R. Vaughan Williams - Sir John in Love

2
Ralph Vaughan Williams
Sir John
in Love
Full Score

. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS
SIR JOHN IN LOVE
An Opera in Four Acts
Libretto based on
Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor
edited b y
David lloyd-jones
full score
A

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 1930. New edition © Oxford University Press 2020
This Edition published with the kind support of The Vaughan Williams Charitable Trust
The right of Ralph Vaughan Williams to be named as the Composer of this Work has been asserted
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
This edition first published 2020
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press
Permission to perform this work in public
(except in the course of divine worship) should normally be obtained from
a local performing right licensing organization, unless the owner or the occupier
of the premises being used already holds a licence from such an organization.
Likewise, permission to make and exploit a recording of these works
should be obtained from a local mechanical copyright licensing organization
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above
should be directed to the Music Rights Department, Oxford University Press,
at music.permissions.uk@oup.com or at the address above
Study score (paperback) ISBN 978–0–19–351432–4
Music and text origination by Michael Durnin
Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by
Halstan & Co. Ltd, Amersham, Bucks.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Contents
Preface page v
Sources
Textual Notes
viii
x
Characters
Scenes
Dedication
Preface by Ralph Vaughan Williams
Sir John in Love
Act I 1
Act II 187
Act III 325
Act IV 531
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

preface
The Play
The Merry Wives of Windsor, on which Ralph Vaughan Williams
based his libretto for his second full-length opera, Sir John in
Love, is unusual in the entire Shakespeare canon in that it is
the only one of his comedies that takes place in contemporary
England, featuring the bourgeoisie and servant class of a
country town, and, more especially, the one that of all thirtyseven
plays contains by far the smallest number of lines in
verse. Popular belief, first recorded in the late seventeenth
century, has it that, having attended a performance of Henry
IV, Part One, Queen Elizabeth expressed a desire to see a new
play showing the great comic character Sir John Falstaff in
love, and that, as a result, in 1597–8 (as is now thought),
Shakespeare cobbled together some existing material at great
speed (hence the amount of prose) to comply with her request.
The play exists in two formats: (1) a shorter, unofficial, ‘bad’
Quarto of 1602, which shows signs of being a ‘memorial
reconstruction’ of the play by actors (in which the player of the
Host of the Garter Inn seems to have taken a major part); and
(2) the considerably fuller, more reliable, text of the 1623 First
Folio. This historic publication, however, was influenced by the
passing in the meantime of James I’s Act to Restrain Abuses of
Players of 1606, which forbade the use of such words as ‘God’,
‘Lord’, ‘Ieshu’, and others much used in the Quarto, so that
they have usually been expurgated in the Folio with the milder
‘Heaven’ or ‘Heavens’. Modern editors sometimes restore the
Quarto text on such occasions, and in this respect the autograph
full score and subsequent published vocal score of the opera
sometimes differ (see Textual Notes).
Libretto
Although in the twentieth century the scholarly Arden edition
of the play had first appeared in 1904 and the Oxford edition
in 1910, according to his wife, Ursula, Vaughan Williams used
a nineteenth-century illustrated edition of Shakespeare given
to him by his grandmother Caroline Darwin (sister of Charles)
as the basis of his libretto; this included incipits of music
mentioned in the plays. 1 The programme for the 2006 English
National Opera staging of the opera, produced while Ursula
was still alive, shows a Victorian-looking page that gives an
eight-bar E minor early version of ‘Greensleeves’. Sadly, it is
not known what has happened to the volume since Ursula’s
death. The British Library houses the composer’s annotated
typescript of his libretto that he used during the composition
of the opera (see Sources).
Choice of subject
It is surprising that Vaughan Williams decided to write such a
full-scale, four-act, work, in view of the dearth of opportunities
for staging native opera in England in the 1920s. He had
composed his two-act ‘romantic ballad opera’ Hugh the Drover
between 1910 and 1914 but had not orchestrated it until he
returned from military service at the end of World War I, and
he had had to wait until July 1924 for its first private (student)
staging at the Royal College of Music, and until later that year
when it was semi-professionally performed by the British
National Opera Company, both conducted by the young Dr
Malcolm Sargent. Furthermore, he knew only too well that
successful operas on the same subject, notably by Nicolai
(1849) and, more especially, Verdi (1893), posed a very
real threat to the success of his treatment, something that he
tried to explain in the published vocal score. 2 True, in August
1912, and later in the spring/summer of 1913, he had spent
some weeks in Stratford-upon-Avon where he had written
and conducted, among other scores, incidental music for the
actor-manager F. R. Benson’s production of The Merry Wives
of Windsor at the old Memorial Theatre. 3 It was at this time
that he is known to have first used the 1580s’ popular song
‘Greensleeves’ (which Holst had used two years previously),
doubtless in response to Mistress Ford’s passing reference to
the tune (Act IV, Scene I) and to Falstaff’s lines ‘Let the sky
rain potatoes, let it thunder to the tune of ‘Greensleeves’ (Act
V, Scene V). In her biography of her late husband, Ursula
Vaughan Williams tells us that he had not previously known
the play (which was out of favour with avant guard thought at
the time), and that he had been so taken with it at Stratford
that, on returning to London, he toyed with the idea of basing
an opera on it. At the same time, he must have felt that it was
about time that a British composer tackled this irresistible
native subject, one moreover in which he could make use of
his great interest in folk songs, folk dances and the Jacobean
masque.
Vaughan Williams’s love of the play and his relative
inexperience as an opera composer contributed to a
miscalculation in the design of his libretto. Whereas Boito,
working for Verdi to produce his final commedia lirica, had
reduced the singing personnel to a cast of ten (dispensing
with Shallow, Slender, Simple, Evans, Page, Nym, the Host,
Rugby, and three servants), Vaughan Williams has twenty
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
(reflecting the twenty-two speaking parts in the First Folio),
though five may be taken by members of the chorus and
the roles of Shallow and Dr Caius doubled by one singer
(see vocal score for details). Nevertheless, he shows great
imagination in his adaptation of Shakespeare, juxtaposing
episodes at will and making judicious cuts, though some
would say not enough. Above all, he has outdone Boito/
Verdi in one respect. In order to increase the lyrical content
of the opera, he has inserted a number of verses from other
v

Shakespeare plays and from contemporary Elizabethan poets
and playwrights (including Jonson, Fletcher, Middleton,
Campion, and Marlowe) to supply suitably romantic texts
for Anne and Fenton, but also humorous and ceremonial
verses for the other characters and chorus. 4 Sixteen of the
twenty-one such interpolations can be found in two volumes
of Elizabethan lyrics that were republished in Stratford by
Arthur Henry Bullen in 1913 while the composer was living
there; his copies are now in the British Library. It could be
objected, however, that he has allowed too much time to be
given to the French court physician Dr Caius and the Welsh
parson Sir Hugh Evans, both of whose linguistic peculiarities,
so extensively exploited by Shakespeare, are somewhat lost
when sung rather than spoken.
Composition
The opera was written while the composer and his wife
Adeline were living at 13 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea. The
composition of the opera took from 1924 to 1928, and was
not finally finished even then. Few piano sketches survive,
although a seven-movement suite, extracted by the composer
from the opera, exists in a copyist’s reduction for two
pianos, at which point the opera was to have been called Fat
Knight, later retitled ‘from Sir John in Love’. This has now
been completed, orchestrated (with reference to the opera),
and recorded. It would seem from Vaughan Williams’s
instructions in the autograph full scores, that he left the piano
arrangement for the vocal score to others, in particular David
Evans of Dorking (Act I), Archie Jacobs (brother of Gordon),
a regular OUP copyist (Acts II and III), and his ex-pupil
Arnold Foster (Act IV). In the autograph of Acts I and II, the
verbal text of the vocal lines and occasional stage directions
have been entered in pencil mostly by the composer and after
made clearer in ink by another hand; could this have been
that of the fine musician and colleague at the Royal College of
Music, S. P. Waddington, to whom he dedicated the opera?
The text and stage directions of Acts III and IV are in the hand
of Arnold Foster. The work is much influenced by the use of
folksong (ten English, one French), a psalm tune, and two folk
dances, notably ‘Half Hannikin’ with which the opera ends.
Certain episodes outstay their welcome, and the composer
subsequently suggested optional cuts in both the full and vocal
scores.
Performance
The opera was first given at four ‘private’ performances in the
modest Parry Opera Theatre at the Royal College of Music
on 21, 22, 25, and 26 March 1929, ably conducted by Dr
Malcolm Sargent and produced by Cairns James. It is believed
that it was only shortly before this that the trio for the three
principal women, ‘Sigh no more ladies’, (from Much Ado about
Nothing), was added. Among the student cast who later came
to prominence were William Herbert (Simple), Imogen Holst
(an imp in Act IV) and Muir Mathieson (chorus).This student
production has resulted (apart from the vocal redistributions)
in a number of stage directions in the vocal score, which
clearly derive from the original production and the inadequate
resources of the RCM theatre. They are given here, but are no
longer necessary. It also accounts for the extra music to cover
the scene changes, including the almost symphonic entr’acte
between Scenes II and III of Act III. It was presumably much
the same forces that gave a few performances in Oxford
in May 1930. For the six performances first given on 30
October and then in November 1933 by the Bristol Opera
School in the Victoria Rooms, Clifton, the composer (who
by this time had moved to Dorking) added three new scenes.
The first, Prologue, ambitiously set in the Great Hall of
Windsor Castle, and featuring the silent appearance of Queen
Elizabeth, was designed to show how she had commanded the
play to be written through the voice of her Lord Chamberlain.
These were probably the only performances ever given of the
Prologue, for the scene was later withdrawn by the composer.
Next came an Episode, to be played in Act I just before rehearsal
figure 34, which depicts the thieving activities of Bardolph,
Nym, and Pistol. The third was the Interlude, originally to be
played between Scenes I and II of Act II, or between Acts I and
II, but subsequently placed at the beginning of Act III as Scene
I (the former Scene I now renamed Scene II). This largely
concerns the continued wooing of Anne Page by Fenton. All
three inserts were engraved as an additional vocal score by
OUP in 1936; the pages devoted to the Prologue were later
removed, so that this hire publication now begins on page 18.
On 4 April 1946 Sir John in Love was at long last given a fully
professional staging when it was mounted by the opera company
at Sadler’s Wells Theatre, conducted by Lawrance Collingwood,
and produced by Sumner Austin. For this important event OUP
had most of the orchestral parts recopied. The last performances
during the composer’s lifetime were given in the same venue
by the young, Cambridge-based, New Opera Company in the
summer of 1958, a few weeks before he died on 26 August.
Several sections of the full score were recopied by Roy Douglas
in 1970.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
The Vocal Score
A year after the 1929 stage premiere of Sir John in Love at the
RCM, the OUP music department (founded in 1923) published
a vocal score of the opera, up to that time by far its largest
undertaking, that was beautifully engraved by Henderson &
Spalding Ltd, and remains the basic text for singers and rehearsal
accompanists. It contains the composer’s fulsome dedication to
S. P. Waddington (1869–1953), a Preface in which he excuses
his choice of Falstaff for yet another opera (including Holst’s
1924 one-acter At the Boar’s Head), and vigorously justifies his
use of folk tunes. In the summer of 2019 the British Library was
presented with the proofs of Act I of this important publication,
corrected by the composer, which seems to indicate that, apart
from overseeing the rest of the edition, it was he who was
vi

esponsible for certain additions and corrections to his autograph
full score, most of which have been silently incorporated into
the present orchestral score. After the composer’s death in
1958, this vocal score was revised by Roy Douglas in 1970 and
republished in July 1971.
The vocal staves and tempi of this score have now been
brought into line, where necessary, with the present new
edition. It should also be noted that in 1931 the composer made
a five-movement cantata, adapted from the opera, for mixed
chorus and orchestra which he titled In Windsor Forest.
Publication of the Full Score
Until this edition, the full score of the opera had never
been published. Dr Malcolm Sargent and, it would seem,
Robert Percival who produced and conducted the 1933 Clifton
performances, used as their conducting scores the original
volumes made for the Hire Library by OUP copyists. Sargent’s
authoritative, blue crayon, additions to the scores (authoritative,
because Vaughan Williams attended the RCM rehearsals) are
given when of interest in the Textual Notes. Percival’s markings
can be seen on the full score copies of the Episode and Interlude.
For the first publication of the full score, the editor has
had access to the composer’s autographs which his widow
presented to the British Museum, now Library. These have been
supplemented, when necessary, by secondary sources, notably
Endnotes
1 Stephen Connock, Toward the Sun Rising: Ralph Vaughan
Williams Remembered (Tonbridge: Albion Music, 2018),
221.
2 Despite the unbounded admiration of his RCM teacher
Stanford, who had attended the premiere at La Scala,
Milan, Vaughan Williams did not fully admire Falstaff
because he felt Boito’s libretto did not play sufficiently
to Verdi’s lyrical strengths (see ‘Verdi: A Symposium’,
Opera, 2/3 (1951), 112).
3 For an informative and extended discussion of the
probable influence that Benson’s production had on
Vaughan Williams’s opera, see Roger Savage, ‘Alice
Shortcake, Jenny Pluckpears, and the Stratford-upon-
the published vocal score. The punctuation of the Folio text of
the play is, like that of the others, famously incomplete, so the
editor has added to it with reference to the latest editions of the
play in the Oxford Shakesepeare series (1990) and the Arden
Shakespeare series (2000). These publications have also been
consulted with regard to the text itself. The editorial process,
though time-consuming, has been relatively straightforward,
and even the composer’s notoriously bad handwriting (because
he was naturally left-handed) has been not too difficult to
decipher. It is hoped that this new text, the result of what
Vaughan Williams used to describe as a ‘face-wash’, will not
only remain the authoritative text for a number of years, but
also encourage more performances of a melodious, amusing
and light-hearted opera (which are notoriously in short supply),
of which its prolific composer appears always to have been not
only very fond, but also proud.
Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank Hugh Cobbe, the staff of the
Music Division of OUP and that of the British library, Michael
Durnin and Georgina Miller for their help in the preparation of
this publication.
David Lloyd-Jones
London, 2019
Avon Connections of Vaughan Williams’s “Sir John
in Love”’, Music and Letters, 89/1 (2008), 18–55. In
particular, Slender’s efforts to write a sonnet for Anne
Page, which hardly occurs in the play, seems to have
been influenced by the actor of that part’s attempt to
embellish his role.
4 A full listing of the verses from other plays by
Shakespeare and his contemporaries used in the opera and
in the three additional scenes, can be found in Michael
Kennedy, A Catalogue of the Works of Ralph Vaughan
Williams (rev. edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998), 121–4.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
vii

sources
Manuscripts
Autograph Score
Prologue
Written in black ink on 24-stave paper, stamped ‘A.L. /
No. 18’, measuring 35 × 25.5 cm. Numbered 1–21 by the
composer.
Holograph full score
Add. MS 50410A–D, British Library, London
Bound in light buff rexine. Autographs of acts II–IV oddly
marked ‘Rough copy’ by RVW.
Act I
Written in black ink on 24-stave paper, stamped ‘A.L. / No.
18’, measuring 35 × 25.5 cm, with the printer’s mark of a
galleon within a circle. Numbered 1–179 by the composer,
but folios numbered i + III by the British Museum in 1967.
Many additions in pencil, including timpani tunings, and red
crayon, by RVW. Also featured are a number of collettes
including several whole pages.
Act II
Same paper, ink, and binding. Numbered 1–132 by the
composer (i + 70 BM). Rehearsal numbers in pencil.
Composer’s corrections in pencil and red ink. Lacks the
autograph of the ladies’ trio ‘Sigh no more ladies’; instead a
pencilled note by RVW ‘go to loose sheets’. Fewer collettes
and changes.
Act III
Same paper, ink, and binding. Numbered 1–117 by the
composer (ii + 62 BM). Rehearsal numbers added in red ink.
Composer’s corrections in pencil. Certain text additions in
black ink in another hand. Fewer collettes and changes.
Act IV
Same paper, ink, and binding. Numbered 1–204 by the
composer (i + 123 BM). Rehearsal numbers added in red ink.
Composer’s corrections in pencil and red ink. Text and stage
directions added in black ink by another hand. Pages 111–121
crossed out in blue crayon and six new pages added thereafter.
From figs 35 to 36, much rewriting. Numerous deletions and
corrections and several whole-page collettes by RVW.
Autographs of Prologue, Episode, and Interlude
Add. MS 50409B, British Library, London
Folios numbered 1–59 by British Museum.
Episode (Interlude I)
Written in black ink on the same paper as above and also on ‘B
& H Nr. 13’ (22 staves). Numbered 22–28 by the composer.
At the end, ‘Segue Figure 34’.
Interlude (Interlude II)
Written in black in on 24-stave paper, stamped ‘PARCHMENT
BRAND No. 19 – 24 lines, Belwin Inc. New York, U.S.A.’
(24 staves). Numbered 29–59 by the composer.
Discarded pages of full score, partly autograph
Add. MS. 69454, British Library, London
A gathering of all the original pages of OUP copyist’s full score,
from all four acts, that were later recopied by Roy Douglas.
Many of them are in the hand of a copyist but with additions by
RVW. This includes ‘Sigh no more ladies’ from Act II and the
opening of Act III. Most of the pages have Malcolm Sargent’s
blue crayon markings.
Add. MS 69455, British Library, London
Assorted pages including the big 12/8 orchestral interlude in
act III and the cut end of Interlude 2.
Add. MS 69456, British Library, London
Copyist’s neat full score of the Prologue in black ink. Fortyone
numbered pages.
Copy of two-piano arrangement of seven episodes from Fat
King
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
Add. MS 57284, British Library, London
Part for the Host
Library of the Royal College of Music, London, No. 4964
Loosely bound in dark brown paper wrappers. Written in
black ink by RVW on eight pages of 12-stave paper, but each
page crossed out in blue crayon. Vocal line only. Thereafter,
the vocal line with a two-stave piano accompaniment. Two
pages of act IV written in black ink by a copyist, followed by
‘THE FAT KNIGHT’ / Act I / R. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS’,
done by a different copyist. 8 pp.
viii

Act II written by the first copyist. 4 pp.
Followed by ‘The Fat Knight / R. Vaughan Williams / Act III’.
13 pp.
stage directions) by RVW, including a large collette for ‘Sigh no
more ladies’.
Typed libretto
Add. MS. 50409A, British Library, London
Pages numbered i + 1–115 by the British Museum, London
Foolscap paper pp. 1–105.
Title page:
The Fat Knight [altered throughout to ‘Sir John in Love’ by RVW]
A Comedy Opera / founded on Shakespeare’s / ‘Merry Wives of
Windsor’ / with Music by / R. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS
p. 2 Preface
pp. 5–7 Cast list and act divisions
Act I (40 minutes – deleted)
Act II (20 minutes – deleted)
Act III (20 minutes – deleted)
Act IV (30 minutes – deleted)
Numerous alterations and additions in ink and pencil (especially
Editions
Printed vocal score
Engraved by Henderson & Spalding Ltd., and published by OUP in
1930. xii + 307 pp. Price 30/– .
Printed vocal score of Episode and Interlude
Engraved by Henderson & Spalding Ltd., and published by OUP in
1936. The first seventeen pages originally contained the Prologue,
but these were torn out when the composer decided to withdraw
it. The publication now extends from p. 18 to p. 57. The music of
pp. 55–7, concerning Dr Caius and Slender, are no longer part of
the opera.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
ix

Textual notes
To
Abbreviations ?
35–6/208–10 Bsn. 1, 2: the notes in smaller type were
bœ
œbœ
œ œ ˙ œ j ‰ U Œ
deleted in aut, but are present in msfs on a
aut autograph
{
full score, q including = q Episode and Interlude
page of later provenance copied by RD, and are
(holograph)
msfs OUP copyist’s full score
œ preserved in orch pts
used by Malcolm Sargent at
&
œ œ ‰ Ó œ œ
&
œ ‰ Ó
the first performance in 1929, photocopies of which 38–9/221–4 Fl., Ob.: the doubling shown in smaller type
have since served as the Hire Library full scores.
has been heavily crossed out in aut, almost
Subsequent copyist’s full scores of the Episode and
certainly by RVW. His note was added on 6
Interlude have been included.
January 1949.
?
orch pt(s) manuscript orchestral ˙ part(s) œ j U ‰ ˙ œ j ‰
46/264 ˙ œ j Str.:
‰ Œ Œ
in vs, in second half of bar, with
vs 1930 OUP publication of the vocal score
pp subito in b. 265
ep, int 1936 OUP publication of the vocal score of the
49/278ff Anne: here RVW has made an imaginative
Episode and Interlude
jump forward to Act III, Scene IV of MWW.
MWW The Merry Wives of Windsor
See also bb. 370ff and 407ff.
Q 1602 First Quarto edition of the play
F 1623 First Folio edition of Shakespeare
53/323 Ob. 1: the last note in msfs and vs is D, but it
RVW Ralph Vaughan Williams
has been altered in aut and clearly marked by
MS Malcolm Sargent (first conductor)
RVW with the letter E
RD Roy Douglas (copyist)
54/324 Tempo: it has been Andante since b. 287; vs
RCM Royal College of Music
omits the repetition but adds ‘q = q’
oup this edition of the opera
54/328ff Tutti: it is clear from aut that the writing of the
SD stage direction
start of this love duet gave RVW considerable
b., bb. bar(s)
trouble, which is why there are three new
n., nn. note(s)
pages of msfs (bb. 328–343) in his own hand
62–3/367–8 Fl. 1: this line appears only in vs and has
therefore been added conjecturally
65/382 Tempo: in msfs, MS has marked ‘mosso’
66/387 Tempo: in msfs, MS has marked ‘accel.’
67/390 Tempo: in msfs, MS has marked ‘allarg.’
70/403–4 Ob. 1: oup adopts the revised, broader phrasing
of vs
77/437 Caius: ‘What’ of aut and vs changed to ‘Vot’
of F
78/442 Caius: ‘the’ of aut and vs changed to ‘de’ of F
88/477 Caius: ‘will’ in aut and vs, ‘vill’ in F. On the
other hand, Shakespeare (or his scribe) has
been inconsistent by writing ‘will’ in b. 485.
Act I
page/bar
5/24 Str.: leggiero from earlier version in aut
5/28ff Shall.: alternative lower notes shown in vs (but
not in aut) for Shallow and for Simple later
on, clearly derive from the capabilities of the
student cast at the RCM in 1929. They are
unlikely to be needed today and are therefore
excluded from OUP.
8/44 Cym.: added to aut lightly in pencil by RVW
12/72 Tempo: at the end of this bar MS has pencilled
‘Poco meno’
12/73–4 Page: in his recopying of this passage in msfs
RD has added the note, ‘There is some evidence
that the composer may have later preferred this
phrase to be sung one bar later than it is printed
in the Vocal Score’
17–18/111–13 Slen.: ‘They carried me … picked my pocket’
does not appear in F, and therefore is absent
from many editions, but it is present in Q and
is often incorporated in more modern texts,
including the volume used by RVW
29/178ff Shall.: RVW has waited till here to use the
well-known opening lines of MWW
35/208 Bsn. 1, n.3: quaver in aut, roughly corrected
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
Episode
116/39 Bar.: strictly speaking, Bardolph, who has
earlier changed from serving Falstaff to
becoming the Host of the Garter Inn’s tapster,
should not appear again, as in MWW
116/42 Nym: both Q and F are agreed that the correct
word is ‘minute’s’, and scholars have been able
to defend this reading. The understandable
amendment to ‘minim’s’ (after Bardolph’s
‘he kept not time’) was first proposed by
John Payne Collier in his 1853 edition of the
Works and has been much adopted, notably by
RVW, who had strong views on this matter as
x

Act I (continued)
expressed in his 1948 article ‘A Minim’s Rest’.
This has been reprinted several times, for
example in Some Thoughts on Beethoven’s Choral
Symphony, with Writings on Other Musical Subjects
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953),
116–21.
124/587 Host: ever since F gave the unintelligible word
‘An-heires’ (adopted by RVW in aut and vs)
there has been much scholarly dispute about
this word. ‘Myn-heeres’, the Dutch word for
‘sirs’ or ‘gentlemen’, was first proposed by
Thomas Hanmer in his 1743–4 edition of the
142–232
Works and seems obvious, especially since
the Host takes pride in being a polyglot. To oup
amends.
?
bœ
œbœ
œ œ ˙ œ j ‰ U
? Œ
bœ
132/631 Host: ‘Pheasar’ in F
{
q = q
(hence RVW’s adoption
œ
of this spelling) but ‘Feezer’ &
œœ ‰ is Ó œ œ
{
q = q
now more
œ
To
& ‰Ó
?
accepted as deriving bœ
œbœ
œfrom œ the verb
˙
‘feeze’
œ j ‰ U Œ &
(as in
OED), although
{
q = q
œ some editors ? ˙
of MWW
œ j U˙ ‰ believe
œ j U ‰ ˙ œ j ? ‰ Œ Œ
that the Host &
œœ ‰ Ó œ œ
intended the word
&
œ ‰Ó
?
to be ‘vizier’.
141/669 Cl., Bsn.: amended from ? ˙ œ j ‰ U Œ of aut ?
and msfs ? to ˙ œ j U ‰ ˙of œ j U vs ‰ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ Œ
141/670 Tempo: in ?
msfs, ˙ œ j MS ‰Œ U has added ‘Moderato’ to
‘Allegretto’
{
155/754, 756 Fals.: ‘honour’ and ‘the’ is the F reading, but
Q has ‘humor’ (i.e. habit, fashion) and ‘this’,
which is now preferred by most editors of
MWW
156/760 Tempo: Maestoso taken from vs
160/790–91 Nym, Pist.: in MWW, Pistol warns Ford and
Nym warns Page. RVW clearly wanted to
focus the action solely on Ford, so dispenses
with the name Page, with the result that Nym
also addresses Ford.
166/830 Tempo: no tempo indication in aut or msfs.
RVW has added ‘Allegretto’ to msfs, to which
MS has pencilled ‘not too fast’. Allegro moderato
in vs., which oup adopts.
169/847 Ford: agitato taken from vs
177/896–7 Tpt.: in aut as in b. 895; the version given in
orch pt has been preferred
178/901 Ford: ‘Heaven’ is F’s milder substitute for Q’s
‘God’
178/903 Str.: this chord is marked fp in vs
Act II
192/29 Picc., Fl.: the sextuplets, ending on C, of vs
has been preferred to septuplets, ending on D,
of aut
{
Scene I
193/33 Tempo: in aut accel., with a tempo in b. 35.
Absent from vs and msfs, where the page has
been recopied by RD due to a rescoring of bb.
33–4 by RVW.
195/44–5 Tempo: poco stringendo—a tempo not shown in
vs
213/129 Tempo: RD has recopied this page in msfs and
has added poco meno mosso in square brackets,
with the note ‘not in Vocal Score’. Neither
is it in aut, but RD would not have added it
without RVW’s authority.
215–29/ msfs: as the rehearsal numbers indicate, this
section was a late addition before the premiere,
and has been recopied by RD in msfs.
Originally To the score To went from the end of b.
?
œbœ
œ141 œ to b. 232, ˙ with œ j ‰ U
the
Œ
bœ
œbœ
œ œ ˙ladies œsinging j ‰ U Œ
‘Knight’
? in
{
q = q
œ
b. 232.
œœ ‰ Ó
œ œ œ œ ?
228/227 Tempo:
&
œœ
& ‰ Ó ‰Ó
œ œ
&
œ ‰Ó
?
‘rall.’ pencilled by RVW in aut but
not shown in vs
228/229–30 ˙ Str.: œ?
j U ‰ ˙ œ j ‰ œ˙ in j U ‰ œ j msfs ˙ but ‰ œ j Œ‰ Œ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ Œ in
{ ˙ œ j vs,
{ ‰ U which has
Œ?
˙ œ j been
‰ U adopted
Œ
Scene II
246/331 Vcl., Db.: the low F has been extended
editorially to a quaver beyond the double
barline, as in vs
246/332 Tempo: in msfs, MS has written ‘Steady. Very
Easy’
247/337ff Str.: in would appear that the original RCM
student who sang Mrs Quickly in 1929 was
rather weak, hence the string reductions.
‘Tutti’ is given in b. 323 in aut. Probably no
longer necessary.
248/341 Mrs Q.: text thus in F, but Q makes better
sense of the reply by giving ‘That I am, I’ll be
To
sworn’ ?
bœ
œbœ
œ œ ˙ œ j ‰ U Œ
248/343 Fl., Ob.,
{
Mrs q = qQ.: RVW appears to have revised
œ
this in & vs; in
œ
aut, œ ‰ Ó œ œ
msfs œ
& ;‰ oup Ó as in vs
259/405 Tutti: poco più
? ˙ œ j U mosso from MS marking in msfs
262/417 Tempo: Allegretto ‰ added ˙ to œ j msfs ‰ ˙by RVW; œ j ‰ Œnot
Œ
in aut or vs
267/451 Tempo: Tranquillo added to msfs by RVW
268/456 Tempo: Allegretto added to msfs by RVW;
Andante con moto in aut and vs
271/485 Fals.: staccato dots not in aut or msfs but
present in vs. See also b. 664.
274/504 Fals.: in vs, the direction ‘falsetto’ is reserved
for b. 509 (with the pause), but the word has
been entered in this bar in msfs by RVW.
The vs reading would appear to be the most
considered version.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xi

?
bœ
{
q = q
œ
&
œ œ ‰ Ó &
281/546 Fals., nn. 2, 3: in aut and msfs both are G, but
these have been altered to F in vs
?
œbœ
œ œ ˙ œ ‰ Œ
282/551 Tutti: after this bar in aut and msfs there is a
five-bar cut (a repetition of bb. 503–7), which
was made so late that it caused a large blank in
later copies of vs with the note ‘Composer’s
cut’
288/580 Vcl., nn. 3, 4: the rhythm has been altered
from even crotchets to conform
To
with the
reading of Vla. and vs
?
289/584 Tempo: bAnimato œ œadded œ to aut by RVW,
possibly
{
suggesting q = q one in a bar
292/599ff Ford: here œ RVW seems to have made an
unfortunate &
œ œ ‰ Ó
shortening of the text & of MWW.
In F, Ford says, ‘She dwells so securely on the
excellency of her honour that the folly of my
soul dares not present itself. She is too bright,’
?
etc.
295/615 Tempo: Moderato in aut, msfs, and vs; RVW
has altered msfs to Allegro moderato
297/625 Tempo: in msfs, MS has added ‘Meno’ with
‘Tempo’ in b. 626
299/634 Fals.: the quaver rest, present in aut and msfs,
is missing in vs
301/644 Fals., n. 3: F# in vs
301/648 Tempo: ritard. added to msfs by RVW and MS
302/650 Tempo: Andante con moto in aut and vs but
Allegretto added to msfs by RVW, again possibly
suggesting one in a bar
305/687 Ford, n. 2: F in vs
309/712ff Host: in vs, this and later lines were first given
to Bardolph, with ‘bully’ changed to ‘master’.
This was clearly due to the matter of casting in
the original RCM production, for Bardolph, as
already said, now a tapster at the Garter Inn,
should not be playing a role in this concerted
plot to ‘kill de Jack priest’. Restored to the
Host, as in the original pages of aut, with his
characteristic text, until the end of the act.
313/736 Host: in sources ‘thou hast’, but this is a
question, and the ‘hast thou’ of MWW has
been preferred
313/737 Host: ‘Sir John’ pencilled into msfs by RVW
316–20/ Tutti: this section, roughly sketched in aut,
751–78 has been recopied in msfs by RD, who has
introduced certain small revisions
320/776–9 S.D.: in aut, RVW has revised the rhythm of
the S.D. to agree with the singers, w-wind, and
horns. For some reason, this did not get into
RD’s recopying of this page in msfs.
320/793 Vln. I, II, n. 1: fp cresc. in vs
œ œ œ ‰ Ó
Act III
Scene I (Interlude)
˙ œ j ‰ U ˙ œ j ‰ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ Œ
taken from int
b œ œ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ U
œ œ œ ‰ Ó
346/135–6 Vln. I, II:
346/136 Tutti: at the end of this bar, a conductor
(Robert Percival?) has noted in msfs ‘Comma’,
and made a two-stroke break
347/137 Anne: in msfs a conductor (presumably
Percival) has added ‘my father says’ after ‘Ah,
mine Host’, as in mww, though no notation is
suggested. This is a sensible alteration, and is
post int.
382/355 Tempo: the later addition of moderato to
the original Allegro probably invalidates the
metronome mark
383/381 Vla., Vcl.: slur taken from int
387/400–01 Tutti:
388/405 Tempo: in msfs the word pesante, which appears
in int, has been crossed out
389/407–8 Host: in aut and msfs, the words ‘I mun’ (also
given in int), has been crossed out and replaced
with ‘Thou shalt’ by the same conductor who
wrote in b. 137; oup adopts
390/416–17 Host: these bars are empty in aut. In msfs a
conductor (Percival?) has added ‘Farewell’, and
this is printed in int, though the Host continues
to sing three bars later and is then directed to
go off stage. It is suggested that ‘Farewell’ be
ignored.
˙ œ j ‰ U ˙ œ j ‰ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ Œ
taken from int
Scene II
394/10ff Evans: lines taken from the metrical version of
Psalm 137 by Sternhold and Higgins
397–8/24ff Evans: lines taken from Marlowe’s song ‘Come
live with me and be my love’
401/37 Tempo: in msfs, MS has noted ‘Not too fast’
419/108 Ford: in mww, ‘for it is as positive’; the ‘as’ is
surely needed in this position
423/122 Tempo: Allegro from vs; in aut and msfs Allegro
moderato
426–56/ Tutti: this 120-bar orchestral interlude (longer
133–253 in vs), written to allow for the elaborate
scene change at the ill-equipped RCM theatre,
gave RVW some trouble, and the occasion to
experiment with repeats. Bars 150–229 were
an insert that was later cut, though they are
retained in vs.
429/149 Tutti: following this bar in vs, there are five
modulating bars followed by 55 in Allegretto
triple time. There is, however, a note which
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xii

Scene III
states: ‘After the publication of the vocal score
the composer made this cut [shown] permanent
and the music of this passage does not appear
in the full score and instrumental parts.’ This
explains the absence of rehearsal figures 6a,
6b, and 6c. Photocopies of the cut music are
available from OUP.
467/288 Tempo: originally Lento in aut and msfs;
changed in msfs to Moderato by RVW. Andante
moderato in vs.
467/289ff Mrs F.: the words of this version of
‘Greensleeves’ are taken from the miscellany
A Handful of Pleasant Ditties of 1584, though
the spelling has been modernized, presumably
by RVW
470/313 Tempo: in msfs, MS has written ‘almost same
beat’
502/484 Str.: the crotchet in aut and msfs has been
extended by a quaver, as in vs
516/572 Tempo: in msfs, MS has written ‘flowing’
518/589 Mrs Q.: in aut and msfs, ‘Mrs Quickly with
alto’. In vs, however, she (like Mrs Ford) is not
required to sing because she is attending to Mrs
Ford (see SD).
527/651 Tutti: lunga taken from vs
Act IV
531–2/1–12 Str.: the double set of slurs is shown in aut
Scene I
557/163 Tempo: in aut, ‘not too slow’ (RVW)
568/225 Tempo: in msfs, ‘not too slow’ (RVW), yet
Adagio molto in vs
575/277 Vla., Vcl.: second half of the bar dotted in vs,
but not in the Fantasia on ‘Greensleeves’ of 1934;
see also b. 296 of Act III
Scene II
603/447 Rattles: ‘onstage’ in aut, but ‘offstage’ (as in
chorus and SD) in vs
608/463 Tempo: in aut and msfs, in addition to the
Molto adagio marking, RVW has added ‘very
slow’
608/463 In Q and F, the role of the Queen of the
Fairies is given, most improbably, to Mistress
Quickly (speaking in perfect English). This
was doubtless due to the casting of the same
boy actor in both roles. The more sensible
alteration to Anne Page, one adopted by RVW,
was first proposed by William Harness in his
1825 edition of the Dramatic Works.
610/469 Tempo: having written ‘very slow’ in b. 463 in
msfs, here RVW writes ‘not too slow’
611/472 Tempo: at the end of this bar in aut and msfs
there is a pause sign over the double bar. This
is absent from vs.
632/564 Tempo: in msfs, RVW has twice written ‘poco
accel.’
632/566 SD: ‘Enter Fenton’ has been added, as it was
included in an earlier passage that was later cut
633/567 Tutti: the paused 1/4 bar is the result of a
previous cut passage (shown in vs)
638/582 Tempo: both aut and msfs show q. = q., but it
is hard to find any sense in the direction
648/611 Tempo: in msfs, MS has written ‘on’
652/629 Fl.: f in aut and msfs, but p in vs, which has
been preferred
663–4/673–4 Orch.: pp taken from vs
687/756 Anne: in msfs, RVW has written ‘Slow’
688/757 Tempo: in aut, msfs, and vs, a pause over the
fourth beat, but deleted in msfs by MS, with a
note ‘no pause here’
688/760 Tempo: in msfs, MS has changed Allegretto to
‘Moderato’
690/775 Tempo: Maestoso taken from vs
695809ff Ob., Cl., Bsn., Vla.: ‘ad lib.’ are already
present in aut. The parts are shown in smaller
type in vs. The same applies to bb. 843ff.
œ j ‰ U ˙ œ j ‰ ˙ œ j ‰ Œ Œ
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
&
œ œ ‰ Ó œ œ œ ‰ Ó
œ œ
To
b œ œ ˙ œ j ‰ U Œ
= q
xiii

characters
(in order of their appearance)
Robert Shallow, a country Justice
(Tenor or Baritone)
Sir Hugh Evans, a Welsh parson
(High Baritone)
Abraham Slender, a foolish young gentleman, Shallow’s cousin
(Tenor)
Peter Simple
George Page, a citizen of Windsor
Sir John Falstaff, a Crown pensioner
Bardolph
(Tenor or Baritone)
(Baritone)
(Baritone)
(Tenor)
Nym Sharpers attending on Falstaff (Baritone)
Pistol
Anne (Nan) Page, Page’s daughter
Mistress Margaret (Meg) Page, Page’s wife
Mistress Alice Ford, Ford’s wife
Fenton, a young gentleman of the Court at Windsor
Doctor Caius, a French physician
John Rugby, his servant
Mistress Quickly, his housekeeper
The Host of the ‘Garter Inn’
Robin, Falstaff’s page-boy
(Bass)
(Soprano)
(Soprano)
(Mezzo-Soprano)
(Tenor)
(High Baritone)
(Bass)
(Mezzo-Soprano or Contralto)
(Baritone)
(non-singing)
Frank Ford, a citizen of Windsor
(Bass)
John
Robert
Servants to Ford
William, Mistress Page’s son
Alice Shortcake, Bardolph’s sweetheart
Jenny Pluckpears, Nym’s sweetheart
Girl Friends of Anne Page
Women Servants of Ford
Citizens of Windsor
Servants of Ford and Page
Boy Friends of William Page
Dancers in Act IV
(Baritone)
(Baritone)
(non-singing)
(non-singing)
(non-singing)
S. and A. (Chorus)
T. and B. (Chorus)
(non-singing)
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xiv

scenes
Act I
A Street in Windsor page 1
Episode 109
Act I continued 123
Act II 187
Scene 1—A Room in Page’s House 193
Scene 2—A Parlour in the ‘Garter Inn’ 246
Act III
Scene 1 (Interlude)—A Footpath near Windsor 325
Scene 2—A Field near Windsor 393
Scene 3—A Room in Ford’s House 457
Act IV 531
Scene 1—Another Room in Ford’s house 533
Scene 2—Windsor Forest 578
Dance of the Fairies 620
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xv

DEDICATION
To S. P. WADDINGTON
My Dear Waddington,
I venture to dedicate this Opera to you firstly as a token of my admiration for you as
a man and a musician and secondly to show my gratitude to you for all your help and
encouragement in this and all my work.
I sometimes feel that you ought, with all your skill and knowledge, to despise my
comparatively amateurish efforts. It really seems ridiculous that I should spend my
time writing operas while you spend yours teaching elementary harmony to unwilling
flappers. However, everyone knows that whilst you could, if you would, write a firstrate
opera, I, on the other hand, should be entirely incompetent to teach elementary
harmony. So I suppose things must remain as they are.
Yours ever gratefully,
R. Vaughan Williams.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xvi

Preface
TO WRITE yet another Opera about Falstaff at this time of day may seems the height of
impertinence, for one appears in so doing to be entering into competition with four
great men—Shakespeare, Verdi, Nicolai and Holst.
With regard to Shakespeare, my only excuse can be that he is fair game, like the Bible, and
may be made use of nowadays even for advertisements of soap and razors.
I hope that it may be possible to consider that even Verdi’s masterpiece does not exhaust all
the possibilities of Shakespeare’s genius.
And I hope I have treated Holst with the sincerest flattery not only in imitating his choice
of Falstaff as the subject of an opera but in imitating his use of English folk-tunes in the
texture of the music. The best I can hope will be that Sir John in Love may be considered as a
sequel to his brilliant Boar’s Head. There remains Nicolai’s Merry Wives which in my opinion is
the most successful of the Falstaff operas—my excuse in this case must be that there is hardly
any Shakespeare in his libretto.
My chief object in Sir John in Love has been to fit this wonderful comedy with, I trust, not
unpleasant music. In the matter of the use of folk-tunes, they only appear occasionally and
their titles have no dramatic relevancy (except possibly in the case of ‘John, come kiss me
now’). When a particular folk-tune appeared to me to be the fitting accompaniment to the
situation, I have used it. When I could not find a suitable folk-tune, I have made shift to make
up something of my own. I therefore offer no apology for the occasional use of a folk-song
to enhance a dramatic point. If the result is successful I feel justified; if not, no amount of
‘originality’ will save the situation. However, the point is a small one, since out of a total of
120 minutes’ music, the folk-tunes occupy less than 15.
The text is taken almost entirely from the Merry Wives, with the addition of lyrics from
Elizabethan poets. A few unimportant remarks (e.g.,‘Here comes Master Ford’) are my own.
R. V. W.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance
xvii

orchestration
2 Flutes (second doubling Piccolo)
2 Oboes (second doubling Cor Anglais)
2 Clarinets
2 Bassoons
2 Horns
2 Trumpets
Trombone
Timpani
Percussion (Triangle, Cymbals, Suspended Cymbal, Side Drum, Bass Drum)
Xylophone (optional)
Rattles (offstage)
Bell (offstage)
Harp
Strings
Duration: c.2¼ hours
Sir John in Love was given its first professional performance on 4 April 1946 at Sadler’s Wells Theatre,
London, with the Sadler’s Wells Orchestra, conducted by Lawrance Collingwood. The part of Falstaff
was sung by Roderick Jones.
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

act i
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

act ii
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

act iii
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

act iv
Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

Perusal Score
Not for Performance

OUP Repertoire Promotion
Email: repertoire.promotion.uk@oup.com
OUP Music Orders (UK)
Tel: +44 (0)1536 452630
Email: music.orders.uk@oup.com
OUP Hire Library (UK)
Email: ukhire@boosey.com
US Customer Orders
Orders by customers in the United States will be processed by
C. F. Peters Corporation, OUP’s exclusive sales agency in the US
Email: sales.us@editionpeters.com
Phone: (718) 416 7800
US Rental Library
Email: rentals.us@editionpeters.com
Phone: (718) 416 7821
Follow Oxford Choral
@OUPMusic
OUP catalogues and scores can be found at:
www.yumpu.com/kiosk/OxfordMusic
For more information please visit our website:
www.oup.com/sheetmusic
OUP promotional recordings are available to hear via digital platforms including: