Thanks Andreas,
Here is the metadata information for the manuscript I have downloaded -
It does not seem to fit the two sources you mention since the lute part
is in notation. I made a mistake in my first message: the sonata is for
viola d'alto - not viola d'amore. It looks to me more like an 18th
century MS than late 19th, and fairly similar to the Dalla Casa MS in
style. There are some penciled in corrections - perhaps from Wilhem.
Let me know your thoughts, I am curious!
Alain
PPN: PPN882226452
PURL: http://resolver.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/SBB0001F7EC00000000
Titel: Sonaten; lute, vla; C-Dur; CzaR 96
Autor/in: Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm
Weitere Person: Friedrich Wilhelm Rust
Entstehungsjahr: 1775
RISM_A2-Nummer: 1001007809
Signatur: Mus.ms.autogr. Rust, F. W. 21 N
Kategorie: Musiknoten,Musikhandschriften
Projekt: Musikhandschriften digital
Strukturtyp: manuscript
Anzahl gescannter Seiten: 7
Lizenz: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International
On 1/3/19 11:46 PM, Andreas Schlegel wrote:
I made in 1988/89 a reconstruction of the three sonatas for violin (flute) and
lute (still available). Below you will find the text from my edition, published
in 1998. The sonata for viola is not edited (re-intabulated) for lute.
Friedrich Wilhelm Rust
(1739 -1796)
Three Sonatas for Lute and obligato Violin/Flute
reconstructed by Andreas Schlegel
1. The riddle and its solution
The present edition is unusual in some respects. The reason for this is that
there is no known source of these three sonatas which stems from the time of
the composer Friedrich Wilhelm Rust and which transmits the music in an
„incorrupt“ state. The trail leading to this edition proceeds via
„fraud“ and reconstruction. But, one thing at a time...
The Sources and their History
Two sources of these sonatas survive:
1. Manuscript „Rust 53“ (Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz,
Berlin). This contains the lute part, notated in tablature, and the violin
part, written in standard notation, of all three sonatas.
2. „Ms. 40150“ (formerly in the Preussische Staatsbibliothek; now held by
the Jagiellonska Library, Krakow). This contains, among other things, merely
the lute part, notated in tablature, of the first two sonatas.
„Rust 53“ probably remained in the possession of Rust’s family after the
composer’s death, and thus was handed down to his grandson Wilhelm Rust, cantor
of the Thomas Church in Leipzig and music researcher. This Wilhelm Rust was
probably the author of the article „Tabulatur“ in the „Musicalisches
Konversations-Lexikon“ by Mendel and Reissmann published in 1878. The first 17
measures of Friedrich Wilhelm Rust’s second sonata appear there as an example of
lute tablature. In 1892, the three sonatas were published in Wilhelm Rust’s
arrangement for piano and violin by Schweers & Harke of Bremen.
The strange thing about the 1892 edition and about the present condition of the
source „Rust 53“ is that the lute part is virtually unplayable; long
passages are completely unidiomatic. Stranger yet: the 1892 tablature part is
no longer the same one used as an illustration in Mendel and Reissmann’s
lexicon. Thus, „Rust 53“ was changed extensively after 1878. Voices were
added, the texture was made more dense and, to some extent, strongly
romanticized. Strangest of all, these radical changes were penned into the
original tablature-manuscript - with all the effort involved, it being a matter
of hundreds of careful erasures and insertions!
Two persons come into question as arranger: either the then-owner of the source
Wilhelm Rust, who thus would have carried out the changes sometime between 1878
and his death in May 1892, or an unknown person who carried them out sometime
after their appearance in Rust’s edition. According to the latter hypothesis,
it would seem that the intervention in „Rust 53“ was intended to mask the
difference between the original manuscript and Wilhelm Rust’s piano edition.
One can imagine these arrangements in the context of the „Rust case“:
Wilhelm Rust wanted to use the „revised“ editions of his grandfather’s
works to present him as Beethoven’s predecessor. This fraud was not
discovered until 1912/13, when Ernst Neufeldt noticed it. Although it seems
likely that Wilhelm Rust was the author of this arrangement and thus the
„counterfeiter“ of the source „Rust 53“, it is not possible at the
moment !
to claim this for sure.
However, there does exist the previously-mentioned second source. „Ms.
40150“. As the present author pointed out in his article „Zur Neuausgabe
der Sonaten für Laute und obligate Violine/Flöte von Friedrich Wilhelm
Rust“ („Concerning the re-edition of the sonatas for lute and obligato
violin/flute by Friedrich Wilhelm Rust“) in Gitarre und Laute 6/1989, pp.
41-47, the manuscript „Rust 53“, at least as far as the lute part of
Sonatas 1 and 2 is concerned, is probably a copy of the manuscript „Ms.
40150“. According to a note by Wilhelm Rust, „Ms. 40150“ was unknown
until January 1892 at least. It was not until 1897 that the music researcher
and lute connoisseur Wilhelm Tappert bought this manuscript in a antiquarian
book store. The source went from Tappert to the former Royal Library in Berlin.
In 1944 it was transferred for safekeeping to Fürstenstein; thenceforth it was
considered, in the Wes!
t at least, as missing. Not until a few years ago, in 19!
88, did the present editor succeed in finding the manuscript in the
Biblioteka Jagiellonska in Krakow. This in turn made it possible to compare
the original („Ms. 40150“) and the counterfeit („Rust 53“). This
comparison and its consequences will now be exemplified on the basis of the
lute part of the second movement of the second sonata:
Let us begin with the more or less usual editorial interventions: the provision
of dynamic markings and articulation signs, realization of ornament symbols
found in the tablature, and substitution of a new title for the movement.
Next we come to alterations of the notes themselves:
Whereas the obligato part in almost all of the movements was left largely
unchanged, octave transposition of the bass is conspicuous. The stretching of
the ambitus so typical of lute music of those days (as well as octave
transposition in chromatic passing notes) is abandoned here in favor of a voice
more logical perhaps on the piano. Of course, these changes can lead to
complicated fingerings on the lute and render the writing unidiomatic or even
unplayable.
Nevertheless, the most drastic changes - both musically and technically - are
the added inner voices.
It was possible to observe these interventions by comparing the two sources.
But only to a certain extent, for the unaltered source „Ms. 40150“ contains
only the first two sonatas. Thus, the texts published in this edition stem from
the sources as follows:
Lute part Uppervoice
Sonata 1, G major Ms. 40150 Rust 53 (reconstructed)
Sonata 2, d minor Ms. 40150 Rust 53 (reconstructed)
Sonata 3, C major Rust 53 (reconstructed) Rust 53 (reconstructed)
Hence, the present editor’s main task was to recognize the changes in the
altered source „Rust 53“ and, as far as possible, reconstruct the original
version.
Concerning the reconstruction
The key to reconstructing these pieces was painstaking palaeographic
investigation. First the color of the ink was analyzed and those notes and
tablature figures not written in the same ink as those of the original text,
eliminated. The same procedure was then applied to the penmanship of the two
different hands. The almost perfect correspondence of the two procedures
confirmed the result of each. What remained were the presumably original notes
and tablature letters. Often though, and especially in the lute part, original
characters were very few - too few to make musical sense. The obligato part was
less changed, although the changes were much more difficult to evaluate than
the changes in the lute part.
The next step for both parts was to analyze the erasures and, wherever
possible, legible traces of the original characters.
Thus, after the later-added, now still-visible characters had been eliminated
and the effaced original-characters had been reconstructed came the next step:
filling the gaps to produce a plausible whole, above all in the lute part. Here
it was necessary for the present editor to employ all his musical and technical
understanding and intuition. Therefore the following maxim applies:
The reconstructions were made with all possible care and expertise.
Nevertheless they are and remain reconstructions, and thus can lay no claim to
„Urtext“ status.
This applies as well to all other editions of Friedrich Wilhelm Rust’s works
based on the edition of Wilhelm Rust (i.e. the altered source „Rust 53“) or
on doubtful transcriptions. Until a further source turns up containing the
original state of these sonatas, the present edition is that version which
comes closest to the original text.
2. Annotations concerning editorial procedure
The tablature transcription is as faithful as is possible and sensible. The
sole ornament symbols used - the comma and the cross- have been employed in the
transcription because they are ambiguous and, according to context, can be
interpreted differently.
The Séparé sign ( / ) which sometimes appears between upper and lower notes
of a chord (e.g. Sonata No. 1, First Movement, measure 18f.) means that the
notes above this sign should be played later (for example, as a delayed quaver).
In the lute part there sometimes appears a unique setting of rhythmic signs:
these concern the upper voice only. This special setting has been used where
possible and appropriate.
The obligato part appears to have been conceived primarily for violin. On the
first page of the source „Rust 53“, however, the obligato part is specified
as being for flute as well. Thus we include a suggestion for that instrument in
the violin part. The small notes can be omitted on the flute, whereas the
bracketed small notes (only in Sonata 3, Variations) have been transposed to
fall within the range of the flute.
The surviving obligato part in Sonata 1 is not uniformly convincing. It is
possible that the obligato part from „Ms. 40150“ differed occasionally from
the obligato part surviving in „Rust 53“. Hence in the 1st and 3rd
movements we have filled in „original“ rests with melodic material. These
passages are indicated with broken lines and are intended as suggestions only.
Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin and the
Biblioteka Jaggiellonska, Krakow for their generous support in the years
1988-1991. These thanks also include all other collaborators for all their
efforts on the present editor’s behalf.
Menziken, Summer 1998
Am 04.01.2019 um 01:56 schrieb Alain Veylit <al...@musickshandmade.com
<mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com>>:
Anyone knows anything about a Sonata per liuto et viola d'amore (C Major) by Friedrich Wilhelm
Rust? There is a facsimile of the score in Berlin with both parts in notation - I am just
wondering about the quality of the music. I am not the only one, and there is a nice
controversy about his works that may have been "modernized" by his grand son, Wilhem
Rust, that involved Debussy and Vincent D'Indy among others. Friedrich Wilhelm wrote music for
the tangent piano, as well as violin, harp and oboe. He also wrote a Sonata for Violin and Lute
(No.2) in d minor according to YouTube. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv5Ol1VoeUE
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv5Ol1VoeUE>)
Thanks for your tips and arcane but shared knowledge.
Alain
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>
Andreas Schlegel
Eckstr. 6
CH-5737 Menziken
Festnetz +41 (0)62 771 47 07
Mobile +41 (0)78 646 87 63
lute.cor...@sunrise.ch <mailto:lute.cor...@sunrise.ch>
--
