TY - JOUR
AU1 - Calella, Michele
AB - Abstract The thematic catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works, published by Breitkopf & Härtel in 1855 (and in a revised and enlarged edition in 1877), sheds light on Liszt’s artistic development after 1848, when he gave up his career as a virtuoso and settled in Weimar. Drawing on a number of previously unpublished or unexamined letters and documents, the article illustrates how this project—probably started on Liszt’s own initiative—offered the composer a means to select, order, and authorize the corpus of his works in print. At the same time it provided him with the opportunity to modify his authorial image and strengthen his profile as a ‘serious’ composer. The correspondence between Liszt and the publisher as well as other manuscript sources reveal the different strategies which allowed him to reposition himself in the music world and—as best illustrated by the later edition—to expand his profile as a composer even further. ‘A Most laudable innovation of recent years’:1 Eduard Hanslick thus describes thematic catalogues in an 1888 review of the Thematisches Verzeichnis der bisher im Druck erschienenen Werke von Johannes Brahms (Thematic Catalogue of the Printed Works of Johannes Brahms), published in 1887 by Simrock.2 The Viennese critic took the opportunity afforded by this review to praise this particular type of book, one which a non-specialist leafing through ‘might call peculiar, even puzzling’ on account of its style, and to note: ‘It does not simply list a master’s collected works by title in chronological order, but provides the opening bars of each, vividly summoning the notes from one’s memory.’3 For Hanslick, a thematic catalogue is not only an indispensable reference work for conductors, music dealers, amateur musicians, music historians, and music critics, but also, he finds, ‘there is, above and beyond that, an element of aesthetic pleasure in them’. He continues: Whoever has found oneself, when entirely engrossed in a favourite author, progressing steadily from uncovering discrete, single insights to acquiring a deeper appreciation of the figure as a whole will in the same way, when leafing through the pages of the thematic catalogue, discover the master’s life revealed to him, as if a series of silhouettes, each exactingly faithful to the original, were gliding past. And in the end the sum total of his work appears in vivid and vibrant form before us.4  Right at the beginning of his article Hanslick points to the special, non-narrative character of a thematic catalogue, which contains ‘not one single, coherent sentence’,5 yet still manages to deliver a clear impression of the master’s life and character. Johannes Brahms was, ‘aside from Franz Liszt, the first composer for whom this kind of “thematic” monument was erected during his own lifetime’.6 Hanslick is referring here to the Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt (Thematic Catalogue of the Works of F. Liszt), first published by Breitkopf & Härtel in 1855, with a second edition in 1877.7 His comment about Liszt’s pride of place ought to be taken with a grain of salt since thematic catalogues of living composers had already appeared in the early decades of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Hanslick’s characterization of the thematic catalogue as a ‘monument’ is representative of the historical turn in the musical culture of the second half of the century and points to a development that has substantially influenced contemporary considerations of this ‘peculiar’ book. Whereas the thematic catalogue during Hanslick’s lifetime was primarily a publication that resembled a ‘mail order catalogue’ for printed music, and therefore served primarily as a means for publishers to advertise their wares, it is today above all else a product of music historical and philological labour, which also has an effect on the quantity and quality of the information contained therein. For Hanslick, the music historian was the last in the line of intended beneficiaries after the more obvious audiences, such as music dealers and amateur musicians, whereas today he or she might actually be considered at once this type of reference work’s primary producer and target audience. This also explains why musicology as a field shows more interest generally in the preparation of catalogues than in the study of them, which, when undertaken at all, is usually concerned with resolving questions of authenticity and chronology. This is also the case in the more specialized field of Liszt studies: the thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works named above has received only marginal attention in the decades of discussions and work dedicated to creating an up-to-date catalogue of his works, a project that has as yet to achieve satisfactory results.8 Thematic catalogues of musical works are of significant interest as objects of historical research for a number of reasons. Their combination of schematic blocks of text and musical samples allows them—as Hanslick’s comments make clear—to fulfil a mnemonic function as an intermedial archive.9 It is precisely in those operations that are central to compiling a list of musical works, such as collecting and categorizing according to the ‘author function’ (Foucault), that thematic catalogues most clearly demonstrate the historical-cultural mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion involved in the construction of musical authorship.10 The catalogue of Liszt’s works, published first in 1855 and then again 1877 in a revised and enlarged edition, offers an excellent example of the above. Drawing on a number of previously unexamined sources and documents, I will illustrate how this project, begun in 1852, not only offered the composer a means by which he could select, order, and authorize the corpus of his works in print, but how it also provided him with the opportunity to document publicly the shifts and changes in his artistic profile. From the catalogue sprung an authorial image that allowed Liszt to reposition himself in the music world and—as best illustrated by the new edition of 1877—expand his profile as a composer even further. breitkopf & härtel and the tradition of the thematic catalogue The publication of the thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works in 1855 came several decades after catalogues of individual composers’ works had gained a foothold in the publishing industry and at a time in which some were even offered for sale.11 Breitkopf & Härtel, whose early thematic catalogues date back to the eighteenth century,12 rapidly distinguished themselves in the early 1850s with thematic catalogues of the works of Ludwig van Beethoven (1851), Frédéric Chopin (1852), and Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (1853).13 In the case of the latter, this was the second, revised edition of a catalogue to which Mendelssohn himself had contributed in 1843 but which, for reasons that remain unclear, first appeared only in 1846. In the first edition, Mendelssohn’s published works were listed by opus number, while the publisher had asked the composer to organize in chronological order those works that lacked opus numbers.14 When this edition is compared to the later one, the 1853 Breitkopf & Härtel edition that was published six years after the composer’s death, it is not only the greater number of works, the improved organizational system, and the addition of indexes (including vocal works’ titles and incipits and dedicatees) that stand out, but also the commemorative list of busts, medals, portraits, and other images as well.15 Something similar can be found in the catalogue of Chopin’s works, which, in addition to the portraits, includes a bibliographical entry in a new ‘Books’ section: Liszt’s monograph on Chopin, which had been published by Breitkopf & Härtel that very same year.16 The foreword to the 1851 Beethoven catalogue offers perhaps the best illustration of the position assigned to this type of text in a historical-philological discourse, in which the construction of an authorized corpus is a primary aim. The anonymous publisher,17 in the discussion of the attempt to order the compositions, alludes to the problems created by works without opus numbers, gaps in the numbering, duplicate numbers, and the circulation of unauthorized arrangements.18 Beethoven’s works are organized by opus number, as had been done for Mendelssohn and Chopin, and works without any opus number are assigned to their own separate section. Several pieces of doubtful authenticity, books and other writings about Beethoven, including already existing catalogues, amongst other things, and portraits, busts, and medals are all listed in an appendix.19 This is followed by a systematically organized index of the works and the list of incipits of vocal compositions, and, finally, a general index of personal names and titles of works, which lend the catalogue an air of a ‘practical handbook’ aimed at musicians, music enthusiasts, collectors, and music dealers, ‘anyone and everyone who for whatever reason has an interest in the works of Beethoven’.20 In this context, it is not at all difficult to imagine the implications inherent in the comparison Raymond Härtel made when, in a letter to Liszt dated 13 July 1852, he wrote of ‘a thematic catalogue of your works in the fashion of the catalogues for Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Chopin’.21 ‘recollection and work in weimar’: liszt’s catalogues prior to 1852 In his later years, Liszt would time and again divide his life into distinct periods, consistently pinpointing a decisive caesura in the year 1848. This coincided with a biographical turning point which, by virtue of his settling in Weimar and giving up his public appearances as a virtuoso, entailed a new conception of himself as a composer.22 In an outline he drafted in 1874 for his biographer, Lina Ramann, Liszt divided his life into five acts, bestowing on the fourth (1848–61) the motto ‘recollection and work in Weimar’.23 This brings together two activities that had already been closely linked during the early years of his stay in the Thuringian capital city, home to the Grand Duke’s court: taking stock of his existing oeuvre as a composer on the one hand, and setting about revising older works and composing new ones with an eye to expanding his profile as a composer on the other. Liszt’s letters between 1850 and 1855 offer ample evidence that the composer—in a purposeful turn from a phase of his life he now considered over—was thoroughly engaged in writing new pieces and revising older ones. The following appears in a letter from 4 October 1850: ‘My wish and my intention is to retreat more monastically than last year, for I am very much compelled to work, which takes up all my time.’24 In a letter dated 17 April 1851 addressed to the publisher Heinrich Schlesinger, he writes that he is unable to deliver a fantasy or a caprice ‘given on the one hand my very busy schedule and on the other my more and more pronounced distancing of myself from this type of entertainment to which I was too much addicted for a long time, while it was one of the necessities of my public career’.25 In a letter from 16 April 1852 to Carl Reinecke, Liszt describes his exhaustive work composing and revising older pieces that he hoped to publish in the near future, such as Etudes d’exécution transcendante (S139), the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses (S173), Années de pèlerinage (S160–1), and the Ungarische Rhapsodien (S244).26 He describes in a letter to Schlesinger, dated 3 January 1855, how he had given much effort over the course of the preceding years ‘to revise, rework, correct, and much modify a fairly large number of works of mine previously published’.27 Liszt hoped that this intensive process of revising and composing would help him to broaden his reputation as a virtuoso and creator of opera fantasies and transcriptions. Many of the compositions he either rewrote or reworked around 1850 were piano albums with poetic titles or programmes (Consolations [S172], Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, Années de pèlerinage), compositions belonging to traditional genres (sonata, étude, polonaise, mazurka, scherzo, march, etc.), and symphonic works.28 As part of this reorientation, Liszt also undertook a process of inventorying and systematizing his compositions. He had already made plans to publish a catalogue of his works shortly before or after his arrival in Weimar, as is evident from his letter to the Leipzig-based publisher Julius Kistner dated 14 October 1848. He expresses his opposition to including musical incipits, rejecting the practice that features in the thematic catalogue of Mendelssohn’s works: As for Mendelssohn’s catalogue, I do not consider it to be a model for that work which I have asked you to print a hundred copies. Engraving the musical notes would be entirely superfluous in the case of the latter, which can quite well do without a thematic table [of the musical incipits] and instead limit itself to a smattering of typographical ornamentations for the most important titles, which will make the printing or the lithography much less costly while still entirely meeting the conditions necessary for it to be used in the way I intend.29 This publication failed to materialize, presumably suffering delays in the wake of the strenuous work of composing Liszt engaged in over these years, and it was eventually supplanted by Breitkopf & Härtel’s project aimed at producing a thematic catalogue. There exist several handwritten catalogues without incipits dating from the early years of Liszt’s Weimar period that are quite possibly related to this ultimately unrealized project. Three of these catalogues, none of which were written by Liszt himself and all housed today in the Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv Weimar, have been the object of researchers’ attention, but solely with an eye to dating early Weimar-period works.30 They document not only Liszt’s growing output during this period, but also which aspects of his system of classification had changed and which had remained constant (see Table 1). The first catalogue (60/Z 17a) contains a group of works presented without any heading, namely a number of études, the Impressions et poésies (that is, the first edition of the first part of Années de pèlerinage), and Tre sonetti del Petrarca;31 this is followed by the ‘Partitions de Piano’, ‘Fantaisies sur des motifs de’, and a series of heterogeneous pieces that were initially included under ‘Compositions’, a heading Liszt later changed to ‘Transcriptions’. In the subsequent catalogue (60/Z 17) we find first the same group of compositions without any general classificatory scheme, followed by the ‘Partitions de Piano’ and then the ‘Fantasies on Themes from’, ‘Vocal Compositions’, ‘Transcriptions & Paraphrases’, ‘National Melodies’, and ‘Miscellany’ (which includes pieces belonging to various genres, including the march, galop, waltz, etc.). The third catalogue (60/Z 15), presumably the last before the thematic catalogue was compiled and edited, is an annex to a general list of compositions Liszt performed between 1838 and 1848. This catalogue was compiled by Liszt’s assistant August Conradi and includes several additions made by Liszt himself. It begins with a list of several études followed by the Impressions et poésies, the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, and Tre sonetti del Petrarca—all uncategorized as before—and only then, separated into their respective categories, the fantasies, the transcriptions of orchestral works (‘Partitions de Piano’), transcriptions of vocal compositions (‘Transcriptions’), the ‘Mélodies nationales’, and a group entitled ‘Miscellany’ comprised, yet again, of marches, ballads, waltzes, and paraphrases. The whole thing is brought to a close with the vocal compositions. Table 1 Classification scheme used in Liszt’s work catalogues compiled prior to the 1855 Thematic Catalogue 60/Z 17a (1847–8) . 60/Z 17 (1848–9) . 60/Z 15 (1848–9) . Catalogue des Compositions de Frantz Liszt Compositions de Pianos 24 Etudes 3 Etudes de Concert –* Etudes d’exécution trancendente d’après Paganini Impressions et Poésies Sonnets de Pétrarque Ballade* Partitions de Piano Fantaisies sur des motifs de Transcriptions Compositions*(Marches, Andante, et. et. Compositions vocales Catalogue des Compositions de F. Liszt pour Piano Compositions de Piano* 24. Etudes Etudes d’execution transcendante d’après Paganini Impressions & Poésies 1. te Abthl. der Pilger Jahre Années de Pèlérinage Premiere Partie* Petrarcas Sonnette Sonnets de Pétrarque* Partitions de Piano.Clavier Partituren Fantasiensüber Motive aussur des Motifs de* VocalCompositionens Vocale* Transcriptions & Paraphrases National Melodien Miscellanen Sous presse Catalogue des compositions et Publications pour le Piano de F. Liszt 24 Études 3 Études de Concert 6 Études d’exécution transcendente d’après Paganini Morceau de Salon, Etude de perfection Mazeppa, Grand Etude* Impressions et Poésies 12 Harmonies poétiques et réligieuses 3 Sonnetti dei Pétrarque Petrarca* Fantaisies Partitions de Piano Transcriptions Mélodies nationales (Transcriptions, Paraphrases et Fantaisies) Miscellane Compositions vocales Manuscrits 60/Z 17a (1847–8) . 60/Z 17 (1848–9) . 