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/SBB0001F7EC
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
