334 Notes, December 2018 exclusively in extracts and arrange- as a collection of potential hit songs— ments (including, most likely, the “Isis” as airs to sing and to play, by oneself, that appeared in Amsterdam in 1677), for one’s friends, to enjoy while doing, should we not rather adopt the same to learn by heart? focus? What would happen if, rather than attempting to recreate a unified Rebekah Ahrendt “work,” we began to appreciate opera Utrecht University CRITICAL EDITIONS OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. The Yeomen of the Guard. Full Score. Edited by Colin Jagger, with David Russell Hulme. Oxford: Oxford Uni - versity Press, 2016. [Contents, p. iii; preface, p. v–vii; sources, p. vii–x; ed- itorial method, p. xi–xv; critical commentary (with appendices), p. xvi– xxxv; dramatis personae & orchestra, p. xxxvi; score, p. 1–407; musical appendices, p. 408–20. ISBN 978-0-19-341313-9. $95.] W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. The Yeomen of the Guard. Vocal Score. Edited by Colin Jagger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. [Contents, p.v; introd., p. iv; textual notes, p. v–vi; dramatis personae, p. vi; score, p. 1–204; appendices, p. 205–9; index of vocal ranges and dialogue, p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-338920-5. $23.50.] W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. Iolanthe. Full score. Edited by Gerald Hendrie, with Dinah Barsham, and Helga J. Perry. (The Operas, 6.) 3 volumes. New York: The Broude Trust, 2017. [Part A, overture and act I: publisher’s pref., p. vii; acknowledgments, p. ix–x; contents, p. xi–xii; ed- itorial policies, p. xv–xix; sigla, p. xxi; dramatis personae & instruments, p. xxiv; score, p. 1–331. Part B, act II: contents, p. vii–viii; editorial poli- cies, p. xi–xv; sigla, p. xxvii; score, p. 1–194. Part C, commentary: con- tents, p. vii–viii; introduction, p. 1–17; libretto, p. 21–62; critical appara- tus, p. 65–157; musical appendices, p. 161–90; literary appendices, p. 193–211; bibliography, p. 215–17. ISBN 0-8540-3006-X. $350 (inclusive of all three parts).] Looking back, what was the most sig- hole their oeuvre, regarding the pieces nificant work for the English (or even as little more than a string of clever English-language) musical stage of the words spat out over innocuous accom- nineteenth century? Of the titles that paniments. The patter songs may be come to my mind, the bulk if not the among the most memorable—and cer- whole of the short list would be from tainly the most easily and frequently among the collaborations of William S. parodied—aspects of the Savoy operas, Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. These but they have only contributed to the fourteen works are remarkably varied, too-easy dismissal of the lot. although there is an unfortunate ten- For more than a century now there dency not only in popular culture but has been a steady stream of publica- in music history textbooks to pigeon- tions about the G&S canon, but the li- Music Reviews 335 brettist has been somewhat better of sources available—manuscripts served than the composer. It is easier to (Sullivan’s as well as Gilbert’s, letters as write about words than about music. well as lyrics), the license copies, the Moreover, Gilbert’s texts have been various published librettos and scores. more readily available—not only with a This difference is significant, as the mu- number of early authorized editions, sical sources contain vital evidence for but particularly from serious attempts understanding what was or was not per- at a scholarly edition. While Reginald formed—what was set and scrapped, Allen’s The First Night Gilbert and and what was never set at all. Sullivan: Containing Complete Librettos of So much for the words, but what of the Fourteen Operas, Exactly as Presented at the music? I am not the first to bemoan Their Premiere Performances, together with the paucity of credible editions of Sulli- Facsimiles of the First-Night Programmes van’s half of this collaboration. At least (New York: Heritage Press, 1958) is not as far back as 1928, Thomas Dunhill quite what it claims to be, it at least emphasized this point with patriotic made the enthusiast aware of variants incredulity: in the quasi-sacred texts. Allen tried to Owing to the fact that the full scores establish the text as originally per- are unavailable, people are obliged to formed, relying with too much confi- form their estimate of the music from dence on the reading of the libretto the published vocal scores with the distributed (as far as he could deter- accompaniments transcribed for pi- mine) at the premiere of each show. ano. These are not ill adapted for the Starting in the 1980s, Ian Bradley em- practical purpose of rehearsing, but ployed a much more thoroughgoing they are rather clumsily