Wolf, Hugo (EN)

Wolf Hugo Philipp Jakob, *13 March 1860 Windischgraz (now Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia), †22 February 1903 Vienna, Austrian composer. Wolf’s mother, Katharina née Nussbaumer (1824–1903), came from a Slovenian family, formerly bearing the surname Orehovnik; his father, Philipp (1828–1887), was the owner of a tanning workshop, from a German family. Hugo was the fourth of their eight children. Initially, his father gave him violin and piano lessons. Years of study at the gymnasium in Graz (1870–71), the Benedictine boarding school of St. Paul im Lavanttal (Carinthia, 1871–73) and Marburg an der Drau (now Maribor, 1873–75) were difficult; the reasons were constant conflicts, problems with learning and discipline, as well as Wolf’s hypersensitivity, tendency to extreme emotional states, impulsivity, rebelliousness, and inability to compromise. The first attempts at composition, in the style of Mozart, date back to 1875; Piano Sonata Op. 1 (unfinished) and Variations Op. 2 were dedicated to his father. In September 1875, Wolf began studying at the Conservatory of the Society of Friends of Music in Vienna and his teachers were W. Schenner (piano), R. Fuchs (harmony), and from 1876 F. Krenn (composition). The latter, due to his pedantry and conservatism, quickly aroused Wolf’s dislike. Among those studying at the conservatory back then, there was G. Mahler, with whom Wolf later also had friendly contacts. During Wagner’s stay in Vienna, on the occasion of the performance of Tannhäuser and Lohengrin at the Hofoper (both performances were a great experience for Wolf), on 12 December 1875, Wolf met the revered master, who politely but briefly commented on the piano pieces from Op. 1 and 2. In March 1877, Wolf was expelled from the conservatory for “breaking discipline” and returned to his family home, where he worked on, among others, the later lost symphony. In November, he came to Vienna again, where until 1892 he tried to make a living by giving piano and violin lessons, working as a proofreader, tutor, and others. He also entered the artistic circles of Vienna; Wolf’s closest friends and protectors at that time included composer A. von Goldschmidt, critics G. Schönaich, and H. Paumgartner, conductor F. Mottl, sculptor V. Tilgner, and later also a lawyer and music lover J. Reitzes, the Lang family and the Werner family. Many of them supported Wolf financially. Presumably, in 1878, Wolf contracted syphilis – this disease may have caused his subsequent madness.

In the spring of 1878, Wolf met his first love, Valentine (Vally) Franck. The musical document of this relationship is, among others, String Quartet in D minor, composed at the end of 1878 and bearing a significant motto from J.W. Goethe’s Faust (“Entbehren sollst du, sollst entbehren” [“Thou shalt forego, shalt do without”]); by this time, Wolf was probably already aware of his illness. Struggling with poverty due to the lack of permanent employment, he received help from his parents and significant support from his friends. He rented a boarding house with Mahler for some time from February 1879. He met the Lang family and gave piano lessons to Melanie Köchert (née Lang) in April of that year. The subsequent years-long affair with Melanie, and their deep relationship, also in the spiritual and intellectual sense, is sometimes compared to the story of R. Wagner and Matilda Wesendonck. At this time, Wolf had a short meeting with J. Brahms; his advice to continue his studies – especially counterpoint with G. Nottebohm – irritated Wolf. This strengthened his aversion to Brahms, despite his earlier admiration for his chamber music and songs from the Magelone cycle. Many friends invited Wolf for longer stays in their summer residences, which improved his well-being and allowed him to compose regularly. He spent his summer holidays, among others, in Mayerling in the house of the architect V. Preyss (1880, 1882), with his sister M. Strasser and her family, and later with the Köcherts in Rinnbach (from 1883), in the houses of the Strassers in Murau (1886) and the Werners in Perchtoldsdorf (1888–90, 1894–96). Baron F. von Lipperheide also hosted Wolf at his castle Matzen in Tyrol in September 1894 and most of 1895. In November 1881, thanks to Goldschmidt, Wolf received the position of second conductor at the Stadttheater in Salzburg. Still, the work on preparing soloists and chorus in the operetta repertoire could not respond to him in the long run, and after an argument with the director in early 1882, he returned to Vienna. The time spent in the army (January–February 1882) was a deeply negative experience for Wolf – he summed it up as “greulicher moralischer Katzenjammer” [“horrible moral hangover”] (Daten aus Meinem Leben). In August 1882, he went to Bayreuth for the first time, where he saw Parsifal (as in 1883, 1888 and 1891); in 1889, he was there for performances of Tristan and Isolde and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. On 6 April 1883, Wolf met F. Liszt, who recommended him to compose larger forms, which had an activating effect on Wolf (the years 1881 and 1882 were artistically unfertile); as a result, he started working on the symphonic poem Penthesilea after H. von Kleist (according to M. Jestremski, it took place at the end of 1882), which he completed only in September 1885. In 1884, thanks to the influence of Melanie’s husband, H. Köchert, Wolf began a three-year cooperation with a fashionable weekly “Wiener Salonblatt” as a music critic (the last review comes from 24 April 1887). Uncompromising in his judgments, often sarcastic, he joined the dispute between the supporters of Brahms and Wagner, unequivocally siding with the latter, and calling Brahms an epigone of Mendelssohn and Schumann. Wolf’s sharply expressed views resulted in, among other things, malicious comments during the so-called Novitätenprobe (rehearsal of a new piece) of the poem Penthesilea, performed in October 1886 by the philharmonic orchestra conducted by H. Richter (according to the report from Wolf’s letter of 18 October 1886 to the Strassers, the musicians laughed loudly, and Richter said that he wanted to show how the author who composed like that dared to write about Brahms “in such a way”); another result was the refusal to perform the String Quartet in D minor by the Rosé-Quartett (the alto violist was S. Bachrich, whose operas were the subject of Wolf’s critical remarks). The Quartet was first performed on 3 February 1903 in Vienna, a dozen or so days before Wolf’s death, and Penthesilea was finally performed after his death, on 14 November 1903 in Hannover. Between March and May 1887, Wolf worked on songs to the words of J. Eichendorff and composed Italienische Serenade but the crisis he suffered after his father’s death (9 May) meant that after writing the song, Nachtzauber remained silent until the beginning of 1888, when from 16 February to the middle of May in Perchtoldsdorf, in a real creative fever, he composed 43 songs from the Mörike-Gedichte cycle (sometimes 2–3 songs were written a day). This extraordinary eruption of creative power is sometimes compared with the intensity of the creation of songs by Schubert (1814–15) and Schumann (1840–41). On 2 March 1888, the first public performance of two of Wolf’s songs took place in Vienna: Morgentau from the cycle 6 Lieder für eine Frauenstimme and Zur Ruh, zur Ruh! from the series Gedichte von Scheffel, Mörike, Goethe und Just. Kerner (both cycles were also published in their entirety in March of that year by E. Wetzler in Vienna), performed by R. Papier, wife of H. Paumgartner. Wolf debuted as an accompanist on 15 December (tenor F. Jäger performed the vocal parts). After a holiday spent with the Strassers and another visit to Bayreuth, from September Wolf worked again with extraordinary intensity: in Unterach am Attersee, he composed twelve songs to words by J. Eichendorff, in October he supplemented the Mörike-Gedichte cycle with another ten songs, and from October 1888 to 12 February 1889 – 50 songs to words by Goethe (Wolf wrote the song Die Spröde completing the cycle on 21 October 1889). The composer began working on the Spanisches Liederbuch then, and completed it on 27 April 1890 (44 songs in total). It was during this period that a significant conceptual change occurred: instead of the term Lieder, Wolf began to use the term Gedichte.

Gradually, from 1890, a growing appreciation for Wolf’s work could be noticed in Austria, as evidenced by the articles: H. Rauchberg’s Neue Lieder und Gesänge in “Österreichisch-ungarische Revue” and J. Schalk’s Neue Lieder, neues Leben in “Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung.” In the autumn of 1890, during a trip to Germany, thanks to the help of a bank official, G. Schur, and the positive opinion about Wolf’s music expressed by E. Humperdinck, a contract was signed with the Schott publishing house, which resulted in the publication of Spanisches Liederbuch and Alte Weisen a year later. Wolf also received a commission from the Vienna Burgtheater for music to H. Ibsen’s Das Fest auf Solhaug, but the premiere on 21 November 1891 was received coldly. At that time, the composer’s creative crisis began, probably caused by his worsening illness and deepening depression. In 1891, in addition to the music for H. Ibsen’s play and the orchestration of several earlier songs, Wolf composed only fifteen more Italian songs; in 1892–94, he was involved in orchestrating earlier songs and the Italienische Serenade, as well as travelling: March 1892, a concert of songs took place in Berlin, with the participation of Wolf himself. In January 1894, the Berlin premiere of Elfenlied for solo voices, choir and orchestra and the choral-orchestral version of Der Feuerreiter took place, as well as numerous concerts in Stuttgart, Mannheim, Tübingen, Vienna, and a short-lived (broken off in the summer of 1895), but significant love affair with the singer F. Zerny.

The year 1895 was marked by work on the opera Der Corregidor. After several years of searching for a topic and trying to find the text, the composer accepted the libretto written by R. Mayreder based on El sombrero de très picos by P.A. de Alarcón. The work started on 12 March and was finally completed on 25 December. Despite proposals submitted in theatres in Vienna, Berlin and Prague, the premiere took place in Mannheim on 7 June 1896, thanks to the support of, among others, O. Grohe. Although the rehearsals were not easy – difficulties resulted from Wolf’s changing moods and numerous errors caused by copyists – the opera was a short-lived success at the premiere (after the second performance, further performances were discontinued). Wolf completed the revision of the score, especially regarding the instrumentation, dynamics, and tempo markings, as well as possible abbreviations, in May 1897. The premiere of the updated version of the opera took place in Strasbourg on 29 April 1898, subsequent performances took place in Prague 1899, in Graz 1902, Munich 1903, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Vienna 1904, Karlsruhe 1905 and Berlin 1906. The Vienna premiere on 18 February 1904, in a version shortened to three acts, was conducted by G. Mahler; other conductors also contributed their “corrections” to the Corregidor’s score: J. Schalk, W. Kähler and J. Stransky. In October 1895, the contract with the Schott publishing house was terminated. Wolf became associated with K. Heckel’s publishing house in Mannheim, which encouraged the composer to re-edit previously published works, and at the end of 1896 published the second part of Italienisches Liederbuch, containing twenty-four songs composed at the turn of March and April 1896. From 4 July of that year, thanks to financial support from friends (H. Faisst, O. Grohe, F.J. Lipperheide), Wolf, for the first time in his life, lived in his own apartment at Schwindgasse 3. Evidence of the growing importance of the composer’s work was the establishment of societies named after him (H. W. Verein) in Berlin in 1895 and in Vienna in March 1897; the latter was to bear the burden of the costs of Wolf’s stay in mental institutions.

On 22 February 1897, Wolf’s last public performance as an accompanist took place in Vienna during a song concert performed by F. Jäger and the soprano S. Chotek. Wolf’s last completed work is Drei Gedichte von Michelangelo from March 1897 (Wolf destroyed the fourth song), a kind of testament of the composer, compared to Vier ernste Gesänge by J. Brahms. After the success of Corregidor, Wolf decided to write a second opera after P.A. Alarcón and accepted the libretto prepared by M. Hoernes for Manuel Venegas, but his deteriorating health caused the work begun on 29 July 1897 to be interrupted (60 pages of the score were written in three weeks). On 19 September, he had an attack of insanity in Perchtoldsdorf, and a day later was placed in a psychiatric institution (Svetlinsche Heilanstalt) in Vienna, from where, after some improvement in his health, he was released on 24 January 1898. After travelling with M. Köchert to Slovenia, Istria, and Trieste, he returned on 6 March to Vienna to a new apartment. There was a period of stagnation; Wolf tried to work on revising earlier works, including a new ending to the song Dem Vaterland, reluctantly accepting visits from some guests. From 21 May, he was under the care of M. Köchert in Traunkirchen, where on 4 October, he tried to commit suicide in Lake Traunsee. On the same day, he was placed in a specialised psychiatric hospital in Vienna, where he spent time playing the piano and talking to visiting friends (M. Köchert did this regularly three times a week). In the early 1900s, because of a stroke, he lost his speech, writing and recognition of his surroundings; the direct cause of death was pneumonia. Wolf was buried in Vienna’s central cemetery, near Beethoven and Schubert.

The hundredth anniversary of Wolf’s death in 2003 was an opportunity to create several new works on him, often of fundamental importance (D. Fischer-Dieskau 2002 and 2003, M. Jestremski 2002 and 2004, L. Spitzer 2003, S. Youens 2000 and 2004, and E. Hilmer 2007). The nineteenth-century image of a demonic artist with a psychopathic nature, painfully uncompromising, extremely egocentric and shrouded in legend with a tragic end, preserved in the first biographies, has gradually changed into the image of the composer who had specific concepts, refined literary taste and was fully aware that to transform the earlier creative impulse into a work of art, there is a need for cool composure and control of reason. Due to Wolf’s illness and premature death, the periodisation of his work according to the criterion of stylistic changes is impossible, but the criterion of genre may be ordering. In his early period, after being expelled from the conservatory, Wolf wrote mainly piano pieces, modelled on the music of R. Schumann (Humoresque in G minor, Aus der Kinderzeit); he treated this stage as a necessary practice in classes, techniques and forms and never returned to solo piano music again. Already then, his awareness of his own shortcomings in musical education drew attention; by studying the works of the most important composers, Beethoven, Schumann, Liszt, and Wagner, he gained more and more skills and self-discipline. Also, the first choral works do not go beyond the set of common means of the Romantic style and the topos typical of it: wandering, night, spring, etc., sometimes they contain errors in the leading of the voices (e.g. Die Stimme des Kindes), although already in the Mailied from 1876 one can see a foreshadowing of the later artistry. Prosodic errors and the lack of integrity of the vocal and piano parts also occur in early solo songs. However, the bold use of chromaticism, e.g. in Gretchen vor dem Andachtsbild der Mater Dolorosa to the words by J.W. Goethe (1878) heralds the composer’s later style. The choice of the text of this song (prayer for forgiveness of sin) seems to be dictated by a personal perspective; in Wolf’s further work, one will find many other manifestations of the strange coherence of work and life.

Attempts to compose larger instrumental forms were not successful. During the period 1876–77, Wolf worked on two symphonies (B-flat major and G minor), sketching several movements at the same time. However, according to M. Jestremski (Hugo Wolf. Skizzen und Fragmente, 2002), no sources clearly confirm the completion of any of them, even though Wolf reported to his parents in November 1877 that the symphony was lost on the train during a trip to Vienna. What is called the Symphony in B-flat major is actually a ‘hull’ form; it consists of the Scherzo planned as part 2 and the orchestrated Rondo capriccioso Op. 15 planned as part 4. In May 1879, Wolf wrote in a letter to his father about working on the Symphony in F minor, but this piece did not go beyond the initial designs. Similarly to the Symphony in B major, work on the String Quartet in D minor also took place in stages. First, part 1 Grave – Leidenschaftlich bewegt and Scherzo (1878) were written in the summer of 1880, part 3 Langsam during the flowering of love for Vally Franek, and part 4 Sehr lebhaft only in 1884. This contributed to the stylistic instability of the work. Beethoven’s strong influence is especially revealed in the introductory Grave; this is indicated by sharply punctuated rhythms, phrases with wide interval jumps, the type of dissonant harmony and pathos as an expressive category, as well as the saturation of the extensive sonata form with work of transformation. Part 3 is an example of deep inspiration from Wagner’s music – the “mystical” sounding strings in high registers and the type of harmonisation of the main theme are reminiscent of Lohengrin. However, due to its cheerful, light character (quite surprisingly broken by the return to the key of D minor at the end), the fourth movement is closer to the sérénité of the later Italienische Serenade than to the dark explosiveness of the first movement of the Quartet. Motif integration consists in recalling the Grave motif in parts 2 and 4. There is a popular view that the Quartet had “disproportionate difficulties” in performance (from Wolf’s letter to the Schott publishing house of 5 February 1892), resulting from textural (including polyphony) and technical complications. Wolf’s two remaining pieces for string instruments have an even more complicated genealogy. It is believed that initially Intermezzo (1881–86), chronologically close to the fourth movement of Quartet in D minor, was intended to be part of the above-mentioned Serenade. The original title Humoristisches Intermezzo would indicate this. However, Wolf later changed the concept; Intermezzo, despite its playful nature, is one of the composer’s radical sound attempts (use of 11-note structures). However, Italienische Serenade, written in the spring of 1892, which is an orchestral version of the Serenade in G major for string quartet from 1887–89, is a single-movement piece, although Wolf planned a multi-movement suite. Sometimes Italienische Serenade No. 1 is also mentioned (treating the Serenade for quartet as no. 1), but this piece was never performed by Wolf. Italienische Serenade, a cheerful rondo with a light texture, bright colours, and elements of sound characteristics (pizzicato imitating guitars), is sometimes interpreted as a semi-programmatic piece. However, the question of poetic inspiration (E. Mörike, J. Eichendorff) remains unconfirmed, although the fact of the composer’s fascination with Italian colour and the presence of the serenade motif (in the poetic sense) as an element of this colour, also in Wolf’s songs (e.g. Das Ständchen), is unquestionable.

Wolf’s greatest orchestral work, the symphonic poem Penthesilea, grew not so much from the composer’s “only songs” complex, but from deep admiration for F. Liszt and his program music, becoming a bridge between Liszt’s achievements in this area and the poems of R. Strauss. Wolf considered absolute music an anachronism; according to him, its potential was exhausted in Beethoven’s nine symphonies. This was the genesis of a deep reluctance towards J. Brahms as a symphonist and scepticism as to the expressive possibilities of orchestral music if it is not related to words or program ideas. The choice of the theme of Penthesilea undoubtedly had its origins in Wolf’s complicated personality. The author of the drama Penthesilea, H. von Kleist, was one of the writers particularly appreciated by Wolf. Kleist’s suicide on Lake Wannsee at the age of 34 (Wolf was thirty-eight when he had an attempt in Lake Traunsee), but above all, the themes of love and madness, sexuality and violence, must have stimulated the composer’s imagination. “For me, the highest principle in art is raw, bitter, merciless truth, truth to the point of cruelty. Kleist, for example (…) is such a creator. His wonderful Penthesilea is at once the truest and cruellest tragedy ever written.” This fragment of Wolf’s letter to E. Kauffmann of 5 June 1890 can be treated as an important testimony to the composer’s aesthetic views. In his drama from 1808, Kleist freely traves the myth of the queen of the Amazons who came to Troy at the head of her troops in twenty-four scenes (without division into acts). Despite her reciprocated love for Achilles, Penthesilea, in a fit of madness, causes him to be torn apart by dogs, and then stabs herself with a dagger. In formal terms, Wolf’s Penthesilea is a synthesis of a three-part symphony and a freely treated sonata form, with two main themes, alongside two secondary ones: a marching-war theme with a syncopated rhythm and the second, lyrical, in the style of Bruckner’s adagios, with the participation of string instruments and a harp. Both themes, following Liszt’s example, were derived from one motif, and their subsequent variants build the narrative of the piece. Wolf’s music presents the three basic stages of the drama, flowing smoothly into one another: fight, passion, and madness (there are indications that he planned to write an opera to which an overture could be a poem). Apart from Liszt, one can find inspiration from the music of A. Bruckner in contrapuntal work, and Wagner – in the instrumental technique (although the doublings of string and brass instruments are sometimes too massive). In terms of orchestral composition, Wolf’s poem replicates Liszt’s solutions from Tasso and Faust’s Symphony. A revision of the Penthesilei orchestration for the first edition in 1903 (Leipzig) was carried out by J. Hellmesberger, F. Loewe and W. Kähler; this version, shortened by 169 bars compared to the original, was the basis for the first performance in 1903. The 1937 edition (R. Haas, Leipzig–Vienna) is based on the original version. The oratorio Christnacht also bears features of Wagnerian orchestration; next to the choral 6 Geistliche Lieder from 1881 and Geistliche Lieder from Spanisches Liederbuch, it is one of Wolf’s few works on religious themes. The composer, coming from a Catholic family, declared himself a non-believer, treating religion and the Church as an “artistic relic” (L. Spitzer Hugo Wolf. Werk und Leben, 2003); in Christnacht, he referred to childhood memories and the patterns of Liszt’s “church style.” Wolf was not satisfied with his own instrumentation of this piece; he generally did not have an “orchestral nature” (E. Decsey Hugo Wolf, vol. 1, 1903) and tended to “overload” orchestral scores, expanding the brass sections, with a lack of strings, especially in the high register. When orchestrating some of his earlier songs, he was guided by the desire to strengthen the meaning of the words rather than to enrich the colour and dynamics of the sound layer.

Wolf’s musical genius was most fully expressed in the song genre. Deep identification with the poetry set to music, the ease and intensity of empathising with the very essence of the poetic message, and a vivid and rich visual imagination, made him an expert in expressing the greatest human dramas and the most intimate nuances of feelings on the most miniature musical scale. Wolf’s Morgentau from 1877 is considered the first song worth publishing, but it was published in the collection 6 Lieder für eine Frauenstimme only in 1888. Initially, he used poems mainly by J. W. Goethe, N. Lenau, A. von Chamiss, J. Eichendorff and H. Heine. F. Schubert’s influence is revealed in the convergence of certain motifs (e.g. Nach dem Abschiede from Der Doppelgänger, Das Kind am Brunnen and Das ist ein Brausen und Heulen from Erlkönig) or expressive categories (Das ist ein Brausen und Heulen, Frühlingsgrüsse); connections with R. Schumann are much deeper (e.g. Du bist wie eine Blume, Wenn ich in deine Augen seh). Like Schumann, Wolf gradually makes the piano part independent; this can already be seen in an early song to Schumann’s favourite poet, H. Heine, Es war ein alter König (piano intermezzo composed of abruptly broken phrases, modelled on Schumann’s piano pieces). The year 1887 is considered a breakthrough, when Wolf wrote several songs with lyrics by J. Eichendorff (including Nachtzauber, which contained a prefiguration of impressionism) and completed the collection of 6 Gedichte von Scheffel, Mörike, Goethe und Just. Kerner, among others with the song Zur Ruh, zur Ruh! from 1883, probably composed as an elegy after Wagner’s death. The term Gedichte appears in the title of this collection for the first time, and not – as before – Lieder. This important distinction indicates not only the different nature of the new texts but also a different compositional attitude, assuming the equality of poetry and music, singing and accompaniment. In 1888, the “year of songs,” which brought a cycle of fifty-three songs to words by E. Mörike, the completion of Gedichte von J. Eichendorff and the beginning of a cycle to words by J.W. Goethe, the most important formal and expressive concepts were consolidated. In his poetic choices, Wolf focuses on the visual aspect and the psychological depth of the text, only rarely reaching for poems already present in the song repertoire of other composers. For him, a song is a kind of translation, not a subjective reading, so “setting” a poem to music can potentially have only one ideal version. Hence the earlier avoidance of H. Heine’s poems already set to music by Schumann, and the “discovery” of the musically difficult poetry of E. Mörike, with its complex symbolism, multiplicity of forms of imagery and richness of moods – including irony. Wolf’s concept is characterised by a faithful reproduction of the poem’s structure as well as rhythmic and melodic intonation. There are few cases of repeating a line (e.g. for comic purposes in Du denkst mit einem Fädchen or parodic purposes in Es blasen die blauen Husaren) or a stanza (e.g. Benedeit die selge Mutter) or omitting them; own insertions into the text only occur in Die Zigeunerin. While in Wolf’s earlier songs the dominant role was played by the melodic line, also present in the piano part, in subsequent cycles the composer develops a new song style, based on the transformation of a single poetic motif into an expressive sound motif, which is the basis for shaping the melodic pattern and the characteristics of the described person or situation and is developed into a piano part that unifies the piano form. Sometimes it is a rhythmic motif (e.g. Denk’ es, o Seele!, Die Zigeunerin) or a harmonic-textural idea (as in the case of parallel descending mixture thirds in Der Mond hat eine schwere Klag erhoben). “Sound-augmented intonation of speech” (M. Tomaszewski Studia nad pieśnią romantyczną, 1997) replaces the traditional cantilena, often making the vocal part in a declamatory style like recitative or using vocally “difficult” intervals (e.g. Nachtzauber, Grenzen der Menschheit).

A notable change in the role of the piano – from accompaniment to commentary – results from the desire to apply the principles of a Wagner orchestra. This applies both to the leitmotif technique and the richness of textural approaches (typical especially for songs with ballad features, e.g. Der Feuerreiter, Die Geister am Mummelsee) or the introduction of solo piano sections (introductions, interludes and, most characteristic of Wolf, epilogues: e.g. Er ist’s, Auf einer Wanderung, Sie haben heut’ Abend Gesellschaft, Heb’ auf dein blondes Haupt, Ein Ständchen euch zu bringen, Der Rattenfänger). The development of piano means is particularly characteristic in the cycle to words by J.W. Goethe: e.g. in Mignon, Prometheus, Der Rattenfänger, Der Sänger, Ganymed, Was in der Schenke waren heute, Komm, Liebchen, komm!. In Ritter Kurt’s Brautfahrt or Gutmann und Gutweib, piano interludes and postludes are an element of a quasi-ballad narrative, in Epiphanias the marching postlude illustrates a procession, and in Grenzen der Menschheit the long, final chord sequence symbolises the idea of ​​infinity. It is worth noting that songs to words by J.W. Goethe constitute almost half of the works later orchestrated by Wolf. Finally, the piano part is a factor in “depicting the scene,” hence many illustrative and onomatopoeic elements, such as military motifs (Der Tambour, Unfall, Sie blasen zum Abmarsch, Ihr jungen Leute, Es blasen die blauen Husaren), imitation of the sound of a harp through arpeggios, lute or guitar (An eine Äolsharfe, Gesang Weyla’s, Der Musikant, Das Ständchen, Sagt, seid Ihr es, Feiner Herr, Bitt’ ihn, o Mutter, Wie lange war schon, Ein Ständchen euch zu bringen, Schon streckt’ ich aus, Nachruf), imitating the sound of bells and birds singing (Karwoche, Das Vöglein, Elfenlied), the sound of a carillon (Zum neuen Jahr, St. Nepomuks Vorabend), the buzzing of a bee (trills in Der Knabe und das Immlein) or, through rhythm, the gallop of a horse (Der Gärtner, Denk’ es, o Seele!, Der Soldat). In a typical way, Wolf uses mimetic means, e.g. ostinato rhythm, imitating the movement of a cradle (Die du Gott gebarst, du Reine) or a spinning wheel (Die Spinnerin), and in the song Nun wandre, Maria, suggesting “the image of the pregnant Mary striving with her last strength to Bethlehem” (M. Tomaszewski Studia nad pieśnią romantyczną, 1997), also punctuated rhythm (lightness of jumps in Fussreise), a kind of piano texture (undulating figurations to convey sea waves in Die Nacht, tremolo to convey the wind, storm in Begegnung, Lied vom Winde, Mit schwarzen Segeln), also stylistic elements (the waltz in Erstes Liebeslied eines Mädchens and Abschied, trivial salon music in Aus meinen grossen Schmerzen, intonation of supplication and chorale in Nun bin ich dein, or Führ’ mich, Kind, nach Bethlehem). The pictorial aspect, apart from the expressive aspect, often influences the choice of key (e.g. spring, cheerful A major, tragic A minor, playful G major, etc.), although the preference for high voices (tenor and soprano) also plays a significant role here. Chromatics or sound registers are vital in building tension (the high piano register as an expression of sublimity and spirituality, e.g. in An die Geliebte, an expression of ecstasy in Auf einer Wanderung or the non-material world – e.g. elves in Elfenlied, a forest nymph in Waldmädchen). In the case of stylisation or archaisation, we are dealing with a complete set of harmonic, rhythm and sound means (modality in Auf ein altes Bild, Nun wandre, Maria, 4/2 meter in Schlafendes Jesuskind).

However, it is primarily harmony that constitutes the basis for sound, the “translation” of a specific idea, image, or mood. Wolf’s harmonic language is characterised by a departure from functional thinking towards free tonality, based, for example, on introducing two tonal centres at the same time, delaying the appearance of the keynote, tonal stabilising only the beginning and end of a song (e.g. Blumengruss) or using different keynotes at the beginning and end (e.g. Die Spinnerin, Karwoche, Lebe wohl, Im Frühling, Zitronenfalter im April). The so-called abolished, elusive tonality, which is a means of expressing the state of mental suffering, appears, for example, in the songs Seufzer, Das verlassene Mägdlein or at the beginning of Nimmersatte Liebe. Tonal instability and ambiguity are combined with a preference for enharmonic modulation (e.g. in Um Mitternacht, An den Schlaf), chromatic progressions, dissonance, freely resolved delays, and semitone alternations, which is partly the result of the linear shaping of the sound narrative. Harmonic radicalism also results from expanding the possibilities of thirds, e.g. in the songs Nimmersatte Liebe, Karwoche, and Seufzer (augmented chords).

In terms of shaping the form, Wolf gradually breaks away from verses with regular periodicity in favour of free re-composition. Even where the stanzaic structure has been preserved, unchanged repetitions are rare; the most common is a variation of the melodic line while maintaining a uniform rhythm. The most typical three-stanza arrangements are sometimes shaped like a reprise form, with the use of a development technique in the second stanza (e.g. St. Nepomuks Vorabend, Anacreons Grab). The influences of instrumental fantasy, operatic monologue, dramatic scene, and ballad-type narrative are noticeable in songs with extensive architecture (multi-phases, interludes, postludes, etc.). However, Wolf’s greatest achievement are short songs, miniatures characterised by “epigrammatic intensity,” such as the concise Blumengruss, Denk’es, o Seele! with understatements masterfully conveyed using only a few means (including the oscillation of modes) or with a moving reflection on the timelessness of Anacreons Grab.

A separate issue is the architecture of the cycle, treated as a large-scale dramatic form, a substitute for opera, the only musical genre that, according to Wolf, could guarantee recognition for the composer. This tendency is shown by the arrangement of Gedichte von Eduard Mörike: the first song talks about hope, in the centre of the cycle, there are religious songs, then love songs, songs about the fantastic world, comic songs, and the whole thing ends with a farewell song. Spanisches Lieder also ends with the farewell song Geh, Geliebter, and the last part of Gedichte von Goethe (Grenzen der Menschheit) refers to the perspective of infinity. However, in Wolf’s last cycle, strongly marked by the autobiographical element 3 Gedichte von Michelangelo, the deeply moving bitterness of the second song (Alles endet, was entsteht), brilliantly portrayed by the dark colour of the low piano register and the circulation of the falling and rising semitone, gradually subsides in the last part (Fühlt meine Seele) for brightening – sérénité. The integrity of the cycle is strengthened by the nature of the monologue in the vocal part and the freely composed form. The dramaturgical arrangement of song cycles, as specific anthologies of poetry set to music, is consequently the basis for their distinctiveness. The extensive themes of E. Mörike’s poems, generic in J. Eichendorff, psychological in G. Keller, enriched with elements of ancient and oriental culture in J.W. Goethe, give way to concentration on love and religious themes in Italian and Spanish songs (from generic paintings, through prayerful expression, to intimate confession and begging for absolution in the Spanisches Liederbuch). Hence the strong condensation of musical expression and concise nature of these two collections distinguishes them from earlier collections, characterised by a wealth of vocal and sound means, or from those containing manifestations of the monumental form of Gedichte von Goethe. Wolf considered Italian songs to be his most original and complete artistic works. It was in songs that he synthesised what Wagner, Liszt and Bruckner created in the field of musical drama, program music and symphony; thanks to brilliantly tuned sound means, he embodied the idea of ​​Gesamtkunstwerk.

From the beginning, Wolf’s ambition was to create an opera that would guarantee maximum artistic fulfilment. Back in 1890, it seemed to him that Shakespeare’s The Tempest was ideal material for an opera, but soon he began to look for a theme “without gods, kings and fairies,” without sentimentalism, idealization of characters and complicated symbolism. After rejecting several projects, he decided on the story El sombrero de tres picos by P.A. de Alarcón, the same one that served as the libretto for M. de Falla’s ballet The Three-Cornered Hat. The libretto, based on the German translation by H. Meister, was written by R. Mayreder – a writer, painter, and advocate of women’s equality. The funny story of the courtship of an elderly mayor and the miller’s beautiful wife is full of farcical characters, disguises, mistakes and intrigues typical of the genre. The realistic approach to the topic and the inherent Spanish colour (the characters often sing and dance) were an additional incentive to work on the opera, which was supposed to be independent of the Italian tradition, but in the spirit of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg. However, Der Corregidor turned out to be more of a collection of interesting theatrical concepts or beautiful musical fragments than a fully successful opera. The element of social satire disappeared already at the stage of developing the libretto; the farcical nature present in P.A. de Alarcón’s story was contrasted with psychological depth and the complex compositional technique by Wolf and his refined lyrical sense; aware of this, he refrained from using the term “comic” in the opera’s subtitle. The main drawback is the overload of the score in terms of form and texture, with the inability to build dramatic tension (e.g. most of the action takes place in the dark, lack of key dramatic points where individual threads are resolved, etc.). Attention was drawn to the massive instrumentation that was not used in terms of colour, the narrative loaded with leitmotifs, and the avoidance of theatrical showiness. However, the beauty of individual scenes, the innovation of the music, the mastery of characterisation and the capture of the Spanish atmosphere were appreciated. The work remained in the repertoire only in the theatre in Prague (until 1903); today it remains outside the mainstream of interest in opera theatres. However, according to L. Spitzer (Hugo Wolfs “Der Corregidor.” Fakten und Daten, 2000), thanks to its radical and consistent concept, it opened the way to the stage works of A. Schoenberg and E. Křenek.

“A fanatical belief in the right to truth” (E. Decsey Hugo Wolf als Kritiker, 1901) made Wolf one of the most controversial music critics of the 19^th century. In the texts published in the snobbish “Wiener Salonblatt,” he contained the quintessence of his own views, i.a. about the role of music (a very important element of social education), about academic education (a waste of time), absolute music (unnatural), classical music (boring and formulaic), and finally about opera and individual composers, without entering into a discussion about more serious aesthetic or theoretical issues. He was never guided by opportunism in his opinions (the case with J. Brahms), he was painfully honest, direct, and often sarcastic; in the first edition of the collection of reviews (Leipzig 1911), much malice directed at leading composers and artists were omitted. He ruthlessly criticized G. Meyerbeer (“the fallen angel”), F. von Flotow (“cloying melodies”), C. Gounod, A. Thomas and A. Boito (“parodies of Goethe”) as well as bel canto in general; he assessed opera performances integrally, not focusing only on music, but taking into account the visual side, performance, etc. He appreciated the music of F. Chopin and R. Schumann (for its poetry) as well as F. Mendelssohn, H. Berlioz, and A. Bruckner, he loved F. Schubert (but only for songs) and rejected A. Dvořák and many of his contemporary epigones of J. Brahms. He placed F. Liszt and R. Wagner on the highest pedestal, although as a composer he did not fall into stylistic dependence on them (despite some harmonic and instrumentation similarities). At the same time, it was this legacy that became his greatest challenge. Although Wolf’s large-scale works – an opera and a symphonic poem – did not play a significant role from a historical point of view, the music of his songs, based on a deep psychological foundation, thanks to new means of expression and a masterful combination of poetic text and sound layer, is a manifestation of the entry into the art of modernism, symbolically closing the great era of romantic song.

Literature: 

Documentation — P. Müller Hugo Wolf. Verzeichnisseiner Werke, mit einer Einführung, Leipzig 1908; R. Riehn Hugo Wolf. Werkverzeichnis, «Musik-Konzepte» 75, ed. H.-K. Metzger and R. Riehn, Munich 1992; H. Jancik Die Hugo Wolf Autographen in der Musiksammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, F. Grasberger’s memorial book, ed. G. Brosche, Tutzing 1975; A. Ehrmann Hugo Wolf, 1860–1903. Sein Leben in Bildern, Leipzig 1937; Hugo Wolf. Persönlichkeit und Werk, catalogue of the exhibition celebrating the 100^th anniversary of Wolf’s birth, ed. F. Grasberger, Vienna 1960; Das Hugo Wolf-Haus in Perchtoldsdorf, museum catalogue, ed. F. Grasberger, Perchtoldsdorf 1973; A. Dorschei Hugo Wolf mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Reinbek 1985, 2^nd ed. 1992; H. Leichtentritt Nachlasswerke von Hugo Wolf, “Allgemeine Musikzeitung XXXI, 1904; K. Grunsky Hugo Wolf-Fest in Stuttgart: 4. bis 8. Oktober 1906, Stuttgart 1906; Hugo Wolf in Maierling. Eine Idylle. Mit Briefen, Gedichten, Noten, Bildern und Faksimiles, published by H. Werner, Leipzig 1913; W. Rauschenberger Ahnentafel des Komponisten Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1940; Hugo Wolf. Literatur nach 1945, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” II, 1960; H. Schöny Unbekannte Taschennotizkalender von Hugo Wolf, «Mitteilungen der Kommission für Musikforschung» 31, Vienna 1979; D. Ossenkop Hugo Wolf. A Guide to Research, New York–London 1988; L. Spitzer Hugo Wolfs „Der Corregidor”. Fakten und Daten, Vienna 2000; Hugo Wolf’s Complete Song Texts, published by B. Glass, Geneseo (New York) 2001; M. Jestremski Hugo Wolf. Skizzen und Fragmente. Untersuchungen zur Arbeitsweise, Hildesheim 2002; Hugo Wolf. 1860–1903. Ob 100 letnici smrti skladatelja in njegovem prihodu v Maribor, ed. M. Špendal and J. Macek, Maribor 2003 (includes a facsimile of fragments of songs Das taube Mütterlein and Der Morgen); E. Hilmar Hugo Wolf. Enzyklopädie, Tutzing 2007.

Hugo Wolfs Briefe an Emil Kauffmann, ed. E. Hellmer, Berlin 1903, 2^nd ed. 1911; Hugo Wolfs Briefe an Hugo Faisst, published by M. Haberlandt, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1904; Ungedruckte Briefe von Hugo Wolf an Paul Müller aus den Jahren 1896–1898, 1904; Hugo Wolfs Briefe an Oskar Grohe, ed. H. Werner, Berlin 1905, Leipzig 1911; Hugo Wolf. Eine Persönlichkeit in Briefen. Familienbriefe, ed. E. Hellmer, Leipzig 1912; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Rosa Mayreder. Mit einem Nachwort der Dichterin des „Corregidor,” ed. H. Werner, Vienna 1921; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Henriette Lang, nebst den Briefen an deren Gatten Prof. Joseph Freiherr von Schey, ed. H. Werner, Regensburg 1923; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Heinrich Potpeschnigg, ed. H. Nonveiller, Stuttgart 1923; H. Werner Some Unpublished Letters of Hugo Wolf, “The Monthly Musical Record” LVII, 1927; K. Braun-Prager Briefe Hugo Wolfs aus dem Irrenhaus. Aus den Erinnerungen Rosa Mayreders, “Die Musik” XXII, 1929; K. Geiringer Hugo Wolf and Frida von Lipperheide. Some Unpublished Letters, “The Musical Times” LXXVII, 1936; Hugo Wolf. Rhapsodie. Aus Briefen und Schriften, ed. W. Reich, «Vom Dauernden in der Zeit» 37, Zurych 1947; Vier Briefe Hugo Wolfs an Dr. Heinrich Welti, «Schweizerische Musikzeitung und Sängerblatt» no. 2, 1947; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Melanie Köchert, ed. F. Grasberger, Tutzing 1964, American ed. New York 1991; Ungedruckte Briefe von Hugo Wolf, ed. R. Schaal, “Deutsches Jahrbuch der Musikwissenschaft”, XIII, Leipzig 1968; E. Werba Briefe Hugo Wolfs an seine Schwester Adrienne 1894–1896, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XXVII, 1972; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Frieda Zerny, ed. E. Hilmar and W. Obermaier, Vienna 1978; R. Elvers Hugo Wolfs Briefe an den Verleger Adolph Fürstner in Berlin, in: Musik. Edition. Interpretation, ed. M. Bente, Munich 1980; Hugo Wolf. Vom Sinn der Töne. Briefe und Kritiken, ed. D. Langberg, Leipzig 1991; Hugo Wolf. Briefe an Hugo Faisst, ed. J. Draheim, S. Hoy, Tutzing 1996.

1994. Decsey Aus Hugo Wolfs letzten Jahren, “Die Musik” I-II, 1901; M. Haberlandt Hugo Wolf. Erinnerungen und Gedanken, Leipzig 1903, Darmstadt 21911; K. Heckel Hugo Wolf in seinem Verhältnis zu Richard Wagner, Munich 1905; M. Lang Hugo Wolfs Jugendzeit, Vienna 1906; E. Hellmer Hugo Wolf. Erlebtes und Erlauschtes, Vienna 1921; Erinnerungen an Hugo Wolf von Gustav Schur, nebst Hugo Wolfs Briefen an Gustav Schur, ed. H. Werner, Regensburg 1922; H. Werner Der Hugo Wolf Verein in Wien. Sein Verhältnis zu dem Meister, sein Kampf für dessen Kunst und seine Gesamttätigkeit, Regensburg 1922; H. Werner Hugo Wolf in Perchtoldsdorf. Persönliche Erinnerungen nebst den Briefen des Meisters an seine Freunde Dr. Michael Haberlandt, Rudolf von Larisch und andere, Regensburg 1925; H. Werner Hugo Wolf und der Wiener akademische Wagner-Verein. Mit Briefen des Meisters, Regensburg 1926; F. Grasberger Aus den Erinnerungen Irmina Köcherts. Wie Hugo Wolfs „Epiphanias” entstand, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XXIII, 1968; M. Wolf-Strasser Spomini na dom. Spomini na otrostvo Huga Wolfa, Slovenj Gradee 1994.

Monographs of life and work — M. Haberlandt Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1903; E. Hellmer Hugo Wolfs Kunst und Leben, Vienna 1904; E. Decsey Hugo Wolf, 4 volumes, Berlin 1903–06; E. Schmitz Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1906; E. Newman Hugo Wolf, London 1907, reprint 1966, German ed. Leipzig 1910; Z. Jachimecki Hugo Wolf. Szkic biograficzno-estetyczny, Kraków 1908; E. Decsey Hugo Wolf. Das Leben und das Lied, Berlin 1919; K. Grunsky Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1928; K. Huschke Hugo Wolf, Pritzwalk 1928; B. Benvenisti Viterbi Hugo Wolf, Rome 1931; G. Abraham Hugo Wolf, London 1935; A. Ehrmann Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1937; H. Schultz Hugo Wolf, Berlin 1937; R. Litterscheid Hugo Wolf, Potsdam 1939; M. von Hattingberg-Graedener Hugo Wolf. Vom Wesen und Werk des grössten Liedschöpfers, Vienna–Leipzig 1941, revised 2^nd ed. 953; F. Matzenauer Hugo Wolf, Vienna 1943; A. Orel Hugo Wolf. Ein Künstlerbildnis, Vienna 1947; F. Walker Hugo Wolf. A Biography, London 1951, 2^nd ed. 1968, German ed. Graz-Vienna-Cologna 1953; N. Loeser Wolf, Haarlem 1955; D. Lindner Hugo Wolf. Leben, Lied, Leiden, Vienna 1960; C. Rostand Hugo Wolf, Paris 1967; E. Werba Hugo Wolf oder der zornige Romantiker, Vienna 1971, 2^nd ed. 1978; E. Werba Hugo Wolf und seine Lieder, Vienna 1984; K. Honolka Hugo Wolf. Sein Leben, sein Werk, seine Zeit, Stuttgart 1988; D. Fischer-Dieskau Hugo Wolf. Leben und Werk, Berlin 2003; Z. Kościów Hugo Wolf. Przewodnik biograficzny, Wołomin 2003; L. Spitzer Hugo Wolf. Werk und Leben, Vienna 2003.

Biographical contributions — E. Decsey Aus Hugo Wolfs letzten Jahren, “Die Musik” I, 1901; E. Decsey Hugo Wolf als Kritiker, “Tagespost” from 17 August 1901; R. Hernried Hugo Wolf in Mannheim, “Neue Musik Zeitung” XLIII, 1922, reprint “The Musical Quarterly” I, 1940; F. Eckstein Die erste und die letzte Begegnung zwischen Hugo Wolf und Anton Bruckner, in: In memoriam Anton Bruckner, ed. K. Kobald, Vienna 1924; W. Schmid Ährenlese zur Biographie Hugo Wolfs, “Die Musik” XVIII, 1925; H. Ullrich Hugo Wolf in Salzburg. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Biographie, “Allgemeine Musikzeitschrift” LII, 1925; W. Leibbrand and L. Bałt Hugo Wolf und seine Geisteskrankheit, “Die medizinische Welt” IV, 1930 no. 17; H. Hécaen Manie et Inspiration musicale. Le cas Hugo Wolf, Bordeaux 1934; H. Grohe Hugo Wolf und seine süddeutschen Freunde and Hugo Wolf kritisiert Anton Bruckner, “Die Musik” XXVIII and XXIX, 1936; K. Huschke Detlev von Liliencrons Freundschaft für Hugo Wolf, “Allgemeine Musikzeitschrift” LXIII, 1936; F. Walker New Light on Hugo Wolf. A Youth, “Music and Letters” XX, 1939; A. Ehrmann Johannes Brahms and Hugo Wolf. A Biographical Parallel, “The Musical Quarterly” XXIX, 1943; F. Walker Hugo Wolf’s Vienna Diary 1875–76, “Music and Letters” XXVIII, 1947, German ed. «Schweizerische Musikzeitung und Sängerblatt» LXXXVII, 1947 no. 12; J. Gehring Hugo Wolfs künstlerisches Selbstporträt, «Schweizerische Musikzeitung und Sängerblatt» LXXXVII, 1947 no. 2; D. Cooke Hugo Wolf, “The Musical Times” CI, 1960; F. Walker Gespräche mit Hugo Wolf, «Schweizerische Musikzeitung und Sängerblatt» C, 1960, English ed. “Music and Letters” XLI, 1960; F. Grasberger Hugo Wolf und Melanie Köchert, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XIX, 1964; E. Werba Hugo Wolf’s Lebensund Schaffensstationen in Niederösterreich, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XXV, 1970; W. Schuh Hugo Wolf im Spiegel eines Tagebuchs. Unbekanntes aus Tagebüchern und Briefen, «Schweizerische Musikzeitung und Sängerblatt» CXII, 1972; P.G. Langevin Le vrai visage de Hugo Wolf. Essai sur l’oeuvre posthume, “La Revue Musicale” 1975 no. 298/299; H. Schöny Neues zu Hugo Wolf, “Genealogie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Familienkunde” 1987 no. 12; T. Antonicek Hugo Wolf und Heinrich Potpeschnigg als Bewerber um Staatliche Unterstützungen, in: Florilegium musicologicum. Hellmut Federhofer zum 75. Geburstag, ed. C.-H. Mahling, Tutzing 1988; V. Brumec Patografija Hugo Wolf, “Studia Historica Slovenica” III, 2003 no. 2–3; F. Krummacher Hugo Wolf in Wien, in: F. Krummacher Das Streichquartett, vol. 2, Laaber 2003.

Critical-analytical studies — Gesammelte Aufsätze über Hugo Wolf, three volumes, Berlin 1898, 1899, 1900; R. Batka Der Corregidor. (…) Textlich und musikalisch erläutert, Leipzig 1900; Der Corregidor von Hugo Wolf. Kritische und biographische Beiträge zu seiner Würdigung, ed. E. Hellmer, Berlin 1900, Leipzig 2^nd ed. 1911; E. Decsey Hugo Wolfs „Fest auf Solhaug” und „Christnacht”, “Die Musik” IV 1904 and V 1905; R. Rolland Hugo Wolf, in: Musiciens d’aujourd’hui, Paris 1908, American ed. New York 1915, German ed. Munich 1927; R. Batka, H. Werner Hugo Wolf’s musikalische Kritiken, Leipzig 1911, reprint Vaduz 2004; G. Kahnt Hugo Wolf als Kritiker Brahms, “Die Musik” XI, 1911; E. Newman Hugo Wolf as Musical Critic, “The Musical Times” LIII, 1912; E. Hellmer Der Corregidor von Hugo Wolf, Leipzig 1920; P. Mies Goethes Haffenspielergesang „Wer sich der Einsamkeit ergibt” in den Kompositionen Schuberts, Schumanns und Hugo Wolf, “Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft” XVI, 1922; V.O. Ludwig Eduard Mörike in der Lyrik Hugo Wolfs, Vienna 1930; A. Burgartz Hugo Wolf und das Orchesterlied, “Die Musik” XXVI, 1934; K. Varges Der Musikkritiker Hugo Wolf, Magdeburg 1934, English ed. London 1961; G. Bieri Die Lieder von Hugo Wolf, Berno-Leipzig 1935, reprint Nendeln 1978; R. Haas Hugo Wolf. Nachgelassene Werke, Leipzig 1937; F. Kuba Hugo Wolfs Musik zu Kleists Schauspiel „Prinz Friedrich von Homburg,” “Jahrbuch der Kleist-Gesellschaft” XVII, 1937; A. Aber Hugo Wolf’s „Italian Serenade” and F. Walker Hugo Wolf’s „Italian Serenade”. The Facts and a New Theory, “The Musical Times” LXXXII, 1941; A. Aber Hugo Wolf’s Posthumous Works and W. Legge Hugo Wolf’s Afterthoughts on his Mörike-Lieder, “The Music Review” II, 1941; A. Berrsche Hugo Wolf, Penthesilea, Munich 1942; F. Walker Hugo Wolf’s Spanish and Italian Songs, „Music and Letters” XXV, 1944; A. Tausche Hugo Wolfs Mörike-Lieder in Dichtung, Musik und Vortrag, Vienna 1947; F. Walker „Ghasel”, a Song wrongly attributed to Wolf, “The Musical Times” LXXXVIII, 1947; F. Walker The History of Hugo Wolf’s „Italian Serenade”. The End of a Controversy, “The Music Review” VIII, 1947; G. Mackworth-Young Goethe’s „Prometheus” and its Settings by Schubert and Wolf, “Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association” LXXVIII, 1951/52; H. Redlich, F. Walker Hugo Wolf and „Funiculi Funicula,” “The Music Review” XIII, 1952; E. Werba Bemerkungen eines Interpreten zu Hugo Wolfs „Italienisches Liederbuch,” “Musikerziehung” VI, 1953; H. Bunke Die Baiform im romantischen Kunstlied bei F. Schubert, R. Schumann, J. Brahms, H. Wolf und F. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Bonn 1955; E. Werba Hugo Wolfs „Italienisches Liederbuch.” Anmerkung zur Reihung und Aujführungspraxis, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” X, 1955; P. Hamburger The Interpretation of Picturesque Elements in Wolf’s Songs, “Tempo” no. 48, 1958; H. Grabner Über Hugo Wolfs Fragment „Manuel Venegas”, Graz 1960; S.S. Prawer Mörike und seine Leser. Versuch einer Wirkungsgeschichte, Stuttgart 1960; E. Sams The Songs of Hugo Wolf, London 1961, 3^rd ed. revised and extended 2008; R. Egger Die Deklamationsrhythmik Hugo Wolfs in historischer Sicht, Tutzing 1963; M. Willforth „Peregrina II” in der neuen Hugo Wolf Gesamtausgabe, “Neue Zeitschrift für Musik” CXXVI, 1965; G. Redl Hugo Wolf, Michelangelo-Gesänge. Versuch einer Deutung aus der Zusammenschau der Künste, “Musikerziehung” XIX, 1966; W. Wiora Die Romantisierung alter Mollmelodik im Liede von Schubert bis Wolf, “Deutsches Jahrbuch der Musikwissenschaft” XI, Leipzig 1966; J.M. Stein Poem and Music in Hugo Wolf’s Mörike Songs, “The Musical Quarterly” LIII, 1967; W. Wiora Der musikalische Fortschritt und der „wilde Wolf,” memorial book of the Academy of Music in Vienna, Vienna 1967; B. Kinsey Mörike Poems Set by Brahms, Schumann and Wolf, “The Music Review” XXIX, 1968; G. Baum Hugo Wolf und Richard Strauss in ihren Liedern, “Neue Zeitschrift für Musik” CXXX, 1969; H. Thürmer Die Melodik in den Liedern von Hugo Wolf, Giebing 1970; G. Baum Zur Vor- und Entstehungsgeschichte des Mörike-Liederbuches von Hugo Wolf, “Neue Zeitschrift für Musik” CXXXII, 1971; W. Wiora Das deutsche Lied. Zur Geschichte und Ästhetik einer musikalischen Gattung, Wolfenbüttel–Zurych 1971; J.M. Stein Poem and Music in the German Lied from Gluck to Hugo Wolf, Cambridge 1971; I. Fellinger Die Oper im kompositorischen Schaffen von Hugo Wolf, “Jahrbuch des Staatlichen Instituts für Musikforschung”, 1971; E. Sams Literary Sources of Hugo Wolf’s String Quartets, “Musical Newsletter” IV, 1974 book 1; P. Mies Goethes Harfenspielergesang „Wer sich Einsamkeit ergibt” in den Kompositionen Schuberts, Schumanns und Hugo Wolfs, Darmstadt 1974; J. Thym The Solo Song Settings of Eichendorff’s Poems by Schumann and Hugo Wolf, Ann Arbor (Michigan) 1974; E. Busse Die Eichendorff-Rezeption im Kunstlied. Versuch einer Typologie anhand von Kompositionen Schumanns, Wolfs und Pfitzners, Würzburg 1975; P. Cook Hugo Wolf’s Corregidor. A Study of the Opera and Its Origins, London 1976; L. Spitzer Hugo Wolfs „Manuel Venegas.” Ein Beitrag zur Genese, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XXXII, 1977; P Gülke „Sterb’ ich, so hüllt in Blumen meine Glieder…”. Zu einem Lied von Hugo Wolf, “Musica” XXXIII, 1979; S. Youens „Alles endet, was entstehet.” The Second of Hugo Wolf’s Michelangelo Lieder, “Studies in Music” XIV, 1980; E. Hantz Exempli gratia. Le dernier cri. Wolf’s Harmony Revised, “Theory Only” V, 1981 no. 4; R. Scholium Wolf – Webern, von Einem, in: Wort-Ton-Verhältnis, ed. E. Haselauer, Vienna-Cologna-Graz 1981; M.G. Sleeman and G.A. Davies Variations on Spanish Themes. The „Spanisches Liederbuch” of Emanuel Geibeland and Paul Heyse and its Reflection in the Song of Hugo Wolf, “Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society” XVIII, 1982; G. Spies Plastizität und Abstraktion. Zu Hugo Wolfs Vertonung von Eduard Mörikes „Um Mitternacht,” in: Communicatio enim amicitia. Freundesgabe für Ulrich Hötzer, ed. K. Berg and N. Kruse, Freiburg 1983; S. Youens Charlatans, Pedants and Fools. Hugo Wolf’s „Cophtisches Lied I”, “Studies in Music” VIII, 1983; H. Eppstein Zu Hugo Wolfs Liedskizzen, “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift” XXXIX, 1984; H. Eppstein Zum Schaffensprozess bei Hugo Wolf, “Die Musikforschung” XXXVII, 1984; M. Saary Persönlichkeit und musikdramatische Kreativität Hugo Wolfs, Tutzing 1984; B.K. Sabie The Translation Chain in Some of the Hugo Wolf Settings of the „Spanisches Liederbuch,” “Journal of Musicological Research” V, 1984; S. Schmalzriedt Hugo Wolfs Vertonung von Mörikes Gedicht „Karwoche.” Realistische Züge im Spätromantischen Lied, “Archiv für Musikwissenschaft” XLI, 1984; D.J. Stein Hugo Wolf’s Lieder and Extensions of Tonality, «Studies in Musicology» 82, 1985; I. Fellinger Anton Bruckner und Hugo Wolf. Ein kompositorischer Vergleich, in: Bruckner-Symposium 1984, ed. O. Wessely, Linz 1986; S. Gut Analyse musicale et musicologie. Le choix des méthodes pour l’analyse d’un lied de Hugo Wolf, “Analyse musicale” no. 2, 1986; L. Kramer Decadence and Desire. The „Wilhelm Meister” Songs of Wolf and Schubert, “Nineteenth-Century Music” XI, 1987, reprint in: Music at the Turn of Century, ed. J. Kerman, Berkeley 1990; WS. Cratty The role of vagrant harmonie in selected lieder by Wolf, Strauss and Schoenberg, “Ex tempore” IV, 1987/88; C. Höslinger Hugo Wolfs Brahms-Kritiken. Versuch einer Interpretation, in: Brahms-Kongress Wien 1983, ed. S. Antonicek and O. Biba, Tutzing 1988; W. Kinderman Zwischen Schumann und Hugo Wolf. Das verlassene Mägalein von Felix Draeseke, Bad Honnef 1988; C. Dahlhaus Deklamationsprobleme in Hugo Wolfs „Italienischem Liederbuch” and M. Just Modellrepetition in Hugo Wolfs Mörike-Liedern, in: Liedstudien. W. Osthoffzum 60. Geburtstag, ed. M. Just and R. Wiesend, Tutzing 1989; H. Eppstein Zum Problem von Hugo Wolfs Liedästhetik, “Archiv für Musikwissenschaft” XLVI, 1989; L. Spitzer Droga Hugona Wolfa do pieśni Eduarda Mörike’go (paper), transl. M. Zduniak, «Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Muzycznej we Wrocławiu» 50, Wrocław 1989; S. Youens Drama in the Lied. Piano vs. Voice in Wolf’s Serenades, “Studies in Music” XXIII, 1989; S. Youens Hugo Wolf and the Operatic Grail. The Search for the Libretto, “Cambridge Opera Journal” I, 1989; D. Fischer-Dieskau Zu den Goethe-Liedern von Hugo Wolf, in: Das Lied. Ein deutscher Beitrag zur Weltkultur, Stuttgart 1990; M. Saary Diskrepanzen im Spätwerk Hugo Wolfs. Überlegungen zu den Michelangelo-Gesängen und zu „Manuel Venegas” and T. Seedorf Hafiz und die „Westöstliche Literatur” des 19. Jahrhunderts. Zur literarisch-musikalischen Vorgeschichte von Hugo Wolfs Divan-Vertonungen, in: Glasba in poezja. 130 letnica rojstva Huga Wolfa, Lubiana 1990; L. Spitzer Anmerkungen zur musikalischen Struktur von Hugo Wolfs Corregidor, Lubiana 1990; S. Youens The Song Sketches of Hugo Wolf, “Current Musicology” no. 44, 1990; H. Geyer Hugo Wolfs Mörike-Vertonungen. Vermannigfaltigung in lyrischer Konzentration, Kassel 1991; L. Lesle „Gnade, Herr Hofkapellmeister, Gnade!” Hugo Wolf als Musikkritiker, “Das Orchester” XXXIX, 1991; M. Piotrowska „Kennst du das Land” Goethego w pieśniach Schuberta i Wolfa, in: Wiersz i jego pieśniowe interpretacje, ed. M. Tomaszewski, Kraków 1991; J. Rosteck Zu Werkgenese und Formkonzeption von Hugo Wolfs symphonischer Dichtung Penthesilea, “Studien zur Musikwissenschaft,” Beihefte «Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich» XL, 1991; S. Youens Hugo Wolf. The Vocal Music, Princeton (New Jersey) 1992; H. Krones „Er hatte sich gleichsam mit seinem ganzen Körper in das Wort des Dichters verwandelt!” Hugo Wolfs „Penthesilea” als Musik gewordene Dichtung, “Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft” XIII, 1995; L. Kramer Hugo Wolf. Subjectivity in the Fin-de-Siecle Lied, in: German Lieder in the Ninteenth Century, ed. R. Hallmark, New York–London 1996; H. Vogg Hugo Wolf. „Der Corregidor,” “Takte” 1996 no. 1; A. Eichhorn „…ohne das düstere, welterlösende Gespenst eines Schopenhauerschen Philosophen im Hintergründe”. Anmerkungen zu Hugo Wolfs Oper „Der Corregidor,” “Jahrbuch des Staatlichen Instituts für Musikforschung” 1997; H. Platt Hugo Wolf and the Reception of Brahms’s Lieder, “Brahms Studies” 1998 no. 2; A. Glauert Hugo Wolf and the Wagnerian Inheritance, Cambridge 1999; H. Hatch Some Things Borrowed. Hugo Wolf’s „Anakreons Grab,” “Journal of Musicology” XVII, 1999 no. 3; S. Youens Hugo Wolf and His Mörike Songs, Cambridge 2000; H. W. Seine Zeitgenossen und Nachfolger, materials from symposium in Slovenj Gradee 2000, Slovenj Gradee 2001; D. Fischer-Dieskau Der Nacht ins Ohr. Gedichte von Eduard Mörike. Vertonungen von Hugo Wolf, Munich 2002; J. Williamson Musical Abstraction and Orchestral Iconography in Hugo Wolf’s Settings of Goethe, in: Musik in Goethes Werk. Goethes Werk in der Musik, ed. A. Ballstaedt, U. Kienzle and A. Nowak, Schliengen 2003; M. Jestremski „Im Schaffensrausch”! Strategien im kompositorischen Prozess bei Hugo Wolf and S. Youens Mörike’s Mozart, Wolf’s Schubert. „Denk’ es, o Seele!” “Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft” XXIV, 2004; G. Starobinski Hugo Wolf. Chroniques musicales 1884–1887, Geneva 2004; M. Baileyshea „The Heaviest Weight”. Circularity and Repetition in a Song by Hugo Wolf, “Music Analysis” XXV, 2006 no. 3; M. Baileyshea The Hexatonic and the Double Tonic: Wolf’s “Christmas Rose,” “Journal of Music Theory” LI, autumn 2007 no. 2; M. Szoka Mit o Penthesilei w ujęciu Hugona Wolfa, in: Dzieło muzyczne. Funkcje, ed. A. Nowak, Bydgoszcz 2010; T. R. McKinney Hanslick and Hugo Wolf, in: Rethinking Hanslick: Music, Formalism, and Expression, ed. N. Grimes, S. Donovan, W. Marx, University of Rochester Press 2013; M. Szoka „Truth in Art, Even Harsh and Naked”. In Search of the Key to Hugo Wolf’s Poetics, in: Music as a Message of Truth and Beauty, ed. T. Malecka and M. Pawłowska, Kraków 2014.

Special issues — “Die Musik” II 1903, issue 12; “Österreichische Musikzeitschrift”: VIII 1953, XV 1960, XXVIII 1973, LVIII 2003, including: P. Revers „Die blutumspülte Wurzel der dunklen Triebe (…), auf die sich Liebe reimt”. Hugo Wolfs Symphonische Dichtung „Penthesilea,” “The Musical Courier” 23 February 1928; «Musik-Konzepte» 75, ed. H.-K. Metzger and R. Riehn, Munich 1992.