No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Bequest and a Legacy: Editing Anton Bruckner’s Music in ‘Later Times’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 June 2018
Abstract
The present study has been prepared on the occasion of the publication of the New Anton Bruckner Collected Works Edition’s first volume, Thomas Röder’s score of the Linz version of the First Symphony. The article re-evaluates a fundamental precept of the old Gesamtausgabe of Robert Haas and Leopold Nowak – the supremacy of the readings in Bruckner’s autograph manuscripts over those in his first prints. It begins with a brief history of the “Bruckner-Streit” of the 1930s and 40s and a summary of more recent challenges to the Haas-Nowak policy. An overview of the composer’s relationship with the brothers Franz and Josef Schalk, who were responsible for the production of many of his early editions, demonstrates that they worked closely with him at first, but began to make alterations without consulting him towards the end of the 1880s. Distinguishing Bruckner from his editors in the Third, Fourth and Eighth Symphonies is difficult, if not impossible. From an editorial perspective, it is pointless because, in these scores, the composer accepted their suggestions and made them his own. Later publications are a different matter. The discussion leads inevitably to a re-examination of a clause in Bruckner’s will which exercised a controlling influence over the old Gesamtausgabe and remains a seminal factor in any editorial considerations regarding Bruckner. The article demonstrates that the composer never intended his will to have a bearing on post-mortem editorial issues or to dictate the hierarchy of versions of his pieces.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 2018
References
1 The widely distributed exhibition catalogue – Anton Bruckner zum 150. Geburtstag (Vienna: Brüder Rosenbaum, 1974) – with its hundreds of photographs and detailed commentary was the first publication to provide a comprehensive look at a broad span of Bruckner sources. The Anton Bruckner Institut Linz held its first annual symposium in 1977 (Franz Grasberger, ed., Bruckner-Symposium im Rahmen des Internationalen Brucknerfestes Linz 1977: Bericht (Linz: Linzer Veranstaltungs-Gesellschaft, 1978)) and began publishing its Bruckner-Jahrbuch in 1980.
2 The first volume, edited by Robert Haas, appeared in 1930: Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, im Auftrag der Nationalbibliothek und der Internationalen Bruckner-Gesellschaft, XV: Missa Solemnis B-moll / Requiem D-moll (Augsburg: Benno Filser Verlag, 1930). After the Second World War, Leopold Nowak succeeded Haas as principal editor and continued in that capacity until his death in 1991. Wolfgang Partsch, Erich, ’Gesamtausgaben’ in Anton Bruckner: ein Handbuch (Salzburg: Residenz, 1996), 175 Google Scholar. Among the many critiques of their work are Korstvedt, Benjamin, ‘Return to the Pure Sources: the Ideology and Text-Critical Legacy of the First Bruckner Gesamtausgabe’, in Bruckner Studies, ed. Timothy L. Jackson and Paul Hawkshaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 101–107 Google Scholar, and Gault, Dermot, ‘For Later Times’ The Musical Times 131 (1997): 12–19 Google Scholar. See also Doebel, Wolfgang, Bruckners Symphonien in Bearbeitungen (Tutzing: Hans Schneider Verlag: 2001), 409–422 Google Scholar, for a summary and assessment of the new editorial thinking. Doebel also provides an excellent overview of the problems with the Haas Gesamtausgabe. Ibid., 291–401.
3 For example, Hawkshaw, Paul, ed. Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke, XVIII: Messe f Moll (Vienna, 2005)Google Scholar and Korstvedt, Benjamin, Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke , IV/3: IV. Symphonie Es-Dur: Fassung von 1888 (Vienna, 2004)Google Scholar.
4 Die Neue Anton Bruckner Gesamtausgabe/The New Anton Bruckner Complete Edition, ed. Paul Hawkshaw, Thomas Leibnitz, Andreas Lindner, Angela Pachovsky and Thomas Röder (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2016–). The inaugural meeting of the Editorial and Advisory Boards took place in Vienna at the offices of the publisher on 15 March 2013.
5 Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2016.
6 Bruckner, Anton, Neunte Symphonie [D-moll] für groβes Orchester , ed. Ferdinand Löwe (Vienna: Ludwig Doblinger, [1904])Google Scholar. The manuscript is now in the Music Collection of the Austrian National Library (Wn) Mus. Hs. 19.481.
7 Göllerich, August and Auer, Max, Anton Bruckner: ein Lebens- und Schaffensbild, 4 vols (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1922–37), 4/4 Google Scholar: 110. Auer was Chairman (Vorsitzender) of the Board of Directors (Vorstand) of the Society at the time. The Missa Solemnis and Requiem, which had already appeared in the Gesamtausgabe (see n.2), were excluded from the debate over the composer’s early editions because neither had been published previously. For more on the politics surrounding the founding of the Society and the origins of the Gesamtausgabe, see Brüstle, Christa, Anton Bruckner und die Nachwelt (Stuttgart: J. B. Melzer, 1998), 73–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a list of directors during the early years of the Society, see Andrea Harrandt, ‘Internationale Bruckner-Gesellschaft (IBG)’ in Bruckner Handbuch, 218.
8 Münchner Zeitung, 25 October 1935. Cited in Bruckner-Blätter, 3–4 (1935): 24. Haas’s edition of the Fifth Symphony appeared as Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke, V: V. Symphonie B-Dur (Originalfassung) (Vienna, 1935). The first edition was Anton Bruckner, Fünfte Symphonie (B dur) für groβes Orchester (Vienna: Ludwig Doblinger, [1896]).
9 Haas, Robert, ed. Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke , VIII: VIII. Symphonie c-Moll [1890] (Leipzig, 1939), Einführung Google Scholar.
10 This is the fourth clause in the will that Bruckner signed and dated 10 November 1893. For the text of the entire document, see Keller, Rolf, ‘Die letztwilligen Verfūgungen Anton Bruckners’, Bruckner-Jahrbuch 1982–83, 111–115 Google Scholar.
11 Harrandt, Andrea and Schneider†, Otto, eds, Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke , XXIV/1–2, Briefe, 1887–1896 (Vienna, 1998/2009 and 2003), 2 Google Scholar:114.
12 Franz Schalk, one of the early editors in question, had already voiced his objections to the manuscript versions prior to the 1932 performance of the Ninth Symphony. Wn F18 Schalk 395 (1930). Cited in Leibnitz, Thomas, Die Brüder Schalk und Anton Bruckner (Tutzing: Hans Schneider Verlag, 1988), 263–265 Google Scholar, and Hawkshaw, Paul, ‘The Bruckner Problem Revisited’, 19th-Century Music 21 (1997): 105–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The battle raged for well over two decades. Max Auer, Friedrich Blume, Deryck Cooke and Hans Ferdinand Redlich (on the Haas side), and Emil Armbruster, Max Morold, Alfred Orel and Egon Wellesz (on the Schalk side) were among the dozens of writers who weighed in. Auer, Max, ‘Der Streit um den echten Bruckner im Licht biographischen Tatsachen’, Zeitschrift für Musik 103 (1936): 538–545 and 1191–6Google Scholar; Blume, Friedrich, ‘Bruckner, Josef Anton’, in Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Kassel und Basel, 1952), 2:357–8Google Scholar; Cooke, Deryck, ‘The Bruckner Problem Simplified’, in Vindications: Essays on Romantic Music (Cambridge: 1982), 43–71 Google Scholar; Ferdinand Redlich, Hans, Bruckner and Mahler (London: 1956), 40–50; Armbruster, Emil, Erstdruckfassung oder ‘Originalfassung?’ (Leipzig: 1946)Google Scholar; Morold, Max, ‘Der wahre Bruckner?’, Zeitschrift für Musik 103 (1936): 533–537 Google Scholar; Orel, Alfred, ‘Original und Bearbeitung bei Anton Bruckner’, Deutsche Musikkultur 1 (1936): 193–222 Google Scholar; and Wellesz, Egon, ‘Anton Bruckner and the Process of Musical Creation’, The Musical Quarterly 24 (1938): 265–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Orel resigned as co-editor in November 1937. He explained his decision in a lengthy letter to Franz Schalk’s wife, Lily, on 3 March 1938. Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 357/13/10. For more on Orel’s relationship with the Gesamtausgabe and Robert Haas see Brüstle, Nachwelt, 136–142.
