THE MOZART REQUIEM: AUTHORSHIP AND AESTHETICS
Kyle Vanderburg Music of the Classical PeriodPeriod - MUSC 5563 November 6, 2010
2
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart·s Requiem is one of the composer·s most loved works, due both to its musical content and the controversy and legend surrounding it. The composer·s death at a young age, the possible conspiracy that may have caused that death, the state of the Requiem³ finished or not³at Mozart·s death, and just how and when the work was completed (and by whom) are all topics that are still open for debate over two hundred years later. Only the most basic facts are unquestionably clear: Mozart was commissioned to write a requiem in mid-1791 and the composer died in early December of that year, likely leaving the Requiem unfinished. The majority of the circumstances beyond these facts are open to speculation. The Requiem was commissioned anonymously by Count Franz von Walsegg, who had planned to pass the work off as his own. The story of the Requiem·s mysterious commissioning and genesis is described in the January 7th, 1792 edition of the SalzburgerIntelligenzblatt : 1. Concerning Mozart. ² Some months before his death, he received an unsigned letter with the request that he compose a requiem and set whatever fee he wished. Because the project did not appeal to him at all, he said to himself, I will demand so much the music-lover will surely turn me down. The next day, a servant came to get the reply ² Mozart wrote to the unknown person that he could not compose it for less than 60 ducats, and certainly not for another 2 or 3 months. The servant returned, bringing 30 ducats with him, and said he would inquire again in 3 months and if the mass was finished, he would immediately pay off the other half. Now Mozart had no choice but to compose it, something he often did with tears in his eyes, saying: I fear I am writing a requiem for myself; he completed it a few days before his death. When news of his death was announced, the servant came again, bringing the remaining 30 ducats; he did not ask for the requiem and since then there has been no further request. When it has been copied, it is going to be performed at a memorial service for him in St. Michael·s church.1 Already, a month after the composer·s death, it is stated that the Requiem was finished by Mozart, which is unlikely, and probably a result of Constanze Con stanze Mozart·s work in attempting to market her late husband·s work. Constanze·s management of the work and its completion certainly obscure the facts of the work, but the first issue when speaking of the Mozart Requiem is the composer·s early demise.
1Bruce
Cooper Clarke, ´From Little Seeds,µ The Musical Times 137, no. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13.
3
Mozart·s Death
The exact details surrounding Mozart·s death are unknown, and what is known is obfuscated by several factors. Masonic conspiracy and murder by Salieri are two popular ideas, but these are often dismissed as pure fiction. What can be definitely stated are a handful of facts. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died on December D ecember 5, 1791, at the age of thirty-five years. He had been in poor health throughout the last third of 1791, through the composing of L a clemenza di Tito and Die Zauberflöte and the Clarinet Concerto in A. He was buried on December 6, 1791, sent off with a
simple funeral and buried in a common grave, to save the family as much money as possible.2 The rest of the details are not clear, in part to history, and in part to Constanze·s management of her husband·s estate. Even small details about the composer·s death and burial are debatable, such as the weather on the day of his funeral, which is now believed to have been fair.3 While it is clear that Mozart was working on the Requiem at the time of his death, it is not completely clear as to the work·s completion at that time. While a few accounts, such as the one stated in the introduction, indicate Mozart·s completion of the work, the majority of accounts concur that a decent amount of the Requiem was left unfinished. Because Mozart·s death and the completion of the Requiem are such intertwined topics, several prevalent theories about Mozart·s death would have significant impact on how the Requiem was finished in 1791 and is understood today. One of the most famous stories regarding Mozart·s death regards fellow composer Antonio Salieri. Much of the th e present-day thought regarding Salieri as Mozart·s rival can be traced to Peter Amadeus, which Shaffer·s 1979 stage play Amadeus, which later prompted the making of a film of the same name in
2Nicolas 3Ibid.,
Slonimsky, ´The Weather at Mozart·s Funeral,µ The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12. 16.
4
1984. 4 While these productions may have been influenced by David Weiss·s 1970 book The Assassination of Mozart,5 all of these works are predated by the 1832 play Mocart i Sal·eri(Mozart and Salieri) by Aleksandr Puhkin.6Both Shaffer·s and Puhkin·s plays focus primarily on the character of
Salieri, treating Mozart as a minor min or character. Specifically, both playwrights focus on Salieri·s feelings of musical inferiority and righteousness among God·s musical servants.7 Both plays present a scenario of Salieri·s jealousy over Mozart prevailing, resulting in the latter·s death.8 While both Puhkin·s and Shaffer·s plays are works of fiction, both have their stories rooted in the legend of o f Salieri·s rivalry with Mozart. While Salieri and Mozart M ozart did have a professional rivalry, it is highly unlikely that this rivalry was personal in nature, as Salieri was one of the few mourners at Mozart·s funeral9 and later taught Mozart·s son Franz Xaver Wolfgang, he lping him to receive his first musical appointment.10 Although there are reports of Salieri admitting adm itting to poisoning Mozart in the early 1820s, it is unlikely that these stories have any merit, and Salieri·s supporters worked diligently to campaign for the composer·s innocence. Supposing for a moment that contrary to the evidence, Salieri did in fact poison Mozart, what would this mean for the Requiem? Shaffer and Puhkin would have us believe that Salieri wished to pass the Requiem off as his own, but this does not appear to be the historical case. If it were, Salieri would likely wait until the Requiem was finished before poisoning the composer. Additionally, it would have made significantly more sense for the Requiem to be submitted to Salieri
4Martin
Bidney, ´Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Pukin and Peter Shaffer,µ The Slavic and East European
Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986): 183. 5 Albert
I. Borowitz, ´Salieri and the ¶Murder· of Mozart,µ The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263. 183. 7Ibid., 184. 8 More information comparing comparing the differences between Shaffer·s and Puhkin·s portrayal of Salieri can be found in Martin Bidney, ´Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Pukin and Peter Shaffer,µ The Slavic and East European Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986). 9Nicolas Slonimsky, ´The Weather at Mozart·s Funeral,µ The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12. 10Borowitz, 273. 6Bidney,
5
after its completion, and it was not. While it is very unlikely that Salieri poisoned Mozart, it likely would make little difference in the compositional life of the Requiem.11 Another prevalent theory regarding Mozart·s death is related t o the composer·s position in the Masonic organization, and the possibility of a Masonic conspiracy to silence and/or punish Mozart after Die Zauberflöte . This theory first emerged in 1861 and was postulated by the researcher Georg Friedrich Daumer.12 The reasons given related to DieZauberflöte include ´his excessive attachment to the figure of the Queen of the Night and by his use of Christian religious music in the chorale of the Men of Armorµ and Mozart·s supposed plan to ´establish his own secret lodge, to be called ¶The Grotto.·µ13MathildeLudendorf added to this theory, but put forth the idea of a secret counterplot in the opera op era ´which depicted Mozart (Tamino) seeking the release of Marie Antoinette (Pamina) from her Masonic captors.µ14 This conspiracy would have included Salieri, Baron van Swieten, the messenger who commissioned the Requiem, and Georg Nikolaus von Nissen, the Mozart biographer who would have needed to cover up the crime in his biography.15 Like the theory of Salieri murdering Mozart, this theory is likely false and would only add an air of mysticism and sensationalism to the Requiem, if the Requiem were in fact completed at all. It can be speculated that the Masons, if they are willing to commit bodily harm upon the composer, would see it fitting to cause further musical harm by not allowing the Requiem to be finished. As this was not the case, it may be further speculated that if the Freemasons had indeed murdered Mozart, they would likely have had little influence on the completion of the work, as it appeared to be Constanze·s choice to have the work completed. It is unlikely that the Freemasons would have any significant impact on the completion of the Requiem. What Salieri·s murder of Mozart would achieve for the Requiem is a type of sensational fame of the work, more than we know now. While this may affect our understanding of the work, it likely would not have changed the compositional process nor the music. 12 Albert I. Borowitz, ´Salieri and the ¶Murder· of Mozart,µ The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 278. 13Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15Ibid., 279. 11
6 Completion
of the Requiem
The legend of the Requiem and Mozart·s demise continues into what happened to the Requiem after Mozart·s death. Constanze·s first action upon recovering after her husband·s death16 was to petition Emperor Leopold II for some possible way to sustain her and the life of the Mozart·s two children.17 While Constanze was successful, she knew that she must put her husband·s music to work, and as the Requiem was an unfinished commission (and one that would result in an additional fee once completed) it was a logical starting point. The generally accepted version of the th e Requiem that was delivered to Count Walsegg in February 1792 18 was started by Mozart and completed by Franz XaverSüssmayr. Süssmayr was a family friend and casual student of Mozart, and although his work completed the Requiem, he was not Constanze·s first choice for the job. Constanzehad chosen to ask others to finish the Requiem, as she had been upset with Süssmayr at the time.19 Exactly what transpired with the Requiem between Mozart·s death in 1791 and the publishing of the work in 1800 is unknown, but the score20 includes the note ´Mozart left the R equiem equiem , K. 626, unfinished at his death in 1791. It was completed by Franz XaverSüssmayr (1766-1803). Their respective contributions are indicated in the score by the initials (M.) and (S.).µ21 Süssmayr was a friend of the family rather than a student of Mozart·s Mo zart·s as is normally assumed. Often,Süssmayr is mentioned in Mozart·s letters in a derogatory way (such as ´that idiotic
All accounts mention Constanze·s absence from her husband·s funeral. etters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart , ed. Mozart to Emperor Leopold II, Vienna, December 11, 1791, in in L etters Hans Mersmann (New York: Dover, 1972), 268. 18Simon P. Keefe, ´·Die Ochsen am Berge·: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart·s Requiem, K. 626,µ Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 4. 19Ibid., 3. 20 The score from which I am working is the 1987 Dover edition, which describes itself as ´an unabridged republication republication equiem fürvierSingstimmen, fürvierSingstimmen, of the work originally published by Breitkopf&Härtel, Wiesbaden, n.d., with the title Mozart, R equiem 16
17Constanze
Orchester und Orgel. 21 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, R equiem equiem (New
York: Dover, 1987), front matter.
7
fellow,µ´rough companion,µ´silly ass,µ etc.)22 and often Constanze is instructed in structed to give Süssmayr ´several boxes to the ear.µ23 Moseley suggests that Mozart·s words are not unaffectionate, and suggests that had Mozart ´genuinely despised Süssmayr, he would hardly have wasted so much writing space on him.µ24Süssmayr·s significant role prior to the completion of the Requiem was to serve as Mozart·s copyist for most mo st of 1791. The widely accepted understanding of the state of the Requiem at Mozart·s death was that it consisted of the fully orchestrated Introit and Kyrie and the basic musical outline of the Sequence and the Offertory. Süssmayr·s contributions are understood to be the orchestration of the Sequence and Offertory, and the complete Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnusdei and Communion.25 What is further unclear is to what extent Süssmayr was given instructions regarding the completion of the work before Mozart·s death. Moseley postulates that it is possible that Süssmayr received ´only cursory instructions concerning the Requiem when Mozart realized he was dying, i.e. on 3 or 4 December, and that ¶Süssmayr just happened to have called when Mozart urgently wanted to tell someone.·µ26Furthermore, when Constanze asked Süssmayr to complete the Requiem, he was given the autograph score of the first two movements, the fragments of the Sequence and Offertory, and several slips of paper.27It is unknown just what those slips of paper held, or what Süssmayr did with them while composing the rest of the work. Before Constanze Mozart handed the score of the Requiem to Süssmayr for completion, she first submitted it to Joseph Leopold Eybler for help with orchestration. Eybler had known Mozart since Gottfried van Swieten·s concerts in 1790, and Mozart held him in high h igh regard, supposedly much higher than Süssmayr. However, Eybler·s duties were expanded in early 1792 due to his 22Paul
oyal Musical Association 114, no. 2 Moseley, ´Mozart·s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,µ Journal of the R oyal (1989), 213. 23 Ibid. 24Ibid., 214. 25Ibid., 203. 26Ibid., 214. 27Ibid.
8
appointment as choirmaster in the Leopoldstadt.28 Due to this new position, Eybler was unable to complete anything more significant than th an precursory orchestration work on the Lacrimosa. When Süssmayr received the score, he was required to determine the difference between Mozart·s and Eybler·s handwriting. While it is important to note Eybler·s work on the Requiem, his contributions seem insignificant in the grand scheme of the piece.Additionally, it is speculated that MaximilianStadler completed orchestration work on the DomineJesu , but this work seems to be rather insignificant.29 Creating
an aesthetically coherent work
One of the first questions that emerge when postulating the beginnings and endings of the creative process that produced Mozart·s Requiem is the question of how Süssmayr was able to create a coherent work that was not obviously written by two composers. Süssmayrsaid regarding the Requiem:´I can only wish that I have succeeded well enough at least for connoisseurs to be able to find in it, here and there, some signs of his unforgettable teaching.µ30 As Süssmayrhad worked for Mozart as copyist, it is safe to say that he was familiar with Mozart·s compositional process. Mozart·s compositional process, though similar to the compositional process of other composers, is slightly different and must be understood before the issue of Süssmayr·s copyist duties is explained.Mozart was known for his fluency in music composition, and there are an abundance of stories about his memory and inventiveness in music.His manuscripts, which fall into three categories: sketches, unfinished fragments, and final drafts, show this process.31 Unlike the notebooks of Beethoven that show the gamut of the compositional process, from inspiration through refinement to the final draft, the unfinished fragments of Mozart·s manuscripts show sh ow very 28Paul
oyal Musical Association 114, no. 2 Moseley, ´Mozart·s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,µ Journal of the R oyal (1989), 211. 29Simon P. Keefe, ´·Die Ochsen am Berge·: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart·s Requiem, K. 626,µ Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 3. 30Ibid., 10. 31Erich Hertzmann, ´Mozart·s Creative Process,µ The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 190.
9
little revision, which appears to show that Mozart worked out most of the musical work in his mind, and then wrote it down upon finishing it. However, Constanze Mozart wrote in a letter that she destroyed the unusable autographs of her husband, which indicates there were many more unfinished fragments or working drafts. 32 However, of the drafts that survive, there are a puzzling number of unfinished fragments which show Mozart·s inventiveness, and yet these are puzzling as it makes one wonder why Mozart did not finish these fragments. In many instances, the unfinished fragments show modifications of other works, works that did not necessarily need much improvement.33 Mozart·s fragments tend to be written in the same way, starting out with the melody and a bass line;these two parts continue until they trail off. They may have other instrumental accompaniment, but generally the score is empty except for these two lines. The exception to this rule appears to be complicated cases that Mozart was required to write out by hand, such as fugues, canons, and extensive polyphony. In many cases this music is written out in a hurriedMozartean shorthand, which supports the fact Mozart often was composing faster than he could write.34 Additionally, the mistakes m istakes that are corrected in the final drafts are often edito rial and minor details rather than corrections that would change ch ange the entire shape or layout of the work. As his style progressed and matured it became more complex, which required more time and energy for the larger compositions. While his basic compositional process had not changed, this new, more complex style slowed the creative process for larger works and caused his later period to be less prolific. To quicken the process, Mozart often wrote out melodies and sketches in shorthand and had his copyist,the aforementioned Süssmayr, write out the final copies.35
32Erich Hertzmann, ´Mozart·s Creative Process,µ 33Ibid.,
192. 190. 35Ibid., 198. 34Ibid.,
The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 191.
10
As Süssmayr had worked with Mozart for most of 1791, he had likely helped with the copying work with L a clemenza di Tito and Die Zauberflöte and was quite used to Mozart·s compositional technique and style, which makes his work in orchestrating the Sequence and Offertory from Mozart·s sketches a logical progression of his normal talents and duties. With this extension of his normal work, Süssmayr was more than capable of orchestrating these two movements and composing several more in the style of Mozart, creating a work with overall coherent unity. A esthetic esthetic
Ownership
If this work is written by multiple composers, as it appears to be, the two questions that must be answered are ´does the creative ownership of the Requiem belong to Mozart or Süssmayr?µand ´is there such a thing as ¶aesthetic ownership·?µ These questions are not easily answerable. However, perhaps it is best to attempt to explain the Mozart/Süssmayr Requiem situation in terms of a contemporary legal construct, which in this case is contemporary American copyright law. While the Copyright Act of 1976 was certainly not in effect in the Austrian empire in 1791, it serves as a logical framework for the discussion of aesthetic ownership. The Copyright Act of 1976 modifies Title 17 of the United States Code, and defines the idea of a work for hire, which is a term that can be attributed toSüssmayr·s toS üssmayr·s work on Mozart·s Requiem. The Th e relevant text, USC 17 § 201(b) states ´Works Made for Hire.³In the case c ase of a work made for hire, the employeror emplo yeror other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the authorfor purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwisein a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in thecopyright.µ36Under this construct, Süssmayr·s work was completed as part of his normal job duties for which he was paid. Additionally, the ensuing cover-up orchestrated by
36C opyright opyright
Act of 1976, codified at U.S. Code 17 § 201 (b)
11
Constanze Mozart regarding her husband·s completion completio n of the work likely resulted in a large payment for Süssmayr to keep his involvement in writing the Requiem a secret.37 Whilethe question of Süssmayr·s work on the Requiem may fit into contemporary American copyright law, no such copyright laws were were in effect in Austria in 1791.The first modern copyright law in Austria was the Austrian Copyright Act of 1846. While a work for hire is not explicitly stated in this act, section one states: ´Literary products and works of o f art constitute a property oftheir originator (author), i.e. of the person who originallywrote or composed them.As long as no specific contracts stand in the way of this,the following will be treated as equivalent to authors with regardto the protection given by this law:a) the commissioner of a work who at his own expense hasentrusted someone else with its elaboration and execution according to a given plan.µ38 Furthermore, section two of the act states ´The author of a literary or artistic work is, according tothe stipulations laid down in the present law, entitled to theexclusive right of disposing of his work as he wishes, of reproducing and publishing it in any form he may please.He can also transfer this right to others wholly or partly.µ39 As stated earlier, if one were to apply contemporary American copyright law or the closest Austrian copyright law equivalent, it is assumed that Süssmayr gave up any claim to the creative authorship of the Requiem. As the Requiem was a commission in the Classical period of music, it is unlikely that Mozart was solely operating as artist in the creation of the piece. Though Mozart does blur the lines between the Classical and Romantic periods of music, and the lines between the composer as an artist and the composer as an artisan, the Requiem represented a piece p iece of craft rather than a piece of art. Because of this, it would not have mattered whether Süssmayr had completed the work instead of
37Simon
P. Keefe, ´·Die Ochsen am Berge·: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart·s Requiem, K. 626,µ
Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 11. 38 Austrian
Copyright Act (1846), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently& M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org www.copyrighthistory.org section 1 . 39Ibid., section 2.
12
Mozart. The fact that Mozart started the work and his copyist Süssmayr finished the work, would not have made a significant difference in 1790s Austria. Despite the myriad confusion surrounding the Mozart Requiem, the authorship of the work, and the circumstances surrounding its completion, the work remains a perennial favorite, consistently in the repertoire. There is little doubt that it is a finely crafted piece of music that holds an aesthetic consistency despite the fact it has multiple authors. The creation is Mozart·s work, realized through his pen and the pens of others, but there is no doubt that Mozart is the Requiem·s creator.
13
Bibliography e ntury Music 15, Century Bauman, Thomas. "Requiem, but No Piece."19 th - C 15, No. 2 (Autumn, (Aut umn, 1991): 151-161.
Bidney, Martin. "Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Pukin and Peter Shaffer."The Slavic and East European Journal 30, 30, No. 2(Summer, 1986): 183-195. Borowitz, Albert I. "Salieri and the ´Murderµ of Mozart." The Musical Quarterly 59, 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263-284. ritical Inquiry 7, Brown, Marshall. "Mozart and After: The Revolution in Musical Consciousness." C ritical 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1981): 689-706.
Clarke, Bruce Cooper. "From Little Seeds."The Musical Times 137, 137, No. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13-17. 13-17. Hertzmann, Erich. "Mozart·s Creative Process." The Musical Quarterly 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1957): 187200. Keefe, Simon P. "·Die Ochsenam Berge·: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the Orchestration of Mozart·s Requiem, K. 626." Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, 61, No. 1 (2008): 1-65. Kivy, Peter. "Child Mozart as an Aesthetic Symbol." Journal of the History of Ideas 28, 28, No. 2 (Apr. ² Jun., 1967): 249-258. Moseley, Paul."Mozart·s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence." Journal of the R oyal oyal Musical Association 114, 114, No. 2 (1989): 203-237. Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. R equiem. equiem. New York: Dover, 1987. etters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.Edited by Hans Mersmann. New Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. L etters York: Dover, 1972. 1972.
Slonimsky, Nicolas. "The Weather at Mozart·s Funeral."The Musical Quarterly 46, 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12-21.
