Music philology: an introduction to musical textual criticism, hermeneutics, and editorial technique 9781576471135, 9780945193272

Citation preview

MUSIC PHILOLOGY An Introduction to Musical Textual Criticism, Hermeneutics, and Editorial Technique

es . a. Ses ke oe —oF oo .— — >. ee oe : mr Be rt: ... oeoe—a oe — ees oo . 2 BIE Se i OO — .5; EES. : See ss -. : aS — .... := BE — 2 & i ee E peer ee | — -.a :BX : Se .. Oe aespares — SO ene — ee — oe SP :eee 2 ease Ct” aCeo . oe 88 Bors mie;eeESS OS oo a cis Yreee oe re ey | rr oo oo oe a oeee oeee oe.Se eeee aeoe Os EE oe De a ee ee, er es ae ERR NIC Se ee See eee oe Se RO i, Pe eee ee CE ee ee OE oe ee RO a as . | ea OS ee Ue 0 kk a a —r—S——OisOCiCsC — Oe a CU eas co .,,r,rrrC—O ee ee re Se Cea — Ce oo soe eee Se oe — SERS a Cae Sc ass oe eess —ee Ee—... aes —. r...—si—sri—sid. eo...” ae SO es oo SO ees ie as ee Re oo CO Ce . oe — |. oo ee SS ee a — oo a oe ~~ -Se —— ee Co ee a_ RS ea eea 1ee EO Sian trrr Ge oC S ee = CO — . Bee OS ae ee oo Ga a— -— . oe . a fo Se oo oe ee 2 oe og co ee Re es eo Co BBR Seee SNBoe aca ee Oe a Oe Ce a— eda fo oo... ..... Ba Sas ee eesaSas aCe Ge 2fo rr 8SOO es eess Se ee ee oe ook Sg 5‘ ie OR 0. i.Sia SO ae oe re eee oe gg Sere RUC ee Se og Ses . nes oe eS oe oo Ce oS og Se — Co ; ee ge Se 8 Se ee ee a oo — _. — oo Pee SO OC eo ee ae es J oe eo oo. xe rr Bee ua nae SNe s ee rae es oe oo eo —. sl ee : ee ee ee — aiee:ER (0 £ ee eer ne eae as eee ee : a ee ee Oe eas eee Se oer —“‘# _— pO : . oe ... Oe es REI ; : ..._—sisaszi‘i‘€ :arePit:ee aeeeeeee | y ——..rrtrs— (— Re oe :Be es SES — ....... Sao oO ee . ee Sees oo ot EES ee -— oo Gm Oe Co SC.4 eee is ee Lee Sees ie ee EOS a. Se oe vent ee ae a rrr — — a — . es Shee oe caea caee NO rss ee : Ss oo ee .... BOCES 8oe ;:ee EO, eee Sa a oe — . Ee " Ce — — oo Ph Ds OO ee ee a oo ee ::|eeCO eA— ca eae OS ONRG see PE ee ere SO eG a PSE: oo i ’bo | i. a CL ee oS Oe Re ON ot SRS SS ee OR ees ee eo A Co a ee See SESS Sey) DES ee a ee ae a °° . See — ee a = ee ee Renae ee oe _— |. co ee So aSeeeseS oe ia oo ee ee es Ds : oe —Oe aRee oe oe esNO Se BARONE ON. HERE BCC ene EOS SCE __| _|Se eas Ses Bo ee SAAR EOS Ces a eA SC, 8 ES me SNE aN Se uses Pee ISR ONO ae — oo Ce. ee San ere Seas are OE ON OSS ANN SeGNESE See oi a o ee Be Re ee es . — oo Beis eae PtOe BeOOS oe fo eG NS OSS oi aees|.ee ee _ oe nySEE OOneneas SONG SoaeOak SO POU eae Be So ORUU Kay Re RS : es Se Soe ee ee ee eee eae oe io ee ee — eS ee ee ee SU UGS SO oo Oe a rrC—™ ee . >. .RCSD — -. as a Se Se ee SO ee .Pe Z | ee eeSSIS . ene eeSaesSRE oe Ree oe ee eS Sane es ei. Ss oe ee a . -— | _. EMEC S oy — —— _ | ay 2 we a SR oe: Oe Se no cana Accaee Pa eee a - 7ee _ -__.. — — i ————CC DO ae as OO Ge BS

; ene Se (eee uO Ror es re 2 se Oa a4

Se ee OES GS ae Be as oe NOON ee RRC Be eagoen

:feBens ee SS | ee rr a = an fe — i. oo . ao a oo re er oe en Sep eNne ae:

. = oe or See ean, SUR RA EU OCS: eee:

8 oS : SF oe Se SOROS Oe ee BS SEU eae as ORSON se Re RR LEN eRe eet / - | __. — = oe ears sR essen OeNR iene, ReaD Laat SN Pe OR MEOUI OESe POCrewe ante COLL Can RaPaSNL Re oe Raaee SCN OOOrrSOU SS eo OS Boe mee SOR ee Pee ee ea? RUPE uhm noranns ee 7Ae oe _. a . oo SOS en ion eee OTs eco ee eon etocitotor sre ESA EAR _ 7 . oe RO Does Steen Eee OS UEC a Ee Rene oe: Bee OS Ree 2 SASAER CNSME oo.OeDee EOS POESOR eae ees eenSaas BieRonee eee SS ae ES: eran RieORES era ne EES SROoe |._.:.esil eeaOOS oo Pe oe Sea Oe ies RePe Soe ROE RON i| re eeoeSOs Sk COD BA SER Giue e eeeae mes ru enmasee se ENO Ee SUN Ne OES ees UE oe REE eS ae =—se : ie Ca Bie ee en es = Be eee Re oe es Boe oS ee a re Sees SS nee meee ee = & ee Soe nue NSS epee es EO SSN ea Seo aan OS EGO ee ES a a Seon ee See ete SSS Srennoty me ance ere OSES.ee_ eee eas eeeS,OS. eee :reme UE ON De aeBN Bee ee .ee:aS es eeeRe EO : aeme Stee ee ore Renee see Sen =a SS ESO ON See |.oo — ae OS oe to Pee ce Cone OOS SO ENON OSES CEN OR CRee Crae Coeoo oe8oe -— .: _. . Pao- ROLE nee eR : ee ON CSD SRI DERE er oe Aer oseeuon TOSOSS SEO oeaaa ON NOs Oe og . _Q_ _ee _Cs -— :Be Seee SeeRe ee aOUR Soe ol Pe eeOe See On ae Siciine mien Oe ene ion Senos .eneee Os we .SESS ..Be. Sa Cee ae ee amner -Rass ee SS OSes SORE en sa ee BOSE Rea een comnan enses SeSEES ‘ Uo Be oe ee SS GN SOS eeee Brea Tes Cooma aeSeca Os A.ayhtane nana ee oeou oo _ . ee eee Sree : See s ‘ Ca OS aN :oF ree 8RON ESS ESS gates: 3_ SES oF ee en en es oe aoes. iares BOO UO S ne ses ee. _IS

.. a— . 4 ee _Ee : ee Re oe oe st— ee RO— oe eeee SOE Deaos nen en.os BE : ee — ee _ . _ : a Se ene EE I Pe oe eee RS Se EO SOE ONO

ae Cee NO SO AIO me I SESS ROSES ONG a See . a eeee CoEoe CSRS Sea aes Reena eee Se Ree Penn eree 5d 8.. ..-.a.:Co ee a.a... Ry eter Iem neSeasee RS ee eGen ROU eG - Be .ias esee asaeA eeee fee ee oe eee Se EGOS PORE Oe :eeee enee ee oe ee os UN ore Or Been se Be Bee ne See es EN oeee -— | o | ee ee eee ee a So. eee mee I es oe es Some ee | 8 Se es ene eae eee ps -_— US ee ee ane Soret ore —Ee oe ae SeeEAS Seleneam eeeee cee. oe Ca See OR Bee ey, SeeAGS SE oeUeee sate Rasen OS I EIS peeon .. _— esaSITRoeres ARSSES EE Reo SAO BePeee eRe EeRees, a Rene ese SUE nC ISOS: CRS DSS a Gas

. . ee DORE RS Cnet ee ere ene SOs ee PIO Pe. oe ee OE ae eRe mn ee —es oooo oeeee oe ee es eRGeen aN n Ren eer oeee SCS Ee 2h OS ONAN CR EN Gsnee ee ee aehee a eePa eSa pe coe 2DE EO noe hea CUO SAa eeeAOS Soc Suara . Se oe eeEee oeSAOS ee ee AU aDenyoe OEIC RESIS oo BIONana SSS Saie aaanme Be Sarre Sseones ON isicteenani opm oa Re aa Ear co RN SREPRE ae Ore LORETO SOE Eire eee ges ee rei BS Se NDDEG Oo Meee ae Coe SSRRR SOE ae CORREA. : eee OEoe Sass REN ESR OU AE even ree . ee ON reeene ee —SPS OE SeEe SSIS Oe LO RON Nene crea RRO Re RS RoE hea idoraet enor tence ees eae Poets Sein: SRNR ‘ a eee ‘ SSG: SPECS EAI ONE EER SPER ore he nen oe

a. oe ee eo SRN REN DSS en BORE Cation denn itBORN SSE OE SRE Cetin eeRatannes s See ee SLOPE CORSs SR DSRS CREE ee RU Rete eS ease SCRE era —eeoo EOS ee uae SOS ESae earn SEE BRS Saneenero Soe. CRE SR Re ERORS ANRaee SEC a eerie Se rerun cnet : So oe a ee Be siecencrea sonata ICS See a inenmenrety SR ONE SOE ER SROAE NORE RE eR ORR AID ee RRR Ie PERRI Cae Cag Bee BOSS RENAE OOS US ee ee ee ee CENA NOS ROONEY reece

— Seas OSS ease ose PO Ua ea ; peas eet Pe ke eC en EE ES Ne es Se Bee EEE GES SO IE IES SEC eo Te RON arNRT nS OES ENE SK CO OED OGIO

. FO oe ON Roemer NORRIS ROR Se ‘4 RSA eee ONES SEE Ee NRG AB MCD eae Se Rec ee EE I SES RS Aas sane ‘ PE DE SSO EAP eR OES LISS ESO ~~ oeee eSSaco) Renee Se ye oges ESS een rent AREAS ERE ee pre UE ER es SEO eeeBONEN aE Ne ERS es ES ORONO — me oe Se eaeeen HES ss Haier tna ee Reeee eeetae ee Seas reekEN OSSa eee PRONE a eres eee rers ee ete SO eonrence anc eeReo

| — ee SoS eae Oe SUN aac ie See ES Ro erat Os Been eres Ree enneey Ces ES ce ce ees ESS aeons EES SS SO eerie DONS Seer RES, Pear er eer ERE OSS Roe era? oes - ee Onn BS oa Sean ca aaeennrenna ate EO ESE Ne en | DEES SES Sante seapnnyeee STEN SCOR ee See Bee CESS SO EEE EN eann BeSonic cme FEROS Oe CEI SSS oe and — “NS EEA OS SEES Cee SESarn AERO Se aeSO Pease| Sn eeSee Sese aAROSE near SUG ERIa oyeaco eerRRR aeons PRE RuaaeS heNaS ee SUES ee CO aeBe PRE nee oiAR RDI t OERAR Se SNTE SRI nae ee xee eee aePRESS SOSe ee econ aN EST DORR mare Gan ren nstaEOS ESS RO aee REN Ree RR BS SS ORR eee OES OSES pee AS ES Rear ego 2RSC? A SOROS RS ORAS Oe BOE Pe ee eaOOS EOCRON ERO vad :oo — ee ESee seer RRRIE STTN Noes ES SSS NEN orm ee Carnes: ae SNE ea RESUS RS SOE PERO RRAig SSeS Raa OR OC oy

. a : ROA N am ete ar SSO ESS ee SREP Serna ees RS ~ SOS ee EEE ASIN Choy Menon ee PESOS GMOS in ne Cae RR Rai . — ae EN Pea ean Daa Coen Pa RRR OC RnR DAS eeORS Ree OS oon RS SENSE SSO TEN eens SereRAI OS RR LO EEES OS ROC SUES OEE OSDS OG ean SSSRes SCsoo BEEes SSO eeeOe SS en oars SO Dee eeee SeenON eAE RS SSRI Sips eS ceene seca en

— BES SORee ROR REDS Be Rs ree OSES oo ee ae Ceaa DsRee ae OO Ss ee Rene SE one RSE emer — ES Se eeeOSDsOS‘ Reese oeseetLeaSSUES reas Rene re ees ee SCN — Re ones.. RPS Oe See ena a EASONS eee s neoe eoSe esee Soe eeSo Seo eon aEEEos Re CRs PSE race (0 ene eee Oe oor SEAMS OES aR EE Se ere ne : SE RGR i NICER Onee RS eee SooPee LOS GNA S RCS Res Gere AMR Sa Se Oe Men dem on oo SE SERSEUEEN ee eeeee ES OG Se a8cuteeSe

_ . ee hl Bue eo ee Se oF eee ee ee

: eG SSS ean aS Sena LSS eiseee Sunn aon BUSES E enn : FSS SOS nano IR eS ES ea RORSOE ea eee eeeOO oseeeSUSE SSae eeRA ss AORN Sere mr SCRE NO |= erp ansPRSORA ROSELL Seine Pee eeeSee CRC ae Ea ‘ SOO SSeeSEO OneeEO aoe en ae capeeTSIN SSE

EOS Saas MO een eeeAne PEE ESSnora eS Se ESO Ok USE ee Or Ree eee Seen OR AIOee NORE namaste Ga eee an eet eC ee ee eePeon co ROS UOC ec oon ee OSSRBC OT ee OU ea ps aya cee een Renee as SE eaten ead — asSeer SURO agit eatin Sioned ep once SS ORGS ESSERE OA SACRE Spe Oeee SN tek . My ote Gums eon ee Pee saree rE CLES AN DENIS EERO A een SoS isSeger ras EEEERE ES ROE Goeo eR BE TS :—CO eeEOS eR Re ER ek ITER beanies Resa ROSIE DTS rfsine z CEN eee: ee Se:Se ODS SI SRN eae Eas REO aeES eine NEON Cone

eS re Ree cam re EES SESEEE SRROE SECareer Sop NOS eeeet ee ene SesCRONIN SN es ee ERS es eeSES eens oe ae | OSs ESSA cotaRE ee aeeOS es NO pe ee een CES oe See

_ saan aise RRR Seeautononnercee cei Bee aar ean SINS US oeOES ES SEES OR SOOO EOS PE oe ee eae ren a se RnEEE Ee Oke oti PSO ISO ROR ONOSERA EE ON CERCA Ce oO oyeorn ola Stele neeSNE ROADS Ree ORE ee eePE Bae eeeMe SESE See ONO OO ONES aeSS SeiEeIS ora24 rs DE | Ene SG CN Zoniomperenie ORS eae: reeroecene Seeenoan ESS ieeenarnen neGSS SeesSE SoeOOO BERSSS eae ee ees ens ens ane > eee nen Re es oer eae eee eR Sera ne te SEE Se ASG ee

PSS Re MCU PRO eee ianees eneieee aii Re ein uae ERIS ae oe ni UOag NSE h ES As OOS oe ae Oe OSC ees Sapna Sea uiaies ne eeOMRON, ESS NGOes rr- ”eeeeeeaeens eeSener ZEON SUE Ra)eC OIE EASTER CLO RMON EOE CEO ROSE Me SECON OE,EEN HONOR OSamen OE ee ONeeeeees caRae eR oe USS Sen as EAS eR Se OSCE SO SO eee es enon rane Go CURRED oan annie SOU «| SO ee SNS HRSA ONS es OEI OE Semen Coe or SENSU eee oennES Creans ie SOE eeeeens nenSRR CESS RIE REE SMCS eecanucn ESC OIC EUS SOR Oo Ss See eae oe ESS, SE Re RU POURS Sent eae Rann Syne Oe ee SSA CRP RUN Sass OO BoE OR EES Se Re ene Se ee cee ie ee ee ge SENS ORIEN LOD NORIO SSSR ENEMOSEE a ON ee ee LENE ee SRE Ree TINO EGS ME Bs Oe OOS ee : Ree Oa oes ior Roe ORR een Re SOR RI Se Coe eee

a LO SS: Seer n ney BOOS SE Re SO ee ee Res noes Ce ee eee eee Re et oe Se SSS EOS CEI aig

: IC; “ 3

non Cen CO ESE SCS aos aes er he OE Ss pee os GO — OSE: ON GPS eee Cea rane oSi eae oF ee eeeears SatHomecare Ra eae eeu COME eS Oe Se ey PON) Ro Se ee ee ee oe oe oe eine cern aa Nes ae ae Stoo Reema conse COs Ses Rrra cent cio: RS eNO aan EES SEE SOSA Rane ES a SERS Saas eC eon Ree re ree aa nae ORO Oe RG! i i ANREC eC aC LE RON een a nan OR ra ped eo to e

. oo Cw” as LOSI eee een eee SO CoeESE ee ere URSee MEeee SeOE ee NS ee Sem eS eae SE OSS eaeDORR Ree renee ReON eaeesoO SeeSener a eee noone eer Reece aceene a eaICO SR EEN SOON SEN EN OR renee ees ES en eens Ss SS a

.“| gf“hsO re “ ' Oe ee He ,taken um, Ge V. ana on Vec Colo ,y, ‘many, and died 8ae rls 1n tn Nn in the 4derners|C|wa?}Was|arriva 2 : : | | |inoeCifl t|| . nstitute

“ oe OEE GS Se BOE GR CaO Oe eae Eee cones ICS iaiien SSE NS Meee SO CSN CO ea eR ee er EEO CS USNS DE arene enone SORA SEO acer Een . — scence Pee meee ne noe ee SG SS CE SO Rn cece SS ei age a Roe Canes Se anes BS a oe AOR ese ee enone Senne ere ea ee ania Aaa Os RNR NO S. — a .8So eseer Se ee ESS ae eae en NSNER ES OES CeeRN DESO Sone Peer enFee eaenan eeene eReCeSee enero anetna IRReno SyeseC EEO ROE oe Oe oe Re Oe.See DE eee eae LAPS SRC RO SS SSG ies er ate nt ANSE cerecom ohana teres SR nae a otPen ereseen eaepee a

ooCeSe Ras een SEPooe ee ROS ee ee esAES eeUS SSS EEeeree ” SS Sr Se ee erGSR ee ee SS UR Oe Ore eee er eePe Oe ee eee IEE es ee EE Ree ce

a — | oo OSS oe ee ee eS on Sas Ssce oene a8 D CESS ee ep Ds coe Pes ee oe ss FES eee KG Rosita oe enee Se : Nh iINOV.

‘ : OE Re dhe a t Ce J it | : | | \ OLOgnNne Pho to || OT }SY Mecourtesy OS the ‘Pp jose ayan| Inst¢c : \ nN WOLoO gne %G&ermany. Vy @ é

w

An Introduction to Musical Textual Criticism, Hermeneutics, and Editorial Technique

GEORG FEDER

Translated by

Bruce C. MacIntyre |

MONOGRAPHS IN MUSICOLOGY Na. 14

PENDRAGON PRESS HILLSDALE, NY

Other Titles in the Series MONOGRAPHS IN MUSICOLOGY No.2 La Statira by Petro Otto bon and Alessandro Scarlatti The Textual Sources by William C. Holmes (1983) No.6 The Art of Noises by Luigi Russolo (1987) No.9 = Pzano and Song (Didactic and Polemical) by Friedrich Wieck The Collected Writings of Clara Schumann ‘s Father and Only Teacher (1988)

No. 10 Confraterni and Carnevale at San Giovanni Evangehsta, | Florence, 1820-1924 by Aubrey S. Garlington (1992) No. 11 Franz Schuberts Music in Performance Compositional Ideals, Notational Intent, Historical Reahties, Pedagogical Foundations

by David Montgomery (2003) |

No. 12 Revohing Embrace: The Waltz as Sex, Steps, and Sound by Sevin H. Yaramin (2002) No. 13 The Era_After the Baroque: Music Music and the Fine Arts

1750-1900 by Robert Tallant Laudon (2008)

Cover design by Stuart Ross

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Feder, Georg.

[Musikphilologie. English] |

Music philology : an introduction to musical textual criticism, hermeneutics, and editorial technique / [George Feder] ; translated by Bruce C. MacIntyre. p. cm. -- (Monographs in musicology ; no. 14) Translation of: Musikphilologie / Georg Feder. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57647-113-5 (alk. paper) 1. Music--Editing. I. Title. ML3797.F3713 2011 780.149--de23 2011037123

Copyright 2011 Pendragon Press

Table of Contents

Foreword V

Translator’s Preface and Acknowledgments Vil

I. A. Presuppositions 1 Music and Language 1 1. Parallels and Divergences 1

| 2. Syntagma and Paradigma 5

B. Tradition and Understanding 7 1. Systematic Considerations 7 2. Historical Considerations 10

C. The Work and the Text 13

1. The Concept of the Musical Work 13 2. Awareness of Textual Correctness 18

II. Definition 23 A. Nartrowest and Broadest Sense of the Term 23 “Musical Philology”

B. Bibliographical, Antiquarian, Philological, and 29 Historical Music Research

III. Foundations 33 A. Sources 33

B. Context 34 C. Competence 38

IV. Textual Criticism , 41 Digresston 1: Reproaches of “Positivism” 43 A. Source Criticism 45

| 1. Specialized Source Studies 46

a. Paper 47 c. Handwriting 50 d. Prints 52 3. Evaluation of Sources 54

2. Soutce Description 47 b. Fascicles and bindings 49

Vv

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

B. “Lower” Criticism 58

1. Collation 58

2. Eclectic, Statistical Methods, codex optimus, 59

3. Filiation 63 4, Interpretation 68 copy-text, “Guiding Manuscript”

5. Conjectural Criticism , 69

6. Criticism with Vocal Texts 70 C. “Higher” Criticism and History of the Work 71

2. Dating 75

1. Authenticity Criticism 72 3. Genre Determination 76 |

4. Determination of Occasion, Purpose, and 76 Performance Conditions

5. History of Influence 78

6. History of the Creative Process 80

Creativity | 7. History of Influence 83

Digression 2: Romantic and Empiricist Theory of 81

V.A.Hermeneutics 85 Concept and Method 85 1. Definition 85 2. An Objection from Philosophical Hermeneutics 88

3. Hermeneutic Rules (Canons) 91

— 4, Criticism of Exegesis 93 B. Objects of Understanding: Methods of Explanation 97 1. The Meaning of the Musical Text: Transcription 97 and Performance-Practice Interpretation

a. Scoring and arrangement of staves 99

c. Clefs 101

b. Note forms and values 100 d. Bar (measure) and bar line 102

e. Diastematics 103

f, Key signature and accidentals 103

g. Rhythm | | 104

h. Un-mathematical practices of notation 105 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Ligatures and colorations 105

j. Notational riddles 105 k. Annotations, vocal texts, text underlay 106

I. Figured bass 107 m. Performance of ornaments, improvisation 108 — of appoggiaturas, cadenzas, embellishments

n. Dynamics, articulation, tempo, agogics, 108 playing technique, expression

o. Scoring and instrumentation 109

| p. Amount of scoring 110 q. The historical instrument 111

r. Tuning (temperament), tuning standard, 111 transposition

s. Placement of musicians and conducting 111

| t. The acoustical properties and lighting of 112 the hall

2. The Composition’s Meaning [The Meaning of the 113 “Work”

a. Formal analysis 113

b. Historical analysis 117 Digression 3: The Musical Concept of Time 119

c. Content analysis and semantic 119 interpretation (hermeneutics in the “narrower sense)

d. Pragmatic explanation and interpretation 122 from “broader contexts”

e. The demand for the explanation basedon 123, “effective history”

C. Addressees of Explanation and Its Forms of 125

, Communication

VI. Work Criticism 127 Digression 4: Musical Aesthetic of the Variant 131

VII. Editorial Technique 137 A. Facsimile 137 B. Diplomatic Edition 140 Vit

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

C. Edition of the Corrected Text 141

D. Critical Edition 142 Comment on the Use of the Computer 148

E. The Historical and Critical Edition 149 F. The “Scholarly and Practical” Edition 152

G. “Urtext” Edition 154

H. The Demand for an Edition Based on the History 155 of Transmission

VIII. Remarks on the History of Textual Criticism in Music 159

Selected Bibliography 163

Index of Persons , 169

Index of Topics and Terms 178 Georg Feder (1927-2006) | 195

Vill

Foreword “Music philology” or “musical philology” (Ger. Musikphilologie) 1s a term that is occasionally encountered but not generally adopted. Certainly its linguistic

propriety can be debated. Indisputable is the fact that a philological method, or whatever one calls it, can be used with music. In addition, there is essentially unanimity with regard to the method’s application. Nevertheless, in musicolog!cal literature prior to the present study’s initial publication, there had been no book describing the philological method and its musical applications, aside from Guido Adlet’s appraisal in his Methode der Musikgeschichte (1919). The following introduction to the subject was written at the suggestion of the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, which published its original German version in 1987. It

was the first attempt to fill this lacuna. | Detailed consideration of all questions cannot be expected in such an introduction that is, by necessity, limited in size. Indeed, I have attempted a systematic description of the main points of view. Musica practica 1s the center of focus throughout. It goes without saying that texts on music theory, as far as they are verbal texts, can be examined with philological methods. Because of the composite soutce situation in vocal compositions (i.e. a transmission that is both literary and musical) there will be only brief treatment of questions pertaining to the examination of song texts. The books and essays referred to in the text are mentioned in the foot-

notes. A selection of them is also compiled in the bibliography at the end, together with some additional publications not referred to in the text. All titles are presented without bibliographical pretensions and as concisely as possible. The preparation of this book was assisted by its presentation in draft form to musicology students at Indiana University (Bloomington) in the spring semestet of 1985, as well as by the discussion of some of its ideas with my colleague Horst Walter at the Haydn Institute (Cologne). Horst Walter and Robert von Zahn were also helpful in locating literature. Hans-Jurgen Horn of Mannheim University kindly looked through several chapters in manuscript. Margret Weitensteiner of Erftstadt helped by word and deed in the revisions, as did Horst Walter. To all helpers and advisors, both named and unnamed, I express my sincere thanks. I am particularly grateful to Bruce MacIntyre for his preparation of the present English translation, which is based on a slightly

revised version of the original book. .

, 1x

Cologne, March 1986 - March 1987 and October 2003 - October 2005 Georg Feder * ok Ok

Translator’s Preface Acknowledgments The translator was fortunate and privileged to know and work with Georg Feder overt several years, first as a contributor to the Joseph Haydn Werke edition of Haydn’s string trios (Rethe XI) and then as a doctoral student working at the

Haydn Institute in Cologne, Germany, on a DAAD fellowship (1978-80) to research eighteenth-century Viennese concerted masses. As each page of the present book demonstrates, Dr. Feder was an awesomely gifted, erudite, and impeccable scholar and music editor of the highest standards. The translator remains eternally grateful to his dissertation advisor, the late Barry S. Brook (The Graduate Center of C.UIN.Y.), for introducing him to Haydn scholarship in 1975 and for paving the way for him to become acquainted with and work closely with Dr. Feder in the decades following.

Every page of this compact but incredibly informative “handbook” demonstrates Dr. Feder’s impressive musicianship, precision, acumen, and astute pedagogy. Three passages that exemplify his high professional yet musical and practical standards of scholarly editing, as witnessed by this translator first-

hand, include: |

The power of imagination or fantasy is required not only from composers but also, in decreasing degrees, from later performing musicians, from textual critics and elucidators, as well as in general from each reader of the musical text and even from listeners. (Ch. I, section C/1, The Concept of the Musical Work) Musical competence is the ability of thinking musically (musical logic) and judging musically (the sense for musical aesthetic worth and musical style). Such competence also includes mastery of the traditional musical language (skill in reading, playing, and singing music, as well as in harmony and counterpoint) and knowledge of the repertoire. (Ch. III, section C, Competence)

Up until the late eighteenth century, however, their notation [i.e. dynamics] remains incomplete when compared with our presentday expectations. Often they appear inexactly placed in the parts ot score. We should nonetheless judge with the ear, not the eye. (Ch. V,

secton B/1, The Meaning of the Musical Text: Transcription and

Performance-Practice Interpretation)

x

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For example, after spending hours (or days) pondering a thorny, philologically ambiguous, and ultimately unsolvable passage in one of Haydn’s string trios, Dr. Feder, despite his thorough understanding of musico-philological methods and concepts, would often smile, turn to this editor, and say: “But Haydn was always a practical man.” Then we would agtee to select the most practical and musical variant as the solution for the edition.

The translator was delighted when Georg Feder accepted his offer to undertake the present English translation. He was assisted with initial translation of chapter IV (sections A and B) by the following students from a doctoral seminar at The Graduate Center of The City University of New York in spring 1989: Hector Colon, Elizabeth Gaver, Don Hulbert, Linda Kobler, Thomas Leff, Anthony Netz, Rebecca Pechefsky, and Mary (Robin) Thomas. Special thanks also go to Dr. Stephen C. Fisher who completed an initial translation of chapter V (section A) in 1995. In addition to the above-named persons, the translator thanks the Rutgers University musicology students of Professor Rufus Hallmark’s spring 2009 music-editing seminar who in so carefully read through the penultimate translation and discussed the work with him. The suggestions of Timothy L. Cochran and Joanna Gibson from that seminar were especially helpful to the translator in the final review of the manuscript.

| The translator also appreciates the partial-pay fellowship leave of 20022003 from Brooklyn College of The City University of New York that, among other things, allowed him the time to complete the translation’s first complete draft and begin discussing its content (and related questions that arose) with Dr. Feder over the ensuing two years. Indeed, in 2003-2005 Georg Feder read, clarified, and amended the entire manuscript (including the notes and bibliography), which benefited enormously from his meticulous review. (How could it be otherwise in a “philologically

correct” book on music philology?) Dr. Feder was assisted in his review of the English version by his friend Margret Weitensteiner. Additional thanks go now to Ortrud Feder for supporting this posthumous publication of this longgerminating translation of her father’s monograph. The translator also deeply appreciates the support, assistance, and extended patience of Robert Kessler of Pendragon Press in getting this long promised, important musicological study finally into print.

Georg Feder died on December 11, 2006, at the age of 79. Nonetheless, publication of this English version fulfills a collegial promise that the translator made to the author over two decades ago. He remains eternally grateful that the author entrusted him with the honor of bringing this critical text’s wisdom and

x1

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

depth to English-speaking professionals in the performing arts and humanities of the twenty-first century. May its philological principles and provocative discussions inspire musical scholars for years to come.

| BRUCE C. MacINTYRE Brooklyn College (C.ULN.Y.)

August 2011 Brooklyn, N.Y.

General comments: Readers should keep in mind that Dr. Feder was writing with the perspective of a musicologist in the late 1980s. Working with Dr. Feder, the translator has made some emendations and additions when more recent discoveries, new publications, or electronic technologies warrant them. Most translator annotations or comments appear in brackets [ ] in the text or after the abbreviation “I”. note” in the footnotes. For improved transparency of documentation for the text, the separate biblography in the original German version has essentially been “moved” into the text’s footnotes where the references are now full citations. The short, two-part bibliography at the end of this volume, which supplements sources found in the notes, is a new one provided by Dr. Feder in 2005. German style of source citation is preserved there.

Xit

I. PRESUPPOSITIONS A. Music and Language 1. Parallels and Divergences Philology is love of words and the mental images manifested in words. According to AUGUST BOECKH’s paradoxical sounding formulation, philology is the recognition of that which has been recognized.’ By “recognized” Boeckh refers to all objectified intellectual and artistic productions, chiefly the language itself and then the written works of poets, thinkers, speakers, and historians. Accordingly, philologists concern themselves with the grammar and dictionary of the language, with the explanation and criticism of individual written works, with the creative output of authors, and with literary history in general. As paleographers, philologists also decipher texts. Quite analogously, music philology concerns itself with that which has been

musically formulated. Music is not only a pleasant stimulation of the auditory nerves but also, according to semiotic theory, a system of communication, a language. Like language, music evolves over time’; similarly, music also exhibits intellectually conceived structures (e.g., rhythms) and makes use of a written notation. Composers think and write. Their activity is—in EDUARD HANSLICK’s words—‘“mind’s work in a medium made for the mind.” They use a notation which, like Western writing, moves horizontally from left to right* (indeed with vertical protrusions and, in scores, multi-layered). From this notation the composition can be performed or, by the specially gifted and trained, read in the abstract (though with greater difficulty than a literary work). The musical texts that have been generated over the centuries with the help of notation constitute our musical “literature,” whose ultimate purpose indeed is not ‘August Boeckh, Excyklopadie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften, ed. E. Bratuscheck; 2°

ed., ed. R. Klassmann (Leipzig, 1886), 10f. , *Thrasybulos Georgiades, K/eine Schriften (Tutzing, 1977), 74.

“ein Arbeiten des Geistes in geistfahigem Material”; Eduard Hanslick, Vom Mustkalisch-Schonen: Ein Beitrag zur Revision der Asthettk der Tonkunst (Leipzig, 1854; reprint ed., Darmstadt, 1965), 35. “Heinrich Besseler and Peter Gilke, Schriftbild der mehrstimmigen Musik, from the series Musikgeschichte

in Bildern \I1/5 (Leipzig, n.d.), 12. °On this word’s use compare, e.g, C.K Whistling’s Handbuch der musikalischen Literatur, oder allgemeines,

systematisch geordnetes Verzeihnis gedruckter Musitkahen (Leipzig, 1817); Emil Vogel, Bzbhothek der gedruckten weltlichen Vocalmustk Itahens: Aus den Jabren 1500-1700, enthaltend die Latteratur der Frottole, Madrigale, Canzonette, Anien, Opern etc, | (Berlin, 1892); W. Altmann’s Orchester-Literatur-Katalog, 2nd

ed. (Leipzig, 1926). [Tr. note: In English, “music literature” also refers to writings about music as well as the musical repertoire itself] 1

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

to be read, but to be sung, played, and heard. Sometimes individual musical works—just like literary works—refer to one another through musical quotations.°

sult: |

According to LEO TREITLER musical paleography yields the following re-

It is unmistakable that musical notation [in the shapes of the first neumes of the ninth century] originated with a very close relationship to language, to the writing of language, and to the teaching of

language.’

ERNST MACH, on the other hand, describes a mathematical side of musical notation: A notated musical composition is “a geometric representation by means of a curve in which the durations are presented as the abscissas, the logarithms of the sound frequencies as ordinates.’”® These two explanations point to music theory’s dualism between the mathematical and the linguistic explanation. The mathematical-physical theory of music, which Mach advocates, is better established and has an older tradition than the linguistic type, yet it explains less. Such mathematical-physical theory does not go beyond the fundamental, which in antiquity and in the Middle Ages was the art of interval calculation expressed as mathematical proportions on the monochord. Such theory also strives to explain from a speculative perspective, e.g, the harmony of the spheres. This mathematical explanation of music resounds

in LEIBNIZ’s often quoted sentence: | Musica est exercitium arithmeticae occultum nescientis se numerare anim.

(Music is the hidden arithmetical exercise of a mind unconscious that it is calculating.) Nevertheless, complicated musical structures have scarcely ever been explained by mathematics, but more often by analogy with language. That was already ‘Cf. Gernot Gruber, “Das musikalische Zitat als historisches und systematisches Problem,” Musicologica Austriaca | (1977).

Leo Treitler, “Die Entstehung der abendlandischen Notenschrift,’ Dze Musikforschung 37 (1984): 261; cf. dem, “The Early History of Music Writing in the West,” Journal of the American Musicological Soctety 35/2 (Summer 1982): 237.

‘Ernst Mach, “Uber die anschauliche Darstellung einiger Lehren der musikalischen Akustik,” Zeitschrift fiir Mathematik und Physik 10 (1865): 427.

See Rudolf Haase: “Leibniz” in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. F. Blume (1960), 8: 500, who cites a Leibniz letter of 1712 as the source for the quotation. Source for the English

translation of the quotation is R. Haase, “Leibniz,” The New Grove (1980), 10:627. 2

7. PRESUPPOSITIONS

the case in the Middle Ages, the heyday of mathematical music theory. For example, HUCBALD ca.900 designated the closing section of a song with the rhetorical term “clausula,”!? and in the thirteenth century the music theorist JOHANNES DE GARLANDIA, borrowing from rhetoric, named the repetitions of a section of melody “colores.’"' In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, music as one of the seven liberal arts approached even more strongly the artes dicendi |spoken arts] of the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectics [logic])” without giving up its place in the Quadrivium (along with arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy). JOACHIM BURMEISTER was the first to analyze compositions according to rhetorical figures. These were referred to by Schiitz’s pupil CHRISTOPH BERNHARD (after 1657) as an explanation of the then modern musical style, which he described as an enrichment of the old, strict contrapuntal style through musical-rhetorical figures. (GUIDO ADLER [1911] borrowed today’s historically descriptive concept of musical style from art history, the field in which ALOIS RIEGL had successfully established such an approach during the nineteenth century.'’) According to ATHANASIUS KIRCHER, the analogy with rhetoric also exists in the compositional process. Like the writing of a speech, the process of composition can be broken down into énventio, dispositio, and e/ocutio. (Rhetorical figures are part of the e/ocutio.) The composition itself was viewed as similar to the structure of a speech. Continuing from the first attempts made by GALLUS DRESSLER in the sixteenth century, JOHANN MATTHESON, in naming the sections of a musical composition, chose terms that describe the parts of a speech: exordium (introduction), narratio (report), propositio (discourse), confirmatio (corroboration), conjfutatio (confutation; refutation), and peroratio (conclusion).'*

Since the late eighteenth century music has been explained less by parallels with rhetoric than by parallels with feeling, as well as with thinking and language in general. IMMANUEL KANT and his contemporaries called music the “Sprache der Affekte” (“language of the emotions’’) which carries out the

Cf. Siegfried Schmalzriedt, “Clausula” in Handworterbuch der musikalischen Terminologe, ed. H. H. Eggebrecht. "Cf. Riemann-Musiklexikon (Sachteil), 12th ed. (Mainz, 1967), 179; also M. Bielitz, Musik und Grammatik: Studien zur mittelalterhchen Musiktheorie (Munich, 1977). Tr. note: In the first century _ BCE, the Roman orator Cicero and others had compared a painter’s use of color to rhetorical ornamentation. "Cf. Martin Ruhnke, Joachim Burmeister: Ein Beitrag zur Musiklehre um 1600 (Kassel, 1955), 132£f.; Rolf Dammann, Der Musikbegrff im deutschen Barock (Cologne, 1967), 93ff.; George J. Buelow, “Rhetoric and Music” in The New Grove (1980), vol. 15. Cf. H. Bauer, Kunsthistorik: Eine kritische Einfiihrung in das Studium der Kunstgeschichte (Munich, 1976), 74 ff.