14 The engravers’ copies for Symphonies Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 and the Quintet survive. See Table 1.
15 Eckstein, Friederich, ‘Leidenschaftliche Erörterungen um Bruckner’, Anbruch 8 (1936): 56 Google Scholar.
16 See Franz Schalk’s remarks cited in Hawkshaw, ‘Bruckner Problem’, 106.
17 Orel, ‘Original und Bearbeitungen’, 221.
18 The supremacy of the manuscript versions became almost a first principal for Bruckner performers and scholars. The present author, for example, argued in favour of the Haas/Nowak position in Hawkshaw, ‘Bruckner Problem’, 96–106. Among the rare notable exceptions was the conductor Hans Knappertsbusch, who continued to perform and record from the early printed scores until his death in 1965.
19 Rättig had already published a different reading of the symphony 11 years earlier: Bruckner, Anton, Symphonie (D-moll) für groβes Orchester (Vienna: Theodor Rättig, [1879])Google Scholar. Nowak’s edition of the 1889 or third version of the work appeared as: Nowak, Leopold, ed., Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werk , III/3: III. Symphonie d-Moll: Fassung von 1889 (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1959)Google Scholar.
20 Nowak, ed., III. Symphonie d-Moll, ‘Vorwort’. The engraver’s copy is now Wn Mus. Hs. 6081.
21 Röder, Thomas, ‘Master and Disciple United: the 1889 Finale of the Third Symphony’, in Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, ed. Crawford Howie, Paul Hawkshaw and Timothy Jackson (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2001), 93–113 Google Scholar.
See also Gault, Dermot, The New Bruckner (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011), 132–141 Google Scholar.
22 Korstvedt, Benjamin, ‘The First Published Edition of Anton Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony: Collaboration and Authenticity’. 19th-Century Music 20 (Summer, 1996): 3–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Korstvedt edited this version of the symphony as Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke, IV/3: IV. Symphonie Es-Dur: Fassung von 1888 (Vienna, 2004). See also Gault, New Bruckner, 128–32. The engraver’s copy is in private possession. A photograph is kept in the Wienbibliothek Musiksammlung M. H. 9098/c. An error-filled edition appeared in 1889 and was replaced in 1890 at the composer’s insistence. Korstvedt, ‘First Published Edition’, xxiii. Alfred Orel had already argued (to little effect) the case for legitimizing this version of the symphony in ‘Ein Bruckner Fund (die Endfassung der IV. Sinfonie)’, Schweizerische Musikzeitung 88 (1949): 320–24. Ironically, with the publication of Korstvedt’s score of the Fourth, those of us nurtured on Haas and Nowak manuscript versions found ourselves in a position very much analogous to that of Brucknerians in the 1930s who grew up knowing only the early editions.
23 Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:205. See also Bruckner’s letter to Hermann Levi regarding the Fourth, 14 April 1888, and his letter to Hans von Wolzogen about the Third, 31 December 1890. Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:34 and 2:103. The Third was performed from the new edition on 21 December 1890, and the final version of the Fourth on 22 January 1888. The earlier version to which he is referring in the letter of 14 January 1893 is almost certainly Theodor Rättig’s first print of 1879, not any manuscript reading. See n.19.
24 Wn Mus. Hs. 19.475 and 19.476 are the autograph manuscripts of the 1877 version of the Third and 1880 version of the Fourth respectively. At this point we should eliminate any suggestion that Bruckner’s attorney, Theodore Reisch, deposited the wrong manuscripts in the library. He attempted to follow his client’s instructions and deliver to the library the final complete autograph manuscripts of all the pieces listed in the will. The Mass in F minor and first three movements of the Third Symphony were not available to him. He took it upon himself to give the Mass in E minor to the diocese of Linz for which it had been written and where it remains today. Bruckner almost certainly would have approved Reisch’s decision to give that manuscript to the diocese. Reisch included the first version of the Adagio of the Eighth Symphony because the second version was in the possession of the Schalks. Nowak, Leopold, ‘Das Bruckner Erbe der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek’. Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 21 (1966): 526–531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Reisch could not have organized the individual movements so consistently without help. Bruckner organized the manuscripts himself prior to his move to Belvedere in 1895 as indicated by lists that he and his secretary, Anton Meissner, made in his pocket calendar of 1894/95, Wn Mus. Hs. 3179/6. Ferdinand Löwe, who was on hand when Bruckner passed away, must have assisted Reisch in his task. Elisabeth Maier, ‘A Hidden Personality: Access to an “Inner Biography” of Anton Bruckner’, in Bruckner Studies, 33.
25 Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, contains an extensive analysis and selections from the letters.
26 Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 41. The first performance took place on 17 November 1881 at a concert of the Viennese Academic Wagner Society, which would become a venue for many of the Schalks’ efforts on Bruckner’s behalf.
27 Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 158/3/5. Cited in Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 47.
28 Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 158/3/7. Cited in Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 48–9.
29 For a discussion of Josef Schalk’s involvement in the composition of the second version of the Eighth Symphony, for example, see Hawkshaw, Paul, ed. Anton Bruckner Sämtliche Werke , VIII: VIII. Symphonie c-Moll: Fassungen von 1887 und 1890, Revisionsbericht (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2013), 22 Google Scholar, 271–4. The earliest sketch for the new ending of the first movement in the second version, for example, is in the hand of Josef Schalk. Wn Mus. Hs. 28.419, fol. 22v. See also n.21 above concerning Franz Schalk’s participation as co-composer of the Finale of the third version of the Third Symphony.
30 Levi’s letter of rejection is dated 7 October 1887. Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:23.
31 Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:22. I have observed that anyone confronted by the innumerable and often impenetrable layers of change in the autograph pages of the second version of the Eighth Symphony might wonder about the composer’s state of mind in preparing them. Hawkshaw, VIII. Symphonie Revisionsbericht, 12.
32 Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:25.
33 See the citation and n.9 above.
34 There are contemporary reports of a number of conflagrations between Bruckner and Josef Schalk, despite the latter’s tireless efforts on the composer’s behalf. Bruckner was so irate with Josef’s and Franz Zottmann’s preparation for a performance of a piano reduction of the Fifth Symphony in April 1887, for example, that he threatened to call the police! Klose, Friedrich, Meine Lehrjahre bei Bruckner: Erinnerungen und Betrachtungen (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1927), 140–142 Google Scholar.
35 Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 395. Cited in Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 265.
36 Andrea Harrandt, ‘Students and Friends as “Prophets and Promoters”: The Reception of Anton Bruckner’s Works in the Wiener Akademische Wagner-Verein’, in Perspectives on Anton Bruckner, 317–27.
37 For detailed studies of the editors’ incursions see Doebel, Bruckners Symphonien, 111–210; Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 280–310; Haas, Bruckner Sämtliche Werke, V: Vorlagenbericht, xxv–xxvii or Hawkshaw, VIII. Symphonie Revisionsbericht, 381–414.
38 Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:25.
39 Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 158/8/4.
40 Orel, ‘Original und Bearbeitung’, 197. The above-mentioned quarrel with Josef Schalk (see n.34) was caused, at least in part, by Bruckner’s sense of loss of control. He complained that he had not been invited to enough pre-concert rehearsals. Klose, Meine Lehrjahre bei Bruckner, 142. In the pianists’ defence, Josef replied to Bruckner in a letter of 27 March 1887 that they had been rehearsing for weeks under the composer’s direction. Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 146/c/1. Cited in Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 113–14.
41 Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 158/9/7.
42 Wn Fonds 32 Oberleithner 169. A translation of the entire letter is printed in Hawkshaw, VIII. Symphonie Revisionsbericht, 26–7. For more on the Schalks’ involvement with the second version of the Eighth Symphony see Hawkshaw, Revisionsbericht, 19–23.
