Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 532

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.

Hie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the


copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margin*,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by


sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced


xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

A Bell & Howell Information C o m p a n y


300 N orth Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE CONCERTO AS CRUCIBLE:

FRANZ LISZTS EARLY WORKS

FOR PIANO AND ORCHESTRA

VOLUME ONE

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF MUSIC

BY

JAY MICHAEL ROSENBLATT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 1995

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9542703

UMI Microform 9542703


Copyright 1 9 9 5 , by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized


copying under Title 17 , United States Code.

UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Copyright 1995 by Jay Michael Rosenblatt

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME ONE

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES..........................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF LIBRARY SIGLA.............................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................. x

Chapter I. Introduction.............................................................................................1
The Concerto as Crucible...............................................................................1
Summary of the Contents....................................................................................... 6

Part One: Liszt and the Concerto Genre

Chapter n. The Secondary Sources....................................................................................9


Liszts Thematic Catalogues..................................................................................10
LinaRamann..........................................................................................................12
August Gollerich................................................................................................... 18
Peter Raabe and Others......................................................................................... 23

Chapter ID. The Primary Sources.................................................................................... 35


Lisztiana in Public Collections............................................................................... 36
Autographs............................................................................................................ 40
Manuscript Copies................................................................................................ 51
Gaetano Belloni...................................................................................51
August Conradi......................................................................................... 56
Joachim Raff............................................................................................. 63
Other Copyists...........................................................................................71
Editions................................................................................................................. 73
Two Examples.......................................................................................................86

Chapter IV. Liszts Compositional Process......................................................................92


Compositional Process Studies..............................................................................93
Liszts Working Method............................................................................... 99
Compositional Process in the Concertos..............................................................109
The Problem of a Fassung letzter Hand ............................................................ 122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter V. Who Orchestrated Liszts Works?.................................................................127
The Initial Allegations.................................................................................128
An Early Defense..................................................................................................135
The Continuing Debate........................................................................................ 139
A Contemporary Defense.............................................................................146

Part Two: Toward First Maturity

Chapter VI. Juvenile Compositions (1822-1827)............................................................162


The Prodigy as Composer.......................................................................... 163
First Forays into the Concerto Genre................................................................... 168
Appendix: Two Folios From a Lost Concerto?.....................................................173
Manuscript Z18, no. 30(3me Variation)...........................................173
Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (Nos. 15-16 in red) ....................................... 175
Conclusion............................................................................................... 186

Chapter VII. First Maturity (1834-35).................................................................188


Portrait of a Floundering Artist.............................................................................190
Enter the Abb6 Lamennais..........................................................................204
The Compositional Matrix.......................................................................... 211
Conclusion...........................................................................................................219

VOLUME TWO

Chapter VIII. Concerto No. 1 and Grande Fantaisie Symphonique......................... 221


Concerto No. 1 (Earliest Surviving Version)....................................................... 221
Historical Background..............................................................................224
Manuscript Sources..................................................................................226
Analysis and Implications........................................................................ 241
Grande fantaisie symphonique.................................................................... 248
Historical Background..............................................................................250
The Manuscript Source............................................................................ 256
Analysis of the Work...............................................................................263
Analysis of the CopyistsManuscript................................................ 270
Reception History.................................................................................... 275
Conclusion........................................................................................................... 288

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IX. Malediction.................................................................................................. 290
Historical Background.......................................................................................... 290
Description of the Manuscript Sources........................ 294
Sketchbook N 6.........................................................................................295
A Lost Sketchbook....................................................................................296
Sixteen Folios (D-WRgs, H13a).............................................................. 304
The Copyists Manuscript (D-WRgs, H2)................................................310
Analysis of the Work............................................................................................314
Analysis of the Sketches............................................................................. 317
Conclusion............................................................................................................325

Chapter X. De Profundis (Psaume Instrumental).................................................. 377


Historical Background.......................................................................................... 379
Description of the Autograph Source....................................................................384
Analysis of the Work............................................................................................392
Analysis of the Revisions.....................................................................................406
Conclusion............................................................................................................420

Appendix A. Unpublished Letters....................................................................................424


To Anna Liszt, 28 July 1835..................................................................... 424
To Maurice Schlesinger, 11 December 1837...............................................433
To Ignatz Moscheles, 28 December 1837 ............................................................ 437
To Theodor Kullak, 15 June 1852 ....................................................................... 441

Appendix B. Comparison of De Profundis Editions........................................................444


Joseph A cs............................................................................................................444
Michael Maxwell.................................................................................................. 447
Finishing an Unfinished W ork.............................................................................448

Appendix C. Paper Types and Watermarks.....................................................................451


Paper Types.......................................................................................................... 451
Watermarks.......................................................................................................... 457

BIBLIO GRAPHY.........................................................................................................483

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: From Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und


Transcriptionen von F. Liszt (1877)......................................................................13

Table 2.2: From Ramanns Chronologisches Verzeichnis .............................................17

Table 2.3: From Gollerichs Verzeichnis der Werke Franz Liszts ................................ 20

Table 2.4: From Schnapps Vezeichnis verschollener oder verloren gegangener Werke
Franz Liszts...........................................................................................................28

Table 2.5: Summary of Liszts Works for Piano and Orchestra....................................... 34

Table 4.1: Concerto Copies and Their Exemplars...........................................................106

Table 4.2: Manuscripts of the Concertos........................................................................123

Table 6.1: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 1823-1827......................................................166

Table 7.1: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 1828-1830......................................................193

Table 7.2: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 18341835 .................................................... 206

Table 8.1: Analysis of Concerto No. 1 ........................................................................... 245

Table 8.2: Analysis of the Grande fantaisie symphonique...................................... 269

Table 8.3: Mold Numbers in D-WRgs, Ms. H7............................................................. 272

Table 9.1: Analysis of Malediction.................................................................................315

Table 10.1: Analysis of De profundis.............................................................................. 394

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

Example 6.1: Manuscript Z18, no. 30.............................................................................177


Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10.............................................................................181
Example 8.1: Sketches for Concerto No. 1 .................................................................... 228

Example 8.2: Concerto No. 1, mm. 7-20....................................................................... 237


Example 9.1: Sketches for Malediction........................................................................... 327

Example 9.2: Malediction (HI3a), mm. 1-40................................................................ 328

Example 9.3: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41-120............................................................ 332

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a..........................................................339


Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios....................................................... 358

Example 9.6: Malediction, Two Canceled Passages....................................................... 366


Example 9.7: Malediction, mm. 215x-219x................................................................... 367

Example 9.8: Malediction (H2), Du bist die Ruh ....................................................... 368

Example 9.9: Albumblatt................................................................................................ 371

Example 10.1: Two Deleted Passages from De profundis...................................... 407


Example 10.2: De profundis, mm. 635x-643x...............................................................412

Example 10.3: De profundis, mm. 642x-648x............................................................... 415

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1: Watermark Layout of Paper Type 8.1............................................... 258

Figure 8.2: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, H7................................................. 260


Figure 9.1: The Reconstructed Sketchbook.................................................................... 298

Figure 9.2: Foliation of D-WRgs, H13a.............................................................. 305

Figure 10.1: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, H I .......................................................... 385

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF LIBRARY SIGLA

A-LIm Linz, Bibliothek des Bruckner-Konservatoriums des Landes


Oberosterreich

A-Wgm Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde

A-Wn Vienna, Nationalbibliothek

A-Wst Vienna, Stadtbibliothek, Musiksammlung

D-B Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz

D-Bds Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek

D-BArw Bayreuth, Richard Wagner Museum

D-Mbs Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

D-Ngm Nuremberg, German National Museum

D-WRgs Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv

D-WRd Weimar, Thiiringische Landesbibliothek, Musiksammlung

F-Pn Paris, Bibliothfeque Nationale

H-Ba Budapest, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

H-Bl Budapest, Liszt Ferenc Academy of Music

H-Bn Budapest, National Sz&henyi Library

US-NYp New York, New York Public Library

US-NYpm New York, Pierpont Morgan Library

US-Wc Washington, D.C., Library of Congress, Music Division

USSR-Lsc Leningrad, M. E. Saltxkova-Shchedrina State Public Library

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research for this project was supported in part by a grant from the International

Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the National Endowment
for the Humanities and the United States Information Agency. This grant enabled me to

spend six months in the (then) German Democratic Republic during the Winter of 1987-88.

In addition, several institutions in Europe facilitated my work: the Staatsbibliothek

Preussischer Kulturbesitz in (West) Berlin; the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in (East) Berlin;


the Nationale Forschungs- und Gedenkstatten der klassichen deutschen Literatur in

Weimar, specifically the Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv and the Thiiringische


Landesbibliothek; the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Nationalbibliothek, and Stadt- und

Landesbibliothek in Vienna; the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich; and the

Germanisches National Museum in Nuremberg. Dr. Gerhard Schmid in Weimar, Dr.

Wolfgang Goldhan in (East) Berlin, Dr. Ursula Mende in Nuremberg, and Dr. Otto Biba in

Vienna provided valuable assistance during my visits to their respective archives. Although
I could not visit their institutions, Dr. Manfred Eger and Herr Gunter Fischer of the
Richard-Wagner-Museum in Bayreuth and T. V. Furayeva of the M. E. Saltikova-
Shchedrina State Public Library responded promptly to my inquiries and requests for

materials, the latter with a return request for a novel by Phyllis Whitney (which I was
delighted to forward, once I found it). I am also grateful to J. Rigbie Turner at the Pierpont
Morgan Library and Kate Rivers of the Music Division of the Library of Congress for

providing me with access to the Liszt materials in their institutions and for answering
various inquiries when I could not examine the items in person. Interlibrary Loan at the
University of Chicago was helpful in acquiring the materials that I required.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I am indebted to many individuals for unhesitatingly providing information and

feedback at various stages of this project Gerry Keeling freely shared her own research on

Liszts concerts and provided me with copies of some of the more obscure reviews cited in
chapter seven. For his enthusiasm alone I owe much to Ramon Satyendra, but his

comments on early versions of some of my chapters were invaluable when I came to make

my final revisions. And, of course, my great thanks to that doyenne of Liszt research in

the United States, Rena Mueller. It was Rena who suggested the topic of Liszts

concertos, fully aware of the potential latent in such a project, and who supplied me with

much information at every stage of my research. This dissertation is very much indebted to
her own work, as will be apparent in every chapter.

If anyone has undertaken a Liszt project without the assistance of Mdria Eckhardt,

then I say without hesitation that it could not have been very thorough, as she is at the
center of the nexus of Liszt scholars and scholarship. Her help did not end with my access

to Liszt archives and individuals in Budapest but also extended to finding inexpensive

lodging for myself and my wife during our three-week stay in Budapest.
I am also grateful to Professor Berthold Hoeckner at the University of Chicago,

who stepped in at the final stage of this study. His expertise in things Lisztian was quite

valuable, and his comments on earlier drafts of my work were helpful in sharpening and

refining the final argument

My special gratitude is due to Professor Philip Gossett whose patience in the face
of my first securing a research grant and then writing up the results must surely merit some

kind of sainthood. Of course, his high standards of scholarship are apparent on every page

of this dissertation, and it is no exaggeration to say that knowing he would scrutinize the

result kept me returning to my material to wring out every last ounce of improvement
Although I referred to my wife, Elizabeth, as patient and long suffering in the

acknowledgments to my masters thesis, she will have since noted that it was nothing

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compared to my writing this dissertation. More to the point, she was of enormous

assistance to me in the libraries of Weimar and Berlin, where she was able to help me with
the task of transcribing both music and letters and also to survey the letter holdings so that I

could concentrate my attention on the manuscripts. With her editorial experience I dare say
that this is the best edited dissertation to which the U n iv e r s ity of Chicago can lay claim. Of

far greater importance, her love and encouragement enabled me to get to the end of it.

Finally, there is Hans Lenneberg. Hans was originally to be my second reader,


and before his untimely death had only read a few isolated portions of this work.

Nevertheless, his example as a scholar and, more importantly, as a mentor, has stayed with

me throughout this entire process. In this sense, his imprint is on every page, and
therefore it is appropriate that this dissertation is dedicated to his memory.

Jay Rosenblatt

x ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

Franz Liszt did not publish an original work for piano and orchestra until 1857, a

curious fact when it is remembered that he was the greatest piano virtuoso of his day and

such virtuosos usually performed and published their own compositions. The lack of

publications does not reflect a lack of interest, however, and the missing link is a collection
of works, suppressed by their creator, dating from the 1830s. With the general

inacessibility of the manuscripts and the limited attention given them by scholars, these
concertos have been overlooked in studies of the composer. The result has been a distorted

view of Liszts creative life, as they are directly connected to his later compositional

achievements.

The Concerto as Crucible


Liszts reputation as an innovator was earned from his experiments in orchestral

music, principally the development of the symphonic poem. Carl Dahlhaus saw the
creation of this genre as a solution to three interrelated problems:

First, Liszt attempted to adopt the classical ideal of the symphony without yielding to
a derivative dependence on its traditional formal scheme. Second, he wished to
elevate program music. . . from a base, picturesque genre to poetic and
philosophical sublimity. And finally, he was obsessed by the thought that it had to be
possible to unite the expressive gestures of his earlier piano pieces, inspired by
French romanticism, with the tradition of thematic and motivic manipulation.1

'Carl Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Berkeley, Los


Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 238.
1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These ideas were not new in Liszts output, a fact underlined by the works composed in the

late 1840s as concert overtures and later adapted into the cycle of symphonic poems: Tasso,
lamento e trionfo and Les pr&ludes.1

Nevertheless, a distinction can be made between these works and the first to be

deliberately constructed along new guidelines, Ce quon entend sur le montagne. Liszt

himself distinguished this work from his earlier overtures in a letter written in October
1849, the first known reference to the completed composition, where he called it another

symphonic work in contrast to his Tasso Overture.3 Further, in every one of his

attempts to order this series of one-movement works, up to and including publication, Ce

quon entend was always placed first, even though it was not the first to be composed.4

The compositional approach exemplified by Ce quon entend can be seen as a


model for many of the compositions that followed, not in the sense of providing a form but
in providing a modus operandi. In his analysis of five pieces from these years, Richard

Kaplan found that they display what may be regarded as three fundamental aspects of
sonata organization: a tonal dichotomy which eventually is resolved, a concurrent thematic

2For Tasso, lamento e trionfo (Symphonic Poem No. 2), see Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso
Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D. dissertation. New York University, 1986), 278-
303. On the complicated history of Les prtludes (Symphonic Poem No. 3), see Andrew Bonner, Liszts
Les Prtludes and Les Quatre Eltmens: A Reinvestigation, 19th Century Music 10 (Fall 1986), 95-107.

3See Liszts letter to Franjois-Joseph Fdtis, published in German translation in Franz Liszt in
seinen Briefen, ed. Hans Rudolf Jung (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987), 113. Joachim R affs reference to this
work as an overture must surely be attributed to ignorance of Liszts intentions; see Helene Raff, Franz
Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die Musik 1 (1901-02), 388,389 [December 1849].

4See the discussion of Liszts thematic catalogue (D-WRgs, Z14) in Mueller, Liszts
Catalogues and Inventories of His Works, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992), 242-246 (especially n. 21);
also idem, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 66-75. This source represents one of the earliest orderings of the
series; see the facsimile page in Bonner, Liszts Les Prtludes and Les Quatre hitmens, 104. Here, Ce
qu'on entend is designated M6ditation-Symphonie and Les prtludes is listed in second place without a
title.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
duality, and a return or recapitulation.5 Kaplan focuses on the first movement of the Faust

Symphony and four of the symphonic poems that originated as overtures, including Tasso
and Les priludes, and he undercuts the importance of the poetic element,6 but his

observations apply equally well to Ce quon entend. Where the work differs is in its
internal organization, a seemingly improvisatory sequence of sections carefully arranged

thematically and tonally to include exposition of the material in different keys and,

ultimately, recapitulation of all themes in the tonic of the piece.7

It is significant that Liszt began Ce quon entend soon after completing new

versions of Concertos No. 1 and No. 2. Both works had been composed and orchestrated
no later than 1839,8 with Concerto No. 1 thoroughly reworked from an earlier version in

three movements, and they were rewritten ten years later in May 1849, with copies

prepared no later than July of the same year.9 From these manuscripts, we can see how

close the 1849 versions brought the concertos to their final form, especially with regard to
tonal layout and the use of thematic transformation. For example, in the 1839 version of

5Richard Kaplan, Sonata Form in the Orchestral Works of Liszt: The Revolutionary
Reconsidered, 19th Century Music 8 (Fall 1984), 145.

6See ibid., 152 (.. .the program is not the crucial form-determining factor it has long been
assumed to be).

7See the in-depth discussion of this work in Berthold Hoeckner, Music as a Metaphor of
Metaphysics: Tropes of Transcendence in 19th-Century Music from Schumann to Mahler (Ph.D.
dissertation, Cornell University, 1994), chapter two, Felix Draesekes Fata morgana and the Religioso in
Franz Liszts Ce quon entend sur la montagne.

8See Franz Liszt, Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in E-flat Major, op. posth., ed. Jay
Rosenblatt (Budapest: Editio Musica, 1989), x-xi. The autograph sources for the 1839 version of Concerto
No. 1 are the same as those listed on p. xxiii; for Concerto No. 2, the autograph manuscripts are in D-
WRgs, H5c (orchestral parts, Gombo, 13 Sept[J [18]39) and H5d (piano part).

9On the completion of the concertos, see Liszts letter of 30 May 1849 to Franz Kroll, in Briefe
aus ungarischen Sammlungen 1835-1886, ed. Margit PrahScs (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1966), 66. For the
copies by August Conradi, see Liszts letter of 1 August 1849 to Joachim Raff in Franz Liszt und Joachim
Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 287. These manuscripts are all in D-WRgs. For Concerto No. 1, the
autograph is H3a, and for Concerto No. 2, the orchestral score without the piano part is H5a (5 Mai
1849), and the separate piano part is H5b. The copies are bound together as H4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4

Concerto No. 1, Liszt parades the various themes in transformation and in the tonic during

the final section of the piece (Allegro marziale animato), but in the 1849 revision, he

added the chromatic scale prefaced by the dotted eighth-sixteenth motive, so prominent in
the first measures of the piece. This theme (perhaps too bold a designation but motive

is not appropriate either) is heard twice in the earlier sections of the work, first on F-sharp

(actually dominant of B major, mm. 61-70), then on C-sharp (mm. 280-289), but it is
only in the closing measures that it is heard in E-flat major (mm. 482-489).10 Further,

Liszt has carefully led up to this closing statement as part of a strategy of unifying the

concerto on tonal and thematic levels.


Having refined his compositional technique in the two concertos, Liszt now
applied it to Ce quon entend, crafting a single-movement work on a grander scale and

adding a poetic element. As an example of its application, we can again refer to a theme
reserved for restatement in the tonic at the conclusion of the piece. First heard in G major

and marked Andante religioso (mm. 479ff.), it is repeated in E-flat major at the same

quiet dynamic level prior to a meditative coda (mm. 948ff.). It is but a short step to the

masterful deployment of the same approach in the Sonata in B Minor, where the slow

movement theme (mm. 335ff.) is heard softly before the final coda (mm. 711-728). With
regard to the Sonata, Sharon Winklhofer observed:

It is then profitable to look elsewhere in Liszts output for those structural features
often described as innovative in the Sonata. In fact Liszt had experimented
repeatedly with similar problems in the instrumental works written in the five years
preceding its completion.11

1&These measure numbers are from the score edited by Ferenc Rados (Budapest: Editio Musica,
1992), which treats the concerto as a single-movement work as follows: quasi adagio = m. 99; allegretto
vivace = m. 175; allegro marziale animato = m. 340; for a total of 501mm. Although the version under
discussion is that of 1849, the passages in question differ only in details of orchestration from the final
version.

^Sharon Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor: A Study of Autograph Sources and


Documents (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980), 124.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Without diminishing the importance of the concert overtures, the place to search for the

origins of Liszts techniques must be in the works for piano and orchestra.

Although Liszt did not publish his two piano concertos until 1857 and 1861

respectively, they were preceded by a considerable body of work, including at least three
works for piano and orchestra written before 1835 and three more in 1839. As may be
inferred from the 1839 version of Concerto No. 1, Liszt was grappling with problems of

form and content earlier in his career than previously thought The concerto compositions

from the early 1830s include the first version of Concerto No. 1, a paraphrase on themes

from Berliozs Le retour ct la vie entitled Grandefantaisie symphonique, and an

instrumental psalm, De profundis. There is also a work for piano and strings, incorrectly
labeled Malediction, which this dissertation will argue is better thought of as a piece of

chamber music. A study of the genesis and form of these four works will show that they

exhibit the compositional principles and the poetic component that would ultimately

characterize the symphonic poems and other works of the Weimar Years (1848-1861). In

fact, Kaplans three fundamental aspects can be found fully developed in the last concerto

of the series, De profundis: present is the resolution of a tonal dichotomy, the use of
thematic duality, and a recapitulation.
The concertos of the 1830s are hardly known, however, and it has been unclear

to the present time how these compositions relate to Liszts musical development A
dissertation completed in 1931 by Theophil Stengel discusses the role Malediction and De

profundis played in Liszts early years but does not take into account the other concertos

from this time, nor does it attempt to discuss the manuscripts.12 Considerable advances
have been made in the past fifteen years, both in the availability of materials and the means

12See Theophil Stengel, Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart
(Berlin, 1931), 11-15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6

to evaluate them. The work of Rena Mueller addresses the music of this decade in the
context of a more general discussion of manuscript analysis and compositional process.13

Lacking thus far has been a study that brings together analysis of all the surviving
manuscripts with the intention of applying the results to this decade of Liszts life.

In the case of the Concertos No. 1 and No. 2, study of the manuscripts reveals

that the earlier versions paved the way for the later ones, but these earlier compositions had
their own role to play and frequently shed light on the ones he chose to publish. When all
the piano and orchestra works that lead up to the 1849 versions of the concertos are

considered, it becomes clear that they were the laboratory where Liszt tested and refined the

techniques that would have such an impact on the subsequent development of nineteenth-

century orchestral music. It is to a consideration of the historical importance of these early

concertos that this study is devoted.

Summary of the Contents

This dissertation is in two parts, the first an introduction to the sources for the

e' '.tire Liszt concerto corpus, the second a thorough study of four major works written

through 1835. In chapter two, the secondary sources most crucial to this type of study are

reviewed and their reliability assessed. Chapter three is concerned with the primary

sources, manuscripts, editions, and letters, with particular attention to the works for piano
and orchestra, while chapter four reviews the literature on Liszts compositional process, in

preparation for the extensive manuscript analyses of the second part. Also relevant to a

discussion of the sources is chapter five, on the vexing question of Lisztss much contested
ability to orchestrate.

13On the concertos, see Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 85-88,159-163.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7

The second part of the study is concerned with detailed source studies and

analyses of the four works for piano and orchestra. Chapter six reviews the limited
documentation on Liszts juvenile concertos (1825-1827). The following chapters may be

taken together and chronicle the progress to what this study calls Liszts first maturity.

Chapter seven provides the historical background for these years, while chapter eight on

the Grande fantaisie symphonique and the earliest version of Concerto No. 1, chapter nine
on Malediction, and chapter ten on De profundis: psaume instrumental contain the analyses
and manuscript descriptions that are the most important contribution of this study to Liszt

research. Many of these documents are dated accurately for the first time, and with this

knowledge as a basis, the musical discussions of the sketches and final versions define
Liszts musical development.

The appendices supplement the information contained elsewhere in the

dissertation. Four letters are the subject of appendix A, each published for the first time in

their original form and extensively annotated. Appendix B is a comparison of three


editions of De profundis, and appendix C contains information on the paper types

discussed throughout the study along with watermark tracings. Finally, there is a selected
bibliography.

While the scope of the dissertation only allowed for a detailed investigation of the

works from the first half of the 1830s, it is hoped that the other material collected during
the authors research visits to Budapest, Vienna, Washington, D.C., and Weimar will be
published in the near future.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PART ONE
LISZT AND THE CONCERTO GENRE

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER H

TOE SECONDARY LITERATURE

Whereas scholarly biographies were attempted for figures such as Beethoven and
Mozart in the nineteenth century, the vast majority of publications on Franz Liszt were

popular works and first-person accounts.1 It was not until 1931 that Peter Raabe placed
Liszt scholarship on a firm scholarly footing,2 and it is only in the past few years that a

biography has been attempted that relies almost exclusively on primary sources.3 There is

still no comprehensive thematic catalogue that lists all works, manuscript sources, and
editions, although one is finally in progress under the aegis of Mdria Eckhardt and Rena

Mueller. In this environment, it is little wonder that Liszt scholarship has lagged so far
behind other major figures.4

In this chapter, the most important references to the works for piano and orchestra

in the secondary literature will be discussed and their often conflicting data disentangled.
Previously there has been little agreement on even the number of such works. How many

lrThe following bibliographies are invaluable in summing up the vast number of publications:
Ludwig Koch, Liszt Ferenc: Bibliogrdfiai Kisirlet (Budapest: SzdkesfOvdros Hdzinyomddja, 1936); and
Michael Saffle, Franz Liszt: A Guide to Research (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1991).
(This publication supercedes the same authors Liszt Research Since 1936: A Bibliographic Survey, Acta
Musicologica 58 [1986], 231-281; and idem, The Liszt-Year 1986 and Recent Liszt Research, Acta
Musicologica 59 [1987], 271-299.)

2Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968).

3Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume One, The Virtuoso Years, 1811-1847 (New York: Knopf,
1983); idem, Franz Liszt: Volume Two, The Weimar Years, 1848-1861 (New York: Knopf, 1989). The
third and final volume has not yet appeared. Prior to the appearance of the second volume, Walker
published a revised edition of the first (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).

4A comprehensive review of Liszt historiography from the composers death to the present is
found in Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1986), 1-30.
9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10

piano concertos did Liszt write? appears an innocent enough question when posed by

Rena Mueller within a discussion of a selection of works for piano and orchestra,5 but

although the latest to deal with this problem, even she did not realize the hornets nest of
false bibliographic entries and lost manuscripts she was disturbing. This chapter will

consider the sources of the current bibliographic muddle, Liszts own thematic catalogues

and the subsequent worklists of Lina Ramann and August Gollerich, as well as the
resulting misinformation that has persistently found its way into even the most scholarly
investigations. Accurate information on all surviving manuscripts is included in chapter

four, Compositional Process in the Concertos. (All the works for piano and orchestra
noted below are summarized in Table 2.5, found at the end of the chapter.)

Liszts Thematic Catalogues


Among the many tasks dating from the beginning of his tenure in Weimar, Liszt

undertook several catalogues of his compositions. Unfortunately, he was not always

concerned with completeness or consistency.6 Of particular interest is a Catalogue des


Compositions de Frantz [sic] Liszt in an unknown hand (D-WRgs, Z17a), dated by

Mueller to c. 1847-48, and a Catalogue des Compositions in the hand of August Conradi,

dated to c. 1848-49 (D-WRgs, Z15).7 The first of these contains under sous presse the

entry 3 Concerts symphoniques, which, given Muellers dating, may refer to the three

5Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 159.

6These documents have been analyzed by Rena Mueller; see her Liszts Catalogues and
Inventories of His Works, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992), 239-246; also idem, Liszts Tasso
Sketchbook, 64-82.

7See Mueller, Liszts Catalogues, 239-241; also idem, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 64ff.
She discusses Conradis work for Liszt in Liszts Tasso Sketchbook on pp. 32-39; see also chapter
three (Manuscript Copies) of the present work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concertos from 1839, worked on by Liszt as recently as 1846.8 In Z15, this is reduced to

2 Concertos pour Piano et Orchestra, perhaps referring to the autographs written by May
1849 and copied by Conradi no later than July.9 Of related interest is a pocket notebook
kept by the Princess Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein, but as the entries cannot be dated

accurately, it is of limited use here.10

Liszt next turned his attention to a thematisches Verzeichnis, prepared with

musical incipits and publication information (where available) for Breitkopf & Hartel. As
Mueller observes, Breitkopf & Hartel issued monumental publications for Beethoven

(1851), Chopin (1853), and Mendelssohn (1853), and Liszt wanted his thematic catalogue

in the same format and with the same house.11 This document was prepared by Joachim

Raff over the course of several years (D-WRgs, Z14), and it served as the engravers copy

for the volume published in 1855, later revised in 1877.12 Liszt himself guided these

catalogues through the press, and, based on their content, he apparently had little doubt

about his contribution to the concerto genre: the two editions are in absolute agreement
regarding the works themselves (less so for title and musical incipit), despite the fact that in

8See Briefe aus ungarischen Sammiungen 1835-1886, ed. Margit Prahdcs (Kassel: Barenreiter,
1966), 46 Getter of 24 December 1839 the illegible word is meiner); see also Correspondence de
Liszt et de la Comtesse d Agoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier, 2 vols. (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1933-34), 2:368
(letter of 8 October 1846).

9See Liszts letter of 30 May 1849 to Franz Kroll in Briefe aus ungarischen Sammiungen, 66.
For the copies by August Conradi, see Liszts letter of 1 August 1849 to Joachim Raff in Helene Raff,
Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die Musik 1 (1901-02), 287. These manuscripts
are all in D-WRgs. For Concerto No. 1, the autograph is H3a, and for Concerto No. 2, the orchestral score
without the piano part is H5a (5 Mai 1849), and the separate piano part is H5b. The copies are bound
together as H4.

10See Mueller, Liszts Catalogues, 246-249; also idem, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 75-
82.

^M ueller, Liszts Catalogues, 242.

12See Mueller, Liszts Catalogues, 242-246: also idem, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 66-
74.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12

1855 only one had been published, the transcription of Webers Polonaise (see Table

2.1).13 Unfortunately, Liszt had no interest in accounting for the works from earlier in his

career that survived in manuscript nor in certifying the accuracy of piano solo publications
that advertised an orchestral accompaniment. In like manner, a summary of Liszts piano

concertos, first published in 1859 by Richard Pohl, a member of the composers inner
circle in Weimar, is sloppy with regard to dates of both composition and publication.14

With such an unstable foundation on which to build, it is little wonder that, in the

catalogues and worklists that followed, there is so little agreement

LinaRamann

The trail begins where so many points of inaccurate information on Liszts life

have their origin, Lina Ramanns authorized biography of the composer, Franz Liszt als
Kunstler und Mensch.15 As frustrating as this source is, it cannot be ignored for, as her

posthumously published Lisztiana reveals, Ramann had direct access to her subject and

13See the Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt: Von der Autor verfasst (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1855), 14,18; Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und
Transcriptionen von F. Liszt, neue vervollstandigte Ausgabe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, [1877]; repr.,
London: H. Baron, 1965), 12-13. Other worklists published during Liszts life or shortly after his death
similarly listed only published woiks; see, for example, Ludwig Friwitzer, Chronologisch-systematisches
Veizeichnis shmtlicher Tonwerke Franz Liszts, Musikaiische Chronik 5/38 (5 November 1887-31
January 1888) and August GOllerichs first worklist, discussed below.

14See Richard Pohl, Liszts symphonische Dichtungen: Ihre Entstehung, Wirkung und
Gegnerschaft, in Franz Liszt: Studien und Erinnerungen, Gesammelte Schriftren ilber Musik und Musiker
2 (Leipzig: Bernhard Schlicke [Bathasar Elischer], 1883), 224. Pohl was a close acquaintance of Liszt since
the 1850s and wrote much propaganda on behalf of the Musik der ZukunfL On Pohls reliability, see
Peter Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, Inaugural Dissertation for
the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HMel, 1916), 13-15. Pohls dates for
Concerto No. 1 will be reviewed in chapter eight.

13Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hhrtel, 1880-1894). The volumes were divided chronologically as follows: Erster Band. Die Jahre 1811-
1840 (1880); Zweiter Band. I.Abteilung. Virtuosen-Periode. Die Jahre 1839-40-1847 (1887); Zweiler
Band. II. Abteilung. Sammlung und Arbeit Weimar und Rom. Die Jahre 1848-1886 (1894).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13

Table 2.1: From Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und

H. Werke fur Pianoforte und Orchester.

a) Original-Compositionen.
Erstes Concert (Es dur)
Zweites Concert (A dur)
Todten-Tanz. (Danse macabre.) Paraphrase iiber Dies irae.
b) Orchestrirungen (mit Pianoforte principale).
Fantasie iiber Motive aus Beethovens Ruinen von Athen.
Fantasie iiber ungarische Volksmelodien.
Franz Schuberts grosse Fantasie (C dur op. 15.)
C. M. v. Webers Polonaise brillante (Op. 72.)

was very conscientious in her research.16 With the resources of over a century of Liszt
research, it is possible to reconstruct her references and thereby deduce the source of many

of her errors.
According to her own account, Ramann first met Liszt in 1859,17 but it was not

until 1874 that circumstances led to the assignment to write his biography.18 From

Ramanns diary entries and the correspondence and Fragezettel between Ramann and Liszt
reprinted in Lisztiana, it is clear that there was much contact, and the questions she asked
covered all aspects of his life and work. Liszt was nearing the end of a long and eventful

life, however, and not a few of the answers he gave her were inaccurate, especially as

regards dates, although often by only a year. For example, Liszt dated the publication of

16Lina Ramann, Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblattern, Briefen und


Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873-1886/87, ed. Arthur Seidl, rev. Friedrich Schnapp (Mainz: B. Schotts
SOhne, 1983). The publication history of the book is almost as interesting as its text. Ramann prepared
her Lisztiana in 1895, and it was not until 1926 that it was edited by Seidl, but never published. Schnapp
discovered Seidls proofsheets in 1978 and prepared them for publication shortly before his own death. See
the various prefatory material on pp. 5-10.

17See ibid., 17.

18See ibid., 31ff.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14

the first version of Harmonies poitiques et religieuses to 1834, when in fact it appeared as

a supplement to the Gazette musicale de Paris of 7 June 1835.19 Perhaps more surprising,
he misremembered the date of his fathers death.20

In other instances, Ramann misinterpreted Liszts remarks. She related the


following conversation about Totentanz that took place in 1886:

Siloti probte den Todtentanz wild ihn heute im 2ten Concert spielen. Ich saB
wiederneben Liszt. Seine Bemerkungen machten mir das Werk viel deutlicher. Das
Programm (von R. Pohl) nennt Holbein als Ausgangspunkt.
Wie kamen Sie auf Holbein? In Chur? fragte ich.
Gar nicht! Pisa , antwortete er lakonisch weiB nicht, wie Pohl zu
seiner Idee kommt. In Italien sah ich mehrere solcher Bilder. Eins in Pisa fesselte
mich Dies irae lag mir immer nah.
Freiburger Dom 1836, fiel ich ein.
Da phantasirte ich iiber das Thema auf der Orgel Sehen Sie diese
Amoretten? hub er plotzlich an (Siloti spielte mit wunderbarer Grazie die I.
Variation), die finden Sie in Pisa bei Orcagna.21

Richard Pohls program note was written for the premiere of Totentanz in 1865, and he

dwelt at length on Holbeins series of woodcuts, Der Todtentanz, as the inspiration of


Liszts work, even to the point of assigning specific images to some of the variations.22

He almost certainly received the idea from Liszt himself, who around the same time wrote
Hans von Biilow, the pianist in the premiere: Lidde de produire dabord k Bale la Danse

macabre est on ne peut plus judicieuse. Si elle y fait fiasco, nous lattribuerons k Holbein

19See ibid., 394.

20See ibid., 36.

21Ibid., 331. Alexander Siloti was a noted Russian pianist who at this time was participating
in Liszts masterclasses. Liszt invited him to live in Weimar, and he moved there in April 1854, remaining
for about a decade. Incidentally, virtually all contemporary sources, including Liszt himself, consistently
spell the work Todtentanz. Modem German usage has dictated the revised spelling, and so it is used
throughout the present dissertation.

22See Pohl, Franz Liszt, 401-402; also the review by J. von Arnold, Concertmusik: Franz
Liszt, Todtentanz, Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik 61 (6 October 1865), 352-355. See also the observation
on Gflllerichs worklist below.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15

qui a fauss6 le gout du public et recommencerons ailleurs, it Paris, si bon vous

semble.23 It is difficult to reconcile Liszts comments to Ramann with those to Biilow

(and probably Pohl), except to note that, in Ramanns case, Liszt referred only to the first
variation. It was Ramann herself who simplified the matter when she wrote:

Irrthumlich nannte man Hans Holbein des Jiingeren Todtentanz als das Werk,
welches den Meister zu einer musikalischen Wiedergabe inspirirt habe und suchte von
hier die Deutung seiner Variationen. Allein nach der mir personlich von ihm
gewordenen Mittheilung gab nicht Holbeins Werk, sondem das beriihmte in den
Hallen des Campo Santo zu Pisa sich befindende Wandgemalde: Der Triumph des
Todes von dem Florentiner Andrea Orcagna dem Ahnherm der Todentanze
unserem Meister die Anregung zu seiner Paraphrase.24

Having settled the question of inspiration by the authority of the composer, she continued

to explore the relationship between the musical work and the painting in the paragraphs that

followed. Her conclusions were taken up uncritically by all succeeding biographers


(including Raabe), and it was only in an article by Sharon Winklhofer that a case was first

made in the secondary literature for Holbein.25 It is with such observations in mind that

one must approach Ramanns indispensable work.


Ramann included at the end of each volume a Chronoiogisches Verzeichnis of

Liszts compositions, a list as revealing for the items omitted as those included. (Table 2.2

contains the entries of the works for piano and orchestra.) She apparently did not have
access to Liszts unpublished manuscripts, as none of these works are listed with the

23Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Hans von Biilow, ed. La Mara (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1898), 327 (9 December 1864). The work was ultimately premiered in the Hague on 15 April
1865. In his letters, Liszt freely alternated between Todtentanz, Danse des morts, and Danse macabre.

^Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3:343. The fresco has since been attributed to
Francesco Traini.

^ S e e Sharon Winklhofer, Liszt, Marie dAgoult, and the Dante Sonata, 19th Century Music
1 (July 1977), 28. The above discussion is indebted to Winklhofers article. One exception among early
writers was Theodor Miiller-Reuter, who reprinted Pohls program note while also citing Ramann; see his
Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur (Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt, 1909;, 350-351.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16

exception of the Grandefantaisie symphonique on themes from Berliozs telio, the


inclusion of which was based on her research in the Gazette musicale de Paris.26 Turning

to the other compositions, the Concerto in A minor is based on a reference in the diaries of

Ignaz Moscheles to a concert he had heard in London on 9 June 1827.27 Her information

on the piano concertos is derived from the article by Richard Pohl, although neither the
dates in the catalogue nor in the text fully agree with his.28 She is less forthcoming about

the other works. The reference to the Fantasy on God Save the Queen and Rule

Brittannia was apparently found in the Blatterfur Musik und Literatur, the house organ of
J. Schuberth & Co., publisher of the work for piano solo.29 The Capriccio alia turca was

especially troublesome to her. In the second volume she referred to it in passing when

commenting on the work for piano solo upon which it is based, and in the catalogue at the

end, she gave a composition date of 1860 and a publication date of 1863.30 These dates
were revised for the third volume published seven years later (as shown in Table 2.2),
although her text differs in the date of composition by one year 1852.31 Her sources for

this work and the others are unknown, although the publication dates are accurate and

perhaps were provided by the publishers themselves.

26See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 1:288.

27See ibid., 1:94-95; also quoted in chapter six (First Forays into the Concerto Genre).

28See ibid., 3:335-339. Ramann cited Pohl for only the concertos, although he also discussed
Totentanz.

29See Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher


Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942),
131 (item 33).

30See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 2:284,315.

31 See ibid., 3:341.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17

Table 2.2: From Ramanns Chronologisches Verzeichnis32

Title Composed Published


Konzert A moll. 1827 (?) MSS. verloren?
Fantaisie symphonique iiber Themen von 1834 MSS. verloren
Berlioz
Fantasie uber God save the Queen und Rule 1841 1842
Brittania
I. Klavier-Koncert 1848 (?); rev. 1853 1857
n. Klavier-Koncert 1848 (?); rev. 1856; 1863
rev. 1861
Todten-Tanz 1849/50; rev. 1859 1865
Webers Polonaise brillante 1852/53 1853
Capriccio alia turca 1853 1865
Schubert: Grosse Phantasie 1856 (?) 1857
Phantasie iiber ungarischen Volksmelodien 1860 (?) 1863

Two additional works are mentioned only in the text. The first is an orchestration

for Hexameron, the existence of which Ramann surmised from annotations in Haslingers
edition.33 The second is a reference to a manuscript of a Concerto in E minor. In a

footnote, Ramann speculated that it was the concerto Sophie Menter, one of Liszts favorite

students in his last years, requested in 1885.34 Because it is unlikely that Ramann

examined Liszts Nachlafi herself, the manuscript in question could also have been
Malediction, a work that begins in E minor and closes in E major.35 The reference to this

32See ibid., 1:566-570,2:310-315,3:502-527. These listings also include a page reference in


the text where the work is discussed.

33See ibid., 1:438.

34See ibid., 3:342, n. 5.

35Theophil Stengel assumes this identification; see his Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts
von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin, 1931), 10.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18

document must have come from August Gollerich, as entries in the worklist of the last

volume are footnoted: MS. im Liszt-Museum. (Nach Notizen des Heim Gollerich).36

Evaluating these entries, it becomes evident that Ramann relied first on Liszts

information and, when that was not available, turned to secondary sources. She did not
examine the manuscripts herself, and any information relating to these probably came from
Gollerich, himself not always reliable (see below). For this reason, Ramanns worklist
must be approached with extreme caution.37

August Gollerich

Although both were present at the 1882 premiere of Parsifal, August Gollerich

did not actually meet Liszt until two years later in Vienna. At that time Liszt invited him to

attend his masterclasses in Weimar, and Gollerich played for the first time on 1 June
1884.38 He served Liszt as personal secretary beginning in the summer of 1885, following

him to Rome and then Pest, and he was with him when he died in Bayreuth the following

year. His monograph, published in 1908, is more a collection of reminiscences than a

biography, but the inclusion of an exhaustive worklist organized by genre makes it an


important secondary source.39

36Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3:527. Footnotes throughout this volume
suggest that she turned to Gollerich for information on several occasions.

37See also Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, 12-13.

38August Gollerich, Franz Liszt Klavierunterricht von 1884-1886, ed. Wilhelm Jerger
(Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1975), 30. This event is also mentioned by Ramann in Lisztiana, 258.
These first meetings are documented in GOllerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 1-4.

39For complete citation, see n. 38. Gollerich had previously published a brief biography in
1888 as volume eight of the series Musiker-Biographien published by the firm of Philipp Reclarn jun.
This was, in fact, the second part of a Liszt biography, the first part having been written by Ludwig Nohl
and published in 1877 as volume four.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19

Gollerich published his first worklist shortly after Liszts death.40 He revised it
for the Neue Zeitschriftfu r Musik, limiting himself almost exclusively to published

compositions (as announced in his title), and this new catalogue was published in

seventeen installments in 188789.41 In the concerto genre, he listed the seven items Liszt

included in his thematic catalogues and added only the transcription of the Concerto
patMtique published in 1885 to which he knew that Liszt had contributed, although such

credit does not appear anywhere on the edition.42 Comparing his worklist from the 1880s
with the one compiled twenty years later, we can observe that Gollerich thoroughly

reorganized and expanded the content by including any composition of which he had

knowledge. As a member of Liszts inner circle, he had access to his manuscripts, not
only while he was alive, but also after his death. This is evident from Gollerichs Nachlqfi,

today partially preserved in the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna (A-Wn) and the Bibliothek des

Bruckner-Konservatoriums des Landes Oberosterreich in Linz (A-LIm).43 Thus, his final

worklist contains unpublished compositions, including some for which no trace has been

found (see Table 2.3).

40Kastners Wiener Musikalische Zeitung 3 (1886).

41August Gollerich, Zur Erinnerung an Franz Liszt: Vollstdndiges VerzeichniB seiner


sammtlichen (im Druck erschienenen) musikalischen Werke, Neue Zeitschrift fiir Musik 83 (1887), 145
146, 169-170, 203, 237, 272-275, 375-376,428-429,44(M41; 84 (1888), 77-78, 89-90,116-117,
128-129,444-446,454-456,466468; 85 (1889), 63-64,75-76. One unpublished work was Liszts
transcription on Berliozs Ouverture du Roi Lear, listed in the 1855 Thematisches Verzeichniss. Clearly,
Gollerich did not limit himself to the contents of Liszts Thematic Catalogue of 1877.

42Neue Zeitschrift fiir Musik 83 (1887), 375 (Erste Abteilung. Original-Compositionen. VI.
Weike fiir Pianoforte und Orchester.); Vol. 84 (1888), 90 (Zweite Abteilung. Transcriptionen eigener
Werke. VII. Fiir Pianoforte und Orchester.); Vol. 84 (1888), 445 (Dritter Abteilung. Transcriptionen
fremder Werke. IV. Transcriptionen fur Pianoforte und Orchester.) On the Concerto pathitique
transcription, see also GOllerich, Franz Liszt, 114.

43See Wilhelm Jerger, Die Handschriften Franz Liszts aus dem NachlaB von August Gollerich
in Linz, Die Musikforschung 29 (1976): 288-294.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20

Table 2.3: From Gollerichs Verzeichnis der Werke Franz Liszts44

HI. Werke fur Klavier und Orchester


a) Origmal-Kompositionen.
Konzert im italienischen Stil.
Grande Fantaisie symphonique, A moll.
Psaume instrumental: De profundis! (Nach Lamennais).
Erstes Konzert, Es dur.
Zweites Konzert, Concert symphonique.
Totentanz, (Danse macabre). Paraphrase iiber Dies irae (nach Orcagnas
Triumph des Todes).
Konzert im ungarischen Stil. (?)
Mal6diction! (Pleurs, angoisses, vagues!)

b) Bearbeitungen.
Phantasie iiber El Contrabandista.
Phantasie iiber Fischerlied und Rauberlied aus Ldlio v. Berlioz.
Phantasie iiber Motive aus Beethovens Ruinen von Athen.
Phantasie iiber ungarische Volksmelodien.
Ungarische Rhapsodie. (No. XIII d. Ausgabe f. Klav.-Solo.)
Fr. Schuberts groBe Phantasie C dur op. 15, symphonisch bearbeitet.
C. M. v. Webers Polonaise brillante, op. 72.
Concert pathdtique (Nach einer Bearbeitung d. Concert pathdtique f. 2 Klav. 4
hdg. von E. Reuss).

As with Ramanns catalogue, Gollerichs has at its heart the seven works that

Liszt published during his lifetime, but whereas Ramann was able to add three

compositions based on her research, Gollerich found nine. To begin with those works not

taken over from Ramann, Gollerich rightly omitted the Fantasy on God Save the Queen,

but neglected to include the transcription of Hexameron, noted only in Ramanns text. The
two unpublished compositions the worklists share are the Grande fantasie symphonique on

themes from Berliozs lAlio and the unknown Concerto in A Minor mentioned by
Moscheles, the latter given the title Grande fantaisie symphonique, perhaps by way of

^ S e e GOllerich, Franz Liszt, 275-331. The works for piano and orchestra are found on pp.
281-282.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
confusion in Gollerichs notes with the work that rightfully bears that name. These two

references suggest that Gollerich knew and incorporated Ramanns work into his own,
despite the lack of Hexameron and God Save the Queen. Further evidence of Ramanns

influence is found in the listing for Totentanz as nach Orcagnas Triumph des Todes, a
revision from Variationen nach Holbeinschen Skizzen in the Neue Zeitschriftfu r Musik,

which had appeared before the publication of Ramanns third volume. Of published

compositions, the Concerto patMtique has already been mentioned. The Fantasy on El

Contrabandista likely derived from an annotation on the piano solo publication.45


The other items appear to be various manuscripts to which Gollerich either had

access or information. The Concerto in the Italian Style is completely obscure, and no

identification with any known work has yet been made. It is possible that Gollerich may

have seen the Concerto in E-flat Major (op. posth.) with the rubric recitativo del

pianoforte written over the first cadenza and dubbed the work in the Italian style, but
this seems unlikely given that there is nothing otherwise italienisch about it The

manuscript of De profundis was in the Liszt Museum (it remains in D-WRgs). Friedrich

Schnapp identified the Concerto in the Hungarian Style with the work Liszt wrote for
Sophie Menter 46 This conclusion was based on Tagesbuch-Notizen of Liszts close
friend, Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg, that he had begun a work for Menter in 1885, and

Gollerichs later communication to Raabe that the manuscript of this Hungarian work

was in her possession.47 Neither of these references are conclusive, however, as

45See Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen, 128 (item 23, Ce morceau a dtd dcrit d abord
pour Piano et Orchestre).

46See ibid., 150 (item 90).

47See A. W. Gottschalg, Franz Liszt in Weimar und seine letzten Lebensjahre, ed. Carl Alfred
Rend (Berlin: Arthur Glaue, 1910), 155. [18 September 1885] Liszt hat ein neues Klavier-Konzert fiir
Sophie Menter angefangen. Es ist schwerlich vollendet woiden. Also Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:363.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22

Gollerichs information does not prove that the work mentioned by Gottschalg and the one

possessed by Menter are the same. Note also that this is the only item to be followed by

(?), suggesting that he himself had never seen the manuscript, especially odd considering
that he was with Liszt constantly from this time until his death. As with De profundis, a

manuscript containing the work known as Malediction survives in the Weimar archive.

Of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 13, no other reference is known, and Gollerichs worklist is
the only attestation to its existence.48

Gollerichs work has been called into question by later scholars, primarily

because of his lack of documentation. Felix Raabe first focused attention on his haphazard
method in the Vorbemerkung he wrote to preface his fathers worklist, quoting from the

correspondence initiated by Peter Raabe in the hope of clarifying certain details:

Frage: Was wissen Sie iiber die von Ihnen Seite 279 genannten Jahrzeiten?
Antwort: Hiervon erzahlte Obrist. Kenne es nicht.
Frage: Was wissen Sie iiber das Seite 280 erwahnte Allegro moderato E-dur fur
Violine und Klavier?
Antwort: Kenne es nicht. Busoni sprach davon. Usw.49

Nevertheless, he admitted that Gollerichs close association with the composer in the last

years of his life, and his apparent access to manuscripts that have since been lost, make his

worklist, like Ramanns, indispensable. Of its ultimate value, Schnapp concluded:

Das Verzeichnis ist nur mit Vorsicht zu benutzen, da Gollerich zwar Vollstandigkeit
anstrebte, aber keinerlei wissenschaftliche oder gar kritische Arbeit geleistet hat
Immerhin hatte sich Gollerich als Famulus Liszts in dessen letzter Lebenszeit und als
begeisterter Verehrer seines Meisters eine Kenntnis erworben, die nicht unterschatzt
werden darf.50

^Schnapp suggests that if it ever was accomplished, it might have been done around the same
time as the transcription of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 14, retitled Fantasie iiber ungarischen Volksmelodien,
which he mistakenly dates to around 1852; see Verschollene Kompositionen, 142 (item 55).

49Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:241. This correspondence is preserved in D-WRgs. Raabe succeeded
Dr. Aloys Obrist as custodian of the Liszt Museum.

50Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen, 152.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23

In practice, however, both Raabe and Schnapp felt at liberty to doubt the existence of any

of Gollerichs entries for which they did not have concrete evidence at hand. It must be
countered that where manuscripts can be correlated with entries, the essential accuracy of

Gollerichs catalogue is borne out. For example, the designation Concert symphonique

for the second concerto can be observed in Liszts hand on two copies of the work

preserved in D-WRgs (H5a and H5e). Thus, it is always possible that Gollerich had
examined a manuscript now lost or communicated with someone who had a copy in their
possession.

Peter Raabe and Others

Peter Raabe first came to Weimar in 1907 to assume the position of

Hofkapellmeister. That same year, the publisher Breitkopf & Hartel began to publish a
collected edition of Liszts music with Raabe as general editor.51 In 1910, he was

entrusted with a second appointment, the administration of the Liszt Museum, also located
in Weimar.52 Although the museum had opened in 1887 and its vast collection of

manuscripts had begun to be surveyed by his predecessors, it was under Raabes

leadership that the project of cataloging these materials was completed. His experience as a
practical musician held him in good stead, and the handwritten catalogue he compiled is

testimony to the accuracy and thoroughness of his judgments. This catalogue remains
available in the reading room of the Goethe and Schiller Archive, where it is the sole

detailed guide to the holdings.

5lGrossherzog Carl Alexander Ausgabe der musikalischen Werke Franz Liszts, 5 series, 34 vols.
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1907-1936). The original proposal had planned for 60 volumes, and it is
unknown why publication ceased.

52In the 1950s, the Liszt Museum was brought under the umbrella of the Nationale Forschungs-
und Gedenkstatten der klassichen deutschen Literatur. The manuscripts, letters, and other Lisztiana were
deposited in the Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv (D-WRgs), while printed music, some with Liszts corrections
and manuscript pages bound in, were deposited in the TTiiiringische Landesbibliothek, Musiksammlung (D-
WRtl).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24

Combining the scholarship of Ramann and the musicianship of Gollerich, Raabe

added information on the manuscripts that neither of them possessed. With this breadth of

knowledge, he was able to build effectively on the work of his predecessors, first in his

dissertation, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts,53 and,


two years later, in a monograph on the relationship between Liszt and his Weimar patron,
the Grand Duke Carl Alexander.54 His two-volume life and works was more accurate and

comprehensive than any previously published, and the Verzeichnis aller Werke Liszts

nach Gruppen geordnet that takes up nearly a third of the second volume represents the

first catalogue for which primary source material served as the principal guide.55 Rena
Mueller sums up his contribution:

The second volume [of Franz Liszt], however, with separate chapters devoted to all
the major genres in which Liszt wrote, followed by a highly sophisticated catalogue
of Liszts musical output, was a path-breaking achievement. Raabe consolidated
information on the genesis, printing history, and sources for Liszts entire oeuvre....
Liszts Schaffen, and especially the catalogue it contains, has not been superceded.56

Raabes catalogue was most likely an outgrowth of the system that he devised for

organizing the holdings of the museum, as is evident from his handwritten volume. He
assigned a letter to each genre in which Liszt worked (A = Orchestral Music; B = Sacred

and Secular Vocal Music with Orchestra; etc.) and an additional number to each manuscript

as he catalogued it. For example, the works for piano and orchestra were assigned H,

53Inaugural Dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena, 1916; for complete
citation, see n. 14. He had matriculated in 1913. Much of the biographical information on Raabe cited
above is from this source, p. [55]. Raabe reviewed the work of his predecessors on pp. 12-16.

^P eter Raabe, Grofiherzog Carl Alexander und Liszt (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918).

55Raabe, Franz Liszt, vol. 1, Liszts Leben, vol. 2, Liszts Schaffen (Stuttgart & Berlin: J. C.
Cottasche, 1931). The work was reprinted in 1968 with an appendix by his son, Felix, who worked with
him during his latter years; for complete citation, see n. 3. The worklist is found on pp. 241-364.

56Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 12-14.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25

and the autograph of De profundis was assigned HI, a manuscript of Malediction H2,
etc. To this, he added any relevant information in the way of other copies, editions, and
references in Ramann, Gollerich, or the published letters. There also survive in his

Nachlafi handwritten notes for works in the various genres, where he recorded
observations on the manuscripts in greater detail, evidently for his use in Liszts Schaffen
(Notizen zum Katalog der Werke, D-WRgs, Nr. 587).

For the published version, Raabe reorganized the entries and placed the music for

piano at the beginning, followed by orchestral and choral works. He grouped the various

compositions as much as possible by types (etudes, cyclic works, etc.), although finding a

particular work is difficult without the index that follows the catalogue. The entries for
each work are models of scholarly precision, offering complete title, orchestration, genesis

(Entstanden), manuscripts, first performance, publication, other arrangements, and

dedication. The annotations under Entstanden and Handschriften were concise yet

illuminating, listing all surviving documentation. In addition, he did not limit himself to the

materials in Weimar but made an effort to accumulate information on sources throughout

Europe. Raabe may appear at first sight too conservative regarding his entries of works or
versions for which the evidence is limited, especially upon comparison with Ramann and

Gollerich, but further examination reveals virtually all of their entries listed in ways that are
logical and that do not mislead the reader.

The items under Werke fiir Klavier und Orchester include the seven published

compositions along with the two for which completed manuscripts exist, Malediction and

the Grande fantaisie symphonique (items 452-460). Unlike Liszts Thematic Catalogues
and Gollerich, Raabe made no distinction between original works and arrangements, listing

them chronologically to the best of his knowledge. De profundis is listed under

unfinished (item 668), and annotations under the piano solo versions of Rondeau

fantastique sur un theme espagnol (El Contrabandista), God Save the Queen, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26

Hexameron offer conclusions based on available evidence as to the existence of piano and

orchestra versions (items 88,98, and 131 respectively). For the Concerto patMtique

arrangement, Raabe noted only that ReuB executed it The listing is under the work for
piano solo, Grofies Konzertsolo, upon which the two-piano Concerto patMtique is based

(item 18), and the two-piano version is item 356. He listed the Concerto in the Hungarian

Style under doubtful (Raabe did not give numbers to lost or doubtful works), and the

Concerto in the Italian Style is not listed at all. He also did not list the Concerto in A

Minor heard by Moscheles, identifying it with an earlier version of Malediction.51 Raabe

was the first, however, to note two early concertos under lost, based on a letter Liszts
father wrote to Carl Czerny in 1825.58 Finally, he observed that the first edition of the

Grande fantaisie de bravoure sur la Clochette de Paganini for piano solo included the
designation tutti, suggestive of an orchestral accompaniment (item 231) and that a sketch

for the first version of Harmonies poitiques et religieuses had specific references to
orchestration (item 13). Although he used Ramanns biography with caution, he accepted

her dating and her conclusion on Liszts inspiration for Totentanz. He also added an error,
that the Beethoven Fantasy had nothing but the themes in common with the earlier work for
piano solo.59 In 1968, Raabes son Felix, who had worked with him on the catalogue,

prepared Zusatze for the reprint, incorporating various emendations and corrections,

especially to the worklist. These were not substantial and were largely indebted to Searles

worklist, discussed below.

57In addition to the worklist entry, see Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:53-54. Raabe labeled this
manuscript fragment a Bruchstiick. See also Schnapps identification, below.

58See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:7, quoted from La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Classisches und
Romantisches aus der Tonwelt (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1892), 249-50. ib is letter was also quoted by
Julius Kapp in his Franz Liszt (Berlin and Leipzig: Schuster & Loeffler, 1909), 31-32.

59In addition to the worklist entry, see 2:55.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27

Ten years after Raabes two-volume work, Friedrich Schnapp published an

article, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, intended as an addendum to Raabes

worklist undo: the category Verloren oder nicht aufzufinden.60 Schnapp was able to use
a number of documents that were not available to Raabe, including the extensive

correspondence of Liszt and Marie dAgoult.61 The result was a Verzeichnis verschollener
oder verloren gegangener Werke Franz Liszts in which Schnapp listed ninety-five works

and detailed all attestations to their existence. Thirteen of these are for piano and orchestra,

of which three had not appeared in any previous list (see Table 2.4).

Of those not mentioned by Raabe, items 17 and 18 derive from a letter Liszt wrote
to his mother, requesting certain works.62 The first was identified by Schnapp with the

surviving manuscript for Malediction, the second with the autograph of De profundis, or
perhaps a manuscript of an earlier version of Concerto No. 1, also in the Liszt Museum.
The Divertissement (item 22) appears to have been an oversight by Raabe for, as with the

first edition of El Contrabandista (item 23), the evidence for a concerto version is found in
a remark on the title page. For the Reminiscences des Puritains (item 28), Schnapp utilized

the Liszt-dAgoult correspondence, finding no less than three references to this

arrangement.63 A review pointed to the one-time existence of item 31, found in the Gazette

^Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen, 119. Appropriately enough, it appeared in a


Festschrift to his older colleague; for complete citation, see n. 30.

61For complete citation, see n. 8.

62See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 20-21. The content of this letter is also discussed in chapter seven (The
Compositional Matrix). See also appendix A, where it is transcribed complete.

63See Correspondance Liszt-dAgoult, 1:284,325,346 (letters of 9 November, 6 and 29


December 1839).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28

Table 2.4: From Schnapps Verzeichnis verschollener oder verloren gegangener Werke
Franz Liszts____________________________________________
^ . I I I!

Item Tide Date


8 Klavierkonzert 1825
9 Klavierkonzert 1825
14 Konzert fur Klavier in a-moll (wahrscheinlich mit spatestens Friihjahr
Streichorchester) 1827
?17 Concerto, fur Klavier und Orchester v o r1835
?18 Concerto symphonique, fiir Klavier und Orchester 1834/35
*22 Divertissement sur la Cavatine de Pacini I tuoi frequent! 1835 oder 1836
palpiti (Niobe-Fantasie), fiir Klavier und Orchester
23 Rondeau fantastique sur un thdme espagnol El 1836
contrabandista [von Manuel Garcia] fur Klavier und
Orchester
26 Hexameron. Morceau de Concert. Grandes Variations de 1837
Bravoure pour Piano sur la Marche des Puritains de
Bellini composdes par MM. Liszt, Thalberg, Pixis,
Henri Herz, Czemy et Chopin. Mit
Orchesterbegleitung versehen
*28 Reminiscences des Puritains, Grande Fantaisie. Fiir spatestens 1839
Klavier und Orchester
*31 Ungarischer Marsch (Heroischer Marsch in ungarischem 1840
Styl?) fiir Klavier und Orchester
33 Grande Paraphrase de Concert God Save the Queen und 1841
Rule Brittania fur Klavier und Orchester
*55 Ungarische Rhapsodie (Nr. 13) fiir Klavier und 1850er Jahre?
Orchester
t90 Konzert in ungarischem Stil fiir Klavier und Orchester 1885
Ein (?) vor einer Nummer des vorhergehenden Verzeichnisses bedeutet, daB es fraglich ist, ob diese Kom-
position verschollen oder ob sie mit einem anderen, in der betr. Anmerkung genannten Werk identisch ist.
Ein (t) bezeichnet die Tatsache oder die Vermutung, daB das Weik unvollendet geblieben ist.
Die mit einem (*) versehenen Stiicke fehlen in Raabes Werkverzeichnis und sind auch im Text seines
Buches nicht erwahnt.

musicale in a report of Liszts concerts in London;64 Schnapp identified the work as the
Heroischer Marsch in ungarischem Styl, although he also suggested it could have been an

^ Liszt h Londres, Gazette Musicale de Paris (14 June 1840): La marche hongroise est
accompagnde par tout lorchestre, et, le jour de concert, lartiste dirigea et domina cet ensemble [offenbar
vom Fliigel aus] avec une vdhdmence et une vigeur telles, quil dlectrisa tous les executants, sans pourtant

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29

arrangement of the Rk6czi March. Finally, Schnapp rejected the possibility that the

Concerto in A Minor heard by Moscheles (item 14) is identical with Malidiction (pace

Raabe) or with one of the 1825 concertos (items 8 and 9);65 rather, he suggested

identification with a fragment of sixteen folios preserved in the Liszt Museum, the music of

which was reworked into Malidiction.

The next comprehensive worklist, and the first compiled for an English-speaking

readership, was by Humphrey Searle for the fifth edition of Groves Dictionary o f Music

and Musicians (1954, hereafter Grove 5). Searle also published a separate volume that

contained the worklist (without many of the annotations), an expanded version of his
discussion of the music, and a Biographical Survey.66 Although he examined some of

the documents himself, at least before the Second World War,67 evidently Searle was

heavily dependent on Raabes publication for his information: many of the category
designations and even the ordering of the compositions within categories match Raabes,
and much of the dating corresponds as well. Unfortunately, Searle included little

documentation, and therefore the sources that he used outside of Raabe are not always

clear. Nevertheless, his work was an improvement over previous editions of Groves,

which had simply reprinted the contents of Liszts Thematic Catalogue of 1877. Further,

Searle never claimed to produce an independent scholarly work; he was simply fulfilling

rien perdre de son autorit6 de chef dorchestre. Quoted from Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen,
130-131. Also quoted in Liszt et son temps, eds. Pierre-Antoine Hur6 and Claude Knepper (Paris:
Hachette, 1987), 278.

65See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:53-54,311 (item 452). The association of the 1825 works was
made by Stengel in Die Entwicklung, 10. He postulated that the Concerto in the Italian Style was the
other.

66Humphrey Searle, The Music o f Liszt (London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1954). A revised
republication was issued twelve years later (New York: Dover Publications, 1966).

67The present writer observed Searles signature, dated 1937, on library documents in the
Deutsche Staatsbibliothek.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30

his assignment using the best sources available, and he was careful to make revisions on
the basis of recent scholarship.

Searles catalogue included date of composition, date and place of publication,

locations of manuscripts, dedicatee, an edition where the work could be found, and a cross

reference to Raabes worklist. For the concertos, Searle listed seven works (of Raabes
nine) under Pianoforte and Orchestra (items 120-126), and he relegated the transcriptions

of piano pieces by Weber and Schubert to Arrangements, Transcriptions, Fantasies, etc.

(items 366-367). The arrangements of the Beethoven Fantasy and Hungarian Rhapsody

are not listed with the transcriptions, which could mislead one into thinking that they are
original works. Further, the listing for the Beethoven Fantasy repeats Raabes error that

the work has little to do with the version for piano solo. In addition, the Grandefantaisie

symphonique is listed with the original works, although it is clearly a paraphrase. As with

Raabe, Searle listed De profundis under Unfinished Works (item 691), and under
Doubtful or Lost, he listed the two 1825 concertos, the Concertos in the Hungarian and

Italian Styles, and the Grande Fantaisie Symphonique in A Minor (items 713-716). He

was alert to note the confusion of the title of the last work with the Ldlio Fantasy, although

his annotation querying whether the two are the same work is certainly incorrect. Note also

that in the monograph he listed the last three of these items with questions marks.68 The

only addition to Raabe is an entry for an arrangement by Liszt of the Grofies Konzertsolo,

here Grand solo de concert (item 365), and different from the Concerto patheiique
transcription by ReuB (which Searle did not list). Despite the brevity of the citations,

Searle noted under the piano solo versions works that may exist in concerto arrangements:
Hexameron, Reminiscences des Puritains, El Contrabandista, the Paganini Fantasy, and

the first version of Harmonies poitiques et religieuses. He negelected the reference to God

68See Searle, The Music of Liszt, 190.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31

Save the Queen, and, like Raabe, those of the Pacini Divertissement and Hungarian
Rhapsody No. 13. He also forgot to include the Hungarian March listed in Schnapp.
Searle updated his catalogue for the sixth edition of 1980, retaining the basic

format and numbering but eliminating some of the information not directly related to dating,

for example, the references to concerto arrangements. The modifications to the entries

were slight and did not take advantage of recent scholarship. A lengthy list of emendations

was published in a review by Sharon Winklhofer,69 and she was invited to incorporate her

corrections into the paperback issue, Searle having died in the interim.70 As Winklhofer

points out in her review, Searle was woefully out of touch with current research, for

example listing manuscript collections that had been dispersed for many years.71 It is only
with her revisions to The New Grove that it becomes a useful bibliographic tool, including

much refinement in the dating of works and the listing of manuscripts with much that is

relevant to the concertos. One significant alteration in the works for piano and orchestra

was the recataloging of the Concerto in the Hungarian Style, moving it from Lost to

item 126a (i.e with the other original works for piano and orchestra). Although there was

not any new manuscript evidence, apparently Winklhofer had become convinced that a

work published in 1909 as Hungarian Gypsy Songs under Menters name was in fact the
lost concerto.72

69See Sharon Winklhofer, review of Liszt, Franz [Ferenc] in The New Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians, 19th Century Music 5 (Spring 1982): 257-262. Note also the article by Allan Ho,
Tentative Revisions to Searles New Grove Catalogue of Liszts Works for Two Pianos and Piano Four-
Hands, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 14 (December 1983): 24-29. It is unclear whether
Winklhofer incorporated these additional emendations into her own New Grove revision (cited below).

7077jc New Grove Early Romantic Masters 1: Chopin, Schumann, Liszt (New York: Norton,
1985).

71See Winklhofer, Liszt, Franz, 258-259.

72See Margit Prahdcs, Liszts letztes Klavierkonzert, Studia Musicologica 4 (1963), 195-200;
also Maurice Hinson, The Long Lost Liszt Concerto, Journal of the American Liszt Society 13 (June
1983), 53-58.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32

Three other worklists should be mentioned for the sake of completeness. For his
two-volume life and works of Liszt, Jacob Milstein compiled a worklist that is found at the

end of his second volume.73 According to Saffle, however, it is drawn almost entirely

from Raabe and Searle.74 Alan Walker compiled a catalogue for the volume he edited,
Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music,75 and Serge Gut included one in his Franz Liszt? 6

These last are no more than a reshuffling of information in Raabes and Searles

catalogues, with perhaps a few gains in organization; fortunately, the older numbers are

easily accessible in Walkers and Guts formats. Furthermore, the new systems have not
been used in any other text, not even Walkers three-volume life of the composer. Thus,

because they add little that is not included in the other catalogues, these lists will not be
referred to again in the present study.

Finally, although not worklists or modifications to worklists, publications by


Theophil Stengel and Theodor Muller-Reuter are important because of their authorss

access to primary sources. In his dissertation, Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von
Liszt bis zu Gegenwart, Stengel discusses Liszts concertos, including the unpublished

works in the Liszt Museum. He collated the information found in the works of Ramann,

Gollerich, and Julius Kapp (cited above) and compiled a useful table that counted eighteen

concertos, although his dating was based almost exclusively on that of Ramanns

73Jacob Milstein, F. List, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Moscow: Muzuka, 1971), 327-425 (in Russian).
This work was first published in 1959 and appeared in Hungarian translation in 1964. The authors name is
also transliterated Yakov Milshtein.

74See Saffle, Franz Liszt: A Guide to Research, 25.

75Alan Walker, ed., Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music (London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1970),
390-462.

76Serge Gut, Franz Liszt (Paris: Editions de Fallois/LAge d Homme, 1989), 544-583.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33

biography, with the exception of those works listed only in Gollerichs worklist.77 His

commentary indulges in some speculation, for example, he associates the Concerto in the
Italian style and Grandefantaisie symphonique listed in Gollerich with the two lost

concertos of 1825. Nevertheless, his work is valuable, as he describes in detail the musical

content of Malediction and De profundis with observations that reveal his knowledge of the
manuscripts. Raabe valued this monograph highly enough to refer to it in his own study,

especially significant as both were published the same year and both authors must have
worked side by side in the archive. Miiller-Reuters Lexikon der deutschen

Konzertliteratur (1909) merits special attention because of his thorough research of the

primary sources.78 He included information on the dating of the works that could have
come only from the manuscripts in the Liszt Museum, although it is uncertain whether he

examined them himself or whether the curator, Obrist, communicated the data to him.

There is little that is original or speculative, but the care and accuracy of this work are
notable, and many succeeding writers on Liszt could have eliminated the misinformation

received from inferior secondary sources if they had referred to Miiller-Reuter. The entries
are limited to the seven works that Liszt published, listed in the order of the Liszts

Thematic Catalogue of 1877, with a summary of dating based on published correspondence

and a list of the first performances and the circumstances surrounding them.

77See Stengel, Die Entwicklung, 10; for complete citation, see n. 35.

78See Miiller-Reuter, Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur, 346-357; for complete citation,
see n. 26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 2.5: Summary of Liszts Works for Piano and Orchestra

s R Title Th.V. Pohl Ramann Raabe Schnapp Searle


713 1. (Piano Concerto) 1825 1825 1825
713 2. (Piano Concerto) 1825 1825 1825
716 3. Concerto in A Minor 1827? 1827 1827 1827
420 231 4. Grande fantaisie de bravoure sur la Clochette 1832 1832 1832
121 452 5. Malediction 1827 1827 1833
120 453 6. Grande fantaisie symphonique 1834 1834 1834
691 668 7. De profundis, psaume instrumental 1830s 1834/5 1835
419 230 8. Divertissement sur la Cavatine de Pacini 1835
252 88 9. Rondeau fantastique sur un theme espagnol 1836 1836 1836
390 129 10. Hexameron 1837 1837 1837 1837
392 131 11. Reminiscences des Puritains 1839 1839
12. Concerto in E-flat Major, op. posth. (1839)
13. Hungarian March 1840
235 98 14. Grande Paraphrase de Concert God Save the Queen and 1841 1841? 1841 1841?
Rule Brittania
122 454 15. Fantasie fiber Motive aus Beethovens Ruinen von Athen X 1853 1848-52 1837
124 455 16. Concerto No. 1 in E-flat Major X 1848 1848? 1849 1849
125 456 17. Concerto No. 2 in A Major X 1848 1848? 1839 1839
126 457 18. Totentanz X 1849 1849/50 1849 1849
365 19. Grand solo de Concert 1850
244 103 20. Hungarian Rhapsody No. 13 1850s?
123 458 21. Fantasie fiber ungarische Volksmelodien X 1860? 1852 1852
366 459 22. Franz Schuberts groBe Fantasie (C-dur, op. 15) X 1856? 1851 1852
367 460 23. C. M. v. Webers Polonaise brillante (op. 72) X 1852/53 1851 1849
258 356 24. Concerto path6tique 1885
714 25. Concerto in the Hungarian Style 1885 1885 1885
126a 26. Concerto in the Italian Style

N.B.: This table is designed to aid the reader in following the discussions of the worklists in this chapter and is not meant to provide a comprehensive
summary of any of the sources. The Searle and Raabe numbers sometimes refer to the listing for solo piano when a separate listing was not provided.
Th.V. simply indicates whether the item was listed in Liszts Thematisches Verzeichnis. References to Searle are from the New Grove Early Romantic
Masters 1. The dates are those when the work was composed or completely drafted. Accurate information on all surviving manuscripts is found in chapter
four, Compositional Process in the Concertos. w
4^
CHAPTERm
THE PRIMARY SOURCES

Liszts manuscripts survive in great quantity for all the genres in which he
composed, but those for piano and orchestra, by virtue of the number of versions and

number of years that elapsed between first sketch and published score, reveal the most

about his working methods and compositional priorities at different points in his career.
For Concerto No. 1 alone, there are six full scores, one two-piano score, and one
sketchbook entry, all written over the course of twenty-five years. Analysis of this vast

amount of documentation is imperative, not only for answering basic questions, such as the

date and even the number of his works, but for an understanding of Liszts compositional
process.

This research has been neglected in Liszt studies, for, as late as 1980, Sharon

Winklhofer was able to write: No means exist at present for identifying Liszt autographs

accurately, whether for verifying long-accepted dates and provenances of extant sources, or

for authenticating newly-found autographs thought to be in Liszts hand.1 Winklhofer

herself provided the first systematic analysis of Liszts manuscripts, cataloging details of
handwriting, writing implements, and paper use that are invaluable for dating these

materials. Several years later, Rena Mueller cast her net even further:

The identification of the copyists and the materials used by Liszt and his aides
helps to shed light on the complicated history of the composers oeuvre. When the
intricacies of the transmission of the musical text are examined in conjunction with the

Aharon Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980), 55.
35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36

evidence of the primary tools and secondary sources available, we arrive at a more
precise picture of just when a piece of music was written.2
In this chapter, the work of Winklhofer and Mueller, in addition to other scholars, will be

summarized with respect to the primary sources in general and the works in the concerto
genre in particular.

Lisztiana in Public Collections

Documents relevant to the life and work of Franz Liszt have been disbursed
widely. Earlier in his career, he habitually gave away the manuscripts of published works,

as to him these autographs apparently held little value, and it is rare to find a fair copy in his

own hand before 1848.3 Letters, by their very nature, are also not concentrated in one
repository. In addition, upon Liszts death, his housekeeper in Weimar allowed his

students and friends to take away manuscripts as keepsakes. A typical example is

documented in the files of the Library of Congress. In 1954, the library acquired a bound
volume of three works for piano and orchestra, principally in the hand of August Conradi

but with copious annotations and emendations by Liszt (shelflist ML96.L58).4 It was

purchased from a manuscript dealer in Europe by Walter Schatzki, a New York dealer in
antiquarian materials, and he reported the history of the manuscript in a letter of 11 June

2Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1986), 96-97.

3Among the very few Liszt autographs known to survive, there is the copy of the
Reminiscences des Huguenots (D-WRgs, U56) from around 1836 and the copy of the Reminiscences de
Don Juan (US-NYp, JOF 81-6) dated 15 Feb. 1843. The Huguenots fantasy served as the engravers
copy, and the Don Juan fantasy is preserved with the manuscript copy that served the engraver (JOF 81-7).

4See the brief description in The Music Manuscripts, First Editions, and Correspondence of
Franz Liszt (1811-1886) in the Collections of the Music Division, Library of Congress, comp. Elizabeth
H. Auman and Raymond A. White (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1991), 5 (items 9,10), 14
(item 36).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37

1954. Schatzki stated that the original owner was Frederic W. Riesberg, a pupil of Liszt

from 1882 to 1884:

After the composers death he [Riesberg] went to his house [Liszts last residence in
Weimar, the Hofgartnerai] to express his sympathies and Liszts house keeper
suggested that he select something that had belonged to the composer, as a token of
memory.

Other documents have a similar history, and as a result Liszt autographs can be found all
over the world. Fortunately, many of these manuscripts are in public collections.

The largest repository of autographs and letters is the Goethe and Schiller Archive
in Weimar (D-WRgs), part of the Nationale Forschungs- und Gedenkstatten der
klassischen deutschen Literatur.5 The core of the collection is Liszts Nachlafi, which in

1887 was incorporated into the Liszt Museum and housed in the Hofgartnerai. Shortly

thereafter, the Allgemeine deutsche Musikverein issued a public appeal for manuscripts,6
thus beginning the continual development of the collection through additional documents,

either purchased or given as gifts, and including many letters that the composer himself

considered lost.7 The materials were deposited in their present location after World War n,

with the manuscripts and letters going to D-WRgs, while the printed editions, some with

5There is no published catalogue of these holdings, although many of the documents are noted
in the worklists of Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 241-364, and
Humphrey Searle and Sharon Winklhofer, The New Grove Early Romantic Masters 1: Chopin, Schumann,
Liszt (New York: Norton, 1985), 322-368. See also Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 365-393
(appendix B).

6See Mdria Eckhardt, Liszts Weimar Library: The Hungarica, New Hungarian Quarterly 32
(Summer 1991): 157.

7See Liszts letter of 15 May 1882 to Edmond Hippeau, who had written requesting information
for his biography of Berlioz: Vous me demandez communication des lettres que Berlioz mecrivit:
malheureusement je nen possbde plus aucune, les ayant toutes donndes it divers amateurs dautographes.
(Franz Liszts Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols. [Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1893-1905],
8:396). La Mara had published many of these letters several years earlier, having discovered them in the
rooms of the Princess Sayn-Wittgenstein (ibid., n. 3); see her Briefe hervorragender Zeitgenossen an Franz
Liszt, ed. La Mara, 3 vols., (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1895-1904). On Schumanns letters, see Franz
Liszts Briefe, 1:254 (9 January 1857, to J. W. von Wasielewski). Ten letters of Schumann to Liszt are in
D-WRgs (Ms. 29/2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38

Liszts corrections and inserted autograph folios, went to the Thiiringische

Landesbibliothek, Musiksanunlung (D-WRtl).

After Weimar, Budapest has the most substantial collection, partially the result of

Liszts residence in the city during the last two decades of his life, but also from efforts to
honor a native son by private individuals and public institutions. The material is divided
between three archives: the National Sz&henyi Library (H-Bn),8 the Liszt Ferenc Academy
of Music (H-Bl),9 and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (H-Ba).10 In addition, the

Library of Congress (US-Wc) contains a great number of manuscripts, letters, and first

editions, due to the indefatigable sleuthing of the late Edward Waters, who headed the

music division for many years.11 Several other cities have libraries that contain modest

collections of Lisztiana, the most important of which are (alphabetically by city): Berlin,

Deutsche Staatsbibliothek (D-Bds), Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz (D-B);


Leningrad, M. E. Saltikova-Shchediina State Public Library (USSR-Lsc);12 Munich,

8See Mdria Eckhardt, Franz Liszt's Music Manuscripts in the National Szichenyi Library,
Budapest, Studies in Central and East European Music 2, Zoltdn Falvy ed. (Budapest: Akaddmiai Kiadd,
1986).

9See Mdria Eckhardt, Liszt Ferenc Zenemiikdziratai FOiskola Liszt Ferenc emldkmuzeumdban,
Zenetudomdnyi dolgozatok (1986): 235-260; idem, Franz Liszts Estate, Acta Academiae Artis Musicae de
Francisco Liszt Nominatae (Budapest: Liszt Ferenc Zenemiivdszeti FOiskola, 1986). The first item is
devoted to manuscripts and includes eighteen facsimiles, while the second covers printed material.

10See Mdria Eckhardt, Liszt-zenemiikdziratok az mta int6zet6nek Major-gyujtem6ny6ben,


Zenetudomdnyi dolgozatok (1983): 51-64; idem, Liszt Ferenc levelei az mta zenetudomdnyi intdzetdnek
Major-gyujtemdnydben, Zenetudomdnyi dolgozatok (1987): 281-302. These articles contain discussion of
music manuscripts and letters in the Ervin Major collection. Although both are in Hungarian, they include
several facsimiles, and the latter also includes an English summary on p. 294.

11See his Sur la piste de Liszt, Notes: The Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library
Association 27 (June 1971): 665-670; also his checklist Liszt Holographs in the Library o f Congress
(Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1979), superceded by the publication cited above in n. 4.

12The Leningrad holdings were overlooked by Humphrey Searle and Sharon Winklhofer in their
New Grove worklisL Some of the Liszt manuscripts are mentioned in Jacob Milstein, F. List, rev. ed., 2
vols. (Moscow: Muzuka, 1971).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (D-Mbs); Nuremberg, German National Museum (D-Ngm);13


New York, New York Public Library (US-NYp), Pierpont Morgan Library (US-
NYpm);14 Paris, Biblioth&que Nationale (F-Pn);15 and Vienna, Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde (A-Wgm), Nationalbibliothek (A-Wn), Stadt- und Landesbibliothek (A-
Wst).i6

As curator for the Liszt Museum, Peter Raabe worked extensively with Liszt

materials, and in his 1916 dissertation he ranked them in order of importance: autographs,

copies made under Liszts supervision, copied orchestral parts, corrected proofs, and
letters.17 Such an ordering may seem obvious enough, but as the window into Liszts

compositional procedure becomes clear, it will be seen that the distinction between the first

and second items is more one of label, with little relevance for understanding his working

method. Nevertheless, Raabes listing offers a guide for reviewing these sources and
summarizing their content.18

13See Clytus Gottwald, Die Liszt-Autographe des Germanischen Nationalmuseums in


Niimberg, Die Musikforschung 35 (1982), 166-172.

14See J. Rigbie Turner, Nineteenth-Century Autograph Music Manuscripts in the Pierpont


Morgan Library: A Checklist, 19th Century Music 4 (1981): 49-69,157-182; reprinted with facsimiles
and a preface by Charles Ryskamp (New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1982). See also The Mary
Flagler Cary Music Collection: Printed Books and Music Manuscripts Autograph Letters Documents
Portraits (New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1970).

13See Mdria Eckhardt, Pdrizsi Liszt-dokumentum 1849-bOl, Zenetudomdnyi dolgozatok


(1978): 79-93.

16Other small collections of Liszt materials not visited by the present author include Bayreuth,
Nationalarchiv der Richard-Wagner-Stiftung; Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek; the
Hague, Gemeente Museum; London, British Museum.

17Peter Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, Inaugural
Dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1916), 10-11.

18The source situation with regard to the letters will not be dealt with here, as there is an
excellent summary in Charles Suttoni, Liszt Correspondence in Print: An Expanded, Annotated
Bibliography, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 25 (January-June 1989), 5-25. This publication
supercedes his earlier bibliography in Fontis Artis Musicae 26 (1979), 191-234. In the present
dissertation, bibliographic problems in the letters will be discussed in the context of individual citations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
40

The Autographs19
Although the majority of Liszts surviving autographs are completed
compositions, there are at least nine extant sketchbooks (D-WRgs, N1 to N9),20 as well as
a few scattered folios with sketches, for example an early symphony (D-WRgs, A21/5).21
Aside from the insights these books offer into Liszts compositional process, many entries

are dated, which can add crucial information for establishing the genesis of a work.

Mueller has surveyed the sketchbooks and written extensively on sketchbook N5


(the Tasso sketchbook)22 According to her analysis, they range from pocket
sketchbooks used primarily during his touring years (N8 and Nl), slightly larger books

with entries from the 1840s and later (N4, N3, and N2), and large books with fine quality

paper that were used by Liszt in Russia after he had retired from the concert stage in
September 1847 but before he had settled in Weimar in January 1848 (N7 and N9). To

some extent, sketchbooks N2-N4 continued to be used by Liszt, at least through his first
years in Weimar (c. 1851), and there are entries in N2 and N4 from the 1860s.

Sketchbook N5 stands apart from this group. It is also a large book, although of lesser

quality in terms of paper and binding than N7 and N9, and Liszt used it from 1845 to 1848

19A11 examples in the text are to various iconographies and facsimile editions that are widely
available in many research libraries.

20There is a sketchbook from the 1830s, formerly in the collection of Lord Londonderry, now in
US-Wc, although this appears to be a forgery (personal communication to the author from Rena Mueller).
In addition, evidence for a sketchbook from c. 1834 will be discussed in chapter nine of the present work.

21See Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, Notenbeilag 1,1-2. The sketch is also discussed in
Dieter Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken imFriihwerk Franz Liszts, Freiburger Schriften zur
Musikwissenschaft 10, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (Munich, Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler,
1978), 18-20.

22See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 165-171.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41

to draft several large-scale compositions.23 The earliest sketchbook is N6, a large book of

high-quality paper and binding used from 1829-1833. This book is especially interesting

both for its content and because all of its leaves are intact Particularly noteworthy for the

present study, it contains sketches for Concerto No. 1 and Malidiction.24


The autographs of completed works cover a wider range than the sketchbooks, as

they survive from throughout Liszts career. Unlike his sketches, the appearance of these

manuscripts was affected by a variety of factors. For example, Liszt often returned to them
after many years to carry out comprehensive revisions, thus leaving an autograph with

visible layers. Much data has been accumulated on these documents, and it is now possible

to make wide-ranging observations on Liszts handwriting, writing implements, and paper


use that bear directly on the problem of dating and therefore on the value that these

manuscripts have for studies of compositional process.


Liszts handwriting changed dramatically over the course of his life. The general

characteristics may be divided into early (until c. 1834), middle (1835-1870s), and late

(1880s). As with most hands, the change is gradual, but the distinctions are worth noting.

The earliest examples, both literary and musical, show a certain amount of immaturity,
perhaps reflective of Liszts lack of regular education. The use of the quill and the flow of

ink is often uneven, as are the formation of letters and notes. This can be clearly seen in

23See ibid., 178-212.

^Sketchbook N6 is described in Rudolf Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinenfriihen Klavierwerken


(Leipzig: Franz Wagner, 1933; rpL Kassel: Bdrenreiter, 1968), 18-19; also Keith T. Johns, Franz Liszts
N6 Sketchbook Held at the Goethe-Schiller Archive in Weimar, Journal of the American Liszt Society 20
(December 1986): 30-33. Facsimiles are found in Kokai [141] and Ernst Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine
Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: List Verlag, 1986), 64 (item 93); also in English
translation, A Chronicle o f His Life in Pictures, trans. Stewart Spencer (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1989). The content of the sketches is analyzed in Kdkai, 61-112, and Torkewitz, Harmonisches
Denken im Friihwerk Franz Liszts, 26-50. The sketchbook will be considered in chapters seven, eight, and
nine of the present work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42

one of the earliest surviving documents, a letter to Pierre Erard from 12 August 1824,25 as

well as in a manuscript page of a piano piece dated 27 May 1827,26 the facsimile edition

of a diary from the same year,27 the Revolutionary Symphony sketch,28 and various
reproduced leaves from sketchbook N6 (see n. 24). In addition, these characteristics

confirm the speculative date of 1832 for a manuscript auctioned several years ago by

Sothebys.29

By the mid-1830s, Liszts hand appears to have settled, becoming more readable
and disciplined. The change was not dramatic, although it is perhaps no coincidence that it

occurred after his departure from Paris in May 1835, the beginning of his years of

pilgrimage. The result is apparent in the autograph of the Reminiscences des Huguenots,

published by Schlesinger in 1837 and probably written the previous year.30 Among the

characteristics, there is a sense of great speed coupled with economy of motion and clarity,

^Reproduced in Robert Bory, La vie de Franz Liszt par Vimage (Geneva: Editions du Journal de
Genfeve, 1936), 53; also Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten, 41 (item
59).

^Reproduced in Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten, 50 (item
73). A facsimile of this work had been previously published by Otto LeBmann in 1896 and by Ferruccio
Busoni in the journal Faust, eine Rundschau (Berlin, 1922). IJie folio was auctioned by J. A. Stargardt on
2-3 December 1975 (catalogue 747, lot 606), and its whereabouts is unknown.

27Franz Liszt, Tagebuch 1827, eds. Detlef Altenburg and Rainer Kleinertz, 2 vols. (Wien: Paul
Neff Verlag, 1986).

28See the facsimiles in Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1concluding plates. The first page is reproduced in
Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten, 63; Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, ed.
Hans Rudolf Jung (Berlin: Henschel Verlag, 1987), 29; Zsigmond Ldszl6 and B61a MdtSka, Franz Liszt: A
Biography in Pictures, trans. Bama Balogh, trans. rev. Cynthia Jolly (London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1968),
33; Hedwig Weilguny and Willy Handrick, Franz Liszt, 6th ed (Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag fiir Musik,
1980), item 31.

29See the description and facsimiles in their catalogue, Music, Continental Manuscripts and
Printed Books, Science and Medicine (London, 26-27 November 1987), 141-142 (lot 292); also Michael
Kimmelman, Lost Score By Liszt To Be Sold, New York Times, 24 November 1987. The manuscript
was purchased by a private party, and its whereabouts is unknown.

30See the facsimile of the title page and first page of music in Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine
Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten, 85 (item 144).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43

as if Liszt had consciously worked out a way to get his thoughts down on paper as

efficiently as possible. Emanuel Wintemitz commented on an autograph from the 1860s,


[t]he handwriting is hurried but clear.31 Aside from the gain in legibility, Winklhofer

observed that . . . Liszts hand shows spatial sensitivity to groups of notes, which are

often enclosed by an aura of space, even though the individual notes within a unit are

separated by a fairly uniform distance.32 In addition, Wintemitz noted in a manuscript


from the early 1850s:

The script for all its easy flow reveals great energy; all horizontals, that is the cross
strokes and ledger lines, are started with broad quill and evident pressure. Some
symbols are simplified in the extreme: the 8va signs which consist of one unbroken
loop and line. . . and the trill signs which consist of simple t s followed by straight
lines.33

Liszts way of drawing his characters yields a musical hand that is very easy to identify,34

although based on handwriting alone it is difficult to date precisely, except perhaps to


within a decade. Winklhofer has also examined Liszts use of pedaling instructions as a
means for dating, finding them in compositions before 1847 and after I860.35

Another aspect of Liszts mature hand is its expressive quality, reflected in the

great pains he took to communicate in music typography the slightest inflection, often

going beyond traditional musical symbols. Early editions reveal his first attempts at greater

specificity in notation, for example the excess of Italian expression markings found in the

3 Emanuel Wintemitz, Musical Autographs: From Monteverdi to Hindemith, 2 vols. (New


York: Dover, 1965), 1:103.

32Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 58.

33Wintemitz, Musical Autographs, 1:102-103.

^ S e e Winklhofers chapters, Liszts Musical Graphology and Techniques of Revision,


Insertion and Abbreviation, which contain examples of his musical hand; Liszt's Sonata in B Minor, 57-
65, 67-71.

35See ibid., 74-75.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44

transcription of Berliozs Symphonie fantastique (published 1834). Within a few years, he

had devised symbols to express a slight accelerando and ritardando and a notation for an
effect midway between tenuto and a fermata, found throughout the first volume of the
Album dun voyageur (1840).36 The autographs of Liszts Weimar compositions show an

even greater refinement, especially revealed in his Hungarian Rhapsodies, where Liszt tried

to evoke the sounds of the Gypsy bands he had heard on his travels. On the first page of

No. 4 (c. 1852), the aura of space is very much apparent, but the unconventional

direction of stems to indicate parts, the frequent use of grace note figures, and the sweep of

passage work, written slightly smaller than the notes of longer duration, but not quite so

small as the grace notes, all attest to Liszts desire to convey the Gypsy style.37 The
engraved edition by its nature cannot recreate this level of detail, and it is only by reference
to the autograph that various nuances stand fully revealed.

Liszts desire to communicate his musical intentions is found at all stages of the

compositional process, whether the document in question is a sketch or a presentation

copy. However messy a Liszt autograph appears, or whatever signs are missing, the
essential information necessary for an accurate reading is always present. Winklhofer has

noted:

[A]fter the initial indication of clef signs, Liszt rarely repeats these on subsequent
staves of the first page of score, or, for that matter, throughout the remainder. Key

36See the facsimile of the first page of Lyon in Weilguny & Handrick, Franz Liszt, item 56.
These symbols were also reproduced in the Grossherzog Carl Alexander Ausgabe der musikalischen Werke
Franz Liszts, 5 series, 34 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1907-1936). It is generally agreed that these
woiks were composed in 1835/36 (see Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:244), although Alexander Main has argued for
a later date for Lyon; see his Liszt New Dates for the Travelers Album, Journal o f Musicological
Research 3 (1981): 411-422; and idem, Liszts Lyon: Music and the Social Conscience, 19th Century
Music 4 (Spring 1981): 228-243. When Liszt revised the Album dun voyageur, turning it into the
Annies de pilerinage in the early 1850s, he did not retain his experimental symbols from the 1830s. He
did, however, employ a revised version of his modified ritardando and accelerando in the symphonic poems.

37See the facsimile in Weilguny & Handrick, Franz Liszt, item 80.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
45

changes are indicated by new signs at the proper point of modulation; often these are
written initially for only the upper staff in keyboard music, and without clefs.38

We can further observe that Liszt frequently omits accidentals, once he has indicated them
in a measure, and, to the other extreme, occasionally includes redundant ones in a foreign
key. In rare instances, he forgets the key signature entirely and tags all notes with flats or

sharps. This carelessness is only on the surface, as there is often litde doubt as to the
correct notes, and the overall impression when working with a Liszt autograph is that he
heard clearly in his head the music he notated. Liszt did not make copies, he took dictation.

The final stage of Liszts handwriting is found during the last years of his life.
August Stradal, a student who was with him constantly in 1885 and 1886, noted: Liszts

eyes now began to give him trouble, so that his letters often became quite illegible, and
only with the greatest difficulty could he write music.39 By mid-March 1886, he was

diagnosed as having a cataract and was forced to rely on amanuenses to take dictation for

his correspondence. Now the hand is larger and shakier, the natural effects of old age

compounded by impaired eyesight Winklhofer has observed that Liszt allowed more

space both in blank staves and between characters, and used paper with wide staff ruling,
thus giving a skeletal, austere character to the notation.40 She also records changes in the
notation of clefs, braces, and individual signs. These details are well illustrated in the
autograph of Hungarian Rhapsody No. 19, composed in 1885 41

38Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 62.

39Quoted in Adrian Williams, Portrait o f Liszt: By Himself and His Contemporaries (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990), 659; see August Stradal, Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt (Bern: P. Haupt, 1929),
136-137.

^ S e e Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 65.

41See the facsimile, Franz Liszt, XIX Hungarian Rhapsody for Piano Solo (1885), commentary
by Mdria P. Eckhardt (Budapest: Editio Musica Budapest, 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46

The writing implements that Liszt used were quite varied, and he consistently
employed them in his autographs for specific tasks. For sketches and the first layer in a

manuscript, he prefered a feather quill and brown or black ink. The sketches rarely show

any sign of correction, but for subsequent layers in his autographs he used a razor to scrape

away an error and for more extensive revisions affixed collettes with wax or inserted entire
folios. After settling in Weimar in 1848, he usually added the dynamic indications and
articulation markings in red or purplish ink and wrote pagination and cross-hatch with

crayon or rotel, often red or blue.42 Finally, he occasionally used pencil to add signs or

markings that he had neglected during other parts of the process, probably during a final
cursory check 43

Another tool which should be mentioned is the rastral. Unfortunately, it is not


always clear which of his music paper was purchased lined (at least before the regular

availability of machine-made papers in the 1860s) and which he had to rule himself. That
this task was a fact of musical life for Liszt may be seen in a letter of 4 July 1851:

[E]nvoyez-moi aussitot par la poste le morceau, en y joignant les quelques feuilles de

papier de musique, que j ai demand^ k mon domestique Hermann de rdgler pour moi.44
The evidence is also found on the paper itself. For example, in revisions to three

autographs from mid-1849 (D-WRgs, H5a; H8; Tl), one of the oblong papers is lined with
eighteen staves that do not run consistently parallel to the upper and lower edges of the

42This is especially clear in the color facsimile of the B Minor Sonata; see Franz Liszt,
Klaviersonate H-moll: Faksimile nach dem im Eigentum von Mr. Robert Owen Lehman befindlichen
Autograph (Munich: G. Henle, 1973). The differing texture of these writing implements can be discerned
even in black and white facsimiles; see, for example, the two pages in Musiker Handschriften, ed. Martin
Hiirlimann, 2 vols. (Ziirich: Atlantis Verlag, 1961); also in English translation as Composers' Autographs,
trans. Ernst Roth (London: Cassell, 1968), 2:34, 35.

43See also the detailed discussion of writing implements in Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B
Minor, 75-77 and 171-173; also chapter four of the present work, Liszts Working Method.

44Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Hans von Billow, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius]
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), 5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47

paper, nor are they even consistently parallel to each another.45 There is no other example

of ruling this sloppy, and one wonders if Liszts servant was away and he had to do it
himself! Further evidence of the staves added after purchase is found in the autograph of
the Mephisto Waltz dated 1 September 1859 (US-NYpm, Morgan), where there are

grooves on either side of the page, probably made by the guide that set the rastral. Aside
from clues in the manuscripts, there is no other information available on Liszts use of this
mysterious instrument.

Careful charting of Liszts handwriting and use of writing implements, while of

great value for documenting his compositional method, is useful for only the most

generalized dating, and a more reliable indicator has been found in the paper itself. Mueller

has demonstrated that by using data compiled from this aspect of the autographs, Liszts
manuscripts can be dated with far greater accuracy than by any other means, including
stylistic analysis.46 Generally Liszt used his paper in an orderly manner (assuming he had

a sufficient quantity available), one bifolio after another, and single folios and different
types of paper generally indicate some sort of revision 47 Thus, while there is always the

possibility of a dating error caused, for example, by the composer using a folio that had

lain in his study for a decade, wherever correlation is possible with another primary source,
the accuracy of this technique is borne out

45This paper is described as B.66 in Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 377. See also
appendix C, paper type 11.6.

^ S e e Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 82-96.

47Liszt did not have any of his autographs bound, and the bindings found on these manuscripts
today were without exception added by later owners or libraries. Winklhofer states that the opposite is true,
but the reference that she cites (Helene Raff, Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die
Musik 1 [1901-02], 1163 [5 June 1851]), refers only to a copy, not the original; see Liszts Sonata in B
Minor, 95,261, n. 32. One of the few positive results of the poor estate of the former German Democratic
Republic is that the Goethe and Schiller Archive could not afford to bind its materials. Nevertheless, the
documents are well preserved, and the obvious benefit for the reseacher is that the foliation of the
manuscripts can be easily observed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48

The paper Liszt used ranged in quality from watermarked with a high rag content

during the first half of his career to machine-made later in life. Winklhofer notes:
Generally he chose music papers well-suited to the genre he intended to employ for a new

work. No songs are known to have been written on 32-stave paper, nor orchestral works

on 12-staff paper.48 Further, her observation that Liszt preferred paper in upright format
for his piano works appears to be true, at least after he settled in Weimar 49 Aside from

size preferences, other types of patterns emerge from an examination of Liszt's use of

paper. Prior to his departure from Paris in 1835, the quality of the paper was quite high,

all watermarked and often of Dutch origin.50 During his touring years, the array of paper
types was considerably more varied, as Mueller discovered:

Liszts constant travelling probably forced him to acquire more expensive papers
because his selection was limited. His touring curtailed the amount of time spent on
the acquisition of supplies and therefore probably compelled him to spend higher
amounts of money, rather than lower ones, and to buy in bulk whenever he could....
The variety of oblong and upright format papers that can be placed in the early 1840s
demonstrates clearly just how difficult it was for Liszt to keep a steady supply of
paper on hand.51

The advantage for the researcher is obvious: once a date can be determined, it may be
applied cautiously to all compositions written on a particular paper. In Weimar, however,

not only was Liszts supply regular for certain papers, but having a workroom increased
the possibility that loose folios could be used years after the original purchase:

48Winklhofer, Liszt's Sonata in B Minor, 82.

49See ibid; also Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 84. Of course, there are piano works
on oblong paper as well; see, for example, the page from the Variations on Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen,
Zagen in Musiker Handschriften, item 35.

50See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, appendix B; also the discussion of individual
manuscripts in chapter four of the present work.

51Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 83,88.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49

The variety of music papers used simultaneously is still wide; trying to straighten out
the sequence of composition in a piece by means of the types of papers used is quite
difficult, since it appears that neither Liszt nor his copyists were entirely consistent
about using up one batch before going on to the next.52
Despite this situation, she is able to conclude:

However, upon examination of the extant MSS of Liszt and his copyists, several very
distinct batches of paper can be isolated that do show patterns of use, and these
patterns both coincide with and amplify the external evidence of letters and other
documents.53

The matter is quite different later in Liszts life, as, beginning in the 1860s, he used

machine-made paper with printed staves which maintained an identical appearance year
after year. This paper is virtually useless for dating, although the use of it can confirm the

relative lateness of the document in Liszts oeuvre.

The autograph manuscripts for Liszts concertos cover much of his career, from

the 1830s to the 1860s. The earliest is for De profundis (D-WRgs, HI), which can be

dated to the winter of 1834-35 based on a letter.54 The paper is the same as that found in a
draft of a passage for Malediction (D-WRgs, HI3a) that may be dated to the same time.
The handwriting is more legible than that found in other manuscripts from this period, but

the small staves (it is twenty- and twenty-four-stave oblong paper) probably required Liszt

to refine his script The next manuscripts also share a paper type, and a date at the end of
one score very likely applies to them all: Concerto No. 1 (D-Ngm, 107023/11; D-WRgs,

Z31/1; USSR-Lsc, f 298 N5); Concerto No. 2 (D-WRgs, H5c, H5d 13 Sept 39);

Concerto, op. posth. (as Concerto No. 1, with D-WRgs J78b). Here the hand shows
considerably more confidence, and the paper type is found in other manuscripts that can be

52Ibid., 90.

53Ibid., 90-91.

^ S e e Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:12 (14 January 1835). The evidence for the sources to 1835 will
be discussed in later chapters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50

dated to this time, for example, the transcription of Beethovens Adelaide (US-Wc,
ML96.L58).55

The last group, a complex of six works for piano and orchestra from 1849, is

more complicated, although there is a group of shared paper types that run through all the
surviving manuscripts, and the existence of a set of copies by August Conradi dated 21

October 1849 (discussed below) offers a precise terminus. For Concerto No. 1, Liszt
used folios from a copy of his 1839 autograph and wrote out additional pages as necessary

(D-WRgs, H3a). His revision of Concerto No. 2 was newly written out from beginning to

end, and, as with the 1839 version, Liszt dated his manuscript (D-WRgs, H5a 6 Mai

1849, H5b). For the Hungarian Fantasy (D-WRgs, Tl) and the Beethoven Fantasy (D-
WRgs, H8), there are only the autograph orchestrations. These arc transcriptions of piano

solo works, however, and comparison with Conradis manuscript copies reveals that the
piano part was simply taken from the solo version. For Totentanz, there is a complete

orchestration (D-WRgs, H6) and a single folio from what must have been a complete piano

part (D-WRgs, Z31/2).56 In addition to the dates on the autograph of Concerto No. 2 and

Conradis copies, the use of the same paper in other autographs further confirms the dating
of these documents. Although Liszt continued to revise these works, he never again wrote

out a score himself but rather worked on a series of copies. This observation leads

naturally to Raabes next category.

55See Oskar von Hase, Breitkopf & Hartel: Gedenkschrift und Arbeitsbericht, 4th ed., 2 vols.
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1919); rpt., 5th ed. (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1968), 2:152.

56The autographs for the Weber Polonaise and Schubert Wanderer Fantasy transcriptions of the
following year are lost.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51

Manuscript Copies

There are many surviving manuscript copies of Liszts works that were created

for his own use during the pre publication stages of a given composition. These copies

often contain numerous autograph markings, usually revisions for the next fair copy,

which therefore makes them important primary sources. The identification of the hands of
the copyists becomes useful not only for dating but also for documenting the precise

relationship of the copies to the exemplars in the context of Liszts compositional process.

Thus, it is necessary to catalogue the characteristics of these copyists and the dates that they

were employed by Liszt. In this area, Mueller has laid once again an important
foundation,57 and for the purposes of the present study, only the copyists found in the

concerto sources will be reviewed and information added that supplements her research.

Gaetano Belloni

In the 1830s and 1840s, Liszt relied heavily on Gaetano Belloni as copyist. The

earliest of his manuscripts can be dated to 1834 and are, in fact, the only evidence that

Belloni was a Parisian acquaintance from this time.58 His name first surfaces in the

correspondence in August 1840, at which time the Countess dAgoult recruited him to

accompany Liszt as secretary on the concert tours,59 and he joined him beginning in

57See Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 31-63, and also her listing of manuscripts by copyist,
356-364 (appendix A).

58See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 20-21 (28 July 1835); also below. The content of this letter is also discussed
in chapter seven (The Compositional Matrix). See also appendix A, where it is transcribed complete.

59See Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse dAgoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier, 2 vols. (Paris:
Bernard Grasset, 1933-34), 2:13 (22 August 1840). These tours began in November 1839 with a trip to
Vienna. Liszts student, Hermann Cohen (referred to as Puzzi), accompanied him part of the time before
Belloni came on board.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52

February 1841.60 During these years, Heinrich Heine likened him a French poodle to

Liszts Faust and further accused him of hiring claques for Liszts recitals.61 On Liszts

high opinion of his personal impresario, Stephen Heller reported: Liszt disait de lui que le
nom de Belloni deviendrait d6sormais un terme de la langue. On dirait: un Belloni; cet
homme-lH est un Belloni, par exemple.62 In later years, Liszt was fond of repeating a

favorite phrase of Bellonis during these tours: Voilit pour le moment63 Belloni
remained with Liszt until his retirement from the concert stage in September 1847,64 at

which time Liszt traveled to Woronince for the remainder of the year, while Belloni set out
for Paris at the beginning of October, stopping at Weimar en route to arrange for Liszts

quarters.65

60Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
HMel, 1880-1894), 2/1:88; see also idem, Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblattern,
Briefen und Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873-1886/87, ed. Arthur Seidl, rev. Friedrich Schnapp (Mainz: B.
Schotts SOhne, 1983), 395.

61See the article Musikalische Saison in Paris 18441, Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (25
April 1844); also Musikalische Saison von 1844: Erster Bericht, Lutetia (Anhang); reprinted in Heinrich
Heine und die Musik: Publizistische Arbeiten undpoetischen Reflexionen, ed. Gerhard Muller (Leipzig:
Philipp Reclam jun., 1987), 154,157.

