VERDI

Messa da Requiem

Urtext

A cura di / Herausgegeben von / Edited by

Marco Uvietta

Critical Commentary

Bärenreiter Kassel · Basel · London · New York · Praha

DBA 100 - 01
 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag Karl Vötterle GmbH & Co. KG, Kassel
Tutti i diritti riservati / Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved
ISMN 979-0-006-59000-1
 CRITICAL COMMENTARY
Giuseppe Verdi: Messa da requiem (BA
EXAMINED SOURCES
A autograph score, Milan, Museo teatrale alla Scala
I-Bc autograph score for bb. 28 – 55 of N. 1 Requiem
e Kyrie, Museo internazionale e Biblioteca della
Musica, Bologna (Ms. UU.26)
1
I-Mb autograph manuscript for bb. 1–11 of N. 1
Requiem e Kyrie, Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale
Braidense, Collezione Manzoni (MANZ . V.S.
VII 6)
I-Mb2 autograph manuscript for bb. 1–5 of N. 1 Requiem
e Kyrie, ibid.
I-Mr score, manuscript copy with Verdi’s corrections,
Milan, Archivio Storico Ricordi
MI1874 printed libretto, Milan, Ricordi, May 1874
MpR autograph manuscript of Libera me, Domine from
Messa per Rossini, S. Agata, Busseto, Villa Verdi
pUS-Cso manuscript of winds and percussion parts,
Chicago, Library of the Chicago Symphony Or-
chestra
pRIcoro printed choral parts, Ricordi, Milan, 1874
pRIarchi printed strings parts, Ricordi, Milan, 1874
rRIbozze printed proof of the first piano-vocal score (N. 6
Lux æterna), with Verdi’s corrections, New York,
Pierpont Morgan Library
rRIms manuscript piano-vocal score, location currently
unknown
rRI1874 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874
(pl. no. 44004)
rRI1875 printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875
(pl. no. 44004)
RI1875 score (first edition), lithographed manuscript copy
Ricordi, Milan, 1875
RI1913 printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1913 (pl. no. 113956)
RI1964 printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1964 (P.R. 160)
D
A: autograph score, Milan, Museo teatrale alla Scala
The autograph score, bound in two volumes, contains, be-
sides the complete Messa da requiem (1874), a fascicle with
the second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875; see Ap-
pendix).
Unlike most works by Verdi, whose autograph scores
were retained by the publisher, Ricordi, the autograph of
Messa da requiem was returned to the composer after ex-
tracting performance materials and preparing at least one
copy (I-Mr). The autograph was presumably returned after
the premiere performance, and before July 19th 1874, the
date on which Eugenio Tornaghi, an employee of Ricordi,
wrote to Verdi asking him whether he had received the
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
)
“Cassetta colla partitura Messa”, without however explic-
itly mentioning the autograph.1
In December 1897, Verdi gave the score as a gift “A Teresa
Stolz / Interprete Prima / di questa composizione”, as can
be read on the first page of the manuscript. After Stolz’s
death (1902), the autograph went to her heirs, who presum-
ably sold it to Banca Commerciale, since in the catalogue of
Museo teatrale alla Scala it appears as “Dono della Banca
Commerciale col concorso degli Amici del Museo Teatrale e
del Museo”. According to Rosen, the donation to Museo tea-
trale alla Scala must have occurred at some time between
1912 and 1926.2
The autograph score of Messa da requiem was described in
detail by David Rosen in his critical edition, to which read-
ers should refer for a more in-depth discussion.3 Here we
merely intend to provide readers with useful information
to motivate the philological-musical choices of this edition,
especially where they diverge from Rosen’s edition.
A does not show the usual structural corrections (dele-
tion of whole pages or sections) that can be found in other
Verdi autographs, except for two instances, where whole
pages were removed (at the end of the Offertorio) or re-
placed (at the beginning of the Sanctus). The reading of A
is therefore very clear, legible and detailed. This leads to
the hypothesis that, when Verdi wrote A, he already had a
well-developed continuity draft; this hypothesis is further
supported by the reading of the second version of “Liber
scriptus” transmitted by rRIms (and maybe drawn from the
hypothetical continuity draft), which is different from that
of the other contemporary sources.4 This would also account
for the prevailing error type, i.e. mechanical copying over-
sights. For N. 7 Verdi already had the manuscript of Libera
me, Domine from Messa per Rossini. A contains corrections
in grey, blue and red pencil, few of which have been adopt-
ed by I-Mr, and hence transmitted to the sources derived
from it. It is unlikely that the person responsible for these
corrections (some of which may be authograph) took the
liberty to make changes in A without Verdi’s authorization
(unless they were absolutely obvious, as happens in some
cases). This edition takes into account these corrections, but
evaluates whether to adopt them on a case-by-case basis.
At some unspecified moment, rubric folios (written on
the verso and blank on the recto) were added between one
piece and the next, indicating at what point of the Ambro-
sian rite mass each piece should be performed. Given that
1 Letter archived at Villa S. Agata di Busseto (cit. in Rosen, Crit-
ical Commentary, in Giuseppe Verdi, Messa da requiem, ed. David
Rosen, Chicago and London / Milan: The University of Chicago
Press / Ricordi, , pp.  –  ).
2 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .
3 In particular, we suggest referring to Rosen for the codicolog-
ical description and the structure of the manuscript (Rosen, Criti-
cal Commentary, pp.  –  ).
4 See the description of rRIms, pp.  –  .
1
only the premiere performance at San Marco required in-
serting the pieces into a liturgical context, it is likely that
the addition was made just days before the premiere. The
practical function of these “director’s notes” can be inferred
from the fact that the first performance was conducted by
Verdi himself, who was known to be rather unfamiliar with
liturgical practices. If one desires to perform the Messa da
requiem in a liturgical context, then the rubric notes are the
only authoritative source available, having been approved
and “performed” by the author himself. The general struc-
ture of the musical-liturgical “script”, from which we can
also infer the structure of A, appears as described by the
diagram on p. 3.
The second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875), on
pp. 69 – 84 (a single fascicle of four nested bifolios), was in-
serted and bound into A at a page break just after the be-
ginning of the original version: p. 68 concludes with the
first three bars of the original version (162a–164a), followed
by the complete 1875 version on pp. 69 – 84 (162–238), after
which the original version resumes on p. 85 and continues
to its conclusion on p. 96 (165a–215a).
Other autograph sources
A series of autograph fragments drawn from Messa da re-
quiem is extant. These fragments are conceived uniquely
as homages, and have no performance purposes. There is
no reason, therefore, why they should be regarded as more
authoritative than A, except for the rare instances in which
they may help shed light on issues that remain unsolved
even in the sources that were certainly (or probably) ap-
proved by the author. Concerning this type of source, the
Critical Commentary in this edition only mentions I-Bc e
I-Mb1,2 (see below). On the other hand, we deemed it unnec-
essary to mention the fragments marked by Rosen with the
acronyms US-PHci (1877), Seligmann (1877), Kuhe (1875),
Menzel (1883).5
I-Bc: Museo internazionale e Biblioteca della Musica di Bo-
logna (Ms. UU .26)
Autograph manuscript for bb. 28–55 of N. 1 Requiem
e Kyrie, donated by Verdi to Biblioteca del Liceo Musi-
cale di Bologna through the mediation of Arrigo Boito,
and sent to “segretario” of the Liceo Federico Vellani
on May 26, 1891.6 This edition points out some diver-
gences between I-Bc and A, but never accepts the read-
ings of I-Bc, for the reasons explained above.
I-Mb1,2: Milano, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Collezione
Manzoni (MANZ . V.S . VII 6)
5 Rosen, Critical Commentary, pp.  – . The first two manu-
scripts contain respectively bars  – and  – of N. Of-
fertorio (“Hostias”); the third and fourth contain bars –  of N.
Agnus Dei.
6 The date and place can be inferred from the two postmarks on
the envelope attached to the manuscript. On the backside, the
postmark of Bologna’s post office gives us the date of delivery:
May , . conductor.
2 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
In 1886, Biblioteca di Brera named a room after Ales-
sandro Manzoni, the “Sala manzoniana”. As a con-
tribution to celebrate the opening, Verdi donated an
autograph excerpt of the first bars of N. 1 of Messa
da requiem.7 Since the first shipment did not reach its
destination on time,8 Verdi sent another manuscript,
so that they were soon both delivered. This explains
why Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense contains two au-
tograph manuscripts with the beginning of N. 1 (the
second of which, with barely five bars, testifies to
Verdi’s lukewarm enthusiasm for the initiative):
I-Mb1: autograph manuscript for bb. 1–11 of N. 1
Requiem e Kyrie;
I-Mb2: autograph manuscript for bb. 1–5 of N. 1
Requiem e Kyrie.
In the Critical Commentary of this edition we only
refer to I-Mb1, as a confirmation for solutions adopted
on the basis of musical logic.
I-Mr: score, manuscript copy with Verdi’s corrections, Milan,
Archivio Storico Ricordi
Registered at the prefecture of the Milan province on August
14th 1874, the frontispiece of the manuscript bears Verdi’s
authentication: “Copia conforme / all’originale / G. Verdi”.
The copy was produced by six Ricordi copyists, presumably
by the middle of July.9 However, there are good reasons to
think that I-Mr was prepared in real time, as Verdi handed
in the various parts of A: in fact, the copy of the first two
pieces, submitted by Verdi on March 30, was handed out
to all six copyists. If the copying had not been so urgent,
maybe the distribution of materials would have been car-
ried out on the complete work, starting from the last sub-
mission (mid-April; see Introduction, p. VIII), or at least after
April 9, when Verdi sent NN. 4, 5, 6, 7. However, the urgent
need for a copy of the score can be unequivocally deduced
from the fact that N. 3, the last piece to be submitted, was
copied by at least two different copyists. In little more than
a month, Ricordi had to extract the orchestral and cho-
ral parts, as well as prepare the piano-vocal score, whose
printed version had to be ready by the day of the premiere.
Supposing that the composer knew his work well enough
to conduct it without studying it (or at least re-reading it),10
7 A request for the full score of Messa da requiem (“si chiede a
Giuseppe Verdi l’autografo della Messa da requiem”) was predict-
ably turned down (see Catalogo della mostra manzoniana: Novembre
– Dicembre , Milan, , p. XIX).
8 On October , Verdi wrote to Ricordi, asking him
whether he had received his “lettera Requiem” of Oct. , which
probably contained the cadeau (Carteggio Verdi-Ricordi  – ,
edited by A. Pompilio and M. Ricordi, Istituto Nazionale di Studi
Verdiani, Parma, , p. ).
9 Around the middle of July, Ricordi presumably sent the auto-
graph score back to Verdi. See description of A, pp. – and note .
10 During the premiere rehearsals Verdi coached the soloist sing-
ers, but not the choir (see the Introduction to this edition, p. VIII);
the choir is assigned some of the most demanding passages for the
[vol. I]
[pp. 1–32 (32 empty)] N. 1 Requiem [e Kyrie] [pp. 55–84 (84 empty)] N. 4 Sanctus

[pp. 33–34 (33 empty)] [rubric] [pp. 85–86 (85 empty)] [rubric]
N:o 2 / Dominus vobiscum – Oremus = No 5 / Dopo la Consacrazione – / Per
Lezione. / Epistola che si canta dal lato omnia sæcula sæculorum Amen / Pater
destro / appiè dell’altare: alle parole: / noster… / Poi altra orazione sul tono
Quoniam ipse Dominus in / jussu et in del Pater noster, / la quale quasi in fine
voce Arcangeli, et / in tuba Dei descen- ha le parole / præsta eum cum quo
det de Cœlo, et mor- / tui qui in Christo beatus / vivis et regnas Deus in unitate
sunt resurgen primi, / deinde nos qui spir. / sancti per omnia [secula] sec[u]
vivimus simul rapiemur / cum illis in lorum - amen - / quindi cenno di star
nubibus obviam Christo in / aera, et sic pronti / Pax et communicatio D[omi]ni
semper cum Domino erimus. / Itaque nostri / Jesu Christi sit semper vobis-
consolamini invicem in verbis / istis = cum = / Et cum spiritu tuo / subito
subito / Dies iræ Agnus Dei

[pp. 35–202 [pp. 87–106

(201–202 empty)]* N. 2 Dies iræ (105–106 empty)] N. 5 Agnus Dei

[vol. II] [pp. 107–108

[pp. 1–2 (1 empty)] [rubric] (107 empty)] [rubric]
N 3. / Finito il Dies iræ leggesi il Van- N 6. / La messa finisce poco dopo. /
gelo- / poi Dominus vobiscum e un Quando è finito l’Agnus / Dei cominci
Oremus / che comincia Adesto Domine o subito o appena / poco dopo (come
sup- / plicationibus nostris per anima vuole il Sig.r M.o) / Segue Lux æterna
/ famuli tui in cujus annua obitus / die
officium commemorationis im- / pendi- [pp. 109–132] N. 6 [Lux æterna]
mus:… ut signa ei secularis macu- / la
inhæsit… dono tuae pietatis indulgeas [pp. 133–134
et / abstergas= per dominum nostrum (133 empty)] [rubric]
Jesum / Christum filium tuum, qui te- No 7. / Quando, finita l’Orazione e /
cum vivit / et regnat in unitate spiritus cantato un ultimo Amen sa- / rà detto
sancti Deus / per omnia sæcula sæculo- a voce bassa senza can- / to Dominus
rum (pronti) / Amen Segue subito vobiscum etcc. e / Requiem etcc. et lux
perpetua / luceat ei, requiescat in pace
[pp. 3–52 (52 empty)] N. 3 Offertorio Amen / tutto sommessamente, e vedrà
il / celebrante accostarsi al lato / del
[pp. 53–54 (53 empty)] [rubric] Vangelo, intoni subito / Libera me //
N 4. / Prefazio
j
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ [pp. 135–218
Do - mi - nus vo - - bi - scum (217–218 empty)] N. 7 Libera me, Domine
Il prefazio finisce colle parole sotto
notate, ma / sarà bene avvisare di star
pronti a queste prime
j j j j
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
quem Che - ru - bim et Se - ra - fim so - cia ex - ul - ta -

j
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
- tio - ne con - ce - le - brant. Cum qui - bus et

j
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
no - stras vo - ces ut ad - mit - ti ju - be - as de - pre - ca -

j j
&b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
- mur sup - pli - ci con - fes - si - o - ne di - cen - tes

Segue subito**

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

Rubric pages inserted in the autograph score

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

this could not, in any way, have been true for Franco Faccio,
who would later conduct the Messa da requiem on the 27th
and 29th of May at Teatro alla Scala. Having one more score
available, whatever its planned function or use, must have
been a necessity, or at least a useful precaution.
The work of the six copyists was essentially “conserva-
tive”, almost never critical, so that I-Mr only rarely offers
solutions for the inconsistencies and errors of A. On the
whole, I-Mr is the product of a group of craftsmen with lim-
ited musical knowledge. However, the importance of this
source has to do with the corrections added by Verdi, some
of which are actually revisions. Theoretically, they may have
been inserted after the premiere, although a rather evident
series of mutual “contaminations” suggests that I-Mr, rRIms
and rRI1874 probably developed in parallel, as Verdi submit-
ted parts of his work.11
Many corrections were written in purple ink, and some
of them were also reproduced in A, at a moment when Verdi
had access to both manuscripts (see for example Critical
Commentary, N. 2, Note 127–129).12 In one significant case,
Verdi made revisions in pencil and did not reproduce them
in A (see Critical Commentary, N. 3, Note 63–67). Other in-
terventions in (red or grey) pencil do not seem Verdi’s, and
generally correct major oversights – which is why they are
usually not marked in this edition. The fact that Verdi au-
thorized this manuscript copy is not a sufficient condition
to regard its accidental divergences from A as authoritative:
it is evident that the composer revised I-Mr in a very super-
ficial way, as he used to do whenever he reads the proofs of
his own works (the same consideration applies to the proofs
of the piano-vocal score of N. 6 Lux æterna,13 and to the
printed strings and choral parts). Therefore, the edition of
the score only takes into account the readings that show
interventions by the author or by authorized staff.
I-Mr turns out to be just as important in tracing the ori-
gin of erroneous, or inaccurate, textual traditions. It was
mostly, although not exclusively, from this copy that Ricordi
drew the first printed edition (RI1875, lithographed manu-
script copy), from which most of the orchestral parts in
RI1913 were drawn and subjected to standardization, inte-
gration and normalization (the vocal parts are derived from
rRI1875). Therefore I-Mr allows us to document the genesis
of errors contained in RI1913 and RI1964, and hence to dem-
onstrate that some of the solutions adopted in these scores
(on which many historical recordings that are still com-
mercially available were based), are the result of inherited
misreadings rather than choices.14
11 For a possible stemma of the sources see this edition, “The
textual tradition”, pp. – : .
12 See also the description of rRI1874, p. .
13 See description of rRI bozze.
14 In other cases, the divergences of the textual tradition with
respect to A presumably depend on the relationship with rRIms
(see description of rRIms, pp.  –  : ).
4 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
MI1874: printed libretto, Milan, Ricordi, 1874
Printed for the premiere performance, it constitutes the
principal source for the verbal text: where Verdi wrote the
text erroneously or omitted punctuation marks, this edition
refers to the reading of MI1874. In some cases, however, it
retains the punctuation of A when it shows relevant expres-
sive qualities.
pUS-Cso: manuscript winds and percussion parts, Chicago,
Library of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra
These parts were prepared by the publisher, Ricordi, for
the New York performance (17 November 1874), and contain
the first version of the “Liber scriptus”. Some inserts con-
taining the “Liber scriptus” of 1875 were added at a later
date. This part set was probably copied from another set,
which had been extracted directly from A. Although there
is no reason why Verdi should have examined this orches-
tral material, the source provides useful information where
Verdi may have omitted to indicate whether an instrumen-
tal part should be played “Solo”, “a 2”, “a 3”, or to define the
distribution of the three Trbn in a bichord. Furthermore, it
is not infrequent to observe appropriate vertical extensions
of dynamic indications, articulation signs, and slurs that
show a not entirely mechanical extraction of parts.
pRIcoro, pRIarchi: printed choral and strings parts, Milan,
1874
Ricordi printed the choral and strings parts between April
and May 1874 (hence with the first version of the “Liber
scriptus”), in time for the premiere performance. They were
almost certainly drawn from A, since they do not contain
errors that are present in I-Mr (other sources for the score
were not available at the time). Ricordi sent the proofs of
the choral parts to Verdi on April 11th. Considering that
Verdi sent the “corrected” proofs back the next day,15 we
can imagine that his check must have been rather hasty.
The same reasoning applies to the proofs of the strings
parts, which Verdi received on April 14th and sent back on
the 16th.16 Given the impossibility to know where and how
Verdi intervened on the proofs, this edition attributes very
limited importance and usefulness to pRI.
rRIbozze: printed proof of the piano-vocal score
(N. 6 Lux æterna), with Verdi’s corrections, New York,
Pierpont Morgan Library (Mary Flagler Cary Music Collection)
See description of rRI1874.
15 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of April , (the manuscript is kept
at Archivio Storico Ricordi and can be accessed at the follow-
ing website: Internet Culturale, http://www.internetculturale.it;
hence-forth ASR , IC).
16 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of April , (ASR , IC).
rRIms: manuscript piano-vocal score, location currently unknown
This source appeared in the catalogue of music antiques
dealer La Scala autographs from 2011 to the beginning of 2012,
when the editor of this edition purchased a photographic
reproduction of it. The text on the cover reads as follows:
“Messa da Requiem / Musicata dal Celeberrimo Maestro /
Giuseppe Verdi / Per l’anniversario di Alessandro Manzo-
ni”, and below, in pencil, “proprietà Riservata” (left) and
“II VERSIONE / LIBER SCRIPTUS” (right). The manuscript
shows the features of a model for the typographic realiza-
tion of the piano-vocal score: the notes and text are written
in black ink, while all the expressive, dynamic, tempo, slurs
and articulation marks are written in purple ink. However,
rRIms was presumably conceived for performance, not spe-
cifically for preparing the printed piano-vocal score: the
layout appears very different from that of the printed edi-
tion (rRIms is in horizontal format, rRI1874 and rRI1875 are in
vertical format). Furthermore, the performance indications
were written by the same hand that wrote the notes on the
pentagram; to this must be added the somewhat pragmatic,
concise writing, which makes intelligent use of abbrevia-
tions in the performance indications. By the same token,
the piano-vocal scores printed by Ricordi in 1874 –’75 must
have referred to this manuscript, since they are largely con-
sistent with it in almost every respect. rRIms contains the
second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875, which may
have replaced the first one at a later time), whose reading
was probably derived from a continuity draft that preced-
ed A: there are divergences with respect to A, which can
hardly be accounted for as copying mistakes or omissions,
as attempts to resolve issues of inconsistency, or as derived
from known secondary sources.17 It cannot, however, be ex-
cluded that the whole manuscript was written in 1875, and
hence that the second version of the “Liber scriptus” is an
integral part of the original manuscript structure. Only by
analyzing the paper item, which is currently missing, could
we provide an answer to this question. It is, however, im-
possible to find a plausible reason for preparing a full manu-
script copy of rRI1875, also including a version of the “Liber
scriptus” that is different from the printed edition as far as
slurs and articulation are concerned. Moreover, if the per-
son who wrote the manuscript had copied it from rRI1875,
he would not have forgotten the whole choral part in the
“Liber scriptus”, adding it in purple ink at a later time (and
in “shorthand” form) in the same stave as Ms.18 It is signifi-
cant that in A Verdi originally wrote the choral part in bars
206, 208, 210 exactly like in 191, and then erased it. In rRIms,
at bb. 206–212, a large paper patch covers a previous ver-
sion, which presumably contained the choral part erased
in A. Therefore, it can almost certainly be stated that the
reading of the “Liber scriptus” included in rRIms reflects
composition layers that pre-existed the definitive text of A.
17 See for example Critical Commentary, N. , Notes – and
 – .
18 See Critical Commentary, N. , Note . 21 See the description of rRI1874, p. .
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
A similar case, however, can also be observed in N. 3
Offertorio. On April 8, Verdi wrote to Ricordi: “Tomorrow
I’ll send you the rest of the Mass, except for the Offerto-
rio, in which I would like to make a small change at the
beginning”. According to Rosen, “evidence from the auto-
graph manuscript of the Offertorio […] suggests that Verdi’s
changes affected not the beginning of the movement, as he
hinted to Ricordi on 8 April, but rather its conclusion”.19
In the autograph score, the last three sheets were removed
and replaced, but this does not necessarily mean that the
change mentioned by Verdi was contained in those sheets.
Rather, it seems no accident that a paper patch was pasted
in rRIms at bb. 46–50 of the Offertorio: it cannot be ruled
out that the “small change at the beginning” referred to by
Verdi could have been made right there, in the first quarter
of the piece (the change would have been made in the conti-
nuity draft, prior to the writing of A). However, rRIms does
not bear any trace of correction in its conclusion, although
it cannot be ruled out that the substitution of the last pages
could have been caused by clerical copying errors, not by
a significant change in the music text. If this hypothesis
were validated, rRIms could be a very authoritative source
for the whole music, not only for the second version of the
“Liber scriptus”. Moreover, since the handwriting is uni-
form throughout the manuscript, we should suppose that
the whole piano-vocal score was prepared by someone close
to Verdi: it is likely that Franco Faccio (who took the role of
conductor of the Messa after the two “premieres” conducted
by Verdi, and had met regularly with the composer in the
previous months) had an important role in the writing of
this manuscript, at least in its revision.20 The exact corre-
spondence between rRIms and the early printed piano-vocal
scores leads to regard the latter, too, as more authoritative,
even for the readings that diverge from the autograph (see
for example Critical Commentary, N. 2, Note 345 –346).
On the other hand, we have as many clues to suppose
that, apart from the second version of the “Liber scriptus”,
rRIms was prepared after the first impression of rRI1874.21
For example, the passage of Trombe in lontananza in bars
127–128 of N. 2 (“Tuba mirum” episode) of rRIms already ap-
pears in the definitive version, while the first impression of
rRI1874 still gives the original reading (see Critical Commen-
tary, N. 2, Note 127–129, which provide a possible expla-
nation). A further clue can be inferred from a comparison
between rRIms and rRIbozze (see the description of rRI1874),
i.e. the proofs of the piano-vocal score of N. 6 Lux aeterna,
on which Verdi himself and a Ricordi editor made correc-
tions. The three clearly visible revisions made by Verdi in
19 Rosen, Introduction, p. XVIII.
20 Verdi and Faccio presumably met several times in the months
prior to the premiere performance: apart from the rehearsal period
and his direct involvement in the preparation (as well as the pres-
tigious task of conducting the third and fourth performance), on
March Faccio already participated, as Verdi’s confidant and
advisor, in the visit to San Marco in Milan along with Tito Ricordi,
to decide how to arrange the performers in space (see Rosen, Intro-
duction, p. XXI).
5
the piano part 22 are already included in rRIms (without any
correction mark), and this inevitably leads to conclude that
rRIms was written after these revisions (but again we ask
ourselves why, since there was already a printed text). De-
spite appearances, we can venture to guess that the cor-
rections required by Verdi were the result of a comparison
with the piano score he relied upon (rRIms) instead of A
– whereas in preparing rRI1874, Ricordi’s editorial staff may
have thought it appropriate to adhere more faithfully (so
it appears) to the orchestral texture (see for example Criti-
cal Commentary, N. 6, Note 16 –17, 22–23). In other words,
in the three revisions Verdi made to the piano part, he
may have simply restored the reading of rRIms, which had
been disregarded (although with the best intentions) by the
Ricordi staff. The thesis that the reference text for the crea-
tion of rRI1874 was not A, is validated by the fact that almost
all the interventions of the anonymous editor that clearly
diverge from A are identical with the solutions adopted in
rRIms (see for example Critical Commentary, N. 6, Notes 4 – 6
and 41– 42). We can suppose that the only reason for such
unmotivated divergence from A can be the recourse to a
model text already approved by Verdi. The editor presum-
ably performed what was known as conformity “check” on
the first draft of the vocal and piano parts against its mod-
el, rRIms, marking lacunae and divergences. Verdi in his
turn, after comparing the drafts to the model, authorized
both the results of the editor’s check and the divergences
with respect to A, thus generating a textual tradition that is
partly independent of the known sources of the score (the
two textual traditions will again converge in RI1913, which
derives its vocal parts from rRI1875). If this is true, then the
same checking method was presumably adopted not only
for N. 6, but also for all other numbers.
Therefore, the reading of rRI1874 (and that of rRI1875 in-
cluding the second version of the “Liber scriptus”) may be
regarded as doubly authorized, first of all because the drafts
were corrected by Verdi, and secondly (and more impor-
tantly) because it was derived from a model (rRIms) pro-
duced by a close, although undocumented, collaboration
with Verdi. These reflections lead us to pay closer attention
to some readings from the printed editions which are fully
(rRI1875) or partly (RI1913) derived from rRIms, and even to
elevate them to the status of alternative author’s versions
when it seems plausible. However, because they are super-
seded by the definitive version of A, the lessons of rRIms are
almost never integrated in the music text of this edition, but
are used to occasionally provide a glimpse of the composi-
tion process. On the other hand, as was already pointed
out, there are valid reasons to think that rRIms was mainly
used for performance purposes. If so, we should hypothe-
size that this music text played some role in the preparation
of the singers and/or choir in view of the premiere perfor-
mance. If this were true, then some of the readings that go
back to rRIms should be interpreted not as deviations from
22 In his edition, Rosen published a transcription of the original
text of these passages (Rosen, Critical Commentary, pp. , , ).
6 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
A, but as traces of a performance tradition approved by the
author.23
rRI1874: printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1874
(pl. no. 44004)
As soon as Verdi submitted the score of the first pieces (NN.
1–2, 30 March 1874), Ricordi began to prepare the piano-
vocal score (Michele Saladino), so as to make it available
on the day of the premiere performance (May 22, 1874), as
requested by Verdi. Although rRI1874 was probably derived
from A, we should not underestimate the role rRIms might
have played in the preparation of this printed reduction
(see description of rRIms). Between the last days of April
and the early days of May (taking no longer than 4 –5 days),
Verdi corrected the proofs of rRI1874 – however, as a confir-
mation of how superficially he carried out this task, in a
letter dated June 2nd24 (hence after the printing of rRI1874)
Verdi informed Ricordi about other serious mistakes found
by the music director who was preparing the singers for
the Paris performances. Therefore, there are at least two
impressions of rRI1874, given that in one of them the errors
had been corrected. The copies that have been examined for
this edition are archived at Biblioteca del Conservatorio di
musica “Giuseppe Verdi” in Milan, respectively under the
shelf marks M.S. 214/1 and B.25.h.167/3. The first of these
copies is also the first one in chronological order, for it re-
flects the outdated version of the passage from Dies iræ
(“Tuba mirum”, b. 127 sgg.), which Verdi modified both in A
and in I-Mr (see Critical Commentary, N. 2, Note 127–129).
The Pierpont Morgan Library in New York (Mary Fla-
gler Cary Music Collection) contains the drafts of N. 6 Lux
æterna (rRIbozze) corrected by Verdi and a Ricordi editor.
Verdi’s corrections are limited to the piano part, and have
no bearing on the orchestral parts. As for the relationship
between rRIbozze and rRIms, see the description of rRIms and
the Critical Commentary, N. 6, Notes 4 – 6 and 41– 42.
rRI1875: printed piano-vocal score, Ricordi, Milan, 1875
(pl. no. 44004)
This document contains the second version of the “Liber
scriptus” for mezzosoprano (1875) instead of the fugue for
choir and orchestra (1874). Even though the second version
is 26 bars longer than the first, the Ricordi editorial staff
managed to retain the same layout and page numbering as
rRI1874, and therefore used the same printing plates for the
rest of the music.
23 More information on rRIms will be available in an essay, on
which the editor of this edition is currently working.
24 Verdi’s letter to Ricordi of June (ASR, IC).
RI1875: score (first edition), lithographed manuscript copy,
Ricordi, Milan, 1875
Lithographed manuscript copy, published in a limited num-
ber of copies, and only intended for rental. The copy de-
scribed here was viewed at Archivio Storico Ricordi in Mi-
lan.
The text on the cover reads as follows: “Messa da Re-
quiem / DI / G. Verdi / [ornament] / (PARTITURA) / [orna-
ment] / Proprietà esclusiva del / R. STABILIMENTO RICOR-
DI / MILANO / Napoli – ROMA – Firenze / LONDRA”. The
frontispiece shows handwritten names of cities, in which
this score was used for performance, and the correspond-
ing dates for almost all of them. The first city on the list is
Munich, with the dates 1875–’76, which demonstrates that
this lithographed edition dates from 1875.25
RI1875 contains the second version of the “Liber scriptus”
and is a first, rough attempt at a critical interpretation of the
music text – we find instances of standardization, normali-
zation and extension (both vertical and horizontal), which
denote advanced musical knowledge. However, this musi-
cal and editorial accuracy is applied to the reading of I-Mr,
from which RI1875 is essentially derived. But we must point
out that in many a case the solutions adopted are closer to
A than to I-Mr: this seems plausible, since A was certainly
in the hands of Ricordi at the beginning of January 1875.
Therefore, the publisher may have attempted a basic, albeit
unsystematic, conformity check of RI1875 against A.
The usefulness of RI1875 for this edition can be evaluated
on two levels:
1) it contains suggestions for performance and editorial so-
lutions, presumably in accordance with the practice of the
time. RI1875 is especially important for the second version
of the “Liber scriptus”, since in this case we do not have
the (at times clumsy) mediation of I-Mr: in other words,
as far as the second version of the “Liber scriptus” is con-
cerned, A is the direct antigraph of RI1875;
2) it reconstructs the genesis of mistakes, which entered
some of the editions used until a few decades ago, in par-
ticular RI1913 and RI1964, which provided the basis for many
historical recordings that are still commercially available.
RI1913: printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1913 (pl. no. 113956)
Ricordi released a smaller-format orchestral score, register-
ing it for copyright in 1913. On the whole, the vocal parts
are drawn from rRI1875, and the orchestral parts from RI1875.
Although RI1913 makes a remarkable (albeit often ineffec-
tive) effort to smooth out the inconsistencies of A, it is also
responsible for a partly spurious (and partly “authentic”:
see description of rRIms, p. 5 – 6) textual tradition, on which,
more or less directly, almost all editions and recordings
were based at least until 1964.
25 According to Rosen, the edition was produced between
and (see Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. ). Rosen must have
worked on a different copy than the one examined by the editor
of this edition, otherwise he would certainly have noticed the
above-mentioned handwritten indications.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
RI1964: printed score, Ricordi, Milan, 1964 (P.R. 160)
This is the “new, revised and amended edition” of RI1913.
The anonymous editor (maybe Fausto Broussard, chief
editor at Ricordi since the early 1960s) compared and con-
trasted RI1913 with A, but not with I-Mr (the recognition
of corrections by the author in this source, which we owe
to Rosen, is subsequent). Therefore RI1964 involuntarily re-
stores some readings from A which had been superseded
by the changes Verdi made in I-Mr. However, this edition
has the merit of introducing many musically appreciable
corrections.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
T
The accuracy with which the autograph manuscript (A) was
drafted explains why the textual tradition tends to conform
regarding the essential features of the work. There are no
structural variants, cuts, alternative parts for solo voice, or
double versions (the “Liber scriptus” of 1875 replaces that of
1874). The text was conceived so as to always remain identi-
cal to itself, instead of adapting to the needs of individual
theaters, casts, and local practices. In the case of Verdi’s
Messa da requiem, therefore, we can talk about an opus, i. e.
a closed, definitive text. This is why divergences and in-
consistencies among the main sources available mostly con-
cern performance and expression indications, where they
are ambiguous or incomplete in A. The web of relationships
among these sources develops primarily on three different
levels:
a) erroneous or “creative” interpretations of the writing;
b) parallel elaboration, and mutual contamination, of some
of the sources;
c) the branching out into two different textual traditions.
a) Erroneous or “creative” interpretations of the writing
Writing the manuscript for a music text involves a certain
degree of inaccuracy and ambiguity, which may reflect in
various ways on the derivative sources, determining read-
ing errors and omissions, but also integrations and rectifi-
cations which, although musically plausible, may diverge
significantly from the original reading. Today this pheno-
menon is already familiar enough and does not require
further explanation in this context. Some peculiarities and
ambiguities of writing in A will be discussed further on
(“Edition criteria”).
b) Parallel elaboration, and mutual contamination, of some of the
sources
Despite the many limitations posed by graphic visualiza-
tion, the diagram published above attempts to outline a
possible stemma for the main sources available. It should
be noted that between March 30th and early May 1874, the
7
 ? Continuity draft
rRIms ? (NN. 1–6 + MpR)
rRI1874
Continuity
draft
Ls1875 A Ls1875
(instrumental
rRIms Ls1875 rRI1875
(vocal parts)
Stemma hypothesis for the main sources
Ricordi editorial staff was busy preparing all materials re-
quired for the performance. Meanwhile, a copy of the score
was drafted (I-Mr), orchestral and choral parts were ex-
tracted, and a piano-vocal score was prepared (rRI1874). This
inevitably entailed contamination (↔), which often leads
to problems when trying to identify strictly derivative rela-
tions. In addition, by the middle of July (but probably even
earlier 26), Verdi made corrections to I-Mr, some of which
he reproduced in A, thus generating a further level of con-
tamination (marked by the sign ↕ in the diagram). A par-
ticular type of contamination concerns a set of printed
sources, presumably drawn from A and “corrected” by Verdi
himself, although not always in conformity with A: these
are the strings and choral parts (pRI), to which we must
add the first piano-vocal score (rRI1874), a particular case
discussed in point c). Given that we cannot know where
exactly the composer intervened, it is also impossible to es-
tablish whether the divergences from A are the result of
choices made by the author or by the Ricordi editorial staff.
The diagram postulates, as in Rosen, the existence of an
X source (manuscript parts), from which the set of winds
and percussion parts pUS-Cso (prepared for the New York
performance, 17 November 1874) would have been drawn.
Since the reading of these parts is, on the whole, closer to A
than to I-Mr, it can be inferred that X was directly derived
from A.
26 See the description of I-Mr, pp. –   .
8 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
A
pRI
Strings and
Choir
X
I-Mr pUS-Cso
RI1875
parts)
RI1913 RI1964
c) Branching out into two different textual traditions
The degree of accuracy shown by A in comparison with
the contemporary practice and the usual standards of Verdi
himself, led to the hypothesis that A must have been pre-
ceded by a complete continuity draft,27 except for N. 7 Libera
me, Domine, which is a rewriting of the piece Verdi had
already composed for his Messa per Rossini in 1869 (MpR).
This edition suggests (with all due caution) that rRIms (man-
uscript piano-vocal score) was written on the basis of one
such continuity draft by someone very close to Verdi.28 With-
out deliberately excluding that rRI1874 (first printed edition
of the piano-vocal score) may have been drawn from A,
as Rosen suggests,29 rRIms could have played an important
part in its preparation. The proofs of rRI1874 were corrected
by Verdi himself, without however relying on A, which the
composer had handed in to Ricordi “by installments”, be-
tween March 30th and April 15th, 1874. It is likely that the
editorial staff at Ricordi did not perform any thorough com-
parison between rRI1874 and A after receiving Verdi’s correc-
tions: indeed, rRI1874 and A consistently show divergences
that can hardly be accounted for as copying mistakes or
omissions, as attempts to resolve issues of inconsistency, or
27 See also Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .
28 See the description of rRIms, pp.  –  . It is likely that Franco
Faccio (who took the role of conductor of the Messa after the two
“premieres” conducted by Verdi, and had met regularly with the
composer in the previous months) had an important role in the
writing of this manuscript.
29 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .
as derived from known secondary sources (see for instance
Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 345–346). It is significant that the
readings which diverge from A mostly adhere to rRIms.
There are valid reasons to suggest that Verdi first wrote
a continuity draft also for the second version of the “Liber
scriptus” (Ls1875 in the diagram), and subsequently the
final score. The reading of this provisional version would
be most likely mirrored by rRIms (where the pages corre-
sponding to Ls1874 were supposedly removed and replaced
with those of Ls1875).30 It is significant that the reading of the
“Liber scriptus” contained in rRIms diverges not only from
A, but from all other known sources. In particular, rRI1875
draws the “Liber scriptus” directly from A, not from rRIms.
In general, the vocal parts in rRI1875 are mostly integrated
in RI1913 (Ricordi printed score) along with the instrumental
parts of RI1875 (lithographic print of a manuscript copy). A
further stage of hybridization can be observed in RI1964, as a
consequence of the comparison between RI1913 and A.
In conclusion, the textual tradition that goes back to rRIms
(→ rRI1874–75 → R I1913 vocal parts) should be regarded as
definitively surpassed, since rRIms would have been drawn
from a provisional draft of the composition. However, there
are valid reasons to believe that rRIms was mainly used for
performance purposes (see description, p. 5). If we take this
to be the case, then we should hypothesize that, in view of
the premiere, this music text played some role in the prepa-
ration of singers and/or of the choir. If this were true, then
some readings that go back to rRIms should be intended not
as deviances from A, but as traces of a performance tradi-
tion approved by the author.
T torical recordings that are still commercially available were
Source functionality
The principal source for this edition of the Messa da requiem
is A, from which the music text is drawn. This edition con-
siders MpR, the version of the Libera me, Domine for the
Messa per Rossini to be conceptually different from N. 7 for
the Messa da requiem. We have therefore chosen to use it as a
source only when, given substantially equivalent passages,
it proves helpful in those exceedingly rare instances where
A lacks internal models for resolving issues of lacunae or
ambiguity. MpR will be often cited in the Critical Notes as
a contributive element to discussions regarding the various
solutions adopted by the secondary sources, or as a means
of reconstructing the genesis of an error (not infrequently,
where A and MpR diverge, the inconsistencies of A are
remnants from MpR). The autograph fragments I-Bc and
I-Mb1,2 are musical cadeaux with no performance function,
and also did not play any role in preparing the music text.
For a critical discussion of problematic passages in A, we
have examined a set of available secondary sources, select-
30 The fact that the manuscript cannot be located as of today,
prevents the possibility to directly check the structure of the fas-
cicles.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
ed according to the following two criteria: authoritativeness
(degree of proximity to A, author’s approval) and function-
ality (usefulness for musicians in revealing what in this
edition differs from the traditional ones).
As a manuscript copy that contains corrections and
amendments by Verdi, I-Mr is a very important source. In
it, we can identify three main types of author interventions:
obvious corrections, changes that were also entered into A,
and changes that were not entered into A. For the edition of
the music text, the first two types have limited usefulness,
and their value is mostly documentary, as we explained
in the Critical Notes. The few changes of the third type
are evaluated individually, but they are not always treated
as definitive versions. The most interesting and significant
of these instances is discussed in the Critical Notes, N. 3,
Note 63–67. Apart from Verdi’s corrections, I-Mr is of lit-
tle use, having been compiled by copyists who had limited
musical knowledge: at best, I-Mr follows A mechanically,
at worst it misunderstands it, or reproduces it in a lacunose
way.
The secondary sources almost never provide solutions
for ambiguous, problematic readings in A: they mostly of-
fer suggestions, which sometimes turn out to be useful as
they reflect the practice of the time. In as many instances,
however, they document the transmission of misreadings
down to 20th century editions that are still in use. There-
fore, the music text of this edition very rarely integrates
readings from sources other than A. Rather, the sources
that have been fully or partly derived from A are frequently
used in the Critical Notes to document the genesis of errors
contained in RI1913 (which is also a model for some foreign
editions) and RI1964, and hence demonstrate that some of
the solutions adopted in these scores (on which many his-
based), are the result of inherited misreadings rather than
choices. In other cases, as far as the vocal parts are con-
cerned, the divergences of RI1913 and RI1964 from A would
result from a more or less contaminated reception of a dif-
ferent textual tradition that goes back to rRIms (→ rRI1874
and rRI1875), and was probably approved by the author (see
“The textual tradition”, c). The critical notes concerning the
Ricordi editions still in use are marked with a distinctive
sign (•), so that the reader can easily detect what is different
in this new edition with respect to the previous ones (for
instance •55/3rd Vni I A: etc.).
RI1875 is a first rough attempt at a “critical” interpretation,
although applied to the reading of I-Mr (despite the fact
that, in quite a few cases, it adopts solutions that are closer
to A than to I-Mr; see “Description of sources”, RI1875, p. 7);
an exception is the “Liber scriptus” (second version), whose
direct antigraph is A. Therefore, the solutions suggested by
RI1875 (especially those concerning the “Liber scriptus”) are
taken into account in the Critical Notes when discussing
problematic passages, especially since they have also been
accepted by RI1913 in many instances.
MI1874 constitutes the principal source for the verbal text:
where Verdi wrote the text erroneously or omitted punc-
9
tuation marks, this edition draws on the reading of MI1874.
In some cases, however, we chose to retain the punctuation
of A when it shows relevant expressive qualities.
rRIms had almost no influence on the definition of the
vocal parts: there is no reason why the readings of rRIms
should be preferred to those of A, although the former were
probably approved by the author. Despite this, the Critical
Notes also include readings from this source, especially if
they have entered the current vocal practice through rRI1875
and RI1913.
The proofs for rRI1874 were checked and corrected by Ver-
di; unfortunately, the author’s interventions are only docu-
mented by the drafts of N. 6 Lux æterna (rRIbozze), which
contain Verdi’s correction marks along with those of a Ri-
cordi editor. Judging from the quantity and type of inter-
ventions, the composer paid significant attention to rRI1874,
since it provided the main material for preparing the vocal
parts. As a consequence, this edition uses rRI1874 as a very
authoritative source (also because of its relationship with
rRIms). Verdi’s corrections in rRIbozze are limited to the piano
part, and have no consequences on the orchestral parts –
therefore they did not play any role in determining the
music text in this edition. In two instances, however, the
editorial staff’s corrections led to hypothesize a relationship
between rRIbozze and rRIms (see Critical Notes, N. 6, Notes
4 – 6 and 41– 42).
The pRI (choral and strings parts) were also corrected by
Verdi, although hastily: many errors and substantial vertical
inconsistencies can be spotted, resulting from a mechani-
cal and hardly reasoned extraction. Furthermore, given the
impossibility to know exactly where and how Verdi inter-
vened on the proofs, this edition attributes very limited
importance and usefulness to pRI.
There is no reason why Verdi should have examined
pUS-Cso; however, this source provides useful informa-
tion where Verdi may have omitted to indicate whether an
instrumental part should be played “Solo”, “a 2”, “a 3”, or to
define the distribution of the three Trbn in a bichord. Fur-
thermore, although only in the case of instruments that are
identical or belong to the same family, it is not infrequent
to observe effective vertical extensions of dynamic indica-
tions, articulation signs, and slurs that show a not entirely
mechanical extraction of parts.
In the Critical Notes we used, as a merely practical de-
vice, the symbol → in formulas such as I-Mr → R I1875
→ RI1913 to mark local, but not necessarily global, deriva-
tive relationships: in other words, the suggested derivative
relationship only applies to the specific passage at hand (in-
deed, in many instances RI1913 does not follow RI1875, nor
does RI1875 follow I-Mr) or to the vocal or instrumental part
concerned. In the formula rRIms → rRI1874 → R I1913 the re-
lationship rRI1874 → R I1913 cannot but be restricted to the
vocal parts and the general indications. The relationship
rRIms → rRI1874 instead is only taken to be hypothetical, as
we have repeatedly pointed out. The derivative relationship
suggested can also be indirect, as long as its source is suf-
ficiently clear.
10
Where rRI1875 is identical with rRI1874 (in general, over
the whole composition, except for the “Liber scriptus”) only
rRI1874 is mentioned. The same applies to RI1913 and RI1964,
which correspond to a great extent: RI1964 is only mentioned
when it diverges from RI1913.
Edition criteria
Four decades of critical editions of Italian 19th century
works have brought into focus a series of issues arising
from the writing of the main authors of that creative period,
and have produced strategies both for the editorial repro-
duction of manuscript writing, and the typographic mark-
ing of the various levels of editor intervention. Today these
strategies are quite familiar to both musicologists and con-
ductors, so that it is unnecessary to discuss them in detail.
Given this consolidated editorial tradition, a musician can
differentiate between equally reliable critical editions by
looking not so much at matters of method, but at the level on
which the editor sets the threshold for visualizing his/her
interventions typographically, i. e. the threshold under which
the editor deems it unnecessary to make visible his/her in-
terpretive contributions in the score. This edition aims at
keeping the threshold as high as possible, while also re-
specting the scientific standards required today of any edi-
torial project of this type.
Despite the accuracy of the autograph score, the manu-
script writing shows some degree of uncertainty in a series
of aspects. Here we will only mention those that most fre-
quently lead to problems of interpretation (for all specific
cases, readers should refer to the Critical Notes).
– Imprecision in slurs. Slurs often interrupt due to a page
turn (or change of page), the running out of ink, or an
impulsiveness of the gesture.
– Ambiguity between accents and dim. symbols. Generally speak-
ing, in the 19th century the semantic difference between
an accent and a dim. symbol was not so clear-cut as to re-
quire assigning the accent to the category of articulation
and the dim. symbol to that of dynamics. Both express a
variation in intensity, more or less gradual, between the
“forte” and “piano” dynamic ranges. Therefore, the ques-
tion whether a sign is to be regarded as a particularly short
dim. symbol or a particularly long accent is a false prob-
lem: as a rule, in case of simultaneous presence of am-
biguous and diverging signs, the context itself suggests
whether to attribute an “intensive” or “extensive” value to
them (see for example Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 206 –209).
– Interchangeability of carets, accents, staccati. In many pas-
sages of A, carets and accents are used in an apparently
interchangeable way, a practice that is confirmed by some
of the contemporary sources: in particular, RI1875 tends to
assimilate carets to accents in most cases. This provides a
conceptual tool that can be used to perform integrations
and standardizations, which may become necessary as a
consequence of the often lacunose or inconsistent nature
of Verdi’s writing. Carets and accents are often replaced
by staccati. The page of A reproduced in Plate 2 on p. 275
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 shows that Verdi may have frequently adopted a “short-
hand” writing for accents and carets, by using staccati
(for a discussion of this passage see Critical Notes, N. 1,
Note 97–100).
– Verbal expressive indications. Sometimes the way they are
written makes them difficult to decipher, in particular the
most commonly used: “solo”, “dolc[issimo]” (also “dol[ce]” –
or “dol[cissimo]”?), “espr[essivo]” (also “es” or “esp”) etc.
The secondary sources often omit or misunderstand these
indications.
– Vertical divergences in dynamic and articulation signs,
slurs, expressive indications etc., often caused by haste
or by several subsequent stages in the writing of the
score (skeleton score, filling in of orchestration). Vertical
divergences in slurs and articulation in identical / simi-
lar / homorhythmic parts are a constant problem when
trying to interpret Verdi’s writing. As far as dynamics is
concerned, a very frequent case is vertical divergence in
the “forte” range ( f, ff, fff ), in the orchestral Tutti. The
three signs can often be confused as a result of hasty
writing. It is not always possible (or legitimate) to choose
according to which one occurs most frequently.
– Divergent slurs and articulation signs in theme recurrence in
imitative sections. In vocal parts, Verdi mostly introduces
the model for articulation and slurs in the first statement
of the Subject, reproducing it in a lacunose (but rarely
contradictory) way in the following statements. Some-
times, however, he does not define the complete model;
in this case, our edition creates one by comparing and
mutually integrating the statements (see below).
– Page turns. They often lead to errors and omissions: some-
times, after a page turn, Verdi fails to continue a part,
or write signs of repetition or of union with another in-
strument (for instance, Fg “coi Bassi”), to extend slurs,
dim. or cresc. symbols, or the verbal text below the notes.
– Repetition of passages with diverging performance indications.
Sometimes Verdi generates inconsistencies when he ap-
plies changes locally without reproducing them in the
other identical passages (see for instance Critical Notes,
N. 2, Note 558).
– Reprises of previous sections. Although reprise repetitions
(“come prima”) are much less frequent than in theatri-
cal works, in the Messa da requiem they create significant
problems in at least one case: the repetition of the “Dies
iræ” episode (or part of it) in N. 2 and N. 7, where only
the vocal parts and some of the instrumental parts (most-
ly only Vc and Cb) are written out, while all the others
must be repeated identically to the first exposition. Many
divergences can be spotted in the written-out parts. This
edition tacitly integrates and standardizes the instrumen-
tal parts of these repetitions through mutual comparison
(see Critical Notes, N. 2, Note 1– 61, 239 –253, 573 – 598 and
N. 7, Note 45 –105), and applies the same principle to the
vocal parts, although with specific reservations (see Crit-
ical Notes, N. 2, Note 3 – 61).
Since it is impossible to arrive at a definitive solution to this
type of issue, or to signal every single writing anomaly and
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
ambiguity, the editor chooses solutions on a case-by-case
basis, considering variables such as context and musical
logic, with the aim of reaching a balance between the re-
spect of Verdi’s writing peculiarities and their standardiza-
tion according to the current practice.
In this edition, the criterion of extension by vertical con-
formity of performance indications for families of instru-
ments, which many critical editions adopt as a standard
approach in case of lacunae and inconsistencies, is often
abandoned in favour of extension by function, especially
in the case of the bass function or the melodic-thematic
function. This choice is motivated by the observation that
the principle of non-extensibility (or of extensibility sub con-
dicione) of performance indications to instruments of dif-
ferent families has much more to do with methodological
scruples than with evidence from the actual performance
practice. In this edition the most frequent case of such tacit
extension by function, as opposed to the extension by fam-
ily criterion, concerns the passages in which Fg, Trbn, Vc,
Cb (or parts of them) progress in unison or in octaves.
The extension by function criterion finds a specific field
of application in the counterpoint-imitative style sections
(N. 4 Sanctus, passages of N. 7 Libera me, Domine, “Liber
scriptus” 1874), where almost all instrumental parts are the-
matic and often performed simultaneously by instruments
belonging to different families. The exposition of fugues,
and imitative writing in general, often shows divergences
in articulation and slurs between different statements of the
thematic parts. In the vocal parts, i. e. in the writing out of
real parts, Verdi sometimes provides a clear, exhaustive ar-
ticulation model in the first exposition of Subject and Coun-
tersubject, which the edition tacitly extends to subsequent
expositions. Other times, instead, no thematic part shows
a complete articulation. Where there are only lacunae, and
not divergences between different statements, the complete
model can be inferred by the mutual integration or concur-
rence of the orchestral parts that double them, where their
articulation turns out to be more detailed than that of the
vocal parts. This edition adopts the same approach also for
instrumental parts, respecting possible deviations from the
vocal parts in articulation and slurs.
As a rule, the editor only marks his interventions in the
score when A does not offer a complete, exhaustive refer-
ence model for integration / standardization. The editor al-
ways signals any rectification (of notes and durations) or
omission of isolated signs that lack any relevant musical
meaning (except in the case of mere clerical errors). The
sign system is mostly traditional:
– for signs of articulation, dynamics, verbal indications,
the edition uses square brackets, for instance [>] [ ] [  ]
[ p] [cantabile] [rallentando] [arco]
– for slurs/ties and cresc. and dim. symbols it uses a broken
line: [   ; ]
– for rectified notes and pauses it uses smaller print.
– for verbal text integrations it uses italics.
– in those passages where lacunae or inconsistencies in
the reading of A lead the editor to intervene more exten-
11
 sively and “creatively”, a footnote refers readers to the
relevant comment in the Critical Notes – otherwise the
score would be cluttered with a plethora of broken lines
and brackets.
In general, the preferred choice is to keep typographic dif-
ferentiation to a minimum, so as to streamline the score vis-
ually and provide conductors with the information that is
strictly useful for performance. For this purpose, the printed
volume only contains the critical notes addressed to con-
ductors (or to the curious, demanding musician). Here,
readers can find the complete Critical Commentary. By us-
ing the automatic research function it is possible to select
specific types of problems.
translated by Elisabetta Zoni

CRITICAL NOTES

N. 1 Requiem [e Kyrie] On p. 17 (b. 78) GV changed to 24 staves, which he set out

S as follows:
[I]
[Violini]
A, vol. I, pp. 1–32 (32 empty) [II]
For the description of A see pp. 1–2. [Viole]
[2] Flauti
Ottavino
E [2] Oboè
On p. 1 GV set out his 20-stave paper as follows: [2] Clarin[etti] / in La
[I] [2] Corni / in Mi
Violini
[II] [2] Corni / in La
Viole [I–II]
Fagotti
2. Flauti [III–IV]
Ottavino Timpani
[2] Oboè [empty]
[2] Clarinetti / in Do [sic]31; at 76 in La [empty]
[2] Corni / in Fa [sic]31; at 76 in Mi Soprano
[2] Corni / in Do [sic]31; at 76 in La Mezzo / Soprano
2. Fagotti Tenore
2. Fagotti Basso
Timpani [Soprani]
[empty] [Contralti]
Coro
[empty] [Tenori]
Soprani [Bassi]
Contralti [Violoncelli]
Coro
Tenori [Contrabbassi]
Bassi
Violoncelli
Contra Bassi T
On p. 1 GV wrote “Requiem” in the top center margin, and
31 When GV began the composition of N. he had probably not “G. Verdi / 1874” in the top right corner. The title might re-
yet decided if he would call for Cl and Cor in the first bars and
fer to the entire Messa da requiem, but for the editions of the
therefore preventatively indicated transpositions for these instru-
ments that would be appropriate for A minor and F major (see also vocal score he explicitly requested that the title for the first
Note Cor). number be “Requiem e Kyrie”, which we adopt.

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

C comparison with the previous series of two-
6 Vni, Vle A: no dynamic is present; we supply
pp in keeping with the indications for Vc at 1
and Cb at 8. In I-Mb1 GV wrote pp between
Vni I and II, for Vle, and for Vc.
8 Cb A: the fact that GV indicated “sottovoce”
only for Cb reflects the particular attention
he devoted to matters of orchestration. Unlike
the other strings, Cb are playing here without
a mute, which might otherwise seem an error
or perhaps a residual reflection of the skeleton
score were it not for the “levate i sordini” he
explicitly indicated at 76 for Vni, Vle, and Vc,
but not for Cb.
8–10, 58–60 Cb A: slur missing; in I-Mb1 (8–10) the slur
is present for both Vc and Cb.
12–15 S Coro A: carets missing; we supply in con-
formity with the corresponding 62– 65. They
are also absent in all of the examined sources.
12–15 Strings A: there is no doubt, given the plenti-
ful, consistent, and careful supply of indica-
tions both here and at the corresponding 62– 65,
that GV wanted the second beat of every bar to
be accented. Where the divisi Vle part has an
occasional lacuna, the single caret was meant
to refer to both parts.
12–15 Vc A: slur over the  at 12, followed by a long
slur; we render a single continuous slur as at
62– 65. GV had probably intended initially to
highlight each member of the progression in
12–14 by means of a series of shorter slurs (as
in rRIms → rRI1874), but he immediately opted
for the longer slur like the one for Vni I. I-Mr,
RI1875, and RI1913 resolved the situation by sup-
plying both the long slur from 12 to 15 and the
shorter one at 12.
15 –16 S Coro A: at 16, the first bar following a page
turn (recto to verso), GV neglected to continue
the slur from 15, but it concludes unequivocally
on the  at the corresponding 65 – 66.
15 –16 Strings A: because of a page turn (recto to
verso) between these two bars, the slurs are not
clearly drawn and some doubt remains regard-
ing GV’s definitive intentions; however, the
corresponding 65 – 66, which is not interrupted
by a page turn, provides a complete and coher-
ent model for us to follow (see also Note 15 –16
Coro). Particular issues of ambiguity may be
summarized as follows:
– Vni I: the long slur extends abundantly over
the bar line at the end of 15 (the last bar on the
page), suggesting its continuation in the succes-
sive bar (as at the corresponding 65), but a new
slur begins at 16/1st and concludes at 18. We
opt for the reading of 65–67;
– Vni II: there is no slur at either 15 or 16, but
the model at 65–66 is unequivocal (in addition,
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
note slurs and the unison S Coro confirms at
least the need for a slur at 15);
– Vle: no slur at 16, but it is present, if very
lightly marked, at the corresponding 66;
– Vc: the slurs at 16 and the corresponding 66
are analogous. While it cannot be excluded that
initially they were both intended to reach the
 at 17 and 67 respectively (especially the one
at 16, which extends far beyond the bar line),
this would only have made sense in an earlier
version where the a at 17 and 67 was origi-
nally c’ (still legible despite the cancellation),
whereas the indirect resolution of the seventh
(d’[Vc]→ c’[Vle]) suggests instead that the slur
should conclude on d'.
On the whole, GV took more care in writing
out 65–66 (including the “rinf.” indication he
diligently supplied for Vni I, Vni II, and Vle;
see Note 16).
16 Strings A: comparison between 16 and the cor-
responding 66 (12–16 and 62–66 have the same
music) reveals the following slight difference in
the dynamics and expressive indications:
– at 16, cresc. symbol for all parts, “rinf.” for
Vni I, “cresc.” for Vc;
– at 66, cresc. symbol for all parts, “rinf.” for
Vni I, Vni II, and Vle, no “cresc.” for Vc.
Given the impossibility of determining the pre-
cise difference between “rinf.” and “cresc.” in a
passage where both appear concurrently with
a cresc. symbol, we suppress the “cresc.” at 16
(unconfirmed at 66) for Vc as superfluous, and
preserve “rinf.” for its expressive emphasis.
RI1913 extended the “cresc.” for Vc at 16 to 66
as well, and “rinf.” for all strings in both
bars.
17–18 Coro A: “sempre ppp” appears only above S
(rRIms → rRI1874 = “Tutti sempre pp”). It is un-
likely that the adverb “sempre” was intended
to include the successive passage as well; in
fact, at 23 –25 GV marked ppp for each of the
three vocal entries (I-Mr → R I1875 = pp; RI1913
= pp at 21 and ppp at 23 –25), thereby imply-
ing a probable variation in the dynamic level
between the ppp at 17–18 and the one at 23. In
the repetition of the passage at 67ff, GV wrote
pp at 71 (see also Note 17–22, 67–72). Therefore
“sempre” most probably refers to a continua-
tion of the previous dynamic level, such that
ppp at 17 would be approximately equivalent
to “il più piano possibile” at 10. Another pos-
sible interpretation is that, in passing from
“Soli quattro Soprani” at 12–16 to “Tutti” at 17,
GV may simply have intended to confirm the
previous dynamic level with “sempre ppp”,
which is why it appears for S Coro alone.
13
17–18 Vc A: slur missing; we (like I-Mr → R I1875
→ RI1913) supply from the corresponding 67–68.
17–22, 67–72 A: divergent dynamics. Our solution is
derived from a reciprocal comparison of these
two identical passages, which reveals the fol-
lowing specific differences:
– 17, 67: at 17, ppp for Vni I, Vc, and Cb, but pp
for Vni II and Vle; at 67, ppp for Vni I, but pp
for the other strings. We (like RI1875 → R I1913)
opt for ppp, which is supported by Coro at
both 17 and 67;
– 21, 71: at 21, pp for all strings but with an
additional ppp above Vni I (perhaps residual
from an earlier partially completed version); at
71, pp for strings and Coro. We (like RI1913) pre-
fer the homogeneous pp at 71 for 21 as well.
19–20 Strings A: the cresc. symbols above Vni I and
beneath Cb extend through both bars, probably
residual from an earlier partially completed ver-
sion; in fact, those for the other strings in this
passage are confined to 20, and all strings at
the corresponding 70 have the shorter symbol.
20 Vle A: the slur from 19 stops at the beginning
of the bar; we complete the two-bar phrase as
it is in Vni I and II (but see Note 69–70).
21–22, 71–72 Vc, Cb A: no slurs are present for either pas-
sage, but their integration (as in RI1875 → R I1913)
is suggested by the concomitant legato move-
ment of Vni and Vle.
23 –27 Strings A: divergent slurs. Vni I and Vc each
have a single continuous slur for 23 –25, while
there is a break in the slurs for Vni II and Vle
between 24 and 25 (Cb has no slur at 23 –24).
I-Mr (→ R I1875) maintained this divergence,
but RI1913 normalized all parts to the longer
unbroken slur. Although within the limits of a
reduction for piano, rRIms (→ rRI1874) confirms
instead the solution found in this edition. At
the end of 25, the last bar before a page turn
(recto to verso), the slur for Vni I extends well
into the margin, almost to the edge of the page,
implying its continuation into the next bar
(the positions of the slurs for Vni II and – less
decisively – for Vc would seem to support this
hypothesis). Nevertheless, after the page turn
GV marked slurs only for Vni I and Vc, limited
to the two  at 26 –27. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913
consequently concluded the slurs at 25/4th. We
prefer the solution found in rRIms (→ rRI1874),
which gives greater preference to the positions
of the slurs at 25 and prolongs them to 27 (but
see also Note 24), although it is also perfectly
possible to close the slurs at 25 and follow
them with the circumscribed slurs at 26 –27.
24 Vc A: accent over the second  , possibly residu-
al from an earlier idea and unconfirmed in the
other string parts, but an accent is present for
14
the other parts as well at the corresponding 74.
While this might seem sufficient reason to sup-
ply the missing accents at 24, the dynamic con-
texts are very different for these two otherwise
identical passages: cresc.-dim. at 23ff, versus a
continuous cresc. at 73ff. We consequently sup-
press the isolated accent at 24. RI1875 replaced it
with a caret and extended it to the other parts,
but I-Mr and RI1913 ignored it altogether. rRIms
(→ rRI1874) adopted the accent for both hands
as consistent with its interpretation of the
phrasing at 23 –27 (see the relative Note).
25 B Coro A: the slur extends beyond the end of
25, the last bar on the page, but there is no con-
tinuation and conclusion after the page turn
(recto to verso); we (like RI1913) find it plausible
that the word “eis” at 26/1st should in fact be
rendered in the same fashion as it appears for
the other voices. rRIms (→ rRI1874), on the other
hand, extended the slur to the second  at 26.
26 T Coro A: dynamic missing; we supply in con-
formity with the previous entries of the other
parts.
28, 30, 32, 34 Coro I-Bc: mf rather than f.
•28/3rd– 4th B Coro A: both accents are missing, but they
may be logically integrated by analogy with
the ones GV carefully marked for the other vo-
cal entries at 30 (T), 32 (C), and 34 (S). There is
in fact no valid reason for their omission: each
subject head in this fugato section should have
the same character and the same articulation.
rRIms added the accents but they are not pre-
sent in I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913 (only later RI1964
reinstated them).
34–35/1st T Coro A: the accents and slur seem to con-
tradict one another, but both are clearly and
precisely marked. The only minor ambiguity
concerns the conclusion of the slur: 34 is the
last bar before a page turn (recto to verso), and
GV marked the slur in a manner that suggests
its continuation but there is no conclusion at
35. I-Mr and RI1875 and follow A; rRIms, rRI1874
and RI1913 eliminated the slur and added an
accent for the first  (a).
36 A: “dim.” only above S Coro, presumably
intended as a general indication; it cannot be
excluded, however, that GV was referring to S’s
held note alone. All of the examined sources,
including I-Bc, follow A.
37 S, C, T Coro A: four dynamics for the three vo-
cal parts: ppp above and immediately beneath
the three staves, probably intended as a general
indication, and pp regularly above the staves
for C and T. There is no valid reason for these
differentiated dynamics, although I-Bc chose
to assign pp only to S and C. RI1875 (→ R I1913)
normalized to ppp.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
•37–39 S Coro A: GV marked one slur per bar with
no apparent concern for the natural apportion-
ment of the motivic material and the text, both
of which suggest instead moving each slur
ahead by one beat.
•37/4th T Coro A: the dot for the last  may seem to
be in contradiction with the tie, but only if
the articulation mark is read exclusively as
a staccato. In point of fact, the dot embraced
other functions in nineteenth-century notation,
especially for the voice, where the desired ef-
fect would be one that was extremely distinct
and precise. We therefore preserve the dot on
4th as musically pertinent. RI1875 did likewise
but omitted the dot on 1st; RI1913 suppressed all
four dots; I-Bc and rRIms (→ rRI1874) eliminated
both the dots and the slur.
39/3rd–4th C Coro A: there is a faint but unequivocal
slur for the two  , unconfirmed in S notwith-
standing the same segment of text (“tibi”) and
homorhythmic movement of that part. We (like
all of the examined sources) choose to suppress
it as superseded by the concomitant longer
slur.
•40–41 Sources: of the three cresc. symbols in A, rRIms
(→ rRI1874) confused the one GV marked at 40
between the staves for C and T, with “cresc.”
nested within it (the other symbols appear
above and below the four voices), for a slur for
T (39/4th–41/1st); I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) read
it instead as a tie between the  at 40 and the 
at 41/1st.
•41/3rd–44 S Coro A: there is a break in the slur at
42/2nd (corresponding to the two beamed
sixteenth notes) and it stops just before the bar
line between 43 and 44; nonetheless GV’s inten-
tions are sufficiently clear. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
and RI1913 ignored the slur altogether.
41/4th– 42/2nd A: it is plausible that, by indicating ff for
S at 42/1st, GV wanted to underscore a natural
dynamic emphasis on the melodic line in its
moment of greatest exposure – coming into re-
lief as it does with respect to the other parts by
virtue of its facile vocal emission, melodic arc,
register, and phrasing (only S has a slur); we
therefore preserve the differentiated dynam-
ics indicated in A and add an f for C. rRIms
(→ rRI1874) follows A; RI1875 (→ R I1913) normal-
izes all parts to ff, I-Bc to f.
45–46 A: cresc. symbol only above S Coro, intended
as a general indication for all parts.
47 T Coro A: the beginning of the slur falls
between the two  on 3rd and 4th. rRIms
(→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ R I1913) found it more
convincing musically to begin on 2nd, but
without any corroboration in A. In I-Bc GV
had the slur begin from the  at 48, an equally
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
plausible solution. Nevertheless we believe his
original intention was to begin the slur from
3rd in correspondence with the tonic syllable
([orati-]o-[nem]).
47/1st– 49/1st S Coro I-Bc: slur, not present in A. GV
made extremely parsimonious use of slurs in
the second part of this a cappella section to
highlight the more cantabile phrases (see also
Note 41/4th– 42/2nd); here in fact there is a slur
for T, whose melodic line is so significant that
it becomes the sole focus of attention between
49/3rd and 50/1st. Consequently we do not find
it opportune to adopt the slur from I-Bc, a
source of later date that was written when the
composer’s original motivations were perhaps
long forgotten.
50 C, B Coro A: divergent slurs: on 2nd–3rd for
C, but for B on 2nd– 4th (extending slightly
beyond the bar line), an unjustifiable difference
given the parallel movement between them
and identical text; we find C’s slur to be the
more appropriate choice and extend it
to B. rRIms and RI1875 ignored both slurs; rRI1874
has only the longer slur for B, which RI1913 also
adopted and extended to C.
50 – 55 S Coro A: ambiguously marked slurs: a first
slur begins at 50/2nd and ends with the  at
52, while a second slur opens between the two
 at 53 and continues through to the end of
the phrase (I-Mr and RI1875 follow A, but they
begin the second slur exactly over the second
 at 53). Setting aside the unlikely choice of
separating the two syllables of “ca-ro”, we may
take GV’s notational imprecision to mean that
the second slur should begin on the first  at
53 (as in RI1913), such that the entire phrase is
sung legato. rRIms (→ rRI1874) overlooked the
first slur but anticipated the beginning of the
second one at the first  of 53; in the reduction
serving as a reference guide for the piano there
is a single continuous slur from 50/2nd to 55.
50/1st T Coro A: p appears after the note (a), even
though there is sufficient space for GV to have
written it before the note. His decision seems
deliberate and significant: in fact, the two 
at 49 are still f (in keeping with the general
dynamic) and it would be unnatural for T to
drop immediately to p with the a at 50/1st. We
preserve the position of the dynamic as it is
in A.
51 S, C, B Coro A: “omnes” rather than “omnis”.
51/3rd–53/1st T, B Coro A: beneath the part for B there
are traces of a slur or perhaps prolongation
lines after the last syllable of text (unusual in
A). Nevertheless, despite this uncertainty the
slur for the concomitant T can be extended to
B for vertical conformity. Among the examined
15
 sources only RI1913 has the slur for both parts,
but concluding at 52/4th.
56 –72 A: 56 –72 are a fully elaborated reprise of 6 –22;
the indication “come prima” above Vni I at 56
implies not only a return to the former tempo
but also the authorization to adopt all of the
various expressive indications (slurs, articula-
tion, dynamics) that are present in the earlier
presentation and to resolve any notational
ambiguities or lacunae that arise by means of
comparison and eventual integration. In the
Notes that follow we report only those cases
that continue to resist a definitive interpreta-
tion, comparison between 6–22 and 56–72
notwithstanding.
57, 59 Coro A: at 57 “pp sottovoce” for T and ppp for
B; at 59 only “sottovoce” for S and C. At the
corresponding 7 and 9 only “sottovoce”, which
is itself sufficient to establish a pp dynamic
rapport with the strings. At 57 “pp sottovoce”
provides the most detail, where the dynamic is
precautionary reminder of the previous level
that had been obtained and balances the voices
with the strings. It also allows for a further
reduction to “il più piano possibile” even when
the four choral parts sing together (60–61 as at
10–11).
58 Vc A: p, which is in any case inconsistent with
the pp for Cb; at the corresponding 8 Vc were
already pp from the opening bar.
59–60 Vni I A: tie missing, probably forgotten over
the change of page (verso to recto) between 59
and 60; we supply from the corresponding
9–10.
60–61 Coro A: “il più piano possibile” missing; we
(like RI1913) supply from the corresponding
10–11.
62–65 Vle A: for the carets in this part, see Note
12–15 Strings.
62–66 Strings A: for the slurs, see Notes 15–16 and 16.
67– 68 Coro A: ppp rather than “sempre ppp” as at the
corresponding 17–18 (see also Note 17–18); since
the meaning of “sempre” is ambiguous (and
of no interpretative impact) at 17–18, we find it
unnecessary to integrate the indication here.
69–70 Vni I and II, Vle A: a change of page between
69 and 70 (verso to recto) forced GV to mark the
slurs with two separate pen strokes (the second
half of Vni’s slur is missing at 70); we adjust in
conformity with the corresponding 19–20 (but
see also Note 20, Vle).
71–72 Coro A: GV marked only one slur for these
parts, above S.
71–73 Coro A: at 71/4th, 72/2nd, and 73/4th (second
half of each beat),  rather than  (with the
relative prolongation dot missing from the
previous note). At 74/4th the note was later
16
changed from  to  (the form of the added
flag is much rounder than usual); this would
seem to indicate that GV wanted an identical
repetition of 21–24 and 71–74 (since 74 is the
first bar following a page turn, he may simply
have forgotten to go back and make the same
correction from  to  in the previous bars).
All of the examined sources follow A, includ-
ing the original reading of 74/4th without
the prolongation dot and the second flag. We
believe the lack of rhythmic conformity with
21–23 at 71–73 was the result of distraction or
haste, since 56 –72 are essentially identical to
6 –22.
73 –76 Strings A: incongruent slurs. It is not possible
to use the analogous 23 –26 as a model because
of the different expressive contexts: while this
passage moves through a continuous cresc.,
there is a cresc.-dim. at 23 –26. Another decisive
difference is the presence of accents at 74/3rd
for four of the five string parts (Vc = Cb),
whereas only a trace of one, for Vc alone, is
present at 24 (see the relative Note). As a result,
the lacunae and inconsistencies in the phrasing
for 73 –76 lend themselves to different interpre-
tations. Specifically:
73 (last bar of a recto): the slurs for Vni II and
Cb (Vc = Cb) extend beyond the bar line as if to
be continued in the following bar, while there
are no slurs for Vni I and Vle;
74 (first bar of a verso): after the page turn
there is a broadly marked slur well above Vni I
(almost as if it were a general indication) that
seems to suggest continuation from 73. Mean-
while there are different contrasing slurs be-
neath it for Vni I and II and Vle: those for Vni I
and Vle begin just after the first , but the slur
for Vni II begins on 3rd. There is no slur for Cb
(Vc = Cb). The only part with a minimum of
coherence, if nonetheless lacunose, would seem
to be Vni II, which we use as the basis for the
phrasing we provide in this edition (none of
the examined sources offers this same solution;
in particular RI1913 has a single continuous slur
for all of the string parts at 73 –76).
73–77 Strings A: GV marked large cresc. symbols
above Vni I and beneath Cb as general indica-
tions, adding others for individual parts unsys-
tematically but without obscuring the sense of
his intentions. At 73 he added “a poco” (for “a
poco a poco”, possibly left incomplete because
of an intervening page turn between 73 and
74) inside the symbol beneath Cb. Originally
the cresc. symbols above Vni I and beneath Cb
both extended to the end of 77. GV then inter-
rupted the parts for Vni I and II, Vle, and Vc
at 76/2nd, erasing the  and replacing it with
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
  Â in order to give the players more time to
remove their mutes (“levate i sordini”). As a
result he also erased the last part of the cresc.
symbol above Vni I corresponding to the indi-
cation “sempre cresc.”, which consequently has
no further reason to exist. We suppress “sem-
pre cresc.” as a residual indication from the
skeleton score, but we cautiously preserve the
continuation of the cresc. for Cb after the other
strings have stopped playing.
75–78 B Coro A: no slur is present; we suggest by
analogy with S, C, and T at 76–78 (but see also
Note 78/1st).
76 Winds A: GV marked p only for Fl; given its
confirmation for S, C, and T Coro, we extend
vertically to the other winds.
76 Cor A: GV indicated the proper transpositions
for both pairs of instruments only at 78, which
is the start of a new page (at 1 he had provi-
sionally called for transpositions in Fa and Do;
see the complete ensemble list at the beginning
of this commentary), but they clearly should
be in Mi and La beginning from 76 (where
another hand added “In Mi” and “In la” in
pencil).
76–77 Cor A: there are no ties for Cor I–II but rather
a single continuous slur over the stave that
extends into the right margin of the page (77
is the last bar of a verso). In pUS-Cso there is
a clearly marked tie between 77 and 78 for Cor
I, and a concomitant if less distinct one for Cor
II. We preserve the slur from A but also adopt
the ties from pUS-Cso, supported by their inte-
gration into A (in another hand) at 78 (see Note
78/1st). Cor III–IV have no slur either in A or in
pUS-Cso; even so, the slur above Cor I–II was
most probably intended for both pairs of homo-
rhythmic instruments. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913)
changed the slur in A into two ties for Cor I–II
between 76 and 77.
•78 T soloist A: carets; we modify to match the
accents for the entries of B soloist (82), S soloist
(86), and Ms (90). rRIms has neither the car-
ets at 78 or the accents at 82, and the copyist
confused the line GV marked to underscore
“animando un poco” with a slur; these errors
were transmitted to rRI1874 and to RI1913 (where
the slur extends to 79/4th).
•78 Fg I, Vni, Vle, Vc A: GV marked p only for
Vc; RI1913 = f for Fg I and Vc, corrected to p in
RI1964 (where it was extended vertically as in
this edition).
78 Vni, Vle, Vc A: GV added a superfluous “senza
sordini” instruction here (78 is the first bar of a
recto) after “levate i sordini” in the two previ-
ous bars; we suppress.
78–89 Fg I, Vc A: imprecisely marked slurs and
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
articulation. While GV’s intentions are suffi-
ciently clear for the articulation despite certain
incongruencies (see Notes 83/1st and 84), solu-
tions for the slurs leave some margin of doubt
(which I-Mr → R I1875 → R I1913 did little to
resolve). The prevalent model of slur for those
bars with the dactylic rhythmic pattern seems
to embrace all of the notes in each bar without
extending beyond the bar line (for example,
82–84), apart from occasional exceptions (80–81
Vc and 88–89 Fg I); at 87–88, Fg I has a single
continuous slur for all of the notes in both
bars. Given that these minor notational incon-
sistencies are fairly commonly encountered in
this period, we render the slurs in accordance
with the prevalent model.
78/1st A: in beginning a new fascicle of 24-stave
paper (four more staves were now necessary
for the entrance of the soloists) with this bar,
GV forgot to resolve Fl, Ob, Cl, Cor, and Coro;
their notes were entered in pencil by a copyist
for Casa Ricordi. According to the correspond-
ence between GV and Ricordi, the integration
was requested – and presumably approved –
by the composer himself.32 Although there are
no conclusions for the slurs GV initiated at 76,
their general shape strongly suggests that they
were intended to continue into 78. However,
the copyist did supply ties for Cor I–II at 78/1st,
even though they are not present at the end of
77. We find them musically plausible and adopt
them, as did pUS-Cso (see Note 76 –77).
•80 – 81, 84 – 85, 88 – 89 A: dynamic incongruencies,
presumably resulting from different phases of
work on the score. GV systematically marked
cresc. symbols for each of these passages over
Vni I, beneath Vle, for Fg I–II and Vc, and be-
neath Cb, all of them extending to the ends of
81, 85, and 89 respectively. But he later added
conflicting dim. symbols on 3rd–4th in each of
these bars for Vni and Vle, probably while or-
chestrating the Ob, Cl, Fg III–IV and Cor parts
with their diminuendo. We prefer a system
of “intersecting dynamics” analogous to the
solution found in RI1913, preserving the cresc.
symbols for Fg I–II, Vc, and Cb as they appear
in A (there is no reason to modify them) while
interrupting the cresc. for Vni and Vle on 3rd
at 81, 85, and 89 to allow sufficient space for
their dim. through the remainder of the bar.
RI1964 instead preferred to extend the dim. on
3rd– 4th to Vc and Cb as well (both RI1913 and
RI1964 report ambiguous readings for Fg I–II
that have little to do with the indications in A).
32 See the undated Verdi’s letter to Ricordi (post March ),
quoted in Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. ).
17
•81 T soloist A: the cresc. symbol extends to the
end of the bar, like the ones GV marked in
the skeleton score for Vni, Vle, Fg I–II, Vc, and
Cb (see Note 80 – 81, 84 – 85, 88 – 89). As he was
completing the orchestration with the parts for
Ob, Cl, Fg III–IV, and Cor, however, he fixed
the apex of the cresc. on 3rd and wrote f above
the symbol at that point. We prefer the solution
found in I-Mr and RI1913, where the cresc. sym-
bol stops just before the f. RI1964, on the other
hand, extended the original cresc. symbol in A
to 82/1st.
81– 82, 85 – 86, 89 – 90 Ob, Cl, Cor A: at 85 – 86 GV marked
slurs for Ob I, Cor I and III (and possibly Cl),
and a tie for Cor IV, but so indistinctly that it
is difficult to justify their adoption and con-
sequent extension to the analogous 81– 82 and
89 – 90, where they are totally absent; not find-
ing them musically indispensable, we suppress.
I-Mr follows A; pUS-Cso largely absorbed the
same incongruencies as well; RI1875 (→ R I1913)
vertically extended the slurs/ties at 85 – 86.
•82/1st Fg III–IV A: GV left the bar empty follow-
ing a page turn (recto to verso); the resolutions
were added in another hand. While present in
pUS-Cso, they were evidently integrated after
the preparation of I-Mr, which has nothing for
this bar. The lacuna was transmitted to RI1875
(→ R I1913).
83/1st Vc A: anomalous staccato beneath the note; we
suppress.
83/4th–84/1st Vc A: additional slur for these three notes;
while it cannot be discounted as a senseless
musical gesture, we prefer to maintain the
prevailing pattern of one slur per bar.
84 Fg A: staccati on 2nd and 4th missing.
85–86 Cor A: dim. symbols missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Ob, Cl, and Fg III–IV,
as well as the analogous cadential figures for
Cor at 81–82 and 89–90.
85, 89 Vni, Vle A: the absence of accents and f on 3rd
with respect to the analogous 81/3rd may be
explained by the fact that 81 is the only time
the voice and orchestra share a concurrent
dynamic climax on 3rd; in addition, the phrase
for T soloist is decidedly more assertive in
character than the successive ones for B and S.
We therefore maintain the reading of A. I-Mr
did likewise, while RI1875 (→ R I1913) omitted the
accents at 81.
86 Fg I–II A: pp missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vc (Fg I) and Cb (Fg II).
•86, 90 Fg II–IV, Cb A: at 82 (Cb) GV carefully wrote
  as he did for the analogous Fg II (another
hand added the eighth-note dyad for Fg III–IV;
see Note 82/1st). At 86, on the other hand, Cb
has  against the  resolutions for Fg II and
18
III–IV, although it is highly probable that GV
wanted a uniform duration here (as at 82) for
all participants in the cadential figure (see the
other wind parts). At 90 GV wrote  for Cb and
for Fg II and IV, again anomalous with respect
to the prevalent  in the two previous pas-
sages. We therefore modify Cb at 86, and Fg II,
IV and Cb at 90, for vertical conformity and by
analogy with 82. RI1875 (→ R I1913) also normal-
ized Cb at 86, but not Fg II, IV and Cb at 90;
RI1964 returned to the reading of A for both
bars.
•88 S soloist A: the position of the f corresponds
closely to that of the prolongation dot, which,
in standard nineteenth-century notation, tends
to fall relatively close to where its duration
begins in the bar rather than directly beside
the note. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) omitted both
the cresc. symbol and f; RI1964 limited the cresc.
symbol to 87 and placed the f at the beginning
of 88; rRIms (→ rRI1874) displaced the cresc.,
such that it begins at 88 and extends to the
eighth note at 89/3rd.
89–90 Fg III–IV A: dim. symbol missing; we supply in
conformity with Ob, Cl, and Cor, as well as the
analogous 81–82 and 85–86.
90, 91 Cb A: p at 90/1st, pp at 91/1st; we anticipate
the pp to 90 for conformity with the analogous
entry of Vc.
90/1st Fg A: pp missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Vc and Cb (but see also Note 90,
91).
92 Vni II A: staccato for the last eighth note, in-
compatible with the tie; we suppress.
92–95 A: cresc. symbols at the top and bottom of the
system (above Vni I and beneath Cb) as general
indications. During preparation of the skeleton
score GV probably marked a shorter cresc.
beneath Cb, for 94 alone; this would explain
the concomitant “cresc.” above Ob and beneath
Fg III–IV (probably intended for all of the wind
instruments) and above S soloist. In all likeli-
hood the crescendo from 92 was a later deci-
sion, which would also explain the pp for T
and B Coro and the p for C Coro at 94, too soft
with respect to the continuing crescendo from
92 that had already begun pp, but adequate for
a crescendo limited to 94. Obtaining the proper
dynamic balance between the Coro and the
other parts therefore remains the responsibility
of the interpreter. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875
(→ R I1913) eliminated the cresc. symbols at 94,
but they reappear in RI1964.
93/1st–3rd Cor II A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with the concomitant Cor III (and suggested by
Vni II playing at the upper octave).
94/4th–95/1st Vni I A: only one tie, and a single note
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 head for the e’’ at 95/1st; we add the second tie
and note head in agreement with RI1913.
95 B Coro, Fg, Cor, Cb A: GV marked f for Cb
following the crescendo from 92 to 94, but he
was probably referring to the earlier cresc. he
had originally indicated for 94 alone (see Note
92–95); B Coro and Fg, both of whom follow
the lower strings, also have f. The fact that
Cor have f as well suggests that GV wrote
the Fg and Cor parts immediately after the
lower strings and simply left these dynam-
ics uncorrected when he later completed the
orchestration. There is no doubt, however, that
he wanted the climax to be ff, as he carefully
indicated for the other parts.
95/2nd T soloist A: f, senseless after the general ff on
1st; we suppress, as did all of the examined
sources.
95/3rd–96 S soloist A: there is a residual tie at the end
of 95 (the last bar of a verso), referring to an
earlier version of 96 that began with another
b''. I-Mr and RI1875 preserved it.
96 Cb A: the note has a sign similar to a small
cross that can be interpreted as an isolated ac-
cent; we suppress.
96 –103 A: lacunae and incongruencies in the dy-
namic indications. At 97/1st GV marked pp
for Vc and Cb, and ppp for B Coro. The pp
for Vc and Cb is consistent with the pp at 96
for Vni I, but their accompanying indication
“leggeris[simo]”, replicated at 97 for Vni II and
Vle (“legger[issimo]”), and Fl (“legg[erissimo]”),
seems to suggest ppp instead. It is also some-
what perplexing that GV would want a softer
dynamic for the Coro than the orchestra. In the
event this difference may have been the unin-
tentional product of different phases of work
on the score, the two indications should be
normalized (RI1875 [→ R I1913] has pp for Coro).
At 101 GV wrote pp for B and T Coro, Vni I,
and Cb, but p for Fg and Cor; here, while the
dynamics are discordant, they seem intended
to reflect an incremental rise in the general
level of sound with respect to 97 (were this not
the case, the pp for Vni I and Cb at 101 would
be redundant). We therefore suggest a uniform
ppp at 97ff (extending the ppp for B Coro to T,
C, and S Coro), which we also anticipate to 96
for Vni I; and pp for S and C Coro at 102 and
103 respectively so that they are properly bal-
anced with T and B Coro.
96/1st Fg I A: g ; however, after doubling T solo-
ist and T Coro (along with Vle, Vc, etc.) at 95,
there is no reason that Fg I should not resolve
in like manner to e’. Probably distracted by the
change of page (verso to recto) between 95 and
96, GV seems to have mechanically supplied
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
the same dyad for both pairs of Fg. All of the
examined sources follow A.
•97–100 Ob, Cl, Fg, Cor, Vc A: divergent articulation
in this passage: for Cor I at 98 and Ob at 99,
staccati rather than the two carets and the ac-
cent (see in the volume Plate 2, p. 275 and here
Edition criteria, “Interchangeability of carets,
accents, staccati”, pp. 10–11); no articulation is
present for Cl. The models GV marked for Fg
and Cor III at 97 are both clear and convinc-
ing, however, and may therefore be extended
to Ob, Cl, and Cor I. On the other hand, we do
not find it opportune to extend the carets and
accent to Vc, which part has no articulation at
either 97 or 99. RI1875 (→ R I1913) replaced the
carets with accents and extended in all cases,
including Vc.
98–99 Cl A: slur missing; we supply by analogy with
the other woodwinds and in vertical conform-
ity with the unison Cor I.
99–100 T soloist A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with Ms at 97–98.
99–100 C Coro, Vc A: distracted by the page turn (recto
to verso) between these two bars, GV forgot to
conclude the slurs at 100.
100–101 S Coro A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with the previous entries of B, T, and C Coro.
101, 102 A: “espressivo” (variously abbreviated) is pre-
sent only for Ott and Vni I at 101, and for Cl I
at 102; we extend to the other instruments that
share this same motivic entry in these bars.
None of the examined sources included it.
101–104 Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl I, Fg I, Vni I, II A: missing and
divergent slurs. The most coherent and com-
plete models of one slur per bar are present for
Cl I and Vni II, both of which agree with the
unison T soloist. We also extend this phrasing
to the instrumental parts that double S soloist
(whose slurs are consistently present – unlike
the instruments – and unequivocal), although
with some caution with regard to Vni I, given
that their “pp espressivo” could just as easily
be executed alla corda rather than legato (and
in fact there are no slurs for Vni I in RI1913).
The possibility that GV would simply have
forgotten to supply any phrasing for Vni I is
not plausible in light of the care he devoted to
the notation of this part, including the “divisi”
instruction (with its dotted line diligently
extended to the end of the passage) and the
“pp espressivo”, not to mention the exhaustive
presence of slurs and articulation in the follow-
ing bars (105 –107). The absence of slurs for Vni
I is therefore a significant factor to consider in
choosing how to perform this passage.
102/1st–2nd Cl II, 104/3rd–4th Cor I A: staccati for the
beamed eighth notes missing; we supply by
19
 analogy with Ob II, where they are present at
101 and 103.
103 T soloist A: the slur stops at the ; we adjust by
analogy with S soloist at 102.
103–105/1st Fg III–IV A: ties missing.
105 –106 Vni II A, I-Mr: in A the slur that begins in
105 starts approximately mid-way between
the two  and stops at 106/1st. The copyist
of I-Mr started the slur slightly earlier but
likewise ended it at 106/1st; a second slur from
105/3rd to 106/1st was later added in purple
pencil, while yet another intervention in pencil
prolonged the first slur to 106/4th. We base our
slur for Vni II on this last suggestion in I-Mr,
which concurs with the slur for the parallel Cb.
105 –107 A: there are general cresc. symbols above and
beneath the system, above the four soloists,
between the staves for Cor (perhaps intended
for all of the wind parts above it, since at that
point Cor do not play), and beneath Fg III–IV.
GV had originally planned a cresc. only for
107, as testified by the shorter symbols that are
still visible beneath the longer ones (above Vni,
beneath Cb, and above S soloist); this would
explain the presence of the shorter symbols
(only at 107) beneath B soloist, Vle, and Vc. It
cannot be excluded that the p at 107 for T solo-
ist – rather weak in the context of a crescendo
begun two bars earlier and uncomfortably
close to the climatic ff soon to follow – is
residual from the original shorter cresc.; but it
is equally possible that GV actually wanted an
“imperceptible” entrance for T soloist.
106–107/1st Ob II, Cl II, Vle A: slurs only for Vle (both
of them carefully drawn) and Cl II (one faint
slur at 106/4th–107/1st); given the clarity of GV’s
intentions, we (like RI1913) supply the missing
slurs for Cl II and Ob II.
106/3rd S soloist A: the staccato, while musically plausi-
ble, could be residual from an earlier cancelled
version; nevertheless its concomitant presence
for those instrumental parts that double S solo-
ist seems to confirm GV’s intentions notwith-
standing any lingering doubt.
107 T soloist A: regarding the p for this part, see
Note 105 –107.
107/1st Strings A: unlike the other strings, Vle has a
staccato for the first note, which is beamed
together with the other three as it is for Vni I
and II. We prefer the more musically plausible
solution found in Vc and Cb, where the first
note is separated from the others, and extend it
to the upper strings.
•107/4th–108/1st A: divergent dynamic indications. An
f for Cb could be residual from the skeleton
score, probably superseded by the ff for Vc. In
addition, the concomitant ff for Vni I, written
20
well above the stave at the top of the page, is
intended as a general indication, like the cresc.
symbol (see also Note 105–107). Cor and Fg
also have ff, while the other winds and Timp
have f. The two ff for the voices are again
general indications, one for the soloists (above
S soloist) and the other for Coro (above S Coro);
there is an additional f above B soloist. These
differences would appear to pertain to dif-
ferent compositional layers. GV probably first
wrote the parts for Cb and B soloist (which
explains the f for these two parts), then turned
to Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, and Timp (all with an f) – in
other words, those instrumental parts that
“punctuate” the completion of the crescendo –
while momentarily postponing Fg and eventu-
ally Vc by association. Later, while completing
the composition of the vocal parts and filling
in the remaining orchestration (but not neces-
sarily all at the same time), he may have opted
for ff without however adjusting the various
f that were already in place. We normalize all
parts to ff. I-Mr has ff for all of the instru-
ments, f for Coro (apart an ff for T Coro), and
a barely visible ff for S soloist; from which the
readings of RI1913 (no dynamic for the soloists, f
for Coro, and ff for the orchestra) and possibly
rRIms (→ rRI1874) were derived.
•109–114 Fg I, Vc A: divergent slurs (causing incongru-
encies in the derivative sources that were also
transmitted to RI1913). At 109–110 the slur for
Fg I extends almost to 110/4th, while Vc has a
slur for each bar at 111–112. At 113–114 the slurs
for both parts are broken by a change of page
(verso to recto) between the two bars, conclud-
ing on 4th at 114. We adopt and extend the
models GV clearly marked at 109–110 (Vc) and
111–112 (Fg I).
109–114 Vni, Vle A: a fair number of slurs are missing
but GV’s intentions are clear, confirmed also by
the analogous accompanimental pattern at 78ff.
110, 112, 114 Vni, Vle A: the staccati on 3rd are missing
at 110 for Vni, at 112 for Vni I and Vle, and at
114 for all three parts. While this discontinu-
ity might argue for their suppression, we find
them musically plausible and therefore adopt
and extend them accordingly. They are not
present in I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913).
110/4th A: f only for Fl and Ott. Notwithstanding its
exiguous presence, however, we find it an ex-
tremely compelling contribution to the musical
sense of this passage and (like RI1913) extend it
both vertically here and horizontally to the two
analogous gestures at 112 and 114. As a means
of supporting the cresc. for Vc, we also suggest
anticipating the f for Vni and Vle to the  on
3rd.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
114 –115 A: divergent dynamics, probably arising from
decisions in the skeleton score that subsequent-
ly changed during orchestration. As the struc-
tural scaffolding for this passage, S soloist and
Cb were probably written first, in which case
their ff (the only ones on the page) do not nec-
essarily signify that their parts should emerge
over an otherwise homogeneous context of f,
but represent rather a provisional idea that
was later superseded when GV very diligently
marked an f for Vni I and all of the other vocal
parts. The remaining instrumental parts have
no dynamic, but it should be remembered that
Fl and Ott (and presumably the other winds)
were already f from 110 (see Note 110/4th). We
prefer to bring S soloist and Cb into conformity
with the general f, which additionally allows
that the rise to ff at 118 have an appreciable
impact. RI1913 maintained the ff for S soloist
and f for the other vocal parts while extending
the ff for Cb to the entire orchestra.
115 T soloist A: GV marked the f in alignment
with the c’  on 1st, probably led momentarily
astray by the f for the other parts on 2nd. Find-
ing no musical justification for this position,
we move the f ahead to 4th for vertical con-
formity with T Coro.
115 –116 Vni II, Vle, Vc (117 = 116) A: despite various
missing and misplaced staccati (at 116/2nd
Vni II have a slur for the first two notes and
staccati for the last two, and on 3rd they have
staccati for the last three notes), there is one
clear model at 116/2nd for Vc that is sufficient
proof of GV’s intentions and can be extended
throughout this passage.
115–117 Fl I, Ob I, Cl I A: at 115 there are no slurs;
at 116 and 117, Fl I = 8va above Vni I, Ob I =
unison with Vni I, and Cl I = 115 for both bars.
While this situation does not automatically
authorize the extension of Vni I’s slurs to these
parts, we do suggest them cautiously, aware
that their execution may not transfer effectively
from the strings to the woodwinds.
•115–118 Fg (116, 117 = 115) A: 116 and 117, marked as the
repetition of 115 for Fg I–II and Fg III–IV on
their respective staves, should have the same
slur, but at 115 it extends well over the bar line
for both in what seems to be a deliberate man-
ner. This could mean that the slur was intend-
ed to cover the entire passage through to the
end of 118, although in that case it could just as
likely be a generic legato indication. However,
the syllabic disposition of the text for B solo-
ist and B Coro, which parts are doubled by Fg
II, III, ad IV, suggests a solution that is in fact
compatible with the configuration of this slur:
three slurs corresponding to the three enuncia-
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
tions of the word “eleison”, each one beginning
on 2nd (with the exception of 115) and conclud-
ing on 1st of the next bar. We also find this a
valid consideration for extension to Cb, as well
as Fg I and all of those parts that double Ms
and C Coro: Ob II (only the first note at 115 is
different), Cl II, and Cor III–IV. This solution is
present in none of the examined sources.
116, 117 S Coro A: accents on 2nd missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with S soloist.
116/2nd Cor I–II (117 = 116) A: accent missing.
117/4th Timp A: staccati missing.
118 B soloist A: GV originally duplicated the same
octave dyad he wrote for B Coro, then im-
mediately wiped away the upper note. I-Mr
(→ R I1875) and rRIms (rRI1874) have both; RI1913
has the d’ as an “oppure”, which however
makes no appreciable musical or practical sense.
118 Timp A: dim. symbol with no roll indication
for the note; our solution is present in
pUS-Cso. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) follows A.
119–121 Voices A: the slurs and staccati are clearly
marked at 119–120 for S soloist and S and C
Coro, allowing us to extend them without
typographical distinction to Ms (where they
are missing), and at 120–121 to T and B soloists
and T and B Coro (where only the staccati are
present for B Coro at 120). With regard to the
dynamics, we adjust the pp for B soloist and T
and B Coro at 120 to match the prevailing ppp
GV marked for the other vocal parts.
119/3rd–120/1st Ob, Cl A: slurs and staccati missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Fl and Ott.
121 Fg A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Cor.
122 T soloist A: pp missing.
•122–123 Strings A: pp for Cb at 122 and p at the begin-
ning of 123, but there is an additional p above
and partially descending into the stave at 122
that could refer to either Vc alone or both Vc
and Cb. We opt for the latter interpretation, al-
lowing p to take precedence over pp at 122, in
conformity with the p for Vni I (Vni II and Vle
have no dynamic), and eliminate the superflu-
ous p at 123. RI1913 has pp for Vc and Cb, p for
Vni, Vle, and the vocal parts. Like I-Mr, RI1913
also ignored the “dolce” indication for Vni; it
reappears in RI1964, but only for Vni I.
122–123/1st Vni II A: the slur stops at the end of 122; we
extend its conclusion in vertical conformity
with Vni I and Vle.
123/1st–2nd Fg I, Cor III–IV A: no articulation for Fg I,
staccati for Cor III–IV; we render accents in
both cases by analogy with Cl and Cor I–II at
124.
125 –127 Ott, Fl A: divergent slurs between these two
parts (none are present for Ob I or Cl I). Ott
21
 has an initial slur covering the three eighth
notes in 125, the last bar of a recto; after the
page turn, another slur begins just before
126/2nd and extends to the end of 127. The
model for Fl seems a bit more specific, with a
slur that extends over three eighth notes in 126
to the  in 127; but while musically plausible,
it lacks confirmation either for the previous
or for the successive motif. The problem is by
no means resolved in pUS-Cso: none of the
three parts with slurs (Cl I lacks them alto-
gether) has any example that reflects the model
GV marked for Fl in A, manifesting instead
a tendency for longer slurs. I-Mr partially
reproduced the reading of A, omitting the
slur for Ott at 125 but preserving the longer
one at 126 –127, which reading was absorbed
into RI1875 and extended to Fl, Ob I, Cl I; RI1913
added the slur at 125. We opt for a generic
legato, leaving any eventual apportionment of
its motivic components to the discretion of the
performer.
125/1st–2nd Fg I, Cor III–IV A: accents missing; we sup-
ply in vertical conformity with Ob.
•125/3rd–127 Ob II, Cl II, Fg I A: slurs missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Cor III.
pUS-Cso added the slur for Fg I; RI1913 elimi-
nated the one for Cor III.
126 –127 Strings A: while only the upper portion of the
cresc. symbol GV marked above Vni I is visible,
perhaps for lack of ink, we find it pertinent in
this context and extend it to the other strings
(but not to the winds and Timp, whose pres-
ence is already sufficiently robust). Our deci-
sion is supported by the fact that at 127/3rd GV
marked staccati only for Vc (third and fourth
sixteenth notes), and there are no staccati for
any of the strings on 4th, suggesting an alla
corda execution that would be functionally suit-
able for a crescendo to ff at 128 (this hypothesis
is further sustained by the non-legato com-
portment of Cb at 126 and 127, as well as the
accents for Vni II at 127/1st and 3rd – see also
Note 127). We therefore suppress the two stac-
cati for Vc at 127/3rd and preserve the reading
of A on 4th.
127 Vni I, Vle A: accents on 1st and 3rd miss-
ing; we supply in vertical conformity with
Vni II (see also Note 126 –127). I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) ignored them.
127–128/1st S and T soloists, S and T Coro A: minor
phrasing discrepancies and lacunae are
present. The slur for T Coro stops before the
bar line at the end of 127; we (like rRI1874 and
RI1913) adjust to match the parallel Cor I–II,
where the slur unequivocally concludes at
128/1st. We also supply the missing slur for
22
T soloist (like rRIms → rRI1874) in vertical con-
formity with T Coro (curiously, in RI1913
T soloist has a slur but not T Coro). The slur for
S soloist at 127/3rd–4th stops at the bar line; we
prefer the one GV marked for S Coro, which
extends well into 128 and therefore more close-
ly conforms to the analogous motivic gestures
of T soloist at 123–124 and Ms at 124–125.
128 Vc A: isolated cresc. symbol; we suppress. It is
present in I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913).
128–130/1st Ob II, Cl II, Fg I, Vni, Vle, Vc A: a slightly
faded but still distinctly legible slur above Vni
I extends from the second half of the beat at
128/1st to 129/1st, partially contradicted by the
slurs for Ob II, Vle, and Vc, which stop instead
before the bar line (there are none for Cl II, Fg
I, or Vni II). We consider the more plausible
of the two solutions to be the one that follows
the disposition of the melody and text for Ms,
T soloist, and C and T Coro (“Chri-ste e-le-i-|-
son”), as at 129/2nd–130/1st where the slurs for
Vni I, Vle, and Fg I correspond to the metric
disposition of “e-le-i-|-son” (only the slur for Vc
begins at 129/1st).
128/1st Fl, Cl, Cb A: amidst a general orchestral ff con-
text there is an f for Cb, probably residual from
the skeleton score, and f for Fl and Cl, suggest-
ing that these parts may also have been among
the first that GV notated.
128/3rd– 4th Vni I and II A: each part has a carefully
marked prolongation dot for the  followed
by a  , which clearly indicates that GV did
not want them to play divisi; otherwise there
would have been no reason for the rest. With
Vni uniti, the a’/e’’ dyad and most of what
follows can be executed on contiguous strings
(producing their own particular timbre when
played together), but the final g’ is obviously
impossible to play against an open e’’.
129 A: “morendo” for S soloist, B Coro, and Vni I.
The fact that it appears above Vni I could point
to broader implications as a general orchestral
indication, although in terms of execution the
result, given the concomitant diminuendo for
the instruments in this bar, would be the same.
However, “morendo” at the conclusion of a
long diminuendo begun at 128 suggests that
the sound of the held note should diminish
delicately into silence. We therefore interpret
“morendo” to be specifically intended for S
soloist and B Coro and we extend it to in-
clude B soloist. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) also
eliminated the indication for Vni I but without
extending it to B soloist.
129/1st–2nd Cor A: the dim. symbols are not present; we
supply them for conformity with the general
diminuendo in this bar.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
129/2nd–3rd Voices A: “p dim.” only for S Coro; while [2] Trombe / in Do; at 91 in Mi!; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do;
isolated, it is nonetheless concordant with the at 624 in Mi!
general dim. and with the “morendo” for S and [2] Trombe / in Do; at 91 in Mi!; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do;
B soloists and B Coro. We extend it accordingly at 624 in Mi!
to the other homorhythmic vocal parts. [2] Fagotti
130/1st Cl I A: GV forgot to provide the (sounding) [2] Fagotti
e’’ and relative tie following a change of page [3] Tromboni; otherwise Trbn I–II
(verso to recto); we integrate for vertical con- Oficleide; Trbn III and Of
formity with Ott, Fl, and Ob I. Timpani
136 A: pppp for S soloist and pp for T Coro; ppp for Grancassa (also “Cassa” and “Cassa sola”; see Note 46)
Cb, but no other orchestral dynamic indication [empty]
is present. [empty]; at 91 Trb I–II in Mi! “in lontananza”; 34 at 270
137/2nd Vc A: also marked “staccato”; we eliminate the “Sop[rano solo]”
superfluous instruction. [empty]; at 91 Trb III–IV in Mi! “in lontananza”; 34 at 162
138/1st Vle A: isolated staccato, absent for Vc; we sup- “Solo Mezzo Sop[rano]”
press. [empty]; at 270 “Ten[ore solo]”
139 A: p between Cb and Vc and pp for the upper [empty]; at 143 “[Basso] solo”
strings; there is no dynamic for the winds, but [Soprani]
GV did carefully mark pp for Timp. Having [Contralti]
Coro
originally written Timp by mistake on the [Tenori]
stave below the correct one, he erased it, but [Bassi]
the still-legible ppp for this earlier entry con- Violoncelli
firms pp as his later and definitive decision. Contrabbassi

N. 2 Dies iræ
S “G. Verdi / 1874” in the top right corner.
A, vol. I, pp. (33 –34 rubric)33 35 –202 (201–202 empty)
The second version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875), on pp.
69 – 84 (a single fascicle of four nested bifolios), was inserted
and bound into A at a page break just after the beginning
of the original version: p. 68 concludes with the first three
bars of the original version (162a–164a), followed by the
complete 1875 version on pp. 69 – 84 (162–238), after which
the original version resumes on p. 85 and continues to its
conclusion on p. 96 (165a–215a). We present the later, defini-
tive version of the “Liber scriptus” in the main score of this
edition and offer the first version as an Appendix.
E wrote out the parts for Coro, Vni I, Vc, and Cb.
[I]
Violini
[II]
Viole
2. Flauti
Ottavino
[2] Oboè
[2] Clarinetti / in Si!
[2] Corni / in Mi!; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Mi!; at 378 in Fa;
at 457 in Mi!; at 503 in Mi; at 573 in Mi!
[2] Corni / in Do; at 91 in Mi!; at 162 in Re; at 236 in Do; at
457 in Si!; at 503 in Mi; at 573 in Do; at 624 in Si!
T
On p. 35 GV wrote “Dies irae” in the top center margin, and
R M R
13 –20 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise of
3 –10 by numbering them from 1 to 8 (13 –20 =
3 –10); he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc, and
Cb.
25 –28 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the ritornello
of 21–24 with the instruction “Come le 4 ante-
cedenti”; he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc,
and Cb (also Vni I, II and Vle at 25).
239 –253 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise
of 46 – 60 with the instruction “Dall’A al B”; he
573 –598 Orch A: GV marked this section as the reprise
of 1–26 with the instruction “Come dal prin-
cipio del Dies irae per 26 battute”; he provided
the resolution for B soloist at 573 and wrote out
the parts for Coro and for Vc and Cb (only at
573 – 576 and 593 – 598).
C N
1– 61 Orch A: as mentioned above, there are two
partial reprises of this passage (239 –253 =
46 – 60; 573 – 598 = 1–26), and it reappears in its

33 For a transcription of the rubric pages, see the diagram on p. 34 “Due Trombe in lontananza ed invisibili” / mi! Trombe “altre
(Rubric pages inserted in the autograph score). due Trombe in altra / parte in lontananza / ed invisibili” / mi!

