The 1889 Version of Mahler's First Symphony a New Manuscript Source

8/20/2019 The 1889 Version of Mahler's First Symphony a New Manuscript Source

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-1889-version-of-mahlers-first-symphony-a-new-manuscript-source 1/27

The 1889 Version of Mahler's First Symphony: A New Manuscript SourceAuthor(s): Stephen McClatchieSource: 19th-Century Music, Vol. 20, No. 2, Special Mahler Issue (Autumn, 1996), pp. 99-124Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/746903

Accessed: 28/07/2010 15:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

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

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org/stable/746903?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/746903?origin=JSTOR-pdf



T h e

1 8 8 9

V e r s i o n

o f

M a hler s

i r s t

Symphony

N e w

Manuscript

S o u r c e

STEPHEN MCCLATCHIE

To Mrs. Maria

Rose

Among

the

various

manuscripts

in

the

Mahler-

Ros6

Collection

at the

University

of Western

Ontario are two

badly

worn,

bound volumes

that

contain the first

movement,

scherzo,

and

finale

of a

copyist's manuscript

of Gustav

Mahler'sFirst

Symphony.'

Inside the

first

vol-

ume lies a

scrap

of

paper

with

the

enigmatic

note,

"Bruno

Walter's

scoring

of the

First

Sym-

phony for small orchestra." This brief state-

ment, however,

seems

not to be correct.

In

fact,

within that

manuscript

one

may

find

both the

work of an

unknown

copyist

and

Mahler'shand-

written

revisions. Mahler's

entries constitute

an

extensive

layer

of

correction,

revision,

and

reorchestration

throughout

the

manuscript.

Most

important,

as I

shall

argue below,

the

University

of Western

Ontario

manuscript

(UWO

hereafter)

predates

the

autograph

manu-

script

in

the Osborn Collection at Yale

Univer-

sity (whichdatesfrom 1893),previouslythought

to be the

earliest source for the

symphony.

The

UWO

manuscript

transmits the text of

three

movements

of

the work as

it was first

per-

formed

n

Budapest

n

1889.

It

also seems

likely

that this

manuscript

served as the source for

the Yale

autograph.

Finally,

the

manuscript

re-

veals that Mahler's

initial

conception

of the

last

movement

was

quite

different

from that of

its final form.

I

The

compositional

history

of the First

Sym-

phony

is

not

entirely

clear.

Although

Mahler

told

Natalie

Bauer-Lechner

during

rehearsals

for the Vienna

premiere

in

1900

that

he

"com-

posed

the

whole

symphony

in

Leipzig

within

six weeks

[in

1888],

while

constantly

conduct-

ing and rehearsing,"other sources state that

work on

it

had

begun

in

the

mid-1880s

in

19th-Century

Music

XX/2

(Fall

1996).

o

by

The

Regents

of

the

University

of California.

I would like to thank Professor Edward Reilly, James

Zychowicz,

and

James

Hepokoski

for

their

assistance

in

the

preparation

of this

paper.

Portions

of the First

Sym-

phony manuscript

and

quotations

from Mahler's

unpub-

lished letters

to

his

parents

and

siblings

appear

with

per-

mission of the

University

of Western Ontario

LibrarySys-

tem.

'The

Gustav

Mahler-AlfredRos6 Collection

was

donated

to the

University

of Western Ontario n

1983

by

the

widow

of Mahler's

nephew,

Alfred

Rose, professor

of music

at

the

University

from

1948

to 1975.

For

an introduction to

the

collection and an inventory,see my "GustavMahler-Alfred

Ros6

Collection

at the

University

of Western

Ontario,"

Notes

52

(1995), 385-406,

1337.

99



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

Kassel.2

It

may

be that the earlier dates refer

to

the

composition

of material

later

incorporated

into

the

symphony:

the

Lieder

eines

fahrenden

Gesellen

(1884-85)

and

the Serenade

from

Mahler's incidental music to Der

Trompeter

von

Siikkingen

(1884).

In

addition,

a four-hand

fragment

of the

beginning

of the scherzo sur-

vives

in

the

Pierpont

Morgan Library,

but its

date

and

relationship

to the

symphony

are

not

certain.

It seems

likely

that the

bulk of

the

First

Symphony

was

composed

over

a

short

period

in

February

and March

1888, just

as

Mahler

stated,

but

that

while

composing

he

drew

liberally

on

preexisting

material.3

Some

details of Bauer-Lechner's account

are

confirmed

by

Mahler's

letters

to

his

parents

and

friends from

early

1888.

For

example,

in

mid-February

Mahler

explained

to

his

parents

why they

had not heard from him

for

some

time:

I am

working again

on

a new

work,

a

large

sym-

phony that I would like to have finished over the

course of next

month.

Because

I am

so

hard at it

again,

I have not

got

around to

writing you

even

once. I use

every

free moment.... Once

the

sym-

phony

is

finished,

I shall come

home.

Right

now,

I

must

take

advantage

of the favorablecurrent-that's

why

I

am

working

so

hard.4

Several other

letters to his

parents during

Feb-

ruary

and March mention that

he

hoped

to

have the

symphony

finished

by

the end

of

March

or

early

April.

Because

of

the

death of the Kai-

ser on 9 March

1888,

the theaters were closed

for

ten

days,

and

Mahler was

able to

work un-

interruptedly

on the

symphony. By

the end of

the

month,

Mahler could

report good

news

home:

Well

Today my

work is

finished and

I

can

say-thank

God-that it has turnedout well.

With

it,

I

againhope

to take a

large step

forward. Tomorrow the

Staegemannand Weber families arecoming for cof-

fee ... and

I

shall then

play

the

symphony

for them

a

second time. The first

time,

it

virtually

caused a sen-

sation

among them,

and

they

wanted to hear it

again

immediately. Naturally,

I

won't have

any difficulty

having

it

performed,

ince I'm now a

"famous"

man.5

Mahler's

optimistic expectations

for the

perfor-

mance

and

acceptance

of his

work were soon

quashed, despite

his

initial

inquiries

to conduc-

tors in both Leipzig and Dresden.6 His sudden

2Natalie

Bauer-Lechner,

Gustav

Mahler

in

den

Erinnerungen von Natalie Bauer-Lechner,ed. Herbert

Killian,

notes

Knud Martner

(rev

edn.

Hamburg,

1984),

p.

175;

1st

edn. trans.

into

English

as

Recollections

of

Gustav

Mahler,

trans.

Dika

Newlin,

ed. and

ann. Peter

Franklin

(London, 1980),

p.

158.

In a letter several

years

earlier

(to

Annie

Mincieux,

2

March

1896),

Mahler also

indicated

that

the

symphony

was

written

in

1888;

see GustavMahler

Unbekannte

Briefe,

ed.

Herta

Blaukopf

(Vienna, 1983),

p.

123.

See

also Mahler's

Unknown

Letters,

ed.

Herta

Blaukopf,

rans.

Richard

Stokes

(Boston, 1987),

p.

119.

Else-

where Bauer-Lechner

ndicated

that the First

Symphony

was

begun

in

1885

(see

Henry-Louis

de La

Grange,

Gustav

Mahler:

Chronique

d'une vie, vol. I: Vers a Gloire 1860-

1900

[Paris,

1979],

p.

965,

and

idem,

Mahler,

vol. I

[New

York,

1973],

p.

746);

Guido

Adler

ikewise

gave

this date

in

Gustav

Mahler

Vienna,

1916),

p.

99.

In his notes to Mahler's

letters to

him,

Friedrich

Lbhr stated

that

the

symphony

was

begun

in 1884 in Kassel

(Gustav

Mahler

Briefe,

rev.

and

exp.

Herta

Blaukopf Vienna,

1982],

p.

413,

n.

39).

3As

is well

known,

it

appears

that

Mahler borrowed

the

original

second

movement,

an

Andante

later

entitled

"Blumine,"

in its

entirety

from

his

lost

incidental music

to

Joseph

Viktor

von

Scheffel's

Trompeter

von

Siakkingen,

although,

unless

the

Trompeter

music

is

found,

the extent

of Mahler'sself-borrowingmay never be known.

4"Ich

arbeite

wieder

an einem neuen

Werke,

einer

grotie

Symphonie

welch

ich

im

Laufe

des

nichsten

Monates

fertig

gebracht

haben mochte.--Darumstecke ich

jetzt

wieder so

fleitig

drin,

daB

ich nicht einmal dazu

komme,

Euch zu

schreiben.

Jede

freie Minute

beniitze ich....

Ich

komme

jetzt

erst nach

Hause,

wenn

die

Symphonie fertig

ist. Ich

mug

eben

jetzt

die

giinstige

Stromung ffir

mich

beniitzen

und darumarbeite

ch so

fleitig"

(letter

to

parents

of

14

or

21

February 1888,

The Mahler-Rose

Collection,

Univer-

sity

of Western

Ontario,

E2-MF-64;

all trans.

are

mine,

unless otherwisenoted).

s"So

Heute ist

mein Werk

fertig geworden,

und ich

kann,

Gott

sei

Dank,

sagen,

daB es wol

gelungen

ist.

Damit

hoffe ich

wieder

einen

gorten

Schritt

vorwirts

zu thun.

Morgen

ist

Familie

Stagemann

und Weber bei

mir

zum

Kaff6e

[.

.

.]

und dann

spiele

ich

ihnen zum 2. Male

die

Symphonie

vor. Das 1.

Male hat

sie

bei

ihnen

geradezu

Sensation

erregt,

und

sie wollen sie

gleich

noch

einmal

h6ren.

Mit der

Auffiihrung

habe ich

natfirlich

keine

Schwierigkeiten,

da

ich

jetzt

eben

ein-'beriihmter'

Mann

bin." Letter

to

parents,

29

or 30

March

1888,

Mahler-Rose

Collection,

E21-MF-675.

The

last

phrase

concerning

Mahler's fame refers to the success of his completion of

Carl Mariavon Weber's

Die Drei

Pintos,

first

performed

n

Leipzig

on

20

January

1888.

Bauer-Lechner

Erinnerungen,

p.

175)

mentions

the theater

closure.

60n 12

May

1888,

he was

optimistic

enough

to write

to

his

parents

that "the

premiere

of

my

symphony

in

Dresden

is

on 7 December"

(E2-MF-67)

Die

1.

Aufffihrung

meiner

Symphonie

in Dresden ist am

7.

Dezember),

but

by

the

early

summer

he was

also

thinking

about

Leipzig

(letter

to

Max

Steinitzer,

Gustav

Mahler

Breife, p.

73).

Neverthe-

less,

on

1

August

he still

wrote

to his

father:

"Sunday

[5

August]

I am

travelling

to

Dresden

to

play

my

symphony

for HofrathSchuch; the premierein Dresden is as good as

certain"

Sonntag

ahre

ch

nach

Dresden,

um

dem

Hofrath

Schuch

meine

Symphonie

vorzuspielen;

die

Auffiihrung

n

100



Table 1

Early manuscript

sources for Mahler's First

Symphony

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A

New Source

1. ?1888 Mahler's original score: lost.

2.

?

1888-89

C-Lu,

OS-MD-694.

Copyist

Ms.

Movements

I, II,

IV

only [UWO Ms].

3.

1893

USA-NH,

Osborn

22.

Autograph

MS

of

1893

revised version. Five

movements

[Yale

MS].

4. ?

1893-94

USA-NYp,

JOB

85-2,

Bruno

Walter

Papers,

ser. 16.

Copyist

Ms

with

autograph

revisions.

Five movements

[NYPL Ms].

5. ?

Location

unknown.

Copyist

Ms

with

autograph

revisions.

Four

movements.

Sold

by

Sotheby's,

10

May

1984

[inaccessible

MS].

6.

before

1898

A-Wn,

LI UE

357.

Copyist

Ms

with

autograph

revisions.

4

movements.

Stichvorlage

for first

edition (Weinberger, 1898-99) [StV].

Note: Several

copies

of

the

first

(Weinberger)

nd

second

(Universal)

ditions exist with

autograph

orrections

by

Mahler.

The

most

important

of

these,

in

A-Wn

(L1

UE

364,

dated 13

July 1910)

served as the

Stichvorlage

or the

third edition

(Universal,

1910),

the

Letztfassung

authorized

by

Mahler.

departure

rom

Leipzig

in

May

1888

and the in-

creased

esponsibility

of his new

post

in

Budapest,

which

he

assumed

that

fall,

overshadowed

any

efforts to have the

symphony

performed.

A

year

later,

in late

September

1889,

Mahler

was

approachedby

a

delegation

of the

Budapest

Philharmonic for

permission

to

perform

one of

his works

at their

opening

concert; they

left

with the score of

the

First

Symphony.7

It re-

ceived its first

performance

on

20 November

1889

as a

"symphonic poem

in

two

parts";

ts

five movements carried

no

programmatic

itles,

nor did Mahler

provide

the audience with a

program

or

the work.8

The

symphony

was

sav-

aged

in

the

press,

and rumors

circulated that

the orchestra had

sabotaged

the

performance.

Mahler

later noted

ruefully

that

in

the wake

of

the

disastrous

premiere

his friends

avoided

him

for weeks.9 The

symphony

then

lay

dormant

for

nearly

four

years.

In

1893,

now at

Hamburg,

Mahler returned

to the

symphony

and revised

it

extensively

with

an

eye

to

a

possible performance.

The result

was the

autograph

manuscript, now at Yale

University.

This

document contains

inscrip-

tions

noting

that

the

last

movement had been

"remodeled"

by

19

January

1893,

the first and

(original)

third

movements

had been

"reno-

vated"

by

27

January

1893,

and the

(original)

second movement

("Blumine")

ikewise

by

16

August.10

(Table

1

presents

the

early

manu-

script

history

of the

symphony.)

This version

was

performed

n

Hamburg

on 27 October 1893

as

"'Titan,'

eine

Tondichtung

in

Symphonie-

form"

(Titan,

aTone-Poemin

Symphony

Form).

The

work

was

again

divided into two

parts,

but

now each of the five movements was

given

a

programmatic

title

and,

in

the case

of

several,

extensive

prose

descriptions."I

t was

performed

Dresden

ist

nur

soviel

wie

gewiB)

(E2-MF-71).

Later that

same

month,

Mahler

asked Richard Strauss

for advice

on

getting

his

symphony performed

in Munich

(Gustav

Mahler-Richard trauss:

Briefwechsel,

1888-1911,

ed. Herta

Blaukopf [expanded

edn.

Munich,

1988],

p.

13).

7Reported

n

the Pest

press,

1

October 1889.

Zoltan

Ro-

man,

Gustav Mahler and

Hungary (Budapest,

1991), p.

75.

8Mahler

did, however, give

some "clues"

to several

jour-

nalists about the

character of each

movement;

see

De La

Grange,

Vers

a

Gloire,

p.

965.

9Bauer-Lechner, rinnerungen,p. 176, and idem, Recollec-

tions,

p.

161.

See

also

Roman,

Mahler

and

Hungary,

pp.

82-83.

'oDonald

Mitchell

(Gustav

Mahler:

The

Wunderhorn

Years:

Chronicles and Commentaries

[London,

1975], p.

217)

ar-

gues

that the later revision date for "Blumine" indicates

that

Mahler

may

have

intended to omit it when firstrevis-

ing

the

symphony

in

January.

"De La

Grange

Vers

a

Gloire)

ncludes a

facsimile of the

1893

program photograph

nsert, pp. 27-28).

A

copy

of the

program

s in the Mahler-Rose

Collection.

In

an

unpub-

lished letter

of November 1891 to

the

conductor

Gustav

Kogel,

Mahler

mentioned

that he

had

composed

a

sym-

phonic

poem

in two

parts

called

"Aus

dem

Leben eines

Einsamen" tobepublishedby Schott)and nquiredwhether

Kogel

would

be

interested

in

performing

t. The

only

work

that meets these

specifications

s the First

Symphony

(since

101



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

again

in

Weimar

on

3

June

1894

at

the

Tonkiinstlerfest

of the

Allgemeine

Deutsche

Musikverein:

again,

it

comprised

five move-

ments

with

programmatic

itles.'2

During

prepa-

rations for the Weimar performance,Mahler

wrote to

Strauss

that

the

manuscript

ow

in

your

handsno

longer

coin-

cidesin detailwith the material am

sending.

This

has

been

considerably

etouched o

match

the sec-

ond

copy

which I now

have,

as I have

takenadvan-

tage

of

the

experience

of the

performance

ere.-

Altogether, verything

s moreslender nd

ranspar-

ent.

....

The material is

entirely free of

errors,

and in

case

of

doubt should be

given

precedence

over the

original

score.13

This "second

copy"

was

probably

the

copyist's

manuscript-indeed

extensively

re-

vised-now

in

the Bruno

Walter collection at

the New

York

Public

Library

or

the Perform-

ing

Arts. Mahler's

comment

about the

"origi-

nal

score"

suggests

that

Strauss

had

been sent

the

"Hamburg"

autograph

manuscript

now at

Yale University. The NYPLmanuscript,which

has

never

been

studied

in

detail,

is a

copy

made

from

the Yale

manuscript

(which

contains sev-

eral

autograph

notes to

the

copyist). Among

Mahler's

many

revisions

in

this

manuscript

is

the

addition of a fourth

flute, oboe,

clarinet,

and

bassoon,

as

well

as a

fifth, sixth,

and

sev-

enth

horn.

It is

not

clear, however,

when

these

revisions

were

made;

it

seems that there are

severallayersof revision in the

manuscript

and

that Mahler added these

instruments

after the

Weimar

(and

perhaps

he

Berlin)

performance(s).

The

Yale

manuscript

contains

autograph

"An-

merkungen

ffir

den

Setzer,"

which

seem

to in-

dicate that Mahler at one time

intended it as

a

Stichvorlage

for the

first

edition,

but it

differs

considerably

from

that

manuscript

ultimately

used

[A-Wn

MS].

The

excised slow

movement,

"Blumine,"

shows

considerably

fewer revisions

than do

the

other

movements,

and the

pages

on

which it is

written

have

been folded

over,

per-

haps

indicating

its omission. This

physical

evi-

dence

of deletion

indicates

either

that

Mahler

used this score

for

the

1896

Berlin

performance

of the four-movementversion orthat the

manu-

script

served as the source for

a

second

copyist's

manuscript

of the four-movement

version,

sold

by

Sotheby's

in

1984.

In

an interview

in

Der

Tag

on

17

November

1935,

Bruno Walter reminisced about

his dis-

covery

that

the First

Symphony originally

con-

tained

five

movements.

He stated that

he was

present

at an

auto-da-f6

of

manuscripts

and

received the

manuscript

of

"Blumine"

from

Mahleras

a

present;

this

present

was

likely

the

complete copyist's manuscript

now

at

the

New

York Public

Library.

Walter's

ownership

of this

manuscript suggests

an

explanation

for the

note

inside

the UWO

manuscript

about

his

"arrange-

ment" of

the First

Symphony

(not

mentioned

anywhere

in Walter's

published

writings

or

let-

ters):

Bruno

Walter was close to

Justine

Ros6

Mahler,

whose

children,

Alfred

and

Alma, grew

up calling

him "Onkel

Bruno." It

may

be

that

Alfred

Ros6 asked

Walter about the

manuscript

in his own

family's

possession

and

received the

reply

that

Walter too owned a

manuscript

of

the

symphonic poem,

Todtenfeier,

composed

in

1888,

is

not in two parts),although this title is not known from

any

other source. This

letter is

the first indication of

Mahler's

attaching

a

program

to

the work-almost two

years

earlier than

previously

suspected.

I wish to

thank

Paul Banks for

mentioning

this letter to

me,

and

providing

me

with a

copy

of the

Sotheby's

sale

catalog

in

which it is

described.

'2Four

letters

from

Mahler to Hans

Bronsart von

Schellendorf

concerning

the

Weimar.

performance

of

the

First

Symphony

have been

published

in Richard Strauss

Briefe

aus

dem

Archiv

des

Allgemeinen

Deutschen

Musikvereins

(1888-1909),

ed.

Irina

Kaminiarz

(Weimar,

1995),pp. 92-95. In one, Mahler indicates that orchestral

parts

are extant

and have

already

been

played

from

in

Hamburg;

unfortunately,

these

parts

have not survived.

Felix Draeseke

was asked to review the work

by

the

program

committee of the ADMV. His

Gutachten,

dated

12

March

1894, reported

hat Mahler's

ymphony

was

"per-

haps

the most

interesting

of

the

submissions"

(Vielleicht

die interessanteste

der

Einsendungen).

n his

opinion,

the

themes were

bright

and

cheery

(frisch),

but were more

operatic

than

symphonic

("weisen

aber

mehr auf

Opern-

als

Symphonie-Styl

hin");

he is

critical of Mahler's coun-

terpoint-especially

in

"Blumine,"

which he nevertheless

admires.He calls "Dall'inferno"-the finale-a "fierce,pas-

sionate, [and] interesting piece,

although

somewhat

mo-

notonous,

[and]

which

unfortunately only

becomes

quite

wild"

(wildleidenschaftlichen,

allerdings

twas

monotones,

aber interessantes

Stiick,

das nur

leider recht

wiist

wird)

(Draeseke

Gutachten,

70/164. Stiftung

Weimarer

Klassik,

Goethe-

und

Schiller-Archiv,

Weimar. Archiv des

Allge-

meinen

Deutschen

Musikvereins).

I

am

grateful

to

James

Deaville for

sharing

this document

with

me and for

bring-

ing

the

newly

discovered Mahler etters

to

my

attention.

'3Letter

o Richard

Strauss,

15

May 1894,

Mahler-Strauss

Briefwechsel,

pp.

36-37;

trans. into

English

as Gustav

Mahler-RichardStrauss: Correspondence1888-1911, ed.

Herta

Blaukopf,

trans.

Edmund

Jephcott

(London,

1984),

pp.

35-36.

102



the

First

Symphony

with

fewer

instruments

than

in

the final score.

Correspondence

does

survive

among

the Walter

papers

in

the

NYPL

between

Ros6 and

Walter,

but

none

of it con-

cerns these manuscripts. Over the course of

time,

this

story

could have

become

distorted,

and the

Ros6

manuscript

was

thought

to be

an

arrangementby

Walter.

The First

Symphony

was next

performed

n

Berlin

on 16

March

1896,

but

now

it was

given

in

four

movements

as a

"Symphony

in

D

major

for

full

orchestra" with neither

programmatic

titles

nor

notes.

A

second


was made duringthis period,but it is presently

inaccessible;

a

description

in

the

catalog

of the

auction at

which

it sold most

recently

indi-

cates that it

contains

only

four,

untitled

move-

ments.14

It is not clear when

Mahler

decided to

omit

"Blumine,"

but

after

Weimar

(June 1894)

it

disappeared

from both the

performance

and

manuscript

histories of

the work.15

A

third

copyist's

manuscript,

now

in

the National-

bibliothek in Vienna, served as the Stichvorlage

for

the

first

edition,

published by

Josef

Weinberger

n

1898.

II

It was Mahler's

practice

to have a

copy

made

of

each work when

it

was

completed.

These he

kept, along

with the

original autographs,

in

a

small suitcase that he

guarded closely.16

The

UWO

manuscript

of the

First

Symphony

is

surely

the

copy

prepared

from

Mahler's

origi-

nal

manuscript,

which is

now

lost."

As

already

mentioned,

it

contains

only

three

movements;

both "Blumine"andthe funeralmarcharemiss-

ing.

The

tempo

indications for

the

available

movements are:

Langsam

schleppend;

Fr6hlich

bewegt;

and

Heftig bewegt.'8

The

first and

last

movements are

written on

unmarked,

sixteen-

stave

paper;

he scherzo on

unmarked,

twenty-

stave

paper.

Inserted into the

last

movement

are

three

autograph

folios

on

unmarked,

but

different,

sixteen-stave

paper.

The

pages

have

been numbered in pencil in the upper-right

(recto)

and

upper-left verso)corners;

eachmove-

ment

is numbered

separately.

Mahler

heavily

correctedand revised

the score

copy

in

black,

blue,

red,

and

green

pencil,

and

in

brown and

red

ink.19At

some later

date,

it

was trimmed

and bound into two

volumes,

during

which

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A New Source

'4The

title

page

reads

"Symphonie

Nro

I/von/Gustav

Mahler"

and is

reproduced

in the

catalog

for

Sotheby's

sale of 10

May

1984

(Music

and Continental Printed

Books,

Autograph

Letters and

Manuscripts [London,1984]).

'sThe

Mahler-RoseCollection includes

a

copy

of "Blumine"

in

Alfred

Rose's

hand,

labeled

as "Der

ursprungliche

II.

Satz von

Gustav Mahlers

I.

Symphony. (Abschrift)."

The

layout

of

the

manuscript

matches

exactly

that of the Yale

autograph.

t is unclear when Rose made this

copy.

'6Mahler requently mentioned this suitcase-often anx-

iously-in

letters to his

sister.

For

example,

on

12

July

1896

he

wrote: "To

my greatdistress,

it has

just

occurred

to me

that

I

did not

solemnly

hand

over

my

suitcase to

you.

I

beg

you,

take it into

your

room

immediately,

and

always

take

it

with

you

if

you

go

out"

(Es

fillt mir

eben

zu

meiner

gr6fiten

Beunruhigung ein,

datl

ich Dir meinen

Koffer nicht feierlich

iibergeben.

Ich bitte

[Dich]

nimm

ihn

sogleich

in

Dein Zimmer und

trage

ihn wenn

Du

weggehst

immer mit Dir

herum)

(E12-MJp-497).

ustine

later

reminisced to her

son,

Alfred

Rose,

about

her

sum-

mers

with Mahler

in

Steinbach-am-Attersee

during

the

composition of the Second and Third Symphonies: "The

manuscripts

of the First

Symphony

and

the

major

part

of

the

Second

were

kept

in a

special

suitcase

in

his

room

at

the inn.

All

inhabitants were told

about the

suitcase,

and

were

instructed

to rescue

it

first

of all in the event

of fire"

(Alfred

Rose,

"From

Gustav Mahler's

Storm

and

Stress

Period,"

Canadian

Music

Journal

1

[1957],

rpt.

in

Mahler

Remembered,

ed. Norman

Lebrecht

[London, 1987], pp.

67-71,

here

71.)

These

reminiscences were

first

published

in

the

Hamburger

Fremdenblatt,

on

5

October

1928,

as

"Aus Gustav Mahler's

Sturm- und

Drangperiode:

Wie die

Zweite

und

Dritten

Symphonie

in

Steinbach-am-Attersee

entstanden sind."

When Mahler receiveda grantin 1897 from the Prague

Gesellschaft zur

F6rderung

eutscher

Wiessenschaft,

Kunst

und Literatur

n

B6hmen,

toward

the

publication

of his

symphonies,

Natalie Bauer-Lechner oted his

great

relief

in her

memoirs:

Mahler

had

always

been

anxious about

storing

and

preserving

his

symphonies

because

he

"pos-

sessed

only

two

copies

(that

is, original

and one

copy)

which he

did not

dare

et out of his hands

simultaneously"

(Bauer-Lechner,

rinnerungen, . 109;

Recollections,

p.

110).

'7The

autograph

of the

three-movement version of Das

klagende

Lied is

also lost.

The

original

first

movement

survives

only

in the

copyist's

manuscript,

formerly

part

of

the Mahler-RoseCollection and now in the OsbornCol-

lection at

Yale

University.

This

manuscript

also contains

autograph

orrections and

revisions

by

the

composer.

'8Mahler's

hanging conception

of

the

correct

tempo

and

of

expressive

indications for the First

Symphony

is

pre-

sented

in

tabular orm

in

De

La

Grange,

Vers

a

Gloire,

pp.

