ikuli had the assistance of a half dozen of
Chopin's "favorite" pupils, and, in addition, Ferdinand Hiller. Herman
Scholtz, who edited the works for Peters, based his results on careful
inspection of original French, German and English editions, besides
consulting M. Georges Mathias, a pupil of Chopin. If Fontana, Wolff,
Gutmann, Mikuli and Tellefsen, who copied from the original Chopin
manuscripts under the supervision of the composer, cannot agree, then
upon what foundation are reared the structures of the modern critical
editions? The early French, German and Polish editions are faulty,
indeed useless, because of misprints and errata of all kinds. Every
succeeding edition has cleared away some of these errors, but only in
Karl Klindworth has Chopin found a worthy, though not faultless,
editor. His edition is a work of genius and was called by Von Bulow
"the only model edition." In a few sections others, such as Kullak, Dr.
Hugo Riemann and Hans von Bulow, may have outstripped him, but as a
whole his editing is amazing for its exactitude, scholarship, fertility
in novel fingerings and sympathetic insight in phrasing. This edition
appeared at Moscow from 1873 to 1876.

The twenty-seven studies of Chopin have been separately edited by
Riemann and Von Bulow.

Let us narrow our investigations and critical comparisons to
Klindworth, Von Bulow, Kullak and Riemann. Carl Reinecke's edition of
the studies in Breitkopf & Hartel's collection offers nothing new,
neither do Mertke, Scholtz and Mikuli. The latter one should keep at
hand because of the possible freedom from impurities in his text, but
of phrasing or fingering he contributes little. It must be remembered
that with the studies, while they completely exhibit the entire range
of Chopin's genius, the play's the thing after all. The poetry, the
passion of the Ballades and Scherzi wind throughout these technical
problems like a flaming skein. With the modern avidity for exterior as
well as interior analysis, Mikuli, Reinecke, Mertke and Scholtz
evidence little sympathy. It is then from the masterly editing of
Kullak, Von Bulow, Riemann and Klindworth that I shall draw copiously.
They have, in their various ways, given us a clue to their musical
individuality, as well as their precise scholarship. Klindworth is the
most genially intellectual, Von Bulow the most pedagogic, and Kullak is
poetic, while Riemann is scholarly; the latter gives more attention to
phrasing than to