62Liszt et son temps, eds. Pierre-Antoine Hur6 and Claude Knepper (Paris: Hachette, 1987),
301-302 (2 September 1842).

63The letters offer an indication of how often Liszt must have repeated it; see Franz Liszts
Briefe, 4:125 (20 January 1852); 4:134 (29 June 1853); 4:173 (22 September 1853); 4:226 (16 July 1855);
4:273 (15 October 1855); 4:333 (5 September 1856); 5:68 (20 September 1860); 5:180 (5 June 1861).

mA brief exception was Bellonis return to Paris in March 1845, where he remained until Liszt
called for him. See Jacques Vier, Franz Liszt: Vartiste le clerc (Paris: Les Editions du Cfedre, 1951), 69
(6 March 1845); Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:55 (28 April 1845) and 1:59-60 (23 July 1845). He may have also
made a brief trip in July 1846 to scout a site for the construction of a school Liszt desired to build for piano
instruction; see Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris (12 July 1846), 122.

65See Franz Liszts Briefe an der Fiirstin Felix Lichnowsky, Bayreuther Blatter 30 (1907), 41
(4 October 1847); Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Carl Alexander Grossherzog von Sachsen, ed. La
Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1909), 19 (15/27 October 1847); Franz Liszts Briefe an
seine Mutter, 82 (12/24 November 1847). Alan Walker states that Belloni was in Woronince, using as a
reference two letters (Franz Liszts Briefe, 5:62 [14 September I860]; 7:377 [18 March 1883]); see Franz
Liszt: Volume Two, The Weimar Years, 1848-1861 (New York: Knopf, 1989), 2:44. These letters refer to
Liszts earlier visit in February, however (see Walkers own comments, Franz Liszt, 2:33).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53

Belloni was settled in Paris by January 1848.66 Liszt paid him a modest salary

for the next few years,67 and in return he acted on Liszts behalf in dealings with his family

and publishers.68 When Liszt sent Wagner to Paris in 1849, he relied on Belloni to make

the arrangements,69 and Belloni was involved in the publication of Liszts book on
Chopin, although his work may have been less than satisfactory in this matter.70 Belloni

ultimately used these contacts to become a publishers representative, one assumes with
Liszts blessing 71 In addition, Belloni visited Liszt several times in Weimar, at least once
accompanying Liszts mother,72 and Liszt visited with Belloni during his time in Paris in

1861 and 1864 and corresponded with him as late as 1886.73 Liszt referred to Belloni
affectionately in his Last Will and Testament of 1860: D a dtd mon secretaire durant la

periode de mes concerts en Europe de 1841 k 1847, et constamment mon fiddle et ddvouti

66See Franz Liszts Briefe, 4:12 (22 January 1848). See also an unpublished letter of 14
February 1848 in F-Pc.

67See Franz Liszt-Richard Wagner Briefwechsel, ed. Banjo Resting (Frankfurt am Main: Insel
Verlag, 1988), 92 (28 October 1849).

68On his family, see, for example, Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:91-92 (1 January 1851, to Carl
Reinecke); for publishers, 1:85-86 (24 February 1850, to Breitkopf & Hartel), and Franz Liszt und
Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 396-397 (February 1850).

69See Liszt-Wagner, 69-81 (letters of June-July 1849).

70See Franz Liszts Briefe, 4:45-119 (January-May 1851); also 1:92-94 (4 February 1851, to
the publisher Escudier).

71See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 4:264 (9 September [1855]).

72See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, 86 (22 October [1849]), 89 (21 October 1850); also
Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 291 (20 November 1849), 501 (26 October 1850),
861 (30 December 1850), 869 (6 January 1851). Belloni was also in Weimar for the performance of
Tannhauser in February 1849; see Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 868.

73See Franz Liszts Briefe, 5:165-166 (12 May [1861]), 5:176 (22 [May 1861]), 6:62 (8
October 1864), 6:95 (5 March 1886), 6:97 (10 March 1866), 6:105 (29 March 1866), 7:433 (23 March
1886), 7:439 (29 April 1886), 7:440 (9 May 1886).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54

serviteur et ami.74 Twenty-three years later, he left further instructions for a watch to be

given upon his death to his ancien secretaire et ddsintdressd ami.75 All of these facts
suggest a close and sincere friendship between two men who were very likely close in
age.76 One may also add that Bellonis discretion was exemplary: he never published his
memoirs and even may have destroyed their correspondence, as only a few letters are

known to survive. Outside of his association with Liszt, virtually nothing else is known

about Belloni, not his birth and death dates nor the certainty of his profession. Ralph

Locke has found a reference in Cdsar Gardetons Bibliographie musicale (1822) to


Belloni, professeur de chant et de composition, and also in his earlier Annales de

musique (1820).77 If this is Gaetanos father, it would at least explain his training in music
and the circle of acquaintance that led him to Liszt.
The earliest known copies by Belloni are those for the Grande fantaisie
symphonique (D-WRgs, H7) and Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, H3b, H3c), all dating from

late 1834 to early 1835. The identification of the hand as Bellonis is found in a letter of

Liszt to his mother of 28 July 1835 in which he requests these manuscripts:

Le Concerto de ma composition copid par Belloni avec la partie de piano et la Partition


daprds laquelle il la copid

La Fantaisie symphonique sur des themes de Berlioz (execute k mon concert) copide
par Belloni et relid les parties daccompagnement sont inutiles 78

^F ranz Liszts Briefe, 5:62 (14 September 1860).

75Ibid., 7:377 (18 March 1883).

76When Joachim Raff referred to Belloni as Liszts alter Sekretar, he must have meant the age
of their friendship, not Bellonis chronological age; see Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer
Briefe, 396.

77Private communication, 11 July 1990.

78See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, 20-21; also transcribed in appendix A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55

The precise date derives from the assumption that the score for the Grandefantaisie

symphonique was prepared in time for the announced performance of 9 November 1834

(see Gazette musicale de Paris, 19 October 1834), and the observation that the handwriting,
writing implement, and paper type are nearly identical between this manuscript and those

for the concerto, thus suggesting that all three were produced within a few months.79 The

same hand can also be found in the copies of the 1839 versions of Concerto Nos. 1 and 2,
the Concerto, op. posth. (D-WRgs, H3a, H3d), and five other manuscripts that have been
identified by Mueller.80

Based on the internal evidence of his copies, it is clear that Belloni was a musician

of some ability and experience. He knew how to lay out a score and, as the staff ruling
suits the instrumental layout perfectly, he could wield a rastral effectively. Especially

impressive in this regard are the 1839 copies of the concertos, where he has ruled four
staves for the piano part that are more widely spaced than the instrumental staves, in order

to allow Liszt greater ease in his emendations. His musicianship was deficient, however:

he may not have been able to hear what he was writing, as mistakes abound in phrases
written a third too high or too low, accidentals placed before notes to which they could not

possibly belong harmonically, and instruments written on the wrong staff or omitted
entirely. Out of all the surviving manuscripts, only the Grande fantaisie symphonique was

used for performance, and Liszts corrections are found in a few places in this copy.

However, the fact that none of Bellonis other copies were used in this way suggests that

Liszt was well aware of his friends limitations. Throughout the period where we find
Bellonis hand, Liszt used other copyists where accuracy was crucial, for example in the

clearly professional copy of Malediction in 1834-35 (D-WRgs, H2) or the engravers

79These manuscripts are discussed in detail in chapter eight of the present work.

80See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 357.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56

manuscript for the Riminiscences de Don Juan in 1843 (US-NYp, JOF 81-7). Bellonis
copies were not the work of a professional, and it is possible his manuscripts, at least in the

1830s, were done gratis or in exchange for lessons. His main asset was a large legible

hand, which at least had the advantage of allowing the errors to be clearly visible. While
Belloni was with him, Liszt took advantage of his modest talent, but once in Weimar he

arranged to have professional musicians available for copying tasks and during the first
years turned to August Conradi and Joachim Raff.81

August Conradi

Conradi was bom in Berlin on 27 June 1821 and trained in music at the
Konigliche Akademie der Kiinste.82 He first met Liszt in Weimar during the latters visit in

January and February 1844, at which time Conradi showed him his Symphony No. 2 in D

minor. Shortly thereafter, Liszt must have given him his first copying tasks, as Liszt wrote
to the publisher Heinrich Schlesinger in a letter received 18 June 1844 that Conradi had

copied the piano transcription of the Buck der Lieder.83 He also extended an invitation

through a mutual friend, Franz Kroll, to rendezvous in Weimar the following winter.84
Conradi and Liszt met again in Vienna in September 1846, and at that time Liszt wrote the

young composer a gracious letter of recommendation:

81The only known exception is the parts for a brief extract from Raffs opera that Liszt had
Belloni copy out to surprise Raff; see Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 398
(February 1850).

82The biographical information on Conradi outside of Liszts correspondence is taken from


Georg Richard Kruse, August Conradi (gestorben 26. Mai 1873): Ein Gedenkblatt, Die Musik 12/4
(1912-13): 3-13.

83Unpublished letter, US-Wc (no. 30); see also Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 32.

^ S e e Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:49 (11 June 1844). Liszt never made it to Weimar, and one
presumes Kroll and Conradi did not either. Kroll (1820-1877) taught piano in Berlin and later edited one of
the first editions of Bachs Wohltemperierte Clavier. Liszt conducted one of his compositions on 12
November 1848.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57

DaB ich Herm August Conradi nicht nur als einen talentvollen und begabten
Komponisten und tiichtigen Musiker, sondem auch als einen achtungswerten
Charakter kennen zu lemen das Vergnugen gehabt, ja daB ich ihn sogar in Weimar im
Jahre 1841 [sic] wahrend Janner und Februar als bestandigen Gesellschafter um mich
hatte und also jedenfalls fur sein Wort einstehen will, bestatige ich hiermit85

After modest success as a composer back in Berlin, Conradi visited Weimar soon after

Liszts return in 1848. He was there in February,86 but he was soon back in Berlin, as on
11 April Liszt wrote Schlesinger that Conradi had had his scores for two months.87 He

surely visited on other occasions, but these are not documented. Prahdcs places him and
Kroll at the first Weimar performance of Tannhauser on 16 February 1849 without offering

a reference,88 and letters to Kroll on 26 March and 30 May 1849 invited the two of them to

return.89 He must have visited at least once before 1 August, as Liszt referred to Conradis

copies of his two piano concertos in a letter to his successor, Joachim Raff,90 and a letter

of Hans von Biilow of 26 August placed Conradi again in Weimar.91 Conradis work for
Liszt was evidently a sideline, however, as 1849 found him premiering a Vaudeville-

Burlesque on 27 February and a political comedy on 3 June. In the autumn, Conradi left

85Kruse, August Conradi, 5, n. 1 (8 September 1846). The date in Kruses transcription


cannot be correct, as Liszt was in Weimar only in January and February of 1844 and February of 1846.
Raabe revises the date to 1844 (Franz Liszt, 2:225, n. 26).

86See Franz Liszts Briefe, 4:20 (4 February 1848), 4:24 (28 February 1848).

87Unpublished letter, US-Wc (no. 46); see also Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 32.

88Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen 1835-1886, ed. Margit Prahdcs (Kassel: Barenreiter,
1966), 306, n. 9. She may have extrapolated his presence from Liszts comment to Wagner: Er kennt den
Tannhduser seit dem Jahre 49, da er damals in Weimar sich aufhielL (Liszt-Wagner, 327 [19/20 September
1853].) Conradis knowledge could have come from examining the score, however.

89See Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:54, and Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen, 66. The earlier letter
has the year 1845, an error corrected by Raabe in Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 25, n. 2.

^ Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 287.

91Hans von Biilow, Briefe und Schriften, ed. Marie von Biilow, 2d ed., 7 vols. (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1899-1908), 1:190.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58

Berlin to assume the post of Kapellmeister at the new Stadttheater in Stettin. There is no

evidence that Conradi was resident in Weimar during the period described above, despite
repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature.92

Once he left Berlin, Conradi seems not to have done any work for Liszt for

several years. They evidently parted on excellent terms: in 1853 Liszt referred him to

Wagner as a possible contact in Berlin,93 and he sent greetings through Biilow, who in
turn informed Liszt of Conradis response.94 During the following years, Conradi did not

stay in one place for very long, returning to Berlin in 1850, assuming a position in

Diisseldorf in autumn 1851, going back to Berlin in 1852, then to Cologne, finally

returning to Berlin for good in 1853. Throughout this period, his stage works were

successful, but the closure by the police of the Friedrich-Wilhelmstadt Theater on 1 April
1855 left him without work for a time, and Biilows letter to Liszt of 27 August told of
Conradis interest in a position in Weimar:

Conradi serait trop heureux si vous pouviez lemployer k Weimar. II na que faire
k Berlin et partirait aussitot sur un mot de votre part Comme jusquHce moment il
na trouvd aucune perspective de placement, lhiver est perdu pour lui et il lui faudra
attendre au moins jusquHla fin de Fannie.95

Liszt responded on 1 September: Conradi ma 6crit il y a quelques jours, et je voudrais de


tout coeur lui etre de quelque utility mais cela nest pas ais6 pour moi surtout en ce

92See, for example, Walker, Franz Liszt, 2:199. Note also Biilows letter of 26 August 1849:
[Conradi] lebt gewChnlich in Berlin, wo ich also vielleicht an ihm einen kleinen Anhaltepunkt werde
haben kdnnen. (Briefe und Schriften, 1:190.) Kruse places Conradi in Weimar only through 1848,
without, however, offering any documentation; see his August Conradi, 7.

93See Liszt-Wagner, 327 (19/20 September 1853).

^ S e e Liszt-Biilow, 51 (1 December 1853), 55 (12 December 1853). One wonders why Liszt
did not write directly to Conradi; whatever the reason, only the letter quoted below is known to survive.

95Ibid., 142.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59

moment oil des charges passablement lourdes pfcsent sur mes pauvres finances.96
Biilows next letter suggested giving Conradi copying commissions,97 and succeeding

letters document several assignments over the following months.98 Liszt was in Berlin

from 25 November through 14 December and again from 7 through 14 January 1856, and
he saw Conradi during both visits.99 In the meantime, Conradi found his mdtier with his
first Posse on New Years Day.100 Success did not come at once: Liszt requested

additional copies from Conradi in March and attempted to obtain for him a Kapellmeister
position in Schwerin.101 By the end of the year, Conradi was finding his own work, to

the point where he appears to have taken on a commission from Liszt that he was almost

unable to fulfill.102 Letters between Biilow and Liszt in October 1859 show Conradi to be

quite occupied in Berlin,103 and he continued to have a successful career upon his death
on 26 May 1873, he left his widow the sum of 90,000 Mk.

96Ibid., 144.

97See ibid., 145 (3/4 September 1855).

98See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 4:267 (18 September 1855), 4:269 (20 September 1855), 4:272 (24
September 1855); Liszt-Biilow, 147,150 (23 September 1855), 151 (30 September 1855), 154155 (10
October 1855), 161 (12 October 1855), 162 (13 October 1855), 165 (24 October 1855).

" S e e Franz Liszts Briefe, 4:278 (27 November 1855), 4:296 (8 January 1856). He later
forwarded 500 cigars to Conradi through Biilow; see Liszt-Bulovj, 167 (15 December 1855).

100In his time Conradi was best known as a composer of Posse, a term usually translated as
burlesque or farce, but with original music.

101See Liszt-Biilow, 172-173 (14 March 1856); ibid., 176 (20 April 1856).

102See ibid., 179-180 (15 December 1856), 188 (3 January 1857), 191 (23 January 1857), 195
(1 February 1857).

103Ibid., 275 (16 October 1859), 276 (19 October 1859), 279 (23 October 1859).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60

The working relationship between Conradi and Liszt appears to have been

exemplary. There is only one known surviving letter, a light-hearted note probably written
during 1848:

Lieber Conradi,
Tausend Entschudigungen fur meine Verspaterung. Nach Ihren Tisch, so gegen
3/4 3 Uhr, gehe ich Ihnen wieder Rendez-vous mit den Arbeiter Marsch und die
Ungarischen, auf der Altenburg.
Machen Sie mir es nicht nach, und verspaten Sie sich nicht.
DerDuige
F Liszt104

It is unclear whether Conradi was in Weimar at the time, or if this letter accompanied a

score sent to Berlin. Liszts letter of 30 May 1849 to Kroll offers us another glimpse:

Que devient Conradi? Remerciez le de sa copie de Fugues de Bach (dont j ai


dgalement k vous remercier, ce que je fais toujours de grand coeur) et dites lui que sil
na rien de mieux k faire, je le prie de me faire le plaisir de venir k Weymar aussit6t
que bon lui semblera, par mettre au net les deux partitions de mes Concertos
(entitlement achevtes maintenant) et dautres.105
This letter confirms that some of Conradis tasks were accomplished through the mail and
that Liszt wished him to return whenever possible. A letter to the Princess Wittgenstein

also suggests a happy situation: Je barbouille et gribouille, Conradi copie.. .106 Liszt

certainly would have liked to hire him in 1855, as he wrote to Biilow: Conradi est une des
meilleures et plus estimables natures que j ai rencontrdes, et je serai charmd de lavoir

104Unpublished letter, US-NYp (JOB 72-9, folder 4). The Arbeiter Marsch must be the piano
arrangement Liszt made of his Arbeiterchor, a work that Conradi later orchestrated. Raabe dated the choral
version to 1848 but offered no date for the arrangement.

10^Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen, 66.

106pranz Liszts Briefe, 4:35. The letter is undated, although Rudolf Dempe, an archivist in D-
WRgs, assigned it to March 1849.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61

aupifes de moi Weymar.107 And on another occasion: Conradi est une perle.. .108

Liszt also transcribed for piano Conradis Zigeuner-Polka, published in 1849, which may
be taken as a tribute to Conradis gifts as a composer as well as a desire to assist his career.

Mueller has identified many of Conradis copies that were made for Liszt between

1848 and autumn 1849, including numerous songs, piano works, a handwritten Catalogue
des Compositions et Publications de F. Liszt, the music for the Goethe Centenary on 28

August 1849, and six works for piano and orchestra.109 The manuscripts of these last two
items form a group of four volumes bound identically: the Festkompositionen zu Goethes

100. Geburtstag (D-Ngm, 107016), Concerto Nos. 1 and 2 (D-WRgs, H4), Totentanz
(US-NYpm, Lehman), Beethoven Fantasy, Weber Polonaise, and Hungarian Fantasy

(US-Wc, ML96.L58). As Liszt did not usually bind his manuscripts, the design was
probably executed by the Princess Wittgenstein, and it consists of green leather covers with

a coat of arms designed by the Princess, embossing in gold on the front, and a black leather

spine and edges. The paper and materials used by Conradi are the same throughout, and all
three volumes of the concertos are inscribed on the front flyleaf by Liszt or the Princess

terminde le 21 octobre 1849. Obviously Liszt did not complete all six works on that day,

and the date suggests that the bound volumes were a birthday gift from the Princess. The
letter to Raff cited above and the date of the Goethe Centenary suggest that work on the

copies took place in July and August, and one of the autograph exemplars (discussed
above) is dated 6 May 1849. As for the copies that Conradi executed in 1855 and 1856,

107Liszt-Biilow, 144 (1 September 1855).

108Ibid., 165 (24 October 1855).

109See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 35-37,64-71. The catalogue is also discussed
in her Liszts Catalogues and Inventories of His Works, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992), 240-241.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62

most of these do not survive.110 One extant score is that mentioned in Liszts letter of 14

March 1856, where he wanted Conradi to copy a two-piano score of Concerto No. 1 and

also modify an existing copy of the full score:111 the full score with Conradis emendations
is in D-WRgs (H12), and engravers markings indicate that it also served as the
Stichvorlage for the first edition.

Raabe may have been the first to identify Conradis hand, and, in addition to a

short list of manuscript copies in both his dissertation and later worklist, he also appended
a facsimile page from Conradis copy of Tasso.112 He was also the first to state that

Conradi was more than an amanuensis and that he was responsible for the orchestration of
several of Liszts compositions from 1848 and 1849.113 Humphrey Searle has suggested
that this ability in particular was the reason Liszt relied so heavily on him during these

crucial years.114 Certainly Conradi was desirable because of his conservatory training,
supplemented by his experience as a composer. His manuscripts give the impression that,
despite their overall neatness, they were executed very quickly. One suspects his

orchestrations were accomplished with great speed as well. This accords with his profile

as a composer: within his preferred medium of operetta and Posse, he is known to have

110See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 38-39. The Rhapsodie and Caprice
mentioned in a letter of 24 October 1855 are likely the Hungarian Fantasy and the Beethoven Fantasy; see
Liszt-Biilow, 165.

11 ^ e e Liszt-Biilow, 172.

112See the list of manuscripts in Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 24; and idem, Franz Liszt, 2:70
and concluding plates. Winklhofer includes a facsimile of some of Conradis typical formations, extracted
from Raabe; see Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 63. There are two facsimile reproductions from Conradis copy
of Liszts piano transcription of Webers Schlummerlied in Eckhardt, Franz Liszt's Music Manuscripts in
the National Szichenyi Library, Budapest, 163-164.

113See Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 20-32; and idem, Franz Liszt, 2:69-79. The extent of
Conradis (and later R aff s) contributions will be considered in chapter five.

114See Humphrey Searle, The Music of Liszt, rev. ed. (New York: Dover, 1966), 68-70.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63

written fifteen stage works in 1859 and twelve in 1860. In addition to neatness, his work

was accurate, and he was alert to correct obvious errors and to effect refinements, for
example clarifying wind parts when Liszt forgot to specify solo or a due.

Joachim Raff

Joachim Raff was bom 27 May 1822 in Lachen, Switzerland.115 Apparently


self-taught in musical matters, his family intended that he should be a school teacher, and,

after training as a Latinist, he was appointed to a position in 1840 at a school in

Rapperswil. In 1843, he sent a few of his compositions to Mendelssohn, who in turn

recommended them to Breitkopf & Hartel. Encouraged, Raff resigned his position in

August 1844 and eventually found work in Zurich giving lessons and copying music.

It was a concert by Liszt in Basel on 18 June 1845 that was decisive in Raffs
career. For lack of money, Raff had to walk from Zurich, the last part of the trip in

pouring rain. He arrived at the box office, only to find the concert sold out:

Zufallig vemahm dies Belloni, Liszts Sekretar, der sich eben in der Nahe befand; er
fiihrte den sonderbaren Gast in einen Nebensaal, mit dem Bedeuten, hier zu warten.
Als Liszt eben die Fantasie aus Robert dem Teufel vorzutragen sich anschickte, trat
Belloni zu ihm und meldete: drauBen stehe ein regentriefender Mensch, der des
Konzertes wegen zu FuB hergepilgert sei und nun nicht Platz finde. Bringen Sie ihn
her! der soli neben mir auf dem Podium sitzen gebot Liszt.116
As Raff later recounted, ein ganzer Kreis von Regenwasser bildete sich um mich auf dem

Boden: wie ein Springbrunnen saB ich da.117 After the concert, they spoke at length and

Liszt invited Raff to accompany him on the next leg of his tour to Germany. Raff traveled

115The details of R affs early career are summarized from Helene Raff, Joachim Raff: Ein
Lebensbild, Deutsche Musikbucherai 42 (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1925), 16-44; and idem, Franz Liszt
und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 36-38. The author was R affs daughter, who, unfortunately,
inherited her fathers prejudice against Liszt.

116Raff, Joachim Raff, 38.

117Ibid., 39.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64

with Liszt through August, which included the festivities surrounding the unveiling of the
Beethoven monument in Bonn, and where, among other tasks, Raff made the fair copy and

parts for Liszts Beethoven Cantata, performed at the Festival.118 At this point, Raff

decided not to accompany him further, and Liszt found Raff employment with Eck &

Lefebvre, music publishers and piano manufacturers in Cologne. Although Raff was not
completely happy in his new employment he claimed he was overworked he looked

upon Liszt almost as a savior:

Der Damon, der mich mein ganzes Leben dutch verfolgt, hatte damals alle Schleussen
des Himmels geoffhet, um die Wege vor mir schlammig, die Luft schwer und feucht
und das Tageslicht triibe und kiirzer zu machen. Allein es war des Geschickes
Wille, dass ich jene Tagreise vollenden und zu Ihnen gelangen sollte. Hatte ich in
Frankfurt gewusst, was ich jetzt weiss, ich ware Ihnen noch in der Nacht barfuss
nachgeeilt.119
Thus, he continued to do copying for Liszt on the side. In return, Liszt contacted two

Viennese publishers on Raffs behalf, Haslinger and Mechetti, resulting in Raffs arranging

(bearbeiten) the fourth act of Les Huguenots (in dem Genre der Paraphrase iiber den

4ten Akt des Don Sebastian von Kullak), and thus giving him professional contacts with

both Meyerbeer and the French publisher Schlesinger, who owned the rights to the opera
(. . . Sie wiirden auf solche Weise zwei Fliegen mit einer Klappe schlagen).120

Liszts letter of 28 October 1846 suggests that Raff wished to be in his


employment, something that was not possible or practical while Liszt was touring.121 In

the meantime, Raff managed to get himself dismissed from Eck & Lefebvre, as he

118See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinsller und Mensch, 2:248.

119Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 42 (21 March 1846).

120Ibid., 114 (6 August 1846). The arrangement turned out badly and was never published
(Raff, Joachim Raff, SO, n. 6). Liszt, in fact, criticized Raff on the work, but this portion of the letter is
deleted in the published version (i.e the ellipsis on p. 117); the originals are in D-Mbs (Raffiana VIII).

121See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 116-117.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65

recounted the incident to Liszt in a letter of 24 November.122 He evidently still wished to

work for Liszt, and Liszts letter of 3 May 1847 reveals a reciprocal desire to hire him:

Sehr angenehm wiirde es mir sein, wenn es Ihrem festgesteckten Ziel nicht im
geringsten hinderlich scheinen konnte, Sie an meine persdnliche Thatigkeit femerhin
zu binden, und Ihnen eine anstandige, ehrenvolle Position an meiner Seite
einzuraumen.123

Liszt proposed the end of January in Weimar, at which time Raff could be in residence for
two months as a sort of trial run.124 Raff did not join him there, however, for reasons

which are unknown. Perhaps the attitude expressed in Liszts letter of 8 February 1848 put

him off, for as the possibility for reunion increased, Liszt took care that Raff would not

misunderstand his position: Ohne weiter zu untersuchen, in welchem Grade Sie, mein

lieber Raff, die requirirten Eigenschaften eines Mentors besitzen, gestehe ich Ihnen offen,

dass ich keineswegs aufgelegt bin, Ihren Telemach zu spielen. Dies gesagt einmal fur

allemal.125
Thus, Raff spent 1848 in Stuttgart and did much composing, branching out into

vocal and instrumental music with sacred works and an opera, Konig Alfred. He wrote
Liszt about the possibility of publishing and performing this work, and Liszt responded

briefly on 6 June 1849.126 One month later, after receiving the score, Liszt communicated

his evaluation of it: despite many fine attributes, the opera could have been better:

Ware mir das Vergniigen zu Teil geworden, Sie im Winter 48, so wie ich es von
Ihnen verlangte, in Weymar zu sehen, so hatte ich gewiss nicht ermangelt, Sie mit

122See ibid., 117-119.

123Ibid., 121.

124See ibid.

125Ibid., 122. Note also Liszts letter of 20 March 1848, omitted from the published letters,
where he harshly criticizes Raff over an issue which he does not mention (D-Mbs, Raffiana VIII, no. 9).

126See ibid., 285.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66

den Opem-Verhaltnissen etwas mehr bekannt zu machen, und sehr wahrscheinlich


konnten Sie damach Ihre Zeit und Arbeit praktischer beniitzen.127

Again, Liszt invited Raff to Weimar, now with the added attraction of hearing the overture
performed. His letter of 1 August shows that Raff finally accepted the invitation:

Sir Anerbieten in Bezug auf Instrumentation und Schreibereien acceptiere ich


dankbar, bios weide ich den Gebrauch desselben noch einige Monate verzogem
miissen, nachdem ich bereits fur meine jetzigen Manuskripte...[ ,] andere
Arrangements, fur deren Abschrift und Vorbereitung zum Stich, getroffen
habe.128

No date had been set, for Raff was now employed by the Hamburg publisher Schuberth,

but Liszt added a further incentive with a proposed performance of Konig Alfred on 20
February 1850 in celebration of the birthdays of the Grand Duke and Duchess.129 He
visited Hamburg and Bremen for a few weeks beginning at the end of September, and the

details must have been worked out at this time:130 a letter of 15 October suggested the

beginning of December as the start of a visit that would encompass the winter months,131

and Raffs letter of 16 October to a friend noted 1 December as the starting date.132 In an
exchange of letters towards the end of November, Liszt informed Raff that he would begin

his employment at Eilsen, where he currently was located, and gave him a list of items to

127Ibid., 286 (8 July 1849).

128Ibid., 287-288.

1290ther operas so honored include Tannhauser (16 February 1849), Benvenuto Cellini (20
March 1852; planned for 16 February), Derfliegende Hollander (16 February 1853).

130See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 288-289 (23,29 September
1849, Raff to Kunigunde Heinrich).

13^ e e ibid., 122. This letter is misdated 25 October 47, corrected here after comparison with
the original in D-Mbs (Raffiana VIII, no. 7).

132See ibid., 290.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67

bring, including various scores and all the materials he would need as a copyist.133 Raff

viewed this appointment as the most important step toward an independent career and left
Hamburg on 21 November.

Arriving at Eilsen on 1 December 1849, he immediately set to work. His first


task was very likely the beautifully copied score of Concerto No. 1, duly annotated after

the final measure at the bottom of the last page: Copid par Joachim Raff. Eilsen 8. Dec:

49 (US-Wc, ML31.H43a no. 59). Liszt also assigned him the orchestration of Ce quon
entend sur la montagne (later known as Symphonic Poem No. 1) and the translation into
German of an article he had written on John Field.134 For his part, Raff wasted no time in

becoming dissatisfied with his new position, a characteristic that had also been evident in

his previous employment. In Eilsen, he was not happy with the accommodations, with the
household, with his work, with Liszt himself, and all within days of arriving.135 One

would have thought that Raff would not have lasted the winter, but he stayed on for six
years, even declining the opportunity to return to work for Schuberth.136 Raffs letters

provide the explanation, for despite the steady stream of complaints, he was able to hear his

music performed, both chamber and orchestral, and he undoubtedly gained valuable

experience in instrumentation from his contact with the Weimar orchestra. As early as

133See ibid., 291-293.

134See ibid., 388 ([c. mid-December]). John Field et ses Nocturnes (Uber John Fields
Nocturnes) was not published until 1859.

135See ibid., 387-391. R affs letters reveal that this was a chronic aspect of his personality,
and his complaints against Liszt may not have had much basis. For later examples, written from Liszts
point of view, see ibid., 504 (22 November 1850; also Franz Liszts Briefe, 4:50 (26 January [1851]), 52
(27 January 1851). See also the comments in Emile Haraszti, Les origines de lorchestration de Franz
Liszt, Revue de Musicologie 34 (1952), 86ff. Incidentally, R affs salary was 600 thalers freie Station,
compared to 500 thalers to Joseph Joachim, at that time concertmaster of the Weimar orchestra; see Franz
Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 387, and Walker, Franz Liszt, 2:100.

136See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 395.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68

February 1850, he heard his orchestration of Liszts Goethemarsch, apparently the first

time Raff had ever heard a work of his performed by an orchestra, and a Quartet.137 Other
performances included a work for violin and piano, Egloguefantastique, played by Liszt

and Joseph Joachim in April,138 a Trio and the Quartet,139 and a Te Deum.140 Although
Konig Alfred was not performed until 9 March 1851, Raff had the invaluable experience of
not only hearing it through all stages of preparation but of conducting the first

performances.141 Finally, Liszt transcribed for piano an Andante and March Finale from
the opera, published in 1853 but prepared around the time of the premiere.142

Raff had hopes for a more prestigious position in Weimar,143 but either Liszt

would not or, more likely, could not provide one. By May 1853, he was determined to
leave for reasons both financial and personal:

Aber das Schlimme ist, dass ich durch meine Lage verdammt bin, stets fort eine
secundare, untergeordnete Rolle zu spielen, dass jedermann glaubt, von meinem rein
personlichen Verdienste so und so viel beliebig wegnehmen und auf Rechnung
Lisztscher Protektion setzen zu konnen, oder gar zu miissen.144

137See ibid., 397-398.

138See ibid., 402. Joachim was concertmaster at the time.

139See ibid., 695 (December 1850); see also 403.

140See ibid., 1284 (25 August 1853).

141Liszt had planned to conduct the opera himself, but, due to the illness of the Princess
Wittgenstein, he had to remain in Eilsen, thus giving Raff the opportunity to present his own work. See
ibid., 977-986 Getters of February and March 1851).

142See ibid., 978 (25 February 1851); 981 (12 March 1851); 1280 (2 August 1853); 1281 (5
August 1853); 1284-1285 (27 September 1853). Operatic paraphrases were also written by Joseph
Joachim and Bernhard Cossmann, the latter principal cellist of the Weimar orchestra.

143See ibid., 1274 (December 1851).

144Ibid., 1278 (February 1853). See also Franz Liszts Briefe, 2:403-404, a letter of
recommendation which Helene Raff dated April 1853; see Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer
Briefe, 1279.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69

Raff remained in Weimar, but, because of the lack of correspondence between them, it is

unclear to what extent his employment was provided by Liszt after 1853. He continued to

copy, but he may have worked on commission as Conradi did, the difference being that
Raff lived in the same town.145 For example, Liszt asked Raff to accompany him to
Hungary to assist with the preparation of a Mass, something that perhaps would not have

been necessary had Raff still been in his employ.146 By mid-1856, Raff left Weimar for
Wiesbaden, departing on friendly terms and visiting in April and September 1857. Liszt

was interested in staging Raffs next opera, Samson,U1 but he resigned his position as

director before this plan could be carried out. Raff turned out a steady stream of
compositions in the years that followed (his lifes work consisted of over 200 opus

numbers), and his accomplishments led to an appointment as director of the Frankfurt


Conservatory in 1877. He died on 24 June 1882, and though he and Liszt had seen each
other seldom after Liszts departure from Weimar, Liszt wrote to his widow a heartfelt

letter of condolence.148

Liszt first learned the value of Raffs abilities when the two traveled in Germany

in mid-1845. A letter reflecting back on that time referred to Raff putting his manuscripts

in order, along with tasks of copying, orchestrating (Instrumentirungen), and taking


dictation.149 Even while employed by Eck & Lefebvre, Liszt asked Raff to do copying for
him on the side.150 Liszt suggested a rendezvous in May 1846 and spoke of one of Raffs

145See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 1426 (15 January 1855).

146See ibid., 1427 (27 January 1855).

147See ibid., 1434-1438 (January and February 1858).

148See ibid., 1441 (2 July 1882).

149See ibid., 121 (3 May 1847).

150See ibid., 42 (21 March 1846).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70

gifts: Eines kann ich Sie aber versichem, dass meine Manuskripte ungeordnet bleiben, bis
Sie sich nicht derer gefalligst und tiichtigst annehmen.151 Once in Weimar, Liszt took

advantage of the full range of Raffs abilities: Jeden Morgen nach zehn Uhr kommt Liszt

auf mein Zimmer, wo wir uns iiber die Arbeit des Tages unterhalten.152 The same letter
enumerates the projects Liszt intended him to execute, primarily as a copyist and personal

secretary but also as orchestrator. In fact, within the first year of his employment, Raff

orchestrated five Symphonic Poems (Ce quon entend sur le montagne, Tasso, Les
preludes, Prometheus, and Hiroide fundbre) as well as the aforementioned

Goethemarsch.l5i As late as 1853, he was asked to orchestrate a brief choral work, An die

Kunstler, and a Symphonie r^volutionnaire.154 His principal tasks, however, were as a


copyist.

Raffs copies survive in greater number than those of any of the other copyists

who worked for Liszt Liszt relied on him heavily during the first years of Raffs
residence, and his tasks covered all genres, sometimes in more than one version, as in the

case of the symphonic poems.155 As far as the concertos were concerned, Raffs

contribution was strictly as an amanuensis. The copy of Concerto No. 1 noted above was

derived from Conradis score with Liszts emendations, as was a copy of Concerto No. 2,

written in 1850 (D-WRgs, H5e),156 and that of the Beethoven Fantasy (D-WRgs, H9),

151Ibid., 43 (17 April 1846).

152Ibid., 389 (December 1849).

153See ibid., 389 (December 1849); 393,397 (February 1850).

154See ibid., 1279-1280 (2 August 1853); also 1285-1286 (27 September 1853). The
Symphonie revolutionnaire was originally planned to be in five movements; only one was completed and
became Symphonic Poem No. 8, Hiroidefunibre.

155See the list in Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 361-362.

156See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 397 (February 1850).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71

probably written for Biilows first concert tour of mid-1853. Biilow also performed the
Hungarian Fantasy on this tour, and it is possible that a contemporary copy of this score,
now lost, was also by Raff.

Even after Liszt had other copyists at his disposal, he continued to rely on Raff,

and the reason is not hard to see: his work was superb by any standards, beautifully laid
out on the page, elegantly written, and very accurate. Unlike the utilitarian style of
Conradi, Raff took great care over his manuscripts, as if the copy was a creation in itself,
on a par with the musical composition. In addition, Raff did not consider his task

completed with the application of pen and ink on sturdy paper stock; he often gathered

together his signatures with string and surrounded the whole in a stiff cardboard binding

with a title plate. One can only imagine his feelings when Liszt returned these works of the

copyists art to him with various emendations, large and small, and requested a new copy.
Raffs careful notation, in contradistinction to most of Liszts other copyists, generally
allows his manuscripts to be easily identified.157 One problem is that Raffs hand evolved
somewhat during his time in Weimar, not surprising given the amount of copying he

carried out and his desire for perfection, and the details of this change have been chronicled

by Andrew Bonner in his description of the surviving Raff copies of Les preludes.15*

Other Copyists

In addition to Belloni, Conradi, and Raff, Mueller has cataloged thirty-one other

hands.159 Many of these have been identified as members of the Weimar orchestra and

157See the facsimiles in Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:concluding plates; and Eckhardt, Franz Liszt's
Music Manuscripts in the National Szichenyi Library, Budapest, 130-131. Winklhofer includes a facsimile
of some of R affs typical formations, extracted from Raabe; see Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 63.

158See Andrew Bonner, Liszts Les Preludes and Les Quatre ilim en s: A Reinvestigation,
19th Century Music 10 (Fall 1986), 101-103.

159See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 57-63; 356-364 (appendix A).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72

Liszts piano students. Regarding the latter group, Liszt attracted young pianists who

wished to study with him, beginning with Hans von Biilow in 1851. After his retirement

from the concert stage, Liszt decided that he would never take another fee as a pianist, and
to his mind this evidently included piano lessons. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to ask
his students to undertake various chores, as in the copying of manuscripts. Few

composers have had the luxury of an army of copyists, working, in effect, without cost.

The result was often multiple copies of complete orchestral scores, each documenting a

successive stage in a works development.


The remaining concerto copies can be assigned to these aspiring pianists, an
appropriate task in the sense that it would be them, and not the composer, who would bring

the compositions before the public. Mueller has identified Biilow as the copyist for a
manuscript of the Weber Polonaise (D-WRgs, T3a) which served as the Stichvorlage for
the publication and therefore probably dates from c. 1852. Dionys Pruckner studied with

Liszt in Weimar between November 1851 and November 1855.160 His hand has been
identified in manuscripts of Concerto No. 1 and Totentanz from 1853 (US-NYpm,

Lehman; D-WRgs, H10), and two others of the Concerto No. 1 from c. 1855, one an
orchestral score (D-WRgs, H12), the other a two-piano score with the piano reduction in

Liszts hand (USSR-Lsc).161 Mueller has suggested Hans von Bronsart as the copyist of a
manuscript of Concerto No. 2 (D-WRgs, HI 1), but this is not possible, as the copy must

date from 1853, and Bronsart did not arrive in Weimar until the following year.162

Finally, there are two manuscripts of the Wanderer Fantasy from c. 1851, a full score and a

160See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:256, n. 174.

161The assignation of the hand as Pruckners is made from a letter of 28 May 1855 {Franz
Liszt's Briefe, 4:216). The date for the earlier manuscripts derives from Liszt-Biilow, 21 (12 May 1853).

162See Liszt-Biilow, 21 (12 May 1853). Note also that Raabe misidentified the copyist as Raff;
see his Franz Liszt, 2:312.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73

separate incomplete piano part (D-WRgs, T2), that were probably copied by August
Reissman, resident in Weimar 1850-52.163

Editions

Raabes next two categories, copied orchestral parts and edited proofs, are not

relevant to a discussion of Liszts concertos. There are no known surviving parts with any
autograph markings on them. The engraved parts of Concerto No. 1, Hungarian Fantasy,

Weber Polonaise, and Schubert Wanderer Fantasy from the Biilow Nachlaji in D-Bds

(Mus. 10475-78) have no additional markings, and it is doubtful that they were ever used
for performance. There is also a set of manuscript parts for Concerto No. 2 in D-B (Mus.

13056/54), also from Biilows Nachlaji, which shows signs of correction but not of use.

The only surviving set of proofs with autograph markings is that for the Weber Polonaise

(D-WRgs, T3b), but this contains only corrections and shows no sign of a continuing
compositional process.

The lack of proof sheets is not necessarily a hindrance to a line of inquiry that
considers editions as sources, provided it can be established that Liszt corrected his

publications with care. Unfortunately, there has been virtually no research carried out in

this area and no systematic study that documents Liszts relationships with any of his
publishers. The only exceptions are Oskar von Hases substantial Gedenkschrift und
Arbeitsbericht of Breitkopf & Hartel, which contains a section on Liszt,164 and the

summary article by Albi Rosenthal.165 A comprehensive picture cannot be created until all

163See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:256, n. 174. On the manuscripts, see Franz Liszt's Briefe, 4:113
(10 May 1851); also Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 1163 (5 June 1851), 1167
([mid-June]), 1171 (26 June 1851).

164Hase, Breitkopf & Hartel, 2:145-183; for complete citation, see n. 55.

165Albi Rosenthal, Franz Liszt and His Publishers, Liszt Saeculum 38 (1986): 3-40. This
article also includes facsimiles of many of the letters quoted in the text.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74

correspondence has been reviewed and all editions cataloged, but work on such a project is

presently hampered since many of Liszts letters have never been published, and those to
his publishers remain with the present heirs of the company, such as Ricordi in Milan.166
In addition, there are the ravages of war, where, for example, a bombing raid of 4

December 1943 destroyed 60% of the publishers quarter in Leipzig. Often it is only by

fortuitous circumstance that any documents survive.167 In lieu of an exhaustive survey,

the current discussion will be limited to an overview of publishing practices in general and
Liszts in particular, including documentation of his direct involvement in his publications.

The evidence will be drawn predominantly from the correspondence, published and

unpublished, as well as a few representative editions.

The copyright protection that exists throughout much of the world today was not

in place at the beginning of Liszts career.168 To guarantee the exclusivity of a given

composition, it was often necessary to find publishers in the major markets of Western

Europe in order to register a work through simultaneous publication. This required the
composer or his agent to coordinate publication dates in Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, and Vienna,

and, in the case of a work for which he sought a broader market, Milan and London.

Further, according to the business practice of the time, the composition was sold outright,

with all subsequent profits being retained by the publisher. While this may seem unfair to

the composer, a popular composition would often result in a better selling price for future

166Ricordi willingly supplied Mdria Eckhardt with photocopies of ten letters, dated 1863-1879.
One must therefore presume that much of Liszts earlier correspondence is lost.

167See James Deaville, The C. F. Kahnt Archive in Leipzig: A Preliminary Report, Notes:
The Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 42 (1986): 502-517.

168This summary of early nineteenth-century copyright practice is in large part derived from
Jeffrey Kallberg, Chopin in the Marketplace: Aspects of the International Music Publishing Industry in the
First Half of the Nineteenth Century, Notes: The Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library Association 39
(1983), 536-541.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75

works. In addition, each negotiation was discrete, thus the composer could demand higher

payment from a German publisher, for example, if his compositions were more popular in

that market.169

Although there are no surviving letters to document the fact, Liszts publications
from the early part of his career demonstrate that he knew this system and used it While
the major markets are not represented in every case, it is unclear whether Liszt (or his

father) was unable to interest a publisher, or pirated editions of his music were not a threat
These publishing activities prior to his departure from Paris in May 1835 were rather

limited: he issued five publications while still a touring child prodigy, c. 1825-1826
(numbered opp. 1 through 4 and 6),170 a single item in 1829,171 and five publications in
late 1834-early 1835.172 The Apparitions and Harmonies poitiques et religieuses from

1835 were the best organized, with simultaneous publication in Paris, Leipzig, and
London, to judge from the plate numbers. The accuracy of the Parisian editions suggests

169The letters of an agent for Breitkopf & Hartel shed much light on this practice. The entire
collection was first published by Wilhelm Hitzig, Pariser Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur Albeit des deutschen
Musikverlags aus den Jahren 1833-1840, Der Bar: Jahrbuch von Breitkopf & Hartel 1929/30:27-73.
They are translated and annotated in Hans Lenneberg, Breitkopf & Hartel in Paris: The Letters o f their
Agent Heinrich Probst between 1833 and 1840, Musical Life in 19th-Century France 5 (Stuyvesant, New
York: Pendragon Press, 1990). Many of these letters are also quoted in Kallberg, Chopin in the
Marketplace, 799-815.

110Huit variations, op. 1 (S 148, R 27), Paris: Iirard; Sept variations brillantes sur un thime de
Rossini, op. 2 (S 149, R 28), London: Boosey, Paris: Erard; Impromptu brillant sur des thimes de Rossini
et Spontini, op. 3 (S 150, R 29), London: Boosey, Paris: Erard, Vienna: Mechetti, Bonn: Simrock; Deux
Allegri di bravura, op. 4 (S 151-152, R 30-31), Leipzig: Probst, Paris: Erard, Vienna: Diabelli; Etudes en
douze exercices, op. 6 (S 136, R 1), Marseille: Boisselot. There is no known op. 5. Liszt was also
invited to contribute a variation to Diabellis waltz collection, published 1823 (S 147, R 26).

171Grande fantaisie sur la tyrolienne de Iopira Lafiancde, op. 1 (S 385, R 116), London:
Wessel, Paris: Troupenas, Vienna: Mechetti (Raabe also lists Cranz in Hamburg).

m Grandfantasia de bravoure sur La clochette, op. 2 (S 420, R 231), Hamburg: Schreiber,


Vienna: Mechetti; Apparitions (S 155, R 11), Leipzig: Hofmeister, London: Wessel, Paris: Schlesinger;
Harmonies poitiques et religieuses (S 154, R 13), [same as Apparitions]: transcription of Berlioz,
Symphonie fantastique (S 470, R 134), Paris: Schlesinger; transcription of Schubert, La Rose (S 556, R
241), Leipzig: Hofmeister.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76

that they were corrected by Liszt himself, and thus the other editions were likely based on

Liszts corrected proofs for Schlesingers edition.173 A slightly different scenario is found

in the transcription of Berliozs Symphonie fantastique, initially published only in Paris,


probably at Liszts expense as suggested by the lack of plate number and the title page
designation of propri&6 de 1Auteur in place of the usual propri6t6 de lEditeur.174 In
July and August 1835, Schumann published his extensive review of Berliozs work based

on this publication,173 and this may have been a factor in Schlesinger taking over the rights

the following year, adding his own plate number and the phrase propri6t6 de lEditeur,

while Liszt (or Berlioz) arranged for simultaneous publication in Vienna.176 Again, the

Parisian edition is very accurate, and in this case the accuracy can be attributed to Liszt:
Jai la tete cass& de la quatrifcme dpreuve de la Symphonie Berlioz. D6cid6ment cest une

chose monstrueuse.177 Indeed, if we are to take this quote at its face value, Liszts
devotion to producing a correct edition must have been great. The Viennese publication, on

the other hand, was likely engraved from the first edition without assistance from Liszt.

Although very accurate, it is not quite complete as it lacks instrumental indications. Two

173This hypothesis is similar to Chopins practice as documented by Kallberg; see Chopin in


the Marketplace, 795-801.

174See Hector Berlioz, Correspondence Ginirale, 5 vols. to date, ed. Pierre Citron (Paris:
Flammarion, 1972-1989), 2:208 (10 November 1834): La Symphonie Fantastique a paru; mais, comme
ce pauvre Liszt a ddpensd horriblement dargent pour cette publication, nous sommes convenus avec
Schlesinger de ne pas consentir h ce quil donne un seul exemplaire... See also Liszts comment with
reference to his Reminiscences de la Juive in Briefe an seine Mutter, 26.

175j\/eue Zeitschrift fu r Musik 3 (3, 31 July, 4 ,7 , 11,14 August 1835).

176Schlesingers plate number can be dated to 1836, although it was not issued until early the
following year. The Viennese publisher was Trentsensky & Viewig. See also Cecil Hopkinson, A
Bibliography o f the Musical and Literary Works o f Hector Berlioz, 1803-1869, with Histories o f the
French Music Publishers Concerned, 2d ed., ed. Richard MacNutt (Tunbridge Wells: Richard MacNutt LTD,
1980), 77.

^L iszt-d'A goult, 1:105 (ca. 1 July 1834). Berlioz must have assisted in this task; see
Correspondance Ginirale, 2:184 (15 [or 16] May 1834): La Symphonie est gravde nous corrigeons les
dpreuves...

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77

years later, Liszt would underline the importance of this aspect of his transcriptions in a
letter to Breitkopf & Hartel, and he probably would have seen to their inclusion had he
been involved with this edition.178

During his years of pilgrimage (1835-1839), Liszt was even more diligent in
coordinating his publishers. Finances may have been one reason, as he lacked the steady

income of lessons and concerts and was determined not to live off the fortune of his

companion, the Countess Marie dAgoult. He also may have wanted his name to be well

represented by new publications. One curious aspect of Liszts use of this system was his

decision to rotate the houses that published his music, even in the same city. This is

apparent simply from a survey of the works issued to this point, and Liszt himself stated it
explicitly in a letter of 23 August 1837: Mes dditeurs de Paris sont tour k tour Schlesinger,

Bernard Latte, Troupenas et RichaulL179 Rosenthal has estimated that Liszt used at least
120 publishers in his career.180 Perhaps this was his way of playing the system against

itself, in the hope of ultimately gaining higher fees. The same approach can be seen in his

desire to coordinate publications in various countries, which is especially evident in

correspondence from late 1837 and 1838, letters which offer insights into the vagaries of
the system.

In October, he wrote Ignatz Moscheles in the hope that Moscheles could be his

liaison with the London publishers. Prior to this time, Liszts English publisher was

Wessel, with whom Chopin was often dissatisfied, and Liszt may have had a similar

178See Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:18 (5 April 1838): Je compte en surplus les doigter
soigneusement, ce qui joint aux indications des divers instruments (indication importante dans ce genre de
choses), rendra k coup sur cette Edition beaucoup plus complete. See also his letter of 28 August 1863,
Franz Liszt's Briefe, 2:47-48.

^ R e v u e de Musicologie 41 (July 1958), 108 (quoted from an auction catalogue).

180See Rosenthal, Liszt and His Publishers, 3-4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78

grievance.181 Liszts letter is lost, but Moscheless response of 11 December 1837 relays a

message from the publisher Nicolas Mori of the firm Mori & Lavenu:

Should you really write to night [sic] to Liszt, tell him J [sic] accept his proposition to
print his works on the terms he states, but I cannot bind myself to take them all, as it
will depend a great deal on his coming to London, and the stay he makes, whether his
works sell or not, as in the event of his not coming they would be of comparative
little value.182

After apologizing for Moris commercial crassness, Moscheles comments on the priorities

of the London publishers: Je regrette de plus que les autres 6diteurs DAlmaine, Chappell,
Cramer ou plutot Addison et Beale lui ressemblent de pr&s, et quand il sagit de quelque
ouvrage dimportance, ils pr6fferent regraver les Editions 6trangfcres.183 From Liszts

response of 28 December we learn that Mori had been contacted independently of

Moscheles through a mistake of Liszts student. As a courtesy, Liszt provided a resumi of


that letter:

Je lui proposai dediter environ 220 pages (au plus 260) par an, k raison d'une
Guinie (minimum) les 4 pages. Dans son int&et et dans le mien je le priai de donner
k mes ouvrages le plus grande publicity possible. [List of compositions he is
offering.] (Tout ces outrages seront edit6s en meme temps en Allemagne, en France,
et en Italie.)184

181See Kallberg, Chopin in the Marketplace, 552-569.

182Briefe an Franz Liszt, 1:11.

183Ibid.

184Unpublished letter, D-WRgs (Ms. 71/11), transcribed in appendix A; also published in


German translation in Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, 64-66. Liszt and Mori evidently came to an
agreement: Mori published four out of the five works listed, and Liszt toured London in May and June of
1840. Incidentally, Liszt stated his price at six francs per page (one assumes per engraved page), although
in a letter to Breitkopf & Hartel of 5 April 1838, he asked for 8 francs (Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:18).
Comparison with Chopins prices (as found in Kallberg, Chopin in the Marketplace, passim) shows that
Chopin also demanded more from his German publisher. Overall, Liszts prices were somewhat lower, at
least at this point in his career.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79

Liszts letter of 11 December 1837 to his friend and Parisian publisher, Maurice
Schlesinger, is even more revealing, as it displays the negotiation process and details his
publishing network:

Pour ce qui est de nos arrangements musicaux je ne vous donnerai gufcre


aujourdhui de rlponse definitive. Je ne suis point en peine, je vous le repute de
vendre mes Etudes, et dautres compositions. Plusieurs editeurs de Paris mont fait
des offres plus considerables que les votres. Ce que j aurais desir et ce a quoi
probablement seul j aurais pu consentir, c6tait un contrat gn6ral comme celui que
j ai avec Ricordi, Hoffmeister et Wessel (votre observation sur lEdition dltalie et
dAllemagne devient inutile, vu les precautions que j ai prises Hoffmeister et
Ricordi sont parfaitement d accord ladessus.)185

Liszt evidently set great store by Schlesinger as a publisher, and to the extent that he

wanted his etudes issued under his imprint, he was willing to make a further concession:

Je me serai volontiers engage k nefournir que de 250 k 300 pages lan, et vous aurais
meme concede un droit de veto sur un certain nombre de ces pages, choses que je nai
fait jusquici avec aucun de ces Editeurs et que j espfcre navoir jamais k leur
proposer. II me semblait quau moment ou vous exploiter Strauss depuis A jusquk Z
cdtait une compensation honorable que ddditer les Symphonies de Beethoven, qui,
quoi que vous en disez et quoiquen puissent dire dofficieux amis, ne sont rien
moins quinexdcutables et que je nhesiterai pas k editer moi meme si je me trouvais k
Paris.186

These letters show Liszt laying the groundwork for a series of publications, testing the
extent to which these publishers would meet his demands. A letter to Breitkopf & Hartel

over the publication of his transcriptions of two Beethoven symphonies reveals another
facet of these negotiations:

M. Mori de Londres est actuellement ldditeur de mes oeuvres en Angleterre.


Quoiquil nait pas refusd de publier les Symphonies de Beethoven, il me serait
agrdable par plusieurs raisons que la maison Beale et Adisson [sic] sen chargeat de
prdfdrence. Je nai absolument aucune relation avec ces Messieurs. Seriez-vous

185Unpublished letter, D-WRgs (Ms. 73/6,1), transcribed in appendix A.

186Ibid. Schlesingers edition of the Vingt-quatre grandes itudes appeared in 1839; see also
Franz Liszts Briefe, 8:20 (16 November 1838). The Viennese edition was published by Haslinger and the
Italian by Ricordi.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80

assez bon (afrn de m6viter 1ennui detre refusd peut-etre) de proposer de ma part k
ces Messieurs de publier conjointement avec vous et Ricordi, et probablement
Schlesinger ou Richault de Paris (&moins que je nen garde la propridt frangaise
pour moi, ce qui est probable) la Symphonie pastorale et celle en ut mineur pour
commencer, au prix de 12 guineas chacune. Je vous saurais bien bon grd de
mobtenir ce petit tour de faveur de leurs Excellences Beale et Adisson [sic], et, en
cas de non acceptation, j dviterai lennui dun refus direct, chose toujours
parfaitement ddsagrdable.187

Although it is unclear whether this request was out of the ordinary, this letter suggests that
Breitkopf & Hartel would be the principal publisher. The other editions would derive from

this source, a deduction confirmed by a letter of June 1839, quoted below, where Liszt

requested three proof copies, additional ones for the French and London publishers.

As the editorial work of these publications began in earnest, Liszts demands


turned from organizational to musical. The financial terms with Breitkopf & Hartel were

quickly settled, and a letter received by the publisher on 15 July 1838 found Liszt
requesting that the edition proceed quickly, so that he might have the proofs by August.188

His concern for accuracy is apparent in his letter of 3 January 1839:

Seulement il est essentiel que jen corrige la demi&re dpreuve pour que lddition en
soit absolument correcte. Je ddsire dailleurs ajouter le doigter k plusieurs passages
afin d en faciliter ldtude aux amateurs. Soyez done assez bon pour me faire parvenir
par IAmbassade (ou par toute autre occasion qui ne soit pas par trop couteuse) 2
ipreuves k Rome, ou je serai dans une douzaine de jours et ou je compte rester
jusquk la mi-mars.189

In the context of this letter, Liszts request for two proofs probably reflected his intention to
make his final corrections on both simultaneously, returning one to Breitkopf and the other

187Franz Liszt's Briefe, 8:18 ([15 July 1838]). Addison & Beale had been recommended by
Moscheles in his letter quoted above. Although Liszt published several of his most important works of the
1850s with Breitkopf & Hartel, including the Sonata in B Minor and the symphonic poems, his first
contact with the firm was in early 1838 over the possibility of publishing his transcriptions of Beethoven
symphonies; see Hase, Breitkopf & Hartel, 2:145-148; also Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:17-18.

188See Franz Liszts Briefe, 8:18; also Hase, Breitkopf & Hartel, 2:148.

m Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:23.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81

to Ricordi for that publishers engraving and thereby keeping greater control over the
process. His desire for correct editions is also apparent in a letter to the Parisian publisher

Pacini: Dfaudra au moins 2 ipreuves corrigies. Prego! Prego!! ne laissez de fautes que

ce quil en faut absolument pour quune Edition soit censde correcte.190 This likely refers
to two consecutive proofs, in order to be certain that his corrections were properly entered

on the plates. Liszt did not demand two proofs in every case, as is evident in the letter to

Breitkopf and also in a letter to Schlesinger from early 1836,191 thus he must have had less
confidence in Pacini. He soon realized, however, that his confidence in Breitkopf was

misplaced and, upon receiving the proofs in February, demanded still another set:

Permettez-moi de vous en demander une 2 ^ dpreuve (car il mimporte extremement


que lddition en soit aussi correcte que possible), et cette fois je vous prierai de
madresser trois ipreuves de chaque Symphonie, afin que je puisse en exp&lier une
pour Paris et lautre pour Londres. Probablement il ny aura plus de correction k faire
sur cette seconde dpreuve, et dans ce cas je vous en prdviendrai par 2 mots (sans vous
renvoyer votre dpreuve) en vous indiquant en meme temps la date de la
publication.192

Liszt forwarded the last corrections to Breitkopf in September,193 and a letter of 4 October
finds him requesting copies for Paris and London, probably for publishing purposes.194

190Ibid. (30 September 1838).

191See Julien Tiersot, Leltres de musiciens denies enfranqais du XVe au XXe siicle, 2 vols.
(Turin: Bocca Fiires, 1924), 2:369. Dans quelques jours vous recevrez les Reminiscences de la Juive
imprimdes je viens den corriger les dem ises dpreuves. (The letter is undated, but the date can be
estimated based on a cross reference with a letter in Briefe an seine Mutter, 26.) The primary publisher for
this woik appears to have been A. M. Schlesinger in Berlin, therefore it is possible that, in the case of an
edition derived from proof pages, one final correction might be enough. This letter does not necessarily
exclude additional proof correction, however.

192Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:29 ([June 1839]). Liszts letter to Ricordi received 18 May 1839
draws attention to une feuille de corrections dcrites in the Pastoral Symphony (Franz Liszts Briefe, 8:20).

193Hase, Breitkopf <6 Hartel, 2:152.

194Unpublished letter, D-B (Mus. Slg. Hartel 165).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82

These letters reveal Liszts concern for accurate editions, and, as with the Symphonie
fantastique transcription, he likely corrected the proof himself.

The flow of publications continued during Liszts Glanzperiode. His


correspondence during these travels shows him dealing with the practical matter of
coordinating proofreading while communicating the next stop on his itinerary so that the
publishers would know where to forward the material. Although few are actually

available, a letter to the Viennese publisher Mechetti can serve as an example for what must
have been many such missives: Je vous ai fait envoyer par Bernard Latte, les dpreuves

conrigdes de ma fantaisie sur Lucrezia Borgia.. .195 The various plans for simultaneous

publication could easily go awry, however, as shown in a letter of 7 May 1841 to Breitkopf
& Hartel, written from London:

Schlesinger vient de mapprendre que les Melodies de Mendelssohn que je vous ai


envoydes de Londres ont paru. Je ne saurais vous dire, mon cher Monsieur Hartel,
combien cette publication prdcipitde me contrarie. Inddpendamment du tort materiel
quelle me fait (car avant de vous les envoyer ces Mdlodies dtaient vendues k Londres
et k Paris), je me trouve ainsi manquer de parole k Beale et k Richault qui comptaient
les publier en meme temps que vous.196

Shortly after Liszt settled in Weimar, however, the nature of music publishing changed.

Although works such as the Trois Etudes de concert and the first Ballade, both published in

1849, and the Consolations published in 1850 are found in simultaneous French and
German editions, the following year the Etudes dexecution transcendante were published

only by Breitkopf & Hartel. The transition to the new copyright situation can be seen in the

195Lettres autographes (extraits de rgcents catalogues), Revue de Musicologie 41 (July 1958):


108. Also Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen, 48 (to Haslinger, 29 December 1839): Morgen
iiberschicke ich ihnen mit Post die Correctur der Adelaide expediren Sie es immediat an Breitkopf und
HMrtel in Leipzig. See also ibid. (1 January 1840) and Liszt-dAgoult, 1:446-447 (29 May 1840).

196Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:41. Chopin also experienced this problem, which was undoubtedly a
common occurrence; see Kallberg, Chopin in the Marketplace, 537ff.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83

issues of this edition which are otherwise identical except for French and German title
pages.

There is no reason to think that Liszt was any less diligent in his proof correction

while he was in Weimar. A letter of 19 December 1847 to Haslinger states: Puisque vous
avez fait tirer des 6preuves de mes nouvelles Rhapsodies, faites de tout cela un paquet qui
me sera une agitable surprise k mon arrivde.197 To Breitkopf & Hartel on 14 January

1850, he wrote: Par le poste de demain j aurai done lhonneur de vous retoumer les
dpreuves du Lieder-Cyclus qui fait suite aux Lieder de Beethoven que vous avez d6jk

dits, et que vous publierez quand bon vous semblera.198 When Biilow was in Vienna

in 1853, Liszt asked him to convey a message: Veuillez aussi dire k Haslinger que j ai
corrigd les dpreuves des Rhapsodies hongroises. . . ,199 and in March 1856 he asked

Pruckner, who was concertizing in the same city, to stop by the publisher Spina:
Erkundigen Sie sich gelegentlich bei Herm von Spina, wie weit der Stich der
Schubertschen Fantasie (von mir instrumentirt) vorgeschritten, und ob er mir bald davon
die Correctur senden kann.200 A letter to Haslinger in 1857 reveals that Concerto No. 1

went through at least two stages of proof: Mit der heutigen Post erhalten Sie die letzte
Correktur meines Conzertes.. ,201 And to Schuberth in 1860: Mit derselben Post

197Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:67. Haslinger was the publisher of the first series of the Hungarian
Rhapsodies, seventeen items grouped in ten books. The first four books were issued around 1840 (plate
numbers 8041-8044), the remaining six in 1848 on the basis of this letter, although the plate numbers are
dated to 1846 (10,205-10,210).

198Ibid., 1:83. Liszts transcription of An die fem e Geliebte was issued in 1850. The letter
also refers to his transcription of six Goethe-Lieder. Breitkopf s edition of the latter is a beautiful example
of the engravers art, with each page firamed by an ornate border in green ink. See the facsimile reprint,
Franz Liszt, Sechs Goethe-Lieder von L. v. Beethoven fUr Klavier, ed. Joachim Draheim (Wiesbaden:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1986).

^L iszt-B iilow , 11 (27 March 1853).

20Opranz Liszt's Briefe, 1:220 (17 March 1856).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84

erhalten Sie die durchgesehenen Correcturen dieser Stiicke.. .202 The concertos

published during these years were the Weber Polonaise (1853), Concerto No. 1 (1857),

and Schuberts Wanderer Fantasy (1857).

As Liszts Weimar years came to a close and his students were no longer available
to produce fair copies, it often was necessary for the publisher to have a copyist make a
copy from Liszts autograph for the engraver.203 This was a step in the process that Liszt

could not oversee, brought on by necessity, but it may also represent a change in his

attitude toward his editions. In the case of Concerto No. 2, he made his final revisions for

the engraver in February 1861, but the edition did not appear until two years later,

apparently without his further involvement. And beginning in 1861, he asked his
publishers to send the proofs to Biilow: Die letzte Correctur der Loreley bitte ich Sie Herm

von Biilow zuzuschicken und auch die 2te Auflage der Mignon im 6/4 T akt.. .204

Liszt had settled in Rome for an indefinite period of time and, with his future uncertain,
relinquished his proof correction to a musician he trusted. He also instructed Biilow to

arrange the details of publication as well, a task he had already decided to entrust to him in

the details of his Testament:

Jindique sur une feuille k part, jointe k ce Testament mes dispositions relativement
k ltidition de quelque-uns de mes ouvrages rest6s manuscrits, que je prie Carolyne de

201Ibid., 8:129. La Maras range of dates can be narrowed to c. 30 January based on a letter to
Biilow; see Liszt-Biilow, 193.

202Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, 180 (27 January 1860).

203See Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:396 (27 August 1861, to Kahnt). See also 2:62 (16 November
1863, to Breitkopf & Hartel), where Liszt recommended a copyist who is familiar with his handwriting.

204Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:396 (27 August 1861, to Kahnt). Although this responsibility is not
mentioned in the Liszt-Biilow correspondence, Biilow had been in Weimar for a meeting of the Allgemeine
deutsche Musikverein at the beginning of August, and Liszt may have discussed it with him at that time.
Liszt left Weimar on 17 August. On Biilows later proof correction, see Franz Liszt's Briefe, 8:164 (5
September 1863, to Schuberth).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85

charger mon gendre H. de Biilow de faire publier en revoyant tits soigneusement les
dpreuvres.205

Biilow had previously assisted him with various errands to his publishers, but a letter of 18
December 1860 is the first time we find him negotiating on Liszts behalf: J esptre navoir

pas abusd de la carte blanche que vous avez voulu me donner concemant laffaire

Schott.206 By 1863, it was Biilow who was taking the initiative. First, he proposed
editions of the Hungarian Fantasy and the Beethoven Fantasy, to be published by the
Leipzig publisher Heinze. Liszt agreed, with the provision that Biilow would undertake the

orchestral reduction for the two-piano score.207 The following year, Biilow took an even

more active role, as Liszts letter of 6 October 1864 shows:

Apr&s avoir 6t6 le premier k faire entendre et connaitre mes pauvres ouvrages, k les
propager, k les enseigner, k les recommander et les imposer, vous voici aussi le
premier k leur trouver des 6diteurs et des honoraires! Encore une fois, je souscris
d avance, en y applaudissant, k tout ce que vous fixerez, et vous remercie de coeur de
la peine que vous prenez &placer convenablement mes manuscrits.208

Biilow contacted the publisher C. F. W. Siegel and saw to the publication of the Beethoven

Fantasy and Totentanz. In fact, Liszt had had no intention of publishing the latter work,

and he undertook the final revision only at Biilows urging 209 It is unclear whether Liszt

corrected proof at all, although he did provide the solo versions of the two works for

205Franz Liszt's Briefe, 5:59-60 (14 September 1860).

206Liszt-Biilow, 300.

^ B iilo w s letter is lost (in fact, there is a two-year gap in the correspondence, from August
. 1861 to August 1863), but Liszts response is dated by La Mara to autumn 1863; see Liszt-Biilow, 318.
Only the Hungarian Fantasy was published by Heinze.

20SLiszt-Bulow, 318-319.

209See ibid., 322-323 (12 November 1864).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86

Siegel.210 These works appeared in print soon after, the Hungarian Fantasy in 1864, the

other two in 1865. After 1869, when Liszt emerged from his self-imposed seclusion and
embarked on his vie trifurqde (Rome-Weimar-Budapest), he took control of his

publications, perhaps again of necessity as by 1872 he was estranged from Biilow because
of the situation between his daughter Cosima (Biilows first wife) and Wagner. The

number of publications, however, was considerably less than during his Weimar years.

During the more than sixty years that Liszt placed his music before the public in

published form, the accuracy of the editions is remarkably consistent His involvement
was limited not only to correcting proof, as he also took an interest in the format and

presentation of his publications. By the late 1830s, he was specifying details related to the

appearance of his music, covering aspects such as the size of the paper, the use of smaller
note-heads, and such unusual features as the placement of the text above the staff in the

song transcriptions. In addition, he transcribed the many two-piano scores of his own
orchestral works, as well as the piano reductions for Concerto Nos. 1 and 2 and Totentanz.

While even the most perfectly engraved score cannot take the place of the autograph
manuscript, in Liszts case it is also true that, with the evidence of the letters and the proof
provided by the editions, the publications that appeared during Liszts life can be used with

great confidence.

Two Examples
Mueller has observed with regard to Liszts autographs:

When the different categories of these various papers are identified and this
information is brought to bear on the history of a particular work in question, often a

210See ibid., 325 (26 November 1864); also Rosenthal, Franz Liszt and His Publishers, 21,
26 (30 May 1865). The autograph for the solo version of Totentanz is in US-Wc (ML96.L58).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87

chronology for the genesis of a piece evolves that is quite different from what is
presently accepted.211

Two examples will suffice to demonstrate the application of this growing body of

knowledge relevant to the primary sources, using not only paper types but various aspects
of Liszts working methods, including copyists manuscripts.

The first example is found in Muellers discussion of the song Ich mochte

hingehn.212 This work had been singled out by Raabe because of a quotation of the
Tristan chord in m. 125, especially striking in a work composed ten years earlier than

Wagners opera.213 As Mueller points out, examination of the copyists manuscript


reveals that Liszt had emended the measure in question with a collette of a paper type that is
found only after 1856, by which time he may have become acquainted with Wagners

work. Certainly a text on the subject of death would be an appropriate place for Liszt to
render a hommage to his friends creation, the chord occuring between the lines of text:

Du wirst nicht stille wie die Stem versinken [chord] Du stirbst nicht einer Blume
leichten Tod. Thus, while Mueller admits that unraveling the chronology is difficult, in

her opinion the evidence suggests that Liszt borrowed from Wagner rather than the other

way around. Clarifying the chronology of the two compositions contributes to our

understanding of the cross-influence that took place between the two composers.214
Another example can be found in the autograph of a work for violin and piano

that Liszt had based on a mazurka by Chopin (op. 6, no. 2). This work was published for

211Mueller, Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology: The Case of Anfangs wollt ich fast verzagen,"
19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988), 134.

212See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 118-127.

213Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:127.

2140 n this question, see also Ben Arnold, Wagner and Liszt: Borrowings, Theft, and
Assimilation Before 1860, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 30 (July-December 1991), 3-20.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88

the first time in 1964 in an edition by Tibor Serly based on the unpublished autograph

manuscript in D-WRgs (LI).215 In his Introduction, Serly dated the work to 1832-35,

alluding to Liszts friendship with Chopin and the influence of Paganinis virtuosity.

Although Serly does not give a reference, he is surely referring to the oft-quoted letter of 2
and 8 May 1832 where Liszt rhapsodizes at great length on the impression a recent concert
of Paganinis had made upon him 216 This date was challenged by Alan Walker in an

article published in 1975, at which time he summarized Serlys reasoning and concluded:

Superficially these arguments make sense; yet few Liszt scholars would accept them and
they can be shown to be irrelevant217 Walkers presupposition is stated in his fourth

paragraph: The Duo Sonata reveals so sophisticated a grasp of thematic metamorphosis

that to attribute it to about 1832 is to hand the 21-year-old Liszt a tool of composition that

he was at that time incapable of using, still less inventing.218 Walker believes that the
work must date from at least 14 years later and offers the following arguments. First, Liszt
incorporated a Polish folksong (see m. 498ff.) which is also found in his Glanes de

Woronince for piano solo, known to have been composed in late 1847. The assumption is

that this was Liszts first encounter with Polish folk music, and therefore the Duo Sonata

must postdate the piano work. Second, Walker cites a passage in the piano part (mm. 299-
301) which is a fleeting allusion to Chopins litude, op. 10, no. 3. Here, he observes

215Franz Liszt, Duo Sonata fo r Violin and Piano, ed. Tibor Serly (New York: Southern Music
Publishing, 1964).

216See Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:6-8; partially quoted in chapter seven of the present woik.
Serlys date may also derive from the fifth edition of Grove's Dictionary o f Music and Musicians (1954)
which itself accords with Raabes der Handschrift nach in den 30er Jahren. (Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:313).
August Gflllerich refers to a Sonate in drei Satzen (1830?) which is probably this work; see his Franz
Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 280. The author of the Groves article, Humphrey Searle, retained
his original date for the sixth edition (1980).

217Alan Walker, Liszts Duo Sonata, Musical Times 116 (July 1975), 620.

218Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89

that, from 1849 to 1854, Liszt composed several piano pieces in forms closely associated
with Chopin (i.e., ballade, polonaise), forms which he had never used while Chopin was

alive, and Walker refers to the psychological mechanism of creative mourning. Finally,

he notes that, from evidence in the manuscript, Liszt consulted an expert violinist, and,
knowing that Joseph Joachim was in Weimar as his concertmaster from 1851 through
1853, he concludes that the work was written in 1851-2: Whatever else may come to light

about the sonata, it seems certain that it cannot be a work of Liszts youth.219
Although there is no new information about the Duo Sonata, applying the
conclusions derived from the analysis of Liszt autographs provides a very different dating
from Walkers. The paper found throughout the entire manuscript is of either French or

Dutch origin and evidently tom from a bound volume. Other compositions from the same

volume can be matched up by both stitch marks and protruding flaps where the tear of a

bifolio was not clean: a Concertpiece on Mendelssohns Songs Without Words (D-WRgs
K l) and pages from Malediction (D-WRgs H2). The Mendelssohn pages consist of the

last six folios of the autograph and are dated August 1834, a date which conforms with

Muellers dating of the other paper in this manuscript.220 In addition, examination of the
handwriting places it unequivocally in the earliest catagory, as it is unusually messy, even
in comparison with other manuscripts from the same time.221 Finally, in a letter written on

28 July 1835 from Geneva, Liszt requests that his mother send him his Duo pour Violon

219Ibid., 621. Serge Gut was convinced by Walkers argument; see his Franz Liszt (Paris:
Editions de Fallois/LAge dHomme, 1989), 565. Walker repeated his conclusion fourteen years later in the
context of a discussion of the Glanes de Woronince\ see his Franz Liszt, 2:47-48.

220See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 365-366 (B.3 and B.6).

22 ^ i s aspect of the autograph, along with unfamiliarity with Liszts manuscripts in general,
confused Serly when he made his edition. Comparison with the source reveals that the printed score is
extremely unreliable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90

et Piano sur une Mazourk [sic] de Chopin.222 The first page of the Duo has the date 25
Juillet, and as the folios from the Mendelssohn Concertpiece can be shown to have been

originally after the Duo in the bound volume from which they were both tom, it can be

confidently stated that the Duo was begun no later than July 1834 and completely drafted
by the time Liszt left Paris in May 1835.223

And what of Walkers arguments? There is no reason why Liszt could not have

become acquainted with a Polish folksong through his friendship with Chopin. In

addition, both the mazurka on which the composition is based and the dtude cited by
Walker were published in Paris in 1833.224 To date the Duo to 1834-35 does not dispute
the fact that in the 1850s Liszt turned to Chopins forms, for, in formal terms, the Duo has

nothing to do with Chopin, it only borrows one of his themes. If Walker had been familiar
with the unpublished De profundis, which can be dated to the same period, he would have
observed some of the same compositional devices that he claims Liszt was incapable of

using (see chapter ten of the present work). Finally, as Liszt was associated with the
newly formed Geneva Conservatory, he might have found a violinist to try out his work (a

complete violin part is preserved with the manuscript on paper dated around the same time),

perhaps Pierre Baillot, who was well known and lived in the city.225 Remaining is

Walkers assertion that Liszt did not come across the theme until 1847: After all, he

222See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, 21; also transcribed in appendix A.

223These manuscripts are discussed in detail in chapter nine (A Lost Sketchbook).

^ M a u ric e J. E. Brown, Chopin: An Index of His Works in Chronological Order, 2d ed. (New
York: Da Capo Press, 1972), 45,65. See also the letter of 20 June 1833 cowritten by Liszt, Chopin, and
Auguste Franchomme, where Chopin states: Je vous 6cris sans savoir ce que ma plume barbouille parce
que Liszt dans ce moment joue mes dtudes et me transporte hors de mes iddes honnetes. (Franz Liszts
Briefe, 1:9.)

225On Liszts relationship with the Conservatory, see Claude Viala, Franz Liszt au
Conservatoire (1835-1836), Revue Musicale de Suisse Romande 38 (September 1985), 122-129.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91

himself tells us that he gleaned the folk-theme at Woronince.226 But this is slender

evidence indeed to build an argument


To sum up, one could not find a better example to contrast the pitfalls of stylistic

analysis against the use of primary sources where reliable information for dating is

available nor better confirmation of the potential of these techniques for offering a new

chronology of Liszts output Walker is unwittingly prescient in this last regard: Indeed,

if [Serlys dates] were true, we should have to radically revise our ideas about Liszts
development as a composer.227 In fact, Walker has stated the primary thesis of this
dissertation.

226See Franz Liszt, 2:47, n. 27. Note also that the Glanes de Woronince quotes a song of
Chopins, Zyczenie, first published in 1829; see F. L. M. Pattison, A Folk Tune Associated with Liszt
and Chopin, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 20 (December 1986), 38-41.

227Walker, Liszts Duo Sonata, 620.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV

LISZTS COMPOSITIONAL PROCESS

That Liszt was an inveterate reviser would be clear from his publications alone.
Virtually all of his original compositions from the years of pilgrimage were reworked

during his tenure in Weimar, including the Vingt-quatre grandes itudes (published 1839) as
the Etudes dexecution transcendante (1852) and the Album dun voyageur (1842) into the

Annies de pilerinage, premiere annie, Suisse (1855). This impulse can also be found in

the various paraphrases on other composers works, where he refashioned the material for
new contexts. Even within works, alternatives in figuration and transitions are indicated,

as if he revised a passage but then decided that both first and second versions were equally
valid.

Such alterations were part of the search for something better, and Liszt

acknowledged this aspect of his personality in a letter of 2 September 1863: Le fait est que

la passion des Variantes et de ce qui me parait des ameliorations du style, me poss&de


singuli&rement et augmente avec lage. Je ne men excuse pas trop, car cest la recherche

persistante du mieux possible qui caract&ise le veritable artiste.1 A similar sentiment is

found in the form of an axiom (presumably his own) that he quoted to a friend a few days
later: Die kiinstlerische Natur, wenn sie acht ist, corrigirt sich selbst in Folge des

Wechsels der Gegensatze.2 Certainly an unending search for the best possible

expression of a musical idea was part of his own artistic nature and can be seen both

lFranz Liszt's Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1893
1905), 8:161.

2Franz Liszts Briefe, 2:50 (7 September 1863).


92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93

within editions and between published versions of the same composition throughout his
career.

A survey of Liszts manuscripts reveals the same tendencies, whether for fine-
tuning a passage after a few days or reworking an entire composition after several years,
and it is remarkable to observe the amount of self-criticism that is evident throughout all

stages of the compositional process. In compositions with the longest gestation period,

such as the concertos, this process allows us a glimpse of how Liszts style emerged, since
the manuscripts contain revisions on a short- and long-term scale. These documents hold
the clues which enable us to retrace Liszts working method, and they are the starting point

for information on the compositional process, at least that part of it that he chose to commit
to paper.

Compositional Process Studies


The first study devoted exclusively to Liszts compositional process is Michael
Saffles Stanford dissertation, Franz Liszts Compositional Process Development.3 His

research goal is succinctly stated in the first chapter:

This dissertation presents a study of Liszts compositional development based upon


an examination of his principal published and unpublished instrumental sketches and
revisions, important materials long overlooked or all but ignored by scholars and
performers alike.4
He is very quick to declare that his work is only an introduction to this topic,5 not

surprising given the enormous quantity of surviving manuscript material, but Saffles

3Michael Benton Saffle, Franz Liszts Compositional Process Development: A Study of His
Principal Published and Unpublished Instrumental Sketches and Revisions, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University, 1977. In his Franz Liszt: A Guide to Research (New York and London: Garland Publishing,
1991), Saffle announced a work in progress, a monograph that will expand on the content of his
dissertation; see p. 212.

4Ibid., 2.

5Ibid., iv.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94

difficulty was compounded by limitations placed upon him in the Goethe and Schiller

Archive in Weimar (D-WRgs), especially the restrictions with regard to access of materials
and refusal to allow photographic copies.6

Nevertheless, by concentrating on published versions, supplemented by a few

transcriptions from earlier manuscripts, Saffle was able to draw valid conclusions on
Liszts compositional goals. He sums up the general evolution of his style as follows:

[T]he entire course of the development of Liszts individual musical style centered
around two all-important transformations: 1) an ever-increasing use of motivic
processes as the primary means of compositional organization, and 2) an ever-
increasing use of chromatic harmony as an integral aspect of the shift toward
motivically generated and organized music. The central thesis this dissertation
presents that study o f Liszts sketches and revisions proves he consciously and
consistently developed and refined his compositional style along lines dictated by the
logical application o f these two interrelated processes is demonstrated in the
analyses that follow.7

Regarding overall form, Saffle notes Liszts desire for conciseness, both in increased use
of thematic transformation and (in the piano works) in the reduction of technical

difficulties. Harmonically, he finds greater organization, especially in microstructures that

are mirrored in the macrostructure of an entire composition. These conclusions may be


seen in his comments on the two published versions of Valine dObermann:

The more thoroughgoing and imaginative use of motivic and harmonic materials
(especially in the generation of transitional passages), the tighter formal organization,
and the greater technical and textual simplicity in the revised version. . . not only
contribute to its subtler emotional effectiveness in performance, but characterize
nearly every aspect of Liszts full-blown mature compositional style.8

6See his comments in ibid., pp. 65 and 119.

7Ibid., 31-32.

8roid., 101.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95

As will be shown in the present study, the development that Saffle documents among
works revised and published later in Liszts career is also reflected in earlier unpublished

manuscripts.

Shortly after Saffles pioneering work, Sharon Winklhofer made her contribution
to Liszt manuscript studies with her dissertation for the University of California, Los

Angeles, The Genesis and Evolution of Liszts Sonata in B minor: Studies in Autograph

Sources and Documents (1978), published two years later as a monograph.9 As the title

suggests, Winklhofer concentrated on a single work, but the inherent limitation of this

approach was offset by the broad background and detailed analysis she was able to bring to
the topic. Her work remains a useful starting point for any discussion concerning Liszts
Weimar years.

Winklhofers most original contribution begins with the discussion of Liszt


autographs, summarizing the history of manuscript studies in Liszt research, followed by

detailed analysis of Liszts working habits, including writing implements and paper

preferences. In the course of these chapters, Winklhofer lists typical aspects of Liszts

graphology and his techniques of revision (complete with facsimiles). The discussion is
not limited to the autograph manuscript (Lehman collection, currently in the Pierpont
Morgan Library, US-NYpm), but ranges over the course of Liszts output. Especially

relevant for the present study, she concludes with regard to paper: Whenever the date and
provenance of a document is doubtful, a proper identification of its physical properties

becomes all the more vital.10

9Sharon Winklhofer, Liszt's Sonata in B Minor: A Study o f Autograph Sources and Documents
(Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980).

10Ibid., 83-84.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96

The final two parts of the monograph are devoted to a discussion of the autograph

of the sonata, consisting of the provenance, a detailed description, and paper analysis, all to
the end of understanding the process by which Liszt composed the work. Her

documentation and analysis of Liszts alterations come complete with transcriptions of

earlier versions, many of which appear for the first time as, at her request, the staff of the
library removed the collettes that Liszt had used to cover over his initial attempt at a

passage. Thus, the evidence of writing implements, ink color, and paper type are

considered along with the content of the musical revisions to determine the chronology of

Liszts emendations and, from this chronology, the significance of the revisions.

Winklhofer notes in regard to Liszts manuscript, . . . because so much of the


evolution of the piece is recorded in the autograph itself, this source alone yields a

fascinating account of its genesis.11 For example, with regard to the sequence of folios in

the composers manuscripts, she observes:

This sampling of paper arrangements for unbound autographs suggests that


uniform patterns of foliation cannot be expected in different drafts. The structure of
each reflects Liszts solution to unique compositional problems. In that sense, the
asymmetrical fascicles of the [sonata autograph] should be viewed as the general rule
rather than the exception. The breaks in the foliation coincide in this case with Liszts
confrontation of a major obstacle in his progress on the draft.12
In the sonata autograph, [t]he multiple layers of revision show that [Liszt] gave the work

meticulous scrutiny, probably re-evaluating his progress in eveiy working session.13 She

divides his process into three stages, Original Draft, Notational Improvement, and

Final Corrections, complete with a list of how each folio in the manuscript fits into this

11Ibid., 93.

12Ibid., 111.

13Ibid., 171.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97

scheme.14 With her analysis, Winklhofer demonstrates just how much information one of

Liszts autographs can yield, and her dissertation provides a model for others. The

importance of her contribution will be readily apparent in the discussion of Liszts working
method below.

In chapter six of her monograph, Winklhofer noted four reasons for Liszt

manuscript studies:

1) the topic has suffered from neglect in the past; 2) the location of sources is all too
often unknown; 3) no means exist for classifying and identifying Liszt autographs;
and 4) without basic information on a composers working habits, the reconstruction
of the genesis of his works is impossible.15
As with Saffle, Winklhofer was limited in her access to materials in Weimar, although she

was able to supplement her observations with material in the Library of Congress (US-Wc)

and, of course, the Pierpont Morgan Library. The first important step toward an all-
inclusive examination of this neglected field was taken by Rena Mueller in her New York
University dissertation, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions.16

Muellers dissertation benefited from the length of time she was able to devote to

research (nearly ten years), and her wide ranging travel in which she examined manuscripts

throughout Europe and the United States. With virtually unlimited access to material in D-

WRgs the result of her continually developing contact with the archive through letters
and visits combined with the gradual relaxation of tensions between East and West she

was able to survey a representative sampling of all surviving manuscripts, particularly the

collections in the three largest repositories (Weimar, Budapest, and the Library of

14See ibid., 172.

15Ibid., 53.

16Rena Chamin Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions,
Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1986.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98

Congress) as well as a host of smaller collections. This comprehensive manuscript access

is reflected in the appendices which list the many documents she examined according to
copyist (Appendix A) and paper type (Appendix B).17 The assembling of this data has
proved invaluable as a tool for dating.
With this broad base of manuscript information correlated with references in

letters, dates on the manuscripts themselves, and other manuscript evidence, Mueller is able

to unravel the histories of a number of works in a variety of genres. A good example is the
discussion of the piano cycle Harmonies poitiques et religieuses, a work that, like the
Piano Concerto No. 1, had a genesis of nearly twenty years. She defines her approach as
follows:

In order to understand how Liszt approached the composition of this music and the
collection of the individual pieces in the set, it is necessary first to examine the
background against which the Harmonies was compiled. Any study of all the
evidence for Liszts conception and planning of the set, coupled with such sketch and
other evidence that exists, will necessarily take us far from the music found in the
present sketchbook Similarly, an examination of the lengthy process of thought
and arrangement of the component elements of the set helps to highlight the
importance of these religious ideas for Liszt during this period, and prompts a
revision of the accepted view of the chronology of the works.18

She is able to date with some accuracy all the various autograph manuscripts that are related
to the work, beginning in the mid-1830s through the surviving autograph fair copies

prepared for the publication in 1853. As with Winklhofers study, Muellers dissertation

provides additional tools that are valuable in correctly understanding Liszt autographs.19

17See ibid., 356-388. Mueller identifies 34 hands and 104 types of paper. Appendix D (pp.
394-418) includes watermark tracings.

18Ibid 252. The complete discussion may be found on pp. 251-277. See also her Le cahier
desquisses du Tasso et la composition des Harmonies poltiques et religieuses, in Actes du colloque
international Franz Liszt, Revue Musicale 405-406-407 (1987): 11-28.

19As another example of these techniques, see Muellers Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology:
The Case oiAnfangs wolU ich fast verzagen," 19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988): 132-147 (discussed in
chapter three, Two Examples).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99

She covers virtually the whole of Liszts active career as a composer, and her work is
invaluable as a foundation to further studies.

Liszts Working Method

For the purposes of understanding Liszts working method, it is unfortunate that


the most reproduced sketches are those folios from 1830 for a Revolutionary
symphony.20 The music on these pages is very much a continuity draft, containing only

the essential melody and harmony, and was evidently written out quickly as Liszt was

inspired by the events of the July Revolution in Paris.21 Turning to the sketchbooks, a far

different modus operandi is found, and it becomes apparent that the Revolutionary
Symphony represents an anomaly.

Liszts sketches generally fall into two categories. First, there are striking

thematic ideas, often completely worked out in melody and harmony, that could serve as

the basis for a larger work. A good example is a sketch for the opening of the Sonata in B

Minor, dated January 1851 (D-WRgs, N2)22 Representative of such sketches, the music

breaks off after ten measures, but the fragment contains many of the details of the final

version. The second category consists of highly developed drafts for orchestral works,
usually in short score. Sketchbook N2 contains such a draft for Mazeppa (Symphonic

Poem No. 6). Sketches for Tasso, lamento e trionfo (Symphonic Poem No. 2) exist for

both categories, with N1 containing the opening theme as Liszt would transform it in the

20These sketches are transcribed in Peter Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten
Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, Inaugural Dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1916), Notenbeilag 2,3-5 (example 2). The various facsimiles are cited in
chapter three, n. 28.

21See Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 17-20; idem, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing:
Hans Schneider, 1968), 1:14-16; also Paul Merrick, Revolution and Religion in the Music o f Liszt
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 3-5.

22See Winklhofer, Liszt's Sonata in B Minor, 170-171.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100

concluding Allegro con molto brio (mm. 397ff., see folio lr), and N5 a short score of the

earliest version of the work (ff. 31r-37v, 55r-v).23 There are few examples of sketches
for the steps in between and no intermediate drafts or continuity drafts such as that for the
Revolutionary Symphony.24

This lack of sketch material has led Rena Mueller to conclude: On the evidence of

these surviving sources, however, we must acknowledge that an immense amount of

intricate composition went on inside Liszts head, and that pieces were fully formed, in a
manner of speaking, before he ever put pen to paper.25 Liszt himself suggested as much

in a letter of 12 April 1855: Ces trois demiers jours je mdtais entetd &travailler darrache-

pied it ma Messe et suis presquau bout du Credo, ce qui est plus de deux tiers de

louvrage, les 4 autres morceaux se trouvant presque faits dans ma tete.26 The fact is
apparent from the high degree to which his compositions are worked out in the earliest
layer of any given autograph, and such a document therefore represents the end of the first

stage of his compositional process, at which time he recorded a finished product. That he
would proceed to revise these scores is irrelevant, because in one sense Liszt was never

finished with his material (as will be shown). The act of notating the music was significant

in itself: for the moment, Liszt was satisfied.


Liszts revisions often came soon after consigning his first thoughts to paper,

usually within the same manuscript. Of the Sonata in B Minor, Winklhofer observes that

^ S e e Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 285-303. Mueller includes facsimiles of several


pages from N5 and the page from Nl.

^ S e e also Andrew Bonner, Liszts Les Prdudes and Les Quaire tlim ens: A Reinvestigation,
19th Century Music 10 (Fall 1986), 100.

^M ueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 106. See also Winklhofers assessment of the Sonata
in B Minor, below.

^F ranz Liszt's Briefe, 3:7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101

.. because of both the quantity and quality of revisions in the composing draft (the

Lehman MS), we must assume that the majority of his work was carried out in this

document alone.27 With the exception of a handful of presentation copies,28 these

manuscripts consistently display the process of revision and refinement that are typical of
his working method, and Winklhofers assessment for the Sonata in B Minor, that .. so

much of the evolution of the piece is recorded in the autograph itself,29 is true for many of
these documents.

For his revisions, Liszt used the same methods and materials throughout his

career. He habitually left free staves above and below when writing out a composition,

fully cognizant of his own temperament and desire to emend, and thus simple revisions are
found on the same page as the original conception. Furthermore, Liszts cross-hatch was

usually a few strokes of the pen, as if he did not wish to obliterate his first thought
completely, and this often allows us to read the earlier layer without difficulty. It may be

that Liszt wanted to be sure he could have access to his first idea should he later feel the
need to return to it, but it is just as possible that his sparse method of deletion is no more

than a reflection of the speed at which he worked.30 For more substantial revisions, he
would apply collettes, often with sealing wax, but with the passage of time, the wax has

dried out, allowing removal and, again, easy reading. In the case of extreme

27Winklhofer, Liszt's Sonata in B Minor, 170.

28See, for example, the autographs of the transcriptions from Wagners Tannhauser and
Lohengrin in D-Bds (F. Liszt 14).

29Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 93.

30Contrast this with Chopin, whose cross-hatch was thorough to the point of obsessive. See
the comments in Jeffrey Kallberg, The Chopin Sources: Variants and Versions in Later Manuscripts and
Printed Editions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1982, xi-xii. Also compare almost any
Chopin autograph, seven.' L 'f V i l i t v i i iiu V 'v (A iO ii published in facsimile.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102

recomposition, however, Liszt would remove entire folios and replace them with new

ones. The original layer was then discarded, and few of these pages have survived.
Liszt generally worked in brown or black ink for the earliest layers in his

manuscripts, both for the original conception and the revisions that superceded it, but about

the time he arrived in Weimar, he began to use other writing implements for subsequent
layers. For dynamic, articulation, and expression markings, he regularly used red ink.

Winklhofer has found only a single manuscript before 1848 that uses red ink, and she

further observes: Liszts use of red ink is a sure sign that he was preparing an autograph
for publication.31 Liszt also stated his preference for this method in instructions for one

of his student copyists: Die Signaturen konnte er zuletzt vielleicht mit roter Tinte etwas
besser systematisch angeben.32 For additional markings or revisions, such as page
numbers, signs to indicate a continuation on another folio, or even titles, he would use

crayon or rotel, usually in red, blue, or orange. Winklhofer notes a systematic use of these
colors, with blue often reserved for the final layer,33 although Liszt could be inconsistent,

even within the same composition, as in the autograph for the Mephisto Waltz (US-NYpm,

Morgan). Her conclusion holds true for the most part, however, and it is always the case
that Liszt used his crayons toward the end of his work on a given manuscript. Liszt also

encouraged his students in this technique, as when he asked Hans von Biilow to look over

one of his manuscripts: Avant de livrer le manuscrit k limpression, je prendrai soin de le

revoir encore avec minutie et si en le parcourant vous trouvez quelques ameliorations k y

31Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 76.

32Helene Raff, Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die Musik 1 (1901-02),
1163 (5 June 1851). The R in the text is found to be August Reissmann upon comparison with the
original in D-Mbs (Raffiana VIII, no. 24).

33Winklhofer, Liszt's Sonata in B Minor, 76.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103

introduire, je vous saurai tr&s bon gr6 des coups de crayon que vous y ajouterez.34

Apparently it was important for Liszt to be able to see various layers at a glance, thus the
use of different colors and textures, although it is not always clear why he would need to
distinguish some details, dynamic markings for example, from others.35

By the time Liszt gave his autograph to be copied, he evidently felt that the

composition was in some sense finished, except perhaps for minor details. This much is
clear from the surviving sources, as Liszt never had his manuscripts copied in order to give
himself a clean canvas on which to continue working. These autographs reveal many

examples of measures crossed out and folios inserted, once the original layer became too

cluttered to revise, but there appears to be no point at which he felt his manuscript was

unusable, at least to himself. The 1849 version of Concerto No. 1 is a veritable cornucopia

of paper types and revision techniques (D-WRgs, H3a), all leading up to Conradis copy
(D-WRgs, H4), and the transcription of Harold en Italie reveals nine different papers used
over a period of fifty years (D-B, F. Liszt 2). The apparent exception to this observation

can be found within the experimental works during his first years in Weimar, especially the

earliest symphonic poems, where Liszt gave his autograph over to be copied, only to return

after a relatively brief period, sometimes months, to revise a work and require yet another

copy.36 But here as well there is no reason to doubt that Liszt expected each stage to be his

final one, and the experience of rehearsals or performances must have revealed aspects of

34Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt undHans von Biilow, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius]
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), 295-296 [October or November I860]. The manuscript in question
was of Liszts transcription of Bachs Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor, a work that, in distinction to Liszts
other Bach transcriptions (the six Preludes and Fugues), he copiously marked with performance indications.
He was evidently inviting Billow to add further annotations.

350 n this topic, see also Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 171-173.

36Raabes worklist records multiple copies by Joachim Raff for Ce quon entend sur la
montagne and Tasso. See also Bonner, Liszts Les Preludes, 98, and John Williamson, T he Revision of
Liszts Prometheus, Music & Letters 67 (1986), 390. These are Symphonic Poems nos. 1-3,5;
Orpheus, No. 4, was composed several years later.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104

the new forms and new techniques of orchestration that in turn required additional stages of

revision. Thus, the primary importance of any copy is that it signified that Liszt was
finished with a composition for the moment

This is not to say that there could not be other practical reasons for a copy to be
made. Often this was necessary, simply because the density of the corrections could be

daunting to even the most experienced engraver, although there are examples of such

autographs used as Stichvorlagen.37 An impasse of a different kind is found in many of


the concertos, where Liszt had written the piano solo and the orchestral parts in separate

manuscripts (discussed below), and the copy was necessary to collate the music into one

score. Another example is found in several copies of orchestral works by Conradi, where

Conradi copied his own orchestrations on the left, leaving the right-hand page blank.38

But if Conradis work was an expedient for the otherwise overworked composer, then

Liszt may have assumed alterations would be needed to satisfy himself completely.

Liszt treated these copies exactly as he treated his autographs, once he determined

that further revisions were necessary, and the same techniques of collettes, replacement

folios, and varied writing implements are again found. One notable exception is in the

precise use Liszt made of replacement folios. He often allowed the integrity of many of his

manuscript copies to stand, perhaps out of respect for the care and industry his copyists
had devoted to their work or maybe for the same reason that he used different writing

implements, that is, to be able to view his progress clearly. As a result, when he could not

make his revisions directly on the page, he began a series of bifolios with the necessary

37See the autograph for No. 2 of the Illustrations du Prophite, Les patineurs, in D-Bds (F.
Liszt 13).

38See the listing in Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 24, and idem, Franz Liszt, 2:70. These
manuscripts have been used to argue that Liszt needed Conradi to tutor him in the art of orchestration, but
see chapter five, Who Orchestrated Liszts Works?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105

insertions, cued to the manuscript by letter. Many of these have been preserved with the

manuscripts (Concerto No. 1, US-Wc, ML31.H43a no. 59 and ML31.H43a no. 63;
Concerto No. 2, D-WRgs, H5e and H5f), in some cases bound in with the score (Concerto

No. 1, US-NYpm, Lehman Deposit), while others are now separated (Totentanz, US-

NYpm, Lehman, the correction folios in a private collection in Milan). However, where

the revisions were more extensive, as in the final version of Totentanz, Liszt did not
hesitate to dismember the copy (D-WRgs, H10).

As is evident from the examples cited, the stage represented by the copy could be

repeated again and again. The succession of numerous copies is found only among the

Weimar manuscripts, however, where it was made possible by the many copyists Liszt had

at his disposal (see the discussion in chapter three), and not among the earlier works where

a copy would have been an additional expense. Perhaps the availability of his students for
such unpaid tasks encouraged Liszt to request more copies of his scores (see Table 4.1).

One drawback to this method is the greater possibility for errors to make their way from

copy to copy, as there is no evidence that Liszt subjected his copies to the same thorough

proof reading as his editions, although he corrected mistakes in the process of reviewing

the text Thus, certain types of errors can be found only by following the trail backwards

to the autograph. These are often very small details in phrasing or voicing, not necessarily

audible as a mistake and perhaps not important to Liszt Nevertheless, for an accurate
critical edition, the entire chain of sources must be taken into account39 These copies are

also a boon to the student of compositional process, as with each new copy Liszt very

likely considered his work finished.

39See, for example, the Introduction to Franz Liszt, Klavierkonzert Nr. 1, Es-Dur, ed. Ferenc
Rados (Budapest: Editio Musica Budapest, 1992).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106

Table^Jl^joncertt^^^

Tide Exemplar Copy Date


Concerto No. 1 USSR-Lsc D-WRgs: H3a, H3d 1839
Concerto No. 2 D-WRgs: H5c, H5d D-WRgs: H3d 1839
Concerto, op. posth. USSR-Lsc D-WRgs: H3d 1839
Concerto No. 1 D-WRgs: H3a D-WRgs: H4 1849
Concerto No. 2 D-WRgs: H5a,H5b D-WRgs: H4 1849
Totentanz D-WRgs: H6, Z31/2 US-NYpm: Lehman 1849
Beethoven Fantasy D-WRgs: H8, US-Wc: ML96.L58 1849
[edition]
Hungarian Fantasy D-WRgs: J1013, T1 US-Wc: ML96.L58 1849
Concerto No. 1 D-WRgs: H4 US-Wc: Heineman 1849
Concerto No. 2 D-WRgs: H4 D-WRgs: H5e 1850
Beethoven Fantasy US-Wc: ML96.L53 D-WRgs: H9 1852
Concerto No. 1 US-Wc: Heineman US-NYpm: Lehman 1853
Concerto No. 2 D-WRgs: H5e, H5f D-WRgs: HI 1 1853
Totentanz US-NYpm: Lehmann, D-WRgs: H10 1853
I-private
Concerto No. 1 US-NYpm: Lehman D-WRgs: H12 1856

Although there might be any number of intermediate stages in this process, the

final stage was publication. It has been demonstrated that Liszt was very much involved
with the publication of his compositions, at least through 1860 (see chapter three,

Editions), and therefore any differences between the Stichvorlage and the engraved score

can be attributed directly to him. The striking result of comparison between these sources,

however, is how little was changed. Liszts approach is evident in one of the few
surviving proof sets, that for the Weber Polonaise (D-WRgs, T3b), where the corrections

are mostly limited to engravers errors. Comparison between the Stichvorlage for Concerto

No. 1 (D-WRgs, H I2) and the first edition (published by Haslinger) yields a similiar

correlation. An interesting example can be found by comparing the autograph of the Sonata
in B Minor with the engraved copy. For some reason Liszts readable autograph did not
serve as the Stichvorlage, and Winklhofer was puzzled over the lack of any other surviving

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107

copies, despite references in a letter and another secondary source.40 A possible

explanation is that the publisher, Breitkopf & Hartel, had a copy made in-house for the
engraver that was never seen by Liszt; given his predilection for variantes, it is likely that

he would have emended a few passages. But most important of all, in this 700-measure

work, the differences between the autograph and Breitkopf s edition are limited to a few

wrong notes, missing dynamic signs, and the like.41 At first consideration, it should seem
odd that Liszt would suppress his natural tendency to revise. Perhaps this can be explained

by his awareness of both the high cost of quality engraving and the risk his publishers were

taking on behalf of his music. He may have made a conscious decision to limit his

interventions to proof correction and not composition. Such consideration is also reflected

in his dealings with publishers whose editions he superceded with revised editions, where
his usual practice was to purchase the rights to the earlier publication 42 Liszt did not want

anyone to lose money over him, and the economic factor may best explain why the printed
page brought with it such finality in his mind.

As final as the publication stage may have been for Liszt when he was correcting

proof, it ultimately became like all the other stages; final only for the moment Published or

not, he continued to see the potential for his material, whether for his juvenile Etudes pour

le piano of 1826 (reworked as the Vingt-quartre grandes itudes in 1837-38) or the mature
compositions revised during his Weimar period cited in the opening paragraph. The first of

these new editions was a revision of a Schubert song transcription, Die Rose, first

40See Winklhofer, Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 92.

41Note the list of corrections in the edition by G. Henle (1975), which is based primarily on the
autograph (US-NYpm, Lehman Deposit). Compare also Franz Liszt, New Edition o f the Complete Works
(Budapest: Editio Musica, 1970-), series 1, vol. 5, which is based primarily on the first edition.

42See, for example, his letters to Haslinger regarding the transcendental dtudes and Schubert
song transcriptions from the 1830s and 1840s in Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen 1835-1886, ed.
Margit Prahdcs (Kassel: BSrenreiter, 1966), 69 (25 January 1850), 83 (30 June 1855).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108

published in 1835 by Hofmeister. Liszt prepared the engravers copy by writing his
emendations directly on the published score (D-Bds, F. Liszt 9), while cueing additional
handwritten folios (lost). The new edition by Haslinger appeared in 1838,43 and this was

followed closely by the next such republication, the Grandes itudes in 1839. Although he
appears not to have done any such revisions during his Glanzperiode (perhaps for lack of

time), he returned to his own compositions during the Weimar years, systematically

revising the most important of his earlier works.44 These revisions were often extensive
enough to require him to write out a new autograph, although in the case of the Paganini
etudes he was able to use insertion folios (see D-WRtl, L. 2023). In the 1870s, there was

another spate of revised publications, mostly transcriptions, but here Liszt was concerned

with smoothing out some of his pianistic figurations, not reworking entire compositions.45

Correction folios were often sufficient, as in the page for Webers Momento capricioso, not

his own composition but typical of his method (D-Bds, F. Liszt 1).
In addition, there are emendations that survive only in autograph, most notably
the folios written for insertion in the Mephisto Waltz No. 1, which significantly lengthen

the middle section of the piece,46 and additional measures for Totentanz, written seventeen

years after the work was published in 1865.47 There is no indication that Liszt ever

43A copy that may have served for proof correction is also preserved in D-Bds (F. Liszt 10).

^L iszt referred to these revisions in a letter to Czerny: [J]ai soumis h un travail de revision
assez sdvfere et refondu compl&tement plusieurs de mes anciens ouvrages... (Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:107 [19
April 1852]).

45See, for example, the recent Russian edition of the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde, where
the emendations are printed above the original reading. This has been reprinted in Franz Liszt, Complete
Piano Transcriptions from Wagners Operas, intro. Charles Suttoni (New York: Dover, 1981), 128-133.

^ T h e pages are preserved in D-WRgs (U67). See also the comments in the Preface to the New
Liszt Edition, series 1, vol. 15, xiii-xiv.

47See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 2:320 (20 February 1882, to Martha Remmert). The music was not
printed by La Mara but can be found in D-WRgs (Ms. 72/8/4). An additional copy is catalogued as Z31,
no. 17. These emendations were later published by Alexander Siloti as part of his edition of the work

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109

intended to publish new editions of these works, nor was he anxious about the
dissemination of his final thoughts, as if toward the end of his life the ongoing process of

revision was meaningful in itself. For Liszt, the search for the best possible never ceased,
and at no point was a work closed to his passion des variantes.

Compositional Process in the Concertos48


The earliest surviving works for piano and orchestra, the earliest version of

Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, H3b, H3c) and the Grande fantaisie symphonique on themes

from Berliozs Lilio (D-WRgs, H7), exist only in copies by Gaetano Belloni.
Nevertheless, there is evidence of Liszts working method that can be culled from these

manuscripts and other primary sources. For Concerto No. 1, a clue is found in his letter
of 12 December 1832 to a student: [J]ai prepare et longuement 61abor plusieurs

compositions instrumentales entre autres. . . un Concerto dapr&s un plan qui je pense sera

nouveau et dont les accompagnements me restent h dcrire.49 This suggests a completely

worked-out piano draft without orchestra. Several years later, when Liszt requested that

his mother send various items to him in Geneva, he referred to the work as follows: Le
Concerto copi par Belloni avec la partie de piano et la Partition daprbs laquelle il la

copi6e.50 Thus, it may be inferred that Liszt wrote the orchestration in a separate

manuscript, and the two were combined only in the copy. This expedient allowed Liszt to

work out all the formal details of his composition prior to the task of orchestration.

(Leipzig: Ernst Eulenburg, 1911). They have never been incoiporated into any other edition and
consequently are not heard in performance.

48All the manuscripts discussed in this section are listed in Table 4.2. Omitted are the insert
folios (included in Table 4.1, however) and the two-piano scores.

49Robert Bory, Diverses lettres inddites de Liszt, Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fur


Musikwissenschaft 3 (1928), 10.

50See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hdrtel, 1918), 20 (28 July 1835). This letter is transcribed in appendix A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110

According to an dtude biographique in the Gazette musicale de Paris, Liszt

composed the Grandefantaisie symphonique during the autumn of 1834.51 Unlike the

Concerto, this work was played, and Bellonis copy was used for the performances of 9
April 1835 and 18 December 1836, as demonstrated by a few corrections in pencil,

possibly by Liszt or the conductor. There is also evidence of alterations, including

collettes, replacement pages, and the stubs of several folios that had been cleanly cut out

with a razor. Of the collettes, some correct copying errors, while others effect a bridge
between the missing pages and the ones that remain. All of these emendations are in

Bellonis hand and on the same paper found throughout the manuscript, therefore it is
likely they were written out soon after the copy was completed. Perhaps within weeks of

his copyists work, Liszt was refining his musical argument by tightening up the works
structure.

Far more useful for insight into Liszts working method are two autograph drafts

for Malediction (D-WRgs, HI 3a and loose pages in H2) and the autograph of De profundis
(D-WRgs, HI). These manuscripts can be dated with some confidence to 1834-35,52

which makes them the earliest surviving autographs to include music for instruments other
than piano and among the earliest with evidence of Liszts working methods. They are also
similar to the autograph of the Sonata in B Minor in that they appear to be Liszts working

copies.53 The drafts to Malediction are fully scored, and some passages match those that

5 lGazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 204.

52On De profundis, see Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:12(14 January 1835); see also the discussions in
chapters nine and ten of the present work.

53The only known sketch outside of these autographs is in N6 (page 21), the opening measures
of Malediction. This is a typical jotting of a brief musical idea, written down with all aspects of its rhythm
and harmony; see Rudolf Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinen fruhen Klavierwerken (Leipzig: Franz Wagner,
1933); rpL Musicologica Hungarica (Neue Folge) Veroffentlichungen des Musikwissenschaftlichen Instituts
in Budapest 3 (Kassel: Bdrenreiter, 1968), 124 (Notenbeispiel 9). In fact, the music appears with no
significant alteration in the copyists manuscript of the final version (D-WRgs, H2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll

are found in the copyists manuscript of the complete work (D-WRgs, H2). Further, these

drafts were originally part of bound volumes, suggesting that Liszt found himself in a
situation where the only way he could present a continuous manuscript to his copyist was

to dismantle them. One can imagine Liszt tearing apart his sketchbooks to sort out the
rejected passages from the revised versions, and these two examples are all that survived
the process. At the time he wrote them, however, Liszt probably did not think of them as

drafts, given that they are scored and continuous to the end of a section. Therefore, these
manuscript fragments represent an earlier conception of the work, and the musical content

suggests that composition advanced by sectional divisions.54 In addition, the rejected

drafts are completely devoid of performance indications and detailed dynamic and

expression markings, in stark contrast to the copyists manuscript, which is well marked.

Thus, we may also conclude that such indications were added at the end of the

compositional process, perhaps as the final step before releasing the autograph to be
copied.

The autograph of De profundis is more revealing of the method that produced it,

as it contains the entire work, at least to the extent that Liszt left it Here the signs of
compositional struggle are on display, with many folios tom out of the bound volume

(evidenced by the stubs), inserted bifolios, and pages that are crossed out or pinned
together so that several folios would turn as one (the pins have long since been removed).

Many of these deleted passages are completely orchestrated, indicating that the piece was

well advanced before the cut was made. Despite such cancellations, Liszt was in control of

his compositional goals to the extent that, unlike Malediction, the volume remained intact

If it is true that the score of De profundis was not preceded by any sketches (see the

^Winklhofer deduced a similar procedure in the sonata; see Liszts Sonata in B Minor, 110,
171-175.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112

discussion in chapter ten), then we have a striking example of the young composers

confidence, displayed by writing directly into his full score. These observations reinforce
the idea that much composing went on inside Liszts head or at the piano, and once he

wrote something down, it represented a polished conception, regardless of whether he

would revise it later. In the relatively brief time between the composition of Concerto No.

1 and De profundis, Liszt felt secure enough in his mastery of the orchestra to compose
both the piano and orchestral parts together, suggesting a gain in ability that would have

continued had work on De profundis not been interrupted by his departure for Basel in May
1835.

Liszt did not return to the concerto genre until 1839, probably in a concentrated

period of intense activity, as suggested by the paper type that runs through all the surviving

autographs.55 He completely overhauled Concerto No. 1 (USSR-Lsc, f 298 N5; D-Ngm,


107023/0; D-WRgs, Z31, no. 1 it is unknown how the manuscript became divided and

the first movement was lost), in some cases retaining only the thematic material and little

else, and wrote out Concerto No. 2 (D-WRgs, H5c 13 Sept [18]39, H5d) and the
Concerto, op. posth. (as Concerto No. 1, including D-WRgs, J78b). There is also a

copyists manuscript of an orchestration for the piano solo work Hexameron (A-Wgm,

11215), which is identical in instrumentation and general style to that of the Concerto, op.
posth., and very likely dates from this time.56 As can be seen in the autographs of the

55See appendix C for a listing of manuscripts according to paper type. Liszt also inscribed
Gombo on D-WRgs, H5c, and it is possible that he wrote out these autographs during a month of
isolation at the tenuta del Gombo in Tuscany; see Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume One, The Virtuoso
Years, 1811-1847, rev. ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 269. The grouping of these works
together is also suggested by a letter to Haslinger; see Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen, 46 (24
December 1839 the illegible word is meiner).

56The first known performance of the piano and orchestra version is 30 March 1840 in Leipzig;
see the review in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (1 April 1840), column 299. Raabe was of the
opinion that the orchestration was not by Liszt; see his Franz Liszt, 2:271. See also chapter five of the
present work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113

three concertos, Liszt returned to the expedient of writing out a piano score and afterwards
notating the orchestral parts in a separate manuscript. The piano concertante was not part

of this orchestration, and the original piano score was modified to serve as the solo part,
thereby saving Liszt the trouble of recopying it Thus, the piano part served first as a

working score, and, toward this end, one can observe blank staves between the systems of

the earliest layer of notation as well as the remainder of pages left blank at the end of a

section, all in anticipation of the possible need for revisions. Once the work was complete,

the manuscripts were given to Belloni to collate as part of the process of writing a fair copy
(D-WRgs, H3d, with additional folios for Concerto No. 1 in H3a).57 Although all three

works could be considered finished, Liszt did not add performance indications as he did in

the earlier works, and he also instructed Belloni to leave certain measures blank in the piano

part of the Concerto, op. posth., with the intention of filling them in with appropriate

figuration. Perhaps he thought it would be most expedient to write this material directly
into the integrated scores, but for some reason he never did.

The composition of Concerto No. 2 appears to have proceeded with the least

difficulty, as the autograph piano and orchestral scores are completely self-contained. That
is, once the work was completely drafted, Liszt was able to orchestrate it from beginning to

end without any major alteration to his piano score. By contrast, within the autographs for

Concerto No. 1 and the Concerto, op. posth., some sections consist of piano pages
followed by their orchestration, while others contain piano and orchestra together. The

implication of these convolutes is clear: in the process of orchestrating his draft, Liszt had
decided on revisions so extensive that it was necessary to scrap a portion of his original
conception, and he wrote the new version directly onto additional pages with all parts

57The manuscripts that make up D-WRgs, H3d, include the entire Concerto, op. posth., all but
the first gathering of Concerto No. 2 (it is lost), and isolated folios from Concerto No. 1. On the missing
pages of Concerto No. 1 and D-WRgs, H3a, see below.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114

present As with Malediction, these revised passages often encompass entire sections. The

struggle with Concerto No. 1 appears to have been greater, perhaps because Liszt was
recasting an earlier work that was originally quite different in conception. A result of this
process can be seen in the copyists manuscript of the 1832-5 version, where the folios for

the beginning and end of the opening movement were removed, perhaps in the hope of
adapting them for the revised work, and the remaining pages also contain evidence of
revision. Note that the Concerto, op. posth., was also based on earlier compositions, in

this case three works for piano solo,58 and the integration of shorter pieces into an

elaborate single-movement form must have posed similar problems. Concerto No. 2 may
have undergone the least internal revision precisely because the content was original.

Although Liszt may have returned to these works in 1846,59 his next efforts in

the concerto genre came after he settled in Weimar. The revisions of Concertos No. 1 and
No. 2 can be dated to May 1S49,60 and it is possible that he produced a total of six works

for piano and orchestra in another concentrated burst of activity. This is suggested by
paper types that are shared by all six and the existence of copies by August Conradi dated

21 October 1849 (see chapter three, Manuscript Copies, and below). None of these
works is entirely new, for, as with the concertos of ten years earlier, Liszt reworked or
adapted other compositions. He revised his 1839 conceptions of Concerto No. 1 (D-

WRgs, H3a) and No. 2 (D-WRgs, H5a 6 Mai 1849, H5b), and provided orchestrations

58//if variations, op. 1, and Deux Allegri di bravura, op. 4, all published in 1825.

59See Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse dAgoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier, 2 vols. (Paris:
Bernard Grasset, 1933-34), 2:368 (8 October 1846): ...je ne moccuperai plus que de mes trois
concertos... Liszt had been estranged from dAgoult since 1844, and, earlier in 1846, she had published her
novel Nilida under the nom de plume of Daniel Stem, where she damned Liszt by casting him as the
ineffectual painter Guermann. Liszts comments, in context, may have been intended to convey that he was
at work on important original compositions, in contrast to his literary counterpart, whom he never
mentioned.

^ S e e Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen, 66 (30 May 1849, to Franz Kroll), quoted in chapter
three, August Conradi.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115

to his Capriccio alia turca sur des motifs de Beethoven (D-Bds, F. Liszt 7; D-WRgs, H8),

an unpublished Hungarian Rhapsody (D-WRgs, Tl), and a transcription of a Polonaise by


Weber, op. 72 (autograph lost). Only Totentanz (D-WRgs, H6) may have been new,

although the earliest manuscript fragment suggests that he drafted the work in piano score
in late 1847, based on the paper type (D-WRgs, Z31, no. 2).

Liszt considerably reworked his two piano concertos, and in both cases he

returned to Bellonis copies, which, despite their errors, represented the collation of his
autographs. For Concerto No. 1, he retained as much material as he could from the copy,

but in places where his alterations were more radical, he wrote out the music afresh with all

parts. The resulting manuscript is a curious compilation: some folios are predominantly in

Bellonis hand, heavily marked with Liszts autograph emendations, while others are
completely autograph. He may have attempted the same process with Bellonis copy of

Concerto No. 2, as the first signature of nested bifolios is missing, but ultimately Liszt
wrote out his new conception in piano score from start to finish, followed by the

orchestration in a separate manuscript (as in the 1839 version). In addition, titles for the

two concertos appear for the first time: I[re] Concerto / Symphonique / Es Dur, 2d

Concerto Symphonique / Piano e t/ Orchestre, along with a date on the latter of 6 May
1849.61 Totentanz appears to have been written out in the manner of Concerto No. 2, as

Liszts autograph contains only the orchestral parts. Unfortunately, only a single folio of

the piano part survives, so that it cannot be stated with certainty how the two fitted
together.

61R aff s copies of Concertos No. 1 (1849) and No. 2 (1850) are also titled Concerto
symphonique (there is no title on the copy by Conradi that came between them; see discussion below). It
is unclear to what extent Liszts use of this term represents common practice. For example, Henry Litolff
titled his works for piano and orchestra concerto symphonique, but these are multiple movement woiks.
Further, it is possible that Liszt reverted to the traditional label of concerto upon learning of Litolff s
publication. In this regard, note that Liszts Concerto No. 1 is dedicated to Litolff. See also the
discussions with regard to De profundis in chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix, and chapter ten,
Historical Background.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116

In the three piano solo works for which he provided orchestral accompaniments,

Liszt left much of the original musical argument intact. For the Hungarian Rhapsody, he

wrote out an orchestration on separate folios to go with a copy by Joachim Raff of the solo

version (D-WRgs, J1013). The transcription of Webers Polonaise is quite faithful to the
original work, but to give his arrangement more substance, Liszt added an introduction
borrowed from another Polonaise, op. 21, and a cadenza at the mid-point. From the

Capriccio, he preserved the body of the work but composed an opening section for the

orchestra based on another movement from Beethovens score and rewrote the conclusion

to include the new theme. The autograph for the orchestration reflects these emendations to
the solo work: the Introduction is completely lacking, and the music begins at the point

where the piano solo version and Liszts new conception coincide, along with instructions
to take the piano part from the solo version (wie gedruckt). The closing section has only
shorthand indications, directions for Conradi to do the necessary orchestration as he

prepared the copy. The new Introduction survives only in piano reduction (D-Bds, F.

Liszt 7), and Liszt may have given Conradi instructions to orchestrate this music as well.62

Note that this is the only instance throughout all of Liszts concertos where he engaged

someone else to write the orchestration.


All six of these works were copied by Conradi, and everything about the
appearance of these copies, from the binding to the paper to the handwriting, suggests that

they were executed about the same time (Concertos No. 1 and 2: D-WRgs, H4; Totentanz:
US-NYpm, Lehman; Beethoven Fantasy, Weber Polonaise, and Hungarian Fantasy: US-

Wc, ML96.L58). Although the three volumes contain the same inscription on the flyleaf in

62The autograph in D-Bds has heretofore been identified as an unpublished piano transcription of
a march from Beethovens incidental music to Die Ruinen von Athen. This study represents the first
identification with the piano and orchestra version. Although differing from the final version, the content
matches precisely the earlier version in Conradis copy in US-Wc (discussed below). Note also the words
on the last page, Ende des Stii[c]ks, over a sketch that is similar to Liszts newly written conclusion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117

the hand of Liszt or the Princess Wittgenstein, terminde le 21 octobre 1849, it is known
that the two concertos were copied by the end of July,63 and the other works may date

from the summer as well. Given the luxurious binding, it might be concluded that Liszt

thought his six concertos were in some sort of final state. Closer inspection of the

transcription volume reveals otherwise, as autograph correction folios for the Weber

Polonaise and the Hungarian Fantasy are bound with Conradis work, and the pagination

for each of the three compositions is independent of the other (i.e., each begins with page
1). The binding was therefore an afterthought.64

These volumes were in one sense a liability, as Liszt would be loathe to send

them off to a publisher to serve as Stichvorlagen, nor could he in good conscience

dismantle them for further revisions. That he felt publication was imminent in the case of

the two piano concertos is proved by a handwritten list of compositions in Conradis hand
(D-WRgs, Z15) listing these works and not any of the others (see chapter two, Liszts
Thematic Catalogues). Another copy was therefore necessary, and, not surprisingly,

before giving the scores to be copied, Liszt felt inclined to make some changes. In
Concerto No. 1, only a single alteration required the use of one of the blank pages that

separated the two works in the volume. The rest of Liszts emendations were entered

directly into the copy, with many expression, dynamic, and articulation markings appearing

for the first time in red ink (the hue actually borders on pink). He also filled in several
passages in the piano part that he had instructed Conradi to leave blank. All of these

changes were carefully recorded by Joachim Raff in his copy (US-Wc, ML31.H43a, no.
59, dated 8 December 1849), who also tidied up the score by extending markings to other

instruments (vertically) and clarifying such details as solo or a due in the wind and

63See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 287 (1 August 1849).

^ S e e also Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 161-162.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118

brass instruments. The situation is similar for Concerto No. 2 but with even fewer

alterations (no extra folios were needed), and Raffs copy of a few months later is laid out
identically to that of the first concerto (D-WRgs, H5e).65

Around this time, Liszt also prepared a piano and orchestra version of his Grand

solo de concert, also referred to as Concerto ohne Orchester.66 The Grand solo appeared

in its piano solo guise in 1851, and, rather than the two concertos, the Weber Polonaise
was published the following year.67 A copy by Biilow of the latter work was likely made

from Conradis copy as emended by Liszt (D-WRgs, T3a), but there are no autograph

markings on this manuscript, which also served as the Stichvorlage. The remaining five

works for piano and orchestra, now joined by a transcription of Schuberts Wanderer

Fantasy,68 resided in Liszts portfolio for several years. Biilows first concert tour in
1853, taking him through Vienna and Budapest, may have prompted Liszt to rummage

through his desk drawer in order to provide him with suitable concerto vehicles, resulting
in the revision of the Beethoven and Hungarian Fantasies. For the Beethoven,
emendations to Conradis copy are reflected in a copy by Raff (D-WRgs, H9), and signs of

65R aff s copy can be dated to February 1850; see Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel
ihrer Briefe, 397.

66See, for example, ibid., 389 (21 December 1849). Liszt wrote out his orchestration for this
work (private collection, London), probably in 1850, but there is no known copy collating the orchestra and
piano parts. In his correspondence, Raff stated sein Solo habe ich instrumental und 2 mal kopiert..., but
there are no known copies to verify whether this is the same work. Liszt never attempted to publish his
concerto version, although he revised an orchestration of his Concerto pathStique, his two-piano version of
the Grand solo (see below).

67Unpublished letter, D-Bds (Mus. ep. Fr. Liszt 18), transcribed in appendix A.

68This work was first performed on 13 April 1851 by Saloman Jadassohn with Liszt
conducting. The earliest references are to this performance, but with the autograph inaccessible (USSR-Lsc,
Zilotyi 6 an attempt to obtain a microfilm was unsuccessful), no conjecture can be offered as to the date
Liszt wrote the transcription. An orchestral score and piano part in D-WRgs (T2) have no autograph
markings and at any rate appear to date from 1852. The published score is dated c. 1857: Franz Schubert /
Grosse Fantasie / Op. 15. / Symphonisch bearbeitet / fiir / Piano und Orchester / v. / Franz Liszt. / . . . /
Wien, Spina, plate number C.S. 15,974. Although the edition is engraved, the title page is printed..

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119

rehearsal and concert use suggest that it was taken on tour by Biilow. A copy of the

Hungarian Fantasy, presumably contemporary, is lost Although neither copy can be dated

precisely, a letter of Biilow reveals that they were in existence by 27 January 1853.69
Biilow left for Vienna in May, and a letter from Liszt reveals that the composers
thoughts regarding concerto revisions did not end with his pupils departure: Jachfcve de

remanier pour les faire copier definitivement, mes deux Concertos et la Danse des

Morts.70 These new versions share similar revision techniques as well as a paper type
that can be dated to this time. For the concertos, Liszt took Raffs copies of 1849 and 1850

and wrote his alterations directly on the scores, but, unlike the earlier revisions, he

emended far more extensively, and many of the changes required entry in a separate series

of bifolios, which included orchestral parts where necessary (Concerto No. 1: US-Wc,

ML31.H43a, no. 63; Concerto No. 2: D-WRgs, H5f). The same method was also used to
revise Conradis copy of Totentanz (private collection, Milan). These bifolios were

collated with the scores and copied by Dionys Pruckner, one of Liszts students (Concerto
No. 1: US-NYpm, Lehman; Totentanz, D-WRgs, H10), and an unknown copyist

(Concerto No. 2: D-WRgs, HI l).71 The same paper runs through the correction folios
and the copies, suggesting that the process was carried out within a brief span of dme,

perhaps weeks.

The final revisions for all of these works follow much the same procedure, with
Liszt making his corrections directly onto the copies. Only Concerto No. 1 required

See Hans von Biilow, Briefe und Schriften, ed. Marie von Biilow, 2d ed., 7 vols. (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & HMel, 1899-1908), 1:501.

70Liszt-Bulow, 21 (12 May 1853).

71Raabe had misidentified the copyist as Raff; see Franz Liszt, 2:312. Muellers speculation
that the hand is another of Liszts students, Hans von Bronsart, is also incorrect, as he had not yet arrived in
Weimar; see Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 357.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120

another score, perhaps for the premiere on 17 February 1855, and this copy was again

executed by Pruckner (D-WRgs, H12). Liszt had made extensive revisions to the earlier

version, including the preparation of additional folios (now bound into the back of US-

NYpm), and these are reflected in the new score, which also served as the Stichvorlage. In

addition, Liszt had Pruckner prepare a copy from US-NYpm, with the solo part alternating
with blank staves, so that he could enter an orchestral reduction for a second piano (USSR-
Lsc, f 298 N5), also used as the Stichvorlage. Apparently, Liszt made further adjustments

to this two-piano version while the full score was out of his hands, and he instructed
Biilow to have Conradi amend the full score in order to bring the two copies into

agreement72 Despite evidence of Conradis work, slight divergences remained between

the two manuscripts and are found in the published editions that appeared in 1857.73
For the final versions of Concerto No. 2 and the Beethoven Fantasy, Liszt

required insert folios, but, in the case of the Concerto, he was able to prepare them so they

could be added to the existing score. Dates appear on the title page of Concerto No. 2 as

part of the dedication to his student, Hans von Bronsart, the pianist who premiered the
work on 7 January 1857. The first, Januar [18]57, was evidently written around the

time of the first performance, the second, 19 Februar [18]61, at the time Liszt sent the

manuscript to be engraved. The autograph revisions found throughout the copy cannot be

dated precisely, and all that can be said with certainty is that Liszt was putting the finishing

72See Liszt-Biilow, 172-173 (14 March 1856).

73The title page of the first edition has an elegant lithograph by Kratzschmer: l tes /
CONCERT / fur / Pianoforte / und / Orchester, / HENRY LITOLFF / zugeeignet / von / F. LISZT. I . . . I
WIEN / bei CARL HASLINGER quondam TOBIAS / . . . , plate number C.H. 11,933. The work
appeared simultaneously in both editions, full score and two-piano. The two-piano score was apparently a
novel idea for its time; see Liszt-Biilow, 322 (12 November 1864).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121

touches on the concerto in January 1861.74 For some reason, the manuscript did not serve

as the engravers copy, although it reflects the published version in all respects. Perhaps
the publisher had a copy prepared, which Liszt never saw.75 Raffs copy of the Beethoven

Fantasy did serve as the Stichvorlage, and Liszt wrote out his last emendations in
November 1864, at which time he also gave the work its definitive tide: Fantasie uber
Motive aus Beethovens Ruinen von Athen.16 The Hungarian Fantasy was also published
at this time, but, with the whereabouts of the manuscript unknown, the revisions cannot be

documented, nor can the origin of the title, Fantasie uber ungarische Volksmelodieen

[sic].77 The manuscript copy of Totentanz shows considerably more signs of revision as
Liszt struggled to give it final form, with at least two distinct passes through the
manuscript, the second of which likely precipitated the dismantling of the copy. Liszt

referred to his final work on the manuscript in a letter of 26 November 1864,78 and Lina

74See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 5:122 (10 January 1861). Liszt also prepared a piano reduction of
the orchestral part for a two-piano score, which may also date from this time (D-WRgs, W23).

75According to the plate number, the edition appeared in 1863: 2tes / CONCERT / Pianoforte
und Orchester / HANS VON BRONSART / gewidmet / VON / F. LISZT. / . . . / MAINZ / bei B. Schotts
Sdhnen / . . . , plate number 16617.

76See Liszt-Bulow, 323 (12 November 1864). FANTASIE / iiber / Motive / aus / Beethovens
RUINEN VON ATHEN / fur Piano / mit Orchesterbegleitung / von / FR. LISZT. / . . . / LEIPZIG, C. F.
W. SIEGEL / . . . , plate number 2930. The work was dedicated to the Russian pianist, Nicolas
Rubinstein.

77Fantasie / iiber / ungarische Volkmelodieen [sic] / fiir / PIANOFORTE UND ORCHESTER


/ von / FRANZ LISZT. / Fiir Hans v. Biilow componirt u. von diesem in Conzerten vorgetragen. / . . . /
Leipzig, Gustav Heinze / . . . , plate number G.60.H. (full score); G.61.H. (two-piano score). Biilow
reduced the orchestra for second piano, the only example of Liszt not doing it among the concerto editions.

78See Liszt-Biilow, 324-325. Autographs of a piano reduction of the orchestral part (D-WRgs,
W20) and inserts to create a piano solo version (US-Wc, ML96.L58) appear to date from this time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122

Ramanns date of a revision from 1859 may apply to the earlier set of alterations.79 Again,
the publisher had a copy made for the engraver.80

Liszts interest in the concerto genre continued to the end of his life. In August

and September 1885, he composed a work in two-piano score for his student, Sophie

Menter, which has been identified with the so-called Concerto in the Hungarian Style.81

Two months later, he applied himself to revising a transcription by Edward Reuss of his
two-piano Concerto patMtique (US-Wc, ML96.L58). Liszt found he could not resist his

old compulsion for variantes and, applying the techniques he had used throughout the
years, added passages and revised portions of the score by cueing twelve pages of

additional folios (lost).82 He seems not to have had anything to do with these works after

handing over the manuscripts, perhaps by necessity given his failing health. In a typical

gesture, he did not ask for, nor did he receive, credit on the title page for his emendations.

The Problem of a Fassung letzter Hand

For a composer whose work was in a perpetual state of revision, the concept of a

definitive reading is difficult to define. The editors of the New Liszt Edition certainly felt

ambiguous about the composers additions to the Mephisto Waltz, as they did not

79See Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1880-1894), 3:345.

80This copy is preserved in the Sieg collection and was unavailable to the editor of the
miniature score published by Editio Musica Budapest (Z. 40 048,1983); see p. vii. Title page of the first
edition: TODTENTANZ. / (Danse macabre). / PARAPHRASE / uber / DIES IRAE / fiir Piano und
Orchester / von / FR. LISZT I . . . / LEIPZIG, C. F. W. SIEGEL. / . . . , plate number 2814.

81See Ramann, Franz Liszt als KUnstler und Mensch, 3:342, fn. 5; A. W. Gottschalg, Franz
Liszt in Weimar und seine letzten Lebensjahre, ed. Carl Alfred Ren6 (Berlin: Arthur Glaue, 1910), 155;
Margit PraMcs, Liszts letztes Klavierkonzert, Studia Musicologica 4 (1963): 195-200; idem, Briefe aus
ungarischen Sanunlungen 1835-1886,447. It has been argued that the work published in 1909 under
Menters name as Hungarian Gypsy Songs is this work; see Maurice Hinson, T he Long Lost Liszt
Concerto, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 13 (June 1983), 53-58.

82See Franz Liszts Briefe, 2:383-384 (4 November 1885).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123

Tabte4j^Manusa^^
Title Copyist Shelflist Date
Concerto No. 1 in E-flat Major Belloni D-WRgs, H3b, H3c c. 1834-35
USSR-Lsc, f 298 N5; 1839
D-Ngm 107023/11; D-
WRgs, Z31/1
D-WRgs, H3a 1849
Conradi D-WRgs, H4 1849
Raff US-Wc, ML96.L58 1849
Pruckner US-NYpm, Lehmann 1853
Pruckner D-WRgs, H12 1856
Concerto No. 2 in A major D-WRgs, H5c, H5d 1839
Belloni D-WRgs, H3d c. 1840
D-WRgs, H5a, H5b 1849
Conradi D-WRgs, H4 1849
Raff D-WRgs, H5e 1850
(?) D-WRgs, H ll 1853,rev.
1857,1861
Concerto in E-flat Major, op. posth. USSR-Lsc, f 298 N5; 1839
D-Ngm 107023/13;
D-WRgs, J78b, Z31/1
Belloni D-WRgs, H3d c. 1840
Concerto path&ique (?) US-Wc, ML96.L58 1885
De profundis, psaume instrumental D-WRgs, HI 1835
Fantasie iiber ungarische Volksmelodien D-WRgs, T1 c. 1849
Conradi US-Wc, ML96.L58 1849
Fantasie iiber Motive aus Beethovens D-Bds, F. Liszt 7; c. 1849
Ruinen von Athen D-WRgs, H8
Conradi US-Wc, ML96.L58 1849
Raff D-WRgs, H9 c. 1852
Grand solo de concert private c. 1850
Grande fantaisie symphonique Belloni D-WRgs, H7 1834
Hexameron (?) A-Wgm, 11215 c. 1839
Malediction D-WRgs, H2, H13a 1834-35
(?) D-WRgs, H2 1835
Schubert Wanderer Fantasy USSR-Lsc, Zilotyi 6 c. 1851
(?) D-WRgs, T2 c. 1852
Totentanz D-WRgs, H6, Z31/2 c. 1849
Conradi US-Wc, ML96.L58 1849
Pruckner D-WRgs, H10 1853,rev.
1859,1864
Weber Polonaise Conradi US-Wc, ML96.L58 1849
BUlow D-WRgs, T3a c. 1851

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124

incorporate these measures into the body of the work but rather printed them in smaller type

in the proximity of the measures they replace and augment Did these pages represent

Liszts final intention, or did the fact that he never issued a revised edition suggest that the
composer himself was unsure of their worth?

This question of the definitive state of a musical composition was explored by


Georg von Dadelsen in his article, Die Fassung letzter Hand in der Musik, where he

discussed the problem in the context of the life and work of Beethoven, Schumann, and

Bach.83 He concluded that the point at which a text became final was different for each

composer, depending on various circumstances of time, place, and working habits. By


comparison, Liszts case makes an equivocal answer difficult. Throughout much of his

career, there were no deadlines, nor pre-set formats to which his music had to conform.

He could compose as he wished for whatever medium he wished, and compositions

typically were recast over a period of years. Mueller assesses the problem as follows:

It seems necessary to create a typology both of the sources and of Liszts music
itself. We must establish when any work, through compositional alterations,
becomes a different work. Because Liszt adjusted his own and his copyists
manuscripts at almost every stage of work, there is widespread uncertainty as to what
degree of completeness or finality is represented. The concept of die Fassung letzter
Hand is, as was shown by Dadelsen, a state of a work that varies from composer to
composer. In all but a very few cases, once a musical idea engaged Liszt sufficiently
for him to work it out into a full-fledged composition, it rarely lost its viability or
continuing interest.84

A good example can be found among the concertos in the Hungarian Fantasy, a work
whose material is identical with Hungarian Rhapsody No. 14 for piano solo and Hungarian

Rhapsody No. 2 for orchestra, and all three can trace their heritage back to a piano solo

83Georg von Dadelsen, Die Fassung letzter Hand in der Musik, Acta Musicologica 33
(1961): 1-14.

^M ueller, Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology, 134; also idem, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook,
108ff.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125

work from the 1840s. In this case, there can be no question that these works stand
independent of each other. But what of a situation such as the song Anfangs wollt ichfast

verzagen, where Mueller describes two discrete groups of sources, concluding:

Thus the modem investigator is faced with several manuscripts reflecting different
states of a piece, each of which appears to have a claim to its own integrity. The
appearance in print of one state of a work, however, is not absolute proof that Liszt
regarded the other states as unsatisfactory or even that the published text was not
subject to revision.85

If Mueller is correct, where does this leave the editor who wishes to publish a critical

Cv' ion or the performer who wishes to realize best the composers intentions?
The problem of a Fassung letzter Hand is a significant issue with regard to the
concertos. Liszt would never have published the works from the 1830s without further
revision, especially in a case such as the Concerto, op. posth., where he canceled solo
passages in the piano part without providing an alternative. Are we even justified in

publishing such compositions? And given Liszts propensity for revisions, what about the

passages that he deleted from the works he issued, for example the De profundis melody
in Totentanz or passages that he added years after publication, again in Totentanz? If we

argue that it is acceptable to ignore the latter, does that give us the license to restore the

former? Is it valid to take the additions to the orchestrated version of the Concerto
path&tique and write them into the two-piano version, as August Gollerich did? Further,

Liszt issued a new edition of the Wanderer Fantasy in 1874, and he intended to revise the

Weber Polonaise in 1876.86 Are the earlier editions therefore superceded? Are all versions
acceptable? In a sense, we are left with a paradox: if we take Liszts statement at its face

value, cest la recherche persistante du mieux possible qui caract&ise le veritable artiste,

85Mueller, Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology, 147.

86See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 8:301 (4 December 1875).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126

then we must assume that the last version is the best. And yet he always allowed himself to
be satisfied at some point. Is there no such thing as a Fassung letzter Hand for a

composer with Liszts temperament?

While it may not be possible to definitively answer these questions for many
works, the most light can be shed through an understanding of Liszts working method

which has far greater ramifications than simply the ordering, dating, and transcription of

his manuscripts: it bears upon the very essence of his compositional process and

compositional intent, and it is only from his working methods that we can understand the
practical meaning that a Fassung letzter Hand may have had for him. This knowledge

can also help us produce critical editions, both of the works Liszt published as well as

those he did not. In those cases where Liszt published a work and left it untouched, the

Fassung letzter Hand is self-evident; where the situation is less clear, the musicologist is
forced into the composers chair, not necessarily to make the decisions that the composer

never made, although this must occasionally be done, but at the very least to clarify the
options.

The propriety of rummaging around a composers workshop, when he is no


longer in a position to cast us out, is a question which this dissertation will make no attempt

to answer. It can be justified only to the extent that, by studying these manuscript
materials, we can document Liszts development as a composer and therefore his

contribution to nineteenth-century music. Though it is an impossible task to tread in the

footsteps of a creator, the chapters that follow will attempt to give the reader the tools to
trek behind and, where we have no road to follow, to arrive at plausible destinations.87

87It goes without saying that attempts to cobble together versions that the composer would
never recognize must be condemned outright. For examples of recent compilations and the arguments
against them, see Winton Dean, The True Carmen?, Musical Times 106 (1965): 846-855; idem, The
Corruption of Carmen: The Perils of Pseudo-Musicology, Musical Newsletter 3 (1973): 7-12,20; revised
as idem, Essays on Opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 281-300. See also Philip Gossett, Reviews
of Records: Rossini, The Siege o f Corinth," Musical Quarterly 62 (1976): 626-638.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V

WHO ORCHESTRATED LISZTS WORKS?

It has become a commonplace in the secondary literature to state that Liszt did not
know how to orchestrate before his arrival in Weimar and that he hired August Conradi and

Joachim Raff to teach him the basics. Humphrey Searles comments in the The New

Grove summarize well the prevailing opinion: As late as the mid-1840s, when at work on
the first of his Beethoven cantatas, Liszt was worried about his lack of skill as an
orchestrator, and when he began to write for orchestra alone he enlisted the help of

collaborators for his scores.1 Searle is quick to state that the final versions of all his
orchestral works were revised by Liszt himself and represent his own intentions,2 and

Alan Walker is even more emphatic when he concludes: If Conradi and Raff had never
come to Weimar, Liszt would still have emerged as an orchestrator of the front rank.3

Nevertheless, the impression left is of a virtuoso pianist, poorly trained as a musician and

ill-equiped to compose symphonic music.

That Liszt instructed Conradi and Raff to orchestrate several of his compositions
is beyond question, as shown by the primary sources. The precise nature of this
collaboration is crucial and remains misunderstood, however, as has the question of Liszts

ability in this area before 1848. Incidental to this discussion is its bearing on the works for

Humphrey Searle and Sharon Winklhofer, The New Grove Early Romantic Masters 1: Chopin,
Schumann, Liszt (New York: Norton, 1985), 288. See also Searle, The Orchestral Works, in Franz
Liszt: The Man and His Music, ed. Alan Walker (London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1970), 279-280.

2The New Grove Early Romantic Masters, 288.

3Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume Two, The Weimar Years, 1848-1861 (New York: Knopf,
1989), 205.
127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128

piano and orchestra: Concerto No. 1 was an early casualty (as outlined below), but this
misattribution has long been corrected in the scholarly literature, if not always

acknowledged. The ensconced view of Liszt as unqualified for the task of orchestral

composition requires revision, and a fresh inquiry into the evidence produces a
significantly different picture. Not surprisingly, the way that the issue was introduced has
affected its discussion ever since, and it is best to begin with a review of the secondary

sources.

The Initial Allegations

With the exception of Franz Doppler, to whom he gave co-credit in the


arrangement of six Hungarian Rhapsodies,4 Liszts name was never associated with

another composer with regard to the task of orchestration. It was therefore a considerable

revelation when Andreas Moser reported the following in his biography of Joseph
Joachim, first published in 1898:

Raff, der Liszt nach Weimar gefolgt war, urn ihm bei der Instrumentierung seiner
neuen Orchesterwerke behilflich zu sein. Da Liszt bis dahin nur fur Klavier
geschrieben hatte, war er mit der Orchestertechnik so wenig vertraut, da8
beispielweise die Begleitung seines Es-dur-Konzertes von Anfang bis zu Ende von
Raff orchestriert wurde. Erst im Lauf der Zeit eignete sich Liszt jene virtuose
Behandlung des komplizierten Orchesterapparates an, die man spater in so hohem
Masse an ihm bewundem sollte.5

Mosers source was Joachim himself, who was still alive at the time and whose authority

was unimpeachable, based on his reputation as one of the finest violinists of the century
and his presence in Weimar as Liszts concertmaster during the years in question (1850-
1852).

4See Searle, The Music o f Liszt, rev. ed. (New York: Dover Publications, 1966), 45.

5Andreas Moser, Joseph Joachim: Ein Lebensbild, 2 vols., rev. ed. (Berlin: Deutschen Brahms-
Gesellschaft, 1908), 1:96. See also the earlier 1898 edition, p. 75. The quote is verbatim in both sources.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129

It is worth asking why such a statement should appear at all in a biography of the

violinist Raff and Joachim were good friends while both lived in Weimar, but Raffs
responsibilities for Liszt whatever they might have been, could have had little influence on
Joachims development as a musician. The explanation can be found through an

examination of Joachims correspondence, where he displayed a near-pathological hatred


toward his former Kapellmeister, as found in his letter to Liszt of 27 August 1857:

So I shall remain silent no longer on a subject which I confess to you, your manly
spirit had the right to demand to know long before. Your music is entirely
antagonistic to me; it contradicts everything with which the spirits of our great ones
have nourished my mind from my earliest youth. If it were thinkable that I could ever
be deprived of, that I shall ever have to renounce, all that I learnt to love and honour
in their creations, all that I feel music to be, your strains would not fill one comer of
that vast waste of nothingness.6

Joachim later joined forces with Johannes Brahms, becoming a co-signer of the notorious

Manifesto that appeared in the Berliner Musik-Zeitung Echo of 6 May 1860 against the

so-called Musik der Zukunft, which was directed against Liszt and his supporters. For

the rest of his career, Joachim kept clear of the music of Liszt and his disciples, and the
well-known engraving of the two shaking hands during Liszts last visit to London in April

1886 should not be mistaken for reconciliation.7 Such lingering resentment spilled over
into the pages of Mosers biography.8

6Letters to andfrom Joseph Joachim, selected and trans. Nora Bickley, with a preface by J. A.
Fuller-Maitland [London: Macmillan, 1914], 147; also Briefe von und an Joseph Joachim, ed. Joseph
Joachim & Andreas Moser, 3 vols. (Berlin: Julius Bard, 1911-1913), 1:442; Briefe hervorragender
Zeitgenossen an Franz Liszt, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 3 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1895-
1904), 2:137.

Reproduced in Ernst Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten
(Munich: List Verlag, 1986), 316-317 (item 621).

8There is another, quite different question, posed by Eleanor Pertinyi in her discussion of
Joachims relationship with Liszt: It would also be interesting to know why he wanted Raff to get the
credit for compositions so despicable. She concludes: Hatred has its own logic. Liszt: The Artist as
Romantic Hero (Boston, Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1974), 324.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130

Joachims memory of his Weimar years may have been jogged by Raffs widow.

The final volume of Lina Ramanns three-volume biography had been issued in 1894, and

Doris Raff must have considered it an insult to her husbands memory to see him
repeatedly referred to as merely a secretary or amanuensis.9 She evidently wrote Joachim

shortly thereafter, and his letter to her of 29 October 1895 elaborated the allegation further:

Sehr begreiflich finde ich es, dass es Sie verletzt und beunruhigt, wenn das
Andenken Hires verehrten lieben Gatten durch die Notiz er ware Kopist von Liszt
gewesen getriibt wild. Es ist dies eine entschiedene Entstellung des Sachverhalts.
Ich habe Raff wie Liszt wahrend meines Aufenthaltes in Weimar sehr nahe gestanden
und oft Gelegenheit gehabt, die Art der Raffschen Arbeit fur Liszt genau kennen zu
lemen. Sie bestand darin, dass er im Klavierauszug-Skizziertes vollstandig
instrumenderte also eine ganz selbstandige Arbeit. Ehre konnte man Raff einen
Berater und Sekretar Liszts nennen, wenn man den sehr freundschaftlichen
Beziehungen eine andere Benennung geben will. Die Bezeichnung Kopist beruht auf
einem vollstandigen Verkennen von Raffs Bedeutung an sich und fur Liszt Fast
erscheint es mir unnotig, mit einer so selbtverstandlichen Sache vor die Offentlichkeit
zu treten, doch stelle ich Ihnen frei, falls Sie von meinen Bemerkungen Gebrauch
machen wollen, dies im weitesten Sinne zu tun, Dir Vertrauen kann mich nur ehren.10

Corroborating evidence was provided in another letter to Doris Raff by Liszts principal

cellist from those years, Bernhard Cossmann:

Ihnen sichere Auskunft uber Raffs Mittatigkeit bei Liszts Werken zu geben, bin ich zu
meinem Bedauem nicht imstande. Nur Raffs Instrumentierung der Prometheusmusik
kann ich verbiirgen. Bei der Probe desselben im Theater sass ich neben Raff, der zu
mir sagte: Hore Dir mal die Instmmentation an, sie ist von mir.11

Cossmanns testimony not only confirmed that Raff orchestrated at least one work of

Liszts, but it could be interpreted to say that Liszt intentionally kept the identity of his
orchestrator hidden. Also significant for the present discussion, however, it implies that it

9See Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1880-1894), 2/1:248; 2/2:45.

10Theodor Miiller-Reuter, Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur (Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt, 1909),


267-268.

^Ibid., 268 (letter of 8 January 1899).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131

was Doris Raff who had solicited the information (as she must have done from Joachim),

and her letter may have stated her own conclusions on the nature of her late husbands
work for Liszt She was seeking evidence for a verdict already rendered. Not that she did

not have enough evidence of her own, as she possessed a trove of Joachim Raffs letters

that supported this view, but it was his own testimony about himself. It was left to their
daughter, Helene, to publish these documents, and, bolstered by Mosers biography and

the confirmation of two eyewitnesses, the letters appeared in eleven installments in Die

Musik as Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, beginning in 1901.12

These letters reveal many details of Joachim Raffs seven years in Weimar, from

the tasks he carried out to dissatisfaction with his position (see chapter three, Manuscript

Copies). To his friend, Frau Kunigunde Heinrich, Raff told of the responsibility Liszt
had given him to orchestrate at least five of the symphonic poems, including the one
ennumerated by Cossmann, and there is no reason to doubt him.13 There are other

references to his work as copyist, including the slightly ambiguous comment, Ich habe die

letzte Woche Liszts erstes Concerto Symphonique bereinigt.. .14 Other remarks by Raff
have more wide ranging implications, casting him more in the role of compositional

assistant:

Ich bestehe entschieden darauf, einen geringen Einfluss, aber diesen sicher auf
Liszts nachste Leistungen zu haben, und Dank sei es seinem Verstande: er hat bereits

12See Helene Raff, Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die Musik 1/1
(1901): 36-44,113-123,285-293, 387-404,499-505; 1/2 (1902): 688-695, 861-871,977-986; 1/3
(1902): 1161-1172,1272-1286,1423-1441.

13See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 389 (December 1849); 393,397
(February 1850). The works were Ce quon entend sur le montagne, Tasso, Les preludes (called at this time
Les quatre ilimens), Prometheus, and Hiro'idefunibre.

14Ibid., 388 (December 1849). To guarantee that this remark was understood beyond its
intended meaning of creating a fair copy, Helene Raff appended a footnote that repeated the assertion from
Mosers biography; see ibid., 1275.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132

gemerkt, dass das am Platze ist, weil 4 Augen besser sehen als zwei, und nimmt
manche Bemerkung willig an, gegen die er sich sonst immer straubte.15

Nachdem von mehreren Seiten, vergeblich Versuche gemacht waren, mir irgend ein
ungeschicktes Wort zu entlocken, fasste mein Freund eines Tages ein Herz und ging
mich um Instrumentation an, er ging, nachdem ich darin sehr Befriedigendes
geleistet, noch etwas weiter, und wir sind jetzt dahin gediehen, dass ganze Stellen in
den neuen Sachen Liszts ebensowenig mit der Feder ihres genannten Verfassers
vertraut sind, als gewisse Passagen in meinem 15. Werk von Joachim Raff
herriihren.16

Ich bin nun mit der Umarbeitung der Tasso-Ouvertiire beschaftigt, aus der ich ihm
eine Sinfonie in 2 Satzen zu machen gedenke.17
His remarks in matters of instrumentation reveal the extent to which he could be pleased

with his own accomplishment:

Ich instrumentirte eben die Hdroide funfcbre von Liszt, und die breiten triiben
Motive, denen ich noch jene dunklen instrumentalen Tinten verleihen sollte, welche in
uns die Gedanken an die letzten Dinge von uns Allen erwecken, durchdrangen meine
Empfindung.18

He also related an incident where he criticized Conradis orchestration of Liszts


Goethemarsch: Nachdem ich einen Blick in die Partitur gethan hatte, sagte ich zu Liszt:

Mag das gemacht haben, wer will, es taugt nichts. Er drauf: Wenn man etwas tadelt, so
muss mans auch besser machen konnen.19 The new arrangement was quickly prepared,

based solely on the published version for solo piano, and performed soon thereafter. Raff

assessed the result:

15Ibid., 390 (December 1849).

16Ibid., 394 (February 1850).

17Ibid., 397 (February 1850).

18Ibid., 393 (5 January 1850).

19lbid., 397 (February 1850).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133

Der Marsch brauste bestimmt, breit und majestatisch einher und trotzdem manches
hinzugekommen war, wovon Liszt nichts getraumt hatte, und was im Original und
der alten Instrumentation auch nicht stand, so wurde er doch zu unserer Freude fast
im ersten Male leicht und fehlerlos heruntergespielL20
Finally, he had no hesitation in offering his opinion of Liszts ability in composition:

Ich dagegen sage; es ist Zeit, dass Liszt aufhore, auf dem Clavier das Orchester und
im Orchester Clavier zu spielen, (...) einen der niitzlichsten Theile der Kunst, den
Contrapunct ganz und gar aus seiner Arbeit verbannt zu halten, und einen wahren
Steinhaufen aus dem Gebaude schoner Formen, die auf uns vererbt worden sind, zu
machen, indem er ein Lied zu 19 Seiten ausdehnt und hinwieder bey anderen Sachen
nicht weiss, woher er Stoff genug bekommen soil.21

One could not blame an unprejudiced reader for taking away the impression that Raff took
an active part in the formation of Liszts mature musical style.

The influence of Mosers and Raffs publications can be seen in the decade that
followed. On the heels of the letters published in Die Musik, Hans Pohl issued his remarks

that commemorated the unveiling of a Raff monument in Frankfurt22 He did not hesitate

to accept the allegations at face value: Vor alien Dingen wahrt Raff, der hier absolut nicht

die Rolle des dienenden Helfershelfers zu spielen geneigt war, seine eigene kiinsderische
Personlichkeit.23 Alexandre de Bertha, one of Liszts students, did not deny the

accusation but rather claimed that Raffs work was common knowledge.24 This approach
was no more than an effort at face-saving on behalf of the deceased composer and did not

alter the portrait painted by the letters. An objective judgment was attempted by Theodor

20Ibid.

21Ibid., 390-391 (December 1849).

22See Hans Pohl, Joachim Raff: Ein Gedenkblatt zur Enthiillung seines Denkmals in Frankfurt
am Main, Zeitschrift der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 4 (1902-03): 542-549.

23Ibid., 546.

^Alexandre de Bertha, Franz Liszt, Mercure Musical (1907). This source was unavailable,
and the information was taken from 6mile Haraszti, Les origines de lorchestration de Franz Liszt, Revue
de Musicologie 34 (1952), 82.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134

Muller-Reuter in the Vorwort to the discussion of Liszts published orchestral works in his
Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur (1909). He could not ignore the unequivocal

statements in Raffs letters, and he must have pursued the matter further with Doris Raff,

as it was she who furnished him with the letters from Joachim and Cossmann quoted

above. Based on this information, he concluded with regard to the works in which Raff

took part:

Dieser Anted kann sich allerdings nur auf die erste instrumentale Form dieser Werke
beziehen, da L[iszt] an alien vor ihrem spateren Erscheinen sehr erhebliche
Anderungen, Umarbeitungen und Neuinstrumentierungen vorgenommen hat.
Immerhin wird diese erste instrumentale Form der spateren revidierten zur Grundlage
gedient haben und es mag sich manches in den genannten Werken befinden, was aus
Raffs Kopf und Feder stammt.25

Muller-Reuters conclusion only serves to underline the extent to which he was dependent

on his other sources, a point well Ulustrated by the omission of any reference to Conradi:
Ramann does not mention his work for Liszt, and Aloys Obrist, the custodian of the

Weimar Archive whom Muller-Reuter credits for assistance with regard to the manuscripts,

had not reached the point of identifying the hands of the copyists. In addition, Georg

Richard Kruses article, which remains an important source for information on Conradi,
was not published until 1913.26 Kruses article is significant for another reason, however,

as it demonstrates the extent to which Mosers allegation was accepted as fact:

Liszt, der sich, als Hofkapellmeister dauemd an Weimar gefesselt, nun auf das ihm
ungewohnte Feld der Orchesterkomposition begab, fiihrte vielfach gemeinsam mit
Conradi, dem auf diesem Gebiet Erfahrenen, die Instrumentation seiner Werke aus,
so z. B. die des Goethe-Festmarsches (1849), den spater auch Raff instrumentierte.27

^Miiller-Reuter, Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur, 267.

26August Conradi (gestorben 26. Mai 1873): Ein Gedenkblatt, Die Musik 12/4 (1912-13): 3-
13.

27Ibid., 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135

An Early Defense

The first scholarly attempt to clarify this question was by Peter Raabe in his
dissertation for the University of Jena (1916). Unlike Joachim and the ladies Raff, Raabe

did not have a prejudiced agenda, and, more importantly, he had access to the scores and

other primary documents that could confirm or deny the validity of the accusations. He
saw himself as building on the best work of his predecessors, in this case Muller-Reuter,28

but he soon discovered that the manuscripts at his disposal told a different story in some

respects from the one previously set forth.

Raabe was intent on presenting as balanced a review of the relevant facts as

possible, thus he began his discussion with Liszts juvenile opera, Don Sanche, premiered

in 1825 when the composer was fourteen. Citing testimony from contemporary sources,

including Liszt himself, Raabe concluded that he was assisted in orchestrating the work by

his teacher, Fernando Paer.29 Bridging the gap to Liszts Weimar years, Raabe described
the sketches for a Symphonie rivolutionnaire, suggesting that the reason for its

incompletion lay in the composers inability to carry out such a project Concluding his

discussion of these pre-Weimar years, he stated:

Zwar berichtet schon friiher gelegentlich eine Zeitung, daB ein Orchesterwerk
Liszts aufgefuhrt sei, doch sind diese Nachrichten entweder iiberhaupt falsch, oder es
handelt sich dabei um Werke, die der Meister nicht selbst instrumentiert hat und die
also hier nicht zu besprechen sind.30

Therefore, the fulfillment of his duties as Kapellmeister beginning in 1848 was principally
to remedy his compositional deficiencies: Er, der kein iibler Selbstbeobachter war,

28See Peter Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, Inaugural
Dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1916), 15-16.
He refers to the Lexikon as eine sehr schatzenswerte Albeit

29Ibid., 16-17.

30Ibid., 20.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136

erkannte wohl, daB ihm die Erfahrungen fehlten, die er als Orchesterkomponist brauchte,

und die nur dutch ein bestandiges Wirken mit einem Orchester zu erlangen sind.31 He

had received the appointment in 1842, but, according to Raabe, it was only under the
influence of the Princess Wittgenstein that he settled in Weimar .. um nun in

zielbewuBter Arbeit als Qrchesterleiter alles Riistzeug zum Orchesterkomponisten zu

gewinnen und handhaben zu lemen.32 From Raabes point of view, the most important
part of Liszts learning process, at least as regards orchestration, was the assistance of

other musicians.

While not denying their involvement, Raabe attempted to lay out precisely the role
of Conradi and Raff in the creation of Liszts works. From Kruses article, he had learned

that Conradi preceded Raff as assistant during the 1840s, and, perhaps by using references

in letters, he was able to identify Conradis hand in many manuscripts. These manuscripts

included three volumes of orchestrations, with Conradis instrumentation on the left-hand


side, the right-hand side blank or filled with Liszts emendations. This Raabe understood

to be indicative of Conradis primary task, to assist Liszt in instrumentation. But Raabe

was careful to clarify the precise nature of Conradis contribution:

Liszts Urschrift, nach der Conradi arbeitete, war, je nachdem es die Deutlichkeit
erforderte, gewohnlich auf zwei bis sechs Systeme geschrieben; zahlreiche
Instrumentalangaben zeigten dem Heifer den Willen des Meisters in einer Art an, die
nicht miBzuverstehen war.
Im groBen ganzen war die Arbeit, die Conradi zu leisten hatte, also eine ziemlich
untergeordnete, die keine besonderen Schopferfahigkeiten erforderte 33

31Ibid., 20-21.

32Ibid., 21.

33Ibid., 25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137

He concluded that, because many of Conradis scores had remained unpublished, the fault

lay in the quality of his work, and when he was no longer available, Liszt gladly turned to
Raff:

Wenn er [Liszt] auch (iibrigens mit Recht) den Menschen und Arbeiter Conradi
hochschStzte, so wird Liszt es also doch freudig begriiBt haben, als er in Joachim
Raff im Winter 1849 einen neuen Mitarbeiter erhielt, dessen kiinstlerische Gaben die
seines Vorgangers sicher weit iiberragten.34

Nevertheless, Raabe was quick to point out Raffs lack of experience in instrumentation

and thereby to nullify the argument that Liszt took advantage of his skills without giving
him any credit:

Statt dessen laBt er [Liszt] sich erst lange Zeit helfen von einem Manne [Conradi], der
bei tiichtigster Handwerkerschaft und ausgezeichneten Charaktereigenschaften doch
nicht den Anspruch machen konnte, zu den Kiinstlem zu gehoren, die Liszt dem
Range nach auch nur einigermafien nahekamen, und wahlt nach dessen Weggange zu
seinem Instrumentationsgehilfen einen unbekannten jungen Musiker, der in seinem
ganzen Leben noch nie ein Stuck in eigener Instrumentation gehort hat35

Liszt had good reasons for bringing Raff to Weimar, but his expertise in orchestration was
not among them.

Raabe reviewed Liszts relationship with Raff and the misunderstandings with
which Raff came to Weimar. Raff was frustrated with his tasks, having arrived with the

assumption that he would contribute artistically in some way to Liszts compositions.

Letter after letter in the Raff correspondence reveals his role as primarily one of copyist,
without any manuscript evidence to argue otherwise:

[Liszt] wollte nicht viel mehr als sehr sorgfaltige Abschriften (die Raff mit seiner
prachtvollen Handschrift uniibertrefflich herzustellen verstand) und allenfalls eine,

34Ibid.

35Ibid., 26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138

wie wir schon sahen, mehr handwerksmaBige als schopferische Hilfeleistung beim
Herstellen von Ocheslerpartituren nach sehr genau bezeichneten Vorlagen.36

Of course, there was also the impression of Raffs creative role given by these same letters.

Although Raabe was willing to grant Raff the benefit of the doubt with regard to his work
in 1850 (when the letters were written), he also noted:

Sehr bald muBte Raff merken, daB Liszt an den vorgeschlagenen Instrumentierungen
bestandig weiter arbeitete und so viel verbesserte und umformte, daB ein vollstandig
verandertes Bild der Paritur herauskam; er muBte merken, daB der Meister dabei ganz
und gar seine eigenen Gedanken durchsetzte, und daB alles, oder doch fast alles, was
Raff fur sein Eigentum hatte erklaren konnen, ersetzt wurde dutch Einfalle und
Ausfiihmngen, die durchaus Liszts Geiste entsprossen waren.37

Having dealt with the principal evidence, Raabe turned his attention to the
supporting letters of Joachim and Cossmann. He denied Joachims allegation and further

pointed out that he evidently had never compared Liszts manuscripts with those of Raff.
For Cossmann, he observed that Raffs manuscript of Prometheus survived in the Liszt
Museum, and comparison with the final version revealed how little of Raffs instrumental

conception remained. Finally, Raabe discussed Liszts manner of revisions to his

manuscripts and the need for new copies. In this context, he addressed the explicit
statement by Raff regarding Concerto No. 1:

Wenn z.B. Raff (an Frau Heinrich) schreibt (Dezember 1849): Ich habe die letzte
Woche Liszts erstes Concerto symphonique bereinigt, so macht das zuerst den
Eindruck, als ob es heiBen sollte, er habe selbstandig Ungeschicklichkeiten
ausgemerzt, iiberladene Stellen der Instrumentation gelichtet oder ahnliches getan.
Das war aber ganz und gar nicht der Fall. Diese bereinigte Partitur des Es dur-
Konzertes (mit Liszts Verbesserungsvorlagen) ist erhalten. Sie zeigt ganz deudich,
daB es sich bei dieser Tatigkeit Raffs um das oben geschilderte Verfahren handelte.38

36Ibid., 28.

37Ibid., 29.

38Ibid., 31. This manuscript, now in US-Wc (ML31.H43a, no. 59), was at that time in the
possession of the Marchese della Valle di Casanova. Raabe had already discussed the inaccuracy of Mosers
statement in a footnote (p. 29, n. 2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139

Raabe concluded his discussion by frankly acknowledging the influence of Liszts virtuoso

career on his musical thought, while at the same time noting his first competent attempts at

orchestration prior to his work in Weimar. But of his assistants and their relationship to
him, Raabe observed:

Vor allem hatte er eben eine ausgesprochene schopferische Begabung fur die
Instrumentation, und so machen denn seine Anderungen an dem, was ihm Conradi
und Raff vorlegten, fast immer den Eindruck, als ob hier der Lehrer den Schuler
verbessere. Der Lehre, den Liszt im Fache der Instrumentation hatte, war weder
Paer, noch Conradi, noch Raff, sondem die Arbeit, die er mit der Weimarer
Hofkapelle leistete.39

The Continuing Debate

One would have thought the matter settled by Raabes informed assessment, but
Helene Raff reprinted extracts from her fathers letters, along with her own elaboration, in

a biography published in 1925.40 She did not dwell on this aspect of his career, however,
which suggests that she might have been influenced by Raabes dissertation, although it is

not found in the list of benuzte Literatur at the end of the volume.41

Raabe himself reprinted the whole of his argument in Liszts Schaffen, first

published in 1931.42 Committed as he was to considering Liszts entire oeuvre, he also


addressed himself to those works written before Liszt came to Weimar. Although he had
vigorously defended the published orchestral compositions from the 1850s as Liszts own

work, for the pre-Weimar period, Raabe was all too ready to deny Liszt any ability. In the

dissertation, he had hinted at his position with regard to the orchestration of Concerto No.

39Ibid., 32.

^ S e e Helene Raff, Joachim Raff: Ein Lebensbild (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1825), 92-93,
105-106.

41See ibid., 286-288.

42See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 2:68-75.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140

2, a manuscript he could not ignore by virtue of the autograph date of 13 September 1839:
Ein sehr friihe Handschrift des A dur-Konzertes zeigt, daB er nicht angstlich war, selbst

zu instrumentieren, wenn er an der Klavier-Partie einen Kern hatte, den er gleichsam nur
mit instrumentaler Schale umgeben muBte.43 Similarly, he had stated that Liszts
orchestration of the Beethoven Cantata in 1845 was possible for the composer because the

choral parts had served the same purpose. Raabe elaborated on this theme in his
monograph with regard to the concertos:

Es ist bezeichnend, daB er seine Klavierkonzerte geschrieben hat, als er nicht mehr
offentlich spielte. Die Entwurfe zu ihnen stammen zwar aus der Reisezeit, aber
ausgearbeitet hat er sie erst in Weimar. DaB er auch sie so umstandlich auf ihren
Klang hin in Orchesterproben gepriift hat, wie er das mit den Symphonien und
symphonischen Dichtungen zu tun gewohnt war, ist nicht anzunehmen. Es fehlen
dafiir alle Zeugnisse. Er wird sich hinsichtlich der Begleitung bei ihnen sicherer
gefuhlt haben, weil ihm da der Klaviersatz als Kem einen festen Anhalt gab.
SchlieBlich hatte er ja so viel in seinem Leben mit Orchester gespielt, daB ihm nicht
nur im Gedachtnis haftete, wie alle bisher dagewesenen Klangverbindungen
beschaffen waren, sondem daB ihm auch vorschwebte, welche Fiille von Reizen bei
diesem Wechselspiel von Klavier, von Streich-, Bias-, und Schlaginstrumenten bis
dahin noch unausgenutzt geblieben war.44

The same line of reasoning provided one of the grounds for assigning Malediction an early

date:

Auch daB nur das Streichorchester beschaftigt, darin also die urspriingliche Form aus
den Knabenjahren beibehalten worden ist, laBt darauf schlieBen, daB die Handschrift
noch der vorweimarischen Zeit entstammt, denn schon seit 1848 versah er seine
Klavierkonzerte mit der Begleitung des vollen Orchesters.45

Raabe carried this assumption into his worklist, where he commented with regard to the

Grande fantaisie symphonique, daB die Instrumentation ganz von L. stammt, ist

43Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 31.

^Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:48-49.

45Ibid., 2:54.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141

unwahrscheinlich,46 and of the orchestration of Hexameron, wohl nicht von L.,47

without offering any evidence. Whatever his accomplishments during the Weimar years,

Raabe remained convinced that Liszt arrived at his post deficient in the skills needed to
effectively compose for an orchestra.

The influence of Raabes reasoning can be seen immediately in the work of Emile
Haraszti. Unlike many of the other writers on Liszt, with the obvious exception of Ernest

Newman,4* Haraszti felt absolutely no loyalty toward protecting his dead subject from

whatever unpleasant truths the light of modem research might reveal. Thus his article, Le
problfcme Liszt, took the fiftieth anniversary of the composers death to examine anew

various aspects of the man and his music, setting out some of themes that Haraszti would

later pursue in more detail, for example, his thesis that the prose published under Liszts

name was in fact the work of others.49 He also addressed the subject of Liszt and the

orchestra.
If Raabe set and elaborated the theme of the incapable Liszt, then it was Haraszti
who developed it:

Cest le trait le plus tragique de la vie de Liszt que sa formation de compositeur


dorchestra est tardive. Ldtemel triomphe facile du pianiste, la collaboration des
deux femmes, lui suggfcrent cette id6e facheuse de fair travailler ses familiers. Les
quelques lemons de Salieri ensuite de Reicha, sans parler des lemons de circonstance

46lbid., 2:311.

47Ibid., 2:271.

48See Ernest Newman, The Man Liszt: A Study o f the Tragi-Comedy o f a Soul Divided Against
Itself (London: Cassell & Co., 1934; New Yoik: Charles Scribners Sons, 1935; rpt. New York: Taplinger
Publishing Co., 1970); also idem, The Life o f Richard Wagner, 4 vols. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1933-1946). Ironically, Newman accepted Raabes conclusions on the music and limited himself to
character assassination.

49See Emile Haraszti, Le piobl&me Liszt, Acta Musicologica 9 (1937): 123-136; 10 (1938):
32-46, especially pp. 130-135. See also idem, Franz Liszt, dcrivain et penseur, histoire d une
mystification, Revue de Musicologie 22 (1943): 19-28; 23 (1944): 12-24; translated as Franz Liszt
Author Despite Himself, Musical Quarterly 33 (1947): 490-516.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142

chez Paer, nont pas ouvert toutes grandes k son gdnie les portes du sanctuaire de
lart. Dans ses premieres oeuvres dorchestre il savdre encore compositeur de
piano.50

However, he remained unconvinced by Raabes explanation of the precise relationship


between Liszt and Raff, reviving the idea of a required collaborator:

On a peine k imaginer aujourdhui un compositeur, de plus, un chef dorchestre de


quarante ans, qui ne saurait pas encore instrumenter ses oeuvres. La correspondance
de Raff, de Joachim et autres documents, contiennent k ce sujet maintes donndes. H
reste encore k dlucider le r61e que Raff, en particulier, ajoud dans 1oeuvre de Liszt,
notamment dans ces premiers cinq podmes symphoniques. Pour cette fois je me
borne it signaler ce probldme Liszt est un peintre romantique que confie aux
autres le coloris de ses tableaux .. .51

Haraszti found support for his point of view in the autograph of Liszts first attempt at
orchestrating his Faust Symphony, then as now preserved in Budapest (H-Bn, Ms. mus.

260), finding it considerably different in detail from the published version. If it was true

that Liszt needed assistance from Raff as late as 1853, how could he have executed the
magnificent orchestration found in the symphony: Avait-il un collaborateur pour cette

symphonie qui rendit si ticlatante la sonoritd de son orchestre, impossible k cider


uniquement par lintuition, mais seulement par la practique et cdtait justement cela qui
manquait k Liszt?52 The documents that contain the revisions are lost, and although
Haraszti wrote, II ny a pas de idponse encore k cette question, his manner of posing it
suggested his own conclusion.

Haraszti expounded further on this subject fifteen years later in his article, Les
origines de lorchestration de Franz Liszt":

50Haraszti, Le problbme Liszt, 37-38. Liszts studies with Salieri, Reicha, and Paer will be
considered below.

51Ibid., 38.

52Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143

Mais peut-on, de nos jours, imaginer quun novateur, un rdvolutionnaire de la


musique, par surcroit chef dorchestre de trente-huit k quarante-deux ans, charge des
inconnus ou des debutants dinstrumenter ses compositions, alors que, dhabitude, ce
sont des chefs dorchestre qui font cette besogne pour le compte dautres
musiciens?53

He developed his thesis, citing Liszts unprecedented piano virtuosity as a liability when it
came to instrumentation: Maitre du piano, il craignait que cette maitrise ne pesat trop sa

fantaisie orchestrale, il craignait lorchestre latent de son piano.54 From this point of

view, he guided the reader through the tenure of the competent but unimaginative Conradi
to the appointment of Raff, all based on the sources cited above. Haraszti accepted Raabes

conclusions regarding the manuscripts, but where any evidence was lacking he assumed

that the task of orchestration was not undertaken by Liszt. He cited Mosers statement

about Concerto No. 1, but, after repeating Raabes refutation, suggested that the
orchestration was by Conradi.55 As to the question of why Liszt hired the talented but

inexperienced Raff, Haraszti conjectured that, precisely because he was not a pianist, he
could be of value to Liszt

Liszts silence on the contributions of his collaborators puzzled Haraszti. He

repeated Raabes answer, that it was because no trace of their work remained in the

finished product, but he was not satisfied with Raabes attempts to explain the relationship
between Liszt and Raff. He considered at some length Raffs letters, concluding that the

statements had more to do with the writers personality than the reality of his situation

(gonfld dun amour-propre touchant k la megalomanie; cest lit pure fantaisie).56 The

53Emile Haraszti, Les origines de lorchestration de Franz Liszt, Revue de Musicologie 34


(1952): 81-82.

54Ibid., 82.

55See ibid., 85-86.

56Ibid., 87, 88.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144

only exception was Raffs observation, .. aux manilres de Liszt traitant le piano comme

un orchestre et vice-versa, which Haraszti took to be true.57 He summed up the


relationship as follows:

Raff devait bientot sapercevoir que Liszt considlrait son orchestration comme un
simple canevas sur lequel il continuait k travailler, tant et si bien que la partition
definitive eut un aspect tout different de la partition de Raff. Au moyen dune
confrontation minutieuse, la these de doctorat de Peter Raabe qui met en regard les
difflrentes versions du Tasso et de Ce que Ion entend sur la montagne, d6montre que
toutes les idles et les inventions de Raff ont t remplacles par celles de Liszt Done
Raff na rien k voir aux partitions exlcutles dans les salles de concerts sous le nom de
Liszt Le glnie de Liszt sort intact de cette Itrange collaboration.58

Nevertheless, Haraszti took the collaboration to be typical of Liszts modus operandi. He

quoted a sentence from a letter to Raff where Liszt asked him to keep silent on his work for

a Symphonie Rivolutionnaire, and from there drew a parallel to the uncredited

orchestrations of Don Sanche and the Grandefantaisie symphonique and the alleged (from
Harasztis point of view) prose writings.59 But unlike the articles, which Haraszti felt
Liszt could not have composed himself, he affirmed Raabes conclusion, that Liszts
instruction in instrumentation came not from Conradi or Raff but from the Weimar

orchestra.

Yet there remained the collaboration itself, which suggested Liszts lack of
confidence, also reflected in the many versions of some of the orchestral works. To

demonstrate this aspect, Haraszti reprinted Raabes examples from Tasso, showing Liszts

short score and Conradis faithful transcription (ce fut Liszt en tant que pianiste qui les a

57Ibid., 88.

58Ibid., 88-89.

59See ibid., 89; also Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 501 (26 October
1850).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145

ticrites ainsi), through Raffs reworking (infiniment mieux) to Liszts final version.60

By 1853, Liszt no longer had need of Raff in this capacity, although Haraszti repeated his
query regarding the Faust Symphony. In the final analysis, Raff needed Liszt as much

as Liszt needed Raff, as the position in Weimar was regular, and the income was steady.

Although Haraszti contributed few original insights, he was able to provide a psychological

backdrop for Raabes conclusions.

Humphrey Searles summary of Liszts early Weimar years in The Music o f Liszt
(1954) was also heavily dependent on Raabe: Conradi was a competent routine composer

with little imagination; but from 1849 onwards Liszt enjoyed the help of a far more useful
collaborator Joachim Raff, who came to Weimar expressly for this purpose.61 Similar

statements are found in his New Grove article, quoted at the beginning of this section.

More recently, Alan Walker has repeated these conclusions, although he tried to place the

situation in the best possible light, stating . . . that every note in the final versions of

Liszts orchestral compositions emanated from Liszts own pen.62 This is not the same as

saying that he was responsible for the initial instrumental conception, however. He also

confused the issue by stating in his text that Raffs orchestrating of Concerto No. 1 was a
totally bogus assertion, but noting in a table that the work was scored by Raff.63 Once

again, Liszts accomplishments are defended, and his success is viewed as a triumph over

an inadequate education.

^ S e e Haraszti, Les origines de l'orchestration de Franz Liszt, 91-95.

61 See Searle, The Music of Liszt, 69.

62Walker, Franz Liszt, 2:203. It is also untrue, as in the case of the Beethoven Fantasy; see
chapter four, Compositional Process in the Concertos; also below.

63Walker, Franz Liszt, 2:203,303.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146

A Contemporary Defense

Although Mosers primary piece of evidence, Concerto No. 1, has been


effectively eliminated for use by the prosecution, his charge still stands, that Liszt arrived in
Weimar without the compositional equipment to write for the orchestra. This much has

been conceded even by his advocates, and the strategy of the defense has been based on

proving that, whatever deficiencies Liszt might have had in 1848, within several years he
was a master of orchestration with no trace of the support once provided by his assistants.

This is not so much a defense as a type of plea-bargain: guilty with extenuating

circumstances. The evidence reveals more than has hitherto been suspected, however, and
our approach will be to review first the documents of the Weimar years and then to examine
the case for Liszt as orchestrator prior to 1848. Our aim is to clear the defendent of all

charges.

Liszts manuscript copies have occasioned much misunderstanding on the part of


researchers: because they are principally in the hand of a particular copyist with autograph

alterations by Liszt, it was assumed that the copyist took part in the compositional process,

at least as orchestrator. What is generally overlooked is that Liszt had numerous copyists at

his disposal throughout his career, especially in Weimar, where he often pressed his
students into service, and this granted him a luxury that few composers have ever enjoyed:

he could order fair copies of his orchestral works, revise them, and then order a fresh

copy. This, combined with unlimited access to the Weimar orchestra, offered him a

laboratory for experimentation unique since Haydn.


This aspect of the compositional process is well illustrated in Concerto No. 1,

where Liszt required at least four copies in seven years, and the profusion of manuscripts
had led to this work being particularly misrepresented in the secondary literature. There are

surviving copies in the hands of August Conradi (D-WRgs, H4), Joachim Raff (US-Wc,

ML31.H43a, no. 59), and Dionys Pruckner (two copies, US-NYpm, Lehman; D-WRgs,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147

H I2), some of them in archives distant from one another so that comparison is difficult.
Thus, when Moser wrote that Raff was responsible for the orchestration of this work, an
allegation seemingly corroborated in the correspondence between Raff and Liszt, there was

no effective way to contradict it, although Raabe could at least state that Raffs copy, at that
time in a private collection in Italy, was based on Conradis manuscript. With the
examination of the autograph exemplar that is found in USSR-Lsc and a manuscript

partially autograph and partially in the hand of Gaetano Belloni (D-WRgs, H3a), it can be

ascertained that the orchestration and composition is by Liszt from first note to last, and by
comparing the scores in various archives, it is clear that the copyists based their work

solely on manuscripts with Liszts emendations, without any significant contributions of


their own. It is a back handed compliment to Liszt that the orchestration of Concerto No. 1
was deemed of sufficient quality to be attributed to Raff, and singularly ironic that, of all

the works Moser and company could have chosen, they picked the one with the most
extensive paper trail.

If it is true that Liszt could capably orchestrate his concertos in 1849, then he

must have arrived in Weimar with this skill. Where did Raabe err in his analysis? He had

had access to nearly all the documentation we have today, enough to vigorously refute
R affs role in the orchestration of Concerto No. 1, and he was the first to stress Conradis
adherence to Liszts short scores and Raffs inexperience. The problem lay in his
dependence on R affs letters and his faith in him as ein unantastbar rechtschaffener

Mann.64 As a result, his account of Conradis departure only served to support Raffs

version of the events:

Recht zuffieden war Liszt mit den Ergebnissen dieser Zusammenarbeit nie. Der
grofite Teil der so zustande gekommenen Partituren blieb fur immer unveroffentlicht
Wenn er auch mit Recht den Menschen und Musiker Conradi hochschatzte, so wird

^Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:73; also idem, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 29.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148

er es also doch freudig begriiBt haben, als er im Winter 1849 in Raff einen neuen
Gehilfen bekam, dessen kiinstlerische Gaben die seines Vorgangers weit
iiberragten.65

This statement is mostly opinion, however. There is no evidence to support Raabes

contention that Liszt was not satisfied with Conradi, and one must approach with caution

Raffs own assessment of Conradis work. Raffs letter of February 1850, where he

compares his orchestration of the Goethemarsch with Conradis, was written to a friend to

whom he had exaggerated on other occasions. That Liszt was pleased with R affs version

is very likely so; that he felt Conradis version was superceded is by no means certain.66
Conradis orchestrations remained unpublished because, like Raffs, they were one stage in

the compositional process, and, as evidence to the contrary, the portions of the Beethoven

Fantasy that Conradi orchestrated were never substantially altered by Liszt. Remembering
that Conradis primary career was as a composer and director, it was more likely his
unavailability that was the reason Liszt did not use him after autumn 1849 (see chapter

three, Manuscript Copies). Finally, it is a mistake to equate the role Raff fulfilled with

that of Conradi, despite the similarity that both were copyists and executed some

orchestrations. Raff was hired to be in residence and, though almost the same age as

Conradi, was not yet established on his career path and was therefore anxious to apprentice

himself to Liszt. Conradi always maintained his independence and probably never lived in

Weimar for any length of time, working on Liszts assignments along with his other

responsibilities in Berlin. When Raffs lack of practical experience is taken into account, it
seems clear that he was hired both for his proven ability as a copyist and for his own

benefit: Liszt generously wished to foster his artistic development, a gesture that was

65Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:71; also idem, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 25.

66See Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe, 397 (quoted above), and compare
with Helene R affs account (Joachim Raff, 92), which subtly recasts the episode to her fathers advantage.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149

completely in character. It was a particular set of circumstances that led to Raffs


appointment, and it is wrong to state that he was brought to Weimar because Conradi was

unsatisfactory, or Liszt himself was incapable.

How then to explain Raffs statements? Raff probably never saw the exemplars
that Conradi had worked from, for Concerto No. 1 or the other works for piano and

orchestra which constituted the instrumentations Liszt had executed up to this time, and he

would have had no reason not to assume that they were Conradis work. That and the
short scores that he was given for the symphonic poems led him to the conclusion that the

orchestral dress for these works was completely dependent on his ingenuity. We know
this to be wrong because we are aware of Liszts autographs, and Raffs lack of experience

further proves that he was not brought to Weimar as an orchestrator, whatever grandiose

visions he may have had of himself. When the total picture is viewed, we can see that
Raffs perceptions were skewed from the beginning. Raabe erred in his dependence on
these letters, and Haraszti was certainly correct when he dismissed much of Raffs

testimony as pure fantasy. John Williamsons observation with regard to Prometheus

can serve as an excellent summary of Liszts and Raffs working relationship:

Through all the stages of the process, in all sections of the work up to and including
the heavily rescored coda, there is ample evidence of the iron control that Liszt kept
over the copying, revision and orchestration of his work; this certainly accords with
the standard interpretation given by Raabe.67
Liszts orchestral technique was acquired through experience, and the next

questions must be, where and when? Prior researchers, having taken Raff at his word,

were all too quick to dismiss evidence of Liszts ability, but the documentation is consistent

and revealing. Though it has been argued that Adam Liszt took his talented son on the road

67John Williamson, The Revision of Liszts Prometheus, Music & Letters 67 (1986), 390.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150

too early in his development, there were nevertheless intensive periods of study when

young Franz had the opportunity to learn the tools of his trade.
The Liszt family moved to Vienna in the spring of 1822, precisely for the purpose
of offering the prodigy a level of music education that was not available at the EsterMzy

estate, and they remained in the city for approximately eighteen months.68 Carl Czemy

was Adam Liszts second choice for a piano instructor, after he found Hummels prices
exorbitant, and this former pupil of Beethoven graciously taught the younger Liszt without
charge, as did Antonio Salieri. We know from Czernys autobiography that he

concentrated on perfecting Liszts piano technique, refining his gifts for improvisation and

laying down a foundation as regards interpretation of the printed page.69 Salieri covered
general musicianship, and clues as to what this entailed can be found in two letters. On 25
August 1822 he wrote to Prince Esterhdzy and noted that Liszt was brought to him for . . .

the study of figured bass and composition three times a week:

The young man has been making extraordinary progress in singing, in figured bass,
and in deciphering full scores of different genres, three disciplines in which I drill
him during each lesson in order to introduce him gradually to composition and in
order to maintain his sense of good taste.70

Liszt remembered his teacher well, and late in life commented on these lessons: II a eu
l affable bontd de mapprendre gdn6reusement, en 1822 et 23, &Vienne, non pas lart de

composer qui ne sapprend gutire, mais bien &connaitre les diverses cl6s et procddds

68This is the figure given in Etudes biographiques: Frantz Listz [sic], Gazette musicale de
Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 198.

69Czemys unpublished Erinnerungen aus meinemLeben (A-Wgm) offers a glimpse into this
time; see the edition by Walter Kolneder, Collection ddtudes musicologiques 46 (Stassbourg: P. H. Hertz,
1968); also Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, ed. Hans Rudolf Jung (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987), 7-9; also
Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:3. English translations are found in Recollections from My Life, Musical
Quarterly 42 (1956), 314-316; Adrian Williams, Portrait of Liszt: By Himself and His Contemporaries
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 4-6.

70Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:75, from the original in H-Bn.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151

usits dans les partitions de son temps.71 The titude biographique from 1835 also
mentions the study of clefs and un cour de musique religieuse with Salieri,72 and the

only known composition under Salieris tutelage is a Tantum ergo (lost).73 While

instrumentation is not specifically mentioned in any of these sources, certainly the


knowledge of clefs and study of orchestral scores laid a foundation, and in these months

Liszt may have begun to acquire a rudimentary knowledge of the orchestra. The family
remained in Vienna until September 1823, thus Liszt had just over a year of study.

After a period of touring, the Liszts arrived on 11 December in Paris,74 where

Adam attempted to have his son admitted to the Conservatoire. Although the Director,

Cherubini, refused Franz admittance to the piano department based on the fact that he was a
foreigner,75 instructors were found in the persons of Fernando Paer and Antonin Reicha.

Unfortunately, even less is known about Liszts lessons in Paris than in Vienna. Ramann
referred to Paer as his Kompositions Lehrer,76 and Liszt in old age referred to him as

71Julien Tiersot, Lettres de musiciens icrites en frangais duXVe au XXe siicle, 2 vols. (Turin:
Bocca Frbres, 1924), 2:388 (15 May 1882); also Franz Liszt's Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols.
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1893-1905), 8:396 (same letter, but as Briefkonzept). To Gtillerich, Liszt
charaterized his study with Salieri under the general category Theorie. See his Franz Liszt (Berlin:
Marquardt & Co., 1908), 160.

72Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 198. Later biographies appear to be indebted to
this source; see, for example, J. W. Christem, Franz Liszt: nach seinem Leben und Wirken aus
authentischen Berichten (Hamburg & Leipzig: Schuberth, [1841]), 12.

73See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:39; also Friedrich Schnapp,
Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70.
Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942), 120-121.

74See La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Classisches und Romantisches aus der Tonwelt (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1892), 240.

75See Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:94 and n. 15.

^Ram ann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:55-56.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152

mein Pariser Lehrer in der Instrumentation.77 A letter of 5 November 1824 demonstrates

that studies had commenced by this time.78 An early biography of Liszt by Ludwig
Rellstab noted that Liszt studied counterpoint with Reicha (in old age Liszt specifically

remembered Doppelfuge) 79 and a passing reference in the dtude biographique can be


taken to suggest that the lessons took place in the latter part of 1826.80 Liszts travels to

London in May to August 1824 and May to July 1825 undoubtedly interfered with regular
instruction. Nevertheless, there exists the practical result of his study with Paer in an opera

written for the Acaddmie Royale, the one-act Don Sanche, ou le chdteau de Vamour.

The earliest reference to the opera is found in a letter of 20 March 1824 of Adam

Liszt, where he mentions that a French libretto is being written for his son.81 By mid
summer, when they were in London, the work was well advanced:

Seine Hauptarbeit ist aber eine fianzosische Oper Don Sanche ou le chdteau d! amour
[sic]; diese Sujet wurde eigends fur ihn bearbeitet; auBer den Recitativen hat er alles
iibrige hier bearbeitet, und da er in mehreren Gesellschaften einiges davon sang,
wurde es auch Sr. Majestat bekannt, und aufgefordet etwas davon zu produziren und
erhielt den groBten Beifall.82

77G61Ierich, Franz L iszt, 161.

78See Revue Musicale 11 (1911), 251. Walker cites this letter as evidence that Liszt began his
lessons shortly before this date, but the past tense of the verb does not necessarily support this
interpretation; see his Franz Liszt, 1:111. See also below.

79See Ludwig Rellstab, Franz Liszt: Beurteilungen Berichte Lebensskxzze (Berlin:


Trautwein, 1842); quoted in Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:231, n, 16. See also GOllerich, Franz Liszt, 160.

80Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 199. This statement also agrees with Ramann in
Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:56.

81See La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Aus Franz Liszts erster Jugend: Ein Schreiben seines Vaters
mit Briefen Czemys an ihn, Die Musik 5/3 (1905-06), 18.

82Classisches und Romantisches aus der Tonwelt, 250 (29 July 1824).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153

A letter of 3 September states that the opera was finished and ready to be orchestrated,83

and portions of the score were apparently ready by the time of Liszts second trip to
London, at which time he had the opportunity to hear a performance on 20 June 1825 of A

New Grand Overture, composed by the celebrated Master Liszt, the overture to Don
Sanehe. I t was not until their return from London in July 1825 that the administration of

the Optra wished to hear the score, a request that took Liszt and his father by surprise.85
Up to this point, no parts had been copied (one presumes Adams letter was referring to the

vocal parts), but at a hearing several days later the work was approved for performance.

Comments in the press note that Liszt was present at the rehearsals.86 The work was
premiered on 17 October 1825 with no less than Adolphe Nourrit in the title role and
performed three times further on 19,21, and 26 October.87

As to the orchestration, there was a notice in the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische


Zeitung of 1 February 1826:

Doch das Urteil eines Joumalisten: dieser Knabe sey der Mozart unseres Zeitalters,
hat, wie es scheint, jede andere Riicksicht hinangestellt, obschon man wusste, dass
dieser Mozart noch keine Pardtur zu schreiben im Stunde sey. (Kreutzer hat ihm das
Werkchen instrumentirt)88

83Ibid., 253.

^Although there has been debate over whether the overture was that of the opera, the
connection was confirmed by Liszt himself in one of Ramanns questionnaires; see Lina Ramann,
Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchbldttern, Briefen und Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873-
1886187, ed. Arthur Seidl, rev. Friedrich Schnapp (Mainz; B. Schotts SOhne, 1983), 390.

85See itmile Haraszti, Liszt it Paris, La Revue Musicale 165 (April 1936), 257-258; also
Classisches und Romantisches aus der Tonwelt, 259-260.

86See Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:114, quoting from Le Corsaire, 15 October 1825.

87The critical response is summarized in Humphrey Searle, Liszts Don Sanche, Musical
Times 118 (October 1977): 815-817.

88Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 28 (1 February 1826), column 81.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154

Rudolphe Kreutzer was the conductor for the performances, and it is known that he was

responsible for the overall musical direction of the Optra during this period, but this
particular charge cannot be confirmed from other sources. Certainly it is unlikely that
someone in his position would have taken on himself the orchestration of a juvenile work,

and Ramann was of the opinion that the Parisian correspondent for the journal falsely drew

this conclusion on the basis that Kreutzer led the orchestra.89 Liszt himself clarified the
matter, first in a letter to Lina Ramann of 22 March 1880: Unter Leitung des illustrissimo

Maestro Paer schrieb ich diese einactige Oper, in meinem 13ten Lebens Jahr.90 In

addition, Liszt annotated his copy of the proofs for Ramanns first volume with the
following comment in the margin with regard to the orchestration: Paer hat nur wesentlich
geholfen. Niemand anderer.91

One would therefore like to know precisely at what point Liszt began his studies
with Paer. The letter of 5 November 1824 is the first mention, although Adam Liszts letter

to Czerny of 3 September related that, at a committee meeting at the Optra, Paer insisted to

Cherubini that the opera not be rejected simply because it was the work of a child 92 It is
therefore possible that Paer had already been working with the young composer and was

familiar with the score. Considering that Liszt was in London when he wrote the music,

however, Paers assistance was necessarily confined to a relatively late stage of the operas

development. In fact, there is no reason to doubt that the score represents Liszts

89See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:81, n. 1. It could also be the case that
such tasks were expected. But again, this seems the sort of work that would have been delegated to an
underling, if indeed the question came up, as composers were expected to score their own works. Without
further research, all conclusions must remain speculative.

90Ramann, Lisztiana, 147.

91Quoted in Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 17.

92Classisches und Romantisches aus der Tonwelt, 253. Paer may also have been Adams source
for the anecdote.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155

intentions, carried out with the aid of his teachers technique.93 In this regard, the use of

four bassoons is unique in Liszts work, but this may also be attributable to the standard

complement of winds at the Optra.9* Certainly Paer used this production to immerse the
young composer in composition and instrumentation, and, most important of all, Liszt was

able to hear the result, first in London with the overture and then the entire opera in Paris.95
With the sudden and unexpected death of his father on 28 August 1827, the

young Liszt for the first time had to organize his own artistic agenda. Composition was

neglected over the next few years, and there is no evidence that he continued his studies
with Paer and Reicha. His plan for a Revolutionary symphony, inspired by the events of

July 1830, never progressed past the sketch stage. Rather than attribute the incomplete

nature of the work to Liszts inability to execute an orchestral composition, as Raabe and

others have done, these folios can be seen as typical of the composers restless nature, for

example in his sketchbook from this period (D-WRgs, N6), which includes many works

begun and abandoned after a few measures. The first indication of a return to composition
on a large scale is found in his letter of 12 December 1832:

[J]ai prepaid et longuement dlabord plusieurs compositions instrumentales entre


autres un grand Solo caractiristique k propos dune chansonette de Panneron, une

930 n this question, see Paul Merrick, Original or Doubtful?: Liszts Use of Key in Support of
His Authorship of Don Sanche, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992), 427-434.

^ S e e Danible Pistone, Liszt et lorchestre: Tradition et avenir, in Liszt-Studien 2, ed. Serge


Gut (Munich and Salzburg: Emil Katzbichler, 1981), 146.

95The score was considered lost in Liszts lifetime, the result of a fire in the theater (see
Lisztiana, 389). The manuscript copy used for rehearsals and performance was found in 1903 by Jean
Chantavoine (Bibliothbque de lOpdra de ParisCote: R(s. A 480 [1-2]), who wrote about it in Die
Operette Don Sanche: Ein verloren geglaubtes Werk Franz Liszts, Die Musik 3 (1903/1904): 286-307.
The opera remains unpublished, and assessments on the quality of the orchestration are based on two
recordings: BBC Scottish Symphony/Guy Woolfenden, Voce 87; Hungarian State Opera/Tamds Pdl,
Hungaroton SLPD 12744-45. The first appears to be a pirate issue taped from a BBC radio broadcast of 20
October 1977, perhaps in conjunction with a performance in London, the first since the premiere.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156

Fantaisiefantastique sur la clochette de Paganini, un Concerto daprfcs un plan qui je


pense sera nouveau et dont les accompagnements me restent k dcrire, etc. etc. 96
The accompagnements must refer to the orchestration it is unlikely that Liszt would
have conceived a concerto without some idea of the connecting passages when the soloist

was not playing and his matter-of-fact reference suggests no hesitation about embarking

on this task. It is unknown when Liszt attempted this orchestration, but in the autumn of
1834 he wrote his next work for piano and orchestra, the Grande fantaisie symphonique on

themes from Berliozs Le retour d la vie.

The orchestral scores of both the Concerto and the Fantasy survive in copies by
Gaetano Belloni from around the same time,97 and the attribution of the orchestration for

the latter work had been queried by Raabe and more recently by Humphrey Searle:

It seems unlikely that the scoring is by Liszt himself; at that time he had little
knowledge of orchestration, and the first work which he is known to have scored
himself is the first Beethoven Cantata of 1845. This is borne out by the fact that the
score is written in another hand, but contains additions in Liszts writing, and even
some pencilled comments, such as Bon!, which appear to express approval of
some idea of the orchestrators which Liszt had not thought of himself.98
Not one of these reasons will stand up to scrutiny: Liszts lack of knowledge in the field of

orchestration is a supposition derived from an uncritical reading of Raffs letters; autograph

orchestral scores can be dated to 1835 (see below); and the fact that the score is a copy is
no evidence one way or the other concerning the identity of the orchestrator (unless it might

96Robert Bory, Diverses lettres inMtes de Liszt, Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fiir


Musikwissenschaft 3 (1928), 10.

97BeIlonis relationship with Liszt is discussed in chapter three, Manuscript Copies, and the
dating for these copies is discussed in chapter eight

98Searle, The Music of Liszt, 10. Contrast this comment with that of Robert Collet, who, in
discussing the earliest version of Concerto No. 1, observes that ...the orchestral writing has the same
helplessness that we find in the Ldlio Fantasy with which it is roughly contemporary. See his Works
for Piano and Orchestra, in Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music, 259, n. 2. Is it that the orchestration is
so good that it could not be by Liszt, or is it so bad that it must be?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157

be Belloni, unlikely given everything we know about him). The penciled comments would

appear to be the most incriminating evidence, but a survey of Liszts manuscripts reveals

that bon was the word he used consistently in place of the copy editors stet, the term

used to signify the reinstatement of something that was marked to be deleted. Examination
of this manuscript reveals that Liszt tightened up his composition by deleting pages and
having Belloni write out replacement folios to insure continuity, and correlation with the

musical content shows that in every case bon represents Liszts second thought: Do not
delete this page as I originally indicated. Perhaps of greater significance is the review that

appeared in the Gazette Musicale at the time of the first performance on 9 April 1835,
where the orchestration was singled out: Linstrumentation de cette vaste composition est

chaude, pittoresque, incisive, mais dune complication qui doit rendre la tache de

lorchestre assez difficile; cest fougueux, 6chevel6, imprvuet puissant, comme le talent

dexecution de lauteur.99 Liszt was on the editorial board of the Gazette Musicale, and it
is unlikely that the anonymous reviewer would have discussed the orchestration in this

manner had it not been Liszts own. There is no reason to doubt that Liszt himself was

wholly responsible for both the early Concerto and the Grandefantaisie symphonique.
While debate has swirled around Don Sanche and the Grandefantaisie

symphonique, the autograph of De profundis stands as unequivocal testimony to Liszts

ability to write for the orchestra at this time, as the manuscript can be dated to the winter of

1834-35. There are no signs of inexperience, such as errors in transposition or clefs, and

the composers confidence is further suggested in that he appears to have composed


directly into the score, with little or no sketching. In addition, passages, such as the
contrapuntal figure beginning at m. 130, are so completely idiomatic for the strings and so

99Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (12 April 1835), 131. The review is quoted at length in chapter
eight.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158

resistant to piano transcription that they give lie to the idea that Liszt played the orchestra

on the piano and the piano on the orchestra. Overall, Liszts orchestration for this work is
competent and performable.100 Raabe also singled out Malediction for comment, a work
which can also be dated to this time. If it is true that the work is really a sextet for piano

and strings (as will be argued in chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix), then the use

of these instruments does not in any way reflect an inability to write for full orchestra.
Liszts proven ability in orchestration therefore places the works that follow in a

new light The modest resources of the three concertos of 1839 can best be attributed to
Liszts plans for his tours, where he would have been unable to guarantee the quality of his
accompanying orchestras. There is also no reason to doubt that the orchestration for

Hexameron is his as well: the handling of the ensemble is similar to the concertos, and the

instrumentation is identical to the Concerto, op. posth. In addition, close examination of

these scores reveals that Raabes charge, that the piano part served as the kernel for the

orchestration, does not stand up to scrutiny. While it is true that Concerto No. 2 and the
Concerto, op. posth., were drafted in piano score, once these pieces were orchestrated, we

find many passages that display a keen appreciation for the interplay between piano and

orchestra, for example mm. 122-132,173-176, and 398-411 in the latter work. Finally,

there is Liszts Beethoven Cantata, written for the Bonn Festival of 1845. Should there
remain any question as to Liszts skill at this time, the testimony of one of the auditors

should serve to silence it:

The expression is true, the tone fitting, the style elevated and original, the plan well
conceived and skillfully carried out, and the instrumentation remarkable for its variety
and power. We never hear in his orchestra a succession of similar sonorities such as
make certain works, in other respects estimable enough, so tiring for the hearer. He

100This was revealed at the first performance of the work on 5 May 1990, with Steven Mayer,
pianist, and the Residentie Orchestra of the Hague, Jacek Kaspszyk, conductor. The edition by the present
author was based on this autograph with little emendation. The results can also be heard on AS V CD DCA
778.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159

knows how to make the right use of small and large means, he does not ask too much
from either instruments or voices in a word, he has shown at one stroke that he
possesses something one might have expected not to find in him so soon style in
instrumentation as in the other departments of music.101

With such extensive background and experience, it should come as no surprise


that the six concertos given to Conradi to copy in 1849 were soundly instrumented. The
only mystery that remains is why Liszt engaged Conradi and Raff to orchestrate for him at

all. Perhaps he felt his short scores were enough, and it was principally a question of time:
there was so much to do during those first years, producing operas and teaching students in

addition to composing. As he wrote to Czemy in 1852:

Malheureusement mes occupations ext&ieures absorbent beaucoup de mon temps.


Lorchestre et lOpdra de Weymar avaient grand besoin de r^forme et de mouvement
Les remarquables et extraordinaires ouvrages auxquels notre theatre doit sa nouvelle
renommde. . . exigeaient de nombreuses repetitions, dont je ne pouvais charger
personne d autre.102
It was very likely the Princess Wittgenstein who brought him to his senses with regard to

the need to orchestrate his own works:

Why do you entrust Raff with the task of orchestrating the [Goethe] march? What
painter would content himself with handing over his drawing and leaving the
colouring of it to his apprentice? You will say that Raff is not an apprentice: but he is
not you! Instrumentation demands individuality, and his is heavy-going. I think that
you do not put enough emphasis on giving colour to musical thoughts. You content
yourself with re-touching. It seems to me that this is not entirely enough, and if I
compare it with a literary style: correction is never as good as original writing.103

101Hector Berlioz, Evenings with the Orchestra, trans., ed. & intro. Jacques Barzun (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1973), 339-340.

^ F r a n z Liszts Briefe, 1:107 (19 April 1852).

103Walker, Franz Liszt, 2:207-208 (25 July 1853); translated from the German translation in
Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:78-79.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160

Her words evidently had an effect, as there are no other examples of Raff orchestrating

works after this time, and the final versions of the symphonic poems in Liszts hand date
from after this letter.
Liszt rarely wrote or spoke about his approach to orchestration. He did not write

a treatise on the subject as Berlioz did, nor did he lament over the difficulty of mastering the

orchestra as Schumann. He simply took opportunities as they came to him and learned
from the experience, first with Don Sanche, and then with the Grande fantaisie

symphonique. It was during this early period that he transcribed many orchestral works

for piano, including Berliozs Symphoniefantasique and Harold en Italie, additional


opportunities to study the instrumentation of a master. Finally, there were those first years

in Weimar, when he had the opportunity to hear his symphonic poems through several
versions played by the resident orchestra: Ich verdanke ihr manche nicht unniitze

Erfahrung durch die mehrfachen Proben, denen ich meine Partituren wahrend der beiden

letzten Jahre unterzogen habe.104 But while it is true that Liszt developed his orchestral

technique in great measure through the final stage of this process, we can also say with
assurance that he arrived in Weimar with a solid foundation on which to build.

104Franz Liszt's Briefe, 8:126 (to Christian Lobe, 24 May 1856).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PART TWO
TOWARD FIRST MATURITY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VI

JUVENILE COMPOSITIONS (1822-1827)

It remains a common misconception that Liszt neglected composition in his youth


in favor of developing his genius as a pianist. This idea can be traced back to his

Glanzperiode, at which time he appeared to many of his contemporaries as simply another

virtuoso with a portfolio of operatic paraphrases. In a review written in 1839 of his

Grandes dtudes, Robert Schumann, with his lively imagination, constructed a plausible
scenario:

Friih vom Vaterlande fortgenommen, mitten in die Aufiregungen einer groBen Stadt
geworfen, als Kind und Knabe schon bewundert, zeigt er sich auch in seinen alteren
Compositionen oft sehnsuchtsvoller, wie nach seiner deutschen Heimath verlangend,
oder frivoler vom leichten franzosischen Wesen uberschaumt Zu anhaltenden
Studien in der Composition scheint er keine Ruhe, vielleicht auch keinen ihm
gewachsenen Meister gefunden zu haben; desto mehr studirte er als Virtuos, wie denn
lebhafte musikalische Naturen den schnellberedten Ton dem trocknen Arbeiten auf
dem Papier vorziehen. Brachte er es nun als Spieler auf eine erstaunliche Hohe, so
war doch der Componist zuriickgeblieben, und hier wird immer ein MiBverhaltniB
entstehen, was sich auffallend auch bis in seine letzten Werke fortgeracht hat.1

Schumann did not think too highly of Liszt as a composer and turned to supposedly
biographical grounds to justify his opinion. There is a certain irony here, as Schumanns

own musical education was hardly comprehensive. Further, he was a failed virtuoso

himself, and one is tempted to read into his review more than the objective conclusion of a
trained critic. Be that as it may, his charge has nevertheless found modem defenders,2 and

^Neue Zeitschrift filr Musik 11 (15 October 1839), 121; also Robert Schumann, Gesammelte
Schriften Uber Musik und Musiker, ed. Martin Kreisig, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1914;
repr., Westmead: Gregg International Publishers, 1969), 1:439-440.

2See, for example, Leon Plantinga, Schumann as Critic (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1967), 217: And in 1839 Schumanns opinion about the 28-year-old Liszt was eminently just.
162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163

to refute it we need to review Liszts musical background, a process begun in chapter five
with reference to the subject of orchestration. While it may be true that the development of

Liszts exceptional pianistic talent interrupted extensive disciplined study in the rudiments

of music, he was not denied such study completely and gained considerable experience as a
composer during his teenage years.

The Prodigy as Composer

The Liszt family left the Esterhdzy estate in May 1822 and moved to Vienna in
order to offer the young prodigy access to better instruction and cultural opportunities not

available in Hungary. He studied piano with Carl Czerny and composition with Antonio

Salieri, giving few concerts. Lessons commenced with Salieri no later than August, and
his instruction took place three times a week and included figured bass and the study of

scores.3 Lina Ramann characterized the results of this time, presumably with information

from Liszt himself: Die harmonischen Satziibungen wurden meistens in Form kleiner
Kirchenstiicke geschrieben und Salieri war sehr zufrieden mit den Arbeiten seines

Schulers.4 She specifically noted a Tantum ergo, a work that is lost, as are virtually all
the manuscript compositions from this period.5 A published work that she neglected to

3See Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume One, The Virtuoso Years, 1811-1847, rev. ed. (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1987), 75; also Julien Tiersot, Lettres de musiciens icrites en frangais du XVe au
XXe siicle, 2 vols. (Turin: Bocca Frferes, 1924), 2:388. These letters are quoted in chapter five, A
Contemporary Defense.

4Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel,
1880-1894), 1:39.

5See ibid., 39,566; also idem, Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblattern,
Briefen und Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873-1886/87, ed. Arthur Seidl, rev. Friedrich Schnapp (Mainz: B.
Schotts Stthne, 1983), 389; and Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von
Deutscher Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F.
Peters, 1942), 120-121.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164

mention was the variation that Liszt contributed to Anton Diabellis collection,6 and it is
possible that he composed other piano works while in Vienna.

Liszts father decided that Paris offered greater possibilties for developing his
sons talent, as well as augmenting the family income, and some eighteen months after their

arrival in Vienna, father and son left for France on 20 September, traveling via Munich,

Augsburg, Stuttgart, and Strasbourg, for the purpose of giving concerts. They arrived in

Paris on 11 December and used it as a base of operations for excursions to other parts of
France as well as three visits to London in 1824,1825, and 1827, again for the purpose of
concertizing. During this period, Liszt had lessons in composition with Fernando Paer and

Antonin Reicha, although the extent of their instruction is unclear (see chapter five, A

Contemporary Defense). It is certain, however, that Liszt composed a large number of

works, presumably under their guidance.


We can obtain some idea of the prolific nature of the young Liszts creative gifts

from the letters his father wrote to Czerny from Augsburg, London, and Paris, informing

him about the various concerts, receipts, and especially the musical development of his

former student The first mention of compositions is found in a letter written from London
on 29 July 1824:

Im Phantasiren hat er es bisher auf einen hohen und fur sein Alter auf einen
bewundemswiirdigen Grad gebracht. An Compositionen hat er bereits fertig 2
Rondo di bravura, die man hier kaufen will, die aber noch nicht hergebe. 1 Rondo, 1
Fantasia, Variationen tiber mehrere Thema, 1 Amusement oder besser Quodlibet iiber
verschiedene Thema von Rossini und Spontini, welches er mit groUem Beifall bei Gr.
Majestat spielte.7

fyaterlandischer Kiinstverein, Verdnderungen fiir das Pianoforte iiber ein vorgelegtes Thema.
Fifty composers were contacted, and the resulting variations were printed in alphabetical order, Liszts being
the twenty-fourth. Diabellis waltz was also sent to Beethoven, who responded to the invitation with his
Diabelli variations.

7La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Classisches und Romantisches aus der Tonwelt (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hhrtel, 1892), 249-50. La Maras footnote mentions that the only published works (and therefore the only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165

He also noted the progress on the opera, Don Sanche. A letter written from Paris on 14
August 1825 mentions further works:

Franzi hat zwei artige Conzerte geschrieben, die er in Wien will horen lassen; wissen
Sie, dafi wir bis kiinstigen Marz zahlen nach Wien zu kommen?. . . Er kennt keine
andere Leidenschaft als die Compositionen, nur diese gewahrt ihm Freude und
Vergniigen. Eine Sonata auf vier Hande, ein Trio und ein Quintetto diirfte Ihnen viel
Vergniigen machen. Seine Conzerte sind zu streng, und die Schwierigkeiten fiir die
Spieler sind ungeheuer, ich hielt immer die Hummelischen Conzerte fiir schwierig,
allein diese sind im Vergleich sehr leicht8

Aside from listing a variety of compositions, these letters document that, despite the rigor

of touring, Liszt found time to compose. It must therefore have been a high priority. In
addition, after an outpouring of piano pieces (aside from the commissioned opera), he

turned his attention to works in genres that required other instruments in addition to piano,

including two piano concertos.

Although many of the compositions noted in Adams letters are lost,9 a handful
were published, and the editions allow us to evaluate Liszts precosity in composition (see
Table 6.1). These works are all for piano and heavily indebted to the so-called Wiener

brillante Schule, and Herbert Dobiey has observed that, die brillante Richtung des

Klavierspiels, wie sie bei Hummel, Czemy und Kalkbrenner dasteht, ist die erste Form, in
der Liszts Technik und Schreibweise hervortritt.10 This style was absorbed through his

contact with Czemy and can be found represented in his concert repertoire with concertos

ones to survive) from this list are Impromptu brillant sur des thimes de Rossini et Spontini, op. 3, and
Allegro di bravura, op. 4. See also below regarding lost compositions.

8Ibid 260.

^ o r a list of all the lost works that can be deduced from Adam Liszts letters, see Schnapp,
Verschollene Kompositionen, 121-123.

^Herbert Dobiey, Die Klaviertechnik des jungen Franz Liszts (Berlin, 1932); quoted in Rudolf
Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinen fruhen Klavierwerken (Leipzig: Franz Wagner, 1933); repr., Musicologica
Hungarica (Neue Folge) VerOffentlichungen des Musikwissenschaftlichen Instituts in Budapest 3 (Kassel:
Barenreiter, 1968), 28, n. 59.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166

Table 6.1: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 1823-182711

Searle Raabe Tide Year


147 26 [Diabelli Waltz variation] 1823*
208a Waltz in A major 1825*
148 27 Huit variations (op. 1) 1825*
149 28 Sept variations brillants (op. 2) 1825*
150 29 Impromptu brillant (op. 3) 1825*
151 30 Allegro di bravura (op. 4[a]) 1825*
152 31 Rondo di bravura (op. 4[b]) 1825*
1 476 Don Sanche [op. 5] 1825
136 1 Etude en douze exercises (op. 6) 1826*
153 31 Scherzo 1827

(*) denotes the year of publication

by Hummel (in A Minor, op. 85, and in B Minor, op. 89) and Czemy himself (Variations

on a Theme by Haydn in E-flat Major, op. 73). Rudolf Kdkai characterized it in the young

Liszts compositions as follows: Beethovenismen, verschmolzen mit der

Klaviersatztechnik der Brillanz, sind die Eigenart dieser Stiicke. In ihnen ist die Motivik
figuralen Charakters; im harmonischen Sinne herrscht die klassische Kadenz.. .12 He

further observed with regard to motivic use the tendency to spin out themes from a single

rhythmic figure. Melody therefore tends to have an instrumental character as opposed to a

vocal one, although there are exceptions (see the dtude in A-flat Major, op. 6, no. 9). In
addition, the music is relentlessly diatonic, and Liszts developing harmonic sense is

11All information is from the worklist in The New Grove Early Romantic Masters 1: Chopin,
Schumann, Liszt (New York: Norton, 1985). The Waltz in A major was written by 1823 and used in a
ballet by von Gallenberg, in which form it was published. It was first printed in piano form in The
Musical Gem (London, 1832). There is also a set of variations on a theme from Mehuls Joseph (S 147a),
recently published in the New Liszt Edition, but now known to be a work by Franz Xaver Mozart. Finally,
there is the publication, Preludes et Exercices de Muzio Clementi, corrigde et marquee au metronome par le
jeune Liszt, suivi de douze de ses Etudes; see Emile Haraszti, Le problfcme Liszt, Acta Musicologica 9
(1937), 127.

12K6kai, Franz Liszt in seinen frtthen Klavierwerken, 64.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167

limited to modulations, as in the theme of the Huit variations, m. 14, or in the extensive
coda to the same work, mm. 211 and 260. Formally, the compositions are in three-part

song form, occasionally rondo and variation form, and while the coda to the Huit variations

reveals a modest attempt to expand the boundaries of the form, overall much of this music
is derivative, though brilliantly laid out for the instrument13

A notable advance in Liszts development can be seen in the Scherzo in G Minor,

dated 27 May 1827 and thus composed during his third visit to England.14 Dieter

Torkewitz noted, die Stabilitat der Periodenstrucktur wind zumindest in den ersten 8
Takten getragen von einer vollig instabilen Harmonik.15 The work relies heavily on

the diminished seventh chord, and harmonic instability is characteristic throughout


although a cadence in G minor is reached in m. 46 (of an 85-measure work). Thus, where

harmonic audacity in the earlier compositions was used to establish a distant key, in the
Scherzo it is a component aspect of the melodic material. The resulting musical ideas are

expressed in a recognizable formal framework, however:

Die Um- und damit Abkehr von bestimmten Normen ist begleitet von einem
Verharren in anderen Normen; das Ungewohnliche in Liszts Scherzo vollzieht sich,
auf verschiedenen Ebenen, in der Divergenz zwischen formaler und harmonischer
Konzeption.16

13See ibid., 82-112; also Dieter Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken im Fruhwerk Franz Liszts,
Freiburger Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft 10, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (Munich, Salzburg:
Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1978), 10-12.

14The title is not Liszts the short piece lacks a Trio section and the autograph has only a
tempo indication, Allegro molto quasi presto. This single page is reproduced in Ernst Burger, Franz
Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: List Verlag, 1986), 50 (item 73); also in
English translation, A Chronicle o f His Life in Pictures, trans. Stewart Spencer (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1989). A facsimile had been previously published by Otto LeBmann in 1896 and by
Ferruccio Busoni in the journal Faust, eine Rundschau (Berlin, 1922). The folio was auctioned by J. A.
Stargardt on 2-3 December 1975 (catalog 747, lot 606), and its whereabouts is unknown.

15Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken im Fruhwerk Franz Liszts, 14.

16Ibid., 17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168

In this short piece we catch a first glimpse of Liszt embarking on the road that we recognize

as his own. It is therefore ironic that within a few months his flood of compositions would

be reduced to a trickle.

First Forays into the Concerto Genre

Based on Adam Liszts letter of 14 August 1825, we know that Liszt composed
two works for piano and orchestra. There is evidently a gap in the correspondence, as La

Mara printed only one letter between the two quoted above, that of 3 September 1824, but

in another publication she offered several letters of Czemy to Adam Liszt that are

apparently responses, with dates of 16 September, 25 September, 5 November, and 17

December 1824.17 None of these mention Liszts works for piano and orchestra, and

Adams letter remains our only source.18 It may be reasonably assumed that these works
were composed earlier in 1825, although little else can be said about them.
Nevertheless, speculation as to the identity of the two concertos has generated

considerable debate in the secondary literature, and the question has been further

complicated by a reference from 1827 in the diary of Ignatz Moscheles, as edited for

publication by his wife:

In dieser Saison fand sich auch der junge Liszt in London ein. Er spielte wiederholt
mit seiner allbekannten Virtuositat, die schon damals sehr entwickelt war, konnte aber
dennoch den kleinen Saal, in dem er am 9. Juni Concert gab, nicht fiillen. Von
seinem dort gespielten Concert in a-moll bemerkt das Tagebuch [Moscheles], daB es

17See La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Aus Franz Liszts erster Jugend: Ein Schreiben seines Vaters
mit Briefen Czemys an ihn, Die Musik 5/13 (1905), 23-28.

18Aside from collections edited by La Mara, see also Miria Eckhardt, Liszt in his Formative
Years: Unpublished Letters 1824-1827, New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 103 (Autumn 1986): 93-107;
Note dArchives: Trois letters du p&re de Liszt, La Revue Musicale 11 (1911): 251-253.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169

chaotische Schonheiten enthalt; von seinem Spiel, daB es alles friiher Gehorte an
Kraft und Uberwindung von Schwierigkeiten iibertreffe.19
Lina Ramann knew of this reference and had the opportunity to question Liszt on it in the
course of the research on her biography:

Von dieser Komposition scheint nichts als diese AuBerung spateren Zeiten geblieben
zu sein. Es giebt kein gedrucktes Amoll-Konzert von Liszt und der Komponist selbst
erinnert sich dessen nicht mehr mit BestimmtheiL Wahrscheinlich, daB es als
Manuskript, vielleicht nur eine Skizze, durch das Wanderleben verloren gegangen.20

Liszts own Tagebuch from this time survives, but it is limited to citations from religious

sources.21 With no trace of any manuscripts nor additional facts from the primary sources,
scholars have put forth three possible explanations with respect to these works: Moscheles
was mistaken in identifying the work as a composition by Liszt, and there are only two lost

concertos; the work Moscheles heard was one of the 1825 concertos; there are three lost

concertos from these years.

Emile Haraszd was the first to suggest that the work Moscheles heard was not by
Liszt at all:

Jai compulsd dans le Newspaper Repository du British Museum toute la presse


anglaise de ldpoque. II ny en a aucune trace, bien que les joumaux donnent des
comptes rendus assez dtaill6s sur les recitals de Liszt Mais il joua k la soiree du 21
mai de la Philharmonic Society un concerto de Hummel. La revue musicale anglaise,
Harmonicon r6imprime le programme. Selon ce journal cet fut le concerto en si
bdmol mineur de Hummel que joua Liszt De toute la saison, ce fut le seul concerto,
interpr&d par lui. Hummel, k ma connaissance, naurait pas dcrit de concerto en si

19Ignatz Moscheles, Aus Moscheles' Leben: Nach Briefen und Tagebiichern herausgegeben von
seiner Frau, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1872-1873), 1:138; quoted in Schnapp, Verschollene
K o m p o sitio n en 124. For an English translation, see Moscheles, Recent Music and Musicians: As
Described in the Diaries and Correspondence, edited by his wife and adapted from the German by A. D.
Coleridge (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1873), 94.

R a m a n n , Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 1:94-95.

21Published in facsimile as Franz Liszt, Tagebuch 1827, eds. Detlef Altenburg and Rainer
Kleinertz, 2 vols. (Wien: Paul Neff Verlag, 1986). There are no entries at all for the month of June.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170

bftnol mineur. Parmi ses sept concerto [sic] pour piano, il sen trouve un, en la
mineur, ce expliquerait la confusion.22

The argument is weak in many respects, not least in Harasztis overlooking Hummels
Concerto in B Minor, op. 89 (Liszt played both concertos in London), which is the likely
error in the program as found in the Harmonicon. It is also doubtful that Moscheles would

not have known Hummels Concerto in A Minor, op. 85, which was widely played, nor

that, conservative as he was, he would have described it as having chaotic beauties. But
more to the point, recent research has uncovered a review of the concert in question from

the Morning Post of 11 June 1827: He performed on Saturday a grand concerto, (his own

composition), in the most splendid style.. .23 There can be no questioning the accuracy
of Moscheless entry, and we must dismiss Harasztis theory and proceed to the next.

The idea that the Concerto in A Minor is to be identified with one of the concertos
from 1825 receives much support in the secondary literature. Theophil Stengel was the

first to identify the two 1825 concertos with works in August Gollerichs catalogue for

which manuscripts were not available, the Grandefantaisie symphonique (i.e., the concerto
mentioned by Moscheles) and the Concerto in the Italian Style.24 As noted in chapter two,
the work Moscheles heard was identified by Gollerich as Grandefantaisie symphonique in
A Minor, leaving the impression that Gollerich knew more about the composition than

Ramann (whose biography was probably his source). Note that this cannot be the work

based on themes from Berliozs Le retour d la vie (titled Grandefantaisie symphonique in

the manuscript), as Gollerich listed that work separately as Phantasie iiber Fischerlied

22Haraszti, Le probteme Liszt, 128. See also Felix Raabes Zusatze zu Band II, p. 3, in the
second volume of Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d enlarged ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968).

^W illiam Wright, Liszts 1827 Concert Appearances in London: Reviews, Notices, Playbills,
and Programs, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 29 (1991), 65.

t h e o p h i l Stengel, Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin,
1931), 10; see August GOllerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 281-282.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171

und Rauberlied aus U lio v. Berlioz. More likely, he simply confused the two

compositions, a mistake compounded by his ignorance of Adam Liszts letter. But aside
from Gollerichs error in nomenclature, and assuming there ever was a Concerto in the

Italian Style, Stengels assertion is plausible and has been seconded by Alan Walker and

Derek Watson in their biographies of Liszt25 There is no evidence to support i t however.


One wonders whether Liszt in old age would have been any more informative on the

relationship between these youthful concertos had Ramann been able to refer to Adam

Liszts 1825 letter La Maras publication appeared too late for that than he had been
with regard to Moscheless diary.

In his worklist for the fifth edition of Groves Dictionary o f Music and

Musicians, Humphrey Searle conservatively listed all three works under the category
doubtful or lost, giving Moscheless concerto with Gollerichs appelation (items 713,

716). Searle queried whether this Grandefantaisie symphonique was the same as the one
based on Berliozs themes (item 120) and in his monograph, published at about the same

time, followed the listing with a question mark 26 His doubt must have been lifted for The

New Grove, as all queries are gone.27 Peter Raabe also accepted the possibility that there
were three distinct compositions, but he identified the Concerto in A Minor with an earlier
version of Malediction:

Der Verfasser dieses Buches hat das Gluck gehabt, ein Bruchsttick der Jugendarbeit
im Weimarer Lisztmuseum aufzufinden: sechzehn Partiturblatter fiir Klavier und

^ S e e Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:120; Derek Watson, Liszt (New York: Schirmer, 1989), 20.

26See Humphrey Searle, The Music of Liszt (London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1954), 190.
See also the revised republication (New York: Dover, 1966). Julius Kapp likewise thought to relate the
two; see his Franz Liszt (Berlin & Leipzig: Schuster & Loeffler, 1909), 39, n. 2.

27Note that the The New Grove worklist reference of Ramann, i (1880), 7 in item 713 is
incorrect; Searle had written only the letter R in the earlier Grove list and improperly expanded it to
Ramann. The reference must be to Raabes first volume, where Adam Liszts letter is cited. Searle also
listed the year incorrectly as 1821, although he had 1825 in the earlier edition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172

Streichorchester, die zwar nicht liickenlos zusammenhangen, aus denen sich aber
doch erkennen ISfit, um was es sich handelt, namlich eben um einen Vorlaufer der
Malediction.28

Raabe believed that the sixteen folios in D-WRgs dated from this time, and he also noted

the generally chaotic nature of the work: Das Ganze ist von solchen Wildheit, daB das

Wort chaotisch dafiir nicht unzutreffend ist.29 This argument was modified by Friedrich

Schnapp to state that the earlier version represented by these pages was reworked

(umgearbeitet) as Malediction,30 no doubt because Malediction is in E minor, but


Raabes basic identification remained and others have accepted it as well.31 The weakness
of this argument had already been noted by Haraszti among his reasons in support of his

own theory (dismissed above): the use of chaotic is vague and subjective, and there is no

verification that the pages date to 1827.32 Raabe is, of course, correct in his analysis of

these folios as an earlier version of Malediction, but it will be demonstrated in chapter nine

that they very likely date from 1834. We also note that Malediction begins in E minor and

ends in E major, and it is unlikely that the work ever could have been considered a

Concerto in A minor. Raabes conjecture must therefore be dismissed. It remains


possible that the work Moscheles heard was a new concerto, as the advance in Liszts style

evident in the Scherzo in G Minor, composed two weeks before the concert in question,

could account for the adjective chaotic, but its precise identification as well as that of its

two companions must remain a mystery pending the discovery of other documents.

28Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 2:53.

29Ibid., 2:54.

30Verschollene Kompositionen, 124 (item 14).

31See Adrian Williams, Portrait o f Liszt: By Himself and His Contemporaries (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990), 31.

32See Le problfcme Liszt, 128.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173

Appendix: Two Folios from a Lost Concerto?

As discussed in previous chapters, the organization of the Liszt holdings of D-


WRgs was completed by Peter Raabe during his long tenure as curator, and his vast

knowledge of Liszts compositions, coupled with his practical knowledge as a musician,

guaranteed a high degree of accuracy in his cataloging of materials. A variety of items


eluded precise labeling, however, and were designated under his Miscellaneous catagory,

Z. As a result, there are three collections of stray folios which either could not be

identified as belonging to any particular work or for which the rest of the manuscript was
not otherwise present in the archive: Z12 (Nagy Potpourri), Z18, and Z31. Although

some of these pages have comments on them by Raabe, Rena Mueller was the first to

inventory these miscellanies by giving each item a number, followed by a one-sentence


description.33 The present author has further identified some of these manuscripts, two of

which may be surviving pages from one of the concertos of 1825.

Manuscript Z18, no. 30 (3me Variation)

This single folio in upright format with music on both sides contains the complete
music for the third variation of what is evidently a set of variations for piano and
orchestra in C Major. The paper has become extremely fragile with age, possibly the result

of poor storage prior to its deposit in the archive, and has separated down the middle

vertically along a fold. Although no watermark appears in the quadrant represented by this

folio, there are visible chain lines and the paper appears to have been of high quality. The
measurements are 343 x 264 mm., with 18 staves, 7-7.5 rastral, 283 mm. total span.

Other examples of this paper are found in the same miscellany, nos. 48 and 50. The music

33See Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1986), 389-393 (Appendix C: Inventory of Miscellaneous Sketch
Portfolios in Weimar). Her typewritten lists now appear inside the folders as a guide to the contents.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174

is written out on two systems per page, with two staves blank between each system.

Measures 1-10 are on the recto, 11-20 on the verso. The scoring is as follows (from top

to bottom): Piano / [Violon] I / [Violon] II / Alto / Flutes / Cors [en Ut] / Basso.

It is difficult to identify with certainty the hand as that of the young Liszt As
noted in chapter three, his mature hand does not appear until the mid-1830s, and, as this

page is obviously a fair copy, the young composer may have suppressed his natural
tendencies in favor of a cautious, neat writing style. Note, however, the monogram FL

above the second i of variation, which also appears on many pages of sketchbook N6

in D-WRgs (see the discussion of this source in chapter seven). Even if it can be

ascertained that the hand is that of Liszt, it is also possible that the folio is a copy of another
composers work.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons for speculating that this folio belongs to
one of the lost concertos from 1825. First, all aspects of the manuscript, from the paper to
the immature hand, suggest the mid-1820s. The other folios of the same paper type contain

only sketches, but in an immature hand that likely pre-dates the earliest entries from 1829 in

sketchbook N6. Second, the order of the instruments, not counting the piano, is typical of
the Italian style, with the upper strings (violins through violas) at the top of the page,

followed by the winds and brass, and a single bass line at the bottom representing the
cellos and basses. This method of scoring was undoubtedly the one taught him by Salieri

and reinforced by Paer, although the French instrumental indications suggest the work
must date from after his arrival in Paris. Note that all of Liszts scores from the 1830s and

later place the winds at the top, in a manner similar to modem practice. Third, all the
instruments are in C, not noteworthy in itself but perhaps an expedient in an orchestral

composition by a teenager with limited experience. The demands are also modest, with
simple attempts to liven the contrapuntal interest with variants of the prinicipal motive of the
theme. Finally, the piano style is virtuosic in the manner of the published compositions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175

from 1824 to 1826, especially the Itudes, op. 6, nos. 3 and 10. The theme itself, to the

extent that it can be reconstructed, is basically diatonic, but contains an interesting harmonic

coloration in mm. 18-19 that is typical for the composer at this time. While the E major

chord of m. 19 can be understood as the dominant of A minor, the flatted submediant of m.


18 is prepared by only a single common tone (c) and resolves irregularly. Such an

extraordinary harmonic touch is found, for example, in the theme from the Huit variations,

mm. 13ff., where an E-flat major triad is followed by a C-flat major, the deflection
winding its way back to the tonic within four meaures.

The variation is transcribed in Example 6.1.

Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (Nos. 15-16 in red)

This single folio in oblong format contains the last page of an orchestral score for
a work in C Major. The paper has chain lines, but no visible watermark. The

measurements are 266 x 355 mm., with 16 staves, 6 mm. rastral, 202 mm. total span.

There are page numbers in red ink, 15 and 16, and after the final measure the word
Fine appears, also in red. There are other symbols after the last measure which are in the
same ink as the music notation. These could not be deciphered, with the exception of

LD, probably an abbreviation for Laudate dominum. Page 15 is divided into two

systems. The upper system contains measures 1-12 with the scoring: [Violon] I / [Violon]
II / Alto / Clarinettes [en Ut] / Cors [en Ut] / Bassons / Basso. The following staff has a

few measures for the Horns, but this must refer back to a previous page, as these

instruments are represented in the above system. The lower system has mm. 13-22 with

the scoring: [Violons] I et II / Alto / Flutes / Oboi / Clarinettes [en Ut] / Cors et Trompettes
[en Ut] / Bassons / Basso. A part for Tympani is written on a hand-drawn staff beneath

Basso. There is also a clarification for the doubled Cors et Trompettes: Cors en haut

et trompettes en bas. Page 16 has a single system with mm. 23-31 and scoring:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176

[Violon] I / [Violon] II / Alto / Flutes / Oboi / Cla: / Cors / Bassons / Tromp: / Timballes /
Basso.

Much of what was said about Z18, no. 30 can be applied to this folio. It is
obviously from the end of an orchestral work, but several factors suggest that this work is

the same one as the variation in the folio discussed above. The instrumentation contains the

core of that in Z18, no. 30, and both works are in C Major. Note also the melody in the

FI, Ob, and Fg. in 13-20, which uses the same motive as found in Example 6.1 (mm. 1-2,
5-6). In addition, there is also the echo of the distinctive harmonic progression discussed

in Example 6.1 (mm. 18-19), where the flatted mediant is alluded to in mm. 1-8, and V of

vi to vi is found in mm. 9-12. Finally, observe the many rests in the music, which could

make sense only if there is a missing piano part. Indeed, it was quite common for a set of

variations in 4/4 to conclude with a final variation and coda in 6/8. The explanation for the

different paper and lack of a piano part may be found in Liszts method of drafting a work

in piano score and writing out the orchestral parts in a separate manuscript (see chapter

three, Compositional Method in the Concertos). Note also the lack of errors or
corrections, with the sole exception of mm. 15-16 in Cb, also suggesting orchestration

from a polished draft It is reasonable to postulate that this technique was used here, and
Z31, no. 10 represents a surviving page from the orchestral score, while Z18, no. 30 may

come from the fair copy that collated both manuscripts.

Z31, no. 10 is transcribed in Example 6.2, without any attempt to reconstruct the
missing piano part.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177

Example 6.1: Manuscript Z18, no. 30 (beginning)

Troisteme Variation

tra m ere fou: piano seul


Deuxftme fob: avec l'orchestre

iudmrnmmm
E 3P

vi. n

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178

Example 6.1: Manuscript Z18, no. 30 (continuation)

tu
irr

1^ ff
P ian o <
'^
- - T fa frv 4 T F*--- **-F-l i - V-c----1 _ w 5 -L j l
-jJJ -ysLu T S fr tliA fr jT < L [^ :P
; ....- r _ j_______* ^ - *<
VI. I
* ----- Ip V .________

V I. IT

Piano
mm M S p H

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179

Example 6.1: Manuscript Z18, no. 30 (continuation)

Eiliiife

s................................................................. -...........................

Piano <

jjp : r m n i>
- -

vi. n

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180

Example 6.1: Manuscript Z18, no. 30 (conclusion)

Critical Notes to Example 6.1


In mm. 1-7, Liszt has carefully marked rests cautionary natural, present in 9, is lacking
above each measure in every part except for here.
Piano, and he includes the words Ire fois to
signify that the first seven bars are for the 14 Piano: The bass clef is lacking in the left
soloist. Ilde fois is written underneath the Ire hand.
fois to indicate that the orchestra plays for the 15 VI I, II, Vie, FI: Although Liszt carefully
repetition. These indications have been modified marked rests elsewhere, he neglected to do so
in the transcription, along with the order of the in this measure. The omission may reflect
instruments. In addition, 3me Variation in the that this is the only measure to be divided
manuscript has been spelled out. between two systems (two beats in each).

5-6 Piano: The sixteenth-note beam in both 18 Piano: Flat signs are lacking in the left hand
hands extends for the entire measure; it is before a' and d".
modified by analogy with 1-2. 18 Vc e Cb: The flat is lacking before a.
11 Piano: In the right hand the third note from 20 Cor, VI n , Vc e Cb: Staccati are lacking and
the end is low enough to be b instead of are added by analogy with the other parts.
c \ although this is unlikely given the Vie has a dot over the last note, but as this
analogy with 9. Note, however, that Liszts is not found in any other part, it is deleted.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181

Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (beginning)

Fl.
i
Ob.

a.
p cresc.
i
ta2]

Fg. m

Cor.

' ll
Timp.
IP
VI. I
v cresc~
...^
H
vi. n
w-
cresc.
& A
Vie
KI it p
Vc.
eCb. 9 s! v T T J fa l-T f-T -

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182

Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (continuation)

Ob.

Solo
a.

[a2] 5*
Solo

Ip]

Cor.

TV.

Timp.

pizz.
VI. I

pizz.
v i. n

pizz.

Vie

t p]

pizz.
Vc.
eC b.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183

Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (continuation)

v- \ 7 f 7 J>7_JJ
> > V y
ft) i _
=m h =
jgr
jfc: f * > *, *- 4. >----V * ^ m S"
09 f 7 t 41 n .. 7 f 7 f 7 f '
= M 4 E^PT J

>/V
* .
fi - 1 ^ |. 1-1,
TO r -t~r V 7 ". w 7 f 7 ?=-7:f . _
t= * = f= M = N = = ^ ----- L~
f f

> z r H -i= V f = 4 f*- 0 --- m~
T" I 7 f 7 > > > _h
r-__ m Z ^ Z i-- f 7f -t-X -
J,r

'A [a2]
- > xr->- i - - f s ----- f J r f i -----
09 c -7-i 1 7} 1 f7 -f -
^ J!r p r ^ 1 - -

A [a2]
* ----> > > -V - > v > V
-4 7 j 7 J p
7 UL J
i 1

i f o ------------------ > -* 1 > > ! - .. 1 >


* _ /. 9 1 t * *. r * 1P- . 1
E g ? 7 I
f

'A [arcol A
vi - r ----- 1 t -W .-----
0 a t i - t 1 . 7 : ?. 7 f 7 f 7 f 7
----- * L P 91-----
/ r r T
p
P
A [arco] # i 0'
VI t = - - F ----- 1 1 7} 7 > 7 > =~ Wi-----
09 f J -* -\ ----- 9 > -- F ------- 7 r 7
p " W 9s-----
Xr )
[arco]
w -> -v - ~P %i w %i 4 ------ ---if
7 _7. fzz-lrjr 1 7
iia * i ._P i i
ft V 1

arco] -# 9
ifc--------- --------- P1: .7w7 - I 1"
/ -------------------
g * 7 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184

Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (continuation)

(19) 8
la2]________
H.
B P *3%
ffsempre m ft
JT

Ob. 3 * = t>
ffsem pre Ip
a.
p fe p I
[a2]

l^Cf gii i I
Fg- r|
ffsempre i atat

[a2U
Cor.
p u p :*=* -E a tip
ffsempre ip atat

[a2]

J1
ffsem pre
r Jr

Timp. fy^- I ; J j j -d a ^ k
Jf

vi. I
i -**-
:*z JeffrE
ffsempre Z* = ?

vi.
$ * 3 * P
ffsem pre
F = T atat

Vie
m ' ~w ffsempre
atat *= *=

Vc.
eCb. mI W ffsempre Hi atat

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185

Example 6.2: Manuscript Z31, no. 10 (conclusion)

&a.............................. 1
's >

H ,T-kypra4t [a 2 ]

*
ta 2 ]

8H 7 .f 7
rtf [If
APUI
_ _ .7 t - r
--------
x r r i T - J . J_ p

f J'f
J jf
;J
[a 2 ]
4/'
[a 2 ]

r rflp.

rtrcETiM
" 7 f 7 Is i* Is Is Is '
7 7 f; 7

* f f
t
r


JJJ
AAA

i
rH
[a 2 ] [a 2 ]
k
iL 1 i l 7 'f 7
1 A A * * " 1* *
7 r 7 - f . . .7.
6b * )- j g p -
4 ^
r AAA
* f t JJJ

Fg /
> > >
------- h 2
p
E _
f T :
*

I 7 f 7 F. 7 .^.W lmn mj mn m N m= s 1= m 1 7 f 7 k r N
-S 3 a * -
AAA
& JJJ

[a 2 ]
f * - P
J P --------> r> H r 1 r " O.

r
7 .J . 7

JJj
AAA B= r 7"f "
rH
Tr.
SN pi
_7_
V -J * -<
H j -J
- 7 f 7
/ *
7.
13 j -7 !
*
7 . : ..
-J
- 7 .f 7

p AAA
.0 7

|LJ t " v7 1 f .......7i~ C T f 7


FiFfwPi=)=F
/ m m mmu e 7 ff 7 # 7 f 7


4i
T *

JJJ
AAA

VI. I H - f i y j
--------- - y - 7 7 f - 7 f - ) = . 7 f 7 P -X - j / f v

AAA
JJJ

* 4
VI. pH p* Iff f
.77. 7 . - r - *' l t -
----------- # ----------
*
y-
* *i1 t) 1
7
1 Cl F ci
7 .. .j
p---------
T ^ ^ J-
&
AAA

.0 7

IS * a v
~ - t ~ r p 7*f }i 7/ . Tr*
- - 1-
r v l
jsAgf
J if f

r _ y $ 7 8& J 7 :^ -7 :

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186

Critical Notes to Example 6.2


All clefs are lacking in the manuscript. 15 Tr: The eighth rest is lacking.

2 VIII: The flat sign is missing. 16 Ob: The staccato is lacking; it is added by
analogy with FI and Fg.
6 V II, II: The slur in V II reaches back to the
21-22 V ceC b: The distinction between these
previous measure. It is revised to agree with
measures and 25 appears to be intentional.
VI n . See also Cl and Fg in 9. In addition,
(Note also that for these two measures Fg is
the crescendo sign is written over 7. It is
marked col basso.)
moved back to agree with Cl and Fg.
22 Cor,Tn The second note is written as a
8 VII: The slur is lacking; it is added by anal quarter followed by an eighth rest; it is
ogy with VI n . altered to agree with the other parts.
13-22 V II, II: Liszt misjudged the number of 23 Fg: The slur is lacking; it is added by anal
staves that he needed on the second system ogy with Cl.
of page 15, and placed V II and II, as well
as Cor and Tr, on the same staves. The lat 24 Vie: The ff is lacking; it is added by anal
ter two instruments are clear enough, but ogy with the other parts.
Liszt wrote an additional upward stem for the 25 Vc e Cb: The c is written as a quarter note.
top note of the violins. This could mean It is changed to an eighth and two eighth
two separate parts, although he was careless rests added.
in m. 15 and wrote the middle note of the
first chord with an upward as well as a 26 Timp, V ceC b: Although redundancies in
downward stem. As the triple stops are all the dynamic markings are found throughout,
practical, the notation has been interpreted to the f f in this measure is deleted as it is
mean that V II and II are unisono in these lacking in the other parts.
measures, and that Liszt merely wanted to 28 VIII, Vie: The staccati are lacking and sup
emphasize the upper note. plied by analogy with V II and Vc e Cb.
14 Ob: The staccato is lacking on the last 31 Timp: This measure is written as a quarter
eighth note; it is added by analogy with FI note followed by rests; it is altered to agree
andFg. with the other parts.

Conclusion

If both of these folios belong to the same work, and if that work represents an

original composition by Liszt, we can finally extrapolate a few facts about one of the lost

concertos from 1825. First, it was a work in C Major, perhaps in three movements

(although a theme and variations could also stand by itself). Second, the work was
modestly scored, very likely by the teenage composer, with an instrumentation that is

competent and imaginative, giving some independence to the orchestra. Third, the piano
writing was heavily dependent on such contemporary masters as Czemy and Hummel,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187

whose works Liszt had in his repertoire. Finally, if in three movements, the last was a

theme and variations. Each variation may have had varied scoring, and the final variation

and coda was in 6/8. And aside from the harmonic progression in Example 6.1, mm. 18-
19, nothing on these pages suggests the chaotic beauties Moscheles heard in 1827, which

also supports an earlier date. One final speculation may also be advanced: if the

identification of these pages is correct, the argument advanced in chapter five regarding the
orchestration of Liszts compositions is that much strengthened.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VH

FIRST MATURITY (1834-35)

Brilliant on his instrument and prolific in his compositional output: the depiction

of Liszt as child prodigy is typical of the time in which he lived. The burden for such
artists is the need to achieve a similar stature as adults, to fulfill their early promise or fail to
mature. Based on the observation of the dazzling virtuoso offering vacuous programs

calculated to please the public, Robert Schumann assumed the latter was true about Liszt.1

The facts of Liszts life were not as simple as they appeared to his contemporaries, for by
1835 he had produced an impressive, though small, group of innovative works that

embodied the compositional goals he would exploit for the rest of his career, works which
included at least three compositions for piano and orchestra. That Schumann knew nothing
of these compositions is itself part of the story, for Liszt ultimately suppressed this music.

Modem historians have also misrepresented this period, for, like Schumann, they

have not understood the historical context and remained ignorant of the musical one. Our

biographers may be forgiven their inaccurate picture, as there is no period of which we are

more ignorant than that of 1828 through 1832.2 It must be quickly added that Liszt did not

destroy evidence in an attempt to obscure these years; rather, the scant documentation
confirms that he had accomplished little worth noting. Nevertheless, the truth was

^ e e Neue Zeitschrift fu r Musik 11 (15 October 1839), 121; also Robert Schumann,
Gesammelte Schriften iiber Musik und Musiker, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1914; repr.,
Westmead: Gregg International Publishers, 1969), 1:439-440 (quoted in chapter six).

2The most thorough biography to date reflects this lack of knowledge by concentrating on the
figures who influenced the young composer; see Alan Walker, Franz Liszt: Volume One, The Virtuoso
Years, 1811-1847, rev. ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 129-189.
188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189

evidently an embarrassment to him, and in the accounts of his life he took a simple

expedient to save face: by dating his artistic maturity to the July Revolution of 1830, three

barren years would read better to posterity than seven. Yet he could be frank to at least one
of his acquaintances:

Je sais que les 4 ou 5 ann6es qui se sont &oules entre ma carri&re denfance et le
commencement de ma periode virile (de 1829 k 33 ou 34) mont 6t6 facheux sous
plusieurs rapports. Les maladies presque constants qui mlprouvaient alors, et le
profond et amer d&ouragement, qui en fut la suite (sans parler ici d autres causes qui
sy joignirent) ont retard6es sans doute de beaucoup le diploiement ext&ieur de mes
faculty.3

When the primary sources are examined without any preconceived notions, they

consistently support the dating found in the above letter, placing the first signs of Liszts

periode virile (or first maturity, as we prefer to call it) to 1834.

In the present chapter, we offer a new reading of these years. Our argument is
concerned less with the musical influences on his style than with the historical

circumstances surrounding the compositions from this period. This is not to minimize the
contact with the music of Hector Berlioz and Fr6d6ric Chopin, among others, but simply to

underscore the fact that Liszts harmonic adventurousness, as found in a work such as the

Harmonies poitiques et religieuses, and formal innovations, as found in De profundis, owe

little to his musical contemporaries. By narrowing the time frame of these early concertos
to less than a year, it is hoped to show at once the intensity of activity, the rapidity of

stylistic development, and the relationship to influences non musical in nature. The

resulting view of Liszts life, coupled with the available manuscript evidence, enables us to

understand better his musical development. Schumann sketched the only picture he could;

our survey will exhibit a considerably different canvas.

3The complete letter of 28 December 1837 to Ignatz Moscheles is found in appendix A, where it
has been transcribed from the original in D-WRgs (Ms. 71/11). It has previously appeared in German
translation in Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, ed. Hans Rudolf Jung (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987), 64-66.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190

Portrait of a Floundering Artist


Following their third trip to England, Liszt and his father were taking the waters
at Boulogne-sur-Mer when Adam became sick with typhoid fever and succumbed a few

days later. The death was completely unexpected: he was only fifty years old.4 Liszt

found himself alone with little in the way of funds, aside from a sum that his father had

deposited in a Viennese bank,5 and he told August Gollerich many years later that he had
had to sell his piano to cover the interment costs.6 He returned to Paris with his mother,

who had been living with relatives in Vienna, and supported the two of them by offering

piano lessons.7 A letter of two years later offers some idea of his artistic life: Je suis

tellement chargd de lemons que tous les jours, depuis huit heures et demie du matin jusquii

10 heures du soir, j ai h. peine le temps de respirer.8 Aside from these obligations, only a
bare outline of his life can be reconstructed. He can be seen searching spiritually for
meaning in life outside of music: after the dissolution of a youthful affair in 1828, he

desired to turn to the priesthood,9 and he also looked to the Saint-Simonians for guidance,

4This age is based on a birthdate of 16 December 1776 provided by Walker, who does not offer a
reference; see his Franz Liszt, 1:38. Walker also quotes a parish mortuary register, which has him at fifty-
four (p. 125). Lina Ramann has his age at death as forty-seven; see her Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und
Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1880-1894), 1:100. It has not been possible to
reconcile this discrepancy.

5See Liszts will from 1860 in Franz Liszts Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols.
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1893-1904), 5:54.

6See August GOllerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 161.

7See the dtude biographique, Frantz Listz [sic], in the Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June
1835), 200: Revenu de Boulogne h Paris, Listz [sic] se fait une existence en lemons.

%Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:4-5 (23 December 1829, to Mr. de Mancy).

9See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:122-123.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191

attending their meetings in 1830 and 1831.10 To the other extreme, he may have gone
through a series of affairs.11 Finally, he appears to have abandoned his lessons with Paer

and Reicha. Without his fathers guiding hand, all discipline went out of Liszts life.

This aimless existence is seen clearly in his concertizing, where he is found often
as a supporting player, as in the performances of Mozarts overture to Die Zauberflote

arranged for twelve hands at three pianos.12 In this manner, he cautiously re-entered the

concert scene with three appearances on 25 December 1827,27 January, and 23 February
1828, increasing to eleven for the period covering the end of March and throughout April.

These concerts included only one organized by himself, that of 7 April, and it is significant

that the featured work was Hummels Septet (op. 74) in the place where a new, original
composition might have been expected. A failed love affair in mid-1828 left him

emotionally devastated, and the resulting breakdown led to another prolonged absence from

the Parisian musical scene.13 Thus, there were no appearances throughout the rest of
1828, although an announced concert for 25 December would have included Beethovens
Emperor Concerto, canceled due to Liszts illness.14 He performed infrequently in the

10See Ralph Locke, Liszts Saint-Simonian Adventure, 19th-Century Music 4 (Spring 1981):
209-227; idem, Music, Musicians, and the Saint-Simonians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986),
especially pp. 101-106; Paul Merrick, Revolution and Religion in the Music o f Liszt (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987), 5-6.

n See Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:148-149.

12This work was listed as the overture to La fl&te enchant6e on 27 January 1828 and 22 March
1829. and Mystires d'Isis on 30 March 1828 and 29 April 1830.

13One paper (Hinted an obituary; see Le Corsaire (23 October 1828), quoted in Ramann, Franz
Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:129-131 (German translation), and Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:134 (English
translation).

14There is some confusion in the secondary literature over whether this concert took place, but
see his letter to Czerny in Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:3-4 (23 December 1828).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192

years that followed, with six concerts in 1829 and five in 1830.15 Such appearances

enabled him to maintain his professional contacts as well as keep his name before the
public, but little more.

An absence of his own works at these concerts further suggests that his
haphazard professional behavior extended to composition. On 7 April 1828, he played an

improvisation sur le piano, based on themes from a Beethoven symphony, Rossinis Le


siige de Corinthe, and Aubers La muette de Portici. There are also improvisations listed

for 10 April 1828 and 15 December 1829 of which no information is known, likewise for a

Fantaisie on 23 February 1828. He played a set of variations on themes by Rossini and

Auber on 13 (or 20) April 1828, but there is no known work of his that combines the
music of these two composers; it might have been an improvisation, or two separate

compositions in earlier versions (see below). Variations were also played on 20 and 30
April 1828, with no further identification as to the theme. On 7 April 1829 he played a set

of variations on a theme from Aubers La fiancie, which was likely to promote his own
recently published opus.16 A solo is listed a few days later on 11 April, possibly another

performance of the same work. Liszts repeated recourse to variation sets, along with

improvisations, reveals a departure from the intensity of composition, as well as the


genres, that occupied him prior to 1827 (see chapter six, The Prodigy as Composer), an

observation that is reinforced by the three completed works that are known from these

years, only one of which was published (see Table 7.1).

15This information is summarized from Geraldine Keeling, Liszts Appearances in Parisian


Concerts 1824-1833, Liszt Society Journal 11 (1986), 22-34. All concert information is derived from
this source, unless otherwise indicated.

16See Geraldine Keeling, Concert Announcements, Programs and Reviews as Evidence for
First or Early Performances by Liszt of His Keyboard Worics to 1847, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992),
398.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193

Table 7.1: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 1828-183017

Searle Raabe Title Year


241 107 [Zwei Satze ungarischen Charakters] 1828
385 116 Grande fantaisie sur la tyrolienne de lopra La Fiancde 1829*
(op. 1)
421a [Variations sur une marche du Sifcge de Corinthe] 1830

(*) denotes the year of publication

Lina Ramann portrayed the events of the July Revolution of 1830 as instrumental
in rousing Liszt from his creative lethargy. He was much in sympathy with the

revolutionaries, and, though he did not participate, the fighting he witnessed impressed him
deeply: Von dem Moment der Julirevolution an war Liszts Wesen ein anderes. Es zeigte

eine erhohte Spannkraft Physische Indispositionen, noch von seiner Krankheit her,

ubermannten ihn nicht mehr. Cest le canon qui la guri! 18 The importance of these

days to him as a composer were noted in the earliest biographies,19 and all offer as proof

the resulting symphonie r6volutionnaire: it was mentioned in the 6tude biographique


from 1835 (II conut alors une symphonie rtivolutionnaire) and in J. W. Christems 1841

biography, where his inspiration is traced to Beethovens Wellingtons Victory

AH information is from the worklist in The New Grove Early Romantic Masters 1: Chopin,
Schumann, Liszt (New York: Norton, 1985). For S 241, the catalogue has a date of 71831-7, but the
autograph in D-Bds (Fr. Liszt 5) has the inscription Paris le 21 Mai 1828, apparently written at the same
time as the rest of the manuscript See also Zoltdn Gardonyi, Elso Magyar Zenedarabjai (Die ersten
ungarischen Klavierstucke von Franz Liszt) (Sopron: A SzerzO Kiaddsa, 1935) [German summary on pp. 7 -
8], and Le style hongrois de Franz Liszt (Az Orsz. Szdchenyi KOnyvtdr Kiaddsa, 1936). On S 421a, see
Nancy B. Reich, Liszts Variations on the March from Rossinis Sifcge de Corinthe, Fontis Artis Musicae
23 (1976): 102-106; 26 (1979): 235-236. The Introduction survives on a single bifolio, the variations are
lost.

18Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:148.

19See Peter Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts, Inaugural
Dissertation for the Doctor of Philosophy, University of Jena (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1916), 17, n.
6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194

symphony.20 Liszt himself must have been the source for these writers, and he evidently

wanted to make this barren period appear less devoid of growth: the so-called symphonie

rdvolutionnaire never progressed past the sketch stage, covering only a single bifolio.21
Oddly, Liszt never claimed that it was completed, only that he was inspired to write it

The sketches for the Revolutionary Symphony have already been mentioned in
chapter three, The Autographs, and chapter four, Liszts Compositional Method, with
regard to the composers charateristic traits, but here we will examine the content. At the

top of the first page, Liszt scrawled 27,28,29 Juillet Paris and next to the first

system of music, Symphonie. The music itself appears to be a continuity draft written
quickly under the inspiration of the actual events one can imagine Liszt observing the

confrontation and immediately putting pen to paper. This is also suggested by the words
written in haste down the right-hand margin, perhaps as aides de mimoire for a program,

with additional descriptions found within the manuscript: indignation, vengeance, terreur,

libert6, d6sordre, cris confus..., Marche de la garde royale, doute, incertitude..., 8 parties

diffrrentes, attaque, Battaille..., Marche de la garde nationale, Enthousiasme,


Enthousiasme, Enthousiasme.22 The music itself covers from one to four staves, petering

^ S e e Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 202; J. W. Christem, Franz Liszt nach
seinem Leben und Wirken aus authentischen Berichten (Hamburg & Leipzig: Schuberth & Comp., 1841),
17-19. See also G. Schilling, Universal-Lexicon der Tonkunst, 6 vols. (Stuttgart, 1835-38), 4:417418;
quoted in Dieter Torkewitz, Der Erstfassung der Harmonies podtiques et religieuses von Liszt, Liszt-
Studien 2, ed. Serge Gut (Munich and Salzburg: Emil Katzbichler, 1981), 228.

21See Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, Notenbeilage 2, pp. 3-5; also Dieter Torkewitz,
Harmonisches Denken im Friihwerk Franz Liszts, Freiburger Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft 10, ed. Hans
Heinrich Eggebrecht (Munich, Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1978), 18-20. Rena Mueller has
dubbed D-WRgs, N6, the Revolutionary Symphony Sketchbook; see her Liszts Tasso Sketchbook:
Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1986), 166. It is uncertain
whether the first sketch (Cieux! Ecoutez!) actually belongs to the Symphony, although it certainly dates
from the time.

22See the facsimiles of the first page in Ernst Burger, Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in
Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: List Verlag, 1986), 63; also in English translation, A Chronicle o f His
Life in Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); Zsigmond L2szl6 and Bdla Mdtdka, Franz
Liszt: A Biography in Pictures, trans. Bama Balogh, trans. rev. Cynthia Jolly (London: Barrie and Rockliff,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195

out completely on the fourth page. It is a draft of the roughest kind, and it would be

difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct a performable composition from the notation nor
are there any other surviving sketches that could be of assistance.

Most descriptions of Liszts unfinished symphony focus on the impression made

on him by the July Revolution and the way it inspired him toward his first attempt at
program music, especially notable as the effort was made prior to his contact with Berlioz.

Raabe highlights the dependence on borrowed material.23 In addition to the musical


references noted in the manuscript, fragment de Vive Henry IV combiner Allons enfants

de la patrie, Ramann added the following themes, no doubt received from Liszt himself: a

Hussite song from the 15th century and the chorale Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott.24 This

emphasis is further reinforced by the reference to Beethovens Wellingtons Victory. We

prefer to emphasize the actual state of the manuscript: rather than awakening Liszt from his

musical slumber, these sketches confirm that even a revolution was not sufficient to arouse

the composer.
The months that followed this cure saw little change in Liszts musical life.

Later that year, he began his close friendship with Hector Berlioz, meeting him the day

before the first performance of the Symphonie fantastique (4 December).25 He certainly

demonstrated his enthusiasm at the performance and even borrowed the scores of this work

1968), 33; Hedwig Weilguny and Willy Handrick, Franz Liszt, 6th ed (Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag fur
Musik, 1980), item 31; Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, 29. The entire sketch is reproduced in Peter Raabe,
Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 1concluding plates.

^ S e e Raabe, Die Entstehungsgeschichte, 17-20.

^ S e e Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:146-147.

^ S e e The Memoirs o f Hector Berlioz, trans. and ed. David Cairns (New York: Norton, 1975),
139 (chap. 31).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196

and the Ouverture des frartcs-juges (also on the concert),26 but although the influence of his
older colleague would be evident in the years to come, the event did little to stimulate Liszt

into immediate action. Even the transcription of these compositions would not begin until
three years later (discussed below). Evidence of continued stagnation is also found in his

concert appearances, which cease with a performance on 29 April 1830 and, with two

exceptions, resume only in January 1833.27 That this hiatus is not merely a false

impression given by poor documentation is clear from an announcement for the 2 April
1832 concert:

M. Litz [sic], qui semble avoir renonc6 it se faire entendre au moins pour un temps
fort long, a bien voulu jouer une partie secondaire dans un morceau k quatre mains
dont un de ses 61&ves a ex6cut6 la partie principale.... [M]ais pourquoi diable a-t-il
renoncd k se faire entendre en public!28

Finally, a sketchbook in D-WRgs (shelflist N6) testifies to his compositional impotency as

well as the general disarray of his life. In addition to nearly illegible quotations from
assorted literary works and the Bible, compositions are found started and abandoned after

only a few measures, and there is a series of dates from 1829 to 1832 with no apparent

internal order. Liszt must have left blank pages between sketches in the hope of completing

26See Hector Berlioz, Correspondence G&nirale, ed. Pierre Citron, 5 vols. to date (Paris:
Hammarion, 1972-1989), 1:385 (6 December 1830, to his father); 1:393 (21 December 1830, to Liszt).

27His conceit career may have resumed as early as 28 September 1832 with an appearance in
Bourges, as noted in Burger, Franz Liszt, 68. In addition, Liszts letter of 12 December 1832 indicates he
was to perform the following day; see Robert Bory, Diverses lettres inddites de Liszt, Schweizerisches
Jahrbuch fiir Musikwissenschaft 3 (1928), 11. Keeling did not fmd a reference to this event, although Serge
Gut accepts it in his Liszt (Paris: Editions de Fallois/LAge d Homme, 1989), 480. Gut also places Liszt
on Berliozs concert of 30 December, probably based on Berliozs letter to Liszt of 19 December: P.S.
Notre concert est remis au dimanche 30 d&embre. (Correspondance Ginirale, 2:50.) Again Keeling did not
find a reference to Liszts participation. Note also that Liszt had performed outside of Paris, in Rouen, on
28 January 1832, as documented in the Journal de Rouen. I am grateful to Geraldine Keeling for this
information.

28Revue Musicale 6 (9 April 1832), 79. See also Le Constitutionnel (1 April 1832): ...M.
Listz [sic], quon na point entendu depuis long-temps, y reproduira dans sa maturity un talent, dont la
precocitd merveilleuse acquit une c616britd europdenne.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197

these abortive beginnings and, realizing that he would never do so, went back and used the

folios for other sketches. To add to the confusion, at one point the book was turned upside

down and used from the other end. Contrary to Liszts usual practice of raiding his
sketchbooks for blank manuscript pages and occasionally entire compositions, the pages of

the volume are all intact, thus the lack of any completed composition but one can be

attributed solely to inability.29 Perhaps he had recovered physically, as suggested by


Ramann, but musically he remained as unfruitful as ever.

Whereas the surviving documentation does not bear out the assertions regarding
the July Revolution, there is evidence to designate another event as a turning point, albeit
nearly two years later. Liszt attended a concert given by Nicolb Paganini in late April

1832,30 and he preserved the impression it made on him in a letter of 2 May to his former

student Pierre Wolff:

Et moi aussi je suis peintre, sbcria Michel-Ange la premibre fois quil vit un
chef-doeuvre,... quoique petit et pauvre, ton ami ne cesse de rbpbter ces paroles du
grand homme depuis la demibre representation de Paganini. Renb, quel homme, quel
violon, quel artiste! Dieu, que de souffrances, de misbre, de tortures dans ces quatre

29The book is described in Rudolf Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinenfruhen Klavierwerken (Leipzig:
Franz Wagner, 1933; repr. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1968), 18-19. A discussion of the musical significance is
found on pp. 61-81, and transcriptions are provided on pp. 122-125. An overview may be found in Keith
T. Johns, Franz Liszts N6 Sketchbook held at the Goethe-Schiller Archive in Weimar, Journal o f the
American Liszt Society 20 (December 1986): 30-33. Facsimiles are found in Kdkai, [141,145] (pages 60
and 79), and Burger, Franz Liszt, 64 (page 31). See also the discussion of this source below and in chapters
eight and nine. For a discussion of all of Liszts surviving sketchbooks, see Mueller, Liszts Tasso
Sketchbook, 165-171. See also Keith T. Johns, The N series of Liszts Sketchbooks Held at the
Goethe and Schiller Archive in Weimar Part I: N1 and N2, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 19 (June
1986): 20-22.

30The concert was probably that of 30 April, Paganinis third of the season (he gave ten in all).
His first concert was 25 March, but it is unlikely Liszt was present (i.e., Liszts single concert appearance
on 2 April 1832 was before he heard Paganini play). A common mistake in many biographies is to place
Liszt at Paganinis first Parisian concert of 9 March 1831, but he was probably in Geneva at the time; see
Maria Eckhardt, Diary of a Wayfarer: The Wanderings of Franz Liszt and Marie dAgoult in Switzerland,
June-July 1835, Journal of the American Liszt Society 11 (June 1982): 17, n. 26. Certainly the letter
quoted below reads as if Liszt has heard the great violinist for the first time.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198

cordesL. Quant son expression, sa manure de phraser, son ame enfin!----------


________ 31

He remarked that he had been driven to reading voraciously and practicing keyboard

exercises four to five hours a day: Ah! pourvu que je ne devienne pas fou tu
retrouveras un artiste en moi!32 Later that month he wrote to another student, Valdrie
Boissier:

Depuis quelques jours ma tete va mieux, et j en profite pour retravailler le plus quil
mest possible, bientdt j espfere pouvoir me livrer tout entier h cet ange-ddmon qui
mentraine et peut-etre lhiver prochain serais-je un peu moins indigne de la
bienveillance, des encouragements que vous me prodiguez.33
It is unclear to what work Liszt was referring, but it is possible that he had in mind the

Grandfantasia de bravoure sur la Clochette, op. 2, based on the well-known theme from

Paganinis Concerto No. 2 in B minor: the aforementioned sketchbook contains the first

part of the work with the date 12 June 1832 (page 57).34 By the end of the year, Liszt was

able to summarize his compositional progress to Valdrie:

31Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:7-8 (2 May [1832]). Several identifications have been offered for the
mysterious Rend. Iimile Haraszti thought that it was an allusion to Chateaubriands character; see his
Le probl&me Liszt, Acta Musicologica 9 (1937): 130, n. 27. Haraszti is here responding to Raabes
assertion that Liszt was addressing a mutual friend in Geneva, Rend Baillot, the son of a well-known
violinist; see Raabe, Franz Liszt, 1:232, n. 27. Another possibility is that La Mara misread the name, as
comparisons with other documents demonstrate that her editions can be unreliable, both in the omission of
passages and transcriptional errors. It is therefore possible that Pierre was the intended name, a feasible
conclusion given Liszts extremely poor penmanship during this period. Liszt dedicated to Wolff his
Grande valse di bravura, op. 6. Incidentally, the quotation was uttered by Corraggio on seeing Raphaels
St. Cecilia.

^F ra n z Liszts Briefe, 1:7.

33Bory, Diverses lettres, 7 (24 May [1832]). Valdrie Boissier had studied with Liszt during
the winter of 1831-32, and her mother was present at these lessons and kept a diary of them; see Auguste
Boissier, Liszt pedagogue: Lemons de piano donntes par Liszt d Mademoiselle Valerie Boissier d Paris en
1832 (Paris: Honord Champion, 1923; repr. Geneva: Slatkins Reprints, 1976). A complete English
translation is found in The Liszt Studies: Essential Selections from the Original 12-Volume Set of
Technical Studies fo r the Piano, ed. Elyse Mach (New York: Associated Music Publishers, 1973). He
dedicated to Valdrie his Fantaisie romantique sur deux milodies suisses, op. 5, no. 1.

^ S e e Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken, 46-49.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199

[J]ai pipar6 et longuement 61abor6 plusieurs compositions instrumentales entre


autres un grand Solo caractdristique k propos dune chansonette de Panneron, une
Fantaisiefantastique sur la clochette de Paganini, un Concerto daprfcs un plan qui je
pense sera nouveau et dont les accompagnements me restent k dcrire, etc. etc. 35

Of these three works, the Paganini fantasy is perhaps the least substantial,
consisting of an extended introduction, theme and variation k la Paganini, and a finale di

bravura. The Solo caractdristique, if it can be identified with the manuscript auctioned in

1987, is more elaborate with several sections including a chansonette with variations.36

Both remain dependent on variation form, however. The third work is undoubtedly
substantial and appears to be the earliest version of Concerto No. 1. Although the

copyists manuscript can be dated not earlier than 1834, the opening measures are found in
sketchbook N6 along with a date of 1 January 1832, and there is no other candidate among
the works from this period. This concerto will be discussed in chapter eight, but let it

suffice to recognize the grand scope of the three-movement work and the originality not

only of its themes but of its conception. Many biographers see the influence of Paganini
only in Liszts increased instrumental virtuosity,37 but given that he did not return to
performing until the following year, the real benefit appears to have been the relief of his

compositional block: in seven months, Liszt surpassed the output of the past five years.

35Bory, Diverses lettres, 10 (12 December 1832).

36See Sothebys catalogue, Music, Continental Manuscripts and Printed Books, Science and
Medicine (London, 26-27 November 1987), 141-142 (lot #292); also Michael Kimmelman, Lost Score
By Liszt To Be Sold, New York Times (24 November 1987). The catalogue description suggests the
identification, partially from the use of Chansonette written over a theme in the score, and the facsimiles
show the hand to be remarkably similar to the one found in sketchbook N6. The manuscript was purchased
by a private party, and its whereabouts is unknown.

37For example, Sacheverell Sitwell, Liszt, rev. ed. (London: Cassell & Co., 1955; repr. New
York: Dover, 1967), 19-21. Alan Walker notes Liszts artistic awakening, but speaks only in terms of
instrumental virtuosity; see his Franz Liszt, 1:173. Eleanor Perdnyi, on the other hand, disputes the extent
of Paganinis influence; see her Liszt: The Artist as Romantic Hero (Boston: Little, Brown & Company,
1974), 51-59.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200

To cite the spring of 1832 as a turning point for the young composer is not to

imply that his vocation was now well established, as a review of the following year shows
that Liszt was unable to capitalize on his new-found impetus. The first indication may be

inferred from a letter written in May 1833 in which he reported on his next musical project,

a transcription as opposed to a new work:

A propos de musique, j ai rdentendu hier soir, k la soiree de LEurope littdraire, la


Symphoniefantastique de Berlioz; jamais cette oeuvre ne mavait paru aussi
complete, aussi vraie. Si je ne suis pas tu6 dici k la fin de Juin probablement je me
mettrai k loeuvre, je larrangerai pour piano, quelque peine et difficult^ quil y ait k
cette entreprise.38

A letter written to Boissier a few weeks after would seem to belie this supposition:

Vous iecevrez au commencement de lhiver (sous le tide assez pr&entieux


d oeuvres de F. L.) plusieurs compositions qui se rattachent k une foule
d observations et did&s que je ne pourrai dSvelopper que successivement et
beaucoup plus tard.39

Several months later, he repeated his expectation: [Jjaurai soin de me faire pr6c6der par

quelques messagers tels que la Symphonie fantastique, la Clochette, etc qui paraitront
successivement dans le courant de lhiver.40 Liszts optimism is nevertheless impossible
to justify, for while the transcription and the bravura paraphrase are obvious enough, the

etc. of this letter and the plusieurs compositions of the previous are by no means clear.
It is unlikely to have included the concerto mentioned in his letter of December 1832, as the

usual practice was to withhold such a work from publication until the virtuoso/composer

38Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse dAgoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier (Paris: Editions


Bernard Grasset, 1933-34), 1:22 (2 May 1833). The letter is dated Vendredi, 1 heure du matin." Liszt also
referred obliquely to the transcription in a letter of 31 May: Je travaille it force depuis quelques jours: ma
tdche est extrbmement lourde, ou du moins je me la suis faite telle. (Bory, Diverse lettres, 13.) See also
Charles Suttoni, Liszt Letters: Valerie Boissier, Journal of the American Liszt Society 19 (June 1986),
148, n. 3.

39Bory, Diverses lettres, 13 (31 May 1833).

^ Ibid., 14 (14 November 1833).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201

had the opportunity to perform it. Other candidates are the transcriptions of Schuberts

song Die Rose and Berliozs Ouverture desfrancs-juges, Andante amoroso, a piano
work based on the Iiddefixe from the Symphoniefantastique, and the first version of

Harmonies podtiques et religieuses.

The basis for assigning the Schubert transcription to 1833 is found in the letter of
31 May, where Liszt stated: Votre approbation de la Rose me flatte beaucoup.41

Although most commentators take this reference to be to his transcription (for example, the
worklist in The New Grove), Liszt may be referring to the song itself. The link must

therefore be regarded as tenuous pending other documentation, especially as the

transcription was not issued until 1835.42 Of the two Berlioz works, the date for the

Overture transcription is based on Liszts response in April 1876 to a questionnaire given

him by his biographer, Lina Ramann,43 and the information on Andante amoroso is found

in her biography, presumably also composer-derived.44 These dates can be inaccurate, as,

for example, Liszt dated the publication of Harmonies to 1834 (see below),45 and the
reliability of her sources in this instance is called into question by mention of two

Schlesinger editions of Andante amoroso, of which there is no trace. Outside of Ramanns

references, there is no documentation to link these works to 1833, and we also note that the

transcription of Ouverture desfrancs-juges was only published in 1845, the Andante

amoroso in 1847.

41Ibid., 13.

42The first edition is described in appendix B.

43See Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblattern, Briefen und Dokumenten aus
den Jahren 1873-1886/87, ed. Arthur Seidl, text rev. Friedrich Schnapp (Mainz: Schott, 1983), 403.

^ S e e Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:288,567.

45See Ramann, Lisztiana, 394.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202

Further evidence of his stalled compositional output is gained by an examination

of the only original work that can be assigned to this year, Harmonies podtiques et

religieuses. Sketchbook N6 is again useful as it contains an early version of Harmonies on


pages 79 through 74 Liszt had turned the book upside down and used it from the other

side with a date at the beginning of 16 Mai and one within of 27 Mai. No year is
indicated, but 1833 is suggested by two letters to Marie dAgoult In the first, Liszt had

apparently lent either the sketchbook or a copy of the work to the Countess, for on 30
October 1833 he wrote:

Sil vous est possible de me renvoyer par occasion son Wertker et surtout ma petite
harmonie lamartinienne sans ton ni mesure, je vous en serai fort reconnaissant Je
tiens beaucoup h ce peu de pages. Elies me rappellent vivement une heure de
souffrance et de ctelices.46

Harmonies is the only known work from this time without tonality or meter, and the

lamartinienne refers to Alphonse de Lamartine, from whose book of the same name the

work received its title.47 Liszt referred to the composition again in a letter written between

24 August and 13 September 1834: Notre harmonie sera d6die h Lamartine; je la publierai

seule dabord, plus tard j en 6crirai une demi-douzaine.48 Liszt only came to know

^Liszt-d.' Agoult, 1:48.

47See also Alexander Main, Liszt: New Dates for the Travelers Album, Journal of
Musicological Research 3 (1981): 418-420.

48Liszt-d'Agoult, 1:111. In a letter to Ferdinand Hiller dated November 1835, Liszt again noted
his intention to compose an expanded Harmonies; see Walker, Franz Liszt, 1:219-220. These statements
came to pass: the work in the sketchbook was revised and published as a supplement to the Gazette
musicale de Paris of 7 July 1835, with a dedication to Lamartine and a quotation from the preface of his
Harmonies poitiques et religieuses. The piano cycle was published in 1853. In his preface, Liszt referred
to the earlier work as tronqufe et fautive and subsumed it into the fourth piece of the collection, Pensdes
des morts. Rena Mueller has concluded based on the manuscript sources that, prior to its final conception
as a piano solo, Liszt had thought about a collection of works in mixed genres; see her Le cahier
d esquisses du Tasso et la composition des Harmonies poitiques et religieuses, Revue Musicale 405-406-
407 (1987), 11-28.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203

dAgoult in January 1833, and therefore any concept of our harmony must date from
then, thus the year is all but certain.49

As found in N6, much of the work is drafted, if only in skeletal form, but the

section in G major is lacking (mm. 63 ff.), and other passages have only a rough

correspondence to the final version. In addition, there are cues for orchestration,
suggesting Liszt may have had a work for orchestra in mind.50 The overall impression is

that the piece took shape with difficulty, in fits and starts, and it is impossible to ascertain

its state in the fall of 1833 when he had loaned his only copy to Marie d Agoult. It may be

significant that Liszt did not present the work to Lamartine until after it was published,51

suggesting that in 1833 it was not ready to be given to anybody, his close relationship with

the Countess making her an exception.

Only one work besides Harmonies can be positively attributed to this year: on 30

August Berlioz wrote to a friend, Liszt vient d arranger ma symphonie pour le piano; cest

Stonnant,52 and the same day Liszt wrote to Marie dAgoult, La Symphonie fantastique

49This argument assumes that the Ballade reported in Liszts letter of 12 December 1832 was
not an early version of Harmonies, as argued by Torkewitz; see his Die Erstfassung der Harmonies
podtiques et religieuses von Liszt, 220-221. Part of Torkewitzs reasoning rests on the equivocal nature
of the inspiration for Harmonies: in the sketchbook the work is untitled and a quotation from Schiller is
scrawled over the first system of music (see the facsimile in K6kai, Franz Liszt in seinenfriihen
Klavierwerken, [145]), thus he concludes that Liszt saw such programmatic texts as interchangable. Given
the haphazard nature of the inscriptions throughout the sketchbook and that the quotation is written over the
music in the first system (as opposed to inscribed above), the Schiller reference probably had nothing to do
with the work. We also observe that May 1832 is highly unlikely, given Liszts response to Paganini
earlier that month (quoted above). Regarding the Ballade, it was to have appeared in Schlesingers Album
des Pianistes for 1833, but there is no trace of such a work by Liszt

50Raabe speculated that Liszt intended the work for piano and orchestra, but the sketch has only
the following: Trombone / instruments h cuivre (page 77), orchestra (page 76); see his Franz Liszt,
2:247.

51See his letter to Lamartine of 27 September 1835 in Alexander Main, Liszt and Lamartine:
Two Early Letters, Liszt-Studien 2, ed. Serge Gut (Munich and Salzburg: Emil Katzbichler, 1981), 134.

52Berlioz, Correspondance Ginirale, 2:113 (to Humbert Ferrand).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204

sera termin6e dimanche soir, dites trois Pater et trois Ave en son intention.53 But even if

we assign to 1833 the Berlioz overture and Schubert song transcriptions along with the idie

fixe paraphrase, all of his output, with the exception of Harmonies, remained dependent on
the work of other composers, and when we consider that the final version of Harmonies is

a work of barely eight minutes duration, the result is hardly reflective of the progress in

composition Liszt had been able to report in December 1832. It is not even certain that
Liszt had orchestrated his concerto. Further, nothing appeared in print and not one of these

works figured in any concert. We must conclude that Liszts compositional block

remained, and, in retrospect, Paganinis appearance offered only a temporary alleviation of

an underlying problem without affecting the root cause.

Enter the Abb6 Lamennais


From his resumption of concertizing in 1833 up to his departure from Paris in

May 1835, Liszts appearances again provide insight into his musical life. The surviving

programs are not always detailed, but from 19 January 1833 to 12 April 1834 he appeared

in various salons and concerts a total of twenty-two times. As in previous years, there are
unspecified solos and improvisations and at least three performances of Hummels

Septet, among works by other composers. In light of his compositional impasse, this
increased visibility may have served as a musical outlet rather than a preferred area of

activity. Contrast this with his appearances following a seven-month hiatus: on 5

November, he played his La Clochette, grande fantaisie pour piano, a concert that

inaugurated a series of performances of his own works.54 Although his Grande fantaisie
symphonique on themes from Berliozs Le retour d la vie was announced for 23 November

53Liszt-dAgoult, 1:36. 30 August was a Friday.

^Keeling suggests that this performance was likely not the premiere, based on the lack of
specificity in earlier programs; see Concert Announcements, 398.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205

(but not played),55 on 25 and 28 December Liszt took part in performances of his Duo for

two pianos, probably the work based on themes from Mendelssohns Songs without
Words,56 and at the second of these concerts he introduced his recently published

transcription of Berliozs Symphoniefantastique, playing two movements. The

Mendelssohn Duo was again played at Liszts own concert of 9 April 1835, along with the

premiere of the Grandefantaisie symphonique.51


The performance of his music implies the composition of same, and unlike the

preceding years there are specific references to this activity. His Chopin Duo is dated at the

beginning of the manuscript 25 July, with 1834 as the only possible year, and the

Mendelssohn Duo is dated August 1834.58 Further, at the end of the summer. Liszt wrote

the Countess dAgoult of forthcoming publications,59 works for piano solo which did

appear subsequently the first to be issued since 1829 and the first compositions on
original material since 1826. In the autumn he was hard at work on the Grande fantaisie

symphonique and the following winter the De profundis.60 The resulting list of works

55See the announcement in the Gazette musicale de Paris 1 (19 October 1834), 339, which lists
the repertoire for several of Berliozs upcoming concerts. For the 23 November concert, see the
announcement (16 November 1834), 371, and the review (7 December 1834), 394. Other journals are listed
in Keeling, Liszts Appearances in Parisian Concerts.

56The work was announced as Grand duo pour 2 pianos for 25 December (the second pianist
was Chopin) and simply as Duo pour 2 pianos for 28 December (the other pianist was Mile. Vial
Liszts student Herminie, see appendix A). The third performance on 9 April 1835 (see below), also with
Mile. Vial, was listed, Romances et chants sans paroles de M. Mendelssohn, duo de bravura pour deux
pianos.

57Although there has been some confusion in the secondary literature regarding the first
performance of the Grande fantaisie, the reviews in Revue musicale 15 (12 April 1835), 115-116, and
Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (12 April 1835), 130-131, imply that 9 April was the first performance. See
also the discussion of this work in chapter eight.

58The date for the Chopin Duo is surmised, based on the present writers reconstruction of a
sketchbook that at one time contained the Mendelssohn fantasy (see chapter nine).

59See Liszt-dAgoult, 1:82 (quoted below).

^ S ee Liszt-d'Agoult, 1:124 (quoted below); Franz Liszts Briefe, 1:12 (quoted in chapter ten).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206

suipasses anything he had previously accomplished (see Table 7.2). His return to the
concert stage in November 1834 was as a composer, self-confident in his powers of

creation, and a survey of the succeeding years reveals that his compositional block was

eliminated.

Table 7.2: Compositions of Franz Liszt, 1834183561

Searle Raabe Tide Year


121 452 Malediction 1834?
124 455 Concerto No. 1 (earliest version) 1834?
127 461 Duo on a Chopin Mazurka 1834?
120 453 Grande fantaisie symphonique 1834
257 355 Duo on Mendelssohns Songs without Words 1834
420 231 Grande fantaisie de bravoure sur la Clochette 1834*
155 11 Apparitions 1834*
470 134 Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique 1834*
556 241 Schubert: La Rose 1835*
154 13 Harmonies potiques et religieuses 1835*
691 668 De profiindis psaume instrumental 1835

(*) denotes the year of publication62

Speculation is not necessary to uncover the catalyst behind this creative surge, as
it is easily found in the person of the Abb6 Flicit6 de Lamennais. Liszt was introduced to

Lamennais on 8 April 1834, and the immediate effect served to climax a period of
increasing dissatisfaction with Roman Catholicism, a disaffection that was apparent as early

61The dates in Table 7.2 differ in some cases from those in the New Grove and are based on the
present authors research. Alan Walker has suggested 1851-2 as a more likely date for the Duo on a
Chopin Mazurka; see his Liszts Duo Sonata, Musical Times 116 (July 1975), 620-621; also Franz
Liszt, 2:47, n. 27. See, however, the discussion in chapter three, Two Examples.

62The following works were published posthumously: Malediction (in Franz Liszts
Musikalische Werke [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hhrtel, 1914], 1/13); Duo Sonata for Violin and Piano [on a
Chopin Mazurka] (ed. Tibor Serly [New York: Southern Music Company, 1964]); Grande fantaisie
symphonique (ed. Reiner Zimmermann [Leipzig: Breitkopf & HSrtel, 1981]). The Mendelssohn Duo
remains unpublished.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207

as 1830 with his interest in the Saint-Simonian movement and its emphasis on the social

aspects of Christianity (e.g., helping the poor). The point of contact lay in Lamennaiss

harsh critique of Rome for the same reason, first in his Essai sur Iindifference en matiire
de religion (1817-1823) and then his founding of the newspaper U Avenir in 1830. At the

time of his first meeting with Liszt, Lamennais was preparing his Paroles dun croyant for
publication, and it was issued in early May. The impact of this book on Liszt may be

gauged from his letter written shortly thereafter:

Quoique ce soit presque de Yimpudence, et tout au moins un ridicule de vous faire


des compliments admiratifs, je ne rdsiste pas au besoin de vous dire un peu (toujours
bien pauvrement bien faiblement, il est vrai) combien vos demferes pages mont
transport^, accabld, dechiiti de douleur et despoir!. . . Mon Dieu, que tout cela est
sublime!. . . Sublime, prophdtique, divin!. . . Que de gdnie! que de Charitd!. . . A
dater de ce jour, il est Evident, non settlement pour quelques ames de choix, qui vous
aiment et vous suivent depuis longtemps, mais pour le monde entier, il est Evident, de
la demi&re Evidence, que le christianisme au 19m siicle, cest k dire tout lavenir
religieux et politique de lhumanitd est en vousl. . .63

This marked the beginning of one of the most decisive influences on the young composer.

Joseph dOrtigue, the mutual friend who arranged the initial meeting, later characterized the

relationship thus: On doit concevoir facilement que les sympathies les plus profondes et

les plus intimes de son ame devaient le porter naturellement vers cet homme extraordinaire.

Listz [sic] trouva en lui plus quun ami, et il se fait gloire aujourdhui detre son

63F61icit6 de Lamennais, Correspondance Ginirale, ed. Louis le Guillou, 9 vols. (Paris:


Librairie Armand Colin, 1971-1981), 6:603 ([between 10 and 15 May 1834]); also with minor differences
in Marc Pincherle, Musiciens peints par eux-mimes: Lettres de compositeurs dcrites en frangais (1771-
1910) (Paris: Pierre Comuau, 1939), 101-102. This letter also appears with commentary and in English
translation in Charles Suttoni, Liszts Letters: Lamennais Paroles dun croyant, Journal o f the American
Liszt Society 14 (December 1983), 71-73. All ellipses are in the original. Paroles dun croyant is
summarized, and extensive quotations in English are given, in Merrick, Revolution and Religion in the
Music o f Liszt, 11-14.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208

disciple.64 The consequences went far beyond the spiritual, however, for within weeks

Liszt was at work on two major compositions.


From his letter to Lamennais, we also learn that Liszt intended to visit the Abb at

his home in Brittany at the end of July. Liszt was in Normandy from the middle of May,65

but although he had returned to Paris by late June, he did not make the trip as planned. His
whereabouts are uncertain throughout July and August, although a potential clue is found
in the enigmatic inscription at the end of the Mendelssohn autograph, fait dans le Castel de
la Duchesse de Poampapo, but, whatever the diversion, the Chopin and Mendelssohn

Duos demonstrate that he was not unproductive. The visit to the Abb6s ancestral home,

La Chinaie, finally took place from 8 September to 3 October.66 A lengthy letter written to

the Countess described his days, the time spent at the piano and the hours spent in
conversation with the Abbd, all serving to intensify the earlier impression of Lamennais
upon Liszt:

Vraiment cest un homme merveilleux, prodigieux, tout k fait extraordinaire. Tant de


gdnie et tant de coeur. Elevation, ddvouement, aideur passionnde, esprit perspicace,
jugement profond et large, simplicity denfant, sublimites des pensdes et des
puissances de lSme, tout ce qui fait lhomme k limage de Dieu est en lui.67

This intimate contact also encouraged the flow of new compositions, and he told the
Countess of his progress, probably on the Grandefantaisie symphonique: Jen profiterai

^ Frantz Listz [sic], Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835): 204. DOrtigue was also an
admirer of Lamennais; see, for example, Lamennais, Correspondance Ginirale, 6:68 (22 April 1834, to
dOrtigue).

65See Berlioz, Correspondance Generate, 2:184 (15 [or 16] May 1834). Lamennaiss letter to
d Ortigue cited above suggests the trip was for Liszts health.

66Liszt left Paris on 6 September, arriving two days later. After departing, he was in Rennes by
8 October and back in Paris on 13 October. See Selon M. Corbes, Franz Liszt et la Bretagne, Annales de
la Sociiti darchiologie de Saint-Malo (1963), 97ff.; cited in Lamennais, Correspondance Ginirale, 6:281-
282 n. See also Liszt-dAgoult, 1:114 [6 October 1834].

67Liszt-dAgoult, 1:120.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209

pour y achever une nouvelle 6normit fantastique dont j ai dcrit les 2/3 h La Chenaie; la

reste fait dans ma tete.. .68 The De projundis was also inspired by this time, as Liszt
testified in a letter to the Abbd written the following January,69 as was his first major

essay, De la situation des artistes et de leur condition dans la socidtd, printed in

installments in the Gazette musicale beginning 3 May 1835.

Although the source is clear, speculation is required for the specific aspects of

Lamennaiss thought that stimulated Liszt, as there is little in Paroles dun croyant that has
anything to do with art. His ideas on the relationship of music to the total scheme of

creation were later expressed in Esquisse dunephilosophie (1840), however, and there is
evidence that he was thinking about the subject as early as 1833. This thought is well

summarized by Charles Suttoni:

The true aim of art is to perfect human beings, that is, to satisfy the dictates of the
moral order, to assist the efforts of humanity to fulfill its destiny, to raise it above
earthly matters and set it in perpetually ascending motion.
Music occupies a special niche among the arts in this respect, since it is not only
the liaison of the arts that appeal directly to the senses with those that are proper to
the spirit, it is, by being analogous to a family in its harmonious combination of
disparate elements (melody, harmony, rhythm) also the complete expression of
social and intellectual life.
Given this aesthetic, it follows that artists do not promote the cause of art by
devoting themselves to the servile imitation of the past or by isolating themselves as
just one man among mankind. Art, on the contrary, receives a new impetus when
artists, plumbing the most profound depths of society, gather in themselves the life
palpitating there and disseminate it in their works, so that art will give life, just as the
Spirit of God animates and fills the universe.70

68Ibid., 1:124. A comment in the dtude biographique suggests this identification: II la


composde lautomne dernier, pendant son sljour k La Ch&naie, aupi&s de labbd La Mennais; Frantz Listz
[sic], Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835): 204.

69See Franz Liszt's Briefe, 1:12 (14 January 1835), quoted in chapter ten.

70Franz Liszt, An Artist's Journey: Lettres dun bachelier is musique, 1835-1841, trans. and ed.
Charles Suttoni (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), xx-xxi. The portions in quotation marks
are from Jacques Poisson, Le Romantisme social de Lamennais (Paris, 1931).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210

Within this philosophy Liszt found his artistic raison detre: his God-given gifts must be

thought of as a social ministry, and the fulfillment of his potential as an artist was the best

way to serve his fellow man and his Creator. This conclusion is reflected in a brief essay
from 1834, perhaps written while at La Chinaie: As in the past, and even more so today,
music must concern itself with PEOPLE and GOD, hastening from the one to the other,

improving, edifying, and comforting mankind while it blesses and glorifies God.71 He

was now able to link his art, his social consciousness, and his religion.
Armed with Lamennaiss philosophy, Liszt began a carefully orchestrated assault

on the musical world of Paris. He launched a steady barrage of concerts supported by a


supply of new compositions, with Lamennaiss inspiration most evident in the De
profundis.12 The concert of 9 April was also notable as the first that Liszt had organized

for himself (as opposed to being merely a participant) since 1828, and his career gained

from a splendid review in the Gazette musicale. A letter to dOrtigue is revealing of the
extent to which Liszt attempted to cover all fronts:

Je te saurai bien bon grd, mon cher Joseph, de mettre deux mots dans le Journal de
Paris sur le Concert dhier soir. Pour cette fois, et pour cette fois seulement, je
reclame de ton amitid le silence sur les cotds ddfectueux de mon talent Viens
done &mon aide, toi qui me comprends et maimes.74

71Liszt, An Artist's Journey, 237. The essay was incorporated into De la situation des
artistes, along with a note indicating that it had been written the previous year.

72The concert of 9 April 1835 was presented au profit dune famille pauvre. Although this
may be seen as evidence of Liszts new social consciousness, we also note an earlier concert for the benefit
of the poor on 12 March 1833.

73See Gazette musicale 2 (12 April 1835), 130-131. The strain of coordinating the concerts
many details apparently took Liszt by surprise: the review noted that he fainted in the middle of the
Mendelssohn Duo and, though he revived within a few minutes, was not able to return to the piano.

Franz Liszts Briefe, 8:5. The letter is undated, therefore it is unclear to which concert Liszt
is referring and to what extent dOrtigue complied.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211

In addition, dOrtigue was writing a major article on his life and work that would appear in

a few weeks (the aforementioned 6tude biographique).75 The campaign barely initiated,
it is unfathomable that Liszt would retreat before the results were known, but unforeseen
circumstances dictated another course of action: his romantic liaison, the Countess

dAgoult, was pregnant, and they left Paris separately at the end of May, with a rendezvous
planned in Basel at the beginning of June. Eleanor Perdnyi boldly speculates that the
pregnancy was a deliberate attempt by dAgoult to lure Liszt from Paris at precisely the
point when she would have felt threatened by the heightened devotion to his career, and,
further, that Liszt only learned the reason he had been summoned to Basel upon his

arrival.76 Certainly it is unlikely he would have planned these domestic events, given the

care he had already lavished on musical ones. The battle would have to wait

The Compositional Matrix


There seems little doubt that the latter half of 1834 was a productive time for Liszt

as a composer. In letters written to the Countess dAgoult and Val&ie Boissier around the

beginning of July, he remarked on the progress of his soon-to-be-published Symphonie


fantastique transcription,77 and later that summer he wrote dAgoult of other forthcoming

publications: Je n&rirai point avant un mois, il me faudra faire une quantity de corrections

dici-Ul au commencement de lhiver j aurai sept ou huit oeuvres de gravies.78 In

November, after his return from La Chenaie, he complained to Lamennais, . . . j ai 6t6

75This was not the first time that dOrtigue was careful to schedule such an article; his
biography of Berlioz appeared on 23 December 1832, between two concerts given by Berlioz the same
month (9 and 30).

76See Perdnyi, Liszt: The Artist as Romantic Hero, 118-124. It takes only a little imagination
to similarly view the timing of d Agoults subsequent two pregnancies.

77See Liszt-dAgoult, 1:105; Bory, Diverses lettres, 16.

^L iszt-d Agoult, 1:82.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212

obligd de passer jours et nuits h 6crire, corriger, et dtudier mes misdrables quadruples

croches,79 suggesting that his seven or eight compositions had not yet appeared. These

works were issued subsequently, all for piano solo.80 Surviving manuscripts reveal that
Liszt was working in other genres too: as noted above, he composed a fantasy based on a
Chopin Mazurka for violin and piano, the autograph of which has a date of 25 Juillet (D-

WRgs, LI), and another fantasy for two pianos based on Mendelssohns Lieder ohne

Worte, dated Aout 1834 (D-WRgs, Kl). Although not as firmly dated, the copyists
manuscripts of the Grande fantaisie symphonique (D-WRgs, H7) and Concerto No. 1 (D-

WRgs, H3b, H3c) appear to date from fall or winter 1834 and the autograph of De

profundis from early 1835. The resulting picture, although not clear in many details,

suggests that the spring was devoted to preparing piano solo works for publication, the

summer was a time for chamber music, and the fall and winter were a period of intense
concentration on the concerto.

It was only natural that a virtuoso would choose to express his most advanced

and experimental thoughts through publications for solo piano: the Paganini fantasy, three
Apparitions, and Harmonies poitiques et religieuses. Indeed, Harmonies is among Liszts

most innovative works, especially from the viewpoint of harmony and rhythm.81 Less

understandable on first consideration is the production of three large-scale concertos, an


impractical undertaking to modem sensibilities, as the performance of a work for piano and

79Lamennais, Correspondance Ginirale, 6:788 (4 November 1834).

80Harmonies po6tiques et religieuses (S 154), three Apparitions (S 155), Grande fantaisie de


bravoure sur la Clochette (S 420), and transcriptions of Berliozs Symphonie fantastique (S 470) and
Schuberts La Rose (S 556). The date of 1833 for La Rose in the New Grove Early Romantic Masters is
incorrect based on the plate number of the first edition. See also Table 7.2.

81See the insightful articles by Toikewitz, Die Erstfassung der Harmonies poltiques et
religieuses von Liszt, 220-236, and Joan Backus, Liszts Harmonies po^tiques et religieuses:
Inspiration and the Challenge of Form, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 21 (January-June 1987), 3 -
21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213

orchestra requires the collaboration of an established symphony or philharmonic. The

expectations of the time and place were quite different, however. Artists were responsible

for coordinating their own concerts, and these often consisted of solos, ensembles, and a
piece for orchestra: the solo recital was an unknown concept, and virtuosos had to establish

themselves through more elaborate means. In this context, a new concerto was de rigeur,
and remembering that Liszt now sought to be recognized as a composer, the production of

such works should not surprise us.

That Liszt would be striving toward this genre, even before the artistic raison
ditre which the Abb6 Lamennais provided, is also not surprising and amply demonstrated

in sketchbook N6. Here we find the opening ideas for Concerto No. 1 and Malediction,

and Rudolf Kdkai has observed that other sketches may have been intended for piano and
orchestra works.82 The one completed work, Harmonies poitiques et religieuses, includes
indications such as instruments h cuivre and orchestre which are lacking in the

published version, thus suggesting to some commentators that at some point in the

compositional process Liszt thought of it as a work for piano and orchestra.83 In addition,
there is the Paganini fantasy, which with regard to publication differs in this aspect from

Harmonies: lacking any orchestral references in the sketchbook, the first edition by

Mechetti has several passages labeled tutti. Peter Raabe and Humphrey Searle assume
this arrangement is lost, but with no evidence outside of the edition, Friedrich Schnapp

concluded that these indications were Erinnerungen an Paganinis Spiel (zur Begleitung des
Orchesters).84 Nevertheless, in a piece whose origins can be dated to 1832, such

82See Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinenfruhen Klavierwerken, 19.

83The sketchbook is the only evidence for this assertion; see Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:247, and
also comments above.

84See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:281; Humphrey Searle, The Music o f Liszt, rev. ed. (New York:
Dover Publications, 1966), 20; Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214

indications may be revealing of Liszts ambition, an ambition that led him to produce at

least six works of a scope whose proper place would be in the concert hall, and at least

three of which are for piano and orchestra.

Before proceeding to a discussion of individual compositions, it is useful to


examine a document which is important in providing a terminus ante quern for all the

concertos of this period. This primary source is Liszts letter to his mother of 28 July
1835, already referred to in previous chapters, in which he included a list of works in

manuscript that he wished to have forwarded to him in Geneva.85 Friedrich Schnapp and

Rena Mueller have attempted to match these references with specific compositions, and
their conclusions will be taken into account in the discussion that follows.86

As noted above, Liszt had left Paris at the end of May, and, after settling in

Geneva, he wrote to request the following items:

[1] Le Concerto de ma composition copid par Belloni avec la partie de piano et la


Partition daprds laquelle il la copid

[2] La Fantaisie symphonique sur des thdmes de Berlioz (executde k mon concert)
copide par Belloni et relid les parties daccompagnement sont inutiles

[3] Un gros cahier bleu ou se trouve un autre concerto symphonique que j ai dcrit cet
hiver au ratzen loch

[4] Un vieux cahier enveloppd de papier gris et que Puzzi connait, il contient
plusieurs morceaux de ma composition

[5] Mon Sextetto copid par le Polonais (k propos Puzzi a-t-il dtd lui demandd des
airs polonais a-t-il fait copier les airs tyroliens?). . .

Deutscher Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F.
Peters, 1942), 125. Felix Raabe repeated Schnapps conclusion in the Zusatze to his fathers Franz Liszt
(p. 16).

85See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 20-21; see also appendix A, where it is transcribed complete.

86See Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, 124-127; Mueller, Liszts


Catalogues and Inventories of His Works, Studia Musicologica 34 (1992), 231-232.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215

[6] P.S. Jai oubli6 dajouter k la Note de mes compositions un Duo pour Piano et
Violon sur une Mazourk [sic] de Chopin. . .

Beginning with the items not mentioned by Schnapp, the vieux cahier may be sketchbook
N6: although it is no longer surrounded by gray paper, it contains many fragments of
compositions from the preceding years. Of course, the purpose of Schnapps list was to
document lost works, thus the book was irrelevant. Mueller translated the phrase as

bound in grey paper, in which case it applies to neither N6 nor the Lord Londonderry

sketchbook recently acquired by US-Wc, the only such documents known from this
period. Two other items have been identified as manuscripts in D-WRgs. The Duo for

Piano and Violin is found in an autograph manuscript (LI), and the Fantasy on themes of

Berlioz is the Grandefantaisie symphonique as prepared by a copyist (H7). In the latter


case, there seems little question that this is the manuscript to which Liszt referred, as the
hand has been identified by Mueller as being that of Gaetano Belloni,87 and the manuscript

is bound. In addition, its size and clarity make it suitable as a conducting score, and minor

corrections suggest that it was used for performance.


Of the first item, Schnapp wrote under his number 17: Es handelt sich mit groBer
Wahrscheinlichkeit um die sog[enannten] *Malediction, and he referred to the copyists

manuscript in D-WRgs (H2). It is unclear whether he meant to imply that this was the
manuscript Liszt requested or that this copy was a later version of the same work. Schnapp

surely knew the former was impossible, as the copyist noted in the letter is again Belloni,
and the hand of the Malediction copy is quite dissimilar to that of the Grandefantaisie
symphonique. Mueller listed four manuscripts of Concerto No. 1 in Bellonis hand (D-
WRgs, H3a-d). We agree, but must modify her conclusion to that of the earliest version

of Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, H3b and H3c), as this copy and that of the Grande fantaisie

87See Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 357. See also the discussion of Belloni in
chapter three (Manuscript Copies).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216

symphonique can be dated to about the same time, while H3a and H3d cannot be dated
earlier than 1839.88 Thus, it is reasonable to associate the first item on the list with

Concerto No. 1 and reject Schnapps identification.

Mueller identified the third item with Malediction (D-WRgs, H2 and H I3), and,

as the manuscripts she cited were tom from bound volumes, this is a plausible assumption.

Schnapp suggested De profundis, and we find this identification more compelling. The
bound autograph manuscript, which is the only known copy, is also in D-WRgs (HI), and

although the cover is no longer blue, the description of the work as a concerto
symphonique and the time of composition as winter correlate well with other sources. In

addition, the Grande valse di bravura is found at the end of the volume. Published in

1836, it was probably written after the book was received in Switzerland. As an alternative

identification, Schnapp suggested the (lost) first draft of Concerto No. 1, being aware that
the sketches in N6 made the existence of such a document likely (he could not be sure that
the copyists score was from this time). While there is nothing to contradict the postulation

of such a document, we must note the distinction Liszt made between concerto and

concerto symphonique: the early version of Concerto No. 1 is in the traditional three-

movement form, whereas De profundis is one continuous movement, thus requiring (to
Liszts mind) another designation. Further, when Liszt revised Concerto No. 1 to a one-
movement form, it too became a concerto symphonique. Note also Liszts title for
another one-movement work: Grande fantaisie symphonique,89

88See Franz Liszt, Concerto for Piano and Orchestra in E-flat Major, op. posth., ed. Jay
Rosenblatt (Budapest: Editio Musica, 1989), xi.

89Stengel suggests that the designation may have to do with the constant interchange between
piano and orchestra; see his Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin,
1931), 15. Note that this aspect is also a feature of the earliest version of Concerto No. 1, however.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217

The fifth item, the sextet, has eluded identification entirely. Mueller noted that

the sextet is not yet located, and Schnapp could only speculate that it was wohl noch in
der 20er Jahren entstanden, probably from the references in Adam Liszts letter of 14

August 1825 where he remarked on his sons prolific production of chamber works,
although no mention is made of a sextet90 There is another possibile composition to

which this might refer, the work hitherto assumed to be for piano and string orchestra,
Malediction. Perhaps it was because Liszt had made no contribution to the chamber music

repertoire, other than the Grand Duo concertant sur la romance de M. Letfont: Le Marin
and the early unpublished pieces, that previous researchers assumed Malediction was not

chamber music. There were no grounds from which to gather this conclusion, and there is
evidence to suggest it may be incorrect.

First, the indications for the instrumentation in the copyists manuscript are all

carefully written in the singular, a fact obscured in the published edition by printing the

string designations in the plural. This observation can only be considered suggestive,
however, and does not necessarily prove the case for a sextet, as, even with full orchestral
scores where the strings are clearly multiplied, the indications may be in the singular, and

unfortunately the autograph sketch fragments do not have any designations at all (D-WRgs,
H13a and loose folios in H2). Second, the loose pages in H2 were tom out of a

sketchbook that, as far as is known, contained chamber music (the Chopin and

Mendelssohn Duos). The evidence for this lost sketchbook will be described in detail in
chapter nine, but suffice it to state here that, although also suggestive, this observation is in
no way conclusive. Third, in the letter Liszt referred to the copyist as the Pole, an

individual otherwise unknown in the Liszt biography. The hand that produced the copy of

^ S e e La Mara [Marie Lipsius], Classisches undRomantisches aus der Tonwelt (Leipzig:


Breitkopf & H&tel, 1892), 260; also quoted in chapter six.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218

Malediction is certainly unique among Liszt manuscripts (the copies of the national songs

are lost), but once again this observation is suggestive and the description insufficient to

identify the work.

Turning to the music itself we find a host of negative evidence. There is nothing
inherent in the score to suggest multiple strings: the double-stops are all practical, and such

passages where the notes have two stems may be no more than Liszt transferring to his
string writing a method of voice clarification used in piano scores. In addition, the term

divisi never appears in any of the sources, including the well-marked copyists
manuscript, whereas it can be found in the autograph of De profundis, a score which also

features extensive use of double-stops. On a more subjective level, the deleted section
devoted to a transcription of Schuberts song Du bist die Ruh (transcribed and discussed
in chapter nine) would make best sense for solo cello, not a cello section. Note also the

independence of the contrabass part, more likely in chamber music than in an orchestral

score. Finally, there is no precedent for a piano concerto with only string accompaniment,

although there is precedent for this exact sextet combination in a series of successful works
by Henri Bertini composed in late 1834-early 1835, the precise period in which

Malediction was composed. Note also that while a concerto might be performed without its
wind parts in a salon,91 there is no example of a work conceived with only strings
expanded to become a concerto for piano and orchestra. We also observe that while Liszt

was innovative harmonically and formally, he seems to have shown little interest in novel

instrumental combinations, which a work for piano and string orchestra at this time would
certainly have been. In summation, without a single piece of evidence to suggest that

91For example, Chopin introduced his E minor concerto to Paris with the accompaniment of
only a string quartet; see Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, Les premiers concerts de Chopin h Paris (1832-1838):
Essai de mise au point, in Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, ed. Peter Bloom, Musical Life in 19th-
Century France 4 (Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press, 1987), 263-265.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219

Malediction is a work for massed strings and with much to suggest that it is a piece of
chamber music, this study concludes that the work is properly thought of as a Sextet for
Piano and Strings in E minor.

Thus, the descriptions in Liszts letter may be identified with the following

manuscripts, all in D-WRgs: (1) the earliest surviving version of Concerto No. 1 (H3b and
H3c); (2) Grandefantaisie symphonique (H7); (3) De profundis, psaume instrumental
(HI); (4) perhaps sketchbook N6; (5) Malediction (H2); (6) Chopin Duo (LI). It is

curious that the Mendelssohn Duo was omitted from this list, but perhaps it can be

explained by observing that each item was important to Liszt during his self-imposed exile:

the first three were concertos, and their value at this point in his career has already been

noted. Sketchbook N6 had previously provided musical ideas for the Paganini Fantasy and
Harmonies poetiques et religieuses (discussed above), as well as Concerto No. 1 and
Malediction (to be discussed in chapters eight and nine), and Liszt may have hoped that its
contents would yield ideas for other compositions. Of the two chamber works, there is the
use of a common paper for corrections found in both Malediction and the Chopin Duo,

which is otherwise not found among his autographs and which may suggest that both
manuscripts were revised in Switzerland. As the Mendelssohn Duo had been performed at

least three times, we can presume that Liszt was satisfied with it, and it was to

compositions that had not been heard in the concert hall, or, in the case of the Grande
fantaisie symphonique, only been heard once, that he wished to turn his attention.

Conclusion

After a seven-year hiatus following the death of his father, Liszt rediscovered his

vocation as a composer with the help of the Abbd Lamennais. The result was an intense
period of composition less than a year in which he completed his first mature

concerto and composed at least five other large-scale works, two of which were for piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220

and orchestra. Given such a concentrated burst of activity, it should not surprise us that

these compositions exhibit similiarities in technique and that the development of innovative
approaches occurred rapidly from one work to the next. These works reveal a considerable
musical maturity, an advancement for which he is rarely given credit at this point in his

career.

Our discussion of individual compositions in the following chapters reviews all


primary sources to ascertain history and chronology. Thumbnail analytic summaries are
included, to the extent that they buttress the historical argument, while also highlighting

Liszts growth as a composer. The order is approximately chronological, beginning with

the earliest surviving version of Concerto No. 1 and the Grandefantaisie symphonique
(chapter eight), continuing with Malediction (chapter nine), and concluding with the

unfinished De profundis (chapter ten). Finally, although it has been argued that
Malediction is a sextet, because of the soloistic character of the piano writing, the survival
of sketch material, and the stylistic traits that it shares with the other concertos, it is

considered in this study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE CONCERTO AS CRUCIBLE:

FRANZ LISZTS EARLY WORKS


FOR PIANO AND ORCHESTRA

VOLUME TWO

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF TOE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF MUSIC

BY

JAY MICHAEL ROSENBLATT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
AUGUST 1995

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER VIE

CONCERTO NO. 1 AND


GRANDE FANTAISIE SYMPHONIQUE

The Grandefantaisie symphonique and the earliest surviving version of Concerto


No. 1 are bound together less by musical factors than physical ones the paper on which
they were copied. Given that the use of this paper type is unique among Liszts

manuscripts and that precise details are known about the genesis of the Grandefantaisie, a
series of events can be reconstructed that bring the two works together. The resulting
scenario supports the viewpoint, advanced in chapter seven, of an ambitious composer
working feverishly to advance his career in the fall and winter of 1834-35. We can also

witness the first tentative steps toward compositional techniques formerly thought to be

developed after his arrival in Weimar in 1848. In addition, the discussion can serve as an
object lesson for understanding Liszts compositional process and musical development in

cases where no autograph is available.

Concerto No. 1 (earliest surviving version)

The first historical account of Concerto No. 1 appeared shortly after the works

publication in an article by Richard Pohl, Liszts symphonische Dichtungen: Dire


Entstehung, Wirkung und Gegnerschaft.1 As a member of Liszts intimate circle of
students and colleagues in Weimar, Pohls information was undoubtedly provided by the
composer himself, and he noted that the concerto was sketched between 1840 and 1845,

Reprinted in Richard Pohl, Franz Liszt: Studien und Erinnerungen, Gesammelte Schriftren iiber
Musik undMusiker 2 (Leipzig: Bernhard Schlicke [BathasarElischer], 1883), 199-237. The article was
first published in 1859.
221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222

completed in 1848, first performed on 16 February 1855 with Liszt at the piano and Hector
Berlioz on the podium, and published in 1856.2 Lina Ramann referred to this article, and,

though she used 1849 as the year of composition, she acknowledged that the conception of

the work appeared to date from Liszts virtuoso years.3 In her Chronologisches
Verzeichnis, she listed composition in 1848 (followed by a question mark), revision in
1853, and publication in 1857.4 The work was dedicated to Liszts Mend and fellow
virtuoso, Henry Litolff.5
Turning to modem scholarship, Peter Raabe forthrighdy stated that the genesis of

the concerto could not be ascertained.6 Nevertheless, he was able to conclude that it was

completed no later than 1849, based on four manuscripts in D-WRgs,7 a copy by Joachim
Raff in the collection of the Marchese della Valle in Pallanza,8 and letters,9 and further

2See ibid., 224.

3See Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler and Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1880-1894), 3:335.

4See ibid., 3:503. At least the year of publication can be documented to 1857; see Franz Liszts
Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1893-1904), 8:129 (between 12
January and 15 March 1857).

5See Litolff s unpublished letter to Liszt of 10 April 1855 in D-WRgs (MS 22/16,2).

6See the woiklist entry in Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider,
1968), 2:311. This study is a reprint of an earlier edition, with additional pages of annotations by his son
Felix (Stuttgart and Berlin: J. C. Cottasche, 1931).

7These are H3a, H3b, H3c, H4, and H12. Although there are five shelflist numbers, H3b and
H3c are clearly two parts of the same score (discussed below). In addition, H3a was the exemplar for H4
(the latter dated 21 October 1849), and H12 is a manuscript copy with autograph emendations, which also
served as the engravers copy. The relationship between these scores and the one noted in n. 8 below is
discussed in chapter four, Compositional Process in the Concertos.

8This manuscript is now in US-NYpm, Lehmann. The copyist attribution has since been
corrected by Rena Mueller to Dionys Pruckner; see her Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and
Revisions (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1986), 361.

9See Hans von Biilow, Briefe und Schriften, ed. Marie von Biilow, 2d ed., 7 vols. (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1899-1907), 1:180 (21 June 1849); Helene Raff, Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im
Spiegel ihrer Briefe, Die Musik 1, no. 1 (1901), 287 (1 August 1849).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223

revised in 1853 and 1856, based on letters.10 He correctly listed the date of the premiere as

17 February 1855 (not 16 February, as in Pohl) and identified two themes in a sketchbook

(D-WRgs, N6). Two years later, Rudolf Kdkai returned to the sketchbook and provided

specific page numbers, partial transcriptions, and a date of 1 January 1832.11 Neither of

these scholars attempted to account for the other manuscripts from this period and

consequently omitted references to them, although Friedrich Schnapp speculated


(incorrectly) that the third item in Liszts letter of 28 July 1835 might be this work.12

Humphrey Searle copied Raabes information into his Groves catalogues, adding to it that
it was sketched c. 1830 and the first version was accomplished in collaboration with
Joachim Raff.

It was left for Sharon Winklhofer in her revision of Searles work to supply
precise dates and to account for the current locations of several manuscripts.13 Based on
her own archival research, she was able to offer a date of 1832-35 for the earliest

manuscript copy (D-WRgs, H3b) and to record the location of a manuscript that was
unknown to Raabe, a Raff copy in the Rosenthal Collection in US-Wc. She also noted that
the manuscript formerly in the possession of the Marchese had since been owned by Alfred

Cortot, then R. O. Lehman, and was currently on deposit in US-NYpm. Her entry in the

10See Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Hans von Biilow, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius]
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), 21 (12 May 1853), 172 (14 March 1856).

11See Rudolf Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinen friihen Klavierwerken (Leipzig: Franz Wagner, 1933;
repr. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1968), 18-19,122-123 (exs. 5 ,5a).

12See Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher


Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942),
125-126. See also the discussion in chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix.

13See Sharon Winklhofer, Review of Liszt, Franz [Ference] in The New Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians, 19th Century Music 5 (Spring 1982), 260.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224

revised New Grove worklist of sketched January 1832, presumably based on the
sketchbook entry, is surely optimistic, however.14

Surveying the secondary literature, it is clear that previous discussions of the

concerto have been deficient in the analysis of the manuscripts from the 1830s. The
difficulty for these authors was compounded by Pohl and Ramann, the sources closest to

composer, who both implied that the work is a post-1840 product. As this conclusion was

not the result of research into the original documents, we must assume that this is the
account Liszt wished to leave posterity. Would he have preferred this earliest version of
Concerto No. 1 to be forgotten?

Historical Background

There are two letters which have been overlooked and which offer a time frame

useful for placing the concerto in the context of other works from the 1830s. Liszt
completed a number of compositions in the months following his first exposure to Paganini
in April 1832, one of which may have been the first version of Concerto No. 1. In a letter

of 12 December to his student Val&ie Boissier, he referred to the work as follows: [J]ai

prdparl et longuement 61abor plusieurs compositions instrumentales entre autres. . . un


Concerto daprfes un plan qui je pense sera nouveau et dont les accompagnements me

restent h dcrire.. .15 Based on the manuscript copy from two years later (D-WRgs, H3b
and H3c), the letter contains a plausible (if somewhat vague) description of the three-
movement work contained therein, but unfortunately no other sources survive to

corroborate this identification. Then again, the letter does not state unequivocally that the

14See The New Grove Early Romantic Masters I: Chopin, Schumann, Liszt (New York:
Norton, 1985), 334.

15Robert Bory, Diverses lettres inddites de Liszt, Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fiir


Musikwissenschaft 3 (1928), 10. This portion of the letter was quoted in chapter seven without the
ellipsis.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225

works were complete, only that he had labored at length. There is no other composition

to which the description could be applied, however, and the musical content of the copy
suggests a conception closer to the letter, at least when compared to other works from this
time. The reference to accompagnements must be to the task of orchestration, as it is

unlikely that Liszt would have conceived a concerto without some idea of the connecting
passages between solos. It is therefore possible that Liszt had drafted his Concerto No. 1
in piano score by December 1832.

The second reference is found in Liszts letter of 28 July 1835, written shortly
after his arrival in Geneva: Le Concerto de ma composition copid par Belloni avec la partie
de piano et la Partition dapr&s laquelle il la copid.16 Belloni is very likely his associate,

Gaetano, who would later travel with him on his tours (see chapter three, Manuscript
Copies). The same letter also lists him as the copyist for the Grandefantaisie

symphonique (see below), and as this score can be identified with some security (D-WRgs,

H7), the clear correspondence of the handwriting is a valuable clue for labeling the
manuscript copy of the concerto and for identifying the characteristics of Bellonis hand.17
In the discussion below, we will show that the correspondence goes beyond the

handwriting, making the identification all but certain. The letter may thus be used to verify
that the work was complete before Liszt left Paris in May 1835 and provides a terminus

ante quern for the copy (the autograph is lost). It also suggests his continuing interest in

the score, at least for that summer.

16See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 20. This letter is transcribed in appendix A.

17Rena Mueller also concludes that the copyist of these manuscripts is Belloni, although she
does not discuss her method of identification; see her Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 87,357.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226

Manuscript Sources

The sketchbook used by Liszt during the years 1829-1833 has already been

discussed in chapter seven with regard to the drafts of the Grandfantasia de bravoure sur la

clochette and Harmonies poitiques et religieuses (D-WRgs, N6). Within it are also found

themes that he subsequently used in Concerto No. 1 and Malediction, and it is from this
source that we find the date 1 Janvier 1832 on the same page as the music from the

opening measures of the Concerto (f. 4, p. 6).18 This date is written several staves beneath
the concerto theme, however, thus it properly belongs to the material found at the bottom of

the page, and the famous opening theme must pre-date 1832, although perhaps by only a

few days, as the handwriting is consistent in all the entries.19 Oddly, though he did not
place a date at the top of the page, Liszt inscribed his initials in a circle, an ornate signature

found on several pages throughout the sketchbook.

This book also contains the theme that opens the allegro marziale animando
section of all versions of the concerto from 1839 onwards. Here it is written in E major

and labeled Marche Finale, and the notation is found on the lowest systems of the page,
where it continues over to the adjacent recto on the same lines (ff. 1lv-12, pp. 17-18).
The theme is also found in a manuscript tentatively identified as the Solo caractiristique d
propos dm e chansonnette de Panneron.2 Liszt had mentioned this work in the letter of

18The page numbers are usually cited in the secondary literature (e.g., Kdkai, Franz Liszt in
seinen friihen Klavierwerken, and Dieter Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken im Friihwerk Franz Liszts,
Freiburger Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft 10, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht [Munich, Salzburg:
Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1978]), but these are later additions, not by Liszt, and do not include pages
without notation. The folio numbers count each page with staff lines from the beginning of the book
through to the end.

19Although Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinen friihen Klavierwerken, p. 19, implies otherwise, Keith
T. Johns, Franz Liszts N6 Sketchbook held at the Goethe-Schiller Archive in Weimar, Journal o f the
American Liszt Society 20 (December 1986), p. 30, is more cautious.

^ S e e the facsimiles in Sothebys catalogue, Music, Continental Manuscripts and Printed


Books, Science and Medicine (London, 26-27 November 1987), 141-142 (lot #292). The manuscript was
purchased by a private party, and its whereabouts is unknown.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227

12 December 1832, and the date fits well with that of the sketch, 13 Juni Ecouteboeuf, a

reference to the small town where Liszt vacationed for six weeks in May and June 1832.

In addition, he requested his manuscript in October 1837, at which time he referred to it as

Un drame k propos d une chansonnette, grande Fantaisie.21 Thus, the work was in his

possession during his travels, and a theme that had no part in the earliest version of
Concerto No. 1 came to play an integral role in a revision of several years later.
As noted in previous discussions, sketchbook N6 is a problematic source, the

result of the haphazard manner in which it was used by Liszt, and the page with the

opening measures of Concerto No. 1 is typical: it is the first folio with a date, the verso is

blank, and the recto of the following page has 27 Juin at the top, while its verso has 17

Aout 1830. The pattern is repeated throughout the book, suggesting that Liszts original

intention was to write out extensive drafts or entire works, and he left blank pages between
the unfinished entries for this purpose. Within months of his first sketches, he was writing

new ones on the empty folios, thus whatever content Liszt may have expected for the
opening pages in 1829, by January 1832 he had entered a number of thematic jottings on

the fourth folio.

The page contains seven ideas, and Liszt wrote them using every staff and
bracing most of them together by twos, with treble and bass clef implied (see Example 8.1

and critical notes). The first sketch thus continues onto the first three measures of the
second system, with the second sketch beginning in the fourth measure. Liszt was
dissatisfied with the second measure of this second idea and wrote a different continuation

in the following measure, which in turn carries over to the next line. Two more ideas

21See Briefe an seine Mutter, 39. The date of before 22 October 1837 derives from Mdria
Eckhardt, Une femme simple, mfere dun gdnie europden, Anna Liszt: Quelques aspects dune
correspondance, in Actes du colloque international Franz Liszt, La revue musicale 405-406-407 (1987),
208.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228

Example 8.1: Sketches for Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, N6)

3 menures
C o n ce rto

Trocipe
il o s
3

Cham.

etc.
8

Ji 9
' -
;
fflrf
etc.

lit! J j
- & -

Wl\M- 1

1 Janvier 1832

12

8-
# * - #
13

14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229

Clefs and key signatures are found at the head of


Critical Notes to Example 8.1 staves 1,12, and 13 and are added to all others.
The transcription is faithful to the staff
Note that the sixteenth-note beam in 12/3 is not
distribution, double barlines, and cancellations of
precisely drawn and may extend through all five
the sketchbook page. The exceptions are as
notes (i.e., Liszt may have intended a quintuplet).
follows: staves 12 and 13 are braced together
with the appropriate clefs and key signatures, The following accidentals have been added: staff
although a part was never entered on 13; the 1/measure 5, flat to c ; 2/4, sharp to g, natural
sketch notated on staves 13/14 in the example to b; 3/1, flat to g; 3/2, natural to e; 7/1, flat
begins directly under the third measure of 12 to g; 7/2, flat to d ; 7/5, natural to a; 11/1,
(staff 13 is otherwise blank until that point). In sharp to f; 13/5, flat to b . From internal
addition, the last measure of 13/14 is written in evidence, it seems that all as should have a
the margin with staff lines extended. natural before them in staves 9,10, and 11.

follow, and the pattern is broken in staves 9-11 with a three-staff system. The final two
sketches stand apart from the preceding by the addition of a date and a new key signature.

There are several reasons to assume that this page represents a collection of related

sketches: first, the ideas proceed one after the other from one system to the next, and the
verso is blank, suggesting that Liszt allowed space for additional ones. Second, they all

appear to take the same key signature, until a new one is indicated in the twelfth staff.
Finally, this new key is closely related to the first, and these last thematic ideas may be for
another movement. The label Concerto above the first staff must therefore signal a page

of ideas for a multi-movement piano and orchestra work in E-flat major.


Liszt had an uncanny ability for conceptualizing the openings of his works, and

these first measures often survived intact, whatever the revisions to the rest of the

composition. In the first sketch, the key and much of the rhythm and harmony are as
found in all subsequent versions, and even the continuation in the fifth measure is similar in

gesture to the final version, the four measures here roughly equivalent to mm. 5-13.22 The
indication 3 mesures appears to be an aide de memoire to create three-measure phrases

22These measure numbers are from the score edited by Ferenc Rados (Budapest: Editio Musica,
1992), which treats the concerto as a single-movement work as follows: quasi adagio = m. 99; allegretto
vivace = m. 175; allegro marziale animato = m. 340; for a total of 501mm.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230

out of the two-measure ones, perhaps by the addition of rests (Liszt would eventually use a

fermata). Two significant details are lacking in the first layer, however: the eighth-note

figures in the second and fourth measures were added with hand-drawn staff lines, and the
striking E-major chord was originally a not-so-striking A-flat minor. The continuation

appears to reflect the turn to the minor mode implied by the A-flat chord, touching upon G-

flat major before returning to the dominant (the subsequent versions move to C major).
The instruction mi majeur must relate to the E-major chord, although no known version
contains such a deflection at this point. Note that in the final version the use of these

harmonies is reversed: the E-major chord is followed immediately by the dominant (m. 5),
while the first repetition of the opening theme uses the A-flat minor chord, reinterpreting it
as G-sharp minor to modulate to the key of E major (mm. 14ff.).

Despite the lack of clefs and key signatures, the remaining sketches appear to
continue in E-flat, and, assuming they belong to the same piece, the ideas labeled

Trompe, Chant, and the triplet figure (through staff 7) may be for the secondary key
area. In the second sketch, Trompe appears to be an abbreviation for trompette,

specifically applied to the half-note octaves on/and c: Liszt was indicating one strand of
the instrumentation for natural trumpet. The interpretation of Chant. is unclear, but the

use of g-flat and d-flat reflects back to the use of G-flat major in the first sketch and also

suggests that the emendation of the E-major chord postdates the notation of this third idea.

Note that the single melodic line of the last two measures of staff 5 is very likely Liszts

shorthand for a repetition of the accompaniment from the first two measures of the sketch.
The triplet idea might have been conceived as a closing theme for a traditional exposition

(i.e., in the key of the dominant). With the fifth idea, spread across a three-staff system,
the correct interpretation is very much in doubt, and substituting different clefs and key

signatures does not yield a result any more satisfactory. That the fragment is related

melodically to the last sketch does not help us. The final two ideas are in B-flat major, and,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231

while the closely related key may indicate that they were intended for a slow movement, we
also note two different meters.

These seven sketches were probably written apart from an overriding conception

of a composition, suggested by the use to which they were ultimately put: with the

exception of the first, not one of these musical ideas was employed in the concerto nor, as
far as is known, in other works. In addition, the turn toward G-flat major, evident in the

original draft for the opening and also the third idea, is not found in any subsequent
version. Such observations may be extended to the other sketches, including those to be
discussed in later chapters: the book was a miscellaneous repository for ideas, musical and

literary, written as they occurred to the composer. Whatever method of sketching Liszt

used to produce the works listed in his letter of 12 December 1832, it is not to be found in
sketchbook N6.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the manuscript copy, it is useful to speculate


on two lost sources, the exemplars for Bellonis score. The existence of these documents

can be deduced from Liszts letter of 28 July 1835, in which he requested the manuscript

with the piano part and the score from which it was copied. An explanation for this

description may be found in the autographs of the 1839 version of Concerto No. 2, which
contain the piano part in one manuscript (D-WRgs, H5d) and the orchestral parts in another

(D-WRgs, H5c). This distribution between two scores must have been employed in the

earliest version of Concerto No. 1, a conclusion that complements the description of the
concerto in his letter of 12 December 1832, where Liszt noted that the accompaniment

remains to be written. Such an explanation also presumes that the lost scores were

autograph. As noted above, this may imply that the work at first existed only in piano

score, and, rather than recopy the extensive piano part, Liszt adapted the expedient of
notating the other instruments in a separate manuscript It is therefore possible that there

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232

may not be any other sketch material, as the piano part was likely a working score into

which Liszt incorporated corrections and revisions, also the case in the 1839 autograph.

The only other source from this period is a manuscript copy in which is found a

complete, orchestrated work in three movements. Bellonis score has been catalogued

under two shelflist numbers (D-WRgs, H3b and H3c), and it is useful to view this copy as
two separate manuscripts distinguished by musical and physical characteristics: H3b

contains the first movement and is on paper nearly identical to that of Bellonis manuscript
of the Grande fantaisie symphonique (D-WRgs, H7), including the watermark and staff

ruling (paper type 8.1); H3c contains the second and third movements on paper of similar
size and weight but with a different watermark (type S.2).23 The manuscript of the first

movement consists of eight gatherings, each with three nested bifolia, and four loose

folios, the whole surrounded by two blank bifolia (nested) of the paper used for the second

and third movements, which serve as a protective wrapper. There appears to have been a
rather primitive binding at one time, as holes are found at the spines where string was

pulled through, one about 41mm from the top, the other about 40mm from the bottom

(approximately 358mm from each other). Although there is no trace of the string, bum
evidence can be found along the center fold of each middle bifolium. The paper was never

trimmed, and these cords were likely the only means used to keep the pages together (i.e.,
hard covers and glue were never applied). The situation is similar for the second and third

movements, where, although a wrapper is lacking, there are nine gatherings of three nested

(nos. 1-3,9) and two nested (nos. 4-8) bifolia, and holes are found 25-30mm from the
top and bottom of the spines (approximately 392mm from each other). Unlike the first

^ S e e appendix C for precise dimensions and watermark tracings. Paper type 8.1 is discussed in
greater detail below, where the observations are used to support a proposed chronology for the Grande
fantaisie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233

movement, but like the Grandefantaisie, Belloni numbered most of the gatherings (he
omitted numbers on 1,2, and 4).

The paper used for the first movement differs from that of the Grande fantaisie,
both in the mold number found in the lower portion of the watermark and minor variations
in the BFK RTVES design (see below, Figure 8.1 and discussion). One possible
sequence of events is that Belloni used a new batch of paper soon after completing his

work on the Grandefantaisie in fall 1834, hence the slightly different watermark, where for

the second and third movements the only paper available was from a different mill, the

same size but of slightly lesser weight Of course, it is also possible that work on the

concerto came first and was interrupted by the fantasy, but the observations made with
regard to BeUonis increasing proficiency as a copyist in the Grandefantaisie may be useful

here in arguing the first hypothesis. The portions of the Grandefantaisie that can be
assigned with assurance to a later layer consistently reveal that, whereas the first time

Belloni would have employed one system per page, on his second pass he took advantage
of rests in some of the parts to write two systems. If this is an indication of his growing
ability, then the consistent use of this technique would suggest a later copy, and this is

precisely what we find in H3b and H3C.24 Taking into account all of these factors, we may

conclude that Liszt brought these compositions to completion within close proximity to one

another, the copy of the concerto following that of the Grandefantaisie, and we can refine
the date of Belloni's work to between late fall 1834 and spring 1835.

That Liszt required a copy of the concerto, if only for the purpose of collating his

piano and instrumental scores, is obvious enough. In addition, his handwriting was
especially rough during these years (see chapter three, The Autographs), and a copy

^Another way of confirming this hypothesis would be to check the two watermarks for
deterioration of the paper mold. Unfortunately, this is confounded by the binding of H7 as well as the
difficulty of obtaining accurate tracings for this study; see the comments in appendix C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234

would have been necessary for this reason. The use of Belloni raises another question,

however. Throughout the concerto copy, notes can be found written a third off the correct

pitch, accidentals are sometimes applied to the wrong note in a chord or one substituted for
another (e.g., flats in place of naturals), and ties and clefs are omitted, all with a frequency

that would be unacceptable for professional use. In addition, clefs, key signatures, and
instrumentation are lacking after the first page, and while this was common practice for the

period, there is the added possibility of an instrument having been entered on the wrong

line. These problems are compounded by Liszts typical carelessness, but whereas Liszts

omissions often follow a logical progression, and corrections can usually be deduced from
the context, adding Bellonis mistakes can make the composers intention difficult to

ascertain. These deficiencies are less apparent in the Grandefantaisie copy because the

errors were probably caught and corrected between rehearsals or covered over by the

revised folios (see below). The manuscript of Malediction (D-WRgs, H2) demonstrates

that Liszt knew and used other copyists, so why did he employ Belloni, now on his second
major commission? The reason must have lain in the cost of such copies, for, even in an
age when copying was the primary means of circulating instrumental works, it must have

been prohibitively expensive to copy the Grande fantaisie symphonique and Concerto No.
1. Lacking the ability of his friend Hector Berlioz to prepare his own scores, Belloni must

have seemed a practical alternative, and Liszt may have reasoned that the time spent in
careful proofreading would be worth the money saved by using an amateur.

Further proof that Liszt was aware of Bellonis limitations can be found in his
request that his autographs be sent along with the copy to Geneva, necessary in case he

could not reconstruct his original thought from Bellonis notation. Note that he did not
need to ask for his autograph of the Grandefantaisie, as this score had been used for
performance and thoroughly checked. In addition, Bellonis deficiencies may account for a

unique feature of the concerto copy: with the exception of the last three gatherings, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235

measures are numbered throughout, this in contrast not only to Liszts other manuscripts
but also the practice of the period. There seems to be no musical reason for these numbers
(i.e., a concern with balance between sections) nor would they have been used in rehearsal,

given that letters are present Their use may be due to the unreliability of Belloni, for if it is
true that Liszt employed him fully cognizant of his limitations, the measure numbers would
have enabled him to coordinate the two autograph exemplars as well as to safeguard against

dropped measures.
To refer to the composition contained within the pages of H3b and H3c as

complete is not quite accurate. Examination of the musical content in conjunction with the

recorded measure numbers reveals that the opening and closing pages of the first movement
are lacking, and several measures connecting the second and third movements were never

copied into the score. External evidence is of little help in determining the date and purpose

of these lacunae. With the exception of a few autograph markings, Bellonis hand is the
only one found, and, as he did not accompany Liszt to Switzerland, we can conclude only

that his task was accomplished before Liszt requested the manuscript in July 1835. The

missing folios could have been removed at any time. Consideration of the likely musical
content of these passages is more useful in postulating a sequence of events, made possible
by the measure numbers.

In the conclusion to the slow movement, the music breaks off abruptly at m. 6?

(from m. 61 the piano is playing solo) and resumes one page later with m. 71, the opening
of the third movement (typically, the page is complete with tempo marking, instruments

listed at the head of the system, and clefs and key signatures). Note that m. 63 is the top
system of f. 12, the verso is blank, and m. 71 begins f. 13, the first bifolium of the third
gathering. Judging from the surviving autograph exemplars to the 1839 version of the

concerto, Liszt must have instructed Belloni to leave these measures blank, with the

intention of writing a new continuation directly into the copy or on pages that could be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236

inserted between the two gatherings (perhaps on the two bifolia of the same paper that now

serve as a wrapper for the first movement). As the first layer was likely readable beneath
the cross-hatch, Belloni was able to continue his numbering. These measures cannot be

reconstructed, but it seems likely that a piano cadenza led directly into the third movement
without pause.

A very different set of circumstances is suggested by the missing pages to the first
movement. The manuscript begins with mm. 47-55 on two loose folios, and these
measures lead to mm. 56ff. of the first complete gathering. There are two other loose

folios, but here measure numbers are marked on only one page (mm. 7-8). The musical

content on the verso appears to follow as does the other folio, thus the two must have been

adjacent to one another (see Example 8.2). As the second and third movements are

complete (i.e., there is no evidence of missing folios), these measures must belong to the
first movement If we assume that there are two lost gatherings, each with three nested

bifolia containing 2 to 4 measures per page (as does the rest of the manuscript), then the
two loose folios with mm. 7-20 must have been the second and third folios of the first

gathering, and the two with mm. 47-55, the fifth and sixth of the second. Put another

way, if there are two gatherings for which twelve folios must be accounted, these represent
ff. 2-3 and 11-12, and the first complete gathering in the manuscript as presently

constituted was originally the third. This leaves eight folios, or thirty-two measures, to
reconstruct.
Comparison of these folios with the 1839 version suggests that this portion of the

work must have been similar in the two scores. Measures 1-9 may have been virtually

identical, and, although mm. 10-18 are quite different from the later continuation, both turn

toward C and return decisively to the dominant of E-flat. The next surviving measures
show a close correspondence as well. In light of this analysis, the reason for the lost pages

becomes clear: in whatever way Liszts conception of the work had changed by 1839, he

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237

Example 8.2: Concerto No. 1, mm. 7-20 (beginning)

Cor. flk i V V i -
inEt

0 1,2K I I .
4 -- C 7 -= i- -7 :- j

Piano cresc. m r rf

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
238

Example 8.2: Concerto No. 1, mm. 7-20 (continuation)

Ob.

ci.
j f marcato deciso sostenuto

sostenuto

Tim p.

Piano

VI. I

vigOKMO

VI. II

vigoioso

Vie
vigoroeo

soli
Vc.
vigoioso

Cb.
vigoioso

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239

Example 8.2: Concerto No. 1, mm. 7-20 (conclusion)

O b.

T im p.

Piano dolce delicato

pizz.
VI. I

pizz.

V ie

Vc.

pizz.
Cb.

Timp,

Piano

I
liTillll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240

Critical Notes to Example 8.2 9 Vc (Cb = Vc): There are upright accents
written on the second and fourth beats.
These fourteen measures are on two folios found Lacking in all other parts, they have been
at the end of D-WRgs, H3b. Only two measures deleted. The sf is lacking in VIII and Vc
are numbered, 7 and 8, and it is solely through on the first beat and VI I, II, and Vie on the
internal musical evidence that the page sequence third beat (i.e., it is lacking more times than
was established: (1), mm. 7-8; (2) 9-11; (3) 12- it is present). Nevertheless, it has been
15; (4) 16-20. Note that all clefs (with the extended here.
exception of changes in the piano), key
signatures, and identification of instruments are 10 Vc (Cb = Vc): There is a staccato dot on the
lacking in the source. Accidentals have also been sixteenth after the trill. In general, the
added to Timp. staccati are not consistently placed in the
winds, but this interpretation makes the best
Although there are no instruments listed in the musical sense.
margin, they have been deduced using the
opening page to the third movement: Petite Flute 10-11 Piano: In contrast to the rest of the
[tacet] / Flutes / Obois / Clarinettes / Cors / passage, the whole rests are lacking,
Trombfe] / Fagotti / Timbal / Violini [I] / [II] / suggesting that Liszt may have intended to
Alto / Piano / Violoncell / C. Basso. add a part.

To indicate each emendation would have 12 Tr: The ff is lacking.


amounted to a tedious catalogue of copyists
errors (which are legion), therefore dynamic and 14 Cl II: The second half note is written a-
expression markings, as well as accidentals, have sharp', corrected by analogy with Fg n.
been extended to parts where they are lacking and
noted only where there was any question as to 17 Cb: The pizz. is lacking.
Liszts intention.
19 Piano: The word solo is written over the
7-8 Piano: The staccati are lacking in the right quarter rest
hand until the fourth beat of m. 8. A
superfluous dot is deleted in m. 7, first note 20 Piano: The grace-note run begins at the
of beat three. eighth note of Timp, here realigned to the
quarter rest. In addition, the left hand is
7-11 Cb: The part is indicated by repeat marks, lacking an/ -natural, and following g " is a-
to be taken from Vc. flat, a-flat",

was able to preserve the beginning of his earlier version, and he must have adapted these

pages for use in the new manuscript (i.e., the exemplar for the 1839 version).
Unfortunately, this usage cannot be confirmed, for, while the much of the autograph of the

1839 version survives, the first movement is lost. Liszt used this same technique ten years

later, however, when he dismembered the next Belloni copy of Concerto No. 1, and he
salvaged whatever folios he could for his revision (D-WRgs, H3a; see chapter four,

Compositional Process in the Concertos). We may also assume a similar situation for the
missing closing pages of this movement, a fortissimo conclusion that likely reiterated the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241

opening motive: at one point might these have been considered for the closing measures of
the same 1839 exemplar.25 Regarding the passage represented by Example 6.2, the pages

with mm. 7-20 were not used as the changes were too extensive, also the case with mm.
47ff., although the page with mm. 47-48 includes autograph markings in ink of the kind
that Liszt must have used to emend the other folios.

Thus, the state of the manuscript would suggest that these alterations date from

four years later. But aside from this observation, Liszts failure to complete the measures

connecting the second and third movements, coupled with the complete lack of other
autograph markings, would seem to confirm that he had lost interest in the 1835 version,

even before 1839. The reasons for this abandonment are best discussed in the context of

an analysis.

Analysis and Implications

In its broadest outlines, the earliest version of Concerto No. 1 is modeled on

Beethovens Emperor Concerto, op. 73, sharing its scope, key structure (slow

movement in B major), and linking of the slow movement with a scherzo-like finale
(Beethovens in 6/8, Liszts in 3/4). The conservatism of a three-movement structure is

echoed in the modest orchestration, also that of Beethoven: two flutes (the second doubling

piccolo), two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns, two trumpets, tympani, and

strings. Only the second movement exceeds a classical orchestra with its use of an
accompanying piano, although this may reflect an alternative version for piano solo that
Belloni miscopied, as suggested by comparison with the autograph exemplar and Bellonis

copy of the 1839 version. As with the instrumentation, the technical demands are not

25This lost conclusion continued on a new gathering, thus it is also possible that it somehow
became detached from the score and was lost, and no revision was involved. This explanation is less likely
for the other missing pages, given the surviving folios and autograph markings in mm. 47-48.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
242

great, and the overall impression is that, whatever new paths Liszt intended to trod in

formal organization and piano virtuosity, he was careful to write for the orchestra in a way
that would allow it to keep up with him.
Turning to the music itself, the measures transcribed in Example 8.2 neatly

summarize the similarities and differences between the 1835 version and the published
work of some twenty years later. In mm. 7-9, the gestures and many of the notes are the

same, but, characteristic of the composer at this time, the piano writing is more virtuosic,
with rapid leaps covering nearly two octaves. The following measures are also revealing,
both in the introduction of new motives and abundance of performance indications

(marcato deciso, vigoroso, delicato). Musically, the harmony turns toward C minor
in m. 10, but, whereas C major is briefly established in the later versions, the use of a
diminished-seventh chord leads immediately to the dominant of E-flat. An audacious

progression follows, making use of an augmented triad (mm. 13-15) that nonetheless

reaffirms E-flat major through a circle-of-fifths progression. With such minimal challenge

to the tonic, the shift to C minor appears unmotivated and impedes the forward motion.

Well-conceived moments alternating with passages that work against the formal argument
of the work are found throughout the movement.
Assuming the accuracy of the reconstruction argued above, the music in mm.

21ff. continues in a manner similar to the 1839 version (and therefore in its broad outlines

to the final version), with the opening motive stated in E-flat over an eighth-note
accompaniment, leading to a new theme in E major. The measures that follow develop this

material, arriving at F major in m. 52, the dominant of B minor at m. 64 (with change of


key signature, allegro con fuoco), and concluding with a measured cadenza in mm. 90-

101 (compare mm. 53,61, and 70-73 in the final version). From this point through the
end of the movement, the 1835 version cannot be compared to subsequent versions, so

thorough was Liszts revision. Over the next 150 measures, there are at least three new

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
243

themes (I: mm. 104ff. in C major, II: mm. 118ff., in D major, ID: mm. 171ff. fugato in
G minor) tenuously held together by occasional statements of a motive derived from the

opening measures (mm. 130ff., 200ff.). A lengthy retransition beginning over a dominant
pedal prepares the return of E-flat (mm. 217ff.), again making use of the motive but

interrupted by a cadenza in C-sharp minor, including a new key signature of four sharps
(m. 258). The approach to the tonic begins again with a change of key signature back to

three flats at m. 265, along with a variant of the material from mm. 5ff.26 The continuation

avoids C, instead touching upon E-flat minor (perhaps a reminiscence of the sketchbook

continuation). A recapitulation of a sort follows at m. 275 with new themes I and II in the
tonic, leading to a fortissississimo statement of the opening theme at m. 313.

Unfortunately, the manuscript breaks off after m. 321, but we may surmise the movement

ended loudly with repetitions of the opening motive and came to a full stop (i.e., there was
not a connecting passage to the slow movement).

The second movement begins in B major with the quasi adagio theme in 12/8 as

found in the final version (see mm. 108ff.). Here, it is marked adagio and stated by the
soloist with accompaniment provided by a second piano. It is remarkable how much of

this movement was preserved through all the revisions, including the development

beginning in m. 22 (compare mm. 13 Iff. of the final version) and the use of recitative-like
interjections, here marked recitando. In addition, the music establishes C major at m. 34

(compare mm. 149ff.), but, unlike the final version, Liszt does not introduce a new

thematic idea, and the movement continues with development of the material already stated
for a total of 70 measures. At m. 63, where the notation ceases, the music has been
modulating freely with A-flat major established. It is easy to imagine this harmony

26Measures 266-268 are transcribed in Robert Collet, Works for Piano and Orchestra, in
Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music, ed. Alan Walker (London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1970), 259, n. 2. Note
that his comment, [t]his was originally the solo pianists first entry, is obviously incorrect.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
244

reinterpreted as the subdominant of E-flat, and the adagio probably segued to the Finale
in the seven measures that were not copied into the manuscript
Marked Vivace and in 3/4, the third movement is launched with an introduction

of seventeen measures (mm. 71-87 note that the measure numbers are continuous from

the adagio). The principal theme that follows is the final versions E-flat minor scherzo
(allegro vivace), beginning in m. 88 (compare mm. 184ff.). In this case, the opening

phrases are nearly identical, including the key signature in three flats. One unique aspect of

this movement is the insertion of the adagio theme: the motion comes to a full stop, and
the theme is heard again in a scoring and key that recalls the earlier movement (mm. 190-

202). Rather than signal a recapitulation (there has not been a secondary key area), the

interpolation is followed by a coda based on the scherzo theme and affirming the major

mode, though with repeated references to the minor (mm. 203-232). Overall, the

movement is longer than the scherzo of the final version, but, rather than add additional

themes, Liszt extended his form with an interpolation and extensive coda. (Table 8.1
summarizes the 1833 version and the points in common with the published score.)

Liszt evidently felt he was expanding the bounds of the genre, for he proclaimed

to Boissier that his concerto was after a plan that I think will be new. Perhaps it was the

interpolation of the adagio into the Finale, although, in this case, there was the precedent
of Beethovens Symphony No. 5. In addition, Liszt thought of his adagio and vivace
as one continuous movement, clear from the consecutive measure numbers and further

confirmed by the marking adagio tempo primo at m. 190. Perhaps it was the other

means he employed to bind together his large-scale conception. Liszt was not interested in

sonata form, and he forged for its various component parts his own substitutes, setting up
alternate secondary key areas anticipated harmonically, for example the digression to C

minor of the opening measures, echoed in the C major of the first new theme in the opening

movement (mm. 104ff.) and in the adagio (mm. 34ff.). Note also the tonal closure in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245

Table 8.1: Analysis of Concerto No. 1

1835 Version Published Version


First Movement
Exposition:
opening motive 1-29 1-17
new theme (E major) 30-51 18-52
F major 52-63 53-61
B minor 64-89 62-70
cadenza 90-101 (70-73)*
Development:
new theme I: C major 104-117 154-169
new theme II: D major 118-170
new theme HI: fugato 171-216
Retransition 217-274
Recapitulation 275-312
opening motive 313<?) 86-91
Adagio
Opening theme 1-21 108-130
Development 22-70 131-148
Vivace
Introduction 71-87
Principal theme and development 88-189 184-196
Adagio tempo primo 190-202 356-369
Coda: Vivace 203-232

(*) Measure numbers in parentheses are non thematic, although note that the thematic correspondences are
occasionally very loose see the text for details.

first movement, effected by bringing back several themes in the tonic just before the close

(mm. 275ff.). These techniques had been used before, but they were by no means
common practice and, in conjunction with the fantasia-like conception of the first

movement and the fearsome virtuosity required of the soloist, could have justified Liszts

use of the word new.


Although it is unknown to what extent Bellonis copy had material in common
with the concerto Liszt announced in December 1832, there are aspects of this version of
Concerto No. 1 which suggest an earlier date rather than one closer to the Grandefantaisie

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
246

symphonique, Malediction, and De profundis. In the concerto, Liszt adhered to a standard


three-movement design, where in the other works he fashioned the form within a single

movement structure. He promoted unity within the movement by freely restating themes
from section to section, a technique found in the concerto only in its simplest form with the

quotation of the slow movement in the Finale. Further, in his later works, Liszt reserved

one theme for restatement in the closing measures. While it is true that the concerto offers

all the themes in the tonic toward the end of the first movement, the result in context is a
truncated recapitulation rather than a satisfying closing gesture. When we consider the

extent to which one-movement forms and their implications occupied him for the next

twenty years, as well as the incipient nature of the formal techniques, these aspects must

weigh heavily in favor of viewing the concerto as little revised from his 1832 conception.

Certainly a rewritten work would have partaken of the techniques as they had evolved in

the other concerted compositions from 1834-35. This argument is complemented by the
two-manuscript autograph exemplar deduced from the letter of 28 July 1835. By late

1834, Liszt was writing his piano and orchestra works directly into full score (see the

discussion of Malediction in chapter nine and De profundis in chapter ten). If the work had

been altered significantly, there is no reason to doubt that he would have prepared all parts
in score as he did in the case of De profundis. That he reverted to a more sensible
procedure in 1839 and afterward is not an argument against this reasoning; given his

penchant for revision, he may have decided that the flexibility of a piano score was worth
the delay in setting his instrumentation on paper.

The actual orchestration of the concerto stands apart from this thesis, however.
We do not know at what point Liszt orchestrated the work, but, given the general malaise

that he felt towards composition during these years, there is no reason to think that he

completed it until just before he gave his autograph to be copied. This supposition is
supported by internal evidence as well. Compared to his other orchestral works written

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247

during this period, it resembles De profundis in instrumentation, although it differs from

the Grande fantaisie, lacking the extra horns, tympani, and triangle. Note, however, that

the latter work was prepared with a specific performance in mind and for an audience that
knew Berliozs compositions, whereas the concerto and De profundis may have been

planned for the more modest resources that would be available on a concert tour. As there

is no evidence that Liszt considered a career as a touring virtuoso before 1835, this
observation implies a later date for the instrumentation.

Considering the size of the manuscript paper and the use of rehearsal letters, it

seems clear that Liszt had every intention of performing the concerto, and, when we place
the copy next to that of the Grandefantaisie symphonique, with which it is physically a

twin, it becomes apparent that it was to be the next work offered to the Parisian public.

Once settled in Geneva, Liszt requested the concerto, perhaps with the intention of
preparing it for performance in Switzerland, though this apparently never materialized. It is

true that Liszt was limited in his options, and the change of scene may have dampened his

ambition, but it remains curious that in December 1836, when the next opportunity

occurred to present a work for piano and orchestra, he chose the Grande fantaisie
symphonique. The reason may have been that the concerto no longer represented his

compositional priorities, whereas a one-movement work such as the Grande fantaisie did.
But even before he left for Switzerland, the concerto was old-fashioned compared

to his more recent compositions, and when he radically recomposed the work in 1839, he

may have undertaken the task he should have done earlier. That he did not do so is only an
argument for how desperately Liszt wanted to establish himself as a composer in and

outside of Paris: it was easier to orchestrate an existing work than to recompose it. In

1839, on the verge of new touring plans, he made the long overdue decision to overhaul
the concerto: the three-movement form was jettisoned, the work was reduced to less than

half its original size, and, with little more salvaged than the most ingratiating themes, it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248

began to resemble the final version of the 1850s. Liszt may therefore be forgiven for
viewing his first attempt as a youthful indiscretion, best not mentioned, not even to his
biographer.

Grandefantaisie symphonique
All of Liszts biographers, beginning with Ramann, have mentioned the Grande

fantaisie symphonique. Not from knowledge of any copy (she listed the manuscript as

verloren), nor with assistance from the composer (he did not include the work in the
published thematic catalogues of 1855 and 1877), but as a result of her research in the

Gazette musicale, she accurately reported the place of composition (La CMnaie) and date of

first performance (9 April 1835). She also noted (incorrectly) that Liszt performed it many
times publicly without offering any reference. In addition, Ramann was objective enough

to quote a positive comment from dOrtigues dtude biographique and a negative one

from Caecilia.27
Misunderstanding entered with August Gollerichs worklist, in which he listed

under original compositions a Grande Fantaisie symphonique in A minor and under


arrangements a Phantasie tiber Fischerlied und Rauberlied aus Ldlio von
Berlioz.28 As noted in chapter two, Gollerich was not the most fastidious of researchers,

and he must have inadvertently given the proper title of the Berlioz paraphrase to the
Concerto in A minor heard by Moscheles in London (see chapter six, First Forays into the
Concerto Genre). Confusion quickly followed in the secondary literature, with Julius

Kapp speculating as to whether these works were one and the same,29 although scholars

27See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:288-289,567.

^ S e e August Gollerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 281.

29See Julius Kapp, Franz Liszt (Berlin und Leipzig: Schuster & Loeffler, 1909), 39, n. 2. See
also Searle in Grove V.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
249

such as Peter Raabe and Theophil Stengel were more cautious, no doubt the result of their

work with the manuscripts.30 Unfortunately, another error was added by Emile Haraszti
when he revised the date of the first performance to 24 November 1834: he used as his

source an advertisement for the concert but neglected to check the subsequent review 31

This incorrect date was taken up by Humphrey Searle in the Grove Dictionary o f Music and

Musicians, Felix Raabe in the Zusatze to his fathers work, and the brief introduction to the
first printed score.32 Sharon Winklhofer corrected the date in her revisions to Searles

worklist,33 but as late as 1989 the mistake was being repeated.34

A far more pernicious error can be traced to Peter Raabe. In his worklist, he

voiced the opinion, daB die Instrumentation ganz von L[iszt] stammt, ist

unwahrscheinlich, and his statement was parroted by later authors, including Rudolf
Kdkai, Humphrey Searle, and Serge Gut.35 Raabe was influenced by earlier writers on the
subject, but his conclusion is completely without foundation and can be refuted (see chapter

five, A Contemporary Response). One can see the basis for his suspicions, however.

The orchestration is very ambitious in comparison with works from this period, Liszts and

30See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:311; Theophil Stengel, Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von
Liszt bis zum Gegenwart (Berlin, 1931), 10, 14-15.

31See Emile Haraszti, Le probl&me Liszt, Acta Musicologica 9 (1937), 127. Harasztis error
was actually two fold, as the concert in question took place on 23 November.

32See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:20 (Ziisatze); Franz Liszt, Grande Fantaisie symphonique iiber
Themen aus Hector Berlioz' Lilio" (Lelio-Fantasie)fiir Klavier und Orchester, ed. Reiner Zimmeimann
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1981). Oddly, Searle has the correct year in his monograph, first published
about the same time as Grove V; see The Music o f Liszt, rev. ed. (New York: Dover, 1966), 10.

33See The New Grove Early Romantic Masters I, 334.

^S ee, for example, Serge Gut, Liszt (Paris: Editions de Fallois/LAge dHomme, 1989), 481.
He has corrected it to 23 November, however.

35Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:311; Kdkai, Franz Liszt in seinen frtthen Klavierwerken, 13; Searle,
The Music o f Liszt, 10; Gut, Liszt, 335. Th editor of the two-piano score went so far as to suggest
Belloni!

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
250

others: piccolo, flute, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets in A, 2 bassoons, 2 horns in E, 2 horns in C, 2


trumpets (valved), 3 trombones, triangle, cymbals, tympani I (tuned la-fa), tympani II

(tuned la flat-C), strings. This is a close match with the movement of Le retour d la vie
upon which Liszts fantasy is based, the Chanson de brigands, where, in place of the
trompettes k pistons, Berlioz used comets in B-flat and trumpets in E, one set of tympani

is tuned slighdy differently, and the oboes and triangle are lacking. The most likely

candidate for the task would be Berlioz himself, but his letter written a few days after the
concert (quoted below) spoke favorably albeit briefly about Liszts work and took no credit
for it. Considering how careful Berlioz was the following year to clarify his role in Louise
Bertins Esmeralda,36 it may be assumed that he had little to do with the Grandefantaisie.

In addition, there is no known use of the triangle in Berliozs music to this time, and,

remembering the prominent use given the instrument in later versions of Concerto No. 1,

this is perhaps another clue leading away from Berlioz.


The score was published for the first time in 1981, but only in two-piano format,

and presumably not performed until that year by any pianist other than Liszt himself. Since

then, at least three recordings have been made,37 but response has been cool towards the
work, and it has not gained acceptance in the concert hall.

Historical Background

The Milologue entitled Le retour &la vie, and later called Lilio, consists of six
short pieces written by Hector Berlioz over the period 1830-1831 and collected by him into

a composition that was intended to continue the story begun in the Symphoniefantastique,

36See Hector Berlioz, Correspondence Ginirale, ed. Pierre Citron, 5 vols. to date (Paris:
Flammarion, 1972-1989), 2:318-319 (22 December 1836, to his sister, Adfele).

37Michel B6roff, Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra/Kurt Masur (EMI CZS7-67214-2); Jen6 Jando,
Budapest Symphony Orchestra/Andras Ligeti (Laserlight 14011); Daria Telizyn, Kiev Symphony/Igor
Blazhkov (Claudio CR-4012-2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
251

the entire two-part work entitled tpisode de la vie d u n artiste. In order to create

continuity, both within the score and with the preceding composition, he made use of

monologues that are recited between each item. Not surprisingly, the effect is that of a
pastiche, and this lack of unity along with the topical nature of the recitations has made Le

retour d la vie one of the least performed works of the composer. As Peter Bloom has

observed: [T]he unabashed romanticism of its programme has seemed more obtrusive and
time-bound than the programmes of Berliozs other symphonic compositions and less in
harmony with modem sensibilities.38

Liszt was present at the premiere of Le retour d la vie on 9 December 1832, and
he may have heard the performance that followed on 30 December.39 He was also in the

audience when Le picheur (the first number) was performed on 2 May 1833. The program

included three movements from the Symphoniefantastique, the hearing of which inspired
Liszt to write his transcription:

A propos de musique, j ai rdentendu hier soir, k la soirde de LEurope littdraire, la


Symphoniefantastique de Berlioz; jamais cette oeuvre ne mavait paru aussi
complete, aussi vraie. Si je ne suis pas tud dici k la fin de Juin probablement je me
mettrai k loeuvre, je larrangerai pour piano, quelque peine et difficult^ quil y ait k
cette entreprise.40

38Hector Berlioz, Lilio ou Le retour &la vie, ed. Peter Bloom, New Edition o f the Complete
Works 7 (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1992), xv (hereafter NBE).

39See NBE, xii, and the seating plan reproduced on p. 195; see also the diary entry for 9
December in Antoine Fontaney, Journal Intime, intro, and ed. Rend Jasinski (Paris: Les Presses Fran^aises,
1925), 163-164: Je sors it 2 heures et vais au Conservatoire entendre le concert fantastique de Berlioz
Jdtais en premidre loge avec Hugo, sa femme et Liszt Jacques Barzun notes that Liszt was also at the
rehearsals; see his Berlioz and the Romantic Century, 3d ed. (New York and London: Columbia University
Press, 1969), 1:232. As for the concert of 30 December, see Berlioz, Correspondance Ginirale, 2:50 (19
December 1832, to Liszt): P. S. Notre concert est remis au dimanche 30 ddcembre. Liszts participation is
not recorded in any contemporary document but as Berlioz may have doubled the piano four-hand part in the
Fantaisie sur la Tempete de Shakespeare (see NBE, xvi-xvii), we can speculate that Liszt was present in the
orchestra.

40Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse d'Agoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier (Paris: Editions


Bernard Grasset, 193334), 1:22.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252

There is no mention of Le retour &la vie, but given that Le picheur provides the musical
material for the first half of the Grandefantaisie, this concert may nevertheless be
significant.41

The only unequivocal reference to the works composition is found in the dtude
biographique of June 1835:

Nous devons faire une mention particuli&re de sa Fantaisie symphonique sur le


chant de Picheur et le chceur des Brigands [sic] de M. Berlioz, le dernier et le plus
important ouvrage de Listz [sic]. II la composde lautomne demier, pendant son
sdjour k La Chenaie, auprfcs de labb6 de La Mennais [sic].42

With this in mind, it seems likely that the somewhat oblique remark in a letter to Marie

dAgoult the previous fall is to the same work: Jen profiterai pour y achever une nouvelle

dnormitd fantastique dont j ai 6crit les 2/3 k La Chenaie; la reste est fait dans ma tete, mais je
ne me sens vraiment plus le courage de tester davantage dans cette chambre; cette vie
ddloignement me tue.43 Liszts simple description is a valuable clue: the Grandefantaisie

is quite long for a single-movement work nearly twenty-five minutes thus it was
certainly an dnormitd by contemporary standards, and the use of the word fantastique

undoubtedly reflected Berliozs inspiration. These references date the origins to September

1834, when Liszt visited the home of the Abbd Lamennais, and, as the first performance
was announced in the Gazette musicale for 23 November, Liszt must have been successful

in extracting the final third of the work from his head.44 A letter postmarked 8

November reveals that Liszt was quite busy at this time, perhaps preparing for the concert:

41Other performances of Le pecheur prior to the premiere of the Grande fantaisie were on 6 June
1833 and 14 December 1834, but it is unknown whether Liszt was present.

42Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (14 June 1835), 204.

^L iszt-d ' Agoult, 1:124.

^ S e e Gazette musicale de Paris 1 (16 November 1834), 371.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253

he excused himself for not writing sooner and, along with a reference to the Symphonie

fantastique (also on the program and conducted by Narcisse Girard, who would conduct
the premiere of the Grandefantaisie), exclaimed, Encore une impossibility et des

excuses!45 One may speculate that he withdrew the work at the last minute, but whether

because it was unfinished, not completely copied, or proved too difficult for the orchestra

in rehearsal is unclear, and the only known fact is that Liszt did not appear on the program
at all.46 Perhaps Berlioz was referring to this cancellation when he wrote: Cet ouvrage,
avant d arriver jusquau public, avait eu k vaincre les preventions et les difficultds qui ne

manquent jamais d accueillir toute production excentrique yievde.47 The premiere finally

took place at Liszts own concert of 9 April 1835.


Once in Geneva, Liszt requested in his letter of 28 July that a manuscript copy of

the work be sent to him: La Fantaisie symphonique sur des themes de Berlioz (executde k

mon concert) copide par Belloni et relid les parties daccompagnement sont inutiles.48

That he noted the orchestral parts were unnecessary suggests he was considering revision
rather than performance. Nevertheless, the work was heard one last time on 18 December

1836 at a concert in Paris given jointly by Liszt and Berlioz with the latter on the podium.

Liszt never published the Grandefantaisie, although he scheduled the first performance of

45See Julien Tiersot, Lettres de musiciens Writes en frangais du XVe au XXe siicle, 2 vols.
(Turin: Bocca Fitres, 1924), 2:351.

^ S e e , for example, the concert reviews in Gazette musicale de Paris 1 (7 December 1834), 394,
and U artiste 8,127. In Vartiste, the reviewer specifically remarked that the work, though announced, was
not performed.

47Concerts de M. Listz [sic]: (Hdtel-de Ville, salle Saint-Jeari), Journal des dibats (25 April
1835), 1.

^ S e e Briefe an seine Mutter, 20-21. This letter is transcribed in appendix A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254

the revised version of Le retour d la vie during the Weimar Berlioz Week of February
1855.49

As may be noted above, the title of the work has not always been consistent in the

sources. Liszt referred to it in his letter to Marie dAgoult as an 6normitg fantastique, and

in the letter to his mother requesting the manuscript, it is listed as a fantaisie


symphonique. The matter is further confused by a contemporary advertisement in Le

moniteur universel, where the work is titled Grande fantaisie fantastique sur deux th&mes
de M. Berlioz. . . ,,5 and references in the worklists by Ramann (Fantaisie
symphonique iiber Themen von Berlioz) and Gollerich (Phantasie iiber Fischerlied und

Rauberlied aus L61io von Berlioz). Liszt himself inscribed the title in the manuscript

copy, Grande fantaisie symphonique, and this is taken as his preferred designation for this
study. In addition, this is the title listed in reviews of the 9 April 1835 and 18 December
1836 concerts (quoted below). Note also the use of symphonique, a term that, for Liszt

at least, seems to have implied a one-movement work.51

While the sequence of events surrounding the composition is clear, Liszts

underlying motivation is not. He could not take it on tour because of the elaborate

instrumentation and unfamilarity of Berliozs works outside of Paris, and, considering that
he had a work for piano and orchestra in his portfolio, the Grandefantaisie would appear

49in addition to the Symphoniefantastique transcription and the Grandefantaisie symphonique,


Liszt promoted Berliozs music with transcriptions of Harold en Italie in 1836 (published 1879), the
Ouverture des francs-juges in 1837 (1845), the Ouverture du roi Lear, also in 1837 but never published (the
first edition appeared in 1988 by the British Liszt Society), and the Danse des sylphes from La damnation de
Faust, Marche de pilerins from Harold en Italie, and Marche au supplice from the Symphonie fantastique
(1866). He also published paraphrases on the id6e fixe from the Symphonie fantastique in 1847 and the
Binidiction et Serment from Benvenuto Cellini in 1854. On a performance of the Marche de peldrins in
1845, see Mdria Eckhardt, Liszt h Marseille, Studia Musicologica 24 (1982), 185-186.

50 Le Moniteur universel, 23 November 1834, 2105.

51See also the discussion of Liszts use of this term in chapter seven, The Compositional
Matrix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
255

unnecessary. Several explanations may be advanced. As noted above, the Concerto No. 1
may have been sketched as early as 1832, and Liszt may have wanted a work more

representative of his latest ideas in composition as well as a wholly original work. It is also

not clear whether the concerto had been orchestrated by this time. There was also the
attraction of the paraphrase genre (i.e., a work based on music known to the audience),

previously reflected in his programming choices: the Grandefantaisie de bravoure sur la

Clochette on 4 November 1834 and performances of the Mendelssohn Duo on 25 and 28


December.

As for the choice of Le retour d la vie, one clue may lie in the friendship between
the two composers, which was perhaps most intense at this time. Among other evidence

Liszt participated in Berliozs concerts,52 Berlioz wrote articles about Liszt (see below,

Reception History), and Liszt had already transcribed the Symphonie fantastique in
1833. In this context, the history of the transcription is useful in postulating a sequence of
events: Liszt was correcting final proof at the beginning of July 1834,53 and, with the work

about to be issued, he may have sought another way of advancing Berliozs music before

the public. Having composed his Chopin and Mendelssohn duos during the summer, and

thus having adapted the music of the two of his contemporaries whom he admired most,
Liszt may have decided to return to Berlioz, reserving for him the most ambitious work of
all in both instrumentation and compositional technique. That Berlioz himself was at the

forefront of the avant-garde could be considered confirmation for a decision already made.

52Concerts of 2 April 1833,24 November 1833,22 December 1833,28 December 1834, and 3
May 1835. After Liszt left Paris, the only other collaborations were joint concerts on 18 December 1836,
25 April 1841 (for the Beethoven monument in Bonn), and 4 May 1844.

53See Liszt-d.'Agoult, 1:105. (Jai la tSte casse de la quatribme 6preuve de la Symphonie


Berlioz. D6cid6ment cest une chose monstrueuse.) See also Bory, Diverse lettres, 16.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
256

But while this answers the question of the choice of Berlioz, it begs it in the

selection of this particular work: in accomplishment, Le retour d la vie could not be equated

with the Symphonie fantastique. Berlioz must have thought so too, for he never scheduled

the work complete after 1835. Nevertheless, Liszt may have been fascinated with

individual movements. In addition, there was the advantage that three selections from Le

retour d la vie had been published the previous year in piano-vocal score. It is certainly no
coincidence that two of these formed the basis of Liszts composition.54 This also saved
him the trouble of borrowing Berliozs autograph manuscript, although ultimately he

adapted the orchestration of thirty-five measures from the Chanson de Brigands.


Thus, we come full circle to the reason for producing a paraphrase at all. Liszt

was serving his own artistic ends, smoothing the way of acceptance with his friends
melodies, and, in this context, it is useful to remember that Le picheur was performed

immediately before the Grandefantaisie at the 9 April 1835 conceit A transcription serves

the work transcribed, but a paraphrase shows the ingenuity of the arranger, and, as long as
the material is appropriate, the quality of the source is secondary. Beriioz was served, and

Liszt served himself. In retrospect, however, Liszt, as Berlioz, must have seen the Grande

fantaisie as a piice doccasion, and, having served its purpose, it was shelved.

The Manuscript Source

The only surviving manuscript of the Grande fantaisie symphonique is found in


D-WRgs (H7). We may be quite certain that the reference in the letter of 28 July 1835 is to
this score, as the copy is bound (as per the letter), and it is unlikely that there was ever

54These extracts were published by Maurice Schlesinger, as follows: Le pecheur (plate number
1389); Chant de bonheur (1390); Seine de Brigands (1392). Berlioz referred to these publications in a letter
of 23 January 1833 (i.e., three weeks after the first performances): Schlesinger grave trois morceaux de
mon milologue. . See Berlioz, Correspondance Ginirale, 2:69 (to his sister, Addle). They were
advertised for sale in the Revue Musicale for 11 May. Peter Bloom has suggested that the two Liszt used
were newly composed for Le retour d la vie (see NBE, xi). If true, it is possible this could have influenced
his selection.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
257

more than one. In the letter, Belloni is specified as the copyist, and this manuscript is the
key to identifying his hand, the only one found in H7 with the exception of a few

insubstantial autograph corrections, such as missing accidentals. The copy is bound

between two pieces of cardboard covered with green imitation-marble paper, and this
binding appears to be contemporary with the copy, as suggested by the stamp of the

Parisian binder inside the front cover in the upper left comer:

Rue de Buffault, N. I . / a u coin duFaub.BMontmartre. / JOUY, / Magasin de


Papiers de toutes espfcces. / FOURNITURES DE BUREAUX. / Fabrique de
Mgistres, Relidres, Cartonnages, / Articles de Dessin, Encadrements, &..c &..c /
Gravure et Impression en tous genres. / k Paris.

The binding has not held up well, probably from the sheer weight of its contents, and the
covering of the spine is worn away, revealing the gathering structure (see below). There

are 81 folios of music with two flyleaves of lighter-weight paper on either side, the first
flyleaf containing the composers inscription in ink: Grande Fantaisie / symphonique. In
size and clarity, the manuscript would have been suitable as a conducting score and was

very likely used for the performances of the work. The parts mentioned in the letter appear

to be lost, however.55

Throughout the volume, the paper is all of one type, including the collettes but
excepting the flyleaves. The manufacturer was the Dutch paper mill of Dirk and Cornelius

Blauw, a firm known for the quality of their product56 This quality is apparent in H7,

where the paper shows no sign of yellowing or brittleness and gives the impression that it

looks as good as the day Liszt purchased it. Blauw paper can also be found in his other

55Three pages from the Gollerich NachlaB in the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, listed as Grande
fantaisie symphonique (Partitur-Skizze) (shelflist F28 Goellerich 626), are not autograph. The pages
contain brief extracts from the score, perhaps copied out by Gollerich for his own use.

56Paper from this mill was also used by Berlioz; see the watermark tracing and comments in D.
Kem Holoman, The Creative Process in the Autograph Musical Documents of Hector Berlioz, c. 1818-
1840 (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980), 106.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
258

manuscripts, both autograph and copies, and is a near-exact match for that of the first
movement of the earliest version of Concerto No. 1 (see appendix C, paper type 8.1). As
was typical for music paper, the sheet was cut only once, between the two watermarks.57

This method allowed both mark and countermark to remain intact and, as long as the

manuscript was not bound, easily visible across the fold (see Figure 8.1).58 Note that with

this method the staff lines run vertically, relative to the drawing. In this case, the original

sheet was larger than normal, creating a folio especially suitable for a large orchestral score.

Figure 8.1: Watermark Layout of Paper Type 8.1

cut

BF
RIVES

jc x

There is additionally a set of numbers in the watermark, represented by xxx in

Figure 8.1, probably to identify the mold used to produce the sheets. When the sheet is
folded, one of these numbers appears in the upper or lower comer away from the binding,

the cut invariably bisecting the middle number, and this fact, along with the trimming

necessary for a bound volume, has made it impossible to read. From the visible mold

57See also Holoman, Creative Process, 98-99, where this format is illustrated with a diagram.

58As noted, H7 was bound, and these observations were made from the copy of Concerto No. 1,
first movement (D-WRgs, H3b), which is unbound.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
259

numbers, it is possible to deduce two sets in H7, but although one set appears with greater

frequency than the other, no correlation with the replacement folios and full-page collettes
has been found, and the paper must have been purchased at the same time (see Table 8.1
and discussion below).

Thus, we may conclude that Belloni did not begin his work until Liszts was

finished (after September 1834), and he obtained the entire amount needed to do the job.

In addition, the replacement folios and collettes are in his hand, and, as Belloni is not

known to have accompanied Liszt to Switzerland, the alterations must have been done

before he left Paris (before June 1835). The paper itself is the same as the rest of the
manuscript, thus it was likely done within a few months of the first layer. These dates

could be refined further if we assume that the first layer was ready in time for the projected

November 1834 concert, while the revised version was used in April 1835. Unfortunately,
there is no direct reference by Liszt to this effect, and the references to the composition and

cancellation quoted above are too vague to confirm or deny it Note, however, that the

mold numbers in the Grandefantaisie differ from those in the Concerto No. 1 copy, thus

there was no overlap in Bellonis execution of the two projects, and, as noted in the
discussion of Concerto No. 1, the fantasy was likely executed first. Finally, there is no
evidence that Liszt altered the manuscript while in Switzerland, and the performance in

December 1836 may have used the score and parts as they stood in 1835.

Revisions to the Grandefantaisie were apparently quite extensive, as examination


of the gathering structure of H7 reveals that many pages were neatly razored out and
replaced by full-page collettes (see Figure 8.2).59 Furthermore, the manuscript as

59This is exactly in the manner of Berliozs scores; see Holoman, Creative Process, passim.
Liszt had already transcribed Berliozs Symphoniefantastique directly from the autograph (the only available
score of the woik), thus Berliozs modus operandi had been before him as a model. That Berlioz had already
made such modifications by this time is well documented by Holoman (see pp. 262-275).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260

Figure 8.2: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, H7 (beginning)

Gathering number: the roman numerals represent the actual gathering,


the arabic in quotation marks are the numbers as found in the upper
right comer of the first page.

Foliation: each folio is given a separate number, and the collettes


are considered attached to the folio, as shown by the arrows, even
if they have since become separated. All collettes cover the entire
page, and their versos are blank unless otherwise indicated. The
numbers that follow are measure numbers: (recto)(verso).

f.l (14)(510)
f.2 (ll-14)(15-20)
f.3 (21-26Xblank)
collette (27a-k)*
f.4 (271n)(2833)
f.5 (34-39)(40-45)
f.6 (46-51)(52-56)
f.7 (5761) (6265)
f.8 (66-71)(72-76)

f.9 (77-79X80-82)
f.10 (83-84)(85-90)
f .l l (9195) (96
99)
n f.12 (100-103)(104-106)
" 2" f.13 (107-110)(blank)
f.14 (111-116X117-119)
f.15 (120-121)(122-123)
f.16 (124-125)(126-129)

f.17 (130-133X134-138)
f.18 (139-146)(147-150)
m f.19 (151-152X153-154)
"3 f.20 (155-158X159-160)
f.21 (161-162)(163-164)
f.22 (165166)(167)
f.23 (168-169X170-171)

* the verso of the collette to f.3 has mm. 24-26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
261

Figure 8.2: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, H7 (continuation)

f.24 (172-173X174-175)
f.25 (176-177)(178-181)*
collette (182-184)*
IV f.26 (blank)(blank)
"4,5,6" f.27 (185-193X194-196)
f.28 (197-201X202-205)
f.29 (206-209X210-213)

f.30 (214-216)(217-224)*
f.31 (221-224)(225-228)*
V f.32 (229-232X233-236)
t y * t f.33 (237-240X241-244)
f.34 (245-248)(249-252)
f.35 (253-256X257-260)

f.36 (261-264)(265-268)
f.37 (269-272X273-276)
collette (273-280)*
collette (blank)*
VI
f.38 (277-280X281-284)
8"
"
f.39 (285-288X289-292)
f.40 (293-294)(295-298)

f.41 (299-306X307-314)
f.42 (315-318X319-322)
vn f.43 (323-326)(327-330)*
" 9 "
collette (325-331)
f.44 (332-339X340-346)

f.45 (347-354)(355-361)
vm f.46 (362-367X368-373)
"10, 11" f.47 (374-378X379-385)
f.48 (386-391)(392-397)

f.49 (398-405X406-413)
f.50 (414-420X421-428)
f.51 (429-432X433-436)

* ff. 25 and 30 are tipped in (i.e. attached to a stub); the verso of the collette to f. 26 has
mm. 185-188; the recto of f. 31 is cancelled in pencil; collettes to ff. 37 and 38
constitute a single bifolio; on the recto of f. 43, mm. 325-326 are cancelled in pencil

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
262

Figure 8.2: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, H7 (conclusion)

f.52 (437-439X440-443)
f.53 (444-446X447-449)
f.54 (450-452X453-455)
f.55 (456-459X460-463)
X f.56 (464-467X468-469)
" 12" f.57 (469X470-472)
collette (470-475)

f.58 (476-481X482-487)
f.59 (488-493X494-496)
f.60 (497-499X500-502)
f-61 (503-505X506-508)

_____________ f.62 (509-511X512-515)


_____________ f.63 (516-519X520-523)
_____________ f.64 (524-527X528-531)
____ f.65 (532-534X535-539)
1 _____ 1 ____ collette (535-542)

f.66 (543548)(549553)
f.67 (554-562X563-569)
f.68 (570-575X576-581)
f.69 (582-589X590-593)

f.70 (594-596X597-599)
f.71 (600-603X604-607)
f.72 (608-610X611-614)
XIV f.73 (615-617)(618-620)
16" f.74 (621-623)(624-626)
f.75 (627-629)(630-632)

f.76 (633-635X636-638)
f.77 (639-641)(642-643)
f.78 (644-646)(647-649)
f.79 (650-652)(653-655)
f.80 (656-658)(659-661)
f.81 (662-665X666-670)

* the number is actually found on the recto of f. 61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
263

presently constituted contains fifteen gatherings, but numbers on the gatherings themselves

suggest that there were originally seventeen. There are no gaps between the gatherings as
attached to the spine that would suggest any were removed after the manuscript had been
bound, therefore the present binding must have been executed on a revised version of the

work, with the stubs left long enough so that all folios would remain well attached. The

handful of penciled autograph markings throughout the manuscript attest that these

emendations were the composers, and therefore it represents the last stage of Liszts

compositional process, despite the fact that it is a copy. In addition, the revisions may have
resulted from an opportunity to hear the work in rehearsal, thus the Grande fantaisie
represents the most refined expression (although not necessarily the most advanced) of

Liszts compositional goals from this period, a conclusion especially useful because of the

narrow time frame. The nature and scope of these alterations can therefore tell us much

about Liszts development To understand the significance of these observations, it is first


necessary to summarize some aspects of the music.

Analysis of the Work

Liszt chose the two most tuneful portions of Le retour d la vie for his fantasy,
movements which also contrast well with each other. First is the first musical number of

Berliozs score, a setting of a ballad by Goethe, Der Fischer, that tells the story of a water

nymph who loves a fisherman to his death. The four verses are translated into French and
set in modified strophic form for voice and piano.60 The song begins in A minor, and each
strophe consists of a brief prelude and postlude and three contrasted melodies of similar

material, designated here a (mm. 3-12), b (mm. 13-18), and c (mm. 19-28), the last in the

6CThis analysis is based on the work as published in 1833 (and presumably performed in 1832)
and reprinted in NBE, pp. 204-209. When Berlioz revised the work, perhaps for the performance in
Weimar, he deleted one strophe, altered the others, and added a reference to the idie fixe from the Symphonie
fantastique.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264

parallel major. There is no transition to return to the minor mode between strophes 1 and

2, and 3 and 4, at which point the music comes to a full stop and resumes in the minor.

Between 2 and 3, the arpeggiated accompaniment continues, playing c-sharp one time, c-

natural the next (mm. 58-59). The fourth strophe is quite different from the preceding
three: first, to reflect the agitated motion of the water, the arpeggiated chords in the piano

are replaced by tremolos with the underlying harmonies altered in places; second, the vocal
line remains the same through a (mm. 86-95) and b (mm. 96-101), but c is severely
truncated, the result of eschewing word repetition and an abrupt ending motivated by the

tex t: Sans le vouloir, sans se dtfendre, il suit la nymphe. . . il disparait, (mm. 102-

107).

The Chanson de Brigands, the third of the sue numbers in the score, is a
swaggering dramatic scene, static in nature, for bass, male chorus, and orchestra. The
movement is in F major and essentially strophic. It begins with an extended introduction

for the orchestra alone: theme I, a (mm. 1-17), b (mm. 18-35), and c (mm. 36-40). This
is followed by the entrance of the voices with new melodic material: theme II (strophe 1,
mm. 41-98; strophe 2, mm. 99-145), but borrowing the c phrase of theme I (mm. 65-68,

94-97,122-125). After these two verses, a complete statement of the orchestral

introduction is heard, now with the voices added (mm. 148-190).

There is not much to bind the ballad and the chanson together apart from Berliozs

monologues, but in his Grande fantaisie symphonique Liszt was able to create a satisfying

whole by juxtaposing musical material in the form of a reminiscence, adding material


outside of the two numbers, and emphasizing the harmonic points the two numbers have in
common. In addition, he used Berliozs original keys for the exposition statements,

allowing them to give the piece its tonal shape. Liszts work is in two sections: slow (mm.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
265

1-184) fast (mm. 185-670),61 and each is approximately equal in length for a total

performance time of about twenty-four minutes.62 The first section is based exclusively on
Le picheur, while the second, in addition to the Chanson de Brigands, includes original

themes and a reminiscence of the first. While Le picheur was more malleable for Liszts

purposes and therefore capable of sustaining the entire section, the Chanson was less

susceptible to development because of the repeated rhythmic figures that make up the
material of theme I. This might have compelled Liszt to add his own themes, carefully
tailoring them to support the harmonic relationship between the two sections (see below),

and nearly half of the second section is given over to non-Berlioz material. In addition,

Liszt used a rhythmic motive (x) borrowed from the second number of Le retour d la vie,
the Choeur dombres, and employed it to bind the two sections together (see mm. 73-75,

78-79,138-144,185-186,429^30,439-440,452-459).63 The harmonic transition


between the two sections is c-sharp, the third of A major and also B-flat minor (c-sharp =

d-flat), a sonority Berlioz exploits in the Chanson when he flirts with the parallel minor

(see mm. 18ff.) and actually sounds an A major chord (m. 21). In addition, theme II of the

Chanson briefly touches on A minor, thus offering another overlap (mm. 51-58). The

reminiscence of Le picheur in the midst of the second section is only the most obvious of
the techniques Liszt used to hold his one-movement work together (mm. 533-553).

Fragments of Berliozs song begin the first section with the opening alluding to
the dominant of A minor, an introduction that closes with a brief piano cadenza anticipating

61These measure numbers are as found in the published two-piano score edited by Reiner
Zimmermann (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1981).

62This is based on the recordings of the work with B6roff and Jando as soloists, both of whom
take similar tempos. The recording by Telizyn increased the time by several minutes, but the proportion
between the two halves of the work remained the same.

63This device was first observed by Ralph Locke in his review of the Zimmermann edition; see
Notes: The Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library Association 41 (1984), 383-384.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266

phrase a (mm. 1-27). This is followed by an exposition of a sort: the first strophe of

Berliozs song heard in its entirety (mm. 34-63; see Berlioz, mm. 1-28). Liszt cannot

resist a few original touches, however. First, the line is blurred, ever so slightly, between
the end of the cadenza and the exposition of the theme by six measures in tempo that are

nearly identical to the opening of Berliozs melody except for changes in harmony (mm.

28-33). With an anacrucis of four notes, Le picheur is heard in its original form, and the

use of an elaborated, but still recognizable, form of Berliozs piano accompaniment is the
distinction that marks the true exposition of the theme. As the premiere of 9 April 1835
was prefaced with a performance of the song, the anticipation of the theme in tempo would
have been readily apparent The second touch occurs before Berliozs b phrase, where

Liszt anticipates the vocal lines first measure by stating it twice in the orchestra (mm. 44-
45). In the context of the concerto, this has the effect of further isolating the b phrase, as a
series of trills will isolate the c phrase (mm. 54-63). This is significant as Liszt will treat

all three independently in the development. The anticipation is also noteworthy for quite a
different reason: in his revised score, Berlioz adapted Liszts idea, although he repeated this
measure only once, and one is tempted to speculate that the change was made in response

to hearing the paraphrase. The exposition of the fantasy concludes with a codetta, based on

b and introducing motive x, which takes the tonality back to the minor mode (mm. 64-76).
The development which follows begins in A minor, and in both mood and

accompaniment it reflects Berliozs fourth strophe. Liszt is not interested in variation,

however, and, working through a kaleidoscope of changing keys, he develops material

from phrases a (mm. 77-93), b (mm. 94-110), and finally c (mm. 111-149). The

conclusion is once again marked by motive x as well as a brief cadenza for the soloist,

recalling the cadenza that led to the exposition (mm. 135ff.). A recapitulation is initiated
with a statement of phrase a in an orchestrational dress that in its virtuosity departs

considerably from Berliozs simple setting (mm. 150-159). It is truncated, however, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267

rather than continue to phrase b, the melodic fragment brought into relief by Liszt through
anticipation in the exposition is used as the material for a transition (mm. 160-184), with
the last measures settling on a C-sharp major chord (heard as the dominant of F-sharp

major/minor) as preparation for the next section. As noted, C-sharp is the link connecting
A major to F major (the key of the second section) by way of the latters minor

subdominant (c-sharp = d-flat).

After two measures of motive x (on c-sharp, mm. 185-186), Liszt creates an
introduction for his second section from the b phrase of the Chanson de Brigand's theme I,

which conveniently revolves around the chords of B-flat minor and A major (mm. 187

201; compare Berlioz, mm. 18-35), followed by six measures of dominant preparation
(mm. 202-207). The exposition of the Chanson is mostly faithful to the original,

beginning with theme I and alternating Berliozs original orchestration with solo piano

(mm. 208-247; Berlioz, mm. 1-40). Theme II follows as in the original (mm. 248-283;
compare Berlioz, mm. 40-64), but Liszts treatment, though measure for measure,

becomes melodically freer, especially after mm. 274ff.), and Berliozs orchestration is

found only in mm. 258-263. Note that Liszt repeats Berliozs cadence in A minor, as if to
make the harmonic connection with Le picheur more explicit (Liszt, mm. 263-267;
Berlioz, mm. 56-58). The codetta is freer still (mm. 284-293), constructed out of the

phrase that both themes have in common (see mm. 36-40 and 65-69 of the Chanson) and
an oscillating figure that may derive from Le picheur (see mm. 76-78 in the piano part of
Berliozs song).

A brief transition remains in F major (mm. 294-298) and leads to a new complex

of thematic ideas as well as a new meter. These ideas are all original, although they appear

to be based on fragments of Berliozs themes. The first idea (Nl) seems to do little more
than exploit the relationship between tonic and minor-subdominant (mm. 299-324), and

Liszts orchestral part could be traced to the choral idea, Allon ces belles (Berlioz, mm.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
268

69ff.). Exploiting the relationship between d-flat and c-sharp, the second idea (N2) is in

D-flat major (mm. 325-342) and sounds as if it could be attributed to Berlioz (compare his
theme at Ce jour est un jour largesses, mm. 56ff.). The third idea (N3) exploits the
melodic derivation and especially the harmonic relationship with a theme that begins in C-

sharp major and touches on F major and A major before returning to the dominant of D-flat

(mm. 343-378). There follows an extensive development of N1 and N2, contrapuntally


combined (mm. 379-428), that is ultimately interrupted by motive x on D-flat Using this

motive and theme n of the Chanson, the music travels chromatically through all twelve

tones before arriving at a highly virtuosic piano cadenza and is effectively the transition to a
recapitulation (mm. 429-469). This recapitulation contains in reorchestrated form both

themes of the exposition before coming to rest on the dominant of A minor as noted, a

chord that is part of Berliozs theme II (mm. 470-532).

Liszt now uses the most overt process of all for binding together his composition,

a restatement, in slightly condensed form, of part of the first sections exposition (mm.

533-553; see mm. 28-53). The coda alternates a portion of Berliozs theme with two
introduced by Liszt (mm. 554-670). Beginning with N3 (mm. 554-584; compare mm.

343-378), the music goes on to state N2 in F major, a key with which it has never been
associated (mm. 585-598), before chromatically veering off to Berliozs theme (mm. 599-
645). The last music heard is N2, again combined with N l, now unequivocally in F major

(mm. 646-670). (Table 8.2 summarizes the overall form of the work.)
Liszts methods of achieving unity in this work are unique and owe little to
Berlioz or any other composer of the time, and he is already looking to bind large-scale

works together by harmonic associations and by means of themes and motives that go

beyond the organizing factor of an idie fixe. In addition, he used a technique which, while
not promoting unity, would turn out to be a favorite device in later years: reserving one

theme not previously heard in the tonic for restatement in the closing measures of the work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
269

Section Tonality Measure


Le picheur
Introduction 1-33
Exposition A minor
phrase a 34-43
phrase b 44-53
phrase c A major 54-63
codetta 64-76
Development A minor
phrase a 77-93
phrase b xyz 94-110
phrase c E major 111-149
Recapitulation A minor
phrase a 150-159
Transition (based on phrase b) xyz 160-184
Chanson de Brigands
Introduction 185-207
Exposition F major
theme I 208-247
theme II 248-283
codetta 284-293
Transition 294-298
Development
N1 299-324
N2 D-flat major 325-342
N3 343-378
N1 +N 2 xyz 379-428
cadenza 429-469
Recapitulation F major
theme I 470-516
theme II 517-532
Reminiscence of Le picheur A minor 533-553
Coda
N3 D-flat major 554-584
N2 F major 585-598
theme I, phrase c xyz 599-645
N1 +N 2 F major 646-670

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
270

All of this demonstrates the care he put into organizing his composition and shows him to

be far from the caricature of a composer whose work is little more than written-out
improvisation.

The Grandefantaisie also reveals Liszts growing ability as an orchestrator.


Certainly Berlioz is his model in some respects, for example the use of two sets of

tympani, but we find characteristic touches in the use of tympani alone (mm. 74-75) and a
sustained melody line against pizzicato strings (mm. 54-62). He also does not hesitate to

write moments of genuine chamber music between the soloist and a single instrument of the

orchestra (mm. 38-45, 105-108,113-116), a feature later exploited in Concerto No. 2.


And, of course, there is his use of the triangle, a common enough instrument in the opera

house but rare in die concerto, which Liszt would add to Concerto No. 1 in 1849. Finally,

there is Liszts concern for interpretive nuance, evident from the many performance

indications found throughout the score: aside from relatively common terms, such as
espressivo, perdendosi, languido, poco rinforzando, and smorzando, we find

radoscente, delicatamente, dolente espressivo, sotto voce lugubre, and sotto voce

tristamente. This expressive overkill is typical of the composer at this time, as can be seen

throughout his Symphoniefantastique transcription, yet has no counterpart in Berliozs


scores.

Analysis of the Copyists Manuscript


The most casual glance at Figure 8.2 reveals that the copyists manuscript of the

Grandefantaisie symphonique underwent extensive revision. Unfortunately, the two sets

of mold numbers as recorded in Table 8.3, 4x0 and 9x2 (the x referring to the

unknown middle digit), do not appear to reflect layers that would help in postulating an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
271

order of work done.64 An important clue to the make-up of the original layer can be found

in Bellonis other copy on the same paper, the opening movement of the earliest version of
Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, H3b). In this case, there are eight surviving gatherings, each

consisting of three nested bifolia. The copy of the second and third movements on paper of
similar size and quality (D-WRgs, H3c) is comparable, with nine gatherings, four of which

contain three nested bifolia, the other five, two nested. It is reasonable to assume that

Bellonis copy of the Grandefantaisie was constructed in the same manner, and the first
layer must have consisted of gatherings of three and/or two nested bifolia.

With this mind, it is highly unlikely that the original layer of the first two
gatherings contained four nested sheets of manuscript paper, and therefore they must

belong wholly to the revision. This conclusion is reinforced by other observations: first,

there are no razored-out pages, as is found in nine of the remaining thirteen gatherings
(i.e., no signs of emendation); second, the sole collette covers a blank page, and the verso
of this collette contains the three preceding measures. A possible explanation for the

second observation is that the collette was originally intended to be a bifolium, but either

because of a copying error or because this was one of the few salvagable folios from the

earlier layer, it was adapted as a collette and ff. 3/6 substituted in its place. Or put another
way, the collette was part of the copying process, not a revision after the fact. In addition,

if these gatherings do not represent a later layer, we would be forced to conclude that Liszt

was successful in the first draft of his conception through measure 129 but failed in the
remaining 551.

In the case of Gathering HI, the three folios with the razored stubs may be the

first surviving remnants of the original layer, with the two innermost bifolia (ff. 17-20)

employed to bridge the new material with the old. Here another sort of evidence may be

64The numbers have been paired on the basis of frequency of occurrence.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
272

Table 8.3: Mold Numbers in D-WRgs, Ms. H765

Gathering Folio Quadrant Number


I 1 a 4
5 a 9
6 a 4
7 d 0
n 9 a 4
10 a 4
11 a 4
13 d 0
m 19 a 4
20 a 9
22 a 4
23 a 9
IV 24 a 4
25 [a] [4]
26 a 4
28 d 0
V 32 d 0
34 a 4
35 d 2
VI 36 a 4
37 d 0
coll. a? 9?
38 d 0
vn 41 a 4
43 d 0
vm 47 d 0
48 d 0
IX 49 not visible
51 d 2
X 54 d 0
56 d 2
XI 58 not visible
xn 64 d n
65 d 0
coll. not visible
xm 67 a 4
XIV 72 d 0
75 d 0
XV 76 d 0
77 d 0
78 d 0

65The Quadrant is counted one through four beginning in the lower left segment and
continuing clockwise, concluding with the lower right (see Figure 8.1), converted here to letters to avoid
confusion with the numbers listed in the other columns. Folio 25 is in brackets because it was tipped in
and therefore is not part of the original bifolio.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
273

useful: throughout the first two gatherings, with the exception of the first page and the

piano cadenza, Belloni had sensibly used two systems per page, but in ff. 21-23 he used

one, even though two could have fitted. One possible conclusion is that, for his revised
pages, he displayed greater resourcefulness, the result of experience, a supposition
reinforced by the use of two systems on most of the collettes and other folios that appear to
be later. In addition, examination under the collettes shows consistently that Belloni used
one system for the earlier layer.66

Finally, there is Gathering IV: it was Bellonis practice, as found in all his copies
discussed in this study, to number his gatherings for the very practical reason of keeping

unbound pages in the proper order, but here we find the designation 4 ,5 ,6 . Assuming

that all gatherings were numbered in the original layer, this must have been an attempt to

maintain the numbering with regard to the gatherings that followed, some of which may
also date to the earlier layer. In Gathering IV, ff. 24,28, and 29 may be original (all with

one system per page), as is perhaps also the collette. Given that f. 26 is blank, this

bifolium must be the later addition. Note that the verso of the collette has mm. 185-188,

also found on f. 27, thus suggesting that the collette was part of the earlier layer and the
folio part of the later. And as the following gathering was 7, IV must have originally

been 6. If we assume the original gathering structure to have been three nested bifolia,
the first six gatherings would have included thirty-six folios, compared to the current

twenty-nine. Thus, the first version was perhaps 20% longer, slightly less if one assumes

that Bellonis paper conservation was limited to the revised layer, and therefore the first

version of the slow section was substantially shortened.

66We also find two systems per page throughout the earliest version of Concerto No. 1 (D-
WRgs, H3b and H3c), supporting the argument that this copy was made after H7 (see above).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274

The observations with regard to the first four gatherings appear to hold true

throughout the remainder of the manuscript: razored stubs are an indication that the
(former) bifolium was part of the original layer, and complete bifolia and collettes with two

systems per page may be later. In addition, the penciled word bon appears at three

places: ff. 42r, 51r, and 60r. This was Liszts indication to leave stand a passage he had at

first slated for deletion, and its appearance suggests that pages prior to the folio with bon
were deleted.67 The next evidence of revision is not found until the middle of Gathering

VI, not surprising given that the music on ff. 27-37 is largely a direct quotation from the

Chanson de Brigands. The revision appears to be considerable and applies to the transition
before the theme added by Liszt Within Gathering VIII (labeled 10,11) and IX (without

number), only f. 51 (with bon) may be original, again suggesting abbreviation

throughout the new thematic material. Gathering X shows signs of abbreviation, again

within a transition. Overall, the second half of the work was also subject to extensive
revision in the area of shortening, perhaps fourteen over the existing fifty folios, a

difference of as much as 25%.

There is, of course, no way to know precisely what was deleted or even in most
cases to hazard a guess as to what was revised, for so much appears to have been recopied.
In addition, the recopying may have been of material unchanged from the original layer,

made necessary by the alterations to the gathering structure or Bellonis errors. As can be

seen in Figure 8.2, the pages covered by collettes as well as the collette versos themselves
often reproduce music found on adjacent pages. Thus, the corrections can only suggest

abbreviation and offer no clue as to the material deleted. The only evidence that suggests

error on the part of the copyist is the measure lacking on f. 43v, corrected on the collette.

67This conclusion differs from Humphrey Searle, who saw the word as evidence of Liszts
approval of the work of an unknown orchestrator; see his The Music o f Liszt, 10. See also chapter five, A
Contemporary Response.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
275

Given Bellonis high degree of fallibility within his other copies, this may have been a

greater factor than we can postulate in the need for replacement folios. Length appears to
have been the primary concern, however, and, if the above estimates are correct, the first
version must have run well over a half hour.

Finally, the reminiscence from Le picheur also appears to be among the rewritten

sections. As the original layer of this portion of the first section is lost, the nature of the
alteration cannot be identified. It is possible that the reminiscence was lacking prior to the
revision, but, given that this is mostly quotation, emendations may have been applied to the

orchestration. Keeping in mind that this was Liszts first opportunity in ten years to hear
his own orchestral composition (since the premiere of Don Sanche in 1825), it is possible

that changes in orchestration may have been undertaken here as well as in other pans of the

manuscript. In this regard, we note a delicacy and transparency to the texture not found in
Concerto No. 1 or De profundis, especially in the number of instrumental solos. Raabes
allegation continues to haunt us, but the greater command and imagination displayed in the

Grande fantaisie may be best attributed to the opportunity Liszt had to hear his work in
rehearsal and refine it

Reception History

We noted in chapter seven that, beginning in November 1834, Liszt devoted

much effort to placing himself before the Parisian public as a composer. That he was well

aware of the importance the concerto genre played in this process is shown by the abortive

attempt that same month of a first performance of the Grandefantaisie. It is therefore


difficult to explain the lack of performances of his own music in the years that followed: the

Grandefantaisie was played once more, and the only other concerted work of his own

composition that he performed up through his retirement from the concert stage in 1847
was his piano and orchestra transcription of Hexameron. The reception history of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
276

Grandefantaisie is therefore worth reviewing, both for an indication of how the work was

heard by his contemporaries and for any light it might shed on his decision to withhold his
other concertos from the public.

Concert o f 9 April 1835

Liszt placed the Grandefantaisie on the program of 9 April 1835 in perhaps the

most advantageous position. It was the third item, after an unpublished symphony by

Ferdinand Hiller and the Ballade du Pecheur (paroles de Goethe) by Berlioz, one of the

two pieces that had inspired his own work. This would allow for latecomers, but still find
the audience prepared and fresh for his new composition. The rest of the program was
given over to shorter pieces, including the Marche de pilerins from Berliozs Harold en

Italie, and concluded with another major work of Liszts, the Mendelssohn Fantasy heard

the previous December.68 The concert was well covered in the press, with reviews in Le

constitutionel, Le Figaro, Journal des dibats, and three periodicals devoted to music, the
Gazette musicale de Paris, Le pianiste, and the Revue musicale.69 Liszt himself was on the

editorial board of the Gazette musicale, and Berlioz wrote regularly for the Journal des

dibats, thus one could expect positive notices from these sources. At the Revue musicale,

68See Revue Musicale 15 (5 April 1835), 110. The other items on the program were as
follows: 4. Recitatif et air du Freyschiiiz, de Weber, chantd par Mile Antonia Lambert; 5. Air varid pour le
violon, composde et exdcutd par M. [Lambert] Massart; 6. Grande sonate (oeuvre 27) de Beethoven. Le
premier morceau (adagio) exdcutd par lorchestie; les deux demiers (allegretto et Presto appassionato) par M.
Listz [sic]; 7. Marche des [sic] Pdlerins (de la symphonie Harold), de M. Berlioz; 8. Scenes caractdristiques a
quatre voix d'hommes, composes par M. [Antonin-Louis] Clapisson; 9. Grande polonaise de [Joseph]
Mayseder, prdcddde dune introduction exdcutde sur 1alto par M. [Chretien] Urhan; 10. Romances de M.
Labarre, chantdes par Mile Antonia Lambert; 11. Romances et chants sans paroles de M. Mendelsohn [sic],
duo de bravura pour deux pianos, composes par M. Listz [sic], exdcutd par Mile [Herminie] Vial et lauteur.
The orchestra was conducted by Narcisse Girard. Lambert was indisposed and did not appear, according to
the reviews.

I am grateful to Geraldine Keeling for supplying copies of the more obscure periodicals, based
on her research of Liszts concerts.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277

however, Berlioz had a virulent enemy in its former editor. Since these three periodicals

were likely to be extremely subjective, it is best to examine them first.

The Gazette musicale de Paris was issued by the publishing house of Maurice
Schlesinger, the first installment appearing in January 1834, and, though ostensibly

devoted to the Parisian musical scene, it tended to emphasize artists and composers

associated with the publisher. It is therefore relevant to note that among the many

prominent musicians listed on the masthead were Liszt and Berlioz. While it is difficult to

judge the extent to which Paris needed another journal, one motivation can be found among

these avant-garde artists who desired a counterbalance to the conservative Revue musicale,
and Schlesinger was willing to supply the funds for the enterprise. But whatever the

intention, the effort succeeded so well that within two years the Revue musicale folded, and

its editorial staff merged with the Gazette to form the Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris.

A lengthy unsigned review appeared a few days after Liszts concert and included
the following about the Grandefantaisie symphonique:

La fantaisie symphonique que M. Listz [sic] a ticrite sur deux th&mes de M. Berlioz
(la ballade du pecheur et la chanson des brigands), avait 6t6 pr&tidtie de lun de ces
thbmes, la ballade chantde avec puret6 par M. Boulanger. Malheureusement, il eut
fallu un choeur assez nombreux pour faire tigalement connaitre lautre morceau, tel
que lauteur la crit dans son mlologue, et h ddfaut dune pareille masse de voix.
M. Listz [sic] a du compter sur la mtimoire des auditeurs qui assist&rent, il y a deux
ans, aux concerts de M. Berlioz, pour appiticier limmense ddveloppement et le parti
Itonnant quil a su tirer de ces deux fragmens.
Cest h la mani&re dont il a trait6 la m&odie du pecheur surtout, que M. Listz [sic]
sest fait reconnaitre pour un des plus habiles harmonistes de llpoque; on ne saurait
imaginer rien de plus inattendu et de plus d61icieux que les nombreuses
transformations quil a fait subir k cette ide si simple; pour les jeux du piano pendant
le travail dorchestre, je nen parle pas; cela confond par son audace autant que par les
difficultds de lexdcution, difflcultds qui sont nulles pour M. Listz [sic], mais quun
autre pianiste ne tenterait meme pas daborder. Lallegro qui suit est une sc&ne aussi
Strange que hardie; la chanson de brigands en forme le fond, il est vrai, mais M. Listz
[sic] y a ajoutti cependant un thfcme en si mineur entitlement de lui, et qui noffre que
des rapports de caracttre avec celui de M. Berlioz. Linstrumentation de cette vaste
composition est chaude, pittoresque, incisive, mais dune complication qui doit

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
278

rendre la tache de lorchestre assez difficile; cest fougueux, dcheveld, imprdvuet


puissant, comme le talent dexticution de lauteur.
Les applaudissemens ont plusieurs fois couvert la voix des instrumens et quand,
aprfcs une pdroraison foudroyante oil Listz [sic] seul luttait sans ddsavantage avec son
puissant orchestre, lauteur executant a eu frappd le dernier accord, la salle endure a
dclat6 en acclamations. Cest un beau succ&s de compositeur de M. Listz [sic] a
obtenu jeudi dernier; succ&s qui portera ses fruits malgr6 toutes les oppositions quil
ne manquera pas de rencontrer.70

In addition to this laudatory analysis, two months later the journal provided an extensive
6tude biographique on Liszt that singled out this work:

Nous devons faire une mention particuli&re de sa Fantaisie symphonique sur le


chant du Picheur et le chceur des Brigands de M. Berlioz, le demier et le plus
important ouvrage de Listz [sic] La composition dont nous parlons offre les
effets les plus inattendus et les plus ddlicieux dans les transformations quil a fait
subir aux deux themes principaux. II a su tirer de ces deux sujets des phrases
incidentes pleines doriginalitd, et qui sont mises en relief par une instrumentation
v6h6mente et colore. Les combinations hardies et neuves de lharmonie rdv^lent une
science tr&s approfondie, et ce morceau prouve dans son ensemble que le plus
dtonnant de tous les pianistes pourra, quand il le voudra, tenir un rang 61ev6 parmi les
instrumentalistes les plus habiles.71

It is difficult to evaluate such overwhelmingly positive critiques, but they at least

demonstrate the support of his fellow modernists. And unless we are in the presence of a

private jest, it is clear that the reviewer had no doubt that Liszt orchestrated the work.

Although Berlioz had written, and continued to write, for other journals during

his career, he was most associated with the Journal des dibats. It was a significant post,
given the importance of the paper, and his articles had pride of place at the bottom of the

70Concerts de la semaine, Gazette musicale de Paris 2 (12 April 1835), 130-131 (paragraph
breaks added). The author may be Liszts friend, Joseph dOrtigue, as the quote from the dtude
biographique below contains similar language. See also the letter to dOrtigue, quoted in chapter seven,
requesting his assistance in writing a review of a concert. Finally, the reference to a theme in B minor is
an odd mistake, and it is hard to account for the confusion as Liszts themes are in F major and D-flat
major. There is also the possibility that the version performed was prior to Liszts revisions, and the
alterations were made after the concert.

71Joseph d Ortigue, Etudes Biographiques. I. Frantz Listz [sic], Gazette musicale de Paris 2
(14 June 1835), 204.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
279

front page, beginning 24 February 1835, and retained that position until he gave it up in

1864.72 The article in the 25 April 1835 issue was signed H*** his usual designation

until 20 June 1837, at which point he signed his own name, and was devoted exclusively

to Liszts concert. It was lengthy, relative to critiques by other writers, but this was typical

of Berlioz. As D. Kern Holoman observes: He knew more than most and prepared

himself better than any.73

After devoting two paragraphs to Hillers symphony, and a paragraph to the vocal

assets of M. Boulanger, who sang the Ballade du pecheur (obviously he could not review
his own composition), Berlioz turned to the Grandefantaisie, which in turn took up most

of the remaining space. Writing as much to inform as to evaluate, he began with two

potential problems any composer must face in bringing a new and innovative work before

the public. First, there was the public perception of musicians pigeon holed in one area, as
Liszt was as a pianist but not as a composer (Comme si lun devait exclure lautre
n6cessairement).74 An even more dangerous pitfall is the perception of the musicians in

the orchestra and the need to familiarize them with new music through many rehearsals

(frdquentes repetitions). Apparently a lack of rehearsal time had scuttled previous

attempts to perform the work (quoted above) but not on this occasion:

Cest pourquoi, en formant son programme, M. Listz [sic] a-t-il du avoir soin de
nadmettre que des morceaux dune execution facile, et reserver pour son nouvel
ouvrage presque tout le temps des repetitions; sans cela, aprfcs quelques tentatives
inutiles pour le dechiffrer, le decouragement se fut empare de lorchestre et la fantaisie
symphonique declare inexecutable neut pas ete entendue. On voit cela tous le jours.
Heureusement il nen a point ete ainsi, et si lexecution a offert quelques in6galites
dues au defaut dassurance de lorchestre, au moins a-t-elle ete assez fiddle pour que

72See D. Kern Holoman, Berlioz (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989),
235-237; 568-569.

73Ibid., 237.

74Concerts de M. Listz [sic], Journal des dibats (25 April 1835), 1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
280

la pensde de lauteur nen fut jamais sensiblement altdrtie. Le succds na pas dtd
douteux un seul instant; plusieurs fois meme les applaudissemens se sont fait
entendre dans le courant du morceau; et d la fin, quand lauteur, qui avait exdcutd sa
partie avec la supdrioritd incontestable quon lui connait, sest levd du piano, la salle a
retenti des plus vives acclamations.73
Preparatory to his analysis, Berlioz outlined two possible approaches to treating the

material Liszt had chosen: the one to subject each theme to independent development, the

other to take into account the dramatic thought that motivated the character of the music. It

is the latter that Liszt had followed, to the undisguised delight of the writer: Comme sa

manidre de voir en musique est absolument la meme que la notre, nous osons k peine dire
quil a eu raison. En tout cas, il a marchd dans cette voie avec une fermetd rare, et en peu
de temps il a atteint le but quil se proposait: dmouvoir.76 Only now is Berlioz prepared to

comment on the piece itself:

Le premier andante est dune grande richesse deffets; ceux qui rdsultent du piano
accompagnant 1orchestre, nous ont frappds surtout par leur nouveautd, et il faut dire
quun pianiste seul, et un grand pianiste, pouvait les trouver, le rdcitatif sur un
tremolo des instrumens k cordes, dtonne autant par la hardiesse de ses formes que par
limmense difficultd dexdcution quil prdsente; difficultd nulle pour M. Listz [sic], et
k laquelle il na sans doute pas meme songd en dcrivanl Une transition habilement
mdnagde, nous conduit loin du lac agitd sur lequel chante le Picheur, au milieu de la
plus terrible tempete que les passions humaines puissent soulever. II sagit de la
chanson des Brigands Dans ce final, M. Listz [sic] a eu toute occasion de
donner carridre k sa verve fougueuse. Son orchestre marche, se prdcipite, sarrete
haletant, puis reprend sa course sans que le sens musical perde jamais de sa clartd, au
milieu de ce frdndtique emportement Quelques personnes aux gout simples, aux
mceurs douces, aux habitudes calmes de la vie bourgeoise, se rdcriaient contre le style
et la couleur de ce morceau; cela se con9oit, mais leur critique portait k faux. Ce
ndtait point sur lexdcution du tableau quelle devait tomber, mais seulement sur les
iddes qui en ont foumi le sujet.77

75Ibid., 2.

76Ibid.

77Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
281

Berlioz now turned to the choice of music adapted (his word is empruntd), and, after a

quote from the monologue that precedes the Chanson de Brigands in which the narrator
vividly depicts the pirates life, he ventured a few criticisms of Liszts work:

(TJ1 a eu tort peut-etre de faire un pareil choix, mais on ne saurait mfeonnaitre dans la
mani&re dont il les a trails une traduction musicale aussi habile que fiddle de la sfene
parlfe qui sy rattache. D nous a sembl6 que le milieu de Vallegro offrait quelques
longueurs. Le travail dorchestre sur les quatres premieres notes du th&me gagnerait
probablement k etre raccourci. Peut-etre aussi y a-t-il, dans quelques endroits, abus
de modulations enharmoniques, et ces fr6quens changemens de ton otent-ils aux
accords un peu de leur force de vibration. Lattention de lauditeur (de lauditeur
fran^ais surtout) a fort k faire de suivre dans ses 61ans impdtueux la pensfe dun
musicien comme M. Listz [sic]; et cest tout au plus si, en samusant k cueillir des
fleurs sur le bord de sa route, la capricieuse fife donne k ceux qui veulent marcher
aprs elle le temps de reprendre haleine et de la rattraper.78

To conclude his comments on a postive note, he remarked on the qualities of Liszts


playing:

Comme exfeutant, M Listz [sic] a 6t6 ce quil est toujours, prodigieux, tiblouissant,
hors de toute comparaison. Quand ses doigts parcourent le clavier dun piano
dErard, on croit entendre deux instrumens mis en action par quatre mains habiles.
Rien ndgale la vdlocitd de ses traits les plus compliquds, si ce nest la grace et la
d&icatesse de ses broderies, le gout exquis de ses omamens. Mais nous lui
reprocherons de se laisser quelquefois entrainer k altfeer un peu la physionomie de
certains ouvrages dont le style et la forme component plus de simplicity de calme et
de sdvdritd dans leur exfeution. Ce ddfaut, il est vrai, est celui des plus grands
virtuoses; il rdsulte de lincroyable facility de mfeanisme et de la vivacitd de sentiment
dont ils sont dou6s. II serait beau k M. Listz [sic] de se placer k pan, sous ce rappon
comme sous tous les autres. Cest la seul perfectionnement dont son talent [nous]
paraisse susceptible.79
In the final paragraphs, Berlioz discussed briefly the remainder of the program.
There are two ways to view such positive commentary. The first is that it was a

puff piece, designed to bolster the subject under examination. We know that Berlioz took

78Ibid.

79Ibid. The third from the last word is uous in the original.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
282

his literary efforts seriously, however, and there is no known example of such an article, as

common as the practice may have been with other writers. In this case, we have a letter

from Berlioz written a few days after the concert that echoes the same opinion: Liszt a 6crit
une admirable fantaisie k grand orchestie sur la Ballade du picheur et la Chanson des

Brigands The second approach assumes that Berlioz sincerely meant the praise he

showered on Liszt, but, remembering the close friendship enjoyed by Berlioz and Liszt at

this time, one would have thought that Berlioz might have suppressed any negative
assessments. Berlioz needed to establish himself as a scrupulously fair critic, however,

and certainly Liszt would have appreciated his delicate position. Turning to the comments

themselves, Berlioz does not mention at all the methods of organization used in the work,
focusing more on surface issues (boring stretches, abuse of modulations, etc.) and the

perception of the auditors. These are, of course, the very priorities Berlioz set for his own
music, and Liszts compositional techniques in themselves would be of less interest to him.

We can be sure that Liszt was as concerned about the foreground as the background and
that he would have valued Berliozs constructive criticism.

One journal that could be counted on to be abusive was the Revue musicale,
founded by Frangois-Joseph F6tis and first issued on 13 February 1827, but edited by his

son Edouard after his departure in 1833 to assume a teaching post in his native Belgium.81

Ftitis p ire already had good reason to be negatively inclined toward Le retour d la vie, for in

one of the monologues the ricitant directly insulted him for his role in altering for

80Berlioz, Correspondence Ginirale, 2:231 (15 April 1835, to Humbert Ferrand).

81It was as a result of Edouards mismanagement that the paper ultimately merged with the
Gazette musical de Paris in November 1835. Much of this history derives from Peter A. Bloom, A
Review of F6tiss Revue musicale, Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties, ed. Peter A. Bloom, Musical
Life in 19th-Century France 4 (Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press, 1987), 55-79.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
283

publication the scores of Beethoven.82 A paraphrase on the same work would make Liszt
an accomplice after the fact, and this is reflected in the critique:

Parlons de M. Liszt. Le premier morceau quil ajou6 est une grande fantaisie
symphonique pour piano et orchestra sur la meme ballade du Picheur quon venait
dentendre et sur un autre motif de M. Berlioz. II y a des effets neufs dans ce
morceau, mais il y r&gne tant de confusion, on y trouve tant de redites, de choses
obscures si longuement iptes, quil na pas fallu moins que la merveilleuse
execution de lauteur pour faire applaudir cette production. A Dieu ne plaise que je
veuille ddcourager M. Liszt comme compositeur, il y a quelque chose de nouveau et
de bon dans cet essai, ce quelque chose, muri par la meditation, pourra grandir dans
ses autres ouvrages. Quil persevere en samdliorant, quil conserve son individuality
en rejetant de sa pensde ce qui la ddpare, ce qui choque loreille delicate, et il y aura
pour lui une carrifcre dauteur comme il y en a une belle dexecutant83

Aside from the negative tone, these comments share some of Berliozs reservations,

namely repetition and tedious passages, a detail that would not have been lost on Liszt.
Turning to the other reviews, the remaining periodical devoted to music was the
short-lived Le pianiste. The editorial tone throughout this journal can only be described as
irreverent in contrast to the seriousness of purpose and sense of mission found in both the

Revue musicale and the Gazette (with the exception of the Nouvelles column in the

latter). This is readily apparent in the review, where the writer was more interested in

Liszts physical incapacity in the Mendelssohn Fantasy (he had passed out) than in
evaluating his music:

M. Listz [sic] a, comme k lordinaire, montre de grandes qualites et de grands


defauts; il y a certes des passages remarquables pour le piano et des effets interessans
pour lorchestre, dans sa fantaisie symphonique; mais lexageration y est telle, en
general, quelle etouffe jusquaux bonnes choses que lon rencontre quelquefois dans
ce morceau; nous ninsistons pas sur ce point aujourdhui, puisque lexcitation

82See Peter A. Bloom, Berlioz and the Critic: La Damnation de Fids, Studies in Musicology
in Honor of Otto E. Albrect, ed. John Walter Hill (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1980), 240-242; also Berliozs
account in The Memoirs o f Hector Berlioz, trans. and ed. David Cairns (New York: Norton, 1975), 217
218 (chap. 44).

83Concert de M. Liszt: au bdndfice d une famille pauvre, Revue Musicale 9 (12 April 1835),
116. Also Liszt en son temps, ed. Pierre-Antoine Hur6 & Claude Knepper (Paris: Hachette, 1987), 152.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
284

nerveuse que cette exagdration a produite sur M. Listz [sic], a failli lui etre fatale, et
quune crise, amende progressivement par la fatigue du concert, sest terminde par un
dvanouissement complet. Le public, quelle que fut son opinion k ce sujet, a tdmoignd
un grand intdret k M. Listz [sic], et na pas voulu quitter la salle que la crise ne fut
enti&rement passde.84

The comments in Le Figaro were even less positive and specific:

M. Liszt a fait des prodiges dexdcution. II faudrait quatre pianos pour rendre ce quil
fait sur un seul. Comme composition, son oeuvre na aucun sens; M. Girard seul,
qui conduisait lorchestre, a paru sy reconnaitre; nous nen affirmerons pas autant de
1auteur. M. Liszt soigne beaucoup trop la mise en scdne et la partie mimique de son
talent.85

Finally, the brief report in Le constitutionnel was more interested in the hysteria

surrounding Liszts fainting than in writing anything substantive about the works
performed.86 Although such reviews could be dismissed out of hand by the composer, the
cumulative effect was considerably less positive than the acclamations he had received from

the audience in the concert hall, and the seeds of self-doubt may have been planted.

Concert o f 18 December 1836

Liszt and Berlioz jointly organized the concert of 18 December 1836, with Liszt

contributing his Grandefantaisie symphonique, Divertissement sur une cavatine de Paccini


(Niobe Fantasy), and two movements from the Symphonie fantastique transcription,
Berlioz his Ouverture desfrancs-juges and the first two movements from Harold en Italie,

along with the usual assortment of vocal and instrumental works.87 In addition to

^ Concert donnd par M. Listz [sic], au bdndfice dune famille, Lepianiste 2 (20 April 1835),
95.

85Le Figaro, no. 56 (13 April 1835), 2.

86Concerts, Le constitutionnel, no. 114 (24 April 1835), 2.

87See Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris 3(11 December 1836), 439. The program was as
follows: 1. Ouverture des Francs-Juges, de M. Berlioz; 2. Air de Mercadante, chant par M. [Adolphe-
Joseph-Louis] Alizard; 3. Grande fantaisie symphonique.. . , composde et ex6cute (avec orchestra) par M.
Listz [sic]; 4. L'Ange et VEnfant, audition de M. Urhan, change par mademoiselle [Maria-Doloits-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
285

organizing the concert, Berlioz conducted the orchestra, as he reported a few days later: Je

viens de donner deux concerts; comme succ&s dart je nen ai jamais eu de pareil, k cause
de limmense superiority de lexdcution que j ai obtenue en conduisant moi-meme

lorchestre.88 The event was not as well covered as the previous one, but there were
reviews in the Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris, Le monde, and L artiste, and it was also
mentioned in summaries of concerts that appeared in Le national and the German Caecilia.

The Revue et Gazette musicale once again provided an extremely favorable


review. Although the concert was equally Berliozs, the article concentrated exclusively on
Liszt, certainly because Berlioz was temporary editor at the time (he served in this capacity
from August 1836 through May 1837), and any other approach would have appeared self-

serving. After commenting on Liszts prolonged absence from Parisian concert halls and

his considerable ability as a pianist, the anonymous reviewer turned to his ability as a
composer:

Et le compositeur ny avait pas moins de part que le virtuose, car les deux morceaux
dcrits par Liszt, lun sur des themes de Berlioz et lautre sur une cavatine de Paccini,
ont para aux juges m6mes les plus s6vfcres et les plus prdvenus dune large et belle
facture et d une incontestable originality. Le premier avec orchestic est celui que nous
pryfyrons; la pensye en est plus grande, plus hardie; les ddtails en sont plus riches,
linspiration enfin en est plus yievye, et lart extreme avec lequel le second thyme (la
chanson des brigands) est traitd pendant toute la durye de 1allegro prouve que Liszt
joint aux puissantes facultys quil tient de la nature celles qui ne sacquferent que par
ldtude, la patience et le travail. Peut-etre ce morceau gagnerait-il k etre un peu plus
resserry dans sa forme; en tout cas, malgr6 sa grande ytendue et son extreme
difficulty, lorchestre la dit dune faon irryprochable, et plusieurs solos

Benedicta-Josephina] Nau, avec accompagnement dorchestre, imitant la harpe 6olienne; 5. Solo de


violoncelle, compose et ex6cute par M [Louis] Lee, premier violoncelle de lOpdra de Hambourg; 6.
Divertissement. . . par M. Listz [sic]; 7. Air de Bellini [de La Sonnambula], chantd par mademoiselle Nau;
8. Fragmens de la symphonie fantastique de M. Berlioz.. . , ex6cut par M. Listz [sic] seul; 9. Les deux
premieres parties de Harold.. . . Lalto solo sera jou6 par M. Urhan.

88Berlioz, Correspondance Ginirale, 2:316 (22 December 1836). Berlioz also gave a concert on
4 December which included the complete Harold en Italie and the Symphoniefantastique.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
286

dinstrumens k vents, Merits dans des tons scabieux, ont t enlevds par le hautbois, la
flute et la clarinette avec autant de justesse que de verve.89

One cannot help but suspect Berlioz as the unnamed author: the commentary carefully

avoids any reference to the work on which the fantasy is based, as the article as a whole
does not mention Berliozs contributions to the concert, and the mild criticism echoes that
of the Journal des dibats.90

The review in Lartiste was part of an ambitious series, Esquisses Musicales de

la musique au dix-neuvifcme sihcle, with the author, Raymond de Saint-Fdlix, displaying

the same earnestness as Berlioz in the Journal des dibats. Most of the discussion is given
over to Berliozs contribution, and only in the last paragraph is Liszt mentioned along with
the other featured musicians:

Quant k Liszt, nous le p lain s, comme pianiste, au-dessus de tous, et nous osons lui
assurer la primautd pendant long-temps encore. Mais, de grace, quil nous donne des
morceaux plus chantans. Je voudrais plus de chaleur, plus de ces mouvemens
spontands d inspiration qui 61ectrisent lauditoire; car le mdrite de lex6cutant nest pas
seulement dans la nettetd et la 16g&et du doigt6, mais encore dans lenthousiasme
quil fait passer de ses chants dans lame de ceux qui ldcoutent; quil se m6fie des
louanges que lui a prodigu6es George Sand, ce nest point un gdnie inspird. Nos
grands pofctes, nos Dante, nos Hom&re, nous les retrouvons dans Rossini,
Beethoven, Mozart, Meyerbeer, Spontini, quon oublie trop tot: mais Listz [sic] nest
encore quun ouvrier sublime que Talberg [sic] a presque atteint, et que Gucicow
[sic] est pr&s de surpasser. Nous dirons, avant de finir, que nous naimons pas
beaucoup la grande fantaisie symphonique de M. Berlioz, malgrd le beau talent de
Listz [sic]. Nous devons signaler pourtant un chant de hautbois qui arrive
heureusement, et produit de leffet Quant au triangle, il est place k faux. Je connais
une foule de contredanses oh il est mieux employ^; et ce soir, pour me d&lommager,
j irai entendre chez Musard les charmans quadrilles de Lonjumeau, avec

89Concert de MM. Berlioz et Liszt, Revue et Gazette Muscale de Paris 3 (25 December 1836),
464.

^Holoman notes that Berlioz would occasionally review his own concerts; see his Berlioz, 237.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
287

accompagnement de fouet et de grelot, et la belle ouverture, avec marche triomphale,


et accompagnement dorgue, de Ries.91

The author of the summary in Le national found space to evaluate the piece, albeit briefly.

After a discussion of the fantastique in art, literature, and the music of Liszt and Berlioz,
he continued:

Plus on approfondit ces deux talens remarquables, plus on ddplore ces inutilcs
efforts, ces luttes continuelles pour ne rien produire qui offre de lintdret, qui ait de la
durde, un avenir. Le Picheur, de M. Liszt, sur la fantaisie symphonique de Berlioz,
est rempli dheureuses inspirations, et ce morceau laisse apercevoir &travers tant
dinterruptions de la pensde, une hardiesse de conception peu ordinaire.92
Such was also the case with the anonymous author in Caecilia:

Die Komposition von Liszt, in der nun, wie in alien Werken dieser Art, der Faden der
Idee wenn einer vorhanden ist sogleich verloren geht, enthalt, ausser manchen
glansenden Lichtpuncten, vieles Undeutliche, ja Verworrene, in dem weder ein
Gedanke, noch irgend ein Ziel zu errathen ist In solche phantastische
Gemalderamen, glaubt man wohl, passe gerade nur das, was ohne Gedankenreihe,
ohne Ordnung und Zusammenhang, als Kind einer lebendigen Einbildungskraft roh
und ungeleckt in die weite Welt hinausgeworfen worden. Das Orchester bildet mit
dem Piano-Forte hier gleichfalls einen Dialog, und wahrlich unter den Handen von
Liszt vergisst man die Ungleichheit der Mittel. Das Spiel von Liszt ist das
Kolossalste was die Pianofortewelt bisher gesehen.93

Finally, there was a brief reference to the piece in Le monde: Le grande fantaisie
symphonique, avec piano principal, composde et ex&utd par M. Litsz [sic], a produit un

effet impossible &ddcrire Cest Listz [sic] qui a conquis 1admiration la plus

enthousiaste par la puretd, la force et lexpression de son jeu.94

91Concert Listz [sic] et Berlioz, Lartiste 12 (1836), 295. The works in the last sentence are:
Le Postilion de Longjumeau by Adolphe Adam (1803-1856), premiered earlier that year on 13 October
1836, and the Grande Ouverture et marche triomphale, op. 172, by Ferdinand Ries (1784-1838).

92J.M....E.R Revue Musicale, Le national (1 February 1837), 1.

93Paris im Januar 1837, Caecilia 19 (1837), 128-129.

^ L e Monde 34 (19 December 1836).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
288

With the exception of Le monde, all of these articles express reservations about

the Grande fantaisie symphonique, although the silence of the Le monde review in this

regard may reflect a similar opinion. The comments are not specific, but the overall

impression is of a piece too long for its content, its success more a result of the composers

spectacular performance than any intrinsic merit By contrast, the articles that discuss the
Divertissement for piano solo are quite positive. Le national finds it a work . . . que nous

regardons comme parfait, and Caecilia states: Es ist dies vielleicht die dankbarste und

vollkommenste Komposition, die uns in dieser Art bekannt ist Such critiques must have
inhibited Liszt in the following years from introducing his original compositions for piano
and orchestra, while at the same time encouraging him to produce and perform operatic

paraphrases.

Conclusion

With secure dates for the Grandefantaisie symphonique, and the likelihood that
the manuscript copy of Concerto No. 1 was prepared afterward (but before Liszts request

at the end of July 1835), it is possible to offer a speculative chronology of events.


Following the introduction of works for one and two pianos in November and December
1834, Liszt premiered an ambitious work for piano and orchestra in April 1835 that used

the audience-friendly format of a paraphrase on a composition already known. The next

step in the process would have been an original work on a scale equal to an earlier master

such as Beethoven and contemporaries such as Hummel and Kalkbrenner, orchestrated in a


less-lavish manner such that it could be taken on tour (the Grandefantaisie would not have

figured on such a tour, given the unfamiliarity of Berliozs works outside of Paris). That
the concerto did not represent Liszts latest artistic ideas is irrelevant in this context: the
work was complete in his portfolio and therefore usable for performance, and, to make a
virtue of necessity, the retrogressive aspects might ease acceptance of the progressive ones.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
289

The autograph of De profundis (to be discussed in chapter ten) suggests that Liszt intended
to add other works to this sequence, had not his sudden departure from Paris disrupted all
plans.

The musical techniques employed in the Grandefantaisie symphonique look

forward to the great works of Liszts Weimar years. Primary among these is the use of a

single-movement form that is original in structure and dictated by the musical material.

Additionally there are two organizational ideas: first, the use of a distinctive rhythmic
motive that could be quoted between sections to help bind the work together and also to

serve as a signpost for important structural divisions; second, the device of reserving one
theme for restatement in the tonic in the closing measures of the work, a gesture that at once

heightens a sense of expectation and offers a sense of closure. Only the transformation of

themes and the poetic element are lacking, and these would make their appearance in the

works to be discussed in chapters nine and ten.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IX
MALEDICTION

If the Grandefantaisie symphonique may be said to have benefited from its


relative neglect, at least in terms of incorrect conclusions, Malediction has not been so

fortunate. We see it variously dated over a span of fifty-eight years, christened with a title
that was not Liszts, and designated a work for piano and string orchestra, which it very

likely is not. Nor has the work been studied in depth, which is especially curious as the

many autograph manuscripts contain draft material that can enhance our picture of Liszts

musical development These discarded chips from the composers workbench allow us to

observe that Liszt worked hard to refine the compositional techniques discussed in relation
to the Grande fantaisie and the earliest version of Concerto No. 1. We can also see Liszt

laying the groundwork for the balanced statement of his ideas that will be evident in De
profundis.

Historical Background

Malediction was not publically performed or published during the composers


lifetime, and there is not a single reference in any contemporary document, with the

possible exception of the sestetto in Liszts letter of 28 July 1835.1 He nevertheless

found it useful in the early 1850s and raided it as a source for thematic material, in itself a
sure sign that it was permanently relegated to the scrap heap. The opening measures were

transferred to Qrage, the fifth number in Annies de pilerinage: Premiere annee, Suisse

iSee Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 21. This reference is discussed in chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix,
and the letter is transcribed in appendix A.
290

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
291

and one of the few items that did not have its origins in the earlier Album dun voyageur.
Liszt also used the theme labeled orgueil in Malediction in the third movement of the

Faust Symphony (Mephistopheles), where it is the only music that does not have its
counterpart in the first movement2
The work was first mentioned by Lina Ramann in the third volume of her

biography, where she referred to a manuscript of a Concerto in E minor and speculated in a

footnote that it was the concerto written for Sophie Menter, a favorite student in 1885.3
As Malediction begins in E minor and ends in E major, it is certainly this work to which
Ramann referred, and the manuscript must be the one prepared by a copyist and corrected
by the composer, the only complete copy of the score (D-WRgs, H2).4 It is unlikely that

Ramann herself examined Liszts Nachlafi, however. Footnotes throughout this volume

show that she turned to August Gbllerich for information on the manuscripts located in
Weimar, as several entries in the worklist bear the indication, MS. im Liszt-Museum (nach
Notizen des Herm Gollerich).5 It is therefore likely that the reference came from him.
Examination of the manuscripts reveals that Malediction had nothing to do with Menter,

and, remembering that the third volume was published after Liszts death, Ramanns

2Humphrey Searle observes: Mephistopheles takes possession, as it were, of Faust, whose


leading themes now appear distorted and cruelly misshapen. Franz Liszt: The Man and his Music, ed. Alan
Walker (London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1970), 308.

3See Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt ais Kunstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1880-1894), 3:342. This work may be the Hungarian Gypsy Songs, published under Menters
name in 1909; see Margit Prahdcs, Liszts letztes Klavierkonzert, Studia Musicologica 4 (1963), 195-200;
also Maurice Hinson, The Long Lost Liszt Concerto, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 13 (June
1983), 53-58.

4Theophil Stengel also assumes this identification; see his Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts
von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin, 1931), 10. It is highly unlikely that the work in question was the
Concerto pathitique, also in E minor and prepared the same year. In this case, Liszts participation was
limited to correcting the orchestration by Eduard ReuB, noted as such by Ramann (Franz Liszt als Kiinstler
und Mensch, 3:345, n. 4).

5See Ramann, Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch, 3:527.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
292

conclusion is probably no more than creative sleuthing deduced from second-hand

information.

When Gollerich prepared a worklist for his own monograph, he listed the
composition under Werke fur Klavier und Orchester, identifying it as Malediction!

(Pleurs, angoisses, vagues!) after the words written in pencil in this same copyists
manuscript, probably by Liszt himself.6 As malediction was positioned above the first

system of music, it was taken as a title and thus published in 1914 in the Collected Works.

There it was edited by Bernhard Stavenhagen, one of Liszts students, and it remains the
only published version of the work.7 Peter Raabe was the first to correct the
misapprehension with regard to malediction, noting that it is but one descriptive term,

and there are several themes labeled throughout the manuscript: orgueil, pleurs-
angoisse-songes, and raillerie. Thus the work has no title.8 Although dutifully noted

by many authors in books and program annotations since, the work continues to be known

as Malediction. This is, of course, a convenient handle, and, at the risk of perpetuating a

misunderstanding, it will be retained here.


Raabe was also the first to attempt to provide a year of composition. He

identified Malediction with the concerto heard by Moscheles in London in June 1827, and
he cited as evidence the generally chaotic nature of the work (following the language of

Moscheless diary) and sixteen folios of sketches (he called them a Bruchstiick) that he

6August Gollerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 281. The relative merits of
this worklist are discussed in chapter two, Liszts Concertos in Secondary Sources. Note that the word
vagues is a misreading of songes.

7See Grossherzog Carl Alexander Ausgabe der musikalischen Werke Franz Liszts, 5 series, 34
vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1907-1936), series 1, volume 13,183-214 (Malediction fur Klavier
Solo und Streichinstrumente). This edition has been reprinted by Kalmus Miniature Scores (no. 9349).

8See Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 2:54-55; also
Stengel, Die Entwicklung, 11.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
293

dated to this time (D-WRgs, H13a).9 Emile Haraszti rejected Raabes reasoning on the

grounds that the use of chaotic is vague and subjective, and there is no verification that

the pages were from 1827.10 In addition, although he does not say so explicitly, the work
Moscheles heard was in A minor, and it is doubtful that Malediction could ever have been

considered a work in that key, a suspicion further confirmed by Raabes Bruchstiick

(discussed below). Friedrich Schnapp modified Raabes argument, either from knowledge
of Harasztis article or from his own research, and suggested that the sketches were for a

composition later reworked (umgearbeitet) as Malediction.n As for the final version

represented by the copyists manuscript, Raabe would only speculate that it was
accomplished before Liszts Weimar period, that is, prior to 1848.12 For Grove 5,

Humphrey Searle attempted to reconcile the arguments of Raabe, Schnapp, and Haraszti,

and indicated that the work was sketched c.1830 (?), rev. c.1840 (?), which he modified
for The New Grove as ?cl840.13 Sharon Winklhofer at first argued for the year 1839,
based on a diary entry which she claimed had been wrongly attributed to Totentanz,14 but

sne revised the date to 1833 based on the watermark of the copyists manuscript, first in

9See Raabe, 2:53; see also chapter six (First Forays into the Concerto Genre).

10See Emile Haraszti, Le problfcme Liszt, Acta Musicologica 9 (1937), 128. Haraszti did not
suggest an alternative date, however.

11See Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher


Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942),
124.

12See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:54.

13See also Humphrey Searle, The Music o f Liszt, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Dover, 1966), 46-47.

14See Sharon Winklhofer, Liszt, Marie dAgoult, and the Dante Sonata, 19th Century Music
1 (July 1977), 28. ...[M]eanwhile I will make three sketches: the Triumph o f Death (Orcagna), the
Comedy o f Death (Holbein), and a Fragment dantesque." (Winklhofers translation, p. 27.) Her conclusion
was that the work based on Holbein became Totentanz and that on Orcagna Malediction. See also the
discussion in chapter two, Liszts Concertos in Secondary Sources.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
294

her review in 19th Century Music of Searles New Grove worklist and again in her

revision of the entire entry in The New Grove Early Romantic Masters,15 Indeed,
Winklhofer was the first to appeal to the manuscript paper itself, especially necessary given

the total absence of any direct references or dates in the primary sources.
From the first mention in Ramann, Malediction has been labeled a concerto, and

no writer on the subject has questioned the designation. Searle, taking his lead from

Raabe, develops this theme:

It seems clear that during the 1830s Liszt was obsessed with the idea of writing one
or more piano concertos; the first theme of the E flat Concerto is found in a sketch
book which dates from the early thirties, and the first version of the A major
Concerto dates from 1839. But Liszts lack of technical knowledge of orchestration
delayed these projects until the Weimar period; and it seems more than likely that he
had decided first to try out his hand by writing a work for piano and strings only,
based on his youthful concerto.16

The first and only published score reinforced this idea by listing the instrumentation in the

plural, contrary to the contemporary copyists manuscript which served as the source. It

seems more likely that the work is chamber music (see chapter seven, The Compositional
Matrix), and in this genre it joins a number of works with the same instrumentation by

composers such as Henri Bertini and Sigismond Thalberg, all written about the same time.

Description of the Manuscript Sources

The secondary literature has yielded little agreement on the date of Malediction,
not surprising given the lack of contemporary references. An answer to this question is

found less in a stylistic analysis of the music than in the assortment of manuscript sources,

15See Sharon Winklhofer, Review of Liszt, Franz [Ference] in The New Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians, 19th Century Music 5 (Spring 1982), 260; The New Grove Early Romantic Masters
I: Chopin, Schumann, Liszt (New York: Norton, 1985), 334.

16Searle, The Music of Liszt, 47. The assumption regarding Liszt and orchestration is shown
to be false in chapter five. The youthful concerto is a reference to the supposed relationship between the
work heard by Moscheles and the MaUdiction sketches dated by Raabe to 1827 (see above).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
295

but unfortunately none of the researchers who have written on the work devoted much

attention to the autograph fragments. Raabe quoted several measures from his

Bruchstiick but only to demonstrate the Urgestalt of a principal theme.17 The presence

of a year as part of the watermark in the copyists manuscript was the first solid clue that
could be used toward ascertaining the time of composition, but Winklhofer listed it
uncritically and made no attempt to relate it to the other manuscript sources. In addition to

Raabes Bruchstiick and the copyists manuscript, there is an entry in sketchbook N6 and

four folios tom from a bound volume that itself may have been a sketchbook. These

sources can aid in providing an accurate date and supporting the hypotheses that the
summer of 1834 was devoted to chamber music and the work is a sextet for piano and

strings.

Sketchbook N6

The earliest autograph of musical material for Malediction is found in sketchbook


D-WRgs, N6. Consisting of eleven measures written across the bottom of two facing

pages (ff. 13v-14, pp. 21-22), the sketch begins on staves 10-11 of f. 13v (three

measures), continues to 13-14 (three measures), and concludes on f. 14, staves 13-14

(five measures followed by etc.).18 Aside from the rhythmic displacement and the
omission of octave doublings after the first measure, the first six measures of the sketch are

quite close to mm. 1-6 of the final version. The other sketches on these pages appear to be
unrelated: the music at the top of f. 13v is likely a continuation of the material labeled

17See Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:54.

18The page numbers are usually cited in the secondary literature (e.g., Rudolf K6kai, Franz Liszt
in seinen friihen Klavierwerken [Leipzig: Franz Wagner, 1933; repr. Kassel: Bhrenreiter, 1968], and Dieter
Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken im Friihwerk Franz Liszts, Freiburger Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft
10, ed. Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht [Munich, Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1978]), but these are
later additions, not by Liszt, and do not include pages without notation. The folio numbers count each page
with staff lines from the beginning of the book through to the end.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
296

Mazeppa on the recto side (p. 20); at the top of f. 14 are fourteen measures in B-flat
major, 2/4 time, labeled Kalkbrenner 8 Avril 1832. One aspect of the Kalkbrenner

sketch is significant, however: careful examination of the writing reveals it is partially over

the material on the adjacent staff, therefore the Malediction passage must have been entered
before that date.

Two other entries in N6 may also be related to Malediction. The undated sketches
on f. 9v (p. 14) are headed Passages du Sextour and are in E minor, the key of

Malediction. However, two measures on f. 27v (p. 49) are dated 1 Avril 1833

Angoisse. Angoisse is one of the descriptive terms found in the copyists manuscript of

the final version, mm. 68-70, although this sketch has little to do with the melodic content
of the passage. (These sketches are transcribed in Example 9.1).19

A Lost Sketchbook

Four folios of sketch material for Malediction (D-WRgs, H2), the last six folios
of the Mendelssohn Duo (D-WRgs, Kl), and most of the autograph of the Chopin Duo (D-

WRgs, LI) are on paper that was tom from a larger volume (see appendix C, paper types
9.1 and 9.2). In addition, these manuscripts are interrelated by other evidence: the first two

folios of the Malediction sketch were originally the other half of bifolia which contain the

last two pages of the Chopin, and an insert folio for the Chopin originally followed the last

page of the Mendelssohn. The most likely explanation is that these manuscripts were at

one time part of a sketchbook, and a reconstruction of this lost document offers us

information about the genesis of Malediction.

19A11 musical examples and critical notes are found at the end of the chapter (see the List of
Musical Examples, p. vii). Partial transcriptions of ff. 13v-14 are in K6kai, Franz Liszt in seinen friihen
Klavierwerken, 124 (Notenbeispiel 9), and Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken, 38. Mazeppa is transcribed
complete in Kdkai, 124 (Notenbeispiel 7), and partially in Torkewitz, 37.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The physical evidence for postulating a single bound volume is compelling. All

of the pages are identical in size and have similar staff measurements (including total span),

and each gathering that has survived intact contains three nested bifolia and reveals identical

traces of the binding process, from the holes through which the string was drawn to glue

and gilding. The paper is not strictly uniform, however, and while most of the folios are

on paper type 9.1, twelve in the Chopin Duo are type 9.2 with a different watermark and
slightly darker color (ff. 18-27,30-31).20 These folios make up two complete and

adjacent signatures and are found between signatures of the majority paper type. A

probable explanation is that a music shop prepared the volume from paper that was on
hand, binding the two different types together. The darker color may be the result of the

passage of time, and the two undoubtedly blended smoothly when new.

Study of the surviving pages yields sufficient information to establish the contents
of the sketchbook. As noted, the first two folios of the Malediction sketch complete the last

gathering used for the Chopin Duo, and a correction folio for the Chopin Duo was taken
from the last gathering used for the Mendelssohn. Considering that the pages for

Malediction and the Chopin Duo correction folio originally followed the last page of

completed compositions, these compositions must have been written in the sketchbook
before the sketch and correction folios were used, and if Liszt completed each work or

sketch in turn, the only possible sequence is ChopinMaledictionMendelssohn (see


Figure 9.1). The dates throughout the volume support this reconstruction: there is a single

folio with dates in April and May 1834 (D-WRgs, Z18, no. 1) which must have preceded

the Chopin Duo with its date of 25 Juillet (presumably 1834), and the Mendelssohn Duo

20Folios 28-29 are an insert bifolium of paper type 9.8. As this paper was also used for the
violin part (ff. 34-41), it likely dates from late in the compositional process and may indicate revisions
written after the receipt of the Chopin Duo in Geneva. See also below, The Copyists Manuscript (D-
WRgs, H2).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
298

Figure 9.1: The Reconstructed Sketchbook

This figure lists only those parts of the manuscripts that were at one time part of the
dismantled sketchbook, with the exception of ff. 28-29 (see text). Bifolia whose
folios are separated along the fold are shown by a break in die line. The folio numbers
refer to the individual manuscripts as presendy constituted.

f.32
Z18, no. 1
f.33

[lost]
L l: Chopin Duo
__________ f.l
__________ f.2
__________ f.3* H2: Malediction
__________ f.4
__________ f.5 f.[l]
f.[2]
f.6
f.7 f.[3]
f.8 f.[4]
f.9
f.10
f .ll

Kl: Mendelssohn Duo


f. 12
f. 13
f. 14 9
f.15 [lost]
f.l 6 10
f. 17

f.18 11
f.24
f.19
f.25
f.20
f.21
f.22 f.26
f.23 f.27
12 f.28
f.24 f.29
f.25
f.3 from
f.26
Chopin
f.27
f.28
f.29
f.30
f.31

* see fascicle 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
299

has Aout 1834 below the final measure. Assuming the Mendelssohn to have been

entered complete, as was the case with the Chopin, twelve gatherings of three nested
bifolia, or 144 pages, can be postulated as a minimum number. It is difficult to gauge the

accuracy of this conclusion in terms of the books original size: N6 has five gatherings with
5/5/5/6/3 nested bifolia for a total of 96 pages, while the later N5 had (it is no longer

complete) thirteen gatherings of four nested bifolia and a final gathering of two nested

bifolia totaling 216 pages.21 Nevertheless, the projected size of the volume may indicate

that the proposed reconstruction has accounted for most of the original contents.
A significant detail in reconstructing the sketchbook concerns the verification of

the year the Chopin Duo was written. The first page of the autograph has a date of 25
Juillet, and although 1834 has been cited with confidence, there is room for doubt. On the

one side, Liszts letter of 28 July 1835, in which he requested his autograph (quoted in

chapter seven), precludes 1835 and later 22 Narrowing the earlier possibilities is
problematic, however.

According to Maurice J. E. Browns Chopin catalogue, the mazurka which Liszt

used (op. 6, no. 2, in C-sharp minor) was published in Paris by Schlesinger in August

1833.23 On the surface this would appear to preclude a date of 1833, but Liszt knew
Chopin personally, and, as the mazurka may have been written as early as 1830, it is

possible that Liszt had access to the music before publication. Nor does the fact that the

work was at one time bound with the Mendelssohn Duo, with its secure date of 1834,

21See Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1986), 171.

22Alan Walker has argued for a date of 1851-2 on stylistic grounds; see his Liszts Duo
Sonata, Musical Times 116 (July 1975), 620. See the discussion in chapter three, Two Examples,
where his argument is considered, and the dating of other scholars is reviewed.

^ S e e Maurice J. E. Brown, Chopin: An Index o f His Works in Chronological Order, 2d ed.


(New York: Da Capo Press, 1972), 65.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
300

provide proof, as the Chopin work was written first in the sketchbook; how much earlier
could have been one month or thirteen or twenty-five. Finally, the replacement folio in the

Chopin Duo (f. 3) was removed from the last gathering of the Mendelssohn Duo. This
must have been taken after the Mendelssohn was completed (i.e., after August 1834), but

this observation tells us only when Liszt was revising the Chopin Duo, not when he

composed it.

There are two factors which argue for 1834, however. First, the biographical
data outlined in chapter seven would suggest spring 1834 as the earliest time such a work

could have been conceived. Second, there is a stray page from the sketchbook which does

not fit with any of the known surviving gatherings (Z18, no. 1). Given that there are at

least eleven gatherings for which we can account, all including and following those for the

Chopin Duo, this page is probably from a gathering that preceded the work. The notation

is sketch material, jottings of musical ideas as they occurred to Liszt, and include the
following dates: Lundi 28 Avril1834 Mardi matin chez Erard [29 April?]; Lundi

5 Mai; Samedi 17 [Mai]; Jeudi29 [Mai]; all days which fall within 1834. With

no data to suggest another conclusion and all circumstantial evidence pointing to 1834, this
year is undoubtedly correct.24

This reconstruction also presumes that the Mendelssohn Duo was drafted
complete in the same manner as the Chopin. The autograph of the work contains twenty-

nine folios, the first twenty-three of which do not derive from the sketchbook and are on

paper types 9.5 (ff. 1-12,18-23) and 9.6 (ff. 13-17). Liszts hand is found throughout,
but these pages are considerably neater in appearance and constitute a fair copy. The first
layer was evidently written on a succession of bifolia, although revisions carried out during

^ O n e observation that may have bearing on this argument is that, for 25 Juillet, Liszt
originally wrote 25 Juni. To alter the month, he wrote -llet over -ni and dotted the first stroke of the
n. It seems likely that Liszt made a simple mistake that he immediately corrected.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
301

the copying process disrupted this sequence in places. Collettes are also from the same

paper types, with the exception of one on f. 6 which was taken from the lost sketchbook

(type 9.1). Noting that the six folios from the sketchbook were tom from the binding,

unlike the pages for the Chopin Duo, which are the result of a careful dismantling, a logical

explanation is that Liszt was preparing a fair copy of the Mendelssohn, perhaps for the
concert of 25 December, and, running out of time, had to leave off copying and adapt the

last six folios from the draft in the sketchbook these pages have additional corrections in
red ink which are lacking on the other folios.25 The possibility that the sketchbook

contained the entire work in draft form is suggested by the number 2 on the tom flap of f.

25: this indicates a second piano part in the margin of the other half of the bifolium, thus
the entire gathering must have contained music from the Mendelssohn Duo. Further, the

collette on f. 6 on the same paper suggests that ff. 1-23 were copied from a complete

earlier version in the sketchbook (i.e., Liszt took a blank page from an unused portion of

the same book from which he was copying). Although the reconstruction in Figure 9.1

allots only sixteen folios for the music of the first twenty-three folios of the surviving

autograph, comparison with the sketchbook pages demonstrates that Liszt was more
expansive in terms of space in his fair copy. Of course, it does no harm to the

reconstruction to postulate another signature, as the size of the original book is unknown.

The third work which can be associated with the lost sketchbook is Malediction.

As with the folios from the Mendelssohn Duo, these pages were evidently tom from the

book before it was dismantled, and the flap of f. 4 has from the margin of the (lost)

^P aper type 9.5 is also found in the autographs of the Reminiscences de la Juive, completed
November 1835, and the Reminiscences des Huguenots, written the following year. In addition, paper type
9.6 is from a mill not otherwise found among Liszts Parisian years but encountered in the years of
pilgrimage that followed (see, for example, type 8.1). Thus, it could be argued that the fair copy of the
Mendelssohn was not written until after Liszt had left Paris. The letter of 28 July 1835 requesting the
Chopin Duo suggests that by this time the book had been dismantled, and, given our incomplete knowledge
of Liszts habits of paper use and the lack of other supporting evidence, it seems more reasonable to adopt
the sequence of events outlined above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
302

adjoining page Piano / Violoncello], indicating that the work continued throughout the

gathering. It cannot be determined the extent to which the work was written in the book,

however, as the music does not precisely match any passage in the final version, being

essentially a transposition into E major of mm. 83-117 (letters E through G; compare

Example 9.5). Possibly it was conceived as part of a recapitulation, later deleted. The

beginning of the passage is also similar to mm. 17ff. (A), but in E major instead of E
minor. If this is an early version of the opening, the measures preceding it could easily
have been written on the lost bifolium from the center of the gathering, leaving open the

possibility that some version of the entire work was entered preceding the Mendelssohn

Duo and adding four lost gatherings to the reconstruction. Note, however, that the recto of

the first folio contains brief sketches under the heading Inspiration mariotique, which

makes it unlikely that the preceding bifolium had anything to do with Malediction.26 Thus,
it appears that only a portion of the work was drafted into the sketchbook, and the existence

of other sketches (to be discussed below) suggests that these pages were used to
supplement another source.

Given the sketchs position between two works for which secure dates can be

assigned, it would appear that Malediction was being drafted at the same time. This

reasoning presumes that each surviving item was written in turn, but there is no way to
prove that this was the case. To put it another way, although it is likely that the Chopin and

Mendelssohn works were entered complete, this does not mean that they were entered

consecutively: they could have been composed simultaneously with sufficient space left for
completion, and the Mendelssohn Duo may have preceded the Chopin. This observation

therefore denies us a tidy date for the Malediction sketch of between 25 July and the end of

26Mariotique was one of Liszts nicknames for Marie dAgoult. I am grateful to Mdria
Eckhardt for helping me decipher Liszts scrawl and for identifying the reference to the Countess. There is
no known composition that uses the material in the sketch, nor with this title.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
303

August 1834. Nevertheless, at some point after the Chopin Duo was finished, Liszt used

blank folios for Malediction that were no longer needed for the other two works, and we
can at least conclude that the sketch can be dated no earlier than July 1834. In addition,

since Liszts request for the Chopin Duo suggests the book was already dismantled before
he left Paris in May 1835, the date can be further narrowed. We also note that this sketch

is more refined than the other surviving sketches which can be dated to the winter of 1834-

35 (D-WRgs, HI3a, discussed below), placing it later rather than earlier.


Based on the observations thus far, the point at which Liszt dismantled the

sketchbook can be narrowed to within a few months. First, the folios from the

Mendelssohn Duo were removed from a bound volume to complete the autograph fair
copy. Since such a copy presumably would have been needed for a performance, the

sketchbook was intact as late as December 1834. If one of the pianists played from the

sketchbook at these December concerts, and the fair copy was prepared for the concert on 9
April 1835, the time frame is further narrowed.27 Second, the Chopin Duo existed as a

separate autograph by the time Liszt left Paris for Switzerland in late May 1835. At some

time before the end of May, therefore, the contents of the sketchbook no longer needed to
remain in that format: Liszt had a fair copy of the Mendelssohn Duo, and he probably had a

fair copy of Malediction (discussed below). With the Chopin Duo the only work left in its

pages, it had lost its raison detre.


Before letting go of its pages, this reconstructed volume should be considered in

relation to the other known sketchbooks. As discussed in chapter four, Liszts Working

Method, Liszt did not work out his ideas on paper but wrote them out fully formed. We

27There is no trace of a copyists manuscript for a second piano part Either it is lost, or, just
as likely, Liszt played from memory while the other pianist played from his autograph (either the
sketchbook or the fair copy). The copy in D-WRgs (K3) is almost certainly from the twentieth century,
perhaps made for the editor of the Breitkopf & Hartel collected works but never used.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
304

also note that in sketchbook N6, he often left pages blank to allow space to finish

compositions, and other surviving sketchbooks contained complete works, some rather
extensive.28 Did Liszt purchase this volume of blank music paper with the intention of
writing out completed compositions? Although there survive pages with brief sketches, it

seems certain that the Chopin and Mendelssohn Duos were entered complete, and this

would make the sketchbook the earliest example of that practice. Did Liszt intend to

dedicate the sketchbook to a specific purpose? Given that the Chopin and Mendelssohn are

both chamber music, a book dedicated to this purpose would be an appropriate place to
write a passage for a sextet, and, as these are the only works that can be assigned to its
pages, we have yet another argument for reconsidering the genre of Malediction. The

sketchbook is unique in one respect, however: at no other time did Liszt completely
dismantle such a volume for its contents. Mueller accounts for individual compositions

borrowed from N5, but the book itself remained intact.29 Perhaps as Liszt realized more

fully his vocation as a composer, he took greater care to use his sketchbooks for such

things as short score drafts or notational jottings, whereas for anything that might serve as

fair copy he worked on unbound bifolia. Nevertheless, this sketchbook served him well,
from the summer of 1834 through the spring of 1835, and a reconstruction of its contents
allows a more precise dating of the works it once contained than would otherwise be
possible.

Sixteen Folios (D-WRgs, HI3a)


Also preserved in the Liszt Nachlaji are sixteen folios of sketches fox Malediction,
Raabes Bruchstiick (D-WRgs, H13a). Although recognizable as belonging to the work,

28See MueUer, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 167-169,171-212.

29Ibid., 174-177.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
305

the contents appear to be an earlier version of portions of the score. This observation led

Raabe to assign these pages to the lost concerto performed in London in 1827, a work he
believed was the Vorlaufer to MalMction, and he quoted four measures to display the
relationship (although his key signature of one sharp is surely incorrect; compare his

transcription with Example 9.4, mm. 202a-205a).30 It will be shown that this source

cannot be dated to this time and therefore has nothing to do with the lost concerto. In

addition, Raabe did not realize that the folios are, in fact, contiguous: when properly

ordered, these pages yield over 350 measures of continuous sketch material. The original
order can be reconstructed from physical factors alone (see Figure 9.2 the folio is

followed by the measure numbers [recto] [verso]), and the accuracy of the result is
confirmed by the musical content (see Examples 9.2,9.3, and 9.4).

Figure 9.2: Foliation of D-WRgs, H13a

----------------------- f. 1 (1-7X8-15)
I_______________ f. 2(16-27)(28x-42x)
t 1___ f. 3 (28-42)(blank)
________________ f. 4 (43-57)(58-68)
________________ f. 5 (69-86)(87-96)
________________ f. 6(97-103)(104-112)
________________ f. 7(113-120)(blank)
________________ f. 8 (41a-58a)(59a-73a)
________________ f. 9 (74a-86a)(87a-100a)
[lost]
.____________ f. 10(101a-116a)(117a-129a)
I____________ f. ll(130a-144a)(blank)
_______________ f. 12 (145a-156a)(157a-169a)
I_______________ f. 13 (170a-173a)(174a-190a)
________________ f. 14 (191a-201a)(202a-219a)
________________ f. 15 (220a-239a)(240a-247a)
________________ f. 16 (248a-264a)(265a-278a)

These folios exhibit unmistakable signs that they too were part of a bound

volume: the stitch holes match precisely along the folds, there is dried glue along the spines
of the outmost bifolia, and they are all trimmed to precisely the same size (except for

30Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2:53-54; see also 2:311.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
306

bifolium 10/11 which is an insert). In addition, it appears that ff. 1-6 were detached by

ripping the bifolia through the cords that held the gathering to the spine, suggesting that

these folios were rejected material from early in the compositional process. By contrast,
the bifolia making up ff. 8-16 are all intact, suggesting these pages were retained until the
dismantling of the book. As demonstrated below, the explanation for these physical

differences appears to lie in that ff. 8-16 are a revised and expanded version of ff. 4-7,
also noted in the way the measures are numbered in the examples.
Although f. 1 begins in medias res, it is indeed the first of the surviving pages, as

no other passage connects with it. The third folio does not belong to the original gathering

and is a full-page collette to the verso of f. 2. Liszt very likely tore the page neatly from
some other part of the volume (it is on the same paper) and affixed it to f. 2v with a pin (the

holes are readily apparent). Musically, it is essentially a reorchestration of the same


material. We can also conclude that the notation on f. 4 was already in place, otherwise

Liszt would have written his revision on that page. Note also the verso of f. 3 is blank.

(Example 9.2 is a transcription of ff. 1-3, omitting the material on f. 2v. The last two

measures of f. 3 are also omitted see below.)


The three folios that follow all retain a flap from their respective (lost) mates, thus

revealing the tears from the string that held the gathering to the binding. These marks line

up through all the folios that were originally part of the gathering, including the only

complete bifolia, ff. 1/2, although it was ripped so forcefully that the only connecting

portion is found at the top. In addition, traces of wax drippings on f. 5 can be seen on f.
4v. These pages also mark the beginning of a new section of the sketch, except for two

measures that are found on f. 2v (also f. 3). The verso of f. 6 marks the end of the

passage, but Liszt decided to expand this idea and for that purpose again neatly tore a folio
from another part of the volume to use as an insert. Thus, the last two measures of f. 6v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
307

arc canceled and expanded to eight on f. 7, using only a single system on the recto side.

(Example 9.3 is a transcription of ff. 4-7, including the last two measures of f. 3.)
As with the first, the second gathering appears to have consisted of four nested

bifolia, but in this case most of the adjacent pages are intact. One page is lacking from the

original signature, tom out while still attached to the binding and replaced with the insert

bifolium, ff. 10/11. The remaining flap of f. 14 suggests the verso of this lost page was

blank, and with this information it is possible to suggest the original contents. Thus, the

forty-four measures of ff. 10/11 (mm. 10 la-144a) replace eleven measures of the lost folio
(similar in content to mm. 101a-l 1la) and four canceled measures of f. 12 (mm. 141x-

144x; see Example 9.6b and analysis below). This insert bifolium is also the only paper

that was not part of the original volume, as it shows no signs of binding and the edges are
untrimmed.

The eighth folio is clearly the first of a new gathering and also the beginning of a

musical section (it is one of the few pages with time and key signatures). It is uncertain,
however, whether f. 8 followed in the original volume; although f. 7 ends in D-flat, and f.

8 begins (effectively) in C-sharp minor, it does not appear to be a continuation. The music

is very similar to the passage that begins with the last two measures of f. 3, however, and

the presence of a black cross above m. 41 was clearly a sign Liszt made for himself. It is

therefore likely that ff. 8-16 represent an expanded version of ff. 47, an idea that will be

further explored in the analysis below. As noted above, these bifolia do not exhibit tears

from the cords of the bound volume. Either the string was carefully cut, or it was removed

when the entire volume was dismantled. If ff. 1-7 were removed at an earlier stage and ff.

8-16 remained in place, then this physical evidence is additional support for the conjecture
that these sketches represent two drafts of essentially the same material. (Example 9.4 is a
transcription of ff. 8-16.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
308

Extensive sketch material from this point in Liszts career is rare, and it is useful

to comment on the working methods that are displayed throughout these pages. Liszt

tended to leave the rest of a page blank at the end of a section, in anticipation of later
revisions. There is space at the end of f. 5v, and f. 6 begins with new time and key

signatures (Example 9.3, m. 97); see also f. 13, which contains only four measures

(Example 9.4, mm. 170a-173a). This is also true to a lesser extent at the end of f. 4v

(Example 9.3, m. 68). Nevertheless, all the material in these lengthy drafts is completely
scored, an approach similar to the fully harmonized entries in the sketchbooks.

Interestingly, this extends to measures that were immediately canceled. For example, after

mm. 1-2, Liszt originally continued with material very similar to mm. 8-10 and nearly

identical to mm. 14-16 (especially m. 15). He canceled his first thought after having

written two completely scored measures for the strings followed by the downbeat for the

strings and the piano right hand in the third measure. Evidently he changed his mind while
writing the left hand, as it is the only part of these three measures that is in any way

incomplete. Numerous other alterations suggest the extent to which Liszt may have been

composing as he went along or perhaps took pen to paper after developing an outline in his
head or at the piano. Unfortunately, it is unknown to what extent these drafts were

preceded by other sketches. But if it is true that these pages represent two extensive

workings of the same material, it is certainly odd that he would proceed to orchestrate them
fully without having tested the passage in the context of the whole or, for that matter,

without having satisfied himself with the entire composition in sketch form (e.g., piano

score). Further, the fact that little on these pages made it into the finished version (i.e., that

he went on to develop a third alternative) lends credence to the idea that Liszt was writing

out his composition in full score as he went along, without a preliminary sketch stage.
The paper of all sixteen folios is identical to that used in the autograph of De

profundis (D-WRgs, HI; type 9.3), a manuscript that was also bound, and the grouping of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
309

four bifolia per gathering is common to both scores (see chapter ten, Description of the
Autograph Source). This similarity also extends to the existence of two staff

distributions, twenty (ff. 1-9,12-16; type 9.3a) and twenty-four (ff. 10-11; 9.3b,
untrimmed). It will be demonstrated in the description of the De profundis autograph that it

was bound after work on the composition had begun and that Liszt used the twenty-staff
variety, supplementing it with twenty-four staff when his first batch had run out. As he did
not begin work on De profundis until January 1835, this use of paper types allows several

conclusions: if the volume from which these Malediction sketches were taken consisted
only of twenty-staff paper (note that the full-page collettes are on the same paper as well),
then it is likely that Liszt was writing these passages before his work on De profundis.

This is based on the assumption that Liszt used two separate volumes which he himself
bound, one for each work, and as two paper types succeed one another in the De profundis

manuscript, Malediction, with its single paper type, must have come first31 Second, Liszt

was still revising the drafts in this book after he had reached the twenty-four-staff phase of
De profundis (i.e., after January 1835), based on the use of the single untrimmed bifolium.

While there is much here that is speculative, it seems likely that these pages date from the

the winter of 1834-35.32


If we can use the De profundis autograph as a model, Liszt may have begun
Malediction on nested bifolia, which he had bound at some point in the compositional

31MuelIers statement that H13a was originally part of HI does not appear to be correct; see her
Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 255-256. Careful comparison of these two sources reveals it to be unlikely
that H I is missing two entire gatherings. In addition, all of the twenty-staff paper in HI3a is upside down
vis-a-vis the watermark and top and bottom staff margins as compared to HI. This would imply that HI
was turned over and used from the back, again impossible as HI ends with twenty-four staff paper. Note
also that her statement, that H13a was originally part of the Psaume instrumentale and contains a
considerable amount of music based on the De profundis melody, is incorrect, as can be seen in Examples
9.2,9.3, and 9.4.

320ther examples of this paper date from later in the decade and are only the twenty-four staff
untrimmed variety (type 9.3b); see Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook, 366. The documented use is of
such a small quantity (fifteen folios) that it may be left over from 1835.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
310

process. When we further consider the passage from the reconstructed sketchbook, which

is closer to the final version than these drafts, we may speculate that, at the time of writing

it, Liszt was already working outside of a bound Malediction volume and perhaps had
already dismantled it. De profundis never reached this level of revision, as otherwise its
binding might have met the same fate. At the point he was finally satisfied, we can only

wonder what modey collection of manuscript paper was presented to the copyist

The Copyists Manuscript (D-WRgs, H2)

The final manuscript of Malediction is in a copyists hand with autograph

corrections and is the only score that contains the work complete (D-WRgs, H2; this call

number also includes the four folios from the reconstructed sketchbook see below).

Considering the neatness, accuracy, and careful staff layout of the pages, the copyist was

an experienced professional. In addition, the copy is copiously filled with dynamic and
expression markings, conspicuously absent from the autograph sketches. That these are
lacking in the sketch material is not an argument against Liszts involvement in the copy, as

throughout his career he often left these markings to the last stage before copying (see
chapter four, Liszts Working Method), and such detailed indications are also present in

Bellonis copies of Concerto No. 1 and the Grandefantaisie symphonique. Thus, although
we lack the autograph exemplar, v/e may be sure that these markings stem from Liszt

himself. The resulting manuscript signifies that Liszt was at last satisfied with the result:

after a process of composition that could be described as torturous (given the variants that

survive), he wanted a clean copy of his autograph pages, and the high quality may indicate
that he was intending to perform and publish the work.

Dating the manuscript is partially based on the conclusion that Malediction is a

piano sextet (see chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix). If this is the manuscript
Liszt indicated in his letter of 28 July 1835 when he requested, mon Sestetto copiti par le

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
311

Polonais.. (see citation above), then we have a reliable terminus ante quem for the

copyists work. The paper, like the copyists hand, is unique among known Liszt
manuscripts (type 9.4) and includes the year 1833 as part of the watermark. As noted
above, this was taken as a date for the copy in the The New Grove worklist revised by

Sharon Winklhofer, but more precisely the year should be used as a terminus post quem.

Given the dating proposed for the various sketches, this copy could not have been written

earlier than the winter of 1834-35 nor, if it is the sestetto, later than the following

summer.
The original layer of the manuscript consisted of eight signatures of two nested

bifolia, all on the same paper. These bifolia are all intact and contain a number of

characteristics that are typical of Liszts penchant for revision. First, Liszt evidently gave

the copyist instructions to leave entire pages blank, perhaps without offering a rationale.
As a result, these pages are all roughly equidistant from one another and not at structural

points in the musical argument. They are found as follows: between pages 18 and 19 (m.
103 and m. 104 note that the page numbers are not by Liszt and do not include pages

without music), 34 and 35 (m. 191 and m. 192), and 57 and 58 (m. 304 and m. 305).33
Not surprisingly, none of Liszts revisions occurred in the vicinity of the blank pages, and
he used collettes. Other blank pages which fall outside of this explanation are the recto of

the first folio, to allow Liszt the luxury of a title page (which he never used), and part of

page 47, probably because it is before the interpolation of Du bist die Ruh, at which point
the copyist must have decided to begin the three-staff system on the following page (see
Example 9. 8).

33These measure numbers apply to the published score as follows: letter A (17), B (28), C (45),
D (57), E (83), F (106), G (118), H (131), I (143), K (150), L (163), M (176), N (186), O (200), P (213),
Q (229), R (243), S (257), T (274), U (296), V (312), W (334).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
312

Collettes are the second characteristic, in themselves of limited significance from a

musical point of view, but demonstrating that he continued to touch up the piece, possibly

after he was living in Switzerland. The first revision extended the cadenza beginning at m.
9, found on two collettes that were originally a single folio but cut apart for the alteration.

The verso of one of these collettes contains a first attempt at the emendation. Apparently,

Liszt thought he would need only the top half, but he was dissatisfied with his first attempt,

turned the fragment over, and used the other part of the page. The result is a full-page
collette that contains mm. 12-22 (see Example 9.6a and also the description in the critical

notes). More significantly, this paper is the same as that used for the separate violin part of
the Chopin Duo (ff. 34-41) as well as various collettes throughout that autograph (type

9.8). As Liszt requested that the Duo be sent to him in Geneva, it is possible that this paper
represents work carried out after receipt of the two manuscripts. This supposition is

strengthened by the fact that the Chopin Duo was never performed in Paris nor copied as

far as is known, and his residence in Geneva and attachment to the newly-formed

Conservatory may have been the first opportunity to prepare the work for performance.34
One other revision in the Malediction manuscript may date from this time.

Between pages 9 and 10 there is a bifolium, and page 40 has a full-page collette, both on
the same paper (type 9.7). Oddly, both transcribe the identical passage, the collette with

the complete emendation (mm. 215-220; see Example 9.7), the bifolium with only the first

system (mm. 215-218). Unfortunately, no other example of this paper is known

throughout the Liszt manuscript corpus, thus the connection to the other revision cannot be
confirmed. Note that the bifolium obviously does not belong where it has been placed and
that the loose pages from the lost sketchbook are also found within this gathering, the

^ O n Liszts relationship with the Conservatory, see Claude Viala, Franz Liszt au
Conservatoire (1835-1836), Revue Musicale de Suisse Romande 38 (September 1985), 122-129.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
313

second in the manuscript For some reason, this location became the repository for stray

folios, at least at the time the present writer examined the manuscript (winter 1987-88).
The final characteristic is in the nature of a deletion, here an entire section

originally found between mm. 256 and 257 (see Example 9.8). This is a transcription of a

large portion of Schuberts song, Du bist die Ruh, and to connect the measures around

the cancellation required little rewriting on Liszts part As noted, the quotation begins on

the verso of the page following blank space at the bottom of the preceding recto (pp. 47/48,
the first folio of the seventh gathering). Once Liszt had decided to make the deletion, he
made a cut of the more literal kind, clipping part of the blank portion of the page blank

on the recto side presumably for a collette. One portion of this piece survives (D-

WRgs, H13b), but the other is lost, and the small notes in Example 9.8 represent a
reconstruction based on Schuberts original. The music of m. 257 was also part of the
deleted page, and Liszt drew in staff lines and recopied it at the head of the next folio. In

addition to the revisions which necessitated some physical alteration to the manuscript,
there are other autograph markings, including the words written in pencil above several

themes, one of which provided Malediction with its title. These alterations cannot be

dated precisely, but they too may be among the Swiss revisions.

Given the consistency of the evidence and the way the manuscripts complement
one another, it appears certain that, apart from a handful of disjointed sketches in

sketchbook N6, Malediction from conception to completion dates from 1834-35. Much of
the composing may date from the winter, although portions may have been worked out as

early as the summer. More difficult to explain is the observation that the surviving drafts

were never used in the manuscript that Liszt gave to be copied nor were they simply deleted

in the manner of Du bist die Ruh. But before proceeding to the content of these

documents, it is necessary to review the final version as found in the copyists manuscript.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
314

Analysis of the Work

MalMction begins with the theme that Liszt labeled malediction (mm. 1-16).

From the first notes, octave f-naturals played on the second beat, both the E minor tonality

and common time meter are obscured. Thus, in m. 4 the dominant-seventh in second

inversion in no way implies E minor, and only the entrance of the strings in m. 7, with the

same chord in first inversion., suggests the tonic. Ironically, this measure also introduces
the tritone dichotomy of alternating B major/F major triads. With this music as an

Introduction, the Exposition begins with a First Theme in E minor labeled orgueil (mm.

17-27). After six measures of repetition, the theme leads to a development that also refers
back to the malediction theme of the Introduction (mm. 28-44). A Transition Theme

follows, derived from the rhythm of malediction, that implies B minor without

establishing it and again continues with development of the opening material (mm. 45-56;
compare 51-53 to 33-35). The transition continues with a variant of the First Theme (mm.
57-67). It is typical of the way Liszt confounds our harmonic expectations in this work

that the harmony in mm. 63-67 defines E-flat major, but the Second Theme is (weakly) in
B major, the dominant of the works tonic. This theme is labeled pleursangoisses
songes and is in two repeated phrases (mm. 68-82), but its real goal is G major (the

expected secondary key area of a sonata form in E minor). A Third Theme temporarily

establishes G-sharp/A-flat major (mm. 83-117). The Closing Theme, labeled raillerie,
begins in G major but also develops, borrowing elements of the First and Third Themes,

before coming to a full stop (mm. 118-162). In addition to signaling the end of the

Exposition, this stop delineates the midpoint of the work.

Although the next section might be defined as Development, there is not

appreciably more developing of the material than in the Exposition. The First Theme is
heard in E-flat Major, and, as in the initial statement, a repetition is limited to the first

phrase, in this case five measures (mm. 163-197; compare 28ff.). A piano cadenza

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
315

develops the Introduction idea (mm. 198-199), followed by a sequence based on the

Transition Theme, again suggesting a key in this case F major but not establishing it

(mm. 200-228; compare 45ff.). The Recapitulation begins with the return of the

Introduction (mm. 229-242) but is not clearly delineated until the statement of the First
Theme in the major mode (mm. 243-256). A lengthy Coda follows (mm. 257-342). It is
based on the First Theme and material introduced in its development and concludes with the

Second Theme (mm. 287-291) and the Third Theme (mm. 296ff.), all in E Major. (Table

9.1 summarizes the overall form of the work.)

Table 9.1: Analysis of Malidiction

Section Tonality Measure


Introduction (malediction) 1-16
Exposition
First Theme (orgueil) E minor 17-27
Development of Introduction 28-44
Transition Theme (B minor) 45-56
Variant of First Theme (E-flat major) 57-67
Second Theme (pleursangoissessonges) B major 68-82
Third Theme G-shaip/A-flat major 83-117
Closing Theme (raillerie) G major 118-162
Development
First Theme E-flat Major 163-197
Piano cadenza (development of Introduction) 198-199
Transition Theme (F major) 200-228
Recapitulation
Introduction 229-242
First Theme E major 243-256
Coda
First Theme E major 257-286
Second Theme E major 287-291
Third Theme E major 292-342

On the surface, Malidiction appears to be one of the most difficult to decipher of


Liszts works. Humphrey Searle views it as a succession of mood pictures, poetical,

romantic and emotional,35 while Robert Collet refers to a small handful of ideas from

35 Searle, The Music of Liszt, 47.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
316

which Liszt builds the entire mosaic-like structure.36 Neither represents an accurate

description, but it is also true that at first hearing it is not always clear how the component

parts of the work relate to one another. Malidiction is in sonata form, with Introduction,
Exposition with the proper secondary key area, Development, and Recapitulation. The

sequence of events confounds our expectations through unexpected harmonic


juxtapositions and constant development of themes, however. In addition, the Closing
Theme is never heard in the tonic, and the coda is out of proportion to the rest of the work.

Nevertheless, Liszt was careful to provide structural signposts for the listener, the most

obvious of which are the end of the Exposition, with its full stop, and the fortissimo return
of the First Theme in the Recapitulation, with its attendant sense of arrival in the tonic
major. This recapitulation technique had served him in the first movement of the earliest

version of Concerto No. 1, and he would return to it in Concerto No. 2 and other mature
works. But it is for the closing section that Liszt reserved his greatest structural coup. In

the Grandefantaisie symphonique, he saved one theme for tonic statement in the final

measures, a technique also found in incipient form at the end of the first movement of the
earliest version of Concerto No. 1 by the tonic statement of the principal themes. Liszt
took the concept a step further in the Coda of Malidiction by parading in varied guise

virtually all the thematic material and setting it apart with a presto tempo. This elaborate
closing gesture anticipates the innovation of the Allegro marziale animato of Concerto
No. 1, lacking the scale and stopping just short of thematic transformation.

Liszts use of harmony also shows him to be more adventurous than in the
Grandefantaisie, where he was undoubtedly restrained by Berliozs musical language. In

his discussion of the contents of sketchbook N6, Dieter Torkewitz notes, wie in alien

36Robert Collet, Works for Piano and Orchestra, in Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music,
255.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
317

bisher erorterten Beispielen seit 1827 wind auch hier friih moduliert.37 He also finds Liszt

laying aside the constraints of functional harmony: Liszt verfahrt nach einem

Klangfortschieitungsprinzip, dessen GesetzmaBigkeit sich nicht ableitet aus tonikaler


Unterwerfung, sondem bestimmt ist von totaler Chromatik.38 This is certainly
characteristic of Liszts harmonic use in Malidiction. No less extraordinary is the passage

leading up to the Recapitulation in mm. 215-218, and it is perhaps not coincidental that

these are the only measures found in the sketch material that are nearly identical to the

copyists manuscript (see Example 9.4, mm. 71a-78a; the measures immediately before
and after are also very similar). This was also one of two passages that Liszt retouched in

the copyists manuscript (see Example 9.7), thus the transition was important to him (see

discussion below). Malidiction also shows Liszt taking a free approach to functional
harmony, which allowed him to use similar progressions to arrive at different destinations.

This characteristic is noted by Torkewitz and others with reference to the opening of

Prometheus (Symphonic Poem No. 5), whose first two chords are the same as

Malidiction, although the piece itself is in A minor/major.39 It is also apparent in the

sketch material.

Analysis of the Sketches


Proceeding through the autographs chronologically, it is again remarkable how
surely Liszt realized the opening of his composition in N6, at least through six measures

(see Example 9.1). The d-sharp in m. 7 indicates that the diminished-seventh chord from

the second beat carries through the measure and may remain in the bass in the following

37Torkewitz, Harmonisches Denken, 29.

38Ibid., 45. Torkewitz also discusses the opening measures of the work as well as their return
in m. 229 under his general heading of Thematische Konsequenz; see ibid., 38-39.

39See ibid., 38-39, and the references in footnote 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
318

measure as well. We may also speculate that d-sharp is in the bass of mm. 10-11, where it

is reinterpreted as E-flat, and, having achieved E-flat minor, the sketch breaks off. The

tritone dichotomy is therefore completely lacking at this stage, and it appears that Liszts
intention was to move to a foreign key rather than return to E minor. Perhaps incidentally,

E-flat minor may anticipate the use of its parallel major in the final version. Of the other
sketches, none has thematic resemblance to anything in the work. It is tempting, of course,

to relate the passages du sextuor and E-minor key signature to the question of whether

Malidiction is a sextet, but, without a musical connection, any reasoning would be circular.
Note, however, the striking harmony in the last measure of the fifth system, which
includes an E-flat major triad.

The first question to be answered when confronting the drafts that make up

Examples 9.2,9.3, and 9.4 is their intended position in the overall form. The first
measures of Example 9.2 suggest the difficulty of solving this basic inquiry: Malidiction

does not include any measures in 6/8 meter (actually 6/16 in mm. 1-15; see the critical
notes), and the 2/4 with which it alternates is found only in the Coda. Equally problematic

is the inclusion of motives of which all trace was deleted in the final version. Only with m.

41 in Example 9.3 do we find the Transition Theme but in a transposition that does not
appear in the final version. An important clue is found in Example 9.4, where mm. 65a-

90a contain similar music to mm. 212-224 of the final version, with some measures nearly

identical. There is also a recognizable recapitulation beginning in m. 202a, which has

elements in common with the same section of the final version. These corresponding
passages suggest that the draft is an earlier attempt at a Development and Recapitulation.

Having established the content of the sketches, there remain questions about

Example 9.2 that cannot be answered. It seems clear from the use of accidentals that the
lack of a key signature is intentional, thus although E Major is temporarily tonicized, this

music can in no way be part of the Exposition. Is it then a development of Exposition

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
319

material, later deleted, or did Liszt introduce new motives as part of his Development?

Could it be part of an independent section, a multi-movement-in-one form as found in De


profundis, and whose motives, once introduced, were also taken up in the Development
that followed? Without the folios that precede this passage, we can only speculate on the
relationship to the whole.

With the addition of four sharps in m. 16, C-sharp minor is established, and it is

this key that is implied with the Transition Theme in m. 41 (see Example 9.3). The entire
passage is in this tonality: mm. 41-68 can be interpreted as a prolonged dominant, mm.

69-96 confirm the major mode, and mm. 97-120 are in the same key, enharmonically

reinterpreted (D-flat = C-sharp). Thematically, the material is all familiar from the final
version. Following the Transition Theme, Liszt combines the malediction motive and the

tritone dichotomy of the Introduction, here G-sharp major and D major triads (mm. 53-

64). The strings emphasize G-sharp, the dominant of C-sharp minor, using a form of a

rhythmic motive found earlier (compare Example 9.2, mm. 9,1415). The statement of
the First Theme in C-sharp major is a variation of the Exposition (mm. 69-96; compare

mm. 17-35 of the final version). Here it is followed by the raillerie Closing Theme in D-
flat major (mm. 97-104; compare mm. 118-123 of the final version). Noteworthy is the

economy of the final version, eliminating some repetition to condense four meaures into

three. The passage concludes with a cadential figure that emphasizes the tritone and again
uses a motive heard earlier (mm. 105-120; compare Example 9.2, mm. 37-40). Although
Liszt added eight measures to the conclusion (discussed above), the sketch ends with much
blank space left on the page: having achieved D-flat, he may have been unsure of how to

proceed.

Example 9.4 begins much the same as 9.3, with the Transition Theme implying
C-sharp minor. By altering the final chord in m. 52a, Liszt is able to repeat the theme in E-

flat (m. 53a ff.), followed by some development until another repetition, now in B-flat (m.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
320

79a ff.). At this point he has canceled out the key signature, and, although the music may

begin as m. 53 of Example 9.3, a minor third lower, this version uses the malediction
theme as a launching point for development of material heard in Example 9.2 (mm. 91a-
173a). Note also that originally the development was slightly shorter, and an earlier
version of m. 11 la apparently led to m. 141x in Example 9.6b (mm. 101a-144a are on the

insert bifolium, ff. 10/11). After a climax, the use of the b/f tritone in the piano (mm.

170a-172a) leads to the Recapitulation. The music follows closely the model of Example
9.3, repeating virtually the entire content a minor third higher: Transition Theme (mm.

174a-185a), malediction theme (mm. 186a-201a), First Theme (mm. 202a-240a), and
Closing Theme (mm. 240a-247a), followed by the same cadential figure (248a-260a), all .
in E major. Here the music is extended by moving the bass down in major thirds, first

with a chromatic scale that begins and ends c-e (mm. 261a-268a), then with an additional

A-flat, to create an augmented triad (mm. 269a-278a). It is as if Liszt wanted the chord to

function as any major or minor chord, not as the result of passing tones an intriguing

use of the augmented triad that would be further explored in De profundis.


Did Liszt reach an impasse again? Although there is blank space at the end of the

system, Liszt has reinterpreted the A-flat as G-sharp and added ties to the final chord in the

piano, suggesting the music continued on another folio. There is no corresponding

passage in the final version, so there is no way to hypothesize what may have followed.

One striking coincidence is that this precise voicing is found in an Albumblatt first

published in 1841 (see Example 9.9) but whose musical content is also found in his Valse
mtlancolique.40 Remembering that Liszt requested a Waltz in E Major in his letter of 28

July 1835 (see appendix A), it is possible that the curious introduction found in the

E x a m p le 9.9 is from Franz Liszt, Dances, Marches and Scherzos, ed. Imre Sulyok and Imre
MezO, New Edition o f the Complete Works, series 1, vol. 13 (Budapest: Editio Musica, 1985), 26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
321

Albumblatt was at one time part of Malediction. These measures do little more than
establish E major and could have led to Du bist die Ruh.

As noted in the discussion of the manuscripts, ff. 1-7 were forcibly tom from the

bound volume, while ff. 8-16 remained until the dismantling of the book. In addition, at
precisely the measure where Examples 9.3 and 9.4 are parallel in musical content (i.e.,
mm. 41 and 41a), Liszt wrote a thick cross above the staff on f. 3 (the full-page collette

revising mm. 28-42). The cross was very likely an aide de memoire, and he may have

been indicating the point at which his revision of the passage continued from the earlier

version. If so, we may interpret the music in Example 9.3 as an attempt at a Development

section that reached a dead end. Upon further consideration, Liszt saw the potential in the

same material as Development and Recapitulation and rewrote the passage so that it ended
in the tonic, while at the same time greatly expanding the development portion. This

interpretation takes into account both the physical and the musical evidence. Another less
likely possibility is that Example 9.3 is the end of the original Exposition, that is, the

secondary key area was in C-sharp minor/D-flat major. This explanation does not account

for the cross, and, further, it is difficult to imagine the formal context in which these two
passages could have coexisted.

Assuming that Examples 9.3 and 9.4 are two versions of the same material, a

number of conclusions can be advanced. Given the key of C-shaip minor/D-flat major

throughout Example 9.3, it appears that Liszt did not begin Malediction with the formal

outline of a sonata. The passage may even suggest that he did not have any overriding

formal conception in mind, and thus the sonata form did not result until well into the

compositional process. When these two passages are compared with the final version, it is
also clear that Liszt at first employed additional thematic and motivic material, but, as his

conception crystallized, he winnowed the excess away. With the gain in conciseness, Liszt

also achieved a stronger return of the First Theme. A casualty, however, was that in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
322

final version the Closing Theme is never heard in the tonic. Overall, the rewriting must

have been considerable, and one cannot even speculate on the size of the work in the
earliest drafts.

The music from the reconstructed sketchbook (Example 9.5) is both closer to the

final version than that of Examples 9.2,9.3, and 9.4, and neater in appearance, suggesting

a fair copy. These observations make any attempt at understanding the content all the more
perplexing, because none of it found its way into the copyists manuscript. The opening

ten measures are recognizable as the First Theme in E major, but, unlike any statement of

the theme in the final version, this music cadences. Following are the Second and Third

Themes transposed a minor third lower to end in E major (mm. 12-55; compare mm. 83-

117 of the final version). Note also the final measure, with its lead-in figure in the piano

part that may have led to an energetic Coda or (less likely) to the beginning of the passage
represented by Example 9.2.

Comparing this fragment to the final version, although the First Theme is given a

role in the Recapitulation, the others are heard only in the closing measures of the Coda
(mm. 287ff.). Perhaps Example 9.5 represents Liszts first notion of a proper

Recapitulation in E major, later replaced by the freer approach to restating the material that

included the ffff peroration of the First Theme and the Molto animandoquasi Presto
Coda. It is interesting to observe that, for his final version, Liszt returned to Example 9.4
for the gesture of a grandiose tonic major statement of the First Theme.

Turning to the revisions in the copyists manuscript, Liszts autograph


emendations, though found throughout, amount to little more than minor corrections and

retouchings. In the latter category are the rewritings of mm. 9ff. and mm. 215ff. (the

earlier versions are transcribed in Examples 9.6a and 9.7, respectively). The first alteration
extends the piano cadenza by three measures, placing more emphasis on the tritone

dichotomy. Liszt did not alter any of the subsequent appearances of the figure and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
323

apparently was satisfied to give more weight at the beginning of the work. Perhaps also of
significance, the revised measures are easier to play.

The passage that includes mm. 215-218 is one that was transferred harmonically

intact from an earlier draft (see Example 9.4, mm. 71a-78a). As noted above, it is an

extraordinary sequence where Liszt allows the voice leading to dictate the harmony,

creating extreme dissonance and tension that leads to greater expectancy for resolution.

Notice in comparing Example 9.4 to 9.7 that Liszt has complicated the texture. Thus,
although the passage in Example 9.4 is difficult for the piano, the string parts are

straightforward, especially the double-stops in VI. II which alternate between a and a-

sharp. In Example 9.7, the writing is considerably more difficult and the string texture

denser, and, although the rhythm has become unified, the alteration affects the rate of

harmonic change, effectively condensing three measures to two (see mm. 216x-217x).

The result adds another level of dissonance: rhythmic. On the collette to the copyists
manuscript, Liszt returned to the simpler texture of Example 9.4, and this final version is

so close to the earlier one that one must assume he had his sketch in front of him.

Motivating his revision, he may have decided that the intermediate version was too extreme

in the context of the entire passage. And again we note that the final version is somewhat
easier to perform.

This last observation, applied to both passages, begs the question of whether
these changes were the result of a reading with string players. Postulating such an event

might explain the need for two autograph copies of mm. 215-218 the music on the

bifolium is the only alteration that would affect the strings and thus could be used to alter
the parts. There is no evidence that a reading session ever took place, although if we are

correct in assuming that these changes were made in Switzerland, certainly competent

players were available from the Geneva Conservatory.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
324

The final emendation is in some ways the most thought provoking, the deletion of
fifty-three measures from a work that in its final version numbered only 342 (Example

9.8). Formally, it is a transcription of a Schubert song, transposed from its original key of
E-flat to E major (the key of Malediction) and lacking only its concluding measures.41
Musically, there is no antecedent to it in the work nor is it referred to in the Coda that
immediately follows, and deleting it required no major surgery on Liszts part Its

omission causes no discontinuity on any level of the musical argument, and we are left with

only its programmatic implication. Although there is no doubt that malidiction was not

intended as the works tide, this word, along with various other appellations, are later
additions to the copyists manuscript, penciled in the composers hand. As Liszt never

published the work, there is no way to know whether these would have appeared in an
edition. It is also unclear how he meant them to be understood: no other work to this time

includes such labels. Certainly the idea of a curse balanced by you are rest lends itself

easily to the imagination, perhaps a Paradise Lost scenario an interpretation that would

be later applied by others to the Sonata in B Minor. Liszt may have come to the conclusion

that a work, no matter how programmatic, must also stand on its own internal musical
logic, and thus the Schubert quotation was removed. We also note that never again would

Liszt quote another composers work in the context of a composition that was otherwise
original. But whatever the reason, the deletion greatly changes the proportions of the piece

and only reinforces how difficult it was for Liszt to bring his conception into formal

balance.

41Liszt also transcribed the song for solo piano, publishing it in 1838 along with eleven other
Schubert song transcriptions. In this case, the key of E-flat major is retained, but Liszt repeats the verse
three times rather than Schuberts two, each to more elaborate figuration. Note that the piano writing for
the second verse has much in common with the deleted passage from Malidiction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
325

Conclusion

Many of our conclusions regarding the surviving sketch material to Malidiction

are speculative, and neither their position in the overall form nor reason for rejection is

always clear. This observation in itself is revealing and suggests that Liszts approach to
the work may have been one of trial and error, and only after a good deal of

experimentation did he decide on a final form, at least final enough to give to a copyist
From Examples 9.2,9.3,9.4, and 9.5, it appears that such basic compositional decisions

as tonal layout and thematic use evolved in this way, and when a particular passage was not

satisfactory, he simply removed it and began composing afresh. It is remarkable to

postulate that Liszt began the work with no prior conception except perhaps the
instrumentation. Thus, although we have analyzed the result as a variant of sonata form,

the combination of tonal areas and thematic use peculiar to this type may have come about
coincidentally, from serious formal experimentation and not a commitment to older
principles.

As an attempt to compose an entirely original work according to a new approach,

Malidiction brought Liszt face to face with compositional problems and procedures that
were not apparent in shorter compositions, variation forms, or paraphrases. Mimicking

sonata form plugging a succession of themes into a predetermined format was

apparently never an option, and there is no known work of his that follows such a plan.
Nevertheless he must have sensed the formal equilibrium inherent in works of Beethoven

(from his studies with Czerny, these were the ones of the great Classical triumvirate he was
most likely to know) and sought to create a similar result by new means. Liszt may have
thought he could do this by sense, feeling his way towards a successful realization. In the

end, he found himself with a stack of rejected material, no closer to his ideal. That he

never performed or published Malidiction would seem to confirm his continued

dissatisfaction, although at the time he was contented enough to have it copied, perhaps for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
326

much the same reason as Concerto No. 1: it was finished and therefore potential

performance material for the budding composer/virtuoso. And remembering the variety

inherent in contemporary concerts, a piece of chamber music was always useful.


Malidiction thus finds the composer at a crossroads in his development As his

first original composition (as opposed to a paraphrase on someone elses music) since the
Concerto No. 1, we find Liszt seeking an entirely new approach, but, unlike the earlier
work, he refused to capitulate to older conceptions such as a three-movement layout De

profundis would take the process a step further, and this work, though twice the size,

emerged with a well-defined profile and considerably less rejected material. However hazy
his goals at the start, by the time he concluded Malidiction and turned to De profundis, he

had learned much and knew better what he wanted to accomplish with a large-scale form.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
327

Example 9.1: Sketches for Malidiction

6
i

Passages du Sextuor
I

La petite morale
tue la grande
(Mirabean)

s s D

4 J 1 Avril 1833 Angoisse

liifj 1 =4
PM #
i - -

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
328

Example 9.2: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 1-40 (beginning)

Piano

:g@rr g

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
329

Example 9.2: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 1-40 (continuation)

vi.iliEL~d' "i t r JJ------ f ------bp - | mi *2

vi. nl

arc
Via _ ---------- J------J
^ J--- m

Vc.

* +

C b. 1

Piano

VI. n

HT *P t

m H m
m
Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
330

Example 9.2: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 1-40 (continuation)

pizz.
VI. I

tpin.1

pizz. [TCO]
Vc.

C b.

(26 )

VI. I

pizz.
vi. n1

pizz.
V ia

Vc.

Cb.

P iano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
331

Example 9.2: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 1-40 (conclusion)

(32)
V I. 1

[*rco]

[rco]

V ia

Vc.

C b.

Piano

(37)
VI. I

vi. n

V ia

Vc.

C b.

8-

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
332

Example 9.3: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41-120 (beginning)

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
333

Example 9.3: Malidiction (HI 3a), mm. 41-120 (continuation)

A.
(S3)

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

Piano

(59)
VI. I

v i.n l

Vc.

Cb. si

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
334

Example 9.3: Malediction (HI 3a), mm. 41-120 (continuation)

(65)
V I. I

Via

V c.

C b.

P ian o

VI. I

V I. Ill

V ia

V c.

C b.

Piano
n m

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
335

Example 9.3: Malediction (HI 3a), mm. 41-120 (continuation)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
336

Example 9.3: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41-120 (continuation)

Vc.

Cb.

Piano

(96)
VI. I

pizz.
vi. n!

V ia

[pia-i
Vc.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
337

Example 9.3: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41-120 (continuation)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
338

Example 9.3: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41-120 (conclusion)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
339

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (beginning)

VI. I

v i.n l

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

Pian o

(47a)
VI. I

r-3
VI. ir m

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

[&

P ian o

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
340

Example 9.4: Malediction (HI 3a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

Via
m ig I P S frfT3JJ]
w ig ! =n k m

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
341

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

VI.
p r r t = H t H =
r- 3 i . n
VI. ------fe

r"p
% f f p
ff ? f c = t-
W n -* J - ---- Y- L1 1 K U H \ - * =|
TJ
r-3 --i j.
Lf E iff

jfl ?. I3 1 L_
ij) ] y ......... p fn-Er a ' K

Piano

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
342

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

i%- r -n

__ h* f
VI. .m a . h - i i i

V ia 11
1 r 1 11* Yr rr
EE*"I 11
r rr r tAl-h-r [T E- H r r d iV 7
. ----1*_|--- Y f _ly r~ ^ -f. . f fc k r

frl- 1,r r - v r y f I__ 1 A


1 r

P iano
Ik
m m m

V I. II'

Piano
S 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
343

Example 9.4: Malediction (HI 3a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
344

Example 9.4: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

Piano

[maicalo aemprc]

m m

[marcato sem

[marcato sempre]

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
345

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

(113a)
VI. I

p in .

V ia

V c.

Cb.

Piano

(118a)
VI. ll

v i. i r

pizz.
V ia

Vc.

C b.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
346

Example 9.4: Malidiction (HI 3a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

VI. I I
J- / 77 ---- t j iJ-
vi. ni1 ' ! J 2_vn-- 1^
WT' Bfj-jj
[pia]

1^31^---- ^1%
r 1^ ti
# 7- 7- ?- - - Ti
>
V ia
- 7 - -- *
[pizzj
V c. | 1 jfT ^ T^
|W_,|--ar^
itp
|J LU
C b. I
1

Piano
tip
(129a)

SI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
347

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

(136a)
VI. I I k

V ia

[rel
Vc.

Cb.

Piano

(141a) [m ircilo]

VI. I

VI. II1

V ia

Vc.

pis.
Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
348

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

)
t 4

K-t M u p | . -i , u p p~ tff I
i.

n g j * 1 y*
[ J u U - T "

f f f (marcato]
fir l* P I If fr P m P It

[marcato]
ft


P ian o

(150a)
VI. I

V ia

V c.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
349

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

-} J

ft
VI. r -------- jH *
-
V ia - k U aJI l4 J!
- T f- - r T- r

V c. |

A* M

C b. I

Piano

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
350

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

(168a)

VI. n !

V ia

Vc.

C b.

Piano

(174a)
VI. I

VI. Ill

V ia

V c.

Cb.

[ r - 3 i ]

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
351

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

(181a)

Piano

(188a)

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
352

Example 9.4: Malidiction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

1 1 Prrrrr
, , , , -lita-

P ian o ^

L P P P P PP J J

(202a)

P ian o

(209a) . \

Piano

333

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
353

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

mm im n j imm ,rn HQ
nl
mm m m

|J mm
i)i i j
r r r t i r f

Piano

iB
VI. 11
^ = i - j [7 3

faO itih* T T T > r , i ff-, - -i


f c - y V
V I. I ll
'P I ------------ 4---- V J

r , . u .
V ia ^ = * = f-
U a = |
" r ! J

V c. | - f f 1 :-----------1
----------
h I7 -1f
V - -------------
? - r r
------ 7 j~
f

f
C b. I
J f -v f r |* 1 #|*

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
354

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

Via

Cb.

Piano

(240a) J

TCP

Via

pizz.
Vc.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
355

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

(243a)

p is.
VI.

-e-> j
n t 1------------ f----
---- =--------
, _____________________ TCO|, f f pizz.

p is.

Piano

IJB
VI. II1

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
356

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (continuation)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
357

Example 9.4: Malediction (H13a), mm. 41a-278a (conclusion)

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

P ian o

(270a) pizz.
V I. i f

VI. II1

V ia

V c.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
358

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (beginning)

Adagio
VI. I

V ia

V c.

C b.

Adagio tenuto


Piano

J A

V I. II

w
V ia

P ia n o 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
359

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

- > =

iCT * T -J -----------f----------

|r t * r - | i =
V ia
* * J---------- ^---------- - 1 I-----z
-l:------ :

V c.1

C b .l

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
360

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

VI. I

V ia

Piano
[U]

VI. II

p ig.
V ia

[pia-1
Vc.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
361

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

23

p i ' p .^ = f -

r\
th h - =

/T s
V ia -.n i i
P"1 J i t d

V c.
.... *

/Ts
C b. I ~ -........
Trislong
silence

Piano

VI. I

VI. II

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
362

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

V I. I

V ia

V c.

C b.

vi. n

Via

V c.i

C b.
s .

P iano

Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
363

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

VI. I

VI. II

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

Piano

42
VI. I

VI. II

V ia

Vc.

C b.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
364

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (continuation)

. te ft lE .E IE t

ju f isgji $ )

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
365

Example 9.5: Malediction (H2), Four Loose Folios (conclusion)

yr*.. =
vi. n yr*
------------------------

-------------------------------- ST\
Via
d'i i
Vc. -
Cb. yi|t) - ==

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
366

Example 9.6: Malediction, Two Canceled Passages


a) mm. 9x-13x

9x

b) mm. 141x-144x

VI. I

V ia

Vc.

Cb.

Piano

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
367

Example 9.7: Malediction, mm. 215x-219x

sempre pmforte

sempre pitiforte

Via
sempre p it forte
f * t
W t i i

m
sempre pm forte
V
sempre pm forte

m
con bravura

fTstrepitoso
A

& strepitoso
A
V ia
w m
sen
V c.

JjTstrepitoso

8*-. _2S-! i|
a u rQ e &
t
L
m m' ~
_^
n jf| ........................

ifi
# ------------
P ian o jy stre p it
13IT n f l a t
m
sa

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
368

Example 9.8: Malediction (H2), Du bist die Ruh (beginning)

Lento
* vec beaucoup d'exaltation et de simplidti

sostenuto
K ano

K ano

V c.
r
radolcenie


0 0 0

K anos

j . Jj

T ' r

m ~ " h j - * ' J - y - j ju 0 A 0

rw . r
if -
*
y _ c[resc.]
K anos

\ s |
j~ij
------- j ---------- * ------- #
-JF ---------------------

r r r ^ Ifegalo]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
369

Example 9.8: Malediction (H2), Du bist die Ruh (continuation)

279a

P ian o crtsc.

284a

P ian o
w s

*&. (%&] 9&.


288a
fo-rf.Tf'f,
( g -F r r rr r r ^ > -m W rr
1 poco cresc. -
P ia n o s

# ------ J - J --------------- J | ----- J -------- 4-J -----



% . * *

J 'J>-
poco nt.
P ia n o s


296a marcato

P ia n o 1

i'Lj ^L
r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
370

Example 9.8: Malediction (H2), Du bist die Ruh (conclusion)

301a dolce simplice con amorc

VLI
cresc.
1 dolce simplice con amc e
vi. n1

Via

dolce simplice con amc n

Vc.
cresc.

dolce simplicecon amc pe cresc.


Piano

305a Molto animate quasi presto E ] = 257


VLI

Via

Vc.

Molto animate quasi presto

Piano PPP

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
371

Example 9.9: Albumblatt

Andantino

dolce
r r~
(a*
a

8 -

3* a j
P 5 krJ"] 4P! J.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
372

Critical Notes to Example 9.1 notes are transcribed as quarter notes). Atm.
16, the values are those of the source, and as
This example has been transcribed from the there is no reason to doubt that the tempo
sketchbook, D-WRgs, N6, with little editorial remains constant, it seemed sensible to make
emendation, the only exception being the addi the notation consistent
tion of missing accidentals. It is actually three
sketches: (1) ff. 13v-14 on systems 1 and 2; (2) 1 Time signatures and key signatures are lack
f. 9v on systems 3-6; (3) f. 27v at the end of ing. The notated accidentals suggest that at
system 6. this point in the score Liszt had suspended
the key signature.
(1) The notation is distributed as follows: mm.
1-3 are written on f. 13v/staves 10-11, mm. 2 Via: The sharp is lacking before the g.
4 -6 on f. 13v/staves 13-14, and mm. 7-11 3 Kano: The bass clef is lacking in the left
on f. 14/staves 13-14. The following acci hand, probably the result of confusion
dentals have been added: m. 1, natural to Fi; stemming from the cancellation of three
m. 3, sharp to G i and g; m. 6, sharp to C measures (discussed in the text).
and c , natural to F and c ; m. 7, sharp to
D, d, f, and f ; m. 11, flats to right-hand 10 Piano: The treble clef is lacking in the left
chord. hand.

(2) The notation is distributed as follows: system 16 In addition to the key signature, the time
3 is found on staves 1-2; system 4 on 4-5; values are written in 6/8, although no equiv
system 5 on 7-8; system 6 on 9-10. Clefs alent change of time signature is present.
and key signatures have been auuxl to siaves The measure begins f. 2. At first, Liszt
6,11, and 12. The eighth-note beam is wrote 16-20 for VI. I, VI. II, and Via in
lacking in mm. 6-7. The following acciden 6/16 at the bottom of f. lv, but after a few
tals have been added: m. 2, sharp to a; m. 4, notes in Kano, he stopped and rewrote the
sharp to a ; m. 6, sharp to a; system passage in 6/8 at the top of f. 2. See also
five/measure 4, flat to b and e . note 1-15.
(3) The clef has been added on staff 12. 16 Kano: The bass clef is lacking in the left
hand.
37,40 VIII: It is unclear whether the accidentals
Critical Notes to Example 9.2 in square brackets are to be applied. As
This example, along with 9.3 and 9.4, is a tran noted above, this passage is on the full page
scription of the sixteen folios in D-WRgs, H13a. collette (f. 3), and reference to the rejected
There has been no attempt to transcribe the many version of the passage on f. 2v, where the
corrections, false starts, etc. found on these equivalent figure is in Piano, has c-natural
alternating with c-sharp in 37, and the same
folios, although a few of the more interesting
lack of a sharp before the g in 40.
examples are noted below. The piano part is
transcribed generally as it appears in the auto 38 Via, Kano: Although a natural is missing
graph; the instrumental parts are discretely edited before the a in the second half of the mea
to conform to modem rules of notation. Redun sure, it is present in the earlier version of the
dant accidentals are deleted without comment, as passage on f. 2v.
are added such signs as missing accidentals, pro
longation dots, and rests to parts vertically, as 38 Via, Vc: The third note in Via is 6-sharp.
long as the sign in question is present in at least Given the voice-leading, a was probably
one other line. Other signs are added in square intended, although it is possible Liszt meant
brackets or noted below. Liszts disposition of to flat the b, as there is no accidental before
the score is: VI. I, VI. II, Via., Kano, Vc., Cb. the sixth note. In Vc, the second note is C-
At no point is the instrumentation indicated, but shaip (i.e., the same note repeated), but B-
the internal evidence of the parts is consistent sharp is likely intended given the natural
with these assignments. before the B in 39. If Liszt was writing each
measure vertically, as opposed to completing
1-15 Liszt notated all parts with note values each line horizontally, he may have confused
half those of the transcription (i.e., eighth momentarily the alto and bass clefs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
373

64 VIII: The measure is blank.


Critical Notes to Example 9.3
65 Cb: Liszt did not mark rests throughout the
This example is a continuation of Example 9.2. passage, but in this measure he added his
For an overview of the principles relating to the customary two pen strokes to indicate that
transcription, refer to the first paragraph of the the part doubled Vc. This must be an over
critical notes above. sight, and the single note is suppressed.
47-50 Piano: Although the word ossia is lack 70,72 Piano: In the right hand, the alignment
ing, the additional right-hand part written of the lower part is careless, and it is not
above Piano on a free staff is apparently possible to know whether Liszt intended a
intended as an alternative reading. Note also triplet or duplet.
the similarity to Ex. 9.4, mm. 47a-50a,
which may suggest he was copying from the 87 Via: The lower note on the second beat is b.
earlier version.
89-91 Piano: From c-double sharp to a -sharp
47-50 VIII, Via: Liszt was confused by his dif Liszt wrote only the top line and unis on
fering meters and wrote these measures as if the staff below to indicate the octave dou
they were in 2/4. See also 53 in the source, bling. Usually this would mean the lower
where on the first beat an eighth note is fol octave, but it is extended by analogy with
lowed by a single eighth rest, despite the 93-95, where the doubling is written out.
explicit change of time signature in VI I.
96 Cb: The last two notes appear to have mar-
Thus in 47 and 53 there is a single eighth
cato strokes, lacking in the other parts.
rest in the upper strings but two eighth rests
in Vc (also Cb in 47-52 and Piano in 53). 105 The time signature has been added.
These inconsistencies are resolved on the
assumption that Liszt filled in his score 105-106 VI I: The last note of each measure
from top to bottom, and therefore the lower appears to have a marcato, otherwise lacking
staves represent the correct reading. throughout the passage.
51-52 Piano: In 51, the first (repeated) chord has 118 Vc: The measure is blank.
A in place of G-sharp and g " in place of b"-
natural. It is corrected by analogy with 51a.
The second chord in 52 has three repeated Critical Notes to Example 9.4
F l, (i.e., one ledger line too many).
This example is a continuation of Example 9.2.
52 Cb: Liszt wrote A on both the first and sec For an overview of the principles relating to the
ond notes, a mistake that may stem from Vc transcription, refer to the first paragraph of the
which is a throughout the measure. As the critical notes above.
part otherwise doubles the bass line of
Piano, the first note is altered to C-natural. 41a The key signature is added on the assump
tion that this is an alternative continuation
53 Piano: There is a n / in the right hand. of 41. It is consistent with the content of
While harmonically possible, an added sev the parts, as is the time signature which is
enth does not appear in any other use of the also added.
motive, thus it is suppressed.
47a-52a Piano: Liszt crossed out his original
56 Piano: The third chord is lacking the sharp figuration for these measures and substituted
before b '\ although a sharp is present before the ossia of 47-52, which may suggest
the b of the last chord. Liszt may have added that he was copying from his earlier attempt
his accidental to the wrong note, and his at this passage.
intention is clear, given the repetition in the
passage. 53a VI I: Liszt notated a double-stop b'6-flat
eighth note followed by an eighth rest and a
56-57 VI I, VIII, Vc: The tie is lacking; it is quarter rest, then crossed them out.
added by analogy with 61-62. In Vc, the
change to bass clef is lacking. 59a Vc, Piano: The natural is lacking before all
ds.
62 Piano: The third chord has c .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
374

62a Cb, Piano: The natural is lacking before all 110a Via: The trill is lacking, supplied by anal
/s . ogy with the other parts.
65a The articulation is present in V II and VIII; 112a A change of time signature is implied in
it is added to the other string parts by anal Cb and Piano, but it is inconsistently
ogy. applied throughout the passage. Although
added rests are not differentiated in the tran
65a-66a VI I, Cb, Piano: The natural is lacking scription, note that for the strings in 114a
before all cs. only the eighth rests in V II and Via are
67a-68a VIII: There is a tie between the first indicated.
and second gs and the first and second as. It 120a Via: The sharp is lacking b efo re/; sup
is lacking in the other parts and therefore plied by analogy with VIH in 121a.
deleted here. It may be related to Liszts
original idea for VI I, where the part is writ 120a Piano: The bass clef is lacking.
ten with the rhythm analogous to Cb in
these measures. The decision to write VII 122a VI I: The sharp is lacking b efo re/.
in 2/4 may have led him to prefer articulated 128a Via: Sharps are lacking before/ and g.
triplets in the lower parts.
132a VI I: The grace notes are large enough in
67a-69a VI I, Vc, Cb, Piano: The natural is the source to be mistaken for sixteenths, but
lacking before all cs. this would be musically unacceptable. Note
69a-70a The articulation is present in Vc and also 140a. (Incidentally, this implies execu
Cb; it is added to the other string parts by tion on the beat, not before.)
analogy. 135a Via: A marcato in the source is suppressed,
74a Piano: The change to bass clef at the begin as it is unique throughout the passage.
ning of the measure is lacking in the left 142a-144a VIII: The slurs are lacking; added by
hand. analogy with 146a-148a.
79a Although the key signature is canceled in all 145a VIII: The second note is written as a quar
parts, Liszt may have lost track of it as early ter note; it is altered to agree with 141a
as 65a.
149a VIII, Via: The measure is written with
91a Via: The marcato is lacking; it is supplied only a quarter note, and V II is lacking rests
by analogy with V II and VIII. as well. The measure is filled out by anal
94a VIII: The flat above the trill is lacking; it ogy with 145a. Note also Vc and Cb.
is supplied by analogy with the preceding 155a Piano: The second note in the right hand is
measure. written as a quarter and supplied with a mar
94a Via: Flats are lacking before g and e \ sup cato; revised to agree with 151a.
plied by analogy with Piano in 100a. 159a Vc (Cb = Vc): The note has a marcato.
96a Via: The flat is lacking before the e, sup 164a, 166a VIII: The sharp is lacking above the
plied by analogy with Piano in 102a. trill; added by analogy with V II in 163a and
97a Vc: The marcato is lacking; it is supplied 165a.
by analogy with Via. 171a Via: The sharp is lacking before g; added
99a- 100a VI I, Vc: The flat above the trill is by analogy with 170a.
lacking; it is supplied by analogy with 93a. 174a The double bar and key signature are added.
101a VIII: There is a flat before the c \ deleted 173a is the last measure of f. 13r, leaving
by analogy with 95a. the lower system blank as well as the re
mainder of the top (four measures where
102a-108a Vc, Cb: Marcati are found only in VI twelve or more could fit). Liszt typically
I, added here by analogy. left space for revisions at important junc
tures, and, in his haste to continue on the
108a Via: There is a sharp above the trill. verso, he evidently neglected to add a key

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
375

signature. Note that a single sharp is con


sistent with all notated accidentals. 6 VI I, Piano: The sharp is lacking before the
final/1in V II and Piano, right hand (see Via
191a Vc: The note has a marcato. The discrep and Piano, left hand).
ancy between 186a and 191a appears to be
deliberate. 25 The words T its long silence are written
over Via.
202a This measure begins f. 14v, and the situa
tion is similar to 174a. The double bar is 31-33 VI I, VIII: The natural is lacking before
added, and the key signature is consistent g' in both parts. In VI I, the flat is lacking
with the notated accidentals. before the first b' in 33, although it is
marked before the second.
202a-208a Piano: The left hand was originally
notated in 6/8, and Liszt went back and 38 Piano: The change to bass clef is lacking.
deleted the eighth rests in each measure. 40 Piano: The last two notes of the right hand
Only in 208a did he query his decision with are lacking, the result of a tear; it is supplied
a question mark. by analogy with 41.
224a Via: The slash is missing on the stem; 42 Vc: The change to tenor clef is lacking; note
supplied by analogy with 226a. that there is also no change back to bass
226a VI I, Vc, Piano: The natural is lacking clef.
before all ds. 43 Piano: The penultimate note in the right
237a VI I: The c is lacking a sharp; added by hand is g .
analogy with 235a. 45 Vc: Both notes are written c, the first with a
240a The time signature is added by analogy sharp.
with Ex. 9.3, m. 97. 45 Piano: The sixth and seventh notes in the left
243a Piano: The e" in the seventh chord in the hand are written cf, g \ collected by analogy
right hand is lacking a natural (compare with to the first beat.
Ex. 9.3, m. 100).
248a The time signature is lacking. Critical Notes to Example 9.6
276a VI I: The natural is lacking before the c . Example 9.6a is transcribed from the copyists
manuscript, D-WRgs, H2 (pages 3 and 4
the holograph numbers are not by Liszt), and rep
Critical Notes to Example 9.5 resents a deleted passage. For mm. 9-11, Liszt
was able to make his correction on page 3 of
These four folios were originally part of a bound the copy, but for page 4 he used a collette in
volume, but they are presently located in D- two pieces (actually a single folio cut horizon
WRgs, H2. The first page contains unrelated tally). The verso of the lower piece contains a
sketch material (Inspiration mariotique; not first attempt at mm. 14-15, cued to the end of
transcribed), and the example begins with the the first system, but when he decided to expand
music on the verso. The score is marked the cadenza by an additional two measures, Liszt
Adagio but lacks clefs, key signature, or turned the piece over and, along with the other
instrumentation, however, the instrumentation half of the folio, wrote his emendation and
and the key signature provided in the transcrip recopied the contents of the rest of the page (mm.
tion are consistent with the internal evidence of 12- 22 ).
the parts. The parts are discretely edited to con
form to modem practice. Missing accidentals and 9x The sharp is lacking on the second / , as is
articulation signs are added without comment as the natural before the third.
long as they are present in at least one other part
vertically. 12x The fourth chord in the right hand reads
f^ / -natural.
4 Piano: The lowest whole note is lacking,
added by analogy with the surrounding mea
sures.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
376

pp. 47/48 found in D-WRgs, H13b. The small


Example 9.6b is a deleted passage from D-WRgs, notes and indications in square brackets are an
H13a (f. 12). The musical material is very simi editorial reconstruction of a missing part of the
lar to mm. 141a-144a in Example 9.4. Unlike page (mm. 273a, 278a). In addition, Liszt wrote
the earlier example, this is a diplomatic transcrip out m. 309a, here indicated as m. 257 with a rest
tion. in the left hand. This measure completed the
145x VI I: There is also an / eighth note, writ (deleted) page 50, and Liszt drew in staff lines
ten above t h e / , but this appears to belong at the top of page 51 in order to add in the
to the revised version following m. 144a. revised m. 257. Note that the treble clef in Vc is
That is, it reflects a deletion relating to the very likely an older convention used in place of a
added bifolium 10/11, not the earliest layer tenor clef, and therefore the part sounds an octave
of the manuscript. lower than written.
266a Vc: The sharp is lacking before the a \

Critical Notes to Example 9.7 268a Vc: The use of d for the third note is
found only in the second verse of Schuberts
This passage is transcribed from the copyists song.
manuscript, D-WRgs, H2 (page 40 the
holograph numbers are not by Liszt), and repre 269a Vc, Kano: The second note is a' in Vc, the
sents a deleted passage, replaced by a collette sharp before the a is lacking.
with mm. 215-220. 275a-276a Kano: The accent is lacking, sup
215x: The words con bravura are also written plied by analogy with 274a.
above VI I. Sempre piu forte is lacking in 278a Piano: The measure has been completed by
Vc and Cb, and in the other parts it is fol analogy with 282a. Note that the treble clef
lowed by a broken line leading to the ff in in the left hand is lacking as well.
218x.
280a, 284a Kano: The bass clef is found at the
215x VI n , Via: These parts were originally beginning of mm. 281a and 285a. Also the
slightly different, with cC (no flat!) in place slur in the left hand of m. 284a takes in the
of the/-sharp in the first two chords and/ - last four notes, corrected by analogy with m.
sharp in Via. The alteration is in Liszts 280a.
hand and makes the VI n double-stop easier
to play with minimal change in the sound of 281a Kano: The chord has c in place of the b \
the passage. Note that he neglected to alter See also 285a.
the third chord in VI n, likely an oversight
and emended here. Liszt also added the flat 282a Kano: The prolongation dots are lacking.
and natural to the first chord of VIII in 288a, 292a, 294a Kano: The alignment in the
216x, probably at the same time he made the right hand of m. 288a is clear in the
adjustment to 215x. manuscript, and it has been extended to mm.
216x Vc, Cb: The flat is lacking before the b. 292a and 294a.

216x Piano: The second e is lacking. 308a The time signature is lacking.

217x VIII: The flats are lacking on the first


chord.
218x Piano: The change to bass clef at the
beginning of the measure is lacking.

Critical Notes to Example 9.8


The transcription is a passage deleted by the
composer in the copyists manuscript D-WRgs,
H2 (pages 48 through 50 the holograph
numbers are not by Liszt), and the fragment of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER X

DE PROFUNDIS (PSAUME INSTRUMENTAL)

De profundis is the only work from this period that survives in autograph, no
doubt preserved because it was never completed and therefore never copied It is also the

earliest surviving orchestral score in the composers hand. Many details of the composing

process are on display, and an examination of these can tell us much about Liszts

compositional goals. Analysis also gives us insight into his stylistic development, which

displays a tremendous refinement over the aspects of form and content toward which he
was groping in Concerto No. 1, the Grande fantaisie symphonique, and, especially,

Malediction. In fact, this work of the 1830s makes use of techniques that are usually

associated with the symphonic poems and other works of the Weimar years.

Perhaps because it remained incomplete, De profundis was not included by Liszt

in any of the catalogues published during his life, nor did he mention it to his biographers.

The first reference occurs in 1908, where it is found in August Gollerichs worklist as
Psaume instrumental: De profundis! (Nach Lamennais).1 Gollerichs source must have
been the autograph score in the Liszt Museum, as the title matches the first page (although

he reversed the two phrases). The following year, Julius Kapp noted the work in his

biography: In Erinnerung an seinen Aufenthalt in La Chenaie komponierte Liszt damals

ein Gedicht des Abbd Lamennais De profundis.2 If Kapp had seen the autograph score

or Liszts letter of 14 January 1835 (quoted below), he would have learned that the

A ugust GOllerich, Franz Liszt (Berlin: Marquardt & Co., 1908), 281.

2JuIius Kapp, Franz Liszt (Berlin and Leipzig: Schuster & Loeffler, 1909), 62.
377

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
378

inspiration came not from one of the Abbas poems but from a favorite psalm, thus his
source was likely Gollerichs worklist

The work finally received scholarly attention in two publications from 1931, in
both cases from researchers with access to the manuscripts in the Liszt Museum. Peter

Raabe noted it among the Unvollendetes of his worklist (item 668) and dated it to the

1830s, probably on the basis of the 14 January 1835 letter.3 More substantially, Theophil

Stengel discussed it in his dissertation,4 rightly discerning that De profundis was a


watershed in Liszts compositional development:

Der Psaume instrumental ist wie die Malediction ein einsatziges Werk, jedoch bei
weitem ausgedehnter (fiber 900 Takte) und gehort zu den ersten Orchesterwerken
Liszts, bei denen der poetische Vorwurf die Form bestimmt Er gewinnt vor allem
dadurch Bedeutung fur die Weiterentwicklung Liszts, als bereits hier die fur Liszts
Klavierkonzerte und die nach ihnen entstandenen symphonischen Dichtungen
charakteristische thematische Verkniipfiing ihren Anfang nimmt.5
He devoted nearly three pages to a descriptive analysis, highlighting the salient features of
the work, and he summarized well its import as eine Vorarbeit fur spatere Werke.6
Despite the evaluation of Stengel, De profundis continued to fare poorly in the

secondary literature. Friedrich Schnapp was the first to suggest that the request in Liszts
letter of 28 July 1835 (quoted below) was the autograph of De profundis (his second

choice was the copy of Concerto No. 1), although this was later questioned by Rena

3Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 2:358-359; also
Felix Raabes Zusatze zu Band n , 26.

4Theophil Stengel, Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin,
1931), 11-14, [147].

5Ibid., 12.

6Ibid., 14.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
379

Mueller, who felt the reference was to Malediction? Only Keith Johns has examined the

work in any detail and set it in its historical context.8 Humphrey Searle included it in the

worklists of Grove 5 and The New Grove, placing it under Unfinished Works (item

691), and his date of 1834-35 was likely based on the letter of January 1835. He also
examined the manuscript and made the provocative statement: The work is a sketch in the
sense that the orchestral part is far from complete; but there is something written in every

bar, and with a little ingenuity it might be possible to complete the score.9 Searles
challenge was not taken up until some thirty-five years later, when no less than three

editions appeared within a years time, including one by the present author.10

Historical Background

>T

A date for De profundis hinges upon a single reference in a letter written by Liszt

to the works dedicatee, the Abbd F61icit6 de Lamennais. Liszt was introduced to
Lamennais on 8 April 1834 and spent 8 September to 3 October at the Abbas home, La

7Friedrich Schnapp, Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher Tonkunst:


Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942), 125-126;
Rena Mueller, Liszts Catalogues and Inventories of His Works, Studio Musicologica 34 (1992), 232.
See also chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix.

8See Keith T. Johns, De Profundis, Psaume instrumental; an abandoned concerto for Piano and
Orchestra by Franz Liszt, Journal of the American Liszt Society 15 (June 1984), 96-104.

Hum phrey Searle, The Music o f Liszt (London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1954; rev. ed., New
York: Dover, 1966), 13.

10The only one to appear in print is a two-piano score, Franz Liszt, DE PROFUNDIS: Psaume
instrumental fUr Klavier und Orchester (Eschweiler. Edition Joseph Acs, 1989). This edition was first
performed on 4 October 1992 with the editor as soloist and the Orchestra of the Ktilner Kammermusiker
conducted by Jdnos Acs. The edition by the present author was first performed on 5 May 1990 by pianist
Steven Mayer with the Residentie Orkest of the Hague conducted by Jacek Kaspzyck, later recorded by
Mayer with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Tamds Vdsdry (ASV, CD DCA 778,1991).
Another edition by Michael Maxwell was first performed 28 August 1991 by pianist Philip Thomson with
the Hungarian State Orchestra conducted by Kerry Stratton, later recorded by the same musicians
(Hungaroton, HCD 31525,1991). These editions are discussed in appendix B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
380

Ch&naie. On 14 January 1835 he wrote Lamennais about a musical work inspired from

this time:

Avant cela, j aurai lhonneur de vous envoyer une petite oeuvre, it la-quelle j ai eu
laudace d attacher un grand nom le votre. Cest un De profundis
instrumental. Le plain-chant que vous aimez tant y est conserve avec le faux
bourdon. Peut-etre cela vous plaira-t-il un peu; du moins lai-je fait en mdmoire de
quelques heures passes (je voudrais dire vicues) h La Chenaie.11

Thus Liszt was at work on the composition, at least through measure 188, the point at

which the soloist states a theme that is a fauxbourdon setting of Psalm 129 (130), however
it is not clear whether he was working on a sketch, in his head, or on the only surviving

autograph score (D-WRgs, H I).12 Since this score was never completed, as compared to
the other concertos from this time which were not only finished but copied, De profundis

may have been the last on which Liszt worked prior to his departure from Paris.

It is likely this manuscript that Liszt requested in his letter of 28 July 1835 to be

sent to him in Geneva, as his description matches the bound volume in most particulars:
Un gros cahier bleu oil se trouve un autre concerto symphonique que j ai dcrit cet hiver au
ratzen loch.13 Although the cover is no longer blue, Liszts score remains in a binding

that appears to be original and perhaps from this time.14 The reference to the work as a
concerto symphonique is also significant Liszt consistently used this term to refer to
one-movement works for piano and orchestra, as can be seen on the title pages of

11Franz Liszts Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel,
1893-1904), 1:12. The relationship between Liszt and Lamennais is discussed in chapter seven, Enter the
Abbd Lamennais.

12A11 measure numbers are to the authors edition; see Table 10.1 for a chart collating the two
editions and two recordings of De profundis.

13See Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, trans. & ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918), 21. This letter is transcribed in appendix A.

14This identification assumes that the sketchbooks relating to Malediction had been dismantled;
see chapter nine, Description of the Manuscript Sources.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
381

manuscripts from 1849 of Concerto No. 1 (D-WRgs, H3a) and Concerto No. 2 (D-WRgs,

H5a and H5b) and copies of these works by Joachim Raff (US-Wc, ML31.H43a no. 59

and D-WRgs, H5e). By contrast, in the same letter he identified his three-movement work
as concerto, and we also note the autograph inscription in D-WRgs, H7: Grande
fantaisie symphonique15 Finally, the indicated season (winter) corresponds to Liszts

letter of 14 January quoted above. As the 28 July letter also requests manuscripts that can
be identified with the Grandefantaisie symphonique, Malediction, and the earliest version

of Concerto No. 1, De profundis is the only known composition to which Liszt could have

been referring, thus the assignation is all but certain.16 This identification also leads to the
conclusion that the paper itself must date from late 1834 and early 1835, a crucial factor in

providing a time of composition for Malediction (see chapter nine, Sixteen Folios).

But although it is likely that Liszt had the autograph sent to him in Switzerland, it
is again unclear in what state he received it and which of its contents had been entered

before and after. The inscription of the Grande valse di bravura following the last page of

notation for De profundis provides a terminus ante quern, as the waltz was published in
1836. Examination of the manuscript itself can suggest some tentative conclusions, and

these will be proffered below. One thing is certain: after composing some 900 measures in

full score and even providing a title page, dedication, and instructions to a copyist, Liszt
allowed De profundis to remain incomplete.

We can only speculate on the reasons. One possibility is that the last measures

were written just before Liszt left Paris to rendezvous with Marie dAgoult, but when he

15It is unclear to what extent Liszts use of the term represents common practice. For example,
Henry Litolff titled his works for piano and orchestra concerto symphonique, but these are multiple
movement works. Further, it is possible that Liszt reverted to the traditional label of concerto upon
learning of LitolfFs publication. In this regard, note that Liszts Concerto No. 1 is dedicated to Litolff.

16These attributions are discussed in detail in chapter seven, The Compositional Matrix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
382

received the volume along with the other materials, the incentive to complete the work was

gone. This may have been the case with the other items requested, as Liszt appears to have
neglected the copies of Concerto No. 1 and Malediction, and the next time he required a

concerto he took the expedient of reviving the Grande fantaisie symphonique. And then, as

suggested in chapter eight (Reception History), the critical notices of the Grandefantaisie
may have discouraged him from further concerto efforts. In this last regard, we can

observe that over the next decade Liszt performed only paraphrases when a work for piano

and orchestra was required, his Grandefantaisie (18 December 1836) and the concerted
version of HexameronP

Neither De profundis nor the fauxbourdon of Psalm 129 were forgotten,

however. In October or November 1846, Liszt had someone copy into one of his

sketchbooks (D-WRgs, N5) in a stylized calligraphic hand a Prose des Morts (the Dies

irae with the first three lines of the text in the familiar plainchant, the second three in four-
part fauxbourdon, the rest alternating in this manner) and a De Profundis en Faux-

Bourdon, also in four parts.18 Sometime after 1847, these two pieces were also copied

onto an unbound bifolio (D-WRgs, Z18, no. 9) in a hand which Rena Mueller has

identified as that of the Princess Carolyne von Sayn-Wittgenstein.19 Liszt used both of
these chants in the first version of Totentanz, a score prepared by 1849,20 and in a version

17Hexameron was commissioned for a charity bazaar which took place 31 March 1837 in the
salon of Princess Christina Belgiojoso, and it consisted of variations by several of the leading virtuosos of
the day, Liszt included, on Suoni la tromba from Bellinis I puritani. In fact, the work was not finished
in time for the salon, but after publication in 1839 Liszt performed it frequently. The first known
performance of the piano and orchestra version is 30 March 1840 in Leipzig; see the review in the
Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (1 April 1840), column 299.

18See Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions (Ph.D.
dissertation, New York University, 1986), 194-195.

19Ibid., 265.

20See Liszts letter of 12 July 1849 to Lambert Massart, in Jacques Vier, Franz Liszt: L artiste
le clerc (Paris: Les Editions du C&dre, 1951), 94. Liszt may have had the idea of writing a work based

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
383

that dates from 1853.21 As is well known, this work is a set of variations on the Dies irae,

but in these earlier versions Liszt quotes thefauxbourdon of De profundis before the finale,

and the finale itself contrapuntally combines De profundis with the Dies irae.22 The

quotation of De profundis differs in one treble note from that of the concerto version, and,
as the Totentanz quotations match precisely the sketchbook and bifolio version, Liszt must
have used his more recent source.

Liszt also used the fauxbourdon in Pensies des morts, the fourth item in his piano

cycle Harmonies poitiques et religieuses. As with many of the items in the cycle, this was

the title of a poem in Alphonse de Lamartines Harmonies, but in this case the connection
went deeper: Lamartines original title was De profundis, modified to De profundis ou

Penses des Morts, and, finally, to Pensdes des Morts.23 Liszt was surely aware of the
history of the text, and this led him to forge an intimate relationship between two works:
from the piano and orchestra De profundis, he salvaged his transformation of the

fauxbourdon for use side by side with the original, and he integrated them both into a

reworking of the 1835 version of Harmonies, the new piece now titled Pensies de morts.

Unfortunately, the autograph of Pensies is lost, and there is no other evidence with which

on the Dies irae as early as February 1839; see Memoires, Souvenirs etJournaux de la Comtesse d Agoult,
ed. Charles F. DupSchez, 2 vols. (Paris: Mercure de France, 1990), 2:219. The earliest manuscripts appear
to date from 1848, however; see appendix C (paper types 11.1-3).

21See Liszts letter of 12 May 1853 to Hans von Biilow, in Briejwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt
und Hans von Biilow, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), 21. See also
appendix C, paper type 12.8.

22See the edition by Ferruccio Busoni: Totentanz. . . Erste Fassung nach unzweifelhaften
Handschriften zum ersten Male herausgegeben (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1919). Despite the claims of
the title page, it is the 1853 version that was published.

^ S e e Adrienne Kaczmarczyk, The Genesis of the Funirailles: The Connections Between


Liszts Symphonie rivolutionnaire and the Cycle Harmonies podtiques et religeuses," Studia Musicologica
35 (1993-94), 381-382; also Alphonse de Lamartine, Oeuvres poitiques, ed. Marius-Frangois Guyard
(Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1963), 335-341,1846.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
384

to date it, thus the time of composition can be narrowed only to after 1847 and before the
publication of the complete cycle in 1853.

Description of the Autograph Source

The music of De profundis survives in one source, a bound autograph score in


oblong format (D-WRgs, HI). Of the 100 folios of music paper contained in this volume,

the first folio was used as a title page, and the composition covers ff. 2-87, breaking off

abruptly at the end of the verso. This is followed by four folios without notation (ff. 88-
91), five folios with the Grande valse di bravura, also not complete (ff. 92-96), three more
blank folios (ff. 97-99), and a final folio whose verso is marked harpe, nineteen

measures in E-flat major to a work that is otherwise unknown (f. 100). Flyleaves on either

end are of paper different from the music folios. No hand other than the composers is

found, with the exception of penciled numbers 1 through 50 in the upper comer away
from the binding on all pages of which the music is continuous through f. 3 0 V . 2 4 These
numbers were probably added by an achivist, though it is unclear why they do not run
throughout the work. The binding is apparently original with Liszt and is intact with

leather spine and two cardboard covers of marbled paper. It has not worn well, no doubt

from the weight of its contents (as was the case with the Grandefantaisie symphonique, D-

WRgs, H7), and it is an easy matter to inspect the gatherings in order to determine missing

pages and other alterations to the original structure. From this, it can be seen that the
volume consists of 17 gatherings with (originally) three and four nested bifolia and a single

folio at the beginning and at the end (see Figure 10.1).

^These numbers are not found in ff. 2v through 4, for example, as these folios were at one
time pinned together and the music canceled; see below.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
385

Figure 10.1: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, HI (beginning)

Foliation: each folio is given a separate number, including bifolia that are not bound.
The numbers that follow are measure numbers: (recto)(verso). Numbers followed by
"x" represent deleted passages.

f.l (title)(blank)
f.2 (1-4,5x)(6x-10x)
f.3 (1 lx-17x)(6y-12y)
1* f.4 (13y-15yX5-12)
f.5 (1318)( 1925)
f.6(blank)(26-27)

f.7 (26x-27x, 28-34)(35-40)


f.8 (41-46)(47a-e)
f.9 (47e-49)(50-55)
f.10 (56-61)(62-65)
f.ll (66-69)(70-74)

f.12 (75-78)(blank)
f.13 (7981)(8286)
f.14 (87-91)(92-95)
f.15 (96-99)(100-104)

f.16 (105-111)(112-117)
C s- f.17 (118-125)(126-127,128x-133x)
f.18 (128-133)(134-138)
f.19 (139-143X144-148)
f.20 (149152)(153157)
f.21 (158-161)(162x-165x)
5**
IT
f.22 (178x-183x)(162-166)
f.23 (167-171)(172-175)

NB. In Gatherings 1-4, all folios are ruled with 20 staves with the exception of ff. 1,2,
and 6, which have 24. From Gathering 5 until the end of the volume, all folios have 24
staves, except f. 100 which has 20.
* In Gathering 1, ff. 2 through 4 were at one time pinned together, such that the pages all turned
as one, and f. 2r led directly to f. 4v.
** In Gatherings 5 and 6, ff. 21 and 22 were at one time pinned together, such that the two pages
turned as one and f. 21r led directly to f. 22v.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
386

Figure 10.1: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, HI (continuation)

f.24 (176-180X181-184)
f.25 (185-190X191-195)
f.26 (196-201X202-207)
f.27 (208-216X217-232)
f.28 (233-240X241-246)

f.29 (247-252X253-258)
f.30 (259-264)(265x-270x)
f.31 (265-269X270-272)
f.32 (273-277X278-285)

f.33 (286-291X292-297)
f.34 (298-303)(blank)
f.35 (304-308X309-313)
f.36 (314-318X319-322)
f.37 (323-327X328-332)
f.38 (333-335X336-340)
f.39 (341-344)(345-349)

f.40 (350-353X354-361)
f.41 (362-368X369-373)
f.42 (374-380)(381-384c)
f.43 (384d-394)(395-422)
f.44 (423-438X439-454)
f.45 (455-457)(458-46i)
f46 (462-468X469-475)
f.47 (476-479)(480)

f.48 (481-485X486491)
f.49 (492-496)(497-502)
f.50 (503-509X510-516)
f.51 (517-520)(521-524)
f.52 (525-528)(529-530,53 lx)
f.53 (531-535X536-541)
f.54 (542-548X549-552)

f.55 (553-558)(559-563)
f.56 (564-568)(569-573)
f.57 (574-579X580-586)
f.58 (585x-586x, 587-590)(591-596)
12*
f.59 (597-602)(603-609)
f.60 (610-618)(619)
f.61 (620-627)(628-632)
* The ff. 3)-32, 53-54, and 58-59 are insert bifolia, not bound into the volume and untrimmed,
as is also f. 60. Folio 57 was tom from Gathering 16, and f. 56 was at first detached but then
returned to its original position.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
387

Figure 10.1: Gathering Structure of D-WRgs, HI (conclusion)

f.62 (633-634,635x-638x)(639x-642x, 635-636)


f.63 (637-641)(642,643x-647x)
f.64 (648x-650x, 643-647)(648-653)
f.65 (654-659X660-666)
13
f.66 (667-673X674-678)
f.67 (679-683X684-687)
f.68 (688-693X694-700)
f.69 (701-707X708-710)

f.70 (711-713X714-719)
f.71 (720-723)(724)
f.72 (725-732)(733-740)
f.73 (741-749X750-757)
14
f.74 (758-762)(763-768)
f.75 (769-773)(774-780)
f.76 (781-785X786-789)
f.77 (790-795X796-802)

f.78 (803-809)(810x-815x)
f.79 (816x-819x)(810-815)
f.80 (816-821X822-826)
f.81 (827-831)(832-837)
15*
f.82 (838-843)(844-849)
f.83 (850855)(856-859)
f.84 (860-864)(865-868)
f.85 (869-872)(873-877)

f.86 (878-882)(883-887)
f.87 (888-892)(893-900)
f.88 (blank)(blank)
f.89 (blank)(blank)
f.90 (blank)(blank)
f.91 (blank)(blank)
[see f.57]

f.92 (blank)("Correction de la Valse")


f.93 (Valse)(continuation)
f.94 (continuation)(continuation)
f.95 (continuation)(continuation)
f.96 (continuation)(breaks off)
f.97 (blank)(blank)
f.98 (blank)(blank)
f.99 (blank)(blank)
---------------------------- f.l00(blank)("harpe")
* In Gathering 15, ff. 78 and 79 were at one time pinned together, such that the two pages turned
as one, and f. 78r led directly to f. 79v.
** In Gathering 16, the second stub following f. 91 is quite ragged and may have been a first
attempt to remove the folio that became f. 57. Folio 94 is also a poor attempt to detach a page,
but in this case it was already filled with music.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
388

Thoughout the manuscript, the music paper is uniform in weight and watermark

but displays two different rulings of twenty and twenty-four staves (see appendix C, paper

type 9.3). Although most of the paper has been trimmed for binding, the cut into the

watermark suggests both types may have been originally the same size (untrimmed twenty-
staff folios do not appear to have survived, so there is nothing to compare against the few

loose twenty-four-staff pages). This paper was likely purchased ruled, for, although the
staves appear drawn by a rastral, the distance between staves is nearly identical from page

to page. The twenty-staff variety extends through the first four gatherings, with the

exception of ff. 1,2, and 6, which are twenty-four staff. From Gathering 5 until the end

of the volume, the paper is twenty-four staff, with the sole exception of f. 100. The

change in ruling does not appear motivated by the instrumentation, as the entire
composition could have been written on twenty staff, and Liszt implied as much to a future
copyist on f. 19 (transcribed below). It is therefore likely that twenty-four staff paper was

purchased when the supply of twenty staff was exhausted, perhaps for no other reason but
that it was available and similar to the paper already used. This supposition is reinforced

by all the unbound and untrimmed insert bifolia (ff. 31/32,53/54, and 58/59), which are
twenty-four staff.

The existence of two staff rulings and the pages on which they are found suggest
that Liszt began writing on unbound nested bifolia but bound them at an early stage of the

works genesis along with a generous quantity of blank paper. This argument hinges on

the conclusion that bifolium 2/6 twenty-four-staff paper among twenty is a later

addition, as f. 2 appears to be a replacement for the missing mate of f. 5. In fact,

Gathering 1 shows three distinct layers of composition, but, without the missing folio, it is

difficult to reconstruct a sequence of events that would account for the two rejected drafts
contained on these pages. We can only observe that at one point these lost measures lead to

f. 3 (a skeleton score with only essential lines, evidently canceled early in the compositional

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
389

process discussed below), then to f. 3v (another attemp* at the same passage, now fully
scored). Ultimately, ff. 2-4 were pinned together so that the pages turned as one (the pin
marks are visible at the outer margins away from the binding). Thus, although there is no

visible sign of deletion, these pages were canceled. Further evidence that ff. 2/6 must be a
later addition is that f. 6 is almost completely blank. Therefore, the new bifolium served

only to rewrite the opening measures, while the earlier layer remained, represented by ff.
3-5 and 7.25 Note also that without the original mate of f. 5, Liszt needed to leave ff. 2/6
intact to surround ff. 3-5 and keep them together, something that could have been done

(and would have been necessary) with unbound bifolia.

In this regard, the two outermost folios of the volume can be best explained by

postulating that they were added at the time of binding as musical flyleaves, single pages

with no trace of a mate. The twenty-staff f. 100 is upside down with regard to its

watermark and margins vis-h-vis the rest of the twenty-staff paper and seems to have little
to do with the pages in the first four gatherings.26 As for f. 1, this twenty-four-staff folio
was used for an inscription written across several staves with the verso left blank: De

profundis / (Psaume instrumental) / pour Orchestre et Piano principal / par F. Liszt /&Mr

labbti de Lamennais. Although not odd in itself, it is surprising to turn the page and read

beneath the system of music, about seven staves from the bottom: De profundis / Psaume

instrumental k Monsieur Labb6 de Lamennais. The most reasonable explanation for two
such titles and dedications is that f. 2 served as the first page in the works unbound state,
but for the binding Liszt added another folio for the sole purpose of providing a label.

25Difficult to explain is the deletion of the music on f. 2v. Perhaps Liszt originally intended to
rewrite the entire opening, then saw how he could link f. 2 with f. 4v, but not before writing out f. 2v.

26These details are the same as the folios found in the Malediction drafts (D-WRgs, H13a),
which serves to underline the supposition that Liszt worked on the two compositions around the same time
(see chapter nine, Sixteen Folios).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
390

More difficult to ascertain is the point at which he decided to bind his growing

stack of pages. Certainly these folios remained unbound at least through Gathering 5 as
Liszt had to lay in a new supply of paper, apparently having run out of the twenty-staff
variety, and only at this time would twenty-four-staff have been available to use in
Gathering 1. Also indicative are the instrumental indications on f. 19 (the first page of

Gathering 5) which are written into the margin and would not have been possible had the

manuscript been bound. By contrast, we can examine the revision for mm. 26-27 on f.

6v. Liszt crossed out an earlier version on f. 7, and the new measures are written up to the

right-hand margin, clearly limited by the binding. While perhaps not unequivocal as
evidence, the presence of the binding can be deduced in the same way on f. 27v, thus we

may speculate that by Gathering 7 it was in place. Most suggestive of all may be the

change from three-nested bifolia to four-nested beginning in Gathering 9, and these last
nine gatherings may represent the blank pages that Liszt added to complete his work. It is

possible that Liszt did not prepare his volume with knowledge of the precise amount of
space he would need, but, with fourteen folios to spare, he may have had some notion.

Despite this evident confidence, Liszt planned ahead for certain types of
revisions. He left a blank staff above and below the piano lines (i.e., below the viola and
above the cello) and also appended a note to a future copyist: Observez quentre 1alto et la

main droit du Piano, de m6me quentre le Vioncelle [sic] et la main gauche il y a une ligne

vide destin aux Corrections (f. 12).27 Thus, he wanted to allow for the possibility of
emendations to the solo part in both his autograph and the copy. Liszt surely knew himself
in this regard, and revisions such as the two measures noted above on f. 6v replace no less

than two earlier versions on f. 7. For the same reason, he left most of the page blank on f.

27Disposition in the autograph is very close to modem practice, with the exception of the horns
placed between the clarinets and bassoons and the piano between the violas and cellos.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
391

34v and following the end of the central piano cadenza on f. 45, a practice found in his
other manuscripts of leaving blank space at the end of a section.

One oddity is the many folios of piano solo that are laid out for full orchestra.
Throughout the manuscript, Liszt took the expedient of always allotting one full orchestral
system per page (always with the same disposition), regardless of the number of

instruments playing, however in passages such as those found on ff. 7 v -l 1 and ff. 25v-

26v, Liszt must have had some sense that these solos would remain unaccompanied, just as
he did on ff. 43-45 where there are several systems to a page. Perhaps he was uncertain of

the effect he wanted and left open the possibility of adding accompanying instruments.

This aspect may also be the result of composing his work into full score (discussed below).

Overall, the reason for such pages is difficult to evaluate, as this autograph full score is
unique for this period in Liszts career.

Careful analysis of Liszts revisions often allows us to postulate an order of

entry, relative to one another. The revisions that were made without altering the make-up

of the volume fall into two categories. Where measures were canceled and immediately

rewritten, it is clear that these were made as the composition was being committed to paper.
In places where the alterations were made to completely orchestrated passages, on the same
or adjacent pages, no order of revision relative to the rest of the manuscript can be
postulated. Pages such as f. 3, which consists of a skeleton score, fall into the first

category; the replacement measures on f. 6v could have been entered at any time after the
volume had been bound.

More revealing are the many emendations that involved the removal and insertion
of pages. Folios removed can also be placed into two categories, those removed before

binding, as was the case with Gathering 1 described above, and those removed after. In

Gatherings 4 and 6, the pattern of missing folios makes sense only if the volume had

already been bound, confirmed by the jagged stubs of tom pages held in place only by the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
392

cords of the binding (not razored as in the Grandefantaisie). A later layer may be indicated

by the untrimmed and unbound insertion bifolia on the same paper (always twenty-four-
staff) found among passages of heavy revision, ff. 31/32,53/54, and 58/59.28

If these observations suggest revision after the manuscript was bound, others

suggest changes made while the work was in the process of being entered. As heavily
revised as are Gatherings 4 through 6, the folios that repeat these measures in Gathering 14
show no alteration, and Liszts emendations must have been carried out before he had
reached the repetition. Finally, observe that f. 57 was tom from Gathering 16 for use in

Gathering 12. Liszt would not have detached this page for use elsewhere in the volume if

he did not already have some idea of the way the work would end and the number of folios

he would need for it, thus it must date from very late in the compositional process. In
general, the latter part of the manuscript, from Gathering 13 to the end, reveals little in the

way of alteration, although this may indicate that Liszt had ceased his process of revision,

perhaps at the same time he put the work aside.

Analysis of the Work

The single movement that makes up De profundis may be divided into four large

sections: Exposition (mm. 1-232), Development (mm. 233-509), Interlude (mm. 510-
732), and Recapitulation (mm. 733-900). Within these sections, there are various

subdivisions, transition sections, and, in the last two, changes of tempo (see Table

10.1).29 The allusion to sonata form implied by these labels is deliberate, and the sections

28Rena Mueller states, there are pages from HI that were tom out and used for Liszts
transcriptions of songs from Die Winterreise and Schwanengesang (HBn L8 and L9); see her Liszts
Tasso Sketchbook, 86. As will be suggested below, all missing pages must have been canceled portions
of De profundis. In addition, the present authors examination of the song transcription autographs in
Budapest shows them to be on the same paper (twenty-four-staff) but untrimmed, with no evidence of prior
binding.

29All measure numbers in the text refer to the edition by the present author, and for this reason
Table 10.1 can also serve as a concordance between the other editions and recordings (cited above). The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
393

function veiy much as they do in classically oriented compositions. Thus, the work is in D
minor, with the Exposition containing secondary key areas in F major and F-sharp minor;

the Development systematically reworking the material of the Exposition and concluding in

A-flat major, the Interlude standing apart thematically as well as tonally, being based

around C-sharp minor but touching on other keys; and the Recapitulation beginning in D

minor but ending in major with transposed material from the first half. Although

technically unfinished, De profundis is complete in all its essentials and appears to lack
only a coda. Performance time runs just over 30 minutes, with the Exposition and

Development taking up approximately 20. The instrumentation is as classically oriented as

the form: two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, two homs, two trumpets,

three trombones, tympani, and strings.

As with so many of Liszts works, the opening of De profundis suggests the


tonality while undermining it at the same time. Unharmonized octaves in the piano and
lower strings suggest D minor, but the e-flat in m. 6 along with other accidentals in the

measures that follow put the key in some doubt until the dominant seventh in m. 13.30

Even when established in m. 15 and supported by a d pedal, the harmony veers off in other
directions. The motive from the opening now ends on g-sharp (m. 18), reinterpreted as a-

fla t in the following measures, and a major chord on this note is heard over the continuing

d pedal (mm. 19-20). Aside from the e-flat in m. 6, this is the first intimation of a tonal
area that will play an important role in the work. With the cadence in m. 28, D minor is

Mayer recording is of the edition by Rosenblatt. Note that the Thomson recording is of an edition by
Michael Maxwell, which has not been published. The Acs edition has not been recorded. A summary of
the differences between these is found in appendix B.

30Note that the piano does not play on either of the currently available recordings. Although
the autograph is clear on the doubling of the lower strings with the soloist, the reason the part is doubled
may be that the line dips below the range of the basses, and the bottom would literally drop out were it not
included in the piano part Most modem orchestras have basses with low-C extensions, thus the soloists
entrance can be reserved with good effect until m. 21. In any performance with historical instruments, the
passage should be played as written, however.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
394

Table 10.1: Analysis of De profundis31

Editions Recordings
Rosenblatt Acs Maver Thomson
Exposition
A 1-14 1-14 0:00 0:00
B 15-38 15-38 0:31 0:29
C 39-102 39-110 1:26 1:23
B 103-119 111-127 4:27 4:11
A 120-129 128-137 5:01 4:44
Transition 130-161 138-169 5:19 5:00
Listesso tempo 162-187 170-195 6:10 5:50
De profundis 188-232 196-240 7:23 6:54
Development
of B 233-256 241-264 9:33 10:08
of De profundis 257-271 265-279 10:27 11:03
of both 272-303 280-311 10:56 11:27
of the Transition 304-335 312-343 12:14 12:51
of C 336-353 344-361 13:07 13:41
E-flat pedal 354-383 362-392 13:36 14:10
Cadenza 384-457 393-474 14:31 15:00
De profundis (orch.) 458-480 19:11 20:24
Coda 481-509 20:39 21:58
Interlude (22:11)
Block A 510-537 475-502 0:00 23:30
Block B 538-556 503-532 0:51 24:19
Block C 557-586 533-562 1:16 24:46
Block A 587-608 563-584 2:08 25:32
Block B 609-627 585-603 2:46 26:07
Block C 628-647 604-623 3:12 26:32
Block A 648-662 624-638 3:47 27:15
Bridge 663-672 639-648 4:13 27:41
Block C 673-689 649-665 4:25 27:53
Block B 690-705 666-681 4:52 28:19
Transition 706-724 682-700 5:10 28:38
Bridge to Recapitulation 725-732 701-708 6:04 29:32
Recapitulation
B 733-746 709-722 6:14 29:42
A 747-757 723-732 6:41 30:07
Transition 758-789 733-764 7:02 30:28
Listesso tempo 790-799 765-773 7:53 31:18
New transition 800-821 774-795 8:15 31:39
De profundis 822-870 796-844 8:50 32:13
Coda 871-900 845-872 10:16 33:36
[Editors completion! T9019091 [873-8811 omitted 34:28
(Total time:) (33:49) (34:48)

31Note that the Mayer CD contains two tracks, thus the time returns to 0:00 for track 2 at m.
510. Total time for this track is 11:38.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
395

again affirmed, and the pedal tone remains on d until m. 33, where the rise to e-flat

prepares the first extended piano solo and the first concentration on A-flat major (mm. 39-

60). Throughout all that follows, the opening motive is prominent, culminating in a
fortississimo climax at m. 80. The material of mm. 15ff. returns at mm. 103ff., still not
very stable despite the d pedal in the tympani, and a return to the opening material at m. 120

brings the section to a close. Nevertheless, a principal key area of D minor is defined in
mm. 1-129.

Although this opening tonal area functions as the principal key area of an

exposition, the content is unusual in several ways that reveal Liszts search for new forms.
As noted, the section as a whole is not tonally stable, and the only stability derives from the
temporary establishment of the tonality a tritone away. This is not the secondary key area,

however, nor does Liszt introduce a new theme. In addition, Liszt creates an arch with the

odd proportions of A (mm. 1-14), B (mm. 15-38), C (piano dominated, mm. 39-102), B
(mm. 103-119), A (mm. 120-129). In the context of a sonata form, A serves as an

Introduction and B as the Principal Theme, but C departs from convention with a
modulation and extensive development of the A and B material. Liszt is thinking in terms
of the entire piece, however, and though C is too large in this context, it acts as preparation

for not only the end of the Development but the beginning of the Recapitulation. For the

immediate needs of the Exposition, however, Liszt balances the forward-looking nature of
C with the stability of an arch form.

A transition commences at m. 130, and with it a new motive is introduced. It is a


passage which seems to mix the formal functions of transition, second group, and perhaps
even closing group, and the result creates tremendous momentum leading to the next

section. The goal is F major, the expected secondary key area of a sonata form, and the

theme is a major mode anticipation of the minor mode De profundis theme (mm. 162-

180, with tempo marking Listesso tempo the first such marking indicated in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
396

manuscript). A simple repetition of a, the common tone between F major and F-sharp

minor, effects another modulation (mm. 181-187), and this rhythm, taken from the

beginning of the theme, will be used as a motive later in the work. Beginning at m. 188 is

ihtfauxbourdon that Liszt remarked upon in his letter of 14 January 1835, and it is likely
that he transcribed the harmonized psalm tone familiar to him from Roman Catholic
churches in Paris, the changing meters reflecting the accented words of the text In this

regard, the first three measures have the words De profundis clama[vi] written over the

notes, and the entire passage can be fitted to the opening lines of Psalm 129 as found in the
Vulgate (Psalm 130 in other versions). The De profundis theme is played first by the

piano (mm. 188-209), then repeated by the piano and winds (mm. 210-232), bringing to a
close the Exposition.

Continuing with the F-sharp tonality, the lower strings reintroduce a pedal, now
on f-sharp, and the Development first attends to the B section of the Exposition (mm.

233ff.), then to the De profundis theme (mm. 257ff.), and finally a development of the

two together (mm. 272ff.). Although the tonality fluctuates, as one would expect in a

development section, it always returns to F-shaip, the major mode in mm. 272ff. and the

minor in mm. 304ff. At this point, Liszt turns to the transition theme, then to the C section
of the Exposition with allusions to the De profundis theme (mm. 336ff.), and finally a

passage over an e-flat pedal (mm. 354-383), which functions as the dominant of A-flat

major. This pedal prepares an extensive cadenza in that key, a cadenza which occurs at
nearly the precise midpoint of the work and effectively bisects it. Beginning as the

previous piano solo (mm. 384404; compare mm. 39ff.), the music first repeats the De

profundis theme with recitative interjections, out of which grows a transformation:


although its origins as plainchant are still apparent, the meter is regularized, and it is
reworked and newly harmonized to be more melodious (mm. 405-424). The rest of the

cadenza is a composing out of the earlier solo (mm. 425-457; compare mm. 48ff.).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
397

Although it ends on a B major chord, the d-sharp is sounded by the homs using the
rhythmic motive derived from the De profundis theme and in this way immediately
reinterpreted as the dominant of A-flat major, and the orchestra repeats the transformed

version of the De profundis theme (mm. 458-480). A coda brings the section to a close

in A-flat major (mm. 481-509), the first full stop.

The Interlude is a contrast with the preceding material in virtually every respect:
meter (3/4 and 2/4 in place of 2/3), key (C-sharp minor/E major in place of D minor/A-flat
major), and thematic material. Repeated as jar against the cadence in A-flat, and the

rhythmic figure appears to be new, as is the theme that emerges from i t The impression is

deceptive on two levels: the a is harmonized as the upper voice in a diminished-seventh

chord that resolves to C-sharp minor, thus the previous A-flat cadence can be heard in

retrospect as a dominant (d-flat = c-sharp), and the rhythm is a diminution of the first four
notes of the De profundis rhythmic motive. Formally, the Interlude is quite simple, with
thematic blocks: A (mm. 510-537), B (mm. 538-556), C (mm. 557-586), A (mm. 587-
608), B (mm. 609-627), C (mm. 628-647), A (mm. 648-662), Bridge (mm. 663-

672), C (mm. 673-689), B (mrn. 690-705). The repetitions of Block A are variations,
and the material is adventurous in its internal construction, turning toward C major and then

to E major. For the first two statements, Block B is likewise repeated but modified at its
conclusion, the first time ending on an F-sharp minor chord, the second F-sharp major.
Rhythmically and harmonically it is derived from the first measures of A, and, as with that

opening phrase, the block is based in C-sharp minor, later turning to major. For the third
statement, the passage is written in its enharmonic equivalent and in the major mode

throughout.

Perhaps the most interesting component of the Interlude is Block C. The brief
transition uses a common-tone modulation, similar to that found in the Expositions

secondary key area. Brass instruments intone a s , the third of the previous F-sharp minor

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
398

chord, and this pitch is reinterpreted as the fifth of the subdominant, then the bass of the

new tonic, A major (mm. 553-557). The rhythm also looks back to the Exposition, being
reminiscent of the De profundis rhythmic motive as found in the transformed version of
the theme (compare mm. 405-406). Liszt is commanding us to pay attention as well as

preparing us to hear the links he has forged in what follows: the opening phrase shares the
harmonic underpinning of the opening phrase of the De profundis theme (tonic

submediant tonic dominant, mm. 557-560; compare mm. 188-199), underlined at

the repetition by sustained chords in the winds (mm. 565ff.), while the second phrase,
with its cadence in the mediant, echoes the harmonic motion of the transformed version
(first to the minor, mm. 561-564, then major, mm. 569-572; compare mm. 405-412).

The mediant is, of course, the tonality of the entire Interlude, and the theme is related both
to the section as a whole by this harmony and to the other sections of the work by the

reference to the De profundis theme. This theme always returns to A major, however,

and, after a final cadence, uses a common tone, a once more, to return to Block A (mm.
573-586).

Unlike the other blocks, Liszt was not content simply to repeat this material with

variations, and once again common tones are involved, as the f-sharp and a-sharp of an F-

shaip major chord are reinterpreted as two components of E-flat minor, used as a minor

subdominant of B-flat minor (mm. 624-627). Now the first phrase of the theme is heard
in minor, the second half in major, and the music remains in major until m. 642. Note also
that the internal repetitions are omitted, shortening the passage by nearly half. For the final

statement, Liszt reverses the order of the blocks, placing C before B. The bridge plays on

the use of a as part of the diminished-seventh chord that resolves to C-sharp minor, found

at the opening of the section, and, extending this harmony over eight measures, the music

makes overt the implied harmonic motion, resolving it down a half-step to a-flat, the

dominant of D-flat major (enharmonic equivalent of C-sharp, mm. 663-672). The theme is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
399

heard in that key (mm. 673ff.), again without internal repetitions, and leads, as noted, to

the final repetition of Block B. This time no transition is needed, as both sections are in the

same key.
In the transition that connects the Interlude to the Recapitulation, the line appears
to be deliberately blurred as to the precise point of the restatement of Exposition material. It

has certainly occurred by m. 733, where the Expositions B and A are followed quite
closely with only slight rescoring (compare mm. 105ff.). The beginning of the transition
corresponds to the middle of C, however, deftly dovetailed by using the prominent

eighthtwo sixteenths rhythm from the Interlude. This is a section from the Exposition
that is in tonal flux and, though rewritten in many respects, is generally parallel (mm. 706-

724; compare mm. 80-100). The passage that bridges the transition and the literal

Recapitulation highlights the juxtaposition of the two harmonies first brought together in
mm. 17-20, a diminished-seventh chord with d in the bass and an A-flat major chord,

themselves representative of the two tonalities that enclose the first part of the piece (mm.

725-732). Although these eight measures have no counterpart in the Exposition, the
passage signals the beginning of the process whereby Liszt resolves the opposition
between these two keys. The result of these modifications to the basic sonata form structure
is to shift the balance toward the restatement of the secondary key areas.

The literal restatement of material is emphasized, at least in looking at the

autograph, by the expedient of numbering measures from the Exposition and writing these

numbers in the Recapitulation between barlines without any music notation.32 This method
persists up to m. 797, with only the addition of a piano obbligato in mm. 758ff. In this
manner, Liszt repeats part of B, the transition, and the first half of the orchestral

32These numbers are as follows: 1-10 = mm. 109-118 (repeated as mm. 737-746); 11-49
= mm. 131-169 (repeated with added piano part as mm. 759-797).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
400

anticipation of the De profundis theme. He makes a striking about-face, using an

augmented triad in place of the expected dominant (m. 798; compare m. 170),33 following

which is a transition that takes the music to D major and a new time signature (mm. 800-

821). Rhythmically the section has some kinship with a passage in the Development

(compare mm. 257ff.), but it is the measures that follow which constitute one of the most
original contributions of the score. Rather than restate thefauxbourdon version of the De

profundis theme, Liszt uses the theme as found at the end of the Development and first

heard in A-flat major (mm. 822ff.; compare mm. 405 ff.). It is heard in a new
transformation, no longer religioso but marziale, and is followed by the cadences that

closed the same section (mm. 871-900, the last measures written in the autograph; compare

mm. 481-509). This gesture effectively restates all material from the first part of the work
in D minor or major, and, as noted, only a coda appears to be lacking.

In stark contrast to the other compositions examined for this study, De profundis
is admirably well organized, and the form is easy to hear over its length. Exposition and

Development follow classical precedents closely, as does the Recapitulation. The Interlude

functions as a contrasting movement, much the same way as a scherzo in a symphony,


although Liszt has taken care to relate one of its principal themes back to the other sections
and to dovetail the transition into the Recapitulation. In addition, there is a rhythmic motive

in all sections in a manner similar to the Grandefantaisie symphonique, but there is the

added distinction that it is derived from one of the principal themes. Finally, the two

extended cadenzas are not used for mere display but are organically related to the whole,

both thematically and tonally.

33Although Liszt did not write out all the instrumental parts for this measure, the notes of the
triad are present in at least one part.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
401

The single movement departs in three significant ways from classical


expectations, however. First is the unique tonal structure, ultimately establishing a tonality
a tritone away from the tonic as the final destination of the secondary key area. The second

is the use of thematic transformation for the restatement of the secondary key area in the

Recapitulation, itself derived from a transformation first heard in the Development.

Finally, there is the return of the concluding material of the Development to round off the
Recapitulation, blurring the boundaries of the one-movement sonata cycle the
Development now being seen in retrospect as part of the Exposition, not a separate section

but giving greater unity to the whole. These large-scale effects are additionally reflected

in local events throughout the score, as Liszt has set up a network of such relationships to

provide another level of unity. Such novel use of tonality, thematic transformation, and

musical organization will become the cornerstones of Liszts symphonic poem technique.
This unique organization of form may have its roots in a suppressed program. It
can scarcely be denied that a work with a title such as De profundis, a musical quotation

from contemporary liturgical practice, and tonal poles a tritone apart (diabolus in musica),

is programmatic in some way.34 Despite these observations, we are forced to speculate to

an even greater extent than with Malediction, where at least Liszt labeled several of his

themes. An important clue may lie in the text of the psalm:

xOut of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD.


2Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.
3If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
5I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
6My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say,
more than they that watch for the morning.

34Stengel must have viewed it that way, as much of his analysis is in programmatic terms; see
his Die Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts, 12-14. See also Johns, De Profundis, Psaume instrumental
103.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
402

7Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORDthere is mercy, and with him is
plenteous redemption.
8And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
(Psalm 130, King James Version)
For the initial fawcbourdon statement, the text is explicitly linked to the first two verses.

This reference may stand for the complete text: as quoted in the work, thefauxbourdon

creates a rather long passage of slow harmonic motion, and to include the entire psalmtone

might have disturbed the carefully worked out structure.35 Liszt may have meant it to
apply only to the helpless sentiment of the opening, however. Either way, it is the cry of a

repentant sinner toward God. After the storm and stress of the Development, the De
profundis theme sounds out again, first with recitative interjections after each phrase,36

then reworked to be more melodious, and this occurs at the precise midpoint of the work.
Meaning is again difficult to assign, as on the one hand the passage represents a stable

island of peace after the turmoil, but on the other it is in the tonality a tritone removed from

the tonic. Nevertheless, vv. 3-4 may apply, renewing the initial prayer but with a degree
of hope. The idea of waiting may be conveyed by the Interlude (w . 5-6), and the

triumphant transformation of the De profundis theme in D major may reflect the

psalmists conclusion. Significant may be the use of the A-flat version of the theme for the
final transformation: the statement in F major in the orchestra is cut off in mid-sentence, as
if rejecting the fauxbourdon formulation, and the emphasis from here to the end is no

longer on despair but victory. Whatever the program, Liszt allowed musical considerations
to prevail, and, unlike Berliozs Symphonie fantastique, there is no point at which one can

35For the first performances in The Hague and the recording, Steven Mayer increased the
underlying pulse for this section by approximately one-third, based on his experience in rehearsal. This
approach may be compared to the recording by Thomson, where the tempo is maintained.

360 n the programmatic use of recitative passages in Liszts music, see Ben Arnold, Recitative
in Liszts Solo Piano Music, Journal of the American Liszt Society 24 (July-December 1988), 18-22.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
403

say that the programmatic aspects overwhelm the musical ones. In this way, too, De

profundis anticipates the symphonic poems.

Such programmatic implications beg the question of the relationship of the work
to the inspiration provided by the works dedicatee, Lamennais. Several aspects of

Lamennaiss thought are relevant here, including the idea of promoting the cause of art by

avoiding the servile imitation of the past, and, along with it, the concept of the artist as
the prophet of the future.37 The novel approach to form and harmony in itself displays

the extent to which Liszt was caught up in creating new techniques for organization and

expression, in particular the single-movement sonata cycle and thematic transformation.


But equally important in this philosophy was a moral component: The true aim of art is to

perfect human beings, that is, to satisfy the dictates of the moral order, to assist the efforts

of humanity to fulfill its destiny, to raise it above earthly matters and set it in perpetually
ascending motion.38 Liszt himself expanded on this idea in an essay from 1834, where

he talked about a regeneration of religious music:

But today, at a time when the altar creaks and totters, today when the pulpit and
religious rites have become matters of doubt and derision, it is essential that art leave
the temple, that it stretch itself and seek to accomplish its major developments in the
outside world.39
De profundis was to be Liszts object lesson. The reference to the harmonized plainchant

would not be lost on his contemporaries, concretely relating the work to holy scripture and

thus answering to the moral aspect (above earthly matters). Further, the very nature of

the works genre places it in the concert hall (outside the temple), bringing its message to

37Quoted from Franz Liszt, An Artists Journey: Lettres dun bachelier is musique, 1835-1841,
trans. and ed. Charles Suttoni (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), xx-xxi. See also the
discussion in chapter seven, Enter the Abbd Lamennais.

38Ibid. , xx. The portions in quotation marks are from Jacques Poisson, Le Romantisme social
de Lamennais (Paris, 1931).

39Liszt, An Artist's Journey, 236-237.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
404

Lamennaiss expectant human race. That he never placed the work before such a

congregation may lie more in the circumstances of his life, specifically his departure from
Paris.

De profundis is the earliest orchestral work for which an autograph score


survives, and as such it is an invaluable document for gauging Liszts competence in

matters of instrumentation. The passages beginning at m. 15 and m. 233 display a nice


judgment of complementary sonorities, with the clarinet and bassoon sustaining chords

against the strings, and similar passages of the same effect are found throughout the score

(see mm. 282ff., mm. 800ff.). Also effective is the transition theme for the strings in mm.

130ff., offering a contrast to the preceding material and exploiting string technique with
well-considered divisi and double-stops. Further, this passage appears to be entirely

conceived in terms of the instruments and is, in fact, untranscribable for the piano. Liszts

interest in solos for percussion instruments is also found. As in the Grande fantaisie, there
is an effective passage for tympani beginning in m. 663, here alternating with piano. And

although the doublings of mm. 673ff. may seem predictable on paper, the resulting sound

is finely judged, and the use of cellos pizzicato among the arco strings in mm. 681-682 is
particularly delectable. Some striking effects work quite well, for example the sparse
texture at mm. 103ff., piano in its upper register and tympani placed against violins in their

lower register, and also the graded entrances of the woodwinds against the strings in mm.
282ff. This is not to say that there are not miscalculations. The gradual entrance of the
orchestra in mm. 73ff. is covered by the piano (even allowing for a period instrument) and

could use reinforcement. A similar problem occurs with the voicing at mm. 80ff., where

the theme in the lower strings and bassoon is covered over by the rest of the orchestra.
And passages such as mm. 162ff. and mm. 272ff. are not very imaginative. In addition,

there are hardly any exposed passages for individual wind instruments, especially

surprising after the Grandefantaisie in which occasional solos are one of the felicities of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
405

score. In this regard, a general criticism is that, throughout De profUndis, Liszt tends to

treat the winds, as well as the brass and strings, as a unit and employs these groups

frequently in opposition to the soloist. But, with few exceptions, the writing is never less

than competent, and the score itself is in no way the work of a novice, with mistakes in
layout and transposition being quite rare.

One harmonic aspect deserves mention before turning to the revisions in the
autograph, that of Liszts use of the augmented triad. To the extent that a piece of music
can be about a purely technical procedure, De profundis may be said to be about, first,

the juxtaposition and resolution of tonalities a tritone apart, and, second, an exploration of

the ways an augmented triad may be treated as a functional chord, as opposed to the result

of passing tones. Liszt introduces the chord in the Development, where its use in this

context is the result of passing tones and is further mitigated by an added seventh.
Nevertheless, he dwells on it for five measures before resolving it down a fifth via the bass

(mm. 267-272). A similar situation occurs in the piano cadenza (mm. 402-405). The
passage that truly astounds us, however, is found in the cadences that close the

Development, where Liszt uses the chord as if it were an accepted substitute for the

dominant (mm. 483-485 and 497-499). It is next used as a modulatory pivot that forcibly
takes us from F major (m. 798), and it appears again in a functional capacity throughout the

following transition to D major, where it is used repeatedly as if it were a dominant (mm.


800-821). Finally, it is found in the restatement of the closing cadences from the

Development (mm. 873-875, 887-889). Such an appearance of the augmented triad,


already planted in the other works from 183435, now exhibits itself in full flower and

from this point will become a regular part of Liszts musical vocabulary.40

^ S ee R. Larry Todd, The Unwelcome Guest Regaled: Franz Liszt and the Augmented Triad,
19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988), 93-115. Of course, Todd did not have access to De profundis at the
time he wrote the article.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
406

Analysis of the Revisions


After the tortuous gestation of Malediction, it is surprising to find the autograph

of De projundis relatively clean. Certainly the elegant level of organization could hardly
have come about through trial and error, and Liszt must have crystallized his conception

before setting pen to paper. This clear-sighted overview of the work, coupled with his

satisfaction as he filled the opening pages, may have led him to believe that the result would
require little in the way of major revision, thus he prematurely bound the folios.

Nevertheless, revision was required, and, unlike the loose autograph folios for

Malediction, we can consider these changes in the context of a complete version of the
piece.

One level of revision concerns details of instrumentation. Liszt may have


rehearsed his Grande fantaisie symphonique the previous November, and the concert of 9
April 1835 was an additional opportunity to hear the work. These experiences certainly
sharpened his sense for scoring. In mm. 15-21, Liszt made four attempts to adjust the

sonority, the first without any wind instrument reinforcing the pedal d in the tympani and

lower strings, a solo clarinet and the bassoons adding color to the string harmony (Example
10.1, mm. 15x-21x). The second version adds a sustained hom tone and slightly rewrites

the other wind parts (mm. 15y-20y). Identical to the second, the third version omits Cor. I
in m. 20y, and the fourth puts the hom in B-flat transposition. Finally, the hom is
eliminated, and the pedal tone is doubled by Fg. II. Liszt was especially uncertain of the

placement of the bassoons, at first allowing Fg. II to clash with Cb. in mm. 19-20, e-flat

against d, although he ultimately allowed the harsh dissonance in mm. 32-33. It may be

significant that these changes were entered relatively late in the compositional process,

perhaps after his April concert: the homs in D are found in an earlier layer of mm. 28-34,
indicating changes to this passage and mm. 15-21 were made after both were written.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
407

Example 10.1: Two Deleted Passages from De profundis


strings as in final version
15x
solo
Cl.
in La

Timp.

tympani and strings as in final version


solo
Cl.
in La

Cor.
in Re

Critical Notes to Example 10.1 tympani is lacking as well, and it is not


possible to tell whether this was deliberate.
This example has been transcribed from the auto Note also that Liszt wrote the revision from
graph (D-WRgs, HI), f. 5. The various versions top to bottom and must have decided to
are written over one another in mm. 15-18 or delete this version after writing the violas
crossed out one after the other for mm. 19-21. but before the cellos. As for the hom, the
The string parts are omitted for, as far as can be instrumentation on f. 2 has Cors en re, the
determined, they are identical to the final version, last two words crossed out and en fa writ
and the tympani is omitted in (b). Redundant ten in their place. Although version (d) is
accidentals are also omitted and stem direction for homs in B-flat, the alteration to f. 2
follows modem standards. Only (a) and (b) have must antedate that revision. In the final ver
been transcribed. sion, the homs do not enter until m. 79.
(a) Although all versions of mm. 15-18 are writ (c) The third version begins on the verso, again
ten over one another, it was possible to sort with homs in D. It appears to be the same
them out by the continuation in mm. 19x- as version (b) except for the omission of Cor
21x. In these later measures, there is no Cl I and the addition of a dotted whole note d for
II and Cor, and the tympani continues Fg II in m. 20.
through m. 20x. Note that these three
deleted measures were completely orches (d) For the fourth version, Liszt wrote over his
trated, with the exception of m. 21x, where
third, and the changes appear to be limited to
VIII, Vie, Vc, and Cb are lacking, and the rewriting the hom in B-flat.
piano part is also slightly different.
(b) Immediately following mm. 19x-21x is mm. (e) This is the final version as found in the
19y-20y. Again, Cl II is lacking. The edition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
408

More revealing, the original sonority of clarinet and bassoon is found at m. 233ff., and this

may indicate that Liszt returned to the opening pages to adjust the instrumentation at some

point after he had written the Development. Note that these revoicings were made without
the benefit of hearing the work, suggesting the extent to which Liszt could now envisage
the sound of the orchestra.

The bulk of the revisions are given over to changes of musical detail that affect the

pace of the work and, to a lesser extent, the proportions between sections. That the
opening pages of De profundis gave Liszt some trouble is not surprising, given the extent

to which these measures anticipate some of the scores unique aspects. In the first fourteen

measures, he wanted to present the motive that dominates the Exposition and also to hint at
the polarity with A-flat major. As noted above, this required at least three attempts,

including the replacement of an entire folio. The process of refinement was generally one

of condensing, for example the c-sharp in m. 9 was at first a dotted whole note, with the

rest of the phrase displaced by half a measure. In addition, the wind chord in mm. 12-13

was held longer as well as being differently voiced. Liszt did not wish to weigh down the

rhetoric of his large-scale work in the first bars, and the final version was streamlined from
seventeen measures to fourteen.

Other sections that required extensive revision can be inferred from Figure 10.1

based on the number of folios removed. Unfortunately, Liszt sometimes removed all

evidence of the revision as well. In the case of the gap between ff. 11 and 12, bifolium

12/13 appears to be a replacement (before binding), given its relatively clean appearance
and that f. 12v is blank, except for a one-measure correction to f. 13. Thus, three pages
may have been substituted for six, or possibly ten if the original ff. 12/13 was a
continuation of the missing material. As for the music, it is a critical juncture, the point at

which the B major of the cadenza makes its way to the orchestral outburst of mm. 80ff.,

itself significant as the point where the transition to the Recapitulation begins. The next

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
409

point of heavy revision leaves some trace, the return of the opening material leading to the

transition theme (mm. 120-129). Here f. 16v runs smoothly to f. 17, but from f. 17v to f.

18 a first attempt represented by six canceled measures shows that Liszt considered a fuller
restatement of mm. 7ff. As in the opening, both of these revisions reveal a desire to

streamline and condense material. And, as noted above, the alterations to Gatherings 4 and
5 must have taken place before Liszt had written the equivalent point in the Recapitulation,

as the later measures show no sign of emendation, indicating he was adjusting the

proportions before proceeding to the later parts of the work.41


The most substantial revision to the Exposition appears to affect the F major

orchestral statement of the De profundis theme. As with the opening measures, canceled

pages remain in the manuscript, as the reverse sides of ff. 21 and 22 had material Liszt
wished to retain. Here we can see that f. 21v began with a passage similar to mm. 162ff.
but identical in rhythm to the piano statement of the theme (compare mm. 190-191).

Following three missing folios, the end can be seen on f. 22, similar to mm. 178-183,

though in place of the rhythm of m. 178 there is a single quarter note on the downbeat.

Finally, even before Liszt pinned ff. 21-22 together, he had crossed out mm. 164x-165x

on f. 21v and mm. 180x-183x on f. 22, suggesting he tried to revise the passage before he

canceled it. Note that all the music on these rejected folios was completely orchestrated.
The content of the six pages that originally lay between these two folios can only be a

matter of speculation, but Liszts first attempt at an orchestral anticipation of the De

profundis theme may have been a complete statement in F major of the music as it appears
for the soloist in F-sharp minor (mm. 188-209). As for the last measure of f. 22 (m.

183x), we may presume that it was never intended to follow the passage on the verso (mm.

41Winklhofer deduced a similar sequence of events in her study of the autograph of the Sonata in
B Minor; see her Liszts Sonata in B Minor: A Study o f Autograph Sources and Documents (Ann Arbor:
UMI Research Press, 1980), 110.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
410

162ff.). Liszt must have written and completely orchestrated the De profundis theme,
then immediately replaced it, but not before an attempt to revise it by crossing out several

measures. When this failed, he had no recourse except to rewrite it And as with the

previous passages examined, the new version is streamlined: 18 measures, some of shorter
duration, in place of 22. Impossible to ascertain is the content of the rive folios tom

between ff. 23 and 24. Here there is no clue, but the revision must have taken place while

Liszt was writing out the passage, and it again represents a streamlining.
Throughout the Development there is little evidence of extensive revision, with
the exception of the passage beginning at m. 265. Liszt removed two folios following f.
30 and perhaps also the bifolium from the center of Gathering 8. This last observation

assumes three nested bifolia, consistent with the other gatherings up to this point, although

given that all the gatherings that follow have four, it is also possible that two bifolia were
removed. Note that the canceled music on f. 30v was orchestrated and that in place of
these pages Liszt used an untrimmed bifolium (ff. 31/32). Both of these observations

suggest that some time must have passed between the first version and the revision and the

first version had been completely worked out and ran through all the missing folios. The
replacement begins precisely as the first version, as the canceled mm. 265x-269x on f. 30v

are quite similar to the measures on f. 31, but, because the music at the end of the bifolium

matches up precisely with f. 33, the next page in the volume, it is impossible to speculate

on the content of the entire passage. Nevertheless, it may be concluded that the earlier
version was considerably longer, and this makes it consistent with the revisions to the
Exposition.

The same conclusions consistently hold for the Interlude. Four folios were

removed from Gatherings 11 and 12 (between ff. 52 and 55) and replaced by an unbound
and untrimmed bifolium (ff. 53/54), thus, analogous to the similar situation with respect to
bifolium 31/32, four pages must replace eight. From internal evidence it can also be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
411

inferred that the content was modified, as the single canceled measure on f. 52v is

somewhat different from the first measure on the bifolium, and the continuation contained a
change of key signature, from four sharps to three (the accidentals beginning at the start of
f. 55 consistently omit a natural before all ds). Regarding ff. 57-60, these are all

replacement folios, and they replace the equivalent number of pages. In this case, Liszts

revisions may have been of instrumental detail, as suggested by the alteration to the second

violin part on f. 56. The revisions in Gathering 13 again demonstrate Liszts desire to

streamline his material, and here we are fortunate to have both versions fully at our
disposal. Liszt canceled eight measures between mm. 634 and 635 (Example 10.2) and
four measures between mm. 642 (itself rewritten) and 643 (Example 10.3). Comparing
this passage with the first statement of Block B, we see that they were originally the same

length, but Liszt pared down his material from thirty measures (mm. 557-586) to twenty

(mm. 628-647) by eliminating repetition. He must have felt that this music had overstayed

its welcome and looked for ways to shorten without otherwise affecting the overall form.
As noted, there is very little revision throughout the Recapitulation, but whether

this was a result of the literal repetition of material or because Liszt had already laid the

work aside cannot be determined. Looking over the work as a whole, all the above
revisions did not affect the large-scale form, and the refinement of detail appears to have

been for the purpose of eliminating any longueurs. We also saw this in the Grande

fantaisie symphonique, the only work from this period which was performed, and, as with
changes to the orchestration, this experience may have inspired some of the revisions to De
profundis.

One further observation can be cautiously advanced. Stengel may have been the
first to observe: Die Handschrift macht uberhaupt den Eindruck eines ersten Entwurfes,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
412

Example 10.2: De profundis, mm. 635x-643x (beginning)

m
Ob.

a.
in La

Cor.
in Fa

Tr.
in Fa

Trb. m 1

Tim p.

Piano

pizz.
v i. n 1

V ie

[pizz.]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
413

Example 10.2: De profundis, mm. 635x-643x (continuation)

638x

[I]
Ob.

a.
in L a

Cor.
in F a

Tr.
in F a

Tim p.

8~

Piano

VI. n

Vie

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
414

Example 10.2: De profundis, mm. 635x-643x (conclusion)

[it r --------------- ,
9J 1
i
i |(kb- r ------------------- 9--------- j ------------------ 4 ^

a .........
r 7 ----------------------------

to-----------------------------------------

Iftlr................ .................................

a 4 ..... ....................... .. ........


*

. l
l4 rfF ir- f t f f f * P f 1

i---------- 1 J I 91 : zH---------- F = J -1
^ --------- j - 4 J - J "-J---------------------------1
i d i 1

----F T + --- T T

* y i---------- 5
------[> 7 *--------- s L - I

Ip
KL L ^J 'l?
L - . Tv 1* -------
......................
: r ~ r-: * *' = H
t
v =----- 11----------r
:----- ----------k z=
-t i ....... -=

- f - .- , - ,...... =
S ^ M = -- > ......

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
415

Example 10.3: De profundis, mm. 642x-648x (beginning)

642x

[i]
Ob.

a.
in La

Cor.
in Fa

Tr.
in Fa

Tib. I, HI

Timp.

Piano

(pizz.) [arco]

(pizz.) [arco]

Vie

(pizz.)

(pizz.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
416

Example 10.3: De profundis, mm. 642x-648x (conclusion)

645x

rm j j v j

Tib.I,U

Trb. ni

Timp.

Piano

VI. I

VI. n

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
417

Critical Notes to Example 10.2 642x-643x It is clear from the crossed out acci
dentals that at one point Liszt had in mind to
This example is transcribed from the autograph cadence in D major, as at the analogous
(D-WRgs, HI), f. 62, and has been edited to con place in mm. 571-572. For 642x, these
form to the present writers edition. The piano were as follows: Cl I, natural before a ;
part is transcribed generally as it appears in the Piano, sharp before all f s (also 643x); VI I,
autograph; the instrumental parts are discretely sharp b efo re/; VI n, sharp b efo re/ (also
edited to conform to modem rules of notation. 643x). In addition, the note on the second
Redundant accidentals are deleted without com beat for Piano, right hand, and VII was orig
ment, and signs are added, such as missing acci inally fr-natural. Liszt altered these measures
dentals, prolongation dots, and rests to parts ver to cadence in D minor before canceling the
tically, as long as the sign in question is present entire passage.
in at least one other line. Other signs are added
in square brackets or noted below. Note that all
slurs are added, based on a single model in m. Critical Notes to Example 10.3
580 (itself not completely drawn; see f. 57v). To
insert this example into die score, these nine This example is transcribed from the autograph
measures take the place of m. 635. (D-WRgs, HI), ff. 63v-64. For editorial policy,
refer to the notes for Example 10.2. To insert
628-634 Liszts revision of this passage is not this example into the score, these seven measures
limited to the two examples but covers vir take the place of mm. 642-644.
tually every measure. Tlie first version was
an exact transposition of mm. 557-563. He 642x Both layers are written one over the other,
crossed this out and wrote the new version except for the piano, which was rewritten on
on staves beneath the braced score. In mm. staves beneath the orchestral brace. Two
634-635, this new version originally versions are also found for the piano in mm.
cadenced in F major, with slighdy different 644x-646x; the second is transcribed, as the
figuration. For the final version, Liszt first leads to an earlier version of m. 647x,
deleted mm. 635x-642x. incompletely scored and immediately
canceled. Cl, VI n, and Vie are also affected
635x Cl: The autograph has no key signature,
in m. 646x, as two versions are again writ
and Liszt indicated all accidentals in the part
ten, one over the other. In all cases the later
639x-643x Vc, Cb: At the page turn, Liszt layer is transcribed.
neglected to fill in the lower strings. The
parts are completed by analogy with mm. 647x-648x Vc: The articulation in these mea
568-572. sures is in the source, extended to V II in
646x and Vie in 647x.
641x Piano: The second chord in the left hand is
lacking a connecting beam to the last two 648x Vc, Cb: There is no way to determine
chords. It is supplied by analogy with the whether the figure on the second and third
rest of the passage. beats belongs to the earliest layer.

dem die letzte Feile abgeht.42 Put another way, Liszt appears to have written his full score

without the benefit of a draft, notating essential instrumental lines for his first pass in the

42StengeI, Die Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts, 14.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
418

manner found in autographs of Mozart and Rossini.43 As in the case of Rossini, Liszt

allotted one system per page, regardless of the number of instruments playing. While it is
true that he may have wanted to allow himself the option of adding to or altering his
orchestration, it is more likely that, had there been a sketch stage, he would have been more

assured about the effect he wanted. Most revealing are the folios that were immediately

canceled. Folio 3 contains only a skeleton score, limited to the piano right hand in mm.
1lx-12x (lacking the left hand and cello) and the clarinets (lacking bassoons and perhaps

horns, as on f. 4, mm. 14y-15y). Liszt must have decided immediately to cancel this

continuation, and the verso follows from f. 2. A similar situation is found on ff. 78v-79,

where a flute line alternates with VI. I in mm. 810x-818x, at which point the horns take

over. Again the deletion must have been immediate, as Liszt decided to insert additional
measures between mm. 813x and 814x, and 818x and 819x. He must have realized this
before the end of f. 79, as there is blank space for an additional measure, and he effected
the cancellation by pinning ff. 78-79 so that they turned as one (as with ff. 2-4, the pin

marks are visible at the outer edge of the margin). Finally, there is the passage on ff. 63v-

64, four measures that originally followed m. 646x of Example 10.3. Although the last

measure of f. 63v is completely orchestrated except for the piano, the three measures on f.

64 have only Cor. and VI. I.


These pages resemble those of an incomplete work by Rossini, described by

Gossett as follows:

The manuscript paper contains sixteen staves and is ruled for full orchestra, but
Rossini has filled in only the most essential lines, normally the first violin when it

43See Philip Gossett, Gioachino Rossini and the Conventions of Composition, Acta
Musicologica 42 (1970), 51-52.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
419

carries the melody, the bass of the harmony, and all vocal lines. Occasionally brief
traces of orchestration or accompaniment figures are indicated.44
This technique allowed the composer to write out the draft and orchestration in one stage, a

tremendous saving of labor. Gossett continues: Having completed a sketch of the entire

piece, or a large portion of it, in this manner, [Rossini] would return to the beginning and

fill in the remainder of the orchestration and accompaniment45 Also revealing in Liszts

manuscript are the orchestrated folios that were immediately canceled. As discussed above,
the passages in Gatherings 5 and 6 were apparently deleted after being written in full score
but before Liszt had proceeded to the next section. Likewise, the adjustments made to the

material in Gathering 4 were revised at some point before the repetition of these measures

in the Recapitulation. If Liszt had drafted his material in piano score, certainly he would

have decided at that stage whether a particular passage worked in its context. Rather, he

appears to have made these decisions while writing the full and only score.
Of course, his circumstances were different from Rossinis, and we may presume
that he was not under time pressure to produce his work. The contrary is more likely, and

we have previously speculated that the earliest version of Concerto No. 1 was sketched in

piano score, while surviving autographs reveal that Liszt used a similar process for the

three concertos prepared in 1839 (see chapter eight, Manuscript Sources). In these

cases, Liszt prepared an orchestral score without a piano part and modified the draft to

serve that purpose, and the two manuscripts were then collated and copied into a single
score. The De profundis autograph has all parts present, however, and the lack of a draft

again seems the best explanation. And when we take into account the unfinished state of

^Ibid., 51. See also Gioachino Rossini, Edipo Coloneo, ed. Lorenzo Tozzi and Piero Weiss,
Edizione Critica delle opere di Gioachino Rossini, series 22, vol. 1 (Pesaro: Fondazione Rossini, 1985). In
this edition, all orchestral parts that are not by Rossini are surrounded by shaded boxes and immediately
apparent

45Gossett, Gioachino Rossini and the Conventions of Composition, 52.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
420

the autograph and Liszts request for it in Geneva, it is unthinkable that he would not have

asked for his sketch, if there ever was one. Liszt must have worked out to a considerable

degree in his head the composition of De profundis, and this organization gave him the
confidence to forego a sketch stage and write directly into the score. That he ultimately
needed to revise De profundis, removing and adding pages to his bound volume, may have
been in his mind four years later when he returned to the concerto genre and the use of a

piano score.

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of De profundis is the incomplete state of the

autograph. All the music as found in the final layer is fully orchestrated, and it appears that
the four folios left blank following the fully written verso of f. 87 were to contain the final

measures of the work. This observation suggests that Liszt had composed the coda, or at
least had some idea of its general content. That he thought of De profundis as complete in

some sense is also clear from notes made to a future copyist, though the unfinished state of

the work makes it doubtful that it was ever given to one.46 Rather than bring De profundis

to performance, Liszt turned his attention toward audience-pleasing piano pieces, and it is
symbolic of these years in Switzerland that the next work inscribed in the bound volume
was the Grande valse di bravura.

Conclusion
In many ways De profundis marks the climax to Liszts first maturity. For the

first time Liszt was able to combine in a single movement the structure of sonata form and
the variety of a multi-movement work, an integration of types whose success had
previously eluded him. Here the sections themselves are equally apportioned and carefully

^ O n f. 12: Notapour le Copiste: Suivez toujours cette disposition dInstruments Ire ligne,
Flute 2de Oboe 3me Clair etc = Observez quentre Valto et la main droite du Piano, de meme quentre le
Vio[lo]ncelle et la main gauche il y a une ligne vide destine aux Corrections!.] For f. 19 (the first
complete gathering of twenty-four-staff paper): Suivez toujours (sur le papier a 24 port&s) cette disposition
dInstruments, qui est exactement la meme quauparavant.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
421

arranged around their themes and key centers to function as the requisite parts of
exposition, development, and recapitulation. Within these sections, the themes are well

suited for the purpose they serve, whether as stable key areas or as part of a transition. In

addition, the use of thematic transformation appears to be a completely original contribution

by Liszt to the organization of a single-movement composition. Certainly thematic


transformation had been used to structure works before, most notably in Franz Schuberts

Fantasy in C major, Wanderer, op. 15 (D. 760), but there it plays no role in the tonal

organization. Liszts use of it in this respect may be the first. Nor was he any less

adventurous in the use of harmony: his bold use of the augmented triad follows earlier

attempts to make it part of his chordal vocabulary. Finally, the orchestration is thoroughly
competent and appropriate to the musical context. Formal function, thematic content, and
tonal use are in balance, creating a well-proportioned result whose very elegance makes the
great length of the work possible.

The autograph of De profundis is mute testimony to the refinement of Liszts

musical thought at this stage of his development. Although it is unclear the extent to which

he had sketched the composition, there is little doubt that he bound the manuscript before
the work was complete within its pages, thus the work must have been envisioned in all its
essentials. That he bound it at all suggests the importance he attached to the work. It also

suggests tremendous confidence on Liszts part in his ability to plan a large-scale


composition, and, based on his revisions to the score, this confidence may not have been

misplaced, as these refinements do not tamper with the formal layout of the work but

merely adjust its proportions. That it remained incomplete in the autograph reflects neither
Liszts skill nor conception: the work is finished in all its essentials, lacking only a coda.

There seems little reason to doubt that, had he not been interrupted, De profundis would
have been copied and prepared for performance.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
422

There is a unanimity of vision in the Grandefantaisie symphonique, the earliest

version of Concerto No. 1, Malediction,and De profundis that links them together,

reinforcing the historical argument and evidence drawn from the primary sources, and we

can picture Liszt groping toward a new strategy for musical organization that would take

the place of sonata form while still maintaining its coherence. Concerto No. 1 is the most

disjointed, allowing fantasia-like expansiveness at the expense of formal stability,


especially in the first movement Malediction appears more to have been assembled than
composed, with the result that analysis of the form is belied by what the listener hears. The
Grandefantaisie symphonique is better organized at the level of thematic relationships, but

the demands of the paraphrase genre took precedence over the form, with the result that the

two sections contrast but do not balance except in terms of length. With De profundis,

Liszt was able to refine his vision of a single-movement work: the different sections
contrast but are in balance, and the themes are designed for specific use. Malediction and

the earliest version of Concerto No. 1 were both awkward in their attempts to reconcile the
principles of sonata form within a more ambitious framework, but.De profundis blended its

component parts into a multi-section context, all in a way that strikingly prefigures the

Sonata in B Minor.

In addition, there is the implied use of a program. Aside from his desire to put
Lamennaiss ideas into practice, the poetic aspect is notable as the final component in the

complex that made the symphonic poem a watershed in musical development at mid

century. In its immediate context as the first fruit of a new genre of religious music (to use
Liszts own designation), De profundis died on the vine, and, for all his fervor, this radical

experiment stands virtually alone in Liszts output, complemented by only a handful of

short piano pieces. His return to sacred music in the mid-1840s coincided with his return
to the church and traditional modes of religious expression (masses, psalm settings for

liturgical use, and, later, oratorios). But he did not forget De profundis, and for his only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
423

other major statement of religious expression in secular forms, he salvaged the A-flat major

version of the De profundis theme for use in Pensies des morts, the fourth number in his
cycle of piano pieces Harmonies podtiques et religieuses.

Nevertheless, it is in some way fitting that the man who may have been
responsible for reigniting Liszts compositional spark was the direct inspiration for a work

that, in refinement and technique, pointed the way to Liszts future. Following hommages

to Berlioz, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Schubert, works for piano and orchestra and
chamber music, stimulation religious and secular, Liszt was able to find an appropriate

combination and focus his ideas. Even more remarkable is that he did not deviate from this

basic conception through all the works of his Weimar years. More than any of the other
compositions examined for this study, De profundis takes us to the threshold of Liszts

maturity.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

The following letters are presented for the first time, complete and in their original
language. Idiosyncrasies in spelling and punctuation are preserved, with the exception of

an occasional missing accent, which is tacitly added, and the abbreviation of repeated letters

by a line (e.g., double ms and ns), which are written out. Regarding the introductions
and annotations to each letter, only those details directly relevant to Liszt are footnoted.

To Anna Liszt, 28 July 1835


Liszt and the Countess Marie dAgoult left Paris separately at the end of May
1835. With the imminent scandal of her pregnancy, the two lovers evidently decided that a

hasty exit was the best course of action and next met in Basel at the beginning of June.

They settled in Geneva after a brief period of travel, first at the Hotel des Balances on 19

July, then into a residence on the rue Tabazan on 28 July, where they remained until the

following April. This new-found stability must have been one of the primary motivations

for the letter: Liszt and dAgoult wanted to surround themselves with a modest library of
books and other comforts of home, and Liszt wanted his music manuscripts so as to

continue his work as a composer. The number and variety of the items further suggest that

their self-imposed exile was to be a lengthy one.

Until now, the primary transcription of this letter has been a severely mutilated

version in German translation from Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, edited by La

424

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
425

Mara.1 Friedrich Schnapp included brief extracts in the original French in his list of

missing compositions,2 however his source was not the original letter in Bayreuth but La
Maras Abschriften, now located in D-WRgs (442,443).3 Additional portions in French

were also printed in the volume of selected correspondence published by Hurd and

Knepper,4 the first to use the actual document. The letter itself is undated, but through

internal evidence La Mara deduced July 1835. Schnapp refined this date to 26 July based
on Liszts statement that he is writing on his mothers name day. Although Schnapp was
not forthcoming with an explanation, the Calendar of the Saints lists a S t Anne from the

first century. Mdria Eckhardt emended this date to 28 July in her article on the

correspondence between Liszt and his mother.5 No evidence was offered, but the date may
derive from Liszts letter of 28 July 1857, which he again identifies as his mothers name

day.6 Other internal evidence confirming the year can be found in the mention of musical

works that Liszt intended to publish (discussed below).

JSee Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Breitkopf & Hartel,
1918), 19-22.

2See his Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts, in Von Deutscher Tonkunst: Festschrift
zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. Alfred Morgenroth (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1942), 124-127.

3There are two copies of the letters, one in the hand of Frau Aimde Lauterbach (mss. 442), the
other by La Mara (443). Given that the edition was prepared at the height of World War I, it seems
reasonable to speculate that Lauterbach made the transcriptions from the originals, and La Mara made her
copies as part of the editing process.

4See Franz Liszt: Correspondance, selected and annotated by Pierre-Antoine Hurd and Claude
Knepper ([Paris]: J. C. Latt&s, 1987), 81-83.

5See Mdria Eckhardt, Une femme simple, mdre d un gdnie europden, Anna Liszt: Quelques
aspects dune correspondance, in Actes du colloque international Franz Liszt, La revue musicale 405-406-
407 (1987), 207.

6See Briefe an seine Mutter, 116.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
426

The transcription is based on a photocopy of the original furnished by the Richard

Wagner Museum in Bayreuth (shelflist: B. n Cb-1,98)7

[Genfcve, 28 juillet 1835]

Chfcre mfcre,

Votre lettre ma fait du chagrin. Vous savez depuis longtemps que je suis dtourdi,
Mger, etjrater en un mot La vie que j ai 6t6 obligd de mener a peut etre encore
augment^ mes ddfauts naturels. Mais k Dieu ne plaise que jamais les intentions que
vous me supposez surprennent mon coeur! Croyez-moi, croyez-moi bien
entitlement, mon affection pour vous est profonde et inaltdrable[.] Le souvenir de
vos bontes et de vos ddvouements ne me quitte point. Je voudrais pouvoir vous dire
et vous tdmoigner combien je vous aime et combien mon coeur est plein de respect et
de reconnaissance pour vous! 8

Cest aujourdhui votre fete, bonne et chtre mtre j aurais ddsird au moins vous
envoyer quelque chose.9 Mais les occasions sont difficiles k trouver, et dailleurs
je ne devine gutre ce dont vous pouvez avoir envie. Mme dA[goult] aussi voudrait
vous faire un petit cadeau mais elle ne sait quoi[.] Faites vous done le plaisir de
prendre une centaine de francs de 1argent que vous gardez et achetez quelque chose
de joli en notre intention. Ne dites pas non, ne nous refusez pas je ne vous le
pardonnerai jamais. Ecrivez-moi seulement ce que vous avez achetd afin que je le
sache et que je men rtjouisse un petit peu.

Si vous navez pas encore arretd un appartement, ne le faites pas dici k ce que
vous recevez dautres nouvelles de moi. Nous sommes parfaitement installs k
Gentve, mais ne pourriez-vous pas venir peut etre?.... Nous reparlerons de cela.

7I wish to thank Herr Gunter Fischer of the Museum for attending to the photocopies and
responding to various questions about them.

8Liszt had written to his mother on 4 June 1835 immediately upon arriving in Basel.
(Although the letter is undated in Briefe an seine Mutter, pp. 16-17, Eckhardt has recorded the postmark
from the original document; see Une femme simple, 207.) At the end of the month, he wrote George
Sand, breaking a silence that may have been due to traveling or his desire to keep secret his whereabouts;
see Thdrfese Marix-Spire, Les romantiques et la nuisique: Le cas George Sand 1804-1838 (Paris: Nouvelles
Editions Latines, 1954), 611. Perhaps Anna Liszt knew of the letter to Sand and was hurt that her son had
not written her as well, hence the extended apology and protestations of affection.

^This information is the evidence for a precise dating of the letter; see above comments.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
427

Jai 6crit k Hermiiiie hier.10 A sa lettre se trouve jointe la Note de tout ce dont nous
avons besoin ici elle vous laura remise de suite je pense. Mademoiselle de La
rue[,] &laquelle j dcris en meme temps, voudra bien se charger[,] j espre[,] de
lachat des livres dont j ai donnd la liste.11 Ayez la bontd de lui remettre la somme
ncessaire k cet effet je pense que cela nira pas k plus de cent francs j ai fait
deux notes separds lune, des choses k acheterf,] lautre, des choses et livres qui se
trouvent chez vous. Confiez k MUe De la rue tout le D6partement des Livres. II
faudra les recouvrir de ti^s gros papier et de plus bien les emmailloter dans du linge,
des draps, des serviettes, des robes de chambre, des habillements etc autrement ils
seraient gat^s et abymds comme ceux que j ai apportd[.]

Vous trouverez toutes ces recommandations sur la note mais je vous prie encore
d y mettre le plus grand soin.

Remettez k Puzzi (ou k sa mfcre) la somme dargent que vous a donnde Mme
d Afgoult], moins les 100 firs que vous garderez pour vous et ce que vous
aurez ddpensd pour les achats et livres indiquds sur la note[.] 12

Ajoutez k cette petite note du papier de musique en bonne quantity (celui de Garcia)[.]

Le Concerto de ma composition copi par Belloni avec la partie de piano et la Partition


d apits laquelle il la copid 13

10A student of Liszts in Paris, probably Herminie Vial (1806-1886), who joined him in his
two-piano work on themes from Mendelssohns Songs without Words at concerts on 28 December 1834
and 9 April 183S. Other letters from this time request various tasks of her, and, in his letter of November
1835, Liszt referred to her and another student as "mes vieux enfants (Briefe an seine Mutter, 26). His op.
2, Grandefantasie di bravura sur la Clochette de Paganini (published 1834), is dedicated to her. She married
the violinist Franqois-Jean Baptiste Seghers (1801-1881), and it is as Madame Seghers that she is addressed
in later letters. It is also possible that the reference is to Hermine de Musset (1819-1905), sister of the
poet and the dedicatee of Liszts op. 8, no. 2, La pastorella dell'Alpi e Li marinari on themes from
Rossinis Soiries musicales (1837), although her relationship with Liszt is not documented at this time.

11According to Hur6 and Knepper, Zo6 Delarue was the daughter of General Delarue; see
Correspondance, 81, n. 2. The list was appended on several pages at the close of the letter (see below).

12Puzzi was the nickname of Hermann Cohen (1820-1871), another of Liszts students. He
joined the couple in Geneva on 14 August and performed in several of Liszts concerts. It is possible that
he delivered the items himself as an excuse to be reunited with his mentor.

13The role of Gaetano Belloni in Liszts life is reviewed in chapter three, Manuscript Copies.
Bellonis copy is very likely the early version of Concerto No. 1 in D-WRgs (H3b, H3c). Attempts to
identify this list of manuscripts have been made by Schnapp (Verschollene Kompositionen, 125-127) and
Rena Mueller (Liszts Catalogues and Inventories of His Works, Studia Musicologica 34 [1992], 231
232). Their conclusions and the reasons for the present authors identifications are discussed in chapter
seven, The Compositional Matrix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
428

La Fantaisie symphonique sur des thfcmes de Berlioz (execute k mon concert) copide
par Belloni et reli6 les parties daccompagnement sont inutiles 14

Un gros cahier bleu oil se trouve un autre concerto symphonique que j ai crit cet
hiver au ratzen loch 15

Un vieux cahier enveloppd de papier gris et que Puzzi connait, il contient plusieurs
morceaux de ma composition 16

Mon Sextetto copiti par le Polonais (tl propos Puzzi a-t-il 6t6 lui demander des airs
polonais a-t-il fait copier les airs tyroliens?)17

De plus toute la Collection dAirs nationaux que j ai mise de cdt et que Puzzi connait
dgalement.

Chargez puzzi de tout ce qui a rapport k mes compositions et MUe De la rue de ma


Biblioth&que[.] Occupez-vous seulement de mon linge et de mes habillements.

Pardon ch&e mfcre ce nest pas pour vous faire un mauvais compliment mais je
pense que vous aurez beaucoup k faire et vous ne connaissez pas aussi bien toutes les
adresses de Librairef.]

14This copy appears to be the bound volume in D-WRgs (H7) of the Grande fantaisie
symphonique on themes from Berliozs Le retour d la vie. The concert was that of 9 April 1835.

15This is very likely the bound volume in D-WRgs (HI) that contains De profundis.
Ratzenloch (literally rat-hole) was the name Liszt gave to his apartment in Paris, although Alan Walker
believes it was the workroom in his mothers apartment; see his Franz Liszt: Volume One, The Virtuoso
Years, 1811-1847 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 200. See, however, Liszts letter of 6 October
1834, where he refers to this place and provides an address;Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse
d'Agoult, ed. Daniel Ollivier, 2 vols. (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 193334), 1:114. I am grateful to Geraldine
Keeling for these details.

16This could be the sketchbook in D-WRgs (N6), which contains many fragments and melodic
ideas, or perhaps the sketchbook formerly in the collection of Lord Londonderry and now in the Library of
Congress.

17The hypothesis is advanced in chapter seven, T he Compositional Matrix, that the sextet is
the work known as Malediction. If so, the copy in question is D-WRgs (H2). This copyist is otherwise
unknown in the Liszt literature, and, as the polish and tyrolian song copies are lost, a manuscript
identification cannot be made through the handwriting.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
429

Bernard aura ces 3 morceaux k la fin de Septembre au plus tard je vais les 6crire
imm6diatement18 Je travaille aussi au morceau de la Juive pour Schlesinger[.]19
Je joins ici une petite lettre de remerciments k Bertini envoyez la chez Mr Lemoine.20

Donnez-moi des nouvelles de Mme Sand, elle na pas rgpondu k ma lettre[.] 21

La Duchesse de Rauzan a passd ici elle ma fait demander et je suis all6 la voir[.]
22

18These works are likely the three compositions published in Paris by Bernard Latte as opus 5:
(1) Fantaisie romantique sur deux mdlodies suisses; (2) Rondeau fantastique sur un thme espagnol; (3)
Divertissement sur la Cavatine de Pacini. In a letter postmarked 7 October 1833, Liszt told his mother he
would send the pieces in approximately twelve days, although it is unclear whether this refers to the
manuscript or page proofs; see Briefe an seine Mutter, 19. (Although assigned to 1835 by La Mara, the
precise date was recorded by Eckhardt; see Une femme simple, 207.) Unlike many of the other publishers
discussed below, Liszt does not appear to have had a relationship with Latte apart from business.

19Liszt set great store by his Reminiscences de la Juive, printed by Maurice Schlesinger, and the
cost of publication was underwritten by Liszt himself. In the same letter of 7 October 1833 that mentioned
Bernards pieces, Liszt noted a piece for Schlesinger, perhaps this one, and in a letter written in November
he asked that the publisher be urged to engrave the piece on La Juive as soon as possible (Briefe an seine
Mutter, 19 and 26).

20Henri Bertini (1798-1876) was a composer and teacher in Paris. Nothing is known of his
relationship with Liszt, and, aside from this reference, he is mentioned in a letter of 8 May 1832; see Franz
Liszts Briefe, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 8 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hdrtel, 1893-1904), 1:8.
Lemoine was the name of Marie dAgoults solicitor (see Hurd and Kneppler, Correspondance, 95), but, as
the paragraph includes two other music publishers, this must refer to the family-run establishment of the
same name.

21This is, of course, the Baroness Aurore Dudevant n6e Dupin, who wrote under the pen name
of George Sand. Liszt and Marie dAgoult were close friends of Sand in Paris, and she was one of their first
visitors in Switzerland, staying for most of the month of September 1836. It was Sands Lettres dun
voyageur that inspired Liszts Lettres d'un bachelier is musique, the first of which was a response to a letter
of Sands. His Rondeau fantastique sur un thime espagnol (El Contrabandista) was dedicated to Sand, who
in turn was inspired by it to write her short story, Le Contrebandier. The letter to Sand is lost; see her
letter from August 1835 in George Sand, Correspondance, ed. George Lubin, 25 vols. (Paris: Editions
Gamin Frfcres, 1964-1991), 3:20-21.

^L in a Ramann misidentified Clara de Rauzan as one of Liszts students, and he corrected the
mistake on the proof sheets found in D-WRgs. These corrections were never incorporated into the edition.
See her Franz Liszt als KUnstler und Mensch, 3 vols. in 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hdrtel, 1880-1894),
1:292; also Peter Raabe, Franz Liszt, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1968), 2:247. Liszt
dedicated the first of his Apparitions to her.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
430

Que devient Rosario?..23 Lui avez-vous dit pourquoi je ne suis pas alld lui faire
mes Adieux. Je ne voudrais pas quelle conservat un mauvais souvenir de moi
dois-je lui dcrire dites le moi.

Milles amittes k cette bonne Mme de Musset rappelez-moi aussi tout


particulferement au bon souvenir de Mme Kreutzer[.] 24

Faites moi adresser k Genfcve chez Cherbuliez libraire, grande rue, la revue
musicale cest le seul journal que je ne trouve pas ici. MUe de La rue ou Puzzi se
chargeront de cette commission^] La Gazette et le Pianiste me sont inutiles.
Wolff les regoit25 Si vous rencontrez Berlioz dites lui quil aura bientdt de mes
nouvelles. Mrs Leuret, Masson, Schoelcher, Emile Deschamps etc de meme.26

Adieu chfcre m6re je vous embrasse filialement.

P .S.

Jai oublid dajouter k la Note de mes compositions un Duo pour Piano et Violon
sur une Mazourk de Chopin, que Puzzi mettra avec le reste, quil prenne aussi les
chants de Schubert qui se trouvent dans un cahier reli6 en vert (k litalienne) et que
surtout il ne manque pas demprunter lAlbum de Mme Goussart sur lequel j ai 6crit
une Valse en mi majeur que je tiens beaucoup k avoir ici. Priez Belloni de la copier de
suite ce ne sont que 2 pages, j en ai absolument besoin.27

Je crois savoir ce que vous voulez me dire par rapport k Schlesinger il ny a pas
lieu de sen inquieter mais vous ne ferez pas mal de surveiller un peu tout cela.

^Presumably Madame Rosario de las Hierras, a student of Liszts. See also Liszt-dAgoult,
1:367.

^Presumably related to the poet Alfred de Musset (1810-1857) and Ldon Kreutzer (1817-1868),
perhaps their mothers, or, in Kreutzers case, the wife of his uncle, Rudolphe Kreutzer, who had conducted
the performances of Liszts juvenile opera, Don Sanche.

^P ierre Wolff had been a student of Liszts in Paris and at this time lived in Geneva. Liszt
dedicated his op. 6, Grand valse de bravura, to him.

26Victor Schoelcher, political figure and writer on music (1804-1893), Emile Deschamps, poet
and dramatist (1791-1871); Leuret and Masson are unknown.

27The autograph of the Duo for violin and piano is found in D-WRgs (LI). Of Bellonis copy
there is no trace. The waltz might be an early version of the Valse milancolique, published at the end of
the decade, or perhaps the Valse mariotique, partially sketched in D-WRgs (H2). Note also the album leaf,
Example 9.9, which quotes from the Valse milancolique; perhaps Liszt had been inscribing this melody in
albums for several years. Madame Goussard (as her name is usually spelled) is noted by Ramann as having
introduced Liszt to Italian opera in 1828-1830; see Franz Liszt als Kiinstler und Mensch, 1:137.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
431

[A] la suite de la lettre de MUe De la rue il y en a une pour Bertini sur laquelle vous
mettrez ladresse.

[List of items, written on three loose pages]

Choses k acheter et k remettre k Puzzi

1 Bouteille deau de lavandre ambr6e }


1 [Bouteille deau] aux herbes de Montpellier } chez Chardin ou Flaubigant fbg. Sl
Honord.

2 livres de chocolat au Salep de Perse chez Debauve rue des P6res presquau
haut delarue

Livres non relits k moins que la reliure ne se trouve entitlement pareille k


celle de mon Chateaubriand ou Bourdalone ou Plutaique (MUede la rue serait bien
aimable de se charger de ces achats.)

Bemardin de Sl Pierre 2 volumes Edit compacte


Fdnelon Edit compacte
Bossuet idem (joignez y une note des compactes qui parissent ou ont para).

le 2d Volume du PantMon iittdraire contenant les Confessions de Sl Augustine, les


Meditations, le Discours de Sl Bernard etc cela coute 5 francs je crois chez
Delloye, place de la Bousse.

Choses et livres qui se trouvent rue de Provence et quil faut menvoyer (la
grosse malle ne sera pas trop grande peut etre meme faudra-t-il en ajouter une
autre[)].

1 Tout le linge et les difftrents objets demandds par Mme d A[goult]

2 Les habillements et le linge que ma mtre jugera ntcessaire pour moi (je P^e de
ne pas oublier mes 2 robes de chambre qui mont 6t6 donnts lune par Ramonon [?]
lautre par Cenolito [?] et que je veux illustrer.

3 La somme dargent qui reste de celle remise [] la veille de son depart par Mme
dA[goult] et quil faudra raliser[.] (H faudra la remettre k la mtre de Puzzi et la
prier den avoir grand soin En la faisant passer par un Banquier nous serions
obligt de donner 2 pour cent )

Livres (MUe de La rue Bibliothtcaire)


Dictionnaire italien et frangais et vice versa [] 2 Volumes in 8V0
Ballanche 4 Volumes in 8vo
Schakespeare [sic] en anglais 1 Volume
Byron idem [] 1 Volume

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
432

Lettres dEuler k une Princesse dAllemagne [] 2 Volumes


Bible de Mme dA[goult] 1 volume
Atlas historique de Lesage[,] Comte de Lascaser
Adas des Literatures par Jarry de Mancy
Adas de Duval (sinformer chez Johanneau me du coq si le N sup[p]tementaire a
paru et en ce cas, lacheter.)
Ouvrages de Reicha relatifs k la Composition
Mes compactes mes bon compactesl
Chateaubriant, Massillon, Bourdalone, Plutarque, Montesquieu, Moralistes fran?ais,
Montaigne, Rabelais, Lafontaine, Theatre frangais (4 volumes), Laharpe

J observerai ici que quoique mes livres fiissent tr&s bien embaltes il se sont tous
abyntes en route. Heureusment ce ntetaient que des livres brocltes ou mal relics et
en petit nombre. Le Lamartine et U imitation de Ramanon nont 6te sauvds que grace
k la precaution que j avais pris de les recouvrir de papier trfes forts et de les envelloper
[sic] dans le linge. Je prie et je supplie ma ntere et MUe De la rue de ne pas manquer
davoir ce meme soin. II faut absolument les envelloper [sic] dans le linge[.] Les
draps et les serviettes que Mme dAgoult a demandd serviront admirablement k cet
effet[.] Au nom du Ciel que je ne reoive pas mes chers livres gates et salis ou en
lambeaux comme plusieurs de ceux que j ai ici et dont cependant on a eu soin. Quon
en mette entre mes chemises dans ma robe de chambre avec mes habits et surtout avec
les draps et les serviettes dont je viens de parler autrement je serai tout k fait
inconsolable

Ma pipe et mon tabac

Andte Chenier les orientalcs de V. H. les harmonies de Lamartine edition in 32


de Bruxelles

Oublis ou Supplement.28

2 Chales cachemire (un rouge et un noir) se trouvant chez Mme Vial29 (II ne faudra
pas mettre de livres entre)[.]
Le Globe, Atias classique universel chez Jules renouard, rue de Toumon N 6 42
Cartes Prix 15 francs.
Schakespeare [sic] (en frangais) 2 Volumes je crois (publics par livraisons[)] si
louvrage est trfcs avanc6 ou termute il faudra le prendre Passage Choiseuil

28This line begins the verso of the last page, however the lines preceding (beginning Ma
pipe...) may also be part of this addition, written at the bottom of the recto where there remained blank
space.

29Presumably the mother of Herminie (see note above).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
433

presque k lentrde (par la rue de Choiseuil) k gauche k un mag[a]sin de


Pittoresques

de plus mes bons amis Lelia, Volupt6, Werther et le Nouveau Christianisme qui se
trouvent me de Provence

1 exemplaires de chacune de mes publications 30 Clochette, apparitions etc31------


je recommande encore mes livres!!

To Maurice Schlesinger, 11 December 1837

Maurice Adolphe Schlesinger (1797-1871), bom Moritz Adolf, founded the


Parisian publishing house that bore his name not later than July 1821. He was the eldest

son of Adolf Martin Schlesinger (1769-1838), who had his own publishing house in
Berlin, taken over in 1831 by his son (Maurices brother) Heinrich (1810-1879). The

Parisian Schlesinger controlled one of the largest music publishing operations in the city,
and in 1834 he began the Gazette Musicale de Paris which, by the time it had absorbed the

Revue Musicale the following year, was the predominant musical journal. With direct
access to the German market through his family connection, it can be said that Maurice

Schlesinger was the most powerful music publisher in Europe, at least through the 1830s.
In 1846, after a series of poor business decisions, he sold the business to Louis Brandus

(1816-1887).
Liszt published some of his most important musical works of the 1830s through

Schlesinger, and he was also a regular contributor to the Revue et Gazette Musicale. His

personal relationship will; the publisher is less clear. No letters of Schlesinger to Liszt are

known, and of the dozen or so that have surfaced from Liszt, many are brief and discuss a

30Liszt had originally written 2 exemplaires, but when he altered the number he neglected to
adjust the noun it modified.

31These works are discussed in chapter seven.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
434

point of business.32 Longer letters, such as the one that appeared in Julien Tiersots

anthology,33 suggest a closer relationship, and he addressed to Schlesinger two of the


Lettres dun bachelier is musique, a noteworthy gesture as other recipients included

George Sand, Hector Berlioz, and Lambert Massart, all of whom were close friends. This
same letter also hints at an underlying friction, an example of which can be found in a letter

from 1836: You have sent me a rude letter, I am annoyed on your behalf and would not

dream of complaining about it. Only try to keep this kind of language to a minimum,
because I am not used to being spoken to like this.34 That same year Liszt referred to him

as une stupide canaille because of his refusal to print an article about Liszts

compositions.35 On another occasion, Liszt wrote a terse letter protesting a comment in the

Revue et Gazette Musicale about the high cost of his ticket prices in Paris:

Cest toujours avec un nouveau plaisir que je reqois les conseils de mes amis.
Pour votre part, vous avez perdu le droit de me parler et de conseils et damitid.
Quant h retirer, je ne dis pas ma lettre, mais un seul mot, une seule syllabe, vous
me connaissez assez pour savoir que cela est impossible.36
Liszts were not the only mixed impressions of Schlesinger, as Gustave Flaubert

characterized him in two of his novels, Memoirs o f a Madman (1837) and Sentimental

Education (1869), where he is on the one hand vulgar and jovial, and on the other a

32See, for example, Marix-Spire, Les romantiques et la musique, 623; William Wright, New
Letters of Liszt, Journal o f the American Liszt Society 31 (January-June 1992), 10-12.

33See Julien Tiersot, Lettres de musiciens tcrites enfrangais du XVe au XXe siicle, 2 vols.
(Turin: Bocca Frfcres, 1924), 2:368-370.

34Quoted in Albi Rosenthal, Franz Liszt and His Publishers, Liszt Saeculum 38 (1986), 7.

35The paragraph in question was omitted in Briefe an seine Mutter, 28-31 (March 1836). The
article was by Emmanuel Prym and may also have been the topic of the letter referred to in Tiersots
anthology above. See also Liszt-d'Agouti, 1:146 (late April-early May 1836).

36Jacques Vier, Franz Liszt: Lartiste le clerc (Paris: Les Editions du Cfcdre, 1951), 60 (22
March 1841).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
435

scheming businessman. Given Schlesingers power and influence, Liszt may have felt that
he had no choice but to cultivate him, in business as well as society.

Since mid-November 1837, Liszt and Marie dAgoult had been in Como, where

they awaited the birth of their second daughter, Cosima (24 December). He spent some of
this time composing and making occasional trips to Milan. The letter to Schlesinger and the
one to Ignatz Moscheles below also show that Liszt was coordinating plans to issue his

compositions on a more regular basis, and the two together are especially revealing of the

mechanics of publishing and offer details of the business practices typical of the day (see

also chapter three, Editions).


The letter is transcribed for the first time, based on the original in D-WRgs (Ms.
73/6/1).

11 Ddcembre 1837

Mon cher Maurice,

En meme temps que votre lettre, je reois un avis de la Poste pour me prgvenir
quune lettre k mon adresse se trouvait au bureau du rebut pour cause de non-
affranchissement Comme cette lettre ne peut etre que celle du Bachelier avec
ladresse fantastique, je vous prie de vouloir bien la faire retirer au plutot [sic] afin de
linsdrer dans un de vos prochains num6ros.37 La lettre 6tant achev6e, je vous
lenverrai aussitot que la 3me aura paru. Elle vous donnera d6jk quelques
renseignements sur la Scala et les habitudes musicales du pays.38 Ainsi que vous me
le dites, je suis plant d merveille pour tout savoir. Effectivement il est impossible
detre mieux re?u, plus fet6, plus choy6, plus admir6 que je ne le suis k Milan. A

37Liszt is referring to his Lettre dun bachelier is musique addressed to Adolphe Pictet, which
appeared in the issue of 11 February 1838. As for the adresse fantastique, the article is dated Chambdry,
September 1837, and Charles Suttoni notes, the place and date cannot be taken literally, since Liszt and
Marie d Agoult had already arrived in Italy by September. See Franz Liszt, An Artists Journey: Lettres
d un bachelier is musique 1835-1841, trans. and ed. Charles Suttoni (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1989), 40, n. 2.

38The article must be the one addressed to Schlesinger himself and dated Milan, 10 March
1838, which appeared 27 May 1838. This was not the next letter to be printed, however, as the one to
Louis de Ronchaud recounting Liszts and dAgoults travels prior to their arrival in Como appeared 25
March 1838.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
436

preuve je vous envoie ci-apr&s deux ou trois joumaux pris au hazard. Si vous jugez k
propos den faire traduire quelque passage, faites-le; en tout cas ayez la complaisance
de les envoyer sous enveloppe k ma mfcre qui sen amusera avec ses amis.39

Pour ce qui est de nos arrangements musicaux je ne vous donnerai gu&re


aujourdhui de rdponse definitive. Je ne suis point en peine, je vous le repute de
vendre mes etudes, et dautres compositions.40 Plusieurs editeurs de Paris mont fait
des offres plus considerables que les vdtres. Ce que j aurais desire et ce a quoi
probablement seul j aurais pu consentir, cetait un contrat general comme celui que
j ai avec Ricordi, Hoffmeister et Wessel (votre observation sur lEdition dltalie et
dAllemagne devient inutile, vu les precautions que j ai prises Hoffmeister et
Ricordi sont parfaitement daccord ladessus.)41 Je me serai volontiers engage k ne
fournir que de 250 k 300 pages lan, et vous aurais meme concede un droit de veto
sur un certain nombre de ces pages, choses que je nai fait jusquici avec aucun de ces
Editeurs et que j espfcre navoir jamais k leur proposer 42 D me semblait quau
moment oil vous exploitez Strauss depuis Ajusqu&Z cetait une compensation
honorable que dediter les Symphonies de Beethoven, qui, quoi que vous en disez et
quoiquen puissent dire dofficieux amis, ne sont rien moins quinexecutables et que
je nhesiterai pas k editer moi meme si je me trouvais k Paris.

Encore une fois et pour la demi&re, ce que je vous demandais et ce que je voulais
de vous, c6tait davoir autant de confiance dans mon avenir musical que dans mon

39Liszt is somewhat sarcastic here. Although his performance of works based on Pacini and
Rossini was well received at his first Milanese recital the day before (10 December), he was taken aback
during the performance of one of his recently completed Etudes to hear a voice from the hall, Vengo al
teatro per divertir me e non per studiare. The extent to which this incident bothered him may be seen in
that he mentioned it in his Lettre published 2 September 1838, almost a year after the event. His Lettre to
Schlesinger on Milan (see above note) is a scathing critique of Italian musical taste and concert behavior.
See also Charles Suttoni, Liszt h Milan, Revue Musicale 405-406-407 (1987), 177-187.

^ i s z t is referring to his Grandes ( tudes, completed on 5 October 1837 according to the diary of
Marie d Agoult; see her Mimoires (1833-1854), ed. Daniel Ollivier, rev. ed. (Paris: Calmann-Ldvy, 1927),
119. This work was later revised and designated transcendental. As for the other compositions, see the
letter to Moscheles below.

41The firm of Ricordi is still in existence. Liszt made contact with Giovanni Ricordi in 1837
and maintained cordial relations with the firm throughout his life. See also Andrds Kiirthy, Lhistoire du
rapport de Liszt et de la Casa Ricordi refletde par leur correspondance, Studia Musicologica 29 (1987),
325-342. For the German member of the triumvirate, Liszt must mean Friedrich Hofmeister, located in
Leipzig. The publishing house of Christian Rudolf Wessel was also the principal publisher in England of
Chopins works.

42Liszt regularly dealt with four publishers of music in Paris, as revealed in a letter to an
unknown correspondent of 23 August 1837: Mes dditeurs de Paris sont tour d tour Schlesinger, Bernard
Latte, Troupenas et Richault. See Revue de Musicologie 41 (July 1958), 108 (quoted from an auction
catalogue).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
437

avenir littiraire, et de me payer mes pages de musique &prix fixe tout aussi bien que
mes colonnes dans la Gazette musicale. Si d6cidment et toute reflexion faite vous
ne craignez pas de vous engager imprudemment en convenant de cet accord avec moi,
rgpondez moi Oui dici it trois ou quatre jours. Sinon non.

Jai demandd &Vaccai, Directeur du Conservatoire, des renseignements et des


notes 6crites sur cet dtablissement.43 II en sera question dans ma 5me lettre qui
roulera tout entier sur Milan, et dont Rossini, La Maison de Rossini[,] les Soirdes de
Rossini, et lensemble de ce puissant personnage, feront les principaux frais. [E]n
attendant faites passer de suite la 3me afin que je puisse vous envoyer lautre.44

Jespfcre quelle ne manquera pas son petit effet. Elle est beaucoup mieux que ce
que je vous ai donn6 jusquici.

[no signature]

To Ignatz Moscheles, 28 December 1837

It is unknown at what point Liszt made the acquaintance of the great Bohemian
pianist, Ignatz Moscheles (1794-1870). The two were in Munich in late September 1823,

the period when Liszt and his father were touring to raise funds so that they could settle in

Paris, and Moscheles was present at Liszts concert in London of 9 June 1827 (Moscheles
had settled in the city two years earlier). There is no record of a meeting on either of these

occasions, but certainly there must have been some contact. Regardless of these details, a

correspondence was established by October 1837, at which time Liszt looked to Moscheles

43After some success as an opera composer in the mid-1820s, Nicola Vaccai (1790-1848) left
Italy and lived for a time in France and England. He returned in 1833 and served as censore of the Milan
Conservatory from 1838 to 1844. Liszts relationship with Vaccai is undocumented apart from this
reference.

^ L iszt did indeed turn his attention again to Milan in his Lettre to Lambert Massart, published
in the Gazette Musicale on 2 September 1838. It was in the aforementioned letter to Schlesinger, however,
that Liszt described the events in Rossinis home.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
438

for assistance in establishing business contacts with English publishers. Liszts initial letter

is lost, but Moscheless response of 11 December 1837 was gracious and helpful.45
The letter transcribed below is a response to Moscheless letter of 11 December.

It is especially remarkable for Liszts frankness with regard to his earlier years. Previously
published in German translation,46 the document is here provided in French for the first

time, based on the original in D-WRgs (Ms. 71/11).

Milan 28 D&embre 1837

Je suis extremement reconnaissant, mon cher Monsieur Moscheles, de toutes les


peines que vous voulez bien prendre k loccasion de mes manuscrits. En madressant
directement k vous pour cette affaire k laquelle, soit k tort, soit k raison, j attache
assez dimportance, je savais davance que la question se simplifierait en raison de
votre loyautd et de votre amicale complaisance. La demtere lettre que vous me fites
lamitid de mdcrire, me prouve que je ne mdtais point trompd; recevez done de
nouveau mes plus affectueux remerciments.

Je crois ne point mabuser sur ma position dartiste en g6n6ral. Je sais que les 4
ou 5 annles qui se sont 6coul6es entre ma carrfere denfance et le commencement de
ma periode virile (de 1829 k 33 ou 34) mont 6t6 facheux sous plusieurs rapports.
Les maladies presque constants qui mdprouvaient alors, et le profond et amer
d6couragement, qui en fut la suite (sans parler ici dautres causes qui sy joignirent)
ont retarddes sans doute de beaucoup le diploiement extdrieur de mes facult^s.
Quoique depuis lage de 18 ans je me sois toujours assez s6rieusement occupy de
composition je nai pourtant jusquici public quun petit nombre douvrages et dans
ce petit nombre meme il sen trouve peut etre une moitid qui na absolument aucune
recommandation aupr&s de MMre les Editeurs de Musique. Vous voyez[,] mon
cher Monsieur Moscheles, que je ne me fais nullement illusion, et que je vais
audevant les objections. Toutes fois, le hazard ayant voulu quk laide de quelques
articles de joumaux, les uns dlogieux, les autres presquinjurieux, mon nom pdndtre
dans quelques parties de lAllemagne et dltalie, voire meme en France, ou je suis en
quelque sorte fixd et ou par consequent j ai eu k soutenir les plus ennuyeuses

45See Briefe hervorragender Zeitgenossen an Franz Liszt, ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 3 vols.
(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hhrtel, 1895-1904), 1:10-12. The letter is partially quoted in chapter three,
Editions.

^ S e e Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen, ed. Hans Rudolf Jung (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987), 64-
66 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
439

comparaisons, les plus sottes querelles, pour confinner lancien Proverbe: Nul nest
proph&te dans son propre pay!: le meme hazard a encore voulu que MMre
Hoffmeister k Leipzig, Mr Haslinger k Vienne, Mr Ricordi k Milan, et plusieurs
Editeurs de Paris me fassent des offfes sinon trfcs brillantes, du moins acceptables
pour mes compositions k venir.47 MMre Hoffmeister et Ricordi par exemple se sont
engages k prendre la totality de mes oeuvres k raison dun Louis par 4 pages (6 frcs
par pageDL Sil mest permis de vous le dire, j espfcre et ferai en sorte que ces
Messieurs naient jamais k se repentir de leurs avances. Cest un arrangement de
cette nature que j avais proposd k Mr Mori avec lequel j ai eu autrefois des relations.48
Je ne tiens nullement que ce soit lui qui devienne IEditeur de mes oeuvres d Londres;
entre nous soit dit.je prifererai mime que cefut la maison Adisson [sic] et Beale.49
Mais je lui avais dcrit pour vous dpargner lennui des discussions d Editeur.

Je regrette beaucoup que ma lettre k Mr Mori ne vous ait pas 6t6 remise dabord;
cela eut abregd les affaires. Cest par erreur que Mr Puzzi la lui a envoyd
directement50

En resumd voici le contenu de cette lettre.

Je lui proposai ddditer environ 220 pages (au plus 260) par an, k raison A'une
Guinie (minimum) les 4 pages. Dans son intdret et dans le mien je le priai de donner
k mes ouvrages la plus grande publicitd possible. Les ouvrages que je pourrai
immddiatement livrer sont les suivans

1 Collection des Symphonies de Beethoven. (Partition de piano.)51

47Tobias Haslinger became the sole proprietor in 1826 of a publishing house begun in 1803 by
Alois Senefelder. He became a friend of Liszts, as did his son Carl (1816-1868), and helped him to
organize his Viennese concerts in 1838 and 1839. For the other publishers mentioned, see the note in the
above letter.

^ I n 1819, Nicolas Mori (1796-1839) married Elizabeth Lavenu, widow of the publisher Lewis
Lavenu, and continued the firm as Mori and Lavenu. Louis Henry Lavenu (Elizabeths son, who
continued the firm after 1839) and Frank Mori (a son by Nicolas) later accompanied Liszt on his British
concert tours of 1841; see David Ian Allsobrook, Liszt: My Travelling Circus Life (Caibondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991), passim.

4^Robert Addison and T. Frederick Beale began their business in 1823, joined by Johann Baptist
Cramer the following year. They remained under the name of Addison and Beale until 1844, when
Addison withdrew from the partnership.

50On Puzzi, see above, n. 12. It is unclear whether he was still traveling with Liszt or looking
after his interests in Paris.

51Liszt had written his friend Lambert Massart on 29 July 1837, asking to him to deliver the
manuscripts of several works to various publishers in Paris. Among these works were his transcriptions of
Symphonies nos. 5,6, & 7 of Beethoven. See Vier, Franz Liszt: L artiste le clerc, 30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
440

2 Grandes Etudes52

3 Grand Galop Chromatique (en forme de Caprice)53

4 Grand morceau de Concert, composg par MMre Thalberg, Herz, Pixis, Czemy,
et Chopin. Introduction, Stretta et Finale par F. Liszt. (Pour ce morceau seulement
comme le produit en est desting d m e oeuvre de chariti et quil ne mappartient que
par com[m]ission, je lui demandai je crois le meme prix que men donne Haslinger k
Vienne, cest k dire 18 k 20 Guin6s.[)]54

5 Impressions et Poisies, Suite et complement de 1Album dun Voyageur l rc


Annge.55

(Tous ces ouvrages seront editgs en meme temps en Allemagne, en France et en


Italie.)

Si done vous pensez que MM18Addisson [sic] et Beale soient disposg k prendre
avec moi (graces k votre intervention) un arrangement pour un an, dix huit mois,
jusqutl mon voyage dAngleterre, enfin, k raison d une guinge par 4 pages, je vous
autorise pleinement d mengager vis d vis deux. II est bien entendu que si vous jugez
k propos de demander davantage, et si vous etes assez heureux pour obtenir
davantage, je ne vous dgsavouerai point. Pour moins, il me serait probablement
difficile de 1accepter.56

Pardon, cent fois pardon encore mon cher Monsieur Moscheles, de cette longue et
trop longue lettre; mais k plus de deux cents lieues de distance il importe detre k la
fois pricis et d&tailte.

Je vous remercie cordialement des bonnes propositions que vous me faites pour ma
venue en Angleterre. Vous serez assurgment la premigre personne que j irai trouver

52The works later known as transcendental; see the note in the preceding letter.

530ne of Liszts most popular concert pieces, by request it inevitably concluded many of his
recitals. It went through more editions than any other of his works.

^T h is work was ultimately titled Hexam6ron.

55Impressions et Poesies was the title Liszt gave to the first part of his Album d'un voyageur,
published in 1840. He reworked several of these pieces in the 1850s as part of the Annies de pilerinage.

56Ultimately it was Mori who became Liszts publisher in England; see Liszts letter to
Breitkopf & HSrtel in Franz Liszt's Briefe, 8:18 (15 July 1838); also quoted in chapter three, Editions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
441

en arrivant h. Londres.57 Malheureusement, k cause de plusieurs travaux commences


et que j ai k coeur de poursuivre activement, j ajoumerai encore dun an mon tour
doutremer. Lann6e prochaine je la passerai toute enti&re en Italie. Si je pouvais par
hazard vous y etre de quelque utility [...]

[final page lacking]

To Theodor Kullak, 15 June 1852

Theodor Kullak (1818-1882) was best known as a pedagogue and as the founder

in 1850 of the Berliner Musikschule (after 1857 called the Stem Conservatory) with Julius
Stem (1820-1883) and the theoretician Adolf Bernhard Marx (1795-1866), and in 1855

the Neue Akademie der Tonkunst. Kullak had also been a student of Czemy, which would

have immediately endeared him to Liszt, and he was also a fine pianist The earliest known

contact is a letter of Kullak to Liszt of 26 February 1851.58 Perhaps the correspondence


was more extensive, as suggested by the letter presented below, but it is unknown at this

time. Liszt also dedicated to Kullak one of his larger piano pieces, Scherzo utid Marsch,
composed in 1851 and published three years later.59

The following letter illustrates the extent to which Liszt promoted his

compositions during the first years in Weimar. It also offers dates for two compositions,
one of which is a work for piano and orchestra, and further reveals Liszts concern for the

physical appearance in print of his scores. The letter has never been published, and it is

here transcribed from the original document in D-Bds (Mus. ep. Fr. Liszt 18).

57Liszt did not travel to London until more than two years later, arriving 6 May 1840 and
staying for two months.

58Briefe an Liszt, 1:157-158.

59See Liszts letter to Hans von Billow of 14 December 1853, where he asked Billow to tell
Kullak of his plans to dedicate the work to him; Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Hans von BUlow,
ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius] (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), 59. In a letter to Kullak of 21 May
1854, Liszt reported the appearance of the publication; unpublished letter in D-Bds (Mus. ep. Fr. Liszt 22).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
442

[Weimar] 15 Juin 1852

Je vous suis tits obligt, mon cher Monsieur Kullak, de lamical empressement que
vous avez mis k vous occuper des deux manuscrits que je vous avais envoyd, et qui
doivent avoir para maintenant Veuillez seulement avoir la complaisance de dire k
Schlesinger de ma part quil me serait agrdable de recevoir bientot mes exemplaires
dauteur (6 de chaque morceau minimum).60

Par la poste daujourdhui je vous expddie la Polonaise de Weber que j ai


instrument^ (avec Introduction, Cadence, et Coda);61 si Schlesinger veut la publier
elle est k sa disposition, seulement je ddsire expressiment quelle soit gravde en
Partition telle que je lai fait copier et en petit format quasi k 8 ^ comme Hartel a fait
paraitre la Fantaisie de Beethoven avec Choeur qui est le format habituel des
Partitions de Symphonie ou peut etre dans le format un peu plus grand que
Schlesinger a choisi pour Preciosa et qui me semblerait comme preferable.62 Les
Passages Ossia (ohne Orchester") doits k lencre rouge dans la copie, devront Stre
graves en petites notes;63j ai pris soin de les ajouter afin que ce morceau peut aussi
etre execute sans accompagnement dorchestie; mais en tout cas je tiens &ce quil soit
publid en partition d abord, car cest spdcialement dans le but daugmenter le
repertoire des Concerts que j ai enterpris mon petit travail, et par les
developpemen[t]s que j ai donnd k llnstrumentation (en particulier vers le milieu du
morceauxD.]64 [V]ous vous appercevrez que j ai fait de mon mieux pour servir les
quelques Pianistes, fle nombre en est infiniment restreint, je le sais), qui seraient
ddsireux dexdcuter k leurs Concerts des morceaux dun effet distingue. Peut etre me
feriez vous lhonneur et lamitie dessayer une fois cette Polonaise en Public, et dans
ce cas, le succds en serait trds brillamment assure. Si plus tard Schlesinger veut en

60This is the Berlin Schlesinger, Heinrich, for whom there survives an extensive
correspondence, much of it unpublished and in US-Wc. It is uncertain to which works Liszt is referring.

61This is Liszts arrangement for piano and orchestra of a piano solo work by Carl Maria von
Weber, Polonaise brillante, op. 72.

62Schlesinger did indeed choose to publish Liszts arrangement, and the format is smaller than
standard size.

63The manuscript in D-WRgs (T3a) was used as the engravers copy and was likely the copy
sent for Kullaks inspection. Liszt used the ingenious expedient of writing out the score and leaving
additional staves available for the piano solo version: where this version differed from the solo part of the
concerto, the notes were written in red. The edition for piano solo (plate number: S.4014) prints the red
notes as an ossia in smaller type (as per Liszts request), thus allowing it to serve as the piano part in a
concerto or as a solo piece. The orchestral score (S.4013) contains only the concertante piano part.

^L iszt wrote out a musical example of mm. 141-142 from the clarinet part, transposed into C,
and followed by etc. At this point, the piano solo is mostly figuration, based closely on Webers
original, but, in the orchestra, Liszt developed a musical motive heard earlier in the work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
443

faire une edition pour Piano seul, je ne my opposerai gu&re k condition que la
Partition (sans les parties dorchestre sdpartis que chacun est libre de faire copier k
son gr, k moins que Schlesinger ne prtiffcre les faire graver aussi ce que je ne lui
demande pas pour lui dviter un surcroit de d6pense) paraisse en premier lieu.65

A la Polonaise je joins une meilleure version de ma Paraphrase sur le Gaudeamus


Igitur. Schumann de Breslau et Trautwein de Berlin avaient publics] la premiere qui
a 6t6 trop Iiativement ^crite.66 Si Trautwein jugeait quil ne serait pas hors de saison
de publier ce morceau sous sa forme actuelle, remettez lui le manuscrit de ma part; je
nen demanderai pas plus de 5 k 6 Louis dor dhonoraire, vu le droit de propriety
quil a sur la Paraphrase dj& parue; mais sil faisait quelque difficult^, gardez tout
simplement le morceau dans un coin de votre armoire sans vous en inquidter
davantage.67 Je serais bien aisd que le morceau paraisse, car lancien mest
d6sagr6able k la vue; toutefois il me serait encore plus ddsagrdable dennuyer qui que
ce soit de mes amendes honorables de composition.68

Mille franches et cordiales amitids et Bien tout k vous F. Liszt.

P. S. Les nouvelles qui me sont parvenues de Berlin relativement k un sujet dont


nous nous sommes entretenus ici (S. lErbprinz) ne mutant gu6re agrtiables,69je ne
vous en entretiens pas aujourdhui, mais me reserve de vous donner de meilleures
preuves de mon bon vouloir et z61e amical sur lesquels je vous prie de compter en
toute circonstance.

65As can be seen in the published edition, Schlesinger followed Liszts requests.

66This first version appeared in 1843.

67As late as 14 December 1853 it was still in Kullaks possession; see Liszt-BUlow, 59.

68It is unknown precisely when the revised version was published, but the new edition was
listed in the Thematic Catalogue of 1855 and was therefore in print by that year. The publisher was
Hainauer, who had succeeded Schumann in Breslau.

69The Hotel Erbprinz was Liszts official residence in Weimar during the first years of his
tenure. The building is no longer standing.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B

COMPARISON OF DE PROFUNDIS EDITIONS

The analysis of De profundis in chapter ten is based on the present authors


edition, and the musical content of this score differs to varying degrees from the two other

editions listed in Table 10.1. Unfortunately, none of these editions are critical in the
sense that the editorial decisions are documented, and readers having all three before them

may well be baffled by the discrepancies based on what is, after all, a single source.
Liszts autograph is difficult to decipher, however, and the problems are

compounded by loose folios and canceled sections for which the cancellation is not
apparent. There is additionally the need to do the transcription from photocopies and not

from the original. An editor must have a thorough knowledge of Liszts style, his habits of
manuscript use, and details of the physical make-up of the autograph score. Lacking any
one of these factors can lead to incorrect conclusions, as can be seen by comparing the

edition of the Chopin Duo to the autograph in D-WRgs (LI).1


The present discussion will try to account for the most obvious of these and to
distinguish actual errors in transcription from alternative readings.

Joseph Acs
The version by Joseph Acs was published in two-piano score by the editor

himself.2 There are brief introductory notes in five languages by Dr. Otmar Jantzen,

^ e e Franz Liszt, Duo Sonata for Violin and Piano, ed. Tibor Serly (New York: Southern
Music Publishing, 1964).

2Franz Liszt, DE PROFUNDIS: Psaume instrumentalfu r Klavier und Orchesler (Eschweilen


Edition Joseph Acs, 1989).
444

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
445

Vorsitzender of the Eschweiler Franz-Liszt-Gesellschaft, and the editor, although these say
nothing regarding editorial policy. Acss lack of experience with Liszts manuscripts

speaks for itself, however.

Aside from simple misreadings, one aspect of Liszts notation which confused
Acs was the use of unis, often in the left hand of the piano part, to signify that it is to

double the right hand an octave lower. While this abbreviation was read correctly in mm.

98-103 (Rosenblatt: mm. 90-95), it was ignored in mm. 313-327 and 346-360
(Rosenblatt: mm. 305-319,341-352), among other places.3 Less excusable is the

misinterpretation of some of Liszts most striking harmonic effects. While Acs correctly

transcribed Block B in the minor mode, here with five flats in the key signature, he

completely missed the magical change to major four measures later, even though the

naturals are quite clear in the autograph (mm. 604-611; compare Rosenblatt: mm. 628-
635). More serious is the way the error is compounded later in the passage, with a cadence

in D-flat major and a continuation in B-flat minor. In mm. 275-279 (Rosenblatt: mm.

267-271), a-natural is replaced by a continuation of a-flat from the previous measures,

although, again, the notation is unmistakable in all parts. Finally, the extraordinary

augmented triad pivot chord in Rosenblatt, m. 798, is omitted entirely.


Of far greater consequence is Acss reconstruction of certain passages. Part of
the problem stems from his conclusion that there are missing measures in the manuscript:

Bei naher Untersuchung stellte sich heraus, daB zwei kurze Stellen nicht vorhanden, wohl

aber durch Parallelstellen musikalisch belegt sind.4 The first of these concerns the end of

Block B through the transition to Block C. Acs managed to ignore the next page in the

3Some of the differences in measure numbers may be traced to dotted barlines in the piano
cadenzas, given individual numbers in Acs, but letters in Rosenblatt (e g., 47a, 47b, etc.).

4Acs edition, p. [4], The English version is rather a free translation and not quite clear or
literate, therefore the German is quoted here.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
446

autograph (f. 55) and spliced the ending to Block B (f. 61), along with the transition to B-

flat minor, making harmonic nonsense of the passage. Thus, Acs mm. 503-532 uses the
measures in Rosenblatt as follows: mm. 538-550,622-627, four original measures, mm.
553-556. Not only is there no musical reason for his decision but there is no physical

reason, for while the bifolium 53/54 is loose, ff. 55 and 61 are bound (see Figure 10.1).

Further, the transcription required him to begin and end in the middle of a folio.

The second passage is the missing coda:

Eine groBere Schwierigkeit bestand bei der Rekonstruktion der fehlenden


SchluBtakte. Bei dem Versuch, dem Mangel abzuhelfen, zeigte sich zur groBen
Uberraschung, daB die scheinbar fehlenden SchluBtakte transponiert an anderer Stelle
vorhanden sind. Innerhalb des Manuskripts gibt es, namlich den Entwurf einer
anderen groBen Klavierkadenz in As-Dur mit Orchester, eine Variante zur ebenfalls
vorhandenen, von mir benutzen Klaviersolo-Kadenz, die einen klaren SchluB
beinhaltet (Zusatzblatt SchluBtakte aus dem Manuskript), der im Geist Liszts das
Werk beenden konnte.5

Acs noted the correspondence between the cadences in A-flat major and those at the end of
the work, and for his ending he transposed similar material to D major to create a quiet
conclusion. This led him to delete the passage in Rosenblatt, mm. 458-509, on the basis

that it is a sketch, although Acs does not explain why Liszt should draft a passage in a

key a tritone removed. In fact, there is no manuscript evidence to support this conclusion,
as the passage begins on f. 45v and ends on f. 50, and there is no sign that Liszt ever

canceled these folios. And, as noted in the analysis in chapter ten, the use of the

transformed De profundis theme and the cadences, heard first in A-flat major and at the
end in D major, gives the piece its shape, and to omit them does tremendous damage to
Liszts conception.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
447

Michael Maxwell

Although the edition by Michael Maxwell has not been published, there is a fine
digital recording, and a CD of this performance is used in Table 10.1.6 Alan Walker states
in the program notes about the autograph source: It lacks only an ending and an occasional

strengthening of the orchestral lines.7 Maxwell has indeed discretely retouched the

orchestration in places, and he has added a coda of thirty secondss duration that grows out
of a virtuosic conception of the final pages in the autograph.

Overall, this version is less problematic and matches Rosenblatt in virtually all

particulars. Again there are some minor transcription errors. For example, Liszt omitted a
tenor clef for Vc. in mm. 356ff., and Maxwell follows him. Comparison with the Cl. I
and Fg. I parts in mm. 364ff. shows the need for this emendation, however. Maxwell also

allowed the d-sharp to stand in mm. 555-556. As noted in chapter ten, folios removed
between ff. 52 and 55 must have included a change of key, but this is a musical conclusion

supported by manuscript evidence, and it is hard to understand how Maxwell could have

concluded that a natural was appropriate later on the same folio but not at the beginning.
More defensible is his inclusion of a passage deleted by Liszt and included in the present

study as Example 10.2. In the context of the piece, however, Liszt canceled this passage

along with Example 10.3, and Maxwell chose to reinstate the first but not the second,
which creates an imbalance with the previous statement of Block C.

It might be wondered how such a difficult source could find two editions in such

close agreement The reason may lie in that Rosenblatts version was performed first and
the concert was broadcast on television throughout Europe, allowing a video to be available

6The edition by Michael Maxwell is performed by pianist Philip Thomson, with the Hungarian
State Orchestra conducted by Kerry Stratton (Hungaroton, HCD 31525,1991).

7Program booklet to the CD recording, p. 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
448

to Maxwell prior to the performance and recording of his version.8 It is unclear to what

extent the one version influenced the other, but it is also true that the tempos between the
live performance of Rosenblatts edition and the recording of Max ./ells are quite close (the

recording by Steven Mayer of the former is slightly slower).9

Finishing an Unfinished Work

Any completion for De profundis must take into account both musical factors,

based on an analysis of the score, and physical factors, based on an analysis of the
manuscript As may be gauged by the analysis in chapter ten, the work follows sonata
form, and, by the end of the Recapitulation, all thematic material has been restated in the
tonic. In the autograph, Liszt bypassed four folios (ff. 88-91) before detaching one to be

used as a replacement folio (f. 57), and this observation suggests that he knew the
conclusion to the work would require no more than eight pages of score. Thus, the ending

must follow the end of the musical argument and be of brief duration: a coda.
Unfortunately, Liszt left no indication as to the content of such a ppssage.

All three of the editions noted above attempted to provide a conclusion, and all

three devised different solutions. For his ending, Acs followed the last bar in the score
with nine measures (mm. 873-881). The piano part is based on the figuration that has

come before (Acs has again ignored Liszts accidentals, here B-flat alternating with B-

natural; compare mm. 867-872 with Rosenblatt, mm. 893-900), while the orchestra plays
a series of chords adapted from the closing measures of the Development (compare

Rosenblatt, mm. 507-509). Although he does not provide dynamic markings, Acs

apparently hears the ending of the piece as quiet and perhaps contemplative, maybe even

8Private communication from Steven Mayer.

9Steven Mayer, pianist, with the London Symphony Orchestra, Tamds Vdsdry, conductor (ASV,
CD DCA 778, 1991).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
449

prayerful. Maxwell has an opposite view, and, as noted above, his ending is thirty

seconds of virtuosity that grows out of the same piano figuration. In the recorded
performance, the soloist presses forward beginning at the D major transformation of the
De profundis theme (Rosenblatt, mm. 822ff.) and convincingly leads into Maxwells

closing measures.

The present author had the opportunity to hear his edition at the first performances
in the Hague on 5 and 6 May 1990, with pianist Steven Mayer and the Residentie Orkest

conducted by Jacek Kaspzyck. At that time, an ending was provided that included the

initial statement of the De profundis theme, now transposed to D major, followed by an


orchestral statement of the same (compare mm. 188-231), and nine measures of coda
based on the transition to the theme and a figuration in the Development section (see mm.

181-186 and 283ff.). The rationale behind this lengthy conclusion was musical and
physical: the F-sharp minor version of the De profundis theme had not been heard in the

tonic, and such a conclusion could have been contained on the blank pages that remained in

the autograph volume. This ending was tried out in rehearsal and discovered to be

anticlimactic and therefore unsuccessful. A satisfactory solution was to use only the final
nine meaures of coda, and this allowed the soloist to press forward through the cadences to

the end. Rather than a virtuosic conception, the result, though still forte, was majestic.

For the recording, Steven Mayer chose not to use any ending, and he concluded the piece

quietly with four repeated chords (compare m. 509).


These completions would seem to confirm that only a coda is necessary, and in all
cases the resulting conclusion was less than a minutes duration. Disagreement arises as to

whether the ending and the measures leading up to it should take on a virtuosic or a
contemplative character. The interpretation may hinge on an understanding of the program,
whether the victory implied by the marziale transformation continues through the

cadences repeated from the end of the Development or whether the repetition of these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
450

cadences is a memory of the earlier mood. Liszt did not provide any dynamics or phrasing,
and consequently there is no evidence that one interpretation is to be preferred over the

other. Perhaps this was Liszts own dilemma in 1835, and when he tuned away from the

concerto genre he also lost interest in discovering a solution.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
PAPER TYPES AND WATERMARKS

The following lists and watermark tracings are limited to the manuscripts that are
discussed in detail in chapters five through seven of the present work. They are modeled
after Appendices B and D in Rena Mueller, Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in

Sources and Revisions (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1986), and additional

information on the paper types listed below may be found throughout her dissertation.

Paper Types

The first item in the description is a reference to the watermark, that is, the words,

letters, or characters employed, followed by the year(s) in which Liszt is known to have
used it for the works listed. The measurements differ by slight increments from those in

Muellers listing and are mostly attributable to the less-than-precise way of producing paper

at this time. The discrepancies have therefore been allowed to stand. In addition, some

minor errors have been corrected. Color of the paper is noted only when exceptional.

Each manuscript description ends with a reference to Muellers number as found in her
Appendix B. Folio numbers separated by a slash are page numbers, usually autograph,

that are found in the manuscript. The numbering of the paper types is for this appendix

only and is used for convenience elsewhere in the dissertation. An (*) next to a manuscript
signifies that its watermark is reproduced.

451

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
452

Chapter 8: Concerto No. 1 & Grandefantaisie symphonique

(1) D&C BLAUW / BFK RIVES [1834] (440-445 x 305mm; 24 staves; 12-staff rastral,
196.5mm span; 7-7.5mm staff), B.4 (with incorrect measurements and manuscript
attributions)
D-WRgs H3b* Concerto No. 1 (copyist: Belloni)
D-WRgs H7 Grande fantaisie symphonique (431 x 289mm bound, copyist:
Belloni)

(2) J Bouchet [1834] (440-445 x 295-305mm; 24 staves; 12-staff rastral, 196.5-197mm


span; 7-7.5mm staff), not in Mueller

D-WRgs H3c* Concerto No. 1 (copyist: Belloni)

Chapter 9: Malediction & De Profundis

(1) J Bouchet / Cross / Heart [1834] (339 x 251mm; 16 staves; rastral-ruled; 291.5-
292mm span; 7-7.5mm staff), B.6

D-WRgs H2 Malidiction (part of earlier version)


D-WRgs K l* Mendelssohn Duo (ff. 24-29, August 1834)
D-WRgs LI* Chopin Duo (ff. 1-17,32-33, 25 Juillet)
D-WRgs Z18/1 single folio (sketches, 28 Avril 1834, 5 Mai, 17,29)

(2) H I S / Cross / Heart [1834] (338 x 252mm; 16 staves; rastral-ruled; 286-287mm


span; 7.5-8mm staff), not in Mueller

D-WRgs LI* Chopin Duo (ff. 18-27, 30-31)

(3) CORMATIN / Maltese Cross / Heart [1834-35] (255-260 x 340-348mm unbound; [a]
20 staves, [b] 24 staves; rastral-ruled; [a] 204mm span, [b] 223-224mm span;
5mm staff), B.7

D-WRgs HI* De Profundis (245 x 331mm bound, [a] followed by [b])


D-WRgs H5d Concerto No. 2 ([b], bifolio ff. 1/2)
D-WRgs HI3a Malediction (sketches, [a] bound as HI, [b] is untrimmed
bifolio)

(4) KOOL1833 / Lion with sword [1834-35] (350 x 265mm; 14 staves; rastral-ruled;
275mm span; 8.5-9mm staff), B.2

D-WRgs H2* Malediction (unknown copyist)


D-WRgs H13b Malediction (collette scrap)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
453

(5) D&C BLAUW / BFK [1835] (342 x 260mm; 14 staves; rastral-ruled; 287mm span;
7.5mm staff), B.3[a]

D-WRgs K l* Mendelssohn Duo (ff. 1-12,18-23)

(6) J Whatman [1835] (346 x 270mm; 12 staves; rastral-ruled; 277mm span; 8.5-9mm
staff), B.5[a]
D-WRgs Kl Mendelssohn Duo (ff. 13-17)

(7) Cross / Heart [1835] (345 x 255mm; 16 staves; rastral-ruled; 270mm span; 8mm
staff), [incorrectly listed as B.6 in Mueller]

D-WRgs H2* Malediction (collette & bifolio)

(8) D&C BLAUW [1835] (340 x 255mm; 14 staves; rastral-ruled; 281mm span; 8.5-9mm
staff), B.3[b]
D-WRgs H2 Malediction (collette on f. 2v)
D-WRgs LI* Chopin Duo (ff. 28-29,34-^1)

[Chapter 10: The Three Concertos of 1839]

(1) J Whatman 258 [1839] (235 x 307mm; 12 staves; rastral-ruled; 171-171.5mm span;
6.5-7mm staff), B.15
D-WRgs H5d* Concerto No. 2 (ff. 3-20)

(2) Non-Watermark [1839] (275 x 402mm; 20 staves; rastral-ruled; 226-227mm span;


6mm staff), B.19

D-Ngm 107023/n Concerto No. 1 (pp. 15-20,23-27, 1 folio)


D-WRgs H5c Concerto No. 2 (Gombo, 13Sept 39)
D-WRgs J78b Allegro di bravura
D-WRgs Z31, no.l Concerto No. 1 / Concerto, op. posth. (sketches, each work on
its own page)
USSR-Lsc f298,N5 Concerto No. 1 (pp. 1-14,21-22, folios) / Concerto, op.
posth.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
454

(3) D&C BLAUW / BFK RIVES [1839?] (260-263 x 365-370mm; 22 staves; rastral-
ruled; 5-5.5 and 7mm staves), B.18

D-WRgs H3a Concerto No. 1 (ff. 1-5, 8,10-13,23-24,27-28; copyist:


Belloni)
D-WRgs H3d* Concerto No. 1, Concerto No. 2, Concerto, op. posth. (copyist:
Belloni)

[Chapter 11: The Weimar Years (1848-1849)]

(1) Non-Watermark [1848-49] (275 x 347mm; 18 staves; rastral-ruled; 214.5-215mm


span; 5.5mm staff), B.69

D-WRgs H3a Concerto No. 1 (ff. 6/7,17/18,19/20, 21/22,25/26)


D-WRgs H6 Totentanz (ff. 2-7)

(2) Non-Watermark, greenish-blue [1848-49] (259 x 330mm; 20 staves; rastral-ruled;


206.5mm span; 5-5.5mm staff), B.61

D-WRgs H3a Concerto No. 1 (f. 9)


D-WRgs H6 Totentanz (ff. 1/12, 8-11)

(3) Non-Watermark [1848-49] (346 x 241mm; 12 staves; rastral-ruled; 8mm staff), B.72
D-WRgs Z31, no.2 Totentanz

(4) Non-Watermark [1849] (245 x 350mm; 21 staves; rastral-ruled; 220-226mm span; 6-


6.5mm staff), B.16 [watermark identification is incorrect]
D-WRgs H3a Concerto No. 1 (ff. 8 collette, 13v collette, 14,15/16,17v
collette, 19v collette, 24r collette, 29/30,31/32,33,34,35/36)
D-WRgs H5a Concerto No. 2 (ff. 2/3)
D-WRgs H5b Concerto No. 2

(5) Non-Watermark [1849] (250 x 325mm; 20 staves; rastral-ruled; 6mm staff), not in
Mueller

D-WRgs H3a Concerto No. 1 (ff. 37, 38/39,40/41)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
455

(6) CHJ HONIG Vi [1849] (273 x 356mm; 18 staves; rastral-ruled; uneven,


approximately 237-240mm span; 7mm staff), B.66
D-WRgs H5a Concerto No. 2 (ff. 1,4-24, 6 Mai 1849)
D-WRgs H8 Beethoven Fantasy
D-WRgs T1 Hungarian Fantasy

(7) Non-Watermark [1849] (334 x 265mm; 16 staves; rastral-ruled; 277.5-278mm


span; 8mm staff), B.64

D-Bds F.Liszt 7 Beethoven Fantasy

(8) Non-Watermark [1849] (394 x 283mm; 24 staves; rastral-ruled, impressions at


margins; 348mm span; 5 and 6.5mm staves), B.68

D-WRgs H4 Concerto No 1, Concerto No. 2 (copyist: Conradi)


US-NYpmLehman Totentanz (copyist: Conradi)
US-Wc ML96.L58 Hungarian Fantasy, Beethoven Fantasy, Weber Polonaise
(copyist: Conradi)

[Chapter 12: The Weimar Years (1850-1865)]

(1) Non-Watermark [1849-50] (445 x 313mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled;


311mm span; 5mm staff), B.73

D-WRgs H5e Concerto No. 2 (copyist: Raff)


US-Wc ML31.H43a Concerto No. 1 (Eilsen, 8 Dec:49, copyist:
no. 59 Raff)

(2) Non-Watermark [1849-1850] (274 x 347 mm; 20 printed (?) staves; 248mm span;
6mm staff), B.90 [with correction to year]

D-WRgs J20 Grosses Konzertsolo (Grand Concert pour le Conservatoire


Paris 1850)

(3) Non-Watermark [1851] (331 x 268mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled;


6.5mm staff), not in Mueller
D-WRgs T3a Weber Polonaise (copyist: Bulow)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
456

(4) Non-Watermark [1851] (402 x 290mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled; 5mm
staff), not in Mueller

D-WRgs T2 Wanderer Fantasy (unknown copyist)

(5) Non-Watermark [1851] (242 x 320mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled;


7.5mm), not in Mueller

D-WRgs T2 Wanderer Fantasy (unknown copyist)

(6) Non-Watermark [1852] (335 x 265mm; 24 printed staves; 6mm staff), B.85

US-Wc ML96.L58 Hungarian Fantasy (correction folios)

(7) Non-Watermark [1852] (328 x 260mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled; 5mm
staff), not in Mueller

D-WRgs H9 Beethoven Fantasy (copyist: Raff)

(8) Non-Watermark [1853] (362 x 272mm; 22 staves; rastral-ruled; 321-323mm span;


6.5-7mm staff), B.82

D-WRgs H5f Concerto No. 2 (ff. 1/2, 5-10)


D-WRgs H10 Totentanz (ff. 1-8, 10/11, 14/15, 17, 19, 20/21, 24)
D-WRgs H 11 Concerto No. 2 (paper trimmed for binding; unknown copyist)
US-NYpmLehman Concerto No. 1 (copyist: Pruckner)
US-Wc ML31.H43a Concerto No. 1
no.63

(9) Non-Watermark [1853] (339 x 267mm; 20 staves; rastral-ruled; 281.5-282mm span;


6-6.5mm staff), B.87

D-WRgs H5f Concerto No. 2 (ff. 3/4)

(10) Non-Watermark, blue-green [1856] (339 x 266mm; 13 staves; rastral-ruled,


impressions at margins; 280.5-285mm span; 8mm staff), B.83

D-Bds F.Liszt 12 Concerto pathetique


US-NYpmLehman Concerto No. 1 (two correction folios)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
457

(11) Non-Watermark [1856] (331 x 262mm; varying number of staves; rastral-ruled; 6 and
8mm staves), not in Mueller

D-WRgs H12 Concerto No. 1 (copyist: Pruckner)

(12) Non-Watermark [1856] (347 x 269mm; 12 staves, freely spaced; rastral-ruled;


8.5mm staff), not in Mueller
D-WRgs W16 Concerto path&ique (copy)

(13) Non-Watermark [1859-1861] (268 x 349mm from larger paper; 17 staves; rastral-
ruled, impressions at both margins; 6.5mm staff), B.97

D-WRgs W23 Concerto No. 2, two-piano version

(14) Non-Watermark [1864] (338 x 269mm; 12 printed staves; 261mm span; 7mm staff),
not in Mueller

D-WRgs H10 Totentanz (f. 16)

(15) Non-Watermark [1864] (350 x 266mm; 32 printed staves; 307-308mm span; 4.5mm
staff), B.101

D-WRgs H10 Totentanz (ff. 9, 12/13,18,22, 23, 25/26)


D-WRgs HI 1 Concerto No. 2 (ff. 20/21,29)

(16) Non-Watermark [1864] (333 x 245mm; 32 printed staves; 312mm span; 4.5mm
staff), B.102

D-WRgs H9 Beethoven Fantasy (p. 26, correction)


D-WRgs W20 Totentanz, two-piano version
US-Wc M196.L58 Totentanz, piano version

Watermarks

The following watermarks were copied by illuminating the paper from behind and
tracing them onto onionskin with pencil. The conditions were hardly ideal, given the

equipment available and the lack of a steady hand on the part of the present author.
Nevertheless, the quality of the result is sufficient for a number of uses until such time as a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
458

photographic method can be applied to these sources. A few watermarks have also been

reproduced in Appendix D of Muellers dissertation, as noted below.

(Note: In all cases where two folios are indicated, it means that the watermark
was traced across the fold of a bifolio. Where the paper had not been trimmed, it was often

possible to reconstruct the watermark layout of the entire sheet before cutting to produce the
bifolio format)

Type 8.1: The sheet before cutting had D&C Blauw on the left and BFK on the right
(see Figure 8.1). In the case of watermarks 2 and 3, it was beyond the capacity of
die present author to faithfully reproduce the intricacy of the design, hence the two
attempts. Note that it was not possible to copy the watermark in die other
manuscript with this paper, H7, because it was bound.

1. D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), ff. 10r/13v


2. D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), ff. 12r/llv
3. D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), [not recorded]

Type 8.2: The sheet before cutting had J Bouchet on the left and its countermark cross /
J [Heart] S on the right.

4. D-WRgs, H3c (Concerto No. 1), f. 4v


5. D-WRgs, H3c (Concerto No. 1), f. lr

Type 9.1: The sheet before cutting had J Bouchet on the left and its countermark cross /
J [Heart] S on the right. Although smaller in size than type 8.2, this paper from
the same manufacturer follows the same layout before cutting.
6. D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 14v/15r
7. D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. lv/2r
8. D-WRgs, K l (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 28v/29r

Type 9.2: Because the only example of this paper type was trimmed for binding, it was not
possible to determine the order of mark and countermark.

9. D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 19v/22r


10. D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 26v/27r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
459

Type 9.3: For this oblong paper, the cut is through the watermarks, and, as most of the
examples of this paper are bound, it was difficult to reconstruct the entire sheet
The manuscript in H-Bl appears to be the same paper. Also copied as Mueller D.3.

11. D-WRgs, HI (De Profundis), f.53v(top)/f.58r(bottom)


12. H-Bl, L.9 (Die Taubenpost), (a) page 22 / (b) page 14
13. H-Bl, L.9 (Die Taubenpost), (a) page 10 / (b) page 11 / (c) page 15

Type 9.4: The sheet before cutting had KOOL 1833 on the left and Lion with sword
on the right Also copied as Mueller D. 1.

14. D-WRgs, H2 (Malediction), ff. 16v/17r (pages 19-21)


15. D-WRgs, H2 (Malidiction), ff. 20v/21r (pages 26-29)

Type 9.5: The sheet before cutting had D&C Blauw on the left and BFK on the right.
Although smaller in size than type 8.1, this paper from the same manufacturer
follows the same layout before cutting.

16. D-WRgs, K1 (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 4v/5r


17. D-WRgs, K1 (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 7v/8r

Type 9.7: This paper is very similar to 9.1, and the countermark very likely contains J
Bouchet (see Mueller D.2).

18. D-WRgs, H2 0Malidiction), ff. 6v/7r (correction bifolio)

Type 9.8: There does not appear to be a countermark for this paper, as other folios exhibit
only chain lines.

19. D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 36v/37r

Type 10.1: The name J Whatman appears on the full sheet just before the cut and 258
in the quadrant directly beneath it The fold in the bifolio comes after J for the top
half, and in the lower half the left side is blank. For this tracing, two bifolios that
appear to have been an original sheet have been joined together, but the distance
between the two marks has been foreshortened. Also copied as Mueller D.9.
There is also a variant of this paper with larger lettering and lacking the number (see
H-Bn, Ms.Mus.5.094 [Die Stadt]).

20a. D-WRgs, H5d (Concerto No. 2), ff. 5v/4r


20b. D-WRgs, H5d (Concerto No. 2), ff. 16v/15r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
460

Type 10.3: The layout of this paper before cutting is the same as 8.1 and 9.5. To produce
oblong leaves, the cut went through the watermarks, as opposed to between mark
and countermark, with the result that portions of the same mark appear at the top or
bottom edges on opposite pages. The folios were also trimmed with the intention
of binding, therefore it was not possible to provide complete tracings.

21. D-WRgs, H3d (Concerto No. 1), f. 4r(top)/lv(bottom)


22. D-WRgs, H3d (Concerto No. 1), f. 7v(top)/10r(bottom)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 1: D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), ff. 10r/13v

--------

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Watermark 2: D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), ff. 12r/llv

If

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 3: D-WRgs, H3b (Concerto No. 1), [not recorded]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 4: D-WRgs, H3c (Concerto No. 1), f. 4v

i
i r-i s ../i
e) Q J u

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 5: D-WRgs, H3c (Concerto No. 1), f. lr

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 6: D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 14v/15r
. T ,

' i
i

s..

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 7: D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. lv/2r

t ' 1
i i _ '
\
J C O f t

2.J.1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 8: D-WRgs, K1 (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 28v/29r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
469

Watermark 9: D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 19v/22r


T

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 10: D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 26v/27r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 11: D-WRgs, HI (De ProfUndis), f.53v(top)/f.58r(bottom)

j"
A v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 12: H-Bl, L.9 (Die Taubenpost), (a) page 22 / (b) page 14

::z \

\ .
\

e.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 13: H-Bl, L.9 (Die Taubenpost), (a) page 10 / (b) page 11 / (c) page 15

_ . % . '
p ...

{J L -
t v 3 & 'j >
IT 1 Tfi^i I

.A

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
474

Watermark 14: D-WRgs, H2 (Malidiction), ff. 16v/17r (pages 19-21)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 15: D-WRgs, H2 (Malediction), ff. 20v/21r (pages 26-29)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 16: D-WRgs, K1 (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 4v/5r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 17: D-WRgs, K1 (Mendelssohn Duo), ff. 7v/8r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 18: D-WRgs, H2 (Malediction), ff. 6v/7r (correction bifolio)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 19: D-WRgs, LI (Chopin Duo), ff. 36v/37r

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Watermark 20: D-WRgs, H5d (Concerto No. 2), (a) ff. 5v/4r/ (b) ff. 16v/15r

Cy"
1
V. ^ ' P
.Sjk*

'< k

-V . . -.-J

4
^ '

..-v)

a r 'T i
fczq ^ \j
JS

t< "
^ -
S '

ey

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Watermark 21: D-WRgs, H3d (Concerto No. 1), f. 4r(top)/lv(bottom)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Watermark 22: D-WRgs, H3d (Concerto No. 1), f. 7v(top)/10r(bottom)

i- U J ju

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achdtz, Imre. Ein veroffentlichter Liszt-Brief im Archiv des Komitats Baranza. Studia
Musicologica 20 (1978): 405-412.

Agoult, Countess Marie d. Autour de Mme. dAgoult et de Liszt. (Alfred de Vigny, im ile
Ollivier, Princesse de Belgiojoso). Lettres publides avec introduction et notes par
Daniel Ollivier. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1941.

__________. Une correspondance romantique: Madame dAgoult, Liszt, Henri Lehmann.


Presentde par Solange JouberL Paris: Flammarion, 1947.

__________. Lettres it Ferdinand Hiller (1838-1857). Revue Politique et Littiraire:


Revue Bleue 51 (8 November 1913): 577-581; (15 November 1913): 613-619.

__________. Mimoires, souvenirs et journaux de la Comtesse dAgoult (Daniel Stern).


Presentation et notes de Charles F. Dupechez. 2 vols. Paris: Mercure de France,
1990.

[_________ ] Daniel Stem. Mimoires (1833-1854). Avec une introduction de M. Daniel


Ollivier. Neuvuime Edition. Paris: Calmann-Lvy, 1927.

[_________ ] Daniel Stem. Mes Souvenirs (1806-33). Paris, 1877.


Allsobrook, David Ian. Liszt: My Travelling Circus Life. Music in Georgian and Victorian
Society. Carbondale & Edwaidsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.
Altenburg, Detlef. Franz Liszt and the Legacy of the Classical Era. 19th Century Music
18 (Summer 1994): 46-63.

__________. Liszts Idee eines ungarischen Nationalepos in Tonen. Studia


Musicologica 28 (1986): 213-223.

_________ . Die Schriften von Franz Liszt: Bemerkungen zu einem zentralen Problem
der Liszt-Forschung. Festschrift Arno Forchert zum 60. Geburtstag am 29.
Dezember 1985. Ed. Gerhard Allrogen and Detlef Altenburg. Kassel: Barenreiter,
1986.

__________. Vom poetisch Schonen: Franz Liszts Auseinandersetzung mit der


Musikasthetik Eduard Hanslicks. Ars Musica: Musica Scientia. Festschrift
Heinrich Huschen. Ed. Detlef Altenburg. Beitrage zur rheinischen
Musikgeschichte. Band 126. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1980:1-9.

Altenburg, Detlef and Gerhard J. Winkler. Die Projekte der Liszt-Forschung: Bericht Uber
des Internationale Symposium Eisenstadt, 19.-21. Oktober 1989.
Wissenschafdiche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 87. Eisenstadt, 1991.

483

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
484

Arnold, Ben. Recitative in Liszts Solo Piano Music. Journal of the American Liszt
Society 24 (July-December 1988): 3-22.

Arnold, Ben and Michael Saffle. Liszt in Ireland (and Belgium): Reports from a Concert
Tour. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 26 (July-December 1989): 3-11.
Backus, Joan. Liszts Harmonies potiques et religieuses: Inspiration and the Challenge
of Form. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 21 (January-June 1987): 3-17.

__________. Liszts Sposalizio: A Study in Musical Perspective. 19th Century Music


12 (Fall 1988): 184-187.

Bdrdos, Lajos. Ferenc Liszt, the Innovator. Studia Musicologica 17 (1975): 3-38.

Barzun, Jacques. Berlioz and the Romantic Century. 3ded. 2vols. New York and
London: Columbia Univesity Press, 1969.
__________ . Literature in Liszts Mind and Work. Washington, D.C.: Library of
Congress, 1987.

Batta, Andres. Musikwissenschaftlicher Kramerspiegel oder Second-hand-Informationen


imkiinftigenLiszt-Katalog. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 389-395.
Bauer, Marion. The Literary Liszt. Musical Quarterly 22 (1936): 295-313.

Becker, Ralf-Walter. Formprobleme in Liszts H-moll Sonate: Untersuchungen zu Liszts


Klaviermusik um 1850. Dissertation, Philipps-Universitat Marburg/Lalm, 1979.

Beckett, Walter. Liszt. Rev. ed. The Master Musicians Series. London: J. M. Dent &
Sons Ltd., 1963.

Bekker, Paul. Liszt and His Critics. Musical Quarterly 22 (1936): 277-283.

Bellas, Jacqueline. Frangois Liszt et le department des livres. Studia Musicologica 28


(1986): 89-97.
Bergfeld, Joachim. DieformaleStrukturder Symphonische Dichtungen Franz Liszts.
Eisenach: Philipp Kirshner, 1931.

Berlioz, Hector. Achtzehn Briefe von Hector Berlioz an den Winterthurer Verleger J.
Rieter-Biedermann. Mitgeteilt von Max Felix. Schweizerisches Jahrbuchfur
Musikwissenschaft 2 (1927): 90-106.
__________. Les annies romantiques: 1819-1842. Correspondance publie par Julien
Tiersot Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1904.
__________ . Au milieu du chemin: 1852-1855. Correspondance publie par Julien
Tiersot Paris: Calmann-L6vy, 1930.
__________. Briefe von Hector Berlioz an die Furstin Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein.
Herausgegeben von La Mara. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1903.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
485

__________. Cauchemars et passions. Ed. G6rard Cond6. Paris: Editions Jean-Claude


Latt&s, 1981.

_________ . Correspondance ginirale. Edit6e sous la direction de Pierre Citron. Paris:


Flammarion, 1972-.

_________ . Correspondance inidite de Hector Berlioz 1819-1868. Avec une notice


biographique par Daniel Bernard. 2ded. Paris: Calmann-Ldvy, 1879.

__________. Evenings with the Orchestra. Trans., ed., and intro. Jacques Barzun.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Reprint, 1973.
__________. Lettres intimes. Avec une preface par Charles Gounod. Paris: Calmann-
Ldvy, 1882.
__________. Life and Letters o f Berlioz. Trans. H. Mainwaring Dunston. 2vols.
London: Remington and Co., 1882.

__________. The Memoirs o f Hector Berlioz. Trans, and ed. David Cairns. Corrected
Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975.

__________. Mozart, Weber and Wagner with Various Essays on Musical Subjects. The
Critical Writings of Hector Berlioz [3]. Trans. Edwin Evans. London: Wm.
Reeves, [1918].

__________. Le musicien errant: 1842-1852. Correspondance publide par Julien Tiersot


Paris: Calmann-Lvy, 1919.

__________. New Letters o f Berlioz: 1830-1868. With introduction, notes and English
translations by Jacques Barzun. 2d ed. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1974.
__________. A Selection From His Letters. Selected, edited and translated by Humphrey
Searle. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1966. Reprint, New York: Vienna House,
1973.

_________ . Traiti dinstrumentation et d!orchestration modernes. Paris: Henry Lemoine


et Cie., [I860]. Reprint, Westmead: Gregg International Publishers Limited, 1970.
Bloom, Peter A. Berlioz and the Critic: La Damnation de Fitis. Studies in Musicology
in Honor o f Otto E. Albrecht. Ed. John Walter Hill. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1980.

__________. Berlioz in the Year of the Symphoniefantastique. Journal o f Musical


Research 9 (1989): 67-88.

_________ . La mission de Berlioz en Allemagne: Un document in&lit Revue de


Musicologie 66 (1980): 70-76.

_________ . Orpheus Lyre Resurrected: A Tableau Musical by Berlioz. Musical


Quarterly 61 (1975): 189-211.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
486

__________. Politics and the Musical Press in 1830. Periodica Musica 5 (1987): 9 -
16.

_________ . A Return to Berliozs Retour d la Vie." Musical Quarterly 64 (1978): 354-


385.

Bloom, Peter A., ed. Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties. Musical Life in 19th-
Century France 4. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press, 1987.

Bloom, Peter A. and D. Kern Holoman. Berliozs Music for LEurope littdraire. Music
Review 39 (1978): 100-109.

Boissier, Auguste. Liszt pedagogue: Legons de piano donnies par Liszt d Mademoiselle
Valirie Boissier d Paris en 1832. Paris: Honor6 Champion, 1923. Reprint,
Geneva: Slatkins Reprints, 1976. [For English translation, see Franz Liszt, The
Liszt Studies.]
Bonner, Andrew. Liszts Les Preludes and Les Quatre Elimens: A Reinvestigation.
19th Century Music 10 (Fall 1986): 95-107.

Bory, Robert. Diverses lettres in6dites de Liszt. Schweizerisches Jahrbuchfur


Musikwissenschaft 3 (1928): 5-25.
_________ . Liszt et ses enfants: Blandine, Cosima, Daniel, dapris une correspondance
inidite avec la Princesse Marie Sayn-Wittgenstein. 6th ed. Paris: Editions R. A.
Correa, [1936].

_________ . Une retraite romantique en Suisse: Liszt et la Comtesse dAgoult. Deuxi&me


6dition consid6rablement augmentde. Lausanne: Editions SPES, 1930.

_________ . La vie de Franz Liszt par Iimage. Pr6c6dde dune introduction biographique
par Alfred Cortot. Geneva: Editions du Journal de Gen&ve, 1936.

Boschot, Adolphe. Le cripuscule dun romantique: Hector Berlioz 1842-1869. 2d ed.


Paris: Plon-Nourrit et Cie., 1912.

__________. Un romantique sous Louis-Philippe: Hector Berlioz 1831-1842.2d ed.


Paris: Plon-Nourrit et Cie., 1908.

Brown, Maurice J. E. Chopin: An Index of His Works in Chronological Order. 2d rev.


ed. New York: Da Capo Press, 1972.
Biilow, Hans von. Briefe und Schriften. Ed. Marie von Bulow. 2d ed. 7 vols. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1899-1907.

__________. Letters o f Hans von Bulow. Ed. and intro. Richard Count du Moulin
Eckart Trans. Hannah Waller. Translation edited with a preface and notes by
Scott Goddard. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1931. Reprint, New York: Vienna
House, 1972.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
487

Buchner, Dr. Alexander. Franz Liszt in Bohemia. Trans. Roberta Finlayson Samsour.
London: Westbrook House, 1962.

__________. Liszt in Prag. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 27-36.


Burger, Ernst. Franz Liszt: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten. Munich: List
Verlag, 1986. [English translation: A Chronicle o f His Life in Pictures. Trans.
Stewart Spencer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.]

_________ . Fr6dric Chopin: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten. Munich:


Hirmer Verlag, 1990.

Busoni, Ferruccio. The Essence o f Music and Other Papers. London: Rockcliff
Publishing Corporation, 1957. Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, 1965.
Cairns, David. Berlioz 1803-1832: The Making of an Artist. London: Andr Deutsch
Limited, 1989.

_________ . Reflections on the Symphoniefantastique of 1830. Music in Paris in the


Eighteen-Thirties. Ed. Peter Bloom. Musical Life in 19th-Century France IV.
Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press, 1987.

Chantavoine, Jean. Die Operette Don Sanche: Ein verloren geglaubtes Werk Franz
Liszts. Die Musik 3 (1903-04): 286-307.

Christem, J. W. Franz Liszt nach seinem Leben und Wirken aus authentischen Berichten.
Hamburg und Leipzig: Schuberth & Comp., 1841.

Cook, Nicholas. Liszts Second Thoughts: Liebestraum No. 2 and Its Relatives. 19th
Century Music 12 (Fall 1988): 163-172.

Cornelius, Peter. Literarische Werke. Ed. Edgar Istel. 4 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1904. Reprint, London: Johnson Reprint Company, 1970.
Cross, Richard E. Puzzi Revisited: A New Look at Hermann Cohen. Journal of the
American Liszt Society 36 (July-December 1994): 1941.

Dadelsen, Georg von. Die Fassung letzter Hand in der Musik. Acta Musicologica 33
(1961): 1-14.
Dahlhaus, Carl. Dichtung und Symphonische Dichtung. Archivfur Musikwissenschaft
39 (1982): 237-244.

_________ . Franz Liszt und die Vorgeschichte der Neuen Musik. Neue Zeitschriftfur
Musik 122 (1961): 387-391.

__________. Nineteenth-Century Music. Trans. J. Bradford Robinson. Berkeley, Los


Angeles: University of California Press, 1989.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
488

__________. Thesen iiber Programmusik. Beitrage zur musikalische Hermenutik.


Herausgegeben von Carl Dahlhaus. Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19.
Jahrhunderts. Band 43. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1975.

__________. Zur Kritik des asthetischen Urteils. Uber Liszts Prometheus. Die
Musikforschung 23 (1970): 411-419.

Dalmonte, Rossana. Liszt and Venice: Between Poetics and Rezeptionsgeschichte.


Journal o f the American Liszt Society 27 (January-June 1990): 17-24.

Damschroder, David Allen. The Structural Foundations of The Music of the Future: A
Schenkerian Study of Liszts Weimar Repertoire. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1981.

Daniel, Emo. Liszts First Return to Hungary. Piano Quarterly 89 (Spring 1975): 28-
33.

Deaville, James. The C. F. Kahnt Archive in Leipzig: A Preliminary Report. Notes: The
Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library Association 42 (1986): 502-517.

__________. A Checklist of Publications of Liszts Writings, 1849-1879. Journal o f


the American Liszt Society 24 (July-December 1988): 86-90.

__________. The New Critical Edition of Liszts Writings: A Report. Journal of the
American Liszt Society 26 (July-December 1989): 52-55.

Deutsch, Otto Erich. Musikverlags Nummern: Eine Auswahl von 40 datieren Listen 1710-
1900. Zweite, verbesserte und erste deutsche Ausgabe. Berlin: Merseburger,
1961.

Devrids, Anik. Un dditeur de musique k la tete ardente Maurice Schlesinger. Fontis


Artis Musicae 27 (1980): 125-136.

Devrifcs, Anik and Frangois Lesure. Dictionnaire des Mteurs de musique frangais. Vol. 2:
de 1820 k 1914. Archives de l6dition musicale fran5aise 4/2. Publides sous la
direction de Francois Lesure. Geneva: Editions Minkoff, 1988.

Diaz, Anne Troisier de. Emile Ollivier et Carolyne de Sayn-Wittgenstein: Correspondance


1858-1887. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984.

Di Grazia, Donna M. Liszt and Carolyne Sayn Wittgenstein: New Documents on the
Wedding That Wasnt 19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988): 148-162.

Dolge, Alfred. Pianos and their Makers. Covina: Covina Publishing Co., 1911. Reprint,
New York: Dover Publications, 1972.

Domling, Wolfgang. Franz Liszt und seine Zeit. Grofie Komponisten und ihre Zeit
Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1985.

__________. Die Symphonie fantastique und Berliozs Auffassung von Programmusik.


Die Musikforschung 28 (1975): 260-283.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
489

Domokos, Zsuzsanna. Zum Problem der Incipits im neuen thematischen Verzeichnis der
Werke Franz Liszts. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 275-290.

Drillon, Jacques. Liszt transcripteur, ou la chariti bien ordonnte. Paris: Actes SUD,
1986.
Drusche, Esther. Richard Wagner. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag fur Musik, 1987.

Eberhardt, Hans. Franz Liszt und Sondershausen. Archiv fu r Musikwissenschaft 43


(1986): 201-217.
Eckhardt, Mdria. Diaiy of a Wayfarer: The Wanderings of Franz Liszt and Marie
dAgoult in Switzerland, June-July 1835. Journal of the American Liszt Society
11 (June 1982): 10-17.

__________. Une femme simple, mdre dun gdnie europden: Anna Liszt (Quelques
aspects dune correspondance) Revue Musicale 405-406-407 (1987): 199-214.
_________ . Die Handschriften des Rdkoczi-Marsches von Franz Liszt in der Szdchdnyi
Nationalbibliothek, Budapest Studia Musicologica 17 (1975): 347-405.

__________. Liszt k Marseilles. Studia Musicologica 24 (1982): 163-197.


__________. Liszt in His Formative Years: Unpublished Letters 1824-1827. New
Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 103 (Autumn 1986): 93-107.

_________ . The Liszt Thematic Catalogue in Preparation: Results and Problems.


Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 221-230.

__________. Liszts Bearbeitungen von Schuberts Marschen. Formale Analyse. Studia


Musicologica 26 (1984): 133-146.
__________. Liszts Music Manuscripts in the National Szichinyi Library, Budapest.
Studies in Central and Eastern European Music 2. Budapest: Akaddmiai Kiadd,
1986.
_________ . Liszts Weimar Library: The Hungarica. New Hungarian Quarterly 32,
no. 122 (Summer 1991): 156-164.

__________. New Documents on Liszt as Author. Journal o f the American Liszt


Society 18 (December 1985): 52-66.
_________ . A New Thematic Catalog of Liszts Compositions. Journal of the
American Liszt Society 27 (January-June 1990): 53-57.
__________. Review of The Letters o f Franz Liszt to Olga von Meyendorff1871-1886 in
the Mildred Bliss Collection at Dumbarton Oaks. Studia Musicologica 22 (1980):
468-474.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
490

__________. Review of Franz Liszt: Samtliche Schriften (Collected Writings), ed. Detlef
Altenburg. Vol. 5: Dramaturgische Blatter, ed. Dorothea Redepenning and Britta
Schilling, glossed by Detlef Altenburg, Dorothea Redepenning and Britta Schilling.
New Hungarian Quarterly 116 (Winter 1989): 115-118.

__________. Ein Spatwerk von Liszt: der 129. Psalm. Studia Musicologica 18 (1976):
295-333.

__________. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Consolations von Franz Liszt. Studia


Musicologica 34 (1992): 449-457.

Eckhardt, Mlria, ed. and compiler. Franz Uszf s Estate. I. Books. Budapest: Liszt
Ferenc Zenemiivdszeti Foiskola, 1986.
Eckhardt, Mdria and Cornelia Knotik. Franz Liszt und sein Kreis in Briefen und
Dokumenten aus den Bestanden des Burgenlandischen Landesmuseums.
Wissenschafdiche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 66. Eisenstadt, 1983.

Eggebrecht, Hans Heinrich. Symphonische Dichtung. Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft


39 (1982): 223-233.

Elliker, Calvin. The Autograph Manuscript of Franz Liszts Ab irato. Notes: The
Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 51 (1995): 1238-1253.

Engel, Carl. Review of Franz Liszts Leben und Wirken von Christern [J. W. Christem,
Franz Liszt: nach seinem Leben und Werke, aus authentischen Berichten
dargestellt, Hamburg: Schuberth, 1841.] Musical Quarterly 22 (1936): 354-361.

Engel, Hans. Musik in Thuringen. Mitteldeutschen Forschungen 39. Cologne, Graz:


Bohlau, 1966.

Eosze, Ldszld. Liszt und Wagner: Neue Aspekte eines Kunstlerbundes. Studia
Musicologica 28 (1986): 195-200.

__________. 119 Romai Liszt-Dokumentum. Budapest: Zenemiikiad6,1980.


Erard. Dossier Erard. (2) Perfectionnemens apportds dans le mecanisme du piano par Les
Erard, depuis lorigine de cet instrument jusquHlexposition de 1834. Paris 1834.
(4) Le piano d Erard a lexposition de 1844. Paris, 1844. (5) S. & P. Erard.
Facteurs de piano & de harpes. Paris, 1878. Reprint, introduction by Anik
Devrids. Geneva: Minkoff, 1980.

Fay, Amy. Music Study in Germany in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: A. C. McClurg
& Company, 1880. Reprint, with an introduction by Frances Dillon. New York:
Dover Publications, 1965.

Fehr, Max. Achtzehn Briefe von Hector Berlioz an den Winterthurer Verleger J. Rieter-
Biedermann. Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fur Musikwissenschaft 2 (1927): 90-
106.
Felix, Wemer. Franz Liszt. Leipzig: Verlag Philipp Reclam jun., 1986.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
491

__________. Liszts Schaffen um 1848. (Versuch zur Deutung seiner Programmatik.)


Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 59-67.

Ferenc, B6ris. Liszt- und Wagner-Briefe an Mosonyi in KocMlys wissenschaftlicher


Bearbeitung. Die Musikforschung 39 (1986): 317-334.
Floros, Constantin. Die Faust-Symphonie von Franz Liszt: Eine semantische Analyse.
Musik-Konzepte 12. Franz Liszt. Herausgegeben von Heinz-Klaus Metzger und
Rainer Riehn. Munich, 1980.

Fog, Dan. Zur Datierung der Edition Peters: AufGrundlage der Grieg-Ausgaben.
Copenhagen: Dan Fog Musikverlag, 1990.

Fontaney, Antoine. Journal intime. Publid avec une introduction et des notes par Rend
Jasinski. Paris: Les Presses Franaises, 1925.

Forte, Allen. Liszts Experimental Idiom and Music of the Early Twentieth Century.
19th Century Music 10 (Spring 1987): 209-228.

Frederick, Edmund M. The Romantic Sound in Four Pianos of Chopins Era. 19th
Century Music 3 (November 1979): 150-153.

Friedheim, Arthur. Life and Liszt: The Recollections o f a Concert Pianist. Edited by
Theodore L. Bullock. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1961.
Friedheim, Philip. Berlioz and Rhythm. Music Review 37 (1976): 5-44.

__________. First Version, Second Version, Alternative Version: Some Remarks on the
Music of Liszt. Music Review 44 (1983): 194-202.

__________. The Piano Transcriptions of Franz Liszt. Studies in Romanticism 1


(Winter 1962): 83-96.

__________. Review of Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke / New Liszt Edition. Series I:
Werke furKlavier zu zwei Handen. Vol. I: Etiiden: Etudes dexecution
transcendante; Vol. II: Etiiden II. Journal o f the American Musicological Society
26 (1983): 171-174.

Fuld, James J. The Book of World-Famous Music: Classical, Popular and Folk. Rev. ed.
New York: Crown Publishers, 1971.

Fussman, Werner and Dr. Bdla Mdtdka. Franz Liszt: Ein Kunstlerleben in Wort und Bild.
Berlin, Leipzig: Julius Beltz, 1936.

Gdbry, Gyorgy. Franz Liszts Klaviere. Studia Musicologica 20 (1978): 389-403.

__________. Das Klavier Beethovens und Liszts. Studia Musicologica 8 (1966): 379-
390.

__________. Neuere Liszt-Dokumente. Studia Musicologica 10 (1968): 339-352.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
492

Gajdos, V. J. War Franz Liszt Franziskaner? Studia Musicologica 6 (1964): 299-310.

Gardarsky, C. Liszt und seine tschechischen Lehrer. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 69-
76.

G&donyi, Zoltdn. E/so Magyar Zenedarabjai (Die ersten ungarischen Klavierstucke von
Franz Liszt). Sopron: A Szerzo Kiadlsa, 1935.
__________. Liszt Ferenc: Elso Magyar Stilusa (Le style hongrois de Franz Liszt).
Budapest: Az Orsz. Szdchenyi Konyvtdr Kiaddsa, 1936-

__________. Neue Tonleiter- und Sequenztypen in Liszts Fruhwerken. (Zur Frage der
Lisztchen Sequenzen.) Studia Musicologica 11 (1969): 169-199.
Gdrdonyi, Zsolt and Siegfried Mauser, eds. Virtuositat und Avantgarde: Untersuchungen
zum Klavierwerk Franz Liszts. Mainz: B. Schotts Sohne, 1988.

Gavoty, Bernard. Liszt: Le virtuose 1811-1848. Paris: Julliard, 1980.

Genast, Eduard. Aus Weimars klassischer und nachklassischerZeit: Erinnerungen eines


alten Schauspielers. Memoirienbibliothek. Neue Serie 5. Neu herausgegeben von
Robert Kohlrausch. 3d ed. Stuttgart: Robert Lutz, 1904.

Gervers, Hilda. Franz Liszt as Pedagogue. Journal of Research in Music Education 18


(1970): 385-391.

Gollerich, August. Franz Liszt. Berlin: Marquardt& Co., 1908.

__________. Franz Liszt Klavierunterricht von 1884-1886. Ed. Wilhelm Jerger.


Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1975.
Goldhammer, Otto. Die neue Liszt-Ausgabe: Der kulturelle Beitrag der Deutschen
Demokratischen Republik zum Liszt-Jahr 1961. Beitrdge zur Musikwissenschaft
2 (1960): 69-85.

Gottschalg, A. W. Franz Liszt in Weimar und seine letzten Lebensjahre. Ed. Carl Alfred
Rend. Berlin: Arthur Glaue, 1910.
Gottwald, Clytus. Die Liszt-Autographe des Germanischen Nationalmuseums in
Niimberg Die Musikforschung 35 (1982): 166-172.

Grab6cz, Mdrta. Morphologie des oeuvres pour piano de Liszt: Influence du programme
sur revolution des formes instrumentales. Budapest: MTA Zenetudomdnyi Intdzet,
1986.

__________. Renaissance de la forme enumdrative, sous linfluence du module dpique,


dans les oeuvres pour piano de Liszt; facteurs de lanalyse structurale et
sdmantique. Studia Musicologica 26 (1984): 199-218.

__________. Strategies narratives des dpopdes philosophiques de ldre romantique dans


loeuvre pianistique de F. Liszt Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 99-115.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
493

__________. Die Wirkung des Programms auf die Entwicklung der instrumentalen
Formen in Liszts Klavierwerken. Studia Musicologica 22 (1980): 299-325.
Gray, Cecil. Contingencies and Other Essays. London: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Reprint, Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971.

Gregorovius, Ferdinand. The Roman Journals o f Ferdinand Gregorovius 1852-1874.


Edited by Friedrich Althaus and translated from the second German edition by Mrs.
Gustavus W. Hamilton. London: George Bell & Sons, 1907.

Guichaid, Ldon. Liszt et la literature frangaise. Revue de Musicologie 56 (1970): 3-34.

Gut, Serge. Franz Liszt. Paris: Editions de Fallois/LAge d Homme, 1989.


__________. Franz Liszt: Les Moments du langage musical. Paris: Editions Klincksieck,
1975.

__________. Frdddric Chopin et Franz Liszt: Une amitid &sens unique. Sur les traces
de Frdddric Chopin. Rdunis par Dani&le Pistone. Paris: Libraire Honord
Champion, 1984.

__________. Nouvelle approche des premieres oeuvres de Franz Liszt daprds la


correspondance Liszt-dAgoult. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 237-248.
Gut, Serge, ed. Liszt-Studien 2. Referate des 2. Europaischen Liszt-Symposiums.
Eisenstadt 1978. Munich and Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1981.

__________. Liszt-Studien 3. Franz Liszt und Richard Wagner: Musikalische und


geistesgeschichtliche Grundlagen der neudeutschen Schule. Referate des 3.
Europaischen Liszt-Symposiums. Eisenstadt 1983. Munich and Salzburg:
Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler, 1986.

Habels, Alfred. Borodin and Liszt. Translated with a preface by Rosa Newmarch.
London: Digby, Long & Co., 1895. Reprint:, New York: AMS Press Inc., 1977.

Halid, Sir Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Halid. With correspondence and diaries.
Edited with an introduction by Michael Kennedy. London: Paul Elek, 1972. New
York: Barnes & Noble, 1973.

Hamburger, Kldra. Documents-Liszt &Rome. Studia Musicologica 21 (1979): 319


344.

__________. Franz Liszt. 2., erweiterte, verbesserte Auflage. Budapest: Corvina, 1986.
__________. Franz Liszt, Carl Alexander grand-due de Weimar et Michelangelo Caetani
due de Sermoneta. Studia Musicologica 25 (1983): 145-158.

__________. Franz Liszt et Michelangelo Caetani, due de Sermoneta. Studia


Musicologica 21 (1979): 239-265.

__________. Liszt and Emile Ollivier. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 65-77.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
494

__________. Liszt et Pauline Viaidot-Garcla (dans loptique de sept lettres inddites).


Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 187-202.

__________. Madame Liszt: (Versuch eines Bildnisentwurfs auf Grund von unbekannten
Dokumenten). Studia Musicologica 27 (1985): 325-378.

__________. Musicien humanitaire. New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 103 (Autumn
1986): 85-92.

__________. Vier unveroffentlichte Briefe Hans von Biilow an Sdndor Bertha. Studia
Musicologica 2 (1962): 321-329.

_________ . Zur Bedeutung der unveroffentlichen Familienbriefe fur das thematische


Werkverzeichnis Franz Liszts. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 435-443.
Hamburger, Kldra, ed. Franz Liszt: Beitrage von ungarischen Autoren. Budapest:
Corvina, 1978.

Hankiss, Jdnos. Le Journal de Liszt: reconstitui d Iaide des documents de Iipoque.


Budapest: Corvina, 1960.

Haraszti, llmile. Berlioz et la Marche Hongroise. Paris: Editions de la revue musicale,


1946.

__________. Berlioz, Liszt, and the Rdkdczy March. Musical Quarterly 26 (1940):
220-231.

__________. Franz Liszt. Paris: A. et J. Picard et Cie., 1967.

__________. Franz Liszt Author Despite Himself. Musical Quarterly 33 (1947):


490-516.

__________. Franz Liszt, dcrivain et penseur, histoire dune mystification. Revue de


Musicologie 22 (1943): 19-28; 23 (1944): 12-24.

__________. Gendse des Prdludes de Liszt qui nont aucun rapport avec Lamartine.
Revue de Musicologie 35 (1953): 111-140.

__________. Liszt k Paris. La Revue Musicale 165 (April 1936): 241-258; 167 (July-
August 1936): 516.

__________. Les Qrigines de lorchestration de Franz Liszt Revue de Musicologie 34


(1952): 81-100.

__________. Le probldme Liszt. Acta Musicologica 9 (1937): 122-136; 10 (1938): 32-


46.

Harding, Rosamond. The Piano-forte: Its History traced to the Great Exhibition o f 1851.
Rev. ed. Surrey: Gresham Press, 1978.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
495

Hartmann, Anselm. Kunst und Kirche: Studien zum Messenschaffen von Franz Liszt.
Kolner Beitrage zur Musikforschung 168. Ed Klaus Wolfgang Niemoller.
Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1991.

Haschen, Reinhard. Franz Liszt oder Die Uberwindung der Romantik durch das
Experiment. Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1989.

Hase, Oskar von. Breitkopf& Hdrtel: Gedenkschrift und Arbeitsbericht. 5th ed. 2 vols.
Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1919. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Breilkopf & Hartel, 1968.
Hecker, Jutta. Die Altenburg: Geschichte eines Houses. 3d ed. Berlin: Verlag der Nation,
1988.

Helm, E. Franz Liszt: ein Opfer seiner Biographen? Festschriftfur einen Verlegen:
Ludwig Strecher zum 90. Geburtstag. Ed. Carl Dahlhaus. Mainz: B. Schotts
Sohne, 1973: 167-177.

_________ . A Newly Discovered Liszt Manuscript Studia Musicologica 5 (1963):


101- 106.

Hering, Hans. Franz Liszt und die Paraphrase. Musica 28 (1974): 231-234.

Hesford, Bryan. Franz Lisztthe Organ Transcriptions. Musical Opinion 1000, no.
1191 (January 1977): 178-181.
Hill, Richard S. The Former Prussian State Library. Music Library Association: Notes
2d series, 3: 327-350,404-410.

__________. The Plate Numbers of C. F. Peters Predecessors. Papers Read by


Members o f the American Musicological Society at the Annual Meeting,
Washington, D.C., 1938 (1940): 113-134.
Hinson, Maurice. The Long Lost Liszt Concerto. Journal of the American Liszt Society
13 (June 1983): 53-58.

Hitzig, Wilhelm. Pariser Briefe. Ein Beitrag zur Arbeit des deutschen Musikverlags aus
den Jahren 1833-1840. Der Bar (1929/30): 27-73. [For English translation, see
Hans Lenneberg, Breitkopf und Hartel in Paris.]
Ho, Allan. Tentative Revisions to Searles New Grove Catalogue of Liszts Works for
Two Pianos and Piano Four-Hands. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 14
(December 1983): 24-29.

Hoeckner, Berthold. Music as a Metaphor of Metaphysics: Tropes of Transcendence in


19th-Century Music from Schumann to Mahler. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University, 1994.
Hoffman, H. and N. Missir. Sur la toum6e de concerts de Ferenc Liszt en 1846-47, dans
le Barat, la Transylvanie et les Pays Roumains. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963):
107-124.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
496

Holde, Artur. Unpublished Letters by Beethoven, Liszt, and Brahms. Musical


Quarterly 32 (1946): 278-288.

Holoman, D. Kern. Berlioz. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,


1989.

__________. The Berlioz Catalogue: History, Structure, Problems, Lessons. Studia


Musicologica 34 (1992): 295-306.
__________. Catalogue o f the Works o f Hector Berlioz. New Edition o f the Complete
Works. Vol. 25. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1987.

__________. The Creative Process in the Autograph Musical Documents o f Hector


Berlioz, c.1818-1840. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980.

__________. The Present State of Berlioz Research. Acta Musicologica 47 (1975): 31-
67.

__________. Reconstructing a Berlioz Sketch. Journal of the American Musicological


Society 28 (1975): 125-130.

__________. Review of Hector Berlioz, oeuvres litteraires: Correspondance Gdndrale,


vol. 1 :1803-1832. Journal o f the American Musicological Society 26 (1973): 167-
171.
Hopkinson, Cecil. A Bibliography o f the Musical and Literary Works of Hector Berlioz,
1803-1869 with histories o f the French Music Publishers concerned. Second
Edition incorporating the authors additions and corrections. Edited by Richard
MacNutt With a new forward by Alec Hyatt King. Tunbridge Wells: Richard
MacNutt LTD, 1980.

Horvath, Emmerich Karl. Franz Liszt in Italien: Aufenthalt mit Marie Graftn dAgoult von
1837 bis 1839. Eisenstadt, 1986.

__________. Franz Liszt: Jugend. Eisenstadt, 1982.


__________. Franz Liszt: Kindheit (1811-1827). Eisenstadt, 1978.
__________. Frauen und Franz Liszt. Eisenstadt: Horvath, 1971.

Hrabussay, Z. Correspondance de Liszt avec des musiciens de Slovaquie. Studia


Musicologica 5 (1963): 125-129.
Hueffer, Francis. Haifa Century o f Music in England. 1837-1887. Essays Towards a
History. London: Chapman and Hall Limited, 1889.

Hurd, Pierre-Antoine and Claude Knepper, eds. Liszt en son temps. Paris: Hachette,
1987.

Huschke, Wolfram. Anmerkungen zu Franz Liszt Freischiitz-Fantasia. Studia


Musicologica 28 (1986): 261-271.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
497

__________. Musik im klassischen und nachklassischen Weimar 1756-1861. Weimar:


Hermann Bohlaus, 1982.

. Termini technici im Feld der Bearbeitungen bei Liszt Studia


Musicologica 34 (1992): 267-274.

Jensen, Eric Frederick. Liszt, Nerval, and Faust." 19th Century Music 6 (Fall 1982):
151-158.

Jerger, Wilhelm. Die Handschriften Franz Liszts aus dem NachlaB von August Gollerich
in Linz. Die Musikforschung 29 (1976): 288-294.
Jirdnek, Jaroslav. Franz Liszts Beitrag zur Musiksprache der Romantiker. Studia
Musicologica 28 (1986): 137-151.

Joachim, Joseph. Letters to andfrom Joseph Joachim. Selected and trans. Nora Bickley.
Preface by J. A. Fuller-Maitland. London: Macmillan, 1914.

Johns, Keith T. De Projundis, Psaume instrumental', an abandoned concerto for Piano


and Orchestra by Franz Liszt. Journal of the American Liszt Society 15 (June
1984): 96-104.

__________. Franz Liszts N6 Sketchbook held at the Goethe-Schiller Archive in


Weimar. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 20 (December 1986): 30-32.

__________. Liszt at the Gewandhaus: A Study of Documents for the 26 February 1857
Concert. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 27 (January-June 1989): 38-47.
__________. Malddiction: The Concertos History, Programme and Some Notes on
Harmonic Organization. Journal of the American Liszt Society 18 (December
1985): 29-35.

__________. More on Tasso with some notes on a little-known manuscript of Liszts


Lamento e Trionfo for piano duet preserved in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, East
Berlin. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 17 (June 1985): 20-23.

_______ The Music of the Future and the Berlin Critics: Franz Liszt Returns to the
Singakademie, December 1855. Journal of the American Liszt Society 23
(January-June 1988): 19-29.

__________. The N Series of Liszts Sketchbooks. Journal of the American Liszt


Society 19 (June 1986): 20-22.

Johnson, Douglas, Alan Tyson and Robert Winter. The Beethoven Sketchbooks: History,
Reconstruction, Inventory. Ed. Douglas Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985.

Kabisch, Thomas. Franz Liszt und die Tradition der nicht-diskursiven Musik. Studia
Musicologica 28 (1986): 125-136.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
498

__________. Struktur und Form im Spatwerk Franz Liszts. Das Klavierstuck Unstem
(1886). Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft 42 (1985): 178-199.
Kaczmarczyk, Adrienne. The Genesis of the Fwiirailles: The Connections Between
Liszts Symphonie r&volutionnaire and the Cycle Harmonies po&tiques et
religieuses. Studia Musicologica 35 (1993-94): 361-398.

Kalin, Joseph & Anton Marty. Leben und Werk des vor 150 Jahren geborenen
Komponisten Joachim Raff: Jublilaumsschrift zur Denkmaleinweihung in Lachen
(Schweiz). Lachen: Buchdruckerei Karl Kessler, 1972.

Kallberg, Jeffrey. Chopin in the Marketplace: Aspects of the International Music


Publishing Industry in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Notes: The
Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library Association 39 (1983): 535-569; 795-824.
Kaplan, Richard. Sonata Form in the Orchestral Works of Liszt: The Revolutionary
Reconsidered. 19th Century Music 8 (Fall 1984): 142-152.

Kapp, Julius. Aus Weimars musikalischer Glanzzeit Die Musik 11/4 (1911-12): 223-
232.

__________. Franz Liszt. Berlin and Leipzig: Schuster & Loeffler, 1909.
K&pdti, Jdnos. Liszt the Traveller. New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 103 (Autumn
1986): 108-118.
Kecskemdti, I. Die Eigenschrift der italienischen Fassung der Hymne de 1enfant von F.
Liszt. Studia Musicologica 13 (1971): 333-345.

Keeling, Geraldine. Concert Announcements, Programs and Reviews as Evidence for


First or Early Performances by Liszt of His Keyboard Works to 1847. Studia
Musicologica 34 (1992): 397-404.

__________. Konzertklaviere in Deutschland. Liszt-Studien (1993): 68-76.


__________. Liszt and J. B. Streicher, a Viennese Piano Maker. Studia Musicologica
28 (1986): 35^16.

__________. The Liszt Pianos Some Aspects of Preference and Technology. New
Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 104 (Winter 1986): 220-232.

__________. Liszts Appearances in Parisian Concerts, 1824-1844. Liszt Society


Journal 11 (1986): 22-34; 12 (1987): 8-22.

Keiler, Allan. Liszt and Beethoven: The Creation of a Personal Myth. 19th Century
Music 12 (Fall 1988): 116-131.

. Liszt and the Weimar Hoftheater. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 431


450.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
499

_________ . Liszt Research and Walkers Liszt Musical Quarterly 70 (1984): 374-
403.

Kielian-Gilbert, Marianne. The Functional Differentiation of Harmonic and


Transpositional Patterns in Liszts Consolation No. 4. 19th Century Music 14
(Summer 1990): 48-59.

Kleinertz, Rainer. Zum Problem des Friihwerks bei Franz Liszt am Beispiel von Vallde
dObermann. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 251-265.

K6kai, Rudolf. Franz Liszt in seinenfruhen Klavierwerken. Leipzig: Franz Wagner,


1933. Reprint, Kassel: Barenreiter, 1968.
Koury, Daniel J. Orchestral Performance Practices in the Nineteenth Century: Size,
Proportions, and Seating. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1986.

K6vacs, Mra. Documents sur Liszt en Belgique. Studia Musicologica 24 (1982): 157
162.

Kraft, G. Die Schaffen von Franz Liszt in Weimar. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 193
210 .

Kro6, Gyorgy. Annies de PdlerinagePremiere Annde: Versions and Variants. A


Challenge to the Thematic Catalogue. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 405-426.
_________ . La ligne intdrieure the Years of Transformation and the Album dun
voyageur. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 249-260.

Krummel, D. W., compiler. Guidefor Dating Early Published Music: A Manual o f


Bibliographical Practices. Hackensack: Joseph Boonin, Inc., 1974.
Krummel, D. W. and Stanley Sadie, eds. Music Printing and Publishing. The New
Grove Handbooks in Music. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1990.

Kruse, Georg Richard. August Conradi (Gestorben 26. Mai 1873): Ein Gedenkblatt.
Die Musik 12/4 (1912-13): 3-13.

Kiirthy, Andrds. Lhistoire du rapport de Liszt et de la Casa Ricordi refletde par leur
correspondance. Studia Musicologica 29 (1987): 325-342.

Lachmund, Carl V. Mein Leben mit Franz Liszt. Eschwege: G. E. Schroeder, 1970.
Laires, Fernando. Franz Liszt in Portugal. Piano Quarterly 89 (Spring 1975): 34-36.

Lang, Paul Henry. Liszt and the Romantic Movement. Musical Quarterly 22 (1936):
314-325.

Legdny, Dezso. Ferenc Liszt and His Country 1869-1873. Budapest: Corvina, 1976.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
500

__________. Franz Liszt: Unbekannte Presse und Briefe aus Wien 1822-1886. Wiener
Musikwissenschaftliche BeitrSge, Band 13. Vienna, Cologne, Graz: Hermann
Bohlaus, 1984.

__________. Hungarian Historical Portraits. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 79-88.

_________ . Liszt a Roma. NuovaRivista Musicale Italiana 21 (1987): 571-594.

_________ . Liszt and the Budapest Musical Scene: Influences and Contacts 1869
1886. New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 103 (Autumn 1986): 119-130.

_________ . Liszt in Rome nach der Presse (Erster Teil). Studia Musicologica 19
(1977): 85-107.

__________. Liszts and Erkels Relations and Students. Studia Musicologica 18


(1976): 85-107.

__________. Liszts Homes in Budapest. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 17


(June 1985): 4-14.

__________. Zum Problem der Datiemng der Spatwerke Franz Liszts. Studia
Musicologica 34 (1992): 445-447.

Legouv6, Ernest. Soixante ans de souvenirs. 2 vols. Paris: J. Herzel et Cie., 1886-1887.
Lehmann, D. Bemerkungen zur Liszt-Rezeption in Russland in den vierziger und
fiinfziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 211-215.

Lenneberg, Hans. Breitkopf & Hartel in Paris: The Letters o f their Agent Heinrich Probst
between 1833 and 1840. Musical Life in 19th-Century France 5. Stuyvesant, New
York: Pendragon Press, 1990.

_________ . Handwriting Identification and Common Sense. Fontis Artis Musicae 27


(1980): 30-32.

_________ . Music Publishing and Dissemination in the Early Nineteenth Century:


Some Vignettes. Journal o f Musicology 2 (1983): 174-183.
_________ . Revising the History of the Miniature Score. Notes: The Quarterly
Journal o f the Music Library Association 45 (1988): 258-261.

Lenoir, Yves. Ferenc Liszt: Lettres Autographes Conserves d la Bibliotheque Royale


Albert Ier. Brussels: Biblioteca Regia Belgica, 1986.
Lenz, Wilhelm von. The Great Piano Virtuosos o f Our Time. New York: G. Schirmer
Inc., 1899. Reprint, edited by Philip Reader. London: Kahn & Averill, 1983.

Leyetchkiss, Vladimir. My Memories of Franz Liszt by Alexander Ditch Siloti.


Translated, with an introduction, Commentary and Notes. Journal of the
American Liszt Society 15 (June 1984): 5-38.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
501

Linden, A. van der. Liszt et la Belgique. Studia Musicologica 11 (1969): 281-290.

Lipsius, Marie (La Mara). Aus Franz Liszts Erster Jugend. Ein Schreiben seines Vaters
mit Briefen Czemys an Ihn. Die Musik 5/3 (1905-06): 15-29.

__________. ClassischesundRomantischesausderTonwelt. Leipzig: Breitkopf &


HSrtel, 1892.

__________, ecL Briefe hervorragender Zeitgenossen an Franz Liszt. Herausgegeben von


La Mara. 3 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, (III) 1895, (HI) 1904.
Lissa, Zofia. Chopin im Lichte des Briefwechsels von Verlegem seiner Zeit gesehen.
Fontis Artis Musicae 7 (1960): 46-57.

Liszt, Franz. An Artists Journey: Lettres dun bachelier is musique 1835-1841. Trans,
and annotated Charles Suttoni. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

__________. Briefe aus ungarischen Sammlungen 1835-1886. Gesammelt und Erlautert


von Margit Prahacs. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1966.

__________. Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Carl Alexander Grossherzog von
Sachsen. Herausgegeben von La Mara. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1909.
__________. Briefwechsel zwischen Franz Liszt und Hans von Bulow. Herausgegeben
von La Mara. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898.

_________ . Correspondance. Lettres choisies, prdsentdes et annotdes par Pierre-Antoine


Hurd et Claude Knepper. Paris: Editions Jean-Claude Lattds, 1987.

__________. Correspondance de Liszt et de la Comtesse dAgoult. Publide par M. Daniel


Ollivier. 2 vols. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1933,1934.

_________ . Correspondance de Liszt et de safille Madame Emile Ollivier. 1842-1862.


Publide par Daniel Ollivier. Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1936.
__________. Des Bohimiens et de leur Musique e,i Hongrie. Nouvelle ddition. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1881. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin Sandig oHG., 1973.
__________. Elf ungedruckte Briefe Liszts an Schott Ed. Edgar Istel. Die Musik 5/3
(1905-06): 43-52.
__________. Franz Liszt in seinen Briefen. Eine Auswahl, herausgegeben mit einem
Vorwort und Kommentaren von Hans Rudolf Jung. Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1987.

__________. Franz Liszt-Richard Wagner Briefwechsel. Herausgegeben und eingeleitet


von Hanjo Resting. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1988. [For English
translation, see Richard Wagner, The Correspondence o f Wagner and Liszt.]

__________. Franz Liszts Briefe. Herausgegeben von La Mara. 8 vols. Leipzig:


Breitkopf & Hartel, 1893-1905.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
502

. Franz Liszts Briefe an Baron Anton Augusy 1846-1878. Herausgegeben


von Wilhelm von Csapb. Budapest: Friedrich Kilidns Nachfolger Konigliche
Ungarische Universitats-Buchhandlung, 1911.

. Franz Liszts Briefe an Carl Gille. Herausgegeben von Adolf Stem.


Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1903.

. Franz Liszts Briefe an den Furstin Felix Lichnowsky. Bavreuther


Blatter 30 (1907): 25-48.

. Franz Liszts Briefe an seine Mutter. Aus dem Franzosischen iibertragen und
herausgegeben von La Mara. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918.

. Frederic Chopin. Trans, and intro. Edward N. Waters. London: The Free
Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan Ltd., 1963.

. Gesammelte Schriften von Franz Liszt. Herausgegeben von L. Ramann. 6


vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1880-1883.

. Letters o f Franz Liszt. Collected and edited by La Mara. Trans. Constance


Bache. 2 vols. London: H. Gravel & Co., 1894.

. The Letters o f Franz Liszt to Marie zu Sayn-Wittgenstein. Trans, and ed.


Howard E. Hugo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.
. The Letters o f Franz Liszt to Olga von Meyendorff1871-1886 in the
Mildred Bliss Collection at Dumbarton Oaks. Trans. William R. Tyler.
Introduction and Notes by Edward N. Waters. Washington, D.C.: Trustees for
Harvard University, 1979.
. Lettres autographes (extraits de rdcents catalogues). Revue de
Musicologie 41 (July 1958): 106-116.

. Lettres inddites de Fr. Liszt &Alfred Jaell (1855-1859). Revue Musicale


4 (1904): 53-55; 112-115.

. Ein Liszt-Document aus der 1840er Jahren. Studia Musicologica A


(1963): 191-193.

. Liszts Letters to Marie Wittgenstein. Musical Quarterly 22 (1936): 259-


276.

. The Liszt Studies: Essential Selections from the Original 12-Volume Set of
Technical Studies for the Piano. Selections, editions and English translation by
Elyse Mach. New York: Associated Music Publishers, 1973. [Includes complete
English translation of Liszt Pedagogue.]

. Note dArchives: Trois Lettres du pibre de Liszt. La Revue Musicale 11


(1911): 251-253.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
503

__________. Pages romantiques. Publics avec une introduction et des notes par Jean
Chantavoine. Paris: Libraire F61ix Alcan, 1912.

__________. Samtliche Schriften. Herausgegeben von Detlef Altenburg. Wiesbaden:


Breitkopf & Hartel, 1989.

__________. Souvenirs de F. Liszt. Lettres inidites. [Publi^e par] N. De Gutmansthal.


Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1913.

__________. Tagebuch 1827. Eds. Detlef Altenburg and Rainer Kleinertz. 2 vols.
Wien: Paul Neff Verlag, 1986.

__________. ThematischesVerzeichniss der Werke. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1855.


__________. Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen.
Neue vervollstandigte Ausgabe. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, [1877]. Reprint,
London: H. Baron, 1965.

__________. Unveroffentliche Briefe Franz Liszts an Franz DingelstedL Beitrage zur


Musikwissenschaft 16 (1974): 137-153.

Locke, Ralph P. Liszts Saint-Simonian Adventure. 19th Century Music 4 (Spring


1981): 209-227.

__________. Music, Musicians and the Saint-Simonians. Chicago: University of Chicago


Press, 1986.
__________. New Letters of Berlioz. 19th Century Music 1 (July 1977): 71-84.

__________. Review of Franz Liszt: Grandefantaisie symphonique. Notes: The


Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library Association 41 (1984): 383-385.
Loesser, Arthur. Men, Women & Pianos. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954.

Longyear, Rey M. Liszts B minor Sonata: Precedents for a Structural Analysis. Music
Review 34 (1973): 198-209.

__________. Liszts Philosophical Symphonic Poems: Their Intellectual History.


Journal o f the American Liszt Society 32 (July-December 1992): 42-51.

__________. The Text of Liszts B Minor Sonata. Musical Quarterly 60 (1974): 435-
450.

Longyear, Rey M. and Kate R. Covington. Tonal and Harmonic Structures in Liszts
Faust Symphony. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 153-171.

Macdonald, Hugh. Berlioz. The Master Musicians Series. London: J. M. Dent & Sons
Ltd., 1982.

__________. Berliozs Self-Borrowings. Proceedings of the Royal Musical


Association 92 (1965-66): 27-44.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
504

__________. Two Peculiarities of Berliozs Notation. Music & Letters 50 (1969): 25-
36.

Macdonald, Hugh and William Wright A Lost Liszt Piano Piece Recovered. Journal of
the American Liszt Society 23 (January-June 1988): 99-100.

Mach, Elyse. Recollections of the Young Liszt as Teacher. Piano Quarterly 89 (Spring
1975): 12-16.

Machard, Roberte. Franz Liszt et Avignon. Revue de Musicologie 62 (1976): 132-138.

Main, Alexander. Franz Liszt the Author, 183447: An Old Question Answered Anew.
La Musique et la rite sacri et profane. Actes du XDIe Congits de la Socidtd
Internationale de Musicologie, Strasbourg, 29 aout-3 septembre 1982: 637-656.
__________. Liszt after Lamartine: Les Preludes. Music & Letters 60 (1979): 133
148.

__________. Liszt: New Dates for the Travelers Album. Journal o f Musicological
Research 3 (1981): 411-422.
__________. Liszts Lyon: Music and the Social Conscience. 19th Century Music 4
(Spring 1981): 228-243.

Mardnyi, R. A. Unknown Liszt Relics. Studia Musicologica 4 (1963): 201-209.


Marggraf, Wolfgang.Fra/az Liszt in Weimar. Tradition und Gegenwart. Weimarer
Schriften 18. Weimar, 1985.

_________ . Eine Klavier-Bearbeitung des Vallde dObermann aus Liszts Spatzeit


Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 295-302.

Marix-Spire, Thdrfcse. Les romantiques et la musique: Le cas George Sand 1804-1838.


Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1954.

Marsh, Ozan with Anna Novelle. The Pianists Spectrum. Wolfeboro, New Hampshire:
Longwood Academic, 1987.
Mason, William. Memories o f a Musical Life. New York: The Century Co., 1901.
Reprint, NewYork: AMS Press, 1970.

Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Felix. Letters o f Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, from 1833 to


1847. Eds. Paul Mendelssohn Bartholdy and Dr. Carl Mendelssohn Bartholdy.
Trans. Lady Wallace. 2ded. Philadelphia: Frederick Leypoldt, 1865.

Merrick, Paul. Liszts Transfer from Weimar to Rome: A Thwarted Marriage. Studia
Musicologica 21 (1979): 219-238.

__________. Original or Doubtful? Liszts Use of Key in Support of His Authorship of


Don Sanche. Studia Musicologica 34 (1992): 427-434.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
505

__________. Responses and Antiphons: Liszt in 1860. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986):


187-194.

__________. Revolution and Religion in the Music o f Liszt. Cambridge: Cambridge


University Press, 1987.

MeBner, Paul. Das Deutsche Nationaltheater Weimar: Ein AbriJJ seiner Geschichte von den
Anfdngen bis Februar 1945. Weimarer Schriften 18. Weimar, 1985.
Miller, Norbert Musik als Sprache. Zur Vorgeschichte von Liszts Symphonische
Dichtungen. Beitrdge zur musikalische Hermenutik. Herausgegeben von Carl
Dahlhaus. Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Band 43.
Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1975.

Milstein, J. F. Liszt. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Moscow: Muyzika, 1971.


Molndr, A. Uber Transkriptionen und Paraphrasen von Liszt. Studia Musicologica 5
(1963): 227-236.

Mona, Hona. Uber Franz Liszts ungarische Nobilitat: Dichtung und Wahrheit
Musikhistorische Beziehungen der bibliographische Arbeit. Fontis Artis Musicae
29 (1982): 169-182.

Morgan, Robert P. Dissonant Prolongations: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents.


Journal o f Music Theory 20 (1976): 49-91.

Moscheles, Ignatz. Aus Moscheles Leben: Nach Briefen und Tagebiichern herausgegeben
von seiner Frau. 2 vols. Leipzig: Duncker& Humblot, 1872-1873.

_________ . Recent Music and Musicians: As Described in the Diaries and


Correspondence o f Ignatz Moscheles. Edited by his wife and adapted from the
original German by A.D. Coleridge. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1873.

Moser, Andreas. Joseph Joachim: Ein Lebensbild. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Berlin: Deutschen
Brahms-Gesellschaft, 1908.

Mueller, Rena Chamin. Liszts Catalogues and Inventories of His Works. Studia
Musicologica 34 (1992): 231-250.

__________. Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Souces and Chronology. Studia


Musicologica 28 (1986): 273-293.

__________. Liszts Tasso Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions. Ph.D.


dissertation, New York University, 1986.

_________ . Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology: The Case of Anfangs wollt ich fast
verzagen. 19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988): 132-147.
__________. Review of Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, Volume I, The Virtuoso Years, 1811-
1847. Journal of the American Musicological Society 37 (1984): 185- 196.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
506

Miiller-Reuter, Theodor. Lexikon der deutschen Konzertliteratur: Ein Ratgeberfur


Dirigenten, Konzertveranstalter, Musikschriftsteller und Musikfreunde. Leipzig: C.
F. Kahnt & Nachfolger, 1909.

Murdnyi, Rdbert Arpdd. Neue Liszt-Handschriften in der Szdchenyi-Nationalbibliothek.


Studia Musicologica 27 (1985): 305-324.
Newman, Ernest. The Life o f Richard Wagner. 4 vols. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1933-1946.
__________ . The Man Liszt: A Study o f the Tragi-Comedy o f a Soul Divided Against
Itself London: Cassell & Co., 1934. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1935.
Reprint, New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970.
Niemoller, Klaus Wolfgang. Zur religiosen Tonsprache im Instrumentalschaffen von
Franz Liszt. Religiose Musik in nicht-liturgischen Werken von Beethoven bis
Reger. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1978.

Ott, Bertrand. Usztian Keyboard Energy / Liszt et la pedagogue du piano: An Essay on the
Pianism o f Franz Liszt. Trans. Donald H. Windham. Lewiston / Queenston /
Lampeter: The Edwin Mellon Press, 1992.

Parry, John Orlando. Fantastic Cavalcade. Liszt Society Journal 6 (Spring 1981): 2-16.
Pattison, F. L. M. A Folk Tune Associated with Chopin and Liszt. Journal o f the
American Liszt Society 20 (1986): 38-41.

Perdnyi, Eleanor. Liszt: The Artist as Romantic Hero. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.,
1974.

Pesce, Dolores. Liszts A m ies de P&lerinage, Book 3: A Hungarian Cycle? 19th


Century Music 13 (Spring 1990): 207-229.

Pestalozza, Luigi. D ruolo di Liszt nella formazione delle culture nazionali in Europa.
Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 201-212.

Pincherle, Marc. Musiciens peints par eux-mimes: Lettres de compositeurs icrites en


Frangais (1771-1910). Paris: Pierre Comuau, 1939.
Pistone, Daniele. Le piano dans la litteraturefrangaise: des origines jusquen 1900. Paris:
Honore Champion, 1975.

Plantinga, Leon. Schumann as Critic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Plevka, Bohumil. Liszt a Praha. Prague: Editio Supraphon, 1986.


Pohl, Hans. Joachim Raff: Ein Gedenkblatt zur Enthiillung seines Denkmal in Frankfurt
am Main. Zeitschrift der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 4 (1902-1903): 542-
548.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
507

Pohl, Richard. Hektor Berlioz: Studien und. Erinnerungen. Gesarnmelte Schriften uber
Musik und Musiker 3. Leipzig: Bernhard Schlicke (Balthasar Elischer), 1884.
. Franz Liszt: Studien und Erinnerungen. Gesarnmelte Schriften uber Musik
und Musiker 2. Leipzig: Bernhard Schlicke (Balthasar Elischer), 1883.
Pourtalfcs, Guy de. Liszt et Chopin (Deux abrigis sans musique). Paris: LArtisan du
Livre, 1929.

__________. La vie de Franz Liszt. Paris: Librarie Gallimard, 1927.


Prah&s, Margit Liszts letztes KlavierkonzerL Studia Musicologica 4 (1963): 195-200.
Primmer, Brian. The Berlioz Style. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Raabe, Peter. Die Entstehungsgeschichte der ersten Orchesterwerke Franz Liszts. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel, 1916.
__________. Franz Liszt. Zweite erganzte Auflage. 2 vols. Tutzing: Hans Schneider,
1968.

__________. Grofiherzog Carl Alexander und Liszt. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1918.
__________. Wegezu Liszt. Deutsche Musikbiicherei 13. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse,
1943.

Raff, Helene. Franz Liszt und Joachim Raff im Spiegel ihrer Briefe. Die Musik 1, no. 1
(1901): 36-44,113-123,285-293, 387-404,499-505; 1, no. 2 (1902): 688-695,
861-871,977-986; 1, no. 3 (1902): 1161-1172,1272-1286,1423-1441.

__________. Joachim Raff: Ein Lebensbild. Deutsche Musikbiicherai 42. Regensburg:


Gustav Bosse, 1925.
Rain, Henriette. Les enfants du ginie: Blandine, Cosima et Daniel Liszt. Paris: Presses de
la Renaissance, 1986.

Ramann, Lina. Franz Liszt als Kunstler und Mensch. 3 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Hartel, 1880-1894.

__________ . Franz Liszt, Artist and Man. 1811-1840. Trans. Miss E. Cowdery. 2 vols.
London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1882.

. Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblattern, Briefen und


Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873-1886187. Herausgegeben von Arthur Seidl.
Textrevision von Friedrich Schnapp. Mainz: B. Schotts Sohne, 1983.

Redepenning, Dorothea. Franz Liszts Auseinandersetzung mit Johann Sebastian Bach.


Studia Musicologica 34, no. 1-2 (1992): 97-123.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
508

__________. Das Spatwerk Franz Liszts: Bearbeitungen eigener Kompositionen.


Hamburger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft 27. Hamburg: Karl Dieter Wayne,
1984.

__________. Zu eignem Wort und eigner Weis. . Liszts Wagner-Transkriptionen.


Die Musikforschung 39 (1986): 305-317.

Reich, Nancy B. Liszts Variations on the March from Rossinis Sifcge de Corinthe.
Fontis Artis Musicae 23 (1976): 102-106; 26 (1979): 235-236.

ReuB, Eduard. Franz Liszt: Ein Lebensbild. Dresden and Leipzig: Carl ReiBner, 1898.

Robert, Walter. Apr&s une lecture de Dante, (Fantasia quasi sonata) of Liszt. Piano
Quarterly 89 (Spring 1975): 22-27.

Romer, Markus. Joseph Joachim Raff (1822-1882). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1982.

Rosenthal, Albi. Franz Liszt and His Publishers. Liszt Saeculum 38 (1986): 3-40.

Rostolka, M. Liszt und Bohmen im Spiegel der unveroffentlicher Korrespondenz.


Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 255-266.

Rostrand, Claude. Liszt. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1960. Translated by John Victor.
London: Calder & Boyons Ltd., 1972.

Rushton, Julian. The Musical Language of Berlioz. Cambridge: Cambridge University


Press, 1983.

Saffle, Michael. Franz Liszt: A Guide to Research. Garland Composer Resource Manuals
29. New York & London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1991.
_________ . Franz Liszts Compositional Process Development: A Study of his
principal published and unpublished instrumental sketches and revisions. Ph.D.
dissertation, Stanford University, 1977.

__________. Liszt in Germany 1840-1845: A Study in Sources, Documents, and the


History o f Reception. Franz Liszt Studies Series 2. Ed. Michael Saffle.
Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press, 1994.

_________ . Liszt Research Since 1936: A Bibliographic Survey. Acta Musicologica


58 (1986): 231-281.

_________ . The Liszt-Year 1986 and Recent Liszt Research. Acta Musicologica 59
(1987): 271-299.

_________ . An Unpublished Liszt Letter to Franz Xaver Witt. Journal o f the


American Liszt Society 24 (July-December 1988): 91-95.

__________. Unpublished Liszt Works at Weimar. Journal o f the American Liszt


Society 13 (June 1983): 3-24.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
509

Schenkman, Walter. Liszts Reminiscences of Bellinis Norma." Journal o f the


American Liszt Society 9 (June 1981): 55-64.

__________. The Venezia e Napoli Tarantella: Genesis and Metamorphosis. Journal of


the American Liszt Society 6 (December 1979): 10-24; 7 (June 1980): 42-58; 8
(December 1980): 44-59.

Schnapp, Friedrich. Franz Liszt in Paris: Eine Rezension aus dem Jahre 1824. Weimar:
Hermann Bohlaus, 1930.
__________. Verschollene Kompositionen Franz Liszts. Von Deutscher Tonkunst:
Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Alfred Morgenroth. Leipzig: C.
F. Peters, 1942.

Scholz, Albert. Liszt: A Hitherto Unpublished Letter. Music and Letters 32 (1951):
362-365.

Schom, Adelheid von. Zwei Menschenalter: Erinnerungen undBriefe. Berlin: S. Fischer,


1901.

Schumann, Robert Gesammelte Schriften uberMusik und Musiker. Ed. Martin Kreisig.
5th ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: Bieitkopf & Hartel, 1914. Reprint, Westmead: Gregg
International Publishers, 1969.

__________. The Musical World o f Robert Schumann: A Selection from his own
Writings. Ed. and trans. Henry Pleasants. London: Victor Gollancz, 1965. New
York: St. Martins Press, 1965. Reprint, Schumann on Music: A Selection from
the Writings. New York: Dover Publications, 1988.

__________. On Music and Musicians. Edited by Konrad Wolff. Translated by Paul


Rosenfeld. New York: Pantheon, 1946. Reprint, New York: W. W. Norton &
Co., 1969.

Seaman, Gerald. Borodins Letters. Musical Quarterly 70 (1984): 476-498.


Searle, Humphrey. Liszts Don Sanche. Musical Times 118 (October 1977): 815
817.

__________. The Music o f Liszt. 2d rev. ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.
Searle, Humphrey and Sharon Winklhofer. Franz Liszt in The New Grove Early
Romantic Masters 1. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1985.

Seebass, Tilman. Musikhandschriften in Basel. Ausstellung im Kunstmuseum Basel vom


31. Mai bis zum 13 Juli 1975.
Seroff, Victor. Franz Liszt: An Illustrated Biography. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1966.

Sitwell, Sacheverell. Liszt. Rev. ed. London: Cassell & Co., 1955. Reprint, New York:
Dover Publications, 1967.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
510

Smith, Patrick J. and David Hamilton. Scorography: The Music of Berlioz. Musical
Newsletter 1, no. 4 (October 1971): 21.

Sogny, Michel. Vadmiration criatrice chez Liszt. Paris: Buchet/Chastel, 1975.

Somfai, L. Die Metamorphose der Faust-Symphonie von Liszt. Studia Musicologica 5


(1963): 283-293.
__________. Die musikalischen Gestaltwandlungen der Faust-Symphonie von Liszt.
Studia Musicologica 2 (1962): 87-137.

Stengel, Theophil. Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts von Liszt bis zur Gegenwart.
Berlin, 1931.

Stevenson, Robert Liszt at Barcelona. Journal of the American Liszt Society 12


(December 1982): 6-13.

__________. Liszt at Madrid and Lisbon: 184445. Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 493-
512.

__________. Liszt in Andalusia. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 26 (July-


December 1989): 33-36.

__________. Liszt in the Iberian Peninsula. Inter American Music Review 7, no. 2
(Spring-Summer 1986): 3-22.

Stockhammer, Robert Franz Liszt: im Triumphzug durch Europa. Vienna:


Osterreichischer Bundesverlag, 1986.

Strelezki, Anton. Personal Recollections o f Chats with Liszt, with Anecdotes o f


Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Wagner, &c., &c. London: E. Donajowski,
1893. Also International Liszt Society Quarterly 20-22 (1977-78): 4-13.

Strieker, Rdmy. Franz Liszt: Les Tindbres de la Gloire. Paris: Gallimard, 1993.
Strub-Ronayne, Elgin. Liszt and the Funding of the Weimar Conservatory. The
Hungarian Quarterly 34, no. 130 (Summer 1993): 148-154.

Sulyok,Imre. Franz Liszts Unknown Letter to Mih&ly Mosonyi. Journal of the


American Liszt Society 32 (July-December 1992): 61-63.

__________. The New Liszt Edition. The New Hungarian Quarterly 26, no. 99
(Autumn 1985): 188-194; also Journal of the American Liszt Society 19 (1986): 5-
9.

Suppan, Wolfgang. Franz Liszt und die Steiermark. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963):
301-310.

__________. Franz Lisztzwischen Friedrich von Hausegger und Eduard Hanslick:


Ausdrucks- contra Formasthetik. Studia Musicologica 24(1982): 113-131.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
511

Suppan, Wolfgang, ed. Liszt Studien: Band 1. Kongress-Bericht Eisenstadt 1975. Graz:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlaganstalt, 1977.

Sutter, Milton. Scorography: The Music of Liszt Musical Newsletter 2, no. 3 (July
1972): 18-20.

Suttoni, Charles. Franz Liszts Published Correspondence: An Annotated Bibliography.


Fontis Artis Musicae 26 (1979): 191-234.

__________. Liszt &Milan. Revue Musicale 405-406-407 (1987): 177-187.


__________. Liszt and Louise de Mercy-Argenteau. Journal o f the American Liszt
Society 34 (July-December 1993): 110.

__________. Liszt Correspondence in Print: An Expanded, Annotated Bibliography.


Journal o f the American Liszt Society 25 (January-June 1989): 3-157.

__________. Liszts Operatic Fantasies and Transcriptions. Journal o f the American


Liszt Society 8 (December 1980): 3-14.

Piano and Opera: A Study of the Piano Fantasies Written on Opera Themes
in the Romantic Era. Ph.D. dissertation, Nev' York University, 1973.
. Young Liszt Beethoven and Madame Montgolfier. Studia Musicologica
28 (1986): 21-34.

Szabolcsi, Bence. The Twilight o f Franz Liszt. Trans, by Andrtis Detik. Budapest:
Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1959.
Szdsz, Tibor. Liszts Symbols for the Divine and Diabolical: Their Revelation of a
Program in the B Minor Sonata. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 15 (June
1984): 39-95.

Szeldnyi, I. Der unbekannte Liszt. Studia Musicologica 5 (1963): 311-331.


Szeldnyi, Ltiszld. Liszts Last Piano Transcription. Trans. Adrian Williams. Liszt
Society Journal 2 (Summer 1977): 11-13.

Tari, Lujza. Eine instrumentale ungarische Volkmelodie und ihre Beziehungen zu Liszt
und Beethoven. Studia Musicologica 25 (1983): 61-71.
Tauberovd, Alexandra. Franz Liszt in der zeitgenossischen Dokumenten und
Ikonographie aus der Slowakei. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 225-236.

Taylor, Ronald. Franz Liszt: The Man and the Musician. London: Grafton Books, 1986.

Tiersot, Julien. Hector Berlioz and Richard Wagner. Musical Quarterly 3 (1917): 453-
492.

__________. Hector Berlioz et la soci6ti de son temps. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.,
1904.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
512

__________. Lettres de musiciens forties en frangais du XVe au XXe sifoie. 2 vols.


Turin: Bocca F it res, 1924.

_________ . Liszt in France. Musical Quarterly 22 (1936): 284-294.

Todd, R. Larry. Rehearings: Liszt, Fantasy and Fugue for Organ on Ad nos, ad
salutarem undam. 19th Century Music 4 (Spring 1981): 250-261.

_________ . The Unwelcome Guest Regaled: Franz Liszt and the Augmented Triad.
19th Century Music 12 (Fall 1988): 93-115.

Tollefson, Arthur. The Liszt Pianoforte Scores of the Beethoven Symphonies. Piano
Quarterly 89 (Spring 1975): 46-49.

Torkewitz, Dieter. Anmerkungen zu Liszts Spatstil. Das Klavierstiick Preludio funebre


(1885). Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft 35 (1978): 231-236.
__________. Harmonisches Denken im Fruhwerk Franz Liszts. Freiburger Schriften zur
Musikwissenschaft 10. Munich and Salzburg: Musikverlag Emil Katzbichler,
1978.

_________ . Die neue Musik und das Neue bei Franz Liszt eine wechselvolle
Beziehung. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 117-124.

Turner, J. Rigbie. Nineteenth-Century Autograph Music Manuscripts in the Pierpont


Morgan Library: A Check List. New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library, 1982.

Varro, Margit. A Forgotten Liszt-Biography. Unpublished typescript in University of


Chicago, Special Collections.

Velimirovic, Milos. Lisztiana, with three unpublished letters. Musical Quarterly 47


(1961): 469-480.
Viala, Claude. Franz Liszt au Conservatoire (1835-1836). Revue Musicale de Suisse
Romande 38 (September 1985): 122-129.

Vier, Jacques. La Comtesse dAgouti et son Temps. 6 vols. Paris: Armand Colin, 1955
63.
_________ . Franz Liszt: Lartiste leclerc. Paris: Les Editions du C^dre, 1951.

__________. Marie dAgouti: Son mari ses amis. Paris: Les Editions du C&dre, 1950.
Volek, Jaroslav. Programmusik aus semiotischen Sicht. Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft
39 (1982): 234-237.

Wagner, Richard. Briefe an Richard Wagner. Bayreuther Blatter 28 (1905): 275-286.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
513

__________. The Correspondence o f Wagner and Liszt. Transla ted into English, with a
preface, by Francis Hueffer. Second edition revised by W. Ashton Ellis. 2 vols.
New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1897. Reprint, New York: Vienna House,
1973.

_______ : . My Life. Trans. Andrew Gray. Ed. Mary Whittall. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983.

__________. Richard Wagners Prose Works. Trans. William Ashton Ellis. 8 vols.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1892-1899. Reprint, New York: Broude
Brothers, 1966.
_________ . Samtliche Briefe. Eds. Gertrud Strobel and Werner Wolf. Leipzig: VEB
Deutscher Verlag fur Musik, 1967-.

__________. Wagner Writes from Paris...: Stories, Essays and Articles by the Young
Composer. Ed. and trans. Robert L. Jacobs and Geoffrey Skelton. New York:
The John Day Company, 1973.

Walker, Alan. A Boy Named Daniel. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 20
(December 1986): 56-80. Also New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 101 (Spring
1986): 204-220.

__________. Franz Liszt. Volume One. The Virtuoso Years. 1811-1847. Rev. ed.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987.

__________. Franz Liszt. Volume Two. The Weimar Years. 1848-1861. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1989.

__________. Joukowskys Portraits of Liszt. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 34


(July-December 1993): 43-50. Also The Hungarian Quarterly 34, no. 130
(Summer 1993): 142-147.

. Liszt and Agnes Street-Klindworth: A Spy in the Court of Weimar?


Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 47-63.

. Liszt and Vienna. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 19 (June 1986):
10-19. Also New Hungarian Quarterly 26, no. 100 (Winter 1985): 253-259.

__________. Liszt and the Keyboard. Musical Times 118 (September 1977): 717-721.

. Liszt and the Schubert Song Transcriptions. Musical Quarterly 67 (1981):


50-63.

. Liszt, Carolyne, and the Vatican: The Story of a Thwarted Marriage.


Journal of the American Liszt Society (July-December 1988): 33-44.
__________. Liszts Duo Sonata. Musical Times 116 (1975): 620-621.

. A Reply to Allan Keiler. Musical Quarterly 71 (1985): 211-219.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
514

__________. Schumann, Liszt and the C major Fantasie, Op. 17: A Declining
Relationship. Music & Letters 60 (1979): 156-165.

__________. Serge Guts Liszt" Journal o f the American Liszt Society 26 (July-
December 1989): 37-51.

Walker, Alan, ed. Franz Liszt: The Man and His Music. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1970.

Walker, Alan and Gabriele Erasmi. Liszt, Carolyne, and the Vatican: The Story o f a
thwarted marriage as it emergesfrom the original Church documents. American
Liszt Society Studies Series 1. Ed. Michael Saffle. Stuyvesant New York:
Pendragon Press, 1991.

Wangerm6e, Robert. Conscience et inconscience du virtuose romantique: A propos des


ann6es parisiennes de Franz Liszt Music in Paris in the Eighteen-Thirties. Ed.
Peter Bloom. Musical Life in 19th-Century France 4. Stuyvesant, New York:
Pendragon Press, 1987.

_________ . Traduction et innovation dans la virtuosity romantique. Acta Musicologica


42 (1970): 5-32.

Waters, Edward N. Franz Liszt to Richard Pohl. Studies in Romanticism 6/4 (Summer
1967): 193-202.

__________. Liszt, Bayreuths Forgotten Man. Studia Musicologica 11 (1969): 473-


480.

__________. Liszt Holographs in the Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.: Library of


Congress, 1979.

' Sur la piste de Liszt. Notes: The Quarterly Journal o f the Music Library
Association 27 (June 1971): 665-670.
Watson, Derek. Liszt. New York: Schirmer Books, 1989.

Weber, William. Music and the Middle Class: The Social Structure o f Concert Life in
London, Paris and Vienna. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc., 1975.

Weilguny, Hedwig. Das Liszthaus in Weimar. Weimar: Nationale Forschungs- und


Gedenkstatten der klassisehen deutschen Literatur in Weimar, 1973.
Weilguny, Hedwig and Willy Handrick. Franz Liszt. 6th ed. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher
Verlag fiir Musik, 1980.

Weingartner, Felix von. Franz Liszt as Man and Artist Musical Quarterly 22 (1936):
255-258.
Weinmann, Alexander. Verlagsverzeichnis Giovanni Cappi bis A. O. Witzendorf: Beitrdge
zur Geschichte des Alt-Wiener Musikverlags. Reihe 2, Folge 11. Wien: Universal
Edition, 1967.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
515

Whitehead, P. J. P. The Lost Berlin Manuscripts. Notes: The Quarterly Journal o f the
Music Library Association 33 (September 1976): 7-15.

Williams, Adrian. Portrait o f Liszt: By Himself and His Contemporaries. Oxford:


Clarendon Press, 1990.

Williamson, John. Liszt and Form Some Thoughts on the First Movement of the
Dante Symphony. New Hungarian Quarterly 27, no. 104 (Winter 1986): 213-
220.
__________. Liszt, Mahler and the Chorale.. Proceedings o f the Royal Musical
Association 108 (1981-82): 115-125. *

__________. The Revision of Liszts Prometheus. Music & Letters 67 (1986): 381
390.

Winkler, Gerhard J. Franz Liszts Kindheit: Versuch eines biographischen Grundrisses.


Die Musikforschung 39 (1986): 335-346.

Winklhofer, Sharon. Editorial Censorship in Liszts Letters to Agnfcs Street-Klindworth.


Journal o f the American Liszt Society 9 (June 1981): 42-49.

__________. Liszt, Marie dAgoult, and the Dante Sonata. 19th Century Music 1
(July 1977): 15-32.

__________. Liszts Sonata in B Minor: A Study o f Autograph Sources and Documents.


Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1980.

__________. Review of Franz [Ferenc] Liszt in The New Grove Dictionary o f Music
and Musicians, 19th Century Music 5 (Spring 1982): 257-262.

__________. Review of The Letters of Franz Liszt to Olga von Meyendorff1871-1886 in


the Mildred Bliss Collection at Dumbarton Oaks. 19th Century Music 4 (Spring
1981): 266-270.

Wohl, Janka. Frangois Liszt: Souvenirs dune compatriote. Troisi&me Edition. Paris: Paul
Ollendorff, 1887.

Wright, William. New Letters of Liszt. Journal of the American Liszt Society 31
(January-June 1992): 7-33; 33 (January-June 1993): 10-36.
Wuellner, Guy. Franz Liszts Liebestraum No. 3: A Study of O lieb and its Piano
Transcription. Journal o f the American Liszt Society 24 (July-December 1988):
45-73.

Young, Francis A. An Unpublished Liszt Letter to Madame de Retz. Journal o f the


American Liszt Society 23 (January-June 1988): 101-103.
Zeke, Lajos. Successive Polymodality or Different Juxtaposed Modes Based on the
Same Final in Liszts Works. Studia Musicologica 28 (1986): 173-185.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Вам также может понравиться