John Michael Cooper (University of North
Texas)
“. . . da ich dies Stück
gern recht correct erscheinen sähe”: Philological and Textual
Issues in Mendelssohn's Hebrides Overture, Op.
26
|
[Introduction]
I. Genesis and Publication History of
the Overture: A Chronological Sketch
II. The Musical Sources
III. The Revision History
IV. Conclusions
[Printable
version]
|
One of the first of
many remarkable moments in Mendelssohn’s Hebrides
Overture occurs in mm. 7-8. Here, after the evocative opening
pitting strings and woodwinds in sustained open octaves against
sequential statements of the gapped scale that comprises the
Overture’s main motive, the first bassoon, violas, and cellos
offer a darkly colored surge, perhaps evocative of the swelling and
breaking of a wave on the shores of Scotland’s fabled outer
isle (Example
1a). This picturesque gesture dates from early on in the
Overture’s history: it is present in all surviving autograph
orchestral scores, three surviving contemporary copies of the full
score, the composer’s own arrangement for piano duet, and the
printed parts issued by Breitkopf & Härtel in March 1834.
It also is retained in the edition presented in Series 2 of the
Breitkopf & Härtel series of Mendelssohn’s Collected
Works issued in the 1870s,[1] as well as most modern
editions.
It may come as a surprise, then, that
Mendelssohn abandoned this gesture in his latest documented
revisions of the Overture. The first edition of the orchestral
score, as corrected by the composer and released more than a year
after the publication of the orchestral parts, replaces the
familiar swell with another thematic element, the signature gesture
of the consequent phrase of first subject itself – a gesture
that in the familiar version is absent from the introduction
(Example
1b). Nor is the first edition of the orchestral score the
only documentation of the proliferation of this late revision, for
at least one set of manuscript parts from the mid-nineteenth
century transmits the same variant. The result is that this early
memorable moment in the work is called into question not by
unreliable later editions (as is usually the case), but by
Mendelssohn himself, as well as surviving records of
mid-nineteenth-century practice.
Despite recent decades’ progress
in understanding the composition of the
Hebrides Overture and the abundant changes introduced
during its genesis, significant questions remain. Many of these
questions concern the philological relationships among the
manuscript and print sources and their respective degrees of
textual authority. This study addresses some of these questions in
order to construct a firm chronological framework for clarifying
the Overture’s more difficult textual issues. A review of the
composer’s correspondence and a correlation of the large- and
small-scale revisions reflected in the surviving witnesses permits
a detailed reconstruction of the successive stages in the textual
development of this Mendelssohnian masterpiece – the stations
along the way in its journey from an evocative sketch to one of
Mendelssohn’s most widely acclaimed instrumental works. The
undertaking also offers lessons concerning the issues that confront
all who wish to know Mendelssohn’s music through reliable
musical texts.
|
.
I. Genesis and Publication History of the Overture:
A Chronological Sketch
|
The genesis of the Hebrides Overture has been
thoroughly documented in a number of previous studies, especially
those by R. Larry Todd.[2] The following pages summarize the
essentials of this genesis with an eye to the events and documents
that pertain directly to the work’s source-situation. The
analytical and interpretive insights offered by the relationship
between the sketches and the printed score, already discussed in
detail by Professor Todd, are beyond the scope of the present
study.[3]
The documented origins of the Overture represent a
striking convergence of biographical, poetic, and visual impulses.
The work was conceived during Mendelssohn’s trip to Scotland
in August 1829. The date of 7 August was particularly illustrious:
on that date the composer recorded his impression of one of the
scenes he encountered in a finely wrought pencil drawing[4] and began a letter to his
family that not only describes his experiences verbally, but also
musically responds to that scenario in a short-score sketch of the
work’s opening twenty-one measures (see Figure
1).[5]
Although Mendelssohn frequently
referred to the work in letters to his family, he was able to
complete a full score only fifteen months later, while in Rome. A
set of sketches may be securely dated as stemming from mid-October
1830,[6] and a letter
to his family dated 30 November 1830 records that he intended to
send a copy of the score to his close friend Eduard Rietz as soon
as it was finished.[7] In a
letter to his father dated 10 December 1830, he expressed his wish
that the Overture could be finished by the next day, his
father’s birthday.[8] There is, however, no evidence that this
wish was fulfilled.[9] The
earliest surviving complete autograph (identified as source
AR later in these remarks) bears the closing date "Rom d. 16
Dec. 1830."
Once he had completed this version, Mendelssohn began
to share his new masterpiece with others: he reportedly played the
work for Hector Berlioz during the French composer’s time in
Rome (probably during the two composers’ first encounter, in
March 1831).[10] In the
meantime, he had dispatched a manuscript copy to his older sister,
Fanny, with useful details about the work’s state at that
point (see
Figure 2):[11]
|
Dear Fanny!
|
This is the Hebrides Overture. Sapienti
sat [a word to the wise]: in the Italian musical
script
|
|
means p,
|
|
means sfz,
|
[and]
|
|
means
|
f . |
|
|
At the end of the so-called first part, where it
closes in D major, you will find a bad spot; I wanted to change it
but there was no time, so just imagine it differently.
|
The dull noise-making from here on
|
|
, |
|
and the following passage, which is obviously copied
out of my excellent "Reformation" Symphony and with which I pay
homage to myself, should become different as soon as I get back.
For the time being, accept it as is. I wrote it down [this way]
because I was in a hurry and put off reworking it because other
projects were pressing.[12] Emil is departing tomorrow and
bringing all along with him. May it please you...[13]
|
|
|
The evolving work’s informal
dissemination continued. Despite efforts to get his orchestral
music performed in Paris, he reported to Fanny on 21 January 1832
that he refused to release the Overture there because he "still
[did] not regard it as finished";[14] nevertheless, he did show the
"provisional score" (provisorische Partitur) to his close
friend Ferdinand Hiller sometime during the Parisian sojourn, and
in London he played it for Ignaz Moscheles on 30 April
1832.[15]
On 5 May 1832 Mendelssohn reported to
his family that the problematical "middle section" in D major had
been eradicated and he was writing out the entire score anew in
preparation for an upcoming concert by the Philharmonic Society of
London; despite apparent hopes that the work be included in the
Society’s concert on 7 May, the premiere was delayed because
at the time of the rehearsal on 5 May the score was "not yet
written out." Nevertheless, the composer considered that he had by
then "made The Hebrides significantly different and
better."[16]
His diary notes that he did
complete the new score on 6 May,[17] and on that same day he gave a
score of the version originally completed on 16 December 1830 to
Ignaz Moscheles. Of this remarkable gift, Moscheles later recounted
that he had contested the need for the revisions undertaken in the
meantime but was unable to dissuade the composer from his
"principle of revision."[18]
The new version was rehearsed on 12 May
and premiered as the Overture to the Isles of Fingal at a
concert given by the Philharmonic Society of London under the
direction of the composer’s friend Thomas Attwood on 14
May.[19]
A second performance was given
on 1 June by the same ensemble, now under the direction of Sir
George Smart. Mendelssohn gave "the score of [his] Overture to the
Isles of Fingal" to the Society at a reception held on 6 June
1832.[20]
Now pleased with the work, he
began to take concrete steps toward its eventual publication. On 19
June he inscribed the date on an autograph arrangement for piano
four-hands (see source
APf, below) and made a corresponding entry in his
diary,[21]
and the following day he
inscribed an orchestral full score (see source AL, below).
But if the Overture appeared to be
moving rapidly toward completion in the summer of 1832,
circumstances conspired to stall this progress. The geographic
distance between London and Berlin had permitted the young composer
to continue his productivity despite the professional issues that
arose after the death of his composition teacher, Karl Friedrich
Zelter, on 15 May 1832. But when he returned to Berlin he was flung
squarely into the middle of the intense rivalry for the
directorship of the Singakademie, a process that extended into
January 1833 and ultimately resulted in an embarrassing defeat for
Mendelssohn.[22]
Despite these challenges, this
period witnessed two further performances of the Hebrides
Overture, on 10 January and 14 February 1833.[23] Both events were well
received, albeit not without some reservations from the critics:
Ludwig Rellstab suggested that "[p]erhaps the fault of the
composition is only that it requires a commentary,"[24] and an
anonymous reviewer in the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische
Zeitung commented that "the Hebrides Overture by F.
Mendelssohn-Bartholdy was too serious for this concert-going public
and may also be less musically self-sufficient than the
Midsummer Night’s Dream Overture."[25]
The final steps toward publication
evidently were taken in mid-1833. Mendelssohn initiated
arrangements for the printing of the piano-duet version with the
London firm of Mori & Lavenu, and (in accordance with
publication conventions of the day) he proposed German publication
of this version to the Leipzig firm of Breitkopf & Härtel
in August; by then, the London firm had settled on a release date
of 1 October.[26]
On 18 September, traveling
through Leipzig on his way from Berlin to Düsseldorf (where he
was to assume his new position as Municipal Music Director), he
wrote again to Breitkopf & Härtel to remind them of the
need to advertise this date, also specifying the title for the
German editions of both the orchestral version and the piano-duet
arrangement.[27]
That schedule proved untenable,
however, for as of 27 September the Leipzig firm had heard nothing
from its London counterpart.[28] On 4 October Breitkopf &
Härtel notified the composer that the piano-duet arrangement
had been received from Mori & Lavenu, also asking that he send
the written-out orchestral parts as soon as possible.[29] Finally, the
piano-duet arrangement appeared on 15 October 1833 (see discussion of source EPf1
below).
Further complications arose in the
production of the orchestral parts. In response to a letter of 21
November 1833 from Breitkopf & Härtel asking that the
manuscript parts used for the Berlin performances be sent to them,
the composer’s mother, Lea, forwarded this letter to the
composer with a note that "Fanny says that the parts are not
here."[30]
Mendelssohn reported this
problem to the publisher on 29 November, conjecturing that the
parts had been lost. With this letter, however, he sent a corrected
full orchestral score for the work and asked that the parts be
engraved from it, with particular attention to the placement of
dynamics and expressive indications. He also stated that this score
was provided with rehearsal letters that were to be copied into the
parts, and specified that the published score be grouped with the
Midsummer Night’s Dream and Calm Sea and Prosperous
Voyage Overtures under a single opus number:
Today I am sending via express post the
score to my Hebrides Overture, and I regret to have learned
from Berlin that it was not possible to send you the written-out
parts, as you had requested. They believed there that I had the
parts here with me, so I fear that the parts have been lost. In any
case, I ask that you have the parts made from this score, in which
I have changed a few more things and placed all indications very
precisely; also, please ask the engraver to be very exact in the
placement of p, f , crescendo,
etc., and of the rehearsal letters, which must be in all the parts.
The cello and bass need not always be written in two staves, as
occurs in the score, but only when the cello part diverges from the
bass part. I would very much appreciate it if you could send me
proofs of these parts, for I very much want this piece to appear
properly.
At the same time, permit me an inquiry:
in your Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung I was sharply
scolded for not having released the score for my Midsummer
Night’s Dream Overture; it was considered my fault
and attributed to a fear of criticism. Quite the contrary, however,
it has long been one of my dearest wishes that some of those scores
that I myself prize most should also be presented to the public,
for I believe that they would do no disservice to my name. Until
now I considered this impossible, and even now I would not ask you
to produce such a publication if not for the above-mentioned
review, and if other considerations did not lead me to believe that
such a publication would perhaps be feasible. I therefore wish to
ask whether you might publish the Midsummer Night’s
Dream Overture, the Hebrides Overture, and a third one
of the same sort in score? They would have to be assigned a
single opus number and would require far fewer pages than a
Beethoven symphony, so they could become fairly profitable. In such
a venture I would naturally relinquish my honorarium and would be
very happy simply to see my wishes met. Because you have published
so many of my compositions one after another I would not have
proposed this to you, but because you hold the rights to two of
these overtures I had no choice but to ask you first ...
