Beethoven's Portfolio of Bagatelles

Author(s): Barry Cooper

Source: Journal of the Royal Musical Association, Vol. 112, No. 2 (1986 - 1987), pp. 208-228
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Royal Musical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/797939
Accessed: 04-08-2016 02:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd., Royal Musical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of the Royal Musical Association

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beethoven's Portfolio of Bagatelles

BARRY COOPER

BEETHOVEN published two sets of bagatelles during the 1820s - op. 119
(11 pieces) and op. 126 (six pieces) - but it is known that he
considered publishing several other bagatelles as well at this time.
Exactly which pieces these were, and why he did not publish them in
the end, are matters which have never been thoroughly investigated;
but an examination of these and related questions helps to throw new
light on the two published sets as well as revealing interesting features
about the unpublished bagatelles, none of which was printed until
long after his death.
Of the bagatelles that did appear in the 1820s, the first five to be
published were op. 119 nos. 7-11. These were first sketched in 1820
and the autograph score is dated 1 January 1821. They were composed
specifically for a Wiener Pianoforteschule being prepared by Friedrich
Starke and were eventually published in it in June 1821.' About a year
later, on 5 June 1822, Beethoven first offered an unspecified number of
bagatelles to the publisher Peters of Leipzig; he repeated the offer on
6 July, mentioning that some of them were rather long, that they could
be published separately or together and that Peters 'could have them
immediately'.2 These pieces could not have been those already
published by Starke. Nor could they have been op. 126, the main
sketches for which were not drafted until the spring of 1824;3
Beethoven normally told publishers that works were available
'immediately' only if they were more or less finished. One might
therefore assume that the pieces referred to in the two letters were the
six bagatelles op. 119 nos. 1-6, but there must have been others too.
On 3 August 1822 Beethoven promised Peters 'four of the bagatelles'
although he was 'still uncertain what to choose', and he added: 'I am
unable to state definitely how many I have.'4 And in another letter to

I See Georg Kinsky (completed Hans Halm), Das Werk Beethovens (Munich, 1955), 344. The
sketches are in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Artaria 195, pp. 76-9; the
autograph score is now split into three parts, in New York, Bonn and Paris (see Kinsky).
2 The initial letter was in response to a request from Peters for symphonies, quartets, trios,
songs and piano solos 'among which there might be small pieces': see Thayer's Life of Beethoven, ed.
Elliot Forbes (2nd edn, Princeton, 1967), 788. Beethoven's two letters are published in The Letters
of Beethoven, ed. Emily Anderson (London, 1961), ii, 949 and 955. In connection with these letters
Beethoven also drew up a price list of what he had available; see Alan Tyson, 'A Beethoven Price
List of 1822', Beethoven Essays: Studies in Honor of Elliot Forbes, ed. Lewis Lockwood and Phyllis
Benjamin (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), 53-65.
s See Ludwig van Beethoven, Sechs Bagatellen fdr Klavier Op. 126: Faksimile der Handschriften und
der Originalausgabe mit einem Kommentar, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg (Bonn, 1984), ii, 51-2.
4 Anderson, Letters, ii, 962-3.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 209

Peters (22 November) he says: 'I could send you several more bagatelles
than the four we decided on, for there are nine or ten more of them.'5
Thus in the latter part of 1822 there appear to have been about 13 or
14 bagatelles more or less complete and being considered for publi-
cation, in addition to op. 119 nos. 7-11 (already published) and op.
126 (still unsketched). Beethoven's remarks also imply that he was
collecting together into some kind of portfolio any old manuscripts of
his containing likely-looking bagatelles so that he could make a
suitable selection for publication; evidence from his sketches and the
relevant literature confirms that this was indeed the case. Gustav
Nottebohm records that Beethoven had kept together a number of
bifolia containing short pieces, that the first of these bifolia had the
heading 'Bagatellen' and that some of the pieces were published in
opp. 119 and 126.6 Nottebohm's account of what he had seen is not
very detailed or precise but he does provide a few vital clues.
According to him a short piece in C major (WoO 56) sketched in the
'Eroica' Sketchbook was later marked 'Bagatelle No. 5';7 now the
autograph score of this work8 is actually headed simply 'No 5' (it is
also marked 'No 3' but this appears to have been superseded by the
later number) and so Nottebohm must have conflated the number
with the overall heading 'Bagatellen' mentioned above. A similar
situation arises with a C minor piece (WoO 52), the autograph of
which is labelled 'No 10'.' Nottebohm states that although the piece
was originally composed in the 1790s it was later designated as a
'Bagatelle'.'o Again there is no source with this designation, and
Nottebohm must have borrowed the title from the overall heading of
the whole group of pieces. The score is actually three separate leaves
rather than a bifolium," but Nottebohm's description of the portfolio
of bagatelles is not sufficiently precise to exclude this piece on these
grounds. Another bifolium mentioned by Nottebohm as belonging to
the group is an incomplete draft for Fiir Elise (WoO 59);' 2 this bifolium
is now in the Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn (BH 116), and the draft is
headed 'No 12' by Beethoven.
There must therefore have been at least nine other numbered
bagatelles in the group at one stage, in addition to nos. 5, 10 and 12.
Another bifolium that must have belonged is Bonn, Beethoven-
Archiv, BH 114. All four sides of this have been published in facsimile
and transcription by Arnold Schmitz.'3 The bifolium contains a draft

5 Ibid., 976.
6 Gustav Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, ed. E. Mandyczewski (Leipzig, 1887), 527.
7 Gustav Nottebohm, Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven aus dem Jahre 1803 (Leipzig, 1880), 77.
8 Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS 29.
9 Bonn, Beethoven-Archiv, BMh 11/51.
1o Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 32.
" For the exact makeup of the manuscript see Douglas Johnson, Beethoven's Early Sketches in the
'Fischhof Miscellany': Berlin Autograph 28 (Ann Arbor, 1980), i, 135.
12 Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 527.
'3 Arnold Schmitz, Beethovens unbekannte Skizzen und Entwiirfe, Ver6ffentlichungen des Beet-
hovenhauses in Bonn, 3 (Bonn, 1924).

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 210 BARRY COOPER

of op. 75 no. 3 (Flohlied) plus about 20 miscellaneous pieces or

fragments none of which were published in Beethoven's lifetime. One
in A major is headed 'No 6' and has the title 'Allemande' (WoO 81);
four others are according to Schmitz headed 'No 7', 'No 8', 'No 10'
and 'No 90'. The latter two numbers, however, are misreadings for 'No
11' (altered from '10') and 'N 9'. (The figure 9 appears to be followed
by a deleted number, giving 'N 9' plus a blob, read by Schmitz as '90'.)
Although only one of these five could be regarded as a complete piece
(WoO 81), the other four are sufficiently substantial, and sufficiently
near to completion, for Beethoven to have been able to consider them
as bagatelles that could be made available 'immediately'.
Further relevant manuscripts can be found in the Bibliothique
Nationale in Paris. One (MS 82) is a bifolium containing an Allegretto
in C minor (Hess 69) which bears two numbers, 'No 9' and 'No 3': the
former is written in ink at the head of the piece and appears to have
been superseded by the pencilled 'No 3' in the right-hand margin.
Another manuscript (MS 70) is a single leaf containing amongst other
things drafts for op. 119 nos. 2 and 4, the latter headed 'No 3'. Other
possible manuscripts are MS 58d and MS 95; each is just a single folio
but between them they contain a two-stave draft for the whole of op.
119 no. 6. There appears to be a 'No 5' written at the bottom of MS
58d but this is too faint to be deciphered with any confidence.
Certain other manuscripts containing bagatelle-like pieces can conver-
sely be established as having probably not been in Beethoven's bagatelle
portfolio. One obvious piece that Beethoven could have included is the
Rondo a capriccio, op. 129 ('The Rage over the Lost Penny'), since the
autograph is a nearly complete draft of a bagatelle-like piece, albeit rather
long;14 moreover the autograph score does bear a number ('No 1') on the
first page. But this number is actually a cross-reference linking two frag-
mentary passages written on separate pages, rather than the number of a
piece in a series (although Beethoven could perhaps have reused the
number in 1822 for this other purpose). Less likely manuscripts, which
contain bagatelle-like pieces that were apparently not part of the series,
include Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS 61, which contains a minuet in
A I (Hess 88), and Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Grasnick 25, which
contains the autograph score of WoO 53. Neither of these two pieces is
numbered, as they would have been if Beethoven had been thinking of
including them in the series. Several other possible manuscripts can be
ruled out in the same way (for example, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale,
MSS 71, 84 and 94), and similarly no bifolia in the 'Fischhof and 'Kafka'
sketch miscellanies'5 can belong, since Beethoven would have extracted
them so as to keep them with the other bagatelles.
The bifolium which Nottebohm said was the first one and headed

14 See Erich Hertzmann, 'The Newly Discovered Autograph of Beethoven's Rondo a Capriccio,
Op. 129', The Musical Quarterly, 32 (1946), 171-95.
'5 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, aut. 28 ('Fischhof); London, British
Library, Add. 29801, if. 39-162 ('Kafka').

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 211

'Bagatellen' is now part of Paris MS 69. It consists entirely of blank

staves apart from this one word written by Beethoven in large letters
across the middle of f. 1r. The presence of the word and the way the
paper has worn clearly indicate that this bifolium was at one time
used by him as the surrounding cover for his portfolio of bagatelles.
Today this cover surrounds just one bifolium, containing a draft for
the Bagatelle in G, op. 126 no. 1, to which we shall return later.
Thus it is clear that Beethoven collected together a number of short
piano pieces, probably in response to Peters's 1822 request for 'small
pieces', placed them inside the bifolium containing the word 'Baga-
tellen' and tried to arrange them into some sort of order by numbering
them. His remarks to Peters that he was not sure which bagatelles to
choose, nor even how many there were, are borne out by his
numbering of the drafts, which shows several alterations. As noted
above, Hess 69 has two numbers (no. 9 and no. 3), as does WoO 56 (no.
3 and no. 5). In addition, WoO 81, though labelled 'No 6', has another,
deleted number (probably 'No 7') in the right-hand margin; the piece
marked 'No 7' also had a previous number; 'No 11' was previously
marked 'No. 10'; and 'N 9' may have had a previous number. Yet the
draft of op. 119 no. 2 has no number. Altogether there are therefore
two no. 9s and three no. 3s, none of these numbers being deleted
although some are apparently superseded. Once the deleted and
superseded numbers are discounted the final list of numbered baga-
telles as far as is known reads as in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Key
No. 1 Possibly op. 129, or a lost draft for op. 119 no. 1 (G or g)
No. 2 Untraced: possibly a lost draft for op. 119 no. 3 (D)
No. 3 Op. 119 no. 4 and Hess 69 A and c
No. 4 Untraced: possibly a lost draft for op. 119 no. 5 (c)
No: 5 WoO 56 C
No. 6 Allemande, WoO 81 (Bonn, BH 114, f. VI, stave 1) A
No. 7 Piece in D!b (ibid., f. 2v/5) Db
No. 8 Piece in G (ibid., f. 2v/1) G
No. 9 Piece in A (ibid., f. 2V/11) A
No. 10 WoO 52 c
No. 11 Rondo (Bonn, BH 114, f. 1"/15) A
No. 12 Fiir Elise, WoO 59 a

Beethoven's search for possible bagatelles during the autumn of 1822

was clearly very extensive, for the pieces he considered for publication
at that time had almost all originated much earlier, on a wide variety
of different occasions and for different purposes. Their compositional
history is best illustrated in the form of a calendar, as follows.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 BARRY COOPER

c. 1793 WoO 81, etc. The bifolium containing the pieces

later numbered 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11
appears to have been filled soon after
Beethoven's arrival in Vienna.16

c. 1794 op. 119/2 and 4 Drafts in Paris MS 70.17

c. 1795 WoO 52 This piece was probably at first

intended for the C minor Piano
Sonata, op. 10 no. 1, between the
Adagio and Finale.'8

c. 1795-6 Hess 69 Draft in Paris MS 82.19

c. 1796-7 op. 119 no. 1 No early source material survives for

this piece but an early date can be
presumed on stylistic grounds. A poss-
ible place of origin is as a rejected
middle movement of one of the op. 49
sonatas, with which it seems to share a
certain stylistic affinity. In this context
it would create a structure similar to
that used about the same time for
op. 10 no. 2 and op. 14 no. 1, i.e. two
fast movements flanking a triple-time
Allegretto in the tonic minor in minuet-
and-trio form. (It is noteworthy that the
trio sections of these three Allegretto
movements are all in the key of the flat
submediant and all begin in a similar
way.)

c.1798 WoO 52 revised Bonn, BMh 11/51, f. 3, contains a

revised version of WoO 52, on paper
dating from about 1798 and adjacent
to the original version on ff. 1-2.20

1801-2 op. 119 no. 5 Sketch in Vienna, Gesellschaft der

Musikfreunde, A 34 ('Kessler' Sketch-
book), f. 59'.

mid-1802 op. 119 no. 3 Sketch in Moscow, Glinka Museum,

'Wielhorsky' Sketchbook, p. 24.

1803 WoO 56 Sketches in Krak6w, Biblioteka

Jagiellofiska, Landsberg 6, pp. 145-7.

'6 Johnson, Beethoven's Early Sketches, 88.

~7 For date, see ibid., 371.
18 See ibid., 422-5.
19 For date, see ibid., 141.
20 See ibid., 422-5.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 213

1808 WoO 59 There is a short sketch for the piece

in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preuss-
ischer Kulturbesitz, Landsberg 10, p.
149, dating from 1808. The Bonn
draft of WoO 59 may date from 1810
but more probably it, too, dates from
1808.21

1822 op. 119 no. 6 Both of the leaves in Paris containing

the draft for this piece also contain
sketches for the Missa solemnis from a
very late stage of its evolution, prob-
ably after Beethoven had begun
writing the autograph score. In MS
58d he tried several alternatives in
score, all very similar to the final
version, for 'judicare vivos' from the
Credo;22 in MS 95 he sketched bars
358-9 of the Gloria, and altered the
sketch so that it now coincides
exactly with the final version. A date
of 1822, when he is known to have
been putting the finishing touches to
the Mass, therefore seems most likely
(see also below).

If we discount op. 119 no. 6, which was probably not begun until
after Beethoven had started collecting together the bagatelles written
earlier, we are left with exactly 14 pieces that are known to have been
considered for publication as bagatelles in 1822 - the first five in op.
119 and the nine numbered 3 and 5-12 in Table 1 above. This concurs
extremely well with Beethoven's remark to Peters (22 November 1822)
that in addition to the four bagatelles decided on he had 'nine or ten
more', and it suggests that of the material in the portfolio in
November 1822 the only parts now unaccounted for are drafts that
presumably existed at one time for op. 119 nos. 1, 3 and 5.
Once Beethoven had assembled the bagatelles in the portfolio his
problem was to make a suitable selection for publication. Although at
one stage he promised to have a set ready for Peters by 15 August
1822,23 there were delays, partly because of slight ill-health, partly
because of other commitments (notably the music for Die Weihe des
Hauses, which occupied him for virtually the whole of September), but
more significantly because the bagatelles themselves were not quite in
a publishable state; as Beethoven himself said in a letter of 13
September (with characteristic understatement): 'Here and there
something has to be added.'24

2' See Barry Cooper, 'Beethoven's Revisions to Fiir Elise', The Musical Times, 125 (1984), 561-3.
22 Quoted in Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 155.
23 Anderson, Letters, ii, 962.
24 Ibid., 970.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 214 BARRY COOPER

Example 1
A 9 H rnr-rn
__w RUW -- I I i I

d6 0

?q Li
EF F

Since he was apparently already making such additions in Septem-

ber 1822, fully two months before he made his final selection of
bagatelles, we should expect to find alterations and additions in both
the op. 119 pieces and those eventually left unpublished, and indeed
nearly all of the 14 pieces show evidence of having been revised,
presumably in 1822. In op. 119 no. 2 the rather ethereal coda, the high
register of which links up so well with that of the start of no. 3, is
clearly a late addition: not only does it make use of higher notes than
were available when the piece was first drafted but there is also a short
sketch for it, in later ink, written at the foot of the page containing the
main draft. Op. 119 no. 3 also strays well outside the compass
available when it was composed, using a high d"", a note not available
to Beethoven until about 1808; the trio section and coda, too, are not
in the original sketch and may well be additions from 1822.25 The
draft of op. 119 no. 4 contains several amendments and additions,
partly in ink of a darker colour than the original, partly in pencil and
partly in pencil that has been inked over in the darker ink. The very
style of this sketching - that characteristic mixture of pencil and ink -
is found almost exclusively in sketches from Beethoven's later years,
and the musical style of some of the revisions also suggests late
Beethoven. In bar 9 first- and second-time bars have been created,
with short linking motifs added, instead of just a plain repeat. The
lower parts in bars 6-7 are also a late addition to a previously
unharmonized melody (see Example 1) and two features in this
example stand out as very characteristic of Beethoven's late style - the
tying of the harmony across the barline and the eventual resolution of
the dominant seventh chord onto a second inversion rather than a root
position of D major. In op. 119 no. 5 the coda is once again
presumably a late addition because of its keyboard compass and
because it is absent from the original sketch.
Op. 119 no. 1 poses more of a problem since no early source
material survives. It can be risky to attempt to identify revisions and
date individual bars purely on stylistic grounds, since most features
characteristic of late Beethoven also crop up in his earlier works, the
main difference being that they are far less frequent there. Neverthe-
less certain passages do seem to suggest that they are late revisions in

25 It is significant that in some marches that Beethoven was selling to Peters at the same time
he specifically mentioned having added trio sections; see Anderson, Letters, ii, 970.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 215

Example 2

Example 3
No. 2
p% Andante con moto

dimi
l- | ! ! i#

i"w * f.t . . .. r,. - , , . . .

an otherwise early piece. The first- and second-time bars at the repeat
signs contain rather irregular left-hand links of a style and type not
normally found in his early works but common in his later ones as he
strove for greater continuity and unity (see Example 2). The retransi-
tion from E major to G minor (bars 32-6) similarly increases the
sense of continuity and contains some harmonically rough passing
notes of a sort found mainly in his late works. In the coda the
subdominant orientation with an internal G pedal, so skilfully
preparing for the start of op. 119 no. 2, which is in the subdominant
itself and complete with G pedal (see Example 3), is probably also a
late revision made as Beethoven was trying to put together a coherent
set. Not only do the passages suggested contain elements typical of
his later style but they are in precisely the places where one might
expect revisions in the light of the known revisions to op. 119 nos. 2-5,
namely first- and second-time bars, links and the coda. It may even be
that almost the entire second half of op. 119 no. 1 was not composed
until 1822, and that originally there was to have been a straightfor-
ward da capo after the Eb section.
Most of the unpublished bagatelles contain revisions similar to
those outlined above. The revisions in Fiir Elise have been discussed
elsewhere26 and include links in first- and second-time bars, slight
changes in texture, a reorganization of the structure and use of the
soft pedal. The Allemande (WoO 81) has several revisions, with the
result that two different versions can be distinguished. The earlier
version was published by Schmitz whereas the later version appeared
in the Gesamtausgabe.27 The revisions are mainly confined to bars 8 and

26 See Cooper, 'Beethoven's Revisions'.

27 Schmitz, Beethovens unbekannte Skizzen and Beethovens Werke: Vollstdndige, kritisch durchgesehene
Gesamtausgabe, xxv (Leipzig, 1888), 368.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 BARRY COOPER

16, where first- and second-time bars have once again been created
with added links, just as in op. 119 no. 4 and Fiir Elise, and also bars
9-12, where the melodic figuration has been made less conventional.
The Db6 piece (headed 'No 7') on f. 2' of the same manuscript has a
revised ending squeezed in at the foot of f. r; it is difficult to date this
revision on the basis of the handwriting (which is anyway very
cramped), but the use of very low notes down to low CC indicates that
it must be of late date rather than contemporary with the rest of the
piece.
Piece 'No 8' in G also has a revision at the foot of f. Ir of the same
manuscript. This fragment is on a supplementary stave below the 16
ruled staves and it is unclear how it fits into the rest of the piece, but
the form of treble clef used is later than that found in the main part of
the manuscript.28 The so-called Rondo in A (actually in ternary form)
headed 'No 11', found on staves 15-16 of f. 1' of the same manuscript,
has a short link inserted in the rests between the two main sections of
the piece, and it also has a coda added on staves 13-14. In this coda
we again find the harmony being tied across the barline (as in op. 119
no. 4), suggesting once again a late date.29 It seems likely therefore
that all the revisions outlined above to the pieces in this manuscript
were made at about the same time, in 1822.
The same is true of three out of the four remaining bagatelles. (The
one headed 'N 9' does not appear to contain any definitely late
revisions and in fact this piece may not have fully belonged to the
series.) In WoO 52, WoO 56 and Hess 69 the sketching style (rather
scrappy pencil) or the musical style, or both, indicate that revisions
were made in Beethoven's later years, and the handwriting of the
revisions in Hess 69, utilizing his latest form of system brace, also
confirms that these revisions were made long after the original draft.
With WoO 52 the situation is rather complex because Beethoven had
already revised it once, in about 1798, and changed the notation from
3/4 to 6/8, halving the note values. In his final revision he restored the
3/4 time signature and made a few other alterations. The layout of the
final version seems to indicate that it was written after the heading
'No 10', which would confirm that this version dates from around
1822.30
In WoO 56 there are several alterations in what looks like the
original ink, plus a number in pencil which have been inked over in
different ink. Only the latter probably date from 1822 and among
them two changes seem particularly striking. The first occurs yet
again at repeat bars (bars 24 and 36), where Example 4(a) was altered
in pencil to Example 4(b), providing an irregular cadence very

28 It is Beethoven's latest form of treble clef, used from the late 1790s onwards; see Johnson,
Beethoven's Early Sketches, 29-30, for a discussion of Beethoven's treble clefs.
29 An edition of the Rondo 'No 11', along with the Db bagatelle 'No 7' and the revised version
of Fiir Elise, is to be published by Basil Ramsey, Leigh-on-Sea, edited by the present writer.
so See Johnson, Beethoven's Early Sketches, 422-5.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 217

Example 4

Example 5
(a) (b)
? L- o f
decre. ......dec.es.

characteristic of late Beethoven; this was then inked in as Example

4(c). The second occurs in the coda (bars 47-8), where the rhythm is
altered so that instead of the harmony changing with the beat
(Example 5(a)) it is carried across the barline and changed a beat later
(Example 5(b)). Again this is a type of change we have met more than
once before.31
With Hess 69 Beethoven had a major problem. The bifolium
containing the piece has the first 73 bars on the first leaf and the last
19 bars on the second but the two sections do not join up: he had lost a
page containing the middle portion and so he was left with something
that could not be published as it stood. Thus in 1822 he had to
recompose the missing part, and there are drafts and sketches for it
(partly in pencil and partly in ink) occupying virtually all the
remaining space in the manuscript. These drafts and sketches fit
together to fill the gap exactly and a reconstruction of the piece has
been published by Willy Hess, though with several inaccuracies.32
The main draft contains very few pencil alterations and so Beethoven
must have been reasonably satisfied with it.

Nearly all the revisions noted above are concerned with the internal
features of individual bagatelles; but the one at the end of op. 119 no.
2 and the putative one of op. 119 no. 1 seem also to be concerned with
continuity between one bagatelle and the next. Beethoven's anxiety to
produce a satisfactory and coherent series of pieces rather than a

" The Gesamtausgabe (xxv, 353) gives the later version of WoO 56, but with a few inaccuracies.
32 Beethoven: Supplement zur Gesamtausgabe, ed. Willy Hess (Wiesbaden, 1959-71), ix, 19-22.
Hess's right-hand part in bar 78 is wrong, there are some wrong notes in bars 89-90, and bars
100 and 102 should not be present at all.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 218 BARRY COOPER

random collection of oddments is already evident from the way he

kept renumbering the bagatelles in an attempt to create a greater
sense of continuity and overall structure. But this anxiety is also
evident from a closer examination of op. 119 nos. 1-6. Op. 119 has
long been regarded as a heterogeneous collection of pieces rather than
a unified cycle, in contrast to op. 126; many writers have taken up the
view first expressed by Nottebohm, that op. 119 is a 'collection of
pieces internally and externally not belonging together, and dating
from various times'."3 This view must now be modified.
Since op. 119 nos. 7-11 were written as a single group from the
start, the only pieces that could be described as 'not belonging
together' are nos. 1-6; but their stylistic diversity must not be allowed
to hide a number of unifying elements in this group. Now that we are
more aware of the wide range of possible bagatelles available to
Beethoven when he made his selection for op. 119 nos. 1-6 we are in a
much better position *to appreciate these unifying elements. The
pieces were not randomly selected, for in some cases arguably better
pieces (such as Fiir Elise) were omitted for the sake of balance of the
whole. Nor is their order random, either, nor simply chronological as
Nottebohm maintained (the dates Nottebohm attributed to nos. 2 and
4 are several years too late).34 Several internal features create a sense
of unity, continuity and cohesion in this group of six pieces. They
begin and end with the same tonic (whereas op. 126 begins in G and
ends in Eb) and the keys of the first two, G minor and C major, are
neatly balanced by those of the last two, C minor and G major. To
compensate for the flat keys the middle two pieces are in sharp keys -
D and A. The moods of the pieces are also strongly contrasted, the
first five being alternately fast and slow and no. 6 rounding off the
pattern by having a slow introduction to a fast movement. The
join-ups between movements, too, are carefully planned. The
subdominant orientation at the end of no. 1, with the G pedal,
prepares for no. 2, as noted earlier (see Example 3 above). The high
register at the end of no. 2 is taken up at the start of no. 3 even though
there is an abrupt shift of key, which is designed to increase the
feeling of contrast that the fast movement is intended to make. The
slow no. 4 follows on naturally in the dominant of no. 3, while no. 5 is
deliberately set as a complete contrast, with the change of mood
heightened by the contrast of C minor after A major. At the end of the
sketch for no. 4 Beethoven actually wrote 'Attacca la seguente
Bagatelle', an indication that he was thinking of the two pieces as
parts of a single unit. Finally after no. 5 in C minor, no. 6 begins on a
C to provide a smooth transition to G major. Thus each piece that
begins slowly leads on smoothly from its predecessor, while the fast

3 Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 206. Echoes of this view are found, for example, in Edward
Cone, 'Beethoven's Experiments in Composition: The Late Bagatelles', Beethoven Studies, 2
(1977), 84-105.
3 Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 146.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 219

ones (nos. 3 and 5) contrast sharply with their predecessors, par-

ticularly in the case of no. 5, the most impassioned of the set.
The key scheme, though less obvious than the major-third rela-
tionship that connects the pieces in op. 126, adds further to the unity
and balance of the set, while the placing of a piece of much more
recent date at the end of the group provides a fitting climax in terms of
increased sophistication and subtlety as well as greater length. The
time signatures are also very skilfully arranged: the first five are all
different - 3/4, 2/4, 3/8, 4/4 and 6/8 respectively - while no. 6 provides
a summing up by using three different time signatures (3/4, 2/4 and
6/8) representing each of the three main types - triple, duple and
compound time.
This internal evidence of unity in op. 119 is confirmed by a remark
by Beethoven to Peters in his letter of 20 December 1822:
As to the bagatelles, there are now exactly six of them, and you only want
four. I am reluctant to make this division, for indeed I have treated them as
belonging together. But if you insist on taking only the four, well then I
must make a different arrangement.35

These comments clearly imply that he had spent some time working
on the pieces in order to make them belong together; and not only the
succession of the pieces but also the overall structure of the group was
evidently important to him, for he was not prepared to send Peters
just the first four. The pieces had been formed into a self-contained
cycle with a definite beginning and end, and if any other arrangement
were to be made the order would have to be thought out all over again.
The unity of op. 119 nos. 1-6 becomes even clearer when compared
with the set of 12 numbered bagatelles in the portfolio. Although
Beethoven obviously made some effort to produce a satisfactory
arrangement of these, as is evidenced by the amount of renumbering,
there are several inherent barriers preventing the close cohesion and
balance found in op. 119. Too many of the 12 pieces are in either C
minor or A major; in some cases there is neither smooth continuity
nor dramatic contrast between successive numbers; and the lengths
are very uneven. The durations of the first six pieces in op. 119 are
remarkably consistent but in the unpublished pieces there is much
greater variation: some are very short while others are rather long -
particularly WoO 52, which is a complete scherzo and trio.
Beethoven's efforts to achieve a sense of unity in op. 119 nos. 1-6
can also be seen from a closer examination of no. 6. As noted earlier,
this piece seems to date from about 1822 since the sketches are
contemporary with some very late ones for the Missa solemnis, but a
more precise date can be surmised from internal evidence. It would
appear that the piece was written specifically as a conclusion to the
bagatelle cycle after he had tried all possible combinations of the
existing pieces and found that no arrangement of them would make an

35 Anderson, Letters, ii, 979.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 220 BARRY COOPER

entirely satisfactory set. It is not too difficult to find a suitable first

piece from a group of existing bagatelles, nor to find some contrasting
middle ones; but to find one which somehow sums up the whole set
and contains hints of the opening piece would be almost impossible in
any group of pre-existing unrelated pieces, and so he was really forced
to write a new bagatelle. How well it fulfils its function has already
been hinted at. The bagatelle continues the sense of key contrast that
had characterized the first five pieces in the cycle by being in a new
key - G major - but it recalls no. 1 by having the same keynote. Its
internal contrasts - a mixture of fast and slow, with three different
time signatures - summarize those of the rest of the cycle. It also
contains some subtle motivic references to the main theme of no. 1.
Beethoven had already employed a similar device in his song cycle of
1816, where the theme of the final song is subtly related to that of the
first,36 but there the opening theme is recalled at the end, making the
relationship more conspicuous. In the bagatelle cycle there is no recall
of no. 1 at the end but the connection with no. 6 is still unmistakable,
and the fact that this device had been used elsewhere confirms that
the resemblance is no accident. First the upbeat dotted rhythm of no.
1 is reused, again in 3/4, in the opening bar of no. 6; then the main
theme of no. 6 has approximately the same outline as that of no. 1 - a
brief rise and longer descent beginning on d" (see Example 6). In the
middle sections of the two bagatelles the resemblance is slightly less
close, but the two are still sufficiently similar to suggest that the
relationship is deliberate and not just fortuitous (see Example 7).
Thus no. 6 provides the perfect counterbalance to no. 1, contributing
much to the overall unity that Beethoven had managed to create out of
the diversity of the original drafts; and it possesses so many features
essential to its function of unifying and concluding the bagatelle cycle
that it clearly must have been written specially for this purpose.
The unity of the cycle has been overlooked by subsequent writers
largely because of the way in which the music was first published.
From his collection of bagatelle drafts Beethoven made his final
selection towards the end of 1822. He had clearly not done so when he
wrote to Peters on 22 November, and yet the autograph score
containing op. 119 nos. 1-6 is dated 'November 1822';37 the manus-
cript would therefore appear to have been written out during the last
eight days of that month, and this is presumably when op. 119 no. 6
was first drafted too. Beethoven then confirmed to Peters in his letter
of 20 December that 'there are now exactly six of them'.38 The set of
six was finally despatched to Peters on 8 February 1823.39 As was his
custom, Beethoven tried at about the same time to dispose of the
pieces to an English publisher; his music often appeared in two

36 See Joseph Kerman, 'An dieferne Geliebte', Beethoven Studies, 1 (1974), 146.
37 Kinsky, Das Werk Beethovens, 344.
38 Anderson, Letters, ii, 979.
39 Ibid., iii, 999.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 221

Example 6

(No. i) (No. 6)

(No. 6)
(No. 6)

Example 7
(No. 1)

( N A- o . 6 ) i- 6
Ag " R 6..j

editions, one English and one continental, for each of which he

received a fee, but it was not normally possible to sell works to two
different continental publishers because they would tend to be
competing for the same market." Hence he sent a copy of op. 1 19 nos.
1-6 to Ferdinand Ries in London on 25 February 1823, asking him to
'dispose of them as favourably as you can'.41 And as op. 119 nos. 7-11
had not at that time appeared in an English edition he enclosed a copy
of these too. Ries sold the 11 pieces to Clementi & Co. and they were
published in England later that year.42
Beethoven was less successful in selling op. 119 nos. 1-6 to a
continental publisher. Peters promptly returned the copy he had been
sent, along with a covering letter dated 4 March 1823, saying in effect
that the pieces were not the type he was expecting, that he wanted
better works from Beethoven, and that they were so uncharacteristic
of the composer that if they were published many people would
suspect Peters of having made a fraudulent attribution.43 According
to Schindler the letter and the manuscript reached Beethoven on 19
March,44 but his account of the episode is so inaccurate concerning
other details that this date cannot be regarded as absolutely definite.
Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt his statement that Beethoven
was very angered by Peters's remarks - particularly now that we can
see how much effort had gone into producing a satisfactory cycle of

40 See ibid., ii, 880-1, for Beethoven's explanation of this system of dual publication.
4' Ibid., ii, 1006.
42 Alan Tyson, 'The First Edition of Beethoven's Op. 119 Bagatelles', The Musical Quarterly, 49
(1963), 331-8.
43 The relevant part of the letter is quoted in Brandenburg, Sechs Bagatellen, ii, 47-8.
44 Anton Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, ed. Donald MacArdle, trans. Constance Jolly
(London, 1966), 259.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 222 BARRY COOPER

bagatelles. Subsequently the pieces were offered to several other

publishers - Simrock of Bonn, Pacini of Paris and Lissner of St
Petersburg, but without success, and they eventually appeared on the
continent in an edition by Moritz Schlesinger of Paris pirated from
Clementi's, and later in another pirated edition by Sauer and Leides-
dorf of Vienna.45 Both publishers naturally included all 11 of the
pieces that Clementi had printed.
Beethoven tended to regard his continental editions as the official
ones while the English ones were simply to provide extra income; for
example, with the 'Hammerklavier' Sonata he was quite happy for
movements to be omitted or interchanged in the English edition46
since the continental one would indicate his full artistic intentions. In
the case of op. 119, however, the planned continental edition that
would have contained an independent set of six bagatelles never
materialized. Thus the structure of op. 119 nos. 1-6 became obscured
by the addition of nos. 7-11, for Clementi, probably unaware that they
formed two separate groups, published them in one continuous series.
The result was a very odd number of pieces in a variety of styles with
no obvious overall plan. It is therefore hardly surprising that later
musicians have tended to conclude that op. 119 consists of a random
collection of unrelated works, and Nottebohm's information that some
of the pieces were of early origin merely strengthened this impression.
It is now clear, however, that op. 119 contains a carefully arranged,
thoughtfully planned cycle of six pieces followed by a second group of
five, and they are best heard - and played - in this way rather than as a
group of 11 or a mixed bag from which to make a random selection.
And of course had it been Clementi rather than Peters who refused
the bagatelles, op. 119 would today consist of only six pieces anyway,
with the last five relegated to Werke ohne Opuszahl.

Once op. 119 had found a publisher Beethoven laid aside his portfolio
of bagatelles for nearly a year while he concentrated on finishing the
Diabelli Variations and then devoting himself to the composition of
the Ninth Symphony. The latter was more or less finished by about
February 1824 and after this he once again turned back to baga-
telles.47 This time, however, instead of trying to polish up those he
already had he decided to compose an entirely new set. Perhaps his
experience with op. 119, where no. 6 seems to have cost him no more
effort than any of the first five even though it was newly written, and
also the obvious difficulties he would face in trying to create a
coherent set from the very varied bagatelles that still remained, may

45 Tyson, 'The First Edition'.

46 Anderson, Letters, ii, 804-5.
47 The immediate reason for writing another set of bagatelles was apparently that he was in
debt to his brother Johann. Op. 119 nos. 1-6 were to have been used as part payment for the
debt, and so when the sale to Peters fell through, Beethoven seems to have felt obliged to give his
brother a replacement set instead. See Brandenburg, Sechs Bagatellen, ii, 48-50.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 223

have persuaded him that it would be better and quicker to compose a

new set rather than continuing to try and touch up existing ones. (He
may have remembered his problems of 1814 during the revision of
Fidelio, when he told Treitschke: 'I cannot work as quickly as if I were
composing a new work.')48 Composing new bagatelles would have
several incidental advantages too. They would provide a welcome
change from the enormous effort involved in the Ninth Symphony
(according to Schindler, Beethoven regarded the composition of
bagatelles as a form of intellectual relaxation);49 they would provide
an opportunity for experiment in a context where 'not too much was at
stake';50 and they would give him a chance to show that he could still
excel in small forms just as much as large ones.
He may also have considered that his artistic aims in op. 119 nos.
1-6 were not fully realized as he was working with old material of
various dates, or that these aims had been foiled because of the
unfortunate way in which the cycle had appeared in print; in this case
op. 126 could be regarded as an attempt to do the same as in op. 119
but better. At all events the cycles do have much in common: both
consist of six pieces, and the time signatures in op. 126 are almost
identical to those in op. 119 nos. 1-6: 3/4, 2/4, 3/8, 2/2 (4/4 in op.
119), 6/8, and a mixture of duple and triple metre in the final
bagatelle.
The earliest evidence that Beethoven was planning the new set of
bagatelles comes in a letter of 25 February 1824 to the publisher
Heinrich Probst, offering '6 bagatelles for piano solo which, however,
are longer than the ones I previously published'.5" This could refer to
six more of the unpublished bagatelles in the portfolio (or even
conceivably to op. 119 nos. 1-6 if news of Moritz Schlesinger's edition
had not yet reached Beethoven), but it more probably refers to a
planned new set. Nevertheless most of the op. 126 sketches appear to
date from May and June 1824.52 They indicate that from the start
Beethoven had the firm intention of writing what he called in the
sketchbook (though not in the final score) a 'Ciclus von Kleinig-
keiten';53 he rapidly sketched the whole of the set and eventually
produced the final autograph score, several pages of which are
replacements for earlier versions.54 In this revised form they were
accepted first by Probst and then by Schott, the latter of whom finally
published them in 1825.55
Rough drafts, i.e. nearly complete scores similar to those for the
bagatelles discussed earlier, survive today for three of the op. 126

48 Anderson, Letters, i, 455.

49 Schindler, Beethoven as I Knew Him, 259.
50 Cone, 'Beethoven's Experiments', 85.
51 Anderson, Letters, iii, 1110.
52 Brandenburg, Sechs Bagatellen, ii, 51.
53 Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 196. Facsimile in Brandenburg, Sechs Bagatellen, i, 52.
54 See Brandenburg, Secks Bagatellen, ii, 65-6.
55 Kinsky, Das Werk Beethovens, 381-2.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 224 BARRY COOPER

bagatelles - nos. 1, 2 and 6 - in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MSS

69, 74 and 81 respectively. The first and third of these drafts have
tended to be regarded as sketches while no. 2 is listed as an autograph
score; but in reality MSS 69 and 81 are rejected fragments originally
intended to form part of the autograph (as was f. 3 of MS 74), whereas
MS 74 ff. 1-2, though containing a complete bagatelle, is written so
roughly that it must be regarded as a provisional draft rather than an
attempt at a fair copy.56
As noted earlier, the draft (or rather, rejected fragment) for op. 126
no. 1 is today kept with the cover that had been used for Beethoven's
portfolio of bagatelles, and so it must have been added to the portfolio
at some stage - presumably by Beethoven himself when he first wrote
it. The drafts for op. 126 nos. 2 and 6 must also have been in the
portfolio at one time, for like no. 1 they contain at the foot of the first
page a numeral not written by Beethoven; matching numerals can be
found at the foot of all the other manuscripts known to have been in
the portfolio at one time, and together these numerals make an
apparently complete series. They also provide useful confirmation
that the bagatelle manuscripts described earlier were indeed kept
together in the portfolio, while other bagatelle-like pieces were
apparently not. The numerals run from 1 to 10 and as far as possible
they follow the order of publication of the contents, with the op. 119
manuscript coming first, then the op. 126 ones, then the manuscript
containing the draft for Fiir Elise (a work first published in 1867), and
finally the manuscripts containing bagatelles not published until 1888
or later. The complete list is as follows:

1 Paris MS 70 op. 119 nos. 2 and 4

2 Paris MS 69 op. 126 no. 1
3 Paris MS 74 op. 126 no. 2
4 Paris MS 81 op. 126 no. 6
5 Bonn, BH 116 WoO 59
6 Bonn, BH 114 WoO 81 and bagatelles numbered 7, 8, 9, 11
7 Bonn, BMh 11/51, f. 1" WoO 52, trio section
8 Paris MS 29 WoO 56
9 Paris MS 82 Hess 69
10 Bonn, BMh 11/51, f. 2v WoO 52 (beginning of final version)

These numerals were apparently added to the manuscript when the

portfolio, which had been in the possession of Johann Kafka, was
auctioned by Gabriel Charavay in Paris on 14 May 1881.57 Lot 10 in
the auction catalogue is subdivided into eight separate items, the first

56 Brandenburg, Sechs Bagatellen, ii, 65-6. For facsimiles of all three manuscripts, see ibid., i,
37-50.

57 See Sieghard Brandenburg, 'Die Beethoven-Autographen Johann Nepomuk Kafltas: Ein

Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sammelns von Musikhandschriften', Divertimento fir Hermann J. Abs,
ed. Martin Staehelin (Bonn, 1981), 89-133; see especially pp. 108-11, which include a
transcription of the relevant portion of the auction catalogue.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 225

six of which correspond exactly to nos. 1-6 in the list above. The
seventh item is described as containing four pages, and so it must
have included f. 3 as well as f. 1 of Bonn, BMh 11/51. The eighth item
is described as having ten pages, which is the combined total of nos.
8-10 in the list above; thus this item must have been subdivided into
three separate parts, numbered 8, 9 and 10, at a very late stage. (The
person who numbered the manuscripts clearly did not realize that the
Presto and Trio of WoO 52 were parts of the same piece, for the pages
containing them were given separate, non-consecutive numbers; we
are therefore extremely fortunate that they have managed to remain
together.)
As noted earlier, the portfolio must have contained more drafts
originally, including some for the remaining pieces in op. 119 and
perhaps for those in op. 126. Beethoven may also have kept the
autograph scores of op. 119 nos. 1-6 and later op. 126 in the portfolio
during the period when they were being written out. By the time
Nottebohm saw the portfolio, however, presumably in the 1870s, this
extra material had apparently been removed, and, to judge from his
very incomplete description, he probably saw the portfolio when all
the numbered manuscripts listed above were present but nothing else.
None of the manuscripts, however, has gone missing since they were
dispersed in 1881, and we cannot expect to find one bearing a figure
'11' from the series.

Beethoven's decision to write new pieces for op. 126 seems to mark the
final abandonment of plans to publish the remaining unpublished
bagatelles, for after 1824 he made no further offers of bagatelles to
publishers. The main reason for having resurrected the pieces in 1822
seems to have been a pressing financial need that he felt at the time,
and he hoped to be able to sell as many old works as possible at that
stage to try and ease the crisis. With some pieces the ploy was quite
successful, for example the three overtures opp. 113, 115 and 117, but
with the bagatelles there turned out to be too much to be added and
arranged, so that in the end it was proving quicker to write new pieces
instead.
But the portfolio of bagatelles was never entirely forgotten by
Beethoven, for it still contained useful musical material that might be
salvaged somehow. Thus when he came to write the trio section of the
second movement of the A minor Quartet, op. 132, in 1825 he
incorporated virtually the whole of the first part of the A major
Bagatelle labelled 'Allemande' (WoO 81), though with the structure
completely altered and the rhythm astonishingly shifted by a beat.
And finally, on the very last page of sketches that he ever wrote, in
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, aut. 10, Heft 2, f.
6" (according to Schindler it was only ten or twelve days before his
death), Beethoven entered a C minor sketch marked 'presto' which
incorporates the very striking opening motif of WoO 52, another of the

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 BARRY COOPER

bagatelles still unpublished.58 Was he still thinking of resurrecting

some of his bagatelles? Or was the entry perhaps just a half-forgotten
memory that suddenly resurfaced as he lay sick and dying? Or was he
thinking of incorporating the idea into the Quintet in C that he was
working on at the time? In the light of what he had done in op. 132 this
third suggestion seems the most likely; but we shall never know for
certain.

University of Aberdeen

APPENDIX

THEMATIC INDEX OF PIECES REFERRED TO

op. 119 no. 1

op. 119 no. 2

op. 119 no. 3

A 1 not 5

op. 119 no. 4

op. 119 no. 5

op. 119 no. 6 bar 7

op. 119 no. 7

"ArL r.......

58 The sketch is transcribed in Nottebohm, Zweite Beethoveniana, 523, though Nottebohm does
not relate it to WoO 52.

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEETHOVEN'S PORTFOLIO OF BAGATELLES 227

op. 119 no. 8

A

op. 119 no. 91

op. 119 no. 10

op. 119 no. 11

op. 126 no. 1

op. 126 no. I

op. 126 no. 2

op. 126 no. 3

op. 126 no. 4

op. 126 no. 5

op. 126 no. 6 bar 7

WoO 52

W I I

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 BARRY COOPER

WoO 59

WoO 81

Hess 69

'No 7'

'No 8'

'N 9'

'No 11'

FE F: do dd0

This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Thu, 04 Aug 2016 02:27:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms