ANTON BRUCKNER

 

Symphony No 8

 

Intermediate Adagio [1888]

 

 

Edition: Dermot Gault / Takanobu Kawasaki

Editorial Commentary: Dermot Gault

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Introduction                                                                                                      iii

 

History                                                                                                             iv

 

Sources                                                                                                            v

 

Mus.Hs. 40.999 as a source for the Intermediate Adagio                                   vii

 

The MS                                                                                                            viii

 

Instrumentation                                                                                                 ix

 

The Transcription                                                                                              ix

 

The commentary                                                                                               x

 

Performance History                                                                                         xi

 

Bibliography                                                                                                     xi

 

Acknowledgements                                                                                          xii

 

Commentary                                                                                                     xiii

                                                                                                           

 

Symphony No 8 – Adagio of 1888                                                                  

 

Appendix A – Subsidiary sources                                                                    

 

Appendix B – Reconstruction of the original copy                                             

 

 

 

Bruckner Symphony No 8 – Intermediate Adagio (1888 Adagio / Adagio 2)

 

The following score makes available for the first time a little-known version of the Adagio of Bruckner’s Eighth Symphony, intermediate between the two published versions of 1887 and 1890, and known variously as the Intermediate Adagio or the Adagio of 1888, but referred to here for convenience as Adagio 2. This version is preserved in a manuscript (in the hand of a copyist, with some corrections by Bruckner himself) held in the Musiksammlung of the Österreichisches Nationalbibliothek (Mus.Hs. 34.614/1 – here referred to as the MS).

Adagio 2 is 317 bars long, as opposed to the 329 bars of the 1887 version (Adagio 1) and the 291 bars of the final version of 1890 (Adagio 3). Its content can be roughly summarised as follows:

 

Bars

1 – 128            are common to all three versions

129 – 134        correspond to 1890 bars 129 – 134

135 – 146        correspond to 1887 bars 139 – 150

147 – 170        correspond to 1887 bars 151 – 174 / 1890 bars 141 – 164

171 – 190        correspond to 1890 bars 165 – 184

191 – 214        correspond to 1887 bars 201 – 224 / 1890 bars 185 – 208

215 – 220        correspond to 1887 bars 225 – 230

221 – 230        correspond to 1887 bars 235 – 244 / 1890 bars 209 – 218

231 – 238        are unique to this version

239 – 244        correspond to 1890 bars 227 – 232

245 – 252        are unique to this version

253 – 261        correspond to 1890 bars 235 – 243

262 – 268        correspond to 1887 bars 274 – 280 / 1890 bars 244 – 250

269 – 280        correspond to 1887 bars 281 – 292

281 – 317        correspond to 1887 bars 293 – 329 / 1890 bars 255 – 291

 

It will be seen that the certain features of the final version were already present in Adagio 2. For instance, the sudden outburst of the second subject at letter M is already in C major, and the main climax of the movement is in E flat. Adagio 2 also resembles Adagio 3 in the passage following the tutti passage in the middle of the movement (letter H), although the succeeding music (where the chordal passage for strings and harps returns on the wind and harps) is retained from Adagio 1.

The three versions differ most in the final section, where again some features of Adagio 2 look forward to Adagio 3 (the tranquil E major passage at letter T, for instance), although the reprise of the passage for strings and harps following the main climax is closer to the 1887 original.

Much of the material is common to all three versions, for instance in the opening and closing stages of the movement. But Adagio 2 contains passages which resemble nothing in the other versions, and elsewhere in the movement there are fascinating differences in detail which give this version its unique character.

 

 

History

 

We know from the dates in the manuscript that the original version of the Adagio was completed on 4 September 1886, Bruckner’s 62nd birthday, and that the symphony as a whole was finished on 10 August 1887. In October 1887 Hermann Levi wrote to Bruckner, urging him to revise the work, initiating the process which eventually resulted in the familiar 1890 version. The earliest date in the manuscript of this version (found in the Adagio) is 4 March 1889. However, in a letter to Levi dated 18 October 1887 Josef Schalk wrote that Bruckner had already begun to revise the first movement, and by 27 February 1888 Bruckner himself was able to tell Levi that ‘it is already beginning to look quite different.’ Mus.Hs. 34.614/1 therefore belongs to this initial period of revision. Although it was eventually superseded by the 1890 version, the fact that Bruckner had a copy of the score made indicates that he did, for a time at least, regard the Adagio 2 version as final.

 

The question naturally arises as to the source for the copyist’s manuscript. While Bruckner did on occasion make an entirely fresh score of a revised version, at this stage in his career he was more likely carry out the revision using a copy score as a basis. In the earlier parts of the movement, where the material was similar or identical, the copy score would have been emended by his usual means – scratching out, over-writing, and pasting manuscript patches over the original. In the later parts of the movement, where the material differed substantially, the original bifolios would have been discarded and new ones substituted. Three copies of Adagio 1 are known: one forms part of a copy of the whole symphony in the hand of Karl Aigner (Mus.Hs. 6001), and an extra copy of the 1887 Adagio accompanies the MS (Mus.Hs. 34.614/2). The third surviving copy (Copy 1) was used as the basis for the autograph of the 1890 Adagio (Mus.Hs. 40.999), a composite score consisting of a mixture of original and replacement bifolios. There are however indications to support the suggestion made by Takanobu Kawasaki that this manuscript served as the basis for Adagio 2 before being transformed again into Adagio 3. This may be the only instance in Bruckner’s work of one source serving as the basis for two successive versions.

 

Sources

 

The surviving sources for Adagio 2 are therefore as follows:

 

(1)  Mus.Hs. 34.614 (formerly S.m. 34614) in the Austrian National Library. This number has been assigned to two copy scores of the Adagio of the Eighth Symphony. The wrapper of the first of these (Mus.Hs. 34.614/1) reads:

 

Adagio zur 8. Sinf. v. Anton Bruckner

Abschrift vor aus dem Besitz Franz Schalk

Frau Lili Schalk gehörend

oder ihren Rechtsnachfolgern

 

 

Below the same hand has written, in pencil:

 

Spätere Fassung?

 

The question mark indicates uncertainty as to the identity of the version, which is in fact Adagio 2. The wrapper for the second score (Mus.Hs. 34.614/2) bears the following:

 

Adagio (3. Satz) d. 8. Sinf. v. A Bruckner

In Abschrift aus dem Besitz Franz Schalk

Lili Schalk gehörend oder

 ihren Rechtsnachfolgern

 

Below this is written (in pencil or crayon):

 

frühere Fassung

 

As stated above, this score is a copy of Adagio 1, in the hand of a different copyist.

 

(2) Mus.Hs. 40.999. The autograph manuscript of the revised 1890 version of the Adagio. This is another copy score, emended by Bruckner as shown in Appendix D. Bifolios 1-7, 10, 12-15, and 20-21 are in the hand of the copyist (the last two bifolios form the original bifolios 19 and 20).  Bifolios 8, 9, 11 and 16-19 are in Bruckner’s hand (in addition, the second half of the copyist’s original bifolio 11 follows Bruckner’s replacement bifolio 11).

 

Evidence to confirm Takanobu Kawasaki’s suggestion that this copy served as the autograph of Adagio 2 can be seen in pages 3 and 4 of bifolio 14, containing 1887 bars 225-230, where the original 1887 text has been reworked by Bruckner to bring it into accordance with Adagio 2 (although, as shown below, there are some variations between the text given here and 34.614/1) before being deleted. Details unique to Adagio 2 are still discernable in other places, for instance in bar 42, where a quarter-note rest is still discernable in the alto and tenor trombone line, following the quarter note-quarter note rest-half note rest of the 1890 version. The quarter note rest at this point is unique to Adagio 2 (another quarter note rest, almost entirely erased, can be glimpsed in the bass trombone part).

 

(3) Relevant material is also to be found in Sig. A 178 in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien, a collection of sketches and fragments, mostly from the Eighth Symphony, which includes the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i) Bifolio 8 of Adagio 1, in the hand of a copyist. It is clear from the handwriting and the paper used that this is one of the discarded bifolios from Mus.Hs. 40.999. Bruckner’s initial thought was, however, to retain this bifolio, with a few alterations, and the text has been altered, by Bruckner, to bring it partly in accordance with the text of Adagio 2 as contained in Mus.Hs.34.614/1. The alterations have been effected by writing over the copyist’s text, by crossing out original staves and writing new parts in vacant staves (as with the trumpet parts), and by pasting manuscript patches over the original (as with the horn parts). On the first page the violin and upper wind parts retain the arpeggio profile of the 1887 version, but the note names of the Intermediate version are written above the noteheads. The horn and trumpet parts have been altered to conform to Adagio 2, and on the last two pages bars 132, 134, 135 and 136 have been crossed out. Bruckner evidently decided that he wanted to carry out more far-reaching alterations, for which a new bifolio would be needed.
(ii) A single folio, containing 1887 bars 179-184 and 185-190 of Adagio 1, in the hand of the same copyist. Each page has been cancelled with diagonal crosses in a manner familiar from Bruckner’s manuscripts. On the second page, rough drafts for a revised version of the violin line in Bruckner’s hand have been written in a vacant stave.
(iii) Bifolio 16 of Adagio 1 in the hand of the copyist, containing 1887 bars 143-245, 246-248, 249-251, and 252-254. Again, all four pages have been cancelled by diagonal crosses. ‘Um (?) Neuen’ is written in the top left hand corner of the first page. A few other annotations and rough drafts have been sketched in vacant staves. ‘Vi - ’ is written at the start of bar 248, followed by a reference to bifolio 17.
(iv) A draft, in Bruckner’s hand, of bifolio 16 of the Adagio, comprising 12 bars, of which the first six correspond to bars 229-231 and 231-234 of Adagio 2, a passage unique to this version. Apart from a few wind parts on the first page, only strings are present, and there is as yet no hint of the elaborate orchestral texture Bruckner would eventually build up in this passage.
(v) Bifolio 17 of Adagio 1, containing 1887 bars 255-258, 259-264, 265-269, and 270-272, in the hand of the copyist. Again, all four pages have been crossed out.
(vi) A rough sketch corresponding approximately to bars 249-250 of Adagio 2, string parts only, in Bruckner’s hand.