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

 entirety in N. 7, Libera me, Domine (45 –105 =
1– 61). For the partial reprises GV wrote out
Coro, Vni I (only at 239 –253), and Vc and Cb
(with the exception of 577–592), otherwise
supplying cross-referenced instructions for the
material to be repeated in the remainder of the
orchestra. With respect to this first, complete
presentation of the “Dies iræ”, the elaborated
instrumental parts in the reprises occasionally
stray from their relative models. We find these
differences relevant only when they assist
in filling lacunae or resolving ambiguities,
thereby allowing us to establish a unitary text
for 1– 61 that can also serve as a template for
the reprises (see also Notes 239 –253, 573 – 598
and N. 7, Note 45 –105). Specific internal prob-
lems that surface within this first full orches-
tral elaboration are reported in the individual
Notes that follow.
•1–2 Orch A: there are accents on 1st and 3rd for
Ott (with the exception of 1/3rd) and Trbn,
and perhaps one for Of at 2/1st (see Plate 3,
p. 276). The fact that GV marked these few
bits of articulation here is puzzling; indeed, it
may well be that, after having added them for
Ott and Trbn (quite possibly the parts that he
wrote first, Ott representing the upper limit of
the orchestral texture and Trbn the harmony),
he discarded the idea, reserving their use in-
stead for the weak beats in the bars that follow
(see Cor at 3 – 4 and especially Gr C at 11–12,
where in fact there are no orchestral accents on
1st and 3rd [see Note 11–12]). At 573 – 574 (the
beginning of the reprise of 1–26; see Note 1– 61)
and at 45 – 46 in N. 7 (the beginning of the full
reprise of 1– 61; see Note 1– 61) neither Vc nor
Cb has accents, although the relatively cursory
nature of these parts necessarily mitigates their
influence regarding matters of articulation.
pUS-Cso ignored the accents for Ott but pre-
served and extended those for Trbn I–III in all
three instances; Of has them only at 573 (574
= 573). While I-Mr (→ R I1875) has no accents at
either 1–2 or 573 – 574, the copyist responsible
for the first part of N. 7 marked them at 45/1st
(45/3rd– 4th = 45/1st–2nd; 46 = 45) for Ob, Cl,
Cor, Trb I–II, Fg, Trbn, and Of; RI1875 largely
follows I-Mr, with additional accents for Vni
(45/3rd is written out but there are no accents);
neither do any appear at 55 – 56 (55/3rd– 4th =
55/1st–2nd; 56/3rd– 4th = 56/1st–2nd) (→ R I1913).
Apparently the accents in RI1913 at 573 – 574 (not
at 583 – 584) were derived from N. 7 in I-Mr
(from RI1875), where the copyist added them
at the beginning of the full reprise. The only
source that systematically supplied accents in
all three instances is rRIms (→ rRI1874), though
24
perhaps only as an expedient for representing
the general orchestral effect (particularly the
string strappato) on the keyboard. While we
find these accents musically plausible, it seems
preferable to forgo them in order to do full
justice to the ones that occur on the weak beats
in subsequent bars (see also Note 3 – 4 Cor, Trb,
Timp).
3 – 61 Coro A: this passage is reprised three times,
either entirely or in part, but with variant texts:
– 239 –253 correspond to 46 – 60;
– 575 – 598 correspond to 3 –26;
– N. 7 (Libera me, Domine) 47–105 correspond
to 3 – 61.
Comparison of these reprises with 3 – 61 re-
veals:
a) missing and divergent dynamics; for the
most part we adopt the dynamics of 3 – 61,
mindful of their balanced rapport with the
orchestra (apart occasional exceptions: see Note
239 –253 Coro);
b) missing and divergent slurs and articula-
tion; when different texts are involved we do
not automatically intervene, but otherwise we
integrate slurs and articulation on the model of
3 – 61, reporting the more problematic passages
and their solutions case by case in the Notes.
3–4 B Coro A: all accents missing.
3–4 Cor, Trb, Timp A: scattered accents, from which
we are able nonetheless to derive a composite
model. Cor I–II and Timp have only one accent,
at 4/4th; Cor III–IV have accents at 3/4th and
4/2nd and 4th; Trb I–II (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II)
have accents only at 4/3rd–4th. We also sug-
gest additional accents for these instruments
at 3/2nd, concomitant with the one GV marked
for Vni I. The sketchy supply of accents in A
spawned various incongruencies in the de-
rivative sources, but our model does appear
sporadically in pUS-Cso (in particular for
Trb I in the reprise in N. 7 [see Note 1–61], at
47–48) and in RI1875 (for Trb at 3–4 and 13–14;
for Cor in the second partial reprise, at 575–576
and 585–586), from which RI1913 derived and
extended the same model we offer here.
•3 – 4, 13 –14, 575 – 576 Cb A: we derive a composite model
for the accents in these bars from their pres-
ence at 3 – 4 (3/3rd and 4/1st) and at 575 – 576
(576/3rd– 4th); there are no accents at 13 –14,
and at 585 – 586 (=13 –14) GV did not write out
the part for Cb (see Note 1– 61). In the full
reprise of 1– 61 in N. 7 (45 –105; see Note 1– 61)
there is only one accent, at 47/3rd. Given that
our model is supported by the more gener-
ous presence of concomitant accents for Coro,
Trbn, and Of, we extend it to all corresponding
appearances of this two-bar passage. I-Mr has
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 only one accent for Cb, at 47/3rd in N. 7; RI1875
(→ R I1913) omitted the accents altogether.
3–4/1st Fl A: the three slurs are missing; they were
already added in I-Mr.
3/1st–2nd Fg I–II (3/3rd–4th = 3/1st–2nd; Fg III–IV = Fg
I–II) A: a single beam for all eight notes; we
halve it, in vertical conformity with the other
woodwinds.
3/3rd Coro A: ff for T Coro, f for B Coro.
3/4th, 4/2nd (13–14, 575–576, 585–586 = 3–4) Vni I A: ac-
cents missing; we supply (as did RI1913) from
the model GV marked at 3/2nd, and in vertical
conformity with Cor. I-Mr follows A, but in
the reprise in N. 7 (see Note 1–61) the copyist
added an accent at 48/2nd (corresponding to
4/2nd in N. 2) while omitting the accents for
Cor and Trb. RI1875 has accents in agreement
with this edition at 13–14 and 575–576, and in
N. 7 at 47–48.
4/1st Ott A: slur missing; it was already added in
I-Mr.
4/3rd–4th Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: “3” for the triplets of thirty-
second notes missing; I-Mr, RI1875, and
pUS-Cso follow A (including the various
reprises; see Note 1–61); rRIms (→ rRI1874)
carefully added the “3” and a slur for every
appearance of this figure. Technically it cannot
be excluded that GV meant to write  rather
than , but in that case the execution of the
passage would become uselessly awkward at
such a quick tempo.
5 S and C Coro A: no dynamic indication; we
supply ff in conformity with the general dy-
namic level, and specifically the ff GV marked
for T Coro at 3/3rd (see the relative Note). In
the reprises of this passage (see Note 1–61) as-
sorted choral parts are variously marked f or ff
as follows:
13, 15: f for T and B, ff for S and C;
575, 577: ff only for T;
585, 587: f only for S;
N. 7 Libera me, 47, 49: f for T and S;
N. 7 Libera me, 57, 59: no dynamics.
We normalize to ff throughout (as did RI1913).
5–7/1st Ob II, Fg I (Fg III = Fg I), Cor II A: ambigu-
ously marked slurs: for Cor II the slur begins
at 5/3rd and ends at 6/4th; a similar one for
Ob II begins somewhat earlier; and a slur GV
marked for Fg I extends decidedly beyond the
bar line at the end of 6, roughly to the d’ on
the downbeat of 7. The other two unison parts,
Cl II and Cor IV, have no slurs at all. We adjust
and extend in vertical conformity with the
model suggested by Fg I.
5–8 Orch A: GV marked very few slurs for the
tremolo figures (15–18 = 5–8 for all but Vc, Cb):
at 5/1st–2nd for Vni I (5/3rd–4thff = 5/1st–2nd);
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
at 5/1st for Vle (the two sixteenth notes); and
at 6/1st–2nd for Vni II and Vle (6/3rd–4thff =
6/1st–2nd). The elaborated Vc and Cb parts
for the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera
me (see Note 1–61) corroborate the obvious
need for extension and integration: slurs are
present at 49–50/2nd (corresponding to 5–6 in
N. 2) for Cb; at 50/1st–2nd for Vc; and at 59/1st
(corresponding to 15) for Vc and Cb (the two
sixteenth notes).
9–10 Strings A: lingering traces of an earlier version
with staccati that was erased and rewritten
cause some confusion at 10/3rd–4th (19–20 =
9–10 for all but Vc and Cb), where the staccati
are almost certainly residual from the previous
version. Although it would appear that GV had
thought to continue the phrasing from 1st–2nd
to 3rd in Vni I and II, Vle and Vc both have
a slur (there is nothing for Cb). At 20/3rd–4th
slurs are clearly marked for Vc and Cb: one for
each beat in Vc, and a single continuous slur
for both beats in Cb. This same divergence of
slurs for Vc and Cb occurs during the reprise
in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 1–61) at 54/3rd–
4th and 64/3rd–4th, but there is no reason to
believe that the differentiation was intentional.
9, 19, 581, 591 Coro A: at 9/1st GV carefully wrote   for
all voices, but  for the downbeats of 19, 581,
and 591 (the winds and Cb also have   at 9
[19, 581, 591 = 9]). There is no reason to believe
these differences are intentional. Indeed, dur-
ing the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note
3 – 61), the choral parts at 53 (corresponding to
9 in N. 2) and 63 (corresponding to 19) have  
both times. I-Mr, rRIms (→ rRI1874), and RI1875
follow A; curiously, RI1913 modified 581 to  
but did not intervene at 19 and 591.
11–12 Orch A: notwithstanding the fact that 11–12 are
ostensibly the same as 1–2 with the addition of
Gr C, GV wrote out all of the parts rather than
prescribe a reprise as he did for 13 –20 (= 3 –10).
Two reasons for this decision may be hypoth-
esized:
1) he wanted the chords accented at 1–2, but
not accented at 11–12;
2) he wanted to avoid any possible misinterpre-
tation of the rhythmic rapport between Gr C
and the orchestra, and providing a full elabora-
tion was the only guarantee that it would be
properly understood.
At first glance hypothesis 1) would seem to be
the more plausible choice were it not for the
spare sampling of accents at 1–2, a situation he
would perhaps have rectified by going back
and marking them with greater precision if he
did indeed want to make a clear distinction
between 1–2 and 9 –10.
25
11–12 Gr C A: fff or perhaps ffff; despite the extreme
precision of GV’s instructions for the execution
of this syncopated gesture (dynamic, accents,
“Le corde ben tese…”), the derivative sources
absorbed them with insufficient consistency:
I-Mr: at 11–12 “Le corde ben tese...”, accents, no
dynamic;
at 583–584 (see Note 1–61) no “Le corde ben
tese…”, no accents, ff ;
at 55–56 in N. 7 (see Note 1–61) “Le corde ben
tese…”, no accents, no dynamic.
RI1875: at 11–12 “Le corde ben tese…”, accents, f;
at 583–584 “Le corde ben tese…”, no accents, f;
at 55–56 in N. 7 “Le corde ben tese…”, no ac-
cents, no dynamic.
RI1913 adopted “Le corde ben tese ecc.” accents,
and ff for all three passages.
13–14 B Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with T Coro.
13 –20 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise
of 3 –10 by numbering them from 1 to 8 (13 –20
= 3 –10); he wrote out the parts for Coro, Vc,
and Cb. Vc and Cb lack accents at 13 –14 and
slurs at 15 –18; we supply both. For the accents,
see Note 3 – 4, 13 –14, 575 – 576. For the slurs, see
Note 5–8.
15 –17, 577–579, 587–589 T II Coro A: the pattern of text
underlay is uniformly different from the set-
ting at 5 –7. In all three passages GV had origi-
nally written a part for B II Coro that doubled
T II Coro at the lower octave with the same
alignment of syllables, but he subsequently
eliminated it, leaving T II Coro to read as fol-
lows at 15 –17 and 587–589:

RI1875 (→ R I1913) also eliminated it, but RI1964
         

     
    
   
At 577–579 he set “iræ, Dies iræ” in similar
fashion. However, for the reprise in N. 7 Libera
me (see Note 3 – 61), he adopted the syllabic pat-
tern of 5 –7 (N. 2) at 49 – 51 and 59 – 61; in fact,
at 59/4th he first wrote “[il]-la” as he had at 15
and 587 in N. 2, but he immediately cancelled
it and proceeded as at 49 – 51. These two ex-
amples in N. 7 therefore confirm the model of
5 –7 in N. 2 as the definitive reflection of GV’s
intentions. I-Mr and RI1875 made no attempt to
adjust the incongruencies in A, transmitting
them to RI1913.
21–24 Orch A: there are various discrepancies in the
articulation. Although GV’s general intentions
are sufficiently clear, editorial intervention
necessarily entails the omission of some occa-
sionally significant signs, and/or the extension
of others that occur only sporadically at best;
any attempt to accept them all indiscriminately
26
would be futile. Individual problems are ad-
dressed in the following Notes.
21 (22 = 21) Timp A: no accents; we supply on 2nd and
4th in vertical conformity with the orchestra
and Gr C respectively (there is a sign beneath
the  that could read as an accent, although it
may be residual from a previous version that
was cancelled and corrected).
•21, 22, 25, 26 Vni, Vle, Vc A: the staccato on 1st is pre-
sent for Vc only, at 21, 22, and 25; in the subse-
quent reprises (see Note 1– 61) Vc have staccati
for all corresponding bars in N. 2 (593, 594,
597, and 598), but none in N. 7 Libera me (65,
66, 69, 70). Given their musical plausibility and
relatively persistent presence, we adopt them
throughout and extend them vertically to Vni
and Vle as well. RI1875 (→ R I1913) has no staccati
in these bars or the reprises.
22/1st Of, Vc, Cb A: accents, unconfirmed in analo-
gous passages or in either reprise (593ff and N.
7, 65ff [see Note 1– 61]), where the parts for Vc
and Cb are written out; we suppress.
22/3rd Vc A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either verti-
cally or in analogous passages; we suppress.
23/1st Fg, Cor, Trbn A: accent missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Of, Vni I and Cb.
23/4th, 24/4th Coro A: accents missing for T and B at
23/4th (B has one at the analogous 27/4th) and
for C and B at 24/4th.
24 (28 = 24) Trbn A: isolated accent for the , uncon-
firmed either vertically or in analogous pas-
sages; we suppress.
•24/4th Cb A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either verti-
cally or in analogous passages; we suppress.
not only adopted it but also extended it verti-
cally to the other strings and to all analogous
passages.
25 –28 Coro A: missing accents; we supply in con-
formity with the analogous 21–24.
25 –28 Orch A: marked as the ritornello of 21–24
(“Come le 4 antecedenti”); GV wrote out the
parts for Coro (with a different text), Vc, and
Cb, plus Vni I, II, and Vle only at 25. Diver-
gences and lacunae in the elaborated instru-
mental parts have been adjusted in this edition
to match 21–24 and reported in the following
Notes.
25/1st Vni I A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at 21 or
22; we suppress.
25/2nd Cb A: accent missing; we supply in conformity
with 21 and 22.
25/4th B Coro A: accent missing.
26–27 Vc, Cb A: no articulation, and the slur for Vc is
missing; we supply in conformity with 22–23.
26/2nd Cb A: d’; we modify to a as in all analogous
bars.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
27 T Coro A: accents missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with 23.
28/4th C and B Coro A: accents missing.
30/1st T Coro A: accent only above T I; we suggest for
T II as well, in vertical conformity with Cor IV.
31, 33, 35 Vni, Vle A: accents missing at 31 and 33 for Vni
II and Vle, and at 35 for all three parts.
31–36 Orch A: there are various lacunae and incon-
sistencies in the slurs and articulation GV
marked for this six-bar sequence after the
first fairly completely marked statement at
31–32, but we have no reason to suspect that
he intended to deviate from this model for the
following two statements at 33 –34 and 35 –36
(with the exception of Timp; see Note 34/1st).
The principal differences are reported in the
following Notes.
31–42 C Coro A: text missing.
•31/1st Cb A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at 33 or
35, nor is it present in the reprise in N. 7 (see
Note 1–61) at 75, 77, or 79; we suppress. RI1875
adopted it for all three bars; RI1913 did likewise,
extending it to the reprise in N. 7 as well.
32 Fl A: slur missing.
32, 34, 36 Trbn: “a 3” confirmed by pUS-Cso.
32, 36 Vc, Cb A: accent on 2nd missing; we supply
by analogy with 34 (Cb), where its presence is
supported by concomitant syncopated accents
for Trb and the first of the sequence of accents
for Fg, Trbn, and Of.
32/1st Trbn A: isolated accent, unconfirmed at the
analogous 34 or 36; we suppress.
33, 35 Winds A: GV marked few accents on 3rd–4th
(at 33 only between the staves for Fg, at 35 only
for Trb and between Trbn and Of); we supply
in conformity with the model of 31 (see Note
31–36).
34, 36 T Coro A: slurs missing; we suggest by anal-
ogy with 32.
34, 36 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: slurs missing; we supply
in conformity with the model of 32 (see Note
31–36).
34, 36 Trb A: staccati missing on 3rd–4th; we supply
in conformity with the model of 32 (see Note
31–36).
34/1st Trb I–II A: the  dyad is not beamed together
with the two sixteenth notes (Trb III–IV = Trb
I–II after the ); we adjust to match 32 and 36.
34/1st Timp A: the bar begins with a d eighth note
beamed to the following two sixteenth notes,
rather than  as at the analogous 32 and 36.
While such variants are not at all uncommon
in a sequence, especially for non-chromatic
instruments, this one was probably an error:
in fact, at 55 in MpR (31– 61 are based on 52– 81
from MpR), the bar begins with  All of the
examined sources follow A.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
34/2nd–3rd Fg A: Fg I–II = staccati, and no articulation
for Fg III–IV; we modify and integrate in verti-
cal conformity with Trbn and Of.
36 C Coro A: the slur for the first two notes was
probably added as insurance against an other-
wise erroneous pronunciation of “sae-clum” as
“sae-cu-lum”. We preserve it without extend-
ing it to 32 and 34 (where the words “iræ” and
“illa” are not susceptible to similar temptation).
I-Mr and rRIms (→ rRI1874) suppressed it; RI1875
did likewise at 36, but curiously added slurs at
32 and 34; RI1913 has one slur, at 34.
37 Cb A: abbreviated as  with a staccato, topped
by a cut indicating repeated eighth notes; in
the reprise in N. 7 Libera me (see Note 1– 61)
GV carefully marked eight staccati at the corre-
sponding 81. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) elimi-
nated the staccati for the  in both bars.
38/2nd C and B Coro A: accents missing.
38/2nd Orch A: assorted missing accents; GV’s inten-
tions are nonetheless clear. I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) integrated them for all but Timp.
38/4th Vc, Cb A: isolated accents, possibly residual
from the skeleton score.
39/1st Trb III A: a single beam for the three notes; we
adjust to match the other Trb.
39/3rd B Coro A: “marcate” is absent; we supply from
the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera me
(see Note 3 – 61) at 83.
39/3rd–4th Strings (Vni II = Vni I; Vc = Cb) A: “pesante”
only above Vni I; we extend vertically to the
other strings.
40/1st (41, 42 = 40) Ob I, Cor, Trb III–IV A: slurs missing.
43 – 45 Fg III–IV A: empty bars following a page turn
(previously Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), an obvious
oversight; we remediate as in pUS-Cso. I-Mr
follows A, but RI1875 (→ R I1913) made the cor-
rect adjustment.
45 Fl, Vni, Vle A: slurs absent; we supply for Fl
and suggest for Vni and Vle, also by analogy
with the slurs for the string parts at 238.
45 – 46 Dynamics A: at 45 there is a cresc. symbol
in the top margin of the page above Vni I, to
be interpreted as a general indication, which
culminates at the beginning of 46 in fff, a
decidedly suggestive dynamic positioned as it
is at the very apex of the “Dies iræ” before the
pianissimo coda leading to the “Tuba mirum”.
Yet GV distinctly marked ff for the remainder
of the orchestra and for Coro; what is more, in
the reprise of this passage in N. 7 Libera me
he confirmed ff at 90 for B Coro, Vc, and Cb
(the only elaborated instrumental parts; see
Note 1– 61). On the other hand, at 239 (which
begins the reprise of 46 – 60) he marked fff for
the voices, ff for Vni I and Cb, and f for Vc (see
Note 239). The sum of this evidence makes for
27
 lingering uncertainty whether GV intended fff
as he wrote in MpR at 66, where it is clearly
marked for both the orchestra and Coro, or
whether the fff here is only residual from
MpR, superseded instead by the general ff.
I-Mr preserved the divergence of A at 46 (and
at 90 in N. 7), but not at 239. RI1875 (→ R I1913)
normalized all three bars (46 and 239 in N. 2,
90 in N. 7) to ff.
45/1st Cl A: isolated accent; we suppress.
46 Gr C A: “Cassa”. There is no reason to think
that GV specifically intended the inclusion of
cymbals with the term “Gran Cassa” (1, 11),
nor that “Cassa” (46, 645) or “Cassa sola” (140,
683) meant anything other than Gr C without
cymbals. The contemporary secondary sources
(I-Mr, RI1875) tend to reflect the use of “Cassa”
and “Gran cassa” as interchangeable terms.
We maintain the standard abbreviation for the
instrument as identification in the margin of
the score, with GV’s more specific indications
appearing where they occur in the music as
precautionary reminders (it is no coincidence
that many of them – see also N. 7 – are to be
found precisely where Gr C has a particular
expressive function within the orchestral tex-
ture).
46–53 S and T Coro A: partial and inconsistently
marked slurs; GV seems to have been undecid-
ed between a single slur for each half-phrase
of two bars (T: 46–47 and 50–51; S: 48–49) or
one slur per bar as suggested by his mark-
ings for the winds (S: 50, 51; see Note 46–53
Winds). There are also slurs that disappear
after the first three notes (S: 46; T: 48; S and T:
52–53 [this last instance probably due to a page
turn]). From 54, where the thematic function
passes to C and B, GV decided definitively for
the systematic application of the longer slur.
The reprises of this passage (see Note 3–61) at
239ff and in N. 7 at 90ff largely confirm the
two-bar slur, especially in N. 7, but there are
also some of the same lacunae and inconsisten-
cies at 239ff. In MpR the slurs are prevalently
one per each bar of the half phrase.
46–53 Winds A: missing slurs (none whatsoever at 52), but
there are complete models for Cor I at 46–47
and for Fl I and Fg I at 48–49. For the most
part GV wrote only the first of the two slurs
for each half-phrase of two bars (see also Note
46–53 S and T Coro), plus just one example of a
slur for the ascending semitone on 1st–3rd that
occurs in the odd-numbered bars (for Fg III at
51; see the relative Note).
47/3rd– 4th Trb II A:  g’; there is no reason to believe
that GV wanted to differentiate this part from
the concomitant Ob II and Cl II, nor that it
28
should be different from the corresponding 49
and 51. pUS-Cso faithfully (and fairly predict-
ably) follows A; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) cor-
rected the part as we have done.
49/1st Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A: d’’’;
all of the secondary sources correct the note.
50 Cb (51, 52 = 50) A: in the corresponding bars
of the reprises, at 243 and in N. 7 at 94, GV
marked an accent for the first eighth note, but
it is absent here. Even though he intended the
elaborated Vc and Cb parts in these reprises to
serve primarily as a guide, we consider the ac-
cent to be musically plausible and adopt it here
as well. I-Mr follows A; RI1875 has accents at 46
and 47 (48, 49 = 46, 47) and one at 96 in N. 7
(sic); curiously, RI1913 eliminated all accents for
Cb in this passage and the reprises but one, at
242.
•51 C Coro, 57 T Coro A: faint evidence of possible slurs,
the second of which is particularly doubtful;
lacking confirmation in other similar parts, ei-
ther here or in the reprises at 239ff and in N. 7
at 90ff, we ignore them here. I-Mr did likewise
but then marked slurs instead at 47 and 49;
RI1875 (→ R I1913) follows I-Mr, with an addition-
al slur at 51. rRIms adopted the slurs at 51
and 57, but the second one seems most likely to
have been an error caused by a page turn; in
fact, rRI1874 accepted only the first one.
51/1st–3rd Fg III A: isolated slur, unconfirmed for the
other parts either here or in the analogous
passages; we suppress. pUS-Cso adopted it
and provided one for Cl II as well, despite its
absence in A.
51/3rd–4th Trb IV A: two d’, residual from a previous
cancelled version where Trb IV had d’ at 50–51.
The part is already correct in I-Mr and
pUS-Cso.
52 Cor III–IV A: those few slurs GV marked at
46–53 for the wind parts (see the relative Note)
pertain almost exclusively to the descending
one-bar melodic segments; given this single
example of an ascending concomitant segment
with no precedent in the previous bars, we
(supported by I-Mr → R I1875 → R I1913) suggest
an additional derivative slur by virtue of its
association by inversion.
54 Cor, Timp A: at 54 GV originally marked pp for
Vni, Vle, and Cb, then erased the second “p”.
However, while he presumably intended p to
be the general dynamic indication (confirmed
for C, T, and B Coro and for Vc), he left a seem-
ingly inappropriate pp for Cor and Timp. In
fact, with a progressive diminuendo underway
immediately thereafter (marked for C and B
Coro and Cb at 55, followed by “ancora dim.”
at 58 with pp for Fg and Vc, and ppp for Trbn
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 at 59), the dynamic level for Cor and Timp at
54 should logically not be less than p. We con-
sequently adjust for vertical conformity with
the other parts (but preserve the pp for Trb at
55 as correctly proportioned with respect to the
ppp for Trbn at 59).
55 Fl A:  for the a’ in the embellishment, but  at
the analogous 47 and the corresponding bar in
MpR.
55–56 Ob, Cl A: GV did not specify whether one or
both of each pair of instruments should play.
In pUS-Cso only Ob I and Cl I play (also at
54/1st); RI1875 has double stems for Ob and Cl at
54/1st, single stems at 55. RI1913 = Ob I and Cl I
both at 54 and at 55.
55, 57 Trb A: staccati on 2nd missing for Trb III–IV at
55; no staccati are present for either pair at 57.
•56 – 57 Fl A: empty bar; we integrate on the model of
48 – 49 (Ott; Fl II = Ott) and the corresponding
passage in MpR. pUS-Cso and I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) added rests for both bars.
•58–61 T Coro rRIms, rRI1874: slurs as for C and B Coro,
transmitted to RI1913.
•59 Fl A, I-Mr, RI1875, RI1913: closing embellishment
missing for the trill; we supply on the model of
51 (Ott; Fl II = Ott) and from the corresponding
passage in MpR (see also Note 55 and Note 59,
61).
59, 61 Fl A:  on 3rd, residual from the reading in
MpR, where in the passage corresponding to
46 – 61 all resolutions of the trill are  (with the
exception of   in the bar corresponding to 53).
60 Coro A: pp only for C Coro; we extend to T
and B Coro here and also suggest pp for these
voices at the analogous 56.
74 Orch A: divergent dynamics, but GV seems
to have applied them fairly coherently accord-
ing to the type of figure participating in the
orchestral texture of this passage: ppp for Cor
(acciaccaturas on the weak beats), Vni I (alter-
nating sixteenth notes on 1st), Vc (sixteenths on
3rd), Cb (thematic element), and Trbn (har-
monic support). From this same figure/function
rapport we can consequently extrapolate ppp
for Ott, Fl, and Ob (like Cor), for Cl and Fg I–II
(like Cb), and for Fg III–IV (like Trbn; in fact, at
the identical 78 GV distinctly marked ppp for
Fg III–IV [see Note 74, 78]), while preserving
the differentiated pppp for Timp.
74, 78 Fg III–IV A: pp at 74 and ppp at the identical
78; we anticipate ppp to 74, consistent with the
logic proposed in Note 74 above.
74, 82 Cor A: “Solo” is not present at 74 but the notes
have single stems (normally GV’s indications in
this regard are very precise). At 82, the entry
for Cor III is explicitly marked “Solo”. In
pUS-Cso 74–81 are assigned to “Solo” Cor I.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
74 – 88 Cl, Fg I–II, Timp A: various missing staccati.
For Cl they are present only at 87– 88 (with
perhaps a hint of one at 74/1st); for Fg I–II they
appear fitfully but unequivocally up through
79, after which GV marked them systematically
(apart at 84/1st).
For Timp there are staccati at 74 but none at
75 –77 (78 – 81 = 77). They reappear at 82, where
full notation of the part resumes (83 – 85 = 82),
then disappear at 86 (87– 88 = 86). Even so, the
clarity of GV’s intentions allows us to supply
them where missing throughout this passage.
78 Coro A: pp above S Coro at the beginning of
the bar (the first of a recto); ppp in the left mar-
gin. We prefer ppp, which is more compatible
with the “sottovoce” indication and commen-
surate with the orchestral dynamic (see Note 74).
•91 Trb I–II in Orch Sources: I-Mr (→ R I1875) has
no entry dynamic (pUS-Cso correctly reports
mf); RI1913, compensating for the missing
dynamic in its copy source, inserted p. RI1964
reinstated mf.
91 Trb in lont. RI1913: “in lontananza ed indivisi-
bili [sic]”, which caused an understandable if
unfortunate mismanagement of GV’s original
instruction in performance. RI1964 corrected the
error.
91 Vc A: 91 is the first bar of a verso; after the
page turn GV wrote c with a tie from the
previous bar. He may possibly have changed
his mind in favor of the upper octave, which
would then apply retroactively to 89 – 90 as
well, but it is far more likely that this pitch was
an error of distraction. I-Mr simply eliminated
the tie between 90 and 91; RI1913 transposed the
note to C as in this edition.
91– 93 Trb in Orch A: GV did not specify whether this
passage is for one or both Trb. Since he care-
fully supplied double stems for of each pair of
Trb in lont. when they enter at 93, we find it
most likely that the single stems here for Trb in
Orch signify Trb I. I-Mr follows A; in pUS-Cso
only Trb I plays; RI1875 has “Sola”, while RI1913
has Trb I–II “Sole”.
•91–96 Trb in Orch A: no staccati for the sixteenth
notes in these bars (they are present beginning
from 99; Trb in lont. have them throughout). In
pUS-Cso the situation varies: Trb in Orch I has
staccati from 95 (but not at 103, 104, and 106);
Trb II beginning with the triplets at 107; Trb III
only at 99–100; and Trb IV only at 107 (108 =
107). I-Mr has even fewer staccati than A; RI1875
supplied them uniformly as in this edition;
RI1913 has them only at 95–96, but RI1964 added
them at 91–92 as well.
93 Trb in lont. III–IV A: “sta[ccate]” in addition to
the staccati, and no dynamic; we eliminate the
29
 superfluous indication and supply p in con-
formity with Trb in lont. I–II (93/4th).
99 Trb III in Orch A: pp, though indistinctly writ-
ten. We prefer p as GV marked for Trb I–II in
Orch, which ensures that Trb in Orch and Trb
in lont. are properly balanced at the beginning
of the cresc. at 103. I-Mr has no dynamic;
pUS-Cso has p; RI1875 (→ R I1913) = f (sic), which
RI1964 corrected to p.
104–110 Trb in Orch, Trb in lont. A: occasional missing
staccati, but GV’s intentions are clear.
106 Trb in Orch III–IV I-Mr: the copyist marked
106 = 105 with the symbol “ ”, which actu-
ally follows A: GV had written out both bars
but forgot to supply the  for Trb III in Orch at
106. But while the (written) d’ at 106 was never
corrected in A, GV intervened directly in I-Mr,
erasing the repetition symbol and writing out
the bar with the missing  for Trb III in pur-
ple ink. He also signaled this correction in an
undated letter to Ricordi regarding the proofs
for rRI1874. The copyist for pUS-Cso included
the accidental, which suggests that this source
postdates the corrections made to I-Mr and
was not extracted from A (see the description
of pUS-Cso, p. 4).
107/2nd Trb in lont. A: superfluous “staccate” over
the triplet; we suppress (see also Note 108/4th–
109).
108/4th–109 Trb in Orch A: staccati missing for the tri-
plets, but GV wrote “staccate” for both pairs of
Trb in Orch at 107/4th, and “sempre” for Trb I–
II at 108/4th and for Trb III–IV at the beginning
of 108. As a result, however, “staccate sempre”
became embedded within another indication,
“cresc. a poco a poco”, in the following man-
ner: “cresc. (beginning of 107) / staccate sempre
(107/4th–108) / a poco a poco (108)” (this is also
the reading in pUS-Cso). Naturally, it is equal-
ly possible that GV intended “sempre” to apply
to the second instruction: “cresc. sempre a poco
a poco”. We opt for “cresc. a poco a poco” and
replace “staccate sempre” with the articulation
marks where missing (whichever interpretation
is chosen, the effect does not change).
110 Trb A: staccati missing for Trb III–IV in Orch
and Trb III–IV in lont. We supply the ones
for Trb III–IV in Orch in vertical conformity
with Trb I–II in Orch, where they are clearly
marked. With regard to Trb I–II in lont., GV
marked staccati for all 12 repeated notes, but
logically their articulation should match Trb
IV in Orch, who plays the same repeated note
at the lower octave. We therefore eliminate the
first staccato for Trb I–II in lont. as was already
done in rRI1874 (the model    on 1st is also
present at 115 and 123). RI1875 (→ R I1913) added
30
staccati to the first notes for both pairs of Trb
in Orch instead.
111 A: the dynamics GV supplied refer to groups
of instruments (“Tutta forza” seems to follow
the same criterion), sometimes ff but other
times fff. While the fff he wrote for Timp and
for Trb in Orch would suggest normalizing the
other winds to this same dynamic level, es-
pecially considering the accompanying “Tutta
forza” indications, at 117 (the first bar follow-
ing a change of page from a verso to a recto)
he marked general ff indications in the left
margin (with only an anomalous fff for Timp,
notwithstanding the ff for Gr C [see Note 111,
117, 119, 125], and an f beneath Cb), repeat-
ing “tutta forza” above the stave for Vni I. In
addition, the entry for S Coro at 119 is marked
ff, and at 125–126 (the repetition of 117–118)
all instruments have ff. We therefore opt for a
base dynamic of ff at 111, which we repeat at
117 and maintain at 125.
111, 117, 119, 125 Timp A: fff at 111 and 117, f at 119.
While the fff at 117 is clearly at odds with the
ff GV marked for Gr C and does not conform
to the general orchestral ff (see Note 111), we
preserve this divergent dynamic for Timp as a
gesture of intentional emphasis.
On the other hand, the f he marked at 119 is
entirely another matter. Given that 119 is the
repetition of 111 with the addition of Trb in
lont., we find it unlikely that GV wanted a
drastic dynamic reduction for Timp while the
brass continue to play ff (see Note 111); we
therefore suppress the f at 119 in favor of the
previously established fff, and suggest fff at
125 as well.
111–136 Timp A: GV systematically omitted ! for every
e. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; in pUS-Cso a ! for
the first e was inserted later. RI1913 has flats
throughout. It cannot be categorically excluded
that GV, forced to adjust to the limitations of
the instrument, actually intended e, which
would then effectively become a consonant
pitch in the harmonic context of 136 –139; but
if compromise were indeed the issue, the far
more likely solution would be e! for 111–136,
which becomes dissonant only at 136, rather
than a dissonant e for 111–135 (contextualizing
this passage in terms of what comes before
and after does little to clarify GV’s intentions).
Since modern Timp can shift from e! at 111–135
to e at 136, we leave the choice of note to the
discretion of the performer.
•113, 121 A: at 113/1st accents for both pairs of Cor; at
113/3rd accents for Cor III–IV and Trb I–II in
Orch. At the corresponding 121 there are no ac-
cents, but it seems strange that GV would have
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 completely forgotten them when he so care- 127–129 Trb in lont. A: originally:
fully and completely marked the articulation
he wanted in the very next bar. We believe that
  





           

the absence of accents at 121 was his defini-
 

tive choice. I-Mr adopted the accents at 113





           
and extended them to both pairs of Cor and of
Trb in Orch; RI1875 (→ R I1913) extended them to
Trbn and Of as well. None of these sources has
accents at 121.
113–116, 121–124 Brass A: missing but otherwise con-
cordant articulation, with the exception of the
accents at 113 (see Note 113, 121); given the
homorhythmic context and the clarity of GV’s
intentions, we integrate where missing, further
supported by the reciprocal comparison of
these two passages.
114/4th Cor A: superfluous “staccate” between the two
staves for Cor; we suppress.
116/1st Trbn III–Of A: isolated accent, unconfirmed
for Trbn I–II and Trb III–IV in Orch, nor in the
repetition of the passage at 124; we suppress.
117, 125 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: at 117/1st (117/2nd–118/3rd =
117/1st) there are no slurs for the sextuplets;
at 125/1st (125/2nd–126/3rd = 125/1st) they are
present only for Ott and Ob. Although it would
not be impossible for the notes to be played
articulated rather than slurred (in fact it would
be relatively easy for Fl and Ott, thanks to the
possibility of double tonguing, but consider-
ably unnatural for Ob and Cl), we consider
the two slurs at 125 (as well as the one for Ott
at 134/1st; see Note 130, 134) to be an accurate
reflection of GV’s intentions. Already I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) and pUS-Cso (with oc-
casional lacunae and divergences) added the
missing slurs.
117/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: isolated accent
on the , unconfirmed for the strings, nor in
the repetition of the passage at 125; we sup-
press.
117/2nd–3rd Vni I A: superfluous “staccate”; we sup-
press.
118, 126 Orch A: assorted missing accents on 4th, but
GV’s intentions are clear.
119–120 Trb in lont. A: at 119 Trb III–IV have no staccati
or accent, but it is clear that they should share
the same articulation as Trb I–II. At 120 the
staccati for Trb I–II are missing (Trb III–IV =
Trb I–II); we supply by analogy with 119.
124 C and T Coro A: ff missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with the entries of B and S Coro at 117 and
119 respectively.
126/4th Coro A: accent only for S Coro.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01


          
 

    
 




    
 
  
This version was eventually cancelled and
corrected by GV, though possibly in separate
and not necessarily sequential phases. In fact,
I-Mr was prepared with the definitive ver-
sion of 128/2nd–129 but the original version of
127–128/1st, prompting GV’s direct intervention
to correct the first half of the passage (without
the staccati) in purple ink. This circumstance
leads to the hypothesis that the definitive ver-
sion of 127–129 in A may have been obtained
in a manner that was less linear than it might
otherwise appear to be (see the description of
I-Mr, pp. 2– 4). In his correction to I-Mr GV
also added the accents for both pairs of Trb in
lont. at 128/1st, which we integrate as appropri-
ate for the context.
128 –129 Vc, Cb A: accents for both parts at 128, for
Cb only at 129. Given their absence for the
other strings here, and for all of the strings in
the repetition (which is in many ways more
detailed) at 132–133, we suppress, considering
them to be residual from the skeleton score.
128–131, 132–135 Orch A: assorted missing accents, but a
reciprocal comparison of these two essentially
identical passages (apart an occasional detail
at 134/4th–135/1st) allows us to supply them
where they are absent without encountering
any inconsistencies worthy of note.
128/1st Trb in lont. A: missing accents (see Note
127–129).
129/1st Trb I–II in Orch A: isolated accent, uncon-
firmed for the other homorhythmic instru-
ments; we suppress.
130–131/2nd, 134–135/2nd S and C Coro A: accents only
for S Coro (one is missing at 135/2nd, which we
supply by analogy with S Coro at 131/2nd and
T Coro at 132/2nd), applicable to the unison
C Coro as well.
130, 134 Fl, Ott, Ob, Cl A: no slurs on 1st at 130
(130/2nd– 4th = 130/1st), and only one, for Ott,
at 134 (134/2nd– 4th = 134/1st ). We consider the
example at 134 (in addition to those at 125/1st;
see Note 117, 125) to be an accurate reflection
of GV’s intentions and integrate the remainder
where they are missing, supported by I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) and pUS-Cso.
31
130/1st Trb in lont. III–IV A: accent missing; we supply
by analogy with Trb I–II at 129/1st.
•131, 135 Trb in lont. Sources: pUS-Cso follows A with
no staccati; I-Mr has staccati for Trb in lont.
I–II at 131/1st–2nd; RI1875 (→ R I1913) supplied
them for all eighth notes at 131 and 135 (both
pairs of instruments), plus an isolated accent
for the  at 135 (Trb in lont. I–II). We maintain
the reading of A, but leave the performer free
to integrate the musically plausible staccati if
so desired.
•131/1st Cor I–II, Vni I A: isolated accents, unconfirmed
here or in the analogous passage at 135/1st;
we suppress (as did RI1875). I-Mr extended the
accent for Cor I–II to Cor III–IV but there is no
accent for Vni I; RI1913 supplied accents for Fg,
Cor III–IV, Of, and strings, plus Ott, Fl, Ob, and
Cl at 135.
132/4th–134/1st Trb in lont. A: no articulation; we supply
from the identical 128/4th–130/1st (but see also
Note 130/1st).
136 Cor I–II (Cor III–IV = Cor I–II) A: GV’s deci-
sion to omit the embellishment here, unlike
the concomitant woodwinds and the analogous
128–129 and 131–132, was probably dictated by
specific instrumental constraints: the defective
chromatic disposition of the horn in that epoch
would have made written d!’’-e!’’ resolving to
so unreliable a note as f’’ a risky proposition,
whereas at 128–129 and 131–132 the written c’’–
d’’ are natural harmonics and e!’’ is precise. In
any case, nothing prevents the modern player
from integrating the missing embellishment if
so desired.
Both the accent and the slur are missing; we
supply by analogy with 132 (133 = 132) (but see
also Note 128–131, 132–135).
136 Timp A: no accidental is present; see Note
111–136.
136/2nd Ott, Ob, Cl A: accent missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Fl, and by analogy
with 128, 129, 132, and 133.
138 Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vni II and Vc.
138/4th Vni, Vc I-Mr: slurs for the entire beamed group
of notes; pUS-Cso and RI1875 (→ R I1913) ex-
tended slurs to Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl (where they
begin from the second note). These phrasing
indications have no model in A nor are they
necessary, since the legato is obvious and in-
evitable at this tempo.
139/1st T Coro A: “[thro-]num” missing.
139/1st Cor I–II (Cor III–IV = Cor I–II), Vle A: there are
no ! for Cor, which implies that the absence of
ties from 138 (unlike Fg, Trb in Orch, Trb in
lont., Trbn, and Of) may have been an over-
sight; however, given the accent and the analo-
32
gous comportment of Coro and the unison Vle
(not to mention Timp and Gr C), we consider
the absence of ties to be intentional and extend
the accent for vertical conformity to Vle.
139/1st Timp, Gr C, Trb in lont. A: “tronca” appears
between the staves for Timp and Gr C, prob-
ably for both parts, and above Trb in lont. I–II.
There is no reason to presume that it was
intended to apply to all instruments with a
similar notational configuration: just as GV
had attentively marked fermatas for every
part without exception on 3rd, he would have
been no less careful with this prescription. We
interpret the two indications as case specific:
a) for Timp and Gr C, to damp the resonating
drumhead in a decisive manner; b) for Trb in
lont, to “truncate” their sustained notes at the
same precise moment the orchestra stops play-
ing (even today it remains somewhat problem-
atic to coordinate the sound of these offstage
instruments – generally positioned where they
cannot see the conductor – with the rest of the
ensemble, further complicated by an inevitable
acoustical delay). Consequently we prefer to
preserve this seemingly circumscribed applica-
tion of the instruction.
140 Strings A: GV’s differentiation between ppp
and pppp would appear to be intentional; we
intervene only to suggest pppp for Vc in verti-
cal conformity with Vle and Cb. All parts have
ppp in RI1913.
144 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle A: empty bar, clearly
an oversight that I-Mr had already corrected as
we suggest in this edition.
146 B soloist Sources: the beginning of the slur on
3rd, while clearly marked in A, nevertheless
generated divergent readings in some of the
secondary sources: in I-Mr it begins on 4th,
evidently for a more logical alignment with
the syntactic articulation of the text; in RI1913
it begins on 1st, to repeat the situation at 148;
in RI1875 it also begins on 1st (and concludes at
148/1st). We find the function of GV’s phrasing
to be instead a means of deliberately avoiding
a caesura or breath between 3rd and 4th.
146 Strings A: GV repeated ppp for Vni I (Vni II =
Vni I); we suggest ppp for Vle, Vc, and Cb as
well, given that the strings now move together
in unison fashion, unlike their previously dif-
ferentiated comportment at 140–145.
149–151 B soloist A: the cresc. symbol originally
concluded at the beginning of 150; GV then ex-
tended it almost to the middle of 151. In rRIms
it ends roughly at 150/2nd (perhaps attempting
to follow the original reading in A); rRI1874 pro-
longed it to the middle of 150, an equally am-
biguous solution that was also adopted in RI1913.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
150 Cor A: GV wrote the instruction “frizzante”
(for cuivré) beneath Cor III–IV, but it obviously
refers to Cor I–II as well.
•162–169 Ms Sources: the slurs and articulation in this
passage were variously interpreted and mis-
understood. RI1875 mostly follows A, simply
replacing all of the carets with accents and
omitting the slur at 164–165. RI1913 follows
RI1875, eliminating the slur for the first bars as
well. RI1964 recuperated the slur at 164–165
(but not the first one) and eliminated the two
accents at 166, probably by analogy with 162
and therefore rendering the second phrase
equal to the first. rRI1875 is closest to the read-
ing of A, including the original carets, omitting
only the first slur. Finally, the interpretation
of rRIms is both unique among the examined
sources and particularly interesting: no carets
or accents for the ; carets for the two  at 162;
an accent for the first  and a caret for the sec-
ond one at 166; and no initial slur. This would
seem to be the only sizable divergence between
rRI1875 and rRIms (but see also Note 177, 191,
213, 229, 231, 233); indeed, given the extreme
affinity between rRIms and rRI1874–75, one can
hardly imagine this difference to be casual in
nature. It is likely that the reading of rRIms
was based on a first version of the Liber
scriptus 1875, partially different from the one
documented in A (see the description of rRIms,
pp. 5–6: 5).
163 Cor A: GV did not specify, but the presence of
single stems suggests that the part is for Cor I
alone. In pUS-Cso (the definitive Liber scriptus
insert) only Cor I plays, while Cor II has the
Cor I part as cue notes. RI1913 = “Solo”.
163, 167 Vle, Vc A: at 163 GV superimposed a “6” for
the sextuplet with a triplet “3” in both parts,
adding eighth-note stems for the first, third,
and fifth notes (possibly intended to avoid
the sextuplet’s articulation as 3 + 3). He wrote
the same superimposed numbers at 167 for
Vc without marking the eighth-note stems for
either Vle or Vc, but his intentions nonethe-
less seem sufficiently clear (indeed, this same
rhythmic notation appears again at 170/1st for
the alternating figure in Vc (but see also Note
199/1st).
167/4th–168/1st Cor A: GV neglected to notate the part,
which was added in pencil in another hand.
It is present in RI1875 (→ R I1913) and pUS-Cso.
170 –174, 199 –203 Ob I, Cl I, Vni I A: incongruent slurs.
Since the two passages are identical for the
instruments (apart an occasional minor detail),
there is no reason to suspect that GV wanted
different phrasing. In particular:
– at 170 –174:
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
Ob I: slurs for both pairs of beamed eighth
notes at 172;
Cl I: one slur at 172/2nd– 4th (concluding on the
second beamed eighth note);
Vni I: one continuous slur for the entire phrase.
– at 199 –203:
Ob I: one slur at 201/2nd– 4th (concluding on
the second beamed eighth note);
Cl I: slur from 199 to 201/1st;
Vni I: slur from 199 to 201/1st; slurs for both
pairs of beamed eighth notes at 201; slur from
202/1st to the end of the phrase.
Given that both examples are plausible and
that one does not automatically exclude the
other, we opt for their reciprocal integration
(and / or normalisation).
173, 202 Vle A: in both bars GV marked f at 2nd rather
than 1st, evidently distracted by the fact that
Vni have f on 2nd. We anticipate the dynamic
to 1st, as in Vc and Fg. RI1913 did likewise.
175 Vc A: slur from 2nd to the first note of the
triplet on 4th; we modify in vertical conformity
with Vni and Vle (see also Note 204).
176–177 Vle, Vc, Cb A: slurs missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Vni I and II, and by
analogy with 205–206.
177, 191, 213, 229, 231, 233 Coro rRIms: these choral inter-
ventions, apparently not contemplated in an
earlier version of the Liber scriptus 1875 (see
also Note 162–169), were added in purple ink
on the stave for Ms, notated as d’ with double
stems and accompanied by the instruction
“Tutto il Coro”.
180 –181 Trb, Trbn A: over a change of page (verso to rec-
to) between these two bars, GV lightly marked
a tie for Trbn II–III in the right margin after 180,
and an equally faint slur for Trb I–II in the left
margin before 181; we agree with pUS-Cso (Li-
ber scriptus 1875 insert), where there are slurs/
ties for every part. RI1875 (→ R I1913) omitted
them, but they are present in rRIms and rRI1875.
182–183 Brass A: missing slurs and incongruent articu-
lation. There are two slurs, one above Cor I–II
and the other above Trb I–II; we extend them
to Cor III–IV and Trb III–IV, and suggest them
for Trbn and Of. GV also marked accents at
182/3rd– 4th for Cor and Trbn, and at 183 for
Cor I–II, then wiped away the ones for Cor
at 182; we suppress the remainder as residual
from an earlier version. RI1875 follows A, but
without the slur for Cor I–II; RI1913 and RI1964
progressively extended the accents (RI1964 has
them for all notes at 182/3rd– 4th and 183).
183 Strings A: pp for Vni I and II, p for Vle and Cb
(Vc = Cb). The p GV marked for Vni I and II at
186/3rd, with the orchestral crescendo already
in progress, suggests a uniform pp here.
33
183, 187 Ms rRIms: ff missing for both bars, despite their
unequivocal presence in A (duly confirmed in
rRI1875). When considered in conjunction with
the fact that there is no pp in the piano reduc-
tion at 183/3rd and 188/2nd, their absence may
reflect an earlier version of the Liber scriptus
1875 (see the description of rRIms, pp. 5–6: 5),
one in which the orchestra continued to play ff
(or in any case some level of forte) rather than
pp. This would also explain why GV failed
to indicate any dynamic reduction (which is
otherwise necessary) for Ms.
187 Vc, Cb A: ff rather than f, probably residual
from the skeleton score. RI1875 = ff for all but Fl,
Vni and Vle → R I1913 = ff for all parts.
187/3rd Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Cb A: isolated accent,
probably residual from the skeleton score.
188 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: ppp rather than pp, prob-
ably residual from the skeleton score. RI1875
(→ R I1913) follows A.
188 –191/1st Strings A: divergent slurs, probably due to a
change of page (verso to recto) between 189 and
190; in particular, at 188 –189 the slurs for Vle
are clearly marked, while for Cb the second
slur begins where the first one ends, at 189/1st.
194 –199/1st Ms, Strings A: there are slight variations
among the slurs for the strings at 195 –198,
ascribable in all probability to involuntary dif-
ferences in the pen strokes GV used to mark
them. We find the clearly marked models for
Vni I and Vc to be sufficient proof of what he
wanted and normalize accordingly. For Ms, on
the other hand, his intentions are more dif-
ficult to distinguish because the various pen
strokes are sometimes superimposed and other
times adjacent to one another, although they
would seem to suggest a legato execution of
the entire phrase. The last pen stroke partially
overlaps with the cresc. symbol, such that
its exact conclusion is obscured; we suggest
extending it to 199/1st but leave the interpreter
free to choose where to take an eventual breath
or define internal sub-phrases, obviously in
conjunction with a logical articulation of the
text (as in RI1913, which took its lead from
RI1875).
•199 Ms rRIms (→ rRI1875): mf rather than ff. RI1913,
which often looked to the example of rRI1875 for
the vocal parts, also has mf. RI1875 interpreted
the ambiguously writen ff in A as f.
199/1st Vc A: here, unlike at the corresponding 170/1st,
GV did not mark a triplet subdivision of the
sextuplet (see also Note 163, 167). Though with
some reservations, we opt to preserve this dif-
ference.
202/1st Vni II A: d’; we modify to match 173/1st.
204 Vc, Cb A: one continuous slur for the notes in
34
this bar; we (unlike RI1913) prefer slurs in verti-
cal conformity with Vni and Vle (see also Note
175).
205 Vc A: unlike the other strings, whose slur ends
at 206/1st, Vc has a shorter slur stopping before
the bar line. We (unlike RI1913) preserve this
indication, considering it functional to the new
figuration that begins at 206.
206 –209 Orch A: dim. symbols at 208/3rd–209 (see the
relative Note) above Vni I (quite large, pos-
sibly a general indication) and for Vni II, Fl,
Ob, Cl, Fg I, Cor I–II. Notwithstanding the one
for Fl, we suggest attributing them only to
the instruments that sustain Ms (Ob, Cl, Fg I,
Cor I–II, Vni II), and to adopt the same solu-
tion at 206/3rd–207, for the following reasons.
At 208/3rd GV had originally marked slightly
elongated accents for Cl and for Fg I above
the , which he then extended to become dim.
symbols (similar accents are also present at
210/3rd for Ob and Cor I–II underneath the be-
ginning of the cresc. symbols). The accents con-
sequently represent an earlier discarded idea.
It is extremely likely that the ones at 206/3rd
for Ob, Cl, and Fg I–II, and a caret for Vni II,
were also an earlier idea (GV rarely went back
to a previous page to enter corrections) and
are therefore replaceable with dim. symbols
(for the differences between accents and dim.
symbols, see “Edition Criteria”, p. 10f.). None
of the examined sources adopted this solution.
RI1875 reflects the same ambiguities as A at
208/3rd–209; RI1913 attributed both “cresc.” and
dim. symbols to all but Fg III–IV, Cor III–IV,
Timp, Vc, and Cb.
206–213 Timp A: at 206 GV wrote both p and pp; we
choose p, as he indicated for Cor III–IV and for
Vni I on 3rd. From 206 to 213 the notes are c
rather than d, as if in “do-sol” notation; nev-
ertheless the G at 238ff. is written at sounding
pitch.
206/3rd Vni II A: caret (originally also a caret for Vni I,
over which GV marked an accent). For a gen-
eral examination of the accents and dynamic
symbols in this passage, see Note 206–209.
206/3rd Vni II, Vle A: p missing; we extend vertically
from Vni I.
206/3rd–4th, 208/3rd–4th Fg II A: slurs missing; we sup-
ply in vertical conformity with Fl, Vni I, and
Vle.
207–208/2nd Vni I, Vle A: divergent slurs: for Vle, one
continuous slur from 207 to 208/2nd; for Vni I,
slur missing at 208/1st–2nd. We adjust in verti-
cal conformity with the other unison parts,
and by analogy with 209–210/2nd in the im-
mediate repetition of this passage.
208/3rd–209 Orch A: concurrent with the beginning of
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 the dim. symbols (see Note 206 –209), GV wrote
“cresc.” above Vni I (probably intended as a
general indication), above Ob, between the
two staves for Cor, and beneath Cb. It cannot
be excluded that these “cresc.” belong to an
earlier phase of composition, and that once GV
completed the orchestration he added the dim.
symbols without cancelling the various “cresc.”.
Nonetheless, the passage is itself something
of a crescendo in progress (reflected in the
gradually rising register for Ms and the “cresc.
sempre” at 210/3rd that culminates in ff at 212).
The more likely hypothesis is therefore that
GV wanted to create a crescendo consisting of
“successive waves” of sound, in which case the
“cresc.” indication should be anticipated as we
suggest in this edition so that the dim. sym-
bols are not in contradiction with the overall
crescendo effect.
213 Coro A: no dynamic is present; we suggest ppp
for balance with the orchestra in the following
bar (see Note 214). RI1875 (→ R I1913) = “estrema-
mente piano”, as at 177.
214 A: ppp for Trb, Trbn, Vni, and Cb; pp for Fl,
Ms, Vni II, and Vle. We (like RI1875 → R I1913)
prefer ppp for the orchestra – implied by the
“ancora più ppp” at 219 – but preserve pp for
Ms.
219 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: pp; we modify to ppp in verti-
cal conformity with the other strings.
226 A: fff for Ms, Vc, and Cb; ff and f for the other
instruments. We prefer ff for the orchestra
but preserve fff for Ms. Also, Ob, Cl, and Cor
III–IV have accents, unconfirmed for the other
parts (including the strings); we (like RI1875
→ RI1913) suppress.
226–228/1st Ms rRIms: accents for all seven notes, not
present in any other examined source but pos-
sibly reflecting an earlier version of the Liber
scriptus 1875 (see the description of rRIms, pp.
5–6: 5).
235 –236 A: GV’s instruction “stesso movimento tra
le sei note e le otto note” (the disposition of
which we reproduce as closely as possible in
the score) lends itself to various interpretations.
If  at 236 =  at 235, the tempo would be too
fast (  = MM 88, as opposed to the opening
tempo of  = MM 80); in this case it would be
necessary at 229 to resume the “a tempo” after
the “col canto” at a somewhat slower tempo
(as suggested by Rosen, Critical Commentary,
p. 60). If instead the instruction means that the
pace of the sixteenth notes remains unchanged
between 235 and 236, the resulting tempo at
236 is too slow (  = 75% of MM 88 = MM 66);
in this case it would be necessary to “strin-
gere” the pace at 235 (or, rather than rigidly
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
respect the tempo indication at 236, it could be
gradually increased up to 238). In rRIms, which
presumably reflects an earlier version of the
Liber scriptus 1875 (see “The textual tradition”,
c, pp. 8–9), neither “Allegro di prima” nor
“stesso movimento tra le sei note e le otto note”
is present (rRI1875 has instead “All.o Agitato”
and “lo stesso movimento”). GV may therefore
have realized only later that there was a tempo
difference involved (it should be remembered
that approximately a year passed between the
composition of the Messa da requiem and the
Liber scriptus 1875). If he had wanted  (236) =
 (235) no indication would have been neces-
sary. We believe instead that he intended the
sixteenth notes to flow at an even pace

   without a perceptible change be-
tween 6 =  and 8 = , and consequently sug-
gest “stringendo” at 235, leaving the method
of its implementation to the discretion of the
conductor.
238 Fl, Ob, Cl, Fg III A: slurs missing; at the analo-
gous 45 (see the relative Note) Ott and Ob have
slurs (Ott at 45 = Fl at 238).
238 Timp A: also a superfluous “cresc.”; we sup-
press.
239 Coro, Vni I, Vc, Cb A: Coro = fff; Vni I, Cb =
ff; Vc = f. At the analogous 46 the dynamic
rapport between Vni I and Coro is reversed
(Coro = ff; Vni I = fff; see Note 45 – 46) and the
remainder of the orchestra has ff. We prefer
to follow GV’s indications to the letter: that is,
an identical reprise of 46 for the orchestra (see
Note 239 –253) along with his carefully marked
fff for Coro.
239 –253 Coro A: the slurs in this reprise of 46 – 60 (with
the same text) are even more lacunose and re-
flect the same general kinds of inconsistencies;
we apply the model established at 46 – 60. With
regard to dynamics, we preserve the entry fff
GV carefully marked at 239 (see the relative
Note), but at 247–253 we apply the model estab-
lished at 54 – 60.
239 –253 Orch A: GV marked these bars as the reprise
of 46 – 60 with the instruction “Dall’A al B”,
writing out the parts for Coro, Vni I, Vc, and
Cb. There are various differences in these
elaborated parts with respect to 46 – 60, which
seems to have been more carefully notated (the
secondary sources are of little help in resolving
doubtful situations: see Note 239 –253, 573 – 598).
We consider the written out parts for Vni I,
Vc, and Cb to be performance guidelines and
markers for the copyists to use in reproducing
the score and extracting the parts; therefore we
have chosen to render them identical to 46 – 60
35
 for this reprise at 239 –253 (problems that sur-
face within the first full orchestral elaboration
are addressed in Note 1– 61), making note of
only those differences that help to fill lacunae
or resolve ambiguities, thereby allowing us to
establish a unitary text. They may be summa-
rized as follows:
– 239 Cb: accent missing; we supply from 46;
– 243 Cb: accent; we adopt and extend it to 50
(see the relative Note);
– 246–247 Cb: there is a tie and no cut above
the  at 246; we modify to match 53–54.
239 –253, 573 – 598 Orch I-Mr (→ R I1875): these two pas-
sages, reprises of 46 – 60 and 1–26 respectively
in A, were written out but by different copy-
ists, resulting in a further layer of incongruen-
cies between the two readings in addition to
those already present in A (the same situation
occurred for the reprise in N. 7, 45 –105 = N. 2,
1– 61); RI1913 attempted to normalize them, but
not always successfully so. Principal divergenc-
es are addressed in the individual Notes below.
253 –254 Fl A: GV wrote the two ornamental sixteenth
notes at the beginning of 254, which is the first
bar to be fully elaborated after the reprise of
46 – 60 (239 –253 = 46 – 60). Nothing would have
prevented him from placing them at the end of
253. Nevertheless, there are musical reasons for
considering this a generic notational decision
undeserving of over-interpretation. Were the
embellishment to be executed at the beginning
of 254, the result would be:
– unpleasant parallel octaves with the bass;
– an ambiguous harmonic interpretation of the
two notes: in the similar figures concluding all
previous trills, the first note is a lower neigh-
bor and the second returns to the consonant
pitch, while in this case the c’ would become
the consonant pitch and the d’ a rather equi-
vocal sort of escape tone.
If GV had truly wanted the embellishment to
fall at the beginning of 254, it would perhaps
have been preferable to resolve it to e’ rather
than g’, thereby making the d’ a passing tone
rather than an unconvincing escape tone. What
is more, the harmony on the downbeat of 254
already contains an effective element of ambi-
guity: the appoggiatura c’ for C Coro and Vni
I (resolving to b!) against the c in the bass. A
simultaneous c’ for Fl, no matter how fleeting,
weakens this effect, whereas a clear g’ on the
downbeat heightens the impact of the disso-
nance as an intentional gesture leading toward
resolution. While allowing that, for the sake
of argument, GV may have actually wanted
the previous embellishments also to resolve
on the downbeat as this example implies, we
36
nonetheless – however cautiously – suggest
anticipating the figure to the end of 253. All
of the examined sources, including pUS-Cso,
follow A.
254 Trbn A: the dynamic indication is difficult to
decipher, perhaps “cresc.” or mf (as in pUs-Cso;
the other examined sources have nothing). The
first possibility is in direct contrast with the
concomitant dim. symbol, while the second is
musically implausible in light of the ongoing
process of dissolution from 247: were Trbn to
enter mf, as would (by extension) Fg, Of, and
Timp, the effect would be to obscure the sound
of Coro; we therefore suggest p as the maxi-
mum level possible.
255/3rd–260 Vc A: from 255/3rd GV stopped adding
staccati, probably assuming that their continua-
tion was automatically understood. There may
however be some legitimate doubt regarding
the two groups of repeated notes at 258/1st–2nd
and 259/3rd–4th, given their dissimilarity with
the alternating pattern of the other figures.
While not entirely dismissing that concern, we
supply the staccati as the more plausible solu-
tion in this passage.
258 Of A: empty bar, quite possibly because B!1
is a semitone beyond the lower limit of the
ophecleide’s range. All of the examined sources
follow A. We integrate the note, obviously with
those modern instruments that normally play
this part today in mind.
258–260 Vc A: inconsistent beaming: unlike 255–257,
where the notes are beamed in groups of four
sixteenths each (255/1st–2nd) or as pairs of
eighth notes with a cut through each stem
(255/3rd–257), at 258–260 GV opted for groups
of four eighth notes with cuts (at 259/3rd–4th
 with two cuts). This single beam is plausible
for the realization of the eight repeated notes at
258/1st–2nd and 259/3rd–4th but not for 258/
3rd–4th, 259/1st–2nd, and 260, where we revert
to beaming in groups of four sixteenth notes.
261 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Of.
270 Cl, 271 Fg A: no dynamic is present; we sug-
gest pp, as GV later indicated for Vni II and
Vle at 272 (but see Note 272, 277).
270–271 Cl A: slur missing; we suggest by analogy with
the identical 275–276.
272 Vni I, 277 Vc A: ppp; we consider this indication
residual from an earlier incomplete version and
modify to pp, as GV wrote for Vni II and Vle
at 272.
277–282/4th Vc A: GV marked the slur with a series of
occasionally overlapping pen strokes. While it
seems unlikely that he intended any separation
among them, it cannot be excluded that he may
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 have wanted to close a first slur on the d at
279 and begin a second slur at 280, just as the
slur that begins at the analogous 291. At the
end of 281, the last bar before a page turn (recto
to verso), the slur extends beyond the bar line
as if to continue uninterrupted, but at 282 the
slur resembles those for the other strings; here
however, the way GV phrased the analogous
292–293 serves as unequivocal proof of his
intentions.
277, 285 Fg A: no carets are present for the e!’ on 6th;
we suggest their integration by analogy with
272/6th.
281–282/3rd Ms A: at 281, the last bar before a page turn
(recto to verso), the slur extends beyond the bar
line but its continuation and conclusion are
missing at 282, probably a simple oversight. An
analogous situation occurs at 301–302/3rd (see
the relative Note).
282/6th Strings A: GV carefully and unequivocally
marked one caret, for Vle, which none of the
examined sources saw fit to include. Although
with some reservations, we preserve the
articulation and extend it to the other strings,
leaving its eventual omission to the discretion
of the performer.
285, 288 Fg A:  missing for the c’ on 5th; we integrate
by analogy with 272/5th. Among the exam-
ined sources, only pUS-Cso has the accidental
(which was entered later into the part).
288/4th Voices A: pp only for T soloist. Although it
cannot be excluded that GV actually intended
to limit the increase in volume for T alone,
we feel it is pertinent to S soloist and Ms as
well. All of the examined sources follow A in
limiting the dynamic indication to T (I-Mr and
RI1875 have p).
289/1st–3rd Fg A: GV carefully marked this slur to
include all six notes. We find it an accurate
reflection of his intentions: in fact, only those
figures in this section that begin with a leap
of at least a minor third have a staccato for the
first note and the slur starting from the second.
290–291 Vni II A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with the concomitant slurs for Vni I and Vle.
291/4th–293/3rd Voices A: cresc. and dim. symbols
appear only above the stave for S, but they
presumably apply to all of the voices. The
culminating point of this messa di voce is not
at the beginning of 292 but further into the
bar, nearly coincident with the dotted eighth
note on 4th. While this disposition is musically
plausible, we prefer to modify it by analogy
with the other two similar passages at 280–281
and 300–301.
293/6th–294 Vni A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vle and Vc.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
294 –295/1st Ms A: one continuous slur, and no staccati
at 294/2nd–3rd; we modify to match T soloist,
whose part is marked in more detail. I-Mr and
RI1913, on the other hand, modified T to match
Ms. rRIms follows A, but without the staccati
and the slur for T soloist at 294/2nd–3rd; rRI1874
added the staccati but not the slur.
298/6th S soloist A: anomalous staccato above the a’,
unconfirmed at the analogous 299/3rd or 6th;
we suppress.
301–302/3rd Voices A: at 301, the last bar before a change
of page (verso to recto), GV marked slurs for S
and Ms that extend over the bar line, but their
continuation and conclusion are missing at 302,
probably a simple oversight (analogous to the
situation at 281–282/3rd); we supply and extend
to T soloist, for whom no slur is present.
302/4th Voices A: pp for S, ppp for T; we opt for pp
(confirmed throughout this section) and extend
to Ms, who has no dynamic.
303–304/1st Fl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Cl.
 
303–304/1st Vni I A:      
We consider this a plausible divergence with
respect to the recurring model in Cl (see also
275, 283, 294): the shorter slur in this context is
more idiomatic for stringed instruments.
303/1st Vni I A: g’; it seems unlikely that GV wanted
an exposed open fourth for Vni I relative to the
other strings and the voices, all of whom have
with a unison d’ or d. I-Mr, RI1875, and RI1913
follow A. The anomaly was instead recognized
by rRIms (→ rRI1874), which added b! – d’ to the
g’ on the downbeat to complete the right-hand
chord. With the analogous 283 and 294 in
mind, we suggest the substitution of d’ for g’
but leave the final choice to the discretion of
the performer.
304/4th, 305/1st Fl, Cl A: no carets are present; we sug-
gest by analogy with 308 and 309.
308/4th, 309/1st T soloist A: carets missing; we supply by
analogy with 304 and 305.
308/4th, 309/1st Fg A: no accents are present; we supply
by analogy with 304 and 305.
309/1st Fl A: caret missing.
313 Vle A: one continuous slur for the six notes;
we modify in vertical conformity with Vc and
Cb.
314 T soloist A: accents missing; we supply in ver-
tical conformity with S soloist.
314 Vni II A: slur between 2nd and 3rd rather than
1st and 2nd; we modify in vertical conformity
with Ms, which is confirmed in the second half
of the bar.
314/3rd Vle A: isolated f, unconfirmed for the other
parts; we suppress.
37
•321 S soloist A: in addition to “attacca subito”, GV
wrote “portate” after the g’, which would make
sense only if it were followed by another note
for S at the beginning of the “Rex tremendæ”;
this may indeed have been his original plan,
in which case the slur (which is missing in
all the examined sources) would function
in those same terms. I-Mr and RI1875 kept
“portate” (in I-Mr it appears above the note);
RI1913 suppressed it (but like rRIms [→ rRI1874],
“attacca subito” was eliminated as well); RI1964
has “portata” above the two (closely spaced)
notes in the bar, an equivocal interpretation
at best. We consider “portate” to be a super-
seded and inapplicable instruction (which the
singer might otherwise be tempted to read as
a portamento for the descending octave leap)
and consequently suppress. The slur instead
corresponds to GV’s explicit intention that the
g’ be held through to the onset of the “Rex
tremendæ” without a caesura, as if the g’ at 321
were ideally “tied” to the c’ for B Coro at 322.
322 Orch A: missing dynamics aside, the brass
generally have f, Fg ff, and the strings ff (ex-
cept perhaps Vc, who seem to have f); at the
identical 326 there is little that serves to clarify
the situation (see Note 326). While we can-
not exclude the possibility that GV may have
wanted differentiated dynamics, we opt for a
uniform ff.
322–323 B Coro A: no diminuendo is marked; we sup-
ply the symbol from the identical 326 –327.
322–323/1st Cb A: isolated slur, unconfirmed for the
other unison parts; we suppress.
The volata at 322/1st is anomalously notated
as three thirty-second notes, rather than the
sixteenth notes at the identical 326 and the
analogous 336. At 322 and 326 Cl have six-
teenth notes for the embellishment as well. We
modify to match the prevalent notation for this
figure.
322, 326 Orch A: various missing accents on 1st, but
GV’s intentions are clear.
326 Orch A: fff for Vni I (Vni II = Vni I) and Vc, ff
for Fg, Timp, and Cb; we uniformly extend ff,
as at the identical 322.
328 A: Vni I (Vni II = Vni I) and both pairs of Cor
have ppp, all others pp. While we cannot ex-
clude the possibility that GV may have wanted
pp here and ppp at the identical 324, we adjust
328 to match.
329 Vc A: empty bar; we supply from Cb here and
by analogy with 325.
330/4th Vni II A: a second slur is visible, unconfirmed
for Vni I or Vle, nor at the analogous 332 or
334; we suppress.
336 A: Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Cor, and Of have f; no dy-
38
namic for Timp; all others, Coro included, have
ff; we adopt the prevailing indication.
336 Trbn, 338 Fl A: isolated accents on 2nd (at the analo-
gous 340 there are no accents whatsoever); we
suppress.
338 Timp A: f or possibly ff, evidently added as a
precautionary measure after the mf and p for
the solo voices in the previous bar. There is
no reason to believe that GV wanted a dif-
ferent dynamic for Timp from the rest of the
orchestra (in which case he would perhaps
have marked f at 336). We (supported by RI1913)
anticipate ff to 336. pUS-Cso has f at 336; I-Mr
and RI1875 omitted the dynamic altogether.
339, 341 Cb (Fg, Vc = Cb) A: accents on 2nd missing; we
supply by analogy with 337.
•342 A: f between Ott and Ob, and for Cor and T
and B Coro; ff for Fl and Cl. We consider the
dynamic for T and B Coro, which reduces the
level established in the previous bars, to be the
more pertinent choice (ff would be redundant).
I-Mr omitted the f for T and B Coro and gave
ff to all winds but Fg, Trbn, and Of. RI1875 =
tutti f; RI1913 = tutti ff.
342–344 Fg, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: various missing accents;
we supply by means of reciprocal integration
between the two parts.
•345 –346 S soloist rRIms, rRI1874, RI1913: cresc. symbol at
345, dim. symbol at 346; I-Mr and RI1875 follow
A, with the dim. symbol extended through
both bars (also in RI1964). The messa di voce
in rRIms is curious, given GV’s unequivocal
indication in A: excluding a personal initia-
tive on the part of the copyist, we are inclined
to hypothesize its derivation from a source
that predates A (see “The textual tradition”, c,
pp. 8–9).
347 Orch A: only two dynamics are present: the pp
for Fg and ppp for Cb. GV had originally writ-
ten ppp for Fg but he then cancelled the first
“p”, leaving us to presume that the resulting
difference with Cb is the fruit of choice rather
than oversight. We therefore suggest extending
pp to the other winds, and ppp to the remain-
ing strings. I-Mr has p for both Fg and Cb;
RI1875 (→ R I1913) = tutti pp.
348 S Coro, 350 S and B Coro A: ppp, but pppp is the
prevalent model (at 352 every part is carefully
marked pppp). rRIms (→ rRI1874) has “estrema-
mente ppp” at 348 (rather than “estremamente
piano”) above C Coro and pp for S Coro (which
rRI1874 extended to T and B Coro), and ppp at
350 for S and T Coro (pppp at 352); RI1913 uni-
formly extended ppp at 348 and 350.
348/4th–353/1st Coro A: relatively few carets are present
(at 348 and 349 for S; at 350 for S and T; at 352
and 353 for S, T, and B), but GV’s intentions are
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 clear; we integrate the missing ones accord-
ingly.
351/1st Coro A: for the integration of the carets see
Note 348/4th–353/1st.
353/2nd B soloist A: staccato missing for the first ; we
supply in conformity with T soloist at 352.
353/3rd–354 S soloist A: the cresc.-dim. symbols would
appear to be in vertical opposition to the con-
tinuous cresc. GV marked elsewhere (winds,
T soloist, Vni, Vle) – indeed, he had initially
written the same cresc.-dim. symbols above
Vni I as well, then decisively marked a single
cresc. symbol over them. Yet while it cannot
be excluded that he forgot to correct S soloist,
the dynamic surge and ebb for her part func-
tions effectively in this imitative passage, first
highlighting her initial leap upward of a minor
sixth and then allowing the serried entries of
T soloist and Ms to emerge as her motive de-
scends toward its conclusion. We therefore pre-
serve GV’s indications for S soloist and suggest
the slur and cresc. for Ms, knowing in any case
that the cumulative effect is that of a continu-
ous crescendo among the solo vocal parts.
355/3rd–4th Fl, Cl, Fg I A: for Fl, the two octave dyads
with accents also have anomalous staccati,
while Cl and Fg I have no slur. We normalize
by means of reciprocal comparison of the
parts.
356 Fg, Of A: anomalous f; we modify to match the
prevailing ff.
360/1st–2nd Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: isolated dim.
symbol, unconfirmed for either Of or Cb; we
suppress.
361/1st Of A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for either
Fg or Cb; we suppress.
•362/1st Fg, Cb A: accents missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Of and B Coro as a per-
tinent contribution to this point of maximum
tension in the passage. None of the examined
sources has the accent for B Coro.
364/2nd–365/1st Winds A: where the slurs are not en-
tirely missing (there are none for Ott, Fl, Ob,
and Cl) they are otherwise imprecisely marked,
sometimes seeming to end before the bar line
and other times extending beyond it. Never-
theless GV’s intentions are clear, allowing us
to supply them where relevant in a uniform
manner.
365/1st–2nd T I and B Coro A: on the whole GV was fair-
ly careful in notating the vocal parts for this
passage (364 –368), but here he forgot to supply
an accent on 1st for B Coro while marking one
for T I Coro on 2nd, where in fact there is no
apparent reason that the sequence of accents
should continue. We suggest the former and
suppress the latter, in keeping with the natural
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
motivic apportionment of the music and the
text for T I.
366, 370 Tempo A: “rall. al 1° tempo” (367) and “in
tempo” (370) are not present; we suggest their
integration from rRIms (→ rRI1874). While the
second of these indications is a reasonably
foregone conclusion, the first one bears par-
ticular consideration as an interesting approach
to the interpretation of this passage: in fact,
by introducing a return to the primo tempo
at 367 following an extended “animando a
poco a poco” section beginning from 356 (and
continuing through the “sempre animando”
markers at 361 and 364), it is possible to reach
the important culminating point at 368, “allarg.
stentate”, in a less precipitate and consequently
more effective manner.
376 –378 A: the phrasing is both lacunose and imprecise,
due largely to space concerns – whether the
horizontal breadth involved, requiring various
pen strokes to cover, or the cramped conditions
between the staves that sometimes forced the
superimposition of slurs with cresc. symbols.
This situation caused various misinterpreta-
tions in the secondary sources resulting in
a number of highly improbable sub-phrases
(see for example RI1913). Our solutions are the
product of reciprocal comparison: notwith-
standing the divergences, it seems likely that
GV intended those parts with thematic mate-
rial (S and T soloist, Fl, Ob I, Cl I, Vni I) to be
phrased similarly to the analogous (if rhythmi-
cally compressed) parts at 330ff. None of the
slurs continues to 379, the first bar following a
page turn (recto to verso), which may have been
an oversight but would in any case be sup-
plemental with respect to the slurs at 330ff; we
therefore opt for a single continuous slur that
concludes at the end of 378. With regard to the
other non-thematic parts, we have used recip-
rocal comparison and integration to establish
two models of slurs and articulation, for: 1) Ob
II, Ms, S Coro, and Vni II (extended to Cl II and
C Coro); and 2) Vle, Fg I and III, and Cor (but
not T Coro, the only vocal part that GV sup-
plied with thorough and unequivocally marked
slurs and articulation).
379/4th–381 Strings A: some accents, staccati, and slurs
are missing, but GV’s intentions are clear; we
supply through reciprocal comparison of the
parts.
382/2nd Vc A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.
383 Cor A: marked “Solo” but for no apparent rea-
son; we suppress.
393 S soloist A: the slur extends beyond the bar
line into the right margin of the page (393 is
the last bar of a verso), suggesting its continua-
39
 tion to 394; we prefer a shorter slur by analogy
with the ones GV marked for Ms at 383 and S
at 391.
397/3rd–4th S soloist A: a horizontal pen stroke above
the eighth notes, partially coincident with the
beginning of the cresc. symbol, would appear
to be a slur; we suggest its integration by anal-
ogy with the previous models.
405 – 408/1st Orch A: a certain uniformity can be dis-
cerned among the slurs GV marked for Fg, Vle
(in multiple pen strokes), and Vc, all of them
carrying the bass line, but the situation is dif-
ferent for those parts that double S soloist: Ob
is the only one with a single continuous slur
(in two pen strokes), while Fl and Vni I have
slurs at 406 alone. Since the latter correspond
to the slur for S soloist, we may hypothesize
that the Fl and Vni I parts were already no-
tated in the skeleton score, while the slur for
Ob dates to the period of orchestration and
consequently takes precedence over the shorter
slurs. We therefore opt for the longer slur. With
regard to Cl and Vni II, who both double Ms,
we are able to apply the model of GV’s clearly
marked slurs for Vni II to Cl where they are
only partially present. There is also consider-
able imprecision in the way the various slurs
conclude at the end of this passage:
– for Vle and Vc at 408/1st, but for Fg the slur
stops at 407/2nd;
– for Ob the end of the single slur corresponds
to the  at 407;
– for Vni II the last slur is circumscribed to
407/3rd– 4th, but for Cl (like Ms) it extends to
408.
We prefer a uniform conclusion for all slurs at
408/1st.
410–411 Fl, Vle A: there is one expansive cresc. symbol
between the staves of these contiguous parts
(Fl is immediately below Vle), presumably
valid for both parts as at 414–415.
The first tie (410–411) is missing for Vle, while
the second one (411) is missing for Fl; we sup-
ply to match 414–415.
411, 415 S soloist I-Mr: for the first two notes in each
bar the copyist marked a tie and a slur respec-
tively which were subsequently erased, pos-
sibly by GV; but while the tie at 411 was clearly
erroneous, the slur at 415 remains pertinent
to the expressivity of the phrase and should
therefore be preserved, as it is in A.
411/3rd Ms A: “ten.”; we prefer the fermata GV marked
for S soloist.
416/4th Ms A: pp missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with S soloist.
424 – 427 A: “animando sempre fino alla fine” is present
only above S soloist.
40
425, 427 Fl, Ob, Cl A: carets on 4th missing; we supply
as in the earlier analogous rhythmic figures.
429 Cb A: redundant pp; we suppress.
429/3rd Vle, Vc A: isolated staccati for the , uncon-
firmed in the successive bars and probably
residual from an earlier version. In fact, GV
had originally marked two shorter slurs for
the beamed eighth notes in Vc before extend-
ing them to the following  in each case; and
while he did not need to modify the slur for
Vle (who, like Fg, moves in unison with Vc),
the staccato remained nonetheless. We sup-
press both, in agreement with I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913).
•430–431, 432–433 S soloist, Ms A: slur only above S at
430–431; we extend to Ms, whose homorhyth-
mic motion suggests that the indication was
intended for both voices. At 432–433 there is
part of a slur for S between the cresc. and dim.
symbols; given the identical music and syl-
labic disposition of the text, we adopt the same
phrasing as 430–431 without typographical dis-
tinction. All of the examined sources ignored
both slurs.
434 S soloist, Ms A: some smearing of the dim.
symbols above S soloist and beneath Ms sug-
gests that GV may have tried to eliminate them
while the ink was still fresh (in the process
he also seems to have obliterated a slur over
the last three eighth notes for S soloist). Both
dim. symbols are present in rRIms (→ rRI1874
→ RI1913). We find them plausible, especially
for S soloist whose tessitura suggests the natu-
ral deployment of a diminuendo.
437– 441 Vle A: at 437, the last bar before a page turn
(recto to verso), GV marked a slur that he
neglected to conclude at the beginning of 438;
instead, he began another one toward the end
of 438 that ends on the g’’ at 441. We find it
more logical to conclude this second slur at 440
(in vertical conformity with Cb), and we extend
it to Vni II. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) adopted
the first slur but ignored the second one.
438 – 440 Fg II and III–IV A: slurs missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cb.
439 Vni I A: “legate” over the  ; we anticipate to
the more plausible position at 438/4th.
439/4th Fl I A: two eighth notes; we modify to match
the unison Vni I.
441/2nd–442/1st Ob A: simultaneous contrasting slurs,
one over all eight notes and another beneath
the first six; we adopt the 6 + 2 model in vertical
conformity with Vc.
442 Fg A: Ã : in all probability GV omitted the
conclusion from 441 because the two pitches
involved were relatively difficult ones for the
instrument of that epoch to reach. pUs-Cso
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 follows A, but the notes are present in I-Mr
(→ R I1875 →  RI1913) (RI1964 scrupulously added
parentheses). We too suggest their integration,
given that they are no problem for modern
instruments to manage.
445 Vc A: anomalous staccati for the first two
notes; we suppress.
452 Vle A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Vni.
453–456 Vni II A: no slurs are present; we integrate by
analogy with the phrasing GV marked for Vni
I and Vc.
454/3rd A: ppp above Vni I, pp below; ppp for Vni II,
Vle, and T soloist; pppp for Vc, but pp at the
beginning of the following bar; we opt for a
uniform ppp here and eliminate the dynamic
indication for Vc at 455.
456 T soloist A: the breath mark seems to be in
contradiction with the slur, but GV’s intentions
are actually reasonably clear: that is, to allow
the singer to take a breath without creating an
audible caesura between 456 and 457. If singer
and conductor are sufficiently attuned to one
another, the string crescendo can be deployed
to cover T’s subtle interruption of sound in
such a manner that he is able to give the
impression of a continuous legato. Naturally, it
cannot be excluded that one of the two indica-
tions was meant to supersede the other; this
was the interpretation of I-Mr, which has the
slur but not the breath mark. rRIms (→ rRI1874
→ RI1913) omitted both.
456 Vni I and II A: p (perhaps originally pp for Vni
I, with one p subsequently cancelled); consid-
ering this an implausibly abrupt rise in the
dynamic level as the phrase draws toward its
conclusion, we (like RI1913) suppress.
457/3rd–4th T soloist A: a pen stroke above the triplet
lends itself to various hypothetical interpreta-
tions, whether as an underline for “[dolce] con
calma”, or the equivalent of a bracket for the
triplet indication, or the intimation of a slur.
We suggest this last possibility by analogy
with 461.
460/3rd–4th Fl A: a slur for each beamed figure; we
modify in vertical conformity with Ob and Cl.
461/4th Fg A: GV originally marked an accent, then
added two short supplementary pen strokes
which we interpret as his definitive intention
to transform the accent into a cresc. symbol.
The combined part for Fg I and II in
pUS-Cso has both a cresc. symbol between the
two staves and an accent beneath Fg II; I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) considered the accent to
have been cancelled and began the dim. sym-
bol at 461/4th rather than 462; RI1964 reinstated
the original accent.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
464/1st–2nd Vc, Cb A: staccati and slurs missing;
we supply in vertical conformity with Vni
and Vle.
•466 Fl RI1875: the copyist distractedly left the bar
empty; this oversight was transmitted to RI1913,
where it became a Ã
466 – 468/1st Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni II A: Fl and Cl I have no slur;
Ob has one only for the three notes at 466; Cl
II and Vni II both have slurs beginning from
467/1st. We integrate and adjust in vertical con-
formity with the clear and musically convinc-
ing slurs GV marked for Vni I and Vle.
466/3rd– 468/3rd Orch A: while the majority of the cresc.
symbols stop at the end of 467, the last bar
before a change of page (verso to recto), GV
did continue the one for T soloist beyond the
middle of 468. That he wanted the same length
of crescendo for the instrumental parts is
demonstrated by the cresc. symbol he marked
between Fl and Ob, as well as a cresc. symbol
between the staves for Cor (the conclusion at
468 was originally a dim. symbol before he
replaced it with the definitive version).
470 Ob, Fg III A: both parts also have an accent, su-
perseded by the dim. symbol (GV marked only
the dim. for Fg III at 471– 476, proof that the
accent at 470 is residual from an earlier idea);
we suppress.
471– 473 Ob A: at 471 Ob has the dim. symbol on 4th
but no caret, and only an accent on 4th at 472
and 473; we modify in each case to match the
model at 470.
472, 473 Fg I A: accent for the first eighth note; we
replace with carets, as in the previous bars.
474/1st–2nd Cl I A: slur missing.
475/1st Vni II A: the caret could possibly be residual
from an earlier version in which the a!’ was
not tied from 474/4th (there are hints of other
corrections at 474). Yet its presence in this posi-
tion, while not entirely convincing, is support-
ed by all of the examined sources. We suggest
its extension, with some reservations, to the
unison Cl I.
475/4th, 476/1st Vle, Fg I A: accent missing at 475/4th for
Vle, and caret missing at 476/1st for Fg I; we
supply through reciprocal comparison of these
unison parts.
•476/1st Fl RI1913: b!’   tied to the previous ; the in-
tegration originated with I-Mr, where the note
the copyist added was c’’; another hand circled
it and wrote “si!” beside it.
477/4th Orch A: Cor III–IV is the only part with both
the accent and the dim. symbol; we extend
these indications to Cor I–II, and suggest their
integration (one or both as appropriate) to
the other parts for vertical conformity. I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) ignored all of the accents in
41
 A; RI1964 reinstated them and extended them
where missing for all but Fl.
479/4th Ob A: superfluous slur, probably intended as a
bracket for the triplet indication; we suppress.
484/3rd–485 Orch A: p for Fl, Fg, and Cor; pp for Vni I.
We consider the pp for Vni I to be different by
design and consequently extend it to Vni II as
well, otherwise assigning p or suggesting it by
virtue of analogous function (Vle with Ob and
Cl, Vc with Fg) to the other parts.
487/2nd Vle A: superfluous staccati (the part is “pizz.”
from 484) for the two eighth notes; we sup-
press. They are present in I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913).
487/3rd–488/1st Cor III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Fg and Vc.
488 Strings A: only pp for Vni I and ppp for Vc; we
modify Vc to pp, which maintains the dynamic
equilibrium established in the previous bars
(see Note 483/3rd–485), and extend it to Vni II
and Vle.
•493, 494 Vc A: no dynamic indication at 493, pp at 494;
we anticipate the pp to 493. RI1913 did the same
but also supplied ppp at 494 (like RI1875), ex-
tending it to the other parts that double Vc (Cl,
Fg, and Vle).
494–498/1st Cl, Fg, Vle, Vc A: GV seems to have marked
the slurs at 494–495 for Cl, Fg, and Vle in two
contiguous strokes joined at 495/1st, or, in the
case of Vc, in two separate strokes at 494/3rd–
4th and 495/4th; we adopt the model of one
continuous slur, as exemplified by the ones
that he distinctly marked at 496–497 for Cl, Fg,
and Vle. For Vc, on the other hand, the second
slur extends to 498/1st; we prefer the prevailing
solution and extend it for vertical conformity
to Vc.
503 Cb A: isolated accent; considering it likely to
be residual from the skeleton score, we sup-
press, though with some reservations. It is not
present in I-Mr (→ R I1875 →  RI1913), perhaps
because in A it collides with the “Andante”
tempo indication in the lower margin of the
page.
504/4th Vc A: B missing from the dyad, an oversight
already corrected in I-Mr on the model of 506.
•506/4th B soloist A: no accent is present; we suggest by
analogy with 504. rRIms (→ rRI1874 → R I1913)
omitted the accent at 504; it reappears in RI1964
but was not extended to 506.
511–519/1st–2nd Strings A: missing slurs and incongruent
beaming (which can be largely deduced from
the abbreviated figures for repeated notes).
The repetition of this passage at 544 – 552/1st–
2nd is more complete and coherent (though
not entirely so: see Note 544 – 552), allowing
us to use it as the template for 511–519. Those
42
instances where some margin of doubt remains
regarding GV’s intentions may be summarized
as follows:
– 511 Vni I: slurs and beaming are 4 + 4; we
modify to 6 + 2 as at the analogous 514 and 517
(see also Note 544 – 552).
– 512, 515, 518 Vc: at 512 and 515, slurs and
beaming are 4 + 4; at 518/1st–2nd, slurs are
2 + 2 with a single beam, while 3rd– 4th have a
single slur with 2 + 2 beaming (at the analogous
545, 548, and 551 slurs and beaming are 4 + 4;
see Note 544 – 552). We uniformly adopt 2 + 2 for
the slurs and beaming in these cases.
516, 546, 549 Cb A: superfluous staccati (the part is
already marked “pizz.” for these bars); we sup-
press. RI1875 (→ R I1913) preserved them, without
however extending them to the analogous 513.
518/4th Vc A: isolated accent on the first f, uncon-
firmed at the analogous 551. Given its doubt-
ful musical justification, we suppress but with
some reservations, leaving its eventual execu-
tion to the discretion of the performer. It is not
present in I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913).
521/3rd–523 Orch A: GV began some of the slurs he
marked for this passage at 522, the first bar fol-
lowing a page turn (recto to verso); we modify
by analogy with the corresponding passage at
554–556, where the slurs begin at 554/3rd.
523 Vni I and II A: there is a slur for these two
notes in both parts; but while the one for Vni
I falls within the longer slur, for Vni II the
longer slur stops at the end of 522, followed by
the shorter slur at 523. We eliminate the shorter
slur for Vni I as superfluous and turn the two
consecutive slurs for Vni II into a single con-
tinuous one, in vertical conformity with Vni I
as well as the slurs GV marked for Cl, Fg, and
Vc. The longer slur is also confirmed in the
corresponding passage at 554/3rd–556.
527/2nd–3rd Strings A: accents missing for Vc and Cb on
2nd, and the dim. symbols are not present for
Vni II and Vle; we integrate both indications by
means of reciprocal comparison of the parts.
RI1875 (→ R I1913) has accents for Vni I and II
and Vle, dim. symbols for Vc and Cb.
529 Orch A: ff for Cor, Timp, and Vc, f for all other
parts; we modify ff to match the prevailing
dynamic. RI1875 (→ R I1913) = tutti ff.
529 Ob, Cl A: no slurs are present, and the accents
are missing on 4th; we supply both in vertical
conformity with Fl (Ott = Fl).
531/1st Cl A: GV marked the part to play in unison
with Ob following a page turn (recto to verso),
forgetting that a resolution was needed from
530; we (like RI1913) supply from the analogous
529.
531/1st Vni I A: thirty-second notes for the embellish-
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 ment; we modify to sixteenths in conformity
with Vni II and the analogous 529.
531/4th Cb A: anomalous staccato in addition to the
accent; we suppress.
533/3rd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vni II, and by analogy with
Fg I at 535.
535/4th Ob II, Cl, Fg I A: carets missing; for Cl I, we
supply in vertical conformity with Fl and Ott;
for Ob II and Cl II, by analogy with Vni II at
533; for Fg I, by analogy with Vle at 533.
•540/3rd Fg III–IV A: isolated accent (with no convinc-
ing musical justification), unconfirmed for Vc
or Cb; we suppress. RI1913 did likewise, but it
reappears in RI1964, where it was extended to
Vc and Cb.
540/3rd–541 Ott A: isolated slur from e’’ to the  at 541;
we suppress.
541/1st Cor I–II A: isolated accent; we suppress.
542/1st Strings A: f only for Vni I; we extend for verti-
cal conformity to the other strings.
543/1st–2nd Vle A: all four notes are beamed together;
we adjust for vertical conformity with Vc.
544 – 552 Strings A: despite the presence of incongru-
ent slurs and beaming in this passage (largely
represented by abbreviated notation for the
repeated notes), we are able to identify GV’s
overall tendency to match both elements with
any given sequence of repeated notes, whether
in groups of two, four, or six notes each. Those
instances of divergence from this principle may
be summarized as follows:
– 544 Vni I: slurs and beaming = 4 + 4; we
modify to 6 + 2, as at the analogous 547 and
550;
– 545, 548, 551 Vc: slurs and beaming =
4 + 4 (also at 512, 515, 518/1st–2nd; see Note
511–519/1st–2nd). We modify to 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 as in
Vni and Vle, which in all probability was GV’s
later decision while writing out these parts;
– 548/3rd–4th Vni II, Vle: , each with a cut
through the stem and two staccati; we modify
to the equivalent of the abbreviation at 515 ( 
with a cut and four staccati).
549 Fg A: empty bar; we (like RI1875 → R I1913) inte-
grate based on the model of 516.
549/1st–2nd B soloist A: the conclusion of the slur is
missing following a page turn (recto to verso);
we (like rRIms → rRI1874 → R I1913) supply from
the model of 516.
553/3rd–554/2nd Cl, Fg, Vni II, Vle A: slurs missing; we
supply by analogy with the corresponding pas-
sage at 520/3rd–521/2nd.
554/3rd Vle A: g; we suggest replacing it with b as at
the corresponding 521/3rd in order to avoid
doubling the third of the chord. I-Mr and
RI1875 follow A; RI1913 has b as in this edition,
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
but RI1964 reversed the correction and returned
to g.
556 Fg A: GV marked a second, superfluous slur
for the two notes in this bar; we suppress (see
also Note 523).
556 Vle A: tie missing; we supply by analogy with
the corresponding 523.
558/1st Cb (Vc = Cb) A: e ; our adjustment to c (which
matches the corresponding 525) is supported
by I-Mr, where the correction (in purple ink)
from e to c was probably made by GV. RI1875
follows A; RI1913 has c as in this edition, but
RI1964 reversed the correction and returned to e.
•559/3rd– 4th Vni I, Vle A: ; we consider this rhythmic
notation to be an oversight in both parts and
correct to  by analogy with Vni I at 526, not
to mention the same melodic profile found at
560 (Cl I, Fg I, Fg III) and 561 (Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl
II, Fg I, Cor I). I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913
corrected Vni I (to match 526) but not Vle.
561 Ob I–II, Cl II A: slurs missing.
563 Vni II, Vle A: no slurs for either part, and the
staccati on 4th are missing. We supply the slur
and staccati for Vle in vertical conformity with
Vc and Cb; however, for Vni II, whose series of
double stops are difficult to play legato, we sug-
gest instead a short slur with the staccati on 4th.
563/2nd, 564 Cl A: at 563/2nd staccati with the slur,
unconfirmed for Fl or Ob; we suppress. At 564,
the first bar following a change of page (verso
to recto), GV forgot to provide the resolution
from 563; we integrate in vertical conformity
with Fl and Ob.
566, 568/1st–2nd Vni I A: at 566 the beaming is 2 + 6 (two
eighth notes +  with a cut through the stem);
568/1st–2nd = 2 + 2 but with a single slur. We
adjust the first half of both bars to match the
beaming of Vle, with whom Vni I move in
parallel sixths.
567/3rd–568 Fl A: no articulation is present, and the slur
stops at the end of 567; we adjust in vertical
conformity with Cl and Fg I.
568/3rd–4th Vle A: single beam for the four notes; we
beam as 2 + 2 in keeping with the principle
established in Note 544–552.
568/4th–569/1st Cor III–IV A: GV marked a tie at the end
of 568, the last bar before a page turn (recto to
verso), but there is a  on the downbeat of 569.
Unlikely as it seems that he simply forgot to
provide a note for the tie after the page turn
(since there is a rest at that point rather than
nothing at all), continuing the (sounding) b
at 569/1st would help reinforce the harmonic
dissonance, otherwise sustained solely by the
relatively weak Vle in the A–G suspension,
to better effect. We therefore suggest integrat-
ing the tied b for Cor III–IV at 569/1st. I-Mr
43
 (→ R I1875 → R I1913) follows A; pUS-Cso re-
solved the situation by eliminating the tie.
569/1st–2nd Cl A: a short pen stroke beneath the two 
could be read as a slur, which would conform
to the one GV marked for B soloist; while
remaining somewhat doubtful, we supply the
slur and suggest its extension to Fl and Fg I.
569/3rd–570/2nd Orch A: incompletely marked articula-
tion, but the strings provide a clear and com-
plete model that we suggest extending to the
winds (at 570/1st–2nd the staccati and accent
are sufficiently represented for their exten-
sion to the woodwinds without typographical
distinction). Also, Vle have an isolated slur in
addition to the staccati for the beamed eighth
notes at 569/3rd– 4th, which we suppress.
571 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati as well as the accents,
possibly residual from the skeleton score; we
suppress.
573 –598 Orch A: GV marked this section as the reprise
of 1–26 with the instruction “Come dal prin-
cipio del Dies irae per 26 battute”; he provided
the resolution for B soloist at 573 and wrote out
the parts for Coro (all 27 bars) and for Vc and
Cb (only at 573 – 576 and 593 – 598). We consider
the written out parts for Vni I, Vc, and Cb,
which present various differences with respect
to 1–26, to be performance guidelines and
markers for the copyists to use in reproducing
the score and extracting the parts; therefore
we have chosen to render them identical to
1–26 for this reprise (problems that surface
within the first full orchestral elaboration are
addressed in Note 1– 61), making note of only
those differences that help to fill lacunae or
resolve ambiguities, thereby allowing us to
establish a unitary text. They may be summa-
rized as follows:
– 575–576 Cb: accents only at 576/3rd–4th; for
the integrated accents at 575/3rd and 576/1st see
Note 3–4, 13–14, 575–576. At 575–576 there are
staccati beneath all eighth notes but the first
octave dyad (also present in N. 7, but only at
57); given their absence at the corresponding 3
and 13, we suppress (see also Note 1–61).
– 593 Vc: slur for the sixteenth notes missing.
– 595/1st–3rd Cb: accents missing.
– 597, 598 Cb: accent on 2nd missing.
575 – 598 Coro A: GV marked very few accents and
dynamics (the latter are represented by nothing
more than two f, at 575 for T Coro and at 593
for B Coro), but there is no reason to imagine
that this reprise with the same text should not
be identical to 3 –26. We therefore integrate the
missing accents and dynamics from that origi-
nal model, reporting the lacunae in the follow-
ing Notes.
44
575/3rd–576/1st T and B Coro A: accents missing; we sup-
ply from the corresponding 3–4.
577–579, 587–589 T II Coro A: for the syllabic setting of
the text, see Note 15 –17, 577–579, 587–589.
585–586 B Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with T Coro, as at the corre-
sponding 13–14.
593–598 Coro A: accents only at 595 for S and B Coro,
and at 598/4th for B Coro; we supply from the
corresponding 21–26.
599 Coro A: GV marked accents only for S and B
Coro as he did at 595, omitting however the
one for S Coro on 4th; we supply the missing
accents on 1st–3rd as at the analogous 27/1st–
3rd and 595/1st–3rd (those beats where the
notes are the same), and we suggest their logi-
cal integration for S, C, and T Coro on 4th (see
also Note 599 Orch).
599 Orch A: various accents are missing. On 1st–
3rd the accents for Fg, Trbn, Vni, Vc, and Cb
can be vertically extended to the instruments
of their respective families from 23 and 27
(595 = 23, → 599/1st–3rd = 27/1st–3rd). Some
doubt remains, however, regarding 4th (un-
like 27/4th), where GV marked accents only
between Fg I–II and III–IV, between Trbn and
Of, and for Vc (also B Coro; see Note 599 Coro).
There are no accents whatsoever for Ott, Fl,
Ob, and Cl on 3rd– 4th; we supply those on 3rd
from the corresponding 23 and 27, and we sug-
gest their logical integration where missing on
4th.
600, 601 (602 = 601) Winds A: various accents missing on
4th, but GV’s intentions are clear; we supply
without typographical distinction.
600, 601 Strings A: divergent beaming on 1st: at 600/1st
Vni I and II and Vle have ¢ ” ™ ; at 601/1st only
Vni II and Vle have this same beaming con-
figuration. We adopt    as in Vc at 600–602
and Vni I at 601–602, in conformity with the
similar figures at 21–22 and 25–26 (26 = 25;
593–594, 597–598 = 21–22, 25–26).
600/3rd Vni II A: isolated accent, unconfirmed either
vertically here or in the two successive bars;
we suppress.
601/1st Vni I A: isolated accent above the a’–c’’’ dyad,
unconfirmed either vertically or at 602/1st; we
suppress.
•601/4th (602 = 601) Fg I–II A: a–c’; we modify to c’–e!’ as
at 600, where all other parts are identical to 601
on 4th. I-Mr (→ R I1875) automatically resolved
the problem by indicating that 601 and 602 =
600 for the winds, Timp, Vc, and Cb, transmit-
ting this reading to RI1913. RI1964 instead adopt-
ed a–c’ at 601 and extended it to 602 as well.
601/4th (602 = 601) Timp A: accent missing; we supply
from the identical 600.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
•604 – 605 Orch A: Gr C has a dim. symbol beginning
at 604 that extends to the whole note at 605,
approximately mid-bar, where GV also wrote
“dim.”. It makes little sense that Gr C should
execute a diminuendo at 604 where the other
instruments play ff for the entire bar. Another
dim. symbol is present at 605 above Vni I,
perhaps as a general indication; we suggest its
vertical extension and move the dim. symbl for
Gr C from 604 to 605, eliminating the super-
fluous “dim”. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; RI1913
extended the dim. symbol for Vni I to the other
strings and to Ott, Fl, Ob, and Cl, but left the
dim. symbol for Gr C at 604.
604 – 606 Timp A: G; although it was not unusual at
the time to approximate the pitch notation
for Timp when a given harmonic context was
incompatible with the notes to which it was
tuned, in this case there seems to have been no
such practical reason because at 607, following
a page turn (recto to verso), GV wrote B (with
the ! understood; see Note 607–701); we there-
fore anticipate the B! to 604. All of the exam-
ined sources follow A (in pUS-Cso the part
was changed from G to B!, but this was almost
certainly a later correction).
•605 Cor I–II and III–IV RI1913:  Â rather than 
(the error originated in RI1875:  for Cor I–II, 
for Cor III–IV); RI1964 reinstated the , with the
curious addition of a dim. symbol between the
two staves for Cor but not for Fg.
606 Cb A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.
607–610/1st Cor III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in ver-
tical conformity with Cor I–II.
607–701 Timp A: GV systematically omitted the ! for
each B.
608/4th Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur for the tri-
plet missing; we supply in vertical conformity
with Cb (Vc = Cb).
609–612 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: the dim. symbol
at 609 is quite short, almost as if it were an ac-
cent; we modify to match the one GV marked
for Cb (Vc = Cb). At 610/3rd–612 the two subse-
quent dim. symbols are missing; here too we
supply in vertical conformity with Cb.
610 – 612 Ob, Cl, 612 S Coro, Vni I A: the slur for Ob at
611/1st–2nd is nearly illegible but nonetheless
certain; we extend vertically to the unison Cl,
and suggest for the analogous suspension fig-
ures on 1st–2nd at 610 and at 612. Similarly, we
suggest integrating the missing slurs for S Coro
and Vni I at 612. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) sim-
ply ignored all four slurs GV marked for these
figures (Vni I at 610; Ob, S Coro, and Vni I
at 611).
612/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: GV left the bar
empty following a change of page (verso to
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
recto), forgetting to provide the resolution from
611 as he had done for Vc and Cb; the notes
and rests were added in pencil, perhaps in
another hand. In I-Mr GV entered the octave
dyad himself in purple ink.
614/3rd Vni I A: superfluous “dim.”; we suppress.
620–622 Vc A: GV marked a slur from 620/2nd to 622,
with no tie at 621–622; we modify in conform-
ity with Vle, which also more closely reflects
the phrasing for Vni I at 621.
624/4th Vni I A: isolated accent, clearly residual from
an earlier idea (GV had originally marked an
accent at 625/2nd as well but then wiped it
away); we suppress. It was already omitted in
I-Mr.
631 Fg A: the cresc. symbol stops at the end of
630 and the dim. begins at the start of 631; we
move the juncture between the two symbols
to match Cor III at 631 (for Cor IV see Note
631/3rd– 632/1st).
•631/3rd– 632/1st Cor IV A: anomalous cresc. symbol,
incompatible with the dim. symbol for Cor III
(as well as the ones GV marked for Cor I, Fg
I, and Ms); we modify for vertical conformity
with Cor III. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) follows A
(RI1913 eliminated the dim. for Cor III).
634–639 Fl, Ob, Cl A: various accents are missing (Ob
has carets at 634 and at 635/2nd), particularly
from 638, where however there is one very
carefully marked for Fl; given the clarity of
GV’s intentions, we supply them uniformly for
these parts without typographical distinction.
639 – 641/1st Winds A: while it seems GV wanted to mark
cresc.-dim. symbols only for the winds and not
the strings (even though the strings inevitably
participate in the general crescendo), he sup-
plied them in a sketchy and incongruent man-
ner. The cresc. symbol for Ob is confined to
640 after the f, and Cl does not have one at all.
We adjust both parts to match the model GV
marked for Fl. Cor I and Fg have no symbols
whatsoever, while Cor III has only a cresc. that
extends to 641/1st and is consequently incom-
patible with the dim. symbols for Fl, Ob, and
Cl. We find it plausible, if arguable, that GV
may have intended the cresc. only for those
parts that double Ms (Fl, Ob, and Cl), who also
has a cresc.; therefore, with some reservations,
we have suppressed the cresc. for Cor III, leav-
ing its eventual execution (and extension to Cor
I and Fg) to the discretion of the performer.
641/3rd Fl A: ppp; we prefer the pp GV marked (no
less than twice) for Ott and confirmed for Fg at
642/1st.
•641/4th–642/2nd S Coro A: GV marked staccati for the
three dyads, subsequently erasing only the
second one at 642/1st; we suppress the first
45
 of them as well but preserve the last one at
642/2nd (  dyad), which we consider musically
plausible (see Ms). rRIms (→ rRI1874 → R I1913)
omitted all three staccati.
•644 – 645/1st A: few cresc. symbols are present: for the
instruments, above Fl and between Vni I and
II; for the voices, above S soloist and above S
Coro, probably also intended for Ms and C
Coro. We find no reason to believe that any
instrumental parts were meant to be excluded
(as in RI1913, where there is no cresc. for Fg or
Vc) and therefore uniformly supply the missing
symbols.
645 Fg I A: all four of the cresc. symbols that GV
began at 644 conclude exactly at 645/1st (see
Note 644 – 645/1st), but there is one lone cresc.
in the first half of 645 above Fg I (with no
previous cresc. at 644). It seems unlikely that
GV wanted only Fg I to play in crescendo (with
three other Fg available to provide adequate
support). We (like RI1913) omit the cresc. symbol
but nonetheless leave its eventual execution
(and vertical extension) to the discretion of the
performer. I-Mr (→ R I1875) follows A.
645/3rd, 646 Orch A: GV wrote exceedingly few dynamic
indications at 645, and none at 646. Trbn, Timp,
and Gr C are carefully marked ppp, though
presumably for the particular effect their
sound contributes to the orchestral timbre at
this level. The only other dynamic he marked,
pp for Vle (which RI1913 chose to ignore), seems
instead the most appropriate choice for exten-
sion to the other instruments, equidistant as
it is between the p for the male voices and the
ppp for Trbn, Timp, and Gr C.
645/3rd– 652 Voices A: incongruent and missing slurs
and articulation. The texture created by these
eight vocal parts consists of three distinct
components: 1) S soloist; 2) Ms, S and C Coro;
3) T and B soloists, T and B Coro. We adopt
the clearest and most convincing slurs and
articulation as models for the second and third
groups, either extending them to the other
unison parts without typographical distinction,
or integrating and normalizing indications
through reciprocal comparison of the parts.
Principal incongruencies may be summarized
as follows (for 652, see the relative individual
Notes):
– 645/3rd– 647/2nd T and B soloists, T and B
Coro: at 647, the first bar following a page
turn (recto to verso), the slur on 1st–2nd in all
parts seems to refer only to the two notes b! f,
rather than to function as the continuation and
conclusion of the previous slur initiated at 645
(this is also true for the instruments that dou-
ble these parts). We nevertheless believe that
46
GV wanted for the ending of the melody the
same phrasing as for the two earlier enuncia-
tions at 625 – 627 and 633 – 635. An analogous
situation occurs at 655 (see Note 654 – 655/2nd).
– 646–647 S and C Coro: at 647 there are two
slur strokes for S Coro, one on 1st–2nd and
another over the remaining two notes (no slur
at 646); we modify in vertical conformity with
Ms and extend the missing slur to C Coro.
– 649/3rd, 650/3rd T and B soloists, T and B
Coro: the only articulation for the g! at 649 is
an accent for B Coro, while at 650 T and B Coro
have carets for the c!’ (no articulation is present
for T and B soloists); we adopt and extend the
model of T and B Coro at 650 for all four parts
in both bars.
– 651/3rd–4th S and C Coro: carets missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Ms.
645/3rd– 652 Orch A: missing and incongruent slurs and
articulation. Bass and accompanimental parts
aside, the orchestral texture consists of three
distinct components: 1) Ott, Fl, Cl, Vni I and II;
2) Ob, Trb; 3) Fg I and III, Cor III, Vc. We adopt
the clearest and most convincing slurs and
articulation as models for each of these groups
(rather than proceeding by instrumental fam-
ily), either extending them to the other unison
parts without typographical distinction, or in-
tegrating and normalizing indications through
reciprocal comparison of the parts.
646 Ms A: “cantabile” missing; in accordance with
the same principle established in Note 645/3rd–
652 Voices, we supply in vertical conformity
with the unison S Coro (where the indication
was presumably intended for C Coro as well).
646 – 651 Ott, Fl, Cl, Vni I and II A: various accents are
missing: for Ott, all but those at 650 – 651; for
Fl only one, at 651/3rd; for Cl at 651; for Vni I
only one, at 646/3rd (caret at 646/1st); for Vni II
at 646 (647ff = Vni I at the lower octave). Given
that none of these parts has an accent for the
last eighth note at 651, we (like RI1913) do not
integrate it.
646 – 652 Ob, Trb A: missing and divergent slurs and
articulation, which can be resolved through
reciprocal comparison of the parts (see Note
645/3rd– 652 Orch) for all but the following:
– 646 – 647: at 647, the first bar following a page
turn (recto to verso), both slurs seem to begin
anew rather than serve as the continuation and
conclusion from 646; we believe that the appar-
ent segmentation was not intentional.

– 651 Trb:       ; we find the slur and
accents for Ob to be the more plausible choice,
given their greater detail and compatibility
with the articulation for Ms and S and C Coro.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
646/4th Fg I A: isolated caret for the last eighth note,
unconfirmed for Fg III, Cor III, or Vc; we sup-
press.
647–652 Gr C A: staccati missing; we extend from the
model at 645–646.
649/3rd– 650/2nd Fg I, Cor III A: one continuous slur,
whereas Fg III has the two shorter slurs; at the
analogous 650/3rd– 651/2nd, Fg I and III have
the shorter slurs (the second one is missing for
Cor III; see Note 651/1st–2nd). While we cannot
exclude the possibility that the configuration at
650 – 651 was caused by an intervening change
of page (verso to recto) between the two bars,
we modify Fg I and Cor III here to match this
prevailing model (for Vc, see Note 650).
649/3rd, 650/3rd Fg I and III, Cor III, Vc A: the only
articulation for the g! at 649 is an accent for
Vc, while at 650 Fg I has a caret for the c!’
and Vc an accent (both accents for Vc may be
considered the equivalent of carets). Given
that T and B Coro also have carets at 650/3rd
(see Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices: 649/3rd, 650/3rd),
we integrate and normalize the carets for this
group of instruments (as established in Note
645/3rd– 652 Orch) according to the prevailing
model.
650 Vc A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the other members of this instru-
mental group as established in Note 645/3rd–
652 Orch (see also Note 649/3rd–650/2nd).
650/1st–2nd S soloist A: slur missing.
650/3rd–4th Trb A: all four eighth notes are beamed
together; we separate the first of the group in
vertical conformity with Ob (as established in
Note 645/3rd–652 Orch).
650/3rd, 651/1st S soloist A: carets missing.
650/3rd–651/2nd Trbn A: staccati missing.
651/1st–2nd Cor III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Fg I and III, as established in
Note 645/3rd–652 Orch (see also Note 649/3rd–
650/2nd).
651/3rd– 652/2nd Fg I and III, Vc A: Fg I has a slur be-
neath the first beamed group of eighth notes
at 651/3rd– 4th, but there are also pen strokes
above both beamed groups, partially obscured
by the dim. symbol; Fg III has a slur for each
beamed group; Vc has a slur beginning only
from the second note in the second beamed
group (652/1st–2nd). We opt for the clear and
complete model GV marked for Cor III–IV,
modifying Fg I and III to match and suggesting
the same slur for vertical conformity for Vc.
•651/3rd– 653/1st S and C Coro A: another hand crossed
out “judicandus homo reus” for these parts
and wrote “Huic ergo parce Deus” above S
Coro, obviously forgetting to intervene in like
manner for Ms. All of the examined sources
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
reproduce this divergence. We have no way of
knowing whether GV approved the correction
that was made in I-Mr: if he had inspected
this passage attentively it seems he would
have adjusted Ms to match S and C Coro (see
the description of I-Mr, p. 4). Furthermore, the
correction is not entirely convincing because
GV set the original reading of these three parts
with different phrasing and articulation (but
see also Note 652 B soloist), which is both per-
fectly plausible and perhaps more persuasive
from a musical point of view. In the event that
the correction was in fact a legitimate one au-
thorized by the composer and should therefore
be adopted and extended to Ms, it would also
necessitate adjusting the phrasing and articu-
lation to match the other vocal parts, given
that they all move homorhythmically with the
same text, otherwise the difference makes no
sense. We see no musical justification for these
interventions and therefore prefer to restore
“judicandus homo reus” for S and C Coro.
•652 A: cresc. symbol for S soloist and Ott; we
extend to Fl, Cl, and Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the
lower octave), all of whom realize this same
part, for vertical conformity. I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) has only the cresc. symbol for S solo-
ist.
652 S Coro A: the slur extends beyond the , seem-
ingly to 653/1st; we adjust (as established in
Note 645/3rd–652 Voices) to match the slur for Ms.
   
652 B soloist A:        ; we modify (as es-
tablished in Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices) to match
T and B Coro (see also Note 651/3rd– 653/1st).
652/1st–2nd T Coro A: accents rather than carets; we
modify (as established in Note 645/3rd–652
Voices) to match B Coro.
653/3rd–4th S Coro A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with C Coro.
653/4th Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A:
“dol.”; while it could be short for “dolce”, the
concomitant “dolcissimo” for S soloist makes
this reading the obvious solution.
654 – 655/2nd Ob, Cl, S and C Coro A: at 655, the first
bar following a page turn (recto to verso), the
slurs on 1st–2nd for Ob and Cl (there are none
for S and C Coro) seem to refer only to the
two notes f’ c’, rather than to function as the
continuation and conclusion of the previous
slur initiated at 654. We nevertheless believe
that GV wanted for the ending of the melody
the same phrasing here as for the two earlier
enunciations at 625 – 627 and 633 – 635, and we
modify and extend accordingly (an analogous
situation occurs at 645/3rd– 647/2nd; see under
Note 645/3rd– 652 Voices).
47
659 Vni II A: empty bar; we integrate the missing
material in vertical conformity with the unison
C Coro.
660/3rd–4th Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Fl.
661– 663/3rd Orch A: at 661– 662, the last two bars before
a page turn (recto to verso), GV marked gen-
eral cresc. symbols above Vni and beneath Cb,
beneath Cor III–IV, above Fg I–II, beneath Fg
III–IV, and beneath Vc; at 663 he neglected to
continue all but the one for Cb, which extends
(over an earlier and presumably superseded
“cresc. sempre” indication) to the f at 663/3rd.
We similarly extend and otherwise supply the
cresc. symbols where appropriate, given that he
carefully marked f for nearly every instrumen-
tal part at 663/3rd.
•662– 663 Fl II A: there is no music for Fl II at 662, but
following a page turn (recto to verso) it joins Fl I
at the lower octave, with the first note tied pre-
sumably to a nonexistent g!’’ from the previous
bar. We adopt the solution found in pUS-Cso,
integrating a unison entry with Ott at 662.
I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) follows A (RI1913 has
no tie at the beginning of 663).
662/4th Ott, Cor III–IV, Trb III, Vni I A: accents missing
for Ott, Cor, and Trb, while Vni I have a caret;
we modify the caret and supply accents for the
other parts in vertical conformity with Fl I and
Cl I.
663 Voices A: “cresc.” above S soloist and above
S Coro, which we interpret as valid for the
other vocal parts as well.
663/4th Ob I A: isolated accent (apart Trbn III, whose
part is however quite different); we suppress.
664 Timp A: f (or possibly ff) between the two ,
vertically aligned with the ff for Cb (see Note
664/3rd) but unconfirmed for any other part;
we suppress.
664/1st–2nd Trb III A: isolated slur; we suppress.
664/3rd Cb A: ff, likely residual from an earlier provi-
sional version and unconfirmed for any other
part; we suppress.
664/3rd–4th Trb I A: isolated slur; we suppress.
664/4th Trbn I A: caret for the last note missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Ob I, Cl II,
Cor III, and Trb I.
666–668/1st Ms A: slur only for the first two  at 666; we
extend in vertical conformity with S soloist.
668/3rd–670/1st Ms, T A: slurs missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with S.
670/3rd–672/1st S soloist, Ms A: each part has two slurs:
the first one at 670/3rd–4th, followed by an-
other at 671/1st–672/1st; we modify to match
the single slur for T soloist, which confirms the
pattern established at 666–668/1st and 668/3rd–
670/1st.
48
677–679/1st Vc 2nd part A: slur missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cb.
679–680 Ms, B soloist A: slur missing for Ms, while B
soloist has two slur fragments that are not con-
gruent with the slurs for S soloist; nonetheless
GV’s intentions are confirmed by the concomi-
tant slurs for Cl and Fg, which parts double Ms
and B respectively.
679/1st Ob, Cl A: p missing; we extend vertically from
Fg.
681 Coro A: dim. symbol only above S, presumably
intended for all of the choral parts. Also, there
are no staccati for C, and they are present only
for the first two notes in S and T; we supply
where missing in vertical conformity with B.
681 Orch A: incongruent articulation for the
descending eighth-note figure: Cl have both
staccati and accents, Vni II only staccati, and
Vle have no articulation at all; we adjust and
supply accents in vertical conformity with the
complete models GV marked for Fg and Vc.
In addition, Cl and Fg are marked f, but there
is no apparent reason that they should exceed
the mf GV carefully wrote for each choral part.
681–682/1st Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Fg I–II (from 681/3rd Fg III–IV
= Fg I–II).
682 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl A: dim. symbols missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Vni I and II.
682–683/1st Solo Voices A: S soloist has two slurs, both
the long one and a shorter slur beneath it for
682/3rd–4th; T soloist has only the shorter slur;
Ms and B soloist have no slurs whatsoever.
Given that the shorter slur does not appear
in any previous enunciation of this melodic
phrase, we opt for the longer slur of S and
extend it to the other parts.
682–683/1st S and C Coro A: perhaps distracted by the
page turn (recto to verso) between 681 and 682,
GV forgot to supply the text for these parts. We
integrate what seems to be the only possible
solution, given that (after the obvious “[requi]-
em” at 682/1st) the four syllables of “do-na e-is”
would be one too many for the three notes
available. All of the examined sources agree.

683 Vni II A:
    , in which the g is obvi-

ously anerror. We eliminate the note and adjust
the resulting rhythmic apportionment of the
repeated b! to match the notation for Vni I and
Vle; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) simply replaced
the abbreviated g  with b! instead.
683/3rd–685/1st, 685/3rd–687/1st B soloist, B Coro A: nei-
ther slur is present for B soloist, while B Coro
has the first slur but only the beginning of the
second at 685/3rd–4th, interrupted by a change
of page (verso to recto) between 685 and 686.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 Given that both T soloist and T Coro have slurs [2] Trombe in Mi!
at 684–685/1st and 686–687/1st, we complete the [2] Trombe in Mi!
second slur for B Coro and supply both slurs 2 Fagotti
for B soloist without typographical distinction. 2 Fagotti
686–687/1st Cor A: slurs for both pairs missing; we sup- [3] Tromboni
ply to match the identical 684–685/1st. Oficleide
688–691 Ms A: mistakenly notated for alto rather than Timpani
soprano clef. [empty]
689–690 Vni II, Vc A: slurs missing; we supply to match [empty]
the identical 687–688. Soprano
693 Voices A: “calando” only above S soloist, in- Mezzo Soprano
tended for all of the vocal parts. Tenore
695 Vni A: ppp for Vni I, pp for Vni II. We find Basso
ppp the more plausible choice, given that GV Violoncelli
marked both parts pp at 697. I-Mr (→ R I1875 Bassi
→ RI1913) also has ppp for both parts here (but
see Note 697–699).
•697– 699 A: missing and divergent dynamics: T
– 697: p for Trb III–IV, Vle, and Vc; we adopt GV wrote “Offertorio” in the center top margin of p. 3, with
and uniformly extend the prevailing pp for all “Messa da morto” to the left of it and “n.° 3 / G. Verdi /
instruments while maintaining p (and f) as in 1874” to the right.
A for the voices. I-Mr gave ppp to all instru-
ments from Vni I (at the top of the system)
down to Gr C with the exception of Vle (pp), R M
while for the voices, Vc, and Cb it follows the 164–185 A: marked by GV as the reprise of 90–111 (with
dynamic indications in A. RI1875 has ppp for all the bars numbered from 1 to 22) for all but the
instruments but follows A for the voices. RI1913 voices, Vc, and Cb, which GV wrote out in full.
has ppp for all parts but S and C Coro, which
were consequently reduced from f to p. RI1964
returned to the reading of A, although curi- C N
ously substituting ppp for the strings; 2–3 Vc A: the slur extends slightly over the barline
– 698/1st: f only for Vni I and S soloist, presum- between 2 and 3; we adjust to match the model
ably a general indication which would be con- at 6.
cordant with the f for S and C Coro (without a 15 Vc A: p above the stave, ppp below; all second-
cresc.) at 697; we (like RI1913) extend to all parts ary sources report ppp.
but the aforesaid S and C Coro; 25 Vc A: there is a vertical mark above the second
– 699/1st: ppp for Vni I, pp for Fl, Ob, Timp (on note, possibly part of a caret left incomplete for
3rd), Vle, Vc, and Cb; we (like RI1875 → R I1913) lack of ink.
adopt and uniformly extend the prevailing pp. •28 –29 Ms A: GV set “[glo]-riae” as a dipthong beneath
the  at 29, but it is unlikely that he intended
a different disposition of the text from T, who
moves here in parallel thirds with Ms. I-Mr,
N. 3 Offertorio RI1875, and rRI1874 all follow A, while rRIms
S adjusts as in this edition. RI1913 further compli-
A, vol. II, pp. (1–2 rubric) 3 – 52 (52 empty) cates the situation, erroneously anticipating T’s
syllable “[glo]-ri-[ae]” to the  on 28/4th.
28/3rd T A: natural sign missing for the d’, added by
E GV in purple ink in I-Mr.
[I] 32–46 Vni I–II, Vle A: the usual slurs are missing;
Violini
[II] our model for their integration is present at 31
Viole (Vle), but the figures could also possibly be
[2] Flauti slurred in groups of two bars each (or two
Ottavino figures) rather than one. RI1913 supplies them as
[2] Oboè in this edition.
[2] Clarinetti in Si! 33–34 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
[2] Corni in Mi!; at 129 in Fa; at 163 in Mi! conformity with the unison Ob I; we also sup-
[2] Corni in La!; at 129 in Do; at 163 in La! ply the missing caret at 33/4th by analogy with

© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01 49

 its prevailing presence elsewhere within this
melodic figure.
35/3rd Ob I, Cl I A: GV marked a slur for Ob II, which
is not present in any of the secondary sources.
We accept it and extend it logically to both Ob
I and Cl I, supported by the similar phrasing
for Ob I–II at 39.
35/4th Fg I, Vc A: accent rather than the prevailing
caret found elsewhere within this melodic
figure.
37/4th Ob I, Cl I A: accent rather than a caret for Ob I,
and no articulation for Cl I.
38–39 Fg III A: GV neglected to continue the cresc.
symbol from 38, the last bar on a verso, to 39 on
the next page; we correct the lapsus in con-
formity with the model at 34–35. I-Mr omit-
ted the crescendo altogether, transmitting this
error to RI1875.
39 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the unison Ob I.
39–40 Fg I A: GV marked two slurs, one for each bar,
rather than a single slur as at 35–36; believing
the difference to be unintentional, we adjust
39–40 to match, supported by the vertical pres-
ence of a two-bar slur marked for the unison
Vc. I-Mr (→ R I1875) dutifully copied A (see also
Note 43–44).
39/4th Vc A: caret missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the unison Fg I.
41–42 Vc A: tie missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Vle.
41/4th Cl I A: caret missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the unison Ob I.
43 Ob II A: slur missing: we supply by analogy
with 39.
43–44 Fg I, Vc A: GV marked two slurs, one for each
bar, rather than a single slur as at 35–36 (Fg)
and 39–40 (Vc), which divergence was probably
prompted by an intervening page turn between
43 and 44. I-Mr (→ R I1875) follows A, spawning
inconsistencies in RI1913.
45–46 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the unison Ob I.
49/4th Ms, Vni I A: caret; we substitute an accent
in vertical conformity with the other similar
instrumental parts and with B.
51–52 Fg II, IV A: ties missing, but clearly implied.
51/5th–6th Fg, Cor III–IV A: staccati missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Vle, and Cb (Vc = Cb),
but also with B.
•54 A: GV originally wrote f for the entrances of T
and Ms but he then erased both dynamics, evi-
dently because they had become incompatible
with the p he meticulously marked for nearly
all of the instrumental parts (with the excep-
tion of pp for Fg I; see Note 54/4th). None of
the secondary sources supplies vocal dynamic
50
indications here, such that they consequently
continue f (see Ms at 49) against the p marked
for the instruments.
54/4th Fg I A: anomalous pp; we adjust for vertical
conformity with the p marked for the other
instruments (most notably Vc–Cb, who proceed
in unison with Fg I).
54/4th–58/1st Vc–Cb A: slur missing: we supply in verti-
cal conformity with the unison Fg I, supported
by RI1875.
56/5th T A: obligatory ! missing for the a.
58/2nd–60/1st Fg I A: one single slur; we adjust to match
the vertical model marked for Vc, as well as
the analogous slurs marked for both Fg I and
Vc at 60/2nd–62/1st.
58/6th, 60/6th B A: obligatory ! missing for the B.
59–60/1st Vni I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vle, Vc, and Cb, and to match
the analogous 61–62/1st.
61 Strings A: GV wrote “ancora più piano” for Vni
I alone; considering it to be a general dynamic
indication already supplied for Fg and Vc at 60,
we extend it here to Vni II, Vle, and Cb.
61–62 Ms, T, B A: GV left 62 empty following a page
turn, perhaps because he had been concentrat-
ing on the part for S, who enters here for the
first time as protagonist of a passage that was
itself the focus of considerable attention (see
Note 63–67). Our integrations come from I-Mr,
where they were added in a hand which is
neither that of GV nor of the copyist; the other
secondary sources adopted them as well. At 61
GV wrote the syllable “obs-” for all three vocal
parts, presumably reflecting an erroneous divi-
sion of the word “ob-scurum”. I-Mr (→ R I1875)
follows A, while rRIms and all of the printed
sources correct GV’s oversight.
62/1st Vni II, Vle A: c’ for Vni II and g for Vle, but
at 61 (on the previous page) GV had written g
for Vni II followed by a tie, thereby suggesting
another g at 62/1st, and d for Vle, which would
more logically descend stepwise to c. Our
correction is supported by I-Mr, which first
reflected the reading of A but was then erased
and modified.
63 2 Vni A: the slur begins just before the
f’’’; I-Mr and RI1875 follow A, while rRIms
(→ rRI1874) and RI1913 adjust it to match the
repetition at 65.
63/4th–66 Vni I A: slurs missing, and from 64th/1st the
staccati are missing as well; we extend both
from the vertical model marked for Vni II.
•63 – 67 A, I-Mr: the reading of A was modified by
GV in I-Mr to become the version found as a
footnote in the score of this edition (see the
facsimile edition of this page of I-Mr in Rosen,
Introduction, p. LXXII):
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 – he erased the dim. symbol for S at 65 – 66 and
extended the cresc. to the end of 66 in purple
ink;
– he crossed out the cresc./dim. symbols for the
“Due Vni” at 63 – 64 and 65 – 66, replacing them
with one long general cresc. symbol marked
above and below the Vni staves in pencil, along
with the instruction “cresc. sempre” at 65 – 66;
– he may possibly have added the various ppp
in pencil for all of the parts at the beginning
of 67.
Unlike the passage in N. 2 (“Tuba mirum”,
127–128), where the correction to I-Mr also
appears in A (see N. 2, Note 127–129), in this
case GV’s modification of I-Mr was not entered
into A. This implies a definitive status to the
reading in I-Mr, which would consequently
supersede the version in A. Nonetheless, it
is not clear why the reading in I-Mr was not
absorbed into the vocal score: rRIms (→ rRI1874)
follows A, whereas RI1875 and RI1913 follow
I-Mr (RI1964 would return to the reading of A).
Obviously the vocal tradition of the Messa da
requiem was more heavily influenced by the
vocal scores than the full scores; such a correc-
tion, therefore, if considered definitive by the
composer, should have been carried over im-
mediately into the reduction (at least for rRI1875
and successive editions). That this is not in fact
the case seems to suggest that GV’s interven-
tion in I-Mr was conditioned by some specific
circumstance whose origins we can no longer
trace, one that would not necessarily require
an adjustment of all the deriative material and
above all of A, which GV almost certainly had
with him at the time. In addition, the version
in I-Mr is in many ways less convincing and
expressive than that found in A (the messa di
voce concluding in diminuendo on the e!’’ – and
the new tonality by way of direct modulation
– is much more effective than an abrupt ppp
immediately after a general crescendo). Given
these considerations, we prefer to make both
versions available in the score, with the read-
ing of A and that of I-Mr as first and second
choices respectively.
67–68 S A: there is a slur in addition to the tie, rem-
nant of an earlier cancelled version of these
two bars.
69–72 Vni I A: missing or imprecisely marked slurs:
in particular, the single six-note slurs found at
69 and 71, no slur at 70, and one three-note slur
for the first half of 72. We adjust to match the
vertical model GV marked for Vni II.
72 Ob I, Cl I A: cresc. symbols missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with Fl.
73–75 Fg III–IV A: in addition to the tie between 73
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
and 74, a slur stretches from the beginning of
74 into the margin beyond 75 (the last bar on
the page); we adjust as a logical sequence of
consecutive ties.
73–75 Vle A: slurs and staccati missing (73/4th–6th
and 75/4th–6th = 73/1st–3rd and 75/1st–3rd; 74 =
73); we supply in vertical conformity with Vni I
and II.
76 – 80 A: a cresc. symbol marked above the 2 Vni
begins just after the downbeat of 76, while
the one for Fg III–IV begins at 78; neverthe-
less those marked above the vocal parts begin
precisely at 77, confirmed by Cl. I-Mr does
nothing to clarify the situation; in rRIms (and
thus rRI1874) the crescendo begins for the voices
at 77, and for the piano reduction at 78; RI1875
(→ R I1913) begins the crescendo at 76.
76 – 81 Orch A: slurs are largely present in desultory
fashion for the beamed eighth notes, but GV
did mark them meticulously for Cl (76 –77/3rd)
and 2 Vni (77–78); given the apparent clarity of
his intentions, we integrate the missing slurs
based upon these models. I-Mr attempted a
partial integration, though misunderstanding a
slur for 2 Vni at 77 and consequently proposing
slurs on 5th | 1st (rather than 4th | 6th), which
were then transmitted to RI1875 (→ R I1913). rRIms
(and thus rRI1874) proposes the same type of
phrasing in the piano reduction (right hand)
and extends it to 79–81 as well.
77/4th–6th, 78/4th–6th Vle A: slurs missing for the
tremolo figures; we extend from the model of
76/4th–6th.
78/1st–4th 2 Vni A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
79, 80 Fg I A: both slurs reach to the  (I-Mr follows
A; RI1875 [→ R I1913] also supplies the longer
slurs at 81 for Fg I and Fg III); we adjust in
vertical conformity with T and the models
provided by Cl II and Ms at 76 and 77.
79–81 Fg II A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Cb.
81 Fg I, III A: slurs missing; we extend from Fg I
(79, 80; but see Note), and in conformity with
the prevailing model.
•82 Vni I RI1875 (→ R I1913): marked “pizz.” from the
first dyad (I-Mr and pRI have no prescription,
as in A). At the beginning of 82 GV had indeed
erased something but it could quite possibly
have been a superfluous “arco” indication. In
any case, the addition of “pizz.” is unfounded
here and would only compromise the subtle
hocket effect between Vni I arco and Vni II
pizz. that GV had previously assayed in the
duetto finale of Rigoletto (“Lassù in cielo”,
201–206), as perceptively observed by Rosen,
Critical Commentary, p. 85, Note 82– 85).
83–84 S A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
51
84–85 Fl II A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
85 Orch A: GV wrote “dim. sempre” only in
correspondence with Trb I–II, and “dim.” for
assorted others that conclude similarly at
86/1st. Clearly the instruction was intended to
apply to all of these parts, even though it has
no practical interpretive impact. We accept
and extend it as a supplementary reminder to
continue the diminuendo.
86/1st Fl II A: ; I-Mr, pUS-Cso, and RI1875 (→ R I1913)
concur with our modification, in vertical
conformity with the other instruments that
conclude similarly at 86/1st.
87 A: “poco allarg.” appears only beneath Fl.
89, 91, 93, 95 Winds A: staccati missing at 89 (Fg) and 93
(Ob, Cl, Fg, Cor III–IV), while the carets are
present for all parts; our model for the articula-
tion is found at 91 (Fg I–II [III–IV = I–II]) and
95 (Fl, Ob, Cl).
89 – 97 Woodwinds, Cor III–IV A: at 93 – 95/1st Ob II,
Cl [II], and Cor III–IV have one long slur rather
than two; at 89 – 91/1st Fg [II] (Fg [IV] = Fg [II])
has two slurs (as in this edition), followed by
only one slur at 91 for the last three ; and at
95 – 97/1st Fl, Ott, Ob, and Cl have two slurs
(though this was possibly due to a change of
page midway, from a verso to a recto). We adopt
the two-slur solution throughout, notwith-
standing the concurrent single long slur for
the vocal parts; such differences between vocal
and instrumental phrasing are fairly common
in this repertory. I-Mr and RI1875 (→ R I1913)
follow A despite the incongruences; rRIms (and
therefore rRI1874) opted for the single slur.
89/2nd–97/1st B, T, Ms A: lacunose and inconsistent
phrasing:
– 89/2nd–4th, 91/2nd–93/1st B: slurs missing;
– 93/2nd–95/1st T: slur only for the first three ;
– 95/2nd–97/1st Ms: slur beginning only from
the  at 96.
Given GV’s obvious intentions, we normalize
the slurs for these repeated phrases moving
(after the initial statement) in parallel thirds.
91/1st B A: GV distractedly wrote f (with a staccato)
following a page turn, rather than resolving
the seventh b! to the third a! (in I-Mr the error
was signaled in pencil, while in RI1875 it re-
mained uncorrected; for all of the other sources
the note is a!).
91/2nd–3rd T A: staccati missing; we supply from the
prevailing model.
93/4th T A: staccato rather than the prevailing caret.
95/2nd–3rd Ms A: staccati missing; we supply from the
prevailing model.
97/2nd–111, 171/2nd–185 S, T A: differences in phrasing
and articulation (for the accents, see Note 101,
106, 111). None of the six enunciations of this
52
melody provides a complete model for the
phrasing; our proposal is based on a balanced
comparison of all six examples (see the relative
single Notes for more detail).
97/2nd–102/1st, 102/2nd–107/1st, 107/2nd–111 Orch A:
divergent phrasing for these three analogous
passages, due largely to GV’s inevitable impre-
cision in marking long slurs where the ink ran
thin too quickly, forcing him to use different
pen strokes or simply leave the slur incom-
plete. As a result it is not possible to identify
one definitive model for all three passages.
I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913, which resolves only
the most obvious irregularities) reproduces the
same inconsistencies present in A. Insofar as a
piano reduction may prove helpful for resolv-
ing orchestral issues, the following interesting
solution is found in rRIms (→ rRI1874):
– for the first passage (97/2nd–102/1st), an ini-
tial slur (both hands) concludes at 100/1st and
another begins on 2nd, based on GV’s mark-
ings in A for Vni I;
– for the second passage (102/2nd–107/1st), there
is a single long slur in the bass;
– for the third passage (107/2nd–111/1st), one
slur concludes at 109/4th and another begins
at 110/1st, unlike the reading of A. This same
configuration appears at 171–185).
We prefer to interpret GV’s phrase markings in
A in terms of their musical function, proposing
slurs derived from clear and incontrovertible
evidence, and comparing them with the corre-
sponding passages at 171/2nd–176/1st, 176/2nd–
181/1st, and 181/2nd–185, where Vc and Cb are
written out in full (see Note 164 –185):
– at 97/2nd–102/1st, the slur for Vni I is bro-
ken by a page turn between 99 and 100 (99 is
the last bar of a recto); the slur for Vni II stops
there and does not continue. GV’s intention to
produce one single slur for the entire passage
was realized for Vc (and confirmed at the cor-
responding 171/2nd–176/1st);
– at 102/2nd–107/1st, the slurs are again inter-
rupted, this time between a verso (103 is the
last bar on the page) and a recto, but here there
is no doubt that a single long slur was intend-
ed, as can be seen for Fl [I] (notwithstanding
the four different pen strokes), Ob, and Vc (see
also the corresponding 176/2nd–181/1st);
– at 107/2nd–111, the slurs are marked in a
more lacunose manner, yet the model is quite
clear: those for Fl, Ott, and Fg I and III, requir-
ing four pen strokes each and interrupted after
the first one by a page turn (between 107 and
108), conclude at 111/1st (also applicable to Fg II
and IV). After the first two pen strokes for Ob,
Cl, and Cor, the slurs disappear altogether. Vc
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 and Cb have a slur for the first three ; after
the page turn there is nothing more for Cb,
while Vc’s slur continues to the beginning of
109, where GV marked the part in unison with
Cb (at the corresponding 181/2nd–185 there
are no slurs whatsoever for either Vc or Cb).
We extend the slurs for Vc and Cb from their
unison counterparts, Fg II and IV.
99/2nd–4th Vc A, I-Mr, RI1875: there is an additional slur
with no apparent musical justification; we sup-
press, supported by RI1913.
100 –101/1st S A: a slur for all five ; the secondary
sources follow A, but we prefer the phrasing at
the corresponding 174 and 179, which seems a
better match for the text setting.
101 S, 106 T, 111 S A: only one accent is present, at
106/2nd; in the reprise of the passage (164 –185
= 90 –111) there is one accent at 175/3rd (S)
and 180/3rd (T), while at 185/2nd–3rd (S) both
accents are present. Given the orchestral
confirmation of this last example at 101 and
106, we extend it to all similar passages. The
nineteenth-century sources generally reflect the
reading of A. RI1875 follows A without change;
I-Mr also follows A, but with the addition of
an accent at 101/2nd, as at 106, and the omis-
sion of the accent at 180/3rd. rRIms attempted
a partial rectification of the inconsistencies
and lacunae: like I-Mr, there is an accent at
101/2nd, and in the reprise it again echoes
I-Mr, but at 175 the accent is moved to 2nd
in conformity with 101 (there are no accents
at 180, also like I-Mr). rRI1874 follows rRIms,
adding only a single accent at 180/2nd. RI1913
preferred the consistent application of a single
accent on 3rd in all six bars (therefore ignoring
the one in A on 185/2nd).
104 T A: one slur for the four , unlike the parallel
99, 109, 173, 178, and 183. I-Mr (→ R I1875) has
one full-bar slur at 109 as well, transmitting
the error to the subsequent printed editions.
106/2nd Cl I-II A: accents missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the other woodwinds, and by
analogy with Vni II at 101.
108 B A: slurs missing; we supply to match the
identical 182.
109/2nd–111/2nd Vle A: staccati missing, an obvious
oversight.
110 Vni II A: staccati missing, an obvious oversight.
110/1st–2nd T A: Â ; we modify to match 184; all of the
secondary sources follow A.
110/2nd–4th Cl I–II A, I-Mr: isolated accents; we sup-
press.
•110/4th S A: the accent is present also in I-Mr, RI1875,
and rRIms [→ rRI1874], but not RI1913; we extend
it to the identical 184 as well.
111/2nd–3rd (185 = 111) Orch A: few accents were marked;
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
we supply those for Ob I and Cl I in vertical
thematic conformity with Ott and Fl, while for
the non-thematic parts our model are Fg, with
accents on 2nd and 3rd (Cor have accents on
3rd alone). I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) follows A for all but the accent on
2nd for Fg.
111/2nd–3rd, 185/2nd–3rd Voices: we suggest the accents
for all voices based on the model GV marked
for S at 185 (see Note 101, 106, 111), in vertical
conformity with the instrumental parts (but
see also Note 111/2nd–3rd Orch). None of the
sources we have consulted does likewise.
112 A: isolated accent between the staves for Cor
III–IV and Trb I–II; we omit.
112–118 Timp A: GV provided no accidental for the
G. Given the impossibility of calling for a
chromatic change of pitch during the continu-
ous roll, he apparently determined that Timp
should “enter” on a dissonance at 112 that
would “exit” as a consonance with the change
of harmony at 115, thereby underscoring the
“tension – release” dialectic of the cadential
passage. I-Mr and RI1875 follow A; pUS-Cso
has a ! at 112 and a  at 115, but both are later
additions.
114–117 A: GV originally marked dim. symbols at
114–115 above S, above B, and beneath Cb, pos-
sibly during preparation of the skeleton score;
he subsequently erased them, but an isolated
supplemental “dim.” lingers in A at 115 above
S. We suppress, along with “sempre” GV wrote
before the “dim.” at 117 for S and Cb, evidently
referring back to the now-eliminated diminu-
endi at 115. rRIms routinely copied both indica-
tions (→ rRI1874 extends the “dim.” at 115 to T
as well), while I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) omits
only the “dim.” at 115.
118 Voices A: pp above S alone, but presumably
valid for the other voices as well.
118 Vni, Vle A: GV marked one dim. symbol
between Vni I and Vni II; we assign it to Vni II
(there is no reason to believe it was intended
it for Vni I, given the absence of a diminuendo
for any other instrument with a ) and extend
it for vertical conformity to Vle.
•118 –119 Vni II, Vle I-Mr: at 118 the copyist inexplicably
wrote f in place of the ppp, and at 119 there is
a dim. symbol ending in ppp at the beginning
of 120. RI1875 did not absorb this misunder-
standing but it was transmitted to RI1913, with
the addition of two curious dim. symbols for
Vni I (from RI1875) and Vle at 118. The proof
sheets for a Ricordi edition of 1955 (Archivio
Storico Ricordi) contain corrections in pencil
that restore the reading of A but they were
entered imprecisely, such that both the 1955
53
 edition and RI1964 still have a senseless dim.
symbol for Vle before the ppp. This issue is
not an entirely irrelevant one: in many of the
recordings that are currently available, in fact,
there is clearly an f at 118/3rd, which, while not
in itself an unpleasant effect (nor even lacking
a certain appeal), is nonetheless entirely extra-
neous to the composer’s intentions. rRIms (and
thus rRI1874) have pp rather than the ppp in A.
120/4th T A: there is faint evidence of a pen stroke sug-
gesting a slur; we integrate it by analogy with
the model at 130 (B).
124 –125 T A: GV neglected to complete the slur from
123 following a page turn; we integrate the
missing portion by analogy with the model
(transposed) at 134 –135 (B).
126–127 A: “animando un poco” is present only above T.
127, 137, 149 A: the cresc.-dim. symbols in these bars
were not consistently drawn. For the vocal
parts the peak of the messa di voce roughly cor-
responds to the  on 4th in all three bars (see
Notes 127/4th and 149/4th). In the instrumental
parts it generally occurs on 3rd, but with sig-
nificant exceptions: 127/4th (Vc), and especially
149/4th (Vni II, Vle), where GV’s adjustment of
the dim. symbol for T (see Note 149/4th) con-
firms his intentions beyond any doubt.
127/4th T A: the cresc. symbol reaches up to the  and
the following dim. symbol extends beyond the
barline into the right margin of the page (127 is
the last bar of a verso). It would appear that GV
then modified the cresc. symbol with heavier
pen strokes, interrupting it at the  instead.
We adjust to match the model he marked at 137
(B) (see also Note 127, 137, 149).
128 Vc A: p; we modify to pp in vertical conformity
with Vni II and Vle.
131 [Ott] A: dynamic indication missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with Fl.
131–132, 135 –136, 139 –140, 142–143 [Ott], Fl A: at 132, fol-
lowing a page turn, GV did not continue the
slurs from 131 (where the one for Fl extends
well into the right margin of the page); rather,
the two dyads for Fl at 132 and 136 are in-
dependently slurred. Nonetheless we may
reasonably hypothesize that, by virtue of their
supporting role for S and Ms from 131 to 143,
[Ott] and Fl should reflect the same phrasing
here and elsewhere in this passage. Conse-
quently at 142–143, where S and Ms have no
slurs, we refrain from suggesting them for [Ott]
and Fl. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) has only the
slurs at 132 and 136 (the phrasing for S and Ms
is lacunose as well); pUS-Cso follows I-Mr.
•131–148 A: just before the downbeat at 131, GV wrote
“col Flauto” for the part notated on the fifth
stave; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) ignored its
54
presence altogether, while pUS-Cso assigned
the part to Ott. On the other hand, rRIms
(→ rRI1874) rigorously respected GV’s instruc-
tion, consequently realizing the reduction at
written pitch (transposing it an octave higher
would have simplified the notational configu-
ration). RI1964 assigned the part to Fl. Rosen
suppresses the instruction, postulating that
“V[erdi]’s indication presumably means noth-
ing more than that Fl and Ott are playing
as a group”,35 although if such were the case
GV would perhaps have written “coi Flauti”
instead. Fl may well seem the preferable choice
from an orchestrational point of view, thereby
rendering the texture more complete and bal-
anced (whereas Ott, while largely doubling Fl
I, would disturb the thematic design at 132 and
136 [see S and Ms] and occasionally be forced
to descend past its most effective register [see
140, 145]). Even so, there is no additional evi-
dence in A allowing us to accept “col Flauto”
without reservation: neither a previous “prende
Fl” instruction, nor a “prende Ott” in the bars
that follow. We therefore leave the informed
performer free to decide which of the two
choices seems the more practical musical solu-
tion.
132/3rd–135 B A: there is a gap in the slur at 133/1st. At
the analogous 122–125 (T) it continues to the
end of 123, although its conclusion is missing
following a page turn (see Note 124–125). The
concomitant slurs for Cl and Cor also suggest
an unbroken solution.
•139/4th–142/2nd T rRIms: the copyist probably inter-
preted the faint slur for Ms at 140 as though it
were intended for T and extended it through
the entire phrase; neither I-Mr nor RI1875 reflect
this reading, but it was transmitted to all of the
printed editions.
140 S A: the conclusion of the slur is missing
following a page turn, and the one for Ms is
barely legible; as a result I-Mr (→ R I1875) ends
the slurs at 139, while rRIms (→ rRI1874) extends
them to 140.
142–144/2nd Vni II A: no slur for the tremolo.
143 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: slur missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg
I–II), which reinforce the bass line.
•144 T rRIms: the slur extends to the end of the bar,
transmitted to all of the printed editions (it is
not present in I-Mr or RI1875).
147 Ott, Fl, Ob A: ppp for Fl missing, as is “dolcis-
simo” for Ott and Ob, both of which we supply
for vertical conformity among these three parts.
148 Vni I A: in GV’s original notation the duration
35 Rosen, Critical Commentary, p. .
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 of the harmonic is indicated by the touched
pitch rather than the stopped pitch, unlike
modern usage (see the footnote for 147 in the
score). At 148 he specified a duration of ,
which we modify to   in vertical conformity
with [Ott], Fl, and Ob as well as S, Ms, and B.
I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) added the  but with-
out halving the rhythmic value of the note.
149/4th T A: GV modified the dim. symbol, probably
from a longer one originally reaching nearly to
the end of 150, drawing a shorter, darker one
over it that ends here (and perhaps also adding
at this time the pp at 150/1st); in its definitive
form it corresponds to the models roughly
marked at 127 (T) and more clearly at 137 (B)
(see also Note 127, 137, 149). rRIms (→ rRI1874)
has the earlier, longer dim. symbol; I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) omitted all expressive indi-
cations; RI1964 did reintegrate them but rather
inconsistently, opting here for the shorter dim.
symbol.
150 Vni II, Vle, Vc A: differing dynamics for these
parts: p for Vni II and Vle, pp for Vc. I-Mr
(→ R I1875) follows A, while RI1913 modified Vc
to p. Given the “sempre pianissimo” GV wrote
beneath Cb at 151, we opt for pp (see also Note
151).
151 Orch A: lacunae in the dynamics: pp for Cor
III–IV (151/1st) and Fl (151/3rd), and “sempre
pianissimo” beneath Cb, which could be inter-
preted as a global indication. I-Mr = A; RI1875
(→ R I1913) has an additional pp for Ob and Cor
I–II. Confirmation of the general pp is found at
152 for Ms and B.
151 Vni II A: the slur extends to the last note of the
bar; we adjust to match 153.
151–154 Voices A: GV systematically wrote “fac eis”
rather than the correct “fac eas” (see also Note
160–161).
151/3rd–152/1st Fl A: missing accent for the  and tie
between the two ; we supply both in vertical
conformity with the unison Cl. There is, how-
ever, a slur between the  and  at 151, which
we suppress as isolated without confirmation
either in Cl here or at 153.
151/4th Vni II A: caret missing; we supply from the
identical 153.
152/2nd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply from the
identical 154.
152/3rd–4th T A: faint evidence of a probable partial slur
above the f’ and e!’; we supply from the identi-
cal 154.
153/3rd Fl, Cl A: accent missing; we supply from the
identical 151 (Cl) and by analogy with the caret
marked for the unison Vni I.
153/4th Vle A: caret missing; we supply from the iden-
tical 151.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
154 Vni I A: slurs missing; we supply from the
identical 152.
154 Vc A: isolated cresc. symbol; we suppress.
155 Cor III–IV A: isolated p in a general pp con-
text; we suppress, supported by I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913).
156–159 Ms A: text missing; our integration is support-
ed by rRIms and RI1875. I-Mr incorrectly set the
syllable “[mor]-te” beneath the first  at 157.
156/1st–2nd Vni II A: slur missing.
156/3rd–157/2nd S A: GV marked the slur with two pen
strokes but their union into one continuous
phrase seems self-evident, as is supported by
the analogous phrase for Vni II. None of the
sources correctly construed the composer’s
intentions.
157 Vc, Cb A: in both parts the slur begins on 2nd;
we adjust for vertical conformity with Fg.
157/2nd T, B A: the staccati for B beneath the slur are
not entirely certain, due to corrections GV
made while the ink was still fresh; nonethe-
less both I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) and rRIms
(→ rRI1874) agree with our interpretation.
Analogously, we suggest the same articulation
be extended to T as well.
159 Fl, Cor I–II A: a second, superfluous “Solo” for
these parts; we suppress.
160 B A: “sottovoce” alone, which was omitted in
I-Mr and rRIms (→ rRI1874) but reinstated in
RI1875; RI1913 has the complete instruction (“sot-
tovoce parlando”).
160–161 Voices A: “fac eis” rather than “fac eas” (see
also Note 151–154). I-Mr repeats GV’s error;
rRIms and RI1875 correct it.
162 T A: staccati and slur missing for the three ;
we supply in vertical conformity with S and
Ms.
•163 –171/1st Voices A: GV meticulously marked the f for
each vocal entrance in this reprise, almost as if
the tone of the text were intended to vindicate
the previous statement at 89ff; even the carets
at 163/4th (B), 165/4th (T), 167/4th (accents for T
and Ms), and 169/4th (S) are carefully notated.
Consequently his systematic omission of stacca-
ti and slurs (with the exception of the one slur
at 164 –165/1st [= 90 – 91/1st]) – notwithstand-
ing a general tendency to supply articulation
and phrasing for reprised passages in a more
summary, lacunose, and approximate manner
– actually seems to suggest a different, more
suitable interpretation of this iteration. Indeed,
certain notational nuances for the voice become
scarcely plausible in an f dynamic context: such
as the slurred staccati, which are much more
effective when sung more softly (a factor that
does not influence the instrumental parts; see
Note 164 –185). Therefore, although not without
55
 some reservation, we preserve the reading of
A, only extending the slur at 164 –165/1st (B) to
the analogous 166 –167/1st (T), 168 –169/1st (Ms),
and 170 –171/1st (S). I-Mr and RI1875 follow A
with an occasional omission; RI1913 adopted f
along with the phrasing and articulation from
89ff; rRIms accepted only the f at 163, other-
wise straying (rather unusually) from A with
a somewhat careless regard for phrasing and
articulation that generated inconsistencies in
rRI1874.
164 –166 Vc A (→ I-Mr → R I1875 → R I1913): one sin-
gle slur, rather than one for each pair of  as
at 90 – 92 (see also Note 164 –185 below); we
consider GV’s notation of the Vc and Cb parts
in this reprise of 90 –111 to serve as more of a
general guide, and therefore extend the model
of 90 – 92 here.
164 –185 A: using numbers from 1 to 22, GV marked
this passage as the reprise of 90 –111 with only
the voices, Vc, and Cb written out in full. Here,
however, the f he wrote for each vocal entrance
(see Note 163 –171/1st) implies an adjustment
of the orchestral dynamic as well, which was
p at 89 (Fg) and unspecified at 163. We there-
fore extend the f for the voices to the instru-
ments. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) wrote out the
orchestral parts at 164 –185 but left the dynamic
imbalance unresolved. Both I-Mr and rRIms
have mf at 176, by analogy with the mf in A at
102; we suggest its anticipation to 171 (as at 97).
At 181/2nd–185/1st the slurs for Vc and Cb
(from 182 Vc = Cb) are missing (as might be
expected, since the notation of the bass parts
in a reprise serve primarily as a guide and
are therefore less detailed); at the correspond-
ing 107/2nd–111/1st there are partial slurs
at 107–108, but in any case they may be ex-
trapolated from the unison Fg parts (see Note
97/2nd–102/1st, 102/2nd–107/1st, 107/2nd–111).
We provide an exact reprise of 107/2nd–111/1st
for the instruments here, including Vc–Cb.
165/4th B, 169/4th Ms A: caret missing; we supply from
the corresponding 91 and 95.
167/4th Ms A: accent rather than caret.
168 B A: slur on 2nd–4th; we modify to match the
corresponsing 94.
172 S A: GV erroneously set the two syllables of
“olim” on 1st and 3rd while completely ne-
glecting to set “Abra-[hae]”, even though the
last syllable of the name duly appears on the
downbeat of 173, following a page turn. What
seem to be the outer fragments of an interrupt-
ed slur over the four  at 172 are probably the
result of a single pen stroke. Indeed, I-Mr ex-
tends the beginning of the slur back to 171/2nd;
rRIms (→ rRI1874), on the other hand, has only
56
one shorter slur, over 172/1st–2nd (also at 98).
In any case, were the fragments two hypotheti-
cal slurs, they would only apply to the incor-
rect setting of the text.
173/3rd–4th S A: staccati and a slur; we suppress to
match the corresponding 99.
175/2nd S, 180/2nd T: for the suggested accents, see
Note 101.
184/4th S: for the suggested accent, see Note 110/4th.
•185/3rd– 4th S RI1913: in this source (and all successive
editions) the two  were corrected to conform
vertically with the   of Ott, Fl, Ob I, Cl I,
and Vni I. However, I-Mr (→ R I1875) and rRIms
(→ rRI1874) maintain the difference, evidently
deliberately since (unlike A) the instruments
were copied out in full for the reprise (185=111).
In A the part for S here and in the previous
bars was written with considerable attention
to detail (and no sign of uncertainty or second
thoughts; even more, right at the beginning of
186 GV stopped to correct the dynamics for the
voices; see Note 186). Thus there is no reason to
believe that the two  for S were a mistake, but
we cannot know whether GV’s failure to bring
the orchestral parts into conformity with S was
an oversight. Because the divergence is entirely
plausible, we preserve it.
186 A: all four voices were originally ff, then me-
ticulously corrected to f. Despite the unequivo-
cal nature of GV’s change in A, I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) and rRIms (→ rRI1874) curiously main-
tain ff. We accept the differentiation between
dynamic levels for the voices and the orchestra,
bringing the f GV wrote between Trbn and Of
and the fff for Cb into vertical conformity with
the general orchestral ff, and supplying the
missing dynamic for Timp.
186, 188 Vni, Vle A: inconsistent phrasing and articula-
tion; the complete model is found at 187.
191 Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Ott, Fl, and Ob.
191, 193 S, Ms A: at 191 S and Ms both have an ad-
ditional slur above the last two ; at 193 S has
one four-note slur while Ms has one above
the last two , apparently to guarantee a cor-
rect enunciation of the text (that is, the dialefe
“[Abra-]hae et”). We accept this latter sug-
gestion, omitting the shorter slurs at 191 but
replacing the longer slur for S at 193 with two
shorter ones.
193 Fl, Cl A: slurs missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Ott and Ob, and by analogy
with 191.
•194 Trbn, Of, Timp A: the dynamics that GV wrote
between the staves for Trbn and Of (pp) and
beneath Timp (ppp) may seem dispropor-
tionately low with respect to the general ff
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 established at 186; but it would be precipitate
to dismiss them as an egregious error if in fact
he wanted the contribution of these instru-
ments to function in terms of background color
and emerge only toward the end of the dim.
for the other winds. Though perhaps a single
p would have been sufficient, evidently the
desired effect was particularly dear to him. We 206–207
therefore preserve his “excess” of notational
prudence in the conviction that it may prove
useful for modern orchestras as well. Among
the secondary sources, pUS-Cso also faithfully
follows A; I-Mr (→ R I1875) took the Timp ppp
as the model for Trbn and Of, which possibly
influenced RI1913 to extend ppp to the remain- •208
ing winds; RI1964 anticipated the p from 195
instead.
194–195/1st Fl I, Fg II, Trbn II A: ties missing, an obvious
oversight. •210 –211
198 A, I-Mr: no tempo indication; rRIms, RI1875, and
all printed sources have “Come prima”.
200ff Vle A: “sulla 4a corda” is intended to mean “on
the fourth string alone”, since only the b! and
a! could be played on the third string.
200–205 Voices (Ms = S) A: divergent phrasing with
slurs sometimes broken into two pen strokes, •219
one per bar; nevertheless there are clearly
marked two-bar slurs that indisputably con-
firm GV’s intentions, further corroborated by
Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle, and Ob (Cl have a
broken slur at 200–201). The notational ambi-
guity in A generated similar incongruencies 219–221
in rRIms (→ rRI1874) and in I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913 with integrations). Of particular note 221–222
in the printed sources is the curious decision to
create one-bar slurs for 200–203 followed by a
single slur for 204–205.
200/4th Ms, T A: carets missing.
204 Winds A: Cl have pp above the stave and N. 4 Sanctus
ppp below, the latter in agreement with the S
strings and voices. This same pp/ppp disparity A, vol. II, pp. (53 – 54 rubric) 55 – 84 (84 empty)
is also found among the lower winds, which
is difficult to justify for parts that are mov-
ing in unison or octaves. It is true that only E
Of can obtain a ppp in that register, while for
Violini
Fg II and IV a ppp on B  1 would be extremely
arduous. Yet Trbn I–III also have pp despite [Viole]
the fact that they could easily play ppp (even 2. Flauti
by reducing their sounding number to I or I–II Ottavino
on the B). I-Mr (→ R I1875) opted for a verti-
2. Oboe
cally uniform ppp; RI1913 did likewise, adding
however an unnecessary dim. symbol.
2 Clarinetti / in Si!
•204 –205 Timp A: these empty bars immediately follow
a page turn. While it is possible that GV simply
Corni
forgot to continue the roll from the previous
page, it is also highly plausible that its inter-
4. Trombe / in Do
ruption was intentional, given the diminish-
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
ing dynamic level. We therefore preserve the
reading of A without alteration, as do I-Mr and
pUS-Cso. RI1875 continued the roll, concluding
it with the same rhythmic disposition as Fg,
Trbn, and Of; RI1913 followed RI1875 but ne-
glected to add the cuts to the stems of the two
notes.
Strings A: GV wrote the full dynamic indica-
tion “pp morendo” for Cb alone; Vni I have
only “morendo”, but his intentions are indis-
putably clear. RI1875 = ppp for Vni I; RI1913 = ppp
for all strings; RI1964 = pp.
Staccati missing for Cb; we supply in vertical
conformity with the upper string.
S I-Mr, rRIms: both sources confused a line
GV added beneath “legato e dolcissimo” for a
slur, transmitting this error to the printed edi-
tions.
A: the cresc.-dim. symbols only beneath B
alone, while the slurs are marked for Ms
alone. I-Mr, rRIms, and rRI1875 dutifully fol-
low A; RI1875 (→ R I1913) extended the dynamic
symbols to all of the voices, including S. rRIms
also misread the “f” of “fac” as the dynamic f,
transmitting the error to rRI1874 .
Strings RI1875 (→ R I1913): ppp for all string
parts. We maintain GV’s pppp for Cb, which
ensures a dynamic balance with the muted
(“con sordini”) pp of the other strings, par-
ticularly Vc moving homorhythmically at the
upper octave.
Cb A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Vc.
Vle A: tie missing, an obvious oversight (al-
ready corrected in I-Mr).
[I]
[II]
1.
2.
1.
2.
[2] in Fa
[2] in Do
[I–II]
[III–IV]
57
 [I–II]
4. Fagotti
[III–IV]
[3] Tromboni
Oficleide
Timpani
[Soprani]
[Contralti]
1: Coro
[Tenori]
[Bassi]
[Soprani]
[Contralti]
2.do Coro
[Tenori]
[Bassi]
Violoncelli
Bassi
T 17 for Fg I and Cor I, and from the  on 21/2nd
On p. 55 GV wrote “Sanctus” in the top center margin, and
“n.° 4 / G. Verdi / 1874” to the right of it.
C N
7–8/1st Fl I A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
8 Voices A: punctuation missing. Each successive
entrance of “Sanctus…” begins with a capital
letter, thereby implying a period here (present
only in RI1913), though it perhaps seems ill
suited to the suspended nature of the ca-
dence.
9 –33 Voices A: lacunae and discrepancies in the
phrasing and articulation of this fugal episode;
our model is a composite derived from the
various enunciations of the subject and two
countersubjects. Given GV’s decidedly incon-
sistent and frequently indiscriminate mixture
of accents and carets (significantly, both rRIms
[→ rRI1874] and RI1913 chose to apply accents
throughout), we normalize the articulation
for similarly functioning melodic segments,
adjusting case by case as necessary (see Note
12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32). In the individual critical
notes we will report only the most significant
divergences from our model for phrasing and
articulation.
9 –33/1st Orch A: lacunae, divergences, and incongru-
ences in the phrasing and articulation (for the
articulation see Note 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 and
Note 21/2nd–22). While the passage that moves
progressively through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II
(14 –18), Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) – the only
instrumental contribution to this fugal episode
that was not directly derived from the vocal
lines – was carefully notated, leaving no room
for doubt regarding the composer’s intentions,
there is otherwise a general imprecision in the
phrasing for the instruments, which largely
58
function as vocal support. Presumably GV
orchestrated this episode rather hurriedly, and
the secondary sources are of no assistance
in resolving the various incongruences. We
will therefore begin with a discussion of the
individual obbligato wind parts as a means of
establishing uniform models precisely where
these ambiguities are most evident. Subse-
quently we will address the free string parts,
which largely “migrate” in association with
one or another of the winds.
– Subject of the fugato: For the most part the
main body of the subject is marked with a
generic slur, with the incipit sometimes in-
cluded, sometimes not (or partially). While the
corresponding vocal parts provide no clues,
GV did indicate a single slur beginning from
for Cor [III] and Vni I. These two statements
(particularly Fg I and Vni I) offer a reasonably
complete and convincingly musical model,
that can be extended to include the decidedly
problematic fourth bar of the subject as well: in
the majority of statements this bar has a single
slur for all four , apparently influenced by
the obbligato strings (Vni I [12], Vni II [16], Vle
[20], Vc [24]) but not the concurrent 2 + 2 slurs in
the vocal parts. Even though 2 + 2 slurs for the
instruments only appear three out of six times,
and always in conjunction with the single
slur, we find them to be the more cogent and
detailed solution, further supported by their
vertical conformity with the vocal parts. For
the fifth and last bar of the subject, we uni-
formly supply the slur from the example GV
marked at 17 for Cl I, and by analogy with the
only vocal example, for S Coro I at 13.
– Countersubject I: GV marked a fairly clear
model for the phrasing at 10 –17 for Ob II, and
its essential features remain the same there-
after (if anything there are lacunae, some of
them significant, such as for Fg II at 18 –25).
Only the first two bars are a source of some
puzzlement: there is a slur beneath the notes
of 10, but also a slur over 10 –11. Subsequent
instrumental iterations do little to dispel the
confusion: Fg IV has the longer slur at 22–23,
but at 26 –27 Ob II has only the one shorter slur
for 26, while at 30 –31 Cl II has a slur for each
bar. We have opted for two single-bar slurs in
conformity with S Coro II at 10 –11 and B Coro
II at 22–23 (S Coro I at 26 –27, and C Coro I at
30 –31, with different text [“Pleni sunt”], tend
to support this decision: at 26 –27 there are two
pen strokes, though perhaps indicating a con-
tinuous slur; at 30 –31 there is only the shorter
slur for 30).
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 – Countersubject II: Here again the first exposi-
tion of this material, for Ob I at 14 –21, is the
most complete and consistent model. While the
length of the first slur for the countersubject is
not clear, GV did carry its conclusion to 21/1st
for Cl I, and it ends precisely at 33/1st for Trb
I. In any case, there is nearly always a slur
in some position over the first three bars of
the second countersubject wherever it occurs.
Because the accents for the fourth and fifth
syncopated bars are amply and clearly marked,
leaving no room for doubt, we have tacitly
supplied them in all enunciations (they are
completely missing only for Cl I at 21–22 and
Fg III at 29 –30). Finally, regarding the antipe-
nultimate and penultimate bars consisting of 1)
four , the first of which is tied to the last note
of the previous bar; and 2) four , the second
and fourth with carets: only once in four state-
ments does 1) appear with a slur for the four
notes (Cl I, 23), which we consequently ignore;
while for 2) we adopt the prevailing single slur
rather than the 2 + 2 slurs marked only for Vni
II at 24 (against a single slur for Cl I) and Fg III
at 32 (against a single slur for Vc).
– Strings: As noted above, the passage mov-
ing progressively through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II
(14 –18), Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) was very
carefully notated and therefore presents no
problems. Otherwise the strings variously as-
semble segments of the fugato into a continu-
ous linear configuration (which also influences
to some degree the choice of dynamics: see be-
low). Phrasing and articulation for the strings
therefore follow, where logically applicable, the
models provided by the concurrent wind parts.
– Dynamics: GV sparsely supplied three differ-
ent dynamics: mf for the subject (only once, at
9 for S Coro I) and p for the first countersubject
(at 10 for S Coro II and Ob II), plus pp for the
secondary string figuration (Vle at 18 and Vc at
22). Since the strings function in terms of inter-
connective support – even the repeated pro-
gression through Vni I (10 –14), Vni II (14 –18),
Vle (18 –22), and Vc (22–26) is fundamentally
an embellished variant of the first part of
the first countersubject – it makes sense that
they should remain more in the background,
as a kind of contrapuntal “safety net”. In the
absence of additional evidence, we adopt pp as
the base dynamic for the strings, leaving the
interpreter free to bring out particular seg-
ments of the ongoing interchange as desired
(especially where the strings have a complete
statement of the subject: Vni I at 21–25, Vni II at
25 –29, and Vle at 29 –33).
For the winds, we propose the same two dy-
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
namic levels GV marked in the vocal parts for
the subject (mf) and the first countersubject (p,
further supported by the aforementioned p he
wrote at 10 for Ob II).
At 26 (Ott and Ob I) and at 30 (Fl and Cl I),
where the embellished variant of the first
countersubject moves from the strings to the
winds, we similarly maintain the original pp
(both the register and choice of instruments
guarantee that even at that dynamic level it
will be sufficiently perceptible within the gen-
eral symphonic-choral context).
In the following critical notes we will report
only the most significant divergences from our
model.
9, 10 S Coro I, S Coro II A: the dynamics GV marked
at the beginning of the fugato for S Coro I
(mf) and S Coro II (p) do not appear again for
subsequent entrances of the subject and first
countersubject. Nevertheless his intentions are
clear.
9 –13/1st Ob I A: GV used two pen strokes for the slur:
the first begins at 9/3rd and reaches to the end
of 10, while the second begins at 11/1st and
ends at 13/1st; we adjust to match the model
established in Note 9 –33/1st (see the section
“Subject of the fugato”).
•11 Vni I, 27 Ob I, 31 Fl A: slur for the first two eighth
notes; rRIms (→ rRI1874) omits in all three in-
stances. I-Mr preserves it at 11 and 31 (but not
at 27, where Ob I = Ott), RI1875 only at 11. RI1913
has the slur at 11 without the first two staccati
and extends this solution to the analogous 15
(Vni II), 19 (Vle), and 23 (Vc), but not 27 (Ott,
Ob I) or 31 (Fl). Instead RI1964 extends it to 27
and 31 as well, transmitting this version to the
relative extracted parts. While perhaps worthy
of consideration as a logical alternative read-
ing, it remains extraneous to this edition.
12 S Coro II A: an additional slur over the entire
bar, which we suppress.
12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32 A: inconsistently marked accents and
carets on 2nd and 4th (see Note 9–33 Voices),
differing from our models for the subject (car-
ets), first countersubject (accents), and second
countersubject (carets) as follows:
– 12: accents for S Coro I (subject) and Ob I
(subject) (perhaps originally carets); carets for
Vni I (first countersubject);
– 16: accent on 2nd for Cl I (subject) and caret
on 4th for Cl II (first countersubject); carets for
Vni II (variant first countersubject);
– 20: caret on 4th for T Coro II (first counter-
subject) (Vle [variant first countersubject] per-
haps originally had carets corrected to accents),
otherwise in conformity with our models,
clearly confirmed by Fg I ([subject] carets) and
59
 Fg II ([first countersubject] accents), both of
which were notated on the same stave);
– 24: various lacunae but otherwise in con-
formity with our models;
– 28: carets for S Coro I (first countersubject);
accents for Vni II (subject) and Vle (second
countersubject);
– 32: accents for Trb III (subject), Fg III (second
countersubject), and Vle (subject).
13ff Voices MI1874: the exclamation mark after “Sa-
baoth”, which GV added from time to time in
A, is not present.
13 –16 Cl I A: the longer slur begins from 14, follow-
ing a page turn; RI1875 maintain this reading,
while I-Mr and RI1913 initiates the slur at 13.
At 16 there is one slur for the four , which we
modify in conformity with the model estab-
lished in Note 9 –33/1st (see “Subject of the
fugato”).
14 Vni II A: only “staccate”; we modify to match
the “leggere and staccate” GV wrote for Vni I
at 10.
17/1st Ob I A: the slur does not end here but rather
extends to 18/1st; I-Mr and RI1913 concludes it
at 17/2nd. We adjust in conformity with the
model established in Note 9 –33/1st (see “Coun-
tersubject II”).
17/2nd–18 Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the unison Ob I (see also Note
21/2nd–22).
18 Vle A: “leggere e staccate” is not present; we
supply by analogy with GV’s instruction for
Vni I at 10.
19–20 Cor I A: the slur at 19 extends into 20, while
the slurs and articulation in 20 are missing; we
adjust in vertical conformity with Fg I (see also
Note 9–33/1st, “Subject of the fugato”).
19/3rd–4th T Coro I A: isolated slur for the two , al-
ready suppressed in I-Mr and rRIms.
21–25 Cor [III] A: the part has single stems but no
“solo” indication; in pUS-Cso Cor IV does not
play.
21–24 Fg III, Cor [III] A: divergent and incongruent
slurs between the two equivalent parts; we
modify in conformity with the model estab-
lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Subject of the
fugato”).
21/2nd–22 Cl I, Vni II, 29/2nd–30 Fg III, Vc A: accents
missing; we supply by analogy with Fg I
at 25/2nd–26, which in turn follows Ob I at
17/2nd–18 (where however the accent on 18/4th
is missing).
21/3rd–4th Vni I A: isolated staccati for the two ; we
suppress, as do all of the examined secondary
sources.
22 Vc A: only “staccate”; we modify to match the
“leggere and staccate” GV wrote for Vni I at 10.
60
22–23 Fg IV A: one single slur; we adjust in conform-
ity with the model established in Note 9–33/1st
(see “Countersubject I”).
23 Cl I A: isolated slur for the four ; we suppress
in conformity with the model established in
Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject II”).
23/4th T Coro I A: b . GV originally wrote a (sound-
ing) B or an E in all corresponding passages
of the fugato (15/4th, 19/4th, 23/4th, 27/4th, and
31/4th), subsequently correcting each of the rel-
ative vocal and instrumental parts but this one
to a G or C (including the g for Fg I here). The
oversight was transmitted to I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913 → RI1964) and rRIms (→ rRI1874).
•23/4th Vc A: isolated caret; we suppress. In addition,
the slur begins on the downbeat of 24 follow-
ing a page turn; we modify in conformity with
Vni II at 15/4th–16 and the analogous Vni I
at 11/4th–12 and Vle at 19/4th–20. RI1913 chose
instead to limit these slurs to the four  of 12,
16, 20, and 24; RI1964 follows the reading of A.
24 C Coro I A: a single slur for the four  and no
carets, reflected in the examined secondary
sources as well; we adjust in conformity with
the analogous S Coro I at 20, T Coro I at 28,
and B Coro I at 32.
24 Vni II A: two slurs, one for each pair of ; we
adjust in conformity with the model estab-
lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject
II”).
24/1st T Coro I A: “et” missing, an obvious oversight.
24/2nd Fg I, 28/2nd Fg III, Vni I A: accent missing; we
supply in conformity with the analogous Ob I
at 16 and Cl I at 20.
25/2nd–26 Vle A: accents missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the unison Fg I (see also Note
21/2nd–22).
26–29/1st Fg III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vni I.
27–28 Trb I A: slur for these bars only; we adjust in
accordance with the model established in Note
9 –33/1st (see “Subject of the fugato”).
28/2nd Fg III, Vni I A: accent missing; we supply by
analogy with the similar 20 (Cl I).
29–31 Trb III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vle, as per the model estab-
lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Subject of the
fugato”).
31–32/1st Ob II A: slur missing; we supply in accordance
with the model established in Note 9–33/1st
(see “Countersubject I”).
32 Fg III A: two slurs, one for each pair of ; we
adjust in accordance with the model estab-
lished in Note 9–33/1st (see “Countersubject
II”).
32/3rd Fg IV A: accent missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Cor III–IV.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
32/4th–33 Orch A: missing and divergent dynamics: at
32/4th, f for Fg I–II and Vni I; at 33/1st, ff for
Cb and Vni I (written next the f of 32/4th); at
33/3rd, f for Cor I–II and Of, ff for Timp; and at
33/4th, f for Trb I. RI1913 chose to differentiate
by applying ff to the strings and f to the winds
and Timp. We opt for a uniform ff, in balanced
rapport with the ff for the voices.
33/3rd–40 Fg, Cor A: accents missing, with the exception
of Fg III–IV at 33/3rd–4th and 37/3rd–4th; we
supply all others in vertical conformity with
Trbn and Of.
33/4th S Coro II A: ff missing, but GV’s intentions are
clear.
34/1st S Coro II A: accent missing; we supply in con-
formity with the previous (T Coro II at 33) and
subsequent analogous statements (e.g., C Coro
II at 35 and T Coro I at 37).
34/3rd–35/1st, 35/3rd–36/1st Ott (Fl II = Ott), Ob II, Cl
II A: slurs missing, but the phrasing for this
polyphonic passage is clear and complete in
the concurrent exchange between Vni I and II.
35 Ott (Fl II = Ott), Ob, Cl A: accents missing on
2nd (Ott, Ob II, Cl II) and 4th (Ob I, Cl I); we
supply in vertical conformity with Vni II on
2nd and Vni I (Fl I = Vni I) on 4th.
35/4th–36/1st Ob I, Cl I A: tie missing; we supply in ver-
tical conformity with Vni I (Fl I = Vni I).
36, 40 Trb II–IV A: accents missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Trbn and Of.
37/1st Fl I–II A: only c’’’; but given that Fl II = Ott
from 34/3rd, we suggest resolving the b!’’ from
36/4th in like manner, therefore to a’’ instead.
I-Mr follows A, while pUS-Cso and RI1875
make the same correction.
37/1st Of A: isolated accent; we suppress.
37/3rd– 4th T and B Coro I A: accents missing; we supply
to match T and B Coro II at 33.
37/3rd–39 Orch A: missing slurs and accents; we supply
to match 33/3rd–35.
38–39 Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni I A: accents missing (also
absent in the examined secondary sources); we
supply to match 34–35.
38/4th C Coro I A: ff missing, but GV’s intentions are
clear.
39/1st C Coro I A: accent missing; we supply to match
C Coro II at 35.
41 Ob I A: the slur begins only after the  (as it
does for S Coro II: see Note 41– 44).
41– 44 S Coro II A:
 the new forte dynamic. Only two accents
          
 
  
   
 



    


I-Mr and rRI (→ rRI ) follow A (see also
ms 1874
Note 41–55). This is another of various exam-
ples (both vocal and instrumental) where GV
seems to have traced the slur in an approxi-
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
mate manner, generically indicating the legato
execution of a phrase. If its actual limits were
to be rigidly respected, one would have to
begin the slur after the first note of 41 ( ) and
conclude it between the two syllables of “ve-
nit” (43); RI1875 (→ R I1913) only partially rectifies
this problem by prolonging the slur to 43/3rd.
We prefer to support the natural enunciation of
the text by means of one all-inclusive slur up
to the tonic accent on “no-[mine]”, in vertical
conformity with the slur for Ob I.
41–55 Voices, Winds A: few slurs are present, perhaps
because GV intended the ones he marked at
41– 44 for S Coro II and Ob I as models for all
similar passages of this imitative episode (I-Mr
and rRIms [→ rRI1874] ignore the suggestion
but RI1875 [→ R I1913] applies them throughout).
Nevertheless the two examples at 41– 44 are
not entirely in agreement with one another.
We propose a coherent model (see Note 41– 44),
extending it to C Coro II and Cl II at 45 – 48 and
using it as a template for all similar phrases
while preserving and interpreting the few
original examples GV marked in A (for exam-
ple, S Coro I at 44 and 45 – 47).
45–46 S Coro II A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
45–48 C Coro II A: slur missing; we supply to match
our previous solution for S Coro II (see Note
41–44).
45 – 48 Cl II A: the slur only includes the three ;
we modify to match Ob I at 41– 44 (see Note
41–55).
45/1st Cl II, 46/1st Fg I A: accents; we suppress, for rea-
sons explained in Note 50 – 54 below.
46 Fg I A: the slur only begins from the follow-
ing bar; we modify by analogy with the model
established in Note 41–55.
47–53 Vni I, Vle A: scattered staccati appear in
passages marked “pizz.” (which was perhaps
added later); we suppress them as incompat-
ible. I-Mr (→ R I1875) follows A, but they are
already absent in RI1913.
49 – 51/3rd S Coro I A: the slur is marked generically, from
49/4th to 51/1st; we modify by analogy with the
model established in Note 41–55.
49/1st Vni II A: staccati rather than a slur.
50 – 54 A: a scattered handful of accents seems to be
the evidence of a certain indecision, which is
clarified immediately after when the head of
the subject is accented in concomitance with

appear in the vocal parts, at 50/1st (C Coro I)
and 53/4th (C Coro II), both of which are not
present in rRIms (→ rRI1874). For the instru-
ments they appear a bit more frequently: at
50/1st, 3rd, 4th (Ob II), at 52/1st (Ob I), and at
54/1st (Fg [III]). I-Mr has only the one at 54/1st
61
 (and no vocal accents), RI1875 omits the ones at
50/1st (Ob II), 53/4th (C Coro II), and 54/1st (Fg
[III]). RI1913 omits them altogether, and RI1964
strangely reports only those at 50/3rd– 4th (Ob
II). Though not without some reservation, our
preference is to suppress these accents, with
the understanding that they can be reinstated
and properly extended by the performer if so
desired.
57–58 A: divergent dynamics. Clearly GV intended
to differentiate between the dynamic for Ott,
Fl, Ob, Cl, and Vni (f) and that for the instru-
ments carrying the bass line (ff). On the other
hand, it seems strange that he would have
given an f to almost all of the parts, whether
vocal or instrumental, that have the thematic
incipit (only Cor I–II at 57 and Cor III–IV at
58 have ff). We see no reason to maintain this
distinction, modifying the latter to ff as well.
RI1913 does likewise.
•57–58, 61– 63 Timp pUS-Cso: accents (their absence in
59 seems to have been a lapsus). Apparently
the copyist was misled by the fact that in A (as
in I-Mr and probably also in the master copy
of parts from wich was copied pUS-Cso) the
accents for Of are quite close to the notes for
Timp on the stave immediately beneath. RI1913
interpreted them in the same manner.
57/1st–2nd Vni II A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vni I.
57/3rd–4th Trb III–IV A: accents missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with the unison Cor I–II,
and by analogy with 61.
57/3rd–4th Fg I–II A: accents missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with the unison Fg III–IV, Trbn,
and Of.
•58, 62 Cor III–IV, Trb I–II; 59, 63 Fg I, Trbn I A: accents
missing for these bars corresponding to the
incipit “benedi-[ctus]”. While the instruments
need not necessarily follow the same articula-
tion as the voices (for example, RI1913 has no
accents in these parts), there are analogous
accents on 3rd and 4th in A at 57 (Cor I–II)
and 61 (Trb III–IV) (RI1964 also supplies them
on every 3rd and 4th here). The accent on 1st
(present for C Coro II at 57) is consistent with
the accents present for those instruments that
carry the bass line.
58–60, 62–64 Fg, Trbn, Of A: assorted missing accents for
the parts carrying the bass line in these two
equivalent passages (for those accents rela-
tive to the thematic elements, see the previous
Note); GV’s intentions can nonetheless be easily
inferred through direct comparison of the two
passages, allowing us to supply the missing
accents.
•60, 64 Ob I, Cl I, Vni I A: accents occasionally missing
62
on 3rd and 4th: for Vni I (Ott, Fl, Vni II = Vni I)
there is an accent only on 4th in both bars; Ob
I (Ob II = Ob I) and Cl I (Cl II = Cl I) have both
accents at 64 but none at 60. I-Mr follows A
but omits the accents at 64 for Ob I. RI1913 have
only the accents on 4th (for Ott, Fl, Ob, Cl, Vni
I–II) at 60 and 64, omitting those on 3rd.
60, 64 Vle A: 60/1st–2nd is abbreviated as  with a cut
through the stem but only three staccati, and at
the corresponding point in 64 there are no stac-
cati at all; we supply all four repeated eighth
notes with staccati in both bars. Curiously,
RI1875 (→ R I1913) has staccati
at 64 but not at 60.
61/3rd–4th Cor I–II A: accents missing; we supply in ver-
tical conformity with the unison Trb III–IV.
63 Cor III–IV A: accent also on the first , but un-
confirmed either at 59 or by the similar Trb I–II
here; we suppress.
64 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati for the four ; we
replace with accents as at 60 (RI1913 had already
made this same correction).
64/3rd–4th Vle A: accents missing; we supply to match
their presence at 60.
65/1st Ott, Fl II, Ob II, Cl II A: accent missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with the unison
Trb III–IV.
65/1st Fl I A:  also reflected in the secondary sources
(though transposed an octave higher in
pUS-Cso); we modify to  in vertical conform-
ity with Ob I and Cl I.
66 Ob II, Cl II, Trb III–IV A: both accents missing;
we supply in vertical conformity with Ott (Fl II
= Ott).
66 Fg I and III, Trbn I A: accents missing; we sup-
ply in vertical conformity with the unison Trb
I–II.
67–68 Ob II, Trb III A: tie missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Ott (Fl II = Ott) and Cl II.
69 –73 Fg A: GV mistakenly wrote three parts on the
stave for Fg I–II, while on the one for Fg III–IV
he wrote “unis[ono]” followed by the stand-
ard oblique slash used to indicate derivative
content. Our solution is supported by pUS-Cso
and RI1875 (→ R I1913).
70 –71 Vni I A: at 69/3rd– 4th GV wrote  with a cut
through the stem and four staccati above it, but
he marked no articulation for the similarly ab-
breviated  with a cut beneath them at 70 –71;
unlike any of the secondary sources, we sug-
gest the addition of staccati at 70 –71.
72/1st Vle A: the stem of the  has no cut, presumably
an oversight; we supply, supported by RI1875
and RI1913.
72/2nd–74 Winds A: various missing or partial slurs; in
particular, the precise model for Fg, Cor, Trb
III–IV, Trbn, and Of (whose phrasing is very
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 lacunose) is provided by Cb, where the slur
extends from 72/2nd (slicing through three
consecutive accents for the  on 2nd–4th,
evidently cancelling them in the process) to the
d! at 73. We therefore adopt this slur without
typographical distinction as clearly representa-
tive of GV’s general intentions.
73 Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), Cb (Vc = Cb) A:
dim. symbol for Fg I–II, accent for Cb (RI1875
follows A); we replace the dim. symbol for Fg
I–II with an accent in vertical conformity with
Cb (Vc = Cb) and extend to Trbn and Of, sup-
ported by RI1964. RI1913 ignores both symbols in
A.
73/3rd– 4th Vle A: at 73 the notation for Vle is analogous
to that for Vni I at 69, but without the staccati
at 3rd–4th; no source adds them.
74 C Coro I, C Coro II A: following a page turn
GV mistakenly wrote “[benedi]-ctus” (“-tus”
for C Coro II), rather than “[Domi]-ni”; the
correct syllable is already present in I-Mr and
rRIms.
74/1st Cb (Vc = Cb) A: d!’ following a page turn
(72/2nd–73 were originally written an octave
higher); I-Mr and RI1875 follows A, but in RI1913
GV’s oversight was already corrected.
•75 Trbn, Of RI1875: empty bar; in RI1913 Ã rather
than  Â , corrected in RI1964.
75 Of A: isolated accent; we suppress.
76 B Coro II RI1913: pp; we preserve the p in A
(idem I-Mr) as reflecting GV’s plausible inten-
tion that the part for B Coro II part be more
distinctly heard than the other voices.
76 Cor [IV], 77 Ob I A: p missing; we supply in agree-
ment with the p for Cor I and Fl I at 75.
76 Vni II, Vle A: p missing.
76–79 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: slur missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg
I–II).
79 B Coro I A: p (written in the left margin beside
this first measure on the page); we modify in
vertical conformity with the pp for the other
parts of Coro I.
79 Cl A: GV wrote “es[pressivo]” only above Cl I.
79 – 85, 87– 93 Cl I, II A: differently marked slurs between
Cl I and II in these two passages. For Cl I GV
used two pen strokes in each passage, clearly
meant to be one continuous slur (at 87– 93 the
interruption occurs over a change of page
between 88 and 89, from a verso to a recto).
For Cl II he marked only the first part of each
slur, which however exactly corresponds to
the length of the first pen stroke for Cl I. We
therefore complete the slurs for Cl II in verti-
cal conformity with Cl I. None of the exam-
ined secondary sources suggests a convincing
solution: in particular, all of them (including
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
RI1913 and RI1964) have two slurs for the second
passage, reflecting the page break between 88
and 89 in A.
82–83 T Coro II A: GV, apparently in a moment of
distraction, marked the tie but then wiped it
away.
82–83 Cor I, 83–84 Cor II A: ties missing; we supply
both, with reference to the example of T Coro I
for Cor I.
85 Fg I–II A: superfluous p; we suppress.
87– 93, 103 –109 S Coro I A: the slur for the first of these
two equivalent melodic passages begins only
from 89, the first bar of a recto (a gap between
88 and 89 in the slur for Cl I was caused by
this same change of page; see Note 79 – 85,
87– 93). Analogously, at 103 –109 (see also the
relative Note below) the slur for S Coro I
begins from 104, this time the first bar on a
verso. When compared to the previous example
at 79ff, where the slur begins from the first bar
of the passage, it seems clear that GV intended
these slurs to begin from the first bar as well.
None of the examined secondary sources sup-
plies a coherent solution.
88–91 Cor I–II A: ties missing; we supply by analogy
with the similar (though not equivalent) 80–84,
as well as T Coro II here.
89/1st–2nd Vni I A: staccati missing.
91–92 Cor [III] A: accents rather than carets; we
modify by analogy with 83–84 (Cor [III] dou-
bles T Coro I at both 83–84 and 91–92, and the
carets are also vertically supported by Cl I and
S Coro I).
93–95 S and B Coro II, Ob, Fg A: the slurs begin from
94, the first bar following a page turn (recto to
verso); we begin them at 93 by analogy with
other similar phrases (such as 97–99).
96–97 Cor IV A: tie missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Cor II, where it is faint but
unequivocal (even so, all of the examined sec-
ondary sources ignore it but pUS-Cso, which
however did not extend it to Cor IV).
96/4th Vc A: accent missing; we supply to match its
presence at 100. RI1913 has neither accent, while
RI1964 has both.
100–101/1st Vc A: the slur extends to the first eighth note
of 101, which has no staccato; we adjust the
slur to match 96 and supply the missing stac-
cato at 101/1st.
103 Coro I A: “espressivo” appears for only S and C.
103 Ott A: the bar was originally empty with the f’’
added later in pencil, perhaps in another hand.
I-Mr misinterpreted the situation by supplying
a à here and even at 104; pUS-Cso and RI1875
(→ R I1913) integrated correctly.
103–104 Fg II–IV, Cor III A: ties missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cor I–II.
63
103 –109 Winds A: lacunose and divergent indications
for the slurs, which GV began only from 104
following a page turn (recto to verso), or other-
wise completely omitted with the exception
of Ob I, whose slur actually begins at 103 but
disappears thereafter (it should be remembered
that 103 was originally an empty bar for Ott;
see the relative Note). Since his intentions seem
sufficiently clear, we uniformly extend and
otherwise supply all relevant slurs beginning
from 103.
Analogous problems arise at 109, the first bar
of a recto, where GV neglected to conclude
those few slurs he had marked on the previ-
ous page (for Ob II and Cl I; the slur for Ott
concludes properly at 108). Here too, however,
there is little doubt that GV intended the
slur to reach to the last note of the phrase, as
demonstrated by similar examples at 93 for Cl I
and S Coro I.
104–109 B Coro II A: the text is missing, complicated by
the presence of a tie between 104 and 105. I-Mr
simply follows A. We adopt the solution found
in rRIms, supported by the examined secondary
sources.
107–109 T Coro I A: the slur stops abruptly at 107/1st;
we extend its conclusion to coincide with the
end of the phrase at 109.
113 Fg, Cor A: pp missing; we supply by analogy
with Ob I and Cl I at 111.
113 Vle, 115 Cb A: “arco” missing but indispensable.
113/1st Vni II A: a’; we suggest f’ for proper harmonic
support and by analogy with Vle at 115/1st. All
of the examined secondary sources but I-Mr
do likewise.
•115 –116 A: missing and divergent dynamics. Despite a
prevalence of f, GV distinctly marked ff above
Vni I (a particularly “authoritative” position
at the top of the system), between Ob I and II,
and for S Coro I (presumably valid for all of
Coro I). We therefore suggest ff for all thematic
elements (with the exception of Cor, where GV
meticulously marked an f for both pairs of in-
struments) and f for the bass line. I-Mr ignored
GV’s f for Ott, Fl, and Vni II; RI1875 ignored f
for Cor and Cb (Vc = Cb). RI1913 has f for Ott,
Fl, Ob, and Cl against ff for Vni (otherwise in
agreement with this edition).
115/1st Vle A: ; we modify to   in vertical conformi-
ty with Fg I and Cor I and by analogy with 113/
1st, supported by rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913.
116 –119 T Coro I A: missing accents; we supply in con-
formity with S Coro I.
119/3rd–122 A: accents only for S Coro II (all ), for Fg
and Cor (119/3rd–120), and for Vle and Vc–Cb
(121–122); notwithstanding the various lacunae,
GV’s intentions are clear.
64
123 Vle, Vc–Cb A: f missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg
I–II), who are notated in full at 1st–2nd, then
instructed to proceed “coi Bassi”.
123/3rd–126 Cl, Cor, Vni A: GV marked few accents for
these instruments (only the first three for Vni I
and one for Cor III–IV at 124/1st), probably
meant in this case as shorthand reminders for
their general distribution by analogy with suf-
ficiently marked previous passages; we there-
fore integrate where missing, confirmed by the
single complete model GV marked for Ob I in
this passage.
127 Voices A: there is some discrepancy in the
dynamic markings, further complicated by the
fact that GV’s f and ff are not always distin-
guishable from one another. We adopt ff in
vertical conformity with its nearly unanimous
presence for Orch (the only exceptions are fff
for Vni I [Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave] and
f for Fg I–II [Fg III–IV = Fg I–II]).
127 Ott, Cor I–II, Of A: also “staccate”, which we
suppress as superfluous.
•127–131 Voices A: at 127–128, the last two bars of a recto,
GV began slurs for all voices but C Coro I and
T Coro II (both however with ties); most of
them disappear after the page turn (S and T
Coro I have the slur at 129–131), notwithstand-
ing the unequivocal implication in the way
they are drawn that they should continue to
the end of the phrase. The printed secondary
sources chose instead to remediate with two
separate sets of slurs, one for 127–128 (ties only
for C Coro I and T Coro II) and the other for
129–131.
•127/1st Timp I-Mr: the note (c) is not present, perhaps
because the copyist interpreted its smeared
condition in A as a cancellation; RI1875 and
pUS-Cso preserve it, but not RI1913. If GV had
intended to eliminate the note he would prob-
ably have erased the rests as well, supplying a
à for the bar.
131/1st Vle A: isolated staccato; we suppress.
131/2nd–133 Orch A: many missing accents, particularly
for the syncopated figure in 133, but GV’s
intentions are unmistakably clear.
131/2nd–135 Ott A: from 127/3rd Ott is instructed to
proceed “col 1° V[iolino]”, but here it makes
little sense that GV would have intended the
part to fall in the low register (as confirmed by
the f’’’ he wrote for Ott at 136/1st). I-Mr follows
A; RI1875 (→ R I1913) corrects the reading, but
already pUS-Cso had made the proper adjust-
ment.
134–135 B Coro I A: tie missing, an obvious oversight.
•134–135 Vc, Cb A: GV originally wrote ties for these
parts, but he then smeared them away and
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 marked large accents at 135 instead. I-Mr er- C N
roneously recuperated the ties along with the 1 A: “Soli” above S soloist and below Ms.
accents. RI1875 has only the accents; RI1913 has •1ff Voices A: divergent slurs, both vertically and
neither. We consider the accents to be both horizontally, for the six enunciations of the
intentional and convincing, and extend them to theme, four of them complete (A-B-A’-C) and
the other bass parts (Fg, Of). two partial (A’-C), for which it is not possible
135 A: GV marked only four large fermatas, for S to identify models that would justify such
Coro I, Cl I, Cor I, and Vni I. rRIms(→ rRI1874) breadth of variation. I-Mr generally reflects
and RI1875 misread the one over S Coro I as a the same incongruencies found in A; rRIms and
slur for 134–136/1st and extended it to T Coro I all of the printed sources normalized the slurs
as well (→ R I1913 has slurs at 135 for the instru- vertically but not horizontally. As is often the
mental parts with two notes, without fermatas; case in A, however, these irregularities seem
RI1964 converted them all to standard fermatas likely to have been influenced by either or both
over the ). I-Mr ignored the large fermata for of the following factors: 1) page breaks (the
S Coro I and interpreted the other three for Cl readings in all of the examined sources betray
I, Cor I, and Vni I as slurs. The correct reading interruptions that reflect this factor to some
is found in pUS-Cso. degree); 2) GV’s habit of marking longer slurs
135–136/1st Fg III A: GV wrote a tie; all the examined with multiple pen strokes, complicated by a
secondary sources omit it. general tendency toward imprecision. While
•136 Ott, Fl A: accents missing; we supply in verti- our solution may be viewed as a debatable
cal conformity with Vni I. I-Mr ignored them, compromise, possibly at the expense of GV’s
while RI1913 extended them vertically to all more nuanced intentions, we find the greater
parts. continuity, consistency, and regularity of the
instrumental slurs at 14 –26 to be a reasonably
convincing model: in a piece like this one,
N. 5 Agnus Dei where the thematic repetitions unfold in a tex-
S ture of harmonic and orchestral variation, the
A, vol. II, pp. (85 – 86 rubric) 87–106 (105 –106 empty) instrumental parts were more likely to have
been written after the vocal parts and therefore
enjoyed a more secure and systematic hand.
E Nonetheless we must qualify this editorial
[I] policy with two further considerations:
Violini
[II] a) For S soloist and Ms, the slurs for the first
Viole three phrases (A-B-A’) are largely compatible
2. Flauti with the ones marked for the instruments. In
Ottavino [but actually Fl III for the entire number] fact, after all instances of page-break interrup-
[2] Oboè tions are excluded, there is only one explicit
[2] Clarinetti in Do divergence, at 46 – 49, where the 4 bars of the
[2] in / Fa first phrase (A) are marked 2 + 2 for both S
Corni
[2] in / Do soloist and Ms (in all other cases at least one
2. of these two solo voices has the same slurs we
Fagotti
2. have adopted in this edition). On the other
[empty] hand, there is a greater prevalence of shorter
Soprano slurs for the Coro (particularly at 14 –23, where
Mezzo Soprano one-bar and two-bar slurs alternate and
[Soprani] overlap without any evident logic), more obvi-
[Contralti] ously divergent with respect to the (thematic)
Coro
[Tenori] instrumental slurs. It cannot automatically be
[Bassi] excluded that these shorter slurs for the Coro
Violoncelli were intended to provide them with more
Bassi opportunity to breathe than would have been
At 46 GV notated Fl I, II, and III on staves 4–6 necessary for the solo voices. However, the
strength of this hypothesis is diminished by
the presence of single slurs for S and C Coro
T at 59 – 62/2nd (they stop prematurely at the end
On p. 87 GV wrote “Agnus Dei” in the top center margin of 61 only because of a change of page [verso to
and “n.° 5 / G. Verdi / 1874” to the right of it. recto] between 61 and 62).

© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01 65

 b) The fourth phrase (C) presents some addi-
tional difficulty, apart the conclusive “cadenza
piana” which is always phrased the same way
(with the exception of missing slurs for S and
C Coro at 45). None of the six enunciations of
this phrase (beginning on 3rd at 11, 24, 37, 43,
56, and 62) is complete and/or consistent. We
adopt the models GV marked for S soloist and
Ms at 11/3rd–12 (complete but not entirely con-
sistent: see the relative Note) and at 56/3rd–57
(consistent but not complete: see Note 56/3rd–
57/2nd), which largely conform with the com-
plete and consistent slurs for the instrumental
parts at 24/3rd–25. Specific divergences which
proved to be problematic are discussed in the
following Notes.
1–4 S soloist A: GV almost seems to have intended
separate slurs for each of the four words in
this phrase (although I-Mr interpreted his
three pen strokes at 2–4 as one slur), unlike the
single four-bar slur for Ms. If his desire was in-
deed to mark a slur for each word, however, it
is not confirmed in the two phrases that follow
(see also Note 1ff). rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875
(→ R I1913) opted for a single four-bar slur.
11/3rd–12 Ms A: one single slur, unconfirmed in succes-
sive passages (see Note 1ff, b).
14 Coro, Cb A: pp for C and T Coro, no dynamic
for B Coro and Cb; we opt for a uniform ppp
in vertical conformity with S Coro and all of
the other instruments (the suggested ppp for
Solo Cb is meant to be indicative in terms of
balance and may be adjusted accordingly).
14–26 Coro A: divergent slurs (see Note 1ff).
18–23 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I; Cl = Vni I from 19) A: two
simultaneous sets of divergent slurs for the six
bars: as 3 + 3 (two slurs above the part) and as
2 + 2 + 2 (three slurs beneath the part); Fg I–II
(Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) clearly confirm GV’s inten-
tions.
24/3rd–25 Coro A: divergent and missing slurs: for S Coro
one slur from 24/3rd to the end of the triplet
at 25/3rd; no slur for C Coro; for T Coro a slur
at 24/3rd–4th and one for each pair of eighth
notes at 25/1st and 2nd; for B Coro a slur only
at 24/3rd–4th. No slurs are present at 25/3rd–
4th. We adjust to match the models GV marked
for S soloist and Ms at 11/3rd–12 and 56/3rd–57
(see Note 1ff, b). Slurs for the subsequent choral
iterations of this phrase at 43 and 62 are almost
entirely absent.
•26 C and T Coro A: pp, which however makes no
sense after the pp at 25; we modify to ppp in
vertical conformity with S and B Coro. rRIms
(→ rRI1874) = pp for all voices; RI1875 (→ R I1913)
has no dynamic.
27–30 S soloist, Ms rRI1874: erroneously slurred as 1 + 3
66
bars, reflecting a page break in A between 27
and 28 (change from verso to recto). In rRIms
there is a slur for the two notes of 27 but also
one single slur for the four bars, suggesting a
revision. RI1875 and RI1913 have a single slur.
29/4th, 36/4th Vle A: caret missing at 29/4th, and both
caret and acciaccatura are missing at 36/4th.
The presence of an acciaccatura at 29 would
seem to suggest that GV intended to treat
the Vle part in the same manner as the other
instruments that elsewhere double the voices
(although in this case Vle do so at the sixth/
third). It should not be overlooked, however,
that at 30 Vle continue in parallel motion with
the voices, while at 37 they do not. I-Mr and
RI1875 follow A; RI1913 supplied a caret at 29,
but not the caret and acciaccatura at 36. rRIms
(→ rRI1874) has both, in both bars.
34–37/2nd S soloist A: the four bars are slurred 2 + 2 (see
Note 1ff).
•37 Cl I A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with Fl. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) limited the
slur for both Fl and Cl to the three eighth
notes.
37/1st Vc A, I-Mr, rRIms (→ rRI1874): obligatory ! miss-
ing for the b.
37/3rd–38 S soloist, Ms A: the first slurs for both parts
stop at the end of 37, which is the last bar
before a change of page (verso to recto); we
supply their conclusions at 38 by analogy with
the prevalent phrasing elsewhere for the solo
voices (see Note 1ff, b). At 38/3rd GV marked
the equivalent of a bracket over the triplet “3”
for S soloist, which is the reading found in
rRIms → rRI1874; RI1913 interpreted it as a slur
and extended it to the following note ( ). We
modify and extend to Ms according to the
model established for this phrase in Note 1ff, b.
•39 Ms A: slur missing. I-Mr follows A; rRIms omit-
ted the slur for S soloist and added a curious
accent for both parts on 1st, which reading
was transmitted to all of the examined printed
sources.
39 Cl I A: slur missing.
40–41 Ob II A: tie missing, an oversight that was
already corrected in I-Mr and pUS-Cso.
40 – 42 B Coro A: GV forgot to write the syllable
“do[-na]” beneath the first c at 40.; then, over
the page turn (recto to verso) between 41 and
42, he apparently forgot to add the tie, an
oversight that also affected all of the analogous
instrumental parts but Vc (Cor II and IV, Fg II
and IV, Vle, Cb). Although rRIms and all of
the examined printed sources agree with our
solution, I-Mr (→ R I1875) chose instead to set
“[do]-na” for the  at 41 (despite the tie from
40) and “do-[na]” for the first  at 42; ties were
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 later added in purple pencil for Fg II and IV
and for Cb between 41 and 42.
•41 Fg III A: accent for the b! missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with Cl II, and suggest
extending one to Cor III as well. I-Mr and
pUS-Cso chose instead to omit the accent for
Cl II (as did RI1913).
43/3rd–44/2nd A: no slurs are present for the descend-
ing eighth-note figure (for the voices see Note
43/3rd–45); it would appear that GV only
concerned himself with supplying slurs for
the newer string parts (Vni II, Vc, and Cb),
presuming the thematic elements would be
phrased as in previous examples. We therefore
adopt the model of 24/3rd–25/2nd, and extend
the slurs for the newer string parts to the cor-
responding winds.
43/3rd– 45 S and C Coro A: slur only for S Coro at
44/3rd– 4th; we supply by analogy with 11/3rd–
13 and 56/3rd–57 (S soloist, Ms). See Note 1ff, b.
44/1st Cor II A: the written e’ (= a), which is not pre-
sent in any other part, changes the dominant
seventh chord into a dubious, but not impossi-
ble, ninth chord. We accept it with reservation,
suggesting the eventual substitution of written
d’ (=g) if so desired. I-Mr, pUS-Cso, RI1875, and
RI1913 follow A; in pUS-Cso the e’ (= a) was
later corrected to a written c’ (= f). Although
of no particular significance, the vocal scores
omitted this note.
45 Cl I, Cor II A: slurs missing.
46 Fl A: “dolcissimo” above Fl I, p above Fl II,
and pp beneath Fl III, but the similar nature
of their ornamental lines does not seem to
justify this dynamic differentiation. I-Mr and
RI1875 follow A (with the addition of p beneath
Fl II); the other examined sources normalized
all three parts to p. We find pp to be the more
probable choice, since GV marked p for them
at 59. While we also suggest extending “dolcis-
simo” to Fl II and III, we nonetheless allow for
the possibility that GV intended it specifically
for Fl I as the part that guides the other two
(RI1913 opted for this solution).
46 Fl II A: slur missing, but already integrated in
I-Mr and pUS-Cso.
53 Fl I A: two slurs for the eighth notes (4 + 4)
rather than one; we modify to match 46.
53–56/2nd S soloist, Ms I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913), rRI1874:
53 is slurred independently from the remainder
of the phrase, thanks to a mistaken reading
of A where the break between 53 and 54 was
caused by a change of page (verso to recto). In
rRIms both parts have a slur for 53 but also
one that covers the entire phrase, suggesting a
subsequent revision (which was not however
transmitted to rRI1874).
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
54/1st Fl II A: the second eighth note is c’’, which
produces an unfortunate unison with the
similarly descending Fl III. All of the examined
sources follow A with the exception of rRIms
(→ rRI1874), which corrected it to g’’ as in this
edition, possibly simply by copying the identi-
cal 47.
56/1st–2nd Fl II A: slur missing.
56/3rd–57/2nd Ms A: slur missing (see Note 1ff, b).
58 Fl II and III A: all three slurs missing.
59 Orch RI1913: pp for all instruments. I-Mr has
pp for Vni and Vle, no dynamics otherwise;
rRIms (→ rRI1874) has pp for the right hand (=
Vni) and p for the left hand. We preserve the
differentiated dynamics between Vni and the
remainder of the orchestra as a plausible inter-
pretation of GV’s intentions.
59 – 63 Orch A: despite the absence or partial presence
of many slurs and assorted ties, complicated
by a change of page between 61 and 62 (verso
to recto), those few GV did indicate are suffi-
cient to reconstruct his intentions. With regard
to the thematic elements, there are slurs for
the three Fl parts at 59 – 61 (Ob I = Fl II and III
from 60; Cl I = Ob I) but none at 62/3rd– 63/2nd,
probably a deliberate omission corresponding
to the concomitant staccato-legato for Vni. Ties
are missing between 60 and 61 for Ob II (Cl II
= Ob II), Cor I, and Vle (a’); we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Fg I and Cor IV (GV had
also marked one for T Coro but then erased
it, probably while setting the text). There is a
clearly marked slur for Cor I at 59 – 60 (sound-
ing g’–g’–a’), which we extend vertically to Ob
II, Cl II, Fg I, Cor IV, and Vle; and one for Cb
at 61– 63 (for Fg III–IV only at 61), which we
extend to all other homorhythmic parts. I-Mr
→ RI1875 → RI1913 more or less precisely follow
A, with no attempt at integration.
62 Fl A: GV supplied the breath mark between
2nd and 3rd only for Fl I (as he had for S and
C Coro); we preserve as an all but inevitable
solution, given the length of the phrase, and
extend to Fl II and III. It is not present in I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) and pUS-Cso.
63/3rd Orch A: the differentiated dynamics, p and pp,
seem to refer respectively to those parts that
conclude on this beat and those that continue
playing in support of the voices (Fl, Ob I, and
Cl I, although Fl I has p). We adopt this solu-
tion, which also explains why GV marked pp
for those instruments that enter at 64/2nd.
64/2nd–3rd Ob II, Cl II, Vni II A: slurs missing.
67 Vni II A: slur missing.
71 Orch A: divergent dynamics, p and pp; we opt
for pp in conformity with the voices, whose
dynamics GV very precisely marked 63/3rd.
67
71–73/1st Fg, Cor A: slurs missing (also the ties for Cor order to give Vni I a slightly greater presence
III–IV). within their combined tremolo. We therefore
73 Vni A: “lunga” appears only above Vni I. suggest ppp for Vni I but leave the question of
balance between Vni I and II to the discretion
of the conductor. All of the examined sources
N. 6 [Lux æterna] have pp for both parts.
S 3 Ms A: the first  has what could be interpreted
A, vol. II, pp. (107–108 rubric) 109 –132 as a small caret; it is absent in all of the exam-
ined sources.
•4 – 6 Ms A: the cresc.-dim. symbols are not present;
E we supply them from rRIbozze (see the descrip-
Violini / primi36 tion of this source, p. 4), where their integra-
Violini / secondi tion by the proofreader was undoubtedly an
Viole authorized intervention. The fact that they are
[2] Flauti present in rRIms could mean that they may
Ottavino have been added by comparison (editorial vali-
[2] Oboè dation) with this source (see the description of
[2] Clarinetti in Si! rRIms, pp. 5 – 6), which was probably based on a
[2] in Fa hypothetical complete continuity draft predat-
Corni
[2] in Si! ing A. rRI1874 (→ R I1913) follow rRIms.
[…] 11, 12 Vle, Vc A: pp missing; we extend from 7 (Vni).
Trombe [but with no music in this number] •11–14 Ms A: after marking a cresc. symbol from 11
[…] to 13/3rd, GV originally followed it with a dim.
[I–II] symbol at 14, the first bar following a page
Fagotti
[III–IV] turn (recto to verso). He then rectified this latter
[3] Tromboni symbol by marking cresc.-dim. symbols over it
Oficleide in heavier pen strokes. We interpret the initial
Timpani cresc. at 14 to be the continuation of the one at
[empty] At 43 “Cassa sola scordata” 11–13, as GV had clearly marked for the strings.
[empty] I-Mr (→ R I1875) has only a cresc. symbol at
[empty] 11–12 and nothing at 13–14. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
Mezzo Soprano and RI1913 also interrupted the first cresc. at the
Tenore end of 12, but then adopted cresc.-dim. sym-
Basso bols at 14; RI1964 extended the first cresc. to the
Violoncelli end of 13.
Bassi 16 Fg, Trbn, Of A: no dynamic for Fg I–II, ppp for
Fg III–IV, and pp between the staves for Trbn
and Of; we (like RI1913) uniformly supply pp, as
T at 22.
On p. 109 provided no title, writing only “n.° 6 / G. Verdi” 16–17, 22–23 pf rRIbozze:
in the upper right margin. 

   
 
      

R M
originally


 










70–72 GV marked these bars as the repetition of
67–69, numbering them from 1 to 3 and writing
out only the voices, Vc, and Cb.
C N
•1 Vni A: it cannot be excluded that the dynamics
GV marked for these parts (pp for Vni I, ppp
for Vni II) are intentionally differentiated in
19
36 At the beginning of the piece GV wrote “ Violini divisi a o
a o / I secondi come i primi” above Vni I, and “divisi a o a o”
above Vni II.
In the left margin of the second page, beside
the piano reduction of 15, GV wrote: “mi
piacerebbe di più il Timpano ò Timpani all’8va
sopra ed i Tromboni all’8va sotto… Così…”
(I would like Timp an octave higher and Trbn
an octave lower… Thus…):       
   
(A facsimile of this page was published in The
Mary Flagler Cary Music Collection, New York,
1970, plate V).
T A: p; we modify to pp in vertical conformity
with Ms and the established orchestral dynam-
ic.

68 © 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01

19, 20 T A: slur missing at 19, and at 20 it extends
only to 3rd.
25 T A: mf and dim. symbol missing.
26 T A: slur only for the triplet; we modify in
vertical conformity with Ms.
27– 40 A: the few slurs GV marked for T and B are
generally little more than indicative, while the
ones for Ms are always reasonably clear and
precise. We therefore adopt the model of Ms
and extend the slurs from this part to T and
B where they proceed homorhythmically and
with identical text.
28–29 A: dim. symbol and “dim.” only above Ms,
intended as a general indication.
30 A: p only for Ms.
31/4th Ms A: obligatory ! missing.
38–41 A: cresc.-dim. symbols and “dim.” only above
Ms, intended as general indications.
41–42 T rRIbozze: slur, transmitted to rRI1874 and to
RI1913. This integration by the proofreader
(there is no slur in A) was undoubtedly an au-
thorized intervention. The fact that it is present
in rRIms could mean that it may have been
added by comparison (editorial validation)
with this source (see the description of rRIms,
pp. 5–6).
41/3rd A: there is a dot above the b!’ for Ms, some-
thing GV used upon occasion to call particu-
lar attention to a note; since in this case it is
concurrent with the accent for T, we suggest
extending the accent to Ms and to B as well.
•43 Gr C A: no dynamic is present; we suggest
“forte” in vertical association with Cb (which
was originally marked p, beneath which GV
wrote and firmly underlined “forte”). RI1913
and pUS-Cso have pp, but there is no reason
that Gr C should adopt the general dynamic
rather than Cb’s “forte”, probably more of an
expressive than a dynamic indication meant to
bring out this punctuated gesture against the
orchestral pp background.
44 T A: ppp and slur missing.
•46 Ms, T rRIms: “dolce” for Ms and pp for T were
both replaced with p. This variant was trans-
mitted to rRI1874 and to RI1913; RI1964 restored
the reading of A.
48 T A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Ms.
48–49 Cl A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with Ob.
50 Vni II A: isolated f in a general pp context (ex-
plicitly marked here for Cb); we suppress.
50–51 Vc A: slur missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the unison Cb.
•51 Ms A: the slur could also be read as a cresc.
symbol, which is the reading found in rRIms
(→ rRI1874) and RI1913, but we (like I-Mr) find
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
the slur to be the far more sensible musical
interpretation.
•51 Fl, Ob, Cl, Ms, Vni I I-Mr: no mf is present for
these parts. RI1913 has only an f for Ms. RI1964
restored the reading of A for all but Vni I,
which remained without a dynamic.
52–53 T A: cresc. and dim. symbols missing.
52/4th Cor II A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for any
of the parts that move in analogous fashion;
we (like all of the examined sources) suppress.
60 Vni A: p missing; we extend vertically from
Vle.
62 Vni, Vle A: pp missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vc and Cb.
64 Vni II, Vle A: accents missing.
65 Strings A: GV marked pp between the staves
for Vni I and II; pp also appears in red pencil
(possibly added by the composer) between
Vni II and Vle and again between Vc and Cb.
Given the clarity of his intentions, we extend
pp to all of the strings. I-Mr has no dynamic;
RI1875 (→ R I1913) has p.
67 Cl I A: four slurs, one for each beamed group
of sixteenth notes; we modify in vertical
conformity with Fl (and by analogy with 100,
where both Fl and Cl have two slurs). I-Mr
(→ R I1875) omitted the slurs for Fl; RI1913 ex-
tended the four slurs from Cl I to Fl.
67– 69 (70 –72 = 67– 69) Vle A: it cannot be excluded that
GV added the “pizz.” at 67 some time after he
had already marked the staccati for this pas-
sage, which would explain their presence as
residual evidence of an earlier idea; this would
also explain why he forgot to add “arco” at the
beginning of 73 (where it was entered in pencil
in another hand). However, given the pos-
sibility that the staccati were meant to have a
specific expressive value, we preserve them (as
did all of the examined sources).
67–72 Orch A: GV marked 70 –72 as the repetition of
67– 69; he wrote out the vocal parts, Vc and Cb.
At 67– 69 the only clearly defined cresc. sym-
bols are for Fg, B, and Vc, while the others all
begin and end at different points. We adopt the
models present for Vni I and II for the begin-
ning of the crescendo (with the exception of
Ott and Ob, who enter later) but not for its con-
clusion, given that the symbols for both parts
(like Fl and Cor I–II) continue through the first
half of 69 even though Fg, B, and Vc have dim.
symbols. Consequently we end the crescendo
before the f at the beginning of 69. I-Mr, RI1875,
and RI1913 either follow the reading of A or
contribute further to the confusion; the fact
that none of these sources offers convincing
solutions only underscores the problematic
nature of this passage.
69
69 B A: the slur stops at 69/1st; we extend it to 3rd
as at the corresponding 72.
69/3rd (72 = 69) Ott, Fl A: ; we modify to  in vertical
conformity with the other similar parts.
69/3rd (72 = 69) Cor IV A: accent missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cor I–II.
70 –72 B, Vc A: cresc. and dim. symbols missing; we
supply from the corresponding 67– 69.
73 Vle A: “arco” was added in another hand (see
also Note 67–69).
73–74 Ms, B A: although these parts proceed in imita-
tion their slurs are divergent, probably due to
the page turn (recto to verso) between 73 and 74:
B has a slur for each bar, while Ms has a slur
for 73/3rd–4th and another for 74/1st–75/1st.
Even though the slurs for the instruments that
double these voices sufficiently clarify GV’s
intentions, the divergent vocal slurs in A pro-
duced incongruencies in rRIms and the printed
sources.
73–74 Vni A: various staccati missing; we integrate
based on their presence for Vle and Vc.
73/2nd–4th Vle I-Mr: marked “coi Violini” rather than
“coi Violoncelli”, as GV instructed in A. The
error, in elaborated form, was transmitted to
RI1875 (→ R I1913); RI1964 restored the correct
reading of A.
75–76 Strings A: “staccate” only for Vni I and II.
76–77 Voices A: cresc. symbol only for Ms.
79, 81 A: divergent and missing dynamics: Ms, T, and
Fg have pp; B has p; also, ppp appears between
the staves for Vc and Cb in red pencil, possibly
added by GV but apparently inappropriately
so, given that at 81 he marked pp for Vni I and
p for Vle. We (like RI1913) uniformly supply pp.
79–83 Cl II A: no slur is present; unlike the examined
sources, we presume that the slur for Cl I was
intended for Cl II as well.
79–83 Fg II and III–IV, Vc A: slurs missing (apart a
partial slur for Vc at 82); we supply in vertical
conformity with Cor II and Cb.
80 T A: slur missing (there is a faint pen stroke
between and above the two ).
81/4th Vle A: caret; we modify to an accent as in the
similar vertical parts.
81/4th Cor A: accent missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Fg II and III–IV, Vc, and Cb.
82/3rd–83 Vle A: tie missing; we supply in vertical con-
formity with the unison Cor II.
•84 B A: pp (no dynamic is present for Ms at 85
or T at 86). However, given that we modified
the p GV marked at 79 for B to pp in verti-
cal conformity with Ms and T (it is unlikely
that he would have wanted B to have a higher
dynamic; see Note 79, 81), this pp at 84 is now
superfluous; we suppress. RI1913 has pp for B at
79 and p for all three voices at 84–86.
70
86/3rd–90 A: cresc. and dim. symbols only above Ms and
beneath B.
91–93 A: “p”, “dim. sempre”, and “morendo” only
above Ms.
94 Vni II, Vle A: pp missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vni I.
•100 Orch A: “morendo” is present only above Vni
I; we interpret it as a general indication for
those parts with whole notes. I-Mr (→ R I1875
→ RI1913) ignored it; RI1964 restored it for
Vni I.
•101 pf rRIms: slurs for each beamed group of six-
teenth notes, transmitted to all of the printed
sources (Fl, Cl). There is no reason, however,
that we should hypothesize an oversight on
GV’s part, given his extremely detailed nota-
tion in this passage.
102/4th Cor A: isolated p between the two staves,
unconfirmed in any other part. Among the
examined sources, it was adopted only in rRIms
→ rRI1874 (left hand) and pUS-Cso (for Cor
III–IV alone). Finding it unlikely that, after pp
at 96 and “morendo” at 100, GV would have
wanted a higher dynamic level for the conclu-
sion of the piece, we prefer to leave the choice
of an appropriate “piano” dynamic to the
discretion of the interpreter.
•102/4th, 103 Orch A: at 102/4th the repeated eighth notes
are marked staccato for all of the winds but
Cor III–IV; we extend to Cor III–IV and the
strings. At 103 the staccati and slur are present
only for Cl and Vni I; we (like RI1964) find the
staccati GV marked at 102 to be sufficient in-
dication that they should continue for all parts
in this bar, and extend the slurs throughout as
well. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) ignored all of the
staccati in A and provided slurs only for Vni
and Vle at 103 (omitted in RI1913).
N. 7 Libera me, Domine
S
A, vol. II, pp. (133 –134 rubric) 135 –218 (217–218 empty)
This edition considers MpR, the version of the Libera me,
Domine for the Messa per Rossini to be conceptually differ-
ent from N. 7 for the Messa da requiem. We have therefore
chosen to use it as a source only when, given substantially
equivalent passages, it proves helpful in those exceedingly
rare instances where A lacks internal models for resolving
issues of lacunae or ambiguity. MpR will be often cited in
the Critical Notes (all bar numbers refer to their location in
A) as a contributive element to discussions regarding the
various solutions adopted by the secondary sources, or as
a means of reconstructing the genesis of an error (“intru-
sions” from MpR).
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
E indication (p). The part that doubles S soloist
[I] in MpR, Cor I–II, has mf, but it is substantially
Violini
[II] different from Cor III–IV in A; in addition, there
Viole is no dim. symbol, and S soloist, who sings g’
Due Flauti rather than rising to g’’, has neither the cresc.
Ottavino symbol at 3 nor the f at 4. We suggest mf for
[2] Oboè exclusively musical reasons, given that Cor III–
[2] Clarinetti / in Si! IV should have a dynamic level that is less than
[2] Corni / in Mi! f (in order to support S soloist without covering
[2] Corni / in Do her sound) and more than p (which must be
[2] Trombe / in Do reached only at 5 after the diminuendo).
[2] Trombe / in Do 4 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I), Vle A: only “staccate”.
Due Fagotti 4 Cb (Vc = Cb) A: ppp; we prefer pp in vertical
Due Fagotti conformity with the other strings.
[3] Tromboni; from 207 “Tromboni 1o / 2do ” 4–5 Trbn II A: tie missing.
Oficleide; from 207 “3o Trombone / Oficleide” 7– 9 Coro A: GV very carefully marked a model for
Timpani S Coro of the slurs and staccati he wanted for
Cassa sola (at 45–105 Grancassa; see Note 55) this a cappella passage. Even so, a correction he
[empty] made to 7 is somewhat problematic to inter-
[empty] pret, due to the difficulty in reconstructing
[empty] the succession of interventions involved. In all
Soprano Solo probability GV, copying from MpR, originally
[empty] wrote  corresponding to the syllables
[Soprani] “[æ]-ter-na in”, perhaps intending a synaloepha
[Contralti] for “-na in” as it is in MpR (1). After having
erased and replaced  with  as in this
Coro
[Tenori]
[Bassi] edition (2), it seems he added breath marks
[Violoncelli] for all of the parts between the two syllables
[Contrabbassi] “[æter]-na” and “in [die]” (3), but then uniform-
ly erased them (4) (see also Note 416). It is not
clear when he marked the second slur: given
T that the beginning of it between “[æter]-na”
On p. 135 GV wrote “Libera me, Domine” in the top center and “in” is damaged (but still clearly legible),
margin, and “n.o 7 / G. Verdi” in the top right corner. he probably added it after stage (2), perhaps
then erasing the initial segment along with the
breath marks; or it is possible that he erased
R M the beginning of the slur before adding the
45–105 Orch A: GV’s instruction for this section reads breath marks. However that may be, the short-
“Come da principio del Dies irae per 61 bat- ened slur depends upon the presence of the
tute”, thereby indicating that 45–105 (N. 7 Li- added breath, in which case the elimination
bera me, Domine) = 1–61 (N. 2 Dies irae); only of the breath mark implies recuperating the
Coro, Vc, and Cb are written out. original length of the slur, as we have done.
This solution is both philologically plausible
(it most closely represents the markings in A)
C N and musically convincing, because it “isolates”
2 Ob, Vc A: marked ff, but with no apparent mu- the syllable of the first principal metric accent,
sical justification in a predominantly f dynamic “[æ]-ter[-na]” (the second one is “[tre]-men[-da]”)
context; RI1913 also modified these parts to f, by excluding it from the slurred staccato. I-Mr
while RI1964 = tutti ff. (→ R I1875 and RI1913) ignored both the stac-
•4 Orch RI1913: the subtle dynamic differentiation cati and the slurs (RI1964 restores the staccati,
among Trbn, Timp, and Gr C in A was arbitrar- but one long slur for all of the  at 7); rRIms
ily homogenized to become a uniform pp. (→ rRI1874) has the staccati and slurs, but it
4 Cor I–II A: originally mf (probably an errone- concludes the first slur on “[mor]-te”, begins
ous transcription from MpR) with pp written the second one on “æ[-terna]”.
over it, presumably GV’s definitive correction. 9 Coro A: pppp only above S Coro; “ancora più
4 Cor III–IV Sources: among the examined piano” was written vertically through all four
sources, only pUS-Cso supplies a dynamic staves.

© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01 71

11 Vc, Cb A: both entrance dynamics are missing;
we supply pp for Cb in vertical conformity
with Fg III–IV and Timp, and p for Vc from Vni
and Vle.
11 Timp I-Mr: erroneously marked ppp, transmit-
ted in turn to RI1875 (→ R I1913).
13/3rd–14/1st S soloist MpR: while there are no dynamic
indications in A, at the corresponding passage
MpR has a cresc. symbol ending with fff at
14/1st, which could be quite effective here as
well, allowing S soloist to anticipate the logical
conclusion of the orchestral cresc. at 14. We
nevertheless find ff to be sufficient for S solo-
ist at 14/1st. rRIms (→ rRI1874) follows A; RI1875
(→ R I1913) has only a cresc. symbol at 14 in
vertical conformity with the orchestra.
14/1st Vle, Vc, Cb A: accent missing on the downbeat
for Vle and Vc, and Cb has a staccato. I-Mr
has no accents for any of the strings; RI1875
(→ R I1913) has only the accents for Vni I and II.
14/3rd Cb A: isolated accent on the first eighth note as
well.
15 Fg A: “staccate e p” only above the stave for Fg
I–II.
•17–18 Fg I-Mr: 17 is the last bar of a recto, after which
the copyist neglected to continue both the
cresc. symbol for Fg I and the dim. symbol
for Fg III–IV at 18. The accent for Fg I at 17
is also missing. RI1875 similarly truncated the
diminuendo for Fg III–IV at the end of 17, but
the accent for Fg I is present, along with the
addition of a separate cresc. symbol at 18/1st–
2nd (→ R I1913). With respect to RI1913, RI1964
added the accent for Fg I at 17. Curiously, rRIms
(→ rRI1874) has this same reading, notwith-
standing the fact that it generally follows A
more closely than I-Mr.
18/4th Fg III A: obligatory ! for the e is missing.
•20 –27, 33 –35 Vni I Sources: in A the slurs between the
last note of a beamed group of sixteenth notes
and the first of the next group are not always
present. The examined printed sources, includ-
ing the more recent editions, treated their
absence as an oversight and integrated them
uniformly throughout. We believe, however,
that GV marked them with a deliberate musical
design, intending to avoid what would other-
wise become a mechanical rhythmic effect (as
he was copying from MpR, where there are
very few lacunae for these short slurs, he may
have wanted to clarify this particular aspect).
This edition therefore adds them only when
they are supported by clear and unequivocal
models (see Note 23/4th–24/1st, 34/4th–35/1st,
Note 25/2nd–3rd, and Note 22, 25).
22 S soloist A: possibly ff , although the symbol
could also be read as f. Given that ff is not a
72
particularly easy dynamic for a soprano to
achieve in that register, we believe f for the c’’
is adequate for the context. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
has ff; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) has no indica-
tion; RI1964 has f.
•22, 25 Vni I RI1913, rRI1874 (pf., r.h.): both sources,
having chosen to supply slurs mechanically
between the last sixteenth note of one beamed
group and the first of the next group (see Note
20 –27, 33 –35), integrated “missing” ones be-
tween 22/1st and 2nd and between 25/3rd and
4th, perhaps supported by analogy with the
model between 34/1st and 2nd. We find instead
a compelling musical reason to preserve the
difference: whereas at 34 the slur underscores
the concurrent unison motion with S solo-
ist (g’–c’’), at 22 and 25 this rapport between
Vni I and S soloist does not exist (by way of
confirmation, in MpR it does not exist even at
34, and in fact no slur is present in that cor-
responding bar).
23/4th–24/1st, 34/4th–35/1st Vni I A: slurs missing; we
supply by analogy with the short slurs at 20 –27
and 33 –35 (see the relative Note), where they
similarly underscore shared melodic motion
and phrasing with other instrumental or vocal
parts.
25/2nd–3rd Vni I A: slur missing between the two
beamed groups of sixteenth notes; we supply
to match 24 and by analogy with 20, 21,
and 33.
25/4th–27 Strings A: GV had originally marked shorter
dim. symbols reaching roughly to the end of
26, then extended the one above Vni I (with the
addition of “dim. dim.”) and the one for Vc,
both of them to the end of 27. His intentions
are clear.
28/3rd–31/1st (30 = 29) Vni II, Vle A: slurs missing for the
beamed triplets, but GV marked them clearly at
28/1st (Vni II) and 2nd (Vle), obviously intend-
ed as models for this passage.
31/2nd Vni II A: staccati missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Vle.
32 Vni, Vle A: partial and missing slurs: the first
slur for Vni I begins only from the second six-
teenth note, but those for Vni II and Vle begin
on the downbeat; Vni II and Vle have no slur
for 3rd–4th.
32/1st Vc A: slur for all four beamed sixteenth notes;
on 2nd the slur appears to include only the last
three notes. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) ignored
both slurs and added a staccato for the first
note of each group; rRIms (→ rRI1874) has stac-
cati for all eight sixteenth notes, plus a slur for
each beamed group.
33 –34 Fl A: the slur extends to the  at 34. Copying
from MpR, GV decided to suppress the bar
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 that would have followed 33 (corresponding
to 21), but he marked the slur from the sup-
pressed bar in MpR rather than replicating the
slur at 20 (limited to the three ). We believe
this was an oversight and follow the pattern
established in 20 and 21, where both slurs do
not reach beyond the bar line.
•34/2nd Vni II, Vle, Vc RI1913: pp was added before
the dim. symbol, theoretically possible only
because the p after the dim. at 35/4th (Vc) was
ignored. Neither A nor MpR has an opening
dynamic for the dim. Indeed, GV (like many
other nineteenth-century composers) would
frequently mark only the end dynamic for a
diminuendo, with the understanding that the
opening conform proportionately, obviously at
a higher level. We respect this practice, leaving
the level of the opening dynamic (greater than
p) to the discretion of the performer.
35 Vc A: p on 3rd; we move to 4th by analogy
with 27.
38 Orch A: p only for Fg and Vle; we extend it to
the other instruments for vertical conformity.
38/1st Vni I A: the accent is nested within the begin-
ning of the dim. symbol, such that GV may
have intended to invalidate it with the larger
sign. I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) has the diminu-
endo but not the accent; RI1964 reinstated the
accent, but without extending it to Ob and Cl.
41 Vni II, Vc, Cb A: Vni II = pp; we prefer the ppp
GV marked for Vle. Also, “morendo” is miss-
ing for Vc and Cb.
42 Fl [I] A: “col canto”, which we provide it as a
general agogic indication.
42 Fg [I] A: pp; we modify to ppp in vertical con-
formity with Cl.
45 –105 Orch A: GV’s instruction for this section reads
“Come da principio del Dies irae per 61 bat-
tute”, thereby indicating that 45 –105 (N. 7 Lib-
era me, Domine) = 1– 61 (N. 2 Dies irae); only
Coro (with a largely different text), Vc, and Cb
are written out. There are differences in Vc
and Cb with respect to the complete notation
of these parts at 1– 61 in N. 2, which may be at-
tributed to their principal function as a general
guide for the conductor, for the reproduction of
the score, and for the extraction of performance
materials. Consequently, this edition presents
the instrumental component of 45 –105 as the
exact replica of 1– 61 from N. 2, referring the
reader to the relative Critical Notes for all mat-
ters pertaining to the orchestral parts, and re-
porting here specific salient differences in the
Vc and Cb parts for the purpose of establishing
a single unitary text. They may be summarized
as follows:
– 47–48, 57–58 Cb: only one accent, at 47/3rd;
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
for the integration of the accents at 48 and
57–58, see N. 2, Note 3–4, 13–14, 575–576.
– 57 Cb: staccati beneath the seven beamed
eighth notes; while GV did mark them in N. 2
at 575, they are not present at the correspond-
ing 13. We therefore suppress.
– 65 (66 = 65), 69, 70 Vc: slurs and staccati miss-
ing, also the accent at 70/4th; we supply from
21, 22, 25, and 26 in N. 2.
– 65/2nd (66 = 65), 69/2nd, 70/2nd–4th Cb:
accents missing; we supply from 21, 22, 25, and
26 in N. 2.
– 73, 75 Vc, Cb: dynamics missing; we supply
from 29 and 31 in N. 2.
– 76, 78, 80 Cb (Vc = Cb): accents on 2nd miss-
ing; see N. 2, Note 32, 36.
– 80/3rd Cb (Vc = Cb): slur missing; we supply
from 36 in N. 2.
– 90/1st (91, 92, 93 = 90) Cb: accent missing; we
supply from 46 in N. 2.
– 98, 102 Vc, Cb: dynamics missing; we supply
from 54 and 58 in N. 2.
47–105 Coro A: a substantial portion of the text for
Coro in this reprise of 3 – 61 from N. 2 is dif-
ferent. The phrasing and articulation at 47–105
(N. 7) are generally more lacunose than at
3 – 61 (N. 2), but rarely do they contradict one
another. This makes it possible to use 3 – 61 as
the model for 47–105, and occasionally to use
47–105 to integrate and support the phrasing
and articulation in 3 – 61. Only occasionally are
the divergences determined by the different
text and syllabic scansion; these are obviously
maintained without intervention in this edi-
tion. With regard to the dynamics, we adopt
those established in 3 – 61: the usual differences
and lacunae at 47–105 are easily resolved in
terms of a proper dynamic rapport with the
orchestra.
47 Coro A: f, only for T Coro.
47–48 T, B Coro A: accents missing; we supply from
the corresponding 3–4 in N. 2.
55 Gr C A: the reprise at 45 –105 of 1– 61 from N.
2 necessarily includes calling for the reintro-
duction of this instrument by name, logically
“Gran cassa” as GV specified on the first page
of N. 2. At the beginning of N. 7, however, he
wrote “Cassa sola”, and in MpR he was still
more precise: “Cassa sola senza Batteria”. There
is no reason to presume that the term “Gran
Cassa” includes cymbals, nor that his use of
“Cassa” (4, 175, 298, 396) or “Cassa sola” (1,
112) requires anything other than Gr C without
cymbals. We therefore preserve these terms as
GV wrote them.
57–58 B Coro A: accents missing.
57, 59 Coro A: entry dynamics missing.
73
59 T Coro A: GV originally wrote “[il]-la” on 4th
but then erased it. The correction is a signifi-
cant one: see N. 2, Note 15 –17, 577–579, 587–589.
65 –72 Coro A: various accents missing (see the cor-
responding passage at 21–28 in N. 2), particu-
larly all those for C and B Coro. In addition,
at 68/4th there is an accent only for S Coro,
and none are present at 72/4th. GV’s intentions
nonetheless seem sufficiently clear (supported
by the orchestral context) for all but possibly
Coro B at 65/4th, 66/4th, 69/4th, and 70/4th,
where the absence of accents may be ascribed
to the different text. We suggest them but leave
the option of their omission to the interpreter.
74 T Coro A: at the corresponding 30 in N. 2 there
is an accent on 1st for T Coro I but no slur;
allowing that these divergences may be related
to the different texts involved, we preserve the
slur here and suggest the accent.
75–86 C, T Coro A: text missing (for T Coro up to 83).
84–86 S, C, T Coro A: accents missing; we supply
from the corresponding 40–42 in N. 2.
•85 – 86 Timp RI1875: the copyist inadvertently skipped
these two bars following a page turn (it was
correctly copied in I-Mr). The error was trans-
mitted to RI1913; RI1964 restored the missing
notation.
88, 89 A: both agogic indications are from the corre-
sponding 44 and 45 in N. 2.
90–97 Coro A: lacunose phrasing; in particular, slurs
missing for S and T at 90–91 (S Coro has a
shorter slur, at 91) and for T Coro at 96–97. At
92–93 there are two shorter slurs, one per bar
(see also N. 2, Note 46–53).
90–97 C Coro, 91–105 T Coro A: text missing.
90/1st (91, 92, 93 = 90) Cb A: accent missing; we supply
from the corresponding 46 in N. 2.
98–102 Coro A: dynamic indications missing or incom-
plete; we supply from the corresponding 54–58
in N.2.
99 S Coro A: p; we modify to pp as at the corre-
sponding 55 in N. 2.
104–105 C, B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply from the
corresponding 60–61 in N. 2.
107, 109 Cor, Trb A: at 107 the dim. symbols (for Cor
I–II and Trb III–IV only) seem more like ac-
cents; at 109 the sole exemplar (for Cor I–II) is
undoubtedly a dim., but it begins from the first
sixteenth note. RI1913 preferred this solution
and extended it to 107 as well.
108–109 Timp A: cresc.-dim. symbol missing, but its
presence at 106–107 and the evident vertical
conformity with Cb are sufficient proof of GV’s
intentions. RI1913 extended both symbols to Fg
III–IV at 106–109, though without logical justi-
fication: whereas Timp and Cb have a roll and
tremolo respectively, Fg III–IV simply sustain a
74
single stationary note. MpR offers a somewhat
equivocal reading: dim. symbol for Fg III–IV at
107, cresc. at 108 and 110.
111 S soloist A: f, unlikely against the ff for Coro;
we suggest ff as in MpR. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
omitted the f for S soloist and brought Coro
into vertical conformity with the orchestral f;
RI1875 (→ R I1913) has f for all voices.
111 Timp, Cb A: ff for Cb on 1st and Timp on 2nd,
written perhaps during the skeleton-score stage
of composition.
111/4th Cor III–IV A: isolated accent.
113 Fg, Trbn A: the ppp seems to be a deliberate
precautionary dynamic reduction, given so
exposed their entry on F; indeed, in MpR GV
wrote ppp for both pairs of Fg (at 113 and 115)
as well. RI1913 has pp.
•115 S Coro A: pppp; we opt for pp as in C and T
Coro. While it might seem tempting to accept
and extend S Coro’s pppp here, the evident
diminuendo effect through the bars that follow
makes pp the more logical choice (pp at 115
→ ppp at 119 [see the relative Note] → “ancora
più piano” at 121, 123). At 115 MpR has ppp
for all three parts; RI1875 (→ R I1913) idem; rRIms
(→ rRI1874) follows A; I-Mr extended instead
the pppp for S Coro to C and T.
117/3rd–118 Vc A: slur, incongruous with the tremolo; all
of the examined sources suppressed it as well.
117/3rd–124 B Coro, Fg III–IV, Trbn A: partial and miss-
ing slurs. The first one (117/3rd–121) disappears
at 119 following a page turn (recto to verso);
the second one (121/3rd–124) is entirely miss-
ing for B Coro, while those for Fg and Trbn
are suspended without actually reaching the F
at 124. Proof that GV intended the F to be the
conclusion of both phrases (from a previous
G!) is provided by the slur for Cor I at 119 –120
(missing at 123 –124); analogous slurs for Fg I–II
at 119 –120 and 123 –124 further corroborate this
hypothesis. I-Mr follows A for the first slur but
adjusts the second one (for Fg and Trbn only;
there is no slur for B Coro) as in this edition.
•119 S Coro A: pp; we opt for ppp as in C and T
Coro, in keeping with the diminuendo effect
postulated in Note 115 above. None of the
examined sources has a coherent solution:
in particular, I-Mr = pppp at 115, pp at 119;
RI1875 (→ R I1913) = ppp at 115, pp at 119; rRIms
(→ rRI1874) = pppp S Coro, pp C and T Coro at
115, ppp at 119.
•120–121 B Coro A: perhaps distracted by his decision
to change the notes (an earlier erased version
is still legible underneath the definitive one),
GV forgot to set “[i-]rae” at 120. Faced with
this oversight, the copyist of I-Mr (→ R I1875)
positioned the missing syllable beneath the 
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 at 121. RI1913 adjusted this reading by elimi-
nating the tie between the two F rather than
moving the syllable to 120 (the same solution is
found in rRIms [→ rRI1874]).
123–124/1st Cor I A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with 119–120.
124, 126 Ob, Cor A: the caret for Cor at 124/3rd coin-
cides with the beginning of the dim. symbol,
which may have been intended to obscure it
(note the caret but no dim. symbol for Ob).
At 126 the two dim. symbols (particularly the
one for Ob) could also be read as accents, in
which case they would be functionally analo-
gous to the carets at 128 and 129. I-Mr ignored
the carets for Ob and Cor at 124 and read the
dim. symbols at 124 (Cor) and 126 (Ob and
Cor) as accents, although the one at 124 was
subsequently cancelled in purple pencil; RI1875
follows I-Mr, but with a dim. symbol rather
than the accent at 124. RI1913 omitted the accent
/ dim. symbol at 124 and replaced the carets at
128 and 129 with accents; RI1964 uniformly sup-
plied both instruments with accents in all four
bars. We prefer to respect GV’s apparent inten-
tions as closely as possible, thereby rendering
124 and 126 in like manner.
127/4th–128 A: “morendo” only beneath Cb; p above
Fg I–II, which we suppress as contextually
anomalous (I-Mr = p for Fg and “morendo” for
Vc and Cb; RI1875 = p “morendo”; RI1913 = ppp
“morendo”). We also eliminate a superfluous
“dim.” beneath Trbn, already present two bars
earlier and implied here in the prescription
“morendo”.
131 Cor I A: pp; we modify to ppp (the more logi-
cal dynamic for this context) in vertical con-
formity with Ob.
141 T Coro A: pp.
144 S soloist, S Coro A: superfluous “cresc.”; we
suppress.
148 S Coro A: superfluous “cresc.”; we suppress.
148 T Coro A: slur and cresc. symbol missing.
•148/4th–149/1st S soloist Sources: none of the examined
sources has the slur corresponding to the in-
struction “portate”.
153/2nd–4th C and B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with T Coro.
158–159 S soloist A: at 159 GV neglected to complete
the slur from 158 (the end of a recto), where it
extends over the bar line into the right margin
of the page.
•160 –164/1st A: slurs only for S and B Coro; for S Coro
the slur begins at 161/3rd, but in MpR it begins
at 160/3rd. Evidently when GV copied this a
cappella passage from MpR he was more con-
cerned with the task of transposition (a semi-
tone higher) than the precise length of these
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
two slurs (which were likely intended to apply
to the other parts as well). The only slur in
MpR, for S Coro, begins at 160/3rd and reaches
past the second  in 163 (the last bar of a verso),
a circumstance suggesting the musically plau-
sible (and desirable) idea that it should extend
to 164/1st so that the last syllable of “perpetua”
is not separated unnaturally from the rest of
the phrase. While it seems that the intent in
I-Mr was to follow A, the copyist did antici-
pate the beginning of the slur for S Coro to
160/3rd, while also understandably confusing
the upper line of the cresc. symbol for S soloist
with a slur. RI1875 followed I-Mr and extended
the slurs to C and T Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874) and
RI1913 ignored all slurs but the shorter one for
C Coro at 163/3rd– 4th.
•164/2nd– 4th Voices A: staccati only for S soloist and
slurs missing for all; we supply from MpR.
I-Mr provided all four  in S soloist with stac-
cati but no slur; rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1875
(→ R I1913) extended them to Coro as well.
165 –166 C, T, B Coro A: slurs missing; we supply them
in vertical conformity with S Coro, where GV
probably marked it as a model for the other
choral parts (in MpR T Coro has a slur as
well). I-Mr (→ R I1875) suppressed the slur for S
Coro, but rRIms (→ rRI1874) and RI1913 extended
it as in this edition.
171, 416 Tempo A: at 171, “senza tempo” above Vni
I and above S soloist, “senza misura” above
Vle and on the stave for B Coro; at 416, “senza
tempo” between Vni I and II, above S soloist,
and under Cb, “senza misura” on the staves for
Cor. As at 1 and 7, we adopt the more correct
of the two expressions, “senza misura”.
172 Vle A: dynamic missing; we supply f as previ-
ously established for Vni at 171.
173 Vle A: the ! was inserted in pencil following
GV’s request in a letter to Ricordi on 2 June
1874 that it be added as a correction to the first
printing of the vocal score. Among the exam-
ined sources, only rRI1874 and I-Mr do not have
the !.
175 –176 A: missing and divergent dynamics at 175,
where the only clearly marked ff appear
beneath Vle (probably also intended for Vni I
and II) and for Cor III–IV
(Fg I–II also may have ff, but against an f for
Fg III–IV). At 176, the lone “sempre f” above
Cor I–II is extremely pertinent, given its com-
patibility with the dynamic indications for S
soloist. Consequently, between Cor I–II and
Cor III–IV we are able to obtain the model |
ff / dim. symbol | sempre f |, which we extend
without typographical distinction to the other
winds, all of whom are likewise sounding a
75
 stationary G at the unison or octave. The case
for the other instruments is different. At 175
GV wrote f between the staves for Timp and
Gr C (both with a roll) and f for Cb (with a
tremolo); we therefore accept f for these instru-
ments and extend it to Vc. Finally, for Vni we
extend the initial ff from Vle and the winds
but then suggest that it immediately drop to f
at the onset of the tremolo, in vertical conform-
ity with Vc and Cb (and the percussion). RI1913
(like RI1875) has ff for tutti at 175 followed by
the dim. symbol for the winds, and “sempre f”
at 176 as a general indication at the top of the
system.
175–176 Cor III–IV A: ties missing.
179 C Coro, 186 S Coro A: f missing; we supply in con-
formity with the f GV marked for T Coro at
200.
179 –207/1st Coro A: GV carefully supplied the slurs and
articulation for the subject of this fugal exposi-
tion (C Coro, 179 –186/1st), but the following
response (S Coro, 186 –193/1st), subject (B Coro,
193 –200/1st), and response (T Coro, 200 –207/1st)
are marked with ever less detail and consist-
ency. For the most part the examined sources
reflect the same incongruences found in A,
though RI1913 did make an occasional maladroit
attempt at uniformity (see for example 187 in
this Note). We have therefore chosen to extend
GV’s model for the initial appearance of the
subject to the successive three enunciations (re-
sponse, subject, response) with one exception
(see Note 184/3rd, 206). Principal lacunae and
divergences with respect to this model (C Coro,
179–186/1st) may be summarized as follows:
– •187 S Coro: staccati and a slur for the four 
as in MpR (see also Note 84/3rd; 206:206); rRIms
(→ rRI1874) and RI1875 (→ R I1913) follow A, and
RI1913 extended this articulation to the follow-
ing two statements as well (B Coro at 194; T
Coro at 201); we modify to match the model at
180.
– •188 S Coro: slur missing (printed sources =
A); we supply from the model at 181.
– •188, 190 S Coro: accents missing (printed
sources = A); we supply from the models at 181
and 183.
– 194–197 B Coro: accents missing; at 196 there
are two staccati followed by an accent as in
MpR (see also Note 184/3rd, 206), uncorroborat-
ed by either the model (at 182) or the other two
statements (at 189 and 203); at 195 slur missing.
We supply from the model at 180–183.
– 200–205 T Coro: all accents missing but those
at 200/3rd and 4th; slur missing at 202. We sup-
ply from the model at 179–184.
184/3rd C Coro, 206 T Coro A: accents, probably “intru-
76
sions” from MpR directly related to a different
part for Trb I–II that GV did not carry over into
A. In fact, in MpR Trb I–II always reinforce the
conclusion of the subject or response with ac-
cents on the  and :

     
– 184/3rd C Coro: the accent, lightly marked
or possibly obscured by GV, is absent in all
three subsequent corresponding bars (191,
S Coro; 198, B Coro; 205, T Coro). Given the
extreme care with which GV marked the ar-
ticulation for this first statement of the subject
(179 –186/1st; see Note 179 –207/1st above), we
should theoretically accept the accent as valid
and extend it to the other three corresponding
bars (as in MpR); however, it is more than like-
ly that when he copied this passage for C Coro
he had not yet decided to eliminate the relative
Trb I–II part from MpR at 184/3rd –186/1st. We
therefore have chosen to suppress this accent,
supported by RI1875 (→ R I1913). rRIms (→ rRI1874)
follows A.
– 206 T Coro: this accent, like the one above,
is absent in all three corresponding bars (185,
C Coro; 192, S Coro; 199, B Coro). In this case,
however, we may reasonably ascribe its anoma-
lous presence to a momentary distraction on
GV’s part while copying the fugue from MpR
(where in fact the accent is uniformly marked
in all four statements). Indeed, his carefully
prepared model at 179 –186/1st for C Coro
strongly suggests that its omission at 185 was
deliberate. This “intrusion” is not the only evi-
dence of an unintentional transfer from MpR
into A: for example, at 187 GV marked staccati
and a slur for the four  in S Coro, and at 196 B
Coro have two staccati followed by an accent,
both reflecting their respective readings in
MpR (see also Note 225 –227). In light of these
considerations, we have chosen to suppress the
accent at 206. All examined sources follow A.
185 Orch A: missing and divergent dynamics (f
and ff, the latter more prevalent).
185 –186, 192–193, 199 –200, 206 –207 Orch A: very few
accents are present (MpR is more generously
supplied, such that GV’s intentions are suf-
ficiently clear); nor are there but occasional
slurs for the ornamental figures (MpR is even
more lacunose, sporting only one at 193 for
Vni I). However exiguous, this evidence is
still enough to render 185 –186, 192–193, and
199 –200 in a uniform manner. The last passage,
at 206 –207, is somewhat different: while at 206
the two accents for Cor confirm their vertical
extension here as well, at 207 the chord on 1st
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 has no accents whatsoever, coincident with B
Coro’s unaccented introduction of a new fugal
exposition with the subject inverted. Given
that the complete omission of an accent on the
downbeat of this bar appears intentional when
compared to MpR, where there are accents for
B Coro, Of, and Cb, we have chosen to pre-
serve the reading of A at 207.
186, 200 Trbn A: double stems; their interpretation “a 3”
is confirmed in pUS-Cso.
186/2nd–207/1st Coro A: the first enunciation of the
countersubject in this new fugal exposition, for
C Coro at 186/2nd–200, is replete with clearly
marked slurs and articulation and may serve
as a template for the more lacunose iterations
in S Coro and B Coro (largely left untouched
in the examined sources) with one exception
(see Note 195 –196). Ambiguities and differences
with respect to this model may be summarized
as follows:
– •193/2nd–3rd S Coro: GV marked this same
slur twice, such that the result could be
confused for a short cresc. symbol as in rRIms
(→ rRI1874 and RI1913).
– 193/4th S Coro: accent missing; we supply
from the model at 186.
– 198 S Coro: slur missing; we supply from the
model at 191.
– 199/3rd S Coro: accent missing; we supply
from the model at 192.
– 202/2nd B Coro: accent rather than caret; we
adjust to match the model at 188.
– 205 B Coro: slur missing; we supply from the
model at 191.
192 Orch A: f between Ob and Cl and between Cor
III–IV and Trb I–II; ff between Vc and Cb. We
prefer ff as at 185 (see the relative Note).
193 Trbn A: unspecified part distribution for the
dyad; we supply from pUS-Cso.
195 –196 S Coro: this edition (supported by all of the
examined sources) preserves GV’s divergent
phrasing and articulation for these two bars
with respect to the model of C Coro at 188 –189
(see Note 186/2nd–207/1st): given his neces-
sary adjustment of this more exposed melodic
profile, resulting in the leap of a minor third
to a consonant e!’’ at 195/2nd (compared to the
chromatic ascent at 188/2nd to a!’) with no cor-
responding caret, the segment assumes a more
lyrical character than at 188 –189 (and B Coro
at 202–203). MpR has one slur for the four  at
195, and two shorter slurs at 196 in conformity
with 189.
199 Vle A: GV mistakenly wrote the same chord
as at 192; our correction (which matches MpR)
comes from the analogous 185.
•206 Orch RI1913: f, for no logical reason.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
207/3rd Vni II A: the accent over the  is protracted
enough to seem a dim. symbol instead. We opt
for an accent by analogy with Cor III–IV at
208/3rd, given that both parts support a vocal
entrance on ff (C and T Coro respectively).
209/3rd–212 Ott, Fl, Cl I A: some accents are missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with Ob I, the
only complete model (see also Note 210).
209/3rd–212 Trb A: no accents are present; we supply in
vertical conformity with the other concurrent
parts (see also the following Note).
210 Vni I A: staccati for the four ; I-Mr (→ R I1875)
follows A; RI1913 extends them to Ott and Fl as
well. We replace with accents by analogy with
Cb at 208 (Vc = Cb), and in vertical conformity
with Ob I.
210/1st–2nd Vle A: staccati; we replace with accents in
vertical conformity with the unison Fg I and
Trbn I.
211/1st Ob I A: accent, unconfirmed in any other uni-
son part; we suppress.
211/4th, 212/4th Vni I A: accents missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with the other unison parts
(see also Note 209/3rd–212).
212/2nd–4th Fg I, Trbn I, Vle A: accents missing; we sup-
ply in vertical conformity with Cor I–II.
213, 215, 217 Ott, Ob, Vle A: accents on 3rd missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with T Coro.
RI1913 adds them only at 213.
213, 215, 217 Fl A: slurs on 2nd–4th missing (staccati also
missing at 215); we supply in vertical conform-
ity with Cl II.
213/1st Fg III–IV A: this first bar following a page turn
is marked to begin immediately in unison with
Fg I–II, rather than continue doubling Trbn III
and Of (as Fg III–IV had done from 207 to 212).
Were GV’s instruction to be obeyed, it would
clearly necessitate an awkward and highly
improbable leap in both parts on the downbeat.
We suggest maintaining Fg III–IV = Trbn III
and Of for the first half of the bar, with the
shift to unison with Fg I–II beginning thereaf-
ter. RI1913 does likewise.
214 S Coro A: the accent over the  is protracted
enough to seem a dim. symbol (at 216/3rd it is
only slightly shorter). Because this repertoire
made no conceptual distinction between an ac-
cent and a dim. symbol, we have opted for the
former in vertical conformity with the other
accents in this bar.
214, 216 Cl I A: accents on 3rd missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Fg I (Fg III = Fg I).
215, 217 Vni I A: accents on 3rd missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cl I (and Fg I [Fg III =
Fg I] only at 215).
217/2nd–4th Vni II A: slur missing.
217/3rd Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: accent missing.
77
219/3rd–220/1st Ob I A: staccati missing for the three ;
we supply by analogy with Cl I at 222–223.

               
225 –227 Fg I A:
    GV
apparently forgot that he had marked different
articulation for the analogous Cl I at 222–224;
we consider this divergence an “intrusion”
from MpR and consequently modify Fg I in
conformity with Cl I.
227/1st B Coro A: f and accent missing; we supply both
from MpR. The dynamic may also be contextu-
ally inferred from the f for Fg III–IV, and there
is an accent for B Coro at the analogous 231/1st.
227/1st–2nd Ob I A: GV originally interrupted the slur
at the bar line between 226 and 227, then
extended it and added what could be read as
a staccato on 1st. Quite possibly he became
confused as he copied from MpR, where there
are staccati for the two  both for S Coro and
for Ob (whose slur seems to include the  on
2nd as well). We consider his interventions
subsequent to the original slur to be “intru-
sions” from MpR. I-Mr (→ R I1913) concluded
the slur at 226/4th and marked two staccati at
227/1st–2nd; RI1875 has the same slur as I-Mr
but no staccati.
229 –230 T Coro, Fg I A: GV copied the phrasing and
articulation for Fg I from MpR, which reads:
            However, he omitted
the accent at 229/1st and added one at 230/2nd.
Though it may not seem so, the accents at
229/3rd– 4th are not contextually pertinent,
especially relative to the unison, unaccented
T Coro (in MpR T Coro and Fg I both have
accents on 1st, 3rd, and 4th). On the other
hand, the different, “unadorned” nature of this
subject entry for T Coro, compared to all of the
others in this passage, can be justified on both
a structural and an expressive level:
1) on a structural level, as an inverted subject
with a different text from the previous en-
tries, beginning with “Libera me, Domine”; in
particular, the scansion shifts from one note
per syllable to a melismatic segment at 229/3rd–
230/2nd on the syllable“cœ[-li]”. The other two
subject entries on “quando cœli”, for B Coro at
227 and 231, have the same syllable “cœ[-li]”
reduced to two  on 3rd and 4th, but in any
case with neither accents nor staccati;
2) on an expressive level, at 229 T Coro do
not possess the peremptory character that B
Coro have at 227 and 231 – indeed, quite the
contrary: while B Coro sing presumably f (as
in MpR) from 227 doubled by an accented Fg
III–IV playing f in octaves, T Coro continue
to sing p doubled by a “Solo” Fg also playing
78
p. Further, the inverted subject pushes T Coro
into a significantly higher register, prompting
them to sing in an expansive, legato manner
(rather than to lighten and articulate the nor-
mal subject’s descent into the lower register).
At 230 the slur and the accent on 2nd for Fg I
are extremely appropriate because they repro-
duce precisely this effect.
All of the examined sources follow A. We
prefer to eliminate the accents for Fg I at
229/3rd– 4th as a momentary “intrusion” from
MpR (see also Notes 225 –227 and 227/1st–2nd).
231/3rd–4th Fg III–IV A: staccati as well as accents.
233 A: missing and inconsistent dynamics, with
a prevalence of ff over f. Given the particular
significance of the ff for S Coro, we adopt and
extend this indication.
233, 235, 237 Ob II, Cl II, Vni II A: staccati on 1st and 2nd
only at 235 for Vni II; we consider this a plausi-
ble model (confirmed from Cb [Vc = Cb] at 235
and 237) and extend it accordingly.
233, 235, 237 Timp A: at 233 and 235 the  have two cuts
through the stem, but at 237 there are three
cuts (pUS-Cso follows A). While it would be
possible to play the rolls as measured six-
teenths at an approximate M.M.  = 116, we
find it more plausible that GV wanted un-
measured rolls as he indicated at 237. RI1875
(→ R I1913) uniformly marked two cuts for all
three 
233–238 Orch A: assorted missing accents and staccati,
which we have supplied without typographical
distinction on the basis of the ones GV clearly
and congruently marked, which are sufficient
to reconstruct an exhaustive model. Only those
cases which allow for more than one solution
are reported in the following Notes.
234, 236, 238 Ott (236–238 = Fl), Fl A: at 234 and 236
there are no acciaccaturas for the trills, which
we suggest by analogy with 238 (where we
also suggest the !); the examined sources all
follow A.
234, 236, 238 Trbn III, Of A: staccati on 2nd–4th miss-
ing; we supply in vertical conformity with the
unison Vc and Cb.
234/2nd–239/1st Orch A: various missing and incom-
pletely marked slurs, most of the latter caused
by a page turn between 236 and 237; the model
for those slurs that cross the bar line to 1st (Fg,
Cor III–IV, Trb I–II, Trbn I–II, Vle) is clearly
established at 234–235, and partially confirmed
at 236–237 (it is also confirmed in MpR).
235, 237 Fg II (Fg IV = Fg II) A: staccati on 1st and 2nd
missing; we supply in vertical conformity with
the unison Vc and Cb.
235/1st Trb III–IV A: isolated staccato, unconfirmed
either by the unison Cor I–II here or at the
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 analogous 237/1st and 239/1st for Trb III–IV and
Cor I–II; we suppress.
235/3rd C and B Coro A: accents missing; we supply
from MpR.
237/3rd C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with B Coro.
237/4th S Coro A: accent missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with 233/4th and 235/4th.
239/3rd–240 Fl I A: accents and staccati missing; we sup-
ply in vertical conformity with Cl I and Vni I.
239/4th S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Cl I and Vni I (see also the
previous Note).
240/1st Fg II and III–IV A: accents missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with the unison Cb (Vc =
Cb).
242 Ob A: empty bar; we supply the missing
material (doubling C Coro, as at 243 –246) from
MpR. All examined sources mechanically fol-
low A.
243–244/1st Cl I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Fl I.
244/3rd–245 S Coro A: the accent at 245, which is also
present in all the examined sources, could
well be another example of an “intrusion”
from MpR for the same reasons postulated in
Note 184/3rd, 206. Having decided not to carry
over into A a part for Trb I–II at 244/3rd–245
that would have reinforced S Coro as it does
in MpR, he also omitted the accent for S Coro
at 244/3rd but not the one at 245. While the
surviving accent may simply be an unintended
transfer from MpR, it is nonetheless musically
plausible and in this case the particular me-
lodic gesture has no imitative counterpart. We
therefore leave its adoption to the discretion of
the performer.
245/3rd–246/1st Orch A: few accents are present (in equal
number at 245/3rd and 246/1st), and there are
no slurs for the ornamental figures (MpR is
equally lacunose); we supply the missing ac-
cents only to those instruments playing ff.
246/3rd– 4th B Coro, 248/1st, 3rd, 4th C Coro, 250/3rd– 4th
S Coro A: accents missing (at 250/3rd– 4th GV
marked staccati, which are not incompatible
with accents; see Edition criteria “Interchangea-
bility of carets, accents, staccati”, pp. 10–11); we
supply in square brackets from MpR (where
the articulation for the instrumental parts dou-
bling the voices is identical to A).
248 Vni I A: anomalous ff.
248 –254/1st Orch A: very sparsely marked accents and
staccati; we add square brackets only where
no model for their integration is present. Our
proposals are based on GV’s markings for the
string section (this solution was also followed
in RI1913). Those cases where some margin of
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
doubt persists may be summarized as follows:
– 248, 250 Vni II: accent for the  on 3rd only at
250; in MpR instead there is no accent for the 
on 2nd in that bar. We derive a composite mod-
el by conflating the readings of A and MpR,
one which is clear and can be extended to the
other instruments with this same rhythmic-
melodic configuration.
– 249/1st Fg II and IV, Trbn–Of, Cb (Vc = Cb):
accents missing; we supply by analogy with
251, and supported by the accent for Cb (Vc =
Cb) in MpR.
– 249, 251 Ott, Fl I, Ob II, Cl II, Trb I and III,
Vni I: accents on 2nd–4th only for Vni I. While
those winds with the same thematic incipit as
Vni I should plausibly be supplied with identi-
cal articulation (just as the lower winds mirror
the model of Vc and Cb), it is necessary to note
the presence in A of two discordant slurs, one
for Ob II at 249 and the other for Cl I at 251,
both for the same three (unaccented)  on 2nd–
4th.
– 249, 251: among those instruments with the
repeated eighth notes on 2nd–4th, staccati are
present only for Vni II in both bars, for Cor I–II
at 249, and for Trb I (Trb III = Trb I) at 251.
– 252/2nd–4th Vle: staccati for the three ; we
replace with accents in vertical conformity
with the other strings.
At 252–254/1st, where GV marked accents only
for Fg, Trbn, Of, and strings (with the excep-
tion of Vni II at 254/1st and Vle at 252–253/2nd),
the homorhythmic nature of the passage makes
it possible to supply accents to all of the other
parts where they are missing (again as in
RI1913).
248/1st Fg, Trbn, Of A: accent missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb).
248/3rd Vni II A: accent missing; we supply by analogy
with 250.
250/3rd–4th Cl I A: staccati; mindful of the fact that GV
often hurriedly marked staccati where there
should be accents, we supply accents in vertical
conformity with Ob I.
251/1st Trb I (Trb III = Trb I) A: accent, unconfirmed by
the unison Ob II or Cl II; we suppress.
  
255 –256 Fl I, Ob I A:         Although
a slur for both instruments is clearly marked at
255 –256/1st, it seems to be the premature antic-
ipation of an expressive effect that only begins
later in the proper context, at 258, with C Cor
doubled by Trb I. One might reasonably pre-
sume that the articulation in this brief “stretto”
of overlapping thematic incipits should instead
be the same. Therefore, and with all due cau-
tion, we suggest an accent for Fl I and Ob I at
79
 255/1st by analogy with Fg I–II and Cor III at
256/1st, and staccati at 255/3rd–256 by analogy
with Trb I at 254/3rd–255. All of the examined
sources follow A.
256 Vni I, 257 Vni II A: staccati missing for the two ; we
supply by analogy with Vle at 258 and Vc at 259.
256/3rd–257 Fg I–II A: accents at 256/3rd–4th, and no
articulation at 257; we adjust in vertical con-
formity with the unison Cor III (see also Note
257/1st).
257/1st Cor III A: staccato missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with Trb I at 255/1st.
257/3rd–4th Fg III–IV A: staccati missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with the unison Cor I.
258 Vc A: p missing; we supply in conformity with
the previous three string entries.
258–259 Fg: the slur for Fg I–II is absent, as are the ac-
cent and tie at 258/4th for Fg III–IV; we supply
in vertical conformity with the unison Cor.
259–260 Cl I A: the slur extends from 259/2nd beyond
the  at 260/3rd; we adjust for vertical con-
formity with Fl I and Ob I (as well as S Coro).
RI1913 preferred instead to conclude the slur at
260/3rd and extend it to Fl I and Ob I.
260 C Coro A: the slur begins only from the eighth
note; we adjust by analogy with 258.
260–261 B Coro A: GV distractedly set the syllable “[i]-
gnem” twice: beneath the g! at 260 and again
beneath the B! at 261/3rd. I-Mr = A, while rRIms
(→ rRI1874 and all subsequent printed sources)
suppressed the extra syllable at 260. RI1875 also
cept for the last phrase) restricted it to the four
notes for “libera”.
264–266 Cor A: the slur begins at 264/3rd, and the tie
at 265–266 is missing, the latter probably due
to a change of page (verso to recto) between the
two bars. We adjust by analogy with 268–270,
confirmed by MpR.
265–266 Fg I A: tie missing; we supply by analogy with
269–270.
266–267, 270–271 Fg I A: slurs missing; we supply by
analogy with 274–275, and with the same fig-
ure in this passage for Cor I and Vle.
268–269 C Coro A: slur missing; we suggest by analogy
with T Coro at 270–271 (whose text is identical).
None of the examined sources does likewise.
268–269 Vle A: slur missing; we supply by analogy
with 264–265 and in vertical conformity with
the unison Cor I.
270–271 B Coro A: tie missing, probably due to a page
turn (recto to verso) between the two bars.
270–271 Vni I (Vni II = Vni I at the lower octave) A: the
beginning of the slur at 270 is missing, prob-
ably due to a page turn (recto to verso) between
the two bars: that GV would neglect to mark
the beginning of a slur in such circumstances
is a phenomenon commonly encountered in
A. The two previous analogous phrases dispel
any doubt regarding his intentions (see also
Note 270–273).
270 –273 S soloist A:
        
suppressed it at 260 but moved the proper
     
conclusion at 261 to the first  instead.
260/1st–2nd S Coro A: the staccati for the two  are quite
faint and might easily be dismissed as impuri-
ties in the paper, were it not for their presence
in MpR. Curiously, all of the examined sources
considered them valid articulation marks.
While doubtful, we accept them as well.
261–262 Trb I A: the slur is barely visible, such that
I-Mr and RI1875 overlooked it; nonetheless it is
present in RI1913 and confirmed by MpR.
262 S Coro A: “me” is missing, an obvious over-
sight.
262 B Coro A: pp; while a different dynamic level
with respect to the rest of the Coro is plausible,
given that Fg II–IV, who double B Coro, also
have pp, we prefer ppp as in MpR.
262 Vle A: pp; we adjust to ppp for vertical con-
formity with the other strings (as in RI1913)
in this bar, but maintain the “pp dolce” GV
prescribed at 263 as fitting for the context.
•262–269 S soloist, 264 –274 S Coro Sources: despite the
clearly marked model in A for the repeated
phrase “libera me”, with the slur always reach-
ing to “me” (rigorously reflected in I-Mr), most
other secondary sources (including RI1913, ex-
80
  
   
The abbreviated nature of this slur compared
to the two previous phrases on “Libera me”
may be easily understood. First, as postu-
lated above (see Note 270–271, Vni I), the page
turn between 270 and 271 would explain the
absence of the beginning of the slur at 270;
as part of a sequence, however, there is no
reason to suspect that the phrasing of this
text, “Domine, de morte” (and particularly its
instrumental doubling), should begin any dif-
ferently. With regard to the conclusion of the
slur, it is unlikely that GV wanted to separate
the last syllable “[mor]-te” unnaturally from
the rest of the phrase (confirmed by the slur
he marked for Vni I [Vni II = Vni I at the lower
octave]); in the two previous phrases this
was not a problem because the text ends on a
monosyllable (“Libera me”; see Note 262–269).
rRI1874 follows A, while in rRIms the slur begins
at 270; I-Mr (→ R I1875) has no slur at all; RI1913,
continuing the same pattern of two-bar slurs
established for the previous phrases, limited
the slur to 270 –271.
272–273 Cor I, Vle A: slurs missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with 264–265 and 268–269.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
273–274 Fg II and IV A: slurs missing, we supply by
analogy with 265–266 and 269–270.
276/2nd Orch, Coro A: p only for Vni I, which I-Mr
extended to Vni II and Vle. The dynamic seems
to be an opportune choice: if ignored, the pp /
ppp orchestral dynamic established in the pre-
vious bars (pp for Fg, Cor, and Vle; the other
strings ppp) would be too great a contrast with
the f for S soloist at 277. We therefore adopt p
here for the orchestra and suggest it for Coro
as well.
276/2nd–284 C Coro A: text missing.
276/2nd–284/1st Woodwinds A: from 276/2nd to 281 the
slurs are precisely marked, such that GV’s
intentions are manifestly clear (divergences
and lacunae, which are reported in the relative
Notes, are all but negligible). At 282–284/1st
they lose much of their former precision (see
Note 282–283), but it is musically plausible that
GV intended the reasonably distinct examples
he marked for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) at
282/2nd–284/1st
     to be the model for the same con-
tracted motivic unit in the other woodwinds.
MpR is still more lacunose and consequently
of little assistance, but at 283/2nd–284/1st the
slur for Fg I–II is very clear. This model was
also adopted by RI1913.
277 S soloist rRIms: f missing, which omission was
transmitted to rRI1874 and RI1913 (RI1964 reinstat-
ed f); I-Mr and RI1875 correctly have f as in A.
277/2nd–278/1st, 279/2nd–280/1st Ob II A: slurs missing;
we supply in vertical conformity with Fl I.
279/2nd–281/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: one con-
tinuous slur; we replace with two shorter ones
by analogy with the previous examples.
280–281 Ob I A: two shorter slurs; we replace them
with one, by analogy with the previous two
examples.
281/2nd–282/1st Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) A: slur
missing; we supply by analogy with 282/2nd–
283/1st.
282–283 Coro A: S Coro has two slurs, one per complete
bar (that is, beginning on the downbeat of
each). We find the shifted phrasing pattern for
the unison Ob I (but see Note 276/2nd–284/1st)
to be more plausible and adjust S Coro accord-
ingly, and suggest its vertical extension to the
other three Coro parts (C Coro = unison Ob
II; T and B Coro = unison Fg) as well. RI1913
(following the lead of RI1875) adjusted S Coro in
like manner, but without extending the slurs to
C, T, and B Coro.
282–283 Ott, Fl, Ob, Fg A: hastily marked or missing
slurs: for Ott, one single slur for the seven ;
for Fl, no slurs; for Ob, slurs only for 2nd–4th;
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
for Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), the slur at
283 begins on 1st rather than 2nd (see Note
276/2nd–284/1st).
282/1st S soloist A: staccato missing, probably forgot-
ten by GV following a page turn; we supply
by analogy with 278 and 280. rRIms, I-Mr, and
RI1875 agree; rRI1874 and RI1913 follow A.
282/2nd–283 Orch A: missing cresc. symbols and others
of varying length, but those GV marked for
Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II) and Vc make his in-
tentions clear beyond any doubt (confirmed in
MpR). We also suggest their extension to Coro,
unlike any of the examined sources.
284, 286, 288 Brass A: missing but clearly intented ac-
cents, which we integrate (as did RI1913) with-
out typographical distinction.
284 –289 Woodwinds, Strings A: missing slurs and
articulation. With regard to the phrasing, the
overall clarity of GV’s intentions allows us to
integrate missing slurs without typographi-
cal distinction. Of greater concern is the scant
presence of articulation signs, particularly
accents (see Note 284, 286, 288 for the brass
accents). Even so, what few GV marked tend
to agree with the more generous sampling in
MpR, so that there is no reason to think that
he wanted anything different. Those cases that
are more problematic may be summarized as
follows:
– 284/2nd–289 Fl, Cl I: very few staccati and
slurs; we (like RI1913) supply in vertical con-
formity with Vle, who lack only the slur at 288.
– 284, 286, 288 Ott, Ob I, Vni I: no accents on
3rd for Ott and Ob I, and only one, at 284,
for Vni I (confirmed in MpR); we (like RI1913)
supply in vertical conformity with the general
presence of homorhythmic accents for the brass
instruments (see Note 284, 286, 288 Brass).
– 284 –288 Ob II, Cl II, Fg, Vni II, Cb (Vc = Cb
from 285): extremely few accents on 3rd in
these bars. For the various  at 284, 286, and
288, we supply in vertical conformity with the
brass instruments. The only accents in A for
the concomitant  are at 286 for Fg I–II (Fg III–
IV = Fg I–II), and Cb (Vc = Cb); and at 288 for
B Coro. MpR has three more: at 286 for Vni II,
and at 288 for Vni II and Ob II. Given this evi-
dence of intended participation in the general
accent established by the brass instruments, we
supply accents for the  where missing.
On the other hand, there is legitimate room for
doubt regarding the accents for the  on 3rd
at 285 and 287. GV marked only one example
in A, for Fg I (Fg III = Fg I) at 287. Supporting
evidence from MpR cannot be brought to bear
in this case because it is present in Cb (Vc = Cb),
whose rhythmic (and melodic) configuration
81
 is different at 285 and 287 in A: while MpR
has two  with an accent for the second  in
both bars, in A GV originally copied the two
 but later erased them and replaced each pair
with  instead. It is therefore possible that the
sole accent for Fg I at 287/3rd was only a slip
of the pen, perhaps with the Cb accent in that
position from MpR in mind. We accept it with
reservation, extending it vertically to Ob II, Cl
II, and Vni II at 287, and similarly suggesting
it to every a’  at 285/3rd. RI1913 has no accents
for Ob II, Cl II, Fg I and III, Vc, and Cb other
than the general one at 284. RI1964 reinstated
the accent for Vc and Cb at 286/3rd from A, but
not the one for Fg I at 287/3rd.
286 C and B Coro, 288 C Coro A: accents missing on
3rd; we supply in conformity, and by analogy,
with the accent for B Coro at 288 (see also Note
284 –289: 284 –288).
•287/1st Vni I A: g' missing, notwithstanding the tie GV
had marked for it from the previous bar. None
of the examined sources add g'.
288 Timp A:  with only two cuts through the
stem; we modify to match 284 and 286.
290, 294 Orch A: missing and occasionally divergent
articulation. At 290, despite the lacunae, it is
possible to find a model for each rhythmic-
melodic figure that can be extended for vertical
conformity; the only exceptions are the staccati
on 1st and 2nd for Vni II and Vle, which may
theoretically be extended to Ott and Ob I as
well. At 294 there is even less articulation to be
had, but what little GV marked is in agreement
with 290 (the texture of which is analogous to
294), allowing us to fill the remaining gaps in a
similarly concordant manner.
290/1st–2nd S Coro A: staccati missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with the unison S soloist.
Already rRIms (→ rRI1874 and RI1913) had cor-
rected the oversight.
•291/4th–292/1st Ott, Ob I, Vni II MpR: ties, all of which
are not present in A. RI1913 added them by
analogy with previous melodic figures (such as
Ott, Ob I, and Vni I at 288/3rd–289/1st).
296/3rd, 297, 298/3rd, 299 B Coro, Brass A: at 296/3rd
and 297, accents only for B Coro and Cor I–II;
at 298/3rd and 299, accents for all brass instru-
ments, and an accent only at 299 for B Coro.
297/2nd Voices A: f only for S soloist and S Coro, the
latter of which we interpret as a general indica-
tion applicable to C and T Coro as well (but
not to B Coro, who move independently of the
other voices here).
298, 300, 302 Strings A: GV marked accents on 1st and
3rd as follows:
298: Vni I and Cb on 1st; Vni I, Vni II, and Vc
on 3rd;
82
300: no accents on 1st; Cb on 3rd;
302: no accents on 1st; Vni I, Vc, and Cb on 3rd.
In MpR there are accents for Cb (Vc = Cb)
on 1st and 3rd in all three bars, while for the
other strings they appear exclusively (if not
consistently) on 3rd. Since those for Cb on 1st
in MpR are likely residual from the skeleton
score phase of composition, we suppress the
two accents in A at 298/1st as an intrusive (and
outdated) influence from MpR. In I-Mr and
RI1875 the accents become progressively fewer
at 300 and 302; RI1913 adopted and extended
the accents at 298/1st and 3rd, but then ignored
them entirely at 300 and at 302.
301, 303 Cor III–IV A: slurs missing; we supply by anal-
ogy with 299 and in vertical conformity with
the woodwinds.
304 –307 Winds A: missing and partial slurs, evidently
exacerbated by a page turn (recto to verso)
between 305 and 306. At 304 –305 GV marked
open-ended slurs for Ob, Cor I–II, Fg I–II (Fg
III–IV = Fg I–II), and Trbn I–II (those for Fg and
Trbn begin only from the second  at 304); after
the page turn, at 306 –307 he marked them for
Fl, Ott, and Trbn I–II. We find this sufficient
evidence of GV’s intentions and supply a single
continuous slur uniformly for all of the wind
parts.
•304–307 Gr C RI1913: three cuts over the four , but
there are clearly only two in A. I-Mr and
pUS-Cso also have three cuts.
308 A: varying dynamic indications: GV marked p
for Vc, pp for Cb, and ppp for Vni and Vle (Vle
also have a p beneath the ppp), apparently a
reflection of some uncertainty that could well
bring into question his differentiation between
ppp for S soloist and pp for Coro. However,
while it seems appropriate to establish verti-
cal conformity among the strings, we prefer
to maintain the dynamic distinction between
S soloist and Coro: after S soloist’s prominent
participation in the previous passage (other-
wise GV would have written it for Coro alone),
it seems he intended to have her voice “merge”
with the others, concluding this section as
one of the group. The examined sources opted
for dynamic uniformity: I-Mr = tutti p; rRIms,
rRI1874, RI1875, and RI1913 = tutti ppp.
312–327 Coro A: GV marked two extremely clear exam-
ples of phrasing and articulation for the subject
and response in this stretto section, both of
which serve as templates where such indica-
tions are otherwise missing: for the subject,
at 312–318 (B Coro); and for the response, at
315 –321 (S Coro). The latter of these lacks only
two small details, an accent at 315/1st and a
staccato at 316/1st, but they are easily gleaned
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 from the first two (entirely similar) bars of the
subject. No divergent elements arise in the
other vocal entrances, allowing us simply to
integrate missing slurs and articulation in con-
formity with their respective models (for the
dim. symbols, see Note 315, 317, 323, 325). The
lacunae may be summarized as follows:
– 313–319 T Coro: no articulation;
– 314–318 C Coro: no articulation at 314, no
slurs at 316/1st–2nd and 317/2nd–4th, and no
accent at 318/4th;
– 315/1st, 316/1st S Coro: no accent and no stac-
cato respectively;
– 320–324 T Coro: no staccati at 320/3rd–4th, no
slur at 323/2nd–4th, and no accent at 324/4th;
– 321–326 B Coro: no staccati at 321/3rd–322/1st
and at 323/1st, no slur at 325/3rd–4th, and no
accent at 326/1st;
– 322–323 S Coro: no articulation;
– 323/3rd–325/1st C Coro: no staccati.
312–327 Strings A: unlike the choral parts, which they
double, the strings have no complete and
coherent model of phrasing and articulation for
the subject and response (the examined sources
largely reproduce the same incongruencies in
A); even so, because the problem is mostly one
of lacunae rather than divergences, of which
there are relatively few, it is possible to derive
a complete model by means of comparison and
reciprocal integration. Those cases where some
degree of doubt remains are discussed in the
following Notes; see in particular Note 314,
316, 322, 324 and Note 316, 318, 324, 326. The
lacunae and divergences may be summarized
as follows:
– 312–316 Vc: accent rather than caret at 312/1st;
slur for all four  and staccato on 1st as well at
313; no slur at 316/1st–3rd;
– 313/3rd–4th Vle: no staccati;
– 316/1st–3rd Vni II: no slur;
– 320/2nd Vni II: no staccati for the eighth notes
(see the relative Note);
– 323/2nd–4th, 324/1st–3rd Vle: no slurs;
– 325 Vni II: slur; given that there are other
divergent slurs and articulation in this conclu-
sion of the stretto, we preserve the slur for
313–326 Woodwinds A: GV marked complete models
for the articulation of the two-bar accompani-
mental figure at 313/2nd–314/2nd for Fl and Cl,
and at 316/2nd–317/2nd for Ott and Ob; in all
other iterations there are no staccati for the 
other than at 326/1st for Ott (Ob = Ott). MpR is
more scrupulously supplied with these missing
staccati (where GV often marked them for only
one of two unison parts). Between the afore-
mentioned models in A and their extended
confirmation in MpR, there is no reason to
doubt his intentions.
314 Vc, 316 Vni II, 322 Vle, 324 Vni I A: there are diver-
gent readings on 1st–3rd for the phrasing/
articulation in these four corresponding bars
of the stretto: staccati at 314 (Vc); no articula-
tion and no slur at 316 (Vni II); partial slur at
322 (Vle); full slur at 324 (Vni I). We adopt the
last of these as our model and adjust the others
accordingly.
315 T Coro, 317 S Coro, 323 B Coro, 325 C Coro A: only
one dim. symbol is clearly marked on 2nd– 4th
in these four corresponding bars of the stretto,
at 323 (B Coro); there is a large accent at 317
(S Coro), which could also be interpreted as a
dim. symbol, and nothing at 315 (T Coro) and
325 (C Coro). In each case the unison string
part has a distinctly marked dim. symbol,
and MpR confirms dim. symbols for both the
voices and the strings. We find this sufficient
evidence to adopt 323 as our model and adjust
the other bars accordingly.
316 Vle, 318 Vni I, 324 Vc, 326 Vni II A:
 
At 316, Vle =    

At 326, Vni II =    

Evidently, at 316 (Vle) and 326 (Vni II) GV
distractedly copied the same phrasing and
articulation he had marked in MpR for all four
bars corresponding to 316, 318, 324, and 326.
That model, with three staccati and a slur on
2nd– 4th, was more appropriate for the first,
original text setting in MpR:
    
 

 

 
 
      
Vni II;
– 326/2nd–4th Vni I: slur and staccati; given
that there are other divergent slurs and
articulation in this conclusion of the stretto, we
preserve phrasing and articulation for Vni I.
•312/3rd B Coro A: the staccato could be confused with
a small accent, as occurred in I-Mr and RI1875;
indeed, rRIms (→ rRI1874 → R I1913) chose to
place an accent on 4th as well, applying this
same articulation to the three successive en-
tries.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
Instead the example he marked at 318 (Vni I)
and again at 324 (Vc), with the four  slurred
as 2 + 2 and staccati for the latter two, is better
adapted to the text setting in A (which in turn
reflects modifications he had meanwhile made
to MpR). We therefore adopt the phrasing and
articulation of 318 and 324 for 316 and 326 as
well (but with the accent at 326/4th).
320/2nd Vni II A: staccati missing for the eighth notes;
we supply by analogy with 318/2nd (Vc) and
83
 326/2nd (Vle). I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) ignored
them.
•323–324 T Coro A: GV erroneously set “in die illa” in
these two bars:
       

 
 
     
All of the examined sources follow A.
328 Fg I A: p missing; we supply in accordance
with the p for Fl I at 329 and by analogy with
Cl I at 330, thereby returning, like them, to
the earlier dynamic before the interceding f
marked at 326 for all three parts.
328 Fg I, 330 Cl I, 332 Fg III, 334 Ob I A: the accent for
the first note of the subject is present only
for Cl I at 330, but in the previous imitative
episode (312ff) the relative string parts were
always supplied with carets (accent for Vc at
312); in general this same consideration applies
to nearly all of the thematic incipits that appear
over the course of N. 7.
328 –336 Coro A: none of the four subject entries in this
brief canonic passage has a complete set of
slurs and articulation. Nonetheless, since there
are only lacunae and no divergences, a model
can be obtained through reciprocal integration
and by comparison with the woodwind parts
which, while occasionally different, are more
completely furnished than the voices moving
in unison with them (but see also Note 328,
330, 332, 334). The lacunae may be summarized
as follows:
– 330/1st–3rd T Coro: no staccati;
– 331/1st–3rd C Coro: no staccati;
– 332 B Coro: no accent on 1st or staccati on
3rd–4th;
– 334–336 S Coro: no articulation (slur for the
four notes at 334; see the relative Note).
Integration of the staccati for S Coro at
336/2nd– 4th remains an arguable choice, given
the different text (“et terra” rather than “mov-
endi”) and the fact that the theme is truncated
precisely where an accent would otherwise fall
(as at the corresponding 330 [T Coro], 332 [C
Coro], and 334 [B Coro]); we supply by analogy
with the articulation GV marked for the same
fragment of text for B Coro at 335/4th–336/2nd,
and with the vertical support of the unison
Ob I.
328/1st Fl II A: after a page turn GV forgot to add the
g'', possibly with an eye to MpR (where Fl II
is not present in the bars corresponding to
326–328).
329 –332 S soloist A: the exact lengths of the cresc. and
dim. symbols are difficult to determine be-
cause they partially merge with the concomi-
tant slur, but clearly the cresc. begins after 329
84
and the dim. stops substantially before the end
of the phrase. We find it musically plausible
that GV intended to limit the messa di voce
to the duration of the g’’, and we suggest its
integration for the g’’ at 334 –335 as well. I-Mr
(→ R I1875 → R I1913) extended both symbols
to cover the entire phrase; rRIms (→ rRI1874)
ignored them altogether.
334 S Coro A: anomalous slur for the four notes
(all the examined sources follow A), unsup-
ported by any previous thematic entry; we
suppress. In all probability GV had mistakenly
anticipated the expressive interpretation of the
incipit that begins at 336 –337 (for an analogous
situation, see Note 255 –256).
334 –335 S soloist: for the suggested messa di voce, see
Note 329 –332.
336–337 C Coro, Trb I A: both slurs begin roughly from
336/3rd, but a complete (and far more plausible)
model can be had from Cl I and the analogous
phrases that follow. Evidently GV wanted to
realize a sort of reminiscence effect relative to
258ff, where the two-bar thematic incipit is also
marked legato and “dolcissimo”.
336 –341 C Coro MpR, A: the perceptibility of each
subject entry in this passage was of particular
concern to GV, who added the following anno-
tation to the bottom of the page in MpR: “Qui
si aggiungeranno altri 2 Contralti onde sia più
sensibile il Soggetto” [“Here 2 Contraltos shall
be added so that the Subject becomes more
evident”]. He originally copied this instruction
into A as well but then erased it after modi-
fying the earlier footnote he had written for
328ff: “Questo squarcio sempre sotto voce e ver-
rà eseguito da poche voci / nel coro basteranno
2 4. Soprani – 2 4. Con[tralti] 2 4. Ten[ori] 2 4.
Bassi” [“This passage always sottovoce, and to
be executed by only a few voices / in the Coro
2 4. Sopranos – 2 4. Con[traltos] 2 4. Ten[ors] 2
4. Basses will suffice”]. Having thus increased
the number of voices for each part from 2 to 4
at 328ff, he presumably thought it superfluous
to supplement C Coro still further (for a total
of 6 voices) at 336. Nevertheless certain musical
considerations suggest that such an expedient
might well prove effective, notwithstanding
his perhaps arguably motivated decision to the
contrary. In fact, while the entry for C Coro at
336 occurs in a register where it can be clearly
distinguished – and without the risk of being
overwhelmed by Trb I – the line then descends
progressively, and less favorably, to reach g
at 341. It is plausible that an additional boost
to their breadth of sound would also benefit
the aggregate “a4” choral balance. Therefore,
should the appropriate resources be available
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 and the need arise, we suggest adding two
more voices at 336 to sustain and strengthen
the part for C Coro. Because none of the sourc-
es derived from A enjoyed any direct contact
with MpR, the original prescription from MpR
is absent in the traditional transmission history
of this music.
336–343 Trb I A: GV forgot (as in MpR) to supply the
necessary flats, as though they were already
present in the key signature.
337–342 T Coro, Fg I A: as often happened, GV only
began the slurs for these parts following a page
turn (recto to verso), in this case between 337
and 338, marking the one for T Coro with two
pen strokes between 338 and 340 (I-Mr has
only a short slur for T Coro at 338 –339; RI1913
and rRIms → rRI1874 ignored that one as well).
Since there seems to be no reason to inter-
rupt either the textual or melodic unity of the
phrase, we complete the slur for Fg I and apply
the same musical logic to the one for T Coro.
348 T and B Coro A: pp, probably a partial in-
trusion from MpR. Already I-Mr and rRIms
modifed them to ppp in conformity with S and
C Coro.
348–349 B Coro, Fg II, III–IV, Cor III A: as often hap-
pened elsewhere, GV forgot to mark ties for
these parts (all some octave of G) over the page
turn (recto to verso) between 348 and 349, but
his intentions are clear.
349 Ob I A: accent missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with Cl I. All of the examined
sources have no accent for either part.
350 Vni II A: standard slur missing for the alternat-
ing sixteenth notes.
354–358 Ob I A: 354 and 355 are separated by a change
of page (verso to recto), prompting GV to mark
an anomalous slur from 355 to 358. We adjust
in vertical agreement with the unison S Coro.
356 Ob I A: dim. symbol missing.
360–361 Vni I A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the unison Cl I.
363–364 Fg III A: slur missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with the unison Vc.
366 –367 B Coro A: at 366, the last bar of a verso, GV
wrote pppp for the entrance of B Coro, but in
the left margin of the following recto he wrote
“Tutti” (previously B Coro had been reduced to
four voices) and ppp, with “cominciando sotto
voce” added above the part (“cominciando ppp”
appears above Vni I and beneath Cb); we opt
for ppp in conformity with the instruments,
and assign all three indications to their logical
position at 366.
•369 T Coro A: p; we modify to pp in vertical
conformity with S soloist and C Coro. rRIms
misinterpreted the focus of the three separate
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
indications at 366–367 (pppp, “Tutti”, and “com-
inciando sotto voce”) and at 369 assigned “sot-
tovoce” to S, C, and T Coro as well; this error
was subsequently transmitted to the printed
sources.
370/1st–3rd B Coro A: tie (absent in MpR). Among the
examined sources, only I-Mr and RI1875 adopt-
ed it, the latter compounding this error with
another: in order to make sense of the tie, the
copyist set the syllable “[i-]gnem” beneath the 
and moved “i-” back to the left of the bar line.
371–373 Cb (Fg I–II, Vc = Cb) A: anomalous caret on 1st
at 371 (already I-Mr and RI1875 had replaced it
with an accent), and no accents at 372 and 373;
we supply by analogy with 367–369 (in I-Mr
and RI1875 372 and 373 = 371 → R I1913, where
they are correctly integrated).
375, 377, 379 Fg, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati on 3rd and
4th are present only for Fg I–II at 375 and 377
(from 376 Fg III–IV = Fg I–II); we supply where
missing in conformity with these models.
380 –381 Trbn III–Of A: it is not clear whether GV
intended these two bars to be played by one
or both instruments. We assign them to Of, as
in pUS-Cso; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) gave the
notes double stems.
380/3rd Of, Cb (Vc = Cb) A: accent missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with Fg I–II (Fg III–IV =
Fg I–II).
•381/3rd–4th Cb (Vc = Cb) A: staccati rather than the
prevailing accents. I-Mr has no articulation
for Cb, but also none for Trbn III–Of (see Note
380–381) and Cor III–IV, which lacunae were
transmitted to RI1875 (→ R I1913).
382 A Orch: differing and occasionally missing
dynamics: fff above Vni I and beneath Cb,
otherwise ff (Coro = ff, and “tutta forza” above
S Coro). We consider fff to be residual from the
skeleton score and opt for ff, which allows for
further expansion to a maximum fff at 396 (see
also Note 396).
382–387 A: GV marked only a handful of accents in this
homorhythmic sequence (although comparison
with the far more generously supplied passage
in MpR makes his intentions sufficiently clear).
Their presence in A is particularly exiguous
on the downbeats of 383 (for Cor I–II, Timp, S
Coro, and Cb [Vc = Cb]), 385 (Ott alone), and
387 (S Coro alone). Nevertheless GV marked
complete examples at 382–383 (the first of the
three statements) for Cor I–II, Timp, S Coro,
and Cb, which we have used as templates
for both vertical and horizontal extension
(at 384–385 and 386–387). RI1913 adopted this
same solution, which is also mirrored in rRIms
(→ rRI1874).
•388/1st Cor III–IV A: isolated accent; we suppress. I-Mr
85
 (→ R I1875) preserved it, with additional accents
for Cor I–II and Trb III–IV; RI1913 extended it to
all parts but Coro and Timp.
388/3rd–389/3rd Fg I–II A: isolated slur; we suppress (as
did RI1913).
390 Orch A: only a few accents are present: one
between the staves for Cor, another between
the staves for Fg, and two for Cb (Vc = Cb). It
is not clear whether the one between the Fg
staves was intended for Fg II or for Fg III–IV. In
any case, accents for Fg III–IV and Trbn III–Of
are plausible because both bass parts function
in conjunction with Vc and Cb.
390/1st–391/1st S Coro A: slur, perhaps lingering from
an earlier version; all of the examined sources
agree in its suppression.
392–395 C Coro A: accents missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with S Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
follows A; I-Mr has no accents for either S
Coro or C Coro; RI1875 (→ R I1913) ignored the
accent for S Coro at 392 but extended the re-
maining three to C Coro.
392/3rd–393/1st Fg II A: tie missing; we supply in vertical
conformity with Ott, Fl, Cl II, and Cor III–IV.
392/3rd–393/3rd T Coro A: the slur stops at 393/1st; while
it may be residual from an earlier version (and
was in fact ignored by all of the examined
sources), we nonetheless find it plausible that
T Coro should have the same phrasing as the
unison Cor I–II (see also Note 392/3rd–393/3rd
Fg I, Trbn I).
392/3rd–393/3rd Fg I, Trbn I A: GV marked these slurs
beneath Fg II and Trbn II, but they obviously
apply to Fg I and Trbn I, in vertical conformity
with Cor I.
393/4th Trb I–II (Trb III–IV = Trb I–II) A: staccati miss-
ing for the last two eighth notes.
394 Fg III–IV, Trbn III–Of A: accent missing; we
supply in vertical conformity with the unison
Cb (Vc = Cb).
395/1st Fg I, Fg III–IV, Trbn I–II, Trbn III–Of A: accents
missing; we supply the accent for the  of Trbn
II in vertical conformity with Fg II, Cor, and
Trb I and III; those for the other parts (all of
which move homorhythmically in unison or
parallel sixths) are supplied in vertical con-
formity with Cb (Vc = Cb).
396 Orch A: GV marked various gradations of
forte ranging from f to fff in the left margin of
the page (396 is the first bar following a page
turn), but with no apparent rhyme or reason in
their distribution. Both the texture and pivotal
position of this climax seem to countervail any
attempt at significant dynamic differentiation:
it makes little sense, for example, that Timp
should play ff and Gr C f precisely where the
intensity of sound is pitched at maximum
86
level, with at least a pair of fff for the winds
(roughly positioned in the area of Fg III–IV and
Cor I–II) and another fff for Vni I. In MpR the
corresponding bar is uniformly marked ff, with
the possible exception one fff for Trb (but no
differentiation between Timp and Gr C). In A,
on the other hand, Trb are expressly marked
fff at 392, an unlikely choice were the dynamic
level then to diminish only a few bars later.
We therefore supply fff for the entire orchestra
at 396. The examined sources adopted various
solutions, none of which coherently addresses
the overall dynamic disposition of the passage
from 382 to 396 (see also Note 382):
I-Mr = ff for Fg I–II, Vni, and Vle – f for Fl and
Cl (at 382 ff for Fl, Trbn, Of and strings – f for
all other parts; at 390 p [sic] for Trb I–II – at
392/2nd ff for Trb I–II [Trb III–IV = Trb I–II]);
RI1875 = f (f also at 382; at 390 f for Trb I–II; at
392 ff for Trb I–IV);
RI1913 = ff (at 382 ff tutta forza; at 388 f for Trb
III–IV; at 390 f for Trb I–II; at 392 ff for Trb I–II
and III–IV);
rRIms (→ rRI1874) = fff (at 382 ff tutta forza).
397 Timp A: two cuts [  j ]; we modify to three as in
the adjoining bars.
•406 S Coro A: ppp; we modify to pp in vertical con-
formity with C and T Coro. rRIms (→ rRI1874)
has ppp for S Coro but no dynamic for C and T
Coro; I-Mr (→ R I1875 → R I1913) gave ppp to all
three parts.
•409 Vc, Cb I-Mr, RI1913: ppp for both parts (RI1875 =
pp), notwithstanding GV’s clearly marked pp
for Vc and ppp for Cb in A. We believe this to
be an intentional differentiation: given that Cb
has a rather penetrating sound in that register,
GV probably wanted to balance it properly
with Vc.
414 Orch A: ppp for Vni I, pp for Vni II, Vle, and
Fg I; we supply ppp for all instruments, which
is closer to the pppp GV marked for S Coro at
412 and conforms with Cb’s ppp from 409 (see
the relative Note above).
416 Tempo A: see Note 171, 416.
416 S soloist A: originally a breath mark after
“æterna”, later erased (see also Note 7– 9).
418, 420 Voci A: pp and pppp only for S soloist.
•419 Orch A: ppp for Ob, Gr C, Vle, and Vc; other-
wise pp. We prefer pp for greater equilibrium
with Coro, but maintain ppp for Gr C (as in
RI1875). RI1913 = tutti ppp.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
Appendix
“Liber scriptus” first version (1874)
S problematic resolution are cited in the follow-
A, vol. I, pp. 68a– 80a37
The first version of the “Liber scriptus” (1874) begins from
the third bar of p. 68a (162a) and ends with the penultimate
bar of p. 80a (215a) (see also the critical commentary for N.
2). The later, definitive version of the “Liber scriptus” (1875)
was inserted between p. 68a and p. 69a.
Among the examined sources, only I-Mr, pUS-Cso, and
rRI1874 contain the first version. Since for the most part they
acritically follow A, they are rarely useful for the edition
of this piece, nor do they help to reconstruct the genesis
of eventual errors because the first version had no further
transmission history once it was replaced with the defini-
tive 1875 version in the performing tradition.
C carefully and completely marked up to 173a,
162a, 166a, 170a, 174a Strings A: GV only marked one
p, at 162a for Vni I, which we consider valid
for this entire section and extend to all other
subject entries.
162a–182a/1st Coro A: in this fugal exposition (“Liber
scriptus proferetur… unde mundus judicetur”)
the vocal parts have fairly homogeneous slurs
and articulation, with some lacunae but no
incongruencies (I-Mr and rRI1874 generally fol-
low A). The subject (S), response (R), and first
countersubject (Cs1) all have clear and coherent
models that can be extended where otherwise
missing; particularly the exhaustively marked
initial entry of S for S Coro at 162a–166a/2nd
(but see also Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st), which we
can apply to all appearances of S and R. The
fact that all three appearances of Cs1 (S Coro
at 166a/3rd–170a/1st, C Coro at 170/3rd–174/1st,
T Coro at 174/3rd–178/1st, B Coro at 178/3rd–
182/1st) have substantially the same slurs and
articulation seems to confirm GV’s intention
that there should be no variation among them.
While there are more lacunae with regard
to Cs2 (S Coro at 170a/3rd–174a/1st, C Coro at
174a/3rd–178a/1st, T Coro at 178a/3rd–182a/1st)
and Cs3 (S Coro at 174a/2nd–178a/1st, C Coro at
178a/2nd–182a/1st), S Coro is marked in detail
up to 178a/1st, again serving as a model for the
other voices whose slurs and articulation are
more lacunose but not divergent.
The same is true for the cresc. symbols: of the
four GV marked for S Coro, only the first one
appears in successive enunciations of S and
R; we extend the remaining three to C, T, and
37 The page numbering refers to the status of A prior to the inser-
tion of the “Liber scriptus” second version.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
B Coro from S Coro, though acknowledging
some doubt regarding the one at 166a/3rd–167a
(see the relative Note). Specific cases of more
ing Notes.
162a–182a/1st Strings A: unlike the vocal parts, where
the slurs and articulation GV marked for S
Coro can be applied to C, T, and B Coro (see
Note 162a–182a/1st Coro), the instruments that
double them have no such exhaustive and un-
equivocal model (I-Mr and pUS-Cso more or
less faithfully reproduce the same incongruen-
cies). We therefore derive a model through re-
ciprocal comparison of the instrumental parts,
in addition to comparison of each one with the
concomitant vocal part, silently integrating and
rectifying and discussing individual passages
in the following Notes.
With regard to the cresc. symbols, they are
after which there are only two for Vc (176a–
177a, 180a–181a) and one for Vni I (180a–181a).
We integrate where missing based on previous
appearances, and suggest them for Vni I at
166a–167a, Vni II at 170a–171a, Vle at 174a–175a,
and Vc at 178a–179a on the model of S Coro at
166a–167a (see Note 166a/3rd–167a).
162a/3rd–163a/1st S Coro A: the slur for this thematic
incipit does not appear in the subsequent
entrances for C Coro (166a–167a/1st), T Coro
(170a–171a/1st), or B Coro (174a–175a/1st); it
does occur again, only once, for T Coro at
182a/3rd–183a/1st, but with a different text
(“Judex ergo…”). Since it is difficult to imag-
ine that GV would have been anything less
than precise in establishing the slurs and
articulation he wanted for the beginning of the
exposition of the fugue, we accept and extend
this initial slur for S Coro to the other three
entrances, considering the slurs and articula-
tion GV marked for S Coro to be paradigmatic
(see Note 162a–182a/1st Coro). However, given
the possibility that this slur may be directly
relevant only to the pronunciation of the
particular text involved, we do not extend it to
those thematic entries where the text is differ-
ent (see also Note 182a/3rd–183a/1st). 
162a/3rd–163a/1st Vni I, 166/3rd–167/1st Vni II A:    

but the articulation in the corresponding pas-
sages for Vle(170a–171a) and Vc (174a–175a) is
    While the articulation for Vni I and II
would be entirely plausible, even because at
163 and in all corresponding passages the
instrumental slurs and articulation diverge
from the concomitant voices, the thematic
incipits for Vni I at 178a/3rd–179a/1st and Vle
87
 at 182a/3rd–183a/1st reflect the same articula-
tion GV marked for S, C, and T Coro (there is

no articulation for B Coro). We therefore infer
that GV must have refined his idea of the slurs
and articulation he wanted for the strings as he
went along.
162a/3rd–4th S Coro A: “con espres[sione]”; we interpret
this indication as valid for the successive vocal
entrances of S and R as well, although it can-
not be excluded that GV intended it to refer
only to this first enunciation of the subject.
166a C Coro A: staccati for the two ; we replace
with carets in conformity with the other three
choral incipits of the subject (GV often marked
staccati as “shorthand” for carets or accents:
see Edition criteria, “Interchangeability of car-
ets, accents, staccato”, pp. 10–11.
166a–167a/1st C Coro, 170a–171a/1st T Coro, 174a–175a/1st
B Coro A: slur missing; we supply in con-
formity with the model supplied by S Coro at
162a–163a/1st, in accordance with the criterion
established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
166a/3rd–167a S Coro A: the cresc. symbol is present here
but for no other corresponding passage, either
vocal or instrumental, in the fugal exposition
of 162a–182a. Nevertheless there is no reason to
doubt its deliberate nature, given the absence
of any suggestion of cancellation. It is also ex-
tremely convincing from a musical standpoint,
as a means of intensifying the expressivity of
the only chromatic element of this fugal expo-
sition. I-Mr and rRI1874 adopted it but without
extending it to the other voices. We therefore,
although with some reservation, extend it to
the corresponding vocal entries and the instru-
ments that double these parts, which results in
“waves” of crescendi through the four enuncia-
tions of the subject.
166a/3rd–167a Vni I, 170a/3rd–171a Vni II, 174a/3rd–175a
Vle, 178a/3rd–179a Vc A: missing and diver-
gent slurs. For Vni I, the slur extends from
166a/3rd to the first  of 168; for Vni II the slur
is missing; for Vle and Vc, the slur covers only
the two  at 174a/3rd–4th and 178a/3rd–4th
respectively (the latter due to a page turn, recto
to verso). We supply and adjust in conformity
with the concomitant slurs for the voices (but
see also Note 174a/3rd–175a, 178a/3rd–179a).
168a C Coro A: slur missing; we supply based on
the model of S Coro at 164 (as established in
Note 162a–182a/1st Coro), and by analogy with
T Coro at 172 and B Coro at 176.
168a Vni II A: slur missing; we supply based on the
models of Vni I at 164 and Vle at 172, in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
162a–182a/1st Strings.
168a–169a Vni I A:     
 ; no articulation is 174a/3rd–175a T Coro, 178a/3rd–179a B Coro A: diver-
88
present for Vni II (172a–173a) and Vc (180a–
181a), but Vle (176a–177a) has
   
We supply and adjust the articulation for
these parts, replacing the caret for the  where
present with an accent, in conformity with the
concomitant vocal parts, as established in Note
162a–182a/1st Strings (but see also Note 169a).
169a S Coro A: caret; we replace with an accent, as
GV did himself at 173a for C Coro and 177a for
T Coro (marking accents directly over carets
in each case); at 181a he directly supplied an
accent for B Coro.
170a/3rd–4th C Coro, 174 /3rd–4th T Coro, 178/3rd–4th B
Coro A: “legate” missing; we supply from
the model supplied by S Coro at 166a/3rd–4th,
in accordance with the criterion established in
Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
170a/3rd–171a C Coro, Vni II: for the suggested cresc.
symbol, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.
170a/3rd–172a/1st S Coro A: two different phrasings are
present, the first of which probably belongs
to an earlier cancelled version: A) a slur from
170a/3rd to 172a/1st, erased right after the bar
line at 171a (between the a’ and c’’); B) two
slurs, the first for 170a/3rd–4th, the second for
171a/1st–172a/1st. I-Mr and rRI1874 opted for
solution A (though interrupting the slur on the
last eighth note of 171a). We adopt solution B,
extending it also to C and T, respectively at
174a/3rd–176a/1st and 178a/3rd–180a/1st.
171a/1st Vle, 175a/1st Vc A: no articulation is present,
while Vni I at 163a/1st and Vni II at 167a/1st
have carets. We adopt the model supplied by
the vocal parts, as well as the numerous other
instrumental enunciations of the thematic
incipit (see also Note 162a/3rd–163a/1st Vni I,
166a/3rd–167a/1st Vni II).
172a–173a C Coro A: cresc. symbol only at 173; we adjust
based on the model of S Coro at 168a–169a,
according to the criterion established in Note
162a–182a/1st Coro.
172a/2nd–4th Vni I A: staccati missing; we supply in con-
formity with the corresponding Vni II at 176a
and Vle at 180, in accordance with the criterion
established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.
173a T Coro A: slur missing; we supply in conform-
ity with the corresponding S Coro at 165 and B
Coro at 177.
174a–175a/1st B Coro A: no articulation is present;
we supply in conformity with the previous
entrances of S (S Coro at 162a–163a/1st and T
Coro at 170a–171a/1st) and R (C Coro at 166a–
167a/1st; but see Note 166a).
174a/3rd–175a T Coro, Vle: for the suggested cresc. sym-
bol, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 gent slurs, caused respectively by a page turn
(recto to verso) and a change of page (verso to
recto). We adjust in conformity with the cor-
responding S Coro at 166a/3rd–167a and C Coro
at 170a/3rd–171a, where GV’s intentions are
clearly marked.
175a Vc A: the slur and the accent on 1st are missing
and GV marked staccati also for the first two
eighth notes, possibly an inadvertent anticipa-
tion of the articulation for the thematic incipit
in the next section, which is characterized by
greater orchestral density and dynamic con-
trasts. We adjust to match the previous enun-
ciations of the theme.
175a–176a C Coro, 179a–180a T Coro A: lacunose phras-
ing and articulation:
– 175a–176a: both slurs and the staccati are
missing;
– 179a–180a: the first slur begins from the first
eighth note in 179a; staccati in 179a and second
slur in 180a are missing. We adjust in conform-
ity with the model of S Coro at 171a–172a, in
accordance with the criterion established in
Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
176a–177a T Coro A: cresc. symbol missing; we suggest in
conformity with the model of S Coro at 168a–
169a, in accordance with the criterion estab-
lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
176a–177a Vc A: slurs and staccati missing; we supply
in conformity with the previous enunciations
of the theme, in accordance with the criterion
established in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.
176a–177a C Coro, 180a–181a T Coro A: cresc. symbols
missing; we supply based on the model of S
Coro at 172a–173a, in accordance with the crite-
rion established in Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
177a Vni II, 181a Vle A: slurs missing; we supply in con-
formity with Vni I at 173a, in accordance with
the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st
Strings.
177a–178a/1st S Coro A: slur missing; we suggest in
conformity with the corresponding C Coro at
181a–182a.
178a Vni II A: dim. symbol missing; we supply in
conformity with the corresponding Vni I at
174a, in accordance with the criterion estab-
lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.
178a–180a C Coro A: the dim. symbol at 178a, slur at
179a/2nd–180a/1st, and accents at 180a/2nd–4th
are missing; we supply based on the model
of S Coro at 174a–176a, in accordance with
the criterion established in Note 162a–182a/1st
Coro.
178a/3rd–179a B Coro, Vc: for the suggested cresc. sym-
bols, see Note 166a/3rd–167a.
178a/3rd–179a Vle A: slur missing; at 179a, accent on 1st
and additional staccati for the first two eighth
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
notes (evidently GV mistakenly carried over
the staccati from the concomitant Vni I part;
see Note 179a–181a). We adjust in conformity
with the corresponding Vni II at 174a/3rd–175a,
in accordance with the criterion established in
Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.
179a–181a Vni I A: at 179a the slur is missing and there
are additional staccati for the first two eighth
notes (as for Vc at 175a). We adjust in conform-
ity with the previous enunciations of the theme
by Vni I, Vni II, and Vle, as well as the succes-
sive entrance of Vle at 183a, which confirms
GV’s intention that the strings maintain the
same phrasing when the text becomes “Judex
ergo…” (at least up to the change of dynamic
at 184a/3rd). At 180a–181a there is a single slur
for the eight ; we modify based on the model
obtained in accordance with the criterion estab-
lished in Note 162a–182a/1st Strings.
179a–182a Vni II A: the accent, carets, and slurs are miss-
ing; we supply in conformity with the corre-
sponding Vni I at 175a–178a/1st, in accordance
with the criterion established in Note 162a–
182a/1st Strings.
180a–181a B Coro A: cresc. symbol missing; we supply
based on the model of S Coro at 168a–169a, in
accordance with the criterion established in
Note 162a–182a/1st Coro.
180a/2nd–4th C Coro A: accents missing; we supply
based on the model of S Coro at 176a, in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
162a–182a/1st Coro.
180a/2nd–4th Vle A: slur missing; we supply in conform-
ity with the corresponding Vni II at 176a, in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
162a–182a/1st Strings.
182a/3rd–183a/1st T Coro A: incomplete slur at
182/3rd– 4th, which is interrupted by a change
of page (verso to recto) and does not continue
to 183a; while a slur is present for S Coro at
162a–163/1st, we do not adopt it here in accord-
ance with the motivation explained in Note
162a/3rd–163a/1st.
184a T Coro, Vle A: neither the slurs nor staccati are
present, but presumably GV wanted the same
phrasing and articulation as in the previous
corresponding passages; nevertheless, given the
change of dynamic and orchestral texture in
this bar, we suggest their integration with all
due consideration for this difference.
184a–186a A: there is some divergence in the position of
the dynamic indications. For S Coro a second
superfluous f is present at 185a/1st, which we
suppress. Vni II and Cb both have f at 185/1st
as well, but in this case with no prior f at
184a. While there is no doubt that the f for Cb
should be anticipated to the thematic entry at
89
 184/3rd (in vertical conformity with Vc), the
proper position of the f for Vni II cannot be
established with equal certainty: it could be an-
ticipated to 184/2nd in vertical conformity with
Ob I, but in that case the f GV wrote for Vni II
at 186/3rd, where it marks the entrance of R in
inversion (in octave double stops for additional
emphasis), would lose its significance. We
therefore suppress the f for Vni II at 185/1st in
the conviction that GV intended the dynamic
to signal the entrance of the theme, whether in
direct or inverse motion. In keeping with this
logic, we extend the f for Vni II at 186a/3rd to
Vle, and suggest it for Cor, C Coro, and T Coro
as well. Meanwhile, presumably the dynamic
level reached after the crescendo at 180a–181a
will be at least mf, which we suggest for Cor I–
II at 185a and Cor III–IV at 184a. However, we
prefer to preserve the f GV marked at 184a for
Ob I, whose actual weight of sound will inevi-
tably be less than that of the other instruments
announcing the theme in that bar in direct (Fg
I–II and III–IV, Vc, Cb) and inverse (Fl I at the
upper octave, Cl I, Vni I) motion.
184a/3rd–4th S and B Coro A: accents; we replace with
carets, as per the other appearances of the
theme. For S Coro there is also a slur for the
two , which has no exact counterpart in any
other thematic incipit: the only two other
entries with a slur (S Coro at 162a and T Coro
at 182a) have it extending to the downbeat of
the next measure (but see also Note 182a/3rd–
183a/1st). We suppress this slur in accord-
ance with the motivation explained in Note
162a/3rd–163a/1st.
184a/3rd–213a Coro A: the phrasing and articulation
for the theme and successive variants in this
stretto section, as represented by B and S Coro
at 184a/3rd–186a (direct and inverted respec-
tively), are frequently lacunose and divergent
(I-Mr and rRI1874 largely reflect the same incon-
gruencies). We have established the following
general criteria for editorial intervention:
1) Articulation
a) GV marked accents for the two  of S and B
Coro at 184a/3rd– 4th, but they are carets in all
successive entries (with the exception of S Coro
at 212a; see the relative Note); we therefore
adopt carets throughout;
b) wherever the head of the theme (whether
S or R; direct or inverted) is reasonably close
to the model, we integrate and normalize the
articulation according to the prevalent pattern;
c) the accent for B Coro at 186a/1st is silently
extended only when the thematic contour is
the same (allowing for intervallic adjustment
where necessary) as at 184a/3rd–186a, particu-
90
larly the third bar; this applies to both direct
and inverted presentations of the theme.
2) Phrasing
a) Our criteria for the integration and normali-
zation of the combined staccati and slur in the
second bar of the theme are explained in Note
185a–212a;
b) the length of the second slur (in the third
bar) is determined case by case according to
the disposition of the text beneath (see Note
202a).
3) General
As a general principle, when the theme appears
simultaneously in direct and inverse motion,
we automatically extend the slurs and articula-
tion for vertical conformity unless otherwise
prevented by differences in the disposition of
the text (see Note 185a–212a).
184a/3rd–213a Orch A: unlike the vocal parts (see Note
184a/3rd–213a), the instrumental parts have no
single enunciation of the theme that can serve
as a complete and coherent model for slurs and
articulation (I-Mr and pUS-Cso largely reflect
the same incongruencies). We can, however,
construct a model through reciprocal compari-
son of those statements where the melodic con-
tour is the same (allowing for intervallic adjust-
ment where necessary), applying the following
general criteria for editorial intervention:
a) given the contrapuntal nature of this pas-
sage, we proceed in terms of function rather
than adopt the usual extension of expressive
indications by instrumental family: unison
parts may reciprocally share slurs and articu-
lation even if they do not belong to the same
family (the presence of a symbol in one part
is sufficient for its extension to the other uni-
son parts);
b) the model of articulation for the theme is
determined through reciprocal comparison of
the parts, with silent integration only where
the melodic contour is the same (allowing for
intervallic adjustment where necessary); this
applies to both direct and inverted presenta-
tions of the theme;
c) wherever the head of the theme (whether
S or R; direct or inverted) is reasonably close
to the original form, we silently integrate the
articulation where it is missing, but evaluate
the differences between carets, accents, and
staccati and only normalize case by case where
appropriate (see Note 188a/3rd–192a);
d) in the second bar of the theme, the first 
often lacks a staccato, similar to the vocal parts
(but see Note 185a–212a); nevertheless, as GV
worked through the notation of this section he
gradually came to add the staccato, such that
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
 it is present more often than not. We therefore
respect this divergence with the voices. Also,
in accordance with the criterion established
in section a), when it is present in one part
we extend it reciprocally to the other unison
instrumental parts, suggesting its integration
with square brackets only when entirely miss-
ing (see 185a).
Specific cases of more doubtful solution are
discussed in the following Notes.
185a B Coro A: the slur begins from the first eighth
note; we modify in conformity with previous
corresponding appearances of the theme, in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
185a–212a, b.
185a–212a Coro A: incongruencies of phrasing and articu-
lation:
a) Staccati: within the rhythmic unit
        – an integral part of the
theme, whether in direct or inverted motion
– the first  does not always carry a stac-
cato. GV’s intentions would appear to become
more evident, however, toward the end of the
section. It seems reasonable, if arguable, to
deduce that the staccato for this note should be
applied according to the text beneath. There is
no doubt that when the text for the theme is
“Judex ergo…” GV did not want a staccato for
the first  (it is consistently absent in all seven
enunciations of “Judex ergo” between 179a and
192a). Where the text is different but a syllable
is similarly present for the first , the logical
conclusion would be to adopt this same pattern
(with no staccato), as it does in fact occur at
199a (S and T Coro), 203a (S and T Coro), and
212a (C Coro), corresponding to “[nil inul]-
tum”. Nevertheless GV did mark a staccato for
this very same model of syllabic disposition of
text at 187a (C and T Coro), 195a (B Coro), and
211a (T Coro), while at 201a (C and B Coro),
where the text is identical, one part has the
staccato (C Coro) but the other does not (B
Coro). Therefore, from a statistical perspective
the two options are equivalent. Even so, GV
seems to have reserved the staccato for the
first  where a melisma is involved, to ensure
a correct articulation of the note when it has
no separate syllable (see the three entrances of
the stretto at 207a–211a) – although it should be
observed that there is no staccato for the first
 at 193a (S Coro), 194a (C Coro), 196a (T Coro),
and 197a (S Coro). With all due caution, we opt
for a staccato only in the presence of a melis-
ma, otherwise omitting it when the context
is syllabic. Because we hypothesize that the
reason for this distinction is based on the text
setting, we maintain divergences between the
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
vocal and instrumental parts, where the latter
prevalently have a staccato for the first  (see
Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, d). Specific passages
are discussed in the following Notes.
b) Slurs: analogous inconsistencies occur in
the length of the slur in the second bar of
the theme: sometimes it covers all five eighth
notes, others only the last four. At first the
longer slur would seem to be unrelated to the
presence or not of a staccato for the first :
for example, at 185a (S and B Coro) there is a
longer slur and no staccato, whereas at 187a (C
and T Coro) GV marked both the longer slur
and a staccato. After the beginning of the first
stretto at 188a, however, the situation appears
to become more regular: while the first entry
(S Coro) has the longer slur at 189a, the follow-
ing three entries have the shorter slur (all four
with no staccato for the first ). It is extremely
likely that the slur for the syllabic model (with
no staccato for the first ) should be limited
only to the notes with staccati in the configura-
tion (see also the four thematic entries in the
exposition of the fugue at 162a–182a, as well
as S Coro at 179a and T Coro at 183a). Equally
probable is GV’s intention that the slur should
cover all five notes when a staccato is present
for the first  (in fact the only exception occurs
at 201a for C Coro, where he marked a staccato
for the first  but a shorter slur for the follow-
ing four notes). It should also be remembered
that notational practices were notoriously
imprecise in this period, so much so that the
actual length of these kinds of slurs might be
scarcely significant. We therefore adopt the
five-note slur for five staccati (the melismatic
model) and the four-note slur for four staccati
(the syllabic model).
Specific passages are discussed in the follow-
ing Notes.
185a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-
cordance with the criteria established in Note
184/3rd–213a Coro 1, b.
185a/1st–2nd Ob, Cor I, Vni II A: articulation missing; we
supply based on the model of Cor I at 203a.
185a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note
185a–212a, a.
185a/2nd Orch: for the suggested staccato in those in-
strumental parts with a sequence of five eighth
notes, see Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch, d.
186a/2nd T Coro A: g; we replace with the more harmon-
ically convincing b, in vertical conformity with
Cor III–IV and Vle. I-Mr and rRI1874 follow A.
186a/3rd–4th C Coro A: carets missing; we supply in
accordance with the criteria established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1, a.
187a–188a B Coro, Fg I–II (Fg III–IV = Fg I–II), Cb (Vc=Cb)
91
 A: divergent slurs and articulation: for Cb the
slur at 187a extends to 188a/1st, where there is
no accent, and there are staccati for both eighth
notes at 188/2nd. We prefer the more convinc-
ing reading of Fg I–II, which proposes the
same combined slur and staccati for the four 
at 187a that are present in the complete theme
(see 165a etc.), and we suggest this solution for
B Coro as well.
187a–188a Cor III–IV A: GV neglected to continue the
double stems in these bars following a page
turn (recto to verso).
187a/2nd C and T Coro A: staccato for the first ; we
suppress in accordance with the criteria es-
tablished in Note 185a–212a, a (as observed in
Note 185a–212a, b, it is significant that the slur
in this bar covers all five eighth notes).
188a/1st C and T Coro A: accents missing; we supply
in accordance with the criterion established in
Note 184/3rd–213a Coro, 1, c.
188a/3rd–192a Woodwinds A: each of the woodwind
parts in this passage presents partial and di-
vergent phrasing and articulation. We integrate
and normalize these expressive indications for
the first two bars of the theme, in accordance
with the criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–
213a Orch, c and d. With regard to the articula-
tion for the head of the theme, we adopt
adjust to match the previous analogous the-
the model      , for which there is no
complete example in this passage:
188a/3rd–189a/1st Fl:      ; Cl: no articula-
tion;
189a/3rd–190a/1st Fg I:      ;

190a/3rd–191a/1st Ob:     ;

191a/3rd–192a/1st Fg III:   
We have had multiple occasions to observe
how GV would often use staccati, accents, and
carets interchangeably, in a kind of “short-
hand” manner (see “Edition criteria”, pp. 10–11).
Nevertheless the two carets for Fl at 188a seem
to be a deliberate choice: with the exclusion of
188a–191a, GV predominantly – if with oc-
casional lacunae – marked carets when the
passage in question falls into some category of
“piano”, and accents when “forte”; consequent-
ly we find these carets, while under-represented
in this particular passage, to be pertinent for
the context, and we extend them to the other
three thematic incipits in 189a–191a.
The slurs in this passage are also conspicu-
ously lacunose for these instruments. Only Fg
I presents a complete model for the thematic
incipit, at 189a–190a. For Cl the first slur from
188a/3rd stops at the first  in 189a, though
92
probably for lack of ink; we extend it to the
end of the bar and supply for vertical conform-
ity to Fl at the octave above, where it is miss-
ing. The second slur for these two instruments
at 190a is present for Cl but missing for Fl,
while the third slur at 191a–192a/1st is present
for Fl but missing for Cl; here again, we sup-
ply reciprocally for vertical conformity. The
thematic incipits for Ob I at 190a–191a and Fg
III at 191a–192a have no slur; we supply based
on the model of Fg I at 189a–190a.
188a/3rd–193a Winds A: GV evidently gauged the ppp he
carefully marked for Fl and Cl at 188a so that
their c’’–c’’’ octave does not overwhelm the
concurrent p for S Coro (I-Mr replaced the ppp
for Fl with p and eliminated the dynamic for
Cl). We therefore find this precautionary meas-
ure to be unnecessary for the successive “Solo”
woodwind entries, which occur in mid-register
and therefore do not present the same risk for
the concomitant p vocal entries. We also sug-
gest p for Cor III at 193a, compatible with the
other non-thematic parts (T and B Coro, Fg).
188a/4th C Coro A: accent missing; we supply for verti-
cal conformity with T Coro and in accordance
with the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–
213a Coro, 3.
189a S Coro A: the slur begins from the first ; we
matic slurs, in accordance with the criterion
established in Note 185a–212a, b.
189a–190a/1st T Coro, 190a–191a/1st C Coro A: both carets
and the accent are missing; we supply based
respectively on the models of S Coro at 188a–
189a/1st and B Coro at 191a–192/1st, and in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1, b.
190a C Coro, 191a B Coro A: entry dynamic indication
missing; we extend p from S Coro at 188a and
T Coro at 189a.
191a/3rd–4th B Coro A: anomalous slur, unconfirmed in
the other thematic incipits; we suppress (see
also Note 182a/3rd–183a/1st).
192a/3rd–4th Fl A: carets; we replace with accents in
vertical conformity with Cl (see also Note
188a/3rd–192a).
193a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note
185a–212a, a.
193a/4th S Coro, Fl, Cl I, Vni I A, I-Mr: neither source
has an accidental for the (sounding) e’’/e’’’; we
suggest a  with the support of rRI1874 and
pUS-Cso.
194a C Coro: for the suggested staccato and slur, see
Note 185a–212a.
194a/3rd B Coro A: GV marked the f at 195a/1st follow-
ing a page turn (recto to verso); we anticipate to
coincide with the new thematic entry.
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
195a/2nd B Coro A: staccato for the first ; we suppress
in accordance with the criteria established in
Note 185a–212a, a; for the suggested slur, see
Note 185a–212a, b.
196a T Coro: for the suggested staccato and slur, see
Note 185a–212a, a.
196a/1st–2nd Cor A: anomalous slur, unconfirmed in the
unison Fg I or Vle; we suppress.
197a/2nd S Coro: for the suggested staccato, see Note
185a–212a, a.
198a/1st C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-
cordance with the criteria established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1 a.
199a S Coro A: the slur begins from the first ; we
modify in accordance with the criteria estab-
lished in Note 185a–212a, b.
199a–205a Orch A: substantial lacunae in the articulation
for this passage (I-Mr and pUS-Cso largely re-
flect the same incongruencies); given its focus
on thematic elements that have already been
repeated numerous times, however, we are
able to integrate the missing articulation for all
thematic parts in accordance with the criteria
established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch. In ad-
dition, the prevalently homorhythmic character
here allows us to extend this same articulation
to rhythmically identical but melodically differ-
ent parts. With regard to the dissimilar rhyth-
mic element at 199a (Fl II, Cor I, Trb), 201a (Cl
II, Cor II and IV), and 203a (Fl II, Cor I, Trb), a
complete model for the (otherwise extremely
lacunose) articulation is present for Cor II at
201a and for Cor I a 203a. At 204a–205a the
only complete model is Vni I, but it is sufficient
as a template for integration where necessary
to all other instrumental parts in these two
bars.
199a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-
cordance with the criteria established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 3.
200a T Coro A: accent and slur missing; we supply
in vertical conformity with S Coro (inverted
theme), in accordance with the criteria estab-
lished in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1c and 3.
201a Fg I A: isolated accent, unconfirmed for the
unison Cor III or Vle, nor for Fg II and III–IV
or Cb (Vc = Cb) at the corresponding 203a; we
suppress.
201a/1st C Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 3.
201a/2nd C Coro A: staccato for the first ; we suppress
in accordance with the criteria established in
Note 185a–212a, a.
202a C and B Coro A: both slurs are imprecisely
marked: the one for C Coro covers 1st–2nd,
while for B Coro it begins after the c and stops
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01
between the f and a. At 200a the slur for S Coro
(T Coro has no slur) includes all the notes for
the syllable “[rema]-ne-[bit]” (1st– 4th), while at
188a, in keeping with this same principle, the
slurs for C and T Coro includes those notes for
the syllables “[appa]-re-[bit]” and “[rema]-ne-
[bit]” (1st–3rd). Consequently we may logically
deduce that in this case the slur should assume
the same function, uniting all of the notes sung
to the same syllable regardless of its material
length, and therefore modify the slurs in this
bar to match S Coro at 200a.
202a–204a/1st T Coro A: both carets and both accents
missing; we supply in accordance with the
criteria established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro,
1b.
202a/1st C and B Coro A: accents missing; we supply
in accordance with the criterion established in
Note 184/3rd–213a Coro, 1c.
203a/1st S Coro A: accent missing; we supply in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.
204a C and T Coro A: f; we (like I-Mr e rRI1874)
modify to ff in vertical conformity with S and
B Coro, confirmed by ff present for the strings.
204a–205a Coro A: missing – but not divergent – slurs,
staccati, and accents. While GV’s intentions in
this homorhythmic (if not perfectly homosyl-
labic) passage are clear regarding the slurs
and staccati, such that we are able to integrate
them silently, he marked only one accent, for S
Coro at 204a/1st, therefore demanding greater
caution. We supply the accent for T Coro at
204a/1st in accordance with the criterion estab-
lished in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1c, and sug-
gest all of the others by virtue of the orchestral
context (but see Note 199a–205a).
206a Orch A: GV marked only one symbol on 1st,
above Vni I, that could be interpreted as either
a large accent (as construed in I-Mr) or a
short diminuendo. We prefer the latter, which
functions as a transition to the new dynamic
level, and suggest its vertical extension to all
instruments with  in this bar. On 2nd there
are staccati only for Trb I and III and Vni II
(also possibly for Cor III–IV), while the accents
on 3rd and 4th are present for Vni II and Vle
alone. Given the complete model GV marked
for Vni II, we extend this same articulation
vertically to the other homorhythmic parts.
207a–212a Orch A: lacunose and divergent articulation for
the thematic instrumental parts; we integrate
and normalize in accordance with the criteria
established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Orch.
208a, 210a S Coro A: at 208a the slur begins from the
first note of the bar, and at 210a it would ap-
pear to be the same from its form and posi-
93
 tion, although only the latter half is clear.
Nevertheless, given that the slur for T Coro at
209a follows the melismatic model GV marked
elsewhere for this melodic segment, we modify
these two slurs in accordance with the criteria
established in Note 185a–212a, b.
208a/4th T Coro A: accent; we replace with a caret in
conformity with the other entries in this con-
cluding section (S Coro at 207 and 209; T Coro
at 210; C Coro at 211).
209a Vni II A: no slur or articulation; we suggest
both in vertical conformity with the unison Ob
(but see also Note 209a/4th).
209a/1st T Coro, 212a/1st C Coro A: both accents miss-
ing; we supply in accordance with the criterion
established in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.
209a/4th Ob A: staccato for the first eighth note (no
articulation is present in this bar for the unison
Vni II), with no apparent musical sense; we
suppress. I-Mr follows A; pUS-Cso added a
staccato for the second eighth note as well.
210a–213a Fg II, III–IV A: slur missing; we supply in
vertical conformity with Cb (Vc = Cb), in ac-
cordance with the criterion established in Note
184a/3rd–213a Orch, a.
ISMN 979-0-006-59000-1
94
211a/2nd T Coro A: staccato for the first , and the slur
begins from this note as well; we suppress the
staccato and modify the slur in accordance
with the syllabic model for this melodic seg-
ment, in accordance with criteria established in
Note 185a–212a, a.
211a/3rd–4th Ob, Vni II A: accents above Ob and staccati
below; we replace with carets and extend for
vertical uniformity to the unison Vni II (where
no articulation is present), in accordance with
the criterion established in Note 184a/3rd–213a
Orch, a.
212a/1st–2nd S Coro A: accents; despite the rhythmic
displacement of this thematic entry, its motivic
identity is clear and confirmed by the articula-
tion for the unison Vni I; we replace with car-
ets, in accordance with the criteria established
in Note 184a/3rd–213a Coro, 1b.
212a/3rd–4th Fg I A: staccati missing; we supply in verti-
cal conformity with the unison Vle.
213a/2nd Fl, Cl A: accent for Fl, no articulation for Cl; we
suggest the more musically plausible staccato
GV marked for the unison Vni I.
213a/3rd–4th Fl, Vni II A: carets; we replace with accents
in vertical conformity with Ob, Cl, and Vni I.
translated by Anna Herklotz
© 2014 by Bärenreiter-Verlag, Kassel | DBA 100-01