970-71.

19The

manuscript

seems to show

evidence of

only

two

hands,

the

copyist's

and Mahler's. It was Mahler's

custom

to use a


for

his

revisions; later,

in

conjunction

with the

Fourth

Symphony,

he

noted that "he

was

only

able

to

see what

changes

were

needed

when

the

handwriting was no longer his own" (Henry-Louisde La

Grange,

Gustav

Mahler,

vol. II:Vienna:TheYears

of

Chal-

lenge

(1897-1904)

[New York,

1995],

p. 755).

103



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

i i

..

...........

.

:WU ~:~:~

or'.Z

-1

Plate

1: UWO

MS,

.

1,

movt.

I,

mm.

1-5.

The

Gustav

Mahler-Alfred

Ros6 Collection.

Reproduced

y

permission

f the

University

f

WesternOntario

Library ystem.

time some of

the

page

numbers and

Mahler's

marginal

notes were lost. The first and third

movements

are bound

together

in

one volume.

The inside cover of

each

volume

bears a date

in

pencil: 21/11

89

and

20/11

89.

The latter date

is,

of

course,

the date of the first

performance

of

the

symphony.

Evidence for

the

early

date

of

this manu-

script

is

ample.

None

of the

movements have

programmatictitles, and

the

manuscriptclearly

belongs

to

a

period

when the

symphony

had

five movements: at some

point,

Mahlerlabeled

the

scherzo as "2.

Satz,"

but then wrote a

"3"

over

top

of the "2."

(In

the five-movement ver-

sion of the

Symphony,

"Blumine" comes

sec-

ond,

before the

scherzo.)

Mahler also

labeled

the first movement "I. Satz." The last move-

ment

is unnumbered. This

numbering,

when

considered

together

with

the

binding,

suggests

two

things: first,

that the funeral march

was

bound

together

in

a

separate

volume,

now

lost;

andsecond,that this copyist's manuscript

never

included

"Blumine." If it

is

correct to surmise

that

this

movement was borrowed

in

its

en-

104



a. Movt.

II,

scherzo

heme.

MS

SCORE

4,.

f)),

,

w

w-4"

F) , i

ff

f

b.Movt.

II,

rio theme.

MS

SCORE

gliss.

gliss.

c.

Movt.

IV,

maintheme.

MS

h h

SCORE

A

A

,

,

,

,•if.

. ?

I I

. .1,

-

,',,•

"

I;",A d

,?

"

9•I•717 i,= /

•,,f~ l 7

',.r I

VuF,

I

Example

1

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler'sFirst:

A New Source

tirety

from the

Trompeter

von

Siikkingen

mu-

sic, Mahler may not have bothered to have it

copied

again.20

Moreover,

at the

beginning

of the

first

move-

ment,

the

strings play

an

A in

octaves,

but not

with the

string

harmonics

as

found in

the final

score

(see

Plate

1).

This confirms

Mahler's

later

comment to

Bauer-Lechner:

"When

I

heard

the

A in

all

registers

n

Budapest in

Pest],

t

sounded

far

too substantial

[materiell]

for the

shimmer-

ing and glimmering of the air that I had in

mind. It

then occurred

to

me

that

I

could have

all

the

strings play

harmonics

(from

the

violins

at

the

top,

down

to the

basses,

which also

pos-

sess

harmonics).

Now

I

had the effect

I

wanted.'"21

inally,

examination of

the musical

text reveals

that

it

quite

clearly

predates

the

Yale

manuscript,

and it

is to

a detailed

consid-

eration of

this

point

that

I

now turn.

III

The

copyist's

text

of the

UWO

manuscript-

the base text to which Mahler made

changes-

is

considerably

less refined than

the Yale

auto-

graph, and it contains fewer dynamic and ex-

pression

markings.

Certain

musical details are

coarser as well. For

example,

the

opening

themes of both the

scherzo and the

trio,

as well

as the main

F-minor

theme of the last

move-

ment,

are found in

the UWO

manuscript

with-

out their

characteristic rests

(see

ex.

1).

In this

manuscript,

only

the

last

of

these is altered

consistently by

Mahler to its final form. In

addition, the mordentfigurethat decorates the

extension of the

first

theme in

the

opening

movement

is indicated

only by

its

sign;

begin-

ning

with the Yale

manuscript,

in

all later

manuscripts,

Mahlerwrites out the

figure.

Such

is also

the case for an

accompaniment

figure

in

the second

movement

(see

ex.

2).

The

instrumentation

employed

in the

UWO

manuscript

is

considerably

smaller

than

that of

any

other

manuscript:

here we find

only

double

woodwind,

four

horns,

two

trumpets,

three

trombones,

tuba,

strings,

and

percussion.

It

thus

must

represent

Mahler's

original

instrumenta-

tion,

almost

certainly

that used

at the

premiere

in

Budapest.Many years

later,

Mahler

expressed

his dissatisfaction with the initial

instrumen-

tation:

"When,

in

my

earlier

years,

I didn't

know

any

better and worked

less

carefully

and

skillfully-as

in

my

First

Symphony-I paid

for

it

dearly.

What came out was not what

I

wanted;

201nther

words,

Mahler's

misnumbering

suggests

a

simple

mistake,

caused

by

the absence

of "Blumine" n the

UWO

manuscript,

and

should not be

regarded

as evidence that

he was considering deleting "Blumine" hat early.

21Bauer-Lechner,

rinnerungen,

p.

176

(Recollections,

p.

160).

105



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

a.

Movt.

I,

mm.

124-26.

Ms

SCORE

do

A Li -4,0

-

I- -

I

b. Movt.

II,

mm. 32-33.

Ms

SCORE

,,A

_41_

4^

- _ _

_ .•

"

F

_

F

IF

_

F I

I

4- FL

F

I

I

irlh

"tenI

I I

•

Example

2

what one

heard

was

not

nearly

as

transparent

and

perfect [durchsichtig

sch6n

und

voll-

kommen]

as it could and should have

been,

so

that

I

had to rescore

[uminstrumentieren]

it

later."22

erhapsparadoxically,

Mahlerachieved

his desired

transparency

in the final score

by

means of the addition of

instruments. This

accretive

process

is seen across the

various

manuscripts of the symphony, and it begins

with the

addition

of a third flute

to

the

first

movement

and a third

flute, oboe, clarinet,

and

bassoon in

the

scherzo and finale in the UWO

manuscript

(see

Table

2).

Mahler's revisions

may

be divided into two

groups:

those

involving

verbal instructions

and

those

involving

music. The first

type

includes

the

augmentation

or

rewording

of

existing

tempo or expression markings;the addition of

new

tempo

or

expression markings;

the addi-

tion of

instructions

for

the

player

or conduc-

tor;23

he addition of

rehearsal

numbers;

and

the

reassignment

of

a musical line

to a differ-

ent instrument

or instrumental

group.

The sec-

ond

type comprises

revisions

made in musical

notation: for

example, phrasing

or articulation

added

or

refined;

the

recopying

of a

part

while

assigning it to a new (oradditional) nstrument;

or the addition of

a

new

part

or

parts

in an

empty

staff.

It is clear that this

manuscript

served

as

the

source

for the Yale

autograph,

since

the

latter

manuscript incorporates

virtu-

ally

all

of Mahler's

changes:

all

of the orches-

tral

changes

are

reflected,

as are

most,

but not

all,

of the

tempo,

phrasing,

and

dynamic

refine-

ments

(the

Yale

manuscript

contains

few

sub-

stantive

changes

not

found

in the

UWO

manu-

script).24

A

further

indication that the

Yale

manuscript

is a

copy

of the

UWO

manuscript

is that the

programmatic

titles for the move-

ments in the formerare inserted in a way that

suggests

that

they

were added

later.

The UWO

manuscript

has no titles.

It

is

clear,

therefore,

that the

three move-

ments found in

the

UWO

manuscript precede

the Yale

autograph.

Consequently,

this new

source

clarifies certain

aspects

of the Yale manu-

script,

formerly thought

to be

the earliest ex-

tant score. On the basis of its different

paper

types Donald Mitchell has arguedthat the Yale

manuscript

is a

hybrid

of Mahler's

"original

score"

(his

words)

and his

1893

revisions,

and

that

"the

bulk of

the

Yale

MS

represents

the

1889

version of the work."25The Yale

manu-

script

contains

two

principal types

of

paper:

a

nonimprinted, twenty-stave

paper,

andan

eigh-

teen- and

twenty-stave paper

imprinted

by

the

Hamburg

firm

of B6hme.26

Not

unreasonably,

Mitchell supposed that the nonimprinted pa-

per represented

a different

chronological

layer

from that of the

imprinted paper,

which

clearly

dated from

the

1893

Hamburg

revisions;

he

suggested

further that

the

Hamburg

sheets

re-

22Bauer-Lechner,

rinnerungen,p.

62

(Recollections,

p. 68).

"2For

xample,

before the coda in the final movement

(m.

623),

Mahler

has written "Ausholen

zum

Akkord"below

the bottom stave and drawn arrows above every other

stave. Another

example

is the instructions

for

the

opening

fanfares,

to be discussed below.

24Mahler's ext

layer

of revisions

was made on

a manu-

script copied

from the Yale

manuscript:

the

NYPL manu-

script.

25Mitchell,TheWunderhornYears,pp. 197-202, here 202.

26"Blumine"

begins

on

a

different,

smaller

type

of non-

imprinted

paper.

106



Table 2

Varying

instrumentation

in the

early

sources of

Mahler's First

Symphony

Movement

I

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler'sFirst:

A

New Source

UWO Ms REVISIONS

TO YALE MS NYPL

Ms REVISIONS TO SCORE

UWO

MS

NYPL

Msc

Fl

.

2a adds 3rd

fl. 3b

3

Ob.

2 2

2

adds 3rd ob.d

3

Cl. 2

2 2

adds

Eb

and

4th

cl.e

4

Bsn.

2

2 2

adds 3rd

bsn.f

3

Hn.

4 4

4

adds 5.6.7

hn.

7

Tpt. 2 2 4 4

Tbn. 3

3 3

3

Tba.

1 1 1 1

aIn

all

movements,

one of

the two

flute

players

doubles on

piccolo;

written on

1

stave.

bInall

movements,

one of the three

flute

players

doubles on

piccolo;

written on

2

staves.

cIn

all

movements,

Mahler

changes

the instrumental ndicationsonthefirst

page

ofthe

Ms

oreflectthe additions.

These

added

parts

are written in

empty

staves at the bottom or

top

of

the

page,

or

within the

proper

ine.

dDoubleson

English

horn in

all

movements.

eMahler

irst

labeled

the added

Eb

larinet

part

as

"3 Cl.

in

Es,"

but

later

changed

the

"3"

to

a

"4"

in all

cases. Third clarinet

doubles on bass clarinet

throughout.

fDoubles on

contrabassoon

n all movements.

"Blumine"

UWO

MSa REVISIONS TO

YALE MS NYPL Ms

REVISIONS TO SCORE

UWO Ms

NYPL

Ms

Fl.

[21

2

2

Ob.

[2]

2

2

Cl. [2] 2 2

Bsn.

[2]

2

2

Hn.

[4]

4

4

Tpt.

[1]

1 1

"This

movement

is

missing

in the UWO

Ms.

Movement II

UWO Ms

REVISIONS

TO

YALE

MS

NYPL

Ms

REVISIONS TO SCORE

UWO

MSa

NYPLMs

Fl. 2 adds

3rd

fl. 3

3

3

Ob.

2 adds 3rd

ob.

3

3

3

Cl. 2

adds 3rd cl.

3 3

3

Bsn.

2 adds 3rd

bsn.

3

3

3

Hn.

4

4

4

adds

5.6.7

hn.

7

Tpt.

2

4 4

4

Tbn.

3

3 3

3

Tba. 1 1 1 1

aMahler

ndicates

triple

woodwind

only

once in

the

movement,

on

p.

3.

107



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

Table 2

(continued)

Movement

III

UWO MSa REVISIONS TO YALE MS

NYPL

Ms REVISIONS TO SCORE

UWO MS

NYPL

Ms

Fl.

[2]

3 3

adds

4. fl.

4

Ob.

[2]

2 2

adds 3 ob.

3

Cl.

[2] 2/3b

3

adds

4

cl.c

4

Bsn.

[2]

2 2 2

Hn.

[4]

4 4

adds

5.6.7.

hn.

7

Tpt.

[2]

2 2

2

Tbn. [31 3 3 3

Tba.

[1]

1 1

1

aThismovement is

missing

in

the UWO

Ms.

bBase

ayer

calls for two clarinets.Mahler

changed

many

of the clarinet

parts

to cl.

2

and cl.

3

and has

cl. 1

doubleonE6 larinet.

cC1.

3

doubles on bass

clarinet,

cl.

4

on

E6 larinet.

Movement

IV

UWO MSa

REVISIONS TO YALE MS NYPL Ms REVISIONS TO SCORE

UWO

Ms

NYPL

Ms

Fl. 2 adds 3. fl. 3 3

adds 4. fl.

4

Ob.

2

adds

3.

ob.

3 3

adds

4. ob.

4

Cl.

2 adds

3.

cl.

3a

3

adds 4.

cl.b

4

Bsn.

2 adds 3. bsn.

3 3

3

Hn.

4

4

4

adds

5.6.7

hn.

7

Tpt.

3

4 4

4

Tbn.

3

3 3 3

Tba.

1

1 1 1

aC1.

1

doubles on

Eb larinet.

bC1.

3 doubles

on bass

clarinet,

cl.

4

on

Eb

larinet.

Note:

All

movements

in all

manuscripts

nclude

strings

and

percussion.

placed pages

of the

original

manuscript,

writ-

ten

on

nonimprinted paper.

Based

on this

hy-

pothesis,

Mitchell concluded

that "the

[Yale]MS

. . .

represents

the

work

(if

not in its en-

tirety,

the

score)

performed

at

Budapest

n

1889;

and

(questions

of orchestration and the dis-

carded

Andante

apart)

t is the same

work that

we hear

today."27

The

discovery

of the UWO

manuscript

un-

dermines

Mitchell's

hypothesis.

Although

the

entire

first movement

in the Yale

manuscript

is on

B6hme

paper

and must therefore

have

been

recopied

in

1893, the

sections

of the other

movements

on

nonimprinted paper (all

of

the

scherzoandmost of the final

movement) clearly

postdate

the UWO

manuscript,

since

they

in-

corporate

all

of

the revisions

made in the lat-

ter.28Plate

2a,

for

example,

reproduces

a

page

from

the

scherzo

in the UWO

manuscript

(mm.

79-83);

plates

2b

and c show

the

equivalent

section

of the Yale

manuscript

(mm.

74-86)-a

27Mitchell,

WunderhornYears,

p.

202.

28Mitchell

(ibid., pp. 197-99) succinctly

describes

the

makeup

of

the Yale

manuscript.

108



. .......

,,,

?:::i

"

::

-

:

.

I•:,••-::

•

]i•

.:,•-':

•,: k..

•~.

....-:---

•7•

i

:..ii-

....

L ..

"

r•

...

400:?r:l~i:-:~:

A

W"P

c~ll I~

wou:

left

o

Plate

2a: UWO

MS,

.

17,

scherzo,

mm.

79-83.

The Gustav

Mahler-Alfred

Ros6

Collection.

Reproduced

y

permission

f the

University

f Western

Ontario

Library

ystem.

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A

New Source

portion

of

this

manuscript

in which

the

paper

type

changes

from

B6hme

to

nonimprinted.

(The

B*hme imprint is

in the

upper right-hand

cor-

ner of the

left

page.)

In

plate

2b,

the

nonim-

printed page

on

the

right,

which

according

to

Mitchell

is Mahler's

"original

score,"

incorpo-

rates

Mahler's revisions

to

the

base

layer

of

the

UWO

manuscript

(plate

2a):

the

addition

of a

third and

fourth

horn

part,

the

reassignment

of

the ostinato

figure

from

the

horn to

the trom-

bone

(both

on

the sixth

staff

down),

the addi-

tion of a percussion part (seventh staff up, m.

4),

and the crescendo

and

decrescendo

mark-

ings

in the

strings.

Such

examples

may

be

eas-

ily multiplied:

Mahler's

revisions

to the

UWO

manuscript

are

consistently

found

on nonim-

printedpaper

n the scherzo

and

the last

move-

ment of the

symphony

in the

Yale

autograph.29

The

different

paper

types,

then,

appear

to have

no

significance;

it seems

likely

that

Jack

Di-

ether

was correct

when

he

argued

in

1969

that

29For

xample,

the

figure

in ex. 2b

is

consistently

written

as

a

triplet

and four

eighths

in the

Yale

manuscript,

re-

gardless

of

the

paper type.

A further

argument

against

Mitchell's hypothesis is that there is no evidence in the

Yale

manuscript

that

Mahler's

corrections

increase

on

the

nonimprinted

paper.

109



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

letuRga

ny

1

k b ?

IM94,

P

3w

qp?

1"6-6

m

I

OVA? M6

I

MP

f

li bN

AIM

I rl 3 31

91

do

i K o

it

I*

M$

0 F

No0 0

MI

F

of

',7 6.

I I j d,

0

03M

pe

Ofr4

IAI

-----------

.............

............

amKam iQd

4

lu

aI

t,

Pt

-77*?' F?

Wo.

Z

4

Plate 2b:

Yale

MS,

ast

page

of

gathering

17,

scherzo,

mm.

74-80.

The

James

Marshal

ndMarie-Louise

sborn

Collection,

Beinecke

Library,

Yale

University.Reproduced

ith

permission.

the

Yale

manuscript

was

"obviously

a

com-

pletely

recopied

score

of the

symphony

dating

from

1893."o30

This conclusion

is

supported

fur-

ther

by

the

lack

of difference

in

ink

between

the

different

paper

types

of the

Yale

manu-

script,

or between

Mahler's

written

inscriptions

30jackDiether, "Notes on Some Mahler Juvenilia. III:

Blumine

and the First

Symphony,"

Chordand

Discord

3

(1969),

81.

There is

no reason to believe

that

the

discovery

of

the

missing

section(s)

of

the UWO

manuscript

would

change

this account.

110



? . : l ? : ? : : : l : ? r

- : - : : : : :: : -

- : : i

: : : : :

Fi~l S ~?rv

JkM~r:i:~::,:~~i

i:,,uii:li;r~~ii:il:ii'?

c~.

p~

-,ii-::-~~:;; :ia - ?i;i.i::

i_---_--:i _-iii-::?: :' ?i: : ::-i'"i_

iJ~:i~

?i?::: ::-.::s i:..i::--

.;. :::... : -?-~?-~:

?::---i.:-ii--ix:a: i?i':;. ? .?::::i::---:i?-..:-;:-'l;~i-:?i-I:.::":-';ffy:-

L;-j----~ ---

or.

-

I

w

-

I

:

v

L/

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A

New Source

Plate 2c: Yale

Ms,

first page of gathering 18, scherzo, mm. 81-86.

The

James

Marshal and Marie-Louise

Osborn

Collection,

Beinecke

Library,

Yale

University. Reproduced

with

permission.

111



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

at the

end

of

some

movements and

the musical

notation;

this

consistency

of

ink is

particularly

important

for the second

and last

movements,

which

end on

nonimprinted

paper.

The

gather-

ings for the first and third movements are

through-numbered

in

the

Yale

manuscript;

Mahler's

inscription

"27

Januar

93 renovatum"

at the end of

the

third

movement

suggests

that

he

recopied

both movements

at that time.

The first

movement in the UWO

manuscript

shows

much

revision,

most of

it

reorches-

tration.31

As

already

mentioned,

there are

no

string

harmonics at the

opening (plate

1),

but

they arepresentin the copyist's base text when

the

opening

music recurs

at the

beginning

of

the

development

section. The

introduction's

fanfares are

also

slightly

different

from those

in

the

final

version:

they

are scored

for four horns

and two

trumpets

in various

combinations.Here

Mahler added an

indication

that

they

are to

be

played

offstage (plate3):

"Horns,

played

loudly

at such

a

distance-if

possible,

placed

outside

the hall-that they may be heard only ppp by

the

public."32

Mahler

repeated

this note verba-

tim

for

the

trumpets

at the second

fanfare

mm.

22-26),

but there

is no

indication in the UWO

manuscript

for the

horn

and

trumpet

players

to

resume

their

places

in the orchestra.

Curiously,

Mahler

did not transfer these

directions

to the

Yale

manuscript,

and

they

next

appear

as an

autograph

revision

made to

the

NYPL manu-

script.It is not known whether Mahlerchanged

his

mind about

placing

the instruments

off-

stage

for the

Hamburg

and

Weimar

perfor-

mances;

he

may simply

have

forgotten

to trans-

fer the direction.

It

is also unclear

whether

this

direction

in

the UWO

manuscript

was added

beforeor after the

Budapest

premiere.

Two

other details

in

the

original

first

move-

ment

might

be mentioned

here. The

serpen-

tine, rising figure of three quarternotes and a

triplet

at

the

end of the introduction

(mm.

47-

58)

was

first

assigned

to the

bassoons,

here

and

in all

parallel places (including

its recall

in

the

last

movement).

While

revising

the

movement,

Mahler decided to entrust the

figure

instead

to

the

cellos

and

basses.

In

addition,

the second

section of the

fahrenden

Gesellen

melody

(mm.

84-88)

is

found

throughout

without the

repeated

half notes at the beginning (likewise in the

Yale

and NYPL

manuscripts),

perhaps

indicat-

ing

that Mahler "heard" he

theme,

unencum-

bered

by

the

text,

in such

a

manner

(see

ex.

3).

In

comparison

with the

first

movement,

the

scherzo

in

the UWO

manuscript

has fewer

cor-

rections

and

less

reorchestration, although

Mahler did add

many dynamic

indications

and

indicated

that

triple

woodwind

was

to

be

em-

ployed. The end of the scherzo, in particular, s

much

less

corrected

han the

earliersection:

here

one

finds

hardly

any changes

at

all;

those

present

seem

mainly

corrections

of the

copyist.

It seems

that Mahler decided

what

changes

were

needed

in the first scherzo

and

trio,

and

then

simply

wrote out the

rest of

the movement.

Korn61

Abranyi's

review

of the first

performance

in

Budapest

deemedthe

scherzo

to

be

quite

success-

ful, although "somewhat thickly orches-

trated."33

Mahler's

original

orchestration

of

the

opening

included

bassoon

and

timpani

doubling

the ostinato

figure

in the cello

and

bass.

He

omitted

the

bassoon,

rewrote the

timpani

in

the

Yale

manuscript,

and omitted

the

latter

entirely

when

he revised

the

NYPL

manuscript.

One

might

also add that

the

final version

of

the

scherzo

contains

358 measures

while the

UWO

manuscripthas357: the formergives one empty

measure

before the

linking

solo

horn

figure

be-

fore the trio.

In the

base

layer

of

UWO,

Mahler

has

given

the

moving figure

to oboe

1

and

clari-

net

1,

while the

horn

simply

holds

the

initial

note.

In

revising

this

section,

he scratched

out the

oboe,

and the link

appears

thus

(horn

plus

mov-

ing

clarinet)

in the Yale

and NYPL

manuscripts.

31In

he

final

score,

the first

movement

has 450 measures.

There are

only

449

measures

in

the

base

layer

of the

UWO

manuscript,but Mahlerrebars he last nine measuresand

adds

an additional

G.P.

32"H6rner

tark

geblaifen

n

so

weiter

Entfernung ttfges-te

wom6glich

auferhalb

des Salles

aufgestellt

daB sie vom

Publikum

nur

ppp

gehdrt

werden

k6nnen."

When these

fanfares

eappear

ater

n the movement

nd n the fourth

movement, they

are also

completely

scored

for brass.

In

the final

score,

the initial

fanfare

s

given

to three

clari-

nets. The

first

indication

f

Mahler's

ecision

o

employ

woodwinds is found

in the Yale

manuscript

of the

final

movement.

n

t,

Mahler

eassigns

he

fanfare t mm.

436-

39 to flute

and

clarinet,

as in the

final score

(replacing

he

trumpetandhorn).The first-movementfanfaresmust have

been

changed

in

either the

inaccessible

copyist's

manu-

script,

or the

Stichvorlage

(which

I have not

examined).

33Roman,

Mahler

and

Hungary,p.

80.

112



- -P,'

'+

+" P

?;

+•

'

,i•

,,

I

,+:d

"

::

"

aA 6

:

:.

.

+

?............

..

?

,,

' ":li:

-:

-:i

'

:i

'

,

-

. ...

i` i / :

',

7-7

+

,

-

i

; :

"

+

:

"

+

+

-

i

,

I

...

'

" P

'

' ' '

4MI,

..L.,~~

~~

-•

?-

i..

:-:

•

::+

1..,.+

I-.+

L S

lst

S 4:

..~~.....

,_ ... .

.

. ...

. ..

2n

•

+:.

............

-

,•

.=.:

•

.

__

+•

.-

-

?

.

:_•

. . ..

..

:

,

?..: -:.,--:

?

.

-

: :-

? ?

:

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A New

Source

Plate

3: UWO

MS,

. 2,

movt.

I,

mm.

6-11.

The Gustav

Mahler-Alfred

Ros6

Collection.

Reproduced

y permission

f the

University

of

WesternOntario

Library ystem.

f Palo.-

r • "Ii

i 1 i

-.,

i

".."

i

I

I\

i

I I I I

,.

Example

3:

Movt.

I,

mm.

84-88, reading

in

UWO

Ms.

IV

The most

significant

differences

in

the

origi-

nal

version,

however,

concern

the

finale.Mahler

described

his

1893

revisions to the

last move-

ment of the

symphony

as a

remodeling

or re-

casting

as

opposed

to

a mere "renovation."

This

description

is borne

out

by

the UWO

manu-

script,

whose finale

has

been

heavily

revised

and reworked.

Whereas

many

of

the

changes

are similar

to those

found

in earlier

movements,

those made to the end of the development and

the

recapitulation

are substantive

and involve

113



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

Table 3

Original

form of movement IV

MM. FORMAL SECTION FINAL

UWO

COMPARISON OF

MUSICAL TEXTS

UWO

SCORE

1-54

Introduction 54 mm. 54 mm. Identical

p.1

55-174

Exposition-A

120 mm. 120 mm. Identical

p.12

175-237

Exposition-B

63 mm. 63 mm. Identical

p.36

238-53

Movt./i

intro.

16 mm. 16 mm.

Identical;

double bar

1

m. earlier

p.48

in

UWO

(after

m.

252)

254-89

Devel. sec.

1 36 mm. 36 mm. Identical

p.51

290-316 Devel. sec. 2 27 mm. 27 mm. Identical p.58

317-74

Devel. sec.

3 58

mm.

59

mm.

Identical;

extra measure is a

p.63

repetition

of m.

337

(later

canceled)

375-427

Devel.

sec.

4

53

mm. 53 mm. Identical

p.75

428-57

Devel. sec.

5 30 mm. 31 mm. First 15

mm. in

score

occupy

16

p.85

in

UWO;

ast

part quite

different

458-532

Recap.-B

75

mm. 104 mm. see table

4

p.91

533-87

Recap.-A

55

mm. 62

mm. see table

4

p.109

588-622

Material

from

/i

35

mm. 35

mm. Identical

p.121

623-731

Coda

109

mm. 113 mm.

6

empty

mm. near

end, p.127rather than 2

recomposition,

rather

than

just

reorchestration.

Indeed,

these

sections

differ

considerably

from

the final

score

(see

Table

3).

Most

significantly,

there were

thirty-seven

additional

measures

of

music

in

Mahler's

original conception

of the

movement:

one

measure at

the

very

end of

the

development,

and

the rest

in the

recapitula-

tion.34

Table

4

provides

a more

detailed

de-

scription

and

may

be

examined

in

conjunction

with

ex.

4,

a

transcription

of the

end of

the

development

and

the

beginning

of the

recapitu-

lation.35

In the base

text

of the

UWO

manuscript,

the

recapitulation begins in quite a different

man-

ner from

that

in

the

final score:

it extends

some

of

the

material

from

the end

of the

develop-

ment section

(the

first-movement

cello

melody

and the

"birdsong" figures)

and reintroduces

the

F-minor thematic

material

from the

outset.

As

illustrated

in

ex.

4,

Mahler

abruptly

trans-

forms the F-minor

march theme into

the con-

tinuation of the

second theme

(theme B)

in

a

manner nowhere

reflected

in

the

final version

of the work

(UWO

MS,

pp. 96-97).

In

addition,

this

section was

initially

conceived

a whole

tone

higher

than

in the final score:

from

the

end of the

development throughout

much of

the

recapitulation,

a

D

pedal,

instead

of one

on

C,

serves

as the foundation.36

Just

as

in

the

final

score,

Mahler's

recapitulation

of

the

movement's

themes

occurs

in reverse order.

The UWO

manuscript

reveals,

however,

that

34Theother

slight

differences

n measurenumbers

recorded

in Table 3 arenot substantive.

35Thenumbers found in ex. 4 correspond o pagenumbers

in the

UWO

manuscript;

these

page

numbers

are also in-

cluded

in Tables

3 and

4.

36In

personal

communication,

James

Hepokoski

has

drawn

attention to the

striking

tonal

implications

of Mahler's

original

recapitulation,

which

began

in

something

of a

pseudo-G

major

above

a dominant

pedal.

This

D-pedal

puts

the "real"

onic of the

symphony

in

the

bass, just

as

one would

want

in a

recapitulation,

but

"that

D is not

solidified

or made

truly tangible

as a full

D-major

sonority

(a

3

sonority)."

Instead,

what

we have is a

suspended

4

sonority

above

a

D

bass,

a

moment

of "almost

crystalliza-

tion" on the way to D tonic, which, of course does not

("orcannot") "take,"

and

collapses

back to

F

minor

for

the

reappearance

f the

first theme.

114



Table

4

Original development

conclusion and

recapitulation

STEPHEN

McCLATCHI

Mahler's irst:

A New Source

UWO FORMAL SECTION MM. DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDS TO

p.

85 Devel. sec. 5 31

Sehr

angsam

-fanfares,

but over D

pedal

mm.

436-39

-new material

pp.

88-89

nowhere

-bass

figure

from

/i

introduction

mm.

448-53

-desc.

4ths,

cuckoo,

"Ging

heut"' mm.

452-57

p.

91

Recap.-B

8

Langsam

nowhere

-cello melody from/i reh. 12,

with

ppp

"birdsong"

n

flute and

"cuckoo"

in

horn

-D

pedal

p.

92

26 -D

pedal

nowhere

-pp

horn:

rather

ike end of

chorale

cf. mm.

396-99

or

404-12);

f-minor

theme

and its

continuation,

molto

rit.

blending

into:

p.

97

10

-continuation of

B

(as

at m.

205),

mm.

480-89

over

D

pedal

p.

99

26

-climactic

conclusion of

B

(as

at

mm.

490-ca. 515

m.

201),

unison

strings

and

woodwinds,

ending

with

long

diminuendo;

all

over

D

pedal

p.

103

34

Sanft

belebend

begins

like

mm.

-beginning

of

B,

all

pp

458f.

but then

-triplet

"cry"

igure

from

beginning

diverges

of

/iv

-over

D

pedal;

undermined n

last 8

mm.

by frequent

Bbs

p.

109

Recap.-A

62

Wie

zu

Anfang

nowhere

-recapitulation

of

opening

of

/iv

-all

ff

and

fff

-first 33 mm. = condensedrecap.of mm.

1-19

and 55-92 with the

brass

figure

in

m.

7

delayed

until m.

19where it is

linked

with the f-minor

theme

Mahler

initially

reversed the

components

of

the

secondary

theme as well

(B2-Bl),

rather

han

recall them in their original order (B1-B2);he

began,

that

is,

with the

continuation and

cli-

mactic conclusion of theme

B

(UWO

MS,

pp.

97-103)

and

then

restated its

beginning (p.

103).

Following this passage, Mahler then con-

ceived the

recapitulation

of

theme

A

to be

115



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

Sehr

angsam langsamer

als

vorher

d[ie]J.)

FPPM

Schnell 3

3

col.

8,

+

16

Hn.

Str.

gediimpft

geddnmpft

3

PPPP

86

Wieder

angsam

CFL., b.

3

3

CFopen Trpt.

muted

Trpt.

87

Ob.

P i 8

mosso

Hn.

r

I

I 1

C

3

3

88

Langsa

zigernd

Hn.

Vn.2,

Via.

_Vn

1

Vc.

espr.

89

Timp.

P

F1.

+Vn. 1

col. 8+ 16'

A

A-3

3

3

3

I I

3 3

3 3

Example

4: Movt.

IV,

UWO

MS,

pp.

85-109.

116



90

Cl.

poco.acca_

+

Ob.

Bsn.

.

poco

cc

Vn-

1'

-

3_o_

,

3

20

(die

twas

angsamer

91

Langsam

weirase

iea

gJ.

_

Ob.,

C1.

Hn

An

Vn. 1

Vc. arco

.

.-----------,-

.

-_

op

_

-

_{

•.

?._

.

_

P92

Zurickhaltend

-

'1-o '

Hn.._

Vn.

1 pizz.

Schwer

AIL

Vc.

p

----

--

---

+

Timp.

Fl.

+

C1.

93

Bsn.C.

Bsn

Zdgernd

Ob.

94

F.

Trpt.

L•,.-

i

-

•,

l

,

o_

o

o

o4

-

Timp

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A New Source

Example

4

(continued)

117



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

96

Ob.,

Cl.,

Bsn.

95

T

t

cresc.

Bsn.-

T

TrptBsn

pesp

+

Bsn.

[Sehr

angsam]

col.

8

-" . .

-

9

100

S

Fl, Trpt

----- ---

VH.C

Ob

ClFdiminuendo

~-

ST+ Bsn.

.

b.,

.

. #

'--,

43,

Col.

-

---------

- ------------

----

- --

9

Fl.,

Trpt.

A1

M,•

.

•,•IF-

OF

,,.,

A

IJ

o

oA

:9,1

:

Example

4

(continued)

118



102

Ob.

-

-

Vn.

-•

-•

_••"?

[Sanft

belebend]

103

Vn.1

rit.morendo

PP

pp

espr.

•

.------------------------

-

po

.

o.

Vn

2,

Via

---

-

0pp

- Bsn

Vc.,

Cb.

ppp

Doch immer sehr

midf3ig

104

105

+

Vc"

81,_"

1 0 6

O b . ,

s a n f t

b e t o n t

A -

------------,-

..m

.•-

--

S

. .

0

..0.

gVc.r

ML

Cbc

107b

Hn.

F-

o . . •

Aa#btn

...• ,v,-,,;.4

"

f:0

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's First:

A New Source

Example

4

(continued)

119



19TH

CENTURY

m u s i

108

rit.

-

-

morendo

Ob.,Vc.

FI

VI

gestopft 3

P

AptB

SL

-rit.

-

iorendo

Bsn., Cb.

Wiezu

Anfang

Fl.

A

ClFl.,

Va..

10Ob.

Echo PPP

FI., VIa.

PPPP fff

ff

Str.

-

-P1 Fl., Ob.,

C1.

Vn.

,

2 Arco

+

Via.

6

Via.+

Trpt.

Example

4

(continued)

literal-and thus quite unlike the pianissimo

transformationof the

theme in the final score.37

In

particular,

it lacks

the

viola

eruption

(mm.

520-29),

which effects

the

transition

between

the themes

and

accompanies

the transformed

recall of theme

A

in

the final version.

Thanks

to

the three canceled

pages

in the Yale auto-

graph,

scholars have

long

known

of

Mahler's

different

conception

of the

recapitulation

of

the openingmaterial.The discoveryof the UWO

manuscript restores the complete text of the

original

recapitulation

for consideration.

The relevant

pages

in the

UWO

manuscript

(pp.

88-103,

listed

in

Tables

3 and

4)

have

fewer

changes

than elsewhere

in the

movement,

per-

haps

indicating

Mahler's intention

to recom-

pose

the base

text more

fully.

At some

point,

Mahler decided to

reorder he

recapitulation

of

the theme

B

material

(thatis,

from

B2-B1 o

B1-

B2). In order to accomplish this within the

manuscript,

he folded over

pp.

89

to

103,

pen-

ciled

in

vertical

lines

demarcating

the omis-

sion,

and canceled

eight

measures

at

the

begin-

ning

and seven measures

at the end

of this

section.

This left

him

with the

opening

music

of

theme B on

p.

103-this

now

began

like

the

recapitulation

in

the

final score

(m. 458),

only,

of

course,

still

up

a whole

step.

He then

pro-

ceeded to recompose the rest of the recapitula-

tion of the

second theme

(B2)

on

three

folios,

37This

initial version of the

recapitulation

does not fit

with

Mahler's

ater

programmatic

onception

of the move-

ment:

"from the Inferno to Paradise."Constantin Floros

has

persuasively

discussed

the

final version

of the

move-

ment in relation to this

program

and

regards

the trans-

formed

recapitulation

of the

opening

F-minor

"inferno"

material

as an

audible

index of the movement

from the

latter to paradise;see Floros, Gustav Mahler:The Sym-

phonies,

trans. Vernon Wicker

(Portland,Ore., 1993), pp.

43-48.

120



P

t

-

A"

,

....

.?'?:???.

'

i•

-'•

";

ra:-_-l:::

:

:i-

Ii

',-

,

i

I

~

.

...

...

il

..

IL

T w

j-ik -

xi

V 7 :

- ~ ~ ~

?oche

Plate

4a:

UWO

MS,

utograph

nsertion,

p.

4.

The

Gustav

Mahler-Alfred

Rose Collection.

Reproduced y

permission

f the

University

of

Western

Ontario

Library ystem.

which he

indicated

("Einlage")

should

be in-

serted into the

manuscript;

two of

these

pages

are

reproduced

n

plates 4a and b. (Notice again

that at this

point

the

recapitulation

still

begins

in

G

major,

over a

dominant

pedal,

a whole

tone

higher

than

the final

version.)

On these

pages,

then,

he

rewrote the continuation and

conclusion

of

theme B

(B2)

rom

pp.

97-103

in

the

manuscript

and

preceded

this

by

seventeen

measures of theme

B's

beginning

material

(Bl).

A

red x

at the end of

p.

105 matches

up

with

an

identical mark on the first autographfolio, and

Mahler

wrote in the

notes

that are tied from

the

last beat of

p.

105 to the

first

beat

of

the

first

autographpage.38

The

autograph

nsertion

ends after the slow diminuendo just before the

recapitulation

of

theme

A. In

the UWO

manu-

script,

Mahler

canceled the

remaining pages (p.

108 and the first two measures of

p.

109)

before

the

ensuing

literal

recapitulation

of the

open-

ing

of the

movement

(theme

A).

38Although

Mahler's

indication to insert these

pages

("Einlage")

omes

at the end of

p.

107 and

pp.

106-07

are

not canceled, he folded over the bottom corners of pp.

105-06,

indicating

their omission.

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A

New Source

121



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

. .'

j

-.

_.

,,

--

......

_W

.

I

F-rii

: ;; ir~i:-~--:?::~i~-:~.T;''-:?1:"~i?-i-

~;;;?;;;;lb

r:0000

93': ::

Plate

4b: UWO

MS,

utograph nsertion, p.

5. The

Gustav

Mahler-Alfred

Ros6 Collection.

Reproduced y permission

f the

University

f WesternOntario

Library ystem.

Before Mahler

recopied

the end of the devel-

opment

and the

recapitulation

into

the

Yale

manuscript

in

1893,

he decided that it

should

all be played down a whole step, overa C rather

than a D

pedal.

He indicated this in the UWO

manuscript

by writing

the D-DV-C

motion

in

the

basses

and

cellos

at the

beginning

of the

passage

(see

plate

5).

In

other

words,

Mahler

never rewrote out the

transposed

version

of

B

in the

UWO

manuscript,

but

hit on it in

1893

while

revising

and

recopying

the work.

He added

the D-D--C into the UWO

manuscript

and

then went to the task of copying out the reca-

pitulation, transposed

to

F,

into the Yale manu-

script.

His

inscription

"19

Januar

umgearbeitet"

at the end of the movement

in

the

Yale auto-

graph may

reflect

the score

in

this state.

At some point in 1893 Mahler changed his

mind

again

about the

recapitulation

and

de-

cided

to

make the recall of the

A

material

much

less

literal than it

had

been

in the UWO

manu-

script (or

even in the

"first-copy"

version of

Yale).39Working

now in the

Yale

manuscript-

39Theonly hint of Mahler'sintention

in the

UWO

manu-

script

is the cancellation

of eleven measures on

pp.

110-

12.

122



/

.

.

.. ..

.

:::::

-:•: ~-;

:

:

i"

':: /

I?::

H

.14-

L?

...

I

::i?:

.....E~

?a?

+::•?

.

;

m

-_

lo.wI-.:.i•

Ittt

:.

,

,L

z'_ .....

'

•'-

.1:

•

.

•

•"•

•

•

- --?.

I•:;•-

_:~ •

;

i'

'.

;~~e

•

....... , • :, .-• -

1-.

W

.....

.

r

:i5~?

....

?-: _ .

STEPHEN

McCLATCHIE

Mahler's

First:

A New Source

Plate

5: UWO

Ms,p. 86,

finale.

The

Gustav

Mahler-AlfredRos6 Collection.

Reproduced

y permission

f the

University

f Western

Ontario

Library

ystem.

the

gatherings

of which

are numbered

1-20-

he deleted the entire

recapitulation

of the A

material

by canceling

all but

the first

seven

measures

on

gathering

14, removing gathering

15,

and

canceling

the first six

measures

of

gath-

ering

16.40

Although

the

original gathering

15

is

not

extant,

the canceled

portions

of

gather-

ings

14 and 16 survive

in the Yale

autograph.41

Mahler replaced gathering 15 with two new

folios

on

B6hme

paper-14b

and

(new)

15-

containing

the end

of the

recapitulation

of

B

and

the

beginning

of

the

new,

transformed

re-

40See

plates

V and VI

in

Diether,

"Blumine

and

the First

Symphony,"

between

pp.

80 and 81.

41Colin

Matthews, following

Mitchell

(Wunderhorn

Years,

p.

291,

n.

88),

was

correct

to surmise that four

pages

of the

Yale

manuscript

with about

forty

measures

of music

(the

equivalentof mm. 54-95 of the exposition)were discarded

(i.e., gathering15);

see

his

Mahler

at

Work:

Aspects

of

the

Creative

Process

(New

York, 1989), p.

27.

123



19TH

CENTURY

MUSIC

capitulation

of

A,

with

the viola

passage

link-

ing

the two

sections

(mm.

519-55

in

the

finished

score).42

Since the

gatherings

of

the

Yale auto-

graph

are

through-numbered

and did contain

the original, literal recapitulationof A, it is not

clear

whether this section

was

modified

in

Janu-

ary

1893

along

with the

rest of

the

movement,

or at

some later

date.

Jack

Diether

was

correct,

however,

in

his claim that the

transitional

viola

eruption

(mm.

520-29)

was the

last

part

of

the

symphony

to have been

written.43

It

is unclear when

Mahler

entered these re-

visions into

the UWO

manuscript-or

indeed

whether he made them all at the same time.

Clearly,

some

were written

while Mahler was

copying

the Yale

manuscript

in

1893,

but oth-

ers

may

have stemmed from

the

rehearsals for

the

Budapest

premiere

in

1889.44The volumes

are in

poor

condition:

the

bindings

are

in

tat-

ters and

many

pages

are

torn.

Perhaps

this re-

flects its

having

been bound after

the

Budapest

performance

but

before

the

Hamburg

revi-

sions.45All of the marginalcomments that have

been

partially

obliterated

by

trimming

are

ex-

pression

and

tempo

indications-instructions

possibly

connected

with a

performance.

The

discovery

of

this

unknown

copyist's

manuscript

of the First

Symphony

adds

consid-

erably

to our

knowledge

of the

history

of

the

work. We now

have a sense of how

different it

was when

first

performed

in

Budapest

in

No-

vember 1889. Not only were the instrumental

forces

much smaller than

in the

finished

score,

but the effect

of the final movement

would

also

have been

quite different;

the tonal

impli-

cations

of the

original recapitulation

in

par-

ticular

deserve further

attention.

The small

piece

of

paper

with the

attribution to

Bruno

Walter

still rests inside

the front cover

of

the

manuscript.

But

now,

instead of

distracting

and

misleading scholarly inquiry, it lies powerless,

its

enigma

stilled.

Although

a

Bruno

Walter

arrangement

of the First

Symphony

would

also

have been

an

interesting

find,

a remnant

of

Mahler'sfirst First

Symphony

is

even

0

better.

1.4

42These

nserted

pages

on Bbhme

paper appear

o consti-

tute an

exception

to

the

claim that

the

different

types

of

paper

n

the Yale

manuscript

are

of little

significance.

The

other Bbhme insertion in the last movement (gatherings

10-11,

the C-D

modulation), however,

seems to

signify

nothing,

despite Donald Mitchell's hypothesis

to

the con-

trary (Mitchell,

Wunderhorn

Years,

pp. 210-12).

43Diether,

"Blumine and

the First

Symphony,"

p.

81.

44The

changes

in

the

fourth

movement,

described

above,

are an

example

of the former.

Likewise,

some revisions in

red

pencil

in

the first-movement

development

(cello

dou-

bling harp,

mm.

229-43

and

mm.

281-303)

must date from

1893.

In

the latter

case,

Mahlerrevoiced the

strings

in

the

UWO

manuscript,

but

then revertedto the base

text when

he

copied

the

passage

nto

the Yale

manuscript.

45The

poor

condition of the

manuscript

is not

typical

of

the rest of the

manuscripts

n the

Mahler-Ros6

Collection.

124

Documents

The 1889 Version of Mahler's First Symphony a New Manuscript Source