An "authentic" Peer Gynt music?

From the staging of Peer Gynt at the Dagmar Theatre in Copenhagen in January 1886 Edvard Grieg tells Frants Beyer the following in a letter 22 December (1885): ”This afternoon I rehearsed Peer Gynt for the first time with the singers. Coming up the stairs in the Dagmar Theatre I could hear the herd girls crow, of course in a completely wrong tempo, just a little too slowly, guess if I am happy to be present! But the voices are good, and the girls are very spirited, therefore, I will not give in to this scene which is much better orchestrated than before.”[i] Grieg continues 5 January: ”Two pieces gave me much satisfaction at the first rehearsal. They were the introduction to the second act and the scene with the herd girls. The latter you wouldn’t even recognize. When I first conceived it I felt something, but now I know something; that is the difference. It has acquired life, colour and devilry—which really were not there before because the orchestration was so defective.”[ii] 21 January Grieg writes again from the rehearsals:

I was so pleased by seeing my intentions develop so I threw myself into the work—sometimes conducting the orchestra, some times coaching voices, sometimes acting as a director.

  Above all it was the scene with the [herd-]girls that I had decided not to give in to. The result was really something. I was backstage following the script, enabling me to check, interrupting them by shouting for instance: ’You are instructed to kiss him—please, don’t be shy!’ Having crossed the Rubicon, they turned really wild and everything was as it should be.

  This scene created great applause at the dress-rehearsal, but at the first performance complete silence ruled. Obviously the situation only created astonishment. As a whole, however, the music was very well received, and I dare to say, that the performance was rather good.[iii]

Judging from the review in the paper one is tempted to ask if we have lost a great director with Edvard Grieg, in the Illustreret Tidende one can read the following:

A more violent scene has not been performed at any theatre in our self-controlled Copenhagen. The audience was astonished grasping it only half-ways. There was magic in the words, in the music and in the acting. In the beginning the girls were almost at Peer Gynt’s throat, until he ran away with them … This scene was a complete success … the Theatre deserves great acclaim solving such a difficult task … The array also deserves acclaim, nothing was withheld. The scene with the trolls was well done and the dance of the Arabian girls was magnificent and beautiful. And then there was Grieg’s music, performed by an enlarged orchestra conducted by Mr. Axel Grandjean! The music alone should be able to carry Peer Gynt through many performances.[iv]

One day in May 1983 nearly 100 years after the staging at the Dagmar Theatre I was—wearing white cotton gloves—in The Royal Library in Copenhagen turning over the leaves of Grieg’s score from the production in 1886.[v] The reason I was in the library was that Professor Finn Benestad and I had just started the work of going through the complete source material to Peer Gynt. The play was the only work in Grieg’s list of opuses which he never managed to publish. We had started to investigate the possibility of publishing a score in accordance with Grieg’s own intentions—an authentic score—he had been unable to do himself. The score was planned as vol. 18 in the series Edvard Grieg Collected Works (GGA), and naturally the manuscript from the staging in 1886 was a very important source.

            The source material shows that Grieg towards the end of his life was very occupied with the question of having the score published.[vi] On one occasion it seems as if he managed to have his wish realized. In a letter to Gerhard Schjelderup dated as late as 4 December 1906 it says: ”But since the materials needed for the performance (both the score and the parts) have been printed by Peters, it simply will not do—indeed, it is an impropriety—to say such things as that one does not know that Solveig’s Cradle Song exists.”[vii] However, our investigation has shown that this is a shortened version, 13 pieces only, in fact consisting of renting material prepared by C. F. Peters based on the two Peer Gynt-suites enabling productions of the play in Germany.[viii] Nothing in the source material indicates that this version should be recognized as Grieg’s final version. It is only a question of ”the materials needed” [my italics].

            However—only one year after Grieg’s death, in 1908, Peters published a much more comprehensive score consisting of 23 pieces.[ix] At first sight it gives the impression that this is a publication according to Grieg’s intentions—that he simply at the very end of his life managed to prepare a score, however, published only the year after his death. But there is nothing that shows that this score was a fulfilment of Grieg’s wish of publishing a full score of Peer Gynt. Our investigation shows that the 1908-score is arranged by the conductor Johan Halvorsen.[x] This may be seen from the printer’s copy (source X in GGA vol. 18) of the printed score (source Y in GGA vol. 18).

