the mozart requiem: authorship and aesthetics
TRANSCRIPT
THE MOZART REQUIEM: AUTHORSHIP AND AESTHETICS
Kyle VanderburgMusic of the Classical Period - 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 Requiem—
finished or not—at 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 Salzburger Intelligenzblatt:
1. Concerning Mozart. – 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 – 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
3
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 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.
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 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 La 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
1 Bruce Cooper Clarke, “From Little Seeds,” The Musical Times 137, no. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13.2 Nicolas Slonimsky, “The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral,” The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12.
4
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 present-day thought regarding
Salieri as Mozart’s rival can be traced to Peter Shaffer’s 1979 stage play
Amadeus, which later prompted the making of a film of the same name in
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 Pušhkin.6
Both Shaffer’s and Pušhkin’s plays focus primarily on the character of
Salieri, treating Mozart as a minor character. Specifically, both playwrights
focus on Salieri’s feelings of musical inferiority and righteousness among
3 Ibid., 16.4 Martin Bidney, “Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer,” The Slavic and East European Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986): 183.5 Albert I. Borowitz, “Salieri and the ‘Murder’ of Mozart,” The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263.6 Bidney, 183.
5
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 Pušhkin’s and Shaffer’s plays are works of fiction, both
have their stories rooted in the legend of Salieri’s rivalry with Mozart. While
Salieri and Mozart 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,
helping him to receive his first musical appointment.10 Although there are
reports of Salieri admitting 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
Pušhkin 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 after its completion, and it was not.
7 Ibid., 184.8 More information comparing the differences between Shaffer’s and Pušhkin’s portrayal of Salieri can be found in Martin Bidney, “Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer,” The Slavic and East European Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986).9 Nicolas Slonimsky, “The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral,” The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12.10 Borowitz, 273.
6
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 to 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 Die Zauberflöte
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
Armor” and Mozart’s supposed plan to “establish his own secret lodge, to
be called ‘The Grotto.’”13 Mathilde Ludendorf added to this theory, but put
forth the idea of a secret counterplot in the opera “which depicted Mozart
(Tamino) seeking the release of Marie Antoinette (Pamina) from her
Masonic captors.”14 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 11 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,” The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 278.13 Ibid.14 Ibid.15 Ibid., 279.
7
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.
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 Requiem that was delivered to
Count Walsegg in February 179218 was started by Mozart and completed by
Franz Xaver Süssmayr. Süssmayr was a family friend and casual student of
16 All accounts mention Constanze’s absence from her husband’s funeral.17 Constanze Mozart to Emperor Leopold II, Vienna, December 11, 1791, in in Letters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, ed. Hans Mersmann (New York: Dover, 1972), 268.18 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 4.
8
Mozart, and although his work completed the Requiem, he was not
Constanze’s first choice for the job. Constanze had 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 Requiem, K. 626, unfinished at his death in 1791.
It was completed by Franz Xaver Süssmayr (1766-1803). Their respective
contributions are indicated in the score by the initials (M.) and (S.).”21
Süssmayr was a friend of the family rather than a student of Mozart’s
as is normally assumed. Often, Süssmayr is mentioned in Mozart’s letters in
a derogatory way (such as “that idiotic fellow,” “rough companion,” “silly
ass,” etc.)22 and often Constanze is instructed to give Süssmayr “several
boxes to the ear.”23 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.”24
Süssmayr’s significant role prior to the completion of the Requiem was to
serve as Mozart’s copyist for most 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
19 Ibid., 3.20 The score from which I am working is the 1987 Dover edition, which describes itself as “an unabridged republication of the work originally published by Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden, n.d., with the title Mozart, Requiem für vier Singstimmen, Orchester und Orgel.21 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Requiem (New York: Dover, 1987), front matter.22 Paul Moseley, “Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, no. 2 (1989), 213.23 Ibid.24 Ibid., 214.
9
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, Agnus dei
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.’”26 Furthermore, 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.27 It 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 regard, supposedly
much higher than Süssmayr. However, Eybler’s duties were expanded in
early 1792 due to his appointment as choirmaster in the Leopoldstadt.28 Due
to this new position, Eybler was unable to complete anything more
25 Ibid., 203.26 Ibid., 214.27 Ibid.28 Paul Moseley, “Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, no. 2 (1989), 211.
10
significant than 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 Maximilian
Stadler completed orchestration work on the Domine Jesu, 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. Süssmayr said
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.”30 As Süssmayr had 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
29 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 3.30 Ibid., 10.
11
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 very 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
31 Erich Hertzmann, “Mozart’s Creative Process,” The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 190.32 Erich Hertzmann, “Mozart’s Creative Process,” The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 191.33 Ibid., 192.
12
written out in a hurried Mozartean shorthand, which supports the fact
Mozart often was composing faster than he could write.34 Additionally, the
mistakes that are corrected in the final drafts are often editorial and minor
details rather than corrections that would change 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
As Süssmayr had worked with Mozart for most of 1791, he had likely
helped with the copying work with La 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.
Aesthetic Ownership
34 Ibid., 190.35 Ibid., 198.
13
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?” and “is there such a thing as
‘aesthetic ownership’?” 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 to Süssmayr’s work on Mozart’s Requiem. The
relevant text, USC 17 § 201(b) states “Works Made for Hire.—In the case of
a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was
prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the
parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by
them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.”36 Under 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
Constanze Mozart regarding her husband’s completion of the work likely
resulted in a large payment for Süssmayr to keep his involvement in writing
the Requiem a secret.37
36 Copyright Act of 1976, codified at U.S. Code 17 § 201 (b)37 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008):
14
While the question of Süssmayr’s work on the Requiem may fit into
contemporary American copyright law, no such copyright laws 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 art constitute
a property of their originator (author), i.e. of the person who originally
wrote 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 regard to
the protection given by this law: a) the commissioner of a work who at his
own expense has entrusted someone else with its elaboration and execution
according to a given plan.”38 Furthermore, section two of the act states “The
author of a literary or artistic work is, according to the stipulations laid
down in the present law, entitled to the exclusive 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.”39 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
11.38 Austrian Copyright Act (1846), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org section 1.39 Ibid., section 2.
15
Romantic periods of music, and the lines between the composer as an artist
and the composer as an artisan, the Requiem represented a piece of craft
rather than a piece of art. Because of this, it would not have mattered
whether Süssmayr had completed the work instead of 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.
16
Bibliography
Bauman, Thomas. "Requiem, but No Piece." 19th-Century Music 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1991): 151-161.
Bidney, Martin. "Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer." The Slavic and East European Journal 30, No. 2 (Summer, 1986): 183-195.
Borowitz, Albert I. "Salieri and the “Murder” of Mozart." The Musical Quarterly 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263-284.
Brown, Marshall. "Mozart and After: The Revolution in Musical Consciousness." Critical Inquiry 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1981): 689-706.
Clarke, Bruce Cooper. "From Little Seeds." The Musical Times 137, No. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13-17.
Hertzmann, Erich. "Mozart’s Creative Process." The Musical Quarterly 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1957): 187-200.
Keefe, Simon P. "’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the Orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626." Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, No. 1 (2008): 1-65.
Kivy, Peter. "Child Mozart as an Aesthetic Symbol." Journal of the History of Ideas 28, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1967): 249-258.
Moseley, Paul. "Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence." Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, No. 2 (1989): 203-237.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Requiem. New York: Dover, 1987.
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Letters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Edited by Hans Mersmann. New York: Dover, 1972.
Slonimsky, Nicolas. "The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral." The Musical Quarterly 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12-21.