In September 1884, after encountering Dvořák’s Sixth Symphony at the Worcester Three Choirs Festival, a young Edward Elgar wrote in a letter to his friend Charles Buck: ‘I wish you could hear Dvořák’s music. It is simply ravishing, so tuneful & clever & the orchestration is wonderful; no matter how few instruments he uses it never sounds thin’.Footnote ¹ The work enjoyed great success in England, but despite this early enthusiasm, the symphony has long been marked by a problematic textual transmission history. The original editions, published by Simrock in late 1881, are marked by inconsistencies and errors, while later attempts to establish a reliable text – notably a Czech edition of the 1950s – proved only partially successful.Footnote ² The transmission of the work is shaped by the relationship among the autograph score, the first published score, and the orchestral parts, each of which transmits a different version of the musical text. Jonathan Del Mar’s new Bärenreiter edition seeks to address these longstanding issues by reassessing their interdependence. In addition to Dvořák’s autograph and the first edition of the full score, the edition considers the orchestral parts of the first edition, which provide important evidence for the work’s textual history and may preserve readings derived from now-lost performance materials.

Del Mar describes the edition as part of a broader effort to restore Dvořák’s symphonies to reliable circulation after decades of editorial inconsistency. As he has recently observed, earlier editors largely neglected the first-edition orchestral parts, despite their preservation of readings absent from the published score.Footnote ³ The result is an intricate network of source dependencies, but one that Del Mar’s edition disentangles with considerable clarity.

The introduction to the volume, written by Jan Smaczny, situates the symphony within the context of Dvořák’s growing prominence. Smaczny traces the circumstances surrounding the symphony’s composition in 1880, highlighting the success of the Slavonic Dances and Dvořák’s relationship with Johannes Brahms and the publisher Fritz Simrock.Footnote ⁴ The role of Hans Richter is given particular attention, as it was his encouragement that prompted Dvořák to promise a new symphony for performance in Vienna.Footnote ⁵ Smaczny outlines the chronology of the work’s composition and emphasizes the expectations surrounding a projected Viennese premiere. The introduction also examines the complex circumstances of the work’s early reception: although intended for the Vienna Philharmonic, the symphony was not performed by the orchestra at the time – often attributed to anti-Czech sentiment within Viennese musical circles – and instead received its premiere in Prague on 25 March 1881 under Adolf Čech. Smaczny further documents the work’s dissemination beyond Vienna, noting its favourable reception in England, where performances under August Manns and Richter contributed significantly to its early success.Footnote ⁶

Smaczny frames the symphony within a post-Beethovenian and Brahmsian symphonic tradition, with reference to its affinity with Brahms’s Second Symphony in both key and general character, while also emphasising its distinct musical voice. The discussion also highlights the symphony’s motivic cohesion, especially in the first movement. Beethovenian models inform the discussion of the slow movement, while the scherzo, marked Furiant, is identified as a noteworthy example of Dvořák’s engagement with Czech musical idioms, its rhythmic vitality and cross-accentuation providing a strong contrast within the symphonic framework. The finale derives much of its effect from its forward momentum and cumulative energy. The introduction is wide-ranging in scope, but its emphasis falls strongly on the work’s reception in England, reflecting the symphony’s early success there. This focus is historically well justified, though it occasionally comes at the expense of a more sustained engagement with the symphony’s position within Viennese musical life.Footnote ⁷ The analytical discussion, meanwhile, is necessarily selective, offering a concise overview of the work’s principal features without pursuing more detailed formal or comparative analysis. The result is a well-contextualized account of the symphony’s origins and early reception.

Del Mar’s editorial approach is grounded in a careful reassessment of the surviving sources and in a willingness to question assumptions that have shaped previous editions. At the centre of the edition lies the relationship between Dvořák’s autograph score, the first published score issued by Simrock, and the orchestral parts of the first edition. Although the first edition score has often been regarded as the principal authority, Del Mar demonstrates that its readings cannot be accepted uncritically, particularly where they diverge from both the autograph and the parts. The orchestral parts are treated as an independent source, in some cases preserving evidence unavailable elsewhere in the surviving source tradition. This comparison enables Del Mar to distinguish between misprints, later authorial revisions, and editorial interventions introduced during publication. The edition also exposes the limitations of previous editorial efforts, particularly the failure of the mid-twentieth-century Czech edition to take account of the orchestral parts and its tendency to regularize readings on insufficient grounds.

The edition reflects a consistent and transparent editorial policy regarding notation and presentation. As a general principle, the edition retains Dvořák’s original notation, with editorial interventions appropriately signalled, while areas of inconsistency – such as articulation, dynamics, and slurring – are approached with a combination of caution and practical judgement. Of note is the treatment of timpani notation, where Dvořák’s sometimes ambiguous or inconsistent indications are rationalized in a way that respects the underlying musical intention without losing sight of performance practice issues. Similar care is evident in the handling of articulation (notably the distinction between dots and dashes), shared-staff notation, and rehearsal letters, the latter, where necessary, supplemented for practical use but without any claim to authenticity. The inclusion of detailed appendices outlining possible errors and alternative readings further enhances the edition’s transparency, allowing performers and scholars alike to engage directly with the editorial process.

This edition represents a welcome and significant contribution to Dvořák scholarship, not only in establishing a more reliable text but also in clarifying the relationships among the surviving sources. By bringing the autograph, first-edition score, and orchestral parts into closer dialogue, Del Mar offers a model of editorial practice that is both critically rigorous and attentive to the needs of performers. In doing so, the edition contributes to a broader reassessment of Dvořák’s symphonic output and its place within the nineteenth-century repertory, encouraging renewed engagement with these works in both scholarly and performance contexts.