43 For more on the Mass in F minor see Hawkshaw, Paul, ‘An Anatomy of Change: Anton Bruckner’s Revisions to the Mass in F Minor’, in Bruckner Studies, 28–30 Google Scholar.
44 Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 179–85. Bruckner was unable to attend the performance due to illness. The earliest incidence mentioned in the correspondence of the Schalks’ having deliberately misled Bruckner occurred in the summer of 1888. While visiting Vienna, Gustav Mahler convinced Bruckner to reprint the old (1879) score of the Third Symphony rather than a new edition with the revisions on which the composer had been working with the Schalks. The publisher Theodor Rättig was forced to set aside 50 plates that had already been completed for the new edition. Josef intervened directly with Rättig to veto Mahler’s (and Bruckner’s) plan to reprint. On 13 July 1888 Josef wrote to Franz: ‘There is nothing to be done now except stop the printing without Bruckner’s knowledge until his beloved Francisce [Bruckner’s nickname for Franz] I hope has an opportunity to restore equilibrium’. Wn Fonds 18 Schalk 158/9/9. Cited in Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 135. The brothers prevailed. By way of illustrating how complex a web Bruckner could create with his vacillation, the new edition was the very one he endorsed five years later in the above-cited letter to Levi. See n.23.
45 Auer, ‘Der Streit’, 1194. To date no documentary or anecdotal evidence has surfaced to support Auer’s theory beyond the fact Bruckner did rely a great deal on Hynais during the 1890s (See Table 1).
46 Leibnitz, Brüder Schalk, 279.
47 The entire text of the contract can be found in Göllerich-Auer, Anton Bruckner, 4/3:259–262.
48 Nowak, ‘Das Bruckner Erbe’, 526–31. See also notes 20, 22 and 24 above.
49 My view of this issue has changed in the past few years. In Hawkshaw, ‘Bruckner Problem’, 96–107, I argued in support of the Haas interpretation.
50 Auer, ‘Der Streit’, 538 and 1194. The engraver’s copy is lost.
51 Göllerich-Auer, Anton Bruckner, 4/3: 258.
52 Keller, ‘Die letztwilligen Verfūgungen Anton Bruckners’, 97. Bruckner had been ill off and on for the better part of the spring and summer of 1893. He suffered a bad setback at the end of August and, on 21 September, his friend Franz Bayer reported that the doctors had strictly forbidden the composer to work. Göllerich-Auer, Anton Bruckner, 4/3: 352–353. Ignaz, who lived in St Florian, wrote to Bruckner on 9 October 1893 that the Prelate had agreed the composer could be interred at the monastery. Ignaz told Bruckner to confirm the arrangements and organize the rest of his affairs in a will which was an urgent matter, given the composer’s recent illness. Harrandt and Schneider, Briefe, 1887–1896, 2:234–35.
53 Alfred Orel, Bruckner Brevier (Vienna: Kaltschmid, 1953), 123.
54 Keller, ‘Die letztwilligen Verfūgungen Anton Bruckners’, 97.
55 Bruckner corrected some of the Schalkisms in the F-minor Mass, for example. Hawkshaw, ‘Anatomy of Change’, 31. The codicil was signed and dated 25 September 1894. Keller, ‘Die letztwilligen Verfūgungen Anton Bruckners’, 118.
56 Haas’s change of heart concerning the Fourth Symphony is expressed, for example, in a reprint of his edition of the symphony. Bruckner Sämtliche Werke IV, 1.
57 Leopold Nowak, in particular, made it a policy to publish as many of Bruckner’s revisions as possible, including three versions of the Third and Fourth Symphonies and two each of the First, Second and Eighth.
58 See n.4 above.
59 As Alfred Orel proposed almost 80 years ago: Orel, ‘Original und Bearbeitung’, 202–21.
60 See n.5 above.
61 In making these sorts of decisions, the editors will also have an eye to what is already available in the old Collected Works. When a perfectly good score already exists of a particular version, where appropriate, the NBG will produce a different version of historical significance.