Week 2 224: Editors & Editions
Week 2 Lecture
Aims and Objectives
The ultimate objective of editing any work is to create a reliable text.
Joel Sheveloff (1986) stated, “‘The ideal edition need not have all the answers but should control all the questions so that users can feel themselves in possession of the best available knowledge about this music.’”
Beginnings
Samuel Arnold’s edition of the works of Handel was published in 180 parts between 1787 and 1797. This represents a very early example of editorial practice.
Scholarly editing truly began with the launching in 1850 of a critical edition of J. S. Bach’s complete works under the auspices of the Bach-Gesellschaft. This effort continued with the monumental series (Denkmäler) and national collections.
Purpose of Early Editions
The intention behind these editions was to present music in a way that underscores the seriousness of the endeavor.
The presentations were in imposing folio volumes with dull covers and inelegant typefaces, reflecting the gravity of their intent.
Accessibility and Canon Creation
There was a necessity to make the music accessible to scholars and performers, as much of it was out of print, published in poor editions, or not published at all.
Another critical aspect of this undertaking was the creation of a canon, a central core of repertoire whose texts would carry the same authority as comparable texts in literature and political history.
Presentation Focus
The initial focus was on scholarly presentation that addressed vital matters, such as:
Reporting variants
Evaluating the reliability of sources
By the end of World War II, musicologists were reacting to two trends in editing:
The production of ‘performing’ or interpretative editions, predominantly of keyboard music, but also music for solo instruments with keyboard accompaniment, typically prepared by renowned performers.
Criticism of Performance Editions
An example of this is Bach's Toccata in D minor (edited by Hughes, published by Schirmer in New York, 1930). Musicologists complained that numerous performance instructions added by editors—such as tempo markings, dynamics, articulation, fingering, and pedaling—obscured the original notation. Because little or no effort was made to distinguish editorial marks from those in the source, users could not differentiate between them.
Diplomatic Editions
Diplomatic editions consist of an exact transcription of the source material. They differ from facsimiles in being newly notated and usually come with extensive notes on the source.
Purpose: They are created by scholars who aim to transmit the original in order to better understand how the works were performed.
An example discussed is a manuscript copy of Haydn’s String Quartet in G, Op. 17 No. 6, performed by the Mozarts.
Notation of the First Movement
Instrumentation
Violino I
Violino II
Viola
Violoncello
The first movement has a notation of "Presto." Note that there are conflicting articulation markings present.
Development Section Notation
Bracketed markings may indicate additions by Mozart.
Urtext Editions
As early as the 1890s, the Königliche Akademie der Künste in Berlin began issuing editions claiming to be free of editorial intervention, named ‘Urtext’ (meaning 'original text').
Despite its now largely discredited status among scholars, its original conception was praiseworthy, aiming to provide texts that let the composer’s notation speak for itself, allowing performers, particularly students, to form their interpretations based on the original text.
After WWII, this concept was commercialized by Henle Verlag and others.
Objections to Urtext Editions
Urtext editions often fail to present what they claim. Günter Henle noted that when an autograph and a first edition differ, the editor must choose what to print; this leads to the conclusion that such a text diverges from the true Urtext, becoming the editor’s interpretation instead of the composer’s original written text.
Collected Editions Post-WWII
A second trend in post-WWII editing was the emergence of new collected editions of great composers. With research enabled by earlier scholarly editions, new editions were needed to reflect current knowledge of repertoires and sources.
Notable examples include:
Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA) published by Bärenreiter
Joseph-Haydn-Werke (JHW) published by Henle.
Musicology and Performance
The critical editions and monuments from the 19th century initially focused on philological scholarship. However, the 1950s initiatives shifted attention towards producing editions usable by performers.
These developments fostered a study of the historical relationship between composers and performers, which extended to studying old editions as records of performance practice.
A more pragmatic approach led to the creation of clear, usable editions of old music originally written in notation less familiar to contemporary musicians, prioritizing presentation over critical concerns.
Critical Editing Principles
Editing is a critical process, based on evaluations of readings; thus, editions are interpretative and cannot claim definitiveness.
Each project generates editorial procedures representing the editor’s critical engagement with the subject of the edition and its sources.
Four basic principles in critical editing:
It is critical by nature.
Criticism, including editing, stems from historical inquiry.
Editing involves evaluating the physical nature of the musical text, which is also a historical inquiry.
The final arbitrator is the editor’s conception of musical style, grounded in historical understanding.
Interpretation in Editing
Every editorial decision is contextualized by the editor’s comprehensive understanding of the work, achieved through critical evaluation.
Editing comprises a series of educated, critically informed choices, effectively the act of interpretation, positioned at the intersection of the composer’s authority and the editor's.
It requires balancing both the composer and source authority: this balance reflects the editor’s critical perspective, rooted in an appreciation of the piece’s historical context.
Understanding Sources and Context
Each source reflects a specific historical state of the work and each reading is seen as individual evidence of the work's history.
The process starts from the composer’s original concept, and through all its transformations during socialization, the composer is held responsible for its shape.
Textual criticism within historical frames discerns influences on the composer that manifest in the sources.
Differentiating Text and Music
Text and music are distinct entities: a composer writes a work which is interpreted by a performer, often using materials prepared by someone else.
None of the entities—performer, editor, or composer—fully define the work, as each part interacts interdependently.
Case Study 1: Hoffmeister’s Viola Concerto in D
Little is known about the origins of the Viola Concerto in D. Johann Traeg offered the work for sale in his 1799 catalogue but it was likely composed in the late 1780s or early 1790s.
The work survives in a single source, a set of parts housed in the Sächsiche Landes und Universitätsbibliothek, Dresden.
