I proposed in the introduction that considering an editor's view of a composer's historical or cultural significance can help provide a broader coherence to the editor's motives and methods. In the case of Kirkpatrick, the historiographic dimension of his editorial practice shines through especially clearly in his work on Ives: it would be difficult to conceive of an editorial approach more firmly directed at advancing a particular view of Ives's position in the music-historical firmament than Kirkpatrick's stance of overt skepticism toward Ives's later revisions. Yet Kirkpatrick subtly conveyed his vision of America's musical history in his collaborations with other composers as well, including Carl Ruggles, Arthur Farwell, and Hunter Johnson.

Of course, it would be pedantic to insist that every editorial decision ever made must be weighed for its historiographic import, when issues such as expedience, legibility, clarity, and interpretation also informed Kirkpatrick's decision-making process. Furthermore, the hybrid methods of Kirkpatrick's editorial practice—sometimes collaborative, sometimes retrospective; sometimes a pastiche of sources, at other times a disciplined version of a single one—show that Kirkpatrick was willing to embrace a variety of approaches when bringing his editions to fruition. Taken together, Kirkpatrick's various concerns as an editor demand an approach that allows for an array of considerations to inform an interpretation of his career. But I do hope to have shown that larger issues loom behind apparently small editorial decisions, and, provided that the archival record is intact, that it is possible to divine how a music editor influenced a repertoire.