Richtiger name des fidelio

Matthew L. Boyle

KEYWORDS: Agricola, Berlin, Graun, Hamburg, Kirnberger, recitative, rhetoric, Scheibe, schemata, Schulz, Sulzer, Telemann, text and music

ABSTRACT: Johann george Sulzer’s “Recitativ” zu sein a unique ambitious article an his Allgemeine Theorie ns schönen Künste. The longest music article bei his encyclopedia und accompanied v over 100 music examples, that describes the technical features and expressive functions of the genre von recitative through fünfzehn rules. It so documents a local dispute between Berlin und Hamburg over the composition of recitative. George Philipp Telemann und Johann Adolf Scheibe, composers associated with Hamburg, space chastised bei “Recitativ” for their willingness zu abandon Italianate formulas und adopt French or newly designed techniques. Bei contrast, the krapfen Carl heinrich Graun zu sein celebrated, v passages of his recitative supplied as stylistic exemplars. In the years before die publication des “Recitativ,” a diverse group of musicians bei Berlin beginning with Graun expressed distaste for French-influenced recitative, including even ns Francophile Friedrich wilhelm Marpurg. Ns article ist the product of collaboration bolzen several krapfen authors that express your city’s Italianate taste bei recitative, consisting of Sulzer, Johann Abraham peter Schulz, Johann Kirnberger, and Johann Friedrich Agricola. Neu evidence says that Agricola’s influence on die article is greater than formerly acknowledged. Sulzer’s text is presented in a side-by-side translate in that contains his 39 numbered musical examples, with included bibliographic commentary and translations von poetic messages (also can be downloaded as bei Appendix).

Du schaust: Richtiger name des fidelio


Mein damaliger Aufenthalt bei einem Orte, wo ns gekrönter Weltweise ns prächtigste ns Schauspiele, oder wie andre sagen, “das ungereimteste Werk, deshalb der menschliche verstand jemals erfunden,” ns Oper einer Volke zeigte, so bis jetzt dergleichen kaum kommen sie Namen nach kannte; zögern mir noch mehr Gelegenheit hierauf kommen sie denken. Einen jeder sprechen seine Meynung by Arien und Recitativen, wie von den allergemeinsten Sachen, dafür daß die Oper ns Vorwurf aller Unterredungen ward.

– G. E. Lessing, Beyträge von Historie und aufzeichnen des Theaters, “Critik über die Gefangenen von Plautus.”

Introduction(1)

<1.1> Johann georg Sulzer’s encyclopedia, ns Allgemeine Theorie ns schönen Künste (1771–74), has lang been familiar to music scholars of the Enlightenment. Ns influence des its musical write-ups on musicians des the past ist well-documented und hardly needs zu be introduced here, specifically because bei recent year it has actually increasingly been drawn upon for evidence an a broad range von eighteenth-century musical topics, including historical theories des rhythm and meter, aesthetics, and topic theory.(2) Sulzer, an enthusiastic Liebhaber des music, enlisted ns collaboration of skilled Prussian music theorists, most notably Johann Kirnberger, in preparation of music articles. Thomas Christensen’s 1995 translation des several articles on basic aesthetic und musical topics in Sulzer’s encyclopedia has made significant excerpts des this arbeiten accessible to English speakers.(3) however much blieb remains inaccessible. Christensen, who frames his translation job as a method of erhob Sulzer’s very own thoughts und writings an English, justifies the inclusion of two music short articles not von Sulzer (probably written by his collaborator Johann Abraham peter Schulz), on the sonata and the symphony, according to the prestige des those category alone. Gläubige “deemed the appropriate kommen sie conclude v these articles,” due to the fact that these genres are among die “two most essential instrumental genres des the eighteenth century” (1995, 23). Their prestigious status furthermore enables them to “serve together fitting exemplars” to ns “aesthetic and rhetorical ethics explicated von Sulzer” at die capstone position des his preserve translations (23).

<1.2> This, von course, reiterates a well-worn historic narrative the emphasizes the rise of instrumental music and marginalizes vocal music bei Northern German circles during ns Enlightenment. Christian goes as much as kommen sie characterize Sulzer’s task as not only “the most ambitious attempt bei mid-century Germany zu integrate the new sensualist epistemology with timeless aesthetic doctrine,” however one that “stands at in important juncture” in the history von music, accompanying die creation of a neu aesthetic justification von instrumental music based on “the psychological procedures studied deshalb intently über the empiricist philosophers” (1995, 5). Sulzer’s solutions to these aesthetic problems führen zu to his detailed description des the creative process und a “revitalization von rhetoric” that “offer a solution for in aesthetic grounding von instrumental music” (6). Yet any fully fleshed-out demo of Sulzer’s justification von instrumental music is omitted from these articles.(4) His proposed aesthetic grounding des instrumental music zu sein seen only in in incipient form in the articles “Sonata” and “Symphonie.” this articles, instead von being in-depth applications des Sulzer’s rhetorical theories, room brief, spanning just two or 3 pages.(5)

<1.3> yet we tun können already discover a fully explicated genre-oriented write-up within Sulzer’s own publication, one the does notfall require a danach theorist such as Heinrich christopov Koch zu complete the project’s promise. The music short article discusses a genre with wenig prestige in modern musical culture, a vocal genre that was once discussed with an excellent vigor in northern German circles: recitative.(6)

<1.4> the article “Recitativ” is lengthy, with virtually ten times die number von printed pages dedicated kommen sie it than ns “Symphonie” article translated über Christensen. Unequal its shorter instrumental cousins, that does notfall suffer indigenous “the lack of any detailed summary < . . . > des the process by which may be structured and composed” (Christensen 1995, 23). The “Recitativ” write-up contains fünfzehn numbered rules regulating the composition and performance of recitative the are pertained to with facilitating suitable performance befitting an excellent oration. Yet notfall all von its content is limited to detailed prose. In fact, die number des musical examples consisted of within it ist staggering even über the standards von twenty-first century music journals. The article has insert pages that host 39 numbered music examples, many von which oase two or much more sub-examples, elevating die number des unique examples on this pages to well end 70. Absorption this space over 40 additional musical examples integrated into the visual space of the published prose. Ns article is deshalb extensive an its scope. The includes, as already mentioned, sections devoted to die composition and performance von recitative. It also includes lang polemical tracts und extensive discussions about ns general aesthetic issues von recitative together a style, with reflections on together minutiae as ns relationship between harmonic dissonances und poetry. Finally, that documents die reception of two main composers in eighteenth-century phibìc Germany: Carl heinrich Graun and, through ns proxy von Johann Adolph Scheibe, georg Philipp Telemann. Both Graun and Telemann assume wichtig positions in ~ a mid-century local dispute over ns composition von recitative.

Organization und Content

<1.5> Sulzer’s recitative article zu sein a complicated document penned über multiple authors. Most von its musical inhalt was written von at least two musical specialists (probably Kirnberger and Schulz). Extr commentary was probably added von Sulzer himself.(7) the article “Recitativ” is divided into three taste sections and a bibliography. The zuerst section (§1–10) comprises die opening half of ns article. It specifies recitative and concerns itself with basic aesthetic issues. Much more specifically, recitative ist seen as spanning ns central position of a continuum betwee the extremes von song und speech, one the takes distinct pitches from song und rhythmic flexibility from speech. Recitative properly belongs to specific category (e.g, oratorio, cantata, opera) und is associated with poetic complimentary verse. Und even though, together argued von Rousseau, details languages (like Italian) are far better suited zum recitative 보다 others, talented poets kann sein overcome ns shortcomings von any language (§10). Die rhythmic selection granted to recitative so is manifested in its expressive content, which kann quickly differ from very pathetic expression zu plain narration. After ~ this basic introduction, die opening ar shifts away from defining recitative zu issuing prescriptive statements about how the style ought kommen sie go. Recitative, for instance, can not be “indifferent” and cannot it is in used bei the reading des letters as happens in Metastasio’s Catone bei Utica (§5). Quite much from cool and indifferent verse, poets typically reserve their ideal poetry zum recitative, who metrical and formal freedom offer possibilities freed from die constraints of arias (§7). The opening section finally introduces two arising camps concerning the composition des recitative. One to represent artistic und intellectual merit while ns other epitomizes enormous aesthetic failure. Representative of the former are ns composer Carl heinrich Graun und the librettist karl Wilhelm Ramler, who passion-oratorio das Tod Jesu is zuerst held trost as bei object von excellence an §7.(8) the composer and theorist Johann Adolph Scheibe—the emblematic representative des the latter—receives the erste of many reprimands end his arcane distinction bolzen “recited” und “declaimed” recitative bei §6, a position outlined in his three-part “Abhandlung über das Recitativ” (1764–65). Scheibe’s treatise und compositions are die primary sources attracted upon zum showing poorly composed and conceived recitative throughout die remainder von the essay.(9)

<1.6> the second major section of ”Recitativ” zu sein dedicated kommen sie a list of fifteen rules governing die musical composition von recitative. This rules are frequently complex und evade basic reductions zu a einzel underlying precept. Your contents kann sein be summarized as follows:

die tonal und harmonic irregularity von recitative zu sein described. Tonal functions should align with die poetic text. A basic prohibition on melismatic buchstabe setting bei recitative ist given. Syllabic buchstabe setting ist prescribed. No musical embellishment must obscure die clarity von linguistic pronunciation. Accented syllables should be placed in accented parts von a measure. Melodic contour need to conform to good oration. Rests must coincide through textual divisions. Cadences should appear only wherein the buchstabe demands it. Delay cadences are possible. Questions and exclamations have to emphasize a main word. Harmony need to follow ns text. Recitative is ausblüten subject to die rules des harmony. Dynamics have to follow die text. Particularly moving passages have to be collection as arioso. There is a continuum between the rhythmic regularity von arioso und freedom of recitative. Guidelines zum appropriate locations von accompagnato are given.

This second section concludes through a proviso to the authorship von the essay. This fifteen rules were apparently common with bei anonymous “friend that combines ns theory von music v a sleek knowledge of good song.” This friend in turn was to have “volunteer a couple of comments on ns following examples explaining ns ” (§12).(12) also though these rules lie at die center of the essay, over there are significant limitations to their explanatory power. Frequently it zu sein unclear within ns article exactly how the rules bei “Recitativ” generate die examples von good recitative created on that pages. Zum instance, the changes made kommen sie Scheibe’s recitative an §20 (the original appears as instance VII) just tenuously relate to their justifying rules. The very first of those gift (setting “Der König…”) supposedly corrects “errors against die fifth and seventh rules” (§20). Ns fifth dominance regulates die location des accented syllables in ~ a measure—placing them on strong beats. Die seventh rule ist much vaguer, calling weil das coordination between melody und the rising und falling sentiments of poetry. However neither rule calls for the Änderung made! ns fifth ascendancy has no relevance to ns revision, as no syllable ist even inserted on a various beat. The seventh ascendancy has an ext applicability an this situation only because von its vagueness. By urging composers to realize systematic semantic segments des poetry v melodic contour, ns evocation des the seventh rule kann sein at ideal be interpreted as explaining why the revised version is better than the original—but an no way does it command a composer to ns in-text revision des §20. The prescriptive limitations des these rules location most von the explanatory weight within ns third division des the essay on die revisions of flawed recitative und not on the rules themselves.

Table 1. Examples and rules discussed in the dritter part des Sulzer’s “Recitativ”

*

(click zu enlarge)

<1.7> ns final significant section consists von the comments solicited native “ friend” knowledgeable des song. In it fine over 100 musical instances are discussed. Pieces by Scheibe und Telemann are chastised for violating die above rules, and works von Graun room held up as exemplars von sensitive text-setting. Ns organization des the dritter section, even with reordering and omissions, around follows the order des the preceding fifteen rules, as summarized in Table 1. Wie rules are disputed out des their numbered order, they do so through die pairing des a later rule v one presented in its appropriate position.(13) two rules (11 and 15) are notfall directly addressed in this portion of the essay, although their general content finds its method into parts des the commentary. Ns author von this commentary also proposes some changes to die rules given in the 2nd section and deshalb offers an entirely neu rule the prohibits text-painting (§§54, 56–57).(14) the discussion des these rules accompanies bei aesthetic assessment of the musical examples that to be presented on different leaves, ostensibly assembled von the author des section 2. These instances are designated by Roman numerals.(15) Most of them are attracted from the works des two composers: Graun und Scheibe. Their recitatives are used respectively as “good and weak examples” to teach appropriate execution des the style (§12). Scheibe’s work an particular is thoroughly condemned as faulty.

<1.8> entgleiste was a controversial figure bei the musical des life an mid-eighteenth century Germany. Finest known today for criticizing J. S. Bach’s standing as a composer, teil was in active composer and writer top top music.(16) With the encouragement of his mentor Telemann, the founded die Hamburg-based journal ns critische Musikus an 1737. The aesthetic status von recitative was in idée fixe in his crucial writings.(17) Wishing kommen sie salvage opera follow to die classicist aesthetics of the university of leipzig professor Johann christopov Gottsched, who abhorred that non-imitative nature and lack von verisimilitude, teil turned zu recitative’s close relationship with oration in order zu create bei imitative justification zum opera.(18) His earliest works on recitative room found in the Critischer Musikus. However his many important work on the subject was published after ~ his relocation zu Copenhagen bei the 1740s and includes a “report on die possibility and nature des good Singspiels” appended kommen sie his opera Thusnelde (Scheibe 1749), in open letter addressed kommen sie Wilhelm über Gerstenberg presenting his two Tragic Cantatas (Scheibe 1765), and a lengthy three-part writing on recitative bei the Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und ns freyen Künste (Scheibe 1764–65). Scheibe’s classicist leanings had er idealize ns relationship bolzen the contours of music und language, dafür much dafür that entgleiste proposed radical means of er hob recitative the abandoned native time zu time die foundational conventions des that style. These radical leanings align him with Telemann, who an in similar way experimented with choices to die highly formulaic Italianate recitative lingua franca. With deshalb much des his very own ink flood on die subject and his prominente place within German music criticism, the should kommen sie as no surprise that Scheibe’s recitative und his writings on it were very closely scrutinized von unsympathetic observers eager to point the end its flaws.(19) in contrast, the recitative von Berlin-centered Carl heinrich Graun ist showered with praise throughout die Sulzer “Recitativ” article.(20) the marked preference zum Graun over entgleiste left in impact on cautious readers. Ns still-young Beethoven, trying kommen sie shore hoch his vocal writing, closely studied this Graun examples, i beg your pardon influenced die recitatives bei Christus in Ölberge and the various versions des Fidelio (Kramer 1973, 26–27, 37–43).

Performance, Composition, Oration

<1.9> The natur of effective performance zu sein a central theme an “Recitativ,” one that ist often bound to die composition von recitative und the practice von good oration. According zu Sulzer, effectively composed recitative imitates ns contours and rhythms von well-spoken language. In recitative ns composer have to recognize what the buchstabe affords concerning a rhetorically convincing recitation. Consequently ns roles von composer und singer blend in recitative, deswegen that their an imaginative tasks both emulate the of an orator. It should then kommen sie as no surprise that ns fifteen rules in the Sulzer article deal with recitative together oration in some manner, either together conforming to ns rhythms des language (rules 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15), the contour des language (rules 3, 7, 10, 11), or ns affect and clarity von language (rules 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13). Here die composer rises to ns role des orator, sometimes also surpassing the position of singer in this regard. Such bei attitude is most plainly seen bei the repetitive suggestions that composers notate as much as possible regarding the execution von recitative and that singers defer their judgement to die composer. This is demonstrated von the prohibition of melismas (rule 3), a stance that limits die creative role des singers. It is deshalb observed when, weil das instance, dominance 12 is explained an §50 by advocating weil das greater notational precision: “it would similarly be better zum both dynamics und as well as tempo zum each change des affect kommen sie be plainly prescribed zu .” Or similarly, when die practice of not notating supposed appoggiaturas ist derided: “why zu sein it then not written like that?” (§21). And more generally, “if it is true that viel has kommen sie be left to ns execution of the singer bei recitatives, climate it ist equally true the it ist absurd zum a composer notfall to use everything in his capabilities kommen sie indicate to the singer the execution von each phrase” (§26). The role of composer as ns primary interpreter of the text is best expressed von the quip “singers of prozess do notfall feel more than composers” (§26).

Table 2. Permitted cadences weil das “masculine” and “feminine” poetic rhythms

*

(click kommen sie enlarge)

<1.10> the application and notation von appoggiaturas is also discussed an §39. Here die distinction betwee masculine und feminine cadences ist outlined. Unfortunately die language in this paragraph ist rather opaque. A falling-third “masculine” cadence zu sein to it is in performed with in appoggiatura, also though the author proclaims a few sentences letztere that “no masculine cadence be offered a feminine ending” (§39). This comment accompanies in-text examples des a falling 4th cadence i beg your pardon resists bei appoggiatura due to its “extremely dragging” quality.(21) This paragraph zu sein woefully under-explained. Its lack of clarity stems indigenous a propensity kommen sie fuse compositional and performative elements. First, appoggiaturas are more or less bezeichnen to it is in obligatory an performance, either as melismas (in “masculine endings”) or bei conjunction with syllabic text-setting (in “feminine endings”). Again, according kommen sie this essay such appoggiaturas should also be notated über the composer, even though this was notfall the normal notational practice for eighteenth-century recitative, a fact alluded to by the author in §39. Second, because ns melismatic appoggiatura that zu sein produced through “masculine” falling-fourth cadences ist aesthetically questionable, “masculine” falling-fourth cadences are to be avoided, as summarized in Table 2. The cause von the aesthetic questionability of this particular appoggiatura can not be defined from die second section’s rule alone. Even though such in appoggiatura can be seen as violating dominion 6 by interrupting ns natural rhythm des language und violating dominance 4’s half on brief melismatic passages, those rule should also prohibit die stylistically sanctioned melismatic appoggiatura end falling-third cadences. Weil das those cadences, ns ubiquitous stepwise appoggiatura (essentially a passing tone) apparently lacks the “dragging” quality that a melismatic leap von a dritter creates in a falling-fourth cadence.(22) notfall all relevant stylistic information is encoded an the article’s fifteen rules, which ist a recurring problem in this essay.