            Even if Grieg expressed his wish to have a Peer Gynt score published, there is nothing in the source material indicating that anything else than the 13 pieces of the renting material mentioned above, materialised from Grieg’s wish. In 1983 the question for us was: what would the content of a Peer Gynt score have been if Grieg himself had been the publisher? All the accessible source material—1700 pages in all—was scrutinized down to the staccatos.[xi] The source material shows that there existed additional pieces to Peer Gynt besides the 23 published in 1908. The source material also shows that all the main productions in Grieg’s lifetime exhibit a very divergent content[xii]—this applies for the number and order of pieces not forgetting the instrumentation.[xiii] Did the differences indicate that Grieg at any point in time had permanently altered the content?

            There are several reasons for taking the last production in Grieg’s lifetime—the one at the National Theatre in Kristiania 27 February 1902—as the point of departure to decide the content of a complete score of Peer Gynt. Grieg himself gives important information on this occasion. In a letter to Beyer 14 February Grieg writes: ”At this first performance in the National Theatre the future style is given: both the intentions, many times even the details are at stake.”[xiv] A very important comment is found in the following letter to Beyer, that of 1 March, where Grieg writes: ”There are places where the music needs to be co-ordinated almost to the second with what is transpiring on stage. And then of course there are other things that could have been improved with just a few strokes of the pen. But never mind. If I am granted a few more years of life I will perform all of this music as I have conceived it, and as I am capable of making it sound.”[xv]

            The phrase ”all of this music” is very important. At the first performance in 1876 piece no. 11, Peer Gynt and the Boyg[xvi] was left out. At the production in Copenhagen in 1886 as many as six pieces were left out: in addition to no. 11, no. 6, Peer Gynt and the woman in green, no. 17, Peer Gynt’s serenade, no. 18, Peer Gynt and Anitra, no. 22, The shipwreck and no. 14, Night scene. One piece, no. 20, Peer Gynt at the statute of Memnon, was given quite a different place than Grieg originally had given it; in 1886 Grieg had agreed to use the piece as the prelude to act 3.[xvii] Not only were pieces left out in 1886, but pieces not originally composed for Peer Gynt were also used. The Bridal Procession, Op. 19, no. 2 orchestrated by Georg Bohlmann and three of the Norwegian Dances, op. 35, orchestrated by Robert Henriques were used in the first act. The changes for the production in 1892 were even more far-reaching. Only the three first acts were performed and therefore the play was even more incomplete than the previous two productions. The quotations from the letters to Beyer above show that the production in 1902 was also incomplete. Siri Haukenes writes that in addition to the pieces left out in 1886 (no. 6, 11, 17, 18, 22 and 24) also no. 14, The thief and the receiver, was left out.

            As already mentioned the important question in 1983 was simply this: what should the content of an authentic Peer Gynt score be? Grieg’s expression ”all of this music” in the letter to Beyer in 1902 clearly indicates that the seven pieces left out at the production that year in fact belong in Peer Gynt. What about the Norwegian Dances op. 35 no. 1–3 and The Bridal Procession, Op. 19, no. 2, from the staging in Copenhagen in 1886—do they also belong in ”all of this music”? What about the re-arranging of piece no. 20?

Among the very first things we did was to check if Grieg by using the Norwegian Dances from op. 35 at the same time had also integrated them into op. 23. However, Grieg has expressed himself very clearly about this. To Max Abraham he writes 12 February 1892 among other things: ”No 2 aus den norwegischen Tänzen anzuwenden, geht schon deshalb nicht, weil das Thema nicht von mir ist, sondern einem Volkstanz entlehnt ist. In Per Gynt muss Alles original sein [my italics].”[xviii] In fact all four pieces in Op. 35 are built on Norwegian folk melodies.[xix] This makes it impossible to incorporate the dances into ”Peer Gynt”.

            On the other hand The Bridal Procession, Op. 19, no. 2, is original music by Grieg and therefore it could be that Grieg simply integrated the piece in Peer Gynt by using it in 1886. But Johan Halvorsen, the eminent conductor at the National Theatre in Kristiania (Oslo), has not recognized Op. 19, no. 2 as part of Peer Gynt. In the printer’s copy of the 1908 edition[xx] Halvorsen has signed the following statement to the editor showing that Op. 19, no. 2 does not belong in the Peer Gynt music: ”’Brautzug im Vorüberziehen’ gehört wie bekannt nicht zur Peer Gyntmusik. In den Christiania-Aufführungen von Per Gynt wird es nicht verwendet.”[xxi] The reasons Halvorsen gives for publishing the piece in Op. 23 in 1908 is purely a technicality for the stage. As he knows this, he is very careful about arguing for the inclusion of  Op. 19 no. 2 in Peer Gynt. To the editor, Halvorsen very cautiously remarks: ”Vielleicht [my italics] mit der Bemerkung von Grieg (siehe oben): ’Eingelegt in Per Gynt als No. 2 (Vor dem Hochzeit auf Hägstad zu spielen)’ versehen.”

