Search

The first edition of Os Lusíadas, by Luís de Camões, has long attracted the attention of scholars, and its surviving copies are mysterious objects. Over the years, different hypotheses have been proposed and a range of methodologies employed, in attempts to explain their mysteries. This study is based on the analysis of twenty-five copies, applying techniques from the field of material bibliography. Using mechanical collation, it argues that two different editions were printed, bearing the same date. It proposes a classification system and terminology, which affects the editions, the copies and the sheets which constitute each copy. This study seeks to make an initial contribution to the ongoing debate on the number of editions dated 1572; further observations, which could make the ultimate answer more nuanced, will be published in future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The piece in the title, dated back in 1850, was a milestone. It is not only the first and most significant organ piece of Liszt, but also one of those pieces which every organist has to deal with sooner or later, and for the interpretation, they have to ask and answer many questions. For this study, the first edition, published in 1852 and available online, provides many references, while the manuscript is difficult to access. It is no coincidence that, at the hundredth anniversary of Bach's death, Liszt began to write a large-scale organ piece to worship the art of the great composer. It may also be intentional to date the completion of the piece on the Remembrance Day of the Reformation. Both the inevitability of the composition, and the Protestant aspects, and not lastly, the personal commitment of Professor István Dávid to the piece, prompt me to try to find answers to some of the basic questions of this grandiose piece, and publish them - without the need of completeness - in the book to be published in honour of him. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Mapping (1131-9100) is the property of eGeoMapping S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Íkala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura is the property of Universidad de Antioquia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of RILCE. Revista de Filología Hispánica is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Perinola is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The 1868 edition of the full score of Der Schauspieldirektor in the Unisa Library is one of only four copies that could be found in a worldwide search of libraries. When the first printed score of this work is referred to in sources, it is always the 1882 edition that appeared as part of the Alte Mozart Ausgabe that is referred to, never this one. Even the staff of the Mozarteum in Salzburg was unaware of the 1868 edition until it was brought to their attention by a member of the Unisa staff in 1988. The most remarkable aspect of the 1868 edition is that it contains ritornellos to the arias for the two sopranos, the ariette and the rondo, which are not in the autograph score. The originals of these introductions have not yet been traced. Rietz made an unequivocal decision in favour of including the two introductions. It is the opinion of the author of this article that according to the available evidence, this was an informed and still valid decision. Another unequivocal and valid decision of Rietz in 1868 was not to differentiate in the score between Mozart's dots and strokes but to publish all as dots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]