P. S. Please give the title of the
Hebrides Overture in German, as I specified
earlier.[31]
French titles are bêtes
noires for me.[32]
In a performance generally overlooked in
commentaries to date, the Overture received its Leipzig premiere in
a benefit concert for the poor of the city on 13 February
1834;[33]
in response to this occasion an
anonymous reviewer for the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische
Zeitung referred to "the new, nicely wrought Hebrides
Overture, published by Breitkopf & Härtel."[34] Breitkopf
& Härtel issued a new announcement of the arrangement for
piano-duet on 5 March, along with a notice that an arrangement for
piano solo was at press.[35] On 14 March 1834 Mendelssohn
wrote from Düsseldorf to send the publisher his specifications
for the title pages of the score editions of all three
overtures:
...You prefer to release the scores for
the overtures individually and I understand that this must be much
more advantageous for you. Nevertheless, I wish that a collective
title for all three be made (perhaps something like "Three Concert
Overtures: No. 1 Ein Sommernachtstraum; No. 2 Die
Hebriden; No. 3 Meeresstille und glückliche
Fahrt"), and that additionally each title page would read
Three Concert Overtures: No. 1 Ein Sommernachtstraum;
No. 2 Die Hebriden, [and so on] so that it will be clear
that they belong together. This leads me to mention that one of the
best painters we have here has offered to make a small vignette for
each title page, which obviously would be very nice. I would very
much appreciate it if you would agree to this, but in that case the
entire set of title pages would have to be engraved here, and first
of all I must ask you approximately what you pay for your title
pages and what the specifications of your format are. Finally, I
must unconditionally request that I have an opportunity to
proofread the three scores before they are released. When do you
expect to give them to the engravers? For various reasons I hope
that this will occur soon, and ask once again that you answer my
questions, especially the last one, soon, also telling me whether
the orchestra parts for The Hebrides have been
released.[36]
The parts for the Hebrides were
published in late March 1834, and the publisher wrote to
Mendelssohn on 21 April requesting that he provide the dedication
by mid-May because the scores for all three overtures were to
appear by the end of that month.[37] A second Leipzig performance
was given on 5 May,[38]
but once again delays ensued in
the publication of the scores. The orchestral parts were reviewed
(along with the piano-duet arrangement) in the Leipzig
Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung on 25 June,[39] and on 29 July the
composer acknowledged receipt of these parts, also stating that
their production left nothing to be desired.[40] The same
letter accompanied the corrected proofs for the Midsummer
Night’s Dream Overture and the Rondo brillant, Op.
29, as well as a corrected proof of the collective title page for
the three overtures, with the dedication to the Crown Prince of
Prussia written in by the composer. The letter also specifies that
the three overtures were to be given the collective opus number 27
– a wish that remained unfulfilled, although that number was
eventually assigned to Meeresstille und glückliche
Fahrt – and conveyed Mendelssohn’s hopes that the
proofs for the other two overtures in the triptych could soon be
sent to him for revision. The publisher replied on 8 August that
the engraving of the Hebrides and Meeresstille would
soon be finished[41] and Mendelssohn acknowledged this
response on 14 August.[42] On 15 November he returned the proofs
with a lengthy cover letter that referred to several further
necessary alterations:
...Enclosed please find the proofs of
the two overtures. I have had to make still more changes here and
there, and therefore ask you to request that the engraver follow
all my comments exactly. In addition, it would be very good if the
overtures could be released rather soon, also because of the
dedication, for which I requested and received permission long
ago.[43]
Another Leipzig performance of the
Overture, now billed as Ossian in Fingalshöhle,
occurred on 4 December 1834, presumably using the parts published
several months earlier, even though they would not have included
the necessary changes he had entered in the score proofs returned
on 15 November. The only other development in the last months of
1834 was the appearance of Friedrich Mockwitz’s arrangement
of the Overture for piano solo – an arrangement in which the
composer had no hand, and to which he objected
strenuously.[44]
On 16 January 1835 Mendelssohn wrote
from Düsseldorf that he had received no response to a letter
(now lost) of 4 December, pressed for an update, and asked that
presentation exemplars be sent directly to his father in Berlin so
that he could forward them to the Crown Prince as dedication
copies.[45] The
publisher evidently replied on 22 January, commissioning
Mendelssohn himself to prepare an arrangement of the
Hebrides for piano solo, but the composer declined because
he felt that the work did not permit reduction for that
medium.[46] On 28
February he responded happily to the publisher’s report (now
lost) that the engraving of the scores of the three overtures had
been completed, also asking that the separate edition of the
Hebrides be dedicated to Franz Hauser (to whom the
piano-duet arrangement had likewise been dedicated).[47]
Finally, the scores of the three
overtures appeared in mid-March 1835.[48] In accordance with the
composer’s specifications, the collective title page
identified the Crown Prince of Prussia as the dedicatee; however,
no separate title pages were provided for the individual
publications. The composer’s acknowledgment of receipt, dated
10 April 1835, manifests both gratitude and relief.[49]
The genesis of the definitive version of
the Hebrides Overture spans five and a half years, from the
initial visual/musical impulse in August 1829 to the publication of
the score in March 1835. The chronographic evidence is riddled with
lacunae, ambivalences, and contradictions: some letters are lost,
others appear have crossed in the mail, and still others document
problems and points of confusion. Even taken by itself, this
evidence poses challenges for the scholar who wishes to establish a
reliable chronological framework for the successive versions of the
Overture’s Notentext. But the surviving contemporary
musical sources prove equally vexing, for Mendelssohn’s
correspondence makes clear that the latest revisions date from
November 1834 – well after the publication of the orchestral
parts and the arrangement for piano duet. As will be shown in the
following section, however, the difficulties posed by those sources
ultimately emerge not as hindrances, but as keys – indicia
that permit a remarkably precise reconstruction of the work’s
textual history.
|
.
II. The Musical Sources
|
The musical source-situation for the Hebrides
Overture is typical of Mendelssohn: the work’s protracted
gestation is documented through his letters and a number of
chronologically intertwined and geographically dispersed
manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts are entirely or partially in
Mendelssohn’s hand, others are significant contemporary
copies, and still others are missing or lost. All offer significant
variants from the published version of the work. The following
inventory differentiates between autographs (sources wholly in
Mendelssohn’s handwriting), contemporary manuscripts
principally or entirely in another hand, and significant print
sources. For convenience, brief identifications of these sources
are provided in Table 1.
|
Autograph Sources
|
AS1. New York Public Library, *MNY:
Sketch of mm. 1-21 in short score (see Figure 1, above).
This sketch is contained in a letter from Mendelssohn to his family
begun on 7 August 1829 in the fishing village of Tobermory, on the
northeast side of the island of Mull in Scotland. Continued on 11
August, the letter bears the postmark 12 August. This passage is
transcribed and discussed in detail in R. Larry Todd’s
monograph on Mendelssohn’s major concert overtures.[50]
AS2. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS M.
Deneke Mendelssohn c. 47, fol. 29r. These undated sketches for
the Overture’s recapitulation and coda are contained in a
posthumously assembled volume of miscellaneous compositions by
Mendelssohn, J. S. Bach, and Fanny Hensel.[51] On the basis of
philological and biographical considerations, they may be securely
dated as stemming from mid-October 1830.[52]
AR. Pierpont Morgan Library, New York
City, Robert Owen Lehman Deposit.[53] This manuscript is the
earliest surviving autograph full score for the Hebrides
Overture. At the end of the score, on p. [42], is the autograph
inscription "Rom d. 16 Dec. / 1830." Not surprisingly (given its
chronological distance from the Overture’s completion), this
version of the work exhibits many differences from the final one.
It originally comprised 320 measures but was eventually reduced to
311 by cuts; this stands in contrast to the 268 bars of the
familiar version. Some of these differences have already been
discussed in the literature concerning the Overture, but they have
yet to be explored fully in the context of a study specifically
devoted to textual and philological issues.
In the center at the top of the first
page of AR appears the title Die Hebriden; in the
upper right-hand corner is the invocation "L. e. g. G." ("Lass es
gelingen, Gott," an invocation that Mendelssohn frequently
inscribed on his manuscripts at the beginning of a compositional
undertaking). Above the first system of the score is the subtitle
"Ouvertüre" (see Fig. 3). Although the pencil markings on
the first page suggest that the manuscript was in the possession of
Charles Gounod (1818-93) at some point, when he may have received
it is unclear. It was purchased in 1911 by the Musikhistorisches
Museum of Wilhelm Heyer (1849-1913) and auctioned again in 1926; at
that point it was purchased by Hugo von Mendelssohn Bartholdy
(1894-1975; great-grandson of the composer). A facsimile was
published by Amerbach (Basel) in 1947. The manuscript subsequently
was acquired by Robert Owen Lehman, who placed it on deposit in the
Morgan Library in 1972.
Source AR comprises forty-four
oblong quarto pages containing fourteen printed staves per side and
measuring 19.5 x 23.5 cm; of these forty-four pages, the last two
are blank except for the printed staves. Although the pages
presumably were originally arranged in bifolia, at some point these
were separated; each leaf is now tipped into the binding, which
dates from 1960s Paris. The pagination, evidently in
Mendelssohn’s own handwriting, appears on both recto and
verso sides on pp. 2 through 19; thereafter, page numbers appear
only on recto sides through p. 41. The final leaf of the score
contains no page number, and the final recto and verso sides (pp.
[43-44]) transmit neither music nor page numbers.
The paper of AR bears the
watermark SWIDNITZ underneath a shield with posthorn on one side,
and on the center of the other side F RITSCHEL. This watermark
closely resembles that identified by Georg Eineder as no. 1562,
which dates from 1830.[54] The foliation structure suggests that the
manuscript originally fell into two halves, the first comprising
pp. 1-20 and the second comprising pp. 21-[44]. As shown in
Diagram 1,
the first of these was a single gathering comprising five bifolia,
but the second was more erratic; in particular, the fact that pp.
33-[44] originally comprised a single gathering of three bifolia
but pp. 21-32 were a series of individual bifolia might suggest
that the latter group posed some particular problem for the
composer.[55]
Source AR also includes several
extraneous markings. The most readily evident of these stem from
the hand of Charles Gounod. As shown in Figure 3, the first
page of the score includes a remarkable intervention by Gounod, who
replaced the autograph whole-note rest in the contrabass line in m.
3 with a half-note D (without the concomitant half-rest) in
fine blue pencil; next to the inserted note Gounod placed a "+"
sign referring to an explanatory note at the foot of the page:"+ Je
crois que le Ré a été oublié à la Contre
Basse. / Ch. Gounod."[56] These original annotations were later
supplemented (perhaps not by Gounod) with an "x" in fine red
pencil, so that the original "+" signs appear as .
A second set of extraneous marks
evidently stems from the hand of Ignaz Moscheles, to whom
Mendelssohn reportedly gave the manuscript in early May 1832 (see
above). These markings are in a coarse blue pencil. The first set
frames an extended passage in which source AR varies
substantially from the familiar version of the work: on p. 5 a
large "X" is located above the system at the beginning of measure 6
(following m. 32 of the familiar version); a corresponding "X" (in
the same script and written with the same implement) is placed
beneath the system at the same point, and another large "X" (in the
same hand and implement) is found beneath the system at the end of
the passage (the end of the penultimate measure of p. 6, just
before m. 47 of the familiar version). This passage is identified
as No. 1 of the large-scale revisions discussed below.
Moscheles also placed a large "X"
beneath the systems enclosing another passage that differs
substantially from the familiar version of the Overture. The
opening "X" falls beneath the system on p. 10, and the closing "X"
is found beneath the system on p. 14; all totaled, this passage
comprises thirty-eight measures that were eventually replaced by
mm. 70-95 of the published score. As shown in Figure 4, beneath
the second "X" Moscheles further noted, "Bis hieher X sind / 38
Takte verschieden von / den 24 gestochenen Takte" ("Up to this
point X 38 measures are different from the 24 printed
measures").[57] This
inscription permits two conjectures concerning the dates of these
annotations’ entry. Because it refers to "the printed
measures" the second pair of Xs must date from after October 1833,
the date of the first publication of the work; but if "the printed
measures" were found in the printed orchestral score, the
inscription must date from later than mid-Marchl 1835 (when that
score finally appeared). Moreover, since the second inscription
states that up to that point thirty-eight bars were different from
their corresponding twenty-four [recte twenty-six] bars in the
printed score and the second passage alone comprises thirty-eight
bars, the first pair of Xs may have been written later on.
APf. Bodleian
Library, Oxford, MS Horsley b.1.[58] This autograph is the
composer’s own arrangement for piano duet (i.e., piano
four-hands). As was customary for works for this medium, the score
is laid out with the "Secondo" and "Primo" parts on facing verso
and recto sides, respectively; each opening thus naturally gives
the same measures for each player’s part. At the end of the
Primo part (fol. 9r) the manuscript is dated in Mendelssohn’s
hand: "London 19th June 1832. / Für Marie und
Sophie Horsley zu Erinnerung von / Felix Mendelssohn
Bartholdy."[59] Despite
its late date in the work’s compositional and publication
histories, this arrangement still evinces some substantive
differences from the familiar text.[60] These differences notwithstanding, the
arrangement contains essentially the same 268 measures as the
published version.
Source APf includes an autograph
title page that reads: Overture / to the Isles of Fingal. /
Arranged / as a Duet for two Performers / on the Pianoforte. /
FMB. Above the first system of each part, the first page of the
score itself is inscribed only "Overture."
Source APf is a part of the
collection of Horsley family papers, acquired by the Bodleian
Library in October 1987.[61] It comprises five sequential bifolia in
oblong format, measuring 23.0 x 30.0 cm and containing fourteen
printed staves per side; the folia with music inscribed on them
(fols. 2-9) were joined together by side stitching, although the
stitching is now partially disintegrated. These leaves are loosely
enclosed in an outer wrapper (fols. 1 and 10) with an inscription
that seems to be in the hand of Elizabeth Horsley: "Overture to the
Isles of Fingal." The paper bears the watermark "W. King" on one
side of the bifolia, and "1829" on the other. The Library’s
cataloguer provided the folio numbers; there is no pagination or
foliation in Mendelssohn’s hand. The autograph is unbound and
kept in a modern envelope with other materials from the Horsley
papers.
AL. Bodleian
Library, Oxford, MS M. Deneke Mendelssohn d. 71.[62] This manuscript full score
is the latest surviving autograph for Op. 26. It consists of a
flyleaf followed by a regular series of bifolia, which are not
grouped into any larger units but were pasted to one another at the
edges, evidently before the manuscript was bound. The score begins
on fol. 2 and concludes on fol. 18v. Following the last measure is
the autograph inscription "London 20 Juni 32"; fol. 19r-v is blank.
The flyleaf, in the hand of William Sterndale Bennett, reads:
"William Sterndale Bennett. / Leipzig – March 17 – 1837
/ N.B. – This Original Score was given to me by
/ Mendelssohn – WSB"; the leaf also bears Bennett’s
stamp. The manuscript is in a dark green binding similar to that
Mendelssohn used for many of his autographs. Since Mendelssohn did
not inscribe the flyleaf, however, the manuscript probably was not
yet bound when he gave it to Bennett; more likely is that Bennett
had the binding done at some point later on and made the flyleaf
inscription at that point. This autograph passed from Bennett to
Prof. Thomas Chase, and from him to Mr. T. G. Odling. While in
Odling’s possession, it was discussed in important articles
by Ernest Walker and Gerald Abraham.[63] After these articles,
however, the manuscript remained inaccessible to scholars for more
than half a century. It was auctioned by Sotheby’s, London,
in May 2002, and was purchased by the Bodleian Library. It now
forms part of that library’s extensive collection of
Mendelssohniana.[64]
The score of source AL transmits
two paper-types, both in oblong format and measuring ca. 19.5 x
24.0 cm. Most of the manuscript (fols. 4r-17v) is on a nondescript
paper bearing no watermark, but the paper of the outermost bifolia
(fols. 2r-3v and 18r-19v) is browner, with darker stave ruling;
this paper bears the same watermark as APf.[65] The musical content of
these bifolia corresponds to that of mm. 1-27 and 258-68 of the
published score, and in the distribution of measures over the pages
these leaves correspond exactly to pp. 1-4 and 40-41 of the Rome
autograph (AR).
Source AL originally contained
276 measures, eight of which were deleted via cross-hatching to
yield the same 268 measures as the piano-duet arrangement
(APf, EPf1) and published version (EP,
ES, ER). In some places AL differs
substantively from both of these versions. The first page of the
score bears the main title Die Hebriden, and above the first
measure is the subtitle Ouvertüre; the additional
presence of the invocation "H. D. m."[66] concurs with the
score’s extensive alterations and excisions to suggest that
Mendelssohn regarded this manuscript as a new stage of revision
(see Fig.
5). The score also contains a series of autograph rehearsal
letters in pencil, evidently provided later on. The placement of
these letters is as follows: A: fol. 4v (= m. 41); B:
fol. 7r (= m. 77); C: fol. 10v (= m. 138); D: fol.
12r (= m. 165); E: fol. 13r (= m. 177); F: fol. 15v (
= m. 226).
AX. Autograph full
score written in early May 1832 (lost). Mendelssohn’s
correspondence reveals that he wrote out a new score for the
Overture before the premiere (given by the Philharmonic Society of
London on 14 May 1832) and that he presented a "score of [his]
Overture to the Isles of Fingal" to the Society through George
Smart on 6 June 1832; it seems reasonable to assume that these two
were the same score. Such a score appears to have been listed in
the catalog of the Society’s overture scores that was in use
up to the 1840s, but disappears from the catalogs after that point.
Nevertheless, as Peter Ward Jones has suggested, documentation of
the Overture’s musical text as it was transmitted in
AX appears to have survived in a manuscript copy evidently
generated on the basis of parts produced from AX.[67] This copy is identified as
source CL below.
|
Other manuscript sources
CO. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS M.
Deneke Mendelssohn d. 58. This apograph full score bears no
date but does include a separate title page in Mendelssohn’s
hand reading: "Ouvertüre / zur / einsamen Insel." Like the
other manuscript sources, it is in oblong quarto format. There are
also minor autograph corrections on fols. 4v and 8v. Bequeathed by
Helena Deneke in 1973, the score was bound in the library.[68] On the whole, the musical
content of CO concurs with that of source AR, but in
CO the Overture runs to 316 measures rather than the 320
originally included in AR or the 311 to which it was
eventually reduced. There are no rehearsal letters.
On the basis of calligraphic
similarities between the dynamic and expressive markings present in
CO and those explained in the composer’s letter to
Fanny Hensel dated 25 February 1831 (see above), we may securely
identify CO as the copy that Mendelssohn dispatched to
Berlin on 26 February 1831 (cf. Figs. 2 and 6). This dating
identifies ca. 25 February 1831 as either the terminus ante
quem or terminus post quem of specific variants
transmitted in AR.
CD. Sächsische Landesbibliothek,
Dresden, Mus. 5543-N-507.[69] Like CO, This apograph full score
is undated, and its musical content replicates that of source
AR. It is a professional copyist’s manuscript in
oblong format. It also contains a separate title page (in the same
format) which reads, in one script: "Ouverture / (Hebrides,
Fingalshöhle) / von / Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy." Beneath
this is another inscription in an unidentified hand: "Erste
Niederschrift. / Später vielfach umgearbeitet und
verändert" ("First draft. / Later extensively revised and
altered"). The manuscript eventually passed into the possession of
Wilhelm Wauers Musikstiftung (in Herrnhut, near Dresden). There the
flyleaf was inscribed in 1878 "Copie der ersten Niederschrift
Mendelssohns / 1. Titel von Rietz’s Hand. / W. W. 1878"
("Copy of Mendelssohn’s first draft / [The] 1st
title in Rietz’s handwriting"). The date provided in this
inscription would suggest that Wauer acquired the score in the wake
of the death of Julius Rietz (1812-77); however, neither the
musical script nor the "first title" (presumably referring to the
first four lines) appears actually to be in Rietz’s hand.
Rather, the score is in the handwriting of Eduard Henschke
(1805-54). Since Henschke was one of Mendelssohn’s preferred
copyists in Leipzig – he was the copyist for the
symphony-cantata Lobgesang and the E-minor Violin Concerto,
among other works – the possibility cannot be ruled out that
this copy was produced with the composer’s involvement.
Source CD contains the same 316
bars as CO. Unlike CO, however, CD does
include rehearsal letters, added in pencil in a different hand. The
placement of these is as follows (identified in terms of
corresponding measures in AR and the published editions):
A: AR p. 4, m. 3 [≈ m. 23]; B: AR
p. 6, m. 6 [not in familiar version]; C: AR p. 11, m.
4 [not in familiar version]; D: AR p. 14, m. 3 [not
in familiar version]; E: AR p. 16, m. 6
[≈ m. 112]; F: AR p. [20], m. 2 [not in
familiar version]; G: AR p. 21, m. 8 [≈ m.
147]; H: AR p. 25, m. 2 [≈ m. 169]; J:
AR p. 27, m. 2 [≈ m. 178]; K: AR p. 30,
m. 1 [≈ m. 194]; L: AR p. 32, m. 5 [≈ m.
217]; M: AR p. 36, m. 1 [≈ m. 234]; N:
AR p. 39, m. 5 [≈ m. 255].
A comparison of these rehearsal letters
with those in AL and the first edition of the orchestral
parts (see EP,
below) suggests that the letters in CD were written quite
independently of any input from the composer. This observation,
together with the fact that CD was demonstrably copied from
CO,[70] raises
the possibility that CD bears little direct connection to
Mendelssohn at all. Instead, its presence in the estate of Julius
Rietz might suggest that it was a copy made for potential use in
Rietz’s edition of Mendelssohn’s Werke. Such a
scenario is plausible not least of all because by the 1870s the
existence of a substantively different early version of the
Overture was well known; indeed, both versions were performed in
London in the context of the 1871-72 season of the Crystal Palace
Concerts.[71]
CL. British Library, London, RPS MS.
114. This undated manuscript is another professional
copyist’s manuscript, this time in the hand of William
Goodwin.[72] It
consists of a title page plus twenty-eight leaves measuring 23.5 x
29.5 cm. Unlike copies CO and CD, however, copy
CL clearly relates most closely to autograph AL. As
Peter Ward Jones has noted, there are some indications that this
manuscript may have been generated from a set of orchestral parts
extracted from the lost autograph written in early May 1832 and
given to the Philharmonic Society by the composer on 6 June 1832
(see AX,
above).[73] Of the
surviving score copies, this is the only one that includes neither
a programmatic title nor even an identification of the composer at
the head of the score itself. Instead, this information is provided
only on the title page (fol. 1r), which reads "Fingal’s Cave
/ Mendelssohn" and bears the stamp of the Philharmonic Society of
London.
Copy CL includes rehearsal
letters whose occurrences align with those in the London autograph
(source AL).
CK. Badische Landesbibliothek,
Karlsruhe, Mus. Ms. S. B. 8 Nr. 4.[74] Source CK is a set
of nineteenth-century manuscript parts for Op. 26, bound within a
collection of orchestral parts for a variety of concert overtures
(including also Mendelssohn’s Opp. 21, 27, and 32). These
parts are in the handwriting of two copyists, and are demonstrably
derived from the first German edition of the score (1835; see discussion of ES under the
print sources, below). They are of no significance
regarding the Overture’s genesis or early performance
history, but they do serve as evidence that the textual variants
preserved in that first score edition continued to circulate in the
later nineteenth century.
CX. Copyist’s parts used for
the performances in London, 14 May and 1 June 1832 (lost).
Since the textual content of CK indicates that those parts
were generated from the printed score, there must have been another
set of manuscript parts that were used for the 1832 London
performances, and perhaps also for the other three performances
given before the publication of the orchestral parts. These parts
are now lost, but as noted above, their content appears to be
transmitted through CL.
Print sources[75]
EPf1. First
edition of Mendelssohn’s arrangement of the Overture for
piano duet. This edition was published simultaneously by
Breitkopf & Härtel (Leipzig) and Mori & Lavenu
(London). As noted above, the release date was 15 October 1833. As
revealed by the composer’s correspondence, the German edition
was evidently prepared on the basis of English plates. The title
page reads: OUVERTURE / aux Hébrides / (Fingals Höhle) /
composée et dédiée / à Monsieur François
Hauser / par / F. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy / arrangée / Pour le
Pianoforte à quatre mains / par / L’ AUTEUR. /
Propriété des Editeurs. / Leipzic, chez Breitkopf &
Härtel et Londres, chez Mori & Lavenu. / Pr 1 Thlr /
Enrégistre dans les Archives de l’ Union." There is no
plate number on the title page, but the pages of the score bear the
plate number 5483.
EP. First edition of
the orchestral parts. Published simultaneously by Breitkopf
& Härtel in Leipzig and Mori & Lavenu in London, these
parts were released in late March 1834. Despite Mendelssohn’s
statement that "[their] excellent production [left] nothing to be
desired,"[76]
the publisher did fail to
observe at least one of his requests, for none of the parts
contains all the rehearsal letters whose inclusion he had
specifically requested in his letter of 29 November 1833.[77]
EPf2. Arrangement for Piano Solo by
Friedrich Mockwitz, published by Breitkopf & Härtel in the
fall of 1834. The title page reads: Ouvertüre / zur /
Fingals-Höhle (Hebriden) / von Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy /
für das Piano-forte arrangirt / von F. Mockwitz. The edition
bears the plate number 5532.
As noted above, Mendelssohn had nothing
to do with the production of this arrangement and disapproved of it
generally; consequently, it is no relevance in the stemma of
primary sources vested with the composer’s authority. Worth
noting, however, is that it presumably was generated from the
composer’s own arrangement for piano duet (APf).
ES. First edition of
the full orchestral score.[78] Sent to Mendelssohn on 11 March
1835,[79] released
in mid-March 1835,[80] and
reissued ca. 1845, this edition is the last major print source of
the Hebrides Overture issued during Mendelssohn’s
lifetime. While Breitkopf & Härtel held the rights to the
German editions of all three overtures in the triptych, the
copyright for the English editions varied: the Midsummer
Night’s Dream Overture was published in London by Cramer,
Addison & Beale, while the rights to the Hebrides and
Meeresstille were sold to Nicholas Mori.
As shown above, Mendelssohn conveyed to
Breitkopf & Härtel his wish that the Hebrides share
a single opus number with the Midsummer Night’s Dream
and the Meeresstille und glückliche Fahrt Overtures,
and that each work have its own plain title page as well as a
collective title page (letter of 29 November 1833). These
directions were imperfectly realized: the overtures were provided
with a collective title page, but each did not receive its own
individual title page. As in the instance of the orchestral parts
(see above), ES failed to comply with certain specifications
given in Mendelssohn’s letter of 29 November 1833; indeed,
the score includes no rehearsal letters at all.
ER. Edition of orchestral score
published in Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’s Werke: Kritisch
durchgesehene Ausgabe von Julius Rietz (Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Härtel, 1874-77), series 2. As is well known, the Rietz
editions of Mendelssohn’s works, despite laudable intentions,
possess serious problems of philological credibility. The set is
sometimes referred to informally as a Gesamtausgabe, yet its
presentation of Mendelssohn’s oeuvre is far from complete.
Moreover, the editions themselves are in many ways corrupt. Most
often, they are tacit conflations of the texts as offered in the
autographs known to Rietz, editions released prior to the 1870s
(including some with which the composer was not involved), and the
editors’ judgment calls. This is true also of Rietz’s
edition of the Hebrides Overture: it is a tacit conflation
of the first score edition, the London autograph (source
AL), and other unaccountable editorial decisions.
The above description of the extant
sources clearly emphasizes the Hebrides Overture’s
convoluted gestation – but a comparison of the extant sources
with those whose existence is documented by chronographic and
circumstantial evidence also confirms that still more sources are
missing or have been lost.[81] There must have been proofs at least for
the first edition of the arrangement for piano duet and the first
orchestral score, but these have not survived.[82] The score Mendelssohn
presented to the Philharmonic Society of London on 6 June 1832 is
also lost, as are the parts that were used for the 1832 London
performances. Moreover, given the extensive revisions the Overture
underwent between those performances and the Berlin performances of
early 1833, a second set of parts probably was also generated for
the latter. These parts, too, are lost – indeed, they
evidently were lost already by fall 1833, when Mendelssohn and his
Berlin family were unable to locate them for forwarding to
Breitkopf & Härtel.[83] Also not clearly accounted for is the
score Mendelssohn sent to the Leipzig firm on 29 November 1833,
which was to serve as the basis for the first edition of the
orchestral parts.
Examination of the surviving sources
makes it possible to fill some of these lacunae. To begin with, as
Peter Ward Jones has shown, the text of the work as it existed in
the London 1832 performances is most likely transmitted through the
copyist’s manuscript (CL) prepared by William Goodwin,
who worked as a copyist for the Philharmonic Society from at least
1829, and who later became its assistant librarian.[84] Source CL diverges
substantively from both AR and AL but transmits
significant features of both (see discussion below).
The latter observation is significant in
several regards. First, it suggests that at least some of the
revisions transmitted in source AL date from after that
score’s nominal date of completion (20 June 1832). Moreover,
if AL served as the basis of the proofs that were generated
in fall 1834 and returned, with "still more corrections," by
Mendelssohn on 15 November 1834, then AL was almost
certainly returned to Mendelssohn along with the proofs based on
it; the composer then probably would have entered his subsequent
changes to the proofs into his own manuscript as well. In other
words, some revisions in source AL may well date from as
late as mid-November 1834 – nearly two and a half years after
that autograph’s nominal date of completion (see discussion
below).
.
III. The Revision History
The above remarks describe a complex of
sources whose interrelationships are obviously close – but
even these cursory descriptions offer glimpses into the myriad
chronological contradictions and ambivalences that complicate any
effort to gain a clear view of the work’s genesis or
formulate chronological guidelines for textual authority. For
example, according to the dates given at the end of the autographs
the composer’s piano-duet arrangement (APf) pre-dates
the second autograph full score (AL) by one day – but
as will be shown presently, APf tacitly reflects the removal
of two sizeable groups of measures that are deleted with
cross-hatching in AL, so that the total number of measures
in the piano arrangement concurs with the post correcturam
reading of the orchestral score supposedly completed a day
later.
Such paradoxical relationships among the
sources certainly complicate the task of sorting out the various
stages in the Overture’s gestation, but the obstacles they
present are not insurmountable. On the contrary, the rough
chronology of the sources offers a starting point for a closer
examination of the revisions that articulate the work’s
successive versions. Since manuscript copies CO and
CL (and perhaps also CD) have a clearly defined
provenance and close proximity to the composer, we may
provisionally treat those copies as essentially faithful
reproductions of the autograph sources on which they are based, as
those autographs existed at that time. Moreover, if we assume that
Mendelssohn would have been less likely to vacillate on large-scale
revisions than on incidental or local ones, we may securely
correlate the available information concerning the overall
disposition of the sources with more specific information
concerning large-scale revisions. This correlation in turn offers
suggestions as to the chronology of these large-scale textual
emendations reflected in the various manuscripts. Finally, with the
chronology of the large-scale revisions generally established, we
may review smaller-scale alterations. The result is a remarkably
detailed chronology of the particular contents of the text as it
existed at various points in the Overture’s gestation.
Large-Scale Revisions
The large-scale issues that occasioned
Mendelssohn’s protracted reworking of the Hebrides
Overture are revealed in eight reworkings of passages transmitted
by the two autograph full scores (AR and AL). The
source-to-source textual correlations among these large-scale
revisions, collectively described as the deletion of one or more
measures or the wholesale replacement of material from the earlier
autograph with different material in the later one, are summarized
in Table
2. A more detailed explanation follows:
No. 1. End of the principal subject
and transition to the second subject, corresponding to mm. 30-47 in
the final score. In AR, this passage comprises thirteen
measures, extending from the third bar of p. 5 through the eighth
(final) bar of p. 6; as noted above, Moscheles later on framed this
passage in large "X"s. The revised reading, largely corresponding
to the final version, is transmitted on 4r (m. 3) to 5r (m. 4) of
AL. Manuscript copies CO and CD concur with
AR in their reading of this passage, while the autograph
piano-duet arrangement (APf) and copy CL concur with
AL.
As shown in Example 2,[85] the original version of
this passage clearly conformed to the expectations of a
transitional passage in sonata-allegro form: an authentic cadence
in the tonic B minor in m. 30 was followed by an immediate move
toward the minor dominant, coinciding with metrically alternating
statements of the Kopfmotiv – an increase in
non-cadential sequential motion and rhythmic fragmentation
characteristic of this passage in conventional versions of the form
– followed by the arrival on the dominant of the second
subject’s key, D major. As R. Larry Todd has observed, this
transition is characterized not least of all by its wealth of
imitative textures.[86] In
its final version, the transition is less conspicuous in its
artfulness: the harmonic strategy is simpler, the texture sparser,
and the sense of a telos significantly reduced. Since the
learned devices of AR are inconsistent with the rustic
atmosphere of the Overture’s poetic subject as Mendelssohn
conceived it at that point,[87] it seems clear that this first
large-scale revision arose at least as much because of poetic
concerns as musical ones.
No. 2. Closing section of the
exposition, corresponding to mm. 70-96 in the published score.
In AR, this passage comprises 38 bars, extending from the
third measure of p. 10 through the penultimate (eighth) measure of
p. 14. As with the first large-scale revision, Moscheles inscribed
a large "X" in pencil at the beginning and ending of this passage
(see Fig. 4,
above). As shown in Example 3a, this passage clearly is the one
Mendelssohn had in mind when he wrote to Fanny on 21 January 1832
that "[t]he middle part in D major marked forte is rather
ridiculous, and the entire, so-called working-out tastes more of
counterpoint than of train oil, gulls, and salted cod – it
should be just the other way around."[88]
As noted above, the composer’s
correspondence documents that this passage had been replaced by 5
May 1832, and the replacement passage is indeed transmitted in
autographs APf and AL. However, those two sources do
not concur exactly in their readings of the replacement music; for
as shown in Examples
3b and 3c, AL includes six measures between what
would become mm. 84 and 85 of the familiar version. In AL
(Ex. 3b) these
six bars are deleted via cross-hatching; in APf and
CL, however, they are missing altogether (Ex. 3c). This clearly
indicates that the deletion of the six measures in AL
occurred prior to the writing-out of APf, even though the
date on its last page suggests that APf was completed
first.
Copies CO and CD concur
with AR in their presentation of this passage, while copy
CL concurs with autograph APf and, on the whole, the
post correcturam reading of this passage in AL (see
discussion below).
No. 3. New theme in the development
section, corresponding to mm. 112-23 of the final
version. As shown in Figure 7, AR originally contained four bars
between what became mm. 114 and 115 of the published score; these
four bars comprised the last two on p. 16 and the first two on p.
17. In the length of the passage as a whole, all other manuscripts
concur with AL and differ from AR; that is, the
measures in question are missing from all other manuscript sources.
This clearly indicates that the deletion was accomplished prior to
25 February 1831.
No. 4. Development section,
corresponding to mm. 131-47 of the final version. The
autographs’ readings of this section of the development,
beginning just after the return of the second subject in D major,
differ primarily in length (27 measures in AR as opposed to
17 in AL) and in developmental intensity. As in the first of
the large-scale revisions discussed above, the developmental
technique of the original version was more expansive and texturally
elaborate, while that of the revised reading is sparer and less
reliant on conventional developmental techniques involving
imitation and sequence (see Example 4a-b). Two of the manuscript copies,
CO and CD, concur with AR, while the third
one, CL, concurs with the ante correcturam reading of
AL (see discussion below).
No. 5. Retransition, corresponding to
mm. 169-74 of the familiar version. In AR, this passage
extends from the third measure of p. 25 through the sixth measure
of p. 26; the remaining five bars of the retransition correspond to
the familiar version. Copies CO and CD transmit this
passage as given in AR (Ex. 5a), but the relationship between
AL, CL, and APf is more complicated. As shown
in Example
5b, AL originally contained two measures between
what became mm. 174 and 175, and the deletion of these measures is
tacitly reflected in both CL and APf (see discussion
below).
No. 6. Extension of the principal
subject in the recapitulation, corresponding to mm. 188-93 of the
final version. In AR this passage comprised the last
three bars of p. 28 and all of p. 29 – a total of ten
measures that would be halved in the course of the revision (cf.
Ex. 6 and mm.
186-93 of the familiar version). Here as with revisions 3 and 4,
copies CO and CD concur with AR. Copy
CL and autograph APf, by contrast, concur with
AL (whose text corresponds to the familiar version). The
lateness of this important revision is noteworthy because the
material given in AR belongs to some of Mendelssohn’s
earliest sketches for the work, evidently dating from mid-October
1830.[89]
Mendelssohn at a very late date aborted material that had been
preserved intact through numerous revisions dating from early on in
the Overture’s genesis.
No. 7. Coda, between mm. 221 and 222
of the published version. As shown in Figure 8, page 33 of
AR transmits a cross-hatched measure between mm. 221 and
222. Manuscript copies CO and CD present the measure
intact (i.e., those sources give the ante correcturam
version of this passage), while the measure is absent in CL,
APf, and AL.
No. 8. Coda, between mm. 231 and 244
of the published version. As shown in Example 7a, mm. 232-233 of
the published version are a the result of a substantial revision
accomplished already in source AR. Page 34 of AR
gives the essential content of mm. 226-31 as it is known from the
familiar version, but between mm. 231 and 244 of the published
version AR gives a total of twenty-five original measures,
of which the last four on p. 37 were deleted. Copies CO and
CD retain the ante correcturam reading of this
passage. In the corresponding passage in AL Mendelssohn
retained individual gestures from the post correcturam
reading, with modifications, tacitly leaving behind other measures
(most notably, the rather vacuous material that comprises the bulk
of p. [26]). The result is that the published version accomplishes
in thirteen measures what took twenty-five measures to accomplish
in AR (see Ex.
7b).
The above observations permit some
provisional deductions about the chronological relationships among
the sources. To begin with, of the eight large-scale revisions
reflected in the extant manuscripts, only one (No. 3) had been
accomplished by 25 February 1831 (the date on which the composer
described the "italienische Notenschreibesprache," clearly
referring to CO, to Fanny). That date thus serves as a
terminus post quem for the remaining seven large-scale
changes reflected in AR. This observation sheds new light on
the date of 16 December 1830 given at the end of the score, and on
Rome as locus of the music present in AR. While 16 December
1830 represents the initial date of completion for AR, that
manuscript evidently served as Mendelssohn’s working
manuscript for some time afterwards, probably as late as April
1832. In fact, most of the large-scale revisions present in
AR (nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) clearly date from between
25 February 1831 and early 1832 (after which point AL
supplanted AR as Mendelssohn’s
Arbeitspartitur).
The dates of 19 and 20 June 1832 at the
end of APf and AL must likewise be taken cum grano
salis, for APf tacitly incorporates two large-scale
revisions (Nos. 2 and 5) accomplished via cross-hatching in
AL even though it was supposedly completed a day before
AL. Moreover, since CL was evidently scored up from
the parts used for the London performances of 14 May and 1 June
1832, we may assume that the cross-hatching of those measures in
AL occurred prior to the writing-out of lost autograph
AX (the source of the parts from which CL was
reconstructed). Since as a practical matter AL must have
existed as a manuscript in order to serve as the basis for
AX, we may conjecture that the notation and crossing-out of
passages Nos. 2 and 5 occurred between 30 April 1832 (when
Mendelssohn played the work for Moscheles) and 6 May (when he
recorded "Ouv. fertig" in his diary and gave AR to
Moscheles).
These observations lead to a tantalizing
conjecture – namely, that in early May 1832 Mendelssohn must
have been working at turns on three separate autographs for the
Overture, perhaps using AL as the central revision score
while also working on APf and the lost autograph (AX)
from which the parts used in the premiere were generated. Two
identifying features of the latter may be securely postulated.
First, it would likely transmit the post correcturam reading
of large-scale revisions nos. 2, 5, and 8, since AL
graphically reveals Mendelssohn working on these passages but they
are tacitly carried over into both APf and CL.
Second, since Mendelssohn’s diary clearly records that one
autograph score was completed on Sunday, 6 May, and no surviving
autograph bears that date, the score in question may well have been
AX. In this scenario, Mendelssohn would have given that
score to the Philharmonic Society exactly one month later, on 6
June.
This raises the question, however, of
when Mendelssohn began writing the London autograph score
(AL) and the piano-duet arrangement (APf) – for
clearly all the large-scale revisions in AL had been
accomplished by the time APf was written out. Here, however,
the paper of AL and APf provides useful information
– for as noted above, both autographs are written on paper of
obviously English origin. Since Mendelssohn arrived in London for
the first time since 1829 on 23 April 1832 and on 30 April played
an early version for Moscheles, AL almost certainly was
written between 30 April and 5 May (the date on which the composer
reported to his family that he had to write out the score again).
Given the clean state of copy in APf, we may surmise that it
dates from relatively late in that date-range.
Finally, circumstantial evidence and the
presence of rehearsal letters in AL point to that autograph
as the score Mendelssohn sent to Breitkopf & Härtel on 29
November 1833 for use as the basis of the printed orchestral parts.
The composer clearly specified that this score contained carefully
placed rehearsal letters, and his frenetic schedule between June
1832 and November 1833 makes it unlikely that he would have written
out the score yet again in the interim (nor do his letters and
diaries suggest such an undertaking). Such letters are present in
three of the surviving manuscript scores: CD, CL, and
AL. The score in question could not have been CD
because its content replicates that of AR and CO,
both of which were supplanted by AL already in May 1832. Nor
do CL and AX appear to be viable candidates, since
the former was later scored up from parts and remained in the
possession of the Philharmonic Society, and the latter was given to
the Society as a gift. AR thus emerges as the only
reasonable alternative. This circumstance is significant, for as
noted above Mendelssohn conducted the Overture at two performances
in January and February 1833 – and for these occasions it
seems likely that he introduced further changes that affected the
text of the work, even though they were presumably of relatively
minor significance.
By correlating these complicated
interactions between autographs and copies with the known
chronology of the Overture, we may securely assign specific ranges
of dates to specific sets of revisions transmitted by the various
manuscript sources for the Hebrides.
-
Although the Rome autograph (AR) remained in
use as Mendelssohn’s Arbeitspartitur for as much as
sixteen months beyond its nominal date of completion, the text of
that earliest complete version as it existed between December 1830
and late February 1831 is reliably transmitted by copy
CO.
-
Of the large-scale revisions discussed above, only
No. 3 was present in this early reading.
-
Alterations present in AR but not accounted
for by CO may be generally taken to transmit the text of the
work as it existed between February 1831 and ca. 30 April 1832 (the
version that Mendelssohn reportedly played in Rome for Berlioz, in
Paris for Ferdinand Hiller, and in London for Moscheles). Among
these alterations are large-scale revisions nos. 7 and 8, as well
as no. 3 (which had been accomplished by 25 February 1831).
-
Until the lost autograph AX, presented to the
Philharmonic Society on 6 June 1832, is recovered, the text of the
work as it was offered in London on 14 May and 1 June 1832 is best
transmitted by the copy of the score held in the British Library
(source CL).
-
Of the large-scale revisions discussed above, Nos. 1,
2, and 6, as well as the post correcturam reading of No. 8,
were accomplished after the production of CO and CD
but before Mendelssohn undertook to write out AL; i.e.,
sometime between 25 February 1831 and late April 1832 (since
Mendelssohn evidently began work on AL in early May).
-
Nos. 4 and 5 were accomplished after Mendelssohn had
undertaken to write out AL but before the completion of
AX, CX, and CL. These two large-scale
revisions may thus be assigned a date of May 1832.
-
The London copy (CL) makes clear that the
rehearsal letters found in AL and the first edition of the
parts were in place by the summer of 1832.
-
Since No. 7 is tacitly accounted for in both
CL and APf, but was graphically accomplished in
AL, that revision must pre-date the production of those two
manuscripts.
-
Alterations represented in the latest autograph score
(AL) but not accounted for in CL may be presumed to
have been entered into AL sometime between the London
performances (May-June 1832) and the delivery of AL to
Breitkopf & Härtel for engraving of the orchestral parts
(29 November 1833).
-
If the manuscript orchestral parts used for the
Berlin performances in early 1833 ever turn up, these will in turn
permit differentiation of readings in AL that existed before
and after those performances. Since those parts were lost already
later in 1833, however, this seems a remote possibility.
-
Finally, variants between the orchestral parts and
the first edition of the orchestral score may generally be assigned
to the period of mid-August to mid-November 1834.
In summary, the large-scale revisions
document that the pre-publication textual genesis of the Overture
falls into four discrete stages: (1) from December 1830 to 25
February 1831; (2) from 25 February 1831 to 30 April 1832; (3) from
5 May to ca. 6 June 1832; and (4) from ca. 6 June 1832 to ca.
November 1833. Moreover, variants also occur between the orchestral
parts (produced between November 1833 and early April 1834) and the
first edition of the orchestral score (proofread between August and
November 1834 and published in late March 1835). From a
philological and textual perspective, therefore, it is awkward to
refer to the work in only three discrete versions ("Rome,"
"London," and "final" or "familiar"). If such reference is made, it
should reflect CO, CL, and ES rather than the
Mischfassungen transmitted by AR and (for example)
AL or ER; preferable would be to refer to "Rome,"
"Rome-Paris," "London," "London-Berlin," and "Berlin-Leipzig"
versions.
Even in this instance, however, the
editor and performer must remain cognizant that each of these five
chronologically discrete versions of the work articulates only a
stage of revision manifested in large-scale revisions. The
manuscripts also transmit a number of "local" revisions (changes
that affected neither the length nor the essential content of the
Overture), most of which are linked to these large-scale revisions
only incidentally. To identify all these local revisions would
exceed the scope of this study. The following remarks examine some
such revisions that are significant for the music and our
understanding of its genesis.
Local Revisions
Four groups of local revisions warrant
special attention in these pages: a set of revisions in AR
that may now be assigned to specific periods in the
Overture’s genesis; an instance centering around practical
issues of instrumentation; a set of revisions in AL that may
now be chronologically pinpointed; and, finally, an instance of
local revisions that also relate to broader motivic and thematic
issues.
The first of these groups hinges on the
postulation of ca. 25 February 1831 as the terminus ante
quem for revisions incorporated into the Oxford copy
(CO) from the Rome autograph (AR). As noted above,
No. 3 of the large-scale revisions discussed above may be securely
dated as having been accomplished between December 1830 and late
February 1831; conversely, the remaining seven large-scale
revisions in AR were accomplished only after late February
1831. By contrast, a comparison of AR and CO reveals
that all but a very few of the local revisions evident in AR
had been accomplished by the time CO was copied, for these
local revisions are consistently given in their corrected form in
CO. Moreover, those few local revisions present in AR
but not accounted for in CO occur only in the outermost
pages of the manuscript (transmitting music that corresponds to mm.
1-27 and 265-68 of the published version).
Two representative passages will suffice
to illustrate this situation. In mm. 19-20 (AR p. 3), three
local changes were entered: the entry of the flutes on the pickup
to measure 20 was changed from to ; the originally notated pitch
D
was changed to D in the second violins and violas; and in the
Violin 2 staff the fourth beat was revised to comprise a single
eighth-note followed by an eighth rest (see Fig. 9). All these changes
are tacitly accounted for in CO, indicating that they were
accomplished before 25 February 1831. In mm. 1-5 (AR p. 1),
however, the second bassoon originally sounded on the first three
beats of each measure (see Fig. 3 above). These entries are preserved intact
in CO even though they were at some point deleted in
AR. Assuming that CO is a reasonably accurate
representation of the Overture’s text as it existed in late
February 1831, this latter revision must indicate that the second
bassoon part in mm. 1-5 was deleted only after the production of
CO. Since the version of the work that the composer played
for Moscheles on 30 April 1832 was almost certainly the one
represented in AR, the deletion of the second bassoon part
may be assigned to some point in those intervening months.
Again, these chronological assignments
affirm that the date of "Rome, 16 December 1830," given at the end
of AR says but little at all about the revisions contained
in the autograph. For certain we can say only that they were in
place before 5 May 1832, since there is no sign of them in
CL and AL. What is more, the relative paucity of
large-scale revisions reflected in CO, along with that
manuscript’s consistent inclusion of local changes present in
AR, suggests that until late February 1831 Mendelssohn was
generally satisfied with the large-scale structure of the Overture
and up to that point introduced mostly minor revisions. In the case
of the Hebrides, the Revisionsteufel (as he termed
it) that led to extensive revisions and deletions set in only
sometime later on.
The manuscripts also reveal another
local change of a more practical import. As most of the examples
and figures given so far reveal, Mendelssohn originally conceived
that for the first half of the work the clarinets would be pitched
in C; only in the reprise did he specify the change to
clarinets in A (see Fig. 10). This change probably was occasioned
by the timbral warmth called for by the return of the second
subject in B major, entrusted to the soli clarinets, in what would
become m. 202. This usage of the two instruments was originally
retained in AL. In that manuscript, the clarinets are
notated in C through m. 187; in m. 188 (fol. 13v)
Mendelssohn specified a change to clarinets in A, twelve
bars before the solo entry. Immediately after the solo, on beat 3
of m. 217, AR then specifies "Clarinetti in C," preparing
for the instruments’ reentry on the last eighth note of m.
221 – a remarkably (and perhaps impracticably) quick change.
A similar situation obtains on the final leaf of the score (fol.
18r-v): in m. 258, after just under two measures of rest, the
C clarinets revert to A clarinets – and in this
instance the autograph reveals Mendelssohn’s compositional
decision-making even more clearly: as shown in Figure 11, the
clarinet staff on p. 18r was initially provided with the key
signature for instruments in C, but Mendelssohn then changed
the signature of two sharps to one of one flat (i.e., for
instruments in A), inserted the directive "in A," and
notated the entire page (and the four bars on fol. 18v) at that
transposition. At some point afterwards, however, he must have
realized that this change was even more difficult than the previous
one. It was presumably at this point that he added the further
directive "gilt" ("stet") next to the clarinet staff –
presumably as a warning to a copyist or engraver.
The difficulty of these improbably quick
changes of instruments sheds light on Mendelssohn’s
practicality as an orchestrator, and in this instance, too,
source-to-source textual variants lend insight into the chronology
of the sources. For while the main Notentext of AL
offers no way around these orchestrational difficulties, the first
page of the manuscript reveals that at some point afterwards he
thought better of the situation: above the opening measures of the
clarinet staff is the inscription "müssen durchgängig in
A stehn" ("must remain in A throughout"; see Fig. 5, above).
Moreover, this directive is tacitly accounted for in CL: the
clarinets are notated in A throughout. Returning to the
chronology sketched above, this variance would suggest that
Mendelssohn realized the difficulty of his original specifications
sometime between the initial completion of AL (6 May 1832)
and, at the latest, the premiere on 14 May. Most probably, the
difficulties came to light during the rehearsal (12 May) and the
composer decided then to use clarinets in A throughout.
Although it is conceivable that this on-the-spot revision could
have been accommodated by the players and specified into their
parts (CX), so that the copyist of CL (Goodwin)
tacitly adjusted the entries in the score when producing it later
on, such a conjecture must await the reemergence of those parts (or
of lost autograph AX from which they were extracted).
At the same time, a comparison of
AL, CL, and EP permits the assignment of
numerous revisions to the period between the nominal completion of
AL (20 June 1832) and the point at which the composer sent
the corrected proofs for the parts to Breitkopf & Härtel
(29 November 1833). For example, the string parts on fol. 18r
indicate that Mendelssohn continued to use AL, and to revise
it substantively, beyond the production of the parts from which
CO was generated (CX). In AR (as in CO
and CD) the strings essentially replicated the melodic and
rhythmic distribution of the winds (Ex. 8a). This
colla parte relationship forms the ante correcturam
reading of the passage in AL, and it evidently was preserved
in lost autograph AX and the parts used for the 1832 London
performances, for CL gives the same reading. At some point
thereafter, however, Mendelssohn revised the passage to read as it
does in the familiar score (Ex. 8b). Potentially, the window of
opportunity for the revision could extend to 29 November 1833,
since the corrected reading is present in EP (the first
edition of the parts).
A more complicated instance obtains with
regard to large-scale revision No. 2 (the passage that Mendelssohn
referred to as "matte Lärmmacherey"). As noted above, sources
AR, CO, and CD transmit the early version of
this passage, while on the whole APf and CL concur
with the post correcturam reading of AL – i.e.,
the deletion of six measures on fols. 7v-8r is tacitly accounted
for in APf and CL. At the same time, however,
AL gives two distinct sets of local revisions in this
passage: several that are accounted for in APf and CL
and several that are not. To the former group belong revisions in
mm. 74 (clarinet 1), 75 (horns and violas), 76 (violins and
violas), 77 (oboes and clarinets), 78 (horn 2), 79 (violin 1), 80
(clarinet 1, cello, and bass), 82 (horns, cello, and bass), 84
(horns), 85-86 (all woodwinds), and 85 (timpani and strings). The
revisions that are not accounted for in CL and APf
occur in mm. 72-73 (cello), 80 (violins and violas), 84 (violin 2
and violas), and 87-88 (violins and violas). Clearly, the first of
these groups of revisions pre-dates the production of CX
(the copyist’s parts from which CL was generated), and
may thus be dated between 5 May and 6 June 1832. The second group,
by contrast, must date from between 6 June 1832 and mid-March
1834.
Finally, one local change exerted a
pronounced influence not only on the Overture’s affective
content, but also on its motivic fabric. As is well known, one
cardinal feature of the work is its pronounced motivic unity
– or, to put it differently, its demonstration of
Mendelssohn’s imagination in weaving a complex and expansive
musical tapestry out of surprisingly few musical ideas. The early
versions (up through APf and EPf2) all featured one
motivic gesture whose subsequent replacement enhanced this motivic
unity, for from AR through APf and even EPf,
the insistent
repeated-note figure in mm.169-70 was not the
familiar
|
|
motive, but the much tamer dactylic
figure
|
|
(see Exx.
5a-b, above).
|
|
When Peter Ward Jones discussed this revision in 1997
source AL had yet to turn up at auction.[90] Now, however, it is
possible to examine the passage in question – and indeed, the
autograph vividly reveals Mendelssohn’s decision-making
process (see Fig. 12): in the winds, brass, timpani, and upper
strings alike, irregular stem-lengths and spacing reveal that the
familiar rhythm was written to accommodate the already-written
note-heads and stems of the dactylic rhythm from the earlier
version. The dactylic rhythm is present in the ante
correcturam reading of AL as well as CL,
APf, and even EPf1 and EPf2, but the revision
is accomplished in EP. The possibility thus exists that
Mendelssohn’s entry of this significant alteration occurred
sometime in the fall of 1833.
|
The above observations not only permit a detailed
reconstruction of the textual genesis of the Hebrides
Overture, but also encourage the scholar to group the textual
variants into five discrete classes, each representing a textually
stabilized moment in the work’s genesis and many potentially
viable as correspondingly classified ossia
readings.[91] The first two classes of variants hinge on the identification of 25
February 1831 as the date at which CO assumed the status of
a reliable copy of AR: to the first of these classes belong
the "Rome" variants (present in both CO and AR); to
the second, the "Rome-Paris" variants (those present in AR
but not CO). The next two classes hinge on the textual
relationships between CL and AL: variants present in
both CL and AL comprise the "London" variants, while
those present in AL but not in CL may be described as
"London-Berlin" variants. Of greater chronological authority are
the "Berlin-Leipzig" variants (those that appear for the first time
in EP), since these reflect changes that Mendelssohn
presumably entered in response to the two performances in Berlin
(10 January and 14 February 1833) and a further performance in
Leipzig (13 February 1834). Finally, there are the "Leipzig"
variants – those that appear for the first time in ES.
This latter group, which reflects the composer’s latest ideas
on the ideal state of his work, includes the variant of mm. 7-8
given in Example
1b, above. Indeed, while that particular member of the
latest variants transmitted by contemporary sources ties the
Overture’s introduction and principal subject to the "new"
theme first presented in the development,[92] it also serves a
purpose more historical and biographical in nature. For as the
composer’s letter of 7-11 August 1829 reveals, the
integration of the consequent phrase into the introduction was a
part of Mendelssohn’s earliest conception of the work (see
Fig. 1, above).
Far from being a last-minute vacillation, this revision enabled the
composer finally to realize his original conception of the work
– in a form, it must be admitted, significantly more
successful than had earlier been the case. Unfortunately, however,
most of these variants are not represented in most editions
currently available.
|
.
IV. Conclusions
|
What lessons do the protracted genesis
and convoluted source-situation of the Hebrides Overture
offer to those who venture into their entanglements? The question
is well worth asking, for while this composition is exceptional in
some ways, it is typical in several others – and these
representative features are highly instructive.
To begin with, the Hebrides is a
case-study in the working methods and compositional processes of a
composer who continuously revised his compositions up through the
latest stages in publication process (and sometimes beyond).
Mendelssohn’s clear script, which offers but few of the
extremely illegible notations characteristic of (for example)
Beethoven, often masks a vast and tangled jungle of complete,
partial, and palimpsest-ridden revisions. The sources and the
works’ geneses reveal that he struggled mightily in
composing; that he was more relentlessly critical of his own works
than others were; and that his self-critical faculties accounted
for his renunciation or suppression of any number of works that
many composers would have been proud to claim as their own. These
findings – the results of a genre of scholarly discourse that
in Mendelssohn’s case was opened up only relatively
recently[93] – are significant not least of all because they refute the
conventional late-nineteenth-century image of Mendelssohn as a
composer possessed of a certain glib facility and a proclivity for
superficial formalism. In the case of the Hebrides Overture,
the manuscript sources reveal him grappling with major musical
issues long after the work had won the admiration of Berlioz,
Hiller, and Moscheles. In particular, the extremely late revision
of mm. 7-8 demonstrates that his efforts to improve his music
continued even beyond the point at which the work had achieved
resounding success from the critics and the public in publication
as well as performance.
Perhaps more important, especially for
readers of this journal, is the insight that the sources for the
Hebrides offer concerning a point that is all too often
missed: the fact that the literal chronographic evidence often is
also quite misleading. In this instance, the dates the composer
appended to the two autograph scores, like the entries he provided
in his diary, ascribe to those manuscripts dates that ultimately
are only of limited use in understanding the work’s
chronology. Both AR and AL include substantial
amounts of material that came into existence only after their
respective Schlussdaten, which concur with
Mendelssohn’s diary entries. Without a close philological
inspection of the autographs in conjunction with contemporary
copies and early print editions, those self-evidently chronographic
indicia would offer misleading perceptions of the Overture’s
genesis.
What is more, the philological and
textual challenges posed by the Hebrides are emblematic of
the difficulties that have long thwarted efforts to produce
source-critical editions of Mendelssohn’s works.
Scholars’ increasing grasp of the extant sources, the ways in
which these relate to each other and to other sources that are now
lost or missing, and the relationship of both to the daunting body
of contradictory and vague chronographic indicia not only reaffirms
the incompleteness and editorial inadequacy of the compositions as
they are presented in the ostensibly "critically reviewed" edition
of Mendelssohn’s Werke published by Breitkopf &
Härtel in 1874-77. It also underscores the irony of the fact
that those editions continue to constitute the central sources by
which Mendelssohn’s music is performed and studied.[94] Awareness of the
problems has generated at least three major scholarly initiatives
aimed at providing reliable editions of Mendelssohn’s music:
the Leipziger Ausgabe der Werke von Felix Mendelssohn
Bartholdy, now moving ahead rapidly under the general
editorship of Christian Martin Schmidt; a separate series of the
sacred works published by Carus-Verlag (Stuttgart) between 1977 and
1997; and, most recently, a series of authoritative editions of the
major concert overtures, edited by Christopher Hogwood and
published by Bärenreiter (Kassel). The latter group is of
particularly felicitous relevance to this article, for in 2004
Professor Hogwood’s edition of the Hebrides was
released – an edition that not only is the first to identify
the variants in a critical report, but also presents many of them
as ossia readings.[95]
Most important of all, however, are two
further remarkable opportunities exemplified by the textual and
philological problems of the Hebrides. First, for the editor
who wishes to present the Overture in any one of its
chronologically stabilized textual states prior to the Fassung
letzter Hand represented by ES, the most appropriate
copy-texts are not the autographs – for as shown above, all
the autograph scores are Mischfassungen. Rather, only the
contemporary copies (CO, CD, or CL) may be
regarded as representative of the text in chronologically
stabilized forms. This corpus of reasonably pure copy-texts for the
early texts of the orchestral version is supplemented by the first
edition of the orchestral parts (EP), which transmits the
text of the work as it existed in November 1833, and by ES,
which transmits the composer’s latest thoughts on the
Overture’s revision. The evident circulation of ES in
the later nineteenth century, along with the proliferation of other
scores and arrangements derived from that edition, certifies that
for most of that century an edition that represented the
composer’s final authorized version of the Hebrides
did serve as the starting-point for performers and commentators.
When the Rietz editions appeared, however, they tacitly combined
some readings from ES with others from AL and still
others whose provenance remains unclear. As scholars and performers
have accepted the putative authority of the Rietz editions, the
text of the Overture as finally authorized by Mendelssohn went out
of circulation; coterminously, the textually purer editions
previously in circulation were subverted to the unreliable text
presented in the Rietz edition. In other words, since the late
nineteenth century most performers and scholars have known the
Hebrides Overture only in a textually corrupt state.
Finally, if the Hebrides Overture
is edited according to editorial ideology of Fassung letzter
Hand, the copy-text should be the first German edition of the
score, and the autographs should be used only to verify corrections
to obviously erroneous readings transmitted therein. In this
instance, however, that methodology would result in a substantial
alteration of the work’s text as it was known through 1834,
and it has been known since the appearance of the Rietz editions in
the 1870s. For in the Fassung letzter Hand of this work the
memorable gesture in the familiar version of mm. 7-8 (Ex. 1a) would have to
be stricken and replaced by the substantially different reading
Mendelssohn provided de ultissima hora (Ex. 1b).
Such difficult philological imperatives
are common in Mendelssohn’s oeuvre. But the challenges also
have their rewards, for a steadily increasing awareness of the
problems with the editions by which Mendelssohn’s music has
traditionally been known continues to lend decisive momentum to the
current resurgence of scholarly and musical interest in the
composer.
|
________________________ |
[1] Julius
Rietz, ed., Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy’s Werke: Kritisch
durchgesehene Ausgabe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel,
1874-77).
[2] See R.
Larry Todd, "The Instrumental Music of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy:
Selected Studies Based on Primary Sources" (Ph.D. diss., Yale
University, 1979); idem, "Of Sea Gulls and Counterpoint: The Early
Versions of Mendelssohn’s Hebrides Overture,"
Nineteenth-Century Music 2 (1979): 197-213; and, most
recently, Mendelssohn: "The Hebrides" and Other Concert
Overtures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), esp.
26-37. See also Andreas Eichhorn, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy:
Die Hebriden, Ouvertüre für Orchester op. 26,
Meisterwerke der Musik, Hft. 66 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1998), esp.
7-17.
[3] See
Todd, "The Instrumental Music," and idem, "Of Sea Gulls and
Counterpoint."
[4] For a
reproduction of this drawing, see Todd, "Of Sea Gulls and
Counterpoint," p. 205, or Eichhorn, Die Hebriden, Pl.
II.
[5] For a
transcription of this sketch, see Todd, Mendelssohn: "The
Hebrides," 28-29.
[6] See
Todd, "Of Sea Gulls and Counterpoint," esp. 204-08.
[7] See
Paul and Carl Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, eds., Felix Mendelssohn
Bartholdy: Briefe aus den Jahren aus den Jahren 1830-1847
(Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1864), 1: 69-71 (original in the
Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS M. Deneke Mendelssohn d.13, fol.
25).
[8] Paul
and Carl Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Briefe 1830-1847, 1:
81-83.
[9] Although Todd surmises that this letter may have referred to
an actual completion of the work on 11 December and surmises that
this early version may be documented in the manuscript copy that
today survives in the Bodleian Library (described as source
CO later in these pages), the evidence suggests that the
Bodleian copy post-dates the autograph completed on 16
December.
[10] Berlioz’s recollections of his early acquaintance with
Mendelssohn are vividly summarized in his Mémoirs,
written and published more than thirty years later; for excerpts
from these recollections, see Roger Nichols, Mendelssohn
Remembered (London: Faber & Faber, 1997), 171-75.
Understandably (given their chronological distance from the events
in question), Berlioz’s remarks do not always square with
independently verifiable facts and Mendelssohn’s own private
recollections. The artistic and personal relationship between the
two composers has yet to be explored in detail in print. The most
reliable account to date is found in Professor Todd’s
magisterial new biography of Mendelssohn (see R. Larry Todd,
Mendelssohn: A Life in Music [Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003]). Among other things, Todd points out (in
contradiction to Berlioz’s statement) that the two composers
saw each other again in June 1831 (p. 237-39).
[11] See Peter Sutermeister, ed., Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy:
Briefe einer Reise durch Deutschland, Italien und die Schweiz, und
Lebensbild . . . mit Aquarellen und Zeichnungen aus Mendelssohns
Reiseskizzenbüchern (Zurich: M. Niehans, 1958; rpt.
Tübingen: Heliopolis, 1979), 112-13.
[12] Unidentified; probably "Emil B," who figures in one of
Mendelssohn’s diaries from the Roman sojourn (MS M. Deneke
Mendelssohn g.2). See Pietro Zappalà, "Dalla Spree al Tevere:
Il Diario del viaggio di Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy verso
l’Italia (1830-1831): Edizione e commento," in Album
amicorum Albert Dunning: In occasione del suo LXV compleanno,
ed. Giacomo Fornari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002).
|
[13]
See Sutermeister, Briefe, 112-13:
"Liebe Fanny! Dies ist die
Hebridenouvertüre.
|
|
bedeutet p,
|
|
heißt sfz,
|
|
heißt f.
|
in der italiänischen Notenschreibesprache,
sapienti sat. Du wirst am Ende des sogenannten ersten
Theils, wo es in d dur schließt eine schlechte Stelle
finden; ich habe sie ändern wollen, ehe ich es schickte, aber
Zeit fehlte. Denke es Dir also anders. Die matte Lärmmacherey
von da an
|
|
u. die folgende Stelle, die aus meiner
vortrefflichen Reformationssinfonie sichtlich abgeschrieben ist, u.
mit der ich mir selbst eine Schmeicheley sage, sollen anders
werden, sobald ich abkomme.
|
Einstweilen nimm es so an. Ich schrieb es hin weil
ich Eile hatte u. verschob die Anordnung, weil andere Arbeiten
drängten. Emil reist morgen u. nimmt alles mit. Möge es
Dir gefallen..."
|
|
|
[14] Letter to Fanny Hensel dated 21 Jan. 1832, published in
Briefe 1830-47 (1864) 1: 328-31 (original in GB-Ob MS MDM d.
13, fol. 103-04).
[15] Ferdinand Hiller, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy: Briefe und
Erinnerungen (Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg, 1874), 17; Charlotte
Moscheles, trans. A. D. Coleridge, Recent Music and Musicians as
Described in the Diaries and Correspondence of Ignatz Moscheles
(New York: Henry Holt, 1873), 178.
[16] Letter from Mendelssohn to his family dated 11 May 1832
(Mendelssohn family letters in the New York Public Library
[hereafter, "US-NYp"], no. 153; see Rudolf Elvers, ed., Felix
Mendelssohn Bartholdy: Briefe (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer
Taschenbuch, 1984), 160, 158.
[17] "Ouv. fertig." Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS M. Deneke
Mendelssohn g. 3, fol. 2r.
[18] Moscheles states that this exchange occurred on Sunday, 1 May
(Recent Music and Musicians, 178-79); however, in 1832 that
date fell on Tuesday, not Sunday. Since the first Sunday in May
fell on the 6th, that is most likely the date for the
exchange.
[19] See Todd, Mendelssohn: "The Hebrides," 34.
[20] British Library, London, Add. MS 33465, fol. 251.
[21] Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS M. Deneke Mendelssohn g. 3, fol.
4v.
[22] See Wm. A. Little, "Mendelssohn and the Berlin Singakademie:
The Composer at the Crossroads," in Mendelssohn and His
World, ed. R. Larry Todd (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1991), 65-85; further, Wolfgang Dinglinger, "Felix
Mendelssohn Bartholdys Berliner Intermezzo, Juni 1832 bis April
1833," Mendelssohn-Studien 13 (2003): 101-23.
[23] See Dinglinger, "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdys Berliner
Intermezzo," 116.
[24] "Der Fehler der Composition ist vielleicht nur der, daß
sie eines Commentars bedarf," Quoted from Eichhorn, Die
Hebriden, 68.
[25] [Leipzig] Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (hereafter,
LAMZ) 35 no. 12 (20 March 1833): 196: "Die Ouvertüre zu
den ‘Hebriden’ von F. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy war
für dieses Concertpublicum zu ernst und dürfte auch in
sich selbst weniger abgeschlossen sein, als die Ouvertüre zum
‘Sommernachtstraum.’"
[26] Letter from Mendelssohn to
Breitkopf & Härtel dated 9 August 1833, quoted in Rudolf
Elvers, ed., Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy: Briefe an deutsche
Verleger (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968), 29.
[27] Letter from Mendelssohn to Breitkopf & Härtel dated
18 September 1833, quoted in Elvers, Verleger, 30-31.
[28] Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Mendelssohn dated
27 September 1833, held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, GB II,
111. For a summary of this letter see Elvers, Verleger, 30
n.4.
[29] Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Mendelssohn dated
4 October 1833, held in Bodleian Library, Oxford, GB II, 117. For a
summary of this letter see Elvers, Verleger, 30-31 n.4.
[30] See Elvers, Verleger, 31 n.1.
[31] A reference to the composer’s letter of 18 September
1833 (see n.29). As will be shown later, the German edition of the
piano-duet arrangement carried a French title.
[32] Letter from Mendelssohn to Breitkopf & Härtel dated
29 November 1833, quoted in Elvers, Verleger, 31-33: ". . .
sende heut mit der fahrenden Post die Partitur meiner
Ouvertüre: die Hebriden und bedaure von Berlin aus erfahren zu
haben, daß man Ihnen die ausgeschriebnen Stimmen nicht auf
Ihren Wunsch schicken konnte. Man glaubte dort, ich hätte sie
hier bei mir; und so fürchte ich, daß sie verloren sein
werden. Auf jeden Fall aber ersuche ich Sie, den Stich der Stimmen
nach dieser Partitur besorgen zu lassen, in der ich noch mehreres
geändert und alle Zeichen genau gesetzt habe; auch bitte ich
Sie den Stecher besondre Genauigkeit zu empfehlen für die p.
und f., Crescendo’s, &c., auch für die oben
angemerkten Buchstaben zum Wiederanfangen, die in allen Stimmen
stehen müssen: Cello und Baß brauchen natürlich
nicht durchgängig 2 Systeme zu haben (wie in der Partitur)
sondern dies muß nur dann eintreten, wenn das Cello vom
Contrabaß abweicht, sonst nicht. Es wäre mir lieb, wenn
Sie mir eine Correctur dieser Stimmen zuschicken könnten, da
ich dies Stück gern recht correct erscheinen sähe.
"Zugleich erlaube ich mir eine
Anfrage. Ich war in Ihrer musikalischen Zeitung von einiger Zeit
sehr streng getadelt, daß ich nicht die Partitur meiner
Ouvertüre zum Sommernachtstraum herausgäbe, man hatte
dies mir zur Last gelegt, und als eine Furcht vor der Kritik
gedeutet. Nun ist es aber gerade im Gegentheil von jeher ein
Lieblingswunsch von mir gewesen, einige meiner Partituren, die ich
selbst lieb habe, dem Publikum vorzulegen, weil ich glaube,
daß sie meinem Namen keinen Nachtheil bringen würden. Ich
hielt es nur bisher für unmöglich und würde auch
jetzt Ihnen nicht davon schreiben, wenn nicht einerseits der
erwähnte Aufsatz und dann noch andre Gründe mich glauben
ließen, daß eine solche Publikation jetzt vielleicht zu
bewerkstelligen sey. Ich wollte also Sie fragen ob Sie wohl drei
Ouvertüren die zum Sommernachtstraum, die Hebriden, und eine
dritte in derselben Art in Partitur herausgeben könnten? Es
müßte eine Opuszahl bekommen, und würde lange
nicht so bogenreich, wie eine Beethovensche Symphonie, könnte
also ziemlich wohlfeil werden. Auf Honorar würde ich
natürlich bei solchem Unternehmen Verzicht leisten, und mich
nur freuen, meinen Wunsch erfüllt zu sehen. Ich würde
Ihnen nicht diese Proposition gemacht haben, da Sie in der letzten
Zeit schon soviele Sachen nacheinander von mir herausgegeben haben,
aber da zwei dieser Ouvertüren Ihr Eigenthum sind so konnte
ich nicht umhin Sie zuerst darum zu befragen.
"P.S. Bitte, geben sie [sic] der
Ouvert. zu den Hebriden einen Deutschen Titel, sowie ich ihn damals
aufschrieb. Die Französischen sind nun einmal meine bêtes
noires."
[33] See Alfred Dörffel, Geschichte der Gewandhausconcerte
zu Leipzig (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1884), 2,
"Statistik": 38.
[34] LAMZ 36 no. 13 (26 March 1834): 208.
[35] See the third Intelligenz-Blatt to the LAMZ for
1834, published with the issue for 5 March 1834 [LAMZ
36/10]. The piano-duet arrangement, which had been released in
October 1833, is described here as "so eben erschienen," while the
piano-solo arrangement is "unter der Presse."
[36] Elvers, Verleger, 33-34.
[37] Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Mendelssohn dated
21 April 1834, held in Bodleian Library, Oxford, GB III, 153. For a
summary of this letter see Elvers, Verleger, 36 n.2.
[38] Dörffel, Geschichte, 2, "Chronik," 38.
[39] The Intelligenz-Blatt of LAMZ advertises the parts as
being available for the 1834 publishers’ fair for Easter,
which in 1834 fell on 30 March. The review is found at LAMZ
36 no. 26 (25 June 1834): 428f.
[40] Letter from Mendelssohn to Breitkopf & Härtel dated
29 July 1834, quoted in Elvers, Verleger, 36: “Hiebei
erfolgen die Correcturen der beiden Ouvertüren. Ich habe hie
und da noch einige Aenderungen machen müssen und bitte Sie
daher den Stecher anzuweisen alle meine Bemerkungen genau zu
befolgen. Dann wäre es mir lieb wenn die drei Ouvertüren
nun recht bald erscheinen könnten, auch schon der Dedication
wegen, um die ich schon seit langer Zeit angefragt und Antwort
bekommen habe.”
[41] Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Mendelssohn dated
8 August 1834, held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, GB III, 240.
For a summary of this letter see Elvers, Verleger, 38
n.1.
[42] Letter from Mendelssohn to Breitkopf & Härtel dated
14 August 1834, quoted in Elvers, Verleger, 38.
[43] See Elvers, Verleger, 40.
[44] See Elvers, Verleger, 40.
[45] See Elvers, Verleger, 41-42.
[46] Again, the publisher’s response is lost, but its
existence is documented by a stamp on Mendelssohn’s letter of
16 January. See Elvers, Verleger, 43 n.1.
[47] See Elvers, Verleger, 44-45.
[48] Mendelssohn’s older sister, Fanny Hensel, wrote to him
on 19 March 1835 that she had received the scores for the three
overtures; see Marcia J. Citron, ed. and trans., The Letters of
Fanny Hensel to Felix Mendelssohn ([Stuyvesant, New York]:,
Pendragon, 1985), 181, 495. The release is advertised in the
Intelligenz-Blatt of the LAMZ on 1 April 1835.
[49] See Elvers, Verleger, 45.
[50] See Todd, Mendelssohn: "The Hebrides," 27-29.
[51] For an inventory of the contents of MS M. Deneke Mendelssohn
c. 47 and a discussion of its provenance, see Margaret Crum,
Catalogue of the Mendelssohn Papers in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, Vol. II: Music and Papers, Musikbibliographische
Arbeiten, 8 (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1983), 13-14.
[52] For an explanation of this dating, together with careful
analytical commentary, a facsimile, and a diplomatic transcription,
see Todd, "Of Sea Gulls and Counterpoint," 197-213.
[53] For valuable assistance in various aspects of my
investigation of AR I wish to thank J. Rigbie Turner, Mary
Flagler Cary Curator of Music Manuscripts and Books of the Pierpont
Morgan Library, New York.
[54] See Georg Eineder, The Ancient Paper-mills of the Former
Austro-Hungarian Empire and Their Watermarks (Holland: The
Paper Publications Society, 1960), plate 399.
[55] For information pertaining to the structure and foliation of
AR I owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Karen Desmond.
[56] For a discussion of this curious omission and Gounod’s
comment, see Todd, "Of Sea Gulls and Counterpoint," 202. There is
one further likely reason for Mendelssohn’s omission of the
half-note D in the contrabass at this point: the same pitch
in the same octave occurs in the moving line of the cello in that
measure; a half-note D would have interfered with this cello
line.
[57] In fact, Moscheles miscounted the number of measures in the
printed score. The passage in question actually comprises
twenty-six rather than twenty-four bars.
[58] For detailed information concerning source APf I am
especially grateful to Peter Ward Jones, Head of the Music Section
of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
[59] On Mendelssohn’s relationship with the Horsley family,
see especially Rosamund Gotch, Mendelssohn and His Friends in
Kensington: Letters from Fanny and Sophy Horsley Written
1833-36 (London: Oxford University Press, 1936); further,
Brigitte Richter, Frauen um Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, in
Texten und Bildern vorgestellt (Frankfurt am Main: Insel,
1997).
[60] For a useful preliminary discussion of these differences, see
Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores," 68-69.
[61] See Peter Ward Jones, Catalogue of the Mendelssohn Papers
in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Vol. III: Printed Music and
Books (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1989), 308.
[62] In the case of AL, too, I am thankful to Peter Ward
Jones for his useful ideas and his many patient and insightful
responses to queries.
[63] Ernest Walker, "Mendelssohn’s Die einsame
Insel." Music and Letters 26 (1945): 148-50; Gerald
Abraham, "The Scores of Mendelssohn’s Hebrides,"
Monthly Musical Record 78 (1948): 172-76.
[64] See, in addition to the catalogues by Margaret Crum and Peter
Ward Jones already cited, Margaret Crum, Catalogue of the
Mendelssohn Papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Vol. I:
Correspondence of Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy and Others
(Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1980).
[65] The flyleaf, also in oblong format, bears a watermark
including the initials "JFN" (information kindly provided by Peter
Ward Jones).
[66] Beginning in the early 1830s, Mendelssohn typically inscribed
the invocation "H. D. m." ("Hilf Du mir") at the head of
the first page when drafting a new work or beginning a new
manuscript for a composition already worked on elsewhere. The
invocation "L. e. g. G." (present in AR)
falls out of use around this time.
[67] Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores," 69-70.
[68] Margaret Crum, Catalogue Vol. II, 19.
[69] For permission to study and discuss source CD, and for
assistance in procuring a reproduction of that manuscript, I am
indebted to Dr. Karl Wilhelm Geck and the Musikabteilung of the
Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und
Universitätsbibliothek, Dresden.
[70] See Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Die Hebriden
Overture, Op. 26, ed. Christopher Hogwood (Kassel:
Bärenreiter, 2004).
[71] See Eichhorn, Die Hebriden, 15.
[72] See Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores," 67-68.
[73] The most obvious such evidence is the false entry of the
violas two measures early for seven measures beginning in mm.
94-100 (fol. 10v-11v). See Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores,"
69-70.
[74] Thanks are due to Dr. Martina Rebmann of the Musikabteilung
of the Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe, for assistance in
procuring a reproduction of source CK.
[75] The editions discussed below are only those of historical
significance in the Overture’s textual dissemination. Other
editions are identified in Bärbel Pelker, Die deutsche
Konzertouvertüre (1825-1865): Werkkatalog und
Rezeptionsdokumente, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1993), 1: 504-14.
[76] Letter of 29 July 1834 (see above).
[77] This situation is exemplified by the string parts. Violin 1
includes rehearsal letters A through C but omits the
remaining three letters specified by Mendelssohn (D through
F). Violin 2 includes A through D and omits
the remaining two. The viola part includes A, B, and
D but omits C, E, and F; and the
Cello/Bass part includes A through C as well as
E and F, but omits D.
[78] The exemplar of ES examined for this study is that
held in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer
Kulturbesitz. I am indebted to Dr. Hans-Günter Klein and Dr.
Hellmundt Hell for their assistance in procuring a microfilm copy
of this source.
[79] See Elvers, Verleger, 45 n.1.
[80] See note 48 above.
[81] On the general instances of this problem in
Mendelssohn’s oeuvre, see Ralf Wehner, "‘It seems to
have been lost’: On Missing and Recovered Mendelssohn
Sources," in The Mendelssohns: Their Music in History, ed.
John Michael Cooper and Julie D. Prandi (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002), 3-25.
[82]
As noted above, the composer returned the corrected proofs
for the orchestral score to Breitkopf & Härtel on 15
November 1834.
[83]
See Elvers, Verleger, 30-31.
[84]
See Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores," 68.
[85]
Because of the complexity and contradictions among the
Hebrides Overture’s manuscript sources, a few words
about editorial method are necessary. To begin with, the varying
needs of the discussion for each example necessitates the
identification of the precise copy-text used for each example, the
approximate date of that text, and the correctional status of
variants transmitted in the passage transcribed. Whenever the
example gives the ante correcturam text, the edition
indicates this via an "[a.c.]" at approximately that point in the
measures affected; post correcturam readings are denoted by
a "[p.c.]" in the appropriate points. Moreover, because
Mendelssohn’s compositional shorthands often are suggestive
of his ideas on phrasing or articulation, the examples indicate all
groupings of notes by treating them as ligatures (i.e., by means of
square brackets placed above or below the notes grouped in the
autograph). Finally, all editorial interventions are graphically
signified by the use of different fonts (for dynamic and expressive
directions), perforation (for slurs absent from the copy text but
presumably intended), and ficta (for accidentals omitted but
presumably intended).
[86]
Todd, Mendelssohn: "The Hebrides," 31.
[87]
Todd documents that this subject evolved over the course of
the Overture’s protracted compositional history, from Mull
and Morven to Fingal’s Cave and Ossian. See Todd, "The
Hebrides" and Other Overtures, 26-37, 78-83.
[88]
Todd, "The Hebrides" and Other Overtures, 31-33.
[89]
For a reproduction and transcription of the sketch and a
discussion of its dating see Todd, "Of Sea Gulls and Counterpoint,"
204-13.
[90]
Ward Jones, "Mendelssohn Scores," 69.
[91]
Of course, in addition to the classes of variants described
below there are also mistakes – most often, printer’s
errors. For a discussion of these issues, see Pietro Zappalà,
"Editorial Problems in Mendelssohn’s Organ Preludes, Op. 37,"
in The Mendelssohns: Their Music in History, 27-42.
[92]
See Eichhorn, Die Hebriden, 33-43.
[93]
As is well known, serious philological explorations of
nineteenth-century repertoires stem principally from the work of
Gustav Nottebohm, whose pioneering work on the Beethoven
sketchbooks also launched serious source-critical scholarship
concerning the works of many other nineteenth-century composers in
the early and mid-twentieth century. In Mendelssohn’s case,
the first extensive study of compositional processes had to await
the sesquicentennial of his birth. The landmark study in this line
of inquiry was Donald Mintz’s dissertation (Donald Monturean
Mintz,"The Sketches and Drafts of Three of Felix
Mendelssohn’s Major Works," 2 vols. [Ph.D. diss., Cornell
University, 1960]). Mintz’s initiative was taken up by
numerous scholars beginning the mid-1970s; for an inventory of the
most significant contributions, see Ch. 6 of my Felix
Mendelssohn Bartholdy: A Guide to Research (New York:
Routledge, 2001), esp. 211-16.
[94]
Recent scholarship has identified a number of compositions
that need to be added to traditional inventories of
Mendelssohn’s works, as well as numerous other instances in
which the texts by which the works are conventionally known are
seriously flawed. For an overview of these findings, see my
"Knowing Mendelssohn," Notes 61 (2004): 35-95.
[95] Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Die Hebriden, ed.
Christopher Hogwood (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2004).
|
|