            Finn Benestad and I have earlier written the following about Op. 19 no. 2: ”About leaving out the ’Bridal Procession’ from an authentic Peer Gynt, op. 23, we have … stated that there are three reasons for not including the piece in the complete score as presented in GGA vol. 18. Firstly—as Halvorsen quite correctly points out it does not at all belong to the original Peer Gynt music. Secondly—in a very detailed letter of 1 April 1895 to Louis Monastier-Schroeder who had asked Grieg about the content of Peer Gynt, Grieg lists 22 of the pieces without any mention of the ’Bridal Procession’. Thirdly—and most importantly—in the correspondence between 9 July 1902 and 26 February 1903, dealing with renting material that Peters prepared at this time, the Bridal Procession is not at all discussed as part of Peer Gynt. On the contrary, Grieg and Hinrichsen discussed if the piece should be orchestrated by Halvorsen and published separately or together with orchestrations of the two other pieces of Op. 19.”[xxii]

            As already mentioned Grieg in 1886 sanctioned that No. 20, Peer Gynt at the statute of Memnon, was used as prelude to the third act. In 1892 he sanctioned that the piece was re-arranged once more, but one of Grieg’s letters shows that this was done to avoid the orchestral version of Solveig’s Song being used. On the 7 February Grieg writes to Björn Björnson: ”On the other hand, ’Largo in B-flat Major’ can [my italics] be played before the scene with Solveig on skis (hut in the forest, twilight), whereas the score incorrectly indicates that it should be played preceding Act III. That’s some nonsense from the production in Copenhagen. The Death of Åse is to be played preceding Act III…”.[xxiii] Grieg’s letter to Björn Björnson 16 February shows that Peer Gynt and the Boyg, a piece left out at the first performance in 1876, will—on Björn Björnsons request—be played in 1892: ”Dear Björn! To-day I have mailed you something that is a musical experiment for the scene with the Boyg.”[xxiv]

In addition to the above-mentioned text about the single pieces in Peer Gynt, Grieg has in the letter of 1 April 1895 to the Swiss theologian Louis Monastier-Schroeder commented quite thoroughly on the content and the question of publication of the complete Peer Gynt score. Monastier-Schroeder had asked several questions about Peer Gynt and in his answering letter Grieg, among other things, writes:

It is unfortunately impossible for me to answer your letter in the way you wish. I have neither time nor strength for that. I am still very weak following a serious illness. But I will in any case try to answer some of your questions as well as I can. Fortunately I have the Reclam edition of Peer Gynt before me … The music to Peer Gynt was conceptualized during the years 1874–75 at the request of the author. It was in connection with a staged performance of the work in Christiania that took place in 1876. In the middle of the 1880’s the work was produced on the Danish stage in Copenhagen, and a few years ago it was repeated in Christiania. The success was always very substantial. I will now point out the places with music with references to the Reclam edition…[xxv]

Thereafter Grieg lists 21 pieces from Peer Gynt.[xxvi] The pieces not mentioned by Grieg are the following: no. 6, Peer Gynt and the woman in green, no. 18, Peer Gynt and Anitra, no. 20, Peer Gynt at the statute of Memnon, no. 22, The shipwreck and no. 23, Solveig sings in the hut—26 pieces in all. Obviously Grieg considers the survey in the letter to Monastier-Schroeder incomplete since he concludes with the following: ”I hope the time is not too far distant when a complete piano reduction—yes, a complete orchestral score—of all the Peer Gynt music [my italics] can be printed, perhaps with associated text.”[xxvii] 23 August 1903, the year after the last production in Grieg’s life-time Grieg again writes Monastier-Schroeder: ”You are absolutely right: It is sad that the complete Peer Gynt score has not been published. But the publisher has given out the two suites and the songs and doesn’t want to compete with himself!”[xxviii]

As shown above throughout the years Grieg’s Peer Gynt has gone through many changes in connection with the different productions in Grieg’s life-time. The productions that Grieg himself had the possibility of influencing[xxix] he first and foremost made changes in the instrumentation, however, in some instances he accepted, or was more or less forced to accept that pieces were left out or re-arranged. In addition to this, pieces not originally composed for Peer Gynt were also used.[xxx] From what is said above it is clear that music Grieg had not originally composed for Peer Gynt under no circumstances belongs in Opus 23. We have also given reasons for not integrating the Bridal procession, Op. 19 no. 2, in the Peer Gynt-music. As for pieces in Op. 23 left out in certain productions the phrase ”all of this music” from the letter to Beyer February 1902 and all of what Grieg writes to Monastier-Schroeder 1 April 1895 and 23 August 1903, all this shows that no piece originally composed for Peer Gynt neither can nor should be left out from a published authentic score. Everything points to the fact, that the number of pieces that Peer Gynt comprised in 1874/75, is the same number that an authentic score should comprise. Seen in the light of the exactness expressed in, for instance, Grieg’s letter comprising the whole of 28 pages 14 December 1875 to Johan Hennum the conductor of the first performance in 1876 and Grieg’s letter to Björn Björnson 7 February 1892, neither can nor should the order of the pieces in Peer Gynt be altered. However, it is one thing to argue what should not be enclosed, it is something else to believe that what you are left with, is what should be enclosed. On the other hand it is our conclusion that there is nothing in the source material indicating that Grieg at any time departed from the content of what we have named the original version of Peer Gynt. The question was if there existed sources, primary sources showing the exact content of the original version, a source just as unambiguous as Grieg in his letter to Abraham 12 February 1892 saying that ”in Peer Gynt muss Alles original sein”. Among the productions in Grieg’s life-time it is the first-performance in 1876 that is the performance showing the fewest alterations as to the number of pieces and their order; one could therefore of course take this version as the point of departure. But the only existing source to the first-performance in 1876 is a secondary source, the orchestral parts, source W1, in Johan Hennum’s handwriting.[xxxi] The question arose: was it possible that the original version had a content that we did not know, that there, for instance, had been pieces that Grieg had rejected and destroyed before the first-performance? Rejected pieces should of course not be included in an authentic score. But in the light of all the changes that had taken place in connection with Peer Gynt productions, it was highly unsatisfactory not to seek an answer to this: did primary sources exist showing the original version of Peer Gynt, a version from the time before the first-performance?

A primary source showing the number of pieces from the time before the first-performance, is the long letter of 28 pages from Grieg to the conductor Johan Hennum 14 December 1875, a letter that contains a whole lot of detailed changes that Grieg wants to have made in the score (GltH).[xxxii] Grieg mentions each single piece and gives each one of them a number from 1 to 25 with one exception—the hymn he mentions between no. 24 and 25. According to GltH, Peer Gynt included 26 pieces in all. But to base GltH as a proof for the content of the original version is not possible. None of the pieces mentioned in the letter is equipped with titles. To rely solely on Grieg’s comments under each number, is not sufficient to identify each single piece. A musical text is necessary, preferably even a title.

The oldest primary source in addition to GltH that we knew of at the beginning of our investigation was a manuscript consisting of the last seven pages of Solveig’s Cradle Song.[xxxiii] The manuscript is preserved in the Bergen Public Library. After the musical text on the last page the following dating in Grieg’s hand is found: ”16/7/75”. According to a letter from Grieg to Ibsen 25 July 1875 Grieg informs the writer that the music was completed at this point in time.[xxxiv] Source V1 must therefore be the last seven pages of Grieg’s own original score. According to Grieg’s accompanying letter it was most probably a copy of this score that was mailed to Josephson 2 September 1875.[xxxv]

            Source V1 has two signs that we found very important: the musical text is first written out in pencil then partly written over in ink. In addition the pagination of the musical text, is in pencil. The manuscript is preserved together with other manuscripts also containing pieces—in whole or in part—from Peer Gynt. We checked if these manuscripts had the same two signs as source V1: pencil pagination and the musical text first written out in pencil then written over in ink. These signs are found in the following sources[xxxvi]: source L (Peer Gynt and the woman in green), source P (Peer Gynt and Anitra), source R (The shipwreck), source S1 (Solveig sings in the hut) and source T1 (Night scene). That the sources are written out first in pencil and then written over in ink indicates that the sources most prabably are parts of Grieg’s concept score.