arranged, approach, appearing most recently in and give an incomplete idea of the his The Complete Annotated Gilbert & composer’s original conceptions. Sullivan (20th Anniversary Edition It seems incredible that the British [New York: Oxford University Press, people should be denied access to 2016]). Bradley looked well beyond the the work of one of their greatest mu- published librettos and subsequent au- sicians in its only proper and authen- thorized editions, scrutinizing the pre- tic form. (Sullivan’s Comic Operas: A production copies submitted for license Critical Appreciation [London: Edward from the Lord Chamberlain’s office, as Arnold, 1928], 216–17.) well as the early promptbooks and Gilbert’s sketches and drafts extant now This is not the place for recounting the at the British Library. Even so, Bradley gradual change in this situation. A did not consult musical sources, and good summary has been given by thus has no substantiation for annota- David Russell Hulme (“Adventures in tions such as “In early performances Musical Detection: Scholarship, Edi- Elsie had a longer solo here” (p. 922). tions, Produc tions and the Future of Far surpassing Bradley in a compre- the Savoy Operas,” in The Cambridge hensive attempt at textual authority is Companion to Gilbert and Sullivan, ed. The Variorum Gilbert & Sullivan, edited David Eden and Meinhard Saremba by Marc Shepherd and Michael [Cambridge University Press, 2009], Walters. To date, only one volume 231–42). Indeed, it was Hulme’s disser- has appeared (New York: Oakapple tation (“The Operettas of Sir Arthur Press, 2015), containing the first four Sullivan: A Study of Available Auto- operas. Although their edition presents graph Full Sores” [PhD diss., University only the verbal text, Shepherd and of Wales, 1986]) that established the Walters draw upon the full range field of Sullivan source studies, and his 336 Notes, December 2018 own edition of Ruddigore (Oxford Uni - both versions of this song are in situ— versity Press, 2000) is clearly the model indeed, the printed sequence of the two for Colin Jagger’s edition of The Yeomen versions of no. 5 in the individual parts of the Guard, for which Hulme also varies “according to the ease of page served as “consultant editor.” (Herein- turns” (FS, p. 104). As both versions are after, Jagger’s full score will be cited as given the same item number, some “FS”; the vocal score as “VS.”) confusion seems inevitable in rehearsal. Jagger’s Yeomen is very accurately de- This situation set me wondering scribed as “a scholarly performing edi- whether there would ever be a produc- tion” (VS, p. iv). Jagger has collated tion that would opt entirely for the sources relevant to the work from its original version over the one that su- origins through the D’Oyly Carte revi- perseded it. I doubt it. Although Fair - sions of the 1920s, seeking to present a fax is a rather despicable character, and text as authorized by its creators—not there’s something of an appropriate6 necessarily that of the first night (al- swagger to the Allegro pesante 8 of the ready before the premiere Gilbert and original (indeed, with a touch of Sullivan had agreed on cuts to be made Verdian brindisi), somebody in 1887 immediately after the first night), but clearly recognized that the original set- in the settled state of its original run. ting did not do justice to Gilbert’s exis- He has nonetheless borrowed clarifica- tential lyric—the lyric that the librettist tions from later versions of the text— would later choose to be inscribed on particularly stage directions indicating the memorial monument for Sullivan characters’ entrances and exits, some on the Victoria Embankment. Sullivan’s of which remained unspecified in print second setting (Andante espress., par- even after Gilbert’s supervision of not tially reworking ideas from the first set- only the 1887 premiere but also revivals ting) is justly celebrated. A production in 1897, 1906, and 1909. (One of these of Yeomen without it? It would be like a even now seems curiously to function production of Carmen that replaced more as an observation than a direc- the famous Habanera with Bizet’s first tion: “In the meantime, the Chorus have attempt, “L’amour est un enfant de [sic] entered” [FS, p. 301; VS, p. 145].) bohème!” In either case I can only The back cover of both the FS and imagine a performance in which the VS announce that this edition “returns original is immediately followed by an to what was performed during the origi- exclamation equivalent to “O Freunde, nal Savoy Theatre run,” but the inclu- nicht diese Töne!” before launching sion of material that never once was into the familiar version. performed in that run suggests that the Desirable as it is to have these extra editor is advocating yet another ver- numbers available for study, the layout sion.