Ownership of the Source
The set of parts belonged to Joseph Schubert, a composer and violist in the Dresden Court Orchestra, with his autograph cadenza written into the solo part.
The Dresden source poses several issues, including numerous textual inaccuracies and an incomplete set of parts for a different second movement.
Conflations in Manuscripts
MS part sets often show evidence of duplicate or replacement parts added later. These conflations can occur long after the original work fell into disuse, typically by archivists seeking to identify parent works.
The Siciliano Movement
The Siciliano movement is preserved incompletely in this set of parts, suggesting that this concerto may have circulated in at least two distinct versions.
The Solo Part’s Challenges
The solo viola part presents significant challenges for the editor since it is heavily marked by at least three players, one attempting to erase 'original' articulations.
Determining any connection between Hoffmeister’s original and these parts is highly problematic. Thus, original markings in the solo part must be viewed with skepticism.
The direct quotation from the first violin introduces questions regarding the soloist's role during tutti sections.
Case Study 2: Leopold Hofmann: Keyboard Concerto in F
Three of Hofmann’s keyboard concertos can be dated to around 1764 based on watermarks; they are part of a larger collection that belonged to his pupil, Archduchess Elisabeth of Austria.
Instrumentation Issues
Archduchess Elisabeth's copy of Concerto F1 was created around 1764, six years before it appeared in the Breitkopf catalogue (Supplement V, 1770). The original instrumentation likely included horns, yet these parts are not preserved in every source; Elisabeth's copy also omits horns, calling into question their authenticity.
Evidence shows that Concerto F1 may exist in more than one version, particularly due to copies that include horn parts which exhibit commonality in lineage.
Basso Function in Concerto F1
Hofmann seldom employs the basso to shadow the left-hand keyboard in solo sections unless upper strings are present.
Concerto F1 uniquely survives in two forms: one where the basso fulfills a continuo-style role, and another conforming to Hofmann's typical practices.
The limited source material for Concerto F1 leads to a lack of authority around which version should be seen as correct.
Inconsistencies where sources utilize the basso as a reinforcing instrument may indicate local production of parts.
Erroneous Editions and Misattribution
In 1962, Willy Müller published an edition of Concerto F1 under the title "Kleines Konzert für Klavier-Cembalo" with contributions from Franzpeter Goebels and Vladimir Šrámek.
This edition was derived from a set of parts located in the Narodní Muzeum, misattributed to Haydn, and later published by Šrámek in a ‘critical’ edition. The related sources from Prague, now unavailable, included consistent horn parts but were inaccurately attributed.
Discrepancies in Sources
Source B is identified as a unique manuscript (A) which shows a title page inscribed with: "Concerto in F / per il / Clavi Cembalo / Violino Primo / Violino Secundo / e / Basso / Del Sigl. Leopoldo Hoffmann". Its provenance traces back to Bartholomei / Ludovici Kamen, A. D. 1775.
This source's finale is entirely omitted, and the end of the second movement includes a note: “Finis coronat opus” which indicates it was intentionally incomplete or copied from a corrupt source.
This copy features significant reductions in instrumentation, omitting horns completely found in other sources, as well as removing the viola part, disturbing the intended scoring.
Variants in Source D
Source D contains variances in the bass line when compared with all known sources. These differences suggest either a conscious alteration made by the copyist or evidence of a version not documented elsewhere.
Notably, the second movement presents a considerably altered version of the solo part, differing from other extant copies of Concerto F1, complicating attribution regarding authenticity or simplification.
Case Study 3: Ferdinand Ries, String Quartets, Op. 150
The string quartets include:
Op.150 No.3 in G minor (published Hastings, 1823)
Op.150 No.1 in A minor (published Bad Godesberg, 1826)
Op.150 No.2 in E minor (published Bad Godesberg, 1826)
Ries also composed two additional quartets in 1825 (WoO 34 & Op.166 No.1), suggesting careful consideration was given to the set's relationship.
Publication Details
These three quartets were issued by Bonn's Simrock, with whom Ries had a longstanding relationship. Simrock was a close friend of Ries and Beethoven.
Notable Deviations in Publication
A detailed comparison of printed parts with the autographs reveals numerous discrepancies beyond engraving errors, including different slurring patterns and inaccurate staccato markings.
In cases where autographs exist (Nos 1 and 3), levels of fidelity to text vary, with Op.150 No.3 being more faithful compared to the erratic nature of Op.150 No.1. The absence of stroke markings in Op.150 No.2 may hint at the composer’s intentions, yet divergences from his usual practice raise concerns.
Publishing Inaccuracies
It is suggested that four possibilities account for these publishing discrepancies:
Ries may not have been closely involved with the works’ publication, or not at all.
Op.150 may not have been based directly on autographs.
Different engravers may have prepared the quartets.
A combination of the above scenarios.
Engraving Copy Relationship
A study of printed parts indicates that the engraving copy may not have been the autograph but other performance parts.
Op.150 No.3 likely originated from a version closely related to the autograph.
Conversely, Op.150 No.1's looser connection suggests more distant ties to the autograph, leading to it being less reliable.
Final Remarks on Reliability
The fingering markings evident in the parts indicate Simrock’s edition was derived from performance parts. Ries’s autographs hint at alterations resulting from performance considerations, influencing aspects like tempo. Some articulation alterations may reflect a shift in his original tempo conception, hinting at editorial interpretation.
Conclusion
A crucial reminder is to never implicitly trust any edition, regardless of its reputed reliability. Each edition embodies a level of editorial interpretation, often placing the editor as a medium between source and performer rather than strictly between composer and performer.