            For these sources some of the most important points from the source material in GGA are given below (about source V1, see the preceding paragraph). Source L consists of 2 single sheets (four pages) in Grieg’s hand and above the musical text one finds ”No. 6”, the sheets paginated in pencil from 75 to 78. The musical text is written out first in pencil then written over in blue ink. There are a few corrections on the first page and all the pages are crossed out in pencil. Source L has no title and the title in GGA is given on the background of what Grieg writes in GltH: ”The oboe solo portrays the Woman in Green; the double-basses, on the other hand, depict Peer Gynt”[xxxvii]—therefore the title Peer Gynt and the woman in green.

Source P consists of two single sheets plus one double sheet (eight pages) in Grieg’s hand. Above the musical text one finds ”No. 18”. The sheets are paginated in pencil from 213 to 220 and the musical text is written out first in pencil then written over in ink. In GltH there is not much to be found about this piece. However, Grieg has indicated the tempos that he wanted[xxxviii] and source P has these tempo indications in Grieg’s hand. The source has no title and the title in GGA—Peer Gynt and Anitra—is given on the background to the action in the play.

Source R consists of four single sheets in Grieg’s hand. Above the musical text is found ”No. 22”. The sheets are paginated in pencil from 254 to 260 and the musical text is written out first in pencil then written over in ink. (On page 253 one finds the last four bars of no. 21, Peer Gynt’s Homecoming. Stormy evening on the Sea). In GltH one finds a comment on this piece: ”The foundering of the ship is depicted. The actual grounding is indicated by the bass drum, timpani, and the ’tremolo’ in the double-basses, which should accordingly make a murderous noise.”[xxxix] The source is untitled and the title in GGA—The shipwreck—is based on the content of GltH and the action in the play.

Source S1 is one single sheet in Grieg’s hand. Above the musical text is found ”No. 23”. The sheets are paginated in pencil from 261 to 262 and the musical text is written out first in pencil then written over in ink. There is no title in the source and the title in GGA—Solveig sings in the hut—is deduced from what Grieg writes in front of the voice part in source S1, which is Ibsen’s scene direction: ”Solveig sings in the hut”.

Source T1 is the opposite page of source S1 with the following text in Grieg’s hand: ”No. 24. Melodrama”. The source has a title only, no musical text. In source T2, which has a musical text, the conductor Johan Halvoresen, has given the piece the following title: ”Natscene. Melodrama med Kor” [Night scene. Melodram with choir”]. The two titles correspond with each other showing that they are the same pieces. Besides which, the musical text in source T2 is in Grieg’s handwriting.

Reading GltH, it becomes clear that at that point in time, there must have existed two scores to ”Peer Gynt”. On page two Grieg writes: ”I will, therefore, set the score in front of me and go through it, and I ask you now to do the same. .”[xl] Obviously Grieg has had his own score copied and mailed the copy to Hennum. In the letter Grieg asks Hennum to make several corrections and insertions, among other things the following about ”No. 22”: ”Here a change has to be made in the horn parts. The first and second horns beginning at ’Allegro marcato’ must be changed as follows: [then follows a musical example]”[xli]. The insertion is found in source R in Grieg’s hand.[xlii] The conclusion must be that source R is part of the concept score. If the musical text had been found in Hennum’s hand-writing, the score would most probably have been the copy of the concept score. Since source R shows the same two signs as in the five sources mentioned above (L, P, S1, T1 and V1) the conclusion must be that these six sources all stem from the concept score. Below are shown the oldest sources, i. e. sources that are part of the concept score at the time when our investigation started[xliii]:

As already mentioned the oldest primary sources to Peer Gynt were those going back to 1874/75, i. e. the sources L, P, R, S1, T1 and V1[xliv] in addition to GltH. Chronologically seen the next source in line was the score used at the production in Copenhagen in 1886, source A.[xlv] In the score one finds the following pieces not in Grieg’s hand: no. 2, Bohlman’s autographed instrumentation of the Bridal procession, Op. 19 no. 2, dated by Bohlman: ”Kjøbhavn, i Januar 1886” [Copenhagen in January 1886]; as nos. 7, 8 and 9 one finds three of the Norwegian Dances, Op. 35 (nos. 1–3) Robert Henriques’ autographed instrumentation. After the musical text of Op. 35 no. 2 is found in Henriques hand: ” Petershøj 3. juli 1882” and after the musical text of Op. 35 no. 3 is found in the same hand: ”Petershøj 25. juli 1882”. The following pieces are in an unknown hand: The Death of Åse, Anitra’s Dance and Solveig’s Cradle Song.

