VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed...

96
VERDI Messa da Requiem Urtext A cura di / Herausgegeben von / Edited by Marco Uvietta Bärenreiter Kassel · Basel · London · New York · Praha DBA 100-01 Critical Commentary

Transcript of VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed...

Page 1: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

VERDIMessa da Requiem

Urtext

A cura di / Herausgegeben von / Edited byMarco Uvietta

Bärenreiter Kassel · Basel · London · New York · PrahaDBA 100 - 01

Critical Commentary

Page 2: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag Karl Vötterle GmbH & Co. KG, KasselTutti i diritti riservati / Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved

ISMN 979-0-006-59000-1

Page 3: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

1© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

CRITICAL COMMENTARYGiuseppe Verdi: Messa da requiem (BA )

EXAMINED SOURCES

A autograph score, Milan, Museo teatrale alla ScalaI-Bc autograph score for bb. 28 –55 of N. 1 Requiem

e Kyrie, Museo internazionale e Biblioteca della Musica, Bologna (Ms. UU.26)

I-Mb1 autograph manuscript for bb. 1–11 of N. 1 Requiem e Kyrie, Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Collezio ne Manzoni (MANZ. V.S. VII 6)

I-Mb2 autograph manuscript for bb. 1–5 of N. 1 Requiem e Kyrie, ibid.

I-Mr score, manuscript copy with Verdi’s corrections, Milan, Archivio Storico Ricordi

MI1874 printed libretto, Milan, Ricordi, May 1874MpR autograph manuscript of Libera me, Domine from

Messa per Rossini, S. Agata, Busseto, Villa VerdipUS-Cso manuscript of winds and percussion parts,

Chicago, Library of the Chicago Symphony Or-chestra

pRIcoro printed choral parts, Ricordi, Milan, 1874pRIarchi printed strings parts, Ricordi, Milan, 1874rRIbozze printed proof of the first piano-vocal score (N. 6

Lux æterna), with Verdi’s corrections, New York, Pierpont Morgan Library

rRIms manuscript piano-vocal score, location currently unknown

rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004)

rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004)

RI1875 score (first edition), lithographed manuscript copy Ricordi, Milan, 1875

RI1913 printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1913 (pl. no. 113956)RI1964 printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1964 (P.R. 160)

D A: autograph score, Milan, Museo teatrale alla Scala

The autograph score, bound in two volumes, contains, be-sides the complete Messa da requiem (1874), a fascicle with the second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875; see Ap-pendix).

Unlike most works by Verdi, whose autograph scores were retained by the publisher, Ricordi, the autograph of Messa da requiem was returned to the composer after ex-tracting performance materials and preparing at least one copy (I-Mr). The autograph was presumably returned after the premiere performance, and before July 19th 1874, the date on which Eugenio Tornaghi, an employee of Ricordi, wrote to Verdi asking him whether he had received the

“Cassetta colla partitura Messa”, without however explic-itly mentioning the autograph.1

In December 1897, Verdi gave the score as a gift “A Teresa Stolz / Interprete Prima / di questa composizione”, as can be read on the first page of the manuscript. After Stolz’s death (1902), the autograph went to her heirs, who presum-ably sold it to Banca Commerciale, since in the catalogue of Museo teatrale alla Scala it appears as “Dono della Banca Commerciale col concorso degli Amici del Museo Teatrale e del Museo”. According to Rosen, the donation to Museo tea-trale alla Scala must have occurred at some time between 1912 and 1926.2

The autograph score of Messa da requiem was described in detail by David Rosen in his critical edition, to which read-ers should refer for a more in-depth discussion.3 Here we merely intend to provide readers with useful information to motivate the philological-musical choices of this edition, especially where they diverge from Rosen’s edition.

A does not show the usual structural corrections (dele-tion of whole pages or sections) that can be found in other Verdi autographs, except for two instances, where whole pages were removed (at the end of the Offertorio) or re-placed (at the beginning of the Sanctus). The reading of A is therefore very clear, legible and detailed. This leads to the hypothesis that, when Verdi wrote A, he already had a well-developed continuity draft; this hypothesis is further supported by the reading of the second version of “Liber scriptus” transmitted by rRIms (and maybe drawn from the hypothetical continuity draft), which is different from that of the other contemporary sources.4 This would also account for the prevailing error type, i.e. mechanical copying over-sights. For N. 7 Verdi already had the manuscript of Libera me, Domine from Messa per Rossini. A contains corrections in grey, blue and red pencil, few of which have been adopt-ed by I-Mr, and hence transmitted to the sources derived from it. It is unlikely that the person responsible for these corrections (some of which may be authograph) took the liberty to make changes in A without Verdi’s authorization (unless they were absolutely obvious, as happens in some cases). This edition takes into account these corrections, but evaluates whether to adopt them on a case-by-case basis.

At some unspecified moment, rubric folios (written on the verso and blank on the recto) were added between one piece and the next, indicating at what point of the Ambro-sian rite mass each piece should be performed. Given that

1 Letter archived at Villa S. Agata di Busseto (cit. in Rosen, Crit-ical Commentary, in Giuseppe Verdi, Messa da requiem, ed. David Rosen, Chicago and London / Milan: The University of Chicago Press / Ricordi, , pp.  –  ).2 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .3 In particular, we suggest referring to Rosen for the codicolog-ical description and the structure of the manuscript (Rosen, Criti-cal Commentary, pp.  –  ).4 See the description of rRIms, pp.  –  .

Page 4: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

2 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

only the premiere performance at San Marco required in-serting the pieces into a liturgical context, it is likely that the addition was made just days before the premiere. The practical function of these “director’s notes” can be inferred from the fact that the first performance was conducted by Verdi himself, who was known to be rather unfamiliar with liturgical practices. If one desires to perform the Messa da requiem in a liturgical context, then the rubric notes are the only authoritative source available, having been approved and “performed” by the author himself. The general struc-ture of the musical-liturgical “script”, from which we can also infer the structure of A, appears as described by the diagram on p. 3.

The second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875), on pp. 69 –84 (a single fascicle of four nested bifolios), was in-serted and bound into A at a page break just after the be-ginning of the original version: p. 68 concludes with the first three bars of the original version (162a–164a), followed by the complete 1875 version on pp. 69 – 84 (162–238), after which the original version resumes on p. 85 and continues to its conclusion on p. 96 (165a–215a).

Other autograph sources

A series of autograph fragments drawn from Messa da re-quiem is extant. These fragments are conceived uniquely as homages, and have no performance purposes. There is no reason, therefore, why they should be regarded as more authoritative than A, except for the rare instances in which they may help shed light on issues that remain unsolved even in the sources that were certainly (or probably) ap-proved by the author. Concerning this type of source, the Critical Commentary in this edition only mentions I-Bc e I-Mb1,2 (see below). On the other hand, we deemed it unnec-essary to mention the fragments marked by Rosen with the acronyms US-PHci (1877), Seligmann (1877), Kuhe (1875), Menzel (1883).5

I-Bc: Museo internazionale e Biblioteca della Musica di Bo-logna (Ms. UU.26)

Autograph manuscript for bb. 28–55 of N. 1 Requiem e Kyrie, donated by Verdi to Biblioteca del Liceo Musi-cale di Bologna through the mediation of Arrigo Boito, and sent to “segretario” of the Liceo Federico Vellani on May 26, 1891.6 This edition points out some diver-gences between I-Bc and A, but never accepts the read-ings of I-Bc, for the reasons explained above.

I-Mb1,2: Milano, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Collezione Manzoni (MANZ. V.S. VII 6)

5 Rosen, Critical Commentary, pp.  – . The first two manu-scripts contain respectively bars  – and  – of N. Of-fertorio (“Hostias”); the third and fourth contain bars –  of N. Agnus Dei.6 The date and place can be inferred from the two postmarks on the envelope attached to the manuscript. On the backside, the postmark of Bologna’s post office gives us the date of delivery: May , .

In 1886, Biblioteca di Brera named a room after Ales-sandro Manzoni, the “Sala manzoniana”. As a con-tribution to celebrate the opening, Verdi donated an autograph excerpt of the first bars of N. 1 of Messa da requiem.7 Since the first shipment did not reach its destination on time,8 Verdi sent another manuscript, so that they were soon both delivered. This explains why Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense contains two au-tograph manuscripts with the beginning of N. 1 (the second of which, with barely five bars, testifies to Verdi’s lukewarm enthusiasm for the initiative):

I-Mb1: autograph manuscript for bb. 1–11 of N. 1 Re quiem e Kyrie;

I-Mb2: autograph manuscript for bb. 1–5 of N. 1 Re quiem e Kyrie.

In the Critical Commentary of this edition we only refer to I-Mb1, as a confirmation for solutions adopted on the basis of musical logic.

I-Mr: score, manuscript copy with Verdi’s corrections, Milan, Archivio Storico Ricordi

Registered at the prefecture of the Milan province on August 14th 1874, the frontispiece of the manuscript bears Verdi’s authentication: “Copia conforme / all’originale / G. Verdi”. The copy was produced by six Ricordi copyists, presumably by the middle of July.9 However, there are good reasons to think that I-Mr was prepared in real time, as Verdi handed in the various parts of A: in fact, the copy of the first two pieces, submitted by Verdi on March 30, was handed out to all six copyists. If the copying had not been so urgent, maybe the distribution of materials would have been car-ried out on the complete work, starting from the last sub-mission (mid-April; see Introduction, p. VIII), or at least after April 9, when Verdi sent NN. 4, 5, 6, 7. However, the urgent need for a copy of the score can be unequivocally deduced from the fact that N. 3, the last piece to be submitted, was copied by at least two different copyists. In little more than a month, Ricordi had to extract the orchestral and cho-ral parts, as well as prepare the piano-vocal score, whose printed version had to be ready by the day of the premiere. Supposing that the composer knew his work well enough to conduct it without studying it (or at least re-reading it),10

7 A request for the full score of Messa da requiem (“si chiede a Giuseppe Verdi l’autografo della Messa da requiem”) was predict-ably turned down (see Catalogo della mostra manzoniana: Novembre – Dicembre , Milan, , p. XIX).8 On October , Verdi wrote to Ricordi, asking him whether he had received his “lettera Requiem” of Oct. , which probably contained the cadeau (Carteggio Verdi-Ricordi  – , edited by A. Pompilio and M. Ricordi, Istituto Nazionale di Studi Verdiani, Parma, , p. ).9 Around the middle of July, Ricordi presumably sent the auto-graph score back to Verdi. See description of A, pp. – and note .10 During the premiere rehearsals Verdi coached the soloist sing-ers, but not the choir (see the Introduction to this edition, p. VIII); the choir is assigned some of the most demanding passages for the conductor.

Page 5: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

3© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

[vol. I][pp. 1–32 (32 empty)] N. 1 Requiem [e Kyrie]

[pp. 33–34 (33 empty)] [rubric]N:o 2 / Dominus vobiscum – Oremus = Lezione. / Epistola che si canta dal lato destro / appiè dell’altare: alle parole: / Quoniam ipse Dominus in / jussu et in voce Arcangeli, et / in tuba Dei descen-det de Cœlo, et mor- / tui qui in Christo sunt resurgen primi, / deinde nos qui vivimus simul rapiemur / cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in / aera, et sic semper cum Domino erimus. / Itaque consolamini invicem in verbis / istis = subito / Dies iræ

[pp. 35–202(201–202 empty)]* N. 2 Dies iræ

[vol. II][pp. 1–2 (1 empty)] [rubric]

N 3. / Finito il Dies iræ leggesi il Van-gelo- / poi Dominus vobiscum e un Oremus / che comincia Adesto Domine sup- / plicationibus nostris per anima / famuli tui in cujus annua obitus / die officium commemorationis im- / pendi-mus:… ut signa ei secularis macu- / la inhæsit… dono tuae pietatis indulgeas et / abstergas= per dominum nostrum Jesum / Christum filium tuum, qui te-cum vivit / et regnat in unitate spiritus sancti Deus / per omnia sæcula sæculo-rum (pronti) / Amen Segue subito

[pp. 3–52 (52 empty)] N. 3 Offertorio

[pp. 53–54 (53 empty)] [rubric]N 4. / Prefazio&b

Do mi- nus- vo bi- - scum-

œ œj œ œ œ œ œ

Il prefazio finisce colle parole sotto notate, ma / sarà bene avvisare di star pronti a queste prime

&bquem Che ru- bim- et Se ra- fim- so cia- ex ul- ta- -

&btio- ne- con ce- le- brant.- Cum qui bus- et

&bno stras- vo ces- ut ad mit- ti- ju be- as- de pre- ca- -

&bmur- sup pli- ci- con fes- si- o- ne- di cen- tes-

œ œ œj œ œ œ œj œ œ œj œ œ œj

œ œ œ œ œj œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œj œ œ œ œj œ œ œ œ œ

Segue subito**

[pp. 55–84 (84 empty)] N. 4 Sanctus

[pp. 85–86 (85 empty)] [rubric]No 5 / Dopo la Consacrazione – / Per omnia sæcula sæculorum Amen / Pater noster… / Poi altra orazione sul tono del Pater noster, / la quale quasi in fine ha le parole / præsta eum cum quo beatus / vivis et regnas Deus in unitate spir. / sancti per omnia [secula] sec[u]lorum - amen - / quindi cenno di star pronti / Pax et communicatio D[omi]ni nostri / Jesu Christi sit semper vobis-cum = / Et cum spiritu tuo / subito Agnus Dei

[pp. 87–106(105–106 empty)] N. 5 Agnus Dei

[pp. 107–108(107 empty)] [rubric]

N 6. / La messa finisce poco dopo. / Quando è finito l’Agnus / Dei cominci o subito o appena / poco dopo (come vuole il Sig.r M.o) / Segue Lux æterna

[pp. 109–132] N. 6 [Lux æterna]

[pp. 133–134(133 empty)] [rubric]

No 7. / Quando, finita l’Orazione e / cantato un ultimo Amen sa- / rà detto a voce bassa senza can- / to Dominus vobiscum etcc. e / Requiem etcc. et lux perpetua / luceat ei, requiescat in pace Amen / tutto sommessamente, e vedrà il / celebrante accostarsi al lato / del Vangelo, intoni subito / Libera me //

[pp. 135–218(217–218 empty)] N. 7 Libera me, Domine

* The page numbering also includes both versions of the “Liber scriptus”.** See Plate 1, p. 274

Rubric pages inserted in the autograph score

Page 6: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

4 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

this could not, in any way, have been true for Franco Faccio, who would later conduct the Messa da requiem on the 27th and 29th of May at Teatro alla Scala. Having one more score available, whatever its planned function or use, must have been a necessity, or at least a useful precaution.

The work of the six copyists was essentially “conserva-tive”, almost never critical, so that I-Mr only rarely offers solutions for the inconsistencies and errors of A. On the whole, I-Mr is the product of a group of craftsmen with lim-ited musical knowledge. However, the importance of this source has to do with the corrections added by Verdi, some of which are actually revisions. Theoretically, they may have been inserted after the premiere, although a rather evident series of mutual “contaminations” suggests that I-Mr, rRIms and rRI1874 probably developed in parallel, as Verdi submit-ted parts of his work.11

Many corrections were written in purple ink, and some of them were also reproduced in A, at a moment when Verdi had access to both manuscripts (see for example Critical Commentary, N. 2, Note 127–129).12 In one significant case, Verdi made revisions in pencil and did not reproduce them in A (see Critical Commentary, N. 3, Note 63–67). Other in-terventions in (red or grey) pencil do not seem Verdi’s, and generally correct major oversights – which is why they are usually not marked in this edition. The fact that Verdi au-thorized this manuscript copy is not a sufficient condition to regard its accidental divergences from A as authoritative: it is evident that the composer revised I-Mr in a very super-ficial way, as he used to do whenever he reads the proofs of his own works (the same consideration applies to the proofs of the piano-vocal score of N. 6 Lux æterna,13 and to the printed strings and choral parts). Therefore, the edition of the score only takes into account the readings that show interventions by the author or by authorized staff.

I-Mr turns out to be just as important in tracing the ori-gin of erroneous, or inaccurate, textual traditions. It was mostly, although not exclusively, from this copy that Ricordi drew the first printed edition (RI1875, lithographed manu-script copy), from which most of the orchestral parts in RI1913 were drawn and subjected to standardization, inte-gration and normalization (the vocal parts are derived from rRI1875). Therefore I-Mr allows us to document the genesis of errors contained in RI1913 and RI1964, and hence to dem-onstrate that some of the solutions adopted in these scores (on which many historical recordings that are still com-mercially available were based), are the result of inherited misreadings rather than choices.14

11 For a possible stemma of the sources see this edition, “The textual tradition”, pp. – : .12 See also the description of rRI1874, p. .13 See description of rRIbozze.14 In other cases, the divergences of the textual tradition with respect to A presumably depend on the relationship with rRIms (see description of rRIms, pp.  –  : ).

MI1874: printed libretto, Milan, Ricordi, 1874

Printed for the premiere performance, it constitutes the principal source for the verbal text: where Verdi wrote the text erroneously or omitted punctuation marks, this edition refers to the reading of MI1874. In some cases, however, it retains the punctuation of A when it shows relevant expres-sive qualities.

pUS-Cso: manuscript winds and percussion parts, Chicago, Library of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra

These parts were prepared by the publisher, Ricordi, for the New York performance (17 November 1874), and contain the first version of the “Liber scriptus”. Some inserts con-taining the “Liber scriptus” of 1875 were added at a later date. This part set was probably copied from another set, which had been extracted directly from A. Although there is no reason why Verdi should have examined this orches-tral material, the source provides useful information where Verdi may have omitted to indicate whether an instrumen-tal part should be played “Solo”, “a 2”, “a 3”, or to define the distribution of the three Trbn in a bichord. Furthermore, it is not infrequent to observe appropriate vertical extensions of dynamic indications, articulation signs, and slurs that show a not entirely mechanical extraction of parts.

pRIcoro, pRIarchi: printed choral and strings parts, Milan, 1874

Ricordi printed the choral and strings parts between April and May 1874 (hence with the first version of the “Liber scriptus”), in time for the premiere performance. They were almost certainly drawn from A, since they do not contain errors that are present in I-Mr (other sources for the score were not available at the time). Ricordi sent the proofs of the choral parts to Verdi on April 11th. Considering that Verdi sent the “corrected” proofs back the next day,15 we can imagine that his check must have been rather hasty. The same reasoning applies to the proofs of the strings parts, which Verdi received on April 14th and sent back on the 16th.16 Given the impossibility to know where and how Verdi intervened on the proofs, this edition attributes very limited importance and usefulness to pRI.

rRIbozze: printed proof of the piano-vocal score (N. 6 Lux æterna), with Verdi’s corrections, New York, Pierpont Morgan Library (Mary Flagler Cary Music Collection)

See description of rRI1874.

15 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of April , (the manuscript is kept at Archivio Storico Ricordi and can be accessed at the follow-ing website: Internet Culturale, http://www.internetculturale.it; hence-forth ASR, IC).16 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of April , (ASR, IC).

Page 7: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

5© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

rRIms: manuscript piano-vocal score, location currently unknown

This source appeared in the catalogue of music antiques dealer La Scala autographs from 2011 to the beginning of 2012, when the editor of this edition purchased a photographic reproduction of it. The text on the cover reads as follows: “Messa da Requiem / Musicata dal Celeberrimo Maestro / Giuseppe Verdi / Per l’anniversario di Alessandro Manzo-ni”, and below, in pencil, “proprietà Riservata” (left) and “II VERSIONE / LIBER SCRIPTUS” (right). The manuscript shows the features of a model for the typographic realiza-tion of the piano-vocal score: the notes and text are written in black ink, while all the expressive, dynamic, tempo, slurs and articulation marks are written in purple ink. However, rRIms was presumably conceived for performance, not spe-cifically for preparing the printed piano-vocal score: the layout appears very different from that of the printed edi-tion (rRIms is in horizontal format, rRI1874 and rRI1875 are in vertical format). Furthermore, the performance indications were written by the same hand that wrote the notes on the pentagram; to this must be added the somewhat pragmatic, concise writing, which makes intelligent use of abbrevia-tions in the performance indications. By the same token, the piano-vocal scores printed by Ricordi in 1874 –’75 must have referred to this manuscript, since they are largely con-sistent with it in almost every respect. rRIms contains the second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875, which may have replaced the first one at a later time), whose reading was probably derived from a continuity draft that preced-ed A: there are divergences with respect to A, which can hardly be accounted for as copying mistakes or omissions, as attempts to resolve issues of inconsistency, or as derived from known secondary sources.17 It cannot, however, be ex-cluded that the whole manuscript was written in 1875, and hence that the second version of the “Liber scriptus” is an integral part of the original manuscript structure. Only by analyzing the paper item, which is currently missing, could we provide an answer to this question. It is, however, im-possible to find a plausible reason for preparing a full manu-script copy of rRI1875, also including a version of the “Liber scriptus” that is different from the printed edition as far as slurs and articulation are concerned. Moreover, if the per-son who wrote the manuscript had copied it from rRI1875, he would not have forgotten the whole choral part in the “Liber scriptus”, adding it in purple ink at a later time (and in “shorthand” form) in the same stave as Ms.18 It is signifi-cant that in A Verdi originally wrote the choral part in bars 206, 208, 210 exactly like in 191, and then erased it. In rRIms, at bb. 206–212, a large paper patch covers a previous ver-sion, which presumably contained the choral part erased in A. Therefore, it can almost certainly be stated that the reading of the “Liber scriptus” included in rRIms reflects composition layers that pre-existed the definitive text of A.

17 See for example Critical Commentary, N. , Notes – and  – .

18 See Critical Commentary, N. , Note .

A similar case, however, can also be observed in N. 3 Offertorio. On April 8, Verdi wrote to Ricordi: “Tomorrow I’ll send you the rest of the Mass, except for the Offerto-rio, in which I would like to make a small change at the beginning”. According to Rosen, “evidence from the auto-graph manuscript of the Offertorio […] suggests that Verdi’s changes affected not the beginning of the movement, as he hinted to Ricordi on 8 April, but rather its conclusion”.19 In the autograph score, the last three sheets were removed and replaced, but this does not necessarily mean that the change mentioned by Verdi was contained in those sheets. Rather, it seems no accident that a paper patch was pasted in rRIms at bb. 46–50 of the Offertorio: it cannot be ruled out that the “small change at the beginning” referred to by Verdi could have been made right there, in the first quarter of the piece (the change would have been made in the conti-nuity draft, prior to the writing of A). However, rRIms does not bear any trace of correction in its conclusion, although it cannot be ruled out that the substitution of the last pages could have been caused by clerical copying errors, not by a significant change in the music text. If this hypothesis were validated, rRIms could be a very authoritative source for the whole music, not only for the second version of the “Liber scriptus”. Moreover, since the handwriting is uni-form throughout the manuscript, we should suppose that the whole piano-vocal score was prepared by someone close to Verdi: it is likely that Franco Faccio (who took the role of conductor of the Messa after the two “premieres” conducted by Verdi, and had met regularly with the composer in the previous months) had an important role in the writing of this manuscript, at least in its revision.20 The exact corre-spondence between rRIms and the early printed piano-vocal scores leads to regard the latter, too, as more authoritative, even for the readings that diverge from the autograph (see for example Critical Commentary, N. 2, Note 345 –346).

On the other hand, we have as many clues to suppose that, apart from the second version of the “Liber scriptus”, rRIms was prepared after the first impression of rRI1874.21 For example, the passage of Trombe in lontananza in bars 127–128 of N. 2 (“Tuba mirum” episode) of rRIms already ap-pears in the definitive version, while the first impression of rRI1874 still gives the original reading (see Critical Commen-tary, N. 2, Note 127–129, which provide a possible expla-nation). A further clue can be inferred from a comparison between rRIms and rRIbozze (see the description of rRI1874), i.e. the proofs of the piano-vocal score of N. 6 Lux aeterna, on which Verdi himself and a Ricordi editor made correc-tions. The three clearly visible revisions made by Verdi in

19 Rosen, Introduction, p. XVIII.20 Verdi and Faccio presumably met several times in the months prior to the premiere performance: apart from the rehearsal period and his direct involvement in the preparation (as well as the pres-tigious task of conducting the third and fourth performance), on March Faccio already participated, as Verdi’s confidant and advisor, in the visit to San Marco in Milan along with Tito Ricordi, to decide how to arrange the performers in space (see Rosen, Intro-duction, p. XXI).21 See the description of rRI1874, p. .

Page 8: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

6 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

the piano part22 are already included in rRIms (without any correction mark), and this inevitably leads to conclude that rRIms was written after these revisions (but again we ask ourselves why, since there was already a printed text). De-spite appearances, we can venture to guess that the cor-rections required by Verdi were the result of a comparison with the piano score he relied upon (rRIms) instead of A – whereas in preparing rRI1874, Ricordi’s editorial staff may have thought it appropriate to adhere more faithfully (so it appears) to the orchestral texture (see for example Criti-cal Commentary, N. 6, Note 16 –17, 22–23). In other words, in the three revisions Verdi made to the piano part, he may have simply restored the reading of rRIms, which had been disregarded (although with the best intentions) by the Ricordi staff. The thesis that the reference text for the crea-tion of rRI1874 was not A, is validated by the fact that almost all the interventions of the anonymous editor that clearly diverge from A are identical with the solutions adopted in rRIms (see for example Critical Commentary, N. 6, Notes 4 – 6 and 41– 42). We can suppose that the only reason for such unmotivated divergence from A can be the recourse to a model text already approved by Verdi. The editor presum-ably performed what was known as conformity “check” on the first draft of the vocal and piano parts against its mod-el, rRIms, marking lacunae and divergences. Verdi in his turn, after comparing the drafts to the model, authorized both the results of the editor’s check and the divergences with respect to A, thus generating a textual tradition that is partly independent of the known sources of the score (the two textual traditions will again converge in RI1913, which derives its vocal parts from rRI1875). If this is true, then the same checking method was presumably adopted not only for N. 6, but also for all other numbers.

Therefore, the reading of rRI1874 (and that of rRI1875 in-cluding the second version of the “Liber scriptus”) may be regarded as doubly authorized, first of all because the drafts were corrected by Verdi, and secondly (and more impor-tantly) because it was derived from a model (rRIms) pro-duced by a close, although undocumented, collaboration with Verdi. These reflections lead us to pay closer attention to some readings from the printed editions which are fully (rRI1875) or partly (RI1913) derived from rRIms, and even to elevate them to the status of alternative author’s versions when it seems plausible. However, because they are super-seded by the definitive version of A, the lessons of rRIms are almost never integrated in the music text of this edition, but are used to occasionally provide a glimpse of the composi-tion process. On the other hand, as was already pointed out, there are valid reasons to think that rRIms was mainly used for performance purposes. If so, we should hypothe-size that this music text played some role in the preparation of the singers and/or choir in view of the premiere perfor-mance. If this were true, then some of the readings that go back to rRIms should be interpreted not as deviations from

22 In his edition, Rosen published a transcription of the original text of these passages (Rosen, Critical Commentary, pp. , , ).

A, but as traces of a performance tradition approved by the author.23

rRI1874: printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874(pl. no. 44004)

As soon as Verdi submitted the score of the first pieces (NN. 1–2, 30 March 1874), Ricordi began to prepare the piano-vocal score (Michele Saladino), so as to make it available on the day of the premiere performance (May 22, 1874), as requested by Verdi. Although rRI1874 was probably derived from A, we should not underestimate the role rRIms might have played in the preparation of this printed reduction (see description of rRIms). Between the last days of April and the early days of May (taking no longer than 4 –5 days), Verdi corrected the proofs of rRI1874 – however, as a confir-mation of how superficially he carried out this task, in a letter dated June 2nd24 (hence after the printing of rRI1874) Verdi informed Ricordi about other serious mistakes found by the music director who was preparing the singers for the Paris performances. Therefore, there are at least two impressions of rRI1874, given that in one of them the errors had been corrected. The copies that have been examined for this edition are archived at Biblioteca del Conservatorio di musica “Giuseppe Verdi” in Milan, respectively under the shelf marks M.S. 214/1 and B.25.h.167/3. The first of these copies is also the first one in chronological order, for it re-flects the outdated version of the passage from Dies iræ (“Tuba mirum”, b. 127 sgg.), which Verdi modified both in A and in I-Mr (see Critical Commentary, N. 2, Note 127–129).

The Pierpont Morgan Library in New York (Mary Fla-gler Cary Music Collection) contains the drafts of N. 6 Lux æterna (rRIbozze) corrected by Verdi and a Ricordi editor. Verdi’s corrections are limited to the piano part, and have no bearing on the orchestral parts. As for the relationship between rRIbozze and rRIms, see the description of rRIms and the Critical Commentary, N. 6, Notes 4 – 6 and 41– 42.

rRI1875: printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875(pl. no. 44004)

This document contains the second version of the “Liber scriptus” for mezzosoprano (1875) instead of the fugue for choir and orchestra (1874). Even though the second version is 26 bars longer than the first, the Ricordi editorial staff managed to retain the same layout and page numbering as rRI1874, and therefore used the same printing plates for the rest of the music.

23 More information on rRIms will be available in an essay, on which the editor of this edition is currently working.24 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of June (ASR, IC).

Page 9: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

7© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

RI1875: score (first edition), lithographed manuscript copy,Ricordi, Milan, 1875

Lithographed manuscript copy, published in a limited num-ber of copies, and only intended for rental. The copy de-scribed here was viewed at Archivio Storico Ricordi in Mi-lan.

The text on the cover reads as follows: “Messa da Re-quiem / DI / G. Verdi / [ornament] / (PARTITURA) / [orna-ment] / Proprietà esclusiva del / R. STABILIMENTO RICOR-DI / MILANO / Napoli – ROMA – Firenze / LONDRA”. The frontispiece shows handwritten names of cities, in which this score was used for performance, and the correspond-ing dates for almost all of them. The first city on the list is Munich, with the dates 1875–’76, which demonstrates that this lithographed edition dates from 1875.25

RI1875 contains the second version of the “Liber scriptus” and is a first, rough attempt at a critical interpretation of the music text – we find instances of standardization, normali-zation and extension (both vertical and horizontal), which denote advanced musical knowledge. However, this musi-cal and editorial accuracy is applied to the reading of I-Mr, from which RI1875 is essentially derived. But we must point out that in many a case the solutions adopted are closer to A than to I-Mr: this seems plausible, since A was certainly in the hands of Ricordi at the beginning of January 1875. Therefore, the publisher may have attempted a basic, albeit unsystematic, conformity check of RI1875 against A.

The usefulness of RI1875 for this edition can be evaluated on two levels:1) it contains suggestions for performance and editorial so-

lutions, presumably in accordance with the practice of the time. RI1875 is especially important for the second version of the “Liber scriptus”, since in this case we do not have the (at times clumsy) mediation of I-Mr: in other words, as far as the second version of the “Liber scriptus” is con-cerned, A is the direct antigraph of RI1875;

2) it reconstructs the genesis of mistakes, which entered some of the editions used until a few decades ago, in par-ticular RI1913 and RI1964, which provided the basis for many historical recordings that are still commercially available.

RI1913: printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1913 (pl. no. 113956)

Ricordi released a smaller-format orchestral score, register-ing it for copyright in 1913. On the whole, the vocal parts are drawn from rRI1875, and the orchestral parts from RI1875. Although RI1913 makes a remarkable (albeit often ineffec-tive) effort to smooth out the inconsistencies of A, it is also responsible for a partly spurious (and partly “authentic”: see description of rRIms, p. 5 – 6) textual tradition, on which, more or less directly, almost all editions and recordings were based at least until 1964.

25 According to Rosen, the edition was produced between and (see Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. ). Rosen must have worked on a different copy than the one examined by the editor of this edition, otherwise he would certainly have noticed the above-mentioned handwritten indications.

RI1964: printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1964 (P.R. 160)

This is the “new, revised and amended edition” of RI1913. The anonymous editor (maybe Fausto Broussard, chief editor at Ricordi since the early 1960s) compared and con-trasted RI1913 with A, but not with I-Mr (the recognition of corrections by the author in this source, which we owe to Rosen, is subsequent). Therefore RI1964 involuntarily re-stores some readings from A which had been superseded by the changes Verdi made in I-Mr. However, this edition has the merit of introducing many musically appreciable corrections.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

T

The accuracy with which the autograph manuscript (A) was drafted explains why the textual tradition tends to conform regarding the essential features of the work. There are no structural variants, cuts, alternative parts for solo voice, or double versions (the “Liber scriptus” of 1875 replaces that of 1874). The text was conceived so as to always remain identi-cal to itself, instead of adapting to the needs of individual theaters, casts, and local practices. In the case of Verdi’s Messa da requiem, therefore, we can talk about an opus, i. e. a closed, definitive text. This is why divergences and in-consistencies among the main sources available mostly con-cern performance and expression indications, where they are ambiguous or incomplete in A. The web of relationships among these sources develops primarily on three different levels:a) erroneous or “creative” interpretations of the writing; b) parallel elaboration, and mutual contamination, of some

of the sources;c) the branching out into two different textual traditions.

a) Erroneous or “creative” interpretations of the writing

Writing the manuscript for a music text involves a certain degree of inaccuracy and ambiguity, which may reflect in various ways on the derivative sources, determining read-ing errors and omissions, but also integrations and rectifi-cations which, although musically plausible, may diverge significantly from the original reading. Today this pheno-menon is already familiar enough and does not require further explanation in this context. Some peculiarities and ambiguities of writing in A will be discussed further on (“Edition criteria”).

b) Parallel elaboration, and mutual contamination, of some of the sources

Despite the many limitations posed by graphic visualiza-tion, the diagram published above attempts to outline a possible stemma for the main sources available. It should be noted that between March 30th and early May 1874, the

Page 10: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

8 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

Ricordi editorial staff was busy preparing all materials re-quired for the performance. Meanwhile, a copy of the score was drafted (I-Mr), orchestral and choral parts were ex-tracted, and a piano-vocal score was prepared (rRI1874). This inevitably entailed contamination (↔), which often leads to problems when trying to identify strictly derivative rela-tions. In addition, by the middle of July (but probably even earlier 26), Verdi made corrections to I-Mr, some of which he reproduced in A, thus generating a further level of con-tamination (marked by the sign ↕ in the diagram). A par-ticular type of contamination concerns a set of printed sources, presumably drawn from A and “corrected” by Verdi himself, although not always in conformity with A: these are the strings and choral parts (pRI), to which we must add the first piano-vocal score (rRI1874), a particular case discussed in point c). Given that we cannot know where exactly the composer intervened, it is also impossible to es-tablish whether the divergences from A are the result of choices made by the author or by the Ricordi editorial staff.

The diagram postulates, as in Rosen, the existence of an X source (manuscript parts), from which the set of winds and percussion parts pUS-Cso (prepared for the New York performance, 17 November 1874) would have been drawn. Since the reading of these parts is, on the whole, closer to A than to I-Mr, it can be inferred that X was directly derived from A.

26 See the description of I-Mr, pp. –   .

c) Branching out into two different textual traditions

The degree of accuracy shown by A in comparison with the contemporary practice and the usual standards of Verdi himself, led to the hypothesis that A must have been pre-ceded by a complete continuity draft,27 except for N. 7 Libera me, Domine, which is a rewriting of the piece Verdi had already composed for his Messa per Rossini in 1869 (MpR). This edition suggests (with all due caution) that rRIms (man-uscript piano-vocal score) was written on the basis of one such continuity draft by someone very close to Verdi.28 With-out deliberately excluding that rRI1874 (first printed edition of the piano-vocal score) may have been drawn from A, as Rosen suggests,29 rRIms could have played an important part in its preparation. The proofs of rRI1874 were corrected by Verdi himself, without however relying on A, which the composer had handed in to Ricordi “by installments”, be-tween March 30th and April 15th, 1874. It is likely that the editorial staff at Ricordi did not perform any thorough com-parison between rRI1874 and A after receiving Verdi’s correc-tions: indeed, rRI1874 and A consistently show divergences that can hardly be accounted for as copying mistakes or omissions, as attempts to resolve issues of inconsistency, or

27 See also Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .28 See the description of rRIms, pp.  –  . It is likely that Franco Faccio (who took the role of conductor of the Messa after the two “premieres” conducted by Verdi, and had met regularly with the composer in the previous months) had an important role in the writing of this manuscript.29 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .

ContinuitydraftLs1875

rRIms Ls1875

?rRIms

rRI1874

rRI1875

(vocal parts)

RI1875

(instrumentalparts)

RI1913 RI1964

I-Mr

A

X

pRIStrings and

Choir

pUS-Cso

Continuity draft(NN. 1–6 + MpR)

A Ls1875

?

Stemma hypothesis for the main sources

Page 11: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

9© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

as derived from known secondary sources (see for instance Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 345–346). It is significant that the readings which diverge from A mostly adhere to rRIms.

There are valid reasons to suggest that Verdi first wrote a continuity draft also for the second version of the “Liber scriptus” (Ls1875 in the diagram), and subsequently the final score. The reading of this provisional version would be most likely mirrored by rRIms (where the pages corre-sponding to Ls1874 were supposedly removed and replaced with those of Ls1875).30 It is significant that the reading of the “Liber scriptus” contained in rRIms diverges not only from A, but from all other known sources. In particular, rRI1875 draws the “Liber scriptus” directly from A, not from rRIms. In general, the vocal parts in rRI1875 are mostly integrated in RI1913 (Ricordi printed score) along with the instrumental parts of RI1875 (lithographic print of a manuscript copy). A further stage of hybridization can be observed in RI1964, as a consequence of the comparison between RI1913 and A.

In conclusion, the textual tradition that goes back to rRIms (→ rRI1874–75 → RI1913 vocal parts) should be regarded as definitively surpassed, since rRIms would have been drawn from a provisional draft of the composition. However, there are valid reasons to believe that rRIms was mainly used for performance purposes (see description, p. 5). If we take this to be the case, then we should hypothesize that, in view of the premiere, this music text played some role in the prepa-ration of singers and/or of the choir. If this were true, then some readings that go back to rRIms should be intended not as deviances from A, but as traces of a performance tradi-tion approved by the author.

T Source functionality

The principal source for this edition of the Messa da requiem is A, from which the music text is drawn. This edition con-siders MpR, the version of the Libera me, Domine for the Messa per Rossini to be conceptually different from N. 7 for the Messa da requiem. We have therefore chosen to use it as a source only when, given substantially equivalent passages, it proves helpful in those exceedingly rare instances where A lacks internal models for resolving issues of lacunae or ambiguity. MpR will be often cited in the Critical Notes as a contributive element to discussions regarding the various solutions adopted by the secondary sources, or as a means of reconstructing the genesis of an error (not infrequently, where A and MpR diverge, the inconsistencies of A are remnants from MpR). The autograph fragments I-Bc and I-Mb1,2 are musical cadeaux with no performance function, and also did not play any role in preparing the music text.

For a critical discussion of problematic passages in A, we have examined a set of available secondary sources, select-

30 The fact that the manuscript cannot be located as of today, prevents the possibility to directly check the structure of the fas-cicles.

ed according to the following two criteria: authoritativeness (degree of proximity to A, author’s approval) and function-ality (usefulness for musicians in revealing what in this edition differs from the traditional ones).

As a manuscript copy that contains corrections and amendments by Verdi, I-Mr is a very important source. In it, we can identify three main types of author interventions: obvious corrections, changes that were also entered into A, and changes that were not entered into A. For the edition of the music text, the first two types have limited usefulness, and their value is mostly documentary, as we explained in the Critical Notes. The few changes of the third type are evaluated individually, but they are not always treated as definitive versions. The most interesting and significant of these instances is discussed in the Critical Notes, N. 3, Note 63–67. Apart from Verdi’s corrections, I-Mr is of lit-tle use, having been compiled by copyists who had limited musical knowledge: at best, I-Mr follows A mechanically, at worst it misunderstands it, or reproduces it in a lacunose way.

The secondary sources almost never provide solutions for ambiguous, problematic readings in A: they mostly of-fer suggestions, which sometimes turn out to be useful as they reflect the practice of the time. In as many instances, however, they document the transmission of misreadings down to 20th century editions that are still in use. There-fore, the music text of this edition very rarely integrates readings from sources other than A. Rather, the sources that have been fully or partly derived from A are frequently used in the Critical Notes to document the genesis of errors contained in RI1913 (which is also a model for some foreign editions) and RI1964, and hence demonstrate that some of the solutions adopted in these scores (on which many his-torical recordings that are still commercially available were based), are the result of inherited misreadings rather than choices. In other cases, as far as the vocal parts are con-cerned, the divergences of RI1913 and RI1964 from A would result from a more or less contaminated reception of a dif-ferent textual tradition that goes back to rRIms (→ rRI1874 and rRI1875), and was probably approved by the author (see “The textual tradition”, c). The critical notes concerning the Ricordi editions still in use are marked with a distinctive sign (•), so that the reader can easily detect what is different in this new edition with respect to the previous ones (for instance •55/3rd Vni I A: etc.).

RI1875 is a first rough attempt at a “critical” interpretation, although applied to the reading of I-Mr (despite the fact that, in quite a few cases, it adopts solutions that are closer to A than to I-Mr; see “Description of sources”, RI1875, p. 7); an exception is the “Liber scriptus” (second version), whose direct antigraph is A. Therefore, the solutions suggested by RI1875 (especially those concerning the “Liber scriptus”) are taken into account in the Critical Notes when discussing problematic passages, especially since they have also been accepted by RI1913 in many instances.

MI1874 constitutes the principal source for the verbal text: where Verdi wrote the text erroneously or omitted punc-

Page 12: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

10 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

tuation marks, this edition draws on the reading of MI1874. In some cases, however, we chose to retain the punctuation of A when it shows relevant expressive qualities.

rRIms had almost no influence on the definition of the vocal parts: there is no reason why the readings of rRIms should be preferred to those of A, although the former were probably approved by the author. Despite this, the Critical Notes also include readings from this source, especially if they have entered the current vocal practice through rRI1875 and RI1913.

The proofs for rRI1874 were checked and corrected by Ver-di; unfortunately, the author’s interventions are only docu-mented by the drafts of N. 6 Lux æterna (rRIbozze), which contain Verdi’s correction marks along with those of a Ri-cordi editor. Judging from the quantity and type of inter-ventions, the composer paid significant attention to rRI1874, since it provided the main material for preparing the vocal parts. As a consequence, this edition uses rRI1874 as a very authoritative source (also because of its relationship with rRIms). Verdi’s corrections in rRIbozze are limited to the piano part, and have no consequences on the orchestral parts – therefore they did not play any role in determining the music text in this edition. In two instances, however, the editorial staff’s corrections led to hypothesize a relationship between rRIbozze and rRIms (see Critical Notes, N. 6, Notes 4 – 6 and 41– 42).

The pRI (choral and strings parts) were also corrected by Verdi, although hastily: many errors and substantial vertical inconsistencies can be spotted, resulting from a mechani-cal and hardly reasoned extraction. Furthermore, given the impossibility to know exactly where and how Verdi inter-vened on the proofs, this edition attributes very limited importance and usefulness to pRI.

There is no reason why Verdi should have examined pUS-Cso; however, this source provides useful informa-tion where Verdi may have omitted to indicate whether an instrumental part should be played “Solo”, “a 2”, “a 3”, or to define the distribution of the three Trbn in a bichord. Fur-thermore, although only in the case of instruments that are identical or belong to the same family, it is not infrequent to observe effective vertical extensions of dynamic indica-tions, articulation signs, and slurs that show a not entirely mechanical extraction of parts.

In the Critical Notes we used, as a merely practical de-vice, the symbol → in formulas such as I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913 to mark local, but not necessarily global, deriva-tive relationships: in other words, the suggested derivative relationship only applies to the specific passage at hand (in-deed, in many instances RI1913 does not follow RI1875, nor does RI1875 follow I-Mr) or to the vocal or instrumental part concerned. In the formula rRIms → rRI1874 → RI1913 the re-lationship rRI1874 → RI1913 cannot but be restricted to the vocal parts and the general indications. The relationship rRIms → rRI1874 instead is only taken to be hypothetical, as we have repeatedly pointed out. The derivative relationship suggested can also be indirect, as long as its source is suf-ficiently clear.

Where rRI1875 is identical with rRI1874 (in general, over the whole composition, except for the “Liber scriptus”) only rRI1874 is mentioned. The same applies to RI1913 and RI1964, which correspond to a great extent: RI1964 is only mentioned when it diverges from RI1913.

Edition criteria

Four decades of critical editions of Italian 19th century works have brought into focus a series of issues arising from the writing of the main authors of that creative period, and have produced strategies both for the editorial repro-duction of manuscript writing, and the typographic mark-ing of the various levels of editor intervention. Today these strategies are quite familiar to both musicologists and con-ductors, so that it is unnecessary to discuss them in detail. Given this consolidated editorial tradition, a musician can differentiate between equally reliable critical editions by looking not so much at matters of method, but at the level on which the editor sets the threshold for visualizing his/her interventions typographically, i. e. the threshold under which the editor deems it unnecessary to make visible his/her in-terpretive contributions in the score. This edition aims at keeping the threshold as high as possible, while also re-specting the scientific standards required today of any edi-torial project of this type.

Despite the accuracy of the autograph score, the manu-script writing shows some degree of uncertainty in a series of aspects. Here we will only mention those that most fre-quently lead to problems of interpretation (for all specific cases, readers should refer to the Critical Notes).– Imprecision in slurs. Slurs often interrupt due to a page

turn (or change of page), the running out of ink, or an impulsiveness of the gesture.

– Ambiguity between accents and dim. symbols. Generally speak-ing, in the 19th century the semantic difference between an accent and a dim. symbol was not so clear-cut as to re-quire assigning the accent to the category of articulation and the dim. symbol to that of dynamics. Both express a variation in intensity, more or less gradual, between the “forte” and “piano” dynamic ranges. Therefore, the ques-tion whether a sign is to be regarded as a particularly short dim. symbol or a particularly long accent is a false prob-lem: as a rule, in case of simultaneous presence of am-biguous and diverging signs, the context itself suggests whether to attribute an “intensive” or “extensive” value to them (see for example Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 206 –209).

– Interchangeability of carets, accents, staccati. In many pas-sages of A, carets and accents are used in an apparently interchangeable way, a practice that is confirmed by some of the contemporary sources: in particular, RI1875 tends to assimilate carets to accents in most cases. This provides a conceptual tool that can be used to perform integrations and standardizations, which may become necessary as a consequence of the often lacunose or inconsistent nature of Verdi’s writing. Carets and accents are often replaced by staccati. The page of A reproduced in Plate 2 on p. 275

Page 13: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

11© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

shows that Verdi may have frequently adopted a “short-hand” writing for accents and carets, by using staccati (for a discussion of this passage see Critical Notes, N. 1, Note 97–100).

– Verbal expressive indications. Sometimes the way they are written makes them difficult to decipher, in particular the most commonly used: “solo”, “dolc[issimo]” (also “dol[ce]” – or “dol[cissimo]”?), “espr[essivo]” (also “es” or “esp”) etc. The secondary sources often omit or misunderstand these indications.

– Vertical divergences in dynamic and articulation signs, slurs, expressive indications etc., often caused by haste or by several subsequent stages in the writing of the score (skeleton score, filling in of orchestration). Vertical divergences in slurs and articulation in identical / simi-lar / homorhythmic parts are a constant problem when trying to interpret Verdi’s writing. As far as dynamics is concerned, a very frequent case is vertical divergence in the “forte” range ( f, ff, fff ), in the orchestral Tutti. The three signs can often be confused as a result of hasty writing. It is not always possible (or legitimate) to choose according to which one occurs most frequently.

– Divergent slurs and articulation signs in theme recurrence in imitative sections. In vocal parts, Verdi mostly introduces the model for articulation and slurs in the first statement of the Subject, reproducing it in a lacunose (but rarely contradictory) way in the following statements. Some-times, however, he does not define the complete model; in this case, our edition creates one by comparing and mutually integrating the statements (see below).

– Page turns. They often lead to errors and omissions: some-times, after a page turn, Verdi fails to continue a part, or write signs of repetition or of union with another in-strument (for instance, Fg “coi Bassi”), to extend slurs, dim. or cresc. symbols, or the verbal text below the notes.

– Repetition of passages with diverging performance indications. Sometimes Verdi generates inconsistencies when he ap-plies changes locally without reproducing them in the other identical passages (see for instance Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 558).

– Reprises of previous sections. Although reprise repetitions (“come prima”) are much less frequent than in theatri-cal works, in the Messa da requiem they create significant problems in at least one case: the repetition of the “Dies iræ” episode (or part of it) in N. 2 and N. 7, where only the vocal parts and some of the instrumental parts (most-ly only Vc and Cb) are written out, while all the others must be repeated identically to the first exposition. Many divergences can be spotted in the written-out parts. This edition tacitly integrates and standardizes the instrumen-tal parts of these repetitions through mutual comparison (see Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 1– 61, 239 –253, 573 – 598 and N. 7, Note 45 –105), and applies the same principle to the vocal parts, although with specific reservations (see Crit-ical Notes, N. 2, Note 3 – 61).

Since it is impossible to arrive at a definitive solution to this type of issue, or to signal every single writing anomaly and

ambiguity, the editor chooses solutions on a case-by-case basis, considering variables such as context and musical logic, with the aim of reaching a balance between the re-spect of Verdi’s writing peculiarities and their standardiza-tion according to the current practice.

In this edition, the criterion of extension by vertical con-formity of performance indications for families of instru-ments, which many critical editions adopt as a standard approach in case of lacunae and inconsistencies, is often abandoned in favour of extension by function, especially in the case of the bass function or the melodic-thematic function. This choice is motivated by the observation that the principle of non-extensibility (or of extensibility sub con-dicione) of performance indications to instruments of dif-ferent families has much more to do with methodological scruples than with evidence from the actual performance practice. In this edition the most frequent case of such tacit extension by function, as opposed to the extension by fam-ily criterion, concerns the passages in which Fg, Trbn, Vc, Cb (or parts of them) progress in unison or in octaves.

The extension by function criterion finds a specific field of application in the counterpoint-imitative style sections (N. 4 Sanctus, passages of N. 7 Libera me, Domine, “Liber scriptus” 1874), where almost all instrumental parts are the-matic and often performed simultaneously by instruments belonging to different families. The exposition of fugues, and imitative writing in general, often shows divergences in articulation and slurs between different statements of the thematic parts. In the vocal parts, i. e. in the writing out of real parts, Verdi sometimes provides a clear, exhaustive ar-ticulation model in the first exposition of Subject and Coun-tersubject, which the edition tacitly extends to subsequent expositions. Other times, instead, no thematic part shows a complete articulation. Where there are only lacunae, and not divergences between different statements, the complete model can be inferred by the mutual integration or concur-rence of the orchestral parts that double them, where their articulation turns out to be more detailed than that of the vocal parts. This edition adopts the same approach also for instrumental parts, respecting possible deviations from the vocal parts in articulation and slurs.

As a rule, the editor only marks his interventions in the score when A does not offer a complete, exhaustive refer-ence model for integration / standardization. The editor al-ways signals any rectification (of notes and durations) or omission of isolated signs that lack any relevant musical meaning (except in the case of mere clerical errors). The sign system is mostly traditional:– for signs of articulation, dynamics, verbal indications,

the edition uses square brackets, for instance [>] [] [ ] [ p] [cantabile] [rallentando] [arco]

– for slurs/ties and cresc. and dim. symbols it uses a broken line: [ ; ]

– for rectified notes and pauses it uses smaller print.– for verbal text integrations it uses italics.– in those passages where lacunae or inconsistencies in

the reading of A lead the editor to intervene more exten-

Page 14: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

12 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

sively and “creatively”, a footnote refers readers to the relevant comment in the Critical Notes – otherwise the score would be cluttered with a plethora of broken lines and brackets.

In general, the preferred choice is to keep typographic dif-ferentiation to a minimum, so as to streamline the score vis-ually and provide conductors with the information that is

strictly useful for performance. For this purpose, the printed volume only contains the critical notes addressed to con-ductors (or to the curious, demanding musician). Here, readers can find the complete Critical Commentary. By us-ing the automatic research function it is possible to select specific types of problems.

translated by Elisabetta Zoni

N. 1 Requiem [e Kyrie]S

A, vol. I, pp. 1–32 (32 empty)For the description of A see pp. 1–2.

E

On p. 1 GV set out his 20-stave paper as follows:

Violini [I] [II]Viole2. FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti / in Do [sic]31; at 76 in La[2] Corni / in Fa [sic]31; at 76 in Mi[2] Corni / in Do [sic]31; at 76 in La2. Fagotti2. FagottiTimpani[empty][empty] Soprani

Coro Contralti Tenori BassiVioloncelliContra Bassi

31 When GV began the composition of N. he had probably not yet decided if he would call for Cl and Cor in the first bars and therefore preventatively indicated transpositions for these instru-ments that would be appropriate for A minor and F major (see also Note Cor).

On p. 17 (b. 78) GV changed to 24 staves, which he set out as follows:

[Violini] [I] [II][Viole][2] FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarin[etti] / in La[2] Corni / in Mi[2] Corni / in La

Fagotti [I–II] [III–IV]Timpani[empty][empty]SopranoMezzo / SopranoTenoreBasso [Soprani]

Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi][Violoncelli][Contrabbassi]

T

On p. 1 GV wrote “Requiem” in the top center margin, and “G. Verdi / 1874” in the top right corner. The title might re-fer to the entire Messa da requiem, but for the editions of the vocal score he explicitly requested that the title for the first number be “Requiem e Kyrie”, which we adopt.

CRITICAL NOTES

Page 15: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

13© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

C

6 Vni, Vle A: no dynamic is present; we supply pp in keeping with the indications for Vc at 1 and Cb at 8. In I-Mb1 GV wrote pp between Vni I and II, for Vle, and for Vc.

8 Cb A: the fact that GV indicated “sottovoce” only for Cb reflects the particular attention he devoted to matters of orchestration. Unlike the other strings, Cb are playing here without a mute, which might otherwise seem an error or perhaps a residual reflection of the skeleton score were it not for the “levate i sordini” he explicitly indicated at 76 for Vni, Vle, and Vc, but not for Cb.

8–10, 58–60 Cb A: slur missing; in I-Mb1 (8–10) the slur is present for both Vc and Cb.

12–15 S Coro A: carets missing; we supply in con-formity with the corresponding 62– 65. They are also absent in all of the examined sources.

12–15 Strings A: there is no doubt, given the plenti-ful, consistent, and careful supply of indica-tions both here and at the corresponding 62– 65, that GV wanted the second beat of every bar to be accented. Where the divisi Vle part has an occasional lacuna, the single caret was meant to refer to both parts.

12–15 Vc A: slur over the at 12, followed by a long slur; we render a single continuous slur as at 62– 65. GV had probably intended initially to highlight each member of the progression in 12–14 by means of a series of shorter slurs (as in rRIms → rRI1874), but he immediately opted for the longer slur like the one for Vni I. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 resolved the situation by sup-plying both the long slur from 12 to 15 and the shorter one at 12.

15 –16 S Coro A: at 16, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso), GV neglected to continue the slur from 15, but it concludes unequivocally on the at the corresponding 65 – 66.

15 –16 Strings A: because of a page turn (recto to verso) between these two bars, the slurs are not clearly drawn and some doubt remains regard-ing GV’s definitive intentions; however, the corresponding 65 – 66, which is not interrupted by a page turn, provides a complete and coher-ent model for us to follow (see also Note 15 –16 Coro). Particular issues of ambiguity may be summarized as follows:

– Vni I: the long slur extends abundantly over the bar line at the end of 15 (the last bar on the page), suggesting its continuation in the succes-sive bar (as at the corresponding 65), but a new slur begins at 16/1st and concludes at 18. We opt for the reading of 65–67;

– Vni II: there is no slur at either 15 or 16, but the model at 65–66 is unequivocal (in addition,

comparison with the previous series of two-note slurs and the unison S Coro confirms at least the need for a slur at 15);

– Vle: no slur at 16, but it is present, if very lightly marked, at the corresponding 66;

– Vc: the slurs at 16 and the corresponding 66 are analogous. While it cannot be excluded that initially they were both intended to reach the at 17 and 67 respectively (especially the one at 16, which extends far beyond the bar line), this would only have made sense in an earlier version where the a at 17 and 67 was origi-nally c ’ (still legible despite the cancellation), whereas the indirect resolution of the seventh (d’[Vc]→ c ’[Vle]) suggests instead that the slur should conclude on d'.

On the whole, GV took more care in writing out 65–66 (including the “rinf.” indication he diligently supplied for Vni I, Vni II, and Vle; see Note 16).

16 Strings A: comparison between 16 and the cor-responding 66 (12–16 and 62–66 have the same music) reveals the following slight difference in the dynamics and expressive indications:

– at 16, cresc. symbol for all parts, “rinf.” for Vni I, “cresc.” for Vc;

– at 66, cresc. symbol for all parts, “rinf.” for Vni I, Vni II, and Vle, no “cresc.” for Vc.

Given the impossibility of determining the pre-cise difference between “rinf.” and “cresc.” in a passage where both appear concurrently with a cresc. symbol, we suppress the “cresc.” at 16 (unconfirmed at 66) for Vc as superfluous, and preserve “rinf.” for its expressive emphasis. RI1913 extended the “cresc.” for Vc at 16 to 66 as well, and “rinf.” for all strings in both bars.

17–18 Coro A: “sempre ppp” appears only above S (rRIms → rRI1874 = “Tutti sempre pp”). It is un-likely that the adverb “sempre” was intended to include the successive passage as well; in fact, at 23 –25 GV marked ppp for each of the three vocal entries (I-Mr → RI1875 = pp; RI1913 = pp at 21 and ppp at 23 –25), thereby imply-ing a probable variation in the dynamic level between the ppp at 17–18 and the one at 23. In the repetition of the passage at 67ff, GV wrote pp at 71 (see also Note 17–22, 67–72). Therefore “sempre” most probably refers to a continua-tion of the previous dynamic level, such that ppp at 17 would be approximately equivalent to “il più piano possibile” at 10. Another pos-sible interpretation is that, in passing from “Soli quattro Soprani” at 12–16 to “Tutti” at 17, GV may simply have intended to confirm the previous dynamic level with “sempre ppp”, which is why it appears for S Coro alone.

Page 16: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

14 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

17–18 Vc A: slur missing; we (like I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913) supply from the corresponding 67–68.

17–22, 67–72 A: divergent dynamics. Our solution is derived from a reciprocal comparison of these two identical passages, which reveals the fol-lowing specific differences:

– 17, 67: at 17, ppp for Vni I, Vc, and Cb, but pp for Vni II and Vle; at 67, ppp for Vni I, but pp for the other strings. We (like RI1875 → RI1913) opt for ppp, which is supported by Coro at both 17 and 67;

– 21, 71: at 21, pp for all strings but with an additional ppp above Vni I (perhaps residual from an earlier partially completed version); at 71, pp for strings and Coro. We (like RI1913) pre-fer the homogeneous pp at 71 for 21 as well.

19–20 Strings A: the cresc. symbols above Vni I and beneath Cb extend through both bars, probably residual from an earlier partially completed ver-sion; in fact, those for the other strings in this passage are confined to 20, and all strings at the corresponding 70 have the shorter symbol.

20 Vle A: the slur from 19 stops at the beginning of the bar; we complete the two-bar phrase as it is in Vni I and II (but see Note 69–70).

21–22, 71–72 Vc, Cb A: no slurs are present for either pas-sage, but their integration (as in RI1875 → RI1913) is suggested by the concomitant legato move-ment of Vni and Vle.

23 –27 Strings A: divergent slurs. Vni I and Vc each have a single continuous slur for 23 –25, while there is a break in the slurs for Vni II and Vle between 24 and 25 (Cb has no slur at 23 –24). I-Mr (→ RI1875) maintained this divergence, but RI1913 normalized all parts to the longer unbroken slur. Although within the limits of a reduction for piano, rRIms (→ rRI1874) confirms instead the solution found in this edition. At the end of 25, the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), the slur for Vni I extends well into the margin, almost to the edge of the page, implying its continuation into the next bar (the positions of the slurs for Vni II and – less decisively – for Vc would seem to support this hypothesis). Nevertheless, after the page turn GV marked slurs only for Vni I and Vc, limited to the two at 26 –27. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 consequently concluded the slurs at 25/4th. We prefer the solution found in rRIms (→ rRI1874), which gives greater preference to the positions of the slurs at 25 and prolongs them to 27 (but see also Note 24), although it is also perfectly possible to close the slurs at 25 and follow them with the circumscribed slurs at 26 –27.

24 Vc A: accent over the second , possibly residu-al from an earlier idea and unconfirmed in the other string parts, but an accent is present for

the other parts as well at the corresponding 74. While this might seem sufficient reason to sup-ply the missing accents at 24, the dynamic con-texts are very different for these two otherwise identical passages: cresc.-dim. at 23ff, versus a continuous cresc. at 73ff. We consequently sup-press the isolated accent at 24. RI1875 replaced it with a caret and extended it to the other parts, but I-Mr and RI1913 ignored it altogether. rRIms (→ rRI1874) adopted the accent for both hands as consistent with its interpretation of the phrasing at 23 –27 (see the relative Note).

25 B Coro A: the slur extends beyond the end of 25, the last bar on the page, but there is no con-tinuation and conclusion after the page turn (recto to verso); we (like RI1913) find it plausible that the word “eis” at 26/1st should in fact be rendered in the same fashion as it appears for the other voices. rRIms (→ rRI1874), on the other hand, extended the slur to the second at 26.

26 T Coro A: dynamic missing; we supply in con-formity with the previous entries of the other parts.

28, 30, 32, 34 Coro I-Bc: mf rather than f.•28/3rd– 4th B Coro A: both accents are missing, but they

may be logically integrated by analogy with the ones GV carefully marked for the other vo-cal entries at 30 (T), 32 (C), and 34 (S). There is in fact no valid reason for their omission: each subject head in this fugato section should have the same character and the same articulation. rRIms added the accents but they are not pre-sent in I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 (only later RI1964 reinstated them).

34–35/1st T Coro A: the accents and slur seem to con-tradict one another, but both are clearly and precisely marked. The only minor ambiguity concerns the conclusion of the slur: 34 is the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), and GV marked the slur in a manner that suggests its continuation but there is no conclusion at 35. I-Mr and RI1875 and follow A; rRIms, rRI1874 and RI1913 eliminated the slur and added an accent for the first (a).

36 A: “dim.” only above S Coro, presumably intended as a general indication; it cannot be excluded, however, that GV was referring to S’s held note alone. All of the examined sources, including I-Bc, follow A.

37 S, C, T Coro A: four dynamics for the three vo-cal parts: ppp above and immediately beneath the three staves, probably intended as a general indication, and pp regularly above the staves for C and T. There is no valid reason for these differentiated dynamics, although I-Bc chose to assign pp only to S and C. RI1875 (→ RI1913) normalized to ppp.

Page 17: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

15© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

•37–39 S Coro A: GV marked one slur per bar with no apparent concern for the natural apportion-ment of the motivic material and the text, both of which suggest instead moving each slur ahead by one beat.

•37/4th T Coro A: the dot for the last may seem to be in contradiction with the tie, but only if the articulation mark is read exclusively as a staccato. In point of fact, the dot embraced other functions in nineteenth-century notation, especially for the voice, where the desired ef-fect would be one that was extremely distinct and precise. We therefore preserve the dot on 4th as musically pertinent. RI1875 did likewise but omitted the dot on 1st; RI1913 suppressed all four dots; I-Bc and rRIms (→ rRI1874) eliminated both the dots and the slur.

39/3rd–4th C Coro A: there is a faint but unequivocal slur for the two , unconfirmed in S notwith-standing the same segment of text (“tibi”) and homorhythmic movement of that part. We (like all of the examined sources) choose to suppress it as superseded by the concomitant longer slur.

•40–41 Sources: of the three cresc. symbols in A, rRIms (→ rRI1874) confused the one GV marked at 40 between the staves for C and T, with “cresc.” nested within it (the other symbols appear above and below the four voices), for a slur for T (39/4th–41/1st); I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) read it instead as a tie between the at 40 and the at 41/1st.

•41/3rd–44 S Coro A: there is a break in the slur at 42/2nd (corresponding to the two beamed sixteenth notes) and it stops just before the bar line between 43 and 44; nonetheless GV’s inten-tions are sufficiently clear. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 ignored the slur altogether.

41/4th– 42/2nd A: it is plausible that, by indicating ff for S at 42/1st, GV wanted to underscore a natural dynamic emphasis on the melodic line in its moment of greatest exposure – coming into re-lief as it does with respect to the other parts by virtue of its facile vocal emission, melodic arc, register, and phrasing (only S has a slur); we therefore preserve the differentiated dynam-ics indicated in A and add an f for C. rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A; RI1875 (→ RI1913) normal-izes all parts to ff, I-Bc to f.

45–46 A: cresc. symbol only above S Coro, intended as a general indication for all parts.

47 T Coro A: the beginning of the slur falls between the two on 3rd and 4th. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ RI1913) found it more convincing musically to begin on 2nd, but without any corroboration in A. In I-Bc GV had the slur begin from the at 48, an equally

plausible solution. Nevertheless we believe his original intention was to begin the slur from 3rd in correspondence with the tonic syllable ([orati-]o-[nem]).

47/1st– 49/1st S Coro I-Bc: slur, not present in A. GV made extremely parsimonious use of slurs in the second part of this a cappella section to highlight the more cantabile phrases (see also Note 41/4th– 42/2nd); here in fact there is a slur for T, whose melodic line is so significant that it becomes the sole focus of attention between 49/3rd and 50/1st. Consequently we do not find it opportune to adopt the slur from I-Bc, a source of later date that was written when the composer’s original motivations were perhaps long forgotten.

50 C, B Coro A: divergent slurs: on 2nd–3rd for C, but for B on 2nd– 4th (extending slightly beyond the bar line), an unjustifiable difference given the parallel movement between them and identical text; we find C’s slur to be the more appropriate choice and extend it to B. rRIms and RI1875 ignored both slurs; rRI1874 has only the longer slur for B, which RI1913 also adopted and extended to C.

50 –55 S Coro A: ambiguously marked slurs: a first slur begins at 50/2nd and ends with the at 52, while a second slur opens between the two at 53 and continues through to the end of the phrase (I-Mr and RI1875 follow A, but they begin the second slur exactly over the second at 53). Setting aside the unlikely choice of separating the two syllables of “ca-ro”, we may take GV’s notational imprecision to mean that the second slur should begin on the first at 53 (as in RI1913), such that the entire phrase is sung legato. rRIms (→ rRI1874) overlooked the first slur but anticipated the beginning of the second one at the first of 53; in the reduction serving as a reference guide for the piano there is a single continuous slur from 50/2nd to 55.

50/1st T Coro A: p appears after the note (a), even though there is sufficient space for GV to have written it before the note. His decision seems deliberate and significant: in fact, the two at 49 are still f (in keeping with the general dynamic) and it would be unnatural for T to drop immediately to p with the a at 50/1st. We preserve the position of the dynamic as it is in A.

51 S, C, B Coro A: “omnes” rather than “omnis”.51/3rd–53/1st T, B Coro A: beneath the part for B there

are traces of a slur or perhaps prolongation lines after the last syllable of text (unusual in A). Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty the slur for the concomitant T can be extended to B for vertical conformity. Among the examined

Page 18: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

16 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

sources only RI1913 has the slur for both parts, but concluding at 52/4th.

56 –72 A: 56 –72 are a fully elaborated reprise of 6 –22; the indication “come prima” above Vni I at 56 implies not only a return to the former tempo but also the authorization to adopt all of the various expressive indications (slurs, articula-tion, dynamics) that are present in the earlier presentation and to resolve any notational ambiguities or lacunae that arise by means of comparison and eventual integration. In the Notes that follow we report only those cases that continue to resist a definitive interpreta-tion, comparison between 6–22 and 56–72 notwithstanding.

57, 59 Coro A: at 57 “pp sottovoce” for T and ppp for B; at 59 only “sottovoce” for S and C. At the corresponding 7 and 9 only “sottovoce”, which is itself sufficient to establish a pp dynamic rapport with the strings. At 57 “pp sottovoce” provides the most detail, where the dynamic is precautionary reminder of the previous level that had been obtained and balances the voices with the strings. It also allows for a further reduction to “il più piano possibile” even when the four choral parts sing together (60–61 as at 10–11).

58 Vc A: p, which is in any case inconsistent with the pp for Cb; at the corresponding 8 Vc were already pp from the opening bar.

59–60 Vni I A: tie missing, probably forgotten over the change of page (verso to recto) between 59 and 60; we supply from the corresponding 9–10.

60–61 Coro A: “il più piano possibile” missing; we (like RI1913) supply from the corresponding 10–11.

62–65 Vle A: for the carets in this part, see Note 12–15 Strings.

62–66 Strings A: for the slurs, see Notes 15–16 and 16.67– 68 Coro A: ppp rather than “sempre ppp” as at the

corresponding 17–18 (see also Note 17–18); since the meaning of “sempre” is ambiguous (and of no interpretative impact) at 17–18, we find it unnecessary to integrate the indication here.

69–70 Vni I and II, Vle A: a change of page between 69 and 70 (verso to recto) forced GV to mark the slurs with two separate pen strokes (the second half of Vni’s slur is missing at 70); we adjust in conformity with the corresponding 19–20 (but see also Note 20, Vle).

71–72 Coro A: GV marked only one slur for these parts, above S.

71–73 Coro A: at 71/4th, 72/2nd, and 73/4th (second half of each beat), rather than (with the relative prolongation dot missing from the previous note). At 74/4th the note was later

changed from to (the form of the added flag is much rounder than usual); this would seem to indicate that GV wanted an identical repetition of 21–24 and 71–74 (since 74 is the first bar following a page turn, he may simply have forgotten to go back and make the same correction from to in the previous bars). All of the examined sources follow A, includ-ing the original reading of 74/4th without the prolongation dot and the second flag. We believe the lack of rhythmic conformity with 21–23 at 71–73 was the result of distraction or haste, since 56 –72 are essentially identical to 6 –22.

73 –76 Strings A: incongruent slurs. It is not possible to use the analogous 23 –26 as a model because of the different expressive contexts: while this passage moves through a continuous cresc., there is a cresc.-dim. at 23 –26. Another decisive difference is the presence of accents at 74/3rd for four of the five string parts (Vc = Cb), whereas only a trace of one, for Vc alone, is present at 24 (see the relative Note). As a result, the lacunae and inconsistencies in the phrasing for 73 –76 lend themselves to different interpre-tations. Specifically:

73 (last bar of a recto): the slurs for Vni II and Cb (Vc = Cb) extend beyond the bar line as if to be continued in the following bar, while there are no slurs for Vni I and Vle;

74 (first bar of a verso): after the page turn there is a broadly marked slur well above Vni I (almost as if it were a general indication) that seems to suggest continuation from 73. Mean-while there are different contrasing slurs be-neath it for Vni I and II and Vle: those for Vni I and Vle begin just after the first , but the slur for Vni II begins on 3rd. There is no slur for Cb (Vc = Cb). The only part with a minimum of coherence, if nonetheless lacunose, would seem to be Vni II, which we use as the basis for the phrasing we provide in this edition (none of the examined sources offers this same solution; in particular RI1913 has a single continuous slur for all of the string parts at 73 –76).

73–77 Strings A: GV marked large cresc. symbols above Vni I and beneath Cb as general indica-tions, adding others for individual parts unsys-tematically but without obscuring the sense of his intentions. At 73 he added “a poco” (for “a poco a poco”, possibly left incomplete because of an intervening page turn between 73 and 74) inside the symbol beneath Cb. Originally the cresc. symbols above Vni I and beneath Cb both extended to the end of 77. GV then inter-rupted the parts for Vni I and II, Vle, and Vc at 76/2nd, erasing the and replacing it with

Page 19: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

17© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

in order to give the players more time to remove their mutes (“levate i sordini”). As a result he also erased the last part of the cresc. symbol above Vni I corresponding to the indi-cation “sempre cresc.”, which consequently has no further reason to exist. We suppress “sem-pre cresc.” as a residual indication from the skeleton score, but we cautiously preserve the continuation of the cresc. for Cb after the other strings have stopped playing.

75–78 B Coro A: no slur is present; we suggest by analogy with S, C, and T at 76–78 (but see also Note 78/1st).

76 Winds A: GV marked p only for Fl; given its confirmation for S, C, and T Coro, we extend vertically to the other winds.

76 Cor A: GV indicated the proper transpositions for both pairs of instruments only at 78, which is the start of a new page (at 1 he had provi-sionally called for transpositions in Fa and Do; see the complete ensemble list at the beginning of this commentary), but they clearly should be in Mi and La beginning from 76 (where another hand added “In Mi” and “In la” in pencil).

76–77 Cor A: there are no ties for Cor I–II but rather a single continuous slur over the stave that extends into the right margin of the page (77 is the last bar of a verso). In pUS-Cso there is a clearly marked tie between 77 and 78 for Cor I, and a concomitant if less distinct one for Cor II. We preserve the slur from A but also adopt the ties from pUS-Cso, supported by their inte-gration into A (in another hand) at 78 (see Note 78/1st). Cor III–IV have no slur either in A or in pUS-Cso; even so, the slur above Cor I–II was most probably intended for both pairs of homo-rhythmic instruments. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) changed the slur in A into two ties for Cor I–II between 76 and 77.

•78 T soloist A: carets; we modify to match the accents for the entries of B soloist (82), S soloist (86), and Ms (90). rRIms has neither the car-ets at 78 or the accents at 82, and the copyist confused the line GV marked to underscore “animando un poco” with a slur; these errors were transmitted to rRI1874 and to RI1913 (where the slur extends to 79/4th).

•78 Fg I, Vni, Vle, Vc A: GV marked p only for Vc; RI1913 = f for Fg I and Vc, corrected to p in RI1964 (where it was extended vertically as in this edition).

78 Vni, Vle, Vc A: GV added a superfluous “senza sordini” instruction here (78 is the first bar of a recto) after “levate i sordini” in the two previ-ous bars; we suppress.

78–89 Fg I, Vc A: imprecisely marked slurs and

articulation. While GV’s intentions are suffi-ciently clear for the articulation despite certain incongruencies (see Notes 83/1st and 84), solu-tions for the slurs leave some margin of doubt (which I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913 did little to resolve). The prevalent model of slur for those bars with the dactylic rhythmic pattern seems to embrace all of the notes in each bar without extending beyond the bar line (for example, 82–84), apart from occasional exceptions (80–81 Vc and 88–89 Fg I); at 87–88, Fg I has a single continuous slur for all of the notes in both bars. Given that these minor notational incon-sistencies are fairly commonly encountered in this period, we render the slurs in accordance with the prevalent model.

78/1st A: in beginning a new fascicle of 24-stave paper (four more staves were now necessary for the entrance of the soloists) with this bar, GV forgot to resolve Fl, Ob, Cl, Cor, and Coro; their notes were entered in pencil by a copyist for Casa Ricordi. According to the correspond-ence between GV and Ricordi, the integration was requested – and presumably approved – by the composer himself.32 Although there are no conclusions for the slurs GV initiated at 76, their general shape strongly suggests that they were intended to continue into 78. However, the copyist did supply ties for Cor I–II at 78/1st, even though they are not present at the end of 77. We find them musically plausible and adopt them, as did pUS-Cso (see Note 76 –77).

•80 – 81, 84 – 85, 88 – 89 A: dynamic incongruencies, presumably resulting from different phases of work on the score. GV systematically marked cresc. symbols for each of these passages over Vni I, beneath Vle, for Fg I–II and Vc, and be-neath Cb, all of them extending to the ends of 81, 85, and 89 respectively. But he later added conflicting dim. symbols on 3rd–4th in each of these bars for Vni and Vle, probably while or-chestrating the Ob, Cl, Fg III–IV and Cor parts with their diminuendo. We prefer a system of “intersecting dynamics” analogous to the solution found in RI1913, preserving the cresc. symbols for Fg I–II, Vc, and Cb as they appear in A (there is no reason to modify them) while interrupting the cresc. for Vni and Vle on 3rd at 81, 85, and 89 to allow sufficient space for their dim. through the remainder of the bar. RI1964 instead preferred to extend the dim. on 3rd– 4th to Vc and Cb as well (both RI1913 and RI1964 report ambiguous readings for Fg I–II that have little to do with the indications in A).

32 See the undated Verdi’s letter to Ricordi (post March ), quoted in Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. ).

Page 20: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

18 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

•81 T soloist A: the cresc. symbol extends to the end of the bar, like the ones GV marked in the skeleton score for Vni, Vle, Fg I–II, Vc, and Cb (see Note 80 – 81, 84 – 85, 88 – 89). As he was completing the orchestration with the parts for Ob, Cl, Fg III–IV, and Cor, however, he fixed the apex of the cresc. on 3rd and wrote f above the symbol at that point. We prefer the solution found in I-Mr and RI1913, where the cresc. sym-bol stops just before the f. RI1964, on the other hand, extended the original cresc. symbol in A to 82/1st.

81– 82, 85 – 86, 89 – 90 Ob, Cl, Cor A: at 85 – 86 GV marked slurs for Ob I, Cor I and III (and possibly Cl), and a tie for Cor IV, but so indistinctly that it is difficult to justify their adoption and con-sequent extension to the analogous 81– 82 and 89 – 90, where they are totally absent; not find-ing them musically indispensable, we suppress. I-Mr follows A; pUS-Cso largely absorbed the same incongruencies as well; RI1875 (→ RI1913) vertically extended the slurs/ties at 85 – 86.

•82/1st Fg III–IV A: GV left the bar empty follow-ing a page turn (recto to verso); the resolutions were added in another hand. While present in pUS-Cso, they were evidently integrated after the preparation of I-Mr, which has nothing for this bar. The lacuna was transmitted to RI1875 (→ RI1913).

83/1st Vc A: anomalous staccato beneath the note; we suppress.

83/4th–84/1st Vc A: additional slur for these three notes; while it cannot be discounted as a senseless musical gesture, we prefer to maintain the prevailing pattern of one slur per bar.

84 Fg A: staccati on 2nd and 4th missing.85–86 Cor A: dim. symbols missing; we supply in

vertical conformity with Ob, Cl, and Fg III–IV, as well as the analogous cadential figures for Cor at 81–82 and 89–90.

85, 89 Vni, Vle A: the absence of accents and f on 3rd with respect to the analogous 81/3rd may be explained by the fact that 81 is the only time the voice and orchestra share a concurrent dynamic climax on 3rd; in addition, the phrase for T soloist is decidedly more assertive in character than the successive ones for B and S. We therefore maintain the reading of A. I-Mr did likewise, while RI1875 (→ RI1913) omitted the accents at 81.

86 Fg I–II A: pp missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vc (Fg I) and Cb (Fg II).

•86, 90 Fg II–IV, Cb A: at 82 (Cb) GV carefully wrote as he did for the analogous Fg II (another hand added the eighth-note dyad for Fg III–IV; see Note 82/1st). At 86, on the other hand, Cb has against the resolutions for Fg II and

III–IV, although it is highly probable that GV wanted a uniform duration here (as at 82) for all participants in the cadential figure (see the other wind parts). At 90 GV wrote for Cb and for Fg II and IV, again anomalous with respect to the prevalent in the two previous pas-sages. We therefore modify Cb at 86, and Fg II, IV and Cb at 90, for vertical conformity and by analogy with 82. RI1875 (→ RI1913) also normal-ized Cb at 86, but not Fg II, IV and Cb at 90; RI1964 returned to the reading of A for both bars.

•88 S soloist A: the position of the f corresponds closely to that of the prolongation dot, which, in standard nineteenth-century notation, tends to fall relatively close to where its duration begins in the bar rather than directly beside the note. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) omitted both the cresc. symbol and f; RI1964 limited the cresc. symbol to 87 and placed the f at the beginning of 88; rRIms (→ rRI1874) displaced the cresc., such that it begins at 88 and extends to the eighth note at 89/3rd.

89–90 Fg III–IV A: dim. symbol missing; we supply in conformity with Ob, Cl, and Cor, as well as the analogous 81–82 and 85–86.

90, 91 Cb A: p at 90/1st, pp at 91/1st; we anticipate the pp to 90 for conformity with the analogous entry of Vc.

90/1st Fg A: pp missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Vc and Cb (but see also Note 90, 91).

92 Vni II A: staccato for the last eighth note, in-compatible with the tie; we suppress.

92–95 A: cresc. symbols at the top and bottom of the system (above Vni I and beneath Cb) as general indications. During preparation of the skeleton score GV probably marked a shorter cresc. beneath Cb, for 94 alone; this would explain the concomitant “cresc.” above Ob and beneath Fg III–IV (probably intended for all of the wind instruments) and above S soloist. In all likeli-hood the crescendo from 92 was a later deci-sion, which would also explain the pp for T and B Coro and the p for C Coro at 94, too soft with respect to the continuing crescendo from 92 that had already begun pp, but adequate for a crescendo limited to 94. Obtaining the proper dynamic balance between the Coro and the other parts therefore remains the responsibility of the interpreter. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ RI1913) eliminated the cresc. symbols at 94, but they reappear in RI1964.

93/1st–3rd Cor II A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with the concomitant Cor III (and suggested by Vni II playing at the upper octave).

94/4th–95/1st Vni I A: only one tie, and a single note

Page 21: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

19© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

head for the e’’ at 95/1st; we add the second tie and note head in agreement with RI1913.

95 B Coro, Fg, Cor, Cb A: GV marked f for Cb following the crescendo from 92 to 94, but he was probably referring to the earlier cresc. he had originally indicated for 94 alone (see Note 92–95); B Coro and Fg, both of whom follow the lower strings, also have f. The fact that Cor have f as well suggests that GV wrote the Fg and Cor parts immediately after the lower strings and simply left these dynam-ics uncorrected when he later completed the orchestration. There is no doubt, however, that he wanted the climax to be ff, as he carefully indicated for the other parts.

95/2nd T soloist A: f, senseless after the general ff on 1st; we suppress, as did all of the examined sources.

95/3rd–96 S soloist A: there is a residual tie at the end of 95 (the last bar of a verso), referring to an earlier version of 96 that began with another b''. I-Mr and RI1875 preserved it.

96 Cb A: the note has a sign similar to a small cross that can be interpreted as an isolated ac-cent; we suppress.

96 –103 A: lacunae and incongruencies in the dy-namic indications. At 97/1st GV marked pp for Vc and Cb, and ppp for B Coro. The pp for Vc and Cb is consistent with the pp at 96 for Vni I, but their accompanying indication “leggeris[simo]”, replicated at 97 for Vni II and Vle (“legger[issimo]”), and Fl (“legg[erissimo]”), seems to suggest ppp instead. It is also some-what perplexing that GV would want a softer dynamic for the Coro than the orchestra. In the event this difference may have been the unin-tentional product of different phases of work on the score, the two indications should be normalized (RI1875 [→ RI1913] has pp for Coro). At 101 GV wrote pp for B and T Coro, Vni I, and Cb, but p for Fg and Cor; here, while the dynamics are discordant, they seem intended to reflect an incremental rise in the general level of sound with respect to 97 (were this not the case, the pp for Vni I and Cb at 101 would be redundant). We therefore suggest a uniform ppp at 97ff (extending the ppp for B Coro to T, C, and S Coro), which we also anticipate to 96 for Vni I; and pp for S and C Coro at 102 and 103 respectively so that they are properly bal-anced with T and B Coro.

96/1st Fg I A: g ; however, after doubling T solo-ist and T Coro (along with Vle, Vc, etc.) at 95, there is no reason that Fg I should not resolve in like manner to e’. Probably distracted by the change of page (verso to recto) between 95 and 96, GV seems to have mechanically supplied

the same dyad for both pairs of Fg. All of the examined sources follow A.

•97–100 Ob, Cl, Fg, Cor, Vc A: divergent articulation in this passage: for Cor I at 98 and Ob at 99, staccati rather than the two carets and the ac-cent (see in the volume Plate 2, p. 275 and here Edition criteria, “Interchangeability of carets, accents, staccati”, pp. 10–11); no articulation is present for Cl. The models GV marked for Fg and Cor III at 97 are both clear and convinc-ing, however, and may therefore be extended to Ob, Cl, and Cor I. On the other hand, we do not find it opportune to extend the carets and accent to Vc, which part has no articulation at either 97 or 99. RI1875 (→ RI1913) replaced the carets with accents and extended in all cases, including Vc.

98–99 Cl A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with the other woodwinds and in vertical conform-ity with the unison Cor I.

99–100 T soloist A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with Ms at 97–98.

99–100 C Coro, Vc A: distracted by the page turn (recto to verso) between these two bars, GV forgot to conclude the slurs at 100.

100–101 S Coro A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with the previous entries of B, T, and C Coro.

101, 102 A: “espressivo” (variously abbreviated) is pre-sent only for Ott and Vni I at 101, and for Cl I at 102; we extend to the other instruments that share this same motivic entry in these bars. None of the examined sources included it.

101–104 Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl I, Fg I, Vni I, II A: missing and divergent slurs. The most coherent and com-plete models of one slur per bar are present for Cl I and Vni II, both of which agree with the unison T soloist. We also extend this phrasing to the instrumental parts that double S soloist (whose slurs are consistently present – unlike the instruments – and unequivocal), although with some caution with regard to Vni I, given that their “pp espressivo” could just as easily be executed alla corda rather than legato (and in fact there are no slurs for Vni I in RI1913). The possibility that GV would simply have forgotten to supply any phrasing for Vni I is not plausible in light of the care he devoted to the notation of this part, including the “divisi” instruction (with its dotted line diligently extended to the end of the passage) and the “pp espressivo”, not to mention the exhaustive presence of slurs and articulation in the follow-ing bars (105 –107). The absence of slurs for Vni I is therefore a significant factor to consider in choosing how to perform this passage.

102/1st–2nd Cl II, 104/3rd–4th Cor I A: staccati for the beamed eighth notes missing; we supply by

Page 22: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

20 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

analogy with Ob II, where they are present at 101 and 103.

103 T soloist A: the slur stops at the ; we adjust by analogy with S soloist at 102.

103–105/1st Fg III–IV A: ties missing.105 –106 Vni II A, I-Mr: in A the slur that begins in

105 starts approximately mid-way between the two and stops at 106/1st. The copyist of I-Mr started the slur slightly earlier but likewise ended it at 106/1st; a second slur from 105/3rd to 106/1st was later added in purple pencil, while yet another intervention in pencil prolonged the first slur to 106/4th. We base our slur for Vni II on this last suggestion in I-Mr, which concurs with the slur for the parallel Cb.

105 –107 A: there are general cresc. symbols above and beneath the system, above the four soloists, between the staves for Cor (perhaps intended for all of the wind parts above it, since at that point Cor do not play), and beneath Fg III–IV. GV had originally planned a cresc. only for 107, as testified by the shorter symbols that are still visible beneath the longer ones (above Vni, beneath Cb, and above S soloist); this would explain the presence of the shorter symbols (only at 107) beneath B soloist, Vle, and Vc. It cannot be excluded that the p at 107 for T solo-ist – rather weak in the context of a crescendo begun two bars earlier and uncomfortably close to the climatic ff soon to follow – is residual from the original shorter cresc.; but it is equally possible that GV actually wanted an “imperceptible” entrance for T soloist.

106–107/1st Ob II, Cl II, Vle A: slurs only for Vle (both of them carefully drawn) and Cl II (one faint slur at 106/4th–107/1st); given the clarity of GV’s intentions, we (like RI1913) supply the missing slurs for Cl II and Ob II.

106/3rd S soloist A: the staccato, while musically plausi-ble, could be residual from an earlier cancelled version; nevertheless its concomitant presence for those instrumental parts that double S solo-ist seems to confirm GV’s intentions notwith-standing any lingering doubt.

107 T soloist A: regarding the p for this part, see Note 105 –107.

107/1st Strings A: unlike the other strings, Vle has a staccato for the first note, which is beamed together with the other three as it is for Vni I and II. We prefer the more musically plausible solution found in Vc and Cb, where the first note is separated from the others, and extend it to the upper strings.

•107/4th–108/1st A: divergent dynamic indications. An f for Cb could be residual from the skeleton score, probably superseded by the ff for Vc. In addition, the concomitant ff for Vni I, written

well above the stave at the top of the page, is intended as a general indication, like the cresc. symbol (see also Note 105–107). Cor and Fg also have ff, while the other winds and Timp have f. The two ff for the voices are again general indications, one for the soloists (above S soloist) and the other for Coro (above S Coro); there is an additional f above B soloist. These differences would appear to pertain to dif-ferent compositional layers. GV probably first wrote the parts for Cb and B soloist (which explains the f for these two parts), then turned to Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, and Timp (all with an f) – in other words, those instrumental parts that “punctuate” the completion of the crescendo – while momentarily postponing Fg and eventu-ally Vc by association. Later, while completing the composition of the vocal parts and filling in the remaining orchestration (but not neces-sarily all at the same time), he may have opted for ff without however adjusting the various f that were already in place. We normalize all parts to ff. I-Mr has ff for all of the instru-ments, f for Coro (apart an ff for T Coro), and a barely visible ff for S soloist; from which the readings of RI1913 (no dynamic for the soloists, f for Coro, and ff for the orchestra) and possibly rRIms (→ rRI1874) were derived.

•109–114 Fg I, Vc A: divergent slurs (causing incongru-encies in the derivative sources that were also transmitted to RI1913). At 109–110 the slur for Fg I extends almost to 110/4th, while Vc has a slur for each bar at 111–112. At 113–114 the slurs for both parts are broken by a change of page (verso to recto) between the two bars, conclud-ing on 4th at 114. We adopt and extend the models GV clearly marked at 109–110 (Vc) and 111–112 (Fg I).

109–114 Vni, Vle A: a fair number of slurs are missing but GV’s intentions are clear, confirmed also by the analogous accompanimental pattern at 78ff.

110, 112, 114 Vni, Vle A: the staccati on 3rd are missing at 110 for Vni, at 112 for Vni I and Vle, and at 114 for all three parts. While this discontinu-ity might argue for their suppression, we find them musically plausible and therefore adopt and extend them accordingly. They are not present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

110/4th A: f only for Fl and Ott. Notwithstanding its exiguous presence, however, we find it an ex-tremely compelling contribution to the musical sense of this passage and (like RI1913) extend it both vertically here and horizontally to the two analogous gestures at 112 and 114. As a means of supporting the cresc. for Vc, we also suggest anticipating the f for Vni and Vle to the on 3rd.

Page 23: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

21© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

114 –115 A: divergent dynamics, probably arising from decisions in the skeleton score that subsequent-ly changed during orchestration. As the struc-tural scaffolding for this passage, S soloist and Cb were probably written first, in which case their ff (the only ones on the page) do not nec-essarily signify that their parts should emerge over an otherwise homogeneous context of f, but represent rather a provisional idea that was later superseded when GV very diligently marked an f for Vni I and all of the other vocal parts. The remaining instrumental parts have no dynamic, but it should be remembered that Fl and Ott (and presumably the other winds) were already f from 110 (see Note 110/4th). We prefer to bring S soloist and Cb into conformity with the general f, which additionally allows that the rise to ff at 118 have an appreciable impact. RI1913 maintained the ff for S soloist and f for the other vocal parts while extending the ff for Cb to the entire orchestra.

115 T soloist A: GV marked the f in alignment with the c’ on 1st, probably led momentarily astray by the f for the other parts on 2nd. Find-ing no musical justification for this position, we move the f ahead to 4th for vertical con-formity with T Coro.

115 –116 Vni II, Vle, Vc (117 = 116) A: despite various missing and misplaced staccati (at 116/2nd Vni II have a slur for the first two notes and staccati for the last two, and on 3rd they have staccati for the last three notes), there is one clear model at 116/2nd for Vc that is sufficient proof of GV’s intentions and can be extended throughout this passage.

115–117 Fl I, Ob I, Cl I A: at 115 there are no slurs; at 116 and 117, Fl I = 8va above Vni I, Ob I = unison with Vni I, and Cl I = 115 for both bars. While this situation does not automatically authorize the extension of Vni I’s slurs to these parts, we do suggest them cautiously, aware that their execution may not transfer effectively from the strings to the woodwinds.

•115–118 Fg (116, 117 = 115) A: 116 and 117, marked as the repetition of 115 for Fg I–II and Fg III–IV on their respective staves, should have the same slur, but at 115 it extends well over the bar line for both in what seems to be a deliberate man-ner. This could mean that the slur was intend-ed to cover the entire passage through to the end of 118, although in that case it could just as likely be a generic legato indication. However, the syllabic disposition of the text for B solo-ist and B Coro, which parts are doubled by Fg II, III, ad IV, suggests a solution that is in fact compatible with the configuration of this slur: three slurs corresponding to the three enuncia-

tions of the word “eleison”, each one beginning on 2nd (with the exception of 115) and conclud-ing on 1st of the next bar. We also find this a valid consideration for extension to Cb, as well as Fg I and all of those parts that double Ms and C Coro: Ob II (only the first note at 115 is different), Cl II, and Cor III–IV. This solution is present in none of the examined sources.

116, 117 S Coro A: accents on 2nd missing; we supply in vertical conformity with S soloist.

116/2nd Cor I–II (117 = 116) A: accent missing.117/4th Timp A: staccati missing.118 B soloist A: GV originally duplicated the same

octave dyad he wrote for B Coro, then im-mediately wiped away the upper note. I-Mr (→ RI1875) and rRIms (rRI1874) have both; RI1913 has the d’ as an “oppure”, which however

makes no appreciable musical or practical sense.118 Timp A: dim. symbol with no roll indication

for the note; our solution is present in pUS-Cso. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) follows A.

119–121 Voices A: the slurs and staccati are clearly marked at 119–120 for S soloist and S and C Coro, allowing us to extend them without typographical distinction to Ms (where they are missing), and at 120–121 to T and B soloists and T and B Coro (where only the staccati are present for B Coro at 120). With regard to the dynamics, we adjust the pp for B soloist and T and B Coro at 120 to match the prevailing ppp GV marked for the other vocal parts.

119/3rd–120/1st Ob, Cl A: slurs and staccati missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl and Ott.

121 Fg A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor.

122 T soloist A: pp missing.•122–123 Strings A: pp for Cb at 122 and p at the begin-

ning of 123, but there is an additional p above and partially descending into the stave at 122 that could refer to either Vc alone or both Vc and Cb. We opt for the latter interpretation, al-lowing p to take precedence over pp at 122, in conformity with the p for Vni I (Vni II and Vle have no dynamic), and eliminate the superflu-ous p at 123. RI1913 has pp for Vc and Cb, p for Vni, Vle, and the vocal parts. Like I-Mr, RI1913 also ignored the “dolce” indication for Vni; it reappears in RI1964, but only for Vni I.

122–123/1st Vni II A: the slur stops at the end of 122; we extend its conclusion in vertical conformity with Vni I and Vle.

123/1st–2nd Fg I, Cor III–IV A: no articulation for Fg I, staccati for Cor III–IV; we render accents in both cases by analogy with Cl and Cor I–II at 124.

125 –127 Ott, Fl A: divergent slurs between these two parts (none are present for Ob I or Cl I). Ott

Page 24: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

22 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

has an initial slur covering the three eighth notes in 125, the last bar of a recto; after the page turn, another slur begins just before 126/2nd and extends to the end of 127. The model for Fl seems a bit more specific, with a slur that extends over three eighth notes in 126 to the in 127; but while musically plausible, it lacks confirmation either for the previous or for the successive motif. The problem is by no means resolved in pUS-Cso: none of the three parts with slurs (Cl I lacks them alto-gether) has any example that reflects the model GV marked for Fl in A, manifesting instead a tendency for longer slurs. I-Mr partially reproduced the reading of A, omitting the slur for Ott at 125 but preserving the longer one at 126 –127, which reading was absorbed into RI1875 and extended to Fl, Ob I, Cl I; RI1913 added the slur at 125. We opt for a generic legato, leaving any eventual apportionment of its motivic components to the discretion of the performer.

125/1st–2nd Fg I, Cor III–IV A: accents missing; we sup-ply in vertical conformity with Ob.

•125/3rd–127 Ob II, Cl II, Fg I A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor III. pUS-Cso added the slur for Fg I; RI1913 elimi-nated the one for Cor III.

126 –127 Strings A: while only the upper portion of the cresc. symbol GV marked above Vni I is visible, perhaps for lack of ink, we find it pertinent in this context and extend it to the other strings (but not to the winds and Timp, whose pres-ence is already sufficiently robust). Our deci-sion is supported by the fact that at 127/3rd GV marked staccati only for Vc (third and fourth sixteenth notes), and there are no staccati for any of the strings on 4th, suggesting an alla corda execution that would be functionally suit-able for a crescendo to ff at 128 (this hypothesis is further sustained by the non-legato com-portment of Cb at 126 and 127, as well as the accents for Vni II at 127/1st and 3rd – see also Note 127). We therefore suppress the two stac-cati for Vc at 127/3rd and preserve the reading of A on 4th.

127 Vni I, Vle A: accents on 1st and 3rd miss-ing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni II (see also Note 126 –127). I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored them.

127–128/1st S and T soloists, S and T Coro A: minor phrasing discrepancies and lacunae are present. The slur for T Coro stops before the bar line at the end of 127; we (like rRI1874 and RI1913) adjust to match the parallel Cor I–II, where the slur unequivocally concludes at 128/1st. We also supply the missing slur for

T soloist (like rRIms → rRI1874) in vertical con-formity with T Coro (curiously, in RI1913 T soloist has a slur but not T Coro). The slur for S soloist at 127/3rd–4th stops at the bar line; we prefer the one GV marked for S Coro, which extends well into 128 and therefore more close-ly conforms to the analogous motivic gestures of T soloist at 123–124 and Ms at 124–125.

128 Vc A: isolated cresc. symbol; we suppress. It is present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

128–130/1st Ob II, Cl II, Fg I, Vni, Vle, Vc A: a slightly faded but still distinctly legible slur above Vni I extends from the second half of the beat at 128/1st to 129/1st, partially contradicted by the slurs for Ob II, Vle, and Vc, which stop instead before the bar line (there are none for Cl II, Fg I, or Vni II). We consider the more plausible of the two solutions to be the one that follows the disposition of the melody and text for Ms, T soloist, and C and T Coro (“Chri-ste e-le-i-|-son”), as at 129/2nd–130/1st where the slurs for Vni I, Vle, and Fg I correspond to the metric disposition of “e-le-i-|-son” (only the slur for Vc begins at 129/1st).

128/1st Fl, Cl, Cb A: amidst a general orchestral ff con-text there is an f for Cb, probably residual from the skeleton score, and f for Fl and Cl, suggest-ing that these parts may also have been among the first that GV notated.

128/3rd– 4th Vni I and II A: each part has a carefully marked prolongation dot for the followed by a , which clearly indicates that GV did not want them to play divisi; otherwise there would have been no reason for the rest. With Vni uniti, the a’/e’’ dyad and most of what follows can be executed on contiguous strings (producing their own particular timbre when played together), but the final g ’ is obviously impossible to play against an open e’’.

129 A: “morendo” for S soloist, B Coro, and Vni I. The fact that it appears above Vni I could point to broader implications as a general orchestral indication, although in terms of execution the result, given the concomitant diminuendo for the instruments in this bar, would be the same. However, “morendo” at the conclusion of a long diminuendo begun at 128 suggests that the sound of the held note should diminish delicately into silence. We therefore interpret “morendo” to be specifically intended for S soloist and B Coro and we extend it to in-clude B soloist. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) also eliminated the indication for Vni I but without extending it to B soloist.

129/1st–2nd Cor A: the dim. symbols are not present; we supply them for conformity with the general diminuendo in this bar.

Page 25: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

23© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

129/2nd–3rd Voices A: “p dim.” only for S Coro; while isolated, it is nonetheless concordant with the general dim. and with the “morendo” for S and B soloists and B Coro. We extend it accordingly to the other homorhythmic vocal parts.

130/1st Cl I A: GV forgot to provide the (sounding) e’’ and relative tie following a change of page (verso to recto); we integrate for vertical con-formity with Ott, Fl, and Ob I.

136 A: pppp for S soloist and pp for T Coro; ppp for Cb, but no other orchestral dynamic indication is present.

137/2nd Vc A: also marked “staccato”; we eliminate the superfluous instruction.

138/1st Vle A: isolated staccato, absent for Vc; we sup-press.

139 A: p between Cb and Vc and pp for the upper strings; there is no dynamic for the winds, but GV did carefully mark pp for Timp. Having originally written Timp by mistake on the stave below the correct one, he erased it, but the still-legible ppp for this earlier entry con-firms pp as his later and definitive decision.

N. 2 Dies iræS

A, vol. I, pp. (33 –34 rubric)33 35 –202 (201–202 empty)The second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875), on pp.

69 – 84 (a single fascicle of four nested bifolios), was inserted and bound into A at a page break just after the beginning of the original version: p. 68 concludes with the first three bars of the original version (162a–164a), followed by the complete 1875 version on pp. 69 – 84 (162–238), after which the original version resumes on p. 85 and continues to its conclusion on p. 96 (165a–215a). We present the later, defini-tive version of the “Liber scriptus” in the main score of this edition and offer the first version as an Appendix.

E

Violini [I] [II]Viole2. FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti / in Si[2] Corni / in Mi ; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Mi ; at 378 in Fa; at 457 in Mi ; at 503 in Mi; at 573 in Mi[2] Corni / in Do; at 91 in Mi ; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do; at 457 in Si ; at 503 in Mi; at 573 in Do; at 624 in Si

33 For a transcription of the rubric pages, see the diagram on p. (Rubric pages inserted in the autograph score).

[2] Trombe / in Do; at 91 in Mi ; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do; at 624 in Mi[2] Trombe / in Do; at 91 in Mi ; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do; at 624 in Mi[2] Fagotti[2] Fagotti[3] Tromboni; otherwise Trbn I–IIOficleide; Trbn III and OfTimpaniGrancassa (also “Cassa” and “Cassa sola”; see Note 46)[empty][empty]; at 91 Trb I–II in Mi “in lontananza”; 34 at 270 “Sop[rano solo]”[empty]; at 91 Trb III–IV in Mi “in lontananza”; 34 at 162 “Solo Mezzo Sop[rano]”[empty]; at 270 “Ten[ore solo]”[empty]; at 143 “[Basso] solo” [Soprani]

Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi]VioloncelliContrabbassi

T

On p. 35 GV wrote “Dies irae” in the top center margin, and “G. Verdi / 1874” in the top right corner.

R M R

13 –20 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise of 3 –10 by numbering them from 1 to 8 (13 –20 = 3 –10); he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc, and Cb.

25 –28 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the ritornello of 21–24 with the instruction “Come le 4 ante-cedenti”; he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc, and Cb (also Vni I, II and Vle at 25).

239 –253 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise of 46 – 60 with the instruction “Dall’A al B”; he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vni I, Vc, and Cb.

573 –598 Orch A: GV marked this section as the reprise of 1–26 with the instruction “Come dal prin-cipio del Dies irae per 26 battute”; he provided the resolution for B soloist at 573 and wrote out the parts for Coro and for Vc and Cb (only at 573 –576 and 593 –598).

C N

1– 61 Orch A: as mentioned above, there are two partial reprises of this passage (239 –253 = 46 – 60; 573 –598 = 1–26), and it reappears in its

34 “Due Trombe in lontananza ed invisibili” / mi Trombe “altre due Trombe in altra / parte in lontananza / ed invisibili” / mi

Page 26: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

24 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

entirety in N. 7, Libera me, Domine (45 –105 = 1– 61). For the partial reprises GV wrote out Coro, Vni I (only at 239 –253), and Vc and Cb (with the exception of 577–592), otherwise supplying cross-referenced instructions for the material to be repeated in the remainder of the orchestra. With respect to this first, complete presentation of the “Dies iræ”, the elaborated instrumental parts in the reprises occasionally stray from their relative models. We find these differences relevant only when they assist in filling lacunae or resolving ambiguities, thereby allowing us to establish a unitary text for 1– 61 that can also serve as a template for the reprises (see also Notes 239 –253, 573 –598 and N. 7, Note 45 –105). Specific internal prob-lems that surface within this first full orches-tral elaboration are reported in the individual Notes that follow.

•1–2 Orch A: there are accents on 1st and 3rd for Ott (with the exception of 1/3rd) and Trbn, and perhaps one for Of at 2/1st (see Plate 3, p. 276). The fact that GV marked these few bits of articulation here is puzzling; indeed, it may well be that, after having added them for Ott and Trbn (quite possibly the parts that he wrote first, Ott representing the upper limit of the orchestral texture and Trbn the harmony), he discarded the idea, reserving their use in-stead for the weak beats in the bars that follow (see Cor at 3 – 4 and especially Gr C at 11–12, where in fact there are no orchestral accents on 1st and 3rd [see Note 11–12]). At 573 –574 (the beginning of the reprise of 1–26; see Note 1– 61) and at 45 – 46 in N. 7 (the beginning of the full reprise of 1– 61; see Note 1– 61) neither Vc nor Cb has accents, although the relatively cursory nature of these parts necessarily mitigates their influence regarding matters of articulation. pUS-Cso ignored the accents for Ott but pre-served and extended those for Trbn I–III in all three instances; Of has them only at 573 (574 = 573). While I-Mr (→ RI1875) has no accents at either 1–2 or 573 –574, the copyist responsible for the first part of N. 7 marked them at 45/1st (45/3rd– 4th = 45/1st–2nd; 46 = 45) for Ob, Cl, Cor, Trb I–II, Fg, Trbn, and Of; RI1875 largely follows I-Mr, with additional accents for Vni (45/3rd is written out but there are no accents); neither do any appear at 55 –56 (55/3rd– 4th = 55/1st–2nd; 56/3rd– 4th = 56/1st–2nd) (→ RI1913). Apparently the accents in RI1913 at 573 –574 (not at 583 –584) were derived from N. 7 in I-Mr (from RI1875), where the copyist added them at the beginning of the full reprise. The only source that systematically supplied accents in all three instances is rRIms (→ rRI1874), though

perhaps only as an expedient for representing the general orchestral effect (particularly the string strappato) on the keyboard. While we find these accents musically plausible, it seems preferable to forgo them in order to do full justice to the ones that occur on the weak beats in subsequent bars (see also Note 3 – 4 Cor, Trb, Timp).

3 – 61 Coro A: this passage is reprised three times, either entirely or in part, but with variant texts:

– 239 –253 correspond to 46 – 60; – 575 –598 correspond to 3 –26; – N. 7 (Libera me, Domine) 47–105 correspond

to 3 – 61. Comparison of these reprises with 3 – 61 re-

veals: a) missing and divergent dynamics; for the

most part we adopt the dynamics of 3 – 61, mindful of their balanced rapport with the orchestra (apart occasional exceptions: see Note 239 –253 Coro);

b) missing and divergent slurs and articula-tion; when different texts are involved we do not automatically intervene, but otherwise we integrate slurs and articulation on the model of 3 – 61, reporting the more problematic passages and their solutions case by case in the Notes.

3–4 B Coro A: all accents missing.3–4 Cor, Trb, Timp A: scattered accents, from which

we are able nonetheless to derive a composite model. Cor I–II and Timp have only one accent, at 4/4th; Cor III–IV have accents at 3/4th and 4/2nd and 4th; Trb I–II (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II) have accents only at 4/3rd–4th. We also sug-gest additional accents for these instruments at 3/2nd, concomitant with the one GV marked for Vni I. The sketchy supply of accents in A spawned various incongruencies in the de-rivative sources, but our model does appear sporadically in pUS-Cso (in particular for Trb I in the reprise in N. 7 [see Note 1–61], at 47–48) and in RI1875 (for Trb at 3–4 and 13–14; for Cor in the second partial reprise, at 575–576 and 585–586), from which RI1913 derived and extended the same model we offer here.

•3 – 4, 13 –14, 575 –576 Cb A: we derive a composite model for the accents in these bars from their pres-ence at 3 – 4 (3/3rd and 4/1st) and at 575 –576 (576/3rd– 4th); there are no accents at 13 –14, and at 585 –586 (=13 –14) GV did not write out the part for Cb (see Note 1– 61). In the full reprise of 1– 61 in N. 7 (45 –105; see Note 1– 61) there is only one accent, at 47/3rd. Given that our model is supported by the more gener-ous presence of concomitant accents for Coro, Trbn, and Of, we extend it to all corresponding appearances of this two-bar passage. I-Mr has

Page 27: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

25© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

only one accent for Cb, at 47/3rd in N. 7; RI1875 (→ RI1913) omitted the accents altogether.

3–4/1st Fl A: the three slurs are missing; they were already added in I-Mr.

3/1st–2nd Fg I–II (3/3rd–4th = 3/1st–2nd; Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: a single beam for all eight notes; we halve it, in vertical conformity with the other woodwinds.

3/3rd Coro A: ff for T Coro, f for B Coro.3/4th, 4/2nd (13–14, 575–576, 585–586 = 3–4) Vni I A: ac-

cents missing; we supply (as did RI1913) from the model GV marked at 3/2nd, and in vertical conformity with Cor. I-Mr follows A, but in the reprise in N. 7 (see Note 1–61) the copyist added an accent at 48/2nd (corresponding to 4/2nd in N. 2) while omitting the accents for Cor and Trb. RI1875 has accents in agreement with this edition at 13–14 and 575–576, and in N. 7 at 47–48.

4/1st Ott A: slur missing; it was already added in I-Mr.

4/3rd–4th Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: “3” for the triplets of thirty-second notes missing; I-Mr, RI1875, and pUS-Cso follow A (including the various reprises; see Note 1–61); rRIms (→ rRI1874) carefully added the “3” and a slur for every appearance of this figure. Technically it cannot be excluded that GV meant to write rather than , but in that case the execution of the passage would become uselessly awkward at such a quick tempo.

5 S and C Coro A: no dynamic indication; we supply ff in conformity with the general dy-namic level, and specifically the ff GV marked for T Coro at 3/3rd (see the relative Note). In the reprises of this passage (see Note 1–61) as-sorted choral parts are variously marked f or ff as follows:

13, 15: f for T and B, ff for S and C; 575, 577: ff only for T; 585, 587: f only for S; N. 7 Libera me, 47, 49: f for T and S; N. 7 Libera me, 57, 59: no dynamics. We normalize to ff throughout (as did RI1913).5–7/1st Ob II, Fg I (Fg III = Fg I), Cor II A: ambigu-

ously marked slurs: for Cor II the slur begins at 5/3rd and ends at 6/4th; a similar one for Ob II begins somewhat earlier; and a slur GV marked for Fg I extends decidedly beyond the bar line at the end of 6, roughly to the d’ on the downbeat of 7. The other two unison parts, Cl II and Cor IV, have no slurs at all. We adjust and extend in vertical conformity with the model suggested by Fg I.

5–8 Orch A: GV marked very few slurs for the tremolo figures (15–18 = 5–8 for all but Vc, Cb): at 5/1st–2nd for Vni I (5/3rd–4thff = 5/1st–2nd);

at 5/1st for Vle (the two sixteenth notes); and at 6/1st–2nd for Vni II and Vle (6/3rd–4thff = 6/1st–2nd). The elaborated Vc and Cb parts for the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 1–61) corroborate the obvious need for extension and integration: slurs are present at 49–50/2nd (corresponding to 5–6 in N. 2) for Cb; at 50/1st–2nd for Vc; and at 59/1st (corresponding to 15) for Vc and Cb (the two sixteenth notes).

9–10 Strings A: lingering traces of an earlier version with staccati that was erased and rewritten cause some confusion at 10/3rd–4th (19–20 = 9–10 for all but Vc and Cb), where the staccati are almost certainly residual from the previous version. Although it would appear that GV had thought to continue the phrasing from 1st–2nd to 3rd in Vni I and II, Vle and Vc both have a slur (there is nothing for Cb). At 20/3rd–4th slurs are clearly marked for Vc and Cb: one for each beat in Vc, and a single continuous slur for both beats in Cb. This same divergence of slurs for Vc and Cb occurs during the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 1–61) at 54/3rd–4th and 64/3rd–4th, but there is no reason to believe that the differentiation was intentional.

9, 19, 581, 591 Coro A: at 9/1st GV carefully wrote for all voices, but for the downbeats of 19, 581, and 591 (the winds and Cb also have at 9 [19, 581, 591 = 9]). There is no reason to believe these differences are intentional. Indeed, dur-ing the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 3 – 61), the choral parts at 53 (corresponding to 9 in N. 2) and 63 (corresponding to 19) have both times. I-Mr, rRIms (→ rRI1874), and RI1875 follow A; curiously, RI1913 modified 581 to but did not intervene at 19 and 591.

11–12 Orch A: notwithstanding the fact that 11–12 are ostensibly the same as 1–2 with the addition of Gr C, GV wrote out all of the parts rather than prescribe a reprise as he did for 13 –20 (= 3 –10). Two reasons for this decision may be hypoth-esized:

1) he wanted the chords accented at 1–2, but not accented at 11–12;

2) he wanted to avoid any possible misinterpre-tation of the rhythmic rapport between Gr C and the orchestra, and providing a full elabora-tion was the only guarantee that it would be properly understood.

At first glance hypothesis 1) would seem to be the more plausible choice were it not for the spare sampling of accents at 1–2, a situation he would perhaps have rectified by going back and marking them with greater precision if he did indeed want to make a clear distinction between 1–2 and 9 –10.

Page 28: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

26 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

11–12 Gr C A: fff or perhaps ffff; despite the extreme precision of GV’s instructions for the execution of this syncopated gesture (dynamic, accents, “Le corde ben tese…”), the derivative sources absorbed them with insufficient consistency:

I-Mr: at 11–12 “Le corde ben tese...”, accents, no dynamic;

at 583–584 (see Note 1–61) no “Le corde ben tese…”, no accents, ff ;

at 55–56 in N. 7 (see Note 1–61) “Le corde ben tese…”, no accents, no dynamic.

RI1875: at 11–12 “Le corde ben tese…”, accents, f; at 583–584 “Le corde ben tese…”, no accents, f; at 55–56 in N. 7 “Le corde ben tese…”, no ac-

cents, no dynamic. RI1913 adopted “Le corde ben tese ecc.” accents,

and ff for all three passages.13–14 B Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-

cal conformity with T Coro.13 –20 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise

of 3 –10 by numbering them from 1 to 8 (13 –20 = 3 –10); he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc, and Cb. Vc and Cb lack accents at 13 –14 and slurs at 15 –18; we supply both. For the accents, see Note 3 – 4, 13 –14, 575 –576. For the slurs, see Note 5–8.

15 –17, 577–579, 587–589 T II Coro A: the pattern of text underlay is uniformly different from the set-ting at 5 –7. In all three passages GV had origi-nally written a part for B II Coro that doubled T II Coro at the lower octave with the same alignment of syllables, but he subsequently eliminated it, leaving T II Coro to read as fol-lows at 15 –17 and 587–589:

At 577–579 he set “iræ, Dies iræ” in similar

fashion. However, for the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 3 – 61), he adopted the syllabic pat-tern of 5 –7 (N. 2) at 49 –51 and 59 – 61; in fact, at 59/4th he first wrote “[il]-la” as he had at 15 and 587 in N. 2, but he immediately cancelled it and proceeded as at 49 –51. These two ex-amples in N. 7 therefore confirm the model of 5 –7 in N. 2 as the definitive reflection of GV’s intentions. I-Mr and RI1875 made no attempt to adjust the incongruencies in A, transmitting them to RI1913.

21–24 Orch A: there are various discrepancies in the articulation. Although GV’s general intentions are sufficiently clear, editorial intervention necessarily entails the omission of some occa-sionally significant signs, and/or the extension of others that occur only sporadically at best; any attempt to accept them all indiscriminately

would be futile. Individual problems are ad-dressed in the following Notes.

21 (22 = 21) Timp A: no accents; we supply on 2nd and 4th in vertical conformity with the orchestra and Gr C respectively (there is a sign beneath the that could read as an accent, although it may be residual from a previous version that was cancelled and corrected).

•21, 22, 25, 26 Vni, Vle, Vc A: the staccato on 1st is pre-sent for Vc only, at 21, 22, and 25; in the subse-quent reprises (see Note 1– 61) Vc have staccati for all corresponding bars in N. 2 (593, 594, 597, and 598), but none in N. 7 Libera me (65, 66, 69, 70). Given their musical plausibility and relatively persistent presence, we adopt them throughout and extend them vertically to Vni and Vle as well. RI1875 (→ RI1913) has no staccati in these bars or the reprises.

22/1st Of, Vc, Cb A: accents, unconfirmed in analo-gous passages or in either reprise (593ff and N. 7, 65ff [see Note 1– 61]), where the parts for Vc and Cb are written out; we suppress.

22/3rd Vc A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either verti-cally or in analogous passages; we suppress.

23/1st Fg, Cor, Trbn A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Of, Vni I and Cb.

23/4th, 24/4th Coro A: accents missing for T and B at 23/4th (B has one at the analogous 27/4th) and for C and B at 24/4th.

24 (28 = 24) Trbn A: isolated accent for the , uncon-firmed either vertically or in analogous pas-sages; we suppress.

•24/4th Cb A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either verti-cally or in analogous passages; we suppress. RI1875 (→ RI1913) also eliminated it, but RI1964 not only adopted it but also extended it verti-cally to the other strings and to all analogous passages.

25 –28 Coro A: missing accents; we supply in con-formity with the analogous 21–24.

25 –28 Orch A: marked as the ritornello of 21–24 (“Come le 4 antecedenti”); GV wrote out the parts for Coro (with a different text), Vc, and Cb, plus Vni I, II, and Vle only at 25. Diver-gences and lacunae in the elaborated instru-mental parts have been adjusted in this edition to match 21–24 and reported in the following Notes.

25/1st Vni I A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at 21 or 22; we suppress.

25/2nd Cb A: accent missing; we supply in conformity with 21 and 22.

25/4th B Coro A: accent missing.26–27 Vc, Cb A: no articulation, and the slur for Vc is

missing; we supply in conformity with 22–23.26/2nd Cb A: d’; we modify to a as in all analogous

bars.

Page 29: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

27© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

27 T Coro A: accents missing; we supply by anal-ogy with 23.

28/4th C and B Coro A: accents missing.30/1st T Coro A: accent only above T I; we suggest for

T II as well, in vertical conformity with Cor IV.31, 33, 35 Vni, Vle A: accents missing at 31 and 33 for Vni

II and Vle, and at 35 for all three parts.31–36 Orch A: there are various lacunae and incon-

sistencies in the slurs and articulation GV marked for this six-bar sequence after the first fairly completely marked statement at 31–32, but we have no reason to suspect that he intended to deviate from this model for the following two statements at 33 –34 and 35 –36 (with the exception of Timp; see Note 34/1st). The principal differences are reported in the following Notes.

31–42 C Coro A: text missing.•31/1st Cb A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at 33 or

35, nor is it present in the reprise in N. 7 (see Note 1–61) at 75, 77, or 79; we suppress. RI1875 adopted it for all three bars; RI1913 did likewise, extending it to the reprise in N. 7 as well.

32 Fl A: slur missing.32, 34, 36 Trbn: “a 3” confirmed by pUS-Cso.32, 36 Vc, Cb A: accent on 2nd missing; we supply

by analogy with 34 (Cb), where its presence is supported by concomitant syncopated accents for Trb and the first of the sequence of accents for Fg, Trbn, and Of.

32/1st Trbn A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at the analogous 34 or 36; we suppress.

33, 35 Winds A: GV marked few accents on 3rd–4th (at 33 only between the staves for Fg, at 35 only for Trb and between Trbn and Of); we supply in conformity with the model of 31 (see Note 31–36).

34, 36 T Coro A: slurs missing; we suggest by anal-ogy with 32.

34, 36 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: slurs missing; we supply in conformity with the model of 32 (see Note 31–36).

34, 36 Trb A: staccati missing on 3rd–4th; we supply in conformity with the model of 32 (see Note 31–36).

34/1st Trb I–II A: the dyad is not beamed together with the two sixteenth notes (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II after the ); we adjust to match 32 and 36.

34/1st Timp A: the bar begins with a d eighth note beamed to the following two sixteenth notes, rather than as at the analogous 32 and 36. While such variants are not at all uncommon in a sequence, especially for non-chromatic instruments, this one was probably an error: in fact, at 55 in MpR (31– 61 are based on 52– 81 from MpR), the bar begins with All of the examined sources follow A.

34/2nd–3rd Fg A: Fg I–II = staccati, and no articulation for Fg III–IV; we modify and integrate in verti-cal conformity with Trbn and Of.

36 C Coro A: the slur for the first two notes was probably added as insurance against an other-wise erroneous pronunciation of “sae-clum” as “sae-cu-lum”. We preserve it without extend-ing it to 32 and 34 (where the words “iræ” and “illa” are not susceptible to similar temptation). I-Mr and rRIms (→ rRI1874) suppressed it; RI1875 did likewise at 36, but curiously added slurs at 32 and 34; RI1913 has one slur, at 34.

37 Cb A: abbreviated as with a staccato, topped by a cut indicating repeated eighth notes; in the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 1– 61) GV carefully marked eight staccati at the corre-sponding 81. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) elimi-nated the staccati for the in both bars.

38/2nd C and B Coro A: accents missing.38/2nd Orch A: assorted missing accents; GV’s inten-

tions are nonetheless clear. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) integrated them for all but Timp.

38/4th Vc, Cb A: isolated accents, possibly residual from the skeleton score.

39/1st Trb III A: a single beam for the three notes; we adjust to match the other Trb.

39/3rd B Coro A: “marcate” is absent; we supply from the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 3 – 61) at 83.

39/3rd–4th Strings (Vni II = Vni I; Vc = Cb) A: “pesante” only above Vni I; we extend vertically to the other strings.

40/1st (41, 42 = 40) Ob I, Cor, Trb III–IV A: slurs missing.43 – 45 Fg III–IV A: empty bars following a page turn

(previously Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), an obvious oversight; we remediate as in pUS-Cso. I-Mr follows A, but RI1875 (→ RI1913) made the cor-rect adjustment.

45 Fl, Vni, Vle A: slurs absent; we supply for Fl and suggest for Vni and Vle, also by analogy with the slurs for the string parts at 238.

45 – 46 Dynamics A: at 45 there is a cresc. symbol in the top margin of the page above Vni I, to be interpreted as a general indication, which culminates at the beginning of 46 in fff, a decidedly suggestive dynamic positioned as it is at the very apex of the “Dies iræ” before the pianissimo coda leading to the “Tuba mirum”. Yet GV distinctly marked ff for the remainder of the orchestra and for Coro; what is more, in the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera me he confirmed ff at 90 for B Coro, Vc, and Cb (the only elaborated instrumental parts; see Note 1– 61). On the other hand, at 239 (which begins the reprise of 46 – 60) he marked fff for the voices, ff for Vni I and Cb, and f for Vc (see Note 239). The sum of this evidence makes for

Page 30: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

28 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

lingering uncertainty whether GV intended fff as he wrote in MpR at 66, where it is clearly marked for both the orchestra and Coro, or whether the fff here is only residual from MpR, superseded instead by the general ff. I-Mr preserved the divergence of A at 46 (and at 90 in N. 7), but not at 239. RI1875 (→ RI1913) normalized all three bars (46 and 239 in N. 2, 90 in N. 7) to ff.

45/1st Cl A: isolated accent; we suppress.46 Gr C A: “Cassa”. There is no reason to think

that GV specifically intended the inclusion of cymbals with the term “Gran Cassa” (1, 11), nor that “Cassa” (46, 645) or “Cassa sola” (140, 683) meant anything other than Gr C without cymbals. The contemporary secondary sources (I-Mr, RI1875) tend to reflect the use of “Cassa” and “Gran cassa” as interchangeable terms. We maintain the standard abbreviation for the instrument as identification in the margin of the score, with GV’s more specific indications appearing where they occur in the music as precautionary reminders (it is no coincidence that many of them – see also N. 7 – are to be found precisely where Gr C has a particular expressive function within the orchestral tex-ture).

46–53 S and T Coro A: partial and inconsistently marked slurs; GV seems to have been undecid-ed between a single slur for each half-phrase of two bars (T: 46–47 and 50–51; S: 48–49) or one slur per bar as suggested by his mark-ings for the winds (S: 50, 51; see Note 46–53 Winds). There are also slurs that disappear after the first three notes (S: 46; T: 48; S and T: 52–53 [this last instance probably due to a page turn]). From 54, where the thematic function passes to C and B, GV decided definitively for the systematic application of the longer slur. The reprises of this passage (see Note 3–61) at 239ff and in N. 7 at 90ff largely confirm the two-bar slur, especially in N. 7, but there are also some of the same lacunae and inconsisten-cies at 239ff. In MpR the slurs are prevalently one per each bar of the half phrase.

46–53 Winds A: missing slurs (none whatsoever at 52), but there are complete models for Cor I at 46–47 and for Fl I and Fg I at 48–49. For the most part GV wrote only the first of the two slurs for each half-phrase of two bars (see also Note 46–53 S and T Coro), plus just one example of a slur for the ascending semitone on 1st–3rd that occurs in the odd-numbered bars (for Fg III at 51; see the relative Note).

47/3rd– 4th Trb II A: g’; there is no reason to believe that GV wanted to differentiate this part from the concomitant Ob II and Cl II, nor that it

should be different from the corresponding 49 and 51. pUS-Cso faithfully (and fairly predict-ably) follows A; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) cor-rected the part as we have done.

49/1st Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A: d’’’; all of the secondary sources correct the note.

50 Cb (51, 52 = 50) A: in the corresponding bars of the reprises, at 243 and in N. 7 at 94, GV marked an accent for the first eighth note, but it is absent here. Even though he intended the elaborated Vc and Cb parts in these reprises to serve primarily as a guide, we consider the ac-cent to be musically plausible and adopt it here as well. I-Mr follows A; RI1875 has accents at 46 and 47 (48, 49 = 46, 47) and one at 96 in N. 7 (sic); curiously, RI1913 eliminated all accents for Cb in this passage and the reprises but one, at 242.

•51 C Coro, 57 T Coro A: faint evidence of possible slurs, the second of which is particularly doubtful; lacking confirmation in other similar parts, ei-ther here or in the reprises at 239ff and in N. 7 at 90ff, we ignore them here. I-Mr did likewise but then marked slurs instead at 47 and 49; RI1875 (→ RI1913) follows I-Mr, with an addition-al slur at 51. rRIms adopted the slurs at 51 and 57, but the second one seems most likely to have been an error caused by a page turn; in fact, rRI1874 accepted only the first one.

51/1st–3rd Fg III A: isolated slur, unconfirmed for the other parts either here or in the analogous passages; we suppress. pUS-Cso adopted it and provided one for Cl II as well, despite its absence in A.

51/3rd–4th Trb IV A: two d’, residual from a previous cancelled version where Trb IV had d’ at 50–51. The part is already correct in I-Mr and pUS-Cso.

52 Cor III–IV A: those few slurs GV marked at 46–53 for the wind parts (see the relative Note) pertain almost exclusively to the descending one-bar melodic segments; given this single example of an ascending concomitant segment with no precedent in the previous bars, we (supported by I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913) suggest an additional derivative slur by virtue of its association by inversion.

54 Cor, Timp A: at 54 GV originally marked pp for Vni, Vle, and Cb, then erased the second “p”. However, while he presumably intended p to be the general dynamic indication (confirmed for C, T, and B Coro and for Vc), he left a seem-ingly inappropriate pp for Cor and Timp. In fact, with a progressive diminuendo underway immediately thereafter (marked for C and B Coro and Cb at 55, followed by “ancora dim.” at 58 with pp for Fg and Vc, and ppp for Trbn

Page 31: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

29© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

at 59), the dynamic level for Cor and Timp at 54 should logically not be less than p. We con-sequently adjust for vertical conformity with the other parts (but preserve the pp for Trb at 55 as correctly proportioned with respect to the ppp for Trbn at 59).

55 Fl A: for the a’ in the embellishment, but at the analogous 47 and the corresponding bar in MpR.

55–56 Ob, Cl A: GV did not specify whether one or both of each pair of instruments should play. In pUS-Cso only Ob I and Cl I play (also at 54/1st); RI1875 has double stems for Ob and Cl at 54/1st, single stems at 55. RI1913 = Ob I and Cl I both at 54 and at 55.

55, 57 Trb A: staccati on 2nd missing for Trb III–IV at 55; no staccati are present for either pair at 57.

•56 –57 Fl A: empty bar; we integrate on the model of 48 – 49 (Ott; Fl II = Ott) and the corresponding passage in MpR. pUS-Cso and I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) added rests for both bars.

•58–61 T Coro rRIms, rRI1874: slurs as for C and B Coro, transmitted to RI1913.

•59 Fl A, I-Mr, RI1875, RI1913: closing embellishment missing for the trill; we supply on the model of 51 (Ott; Fl II = Ott) and from the corresponding passage in MpR (see also Note 55 and Note 59, 61).

59, 61 Fl A: on 3rd, residual from the reading in MpR, where in the passage corresponding to 46 – 61 all resolutions of the trill are (with the exception of in the bar corresponding to 53).

60 Coro A: pp only for C Coro; we extend to T and B Coro here and also suggest pp for these voices at the analogous 56.

74 Orch A: divergent dynamics, but GV seems to have applied them fairly coherently accord-ing to the type of figure participating in the orchestral texture of this passage: ppp for Cor (acciaccaturas on the weak beats), Vni I (alter-nating sixteenth notes on 1st), Vc (sixteenths on 3rd), Cb (thematic element), and Trbn (har-monic support). From this same figure/function rapport we can consequently extrapolate ppp for Ott, Fl, and Ob (like Cor), for Cl and Fg I–II (like Cb), and for Fg III–IV (like Trbn; in fact, at the identical 78 GV distinctly marked ppp for Fg III–IV [see Note 74, 78]), while preserving the differentiated pppp for Timp.

74, 78 Fg III–IV A: pp at 74 and ppp at the identical 78; we anticipate ppp to 74, consistent with the logic proposed in Note 74 above.

74, 82 Cor A: “Solo” is not present at 74 but the notes have single stems (normally GV’s indications in this regard are very precise). At 82, the entry for Cor III is explicitly marked “Solo”. In pUS-Cso 74–81 are assigned to “Solo” Cor I.

74 – 88 Cl, Fg I–II, Timp A: various missing staccati. For Cl they are present only at 87– 88 (with perhaps a hint of one at 74/1st); for Fg I–II they appear fitfully but unequivocally up through 79, after which GV marked them systematically (apart at 84/1st).

For Timp there are staccati at 74 but none at 75 –77 (78 – 81 = 77). They reappear at 82, where full notation of the part resumes (83 – 85 = 82), then disappear at 86 (87– 88 = 86). Even so, the clarity of GV’s intentions allows us to supply them where missing throughout this passage.

78 Coro A: pp above S Coro at the beginning of the bar (the first of a recto); ppp in the left mar-gin. We prefer ppp, which is more compatible with the “sottovoce” indication and commen-surate with the orchestral dynamic (see Note 74).

•91 Trb I–II in Orch Sources: I-Mr (→ RI1875) has no entry dynamic (pUS-Cso correctly reports mf); RI1913, compensating for the missing dynamic in its copy source, inserted p. RI1964 reinstated mf.

91 Trb in lont. RI1913: “in lontananza ed indivisi-bili [sic]”, which caused an understandable if unfortunate mismanagement of GV’s original instruction in performance. RI1964 corrected the error.

91 Vc A: 91 is the first bar of a verso; after the page turn GV wrote c with a tie from the previous bar. He may possibly have changed his mind in favor of the upper octave, which would then apply retroactively to 89 – 90 as well, but it is far more likely that this pitch was an error of distraction. I-Mr simply eliminated the tie between 90 and 91; RI1913 transposed the note to C as in this edition.

91– 93 Trb in Orch A: GV did not specify whether this passage is for one or both Trb. Since he care-fully supplied double stems for of each pair of Trb in lont. when they enter at 93, we find it most likely that the single stems here for Trb in Orch signify Trb I. I-Mr follows A; in pUS-Cso only Trb I plays; RI1875 has “Sola”, while RI1913 has Trb I–II “Sole”.

•91–96 Trb in Orch A: no staccati for the sixteenth notes in these bars (they are present beginning from 99; Trb in lont. have them throughout). In pUS-Cso the situation varies: Trb in Orch I has staccati from 95 (but not at 103, 104, and 106); Trb II beginning with the triplets at 107; Trb III only at 99–100; and Trb IV only at 107 (108 = 107). I-Mr has even fewer staccati than A; RI1875 supplied them uniformly as in this edition; RI1913 has them only at 95–96, but RI1964 added them at 91–92 as well.

93 Trb in lont. III–IV A: “sta[ccate]” in addition to the staccati, and no dynamic; we eliminate the

Page 32: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

30 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

superfluous indication and supply p in con-formity with Trb in lont. I–II (93/4th).

99 Trb III in Orch A: pp, though indistinctly writ-ten. We prefer p as GV marked for Trb I–II in Orch, which ensures that Trb in Orch and Trb in lont. are properly balanced at the beginning of the cresc. at 103. I-Mr has no dynamic; pUS-Cso has p; RI1875 (→ RI1913) = f (sic), which RI1964 corrected to p.

104–110 Trb in Orch, Trb in lont. A: occasional missing staccati, but GV’s intentions are clear.

106 Trb in Orch III–IV I-Mr: the copyist marked 106 = 105 with the symbol “”, which actu-ally follows A: GV had written out both bars but forgot to supply the for Trb III in Orch at 106. But while the (written) d’ at 106 was never corrected in A, GV intervened directly in I-Mr, erasing the repetition symbol and writing out the bar with the missing for Trb III in pur-ple ink. He also signaled this correction in an undated letter to Ricordi regarding the proofs for rRI1874. The copyist for pUS-Cso included the accidental, which suggests that this source postdates the corrections made to I-Mr and was not extracted from A (see the description of pUS-Cso, p. 4).

107/2nd Trb in lont. A: superfluous “staccate” over the triplet; we suppress (see also Note 108/4th–109).

108/4th–109 Trb in Orch A: staccati missing for the tri-plets, but GV wrote “staccate” for both pairs of Trb in Orch at 107/4th, and “sempre” for Trb I–II at 108/4th and for Trb III–IV at the beginning of 108. As a result, however, “staccate sempre” became embedded within another indication, “cresc. a poco a poco”, in the following man-ner: “cresc. (beginning of 107) / staccate sempre (107/4th–108) / a poco a poco (108)” (this is also the reading in pUS-Cso). Naturally, it is equal-ly possible that GV intended “sempre” to apply to the second instruction: “cresc. sempre a poco a poco”. We opt for “cresc. a poco a poco” and replace “staccate sempre” with the articulation marks where missing (whichever interpretation is chosen, the effect does not change).

110 Trb A: staccati missing for Trb III–IV in Orch and Trb III–IV in lont. We supply the ones for Trb III–IV in Orch in vertical conformity with Trb I–II in Orch, where they are clearly marked. With regard to Trb I–II in lont., GV marked staccati for all 12 repeated notes, but logically their articulation should match Trb IV in Orch, who plays the same repeated note at the lower octave. We therefore eliminate the first staccato for Trb I–II in lont. as was already done in rRI1874 (the model on 1st is also present at 115 and 123). RI1875 (→ RI1913) added

staccati to the first notes for both pairs of Trb in Orch instead.

111 A: the dynamics GV supplied refer to groups of instruments (“Tutta forza” seems to follow the same criterion), sometimes ff but other times fff. While the fff he wrote for Timp and for Trb in Orch would suggest normalizing the other winds to this same dynamic level, es-pecially considering the accompanying “Tutta forza” indications, at 117 (the first bar follow-ing a change of page from a verso to a recto) he marked general ff indications in the left margin (with only an anomalous fff for Timp, notwithstanding the ff for Gr C [see Note 111, 117, 119, 125], and an f beneath Cb), repeat-ing “tutta forza” above the stave for Vni I. In addition, the entry for S Coro at 119 is marked ff, and at 125–126 (the repetition of 117–118) all instruments have ff. We therefore opt for a base dynamic of ff at 111, which we repeat at 117 and maintain at 125.

111, 117, 119, 125 Timp A: fff at 111 and 117, f at 119. While the fff at 117 is clearly at odds with the ff GV marked for Gr C and does not conform to the general orchestral ff (see Note 111), we preserve this divergent dynamic for Timp as a gesture of intentional emphasis.

On the other hand, the f he marked at 119 is entirely another matter. Given that 119 is the repetition of 111 with the addition of Trb in lont., we find it unlikely that GV wanted a drastic dynamic reduction for Timp while the brass continue to play ff (see Note 111); we therefore suppress the f at 119 in favor of the previously established fff, and suggest fff at 125 as well.

111–136 Timp A: GV systematically omitted for every e. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; in pUS-Cso a for the first e was inserted later. RI1913 has flats throughout. It cannot be categorically excluded that GV, forced to adjust to the limitations of the instrument, actually intended e , which would then effectively become a consonant pitch in the harmonic context of 136 –139; but if compromise were indeed the issue, the far more likely solution would be e for 111–136, which becomes dissonant only at 136, rather than a dissonant e for 111–135 (contextualizing this passage in terms of what comes before and after does little to clarify GV’s intentions). Since modern Timp can shift from e at 111–135 to e at 136, we leave the choice of note to the discretion of the performer.

•113, 121 A: at 113/1st accents for both pairs of Cor; at 113/3rd accents for Cor III–IV and Trb I–II in Orch. At the corresponding 121 there are no ac-cents, but it seems strange that GV would have

Page 33: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

31© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

completely forgotten them when he so care-fully and completely marked the articulation he wanted in the very next bar. We believe that the absence of accents at 121 was his defini-tive choice. I-Mr adopted the accents at 113 and extended them to both pairs of Cor and of Trb in Orch; RI1875 (→ RI1913) extended them to Trbn and Of as well. None of these sources has accents at 121.

113–116, 121–124 Brass A: missing but otherwise con-cordant articulation, with the exception of the accents at 113 (see Note 113, 121); given the homorhythmic context and the clarity of GV’s intentions, we integrate where missing, further supported by the reciprocal comparison of these two passages.

114/4th Cor A: superfluous “staccate” between the two staves for Cor; we suppress.

116/1st Trbn III–Of A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for Trbn I–II and Trb III–IV in Orch, nor in the repetition of the passage at 124; we suppress.

117, 125 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: at 117/1st (117/2nd–118/3rd = 117/1st) there are no slurs for the sextuplets; at 125/1st (125/2nd–126/3rd = 125/1st) they are present only for Ott and Ob. Although it would not be impossible for the notes to be played articulated rather than slurred (in fact it would be relatively easy for Fl and Ott, thanks to the possibility of double tonguing, but consider-ably unnatural for Ob and Cl), we consider the two slurs at 125 (as well as the one for Ott at 134/1st; see Note 130, 134) to be an accurate reflection of GV’s intentions. Already I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) and pUS-Cso (with oc-casional lacunae and divergences) added the missing slurs.

117/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: isolated accent on the , unconfirmed for the strings, nor in the repetition of the passage at 125; we sup-press.

117/2nd–3rd Vni I A: superfluous “staccate”; we sup-press.

118, 126 Orch A: assorted missing accents on 4th, but GV’s intentions are clear.

119–120 Trb in lont. A: at 119 Trb III–IV have no staccati or accent, but it is clear that they should share the same articulation as Trb I–II. At 120 the staccati for Trb I–II are missing (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II); we supply by analogy with 119.

124 C and T Coro A: ff missing; we supply by anal-ogy with the entries of B and S Coro at 117 and 119 respectively.

126/4th Coro A: accent only for S Coro.

127–129 Trb in lont. A: originally:

This version was eventually cancelled and corrected by GV, though possibly in separate and not necessarily sequential phases. In fact, I-Mr was prepared with the definitive ver-sion of 128/2nd–129 but the original version of 127–128/1st, prompting GV’s direct intervention to correct the first half of the passage (without the staccati) in purple ink. This circumstance leads to the hypothesis that the definitive ver-sion of 127–129 in A may have been obtained in a manner that was less linear than it might otherwise appear to be (see the description of I-Mr, pp. 2– 4). In his correction to I-Mr GV also added the accents for both pairs of Trb in lont. at 128/1st, which we integrate as appropri-ate for the context.

128 –129 Vc, Cb A: accents for both parts at 128, for Cb only at 129. Given their absence for the other strings here, and for all of the strings in the repetition (which is in many ways more detailed) at 132–133, we suppress, considering them to be residual from the skeleton score.

128–131, 132–135 Orch A: assorted missing accents, but a reciprocal comparison of these two essentially identical passages (apart an occasional detail at 134/4th–135/1st) allows us to supply them where they are absent without encountering any inconsistencies worthy of note.

128/1st Trb in lont. A: missing accents (see Note 127–129).

129/1st Trb I–II in Orch A: isolated accent, uncon-firmed for the other homorhythmic instru-ments; we suppress.

130–131/2nd, 134–135/2nd S and C Coro A: accents only for S Coro (one is missing at 135/2nd, which we supply by analogy with S Coro at 131/2nd and T Coro at 132/2nd), applicable to the unison C Coro as well.

130, 134 Fl, Ott, Ob, Cl A: no slurs on 1st at 130 (130/2nd– 4th = 130/1st), and only one, for Ott, at 134 (134/2nd– 4th = 134/1st ). We consider the example at 134 (in addition to those at 125/1st; see Note 117, 125) to be an accurate reflection of GV’s intentions and integrate the remainder where they are missing, supported by I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) and pUS-Cso.

Page 34: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

32 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

130/1st Trb in lont. III–IV A: accent missing; we supply by analogy with Trb I–II at 129/1st.

•131, 135 Trb in lont. Sources: pUS-Cso follows A with no staccati; I-Mr has staccati for Trb in lont. I–II at 131/1st–2nd; RI1875 (→ RI1913) supplied them for all eighth notes at 131 and 135 (both pairs of instruments), plus an isolated accent for the at 135 (Trb in lont. I–II). We maintain the reading of A, but leave the performer free to integrate the musically plausible staccati if so desired.

•131/1st Cor I–II, Vni I A: isolated accents, unconfirmed here or in the analogous passage at 135/1st; we suppress (as did RI1875). I-Mr extended the accent for Cor I–II to Cor III–IV but there is no accent for Vni I; RI1913 supplied accents for Fg, Cor III–IV, Of, and strings, plus Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl at 135.

132/4th–134/1st Trb in lont. A: no articulation; we supply from the identical 128/4th–130/1st (but see also Note 130/1st).

136 Cor I–II (Cor III–IV = Cor I–II) A: GV’s deci-sion to omit the embellishment here, unlike the concomitant woodwinds and the analogous 128–129 and 131–132, was probably dictated by specific instrumental constraints: the defective chromatic disposition of the horn in that epoch would have made written d ’’-e ’’ resolving to so unreliable a note as f’’ a risky proposition, whereas at 128–129 and 131–132 the written c’’–d’’ are natural harmonics and e ’’ is precise. In any case, nothing prevents the modern player from integrating the missing embellishment if so desired.

Both the accent and the slur are missing; we supply by analogy with 132 (133 = 132) (but see also Note 128–131, 132–135).

136 Timp A: no accidental is present; see Note 111–136.

136/2nd Ott, Ob, Cl A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl, and by analogy with 128, 129, 132, and 133.

138 Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni II and Vc.

138/4th Vni, Vc I-Mr: slurs for the entire beamed group of notes; pUS-Cso and RI1875 (→ RI1913) ex-tended slurs to Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl (where they begin from the second note). These phrasing indications have no model in A nor are they necessary, since the legato is obvious and in-evitable at this tempo.

139/1st T Coro A: “[thro-]num” missing.139/1st Cor I–II (Cor III–IV = Cor I–II), Vle A: there are

no for Cor, which implies that the absence of ties from 138 (unlike Fg, Trb in Orch, Trb in lont., Trbn, and Of) may have been an over-sight; however, given the accent and the analo-

gous comportment of Coro and the unison Vle (not to mention Timp and Gr C), we consider the absence of ties to be intentional and extend the accent for vertical conformity to Vle.

139/1st Timp, Gr C, Trb in lont. A: “tronca” appears between the staves for Timp and Gr C, prob-ably for both parts, and above Trb in lont. I–II. There is no reason to presume that it was intended to apply to all instruments with a similar notational configuration: just as GV had attentively marked fermatas for every part without exception on 3rd, he would have been no less careful with this prescription. We interpret the two indications as case specific: a) for Timp and Gr C, to damp the resonating drumhead in a decisive manner; b) for Trb in lont, to “truncate” their sustained notes at the same precise moment the orchestra stops play-ing (even today it remains somewhat problem-atic to coordinate the sound of these offstage instruments – generally positioned where they cannot see the conductor – with the rest of the ensemble, further complicated by an inevitable acoustical delay). Consequently we prefer to preserve this seemingly circumscribed applica-tion of the instruction.

140 Strings A: GV’s differentiation between ppp and pppp would appear to be intentional; we intervene only to suggest pppp for Vc in verti-cal conformity with Vle and Cb. All parts have ppp in RI1913.

144 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle A: empty bar, clearly an oversight that I-Mr had already corrected as we suggest in this edition.

146 B soloist Sources: the beginning of the slur on 3rd, while clearly marked in A, nevertheless generated divergent readings in some of the secondary sources: in I-Mr it begins on 4th, evidently for a more logical alignment with the syntactic articulation of the text; in RI1913 it begins on 1st, to repeat the situation at 148; in RI1875 it also begins on 1st (and concludes at 148/1st). We find the function of GV’s phrasing to be instead a means of deliberately avoiding a caesura or breath between 3rd and 4th.

146 Strings A: GV repeated ppp for Vni I (Vni II = Vni I); we suggest ppp for Vle, Vc, and Cb as well, given that the strings now move together in unison fashion, unlike their previously dif-ferentiated comportment at 140–145.

149–151 B soloist A: the cresc. symbol originally concluded at the beginning of 150; GV then ex-tended it almost to the middle of 151. In rRIms it ends roughly at 150/2nd (perhaps attempting to follow the original reading in A); rRI1874 pro-longed it to the middle of 150, an equally am-biguous solution that was also adopted in RI1913.

Page 35: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

33© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

150 Cor A: GV wrote the instruction “frizzante” (for cuivré) beneath Cor III–IV, but it obviously refers to Cor I–II as well.

•162–169 Ms Sources: the slurs and articulation in this passage were variously interpreted and mis-understood. RI1875 mostly follows A, simply replacing all of the carets with accents and omitting the slur at 164–165. RI1913 follows RI1875, eliminating the slur for the first bars as well. RI1964 recuperated the slur at 164–165 (but not the first one) and eliminated the two accents at 166, probably by analogy with 162 and therefore rendering the second phrase equal to the first. rRI1875 is closest to the read-ing of A, including the original carets, omitting only the first slur. Finally, the interpretation of rRIms is both unique among the examined sources and particularly interesting: no carets or accents for the ; carets for the two at 162; an accent for the first and a caret for the sec-ond one at 166; and no initial slur. This would seem to be the only sizable divergence between rRI1875 and rRIms (but see also Note 177, 191, 213, 229, 231, 233); indeed, given the extreme affinity between rRIms and rRI1874–75, one can hardly imagine this difference to be casual in nature. It is likely that the reading of rRIms was based on a first version of the Liber scriptus 1875, partially different from the one documented in A (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5–6: 5).

163 Cor A: GV did not specify, but the presence of single stems suggests that the part is for Cor I alone. In pUS-Cso (the definitive Liber scriptus insert) only Cor I plays, while Cor II has the Cor I part as cue notes. RI1913 = “Solo”.

163, 167 Vle, Vc A: at 163 GV superimposed a “6” for the sextuplet with a triplet “3” in both parts, adding eighth-note stems for the first, third, and fifth notes (possibly intended to avoid the sextuplet’s articulation as 3 + 3). He wrote the same superimposed numbers at 167 for Vc without marking the eighth-note stems for either Vle or Vc, but his intentions nonethe-less seem sufficiently clear (indeed, this same rhythmic notation appears again at 170/1st for the alternating figure in Vc (but see also Note 199/1st).

167/4th–168/1st Cor A: GV neglected to notate the part, which was added in pencil in another hand. It is present in RI1875 (→ RI1913) and pUS-Cso.

170 –174, 199 –203 Ob I, Cl I, Vni I A: incongruent slurs. Since the two passages are identical for the instruments (apart an occasional minor detail), there is no reason to suspect that GV wanted different phrasing. In particular:

– at 170 –174:

Ob I: slurs for both pairs of beamed eighth notes at 172;

Cl I: one slur at 172/2nd– 4th (concluding on the second beamed eighth note);

Vni I: one continuous slur for the entire phrase. – at 199 –203: Ob I: one slur at 201/2nd– 4th (concluding on

the second beamed eighth note); Cl I: slur from 199 to 201/1st; Vni I: slur from 199 to 201/1st; slurs for both

pairs of beamed eighth notes at 201; slur from 202/1st to the end of the phrase.

Given that both examples are plausible and that one does not automatically exclude the other, we opt for their reciprocal integration (and / or normalisation).

173, 202 Vle A: in both bars GV marked f at 2nd rather than 1st, evidently distracted by the fact that Vni have f on 2nd. We anticipate the dynamic to 1st, as in Vc and Fg. RI1913 did likewise.

175 Vc A: slur from 2nd to the first note of the triplet on 4th; we modify in vertical conformity with Vni and Vle (see also Note 204).

176–177 Vle, Vc, Cb A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I and II, and by analogy with 205–206.

177, 191, 213, 229, 231, 233 Coro rRIms: these choral inter-ventions, apparently not contemplated in an earlier version of the Liber scriptus 1875 (see also Note 162–169), were added in purple ink on the stave for Ms, notated as d’ with double stems and accompanied by the instruction “Tutto il Coro”.

180 –181 Trb, Trbn A: over a change of page (verso to rec-to) between these two bars, GV lightly marked a tie for Trbn II–III in the right margin after 180, and an equally faint slur for Trb I–II in the left margin before 181; we agree with pUS-Cso (Li-ber scriptus 1875 insert), where there are slurs/ties for every part. RI1875 (→ RI1913) omitted them, but they are present in rRIms and rRI1875.

182–183 Brass A: missing slurs and incongruent articu-lation. There are two slurs, one above Cor I–II and the other above Trb I–II; we extend them to Cor III–IV and Trb III–IV, and suggest them for Trbn and Of. GV also marked accents at 182/3rd– 4th for Cor and Trbn, and at 183 for Cor I–II, then wiped away the ones for Cor at 182; we suppress the remainder as residual from an earlier version. RI1875 follows A, but without the slur for Cor I–II; RI1913 and RI1964 progressively extended the accents (RI1964 has them for all notes at 182/3rd– 4th and 183).

183 Strings A: pp for Vni I and II, p for Vle and Cb (Vc = Cb). The p GV marked for Vni I and II at 186/3rd, with the orchestral crescendo already in progress, suggests a uniform pp here.

Page 36: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

34 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

183, 187 Ms rRIms: ff missing for both bars, despite their unequivocal presence in A (duly confirmed in rRI1875). When considered in conjunction with the fact that there is no pp in the piano reduc-tion at 183/3rd and 188/2nd, their absence may reflect an earlier version of the Liber scriptus 1875 (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5–6: 5), one in which the orchestra continued to play ff (or in any case some level of forte) rather than pp. This would also explain why GV failed to indicate any dynamic reduction (which is otherwise necessary) for Ms.

187 Vc, Cb A: ff rather than f, probably residual from the skeleton score. RI1875 = ff for all but Fl, Vni and Vle → RI1913 = ff for all parts.

187/3rd Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Cb A: isolated accent, probably residual from the skeleton score.

188 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: ppp rather than pp, prob-ably residual from the skeleton score. RI1875 (→ RI1913) follows A.

188 –191/1st Strings A: divergent slurs, probably due to a change of page (verso to recto) between 189 and 190; in particular, at 188 –189 the slurs for Vle are clearly marked, while for Cb the second slur begins where the first one ends, at 189/1st.

194 –199/1st Ms, Strings A: there are slight variations among the slurs for the strings at 195 –198, ascribable in all probability to involuntary dif-ferences in the pen strokes GV used to mark them. We find the clearly marked models for Vni I and Vc to be sufficient proof of what he wanted and normalize accordingly. For Ms, on the other hand, his intentions are more dif-ficult to distinguish because the various pen strokes are sometimes superimposed and other times adjacent to one another, although they would seem to suggest a legato execution of the entire phrase. The last pen stroke partially overlaps with the cresc. symbol, such that its exact conclusion is obscured; we suggest extending it to 199/1st but leave the interpreter free to choose where to take an eventual breath or define internal sub-phrases, obviously in conjunction with a logical articulation of the text (as in RI1913, which took its lead from RI1875).

•199 Ms rRIms (→ rRI1875): mf rather than ff. RI1913, which often looked to the example of rRI1875 for the vocal parts, also has mf. RI1875 interpreted the ambiguously writen ff in A as f.

199/1st Vc A: here, unlike at the corresponding 170/1st, GV did not mark a triplet subdivision of the sextuplet (see also Note 163, 167). Though with some reservations, we opt to preserve this dif-ference.

202/1st Vni II A: d’; we modify to match 173/1st.204 Vc, Cb A: one continuous slur for the notes in

this bar; we (unlike RI1913) prefer slurs in verti-cal conformity with Vni and Vle (see also Note 175).

205 Vc A: unlike the other strings, whose slur ends at 206/1st, Vc has a shorter slur stopping before the bar line. We (unlike RI1913) preserve this indication, considering it functional to the new figuration that begins at 206.

206 –209 Orch A: dim. symbols at 208/3rd–209 (see the relative Note) above Vni I (quite large, pos-sibly a general indication) and for Vni II, Fl, Ob, Cl, Fg I, Cor I–II. Notwithstanding the one for Fl, we suggest attributing them only to the instruments that sustain Ms (Ob, Cl, Fg I, Cor I–II, Vni II), and to adopt the same solu-tion at 206/3rd–207, for the following reasons. At 208/3rd GV had originally marked slightly elongated accents for Cl and for Fg I above the , which he then extended to become dim. symbols (similar accents are also present at 210/3rd for Ob and Cor I–II underneath the be-ginning of the cresc. symbols). The accents con-sequently represent an earlier discarded idea. It is extremely likely that the ones at 206/3rd for Ob, Cl, and Fg I–II, and a caret for Vni II, were also an earlier idea (GV rarely went back to a previous page to enter corrections) and are therefore replaceable with dim. symbols (for the differences between accents and dim. symbols, see “Edition Criteria”, p. 10f.). None of the examined sources adopted this solution. RI1875 reflects the same ambiguities as A at 208/3rd–209; RI1913 attributed both “cresc.” and dim. symbols to all but Fg III–IV, Cor III–IV, Timp, Vc, and Cb.

206–213 Timp A: at 206 GV wrote both p and pp; we choose p, as he indicated for Cor III–IV and for Vni I on 3rd. From 206 to 213 the notes are c rather than d, as if in “do-sol” notation; nev-ertheless the G at 238ff. is written at sounding pitch.

206/3rd Vni II A: caret (originally also a caret for Vni I, over which GV marked an accent). For a gen-eral examination of the accents and dynamic symbols in this passage, see Note 206–209.

206/3rd Vni II, Vle A: p missing; we extend vertically from Vni I.

206/3rd–4th, 208/3rd–4th Fg II A: slurs missing; we sup-ply in vertical conformity with Fl, Vni I, and Vle.

207–208/2nd Vni I, Vle A: divergent slurs: for Vle, one continuous slur from 207 to 208/2nd; for Vni I, slur missing at 208/1st–2nd. We adjust in verti-cal conformity with the other unison parts, and by analogy with 209–210/2nd in the im-mediate repetition of this passage.

208/3rd–209 Orch A: concurrent with the beginning of

Page 37: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

35© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

the dim. symbols (see Note 206 –209), GV wrote “cresc.” above Vni I (probably intended as a general indication), above Ob, between the two staves for Cor, and beneath Cb. It cannot be excluded that these “cresc.” belong to an earlier phase of composition, and that once GV completed the orchestration he added the dim. symbols without cancelling the various “cresc.”. Nonetheless, the passage is itself something of a crescendo in progress (reflected in the gradually rising register for Ms and the “cresc. sempre” at 210/3rd that culminates in ff at 212). The more likely hypothesis is therefore that GV wanted to create a crescendo consisting of “successive waves” of sound, in which case the “cresc.” indication should be anticipated as we suggest in this edition so that the dim. sym-bols are not in contradiction with the overall crescendo effect.

213 Coro A: no dynamic is present; we suggest ppp for balance with the orchestra in the following bar (see Note 214). RI1875 (→ RI1913) = “estrema-mente piano”, as at 177.

214 A: ppp for Trb, Trbn, Vni, and Cb; pp for Fl, Ms, Vni II, and Vle. We (like RI1875 → RI1913) prefer ppp for the orchestra – implied by the “ancora più ppp” at 219 – but preserve pp for Ms.

219 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: pp; we modify to ppp in verti-cal conformity with the other strings.

226 A: fff for Ms, Vc, and Cb; ff and f for the other instruments. We prefer ff for the orchestra but preserve fff for Ms. Also, Ob, Cl, and Cor III–IV have accents, unconfirmed for the other parts (including the strings); we (like RI1875 → RI1913) suppress.

226–228/1st Ms rRIms: accents for all seven notes, not present in any other examined source but pos-sibly reflecting an earlier version of the Liber scriptus 1875 (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5–6: 5).

235 –236 A: GV’s instruction “stesso movimento tra le sei note e le otto note” (the disposition of which we reproduce as closely as possible in the score) lends itself to various interpretations. If at 236 = at 235, the tempo would be too fast ( = MM 88, as opposed to the opening tempo of = MM 80); in this case it would be necessary at 229 to resume the “a tempo” after the “col canto” at a somewhat slower tempo (as suggested by Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. 60). If instead the instruction means that the pace of the sixteenth notes remains unchanged between 235 and 236, the resulting tempo at 236 is too slow ( = 75% of MM 88 = MM 66); in this case it would be necessary to “strin-gere” the pace at 235 (or, rather than rigidly

respect the tempo indication at 236, it could be gradually increased up to 238). In rRIms, which presumably reflects an earlier version of the Liber scriptus 1875 (see “The textual tradition”, c, pp. 8–9), neither “Allegro di prima” nor “stesso movimento tra le sei note e le otto note” is present (rRI1875 has instead “All.o Agitato” and “lo stesso movimento”). GV may therefore have realized only later that there was a tempo difference involved (it should be remembered that approximately a year passed between the composition of the Messa da requiem and the Liber scriptus 1875). If he had wanted (236) = (235) no indication would have been neces-sary. We believe instead that he intended the sixteenth notes to flow at an even pace

without a perceptible change be-

tween 6 = and 8 = , and consequently sug-gest “stringendo” at 235, leaving the method of its implementation to the discretion of the conductor.

238 Fl, Ob, Cl, Fg III A: slurs missing; at the analo-gous 45 (see the relative Note) Ott and Ob have slurs (Ott at 45 = Fl at 238).

238 Timp A: also a superfluous “cresc.”; we sup-press.

239 Coro, Vni I, Vc, Cb A: Coro = fff; Vni I, Cb = ff; Vc = f. At the analogous 46 the dynamic rapport between Vni I and Coro is reversed (Coro = ff; Vni I = fff; see Note 45 – 46) and the remainder of the orchestra has ff. We prefer to follow GV’s indications to the letter: that is, an identical reprise of 46 for the orchestra (see Note 239 –253) along with his carefully marked fff for Coro.

239 –253 Coro A: the slurs in this reprise of 46 – 60 (with the same text) are even more lacunose and re-flect the same general kinds of inconsistencies; we apply the model established at 46 – 60. With regard to dynamics, we preserve the entry fff GV carefully marked at 239 (see the relative Note), but at 247–253 we apply the model estab-lished at 54 – 60.

239 –253 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise of 46 – 60 with the instruction “Dall’A al B”, writing out the parts for Coro, Vni I, Vc, and Cb. There are various differences in these elaborated parts with respect to 46 – 60, which seems to have been more carefully notated (the secondary sources are of little help in resolving doubtful situations: see Note 239 –253, 573 –598). We consider the written out parts for Vni I, Vc, and Cb to be performance guidelines and markers for the copyists to use in reproducing the score and extracting the parts; therefore we have chosen to render them identical to 46 – 60

Page 38: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

36 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

for this reprise at 239 –253 (problems that sur-face within the first full orchestral elaboration are addressed in Note 1– 61), making note of only those differences that help to fill lacunae or resolve ambiguities, thereby allowing us to establish a unitary text. They may be summa-rized as follows:

– 239 Cb: accent missing; we supply from 46; – 243 Cb: accent; we adopt and extend it to 50

(see the relative Note); – 246–247 Cb: there is a tie and no cut above

the at 246; we modify to match 53–54.239 –253, 573 –598 Orch I-Mr (→ RI1875): these two pas-

sages, reprises of 46 – 60 and 1–26 respectively in A, were written out but by different copy-ists, resulting in a further layer of incongruen-cies between the two readings in addition to those already present in A (the same situation occurred for the reprise in N. 7, 45 –105 = N. 2, 1– 61); RI1913 attempted to normalize them, but not always successfully so. Principal divergenc-es are addressed in the individual Notes below.

253 –254 Fl A: GV wrote the two ornamental sixteenth notes at the beginning of 254, which is the first bar to be fully elaborated after the reprise of 46 – 60 (239 –253 = 46 – 60). Nothing would have prevented him from placing them at the end of 253. Nevertheless, there are musical reasons for considering this a generic notational decision undeserving of over-interpretation. Were the embellishment to be executed at the beginning of 254, the result would be:

– unpleasant parallel octaves with the bass; – an ambiguous harmonic interpretation of the

two notes: in the similar figures concluding all previous trills, the first note is a lower neigh-bor and the second returns to the consonant pitch, while in this case the c ’ would become the consonant pitch and the d’ a rather equi-vocal sort of escape tone.

If GV had truly wanted the embellishment to fall at the beginning of 254, it would perhaps have been preferable to resolve it to e’ rather than g’, thereby making the d’ a passing tone rather than an unconvincing escape tone. What is more, the harmony on the downbeat of 254 already contains an effective element of ambi-guity: the appoggiatura c’ for C Coro and Vni I (resolving to b ) against the c in the bass. A simultaneous c ’ for Fl, no matter how fleeting, weakens this effect, whereas a clear g’ on the downbeat heightens the impact of the disso-nance as an intentional gesture leading toward resolution. While allowing that, for the sake of argument, GV may have actually wanted the previous embellishments also to resolve on the downbeat as this example implies, we

nonetheless – however cautiously – suggest anticipating the figure to the end of 253. All of the examined sources, including pUS-Cso, follow A.

254 Trbn A: the dynamic indication is difficult to decipher, perhaps “cresc.” or mf (as in pUs-Cso; the other examined sources have nothing). The first possibility is in direct contrast with the concomitant dim. symbol, while the second is musically implausible in light of the ongoing process of dissolution from 247: were Trbn to enter mf, as would (by extension) Fg, Of, and Timp, the effect would be to obscure the sound of Coro; we therefore suggest p as the maxi-mum level possible.

255/3rd–260 Vc A: from 255/3rd GV stopped adding staccati, probably assuming that their continua-tion was automatically understood. There may however be some legitimate doubt regarding the two groups of repeated notes at 258/1st–2nd and 259/3rd–4th, given their dissimilarity with the alternating pattern of the other figures. While not entirely dismissing that concern, we supply the staccati as the more plausible solu-tion in this passage.

258 Of A: empty bar, quite possibly because B 1 is a semitone beyond the lower limit of the ophecleide’s range. All of the examined sources follow A. We integrate the note, obviously with those modern instruments that normally play this part today in mind.

258–260 Vc A: inconsistent beaming: unlike 255–257, where the notes are beamed in groups of four sixteenths each (255/1st–2nd) or as pairs of eighth notes with a cut through each stem (255/3rd–257), at 258–260 GV opted for groups of four eighth notes with cuts (at 259/3rd–4th with two cuts). This single beam is plausible for the realization of the eight repeated notes at 258/1st–2nd and 259/3rd–4th but not for 258/

3rd–4th, 259/1st–2nd, and 260, where we revert to beaming in groups of four sixteenth notes.

261 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Of.

270 Cl, 271 Fg A: no dynamic is present; we sug-gest pp, as GV later indicated for Vni II and Vle at 272 (but see Note 272, 277).

270–271 Cl A: slur missing; we suggest by analogy with the identical 275–276.

272 Vni I, 277 Vc A: ppp; we consider this indication residual from an earlier incomplete version and modify to pp, as GV wrote for Vni II and Vle at 272.

277–282/4th Vc A: GV marked the slur with a series of occasionally overlapping pen strokes. While it seems unlikely that he intended any separation among them, it cannot be excluded that he may

Page 39: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

37© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

have wanted to close a first slur on the d at 279 and begin a second slur at 280, just as the slur that begins at the analogous 291. At the end of 281, the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), the slur extends beyond the bar line as if to continue uninterrupted, but at 282 the slur resembles those for the other strings; here however, the way GV phrased the analogous 292–293 serves as unequivocal proof of his intentions.

277, 285 Fg A: no carets are present for the e ’ on 6th; we suggest their integration by analogy with 272/6th.

281–282/3rd Ms A: at 281, the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), the slur extends beyond the bar line but its continuation and conclusion are missing at 282, probably a simple oversight. An analogous situation occurs at 301–302/3rd (see the relative Note).

282/6th Strings A: GV carefully and unequivocally marked one caret, for Vle, which none of the examined sources saw fit to include. Although with some reservations, we preserve the articulation and extend it to the other strings, leaving its eventual omission to the discretion of the performer.

285, 288 Fg A: missing for the c’ on 5th; we integrate by analogy with 272/5th. Among the exam-ined sources, only pUS-Cso has the accidental (which was entered later into the part).

288/4th Voices A: pp only for T soloist. Although it cannot be excluded that GV actually intended to limit the increase in volume for T alone, we feel it is pertinent to S soloist and Ms as well. All of the examined sources follow A in limiting the dynamic indication to T (I-Mr and RI1875 have p).

289/1st–3rd Fg A: GV carefully marked this slur to include all six notes. We find it an accurate reflection of his intentions: in fact, only those figures in this section that begin with a leap of at least a minor third have a staccato for the first note and the slur starting from the second.

290–291 Vni II A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with the concomitant slurs for Vni I and Vle.

291/4th–293/3rd Voices A: cresc. and dim. symbols appear only above the stave for S, but they presumably apply to all of the voices. The culminating point of this messa di voce is not at the beginning of 292 but further into the bar, nearly coincident with the dotted eighth note on 4th. While this disposition is musically plausible, we prefer to modify it by analogy with the other two similar passages at 280–281 and 300–301.

293/6th–294 Vni A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vle and Vc.

294 –295/1st Ms A: one continuous slur, and no staccati at 294/2nd–3rd; we modify to match T soloist, whose part is marked in more detail. I-Mr and RI1913, on the other hand, modified T to match Ms. rRIms follows A, but without the staccati and the slur for T soloist at 294/2nd–3rd; rRI1874 added the staccati but not the slur.

298/6th S soloist A: anomalous staccato above the a’, unconfirmed at the analogous 299/3rd or 6th; we suppress.

301–302/3rd Voices A: at 301, the last bar before a change of page (verso to recto), GV marked slurs for S and Ms that extend over the bar line, but their continuation and conclusion are missing at 302, probably a simple oversight (analogous to the situation at 281–282/3rd); we supply and extend to T soloist, for whom no slur is present.

302/4th Voices A: pp for S, ppp for T; we opt for pp (confirmed throughout this section) and extend to Ms, who has no dynamic.

303–304/1st Fl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cl.

303–304/1st Vni I A:

We consider this a plausible divergence with respect to the recurring model in Cl (see also 275, 283, 294): the shorter slur in this context is more idiomatic for stringed instruments.

303/1st Vni I A: g’; it seems unlikely that GV wanted an exposed open fourth for Vni I relative to the other strings and the voices, all of whom have with a unison d’ or d. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 follow A. The anomaly was instead recognized by rRIms (→ rRI1874), which added b – d’ to the g’ on the downbeat to complete the right-hand chord. With the analogous 283 and 294 in mind, we suggest the substitution of d’ for g’ but leave the final choice to the discretion of the performer.

304/4th, 305/1st Fl, Cl A: no carets are present; we sug-gest by analogy with 308 and 309.

308/4th, 309/1st T soloist A: carets missing; we supply by analogy with 304 and 305.

308/4th, 309/1st Fg A: no accents are present; we supply by analogy with 304 and 305.

309/1st Fl A: caret missing.313 Vle A: one continuous slur for the six notes;

we modify in vertical conformity with Vc and Cb.

314 T soloist A: accents missing; we supply in ver-tical conformity with S soloist.

314 Vni II A: slur between 2nd and 3rd rather than 1st and 2nd; we modify in vertical conformity with Ms, which is confirmed in the second half of the bar.

314/3rd Vle A: isolated f, unconfirmed for the other parts; we suppress.

Page 40: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

38 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

•321 S soloist A: in addition to “attacca subito”, GV wrote “portate” after the g’, which would make sense only if it were followed by another note for S at the beginning of the “Rex tremendæ”; this may indeed have been his original plan, in which case the slur (which is missing in all the examined sources) would function in those same terms. I-Mr and RI1875 kept “portate” (in I-Mr it appears above the note); RI1913 suppressed it (but like rRIms [→ rRI1874], “attacca subito” was eliminated as well); RI1964 has “portata” above the two (closely spaced) notes in the bar, an equivocal interpretation at best. We consider “portate” to be a super-seded and inapplicable instruction (which the singer might otherwise be tempted to read as a portamento for the descending octave leap) and consequently suppress. The slur instead corresponds to GV’s explicit intention that the g’ be held through to the onset of the “Rex tremendæ” without a caesura, as if the g’ at 321 were ideally “tied” to the c’ for B Coro at 322.

322 Orch A: missing dynamics aside, the brass generally have f, Fg ff, and the strings ff (ex-cept perhaps Vc, who seem to have f); at the identical 326 there is little that serves to clarify the situation (see Note 326). While we can-not exclude the possibility that GV may have wanted differentiated dynamics, we opt for a uniform ff.

322–323 B Coro A: no diminuendo is marked; we sup-ply the symbol from the identical 326 –327.

322–323/1st Cb A: isolated slur, unconfirmed for the other unison parts; we suppress.

The volata at 322/1st is anomalously notated as three thirty-second notes, rather than the sixteenth notes at the identical 326 and the analogous 336. At 322 and 326 Cl have six-teenth notes for the embellishment as well. We modify to match the prevalent notation for this figure.

322, 326 Orch A: various missing accents on 1st, but GV’s intentions are clear.

326 Orch A: fff for Vni I (Vni II = Vni I) and Vc, ff for Fg, Timp, and Cb; we uniformly extend ff, as at the identical 322.

328 A: Vni I (Vni II = Vni I) and both pairs of Cor have ppp, all others pp. While we cannot ex-clude the possibility that GV may have wanted pp here and ppp at the identical 324, we adjust 328 to match.

329 Vc A: empty bar; we supply from Cb here and by analogy with 325.

330/4th Vni II A: a second slur is visible, unconfirmed for Vni I or Vle, nor at the analogous 332 or 334; we suppress.

336 A: Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Cor, and Of have f; no dy-

namic for Timp; all others, Coro included, have ff; we adopt the prevailing indication.

336 Trbn, 338 Fl A: isolated accents on 2nd (at the analo-gous 340 there are no accents whatsoever); we suppress.

338 Timp A: f or possibly ff, evidently added as a precautionary measure after the mf and p for the solo voices in the previous bar. There is no reason to believe that GV wanted a dif-ferent dynamic for Timp from the rest of the orchestra (in which case he would perhaps have marked f at 336). We (supported by RI1913) anticipate ff to 336. pUS-Cso has f at 336; I-Mr and RI1875 omitted the dynamic altogether.

339, 341 Cb (Fg, Vc = Cb) A: accents on 2nd missing; we supply by analogy with 337.

•342 A: f between Ott and Ob, and for Cor and T and B Coro; ff for Fl and Cl. We consider the dynamic for T and B Coro, which reduces the level established in the previous bars, to be the more pertinent choice (ff would be redundant). I-Mr omitted the f for T and B Coro and gave ff to all winds but Fg, Trbn, and Of. RI1875 = tutti f; RI1913 = tutti ff.

342–344 Fg, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: various missing accents; we supply by means of reciprocal integration between the two parts.

•345 –346 S soloist rRIms, rRI1874, RI1913: cresc. symbol at 345, dim. symbol at 346; I-Mr and RI1875 follow A, with the dim. symbol extended through both bars (also in RI1964). The messa di voce in rRIms is curious, given GV’s unequivocal indication in A: excluding a personal initia-tive on the part of the copyist, we are inclined to hypothesize its derivation from a source that predates A (see “The textual tradition”, c, pp. 8–9).

347 Orch A: only two dynamics are present: the pp for Fg and ppp for Cb. GV had originally writ-ten ppp for Fg but he then cancelled the first “p”, leaving us to presume that the resulting difference with Cb is the fruit of choice rather than oversight. We therefore suggest extending pp to the other winds, and ppp to the remain-ing strings. I-Mr has p for both Fg and Cb; RI1875 (→ RI1913) = tutti pp.

348 S Coro, 350 S and B Coro A: ppp, but pppp is the prevalent model (at 352 every part is carefully marked pppp). rRIms (→ rRI1874) has “estrema-mente ppp” at 348 (rather than “estremamente piano”) above C Coro and pp for S Coro (which rRI1874 extended to T and B Coro), and ppp at 350 for S and T Coro (pppp at 352); RI1913 uni-formly extended ppp at 348 and 350.

348/4th–353/1st Coro A: relatively few carets are present (at 348 and 349 for S; at 350 for S and T; at 352 and 353 for S, T, and B), but GV’s intentions are

Page 41: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

39© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

clear; we integrate the missing ones accord-ingly.

351/1st Coro A: for the integration of the carets see Note 348/4th–353/1st.

353/2nd B soloist A: staccato missing for the first ; we supply in conformity with T soloist at 352.

353/3rd–354 S soloist A: the cresc.-dim. symbols would appear to be in vertical opposition to the con-tinuous cresc. GV marked elsewhere (winds, T soloist, Vni, Vle) – indeed, he had initially written the same cresc.-dim. symbols above Vni I as well, then decisively marked a single cresc. symbol over them. Yet while it cannot be excluded that he forgot to correct S soloist, the dynamic surge and ebb for her part func-tions effectively in this imitative passage, first highlighting her initial leap upward of a minor sixth and then allowing the serried entries of T soloist and Ms to emerge as her motive de-scends toward its conclusion. We therefore pre-serve GV’s indications for S soloist and suggest the slur and cresc. for Ms, knowing in any case that the cumulative effect is that of a continu-ous crescendo among the solo vocal parts.

355/3rd–4th Fl, Cl, Fg I A: for Fl, the two octave dyads with accents also have anomalous staccati, while Cl and Fg I have no slur. We normalize by means of reciprocal comparison of the parts.

356 Fg, Of A: anomalous f; we modify to match the prevailing ff.

360/1st–2nd Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: isolated dim. symbol, unconfirmed for either Of or Cb; we suppress.

361/1st Of A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for either Fg or Cb; we suppress.

•362/1st Fg, Cb A: accents missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Of and B Coro as a per-tinent contribution to this point of maximum tension in the passage. None of the examined sources has the accent for B Coro.

364/2nd–365/1st Winds A: where the slurs are not en-tirely missing (there are none for Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl) they are otherwise imprecisely marked, sometimes seeming to end before the bar line and other times extending beyond it. Never-theless GV’s intentions are clear, allowing us to supply them where relevant in a uniform manner.

365/1st–2nd T I and B Coro A: on the whole GV was fair-ly careful in notating the vocal parts for this passage (364 –368), but here he forgot to supply an accent on 1st for B Coro while marking one for T I Coro on 2nd, where in fact there is no apparent reason that the sequence of accents should continue. We suggest the former and suppress the latter, in keeping with the natural

motivic apportionment of the music and the text for T I.

366, 370 Tempo A: “rall. al 1° tempo” (367) and “in tempo” (370) are not present; we suggest their integration from rRIms (→ rRI1874). While the second of these indications is a reasonably foregone conclusion, the first one bears par-ticular consideration as an interesting approach to the interpretation of this passage: in fact, by introducing a return to the primo tempo at 367 following an extended “animando a poco a poco” section beginning from 356 (and continuing through the “sempre animando” markers at 361 and 364), it is possible to reach the important culminating point at 368, “allarg. stentate”, in a less precipitate and consequently more effective manner.

376 –378 A: the phrasing is both lacunose and imprecise, due largely to space concerns – whether the horizontal breadth involved, requiring various pen strokes to cover, or the cramped conditions between the staves that sometimes forced the superimposition of slurs with cresc. symbols. This situation caused various misinterpreta-tions in the secondary sources resulting in a number of highly improbable sub-phrases (see for example RI1913). Our solutions are the product of reciprocal comparison: notwith-standing the divergences, it seems likely that GV intended those parts with thematic mate-rial (S and T soloist, Fl, Ob I, Cl I, Vni I) to be phrased similarly to the analogous (if rhythmi-cally compressed) parts at 330ff. None of the slurs continues to 379, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso), which may have been an oversight but would in any case be sup-plemental with respect to the slurs at 330ff; we therefore opt for a single continuous slur that concludes at the end of 378. With regard to the other non-thematic parts, we have used recip-rocal comparison and integration to establish two models of slurs and articulation, for: 1) Ob II, Ms, S Coro, and Vni II (extended to Cl II and C Coro); and 2) Vle, Fg I and III, and Cor (but not T Coro, the only vocal part that GV sup-plied with thorough and unequivocally marked slurs and articulation).

379/4th–381 Strings A: some accents, staccati, and slurs are missing, but GV’s intentions are clear; we supply through reciprocal comparison of the parts.

382/2nd Vc A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.383 Cor A: marked “Solo” but for no apparent rea-

son; we suppress.393 S soloist A: the slur extends beyond the bar

line into the right margin of the page (393 is the last bar of a verso), suggesting its continua-

Page 42: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

40 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

tion to 394; we prefer a shorter slur by analogy with the ones GV marked for Ms at 383 and S at 391.

397/3rd–4th S soloist A: a horizontal pen stroke above the eighth notes, partially coincident with the beginning of the cresc. symbol, would appear to be a slur; we suggest its integration by anal-ogy with the previous models.

405 – 408/1st Orch A: a certain uniformity can be dis-cerned among the slurs GV marked for Fg, Vle (in multiple pen strokes), and Vc, all of them carrying the bass line, but the situation is dif-ferent for those parts that double S soloist: Ob is the only one with a single continuous slur (in two pen strokes), while Fl and Vni I have slurs at 406 alone. Since the latter correspond to the slur for S soloist, we may hypothesize that the Fl and Vni I parts were already no-tated in the skeleton score, while the slur for Ob dates to the period of orchestration and consequently takes precedence over the shorter slurs. We therefore opt for the longer slur. With regard to Cl and Vni II, who both double Ms, we are able to apply the model of GV’s clearly marked slurs for Vni II to Cl where they are only partially present. There is also consider-able imprecision in the way the various slurs conclude at the end of this passage:

– for Vle and Vc at 408/1st, but for Fg the slur stops at 407/2nd;

– for Ob the end of the single slur corresponds to the at 407;

– for Vni II the last slur is circumscribed to 407/3rd– 4th, but for Cl (like Ms) it extends to 408.

We prefer a uniform conclusion for all slurs at 408/1st.

410–411 Fl, Vle A: there is one expansive cresc. symbol between the staves of these contiguous parts (Fl is immediately below Vle), presumably valid for both parts as at 414–415.

The first tie (410–411) is missing for Vle, while the second one (411) is missing for Fl; we sup-ply to match 414–415.

411, 415 S soloist I-Mr: for the first two notes in each bar the copyist marked a tie and a slur respec-tively which were subsequently erased, pos-sibly by GV; but while the tie at 411 was clearly erroneous, the slur at 415 remains pertinent to the expressivity of the phrase and should therefore be preserved, as it is in A.

411/3rd Ms A: “ten.”; we prefer the fermata GV marked for S soloist.

416/4th Ms A: pp missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with S soloist.

424 – 427 A: “animando sempre fino alla fine” is present only above S soloist.

425, 427 Fl, Ob, Cl A: carets on 4th missing; we supply as in the earlier analogous rhythmic figures.

429 Cb A: redundant pp; we suppress.429/3rd Vle, Vc A: isolated staccati for the , uncon-

firmed in the successive bars and probably residual from an earlier version. In fact, GV had originally marked two shorter slurs for the beamed eighth notes in Vc before extend-ing them to the following in each case; and while he did not need to modify the slur for Vle (who, like Fg, moves in unison with Vc), the staccato remained nonetheless. We sup-press both, in agreement with I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

•430–431, 432–433 S soloist, Ms A: slur only above S at 430–431; we extend to Ms, whose homorhyth-mic motion suggests that the indication was intended for both voices. At 432–433 there is part of a slur for S between the cresc. and dim. symbols; given the identical music and syl-labic disposition of the text, we adopt the same phrasing as 430–431 without typographical dis-tinction. All of the examined sources ignored both slurs.

434 S soloist, Ms A: some smearing of the dim. symbols above S soloist and beneath Ms sug-gests that GV may have tried to eliminate them while the ink was still fresh (in the process he also seems to have obliterated a slur over the last three eighth notes for S soloist). Both dim. symbols are present in rRIms (→ rRI1874 → RI1913). We find them plausible, especially for S soloist whose tessitura suggests the natu-ral deployment of a diminuendo.

437– 441 Vle A: at 437, the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), GV marked a slur that he neglected to conclude at the beginning of 438; instead, he began another one toward the end of 438 that ends on the g’’ at 441. We find it more logical to conclude this second slur at 440 (in vertical conformity with Cb), and we extend it to Vni II. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) adopted the first slur but ignored the second one.

438 – 440 Fg II and III–IV A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb.

439 Vni I A: “legate” over the ; we anticipate to the more plausible position at 438/4th.

439/4th Fl I A: two eighth notes; we modify to match the unison Vni I.

441/2nd–442/1st Ob A: simultaneous contrasting slurs, one over all eight notes and another beneath the first six; we adopt the 6 + 2 model in vertical conformity with Vc.

442 Fg A: : in all probability GV omitted the conclusion from 441 because the two pitches involved were relatively difficult ones for the instrument of that epoch to reach. pUs-Cso

Page 43: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

41© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

follows A, but the notes are present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 →  RI1913) (RI1964 scrupulously added parentheses). We too suggest their integration, given that they are no problem for modern instruments to manage.

445 Vc A: anomalous staccati for the first two notes; we suppress.

452 Vle A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Vni.

453–456 Vni II A: no slurs are present; we integrate by analogy with the phrasing GV marked for Vni I and Vc.

454/3rd A: ppp above Vni I, pp below; ppp for Vni II, Vle, and T soloist; pppp for Vc, but pp at the beginning of the following bar; we opt for a uniform ppp here and eliminate the dynamic indication for Vc at 455.

456 T soloist A: the breath mark seems to be in contradiction with the slur, but GV’s intentions are actually reasonably clear: that is, to allow the singer to take a breath without creating an audible caesura between 456 and 457. If singer and conductor are sufficiently attuned to one another, the string crescendo can be deployed to cover T’s subtle interruption of sound in such a manner that he is able to give the impression of a continuous legato. Naturally, it cannot be excluded that one of the two indica-tions was meant to supersede the other; this was the interpretation of I-Mr, which has the slur but not the breath mark. rRIms (→ rRI1874 → RI1913) omitted both.

456 Vni I and II A: p (perhaps originally pp for Vni I, with one p subsequently cancelled); consid-ering this an implausibly abrupt rise in the dynamic level as the phrase draws toward its conclusion, we (like RI1913) suppress.

457/3rd–4th T soloist A: a pen stroke above the triplet lends itself to various hypothetical interpreta-tions, whether as an underline for “[dolce] con calma”, or the equivalent of a bracket for the triplet indication, or the intimation of a slur. We suggest this last possibility by analogy with 461.

460/3rd–4th Fl A: a slur for each beamed figure; we modify in vertical conformity with Ob and Cl.

461/4th Fg A: GV originally marked an accent, then added two short supplementary pen strokes which we interpret as his definitive intention to transform the accent into a cresc. symbol. The combined part for Fg I and II in pUS-Cso has both a cresc. symbol between the two staves and an accent beneath Fg II; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) considered the accent to have been cancelled and began the dim. sym-bol at 461/4th rather than 462; RI1964 reinstated the original accent.

464/1st–2nd Vc, Cb A: staccati and slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni and Vle.

•466 Fl RI1875: the copyist distractedly left the bar empty; this oversight was transmitted to RI1913, where it became a

466 – 468/1st Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni II A: Fl and Cl I have no slur; Ob has one only for the three notes at 466; Cl II and Vni II both have slurs beginning from 467/1st. We integrate and adjust in vertical con-formity with the clear and musically convinc-ing slurs GV marked for Vni I and Vle.

466/3rd– 468/3rd Orch A: while the majority of the cresc. symbols stop at the end of 467, the last bar before a change of page (verso to recto), GV did continue the one for T soloist beyond the middle of 468. That he wanted the same length of crescendo for the instrumental parts is demonstrated by the cresc. symbol he marked between Fl and Ob, as well as a cresc. symbol between the staves for Cor (the conclusion at 468 was originally a dim. symbol before he replaced it with the definitive version).

470 Ob, Fg III A: both parts also have an accent, su-perseded by the dim. symbol (GV marked only the dim. for Fg III at 471– 476, proof that the accent at 470 is residual from an earlier idea); we suppress.

471– 473 Ob A: at 471 Ob has the dim. symbol on 4th but no caret, and only an accent on 4th at 472 and 473; we modify in each case to match the model at 470.

472, 473 Fg I A: accent for the first eighth note; we replace with carets, as in the previous bars.

474/1st–2nd Cl I A: slur missing.475/1st Vni II A: the caret could possibly be residual

from an earlier version in which the a ’ was not tied from 474/4th (there are hints of other corrections at 474). Yet its presence in this posi-tion, while not entirely convincing, is support-ed by all of the examined sources. We suggest its extension, with some reservations, to the unison Cl I.

475/4th, 476/1st Vle, Fg I A: accent missing at 475/4th for Vle, and caret missing at 476/1st for Fg I; we supply through reciprocal comparison of these unison parts.

•476/1st Fl RI1913: b ’ tied to the previous ; the in-tegration originated with I-Mr, where the note the copyist added was c’’; another hand circled it and wrote “si ” beside it.

477/4th Orch A: Cor III–IV is the only part with both the accent and the dim. symbol; we extend these indications to Cor I–II, and suggest their integration (one or both as appropriate) to the other parts for vertical conformity. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored all of the accents in

Page 44: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

42 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

A; RI1964 reinstated them and extended them where missing for all but Fl.

479/4th Ob A: superfluous slur, probably intended as a bracket for the triplet indication; we suppress.

484/3rd–485 Orch A: p for Fl, Fg, and Cor; pp for Vni I. We consider the pp for Vni I to be different by design and consequently extend it to Vni II as well, otherwise assigning p or suggesting it by virtue of analogous function (Vle with Ob and Cl, Vc with Fg) to the other parts.

487/2nd Vle A: superfluous staccati (the part is “pizz.” from 484) for the two eighth notes; we sup-press. They are present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

487/3rd–488/1st Cor III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fg and Vc.

488 Strings A: only pp for Vni I and ppp for Vc; we modify Vc to pp, which maintains the dynamic equilibrium established in the previous bars (see Note 483/3rd–485), and extend it to Vni II and Vle.

•493, 494 Vc A: no dynamic indication at 493, pp at 494; we anticipate the pp to 493. RI1913 did the same but also supplied ppp at 494 (like RI1875), ex-tending it to the other parts that double Vc (Cl, Fg, and Vle).

494–498/1st Cl, Fg, Vle, Vc A: GV seems to have marked the slurs at 494–495 for Cl, Fg, and Vle in two contiguous strokes joined at 495/1st, or, in the case of Vc, in two separate strokes at 494/3rd–4th and 495/4th; we adopt the model of one continuous slur, as exemplified by the ones that he distinctly marked at 496–497 for Cl, Fg, and Vle. For Vc, on the other hand, the second slur extends to 498/1st; we prefer the prevailing solution and extend it for vertical conformity to Vc.

503 Cb A: isolated accent; considering it likely to be residual from the skeleton score, we sup-press, though with some reservations. It is not present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 →  RI1913), perhaps because in A it collides with the “Andante” tempo indication in the lower margin of the page.

504/4th Vc A: B missing from the dyad, an oversight already corrected in I-Mr on the model of 506.

•506/4th B soloist A: no accent is present; we suggest by analogy with 504. rRIms (→ rRI1874 → RI1913) omitted the accent at 504; it reappears in RI1964 but was not extended to 506.

511–519/1st–2nd Strings A: missing slurs and incongruent beaming (which can be largely deduced from the abbreviated figures for repeated notes). The repetition of this passage at 544 –552/1st–2nd is more complete and coherent (though not entirely so: see Note 544 –552), allowing us to use it as the template for 511–519. Those

instances where some margin of doubt remains regarding GV’s intentions may be summarized as follows:

– 511 Vni I: slurs and beaming are 4 + 4; we modify to 6 + 2 as at the analogous 514 and 517 (see also Note 544 –552).

– 512, 515, 518 Vc: at 512 and 515, slurs and beaming are 4 + 4; at 518/1st–2nd, slurs are 2 + 2 with a single beam, while 3rd– 4th have a single slur with 2 + 2 beaming (at the analogous 545, 548, and 551 slurs and beaming are 4 + 4; see Note 544 –552). We uniformly adopt 2 + 2 for the slurs and beaming in these cases.

516, 546, 549 Cb A: superfluous staccati (the part is already marked “pizz.” for these bars); we sup-press. RI1875 (→ RI1913) preserved them, without however extending them to the analogous 513.

518/4th Vc A: isolated accent on the first f , uncon-firmed at the analogous 551. Given its doubt-ful musical justification, we suppress but with some reservations, leaving its eventual execu-tion to the discretion of the performer. It is not present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

521/3rd–523 Orch A: GV began some of the slurs he marked for this passage at 522, the first bar fol-lowing a page turn (recto to verso); we modify by analogy with the corresponding passage at 554–556, where the slurs begin at 554/3rd.

523 Vni I and II A: there is a slur for these two notes in both parts; but while the one for Vni I falls within the longer slur, for Vni II the longer slur stops at the end of 522, followed by the shorter slur at 523. We eliminate the shorter slur for Vni I as superfluous and turn the two consecutive slurs for Vni II into a single con-tinuous one, in vertical conformity with Vni I as well as the slurs GV marked for Cl, Fg, and Vc. The longer slur is also confirmed in the corresponding passage at 554/3rd–556.

527/2nd–3rd Strings A: accents missing for Vc and Cb on 2nd, and the dim. symbols are not present for Vni II and Vle; we integrate both indications by means of reciprocal comparison of the parts. RI1875 (→ RI1913) has accents for Vni I and II and Vle, dim. symbols for Vc and Cb.

529 Orch A: ff for Cor, Timp, and Vc, f for all other parts; we modify ff to match the prevailing dynamic. RI1875 (→ RI1913) = tutti ff.

529 Ob, Cl A: no slurs are present, and the accents are missing on 4th; we supply both in vertical conformity with Fl (Ott = Fl).

531/1st Cl A: GV marked the part to play in unison with Ob following a page turn (recto to verso), forgetting that a resolution was needed from 530; we (like RI1913) supply from the analogous 529.

531/1st Vni I A: thirty-second notes for the embellish-

Page 45: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

43© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

ment; we modify to sixteenths in conformity with Vni II and the analogous 529.

531/4th Cb A: anomalous staccato in addition to the accent; we suppress.

533/3rd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni II, and by analogy with Fg I at 535.

535/4th Ob II, Cl, Fg I A: carets missing; for Cl I, we supply in vertical conformity with Fl and Ott; for Ob II and Cl II, by analogy with Vni II at 533; for Fg I, by analogy with Vle at 533.

•540/3rd Fg III–IV A: isolated accent (with no convinc-ing musical justification), unconfirmed for Vc or Cb; we suppress. RI1913 did likewise, but it reappears in RI1964, where it was extended to Vc and Cb.

540/3rd–541 Ott A: isolated slur from e ’’ to the at 541; we suppress.

541/1st Cor I–II A: isolated accent; we suppress.542/1st Strings A: f only for Vni I; we extend for verti-

cal conformity to the other strings.543/1st–2nd Vle A: all four notes are beamed together;

we adjust for vertical conformity with Vc.544 –552 Strings A: despite the presence of incongru-

ent slurs and beaming in this passage (largely represented by abbreviated notation for the repeated notes), we are able to identify GV’s overall tendency to match both elements with any given sequence of repeated notes, whether in groups of two, four, or six notes each. Those instances of divergence from this principle may be summarized as follows:

– 544 Vni I: slurs and beaming = 4 + 4; we modify to 6 + 2, as at the analogous 547 and 550;

– 545, 548, 551 Vc: slurs and beaming = 4 + 4 (also at 512, 515, 518/1st–2nd; see Note 511–519/1st–2nd). We modify to 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 as in Vni and Vle, which in all probability was GV’s later decision while writing out these parts;

– 548/3rd–4th Vni II, Vle: , each with a cut through the stem and two staccati; we modify to the equivalent of the abbreviation at 515 ( with a cut and four staccati).

549 Fg A: empty bar; we (like RI1875 → RI1913) inte-grate based on the model of 516.

549/1st–2nd B soloist A: the conclusion of the slur is missing following a page turn (recto to verso); we (like rRIms → rRI1874 → RI1913) supply from the model of 516.

553/3rd–554/2nd Cl, Fg, Vni II, Vle A: slurs missing; we supply by analogy with the corresponding pas-sage at 520/3rd–521/2nd.

554/3rd Vle A: g; we suggest replacing it with b as at the corresponding 521/3rd in order to avoid doubling the third of the chord. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913 has b as in this edition,

but RI1964 reversed the correction and returned to g.

556 Fg A: GV marked a second, superfluous slur for the two notes in this bar; we suppress (see also Note 523).

556 Vle A: tie missing; we supply by analogy with the corresponding 523.

558/1st Cb (Vc = Cb) A: e ; our adjustment to c (which matches the corresponding 525) is supported by I-Mr, where the correction (in purple ink) from e to c was probably made by GV. RI1875 follows A; RI1913 has c as in this edition, but RI1964 reversed the correction and returned to e.

•559/3rd– 4th Vni I, Vle A: ; we consider this rhythmic notation to be an oversight in both parts and correct to by analogy with Vni I at 526, not to mention the same melodic profile found at 560 (Cl I, Fg I, Fg III) and 561 (Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl II, Fg I, Cor I). I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913 corrected Vni I (to match 526) but not Vle.

561 Ob I–II, Cl II A: slurs missing.563 Vni II, Vle A: no slurs for either part, and the

staccati on 4th are missing. We supply the slur and staccati for Vle in vertical conformity with Vc and Cb; however, for Vni II, whose series of double stops are difficult to play legato, we sug-gest instead a short slur with the staccati on 4th.

563/2nd, 564  Cl A: at 563/2nd staccati with the slur, unconfirmed for Fl or Ob; we suppress. At 564, the first bar following a change of page (verso to recto), GV forgot to provide the resolution from 563; we integrate in vertical conformity with Fl and Ob.

566, 568/1st–2nd Vni I A: at 566 the beaming is 2 + 6 (two eighth notes + with a cut through the stem); 568/1st–2nd = 2 + 2 but with a single slur. We adjust the first half of both bars to match the beaming of Vle, with whom Vni I move in parallel sixths.

567/3rd–568 Fl A: no articulation is present, and the slur stops at the end of 567; we adjust in vertical conformity with Cl and Fg I.

568/3rd–4th Vle A: single beam for the four notes; we beam as 2 + 2 in keeping with the principle established in Note 544–552.

568/4th–569/1st Cor III–IV A: GV marked a tie at the end of 568, the last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), but there is a on the downbeat of 569. Unlikely as it seems that he simply forgot to provide a note for the tie after the page turn (since there is a rest at that point rather than nothing at all), continuing the (sounding) b at 569/1st would help reinforce the harmonic dissonance, otherwise sustained solely by the relatively weak Vle in the A–G suspension, to better effect. We therefore suggest integrat-ing the tied b for Cor III–IV at 569/1st. I-Mr

Page 46: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

44 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

(→ RI1875 → RI1913) follows A; pUS-Cso re-solved the situation by eliminating the tie.

569/1st–2nd Cl A: a short pen stroke beneath the two could be read as a slur, which would conform to the one GV marked for B soloist; while remaining somewhat doubtful, we supply the slur and suggest its extension to Fl and Fg I.

569/3rd–570/2nd Orch A: incompletely marked articula-tion, but the strings provide a clear and com-plete model that we suggest extending to the winds (at 570/1st–2nd the staccati and accent are sufficiently represented for their exten-sion to the woodwinds without typographical distinction). Also, Vle have an isolated slur in addition to the staccati for the beamed eighth notes at 569/3rd– 4th, which we suppress.

571 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati as well as the accents, possibly residual from the skeleton score; we suppress.

573 –598 Orch A: GV marked this section as the reprise of 1–26 with the instruction “Come dal prin-cipio del Dies irae per 26 battute”; he provided the resolution for B soloist at 573 and wrote out the parts for Coro (all 27 bars) and for Vc and Cb (only at 573 –576 and 593 –598). We consider the written out parts for Vni I, Vc, and Cb, which present various differences with respect to 1–26, to be performance guidelines and markers for the copyists to use in reproducing the score and extracting the parts; therefore we have chosen to render them identical to 1–26 for this reprise (problems that surface within the first full orchestral elaboration are addressed in Note 1– 61), making note of only those differences that help to fill lacunae or resolve ambiguities, thereby allowing us to establish a unitary text. They may be summa-rized as follows:

– 575–576 Cb: accents only at 576/3rd–4th; for the integrated accents at 575/3rd and 576/1st see Note 3–4, 13–14, 575–576. At 575–576 there are staccati beneath all eighth notes but the first octave dyad (also present in N. 7, but only at 57); given their absence at the corresponding 3 and 13, we suppress (see also Note 1–61).

– 593 Vc: slur for the sixteenth notes missing. – 595/1st–3rd Cb: accents missing. – 597, 598 Cb: accent on 2nd missing.575 –598 Coro A: GV marked very few accents and

dynamics (the latter are represented by nothing more than two f, at 575 for T Coro and at 593 for B Coro), but there is no reason to imagine that this reprise with the same text should not be identical to 3 –26. We therefore integrate the missing accents and dynamics from that origi-nal model, reporting the lacunae in the follow-ing Notes.

575/3rd–576/1st T and B Coro A: accents missing; we sup-ply from the corresponding 3–4.

577–579, 587–589 T II Coro A: for the syllabic setting of the text, see Note 15 –17, 577–579, 587–589.

585–586 B Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with T Coro, as at the corre-sponding 13–14.

593–598 Coro A: accents only at 595 for S and B Coro, and at 598/4th for B Coro; we supply from the corresponding 21–26.

599 Coro A: GV marked accents only for S and B Coro as he did at 595, omitting however the one for S Coro on 4th; we supply the missing accents on 1st–3rd as at the analogous 27/1st–3rd and 595/1st–3rd (those beats where the notes are the same), and we suggest their logi-cal integration for S, C, and T Coro on 4th (see also Note 599 Orch).

599 Orch A: various accents are missing. On 1st–3rd the accents for Fg, Trbn, Vni, Vc, and Cb can be vertically extended to the instruments of their respective families from 23 and 27 (595 = 23, → 599/1st–3rd = 27/1st–3rd). Some doubt remains, however, regarding 4th (un-like 27/4th), where GV marked accents only between Fg I–II and III–IV, between Trbn and Of, and for Vc (also B Coro; see Note 599 Coro). There are no accents whatsoever for Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl on 3rd– 4th; we supply those on 3rd from the corresponding 23 and 27, and we sug-gest their logical integration where missing on 4th.

600, 601 (602 = 601) Winds A: various accents missing on 4th, but GV’s intentions are clear; we supply without typographical distinction.

600, 601 Strings A: divergent beaming on 1st: at 600/1st Vni I and II and Vle have ; at 601/1st only Vni II and Vle have this same beaming con-figuration. We adopt as in Vc at 600–602 and Vni I at 601–602, in conformity with the similar figures at 21–22 and 25–26 (26 = 25; 593–594, 597–598 = 21–22, 25–26).

600/3rd Vni II A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either vertically here or in the two successive bars; we suppress.

601/1st Vni I A: isolated accent above the a’–c’’’ dyad, unconfirmed either vertically or at 602/1st; we suppress.

•601/4th (602 = 601) Fg I–II A: a–c’; we modify to c’–e ’ as at 600, where all other parts are identical to 601 on 4th. I-Mr (→ RI1875) automatically resolved the problem by indicating that 601 and 602 = 600 for the winds, Timp, Vc, and Cb, transmit-ting this reading to RI1913. RI1964 instead adopt-ed a–c’ at 601 and extended it to 602 as well.

601/4th (602 = 601) Timp A: accent missing; we supply from the identical 600.

Page 47: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

45© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

•604 – 605 Orch A: Gr C has a dim. symbol beginning at 604 that extends to the whole note at 605, approximately mid-bar, where GV also wrote “dim.”. It makes little sense that Gr C should execute a diminuendo at 604 where the other instruments play ff for the entire bar. Another dim. symbol is present at 605 above Vni I, perhaps as a general indication; we suggest its vertical extension and move the dim. symbl for Gr C from 604 to 605, eliminating the super-fluous “dim”. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913 extended the dim. symbol for Vni I to the other strings and to Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl, but left the dim. symbol for Gr C at 604.

604 – 606 Timp A: G; although it was not unusual at the time to approximate the pitch notation for Timp when a given harmonic context was incompatible with the notes to which it was tuned, in this case there seems to have been no such practical reason because at 607, following a page turn (recto to verso), GV wrote B (with the understood; see Note 607–701); we there-fore anticipate the B to 604. All of the exam-ined sources follow A (in pUS-Cso the part was changed from G to B , but this was almost certainly a later correction).

•605 Cor I–II and III–IV RI1913: rather than (the error originated in RI1875: for Cor I–II, for Cor III–IV); RI1964 reinstated the , with the curious addition of a dim. symbol between the two staves for Cor but not for Fg.

606 Cb A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.607–610/1st Cor III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in ver-

tical conformity with Cor I–II.607–701 Timp A: GV systematically omitted the for

each B.608/4th Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur for the tri-

plet missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb).

609–612 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: the dim. symbol at 609 is quite short, almost as if it were an ac-cent; we modify to match the one GV marked for Cb (Vc = Cb). At 610/3rd–612 the two subse-quent dim. symbols are missing; here too we supply in vertical conformity with Cb.

610 – 612 Ob, Cl, 612 S Coro, Vni I A: the slur for Ob at 611/1st–2nd is nearly illegible but nonetheless certain; we extend vertically to the unison Cl, and suggest for the analogous suspension fig-ures on 1st–2nd at 610 and at 612. Similarly, we suggest integrating the missing slurs for S Coro and Vni I at 612. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) sim-ply ignored all four slurs GV marked for these figures (Vni I at 610; Ob, S Coro, and Vni I at 611).

612/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: GV left the bar empty following a change of page (verso to

recto), forgetting to provide the resolution from 611 as he had done for Vc and Cb; the notes and rests were added in pencil, perhaps in another hand. In I-Mr GV entered the octave dyad himself in purple ink.

614/3rd Vni I A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.620–622 Vc A: GV marked a slur from 620/2nd to 622,

with no tie at 621–622; we modify in conform-ity with Vle, which also more closely reflects the phrasing for Vni I at 621.

624/4th Vni I A: isolated accent, clearly residual from an earlier idea (GV had originally marked an accent at 625/2nd as well but then wiped it away); we suppress. It was already omitted in I-Mr.

631 Fg A: the cresc. symbol stops at the end of 630 and the dim. begins at the start of 631; we move the juncture between the two symbols to match Cor III at 631 (for Cor IV see Note 631/3rd– 632/1st).

•631/3rd– 632/1st Cor IV A: anomalous cresc. symbol, incompatible with the dim. symbol for Cor III (as well as the ones GV marked for Cor I, Fg I, and Ms); we modify for vertical conformity with Cor III. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) follows A (RI1913 eliminated the dim. for Cor III).

634–639 Fl, Ob, Cl A: various accents are missing (Ob has carets at 634 and at 635/2nd), particularly from 638, where however there is one very carefully marked for Fl; given the clarity of GV’s intentions, we supply them uniformly for these parts without typographical distinction.

639 – 641/1st Winds A: while it seems GV wanted to mark cresc.-dim. symbols only for the winds and not the strings (even though the strings inevitably participate in the general crescendo), he sup-plied them in a sketchy and incongruent man-ner. The cresc. symbol for Ob is confined to 640 after the f, and Cl does not have one at all. We adjust both parts to match the model GV marked for Fl. Cor I and Fg have no symbols whatsoever, while Cor III has only a cresc. that extends to 641/1st and is consequently incom-patible with the dim. symbols for Fl, Ob, and Cl. We find it plausible, if arguable, that GV may have intended the cresc. only for those parts that double Ms (Fl, Ob, and Cl), who also has a cresc.; therefore, with some reservations, we have suppressed the cresc. for Cor III, leav-ing its eventual execution (and extension to Cor I and Fg) to the discretion of the performer.

641/3rd Fl A: ppp; we prefer the pp GV marked (no less than twice) for Ott and confirmed for Fg at 642/1st.

•641/4th–642/2nd S Coro A: GV marked staccati for the three dyads, subsequently erasing only the second one at 642/1st; we suppress the first

Page 48: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

46 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

of them as well but preserve the last one at 642/2nd ( dyad), which we consider musically plausible (see Ms). rRIms (→ rRI1874 → RI1913) omitted all three staccati.

•644 – 645/1st A: few cresc. symbols are present: for the instruments, above Fl and between Vni I and II; for the voices, above S soloist and above S Coro, probably also intended for Ms and C Coro. We find no reason to believe that any instrumental parts were meant to be excluded (as in RI1913, where there is no cresc. for Fg or Vc) and therefore uniformly supply the missing symbols.

645 Fg I A: all four of the cresc. symbols that GV began at 644 conclude exactly at 645/1st (see Note 644 – 645/1st), but there is one lone cresc. in the first half of 645 above Fg I (with no previous cresc. at 644). It seems unlikely that GV wanted only Fg I to play in crescendo (with three other Fg available to provide adequate support). We (like RI1913) omit the cresc. symbol but nonetheless leave its eventual execution (and vertical extension) to the discretion of the performer. I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A.

645/3rd, 646 Orch A: GV wrote exceedingly few dynamic indications at 645, and none at 646. Trbn, Timp, and Gr C are carefully marked ppp, though presumably for the particular effect their sound contributes to the orchestral timbre at this level. The only other dynamic he marked, pp for Vle (which RI1913 chose to ignore), seems instead the most appropriate choice for exten-sion to the other instruments, equidistant as it is between the p for the male voices and the ppp for Trbn, Timp, and Gr C.

645/3rd– 652 Voices A: incongruent and missing slurs and articulation. The texture created by these eight vocal parts consists of three distinct components: 1) S soloist; 2) Ms, S and C Coro; 3) T and B soloists, T and B Coro. We adopt the clearest and most convincing slurs and articulation as models for the second and third groups, either extending them to the other unison parts without typographical distinction, or integrating and normalizing indications through reciprocal comparison of the parts. Principal incongruencies may be summarized as follows (for 652, see the relative individual Notes):

– 645/3rd– 647/2nd T and B soloists, T and B Coro: at 647, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso), the slur on 1st–2nd in all parts seems to refer only to the two notes b f, rather than to function as the continuation and conclusion of the previous slur initiated at 645 (this is also true for the instruments that dou-ble these parts). We nevertheless believe that

GV wanted for the ending of the melody the same phrasing as for the two earlier enuncia-tions at 625 – 627 and 633 – 635. An analogous situation occurs at 655 (see Note 654 – 655/2nd).

– 646–647 S and C Coro: at 647 there are two slur strokes for S Coro, one on 1st–2nd and another over the remaining two notes (no slur at 646); we modify in vertical conformity with Ms and extend the missing slur to C Coro.

– 649/3rd, 650/3rd T and B soloists, T and B Coro: the only articulation for the g at 649 is an accent for B Coro, while at 650 T and B Coro have carets for the c ’ (no articulation is present for T and B soloists); we adopt and extend the model of T and B Coro at 650 for all four parts in both bars.

– 651/3rd–4th S and C Coro: carets missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Ms.

645/3rd– 652 Orch A: missing and incongruent slurs and articulation. Bass and accompanimental parts aside, the orchestral texture consists of three distinct components: 1) Ott, Fl, Cl, Vni I and II; 2) Ob, Trb; 3) Fg I and III, Cor III, Vc. We adopt the clearest and most convincing slurs and articulation as models for each of these groups (rather than proceeding by instrumental fam-ily), either extending them to the other unison parts without typographical distinction, or in-tegrating and normalizing indications through reciprocal comparison of the parts.

646 Ms A: “cantabile” missing; in accordance with the same principle established in Note 645/3rd–652 Voices, we supply in vertical conformity with the unison S Coro (where the indication was presumably intended for C Coro as well).

646 – 651 Ott, Fl, Cl, Vni I and II A: various accents are missing: for Ott, all but those at 650 – 651; for Fl only one, at 651/3rd; for Cl at 651; for Vni I only one, at 646/3rd (caret at 646/1st); for Vni II at 646 (647ff = Vni I at the lower octave). Given that none of these parts has an accent for the last eighth note at 651, we (like RI1913) do not integrate it.

646 – 652 Ob, Trb A: missing and divergent slurs and articulation, which can be resolved through reciprocal comparison of the parts (see Note 645/3rd– 652 Orch) for all but the following:

– 646 – 647: at 647, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso), both slurs seem to begin anew rather than serve as the continuation and conclusion from 646; we believe that the appar-ent segmentation was not intentional.

– 651 Trb: ; we find the slur and

accents for Ob to be the more plausible choice, given their greater detail and compatibility with the articulation for Ms and S and C Coro.

Page 49: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

47© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

646/4th Fg I A: isolated caret for the last eighth note, unconfirmed for Fg III, Cor III, or Vc; we sup-press.

647–652 Gr C A: staccati missing; we extend from the model at 645–646.

649/3rd– 650/2nd Fg I, Cor III A: one continuous slur, whereas Fg III has the two shorter slurs; at the analogous 650/3rd– 651/2nd, Fg I and III have the shorter slurs (the second one is missing for Cor III; see Note 651/1st–2nd). While we cannot exclude the possibility that the configuration at 650 – 651 was caused by an intervening change of page (verso to recto) between the two bars, we modify Fg I and Cor III here to match this prevailing model (for Vc, see Note 650).

649/3rd, 650/3rd Fg I and III, Cor III, Vc A: the only articulation for the g at 649 is an accent for Vc, while at 650 Fg I has a caret for the c ’ and Vc an accent (both accents for Vc may be considered the equivalent of carets). Given that T and B Coro also have carets at 650/3rd (see Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices: 649/3rd, 650/3rd), we integrate and normalize the carets for this group of instruments (as established in Note 645/3rd– 652 Orch) according to the prevailing model.

650 Vc A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the other members of this instru-mental group as established in Note 645/3rd–652 Orch (see also Note 649/3rd–650/2nd).

650/1st–2nd S soloist A: slur missing.650/3rd–4th Trb A: all four eighth notes are beamed

together; we separate the first of the group in vertical conformity with Ob (as established in Note 645/3rd–652 Orch).

650/3rd, 651/1st S soloist A: carets missing.650/3rd–651/2nd Trbn A: staccati missing.651/1st–2nd Cor III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical

conformity with Fg I and III, as established in Note 645/3rd–652 Orch (see also Note 649/3rd–650/2nd).

651/3rd– 652/2nd Fg I and III, Vc A: Fg I has a slur be-neath the first beamed group of eighth notes at 651/3rd– 4th, but there are also pen strokes above both beamed groups, partially obscured by the dim. symbol; Fg III has a slur for each beamed group; Vc has a slur beginning only from the second note in the second beamed group (652/1st–2nd). We opt for the clear and complete model GV marked for Cor III–IV, modifying Fg I and III to match and suggesting the same slur for vertical conformity for Vc.

•651/3rd– 653/1st S and C Coro A: another hand crossed out “judicandus homo reus” for these parts and wrote “Huic ergo parce Deus” above S Coro, obviously forgetting to intervene in like manner for Ms. All of the examined sources

reproduce this divergence. We have no way of knowing whether GV approved the correction that was made in I-Mr: if he had inspected this passage attentively it seems he would have adjusted Ms to match S and C Coro (see the description of I-Mr, p. 4). Furthermore, the correction is not entirely convincing because GV set the original reading of these three parts with different phrasing and articulation (but see also Note 652 B soloist), which is both per-fectly plausible and perhaps more persuasive from a musical point of view. In the event that the correction was in fact a legitimate one au-thorized by the composer and should therefore be adopted and extended to Ms, it would also necessitate adjusting the phrasing and articu-lation to match the other vocal parts, given that they all move homorhythmically with the same text, otherwise the difference makes no sense. We see no musical justification for these interventions and therefore prefer to restore “judicandus homo reus” for S and C Coro.

•652 A: cresc. symbol for S soloist and Ott; we extend to Fl, Cl, and Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave), all of whom realize this same part, for vertical conformity. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) has only the cresc. symbol for S solo-ist.

652 S Coro A: the slur extends beyond the , seem-ingly to 653/1st; we adjust (as established in

Note 645/3rd–652 Voices) to match the slur for Ms.

652 B soloist A: ; we modify (as es-

tablished in Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices) to match T and B Coro (see also Note 651/3rd– 653/1st).

652/1st–2nd T Coro A: accents rather than carets; we modify (as established in Note 645/3rd–652 Voices) to match B Coro.

653/3rd–4th S Coro A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with C Coro.

653/4th Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A: “dol.”; while it could be short for “dolce”, the concomitant “dolcissimo” for S soloist makes this reading the obvious solution.

654 – 655/2nd Ob, Cl, S and C Coro A: at 655, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso), the slurs on 1st–2nd for Ob and Cl (there are none for S and C Coro) seem to refer only to the two notes f’ c’, rather than to function as the continuation and conclusion of the previous slur initiated at 654. We nevertheless believe that GV wanted for the ending of the melody the same phrasing here as for the two earlier enunciations at 625 – 627 and 633 – 635, and we modify and extend accordingly (an analogous situation occurs at 645/3rd– 647/2nd; see under Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices).

Page 50: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

48 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

659 Vni II A: empty bar; we integrate the missing material in vertical conformity with the unison C Coro.

660/3rd–4th Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl.

661– 663/3rd Orch A: at 661– 662, the last two bars before a page turn (recto to verso), GV marked gen-eral cresc. symbols above Vni and beneath Cb, beneath Cor III–IV, above Fg I–II, beneath Fg III–IV, and beneath Vc; at 663 he neglected to continue all but the one for Cb, which extends (over an earlier and presumably superseded “cresc. sempre” indication) to the f at 663/3rd. We similarly extend and otherwise supply the cresc. symbols where appropriate, given that he carefully marked f for nearly every instrumen-tal part at 663/3rd.

•662– 663 Fl II A: there is no music for Fl II at 662, but following a page turn (recto to verso) it joins Fl I at the lower octave, with the first note tied pre-sumably to a nonexistent g ’’ from the previous bar. We adopt the solution found in pUS-Cso, integrating a unison entry with Ott at 662. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) follows A (RI1913 has no tie at the beginning of 663).

662/4th Ott, Cor III–IV, Trb III, Vni I A: accents missing for Ott, Cor, and Trb, while Vni I have a caret; we modify the caret and supply accents for the other parts in vertical conformity with Fl I and Cl I.

663 Voices A: “cresc.” above S soloist and above S Coro, which we interpret as valid for the other vocal parts as well.

663/4th Ob I A: isolated accent (apart Trbn III, whose part is however quite different); we suppress.

664 Timp A: f (or possibly ff) between the two , vertically aligned with the ff for Cb (see Note 664/3rd) but unconfirmed for any other part; we suppress.

664/1st–2nd Trb III A: isolated slur; we suppress.664/3rd Cb A: ff, likely residual from an earlier provi-

sional version and unconfirmed for any other part; we suppress.

664/3rd–4th Trb I A: isolated slur; we suppress.664/4th Trbn I A: caret for the last note missing; we

supply in vertical conformity with Ob I, Cl II, Cor III, and Trb I.

666–668/1st Ms A: slur only for the first two at 666; we extend in vertical conformity with S soloist.

668/3rd–670/1st Ms, T A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with S.

670/3rd–672/1st S soloist, Ms A: each part has two slurs: the first one at 670/3rd–4th, followed by an-other at 671/1st–672/1st; we modify to match the single slur for T soloist, which confirms the pattern established at 666–668/1st and 668/3rd–670/1st.

677–679/1st Vc 2nd part A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb.

679–680 Ms, B soloist A: slur missing for Ms, while B soloist has two slur fragments that are not con-gruent with the slurs for S soloist; nonetheless GV’s intentions are confirmed by the concomi-tant slurs for Cl and Fg, which parts double Ms and B respectively.

679/1st Ob, Cl A: p missing; we extend vertically from Fg.

681 Coro A: dim. symbol only above S, presumably intended for all of the choral parts. Also, there are no staccati for C, and they are present only for the first two notes in S and T; we supply where missing in vertical conformity with B.

681 Orch A: incongruent articulation for the descending eighth-note figure: Cl have both staccati and accents, Vni II only staccati, and Vle have no articulation at all; we adjust and supply accents in vertical conformity with the complete models GV marked for Fg and Vc.

In addition, Cl and Fg are marked f, but there is no apparent reason that they should exceed the mf GV carefully wrote for each choral part.

681–682/1st Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fg I–II (from 681/3rd Fg III–IV = Fg I–II).

682 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: dim. symbols missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I and II.

682–683/1st Solo Voices A: S soloist has two slurs, both the long one and a shorter slur beneath it for 682/3rd–4th; T soloist has only the shorter slur; Ms and B soloist have no slurs whatsoever. Given that the shorter slur does not appear in any previous enunciation of this melodic phrase, we opt for the longer slur of S and extend it to the other parts.

682–683/1st S and C Coro A: perhaps distracted by the page turn (recto to verso) between 681 and 682, GV forgot to supply the text for these parts. We integrate what seems to be the only possible solution, given that (after the obvious “[requi]-em” at 682/1st) the four syllables of “do-na e-is” would be one too many for the three notes available. All of the examined sources agree.

683 Vni II A: , in which the g is obvi-

ously anerror. We eliminate the note and adjust the resulting rhythmic apportionment of the repeated b to match the notation for Vni I and Vle; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) simply replaced the abbreviated g with b instead.

683/3rd–685/1st, 685/3rd–687/1st B soloist, B Coro A: nei-ther slur is present for B soloist, while B Coro has the first slur but only the beginning of the second at 685/3rd–4th, interrupted by a change of page (verso to recto) between 685 and 686.

Page 51: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

49© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

Given that both T soloist and T Coro have slurs at 684–685/1st and 686–687/1st, we complete the second slur for B Coro and supply both slurs for B soloist without typographical distinction.

686–687/1st Cor A: slurs for both pairs missing; we sup-ply to match the identical 684–685/1st.

688–691 Ms A: mistakenly notated for alto rather than soprano clef.

689–690 Vni II, Vc A: slurs missing; we supply to match the identical 687–688.

693 Voices A: “calando” only above S soloist, in-tended for all of the vocal parts.

695 Vni A: ppp for Vni I, pp for Vni II. We find ppp the more plausible choice, given that GV marked both parts pp at 697. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) also has ppp for both parts here (but see Note 697–699).

•697– 699 A: missing and divergent dynamics: – 697: p for Trb III–IV, Vle, and Vc; we adopt

and uniformly extend the prevailing pp for all instruments while maintaining p (and f) as in A for the voices. I-Mr gave ppp to all instru-ments from Vni I (at the top of the system) down to Gr C with the exception of Vle (pp), while for the voices, Vc, and Cb it follows the dynamic indications in A. RI1875 has ppp for all instruments but follows A for the voices. RI1913 has ppp for all parts but S and C Coro, which were consequently reduced from f to p. RI1964 returned to the reading of A, although curi-ously substituting ppp for the strings;

– 698/1st: f only for Vni I and S soloist, presum-ably a general indication which would be con-cordant with the f for S and C Coro (without a cresc.) at 697; we (like RI1913) extend to all parts but the aforesaid S and C Coro;

– 699/1st: ppp for Vni I, pp for Fl, Ob, Timp (on 3rd), Vle, Vc, and Cb; we (like RI1875 → RI1913) adopt and uniformly extend the prevailing pp.

N. 3 OffertorioSA, vol. II, pp. (1–2 rubric) 3 –52 (52 empty)

E

Violini [I] [II]Viole[2] FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti in Si[2] Corni in Mi ; at 129 in Fa; at 163 in Mi[2] Corni in La ; at 129 in Do; at 163 in La

[2] Trombe in Mi[2] Trombe in Mi2 Fagotti2 Fagotti[3] TromboniOficleideTimpani[empty][empty]SopranoMezzo SopranoTenoreBassoVioloncelliBassi

T

GV wrote “Offertorio” in the center top margin of p. 3, with “Messa da morto” to the left of it and “n.° 3 / G. Verdi / 1874” to the right.

R M

164–185 A: marked by GV as the reprise of 90–111 (with the bars numbered from 1 to 22) for all but the voices, Vc, and Cb, which GV wrote out in full.

C N

2–3 Vc A: the slur extends slightly over the barline between 2 and 3; we adjust to match the model at 6.

15 Vc A: p above the stave, ppp below; all second-ary sources report ppp.

25 Vc A: there is a vertical mark above the second note, possibly part of a caret left incomplete for lack of ink.

•28 –29 Ms A: GV set “[glo]-riae” as a dipthong beneath the at 29, but it is unlikely that he intended a different disposition of the text from T, who moves here in parallel thirds with Ms. I-Mr, RI1875, and rRI1874 all follow A, while rRIms adjusts as in this edition. RI1913 further compli-cates the situation, erroneously anticipating T’s syllable “[glo]-ri-[ae]” to the on 28/4th.

28/3rd T A: natural sign missing for the d’, added by GV in purple ink in I-Mr.

32–46 Vni I–II, Vle A: the usual slurs are missing; our model for their integration is present at 31 (Vle), but the figures could also possibly be slurred in groups of two bars each (or two figures) rather than one. RI1913 supplies them as in this edition.

33–34 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Ob I; we also sup-ply the missing caret at 33/4th by analogy with

Page 52: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

50 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

its prevailing presence elsewhere within this melodic figure.

35/3rd Ob I, Cl I A: GV marked a slur for Ob II, which is not present in any of the secondary sources. We accept it and extend it logically to both Ob I and Cl I, supported by the similar phrasing for Ob I–II at 39.

35/4th Fg I, Vc A: accent rather than the prevailing caret found elsewhere within this melodic figure.

37/4th Ob I, Cl I A: accent rather than a caret for Ob I, and no articulation for Cl I.

38–39 Fg III A: GV neglected to continue the cresc. symbol from 38, the last bar on a verso, to 39 on the next page; we correct the lapsus in con-formity with the model at 34–35. I-Mr omit-ted the crescendo altogether, transmitting this error to RI1875.

39 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the unison Ob I.

39–40 Fg I A: GV marked two slurs, one for each bar, rather than a single slur as at 35–36; believing the difference to be unintentional, we adjust 39–40 to match, supported by the vertical pres-ence of a two-bar slur marked for the unison Vc. I-Mr (→ RI1875) dutifully copied A (see also Note 43–44).

39/4th Vc A: caret missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the unison Fg I.

41–42 Vc A: tie missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Vle.

41/4th Cl I A: caret missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Ob I.

43 Ob II A: slur missing: we supply by analogy with 39.

43–44 Fg I, Vc A: GV marked two slurs, one for each bar, rather than a single slur as at 35–36 (Fg) and 39–40 (Vc), which divergence was probably prompted by an intervening page turn between 43 and 44. I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A, spawning inconsistencies in RI1913.

45–46 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the unison Ob I.

49/4th Ms, Vni I A: caret; we substitute an accent in vertical conformity with the other similar instrumental parts and with B.

51–52 Fg II, IV A: ties missing, but clearly implied.51/5th–6th Fg, Cor III–IV A: staccati missing; we supply in

vertical conformity with Vle, and Cb (Vc = Cb), but also with B.

•54 A: GV originally wrote f for the entrances of T and Ms but he then erased both dynamics, evi-dently because they had become incompatible with the p he meticulously marked for nearly all of the instrumental parts (with the excep-tion of pp for Fg I; see Note 54/4th). None of the secondary sources supplies vocal dynamic

indications here, such that they consequently continue f (see Ms at 49) against the p marked for the instruments.

54/4th Fg I A: anomalous pp; we adjust for vertical conformity with the p marked for the other instruments (most notably Vc–Cb, who proceed in unison with Fg I).

54/4th–58/1st Vc–Cb A: slur missing: we supply in verti-cal conformity with the unison Fg I, supported by RI1875.

56/5th T A: obligatory missing for the a.58/2nd–60/1st Fg I A: one single slur; we adjust to match

the vertical model marked for Vc, as well as the analogous slurs marked for both Fg I and Vc at 60/2nd–62/1st.

58/6th, 60/6th B A: obligatory missing for the B.59–60/1st Vni I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical

conformity with Vle, Vc, and Cb, and to match the analogous 61–62/1st.

61 Strings A: GV wrote “ancora più piano” for Vni I alone; considering it to be a general dynamic indication already supplied for Fg and Vc at 60, we extend it here to Vni II, Vle, and Cb.

61–62 Ms, T, B A: GV left 62 empty following a page turn, perhaps because he had been concentrat-ing on the part for S, who enters here for the first time as protagonist of a passage that was itself the focus of considerable attention (see Note 63–67). Our integrations come from I-Mr, where they were added in a hand which is neither that of GV nor of the copyist; the other secondary sources adopted them as well. At 61 GV wrote the syllable “obs-” for all three vocal parts, presumably reflecting an erroneous divi-sion of the word “ob-scurum”. I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A, while rRIms and all of the printed sources correct GV’s oversight.

62/1st Vni II, Vle A: c’ for Vni II and g for Vle, but at 61 (on the previous page) GV had written g for Vni II followed by a tie, thereby suggesting another g at 62/1st, and d for Vle, which would more logically descend stepwise to c. Our correction is supported by I-Mr, which first reflected the reading of A but was then erased and modified.

63 2 Vni A: the slur begins just before the f ’’’; I-Mr and RI1875 follow A, while rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 adjust it to match the repetition at 65.

63/4th–66 Vni I A: slurs missing, and from 64th/1st the staccati are missing as well; we extend both from the vertical model marked for Vni II.

•63 – 67 A, I-Mr: the reading of A was modified by GV in I-Mr to become the version found as a footnote in the score of this edition (see the facsimile edition of this page of I-Mr in Rosen, Introduction, p. LXXII):

Page 53: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

51© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

– he erased the dim. symbol for S at 65 – 66 and extended the cresc. to the end of 66 in purple ink;

– he crossed out the cresc./dim. symbols for the “Due Vni” at 63 – 64 and 65 – 66, replacing them with one long general cresc. symbol marked above and below the Vni staves in pencil, along with the instruction “cresc. sempre” at 65 – 66;

– he may possibly have added the various ppp in pencil for all of the parts at the beginning of 67.

Unlike the passage in N. 2 (“Tuba mirum”, 127–128), where the correction to I-Mr also appears in A (see N. 2, Note 127–129), in this case GV’s modification of I-Mr was not entered into A. This implies a definitive status to the reading in I-Mr, which would consequently supersede the version in A. Nonetheless, it is not clear why the reading in I-Mr was not absorbed into the vocal score: rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A, whereas RI1875 and RI1913 follow I-Mr (RI1964 would return to the reading of A). Obviously the vocal tradition of the Messa da requiem was more heavily influenced by the vocal scores than the full scores; such a correc-tion, therefore, if considered definitive by the composer, should have been carried over im-mediately into the reduction (at least for rRI1875 and successive editions). That this is not in fact the case seems to suggest that GV’s interven-tion in I-Mr was conditioned by some specific circumstance whose origins we can no longer trace, one that would not necessarily require an adjustment of all the deriative material and above all of A, which GV almost certainly had with him at the time. In addition, the version in I-Mr is in many ways less convincing and expressive than that found in A (the messa di voce concluding in diminuendo on the e ’’ – and the new tonality by way of direct modulation – is much more effective than an abrupt ppp immediately after a general crescendo). Given these considerations, we prefer to make both versions available in the score, with the read-ing of A and that of I-Mr as first and second choices respectively.

67–68 S A: there is a slur in addition to the tie, rem-nant of an earlier cancelled version of these two bars.

69–72 Vni I A: missing or imprecisely marked slurs: in particular, the single six-note slurs found at 69 and 71, no slur at 70, and one three-note slur for the first half of 72. We adjust to match the vertical model GV marked for Vni II.

72 Ob I, Cl I A: cresc. symbols missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl.

73–75 Fg III–IV A: in addition to the tie between 73

and 74, a slur stretches from the beginning of 74 into the margin beyond 75 (the last bar on the page); we adjust as a logical sequence of consecutive ties.

73–75 Vle A: slurs and staccati missing (73/4th–6th and 75/4th–6th = 73/1st–3rd and 75/1st–3rd; 74 = 73); we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I and II.

76 – 80 A: a cresc. symbol marked above the 2 Vni begins just after the downbeat of 76, while the one for Fg III–IV begins at 78; neverthe-less those marked above the vocal parts begin precisely at 77, confirmed by Cl. I-Mr does nothing to clarify the situation; in rRIms (and thus rRI1874) the crescendo begins for the voices at 77, and for the piano reduction at 78; RI1875 (→ RI1913) begins the crescendo at 76.

76 – 81 Orch A: slurs are largely present in desultory fashion for the beamed eighth notes, but GV did mark them meticulously for Cl (76 –77/3rd) and 2 Vni (77–78); given the apparent clarity of his intentions, we integrate the missing slurs based upon these models. I-Mr attempted a partial integration, though misunderstanding a slur for 2 Vni at 77 and consequently proposing slurs on 5th | 1st (rather than 4th | 6th), which were then transmitted to RI1875 (→ RI1913). rRIms (and thus rRI1874) proposes the same type of phrasing in the piano reduction (right hand) and extends it to 79–81 as well.

77/4th–6th, 78/4th–6th Vle A: slurs missing for the tremolo figures; we extend from the model of 76/4th–6th.

78/1st–4th 2 Vni A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.79, 80 Fg I A: both slurs reach to the (I-Mr follows

A; RI1875 [→ RI1913] also supplies the longer slurs at 81 for Fg I and Fg III); we adjust in vertical conformity with T and the models provided by Cl II and Ms at 76 and 77.

79–81 Fg II A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb.

81 Fg I, III A: slurs missing; we extend from Fg I (79, 80; but see Note), and in conformity with the prevailing model.

•82 Vni I RI1875 (→ RI1913): marked “pizz.” from the first dyad (I-Mr and pRI have no prescription, as in A). At the beginning of 82 GV had indeed erased something but it could quite possibly have been a superfluous “arco” indication. In any case, the addition of “pizz.” is unfounded here and would only compromise the subtle hocket effect between Vni I arco and Vni II pizz. that GV had previously assayed in the duetto finale of Rigoletto (“Lassù in cielo”, 201–206), as perceptively observed by Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. 85, Note 82– 85).

83–84 S A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.

Page 54: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

52 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

84–85 Fl II A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.85 Orch A: GV wrote “dim. sempre” only in

correspondence with Trb I–II, and “dim.” for assorted others that conclude similarly at 86/1st. Clearly the instruction was intended to apply to all of these parts, even though it has no practical interpretive impact. We accept and extend it as a supplementary reminder to continue the diminuendo.

86/1st Fl II A: ; I-Mr, pUS-Cso, and RI1875 (→ RI1913) concur with our modification, in vertical conformity with the other instruments that conclude similarly at 86/1st.

87 A: “poco allarg.” appears only beneath Fl.89, 91, 93, 95 Winds A: staccati missing at 89 (Fg) and 93

(Ob, Cl, Fg, Cor III–IV), while the carets are present for all parts; our model for the articula-tion is found at 91 (Fg I–II [III–IV = I–II]) and 95 (Fl, Ob, Cl).

89 – 97 Woodwinds, Cor III–IV A: at 93 – 95/1st Ob II, Cl [II], and Cor III–IV have one long slur rather than two; at 89 – 91/1st Fg [II] (Fg [IV] = Fg [II]) has two slurs (as in this edition), followed by only one slur at 91 for the last three ; and at 95 – 97/1st Fl, Ott, Ob, and Cl have two slurs (though this was possibly due to a change of page midway, from a verso to a recto). We adopt the two-slur solution throughout, notwith-standing the concurrent single long slur for the vocal parts; such differences between vocal and instrumental phrasing are fairly common in this repertory. I-Mr and RI1875 (→ RI1913) follow A despite the incongruences; rRIms (and therefore rRI1874) opted for the single slur.

89/2nd–97/1st B, T, Ms A: lacunose and inconsistent phrasing:

– 89/2nd–4th, 91/2nd–93/1st B: slurs missing; – 93/2nd–95/1st T: slur only for the first three ; – 95/2nd–97/1st Ms: slur beginning only from

the at 96. Given GV’s obvious intentions, we normalize

the slurs for these repeated phrases moving (after the initial statement) in parallel thirds.

91/1st B A: GV distractedly wrote f (with a staccato) following a page turn, rather than resolving the seventh b to the third a (in I-Mr the error was signaled in pencil, while in RI1875 it re-mained uncorrected; for all of the other sources the note is a ).

91/2nd–3rd T A: staccati missing; we supply from the prevailing model.

93/4th T A: staccato rather than the prevailing caret.95/2nd–3rd Ms A: staccati missing; we supply from the

prevailing model.97/2nd–111, 171/2nd–185 S, T A: differences in phrasing

and articulation (for the accents, see Note 101, 106, 111). None of the six enunciations of this

melody provides a complete model for the phrasing; our proposal is based on a balanced comparison of all six examples (see the relative single Notes for more detail).

97/2nd–102/1st, 102/2nd–107/1st, 107/2nd–111 Orch A: divergent phrasing for these three analogous passages, due largely to GV’s inevitable impre-cision in marking long slurs where the ink ran thin too quickly, forcing him to use different pen strokes or simply leave the slur incom-plete. As a result it is not possible to identify one definitive model for all three passages. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913, which resolves only the most obvious irregularities) reproduces the same inconsistencies present in A. Insofar as a piano reduction may prove helpful for resolv-ing orchestral issues, the following interesting solution is found in rRIms (→ rRI1874):

– for the first passage (97/2nd–102/1st), an ini-tial slur (both hands) concludes at 100/1st and another begins on 2nd, based on GV’s mark-ings in A for Vni I;

– for the second passage (102/2nd–107/1st), there is a single long slur in the bass;

– for the third passage (107/2nd–111/1st), one slur concludes at 109/4th and another begins at 110/1st, unlike the reading of A. This same configuration appears at 171–185).

We prefer to interpret GV’s phrase markings in A in terms of their musical function, proposing slurs derived from clear and incontrovertible evidence, and comparing them with the corre-sponding passages at 171/2nd–176/1st, 176/2nd–181/1st, and 181/2nd–185, where Vc and Cb are written out in full (see Note 164 –185):

– at 97/2nd–102/1st, the slur for Vni I is bro-ken by a page turn between 99 and 100 (99 is the last bar of a recto); the slur for Vni II stops there and does not continue. GV’s intention to produce one single slur for the entire passage was realized for Vc (and confirmed at the cor-responding 171/2nd–176/1st);

– at 102/2nd–107/1st, the slurs are again inter-rupted, this time between a verso (103 is the last bar on the page) and a recto, but here there is no doubt that a single long slur was intend-ed, as can be seen for Fl [I] (notwithstanding the four different pen strokes), Ob, and Vc (see also the corresponding 176/2nd–181/1st);

– at 107/2nd–111, the slurs are marked in a more lacunose manner, yet the model is quite clear: those for Fl, Ott, and Fg I and III, requir-ing four pen strokes each and interrupted after the first one by a page turn (between 107 and 108), conclude at 111/1st (also applicable to Fg II and IV). After the first two pen strokes for Ob, Cl, and Cor, the slurs disappear altogether. Vc

Page 55: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

53© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

and Cb have a slur for the first three ; after the page turn there is nothing more for Cb, while Vc’s slur continues to the beginning of 109, where GV marked the part in unison with Cb (at the corresponding 181/2nd–185 there are no slurs whatsoever for either Vc or Cb). We extend the slurs for Vc and Cb from their unison counterparts, Fg II and IV.

99/2nd–4th Vc A, I-Mr, RI1875: there is an additional slur with no apparent musical justification; we sup-press, supported by RI1913.

100 –101/1st S A: a slur for all five ; the secondary sources follow A, but we prefer the phrasing at the corresponding 174 and 179, which seems a better match for the text setting.

101 S, 106 T, 111 S A: only one accent is present, at 106/2nd; in the reprise of the passage (164 –185 = 90 –111) there is one accent at 175/3rd (S) and 180/3rd (T), while at 185/2nd–3rd (S) both accents are present. Given the orchestral confirmation of this last example at 101 and 106, we extend it to all similar passages. The nineteenth-century sources generally reflect the reading of A. RI1875 follows A without change; I-Mr also follows A, but with the addition of an accent at 101/2nd, as at 106, and the omis-sion of the accent at 180/3rd. rRIms attempted a partial rectification of the inconsistencies and lacunae: like I-Mr, there is an accent at 101/2nd, and in the reprise it again echoes I-Mr, but at 175 the accent is moved to 2nd in conformity with 101 (there are no accents at 180, also like I-Mr). rRI1874 follows rRIms, adding only a single accent at 180/2nd. RI1913 preferred the consistent application of a single accent on 3rd in all six bars (therefore ignoring the one in A on 185/2nd).

104 T A: one slur for the four , unlike the parallel 99, 109, 173, 178, and 183. I-Mr (→ RI1875) has one full-bar slur at 109 as well, transmitting the error to the subsequent printed editions.

106/2nd Cl I-II A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the other woodwinds, and by analogy with Vni II at 101.

108 B A: slurs missing; we supply to match the identical 182.

109/2nd–111/2nd Vle A: staccati missing, an obvious oversight.

110 Vni II A: staccati missing, an obvious oversight.110/1st–2nd T A: ; we modify to match 184; all of the

secondary sources follow A.110/2nd–4th Cl I–II A, I-Mr: isolated accents; we sup-

press.•110/4th S A: the accent is present also in I-Mr, RI1875,

and rRIms [→ rRI1874], but not RI1913; we extend it to the identical 184 as well.

111/2nd–3rd (185 = 111) Orch A: few accents were marked;

we supply those for Ob I and Cl I in vertical thematic conformity with Ott and Fl, while for the non-thematic parts our model are Fg, with accents on 2nd and 3rd (Cor have accents on 3rd alone). I-Mr (→ RI1875

→ RI1913) follows A for all but the accent on 2nd for Fg.

111/2nd–3rd, 185/2nd–3rd Voices: we suggest the accents for all voices based on the model GV marked for S at 185 (see Note 101, 106, 111), in vertical conformity with the instrumental parts (but see also Note 111/2nd–3rd Orch). None of the sources we have consulted does likewise.

112 A: isolated accent between the staves for Cor III–IV and Trb I–II; we omit.

112–118 Timp A: GV provided no accidental for the G. Given the impossibility of calling for a chromatic change of pitch during the continu-ous roll, he apparently determined that Timp should “enter” on a dissonance at 112 that would “exit” as a consonance with the change of harmony at 115, thereby underscoring the “tension – release” dialectic of the cadential passage. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; pUS-Cso has a at 112 and a at 115, but both are later additions.

114–117 A: GV originally marked dim. symbols at 114–115 above S, above B, and beneath Cb, pos-sibly during preparation of the skeleton score; he subsequently erased them, but an isolated supplemental “dim.” lingers in A at 115 above S. We suppress, along with “sempre” GV wrote before the “dim.” at 117 for S and Cb, evidently referring back to the now-eliminated diminu-endi at 115. rRIms routinely copied both indica-tions (→ rRI1874 extends the “dim.” at 115 to T as well), while I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) omits only the “dim.” at 115.

118 Voices A: pp above S alone, but presumably valid for the other voices as well.

118 Vni, Vle A: GV marked one dim. symbol between Vni I and Vni II; we assign it to Vni II (there is no reason to believe it was intended it for Vni I, given the absence of a diminuendo for any other instrument with a ) and extend it for vertical conformity to Vle.

•118 –119 Vni II, Vle I-Mr: at 118 the copyist inexplicably wrote f in place of the ppp, and at 119 there is a dim. symbol ending in ppp at the beginning of 120. RI1875 did not absorb this misunder-standing but it was transmitted to RI1913, with the addition of two curious dim. symbols for Vni I (from RI1875) and Vle at 118. The proof sheets for a Ricordi edition of 1955 (Archivio Storico Ricordi) contain corrections in pencil that restore the reading of A but they were entered imprecisely, such that both the 1955

Page 56: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

54 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

edition and RI1964 still have a senseless dim. symbol for Vle before the ppp. This issue is not an entirely irrelevant one: in many of the recordings that are currently available, in fact, there is clearly an f at 118/3rd, which, while not in itself an unpleasant effect (nor even lacking a certain appeal), is nonetheless entirely extra-neous to the composer’s intentions. rRIms (and thus rRI1874) have pp rather than the ppp in A.

120/4th T A: there is faint evidence of a pen stroke sug-gesting a slur; we integrate it by analogy with the model at 130 (B).

124 –125 T A: GV neglected to complete the slur from 123 following a page turn; we integrate the missing portion by analogy with the model (transposed) at 134 –135 (B).

126–127 A: “animando un poco” is present only above T.127, 137, 149 A: the cresc.-dim. symbols in these bars

were not consistently drawn. For the vocal parts the peak of the messa di voce roughly cor-responds to the on 4th in all three bars (see Notes 127/4th and 149/4th). In the instrumental parts it generally occurs on 3rd, but with sig-nificant exceptions: 127/4th (Vc), and especially 149/4th (Vni II, Vle), where GV’s adjustment of the dim. symbol for T (see Note 149/4th) con-firms his intentions beyond any doubt.

127/4th T A: the cresc. symbol reaches up to the and the following dim. symbol extends beyond the barline into the right margin of the page (127 is the last bar of a verso). It would appear that GV then modified the cresc. symbol with heavier pen strokes, interrupting it at the instead. We adjust to match the model he marked at 137 (B) (see also Note 127, 137, 149).

128 Vc A: p; we modify to pp in vertical conformity with Vni II and Vle.

131 [Ott] A: dynamic indication missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl.

131–132, 135 –136, 139 –140, 142–143 [Ott], Fl A: at 132, fol-lowing a page turn, GV did not continue the slurs from 131 (where the one for Fl extends well into the right margin of the page); rather, the two dyads for Fl at 132 and 136 are in-dependently slurred. Nonetheless we may reasonably hypothesize that, by virtue of their supporting role for S and Ms from 131 to 143, [Ott] and Fl should reflect the same phrasing here and elsewhere in this passage. Conse-quently at 142–143, where S and Ms have no slurs, we refrain from suggesting them for [Ott] and Fl. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) has only the slurs at 132 and 136 (the phrasing for S and Ms is lacunose as well); pUS-Cso follows I-Mr.

•131–148 A: just before the downbeat at 131, GV wrote “col Flauto” for the part notated on the fifth stave; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored its

presence altogether, while pUS-Cso assigned the part to Ott. On the other hand, rRIms (→ rRI1874) rigorously respected GV’s instruc-tion, consequently realizing the reduction at written pitch (transposing it an octave higher would have simplified the notational configu-ration). RI1964 assigned the part to Fl. Rosen suppresses the instruction, postulating that “V[erdi]’s indication presumably means noth-ing more than that Fl and Ott are playing as a group”,35 although if such were the case GV would perhaps have written “coi Flauti” instead. Fl may well seem the preferable choice from an orchestrational point of view, thereby rendering the texture more complete and bal-anced (whereas Ott, while largely doubling Fl I, would disturb the thematic design at 132 and 136 [see S and Ms] and occasionally be forced to descend past its most effective register [see 140, 145]). Even so, there is no additional evi-dence in A allowing us to accept “col Flauto” without reservation: neither a previous “prende Fl” instruction, nor a “prende Ott” in the bars that follow. We therefore leave the informed performer free to decide which of the two choices seems the more practical musical solu-tion.

132/3rd–135 B A: there is a gap in the slur at 133/1st. At the analogous 122–125 (T) it continues to the end of 123, although its conclusion is missing following a page turn (see Note 124–125). The concomitant slurs for Cl and Cor also suggest an unbroken solution.

•139/4th–142/2nd T rRIms: the copyist probably inter-preted the faint slur for Ms at 140 as though it were intended for T and extended it through the entire phrase; neither I-Mr nor RI1875 reflect this reading, but it was transmitted to all of the printed editions.

140 S A: the conclusion of the slur is missing following a page turn, and the one for Ms is barely legible; as a result I-Mr (→ RI1875) ends the slurs at 139, while rRIms (→ rRI1874) extends them to 140.

142–144/2nd Vni II A: no slur for the tremolo.143 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: slur missing; we supply in

vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), which reinforce the bass line.

•144 T rRIms: the slur extends to the end of the bar, transmitted to all of the printed editions (it is not present in I-Mr or RI1875).

147 Ott, Fl, Ob A: ppp for Fl missing, as is “dolcis-simo” for Ott and Ob, both of which we supply for vertical conformity among these three parts.

148 Vni I A: in GV’s original notation the duration

35 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .

Page 57: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

55© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

of the harmonic is indicated by the touched pitch rather than the stopped pitch, unlike modern usage (see the footnote for 147 in the score). At 148 he specified a duration of , which we modify to in vertical conformity with [Ott], Fl, and Ob as well as S, Ms, and B. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) added the but with-out halving the rhythmic value of the note.

149/4th T A: GV modified the dim. symbol, probably from a longer one originally reaching nearly to the end of 150, drawing a shorter, darker one over it that ends here (and perhaps also adding at this time the pp at 150/1st); in its definitive form it corresponds to the models roughly marked at 127 (T) and more clearly at 137 (B) (see also Note 127, 137, 149). rRIms (→ rRI1874) has the earlier, longer dim. symbol; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) omitted all expressive indi-cations; RI1964 did reintegrate them but rather inconsistently, opting here for the shorter dim. symbol.

150 Vni II, Vle, Vc A: differing dynamics for these parts: p for Vni II and Vle, pp for Vc. I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A, while RI1913 modified Vc to p. Given the “sempre pianissimo” GV wrote beneath Cb at 151, we opt for pp (see also Note 151).

151 Orch A: lacunae in the dynamics: pp for Cor III–IV (151/1st) and Fl (151/3rd), and “sempre pianissimo” beneath Cb, which could be inter-preted as a global indication. I-Mr = A; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has an additional pp for Ob and Cor I–II. Confirmation of the general pp is found at 152 for Ms and B.

151 Vni II A: the slur extends to the last note of the bar; we adjust to match 153.

151–154 Voices A: GV systematically wrote “fac eis” rather than the correct “fac eas” (see also Note 160–161).

151/3rd–152/1st Fl A: missing accent for the and tie between the two ; we supply both in vertical conformity with the unison Cl. There is, how-ever, a slur between the and at 151, which we suppress as isolated without confirmation either in Cl here or at 153.

151/4th Vni II A: caret missing; we supply from the identical 153.

152/2nd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply from the identical 154.

152/3rd–4th T A: faint evidence of a probable partial slur above the f’ and e ’; we supply from the identi-cal 154.

153/3rd Fl, Cl A: accent missing; we supply from the identical 151 (Cl) and by analogy with the caret marked for the unison Vni I.

153/4th Vle A: caret missing; we supply from the iden-tical 151.

154 Vni I A: slurs missing; we supply from the identical 152.

154 Vc A: isolated cresc. symbol; we suppress.155 Cor III–IV A: isolated p in a general pp con-

text; we suppress, supported by I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913).

156–159 Ms A: text missing; our integration is support-ed by rRIms and RI1875. I-Mr incorrectly set the syllable “[mor]-te” beneath the first at 157.

156/1st–2nd Vni II A: slur missing.156/3rd–157/2nd S A: GV marked the slur with two pen

strokes but their union into one continuous phrase seems self-evident, as is supported by the analogous phrase for Vni II. None of the sources correctly construed the composer’s intentions.

157 Vc, Cb A: in both parts the slur begins on 2nd; we adjust for vertical conformity with Fg.

157/2nd T, B A: the staccati for B beneath the slur are not entirely certain, due to corrections GV made while the ink was still fresh; nonethe-less both I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) and rRIms (→ rRI1874) agree with our interpretation. Analogously, we suggest the same articulation be extended to T as well.

159 Fl, Cor I–II A: a second, superfluous “Solo” for these parts; we suppress.

160 B A: “sottovoce” alone, which was omitted in I-Mr and rRIms (→ rRI1874) but reinstated in RI1875; RI1913 has the complete instruction (“sot-tovoce parlando”).

160–161 Voices A: “fac eis” rather than “fac eas” (see also Note 151–154). I-Mr repeats GV’s error; rRIms and RI1875 correct it.

162 T A: staccati and slur missing for the three ; we supply in vertical conformity with S and Ms.

•163 –171/1st Voices A: GV meticulously marked the f for each vocal entrance in this reprise, almost as if the tone of the text were intended to vindicate the previous statement at 89ff; even the carets at 163/4th (B), 165/4th (T), 167/4th (accents for T and Ms), and 169/4th (S) are carefully notated. Consequently his systematic omission of stacca-ti and slurs (with the exception of the one slur at 164 –165/1st [= 90 – 91/1st]) – notwithstand-ing a general tendency to supply articulation and phrasing for reprised passages in a more summary, lacunose, and approximate manner – actually seems to suggest a different, more suitable interpretation of this iteration. Indeed, certain notational nuances for the voice become scarcely plausible in an f dynamic context: such as the slurred staccati, which are much more effective when sung more softly (a factor that does not influence the instrumental parts; see Note 164 –185). Therefore, although not without

Page 58: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

56 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

some reservation, we preserve the reading of A, only extending the slur at 164 –165/1st (B) to the analogous 166 –167/1st (T), 168 –169/1st (Ms), and 170 –171/1st (S). I-Mr and RI1875 follow A with an occasional omission; RI1913 adopted f along with the phrasing and articulation from 89ff; rRIms accepted only the f at 163, other-wise straying (rather unusually) from A with a somewhat careless regard for phrasing and articulation that generated inconsistencies in rRI1874.

164 –166 Vc A (→ I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913): one sin-gle slur, rather than one for each pair of as at 90 – 92 (see also Note 164 –185 below); we consider GV’s notation of the Vc and Cb parts in this reprise of 90 –111 to serve as more of a general guide, and therefore extend the model of 90 – 92 here.

164 –185 A: using numbers from 1 to 22, GV marked this passage as the reprise of 90 –111 with only the voices, Vc, and Cb written out in full. Here, however, the f he wrote for each vocal entrance (see Note 163 –171/1st) implies an adjustment of the orchestral dynamic as well, which was p at 89 (Fg) and unspecified at 163. We there-fore extend the f for the voices to the instru-ments. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) wrote out the orchestral parts at 164 –185 but left the dynamic imbalance unresolved. Both I-Mr and rRIms have mf at 176, by analogy with the mf in A at 102; we suggest its anticipation to 171 (as at 97).

At 181/2nd–185/1st the slurs for Vc and Cb (from 182 Vc = Cb) are missing (as might be expected, since the notation of the bass parts in a reprise serve primarily as a guide and are therefore less detailed); at the correspond-ing 107/2nd–111/1st there are partial slurs at 107–108, but in any case they may be ex-trapolated from the unison Fg parts (see Note 97/2nd–102/1st, 102/2nd–107/1st, 107/2nd–111). We provide an exact reprise of 107/2nd–111/1st for the instruments here, including Vc–Cb.

165/4th B, 169/4th Ms A: caret missing; we supply from the corresponding 91 and 95.

167/4th Ms A: accent rather than caret.168 B A: slur on 2nd–4th; we modify to match the

corresponsing 94.172 S A: GV erroneously set the two syllables of

“olim” on 1st and 3rd while completely ne-glecting to set “Abra-[hae]”, even though the last syllable of the name duly appears on the downbeat of 173, following a page turn. What seem to be the outer fragments of an interrupt-ed slur over the four at 172 are probably the result of a single pen stroke. Indeed, I-Mr ex-tends the beginning of the slur back to 171/2nd; rRIms (→ rRI1874), on the other hand, has only

one shorter slur, over 172/1st–2nd (also at 98). In any case, were the fragments two hypotheti-cal slurs, they would only apply to the incor-rect setting of the text.

173/3rd–4th S A: staccati and a slur; we suppress to match the corresponding 99.

175/2nd S, 180/2nd T: for the suggested accents, see Note 101.

184/4th S: for the suggested accent, see Note 110/4th.•185/3rd– 4th S RI1913: in this source (and all successive

editions) the two were corrected to conform vertically with the of Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl I, and Vni I. However, I-Mr (→ RI1875) and rRIms (→ rRI1874) maintain the difference, evidently deliberately since (unlike A) the instruments were copied out in full for the reprise (185=111). In A the part for S here and in the previous bars was written with considerable attention to detail (and no sign of uncertainty or second thoughts; even more, right at the beginning of 186 GV stopped to correct the dynamics for the voices; see Note 186). Thus there is no reason to believe that the two for S were a mistake, but we cannot know whether GV’s failure to bring the orchestral parts into conformity with S was an oversight. Because the divergence is entirely plausible, we preserve it.

186 A: all four voices were originally ff, then me-ticulously corrected to f. Despite the unequivo-cal nature of GV’s change in A, I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) and rRIms (→ rRI1874) curiously main-tain ff. We accept the differentiation between dynamic levels for the voices and the orchestra, bringing the f GV wrote between Trbn and Of and the fff for Cb into vertical conformity with the general orchestral ff, and supplying the missing dynamic for Timp.

186, 188 Vni, Vle A: inconsistent phrasing and articula-tion; the complete model is found at 187.

191 Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Ott, Fl, and Ob.

191, 193 S, Ms A: at 191 S and Ms both have an ad-ditional slur above the last two ; at 193 S has one four-note slur while Ms has one above the last two , apparently to guarantee a cor-rect enunciation of the text (that is, the dialefe “[Abra-]hae et”). We accept this latter sug-gestion, omitting the shorter slurs at 191 but replacing the longer slur for S at 193 with two shorter ones.

193 Fl, Cl A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Ott and Ob, and by analogy with 191.

•194 Trbn, Of, Timp A: the dynamics that GV wrote between the staves for Trbn and Of (pp) and beneath Timp (ppp) may seem dispropor-tionately low with respect to the general ff

Page 59: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

57© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

established at 186; but it would be precipitate to dismiss them as an egregious error if in fact he wanted the contribution of these instru-ments to function in terms of background color and emerge only toward the end of the dim. for the other winds. Though perhaps a single p would have been sufficient, evidently the desired effect was particularly dear to him. We therefore preserve his “excess” of notational prudence in the conviction that it may prove useful for modern orchestras as well. Among the secondary sources, pUS-Cso also faithfully follows A; I-Mr (→ RI1875) took the Timp ppp as the model for Trbn and Of, which possibly influenced RI1913 to extend ppp to the remain-ing winds; RI1964 anticipated the p from 195 instead.

194–195/1st Fl I, Fg II, Trbn II A: ties missing, an obvious oversight.

198 A, I-Mr: no tempo indication; rRIms, RI1875, and all printed sources have “Come prima”.

200ff Vle A: “sulla 4a corda” is intended to mean “on the fourth string alone”, since only the b and a could be played on the third string.

200–205 Voices (Ms = S) A: divergent phrasing with slurs sometimes broken into two pen strokes, one per bar; nevertheless there are clearly marked two-bar slurs that indisputably con-firm GV’s intentions, further corroborated by Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle, and Ob (Cl have a broken slur at 200–201). The notational ambi-guity in A generated similar incongruencies in rRIms (→ rRI1874) and in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913 with integrations). Of particular note in the printed sources is the curious decision to create one-bar slurs for 200–203 followed by a single slur for 204–205.

200/4th Ms, T A: carets missing.204 Winds A: Cl have pp above the stave and

ppp below, the latter in agreement with the strings and voices. This same pp/ppp disparity is also found among the lower winds, which is difficult to justify for parts that are mov-ing in unison or octaves. It is true that only Of can obtain a ppp in that register, while for Fg II and IV a ppp on B  1 would be extremely arduous. Yet Trbn I–III also have pp despite the fact that they could easily play ppp (even by reducing their sounding number to I or I–II on the B ). I-Mr (→ RI1875) opted for a verti-cally uniform ppp; RI1913 did likewise, adding however an unnecessary dim. symbol.

•204 –205 Timp A: these empty bars immediately follow a page turn. While it is possible that GV simply forgot to continue the roll from the previous page, it is also highly plausible that its inter-ruption was intentional, given the diminish-

ing dynamic level. We therefore preserve the reading of A without alteration, as do I-Mr and pUS-Cso. RI1875 continued the roll, concluding it with the same rhythmic disposition as Fg, Trbn, and Of; RI1913 followed RI1875 but ne-glected to add the cuts to the stems of the two notes.

206–207 Strings A: GV wrote the full dynamic indica-tion “pp morendo” for Cb alone; Vni I have only “morendo”, but his intentions are indis-putably clear. RI1875 = ppp for Vni I; RI1913 = ppp for all strings; RI1964 = pp.

Staccati missing for Cb; we supply in vertical conformity with the upper string.

•208 S I-Mr, rRIms: both sources confused a line GV added beneath “legato e dolcissimo” for a slur, transmitting this error to the printed edi-tions.

•210 –211 A: the cresc.-dim. symbols only beneath B alone, while the slurs are marked for Ms alone. I-Mr, rRIms, and rRI1875 dutifully fol-low A; RI1875 (→ RI1913) extended the dynamic symbols to all of the voices, including S. rRIms also misread the “f” of “fac” as the dynamic f, transmitting the error to rRI1874 .

•219 Strings RI1875 (→ RI1913): ppp for all string parts. We maintain GV’s pppp for Cb, which ensures a dynamic balance with the muted (“con sordini”) pp of the other strings, par-ticularly Vc moving homorhythmically at the upper octave.

219–221 Cb A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Vc.

221–222 Vle A: tie missing, an obvious oversight (al-ready corrected in I-Mr).

N. 4 SanctusSA, vol. II, pp. (53 –54 rubric) 55 – 84 (84 empty)

E

Violini [I] [II][Viole]2. FlautiOttavino

2. Oboe 1. 2.

2 Clarinetti / in Si 1. 2.

Corni [2] in Fa [2] in Do

4. Trombe / in Do [I–II] [III–IV]

Page 60: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

58 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

4. Fagotti [I–II] [III–IV][3] TromboniOficleideTimpani [Soprani]

1: Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi] [Soprani]

2.do Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi]VioloncelliBassi

T

On p. 55 GV wrote “Sanctus” in the top center margin, and “n.° 4 / G. Verdi / 1874” to the right of it.

C N

7–8/1st Fl I A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.8 Voices A: punctuation missing. Each successive

entrance of “Sanctus…” begins with a capital letter, thereby implying a period here (present only in RI1913), though it perhaps seems ill suited to the suspended nature of the ca-dence.

9 –33 Voices A: lacunae and discrepancies in the phrasing and articulation of this fugal episode; our model is a composite derived from the various enunciations of the subject and two countersubjects. Given GV’s decidedly incon-sistent and frequently indiscriminate mixture of accents and carets (significantly, both rRIms [→ rRI1874] and RI1913 chose to apply accents throughout), we normalize the articulation for similarly functioning melodic segments, adjusting case by case as necessary (see Note 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32). In the individual critical notes we will report only the most significant divergences from our model for phrasing and articulation.

9 –33/1st Orch A: lacunae, divergences, and incongru-ences in the phrasing and articulation (for the articulation see Note 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 and Note 21/2nd–22). While the passage that moves progressively through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II (14 –18), Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) – the only instrumental contribution to this fugal episode that was not directly derived from the vocal lines – was carefully notated, leaving no room for doubt regarding the composer’s intentions, there is otherwise a general imprecision in the phrasing for the instruments, which largely

function as vocal support. Presumably GV orchestrated this episode rather hurriedly, and the secondary sources are of no assistance in resolving the various incongruences. We will therefore begin with a discussion of the individual obbligato wind parts as a means of establishing uniform models precisely where these ambiguities are most evident. Subse-quently we will address the free string parts, which largely “migrate” in association with one or another of the winds.

– Subject of the fugato: For the most part the main body of the subject is marked with a generic slur, with the incipit sometimes in-cluded, sometimes not (or partially). While the corresponding vocal parts provide no clues, GV did indicate a single slur beginning from 17 for Fg I and Cor I, and from the on 21/2nd for Cor [III] and Vni I. These two statements (particularly Fg I and Vni I) offer a reasonably complete and convincingly musical model, that can be extended to include the decidedly problematic fourth bar of the subject as well: in the majority of statements this bar has a single slur for all four , apparently influenced by the obbligato strings (Vni I [12], Vni II [16], Vle [20], Vc [24]) but not the concurrent 2 + 2 slurs in the vocal parts. Even though 2 + 2 slurs for the instruments only appear three out of six times, and always in conjunction with the single slur, we find them to be the more cogent and detailed solution, further supported by their vertical conformity with the vocal parts. For the fifth and last bar of the subject, we uni-formly supply the slur from the example GV marked at 17 for Cl I, and by analogy with the only vocal example, for S Coro I at 13.

– Countersubject I: GV marked a fairly clear model for the phrasing at 10 –17 for Ob II, and its essential features remain the same there-after (if anything there are lacunae, some of them significant, such as for Fg II at 18 –25). Only the first two bars are a source of some puzzlement: there is a slur beneath the notes of 10, but also a slur over 10 –11. Subsequent instrumental iterations do little to dispel the confusion: Fg IV has the longer slur at 22–23, but at 26 –27 Ob II has only the one shorter slur for 26, while at 30 –31 Cl II has a slur for each bar. We have opted for two single-bar slurs in conformity with S Coro II at 10 –11 and B Coro II at 22–23 (S Coro I at 26 –27, and C Coro I at 30 –31, with different text [“Pleni sunt”], tend to support this decision: at 26 –27 there are two pen strokes, though perhaps indicating a con-tinuous slur; at 30 –31 there is only the shorter slur for 30).

Page 61: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

59© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

– Countersubject II: Here again the first exposi-tion of this material, for Ob I at 14 –21, is the most complete and consistent model. While the length of the first slur for the countersubject is not clear, GV did carry its conclusion to 21/1st for Cl I, and it ends precisely at 33/1st for Trb I. In any case, there is nearly always a slur in some position over the first three bars of the second countersubject wherever it occurs. Because the accents for the fourth and fifth syncopated bars are amply and clearly marked, leaving no room for doubt, we have tacitly supplied them in all enunciations (they are completely missing only for Cl I at 21–22 and Fg III at 29 –30). Finally, regarding the antipe-nultimate and penultimate bars consisting of 1) four , the first of which is tied to the last note of the previous bar; and 2) four , the second and fourth with carets: only once in four state-ments does 1) appear with a slur for the four notes (Cl I, 23), which we consequently ignore; while for 2) we adopt the prevailing single slur rather than the 2 + 2 slurs marked only for Vni II at 24 (against a single slur for Cl I) and Fg III at 32 (against a single slur for Vc).

– Strings: As noted above, the passage mov-ing progressively through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II (14 –18), Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) was very carefully notated and therefore presents no problems. Otherwise the strings variously as-semble segments of the fugato into a continu-ous linear configuration (which also influences to some degree the choice of dynamics: see be-low). Phrasing and articulation for the strings therefore follow, where logically applicable, the models provided by the concurrent wind parts.

– Dynamics: GV sparsely supplied three differ-ent dynamics: mf for the subject (only once, at 9 for S Coro I) and p for the first countersubject (at 10 for S Coro II and Ob II), plus pp for the secondary string figuration (Vle at 18 and Vc at 22). Since the strings function in terms of inter-connective support – even the repeated pro-gression through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II (14 –18), Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) is fundamentally an embellished variant of the first part of the first countersubject – it makes sense that they should remain more in the background, as a kind of contrapuntal “safety net”. In the absence of additional evidence, we adopt pp as the base dynamic for the strings, leaving the interpreter free to bring out particular seg-ments of the ongoing interchange as desired (especially where the strings have a complete statement of the subject: Vni I at 21–25, Vni II at 25 –29, and Vle at 29 –33).

For the winds, we propose the same two dy-

namic levels GV marked in the vocal parts for the subject (mf) and the first countersubject (p, further supported by the aforementioned p he wrote at 10 for Ob II). At 26 (Ott and Ob I) and at 30 (Fl and Cl I), where the embellished variant of the first countersubject moves from the strings to the winds, we similarly maintain the original pp (both the register and choice of instruments guarantee that even at that dynamic level it will be sufficiently perceptible within the gen-eral symphonic-choral context).

In the following critical notes we will report only the most significant divergences from our model.

9, 10 S Coro I, S Coro II A: the dynamics GV marked at the beginning of the fugato for S Coro I (mf) and S Coro II (p) do not appear again for subsequent entrances of the subject and first countersubject. Nevertheless his intentions are clear.

9 –13/1st Ob I A: GV used two pen strokes for the slur: the first begins at 9/3rd and reaches to the end of 10, while the second begins at 11/1st and ends at 13/1st; we adjust to match the model established in Note 9 –33/1st (see the section “Subject of the fugato”).

•11 Vni I, 27 Ob I, 31 Fl A: slur for the first two eighth notes; rRIms (→ rRI1874) omits in all three in-stances. I-Mr preserves it at 11 and 31 (but not at 27, where Ob I = Ott), RI1875 only at 11. RI1913 has the slur at 11 without the first two staccati and extends this solution to the analogous 15 (Vni II), 19 (Vle), and 23 (Vc), but not 27 (Ott, Ob I) or 31 (Fl). Instead RI1964 extends it to 27 and 31 as well, transmitting this version to the relative extracted parts. While perhaps worthy of consideration as a logical alternative read-ing, it remains extraneous to this edition.

12 S Coro II A: an additional slur over the entire bar, which we suppress.

12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 A: inconsistently marked accents and carets on 2nd and 4th (see Note 9–33 Voices), differing from our models for the subject (car-ets), first countersubject (accents), and second countersubject (carets) as follows:

– 12: accents for S Coro I (subject) and Ob I (subject) (perhaps originally carets); carets for Vni I (first countersubject);

– 16: accent on 2nd for Cl I (subject) and caret on 4th for Cl II (first countersubject); carets for Vni II (variant first countersubject);

– 20: caret on 4th for T Coro II (first counter-subject) (Vle [variant first countersubject] per-haps originally had carets corrected to accents), otherwise in conformity with our models, clearly confirmed by Fg I ([subject] carets) and

Page 62: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

60 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

Fg II ([first countersubject] accents), both of which were notated on the same stave);

– 24: various lacunae but otherwise in con-formity with our models;

– 28: carets for S Coro I (first countersubject); accents for Vni II (subject) and Vle (second countersubject);

– 32: accents for Trb III (subject), Fg III (second countersubject), and Vle (subject).

13ff Voices MI1874: the exclamation mark after “Sa-baoth”, which GV added from time to time in A, is not present.

13 –16 Cl I A: the longer slur begins from 14, follow-ing a page turn; RI1875 maintain this reading, while I-Mr and RI1913 initiates the slur at 13. At 16 there is one slur for the four , which we modify in conformity with the model estab-lished in Note 9 –33/1st (see “Subject of the fugato”).

14 Vni II A: only “staccate”; we modify to match the “leggere and staccate” GV wrote for Vni I at 10.

17/1st Ob I A: the slur does not end here but rather extends to 18/1st; I-Mr and RI1913 concludes it at 17/2nd. We adjust in conformity with the model established in Note 9 –33/1st (see “Coun-tersubject II”).

17/2nd–18 Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Ob I (see also Note 21/2nd–22).

18 Vle A: “leggere e staccate” is not present; we supply by analogy with GV’s instruction for Vni I at 10.

19–20 Cor I A: the slur at 19 extends into 20, while the slurs and articulation in 20 are missing; we adjust in vertical conformity with Fg I (see also Note 9–33/1st, “Subject of the fugato”).

19/3rd–4th T Coro I A: isolated slur for the two , al-ready suppressed in I-Mr and rRIms.

21–25 Cor [III] A: the part has single stems but no “solo” indication; in pUS-Cso Cor IV does not play.

21–24 Fg III, Cor [III] A: divergent and incongruent slurs between the two equivalent parts; we modify in conformity with the model estab-lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Subject of the fugato”).

21/2nd–22 Cl I, Vni II, 29/2nd–30 Fg III, Vc A: accents missing; we supply by analogy with Fg I at 25/2nd–26, which in turn follows Ob I at 17/2nd–18 (where however the accent on 18/4th is missing).

21/3rd–4th Vni I A: isolated staccati for the two ; we suppress, as do all of the examined secondary sources.

22 Vc A: only “staccate”; we modify to match the “leggere and staccate” GV wrote for Vni I at 10.

22–23 Fg IV A: one single slur; we adjust in conform-ity with the model established in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject I”).

23 Cl I A: isolated slur for the four ; we suppress in conformity with the model established in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject II”).

23/4th T Coro I A: b . GV originally wrote a (sound-ing) B or an E in all corresponding passages of the fugato (15/4th, 19/4th, 23/4th, 27/4th, and 31/4th), subsequently correcting each of the rel-ative vocal and instrumental parts but this one to a G or C (including the g for Fg I here). The oversight was transmitted to I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913 → RI1964) and rRIms (→ rRI1874).

•23/4th Vc A: isolated caret; we suppress. In addition, the slur begins on the downbeat of 24 follow-ing a page turn; we modify in conformity with Vni II at 15/4th–16 and the analogous Vni I at 11/4th–12 and Vle at 19/4th–20. RI1913 chose instead to limit these slurs to the four of 12, 16, 20, and 24; RI1964 follows the reading of A.

24 C Coro I A: a single slur for the four and no carets, reflected in the examined secondary sources as well; we adjust in conformity with the analogous S Coro I at 20, T Coro I at 28, and B Coro I at 32.

24 Vni II A: two slurs, one for each pair of ; we adjust in conformity with the model estab-lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject II”).

24/1st T Coro I A: “et” missing, an obvious oversight.24/2nd Fg I, 28/2nd Fg III, Vni I A: accent missing; we

supply in conformity with the analogous Ob I at 16 and Cl I at 20.

25/2nd–26 Vle A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Fg I (see also Note 21/2nd–22).

26–29/1st Fg III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I.

27–28 Trb I A: slur for these bars only; we adjust in accordance with the model established in Note 9 –33/1st (see “Subject of the fugato”).

28/2nd Fg III, Vni I A: accent missing; we supply by analogy with the similar 20 (Cl I).

29–31 Trb III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vle, as per the model estab-lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Subject of the fugato”).

31–32/1st Ob II A: slur missing; we supply in accordance with the model established in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject I”).

32 Fg III A: two slurs, one for each pair of ; we adjust in accordance with the model estab-lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject II”).

32/3rd Fg IV A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor III–IV.

Page 63: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

61© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

32/4th–33 Orch A: missing and divergent dynamics: at 32/4th, f for Fg I–II and Vni I; at 33/1st, ff for Cb and Vni I (written next the f of 32/4th); at 33/3rd, f for Cor I–II and Of, ff for Timp; and at 33/4th, f for Trb I. RI1913 chose to differentiate by applying ff to the strings and f to the winds and Timp. We opt for a uniform ff, in balanced rapport with the ff for the voices.

33/3rd–40 Fg, Cor A: accents missing, with the exception of Fg III–IV at 33/3rd–4th and 37/3rd–4th; we supply all others in vertical conformity with Trbn and Of.

33/4th S Coro II A: ff missing, but GV’s intentions are clear.

34/1st S Coro II A: accent missing; we supply in con-formity with the previous (T Coro II at 33) and subsequent analogous statements (e.g., C Coro II at 35 and T Coro I at 37).

34/3rd–35/1st, 35/3rd–36/1st Ott (Fl II = Ott), Ob II, Cl II A: slurs missing, but the phrasing for this polyphonic passage is clear and complete in the concurrent exchange between Vni I and II.

35 Ott (Fl II = Ott), Ob, Cl A: accents missing on 2nd (Ott, Ob II, Cl II) and 4th (Ob I, Cl I); we supply in vertical conformity with Vni II on 2nd and Vni I (Fl I = Vni I) on 4th.

35/4th–36/1st Ob I, Cl I A: tie missing; we supply in ver-tical conformity with Vni I (Fl I = Vni I).

36, 40 Trb II–IV A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Trbn and Of.

37/1st Fl I–II A: only c’’’; but given that Fl II = Ott from 34/3rd, we suggest resolving the b ’’ from 36/4th in like manner, therefore to a’’ instead. I-Mr follows A, while pUS-Cso and RI1875 make the same correction.

37/1st Of A: isolated accent; we suppress.37/3rd– 4th T and B Coro I A: accents missing; we supply

to match T and B Coro II at 33.37/3rd–39 Orch A: missing slurs and accents; we supply

to match 33/3rd–35.38–39 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni I A: accents missing (also

absent in the examined secondary sources); we supply to match 34–35.

38/4th C Coro I A: ff missing, but GV’s intentions are clear.

39/1st C Coro I A: accent missing; we supply to match C Coro II at 35.

41 Ob I A: the slur begins only after the (as it does for S Coro II: see Note 41– 44).

41– 44 S Coro II A:

I-Mr and rRIms (→ rRI1874) follow A (see also Note 41–55). This is another of various exam-ples (both vocal and instrumental) where GV seems to have traced the slur in an approxi-

mate manner, generically indicating the legato execution of a phrase. If its actual limits were to be rigidly respected, one would have to begin the slur after the first note of 41 ( ) and conclude it between the two syllables of “ve-nit” (43); RI1875 (→ RI1913) only partially rectifies this problem by prolonging the slur to 43/3rd. We prefer to support the natural enunciation of the text by means of one all-inclusive slur up to the tonic accent on “no-[mine]”, in vertical conformity with the slur for Ob I.

41–55 Voices, Winds A: few slurs are present, perhaps because GV intended the ones he marked at 41– 44 for S Coro II and Ob I as models for all similar passages of this imitative episode (I-Mr and rRIms [→ rRI1874] ignore the suggestion but RI1875 [→ RI1913] applies them throughout). Nevertheless the two examples at 41– 44 are not entirely in agreement with one another. We propose a coherent model (see Note 41– 44), extending it to C Coro II and Cl II at 45 – 48 and using it as a template for all similar phrases while preserving and interpreting the few original examples GV marked in A (for exam-ple, S Coro I at 44 and 45 – 47).

45–46 S Coro II A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.45–48 C Coro II A: slur missing; we supply to match

our previous solution for S Coro II (see Note 41–44).

45 – 48 Cl II A: the slur only includes the three ; we modify to match Ob I at 41– 44 (see Note 41–55).

45/1st Cl II, 46/1st Fg I A: accents; we suppress, for rea-sons explained in Note 50 –54 below.

46 Fg I A: the slur only begins from the follow-ing bar; we modify by analogy with the model established in Note 41–55.

47–53 Vni I, Vle A: scattered staccati appear in passages marked “pizz.” (which was perhaps added later); we suppress them as incompat-ible. I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A, but they are already absent in RI1913.

49 –51/3rd S Coro I A: the slur is marked generically, from 49/4th to 51/1st; we modify by analogy with the model established in Note 41–55.

49/1st Vni II A: staccati rather than a slur.50 –54 A: a scattered handful of accents seems to be

the evidence of a certain indecision, which is clarified immediately after when the head of the subject is accented in concomitance with the new forte dynamic. Only two accents appear in the vocal parts, at 50/1st (C Coro I) and 53/4th (C Coro II), both of which are not present in rRIms (→ rRI1874). For the instru-ments they appear a bit more frequently: at 50/1st, 3rd, 4th (Ob II), at 52/1st (Ob I), and at 54/1st (Fg [III]). I-Mr has only the one at 54/1st

Page 64: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

62 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

(and no vocal accents), RI1875 omits the ones at 50/1st (Ob II), 53/4th (C Coro II), and 54/1st (Fg [III]). RI1913 omits them altogether, and RI1964 strangely reports only those at 50/3rd– 4th (Ob II). Though not without some reservation, our preference is to suppress these accents, with the understanding that they can be reinstated and properly extended by the performer if so desired.

57–58 A: divergent dynamics. Clearly GV intended to differentiate between the dynamic for Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, and Vni (f) and that for the instru-ments carrying the bass line (ff). On the other hand, it seems strange that he would have given an f to almost all of the parts, whether vocal or instrumental, that have the thematic incipit (only Cor I–II at 57 and Cor III–IV at 58 have ff). We see no reason to maintain this distinction, modifying the latter to ff as well. RI1913 does likewise.

•57–58, 61– 63 Timp pUS-Cso: accents (their absence in 59 seems to have been a lapsus). Apparently the copyist was misled by the fact that in A (as in I-Mr and probably also in the master copy of parts from wich was copied pUS-Cso) the accents for Of are quite close to the notes for Timp on the stave immediately beneath. RI1913 interpreted them in the same manner.

57/1st–2nd Vni II A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I.

57/3rd–4th Trb III–IV A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Cor I–II, and by analogy with 61.

57/3rd–4th Fg I–II A: accents missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with the unison Fg III–IV, Trbn, and Of.

•58, 62 Cor III–IV, Trb I–II; 59, 63 Fg I, Trbn I A: accents missing for these bars corresponding to the incipit “benedi-[ctus]”. While the instruments need not necessarily follow the same articula-tion as the voices (for example, RI1913 has no accents in these parts), there are analogous accents on 3rd and 4th in A at 57 (Cor I–II) and 61 (Trb III–IV) (RI1964 also supplies them on every 3rd and 4th here). The accent on 1st (present for C Coro II at 57) is consistent with the accents present for those instruments that carry the bass line.

58–60, 62–64 Fg, Trbn, Of A: assorted missing accents for the parts carrying the bass line in these two equivalent passages (for those accents rela-tive to the thematic elements, see the previous Note); GV’s intentions can nonetheless be easily inferred through direct comparison of the two passages, allowing us to supply the missing accents.

•60, 64 Ob I, Cl I, Vni I A: accents occasionally missing

on 3rd and 4th: for Vni I (Ott, Fl, Vni II = Vni I) there is an accent only on 4th in both bars; Ob I (Ob II = Ob I) and Cl I (Cl II = Cl I) have both accents at 64 but none at 60. I-Mr follows A but omits the accents at 64 for Ob I. RI1913 have only the accents on 4th (for Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni I–II) at 60 and 64, omitting those on 3rd.

60, 64 Vle A: 60/1st–2nd is abbreviated as with a cut through the stem but only three staccati, and at the corresponding point in 64 there are no stac-cati at all; we supply all four repeated eighth notes with staccati in both bars. Curiously, RI1875 (→ RI1913) has staccati at 64 but not at 60.

61/3rd–4th Cor I–II A: accents missing; we supply in ver-tical conformity with the unison Trb III–IV.

63 Cor III–IV A: accent also on the first , but un-confirmed either at 59 or by the similar Trb I–II here; we suppress.

64 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati for the four ; we replace with accents as at 60 (RI1913 had already made this same correction).

64/3rd–4th Vle A: accents missing; we supply to match their presence at 60.

65/1st Ott, Fl II, Ob II, Cl II A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Trb III–IV.

65/1st Fl I A: also reflected in the secondary sources (though transposed an octave higher in pUS-Cso); we modify to in vertical conform-ity with Ob I and Cl I.

66 Ob II, Cl II, Trb III–IV A: both accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Ott (Fl II = Ott).

66 Fg I and III, Trbn I A: accents missing; we sup-ply in vertical conformity with the unison Trb I–II.

67–68 Ob II, Trb III A: tie missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Ott (Fl II = Ott) and Cl II.

69 –73 Fg A: GV mistakenly wrote three parts on the stave for Fg I–II, while on the one for Fg III–IV he wrote “unis[ono]” followed by the stand-ard oblique slash used to indicate derivative content. Our solution is supported by pUS-Cso and RI1875 (→ RI1913).

70 –71 Vni I A: at 69/3rd– 4th GV wrote with a cut through the stem and four staccati above it, but he marked no articulation for the similarly ab-breviated with a cut beneath them at 70 –71; unlike any of the secondary sources, we sug-gest the addition of staccati at 70 –71.

72/1st Vle A: the stem of the has no cut, presumably an oversight; we supply, supported by RI1875 and RI1913.

72/2nd–74 Winds A: various missing or partial slurs; in particular, the precise model for Fg, Cor, Trb III–IV, Trbn, and Of (whose phrasing is very

Page 65: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

63© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

lacunose) is provided by Cb, where the slur extends from 72/2nd (slicing through three consecutive accents for the on 2nd–4th, evidently cancelling them in the process) to the d at 73. We therefore adopt this slur without typographical distinction as clearly representa-tive of GV’s general intentions.

73 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), Cb (Vc = Cb) A: dim. symbol for Fg I–II, accent for Cb (RI1875 follows A); we replace the dim. symbol for Fg I–II with an accent in vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb) and extend to Trbn and Of, sup-ported by RI1964. RI1913 ignores both symbols in A.

73/3rd– 4th Vle A: at 73 the notation for Vle is analogous to that for Vni I at 69, but without the staccati at 3rd–4th; no source adds them.

74 C Coro I, C Coro II A: following a page turn GV mistakenly wrote “[benedi]-ctus” (“-tus” for C Coro II), rather than “[Domi]-ni”; the correct syllable is already present in I-Mr and rRIms.

74/1st Cb (Vc = Cb) A: d ’ following a page turn (72/2nd–73 were originally written an octave higher); I-Mr and RI1875 follows A, but in RI1913 GV’s oversight was already corrected.

•75 Trbn, Of RI1875: empty bar; in RI1913 rather than , corrected in RI1964.

75 Of A: isolated accent; we suppress.76 B Coro II RI1913: pp; we preserve the p in A

(idem I-Mr) as reflecting GV’s plausible inten-tion that the part for B Coro II part be more distinctly heard than the other voices.

76 Cor [IV], 77 Ob I A: p missing; we supply in agree-ment with the p for Cor I and Fl I at 75.

76 Vni II, Vle A: p missing.76–79 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: slur missing; we supply in

vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II).

79 B Coro I A: p (written in the left margin beside this first measure on the page); we modify in vertical conformity with the pp for the other parts of Coro I.

79 Cl A: GV wrote “es[pressivo]” only above Cl I.79 – 85, 87– 93 Cl I, II A: differently marked slurs between

Cl I and II in these two passages. For Cl I GV used two pen strokes in each passage, clearly meant to be one continuous slur (at 87– 93 the interruption occurs over a change of page between 88 and 89, from a verso to a recto). For Cl II he marked only the first part of each slur, which however exactly corresponds to the length of the first pen stroke for Cl I. We therefore complete the slurs for Cl II in verti-cal conformity with Cl I. None of the exam-ined secondary sources suggests a convincing solution: in particular, all of them (including

RI1913 and RI1964) have two slurs for the second passage, reflecting the page break between 88 and 89 in A.

82–83 T Coro II A: GV, apparently in a moment of distraction, marked the tie but then wiped it away.

82–83 Cor I, 83–84 Cor II A: ties missing; we supply both, with reference to the example of T Coro I for Cor I.

85 Fg I–II A: superfluous p; we suppress.87– 93, 103 –109 S Coro I A: the slur for the first of these

two equivalent melodic passages begins only from 89, the first bar of a recto (a gap between 88 and 89 in the slur for Cl I was caused by this same change of page; see Note 79 – 85, 87– 93). Analogously, at 103 –109 (see also the relative Note below) the slur for S Coro I begins from 104, this time the first bar on a verso. When compared to the previous example at 79ff, where the slur begins from the first bar of the passage, it seems clear that GV intended these slurs to begin from the first bar as well. None of the examined secondary sources sup-plies a coherent solution.

88–91 Cor I–II A: ties missing; we supply by analogy with the similar (though not equivalent) 80–84, as well as T Coro II here.

89/1st–2nd Vni I A: staccati missing.91–92 Cor [III] A: accents rather than carets; we

modify by analogy with 83–84 (Cor [III] dou-bles T Coro I at both 83–84 and 91–92, and the carets are also vertically supported by Cl I and S Coro I).

93–95 S and B Coro II, Ob, Fg A: the slurs begin from 94, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso); we begin them at 93 by analogy with other similar phrases (such as 97–99).

96–97 Cor IV A: tie missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor II, where it is faint but unequivocal (even so, all of the examined sec-ondary sources ignore it but pUS-Cso, which however did not extend it to Cor IV).

96/4th Vc A: accent missing; we supply to match its presence at 100. RI1913 has neither accent, while RI1964 has both.

100–101/1st Vc A: the slur extends to the first eighth note of 101, which has no staccato; we adjust the slur to match 96 and supply the missing stac-cato at 101/1st.

103 Coro I A: “espressivo” appears for only S and C.103 Ott A: the bar was originally empty with the f’’

added later in pencil, perhaps in another hand. I-Mr misinterpreted the situation by supplying a here and even at 104; pUS-Cso and RI1875 (→ RI1913) integrated correctly.

103–104 Fg II–IV, Cor III A: ties missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor I–II.

Page 66: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

64 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

103 –109 Winds A: lacunose and divergent indications for the slurs, which GV began only from 104 following a page turn (recto to verso), or other-wise completely omitted with the exception of Ob I, whose slur actually begins at 103 but disappears thereafter (it should be remembered that 103 was originally an empty bar for Ott; see the relative Note). Since his intentions seem sufficiently clear, we uniformly extend and otherwise supply all relevant slurs beginning from 103.

Analogous problems arise at 109, the first bar of a recto, where GV neglected to conclude those few slurs he had marked on the previ-ous page (for Ob II and Cl I; the slur for Ott concludes properly at 108). Here too, however, there is little doubt that GV intended the slur to reach to the last note of the phrase, as demonstrated by similar examples at 93 for Cl I and S Coro I.

104–109 B Coro II A: the text is missing, complicated by the presence of a tie between 104 and 105. I-Mr simply follows A. We adopt the solution found in rRIms, supported by the examined secondary sources.

107–109 T Coro I A: the slur stops abruptly at 107/1st; we extend its conclusion to coincide with the end of the phrase at 109.

113 Fg, Cor A: pp missing; we supply by analogy with Ob I and Cl I at 111.

113 Vle, 115 Cb A: “arco” missing but indispensable.113/1st Vni II A: a’; we suggest f’ for proper harmonic

support and by analogy with Vle at 115/1st. All of the examined secondary sources but I-Mr do likewise.

•115 –116 A: missing and divergent dynamics. Despite a pre valence of f, GV distinctly marked ff above Vni I (a particularly “authoritative” position at the top of the system), between Ob I and II, and for S Coro I (presumably valid for all of Coro I). We therefore suggest ff for all thematic elements (with the exception of Cor, where GV meticulously marked an f for both pairs of in-struments) and f for the bass line. I-Mr ignored GV’s f for Ott, Fl, and Vni II; RI1875 ignored f for Cor and Cb (Vc = Cb). RI1913 has f for Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl against ff for Vni (otherwise in agreement with this edition).

115/1st Vle A: ; we modify to in vertical conformi-ty with Fg I and Cor I and by analogy with 113/ 1st, supported by rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913.

116 –119 T Coro I A: missing accents; we supply in con-formity with S Coro I.

119/3rd–122 A: accents only for S Coro II (all ), for Fg and Cor (119/3rd–120), and for Vle and Vc–Cb (121–122); notwithstanding the various lacunae, GV’s intentions are clear.

123 Vle, Vc–Cb A: f missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), who are notated in full at 1st–2nd, then instructed to proceed “coi Bassi”.

123/3rd–126 Cl, Cor, Vni A: GV marked few accents for these instruments (only the first three for Vni I and one for Cor III–IV at 124/1st), probably meant in this case as shorthand reminders for their general distribution by analogy with suf-ficiently marked previous passages; we there-fore integrate where missing, confirmed by the single complete model GV marked for Ob I in this passage.

127 Voices A: there is some discrepancy in the dynamic markings, further complicated by the fact that GV’s f and ff are not always distin-guishable from one another. We adopt ff in vertical conformity with its nearly unanimous presence for Orch (the only exceptions are fff for Vni I [Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave] and f for Fg I–II [Fg III–IV = Fg I–II]).

127 Ott, Cor I–II, Of A: also “staccate”, which we suppress as superfluous.

•127–131 Voices A: at 127–128, the last two bars of a recto, GV began slurs for all voices but C Coro I and T Coro II (both however with ties); most of them disappear after the page turn (S and T Coro I have the slur at 129–131), notwithstand-ing the unequivocal implication in the way they are drawn that they should continue to the end of the phrase. The printed secondary sources chose instead to remediate with two separate sets of slurs, one for 127–128 (ties only for C Coro I and T Coro II) and the other for 129–131.

•127/1st Timp I-Mr: the note (c) is not present, perhaps because the copyist interpreted its smeared condition in A as a cancellation; RI1875 and pUS-Cso preserve it, but not RI1913. If GV had intended to eliminate the note he would prob-ably have erased the rests as well, supplying a

for the bar.131/1st Vle A: isolated staccato; we suppress.131/2nd–133 Orch A: many missing accents, particularly

for the syncopated figure in 133, but GV’s intentions are unmistakably clear.

131/2nd–135 Ott A: from 127/3rd Ott is instructed to proceed “col 1° V[iolino]”, but here it makes little sense that GV would have intended the part to fall in the low register (as confirmed by the f’’’ he wrote for Ott at 136/1st). I-Mr follows A; RI1875 (→ RI1913) corrects the reading, but already pUS-Cso had made the proper adjust-ment.

134–135 B Coro I A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.•134–135 Vc, Cb A: GV originally wrote ties for these

parts, but he then smeared them away and

Page 67: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

65© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

marked large accents at 135 instead. I-Mr er-roneously recuperated the ties along with the accents. RI1875 has only the accents; RI1913 has neither. We consider the accents to be both intentional and convincing, and extend them to the other bass parts (Fg, Of).

135 A: GV marked only four large fermatas, for S Coro I, Cl I, Cor I, and Vni I. rRIms(→ rRI1874) and RI1875 misread the one over S Coro I as a slur for 134–136/1st and extended it to T Coro I as well (→ RI1913 has slurs at 135 for the instru-mental parts with two notes, without fermatas; RI1964 converted them all to standard fermatas over the ). I-Mr ignored the large fermata for S Coro I and interpreted the other three for Cl I, Cor I, and Vni I as slurs. The correct reading is found in pUS-Cso.

135–136/1st Fg III A: GV wrote a tie; all the examined secondary sources omit it.

•136 Ott, Fl A: accents missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Vni I. I-Mr ignored them, while RI1913 extended them vertically to all parts.

N. 5 Agnus DeiSA, vol. II, pp. (85 – 86 rubric) 87–106 (105 –106 empty)

E

Violini [I] [II]Viole2. FlautiOttavino [but actually Fl III for the entire number][2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti in Do

Corni [2] in / Fa [2] in / Do

Fagotti 2. 2.[empty]SopranoMezzo Soprano [Soprani]

Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi]VioloncelliBassiAt 46 GV notated Fl I, II, and III on staves 4–6

T

On p. 87 GV wrote “Agnus Dei” in the top center margin and “n.° 5 / G. Verdi / 1874” to the right of it.

C N

1 A: “Soli” above S soloist and below Ms.•1ff Voices A: divergent slurs, both vertically and

horizontally, for the six enunciations of the theme, four of them complete (A-B-A’-C) and two partial (A’-C), for which it is not possible to identify models that would justify such breadth of variation. I-Mr generally reflects the same incongruencies found in A; rRIms and all of the printed sources normalized the slurs vertically but not horizontally. As is often the case in A, however, these irregularities seem likely to have been influenced by either or both of the following factors: 1) page breaks (the readings in all of the examined sources betray interruptions that reflect this factor to some degree); 2) GV’s habit of marking longer slurs with multiple pen strokes, complicated by a general tendency toward imprecision. While our solution may be viewed as a debatable compromise, possibly at the expense of GV’s more nuanced intentions, we find the greater continuity, consistency, and regularity of the instrumental slurs at 14 –26 to be a reasonably convincing model: in a piece like this one, where the thematic repetitions unfold in a tex-ture of harmonic and orchestral variation, the instrumental parts were more likely to have been written after the vocal parts and therefore enjoyed a more secure and systematic hand. Nonetheless we must qualify this editorial policy with two further considerations:

a) For S soloist and Ms, the slurs for the first three phrases (A-B-A’) are largely compatible with the ones marked for the instruments. In fact, after all instances of page-break interrup-tions are excluded, there is only one explicit divergence, at 46 – 49, where the 4 bars of the first phrase (A) are marked 2 + 2 for both S soloist and Ms (in all other cases at least one of these two solo voices has the same slurs we have adopted in this edition). On the other hand, there is a greater prevalence of shorter slurs for the Coro (particularly at 14 –23, where one-bar and two-bar slurs alternate and overlap without any evident logic), more obvi-ously divergent with respect to the (thematic) instrumental slurs. It cannot automatically be excluded that these shorter slurs for the Coro were intended to provide them with more opportunity to breathe than would have been necessary for the solo voices. However, the strength of this hypothesis is diminished by the presence of single slurs for S and C Coro at 59 – 62/2nd (they stop prematurely at the end of 61 only because of a change of page [verso to recto] between 61 and 62).

Page 68: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

66 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

b) The fourth phrase (C) presents some addi-tional difficulty, apart the conclusive “cadenza piana” which is always phrased the same way (with the exception of missing slurs for S and C Coro at 45). None of the six enunciations of this phrase (beginning on 3rd at 11, 24, 37, 43, 56, and 62) is complete and/or consistent. We adopt the models GV marked for S soloist and Ms at 11/3rd–12 (complete but not entirely con-sistent: see the relative Note) and at 56/3rd–57 (consistent but not complete: see Note 56/3rd–57/2nd), which largely conform with the com-plete and consistent slurs for the instrumental parts at 24/3rd–25. Specific divergences which proved to be problematic are discussed in the following Notes.

1–4 S soloist A: GV almost seems to have intended separate slurs for each of the four words in this phrase (although I-Mr interpreted his three pen strokes at 2–4 as one slur), unlike the single four-bar slur for Ms. If his desire was in-deed to mark a slur for each word, however, it is not confirmed in the two phrases that follow (see also Note 1ff). rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ RI1913) opted for a single four-bar slur.

11/3rd–12 Ms A: one single slur, unconfirmed in succes-sive passages (see Note 1ff, b).

14 Coro, Cb A: pp for C and T Coro, no dynamic for B Coro and Cb; we opt for a uniform ppp in vertical conformity with S Coro and all of the other instruments (the suggested ppp for Solo Cb is meant to be indicative in terms of balance and may be adjusted accordingly).

14–26 Coro A: divergent slurs (see Note 1ff).18–23 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I; Cl = Vni I from 19) A: two

simultaneous sets of divergent slurs for the six bars: as 3 + 3 (two slurs above the part) and as 2 + 2 + 2 (three slurs beneath the part); Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) clearly confirm GV’s inten-tions.

24/3rd–25 Coro A: divergent and missing slurs: for S Coro one slur from 24/3rd to the end of the triplet at 25/3rd; no slur for C Coro; for T Coro a slur at 24/3rd–4th and one for each pair of eighth notes at 25/1st and 2nd; for B Coro a slur only at 24/3rd–4th. No slurs are present at 25/3rd–4th. We adjust to match the models GV marked for S soloist and Ms at 11/3rd–12 and 56/3rd–57 (see Note 1ff, b). Slurs for the subsequent choral iterations of this phrase at 43 and 62 are almost entirely absent.

•26 C and T Coro A: pp, which however makes no sense after the pp at 25; we modify to ppp in vertical conformity with S and B Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874) = pp for all voices; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has no dynamic.

27–30 S soloist, Ms rRI1874: erroneously slurred as 1 + 3

bars, reflecting a page break in A between 27 and 28 (change from verso to recto). In rRIms there is a slur for the two notes of 27 but also one single slur for the four bars, suggesting a revision. RI1875 and RI1913 have a single slur.

29/4th, 36/4th Vle A: caret missing at 29/4th, and both caret and acciaccatura are missing at 36/4th. The presence of an acciaccatura at 29 would seem to suggest that GV intended to treat the Vle part in the same manner as the other instruments that elsewhere double the voices (although in this case Vle do so at the sixth/third). It should not be overlooked, however, that at 30 Vle continue in parallel motion with the voices, while at 37 they do not. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913 supplied a caret at 29, but not the caret and acciaccatura at 36. rRIms (→ rRI1874) has both, in both bars.

34–37/2nd S soloist A: the four bars are slurred 2 + 2 (see Note 1ff).

•37 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with Fl. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) limited the slur for both Fl and Cl to the three eighth notes.

37/1st Vc A, I-Mr, rRIms (→ rRI1874): obligatory miss-ing for the b.

37/3rd–38 S soloist, Ms A: the first slurs for both parts stop at the end of 37, which is the last bar before a change of page (verso to recto); we supply their conclusions at 38 by analogy with the prevalent phrasing elsewhere for the solo voices (see Note 1ff, b). At 38/3rd GV marked the equivalent of a bracket over the triplet “3” for S soloist, which is the reading found in rRIms → rRI1874; RI1913 interpreted it as a slur and extended it to the following note ( ). We modify and extend to Ms according to the model established for this phrase in Note 1ff, b.

•39 Ms A: slur missing. I-Mr follows A; rRIms omit-ted the slur for S soloist and added a curious accent for both parts on 1st, which reading was transmitted to all of the examined printed sources.

39 Cl I A: slur missing.40–41 Ob II A: tie missing, an oversight that was

already corrected in I-Mr and pUS-Cso.40 – 42 B Coro A: GV forgot to write the syllable

“do[-na]” beneath the first c at 40.; then, over the page turn (recto to verso) between 41 and 42, he apparently forgot to add the tie, an oversight that also affected all of the analogous instrumental parts but Vc (Cor II and IV, Fg II and IV, Vle, Cb). Although rRIms and all of the examined printed sources agree with our solution, I-Mr (→ RI1875) chose instead to set “[do]-na” for the at 41 (despite the tie from 40) and “do-[na]” for the first at 42; ties were

Page 69: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

67© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

later added in purple pencil for Fg II and IV and for Cb between 41 and 42.

•41 Fg III A: accent for the b missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cl II, and suggest extending one to Cor III as well. I-Mr and pUS-Cso chose instead to omit the accent for Cl II (as did RI1913).

43/3rd–44/2nd A: no slurs are present for the descend-ing eighth-note figure (for the voices see Note 43/3rd–45); it would appear that GV only concerned himself with supplying slurs for the newer string parts (Vni II, Vc, and Cb), presuming the thematic elements would be phrased as in previous examples. We therefore adopt the model of 24/3rd–25/2nd, and extend the slurs for the newer string parts to the cor-responding winds.

43/3rd– 45 S and C Coro A: slur only for S Coro at 44/3rd– 4th; we supply by analogy with 11/3rd–13 and 56/3rd–57 (S soloist, Ms). See Note 1ff, b.

44/1st Cor II A: the written e’ (= a), which is not pre-sent in any other part, changes the dominant seventh chord into a dubious, but not impossi-ble, ninth chord. We accept it with reservation, suggesting the eventual substitution of written d’ (=g) if so desired. I-Mr, pUS-Cso, RI1875, and RI1913 follow A; in pUS-Cso the e’ (= a) was later corrected to a written c’ (= f). Although of no particular significance, the vocal scores omitted this note.

45 Cl I, Cor II A: slurs missing.46 Fl A: “dolcissimo” above Fl I, p above Fl II,

and pp beneath Fl III, but the similar nature of their ornamental lines does not seem to justify this dynamic differentiation. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A (with the addition of p beneath Fl II); the other examined sources normalized all three parts to p. We find pp to be the more probable choice, since GV marked p for them at 59. While we also suggest extending “dolcis-simo” to Fl II and III, we nonetheless allow for the possibility that GV intended it specifically for Fl I as the part that guides the other two (RI1913 opted for this solution).

46 Fl II A: slur missing, but already integrated in I-Mr and pUS-Cso.

53 Fl I A: two slurs for the eighth notes (4 + 4) rather than one; we modify to match 46.

53–56/2nd S soloist, Ms I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913), rRI1874: 53 is slurred independently from the remainder of the phrase, thanks to a mistaken reading of A where the break between 53 and 54 was caused by a change of page (verso to recto). In rRIms both parts have a slur for 53 but also one that covers the entire phrase, suggesting a subsequent revision (which was not however transmitted to rRI1874).

54/1st Fl II A: the second eighth note is c’’, which produces an unfortunate unison with the similarly descending Fl III. All of the examined sources follow A with the exception of rRIms (→ rRI1874), which corrected it to g’’ as in this edition, possibly simply by copying the identi-cal 47.

56/1st–2nd Fl II A: slur missing.56/3rd–57/2nd Ms A: slur missing (see Note 1ff, b).58 Fl II and III A: all three slurs missing.59 Orch RI1913: pp for all instruments. I-Mr has

pp for Vni and Vle, no dynamics otherwise; rRIms (→ rRI1874) has pp for the right hand (= Vni) and p for the left hand. We preserve the differentiated dynamics between Vni and the remainder of the orchestra as a plausible inter-pretation of GV’s intentions.

59 – 63 Orch A: despite the absence or partial presence of many slurs and assorted ties, complicated by a change of page between 61 and 62 (verso to recto), those few GV did indicate are suffi-cient to reconstruct his intentions. With regard to the thematic elements, there are slurs for the three Fl parts at 59 – 61 (Ob I = Fl II and III from 60; Cl I = Ob I) but none at 62/3rd– 63/2nd, probably a deliberate omission corresponding to the concomitant staccato-legato for Vni. Ties are missing between 60 and 61 for Ob II (Cl II = Ob II), Cor I, and Vle (a’); we supply in verti-cal conformity with Fg I and Cor IV (GV had also marked one for T Coro but then erased it, probably while setting the text). There is a clearly marked slur for Cor I at 59 – 60 (sound-ing g’–g ’–a’), which we extend vertically to Ob II, Cl II, Fg I, Cor IV, and Vle; and one for Cb at 61– 63 (for Fg III–IV only at 61), which we extend to all other homorhythmic parts. I-Mr → RI1875 → RI1913 more or less precisely follow A, with no attempt at integration.

62 Fl A: GV supplied the breath mark between 2nd and 3rd only for Fl I (as he had for S and C Coro); we preserve as an all but inevitable solution, given the length of the phrase, and extend to Fl II and III. It is not present in I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) and pUS-Cso.

63/3rd Orch A: the differentiated dynamics, p and pp, seem to refer respectively to those parts that conclude on this beat and those that continue playing in support of the voices (Fl, Ob I, and Cl I, although Fl I has p). We adopt this solu-tion, which also explains why GV marked pp for those instruments that enter at 64/2nd.

64/2nd–3rd Ob II, Cl II, Vni II A: slurs missing.67 Vni II A: slur missing.71 Orch A: divergent dynamics, p and pp; we opt

for pp in conformity with the voices, whose dynamics GV very precisely marked 63/3rd.

Page 70: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

68 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

71–73/1st Fg, Cor A: slurs missing (also the ties for Cor III–IV).

73 Vni A: “lunga” appears only above Vni I.

N. 6 [Lux æterna]SA, vol. II, pp. (107–108 rubric) 109 –132

E

Violini / primi36

Violini / secondiViole[2] FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti in Si

Corni [2] in Fa [2] in Si […]Trombe [but with no music in this number] […]

Fagotti [I–II] [III–IV][3] TromboniOficleideTimpani[empty] At 43 “Cassa sola scordata”[empty][empty]Mezzo SopranoTenoreBassoVioloncelliBassi

T

On p. 109 provided no title, writing only “n.° 6 / G. Verdi” in the upper right margin.

R M

70–72 GV marked these bars as the repetition of 67–69, numbering them from 1 to 3 and writing out only the voices, Vc, and Cb.

C N

•1 Vni A: it cannot be excluded that the dynamics GV marked for these parts (pp for Vni I, ppp for Vni II) are intentionally differentiated in

36 At the beginning of the piece GV wrote “ Violini divisi a o a o / I secondi come i primi” above Vni I, and “divisi a o a o” above Vni II.

order to give Vni I a slightly greater presence within their combined tremolo. We therefore suggest ppp for Vni I but leave the question of balance between Vni I and II to the discretion of the conductor. All of the examined sources have pp for both parts.

3 Ms A: the first has what could be interpreted as a small caret; it is absent in all of the exam-ined sources.

•4 – 6 Ms A: the cresc.-dim. symbols are not present; we supply them from rRIbozze (see the descrip-tion of this source, p. 4), where their integra-tion by the proofreader was undoubtedly an authorized intervention. The fact that they are present in rRIms could mean that they may have been added by comparison (editorial vali-dation) with this source (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5 – 6), which was probably based on a hypothetical complete continuity draft predat-ing A. rRI1874 (→ RI1913) follow rRIms.

11, 12 Vle, Vc A: pp missing; we extend from 7 (Vni).•11–14 Ms A: after marking a cresc. symbol from 11

to 13/3rd, GV originally followed it with a dim. symbol at 14, the first bar following a page turn (recto to verso). He then rectified this latter symbol by marking cresc.-dim. symbols over it in heavier pen strokes. We interpret the initial cresc. at 14 to be the continuation of the one at 11–13, as GV had clearly marked for the strings. I-Mr (→ RI1875) has only a cresc. symbol at 11–12 and nothing at 13–14. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 also interrupted the first cresc. at the end of 12, but then adopted cresc.-dim. sym-bols at 14; RI1964 extended the first cresc. to the end of 13.

16 Fg, Trbn, Of A: no dynamic for Fg I–II, ppp for Fg III–IV, and pp between the staves for Trbn and Of; we (like RI1913) uniformly supply pp, as at 22.

16–17, 22–23 pf rRIbozze:

originally

In the left margin of the second page, beside the piano reduction of 15, GV wrote: “mi piacerebbe di più il Timpano ò Timpani all’8va sopra ed i Tromboni all’8va sotto… Così…” (I would like Timp an octave higher and Trbn

an octave lower… Thus…):

(A facsimile of this page was published in The Mary Flagler Cary Music Collection, New York, 1970, plate V).

19 T A: p; we modify to pp in vertical conformity with Ms and the established orchestral dynam-ic.

Page 71: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

69© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

19, 20 T A: slur missing at 19, and at 20 it extends only to 3rd.

25 T A: mf and dim. symbol missing.26 T A: slur only for the triplet; we modify in

vertical conformity with Ms.27– 40 A: the few slurs GV marked for T and B are

generally little more than indicative, while the ones for Ms are always reasonably clear and precise. We therefore adopt the model of Ms and extend the slurs from this part to T and B where they proceed homorhythmically and with identical text.

28–29 A: dim. symbol and “dim.” only above Ms, intended as a general indication.

30 A: p only for Ms.31/4th Ms A: obligatory missing.38–41 A: cresc.-dim. symbols and “dim.” only above

Ms, intended as general indications.41–42 T rRIbozze: slur, transmitted to rRI1874 and to

RI1913. This integration by the proofreader (there is no slur in A) was undoubtedly an au-thorized intervention. The fact that it is present in rRIms could mean that it may have been added by comparison (editorial validation) with this source (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5–6).

41/3rd A: there is a dot above the b ’ for Ms, some-thing GV used upon occasion to call particu-lar attention to a note; since in this case it is concurrent with the accent for T, we suggest extending the accent to Ms and to B as well.

•43 Gr C A: no dynamic is present; we suggest “forte” in vertical association with Cb (which was originally marked p, beneath which GV wrote and firmly underlined “forte”). RI1913 and pUS-Cso have pp, but there is no reason that Gr C should adopt the general dynamic rather than Cb’s “forte”, probably more of an expressive than a dynamic indication meant to bring out this punctuated gesture against the orchestral pp background.

44 T A: ppp and slur missing.•46 Ms, T rRIms: “dolce” for Ms and pp for T were

both replaced with p. This variant was trans-mitted to rRI1874 and to RI1913; RI1964 restored the reading of A.

48 T A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Ms.

48–49 Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with Ob.

50 Vni II A: isolated f in a general pp context (ex-plicitly marked here for Cb); we suppress.

50–51 Vc A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the unison Cb.

•51 Ms A: the slur could also be read as a cresc. symbol, which is the reading found in rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913, but we (like I-Mr) find

the slur to be the far more sensible musical interpretation.

•51 Fl, Ob, Cl, Ms, Vni I I-Mr: no mf is present for these parts. RI1913 has only an f for Ms. RI1964 restored the reading of A for all but Vni I, which remained without a dynamic.

52–53 T A: cresc. and dim. symbols missing.52/4th Cor II A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for any

of the parts that move in analogous fashion; we (like all of the examined sources) suppress.

60 Vni A: p missing; we extend vertically from Vle.

62 Vni, Vle A: pp missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vc and Cb.

64 Vni II, Vle A: accents missing.65 Strings A: GV marked pp between the staves

for Vni I and II; pp also appears in red pencil (possibly added by the composer) between Vni II and Vle and again between Vc and Cb. Given the clarity of his intentions, we extend pp to all of the strings. I-Mr has no dynamic; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has p.

67 Cl I A: four slurs, one for each beamed group of sixteenth notes; we modify in vertical conformity with Fl (and by analogy with 100, where both Fl and Cl have two slurs). I-Mr (→ RI1875) omitted the slurs for Fl; RI1913 ex-tended the four slurs from Cl I to Fl.

67– 69 (70 –72 = 67– 69) Vle A: it cannot be excluded that GV added the “pizz.” at 67 some time after he had already marked the staccati for this pas-sage, which would explain their presence as residual evidence of an earlier idea; this would also explain why he forgot to add “arco” at the beginning of 73 (where it was entered in pencil in another hand). However, given the pos-sibility that the staccati were meant to have a specific expressive value, we preserve them (as did all of the examined sources).

67–72 Orch A: GV marked 70 –72 as the repetition of 67– 69; he wrote out the vocal parts, Vc and Cb. At 67– 69 the only clearly defined cresc. sym-bols are for Fg, B, and Vc, while the others all begin and end at different points. We adopt the models present for Vni I and II for the begin-ning of the crescendo (with the exception of Ott and Ob, who enter later) but not for its con-clusion, given that the symbols for both parts (like Fl and Cor I–II) continue through the first half of 69 even though Fg, B, and Vc have dim. symbols. Consequently we end the crescendo before the f at the beginning of 69. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 either follow the reading of A or contribute further to the confusion; the fact that none of these sources offers convincing solutions only underscores the problematic nature of this passage.

Page 72: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

70 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

69 B A: the slur stops at 69/1st; we extend it to 3rd as at the corresponding 72.

69/3rd (72 = 69) Ott, Fl A: ; we modify to in vertical conformity with the other similar parts.

69/3rd (72 = 69) Cor IV A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cor I–II.

70 –72 B, Vc A: cresc. and dim. symbols missing; we supply from the corresponding 67– 69.

73 Vle A: “arco” was added in another hand (see also Note 67–69).

73–74 Ms, B A: although these parts proceed in imita-tion their slurs are divergent, probably due to the page turn (recto to verso) between 73 and 74: B has a slur for each bar, while Ms has a slur for 73/3rd–4th and another for 74/1st–75/1st. Even though the slurs for the instruments that double these voices sufficiently clarify GV’s intentions, the divergent vocal slurs in A pro-duced incongruencies in rRIms and the printed sources.

73–74 Vni A: various staccati missing; we integrate based on their presence for Vle and Vc.

73/2nd–4th Vle I-Mr: marked “coi Violini” rather than “coi Violoncelli”, as GV instructed in A. The error, in elaborated form, was transmitted to RI1875 (→ RI1913); RI1964 restored the correct reading of A.

75–76 Strings A: “staccate” only for Vni I and II.76–77 Voices A: cresc. symbol only for Ms.79, 81 A: divergent and missing dynamics: Ms, T, and

Fg have pp; B has p; also, ppp appears between the staves for Vc and Cb in red pencil, possibly added by GV but apparently inappropriately so, given that at 81 he marked pp for Vni I and p for Vle. We (like RI1913) uniformly supply pp.

79–83 Cl II A: no slur is present; unlike the examined sources, we presume that the slur for Cl I was intended for Cl II as well.

79–83 Fg II and III–IV, Vc A: slurs missing (apart a partial slur for Vc at 82); we supply in vertical conformity with Cor II and Cb.

80 T A: slur missing (there is a faint pen stroke between and above the two ).

81/4th Vle A: caret; we modify to an accent as in the similar vertical parts.

81/4th Cor A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fg II and III–IV, Vc, and Cb.

82/3rd–83 Vle A: tie missing; we supply in vertical con-formity with the unison Cor II.

•84 B A: pp (no dynamic is present for Ms at 85 or T at 86). However, given that we modified the p GV marked at 79 for B to pp in verti-cal conformity with Ms and T (it is unlikely that he would have wanted B to have a higher dynamic; see Note 79, 81), this pp at 84 is now superfluous; we suppress. RI1913 has pp for B at 79 and p for all three voices at 84–86.

86/3rd–90 A: cresc. and dim. symbols only above Ms and beneath B.

91–93 A: “p”, “dim. sempre”, and “morendo” only above Ms.

94 Vni II, Vle A: pp missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I.

•100 Orch A: “morendo” is present only above Vni I; we interpret it as a general indication for those parts with whole notes. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored it; RI1964 restored it for Vni I.

•101 pf rRIms: slurs for each beamed group of six-teenth notes, transmitted to all of the printed sources (Fl, Cl). There is no reason, however, that we should hypothesize an oversight on GV’s part, given his extremely detailed nota-tion in this passage.

102/4th Cor A: isolated p between the two staves, unconfirmed in any other part. Among the examined sources, it was adopted only in rRIms → rRI1874 (left hand) and pUS-Cso (for Cor III–IV alone). Finding it unlikely that, after pp at 96 and “morendo” at 100, GV would have wanted a higher dynamic level for the conclu-sion of the piece, we prefer to leave the choice of an appropriate “piano” dynamic to the discretion of the interpreter.

•102/4th, 103 Orch A: at 102/4th the repeated eighth notes are marked staccato for all of the winds but Cor III–IV; we extend to Cor III–IV and the strings. At 103 the staccati and slur are present only for Cl and Vni I; we (like RI1964) find the staccati GV marked at 102 to be sufficient in-dication that they should continue for all parts in this bar, and extend the slurs throughout as well. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored all of the staccati in A and provided slurs only for Vni and Vle at 103 (omitted in RI1913).

N. 7 Libera me, DomineSA, vol. II, pp. (133 –134 rubric) 135 –218 (217–218 empty)

This edition considers MpR, the version of the Libera me, Domine for the Messa per Rossini to be conceptually differ-ent from N. 7 for the Messa da requiem. We have therefore chosen to use it as a source only when, given substantially equivalent passages, it proves helpful in those exceedingly rare instances where A lacks internal models for resolving issues of lacunae or ambiguity. MpR will be often cited in the Critical Notes (all bar numbers refer to their location in A) as a contributive element to discussions regarding the various solutions adopted by the secondary sources, or as a means of reconstructing the genesis of an error (“intru-sions” from MpR).

Page 73: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

71© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

E

Violini [I] [II]VioleDue FlautiOttavino[2] Oboè[2] Clarinetti / in Si[2] Corni / in Mi[2] Corni / in Do[2] Trombe / in Do[2] Trombe / in DoDue FagottiDue Fagotti[3] Tromboni; from 207 “Tromboni 1o / 2do ”Oficleide; from 207 “3o Trombone / Oficleide”TimpaniCassa sola (at 45–105 Grancassa; see Note 55)[empty][empty][empty]Soprano Solo[empty] [Soprani]

Coro [Contralti] [Tenori] [Bassi][Violoncelli][Contrabbassi]

T

On p. 135 GV wrote “Libera me, Domine” in the top center margin, and “n.o 7 / G. Verdi” in the top right corner.

R M

45–105 Orch A: GV’s instruction for this section reads “Come da principio del Dies irae per 61 bat-tute”, thereby indicating that 45–105 (N. 7 Li-bera me, Domine) = 1–61 (N. 2 Dies irae); only Coro, Vc, and Cb are written out.

C N

2 Ob, Vc A: marked ff, but with no apparent mu-sical justification in a predominantly f dynamic context; RI1913 also modified these parts to f, while RI1964 = tutti ff.

•4 Orch RI1913: the subtle dynamic differentiation among Trbn, Timp, and Gr C in A was arbitrar-ily homogenized to become a uniform pp.

4 Cor I–II A: originally mf (probably an errone-ous transcription from MpR) with pp written over it, presumably GV’s definitive correction.

4 Cor III–IV Sources: among the examined sources, only pUS-Cso supplies a dynamic

indication (p). The part that doubles S soloist in MpR, Cor I–II, has mf, but it is substantially different from Cor III–IV in A; in addition, there is no dim. symbol, and S soloist, who sings g’ rather than rising to g’’, has neither the cresc. symbol at 3 nor the f at 4. We suggest mf for exclusively musical reasons, given that Cor III–IV should have a dynamic level that is less than f (in order to support S soloist without covering her sound) and more than p (which must be reached only at 5 after the diminuendo).

4 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle A: only “staccate”.4 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: ppp; we prefer pp in vertical

conformity with the other strings.4–5 Trbn II A: tie missing.7– 9 Coro A: GV very carefully marked a model for

S Coro of the slurs and staccati he wanted for this a cappella passage. Even so, a correction he made to 7 is somewhat problematic to inter-pret, due to the difficulty in reconstructing the succession of interventions involved. In all probability GV, copying from MpR, originally wrote corresponding to the syllables “[æ]-ter-na in”, perhaps intending a synaloepha for “-na in” as it is in MpR (1). After having erased and replaced with as in this edition (2), it seems he added breath marks for all of the parts between the two syllables “[æter]-na” and “in [die]” (3), but then uniform-ly erased them (4) (see also Note 416). It is not clear when he marked the second slur: given that the beginning of it between “[æter]-na” and “in” is damaged (but still clearly legible), he probably added it after stage (2), perhaps then erasing the initial segment along with the breath marks; or it is possible that he erased the beginning of the slur before adding the breath marks. However that may be, the short-ened slur depends upon the presence of the added breath, in which case the elimination of the breath mark implies recuperating the original length of the slur, as we have done. This solution is both philologically plausible (it most closely represents the markings in A) and musically convincing, because it “isolates” the syllable of the first principal metric accent, “[æ]-ter[-na]” (the second one is “[tre]-men[-da]”) by excluding it from the slurred staccato. I-Mr (→ RI1875 and RI1913) ignored both the stac-cati and the slurs (RI1964 restores the staccati, but one long slur for all of the at 7); rRIms (→ rRI1874) has the staccati and slurs, but it concludes the first slur on “[mor]-te”, begins the second one on “æ[-terna]”.

9 Coro A: pppp only above S Coro; “ancora più piano” was written vertically through all four staves.

Page 74: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

72 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

11 Vc, Cb A: both entrance dynamics are missing; we supply pp for Cb in vertical conformity with Fg III–IV and Timp, and p for Vc from Vni and Vle.

11 Timp I-Mr: erroneously marked ppp, transmit-ted in turn to RI1875 (→ RI1913).

13/3rd–14/1st S soloist MpR: while there are no dynamic indications in A, at the corresponding passage MpR has a cresc. symbol ending with fff at 14/1st, which could be quite effective here as well, allowing S soloist to anticipate the logical conclusion of the orchestral cresc. at 14. We nevertheless find ff to be sufficient for S solo-ist at 14/1st. rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has only a cresc. symbol at 14 in vertical conformity with the orchestra.

14/1st Vle, Vc, Cb A: accent missing on the downbeat for Vle and Vc, and Cb has a staccato. I-Mr has no accents for any of the strings; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has only the accents for Vni I and II.

14/3rd Cb A: isolated accent on the first eighth note as well.

15 Fg A: “staccate e p” only above the stave for Fg I–II.

•17–18 Fg I-Mr: 17 is the last bar of a recto, after which the copyist neglected to continue both the cresc. symbol for Fg I and the dim. symbol for Fg III–IV at 18. The accent for Fg I at 17 is also missing. RI1875 similarly truncated the diminuendo for Fg III–IV at the end of 17, but the accent for Fg I is present, along with the addition of a separate cresc. symbol at 18/1st–2nd (→ RI1913). With respect to RI1913, RI1964 added the accent for Fg I at 17. Curiously, rRIms (→ rRI1874) has this same reading, notwith-standing the fact that it generally follows A more closely than I-Mr.

18/4th Fg III A: obligatory for the e is missing.•20 –27, 33 –35 Vni I Sources: in A the slurs between the

last note of a beamed group of sixteenth notes and the first of the next group are not always present. The examined printed sources, includ-ing the more recent editions, treated their absence as an oversight and integrated them uniformly throughout. We believe, however, that GV marked them with a deliberate musical design, intending to avoid what would other-wise become a mechanical rhythmic effect (as he was copying from MpR, where there are very few lacunae for these short slurs, he may have wanted to clarify this particular aspect). This edition therefore adds them only when they are supported by clear and unequivocal models (see Note 23/4th–24/1st, 34/4th–35/1st, Note 25/2nd–3rd, and Note 22, 25).

22 S soloist A: possibly ff , although the symbol could also be read as f. Given that ff is not a

particularly easy dynamic for a soprano to achieve in that register, we believe f for the c’’ is adequate for the context. rRIms (→ rRI1874) has ff; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) has no indica-tion; RI1964 has f.

•22, 25 Vni I RI1913, rRI1874 (pf., r.h.): both sources, having chosen to supply slurs mechanically between the last sixteenth note of one beamed group and the first of the next group (see Note 20 –27, 33 –35), integrated “missing” ones be-tween 22/1st and 2nd and between 25/3rd and 4th, perhaps supported by analogy with the model between 34/1st and 2nd. We find instead a compelling musical reason to preserve the difference: whereas at 34 the slur underscores the concurrent unison motion with S solo-ist (g’–c’’), at 22 and 25 this rapport between Vni I and S soloist does not exist (by way of confirmation, in MpR it does not exist even at 34, and in fact no slur is present in that cor-responding bar).

23/4th–24/1st, 34/4th–35/1st Vni I A: slurs missing; we supply by analogy with the short slurs at 20 –27 and 33 –35 (see the relative Note), where they similarly underscore shared melodic motion and phrasing with other instrumental or vocal parts.

25/2nd–3rd Vni I A: slur missing between the two beamed groups of sixteenth notes; we supply to match 24 and by analogy with 20, 21, and 33.

25/4th–27 Strings A: GV had originally marked shorter dim. symbols reaching roughly to the end of 26, then extended the one above Vni I (with the addition of “dim. dim.”) and the one for Vc, both of them to the end of 27. His intentions are clear.

28/3rd–31/1st (30 = 29) Vni II, Vle A: slurs missing for the beamed triplets, but GV marked them clearly at 28/1st (Vni II) and 2nd (Vle), obviously intend-ed as models for this passage.

31/2nd Vni II A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Vle.

32 Vni, Vle A: partial and missing slurs: the first slur for Vni I begins only from the second six-teenth note, but those for Vni II and Vle begin on the downbeat; Vni II and Vle have no slur for 3rd–4th.

32/1st Vc A: slur for all four beamed sixteenth notes; on 2nd the slur appears to include only the last three notes. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored both slurs and added a staccato for the first note of each group; rRIms (→ rRI1874) has stac-cati for all eight sixteenth notes, plus a slur for each beamed group.

33 –34 Fl A: the slur extends to the at 34. Copying from MpR, GV decided to suppress the bar

Page 75: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

73© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

that would have followed 33 (corresponding to 21), but he marked the slur from the sup-pressed bar in MpR rather than replicating the slur at 20 (limited to the three ). We believe this was an oversight and follow the pattern established in 20 and 21, where both slurs do not reach beyond the bar line.

•34/2nd Vni II, Vle, Vc RI1913: pp was added before the dim. symbol, theoretically possible only because the p after the dim. at 35/4th (Vc) was ignored. Neither A nor MpR has an opening dynamic for the dim. Indeed, GV (like many other nineteenth-century composers) would frequently mark only the end dynamic for a diminuendo, with the understanding that the opening conform proportionately, obviously at a higher level. We respect this practice, leaving the level of the opening dynamic (greater than p) to the discretion of the performer.

35 Vc A: p on 3rd; we move to 4th by analogy with 27.

38 Orch A: p only for Fg and Vle; we extend it to the other instruments for vertical conformity.

38/1st Vni I A: the accent is nested within the begin-ning of the dim. symbol, such that GV may have intended to invalidate it with the larger sign. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) has the diminu-endo but not the accent; RI1964 reinstated the accent, but without extending it to Ob and Cl.

41 Vni II, Vc, Cb A: Vni II = pp; we prefer the ppp GV marked for Vle. Also, “morendo” is miss-ing for Vc and Cb.

42 Fl [I] A: “col canto”, which we provide it as a general agogic indication.

42 Fg [I] A: pp; we modify to ppp in vertical con-formity with Cl.

45 –105 Orch A: GV’s instruction for this section reads “Come da principio del Dies irae per 61 bat-tute”, thereby indicating that 45 –105 (N. 7 Lib-era me, Domine) = 1– 61 (N. 2 Dies irae); only Coro (with a largely different text), Vc, and Cb are written out. There are differences in Vc and Cb with respect to the complete notation of these parts at 1– 61 in N. 2, which may be at-tributed to their principal function as a general guide for the conductor, for the reproduction of the score, and for the extraction of performance materials. Consequently, this edition presents the instrumental component of 45 –105 as the exact replica of 1– 61 from N. 2, referring the reader to the relative Critical Notes for all mat-ters pertaining to the orchestral parts, and re-porting here specific salient differences in the Vc and Cb parts for the purpose of establishing a single unitary text. They may be summarized as follows:

– 47–48, 57–58 Cb: only one accent, at 47/3rd;

for the integration of the accents at 48 and 57–58, see N. 2, Note 3–4, 13–14, 575–576.

– 57 Cb: staccati beneath the seven beamed eighth notes; while GV did mark them in N. 2 at 575, they are not present at the correspond-ing 13. We therefore suppress.

– 65 (66 = 65), 69, 70 Vc: slurs and staccati miss-ing, also the accent at 70/4th; we supply from 21, 22, 25, and 26 in N. 2.

– 65/2nd (66 = 65), 69/2nd, 70/2nd–4th Cb: accents missing; we supply from 21, 22, 25, and 26 in N. 2.

– 73, 75 Vc, Cb: dynamics missing; we supply from 29 and 31 in N. 2.

– 76, 78, 80 Cb (Vc = Cb): accents on 2nd miss-ing; see N. 2, Note 32, 36.

– 80/3rd Cb (Vc = Cb): slur missing; we supply from 36 in N. 2.

– 90/1st (91, 92, 93 = 90) Cb: accent missing; we supply from 46 in N. 2.

– 98, 102 Vc, Cb: dynamics missing; we supply from 54 and 58 in N. 2.

47–105 Coro A: a substantial portion of the text for Coro in this reprise of 3 – 61 from N. 2 is dif-ferent. The phrasing and articulation at 47–105 (N. 7) are generally more lacunose than at 3 – 61 (N. 2), but rarely do they contradict one another. This makes it possible to use 3 – 61 as the model for 47–105, and occasionally to use 47–105 to integrate and support the phrasing and articulation in 3 – 61. Only occasionally are the divergences determined by the different text and syllabic scansion; these are obviously maintained without intervention in this edi-tion. With regard to the dynamics, we adopt those established in 3 – 61: the usual differences and lacunae at 47–105 are easily resolved in terms of a proper dynamic rapport with the

orchestra.47 Coro A: f, only for T Coro.47–48 T, B Coro A: accents missing; we supply from

the corresponding 3–4 in N. 2.55 Gr C A: the reprise at 45 –105 of 1– 61 from N.

2 necessarily includes calling for the reintro-duction of this instrument by name, logically “Gran cassa” as GV specified on the first page of N. 2. At the beginning of N. 7, however, he wrote “Cassa sola”, and in MpR he was still more precise: “Cassa sola senza Batteria”. There is no reason to presume that the term “Gran Cassa” includes cymbals, nor that his use of “Cassa” (4, 175, 298, 396) or “Cassa sola” (1, 112) requires anything other than Gr C without cymbals. We therefore preserve these terms as GV wrote them.

57–58 B Coro A: accents missing.57, 59 Coro A: entry dynamics missing.

Page 76: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

74 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

59 T Coro A: GV originally wrote “[il]-la” on 4th but then erased it. The correction is a signifi-cant one: see N. 2, Note 15 –17, 577–579, 587–589.

65 –72 Coro A: various accents missing (see the cor-responding passage at 21–28 in N. 2), particu-larly all those for C and B Coro. In addition, at 68/4th there is an accent only for S Coro, and none are present at 72/4th. GV’s intentions nonetheless seem sufficiently clear (supported by the orchestral context) for all but possibly Coro B at 65/4th, 66/4th, 69/4th, and 70/4th, where the absence of accents may be ascribed to the different text. We suggest them but leave the option of their omission to the interpreter.

74 T Coro A: at the corresponding 30 in N. 2 there is an accent on 1st for T Coro I but no slur; allowing that these divergences may be related to the different texts involved, we preserve the slur here and suggest the accent.

75–86 C, T Coro A: text missing (for T Coro up to 83).84–86 S, C, T Coro A: accents missing; we supply

from the corresponding 40–42 in N. 2.•85 – 86 Timp RI1875: the copyist inadvertently skipped

these two bars following a page turn (it was correctly copied in I-Mr). The error was trans-mitted to RI1913; RI1964 restored the missing notation.

88, 89 A: both agogic indications are from the corre-sponding 44 and 45 in N. 2.

90–97 Coro A: lacunose phrasing; in particular, slurs missing for S and T at 90–91 (S Coro has a shorter slur, at 91) and for T Coro at 96–97. At 92–93 there are two shorter slurs, one per bar (see also N. 2, Note 46–53).

90–97 C Coro, 91–105 T Coro A: text missing.90/1st (91, 92, 93 = 90) Cb A: accent missing; we supply

from the corresponding 46 in N. 2.98–102 Coro A: dynamic indications missing or incom-

plete; we supply from the corresponding 54–58 in N.2.

99 S Coro A: p; we modify to pp as at the corre-sponding 55 in N. 2.

104–105 C, B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply from the corresponding 60–61 in N. 2.

107, 109 Cor, Trb A: at 107 the dim. symbols (for Cor I–II and Trb III–IV only) seem more like ac-cents; at 109 the sole exemplar (for Cor I–II) is undoubtedly a dim., but it begins from the first sixteenth note. RI1913 preferred this solution and extended it to 107 as well.

108–109 Timp A: cresc.-dim. symbol missing, but its presence at 106–107 and the evident vertical conformity with Cb are sufficient proof of GV’s intentions. RI1913 extended both symbols to Fg III–IV at 106–109, though without logical justi-fication: whereas Timp and Cb have a roll and tremolo respectively, Fg III–IV simply sustain a

single stationary note. MpR offers a somewhat equivocal reading: dim. symbol for Fg III–IV at 107, cresc. at 108 and 110.

111 S soloist A: f, unlikely against the ff for Coro; we suggest ff as in MpR. rRIms (→ rRI1874) omitted the f for S soloist and brought Coro into vertical conformity with the orchestral f; RI1875 (→ RI1913) has f for all voices.

111 Timp, Cb A: ff for Cb on 1st and Timp on 2nd, written perhaps during the skeleton-score stage of composition.

111/4th Cor III–IV A: isolated accent.113 Fg, Trbn A: the ppp seems to be a deliberate

precautionary dynamic reduction, given so exposed their entry on F; indeed, in MpR GV wrote ppp for both pairs of Fg (at 113 and 115) as well. RI1913 has pp.

•115 S Coro A: pppp; we opt for pp as in C and T Coro. While it might seem tempting to accept and extend S Coro’s pppp here, the evident diminuendo effect through the bars that follow makes pp the more logical choice (pp at 115 → ppp at 119 [see the relative Note] → “ancora più piano” at 121, 123). At 115 MpR has ppp for all three parts; RI1875 (→ RI1913) idem; rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A; I-Mr extended instead the pppp for S Coro to C and T.

117/3rd–118 Vc A: slur, incongruous with the tremolo; all of the examined sources suppressed it as well.

117/3rd–124 B Coro, Fg III–IV, Trbn A: partial and miss-ing slurs. The first one (117/3rd–121) disappears at 119 following a page turn (recto to verso); the second one (121/3rd–124) is entirely miss-ing for B Coro, while those for Fg and Trbn are suspended without actually reaching the F at 124. Proof that GV intended the F to be the conclusion of both phrases (from a previous G ) is provided by the slur for Cor I at 119 –120 (missing at 123 –124); analogous slurs for Fg I–II at 119 –120 and 123 –124 further corroborate this hypothesis. I-Mr follows A for the first slur but adjusts the second one (for Fg and Trbn only; there is no slur for B Coro) as in this edition.

•119 S Coro A: pp; we opt for ppp as in C and T Coro, in keeping with the diminuendo effect postulated in Note 115 above. None of the examined sources has a coherent solution: in particular, I-Mr = pppp at 115, pp at 119; RI1875 (→ RI1913) = ppp at 115, pp at 119; rRIms (→ rRI1874) = pppp S Coro, pp C and T Coro at 115, ppp at 119.

•120–121 B Coro A: perhaps distracted by his decision to change the notes (an earlier erased version is still legible underneath the definitive one), GV forgot to set “[i-]rae” at 120. Faced with this oversight, the copyist of I-Mr (→ RI1875) positioned the missing syllable beneath the

Page 77: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

75© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

at 121. RI1913 adjusted this reading by elimi-nating the tie between the two F rather than moving the syllable to 120 (the same solution is found in rRIms [→ rRI1874]).

123–124/1st Cor I A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with 119–120.

124, 126 Ob, Cor A: the caret for Cor at 124/3rd coin-cides with the beginning of the dim. symbol, which may have been intended to obscure it (note the caret but no dim. symbol for Ob). At 126 the two dim. symbols (particularly the one for Ob) could also be read as accents, in which case they would be functionally analo-gous to the carets at 128 and 129. I-Mr ignored the carets for Ob and Cor at 124 and read the dim. symbols at 124 (Cor) and 126 (Ob and Cor) as accents, although the one at 124 was subsequently cancelled in purple pencil; RI1875 follows I-Mr, but with a dim. symbol rather than the accent at 124. RI1913 omitted the accent / dim. symbol at 124 and replaced the carets at 128 and 129 with accents; RI1964 uniformly sup-plied both instruments with accents in all four bars. We prefer to respect GV’s apparent inten-tions as closely as possible, thereby rendering 124 and 126 in like manner.

127/4th–128 A: “morendo” only beneath Cb; p above Fg I–II, which we suppress as contextually anomalous (I-Mr = p for Fg and “morendo” for Vc and Cb; RI1875 = p “morendo”; RI1913 = ppp “morendo”). We also eliminate a superfluous “dim.” beneath Trbn, already present two bars earlier and implied here in the prescription “morendo”.

131 Cor I A: pp; we modify to ppp (the more logi-cal dynamic for this context) in vertical con-formity with Ob.

141 T Coro A: pp.144 S soloist, S Coro A: superfluous “cresc.”; we

suppress.148 S Coro A: superfluous “cresc.”; we suppress. 148 T Coro A: slur and cresc. symbol missing.•148/4th–149/1st S soloist Sources: none of the examined

sources has the slur corresponding to the in-struction “portate”.

153/2nd–4th C and B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with T Coro.

158–159 S soloist A: at 159 GV neglected to complete the slur from 158 (the end of a recto), where it extends over the bar line into the right margin of the page.

•160 –164/1st A: slurs only for S and B Coro; for S Coro the slur begins at 161/3rd, but in MpR it begins at 160/3rd. Evidently when GV copied this a cappella passage from MpR he was more con-cerned with the task of transposition (a semi-tone higher) than the precise length of these

two slurs (which were likely intended to apply to the other parts as well). The only slur in MpR, for S Coro, begins at 160/3rd and reaches past the second in 163 (the last bar of a verso), a circumstance suggesting the musically plau-sible (and desirable) idea that it should extend to 164/1st so that the last syllable of “perpetua” is not separated unnaturally from the rest of the phrase. While it seems that the intent in I-Mr was to follow A, the copyist did antici-pate the beginning of the slur for S Coro to 160/3rd, while also understandably confusing the upper line of the cresc. symbol for S soloist with a slur. RI1875 followed I-Mr and extended the slurs to C and T Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 ignored all slurs but the shorter one for C Coro at 163/3rd– 4th.

•164/2nd– 4th Voices A: staccati only for S soloist and slurs missing for all; we supply from MpR. I-Mr provided all four in S soloist with stac-cati but no slur; rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ RI1913) extended them to Coro as well.

165 –166 C, T, B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply them in vertical conformity with S Coro, where GV probably marked it as a model for the other choral parts (in MpR T Coro has a slur as well). I-Mr (→ RI1875) suppressed the slur for S Coro, but rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 extended it as in this edition.

171, 416 Tempo A: at 171, “senza tempo” above Vni I and above S soloist, “senza misura” above Vle and on the stave for B Coro; at 416, “senza tempo” between Vni I and II, above S soloist, and under Cb, “senza misura” on the staves for Cor. As at 1 and 7, we adopt the more correct of the two expressions, “senza misura”.

172 Vle A: dynamic missing; we supply f as previ-ously established for Vni at 171.

173 Vle A: the was inserted in pencil following GV’s request in a letter to Ricordi on 2 June 1874 that it be added as a correction to the first printing of the vocal score. Among the exam-ined sources, only rRI1874 and I-Mr do not have the .

175 –176 A: missing and divergent dynamics at 175, where the only clearly marked ff appear beneath Vle (probably also intended for Vni I and II) and for Cor III–IV (Fg I–II also may have ff, but against an f for Fg III–IV). At 176, the lone “sempre f” above Cor I–II is extremely pertinent, given its com-patibility with the dynamic indications for S soloist. Consequently, between Cor I–II and Cor III–IV we are able to obtain the model | ff / dim. symbol | sempre f |, which we extend without typographical distinction to the other winds, all of whom are likewise sounding a

Page 78: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

76 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

stationary G at the unison or octave. The case for the other instruments is different. At 175 GV wrote f between the staves for Timp and Gr C (both with a roll) and f for Cb (with a tremolo); we therefore accept f for these instru-ments and extend it to Vc. Finally, for Vni we extend the initial ff from Vle and the winds but then suggest that it immediately drop to f at the onset of the tremolo, in vertical conform-ity with Vc and Cb (and the percussion). RI1913 (like RI1875) has ff for tutti at 175 followed by the dim. symbol for the winds, and “sempre f” at 176 as a general indication at the top of the system.

175–176 Cor III–IV A: ties missing.179 C Coro, 186 S Coro A: f missing; we supply in con-

formity with the f GV marked for T Coro at 200.

179 –207/1st Coro A: GV carefully supplied the slurs and articulation for the subject of this fugal exposi-tion (C Coro, 179 –186/1st), but the following response (S Coro, 186 –193/1st), subject (B Coro, 193 –200/1st), and response (T Coro, 200 –207/1st) are marked with ever less detail and consist-ency. For the most part the examined sources reflect the same incongruences found in A, though RI1913 did make an occasional maladroit attempt at uniformity (see for example 187 in this Note). We have therefore chosen to extend GV’s model for the initial appearance of the subject to the successive three enunciations (re-sponse, subject, response) with one exception (see Note 184/3rd, 206). Principal lacunae and divergences with respect to this model (C Coro, 179–186/1st) may be summarized as follows:

– •187 S Coro: staccati and a slur for the four as in MpR (see also Note 84/3rd; 206:206); rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ RI1913) follow A, and RI1913 extended this articulation to the follow-ing two statements as well (B Coro at 194; T Coro at 201); we modify to match the model at 180.

– •188 S Coro: slur missing (printed sources = A); we supply from the model at 181.

– •188, 190 S Coro: accents missing (printed sources = A); we supply from the models at 181 and 183.

– 194–197 B Coro: accents missing; at 196 there are two staccati followed by an accent as in MpR (see also Note 184/3rd, 206), uncorroborat-ed by either the model (at 182) or the other two statements (at 189 and 203); at 195 slur missing. We supply from the model at 180–183.

– 200–205 T Coro: all accents missing but those at 200/3rd and 4th; slur missing at 202. We sup-ply from the model at 179–184.

184/3rd C Coro, 206 T Coro A: accents, probably “intru-

sions” from MpR directly related to a different part for Trb I–II that GV did not carry over into A. In fact, in MpR Trb I–II always reinforce the conclusion of the subject or response with ac-cents on the and :

– 184/3rd C Coro: the accent, lightly marked or possibly obscured by GV, is absent in all three subsequent corresponding bars (191, S Coro; 198, B Coro; 205, T Coro). Given the extreme care with which GV marked the ar-ticulation for this first statement of the subject (179 –186/1st; see Note 179 –207/1st above), we should theoretically accept the accent as valid and extend it to the other three corresponding bars (as in MpR); however, it is more than like-ly that when he copied this passage for C Coro he had not yet decided to eliminate the relative Trb I–II part from MpR at 184/3rd –186/1st. We therefore have chosen to suppress this accent, supported by RI1875 (→ RI1913). rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A.

– 206 T Coro: this accent, like the one above, is absent in all three corresponding bars (185, C Coro; 192, S Coro; 199, B Coro). In this case, however, we may reasonably ascribe its anoma-lous presence to a momentary distraction on GV’s part while copying the fugue from MpR (where in fact the accent is uniformly marked in all four statements). Indeed, his carefully prepared model at 179 –186/1st for C Coro strongly suggests that its omission at 185 was deliberate. This “intrusion” is not the only evi-dence of an unintentional transfer from MpR into A: for example, at 187 GV marked staccati and a slur for the four in S Coro, and at 196 B Coro have two staccati followed by an accent, both reflecting their respective readings in MpR (see also Note 225 –227). In light of these considerations, we have chosen to suppress the accent at 206. All examined sources follow A.

185 Orch A: missing and divergent dynamics (f and ff, the latter more prevalent).

185 –186, 192–193, 199 –200, 206 –207 Orch A: very few accents are present (MpR is more generously supplied, such that GV’s intentions are suf-ficiently clear); nor are there but occasional slurs for the ornamental figures (MpR is even more lacunose, sporting only one at 193 for Vni I). However exiguous, this evidence is still enough to render 185 –186, 192–193, and 199 –200 in a uniform manner. The last passage, at 206 –207, is somewhat different: while at 206 the two accents for Cor confirm their vertical extension here as well, at 207 the chord on 1st

Page 79: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

77© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

has no accents whatsoever, coincident with B Coro’s unaccented introduction of a new fugal exposition with the subject inverted. Given that the complete omission of an accent on the downbeat of this bar appears intentional when compared to MpR, where there are accents for B Coro, Of, and Cb, we have chosen to pre-serve the reading of A at 207.

186, 200 Trbn A: double stems; their interpretation “a 3” is confirmed in pUS-Cso.

186/2nd–207/1st Coro A: the first enunciation of the countersubject in this new fugal exposition, for C Coro at 186/2nd–200, is replete with clearly marked slurs and articulation and may serve as a template for the more lacunose iterations in S Coro and B Coro (largely left untouched in the examined sources) with one exception (see Note 195 –196). Ambiguities and differences with respect to this model may be summarized as follows:

– •193/2nd–3rd S Coro: GV marked this same slur twice, such that the result could be confused for a short cresc. symbol as in rRIms (→ rRI1874 and RI1913).

– 193/4th S Coro: accent missing; we supply from the model at 186.

– 198 S Coro: slur missing; we supply from the model at 191.

– 199/3rd S Coro: accent missing; we supply from the model at 192.

– 202/2nd B Coro: accent rather than caret; we adjust to match the model at 188.

– 205 B Coro: slur missing; we supply from the model at 191.

192 Orch A: f between Ob and Cl and between Cor III–IV and Trb I–II; ff between Vc and Cb. We prefer ff as at 185 (see the relative Note).

193 Trbn A: unspecified part distribution for the dyad; we supply from pUS-Cso.

195 –196 S Coro: this edition (supported by all of the examined sources) preserves GV’s divergent phrasing and articulation for these two bars with respect to the model of C Coro at 188 –189 (see Note 186/2nd–207/1st): given his neces-sary adjustment of this more exposed melodic profile, resulting in the leap of a minor third to a consonant e ’’ at 195/2nd (compared to the chromatic ascent at 188/2nd to a ’) with no cor-responding caret, the segment assumes a more lyrical character than at 188 –189 (and B Coro at 202–203). MpR has one slur for the four at 195, and two shorter slurs at 196 in conformity with 189.

199 Vle A: GV mistakenly wrote the same chord as at 192; our correction (which matches MpR) comes from the analogous 185.

•206 Orch RI1913: f, for no logical reason.

207/3rd Vni II A: the accent over the is protracted enough to seem a dim. symbol instead. We opt for an accent by analogy with Cor III–IV at 208/3rd, given that both parts support a vocal entrance on ff (C and T Coro respectively).

209/3rd–212 Ott, Fl, Cl I A: some accents are missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Ob I, the only complete model (see also Note 210).

209/3rd–212 Trb A: no accents are present; we supply in vertical conformity with the other concurrent parts (see also the following Note).

210 Vni I A: staccati for the four ; I-Mr (→ RI1875) follows A; RI1913 extends them to Ott and Fl as well. We replace with accents by analogy with Cb at 208 (Vc = Cb), and in vertical conformity with Ob I.

210/1st–2nd Vle A: staccati; we replace with accents in vertical conformity with the unison Fg I and Trbn I.

211/1st Ob I A: accent, unconfirmed in any other uni-son part; we suppress.

211/4th, 212/4th Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the other unison parts (see also Note 209/3rd–212).

212/2nd–4th Fg I, Trbn I, Vle A: accents missing; we sup-ply in vertical conformity with Cor I–II.

213, 215, 217 Ott, Ob, Vle A: accents on 3rd missing; we supply in vertical conformity with T Coro. RI1913 adds them only at 213.

213, 215, 217 Fl A: slurs on 2nd–4th missing (staccati also missing at 215); we supply in vertical conform-ity with Cl II.

213/1st Fg III–IV A: this first bar following a page turn is marked to begin immediately in unison with Fg I–II, rather than continue doubling Trbn III and Of (as Fg III–IV had done from 207 to 212). Were GV’s instruction to be obeyed, it would clearly necessitate an awkward and highly improbable leap in both parts on the downbeat. We suggest maintaining Fg III–IV = Trbn III and Of for the first half of the bar, with the shift to unison with Fg I–II beginning thereaf-ter. RI1913 does likewise.

214 S Coro A: the accent over the is protracted enough to seem a dim. symbol (at 216/3rd it is only slightly shorter). Because this repertoire made no conceptual distinction between an ac-cent and a dim. symbol, we have opted for the former in vertical conformity with the other accents in this bar.

214, 216 Cl I A: accents on 3rd missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fg I (Fg III = Fg I).

215, 217 Vni I A: accents on 3rd missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cl I (and Fg I [Fg III = Fg I] only at 215).

217/2nd–4th Vni II A: slur missing.217/3rd Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: accent missing.

Page 80: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

78 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

219/3rd–220/1st Ob I A: staccati missing for the three ; we supply by analogy with Cl I at 222–223.

225 –227 Fg I A: GV apparently forgot that he had marked different

articulation for the analogous Cl I at 222–224; we consider this divergence an “intrusion” from MpR and consequently modify Fg I in conformity with Cl I.

227/1st B Coro A: f and accent missing; we supply both from MpR. The dynamic may also be contextu-ally inferred from the f for Fg III–IV, and there is an accent for B Coro at the analogous 231/1st.

227/1st–2nd Ob I A: GV originally interrupted the slur at the bar line between 226 and 227, then extended it and added what could be read as a staccato on 1st. Quite possibly he became confused as he copied from MpR, where there are staccati for the two both for S Coro and for Ob (whose slur seems to include the on 2nd as well). We consider his interventions subsequent to the original slur to be “intru-sions” from MpR. I-Mr (→ RI1913) concluded the slur at 226/4th and marked two staccati at 227/1st–2nd; RI1875 has the same slur as I-Mr but no staccati.

229 –230 T Coro, Fg I A: GV copied the phrasing and articulation for Fg I from MpR, which reads:

However, he omitted

the accent at 229/1st and added one at 230/2nd. Though it may not seem so, the accents at 229/3rd– 4th are not contextually pertinent, especially relative to the unison, unaccented T Coro (in MpR T Coro and Fg I both have accents on 1st, 3rd, and 4th). On the other hand, the different, “unadorned” nature of this subject entry for T Coro, compared to all of the others in this passage, can be justified on both a structural and an expressive level:

1) on a structural level, as an inverted subject with a different text from the previous en-tries, beginning with “Libera me, Domine”; in particular, the scansion shifts from one note per syllable to a melismatic segment at 229/3rd–230/2nd on the syllable“cœ[-li]”. The other two subject entries on “quando cœli”, for B Coro at 227 and 231, have the same syllable “cœ[-li]” reduced to two on 3rd and 4th, but in any case with neither accents nor staccati;

2) on an expressive level, at 229 T Coro do not possess the peremptory character that B Coro have at 227 and 231 – indeed, quite the contrary: while B Coro sing presumably f (as in MpR) from 227 doubled by an accented Fg III–IV playing f in octaves, T Coro continue to sing p doubled by a “Solo” Fg also playing

p. Further, the inverted subject pushes T Coro into a significantly higher register, prompting them to sing in an expansive, legato manner (rather than to lighten and articulate the nor-mal subject’s descent into the lower register). At 230 the slur and the accent on 2nd for Fg I are extremely appropriate because they repro-duce precisely this effect.

All of the examined sources follow A. We prefer to eliminate the accents for Fg I at 229/3rd– 4th as a momentary “intrusion” from MpR (see also Notes 225 –227 and 227/1st–2nd).

231/3rd–4th Fg III–IV A: staccati as well as accents.233 A: missing and inconsistent dynamics, with

a prevalence of ff over f. Given the particular significance of the ff for S Coro, we adopt and extend this indication.

233, 235, 237 Ob II, Cl II, Vni II A: staccati on 1st and 2nd only at 235 for Vni II; we consider this a plausi-ble model (confirmed from Cb [Vc = Cb] at 235 and 237) and extend it accordingly.

233, 235, 237 Timp A: at 233 and 235 the have two cuts through the stem, but at 237 there are three cuts (pUS-Cso follows A). While it would be possible to play the rolls as measured six-teenths at an approximate M.M. = 116, we find it more plausible that GV wanted un-measured rolls as he indicated at 237. RI1875 (→ RI1913) uniformly marked two cuts for all three

233–238 Orch A: assorted missing accents and staccati, which we have supplied without typographical distinction on the basis of the ones GV clearly and congruently marked, which are sufficient to reconstruct an exhaustive model. Only those cases which allow for more than one solution are reported in the following Notes.

234, 236, 238 Ott (236–238 = Fl), Fl A: at 234 and 236 there are no acciaccaturas for the trills, which we suggest by analogy with 238 (where we also suggest the ); the examined sources all follow A.

234, 236, 238 Trbn III, Of A: staccati on 2nd–4th miss-ing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Vc and Cb.

234/2nd–239/1st Orch A: various missing and incom-pletely marked slurs, most of the latter caused by a page turn between 236 and 237; the model for those slurs that cross the bar line to 1st (Fg, Cor III–IV, Trb I–II, Trbn I–II, Vle) is clearly established at 234–235, and partially confirmed at 236–237 (it is also confirmed in MpR).

235, 237 Fg II (Fg IV = Fg II) A: staccati on 1st and 2nd missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Vc and Cb.

235/1st Trb III–IV A: isolated staccato, unconfirmed either by the unison Cor I–II here or at the

Page 81: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

79© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

analogous 237/1st and 239/1st for Trb III–IV and Cor I–II; we suppress.

235/3rd C and B Coro A: accents missing; we supply from MpR.

237/3rd C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with B Coro.

237/4th S Coro A: accent missing; we supply by anal-ogy with 233/4th and 235/4th.

239/3rd–240 Fl I A: accents and staccati missing; we sup-ply in vertical conformity with Cl I and Vni I.

239/4th S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Cl I and Vni I (see also the previous Note).

240/1st Fg II and III–IV A: accents missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Cb (Vc = Cb).

242 Ob A: empty bar; we supply the missing material (doubling C Coro, as at 243 –246) from MpR. All examined sources mechanically fol-low A.

243–244/1st Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl I.

244/3rd–245 S Coro A: the accent at 245, which is also present in all the examined sources, could well be another example of an “intrusion” from MpR for the same reasons postulated in Note 184/3rd, 206. Having decided not to carry over into A a part for Trb I–II at 244/3rd–245 that would have reinforced S Coro as it does in MpR, he also omitted the accent for S Coro at 244/3rd but not the one at 245. While the surviving accent may simply be an unintended transfer from MpR, it is nonetheless musically plausible and in this case the particular me-lodic gesture has no imitative counterpart. We therefore leave its adoption to the discretion of the performer.

245/3rd–246/1st Orch A: few accents are present (in equal number at 245/3rd and 246/1st), and there are no slurs for the ornamental figures (MpR is equally lacunose); we supply the missing ac-cents only to those instruments playing ff.

246/3rd– 4th B Coro, 248/1st, 3rd, 4th C Coro, 250/3rd– 4th S Coro A: accents missing (at 250/3rd– 4th GV marked staccati, which are not incompatible with accents; see Edition criteria “Interchangea-bility of carets, accents, staccati”, pp. 10–11); we supply in square brackets from MpR (where the articulation for the instrumental parts dou-bling the voices is identical to A).

248 Vni I A: anomalous ff.248 –254/1st Orch A: very sparsely marked accents and

staccati; we add square brackets only where no model for their integration is present. Our proposals are based on GV’s markings for the string section (this solution was also followed in RI1913). Those cases where some margin of

doubt persists may be summarized as follows: – 248, 250 Vni II: accent for the on 3rd only at

250; in MpR instead there is no accent for the on 2nd in that bar. We derive a composite mod-el by conflating the readings of A and MpR, one which is clear and can be extended to the other instruments with this same rhythmic-melodic configuration.

– 249/1st Fg II and IV, Trbn–Of, Cb (Vc = Cb): accents missing; we supply by analogy with 251, and supported by the accent for Cb (Vc = Cb) in MpR.

– 249, 251 Ott, Fl I, Ob II, Cl II, Trb I and III, Vni I: accents on 2nd–4th only for Vni I. While those winds with the same thematic incipit as Vni I should plausibly be supplied with identi-cal articulation (just as the lower winds mirror the model of Vc and Cb), it is necessary to note the presence in A of two discordant slurs, one for Ob II at 249 and the other for Cl I at 251, both for the same three (unaccented) on 2nd–4th.

– 249, 251: among those instruments with the repeated eighth notes on 2nd–4th, staccati are present only for Vni II in both bars, for Cor I–II at 249, and for Trb I (Trb III = Trb I) at 251.

– 252/2nd–4th Vle: staccati for the three ; we replace with accents in vertical conformity with the other strings.

At 252–254/1st, where GV marked accents only for Fg, Trbn, Of, and strings (with the excep-tion of Vni II at 254/1st and Vle at 252–253/2nd), the homorhythmic nature of the passage makes it possible to supply accents to all of the other parts where they are missing (again as in RI1913).

248/1st Fg, Trbn, Of A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb).

248/3rd Vni II A: accent missing; we supply by analogy with 250.

250/3rd–4th Cl I A: staccati; mindful of the fact that GV often hurriedly marked staccati where there should be accents, we supply accents in vertical conformity with Ob I.

251/1st Trb I (Trb III = Trb I) A: accent, unconfirmed by the unison Ob II or Cl II; we suppress.

255 –256 Fl I, Ob I A: Although

a slur for both instruments is clearly marked at 255 –256/1st, it seems to be the premature antic-ipation of an expressive effect that only begins later in the proper context, at 258, with C Cor doubled by Trb I. One might reasonably pre-sume that the articulation in this brief “stretto” of overlapping thematic incipits should instead be the same. Therefore, and with all due cau-tion, we suggest an accent for Fl I and Ob I at

Page 82: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

80 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

255/1st by analogy with Fg I–II and Cor III at 256/1st, and staccati at 255/3rd–256 by analogy with Trb I at 254/3rd–255. All of the examined sources follow A.

256 Vni I, 257 Vni II A: staccati missing for the two ; we supply by analogy with Vle at 258 and Vc at 259.

256/3rd–257 Fg I–II A: accents at 256/3rd–4th, and no articulation at 257; we adjust in vertical con-formity with the unison Cor III (see also Note 257/1st).

257/1st Cor III A: staccato missing; we supply by anal-ogy with Trb I at 255/1st.

257/3rd–4th Fg III–IV A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Cor I.

258 Vc A: p missing; we supply in conformity with the previous three string entries.

258–259 Fg: the slur for Fg I–II is absent, as are the ac-cent and tie at 258/4th for Fg III–IV; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Cor.

259–260 Cl I A: the slur extends from 259/2nd beyond the at 260/3rd; we adjust for vertical con-formity with Fl I and Ob I (as well as S Coro). RI1913 preferred instead to conclude the slur at 260/3rd and extend it to Fl I and Ob I.

260 C Coro A: the slur begins only from the eighth note; we adjust by analogy with 258.

260–261 B Coro A: GV distractedly set the syllable “[i]-gnem” twice: beneath the g at 260 and again beneath the B at 261/3rd. I-Mr = A, while rRIms (→ rRI1874 and all subsequent printed sources) suppressed the extra syllable at 260. RI1875 also suppressed it at 260 but moved the proper conclusion at 261 to the first instead.

260/1st–2nd S Coro A: the staccati for the two are quite faint and might easily be dismissed as impuri-ties in the paper, were it not for their presence in MpR. Curiously, all of the examined sources considered them valid articulation marks. While doubtful, we accept them as well.

261–262 Trb I A: the slur is barely visible, such that I-Mr and RI1875 overlooked it; nonetheless it is present in RI1913 and confirmed by MpR.

262 S Coro A: “me” is missing, an obvious over-sight.

262 B Coro A: pp; while a different dynamic level with respect to the rest of the Coro is plausible, given that Fg II–IV, who double B Coro, also have pp, we prefer ppp as in MpR.

262 Vle A: pp; we adjust to ppp for vertical con-formity with the other strings (as in RI1913) in this bar, but maintain the “pp dolce” GV prescribed at 263 as fitting for the context.

•262–269 S soloist, 264 –274 S Coro Sources: despite the clearly marked model in A for the repeated phrase “libera me”, with the slur always reach-ing to “me” (rigorously reflected in I-Mr), most other secondary sources (including RI1913, ex-

cept for the last phrase) restricted it to the four notes for “libera”.

264–266 Cor A: the slur begins at 264/3rd, and the tie at 265–266 is missing, the latter probably due to a change of page (verso to recto) between the two bars. We adjust by analogy with 268–270, confirmed by MpR.

265–266 Fg I A: tie missing; we supply by analogy with 269–270.

266–267, 270–271 Fg I A: slurs missing; we supply by analogy with 274–275, and with the same fig-ure in this passage for Cor I and Vle.

268–269 C Coro A: slur missing; we suggest by analogy with T Coro at 270–271 (whose text is identical). None of the examined sources does likewise.

268–269 Vle A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with 264–265 and in vertical conformity with the unison Cor I.

270–271 B Coro A: tie missing, probably due to a page turn (recto to verso) between the two bars.

270–271 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A: the beginning of the slur at 270 is missing, prob-ably due to a page turn (recto to verso) between the two bars: that GV would neglect to mark the beginning of a slur in such circumstances is a phenomenon commonly encountered in A. The two previous analogous phrases dispel any doubt regarding his intentions (see also Note 270–273).

270 –273 S soloist A:

The abbreviated nature of this slur compared to the two previous phrases on “Libera me” may be easily understood. First, as postu-lated above (see Note 270–271, Vni I), the page turn between 270 and 271 would explain the absence of the beginning of the slur at 270; as part of a sequence, however, there is no reason to suspect that the phrasing of this text, “Domine, de morte” (and particularly its instrumental doubling), should begin any dif-ferently. With regard to the conclusion of the slur, it is unlikely that GV wanted to separate the last syllable “[mor]-te” unnaturally from the rest of the phrase (confirmed by the slur he marked for Vni I [Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave]); in the two previous phrases this was not a problem because the text ends on a monosyllable (“Libera me”; see Note 262–269). rRI1874 follows A, while in rRIms the slur begins at 270; I-Mr (→ RI1875) has no slur at all; RI1913, continuing the same pattern of two-bar slurs established for the previous phrases, limited the slur to 270 –271.

272–273 Cor I, Vle A: slurs missing; we supply by anal-ogy with 264–265 and 268–269.

Page 83: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

81© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

273–274 Fg II and IV A: slurs missing, we supply by analogy with 265–266 and 269–270.

276/2nd Orch, Coro A: p only for Vni I, which I-Mr extended to Vni II and Vle. The dynamic seems to be an opportune choice: if ignored, the pp / ppp orchestral dynamic established in the pre-vious bars (pp for Fg, Cor, and Vle; the other strings ppp) would be too great a contrast with the f for S soloist at 277. We therefore adopt p here for the orchestra and suggest it for Coro as well.

276/2nd–284 C Coro A: text missing.276/2nd–284/1st Woodwinds A: from 276/2nd to 281 the

slurs are precisely marked, such that GV’s intentions are manifestly clear (divergences and lacunae, which are reported in the relative Notes, are all but negligible). At 282–284/1st they lose much of their former precision (see Note 282–283), but it is musically plausible that GV intended the reasonably distinct examples he marked for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) at 282/2nd–284/1st

to be the model for the same con-

tracted motivic unit in the other woodwinds. MpR is still more lacunose and consequently of little assistance, but at 283/2nd–284/1st the slur for Fg I–II is very clear. This model was also adopted by RI1913.

277 S soloist rRIms: f missing, which omission was transmitted to rRI1874 and RI1913 (RI1964 reinstat-ed f); I-Mr and RI1875 correctly have f as in A.

277/2nd–278/1st, 279/2nd–280/1st Ob II A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fl I.

279/2nd–281/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: one con-tinuous slur; we replace with two shorter ones by analogy with the previous examples.

280–281 Ob I A: two shorter slurs; we replace them with one, by analogy with the previous two examples.

281/2nd–282/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with 282/2nd–283/1st.

282–283 Coro A: S Coro has two slurs, one per complete bar (that is, beginning on the downbeat of each). We find the shifted phrasing pattern for the unison Ob I (but see Note 276/2nd–284/1st) to be more plausible and adjust S Coro accord-ingly, and suggest its vertical extension to the other three Coro parts (C Coro = unison Ob II; T and B Coro = unison Fg) as well. RI1913 (following the lead of RI1875) adjusted S Coro in like manner, but without extending the slurs to C, T, and B Coro.

282–283 Ott, Fl, Ob, Fg A: hastily marked or missing slurs: for Ott, one single slur for the seven ; for Fl, no slurs; for Ob, slurs only for 2nd–4th;

for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), the slur at 283 begins on 1st rather than 2nd (see Note 276/2nd–284/1st).

282/1st S soloist A: staccato missing, probably forgot-ten by GV following a page turn; we supply by analogy with 278 and 280. rRIms, I-Mr, and RI1875 agree; rRI1874 and RI1913 follow A.

282/2nd–283 Orch A: missing cresc. symbols and others of varying length, but those GV marked for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) and Vc make his in-tentions clear beyond any doubt (confirmed in MpR). We also suggest their extension to Coro, unlike any of the examined sources.

284, 286, 288 Brass A: missing but clearly intented ac-cents, which we integrate (as did RI1913) with-out typographical distinction.

284 –289 Woodwinds, Strings A: missing slurs and articulation. With regard to the phrasing, the overall clarity of GV’s intentions allows us to integrate missing slurs without typographi-cal distinction. Of greater concern is the scant presence of articulation signs, particularly accents (see Note 284, 286, 288 for the brass accents). Even so, what few GV marked tend to agree with the more generous sampling in MpR, so that there is no reason to think that he wanted anything different. Those cases that are more problematic may be summarized as follows:

– 284/2nd–289 Fl, Cl I: very few staccati and slurs; we (like RI1913) supply in vertical con-formity with Vle, who lack only the slur at 288.

– 284, 286, 288 Ott, Ob I, Vni I: no accents on 3rd for Ott and Ob I, and only one, at 284, for Vni I (confirmed in MpR); we (like RI1913) supply in vertical conformity with the general presence of homorhythmic accents for the brass instruments (see Note 284, 286, 288 Brass).

– 284 –288 Ob II, Cl II, Fg, Vni II, Cb (Vc = Cb from 285): extremely few accents on 3rd in these bars. For the various at 284, 286, and 288, we supply in vertical conformity with the brass instruments. The only accents in A for the concomitant are at 286 for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), and Cb (Vc = Cb); and at 288 for B Coro. MpR has three more: at 286 for Vni II, and at 288 for Vni II and Ob II. Given this evi-dence of intended participation in the general accent established by the brass instruments, we supply accents for the where missing.

On the other hand, there is legitimate room for doubt regarding the accents for the on 3rd at 285 and 287. GV marked only one example in A, for Fg I (Fg III = Fg I) at 287. Supporting evidence from MpR cannot be brought to bear in this case because it is present in Cb (Vc = Cb), whose rhythmic (and melodic) configuration

Page 84: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

82 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

is different at 285 and 287 in A: while MpR has two with an accent for the second in both bars, in A GV originally copied the two but later erased them and replaced each pair with instead. It is therefore possible that the sole accent for Fg I at 287/3rd was only a slip of the pen, perhaps with the Cb accent in that position from MpR in mind. We accept it with reservation, extending it vertically to Ob II, Cl II, and Vni II at 287, and similarly suggesting it to every a ’ at 285/3rd. RI1913 has no accents for Ob II, Cl II, Fg I and III, Vc, and Cb other than the general one at 284. RI1964 reinstated the accent for Vc and Cb at 286/3rd from A, but not the one for Fg I at 287/3rd.

286 C and B Coro, 288 C Coro A: accents missing on 3rd; we supply in conformity, and by analogy, with the accent for B Coro at 288 (see also Note 284 –289: 284 –288).

•287/1st Vni I A: g' missing, notwithstanding the tie GV had marked for it from the previous bar. None of the examined sources add g'.

288 Timp A: with only two cuts through the stem; we modify to match 284 and 286.

290, 294 Orch A: missing and occasionally divergent articulation. At 290, despite the lacunae, it is possible to find a model for each rhythmic-melodic figure that can be extended for vertical conformity; the only exceptions are the staccati on 1st and 2nd for Vni II and Vle, which may theoretically be extended to Ott and Ob I as well. At 294 there is even less articulation to be had, but what little GV marked is in agreement with 290 (the texture of which is analogous to 294), allowing us to fill the remaining gaps in a similarly concordant manner.

290/1st–2nd S Coro A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison S soloist. Already rRIms (→ rRI1874 and RI1913) had cor-rected the oversight.

•291/4th–292/1st Ott, Ob I, Vni II MpR: ties, all of which are not present in A. RI1913 added them by analogy with previous melodic figures (such as Ott, Ob I, and Vni I at 288/3rd–289/1st).

296/3rd, 297, 298/3rd, 299 B Coro, Brass A: at 296/3rd and 297, accents only for B Coro and Cor I–II; at 298/3rd and 299, accents for all brass instru-ments, and an accent only at 299 for B Coro.

297/2nd Voices A: f only for S soloist and S Coro, the latter of which we interpret as a general indica-tion applicable to C and T Coro as well (but not to B Coro, who move independently of the other voices here).

298, 300, 302 Strings A: GV marked accents on 1st and 3rd as follows:

298: Vni I and Cb on 1st; Vni I, Vni II, and Vc on 3rd;

300: no accents on 1st; Cb on 3rd; 302: no accents on 1st; Vni I, Vc, and Cb on 3rd. In MpR there are accents for Cb (Vc = Cb)

on 1st and 3rd in all three bars, while for the other strings they appear exclusively (if not consistently) on 3rd. Since those for Cb on 1st in MpR are likely residual from the skeleton score phase of composition, we suppress the two accents in A at 298/1st as an intrusive (and outdated) influence from MpR. In I-Mr and RI1875 the accents become progressively fewer at 300 and 302; RI1913 adopted and extended the accents at 298/1st and 3rd, but then ignored them entirely at 300 and at 302.

301, 303 Cor III–IV A: slurs missing; we supply by anal-ogy with 299 and in vertical conformity with the woodwinds.

304 –307 Winds A: missing and partial slurs, evidently exacerbated by a page turn (recto to verso) between 305 and 306. At 304 –305 GV marked open-ended slurs for Ob, Cor I–II, Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), and Trbn I–II (those for Fg and Trbn begin only from the second at 304); after the page turn, at 306 –307 he marked them for Fl, Ott, and Trbn I–II. We find this sufficient evidence of GV’s intentions and supply a single continuous slur uniformly for all of the wind parts.

•304–307 Gr C RI1913: three cuts over the four , but there are clearly only two in A. I-Mr and pUS-Cso also have three cuts.

308 A: varying dynamic indications: GV marked p for Vc, pp for Cb, and ppp for Vni and Vle (Vle also have a p beneath the ppp), apparently a reflection of some uncertainty that could well bring into question his differentiation between ppp for S soloist and pp for Coro. However, while it seems appropriate to establish verti-cal conformity among the strings, we prefer to maintain the dynamic distinction between S soloist and Coro: after S soloist’s prominent participation in the previous passage (other-wise GV would have written it for Coro alone), it seems he intended to have her voice “merge” with the others, concluding this section as one of the group. The examined sources opted for dynamic uniformity: I-Mr = tutti p; rRIms, rRI1874, RI1875, and RI1913 = tutti ppp.

312–327 Coro A: GV marked two extremely clear exam-ples of phrasing and articulation for the subject and response in this stretto section, both of which serve as templates where such indica-tions are otherwise missing: for the subject, at 312–318 (B Coro); and for the response, at 315 –321 (S Coro). The latter of these lacks only two small details, an accent at 315/1st and a staccato at 316/1st, but they are easily gleaned

Page 85: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

83© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

from the first two (entirely similar) bars of the subject. No divergent elements arise in the other vocal entrances, allowing us simply to integrate missing slurs and articulation in con-formity with their respective models (for the dim. symbols, see Note 315, 317, 323, 325). The lacunae may be summarized as follows:

– 313–319 T Coro: no articulation; – 314–318 C Coro: no articulation at 314, no

slurs at 316/1st–2nd and 317/2nd–4th, and no accent at 318/4th;

– 315/1st, 316/1st S Coro: no accent and no stac-cato respectively;

– 320–324 T Coro: no staccati at 320/3rd–4th, no slur at 323/2nd–4th, and no accent at 324/4th;

– 321–326 B Coro: no staccati at 321/3rd–322/1st and at 323/1st, no slur at 325/3rd–4th, and no accent at 326/1st;

– 322–323 S Coro: no articulation; – 323/3rd–325/1st C Coro: no staccati.312–327 Strings A: unlike the choral parts, which they

double, the strings have no complete and coherent model of phrasing and articulation for the subject and response (the examined sources largely reproduce the same incongruencies in A); even so, because the problem is mostly one of lacunae rather than divergences, of which there are relatively few, it is possible to derive a complete model by means of comparison and reciprocal integration. Those cases where some degree of doubt remains are discussed in the following Notes; see in particular Note 314, 316, 322, 324 and Note 316, 318, 324, 326. The lacunae and divergences may be summarized as follows:

– 312–316 Vc: accent rather than caret at 312/1st; slur for all four and staccato on 1st as well at 313; no slur at 316/1st–3rd;

– 313/3rd–4th Vle: no staccati; – 316/1st–3rd Vni II: no slur; – 320/2nd Vni II: no staccati for the eighth notes

(see the relative Note); – 323/2nd–4th, 324/1st–3rd Vle: no slurs; – 325 Vni II: slur; given that there are other

divergent slurs and articulation in this conclu-sion of the stretto, we preserve the slur for Vni II;

– 326/2nd–4th Vni I: slur and staccati; given that there are other divergent slurs and articulation in this conclusion of the stretto, we preserve phrasing and articulation for Vni I.

•312/3rd B Coro A: the staccato could be confused with a small accent, as occurred in I-Mr and RI1875; indeed, rRIms (→ rRI1874 → RI1913) chose to place an accent on 4th as well, applying this same articulation to the three successive en-tries.

313–326 Woodwinds A: GV marked complete models for the articulation of the two-bar accompani-mental figure at 313/2nd–314/2nd for Fl and Cl, and at 316/2nd–317/2nd for Ott and Ob; in all other iterations there are no staccati for the other than at 326/1st for Ott (Ob = Ott). MpR is more scrupulously supplied with these missing staccati (where GV often marked them for only one of two unison parts). Between the afore-mentioned models in A and their extended confirmation in MpR, there is no reason to doubt his intentions.

314 Vc, 316 Vni II, 322 Vle, 324 Vni I A: there are diver-gent readings on 1st–3rd for the phrasing/articulation in these four corresponding bars of the stretto: staccati at 314 (Vc); no articula-tion and no slur at 316 (Vni II); partial slur at 322 (Vle); full slur at 324 (Vni I). We adopt the last of these as our model and adjust the others accordingly.

315 T Coro, 317 S Coro, 323 B Coro, 325 C Coro A: only one dim. symbol is clearly marked on 2nd– 4th in these four corresponding bars of the stretto, at 323 (B Coro); there is a large accent at 317 (S Coro), which could also be interpreted as a dim. symbol, and nothing at 315 (T Coro) and 325 (C Coro). In each case the unison string part has a distinctly marked dim. symbol, and MpR confirms dim. symbols for both the voices and the strings. We find this sufficient evidence to adopt 323 as our model and adjust the other bars accordingly.

316 Vle, 318 Vni I, 324 Vc, 326 Vni II A:

At 316, Vle =

At 326, Vni II =

Evidently, at 316 (Vle) and 326 (Vni II) GV distractedly copied the same phrasing and articulation he had marked in MpR for all four bars corresponding to 316, 318, 324, and 326. That model, with three staccati and a slur on 2nd– 4th, was more appropriate for the first, original text setting in MpR:

Instead the example he marked at 318 (Vni I) and again at 324 (Vc), with the four slurred as 2 + 2 and staccati for the latter two, is better adapted to the text setting in A (which in turn reflects modifications he had meanwhile made to MpR). We therefore adopt the phrasing and articulation of 318 and 324 for 316 and 326 as well (but with the accent at 326/4th).

320/2nd Vni II A: staccati missing for the eighth notes; we supply by analogy with 318/2nd (Vc) and

Page 86: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

84 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

326/2nd (Vle). I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) ignored them.

•323–324 T Coro A: GV erroneously set “in die illa” in these two bars:

All of the examined sources follow A.328 Fg I A: p missing; we supply in accordance

with the p for Fl I at 329 and by analogy with Cl I at 330, thereby returning, like them, to the earlier dynamic before the interceding f marked at 326 for all three parts.

328 Fg I, 330 Cl I, 332 Fg III, 334 Ob I A: the accent for the first note of the subject is present only for Cl I at 330, but in the previous imitative episode (312ff) the relative string parts were always supplied with carets (accent for Vc at 312); in general this same consideration applies to nearly all of the thematic incipits that appear over the course of N. 7.

328 –336 Coro A: none of the four subject entries in this brief canonic passage has a complete set of slurs and articulation. Nonetheless, since there are only lacunae and no divergences, a model can be obtained through reciprocal integration and by comparison with the woodwind parts which, while occasionally different, are more completely furnished than the voices moving in unison with them (but see also Note 328, 330, 332, 334). The lacunae may be summarized as follows:

– 330/1st–3rd T Coro: no staccati; – 331/1st–3rd C Coro: no staccati; – 332 B Coro: no accent on 1st or staccati on

3rd–4th; – 334–336 S Coro: no articulation (slur for the

four notes at 334; see the relative Note). Integration of the staccati for S Coro at

336/2nd– 4th remains an arguable choice, given the different text (“et terra” rather than “mov-endi”) and the fact that the theme is truncated precisely where an accent would otherwise fall (as at the corresponding 330 [T Coro], 332 [C Coro], and 334 [B Coro]); we supply by analogy with the articulation GV marked for the same fragment of text for B Coro at 335/4th–336/2nd, and with the vertical support of the unison Ob I.

328/1st Fl II A: after a page turn GV forgot to add the g'', possibly with an eye to MpR (where Fl II is not present in the bars corresponding to 326–328).

329 –332 S soloist A: the exact lengths of the cresc. and dim. symbols are difficult to determine be-cause they partially merge with the concomi-tant slur, but clearly the cresc. begins after 329

and the dim. stops substantially before the end of the phrase. We find it musically plausible that GV intended to limit the messa di voce to the duration of the g’’, and we suggest its integration for the g’’ at 334 –335 as well. I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) extended both symbols to cover the entire phrase; rRIms (→ rRI1874) ignored them altogether.

334 S Coro A: anomalous slur for the four notes (all the examined sources follow A), unsup-ported by any previous thematic entry; we suppress. In all probability GV had mistakenly anticipated the expressive interpretation of the incipit that begins at 336 –337 (for an analogous situation, see Note 255 –256).

334 –335 S soloist: for the suggested messa di voce, see Note 329 –332.

336–337 C Coro, Trb I A: both slurs begin roughly from 336/3rd, but a complete (and far more plausible) model can be had from Cl I and the analogous phrases that follow. Evidently GV wanted to realize a sort of reminiscence effect relative to 258ff, where the two-bar thematic incipit is also marked legato and “dolcissimo”.

336 –341 C Coro MpR, A: the perceptibility of each subject entry in this passage was of particular concern to GV, who added the following anno-tation to the bottom of the page in MpR: “Qui si aggiungeranno altri 2 Contralti onde sia più sensibile il Soggetto” [“Here 2 Contraltos shall be added so that the Subject becomes more evident”]. He originally copied this instruction into A as well but then erased it after modi-fying the earlier footnote he had written for 328ff: “Questo squarcio sempre sotto voce e ver-rà eseguito da poche voci / nel coro basteranno 2 4. Soprani – 2 4. Con[tralti] 2 4. Ten[ori] 2 4. Bassi” [“This passage always sottovoce, and to be executed by only a few voices / in the Coro 2 4. Sopranos – 2 4. Con[traltos] 2 4. Ten[ors] 2 4. Basses will suffice”]. Having thus increased the number of voices for each part from 2 to 4 at 328ff, he presumably thought it superfluous to supplement C Coro still further (for a total of 6 voices) at 336. Nevertheless certain musical considerations suggest that such an expedient might well prove effective, notwithstanding his perhaps arguably motivated decision to the contrary. In fact, while the entry for C Coro at 336 occurs in a register where it can be clearly distinguished – and without the risk of being overwhelmed by Trb I – the line then descends progressively, and less favorably, to reach g at 341. It is plausible that an additional boost to their breadth of sound would also benefit the aggregate “a4” choral balance. Therefore, should the appropriate resources be available

Page 87: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

85© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

and the need arise, we suggest adding two more voices at 336 to sustain and strengthen the part for C Coro. Because none of the sourc-es derived from A enjoyed any direct contact with MpR, the original prescription from MpR is absent in the traditional transmission history of this music.

336–343 Trb I A: GV forgot (as in MpR) to supply the necessary flats, as though they were already present in the key signature.

337–342 T Coro, Fg I A: as often happened, GV only began the slurs for these parts following a page turn (recto to verso), in this case between 337 and 338, marking the one for T Coro with two pen strokes between 338 and 340 (I-Mr has only a short slur for T Coro at 338 –339; RI1913 and rRIms → rRI1874 ignored that one as well). Since there seems to be no reason to inter-rupt either the textual or melodic unity of the phrase, we complete the slur for Fg I and apply the same musical logic to the one for T Coro.

348 T and B Coro A: pp, probably a partial in-trusion from MpR. Already I-Mr and rRIms modifed them to ppp in conformity with S and C Coro.

348–349 B Coro, Fg II, III–IV, Cor III A: as often hap-pened elsewhere, GV forgot to mark ties for these parts (all some octave of G) over the page turn (recto to verso) between 348 and 349, but his intentions are clear.

349 Ob I A: accent missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with Cl I. All of the examined sources have no accent for either part.

350 Vni II A: standard slur missing for the alternat-ing sixteenth notes.

354–358 Ob I A: 354 and 355 are separated by a change of page (verso to recto), prompting GV to mark an anomalous slur from 355 to 358. We adjust in vertical agreement with the unison S Coro.

356 Ob I A: dim. symbol missing.360–361 Vni I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical

conformity with the unison Cl I.363–364 Fg III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical

conformity with the unison Vc.366 –367 B Coro A: at 366, the last bar of a verso, GV

wrote pppp for the entrance of B Coro, but in the left margin of the following recto he wrote “Tutti” (previously B Coro had been reduced to four voices) and ppp, with “cominciando sotto voce” added above the part (“co minciando ppp” appears above Vni I and beneath Cb); we opt for ppp in conformity with the instruments, and assign all three indications to their logical position at 366.

•369 T Coro A: p; we modify to pp in vertical conformity with S soloist and C Coro. rRIms misinterpreted the focus of the three separate

indications at 366–367 (pppp, “Tutti”, and “com-inciando sotto voce”) and at 369 assigned “sot-tovoce” to S, C, and T Coro as well; this error was subsequently transmitted to the printed sources.

370/1st–3rd B Coro A: tie (absent in MpR). Among the examined sources, only I-Mr and RI1875 adopt-ed it, the latter compounding this error with another: in order to make sense of the tie, the copyist set the syllable “[i-]gnem” beneath the and moved “i-” back to the left of the bar line.

371–373 Cb (Fg I–II, Vc = Cb) A: anomalous caret on 1st at 371 (already I-Mr and RI1875 had replaced it with an accent), and no accents at 372 and 373; we supply by analogy with 367–369 (in I-Mr and RI1875 372 and 373 = 371 → RI1913, where they are correctly integrated).

375, 377, 379 Fg, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati on 3rd and 4th are present only for Fg I–II at 375 and 377 (from 376 Fg III–IV = Fg I–II); we supply where missing in conformity with these models.

380 –381 Trbn III–Of A: it is not clear whether GV intended these two bars to be played by one or both instruments. We assign them to Of, as in pUS-Cso; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) gave the notes double stems.

380/3rd Of, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II).

•381/3rd–4th Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati rather than the prevailing accents. I-Mr has no articulation for Cb, but also none for Trbn III–Of (see Note 380–381) and Cor III–IV, which lacunae were transmitted to RI1875 (→ RI1913).

382 A Orch: differing and occasionally missing dynamics: fff above Vni I and beneath Cb, otherwise ff (Coro = ff, and “tutta forza” above S Coro). We consider fff to be residual from the skeleton score and opt for ff, which allows for further expansion to a maximum fff at 396 (see also Note 396).

382–387 A: GV marked only a handful of accents in this homorhythmic sequence (although comparison with the far more generously supplied passage in MpR makes his intentions sufficiently clear). Their presence in A is particularly exiguous on the downbeats of 383 (for Cor I–II, Timp, S Coro, and Cb [Vc = Cb]), 385 (Ott alone), and 387 (S Coro alone). Nevertheless GV marked complete examples at 382–383 (the first of the three statements) for Cor I–II, Timp, S Coro, and Cb, which we have used as templates for both vertical and horizontal extension (at 384–385 and 386–387). RI1913 adopted this same solution, which is also mirrored in rRIms (→ rRI1874).

•388/1st Cor III–IV A: isolated accent; we suppress. I-Mr

Page 88: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

86 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

(→ RI1875) preserved it, with additional accents for Cor I–II and Trb III–IV; RI1913 extended it to all parts but Coro and Timp.

388/3rd–389/3rd Fg I–II A: isolated slur; we suppress (as did RI1913).

390 Orch A: only a few accents are present: one between the staves for Cor, another between the staves for Fg, and two for Cb (Vc = Cb). It is not clear whether the one between the Fg staves was intended for Fg II or for Fg III–IV. In any case, accents for Fg III–IV and Trbn III–Of are plausible because both bass parts function in conjunction with Vc and Cb.

390/1st–391/1st S Coro A: slur, perhaps lingering from an earlier version; all of the examined sources agree in its suppression.

392–395 C Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with S Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A; I-Mr has no accents for either S Coro or C Coro; RI1875 (→ RI1913) ignored the accent for S Coro at 392 but extended the re-maining three to C Coro.

392/3rd–393/1st Fg II A: tie missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Ott, Fl, Cl II, and Cor III–IV.

392/3rd–393/3rd T Coro A: the slur stops at 393/1st; while it may be residual from an earlier version (and was in fact ignored by all of the examined sources), we nonetheless find it plausible that T Coro should have the same phrasing as the unison Cor I–II (see also Note 392/3rd–393/3rd Fg I, Trbn I).

392/3rd–393/3rd Fg I, Trbn I A: GV marked these slurs beneath Fg II and Trbn II, but they obviously apply to Fg I and Trbn I, in vertical conformity with Cor I.

393/4th Trb I–II (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II) A: staccati miss-ing for the last two eighth notes.

394 Fg III–IV, Trbn III–Of A: accent missing; we supply in vertical conformity with the unison Cb (Vc = Cb).

395/1st Fg I, Fg III–IV, Trbn I–II, Trbn III–Of A: accents missing; we supply the accent for the of Trbn II in vertical conformity with Fg II, Cor, and Trb I and III; those for the other parts (all of which move homorhythmically in unison or parallel sixths) are supplied in vertical con-formity with Cb (Vc = Cb).

396 Orch A: GV marked various gradations of forte ranging from f to fff in the left margin of the page (396 is the first bar following a page turn), but with no apparent rhyme or reason in their distribution. Both the texture and pivotal position of this climax seem to countervail any attempt at significant dynamic differentiation: it makes little sense, for example, that Timp should play ff and Gr C f precisely where the intensity of sound is pitched at maximum

level, with at least a pair of fff for the winds (roughly positioned in the area of Fg III–IV and Cor I–II) and another fff for Vni I. In MpR the corresponding bar is uniformly marked ff, with the possible exception one fff for Trb (but no differentiation between Timp and Gr C). In A, on the other hand, Trb are expressly marked fff at 392, an unlikely choice were the dynamic level then to diminish only a few bars later. We therefore supply fff for the entire orchestra at 396. The examined sources adopted various solutions, none of which coherently addresses the overall dynamic disposition of the passage from 382 to 396 (see also Note 382):

I-Mr = ff for Fg I–II, Vni, and Vle – f for Fl and Cl (at 382 ff for Fl, Trbn, Of and strings – f for all other parts; at 390 p [sic] for Trb I–II – at 392/2nd ff for Trb I–II [Trb III–IV = Trb I–II]);

RI1875 = f (f also at 382; at 390 f for Trb I–II; at 392 ff for Trb I–IV);

RI1913 = ff (at 382 ff tutta forza; at 388 f for Trb III–IV; at 390 f for Trb I–II; at 392 ff for Trb I–II and III–IV);

rRIms (→ rRI1874) = fff (at 382 ff tutta forza).397 Timp A: two cuts [ ]; we modify to three as in

the adjoining bars.•406 S Coro A: ppp; we modify to pp in vertical con-

formity with C and T Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874) has ppp for S Coro but no dynamic for C and T Coro; I-Mr (→ RI1875 → RI1913) gave ppp to all three parts.

•409 Vc, Cb I-Mr, RI1913: ppp for both parts (RI1875 = pp), notwithstanding GV’s clearly marked pp for Vc and ppp for Cb in A. We believe this to be an intentional differentiation: given that Cb has a rather penetrating sound in that register, GV probably wanted to balance it properly with Vc.

414 Orch A: ppp for Vni I, pp for Vni II, Vle, and Fg I; we supply ppp for all instruments, which is closer to the pppp GV marked for S Coro at 412 and conforms with Cb’s ppp from 409 (see the relative Note above).

416 Tempo A: see Note 171, 416.416 S soloist A: originally a breath mark after

“æterna”, later erased (see also Note 7– 9).418, 420 Voci A: pp and pppp only for S soloist. •419 Orch A: ppp for Ob, Gr C, Vle, and Vc; other-

wise pp. We prefer pp for greater equilibrium with Coro, but maintain ppp for Gr C (as in RI1875). RI1913 = tutti ppp.

Page 89: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

87© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

Appendix“Liber scriptus” first version (1874)

S

A, vol. I, pp. 68a– 80a37

The first version of the “Liber scriptus” (1874) begins from the third bar of p. 68a (162a) and ends with the penultimate bar of p. 80a (215a) (see also the critical commentary for N. 2). The later, definitive version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875) was inserted between p. 68a and p. 69a.

Among the examined sources, only I-Mr, pUS-Cso, and rRI1874 contain the first version. Since for the most part they acritically follow A, they are rarely useful for the edition of this piece, nor do they help to reconstruct the genesis of eventual errors because the first version had no further transmission history once it was replaced with the defini-tive 1875 version in the performing tradition.

C

162a, 166a, 170a, 174a Strings A: GV only marked one p, at 162a for Vni I, which we consider valid for this entire section and extend to all other subject entries.

162a–182a/1st Coro A: in this fugal exposition (“Liber scriptus proferetur… unde mundus judicetur”) the vocal parts have fairly homogeneous slurs and articulation, with some lacunae but no incongruencies (I-Mr and rRI1874 generally fol-low A). The subject (S), response (R), and first countersubject (Cs1) all have clear and coherent models that can be extended where otherwise missing; particularly the exhaustively marked initial entry of S for S Coro at 162a–166a/2nd (but see also Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st), which we can apply to all appearances of S and R. The fact that all three appearances of Cs1 (S Coro at 166a/3rd–170a/1st, C Coro at 170/3rd–174/1st, T Coro at 174/3rd–178/1st, B Coro at 178/3rd–182/1st) have substantially the same slurs and articulation seems to confirm GV’s intention that there should be no variation among them. While there are more lacunae with regard to Cs2 (S Coro at 170a/3rd–174a/1st, C Coro at 174a/3rd–178a/1st, T Coro at 178a/3rd–182a/1st) and Cs3 (S Coro at 174a/2nd–178a/1st, C Coro at 178a/2nd–182a/1st), S Coro is marked in detail up to 178a/1st, again serving as a model for the other voices whose slurs and articulation are more lacunose but not divergent.

The same is true for the cresc. symbols: of the four GV marked for S Coro, only the first one appears in successive enunciations of S and R; we extend the remaining three to C, T, and

37 The page numbering refers to the status of A prior to the inser-tion of the “Liber scriptus” second version.

B Coro from S Coro, though acknowledging some doubt regarding the one at 166a/3rd–167a (see the relative Note). Specific cases of more problematic resolution are cited in the follow-ing Notes.

162a–182a/1st Strings A: unlike the vocal parts, where the slurs and articulation GV marked for S Coro can be applied to C, T, and B Coro (see Note 162a–182a/1st Coro), the instruments that double them have no such exhaustive and un-equivocal model (I-Mr and pUS-Cso more or less faithfully reproduce the same incongruen-cies). We therefore derive a model through re-ciprocal comparison of the instrumental parts, in addition to comparison of each one with the concomitant vocal part, silently integrating and rectifying and discussing individual passages in the following Notes.

With regard to the cresc. symbols, they are carefully and completely marked up to 173a, after which there are only two for Vc (176a–177a, 180a–181a) and one for Vni I (180a–181a). We integrate where missing based on previous appearances, and suggest them for Vni I at 166a–167a, Vni II at 170a–171a, Vle at 174a–175a, and Vc at 178a–179a on the model of S Coro at 166a–167a (see Note 166a/3rd–167a).

162a/3rd–163a/1st S Coro A: the slur for this thematic incipit does not appear in the subsequent entrances for C Coro (166a–167a/1st), T Coro (170a–171a/1st), or B Coro (174a–175a/1st); it does occur again, only once, for T Coro at 182a/3rd–183a/1st, but with a different text (“Judex ergo…”). Since it is difficult to imag-ine that GV would have been anything less than precise in establishing the slurs and articulation he wanted for the beginning of the exposition of the fugue, we accept and extend this initial slur for S Coro to the other three entrances, considering the slurs and articula-tion GV marked for S Coro to be paradigmatic (see Note 162a–182a/1st Coro). However, given the possibility that this slur may be directly relevant only to the pronunciation of the particular text involved, we do not extend it to those thematic entries where the text is differ-ent (see also Note 182a/3rd–183a/1st).

162a/3rd–163a/1st Vni I, 166/3rd–167/1st Vni II A: but the articulation in the corresponding pas-sages for Vle(170a–171a) and Vc (174a–175a) is

While the articulation for Vni I and II

would be entirely plausible, even because at 163 and in all corresponding passages the instrumental slurs and articulation diverge from the concomitant voices, the thematic incipits for Vni I at 178a/3rd–179a/1st and Vle

Page 90: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

88 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

at 182a/3rd–183a/1st reflect the same articula-tion GV marked for S, C, and T Coro (there is no articulation for B Coro). We therefore infer that GV must have refined his idea of the slurs and articulation he wanted for the strings as he went along.

162a/3rd–4th S Coro A: “con espres[sione]”; we interpret this indication as valid for the successive vocal entrances of S and R as well, although it can-not be excluded that GV intended it to refer only to this first enunciation of the subject.

166a C Coro A: staccati for the two ; we replace with carets in conformity with the other three choral incipits of the subject (GV often marked staccati as “shorthand” for carets or accents: see Edition criteria, “Interchangeability of car-ets, accents, staccato”, pp. 10–11.

166a–167a/1st C Coro, 170a–171a/1st T Coro, 174a–175a/1st B Coro A: slur missing; we supply in con-formity with the model supplied by S Coro at 162a–163a/1st, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

166a/3rd–167a S Coro A: the cresc. symbol is present here but for no other corresponding passage, either vocal or instrumental, in the fugal exposition of 162a–182a. Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt its deliberate nature, given the absence of any suggestion of cancellation. It is also ex-tremely convincing from a musical standpoint, as a means of intensifying the expressivity of the only chromatic element of this fugal expo-sition. I-Mr and rRI1874 adopted it but without extending it to the other voices. We therefore, although with some reservation, extend it to the corresponding vocal entries and the instru-ments that double these parts, which results in “waves” of crescendi through the four enuncia-tions of the subject.

166a/3rd–167a Vni I, 170a/3rd–171a Vni II, 174a/3rd–175a Vle, 178a/3rd–179a Vc A: missing and diver-gent slurs. For Vni I, the slur extends from 166a/3rd to the first of 168; for Vni II the slur is missing; for Vle and Vc, the slur covers only the two at 174a/3rd–4th and 178a/3rd–4th respectively (the latter due to a page turn, recto to verso). We supply and adjust in conformity with the concomitant slurs for the voices (but see also Note 174a/3rd–175a, 178a/3rd–179a).

168a C Coro A: slur missing; we supply based on the model of S Coro at 164 (as established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro), and by analogy with T Coro at 172 and B Coro at 176.

168a Vni II A: slur missing; we supply based on the models of Vni I at 164 and Vle at 172, in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

168a–169a Vni I A: ; no articulation is

present for Vni II (172a–173a) and Vc (180a–

181a), but Vle (176a–177a) has

We supply and adjust the articulation for these parts, replacing the caret for the where present with an accent, in conformity with the concomitant vocal parts, as established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings (but see also Note 169a).

169a S Coro A: caret; we replace with an accent, as GV did himself at 173a for C Coro and 177a for T Coro (marking accents directly over carets in each case); at 181a he directly supplied an accent for B Coro.

170a/3rd–4th C Coro, 174 /3rd–4th T Coro, 178/3rd–4th B Coro A: “legate” missing; we supply from the model supplied by S Coro at 166a/3rd–4th, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

170a/3rd–171a C Coro, Vni II: for the suggested cresc. symbol, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.

170a/3rd–172a/1st S Coro A: two different phrasings are present, the first of which probably belongs to an earlier cancelled version: A) a slur from 170a/3rd to 172a/1st, erased right after the bar line at 171a (between the a’ and c’’); B) two slurs, the first for 170a/3rd–4th, the second for 171a/1st–172a/1st. I-Mr and rRI1874 opted for solution A (though interrupting the slur on the last eighth note of 171a). We adopt solution B, extending it also to C and T, respectively at 174a/3rd–176a/1st and 178a/3rd–180a/1st.

171a/1st Vle, 175a/1st Vc A: no articulation is present, while Vni I at 163a/1st and Vni II at 167a/1st have carets. We adopt the model supplied by the vocal parts, as well as the numerous other instrumental enunciations of the thematic incipit (see also Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st Vni I, 166a/3rd–167a/1st Vni II).

172a–173a C Coro A: cresc. symbol only at 173; we adjust based on the model of S Coro at 168a–169a, according to the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

172a/2nd–4th Vni I A: staccati missing; we supply in con-formity with the corresponding Vni II at 176a and Vle at 180, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

173a T Coro A: slur missing; we supply in conform-ity with the corresponding S Coro at 165 and B Coro at 177.

174a–175a/1st B Coro A: no articulation is present; we supply in conformity with the previous entrances of S (S Coro at 162a–163a/1st and T Coro at 170a–171a/1st) and R (C Coro at 166a–167a/1st; but see Note 166a).

174a/3rd–175a T Coro, Vle: for the suggested cresc. sym-bol, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.

174a/3rd–175a T Coro, 178a/3rd–179a B Coro A: diver-

Page 91: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

89© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

gent slurs, caused respectively by a page turn (recto to verso) and a change of page (verso to recto). We adjust in conformity with the cor-responding S Coro at 166a/3rd–167a and C Coro at 170a/3rd–171a, where GV’s intentions are clearly marked.

175a Vc A: the slur and the accent on 1st are missing and GV marked staccati also for the first two eighth notes, possibly an inadvertent anticipa-tion of the articulation for the thematic incipit in the next section, which is characterized by greater orchestral density and dynamic con-trasts. We adjust to match the previous enun-ciations of the theme.

175a–176a C Coro, 179a–180a T Coro A: lacunose phras-ing and articulation:

– 175a–176a: both slurs and the staccati are missing;

– 179a–180a: the first slur begins from the first eighth note in 179a; staccati in 179a and second slur in 180a are missing. We adjust in conform-ity with the model of S Coro at 171a–172a, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

176a–177a T Coro A: cresc. symbol missing; we suggest in conformity with the model of S Coro at 168a–169a, in accordance with the criterion estab-lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

176a–177a Vc A: slurs and staccati missing; we supply in conformity with the previous enunciations of the theme, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

176a–177a C Coro, 180a–181a T Coro A: cresc. symbols missing; we supply based on the model of S Coro at 172a–173a, in accordance with the crite-rion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

177a Vni II, 181a Vle A: slurs missing; we supply in con-formity with Vni I at 173a, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

177a–178a/1st S Coro A: slur missing; we suggest in conformity with the corresponding C Coro at 181a–182a.

178a Vni II A: dim. symbol missing; we supply in conformity with the corresponding Vni I at 174a, in accordance with the criterion estab-lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

178a–180a C Coro A: the dim. symbol at 178a, slur at 179a/2nd–180a/1st, and accents at 180a/2nd–4th are missing; we supply based on the model of S Coro at 174a–176a, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

178a/3rd–179a B Coro, Vc: for the suggested cresc. sym-bols, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.

178a/3rd–179a Vle A: slur missing; at 179a, accent on 1st and additional staccati for the first two eighth

notes (evidently GV mistakenly carried over the staccati from the concomitant Vni I part; see Note 179a–181a). We adjust in conformity with the corresponding Vni II at 174a/3rd–175a, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

179a–181a Vni I A: at 179a the slur is missing and there are additional staccati for the first two eighth notes (as for Vc at 175a). We adjust in conform-ity with the previous enunciations of the theme by Vni I, Vni II, and Vle, as well as the succes-sive entrance of Vle at 183a, which confirms GV’s intention that the strings maintain the same phrasing when the text becomes “Judex ergo…” (at least up to the change of dynamic at 184a/3rd). At 180a–181a there is a single slur for the eight ; we modify based on the model obtained in accordance with the criterion estab-lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

179a–182a Vni II A: the accent, carets, and slurs are miss-ing; we supply in conformity with the corre-sponding Vni I at 175a–178a/1st, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

180a–181a B Coro A: cresc. symbol missing; we supply based on the model of S Coro at 168a–169a, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

180a/2nd–4th C Coro A: accents missing; we supply based on the model of S Coro at 176a, in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.

180a/2nd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply in conform-ity with the corresponding Vni II at 176a, in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.

182a/3rd–183a/1st T Coro A: incomplete slur at 182/3rd– 4th, which is interrupted by a change of page (verso to recto) and does not continue to 183a; while a slur is present for S Coro at 162a–163/1st, we do not adopt it here in accord-ance with the motivation explained in Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st.

184a T Coro, Vle A: neither the slurs nor staccati are present, but presumably GV wanted the same phrasing and articulation as in the previous corresponding passages; nevertheless, given the change of dynamic and orchestral texture in this bar, we suggest their integration with all due consideration for this difference.

184a–186a A: there is some divergence in the position of the dynamic indications. For S Coro a second superfluous f is present at 185a/1st, which we suppress. Vni II and Cb both have f at 185/1st as well, but in this case with no prior f at 184a. While there is no doubt that the f for Cb should be anticipated to the thematic entry at

Page 92: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

90 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

184/3rd (in vertical conformity with Vc), the proper position of the f for Vni II cannot be established with equal certainty: it could be an-ticipated to 184/2nd in vertical conformity with Ob I, but in that case the f GV wrote for Vni II at 186/3rd, where it marks the entrance of R in inversion (in octave double stops for additional emphasis), would lose its significance. We therefore suppress the f for Vni II at 185/1st in the conviction that GV intended the dynamic to signal the entrance of the theme, whether in direct or inverse motion. In keeping with this logic, we extend the f for Vni II at 186a/3rd to Vle, and suggest it for Cor, C Coro, and T Coro as well. Meanwhile, presumably the dynamic level reached after the crescendo at 180a–181a will be at least mf, which we suggest for Cor I–II at 185a and Cor III–IV at 184a. However, we prefer to preserve the f GV marked at 184a for Ob I, whose actual weight of sound will inevi-tably be less than that of the other instruments announcing the theme in that bar in direct (Fg I–II and III–IV, Vc, Cb) and inverse (Fl I at the upper octave, Cl I, Vni I) motion.

184a/3rd–4th S and B Coro A: accents; we replace with carets, as per the other appearances of the theme. For S Coro there is also a slur for the two , which has no exact counterpart in any other thematic incipit: the only two other entries with a slur (S Coro at 162a and T Coro at 182a) have it extending to the downbeat of the next measure (but see also Note 182a/3rd–183a/1st). We suppress this slur in accord-ance with the motivation explained in Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st.

184a/3rd–213a Coro A: the phrasing and articulation for the theme and successive variants in this stretto section, as represented by B and S Coro at 184a/3rd–186a (direct and inverted respec-tively), are frequently lacunose and divergent (I-Mr and rRI1874 largely reflect the same incon-gruencies). We have established the following general criteria for editorial intervention:

1) Articulation a) GV marked accents for the two of S and B

Coro at 184a/3rd– 4th, but they are carets in all successive entries (with the exception of S Coro at 212a; see the relative Note); we therefore adopt carets throughout;

b) wherever the head of the theme (whether S or R; direct or inverted) is reasonably close to the model, we integrate and normalize the articulation according to the prevalent pattern;

c) the accent for B Coro at 186a/1st is silently extended only when the thematic contour is the same (allowing for intervallic adjustment where necessary) as at 184a/3rd–186a, particu-

larly the third bar; this applies to both direct and inverted presentations of the theme.

2) Phrasing a) Our criteria for the integration and normali-

zation of the combined staccati and slur in the second bar of the theme are explained in Note 185a–212a;

b) the length of the second slur (in the third bar) is determined case by case according to the disposition of the text beneath (see Note 202a).

3) General As a general principle, when the theme appears

simultaneously in direct and inverse motion, we automatically extend the slurs and articula-tion for vertical conformity unless otherwise prevented by differences in the disposition of the text (see Note 185a–212a).

184a/3rd–213a Orch A: unlike the vocal parts (see Note 184a/3rd–213a), the instrumental parts have no single enunciation of the theme that can serve as a complete and coherent model for slurs and articulation (I-Mr and pUS-Cso largely reflect the same incongruencies). We can, however, construct a model through reciprocal compari-son of those statements where the melodic con-tour is the same (allowing for intervallic adjust-ment where necessary), applying the following general criteria for editorial intervention:

a) given the contrapuntal nature of this pas-sage, we proceed in terms of function rather than adopt the usual extension of expressive indications by instrumental family: unison parts may reciprocally share slurs and articu-lation even if they do not belong to the same family (the presence of a symbol in one part

is sufficient for its extension to the other uni-son parts);

b) the model of articulation for the theme is determined through reciprocal comparison of the parts, with silent integration only where the melodic contour is the same (allowing for intervallic adjustment where necessary); this applies to both direct and inverted presenta-tions of the theme;

c) wherever the head of the theme (whether S or R; direct or inverted) is reasonably close to the original form, we silently integrate the articulation where it is missing, but evaluate the differences between carets, accents, and staccati and only normalize case by case where appropriate (see Note 188a/3rd–192a);

d) in the second bar of the theme, the first often lacks a staccato, similar to the vocal parts (but see Note 185a–212a); nevertheless, as GV worked through the notation of this section he gradually came to add the staccato, such that

Page 93: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

91© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

it is present more often than not. We therefore respect this divergence with the voices. Also, in accordance with the criterion established in section a), when it is present in one part we extend it reciprocally to the other unison instrumental parts, suggesting its integration with square brackets only when entirely miss-ing (see 185a).

Specific cases of more doubtful solution are discussed in the following Notes.

185a B Coro A: the slur begins from the first eighth note; we modify in conformity with previous corresponding appearances of the theme, in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 185a–212a, b.

185a–212a Coro A: incongruencies of phrasing and articu-lation:

a) Staccati: within the rhythmic unit – an integral part of the

theme, whether in direct or inverted motion – the first does not always carry a stac-cato. GV’s intentions would appear to become more evident, however, toward the end of the section. It seems reasonable, if arguable, to deduce that the staccato for this note should be applied according to the text beneath. There is no doubt that when the text for the theme is “Judex ergo…” GV did not want a staccato for the first (it is consistently absent in all seven enunciations of “Judex ergo” between 179a and 192a). Where the text is different but a syllable is similarly present for the first , the logical conclusion would be to adopt this same pattern (with no staccato), as it does in fact occur at 199a (S and T Coro), 203a (S and T Coro), and 212a (C Coro), corresponding to “[nil inul]-tum”. Nevertheless GV did mark a staccato for this very same model of syllabic disposition of text at 187a (C and T Coro), 195a (B Coro), and 211a (T Coro), while at 201a (C and B Coro), where the text is identical, one part has the staccato (C Coro) but the other does not (B Coro). Therefore, from a statistical perspective the two options are equivalent. Even so, GV seems to have reserved the staccato for the first where a melisma is involved, to ensure a correct articulation of the note when it has no separate syllable (see the three entrances of the stretto at 207a–211a) – although it should be observed that there is no staccato for the first at 193a (S Coro), 194a (C Coro), 196a (T Coro), and 197a (S Coro). With all due caution, we opt for a staccato only in the presence of a melis-ma, otherwise omitting it when the context is syllabic. Because we hypothesize that the reason for this distinction is based on the text setting, we maintain divergences between the

vocal and instrumental parts, where the latter prevalently have a staccato for the first (see Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, d). Specific passages are discussed in the following Notes.

b) Slurs: analogous inconsistencies occur in the length of the slur in the second bar of the theme: sometimes it covers all five eighth notes, others only the last four. At first the longer slur would seem to be unrelated to the presence or not of a staccato for the first : for example, at 185a (S and B Coro) there is a longer slur and no staccato, whereas at 187a (C and T Coro) GV marked both the longer slur and a staccato. After the beginning of the first stretto at 188a, however, the situation appears to become more regular: while the first entry (S Coro) has the longer slur at 189a, the follow-ing three entries have the shorter slur (all four with no staccato for the first ). It is extremely likely that the slur for the syllabic model (with no staccato for the first ) should be limited only to the notes with staccati in the configura-tion (see also the four thematic entries in the exposition of the fugue at 162a–182a, as well as S Coro at 179a and T Coro at 183a). Equally probable is GV’s intention that the slur should cover all five notes when a staccato is present for the first (in fact the only exception occurs at 201a for C Coro, where he marked a staccato for the first but a shorter slur for the follow-ing four notes). It should also be remembered that notational practices were notoriously imprecise in this period, so much so that the actual length of these kinds of slurs might be scarcely significant. We therefore adopt the five-note slur for five staccati (the melismatic model) and the four-note slur for four staccati (the syllabic model).

Specific passages are discussed in the follow-ing Notes.

185a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-cordance with the criteria established in Note 184/3rd–213a Coro 1, b.

185a/1st–2nd Ob, Cor I, Vni II A: articulation missing; we supply based on the model of Cor I at 203a.

185a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note 185a–212a, a.

185a/2nd Orch: for the suggested staccato in those in-strumental parts with a sequence of five eighth notes, see Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, d.

186a/2nd T Coro A: g; we replace with the more harmon-ically convincing b , in vertical conformity with Cor III–IV and Vle. I-Mr and rRI1874 follow A.

186a/3rd–4th C Coro A: carets missing; we supply in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1, a.

187a–188a B Coro, Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), Cb (Vc=Cb)

Page 94: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

92 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

A: divergent slurs and articulation: for Cb the slur at 187a extends to 188a/1st, where there is no accent, and there are staccati for both eighth notes at 188/2nd. We prefer the more convinc-ing reading of Fg I–II, which proposes the same combined slur and staccati for the four at 187a that are present in the complete theme (see 165a etc.), and we suggest this solution for B Coro as well.

187a–188a Cor III–IV A: GV neglected to continue the double stems in these bars following a page turn (recto to verso).

187a/2nd C and T Coro A: staccato for the first ; we suppress in accordance with the criteria es-tablished in Note 185a–212a, a (as observed in Note 185a–212a, b, it is significant that the slur in this bar covers all five eighth notes).

188a/1st C and T Coro A: accents missing; we supply in accordance with the criterion established in Note 184/3rd–213a Coro, 1, c.

188a/3rd–192a Woodwinds A: each of the woodwind parts in this passage presents partial and di-vergent phrasing and articulation. We integrate and normalize these expressive indications for the first two bars of the theme, in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, c and d. With regard to the articula-tion for the head of the theme, we adopt

the model , for which there is no complete example in this passage:

188a/3rd–189a/1st Fl: ; Cl: no articula-tion;

189a/3rd–190a/1st Fg I: ;

190a/3rd–191a/1st Ob: ;

191a/3rd–192a/1st Fg III: We have had multiple occasions to observe

how GV would often use staccati, accents, and carets interchangeably, in a kind of “short-hand” manner (see “Edition criteria”, pp. 10–11). Nevertheless the two carets for Fl at 188a seem to be a deliberate choice: with the exclusion of 188a–191a, GV predominantly – if with oc-casional lacunae – marked carets when the passage in question falls into some category of “piano”, and accents when “forte”; consequent-ly we find these carets, while under-represented in this particular passage, to be pertinent for the context, and we extend them to the other three thematic incipits in 189a–191a.

The slurs in this passage are also conspicu-ously lacunose for these instruments. Only Fg I presents a complete model for the thematic incipit, at 189a–190a. For Cl the first slur from 188a/3rd stops at the first in 189a, though

probably for lack of ink; we extend it to the end of the bar and supply for vertical conform-ity to Fl at the octave above, where it is miss-ing. The second slur for these two instruments at 190a is present for Cl but missing for Fl, while the third slur at 191a–192a/1st is present for Fl but missing for Cl; here again, we sup-ply reciprocally for vertical conformity. The thematic incipits for Ob I at 190a–191a and Fg III at 191a–192a have no slur; we supply based on the model of Fg I at 189a–190a.

188a/3rd–193a Winds A: GV evidently gauged the ppp he carefully marked for Fl and Cl at 188a so that their c’’–c’’’ octave does not overwhelm the concurrent p for S Coro (I-Mr replaced the ppp for Fl with p and eliminated the dynamic for Cl). We therefore find this precautionary meas-ure to be unnecessary for the successive “Solo” woodwind entries, which occur in mid-register and therefore do not present the same risk for the concomitant p vocal entries. We also sug-gest p for Cor III at 193a, compatible with the other non-thematic parts (T and B Coro, Fg).

188a/4th C Coro A: accent missing; we supply for verti-cal conformity with T Coro and in accordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 3.

189a S Coro A: the slur begins from the first ; we adjust to match the previous analogous the-matic slurs, in accordance with the criterion established in Note 185a–212a, b.

189a–190a/1st T Coro, 190a–191a/1st C Coro A: both carets and the accent are missing; we supply based respectively on the models of S Coro at 188a–189a/1st and B Coro at 191a–192/1st, and in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1, b.

190a C Coro, 191a B Coro A: entry dynamic indication missing; we extend p from S Coro at 188a and T Coro at 189a.

191a/3rd–4th B Coro A: anomalous slur, unconfirmed in the other thematic incipits; we suppress (see also Note 182a/3rd–183a/1st).

192a/3rd–4th Fl A: carets; we replace with accents in vertical conformity with Cl (see also Note 188a/3rd–192a).

193a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note 185a–212a, a.

193a/4th S Coro, Fl, Cl I, Vni I A, I-Mr: neither source has an accidental for the (sounding) e’’/e’’’; we suggest a with the support of rRI1874 and pUS-Cso.

194a C Coro: for the suggested staccato and slur, see Note 185a–212a.

194a/3rd B Coro A: GV marked the f at 195a/1st follow-ing a page turn (recto to verso); we anticipate to coincide with the new thematic entry.

Page 95: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

93© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

195a/2nd B Coro A: staccato for the first ; we suppress in accordance with the criteria established in Note 185a–212a, a; for the suggested slur, see Note 185a–212a, b.

196a T Coro: for the suggested staccato and slur, see Note 185a–212a, a.

196a/1st–2nd Cor A: anomalous slur, unconfirmed in the unison Fg I or Vle; we suppress.

197a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note 185a–212a, a.

198a/1st C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-cordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1 a.

199a S Coro A: the slur begins from the first ; we modify in accordance with the criteria estab-lished in Note 185a–212a, b.

199a–205a Orch A: substantial lacunae in the articulation for this passage (I-Mr and pUS-Cso largely re-flect the same incongruencies); given its focus on thematic elements that have already been repeated numerous times, however, we are able to integrate the missing articulation for all thematic parts in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch. In ad-dition, the prevalently homorhythmic character here allows us to extend this same articulation to rhythmically identical but melodically differ-ent parts. With regard to the dissimilar rhyth-mic element at 199a (Fl II, Cor I, Trb), 201a (Cl II, Cor II and IV), and 203a (Fl II, Cor I, Trb), a complete model for the (otherwise extremely lacunose) articulation is present for Cor II at 201a and for Cor I a 203a. At 204a–205a the only complete model is Vni I, but it is sufficient as a template for integration where necessary to all other instrumental parts in these two bars.

199a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-cordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 3.

200a T Coro A: accent and slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with S Coro (inverted theme), in accordance with the criteria estab-lished in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1c and 3.

201a Fg I A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for the unison Cor III or Vle, nor for Fg II and III–IV or Cb (Vc = Cb) at the corresponding 203a; we suppress.

201a/1st C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 3.

201a/2nd C Coro A: staccato for the first ; we suppress in accordance with the criteria established in Note 185a–212a, a.

202a C and B Coro A: both slurs are imprecisely marked: the one for C Coro covers 1st–2nd, while for B Coro it begins after the c and stops

between the f and a. At 200a the slur for S Coro (T Coro has no slur) includes all the notes for the syllable “[rema]-ne-[bit]” (1st– 4th), while at 188a, in keeping with this same principle, the slurs for C and T Coro includes those notes for the syllables “[appa]-re-[bit]” and “[rema]-ne-[bit]” (1st–3rd). Consequently we may logically deduce that in this case the slur should assume the same function, uniting all of the notes sung to the same syllable regardless of its material length, and therefore modify the slurs in this bar to match S Coro at 200a.

202a–204a/1st T Coro A: both carets and both accents missing; we supply in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.

202a/1st C and B Coro A: accents missing; we supply in accordance with the criterion established in Note 184/3rd–213a Coro, 1c.

203a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.

204a C and T Coro A: f; we (like I-Mr e rRI1874) modify to ff in vertical conformity with S and B Coro, confirmed by ff present for the strings.

204a–205a Coro A: missing – but not divergent – slurs, staccati, and accents. While GV’s intentions in this homorhythmic (if not perfectly homosyl-labic) passage are clear regarding the slurs and staccati, such that we are able to integrate them silently, he marked only one accent, for S Coro at 204a/1st, therefore demanding greater caution. We supply the accent for T Coro at 204a/1st in accordance with the criterion estab-lished in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1c, and sug-gest all of the others by virtue of the orchestral context (but see Note 199a–205a).

206a Orch A: GV marked only one symbol on 1st, above Vni I, that could be interpreted as either a large accent (as construed in I-Mr) or a short diminuendo. We prefer the latter, which functions as a transition to the new dynamic level, and suggest its vertical extension to all instruments with in this bar. On 2nd there are staccati only for Trb I and III and Vni II (also possibly for Cor III–IV), while the accents on 3rd and 4th are present for Vni II and Vle alone. Given the complete model GV marked for Vni II, we extend this same articulation vertically to the other homorhythmic parts.

207a–212a Orch A: lacunose and divergent articulation for the thematic instrumental parts; we integrate and normalize in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch.

208a, 210a S Coro A: at 208a the slur begins from the first note of the bar, and at 210a it would ap-pear to be the same from its form and posi-

Page 96: VERDI...rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874 (pl. no. 44004) rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875 (pl. no. 44004) RI1875 score (first edition),

94 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

tion, although only the latter half is clear. Nevertheless, given that the slur for T Coro at 209a follows the melismatic model GV marked elsewhere for this melodic segment, we modify these two slurs in accordance with the criteria established in Note 185a–212a, b.

208a/4th T Coro A: accent; we replace with a caret in conformity with the other entries in this con-cluding section (S Coro at 207 and 209; T Coro at 210; C Coro at 211).

209a Vni II A: no slur or articulation; we suggest both in vertical conformity with the unison Ob (but see also Note 209a/4th).

209a/1st T Coro, 212a/1st C Coro A: both accents miss-ing; we supply in accordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.

209a/4th Ob A: staccato for the first eighth note (no articulation is present in this bar for the unison Vni II), with no apparent musical sense; we suppress. I-Mr follows A; pUS-Cso added a staccato for the second eighth note as well.

210a–213a Fg II, III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb), in ac-cordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, a.

211a/2nd T Coro A: staccato for the first , and the slur begins from this note as well; we suppress the staccato and modify the slur in accordance with the syllabic model for this melodic seg-ment, in accordance with criteria established in Note 185a–212a, a.

211a/3rd–4th Ob, Vni II A: accents above Ob and staccati below; we replace with carets and extend for vertical uniformity to the unison Vni II (where no articulation is present), in accordance with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, a.

212a/1st–2nd S Coro A: accents; despite the rhythmic displacement of this thematic entry, its motivic identity is clear and confirmed by the articula-tion for the unison Vni I; we replace with car-ets, in accordance with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.

212a/3rd–4th Fg I A: staccati missing; we supply in verti-cal conformity with the unison Vle.

213a/2nd Fl, Cl A: accent for Fl, no articulation for Cl; we suggest the more musically plausible staccato GV marked for the unison Vni I.

213a/3rd–4th Fl, Vni II A: carets; we replace with accents in vertical conformity with Ob, Cl, and Vni I.

translated by Anna Herklotz

ISMN 979-0-006-59000-1