3|

“Tr. note: See Johann Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg, 1739), Pt. II, ch. 14, par. 4ff.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

delivery of an excited tone of speech “with all its emphasis.”!? The general term Tonsprache (“musical language”)'® came into use, which then allowed music to be compared partly with poetry and partly with prose.'’ Ever since the classic period in Weimar and Vienna, one has spoken of musical turns of phrase, ideas, and thoughts,'® of harmony as the logic of music, of the logic of the structure (Satz), and of musical logic’? and grammar.*? During the nineteenth century it became customary to speak of musical thinking and of thinking in tones (Denken in T6nen),”! of tone poets (Tondichter),”* of symphonic poems (FRANZ LISZT), and of tone poems (RICHARD STRAUSS). Ideally, one would like to draw exact parallels between music and language, musical art and poetic art, the musical work and the literary work, so that common theoretical concepts could be used as precisely as possible. Unfortunately this is feasible to only a limited extent, for several of the parallels intersect each other. This limitation is probably because the boundaries between musical logic (as the teaching of musical thinking), musical grammar (as the teaching of musi'5Immanuel Kant, Knitik der Urteilskraft, 3" ed. (1799), ed. K. Vorlander (1927; Hamburg, 1954) §53; cf. Paul Moos, Die Philosophie der Mustk von Kant bis Eduard von Hartmann, 2° ed. (Stuttgart, 1922), 24. '°Cf. Klaus W. Niemoller, “Der sprachhafte Charakter der Musik” in: Vortrage of the RheinischWestfalische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geisteswissenschaften, G 244 (Opladen, 1980); Fritz Reckow, “Tonsprache” in Handworterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, ed. Eggebrecht.

"Cf., e.g., Ingmar Bengtsson, ““Verstehen’: Prolegomena zu einem semiotisch-hermeneutischen Ansatz” in: P. Faltin and H.-P. Reinecke, ed., Musik und Verstehen: Aufsatze zur semiotischen Theorie, Asthetik und Soxiologe der musikalischen Rezeption (Cologne, 1973), 16; H. Danuser, “Musikalische Prosa” in Handworterbuch der musikakschen Terminologie, ed. Eggebrecht.

‘For eatly evidence of using “turns of phrase” [Ger. “Wendungen’’] there is Turk 1789; cf. JAMS 36 (1983): 213. —On “ideas” consider, e.g, Haydn’s declaration: “Once I had seized upon an idea, my whole endeavor was to develop and sustain it in keeping with the rules of art.” See Griesinger (1810), p. 114 [Gotwals trans. p. 61] —The term “thoughts” [Ger. “Gedanken’] has been used at least since J.A. Birnbaum’s 1739 defense of J.S. Bach, particularly in: “keyboard works where with much pleasure one encounters not common but rare ideas and thoughts.” See Bach-Dokumente Ul: 347.—Friedrich Schlegel (1798) saw “a certain tendency toward philosophy in all purely instrumental music”: “Must not the purely instrumental music itself create a text? And is not its theme thus developed, established, varied, and contrasted like the topic meditated upon in a philosophical train of ideas?” (Fragmente, 144). | Cf. Hugo Riemann, Musikalische Logik: Haupiziige der phystologeschen und psychologischen Begriindung

4.

unseres Musiksystems, Leipzig, n.d. (1873); Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, “Musik als Tonsprache,”

Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft 18 (1961): 96; Hermann Beck, Methoden der Werkanalyse in Musikgeschichte

und Gegenwart Wilhelmshaven, 1974), 120ff.

*°See Otto Jahn, “Beethoven und die Ausgaben seiner Werke,” Dze Grenzboten, \g. 23, I. Semester, vol. I (Leipzig, 1864): 271ff; Hugo Riemann, Musikalische Syntaxis: Grundrif einer harmonischen Satxbildungslehre (Leipzig, 1877), xiv; Eggebrecht (1961), 95. “Riemann (1877), 24, 119; Guido Adler, “Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft,” Viertehabrschrift fiir Musiknissenschaft 1 (1885): 14; cf. Eggebrecht (1961), 75.

**Cf. Moos (1922), 61.

7, PRESUPPOSTTIONS

cal language), and musical poetics, rhetoric, and style (as the teachings of musical structure) are themselves unclear. Let us take, for example, a grammatical - concept like “syntax.” HUGO RIEMANN (1877) understood musical syntax as the teaching of harmonic progressions, which earlier authors had designated as musical logic. Other writers understood syntax as the formal organization,” which, according to older tradition (e.g,, in ALEXANDRE CHORON [1808}), had belonged with musical rhetoric, while Riemann characterized such structure as “musical rhythm and metrics.””* The linguist ROMAN JAKOBSON offers an apparent solution to the problem of finding parallels between music and language when he says that music’s conventions are only phonological.” Probably more correct, however, is the observation of the aesthetician ROBERT ZIMMERMAN who confers an in-

dependent value [i.e. status] to the phonetic element in music, but not to the |

phonetic element in poetry.”® | 2. Syntagma and Paradigma Certainly music involves a special kind of artificial language:

The composer invents and thinks. But, removed from all objective reality, he invents and thinks in tones. (HANSLICK)”’ In this way musical semantics—the teaching of the abstract meaning of music—tremains most controversial. One side joins BORIS ASAF’YEV in pointing out that certain “intonations”—such as “individual short motives, favorite successions of intervals, beginnings and closing formulas (cadences) that have become obligatory”—are comparable to words,”* carrying certain connotations along with themselves. For others, music without words is also without concepts, and its content is not translatable into another language.*’ Still the linguistic character of musical expression cannot be denied. If, following ROUSSEAU,” a “dictionary-like compilation” of musical “intonations” is considered “Niemdller (1980), 8, speaks of the “formal-syntaktische Gliederung” [“formal-syntactical structure’’| of music. “Hugo Riemann, System der musikalischen Rhythmik und Metrik, Leipzig, 1903.

>See Ian D. Bent, “Analysis” in The New Grove (1980), 1: 365.

*°C£. Moos (1922), 258. Recent publications on the linguistic aspects of music include J. P. Fricke, ed., Die Sprache der Mustk, Kolner Beitrage zur Musikforschung, 165 (Regensburg, 1989).

“Hanslick (1854), 102f “Der Componist dichtet und denkt. Nur dichtet und denkt er, entriickt aller gegenstandlichen Realitat, in Tonen.” *°BLW. Assafjew-Glebow, Tschatkowskys Eugen Onegin (Potsdam, 1949), 22, 18, 126.

“Cf. Niemoller (1980), 18, 21. *Tbid., 11. 5

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

possible, if one speaks hypothetically of an “intonation vocabulary,”*' of a copia formularum (supply of formulae] analogous to a copia verborum [supply of words], and if one demands a musical kxzkon formularum modeled after a lextkon phra———-seologicum,*? a “dictionary” of typical musical formulae,” then this suggests that

music has collective ideas** which return uniformly or “in a continuous evolution and mutation’? within one style or even over the centuries, from composition to composition, whether or not these ideas actually carry a conceptual meaning along with them. This phenomenon, which is decisive for music’s linguistic character and comprehensibility, is best understood with concepts from linguistics and literary history. Since FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE, linguistics has distinguished the associative (what L. HJELMSLEV calls the paradigmatic) relationships from the - syntagmatic (which H. FREI calls discursive).°° The syntagmatic [or syntactical] relationship of linguistic elements is that resulting from their position within the sentence; the paradigmatic relationship includes words that can be associated with a particular word.°’ To demonstrate this distinction a literary scholar uses a musical example: he compares the syntagma with the succession of harmonies

in a chorale, the paradigma with all the inversions of a G major chord.** Thus the paradigma is not a specific model but rather a class of expressions that are equivalent in some way and from which one expression is selected. The synztagma

is the combination of the selected expressions in the temporal order of the composition’s structure.*”

The concept of ‘opos in rhetoric is related to the grammatical concept of paradigma. In music, however, the boundaries between these two concepts are blurred. WILIBALD GURLITT (1941) characterizes the investigation of musi*“B.W. Assafjev-Glebow, Die musikalsche Form als Prozef, ed. D. Lehmann and E. Lippold (Berlin,

1976), 286; Assafjev (1949), 18. | Guido Adler, Methode der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1919), 33, 34, 107.

*Dénes Bartha, “Thematic Profile and Character in the Quartet-Finales of Joseph Haydn,” Studia Musicologica 11 (Budapest, 1969), 35f.

“Collective conception” [or “mental image”; Ger. kollektive Vorstellung] is a notion that seems to go back to Emile Durkheim; see Th. M. Scheerer, Ferdinand de Saussure: Rezeption und Krittk

(Darmstadt, 1980), 131. ,

*Assafjev (1976), 23.

Cf. H. E. Brekle, “Der Theorienpluralismus in der Linguistik” in: A. Diemer, ed., Der Methodenund Theorienpluralsmus in den Wissenschaften, Stadien zur Wissenschafts Theorie, vol. 6 (Meisenheim,

1971), 261; Scheerer (1980), 53, 59; cf. H. Flechsig, Studien zu Theorte und Methode musikalischer Analyse (Munich, 1977), 55ff. *’Scheerer (1980), 101f. 8). Link, Literaturnissenschaftliche Grundbegriffe (Munich, 1974), 39.

3M. Maten-Griesbach, Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft (Munich, 1970; 6" ed., 1977), 113f¢.

“Wilibald Gurlitt, “Nachwort” to Arnold Schering, Das Symbol in der Mustk (Leipzig, 1941), 184.

5

1. PRESUPPOSITIONS

cal topos as the recognition of the “reuse, modification, and revision of certain typical themes, formulae, and turns of phrase’’*” —thus almost the same thing which Asaf’yev means with “intonation.” Since ERNST ROBERT CURTIUS (1948), literary scholarship has described “‘opor’ as the content-driven literary motifs which have recurred repeatedly since antiquity. In music history—where indeed the time spans are much shorter—thete are similar correspondences, namely “topoi” like the “chasse” and the “pastorale’”! or the typical march-duet in grand

opera.” In this way the concept of topos connects with the concept of gente. Consequently the paradigmatic—in a sense that includes both topoi and genres—occuts at all levels of composition: from the smallest building parts (“elementary signs” in the parlance of information theory”) to the large structures (or “super signs”), the genres (symphony, opera, mass, etc.). Together with the syntagmatic as the framework of musical thought, the paradigmatic establishes the language-like character of music.

B. Tradition and Understanding 1. Systematic Considerations Musical understanding presupposes that the “stereotypes of the imagination’ corresponding to the paradigmata are much the same for the composer,

performer, and listener. The composer freely shapes the syntagmatic foreground as he reproduces, varies, or evades the paradigmata (in the language of information theory: “sign models”) more or less unconsciously. The listener succeeds in comprehending a piece of music by the fact that he more or less unconsciously anticipates, recognizes, or implicates in his hearing the latently present background paradigmata. Information theory expresses it in this way: The models contained in the sign structures presented must coin-

cide wholly or in part with the sign models that are already stored | in the brain.” “'On the chasse see: Alexander Ringer, “The Chasse as Musical Topic of the 18" Century,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 6 (1953); on the pastorale see : H. Jung, Dze Pastorale: Studien zur Geschichte eines mustkakschen Topos (Bern, 1980).

“Leopold Kantner, “Zur Genese der Marschduette in der Grand Opera,” Angeiser der ésterreichischen Akademe der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse }g, 113, no. 15 (1976). *®Herbert W. Franke, Phanomen Kunst: Die kybernetischen Grundlagen der Asthetik (Cologne, 1974).

“47,. Lissa, “Uber die Prozessualitat im Musikwerk” in: B. M. Jarustowski, ed., Intonation und Gestalt in der Musik, Beitrage und Abhandlungen der Musikwissenschafter sozialistischer Lander (Moscow, 1965), 371.

Franke (1974), 122.

;

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Accordingly, the creation and understanding of music can be represented schematically as in diagrams 1 and 2. To a greater or lesser degree, a musician has the additional capability of being able to transform a musical text prima vista (at sight) into music, as well as to transform music that 1s heard or imagined into a cor-

responding musical text. The notated transmission speaks to him because the “oral,” “audible,” “colloquial” tradition enlivens and supplements it.”®

traditional! repetition, stereotypes of the modification, imagination avoidance

formative action of |

fantasy

Diagram 1: The Creation of Music

auditory traditional impression stereotypes of the imagination

comparative comprehension

Diagram 2: The Understanding of Music

Inversely, he can notate music because he has an obligatory, traditional notation at his disposal. “Charles Seeger, “Prescriptive and Descriptive Music Writing,’ The Musical Quarterly 44 (1958): 186; Georg von Dadelsen, “Uber das Wechselspiel von Musik und Notation” in: Festschrift Walter Gerstenberg zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. G. v. Dadelsen and A. Holschneider (Wolfenbuttel, 1964), 18.

8

1, PRESUPPOSTTIONS

(Whether new notational systems that are occasionally proposed could simplity score reading is doubtful for traditional music. It remains to be seen whether in_ dividualized graphic notations, with which various composets since about 1950 have set down their avant-garde compositions, will lead to a new tradition.)

The dependence of musical understanding on tradition is important for both the ethnographical and the historical perspectives. Musical understanding is not

| the result of mere manipulation as believed by one “emancipatory” music pedagogy”’ that encourages a cosmopolitan consumption of sound recordings.” Rather, musical understanding rests upon a living transmission connected to a “community of substance and tradition” [“Substanz- und Traditionsgemeinschaft”’}” and to a particular cultural sphere.’ Like the training in one’s mother

tongue and its literature, musical education is—according to WITTGENSTEIN’s “language-play theory” (Sprachspieltheorie)?'—the training in a living

cultural activity (enculturation). Logically, ethnomusicology, which studies the | diversity of traditional music cultures, has questioned the existence of musical universals and has replaced the idealistic concept of one general musical language with the many empirical, regional music languages encountered throughout the world.** In order to not experience oriental music as merely an exotic attraction but rather to be able to understand it as an insider, we must learn it like a foreign language, not just theoretically but, to a certain degree, practically, through as far-reaching an acculturation as possible, for the comprehension of the music’s cultural function is also important. In contrast to musical cultures elsewhere, Western art music presents a unity that is stronger than European folk music and different from national literatures. Accordingly, unlike the philological fields of Romance languages, Germanic languages, Slavic languages, etc., Western music does not need any sub-divisons in

“Cf. N. Linke, Wertproblem und Musikerziehung: Empirische Untersuchungen und Materiahen zur

Begriindung einer ‘Wertdidakttk der Music.” (Wolfenbuttel, 1977), e.g., 23. ,

“Cf. N. Linke, Philosophie der Musikerziehung (Regensburg, 1976), 80. , “Heinrich Besseler, “Grundfragen der Musikasthetik,” Jahrbuch der Musikbibhothetk Peters fiir 1926, Je. 33 (Leipzig, 1927), 78.

Barry S. Brook, “Music, Musicology, and Related Disciplines: On Perspective and Interconnectedness” in: A Musical Offering: Essays in Honor of Martin Bernstein, ed. EB. H. Clinkscale

and C. Brook (New York, 1977), 77. "Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen (1953; Frankfurt am Main, 1977); see Jurgen Habermas, “Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften,” Philosophische Rundschau, Beiheft 5 (Tubingen, 1967), 151f. **On the expression ““Musiksprache” see the remark of Otto Kinkeldey in: [LM.S. Kongre(sbericht New York 1967 (Kassel, 1962), II: 157; Mantle Hood, “Music, the Unknown” in: Muszcology, ed. F Ll. Harrison, M. Hood, C. V. Palisca (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963; reprint ed., Westport, CT, 1974), 244f£; K. P. Wachsmann, “African Music,’ Musica Indigena (1975): 306fE. 9

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

its music philology. Specializations in the philology of music can be made, however, according to the provenance of musical sources and other useful materials, the various languages of the texts set to music, and the historical documents, as

well as according to the need for attention to national sensitivities. |

2. Historical Considerations A generation ago, a division into older and newer music history was suggested,” cotresponding to the division into older and newer Germanic studies. This distinction made sense because, as generally understandable as Western art music can be in a synchronous cross-section, it is poorly understood in the diachronous lateral view [over several periods]. As the “oral’’ tradition becomes weaker over time, comprehension diminishes, and the “stereotypes of imagination’ fade—indeed in a stronger measure than with literary tradition. We can understand Luther’s translation of the Bible as soon as we read up on several modes of style and expression that have become unfamiliar. Certainly we can feel that the music of Luther’s time (e.g,, the song settings of HEINRICH ISAAC and LUDWIG SENFL) is part of out tradition and culture. The church modes in which such music is written are sonorously attractive, but the aesthetic meaning of its form and content seems remote to us. With the assistance of historical studies we come to a rational understanding of the particular placement of a mode’s half steps, its avbztus [range of pitches], its characteristic reciting tone (repercussio or tenor), ot its particular cadential tone [finaks|. The question remains whether we can also have a sufficiently sympathetic understanding for expressive distinctions as they were felt at that time (e.g., between authentic and plagal modes). For earlier epochs musical understanding becomes even more challenging. The historian of language can learn enough Middle High German to understand the Song of the Nibelung. Underestimating the possibilities of philological research for all old music, however, TIBOR IKKNEIF makes a point that is quite valid for musical works of the thirteenth century:

Later on it becomes uncertain to which concrete musical citcumstances the composer was tied and no less uncertain from which musical circumstances he distanced himself in his work. To the extent that our knowledge of these matters is fragmentary, the comprehension of the work’s intentions remains likewise incomplete.”

Difficulties with musical texts worsen as we go further back in history. As the difficulties of reading the music increase, understanding becomes very prob“Memorandum uber die Lage der Musikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” Die Maustkforschung 29 (1976), item no. V.

“Tibor Kneif, “Anleitung zum Nichtverstehen eines Klangobjekts” in: Faltin and Reinecke, (1973), 163.

10

7, PRESUPPOSITIONS

lematic. While literary monuments in Old High German are essentially treadable and comprehensible to historians of language and literature, the staffless neumes of monophonic liturgical songs from the ninth century (the period of the Hildebrand-Lied>») create real puzzles for the music historian. The music of antiquity, which was similarly monophonic, is almost unknown

to us. According to pictorial representations that go back to ca. 5000 B.C. there was a musical practice in ancient Egypt and the other high cultures of the

Orient, yet no trace has been found of any kind of musical notation® (aside perhaps from one example in cuneiform from the second millennium B.C.°’), What a rich view we have of Greek and Roman literature compared with the poor view we have of music from the same period! To be sure, ancient music had a notation beginning in the fifth or fourth century B.C. (actually there were two: vocal and instrumental notation), and BOETHIUS wrote ca. 500 A.D. that melodies “endure in the memory of descendants” if they are notated beside the —text.°° Nonetheless, in the extant copies (e.g, of Greek dramas) the melodies

were not considered essential and not notated.°’ The reason that books and essays can be written today about Greek and Roman music is because the literary and pictorial sources still say a great deal about the musical life and music theory of that time. The few, insignificant musical monuments can certainly

be transcribed to some extent, but a reconstruction of their sound and musical | meaning is hardly possible.” With the renewed creation of a musical notation since the ninth century, its increasing precision, and its regular use, our knowledge of past music gradually grows. The possibility of understanding this earlier music increases thanks to what also remains alive in the traditions of composition and performance. In this way we arrive at the maximum of such possibilities in music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with its relatively rational and detailed notation. For the most part its “oral” tradition has remained alive up to the present day,

and our own stereotypes of imagination are related to those of music listenTr. note: The Hildebrand-Lied is the oldest surviving manuscript of German epic (or heroic) poetry. °*W. Tappolet, Notenschrift und Musizieren: Das Problem ihrer Bexiehungen vom Friihmittelalter bis ins 20.

Jahrhundert (Berlin-Lichterfelde, 1967), 7.

"Frieder Zaminer, “Theoretische Elemente in der fruhmittelalterlichen Musikaufzeichnung” in: Th. Géllner, ed., Notenschrift und Auffiibrung, Manchener Veroffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte, vol. 30 (Tutzing, 1980), 43.

Cf. Zaminer (1980), 46.

°F. Pohlmann, “Zur Friihgeschichte der Uberlieferung Griechischer Bihnendichtung und Biihnenmusik” in: Festschrift M. Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag (Neuhausen/Stuttgart, 1986).

“Frieder Zaminer, “Griechische Musikaufzeichnungen” in: Thrasybulos Georgiades, ed., Musikalische Edition im Wandel des historischen Bewufstseens (Kassel, 1971), 21ff.1 11

MUSIC PHILOLOGY | ers from those two centuries. Thus we are persuaded by the proven similarity between the effects then and now of many works performed from the same musical texts.

The presuppositions of understanding in the twentieth century are another story. Avant-gardists succeeding ARNOLD SCHOENBERG have gone so far as to maintain that for each new composition they must invent a new musical language, ot else they renounce altogether any linguistic qualities for their music. The results are reserved for small circles. Whoever believes that a “school of listening” can bring about a broader understanding of this music®! overestimates the power of pedagogy. Whoever takes the opposite path, i.e. legitimizes the absence of understanding” and desires to construct a dualism between “conceptualized” and ‘Gmaginative” music in order to explain the separateness of the mental images of composets and listeners,” makes a virtue out of the necessity of our day. It is unclear why a period’s musical style—what the eighteenth century termed taste and fashion—changes comparatively rapidly. Also unclear is why, in the time before BEETHOVEN, only new music was played as a rule, but old music,

so it seems, was soon forgotten if it did not have to fulfill specific functions, as did certain older church music like the motet collection Florikgium Portense from 1603/21 until BACH’s day. Since at least the time of LULLY, CORELLI, PERGOLESI, and HANDEL, a number of works have certainly had an afterlife—several enduring until our own day—for purely aesthetic reasons. But most of the countless historical works performed today are newcomers in the repertory; they had been forgotten and were revived in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Thus the thesis of ERNST ROTH’s On the Transitory in Musié* is substantiated. We do not know whether musical art works designated as classics will survive as valued treasures for millenia (as classic works of literature and the fine arts have done) or whether they will ultimately fall into obscurity. Music philologists have every reason to concern themselves with such musical works and to contribute to their appropriate understanding, not for the sake of “hero worship” or out of a “Eurocentric” bias, and not because it concerns music of their own social class. No, music philologists study such compositions because they are part of the most precious and most irreplaceable achievements

of our culture and should endure. |

Kneif (1973). | |

“IW, Gieseler, “Uber die Schwierigkeit, Neue Musik zu héren,” Musica 26 (1972): 136.

“Tibor Kneif, “Ideen zu einer dualistischen Musikasthetik,’ The International Review of Music Aesthetics and Soctology 1 (1970).

“The expression serves as the title of Ernst Roth, Vom Vergdnglichen in der Musik (Zurich, 1949), Joseph Kerman, Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 36.

12

1, PRESUPPOSTTIONS

C. The Work and the Text

1. The Concept of the Musical Work The term “work” [Werk] is similar to the terms “composition” and “piece,” as well as the indefinite plurals “labors” [Arbeiten] and “things” [Sachen].° Many

aspects of a work do not affect the applicability of philological methods. For example, it is of no importance whether the work is anonymous or attributed to an author, whether its style is appropriate for the genre or quite individual, whether the work is affected by aesthetic or functional purposes, whether it exists in one or several versions, in score or in parts, whether it is written down in a notation of tones or fingerings (as in certain tablatures), whether the work wholly belongs to its author or was co-composed, so to speak, by tradition, whether the work is better known in an unauthorized arrangement than in the original version, whether or not it includes improvisatory portions, whether it could be performed completely or in a selection of several movements, whether it vanished from or remained in the repertoire after its premiere, and whether aesthetic criticism classifies it as an art work or as an inferior work. For the methods of philology it only matters that the work exists in written form! (If there is no written form, as in improvised music, the music is not a “work” in the philological sense.) There never existed the “isolated, self-sufficient artistic | product reigning over mankind”’ that is supposed to have fallen to the “crisis of the work concept” [Krise des Werkbegriffs].°’ Simply stated, each composition came into being with specific presuppositions, was transmitted under historical conditions, and was received with certain prejudices. All this does not invalidate

the concept of a musical work but only shows the extent to which philological methods can be used to investigate each individual work. Whether the assertion of today’s avant-gardists that their works are no works at all®* proves true may remain undecided. The assertion that the musical work has become an outmoded concept is acceptable only insofar as one understands

**Fot both terms see, e.g. C.P.E. Bach; cf. Bach-Dokumente IIl, Nr. 793, 795.

°’Carl Dahlhaus, “Der Versuch, einen faulen Frieden zu st6ren: Der Zerfall des musikalischen Werkbeegrifts,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (20 Nov. 1976, no. 262), following Kurt Blaukopf, Werktreue und Bearbeitung: Zur Soziologee der Integritat des musikalischen Kunstwerks (Karlsruhe, 1968),

9f., who writes of the “autonomous artwork that is complete unto itself and obeys its own laws” [“in sich geschlossenen, seinem eigenen Gesetz gehorchenden autonomen Kunstwerk”’] and of the “integrity of the musical artwork” [‘‘Integritat des musikalischen Kunstwerks’’]. See also G. Henneberg, Idee und Begriff des musikalschen Kunstwerks im Spiegel des deutschsprachigen Schrifttums der ersten Halfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 1983), 3ff.

‘Cf. Carl Dahlhaus, “Zur Kritik des asthetischen Urteils: Uber Liszts Prometheus,’ Die Musikforschung

23 (1970): 411. 13

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

that the term “work” did not exist in the field of music before the fifteenth cen-

tury and that even today not all music manifests itself in “works.” The first of these perceptions just confirms that one speaks of a “work” only when there is a notated composition (without the consciousness immediately generating some theoretical term in order to have created a “work’’). The second perception, concerning the phenomena of folk music, improvisation, and, in general, performance practices without an antecedent notation, has long been known. Corresponding to the concept of musical understanding above (see earlier Diagrams 1 and 2, in section B/1), a musical work consists conceptually of three components: its text, its performance, and its imagination (or mental im-

— age) (see Diagram 3). |

Text Performance

Imagination (mental image)

Diagram 3: The Musical Work

The Western composer writes down his developed mental image or imagination in musical notation. Then the work is sung and played for the first time according to this musical text. Further performances are again conversions from notation into sound, although many musicians do them from memory after a

certain amount of time. In terms of subtle nuances, no performance is like another; each presupposes the activation and actualisation of the interpretet’s mental images. Thus the work is more than the individual audible interpreta-

14

tion, even if itis one by the composer himself. It is more than the sum of individual performances and more than the notated text. It is neither a real nor an Cf. Riemann-Musiklexikon (Sachteil), 668.

7, PRESUPPOSITIONS

ideal matter, but rather an “intentional” one:’”” the mentally imagined creation, which the composer has written out in notated form so that it is audibly realized through the imagination of the singer and player, and it speaks to the imagination of the listener. The power of imagination or fantasy is required not only from composers but also, in decreasing degrees, from later performing musicians, from textual critics and elucidators, as well as in general from each reader of the musical

text and even from listeners. Aestheticians from JOHANN FRIEDRICH HERBART to BENEDETTO CROCE laid the foundation for the importance of imagination. According to Herbart, musical decisions are made not from

the hearing of actually sounding tones, but rather from fantasy.’ MORITZ LAZARUS speaks of tone intuition [Tonanschauung].” Croce designates the “expression or the aesthetic mental synthesis” as the truly substantial stage in the aesthetic process of creation and distinguishes this synthesis from the transfer into physical phenomena (sounds, tones, colors, etc.).””» HUGO RIEMANN coined the term “tone imagination” [Tonvorstellung] for the intellectual side of music.’* WALTER WIORA stresses the fact that the actual performance is also a patt of music.” But this does not diminish the role of imagination, for when imagination is lacking, the performance seems like a chaos of auditory perceptions—as experimental psychology with sound indeed assumes. ~ A musical text can have various relationships to sound: it can precede or follow the sound, it can be a “pre-scription” [Vor-Schrift] or a “trans-scription” [Nach-Schrift].”° In the tradition of oral, vernacular, and aural music the sound Roman Ingarden, Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst: Musikwerk — Bild ~ Architektur — Film (Tubingen,1962), 11,27, 101. Cf. Walter Wiora, “Methodik der Musikwissenschaft” in: Enzyklopddte der seistesnissenschafthchen Arbeitsmethoden, 6. Lieferung (Munich, 1970), 95.-- R. Cadenbach, Das musikalische Kunstwerk: Grundbegriffe einer undogmatischen Musiktheorre (Regensburg, 1978), 113,

uses the terms “Komposition’” [composition], “Fixierung” [establishment], and “Ausfuhrung” [execution] in his conception of the trinity of imagination (mental image), text, and performance, and he stresses that the “work” corresponds with none of these terms individually; see also his diagrams on pp. 119, 131 and 1360. "Cf. Moos (1922), 207. ’CF£. ibid., 268f.

Benedetto Croce, Aesthetik als Wissenschaft vom Ausdruck und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft: Theorte

und Geschichte (1902; 6" ed., 1928; then transferred to H. Feist and R. Peters, Tubingen, 1930), 101.—Similar is Robin George Collingwood, The Prinaples of Arts (Oxford, 1938), Ch. VI-VII: “Art proper: (1) as expression,” “(2) as imagination.” Collingwood, 138, credits Addison and Vico as the founders of the aesthetic theory of imagination. “Hugo Riemann, Masikalische Syntaxis (1877), VIII; idem, “Ideen zu einer ‘Lehre von den

15

Tonvortstelllungen’,” Jahrbuch der Musikbibhiothek Peters fiir 1914/15, Jg. 21 (1916).

Walter Wiora, Das musikalische Kunstwerk (Tutzing, 1983), 13.

"6Georgiades (1977), 115, in a blurred sense, certainly. Cf. Arnold Feil, “Musikmachen und Musikwerk,” Die Musikforschung 21 (1968), 16; Gdllner (1980), 10.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

comes first. So it is, as a rule, in the art music of the Near East and Far East. When the ethnomusicologist takes down the sound, it is—to use an expression

of CHARLES SEEGER—a matter of “descriptive” notation. In Western music the reverse is the case, at least in relationship to performance. Here the music notation exists at the outset (although it does come after the composet’s creative fantasy); the text is “prescriptive.” Descriptive notation, then, is a teport of how a particular performance sounded; prescriptive notation is a plan of how a particular musical piece is supposed to be audibly performed.” Without prescriptive notation the repertoire of compositions would not have endured; indeed the art of polyphony would hardly have arisen or would have remained at a rudimentary level. Our transmission of music would then be similar to that of Eastern high cultures, which certainly also have a notation but do not use it in as productive a way as in the West.” Perhaps for this reason homophony and heterophony persist there. In the East there are productive virtuosos and musical repertoires which are passed on from teacher to student, but—at least up until recent times—there were no composers writing down music and no musical texts, at least none that would be accessible to every musi-

cian.” As MAX WEBER recognized: |

Only the elevation of polyphonic music to a written art created real “composers” and guaranteed to Western polyphonic works—in contrast to those of all other peoples—permanence, after-effect, and continuous evolution.*° In the beginning there was no prescriptive notation. In Italy, where Gregorian chant originated, chant books with neumes were not evident until the eleventh century. Neumes apparently emerged in the Carolingian period, in ninth-century France, and immediately exhibited regionally different forms. At first only individual pieces were written down. Prior to the tenth century there are no chant books completely filled with neumes. In addition, at that time one often still sang from chant books without neumes. Thus it can be assumed that in the first centuries [C.E.] the transmission of liturgical chants occurred orally everywhere.*' In Seeger (1958); B. Nettl, Theory and Method in Ethnomusicology (London, 1964), 99.

Feil (1968), 9. "Josef Kuckertz, “Zur Niederschrift der Musik auBereuropadischer Kulturen” in: Gdllner, Notenschrift und Auffiihrung (1980) confirms this indirectly. “Max Weber, Die rationalen und soziologischen Grundlagen der Musik, 2°* ed. (Munich, 1924), 68. Cf.

Tappolet (1967), 9.

“Helmut Hucke, “Der Ubergang von miindlicher zu schriftlicher Musikiiberlieferung im Mittelalter” in: LMS. Congress Berkeley 1977 (1977), 180ff.; dem, “Toward a New Historical View of Gregorian Chant, Journal of the American Musicological Soctety 33 (1980), 445ff.

16

| 1. PRESUPPOSITIONS such a situation there is no lasting version. A version transmitted orally cannot last, even when the transmission originally started from a prescribed musical text. This situation is exemplified well by the formation of variants in Protestant hymns of the sixteenth century until the restoration of their original tunes in the nineteenth century.” More problematical are any attempts to reconstruct the original versions of Gregorian chants. Even polyphony began without musical notation. Accompanying Gregorian chant (vox principals) with a vox organaks in parallel fourths or fifths, later with a mixture of intervals, was originally an improvisational practice.*? Significantly, in the Musica Enchiriadis (9th C.) the notations of such pieces are called descriptiones rather than praescriptiones, these notations were written on chordae, i.e. lines

that symbolized strings, whose diastematic meaning was indicated by clefs, the so-called Daseia signs, put at the beginning. The basis of such improvisation could be the chant which was reproduced either from memory or from the already diastematically notated music.®° Whether organa in the twelfth-century St. Martial manuscripts are written-out improvisations or already compositions is debatable.*® Nonetheless there is no question that composition using prescriptive notation has determined the course of Western music history up to today. Still, improvisation has remained alive, both on its own and in the perfor-

mance of compositions (see Ch. V, B/1), often much more in the latter case than composers would have preferred. Already in 1490 ADAM VON FULDA reprimanded instrumentalists who corrected, mutilated, and ruined every song as well as falsified what was correctly composed.*’ The boundary between performance according to the composer’s wishes and the unauthorized adaptation remained fluid into the nineteenth century. Improvisation is at the foundation of the creative process itself. Although a composition may seem highly contrived (as in BACH’s “Art of the Fugue’) or painstakingly achieved (as in BEETHOVEN’s numerous sketches), all artistic composition has its effect in a direct [or immediate] manner. When spontaneity fails, mere “paper music” results. Certain periods of music history have avoided Cf. Gerald Abraham, The Tradition of Western Music (Berkeley, 1974), 7ff.

Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht in Réewann-Musiklexikon (Sachteil), 196, 680. “Musica Enchiriadis, Ch. Xff. Cf. ibid., 195f. Theodor Gollner, “Notenschrift und Mehrstimmigkeit,” Dze Musikforschung 37 (1984): 269. *°See Imogene Horsley, “Improvisation” (1) in: The New Grove (1980), 9: 32; Hans Heinrich FEggebrecht in: Rzemann-Musiklexikon (Sachteil), 681.

om. . omnem cantum corrigunt, lacerant, corrumpunt et recte compositum falsificant...” Cf. Hugo Riemann, Geschichte der Musiktheorie im [X.-X1X. Jahrhundert, 2” ed. (Berlin, 1921; reprint ed.,

Hildesheim, 1961), 321; ctf. zdem, Hastory of Music Theory, trans. Raymond Haggh (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1962; reprint ed., New York: Da Capo, 1974), 270. 17

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

this danger less than others, least of all the mid-twentieth century, with its “setial’ technique of composition which proceeds from the problematic assumption that a rational order on music paper must correspond with an audible order

when later realized in sound.*® |

2. Awareness of Textual Correctness The question of whether copyists and printers could also improvise and take liberties, as performing musicians so often did, affects the identity of the work. This question also needs to be addressed, above all in connection with music of the Renaissance. In the transmission of this music there is a “huge quantity of little variants, such as chromatic alterations, the contraction or division of note values, rhythmical smoothing out or animation, the strengthening or the elimination of suspensions, the exchange of cadences, [and] changes in the text underlay or aspects of its declamation.’”*”’ WINFRIED KIRSCH has inferred from this situation a “freedom of will in reception” [rezeptive Freiziigigkeit] “that not only does not recognize the relatively modern concepts of fidelity to the work [Werktreue] and fidelity to the style [Stiltreue] but, beyond that, also seems to derive from the compositions themselves.” Kirsch, however, limits his statement by adding:

The various alterations ... only very seldom affect the structural core of compositions and for the most part limit themselves to a peripheral layer .. .”° Since almost no composer autogtaphs exist from the Renaissance, it cannot be determined whether one may conclude from the alterations (perhaps an underthird or “Landini” cadence changed into a leading-tone cadence or vice versa) that this peripheral layer “is already regarded by the composer as a field open to receptive practice.””! Kirsch’s thesis is problematic: “At least hypothetically there is no original version of a vocal piece from Josquin’s time (and even later) that includes all details.””? It could also be that the musical text, as soon as it was

removed from the composer’s sphere of influence, fell under the influence of "SH. G. Klingenberg, “Grenzen der akustischen Gedachtnisfahigkeit,” Adda Mausicologica 46 (1974): 171ff.

“Winfried Kirsch, “Unterterz- und Leittonklauseln als quellentypische Varianten” in: Ludwig Finscher, Quellenstudien zur Musik der Renaissance I (Munich, 1981), 168; cf. Stanley Boorman, “Limitations and Extensions of Filiation Technique” in: Ian Fenlon, ed., Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts (Cambridge, 1981), 329ff.

Tbid., 167.

Ibid. *Tbid., 168.

18

7, PRESUPPOSITIONS

musicians who asserted their own performance customs in the copies, without the composet’s prior approval. Awareness of a correct text did exist in literature at that time, as confirmed by humanists’ philological work on classical texts. A similar awareness existed

with respect to new texts, although not to the same extent everywhere. In 1530 LUTHER complained of publishers who “undiligently and incorrectly” reprinted his translation of the Bible. In 1563 CHRISTOPH WALTHER (ca. 1515-1574), proof-reader at the Wittenberg press, warned:

. The reprinters should print not only “word for word” (as they boast) / but also letter for letter / and bear in mind / that Luther says / he and his assistants / have “weighed every word.’” Walther did not accept as valid the excuse that each literary pirate conformed to the customs of speech, writing, and printing in his own region. Rather, he ptaised the Strasbourg reprinter WENDEL RIHEL (d. 1555) who had followed Luther’s text exactly.

The wording of titles, dedications, and prefaces of sixteenth-century musical ptints clearly demonstrates that music printers likewise knew the concept of textual correctness (see Ch. 4, section A/3). Ina still extant contract from 1576,

HERNANDO DE CABEZON, publisher of the musical works of his father ANTONIO DE CABEZON, engaged the printer to follow the original music, page for page and line for line, without changing the page layout.” Above all, composets were interested in authenticity and correctness. ELZEAR GENET (CARPENTRAS) announced on the title page of his Lamentations published in 1532 in Avignon that the works were now mote accurately edited than in a version that had gone through many hands previously; earlier they had been printed partly without his permission and not according to his final version.”” In the 1544 dedication to his first book of four-voice madrigals (published in Ven-

ice) FRANCESCO CORTECCIA wrote that he was printing these madrigals °—. Martin Luther, Brbfa (1545), ed. H. Volz, vol. 3, appendix: “Die Orthographie der Wittenberger Lutherbibeln im 16. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1974), p. 275*ff. “Die Nachdrucker solten nicht allein ‘wort auff wort’ (wie sie ruhmen) drucken / sondern auch Buchstab auff Buchstab / vnd bedencken / das Lutherus saget / Er sampt seinen Mitgehilffen / haben “alle wott auff der Goldwage’ gehabt.” ohn M. Ward, “The Editorial Methods of Venegas de Henestrosa,” Musica Discephina 6 (1952): 106f.

According to Francois Lesure, Catalogue de la Musique imprimée avant 1800 conservée dans les Bibliothéques Publiques de Paris (Paris, 1981): “Liber lamentationum Hieremie Prophetae Carpentras

per eundem nuper auctarum, et accuratius recognitarum que cum jam pridem venissent in manus multorum et earum pars forsan esset impressa citra authoris voluntatem manuque ultima nondum

addita...” 19

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

mainly because several had already been printed by others under other authors’

names. In addition, other madrigals which he openly admitted never having created or seen before had been printed under his name. Besides, he claimed that both the music and the words in these improper editions were filled with the most ugly improprieties and the worst errors.°° ORLANDO DI LASSO asked the Emperor for a printing privilege (granted him in 1581) in order to be able, through the selection of suitable printers, to see to it personally that his works would come out as error-free as possible—what until then had been the case only for first editions (“Meas quidem harmonias . . . optarim quam emendatissimas exiisse”’). Later editions were often so garbled that he scarcely still recognized his own works. He desired, however, that his works be transmitted to posterity unspoiled and untouched (“ad posteros mea perveniant integra atque incorrupta”).”’ Negligent editors are to be condemned whenever reliable material for comparison still exists [but is not used]. So it appears, for example,

that LUYS DE VENEGAS, who in 1557 in Spain published a collection of pieces for keyboard or plucked instruments, tampered with the original works so severely that for all unica his edition must be used with care.”*

In the seventeenth century HEINRICH SCHUTZ, with his own handwritten corrections in his personal copies of his printed works (which he sent to _ Wolfenbuttel’s Herzog-August Bibliothek for safe-keeping), shows us that he was by no means unconcerned about the musical text. In particular, he painstakingly edited the deficient first printing of Op. 8 (Keine Geistliche Konzerte, 1).” If, on the other hand, MARGARETE REIMANN (1955) shows extensive vari-

ants in the manuscript transmission of seventeenth-century keyboard music, it would be premature to infer therefrom an a prior non-binding character of the otiginal version, because such tablatures mirror primarily the taste, interpretation, and performing ability of their copyists, performers and owners.'”

**According to Vogel (1892): “... la principal cagione che m’ha mosso a ciO fare [namely, to have the madrigals printed], € che alcuni di questi miei Madrigali stessi eran stati (come puo sapere clascuno) stampati da altri, sotto nome d’altri Auttori... alcuni altri per lo contrario erano stampati sotto i] mio nome, 1 quali io confesso liberamente di non haver mai veduti, non che fatti ...a queste cose s’aggiugeva, che gli miei, & gl’altri erano cosi nelle note., come nelle parole pieni tutti di scorrezioni brutissime & d’importantissimi errori...” "Cf. Horst Leuchtmann, “Ein neugefundener Lasso-Brief” in: Festschrift Rudolf Elvers zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. EK. Herttrich and H. Schneider (Tutzing, 1985), 352, 355ff. *8Cf. Ward (1952).

Horst Walter, “Ein unbekanntes Schutz-Autograph” in: Musicae Scientiae Collectanea, ed. H. Huschen (Cologne, 1973).

Margarete Reimann, “Pasticcios und Parodien in norddeutschen Klaviertabulaturen,’ Dze Mustkforschung 8 (1955): 269.

20

7. PRESUPPOSITIONS

Even in the eighteenth century, if one proceeds solely from manuscript cop-

ies and prints rather than from composer autographs, a similarly complicated picture appears. The complaints from composers were the same. In the foreword to the first volume of his “Suites de Pieces pour le Clavecin’” (1720) HANDEL deplored “surrepticious [sic] and incorrect copies” which had been distributed for several of the work’s “lessons.”!?' IGNAZ PLEYEL in a 1786 subscription announcement for his new string quartets lamented the “multifariously garbled editions of my works.”! In the Journal de Paris of 1791 GRETRY publicly asked theater managers to use the newly published printed score of his opera Raou/ Barbe-bleu to correct manuscript scores that they had acquired unlawfully." HAYDN in 1802 expressed his opinion about the edition of his symphonies published by LE DUC of Paris: “He could hardly understand how one could send him such a bungled and falsified piece of poor work [Machwerk]; it can be withdrawn because he is ashamed to place such products among his music.”! On 6 May 1811 Beethoven wrote these classic words in a letter to the publisher Breitkopf & Hartel about the printing of his E-flat major “Emperor” piano concerto: “Errors—errors—you yourselves ate one large error.”!” The discrepancy between the author’s intentions and a work’s transmission is inherent to some extent in all notated music. From the point of view of the disseminators and arrangers the notated transmission was always correct and even improved, but to composers and music philologists, in particular, it was negligent or unauthorized.

'C£. Hallische Handel-Ausgabe, 1V/1 (Sassel, 1955), 1. ‘Rita Benton, Ignace Pleyel: A Thematic Catalogue of His Compositions (New York, 1977), 125.

‘Cf. David Charlton, “Score” in The New Grove (1980), 17: 64. '*Hermann von Hase, Joseph Haydn und Breitkopf ¢ Hartel (Leipzig, 1909), p. 38. 10 A.W. Thayer, L. van Beethovens Leben, deutsch bearbeitet (bzw. weitergefibrt), ed. H. Deiters; newly ed.,

H. Riemann, 5 vols., (Leipzig, 1901-11), HI: 263 [Thayer-Forbes, p. 508]. 21

BLANK PAGE

II. Definition

Pp 8 q A. Narrowest and Broadest Sense of the Term “Music Philology”

Music philology seeks to comply with the wishes of past composers. The disciline wants to restore the original musical text and elucidate it with as adequate

an understanding as possible. For this purpose music philology consults the original sources and with the highest exactitude—pedantically, according to its _ detractors—takes great pains over minute details. Some examples of the word’s use,’ partly positive and partly negative in their evaluation, follow.

In the foreword to his 1855 Mozart biography, OTTO JAHN, a noted clas-

sical philologist, observed: | On the other hand, I trust that you will concede that this research, too, can only profit from the use of philological methods, both on the whole and in particulars. This application perhaps becomes most obvious in determining the chronology of individual works.’ The editor of a Haydn opera published in 1895 wrote:

While our exacting music philologists have indeed become almost | disagreeable toward the other composers of the classic era and have enthusiastically engaged themselves with little dots and dashes, some excellent treasures by Haydn have been ignored long enough.’

HUGO RIEMANN’s inaugural lecture at Letpzig University in 1901 was entitled “The Tasks of Music Philology.’ Riemann described these tasks as:

establishing and transcribing the text into a form that is readable today and then proceeding to an interpretation of its sense and an analysis and explanation of the [work’s] contents.’ 'The term “philologia musica’ in Hugo Steger, Philologia musica: Sprachzeichen, Bild und Sache im literarisch-

musikalischen Leben des Mittelalters: Lire, Harfe, Rotte und Fidel (Munich, 1971) has an unconventional

meaning. Unclear is the term “Philologie des Musikschrifttums” [philology of music literature] in H.-H. Drager, “Musikwissenschaft” in: Universitas Litterarum: Handbuch der Wissenschaftskunde, ed. W. Schuder (Berlin, 1955), 640, “Reprinted in Gerhard Croll, ed., W. A. Mozart: Wege der Forschung, vol.233 (Darmstadt, 1977), 21.

"Robert Hirschfeld, “Vorwort” to the libretto Der Apotheker (Lo Spexiale), Opera buffa von Joseph Haydn (Vienna, 1895), VIL.

23 ,

“Hugo Riemann, “Die Aufgaben der Musikphilologie” (Leipzig, 1911), electronically published at

.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

GUIDO ADLER, one of the founders of musicology as an academic discipline, in 1919:

Despite all analogies with the critical editing methods practiced by philologists and historians, just the preparation of critical editions for scholarly purposes requires its own procedure... This external analogy, which all critical editions have, has induced various writers on music to speak of a music philology as though the primary and total essence of musical scholarship lay in this relationship.’

In 1923 HERMANN ABERT, the editor of Jahn’s Mozart biography, outlined “the limits of the philological method which, for musical works, must be restricted to the external, paleographical aspect and which in actuality reaches only the ‘outer limits’ [Vorhof] of the art... and he [Jahn] admits that he went through both stages and finally reached the stage of the true musicologist only after [being] the music philologist and aesthetician . . .”° The influential musicologist KARL GUSTAV FELLERER in 1956:

[In the 19th century] source research and the critical edition (Denkmialer, Gesamtausgaben, collected editions) as well as the cultural-historical classification of music were the principal tasks. Opposite this “philological” musical research, which focused upon the written transmission of music, modern musicology sets the investigation of both music as a sound phenomenon and its place in the life of mankind.’

Giving interpretation preference over documentation, the musicologist WERNER KORTE in 1962: It is fortunate that younger scholars have returned almost exclusively to the pure music philology of critical commentaries, collected edi-

tions, and the determination of a composer’s output. Yet it cannot

, be overlooked that the investigation of artistic circumstances has again become uninteresting [as already happened 1n an earlier phase of musicology], i.e. that authentic documents are edited indeed with

the greatest exactitude, and that the sole purpose of this editing, *Guido Adler, Methode der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1919), 59.

‘Anna Amalie Abert, “Methoden der Mozartforschung,”’ Mozart-Jabrbuch 1964 (Salzburg, 1965):

388. Reprinted in Croll (1977).

"Karl Gustav Fellerer, “Musikwissenschaft” in: Aufgaben deutscher Forschung, ed. Leo Brandt, 24 ed.

(Cologne, 1956), 1: 239.

24 ,

I], DEFINITION

however, is ignored: namely to investigate the reliable material at hand.*

FRIEDRICH BLUME, the first editor of the encyclopedia Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, on the state of Bach research in 1962:

A thoroughly redone investigation of the sources according to new methods has shown surprising, overwhelming, and even revolutionary results... . Perhaps a somewhat overly subtle dogmatism prevails in the current thinking that the only truth comes from the philology of sources. ... The dogmatic application of philology will not be the last word. A more interpretative phase will follow the purely philological phase.’

BLUME at an international musicological conference in 1967:

I myself have experienced Hugo Riemann with his purely formal analytical methods and Hermann Kretzschmar with his hermeneutically interpretative method, and along with them were men like Friedrich Ludwig and Johannes Wolf with their source-oriented philological methods.”” On Adler’s Methode der Mustkgeschichte (1919) Blume opined:

With some astonishment one notes how Adler then was already trying to create a workable hierarchy between philological textual criticis, comparative style criticism, and critical interpretation. In 1962 the Bach scholar and theologian FRIEDRICH SMEND outlined the methods of earlier Bach research: Rust, Spitta and several later scholars had worked according to tried and tested philological methods. Proceeding from external studies such as that of the manuscript paper, they had compared the variant readings (die Lesarten) of the manuscripts and thereby established source relationships and chronology. In this regard, corrections, erasures, etc., and, above all, possible re-workings of the compositions ‘Werner Korte, “Darstellung eines Satzes von Johann Stamitz (Zur Musikgeschichte als Kunstwissenschaft)” in: K. G. Fellerer zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. H. Huschen (Regensburg, 1962), 283. Friedrich Blume, Syntagma musicologicum: Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, 2 vols, ed. A. A. Abert and

M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1963), 1: 468. 25

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

were to be taken into consideration. The external circumstances under which a composition could have come into being had to be equally well attended to, as well as the authorship of texts and many other matters in vocal works. Finally, even the artworks themselves needed to be examined most extensively; their formal language and their contents had to be analyzed. Only in this way, through these multi-layered methods of research, could the knowledge of Bach’s output, which originated essentially with Spitta, become internally and sensibly comprehensible, especially in chronological terms. According to Wackernagel’s intent, all this remained . . . an obvious

foundation of scholarship. ... But to the multifacetedness of the criteria to be considered simultaneously he added a new one.

Indeed, Wackernagel was “the first to direct attention to the handwriting traits of the copyists who participated in the preparation of parts for performances under Bach’s direction.””"!

The respected musicologist CARL DAHLHAUS in 1976:

The change of paradigms is ... perceptible even in music philol- | ogy.... The concept of the “authentic text”—the valid version which the philologist seeks to disclose from the various diverging

transmissions—has started to be questioned in some areas of music history.'” GEORG VON DADELSEN, a leading Bach scholar, in 1978:

According to Rudolf Pfeiffer in a history of classical philology, “the task of philology is to understand, explain, and restore the written heritage.” Mutatis mutandis we can transfer this to music philology. Our task is to understand, explain, and restore the written musical heritage.’ CHRISTOPH WOLFF, another well-known Bach scholar, in 1981:

Blume, Syatagma musicologicum (Kassel, 1973), 2: 39f. "Friedrich Smend, “Was bleibt? Zu Friedrich Blumes Bach-Bild,” Der Kerchenmusiker 13 (1962): 2f. “Carl Dahlhaus, “Der Versuch einen faulen Frieden zu st6ren: Der Zerfall des musikalischen Werkbegriff, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (20 Nov. 1976; no. 262), col. 5.

| 26

Georg von Dadelsen, “Uber den Anteil der Interpretation an der Dokumentation” in: Ouellenforschung in der Musikwissenschaft, ed. G. Feder in collaboration with W. Rehm and M. Ruhnke,

Wolfenbutteler Forschungen vol. 15 (Wolfenbuttel, 1982), 33.

I], DEFINITION

Nevertheless the present state of Bach scholarship wants synthesis and biographical integration, mainly to restrain a growing independence of the philological, archival, and other “auxiliary disciplines.”

WALTHER DURR, a noted Schubert researcher, in 1983, on a symphony newly attributed to Schubert: If the [work’s] transmission and source were free of doubt, ie. if the authenticity would be philologically proven..."

| A music publisher concerning its Bach editions in 1984: Musicological methods and research findings are the bases ... from the philological groundwork (study and evaluation of sources) to

performance-practice implications." |

Thus it appears that, in terms of investigating music, the word “philology” is understood chiefly as source studies and textual criticism, and as something different from the theoretical interpretation of the works themselves. On the one hand, this conception is confirmed by the fact that textual criticism is also a part of all definitions of “philology” in general dictionaries and encyclopedias and in special introductions to philological disciplines. These definitions and introductions, however, also reveal that, among the tasks of philology, ermeneulacs (explanation, clarification, theoretical interpretation) belongs next to textual criticism. Thus the counterpart of “philology,” a subject so detested by many musicologists, is included by philological disciplines in their definitions. Among the musicologists already cited, this is done by RIEMANN, DADELSEN, and particularly SMEND, who, of all of them, seems to have the clearest conception of music philology. Most philologists draw the circle even more broadly when they call criticism and hermeneutics the “formal” part of philology. The often more highly ranked “substantive,” “material,” or “real” part then includes—simply stated— linguistics and literary history or even cultural history. According to AUGUST ~BOECKH,” cultural history from a philological perspective represents more the existence [das Sein] of the culture, the language, etc., but from a histori“Christoph Wolff, “Probleme und Neuansatze der Bach-Biographik” in: Bachforschung und Bachinterpretation heute, ed. R. Brinkmann (Leipzig, 1981), 31.

"In: Musica 37 (1983): 142. '°Hanssler, Partiturenkatalog (Frihjahr 1984), 29. "Cf. Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen: Grundzige einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorte im 19.

Jabrhunderte, 3 vols., (Tubingen, 1933), III: 7. 2/

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

cal perspective it focuses more on its development [das Werden]. ULRICH VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF has made a distinction between two functions: the “analytical”? which emphasizes research and the “synthetical” which accentuates teaching and communication. The first function investigates

the “isolated phenomenon itself”; the second presents an “overview of the whole development of the driving forces and culture,” whereby both functions correlate to one another." One can best concetve of these domains as concentric rings, with source studies and paleography at the center. Just outside this core lies criticism, both negative and positive. The negative criticism reveals errors, and the positive corrects them. This domain is encircled by hermeneutics, followed by grammar along with its dictionary and style. Literary history forms a further ring, Still more encompassing is the ring of the history of ideas and cultural history in so far as it has been documented in published writings. The bibliography of secondary literature forms the outermost ring. Correspondingly, in music we have as a core the primary studies of sources and notation (musical orthography and paleography), which are encircled by textual criticism, followed by the theoretical interpretation of text and work (hermeneutics). The next ring is formed by music theory as the historical musical grammar and as the musical “dictionary” of the language of music — both in the stylistic (for now utopian) sense of a systematic inventory of musical paradigms, as well as in the musico-theoretical sense of a dictionary of musical terms (both of which would be identical under ideal circumstances). The

investigation of musical language connects directly to the study of musical repertoire, the history of composition, and the generic and stylistic history of music: all pute syntheses which result from the criticism and hermeneutics of individual compositions and theoretical texts about music. With the term “philologie musicale” the MONKS OF SOLESMES referred to an investigation of musical linguistics, as they wrote in the general foreword to their collection Pakographie musicale (1888):

Why would musicians not try... to create—if this term is permitted——a music philology by the application of the historical and com-

parative method to diverse forms of the musical language?"

‘*®Cf. Ada Hentschke and Ulrich Muhlack, Evnfiibrung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (Darmstadt, 1972), 100.

Paléographie musicale 1, (Solesmes, 1889; reprint ed., Bern, 1974), 33. “Pourquoi les musicistes

n’essaieraient-ils pas . . . de créer, qu’on nous permette ce mot, une philologie musicale, par Vapplication de la méthode historique & comparative aux diverses formes du langage musical?”

28

I], DEFINITION Since music in its sonorous respect is one of the performing arts like theater and dance, the history of its performance practice (vocal and instrumental performarice instruction and performance history) is also part of the syntheses of music philology. In so far as this history is inferred from musical instruments, pictorial representations of music, and spatial relationships at the places of performance, it is a matter of organology, music iconography, and information about musical places (music topography). Next comes the domain of the history of musical life with its numerous individual aspects (musician biography, history of musical institutions, local music history, etc.). The outermost ring includes the history of reception and the bibliography of secondary musical literature.

B. Bibliographical, Antiquarian, Philological, and Historical Music Research In his review of C. KF POHL’s biography of Haydn, the Bach biographer PHILIPP SPITTA drew up a hierarchy: the antiquarian assumed the lowest rank, next came the philologist, and at the top stood the historian. (Spitta did not specifically mention the bibliographer.) Pohl’s Haydn biography was said to be “more the work of an antiquarian.” Characteristic of Pohl’s manner was, according to Spitta, “carefulness and thoroughness in the search for data” and the fact that he “experiences deep joy about each little item which he dredges out and preserves from the ruins of the past.”*?” OTTO JAHN’s Mozart biography

was not the work of a historian but rather the work of an actual philologist:

The philologist considers the text before him with no other purpose than to know what the author wrote and meant.... The philologist’s work must come first, and only then can his work i.e. the historian’s work] begin. . . . [For] doing history means | wanting to know the relationship of things.” That is the nexus rerum |“connection of things”], the inner continuity of occcurrences, which the theory of history has propounded since LEIBNIZ and which, especially since HEINRICH VON SYBEL, has been viewed as a chain

of causes and effects.” |

The antiquarian and the philologist are part of the process of, in JOACHIM WACH’s wotds, “collecting the actual facts.” A “higher” level of interpretation Philipp Spitta, Zur Musik: Sechzehn Aufsatze (Berlin, 1892), 159, 155f.

“Otto Jahn, WA. Mozart (Leipzig, 1856). © “Cf. Wach, III: 36, 196.

2Wach, III: 12. |

29

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

builds upon this process and “should consist of the full utilization and thorough study of the refined evidence.” This is not only the textually refined evidence but also the correctly understood evidence—1.e. understood through “lowetr’”’

level interpretation (textual hermeneutics). In LEOPOLD VON RANKE’s view the historian certainly does not rise above the individual investigation but tather embraces it. The historian proceeds from the exact knowledge of individual moments which he seeks to comprehend first “without any further purpose.”* Only then does he advance to the study of motives and relationships. Whether music philology also advances from the individual work to historical synthesis and how far it strives from the inner to the outer “rings” depends

upon how narrowly or broadly the term is being interpreted, in other words upon its differentiation from music history. Indeed, to create such syntheses the historical document will first be examined according to the philological method for its [verifiable] authenticity, textual correctness, and date, and the content will be interpreted. Thus analysis precedes synthesis; to that extent the historical

method includes the philological method. It would, however, contradict the usual description of the branches of musicology to designate historical syntheses one and all as music philology for that reason or in analogy with the synthetical branch of literary philologies. In a certain sense, music philology is differentiated even from the center of the domains described above: i.e. the musical source studies or music paleography in the broader sense.” On the analytical side this core consists of the biblhography and codicology of source transmission (the printed and handwritten primary literature); on the syuthetical side it includes the history of the persons involved with the transmission (printers, copyists), the institutions of transmission (publishers, copying firms, music collections), and the actual material of

transmission (writing materials: vellum, staff paper, inks, colors, writing and printing techniques; notational format: score, choir book, part book). Music paleography in the narrower sense is the history of notation. In this way the study of musical sources and notation forms a musicological discipline in its own right. The music philologist uses this discipline’s findings and from time to time contributes to them but actually deals with it only in a specific way, with respect to his own subject: the musical text. In the process of investigating the text the music philologist provides a building block for music history, one with its own special style and value. Besides the polarity between analysis and synthesis, another polarity comes into play here “Cf. Wach, IIT: 112. *On the term “paleography” cf. Bernhard Bischoff, “Palaographie” in: Deutsche Philologie im Aufrif, ed. Wolfgang Stammler, 2°° ed., vol. 1 (Berlin, 1957).

30

IT, DEFINITION

- that the art historian KURT BADT addresses with the distinction between the “work” quality [“Werkhaftigkeit”] of historical artworks and the “object” quality [“Objekthaftigkeit”’] of historical facts.”° While historical facts belong to the past, unlike the relics, monuments, and sources that continue to attest to their validity (something which DROYSEN never tires of emphasizing’’), the musical work, at least in its notated text, is still present. Furthermore, for the traditional historical texts (acts, documents, newspaper reports, etc.) a single viewing may

in itself have no great worth: if the fact to which it testifies is reconstructed and merged with a synthesis, the contemplation has fulfilled its purpose (though

not conclusively, for there are always new possibilities of reconstruction and synthesis). With music, things are different: the musical text, which is recreated through its investigation in connection with an “oral” tradition through and for the imagination, should not first testify to something else and then be consumed within a synthesis; the musical text is itself a goal. Founded upon soutce studies, the text-critical and hermeneutic investigation of the works of both musica practica and musica theorica is justified in and of itself.

kK

**Kurt Badt, Ene Wessenschaftslehre der Kunstgeschichte (Cologne, 1971), 78.

*Nohann Gustav Droysen, Historik: Vorlesungen tiber Enzyklopadie und Methodologe der Geschichte

(1868), ed. R. Hubner, 8" ed. (Munich, 1977), 150, 187, 327, 420.

31

BLANK PAGE

III. Foundations Textual criticism and hermeneutics are scholarly activities because of their methods, which are founded upon soutces, context, and certain abilities.

| A. Sources In the arts the term “source” is used in three ways: 1. As the source from which the author drew as he created his work; 2. As the source from which the historian draws in order to understand

, the past;

3. As the source from which the philologist draws when he wants to ascertain the correct text of a specific written work.

The word is used in the first sense primarily in literary studies. Similarly, in music the term can be used for texts set to music, as, for example, when a libret- tist drew from a well-known poetical work, as in an opera with the title Orfeo based on VIRGIL’s Georgica and OVID’s Metamorphoses, or when his model was an older opera libretto of similar content. In this sense there are also musical sources: compositions by others and by the composer himself, unintentional reminiscences, and all paradigmatic elements. In this sense, source criticism is the investigation of a work with respect to its sources (see ch. IV, section C/5). The word “source” is used in the second sense chiefly in the disciplines of history and, likewise, musicology when it is a matter of sources for drawing up a composet’s biography or for describing the musical life of the past. The musical philologist uses such sources as an aid whenever it seems necessary for his critical task, particularly for the external history of a work. For example, he draws upon publishers’ advertisements, theater flyers, and eyewitness accounts. Remarks by the composer can assist hermeneutics. Even documents about the work’s reception can help with the interpretation. The work may have been analyzed, historcally evaluated, etc., by musicologists. All of this is helpful for one’s own coming to terms with the individual work. In addition to direct sources, there are indirect sources that at first glance seem unrelated to the musical work in question: for example, the documents of a certain music ensemble [Musikkapelle]. In so far as

| the indirect aids are of a general nature, they originate from the foundations of diverse disciplines, e.g., political history or, above all, music history. The particular

tools disclose themselves only through research. In this sense, source criticism seeks three things: the credibility of the witnesses which have transmitted a musi-_ cal fact or event in writings and documents, the validity of analytical testimony, and the relevance of indirect sources for the text under examination. 33

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

The third sense of the word “source” is the one mainly used in musicology. It generally refers to a historical music manuscript or historical printed edition. Source criticism in this sense is diplomatic criticism, i.e. investigation of the origin and date as well as the authority and credibility of the transmitted copies [Ger. Exemp/are| of a particular

composition (see ch. IV, section A). Besides manuscripts and prints, recordings can be valuable sources for music of the twentieth century (e.g,, performances by BARTOK, HINDEMITH, or STRAVINSKY of their own compositions). Anyone who, like JOACHIM KAISER (1975), examines the interpretative history of a classical piano work will draw on recordings by different pianists as well as on the various published editions. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there were mechanical instruments that likewise can have value as sources (e.g., the musical clock (Orgelwalze; Flotenuhr] for which MOZART and HAYDN composed pieces). A physical impression from the cylinders for Haydn’s musicalclock pieces allows the exact determination of variants with the musical text transmitted by the manuscripts.’

B. Context According to the hermeneutic axiom “Scriptura scripturae interpres”*

a text elucidates itself from itself, 1.e. individual passages are clarified by

their context. In a piece of music the context consists of the marginal

notes and the vocal text. In purely musical terms the context also consists of that which comes before and that which follows, as well as simultaneous sonorities and parallel or comparable passages (which can be varied or contrasting). For each emendation the textual critic keeps the context in mind. The elucidation of the compositional techniques

of a passage also results from the context and shows, for example, that BEETHOVEN produced the final climax of “happy and thankful feelings after the storm” in the closing “Shepherd’s Song” of the Pastoral Symphony by letting the harmonic modulation stretch out longer than in

the preceding parallel passage. | The creative-historical context consists of the genetic variants (sketches, corrections, earlier versions). Its use can help the textual critic when the final version is poorly transmitted, as in HAYDN’s little F-major Adagio for keyboard (Hob. XVII: 9). According to the only source (an Artaria print), in measure 12 there is an F-major 6/4 chord that in itself is unobtrusive; the sketch, however, shows a D-minor deceptive

'Cf£. Joseph Haydn-Werke XXI, ed. Sonja Gerlach and George R. Hill (Munich, 1984).

34

III. FOUNDATIONS

cadence which proves the Artaria reading to be a printing error.’ More often than not, hermeneutics and aesthetic criticism profit from such comparisons. For example, the timpani solo at the start of BACH?’s Christmas Oratorio (“Jauchzet, frohlocket’’) is explained by the original text

“Tonet, ihr Pauken” [“Sound the Timpanr’] which was part of a secular cantata. Comparison of Bach’s organ fugue in G minor, BWV 535, with its original version* reveals how much the composer later worked on the rhythmic flow, particularly the complementary rhythms which the early version did not yet exhibit in this way. Variants of transmission and arrangements by other musicians reveal the understanding of others. For the most part, such variants and arrangements shed an indirect light upon the composition. In contrast to the subjective interpretations, excesses, and errors of the disseminators and arrangers, we can better realize the meaning of aspects of the original work [through such later versions]. This is shown, for example, in the history of the arrangements of the BACH Chaconne by MENDELSSOHN, SCHUMANN, BRAHMS, BUSONT, CASELLA, and other musicians. Not one of these arrangements—from solo piano to large orchestra—surpasses the original for solo violin. Yet, in some way, all of them can help us more deeply penetrate the work as a whole or in

part. The larger musical context [for elucidating a work] includes other movements of the same work and other works by the same composer. Here we find paral-

lels at all levels: from the manner of writing expression marks to the formal structure. On the text-critical level the evidence for such parallels 1s ascertainment of the usus scribendi, i.e. the writing style; on the formal analytical level it is ascettainment of constants of style, and on the level of content analysis it is ascertainment of symbols. Comparable passages in the music of other composers and in the music of society [Umgangsmusik] are not only “sources” in sense no. 1 (see A above) but

can sometimes explain text-critical or hermeneutic questions. In HAYDN’s early works the notation of the Rzpresa minore is unclear in the sources; the cor-

rect interpretation comes from its clear notation by his contemporary J. A. *Cf. Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen: Grundziige einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorie im 19. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Tubingen, 1926-33), HW: 238.

°Cf. Georg Feder, “Uber Haydns Skizzen zu nicht identifizierten Werken, Ars musica — musica

scientia, ed. D, Altenburg (Cologne, 1980), 101. |

“In Johann Sebastian Bach, Neue Ausgabe sdmthcher Werke IV /6, ed. D. Kilian.

°Cf. Georg Feder, “Geschichte der Bearbeitungen von Bachs Chaconne,” Bach-Interpretationen, ed. M. Geck (Gottingen, 1969); article trans. as: “History of the Arrangements of Bach’s Chaconne” in The Bach Chaconne for Solo Violin: A Collection of Views, ed. J. F. Eiche (Urbana, IL: American String Teachers Association, 1985), 41-61.

35

MUSIC PHILOLOGY STEFFAN.® Authentic posthorn signals and passages labeled “Posthorn” in the

works of other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century composers show that the imitation of the posthorn in the Fuga allimitazione del Postighone of Bach’s B-flat

major Capriccio is not in the theme but rather in the counterpoint.’ If no example of a historical parallel is known, both textual criticism and hermeneutics often make do with their own constructs. The text-critical con-

struct is conjecture, a presumed improvement. The hermeneutic construct is a method of which AUGUST HALM erroneously believed himself to be the inventor in 1913 when he described this “panacea” (Unzversalmittel) as the way “to test single passages by altering them.’ Here follow several examples of the

hermeneutic construct: _

1. HERMANN KRETZSCHMAR constructs a variant version of the theme to the C-major fugue from book I of the Well-Tempered Clavier to show that “an absolute energy, an unbound power or perhaps cheerfulness” is not in the theme. “For that purpose it would have had a different second measure,” perhaps as in Kretzschmat’s version.’ 2. HANS MERSMANN writes a commonplace version of the beginning of MOZART’s Don Giovanni overture without syncopations in order to

draw attention to the special nature of the syncopations."° | 3. ARNOLD FEIL constructs a vocal entry delayed by half a measure in

| Schubert’s song “Im Dorfe” (Winterreise no. 17) in order to show that | Schubert has the voice enter where listeners do not expect it."! 4, HERMANN DANUSER takes nine measures from GUSTAV MAHLER’s Fourth Symphony and constructs a “banal” harmonization to characterize Mahler’s “unconventional harmony.” The non-musical context is fashioned first of all by the vocal text, the form —— °CE. Joseph Haydn-Werke XI, ed. Bruce C. MacIntyre and Barry S. Brook, 112, 197, n. 90. See also H. C. Koch, Mustkatsches Lexikon (Frankfurt am Main, 1802), col. 1742 (“kleine Reprise,” with Fig,

4), in the article “Wiederholungszeichen.” "Horst Walter, “Das Posthornsignal bei Haydn und anderen Komponisten des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Haydn-Studien 4/1 (1976). °Cf. August Halm, Von zwei Kulturen der Musik, 3™ ed. (Stuttgart, 1947); see also R. Schafke, Geschichte der Musikasthetik in Umrissen, 2°" ed. (Tutzing, 1964), 420.

*Hermann Kretzschmar, “Neue Anregungen zur Férderung musikalischer Hermeneutik: Satzasthetik,” Jahrbuch der Musikbibhothek Peters fiir 1905, \g. 12 (1906): 77.

‘Hans Mersmann, Lebensraum der Musik: Aufsdtze — Ansprachen (Rodenkirchen, 1964), 69. "Arnold Feil, Franz Schubert: Die schéne Miillerin; Winterreise (Stuttgart, 1975), 36; also in Ann C.

Sherwin’s trans. of Feil’s monograph (Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1988), 31. "Hermann Danuser, “Versuch tiber Mahlers Ton,” Jahrbuch des Staathchen Instituts fiir Musikforschung, Preufvischer Kulturbesitz, 1975 (Berlin, 1976), 56.

| 36

| III. FOUNDATIONS of which often determines the musical form. For example, in eighteenth-century Italian operas, alternating seven- and eleven-syllable lines with irregular

| rhymes were set as recitative, while verses with regular rhymes and the same syllabification were set as arias. Similarly, the details of musical construction are

often animated by the meaning of the words. Examples include the musicorhetorical figures of the Baroque period: a melodic ascent (amabasis) for the word “ascendit,” descent (catabasis) for “descendit,” etc.’’ In Renaissance works from JOSQUIN onwards one occasionally finds a “soggetto cavato dalle vocali

delle parole,” i.e. a theme for which the pitches correspond to the vowels of the vocal text underneath when sung with solmisation syllables (ut, re, mi, etc.). One can also speak of a musico-theoretical context (f one would rather not view musical theories as “sources” in sense no. 2 above). This context consists of musico-theoretical concepts that originated in the petiod of the work in question or in an earlier time period; they belong to the “horizon” or perspective of the work’s genesis. If the concepts were originated later than the lifetime of the author (composer), then they rather belong to the “horizon” of the interpreter. _ Contemporaneous concepts have priority for the philological interpreter, since he wants to understand the work according to its own specific presuppositions. Depending upon the period of a piece, such concepts are offered by various theories:

e.g, by notation theories for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, theories of

| counterpoint and modality for the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, theories of diminution techniques for the sixteenth century, theories of thorough bass and rhetorical figures for the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries, rhythmic theories from the second half of the eighteenth century, instruction in harmony and form for the nineteenth century, and on up to the compositional teachings of SCHOENBERG and HINDEMITH in the twentieth century (where application of the most recent teachings is limited to the works of the particular composer and his “school’”). How fruitful analysis can be with the help of historical theory is shown, for example, by BERNHARD METER (1974) in his analyses of sixteenth-century works with the help of the church modes."

| A later theory, e.g., the “sonata form’ concept of the nineteenth century, possibly does not reflect what was still important to eighteenth-century composers, or indeed it can present as important something that did not yet mean much to the earlier composer. While tonal relationships of sections—tonic, dominant, modulation, tonic—had priority in the eighteenth century, thematic duality was most important in the nineteenth century.’ If one proceeds from

“Cf. Dietrich Bartel, Handbuch der musikalischen Figurenlehre (Laaber, 1985). “Bernhard Meier, Die Tonarten der klasssichen Vokalpolyphonie (Utrecht, 1974).

37

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

the traditional teachings about form since that time, difficulties arise in analyz- _ ing eighteenth-century sonatas. In HAYDN there is often only one theme, in MOZART often more than two. On the other hand, an aspect that was already important for the composer can sometimes be elucidated by a later theory. This always requires investigation.

C. Competence | Among the abilities needed to search for, find, and correctly use such resources of textual criticism and hermeneutics are: scholarly thinking, historical sense, productive fantasy, and musical competence, as well as a knowledge of languages for editing the vocal text (e.g., for Latin church music, Italian opera, etc.) and for reading historical documents and studying the secondary literature. Whoever is lacking in scholarship will believe that a direct route, without sources and auxiliary tools, leads to the solution, or they will use these resources without testing their value, or they will be wanting in accuracy, or they will draw no correct conclusion. Anyone who lacks historical training will not question whether the work would be differently perceived from a historical perspective than from the familiar viewpoint, or they will consider specific something that is general and could be said about many works of the past. Whoever is lacking in the ability to discover connections will rely upon only the most immediate explanation or will repeat and paraphrase old explanations. Persons lacking in musicality can devote themselves only to non-musical questions about the music, e.g., the historical circumstances of a work’s genesis and reception, and they can use only non-musical sources and tools, e.g., documents. Musical competence is the ability of thinking musically (musical logic) and judging musically (the sense for musical aesthetic worth and musical style). Such competence also includes mastery of the traditional musical language (skill in reading, playing, and singing music, as well as in harmony and counterpoint) and knowledge of the repertoire. The ability to read music must include score read-

ing to the extent that one obtains an adequate aural idea of the composition. , In order to realize as clearly as possible the melodic structure, voice leading, harmony, instrumentation, expression markings, text underlay, and notational style, the music philologist will read the score analytically. In doing so, he will slow down the reading tempo as necessary, going through in successive readings the individual voices, the separate vocal and instrumental groupings, the vocal text, the dynamic markings, the individual harmonies, and the parallel passages. Cf. Fred Ritzel, “Die Entwicklung der ‘Sonatenform’ im musiktheoretischen Schrifttum des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Frankfurt am Main, 1968; Wiesbaden, 1968). 38

Ill, FOUNDATIONS

In other words, he will consider as many subdivisions as are necessary. On the other hand, since the total impression is important, he will also read the score “synthetically” and at the right tempo. Playing through the work at the piano should be a part of this task. The competence need not go as far as equivalent creative productivity. Creating is synthesis; understanding is analysis and does not presuppose a similar productive talent,’® as earlier hermeneutic scholars felt (“De artifice non nisi attifex judicare potest’’"’). G. E. LESSING defended the right of the critic with these words:

My soup tastes overly salty to me. Should I not call it overly salty until I can cook it myself?"®

The naivety of the older opinion is clear in the case of HAYDN who, after reading the 1802 published review of “Chaos” (the introduction to his Creation),

justly observed that the reviewer, Goethe’s friend CARL FRIEDRICH ZELTER, was “a very perceptive man of music” and falsely concluded (if it were not just a polite gesture) that Zelter himself would have composed “Chaos” in exactly the same fashion.”

>>

'6Cf. Wach, I: 123; II: 347£ , | “None but the artist can judge the artist.’ Cited in a 1788 criticism of Charles Burney’s comparison of Bach and Handel. Cf. Bach-Dokumente, ed. Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, III: 438; also Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, The New Bach Reader, rev. Christoph Wolff (New York: Norton, 1998), 402. '8Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Samtlche Schriften, ed. Karl Lachmann, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1900), vol. 15, p. 63.

‘Joseph Haydn, Gesammelte Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, ed. Dénes Bartha (Kassel, 1965), no, 339. Haydn’s words were: “ein tief sehender Mann der Tonkunst.”

39 |

BLANK PAGE

IV. Textual Criticism According to one philological rule, “Interpretationem praecedat emendata lectio” (“emended reading should precede interpretation’’).' Nevertheless, correction of a variant reading and interpretation do not succeed one another but exist in a fluctuating relationship to each other. In FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER’s words:

Hermeneutics and criticism—both philological disciplines, both artistic precepts—belong together because the practice of each one presupposes the other. In general, hermeneutics is the art of under-

| standing correctly the discourse, chiefly in writing, of another; criticism is the art of judging correctly and substantiating with sufficient

evidence and data the authenticity of writings and details of the writings. Since criticism can realize the importance of evidence in its

: relationship to questionable writings or their details only according to the appropriate and correct understanding of these writings, the practice of criticism thus presupposes hermeneutics. On the other hand, since the explanation in the determination of meaning can be certain only if the authenticity of the writing or details of the writings is presumed, the practice of hermeneutics similarly presupposes criticism.”

Every type of textual investigation involves, to varying degrees, criticism, interpretation, and evaluation (which Schleiermacher calls “doctrinal’’ criticism). At various moments in the process, criticism, interpretation, or evaluation take center stage, while the other two activities assume a supportive function. SCHLEIERMACHER defines textual criticism as “research ... on the age, authenticity, and accuracy of the writings’’ and agrees with the opinon of the philologist FRIEDRICH AST that all critical questions can be reduced to one: the question of authenticity, namely that of authorship, date, and actual text.* Textual criticism in music is correspondingly 1) investigation of the composer attribution, 2) dating, and 3) examination and correction of the text. 'Cf. Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen: Grundziige einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorie im 19. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Tubingen, 1926-1933), Il: 340. *Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Krittk, mit einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleermachers, ed. M. Frank (Frankfurt am Main, 1977), 71. “Thid., 349.

“Thid., 348.

41

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Traditionally a distinction is made between “lower” and “higher” criticism.° -Philologists, however, do not wholly agree in their differentiation between these two levels of criticism, nor do they agree in the differentiation between higher criticism on the one side and hermeneutics and aesthetic criticism on the other side. Here we shall observe the definitions that inherently seem most suitable. Accordingly, lower criticism will examine the musical text in whole and in part, with attention to the identity and disparity of readings from the compared textual witnesses (sources)—-starting with the notes, the instrumentation, expression marks, etc., continuing with the individual parts and the sections of the score, as well as entire movements and the work as a whole. (The composet’s name, the date, genre designation, other annotations [e.g., dedications and closing remarks like “Soli Deo Gloria’’], and the vocal text are also part of this musical text.) For details, lower criticism will decide the authentic (“correct,” “true’’) or conjecturally correct reading and ascertain the chronological order of the variants from

the composer and the other sources of dissemination. Higher criticism will decide the work’s genre if this is not obvious from the sources; it will examine the doubtful authenticity of a movement, a work (also in its various versions), or even a group of works; it will determine the missing date and the probable chronological succession of undated works and authorized alternative versions of individual movements and works; and it will find out other facts about the work’s genesis. For, as SCHLEIERMACHER explains,’ philological criticism is a special case within historical criticism and consists of the determination of the origins and condition of written works on the basis of the sources attesting to these works. The internal and external facts of genesis so determined can be - presented partly as annotations (e.g., chronological work numbers) and partly as mere commentary. Here are some examples of philological questions (both resolved and unresolved) from the domain of lower and higher textual criticism. Was the Missa Da pacem composed by JOSQUIN or BAULDEWYN? In which order were

the 104 Masses of PALESTRINA composed? Can MONTEVERDI’ opera Lincoronazione di Poppea be reconstructed from the copies of score adaptations? When did CORELLI write the concert grosst published posthumously as Opus 6? Upon which “foreign” models was HANDEL’s oratorio [srae/in Egypt

based? Which ordering did BACH intend for the movements of the Musical The difference between “lower” and “higher” criticism as described here is not that of a “bibliographic and mechanical” procedure on the one side and an “interpretative and critical” one on the other side; cf. James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice

(Cambridge University Press, 1996), 14f, 58. Instead, the difference is one of objectives of investigation rather than one of methods.

°Schleiermacher, 356.

42

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Offering? What are the differences between the Italian and French versions of GLUCK’s Orpheus? How much of MOZART’s Requiem was actually finished by Mozart? In the first movement of BEETHOVEN’s Hammerklavier Sonata, op. 106 (mm. 224-26), is the crucial note before the reprise an A or A#?” Is SCHUBERT’s “Gasteiner” Symphony lost, or can it be identified with an already extant work? How are the variants to be judged that occur in contemporaneous first editions of many works by CHOPIN?* To what extent did the

published versions of BRUCKNER’s symphonies come from the composer _ himself? How does RIMSKY-KORSAKOV ’s version of Boris Godunov compare with MUSORGSKY’s original? Digresston 1

Reproaches of “Positivism”

Investigations of this type concern all of music history’s periods, including the present, and are presumed for every theoretical interpretation of a work. They are indispensable for the critical edition of a work, the preparation of a catalogue of works, and the writing of a documentary biography for a composer. Nevertheless, such investigations, along with research on the external history of a work, are often attacked and labeled “positivistic” because they apparently do not emphasize what is essential:

This positivism which limited itself to gathering and publishing

facts...”

JOSEPH KERMAN has been a spokesperson for the view that musicological “positivism” was the dominating attitude of the past: Musicologists dealt mainly with the verifiable, the objective, the un-

controversial, and the positive. The presentation of the texts of early music and of facts and figures about it, not their interpretation, was seen as musicology’s most notable achievement."

‘Cf. Paul Mies, Textkritesche Untersuchungen bet Beethoven (Bonn, 1957), 65; Eva Badura-Skoda, “Textual Problems in Masterpieces of the 18 and 19™ Centuries,’ The Musical Quarterly 51 (1965): 303f.; Paul Badura-Skoda, “Noch einmal zur Frage Ais oder A in der Hammerklaviersonate Opus 106 von Beethoven” in: Musik — Edition — Interpretation, ed. Martin Bente (Munich, 1980).

43

°Cf. Ewald Zimmermann, “Probleme der Chopin-Edition,” Die Musikforschung 14 (1961).

’Clytus Gottwald, “Musikwissenschaft und Kirchenmusik” in: Gesellschaft fiir Musikforschung: Kongrefsbericht Bonn (1970), 663f.

‘Joseph Kerman, Contemplating Muste: Challenges to Musicology (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1985), 42.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Kerman thus considers textual criticism and historical-antiquarian research as part of this positivism and places interpretation separately opposite them. This corresponds to the opposition of “music philology” and interpretation which we saw earlier (see ch. I, section A above). AUGUSTE COMTE, the founder of “positive philosophy,” also criticized the “abuse” of “allowing real science to degenerate into a fruitless heaping of unrelated facts which have no other essential merit than that of precision in details.” This “Father of Positivism” thus criticized that element of science which thinkers today criticize with the reproach of “positivism.” But the antithesis was different for him:

In reality, science consists of the laws of phenomena. The actual facts, no matter how exact and numerous they might be, will always offer just the indispensable raw materials to science.”

Comte’s professed goal was to transform history into sociology, into a “history without names of individuals or even without names of nations.”'* [Musical] positivists in the Comte sense include, for example, JEAN MARNOLD, ALFREDO CASELLA (who relied upon Marnold),’? and JACQUES CHAILLEY—all of whom view music history as developing according to the law of the evolution of tonality in conformity with the natural harmonic series. Chailley calls the discipline which does or should treat this subject “philologie musicale”’*; he thereby connects with the definition of music philology as the history of the musical language (see ch. I, section A). Nonetheless, the musical philologist does not necessarily want to lay down musico-historical laws because, on the one hand, he questions their verifiability and, on the other hand, he has a different standard of values. He proceeds— accotding to WILHELM WINDELBAND’s distinction—“idiographically”

rather than “nomothetically.’’’ For both the philologist and the historian (according to Leopold von Ranke’s view") the individual rather than the general element stands in the foreground. To the music philologist the historical “Auguste Comte, Déscours sur l'esprit positif (Paris, 1844; reprint ed., Brussels, 1969), 16.

'“TUne] histoire sans noms d’hommes ou méme sans noms de peuples.” Cf Ernst Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie, 4° ed. (Leipzig, 1903), 147.

Alfredo Casella, L’evoluzione della musica a traverso la storia della cadenza perfetta (London, 1924), xxi.

Tr. note: Jean Marnold (1859-1935) was a co-founder of Le Mercure musical in 1907. ‘Jacques Chailley, De da musique a la musicologie: Etude analytique de loenvre de J. Chailley (Tours, 1980), 42.

Tr. note: That is, the philologist works case-by-case (idiographically) rather than according to synthetic, universal laws (nomothetically).

Cf. Wach, III: 98f. 44

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

composer is no mete statistical quantity but rather an individual. Also, no historical detail connected with this individual is scorned by this philologist, who considers it important that each such detail be correctly determined and understood and that errors be uncovered and corrected. People both in and outside the discipline take note when a lost composition such as JOSEPH HAYDN’s Massa “Sunt bona mixta malis” is tediscoveted,'’ or when a date like that for BACH’s Sz Matthew Passion becomes uncertain with good

reason (perhaps 1727 instead of 1729),’* or when a work is proven spurious, as was the case in 1957 for the allegedly youthful work of BEETHOVEN, the so-called “Jena Symphony,” of which ROBBINS LANDON found a copy with the name of the composer FRIEDRICH WITT (1770-1836).” Whether they are “unrelated” or not, the facts that are determined and corrected become part of the arsenal of knowledge and will be considered for future interpretations. Nevertheless, all facts that surface are not of equal importance. The less connection they have with a prominent individual or work, the less importance

they possess. This standard sets a limit on the arbitrariness of research—a penetrable limit, to be sure, since all details uncovered by research can serve as building blocks for making historical connections, as is the case in general history with documents that are seemingly insignificant. [Before distinguishing lower and higher criticism in greater detail, however, we must first parse the concept of source criticism. ]

A. Source Criticism In its musico-philological as well as general historical sense, soutce criticism [Ger. Quellenkritik] refers to the determination of documentary value, 1. the examination of the formal authentication and the internal credibility of a manuscript or print. Because authentication depends upon the relationship of the disseminator to the composer and credibility depends upon the person of the disseminator, source criticism consists primarily of the critical study of provenance. '7A fragment of the autograph of this Mass was discovered in a farmhouse in Northern Ireland (along with music sketches and letters by Beethoven, Rossini, Schumann, Mendelssohn et al.) and auctioned at Christie’s (London) on 28 March 1984. Translators note: An edition of this incomplete a cappella Mass, ed. H.C. Robbins Landon and D. W. Jones, was published by Editions Mario Bois (Paris) in 1992 and appears in Joseph Haydn, Werke XXIII/1b, 166ff. Joshua Rifkin, “The Chronology of Bach’s Saint Matthew Passion,” The Musical Quarterly 61

(1975). |

: 45

Cf. Ralph Leavis, “Die “Beethovenianismen’ in der Jenaer Symphonie,” Die Musikforschung 23 (1970), and The New Grove (1980), 20: 466f.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

1. Specialized Source Studies

Which musical sources are best authenticated or most credible is often not } clear at the start. Therefore the first task of the textual critic is to determine concordances, i.e. all sources (textual evidence, prototypes) presenting the text of the work. This art of tracking down soutces is heuristic; in other words, it encourages independent discoveries by oneself. Unfortunately the task is not always valued as highly as it deserves. The value of heuristics can only be mis- ,

judged by those who work, as a rule, with well-known or published material, | ot by those to whom the material has been merely delivered, so that they have encountered neither the difficulties and pleasures of search and discovery nor the problems of identification. Whoever has this practical knowledge will value the heuristic side more highly and also recognize the merits of librarians and bibliographers who have procured, organized, and made accessible to scholars the musical works of the past in public collections. The musical philologist deserves similar recognition if, during the course of his work, he discovers unknown sources or ascertains the content of known sources. Identification of concordances |i.e. other sources for the same work] proceeds from special literature about sources. This literature includes catalogues of works, editions of letters, documentary biographies, and specialized essays— all of which can be found in the bibliographies of secondary literature. Even general literature on sources can reveal concordances: e.g., ROBERT EITNER’s Biographisch-bibliographisches Ouellenlexikon der Musik, still indispensable, and the more recent Répertozre International des Sources Musicales (RISM), which at first dealt

almost exclusively with prints but now has hundreds of thousands of manuscript copies in its online index. The cutoff year for both of these resources is 1800.” Further concordances may be found in published library catalogues. Still rare are those catalogues with musical zucpits, such as OTTO KADE’s for Schwerin and the Kataloge Bayerischer Musiksammlungen (Munich: G. Henle). The

old thematic catalogues for former music collections of cloisters and aristocratic courts as well as publishers’ thematic catalogues have been included in BARRY S. BROOK’s standard reference work (1972; 2°¢ ed., 1997). Old auction catalogues, many of which are preserved in the Deutsches Literaturarchiv (Marbach a. N.), the British Library, and in other national libraries, provide clues to lost autographs or help elucidate the ownership succession of existing autographs. New auction catalogues (e.g., Stargardt, Sotheby’s, Christie’s, Schneider of Tutzing, Hauswedell, and others) draw attention to manuscripts that are still “Tr. note: Strictly speaking, RISM A-II (Manuscripts) indexes works only for composers Jorn after

1570 and before 7770. The cut-off year 1800 used in RISM publications is therefore only an approximation. Works by a composer born in 1770 or a later year may not be included. 46

ae IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM in ptivate hands. Scholarly correspondence and “shoptalk” with colleagues can reveal further leads. [Since the 1990s, of course, the Internet has opened additional modes of access to such information; the web-site sources themselves, however, also need the philologist’s careful evaluation.]| Most important is the

visiting of libraries and archives. Often the source situation can be reliably established only on site, at the actual collection, whether through consultation of an unpublished card catalogue or book catalogue or directly from the collection itself. If a collection’s catalogue entry has no zucpit or identification using

a number from a published catalogue of works, a physical inspection of the source is indispensable when there are ambiguous titles.

2. Source Description The description of individual sources can be achieved partly with the help of photographic reproduction and partly only with on-site inspection of the original. Main points for the description include: format (e.g,, part book, choir book, score); notation (e.g, mensural notation, tablature, modern notation); nature of the manuscript or printed paper; arrangement and binding of the leaves (fascicle structure); style of the handwriting or printing. At the same time, the original condition is to be distinguished from later losses, additions, substitutions, and replacements which could have resulted (e.g., from the manuscript’s use in performance, from accidental damage, or from testorative work). (In 1941/42 the leaves of several Bach manuscripts in Berlin were covered with a transparent silk chiffon in order to check the advancing ink damage to the paper; this covering slightly affects legibility.2") Stamps, catalogue numbers, an ex /bris of an owner, and acquisition remarks can sometimes provide information about the succession of owners and, in the most favorable situations, about the origin of a source. a) Paper

What is the manuscript made of? For the Middle Ages and Renaissance we know of parchment and paper; for the following centuries only paper manuscripts. Paper was handmade up to the early nineteenth century and shows a deckle edge (often cut) and a watermark that is important to ascertain. Helpful

introductions to the fundamentals of papermaking and watermarks are those by KARL THEODOR WEISS (1962), THEODOR GERARDY (1974), and E. G. LOEBER (1982). Proven reference works containing illustrations of watermarks that are also found in music manuscripts are those by C. M. BRIQUET, GERHARD PICCARD, and the Paper Publications Society (Labarre Founda“1Cf. Karl Heinz Kohler, “Vorwort” to the facsimile edition of J. $. Bach, Das Wohltemperirte Clavier (Leipzig, 1971).

47

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

tion) of Amsterdam, the latter including GEORG EINEDER’s work which has

been so informative about music manuscripts of the Viennese classic era. , Paper analysis raises several questions. Who was the paper manufacturer? What inferences as to provenance can be drawn from this information? What may be concluded as to date? As to sorting out the various versions? As to the determination of passages corrected by the composer? As to the elimination of added (interpolated) sections, duplicates, or musical parts inserted later? The aim of the investigation is an exact description of the sieve-like mold with which the paper was made. No mold was exactly like another; it was used unaltered for only a limited amount of time. Dating can be achieved by exactly matching the mold for the paper of an undated manuscript with the mold for the paper of a dated manuscript by the same composer. With commercially produced music paper the mechanically produced staving (e.g., ten-line staving) was often consistently the same. Therefore an important part of paper research is the measurement (or better, the tracing) of the distance

between the individual staves (not just the total span of the system of staves because this can be the same with different rastra’). The same paper and the same rastrum (staff-liner or ruling pen) are convincing proof that the dated and the undated music paper were manufactured in the same paper mill at approximately the same time and were ruled in the same workshop about the same time.

Therefore both papers may have been acquired and used by the composer at about the same time. As a rule, the original paper sheet [Ger. Papierbogen] was larger than the vertical or oblong leaf (Blatt; foo) of two sides or pages (recto and verso). With “folio format,” the original sheet [or defohum| was twice as large as the leaf (thus

as big as a double leaf), and with “quarto format’ the original sheet was four times as large as the leaf (thus as big as two double leaves). In folio format the sheet was folded once; in quarto format it was folded twice and cut along one of the two folds. (Thus, to prepare a gathering of leaves for a manuscript, watermarks were often cut apart, especially in oblong Italian papers such as HAYDN and MOZART often used.) It is important to locate and arrange the distinguishable watermarks in the leaves so that the complete original water-

| marks and countermarks of the unfolded and uncut sheet are reproduced. In addition, it should be noted that the paper maker usually worked simultaneously “Cf., for example, in the critical commentary by Gunter Thomas for Joseph Haydn-Werke XXV/7, p. 616, rastra types 10/2 and 10/3 which are as good as identical in their outer dimensions yet different in their inner structure. Translators note: See also Jean K. and Eugene K. Wolf, “Rastrology and Its Use in Eighteenth-Century Manuscript Studies” in: Studies in Musical Sources and Styles: Essays in Honor of Jan LaRue, ed. Eugene K. Wolf and Edward H. Roesner (Madison, 1990), 23791; Grier (1996), 220-21, 225-26,

48

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

with two molds which, depending upon the mold maker’s intentions, produced seemingly identical or mirror-image twin watermarks, which in actuality were not exactly alike. One further difficulty: watermarks of a manuscript should be inspected uniformly (from the mold or the felt side) so that mirror-image marks can be distinguished.” In practice the examination of watermarks is often difficult. At the least, it requires a glass plate (in unfavorable conditions, a glass window) and a source of light in order to sketch the watermark on transparent tracing paper. A more expensive method involves photography. The best results are obtained from beta-radiographs, which are available in only a few large libraries. In his Bach biography PHILIPP SPITTA was probably the first to prove the usefulness of paper study for the investigation of music manuscripts. In recent times JENS PETER LARSEN has demonstrated their importance for Haydn research, and ALAN TYSON has offered convincing proofs of their methodi-

cally refined use in the works of BEETHOVEN and MOZART.* In recent Bach scholarship watermark studies have led to surprising re-datings (see ch. IV, section C/2). b) Fascicles and Bindings

The examination of fascicle structure is connected with paper analysis. How many folded sheets and how many fascicles (gatherings) does the manuscript contain? How many sheets laid into one another form a fascicle (an unio, bento, , ternio, etc.)? The fascicles are easy to discern if the manuscript is unstitched or is stitched without a binding. The examination becomes difficult or impossible if it has been bound. If a collection with several works is involved, the pieces

could have been entered as a continuous series or at different times. In both cases, the sources for the copies in the collection may have changed from piece to piece.” Such a collection can also be a [multi-sectional] convolute made from separate manuscripts of possibly different origin.

°Trnote: Alan’Tyson in Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores (Cambridge, MA, 1987), 4, recommends

that watermarks be consistently reported from the mo/d side, i.e. the side whose surface texture shows the various moldmarks. For an exemplary study of watermarks of copies from one court, see: Eugene K. Wolf, Manuscripts from Mannheim, ca. 1730-1778: A Study in Methodology of Musical Source Research, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mannheimer Hofkapelle, no. 7 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002).

Autograph Scores.

*Jens Peter Larsen, Die Haydn-Uberheferung (Copenhagen, 1939); Tyson, Mozart: Studies of the

49 ,

“Cf. Margaret Bent, “Some Criteria for Establishing Relationships between Sources of LateMedieval Polyphony” in: Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts, ed.

Ian Fenlon (Cambridge, 1981), 298f.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

In later rebindings the order of the fascicles may have possibly changed and the folio’s edge cut, whereby small fragments of the writing could have been lost. Even intentional rearrangement occasionally happens. For example, before 1945 a Berlin librarian removed the folio containing a little entrance music of the goddess Diana from the autograph of HAYDN’s Symphony No. 50 because it evidently belonged to the otherwise lost music from Haydn’s singspiel Der Gorterrat. But this librarian had not considered that the first two movements of the symphony could originally have been the overture to just that very same singspiel. The first number of the singspiel would follow immediately thereafter; according to the libretto, this opening number is the entrance music of the goddess Diana!” When there is a separate cover or folder, one should check whether it originally belonged to the parts contained within or whether it is a replacement or even a wrong cover for the parts. If the cover is by the same hand that wrote the parts and the work’s zncipit is on the cover in this same hand, there is no doubt that the cover and parts belong together. ¢) Handwriting

Can the actual writer of a manuscript be determined? Is it the composer himself or a copyist? The only writer with unquestionable authority is the composer. The determination of whether or not it is an autograph manusctipt thus represents the most important outcome of source criticism. In the past there were occasionally false judgements--especially in Bach research; in other words, non-holographic copies (e.g., those by ANNA MAGDALENA BACH of J.S. BACH’s Cello Suites) were considered to be autographs of the composer. Such errors seldom occur today thanks to the increased possibilities for exact comparison of handwritings [through samples in published and online facsimiles]. Only since the eighteenth century have there been large numbers of composers’ autograph manuscripts, though still not of all composers and works. Of HAYDN’s 106 symphonies, 47 are preserved in autograph score;*° we know the rest only through manuscript copies or prints. Of MOZART’s 45 symphonies, 33 exist in autographs.*” Of Beethoven’s nine symphonies we know of autographs for the Fourth through the Ninth; autographs for the First, Second, °Cf. J. Braun in Joseph Haydn-Werke XXIV/1, p. VIL. *°Cf. Georg Feder, “Haydn, Works,” The New Grove (1980), vol. 8. “’Cf. the Kochel catalogue in its 6th edition. The autographs there designated as lost since the end of World War II are now accessible at the Biblioteka Jagiellonska in Cracow, Poland.

50

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

and Third Symphonies are lost.” For lesser masters of the eighteenth century, pertinent reseatch is often lacking. Where the sources have been fully investigated, a totally varied picture results. Of the 32 symphonies of FLORIAN GASSMANN, no fewer than 24 remain preserved as autographs; for the 76 symphonies of JOHANN VANHAL there is only one autograph.” A sutvey of seventeenth-century autographs is difficult to make. A work such as that by OTTO E. ALBRECHT (1953) on music autographs in American libraries is lacking for the much more abundant collections of European librar-

ies. For example, there are holograph manuscripts by PURCELL,” BUXTE-

, HUDE,” the keyboard masters FROBERGER, POGLIETTI (also including his sketches) and BERNARDO PASQUINI,” as well as isolated examples by LULLY and SCHUTZ. Composets’ autographs are very rare for the sixteenth century, and they are almost never scores (except for a sketchbook in score by COSTANZO PORTA”). There is an entire choirbook allegedly in PALESTRINAss handwriting,” while hardly any musical autographs by ORLANDO DI LASSO ate preserved.” Elsewhere scholarly literature also mentions a small manuscript supposedly written by HEINRICH ISAAC” and the autograph set of parts of a 1545 chorale arrangement by CASPAR OTHMAYR.”’ With perhaps one exception (see ch. V, section B/1, item 11, re Bonnel’s chanson) no fifteenth-century autographs are extant. Presumably the autograph was often only a “tabula compositoria,” which was a slate or wax tablet that was wiped clean

_ *Cf£. Georg Kinsky and Hans Halm, Das Werk Beethovens: Thematisch-bibliographisches Verzeichnis seiner _ sdmtlichen vollendeten Kompositionen (Munich, 1955),

See the works catalogues by George R. Hill and Paul Bryan in: The Symphony 1720-1840, ed. Barry S. Brook, ser. B, vol. X (New York, 1981). Cf Jack Westrup in The New Grove (1980), 15: 468. ICf. Kerala Johnson Snyder in The New Grove (1980), 3: 534. “Friedrich W. Riedel, Ouellenkundliche Beitrage zur Geschichte der Musik fiir Tasteninstrumente in der 2. Hailfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Kassel, 1960), 75ff.

Edward E. Lowinsky, “Early Scores in Manuscript,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 13 (1960); cf. Heinrich Besseler and Peter Gulke, Schriftbild der mehrstimmigen Musik, Musikgeschichte

in Bildern, III/5 (Leipzig, 1973), 154. “Cf. Knud Jeppesen in MGG, vol. X, col. 699; Walter Gerstenberg, Musikhandschriften von Palestrina bis Beethoven (Zurich, 1960), 155; Besseler and Gulke (1973), 152. Horst Leuchtmann in: Oxellenforschung in der Musikwissenschaft, ed. Georg Feder, in collaboration with Wolfgang Rehm and Martin Ruhnke, Wolfenbiitteler Forschungen, vol. 15 (Wolfenbittel, 1982), 150. °°M. Just, “Isaac de manu sua” in: Gesellschaft fiir Musikforschung, Kongrefsbericht Kassel 1962; cf. Besseler and Gulke (1973), 154; Martin Stahelin, Dze Messen Heinrich Isaacs, 3 vols. (Bern, 1977),

I: 64. Cf. Das Erbe deutscher Musik, vol. 26, ed. Hans Albrecht, p. XIII: “G. Othmayr Calamo scripsit tumultuario. A° 45.” Cf. Franz Krautwurst in The New Grove (1980), 14: 21. 51

MUSIC PHILOLOGY , again after the parts had been copied.’ It is also assumed that the prominent Italian composer of the fourteenth century, the blind FRANCESCO LANDINI, dictated his compositions (possibly sung or played part by part). _ The position closest to the composer is held by a copyist regularly employed by the composer. Several composers had well-known principal copyists: HANDEL had his SMITH, HAYDN his ELSSLER, and CHOPIN his FONTANA.

Since handwritten transmission of musical works was carried on both profes- , sionally and privately in large quantities (particularly during the eighteenth century), the identification of copyists active in the composet’s citcle—some of whom are anonymous—assumes great importance for all critical questions. For earlier times, clues to the identification of copyists surface only occasionally. A well-known Netherlands copyist of choirbooks and partbooks around 1500 was PIERRE ALAMIRE, who served the Hapsburg court in Mecheln and Brussels. He copied works by PIERRE DE LA RUE, JOSQUIN, OBRECHT, ISAAC,

and other composets of the day.*” A fascicle of a Brussels mansucript with works of DUEAY was possibly copied by SIMON MELLET, who was active as a musical copyist during the third quarter of the fifteenth century in Cambrai where Dufay worked for many years.” d) Prints

For prints (.e., typesetting, engraving, and lithography), WHISTLING’s (and later HOFMEISTER’s) Handbuch der musitkahschen Literatur, which appeared periodically from1817 onwards, aids in dating music of the nineteenth

century. For the twentieth century, the publication date mostly results from

the copyright date. Music editions from the second half of the eighteenth | and from the nineteenth centuries are not dated, as a rule. Therefore one must use other sources for help. Music publishers advertised the publication of many of their prints in newspapers. With the help of such advertisements CARI JOHANSSON (1955) dated the titles in the undated catalogues which Parisian music publishers appended to their editions, and then chronologtcally arranged the other, unadvertised yet catalogued editions according to the catalogues’ growth over time. English music publishers in the eighteenth century often registered their prints with Stationer’s Hall to protect their rights. ANTHONY VAN HOBOKEN (1957) found the publication dates of many Haydn prints there. *’Besseler and Gilke (1973), 152, 154; D. Charlton, “Score” in The New Grove (1980), 17: 60.

°M. Bent (1981), 305. “Herbert Kellman in The New Grove (1980) 1: 192. “Cf. Charles Hamm in The New Grove (1980) 5: 675, 679.

52

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

If there is no dated evidence of this or any other kind (e.g., in the composet’s letters), the publisher’s address, the plate number, and, for English prints since

1794, even the year found in the paper’s watermark provide clues. The publisher’s address, which changed in the course of time for almost every publisher,

is usually part of the title page’s imprint. Chronologically arranged address indexes exist for British and French music publishers.” A publisher used the plate number at the bottom of every page to identify the engraving plates of a particular print and thereby distinguish them from plates for his other prints. OTTO ERICH DEUTSCH (1946) published lists of dated plate numbers for various publishers (mostly German and Austrian). A print with an undated plate number can be approximately dated with the help of dated adjacent plate numbers. ALEXANDER WEINMANN (1952) produced a catalogue arranged according to plate numbers (with dates) for the Viennese publisher Artaria and then for other Viennese music publishing houses. WOLFGANG MATTHAUS (1973) did the same for the music publisher André, CARI JOHANSSON (1972) did it for the Amsterdam and Berlin publisher J. J. Hummel. Specimens of printed music are not always fully alike, even if they are printed totally or extensively with the same plates and correspond in title page, plate number, and most of the pages. Changes in the plates could have been made for one or several pages after the first exemplars had been printed.” Therefore the scholar should be interested in all locations of traceable prints. For important prints the textual critic should not depend upon a single example, but rather must draw upon several.”

Sometimes the publication date of several prints for the same work cannot be determined. Then, under certain conditions, the collation of the text (see section B/1 below) can distinguish reprints and pirated editions that might not otherwise be found using purely bibliographical means. KRUMMEL (1974) discusses most of the bibliographical aspects regarding the problems and methods for dating early music prints. The critical commentaties of many editions are informative about the textual-critical aspects.*

~ ®Charles Humphries and William C. Smith, Music Publishing in the British Isles from the Earhest Times to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1954); Anik Devriés and Francois Lesure, Dictionnnatre des éditeurs de musique francaise, 2 vols. (Genf, 1979).

®Cf. Otto Erich Deutsch, “Mozarts Verleger,’ Mozart-Jahrbuch 1955 (Salzburg, 1956), 50f. For a mote detailed study and documentation see Gertraut Haberkamp, Dze Erstdrucke der Werke von Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Bebhographie, 2 vols. (Tutzing, 1986).

*Cf Walter Emery, Editions and Musicians (London, 1957), 21.

“Including the detailed commentary by Irmgard Becker-Glauch in Joseph Haydn-Werke XVII/3 (Klaviertrios). 53

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

3. Evaluation of Sources | The above source description leads to a classification of the manuscripts and

prints according to the degree of their authentication. The two crucial types ate (a) autograph documentation and (b) manuscript copies and prints. Autograph documentation means transmission in the handwriting of the composer.

Multiple autograph documents present problems of a special sort (see section , C/6 below). Transmission in manuscript copies refers to copies in someone else’s hand. While a copy may be subjectively judged as “good,” “credible,” or “reliable,”

determining whether or not it was authorized is of prime importance. (The distinction between primary and secondary sources that is common in historical studies is customary in musical textual criticism but requires commentary.)

There ate different degrees of authorization. A manuscript copy can be tfegarded as positively authorized when the composer has signed as well as cotrected it. If he has only signed it, he has confirmed only his authorship and not necessarily the textual accuracy. If he corrected but did not sign the manuscript (because the copyist had already written in the name), then these revisions of the composer are a confirmation not only of textual accuracy but also of authorship. (The textual critic may nonetheless doubt the correctness of readings

not corrected by the composer.) The assumption of authorization rests on weaker ground if the manuscript is unsigned and uncorrected, but the copyist was known to have been in the employ of the composer, or the copyist prepared signed or corrected copies of other works by this same composer. For authorized prints one should distinguish, where possible, between such prints for which the author furnished a manuscript exemplar for the engraver and corrected the proofs and those which he authorized the publisher to print, albeit without any involvement in the proofing and printing. The difference in these circumstances is described by the terms “active” and “passive” authorization.” With “passive” authorization the composer confirms his authorship; with the “active” type he also verifies the textual accuracy (which does not signify that the print must be correct in every detail). For many works of HAYDN, BEETHOVEN, MENDELSSOHN, and CHOPIN there are several editions authorized in one way or another which appeared almost simultaneously in Germany, England, and France and which can differ in certain passages so that the question of the authenticity of the variants and of their chronological needs to be investigated.

54 ,

Frequently, in addition to an autograph manuscript, authorized copies or “Cf. Hans Zeller, “Befund und Deutung: Interpretation und Dokumentation als Ziel und

Methode der Edition” in: Texte und Variante: Probleme threr Edition und Interpretation, ed. Gunter Martens and Hans Zeller (Munich, 1971), 59f.

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM prints have been transmitted to us. Then the source situation is comparable to that which typically prevails in modern literature. In principle the autograph | manuscript takes precedence over the so-called original (1.e., first and autho-

| tized) edition.*” Ever since HEINRICH SCHENKER’s investigations of the autographs of Beethoven’s piano sonatas,** we know that many fine points of

notation are irretrievably lost through printing, Of course, if the manuscript copy for tne engraver was a corrected copy, or if the proof sheets were cor, rected by the composer, then each individual correction (vot the entire print) is likewise authentic. If the manuscript copy for the engraver, a related copy, or the proofs are no longer available, as is usually the case, interpretation (through

; the use of historical references or musical context) may then determine whether a cotrection stems from the author or a foreign hand. For example, there is a more heavily ornamented version in the first edition than in the autograph for the adagio variation in the third movement of MOZART’s Sonata in D major (K. 284) and for the adagio of his Sonata in F major (K. 332); it is assumed that the more ornamented version can be traced back to the composer. The same holds for the four measures added to the end of the andante in the first print of the Sonata in C major (K. 330).” In the sixteenth measure of the development section in the first movement (m. 105) of BEETHOVEN’s “Waldstein’” Sonata, the first note of the left hand reads f flatin the autograph. It was so engraved originally in the first edition before the accidental was removed—a correction that could probably have been instigated only by Beethoven.” Thus the pitch f natural is traditionally considered accurate, in spite of its divergence from the autograph.

Unauthorized prints (such as those from “pirates” or “Schleichhandler’””) originated from unknown and unauthorized copies; they ate to be treated the same way as the latter. An essay from 1778 reads:

Most music engravings and [type-|settings are copies and reproductions from non-authentic and incorrect copies...» 47Cf. the somewhat differing views of Max Friedlaender, Uber musikalische Herausgeberarbeit (1907; Weimar, 1922), and Hubert Unverricht, Dze Ezgenschriften und die Originalausgaben von Werken Beethovens in threr Bedeutung fur die moderne Textkritk (Kassel, 1960).

, “Cf. Heinrich Schenker, Die setzten Sonaten von Beethoven: Kritische Ausgabe mit Exnfubrung und Erlauterung (Vienna, 1913-1920), new ed. by Oswald Jonas (Vienna, 1971), on op. 101, p. 3ff; op. 109, pp. 5, 34; op. 110, p. 4f£; op. 111, p. 35, 37, 47, 74. “Cf. Otto von Irmet’s foreword to: Mozart, K/awersonaten (Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1957). °T). Weise, “Zum Faksimiledruck von Beethovens Waldsteinsonate,’ Beethoven-Jahrbuch 1955-56 (Bonn, 1956), 104; Eva Badura-Skoda (1965), 311. “Christian Gottfried Thomas, Praktische Beytrage zur Geschichte der Mustk, musikalschen Latteratur und gemeinen Besten (Leipzig, 1778), 11, and elsewhere.

2 Ibid., 15. “Die meisten Notenstiche und [Typen-|Drucke, sind Abstiche und Abdrticke von unachten und fehlerhaften Copien...” 55

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Or sometimes it was a matter of reprints (pirated editions). Both kinds of unauthorized prints were common during the era when there was still little copyright protection for authors and publishers. Authorization is often unclear before the seventeenth century, especially in printed anthologies. Of course, there are exceptions. If LUDWIG SENFL was the editor of the Liber selectarum cantionum quas vuleo Mutetas appellant which was published in Augsburg in 1520,” then the

printing of Senfl’s motets in this book was authorized. With individual prints authorization can often be inferred from the wording of the title pages. For example:* 1. Giovanni Maria da Crema, lute tablature, 1st book, Venice, 1546: recently reprinted and corrected by the author himself (“Novamente ristampata e del medesmo autore corretta’’); 2. Jachet de Wert, madrigals, 1st book, Venice, 1558: print corrected by himself (“da lui proprio corretti alla stampa”); 3. Nicolo Dorati, madrigals, 2nd book, Venice, 1559: newly brought to

light by him and corrected from his own copies (“Novamente da lui posti in luce et delli suoi proprii exemplari corettt’”); 4. Clément Janequin, lVerger de musique, Paris, 1559: revised and corrected by himself (“revuez & corrigez par luy-mesme”’); 5. Philippe de Monte, motets, 2nd book, Venice, 1573: now brought to light for the first time by himself (“Nunc primum ab ipso 1n lucem aeditus”’); 6. Jakob Handl (Gallus), Masses, Prague, 1580: now brought to light and

corrected by the author (“nunc primum in lucem datae ac correctae ab authore’’). If prints contain dedications from the composer, their authority is likewise clear.

For example: 1. Orlando di Lasso, madrigals, 1st book, Antwerp, 1555: I submit to the

printer a part of the works which I completed in Antwerp after my return from Rome (“To do alla stampa una parte delle fatiche mie fatte in Anversa dopo la tornata mia da Roma’);

Cf. Martin Bente, “Neue Wege der Quellenkritik und die Biographie Ludwig Senfls: Ein Beitrag zut Musikgeschichte des Reformationszeitalters” (Ph.D. dissertation, Tubingen, 1968), 294ff; Albert Dunning, Die Staatsmotette 1480-1555 (Utrecht, 1970), 45ff.

“Based upon Francois Lesure, Catalogue de la Musique imprimée avant 1800 conservée dans les

, 56

Bibhothéques Publiques de Paris (Paris, 1981).

Based on Emil Vogel, Bébhothek der gedruckten weltlichen Vocalmusik Italiens: Aus den Jahren 15001700, enthaltend die Lutteratur der Frottole, Madrigale, Canzonette, Arien, Opern, etc., | (Berlin, 1892).

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

2. Giovanni Animuccia, 2nd book of /audi, Rome, 1570: It seemed to me suitable to augment the harmony and chords in this Second Book, and to vary the music in diverse ways (“e€ parso a me conveniente di ac-

crescere in questo Secondo Libro I'harmonia & i concenti, variando la musica in diversi modi");

| 3. Marc-Antonio Ingegneri, madrigals for 4 voices, 1st book, Venice, 1578: Howsoever constituted, these [are the] first fruits of the musical exercises which I did in your house [in the house of the dedicatee] (“questi primi frutti, quali essi siano, de’ miei musicali esercitt; fatti da me in casa sua");

4, Luca Marenzio, madrigals, 1st book, Venice, 1588: It appears appropri-

ate to me on the occasion of my passage through Verona to present you with these madrigals, recently composed by me in a manner very , different than in the past ("mi € paruto con l'occasione del mio passaggio per Verona presentarle questi Madrigali da me ultimamente composti con maniera assai differente dalla passata").

Finally, individual prints published by a composer's own firm are also considered authentic, such as the guitar tablatures by ADRIAN LE ROY that were published in Paris by the firm of A. le Roy & R. Ballard in 1551-54, or the first madrigal book by CLAUDIO MERULO (DA CORREGGIO) that was published in Venice (1566) by the firm of the composer and his associate. For most composers there remains a more or less large residue of works that have come down to us only in copies or prints of questionable authentication. This source situation does not cast doubt upon the composer attribution, provided that it has been proven by authentic documents—perhaps the entry of the work's zucpit in the composer’s own handwritten catalogue of works, as is the case, for example, with the eighteen string trios of HAYDN (Hoboken group V). But with such a transmission the textual correctness is a problem.” The first, rough classification of unauthorized copies and prints of a work makes do with the results of the critical source description. From this, the regional origin (provenance), age, publisher, and possibly even the copyist’s identity are ascertained. That enables decisions about the three following properties of sources:

XI/1.

1. Temporal Proximity to the Composer. Old sources which stand in temporal proximity to the composer innately possess a supposition of better transmission. More recent sources come less under consideration for critical questions, particularly when there is an abundant dissemination.

*°Cf, the critical commentary by Bruce C. MacIntyre and Barry S. Brook in: Joseph Haydn, Werke

57

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

2. Geographical Proximity to the Composer. Central sources, i.e. copies and prints which originated in the vicinity of the composer’s work place, deserve precedence over peripheral sources, i.e. those which ofiginated faraway.

3. Geographical Distance from One Another. Sources which originated at the same time but at a long distance from one another are supposedly independent of each other. Their respective texts can confirm or supplement each other, in the same way as do the statements of two

| independent witnesses in a court of law. B. “Lower” Criticism Distinct from “higher” criticism (see section C below), the actual textual criticism (text recension, correction, or revision) is known as “lower” criticism—

without this implying any kind of value judgement. “Lower” criticism supports—as a rule, confirms—and refines the external textual criticism (1.e. source criticism) and, when authentic or authorized sources are lacking, almost takes

the place of such external criticism. For the works of classical antiquity philologists know scarcely any other kind of transmission than the unauthorized type. They were thus the first ones to establish methods of textual criticism that are also used for ascertaining the correct text for musical works with an unauthor-

ized transmission.’ | | 1. Collation

Collation is the comparison of sources and begins with the compilation of the “critical apparatus” (in the old sense of the word), L.e., with the selection and

preparation of the sources which are to be compared and upon which the text will be based. With autograph documents there is no selection: the autograph preserves the original text. The scholarly editor has no other task than to transmit it accurately. The full extent of HEINRICH SCHENKER’s admonition to editors is in force here: “their first, indeed their very first duty is to allow the original musical text to stand as they have found it.”* When there are several autograph manuscripts of the same text, one is selected and transcribed as an editor’s working copy (see ch. V, section B/1), provided a photocopy is not suf7Cf. Georg von Dadelsen, “Uber den Wert musikalischer Textktitik” in: Quellenstudien zur Musik, ed. K. Dorfmilller (Frankfurt am Main, 1972); Stanley Boorman, “Limitations and Extensions of Filiation Technique” in: Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. I. Fenlon (1981);

Georg Feder, “Textkritische Methoden: Versuch eines Uberblicks mit Bezug auf die HaydnGesamtausgabe,” Haydn-Studien V/2 (1983). **Heinrich Schenker, Ezn Bestrag zur Ornamentik (Vienna, 1908), 32, n. 1.

58

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

ficient (see ch. VII, section D); the remaining autographs will be compared part by part with the transcription or photocopy. When an autograph exists, one must not forego the collation of authorized copies and prints, for variants from the composer could be transmitted in them. Normally, the unauthorized dissemination will probably be disregarded. If the autograph is lacking and there are several authorized sources, the editor will transcribe one copy and collate the rest against it. Whether one of the sources can be eliminated is determined only after a filiation has been made (see section 3 below). Whether unauthorized sources are also to be taken into consideration depends upon the individual case. The main approach is always that all variants by the composer must be found.

If only unauthorized sources are present, they can be collated together in case their number is small. If their number is large, it is recommended, first of all, to make a selection according to the three criteria of temporal and geographical proximity to the author, and geographical distance from each other (see A/3 above), as well as according to the notation style and uwsus seribendi of the composer (see 4 below). After sorting out the sources that appear less than suitable, the complete collation of the remaining sources is begun. Which source is to be transcribed and should serve as a basis for comparison is governed by the same criteria. Later, the rejected sources can be examined likewise at critical passages.

It goes without saying that the validity of the results depends on the accuracy of the transcription and the precision of the collation. Therefore, if an edition is being prepared for publication, the textual critic will repeat the most important source comparisons with the galley proofs and will check the agreement of his critical commentary with the score in both its manuscript and galley proof forms. The first result of collation is determination of the extent of textual agreement in all sources consulted. The text determined by consensus is the transmitted text against which every deviation must be justified. The second result will be the determination of variants: in notation, key, expression marks, instrumentation, ordering of the movements, numbers of parts and measures, as well as particularities in the notes themselves.

2. Eclectic, Statistical Methods. codex optimus, copy-text, “Cuiding Manuscript”

In realizing a critical musical text, should the variants from different authen-

tic versions be mixed? At the same time, should the author variants which ate selected be those that best please the editor? This would be the eclectic

method. ‘Today that method is no longer considered scholarly. On the 59

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

contrary, the predominant view is that one of the author’s versions ought to be printed as the text. Whether to use the early or late version or an intermediate version should be determined by each individual case. In any case, all the authentic versions and variants are to be reported in an appropriate form: be it with parallel staves or one version printed after another, or in a separate publication; “‘ossea’” variants can appear above the staff, as footnotes, in the appendix, or in a separate volume.

The variant choice becomes more difficult in the case of unauthorized transmission. According to the eclectic method, the textual critic selects the variants which please him the most from all the sources. With the statistical method the largest number of correspondences decides the issue [in a kind of “majority rule,” so to speak]. In the twentieth century this latter method was advocated for Biblical criticism, in particular by HENRI QUENTIN. For music, however, neither method offers much help. The frequently employed third method, the codex optimus, was recommended in the twentieth century for the literary field, namely by JOSEPH BEDIER. Here the seemingly best manuscript or print is considered the sole source, and, when there are obvious errors, improvements are made through conjecture or comparison with other sources. For textual criticism in music HOWARD MAYER BROWN expressly prefers this method to the fourth method, filiation (see section 3 below): Some editors adopt the procedures of classical philology in attempt-

ing to establish relationships among manuscripts (filiation). Most modern editors agree that it is better to base a new edition on one good source than to publish a conflation resembling nothing that existed at or soon after the period of the work itself.’ Then he speaks further of the selection of a “single reliable source.” The dectsive words here are “good” and “reliable”. Brown does not say what to do when there are only bad and unreliable sources. On the other hand, he requests that the editor check the composition for inner consistency and rectify obvious errors through conjecture or on the basis of variant readings from other soutces. He does not ask what the difference is between such an emendation and such a “conflation” or mixture of sources. The correction of only the obvious mistakes is a deficiency of the method, for the worst mistakes of the codex optimus as

well as of every unauthorized text could be hidden. | A more subtle method than the selection of a codex optimus is the adoption of a copy-text, as proposed by SIR WALTER GREG (1950). This method has »*“Fiditing” in The New Grove, vol. 5, p. 840.

60

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

been influential among English and American literary scholars.” At first glance this seems to be the old codex optimus, but there are important differences. The method rests upon the distinction between substantive and accidental variants. Accidental variants include those of orthography and punctuation. As a foundation the editor should choose that text which, as a whole, seems closest to the author in these respects, for it is hopeless to consider whether or not every different comma stems from the author. With regard to substantive variants,

which are less numerous and more easily judged, the textual critic is free to insert the author’s likely improvements. When there is doubt about which vartants are to be preferred, the editor should simply follow his copy-text. If there are grounds for the assumption that the author also improved the orthography and punctuation in a later printing, then these improvements should be treated like substantive ones.°

KARL STACKMANN (1964), a scholar of old German, speaks about a “ouiding manuscript” [“Leithandschrift’’] and distinguishes between reiterating and non-reiterating variants.” The non-reiterating type includes important differences in words, while the reiterating type includes recurring deviations in the speech particles, prefixes, suffixes, pronouns, and conjunctions which the writer by habit adapted to his own usage instead of following the model. Here, thought Stackmann, the editor is not, as with non-reiterating variants, supposed to make a selection on a word by word basis, but rather he should basically fol-

low one soutce. |

Even in the transmission of musical texts there are substantive and accidental as well as non-reiterating and reiterating variants. Substantive variants are differences in pitch, rhythm, time signature, tempo mark, instrumentation, and unusual performance marks. Accidental variants are differences in notation and obvious performance marks. A copyist or music engraver may have wanted to make the slurring of an accompaniment figure in the second violin part consistent, even though this articulation had been only suggested by the composer; this is an accidental variant reading, not a substantive one. Or he may have been ~ accustomed to writing always staccato dots, even though staccato strokes appear in the copy he is working from; this would be an example of a reiterative vaflant reading.

Walter W. Greg, “The Rationale of Copy-Text” in: Studies in Bibhography 3 (1950-51); reprinted in: W. W. Greg: The Collected Papers, ed. J. C. Maxwell (Oxford, 1966). “Cf. Fredson Bowers, “Greg’s Rationale of Copy-Text revisited,” Studies in Bibhography 31 (1979): 90-161.

Karl Stackmann, “Grundsatzliches uber die Methode der altgermanistischen Edition” in: Texte und Varianten, ed. G. Martens and H. Zeller (Munich, 1971). 61

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Substantive and non-reiterative variant readings are those which, in particular, deserve special attention and which, in general, were better observed even by copyists and printers. Evidently professional copyists omitted certain expression marks in the first stage of their labors and entered them only as part

of their proofing during the second stage. Comments about this and about the severity of errors were made by the Leipzig music publisher CHRISTIAN GOTTFRIED THOMAS (1778):

The duty of a musical copyist is: that he write accurately, count the measures,” and otherwise proof the copies carefully ... That perhaps one note is overlooked or misplaced and that slurs, dots, fi p, jor] 6 are sometimes forgotten can be ignored, but allowing whole measures to be omitted or misplaced is not acceptable, for these are serious mistakes. ... When he copies, he omits the / p, sf, mf, pf, crescendo, diminuendo, etc. so that he can continue writing

quickly without having to look often at the original.... After the complete copying of the piece, the copyist proofs the music with the finger [with original to the left side] and the pen [right, on the copy]. At the same time, he enters the intentionally omitted f p, sf mf, pf, crescendo, diminuendo, etc. In this way the piece is simultane-

ously proofed throughout.% These two stages correspond to the thinking of performing musicians who follow the notated pitches and rhythms as faithfully as possible, while they take” (indeed must take) liberties with less precisely notated and notatable things like tempo, dynamics, etc. If, because of accidental and reiterative variants, a textual witness seems close to the [lost] autograph, the editor is well advised to use this source as

a “suiding manuscript” for the most part. In deciding substantive variants filiation methods should be tried because there exists no better method for an

unauthorized transmission. |

Thus, at the double bars in many of Haydn’s autographs, measure numbers have been entered by the copyist. “Christian Gottfried Thomas, Prakische Beytrage zur Geschichte der Musik, musikalischen Litteratur und gemeinen Besten (Leipzig, 1778), 62f.

Arthur Mendel, “The Services of Musicology to the Practical Musician” in: A. Mendel, C. Sachs and C. C. Pratt, Some Aspects of Musicology (New York, 1957), 9f.

62

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

3. Filiation Also known as the genealogical method or stemmatology,” filiation is, in certain cases, the most reliable, albeit not always most successful method for establishing which variants lie closest to the [lost] original. Filiation 1s attributed

to the philologist KARL LACHMANN, but it is actually older in its components. It represents a refinement of source selection based upon the criterion of geographical separation (see ch. IV, section A/3 above); it is not satisfied with just the assumption of source independence but rather seeks to prove this independence. This proof takes place in a filiation of the textual witnesses which can be represented in a stemma codicum. The genealogical tree of sources assigns to the extant witnesses their place according to the kind of relationship they have with their common progenitor, the codex archetypus. It can also occur that a more recent soutce is more closely related to the archetype than an older one. “Recentiores, non deteriores’’; 1.e., the newer sources are not necessarily inferior. This

maxim limits the validity of the rule gtven above about the source’s temporal proximity to the composer (see section A/3 above). The archetype can be the autograph, a copy, or a print. It may survive or be lost. The same goes for the variant-carriers (hyparchetypes) at the intersections of the branches in the genealogical tree. Each stewma presents a simplification of historical circumstances, since the majority of once extant copies in all likeli-

hood do not survive any more. Also, of printed editions of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries that were once produced in printings of 50, 100, or more copies, today there remain only a few here and there, sometimes only one, or even none. Therefore we lack many connecting links in the stemma; nevertheless inferences about the lost archetype are not hindered. A filiation is based upon the correspondence and dissimilarity of several sources in their erroneous (rather than correct) variant readings. A filiation thus rests upon faults in the transmission; these ate, to some extent, hereditary faults which increase from generation to generation, whereby through emendation many faults can certainly disappear again. All divergences from the original text (Urtext) in its notated form ate considered faults. These include unintentional or unavoidable changes in notation, mistakes, false conjectures, and intentional arrangements. Only szgnificative errors [Ger. Leitfehler] are convincing. An error that cannot by accident arise repeatedly is a conjunctive error [Bindefehler]; it ties together the

sources that have it. Only ove copyist or printer made the error, and the others followed him. But the conjunctive error is not necessarily beyond correction. “6Cf. Paul Maas, Textknitik, 37 ed. (Leipzig, 1957); Sebastiano Timpanaro, Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode, 2°° ed. (Hamburg, 1971).

63

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Several copyists or printers could, through conjecture, possibly correct it so that the original reading returns. It is otherwise with a separative error [Trennfehler]. A separative error is one that could have been made by perhaps several copyists or printers but corrected by no one at a later time. Here we assume that the dissermination conditions were those of an earlier time rather than the better situation of today’s textual critic. A separative error thus separates those sources that have it from those that do not. The latter sources are independent from the former. The most helpful errors are those that unite the useful traits of both kinds of significative errors: those which by chance can neither be made repeatedly nor ever be corrected. For example, in a score copy the divergence from the staffline breaks of the autograph score can be considered, in terms of a filiation, an error — indeed a separative error because the original staving layout can never be reproduced on the basis of this copy; accordingly, copies which exhibit the original staving layout cannot be dependent upon this copy. For extended com-

positions, when two copies share the same divergence from the original staving layout, we have a conjunctive error because it is improbable that two copyists would use the same score layout independent of one another. Moreover, if the autograph original is lost, the categorization of an error often depends upon the

textual critic’s interpretation. |

Also significant is the mass occurrence of corresponding non-significative errors. Each of these errors, taken individually, may have occurred several times

, or been corrected several times. It is, however, improbable that with a noticeably large number of corresponding errors this should have been the case. [In other words, a large number of shared errors may, by itself, contribute to the proof of a relationship between two or more soutces.] There are mainly two principles according to which filation helps to select the readings for the final text: 1. Ekminatio codicum descriptorum is the separating out of later copies or re-

prints. According to an old principle of history and philology, textual

witnesses must be weighed, not counted; 1.e. their worth, not their number, is decisive. When it can be proven that a copy stems from another extant source, the later copy does not need to be taken into consideration. Except for including some conjectural changes, the copy obviously can not be better than its model source and will, as a rule, offer corruptions (see source E in Stemma 1). As proof of the lineage, the codex descriptus must be shown to have all the separative errors of the model (ec. errors that are uncorrectable but may be concealed through false conjecture) and, in addition, at least one extra separative error. The

same situation holds for reprints, which are often confirmed through the exten-

64

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

sive correspondence of staff-line breaks with those of the reprint’s source. If both prints are dated and thus their chronology determined, the direction of the line of dependence is clear. If not, more significative errors must be found. 2. Ekiminatio lectionum singularium is the elimination of isolated variant

readings. According to this principle, insofar as the stemma has at least three sources that are independent from each other, each solitary

, variant in any one of these sources can be immediately eliminated (see source C in Stemma 2, with f4as the erroneous variant). On occasion, this principle is valid for intricate relationships (cf. Stemma 6 below). Unfortunately the determination of variant readings or even of the filiation often runs into difficulties, as shown in the following six cases: 1. Interpolation. An assumption of the stemma is the mechanical transmission by which one person copies or reprints from another, without the

intention of making changes. Only mechanical errors occur. On the other hand, if the copyist or publisher endeavors to improve the text

| ot embellish it according to his own notions, he then interpolates — in places that were correct—variant readings [Ger. Lesarten] which in themselves may seem intelligible, without being authentic. 2. Contamination. Furthermore, the stemma rests on the assumption that the son (S) copied from the father (F) and not simultaneously from the brother (B) or uncle (U) (see Stemma 3). If, however, S$ also looks at the texts of B and U and takes from them some variant readings which deviate from those in F (potentially authentic from U; conjectural or false variants from U or B), then the text inherited from the previous generation is contaminated (see Stemma 4). Somewhat similar is the case when, during the copying process, S switches its sources, copying sometimes from F, sometimes from U, and sometimes from B. In this instance, too, several groups of variant readings are mingled. An example of deliberate comparison of sources can be found in the copies of BACH’s

- ofgan compositions prepared in the first half of the nineteenth century. In them are observed “mixed variant readings [Mischlesarten] that arose from the comparison of manuscripts from separate source groups.”

65 ,

*’Dietrich Kilian in Neue Bach Ausgabe, 1V/5-6, Kritischer Bericht, Teilband 2, p. 279.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

} B C D . B Cc ° ft86LrdD fy f#

(right) (wrong) (right)

(codex descriptus)

Stemma I Stemma 2

FUFU

/ , B So" B

Stemma 3 Stemma 4

3. Often, in the accidental components of the text, the filation is scarcely feasible. A

copy with many wrong notes — thus written by a negligent copyist — can

have accidental things fairly accurately preserved because the copyist

was familiar with the style of writing. Another copy can be almost error-free in the musical text, yet can be quite distant from the original in terms of notation and the less conspicuous performance markings because the innately careful copyist followed his usual habits for things that seemed unimportant to him. 4. The two-branch stemma. Vf a lost archetype (x) or hypo-archetype (y) splits into only two branches, there can, under certain conditions, be no eémunatto lectionum singularium ot elimination of singular variant readings (see

Stemma 5). Through the agreeing state of C and D, the hypo-archetype “vy is reconstructed: the f# reading in B opposes the f4 reading in y. An objective decision is not possible; instead, an interpretation must

be made. Different is the situation shown by Stemma 6. Here the

66 ,

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

contradictory state of C and D does not support the reconstruction of y. As a third, independent source, however, B enters the picture and confirms the variant reading (f#) in D, which thereby must also have been the reading in y. Source C has a singular variant (f4) which is to be eliminated as such. 5. The conspicuous prevalence of the two-branch stemma in most critical editions. It is

hard to believe that the historical facts of transmission should in most cases have been such that only two instead of three or four copies were made from the original or the archetype (see Stemmata 7, 8, and 9).

/ y /™~ fyfh ¢ /D\ftff Cfy/D\ft |

x,xx

Stemma 5 oe Stemma 6 , ,

1 f/f \2 1 f/ | \3 1 /2;3\ \4

B C B Cc D Bc D

, Stemma 7 Stemma 8 Stemma 9

On the contrary, psychological factors on the part of the textual critic seem to play a role in the preponderance of the two-branch stemma. Experience shows that the filiation of the older generations of sources proceeds with more difficulty than that of the younger generations. This difference comes from the fact that the number of significative errors in the stemma’s upper branches is usually fewer than the number of such errors in the lower branches, especially in short pieces. With the textual evidence of the older generations, the textual critic tends to be satisfied with insufficient grounds for the proof. In addition, faulty thinking easily leads to a two-branch stemma, namely when one establishes the first split below the archetype just because branch 1 is free of one error found in branch 2 (see Stemma 10). This stemma is not convincing. Such a source situation can be elucidated just as well by Stemma 11. Thus the absence of an error does not necessarily establish 67

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

a separate branch; for this, an individual error unique to this branch is much more necessary (see Stemma 12).

l / \ 2 B (right)

B Cc(wrong) C (wrong) (right) .|, Stemma 10 Stemma I]

(error no. 1) (error no. 2) Stemma 12

6. Lhe wmposstbility of creating the stemma without previous interpretation. The

stemma should make it possible for the textual critic to recognize errors without the assistance of interpretation. The stemma cannot be constructed, however, if interpretation is not used to identify several significative errors. Thus the textual critic cannot avoid the hermeneu-

tic circle, and he does not circumvent interpretation.” 4. Interpretation Interpretation is based upon the available resources, the more immediate and the more distant context, as well as the competence of the interpreter (see ch. IIT). Within the context belong the styles of the period, genre, and individual composer. The personal stylistic traits are designated by philologists with the term u#sus scribendi or writing manner. For the textual critic the

style of notation is most important. Copyist and publisher likewise have a usus scribendi, the knowledge of which facilitates a textual critic’s jadgement. An example of a publisher’s usus scribendi is JOHANN JULIUS HUMMEL’s | Cf. Hans P. Krings, “Historisch-kritische Methode und die Idee des Zwecks: Editorische Tatigkeit als Wissenschaft,” Zectschrijt fir Philosoplische Forschung 38 (1984): 62.

Cf. Alfred Diirr, “Probleme der musikalischen Textkritik, dargestellt an den Klaviersuiten BWV 806-819 von J.S. Bach” in: Ouxellenforschung in der Musiknussenschaft, ed. Georg Feder (1982).

68

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

habit of altering, interpolating, and cutting HAYDN’s compositions in his unauthorized editions.” The textual critic examines his own stylistic judgement psychologically in posing the classical philologist’s question: “Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?” Which of the two variant readings could be changed into the other reading, and with which one could that not be done? Can there have been a lectio media, an intermediate variant reading, which was doubtful and led to two erroneous interpretations? Leading from the psychological to the aesthetic realm is the explanation that a lectio facilis, an easy reading, arises from a lectio difficilor, a , difficult reading which seemed incomprehensible (see Digression no. 4 below), “Praestat difficilior lectio” or “Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua’”’: the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easy reading because errors tend toward the simple, the customary, and the banal. (“Difficult” is not the same as “stylistically improbable’’; there are difficult variant readings which are unreliable.) An assumption of the psychological is the paleographical explanation. ‘This proceeds from the facts of source transmission (like the writing in parts, score, ot tablature) and explains, for example, the temporary exchange of oboe I and oboe I] in a set of parts extracted from a score in which both these instrumental parts lie one above the other or even on the same staff.

5. Conjectural Criticism Once the transmitted text has been determined and the correct variant readings have been selected, there remains the test as to whether the result is plausible or necessitates conjectures, 1.e. assumed improvements. If original scores [i.e. autographs] exist for works by the great masters, there is seldom cause for emendation of the music’s substance. The probable notational intention of the composer provides the basis for such an intervention, if any. If there is any doubt, the intervention of emendation should not take place. With performance markings (see ch. V, section B/1, point 14) conjectural interpretation of the original manuscript is often required. For example, the length of slurs _ can be uncertain; the distinctions between staccato dot and stroke, fand /x, aminuendo hairpin and an accent mark can be unclear; the form of an ornament’s symbol can be vague; the placement of dynamic markings can be confusing. If there are also authorized copies and editions, we can follow their interpretations

"Cf. Georg Feder, “Die Eingriffe des Musikverlegers Hummel in Haydns Werken” in: Musicae Sccentiae Collectanea, ed. Heinrich Hischen (Cologne, 1973), 88-101. Hummel’s habit was not taken into consideration in a recent criticism of the stemma of Haydn’s String Quartets op. 33 in Joseph

| Haydn-Werke XI/3. Cf. James Grier, The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice (Cambridge, 1996), 122-29.

69

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

of the autograph, assuming that copyist and publisher were more familiar with the period’s style than we. With dissemination by manuscript copies and prints, above all when it is unauthorized, there may be the necessity of improvement even in substantive components of the text. The textual critic determines mistakes of musical logic, grammar, and style and makes the emendation on the basis of the same considerations that he employs when he has the choice between two or more variant readings. He may have only the worse reading and must now conceive the better reading. Or he may have several readings from which to choose, but no satisfying one. Often needed improvement ts clear, often it is not. If there is no parallel passage to cite for substantiation of an improvement, the philologist talks of “divination.” Thus different textual critics often come up with different solutions. Later critics should then cite the earlier conjectures, even if they do not follow them. Occasionally a substantive problem in a text remains unsolvable and becomes a “crux.” The crux occurs more frequently with expression markings because a composer’s illegible writing may lead to partly plausible and partly absurd or contradictory solutions in the copies and prints. ‘The correc~ tion of the transmission in this kind of situation is often difficult if not, to some

extent, impossible. | 6. Criticism with Vocal Texts

The authoritative reading of the vocal text is the musically set text, as it exists or existed in the composet’s original manuscript. Therefore the vocal text should be ascertained with the aid of musical sources. With operas and oratorios we also have a special kind of source in the librettos printed for specific performances. If the composer neglects certain aspects of the text (e.g,, punctuation), the question arises whether these should be improved according to the libretto and other literary sources. Most of the time one answers this question affirmatively, especially if the original score is lost and only copies are available. If the composer has not or only partially included in his score the scenery instructions and stage directions for opera texts, then the textual critic will complete them according to the libretto and clearly distinguish the original scote’s texts from those of the libretto. The higher task of the textual critic consists of tracing the previous history of the vocal text back to its origin. Is this the text that was originally set to the

| music? Or did the composer or someone else (an essential difference!) underlay another text later on? Through such a “parody” process a composition written for a specific occasion could become more generally useful or adapted to some new occasion. BACH’s sacred vocal works (parts of the B-winor Mass and

70

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

the short Masses, the Christmas Oratorio, several church cantatas) offer numerous examples of authentic parodies. HAYDN’s Italian operas, which were also disseminated as German Szugspiele, are examples of unauthorized translations. Advocates of the aesthetic of reception [Rezeptonsasthetik| are inclined to call the authenticity questions of different versions irrelevant; operas in particular are considered works that vary from performance to performance — i.e. works for which there is no definitive version.” The basic philological question, however, is not whether there is a definitive version but whether there is an authentic

or authorized version (or versions). These are to be separated out from the extraneous arrangements and fully investigated, without concern for whether the decision about a definitive version can or cannot be made.

Furthermote, prior to its musical setting, did the text have a literary existence? Was the text revised for the musical setting? Or was it written specifically for that musical setting? By whom? When? Was it written for the musical setting at hand or for some other? The reviser of the text version set to music was not necessarily the poet of the original text. In eighteenth-century operas, a seria text by METASTASIO ot a buffa one by GOLDONI would sometimes be set by one composer after another and for different theaters. Certainly with each new setting the libretto underwent a revision that reflected local performance conditions. For critical reasons, such investigations of textual variants cannot be avoided because many an error arising from the text’s dissemination can be improved or discovered through comparison with its historical sources.

C. “Higher” Criticism and History of the Work When authorship, provenance (place), date, or genre designation is lacking or doubtful, their ascertainment becomes the task of “higher” criticism. This criticism researches hidden facts of origin such as borrowings or models, or dem-

onstrates that a particular work is an adaptation of another work by the same composer. Higher criticism puts into chronological order the author’s undated vetsions and makes use of antiquarian-historical research to track down the possible commissioner of a work, the occasion for its composition, the circumstances of its first performances, and any other pertinent historical knowledge

about the work. When all this is brought into a narrative context, the result produces the “external” history of the work’s origin, the “internal” history of

"Cf. Heinz Becker, “Zur Situation der Opernforschung,” Die Musikforschung 27 (1974): 156£.; Carl Dahlhaus, “Philologie und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Bemerkungen zur Theorie der Edition” in: Festschrift Georg von Dadelsen zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Thomas Kohlhase & Volker Scherliess (Neuhausen/Stuttgart, 1978), 51.

71

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

the influences that helped to shape it, and the history of the creative process. By chronologically ordering the extraneous adaptations—insofar as this has not already occurred during the description of the sources—higher criticism continues the chronological ordering of the transmitted variants that had begun with the “lower” criticism of source collation and interpretation. Supported by the antiquarian-historical investigation of reception documents, higher criticism thus provides the bases for the history of a work’s influence, namely the history of dissemination, adaptation, performance, and reception. All findings of higher criticism can serve the interpretation of the text and the work, but they also independently retain their own historical worth as knowledge.

1. Authenticity Criticism | If the authorship is proven by the hand of the composer himself or an authorized copyist, or by another credible authority, a work’s authenticity (Ger.

Echtheit) is assured. A rare exception would be the evidence that the piano trios signed by HAYDN in one manuscript (Hob. XV: 3 & 4) originated with his pupil PLEYEL.” If the composer’s name is lacking in an autograph score because either the composer has not written his name or the page that would presumably have his signature is missing, the authorship may become questionable if there is no other supportive evidence. As was sometimes the case with BACH, it could just be an autograph copy of another composer’s work. With unauthorized or relatively bad transmission of the composer’s name among the sources, the authorship is doubtful. Indeed, the authorship is rather improbable when different sources provide contradictory attributions or disseminate the work anonymously—as is the case for many works of the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries. In such cases the burden of proof lies on him

who claims authenticity for the work. He must show that, based on internal evidence, the authorship is not only possible but probable. The probability of authorship increases with the number of points by which style criticism determines a correspondence between the questionable work and the better attested wotks of the presumed composer. ‘To invalidate the claim for authenticity, on the other hand, it can suffice to cite a few points whereby such a correspondence is not produced. For example, this is the case with a G-major piano concerto attributed to Haydn (Hob. XVIII: 9) where the range of pitches goes beyond the usual ambitus, the viola part is lacking, the middle movement ts in a minor key, and the finale is a Tempo di Minuetto. As the concerto’s editor HORST WALTER summarizes:

, 72

"Alan Tyson, “Haydn and Two Stolen Trios,” The Music Review 22 (1961); N. A. Mace, “Haydn and the London Music Sellers: Forster v. Longman & Broderip,’ Music ¢& Letters 77 (1996): 535, 539.

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Considering the weak source situation and the cited anomalies, the work’s style would need to be much more convincing in order to allow one to acknowledge it as authentic.”

It is the same here as in the discipline of logic where, according to ARISTOTLE, the refutation of definitions is easier than their proof,” or as in the discipline of rhetoric where, according to QUINTILIAN, a court speech of accusation is easier than the speech of defense.” Similarly, with a poor soutce situation, doubts about authenticity are easier to prove and understand than are claims

for authenticity. In this way, the proof of the spuriousness of the six “op. 3” string quartets attributed to HAYDN (with the well-known Serenade movement) was immediately and almost unanimously accepted by music specialists. In this instance source information indicates that the earliest evidence for Haydn’s authorship is the first printed edition of parts from Bailleux in Paris around 1777. Source description (discussed in section A/2 above) shows that for the first two

quartets the author’s name originally rad HOFFSTETTER, not Haydn. Prior to printing, the composer’s name must have been changed on the plates. Evaluation of sources (see A/3 above) points to the missing composer authorization for this edition and to the fact that Bailleux printed only a few works by Haydn, notably with many spurious ones among them. Filiation of sources (see B/3 above) shows that all disseminated manuscript copies and printed editions ultimately lead back to Bailleux. The antiquarian-historical research calls attention to the letters of Haydn’s contemporary ROMAN HOFFSTETTER who acknowledged that he often imitated Haydn’s style traits. Style criticism confirms that the quartets in question fit poorly with Haydn’s oeuvre, but several fit well with Hoffstetter’s output. Thus “higher” criticism, taking into account contradictory evidence, reaches the conclusion that the attribution to Haydn is not credible.’° Characteristically, CE. Joseph Haydn-Werke XV /2, p. VIII.

“Aristoteles, Topik (Organon V), trans. and ed. E. Rolfes (Hamburg, 1968), 170; cf. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics [with Topical, trans. and ed. H. Tredennick [and] E.S. Forster (Cambridge, MA, 1966), Book VII, ch. 5.

Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Insttutionis oratoriae bri XII (Ausbildung des Redners, 12 Bucher), ed. and trans. Helmut Rahn, 2 vols. (Darmstadt, 1972), Bk. V, ch. 13, p. 627£; cf Quintilian, Quintihan’s Institutes of Oratory: or the Education of an Orator, trans. J. S. Watson (London, 1856), Book. V, ch. 13, §§2-3.

Alan Tyson and H.C. Robbins Landon, “Who Composed Haydn’s Op. 3?” The Musical Times 105, no. 1457 (1964): 506-07; Ludwig Finscher, Studien zur Geschichte des Streichquartetis (Kassel,

1974), I: 168ff.; Georg Feder, “Apokryphe ‘Haydn’-Streichquartette,’ Haydn-Studien 3, no. 2 (1974): 126ff.; Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Serwer, and James Webster, Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, Washington, D.C., 1975 (New York: Norton, 1981), 95-106;

, 73

Horst Walter, “Haydn-Bibliographie 1973-1983,” Haydn-Studien 5, no. 4 (1985): 213f In Die Mustkforschung 39 (1986) Gunther Zuntz unconvincingly attempts to refute the doubts about the work’s authenticity.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

the attribution of all six quartets to Hoffstetter has recetved no unanimous support because stronger evidence is required for the indisputable judgement that it

is an “authentic work by Hoffstetter.” , The discovery and authentication of an unknown work is usually not a matter for criticism but, rather, one of heuristics (a part of specialized source studies, see section A/1 above), as when an indisputable autograph manuscript or a copy signed and corrected by the composer surfaces—like that of HAYDN’s soprano cantata “Miseri noi / Funesto orto” (Hob. XXIVa: 7).” Or the copy of a lost, otherwise certifiably authentic work is found, as was the case in 1961 with Haydn’s Cello Concerto in C major. With anonymous works or ones with uncertified or poorly transmitted authorship, assertion of authenticity is always problematic, and its refutation often follows. A St. John’s Passion of ca.1700, which was originally disseminated anonymously, was attributed to the young HANDEL by the undentably well-informed CHRYSANDER. Since then it has been published four times, most recently in the Hallische Handel-Ausgabe. In the mean time old doubts have been revived, and the work has been attributed by one critic to GEORG BOHM® and by another, perhaps more convincingly, to CHRISTIAN RITTER.” Even when there is no other composer to specify, sooner or later doubt appears. This can happen fairly soon after a work’s (re-)discovery—to name well publicized instances—as with the “Schubert” E-flat-major symphony performed in Hanover in 1982, for which there is the suspicion of a modern falsification,” ot with the “Mozart” symphony K. 16a (K. Anh. 220) discovered in 1982 in a peripheral manuscript copy in Odense, Denmark and a work that has no clear scholarly consensus on its authorship.*' Only in rare cases are all specialists convinced about the authenticity of such a work. In 1984 as many as thirty-one organ chorale preludes attributed to J. S. BACH (BWV 10901120) were discovered in a posthumous source, the so-called Neumeister “Rediscovered through Otto E. Albrecht, A Census of Autograph Music Manuscripts of European Composers in American Libraries (Philadelphia, 1953), 141, after the hidden reference to the work in the catalogue of the Music Loan Exhibition (London, 1904, p. 284) had remained unmentioned in the Haydn literature for nearly half a century. ®Cf. H. Kimmerling, “Difficile est satyram non scribere” in Festschrift Giinther Massenkeil zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Rainer Cadenbach and Helmut Loos (Bonn, 1986). Cf. Hans-Joachim Marx, “. .. eines welt-beriihmten Mannes gewisse Passion: zur Herkunft der Handel zugeschtriebenen ‘Johannes-Passion’,” Musica 41 (1987). Cf Walther Durr, Musica 37 (1983): 135ff.

“Cf. Gerhard Allroggen in the Neuve Mozart Ausgabe 1V/11/1, p. VIII Papers from a 1984 conference on K. 16a were published in: Jens Peter Larsen and Kamma Wedin, eds., Die Sinfonie KV 16a “del Stgr. Mozart’: Bericht iiber das Symposium in Odense anlasshch der Erstauffibrung des

wiedergefundenen Werkes Dezember 1984 (Odense, 1987). , 74

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

collection.” Although leading scholars have agreed upon their authenticity,

, doubts have been voiced concerning one or more of them. Most collectedworks editions for a composer provide supplements containing works whose authenticity is doubtful yet cannot be totally ruled out.

2. Dating For MOZART there are frequently dated autograph manuscripts, but with many other composers this is seldom the case. Sometimes biographical documents can assist with dating, Oftentimes the year and place for the work need to be ascertained. One of the resources for this search is the investigation of the composer’s changing notational habits. Until at least 1777 HAYDN wrote out the clefs beforehand on each page of the score. From 1779, at the latest, he still did this for only the first page of each movement.” From such critetia autograph manuscripts can be dated according to periods. GEORG von DADELSEN (1958) investigated the change in Bach’s writing traits and thereby successfully improved the dating of numerous works. WOLFGANG PLATH (1967/77) undertook similar studies with respect to the changes in MOZART’s

autographs. On the basis of the watermarks in the autograph scores and the original parts of BACH’s church cantatas for Leipzig, ALFRED DURR (1957) was able to determine an exact dating, almost to the day, for many of the works. Further resources were Bach’s annotations concerning the Sunday of the church year for which each cantata was intended. (Not every calendar year includes all the Sundays associated with the church year. Not all of Bach’s places of employment had music during Advent; e.g. Leipzig did not, while Weimar did.) Confirmation of some of the datings came from the work of WERNER NEDMANN and HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE, who successfully identified several copyists of the original parts for Bach’s Leipzig church cantatas as pupils from the Thomasschule.™ For many a work from the second half of the eighteenth century, the zerminus ante (ot: ad) quem (ot post quem non), i.e. the latest possible dating, comes from its appearance in one of the dated Breitkopf catalogues of manuscript copies available for purchase. With dated manuscript catalogues of music collections one must bear in mind that many zwczpits could be late entries. The zerminus post quem Ed. Christoph Wolff (Kassel, 1985), more recently in Neue Bach Ausgabe IV/9; cf. “°’The Neumeister Collection of Chorale Preludes from the Bach Circle,’ pp. 107-27 in: Christoph Wolff, Bach: Essays on His Life and Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

_ &C£. Feder in Haydn-Studien 1, no. 1 (1965): 34. “Cf. source nos. 3, 4, 51, 54, and 56 provided in the Nachtrag (supplement) of Alfred Durr, Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J.S. Bachs: Sonderdruck aus dem Bach-Jahrbuch 1957 (Berlin, 1958;

2™ ed., Kassel, 1976). 75

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

(ot ante quem non), i.e. the earliest possible dating, can result from the use of pre-

existing material, such as a datable Protestant chorale melody. For polyphonic movements on Gregorian chants, the provenance and date can be approximated from the correspondence of variants in a work’s cantus firmus with those in a datable chant book.® Finally, style criticism is employed for determining authentic-

ity and answering other questions of higher criticism. This resource, however, is generally less reliable, unless it is a matter involving a rationally intelligible characteristic like the unplayable chords in some of HAYDN’s keyboard works that suggest a harpsichord with a “short octave,” for which the composer appatently wrote these pieces in the years ca. 1765-67."

3. Genre Determination | | When the genre of a work is unclear—whether the title is missing or the transmitted indication arouses doubt — one must attempt to determine it with the resources available. For example, which of HAYDN’s keyboard concertos are for organ and which for harpsichord? The autograph score is lacking for most of them. The manuscript copies indicate harpsichord. Investigation of the pitch range used reveals that several concertos ascend up to @# or higher and descend below C, while others utilize just the range C- ¢’. In conjunction with other indices it can be determined that those works of the first group are harpsichord concertos and those of the latter group are organ concertos.*’ Since genre and instrumentation are often interconnected, genre determination is also part of performance-practice interpretation (see ch. V, section B/1).

4. Determination of Occasion, Purpose, and Performance Conditions Consideration of the historical circumstances has long been used in biblical interpretation and literary criticism because: No literary testimony arises in a vacuum: it is written by particular people for particular people. JOACHIM WACH,® paraphrasing one of Herder’s sayings)

Cf. for example, B. Christian Vaterlein, ed., Graduale Pataviense (Wien 1511) Faksimile in Das Erbe deutscher Musik, vol. 87 (Kassel, 1982), v.

Cf. Horst Walter, “Das Tasteninstrument beim jungen Haydn” in Bectrage zur Auffiihrungspraxis I, ed. Vera Schwarz (Graz, 1972), 240; in addition, the “Vorwort” by Sonja Gerlach to Joseph Haydn, Divertimento I/ maestro e lo scolare, Henle Urtext-Ausgabe no. 347 (1982).

"Cf. Georg Feder, “Wieviel Orgelkonzerte hat Haydn geschrieben?” Die Mustkforschung 23 (1970); Walter (1972).

*8Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen, Ul: 107; cf. II: 54. 76

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

ALBERT DUNNING formulated the analogous music-history question in this way:

With what intention, from whom, for whom, how and where the work was performed — in short, it is the question of the life reality in which the artwork is linked with all its connecting threads; it is the question of its function in society.”

Until about 1800, and frequently thereafter, even high-ranking music was “occasional music,’ i.e. music for a particular occasion (Gelegenheitsmustk).

The occasion, however, is not always indicated, and hence it must be determined. From a vocal text’s content, together with known events from political history, Dunning (1970) was able to explain many a Renaissance motet as a “ceremonial motet” (S#aatsmofette) performed for a particular political occasion. (Seldom is there also a document confirming this.) Determining such facts is part of criticism. Using the established facts to clarify aesthetic aspects of the composition is part of the analysis

of the work. This analysis shows whether the style and content of the work are determined superficially or crucially by the circumstances of its genesis (see ch. V, sections A/1 and B/2). In each case facts such as the following interest us:) HANDEL’s Messiah was first performed in Dublin for charitable purposes, BACH’s Saint Matthew Passion was intended for the Good Friday Vespers at St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, HAYDN’s The Creation originated with a commission from a society of Vienna’s high nobility, and BEETHOVEN composed his Massa solemnis for the enthronement of Archduke Rudolph as Archbishop of Olomouc [Olmutz] (although he did not complete it in time).

Probably every old composition considered the conditions for performance, whether just generally or in specific detail. An example of the general approach: the apparently incomplete composition of the Mass text in many music manuscripts ca. 1500 was caused by the alternation between the polyphonic choir of singers and the organist (alternatim practice), a practice that was customary in Germany for Masses based on Gregorian chant.”” An example of the more detailed approach: from a modern point of view, it is hard to understand why in HAYDN’s intermezzo La canterina (1766) two flutes without oboes play in the first

aria, while in the other numbers oboes (one time English horns) and no flutes play. As the documents prove, the explanation is that in 1766 Albert Dunning, Die Staatsmotette 1480-1555 (Utrecht, 1970), xiv. Cf. Martin Stahelin, Die Messen Heinrich Isaacs (1977), U1: 15¢f. T7/

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

the Esterhazy “Kammermusik” actually employed no flutists, but two oboists were engaged who could play not only English horn but flute as well.”! Thus the composer could require one or the other of the pair of instruments but not all of them simultaneously. Here, like everywhere,

the existing circumstances had their effect upon the composition’s organization. Wholly unnecessary is the consideration often used to justify new arrangements, such as: “If Bach had had our orchestra of today, he would have...’ Indeed, if he had had today’s orchestra at his disposal, he would have not only orchestrated his works differently but also composed them differently.

5. History of Influence If there is sufficient source material, both the external facts about a musical text’s origin and the “internal” facts of its origin can be determined, such as, perhaps, that another composer’s work was the model for the work under investigation. This is typical for pieces by students of composition. In his 1783 Methode Sonaten aus’m Ermel zu schtiddeln [Method tor composing sonatas

_ offhand] the Bach pupil JOHANN PHILIPP KIRNBERGER recommended:

One takes a piece by a good master... and writes above its bass a totally different melody . .. Furthermore, one writes a bass for the newly created melody. In this way, neither the bass nor the top

melody line remains similar to the original piece.” : Bach’s students appear to have encountered such exercises: One unknown student built a Trio Sonata in G major (BWV 1038) by writing two new upper parts

over the bass of one of Bach’s violin sonatas (BWV 1021). Other paths of emulation affect the form or the harmonic course. LOUIS SPOHR confessed that a critic said about one of his own student works, an overture, that itis not free of reminiscences. He could have said directly that it was totally copied from the overture to The Magic Flute.

On the instruction received from BRAHMS, his pupil GUSTAV JENNER tepotts:

Along with other reasons, Brahms had me copy, using my own themes, the modulatory schemes of Adagio movements by Mozart

'Cf. Sonja Gerlach, ““Haydns Orchestermusiker von 1761 bis 1774,” Haydn-Studien 4, no. 1 (1976): 47. Cf. Bach-Dokumente II, 377.

78

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

ot Beethoven for the purpose of attaining a more secure feeling for the uniformity of the modulation. He told me, “If Beethoven goes from C major to E major, you do the same; in earlier days I used to

do the same thing.” A composet’s mature work can also have models. In no. 22 of his Diabelli Variations BEETHOVEN indicates his source with the comment “alla ‘Notte e giorno faticar’ di Mozart.” If the composer of an arrangement is satisfied with just a vague reference, like STRAVINSKY in “Pulcinella, Suite pour petit orchestre d’aprés Pergolesi,’ it behooves critics to investigate such a statement. Authors of “Missae ad imitationem ...” (“parody Masses”’) in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries disclosed, at most, the title (not the composer) of the chanson, motet, of madrigal from which they borrowed an individual voice part or the entire polyphonic texture. As a rule) HANDEL made no such statement at all, but tacitly borrowed many a piece by TELEMANN and other composers. He mote or less transformed the piece before inserting it into his own works. All these instances offer rewarding tasks for criticism. Besides musical matters come those that are more theoretical, literary, or pictorial in nature. WARREN KIRKENDALE (1963) has shown the probability that BEETHOVEN ’s “Grosse Fuge,” op. 133, summarizes and uses the arts described by Beethoven's former teacher ALBRECHTSBERGER in his 1790 Grindhiche Anweisung zur Composition.’ SCHUMANN reports in one letter that the last (actually penultimate) chapter of JEAN PAUL’s Féegefahre was the basis for his “Papillons,” op. 2.%° In Pictures at an Exhibition MUSORGSKY set to music some architectural drawings, stage plans, and watercolors by his friend VICTOR HARTMANN.

Unconscious borrowings from another composer’s themes or motives can be called reminiscences (Reminiszenzen).”’ The “hunting down of reminiscences” is considered objectionable by critics, by some because they do not wish to know about it in such detail, by others because the parallels are often not convincing. For example, the attempt to dertve BRAHMS’ Violoncello Sonata, op. 38, from Cf. H. HeuBner, “Ludwig Spohr und W.A. Mozart: Ein Beitrag zur Musik des deutschen — Biedermeier,” Mozart-Jahrbuch 1957, 202. “Gustav Jenner, J. Brahms als Mensch, Lehrer und Kiinstler (1903; Marburg, 1905), 39.

Warren Kirkendale, “The ‘Great Fugue’ Op. 133: Beethoven’s ‘Art of Fugue,” Acta Musicologica 35 (1963). Philipp Spitta, “Schumann” in Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musiaans, ed. J.A. Fuller Maitland (London, 1908), 4: 370. “Jean Paul’ was the pen name of the famous German romantic novelist Johann Paul Friedrich Richter (1763-1825). - *'Translator’s note: This use of “reminiscence” is not to be confused with that in “reminiscence

| 79

motives” of nineteenth-century opera. Rather, today we more often speak of how one work seems to “echo” an earlier work in some particular way.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

a cello sonata by ANDREAS ROMBERG failed,”* while the evidence of parallels existing between the same Brahms sonata and BACH’s Art of the Fugue is

convincing,’ RICHARD HOHENEMSER (1918/19) wanted the correspondence of absolute pitches to be the decisive factor for a reminiscence.‘ In any case, one assumption for the influence of work “A” upon work “B” is the earlier origin of “A.” The attempt to prove that MENDELSSOHN ’s “Lieder ohne Worte” (Songs without Words) had definitely been suggested by WILHELM TAUBERT’s “Minnelieder fiir das Pianoforte” op. 16'' failed in the dating, because, in the mean time, it was proven that Taubert’s op. 16 appeared only in 1834, two years after Mendelssohn’s first “Lieder ohne Worte.”"” The third stage of influence — following the model and reminiscence stages above — comes from the paradigmatic style elements gleaned from historical analysis (see ch. V, section B/2/b). Here it is not so much a matter of influence

from a particular work as that from a particular tradition. Some or all kinds of relationships between different “texts” can be summarized by the linguistic term “intertextuality.”

6. History of the Creative Process , The creative process in music can run through several phases: 1. Drafts (fragmentary sketches or a continuous rough draft in the format of just the melody, a piano reduction, short score, or full score);

2. Autograph score (with composer’s name, date, dedication and other comments), in the sole or first edited version (original version or Urfassung) and exhibiting earlier layers of text which are covered with immediate corrections and those undertaken in the course of revision;

3. Later editing by the composer (authentic stages or versions of the text):

in the form of a) a second autograph score, b) an autograph copy of the parts with alterations, c) the author’s own corrections or variants in manuscript copies, manuscript exemplars for the printer, proof sheets, and printed copies. *W/. Klenz, “Brahms, Opus 38: Piracy, Pillage, Plagiarism or Parody?” The Music Review 34 (1973).

Wilhelm Altmann, “Bach-Zitate in der Violoncello-Sonate Op. 38 von Brahms,” Die Musik 12 (1912).

‘Richard Hohenemser, “Uber die Gleichheit der Tonarten bei Entlehnungen,” Zeétschrift_fir Mustkwissenschaft 1 (1918/19).

M Willi Kahl, “Zu Mendelssohns Liedern ohne Worte,” Zeitschrift fir Musikwissenschaft 3 (1920/21).

Dieter Siebenkas, “Zur Vorgeschichte der Lieder ohne Worte von Mendelssohn,’ Die Mustkforschung 15 (1962). — In a letter of 10 September 1835 to his father, Mendelssohn actually accused Taubert of plagiarism. Cf. KF Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Briefe, ed. Rudolf Elvers (Frankfurt am Main, 1984), 186. 80

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

With an ideal source situation, this investigation goes from the first sketch to the final version and puts all the composet’s versions into chronological order. Some composers, namely BEETHOVEN, produced numerous drafts before completing a manuscript full score. Others tended to make changes deviating from theit manuscript score both before and while the work was being printed (e.g., Mendelssohn) or later even added a few mote variants to their own copy of the printed score (e.g, C.P.E. BACH in his Sonatas with Varied Reprises). The “final version” (Fassung letzter Hand) does not in every instance represent the best state of the text or the one obligatory for today’s practice." Many later versions arose less from artistic intention than from the requirements of the external performance conditions (e.g., with individual pieces in HANDEL’s Messiah). Many composers (e.g., HANDEL, BACH, and GLUCK) made new arrangements of their earlier works for new purposes. In all instances the work of textual criticism is to investigate these transformations as such. The hermeneutic and aesthetic tasks consist of showing what the transformation signifies, why it ensued, and whether or not the work was improved. Digression 2

Romantic and Empiricist Theory of Creativity

All research into the original causes of a musical artwork confronts the romantic theory of creativity, according to which the composer is a “creator.”

Among the forefathers of this conception is the Third Earl of SHAFTESBURY who, at the start of the eighteenth century, wrote about the true poet:

Such a poet is indeed a second Maker, a just Prometheus under Jove.'* And LUDWIG TIECK, alluding to MOZART and his Don Giovanni, sug-

gested:

In this holy fury all geniuses have composed poetry and created. Created indeed, as did the Lord, from nothingness.’” And then he tells the anecdote that becomes the basis of HANS PFITZNER’s opera Palestrina:

And Palestrina—.... did he not say that he received one of his most famous compositions note-for-note entirely from a band of angels and copied the ethereal, divine music only as a mechanical copyist?!”° ‘Cf. Georg von Dadelsen, “Die ‘Fassung letzter Hand’ in der Musik,” Acta Musicologica 33 (1961).

°Tbid., I: 207.

™C£R. L. Brett, Fancy and Imagination (1969; London, 1973), 25. Ludwig Tieck, Der junge Tischlermeister, Novelle (Berlin, 1836), I: 205.

ol

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

In his book about musical inspiration Pfitzner wrote that it would have been better had BEETHOVEN left no sketches behind; their investigation is “always without tact and respect.”'*’ The composer AARON COPLAND still associated himself with the romantic theory of creativity: The making of something out of nothing is the special province of the creative mind.’” Different, however, is the seventeenth-century English empiricism of THOM-

| AS HOBBES et al. and the tradition that came from it: Time and education beget experience; experience begets memory; memory begets judgement and fancy; judgement begets the strength and structure, and fancy begets the ornaments of a poem. (Hobbes, “Answer to D’Avenant,” 1650)'"”

With an empiricist approach and bringing into play a rich source material, JOHN L. LOWES (1927) made a thorough analysis of SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,’ explaining many of the pictorial elements of this poem as the successful amalgamation of numerous fragments from the poet’s recollection of things he had read.'!° The music psychologist JULIUS BAHLE leans toward a similar conception of the creative process:

For just as a man does not have the power to create a single grain of sand, so the artist cannot receive an idea or create an entire work only from himself or, as Pfitzner suggests, from “nothing.” His productive function consists much more in discovery and utiliza-

| tion, not, however, in a creative act beyond the realm of internal and external experience.’”’

The psychological explanation is supplemented by the sociological, which THEODOR ADORNO outlines as follows:

‘Hans Pfitzner, Uber musikalische Inspiration, 4° ed. (Berlin, 1943), 71.

Aaron Copland, Music and Imagination (Harvard University Press, 1952; 5" ed., 1970), 42. ‘Thomas Hobbes, The Enghsh Works of Thomas Hobbes (reprint ed., Aalen, 1966) 4: 449. Cf. Brett (1969), 11. John L. Lowes, The Road to Xanadu: A Study in the Ways of the Imagination (1927; London, 1930). 'NJulius Bahle, Ezngebung und Tat im musikalischen Schaffen: Ein Beitrag zur Psychologie der Entwicklungsund Schaffensgesetze schopferischer Menschen (Leipzig, 1939), 102.

82

IV. TEXTUAL CRITICISM

The compositional Swijekt is no individual thing, but rather something collective. Even if it is the most stylistically individual [music], a collective content pertains inalterably to all music: every single sound already says “We.’’!”

The philologist reconciles oppositions. He allows the empiricist view to apply broadly so that the criticism and explanation of musical artworks become possible, even if he admits, as the Romantic theory affirmed, that the true beauty of an artwork remains inexplicable (cf. Digression 4 in Ch. VI).

7. History of Influence The history of influence includes the history of dissemination, performance, arrangement, and reception. It is based upon the temporal layering of the documents pertaining to dissemination (transmission), arrangements, and reception (e.g., critiques of performances, reviews of printed editions, and other written

remarks). Conjectures and editing not done by the author—also called vari- | ants of transmission, alien variants, or non-authentic stages of the text—may not need to be studied for the ascertainment of the original text. But they can assume their own importance from the historical perspective and allow one to determine the origin of a tradition of false variant readings. Versions for other scorings, as well as arrangements and paraphrases that more or less change the work’s substance, show the change which the understanding of the work went through up to now. For this purpose literary documents, the actual documents of reception, are also consulted. The absence of influence from a work is likewise to be noted. The classic example from the history of musical influence is the well researched history of the Bach Renaissance. In addition, the history of Wagner reception has undergone a thorough documentation based on newspaper criticism.'* Being a kind of laboratory or field research, the psychological or sociological investigation of reception is not really a task for the philologist. Such reseatch

investigates by means of polls the current attitudes of individuals and groups (e.g., preference for particular types of music, particular composers, etc.).

"Theodor W. Adorno, “Ideen zur Musiksoziologie” (1958) in: Tibor Kneif, ed., Texte zur Musiksoxiologie (Cologne, 1975), 73. — Cf. R. G. Collingwood, The Prinaples of Art (Oxford, 1938),

315, on the artist: “Whatever statement of emotion he utters is prefaced by the implicit rubric, not ‘I feel) but ‘we feel.” BCE Helmut Kirchmeyer, Sztuationsgeschichte der Musikknritik und des musikalischen Pressewesens in Deutschland, IV. Tei Das xeitgendssische Wagner-Bild, vols. 1, 2, 3, 6/1, 6/2 (Regensburg, 1967ff). 83

BLANK PAGE

V. Hermeneutics A. Concept and Method 1. Definition

Hermeneutics (the art of interpretation) refers on the one hand to the theory of understanding and interpretation, the science of exegesis, and, on the other, to understanding and interpretation, the exegesis itself HERMANN KRETZSCHMAR (1902), who transferred the word to music theory, understood hermeneutics to mean the “discovering of the train of thought of the composition” and limited it to the explanation of affect and the changing of affect within a work, based on musical intervals, rhythms, and chords.’ TIBOR KNEIF narrowed the concept still further by defining musical hermeneutics

as the identification of forgotten symbolic meaning.” CARL DAHLHAUS

expanded the concept but did not really analyze it.’ | The well-understood concept of musical hermeneutics or exegesis is identical with theoretical Interpretation, under which the Rzemann-Musiklextkon (Sa-

chteil, 1967) subsumes description, explication (analysis), and comprehension

7 (Deuten). According to HANS HEINRICH EGGEBRECHT, analysis concerns itself with the meaning of the structure of music; interpretation considers the content in conjunction with this meaning.* DAHLHAUS takes analysis to apply to the sections of the work and distinguishes between the explication (Erklarung), which he considers in terms of the genre (“generic” in August Boeckh’s terminology), and the understanding (Verstehen), which he considers in terms of the composer (Boeckh’s “individual” explication; see section B /2/b below). The explication of the “content”? (Sachgehalt) he calls interpretation (Auslegung).° These definitions have something arbitrary about them, necessarily so, since they cannot call upon a generally accepted usage.° ‘Kretzschmar’s wotds were: “BloBlegung des Gedankengangs der Komposition”; Hermann Kretzschmar, “Neue Anregungen zur Forderung musikalischer Hermeneutik,’ Jahrbuch der Musikbibhothek Peters fiir 1905, J. 12 (1906): 84; idem, “Anregungen zur Forderung musikalischer

1975), 7ff.

Hermeneutik,” Jahrbuch der Musikbibhothek Peters fiir 1902, \g. 15 (1903).

*Tibor Kneif, “Hermeneutics,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1980), ed. Stanley Sadie, 8: 511. °Carl Dahlhaus, “Vorwort” to Bettrage zur musikalischen Hermeneutik, ed. C. Dahlhaus (Regensburg,

*Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht, “Zur Methode der musikalischen Analyse,” in: Erich Doflein: Festschrift zum 70, Geburtsiag, ed. L.U. Abraham (Mainz, 1972), 68f. °Carl Dahlhaus, Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte (Cologne, 1977), 127.

“See the divergent definitions of this term [“interpretation”] in Phelosophisches Worterbuch, ed. Heinrich Schmidt; 20" rev. ed. by Georgi Schischkoff (Stuttgart, 1978).

85

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Conclusions about the substance of musical hermeneutics may therefore be better drawn from an examination of hermeneutic practice. According to FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER, the most universal theorist of hermeneutics,’ its task is “to reconstruct to its fullest extent the entire inner course of the author’s creative activity.” From this definition, which became traditional in the nineteenth century,’ arises MANFRED BUKOFZER’s definition of musical analysis: “Properly understood, analysis is composition in reverse.”

In another place, Dahlhaus reduces musical analysis to the defining of a problem, paraphrasing an idea of Collingwood: Just as a verbal text—particularly a philosophical or scientific one— is understood by grasping the question that it is attempting to answert, SO caf a musical text be considered to have been analyzed only when one has determined the problem that its particular unique Gestalt is attempting to solve.”

Therefore, for instance, one explicator of BEETHOVEN’s D major piano sonata, op. 28, sees the entire work as an exploration of the ways in which the pitch or the key F-sharp can be related to the tonic key D major.'* Leo Schrade takes a view contrary to Dahlhaus:

But a work of art is certainly not the solution of a “problem” that one can formulate in advance, for works of art simply cannot be answets to “problems.” Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen: Grundiige einer Geschichte der hermenentischen Theorie im 19. Jahrhundert,

3vols. (Tubingen, 1926-1933), I: 25.

*>

“Norbert Linke, Wertproblem und Musikerziehung: empirische Untersuchungen und Materiahen zur Begriindun einer ‘Wertdidaktik der Musik” (Wolfenbuttel, 1977), 27.

135

BLANK PAGE

VII. Editorial Technique Before issuing the investigated text, the editor faces the question of whether to submit a specific source or a text compiled from several sources. The difference between the edition of a source and the edition of a work was probably first atticulated in the discussion which JOHANNES WOLF had around 1900 with GUIDO ADLER and OSWALD KOLLER about their editing of the Trent Codices.' The editors had decided upon a compromise between the two methods. Although such compromises are sometimes necessary, the fundamental _ distinction remains nonetheless. The reproduction of a single source is the only possibility with a codex unicus. In addition, this approach can be used when a col-

lection of compositions by various masters is to be published as a monument of music and cultural history, i.e. a “monument” edition (Denkmaler-Ausgabe). The facsimile and the edition of the corrected text are the possibilities here. The extensive source study connected with a critical edition— assuming a cotrespondingly plentiful transmission—is more justified when it is the matter of an individual work as such.

A. Facsimile

Goal: Reproduction of the source Technique: Photography

Source: The original manuscript or another copy worthy of reproduction

Method: Source criticism

Critical Commentary: Description of the sources and their evaluation The facsimile is a photographically produced print that has the original’s dimen-

sions and is faithful to it in detail and, as much as possible, color. It reproduces all pages, even the empty ones. A facsimile shows, when possible, the original fascicle order and may even copy the pages’ edges and the binding. Currently available facsimiles of music manuscripts more or less approach this ideal. Original manuscripts of the great composers are dispersed among numerous libraries in Europe and America. Under favorable conditions, one can certainly

acquire a microfilm or photocopy from the library itself or from an archive fot photocopies and microfilms. But that is always a private, personal undertaking. Much mote obtainable and accessible, however, is a facsimile that is 'In Sammelbande der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 1 (1899-1900): 682£; II (1900-1901): 161 ff.

137

, MUSIC PHILOLOGY available at book stores and music shops, is made known through reviews and bibliographies, and is acquired by many libraries. In addition, by presenting totally faithful copies, the facsimile preserves—better than a microfilm of limited durability—the original against the ever present possibility of loss* or paper disintegration.”

Although the quantity of music manuscripts produced in facsimile since the middle of the nineteenth century has increased, the number is still amazingly small.* The original manuscripts of most of BACH’s cantatas, HANDEL’s oratorios, HAYDN’s string quartets, BEETHOVEN’s symphonies, SCHUBERT’s Lieder, and many other high-ranking works have still not appeared in facsimile editions. At the least, facsimiles of the most often edited masterworks should be published. A feasible way to make them available in research libraries is shown by the recent microfiche edition of the Mozart collections in Berlin and Cracow including 15,650 pages of Mozart autographs, among them most of his operas.” If there is no longer an autograph score, the facsimile of an authorized

copy or the first edition would be a suitable close substitute. Just as urgent is the continuation of facsimile editions for all the monuments of early polyphony and the most important ones of Renaissance polyphony. The recently increasing number of facsimile editions of early music prints and manuscripts, however, has been an encouraging improvement. Even though the quality of - teproduction often leaves something to be desired, these publications nevertheless offer provisional knowledge for many works." All interpretations—including transcriptions—must be verifiable. The inclusion of a complete facsimile for every critical edition would be optimal, particularly for those editions based on the autograph manuscript. When there is transmission through a number of sources, the selection of the copy used for a facsimile would depend on the results of the critical study of the sources and text (see ch. IV, sections A and B). When costs prohibit a first-rate facsimile, a one-color, reduced reproduction, as true as possible to the details of the writing, is an acceptable substitute. For many musical scores, what the editors write “Entire collections and irreplaceable unique manuscripts fell victim to World War II. *Such lamentable paper disintegration is occurring in Bach’s original manuscripts. By comparison,

much older parchment manuscripts are well preserved, e.g, Codex Montpellier (H 196) with motets from the late thirteenth century! *Cf. Claude Abravanel, “A Checklist of Music Manuscripts in Facsimile Edition,’ Notes 34/3 (1978): 557-70. Tr. note: Today, of course, many libraries and archives have helpfully begun to display complete photographic facsimiles of their important music manuscripts online via their Websites.

138

°Ed. Staatsbibhothek 2H Berlin — Preufsischer Kulturbesitz and Bibhoteka Jagellénska (Munich: K.G. Saur).

“Tr. note: Online collections of public-domain scores (e.g., Petrucci Music Library at http:// imslp.org) now also provide welcome supplements to the printed facsimile edition.

VIL EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

in the foreword to the photo-mechanical reprint of Dr. Hartmann Schedel’s Liederbuch (ca. 1461-67) applies:

The visible image of the source itself makes ... superfluous, for many questionable passages, long descriptions in the critical commentary for the transcription volumes. For example, divergence in slurs and other performance markings that are not placed with mathematical exactitude in eighteenth-century manuscripts often eludes any description in words. Nonetheless a facsimile does not automatically make a transcription unnecessary. Certainly it is possible for some musicians to read the autograph score unassisted. [There are, however, several reasons that make a critical transcription useful.] First, each musician’s reading [of the musical text] is easier if a transcription is available for comparison. Secondly, musicians can see the changes which the composer undertook only in written copies or publisher’s proofs, i.e. after the completion of the autograph score that lacks such later changes. BACH’s church cantatas with his corrections in the performing parts are well investigated examples. Here a facsimile of the autograph score without a critical edition would not fully agree with the composer’s intentions. A third reason is the absence of original sources for many works. In such cases, with solitary transmission (codex unicus) the copy will be textually incorrect and will require emendation. If such a situation results in a touched-up facsimile, as TEMPERLEY’ proposes for printed solo keyboard, organ, harp, or guitar music from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it is, strictly speaking, no longer a matter of a facsimile. With transmission by a number of secondary sources, however, there will be no single, totally reliable copy, and the correct vatiant readings will probably be found in different copies. This makes a critical edition all the more urgent. The fourth reason [for transcription] lies with the fact that much music was disseminated in parts. Certainly, in light of the above discussion, a facsimile edition of a choir book or instrumental part makes sense, but it always needs to be supplemented with a score.

‘Das Erbe deutscher Musik, vol. 84 (Kassel, 1978), v.

"Nicholas Temperley, “On Editing Facsimiles for Performance,” Notes 41 (1985): 683-88.

139 |

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

B. Diplomatic Edition 1. Ouast-Facsimile

Goal: A facsimile-like reproduction of the correctly interpreted text of the source (with inclusion of the author’s corrections)

Technique: Music engraving or similar process Source: As with the facsimile (see section A above)

Methods: a) Source criticism

b) Notation studies c) Textual criticism with regard to corrected variant readings

Critical Commentary: a) Description and evaluation of sources b) Doubtful variant readings The facsimile-like printing of an entire musical work is rare. It is considered an appropriate means for the reproduction of sketches. Examples include editions of BEETHOVEN ’s sketches. 2. In normal typography

Goal: Faithful reproduction, which has been normalized typographically and in

the disposition of the music engraving, and which presents the correctly read text of the

| source in the form corrected by the composer and with any preferred format, staff-line changes, and page turns

Technique, Source, Method: As in no. 1 above

Critical Commentary: a) and b) as in no. 1 above c) Corrections by the author

The normalization of the typography is restricted to consistent adaptation of the notation forms and vertical alignment of the notes in a score to correspond with today’s engraving standards. One sees this best from editions which were produced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century by the Leipzig music-engraving shops of Breitkopf & Hartel and C. G. Réder (Edition Peters), as well as the Vienna music-engraving house of Waldheim-Eberle (Universal Fdition). Theoretical instruction about this can be found in HADER (1948), DONATO (1977), and WANSKE (1988).° "Karl Hader, Aus der Werkstatt eines Notenstechers (Vienna, 1948); Anthony Donato, Preparing Music Manuscript (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963; reprint ed., Wesport, CT, 1977); Helene Wanske, Musitknotation: Von der Syntax des Notenstichs zum EDV -gesteuerten Notensatz (Mainz, 1988).

140

VI. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

Nonetheless, one must guard against taking over something from these en-gtaving standards that would alter the musical text from what the original source copy shows. Thus, this kind of edition is of practical use only if the original source requires no change in the placement of accidental signs, no shortening

of the note values, no replacement of old clefs, no alteration of the score’s disposition, and similar encroachments. Whether the creation of a score for a work transmitted only in parts is compatible with a diplomatic edition remains undetermined.

| C. Edition of the Corrected Text Goal: In normal typography, like the diplomatic edition, but with emendation of obvious

errors, with far-reaching adaptation to modern notational practices, and always in score

Technique, Source: As in diplomatic editions (see B above)

Method: a), b), c) as in diplomatic editions

d) Emendation [correction based on conjecture; see below]

Critical Commentary: a), b), c) as in diplomatic editions d) Conjectures from the editor [Le. improvements based on educated guesses] e) Alterations of the notation

This is the typical printed edition of a source. Its form is justifiably used for an edition of a work if there is only a single source, or if one source can be proven to be the model for all the other sources (see D below). The form is not justified when, either from ignorance or convenience, other sources remain unexamined by the editor. If the work has been transmitted in parts, the edition appears in score format. Immediately, one can no longer call such a publication a diplomatic edition because often, in its external appearance, it is too far removed from the original source. For example, some of the original, superfluous accidentals have been removed as meaningless, and ones missing according to today’s practice have been added. Also, figured-bass numbers may appear under, instead of above, the bass staff; the disposition of the score’s parts may deviate from that found in the source model; C clefs may be replaced by treble G-clefs and tenor G-clefs; in keyboard music the distribution of the notes for the right and left hands may be altered here and there; and many other things.

141

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

D. Critical Edition |

Goal: | The text as written and intended by the

| author, in score and with normal typography, mostly in today’s notation

Technique: As in a diplomatic edition

Sources: The total transmission

Methods: a) to d) as in a corrected edition in today’s notation (see C above) e) Collation [or precise comparison] of the

| soutces with each other

f) Review of the collation results

Critical Commentary: a) to e) as in a corrected edition in today’s

| notation (see C above)

f) Variants from the author g) Variants resulting from dissemination An edition is “critical” if it uses the critical method to determine the original text from the extant texts, and it includes a critical apparatus. The original subjects for such publications were literary works of antiquity. Hence the study of an unauthorized, relatively late transmission was a necessary part of making such critical editions. With the autograph transmission of more recent authors, one speaks of textual criticism mainly in such cases in which several authentic versions (or editings) are available for comparison. If only one version exists and all other textual testimony derives from a common soutce, such facts must first be proven by the editor of a critical edition. Nevertheless musicologists also apply the term “critical edition” to a printed edition from a solitary source such as the autograph score or the sole copy of a work. The following discussion refers to a “critical edition” for a work disseminated in a number of sources and with variants from that dissemination or from the author— i.e. the situation when the transmitted text is not fixed from the start but must be ascertained, or when different versions ate to be separated out.

A ctitical edition includes: , 1. The transcribed musi in score. “Whether a photocopy of the principal source can be used as the basis for the collation task depends on whether this source is a score and whether it is legible enough. Otherwise its text

, is transcribed into score format, or an existing printed edition is cortected, as practicably as possible, from the principal source. Then the other sources for comparison are considered. The results of the comparison can be kept in the editor’s working score, a card catalogue, or an inventory list. The use of source sig/a (abbreviations) for notations in the working score is recommended; the use of different colors is sensible

142

VI. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

if there are only a few sources. The results of textual criticism are later transferred to the engravet’s copy, for which, at best, a duplicate of the unrevised working score functions. Or the working score itself becomes the engraver’s copy, after it has been photocopied before the erasure of critical annotations (a procedure which is usually not successful with colored entries). The editor should pay the greatest attention to all technical questions of this kind, so as to avoid transcription errors and additional work from renewed collations (caused by uncertainty with the conditions at hand). [Translators comment: In recent decades the computer has eased these tasks significantly by allowing efficient analysis and manipulation of the data gleaned from source comparison and by permitting the scanning, reproduction, and printing of handsome, sophisticated musical scores. The occasionally worrisome drawbacks to computer use, however, include: the input of incorrect data, the sometimes fragile state of digital data, and the often indelible permanence of deleted or altered files (“copies”) of computer-generated scores. Cf. “Comment on the Use of the Computer” below] 2. Diacritical or distinguishing marks in the musical text can directly provide information about certain differences between the edition and the sources. They can also unburden the critical commentary, which can be so complicated to assemble and understand. For literary texts, the classical philologist PAUL MAAS recommended:’

[] Restoration (Erganzung) by the editor when there has been physical damage to the manuscript, or Avthetese (= 1s to be canceled, from the Greek “athétesis” = elimination)

( ) Conjectural addition from the editor ([ |] or

{} Athetese

t Crux [difficult passage] According to the Germanic studies scholar JOACHIM KIRCHNER the marks mean:"

[ | Is to be canceled

( ) Addition from the editor * Assumed gap (/acuna)

Lae Gap resulting from damage

TT Crux |difficult passage] *Paul Maas, Textkrittk, 3™ ed. (Leipzig, 1957), 15.

Joachim Kirchner, Germanistische Handschriftenpraxis, 2° ed. (Munich, 1967), 114.

143 ,

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

A uniform practice with diacritical marks has not evolved among music editions.

Thus, for each edition the meaning of diacritical marks needs explanation. JOHN CALDWELL (1985) offers some commendable recommendations."

An edition has four kinds of divergence from the sources: addition, replacement, changing of position, and removal (eradication). * Additions can almost always be marked. For example, an added slur can be shown with parentheses or brackets, a broken slur line, or a perpendicular stroke through the slur. Also, the lengthening of a slur can often be viewed as an addition instead of a replacement and thus rendered by the type of slur line used. Parentheses can indicate added markings of questionable attestation, while square brackets can signify editorial additions. —To mark the filling out of a score’s staves according to the original instruction co/ Basso (as in an empty viola staff) or co/ Vzokno I (perhaps in the second violin), pointed brackets on the middle staff line are used in the Joseph Haydn-Werke edition; the Pergolesi edition uses an upright wedge placed above the topmost staff line. Such markings are recommended because, for example, some unusual

performance indication in the first violin should not be seen as confirmed by the second violin if the composer did not actually write out the second violin part. Also, the intended octave register for the realization of a viola marked co/ Basso can be debatable. Other markings include stakes (e.g., for instrument designations) and a smaller typeface (e.g., for dynamic marks). Added staccato dots can not be immediately indicated with smaller type. Nonetheless there is a procedure of printing them, like all added markings, so that they appear gray instead of black. For Renaissance and Baroque music, the replacement of old clefs with modetn ones is indicated in such a way that the original clef, together with the following rests and first notes, is placed in small print on the staff before the start

of the piece. A similar practice should also become the rule for later music. For mensural music right-angle brackets (~ and 7) above the staff can indicate notes with coloration, while a horizontal square bracket (1M) above the staff can

show the ligatures. In addition, replacements can be indicated with the same diacritical markings as additions. Nonetheless each instance needs a remark in the critical commentary that tells what has been replaced. Changes of position (e.g., wrongly situated dynamic markings) and removals (e.g., of superfluous triplet indications) qualify at least for mention. They are to be reported in the critical commentary. ‘Yohn Caldwell, Editing Early Music (Oxford, 1985).

“Cf. Hermann Kantorowicz, “Einfiihrung in die Textkritik” (1921) in: Rechtshistorische Schriften (Karlsruhe, 1970), 17.

| 144

VI. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

| If particularly significant, the original changes of staff lines and pages can be shown at the corresponding places of the printed transcription. That would be clearer than a laborious description in the critical commentary. 3. IMustrations. In many critical editions photographic illustrations of selected individual pages from an authoritative source, preferably the autograph manuscript, are presented as a substitute for a complete facsimile. From such illustrations the reader can, for example, convince himself that the original manuscript is indeed an autograph, compare the original notation with its reproduction in print, and check, through a test sample, the exactitude of the edition and its critical commentary. In passages with many corrections, illegible notation, a manner of notation that is difficult to describe, etc., photographic reproductions are

| similarly recommended. Because modern offset printing now includes all kinds of reproduction technology (music engraving, photo composition, photography) and thus permits illustrations without technical difficulties, editors should make appropriate use of this possibility. 4. Foreword. Here the editor mainly reports the findings of “higher” criticism and the work’s history (see ch. IV, section C) as well as cites the composet’s own comments about his work. With well-known works a music-historical and aesthetic appraisal will be just as superfluous as a biographical sketch for a well-known composer. For unknown works and composers, however, both will facilitate access (“accessus ad auctorem’.

5. Edition guidelines. When the edition deviates from the transmitted notation either entirely or in particulars, the editor should present separately

the guidelines used. In a complete-works edition this will consist of excerpts from the edition’s general guidelines." 6. Lhe critical commentary (\kritischer Bericht; Revisionsbericht) is part of the edition’s unified whole, together with the score’s diacritical marks and edition guidelines. It consists of three principal parts: a) Source description. The work’s manuscripts and prints are

enumerated in a most objective fashion. These sources are assigned sigla and described (see ch. IV, sections A/1 and A/2). “Telling” segla (e.g., the initial letters of source’s location) are more easily remembered and seldom lead to mixups, as alphabetically or numerically ascending

| sigda seem to do. The source description is no bibliographical end in itself. It does not need to describe all manuscripts and prints according to the same scheme (e.g., not providing the folio dimensions in centimeters for every source) but can be organized according to the main ®C£ Georg von Dadelsen, ed. Editionsrichtinien musikalischer Denkmdler und Gesamtausgaben (Kassel, 1967).

145

, MUSIC PHILOLOGY task at hand. ‘Thus the description will not be more extensive than the aim of textual criticism requires. One will reserve a relatively large amount of space for an autograph score yet, on occasion, set aside no

more than a line for a local copy when the autograph exists. On the | other hand, a totally unauthorized transmission [1.e. one with no original or authentic sources] can make an exact description required even for peripheral sources. In addition, the editor ought to say whether he wotked from photocopies (microfilms, microfiches, Xerox copies, etc.) or saw the actual sources.”

b) Source evaluation. No matter whether the editor based the edited text upon all, several, or just one source, the reader wants to learn the reasons that led to this decision (see ch. IV, section A/3). Here, for example, is the place for the stemma, if there is one, and for indication of the variant readings that support the source relationships (see ch. IV, section B/3). c) The critical apparatus or commentary explains as concisely as possible (i.e. in clear order, plain language, brief but pertinent formulation, without redundancies) the passages where the edited text deviates from which sources and how, as well as the places where there is doubt about the reading. Accidental and reiterative variant readings

(see ch. IV, section B/2) may be summarily treated. Substantive and non-reiterative variants require individual enumeration, but only for the authoritative sources of so far as it is urgent for the proof of the filiation (see ch. IV, section B/3). Ina “positive” critical apparatus, first comes the “emma” (keyword), i.e. the situation as found in the edited text. After the “lemma-bracket”’ | or a colon, or in their own column, the variants follow. A “negative” apparatus foregoes the kwma; just the variants ate presented because the intended situation is clear." According

to another definition, the “positive’’ apparatus is one which presents not just the deviating sources but also those which correspond to the lemma, while the “negative” apparatus also places the 4wma in front but

does not identify the sources for it. The advantage of the “negative” apparatus is its greater brevity; the “positive” apparatus, however, has easier intelligibility.

Several handicaps burden the critical apparatus of a musical work. Unlike a language text, music does not consist of just letters, accent marks, and punctuation, but of many kinds of signs. These include: notes (with heads, stems, flags, “Walter Emery, Editions and Musiaans (London, 1957), 22. Cf. Martin L. West, Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique Apphcable to Greek and Latin Texts (Stuttgart, 1973), 87; Herbert Kraft, Dze Geschichthchkect hterarischer Texte: Eine Theorte der Edition | (Bebenhausen, 1973), 67. |

146

VI EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE beams, ligatures), accidentals, time signature, bar lines, tempo marking, articulation markings like the slur and staccato marks (dot, stroke, wedge), ties (which can appear simultaneously with slurs), dynamic marks, expression indications, technical playing directions (which can consist of letters, numbers, and accent

sions), and many other signs. The signs’ reproduction in the framework of a verbal text is technically luxurious, their paraphrase into words laborious. Furthermore, the creation of a critical apparatus is in the tradition of philology. Some of the intended readers, however, are not comfortable with this tradition. Only when the critical apparatus is assembled as much as possible in a language which musicians immediately understand, namely musical notes, does the apparatus achieve its goal. Finally, a language text is distributed in verses ot lines, and a word mostly occurs only one time per line. Thus the philologist needs to give only the line number and mostly just one word as the fewma. A musical text is written in a score, thus presenting several lines one above the other (in staff systems) and allowing the possibility of the same note occurting several times in each line. Thus, to assure precision in the apparatus, the measure number, at the least, is necessary in the apparatus, and usually the beat number or the order number of the note within the measure is also supplied. Double stops and chords make the identification even more difficult. With the ptinting of the inventory of variant readings in the appendix or in a separate book it is also necessary to indicate the particular piece or movement. ‘The indication by page number in the edition is usually not possible because the editor writes the critical apparatus before the page breaks are finalized. As a result of all this, the inventories of variants are too complicated and, in their now preferred published form in the appendix or a separate book, only of practical use when the reader, starting from the musical text, seeks a clarification in the inventory of variants. If the reader starts from the critical commentary and seeks the corresponding spot in the score, this can be very laborious—particularly when running titles with the work and movement numbers are lacking on each page

of the score. Moreover, the separate book for the apparatus has the disadvantage—as experience has sufficiently demonstrated—that often the book is not nearby, cannot be found, was not purchased, or has not yet been published. The most practical, brief, secure, and understandable approach is to put the note variants in the score itself and to use musical notation in the footnotes. In this respect HANS BISCHOFF’s often lauded edition of BACH’s keyboard works (1880-1888) was path-setting but unfortunately found hardly a successor, even though the technical difficulties were completely surmountable.

147

MUSIC PHILOLOGY 7. Performance-practice directions. Claes in a work’s sources which could assist

performance deserve to be communicated, along with hints from other sources if they are applicable to the work at hand. 8. [he hbretto of larger vocal works should be printed, not just as a song text set beneath the vocal melody, but also as a separate libretto with its poetic verses and stanzas, so as to offer the possibility for comparison of the textual and musical structure. Comment on the Use of the Computer:

The use of an electronic calculator for textual comparison has been tested with language texts.'° One has only limited experience of this kind with musical texts. Music of the Renaissance, which consists of notes and pauses of only a few values, presents itself more predisposed to analysis with computer applications than does music of the eighteenth to twentieth century with its far more numerous performance markings, etc. Naturally the results of automatic collation depends upon the correct input of data. Somewhat different is the production of musical scores with the computer instead of with the traditional musical engraving, which is hard to surpass with respect to beauty and reliability, but which has gone out of use in recent years. The preparation of the fair copy for the printer has not yet been influenced by this new kind of score production, which allows the automatic extraction of parts from the score. Nevertheless the proof copies require special controls, since intervening changes of the computer program can lead to unforeseeable mistakes. In general, the editor should become familiar with the specific, potential sources for mistakes among the various means for producing a printed edition.

Commonly used now and highly recommended for the preparation of the final manuscript of the foreword and critical commentary is a computer-driven word processor instead of a manual or electric typewriter. The word processor allows alterations, changes of position, additions, and subtractions in such a way that the remainder of the text is unaffected, and new lines and page changes occur automatically. With today’s processors it is possible to search automatically

for a particular sign and for combinations of signs (e.g., when one wishes to change a source s7g/um throughout). The same holds for the automatic sorting of sections of text or the automatic numbering of footnotes. The edited text can be printed out at any time. When there is compatibility between systems, there even exists the possibility of the technical connection with a printing ma- : chine. In this way the proofreading becomes greatly simplified. “Cf, Wilhelm Ott, Hans Walter Gabler and Paul Sappler, EDV -Fibe/ fir Editoren (Stuttgart, 1982). 148

VIL. EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

E. The Historical and Critical Edition In the field of music, the terms “critical?’ “historical,” and “historical and critical” (historisch-kritisch) as applied to an edition are not clearly separated. According to the example of PIERRE BAYLE’s Dictionnaire Historique et Critique

(foreword 1696), “historical and critical” originally meant as much as reporting and reviewing (cf. the journal ttle Hestorisch-kritische Theaterchronik von Wien,

1774). In the realm of editions the designation “historical” is both younger than the term “critical” and rather ambiguous.'’ According to The New Grove, in the field of music a “historical edition” is one dedicated to the repertoire of the past; and among these historical editions, the “scholarly” or “critical’’ editions are regarded as most valuable for the study of original versions.'* The designation “historical and critical” (historisch-kritisch) apparently first occurs for a complete-works edition in the literary field, in particular with KARL GOEDEKE, who so named his Schiller edition.” In the realm of music editions this expression usually means “critical-scholarly,’”’ for there are unhistorical as well as unscholarly forms of musical textual criticism, above all in the editions of classical works that were revised according to opinion and came into being without study of the sources.”! The expression “historical and critical,’ however, can signify more. Its main root appears to be the historical commentary for literary editions that offers elucidating annotations about the historical background of individual passages of text, possibly in the form of an “apparatus” which gives evidence about the sources that the author has used, especially for his quotations, or evidence for a Biblical passage, or related material that is necessary for understanding a historical document. For a purely critical edition a commentary is not necessary; it makes do with the critical apparatus which inventories the variants. On this matter, how-

“Dietrich Germann, “Apparatprobleme: Zu den Arten der Chronologie und den Begriffen historisch-genetisch und historisch-kritisch in neugermanistischen Editionen,’ Orbis Litterarum 20 (1965): 281. '®Sydney Robinson Charles, “Editions, historical” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,

ed. S. Sadie (London, 1980), 5: 849.

“Friedrich Schiller, Schéllers samtliche Schriften: Historisch-kritische Ausgabe, ed. Karl Goedeke (Stuttgart, 1867-76). Cf. Germann (1965), 281. “Cf. Wolfgang Rehm, “Notenschrift und Auffihrung: Die Rolle der Musikverlage” in: Notenschrift und Auffibrung, ed. Theodor Godllner, Munchener Verdffentlichungen zur Musikgeschichte, vol. 30 (Tutzing, 1980), 116. “‘Annette Oppermann, Musikalische Klassiker-Ausgaben des 19. Jahrhunderts: Eine Studie zur deutschen Editionsgeschichte am Betspiel von Bachs ‘“Wohltemperiertem Clavier” und Beethovens Klaviersonaten.

Abhandlungen zur Musikgeschichte 10 (Gottingen, 2001). 149

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

ever, opinions are divided. For editions of German literature DIETRICH GERMANN asks for a section “Sources and Materials” and explains it thus:

Here the author’s sources are identified and his collections of material as well as preliminary work cited and, when possible, published. Added to this is the inventory of the literature which has a definite pertinence to the edited work.”

In the area of Reformation history GERHARD MULLER asks “that not only philologically critical, but actually historical and critical editions must be submitted,’*? namely with relevant commentaries. With music editions, there are not as many occasions for this kind of discussion as in literature, except for specific comments: about the texts in vocal works, about works which use a preexistent melody (cantus prius factus, e.g,, Masses based on a Gregorian chant or arrangements of Lutheran chorales), or about unusual generic designations (e.g, “In Nomine” of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English instrumental music), instrument names (e.g,, the “Taz/e”’ in BACH), performance indications (e.2., “tutte le corde” in BEETHOVEN’s piano music), etc., as well as the general explanation of the work’s history (see ch. IV, section C).

In addition, the expression “historical and critical’ has come to refer to the history of a text ascertained through source criticism of its various manuscript and printed versions and their variants. The versions are published in parallel print [on opposite pages] or as separate texts, with the smaller variants in a chronologically ordered inventory which accompanies the final or earlier vetsion.” This kind of procedure mainly occurs in editions of German literature because they are based upon a rich authentic dissemination. According to BERNHARD SEUFFERT, a “historical edition of modern works” must include, “in addition to the ascertainment of the correct text, the description of the further development and revision of the text” by the author.” The communication of the composet’s various versions and variants is also one of the essential tasks for historical and critical editions of the great composers’ works. Certainly a separate edition of the sketches is preferable when, as with BEETHOVEN, there is

“Germann (1965), 279. Cited in Ludwig Hédl and Dieter Wuttke, ed. Probleme der Edition mittel- und neu-lateinischer Texte (Boppard, 1978), 87.

“Cf. Siegfried Scheibe, “Zu einigen Grundprinzipien einer historisch-kritischen Ausgabe’’ in: Texte und Vartanten: Probleme threr Edition und Interpretation, ed. Ginter Martens and Hans Zeller (Munich, 1971), 9f.

“Bernhard Seuffert, “Prolegomena zu einer Wieland-Ausgabe, II)’ Abbandlungen der Kéniglich Preufsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1905): 60.

150

VIL EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

a large number of sketches, mainly in sketchbooks where the drafts for several works ate intermingled.” The designation “historical and critical” is used chiefly for the collected-works edition (Gesamtausgabe) because this type values historical completeness—thus

including the practically forgotten ancillary works of an author—and reflects the authotr’s historical development as it is represented in his successive works.” This thinking became common during the period when historicism (Héstorismus) emerged. CHRISTOPH MARTIN WIELAND (1713-1833) expressed it in his

correspondence of 3 May 1811 with GOSCHEN, the publisher of his final edition:

Most readers would prefer to read his writings, “without regard for whether they are in verse or prose, in the order in which they were written. Even more so since, 7m just this way, they [the writings]... provide ... the discerning and observant reader a kind of /estory or, rather, the documents for a history of my intellectual life.’ In music history similar thinking is encountered with JOSEPH HAYDN, who,

at the publication of his string quartets through his pupil IGNAZ PLEYEL (1801 ff.), extolled that one could “observe from the clever [namely chronological] ordering his gradual progress in the art.’” The mixing of works of differ-

ent genres and their strictly chronological ordering is not customary in music editions—more for practical than scholarly reasons. With collected editions of music the works are mostly ordered systematically according to genres—whereby once again historical points of view can come into play—and within each genre the works are arranged chronologically. A second question is whether the chronological order should correspond to (a) the date of composition—as BERNHARD SEUFFERT urges for literary works*’—or (b) the date of publication—as HERBERT KRAFT asks.”’ Issuing Schubert’s songs, the old Schubert Gesamtausgabe (ed. EUSEBIUS MANDYCZEWSKI]) decided for the first solution, the new edition (ed. WALTHER

DURR) for the second. The latter has the advantage that it preserves the *°Hans Schmidt, “Verzeichnis der Skizzen Beethovens,” Beethoven-Jahrbuch 1965-68 (Bonn, 1969): 7-128. 71Cf. Germann (1965), 281. *6Cf. Bernhard Seuffert “Prolegomena zu einer Wieland-Ausgabe, I,” Abhandlungen der Konighch Preufsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin, 1904): 8.

“Cf. Ginter Thomas, “Griesingets Briefe tiber Haydn: Aus seiner Korrespondenz mit Breitkopf & Hartel,’ Haydn-Studien 1, no. 2 (1966): 79.

*Seuffert (1904), I: 8. ICE. Kraft (1973), 42. 151

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

ordering of prints made by the composer himself and situates the posthumous works afterwards. Indeed, such posthumous works had possibly not been left in finished form by the composer—as often happened with MENDELSSOHN. In any case, they had no historical effect until an editor published them. All things considered, a critical edition truly earns the designation “historical and critical” when the following several circumstances exist: The historical, as well as the critical, impetus is apparent in a convincing, multi-faceted fashion, and the edition retains fully the historical form of the musical text as it originally appeared (with old clefs, original orthography of the vocal text, etc.). Also, the edition historically arrays the authentic versions and variants of each work, it historically values the later, non-authentic dissemination with regard to the development of traditional [i.e. commonly disseminated] variant readings, it explains the historical causes and circumstances behind the work’s origin, it recounts its reception history, and it comments historically, where possible, about individual passages in the work. Another historical aspect of a critical Gesamtausgabe is the fact that it includes works which—as far as they have

been transmitted to us—present a full historical picture and succeed each other in historical order, at least within each genre. Whether the works so collected and organized lead to a homogeneous image of personality, show a logical development, or reflect some other regularity is a question of interpretation and evaluation. The necessity of a Gesamtausgabe for composers of historical rank is not affected by the answer to this question. In general, the Gesamtausgabe is supposed to make possible the examination of such questions and many others.

F. The “Scholarly and Practical” Edition Music practitioners vary greatly. There is the pupil who needs the add| ed fingering in MOZART"s keyboard sonatas (which the piano teacher may change) as well as the able harpsichordist who works out his own fingering for the Goldberg Variations. There is the inexperienced accompanist who needs a fully realized figured-bass part for a Telemann recorder sonata as well as the early-music specialist who would like to play the figured-bass part for a HANDEL opera directly from the score. There is the adjunct organist who expects a completely annotated score for a performance of HAYDN’s K/eine Orgelmesse (“Little Organ Mass”’) as well as the historically versed conductor of a madrigal choir who prepares his own score of MONTEVERDI’s Marian

Vespers trom the soutces. , Nonetheless, publishers—with many musicologists joining them—talk about the musical performer. They propagate she “scholarly and practical’ edition, i.e. a scholarly edition in modern notation, however, and with an obviously recogniz-

152

VIL EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

able interpretation. To meet their presumed practical needs, publishers would not like to produce just a version based on the critical edition; they expect that such a version exists already in the critical edition, even if performance materials [Le. parts] were not published from it later. In every instance and for commercial reasons, they want to avoid “double editions’** but can possibly reprint without change “sequel editions” (Folgeausgaben) [or “‘spin-offs’’] from the critical edition.

Thus the edition must be directly useful for performance, as a volume

of piano music, a book of Lieder, a choral score, or a conductor’s score. With ensemble music and largely scored works, the score must provide the basis for the creation of a complete set of parts.” Should the critical editor allow the vocal text to appear as though it were written

by one of today’s poets and the musical score by a contemporary composer? With this approach does he not run the risk of standardizing, normalizing, and modernizing too much, thereby fixing things in a one-sided manner or even in an erroneous interpretation? Even CALDWELL (1985) recommends a comprehensive transcription without asking whether something essential is not also

being changed in the written appearance of the older music. , Like many others, Caldwell also recommends a performance-practice intetpretation in the musical text. Such an interpretation is philologically justified when it comes from sources clearly related to the work in question. For the most part, it is only “historically” justified by being based upon the general practice of that earlier time.* However, there is always the danger of unfounded generalizations. Which kind of standardization, for example, is correct when MOZART writes an appoggiatura for the same figure sometimes as a sixteenth note and sometimes as an eighth note bisected by an oblique line? ALFRED EINSTEIN used these words to reprimand the editors of the old Mozart Gesamtausgabe tor their standardization:

It would have been better to stick exactly to the autograph and leave the interpretation to the practical editions.”

MANFRED BUKOFZER warns musicologists against imparting historically unprovable advice. ARTHUR MENDEL, who originally was of the opinion *Rehm (1980), 111. Tbid., 108. “On Dahlhaus’s distinction between philological and historical justification, see “Editionstechnik” in the Sachtei] of Riemann-Musiklexikon, 12" ed. (Mainz, 1967), 251.

*Vorwort” to the Kéchel-Verzeichnis, 3" ed. (Leipzig, 1937), xliit. **Manfred Bukofzer, The Place of Musicology in American Institutions of Higher Learning (New York, 1957), 27.

153

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

that the actual task of the musicologist began with the performance-practice adaptation,” later agreed with Bukofzer and then warned similarly: Editors of critical editions should not give the appearance of knowing more than they do know.”

Thus, the question is to what degree, without damaging the scholarship, the critical editor can express in the score his personal understanding that he would have as a performing musician. The historical point of view, for which this role exchange appears problematic, may, with time, gain ground.

G. “Urtext” Edition Editions of keyboard music, classical domestic and chamber music, and, in general, all music which the editor draws from the sources and leaves unedited—tthese editions are readily sold commercially by publishers as “Urtext editions” (Urtextausgaben) ot simply as “Urtexts” [lit. “original texts”], which are distinct from edited reprints of some earlier edition.” The model for this kind of edition was the series published 1895-1899 by CARL KREBS, ERNST NAUMANN, ENGELBERT RONTGEN, and ERNST RUDORFF with Breitkopf & Hartel in Leipzig under the following title: Urtext classischer Musikwerke, herausgegeben auf Veranlassung und unter Verantwortung der Konighchen Akademie der Kiinste zu Berlin.

(Urtext of works of classical music, published at the order of and under the responsibility of the Royal Academy of Arts in Berlin.)

These wete piano works and violin sonatas. Editions following this Urtext model include those published with the name “Urtext” by LUDWIG LANDSHOFF in Edition Peters, consistently by G. HENLE (the publishing firm founded in 1948 just for this type of edition), and since then by other publishing firms. They are editions of the corrected text (see section C above) or more ot less critical editions (see D above) with a much reduced critical commentary and especially with performance help like fingerings, bowings, and figured-bass *” Arthur Mendel, “The Services of Musicology to the Practical Musician” in: Arthur Mendel, Curt Sachs, and C.C. Pratt, Some Aspects of Musicology (New York, 1957), 11, 14.

Arthur Mendel, “The Purposes and Desirable Characteristics of Text-Critical Editions” in: Modern Musical Scholarship, ed. Edward Olleson (Stocksfield, 1980), 17.

Cf. Georg Feder, in collaboration with Hubert Unverricht, “Urtext und Urtextausgaben,” Die

Mustkforschung 12 (1959): 432-54. ,

, 154

VIL EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE

realization. Nonetheless, even the Neve Bach-Ausgabe, a historical and critical Gesamtausabe, calls itself an Urtextausgabe in its foreword.

Often this designation “Urtext” describes more a goal than a reality. The ideal of an Urtext edition is namely the diplomatic edition from an error-free authentic source whose notation is still easily legible today (see B above). If the transmission rests upon the autograph score, an authorized edition (Originalausgabe), a copy corrected by the author, etc., the designation “Urtext” still holds when there are the editorial changes just mentioned and they are so marked. The term’s use becomes questionable, however, for a work transmitted in sources that are of questionable proximity to the lost original.’ For that reason, the addition of more precise designations like “after the autograph manuscript’ (nach der Originalhandschrift), “after the first edition” (nach dem Erstdruck), or “critical edition after the earliest copies” (kritische Ausgabe nach den altesten Abschriften) is recommended.

H. The Demand for an Edition

| Based on the History of Transmission Oo | At first, several scholars of German literature and medievalists and ultimately musicologists,*' too, questioned the endeavor to reconstruct the original text. In place of the reconstruction of the Urtext they demanded the documentation of a traditional text and its history, in other words the temporal ordering of the versions of reception and their variants. As KURT RUH expressed such an edition from the literary perspective:

It is “historical” because it presents a text that is disseminated and read in the extant version, and that is introduced, along with its entire reception history, by means of the critical apparatus with variant readings and the history of its tradition. It is “critical” because, at the same time, it clarifies the relationship to the author’s text, insofar as it can be grasped.”

According to this opinion, the Urtex¢, if it is also handed down to us or able to be reconstructed, has no preeminence but is viewed as the first stage in a his“Rehm (1980), 105.

“Carl Dahlhaus, “Philologie und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Bemerkungen zur Theorie der Edition” in: Festschrift Georg von Dadelsen zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Th. Kohlhase and V. Scherliess (Neuhausen/

Stuttgart, 1978); Ludwig Finscher, “Gesamtausgabe — Urtext — Musikalische Praxis” in: Musik — Edition — Interpretation, ed. Martin Bente (Munich, 1980). “Kurt Ruh, “Votum fiir eine tberlieferungskritische Editionspraxis” in: Hdd] and Wuttke (1978), 40.

155

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

torical process. The authority of the author is replaced by the belief in a superindividual being of the work of art unfolding itself within its reception history. The occasions for this “paradigm shift” are, in themselves, obvious: It is illusory [for literary scholars] to reconstruct a Middle High German Urtext if the received text offers an insufficient basis for such. The Middle High German of such a reconstruction would be a construct that never existed. One should also realize that, with a historical document of great influence, mot the autograph that remains in an archive or is possibly lost, but the texts that were successfully circulated, i.e. those which produced the historical influence—shese texts must stand at the forefront of the textual critic’s efforts. It is a false conclusion, however, to maintain all of this about a composition by BACH or BEETHOVEN. The essence of their music becomes known not from the variants and arrangements of dissemination, since we possess the original text or can ascertain it. The original text of musical compositions of such rank has an absolute worth that nothing can limit. Certainly arrangements can be useful as a kind of commentary on a composition, but they always remain second-rank by comparison with the original text. The reception-aesthetic attitude is related to that of the ethnomusicologist who would define a work of BACH as the sum of all its performances, no matter how different from one another or even from Bach’s original manuscript these performances might be.” This view is not identical with the philological conception of a work, which, to be sure, presumes the “oral’’ tradition (see ch. I, section B/1). This philological approach does not recognize every performance as a valid realization of the work but is always critically and interpretatively oriented toward the prescribed text (see ch. I, section C/1). In addition, ethnomusicologists investigate an individual piece not on its own merits but only as a representative of a large repertoire.“ This, too, the musical philologist views differently, in a more traditional and justifiable fashion. He is interested in BACH’s Brandenburg Concertos, MOZART’s Mage Flute, VERDI’s Requiem, and all other masterworks of Western music vot as examples of their respective genres; for that purpose the concertos, operas, and church works of dozens of lesser composers would be more suited. What interests the musical philologist in the masterworks are precisely the traits that exceed those of the genre and that first of all make them veritable artworks. Here we find the more profound validation for the aesthetic of BENEDETTO CROCE (1902),” who wanted to *Bruno Nettl, “On Method in the Study of Indigenous Musics,” Musica Indigena (1975): 18. “Tbid., 17. “Benedetto Croce, The Aesthetic as the Science of Expression and of the Linguistic in General, trans. C. Lyas (Cambridge and New York, 1992).

156

VI EDITORIAL TECHNIQUE know nothing about genres, rhetorical figures, and all such pre-existent schemes

in art. Croce, however, seemed to undervalue the dialectical tension on the strength of which the great artists rise above tradition without being able to dispense with tradition as their basis. The historical energies that are presumed behind the transmission of musical

works consist of nothing more than (a) the power of judgement determined by a period’s changing tastes and by conventional views and limited interpretations, as well as (b) the individual, varying musical intelligence of the copyists, printers, and arrangers. Each comparison of a received variant with the original version makes clear the superiority of the latter. A well-known example is F. A. GEVAERT?’s still played 1890 arrangement of HAYDN’s Cello Concerto in D major with enlarged orchestra (Hob. VIIb: 2, 1783): A reception-aesthetician had to prove that it was better than the original. Certainly there are individual cases of valuable, creative arrangements (e.g, ANTON WEBERN’s orchestration of the six-voice Ricercar from BACH’s Musical Offering). But even in cases

where a foreign arrangement exceptionally contests the rank of the original (e.g, HANDEL’s arrangements of works by lesser known contemporaries), the creative achievement of the original composer does not cease having a claim on its own appreciation. Original works that are too fragmentary in notation to secure a sufficient impression (e.g, MONTEVERDI’s operas) always need arranging for performance, but they do not allow a fair comparison. The usual dissemination of a work is a process of deterioration which began with its publication. For example, we see this with SCHUBERT’s G-flat major Impromptu, op. 90, no. 3, which was notated in double time (with the semibreve as the beat) and which the Viennese publisher TOBIAS HASLING-

ER rearranged in simple time and in the easiet-to-play key of G major. In BEETHOVEN’s G-major Piano Sonata, op. 31/1, the publisher of the original edition, HANS GEORG NAGELL, added four measures to the coda of the first movement in order to round out an apparently incomplete period. Beethoven’s student FERDINAND RIES reported the reaction of the master:

One can scarcely imagine his amazement and rage when he saw it printed in that fashion.”®

In this case, because of the limited understanding and arbitrariness of the first publisher, the composer himself could arrange with another publisher for a correct edition to appear. In the eighteenth century a composer was seldom in such **Alexander Wheelock Thayer, L. van Beethovens Leben, trans. and ed. H. Deiters, newly trans. and ed. H. Riemann, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1901-1911), I, 356; cf. Thayer's Life of Beethoven, rev. and ed. Elliot Forbes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), 319.

157 ,

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

a position. Perhaps HAYDN did not even notice that the reprint publisher J. J. HUMMEL of Berlin had removed a measure from the Trio of the B-flat major String Quartet of op. 33, in order to make a regular eight-measure period out of an apparently irregular nine-measure period. Owing to PLEYEL’s stringquartet Gesamtausgabe which, for op. 33, relied upon SIEBER’s edition which in turn came from Hummel’s edition, this error of a missing measure became traditional. Only in 1973, with the preparation of the first critical edition, was the mistake discovered.“ Before the introduction of copyright-protection laws there was truly no way to prevent posthumous distortion like that of Schubert’s G-flat major Impromptu. Even today it can happen after the copyright-protection period has lapsed. [Translator’s comment: Also, the potential for corrupt “edited” versions of musical scores disseminated via the Internet today seems quite high; it is a new facet of source transmission for future philologists to consider and evaluate.] In any case, the sole guarantor of the correct text remains the textual accuracy of the philologist. For the most part, no particular intention lies behind such textual distortions. Nevertheless unintentional errors can lead to obvious and, just for that reason, false, trivial conjectures. Again and again, whoever operates in a textually critical fashion learns that the transmission “polishes” the original text, enriches it with superfluous elements, or eliminates original traits. In short, the transmission banalizes (see ch. IV, section B/4 and ch. VI, Digression 4). In a best-case scenario it preserves the substantially correct text, normalizes its orthography, and alters or supplements the performance indications in order to fix the understanding of the text in a specific way. If great interpreters are at work, the comparison of their interpretations with the original text and among each other is interesting, Still, other interpretations based on the original text are always possible. This text nonetheless remains the sole guiding principle. If the autograph manuscript no longer exists and the traditional text derives from a fairly defective print—e.g., as in most of Haydn’s keyboard trios—the conjectural criticism of earlier generations of musicians deserves more consideration. The editor will then do well to compare the outcome from his textual criticism of this print with the recognized text (extus receptus) of a readily available edition (Edition Peters for the Haydn example) and at least to register the new edition’s substantive conjectures insofar as he does not adopt them. For known works this procedure is recommended even when the autograph still exists, because a soutce-based proof for the origin of a traditional, yet erroneous variant reading is the best way to convince the reader of the re-established original variant’s validity. “Cf. Joseph Haydn-Werke, Reihe XII, Nr. 3.

158

VIII. Remarks on the History of Textual Criticism in Music Musical textual criticism began in the nineteenth century. It was a matter of interest for several scholarly musicians. Among them were SCHUMANN, MENDELSSOHN, and BRAHMS. Schumann gave textual criticism in music an impetus’ when in 1841 he wrote the article “On Several Presumably Corrupt Passages in the Works of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.” To be sure, he made only conjectures, without study of the sources, but he requested that the owners of the autograph manuscripts examine the passages that he discusses. Indeed, even the composer can make an error:

Nevertheless the autograph manuscript remains the authority which must first be consulted.? Later source study proved Schumann right, e.g., about an important conjecture in the slow movement of MOZART’s great G-minotr Symphony.’ Schumann also wanted a “Krk” of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier “with a statement of the variant readings.” MENDELSSOHN studied sources and in 1846 corrected his copy of Bach’s B-minor Mass from Bach’s autograph parts then housed in the private collection of the King of Saxony.° In the same year he had a Beethoven letter of 21 October 1810 published in which the composer demanded that two measures which had been printed due to a copyist’s oversight be removed from the scherzo of _ his Fifth Symphony.’ As the publisher of Handel, Mendelssohn expressed his position of being faithful to the text in a letter to IGNAZ MOSCHELES of 7 March 1845: 'CE. Philipp Spitta, “Schumann” in Grove’ Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. J.A. Fuller Maitland,

(London, 1908), [V: 369. *Uber einige muthmaBlich corrumpirte Stellen in Bach’schen, Mozart’schen und Beethoven’schen Werken,” reprinted in Robert Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften tiber Musik und Musiker, 2 vols., 3° ed. (Leipzig, 1875), Il: 2286f. Tbid., II: 228. "Cf. H. C. Robbins Landon, “Vorwort” to the Newe Mozart Ausgabe 1V/11/9 (Kassel: Barenreiter,

1957), x.

“Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften (1875), I: 229. : °Cf. Mendelssohn’s letter of 6 December 1846 to Karl Klingemann; Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy,

Briefe, ed. Rudolf Elvers (Frankfurt am Main, 1984). , ‘Cf. Otto Jahn, “Beethoven und die Ausgaben seiner Werke,” Die Grenzboten Jg. 23, I. Semester, vol. 1 Leipzig, 1864): 347.

159

MUSICAL PHILOLOGY

Just as I like to yield to unessential points, e.g., what concerns accidentals (though in that matter I also prefer the old manner because of the long measures), so I find it impossible to write performance indications, tempos, or whatever into a Handel score if it remains

unclear whether they stem from me or from Handel... Above everything, I must know exactly, and without the slightest doubt, what is Handel and what is not.®

MENDELSSOHN tepresented an even more strict position in a letter of 9 June 1845 to Breitkopf & Hartel with reference to J.S. BACH’s forty-four short chorale preludes which, in Mendelssohn’s view, a Leipzig organist had corrected

too liberally: | :

In such cases I would not like to defend any opinion at all, but rather just have the manuscript printed.’

One could certainly add a remark in the foreword “so that no one considers it a printing error.” Mendelssohn also concerned himself with the authorship of the St. Luke’s Passion attributed to Bach and decided against the work’s authenticity after inspection of the unsigned autograph, which he recognized as an autograph copy [of another composet’s work]’’ and a fact which later research basically corroborated.

BRAHMS edited works of HANDEL, COUPERIN, CHOPIN, and SCHUBERT and played a significant role in the proofing of the Schumann Gesamtausgabe."' In his estate there were editions of Haydn’s works (today in the collections of Vienna’s Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde) in which Brahms had made corrections that “in part demonstrate even philological comparison with autograph sources.”'* Based on HAYDN’s original manuscript, Brahms’ revision of the Opus 20 string quartets is found in his copy of the printed score

published by HECKEL of Mannheim. On that copy Brahms corrected not only the wrong notes but also, to a large extent, the performance indications that were not original.'’ Regarding the so-called “instructive” editions, he wrote to the publisher E. W. FRITZSCH in October 1875:

“Felix Moscheles, ed., Briefe von Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy an Ignaz und Charlotte Moscheles (Leipzig,

1888), 240f. *Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Briefe an deutsche Verleger, ed. Rudolf Elvers (Berlin, 1968), no. 174.

Letter of 18 May 1839 to his father, in: Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Briefe (1984), 109.

‘Among others, cf. Siegmund Helms, “Johannes Brahms und Johann Sebastian Bach,’ BachJahrbuch (1971): 20. “Otto Biba in: Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift 37 (1982): 175.

Cf. Joseph Haydn-Werke X11/3, Kritischer Bericht, 19.

160

VIL REMARKS ON THE HISTORY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN MUSIC

Besides additions of all kinds, be they from whomever they might be — I longed for the author, for him only, without any foreign interpretation, as ingenious as that might want to be."*

Thus BRAHMS took a position similar to MENDELSSOHN’. _ This is also shown by his remark in a letter of 1 November 1877 to ERNST RUDORFF: I wanted very much that [Woldemar] Bargiel would agree with us,

that we not try to improve Chopin’s orthography! From that it would only be a small step to encroaching upon his composition."

Brahms perhaps surpassed Mendelssohn in critical consciousness by expressly demanding also a critical commentary,'° although he did not yet manifest all the principles of today’s Gesamtausgaben."' Among the first musical philologists, in the narrower sense, were FRIEDRICH GRIEPENKERL, WILHELM RUST, FRIEDRICH CHRYSANDER, LUDWIG von KOCHEL, OTTO JAHN, ALEXANDER W. THAYER, PHILIPP SPITTA, and GUSTAV NOTTEBOHM. Starting in 1844 Griepenkerl published the first “Kritisch-korrecte Ausgabe von J.S. Bachs Kompositionen fur die Orgel’? which ever since has been respected and is still in use. Rust was the leader of the editing team of the old Bach-Gesamtausgabe, with which he collaborated from 1855 to 1881. Chrysander founded Handel scholarship. His Gesamtausgabe of HANDEL’s works (1858-1894), which he almost

single-handedly edited, is still not [fully] superseded. K6échel compiled the cata- | logue of MOZART’s compositions (1862) that is well known under his name,

although it has been revised several times. Because of the philologist Otto Jahn’s textually critical studies of Beethoven, the Bach biographer Philipp Spitta

~ assigned methodological importance to Jahn, whose famous Mozart biography had appeared in 1856-59 (revised 1867), in this way:

In the transfer to music (in manuscript or print) of the reconstructing, verifying, and explicating methods that were elaborated regarding the authors of antiquity, he [Jahn] became path-breaking, He was the first to set out specific principles which henceforth need to “Johannes Brahms, Brahms-Briefwechsel, ed. W. Altmann, vol. 14, p. 254. Cf also Max Friedlander, Uber musikalische Herausgeberarbeit (1907; Weimar, 1922), 5, 12, 14.

Brabms-Briefwechsel, vol. 3, p. 169. Cf. Friedlandler (1922), 19. Tr. note: Woldemar Bargiel was co-editor with Brahms of complete editions of Schumann’s and Chopin’s works.

“Cf. Imogen Fellinger, “Brahms zur Edition Chopinscher Klavierwerke, Musicae Scientiae Collectanea, ed. H. Huschen (Cologne, 1973), 114.

"Cf. Arnold Feil and Walther Durr, “Kritisch revidierte Gesarntausgaben von Werken Franz Schuberts im 19. Jahrhundert” in: Musck und Verlag, ed. R. Baum and W. Rehm (Kassel, 1968), 268ff.

161

MUSICAL PHILOLOGY

be followed by everyone who claims to be a competent editor of music of the past."®

Chrysander’s Handel (1858-1867), Thayer’s Beethoven (1866), Spitta’s Bach (1873-1880), and CARL FERDINAND POHL’s Haydn (1875-1882) complete the series of fundamental or classic composer biographies. Nottebohm was the first to research and edit Beethoven’s sketches (1862ff.), thereby opening an area

of investigation that is still not exhausted today and that was extended to the output of other masters. Study of sketches has regularly generated informative results, even with scarce materials, as with Bach’s sketches. Here, through the inclusion of Bach’s corrections in his autograph working scores, the source base is suitably broadened.'? Nottebohm’s musical acumen also solved one of the puzzles of Bach’s Art of the Fugue. Did the final, incomplete fugue that was printed in the first edition as “Fuga a tre soggett’’ belong in the work or not?

MORITZ HAUPTMANN, Spitta, and Rust said no because the fragment did not contain the main theme. Nottebohm, on the other hand, decided yes by proving in a long unnoticed essay of 1880/81 that the main theme can be easily combined simultaneously with the three extant themes [of that final movement]. Thus Bach had intended a fuga “a guattro soggetti.””°

The rest of the history of musical philology belongs partly to the history of musicology and partly to the history of musical monuments, “Urtext” editions, and collected-works editions. Materials can be found, for example, in pertinent articles in Die Mustk in Geschichte und Gegenwart and The New Grove Dictionary of

Music and Musicians as well as in MOSER (1952) and BENNWITZ (1975).”! The yearbook of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz has reported on the progress of several large editions (1979ff,). 2k OK

'®Philipp Spitta, Zar Musik: Sechzehn Aufsdtze (Berlin, 1892), 154. "Cf. Robert L. Marshall, The Compositional Process of J. S. Bach: A Study of the Autograph Scores of the Vocal Works (Princeton, 1972).

Cf. Walter Kolneder, Die Kunst der Fuge: Mythen des 20. Jahrhunderts, 4 vols. (Wilhelmshaven, 1977)

III: 280ff. *"Hans Joachim Moser, Das musikalische Denkmdlerwesen in Deutschland (Kassel, 1952); Hanspeter

Bennwitz, Georg Feder, Ludwig Finscher and Wolfgang Rehm, ed., Musikalisches Erbe und Gegenwart: Musiker-Gesamtausgaben in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Kassel, 1975).

162

Selected Bibliography (Supplemental to Sources in the Footnotes) Literary, Historical, Philosophical Bernheim, E. Lehrbuch der Hustorischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie

(1889), 4" ed. Leipzig, 1903. Betti, E. Dze Hermeneuttk als allgemeine Methodik der Geistesmtssenschaften

(1962), 2° ed. Tubingen, 1972. Bibhographie zur E:ditionswissenschaft, issued by Arbeitsgemeinschatft phil-

osophischer Editionen, 18 September 2005 . Boeckh, A. Excyklopadie und Methodologe der philologischen Wissenschaften, ed.

E. Bratuscheck (1877), 2°* ed. R. Klussmann. Leipzig, 1886. Braungart, G., P. Gendolla, and F. Jannidis, eds. Jahrbuch fir Computerphitologe - online. Paderborn, 1999-. Droysen, J. G. Hastorik: Vorlesungen tiber Enzyklopadie und Methodologie der Ge-

schichte (1868), 8° ed., ed. R. Hitbner. 1977. Edttio: internationales Jahrbuch fiir Editionswissenschaft, 1f£. (1987¢f.). Gadamer, H.-G. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundiige einer philosophischen Herme-

neutik (1960), 2° ed. Tubingen, 1965. Cf. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method, {trans. ed. G. Barden and J. Cumming,] New York, 1975; rev. trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall, New York, 1994; trans. W. Glen-Doepel, London, 1979. Gteetham, D. C. Textual Scholarship: An Introduction (1992), corrected te-

print ed. New York, 1994. .

gart, 2005. ,

Jannidis, EK Computerphilologie: Eine junge Disziplin im digitalen Leitalter. Stutt-

Kantorowicz, H. Eznfibrung in die Textknttk (1921) in: H. Kantorowicz, Rechtshistorische Schriften. Karlsruhe, 1970. Kraft H. Die Geschichthchtkeit hterarischer Texte: Eine Theorte der Edition. Be-

benhausen, 1973. . Editionsphilologie (1990), 27° ed. Frankfurt am Main, 2001.

163

Maas, P. Textkritik (1927), 3 ed. Leipzig, 1957. Cf. P. Maas, Textual Criicism, trans. B. Flower. Oxford, 1958.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Martens, G., and H. Zeller, ed. Texte und Varianten: Probleme threr Edition und Interpretation. Munich, 1971.

Scheibe, S., ed. Vom Umgang mit Editionen: Eine Einfubrung in Verfabrensweisen und Methoden der Textologe. Berlin, 1988.

Schleiermacher, FD. E. Hermenentik und Kritik: Mit einem Anhang sprachphtlosophischer Texte Schletermachers, ed. M. Frank. Frankfurt am Main, 1977 (7° ed., 1999), Tanselle, G. T. Textual Criticism and Schlolarly Editing. Charlottesville, 1990.

Timpanaro, S. La genesi del metodo del Lachmann (1963), rev. Padua, 1981; corr. Padua, 1985. Ct. Timapanaro, S. Dze Exntstehung der Lachmannschen

Methode, authorized trans. D. Irmer, 2°¢ ed. Hamburg, 1971. | Wach, J. Das Verstehen: Grundziige einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorie

im 19. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. Tubingen, 1926-1933; reprint ed. Hildesheim, 1966; 2" reprint, 1984. WeiB, K. Th. Handbuch der Wasserzeichenkunde, ed. W. WeiB. Leipzig, 1962;

reprint ed. Leipzig and Munich, 1983. West, M. L. Lextual Criticism and Editorial Technique Applicable to Greek and Latin Texts. Stuttgart, 1973.

Musical |

ough, 1971. |

Adler, G. Methode der Musikgeschichte. Leipzig, 1919; reprint ed. FarnborApel, W. Die Notation der polyphonen Musik, 900-1600. Leipzig, 1962; 4° ed., 1989. Cf. Apel, W. The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900-1600 (1942), 5"

ed. rev. Cambridge, MA, 1953. Appel, B. R. and J. Veit @with A. Landgraf). Editzonsrichthnien Musik. Kassel, 2000.

Badura-Skoda, E. “Textual Problems in Masterpieces of the 18" and 19" Centuries.” [he Musical Quarterly 51 (1965).

Bennwitz, H., G. Feder, L. Finscher, W. Rehm, ed. Musikalisches Erbe und Gegenwart: Mustker-Gesamtausgaben in der Bundesrepublik. Deutschland. Kas-

sel, 1975.

| 164

nich, 1980.

Bente, M., ed. Musik, Edition, Interpretation: Gedenkschrift Giinter Henle. Mu-

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Besseler, H., and P. Gillke. Schriftbild der mehrstimmigen Mustk. Musikge-

schichte in Bildern, III/5. Leipzig, 1973. Borghi, R., and P. Zappala, ed. L’edizione critica tra testo musicale e testo letterarto. Lucca, 1995.

Brook, B. S., and R. Viano. Thematic Catalogues in Music: An Annotated Bibhography (1972), 2°" ed. Stuyvesant, NY, 1997. Brosche, G., ed. Beztrage zur musikalischen Quellenkunde. Votzing, 1989.

Caldwell, J. Editing Early Music. Oxford, 1985; 2°° ed. 1995. Caraci Vela, M., ed. La critica del testo musicale: Metodi e problemi della filologia

musicale (with an international bibliography of 1,400 titles). Lucca, 1995.

Dadelsen, G. v. Beztrage zur Chronologie der Werke J. S. Bachs. ‘Trossingen, 1958.

. “Die ‘Fassung letzter Hand’ in der Musik.” Acta Musicologica 33 (1961). , ed. Editionsrichthnien musikalscher Denkmaler und Gesamtausgaben.

Kassel, 1967. , ed. Bettrage zur musikalischen Hermenenttk. Regensburg, 1975.

Danuset, H., ed. Musik als Text, 2 vols. Kassel, 1998. Danuser, H. and EK Krummacher, ed. Rezeptionsasthetik und Rexeptionsgeschichte in der Mustkunssenschaft. Laaber, 1991.

- Durr, A. Zur Chronologie der Leipriger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs (1957). Berlin, 1958; 2°¢ ed., Kassel, 1976. Durr, W., et al., ed. Der Text tm musitkalischen Werk: E:ditionsprobleme aus musikwissenschaftlicher und literaturvissenschafthcher Sicht. Berlin, 1998.

Emery, W. Editions and Musicians. London, 1957; reprint ed. 1958. Faltin, P. and H.-P. Reinecke, ed. Mustk und Verstehen: Aufsatze zur semtotisch-

en Theorie, Asthetik und Soxiologse der musikalschen. Cologne, 1973.

Feder, G. “Textkritische Methoden: Versuch eines Uberblicks mit Bezug auf die Haydn-Gesamtausgabe.” Haydn-Studien V/2 (1983). Feder, G. (with H. Unverricht). “Urtext und Urtextausgaben.” Dze Musikforschung 12 (1959).

Feder, G., W. Rehm and M. Ruhnke, ed. Ouellenforschung in der Mustkwissen-

165 ,

schaft. Wolfenbutteler Forschungen 15. Wolfenbuttel, 1982.

MUSIC PHILOLOGY Fenlon, I., ed. Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Patronage, Sources and Texts. Cambridge, 1981. Finscher, L., ed. Ovellenstudien zur Musik der Renatssance: I, Formen und Probleme der Uberiieferung mehrstimmiger Musik im Zeitalter Josquins Deprez. Munich, 1981; LU, Daterung und Fihation von Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zett.

Wiesbaden, 1983. Friedlaender, M. Uber musikalische Herausgeberarbeit (1907). Weimar, 1922.

Kassel, 1971. ,

Georgiades, T., ed. Mustkahsche Edition im Wandel des historischen Bewusstseins.

Gollner, Th., ed. Notenschrift und Auffiihrung. Muanchener Verdffentlichun-

gen zur Musikgeschichte 30. Tutzing, 1980. Grier, J. The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice. Cambridge, 1996; reprint ed. 2001.

??Heck, Thomas [find in Bruce’s notes] Hilmar, E., ed. Internationales Symposium: Musikerautographe. Bericht. Tutzing, 1990.

Jahn, O. “Beethoven und die Ausgaben seiner Werke.” Dze Grenzboten 23/1/1 (Leipzig, 1864). Kenyon, N., ed. Authenticity and Early Music: A Symposium. Oxford, 1988. Konrad, U. Mozarts Schaffenweise: Studien zu den Werkautographen, Skizzen und

Exntwiirfen. Gottingen, 1992.

Kretzschmar, H. “Anregungen zur Forderung musikalischer Hermeneutik.” Jahrbuch der Mustkbibhothek Peters fiir 1902, vol. 9 (1903);

. “Neue Anregungen zur Forderung musikalischer Hermeneutik: Satzasthetik.” Jahrbuch der Musikbibhothek Peters fiir 1905, vol. 12

(1906). :

Krummel, D. W. Guide for Dating Early Published Music: A Manual of Biblographical Practices. Hackensack, NJ, and Kassel, 1974.

Lowinsky, E. E. “Early Scores in Manuscript.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 13 (1960): 126-173.

Luhning, H., ed. Musikedition: Mittler zwischen Wissenschaft und musikakscher

Praxis, Beihefte zu Editio. ‘Tubingen, 2002.

Mendel, A. “The Purposes and Desirable Characteristics of Text-Critical Editions.” In Modern Musical Scholarship, ed. E. Olleson. Stocksfield, 1980. 166

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Mies, P. Textkritische Untersuchungen bei Beethoven, 3 ed. Bonn, 1957. Moser, H. J. Das musikalische Denkmalerwesen in Deutschland. Kassel, 1952.

Oppermann, A. Mustkalische Klassiker-Ausgaben des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ezine Studie zur deutschen Editionsgeschichte am Beispiel von Bachs “Wohltempertertem

Clamer”’ und Beethovens Klaversonaten. Gottingen, 2001. Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift 46 (1991).

Philomusica Online, ed. Maria Caraci Vela. http://philomusica.unipv.it. University of Pavia, 2001-. Riemann, H. Dze Aufgaben der Musikphilologie. Leipzig, 1901.

Seeger, Ch. “Prescriptive and Descriptive Music Writing.’ The Musical Quarterly 54 (1958): 184-95. Tappolet, W. Notenschrift und Musizieren: Das Problem threr Bexiehungen vom Frihnuttelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin-Lichterfelde, 1967. Unverricht, H. Dze Ezgenschaften und Originalausgaben von Werken Beethovens in

threr Bedeutung fiir die moderne lextkritik. Kassel, 1960.

Wanske, H. Musiknotation: Von der Syntax des Notenstichs eum EDV -gesteuerten Notensatz. Mainz, 1988.

167

BLANK PAGE

INDEX OF PERSONS

A Balet, Leo 123

Abert, Anna Amalie 24 Ballard, Robert (publisher) 57

Abert, Hermann 24 Bargiel, Woldemar 161 Abraham, Gerald 17, 98 Bartel, Dietrich 37 Abravanel, Claude 138 Bartha, Dénes 6, 39 Adler, Guido ix, 3, 4, 6, 24, 25, 137 Bartok, Béla 34

Adorno, Th. W. 82-83, 123, 132 Batschmann, Oskar 94

Affligemensis, Johannes 103 Bauldeweyn, Noél 42

Alamire, Pierre 52 Bayle, Pierre 149

Albrecht, Hans 51 Beck, Jean 4

Albrecht, O. E. 51, 74 Beck, Hermann 4 Albrechtsberger, J. G. 79, 119 Becker, Heinz 71

Allroggen, Gerhard 74 Becker-Glauch, Irmgard 53 Altmann, Wilhelm 1, 80 Bédier, Joseph 60 André (publisher) 53 Beethoven, Ludwig van 12, 18, 21, 34, Animuccia, Giovanni 57 43, 45, 49, 50-51, 54, 55, 77, 79,

at: 1, 82 - 121, 12

‘Apel, Wilh 108109 1D, 130, 138, 140, 150, 181 15%,

Arezzo, Guido d’ 103 157, 159, 161, 162

Aristotle (Aristoteles) 73, 96, 134 Bengtsson, Ingmar 4

Aristoxenos von Tarent 119 Bennwitz, Hanspeter 162 Artaria (publisher) 34, 35, 53 Bent, Ian D. 5 Asaf’yev, Boris [Assafjew,-Glebow]_ 5, Bent, Margaret 49, 52

On Ts MONT 1 Bente, Martin 56 Aubry Piesse fo 4 Benthem, Jaap van 104

; Benton, Rita 21 | Berg, Alban 121 B Berlioz, Hector 129

Bach, Anna Magdalena 50 Bernhard, Christoph 3, 103

Bach, C. Ph. E. 1, 8 Bernhardy, Gottfried 96 Bach, J. S. 4, 12, 17, 25-27, 35, 36, 39,

42-43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 65, 70-71, Bernheim, Ernst 44 72, 74-75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 91, Berwald, J. F112

100 LIL U3 18 io 199 38 Besseler, Heinrich 1, 9, 51, 52, 102, 139, 147, 150, 152, 155, 156, 105

157,160, 161, 162 Betti, Emilio 88, 89, 91, 92

Badt, Kurt 31 Biba, Otto 160

Badura-Skoda, Eva 43 Birnbaum, J. A. 4 : Baila 22, 115, 126 130.34 Bischoff, Bernard 30 ahle,Julie Julius 82, 115, 120, 132-

Bailleux (publisher) 73 Bischoff, Hans 147 169

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Blankenburg, Walter 127 Carnap, Rudolf 93-94 Blaukopf, Kurt 13, 99 Carpentras — see: Genet

Blinowa, M. 119 Casella, Alfredo 35, 44

Blume, Friedrich 25, 26, 115 Cazden, Norman 120 , Boeckh, August 1, 27, 85, 91, 117 Chailley, Jacques 44

Boethius 11 Charles, Sydney Robinson 149 Bohm, Georg 74 Charlton, David 21, 52 Bois, Editions Mario (publisher) 45 Chladenius, J. M. 91

Bonnel, Pietrequin 51, 107 Chopin, Frédéric 43, 52, 54, 160, 161

Boorman, Stanley 18, 58 Choron, Alexandre 5

Bowers, Fredson 61 Christiansen, Broder 131 Brahms, Johannes 35, 78, 79-80, 113, Christie’s (auction house) 45, 46

159, 160-61 Chrysander, Friedrich 74, 161, 162

Brandenburg, Sieghard 94, 95 Cicero 3

Braun, Jurgen 50 | City University of New York (CUNY)

Breitkopf & Hartel 21, 75, 140, 154, XX, xi

160 Cochran, Timothy L. x1

Brekle, H. E. 6 Coleridge, S. T. 82 Brett, R. L. 381 Collingwood, R. G. 15, 83, 86, 99 Briquet, C. M. 47 Colon, Hector xi Brook, Barry S. x, 9, 36, 46, 51, 57 Comte, Auguste 44 Brooklyn College (CUNY) xi, xit Cooke, Deryck 118

Brown, A. Peter 112 Copland, Aaron 82 Brown, Howard Mayer 60, 98, 107 Corelli, Arcangelo 12, 42, 108, 113

Bruch, Max 114 Coren, D. 86

Bruckner, Anton 43,113 _ Corteccia, Francesco 19

Brunelleschi, Filippo 130 Couperin, Francois 160 , Bryan, Paul 51 Coussemaket, Ch. E. H. de 105

Buelow, George J. 3, 122 Crema, G. M. 56 Bulow, Hans von 91 Croce, Benedetto 15, 156-57 Bukofzer, Manfred 86, 113, 153, 154 Croll, Gerhard 23, 24

Burde, Wolfgang 128, 129 Criiger, Johann 105 Burmeistet, Joachim 3 Cudworth, Charles 118

Burney, Charles 3) Curtitus, Ernst Robert 7 Busoni, Ferruccio 35

Buxtehude, Dietrich 51, 106 D Da Correggio — see: Merulo, C.

C Dadelsen, Georg von 8, 26, 27, 58, 75,

Cabezén, Antonio de 19 81, 102, 109, 145

Cabezon, Hernando de 19 Dahlhaus, Carl 13, 14, 26, 71, 85, 86,

Cadenbach, Rainer 15 | 98, 114, 124, 132, 153, 155 Caldwell, John 144, 153 Dammann, Rolf 3

Carapetyan, Armen 97

170 |

INDEX OF PERSONS

Danuser, Hermann 4, 36 Feder, Ortrud xi David, Hans T. 39 Feil, Arnold 16, 36, 108, 161

171

David, J. N. 116 Fellerer, K. G. 24

Deutsch, O. E. 53 Fellinger, Imogen 161 Devriés, Antik 53 Ficker, Rudolf von 98 Dilthey, Wilhelm 93, 128 Finscher, Ludwig 73, 107, 117-18, 119,

Donato, Anthony 140 155

Dorati, Nicolo 56 Fischer, J.C. F 103-104, 162 Dounias, M. E. 106 Fischer, Kurt von 127, 133

Drager, H.-H. 23 Fisher, Stephen C. xi Drechsler, O. 103 Flechsig, H. 6 Dressler, Gallus 3 Fontana, Julian 52 Droysen, J. G. 31 Forster, Georg 107 Diirr, Alfred 75 Franke, Herbert W. 7, 8, 134

161 Frei, Henri 6 Dufay, Guillaume 52, 130 Friedlander, Max 55

Diirr, Walther 27, 68, 74, 96, 108, 151, Frederick the Great 95

Dunning, Albert 77, 130 , Fritzsch, E. W. (publisher) 160-61

Dunstable, John 98 Froberger, J. J. 51

Durkheim, Emile 6 G

E Gabrieli, Giovanni 108, 110 Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich 4, 17, 85, Gabler, Hans 148 93, 96, 118, 124, 130, 133-34 Gadamer, H. G. 86, 88-89, 90, 123

Eichenbaum, Boris 131, 132 Gal, Hans 87

, Eineder, Georg 47-48 Gallus — see: Handl, Jakob Finstein, Alfred 153 Garlandia, Johannes de 3 Fisler, Hanns 132 Gassmann [GaBmann], Florian 51

Fitner, Robert 46 Gaver, Elizabeth xi

Elders, Willem 101, 121 Genet, Elzéar (b. Carpentras) 19

Elssler, Johann 52 Georgiades, Thrasybulos 1, 11, 16, 98,

Emery, Walter 53, 146 101

Engel, Hans 116 Gerardy, Theodor 47

Engelsmann, Walter 116 Gerbert, Martin 103 Erlich, Victor 123, 131-32, 133 Gerhard, E. 123

Erpt, H. 92, 116 Gerlach, Sonja 34, 76, 78 Esterhazy 78 Germann, Dietrich 149, 150, 151

F Gevaert, F A. 157 Faber, J. Ch. 121-22 Gibson, Joanna xi

Gerstenberg, Walter 51

Farnsworth, P. R. 120 Gieseler, W. 12

Feder, Georg ix, x, x1, xii, 35, 50, 58, 69, Glareanus [Glarean] 127 73, 75, 76, 92, 98, 102, 116, 154, 162 171

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Glebow — see: Asaf’yev, B. Hartmann, Victor 79

Gluck, Ch. W. 43, 81 Hase, Hermann von 21

Goedeke, Karl 149 Haslinger, Tobias 157

Goethe, J. W. von 39, 114, 131 Hauptmann, Moritz 162

Goldoni, Carlo 71 Hauswedell (antiquarian) 46 Gollner, Th. 11, 16, 17 Haydn, Joseph x, 4, 21, 23, 34, 35-36,

Goschen, G. J. 151 38, 39, 45, 48, 50, 52, 54, 57, 62,

Gonzaga, Guglielmo 99 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 95, 100, 104, 109, 110, 111-12, 113,

Gottwald, Clytus 43 115, 119, 122, 128, 132, 138, 144,

Gottwaldt, Heinz 100 151, 152, 157, 158, 160 Gotwals, Vernon 95 Haydn Institute (Cologne) x Greg, Sit Walter 60-61 Heckel (publisher) 160

Grell, A. KE. 129 Hedinger, Hans-Walter 93

Grétry, A.-E.-M. 21 Hegel, G. WE 90

Griepenkerl, KF K. 91, 161 Heidegger, Martin 89

Grier, James 42, 69 Heine, Heinrich 129 Griesinger, G. A. 4,95, 151 Helms, Siegmund 160

Grimm, R. 132 Henle, G. (publisher) 46, 154

Gruber, Gernot 2 Henneberg, G. 13

Gudewill, Kurt 102, 107 Hentschke, Ada 28 Guido — see: Arezzo, Guido Herbart, J. EK 15

Gulke, Peter 1, 51, 52 Herder, J. G76 Gurlitt, Wilibald 7 Hevner, Kate 135

H Hill, G. R. 34, 51 Haase, Rudolf 2 Hiller, Ferdinand 133 Hildebrand-Lied 11

Haberkamp, Gertraut 53 Hindemith, Paul 34, 37 Habermas, Jurgen 9, 89-90, 123-24 Hirschfeld, Robert 23

Hader, Karl 140 Hjelmslev, Louis 6

Hallmark, Rufus xi Hobbes, Thomas 82

Halm, August 36 Hoboken, Anthony van 52, 57, 72, 74

Halm, Hans 51 Hdl, Ludwig 150, 155 Handel [Haendel; Handel], G. F 12, Hoffmann, W. 134

125, 138, 152,159, 159, 160, 161, __Ho#steter, Roman 73-74

162 Hofmeister,Friedrich 52

Hinssler, (publisher) 27 Hohenemser, Richard 80

Hamm, Charles 52 Hood, Mantle ?

Handl (Gallus), Jakob 56 Horn, Hans-Jurgen 1x Handschin, Jacques 105, 130 Horsley, Imogene 17

Hanslick, Eduard 1,5 Hucbald 3, 103

Harnoncourt, Nicolaus 98-99, 105, Hucke, Helmut 17

109, 133

172 ,

INDEX OF PERSONS

Hulbert, Don xi Kinsky, Georg 51

173

Hummel, J. J. 53, 68-69, 158 Kircher, Athanasius 3 Humphries, Charles 53 , oe Kirchmeyer, Helmut 83

Husmann, Heinrich 111 Kirchner, Joachim 143 Kirkendale, Ursula 95

I , Kirkendale, Warren 79 Indiana University ix Kirnberger, J. Ph. 78

Ingarden, Roman 15, 99 Kirsch, Winfried 18, 19

Ingegneri, M.-A. 57 Klenz, W. 80 Irmer, Otto von 55 Klingemann, Karl 159 Isaac, Heinrich 10, 51, 52 Klingenberg, H.G. 18

J Kobler, Linda xi

Kneif, Tibor 10, 12, 83, 85, 132, 133

Jahn, Otto 4, 23, 24, 29, 159, 161 Koch, E. J. 93

Jakobson, Roman 5 Kochel, Ludwig von 50, 153, 161

Jammers, Ewald 105 Kohler, K.-H. 47

Janequin, Clément 56 Kolesnikoff, Nina 117

Jenner, Gustav 78 Koller, Oswald 137

Jeppesen, Knud 51, 99 Kolneder, Walter 162 Johansson, Cari 52, 53 Korte, Werner 24, 25 Joseph Haydn-Werke x Kraft, Herbert 146, 151 Josquin des Prez 18, 37, 42, 52, 101, Krautwurst, Franz 51

121, 127 Krebs, Car] 154

Jung, C. G. 120, 124 Kremlyov (Kremlow), Y. A. 114-15

Just, M. 51 129

Jung, H. 7 Kretzschmar, Hermann 25, 36, 85, 95,

K Krummel, D. W. 53 Kade, Otto 46 Kuckertz, Josef 16 , Krings, Hans P. 68

Kahl, Willi 80 Kummerling, H. 74 , Kaiser, Joachim 34 Kurth, Ernst 116, 117 Kamper, Dietrich 110

Kant, Immanuel 3, 4, 131,134 L

, Kantner, Leopold 7 Lachmann, Karl 63

Kantorowicz,Hermann 144 Landini, Francesco 18, 52

Keller, Hans 125 Landon, H. C. Robbins 45, 73, 95, 159

Kellman, Herbert 52 Landshoff, Ludwig 154 a Kempers, Karel Ph. Bernet 118 Lantranco, G. M. 107 Kerman, Joseph 12, 43-44, 127 Larsen, Jen Peter 49, 73, 74

Kessler, Robert xi Lasso, Orlando di 20, 51, 56

Kilian, Dietrich 65 Lazarus, Moritz 15 Kinkeldey, Otto 9 Le Duc (publisher) 21 173

MUSIC PHILOLOGY

Le Roy, Adrien 57 Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Felix 35, 45,

Leavis, Ralph 45 54, 80, 81, 104, 106, 129, 152,

Leff, Thomas xi 159-60, 161

Leibniz, G. W. 2, 29, 91 Mersmann, Hans 36, 116

Lessing G. E. 39 Merulo, Claudio 57

Lesure, Francois 20, 53, 56 Metastasio, Pietro 71, 106 Leuchtmann, Horst 20, 51 Meyerbeer, Giacomo 112

Link, J. 6 Mies, Paul 43

Linke, Norbert 9, 135 Morner, C.-G. Stellan 112

Lissa, Zofia 7, 119 Monte, Philippe de 56

Liszt, Franz 4, 91 Monteverdi, Claudio 42, 132, 152, 157

Loeber, E. G. 47 Moos, Paul 4, 5, 15 Lowes, J. L. 82 Moscheles, Ignaz 159, 160 Lowinsky, Edward 51, 102, 104,127-28 Moser, H. J. 129, 162

Ladi, Friedrich 25,105 0,50, 53, 35, 14,75, 78, 8, 100 Lully, J.-B. 12, 51 104, 113, 115, 118, 122, 128, 133,

Luther, Martin 10, 19, 127 138, 152, 153, 156, 159, 161 Muhlack, Ulrich 28

Muller, Gerhard 150

M Musorgsky, Maas, Paul 63,Modest 143 , 43, 79

Mace, N. A. 2 N

Mach, Ernst 2 Nageli, H.G. 113, 157

Machabey, Armand 93 Naumann, Ernst 154 Machaut [Machault], Guillaume 109-10 Nettl, Bruno 16, 156

MacIntyre, Bruce C. ix, x-xut, 36, 57 Netz, Anthony xi

Mahler, Gustav 36, 99, 129 Neumann, Werner 39, 75 Mandyczewski, Eusebius 151 Neumeister Collection 74-75

Maren-Griesbach, M. 6 Niemoller, K. W. 4,5

Marenzio, Luca 57 Notre Dame (school) 98 Marnold, Jean 44 Nottebohm, Gustav 161, 162 Marshall, Robert 162

Marx, Hans-Joachim 74 O

| Marx, Karl 123 Obrecht, Jacob 52

Matthaus, Wolfgang 53 Ockeghem, Johannes 105, 121

Mattheson, Johann 3 Oppermann, Annette 149_

Mayer, G. 132 Ortiz, Diego 108

Meer, John Henry van der 110 Othmayr, Caspar 51

Meier, Bernhard 37 Ott, Hans 127 Mellet, Simon 52 Ott,Wilhelm 148 Mendel, Arthur 39, 62, 153-54 Ovid 33

174

INDEX OF PERSONS

P Riedel, Friedrich Wilhelm 51

175

Pachelbel, Johann 118 Riegl, Alois 3

Palestrina, G. P. da 42, 51, 81, 99 Riemann, Hugo 4, 5, 15, 17, 23, 25, 27,

Paper Publications Society 47 98, 101 Pasquini, Bernardo 51 Ries, Ferdinand 124, 157

Paul, Jean 79 Rifkin, Joshua 45, 107 Pechefsky, Rebecca xi Rihel, Wendel 19

Pergolesi, G. B. 12,79, 144 Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai 43

Perle, George 121 Ringborn, Nils-Eric 121 Perotinus Magnus 130 Ringer, Alexander 7 Peters, C. F (edition) 154, 158 Ritter, Christian 74

Petrucci Music Library 138 Ritzel, Fred 38

Pfeiffer, Rudolf 26 Roder, C. G. (music engraving)

Pfitzner, Hans 81-82 [Notenstecherei] 140

Piccard, Gerhard 47 Rontgen, Engelbert 154 Plath, Wolfgang 75 Rokseth, Yvonne 105 Plechanow, G. W. 123 Romberg, Andreas 80 Pleyel, Ignaz 21, 72, 95, 151, 158 Roth, Ernst 12

Poglietti, Alessandro 51 Rousseau, J. J. 5-6

Pohl, C. FE 29, 162 Rossino, Gioachino 45

PohImann, E. 11 Rowen, Ruth Halle 99

Popper, Karl 89, 92, 96 Rudolf, Archduke [Erzherzog] 77

Porta, Costanzo 51 Rudolf If (emperor) 20

Pos, H. J. 87 Rudorff, Ernst 154, 161 Purcell, Henry 51 Rue, Pierre de la 52

Pythagoras 111 Ruh, Kurt 155 Ruhnke, Martin 3, 102, 122

Q Rummenholler, P. 123 Quentin, Henri 60 Rust, Wilhelm 25, 161, 162

Quintilian, M. E73, 95 Rutgers University xi

Quitschreiber, Georg 107 5

R Saint-Foix, Georges de 122

Racine, J.-B. 100 Saint Martial 17

Ranke, Leopold von 30, 44, 91, 130 Sappler, Paul 148

Reaney, Gilbert 109, 110 Saussure, Ferdinand de 6, 116

Reckow, Fritz 4 Scarlatti, Domenico 123 Reger, Max 98 Schedel, Hartmann 139

Rehm, Wolfgang 102, 149, 153, 155, Scheerer, Th. M. 6, 88, 116

162 Scheibe, Siegfried 150 ,

Reimann, Margarete 20, 21 Scheler, Max 89

Réti, Rudolf 116 Schenk, Erich 117 ,

Richter, Alfred 114 Schenker, Heinrich 55, 58,95 175

Shr

, MUSIC PHILOLOGY Scherer, Wilhelm 122 Steffan, J. A. 36 Schering, Arnold 121 Steger, Hugo 23 Schiller, Friedrich 114, 149 Stocker, Gaspar 107

Schlegel, Friedrich 4, 92 Strauss, Richard 4 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 41, 42, 86, Stravinsky, Igor 34, 79

113, 115, 128, 129 Striedter, Jury 132

Schmalzriedt, Siegfried 3 Sybel, Heinrich von 29, 92 Schmidt, Hans 151

Schneider-Tutzing (antiquarian) 46 T

Schoenberg [Schonberg], Arnold 12, Taine, Hippolyte 122 |

37, 116, 132 Tappolet, Willy 11, 103 Schrade, Leo 86 Tartini, Giuseppe 106 Sabie Hei ch 320 54 a? Taubert, Wilhelm 80

CONLIN 29 Os Telemann, G. Ph. 79, 152 Schulz, J. A. P. 100 . Schulze, Hans-Joachim 39, 74 Temperiey, Nicholas 19° Soh ° Robert 35. 45 79 199. 159 Thayer, A. W. 21, 124, 157, 161, 162 < eo ODEEE 299 M99 [45 £475 1 Thomas, Ch. G. 55

Thomas, Gunter 48, 62, 151 Seashore, C. E. 133, 134 oo, Thomas, Mary Robin xi Seeger, Charles 8, 16 ; . Tieck, Ludwig 81

Senfl, Ludwig 10, 56 Timpanaro, Sebastiano 63 Seuffert, Bernhard 150, 151 nn banao, Senastane Tinctoris 127

Shaftesbury, Earl of 81 , , . Treitler, Leo 2 Siebenkas, Dieter 80 . Sieber (publisher) 158 | Turk, D.G. 4

Tynjanoy, Yury Jurij) 131

Siegele, Ulrich 121 Tyson. Alan 49.72.73

Shklovsky (Sklovskij), Viktor 131, 132 me an

Smend, Friedrich 25, 26, 27, 121 U | Smi ers, Albert 101 Universal-Edition (publisher) 140

Smith, J. Ch. 92 Unverricht, Hubert 55,98, 154 Smith, Wm. C. 53 ° oe? Tat Fm 296487815 e

Snyder, K. J. 51 , Vv |

Solesmes, Monks of 28 Vaterlein, B. Chr. 76 Sotheby’s (auction house) 46 Van det Meet — —see: see: Meer. Meer, J. L H. Hi 4

Spitta, Philipp 25, 29, 49, 150, 161-162 »J EL van der Vanhal, Johann 51 Venegas, Luys de 20

Spohr, Louis 78

Stackmann, Karl 61 128, — 156 Verdi, Giuseppe Stablein, Bruno 118 — 33 ; nq: Virgil [Vereil]

Stahelin, Martin a Vogel, Emil 1, 77 20, 56

Staudlin, C. F 88 Vogl, J. M. 108

Stargardt, J. A. (auction house) 46 So Stark, Werner 89 176

Re

INDEX OF PERSONS

W Williams, Peter 96

Wach, Joachim 27, 29, 30, 35, 39, 41, Windelband, Wilhelm 44 44, 76, 80, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,, Wiora, Walter 15, 120, 127, 133

93, 96, 122 Witt, Friedrich 45

Wachsmann, K. P. 9 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 9 Wackernagel, Peter 26 Wolf, Eugene K. 48, 49

Wagner, Richard 83, 118 Wolf, Jean K. 48

Waldheim-Eberle (music engraver) 140 Wolf, Johannes 25, 105, 137

Walter, Horst 1x, 20, 36, 72-73, 76 Wolff, Christoph 26-27, 75

Walther, Christoph 19 Wolkenstein, Oswald von 118

Wanske, Helene 140 Wranitzky, Anton 112 Ward, John M. 19, 20 Wranitzky, Paul 112

Weber, Max 16 Wright, Craig 130

Webern Anton 157 Wuttke, Dieter 150,155 Wedin, Kamma 74 Wyzewa, Théodore de 122 Wegeler, RF G. 124

Weigl, Joseph 112 7,

Weinmann, Alexander 53 Zahn, Robert von ix

Weise, D. 55 Zaminer, Frieder 11

Weiss, Karl Theodor 47 Zarlino, Gioseffo 107 Weitensteiner, Margret ix, xi Zeller, Hans 54

Wert, Jachet de 56 Zelter,C. F 39

West, Martin L. 146 Zimmermann, Ewald 43 Westphal, Kurt 116 Zimmermann, Robert 5

Westrup, Sit Jack 51 Zuntz, Giinther 73 Whistling, C.F 1, 52 Wieland, Ch. M. 150, 151 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von 28

, 177

177

A|

INDEX OF TOPICS and TERMS

abbreviations (notational) 100, 106 -substantive/substantial

accent 109 [Substanzanalyse] 27, 116ff.

accidentals 62, 104, 141, 160 See also: process analysis -courtesy (warning) 104 annotation; marginal note [Beischrift]

key signature 103-04 75, 106-07, 108-09, 160 ,

. . A or > ieee | , thology volume (convolute)

acculturation 9, 119 announcement (of a print) [Anzeige] nares cxacmu De recision | Akribie} anthology, printed [Sammeldruck] 56

acoustics (of halls) 112 an Sammelband] 49-50 acquisition remark 50 a [Sammelbanc]

adaptation — see: arrangement anticipatory understanding understanding — see: foreaddition (editorial) 55, 143, 144, 157 antiquarian 20£. 44.71.72. 73 advertisement — see: announcement Antiquity [Antike] 11

hetics 15, 24, 38, 71, 77, 88, 113

"119-20, 123, 124, 127, 131, 134 appendix (Anbang) 60, 147 16 2~C~*~