in nineteenth-century dress, than to ask
musicians with nineteenth-century ears to listen to patched-up
eighteenth-century music. The second plan would not be approved by
musicians who hold the classical masters in veneration; with a little
modification, the first one, however, ought to meet with general
acceptance. We may write in keeping with the spirit of a past age, but
the music must now be played on an instrument of different character,
compass, and quality of tone; so surely in making additions (and, so
far as certain ornaments are concerned, alterations) these things
ought to be taken into consideration. A certain latitude should,
therefore, be allowed to the transcriber; hard-and-fast rules in such
a delicate task are impossible. The late Dr. Buelow edited six of
Emanuel Bach's sonatas,[67] and though he was well acquainted with the
composer's style of writing, his anxious desire to present the music
in the most favourable light sometimes led him to make changes of
which even lenient judges would not approve. The matter is an
interesting one, and we may therefore venture to refer somewhat in
detail to one passage. In the 3rd Sonata (F minor) of the 3rd
Collection, the passage--

[Music illustration]

has been changed by Buelow: he has altered the C flat in the second
half of the first bar into a C natural, thus smoothing down the hard
progression to the key of B flat minor. Now this very passage had
already, nearly a hundred years previously, attracted the notice of
Forkel, who admitted that, apart from the context, it jarred against
his musical feeling. But he had thought over the composer's intention
in writing that sonata, and had come to the conclusion that, in the
opening Allegro, Bach wished to express indignation.[68] He therefore
asks: "Are the hard, rough, passionate expressions of an angry and
indignant man beautiful?" In this case, Forkel was of opinion that the
hard modulation was a faithful record of what the composer wished to
express.[69] The natural order of history seems inverted here. One
would have expected Forkel to look upon the music from an abstract,
but Buelow from a poetical point of view. C.H. Bitter--also on purely
musical grounds--condemns Buelow's alterations. He says:--"Even
weaknesses of great masters, among which the passages in question are
not to be counted, still more so, special peculiarities, should be
left untouched. What would become of Beethoven, if each generation of