60/Z 15 (1848–9) . Catalogue des Compositions de Frantz Liszt Compositions de Pianos 24 Etudes 3 Etudes de Concert –* Etudes d’exécution trancendente d’après Paganini Impressions et Poésies Sonnets de Pétrarque Ballade* Partitions de Piano Fantaisies sur des motifs de Transcriptions Compositions*(Marches, Andante, et. et. Compositions vocales Catalogue des Compositions de F. Liszt pour Piano Compositions de Piano* 24. Etudes Etudes d’execution transcendante d’après Paganini Impressions & Poésies 1. te Abthl. der Pilger Jahre Années de Pèlérinage Premiere Partie* Petrarcas Sonnette Sonnets de Pétrarque* Partitions de Piano.Clavier Partituren Fantasiensüber Motive aussur des Motifs de* VocalCompositionens Vocale* Transcriptions & Paraphrases National Melodien Miscellanen Sous presse Catalogue des compositions et Publications pour le Piano de F. Liszt 24 Études 3 Études de Concert 6 Études d’exécution transcendente d’après Paganini Morceau de Salon, Etude de perfection Mazeppa, Grand Etude* Impressions et Poésies 12 Harmonies poétiques et réligieuses 3 Sonnetti dei Pétrarque Petrarca* Fantaisies Partitions de Piano Transcriptions Mélodies nationales (Transcriptions, Paraphrases et Fantaisies) Miscellane Compositions vocales Manuscrits * Postscripts/Corrections/Deletions in a different hand (often Liszt’s) and/or colour. Open in new tab Table 1 Classification scheme used in Liszt’s work catalogues compiled prior to the 1855 Thematic Catalogue 60/Z 17a (1847–8) . 60/Z 17 (1848–9) . 60/Z 15 (1848–9) . Catalogue des Compositions de Frantz Liszt Compositions de Pianos 24 Etudes 3 Etudes de Concert –* Etudes d’exécution trancendente d’après Paganini Impressions et Poésies Sonnets de Pétrarque Ballade* Partitions de Piano Fantaisies sur des motifs de Transcriptions Compositions*(Marches, Andante, et. et. Compositions vocales Catalogue des Compositions de F. Liszt pour Piano Compositions de Piano* 24. Etudes Etudes d’execution transcendante d’après Paganini Impressions & Poésies 1. te Abthl. der Pilger Jahre Années de Pèlérinage Premiere Partie* Petrarcas Sonnette Sonnets de Pétrarque* Partitions de Piano.Clavier Partituren Fantasiensüber Motive aussur des Motifs de* VocalCompositionens Vocale* Transcriptions & Paraphrases National Melodien Miscellanen Sous presse Catalogue des compositions et Publications pour le Piano de F. Liszt 24 Études 3 Études de Concert 6 Études d’exécution transcendente d’après Paganini Morceau de Salon, Etude de perfection Mazeppa, Grand Etude* Impressions et Poésies 12 Harmonies poétiques et réligieuses 3 Sonnetti dei Pétrarque Petrarca* Fantaisies Partitions de Piano Transcriptions Mélodies nationales (Transcriptions, Paraphrases et Fantaisies) Miscellane Compositions vocales Manuscrits 60/Z 17a (1847–8) . 60/Z 17 (1848–9) . 60/Z 15 (1848–9) . Catalogue des Compositions de Frantz Liszt Compositions de Pianos 24 Etudes 3 Etudes de Concert –* Etudes d’exécution trancendente d’après Paganini Impressions et Poésies Sonnets de Pétrarque Ballade* Partitions de Piano Fantaisies sur des motifs de Transcriptions Compositions*(Marches, Andante, et. et. Compositions vocales Catalogue des Compositions de F. Liszt pour Piano Compositions de Piano* 24. Etudes Etudes d’execution transcendante d’après Paganini Impressions & Poésies 1. te Abthl. der Pilger Jahre Années de Pèlérinage Premiere Partie* Petrarcas Sonnette Sonnets de Pétrarque* Partitions de Piano.Clavier Partituren Fantasiensüber Motive aussur des Motifs de* VocalCompositionens Vocale* Transcriptions & Paraphrases National Melodien Miscellanen Sous presse Catalogue des compositions et Publications pour le Piano de F. Liszt 24 Études 3 Études de Concert 6 Études d’exécution transcendente d’après Paganini Morceau de Salon, Etude de perfection Mazeppa, Grand Etude* Impressions et Poésies 12 Harmonies poétiques et réligieuses 3 Sonnetti dei Pétrarque Petrarca* Fantaisies Partitions de Piano Transcriptions Mélodies nationales (Transcriptions, Paraphrases et Fantaisies) Miscellane Compositions vocales Manuscrits * Postscripts/Corrections/Deletions in a different hand (often Liszt’s) and/or colour. Open in new tab These catalogues illustrate how the classificatory scheme was consistently revised and changed. Most conspicuous is how Liszt did not intend to create a separate category for a series of new compositions, the titles of which are printed in small type in the table. Liszt’s classification system became more refined after he reached an agreement with Breitkopf & Härtel about engaging Joachim Raff to prepare a new manuscript for what would become the thematic catalogue. Nevertheless, as before, these works received no clear classification and discrepancies remained. the origins of the thematic catalogue of liszt’s works (1852–5) The available sources provide a relatively strong basis for reconstructing the origins and development of the 1855 thematic catalogue. In addition to the printed work itself, we have access to the manuscript by Joachim Raff (D-WRgs 60/Z 14), which was probably conceived as the engraver’s copy and which includes numerous additions and corrections in pencil, red pencil, and ink, some in Liszt’s handwriting. The cover originally featured the title Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt and the year of publication as ‘1853’, subsequently replaced by a title in German and the date ‘1855’ (see Pl. 1). Pl. 1 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, cover, 1 Pl. 1 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, cover, 1 While reconstructing the manuscript’s fascicular arrangement has proven difficult, given the fact that the bifolios have in many cases been separated and it remains unclear whether the current binding reflects the original order,32 there is continuous, regular pagination up to page 117. The materials filed under the reference 60/Z 14 include consistently paginated ‘Addenda to the catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works’ (‘Nachtraege zum Verzeichnisse der Werke von Franz Liszt’) comprised of a gathering of two bifolios, primarily consisting of works for orchestra, and seven loose bifolios that provide the incipits for compositions that are either not included in the list or are included in another form. It is highly likely that these loose sheets were not sent on to the publisher.33 Because only a fraction of the correspondence between Liszt and Breitkopf & Härtel has been published,34 I have had to reconstruct the pertinent correspondence between the composer and his publisher using Liszt’s autograph letters to Breitkopf & Härtel, currently housed in the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, and the publisher’s letter book, held in the Sächsisches Staatsarchiv Leipzig. The letters provide more than just dates and facts that prove helpful in examining the catalogue’s origins: they offer important hints regarding the thematic catalogue’s significance for Liszt as a composer. The first reference we have to the catalogue’s origins are in the letter mentioned above from Härtel to Liszt dated 13 July 1852. After thanking Liszt for having sent the Missa quatuor vocum ad aequales (S8/1) and discussing a number of printing projects, Härtel writes that ‘we will finally and with great interest publish a thematic catalogue of your works in the fashion of the catalogues for Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Chopin that we have printed’.35 Liszt’s letter to which Härtel was replying is not extant, but it is more than likely that it was he himself who suggested that the publisher produce the catalogue.36 In a letter dated 30 October 1852, the composer announces that he will soon send the manuscript of the catalogue. He revealed himself to be well aware of the function this publication would serve in terms of systematizing his work and how he could ensure its wider dissemination: In due course I shall send you my Catalogue, which I trust you will oblige me by printing without too many alterations. The dispersion and confusion through which my works have had to proceed up to now have done them a disservice larger than that which they already suffered of their own accord; it is not unimportant then to classify them and give the audience a categorical insight into the little I myself may be worth. Having promised a number of people in regions near and far that I would send them a copy of this catalogue, I kindly ask that you dispatch to me sixty copies, non gratis, which I fear will not suffice, but which will at the very least serve to reduce the costs of printing.37  As Liszt was intensively occupied with the Weimar production of Berlioz’s Benvenuto Cellini, it was only in his letter of 10 November of that same year that he announced that the catalogue would be sent before Christmas such that it might be complete and ready to distribute before the winter’s end.38 We learn that Raff compiled the catalogue from his letter of 30 November 1852 to Carl Friedrich Ludwig Gurckhaus, who worked for the Kistner publishing house. In this letter, Raff explains, amongst other things, that the catalogue provides him the opportunity to write a series of publications dedicated to Liszt, though these never materialized: P.S. A catalogue of Liszt’s works to date is soon to be issued by Breitkopf u. Haertel in a form similar to the catalogues for Mendelssohn, Chopin, and Beethoven. This moves me to undertake a series of longer articles or a short pamphlet, which would provide me an opportunity to discharge a debt long owed to you, such that I may express a more full appreciation for those of Liszt’s works that you have published. Since no one is yet aware of my intentions (I am editing the thematic catalogue myself), I kindly ask that you keep it to yourself for the time being.39  Raff’s work must have taken longer than expected since Liszt announced on 17 February 1853 that the manuscript of the catalogue would be sent within fifteen days and once again requested that Härtel reserve ‘at least fifty copies’ for him.40 But on 23 October 1853 Liszt writes: ‘I will soon be sending you the catalogue of my compositions which you are so kind as to publish. I would be most grateful if it might appear by the end of February ’54.’41 Obviously Liszt delivered the catalogue to Härtel at some point before 13 December 1853 since the publisher, in a letter of this date, expresses his regrets at having missed Liszt in Leipzig and addresses several points regarding the publication’s content and the editorial process, namely pricing, instrumentation, and limiting the entries to German publishers only.42 Around six months later, on 20 May 1854, Härtel first alludes to the ‘addenda’ that Liszt had apparently mentioned and hints that the current order of the works should be discussed because of its inconsistency. To that end, Härtel sent Liszt a new classificatory scheme for the works that began with the ‘Original Werken’ (original works).43 Liszt indicated in a letter dated 27 May 1854 that he was in agreement with Härtel’s suggestion and returned the leaf to him, at the end of which he had inserted an entry regarding a dozen new pieces he recommended Härtel publish: I am most sincerely in your debt, my dear Mr Härtel, for the care which you have dedicated to my catalogue and gladly accept in full the modifications you have proposed with regard to the division of this catalogue into sections. I have added a short comment at the end of the small page containing this new structure, which I shall follow up by sending to you in the very near future the opening bars of about a dozen pieces, which will need to be added to the end of the catalogue—and I should like at the same time to make a proposal regarding their publication, which I hope you will see fit to accept. In the meantime I would like the remainder of the catalogue to go to print since the section to be added will bring the volume to a close and immediately precede the supplemental material (appendix—portraits, etc.). In addition, the three pieces of Lohengrin I recently sent you should also appear in the catalogue, and I would like to ask that you append them to the end of your edition, having not kept a copy of these myself.44  Though Härtel had promised Liszt on 2 June 1854 that the catalogue would be quickly completed following receipt of his ‘reply’,45 the composition and layout of the new entries must have proven more time-consuming than anticipated. For in a letter dated 6 July 1854, Liszt informs Härtel that the pianist Elena von Sabinin will provide him with a ‘Supplement à mon catalogue’—the promised appendix, that is—which Liszt asks that he ‘print at the end of this catalogue, as according to the instructions attached’.46 On 26 November 1854 Liszt complains that he has heard nothing of his catalogue, which he had already promised to numerous individuals and to which he attributed an important biographical function: ‘I have heard nothing further regarding my catalogue and I hope you might be so kind as to send me news without delay in the form of proofs, which would give me great pleasure indeed, as I’ve promised a number of people this volume that I regard as a sort of reckoning with the past.’47 The delay was quite probably due at least to some extent to the research undertaken by Breitkopf & Härtel’s employee Alfred Dörffel, who exercised the most meticulous care in unearthing every last publisher with whom Liszt had released earlier versions of his works. Not at all pleased with this approach, Liszt sent a letter to the publisher and enclosed a separate letter to Dörffel: To spare us any tediousness I wrote directly to Mr Dörffel, who was well intentioned in exercising such conscientiousness and exactitude in his commendable research on behalf of my catalogue. I trust he will accept without any difficulties the reasons for which I decided not to accept the suggestions he made—and with these matters thus clarified and agreed, nothing stands in the way of the catalogue being printed and advertised presently, for which I shall be most grateful.48 Yet the catalogue’s publication was further delayed. On 27 August 1855 Liszt sent a supplementary list of portraits compiled by his ‘private archaeologist’—presumably his partner Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein—alongside several additions to the bibliography. Any changes or additions to the remainder of the catalogue were not open to discussion, as Liszt expected publication to follow some fourteen days thence: My esteemed Herr Doctor, I should like to be permitted at this point in the editing of the catalogue to add a curiosity of sorts, a list of portraits compiled by my private archaeologist. I would not at all find it suitable to print the list in its entirety at the catalogue’s end—but perhaps you will find certain items listed therein (e.g. the engraving of Kaulbach’s portrait, the marble bust by Bartolini, the oil painting by Ary Scheffer, the medallion by Rietschl, etc.) that might be worth mentioning. I shall leave this small matter entirely in your much more qualified hands and you need fear no interference on my part. With respect to the lithographed portraits, it strikes me that it would be more appropriate to list only those printed in Germany, all the more so since my archaeologist’s list cannot at all pretend to be complete. I do ask that you include listings in the bibliographic portion of my catalogue for the ‘Biographie (– Franz Liszt – von Eduard Beuermann – 1te Lieferung des Werkes ‘unsere Zeit in Bilder und Biographien, mit einer Einleitung von Karl Gutzkow – Hamburg – Verlags Comptoir 1844) and the biography that appeared in the series ‘Componisten der neueren Zeit, in Biographien geschildert von W. Neumann – Cassel – Ernst Balde 1855’. For the sake of thoroughness, the ‘Notice Biographique sur Franz Liszt, par Duverger. Extrait de la Revue générale biographique, politique et littéraire publiée sur la Direction de M. E. Pascallet – Paris chez Amyot libraire Editeur rue de la Paix 6, Mai 1843’ ought also be included. Your most humble and affectionate servant, if one too frequently the subject of portraits and biographies, F. Liszt. P.S. Might the catalogue be published in the nearest future, say in 14 days? Please do send also the corrections for the Mazeppa and Prometheus as soon as is possible.49 On 11 October 1855 Liszt writes that he is waiting for the ‘imminent’ arrival of the desired copies of the catalogue,50 the delivery of which must have followed shortly thereafter. The thematic catalogue’s path to completion proved lengthier than Liszt had imagined, especially when one considers that he had originally hoped for a date of publication towards the end of winter 1852/53. His workload in Weimar certainly had more than a minor part to play in this, but printing was additionally delayed by some not insignificant alterations to the original concept. Traces of these changes are left behind in Raff’s manuscript (60/Z 14). The numerous additions and corrections, and especially the later addendum, reveal that the catalogue’s structure further changed over the course of the three years between the manuscript’s submission and its printing. Certain modifications may be explained as the straightforward result of editorial considerations. Changing the language of numerous entries from French to German, for example, was in response to Härtel’s suggestion to refer only to German publishing houses. As he himself wrote, the inclusion of publishing houses working in languages other than German would make a thorough accounting of all existing editions prohibitively difficult.51 Further alterations and additions include the mention of publishers, prices, and the dedicatees. The latter were not included in the final printed version.52 The most substantial change undertaken between the production of the manuscript and the final printed version had to do with the work’s classification system and the enlargement of the corpus of compositions. Moreover, the additions made by Dörffel mentioned above served to entrench Liszt’s decision that the last version of the revised work would be the final one, which he even more firmly emphasized. ordering the work Liszt faced a significantly greater challenge than other composers in providing his catalogue with a sense of order, since up until 1840 he had only assigned opus numbers to a few of his published works.53 This unusual situation required a different ordering from Breitkopf & Härtel’s Mendelssohn, Beethoven, and Chopin thematic catalogues, in which works were organized primarily according to their opus number, with a systematized order only appearing in the appendix in the form of a summarizing table.54 Liszt’s work could only be ordered in the form of a systematized list. Raff’s manuscript reveals an order that contrasts with the thoroughly structured and consistently numbered system later found in the printed catalogue (see Table 2). In the manuscript the sections are marked with large, centred headings, whereas the titles of individual publications are printed in smaller type and consistently underlined (Pl. 2).55 Pl. 2 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 24 (with certain entries by Liszt) Pl. 2 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 24 (with certain entries by Liszt) Table 2 Comparison of the ordering of the engraved copy and the final print version of the 1855 thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works Original order of Raff’s manuscript of 1853 (60/Z 14) . Order used in the printed thematic catalogue (1855) . Etudes [Without main heading: Harmonies poetiques et religieuses Années de Pelerinage Ungarische Rhapsodien Sonatas, etc.] Fantaisies based on opera motifs ConcertParaphrases Partitions de Piano Transcriptions  [Songs by Schubert, etc.]  