The “authenticity” of the reconstruction of missing parts? Some reflections on a misplaced problem

As is well known, many collections of polyphonic music published in separate parts have come down to us in an incomplete state on account of the loss of some partbooks. Although these collections have mostly been forgotten for centuries (they are not published, studied or performed), in a few cases the missing parts have been re-composed so that the pieces can be performed again. Such operations often lead to the publication of music editions edited by musicologists or performers, sometimes in collaboration with each other. Moreover, very often the publication of the “reconstructed” piece brings with it the “first modern performance” and the recording of the recently restored music (see the cases of Carlo Gesualdo’s motets reconstructed by Igor Stravinsky or, more recently, of the sacred concertos by Girolamo Frescobaldi). The historical and musical interest of such operations, thanks to which we can finally listen to forgotten music again centuries later, is before everyone’s eyes. However, some believe that such operations are not legitimate, since the reconstructed part “is not authentic” and the result of the combination of this part with the surviving parts is a composition that never existed before. This article enters this debate by addressing its intrinsic criticality and showing its elements of complexity. In particular, it explores the concept of authenticity applied to the field of musical philology and musical editing and the problems of emendatio (amendment) it poses. Further, it questions the advisability of using the criterion of authenticity when dealing with the restitution of the missing parts in incomplete polyphony, also taking account of the way in which the results of the reconstruction are presented both in the critical edition and in the performance. Finally, it suggests criteria for the presentation of the musical text in the critical edition that allow one to enhance the reconstruction of the missing parts. To gain a more realistic idea of our musical past, we have no choice but to try to reconstruct as much incomplete music as possible, to acquire ever better analytical skills and to be prepared to listen to music forgotten for centuries in versions ever closer to the lost original. If the idea we have of a composer by listening to a composition in which one voice has been reconstructed is not “authentic”, the image we can obtain of him by not listening to it at all, as if it had never existed, is even more strongly “fake”.