copies obscures what Beethoven intended here. I was curious to see which of the collected editions followed the first edition in its state as sold to the public, and which editions incorporated the notation suggested by the earlier proof copies.
The first edition shows half-notes as top of arpeggio:
The earliest proof copy shows that the top note of the first arpeggio was originally engraved as a whole note but the proofreader changed it to a half note, possibly to match the subsequent top notes, which are half notes.
A second proof shows all the top notes as half notes, as corrected in the first proof.
However, a third proof with markings thought to be in Beethoven’s hand scratches out the stems on the top notes and adds the notation “ganze Note” (whole note) above the staff.
In the end, the published ignored these suggestions in the third proof and retained the half notes as shown above.
Even though the sources are unclear, it makes sense that the top note would be held, and even slightly accented, to emphasize the ascending line. A few editors of the collected editions suggested that this could be accomplished by holding the top note for the entire measure, or through pedaling. Here are a few examples of the editors who adopted the variant reading.
Perhaps the earliest edition to adopt the whole note was BGPS 78 (Kroll/Fürstner), who also suggested pedaling for the right-hand arpeggio:
BGPS 98 (Klindworth/Bote & Bock) also followed this reading.
BGPS 107 (Germer/Litolff) marked the passage “quasi fantasie” with an accent on top note of the arpeggios:
Other editions simply applied pedaling to this passage, such as BGPS 120 (d’Albert/Forberg):
BGPS 135, 170, 178, and 206 also follow this reading.
To emphasize the fantasy-like character of this passage, some editors not only marked the top of the arpeggio as a whole note but implemented long pedals and dynamics, as shown in BGPS 136 (Bartók/Rózsavölgi & Co.):
Similar readings appeared in BGPS 145 (Moszkowski/Enoch), BGPS 151 (Casella/Ricordi), and BGPS 163 (Sandet/Gerdes). Other editions simply instructed “hold down all the notes” in this passage, e.g. BGPS 165 (Corder/Paxton).
Later critical editions struggled with how to notate this passage. Lamond’s edition for Breitkopf & Härtel initially added ties to suggest that the top notes should be held through the bar:
In the later issue of Lamond’s edition, this reading was revised so that the held pitches were notated in small print:
A similar approach was used by the Henle edition prepared by Wallner (BGPS 189), which used half notes in the 1952 edition but altered those to whole notes in the 1980 edition, with a footnote. Schmidt’s edition for Henle (BGPS 195) reinstated the half note.
Many other critical editions adopted the whole note with a footnote or explanation in the critical commentary regarding the sources, for example in the Geoffroy edition (BGPS 212):
Other editions that adopted the whole note include BGPS 202 (Fischer), BGPS 214 (Máriássy and Zászkalicky/Kónemann), BGPS 218 (Damerini/Carisch), BGPS 227 (Gertsch & Perahia/Henle), BGPS 228 (Anderson/Mayhew), BGPS 229 (Egorov and Časovitin/LAN), BGPS 232 (Cooper/ABRSM), and BGPS 234 (Del Mar/Bärenreiter), among others. The edition by Sonoda (BGPS 221) also adds pedaling.
Regarding the cadenza
In the first edition, the cadenza passage lacks slurs, fingerings, articulation, and other interpretive markings:
Some of the editions based closely on the first edition added fingerings only, for example Schenker’s editions (BGPS 156, BGPS 180, and BGPS 200).
The first attempts by editors of the collected editions to modify this passage included addition of dynamics, articulation, phrase markings, and/or tempo indications as well as fingerings. Here are a few examples:
See also BGPS90 (Lebert/Ditson) and BGPS 113 (Lebert/Church).
See also BGPS 105
BGPS 117 (Gebrüder Reinecke) adds a footnote on how to interpret this passage:
BGPS 132 (d’Albert/Ditson) adds footnotes on execution:
For other examples, see BGPS 98 (Klindworth/Bote & Bock), BGPS 150 (Volbach/Tonger), BGPS 154 (Corder/Newman Publishing), BGPS 167 (Schmidt/Mück), BGPS 177 (Köhler and Ruthardt/Novello), and BGPS 184 (Editorial Músical Moderna).
A few editions offered exact notation of the trill in a footnote, for example BGPS 135 (Trneček/Wood).
Bartok’s edition (BGPS 136) not only adds fingerings, phrasing, and articulation markings but also inserts a precise reading of the passage, adding accents, bar lines, and precise notation of the trill:
Comments