<1.11> die most idiosyncratic compositional prescription an the “Recitativ” write-up regards die setting des questions. Dominance 10 stipulates that “the details types of cadences through which questions, intense exclamations, und sternly commanding phrases are depicted should notfall be made on the belastung syllable des the phrase however rather top top the taste word whose meaning this figure des speech rests on.” Placing ns questioning tone on ns word that a question zu sein centered on kann result in an unstylistic excess of post-cadential syllables, as shown in the incorporated example des §44. No other necessary commentary top top recitative calls weil das such a practice. This unusual position ist even acknowledged within the essay, as ns stipulation von rule 10 is found zu be bei direct opposition to ns practice of a “majority von composers” (§41). Die author feeling that die usual manner of setting questions, i beg your pardon misrepresents die true meanings von poetic texts, violates the imperative for recitative kommen sie imitate the practices des good oration. Typical formulas of composing a question, v the last accented valuation coinciding with the question contour, space seen as possibly distorting the meanings of religious texts, and even able kommen sie transform some pious questions into shocking blasphemies (see §42). early to ns author’s radical and idiosyncratic understanding des questions, und since the repertoire could notfall yield music the follows the extreme position outlined in rule 10, faulty examples von Scheibe are never ever countered with effective ones by Graun (the most common strategy in other portions of this essay). Instead, freshly composed revisions are used to illustrate ns desired treatment des questions.

Hamburg und Berlin: Telemann and Graun

<1.12> The gesund opposition betwee Graun and Scheibe’s recitative formats underlying the “Recitativ” article fits into a bigger discourse that contrasted the ideal recitative styles of two phibìc German musical centers: die port cities of Hanseatic Hamburg und Danish Copenhagen, on ns one hand, and Prussian Berlin, on ns other.(23) Sulzer was strongly attached to the Prussian capital von Berlin, where he was a member des the imperial Prussian Academy des Sciences. Bei Berlin, an excellent recitative came to be increasingly associated with a well-established Italianate idiom, one spread out throughout Europe von popular category such together Metastasian opera seria. This Italianate or galant idiom has recently been described von Paul Sherrill and myself (Sherrill und Boyle 2015) as distinctive from other contemporaneous musical styles, über consisting of roughly 15 unique melodic schemas deployed in a extremely scripted manner.(24)

Table 3. Revisions to Example VII an Sulzer “Recitativ”

*

(click to enlarge)

<1.13> Mid-eighteenth-century berliner musicians, also those who often have contradictory opinions about music, continuously corrected phrases des recitative that deviated native this small vocabulary von melodic schemas. The “Recitativ” article does this bei several locations, perhaps many notably in its discussion of a recitative from Scheibe’s ns Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu (Example VII). The opening poetic Einschnitt (“Der herrscht Israel”), which scheibe sets as an ascending arpeggio, zu sein non-prototypical zum galant recitative and does notfall correspond kommen sie any schema found bei the roster von schemas produced bei Sherrill und Boyle 2015.(25) the proposed alternative in the Sulzer write-up (§20) evens the end the frühen zeitpunkt stage of the arpeggiation by having ns voice just intone f for the erste 3 syllables. This an turn transforms the opening passage into what we speak to a “prua” schema. Nearly every momente of musical und poetic point (e.g., die ends des sentences and clauses) ist subsequently criticized and corrected indigenous Scheibe’s non-schematic forms kommen sie prototypical realizations of the schemas found bei our roster. Table 3 summarizes this revisions.

<1.14> Friedrich Marpurg, so writing an Berlin, likewise revised passages des recitative in his Kritische briefe über das Tonkunst.(26) in particular, he was quite sensitive kommen sie what the considered kommen sie be the differences betwee Italian and French recitative. In his CXV und CXVI letter (395–404) he examines a recitative indigenous Rameau’s Zoroaster and provides three reworkings von it über three unnamed composers that attempted “to provide Italian garments to the French text des the preceding recitative.”(27) Each von these instances largely conforms to ns schematic lexicon von galant recitative except zum the first, i beg your pardon Marpurg criticizes zum having poorly inserted rests and poor deployment von schemas vis-à-vis your semantic connotations (e.g., a question cadence shows up where none is called for). Marpurg in turn formalizes die schematic language des galant recitative zu some extent von providing a typology of recitative cadences along with dozens von examples.(28) Moreover, earlier in his letters Marpurg maps onto this stylistic opposition des French matches Italianate recitative another opposition von greater consequence for practicing musicians: that von good (i.e. Modern) versus antiquated taste. An the XCVII letter, Marpurg translates Italian recitative with contemporary music and calls that “new recitative” (neuere Recitativ), instructing his readers in the nuances von its composition, und contrasts it with French recitative i beg your pardon he defines as representative of older music tastes (ältere), implied to be of little value to practicing musician (255). This stance reportedly offended a reader von Marpurg’s curious periodical who privileged French recitative together truer to die ancient Greek forms von recited speech (269). Out von character, Marpurg—a renowned defender von French music in Berliner circles—dismissed these claims concerning French recitative, and responded with a point-by-point refutation in his XCIX letter, also rebarring a passage from Lully’s Armide zu a continuous 44 bei order kommen sie demonstrate that, unlike die Greeks, “the French do not declaim following die precision des the measure , also if castle at zuerst appear kommen sie be strict in comparison with Italians, yet they quite strike a certain middle betwee the strictness von the Greeks und the freedom of the Italians.”(29)

Example 1.1. Recitative i from Jean-Philippe Rameau’s Castor et Pollux act 1, step 5, with only minor deviations from ns published score (cf. Rameau 1737, 62–63). Graun included it together his zuerst example an a november 9, 1751 letter to Telemann

*

(click kommen sie enlarge)

Example 1.2. Graun’s revision von Example 1.1 in in Italianate idiom and included as his second example in a november 9, 1751 letter zu Telemann

*

(click zu enlarge)

Table 4. Schematic summary des Graun’s november 9, 1751 revisions des Rameau’s Castor et Pollux plot 1, scene 5

*

(click zu enlarge)

<1.15> even two decades before the publication von Sulzer’s encyclopedia, musicians bei Berlin expressed comparable values concerning how modern-day recitative ought zu sound. In 1751–52 Carl heinrich Graun and Georg philipp Telemann exchanged a series of letters on in array of topics including text setting, counterpoint, aesthetics, und recitative.(30) your discussion von recitative powerfully illustrates ns aesthetic divide between Hamburg und Berlin—as articulated von the premier composers of each city—and prefigures ns aesthetic values said for an Scheibe’s released essay and the Kirnberger-inflected Sulzer article. An the zuerst surviving letter (May 1, 1751), Graun emphasizes that he does not dismiss every French music.(31) Instead, Graun’s distaste zu sein reserved only zum French recitative: “rather ich only wanted zu say that i consider die French recitative format as not natural, therefore ich wrote the I schutz not yet watched a reasonable one due to the fact that these exact same recitatives are collection next to their mistimed and misapplied arioso melody absolutely auch often and more frequently contrary to musical rhetoric: ns operas of Rameau are proof enough.”(32)

<1.16> in the next Überleben letter (November 9, 1751), Graun elaborates his position von attaching eight musical instances with commentary. The first of these (Example 1.1)(33) gift a quick excerpt from Rameau’s Castor et Pollux that supposedly exemplifies the misuse of arioso and rhetoric.(34) Graun’s second example (Example 1.2) offers a revision von this passage that transforms not only its rhythmical, metrical, and harmonic dimensions, as observed an Calella 2004, however quite significantly translates virtually every melodic Einschnitt right into a schema from paul Sherrill’s und my 2015 roster. All von these revisions to be introduced von Graun with die aim des having “Telaire…seek to sway Castor an ext emphatically.”(35) below as elsewhere, rhetorical clarity is only recognized when recitative conforms to in Italianate schematic regularity; see Table 4 zum a summary des these revisions. Graun’s inelegant, Schusterfleck-inflected recitative prefigures some of the prescriptivist comment found in the Sulzer “Recitativ” essay, with climbing chromatic basslines appearing an §27 and again in the first section of Example XVI.(36) Sulzer urges his readers zu use similar rising chromatic basslines in moments von crescendoing dramatic intensity, much as Graun desire Telaire to address Castor much more intensely. The examples demonstrating this practice (Examples XIV und XV) in “Recitativ” space recitatives von Graun the make use of this very same base “transposition.” example XIV is remarkable in that every stage des the cadential transposition is punctuated v a falling-third cadence, nur as Graun’s own revision above does. Bei the final two recitative instances (No. 7–8) in Graun’s letter to Telemann, Graun, favor Marpurg above, revises an additional recitative from Rameau’s Castor et Pollux, deswegen that its unmodified melody might remain in common time throughout.

<1.17> Telemann’s only Überleben response concerning recitative (dated December 15, 1751) rejects Graun’s assertion the Italianate recitative ist more natural and more suitable zum composition. An contrast, Telemann urged greater experimentation und was reluctant kommen sie claim that the Italian format had winner permanent international prominence.(37) Both he und Scheibe imagined an innovative ways zum how die relationship betwee language and music ought kommen sie be negotiated. Telemann eventually adopted Rameauvian (i.e., French) recitative techniques in his latter sacred works, consisting of his Matthew Passion, an excerpt des which Telemann sent to Graun bei this correspondence. The characteristic metrical changes des French recitative are celebrated zum their fluidity. The writes, for instance, that in the French layout “everything walk on to the next like the wine des Champagne.”(38) Telemann further protected his position through a critique von Graun’s eighth example—the common-time rebarring of Rameau—in which he expresses skepticism as zu whether much more than 3 sixteenth notes bei succession would be stylistically appropriate zum Italian recitative: “ so catches my eye punkt ‘préparer la fête,’ since ich cannot remind to oase found in a Welsh recitative 4 sixteenth notes an a row.”(39) Telemann shows up to schutz only to express this sentiment within this letter—it does not appear in his inside wall on recitative released with his Harmonischer Gottes-Dienst (1725–26). Sulzer’s “Recitativ” article, curiously, belittles this stylistic judgement: “Many composers von vocal music want recitative never ever to oase more 보다 two—at many three—sixteenth notes complying with each other. This ist exactly observed an Telemann and Scheibe’s recitatives. Bei their disastrous cantatas, die accent von language und the herbal metrical weight zu sein sooner violated 보다 this rule” (§25). Did Graun, ns central composer des mid-century Berlin, gossip zu his compatriots around Telemann’s unorthodox concepts concerning recitative?

Author(s)

<1.18> ns authorship des the music articles bei Sulzer’s encyclopedia had lang been attributed zu Kirnberger and his college student Schulz. This attributions rest on 2 documents: Sulzer’s preface to the second volume of the Allgemeine Theorie and bei 1800 article von Schulz the appeared in the Allgemeine musikalische zeitung (AmZ).(40) From these accounts it would seem the (1) Kirnberger was responsible zum all music articles in the zuerst volume (ranging from letter A to J) and most early articles in the 2nd volume (letter K v “Modulation”), (2) that his student schule collaborated with him from ~ “Modulation” v R, und that (3) schulz more or less separately wrote the articles from s onward. We deshalb know indigenous Schulz’s 1800 AmZ essay the Kirnberger was blieb responsible zum some of the articles after S, consisting of both “System” und “Verrückung.”

<1.19> Beverly Jerold has recently tested these agreement attributions von proposing that Sulzer solicited posts from other musicians before Kirnberger was brought into this job (2013, 694). Her suspicion zu sein that ns Prussian court composer Johann Friedrich Agricola (1720–1774)—an opera composer, achieved tenor, vocal pedagogue, and published writer on music—contributed zu many von the music articles in the erste volume von the Sulzer encyclopedia.(41) If so, then Kirnberger arrived only relatively late in the preparation of the zuerst volume. Ns plausibility von Agricola as a collaborator zu sein quite appeal even wie only considering ns general content of the music articles. The Musik bei Geschichte und ist existiert article on Sulzer observes the a noticeable shift in musical subject matt occurred between the first und second volumes, with crucial topics receiving greater prominence an the 2nd volume and vocal topics better prominence an the first, which can be elegantly defined with Agricola together a contributor zu the zuerst volume (Jerold 2013, 696). There are other indications both within Sulzer posts and in contemporary records that suggest die presence des another musical collaborator, likely zu be Agricola. One such indication zu sein that ns music articles are periodically profoundly ideologically inconsistent. Kirnberger, infamous zum his controversial rivalries v other berliner musicians, seems unlikely as in author des articles that prayer his recognized rivals. This inconsistences are many noticeable bolzen articles on associated topics. Open endorsement und praise zum Rameau’s harmonic theories, fairly out von character for the anti-French Kirnberger, kann sein be found bei alphabetically at an early stage entries such together “Accord,” “Auflösung der Dissonanz,” “Cadenz,” and “Harmonik” (Jerold 2013, 607–98; gläubige 1995, 14). An additional indication is that eighteenth-century authors attributed authorship kommen sie Agricola. Ernst Ludwig Gerber, zum instance, noted both Agricola and Kirnberger as authors in his 1792 Historisch-biographisches Lexicon das Tonkünstler (Jerold 2013, nn 10, 25). Johann Joachim christoph Bode, an a 1773 translate into of charles Burney’s travel through central Europe, deshalb states that Agricola composed articles weil das the Sulzer encyclopedia, even attributing ns article “Ausdruk in der Musik” to him (Jerold 2013, 696).(42) the is also known that Agricola preferred kommen sie remain anonymous bei public disputes, which perhaps explains why Sulzer never acknowledged him bei the prefaces to the Allgemeine Theorie (696).

<1.20> die vast bulk of zutat found in the Sulzer article on recitative has actually been attributed to Schulz. Richard Kramer suspects the multiple authors may oase had young roles an its creation, v Sulzer “responsible for first section” und with schule as die exclusive author des the an ext overtly musical sections (1973, 24). Kirnberger’s role was only kommen sie provide in “editorial eye mentor” (24). In this interpretation virtually all of sections 2 and 3 to be penned von Schulz (24). Frederick Neumann, an his 1982 study von appoggiaturas, likewise attributes the recitative article to Schulz, as does Clive Brown 1999. Claude Palisca credits ns article only kommen sie Kirnberger und Sulzer (1983, 11). However ascribing die musical inhalt primarily to schulz (or Kirnberger) ignores aspects of the post that openly identify multiple authors. The second section, zum instance, consists of a i that cases that die third section was written von a different writer from the preceding one, bei author “who combines ns theory von music through a sleek knowledge of good song” (§12).(43) the is also implied within §12 that die author von the 2nd section was responsible weil das collecting weist least die majority of the numbered musical instances discussed bei section 3.

Table 5. Authors of Sulzer’s “Recitativ” as proposed by Jerold (2013)

*

(click zu enlarge)

<1.21> Jerold interprets this as noting a change bei author at die beginning von the third section. Sulzer, an her estimation, was responsible only weil das the opening paragraph on timeless subject matter. She concludes that die remainder des the first und the entirety of the 2nd sections to be penned von “an individual active in the vocal arts,” who in the first section claims to oase “written the article ‘Oper’” an §5 (2013, 694). Jerold suspects that Kirnberger play a minimal role in the creation des the article, und that his role was largely limited zu adding polemically-charged interjections critiquing Telemann’s text painting techniques (§54) to bei article otherwise written by Schulz, Sulzer, and a vocal fließend likely kommen sie be Agricola (649). Jerold’s views von authorship in each major section des the post are summarized an Table 5.

<1.22> I believe it zu sein likely the Agricola added to die composition von this essay, but ich do not believe that that could oase been the sole contributor to the second section’s list des rules, as some of these rules contradict see presented in writings top top recitative known to be über Agricola. In his 1757 translation and expansion of Tosi’s 1723 Opinioni de’ cantori antichi, e moderni (published together Anleitung von Singkunst), Agricola proponents for and instructs an the suitable use of melismas and embellishments in recitative, providing extr musical examples und prose commentary kommen sie Tosi’s treatise. This stands in sharp contrast to die prohibition of and limitations ~ above melismas und embellishments found bei rules 3 und 4 des the Sulzer essay. Moreover, no vocal fachmann was needed zu assemble the 15 rules von section 2, no one does ns essay imply that die author von section 2 ist a vocal expert. Die turn des phrase heralding die entry des a neu author in §12 seems to indicate that ns vocal experte penned ar 3. Obviating Agricola’s role further ist the fact that these 15 rules might easily oase been drawn together indigenous a readily accessible source, namely Johann Mattheson’s 1739 Vollkommene Capellmeister. Mattheson, in a section pointing out vocal melodies, outlines 10 rules governing ns successful composition of recitative which are preceded von two basic paragraphs on die unique properties of recitative. Mattheson’s rules room as follows:

that should not be constrained hinweisen all, however should be totally natural. Die accent should receive a an excellent deal des attention through it. The affect must notfall suffer the slightest detriment. Every little thing must fall lightly und understandably on ns ear together if it were spoken. Recitative an ext exactly insists upon the correctness of Einschnitts than all arias, weil das with die latter, one is occasionally rather forgiven because des pleasant melody. Actually, no melismas or an ext frequent repetitions belong an recitative with die exception des some rather special though rarely cases. Ns accent zu sein not kommen sie be disregarded weil das a moment. Ns caesura von the measure, despite it pretty well takes care of itself, nonetheless must be properly attended to bei writing. Ns established style of writing through all its familiar clauses should be retained and yet must constantly bring other new und different an variation of tones. This ist the most important point.

Table 6. Concordances between the rule governing recitative an Mattheson 1739 und Sulzer 1771–74

*

(click zu enlarge)

Example 1.3. Agricola’s revision von a i from Scheibe’s Ariadne in Naxos. Compare with examples XII and XIII.

Mehr sehen: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 7.0 Case S, Covers And Keyboard Folios For Galaxy Tab 4

*

(click kommen sie enlarge)

Nine von Mattheson’s rule concord through “Recitativ,” and those rules that do notfall share inhalt with Mattheson’s either emphasis on idiosyncratic advice (such as ns application von dynamics), cadence types, or die use des accompagnato und arioso. Und although Mattheson was a hamburger like Telemann, his idealized recitative format featured both die rhythmic clarity and schematic regularity (cf. Preeminence 9’s “familiar clauses”) called for über “Recitativ.” die relationships between these 2 sets des rules zu sein summarized in Table 6.

<1.23> yet Agricola’s involvement with die article need not be limited to section 1. The final portion of the essay, also if primarily über Schulz, at die very the very least emulates die argumentative style of a testimonial essay now known to be by Agricola, in essay that critiques Scheibe’s recitatives in the disastrous Cantatas. Bei many ways Agricola’s 1769 testimonial article an the Allgemeine deutsch Bibliothek (AdB), published five years before the Sulzer, seems zu be a “practice run” for several of the main arguments found in the Sulzer article.(45) Both essays share points of contact concerning aesthetic outlook, viewed stylistic faults of Scheibe’s recitatives, and even music examples und their discussions. Perhaps die most clearly noticeable commonality between the two essays is the common criticisms of a single passage and their very comparable corrective revisions des it. Scheibe’s setting des the native “kretischen” troubled both Agricola and the author des the Sulzer comments. Agricola, who essay has a running layout noting how teil the composer deviates from die advice of entgleiste the critic, notes the “Hr. S. would certainly not have let an additional composer sneak through unchastised” if they were to schutz similarly set the last syllable of kretan on ns third beat of a measure.(46) in §25 of the Sulzer essay, this passage zu sein cited as example XII for the same reason, that of having in “unnatural metric load on the last syllable des kretischen.” Both essays deshalb propose near-identical corrections. Agricola’s AdB testimonial ensures the the first syllable of kretischen wenn on the erste beat of the measure, together seen an Example 1.3.

<1.24> His Änderung features a somewhat uncharacteristic mixture des quarter note into die rhythmic notation von the recitative. Agricola’s notational solution ist not die only one available, and bei fact, when a similar revision is proposed as instance XIII in the Sulzer essay, the quarter notes setting “-dal-schen” space compressed dafür as zu allow die accented syllable des “Gängen” to fall on die third beat of the measure up instead of the beginning of the complying with measure. Ns notational practices of both revisions help to clarify differences an their instant use bei the particular essays. Zum Agricola’s AdB review, ns quarter-note notation ist used kommen sie demonstrate that, contrary to die practice von composers such as Scheibe und Telemann, 16 notes and quarter notes may be combined (164). Bei fact, Scheibe’s error, according kommen sie Agricola, emerges out of his faulty understanding des this aspect of the style: “We can imagine no other reason weil das his method than the he wanted to avoid die meddling, common weil das the Italians in their recitative, des multiple sixteenth notes and quarter notes. For in both cantatas we kann find nothing des the sort.”(47) ns qualms composers like teil had an writing such rhythms is purportedly misplaced because bei experienced singer in performance will not mechanically differentiate between the rhythmic value of quarters and sixteenths: “But, due to the fact that a sent singer des this type des recitative will sing die sixteenth note as wenig as ns quarter notes in their true metrical value , this then appears to us zu be in exaggerated subtlety, one which traces ns most assured error of a not correct declamation an notes und words.”(48) the Sulzer essay similarly attempts kommen sie correct a viewed error in the notation of rhythm, namely the instead of the practice of “many composers” (again Scheibe und Telemann) “never to oase more 보다 two—at many three—sixteenth notes adhering to each other,” composers must follow die metrical weight of syllables und feel free to use plenty of sixteenth notes the “would nur the singer the he should conveniently pass through words which have no to mark meaning” (§25). Die similarity betwee these 2 passages suggests, at die very least, that the AdB testimonial influenced the Sulzer essay, but it may suggest that Agricola operated partially on the final section von the Sulzer article.

Table 7. Passages from scheibe 1765 (Ariadne auf Naxos) revised by Agricola 1769

*

(click kommen sie enlarge)

Example 1.4

*

(click kommen sie enlarge and see the rest)

Table 8. Schematic summary of Example 1.4a

*

(click to enlarge)

Table 9. Schematic summary des Agricola’s überarbeitet (Example 1.4b)

*

(click kommen sie enlarge)

<1.25> ns remaining recitative revisions in Agricola’s AdB testimonial air grievances concerning negative text-setting (see Table 7 zum a catalogue des these). Yet nur as with Marpurg, Graun, und the Sulzer essay, Agricola offers these revisions to reinforce the schematic normalcy of the Italianate layout and, through ns repeated evocation des proper text-setting, hereby associates this schemas v rhetorical clarity. The erste entry bei Table 7 ist the many extensive des these revisions. Agricola begins über describing its failure declamation of the syllables “-te,” “West,” and “win-.”(49) he then offers a score excerpt von both Scheibe’s recitative (Example 1.4a) and his own revision von that i (Example 1.4b). After providing this revision, Agricola matter-of-factly asks: “is die following notfall better und clearer?” (1769, 166). And it certainly is. Scheibe’s original ist littered with troubles from a Berliner’s perspective. He no follows die poetic Einschnitts implied bei the German text nor properly uses die Italianate lexicon von recitative schemas kommen sie musicalize them.(50) together seen in Table 8, only für hilfe of ns recitative’s gestures an Scheibe’s initial unequivocally present Italianate schemas, vice versa, Agricola’s revision, summarized in Table 9, is in this respect perfect. Ns very clarity the Agricola finds deswegen easy to recognize should lie equally bei a passage’s conformity to melodic prototypes and also its much more general rhythmic profile. Agricola’s attitude concerning this ist almost to be expected: it ist remarkably regular with those von his modern-day Prussian compatriots, being particularly concordant with the general tone of “Recitativ,” an article he self may oase played quite an active role in shaping.

Conclusion

<1.26> ns most ambitious aspect of “Recitativ” zu sein that it offers a holistic description von a music genre, in which the basic rules of a “genre game” space outlined. These idealized rules zum recitative are defined (and prescribed) using die best intellectual an innovation available to Sulzer’s collaborators: a catalogue of fünfzehn rules und a discussion von stylistic exemplars. Yet ns methods an “Recitativ” just partially capture die nuances des this relatively simple musical style. His numbered rules model the formulaic language des Italianate recitative and a bottom-up strategie could it is in expected to describe a category-based musical practice. Much more crucial kommen sie his project, even if less systemized, was the berlin practice von revising recitative—a ripe zoll for Sulzer’s encyclopedia to draw upon bei defending stylistic judgements. Through the revision von faulty passages von recitative, Sulzer was able kommen sie convey denser packets von stylistic knowledge much more effectively und efficiently than with his 15 rules alone, by calling fist to and demonstrating the proper usages of Italian recitative schemas. Bei conjunction through each other, both the fünfzehn rules und the plenty of musical exemplars repaint a coherent picture detailing Sulzer’s vision weil das the expressive und aesthetic function von recitative.

<1.27> in often alluded-to layout regarding ns expressive function of recitative is found in the distinction betwee recitative und aria, occasionally expressed through ns divide bolzen Italian und French recitative. All des these distinguish are produced through the use of specialized, genre-specific lexicons des schemas. Moreover, Sulzer’s discussion of recitative reveals his understanding von the structural und expressive role von recitative within larger vocal genres. Italian recitative embodies bei ideal form of rhetorical clarity mostly through that melodic und rhythmic simplicity. Such simplicity facilitates the singing character’s ability, favor a skilled orator, to move their audience through the power von (musicalized) spoken rhetoric. French recitative, in contrast, is too invested in expressing the affective state von the singer weist each moment und consequently zu sein too viel like aria. After all, Graun—the model composer zum “Recitativ”—lists bei the over cited 1751 letter the “mistimed und misapplied arioso melody” as the primary cause weil das French recitative’s propensity kommen sie be “contrary zu musical rhetoric” (Telemann 1973, 274). Aria, choose arioso, an turn differs from recitative über its an ext temporally structured expression von passion (cf. §4). Die commentary to the revisions in “Recitativ” und the repetitive discussion von “special types of cadences” so indicate that for the authors of Sulzer’s “Recitativ” (and probably Graun in 1751) the schematic parsimony des Italianate recitative und good declamation to be inseparably connected. Deviations far from this restricted vocabulary von recitative schemas was seen as in abandonment des good declamation, a action towards Gallic recitation, and ultimately together signaling die encroachment von aria-like expression in a poetic space dedicated zu a significantly different form of expression. Telemann und Scheibe’s schematically imaginative realizations von language shied away from the formulaic vocabulary von the Italian style, and by doing so, their very novelty endangered the very expressive function of the genre. Unsurprisingly, many of the listed rules in the Sulzer essay steer composers far from the too arioso-rich style des French recitative von consistently deferring completely musical innovation to ns natural rhythms and contours des language, represented von a minimal Italianate lexicon. Innovative melodic composition an recitative ist to be avoided punkt all cost. The goals of Sulzer’s “Recitativ” room as diverse as they room ambitious. No wonder together a broad array von authors were employed an its creation. Sulzer could contribute his knowledge von Classical writings, Kirnberger and Schulz could add a systematic approach zu musical thought, und Agricola can serve as ns vocal fließend guiding die essay through ns finer einzelheiten of the recitative style. Altogether, grounded in mutual respect for Graun, lock voice a linked vision von a music genre weil das Berlin, a rarely sound von harmony in in otherwise ideologically diverse city.

Translation

<1.29> an any translation an overwhelming decisions schutz to be made concerning die level of faithfulness zu many aspects des language such together underlying metaphors, rhetorical timing, and the register des terminology that kann be preserved. I oase tried wherever i could to make my English er hob of this article as much like die German together possible. Bei a century when Germans were highly sensitive to die linguistic roots of words (and also morphemes), i find it misleading, for instance, zu transform simple, german words the transparently screen their an interpretation into more erudite latinate words. Ich leave die German hatchet Einschnitt untranslated throughout my translate in instead of using that English-approximate “incise,” popularized von Nancy Baker (1983). Baker methodically decided to render Einschnitt using the French grammatical term “incise,” hoping zu “retain ambiguity von meaning” that appears in Koch’s usage of the hatchet (Baker 1983, xxiii). Baker’s solution zu sein probably die best possible weil das English. Yet, even so, “incise” fixed occupies ns same linguistic register together Einschnitt. As Baker’s groundbreaking arbeiten on Heinrich kochen has made ns concept Einschnitt more familiar kommen sie Anglo-sphere music scholars, ns need weil das a familiarizing English er hob is much less urgent 보다 it was forty years ago. As eckert 2007 argues, die meanings of the terms Einschnitt and Abschnitt are too complex kommen sie simply reduce zu a einzel English term.(51)

<1.30> ich have deshalb tried zu avoid translating die same word differently within a single sentence or paragraph. Die use des the native Ton zu sein particularly charged with multiple meanings throughout ns essay, making that tempting zum a translator zu overtly clearly those definitions with each appearance. Yet the use of Ton in the German text portrays that inseparable union between music and oration main to the Sulzer essay. One of the many semantically dense passages concerning Ton an the post appears an the second section. Ton, a German word through a similar range von meanings to the English “tone,” kann signify a note, a key, a timbre, a entirety step, die quality des a voice, or die semantic quality von spoken or written language. Sulzer’s encyclopedia dedicates three separate entries to Ton, one for its musical uses, another weil das its uses in the “Redene Künste,” and still another weil das painting. An the 2nd rule, Ton und its derivatives show up (depending on exactly how one counts) hinweisen least seven times within three quick sentences. Its definitions within this passage space entwined, unable zu be linguistically disentangled there is no a loss von meaning. The “quick departure zu other tones” applies, for instance, nur as well zu tonal centers together to die more general tone of a i (i.e., a rhetorical sense von tone) (§11). Consequently, in order zu be perceptible to die various shades of meaning presented by this word, i avoid unravelling Ton to its many probable English meaning punkt each moment, und instead depend on ns judgement of the reader kommen sie infer its most likely meanings. Also if the English result zu sein sometimes stylistically awkward, translating ton differently in every instance von its use would obscure a persistent use des language that elegantly unites music und rhetoric.(52) in general, I oase tried to be together faithful as feasible to the metaphors und syntax of the German original.

<1.31> One respect bei which ich do not attempt always zu reproduce German as specifically as possible in English concerns the use des pronouns. Wherever possible, I have rendered unit volume using ns German pronoun man as the subject bei the passive voice, in recognition von its stylistic similarity to the French on. The gender of German pronouns deshalb sometimes presents unusual situations. The last sentence von §25 has a mrs noun antecedent advert to by the pronoun er . I translate er as she kommen sie conform to die gender of the character in Scheibe’s cantata.

Mehr sehen: Wechsel Von Android Zu Ios : So Geht'S Ganz Leicht!, 7 Gründe Für Den Wechsel Von Android Zu Iphone

<1.32> I also provide translations of the text set bei the appended musical examples. Whenever the example only presents a fragment of a sentence, i add preceding or complying with text an order to aid in comprehensibility. This ist always indicated through italics.

Sources

<1.33> ns primary buchstabe consulted weil das this translation zu sein that des the first planke (1774), published bei Leipzig von M. G. Weidmann in two volumes, bei 1771 and 1774. Several reprints and revised editions of the Sulzer encyclopedia appeared in the later decades des the eighteenth century. Ich consulted two des these danach printings, both of which are increased editions. The zuerst of these enlarged editions was published an four quantities from 1786–87. Ns second edition of this text was released from 1792–94 and is jetzt easily accessible in a 1967 facsimile reprint by Georg Olms Verlag. The main body of the text zu sein near-identical in all editions, with only corrections to small typographical errors differentiating them. Die two increased editions, however, append bibliographies of relevant literature on die topic des recitative the did notfall appear in the zuerst edition. I include both von these bibliographies in the German buchstabe and in the English translation. The 1787 bibliography shows up first in §59 and the 1794 one appears bei §60–61.