Symphony No. 4 (Bruckner) - Bruckner's Fourth Symphony and The "Bruckner Problem"

Bruckner's Fourth Symphony and The "Bruckner Problem"

Any critical appraisal of Bruckner's Fourth Symphony must take into account the so-called Bruckner Problem – i.e. the controversy surrounding the degrees of authenticity and authorial status of the different versions of his symphonies. Between 1890 and 1935 there was no such controversy as far as the Fourth was concerned: Gutmann's print of the symphony, the 1888 version, was unchallenged. British musicologist Donald Francis Tovey's analysis of the symphony mentioned no other version, nor does the Swiss theorist Ernst Kurth. Gutmann's version was the one performed by the leading conductors of the day: Mahler, Weingartner, Richter and Fischer.

In 1936, Robert Haas, editor of the Bruckner Kritische Gesamtausgabe (the critical edition of all of Bruckner's works), dismissed the version printed in 1889 as being without authenticity, saying that "the circumstances that accompanied its publication can no longer be verified" and calling it "a murky source for the specialist". In Haas's opinion the 1880 version was the Fassung letzter Hand (i.e. the last version of the symphony to be transmitted in a manuscript in Bruckner's own hand). It later transpired that this assertion is not entirely true, but when Haas denied authorial status to the 1889 version he was unaware that the Stichvorlage from which that print was taken has extensive revisions in Bruckner's own hand, which Bruckner made in February 1888 after the premiere of the 1887 version of the symphony. To account for the fact that Bruckner had allowed the 1888 version to be printed, Haas created the now-popular image of Bruckner as a composer with so little confidence in his own orchestral technique that he was easily persuaded to accept the revisions of others like Löwe and the Schalks.

Haas's 1936 edition contained the entire symphony based on Bruckner's 1881 autograph and included the Volksfest finale in an appendix: he described this edition as the "original version" (Originalfassung). He planned a second volume containing the earlier 1874 version of the symphony, but this was never completed.

In 1940 Alfred Orel announced the rediscovery of the Stichvorlage from which the 1888 version had been printed. He noted that Bruckner had emended it himself and in 1948 declared it the true Fassung letzter Hand. Even Haas appears to have had second thoughts on the matter when he learned of the existence of the Stichvorlage. In 1944 he announced his intention to restore the 1888 version to the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe; but before he could do this he was replaced as editor by Leopold Nowak, who was not yet convinced that the 1888 version was authentic. Nowak rejected the evidence of the Stichvorlage on the grounds that Bruckner had not signed it. He also repeated – and revised – some of the arguments Haas had invoked to cast doubt on Bruckner's involvement in the preparation of the 1887 version.

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century most commentators accepted Haas's and Nowak's arguments without taking the trouble to investigate the matter any further. The rediscovery of the copyist's score of the 1886 version was the only significant change to the Gesamtausgabe during Nowak's long editorship (1944-198?). Nowak issued critical editions of the original 1874 version (1975), the 1886 version (1953) and the Volksfest finale of the 1878 version (1981), as well as a new edition of the 1881 version (1981). Gutmann's print of the 1888 version, however, remained beyond the pale as far as Nowak was concerned.

Critical appreciation of the symphony took an interesting turn in 1954, when Eulenberg issued a new edition of the 1888 version by the German-born British musicologist Hans F. Redlich. According to Redlich, the publication of the revised version in 1889 did not mark the end of the Fourth Symphony's long process of composition and revision, as most commentators had assumed, for on 18 January 1890 Bruckner supposedly began to indite yet another version of the symphony:

"The strangest feature in this tangle of conflicting evidence is the fact that the so called Endfassung (final version) of the symphony which – according to R. Haas – combined versions II and III and is embodied in HS 19476 of the Nat. Bibl. Vienna Austrian National Library, seems to have been put on paper after the issue of the "revised version" (i.e ). This emerges clearly from the Facsimile of its first page, which bears the date of its commencement: Vienna January 18, 1890. It is possible to see in this MS score as well as in its date a silent protest of Bruckner's against the published score of 1889."

Redlich buttressed this argument by questioning the authenticity of a number of emendations to the score which he considered alien to Bruckner's native style. Among these, the following may be noted: the introduction of piccolo and cymbals in the 76th measure of the finale; the use of pp cymbals in measure 473 of the finale; and the use of muted horns in measure 147 of the finale, the aperto command for which is omitted in measure 155.

In 1969 Deryck Cooke repeated these arguments in his influential series of articles The Bruckner Problem Simplified, going so far as to claim that Bruckner "withheld his ultimate sanction by refusing to sign the copy sent to the printer". Cooke, who referred to the 1888 version as the "completely spurious ... Löwe/Schalk score", concluded that the existence of the alleged manuscript of 1890 to which Redlich had first drawn attention effectively annulled all revisions made after 1881.

In 1996, however, critical opinion of the Fourth Symphony was turned on its head by the American musicologist Benjamin Korstvedt, who demonstrated that the manuscript referred to by Redlich and Cooke does not in fact exist: "Were it true that Bruckner made such a copy, Cooke's claim would merit consideration. But Bruckner never did. Redlich and Cooke were misled by a photograph in Haas's biography of Bruckner. This photograph, which shows the first page of Bruckner's autograph score of the second version, is cropped in such a way that the date 18. Jänner 1878 – which is mentioned by Haas – seems to read 18 Jänner 1890"

Korstvedt has also refuted Haas's oft-repeated argument that Bruckner was a diffident composer who lacked faith in his own ability and was willing to make concessions that contravened his own artistic judgement. No evidence has ever been adduced in support of this assessment of the composer. On the contrary, there are first-hand accounts from Bruckner's own associates that it was impossible to persuade him to accept emendations against his own better judgement.

It is Korstvedt's contention that while the preparation of the 1888 version was indeed a collaborative effort between Bruckner, Löwe, and probably also Franz and Joseph Schalk, this in no way undermines its authorial status; it still represents Bruckner's final thoughts on his Fourth Symphony and should be regarded as the true Endfassung or Fassung letzter Hand. There is no evidence that Bruckner "refused" to sign the Stichvorlage. He may have omitted to do so, but this is also true of other Bruckner manuscripts whose authenticity is not doubted. Furthermore, there is no real evidence that Bruckner was forced to accept revisions in order to get the work published, as Haas claimed. The only condition that Gutmann made prior to publication was that he be paid 1,000 fl. in advance to cover his costs. Once this money was delivered to him, he would have been quite happy, presumably, to print whatever version of the symphony Bruckner sent him.

In 2004 Korstvedt issued the first modern edition of the 1888 version of the symphony for the Kritische Gesamtausgabe.