|  | Title and Programming 
				Mahler conducted ten complete performances of the Symphony 
				between 1895 and 1910, and in every case its title was entirely 
				non-programmatic (see the
				
				list of performances for details). Mahler also gave three 
				partial performances in the years 1895–6 and in the second of 
				these, on
				
				16 March 1896, the first movement was identified as
				
				„Todtenfeier” (I. Satz aus der Symphonie in 
				C-moll für grosses Orchester), the only occasion Mahler used 
				a programmatic title in connection with a performance. As the 
				descriptions of the early
				
				printed editions demonstrate, none of the early publications 
				included a programmatic element in the work's title. The 
				earliest reference located so far to the work as the 
				Auferstehungs-sinfonie appears in an anonymous review of a 
				performance 
				given at a Leipzig concert in memory of Mahler, conducted by 
				Arthur Nikisch in the autumn of 1911 (NZfM 
				78/44 (2 November 1911), 625), but up to the end of 1914 
				such formulations appear to have been rarely used. 
				 
				Fig. 1 
				Handbill for the first complete 
				performance There 
				is evidence that although Mahler preferred to perform the 
				Symphony at concerts in which it was the only work, four of his 
				performances were in programmes that included other items: in 
				three of these the Symphony was the final work. In all four 
				cases Mahler may well have been responding to local or 
				institutional traditions affecting concert duration, and both 
				attitudes – his preferences and his pragmatism – were reflected in 
				a letter responding to Oskar Fried's enquiry seeking advice 
				about the programming of the work at a concert he was to conduct 
				in Berlin on 8 November 1905 (GMUB, 
				52;
				GMUBE, 
				51–2): 
					
						
							| Wäre es aber 
							nicht möglich das Werk, das über 1½ Stunden dauert, 
							ganz allein zu bringen (wie ich seinerzeit und 
							überall gethan?[)] — Dieß ist nur eine unmaßgebliche 
							Bemerkung, denn die Berliner Verhältniße müssen Sie 
							ja besser kennen. | Would it not be 
							possible to perform this work, which lasts more than 
							1½ hours, by itself (which I did there and 
							everywhere) — This is only my uninformed opinion, 
							since you must know the circumstances in Berlin 
							better than I do. |    
				Additional Literary Sources and
				Programmatic References a) The first movement 
				clearly reflects the impact of Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady, 
				in Sigfried Lipiner's translation as Todtenfeier 
				(Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1887): see
				SHMMT, 158–260 for an extended and insightful account. b) The first edition of the 
				vocal score 
				of Urlicht prints an additional text from Clemens Brentano's Gockel, Hinkel, 
				Gackeleia beneath bb. 3–13 of the accompaniment: 
				Stern und Blume! 
				Geist und Kleid! 
				Lieb' und Leid! 
				Zeit! Ewigkeit! Many years later Anna Mahler told Henry-Louis 
				de La Grange that Mahler delighted in reading this story to his 
				eldest daughter, Maria (Putzi) (HLGIII, 
				690). The song was  (probably) composed in 1893, but the 
				autograph of the voice and piano version of the
				original solo 
				song, prepared before Mahler decided to incorporate it into 
				the Symphony, is lost, so it is not known whether the reference 
				to the unsung text was part of that version; it does not appear 
				in the earliest surviving autograph, Mahler's full score of the 
				song. On the other hand the
				
				history of this unsung text reveals strong connections with 
				the themes of death and resurrection that are central to the 
				latter work. c) Edward Reilly pointed out 
				that the connection between the text of Urlicht and the 
				Last Judgement is made explicit in the closely related 'Vom jüngste Tage', the last 
				poem of 
				