Italian transcriptions  National Melodies  Instrumental transcriptions Vocal Compositions Addenda to the catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works, [c. summer 1854] First Part  Works for pianoforte and organ (pedal piano) I. Études  II. Original compositions for pianoforte  III. Hungarian Rhapsodies  IV. Instrumentations  V. Fantasies based on opera motifs  VI. Concert paraphrases  VII. Partitions de piano  VIII. Transcriptions   1. Vocal transcriptions    2. Instrumental transcriptions Second Part  Vocal compositions Third Part  Works for orchestra    I. Symphonic poems    II. Marches Fourth Part  Literary works Annex  Writings on Franz Liszt  Portraits, busts, etc. Original order of Raff’s manuscript of 1853 (60/Z 14) . Order used in the printed thematic catalogue (1855) . Etudes [Without main heading: Harmonies poetiques et religieuses Années de Pelerinage Ungarische Rhapsodien Sonatas, etc.] Fantaisies based on opera motifs ConcertParaphrases Partitions de Piano Transcriptions  [Songs by Schubert, etc.]  Italian transcriptions  National Melodies  Instrumental transcriptions Vocal Compositions Addenda to the catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works, [c. summer 1854] First Part  Works for pianoforte and organ (pedal piano) I. Études  II. Original compositions for pianoforte  III. Hungarian Rhapsodies  IV. Instrumentations  V. Fantasies based on opera motifs  VI. Concert paraphrases  VII. Partitions de piano  VIII. Transcriptions   1. Vocal transcriptions    2. Instrumental transcriptions Second Part  Vocal compositions Third Part  Works for orchestra    I. Symphonic poems    II. Marches Fourth Part  Literary works Annex  Writings on Franz Liszt  Portraits, busts, etc. Open in new tab Table 2 Comparison of the ordering of the engraved copy and the final print version of the 1855 thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works Original order of Raff’s manuscript of 1853 (60/Z 14) . Order used in the printed thematic catalogue (1855) . Etudes [Without main heading: Harmonies poetiques et religieuses Années de Pelerinage Ungarische Rhapsodien Sonatas, etc.] Fantaisies based on opera motifs ConcertParaphrases Partitions de Piano Transcriptions  [Songs by Schubert, etc.]  Italian transcriptions  National Melodies  Instrumental transcriptions Vocal Compositions Addenda to the catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works, [c. summer 1854] First Part  Works for pianoforte and organ (pedal piano) I. Études  II. Original compositions for pianoforte  III. Hungarian Rhapsodies  IV. Instrumentations  V. Fantasies based on opera motifs  VI. Concert paraphrases  VII. Partitions de piano  VIII. Transcriptions   1. Vocal transcriptions    2. Instrumental transcriptions Second Part  Vocal compositions Third Part  Works for orchestra    I. Symphonic poems    II. Marches Fourth Part  Literary works Annex  Writings on Franz Liszt  Portraits, busts, etc. Original order of Raff’s manuscript of 1853 (60/Z 14) . Order used in the printed thematic catalogue (1855) . Etudes [Without main heading: Harmonies poetiques et religieuses Années de Pelerinage Ungarische Rhapsodien Sonatas, etc.] Fantaisies based on opera motifs ConcertParaphrases Partitions de Piano Transcriptions  [Songs by Schubert, etc.]  Italian transcriptions  National Melodies  Instrumental transcriptions Vocal Compositions Addenda to the catalogue of Franz Liszt’s works, [c. summer 1854] First Part  Works for pianoforte and organ (pedal piano) I. Études  II. Original compositions for pianoforte  III. Hungarian Rhapsodies  IV. Instrumentations  V. Fantasies based on opera motifs  VI. Concert paraphrases  VII. Partitions de piano  VIII. Transcriptions   1. Vocal transcriptions    2. Instrumental transcriptions Second Part  Vocal compositions Third Part  Works for orchestra    I. Symphonic poems    II. Marches Fourth Part  Literary works Annex  Writings on Franz Liszt  Portraits, busts, etc. Open in new tab These headings are missing from pages 8–23, however, just as in the earlier handwritten drafts of a catalogue, in which Liszt decided certain piano compositions belonged to none of the other categories. On pages 18–23 of the manuscript, following the Ungarische Rhapsodien, one finds pieces that had been included in the earlier catalogues under the heading ‘Miscellany’. The internal ordering of these ‘unclassified’ works does nevertheless appear to follow a conscious plan, as is clear from the fact that the Ungarische Rhapsodien serve as a distinctive dividing line between those explicitly ‘programmatic’ albums and the other compositions (sonata, scherzo and march, ballad, polonaise, mazurka, nocturne, waltz, Apparitions, Consolations). The Roman numerals (see Pl. 2) added in red pencil document the publisher’s attempt to lend a coherent sense of order to Liszt’s oeuvre, particularly by organizing it into sections and subsections. In his letter dated 20 May 1854 Härtel himself notes the inconsistency in original works appearing in between the revised versions. This led him to introduce a new category that had not appeared in older catalogues or in Raff’s manuscript, namely ‘Original Compositions for Pianoforte’. Those works that had not been allocated to any section were divided into original compositions and Ungarische Rhapsodien in the printed catalogue. This new designation, however, required moving the Liebesträume (S541) to the section for transcriptions (see Pl. 3). Pl. 3 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 19 (with certain entries by Liszt) Pl. 3 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 19 (with certain entries by Liszt) The reason Liszt had not incorporated this fundamental distinction from the start, nor made use of the designation ‘Original Composition’ in either the manuscript of the thematic catalogue or in his earlier work-lists, has to do with the fact that this type of sharp division between original and adaptation was not always implicit when it came to his work.56 This is evident in the fact that several inconsistencies appeared with the introduction of this category in the printed version of the catalogue. One example is that the études could not be listed under the heading ‘Original Compositions’ because these included the Grandes études de Paganini (S141), and thus they formed their own distinct group. At the same time, some of the collections that were indeed listed under ‘Original Compositions’ featured pieces that were based on pre-existing compositions. These included, for example, ‘Ave Maria’, ‘Pater noster’, and ‘Miserere, d’après Palestrina’ from the Harmonies poétiques et religieuses, or ‘Pastorale’, ‘Le mal du pays’, ‘Canzonetta del Salvator Rosa’, and the ‘Sonetti del Petrarca’ from the Années de pèlerinage. Liszt’s agreeing to Härtel’s suggested introduction of this new category was not only a concession to the publisher’s criteria of musical authorship, but it was also an important strategy for the composer himself. Up until his arrival in Weimar, he had predominantly published piano compositions based on pre-existing music, writing the majority of his ‘Original Compositions’ only once established in Weimar. This additional category conferred on him a new status as a composer, which is of particular importance when considered in the context of how the catalogues of the works of Beethoven, Chopin, and Mendelssohn implicitly positioned these composers as authors of original works. Their catalogues featured no separate section for original works since this was presumably obvious.57 The classification of the ‘non-original’ works was also not entirely consistent in how it was applied, which is why there were a number of differences in how works were assigned in the manuscript and the final print version of the catalogue. It was and remains problematic and difficult to categorize various types and degrees of reworkings of existing material, particularly since the designations applied to this material are variable and often interchangeable.58 In Liszt’s case the palette ranges from free arrangements of multiple themes from an opera to transcriptions which remain close to the original in terms of the formal structure.59 With the exception of the Ungarische Rhapsodien, which to Liszt represented a special type of fantasy, and the instrumentations, which are best thought of as adaptations of piano pieces for piano and orchestra, he divided the non-original compositions for piano into four groups: ‘Fantaisies sur des motifs d’opéra’, ‘Paraphrases de Concert’,60 ‘Partitions de Piano’, and ‘Transcriptions’. One may assume that Liszt considered the first two terms to refer to free arrangements and the third and forth to indicate transcriptions. But this only partly captures the truth, since Liszt tended to define these four groups also according to the type of original material: judging from the heading itself, the first group is comprised primarily of vocal and instrumental pieces from operas; the second of hymns, lieder, marches, incidental music; the third of symphonic works and chamber music (including opera overtures); the fourth of lieder (of which the ‘Transcriptions italiennes’ form their own group)61 and instrumental compositions. The ‘Partitions de piano’ are not classified with the instrumental transcriptions because Liszt attributed a special status to the former, particularly to those of symphonic works by Beethoven and Berlioz. By the time he published his third Lettre d’un bachelier ès-musique (‘Letter of a Bachelor of Music’) in the Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris on 11 February 1838, he already considered himself to be the originator of a new method of the ‘partition de piano’ in which he attempted to recreate the orchestral sound on piano as faithfully as possible.62 A good number of compositions were reassigned in the course of reviewing Raff’s manuscript of the catalogue: several pieces that were not based, or not entirely based, on opera melodies, such as Trois morceaux de salon,63 the Capriccio alla turca sur des motifs de Beethoven (Ruines d’Athènes) (S388), and the Deux transcriptions d’après Rossini (S553) were reassigned from opera fantasies to concert paraphrases. Zwei Stücke aus Tannhäuser und Lohengrin [Wagner] (S445), Bénédiction et serment, deux motifs de Benvenuto Cellini [Berlioz] (S396), and Andante finale und Marsch aus der Oper König Alfred [Raff] (S421), on the other hand, found themselves moved from instrumental transcriptions to opera fantasies. Nevertheless, several inconsistencies have arisen since in the final printed version: the Marche [funèbre] et cavatine de Lucia di Lammermoor [Donizetti] (S628a) is listed under the heading Concert Paraphrases, and the section of Vocal Transcriptions includes the Salve Maria de Jerusalem [Verdi: I Lombardi] (S431), O du mein holder Abendstern, Rezitativ und Romanze aus der Oper Tannhäuser [Wagner] (S444), and Halloh! Jagdchor und Steyrer aus der Oper Tony (S404) by Ernst von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha.64 These inconsistencies were only partly rectified in the second edition. the catalogue and the works’ publication A closer look at Raff’s manuscript reveals that the publishers’ details for a number of compositions were added quite late in the process. From this we may conclude that Liszt had yet to find a publisher for some of the listed compositions when the manuscript was sent to Breitkopf & Härtel in the autumn of 1853. These include the Sonata in B minor (S178), Scherzo und Marsch (S177), and the Ballade No. 2 (S171), which were first printed in 1854 (see Pl. 4), and the two volumes of the Années de pèlerinage, which were printed in 1855 and 1858. Pl. 4 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 18 (with certain entries by Liszt) Pl. 4 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 18 (with certain entries by Liszt) In working on the catalogue Liszt did not limit himself to documenting only already existing publications; he included new compositions with the intention of quickly finding outlets for their publication. This strategy is most clearly evident with respect to the symphonic works. Raff’s manuscript that Liszt sent to the publisher at the end of 1853 was comprised solely of compositions for piano and for voice with piano accompaniment.65 Only in the following year did Liszt submit a supplementary list, written by Raff as well, with ‘a dozen pieces’. These fully paginated addenda (‘Nachtraege’), which have already been referenced above and which have been preserved alongside the early manuscript, include nine symphonic poems, four marches for full orchestra, four instrumentations (transcriptions of works for piano and orchestra), both Piano Concertos (S124–5), the Totentanz for piano and orchestra (S126), and the Andante finale und Marsch aus der Oper König Alfred. No publication details were originally provided for these new titles, but it was evident that the inclusion of these new compositions in the catalogue would necessarily be accompanied by attempts to ensure their publication, hence Liszt’s explicit proposal in his letter to Härtel on 27 May 1854.66 Nevertheless Liszt apparently had failed to find a publisher for several of the compositions listed in Raff’s manuscript and in the ‘Nachtraege’ before the catalogue went to press. The piano reduction of scenes from Harold en Italie [Berlioz] (S472) and the Ouverture du Roi Lear [Berlioz] (S474) and some of the instrumentations, such as Franz Schuberts grosse Fantasie op. 15 [D760] (S366), the Capriccio alla turca, and the Ungarische Rhapsodie No. 14 appeared in the final printed version of the catalogue without any publisher listed (see Pl. 5),67 while the Piano Concertos and the Totentanz carry the short note ‘Score soon to be released’.68 Pl. 5 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt. Von dem Autor verfasst (Leipzig, 1855), 18 Pl. 5 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt. Von dem Autor verfasst (Leipzig, 1855), 18 The case is similar for the three marches for orchestra, which appear with neither place of publication nor publisher listed. It is striking, however, that the latter pair of these compositions appear with the dates of their first performances—the only example of this in the entire catalogue. These compositions are both homages that demonstrate Liszt’s connection to historical and contemporary Weimar: the Festmarsch zur Goethe-Jubiläumsfeier (S115/1), which premiered on 28 August 1849 in Weimar, and the Huldigungsmarsch (S357/1), composed to mark Carl Alexander’s assumption of the title of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (premiere on 28 August 1853), were first published only in 1859 (see Pl. 6). Pl. 6 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt. Von dem Autor verfasst (Leipzig, 1855), 94 Pl. 6 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt. Von dem Autor verfasst (Leipzig, 1855), 94 Over the course of 1854 Liszt was successfully able to negotiate with Breitkopf & Härtel regarding the publication of the symphonic poems, such that the final printed copy of the catalogue included the statement: ‘The scores and transcriptions for 2 pianofortes to appear soon with Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig’.69 These all appeared only after the catalogue went to print, namely between 1856 and 1859. The composition of the symphonic poems followed a course that is partly reflected in the work dedicated to the catalogue: the original incipit of Orpheus (S98), for example, was revised in time to be incorporated into the editing process (see Pl. 7). In conjunction with the work on his thematic catalogue, Liszt was deliberate not only in deciding on the exact number of symphonic poems to announce, but also in assigning titles and establishing a set sequence through numbering.70 Pl. 7 Open in new tabDownload slide Supplements to the Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 3 Pl. 7 Open in new tabDownload slide Supplements to the Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 3 As a matter of fact, none of the scores for Liszt’s nine symphonic poems nor those for his works for orchestra or for piano and orchestra were yet available for purchase in 1855, but readers of the thematic catalogue of his works71 could already discern the new compositional path being forged by the Grand Duchy’s Kapellmeister in Weimar, who, in his choice of nine symphonic works, was symbolically attaching himself to the tradition established by Beethoven. He similarly positioned himself as a custodian of the capital city’s classical tradition with his homages to Schiller (Festklänge [S101], Die Ideale [S98], An die Künstler [S70]), Goethe (Tasso: lamento e trionfo [S96], Festmarsch zur Goethe-Jubiläumsfeier, Festalbum zur Säkularfeier von Goethe’s Geburtstag), and Herder (Prometheus [S99], Festchor zur Enthüllung des Herder-Denkmals in Weimar [S86]).72 authorizing versions The interactions already mentioned above between Liszt and Dörffel, who amongst other things worked as a proofreader for Breitkopf & Härtel, illustrate yet another aspect of the composer’s authorial control over his own work.73 Dörffel exercised the utmost diligence in his attempt to document all of the earlier editions of Liszt’s works, as can be seen in the notes to that effect which Dörffel entered into the margins of the manuscript (see Pl. 8). Pl. 8 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 15 (marginalia in the hand of Alfred Dörffel) Pl. 8 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 15 (marginalia in the hand of Alfred Dörffel) Liszt, who had already managed in the 1840s to reacquire the rights to a number of his works from individual publishers, regarded his catalogue not as a historical-philological documentation of his creative work up to that point,74 but as a reflection of his most recent authorial intent and the current status of his activities as a composer. It is in this context that one must read his comprehensive response to Dörffel in a letter dated 17 January 1855. After thanking Dörffel for his painstaking research, Liszt explains why he has decided not to adopt his additions, with certain exceptions: 1. The Hofmeister edition of the 12 Etudes (with a lithographic illustration featuring a cradle and the publisher’s note ‘travail de jeunesse’!) is simply a reprint of the Etudes booklet that was published in France in my thirteenth year. I have long since disavowed this edition, replacing it with the second one published by Haslinger in Vienna, Schlesinger in Paris, and Mori and Lavener in London with the title Etudes d’exécution transcendante. This 2nd edition has also been annulled for a number of years now, and Haslinger acceded my request to return the legal title and plates to me and contractually agreed not to print any additional copies of the work. Having come to a full agreement with him, I set myself to work and produced a third edition (very much improved and reconfigured) of my 12 études and submitted it for publication with Messrs Härtel with the descriptive subtitle ‘seule édition authentique, revue par l’auteur etc.’ (‘sole authenticated edition, reviewed by the author, etc.’), which did subsequently transpire. I consequently consider the Härtel edition of the 12 Etudes to be the sole legitimate one, which I also make exceedingly clear in a Note added to the catalogue, and thus I very much desire that the catalogue take no notice whatsoever of the earlier versions. I have found the addition of the symbol ⊕ [circle with a cross] to be the simplest means of indicating my perspective and my intent. 2. It is the very same case with the Etudes de Paganini and the Rhapsodies hongroises, and having fully settled all of my bills with Haslinger, I am in full possession of the legal right to disavow the earlier editions of these works and to protest any instance of these being reprinted, as I have secured legal title not only to them but also to all of the printer’s plates. These facts will enlighten you as to the reappearance (in a very different version and style) of a number of my compositions, to which I as a pianist and composer for piano attached more than a little significance, as they are to a certain extent an expression of a certain period of my artistic originality that is now past. There is nothing unusual in finding significantly altered, reproduced, and improved editions in the case of literature. In significant works and in those that are less so, authors have made quite regular use of alterations, additions, introduction of various types of divisions between periods, amongst other things. A similar process can be found in the sphere of music, if somewhat more elaborate and complicated, and therefore more infrequently applied. Nevertheless I consider it to be a most useful means to improve potentially where one has erred and to bring to bear the experience that was won precisely through the effort of publishing the work itself. I myself have attempted the latter and even if I should not have met with success, it is ample enough proof of my honest effort. 3. A number of pieces from the Album d’un Voyageur have been included once more in the Années de Pèlerinage (from Schott in Mainz). The Album published by Haslinger will not be included in the catalogue because the work was not executed as originally conceived, and Haslinger has restored the legal title and the plates to me. Based on what I have written above, I request, dear sir, that you introduce no alterations to the organizational division and order used in my catalogue but add only the various additions and improvements, for which I am indebted to your judgement and corrections, as I have incorporated and noted them. It would be better that the catalogue’s German title were: F. Liszt Thematischer Catalog. and the type used for the main sections ‘Etudes – Harmonies – Années de Pèlerinages – Ungarische Rhapsodien – Fantaisies sur des motifs d’opéra etc.’ ought to be rather large, while at the same time these sections should be kept quite separate from the works’ title itself. I could not bring myself to agree to the retroactive adoption of an opus number—but it is of much import to me that the catalogue appear soon so as one may obtain as clear an overview as possible of my existing work (however entirely insufficient I may believe this to be). P.S. I shall permit myself to keep for the time being the catalogue that you assembled, as it shouldn’t be used in the preparation of the edition by Härtel.75 This letter is of particular interest because in it Liszt avails himself of arguments of the type made by modern authors to de-canonize earlier versions of their own work, namely the loss of economic and legal validity, their belonging in his autobiographical self-understanding to a ‘certain period of [his] artistic originality that is now past’, and the reference to the practice of recognizing an author’s final authorized version in literature. The fact that Liszt, in a letter to Schlesinger on 3 January 1855, defends his rejection of earlier versions with reference to literary practices, in which he identifies a potential model for handling works of music,76 is undoubtedly tied to the literary tradition that characterizes his environment in Weimar: with their ‘final authorized editions’ (‘Fassungen letzter Hand’), Christoph Martin Wieland and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe had assumed a pioneering role in the literary scene.77 Liszt, who considered himself a successor to the city’s classical tradition,78 as already mentioned, consciously used this opportunity to invoke the practices by which his literary ‘antecedents’ authorized their work. Although many of the compositions were marked ‘sole authenticated version reviewed by the author’ in the catalogue’s final printed version, as had already been the case in Raff’s manuscript, Liszt arranged for the exclusive authorization of a new edition to be marked with an asterisk. On the very first page of the catalogue of works one finds an explanatory note affixed retrospectively: ‘The author hereby declares earlier editions of works printed by other publishers that are marked in this catalogue with a ⊕ to be invalid’ (see Pl. 9). Pl. 9 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 2 (collette on page 2 in Liszt’s own hand) Pl. 9 Open in new tabDownload slide Catalogue thématique des Oeuvres publiées par F. Liszt, D-WRgs 60/Z 14, 2 (collette on page 2 in Liszt’s own hand) Reckoning with the past, Liszt insisted on a process of exclusion when compiling his thematic catalogue, a process that was not limited to earlier versions of his revised works, but included some of the earliest of his compositions to be assigned an opus number, his ‘juvenilia’. The Huit variations Op. 1 (S148), Sept variations brillantes sur un thème de Rossini Op. 2 (S149), the Impromptu brillant sur des thèmes de Rossini et Spontini (S150), and Allegro di bravura and Rondo di bravura Op. 4 (S151–2), which were published in 1825 by the Erard publishing house in Paris, are all missing from the catalogue. What is most striking is that Liszt, in line with his reluctance to provide a historical-chronological documentation of his work, was never able to warm to Dörffel’s proposed ‘retroactive adoption of an opus number’, as he made explicit in the letter dated 17 January 1855 cited above. the ‘blind singer’: the revised version of the catalogue (1877) Nearly two decades after the catalogue’s original release, Breitkopf & Härtel proposed in a letter to Liszt dated 2 April 1874 that it was time for it to be updated. And this during a period in which Liszt was releasing almost no new compositions in print with the publisher: Several modest enquiries we have made of you in recent years as to whether you might again entrust one of your compositions to our publishing house have been met with no enthusiasm, certainly no approval on your part. Today we hope similar requests might instead be met with interest on your part. The first is with respect to the thematic catalogue of your work. Since the time this volume appeared with us, the number of works by your hand has grown considerably; new arrangements have also appeared, and as such, a new complete edition is most desirable. We have gone ahead and prepared the new complete version in our offices but under no circumstance would we even consider printing it without having presented the manuscript for your approval. Would you therefore permit us to ask if we might send it to you for such purpose, that you may undertake your own revision.79 The composer’s positive response quickly followed. In a letter dated 25 April 1874, Liszt announces that he is returning a copy of the 1855 catalogue featuring handwritten notes and additions, suggests that the catalogues published by Kahnt and Schuberth might prove a useful source of information for updating his own catalogue, and comments that he is looking forward to soon receiving the galley proof. He takes this occasion to once again reiterate his desire that only the most recent version of his revised works be included: I find the revitalization of the thematic catalogue of my work most desirable—I hereby send to you by today’s post a copy of the first edition (1855) accompanied by a few comments that the obliging editor charged with this task of revising and updating may find not entirely unprofitable. Since the title page declares ‘composed by the author’, we may dispense with this exaggerated exactitude with respect to the inclusion of miscellaneous forgotten opuscules. ‘Est modus in rebus’: in particular, I would prefer that in cases in which two copies of a work survive, only= the more recent one (hopefully the better one) be listed. Since the majority of and most weighty of my compositions appeared with Kahnt and with Schuberth of Leipzig in the last 12 years, both publishing houses have distributed, free of charge, a printed special catalogue of my works for which they, respectively, hold the rights. It would be quite easy and useful to consult these 2 catalogues during the preparation of the new thematic catalogue, the corrected copy of which I await with great anticipation.80 Work on the catalogue failed once again to proceed as swiftly as had been hoped, regardless of the fact that Härtel had promised Liszt in a letter on 10 July 1874 that efforts were being made to speed up its completion.81 It was only on 22 April 1875 that the publisher finally sent Liszt the engraver’s copy prepared by its employee R. Fritzsche.82 On 7 June 1875 Liszt wrote from Weimar that he would discuss the catalogue in person with the publisher in Leipzig.83 Liszt complains in a letter dated 12 July 1875 that ‘constant interruptions’ prevent him from ‘working diligently and properly’, and he announces that he will send the corrected proof by the end of August.84 In a subsequent letter sent from Villa d’Este dated 26 October 1875 he promises it will be received by the end of the year.85 Liszt appears to have been occupied with the arrangement of the catalogue as late as December 1875, as he sent a copy of the ‘classificatory structure’ and asked Fritzsche for an outline of the structure without incipits: Please find enclosed the classificatory structure of the ‘thematic catalogue’ with respect to the minor ‘works, adaptations and transcriptions by F. Liszt’—accompanied by several comments for the attention of the honourable and meticulous editor, Mr Fritzsche. In the interest of ensuring a clear overview and accuracy with respect to the categories being used, I would find it most useful to have in my possession an outline of the same, without notes—with only the literal title of the works themselves (and in those cases in which several numbers are arrayed under a single title, the primary title). Might you be so kind as to assemble such an outline and send it to me? If at all possible, I should be pleased were the catalogue to appear at this coming Easter Fair. I shall send with tomorrow’s post the catalogue’s numerous pages as well as the corrections of Mendelsohn’s [sic] Lieder.86  The list he asked for was sent to Liszt on 14 January 1876,87 and on 3 February 1876 he returned the annotated manuscript of the catalogue with a request that a proof copy be sent to him.88 Breitkopf & Härtel confirmed receipt of the manuscript on 14 February and assured him that the proof of the catalogue would be ready shortly.89 A letter dated 6 May states: ‘Work on the new edition of the thematic catalogue is proceeding assiduously.’90 Thereafter, on 17 June 1876, Liszt provided clarification in reply to queries by Fritzsche and apologized for his delayed response.91 On 30 December 1876 he writes: ‘Next week I shall see to the revision of my catalogue and deliver it to you’,92 which was most likely a reference to the galley proof. It was only on 22 January 1877, however, that he sent the final corrections,93 the receipt of which the publishing house confirmed on 29 January.94 Only in a letter dated 19 April 1877, more than three years after the initial suggestion that the catalogue be updated and revised, did the publisher announce the printed copies had finally been dispatched.95 While the history of how this second edition of the catalogue came to be is well documented in the correspondence, we have very little concrete information about the actual process of this work of revision, not least because the sources are less extensive in comparison with the first edition. Neither the annotated copy of the catalogue from 1855, which Liszt sent to Breitkopf, according to the former’s letter dated 25 April 1874, nor a manuscript copy has survived. Next to the printed catalogue of 1877, we have access only to a copy of the galley proof annotated by Liszt that has been preserved in the archives of the Breitkopf & Härtel publishing house in Wiesbaden.96 From these galley proofs we know that the composer inserted additions even at this late stage of the editing process, though these could not be incorporated in their entirety because of the page layout. As was previously the case, he attached great importance to indicating unambiguously with the use of asterisks that it was only the most recent versions of his works that were to be considered the sole authorized versions.97 At the end of the galley proof is a list of works to appear in the near future, but in his final review of the material, Liszt and the publisher decided on a different approach, namely to refer to the planned or partially completed publication of works within the respective sections themselves. As mentioned above, the fact that the project was already in the galley proof stage meant it was no longer possible to list these new entries with an incipit. Liszt made only one single exception for the last composition in the catalogue, the melodrama Der blinde Sänger (S546), as there was still blank space available in the galley proof to add print. He added the following commentary to this composition’s entry, in which he draws a striking analogy to his position as a composer: The ballad ‘der blinde Sänger’ by Count Alexis Tolstoy (for speaker and melodramatic piano accompaniment) could well be added after ‘Helge’s Treue’. The manuscript is currently in Weimar (with the Baroness von Meyendorff) and Mr Gottschalg would certainly be so kind as to copy down the first few bars. Bessel, in Petersburg, is the publisher of this ballad with which I would like to conclude the above catalogue—after all, the ‘blind singer’ carried on singing even without an audience … and keeps silent.98 Here the composition’s incipit, written by Liszt’s student and friend Alexander Wilhelm Gottschalg, was pasted in (see Pl. 10). Pl. 10 Open in new tabDownload slide Galley proof of the Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen von F. Liszt. Neue vervollständigte Ausgabe (Leipzig, [1877]), D-WIbh, V 5 (entries by Liszt and incipit of Liszt’s Der blinde Sänger written by A. W. Gottschalg) Pl. 10 Open in new tabDownload slide Galley proof of the Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen von F. Liszt. Neue vervollständigte Ausgabe (Leipzig, [1877]), D-WIbh, V 5 (entries by Liszt and incipit of Liszt’s Der blinde Sänger written by A. W. Gottschalg) A comparison of the two editions of the catalogue reveals a number of changes that are not restricted to range and scope—the second edition comes to 124 pages compared to the older catalogue’s 94—but also include the diversity of Liszt’s compositional output after 1855 (and his work as a writer and editor as well), the number of publishers,99 and, most especially, the abundance of ‘transcriptions’ (‘Übertragungen’) in which his own works were offered in a number of different instrumental versions.100 The organizational system was modified and expanded, as was the title to ‘Thematic Catalogue of Works, Adaptations, and Transcriptions’. This title could be the result of a