historical anthology of music. vol. 2: baroque, rococo and pre-classical musicby archibald t....

Historical Anthology of Music. Vol. 2: Baroque, Rococo and Pre-Classical Music by Archibald T.Davison; Willi ApelReview by: Manfred F. BukofzerJournal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer, 1951), pp. 147-153Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830159 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 06:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.86 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:11:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amusoc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/830159?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REVIEWS 147 as the one to whom such procedures could be attributed. As said before, in case of a negative result Dufay will have to be con- sidered, here as elsewhere, the great creator of form, equal in stature to Dufay "the past master of the well-turned phrase."

In closing, it may be permissible to reg- ister some uneasiness with regard to Bukof- zer's use of the term "Renaissance" (and especially "High Renaissance"). This is not the place for any extended argumen- tation. To be sure, the "Burgundian" phase does show (perhaps under Italian influ- ence) a greater transparency of texture, an increased lyricism, a more spontaneous ex- pression, and an unmistakable naturalistic trend, before the last flamboyant, irra- tional, asymmetrical, "expressionistic," and finally petrified phase of Gothic comes to full eruption. Yet the sentimental Welt- schmerz, the transcendental undertones of "Burgundian" music set it apart from any true Renaissance spirit. Let us not deceive ourselves: our stylistic terminology is in complete chaos and we should do something about it, soon. One of the few whose contribution is eagerly expected is the author of the Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music.

Orro GoMBosI The University of Chicago

Archibald T. Davison and Willi Apel, ed. Historical Anthology of Music (Vol. 2: Baroque, Rococo and Pre-Classical Music). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, I950. x, 303 PP. THE second volume of the Historical An- thology of Music will be greeted with joy by all music lovers and professionals whose interests extend beyond the narrow limits of what is generally known as "the reper- toire." Since the appearance of the first volume, which brought music up to the end of the Renaissance, the anthology has been widely accepted as the most service- able collection of examples of music before x6oo; indeed, HAM has become a house- hold word in an unforeseen, non-culinary sense. The second volume, somewhat larger than the first, covers Baroque, Rococo, and Pre-Classical music up to

about 1780. The assumption that music written after this date is generally accessible is certainly true of the outstanding masters, but not of composers like Gossec, Cherubini, Spohr, and others. In fact, one could seriously speak of the need for a similar anthology of Classical and Romantic music concentrating on the forgotten and neglected composers of the time.

As far as the choice of material is con- cerned the second volume presented much greater difficulties than the preceding one, not only because of the tremendous growth of musical literature, but mainly because of the greatly increased dimensions of musical forms, such as cantata, opera, oratorio, concerto, and symphony. The editors realized that the large-scale forms made a compromise unavoidable, and in adopting the principle of including only sections or movements complete in them- selves they have found the most satisfactory answer.

The volume is grouped into four chapters: (i) early, (2) middle, (3) late Ba- roque music, and (4) Rococo and Pre- Classical music. In the table of contents the chapters are grouped by national schools and these in turn by instrumental and vocal music. (The composition by Coelho is classified by mistake as instrumental.) In the book the compositions do not follow the order of the table of contents but are arranged according to composer in roughly chronological order. The division by periods is useful and instruc- tive though it may give rise occasionally to some questionable distributions; for example, Purcell would be sought in the middle Baroque rather than the late Ba- roque, and Tartini in the Pre-Classical rather than the late Baroque period.

It is the purpose of the anthology to give representative examples of the main trends within the self-imposed limits of the collection. Naturally, a student whose knowl- edge is restricted to the contents of the volume would still not have a complete picture of musical developments between x6oo and 1780. For one thing, he would have no conception of an opera, a cantata, or a symphony; but these are shortcomings inherent in any anthology. In order to gain space Bach and Handel have been



148 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

excluded altogether,1 since their music is easily available. For the same reason, though the editors do not say so, Haydn and Mozart have been ruled out, even though their early works fall within the Pre-Classical period. Most composers are represented by only one composition, a few by two. Only Monteverdi, Fresco- baldi, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, A. Scarlatti, and Couperin are honored by three. If Lully and Rameau are given two compositions and Vivaldi no more than one, the three pieces of Pachelbel seem a little out of balance, though it is the length rather than the number of compositions that must be weighed. The limits of the collection can be circumscribed best by a list of some of the noteworthy composers who for reasons of space could not be included. Among the names that come to mind im- mediately we cite only the following: Marco da Gagliano, Saracini, Correa de Arauxo, Jenkins, Christopher Simpson, Bonporti, Clerambault, Fux, Zachow, Graupner, and for the Pre-Classic period Traetta, Nardini, Pugnani, Schobert, Mon- signy, and Mondonville. One could argue endlessly over omissions and inclusions, but such criticism would serve no good purpose. The range of the collection is wide enough to satisfy almost every rea- sonable demand, and the individual compositions have been chosen with great care according to their intrinsic merits. This point is brought home by the fact that no less than seven pieces have been published in other anthologies of recent date although the editors could not have antici- pated the coincidence when they made their choice. Nos. 19oc, 199, 209, 255, 265b, and 277 appear also in the useful Hungarian collection A Zeneti'rtenet Antoldgidja (Budapest, 1948) by D6nes Bartha, and Durante's valuable chamber duet No. 273 in Jeppesen's excellent compilation La Flora (Copenhagen, 1949).*2

Only when compositions are readily available in other practical editions does

it seem justified to question the usually admirable choice of the editors. Fischer's prelude and fugue (No. 247) overlaps un- necessarily with Schering's anthology (No. 265)3 even if the fugue holds special interest because of its thematic relations to Bach. Another case is the sonata movement by C. P. E. Bach (No. 297), which is widely known as Rondo espressivo from The Days of the Harpsichord (1934; P. 159). It is true that it appears there in a doctored and "wierd" edition--to say nothing of an arrangement for violin and piano in the collection The Days of Corelli and Bach-but the fact should have been mentioned in tle commentary, together with the recording in the Columbia His- tory of Music which has made the piece famous. The selection of Dido's Farewell from Dido and Aeneas may be challenged on similar grounds, particularly since many equally good compositions from Purcell's masques or odes are waiting to be re- vived. The choice of Vivaldi's concerto grosso (No. 270) is likewise not a happy one, quite aside from the fact that the music is presented in faulty manner. The

piece is easily accessible in Chamber Suites and Concerti Grossi (New York, 1940) which in turn is based on Einstein's edition in the Eulenburg Miniature Score series.

In the preparation of the second volume the editors were faced with a new responsibility not called for by the music of the first volume: the realization of the basso continuo. Credit for this laborious task goes to Apel (only three realizations are by Erwin Bodky). The reserved style of the realizations and the avoidance of over-elaborate arrangements will be generally acclaimed as the most sensible solution. It is especially gratifying to see that

1One chorale prelude by Bach has been included for comparison, but even this one could have been referred to just as well in the commentary and replaced by another piece com- posed by someone less well known. 2Riemann's anthology Musikgeschichte in Beispielen also contains this composition.

sAnother less important overlap with Scher- ing's collection is No. 264a. It may be added here that the second edition of the first volume contains a further duplication in No. 76b. This piece replaces a motet by Willaert which Wolf erroneously included in his edition of Obrecht's works. However, by an unfortunate coincidence the editors have again selected a piece of which Obrecht's authorship is not at all certain. The more reliable sources ascribe it to Compare. Under this name the motet was published by Besseler in Altnieder- liindische Motetten (Biirenreiter, 1929).



REVIEWS 149 in the working out of the basses the stylistic difference between early and late Ba- roque music has been consciously ob- served. Naturally, there are some places where opinion is bound to differ, especially where the basses are not figured. For example, No. 203, page 40, brace I, bar 3 (abbreviated hereafter as p. 40, I, 3) seems to call for a major and not a minor third. In No. 2o4 (p. 41, II, 5 and III, 6), we find a seventh or diminished seventh re- spectively which seem a little out of keep- ing, and likewise on p. 42, I, 3 the

progression 7 6 5 3 (without dominant seventh in the cadence) would seem more characteristic than the solution offered. On the whole it may be said that the stereotyped 4-3 suspension in the cadence of middle Baroque music has not always been employed where it would have been appropriate, e.g. p. 44, II, 7, and p. I i8, II, 6.

The musical text has been edited very carefully and, in consequence, a high de- gree of accuracy has been achieved which compares favorably with that of the first volume. While it has not been possible to check all compositions, extensive sampling has brought to light only a modest number of insignificant misprints and one seri- ous error. They are listed at the end of this review for the benefit of a second edition which will doubtless become necessary before long. In adding this list of minutiae I do not want to give support to the de- plorable opinion that the main function of a review consists in a listing of misprints. But a book of this kind which will be in the hands of so many laymen deserves to be as nearly flawless as is humanly possible. It is for the same reason that certain editorial inconsistencies should be dis- cussed. For example, the original time signatures and note values are sometimes indicated and sometimes not. In No. 192 the original time signatures are given be- low the staff while in No. 256 the original

( has been tacitly changed to 4. Simi-

larly, when changes in time signature occur they may or may not carry an editorial explanation as to the relative tempo such as J =d. (compare No. 191 or 192 with No. 194 and 183). Tempo indications are

given only if they appear in the original, which means that many compositions are without any hint as to tempo. Everybody knows how difficult it is for the uninitiated to determine the correct tempo. Here the editors should have helped out by supply- ing indications in parentheses. Another in- consistency comes to light in the treatment of time values. In Nos. 182, 184, 189, and others, neither score nor commentary mention the reduction of the original values; in Nos. 198, 199, 210o, 244, and many others the original times values are given, as they should be, above the staff. This wa- vering invites confusion, especially in the absence of tempo indications. In the case of Caccini's aria (No. 184) the time values have been halved but the original time

signature ( ~ ) has been retained. As a result the tempo implied is much too fast. Another minor point is the curious treatment of the viola clef, which appears sometimes in its normal function (No. 294), sometimes as transposed treble clef (No. 224), and sometimes in a combination of treble and bass clef which makes very awkward reading (compare Nos. 292 and 283).

Some readers will perhaps regret that the editors have completely evaded the issue of improvised ornaments. Most of the slow movements for solo instrument or voice would call for some kind of em- bellishment in the music before 1750. The preparation of such a performing edition would be, strictly speaking, just as much the responsibility of the editor as the realization of the continuo. Still, one will appreciate the reasons why the editors have refrained from attempting to work out an alternate version with ornaments which would always be controversial. But precisely because they have taken this stand it would have been all the more necessary to include the few ornamented ver- sions that have survived. They are in- valuable as models and, as it happens, they would have taken up very little additional space. The Adagio of Corelli's solo sonata (No. 252) presents the ornamented version for the first line only. A strong appeal should be made to the editors to add the remainder in the next edition. It is true that Corelli's authorship with regard to



I 50 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

the ornaments has been contested, mainly because the ornamented edition was be- lieved to have been published as late as the 174o's, nearly three decades after Cor- elli's death. In the meantime, however, Pincherle and others have established that it came out during the lifetime of Corelli, and while this does not necessarily prove that the ornaments are actually by Corelli they nevertheless represent authentic ornaments of the period and as such are worthy of careful consideration. A similar case is the lute piece by Gaultier (No. 21 ). Here again only the first few meas- ures of the florid variant are reproduced and a good opportunity has been missed to illustrate the practice of the lutenists. The violin sonata by Biber (No. 238) raises a somewhat different question by its use of the scordatura, which enables the violinist to play multiple stops impossible in normal tuning. The anthology tran- scribes the scordatura in ordinary notation which gives the actual sounds. However, in order to understand the technique, the original scordatura notation is indispensa- ble. As it stands the music creates the mis- leading impression that Biber did not know the most elementary facts about violin playing, for the score contains multiple stops and stretches that are either impossible or extremely awkward in normal tuning (compare p. ro8, IV, 3; V, 9, and

p. 1o9, I, 5-7). If this music is to be per- formed-and this is the purpose of the anthology-the strings must be tuned in scordatura and all absurdities will dis- appear.

As in the first volume, a brief commentary places each composition in its historical context and gives references to editions and recordings. In addition, the foreign language texts have been translated. It is not the purpose of the commentary to provide the reader with long disser- tations, but even granted the necessity for brevity this section of the anthology leaves something to be desired with regard to consistency, accuracy, and completeness of references. The editors state in the preface that in the preparation of the material "the earliest obtainable source ... has been con- sulted. Where modern editions were available they, too, have been cited in the

Commentary as being of practical aid to the student." Nobody will quarrel with this statement of intentions, but there is, unfortunately, no way of finding out which one of the sources cited was actually used. It would have been sufficient to indicate no more than the edition drawn from. Since the editors have decided otherwise they should have been consistent. It is disconcerting to find that, for instance, the two selections from Schiitz are treated in different manner: the commentary quotes under No. 202 the original print and the complete works, but no other edition, while it mentions under No.

zo0 only modern editions but no original. The implication that the editors went back to the original in the one case but not in the other is probably quite unintentional. The ambiguity could have been avoided by marking the edition used by an asterisk. The commentary to Frescobaldi's canzona (No. 194) refers to the original print and Haberl's edition, but not to the publication in Torchi, Volume III. In this case the anthology is based on Haberl since the original contains some interesting details which all modern editors have ignored.4 The commentary is moreover incomplete with respect to reprints, and also the list of recordings shows gaps (the Gramo- phone Shop Encyclopedia is cited on p. 279 in the edition of 1942; the third edition of 1948 is more comprehensive with regard to early music). The following list contains not only corrections but also certain suggestions as to music and commentary that may be found helpful.5

No. 182: There is no indication of the reduction of note values; p. I, II read o' lampi instead of e lampi; p. 2, III read pioggia instead of piagga. The commentary does not mention the facsimile reprint of Peri's Euridice ('934).

No. 183: P. 2, I, 6, the bass note c# has the

'It gives indications for performance, such as staccato signs and remarks about the distribu- tion of the left and right hand. I owe this information and numerous other suggestions to Alfred Einstein. 5The corrections listed in the reviews by Fox (Music Library Association Notes, VIII, p. X62) and Haydon (The Musical Quarterly, XXXVII, p. 1 4) will not be repeated here.



REVIEWS 151

figures 12 above 6 in the original; III, 4, read odori instead of oidori; p. 3, I and II, the text of the repeat is missing in the second stanza; p. 3, IV, 6, the c in the bass has a flat in the continuo.

No. 184: The note values are reduced without indication. No mention is made of the facsimile reprint (Rome, 1934). The reader should be informed that Caccini's text is by Rinuccini and that the same poem was set by Monte- verdi as a madrigal (Book IV).

No. 186: The spelling of the title (see also p. 28o) is Zabaione, not Zapaione (in the musical text the spelling is correct).

No. 187: The complete recording of Monteverdi's Orfeo is not mentioned. P. 7, II, last word read S'arman, not S'arma; p. 8, V, read canta instead of canto in the stage remarks; VI, last word read seguo not segno; p. 9, I, 1, the first note of the figured bass car- ries a flat.

No. I88: It would be of interest to learn that the text of Monteverdi's madrigal is by Guarini.

No. I89: The instruments specified are violino and viola while the edition of Malipiero indicates two violins.

No. 190: The commentary should have a cross reference to the bicinium on the same chorale by Praetorius in the first volume (HAM No. i67a). No. I9Oc was published also in Denkmdler der Tonkunst in Bayern, IV, i.

No. 191: P. 16, V, 8, the first note of the middle voice must read d, not c; the same is true of the fourth note in the bass of VI, 2.

No. 192: P. 17, IV, 6, read eb instead of e in the right hand; an eb should be sup- plied by the editor in V, 2, left hand.

No. 193: P. 21, I, 4, the d of the left hand must be deleted.

No. 200: The remark of the commentary that the organist himself was to sing the vocal part seems rather far-fetched.

No. 20ob: The figures seem to be lacking in the second half of the excerpt. No mention is made of the vocal score with English translation by Riedel (G. Schirmer, 1890).

No. 202: The motet has appeared also in Winterfeld, Gabrieli, Vol. III, and in a vocal score by Ochs (Breitkopf, 1925).

No. 204: The commentary cites the edition of Comus by Bridge--a paragon

of unreliability--but omits the critical edition by Visiak and Foss (Nonesuch Press, 1937) which is based on the autograph score.

No. 2o6: P. 43, III, 4, read vd instead of nd. No. 21ii1: P. 53. The birth date of Gaultier

is ca. 1603 rather than ca. 1605. The title of the piece, Pavane, has been omitted. All double bars should have repeat marks. The references of the commentary are confused. Fleischer's study of Gaultier appeared in 1886, not 1889, and not as an independent publication but in the Vierteljahrs- schrift fiir Musikwissenschaft II. The ornamented version of Perrine appears on p. 5o, not 165 (the latter page number is that of the edition by Fleischer). No mention is made of the interesting fact that Perrine transmits the music not in tablature but in ordinary notation. It should also be added that the edition by Tessier includes both facsimile and transcription, and that the volumes belong to the set of the Pub- lications de la Socidte Franpaise de Musicologie VI-VII. There is further- more a confusing discrepancy between Tessier and Fleischer with regard to Perrine. According to Tessier the piece appears in the Livre de musique pour le luth (1679), according to Fleischer in the Pieces de Luth en musique (i68o). Since the Livre is a lute method, as is also confirmed by La Laurencie (Les Luthistes, i 14), it seems that Tessier and the editors of this anthology who follow him are in error.

No. 22o: P. 7I, I, 5, the figured bass should read 6, not flat. The composition was first published in 1663; the date 1671 given in the commentary refers to a later edition.

No. 222: The title should read Lo Schiavo rather than II Schiavo.

No. 224: The year of Lully's birth is not I663?, but 1632.

No. 226: P. 88, I, 2, the end of the recitative has some questionable progres- sions; apparently the chords of the bass should come after the conclusion of the recitative in the following measure.

No. 227: Several editorial accidentals are lacking: p. 90, II, I (cl); III, 2 (ft); and p. 91, I, 2 (ct).

No. 231: The commentary gives the name of Pirro instead of Guilmant as the editor of the Archives des matres de l'orgue.



152 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

No. 232: The reprint appeared in the series Publications de la Socidt" Franfaise de Musicologie VIII.

No. 234: Buxtehude's composition appeared also in Ausgewiihlte Orgelwerke, ed. Hermann Keller (Peters).

No. 245: P. 124, IV, 5, the rhythm of the first three notes in the second violin part should be two sixteenth and one eighth, not vice versa.

No. 246: Reference should be made to the arrangement for organ of Torelli's concerto made by Johann Gottfried Walther (published in Denkmiler deutscher Tonkunst 26/27, p. 353).

No. 250: P. 134, II, I: Because of the division of the measure it is difficult to see that the last note of the right hand should be a cb. In the next measure the bb of the left hand should probably read bbb.

No. 255: The edition of the Purcell So- ciety from which the selection is drawn presents Dido and Aeneas in an inferior and tampered version which eliminates the expressive appoggiaturas. The edition by Dent, which is not cited in the commentary, reproduces the more reliable version of the Ten- bury manuscript (St. Michael's Col- lege).

No. 256: Purcell's fantasias have been re- printed also by Just (Nagel's Musik- archiv, H. 1I3). No. 258: A. Scarlatti was born in 166o, not 1659. P. 154, II, I, the flat in the last chord should be deleted. It would be more consistent to change the bass in II, 4 to ab and in III, 4 to eb (see the corresponding passage in IV, 2); in IV, 4 the e in the right hand must read eb.

No. 260: Reference should be made to Dent's article in the Monthly Musical Record XXXIII (1903), p. 202 show- ing that most of Scarlatti's concerti grossi are arrangements of string quar- tets.

No. 261: Kuhnau's program sonata has been published also in the collection Ausgewdiiblte Klavierwerke, ed. K. Schubert (Schott, 1938). The commentary omits the precise "program notes" which the composer himself provided. They have the advantage over the editorial remarks in that they explain why the chorale quotations have been inserted. The editors iden- tify the chorale as Herzlich tut mich

verlangen. While this is perhaps the best-known text to which the melody is sung, it is not the text cited by Kuhnau. The composer quotes two stanzas from the chorale Ach Herr mich armen Siinder which contain in a nutshell the musical program. The deathly-ill Hezekiah prays for salva- tion to the strains o Heil du mich lieber Herre in the first movement and regains his confidence and health in the second movement with Weicht all ibr Ubelthiiter, mir ist geholfen schon.

No. 264: The commentary gives as the only reprint of the Beggar's Opera the Modern Library edition which presents the melodies without bass. The complete reprint by Calmus (Zwei Opernburlesken aus der Rokokozeit, 1912) should be added.

No. 265: Reference to the complete edition is missing.

No. 266: P. 173, I, 3, the last chord in the right hand should contain an a.

No. 270: P. 183. Vivaldi's concerto appears in incomplete and unacceptable form. The score omits the parts for the third and fourth violin and the violoncello, and as a result there are gaps in the music. The imitations between the concertino and ripieno violins have disappeared (p. 183, I, 4-5, p. i86, II, 3-4) and at one place the bass (cello solo) is missing altogether (p. 184, II, 4-5). The commentary also is faulty. The concertino calls for two violins, not three. Bach arranged the concerto for organ, not harpsichord. The editors designate the concerto as No. 6 of Opus III, as does also Wal- dersee in the Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft I (1884), p. 375. However, according to Rinaldi's cata- logue and Einstein's edition the number should be 8. It seems that some secondary editions adopt a different numbering. To make the possible confusion even worse, concertos No. 6 and 8 of the commonly accepted numbering are in the same key.

No. 273: P. 193, II, 6, the fourth note in the bass should read bh; p. 94, III, 3 and 5 read Ch'un instead of Con.

No. 278: The first note should have the stem turned upwards.

No. 288: The composition appears also in Klaviermusik des 17. und 8g. Jahr- hunderts, ed. K. Herrmann, II (Hug).

No. 29I: There is no reference to the



REVIEWS 153 modern editon of Rousseau's Devin du village by Bevin (Geneva, 1942).

No. 292: P. 236, III, I. The passage contains a misprint caused apparently by a similar one in the editon of the Denkmdler der Tonkunst in Oester- reich. The last two notes of the measure in the flute, violin I, and voice parts should read like m. 5 of the same brace (in which the slurs are missing in the flute part). It would be well to say in the commentary that the novelty of the piece lies in the fact that it is not an aria but a strophic song which is sung three times in changed or- chestration. In the middle of the para- graph (p. 292) read Iphigenia instead of Iphegeneia.

No. 293: It should be mentioned that Gluck quotes this aria at the beginning of the overture.

No. 297: P. 249, I, 8, the second group in the right hand should have thirty- second notes, not sixteenth notes.

A word finally about the external appearance of the volume. Although several copyists have been employed the music looks neat and clear. A specially com- mendable feature is the frequent use of open score. For some odd reason much of the keyboard music, precisely the kind of music that would be played directly from the book, has been reduced to very small size. While orchestral pieces like Nos. 277 or 294 could have easily been reduced without loss of readability, No. 274 seems to call for a magnifier. Frescobaldi's jocu- lar remark, "Non senza fatiga si giunge al fine," which he added to No. 193 would apply here too, if for a different reason. It is a pity that the keyboard pieces were not all copied in the exemplary manner of No. 284.

In summary it may be said that small blemishes notwithstanding, the Anthology is a distinguished accomplishment; editors and publisher are to be congratulated on the successful completion of a labor of love and patience. It does not require the gift of prophecy to predict that the book will soon be on the shelves of every music library and in the hands of many music teachers and students.

MANFRED F. BUKOFZER

University of California, Berkeley

Leo Schrade. Monteverdi, Creator of Modern Music. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1950. 384 PP. "THE spirit of Claudio Monteverdi re-

proaches me for having inflicted new in-

juries on him through my complete edition of his works. For, despite the fact that my edition remains faithful to Monteverdi's original, it has led to vandalisms that have

multiplied by the thousands."' Thus saith

Malipiero in his most recent attack upon musicology, which, he believes, does little but "complicate the most simple things." Without actually taking issue with this statement, one may cite it as illustration of one of the numerous paradoxes con-

fronting modern Monteverdi research. The work of this master-practically forgotten up to the time of his "rediscovery" by the

I9th-century pioneers of musicology-has been made accessible through the good of- fices of a zoth-century composer whose un-

disputed artistic stature has availed him little in the conflict between editorial policy and the postulates of historical objectivity. Nevertheless, current Monteverdi research draws most of its inspiration from Mali-

piero's publication, however open to attack that may be. Since the appearance of the last volume of sacred works in 1942, at least three important "vandalisms" in the field of Monteverdi literature have been based

largely on the edition in question. Again paradoxically, neither de Paoli, writing in Italian, nor Redlich in his German "Einzel- darstellung" have made a point of severely criticizing the "Complete Works." They seem to agree with the writer of the most recent monograph on Monteverdi, under review here, that "its great merits far out- rank any aspects open to criticism."

This same confession of faith aptly char- acterizes your reviewer's position with regard to the new book by Leo Schrade, the distinguished Yale scholar. Supported by an exceptionally broad-minded commer- cial publisher, Schrade has presented us with the most extensive single study de- voted to the 17th-century "oracolo della

1From an article written for Musical America, for publication during 195 i; quoted with the kind permission of the editors of that maga- zine.



historical anthology of music. vol. 2: baroque, rococo and pre-classical musicby archibald t....

Documents