				Jungbrunnen, a popular collection of German folksongs 
				edited by Georg Scherer (ERSTS, 
				5–7). Mahler could have known this volume, or some of the 
				earlier printed collections that contain versions of this text, 
				and it is worth noting that the penultimate poem in 
				Jungbrunnen is the Erntelied published by Brentano in 
				the first volume as Des Knaben Wunderhorn. The later, 
				much-expanded version of that text in his  Gockel, Hinkel, 
				Gackeleia is the source of the unsung quatrain discussed in 
				note (b). d) The autograph score of the last movement (AF2) 
				contains two programmatic headings. Der Rufer in der Wüste! 
				on fol. 81v refers to passages in both the Old and New Testament 
				– e.g. Isaiah 40:3 ('The 
				voice of him that crieth in the wilderness'), Matthew 3:3, Mark 
				1:3, Luke 3:4 and John 4:3 – and relates to the 
				horn solo in b. 43ff.
				Der grosse Apell  on fol. 105r refers to 1 
				Corinthians 15:52 ('In 
				a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the 
				trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, 
				and we shall be changed) and relates to the passage 
				starting at b. 449. These headings were retained in the early 
				printed editions – 
				PF1, 
				PF1b, 
				PF2, 
				PT2p4 
				and 
				PTp4 – and were printed in the movement description in the
				
				programme of the important performance, under Mahler, at 
				Basel in June 1903; they were omitted from the first edition of 
				the study score (PS1, 
				1906) and all later printings of it and the full 
				score. Related Works a) The third movement incorporates an orchestral 
				transcription of Mahler's Des Antonius von 
				Padua Fischpredigt (Lieder aus Des Knaben Wunderhorn, No. 
				6). b)  The fourth movement, Urlicht, was originally 
				composed as an independent song and was later included as No. 12 in 
				the published piano and voice and orchestral sets of the Lieder aus 
				Des Knaben Wunderhorn. The orchestral song version is scored 
				for a smaller ensemble than that used in the Symphony: 
					
						
							| 
							AF (Song) 
							1893 | 
							AF1 
							(Symph.)   
							1894 | 
							PF1 
							(Symph.)    
							1897 | 
							PF1 
							(Song) 
							1898–99 |  
							| 
							Fl 1–2 (=picc)    
							Ob 1–2 (=ca) 
							Cl 1–2 in B 
							Bsn 1 
							Cbsn (=bsn 2)  | 
							Fl 1–2 (=picc)   
							Ob 1–2 
							Cl 1–3 in B 
							Bsn 1–2 
							Bsn 3 (=cbsn) | 
							Fl 1–2, Fl 3–4 (=picc)    
							Ob 1–2, Ca 
							Cl 1–3 in B 
							Bsn 1–2 
							Bsn 3 (=cbsn) | 
							Fl 1–2 (=picc)   
							 
							Ob 1–2 (=ca) 
							Cl 1–2 in B 
							Bsn 1 
							Cbsn (=bsn 2) |  
							|   |   |   |   |  
							| 
							Hn 1–4 in F 
							Trp 1–2 in F   | 
							Hn 1–4 in F 
							Trp 1–2 in F 
							Trb 1–4 | 
							Hn 1–6 in F* 
							Trp 1–3 in F 
							Trb 1–4 | 
							Hn 1–4 in F 
							Trp 1–2 in F   |  
							| 
							Glock. 
							Harp | 
							Glock. 
							Harp 1–2 | 
							Glock. 
							Harp 1–2 | 
							Glock. 
							Harp 1–2 |  
							| 
							Strings | 
							Strings | 
							Strings | 
							Strings |    * [Hn 1–2] 
				neben den beiden Harfen zu placieren 
				Table 1 Quotations and Self-Borrowings a) The first movement (bb. 270ff.) and the finale (bb. 62ff.) 
				quote the opening of the Dies irae plainchant. b) The head-motive of the E major theme in the third 
				movement, bb. 257–60 is an allusion to the opening theme of the 
				scherzo in Hans Rott's Symphony in E major. c) The closing bars of the third movement, bb. 577–81, quote 
				the end of 'Das ist ein Flöten und Geigen' from Schumann's 
				Dichterliebe, bb. 80–4. Movement order A number of the manuscript sources suggest that Mahler 
				changed his mind about the order of the inner movements: the 
				orchestral draft of the Scherzo (OD3; 16 July 1893) 
				is numbered '2' and that of the Andante (OD2; 
				30 July 1893) is numbered '4'. If Urlicht was considered 
				as another inner movement in the summer of 1893 and was 
				therefore notionally no. 3, it is striking that the numbering 
				sequence corresponds to the order in which the draft full scores 
				of the three movements were completed (see the
				
				chronology above). However, there is other evidence that at that 
				time Mahler had not definitively decided on the inclusion of the 
				song in the Symphony: the first orchestral score of the 
				song (DKW12 
				AF; 19 July 1893) identifies the work as  aus des Knaben 
				Wunderhorn / Nr. 7, and when, towards the end of his 
				1893 vacation, Mahler made an unsuccessful attempt to begin work 
				on the finale, he commented to Natalie Bauer-Lechner (NBL2, 
				28;  
				HLG1, 
				276 (revised, with editorial underlining)): 
					
						
							| 
							Läst du mir die Tücke des Objects 
							statt des 4/4 Taktes, den ich zum vierten 
							Satz brauche, jetzt lauter 3/4 Takte einfallen, mit 
							denen ich nichts zu tun anfangen kann! | 
							Things have a nasty will of their 
							own. Instead of ideas in 4/4, which I need for the
							fourth movement, I now have only ideas in 3/4 
							time, with which I can do nothing! |  After attending 
				Hans von Bülow's funeral service on 29 March 1894 Mahler sketched 
				a setting of Klopstock's opening stanzas, followed by an orchestral interlude 
				that included a reference to 
				bb. 23–4/59–60 from Urlicht (=S5.4).¹ 
				This allusion does not appear at this point in 
				the final version of the movement, and the editors of NKGII 
				conclude that its appearance in the sketch 'is probably not an 
				indication that Mahler had already decided to incorporate the 
				entire song.' (vol. 2, 6, 94); nevertheless its presence in this 
				early sketch does indicate that at some level the song resonated 
				in Mahler's imagination as he notated his first ideas for the 
				finale and moreover, there is a reference to precisely this 
				phrase in the final version of the movement, at bb. 640ff. A notable biographical source, the memoirs 
				of J.B. Foerster, offers some interesting evidence about this 
				chronological conundrum (JBFDP, 
				406; translation from NKGII.2, 
				95): 
					
						
							| Der Schlußsatz 
							der Zweiten Symphonie lag in der Skizze fertig vor. 
							Über seine Wirkungskraft konnte es keinen Zweifel 
							geben [...] Doch wie sollte sich die Verbindung 
							finden, die zwingende Verbindung zwischen dem 
							Scherzo und diesem Schluß? Die Erwägung dauerten 
							lange Zeit und es wurde mancher Einfall verforfen, 
							ehe Mahler bei der Durchsicht älterer Lieder auf den 
							Gedanken verfiel, vor das Finale einen gesungen 
							Worttext zu setzen. So wurde das 1892 auf einen Text 
							aus Des Knaben Wunderhorn, also aus Mahlers 
							hauptsächlichster Liederquelle, komponierte Lied „Urlicht” 
							als vierter Satz in die Zweite Symphonie verpflanzt | The sketch of 
							the final movement of the Second Symphony was 
							finished. There could be no doubt as to its effect 
							[...] But how could the connection be found, the 
							compelling connection between the Scherzo and this 
							finale? The reflections took a long time, and many 
							ideas were rejected, until Mahler, as he was 
							examining older songs, came upon the idea to place a 
							sung text before the Finale. Thus the song 'Urlicht', 
							composed in 1892 on a text from Des Knaben 
							Wunderhorn – Mahler's principal text source for his 
							songs – became the fourth movement of the Second 
							Symphony. |  If Foerster correctly recalled the events 
				of 1894, the reference to the 'sketch' in this account seems to 
				suggest that the decision to include Urlicht was made 
				between 29 June 1894 (the completion of the composition draft of 
				the finale) and, at the latest, 25 July (the completion of the orchestral 
				draft of the movement ([OD5]) (NKGII.2, 7, 95). However, in the partial manuscript copy of the 
				work prepared 
				in the autumn of 1894 (ACF1), 
				the scherzo is placed second, and the Andante third, although both the 
				handbill for the 
				partial première in March 1895 and the 
				reviews (see
				
				
				HLG1, 319–21) make it clear that the movements were played 
				in the now familiar sequence. One might also note that in the complete autograph full score (AF2; 
				completed on 18 December 1894) only Urlicht is numbered 
				in ink: '4'. The remaining movements are all numbered in blue 
				crayon and the fascicle structure is such that the Andante and 
				Scherzo could have been in reverse order when the manuscript was 
				originally prepared, and placed in their present sequence only 
				at a later date; the fascicles were in the final order when the 
				pencil foliation was supplied. Whether these features should be 
				interpreting as evidence that even as late December 1894 the 
				number and sequence of movements was still uncertain is a matter 
				for conjecture: in the absence of crucial primary sources the 
				chronology remains unclear.  However, in 
				October 1901, at the time of the Munich
				
				première of the Symphony,  Mahler, in conversation with 
				Natalie Bauer-Lechner, recalled his indecision about the order of 
				movements (NBL2, 
				169):²  
					
						
							| 
							In diesen Tagen Sprach Mahler wieder 
							davon, daß er sich das Andante der Zweiten, als zu 
							verschieden in der Stimmung, an anderer Stelle 
							wünsche. „Ich dachte schon daran, das Scherzo nach 
							dem ersten Satz und darauf das Andante, vor dem „Urlicht‟, 
							folgen zu lassen. Aber das vertrug die Ökonomie des 
							Werkes nicht, weil Andante und „Urlicht‟, die bei 
							dieser Anordnung unmittelbar hintereinander kämen, 
							nicht genug gegensätzlich in der Stimmung sind. Auch 
							wären dann die Tonarten in ihren Folge zu verwandt 
							gewesen, während jetzt darin das richtige Verhältnis 
							besteht. | 
							During these days Mahler once again 
							spoke of his wanting  the Andante of the 
							Second, being so different in mood, to be placed 
							elsewhere. "I thought about placing the Scherzo 
							after the first movement, followed by the Andante 
							before "Urlicht". But the internal relationships of 
							the work would not tolerate that, because the 
							Andante and "Urlicht", which came immediately after 
							one another in this arrangement, are not 
							sufficiently different in mood. Also, in that order 
							the keys would have been too closely related, while 
							now there the correct relationship exists. |  This seems to be an important statement of 
				principles, that (a) similarity of mood and/or tonality was 
				undesirable between adjacent movements; but that (b) it was 
				possible for an extreme contrast in mood between adjacent 
				movements to be troubling. In the case of the Second such 
				considerations led the composer to contemplate a different 
				ordering of movements and it was apparently the first principle 
				that took precedence in his decision making process: Original 
				and final key sequence  C minor - A major 
				- C minor - D  major 
				- F minor/G  major/E  major Alternative 
				sequence C minor - C minor - A major 
				- D  major 
				- F minor/G  major/E  major Apart from the lack of mood and strong key 
				contrast between the third and fourth movements in the 
				alternative sequence, it may be that Mahler was also doubtful 
				about beginning the work with two movements 
				in the same key and mode: more than ten years later it was clearly again 
				the crucial issue behind Mahler's decision to reorder the inner 
				movements of the Sixth Symphony. Movement Grouping All published editions and issues of the 
				full score agree in the their instructions placed at the ends of 
				three of the movements: a pause of at least five minutes after the first 
				movement, and the last three movements to be played without 
				breaks. This suggests a movement grouping that is not wholly 
				congruent with those implied by the programmes: the
				
				January 1896 programme associates the first three movements, 
				but does not explicitly link the fourth and fifth together; the
				
				March 1896 programme links the second and third movements 
				together (as intermezzi) and tacitly links the fourth and fifth 
				movements. The layout and text of the
				
				1901 programme is explicit in its tripartite division with
				Urlicht being part of the central group of three 
				intermezzi and this finds an echo in a letter from Mahler to 
				Julius Buths (25 March 1903 ) in connection with a
				
				forthcoming performance of the work in Düsseldorf (GMB, 
				315–6;
		
				
				GMSL, 269): 
					
						
							| 
							Demnach wäre also die Hauptpause im 
							Konzert zwischen 4. und 5. Satz. Ich staune über das 
							Feingefühl, mit dem Sie (im Gegensatz zu meiner 
							eigenen Angabe) den naturgemäßen Einschnitt im Werke 
							erkannt haben. Ich bin schon lange dieser Ansicht, 
							in welcher mich auch alle Aufführungen, die ich 
							bisher geleitet, immer wieder aufs neue bestärkt 
							haben. | 
							Well then, this would mean that the 
							main interval in the concert would be between the 
							fourth and fifth movements. I marvel at the 
							sensitive intuition with which you (in contrast with 
							my own arrangement) have recognized the natural 
							break in the work. I have long tended to this view, 
							and all the performances I have hitherto conducted 
							have reinforced the same impression. |  
							| 
							Trotzdem müßte allerdings auch nach 
							dem 1. Satze eine ausgiebige Sammlungspause 
							eintreten, weil der 2. Satz nicht als Gegensatz, 
							sondern als bloße Diskrepanz nach dem 1. wirkt. Es 
							ist dies meine Schuld und nicht mangelndes 
							Verständnis des Zuhörers. Vielleicht haben Sie dies 
							schon empfunden, wenn Sie die beiden Sätze 
							hintereinander probiert haben. – Das Andante ist als 
							eine Art Intermezzo komponiert (wie ein Nachklang 
							längst vergangener Tage aus dem Leben desjenigen, 
							den wir im 1. Satz zu Grabe getragen – „da ihm noch 
							die Sonne gelacht" –). | 
							Still, there really ought also to be 
							a lengthy pause for recollection after the first 
							movement, because the second movement does not have 
							the effect of a contrast, but simply of a 
							discrepancy after the first. This is my fault, not 
							inadequate appreciation on the listener's part. 
							Perhaps you have already felt this after rehearsing 
							the two movements consecutively.–The andante was 
							composed as a kind of intermezzo (as the echo of 
							long past days in the life of the man borne to his 
							grave in the first movement ‘when the sun still 
							smiled on him’–). |  
							| 
							Während dem 1., 3., 4. und 5. Satz 
							thematisch und stim-mungsinhaltlich zusammenhängen, 
							steht das 2. Stück für sich selbst da und 
							unterbricht in gewissem Sinn den strengen, herben 
							Gang der Ereignisse. Vielleicht ist dies eine 
							Schwäche der Disposition, deren Absicht Ihnen aber 
							durch obige Andeutung gewiß klar geworden ist. | 
							While the first, third, fourth and 
							fifth movements are related in theme and mood, the 
							second stands alone, in a certain sense interrupting 
							the strict, austere sequence of events. Perhaps this 
							is a weakness in the conception of the work, but you 
							will certainly see my intention from the above 
							indication. |  
							| 
							Ganz konsequent ist es, den Anfang 
							des 5. Satzes als Anknüpfung an den ersten zu deuten, 
							und durch die große Pause vor demselben wird dies 
							auch dem Zuhörer deutlich werden. – | 
							It is quite logical to interpret the 
							beginning of the fifth movement as a development 
							from the first, and the long pause before the fifth 
							will make the listener aware of this too.– |  In view of these comments it is perhaps 
				worth noting that the layout of the 
				handbill for Mahler's last 
				performance of the work, in Paris in 1910, also seems to 
				associate Urlicht with the scherzo rather than the 
				finale. Nevertheless Mahler made no changes to his instructions 
				in either the study score (1906) or the printer's copy (APFpr) 
				for the third edition of the full score (1908–9) (See
				NKGII.2, 18, 106 for a discussion of this issue). Off-stage Brass The peregrinations of the 'off-stage' brass instruments in the finale 
		are complex, and, in the case of the trumpets, not always clarified in 
		the score. The four horns are first heard 'off-stage' in b. 83ff., before 
		making their way on-stage from b. 93, in readiness for b. 202ff. where 
		they take parts 7–10 (their inclusion at this point was first adumbrated 
		in an autograph revision to
		
		
		ACF2). They resume their off-stage position from b. 252 
		in readiness for bb. 447–71, during which the verbal instructions imply 
		yet more movement: at the outset all are 'in die Ferne' and 'Links 
		aufgestellt',  but in b. 461 they should be 'sehr entfernt'. After 
		bar 471 they return to their positions in the 
		main orchestra, again taking parts 7–10. There is some uncertainty about exactly how many trumpets the work 
		requires in the finale. The rubric at the start of the movement lists 
		six on-stage trumpets in F and four off-stage trumpets in F (but see 
		below) of which two parts may be played by on-stage trumpets 5–6, and an 
		autograph addition in
		
		
		ACF2 
		instructs them to move off-stage at b. 323 to double the offstage parts (one of which is for trumpet(s) 
		in C) in bb. 343–380. However Mahler seems not to have grappled with the 
		problem that in terms of stage management it would be difficult 
		for  trumpets 5 and 6 to be doubling the offstage parts in 
		b. 380 and playing on-stage in bar 385. The first edition of the printed parts  
		(PO1) 
		-  whether intentionally or in error – omits bb. 343–380 from the parts for tpt 5 and 6 (though a 
		pencil annotation at fig. 21 in
		APO tpt 
		6 reads 'go to other part' which implies they may well have moved 
		off-stage in Mahler's 1908 performance in New York; one wonders how this move might have been managed). A further contradiction emerges later in the movement. Despite the fact there must be a 
		minimum of two trumpets placed permanently off-stage, after b. 417 
				in the printed scores Mahler 
		needlessly instructs that onstage trumpets 3 & 4, as well as 5 & 6 take 
		up places off-stage in preparation for the four-part off-stage trumpet writing of 
		bb. 452–71 (see 
		
				
				ACF2 for a summary of the relevant annotations to that 
				score).   This lack of clarity over numbers seems to stem from a desire 
		to minimise the number of additional trumpets required, but, if so, this is 
		rather undermined by the demand that from bar 689 the six on-stage parts 
		should be 'mit Verstarkung'. This apparently implies at least twelve on-stage 
				trumpets at this point. The printed part set resolves these 
				ambiguities: the parts for on-stage trumpets 3–6 do not require the 
				players to move, or to play bb. 452–71 (and there are no 
				annotations in
				APO to suggest Mahler's practice departed from the 
				letter of the parts), as the whole passage is given to the four 
				off-stage trumpets who then move on-stage to provide the 
				required doubling in bb. 689ff., with the six-part trumpet 
				writing of the passage skilfully redistributed amongst the 
				four doubling instruments. Critical Edition 
				SWII: Gustav Mahler, Symphonie Nr. 2, Sämtliche Werke, 
				Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band II, ed. Erwin Ratz (Vienna: 
				Universal Edition, 1970) 
				SWSupp1: Gustav Mahler, Totenfeier, Sämtliche Werke, 
				Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Supplement Band I, ed. Rudolf Stephan 
				(Vienna: Universal Edition, 1988) 
				NKGII: Gustav Mahler, Symphonie Nr. 2, Sämtliche Werke, 
				Neue Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band II, ed. Renate Stark-Voit, 
				Gilbert Kaplan (Vienna: 
				Universal Edition/Kaplan Foundation, 2010) 
				This superb edition offers an exemplary critical commentary, 
				including detailed source descriptions for those documents 
				relevant to the editorial process. It is in two volumes: the 
				score (NKGII.1) and the textual volume 
				(NKGII.2). |