shortening of the title Liszt had written in the galley proof.101 He appears to be implying that the word ‘work’—since he keeps it distinct from adaptation and transcription—logically refers to ‘original work’; nevertheless the various contrasting uses of it in the organizational scheme reveal that this is not in fact the case (see Pl. 11). Pl. 11 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen von F. Liszt. Neue vervollständigte Ausgabe (Leipzig, [1877]), III–IV, Table of contents Pl. 11 Open in new tabDownload slide Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen von F. Liszt. Neue vervollständigte Ausgabe (Leipzig, [1877]), III–IV, Table of contents Pl. 11 Open in new tabDownload slide Continued. Pl. 11 Open in new tabDownload slide Continued. Here one sees that the symphonic works, which had appeared at the end of the first edition, now open the catalogue, similarly to the way in which the systematic tables of Beethoven’s and Mendelssohn’s catalogues were organized. A sharp distinction is now made within the sections for works for orchestra, for piano and orchestra, and for solo piano between those compositions that are original and those that are not. Several inconsistencies present in the 1855 edition have now been resolved. The subsections of the works for piano have been simplified: the ‘Etudes’ category has disappeared, with the compositions originally assigned to it distributed between the subsections for original works and the ‘Adaptations’, with the Grandes études de Paganini ending up in the latter category. The ‘Adaptations’ section replaces the original category ‘Instrumental Transcriptions’102 and includes a number of concert paraphrases, while the group of fantasies on themes from operas has been renamed ‘Fantasies, Reminiscences, Illustrations, Paraphrases and Transcriptions of Themes from Operas and Other Themes’ and the vocal transcriptions renamed ‘Transcriptions of Songs and Lieder’. The additional qualifier ‘and other themes’ in the former title was necessary since this section included pieces that were not based on a theme from an opera, such as Grande fantaisie di Bravoura sur La Clochette de Paganini (S420) and the Hochzeitmarsch und Elfenreigen aus der Musik zu Shakespeare’s Sommernachtstraum von Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (S410). Nevertheless, certain pieces published as ‘paraphrases’ on non-operatic themes were not included in this category but, probably because of their monothematic character, were instead to be found with the adaptations, such as God Save the Queen (S235) and Gaudeamus igitur (S240). The distinction between original and non-original remains contradictory in this edition too. In addition to the already cited examples from the first catalogue of works, one might point to Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen – Präludium [J. S. Bach] (S179), the Totentanz (S126/2) with a paraphrase of the Dies irae, and the symphonic poem Mazeppa (S100), a reworking of Liszt’s own Etude d’exécution transcendante No. 4, which were all explicitly included under the category ‘Original Compositions’. It is clear that both the composer and the publisher sought to avoid contradictions in the classificatory scheme in this edition of the catalogue through a refinement of the organizational system.103 But as before, the categories used appear less than perfectly suited for capturing the multitude of subtle gradations in all of the compositional possibilities represented in Liszt’s output between the poles represented by ‘pure’ original compositions and transcriptions that remain faithful to the original. This examination of the origins and revising of the 1855 and 1877 thematic catalogues of Liszt’s works published by Breitkopf & Härtel has shown how this particular type of book, which was originally created by publishers as a means of advertising, played a substantial role in the construction of the composer’s authorial profile. This trend had already begun with the thematic catalogues of the works of Beethoven, Chopin, and Mendelssohn that had been printed and made available for sale around 1850 with the same publisher and assumed a distinctively historical-philological character over the course of the nineteenth century with the catalogues of the works of Wolfgang Amadé Mozart by Ludwig Ritter von Köchel (1862) and of Beethoven’s works by Gustav Nottebohm (1868).104 Liszt availed himself of this medium for a survey and expansion of his compositional output that he had begun as far back as 1848 and in so doing attempted to take charge himself of his position as an author in the musical world—not least through exercising control over the various existing versions. The image that arose from the 1855 thematic catalogue, and which the composer himself consciously promoted within his network through the delivery, mentioned in his letters, of fifty to sixty copies thereof, stood in stark contrast to the public image of the virtuoso that had predominated amongst his concert audiences and in the print media.105 Here, after all, Liszt now appeared a composer not only of numerous ‘original compositions’ for piano, but also of songs and works for orchestra, and most especially of the symbolically significant number of nine symphonic poems. This did not represent a displacement or a disavowal of his numerous fantasies, paraphrases, and transcriptions, but a distancing of them from the body of the performing virtuoso and their textual domestication in a systematized, authorized oeuvre, one that nevertheless resisted any clean differentiation between original works and adaptations, between arrangements and transcriptions. The catalogue was, of course, an exceptional means of advertisement for the publishers who had printed Liszt’s works, but the fact that several of the listed works had not yet been printed by the time of its appearance in 1855, and the fact that some of these had no obvious prospects for publication and would only appear in print much later or never at all, demonstrates quite clearly that Liszt primarily considered the thematic catalogue of his works to be a compositional self-portrait that ended quite deliberately with the Huldigungsmarsch (S357/1), a symbolic homage to his patron, Grand Duke Carl Alexander. There were pragmatic reasons for limiting the bibliographical entries to those of German publishers and for changing the language of Raff’s manuscript from French to German, but these decisions were not without consequences for the image of a composer who, in spite of his complex Austro-Hungarian and French identity, not only dedicated his musical setting of Ernst Moritz Arndt’s ‘Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland?’ (‘What is the German’s Fatherland?’) (Das deutsche Vaterland [S74]) to King Frederick William IV of Prussia and listed it in his catalogue but would, not entirely coincidentally, become in subsequent years a source of inspiration for a ‘New German School’ (Neudeutsche Schule).106 The second edition of the catalogue of works from 1877, the evolution of which is more difficult to reconstruct given the fragmentary sources available, documents the late development of Liszt’s artistic biography and gives the impression of a composer who, in the field of symphonic and church music, more actively positioned himself after 1855 as an author of ‘original music’, and who also endeavoured to exercise control over the versions of his many works. The resigned tone of Liszt’s commentary on his melodrama Der blinde Sänger, the very last composition in the catalogue, betrays an awareness of the fact that his development as a composer would no longer enjoy a positive reception. It is not at all difficult to discern in Liszt’s implied analogy to the blind hermit in Tolstoy’s ballad, who believes he is singing before the prince and his hunting party only to discover at the end that they had already departed before his arrival, an allusion to his own status as a composer, one whose more recent work found more and more difficult to win critics’ and the public’s favour.107 Liszt remained an exception in the advertisements for thematic catalogues of the works of ‘renowned composers’ that Breitkopf & Härtel placed in music journals especially from the 1860s onwards (see Pl. 12);108 he was the only living artist amongst this group of long-deceased and firmly canonized composers. Pl. 12 Open in new tabDownload slide Advertisement for Breitkopf & Härtel’s thematic catalogues in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 4/16 (21 Apr. 1869), 128 Pl. 12 Open in new tabDownload slide Advertisement for Breitkopf & Härtel’s thematic catalogues in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 4/16 (21 Apr. 1869), 128 Liszt was not the first composer in history to have a thematic catalogue of his works published during his lifetime, but he was undoubtedly the first to use its publication consciously to refashion his image. His decision to initiate and control such a publication betrays his determination to reshape his past, to establish his new-found status as a composer of original works and put behind him his previous standing as a mere recycler of pre-existing material—the perceived aesthetic worth of adaptations having gradually fallen during the nineteenth century. If the first edition of the catalogue can be considered to mirror the new directions Liszt’s life took in Weimar—a turning point which even at this early stage had already been incorporated into his autobiographical narrative—and to have shielded him from any sceptical reactions to it, the second edition could be interpreted as a means of revitalizing his reputation after being increasingly marginalized by the critics. In each case the catalogue stood—deliberately free of any historical-philological intent—as a ‘thematic monument’109 to the stage Liszt’s unique if controversial artistic development had reached at the time of its publication. Research for this article was made possible by a grant from the Klassik Stiftung Weimar during my sabbatical in the summer semester 2017. I am grateful to my anonymous readers for their constructive comments on the first draft of this article. Special thanks go to Evelyn Liepsch (Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv), Thekla Kluttig (Staatsarchiv Leipzig), and Matthias Otto (Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden) for their invaluable help during my archival research, to Christopher Geissler for his excellent English translation, and to Cora Engel for her meticulous correction of the transcribed sources as well as her thorough proofreading of the entire article. The following abbreviations are used: D-LEsta Leipzig, Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig D-WRgs Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv D-DS Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Musikabteilung D-LEm Leipzig, Leipziger Stadtbibliothek – Musikbibliothek D-WIbh Wiesbaden, Breitkopf & Härtel KG, Verlagsarchiv D-LEsta Leipzig, Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig D-WRgs Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv D-DS Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Musikabteilung D-LEm Leipzig, Leipziger Stadtbibliothek – Musikbibliothek D-WIbh Wiesbaden, Breitkopf & Härtel KG, Verlagsarchiv Open in new tab D-LEsta Leipzig, Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig D-WRgs Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv D-DS Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Musikabteilung D-LEm Leipzig, Leipziger Stadtbibliothek – Musikbibliothek D-WIbh Wiesbaden, Breitkopf & Härtel KG, Verlagsarchiv D-LEsta Leipzig, Sächsisches Staatsarchiv, Staatsarchiv Leipzig D-WRgs Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv D-DS Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Musikabteilung D-LEm Leipzig, Leipziger Stadtbibliothek – Musikbibliothek D-WIbh Wiesbaden, Breitkopf & Härtel KG, Verlagsarchiv Open in new tab Quotations from the sources that appear below in the original language preserve the original spellings. All departures from standard German and French orthography and grammar, particularly in Liszt’s letters, have been reproduced without alteration. Footnotes 1 Eduard Hanslick, ‘Der neue Brahms-Katalog (1888)’, in Hanslick, Musikalisches und Litterarisches (Der ‘Modernen Oper’ V. Theil). Kritiken und Schilderungen (Berlin, 1889), 131–41 at 131: ‘ein sonderbares, ja räthselhaftes nennen dürfte’. 2 It concerns the Thematisches Verzeichnis der bisher im Druck erschienenen Werke von Johannes Brahms. Nebst systematischem Verzeichnis und Register (Berlin, 1887). 3 ‘Es werden uns da die sämmtlichen Werke eines Meisters, chronologisch gereiht, nicht blos nach ihren Titeln aufgezählt, sondern mit den Anfangstacten in Noten citirt und dadurch lebendig ins Gedächtniß gerufen.’ Hanslick, ‘Der neue Brahms-Katalog (1888)’, 131. 4 ‘steckt überdies etwas von einem ästhetischen Genuß darin … Wer sich recht angelegentlich in einen Lieblingsautor vertieft hat und dann emporgearbeitet vom Einzelnen zur Erkenntniß der ganzen Persönlichkeit, der sieht in den Blättern des thematischen Katalogs das Leben des Meisters wie in treuen Schattenbildchen vorüberziehen. Am Ende steht dessen gesammtes Wirken anschaulich wie eine Summe vor uns.’ Ibid. 132. 5 ‘kein einziger zusammenhängender Satz’; ibid. 131. 6 ‘ außer Liszt der erste Componist, dem bei Lebzeiten so ein “thematisches” Monument gesetzt worden’; ibid. 132. 7Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt. Von dem Autor verfasst (Leipzig, 1855); Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen von F. Liszt. Neue vervollständigte Ausgabe (Leipzig, [1877]). 8 Cf. in particular the essays in Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 34 (1992), such as Maria Eckhardt, ‘The Liszt Thematic Catalogue in Preparation: Results and Problems’, 221–30; Rena Charnin Mueller, ‘Liszt’s Catalogues and Inventories of his Works’, 231–50; Zsuszanna Domokos, ‘Zum Problem der Incipits im neuen thematischen Verzeichnis der Werke Franz Liszts’, 275–90. The latest state of the discussion is reported in Michael Short (with Leslie Howard), ‘A New Liszt Catalogue’, in Michael Saffle (ed.), Liszt and his World: Proceedings of the International Liszt Conference held at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 20–23 May 1993 (Analecta Lisztiana, 1/Franz Liszt Studies Series, 5; Stuyvesant, NY, 1998), 75–100, and Michael Short and Michael Saffle, ‘Compiling Lis(z)ts: Cataloging the Composer’s Works and the New Grove 2 Works List’, Journal of Musicological Research, 21 (2002), 233–62. Short and Howard have produced the most up-to-date non-thematic catalogue, which represents an updating and expansion of the list of works in New Grove I—and a critical departure from the New Grove II list of works: Michael Short and Leslie Howard, Ferenc Liszt (1811–1886): List of Works Comprehensively Expanded from the Catalogue of Humphrey Searle as Revised by Sharon Winklhofer (Quaderni dell’Istituto Liszt, 3; Milan, 2004). In this essay I will use the publication dates from this catalogue, the order of which follows Searle’s numeration. 9 There remains a profound need for more detailed research on the specific material dimensions and cultural functions of thematic catalogues of works. Some encouraging efforts in this direction can be found in Barry S. Brook and Richard Viano, Thematic Catalogues in Music: An Annotated Bibliography (Annotated Reference Tools in Music, 5; 2nd edn., Stuyvesant, NY, 1997), pp. ix–xvi, and in Thomas Hochradner, ‘Vom Inventar zum Thematischen Verzeichnis und wieder zurück’, in Hochradner and Dominik Reinhardt (eds.), Inventar und Werkverzeichnis: Ordnung und Zählung als Faktoren der Rezeptionsgeschichte (klang–reden. Schriften zur Musikalischen Rezeptions- und Interpretationsgeschichte, 7; Freiburg i. Br., 2011), 13–33. 10 A critical discussion of the variety of forms authorial appropriation took in the music of the 19th c. is still wanting. For the early modern period, see Kate van Orden, Music, Authorship, and the Book in the First Century of Print (Berkeley, 2014); Michele Calella, Musikalische Autorschaft: Der Komponist zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Schweizer Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 20; Kassel, 2014). For an overview of authorship in literature and in law during the modern period, see Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi (eds.), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham, NC and London, 1994); Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Stanford, Calif., 1994); Thomas Bein, Rüdiger Nutt-Kofoth, and Bodo Plachta (eds.), Autor – Autorisation – Authentizität: Beiträge der Internationalen Fachtagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Germanistische Edition. Aachen, 20. bis 23. Februar 2002 (Beihefte zu Editio, 21; Tübingen, 2004). 11 See Brook and Viano, Thematic Catalogues in Music, p. xii; Hartmut Schäfer, ‘Thematische Verzeichnisse, Thematische Kataloge’, in MGG2, Sachteil ix, cols. 543–62 mainly at cols. 548–9; Barry S. Brook, ‘Thematic Catalogue’, in New Grove II, xxv, 348–52, mainly at 348–9. 12 Cf. The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue: The Six Parts and Sixteen Supplements 1762–1787. Edited and with an Introduction and Indexes by Barry S. Brook (New York, 1966); Brook and Viano, Thematic Catalogues in Music, 37. 13Thematisches Verzeichniss sämmtlicher im Druck erschienenen Werke von Ludwig van Beethoven (Leipzig, 1851); Thematisches Verzeichniss der im Druck erschienenen Compositionen von Friedrich Chopin (Leipzig, [1852]); Thematisches Verzeichniss im Druck erschienener Compositionen von Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (Leipzig, [1853]). 14 Ralf Wehner, Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy: Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke (Leipziger Ausgabe der Werke von Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, XIII/1A; Wiesbaden, 2009), pp. xxxii–xxxiv. 