The ambiguity of King Edward\u2019s status in the year following Queen Victoria\u2019s\u00a0death, is no clever wordplay to deal with the 299 alternative. It is something\u00a0suggested to me by William Shakespeare in person:<\/p>\n
In the Dramatis Personae of his\u00a0\u2018Tragedy of King Richard the Third\u2019<\/i>\u00a0is\u00a0England\u2019s last but one Plantagenet king listed as:\u00a0Edward,<\/i><\/b>\u00a0Prince of Wales,<\/i>\u00a0afterwards King Edward the Fifth. \u2018<\/i>Afterwards\u2019 being as early as the second\u00a0scene of act two, but having waited exactly two acts for his coronation to\u00a0take place, Edward Plantagenet dies at the age of twelve. In consequence\u00a0the DP remains the play\u2019s sole reference to the boy as a king. In the\u00a0dialogue he remains a prince throughout, and even in his appearance as a\u00a0ghost two years after his death. And thus Shakespeare establishes a\u00a0twillight zone in the status of the successor between coronation as the\u00a0formal, and the traditional proclamation as the effective moment of\u00a0succession: \u201cThe king is dead: long live the king!\u201d<\/p>\n Therefore both overall results make a valid interval between reigns.\u00a0Intervals that were, by the way, no common knowledge in 1896, the cycle\u2019s\u00a0official year of completion, which comfirms the redating to the early\u00a0twentieth century. Of course this does not guarantee the partsongs to date\u00a0from King Edward\u2019s reign, RVW might have been cautious and law obiding\u00a0enough to postpone his subversive action unto, let us say, 1911, when it\u00a0was no criminal act any longer. Making it very important to pinpoint the year\u00a0a little more precise than somewhere between 1900 and 1914.<\/p>\n In the case of the Musical Offering this task is assigned to non-existent\u00a0bars, but this does not prevent the real ones to add up to the receiver\u2019s\u00a0name (see the next chapter). Implicating that alternative countings are no\u00a0excuse to neglect the original 112 bars of the partsongs. Is it possible for\u00a0them to reveal the information we need?<\/p>\n I started my attempts to derive something from these bars, by\u00a0determining whether 112 has a multiple equalling a year within RVW\u2019s span\u00a0of life; and it indeed has: 112 x 17 = 1904. This is the third\/ fourth year of\u00a0Edward\u2019s reign, and the partsongs were first published in the corresponding\u00a0year in the reign of his successor. If it was no matter of high treason, this\u00a0would be a highly satisfying result. Now it raises the nasty question why\u00a0seventeen should be the multiplier RVW had in mind.<\/p>\n Untill now the only way I have found to derive \u201817\u2019 from the partsongs, is\u00a0to calculate the difference between SD and TWS: 50 – 33 bars. Which seems\u00a0reasonable enough, provided the other differences make sense as well: 50 –\u00a029 = 21, and 33 – 29 = 4. And look and behold, there is not even the need\u00a0of reversing something to hit a jackpot:<\/p>\n (SD – TWS)\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0–\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0(SD – OMM) \u00a0 \u00a0–\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0(TWS – OMM) Compare the first couple of numbers with the classic alphabet to decypher\u00a0the signature. It looks convincing; the combination of date and signature is\u00a0a standard feature of official statements. Yet, apart from the signature being\u00a0incomplete, there are three drawbacks. The dating is inconsistent to begin\u00a0with; 19 and 04 are produced by different procedures. And although the\u00a0average of the signature seems to superfluous, because untill very recently\u00a01904 has had \u201904 as the proper abbreviation, it is crucial in its copying of the\u00a0centre stages of the regrouping sequence:<\/p>\n Sweet Day\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0– \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The willow song \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0– \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0O mistress mine An even bigger problem is the multiple use of data: I wonder how a mathematician would estimate the chances to combine three numbers to both a\u00a0signature and the genuine date of this signature. Especially with this same\u00a0combination being assigned to serve so much other purposes as well.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The principal drawback, however, is committing high treason for Vaughan\u00a0Williams to be absolutely out of character. But his own dating is no better.\u00a0RVW to reproach the Prince of Wales somewhere in the 1890s is equally\u00a0impossible, and only a reliable dating in the period 1910 – 1913 would\u00a0convincingly explain away his assault on Edward VII. The insertion of this\u00a0incriminating \u20181904\u2019 therefore contributes heavily to the paradoxal character\u00a0of the partsongs. If done purposedly, the composer should have had a very\u00a0good reason for it; the music being written during the reign of Edward VII,\u00a0for instance.<\/p>\n Balancing these arguments, I am inclined to dismiss any other option as\u00a0even more unlikely, whatever the consequences for RVW\u2019s reputation may\u00a0be. And with the field of investigation narrowed to the period 1901-1910,\u00a0the composer\u2019s own choice is as good as any other.<\/p>\n This choice for 1904 fixes the shift in time for\u00a0O Mistress Mine<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0The<\/i>Willow Song<\/i>\u00a0on thirteen years, and for\u00a0Sweet Day<\/i>\u00a0on eight. Numbers that\u00a0bring us back to that other music intended to please a king. Vaughan\u00a0Williams was a Bach interpreter of some reputation, so it stands to reason\u00a0to assume he was familiar with the Musical Offering. Which might explain\u00a0why his own musical surprise reproduces for intervals in time its key\u00a0numbers: the original Musical Offering of 7-7-1747 consists of eight pieces,\u00a0the complete cycle of thirteen. This unexpected reference to Bach now\u00a0suggests RVW\u2019s offer to Edward VII to be incomplete without a dedication\u00a0letter, and because Royal archives are supposed to preserve such\u00a0correspondence for eternity, it should still be there (alas, there is no trace of\u00a0it). Like the copy – or even an answering letter – should be in the composer\u2019s\u00a0personal archive. Which I haven\u2019t been able to locate.<\/p>\n Without tracing a dedication letter I have probably pushed too far, but\u00a0this combination of dates is convincing enough to decide RVW has\u00a0connected \u20181904\u2019 by design to \u20181891\u2019 and \u20181896\u2019.<\/p>\n \u00a0Making this new date as\u00a0the year of composition as artificial, and unreliable,\u00a0 as the ones it should\u00a0replace. Which is the best imaginable result this attempt to redate the\u00a0partsongs could have achieved. Instead of a take-it-or-leave-it result, we\u00a0ave arrived at a year of composition that must be accepted in order to\u00a0prove it wrong. Meaning that RVW has shown us straight back to square\u00a0one, with a perfect reversal of the original paradox as presented in the second paragraph below the Burn quotation in\u00a0the year of living dangerously.<\/em> —<\/span><\/p>\n —<\/span><\/p>\n go to next chapter<\/a>\u00a0– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –<\/span>\u00a0back to the previous chapter<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The ambiguity of King Edward\u2019s status in the year following Queen Victoria\u2019s\u00a0death, is no clever wordplay to deal with the 299 alternative. It is something\u00a0suggested to me by William Shakespeare in person: In the Dramatis Personae of his\u00a0\u2018Tragedy of King … Continue reading
\n17\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0(av. : 19)\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a021 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a004
\n———————————————————————–—– \u00a0——————————-<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>
\n———————————-<\/span>—<\/span>————————————————————————–<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>
\n(Signature)<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(Date)<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n———————————————————————–———————————<\/span>
\n———————<\/span>——–<\/span>————————————————————————–<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong>
\n(theme)<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(subject)<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
The website of the<\/span>\u00a0RVW Society<\/a>\u00a0dates the partsongs 1899 (previously 1898). I therefore can\u2019t rely on the dates 1891 & 1896 in my cd-booklet to originate from\u00a0 RVW himself. And without his co-operation my research is partly based on quicksand.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n