Strikingly those parts of the score (source A) which is in Grieg’s hand also show the same signs as sources L, P, R, S1, T1 and V1: pencil handwriting, written over in ink and pencil pagination.[xlvi] This is an indication that Grieg at the production at the Dagmar Theatre i 1886 has used his own score from 1874/75—or the earlier mentioned copy which was sent to Hennum in 1875[xlvii]—as starting-point for the revisions he made for the production. We therefore collated the content of GltH with the score (source A) to see if anything in the GltH might be found in the score. Insertions in Hennum’s hand would indicate that one was dealing with the 1875 copy, while on the other hand insertions in Grieg’s hand would mean that that it was Grieg’s own original score, the concept score, we were dealing with.

The first thing Grieg asks Hennum to insert is the metronomic indications; in GltH it is found on p. 2–3 together with the Italian tempo indications. The score contains only the metronomic indications, and a note and a number are of course too little to draw conclusions about handwriting. Besides some of the other things Grieg mentions in the letter are of a kind that might have been written in the letter prior to the mailing to Christiania Theatre from Bergen in 1875. On the other hand what Grieg writes about piece no. 10, Peer Gynt haunted by the Trolls, cannot have been written in the score before it was sent off to Kristiania: ”No 10 … After Peer Gynt’s line, ’Oh, were I a louse!’ where the whole orchestra comes in ff, the trombones have been inadvertently omitted. Their parts must be added as follows: [then follows a musc example].”[xlviii] The music example is found in Grieg’s hand in the score, source A. Source A, must therefore be the concept score from 1874–75, but in the way it is now, it appears to be Grieg’s revised version from the production in Copenhagen in 1886.

This means that source A and the sources L, P, R, S1, T1 and V1 have two very important signs in common: the pencil handwriting written over in ink in addition to pencil pagination. At one point source L is ”inserted” into source A by continuous original pagination: pp. 43–74 in source A (No. 5 The herd girls) followed by pp. 75–78 in source L, (No. 6 Peer Gynt and the woman in green) is followed by pp. 79–80 in source A (No. 7 Peer Gynt: ’You can tell great men by the style of their mounts!’). The survey below shows those parts of source A that together with sources L, P, R, S1 and V1 we find constitute parts of Grieg’s concept score from 1874/75[xlix]. In other words 185 pages of 303 in all, that is some 60% of the score.

We find that the survey above shows 17 pieces of the original version. The question remains if the rest of the pieces—GGA nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 25 have also been part of the original version. This requires a closer examination. For these pieces the GltH becomes the main source to decide this question, but GltH must be supplied with other parts from the source material.

GltH contains musical examples for nos. 4, 13, 16 and 17. Collating the musical examples in GltH with the ones in the orchestral parts from 1876, source W1, the examples are in agreement with one another. The most comprehensive examples are those of Nos. 4 and 17. About No. 4 (The Abduction of the Bride. Ingrid’s Lament) one can read the following in GltH: ”N^o 4. Here I have had to make a change in the orchestration that must be inserted in the relevant parts and the score. It affects the winds and extends for eight measures beginning with measure 51: [here follows a musical example]”.[lii] The musical example shows that no. 4 in GltH is the same piece as the one found in the orchestral parts from 1876, source W1. Apart from differences on a detail level, the version in source W1 is the same version as one finds in Grieg’s autograph in source A. According to GltH The Abduction of the Bride. Ingrid’s Lament, prelude to act 2, has been no. 4 in the original version.

            About no. 17 (Peer Gynt’s serenade) Grieg writes to Hennum (GltH): ”Here I have added in the score that Peer Gynt should preferably sit far back on the stage, and in this case the accompaniment must be off-stage and the first five measures omitted. Peer Gynt can then sit and mouth the words while he accompanies on his lute, and a singer off-stage can sing the song in a vocally correct manner. It must sound partly amorous, partly ironic. In the measures where the text has the words: ’Fair maidens mourned the sacrifice,’ the cello part mistakenly has…”.[liii] The expression ”Fair maidens mourned the sacrifice” together with ”Like a bird on the highest branch’s tip” and the third musical example (in the G-clef) in GltH collated with the version in source W1 and the versions in sources O1 and O2—the two last sources are in Grieg’s hand—show that according to GltH Peer Gynt’s serenade has been no. 17 in the original version.

            The musical examples in GltH for no. 13 (Morning Mood) and no. 16 (Anitra’s Dance) are considerably shorter than for nos. 4 and 17. About the first piece Grieg writes in GltH: ”N^o 13. This piece has merely to be treated as music, so everything depends on the musical interpretation. It is a morning scene …”[liv]. The musical examples Grieg gives in GltH are in agreement with the orchestral parts to the first performance, source W1, and are confirmed by the version in Grieg’s autograph in source A. This shows that the original score has had Morning Mood as piece no. 13. This goes also for piece no. 16. GltH has two musical examples[lv] which collated with the orchestral parts, source W1, showing that ”Anitra’s Dance” has been no. 16 in the original version. The piece is, however, one of few that is not found in Grieg’s hand in the source material of Op. 23; on the other hand the piece is found in printed versions approved of by Grieg.

Grieg has given no musical examples in GltH for nos. 2 and 3 (Halling and Springar), no. 11 (Peer Gynt and the Boyg), no. 12 (The Death of Åse) and no. 25 (Whitsun Hymn: ’Oh Blessed Morning’). About nos. 2 and 3 GltH has the following:

N^o 2 and 3.

On page 27 in Ibsen’s book the beginning of the ”Halling” must be heard as coming from very far away. On page 28, on the other hand, the ensuing ”Halling” is heard in its entirety, and I have visualized the fiddler being seen in the distance on the meadow. It would be best if the fiddler [in the play] really were the one playing. If this is not possible, the one playing must stand right behind him, unseen by the audience, and in such a way that the illusion is preserved. I have supplied the bowings in the ”Halling” and the ”Springar” as well as I can. But since I have only a theoretical knowledge of the instrument, I am amenable to changes in bowing details that would improve the effect. But I do ask you for one thing: the fiddler must know both dances, not as an orchestral part, but almost by heart, and both dances must be played in perfect accord with the folk-dance traditions, with sharp jerks against the beats and powerful strokes, so as to make the picture credible and authentic.[lvi]

The quotation shows that according to GltH the nos. 2 and 3 in the original version have been a ”halling” and a ”springar” for a Hardanger fiddle, violin or viola. In GltH the horn, choir and organ are mentioned under no. 11. Among other things Grieg writes: ”From the measure before the chorus comes in backstage, the horns must sound more distinctly—because the chorus imitates the horns and gets its pitch from them. Toward the end, where I have tried an experiment with the bells of the instruments pointed upwards I have had in mind an extremely garish and sharp sound. The organ must have 8- and 16-foot stops and must be distant.”[lvii] Also the last mentioned piece lacks musical examples. About the chorus it says quite shortly at the end of no. 24 in GltH: ”The hymn that is on page 254 of Ibsen’s book must only be hummed off-stage, not sung aloud.”[lviii]

It is theoretically possible to imagine that the original Peer Gynt may have had completely different ”halling” and ”springar” versions than those that are found as nos. 2 and 3 i GGA, and quite different pieces than those we to-day know as nos. 11 and 12, Peer Gynt and the Boyg and The Death of Åse plus the Whitsun Hymn: ’Oh blessed Morning’. It is also possible to imagine that the original version may have had pieces that we do not know at all. However in the light of the collected source material, there is one very strange thing: in more or less all the pieces in Op. 23 it is a fact that between the many sources of the pieces one finds greater or minor differences. The differences are first and foremost between details, but also between larger parts. See the editorial commentary in GGA vol. 18. What is not found, is any trace of evidence that Grieg at any point in time in his work on Peer Gynt ever composed any other pieces to Peer Gynt than those known to us from the source material. There are no traces of any kind of additions either in the manuscript scores sources A, B and X, or the orchestral parts, in the sources W1, W2 and W3, which have all been checked.[lix] Then it is both fair and natural to accept that what Grieg aims at in GltH concerning the pieces nos. 2, 3, 11, 12 and the hymn between no. 24 and 25 are the same pieces as those found in the orchestral parts from the first performance in 1876, source W1. These pieces (nos. 2[lx], 3, 11[lxi], 12[lxii] and the hymn (GGA no. 25[lxiii]) which have been part of the original version of Peer Gynt from 1874/75 together with the existing parts of Grieg’s concept score (the sources L, P, R, S1, T1, V1 and those parts of the score in source A described above) are the 26 pieces which constitute the original Peer Gynt.

Our investigation shows that large parts of the score, source A, originally believed to be from 1886 in reality must date from 1874/75. Source A is a primary source and together with the sources L, P, R, S1, T1 and V1 these sources amount to 185 pages, approximately 60% of Grieg’s concept score. These existing parts of the concept score show 17 pieces which have been part of the original version of Peer Gynt—the following numbers in GGA: nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26. The main source for nine pieces—GGA nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 25—is also a primary source from 1874/75, namely GltH. For five of these pieces GltH must be supplied with primary sources of a later date than the concept score and GltH, source X for nos. 2, 3 and 12, source B for nos. 11 and sources U1 and U3 for no. 25. In only four cases has it been necessary to supply primary sources with a secondary one, namely source W1, the orchestral parts from the first performance i 1886: this concerns no. 4 (GbtH/W1/A), no. 13 (GbtH/W1/A), no. 16 (GbtH/W1) and no. 17 (GbtH/W1/O2). 

            The survey below shows the original version of Grieg’s Peer Gynt, its number and order of pieces based on the available primary sources the reasons for which I have stated above.[lxiv]

Grieg’s many revisions of the musical text in Peer Gynt resulted in more than one source for each single piece. In GGA vol. 18 we have stated the reasons for the chronology of each source of each single piece and given Grieg’s latest known source as the main source for the edition.[lxv] There is only one exception: no. 11, Peer Gynt and the Boyg. Source X in GGA vol. 18 shows that there exists a later version than the one used as the main source for this piece in vol. 18. This deals with a revision that Grieg mentions in a letter to Julius Röntgen 15 August 1902[lxvi]. Grieg’s manuscript contains so many corrections and erasures simply making the manuscript illegible and therefore unfit for use as a source.[lxvii]

            As one understands the score used at the production at the Dagmar Theatre in 1886, source A in GGA, was of decisive importance in solving the question of an authentic Peer Gynt score. Without the concept score the basis for the publication of Peer Gynt in GGA would have meant considerable—maybe insurmountable—unsteadiness. As already mentioned Grieg used the concept score, revising the music for the Peer Gynt production in 1886. After the staging the score became part of the archives of the Dagmar Theatre.[lxviii] Together with a large part of these archives the score was rescued from a fire in the ”Tivoli” in 1944[lxix]. As already mentioned it is to-day preserved in the Royal Library in Copenhagen.

Prof. Em. Dr. Finn Benestad has given valuable comments to this paper.

 For this I want to express my sincere gratitude.

I also wish to express my thanks to Edith Bedell Östman

for reading the English version of the paper.

Literature

Andersen, R J, En ’autentisk’ Peer Gynt-musikk? En kildekritisk studie av Edvard Griegs opus 23. (”An ’authentic’ Peer Gynt-music? A source-critical study of Edvard Grieg’s Op. 23). Unpublished thesis, University of Oslo, 1986, p. 7ff.

Benestad, F (ed.), Edvard Grieg Collected Works (GGA) vol. 18. Frankfurt, London, New York, 1988.

Benestad, F (ed.), Edvard Grieg. Brev i utvalg 1862–1907. Aschehoug, Oslo 1998, (I/II).

Benestad, F and B. Kortsen (eds.), Edvard Grieg. Brev til Frants Beyer 1872–1907. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1993.

Benestad, F and H. de Vries Stavland, Edvard Grieg und Julius Röntgen. Briefwechsel 1883–1907, Koninklijke Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, Amsterdam, 1997.

Benestad, F and H. Broch (eds.), Edvard Grieg. Briefwechsel mit dem Musikverlag C. F. Peters 1863–1907, C. F. Peters, Frankfurt, London, New York, 1997.

Benestad, F (ed.) and W H Halverson (transl.), Edvard Grieg. Letters to Colleagues and Friends. Peer Gynt Press, Columbus, Ohio, 2000.

Benestad, F (in collaboration with Rune Andersen), ”A case study: Peer Gynt, Op. 23” in N. Krabbe, (ed.): Nordic Music Editions. Symposium 1 – 2 September 2005. The Royal Library, Copenhagen, 2006.

Haukenes, S, Peer Gynt som musikalsk drama. Edvard Griegs scenemusikk til Henrik Ibsens drama. Unpublished thesis, University of Oslo, 1987.

Lunn, S, ”Lumbye, Frölich og Grieg” in Dansk Musiktidskrift, Copenhagen, 1944.

Skram, E, ”’Peer Gynt’ paa Dagmartheatret” in Illustreret Tidende, 24 January 1886, no. 27, vol. 17, p. 209–212.

NOTES: