One of the most challenging aspects of sonata form for Formenlehre theories is the development section: this part is often the most generically malleable and is difficult to describe according to commonly employed formal schemas. This paper investigates a variety of recent theories of form and particularly how they handle this schematically difficult space, via the example of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 2. I directly compare North American theories such as William E. Caplin’s (deriving from Schoenbergian Formenlehre; Classical Form 1998) and James Hepokoski’s (A Sonata Theory Handbook 2021) with German-language theories of Felix Diergarten and Markus Neuwirth (Formenlehre 2019), and Clemens Kühn (Formenlehre 1987). These indicative examples point the way towards a comparison of the approaches taken across different geographical locations and timeframes, sketching a history over the last 40 years.

After establishing some of the key features of Beethoven’s development (minor mode main theme materials; stepwise sequence and liquidation; prominent mid-development pause; subordinate theme materials; and home key dominant ending harmony after transformation from V of iii), I explore the section further through analysis: a published analysis from Hepokoski, a recreated analysis in the style of William E. Caplin, and a survey of comments by Diergarten/Neuwirth and Kühn on Durchführung in general. I highlight how Hepokoski’s and Caplin’s hearings produce superficially different, but ultimately reconcilable understandings of the development. The German approaches to Durchführung leave more room for interpretive freedom, particularly the viewpoint of Kühn.

The value of the development section in investigating Formenlehre is the degree to which various commentators disagree about the significance of certain features: Caplin places almost his entire emphasis on the sequencing as part of the “developmental core” and the ending dominant; Hepokoski describes a “rotation” of motivic and thematic materials ultimately arising in response to the exposition; Diergarten/Neuwirth describe developments through a group of compositional possibilities that intersect with both Caplin and Hepokoski; and Kühn contrasts model and idea with analysis that emphasizes the various tonal stations of the development. Comparing these approaches, it becomes clear that the development section encourages and sustains a range of emphases and logical explanations.