 

The figure shows the probable relationship of the surviving manuscripts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mus.Hs. 40.999 as a source for Adagio 2

 

Although at one time 40.999 formed the autograph manuscript of Adagio 2, it must, due to its later transformation into Adagio 3, be treated with caution as a source. One can respect material in the hand of the copyist, as it represents 1887 material which Bruckner was content to preserve; if 1887 matter was allowed to remain in the 1890 version, one can assume that it is also valid for the 1888 version. On the other hand, alterations in Bruckner’s hand could belong to the revision process which produced the 1890 version. In the revised transcription following, supplementary performance directions (dynamics, slurs, ties) which are missing from the MS but are present in Mus.Hs. 40.999 are included so long as they are in the copyist’s hand, but with a few exceptions (see below, bar 50) excludes emendations by Bruckner himself. One cannot rely on the 40.999 version of the passage at letter M, for instance, as the manuscript here has clearly been altered. Other exceptions occur when the material is unique to the Intermediate Adagio (as in the quiet episode between letter P and Q in the final section of the movement).

 

Mus.Hs. 34.614/1 (MS) therefore remains the main source for this transcription, and unless stated otherwise it is the source to which the Commentary below refers. The transcription follows the MS unless it is plainly wrong, or unless the other sources can provide missing details (such as slurs, ties, accidentals, dynamics or performance directions).

 

The MS

 

The MS consists (apart from the wrapper) of 22 bifolios of 24-stave manuscript paper, with ‘J.E. No. 8’ printed in the bottom left-hand corner of each right-hand page. Each bifolio has subsequently been numbered in the top right-hand corner of the first page, and each right-hand page has also been numbered in the top right-hand corner. The last two pages of the MS, pages 3 and 4 of bifolio 22, have been left blank.

The manuscript is in the hand of an unidentified copyist, with handwritten corrections by the copyist and by another hand in darker ink and with a broader trace. The style of these annotations is consistent with other Bruckner autographs from this period such as Mus.Hs. 19.480.

The provenance outlined above, that the manuscript was based on a copy of Adagio 1 emended by Bruckner, would explain why certain minor errors and omissions in the MS are also to be found in other copy scores; many of them have been conscientiously copied from the copyist’s source. In some cases (the trombone 1 e# in bar 17, for instance), errors can be traced back to Bruckner’s original manuscript of Adagio 1 (Mus.Hs. 19.480/3). This may also explain why the list of instruments on the first page of the score includes a piccolo, although the text does not, as this instrument is used in the 1887 version at the main climax of the movement (letter U). In the Intermediate version the climax is in another key, and so one can suppose that in ‘Copy 1A’ Bruckner would have replaced the original bifolio with an entirely new one containing the revised climax, in which the piccolo is not used.

The MS is not signed, and there are no visible dates, or any of the other comments that can be found in Bruckner’s original autographs such as voice-leading annotations and metrical numbers.

There are no rehearsal letters before J (bar 139), although they are present in Mus.Hs. 40.999. Key signatures are seldom used after the first page, one reason for the many redundant, as opposed to precautionary, accidentals in the manuscript. Exceptions are found at the a tempo at bar 95 and the similar a tempo at bar 191, the start of the final section, where both clefs and key signatures reappear. Key signatures also appear in the harp parts at bars 25, 43, 143 and 145.

Clefs are not used after the first page, except at bar 191 and sometimes in the trombone, Wagner tuba and cello parts. However, changes of clef in these instruments are not always indicated where necessary (e.g., cellos at bars 91; bass tubas at bars 255 and 297).

Time signatures appear at the start, at the change to triple time at bar 81 and the reversion to common time at bar 95, and at the a tempo at bar 191. Dual time signatures are required in the final section (from letter N onwards), but changes of time signature from common time to 12/8 and vice-versa are not always given where the music requires them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instrumentation

 

On the first page of the score the instruments are listed at the side of the stave as follows:

 

Piccolo / Flauti I II III

Oboi I II III

Clarinetti I II III

Fagotti I II III

Corni in F / 1. 2.

Corni in B / basso [3. 4.]

Tuben / Tenor in B / 1. 2.

Tuben / Bassi in F / 1. 2.

C. B. T. [Contrabass tuba]

Tromba I in F

[Trombe] II III in C

Timpani / tief F [?]

Tromboni / Alt. Tenor

[Trombone] basso

Drei / Harfen / womöglich

Triangel

& Becken

Violino I

Violino II

Viola

Cello

Basso

 

Note:

Contrabass tuba – a treble clef is written at the side of the stave (a bass clef appears at bar 191) and there is no key signature, contrary to Bruckner’s normal practice.

Timpani – in fact, the timpani play F, Bb and Cb

 

The Transcription

 

This transcription aims to give a faithful picture of the MS, with some provisos:

 

1.                  Modern up-bow signs have replaced the inverted ‘heel’ sign used by Bruckner.

2.                  A large number of redundant accidentals, most of them necessitated only by the practice of omitting clefs and key signatures at the side of the stave, have been omitted. Some precautionary accidentals have been retained in the interests of clarity, especially in the brass parts. Precautionary double accidentals have not been included.

3.                  Editorial dynamics and articulation marks are in brackets. Editorial changes to notes are however referred to in the commentary, as are inserted or altered accidentals.

4.                  Editorial slurs are printed with a broken line and editorial ties are printed with a dotted line. However, where slurs or ties begin on one page but are not continued on the next (or vice-versa), an unbroken line has been used, and the matter noted in the commentary.

5.                  The instrumental layout conforms to modern usage in the arrangement of the brass and percussion parts.

6.                  Bruckner’s (and the copyist’s) notation of the percussion instruments has been respected. Bruckner assigns pitches to the cymbals and triangle, both here and in the Seventh Symphony, as can be seen from Mus.Hs. 40.999 and Mus.Hs. 19.479, the autograph score of the Seventh Symphony (as Takanobu Kawasaki points out, Nowak’s edition of the Seventh is not quite faithful to the composer’s practice in this respect).[*]

7.                  Tremolandos. Bruckner indicates tremolandos by three strokes through the stems of crotchets / quarter notes and minims / half notes, and by three strokes under semibreves / whole notes. Tremolando quavers / 8th notes are indicated by two strokes through the stem, tremolando semiquavers / 16th notes by a single stroke through the stem. Bruckner adheres to this system even when, as in this movement, the notation indicates 32nd notes which can be heard separately. In a few places (violin 1 at bar 125, timpani at bars 129, 211 and 257) he adds ‘trem.’ as well, sometimes with an extending line. In this MS these lines are not extended for very long. Nevertheless, it appears that, in this movement at least, notes with strokes through the stems are to be played as unmeasured tremolandos. This is made clear in Mus.Hs. 40.999, where the tremolando continuing line is extended to cover the violin 1 part throughout bars 125-128. (Nowak’s edition of the 1890 score is slightly misleading as he ends the extending line at the end of page 81, a bar early. His edition of the 1887 version is however true to 19.480/3. I suggest that Bruckner added a precautionary ‘trem’ here and at bar 171 as the violin part in these places is melodic. Thanks are due to Takanobu Kawasaki for raising this issue.)

8.                  String divisi are not indicated consistently in the MS. Editorial divisi have been added for the sake of completeness, although there are no passages in this movement which seem to call for non divisi (Bruckner’s slightly incorrect use of divisi for the viola part has been retained).

 

 

The commentary

 

The following Commentary lists erasures and corrections in the manuscript, and explains where the transcription departs from the MS due to wrong notes, missing clefs or accidentals, missing or inconsistent slurs and ties, etc.

Besides the principal manuscript sources (the MS, 40.999 and A 178) listed above, it has also been found useful to refer at certain points to the manuscript sources for other versions of this movement:

 

 

Mus.Hs. 19.480/3 The autograph of the original 1887 version (Adagio 1), which now makes up the third volume of Mus.Hs. 19.480, the remaining volumes of which consist of the autograph scores of movements 1, 2 and 4 of the 1890 version (Adagio 3). This is particularly useful as it served the source for Copy 1 / 40.999.

Mus.Hs. 34.614/2 The copy score of Adagio 1 acquired at the same time as the MS.

Mus.Hs. 6001 A bound copy score of the complete 1887 version in the hand of Karl Aigner.

 

It has also been useful to refer to the following printed editions:

 

1887  The published edition of the 1887 version, edited by Leopold Nowak

1890  Nowak’s edition of the 1890 version

1892  The first published edition, edited by Joseph Schalk and Max von Oberleithner

Haas  Haas’s version of the score

 

 

Performance History

 

At the time the author came across the score, in the late 1980s, it had not been published or performed. It owes its first performance to Takanobu Kawasaki, who came across this manuscript in the Musiksammlung, and subsequently made transcription which served the basis for a recording by the Japan Electronic Orchestra under Takeo Noguchi (Seelenklang SK 2001/02). The interest aroused by this performance and recording led to the first orchestral performance, given by the Tokyo New City Orchestra under Akira Naito in the Tokyo Metropolitan Arts Space on 4 September 2004, the 180th anniversary of Bruckner’s birth. A recording of the event is now available on Delta Classics DCCA-0003.

 

A Note on the revised edition

 

The transcription and commentary were made available on John Berky’s Bruckner Symphony Versions Discography website in 2003. For the present edition the commentary has been expanded and various errors have been corrected. The revised version of the transcription differs in that Mus.Hs. 40.999 has been accepted as a source for certain performance indications, as described above. Again, various typographical errors have been corrected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Literature relating to the Intermediate Adagio is not extensive. It was discussed by the author in an unpublished thesis (Queen’s University Belfast 1994) and was referred to, in passing, in an article by the author in The Musical Times (April 1996) and by Benjamin Marcus Korstvedt in the Cambridge Music Guide to Bruckner Symphony No 8 (page 115). The first full discussion of the Intermediate Adagio to appear in print is Takanobu Kawasaki’s article in the magazine ‘Ongaku Gendai’ (Music Today).

 

Gault, Dermot: ‘Anton Bruckner’s Concept of the Symphony, as exemplified by his revisions of his Symphonies 3, 4 and 8’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, 1994)

Gault, Dermot, ‘For Later Times’ (The Musical Times, April 1996)

Kawasaki, Takanobu, Ongaku Gendai, November 1999.

- Ongaku Gendai, July 2000.

- liner notes for Japan Electronic Orchestra recording, July 2000

- Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 30 August 2004

- programme notes for 4 September 2004 concert performance

- liner notes for Delta Classics Recording, September 2004

- Ongaku Gendai, November 2004

Korstvedt, Benjamin Marcus, Bruckner Symphony No 8 in Cambridge Music Guides, Cambridge 2000, page 115.

Gault, Dermot, ‘An unknown Bruckner version’ (The Bruckner Journal, forthcoming)

 

Adagio 2 is also discussed comprehensively in Mr Kawasaki’s website: http://www.cwo.zaq.ne.jp/kawasaki/MusicPot/8sy.adagiohtml

 

Acknowledgements

 

Thanks are due firstly to Dr Günther Brosche of the Österreichisches Nationalbibliothek for providing microfilms of this and other Bruckner manuscripts and facilitating access to the original manuscripts themselves, and also to Dr Thomas Leibnitz and Dr Inge Birkin-Feichtinger of the Österreichisches Nationalbibliothek, and to Queen’s University Belfast School of Music, Queen’s University Library and Dr Anthony Carver for their help.

Above all, I would like to thank Takanobu Kawasaki for identifying errors and omissions in both my first draft transcription and in the original [the latter are identified in the notes by (TK)] and for a most friendly and stimulating exchange of discoveries and ideas which has continued to the present day.

 

This transcription has been made using the Sibelius™ system. Special thanks are due to Juan Cahis for converting the Sibelius™ document into PDF format, and to John Berky for making the score and commentary available on the Bruckner Symphony Versions Discography website.

 

 

 

Commentary

 

Bifolio 1 – bars 1-4 / 5-8 / 9-12 / 13-16

 

Adagio 3. Satz VIII Symphonie is written at the head of the first page.

 

Bar

 

1          violas – divisi in 19.480/3 and 6001, no indication in MS, 40.999 or 34.614/2.

3          double bass – ohne Anschwellung in 19.480/3 and 6001, no indication in MS or 40.999.

6          violin 1 – the 4th note has a tenuto line in 1890, 1892 and Haas, but not in 1887 or the manuscript sources.

            violin 1 – 4th note – 40.999 supplies the missing p.

7          tenor tuba 2 – a sharp sign has apparently been erased before the single note, which should be g natural (sounding f natural), as per 40.999, 1887, 1890 and 1892. In 19.480/3 a natural sign has been placed before the note, but a sharp sign at the start of the bar has been allowed to stand. In 6001 a natural sign appears to have been written over a sharp sign.

            violin 2, viola, cello – 40.999 supplies the missing p.

cello – cresc. in 19.480/3, missing in MS, 40.999 and 6001.

double bass – no cresc. in MS, 40.999, 19.480/3, 34.614/2, or 6001. Editorial (cresc.) in 1890 and Haas.

8          cello – dim. missing from MS, 34.614/2 and 6001 (but present in 19.480/3 and 1887. The dim. in 40.999 is a later addition.)

9          violin 2, viola, cello, double bass – no cresc. in MS or 6001. All string parts have a cresc. in 1887 and 1890, but only violin 1 and 2 have a cresc. in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 1892.

10        violin 2 – slur, tie and tenuto lines omitted in second half of the bar.

11        tubas – this chord is tied across the bar line to bar 12 in MS, 40.999, and 1892, but not in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 1887 or 1890.

violin 2 – hairpin mark (as per violin 1) omitted in MS, present in 19.480/3, 40.999 and 34.614/2.

viola – copyist’s erasure before second note (possibly a wrong accidental – there is also an erasure in 40.999).

viola, cello – no dynamic marking in MS (pp in 19.480/3 and 1887, p in 40.999 [a later emendation by Bruckner] and 1890).

12        double bass – cresc. missing in MS and 40.999, present in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890.

13        viola, cello – no cresc. sempre in MS, present in 19.480/3 and 34.614/2; 6001 has cresc. sempre in the cello part only. 40.999 has been overwritten in this bar.

            double bass – MS and 40.999 have cresc. (only) in double bass; 19.480/3 and 34.614/2 also have semp.

19.480/3, 34.614/2, 1887 and 1890 have a [subito?] p and cresc. in all string and tuba parts in this bar. 1892 has a simple cresc. in all parts.

13-14   tenor and bass tubas – no tie in MS, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 or 1890. The editorial tie has been inserted by analogy with bars 11-12 and 199-202 (compare the latter with 1887 bars 209-212).

15        no rehearsal mark in MS, A in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

contrabass tuba – 40.999 supplies the marc. semp. omitted in MS (present also in 19.480/3, 34.614/2 and 6001).

16        oboes – 40.999 supplies the a2 missing from MS.

 

Bifolio 2 – bars 17-24 / 25-26 / 27-28 / 29-32

 

17        horns 1 & 2 – tie sign carried from previous page in MS (these notes are not tied, as the horns are not playing sustained notes, unlike the other brass).

bass tubas – ties from previous page (bifolio 1 page 4) missing in MS, present in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

trombone 1 –  erroneous sharp sign before the e in MS, 19.480/3, 34.614/2 and 6001: removed in 40.999, 1887 and 1890 (the natural sign in 40.999 appears to be an emendation).

cello & double bass – written c (natural), should be c# (as in 19.480/3, 40.999, and 6001, and as per double basses, bassoons, bass trombone and contrabass tuba)

18        cello – no slur in MS, 40.999 or 34.614/2. Slurred in 19.480/3, 6001, 1887 and 1890 (see bar 36).

19        double bass – no dynamic marking (p in all other string parts, and in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

22        viola – 40.999 supplies the crescendo and decrescendo marks missing from MS.

23        clarinet 2 – second note emended by copyist (from crotchet / quarter note?)

trombone 1 – the precautionary natural before the final note seems to be an insertion, possibly by Bruckner (natural sign also in 40.999).

violin 2, viola, cello, double bass – p missing (p in 40.999 is a later addition). See bar 41.

25        harp – 40.999 supplies the ff missing from the start of the bar in MS (ff also in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001, and in the equivalent passage in MS, bar 43) – also the dim. halfway through the bar.

26        strings – in MS, the dim. is placed under the second chord; in 40.999 it occurs halfway through the first chord, and 19.480/3 confirms that this is deliberate.

violin 2 – middle note of second chord has been changed (by Bruckner?) from g to f, turning it into a simple b flat minor chord (as per 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887, although differently spaced).

viola – the original top note (g natural) of second chord deleted (by Bruckner?)  The deleted g natural was reinstated in Adagio 3 (see 40.999 and 1890).

27        harp – 40.999 supplies the missing dynamic marking (p also in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887 – see also bar 45).

28        viola – erasure before second note (accidental removed).

29        no rehearsal mark in MS, B in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

violin 1 – 40.999 supplies the dynamic marking in MS (pp also in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

viola, cello – no divisi in MS; in 19.480/3 and 40.999 divisi is written between the viola and cello staves, but is taken here to refer to the cellos as the violas are already divisi from the previous passage.

30        violin 1 – the extent of the slur is not entirely clear in MS, but elsewhere, and in all sources, only the first two notes are slurred.

 

Bifolio 3 – bars 33-36 / 37-42 / 43-44 / 45-46

 

35        contrabass tuba – chevron accent in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890 (as per other brass parts), missing from MS. The accent in 40.999 seems to be a later addition.

36        violin 1 & 2 – dim. missing from MS (dim. in all parts in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890). 19.480/3 confirms positioning of dim. markings.

double basses – first note corrected to eb (accidental inserted by Bruckner in larger print and heavier ink).

39        violin 1 – 40.999 supplies the slur missing from the second half of bar in MS and 6001 (slur present also in 19.480/3, 1887 and 1890, and in MS bar 21).

40        viola – divisi missing from MS, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

42        contrabass tuba – dynamics missing in MS (f in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

43        horns 1 & 2 / 3 & 4 – slurs not carried over from bifolio 3 page 2.

violin 2, viola –  40.999 supplies the divisi missing from MS, 19.480/3, 34.614/2 and 6001.

44        strings – (p) by analogy with bar 26. There is no dynamic marking in the sources. 1887 has (p), 1890 allows Haas’s p to stand.

            strings – dim. is placed halfway through the first chord, following 19.480/3 and 40.999 (see also bar 26).

 

Bifolio 4 – bars 47-50 / 51-54 / 55-58 / 59-62

 

47        no rehearsal mark in MS, C in 19.480/3, 40.999, and 6001.

violin 1 – accidental changed (by Bruckner) to a natural sign.

50        horn 2 – 40.999 supplies the slur missing in MS. This is Bruckner’s addition to 40.999 (the horn 2 part is not found in Adagio 1), but would have been made as part of the process of transforming Adagio 1 into Adagio 2.

51        viola – last two notes should be semiquavers, each with a single stroke through the stem, as per 6001, 40.999, 1887, 1890 and MS bar 61.

55        cello – tenuto line missing from all manuscript sources. Editorial tenuto line in 1887, 1890 and Haas, as per bar 65.

57        no rehearsal mark in MS, D in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

horn 2 – part wrongly written in the horn 3 & 4 line. On page 4 of bifolio 4 the part continues with horns 1 & 2. A tie to the previous note is shown in bar 59 of the MS. It is clear by analogy with bars 47-50 and 147-150 that horns 1 and 2 play the whole passage.

The same error occurs in 40.999, where once again the horn parts jump from horns 3 & 4 to horns 1 & 2 between pages 3 and 4 of bifolio 4, but is corrected in 1890 and Haas.

58        oboe 1 – slur missing, although its ending is found in bar 59 on the next page (page 4 of bifolio 4).

59        clarinets – slur not carried over from previous page.

60        flutes – second note unclear; could be g#. 34/614.2 and 6001 have f# (TK suggests a#); the c# in 40.999 is an emendation.

            horn 2 – no slur in sources, slurred in Haas, editorial slur in 1890 (see also bar 150).

61        viola – MS has mf – should be f as per cellos (TK), as per 19.480/3 and 6001 (no dynamic marking in 40.999 or 34.614/2).

 

Bifolio 5 – bars 63-66 / 67-70 / 71-74 / 75-78

 

64        clarinet 1 – first two notes (b – a [concert a – g]) should be a – g# (concert g – f#), as per flute 1, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887.

65        violin 2 – no dynamic marking (p in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

66        clarinet 1 – sixth note, written d# (concert c#), should probably be d natural (concert c), as per 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890 (where this bar is deliberately different from the bar preceding).

violin 2 – repeat sign in heavy ink (a correction?)

67        clarinet 1 – slur does not continue over the page to last note in MS or in 19.480/3, 34.614/2 and 6001, but does continue in 19.480/3 and 1887 (it is clear from 19.480/3 bar 66 that the slur is intended to continue over the page, but it is missing from bar 67).

tenor tuba 1 – p apparently applies to both tenor tubas in MS, but 19.480/3, 40.999 make it clear that tenor tuba 1 is mf (see bar 167).

            bass tubas – no dynamic marking (something has been written but erased) – p in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

violin 2 – divisi missing in MS and 40.999 (divisi in 19.480/3, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

68        tenor & bass tubas – MS is ambiguous here. A cresc. is written above the tenor tuba stave, and cresc. seems to have been written below the bass tuba stave, but has been scribbled out. An unclear cresc. is written above the contrabass tuba stave. In 40.999 cresc. is written under the bass tuba stave. 19.480/3 confirms that the cresc. applies to all parts.

69        violin 1 – lower part – the A natural, written as a minim, should be a semibreve (as per 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

71        clarinets – presumably only clarinet 1 (as per oboe part, and 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

cello – bass clef added by Bruckner (the cellos last played in treble clef, bar 65).

73        viola – 19.480/3 has mf, but there is no dynamic marking in MS; the mf in 40.999 is an addition by Bruckner (compare with the copyist’s mf in the cello part).

75        oboe 1 & clarinet 1 – 40.999 supplies the slurs missing from MS (also found in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 1887, 1890 and in MS bar 76).

violin 1 – divisi should be half a bar earlier (i.e., in the second half of bar 74 – editorial divisi in 1890).

77        oboes – 40.999 supplies the slurs missing from MS.

horns 1-4 – the last two notes are slurred in MS, but there are no slurs in 40.999 or in other 1887 sources such as 19.480/3. As there are no slurs in the equivalent passage (bar 172) it has been decided to omit them on the grounds that this is most likely an error on the part of the copyist.

78        oboes, clarinets – slur missing from MS.

 

Bifolio 6 – bars 79-84 / 85-90 / 91-96 / 97-100

 

81        no rehearsal mark in MS, E in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

double bar line only in MS and 1890 – 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887 have an ordinary bar line.

horn 3 – the quavers in bars 81-82 are barred differently (two groups of two) in the other sources.

83        flutes – pp in MS, p in all other sources, including 40.999 and 19.480/3; copyist’s error.

flutes – minor erasure by copyist (near note-head).

oboe 2 – not clear where the slur starts in MS – 2nd or 3rd note? 1887 takes the slur from the 4th (written) note, 40.999 takes the slur from the 2nd note (the second db), while 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1890 have no slurs in the oboe 2 part.

84        oboe 1 – in the sources the first notes of bars 84 and 86 are written as dotted crotchets with a triplet sign.

85-6     oboe 2 – tie missing between first note and second note; slur taken from the start of the bar in MS, 40.999 and 1890 and from the 4th note in 1887; 19.480/3 and 34.614/2 have no oboe 2 slur in these bars; in 6001 the last two notes only are slurred.

clarinets 1 & 2 – slurs missing in MS, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887; bracketed slurs in 1890.

87        oboes, clarinets – no dynamic marking in MS; 40.999 supplies mf (also in 19.480/3, 34.614/2, 1887 and 1890).

clarinet 2 – 4th note written b natural in MS and all the manuscript sources, corrected to bb in all the published versions (1892, Haas, 1887 and 1890)

88        clarinets – last dyad is written f / A natural (concert eb / g natural) – should be g natural / b natural (concert f / A natural), as per 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001, 1887 and 1890.

88-9     oboe 2 – no slur in MS or 34.614/2, slur supplied by 40.999 (also slurred in 19.480/3, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

89        flutes 1 & 2 – first note written double-dotted minim in MS, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2, 6001 and 1887, but should be minim tied to quaver, as in 1890.

            oboe 2 – first note is a crotchet b natural in MS, 19.480/3, 40.999 and 34.614/2, which clashes with the clarinets. 6001 and 1887 have an ordinary quaver.

 

The editorial triplet quaver in 1890, 1892 and Haas is however necessary for correct performance.

            clarinets 1 & 2 – triplet number missing.

91        violin 2, viola, cello – first note has a tenuto line in MS, violin 1 has an accent.

            As the indications in the MS are inconsistent, markings have been made uniform in bars 91-94 as per 19.480/3, 40.999, 6001, 1887 and 1890, in which the first note of each bar has a down-bow and an accent in all parts.

cello – bass clef change missing from MS (appears to be an emendation in 6001).

93        strings – no dynamic marking in MS; f supplied by 40.999 (f also in 19.480/3, 6001 and 1887).

94        strings – violin 1, viola and cello have a tenuto line in the MS, while violin 2 has an accent. The transcription has been regularised in accordance with 19.480/3, 40.999, 6001, 1887 and 1890, where all parts have a tenuto line as well as a down-bow and an accent on the first beat. (In 34.614/2, violin 1 and 2 and viola have a tenuto line, an accent and a down-bow on the first note; the cellos only have a tenuto line).

            viola, cello – no down-bow marking.

95        no rehearsal mark in MS, F in 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 and 6001.

            violin 1 – G Saite extending line editorial.

            viola, cello – divisi missing from MS, 19.480/3, 40.999 and 6001.

            double bass – 40.999 supplies the ohne Anschwellung missing from MS (also found in 19.480/3).

97        violin 2 – 40.999 supplies the tenuto lines and slurs missing from second half of bar in MS.

99        violin 1 – 1887, 6001 and 1890 have an accent on the first note, MS has a decrescendo, probably following 40.999, where the marking is ambiguous (TK). Reference to 19.480/3 shows that an accent is correct, although the accent sign is perhaps larger than usual, which may have misled the copyist of 40.999. 34.614/2 also has an ambiguous marking midway between an accent and a descrescendo.

violin 2 – triplet marks missing.

 

Bifolio 7 – bars 101-104 / 105-108 / 109-112 / 112-116

 

103      violins – dynamic marks are written between the staves, and it is not clear which parts they refer to, but as the violas and cellos do not have any dynamic change in 6001, 40.999, 1887 and 1890, they are taken to refer to the violin parts only.

105      horn 3 – no dynamic marking in MS or 19.480/3. The p in 40.999 is a later addition.

violas – no cresc. semp. (as per other parts) in MS, 19.480/3, 40.999, 34.614/2 or 6001 (in the last of these there is no room). Editorial cresc. sempre in 1887 and 1890.

106      violin 2 – 40.999 supplies the slur missing (as per violin 1) from MS and 19.480/3.

 

 

 

109      no rehearsal mark in MS, G in 19.480/3, 40.999 and 34.614/2

bassoon 2 – natural sign missing (as per brass and strings).

            violin 1, violin 2, viola, cello (upper), double bass – no dynamic markings in MS. 40.999 supplies p in violin 1, violin 2 and cello upper part, but the p in the viola part is a later addition by Bruckner (p is found in all parts in 19.480/3, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

violin 2 – tenuto lines missing on the first note, throughout bar 110, and on the first note of bar 111 in MS and 40.999. The first notes of bars 113 & 115 do however have tenuto lines, although bar 114 does not. In the equivalent passage in the exposition (bars 8 and 10), the two final notes of this phrase have tenuto lines. There are no tenuto lines in 19.480/3, 6001 or 1887, but all the detached notes have lines in 1890.

109      cello (lower part) – 40.999 supplies the dynamic markings missing from MS, here and in bar 110 (as per double bass, 19.480/3, 6001, 1887 and 1890).

110      bassoon 2, contrabass tuba, cello (lower), double bass – the slurring of the main theme is not consistent in bars 109-116 in the MS, where in any case slurs are sometimes omitted or not always indicated clearly.

 

·        19.480/3 – cellos and basses slur notes 1 & 2 throughout, bassoon and contrabass tuba slur notes 1-3, apart from bar 116, where the contrabass tuba has no slur.

·        1887 – cellos and basses slur notes 1 & 2 throughout, bassoon and contrabass tuba slur notes 1-3 throughout. This is also the phrasing given in 6001, apart from bar 116, where there are no slurs in the bassoon and contrabass tuba parts.

·        34.614/2 – cellos and basses slur the first two notes only in bars 110, 112, and 114, while in bar 116 the slur is ambiguous. Bassoon 3 slurs notes 1-3 in bars 110, 112 and 116, while the slur in bar 114 is ambiguous. The contrabass tuba slurs notes 1-3 in bars 110, 112, and 114, but has no slur in bar 116.

·        MS – cellos slur notes 1 & 2 in bars 110 and 116, and notes 1-3 in bars 112 and 114; double basses slur notes 1-3 in bars 110, 112, and 114, and slur notes 1 & 2 in bar 116; bassoon slurs notes 1-3 throughout; contrabass tuba slurs notes 1-3 in bars 110 and 112, and has no slurs in 114 and 116.