15 Cf. Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Briefe an deutsche Verleger, gesammelt und herausgegeben von Rudolf Elvers (Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy Briefe, 1; Berlin, 1968), 354. 16Thematisches Verzeichniss der im Druck erschienenen Compositionen von Friedrich Chopin, 36. 17 This catalogue is believed to have been published by Johann Baptist Geissler. See Bernhard R. Appel, ‘Zur Editionsgeschichte der Werke Ludwig van Beethovens: Ein Überblick’, in Reinmar Emans and Ulrich Krämer (eds.), Musikeditionen im Wandel der Geschichte (Berlin and Boston, 2015), 369–404 at 376. 18Thematisches Verzeichniss sämmtlicher im Druck erschienenen Werke von Ludwig van Beethoven, pp. iii–iv. 19 Ibid. 153–5. 20 ‘überhaupt Allen, welche sich in irgendeiner Beziehung für Beethoven’s Werke interessieren’; ibid., p. iv. 21 ‘thematischen Catalog Ihrer Werke nach Art der Cataloge von Beethoven, Mendelssohn und Chopin’; letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt on 13 July 1852, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0131/4 (Briefkopierbuch), 427–8. 22 The biographical scholarship on Liszt likewise considers 1848 to be an important turning point and the first Weimar period to be decisive in defining Liszt’s profile as a composer. With respect to more recent research, see Alan Walker, Franz Liszt, ii: The Weimar Years, 1848–1861 (Ithaca, NY, 1989); Serge Gut, Franz Liszt (Musik und Musikanschauung im 19. Jahrhundert, 14; Sinzig, 2009), 177–95; Detlef Altenburg, ‘Das neue Weimarer Kunstideal’, in Altenburg (ed.), Franz Liszt – ein Europäer in Weimar: Katalog der Landesausstellung Thüringen im Schiller-Museum und Schlossmuseum Weimar (Cologne, 2011), 200–11; Klára Hamburger, Franz Liszt: Leben und Werk (Cologne, 2010), 97. 23 See Lina Ramann, Lisztiana: Erinnerungen an Franz Liszt in Tagebuchblättern, Briefen und Dokumenten aus den Jahren 1873–1886/87, ed. Arthur Seidl (Mainz, 1983), 39. See also Wolfram Huschke, Franz Liszt: Wirken und Wirkungen in Weimar (Weimar, 2010), 29–47. This motto was also used by Lina Ramann as the title for the chapter covering the period 1848–61 in her biography of Liszt: Lina Ramann, Franz Liszt: Als Künstler und Mensch. Zweiter Band. II. Abtheilung. Sammlung und Arbeit – Weimar und Rom. Die Jahre 1848–1886 (Leipzig, 1894), 1. 24 ‘Mon desir et mon intention est de vivre encore plus claustralement retiré que l’année dernière, car je suis très fort astreint à des travaux qui absorbent tout mon temps’; letter from Liszt to Landy [identity not established] dated 4 Oct. 1850, as cited in Liszt Letters in the Library of Congress, ed. Michael Short (Franz Liszt Studies Series, 10; Hillsdale, NY, 2003), 71 and 283. 25 ‘vu d’une part mes très nombreuses occupations, et de l’autre mon éloignement de plus en plus prononcé pour ce genre de divertissement auquel je me suis trop adonné pendant longtemps, alors qu’il était une des nécessités de ma carrière extérieure’. Letter from Liszt to Heinrich Schlesinger dated 17 Apr. 1851, as cited ibid. 73 and 283. 26 Letter from Liszt to Carl Reinecke dated 16 Apr. 1852, as cited ibid. 81 and 287. 27 ‘de remanier, de retravailler, corriger et modifier très sensiblement un assez grand nombre de mes ouvrages précédemment publiés’; letter from Liszt to Schlesinger dated 3 Jan. 1855, as cited ibid. 109 and 303: 28 This expansion of his compositional interests, however, does not imply that Liszt gave up writing adaptations. Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein’s notebook (D-WRgs, 59/141,1) contains a list of Liszt’s revised and newly composed works, assembled at a later point and not always entirely reliable. In it the following comment appears on p. 12: ‘In sum, 70 works in five years, not including the opera Sardanapale’ (‘en Somme 70 œuvres en cinq ans non compris l’opera de Sardanapale’). At the same time she lists sixteen ‘compositions originales pour piano’ (p. 7) and twenty-nine ‘transcriptions pour piano’ (p. 11). One should not overlook the fact that Liszt also published a number of solo songs in the 1840s, which he revised and republished over the course of the 1850s. 29 ‘Quant au catalogue de Mendelssohn, je ne le prendrais pas pour modèle de celui dont j’ai vous ai prié d’en faire tirer une centaine d’exemplaires. La gravure des notes devient tout à fait superflue pour le dernier qui peut parfaitement se passer de table thématique et se borner à quelques ornements typographiques pour les titres principaux, ce qui en rendra l’impression, ou la lithographie beaucoup moins dispendieuse, tout en satisfaisant complètement aux conditions de l’usage auquel je le destine.’ Cited in Albi Rosenthal, ‘Franz Liszt and his Publishers’, Liszt Saeculum, 38 (1986), 3–40 at 11. 30 The catalogues in D-WRgs are classified under the references GSA 60/Z 15, 60/Z 17, and 60/Z 17a. On the matter of dating, see Mueller, ‘Liszt’s Catalogues and Inventories of his Works’, 240. 31 Liszt added ‘3 Etudes de Concert’ and ‘Ballade’ to this group in his own hand. 32 On the reconstruction of the configuration of 60/Z 14, see Mueller, ‘Liszt’s Catalogues and Inventories of his Works’, 242. 33 Each bifolio lists compositions in a specific setting. These include works for piano and orchestra, symphonic poems (only four, amongst which Les Préludes appears without title), solo songs, songs for choir, choral works with piano accompaniment, choral works with orchestral accompaniment, compositions for piano duet, and chamber music for piano and strings. Mueller takes the view that these pages constitute the older part (‘A-Teil’) of the 60/Z 14 manuscript, i.e. they had been edited prior to the editing of Raff’s paginated manuscript (Mueller, ‘Liszt’s Catalogues and Inventories of his Works’, 242). This misleading assumption is based on, amongst other things, a letter from Joachim Raff to the publisher Kistner dated 22 Mar. 1847, in which he writes ‘Work on the thematic catalogue is already under way’ (‘Der thematische Catalog derselben ist bereits in Arbeit’); D-WRgs 59/106,1,15. Cf. Rena Charnin Mueller, ‘Liszt’s ‘Tasso’ Sketchbook: Studies in Sources and Revisions’ (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1986), 66, and Mueller, ‘Reevaluating the Liszt Chronology: The Case of Anfangs wollt ich fast verzagen’, 19th-Century Music, 12 (1988), 132–47 at 140. Raff is unmistakably referring here to his own work, not to Liszt’s. It is much more likely that Raff first prepared these bifolios only in 1854, after his manuscript had already been sent, as a stock of works from which Liszt, confronted with a dearth of opportunities for publication, chose some to have copied into a small collection (the above mentioned ‘Nachtraege’), which he subsequently sent to the publisher. 34 In addition to the letters that La Mara [Marie Lipsius] published in the volumes of Liszt’s correspondence (cf. n. 37), excerpts from this correspondence can also be found in Oscar and Hellmuth von Hase, Breitkopf und Härtel: Gedenkschrift und Arbeitsbericht, 1828–1918, ii/1 (5th edn., Wiesbaden, 1968), 145–83. 35 ‘und endlich werden wir einen thematischen Catalog Ihrer Werke nach Art der Cataloge von Beethoven, Mendelssohn und Chopin, die wir gedruckt haben, mit wahrem Interesse publizieren’. Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 13 July 1852, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0131/4 (Briefkopierbuch), 427–8. 36 I am of the view that there are two decisive foundations for this hypothesis: first, in 1852 Liszt did not enjoy such a reputation as a composer that it would appear obvious and natural to Breitkopf & Härtel that he ought to be accorded a place alongside Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Chopin, particularly since he primarily composed adaptations; second, only a fraction of his compositions had appeared with Breitkopf & Härtel, which means that the publishing house would itself have had little financial incentive to publish a thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works. To my mind, the significant purchase of copies made by the composer himself (see below) offers additional support for this hypothesis. 37 ‘Prochainement je vous ferai parvenir mon Catalogue que vous m’obligerez beaucoup de faire paraître sans trop différer. L’éparpillement et la confusion à travers lesquels mes ouvrages ont eu à cheminer jusqu’ici, leur ont fait un tort en sus de ceux qu’ils avaient déjà par eux-mêmes; il n’est donc pas sans importance de les classer et de présenter au public un aperçu catégorique du peu que je puis valoir. Ayant promis à plusieurs personnes habitant toute sorte de contrées de leur envoyer ce catalogue, je vous prie de me porter en compte, non gratis, une soixantaine d’exemplaires, qui, je le crains, ne me suffiront pas, mais serviront du moins à vous alléger les frais d’impression.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 30 Oct. 1852, as cited in Franz Liszt’s Briefe : Gesammelt und herausgegeben von La Mara. Erster Band. Von Paris bis Rom (Leipzig, 1893), ed. La Mara [Marie Lipsius], 116 (the present whereabouts of this letter, which in the early years of the twentieth century was in the possession of Alfred Bovet, is unknown). 38 ‘Soon after his [Berlioz’s] departure, I shall impart some order to the catalogue which you were so kind as to send and which I would much appreciate being able to distribute before winter’s end. You will receive the manuscript before Christmas’ (‘Aussitôt après son [Berlioz’s] départ je mettrai en ordre le Catalogue que vous avez l’obligeance de faire paraître et qu’il me serait agréable de pouvoir distribuer avant la fin de l’hiver. Vous en recevrez le manuscrit avant Noël’); letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 10 Nov. 1852, as cited in Franz Liszt’s Briefe, ed. La Mara, i. 118 (the present whereabouts of this letter, which is known to have been in the possession of J. Crépieux-Jamin in the early years of the twentieth century, is unknown). 39 ‘Nsch. [Nachschrift] es erscheint demnächst ein Catalog der bisher erschienenen Werke Liszts beÿ Breitkopf u. Haertel in der Weise wie die Cat: v. Mendelssohn, Chopin u. Beethoven. Derselbe wird mich zu einer Reihe längerer Artikel oder einer kleinen Brochüre veranlassen, bei welcher Gelegenheit ich im Falle bin, eine alte Schuld gegen Sie abzutragen, indem Ich die bei Ihnen erschienenen Lisztschen Werke einer ausführlichen Würdigung unterstelle. Da von diesem meinen Vorhaben noch niemand weiß (ich redigiere nämlich auch den thematischen Catalog selbst) so bitte ich Sie einstweilen reinen Mund zu halten.’ Letter from Raff to Carl Friedrich Ludwig Gurckhaus dated 30 Nov. 1852, D-WRgs 59/107,1,53. 40 ‘In fifteen days I shall send you the thematic catalogue that you are kind enough to publish and of which I would like to reserve at least fifty copies, which should be delivered at my cost.’ (‘Dans une quinzaine de jours je vous ferai parvenir le catalogue thématique que vous avez l’obligeance de publier et dont je desire qu’il me soit reservé au moins une cinquantaine d’exemplaires qui devront être porté à mon compte’); letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 17 Feb. 1853, D-DS 40.I.28. 41 ‘Der Catalog meiner Compositionen den Sie die Gefälligkeit haben wollen herauszugeben, werde ich Ihnen nächstens zusenden. Sehr angenehm wäre es mir wenn derselbe bis Ende Februar 54 erscheinen könnte.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 23 Oct. 1853, D-DS 40.I.30. 42 ‘I was exceptionally sorry to have missed you twice of late, in my apartment as well as in the hotel; I would very much have liked to have discussed the proof of your catalogue in person. Namely that certain items will need to be added to the manuscripts sent to us, such as the prices, which we are best placed to do, and a cursory examination revealed that the layout does not entirely conform. Thus /right at the start/ the name of the instrument /Piano/ is missing; in another section it states Partition de Piano: Cinquièm Symphonie de Beethoven – and then Grand Septuor de B. transcrit etc. To keep things concise, we would like to ask permission to handle the addition of the required elements with respect to the layout of the section headings and then return the manuscript to you for your final approval. We only listed the German publishing companies throughout in the catalogues of Beethoven’s, Mendelssohn’s, and Chopin’s works. Might you find it suitable for us to do likewise for yours? It will most likely not be possible to provide a complete list of foreign firms, as some of your work has also been printed in Petersburg and America’ (‘Es hat mir außerordentlich leid gethan Sie neulich doppelt verfehlt zu haben, in meiner Wohnung wie im Hotel; ich hätte gar gern über den Stich Ihres Katalogs persönlich Rücksprache mit Ihnen genommen. Wie nämlich in dem uns mitgetheilten Manuscripte jedenfalls noch Einiges, namentlich Preisangaben aufzutragen sein wird, was wir bestens besorgen werden, so hat uns eine flüchtige Durchsicht auch gezeigt, daß die äußerliche Einrichtung nicht ganz conform gehalten ist. So fehlt bisweilen /gleich anfangs/ die bezeichnung des Instruments /Piano/; so heißt es unter der Rubrik: Partition de Piano: Cinquièm Symphonie de Beethoven – und dann Grand Septuor de B. transcrit etc. Wir bitten nun der Kürze halber um Erlaubniß, beim Nachtrag der erforderlichen Nötigen auf gleichförmige Einrichtung dieser Äußerlichkeiten in den Titelüberschriften Rücksicht zu nehmen und Ihnen das Manuscript dann nochmals zu definitiver Genehmigung vorlegen zu dürfen. In den Katalogen der Werke Beethoven’s, Mendelssohn’s, und Chopin haben wir überall nur die deutschen Firmen angegeben. Wäre es Ihnen genehm, daß wir dieß auch bei dem Ihrigen durchführten? Vollständig sind die auswärtigen Firmen ohnehin nicht wohl zu beschaffen, denn auch Ihre Werke werden zum Theil in Petersburg und Amerika gedruckt sein’). Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 13 Dec. 1853, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0131/5 (Briefkopierbuch), 272–3. 43 ‘We have noted in the meantime that several additions to your catalogue are yet to be received and thus await your directions to that end. But we also find it necessary at this point for the good of your catalogue to inform you of several matters. In examining said catalogue, it appeared to us—please excuse the unembellished nature of the remark—as though the arrangement of the works was not in accordance with any clearly defined plan, or at least not one consistently applied, and yet we believe this is most necessary, so that what one is looking for will be easier found. Should we find ourselves in this matter mistaken, we beg of you to inform us as such, otherwise we would request that you kindly bestow your attention on the enclosed material, the ordering of which might illustrate for you what we humbly suggest in this matter. It begins with your original works, which in the current organizational scheme are located between adaptations, and the subsections are better integrated as far as possible. Please be so kind, my dear Herr Doctor, to write and apprise us of your opinion and your intent in this matter as soon as is possible such that the engraving may begin. All that then remains is for us to seek your authorization to clarify, at least to a certain extent, the titles of the individual works so as to bring a greater measure of consistency to the whole, whereas currently it is sometimes the work that is named first, and sometimes the author. It would be best were we to undertake this work ourselves. It of course goes without saying that the title of each work will be given in the language in which it was printed.’ (‘Daß zu Ihrem Catalog noch einige Zusätze kommen sollen haben wir uns einstweilen bemerkt, und erwarten Ihre deshalbigen Bestimmungen. Es wird aber nun auch nöthig, daß wir wegen des Cataloges selbst uns mit Ihnen noch weiter verständigen. Bei Durchsicht desselben wollte uns – entschuldigen Sie die offene Bemerkung – scheinen als ob die Zusammenstellung der Werke nicht nach einem bestimmten Plan erfolgt sei. wenigstens nicht ganz consequent durchgeführt, und doch glaubten wir, daß dies nöthig damit leichter das Gesuchte gefunden werde. Sind wir hierin im Irrthum, so bitten wir um gefl. Belehrung, außerdem möchten wir Sie ersuchen, der Einlage gefälligst Ihre Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, welche Ihnen diejenige Anordnung zeigt welche wir unmaßgeblich vorschlagen würden. Es ist dabei der Anfang mit Ihren Original Werken gemacht, während der jezzige [sic] Anordnung nach diese zwischen Bearbeitungen stehen, auch in die Unterrubriken möglichste Einheit gebracht. Sie haben wohl die Güte geehrtester Herr Doctor uns Ihre Meinung und Willen hierüber recht bald wissen zu lassen damit wir dann auf den Stich gehen können. Es bliebe dann nur noch übrig Sie um Ermächtigung zu theilweiser Klarstellung der Titel der einzelnen Werke zu ersuchen, damit auch hierein eine Consequenz komme, in dem jetzt bisweilen das Werk, bisweilen der Autor zuerst genannt ist. Diese Arbeit könnte wohl am besten durch uns geschehen. Daß die Titel natürlich bei jedem Werke in der Sprache angegeben werden in welcher sie gedruckt sind, versteht sich von selbst.’) Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 20 May 1854, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0131/5 (Briefkopierbuch), 496. 44 ‘Je vous suis bien sincèrement obligé, mon cher Monsieur Härtel, du soin que vous avez bien voulu prendre de mon catalogue et accepte très volontiers et complètement les modifications proposées pour la division de ce Catalogue. À la fin de la petite feuille qui contient la nouvelle Division j’ai fait une petite annotation en suite de laquelle je vous enverrai prochainement les premières mesures d’une douzaine de morceaux à peu près, qu’il faudra ajouter à la fin du Catalogue – et sur la Publication desquels je me réserve de vous faire en même temps une proposition que j’espère vous voir accueillir. En attendant je desirerais que le restant du Catalogue soit mis à l’impression car la rubrique ajoutée devra terminer le volume et précéder immédiatement le supplément (Anhang – Porträts etc.) En plus, les 3 morceaux de Lohengrin que je vous ai envoyé dernièrement, devront aussi figurer dans le catalogue, et je vous prie de les faire ajouter d’après votre Edition, n’ayant pas gardé de copie de ces choses.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 27 May 1854, D-DS 40.I.32. 45 ‘Following the privilege of your latest reply, we shan’t delay the engraving of the thematic catalogue of your works, and in so doing keep in view your most recent instructions’ (‘Nach Empfang Ihrer letzten geehrten Zuschrift werden wir nun nicht säumen, den thematischen Catalog Ihrer Werke stechen zu lassen, und dabei Ihre neuerlichen Bestimmungen im Auge halten’). Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 2 June 1854, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0131/5 (Briefkopierbuch), 514. 46 ‘She is at the same time asked to provide you with a supplement to my catalogue which I would be obliged if you would print at the end of this catalogue, as according to the instructions attached’ (‘En même temps elle s’est chargé de vous remettre un supplement à mon Catalogue que je vous serai fort obligé de faire imprimer selon les indications qui y sont jointes, à la fin de ce catalogue’). Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 6 July 1854, D-DS 40.I.33. 47 ‘Je n’ai plus rien entendu de mon catalogue et espère que vous aurez la complaisance de m’en donner prochainement des nouvelles en épreuves, qui me feront grand plaisir car j’ai promis à plusieurs personnes ce volume auquel je tiens comme une sorte de règlement de compte avec le passé.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 26 Nov. 1854, D-DS 40.I.34. 48 ‘Pour eviter les longueurs j’ecris directement à M. Dörffel qui a bien voulu prendre la peine de s’occuper avec une conscience et une exactitude de recherches tout à fait meritoires de mon catalogue. Je suppose qu’il acceptera sans difficulté les motifs qui me determinent a n’accepter qu’en partie les propositions qu’il me fait – et que les choses ainsi expliquées et entendues, rien ne s’opposera à ce que ce Catalogue soit imprimé et publié prochainement, ce dont je vous serai en particulier fort obligé.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 17 Jan. 1855, D-DS 40.I.36. 49 ‘Hochgeehrter Herr Doctor, Der Correctur des Catalogs erlaube ich mir als eine Art von Curiosum eine Liste von Portraits beizufügen, welche mein Haus Archeolog verzeichnet hat. Ich halte es durchaus nicht für passend die ganze Liste am Schluss des Catalogs abzudrucken – vielleicht finden Sie aber einiges darin (z. B. der Stich nach Kaulbach’s Porträt Die Marmor Büste von Bartolini, Dass Oehlgemälde von Ary Scheffer, dass Medaillon von Rietschl etc.), was noch angegeben werden könnte. Ich überlasse dieses freundliche Besorgniss gänzlich Ihren besseren Dafürhalten, ohne weiterer Einmischung meinerseits. Was die Lithographirten Portraits anbetrifft scheint es mir angemessen nur die in Deutschland erschienenen anzuführen, um so mehr als die Liste meines Archeologs bei weitem nicht vollständig ist – Bei den biographischen Theil des Catalogs bitte ich Sie die “Biographie (– Franz Liszt – von Eduard Beuermann – 1te Lieferung des Werkes “unsere Zeit in Bilder und Biographien, mit einer Einleitung von Karl Gutzkow – Hamburg – Verlags Comptoir 1844) – und die Biographie in der Sammlung der “Componisten der neueren Zeit, in Biographien geschildert von W. Neumann – Cassel – Ernst Balde 1855 – noch in meinen Catalog eintragen zu lassen. Der Vollständigkeit wegen wäre auch noch beizufügen die “Notice Biographique sur Franz Liszt, par Duverger. Extrait de la Revue générale biographique, politique et littéraire publiée sur la Direction de M. E. Pascallet – Paris chez Amyot libraire Editeur rue de la Paix 6, Mai 1843”. Mit ausgezeichneter Hochachtung verbleibt freundlichst ergeben Ihr, leider nur zu sehr portraitirter und biographirter F. Liszt. P.S. Die Herausgabe des Catalogs kann wohl demnächst, in 14 Tagen ungefähr, statt finden? – Bitte auch um baldige Zusendung der Correcturen des Mazeppa und Prometheus.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 27 Aug. 1855, D-DS 40.I.42, punctuation as in original. Liszt wrote about the list of portraits in a later letter: ‘If in fact you do not baulk at this lengthy list of my portraits, I can raise no objections to the same appearing as an appendix to my catalogue, and I ask that you resolve similar matters as you see fit with assurances that I shall look favourably on whatever action you take. I hope the catalogue will suffer no further delays and that I may expect that you will kindly send the requested number of copies at some point in October’ (‘Wenn Sie sich wirklich nicht vor dieser langen Liste meiner Portraits scheuen, so kann ich durchaus keine Einwendung dagegen haben dass dieselbe als Anhang meines Catalogs erscheint, und bitte Sie überhaupt in ähnlichen Sachen gänzlich nach Ihren Dafürhalten zu verfügen mit der Zuversicht dass mir dies stets angenehm sein wird. Hoffentlich wird der Catalog keinen weiteren Aufenthalt erleiden, und ich darf wohl erwarten dass Sie mir im Laufe October die bestimmte Anzahl von Exemplaren hieher gefälligst zusenden lassen’). Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 29 Sept. 1855, D-DS 40.I.43. 50 ‘I await the imminent arrival of the requested number of copies of my catalogue’ (‘Von meinem Catalog erwarte ich baldigst die von mir gewünschte Anzahl von Exemplaren’); letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 11 Oct. 1855, D-DS 40.I.45. 51 References to the French publishers of compositions that had not been published in the German-speaking lands were of course preserved in the text, such as in the case of Apparitions (S155) and Feuille morte (Elégie d’après Sorriano) (S428), which were published in Paris. 52 The names of the dedicatees were first included in the 1877 edition. 53 Liszt’s juvenilia were published with opus numbers up to Op. 6, though the number 5 remained unassigned. The numbering of the works began again with Op. 1 with the printing of the Grande fantaisie sur la tyrolienne de l’opéra la fiancée de Auber (1839, S385) and finished with Op. 13 for the Réminiscences de Lucia di Lammermoor (1840, S397). The inconsistent use of opus numbers in his work continued, however, to appear again and again. One of the reasons Liszt had not systematically provided his works with opus numbers might not only have been his impressive output, a large part of which consisted of transcriptions, but also the high number of publishers to whom he entrusted the printing and release of his works. Between 1838 and 1848, their number can be estimated at around fifteen for the German-speaking countries alone. 54 For the numbering of works using opus numbers in the German-speaking lands during the first half of the 19th c., see Axel Beer, Musik zwischen Komponist, Verlag und Publikum: Die Rahmenbedingungen des Musikschaffens in Deutschland im ersten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts (Tutzing, 2000), 374–8; Beer, ‘Musikverlage und Werkzählung’, in Hochradner and Reinhardt (eds.), Inventar und Werkverzeichnis, 155–62. 55 It is usually evident that a new group of works has begun because part of the preceding page is left blank, i.e. a new group is taken as an occasion to start a new page. 56 On the problems in distinguishing between an original and a revised composition in Liszt’s case, see Wolfram Huschke, ‘“Sammlung und Arbeit in Weimar” und “offener Kompositionsprozeß”: Anmerkungen zur Bearbeitungsproblematik bei Liszt’, in Uta Eckardt et al. (eds.), Bericht über die Wissenschaftliche Konferenz ‘Das Weimarer Schaffen Franz Liszts und seine Ausstrahlung auf die Weltmusikkultur’ (Weimarer Liszt-Studien, 1; Weimar, 1987), 71–8. 57 Strictly speaking, Beethoven’s, Mendelssohn’s, and Chopin’s bodies of work also featured compositions based on pre-existing music, such as variations on themes by other composers, but these enjoyed a different status as reworkings. 58 James Deaville, who has provided the most interesting discussion to date of the terminological and aesthetic differentiation in this sphere of Liszt’s creative work, uses the terms ‘adaption’, ‘reworking’, and ‘transformation’ as general descriptions for composing based on an existing model. At the same time, he distinguishes between ‘transcription’ and ‘arrangement’. He considers a ‘transcription’ to be an adaptation that very closely resembles the source and an ‘arrangement’ to be a composition that emerges from a free reworking of a source. Cf. James Deaville, ‘Wanting the Real Thing? Liszt’s Transcriptions and the Issue of Authenticity’, in Deaville and Michael Saffle (eds.), Liszt’s Legacies (Analecta Lisztiana, 4/Franz Liszt Studies Series, 15; Hillsdale, NY, 2014), 147–70. In this essay I use Deaville’s terminology in spite of the fact that the corresponding German terminology of the 19th c. was not used in a consistent manner (e.g. ‘Arrangement’ was frequently used as a synonym for ‘Transcription’). 59 Seminal texts on Liszt’s technique of transformation are Jonathan Kregor, Liszt as Transcriber (Cambridge, 2010); Michael Saffle, The Music of Franz Liszt: Stylistic Development and Cultural Synthesis (London and New York, 2018), 122–72. 60 The qualifier ‘de Concert’ was later crossed out. 61 Transcriptions of songs in Italian were classified under this heading. 62 ‘I have given my work the title Partitions de piano so as to make more obvious the intention of following the orchestra step by step and not surrendering any advantage to it other than its mass and its variety of sounds. I will now undertake with respect to Beethoven’s symphonies what I accomplished with Berlioz’s’ (‘J’ai donné à mon travail le titre de Partitions de piano, afin de rendre plus sensible l’intention de suivre pas à pas l’orchestre et de ne lui laisser d’autre avantage que celui de la masse et de la variété des sons. Ce que j’ai entrepris pour la symphonie de Berlioz, je le continue en ce moment pour celles de Beethoven’). As cited in Franz Liszt: Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Rainer Kleinertz, i: Frühe Schriften (Wiesbaden, 2000), 122. 63 This printing comprised the Fantaisie romantique sur deux mélodies suisses (S157), the Rondeau fantastique sur un thème espagnol (El contrabandista) (S252), and the Grande fantaisie sur des motifs de Niobe (Divertissement sur la cavatine de Pacini ‘I tuoi frequenti palpiti’ (S419). The latter technically fulfils the requirements for an opera fantasy since it is based on an aria from the opera Niobe. 64 The latter two are included in this group probably because they appeared in 1848–9 alongside several adaptations of songs in a series of transcriptions with the publisher Kistner. 65 The only exception appears to be the Grand duo concertant sur la romance de ‘Le Marin’ [C.P. Lafont] (S128) for violin and piano, which was assigned to the concert paraphrases. 66 See above, n. 44. 67 The piano reduction of Harold en Italie was first printed in 1879 in Leipzig, the instrumentation of Schubert’s Fantasie in 1857–8, the Capriccio alla turca in 1865, and the Ungarische Rhapsodie No. 14 as the Fantasie über ungarische Volksmelodien in 1864. The Ouverture du Roi Lear never appeared in print during Liszt’s lifetime. 68 ‘Sollen demnächst in Partitur erscheinen’; Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt (1855), 14. The Piano Concertos appeared in 1857 and 1863 respectively, and the Totentanz in 1865. 69 ‘Demnächst in Partitur und für 2 Pianoforte übertragen bei Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig erscheinend’; Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt (1855), 93. 70 Since Liszt’s correspondence with Breitkopf & Härtel remains largely unpublished, the examination of the origins and development of the symphonic poems has thus far been based almost entirely on the musical sources. The most up-to-date overview is provided in Keith T. Johns, The Symphonic Poems of Franz Liszt, revised, edited, and introduced by Michael Saffle (Franz Liszt Studies Series, 3; Stuyvesant, NY, 1996), 139–58. There are a number of detailed studies on Les Préludes (S97) and Prometheus (S99): Andrew Bonner, ‘Liszt’s Les Préludes and Les Quatre Élémens: A Reinvestigation’, 19th-Century Music, 10 (1986), 95–107; Paul Allen Bertagnolli, ‘From Overture to Symphonic Poem, from Melodrama to Choral Cantata: Studies of the Sources for Franz Liszt’s Prometheus and his Chöre zu Herder’s “Entfesseltem Prometheus”’ (Ph.D. diss., Washington University, 1998). See also recently Joanne Cormac, Liszt and the Symphonic Poem (Cambridge, 2016). 71 This catalogue of works also served as the explicit reference for encyclopedia articles on Liszt, such as in Constant von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich. Fünfzehnter Theil (Vienna, 1866), 247–79. 72 This image was reinforced by the fact that Liszt is also listed as a writer in the catalogue of works, namely with respect to his texts on Richard Wagner’s Lohengrin and Tannhäuser, on Chopin, and on the plans for a Goethe-Stiftung in Weimar (Thematisches Verzeichniss der Werke von F. Liszt [1855], 95). 73 On Dörffel’s work for Breitkopf & Härtel, see Klaus Burmeister, ‘Alfred Dörffel: Verlagsmitarbeiter und -inhaber, Musikgelehrter und -bibliothekar’, in Stefan Keym and Peter Schmitz (eds.), Das Leipziger Musikverlagswesen: Innerstädtische Netzwerke und internationale Ausstrahlung (Studien und Materialien zur Musikwissenschaft, 94; Hildesheim, 2016), 271–90, mainly at 275–80. Dörffel’s work on the catalogue is documented in his book of accounts (D-LEm P 9087), in which he notes under the date ‘Jan. Jul. Aug. [1854]’: ‘Compilation of the thematic catalogue of Liszt’s works (‘Anfertigung des thematischen Verzeichnisses von Liszts Werken’). I would like to thank Klaus Burmeister for providing me with a partial reproduction of this source. 74 This can be seen in the first and the second editions of the catalogue in that the dates of origin are entirely omitted in both. 75 ‘1. Die Hofmeister’sche Auflage der 12 Etuden (mit einer Wiegen-Lithographie und dem Zusatz des Verlegers ‘travail de jeunesse’!) ist einfach ein Nachdruck des Heftes Etuden, welches, als ich in meinem 13ten Jahre war, in Frankreich veröffentlicht wurde. Ich habe diese Ausgabe längst desavouirt und durch die zweite bei Haslinger in Wien, Schlesinger in Paris, Mori und Lavener in London, unter dem Titel Etudes d’exécution transcendante ersetzt. Diese 2te Auflage aber ist auch seit mehreren Jahren cassirt, und Haslinger hat mir das Eigenthumrecht und die Platten nach meinem Verlangen zurückgestellt und sich contractlich verbindlich gemacht, fernerhin keine Exemplare dieses Werks zu veräussern. Nach vollständigem Übereinkommen mit ihm setzte ich mich an die Arbeit und stellte eine dritte Auflage (sehr wesentlich verbessert und umgestaltet) meiner 12 Etuden her und ersuchte die Herren Härtel, dieselbe mit dem Zusatz ‘seule édition authentique, revue par l’auteur etc.’ herauszugeben, was auch geschah. Folglich erkenne ich blos die Härtel’sche Ausgabe der 12 Etuden als die einzig rechtmässige, was ich auch durch eine im Catalog beigefügte Note deutlich ausspreche, und wünsche deshalb, dass der Catalog von den früheren keine Notiz nimmt. Durch die Beifügung des Zeichens ⊕ [Kreis mit Kreuz] denke ich das einfachste Mittel getroffen zu haben, meine Ansicht und Intention zu verdeutlichen. 2. Mit den Paganini’schen Etuden und den Rhapsodies hongroises hat es dieselbe Bewandtniss, und ich bin nach Abschluss meiner Rechnungen mit Haslinger vollständig in das legale Recht getreten, die früheren Auflagen dieser Werke zu desavouiren und gegen den eventuellen Nachdruck derselben zu protestiren, da ich sowohl in Besitz des Eigenthumsrechts als der sämmtlichen Stich-Platten davon wieder gelangt bin. Diese Umstände erklären Ihnen das Wiedererscheinen (in sehr veränderter Fassung und Gestaltung) mehrerer meiner Compositionen, auf welche ich als Clavierspieler und Clavier-Componist einiges Gewicht legen musste, weil sie einigermassen den Ausdruck einer abgeschlossenen Periode meiner Künstler-Individualität bilden. In der Litteratur ist das Ergebniss von sehr veränderten, vermehrten und verbesserten Auflagen nichts Ungewöhnliches. Bei bedeutenden und geringen Werken sind Veränderungen, Zusätze, verschiedenartige Eintheilungen der Perioden etc. ein ganz usitirtes Verfahren der Schriftsteller. Auf dem musikalischen Gebiet wird ein ähnliches wohl umständlicher und schwieriger – deshalb ist es auch selten angewandt. Nichtsdestoweniger erachte ich es als ganz erspriesslich, seine Fehler möglicherweise zu verbessern, und die durch die Herausgabe der Werke selbst gewonnenen Erfahrungen zu benützen. Für meinen Theil habe ich letzteres versucht, und wenn es mir auch nicht gelungen sein sollte, so bezeugt es doch mein redliches Streben. 3. In den Années de Pèlerinage (bei Schott in Mainz) sind mehrere der Stücke aus dem Album d’un Voyageur wieder aufgenommen. Das bei Haslinger erschienene Album soll nicht im Catalog angeführt werden, weil das Werk in seiner ersten Anlage nicht ausgeführt wurde, und mir Haslinger das Eigenthum nebst den Platten ebenfalls zurückgestellt hat. Als natürliche Schlussfolgerung des Gesagten bitte ich Sie also, geehrter Herr, in der Eintheilung und Anordnung meines Catalogs keine Änderung vorzunehmen, und nur die verschiedenen Vermehrungen und Verbesserungen, welche ich Ihren Ansichten und Berichtigungen verdanke, beizufügen, so wie ich es selbst jetzt angegeben und bemerkt habe. – Der Haupttitel des Catalogs dürfte wohl besser deutsch so lauten: F. Liszt Thematischer Catalog. und die Lettern der Haupt-Rubriken ‘Etudes – Harmonies – Années de Pèlerinages – Ungarische Rhapsodien – Fantaisies sur des motifs d’opéra etc.’ müssten ziemlich gross, und diese Rubriken abgesondert von dem speciellen Titel der Werke sein. Mit der Annahme einer nachträglichen Opuszahl könnte ich mich nicht einverstehen – es liegt mir aber daran, dass der Catalog bald erscheint, um eine möglichst deutliche Übersicht meiner bisherigen (mir leider durchaus nicht genügenden) Arbeiten zu erlangen. P. S. Den von Ihnen verfassten Catalog erlaube ich mir einstweilen hier zu behalten, da er zur Anfertigung der Herausgabe bei Härtel nicht benutzt werden soll.’ Letter from Liszt to Dörffel dated 17 Jan. 1855, as cited in Franz Liszt’s Briefe, ed. La Mara, i. 188–91 (the present whereabouts of this letter remains unknown). 76 ‘The example is often followed in literature and I believe that musicians would do well to profit from it however inconvenient it may be to be conscientious for the author to set himself to improving as much as it devolves upon him that, though his work may initially cause inconvenience to the publisher. In the final analysis both the author and the publisher will benefit equally from it’ (‘En littérature cet exemple est très fréquent, et je crois que les musiciens feront bien d’en profiter quelqu’ennui d’ailleurs que ce sois [sic] conscienscieux que l’auteur met à améliorer autant qu’il dépend de lui son œuvre, puisse d’abord causer à l’éditeur. En fin de compte l’auteur et l’éditeur y trouvent également leur profit’); letter from Liszt to Schlesinger dated 3 Jan. 1855, as cited in Short, Liszt Letters in the Library of Congress, 109 and 303. 77 Waltraud Hagen, ‘Goethes Maßnahmen zur Sicherung seines literarischen Nachlasses und die Vorbereitung der Ausgabe letzter Hand’, in Siegfried Scheibe et al. (eds.), Goethe-Studien (Berlin, 1965), 79–96; Hagen, ‘Goethes Ausgabe letzter Hand: Entstehung und Bedeutung’, Marginalien: Zeitschrift für Buchkunst und Bibliophilie, 99 (1985), 1–22; Bodo Plachta, ‘Goethe über das “lästige Geschäft” des Editors’, in Bein et al. (eds.), Autor – Autorisation – Authentizität, 229–38; Peter-Henning Haischer, Historizität und Klassizität: Christoph Martin Wieland und die Werkausgabe im 18. Jahrhundert (Ereignis Weimar–Jena: Kultur um 1800, 28; Heidelberg, 2011). 78 The most important studies on Liszt’s relationship to Weimar’s cultural tradition remain Detlef Altenburg's, ‘Franz Liszt and the Legacy of the Classical Era’, 19th-Century Music, 18 (1994), 46–63; ‘Franz Liszt und das Erbe der Klassik’, in Altenburg (ed.), Liszt und die Weimarer Klassik (Weimarer Liszt-Studien, 1; Laaber, 1997), 9–32; ‘Liszt and the Spirit of Weimar’, Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 54 (2013), 165–76. 79 ‘Einige bescheidene Anfragen, die wir in den letzten Jahren an Sie richteten, des Inhalts, ob Sie uns wieder einmal ein Werk Ihrer Composition für unseren Verlag anvertrauen möchten, haben zwar keinen Beifall, wenigstens kein Entsprechen bei Ihnen gefunden; heute aber hoffen wir durch einige ähnliche Fragen eher ein Interesse bei Ihnen zu finden. Die erste betrifft den thematischen Katalog Ihrer Werke. Seitdem dieser bei uns erschienen ist, hat sich die Zahl ihrer Werke ansehnlich vermehrt; es sind außerdem neue Arrangements hinzugekommen, und eine neue vervollständigte Ausgabe ist daher dringend wünschenswerth. Wir haben diese Vervollständigung in unserem Comptoir vorbereiten lassen, möchten sie aber keinesfalls drucken, ohne Ihnen das Manuscript zur Genehmigung vorgelegt zu haben und erlauben uns daher, anzufragen, ob wir Ihnen dasselbe zu solchem Behuf, resp. einer Revision Ihrerseits übersenden dürfen.’ Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 2 Apr. 1874, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0189 (Briefkopierbuch), 468–70. 80 ‘Die Fortführung des thematischen Verzeichniss meiner Werke ist mir sehr erwünscht; mit der heutigen Post sende ich Ihnen ein exemplar der ersten Auflage (1855) nebst einigen Anmerkungen die dem gefälligen Fortsetzer vielleicht nicht unnütz sein dürften. Da auf dem Titelblatt steht: “von dem Autor verfasst”: sind wir von der übertriebenen Genauigkeit betreffs der Angabe verschiedener, verlorener Opuskeln enthoben. “Est modus in rebus”: – insbesondere wünsche ich dass bei den Werken welche zwei Ausgaben erhielten, nur die letzte (hoffentlich die Bessere) verzeichnet wird. Seit 12 Jahren, sind die meisten und schwerfälligsten meiner Compositionen in Leipzig bei Kahnt und Schuberth erschienen. Beide Verlagshandlungen vertheilen gratis einen gedruckten speciellen Catalog derjenigen meiner Werke die ihr Eigenthum sind. Diese 2 Cataloge zu berücksichtigen wird bequem und dienlich sein bei der Abfassung des neuen thematischen Verzeichniss, dessen Correctur Zusendung ich mit Vergnügen erwarte.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 25 Apr. 1874, D-DS 40.I.92. 81 ‘Finally, from this point on we shall be seeking to speed up, insofar as is possible, the work on a new edition of the thematic catalogue of your works, taking your comments as guiding principles, and we’ll send you in due time the whole thing for your authorization and/or corrections.’ (‘Endlich die Bearbeitung einer neuen Ausgabe des thematischen Verzeichnisses Ihrer Werke werden wir von nun an möglichst zu beschleunigen suchen, dabei Ihre bezüglichen Mittheilungen zur Richtschnur nehmen und Ihnen s. Z. [seinerzeit] das Ganze zur Genehmigung resp. zur Correctur vorlegen.’) Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 10 July 1874, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0191 (Briefkopierbuch), 978–80. 82 ‘Please allow us to provide you with the enclosed revision of the thematic catalogue of your work. We have secured a local musician, Mr Fritzsche, to prepare the manuscript for the engraving; he has provided a sheet of remarks, which we humbly provide for your information and that you may be apprised of the individual points. Should you be so kind as to review the engraver’s manuscript of the catalogue, we will, following your return of the revised copy to us, lack for nothing in moving swiftly forward with the printing and distribution thereof’ (‘Beifolgend nun erlauben wir uns Ihnen die Revision des thematischen Katalogs Ihrer Werke zu überreichen. Wir haben das Manuskript desselben für den Stich durch einen hiesigen Musiker, Herrn Fritzsche, vorbereiten lassen; derselbe hat ein Blatt Bemerkungen dazu gegeben, welches wir Ihrer gefälligen Kenntnisnahme, sowie ihrer Verfügung über die einzelnen Punkte empfehlen. Wollen Sie nun die Güte haben, den Stich des Kataloges durchzusehen, so werden wir nach Rückempfang des Revisions Exemplars nicht verfehlen, den Druck und die Herausgabe sofort zu bewirken’). Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 22 Apr. 1875, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0196 (Briefkopierbuch), 971–3. 83 Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 7 June 1875, D-DS 40.I.98. 84 ‘Please forgive the delay in my revision of the catalogue. Constant interruptions have prevented my working diligently and properly’ (‘Entschuldigen Sie meine Verzögerung der Revision des Catalogs. Unaufhörliche Störungen verhindern mich regelmässig und vernünftig zu arbeiten. Dennoch soll der Catalog bald – vor Ende August – expedirt werden’). Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 12 July 1875, D-DS 40.I.99. 85 ‘I shall shortly take up work on this matter of the utmost interest to me, the catalogue simply of my published works, and shall deliver it to you before the year is out’ (‘Den für mich leider zu interessanten Catalog meiner [sch]lechtweg veröffentlichten Werke werde ich nächstens vornehmen, – und noch vor Ende des Jahres Ihnen zuschicken’). Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 26 Oct. 1875, D-DS 40.I.101. 86 ‘Anbei die Eintheilung des “thematischen Verzeichniss” der geringen “Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen F. Liszt’s” – nebst einigen Bemerkungen für den verehrlichen und sorgsamen Redacteur, Herrn Fritzsche. Zur klaren Übersicht und categorischen Genauigkeit des Catalogs, wäre mir ein Schema desselben, ohne Noten – nur mit wörtlichen Angabe des Titels der Werke (und wo mehrere Nummern unter einem Titel sich anreihen nur den Haupt Titel) sehr dienlich. Wollen Sie die Güte haben, ein solches Schema anfertigen zu lassen, und mir zu schicken? Wenn möglich, wünsche ich die Herausgabe des Catalog’s zur nächsten Oster Messe. Mit der morgigen Post übersende ich Ihnen die vielen Bogen des Catalog’s und zugleich die Correcturen von Mendelsohn’s Liedern.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 11 Dec. 1875, D-DS 40.I.103. 87 Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 14 Jan. 1876, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0202 (Briefkopierbuch), 204–6. 88 ‘Mr Fritzsche’s accomplishments in the arduous task of my catalogue are most admirable. I have enclosed a few brief lines of thanks I should like to ask you kindly to pass on to him along with the annotated manuscript of the catalogue. I should like to see one final corrected copy before its publication’ (‘Herr R. Fritzsche hat die mühsame Arbeit meines Katalogs vortrefflich besorgt. Anbei ein paar Dankes Zeilen die Sie ihm freundlichts [sic] übergeben wollen, nebst dem annotirten Manuscript des Katalogs. Bevor der Herausgabe bitte ich mir ein letztes Correctur Exemplar zu senden’). Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 3 Feb. 1876, D-DS 40.I.104. 89 ‘Your previous letter of 3 Feb. (Villa d’Este) provided us the overview of the thematic catalogue inclusive of your comments, thus we will ask a capable engraver to commence work; we shall provide you with the proof sheets for your review before it is sent to print’ (‘Ihr vg.[voriger] Brief vom 3. Febr. (Villa d’Este) brachte uns die Übersicht des thematischen Verzeichnisses mit Ihren Bemerkungen versehen, wir lassen nun einen verständigen Stecher die Arbeit beginnen, vor der Herausgabe legen wir Ihnen die Bogen zur Durchsicht vor’). Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 14 Feb. 1876, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0202 (Briefkopierbuch), 831–3. 90 ‘An der neuen Ausgabe des thematischen Katalogs wird fleißig gearbeitet.’ Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 6 May 1876, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0204 (Briefkopierbuch), 431–2. 91 Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 17 June 1876, D-DS 40.I.105. 92 ‘Nächste Woche werde ich die Revision meines Catalogs besorgen und Ihnen zustellen.’ Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 30 Dec. 1876, D-DS 40.I.107. 93 Letter from Liszt to Breitkopf & Härtel dated 22 Jan. 1877, D-DS 40.I.110. 94 Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 29 Jan. 1877, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0209 (Briefkopierbuch), 511. 95 Letter from Breitkopf & Härtel to Liszt dated 19 Apr. 1877, D-LEsta, 21081 Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, Nr. 0211 (Briefkopierbuch), 107–9. 96 D-WIbh, V 5. 97 On the problem of excluding earlier versions from Liszt’s catalogue, see Saffle, The Music of Franz Liszt, 75–7. 98 ‘Nach “Helge’s Treue” könnte noch zum Schluss die Ballade von Graf Alexis Tolstoy: “der blinde Sänger” (für Declamation und melodramatischer Pianoforte Begleitung) angefügt werden. Das Manuscript befindet sich in Weimar (bei Frau Baronin von Meyendorff) und Herr Gottschalg wird so freundlich sein die paar Anfangs-Takte zu notiren. Im Verlag von Bessel, Petersburg, erscheint diese Ballade mit welcher ich den obigen Catalog schliessen möchte,—weil eben der “blinde Sänger” selbst ohne Publikum fortsang … und schweigt.’ D-WIbh, V 5, 125. 99 As Liszt himself wrote, a number of his compositions appeared with the publishers Kahnt und Schuberth after 1855 and with several publishers in Budapest as well. 100 The word ‘Übertragung’ is used in this edition for the transcriptions of Liszt’s works by other musicians in other musical settings. 101 The title in this case reads ‘Thematischer Catalog / der Werke von Franz Liszt: / Instrumental und Vocal / Compositionen, Bearbeitungen, / Transcriptionen, etc. / 1877, / Breitkopf und Härtel Leipzig’ (‘Thematic Catalogue / of the Works of Franz Liszt: / Instrumental and Vocal / Compositions, Adaptations, / Transcriptions, etc. / 1877, / Breitkopf und Härtel Leipzig’). Liszt must have been aware of the final title by the end of 1875 at the latest, as is clear in his letter, cited above, dated 11 Dec. 1875: ‘Please find enclosed the classificatory structure of the “thematic catalogue” with respect to the minor “works, adaptations and transcriptions by F. Liszt”’ (‘Anbei die Eintheilung des “thematischen Verzeichniss” der geringen “Werke, Bearbeitungen und Transcriptionen F. Liszt’s”’). It remains unclear, however, why the publication is given a different title in an advertisement in the Mittheilungen der Musikalienhandlung Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig of 2 Dec. 1876, p. 32, namely ‘Thematisches Verzeichniss der im Druck erschienenen Werke von Franz Liszt’ (‘Thematic Catalogue of the Works of Franz Liszt Appearing in Print’). It is also noteworthy that the statement ‘by the author himself’, which appeared on the title page of the 1855 edition and which Liszt clearly had in mind when he agreed to the revision of the catalogue in his letter of 25 Apr. 1874, is nowhere to be found in the 1877 edition. This suggests that the publisher made a more substantial contribution to this edition than in 1855 and in all likelihood handled all of the arrangements related to engraving. 102 The term ‘Transcription’ was probably considered less fitting for cases in which Liszt adapted compositions for piano by other composers for the very same instrument, as was the case with Schubert’s marches and waltzes. It is interesting that in this edition of the catalogue only the section for instrumental adaptations features an index of the original sources organized by the name of the composer. 103 One might also hypothesize that the specific inclusion of the terms ‘Bearbeitungen’ (adaptations) and ‘Transcriptionen’ (transcriptions) in the title of this edition of the catalogue and the more detailed accounting of the original sources in the catalogue’s organizational scheme have something to do with the establishment of copyright in the North German Confederation in 1867. For more on this, see Deaville, ‘Wanting the Real Thing?’, 167–9. 104 The Liszt catalogue, however, did not in any way, even in its second edition of 1877, follow this trend, as can be seen from a complaint published in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung on 6 June 1877 regarding the absence of any substantial details with respect to chronology and dates: ‘What we find quite wanting, however, is the provision of the dates of publication, which are to be found nowhere, not even in the entries concerning musical scores of the most comprehensive works. With respect to chronology we find ourselves, even in possession of this catalogue, again enclosed in a most dark room, one which is all the darker for the lack of even opus numbers with which one might in other cases out of necessity gingerly feel one’s way along the walls. We are simply of the opinion that he who has exhibited such dedication to providing everyone with such an undemanding overview of his treasures might well have granted the learned reader this small pleasure. The need to provide dates in thematic catalogues dedicated to a single composer ought to be self-evident’ (‘Was wir aber gar sehr vermissen, ist die Angabe des Jahres der Publication, die sich nirgends findet, selbst nicht bei den Partituren der umfangreichsten Werke. Hinsichtlich der Chronologie gerathen wir also auch mit diesem Katalog wieder in eine ganz finstere Kammer, die um so finsterer ist, weil hier sogar die Opuszahlen fehlen, an denen man sich bei Anderen doch nothdürftig an den Wänden entlang fühlen kann. Wir meinen nun, dass der, welcher so sehr beflissen war die Uebersicht seiner Schätze Allen leicht zu machen, auch wohl den Gelehrten diese kleine Freude hätte bereiten können. Bei thematischen Katalogen, die einzelne Componisten behandeln, sollte sich die Datirung von selbst verstehen’). Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 12/23 (6 June 1877), col. 359. 105 On Liszt’s image in the German-language press, see Michael Saffle, Liszt in Germany 1840–1845: A Study in Sources, Documents, and the History of Reception (Franz Liszt Studies Series, 2; Stuyvesant, NY, 1994). 106 For more on the relationship between the ‘Weimarer Kreis’ (Weimar Circle), with its sympathies for German Nationalism, and the New German School (Neudeutsche Schule), see James Deaville, ‘Die neudeutsche Musikkritik: Der Weimarer Kreis’, in Detlef Altenburg (ed.), Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule (Weimarer Liszt-Studien, 3; Laaber, 2006), 55–76. 107 For the reception of the premieres of Liszt’s compositions in his later years, cf. Dolores Pesce, Liszt’s Final Decade (Eastman Studies in Music, 112; Rochester, NY, 2014), 67–85. 108Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, 4/16 (21 Apr. 1869), 128. 109 I am intentionally using Hanslick’s phrase since I believe thematic catalogues ought to play a more prominent role in research on ‘monumentality’ in the musical culture of the 19th c. On how the subject of monumentality relates to Liszt specifically, see Michael Saffle, ‘Liszt, “Monumentality”, and Recent Musicological Research’, in Markus Grassl and Cornelia Szabó-Knotik (eds.), Die Rückkehr der Denkmäler: Aktuelle retrospektive Tendenzen der Musikwissenschaft (Musikkontext, 6; Vienna 2013), 137–47. © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com © The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press.
TI - Reckoning with the Past: Strategies of Musical Authorship in Liszt’s Thematic Catalogue (1855/1877)
JF - Music and Letters
DO - 10.1093/ml/gcz100
DA - 2020-02-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/reckoning-with-the-past-strategies-of-musical-authorship-in-liszt-s-0eJBWkMlNd
SP - 30
EP - 70
VL - 101
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -