MUSIC
ML
410
MS
P76
PROPERTY OF
University of
A
.
1817
STELLFELD PURCHASE
1954
THE STORY
OF
MOZART'S REQUIEM
BY
WILLIAM POLE, F.R.S.,
MUS. DOC., OXON.
::
JVITH 4 F 4C-SIMILE
.
LONDON: NOVELLO, EWER AND CO.,
1; BERNERS STREET (W.), AND 80 & 81, QUEEN STREET (E.C.)
1879.
The rights of Translation are reserved.
..
!
ES. FEBRUARY I, 1879.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
Will be Published during February,
THE STORY OF MOZART'S REQUIEM
Carefully compiled from the best and most authentic Sources,
By WM. POLE, F.R.S., Mus. Doc.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
This immortal work, independently of its value as a musical compo-
sition, has great interest on account of its very remarkable history.
The mysterious commission given for it, the supernatural impression
made by this on Mozart, his composition of the work under such
pathetic circumstances, partly on his deathbed, the difficulties as to
its publication, the fierce controversy as to its authorship, which for
fourteen years engaged the attention of some of the most learned men
and profound musicians of Europe, the extraordinary disappearance and
long concealment of the manuscripts, their ultimate discovery, the
difficult and perplexing questions as to their genuineness, the strange
revelations gradually made as to the secret history of the various trans-
actions, and the doubts which, after all possible information has been
obtained, still hang over the authorship of some parts of the work; all
these things, spread over seventy or eighty years, form a story of
unparalleled interest in the annals of music.
The object of the present essay is to tell this story, which is hitherto
but little known in England; and it will form, it is hoped, an appro-
priate companion to the various editions of the "Requiem," published
by Messrs. Novello and Co.
London: NovéLLO, Ewer and Co.
Y
Adagio
Requiming
Time W. A
༡༢ .
Apologetinte
1
Violity
Viche
ten
ܗ ܐ
2 Cori
ni Befaction
in
.
Tayotion
4 1
a
a fugothin
Aarni
2,
Simpany
Canto
Alto
one
Tenore
Basso
Jogano
Base
pia rola:
THE STORY
OF
Mozart's Requiem,
BY
..
WILLIAM POLE, F.R.S.,
MUS. DOC., OXON.
With a fac-simile.
LONDON: NOVELLO, EWER AND CO,
1, BERNERS STREET (W.), AND 80 & 81, QUEEN STREET (E.C.)
1879.
The rights of Translation are reserved.
Mucie
ML
410
M9
P76
NOVELLO, EWER AND CO.,
TYPOGRAPHICAL MUSIC AND GENERAL PRINTERS,
I, BERNERS STREET, LONDON.
STELLFELD
PREFACE.
No apology is necessary for offering to English readers
the remarkable story contained in the following pages.
Although most of the incidents had been published and
commented on in Germany from time to time, no attempt
was made until lately to bring the narrative into a con-
nected form. The admirable work of Oulibicheff, published
in 1843, contained an eloquent discussion of many points
of the controversy, so far as the author's information ex-
tended; but it was not till the appearance of the great
Biography of Mozart, by Otto Jahn, in 1856, that the
history was fully brought out; and even in this, the author
has contented himself, in many places, with mere reference
to previous publications, or very brief quotations from them.
Taking these two works as my general guide, I have
endeavoured, by further study of the original authorities,
to render the narrative more perfect and complete, and
to present it in what I hope will be an attractive form for
general readers. If they find, in the perusal of the
story, anything like the interest I have experienced in its
investigation and narration, my labours will not have been
in vain.
In order to give an additional interest to the work, a
photograph has been obtained (through the kind aid of Mr.
George Grove and Mr. Ernst Pauer) from the first page of
Mozart's original Manuscript, now in the Imperial Library
at Vienna. In this all the parts have been filled in by the
composer; it has his own signature, and contains the
remarkable post-dating mentioned on page 49.
WILLIAM POLE.
March, 1879.
!
CONTENTS.
PAGE,
I
INTRODUCTION
CHAP. 1.- EARLY CIRCULATION AND PUBLICATION OF
THE REQUIEM. 1791 TO 1824
3
CHAP. II.-GREAT CONTROVERSY AS TO THE AUTHOR-
SHIP. 1825 TO 1838
I2
CHAP. III.DISCOVERY OF THE FIRST MANUSCRIPT
OF
THE COMPLETE WORK, AND Dis-
CUSSIONS UPON IT. LATEST INFORMA-
TION. 1839 TO 1864
43
CHAP. IV.--CONNECTED NARRATIVE
63
CHAP, V.-CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR-
SHIP OF THE REQUIEM
72
REFERENCES TO WORKS ON THE
THE SUBJECT OF
THE
REQUIEM
92
THE STORY OF
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
« OPUS SUMMUM, VIRI SUMMI. “ The greatest of all
works, by the greatest of all masters !” Thus wrote Hiller,
the elder, of Leipsic, in letters an inch high, on the
title-page of a score of Mozart's Requiem which he had
reverently copied out, note for note, with his own hand.
Hiller was
one of Sebastian Bach's successors, and
Mendelssohn's predecessors, as director of the renowned
music school of St. Thomas, and he was no mean authority.
But the lapse of three-quarters of a century has amply
confirmed his opinion, both as to the work and the master.
The universal homage of educated musicians has agreed in
installing Mozart as the vir summus of musical composers;
while all who can appreciate the grand and the beautiful in
music, must concur in designating this as his opus summum,
the last and greatest emanation of his wonderful genius, the
crowning glory of his immortal career.
But independently of its value as a musical composition,
the Requiem has great interest on account of its very
remarkable history. The mysterious commission given for
it;-the supernatural impression made by this on Mozart;
his composition of the work, under such pathetic circum-
2
THE STORY OF
stances, partly on his death-bed ;-the difficulties as to its
publication ;—the fierce controversy as to its authorship
which, for fourteen years, engaged the attention of some of
the most learned men and most profound musicians of
Europe ;--the extraordinary disappearance and long con-
cealment of the manuscripts ;-their ultimate discovery ;-
the difficult and perplexing questions as to their genuine-
ness ;—the strange revelations gradually made as to the
secret history of the various transactions ;--and the doubts
which, after all possible information has been obtained,
still hang over the authorship of some parts of the work;
—all these things, spread over seventy or eighty years, and
referring to one of the most esteemed compositions known,
form a story of unparalleled interest in the annals of music.
The object of the present essay is to tell this story,
which is hitherto unpublished, and, to a great extent,
unknown in this country. The general impressions about
the history of the Requiem are not in accordance with the
facts, many of which have, indeed, only been brought to
light at a comparatively recent date. The essay has been
carefully compiled from the best and most authentic German
sources, and, wherever practicable, the original documents
have been referred to.*
The history is a somewhat difficult one to relate; for, in
order to render intelligible the proceedings during the greater
part of the time, it is necessary to keep back some of the
earliest incidents, the knowledge of which did not transpire
till the end. It is, in this respect, like a novel, the interest
* A list of works in which the subject is treated of, is given at the
end of the essay.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
3
1
of which hangs on a mystery only revealed in the last
chapter.
It will be desirable to divide the history into three
portions; comprising (1) the early circulation and publi-
cation of the Requiem; (2) the great controversy as to the
authorship; and (3) the discovery of the original manuscript,
and the latest revelations as to the early events. After
these it will be convenient to add (4) a brief connected
account of the facts ultimately revealed ; and (5) a specific
indication of the evidence regarding the authorship of the
various portions of the work
و
CHAPTER I.
EARLY CIRCULATION AND PUBLICATION
OF THE REQUIEM.
1791 TO 1824.
Mozart's Requiem was first introduced to the public by
a performance of it in Jahn's Hall, at Vienna, soon after
the composer's death, which happened on the 5th December,
1791. It attracted great attention, the hall being densely
crowded; and there can be little doubt that additional
interest and curiosity had been excited by a pretty general
knowledge of certain remarkable circumstances connected
with its origin.
Mozart had undertaken the work on a commission
received by the hands of an unknown messenger, whose
strange garb and manner, and whose mysterious and sudden
re-appearance from time to time, had made so strong an
impresssion on the composer's mind as to induce him to
see, in the circumstance, a supernatural warning of his own
4
THE STORY OF
approaching decease, and to lead him to the firm conviction
that the work he was about to write would be his own
funeral dirge. Under this impression, he laboured at the
composition with almost superhuman effort, and, as many
believed, with almost superhuman power. His forebodings
proved but too prophetic; death seized him almost with the
pen in his hand; and the re-appearance, soon afterwards,
of the mysterious stranger to claim and carry off the score,
and the failure of all attempts to trace him or the copy, or
to find any clue to the mystery, gave a fit completion to
the marvellous story.
In spite, however, of the professed disappearance of the
score, the inconsolable widow contrived to produce a copy,
either of the Requiem composed by her husband, or of
something resembling it, and it was from this copy, and
for her own benefit, that the public performance took
place. The work was much admired, and became very
popular. The widow soon evinced an anxiety to turn this
popularity to advantage ; and presuming that the super-
natural proprietor, by whom the Requiem had been pur-
chased, would not be very fastidious in the matter of
copyright, she began to speculate on the possibility of selling
it again for publication. It was about to be performed at
Leipsic for her benefit, and she embraced the opportunity
of offering the work, along with other compositions of her
husband's, to Messrs. Breitkopf and Härtel, the celebrated
publishers there. She had a score with her, which she
declared was the original manuscript, and a copy of this
was made (probably the one written out by Hiller himself)
while she remained in the town. It does not appear that
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
5
Breitkopf and Härtel retained any authentic copy at this
time; no doubt they had scruples about their right to
publish, and nothing more was then done.
But the widow, nothing daunted, determined to make
money by the Requiem in some way or other, and adopted
the expedient of having manuscript copies made, which she
sold in all directions, one of them being bought by the King
of Prussia for 200 Friedrichs d'or. This went on for some
years, but the circulation was limited; and the widow
again turned her attention towards increasing her profits by
publication. She appears a second time to have entered
into communication with the Leipsic publishers on the
subject, and to have discussed with them the question of
the claims of the Unknown; and the idea occurred to her
that by making a public appeal to this mysterious personage,
he might be induced to forego his rights in her favour.
With this view she drafted an advertisement, which she
afterwards communicated to Härtel, and which, for the
ingenuity with which it is worded, deserves translation.
It runs as follows:
“ As the honourable Unknown, who gave to the blessed Mozart,
a few months before his death, the commission to compose a Requiem,
has not, after the lapse of more than seven years, made it publicly known,
the widow looks upon this circumstance with gratitude as a proof that he
is willing to allow her to obtain some advantage by its publication. But
she considers it her duty, as a greater security to herself, and as a con-
sequence of the sentiments she entertains towards him, to call upon the
honourable gentleman, by the medium of the journals of Vienna, Ham-
burg, and Frankfort, to let her know his intentions within the space of
three months, after which time she will venture to publish the Requiem
among the collected works of her departed husband.”
This diplomatic address was not inserted, for it appears
the publishers now ventured to take the risk on themselves.
6
THE STORY OF
They were, however, very desirous that the work should
be brought out with all possible correctness; and, although
several transcripts had come into their hands, they applied
to the widow for her copy.
But there was another point on which they desired to be
satisfied. She had declared, on a former occasion, that the
Requiem had been entirely completed by Mozart before he
died; but some suspicions of the accuracy of this state-
ment had reached them, and, in a business-like way, they
demanded explanations. In answer to these enquiries, the
widow wrote, on the 27th March, 1799, as follows :-
“As to the Requiem, it is true that I possess the celebrated one which
my husband wrote shortly before his death. I know of no Requiem but
this ; and declare all others to be spurious. To what extent it is his own
composition--it is so to near the end I will inform you when you receive
it from me.
The circumstances were as follows. When he saw his end
approaching, he spoke with Herr Süssmayer, the present Imperial Capell-
meister, and requested him, if he should die without finishing it, to
repeat the first fugue in the last part, as is customary; and told him,
also, how he should develope the conclusion, of which the principal
motivi were here and there already carried out in some of the parts (wovon
aber die Hauptsache hie und da in Stimmen schon ausgeführı war). And
this Herr Süssmayer actually did.”
The publishers do not seem to have been quite satisfied
with this explanation, and they afterwards pressed her for
further information; when she referred them to Süssmayer.
They accordingly, being determined to sift the matter as
far as was in their power, applied to him, requesting him to
state what he knew about the composition of the Requiem.
He answered, promptly, in a letter dated 8th February,
1800, and which is one of the most important documents
connected with the history, as patting forward a definite
claim on his part, to a considerable share in the composi-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
7
tion of the Requiem. On this account we shall translate
it entire ; but it is necessary, in the first place, to say some-
thing as to who the person was who thus presumed to
make himself a fellow-worker with the greatest composer
of the age.
Francois Xavier Süssmayer, born in 1766, in a little
village of Upper Austria, was admitted, as a boy, into the
choir of the celebrated Benedictine Abbey of Kremsmunster,
and studied under Pasterwitz, a pupil of Eberlin, a profound
theorist, and an intimate friend of Mozart and Haydn.
While very young, Süssmayer tried his hand successfully in
all branches of composition, and wrote symphonies, and
vocal compositions in many parts, which early gave him
much practice. Arriving in Vienna, he took further lessons
under Salieri, and formed a close friendship with Mozart,
whose success stimulated his amour propre. Immediately
after Mozart's death, he obtained the position of chef
d'orchestre at the National Theatre, at Vienna, and two
years afterwards he was also appointed second chef of the
court orchestra. He was drawn by Shickaneder, the opera
director at Vienna, into a dissipated course of living, which
destroyed his already weak health, and he died in that city,
in 1803. He wrote, among other things, a dramatic
oratorio, Moses, and a great number of operas, one of which
was represented at Prague in 1794, for the anniversary of
the emperor's birthday, and had a brilliant success. Some
of these, and some of his cantatas, have been published.
To render Süssmayer's important letter clear in certain
parts, where he describes Mozart's and his own share in the
transaction, it may be explained that, although the Requiem
8
THE STORY OF
contains thirteen “numbers” or separate movements, the
text really consists of only five distinct parts, or chief
divisions, viz.
1.-Requiem and Kyrie. Comprising movement No. I.
II.-Dies Iræ. Comprising six movements :-
No. 2. Dies Iræ.
No. 5. Recordare.
3. Tuba mirum.
6. Confutatis.
4. Rex tremendæ 7. Lacrymosa.
III._Domine. Comprising two movements :-
No. 8. Domine. | No. 9. Hostias.
IV.-Sanctus. Comprising two movements :-
No. 10. Sanctus. | No. 11. Benedictus.
V.-Agnus Dei. Comprising two movements :-
No. 12. Agnus Dei. 1 | No. 13. Lux æterna.
Süssmayer's lecter to Messrs. Breitkopf and Härtel ran
as follows:-
man.
" Your kind letter of 24th January has given me the greatest pleasure,
as I gather from it that you set too much store on the estimation of the
German public, to mislead them by works which ought not to be set
down entirely to the account of my departed friend Mozart. I owe too
much to the instruction of this great man that I should silently allow a
composition, the greater part of which is my work, to be given out for
his, as I am firmly convinced that my work is unworthy of this great
Mozart's composition is so unique, and, I venture to assert, so
unattainable by the greater part of living composers, that every imitator
attempting to pass off his work for that of Mozart, would come worse
off than the crow in the fable, who decked himself in peacock's feathers.
I will now state how it happened that the completion of the Requiem,
which is the subject of our correspondence, came to be entrusted to me.
Mozart's widow could well foresee that the posthumous works of her
husband would be sought after. Death surprised him while he was yet
working at this Requiem. The completion of the work was, for this
reason, offered to several masters ; some of them could not undertake
the work on account of pressing engagements, and others would not
compromise themselves by the comparison of their talents with those of
Mozart. At last it came to me, as it was known that while Mozart was
yet alive, I had often played and sung through with him the parts he had
already set to music--that he had very often conversed with me upon the
development of the work, and had communicated to me the principal
1
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
୨
features (den Gang und die Grunde) of his instrumentation. I can only
wish that I may have succeeded, or at least may have so worked that
competent critics may here and there find in what I have done, some
trases of his never to be forgotten teaching.
To the Requiem, with the Kyrie, the Dies Iræ, and the Domine Jesu,
Mozart has fully completed the four vocal parts and the fundamental
bass, with the figuring; but he has only here and there indicated the
motivi for the instrumentation. In the Dies Iræ, his last verse was Qua
resurget ex favilla, and' his work was the same as in the first pieces.
From the verse Judicandus homo reus, etc., forwards, I have entirely
finished the Dies Iræ. The Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei, are
entirely my own composition (ganz neu von mir verfertigt); but I have
taken the liberty, in order to give the work more uniformity, to repeat
the fugue of the Kyrie to the verse Cum sanctis, etc.
I shall be heartily glad if I have been of any slight service to you by
this communication."
This statement, which differed essentially from that of
the widow, could not have been very satisfactory to Messrs.
Breitkopt and Härtel. The latter part, indeed, did not
bear out the early sweeping assertion, that “the greater
part of the Requiem was Süssmayer's work ;" but still it
seriously called its integrity in question, and, even if true,
left very uncertain what the extent of Mozart's work really
But the firm had exhausted all the sources of in-
formation open to them, and they could do no more. They
had already, in 1799, advertised that they were about “to
publish Mozart's Requiem, his last and most perfect com-
position, according to the manuscript belonging to his
widow, furnished to them for that purpose;" and now they
accordingly proceeded to bring out the score, which, printed
from the widow's copy, appeared in 1800. It does not
appear that they allowed the published copy to bear any
notice of the statements which had come to their know.
ledge respecting its authorship;. perhaps they did not place
sufficient confidence in them to warrant their so doing; but
was.
IO
THE STORY OF
with an honourable desire to protect themselves against any
charge of misrepresentation, they, almost contemporaneously
with the bringing out of the Requiem, published Süssmayer's
letter, in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, the chief
musical periodical of Europe, and announced that the score
had been received from him. They remarked, however
(probably with the object of throwing some doubt on
Süssmayer's assertions), their surprise at his statement, that
the unfinished copy which came into his hands had the
thorough-bass figured, whereas among the very large number
of Mozart's MSS. they had seen, not a single one had this
addition. They also added an obscure hint,
" that Süss-
mayer's already known works subjected his claim, as regards
the Requiem, to a somewhat severe criticism,” which, how-
ever, they did not further go into.
About this time, another important incident occurred; for
the widow, who had speculated pretty deeply on the forbear-
ance of the unknown owner of the Requiem, found to her
considerable alarm, that he was no ghost, but a real human
personage, who was not only very jealous of his earthly
interests, but actually employed a lawyer to protect them!
However, as the little unpleasantness consequent on this
discovery was carefully hushed up, and only came to public
knowledge long afterwards, we may reserve our account
of it till we come to the occurrences which caused its
disclosure.
In 1798, an interesting series of memoranda, entitled
“ Aus Mozart's Leben,” were published in the Leipziger
Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, by Friedrich Rochlitz, a
councillor of state at Saxe Weimar, and much esteemed as
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
II
a musical critic. He gave a tolerably circumstantial account
of the mysterious circumstances attending the origin of the
Requiem, the most important part of which, as bearing on
our present story, is the statement, that “after the second
appearance of the messenger, Mozart set himself more
earnestly than ever to the work, and in less than four weeks
he was ready (or he had completed it, ist er fertig); but he
had fallen asleep!
In 1813, Gerber published his celebrated Biographical
Lexicon of Musicians, in which he gave a notice of Mozart's
life, and mentioned the Requiem. He said, that the
messenger presented himself again, immediately after
Mozart's death, to claim his copy, and received it un-
finished; but that since that time Süssmayer had added the
instrumental parts where they were wanting, and that thus
the score had come into public possession.
These statements differed essentially from Süssmayer's
as to the share which he had had in the composition.
According to Rochlitz, confirmed by the widow's first
assertion, the score had been actually finished by Mozart;
and even according to Gerber (who agreed more with her
modified statement to Breitkopf and Härtel) Süssmayer had
only filled in the instrumentation. His claims had been
doubted at the time, as no corroborative evidence for them
had been forthcoming; and after his death, in 1803, his
connection with the work was soon forgotten altogether.
Copies of the Requiem were published in various forms,
and widely circulated, all bearing Mozart's name without
any qualification; the frequent performances tended further
to establish the connection; and thus the opinion became
I 2
THE STORY OF
confirmed that the work had proceeded, perfect and entire,
from Mozart's own hand. This state of things lasted for a
quarter of a century, when the faith of the musical public
suddenly received a rude shock from a very unexpected
quarter; and the history of the Requiem became entangled
in a more intricate web than ever.
CHAPTER II,
GREAT CONTROVERSY AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP.
1825 TO 1838.
For the revival of the interest in the Requiem, the world
was indebted to a man of great eminence among the
musicians of Germany, named Gottfried Weber. He was
of good parentage and education, had occupied himself in
early life in legal and civil avocations, and had filled several
distinguished positions of the kind. He had also devoted
great attention to music, and had acquired considerable
facility as a performer on the flute and violoncello. He
founded a school of music at Mannheim, and established
concerts there, which were long kept up in excellent style.
But it was principally as a theorist and musical critic that
Weber was celebrated. He had studied hard, and is said
to have read every treatise on the subject which he could
lay his hands on, and to have made himself well acquainted
with the scores of all the great masters. He published,
about 1821, a comprehensive work on the theory of music,
in which he promulgated many novel views as to musical
science. It was very popular, and went through several
editions, and was followed by a great number of other
MOZART'S REQUIEM,
13
works, all showing great musical knowledge. He investi-
gated deeply the principles of acoustics, and made improve-
ments in their application to the manufacture of musical
instruments. He was also a composer, both of vocal and
instrumental music; and wrote many masses and composi-
tions for the Church. He was member of most of the
musical academies of Europe, from some of which he had
received considerable honour.
In 1824 Weber established a periodical for musical history
and literature, entitled, Cæcilia, eine Zeitschrift für die
Musikalische Welt, It was published by Schott and Co., of
Mayence, and appeared at intervals of three months. It
was .contributed to by an association of musicians and
learned men, Weber being the chief editor. It had a large
sale, was highly esteemed in the musical world, and was
considered a great authority on all matters of musical
criticism.
It was Weber's fate to acquire considerable notoriety by
his connection with Mozart's Requiem. It appears that he
had devoted some attention to the subject of Requiems in
general, having from his earliest youth felt a great desire to
compose a work of the kind. But as he was dissatisfied
with the text adopted in the Roman Catholic ritual, he
devised a modified one, which he considered more suitable
to the: Protestant service, and which he accordingly set to
music. About the middle of 1825, he wrote, in No. 10 of
the Cecilia, an article giving an account of his own Requiem,
and of the alterations he proposed in the form of the ritual.
* A complete copy of this work, which is very scarce and valuable,
has lately been purchased from Messrs. Schott by the British Museum.
B
:
14
THE STORY OF
In the course of this study he had occasion to examine
the Requiem of Mozart, in which he discovered many
features that he considered unsatisfactory, and inconsistent
with the composer's high character. Had this been all, the
world might probably have heard little more about it; but
in an unlucky moment he stumbled on the letter of Süss-
mayer, published by Breitkopf and Härtel twenty-five years
before. Comparing the result of his criticism with the
statements of this letter, he came to the conclusion that so
far from Süssmayer having, as most people had believed,
claimed too much, he had really claimed too little. Mozart,
in Weber's opinion, had had but little to do with the
composition ; nearly the whole was Süssmayer's! Having
arrived at this important discovery, he felt it his duty, as
one of the recognized leaders of musical opinion in Europe,
to make it publicly known; and so to dispel the illusion in
which the world had so long lain. Accordingly, he pre-
pared a long article, entitled, “ Ueber die Echtheit des
Mozartschen Requiems," (On the genuineness of Mozart's
Requiem), which he published in No. II of the Cecilia,
dated the autumn of 1825.
He began by stating his surprise at the fact of the
Requiem being the most idolized of all Mozart's works,
inasmuch as it was his most imperfect composition, and one
which had scarcely any claim to be called Mozart's at all.
He gave an epitome of the three statements of Rochlitz,
Gerber, and Süssmayer, whose letter he reprinted; 'nd he
called attention to the discrepancies between them :
Rochlitz asserting that the score was finished by Mozart;
Gerber that it only lacked the instrumentation; and Süss-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
15
mayer that a large part of it was his own composition. He
remarked that Süssmayer's assertions acquired increased
weight, not only from the modest manner in which he dis-
claimed the possibility of his work being mistaken for
Mozart's, but from the prominence with which the pub-
lishers, in their desire for truth, had put his statements
forward. These considerations, he remarked, rendered
the genuineness of the work, to say the least of it, very
suspicious, and gave reason to believe that the greater part
was rather from Süssmayer's than from Mozart's hand.
He then went on to show that the various conflicting
statements might be reconciled by a hypothesis of his own.
This was, that Mozart, in writing the Requiem, had
followed the plan common among composers, of first
making rough drafts, or preliminary sketches, of what they
intended to write, which they afterwards completed and
amplified in the fair copy. He assumed that a fair finished
score had been given to the unknown messenger; had
never been brought to light, and was probably lost; but
that the original sketches had been found after Mozart's
death, and had been patched up by Süssmayer so as to form
another Requiem, which, although containing some of
Mozart's ideas, was yet essentially Süssmayer's. He also
argued that the small amount of work which, even on
Süssmayer's showing, had been left behind by Mozart, did
not correspond with the zeal and industry with which he
was known to have laboured at it for so long a time, day and
night, particularly when his great facility for composition
was taken into account.. And, he added, that the remarks
about the thorough-bass figuring, made by Breitkopf and
16
THE STORY OF
Härtel, tended still more to prove that the MSS. put into
Süssmayer's hands must have been preliminary sketches
only, the figures being merely for the guidance of the com-
poser in writing out the perfect copy, in which they were
needless, and were consequently omitted.
But the arguments on which Weber most strongly relied
to establish his hypothesis, were derived from the internal
evidence of the composition itself; which, on subjecting it
to a severe æsthetical criticism, he declared showed unequi-
vocal proofs that much of it could not have proceeded from
our Mozart.” He yielded to no one in his admiration of
the great master, and professed candidly that his great
object was to clear his reputation from having unworthy
work attributed to him. The criticisms are given at much
length in the paper, and, though we now know they are
founded on perverse and erroneous views, they are expressed
with much humour and spirit, and are worth recording,
He first attacks the chromatic vocal passages in the fugue
of the Kyrie, asking whether it is possible to believe Mozart
wrote such Gurgeleien, an untranslatable word, meaning
bad gurgling singing passages; and adds, "How singers and
critics would cry murder, if such wilde gorgheggi had been
promulgated under the name of a Rossini, or any other
less honoured than that of Mozart! and in a Kyrie, too!”
Again, in reference to the Tuba mirum, he points out the
melody for the bassoon,* entering after the first trombone
* This “ bassoon ” passage is a mistake, which it is a disgrace to pub-
lishers and conductors to have so long allowed to remain. It has been
long ago explained that Mozart wrote this for the trombone ; but it
happened, when the work was performed at Leipsic, the trombone player
could not play it, and the conductor transferred it to the bassoon. He
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
17
solo, and asks if that is the sort of thing
to express the
fearful contemplation of that awful summons to judgment
of the living and the dead ?" He further, after calling
attention to the sense of the words, “ Quid sum miser;" &c.,
quotes the last nine bars of the same movement, calls
attention to the wonderfully sweet, melting interlude of
the first violin with wind accompaniment, and to the mild
peaceful close, and says: “Heavens ! if anybody had done
this without the shelter of Mozart's name! But there sit
our musical world, in the concert-room as in the church,
melting away with delicious rapture at such charming
music, set to such awful words (which, let us hope, for their
credit's sake, they do not understand), and never dream that
the great Mozart lies turning in his grave, and gnashing his
teeth in anger, while he hears such travesties of his great
conceptions offered to us in his name.”
Next, in regard to the Confutatis, he says: “Just as little
can I attribute to our Mozart the treatment, so thoroughly
con amore, of this unworthy portion of the text; how first
the wild inciting unison of the whole stringed band is
employed, as if to stimulate the Great Judge to drive the
accursed canaille of sinners into the uttermost depths of
the bottomless pit, that be may afterwards invite the singer
into the ranks of the blessed; this soothing invitation
being represented, in the most striking contrast, by the
entrance of sweet flute tones, in the most servile and
unluckily marked “Fagotto,” in pencil, in the MS. score, which was
inserted in the print, and has ever since guided the performance, though
modern trombone players would find no difficulty in the passage. The
original intention ought to be restored.
18
THE STORY OF
fawning style of expression." All this, he remarks, was so
inconsistent with the known character of Mozart, who
would certainly rather have prayed for the salvation of all
mankind, even to his own exclusion, than have implored
grace for himself at the expense of other sinners.
Again, he leaves to Süssmayer the honour of introducing
twice over a long-developed fugue on the words “Quam olim
Abrahæ," &c., which, he says, convey only a subsidiary idea,
and, therefore, are inappropriate to be treated in that way;
and he ridicules the endless repetition, for thirty-five long
bars, of these almost unmeaning words over and over again.
“Think now," he says, “ for heaven's sake ;—but no! at
concerts people do not think;—they only listen ; they care
much less for the music and its meaning than for the name
of the composer, especially when that name is Mozart,
against whom one may sin with impunity.”
The Hostias comes next under criticism.
from the twenty-third to the thirty-fourth bar, and denies
Mozart's part in the meaningless and confused transitions
from high to low, and from low again to high ;--from forte
to piano, and from piano back to forte, and so on over and
over again. He asks, “What would be thought of an
ecclesiastic, or an orator, who would read. a passage as
follows:
With high and loud voice,
Hostias ;
Pause, then softly, and with a low voice,
et preces ;
Another pause, then high and loud again,
He quotes
tibi;
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
19
Pause, soft and low,
Domine ;
Pause, loud and high,
laudis
>
Pause, soft and low,
offerimus."
own.
In spite, however, of all this fault-finding, Weber bears
testimony to the great genius which shines through the
Requiem, so decidedly as not only to outweigh the mass of
perversions with which Mozart's ideas have been disfigured,
but to have caused a whole generation to overlook the
historical facts, as if they had never occurred.
And he further asserts that he finds unmistakable evi-
dence of Mozart's great conceptions, not only in the parts
where his sketches have confessedly been used, but also in
other portions which Süssmayer has claimed as entirely his
It is scarcely credible, he says, that such flowers can
have grown in Süssmayer's garden, and he gives, in justifi-
cation of this opinion, instances which we shall mention
hereafter.
He illustrates his general view of the facts by comparing
the Requiem to a portrait sketched out by a great master,
but with eyes, nose, ears, drapery, and much else, put in by
an inferior hand;-to a poem, sketched by Göthe, but
versified by some one else ; to a tragedy, the plot by one
person, the dialogue by another ;-and to a herculean torso,
with counterfeit head, arms, and legs. The work, he is
convinced, is far removed from what Mozart intended to
give to the world, and which the world would have had, were
20
THE STORY OF
it not that its committal to the hands of some eccentric
misanthrope had rendered vain all hope of obtaining the
true copy
Weber concluded his article by expressing his regret that
the original sketches, from which he assumed the Requiem
to have been made, had been lost. He called on all lovers
of the art to aid him in a search for them; and added, that
if happily any of them should be found, he would be glad
to publish them, in fac-simile, in his journal. And further,
though he appeared to have great confidence in the correct-
ness of his speculations, yet, with a candour that did him
credit, he invited discussion; and, immediately after the
appearance of the article, he addressed a circular to various
persons whom he believed to be well acquainted with the
questions he had raised, calling on them to communicate to
him any facts which would be likely to help in the investi-
gation.
It may easily be conceived what a sensation this article
made. It was not the petty cavilling of a hypercritic :-
or the immature speculation of a tyro ;-or the malicious
attack of an enemy; but it was an opinion deliberately
arrived at by a practised writer, who yielded to none in
knowledge of musical art, in acuteness and honesty of
musical criticism, or in love and honour for the great
master, whose fame, indeed, it was his principal object to
defend. No wonder, therefore, that it stirred up a dis-
cussion, such as probably never had its equal in musical
polemics, and which can only be likened to the Junius
controversy. There was no lack of responses to Weber's
invitation; the general admiration of the work had gone on
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
21
increasing ever since it had first appeared ; almost every-
body who considered himself capable of judging of its
merits, deemed it his duty to come forward and defend
them ; and almost everybody who knew, or fancied he
knew, any facts connected with its history, hastened to
furnish his contribution towards the solution of the great
problem.
In the sixteenth number of the Cecilia, which appeared at
the end of 1826, Weber acknowledged the communications
he had received to that date, printing most of them in full,
but omitting some which did not seem of importance, and
merely noticing some others which he had been forbidden
to publish. Above thirty letters were given or mentioned,
some of which were of considerable length and importance;
and many other communications were alluded to, that
appeared in other quarters. Among the disputants were
Rochlitz, Marx, Hummel, Von Seyfried, C. M. von Weber,
Neukomm, Krüchten, Härtel, and several authors who
wrote with authority, but objected to the publication of
their names.
The person who knew most about the matter, Mozart's
widow, does not appear to have communicated directly
with Weber, but he mentions that she had desired another
person, Herr André, the music publisher of Offenbach, to
clear up the question. André wrote to Weber confirming
generally Süssmayer's statement as to his claim in the com-
position, declaring that Mozart had left no complete score
of the work, and adding his belief that the original sketches
for it dated as far back as 1784. He stated, that he was in
possession of a copy bought from the widow twenty-five
22
THE STORY OF
years before, wherein the parts due to Mozart and Süss-
mayer were marked M and S respectively; and that he
contemplated publishing this score, accompanied with other
data on the subject. The information he possessed had,
up to that time, been confidential; but he had asked the
widow's consent for it to be published, and this she gave in
a letter, dated January 1, 1826. On receiving this, he
immediately announced the forthcoming publication of the
score, and Weber circulated the announcement; adding,
that he had been shown, confidentially, the documents in
André's hands, and that they would be found very remark-
able.
The most important of all the replies which Weber's
invitation called forth, was one from a person who, of al!
others living, except Madame Mozart, was the most com-
petent to give information on the subject; this was the
Abbé Maximilian Stadler. He was eight years older than
Mozart, had known him from infancy, and to his last hour
had been one of his most intimate friends and most fervent
admirers. He was also a friend of Haydn and of Albrechts-
berger; and, during Mozart's life, these four men had formed
a little fraternal band, cemented together by the most hearty
affection, and the most perfect community of feeling and taste.
He was a man of great learning and ability, having filled, in the
course of ten years, the chairs of three professorships; and
his personal character had acquired him the highest respect.
In a musical point of view, also, he was no mean opponent
for Weber himself. He was one of the first organ and
pianoforte players of his time, one of the most learned
theoretical musicians of Europe, and the composer of works
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
23
of considerable merit in almost all styles; an oratorio of
his, The Liberation of Jerusalem, being at the time, con-
sidered to rank only after those of Haydn. He is said to
have completed three compositions left unfinished by
Mozart, so cleverly, that the sharpest critics could not
discover the additions. Mozart's widow had called in his
aid in the arrangement and disposal of the posthumous
manuscripts, and the documents she possessed connected
with the Requiem had remained for a long time in his
hands; and he was in possession of further information
regarding its origin, known only to a very few.
Weber's article was no sooner known in Vienna, than a
host of Mozart's admirers, who knew of Stadler's intimate
acquaintance with the subject, hastened to him, and urged
him'to reply, which he agreed to do; and, accordingly he
published a little pamphlet of thirty pages, entitled, Verthei-
digung der Echtheit des Requiems von Mozart (a defence of
the genuineness of Mozart's Requiem), Wien, 1826. In
this little brochure the good old Abbé, though he bore high
testimony to Weber's position as a musical critic, warmly
disputed his opinions about the Requiem. He thanked
God, he said, that he had been permitted to live so long
that he, a grey-headed man of seventy-eight years old,
could yet appear as a witness to the truth. He went on
to describe Mozart's original manuscript of the Requiem,
which had been in his own hands, and remarked that it
confirmed Süssmayer's statement as to the extent to which
it had advanced when Mozart's work was stopped by his
death. He described minutely how much of every number
Mozart had done; particularly noticing that the last words
24
THE STORY OF
he wrote (in the Domine, after the Hostias) were Quam olim,
da capo, as if to indicate that he was about to enter into
that eternal life which God had promised to Abraham and
his seed. He further stated that Süssmayer had not touched
the original manuscript, but had first made an exact copy
of it; in which copy he had then filled in the instrumental
parts, according to Mozart's indications, but without alter-
ing a single note of Mozart's; and that he had then
completed the work by composing the wanting numbers.
This complete score was then copied, and Süssmayer's
manuscript was handed to the unknown messenger; and
from the copy retained by the widow, the first performance
of the Requiem took place.
But Stadler's revelations did not end here; for he was
able also to dispel the supposed incognito of the person
who had ordered the Requiem, and the assumption that
the copy handed to him had been lost, by relating a curious
little episode that had occurred many years before, and in
which he was himself personally concerned. The follow-
ing is a translation of his account:-
It is,
“It is further in my power here to declare who the individual was
that gave Mozart the commission to compose the Requiem ; but as he
wished to remain unknown I cannot venture to publish his name.
moreover, unnecessary to do so. The fact is positive ; and suffice it
that it is to his generosity that we owe the existence of this master-work.
I may, however, state that, when it came to this individual's knowledge
that the work was not entirely Mozart's, but that he died before it was
finished, he sent the copy, in Süssmayer's handwriting, furnished to him,
to his agent (Dr. Sortschen), a very eminent advocate in Vienna, with
instructions to obtain further information about it. The widow was
questioned, but she requested me and Herr von Nissen (whom she after-
wards married), who were best informed on the subject, to see the
advocate, which we did willingly. The .score was laid before us. I
pointed out which parts had Mozart and which Süssmayer for their
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
25
author, and the advocate wrote down everything that was said to him. The
affair was concluded, the copy returned, and the unknown owner satisfied.”
Although Stadler concealed, in his pamphlet, the name
of the mysterious personage here alluded to, he communi-
cated it in a letter which he privately wrote to Weber,
and in which he apologized for not having communicated
his remarks directly to him, in consequence of not having
received his circular invitation till after he had adopted
the other form of publication. The letter was signed,
Inimicus cause, amicus persone, and was published by
Weber, with the other letters, in the Cecilia, when, of
course, the long-sustained incognito came to an end. The
owner of the Requiem was a certain Count Walsegg, of
whom and of whose proceedings in regard to the work
much more was soon afterwards revealed.
A year or two later, another account of this transaction
with the great Unknown was given, in the widow's name,
as follows:-
“When Breitkopf and Härtel wished to publish the Requiem, they
asked the widow for her copy ;--they had already several copies ;-the
work was known, and they wished to publish it according to the best
authority. It would have been printed in any case: and the widow
necessarily wished, for the honour of her husband, it should be printed
according to the best copy. The work was about ten years old. She gave
them her copy. In the meantime, the unknown owner of the Requiem,
Count Walsegg (at that time at his country residence at Stuppach, in Lower
Austria), announced himself by his advocate, Sortschen, in Vienna, com-
plained loudly, and offered to content himself by taking in compensation,
several transcripts of pieces of music, which were accordingly given to him.”
It further came out, that this negotiation had been men-
tioned to Breitkopf and Härtel at the time it occurred;
and as it had an important bearing on an investigation that
took place inany years afterwards, the accumulation of
testimony regarding it became of much value.
26
THE STORY OF
But to return to Stadler's statement. It would be a
natural enquiry what had become of Mozart's original
manuscripts, which, according to Stadler's account, Süss-
mayer had used in making out the finished score? This
point Stadler did not fully clear up. He merely said that
the latter parts, namely, the Lacrymosa and Domine, were
still preserved as Mozart wrote them ; but as to the former
portions, the Requiem, with the Kyrie and the Dies Iræ, he
did not know where they were, or even if they were still
in existence, although he had reason for suspicions on the
subject.
After his most important statement of external facts,
Stadler went on to discuss Weber's æsthetical objections to
the composition. In regard to the “Gurgeleien” in the
Kyrie, he referred to the constant use of such passages in
Handel's Oratorios; and moreover pointed out that the
principal subject of the Requiem was taken by Mozart
avowedly from Handel's Funeral Anthem for Queen
Caroline, 1737, in the same manner as he had used the
Gregorian “Tonus Peregrinus” in a subsequent part of
the movement,* but that both had been developed in
Mozart's own peculiar way. With regard to the Quam olim
he remarked, with authority, that it was the custom of all
composers in the Catholic Church to set these words to a
fugue. The other points raised were all answered by the
Abbé; but being chiefly matters of taste, we need not
follow them.
The subjects of the Kyrie fugue are nearly the same as in
the Chorus, “ Hallelujah, we will rejoice,” in Handel's Joseph. The
chief one also resembles “ And with his stripes,” in the Messiah.
* Bar. 21.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
27
Stadler expressed his regret that so eminent an authority
as Weber should have taken such an unthankful course;
and called attention to the universal admiration which all
eminent musicians had bestowed on the Requiem. He
concluded with the words, from Cicero,
Commenta delet dies, naturæ judicia confirmat."
In the same number of the Cecilia which contained the
collection of replies received, Weber published comments
upon them, and also upon Stadler's pamphlet. This latter
he took in a very bad spirit; for, seizing on an unfortunate
passage in which Stadler had spoken somewhat disparagingly
of his own Requiem, and of his proposed reforms of the
text, he made a fierce onslaught on the Abbé, for what he
called a personal attack, and an attempt to stir up animosity
against him for doing only what he considered his duty.
He now, however, changed his line of argument; for, as
the testimony of Stadler to the facts connected with the
origin of the Requiem was so explicit, he invented another
collateral hypothesis to justify his former opinions. Mozart,
he id, must have known that the composition was
intended for a particular purpose, it being understood that
it should not appear under his name. And he argued that,
under such circumstances, Mozart, to whom it was
necessity to earn money, would consent to give out music
which, though amply good enough for the purpose in view,
he would never have published as his own composition.
Weber took advantage of Stadler's discovery that some of
the themes of the Requiem were taken from Handel, and
turned it to his own favour by arguing that, in all proba-
a
28
THE STORY OF
bility, Mozart had used for the purpose some of his early
studies or exercises in composition. With regard to the
purpose for which the composition had been ordered, he
insinuated that this, though a mystery to the public in
general, was well known to many persons in Vienna,
Stadler included, and that “as soon as two eyes were
closed,” a ludicrous story would be revealed. In this latter
hint, Weber alluded to information that had been com-
municated to him by a certain Herr Krüchten, an advocate
at Pesth, who knew the Count Walsegg, and was well
acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the
commission given to Mozart for the Requiem. He felt
bound, however, to object to the publication of many of
the facts, and, therefore, Weber only gave extracts from his
letters.
Stadler wrote an answer to Weber, which was published
in 1827. We may pass over all its contents except one
new fact, which is important to the history. The interest
excited by the discussion had happily been the means of
discovering and collecting several parts of Mozart's original
unfinished manuscripts, which had been mentioned in the
Abbé's previous publication, but without any clear state-
ment as to where they were. He now says:
“I have been at length fortunate enough, during last Lent, to get
possession of Mozart's score of the whole Dies Iræ, as far as the Lacrymosa,
from a friend. The Requiem and Kyrie, which I copied for myself from
the original score, consisted of five sheets, each leaf numbered by Mozart
separately, from 1 to 10 inclusive. The MS. of the Dies Ire, now in my
hands, consists of eleven sheets, numbered 11 to 32. The Lacrymosa
begins at No. 33. The Domine, Quam olim, Hostias, and Quam olim da capo,
are numbered from 34 to 45, and are in the hands of the Hofkapell-
meister, Joseph Eybler."
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
29
He then goes on to describe their contents, and afterwards
adds :-
“ As soon as I obtained this Dies Iræ, I showed it to persons thoroughly
acquainted with Mozart's handwriting, who recognized it at the first
glance, and adınired Mozart's precision in the development, the figuring,
&c., rejoiced heartily over the discovery, and bore testimony that all
relating to it which I had asserted in my 'Deſence' was exactly true.
These persons were Beethoven, Eybler, Gänsbacher, Von Mosel, Kiese-
wetter, Doppelhof-Dier, Smezcall, Streicher, Treitschke, Gyrowetz,
Haslinger, Carl and Joseph Czerny, Leidesdorf, Kandler, Sechter,
Assmayer, and, among others, Mozart's son, Wolfgang Amadeus, now
here."
Weber noticed this second statement in the Cecilia,
No. 22, but his article contains nothing worth recording.
We now come to another very important series of
revelations brought about by this discussion, namely, those
of Herr André, the music-publisher of Offenbach, who had
paid a visit to the widow, at Vienna, in 1799, and had
purchased from her, for 1000 ducats, nearly the whole of
the manuscripts remaining in her hands. We have men-
tioned his announcement, early in 1826, of his intention to
publish a new edition of the score, distinguishing which
was Mozart's and which Süssmayer's part in the work.
This edition appeared early in 1827; and, in a long
Preface, dated December 31, 1826, André stated very fully
what he knew of the history, and which may be summed
up as follows:-
In November, 1800, being desirous of publishing
pianoforte arrangement of the Requiem, as accurate as
possible, he had applied to the widow to ask if she could
let him have Mozart's original MS. for that purpose. He
received, in reply, a letter, dated Vienna, Nov. 26, 1800,
which, as it is the most explicit information that ever came
30
THE STORY OF
from that most important of all sources, deserves translation
entire. It runs as follows:
*
“ It is impossible either for you or me to obtain the original score of
the Requiem. Doctor Advocate Sortschen, who resides here, has sent it
back to the anonymous owner, and only in his house have I been allowed,
through Stadler, to examine it, and to compare it with my copy of
Breitkopf's edition. From this it follows, not only that this copy has
become more correct than Breitkopf's edition, but the improvements
introduced by a master-hand cause it to be even more correct than the
original I will let you have this copy for [the sum is omitted by
André], and you will then be able to announce, with truth, that your
pianoforte edition has been prepared according to a copy that has been
compared with, and most carefully corrected from, the (true)* Original.
I have said above that my copy is better than the original. You know
(between ourselves)t that the whole is not Mozart's, especially many of
the middle parts (Mittel stimmen, referring not to divisions of the work,
but lines of the score], and you will, therefore, not discredit yourself by
the mistakes which exist in the original in his name. But I will do yet
more for you. I will let you have the Dies Ira, Tuba mirum, Rex tremende,
Recordare, Confutatis, and Sanctus, and I confide to you the following
The unknown has the original of all that precedes the Dies Ira.
From thence Mozart had composed only the Dies Iræ, Tuba mirum, Rex
tremenda, Recordare and Confutaris, in all the principal parts Hauptstimmen),
and in the middle parts (Mittel stimmen) little or nothing; these were
composed (gemacht) by another person, who, in order that two different
handwritings might not appear together, also copied Mozart's work.
Thus you now know definitely all that Mozart did to the Requiem; I have
said it above, and all further is mere repetition. The Sanctus, which I
shall give you, is in the original handwriting of the person who has
composed this with the rest. Hence it arises that the middle Stimmen'
of these pieces, which I shall let you have, are different from those in
Breitkopf's edition. They stand in the latter the same (with the exception
of trifling improvements) as in the original belonging to the unknown.
The completer of the work must have written them twice over ; and, if
you think fit, you may choose between them. The Sanctus is entirely by
the completer ; but in the other numbers, only those parts which are
encircled with pencil marks. Thus you may also assert, with truth, that
your pianoforte copy is prepared, in six of the numbers (there are in all
twelve), directly from the original copy.
secret,
* Sic in original.
† This expression confirms Rochlitz's statement that the widow gave
the public to understand that Mozart had himself finished the Requiem.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
31
" The following are what you will receive :--
1. Capriccio, which is to be returned to me.
2. The corrected and compared copy of the Requiem.
3. The original manuscript of the six above-mentioned numbers of
the Requiem, which is to be returned to me.
(Signed) "C. MOZART.”
The negotiations being arranged, on the 26th January,
1801, Madame Mozart sent him these documents, describing
now the latter as “ Several parts of the Requiem in the
original, from page il to page 32." André then goes on
to describe the two Requiem documents he had received.
The first was a printed copy of Breitkopf and Härtel's
score, which Stadler, as related by himself, had compared
with Count Walsegg's manuscript, and in which Mozart's
and Süssmayer's portions had been marked in pencil with
an M and an S respectively; the figured bass, which was
entirely wanting in the printed copy, having also been
added in like manner. On the back of the covering title
Nissen had written, “Hostias, Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus
Dei, as far as the repeat, by S.” The second was an
original incomplete manuscript score, of the numbers
named, in Mozart's handwriting. André states that he
compared this, at the time, with Stadler's indications in
the printed copy, but expresses his regret that he returned
it without keeping a fac-simile.
He proceeded to publish the pianoforte score, but did
not consider himself at liberty, at the time, to make any
public use of the information confidentially given him as to
the authorship of the work. When, in 1825, Weber's
article raised the question, André still felt hesitation in
communicating the facts; and, therefore, in his letter to
32
THE STORY OF
Weber, he had declined to offer any explanation. Soon
after this, however, he received a letter from the widow
(then Madame Nissen), in which she herself requested him
to settle the disputed question by the publication of the
copy he had received from her twenty-five years before.
The letter is as follows :-
Salzburg, 1 Jan., 1826.
“If I were in your place, dear Herr André, I would, I think, partly
settle (zum Theil schlichten) the question which has been raised respecting
the Requiem. I would print the work with two different kinds of type,
one for Mozart's, the other for Süssmayer's handwriting. Then can no
one doubt that that portion, which is given according to his manuscript, is
really his [sic].
(Signed) “C. NISSEN,
“p. procura Nissen.”
In addition to this, André received a long letter from
Nissen himself, 16th March, 1826. It is written in a
profound and grandiloquent style; but it is useless to
attempt the difficult task of translating it, as we fail to
gather from it any rational meaning. So probably did
André; and the presumption is, it was not intended to be
understood. Its author was a diplomatist by profession,
and evidently knew well how to use language for the
purpose of concealing his thoughts. As far as can be
guessed, it seems, while it exalts the merits of the printed
copy sold to André, to be principally intended to depreciate
some other “ Original," which is said to have been subject
to accidents of all sorts, and to have been in many hands ;
but it is impossible now
impossible now to discover what copy this
refers to.
André agreed to publish the score 'as Madame Mozart
suggested ; but, before doing so, he took the precaution of
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
33
sending his son to the Abbé Stadler, to see the manuscripts
which were in his possession, and to compare them, in the
most careful way, with the copies received from the widow.
The score was then published, and professed to be an
accurate reprint of the copy corrected by Stadler, in 1799,
from the Count Walsegg's original, the parts attributed to
Mozart and Süssmayer respectively being distinguished by
the letters M and S appended to them.*
André's preface also contained an important communica-
tion referring to Count Walsegg. It was from a certain
Herr Zawrzel, who had entered the service of the Count
in 1790. He relates that, after the death of the Countess,
the Count produced a Requiem for her, which he gave out
as his own composition. Zawrzel saw it in the Count's
writing-cabinet, and particularly noticed the Basset Horns.
When he came to know of the mysterious commission to
Mozart, he was convinced this was the same Requiem;
and that the Count's reason for secrecy was that he might
pass Mozart's composition off as his own.
André, like everybody else, thought it his duty to aid the
discussion then going on by some speculations of his own.
His idea was that Mozart, in writing the Requiem, had
made use of some sketches of an unfinished work of the
same kind, which he had begun before 1784, and he
pretended to point out the places where this earlier work
could be recognized.
Weber noticed André's edition in No. 23 of the Cecilia,
* The publication is still on sale; and subsequent discoveries have
justified the correctness of the distinction it gives between Mozart's and
Süssmayer's work, although André had some doubts of this at the time.
34
THE STORY OF
1827, and reprinted his preface entire. He admitted its
confirmation of the testimony of Stadler and Süssmayer, but
called attention to the passages in Madame Mozart's and
Nissen's letters, throwing doubt on some of the copies.
But what principally interested him was the information
communicated by Zawrzel, as to the intention of Count
Walsegg to pass Mozart's Requiem off as his own compo-
sition. This fact had been communicated to him by
Krüchten some time before, but under the seal of secrecy;
and was, in fact, the “ludicrous story" he alluded to when
he published Krüchten's abridged letters. The divulging
of the fact from another quarter relieved him from his
obligation, and he now printed the letters in full.
Krüchten knew the Count Walsegg, as well as the
messenger, named Leutgeb, whom he had sent to Mozart
to order the Requiem, and he was perfectly acquainted
with the circumstances under which the commission was
given. The Count, though he knew little of music, had a
sort of mania for appearing as a musical composer, and, his
Countess having died shortly before, he took the curious
step of ordering anonymously a Requiem from Mozart,
with the intention of having it performed under his own
name as composer. This was done; the Requiem having
been entirely transcribed by the Count, and the rehearsals
having taken place in the house of Herr Krüchten's uncle,
whose eldest daughter sang the soprano. The particulars
of the whole transaction are given in full detail; and it is
added that, on a former occasion, the Count had performed
a Symphony in his own name, but which a member of the
band had recognized as Mozart's composition. Weber was
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
35
overjoyed at this discovery; he took it for granted that
Mozart, in writing the Requiem, knew the object for
which it was intended, and he concluded that, although he
gave the Count' enough, and more than enough, for his
money, he did not write it with any care for his own
reputation, or any view to its publication under his own
name.
In No. 29 of the Cecilia (Feb., 1828), Weber complained
of the bitter and unfair personal attacks made on him in
consequence of his article; and especially commented on a
further provocation by Stadler, which, as it introduced the
name of a great man into the dispute, is worth recording.
It seems that Stadler sent a copy of his brochure to Beethoven.
Weber had, some years before, sharply
years before, sharply criticised the
Schlacht von Vittoria, and Beethoven, who, no doubt, had
this still rankling in his mind, answered in a letter, of
which the following is a translation :
“ 6 Feb., 1826.
“ Honoured and esteemed Sir,--You have, indeed, done well to justify
Mozart's manes, by your truly exemplary and searching treatise, for which
both lay and profane, together with all who are musical, or may be so
accounted, must thank you. To bring such a subject on the tapis, as
Herr Weber had done, involves either nothing or a great deal. When it
is considered that such a man has written a book on the theory of music,
and yet attributes to Mozart such a passage as this [quoting Weber's
suggested amendment of a passage in the Kyrie fugue], and when we add
to this such specimens of Weber's own manufacture as these [quoting
passages of Weber's own setting of the Requiem), we are reminded, by
Weber's astounding knowledge of harmony and melody, of the departed
celebrities, Sterkel, (an illegible name] Kalkbrenner, André, the father
(not the other one, * quite unlike him), &c. Requiescant in pace. I
* This expression involves a curious pun on André's name, which it is
impossible to render into English. The expression is “(Vater) André
(nicht der gar andere)."
36
THE STORY OF
especially thank you again, my revered friend, for the pleasure your com-
munication has given me. I have always reckoned myself among those
who most honour Mozart, and shall do so to my latest breath.
“Honoured Sir, give me your blessing soon.
" With great respect,
“ BEETHOVEN."
>>
Stadler concealed this letter till after Beethoven's death
(March, 1827), when he gave it to a certain Herr Schlosser,
who straightway published it, in fac-simile, in a short
Biography of Beethoven (Prague, 1828). Weber copied the
fac-simile in the Cecilia, and answered some of Beethoven's
remarks; but directed an angry reproof to Stadler.
An admirable résumé of the state of the controversy at
this time, was written at the end of 1828, by Herr C. L. P.
Sievers, one of the chief contributors to the Cecilia. It
was published in a pamphlet, entitled, “Mozart und Süss-
mayer," Mainz, 1829. The writer analysed carefully all
the statements on record up to that date, and showed clearly
what a mass of difficulties and doubts they involved. It is
unnecessary to go into these, as subsequent discoveries have
cleared up much that was then obscure; but it is essential
to notice the inference from them as to the extremely
unsatisfactory state of the discussion at that time.
But now came an event in the history which promised
to be of greater importance and interest than any that had
occurred since Mozart's death. It will have been observed
that, during all the discussions raised by Weber, which had
not only agitated the entire musical world for years, but
which affected seriously the fame of Mozart and the
character of those belonging to him, the person of all
others most competent to clear up the matter, namely,
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
37
Madame Mozart, had remained obstinately silent. Except
by the communications to André, we do not hear of her in
any way. Nissen had died in 1826; but the widow was
still living, surrounded by friends, in Salzburg, and it is
impossible either she or they could have been ignorant of
discussions which affected her so nearly. In 1828, how-
ever, the musical journals announced a new Biography of
Mozart, compiled by Nissen and edited by his widow, and,
of course, everybody believed that the revelations withheld
for a third of a century would now take place : indeed,
the appearance of the work at this peculiar time naturally
led to the conclusion that they had only been kept back so
long with the object of publishing them more explicitly
and conclusively in this way. Oulibicheff (whose admirable
book on Mozart and his works we shall have occasion to
notice hereafter) gives an amusing statement of how his own
expectations were raised; the satisfaction with which he
noticed the large size of the book when it was brought to
him; and the eagerness with which, neglecting food and
sleep, he devoured its contents, reading through the
thousand pages twice over to convince himself that he was
not in a dream. For, wonderful to relate, in all the
thousand pages, from beginning to end, he could not find a
phrase, a word, or a syllable referring to the controversy in
any way. Neither Weber nor his journal, nor any point
raised by the discussion, was even named or alluded to.
This, incredible as it would seem, is quite true ; but there
is something more incredible still. The statements in
Nissen's book concerning the Requiem, are confined to the
simple facts of the several appearances of the stranger, and
و
38
THE STORY OF
the impression they had made upon Mozart, amplified with
a very particular account of what deference he always paid
to his wife's advice and opinion. But to this is appended
the following astounding paragraph :
“ Immediately after Mozart's death, the mysterious messenger
announced himself again, demanded the work, unfinished as it was, and
received it. From that moment the widow never saw him again, nor
could she obtain the least intelligence, either of the Requiem, or of the
unknown individual who had ordered it. Every reader will easily imagine
that great endeavours were made to discover the enigmatical messenger,
but all search was fruitless.
After all the revelations that had been made, and after
the full account published of the widow's own personal
dealings with Walsegg's representative, nearly thirty years
before, the insertion of this paragraph does indeed seem
past comprehension. The only way of explaining it is by
the hypothesis that it was written by Nissen before the
appearance of Weber's article, and was, by some strange
neglect of those who edited the work after his death,
allowed to pass. And it adds not a little to the strangeness
of the thing, that in the Appendix to the very book in
which this appears, published along with it, there is con-
tained the note which we have translated on page 25, not
only giving Count Walsegg's name, but also mentioning
the dispute his advocate had raised about the copyright of
the Requiem. But even in this Appendix, not the slightest
attempt is made to explain the previous statement, nor is
the least information afforded on any other point connected
with it, if we except a sort of critical review which is quite
unworthy of attention.
Two notices, not by Weber, of this work, appeared in
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
39
Nos. 40 and 44 of the Cecilia (1829 and 1830), but in
neither of these is much said about the treatment of the
subject of the Requiem.
The publication of this biography appears to have
checked, if it did not end, the controversy; indeed, after
such a forinidable rebuff from those who knew most about
it, those who knew less would probably feel little inclined
to pursue the subject. Weber, however, found his account
in all this confusion. Probably, if Stadler's testimony had
stood alone, it would have been more convincing; but it
was still obscure, and it formed only one item in a great
variety of testimony. The few instances we have given
represent only a minute part of the mass of communications
which Weber's article called forth. These were of the
most heterogeneous kind; containing contradictions, dis-
crepancies, absurdities, guesses, misapprehensions, perver-
sions, false indications, and arbitrary hypotheses, in endless
confusion. Some spoke with imperfect knowledge of the
facts; some with imperfect recollection of what had
occurred; some held back what they knew, or gave only
partial accounts, out of consideration for others; some
represented as facts what were only their own surmises;
and to all this the publication of the widow formed an apt
climax. Weber was acute enough to turn everything to
his own advantage that he possibly could. He borrowed
from Stadler the fact of Mozart having used Handel's motivi;
he pointed out the discrepancies between Süssmayer's
account, and those of the widow, of Zawrzel, and others;
and he succeeded in throwing the whole thing into a state
of confusion and cross-purpose, which, by showing the
40
THE STORY OF
doubt and uncertainty that prevailed over the whole history,
greatly strengthened his position.
Soon after Nissen's book appeared, we hear again, in a.
more satisfactory way than before, of some documents of
the greatest importance. Among all the conflicting state-
ments that had been made, one of the clearest and best
established was, that Mozart had written manuscripts of
various parts of the work, which were left unfinished,
though they contained, as far as they extended, all the
essential points of the composition. These were called by
the Germans the Urschriften, or first originals. They had
been mentioned by Süssmayer in his letter; had been at a
very early date in the Abbé Stadler's hands, and copied by
him ; and some of them had been lent by the widow to
André in 1801. Stadler, in his first essay, had obscurely
hinted at their existence; but in his second pamphlet, he
had distinctly stated that certain of them had come into
his hands, while certain others were in the possession of
Herr Eybler. Stadler possessed the Urschrift of the whole
of the Dies Ire, with the exception of the last movement,
the Lacrymosa ; and the Hofkapellmeister Eybler possessed
what was done of the Lacrymosa, together with the Domine
Jesu and Hostias.. The Kyrie still was missing; and there
was no evidence of anything beyond the Hostias having
been written by Mozart in this form.
In 1829, Herr André, seeing their importance to the
elucidation of the facts connected with the Requiem, con-
ceived the admirable idea of publishing an
transcript of these documents. Stadler had, in 1828,
given him copies of his MSS., including also copies of those
accurate
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
41
belonging to Eybler, and had consented gladly to the
proposition for their publication. The work appeared in
May, 1829, with a preface by André, explaining the
circumstances of its origin. It is entitled, “Partitur des
Dies Iræ, Tuba mirum, Hostias, von Mozart's Requiem, so
wie solches Mozart eigenhändig geschrieben, und Abbé
Stadler copirt hat." It contains exact transcripts of
Mozart's original writing, page for page, line for line, and
note for note, without any addition or alteration, all the
blanks, even to the superfluous blank pages of music paper,
being inserted precisely as left by him. It is an exceedingly
interesting contribution to the history of the composition,
and, as the authenticity of the manuscripts was unquestioned,
it set the composer's actual work in a clearer light than
any description could possibly do.
But it was thoroughly in keeping with the strange
character of almost every event connected with this story,
that André, who generally acted with good judgment, here
seemed to take leave of his senses, by a proceeding of the
most incomprehensible character. The first movement,
the Requiem and Kyrie, not being among the manuscripts
he copied, he took a fancy to supply its place with an
invention of his own. He set himself to imagine how
Mozart, following the plan of the other movements, might
have sketched this out, and he gravely published this fancy
sketch along with the others. Subsequent discoveries
showed all this to be entirely wrong.
Notices of André's work (not by Weber) appeared in
No. 55 of the Cecilia (Autumn of 1832), and it was
remarked that they confirmed Weber's judgment that the
42
THE STORY OF
work was imperfect, and not entirely Mozart's, and his
suspicion that the sketches left were not intended by him
for publication, as he had purposed going more carefully
through them on the completion of the work. The
reviewer says that the part Süssmayer had in the latter
portions will never be known till the last day; but that
then, so soon as the bustle of the Resurrection is over,
Süssmayer will be strictly cross-examined as to his part in
the matter; and his great master will also be interrogated
whether this is, indeed, the Requiem he intended to give to
the world. Then, the reviewer adds, will Mozart and
Weber meet and shake hands over some celestial Liedertafel,
and the immortal composer will mark his disapprobation of
the unworthy attacks his critical friend has suffered in his
cause.
Stadler died in November, 1834, and bequeathed his
portion of the precious manuscripts to the Imperial
Library, at Vienria; and, some years afterwards, Eybler
completed the gift by presenting his portions also to the
same institution, thus putting the public in possession of
the whole of the Urschriften, except that of the first
movement, the Requiem and Kyrie, which Mozart was
known (on the evidence of Stadler) to have entirely com-
pleted, but of which no trace could be found.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
43
CHAPTER III.
AND DISCUSSIONS UPON IT.
DISCOVERY OF THE FIRST MANUSCRIPT OF THE COMPLETE WORK,
LATEST INFORMATION. 1839 TO
1864.
We now come to a new and very important stage of the
history. The greatest difficulty throughout the investiga-
tion had been the absence of any original manuscript score
of the complete Requiem as published and known generally
to the world. The recovered Urschriften, in Mozart's
hand, mentioned at the end of the last chapter, were
unfinished; and the evidence showed, pretty clearly, that
a complete score of the work had been delivered, after
Mozart's death, to the mysterious messenger. But whether
this
copy
had been written by Mozart, or by Süssmayer, or
by some one else, or to what extent it corresponded, either
with the Urschriften, or with the published copy, there was
no means of knowing. The manuscript itself appeared to
have been entirely lost, all the discussions failing to cause
its production, or to bring any clue to its whereabouts, or
even to show that it was still in existence. So matters
remained until January, 1839, when an announcement was
made which came like an electric shock on the musical
world. It appeared in No. 5 of the Leipsic Allgemeine
Musikalische Zeitung, and ran as follows:
“THE PERFECT ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT OF Mozart's REQUIEM is now
really discovered, and in possession of the Imperial Library, at Vienna.
This original manuscript, which is, from the first to the last note, in the
handwriting of Mozart himself, contains also the Sanctus, Benedictus,
Agnus Dei, and the repetition of the first movement with the fugue.
Herr Hofrath von Mosel (the chief custodian of the Library) will give to
the musical world a detailed account of this event.
This will appear
44
THE STORY OF
soon, and we will forthwith make our readers acquainted with all further
particulars."
Here was a happy termination to the dispute. The
widow's first statement was correct; Stadler had been
under a delusion ; Süssmayer was an impostor; the world
had been mystified unnecessarily for half a century; and
every note of the long-doubted composition was proved
genuine after all.
Weber, in No. 80 of the Cecilia, copied this announce-
ment, which, as will be imagined, excited his lively interest.
He wrote an article upon it, going over his former argu-
ments, and calling attention to his often expressed belief,
in spite of the assertions to the contrary of Süssmayer,
Stadler, and the widow, that Mozart had actually finished
the Requiem. He does not appear to have been aware
what the nature of the music in the new score was, or how
far it corresponded with or differed from the known copy;
but he pointed out the great importance of the discovery,
both to musical art and musical history, and stated his
anxiety to see the result of Mosel's enquiries. But this he
was never destined to know in this world. He had long
been seriously ill; his article, like the subject of it, was
written on the bed of death; and, before his eyes could see
what they had so long desired, his spirit had departed to
join that of the great man whose work had so long been
his most absorbing study.
With his death the Cecilia stopped, Weber's article being,
with the exception of a trifling notice, the last that
appeared. The publication was only resumed, after some
years, by entirely new hands.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
45
But to return to the circumstances of the discovery.
Mozart's handwriting was peculiar and well known;
the examination of the manuscript satisfied some of the
must experienced judges of its genuineness; and the history
of the copy, from the time of its delivery to the messenger
at Mozart's house, to its deposit in the Library, was
thoroughly authenticated. Moreover, it was found to
correspond perfectly in contents with the published score;
and, taking all the circumstances together, no doubt seemed
possible that it was really an original score from the
master's own hand.
The existence of the Urschriften appeared to form a
difficulty ; but it was attempted to explain this away by
the fact that an examination of a great number of Mozart's
manuscripts had shown that it was customary for him to
make preparatory sketches of compositions for voices and
instruments, in which he generally wrote the vocal parts
and instrumental bass complete, adding only here and
there motivi, or indications of the other parts. It was,
therefore, considered reasonable that, for a work of this
important nature, he should first have made these sketches,
and afterwards have written out a fair and completed copy,
in discharge of his undertaking to Count Walsegg, who
had given the commission for the work, and paid before-
hand for its execution.
This result was So welcome to the admirers of the
master, who had been scandalized by the asserted interpo-
sition of a strange hand in the work, that they at once
turned their attention to the facts elicited during the
controversy, in order to get the support of any of these
D
46
THE STORY OF
facts that seemed favourable to the conclusion, and to
explain any that appeared adverse; and great ingenuity
was shown in these efforts.
New stress was laid on a form of argument originally
brought forward by Weber, though for a different object,
namely, that the Urschriften alone seemed but a small
result to have been attained, when it was well known how
long and how earnestly Mozart had worked, day and night,
at the composition, and with what great facility and
quickness he was accustomed to compose. It was pointed
out that he expressly declined to undertake any other
work till this was finished; and yet that, shortly before his
death, he composed the Lob der Freundschaft, as if acknow-
ledging that the task to which he had given precedence
was done.
It was further pointed out that Rochlitz, in certain
statements published by him as to the last events of
Mozart's life, and which, he stated, were vouched for, had
used the remarkable expression that, “ before the end of
the fourth week after the commission, he was ready."
Nissen also stated that, when the score was brought to his
bedside, he “looked the whole through,” and remarked,
“Did I not say that I was writing the Requiem for my-
self?” expressions, it was argued, inconsistent with the
idea of unfinished manuscripts of a work, to which three
numbers and the conclusion were not even yet commenced.
The evidence against the authenticity consisted of the
positive assertions of Madame Mozart, of Süssmayer, and of
Stadler, that Mozart had not finished the Requiem. These
were explained as follows. As to Madame Mozart, her
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
47
behaviour throughout the whole business had not been
such as to give her evidence much weight. She had, in
the first instance, positively asserted that the Requiem was
entirely Mozart's composition ; and though afterwards she
denied this, her statements had been so conflicting and so
varied, from time to time, to suit her own purposes, that
no faith was put in her assertions. Indeed, it was urged
that from the trouble she suffered on the loss of her
husband, and from the known confusion in which his
papers lay, she probably did not know, with much precision,
what had really been done.
Süssmayer's statement was in such positive terms as to
admit of no explanation but by impugning his veracity.
This had been already called in question. He had claimed,
in his letter, the completion, among the rest, of the
Requiem and Kyrie ;" but as Stadler had seen these in
Mozart's own hand in a perfectly finished state, Süss-
mayer's assertion was proved incorrect, and his whole
testimony thereby subjected to suspicion.
The Abbé Stadler's testimony was much more trust-
worthy than that of either of the others; but it was
pointed out that he had never claimed to have had any
direct communication on the subject of the Requiem either
with Mozart himself, or with Süssmayer. He knew
nothing but what the widow chose to tell him, and saw
nothing but what she chose to show him; and the existence
of the Urschriften, which he had laid so much stress on, did
not disprove the possibility of Mozart's having made a
subsequent copy. An additional argument in favour of
the genuineness, was derived from the character of the
48
THE STORY OF
music in the latter portions of the work, which, though
entirely claimed by Süssmayer, was pronounced by com-
petent judges to bear unmistakable traces of the great
master's hand.
From all these considerations, the corroboration of the
evidence afforded by the copy itself was deemed very
satisfactory. But as numerous and weighty opinions con-
tinued to be expressed by persons who still held to the
assertions of Süssmayer, Stadler, and the widow, against
the completion of the work by Mozart, it was thought
advisable to submit the copy to a more rigid scrutiny and
examination than it had yet received. A committee was
accordingly got together, of the most eminent musicians
and those best acquainted with Mozart's handwriting, who
could be found in Vienna, and these were charged with
the duty of closely comparing the score with other
manuscripts of the master. For this purpose, the Urschriften,
already in the Library, became very valuable, as, contain-
ing to a great extent precisely the same music and words,
they afforded an excellent test of similarity. But the
enquiry was not limited to these ; a great number of other
authentic MSS., many of them of a date only shortly
anterior, being procured for comparison.
The examination was made with the greatest care and
patience. The comparison with the Mozart manuscripts
showed a remarkably close resemblance, both in the notes
and the text, and even in the figuring of the bass. But as
a further test, the score was compared with some manu-
scripts of Süssmayer's, which showed scarcely the remotest
similarity, and in some points presented a marked differ-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
49
ence.
This led the majority of the committee at once to
express their conviction that the score was really in
Mozart's hand.
The minority, while they admitted that the evidence in
favour of the genuineness much outweighed the adverse
presumption, called attention to certain points which they
considered still open to doubt. The date on the score was
1792,* whereas Mozart died in 1791; the paging was not
consecutive; ungrammatical progressions were found in
some of the parts; and a few other such objections were
urged.
But the most important doubts had reference to certain
dissimilarities in the handwriting, which, though minute,
were still considered important. The principal of these
were in the shapes of the naturals, and of certain capital
letters in the text. In the first movement (Requiem and
Kyrie) they corresponded with Mozart's usual way of form-
ing them, but in all the other parts they differed from it.
These objections, which showed the extraordinary care
with which the investigation was conducted, were met
by ingenious answers and explanations ; but it was felt
that every possible effort should be made to settle the
question; and that, in particular, the doubts raised as to
the peculiarities in the handwriting should receive the most
careful renewed scrutiny. There was yet a chance that
more light might be thrown on the subject by a more
thorough investigation of manuscripts by Süssmayer, if such
could be found. Many efforts were inade to obtain more
* It was afterwards clearly established that this date had been really
inserted by Mozart himself!
50
THE STORY OF
extensive specimens of his writing, but in vain ; until at
length there were found two examples, namely, a Terzetto,
with orchestral accompaniment, fifteen sheets, and a bass
air, with orchestra, in ten sheets, both belonging to Süss-
mayer's opera of La Serva Padronn, and dated 1793.
The examination of these at once changed altogether the
aspect of affairs. To the amazement of everybody, the
handwriting turned out to be an exact counterpart of that
of Mozart. The similarity, both in notes and text, was
almost incredible; and what was more to the purpose, the
slight differences detected in the forms of the letters, which
could not be identified by any of Mozart's writings, were
here prominently and exclusively found.* The longer and
the more carefully the comparison was continued, the more
perplexing it became; particularly as, on the other hand,
some signs were found in the score which appeared to
harmonize better with Mozart's hand than with Süssmayer's.
Under these circumstances, too, all the minor objections as
to the paging, and so on, which previously had been treated
as insignificant, acquired greater force.
In this dilemna there appeared only one course open
which was likely to be useful in solving the difficulty; that
was to make a last appeal to the widow. It was true, her
previous conduct throughout the history had not been such
as to give much encouragement, but it was hoped that, as
* Other instances of remarkable similarity in musical handwriting
have been known. Sebastian Bach's second wife, for example, wrote so
like her husband, that only an expert could tell the difference; and
Joachim's manuscript was, at one time, deceptively similar to that of
Mendelssohn.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
51
veteran
this;
her evidence was now so all-important, she might be in-
duced to give a positive and satisfactory answer, at least,
to the question whether, to the best of her knowledge,
Mozart did or did not finish the Requiem. Poor woman!
She was now very old; she had no longer, as formerly, any
pecuniary object to attain; and, we hope, in all charity,
she might be feeling a little compunction for her past sins
in the matter. At any rate, she answered promptly. Her
letter, dated roth February, 1839, ran thus :-
“If the score is perfect and complete, it is not by Mozart, for he did
not finish it. Attention should be given to what Süssmayer has written,
for, in my opinion, it is impossible for any person to imitate the hand-
writing of another so closely as not to be discovered. So much upon
and now I give my assurance that Süssmayer, and no other, finished
the Requiem. This was not a difficult task to him; for, as is well
known, the chief parts were all set out (die Hauptstellen alle ausgesetzt
waren), and Süssmayer could not go astray.
Although this answer, from its vague generality, left
much still to be desired in the way of explanation, it was
explicit on the main question, and it agreed with the testi-
mony of both Süssmayer and Stadler.
The interesting circumstances connected with this in-
vestigation have been described in a little work by Herr
von Mosel, who took an active part in them. In con-
formity with the odd character of everything in this history,
this pamphlet appears to have been originally written under
the impression that the manuscript was really Mozart's;
and, although the subsequent discovery of the deception is
related, the author appears to have admitted it somewhat
against his inclination. He adds: “In spite of the letter
of the widow, and the corroborative statements of the
Abbé Stadler, some of the parties, of acknowledged autho-
52
THE STORY OF
rity, who were invited to the examination of the manu-
script, persist in their opinion that the entire manuscript
is in Mozart's hand.” He alludes to the arguments in
favour of this view, particularly to the evidence derived
from the music itself; but he does not appear to consider
it tenable, as he closes with the remark that the Urschriften
"contain all that exists of Mozart's swan-song in his own
handwriting." This view, indeed, does not appear to have
been long persevered in; the evidence was too strong
against it, and the calm and deliberate judgment of musical
Germany soon settled down into the conviction now (as far
as the author of this paper knows) universally held there,
that the completion of the Requiem in the Walsegg score
was not Mozart's .work, but was a dexterous imitation of
his handwriting executed by Süssmayer.
The copy, however, proved exceedingly valuable in one
respect, namely, that it restored the long-missing Urschrift
of the Requiem and Kyrie. In this part of the score the
handwriting presented none of the variations that were
traceable to Süssmayer. It was unquestionably Mozart's
own; and it was obvious (as indeed had previously been
declared by Stadler) that Süssmayer, finding this portion
already finished by Mozart, had made it up as the first part
of the copy to be furnished to Count Walsegg, and had
added to it the whole of the subsequent portions, so cleverly
imitating the writing as to make the Count believe the
whole was in Mozart's hand.
Through this happy acquisition, therefore, the Imperial
Library became possessed of the complete original manu-
script of the Requiem, as written by Mozart himself, and
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
53
comprising, as Mosel says, everything in the composition
which, according to any direct evidence, is to be ascribed
to his pen.
Otto Jahn, when compiling his great Life of Mozart,
published in 1859, devoted much attention to the question,
and personally examined, with great care, all the original
documents. He confirms, in every particular, the descrip-
tion of the manuscripts given by Mosel, and calls attention
to a curious fact which gives additional weight to the
evidence of the Walsegg score being by Süssmayer. In
the last nine bars of the Tuba Mirum, Mozart had, in his
Urschriften, completely filled in the two violin and viola
parts; but in the Walsegg score this filling in is departed
from, omitting some of the best and most characteristic
features of Mozart's instrumentation in the second violin
and viola parts. It is scarcely credible that if Mozart had
re-copied his work, he would have spoiled it in this way;
but it is quite intelligible that Süssmayer, in copying it,
may accidentally have omitted these lines, and then may
have filled them up in his own less skilful fashion. Jahn
adopts the Süssmayer conclusion as a matter of course;
not even hinting that it is considered open to any further
question. In the magnificent Thematic Catalogue of
Mozart's Works, published in 1862, by L. von Köchel, the
same view is taken, Süssmayer's share in the work being
given as an acknowledged and well-ascertained fact.*
* In spite of this settlement of the question in Germany, I believe
there is still a lingering disposition in this country to adhere to the belief
that the Walsegg score was really finished by Mozart. Mr. Holmes,
author of the admirable English Life of Mozart, and of many valuable
critical essays on his works, appears to have strongly held to this view
54
THE STORY OF
The latest information throwing light on the history of
the Requiem was obtained only a few years ago. In No.
48 of the Recensionen und Mittheilungen über Theater und
Musik, published at Vienna the 26th November, 1864,
till his death, in 1859; and in my communications with several eminent
English musicians, I have found the same opinion prevail. I, therefore,
think it may be well to state here, as succinctly as possible, a summary
of the evidence against this opinion. Omitting testimony and arguments
of minor importance, it may be collected under eight heads :-
First, the evidence of the handwriting. The first number of the score,
the Requiem, was admitted to be Mozart's; the question only arose as to
the subsequent portions; and the close resemblance of the writing in
these to Mozart's, on the one hand, and to certain works of Süssmayer's,
on the other, made it necessary
to carry the comparison into very minute
details, in order to draw any conclusive inference; and the crucial points
were as follows:
(a). The naturals. Mozart's were especially characteristic of his hand;
he made them with a closed square, narrower above than below. In the
suspected MS. the naturals were formed with open squares, similar to
those ordinarily made by Süssmayer. But they did not prevail through-
out; close ones, like Mozart's, were mixed with them, gradually be-
coming more numerous towards the end. It happened, further, that
naturals with open squares were found in a manuscript of Mozart's of
late date. This difference, therefore, was not conclusive.
(6). In the text, the capital letters, B, P, Q, R, and T, differed from
the forms adopted by Mozart. In certain MSS. of Mozart's the B was
found in different forms, some resembling those in question; and one R
was also discovered exactly similar. No example of the forms used for
the other letters could be found in any of Mozart's writings. In both
these particulars the latter part of the score differed in a marked degree,
not only from the first number, but also from the Urschriften, which, as
they contained the same music and the same words, and must have been
written nearly at the same date, formed an admirable standard of com-
parison. But the unusual forms agreed exactly with the newly found
manuscripts of Süssmayer's, particularly in regard to the capital letters,
P, Q and T, which were here universally of the shape sought in vain
under Mozart's hand. In fact, the expression used by Mosel is, that
although the likeness of the handwriting in Süssmayer's MSS. to Mozart's
was almost incredible, it still more perfectly and completely resembled the
writing in the suspected portions of the Walsegg score. Thus, it follows,
that if Mozart wrote the latter he must have intentionally modified his
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
55
appeared an article entitled, “Mozart's Requiem. Nachlese
zu den Forschungen uber dessen Entstehen” (Sequel to the
Enquiries as to its Origin), by L. von Köchel. He states
handwriting, in some particulars, to imitate that of Süssmayer; which
is incredible.
2. Further evidence is drawn from the numbering of the pages. The
first movement was folioed 1 to 10; and with this the Urschriften
(forming the sequel to it) followed on, 11 to 45. But in the Walsegg
score the Dies Irae begins again with page 1; and, at the Sanctus, page 1
comes in a third time. It is thought extremely improbable that, had
Mozart completed the score, he would have departed from the consecutive
paging followed in the unfinished copy.
3. There appears also an absence of reasonable cause why Mozart, if he
had completed the work, should have given himself, ill and weak as he
was, the extra labour of re-copying the whole, when it would have been
so much easier to have filled up the blank lines in what he had already
written. This was not a case of preparatory sketches, or of improve-
ments made in re-copying. The Urschriften are evidently no mere
sketches, but fair copies, intended to be filled in and completed; and in
the copying there is no trace of improvement or reconsideration.
4. The single alteration made in the copying at the end of the Tuba
mirum, is no improvement, but the contrary. It is scarcely credible that
Mozart would thus have altered for the worse his own characteristic
work; but it is quite possible it may have been done accidentally or un-
intentionally by Süssmayer.
5. However strong may be the signs of Mozart's hand in the conclud-
ing portions, there is much in them that can hardly be attributed to him.
For example, it is difficult to believe that he would have made the closing
movement a mere repetition of the opening one; and yet this is an in-
tegral part of the Walsegg score.
6. The testimony of the widow, though not worth much generally in
the matter of the Requiem, has great force here. Her first assertion was
that Mozart finished the work. This was obviously the hypothesis it
would have been most advantageous to her to establish, and if it had been
the fact, it is inconceivable that she should not have adhered to it firmly.
But as soon as she was pressed, she wavered; the fact of the non-com-
pletion was wrung from her most reluctantly by the publishers, and she
allowed Süssmayer's public declaration to pass without a single dissenting
or contesting word ! Indeed, in all her communications, under strict
confidence, to Stadler and André, she made no hesitation in positively
corroborating Süssmayer's story. Her last statement, made almost on
her death-bed, is still more positive and conclusive.
56
THE STORY OF
that, by the kindness of a friend, he has had access to two
documents, copies of which he gives.* The first has re-
ference to a passage in Süssmayer's letter, where he says:
“The completion of the work was offered to several masters.
Some of them could not undertake the work on account of
pressing engagements, and others would not compromise
themselves by the comparison of their talents with those
of Mozart.” This was confirmed by the fact that in
Mozart's original manuscripts, preserved in the Court
Library, at Vienna, some strange hand, not Süssmayer's,
had filled in, on the lines left blank by Mozart, portions of
an instrumentation altogether differing from that made by
Süssmayer and adopted in the published score, and also
attempts to continue the Lacrymosa. The document now
7. Perhaps the strongest proof of all is the fact of the legal investiga-
tion set on foot by the advocate of Count Walsegg, the particulars of
which are so explicitly and positively testified to by the two persons en-
gaged in the transaction, Stadler and Nissen. The Count complained of
having been deceived as to the authorship. The deception was admitted;
and it was clearly explained to him what parts in his score were Mozart's,
and what parts were Süssmayer's, the very details of this explanation
being preserved in André's published copy. How is this reconcilable with
the idea of the Walsegg score being entirely in Mozart's hand ?
8. The recent discovery of Eybler's agreement with the widow proves
that, immediately after Mozart's death, she was earnestly endeavouring
to get the Requiem finished; a fact altogether irreconcilable with the
idea of its previous completion by Mozart
There is little or nothing to set against this overwhelming concurrence
of evidence, except the argument gathered from the music itself. That this
argument is strong enough to prove the presence of Mozart's ideas and
Mozart's genius throughout the whole of the Requiem, appears to be
generally conceded ; but this is not enough to prove that the entire score
proceeded from his pen.
* Translated in the Musical World of December 3, 1864.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
57
produced offers an explanation of this. It is a certificate
by Eybler, and runs as follows:-
“The undersigned hereby acknowledges that the widow Frau Con-
stantia Mozart, has entrusted to him, for completion, the Requiem be-
gun by her late husband. He undertakes to finish it by the middle of
the ensuing Lent; and also gives his assurance that it shall neither be
copied, nor given into other hands than those of the widow.
“JOSEPH EYBLER.
“Vienna, 21st December, 1791."
It is stated, in corroboration of this, that on comparing the
strange handwriting in the manuscripts with that in known
scores of Eybler, the identity is established.
The second document is entitled, “ A true and detailed
History of the Requiem by W. A. Mozart, from its origin
in 1791 to the present time, 1839. By Anton Herzog,
Chief District Director of Schools, and Choirmaster at
Neustadt, near Vienna." The author was, in the year
1790, a teacher at Klaus, a proprietary school belonging to
Count Walsegg and acted as musician in the Count's band,
particularly at the time of the first performance of the
Requiem. The paper was intended for publication, and is
said to bear internal and external evidences of credibility.
It gives a lengthy account of the proceedings of the Count
in reference to the Requiem, and, though differing in slight
particulars, generally confirms the independent testimony
of the two other witnesses to this part of the story, Krüch-
ten and Zawrzel, adding some particulars which we shall
incorporate in the next chapter.
Having now arrived at the end of the wonderful series
of events and disclosures pervading this most remarkable
history, we cannot help looking back to try and form
some reasonable and intelligible idea of how it can have
58
THE STORY OF
come about that a matter, so apparently simple as the
history of a comparatively short piece of music, should have
been beset with such a series of bewildering perplexities;
at a time, too, almost close upon the occurrence of the
events referred to. And, in so doing, we cannot fail to
perceive that almost the whole confusion is clearly trace-
able to one person, the widow of the composer. Compas-
sion for her unfortunate circumstances, and respect for the
name she bore, have, to a great extent, shielded her memory
from the obloquy she would otherwise have sustained. But
the truth of history must be preserved; and in much of
her conduct she lost even these grounds for consideration;
for, long before her misdoings ceased, she had taken leave
together of her poverty and of Mozart's name.
Let us look a little at her conduct in the matter. After
the death of her husband, her first thought was for the un-
finished Requiem. It had been already paid for; and she
feared that the Unknown would, if he did not get the work,
demand the restitution of his money. Hence the first
temptation to that course of deception which she carried
on all her life long. But a mystery at once meets us here.
Mozart had clearly designated Sussmayer to finish the work.
Why was it not at once put into his hands ? Why did the
widow go about inviting Eybler and others to do it instead
of him? What are we to think of her utter disregard, not
only for the character of the work and its author, but for
her husband's earnest request, while his dying voice had
hardly ceased to sound in her ears? Perhaps it was from
some pitiful dispute about remuneration, or as to the con-
dition of secrecy. This we shall never know; but fortu-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
59
nately for Mozart and for the world, it at last got into the
right hands.
We know by the date of Eybler's agreement that Madame
Mozart did not delay her proceedings, but Süssmayer's
work must have taken some time. It bears no mark of
hurry; and the work had not only to be completed but
copied. Hence the Count must have been kept waiting
some time before the score was delivered to him; and it
has never been explained on what sort of pretext he could
have been put off, for he must have known of Mozart's
death immediately, and one would think he would at once
have claimed the score. However, the widow seems to
have successfully got over this difficulty, and ultimately to
have made the Count believe, by Süssmayer's dexterous
imitation of the handwriting, that he had the true master's
work. The performance of the Requiem, and its sudden
great popularity, followed close upon this; and again the
temptation of the filthy lucre was too strong for the poor
woman to resist. She declared it to have been entirely
completed by Mozart, and straightway entered upon a new
series of transactions which one cannot now look at with-
out pain. Although she knew the Requiem was another
person's property, she sold it over and over again in all
directions, and at last succeeded in getting it published by
the Leipsic firm. But now she began to find the incon-
venience of her crooked line of conduct. The Count came
down sharply upon her, and she was obliged to confess the
fraud she had practised upon him. Here again we meet
with a singular and unaccountable fact, namely, the entire
absence from the proceedings of the principal person, after
60
THE STORY OF
Mozart himself, concerned in them, namely Süssmayer.
The negotiations with Dr. Sortschen were conducted on
the widow's behalf entirely by Stadler and Nissen. Süss-
mayer, who was close at hand, does not seem even to have
been referred to, although his part in the composition must
have been the most prominent feature in the discussion.
Oulibicheff conjectures, and probably with reason, that at
this time the widow's and Süssmayer's interests being so
incompatible, a rupture had taken place. No doubt Süss-
mayer, seeing the popularity of the work, was desirous of
getting credit, at any rate, for what he had done towards
it; but this did not suit the policy of the widow, who
wished to keep up the fiction of its completion by Mozart,
and had probably secured Süssmayer's engagement to re-
spect the secret. But her plan was frustrated by the sus-
picions of the Leipsic house, who pressed her so earnestly
on the point that, as we have seen, she was compelled most
reluctantly first to admit a portion of the truth, and after-
wards to refer them to Süssmayer; and then followed the
eclaircissement in the immortal letter.
But the widow had not yet done with the Requiem,
which she determined to make still much more profitable.
About this time, we find her writing to André the letter
printed on page 30, in which, not satisfied with having
already sold the Requiem to one publisher, she endeavours,
under new and specious pretences, to sell it again to another.
She tells André that she has now a better copy than that
published by the Leipsic house, inasmuch as it has under-
gone correction from experienced hands; and that, more-
over, in this copy some parts had been differently filled in;
ز
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
61
so that André, if he bought her copy, might choose between
them. She also, as an additional bait, offers to send André
the Urschriften (all except the No. 1, which we now know
had
gone to Walsegg), and calls his attention, as a further
attraction, to the abortive attempts at completion by Eybler.
What the corrections and alterations in the complete score
may have been, we know not. Fortunately, André did not
adopt them; but the whole proceeding, carried on under
the strict seal of secrecy, is sufficiently disgraceful.
With this last sale to André the widow had nearly ex-
hausted her means of getting money by the Requiem. But
she had still one further source of profit left, namely, the
Urschriften--the manuscripts, precious beyond all estima-
tion, left by Mozart's own dying hand—the only proof ex-
isting of his part in the composition. These had been lent
to André, and returned to the widow. One would have
thought that such inestimable treasures would either have
been preserved as holy relics, or at least have been parted
with openly and honourably. But no! this course would
not do. To have made them known to the world would
have caused inconvenient revelations; and they were ruth-
lessly broken up into fragments and disposed of in secret.
No one knew what became of them for a long time; pro-
bably they passed into several hands, until, by a merciful
interposition of providence, they found their way into the
possession of persons who knew their value, and through
whose respectful care they are now preserved.
We hear no more of Madame Mozart till after her second
marriage, with Nissen, which took place in 1809. She was
then placed in comfort, and with the help in her affairs of
E
62
THE STORY OF
a man of position in the world, she might fairly have en-
deavoured to make some reparation to her husband's manes;
but, on the contrary, in 1826, we find them both engaged
in new mystifications with André. The letter of Nissen,
alluded to in page 32, however obscure, appears to have
had for its object to lead André to believe there was yet
something further to be known, and perhaps to be pur-
chased.
The nature of the widow's proceedings was known to
Stadler, to Breitkopf and Härtel, to André, and doubtless
to many others; and it was solely out of consideration for
her that, during the Weber controversy, so much was con-
cealed, and so many perversions and misstatements were
allowed to get abroad.
To crown the whole, came, a year or two afterwards,
the publication of Nissen's book, edited by the widow : the
astounding contents, or rather, non-contents, of which, as
regarded the Requiem, threw the world into amaze. The
statement of the widow on the finding of the Walsegg
score, in 1839, was perhaps the most definite and trust-
worthy she ever made on the subject : but even then there
was room for a much fuller confession, which would, in
some measure, have atoned for her past misdeeds. She
died in Salzburg in March, 1842, a few hours after the
arrival in that town of the model of the Mozart statue.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
63
CHAPTER IV.
CONNECTED NARRATIVE.
It will be convenient now to combine, into a short con-
nected narrative, the facts which were disclosed at intervals
during the long series of events described in the three pre-
ceding chapters.
At a place called Stuppach, in Lower Austria, four and
a-half posts from Vienna, on the high road to Trieste,
resided a large landed proprietor, named Count von Wal-
segg. He was a great lover of music, kept a number of
musicians in his service, and had frequent musical per-
formances, in which he himself took part, playing the violin
or flute. He had received only an indifferent musical
education, but he had the ambition to be thought an
eminent musician. He had maintained relations with
several composers, from whom he purchased, on liberal
terms, quartetts and other works, which he transcribed with
his own hand, and passed off as his own.
His Countess, to whom he was much attached, died
early in 1791; and the idea occurred to him of doing
honour at once to her and to himself, by the performance
of a grand Requiem, ostensibly of his own composition.
He had heard of the fame of Mozart, whom he decided
to employ to write the work, under the seal of strict
secrecy and under such precautions as should prevent dis-
covery. Some months elapsed before he carried his inten-
tion into effect; but in 1791 he instructed one of his
stewards, a man named Leutgeb,* (residing at Schottwein,
* The very names of the parties to this history appear to have added
to its complication. There was, for example, another Leutgeb, an inti-
64
THE STORY OF
a village near Stuppach, belonging to the Count), to pay a
visit to Mozart at Vienna, for the purpose of executing his
commission.
Accordingly, shortly before Mozart received the invita-
tion to visit Prague, and produce there his opera of La
Clemenza di Tito for the coronation of the Emperor Leopold,
a stranger appeared before him, bearing a letter without
signature, in which, after much flattering of Mozart's talent,
the writer enquired whether he was willing to undertake
the composition of a Requiem, and if so, for what remuner-
ation, and in what time. The messenger was a tall, lank-
looking man, with a solemn expression of countenance, and
clad in sombre gray; and the strange and unusual appari-
tion made on Mozart a deep and lasting impression. He
consulted his wife, and expressed his wish to attempt this
species of composition, particularly as, he said, the higher
pathetic kind of church music had ever been his favourite
style, and he would endeavour to write a work of this kind
which, after his death, both his friends and his enemies
should admire and study. His wife advised him to accept
the commission; and Mozart answered that he would com-
pose the Requiem for fifty (or, according to other accounts,
mate friend of Mozart, a horn player ; and another Stadler, a clarinettist,
who swindled him cruelly. It is still more singular that for the latter
he wrote a clarinet concerto immediately before he undertook the Re-
quiem, if not during its composition. Many other odd things connected
with the history might be cited. The dating of the score by Mozart the
year after his death, was one of the oddest of these. Jahn mentions also
a droll occurrence in reference to an excellent critique on the Requiem,
which was originally published in a German journal, then translated into
French, and afterwards actually cited, by the journal that originally pub-
lished it, as an admirable example of French criticism !
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
65
for 100) ducats. He was unable to state precisely when
it would be completed, but he desired to know the place
where he should deliver it when it was ready. After some
time, the messenger again appeared, and brought with him
not only the sum demanded, but also the promise of a con-
siderable additional payment on the delivery of the score,
as the demand had been so moderate. Full permission was
given for the composer to write according to his own fancy
and inclination, but he was forbidden to make any attempt
to discover the name of the person ordering the work,
which would certainly be in vain.
In the meantime, Mozart had arranged to go to Prague;
and, as he and his wife were stepping into the carriage,
the mysterious messenger again appeared, like a spirit,
standing by their side; he pulled Madame Mozart by her
dress, and asked, " What will now become of the Re-
quiem?” Mozart excused himself on the ground of the
necessity of the journey, and the impossibility of giving
his unknown patron notice of his intention, promising,
however, that it should be his first work on his return, if
the person would wait so long. With this answer the
messenger appeared fully satisfied.
Mozart returned, in the middle of September, to Vienna,
and set to work at the Requiem; but he was called off
from it for the Zauberflöte, which was then pressed forward
by Shickaneder, and which was produced for the first time
on the 30th of that month. After this he was free, and he
set himself zealously to work to complete the composition.
His friend, Joseph von Jacquin, came to him to request him
to give lessons to a lady, and he found him at his writing-
66
THE STORY OF
table at work at the Requiem. Mozart asked for a short
delay; for, he said, he had a work in hand which was
pressing, and which lay heavily on his mind, and that till
this was finished he could think of nothing else. Other
friends also afterwards remembered that this work exclu-
sively occupied him.
The mystery in which the commission was enveloped,
appeared to take a strong hold of his imagination. He
sank into a deeply thoughtful state of mind; and, regard-
less of all advice, worked at the score with untiring earnest-
ness and energy. The interest he took in it appeared to
increase with every bar, and he wrote constantly, day and
night. This exertion, however, was too much for his
feeble frame, which had suffered by illness shortly before
at Prague, and his weakness increased to such an extent
that he would sometimes faint at his labour. His wife
noticed, with deep concern, his failing health, and tried to
enliven him with society, but in vain, for he remained
absent and melancholy. She, however, took him occasion-
ally for a drive in the Prater. On these occasions she
noticed he would sit silent and thoughtful; and on one
fine autumn day, as they were sitting alone during their
drive, he began to speak of his death, and declared that he
was writing the Requiem for himself. Tears stood in his
eyes; and as she endeavoured to prove to him the fallacy
of his sad foreboding, he said: “No, no! I feel it too
strongly; I am not much longer for this world.”. From
this idea he was not to be turned. He gave utterance to
other strange fancies about the mysterious appearance and
the commission of the unknown messenger; and when his
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
67
friends attempted to reason him out of them, he remained
silent, but unconvinced.
.
His wife, finding his illness increasing, and believing
that his work at the Requiem was too much for him, con-
sulted his physician, and took the score out of his hands.
After this, his state somewhat improved, and he was able,
on the 15th of November, to compose the little Cantata,
Das Lob der Freundschaft, the successful performance of
which, and the great applause it obtained, gave him new
spirits. He again asked for the Requiem, in order to con-
tinue and complete it, and his wife felt now no hesitation
in restoring it to him. But this hopeful state did not last
long. In a few days he relapsed into his former melan-
choly; he became constantly weaker, until at last he took
to his bed, from which he never rose again.
But still he worked on at the Requiem, as hard as his
failing powers would allow him. When he had finished
any part he would get it sung, and played the instrumental
part on the pianoforte by his bedside. On the day of his
death, he caused the score to be brought to him, and sung
as usual. Shack (who relates the anecdote) sang the so-
prano; Mozart himself the alto; Hofer, Mozart's brother-
in-law, the tenor; and Gerle (afterwards a public singer
in Mannheim) the bass. They were singing the first bars
of the Lacrymosa, when Mozart began to weep bitterly (he
was always easily moved to tears by music) and laid the
score aside. This was at 2 P.M. on the 4th of December.
In the course of the afternoon his wife's sister found Süss-
mayer at Mozart's bedside in eager conversation with him
about the Requiem. “Have I not told you," said the
68
THE STORY OF
dying man, as with tearful eyes he turned over the score,
“that I was writing this Requiem for myself?” He soon
became worse; but even in his last moments the Requiem
seemed to occupy his thoughts. He puffed out his cheeks
and tried to. imitate the effect of the drums. Soon after-
wards, he raised himself up, but his eyes were glazed; he
leaned his head against the wall and seemed to slumber;
and an hour after midnight his spirit passed peaceably away.
After the funeral, when the widow had time to look
round her, her first attention was directed to the Requiem,
which Mozart had left unfinished. She was in very bad
circumstances; and she feared that when the person who
had ordered it came to know it was left incomplete, he
would refuse to take it, and demand the return of his
money. In this state of things, the idea occurred to her
and her friends that it might be possible to get the Requiem
finished by some other hand, and so to give it over in a
complete state to the unknown owner. Several musicians
were applied to, and, among the number, was Eybler, the
chief of the court orchestra at Vienna, who undertook the
work under a formal agreement, dated 21st December,
1791, binding himself to secrecy. He began to fill in the
instrumentation, and to continue the Lacrymosa; but, being
dissatisfied with his work, he declined to continue it. Pro-
bably others who were applied to hesitated to measure their
capabilities against those of Mozart, or refused to be parties
to the deception; and at length it was offered to Süssmayer,
who appears to have had no scruples in the matter. Leaving
untouched the Requiem and Kyrie, which had been finished
by Mozart, he copied out, note for note, the subsequent
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
69
parts which Mozart had written, filling in the instrumen-
tation according to Mozart's design. The parts which were
wanting to complete the work, and which Mozart had not
commenced, Süssmayer composed, he says, entirely himself.
The score so copied and completed by Süssmayer, was
written, as before stated, in a handwriting so remarkably
similar to Mozart's, as to pass. perfectly well for it. It was
accordingly joined to the Requiem and Kyrie (really in
Mozart's hand), and so formed a complete Requiem, which,
after it had been copied for the widow's use, was given
over to Count Walsegg's messenger. From the copy re-
tained by the widow, the work was afterwards performed
and published.
It remains to trace the history of the two principal
manuscripts, namely:
(1) The complete score, partly in Mozart's, and partly
in Süssmayer's hand, given to Count Walsegg; and
(2) Mozart's original unfinished manuscript of the por-
tions of the work following the Requiem and Kyrie.
(1) When Count Walsegg received the score from his
messenger Leutgeb (who had been bound over to secrecy,
and had, as he conceived, secured similar secrecy on the
part of the real composer), he shut himself up in his writing-
room, and made a copy of it in his own hand, putting on
it the title, “Requiem composto dal Conte Walsegg."
This copy afterwards passed into the possession of the
Count's sister, the Countess Sternberg; and it must have
been this which Zawrzel saw, when partly finished, as stated
in his letter to André (see page 33).
From this copy the Count proceeded to have the work
70
THE STORY OF
rehearsed and, ultimately, performed, giving it out as his
own composition. Performances took place first in Neu-
stadt, near Vienna, and afterwards at an estate of his on
the Sömmering; and detailed particulars connected with
these performances are given by Krüchten and Herzog.
It seems strange that a new work of this magnitude and
merit should have been performed at Vienna and at Neu-
stadt, only about fifteen miles apart, at about the same
time, and under two different composers' names, without
the anomaly exciting attention ; but this is only one of the
many strange things in the story. We may, however, take
it for granted that though the Vienna public knew nothing
of the Count's assumption, the Count very soon heard of
the performance of the work under Mozart's name at
Vienna; and we may imagine that this performance, and
the public knowledge of the work to which it gave rise,
were not very palatable to him. He kept, however, his
own counsel till he heard of the proposed publication by
Breitkopf and Härtel, and to the claim sct up by Süssmayer
for a share in the composition; for there can be no doubt
that he was originally given to understand by Madame
Mozart that the complete score given to him was not only
entirely Mozart's composition, but was in Mozart's own
hand. At these disclosures his forbearance would hold out
no longer, and he set his advocate upon the widow in the
way already related; and, after his pacification by Stadler
and Nissen, we lose sight of him in the history. He died
in November, 1827, soon after the commencement of the
great controversy in which he was so nearly concerned.
The Mozart-Süssmayer score of the Requiem had been
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
71
carefully locked up in his library; and, on his death, it
was sold along with the rest of his music. It passed through
several hands, until, in 1838, one of the officers of the
Imperial Library at Vienna became aware of its existence,
purchased it for fifty ducats, and lodged it safely in the
Library, where it still remains, open to public inspection.
(2) The history of the other, or unfinished manuscript
is not so clear. It remained in the widow's hands for some
time after Süssmayer had copied it to make Count Walsegg's
score, and it was submitted by her to André in 1800.
After this, it would appear that she pulled it to pieces, and
sold it, in detached parts, to different persons, with so little
care or attention to its inestimable value, that it could not
afterwards be traced, and so it was lost sight of entirely
for
many years. The first we hear of it afterwards is, that
at the time when the Abbé Stadler was hotly engaged in
the dispute with Weber, the detached parts were put into
his hands, to aid him in establishing his argument; and
that they were there formally examined by a number of
eminent men, as before related.
From this time they were taken care of; and we find
them existing in two portions. One portion belonged to
Stadler, and the other to Eybler; but the sources from
whence they obtained them are unknown. They were
afterwards both bequeathed to the Imperial Library, in
Vienna, where they still remain with the Walsegg score.
72
THE STORY OF
CHAPTER V.
CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE REQUIEM.
In conclusion, now that we know all that we are likely
to know of the history of the Requiem, it is desirable to
sum up the evidence we have as to the part which Mozart
had in its composition.
We may consider it absolutely demonstrated that the
work was not completed by Mozart. The manuscript
which at one time led to that belief has been proved to be
a forgery by internal evidence, and the external testimony
entirely corroborates this judgment. He was interrupted
by the hand of death in writing out a copy; that imper-
fect copy is preserved, bearing the most positive signs of
being what it is stated to be, and it is impossible reasonably
to believe that any perfect copy could have been prepared
by him, or to doubt that the completed copy must have
been written by Süssmayer.
To explain clearly the state of the evidence in regard to
the authorship, it is necessary to divide the work off into
three portions, as follows:-
✓ A.—PORTIONS KNOWN TO BE ENTIRELY Mozart's
No. I. Requiem and Kyrie.
B.--PORTIONS KNOWN TO BE ESSENTIALLY MOZART'S
No. 2. Dies Iræ.
3. Tuba mirum.
4. Rex tremendæ.
5. Recordare
6. Confutatis.
Part of No. 7. Lacrymosa, namely, the first eight bars.
8. Domine Jesu.
9. Hostias.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
73
✓
C.-PORTIONS IN WHICH IT IS NOT POSITIVELY KNOWN THAT MOZART
HAD ANY PART AT ALL-
No. 7. From the ninth bar to the end.
10. Sanctus.
II. Benedictus.
*12. Agnus Dei.
We will offer a few remarks on each of these heads.
A. The first class refers to those portions of the work
which are known to be entirely Mozart's, having been com-
pleted by him. This class unfortunately comprises only
one number, the Requiem and Kyrie. These, in the original
manuscript, formed a part of the score delivered to Count
Walsegg, and about them there can be no question.
B. The second class comprises the portions which are
known to be essentially Mozart's work, having been com-
pleted by him in the more important parts, but left un-
finished in the less important ones. The essential features
were all either completed or clearly indicated. The vocal
parts were written out fully, together with the fundamental
bass completely figured. The instrumental accompaniments
were the only parts left unfinished. These were always
put in where they had to go without the voices; and
where they had to accompany the voices the commence-
ment was written, so as to indicate clearly how they were
to be carried on. Thus the work of the completer was
confined to carrying out these indications, and filling in
the accompaniments in accordance with the composer's in-
tention. Composition, in the highest sense of the word,
there was none to do.
0
* No. 13 may be excluded from consideration, being merely a repeti-
tion of No. I.
74
THE STORY OF
Süssmayer appears to have been the most suitable person
for this work that could have been found, as he had not
only been often employed by Mozart to do work of a
similar character, but had had, as he confesses in his letter,
special and frequent communications with Mozart as to
the carrying out of this very work. It must be admitted
that he has done his part with great ability, but, as it in-
volves nothing original, we may look on this portion, which
really forms the main body of the Requiem, with almost as
much satisfaction as if every note had been written by
Mozart himself.
C. But now we come upon different ground altogether,
namely, to those portions in regard to which there is no
positive evidence of Mozart's authorship in any way. Not
a scrap of his writing having reference to any of these por-
tions has ever been produced; nor is there the least definite
testimony that even any indications for them were at any
time made by him. And yet, strange to say, some of these
parts are among the most popular of the whole Requiem,
and those which the admirers of the work and of the master
are the least willing to abandon his claim to. On this
account, it is necessary to state carefully how the evidence
stands on either side. The arguments against Mozart's
authorship are almost all external; those in favour almost
all internal; and it is very seldom, in historical investiga-
tions, that the two kinds of argument are so opposed to
each other as they are here.
Süssmayer claims this part as ganz neu von mir verfer-
tiget.” The verb verfertigen is rather a peculiar one; it
undoubtedly admits of the meaning “to compose,” in the
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
75
manu-
sense of writing entirely original music, and no doubt this
is the most obvious interpretation of his claim. But I am
told by German musicians that the more proper meaning
of the word has a narrower signification, namely,
factured," “made up,” “prepared.” As an illustration of
this meaning, an eminent Leipsic professor said to me,
pointing to a part of his clothing, “This is verfertigt." It
is, therefore, not impossible that Süssmayer may have in-
tended the expression to admit of the interpretation that
he had “manufactured," “ made up,” or “prepared," these
portions, using therein material furnished him by his great
instructor. It may be well to see what degree of credibility
generally Süssmayer's letter bears. In the first place, all
his other statements were, with some slight exceptions,
subsequently proved to be true. This important letter
gave
the first clear indication of what Mozart did. It gave
it in full detail; and it corresponded with what was shown
by the manuscripts discovered long afterwards. The points
where Süssmayer's statements were wrong were, that he
included No. I among the unfinished portions, and that he
gave Mozart credit for only six bars of the Lacrymosa, in-
stead of eight; but as he, in all probability, wrote from
memory of what had taken place ten years before, these
slight discrepancies ought scarcely to be considered as de-
tracting from the weight which the general corroboration
of so large a body of detailed assertions gives to his testi-
mony. This fact, combined with the air of modesty and
straightforwardness about the whole letter, and the diffi-
dence with which he speaks of his own work, in comparison
with that of Mozart, render it difficult to set him down as
76
THE STORY OF
a presumptuous impostor, whose aim was to assume the
position of the “crow in peacock's feathers," he himself so
pertinently mentions.
But Süssmayer's claim does not stand on his own asser-
tion alone. His statement is d stinctly corroborated by the
widow, and with much greater weight by the Abbé Stadler.
The legal investigation which took place on Count Wal-
segg's behalf shortly after the publication of Süssmayer's
letter, must certainly have led to the exposure of his im-
posture, had it been such; but so far from this, we are told
that in this investigation, the respective parts of the two
composers, very nearly as described by Süssmayer himself,
were distinctly pointed out to the Count's advocate.
The only external evidence pointing to the work of
Mozart in these portions of the Requiem is contained in
the statement of the Abbé Stadler, as follows (“Defence,"
p. 16):-
of
“The last verse of the Lacrymosa, the Sanctus, the Benedictus, and the
Agnus Dei, were composed by Süssmayer. Whether he made use therein
any of Mozart's ideas, cannot be proved. The widow told me that,
after Mozart's death, there were found on his writing-desk some few scraps
of paper with music (einige wenige Zettelchen mit Musik), which she gave
over to Süssmayer. What they contained, and what use Süssmayer may
have made of them, she did not know."
It is difficult to suppose that these scraps could have re-
ferred to anything but the Requiem, as for some time be-
fore Mozart's death this had wholly engaged his attention,
It was his practice, on journeys, to carry little scraps of
music paper on which to write down passing thoughts ;
and he was accustomed to make preparatory sketches of
works of importance, particularly such as required contra-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
77
funtal treatment. Hence, it is quite possible that he may
have jotted down on these little scraps of music paper any
important ideas that might have occurred to him, in antici-
pation of his writing them out in the score. It is quite
conceivable, for example, that the opening of the Sanctus,
the subject of the Osanna, some of the ideas in the Bene-
dictus, or the violin figure and other parts of the Agnus,
may, any or all of them, have been sketched out in this
way, and that the movements may have been still “ verfer-
tigt” by Süssmayer, as he claims,
Then we must consider the possibility and, indeed, the
probability of Mozart having communicated some of the
ideas to Süssmayer personally. The latter says, in his
letter,
“It was known that, during Mozart's lifetime, I had often played and
sung through with him the parts already set to music; that he had very
often conversed with me about the working out of this composition, and
had communicated to me the principal features (den Gang und die Griinde)
of his instrumentation. I can only wish that I may have succeeded, at
least, in so working that connoisseurs may here and there find some
traces of his never to be forgotten teaching."
The following testimony also bears out this fact. The
widow, at a later time, said to Stadler, “When Mozart felt
weak, Süssmayer had often to sing through, with him and
me, what was written, and so he obtained formal instruc-
tion from Mozart. And I can yet hear how often Mozart
would say to Süssmayer, ‘Ah, there again stick the oxen
fast upon the hill; you are yet far from understanding
that!” A reproof which, considering the relative position
of the parties, does not so much tell against the pupil, as
confirm the pains taken by the master.
F
78
THE STORY OF
Now, though probably these remarks were intended,
both by Süssmayer and the widow, to apply chiefly to the
parts which Mozart had already begun, may it not apply,
to some extent, to the others also? What more natural
than that Mozart (who was well known to compose every-
thing perfectly in his head before he wrote it down), while
he aná Süssmayer were playing and singing together the
parts he had already written, should also have played over
the
parts
he intended to write? And if so, we may be sure
that such indications would not fall barren on the ear of
such an apt scholar. At any rate, this supposition, taken
together with the fact about the scraps of music, form the
whole of the external evidence as to the possibility of
Mozart's having had a share in this part of the Requiem.
But now, what as to the internal evidence? This is
more delicate ground; and, fortunately, every musician who
is a student and admirer of Mozart's works (and what
musician worthy the name is not ?) has, in the score itself,
the means of forming his own judgment. It may, however,
be well to add a few remarks which will aid in the con-
sideration of the matter, and to put on record the opinions
expressed by some competent critics.
In the first place, it will not do to dismiss Süssmayer's
claims too summarily, on the ground of his being an un-
known man. It is often said by those who hear of his
pretensions for the first time, and to whom his name may
probably be entirely unknown, that if he had been able to
write works like these, which would pass as Mozart's for
half a century, he would not have remained so obscure,
but would have made for himself, by other and acknow-
1
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
79
ledged compositions, a character that would have preserved
his name from oblivion. But this argument must be used
with considerable reserve. It must be recollected that the
popular knowledge of musical composers of the past age is
exceedingly limited, particularly in England, where fashion
has such large influence, and where some five or six of the
most eminent composers are allowed to engross t'i whole
public attention. Everybody who has looked into the less
known music of the Continent must have met with the
works of many very meritorious composers, whose names
have hardly ever been heard on this side of the Channel ;
and Süssmayer was undoubtedly one of these. The sketch
lready given of his life will show he was no unknown
person in the musical circles of his time. Gerber, in his
Lexicon, calls him, one of the most popular and meritori-
ous dramatic composers of the present age.” He speaks of
his Moses as containing “many noble, pathetic, and masterly
traits." Fétis, in his Biographie des Musiciens, called him a
“compositeur de mérite," and a “compositeur distingué."
Mozart himself had a high opinion of him, and called in
his aid in the composition of La Clemenza di Tito, for
which he wrote the recitatives, and filled in largely the in-
strumentation. Seyfried, * who was a fellow-scholar with
Süssmayer, under Mozart, calls him “Mozart's inseparable
companion," and adds as follows: "The hourly communi-
cation imbued him thoroughly with the master's spirit,
particularly in his peculiar and novel style of instrumenta-
*
Cecilia, No. 16. Seyfried attributes to Süssmayer the composition
of certain parts of the Titus, but this was afterwards disproved.
80
THE STORY OF
tion. He had appropriated Mozart's individuality so per-
fectly, that many works in the serious style are known to
me which I should unconditionally hold to be Mozart's
work were I not assured of the contrary.”
Sievers speaks very highly of an opera of Süssmayer's,
produced about 1790, Der Spiegel von Arcadien, a master-
piece of its kind, the production of a cheerful genial humour,
and containing evidence of surprising depth. He says it
excited universal admiration throughout Germany, and was
ranked near the Zauberflöte. The reason it disappeared
from the stage was the very bad text. He cites several
portions which he remembers with admiration; and among
them a bass air which was as popular, in its style, as
Mozart's “In diesen heil’gen Hallen.” The opera was
arranged over and over again in all sorts of ways, and
published in all parts of Germany.
Jahn says he was informed by Hauptmann (the eminent
professor of composition at Leipsic) of instrumental com-
positions by Süssmayer which would pass for lighter works
of Mozart. He examined the work so approvingly spoken
of by Sievers, and found an easy but superficial inventive
power, a clear and smooth workmanship, and almost
throughout an obvious imitation of Mozart's manner. He
adds, that both this and another opera, Soliman II., com-
posed in 1800, were widely known and admired, and were
occasionally given at later periods. A ballet by him, Il
noce de Benevento, was received in Milan, so late as 1825,
with great applause. Gerber mentions an opera buffa,
called, I due Gobbi, which Süssmayer composed jointly with
Paer, and which obtained extraordinary popularity in
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
81
London, in 1796, some airs out of it having been published
in this country.
The writer of this essay has not been able to get sight
of any acknowledged composition by him; but in the great
Thematic Catalogue of Mozart's works, lately brought out
by Herr von Köchel, it is shown, on good authority, that
the Mass in B flat (No. 7 of Novello's collection) generally
attributed to Mozart, is really Süssmayer's composition.
And if we look to the work in the Requiem itself which
we know Süssmayer did, namely, the filling-in of the in-
strumental parts (which, be it remembered, the Hofkapell-
meister Eybler had attempted, but given up in despair),
we cannot help seeing traces of considerable skill, and a
perfect appreciation of Mozart's intention. The Recordare,
for example, among its many transcendent beauties, is
universally admired for its exquisite instrumentation; but
we know that much of this is entirely filled in by Süss-
mayer.
We may, for these reasons, fairly conclude that, although
we must not attribute to Süssmayer powers capable of pro-
ducing original works stamped with a genius like Mozart's,
he was unquestionably a musician of much talent, thoroughly
imbued with Mozart's spirit and style of composition, and
who, moreover, in this particular case, was working under
the rare advantage of having received Mozart's special
directions.
The portions of the Requiem we are now considering
have been well studied by German critics with a view to
discover in them the traces of Mozart's hand. At the time
Breitkopf and Härtel published Süssmayer's letter, they
82
THE STORY OF
hinted at a critical comparison between these parts and
Süssmayer's known compositions: and Weber, in the very
article attacking the Requiem, declared that Mozart's spirit
shone specially out in the parts claimed by Süssmayer;
adding, it was scarcely possible for such flowers to have
grown entirely in Süssmayer's garden. He instances the
Sanctus, “so truly worthy of the most High," alluding to
the indescribable effect produced by the entrance of the
bass on the C natural in the sixth bar; also the Benedictus,
so wonderfully noble and sublime, and at the same time so
simple and devotional. “ Are we not tempted to sus-
pect,” says he, “that among the sketches, there may have
been here and there some little scraps more than are
acknowledged in Süssmayer's letter; such, for example, as
a very little morsel of the Sanctus, or of the Benedictus, or
a wee bit of paper containing the beginning of the Agnus,
and so on?” Other reviewers in the Cecilia corroborated
their chief's opinions, adding that Mozart's genius undoubt-
edly shone out through these parts, though in a different
spirit to that of the other portions.
Marx,* one of the first musical critics of the age, says:
“Where is there in the Requiem a single movement that
does not show at least a trace of Mozart's art? Test this
view by the Agnus Dei. Who can attribute to Süssmayer
the violin figure, and the three phrases, Dona eis requiem ?
If Mozart did not write these-well! then is he who wrote
them, a Mozart!"
Seyfried says it is “more than probable” that Süssmayer
must have found sketches of these parts.
* Berlin Musikalische Zeitung, 1825, page 379.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
83
Rochlitz, in his review of the first publication of the
work, and of Süssmayer's letter, says: “That a great part
of the instrumental accompaniments may belong to Süss-
mayer, is quite possible; but his works already known sub-
ject his assertion of an important share in the Requiem
to a tolerably severe criticism." He says, of the Sanctus,
"A true Sanctus, full of exalted simplicity, magnificence
and dignity. What mortal has more powerfully portrayed
the
repose
and the immeasurable fulness of eternity, than
is done here by the strengthened unison on the C natural,
and following passage The Benedictus is indisputably one
of the most simple, agreeable, and universally captivating
compositions either in the Requiem or elsewhere, on
account of the easy, comprehensible, and natural melodies
and harmonies which prevail throughout. It is impossible
to extract separate beauties; on account of the great unity,
the almost unexampled resemblance and correspondence of
the separate parts, the beautiful and varied connections and
combinations, saying nothing of many other excellencies,
it would be necessary to bring up the whole.” Regarding
the Agnus Dei, he says: “This chorus also has many pro-
minent characteristic beauties, particularly the noble, touch-
ing, and passionate expression of the prayer for eternal
repose, three times repeated, in different keys, to the words,
Dona eis requiem." He concludes : “After the opinions I
have formerly expressed about Süssmayer, can it be sup-
posed that I should attribute to such a composer, composi-
tions which I consider worthy of such praise as this?”
Rochlitz believes that the repetition of the first move-
ment was an intention of Mozart's, and that if the altered
84
THE STORY OF
introduction to it be not his, it is as he would have
written it.
Mosel wonders how the Abbé Stadler could have put
faith in Süssmayer's exclusive claims : and expresses his
astonishment that Süssmayer could have newly composed
three essential movements in such a way as to have de-
ceived the first art connoisseurs, for forty years, into the
belief that they were Mozart's work.
Zelter, Mendelssohn's master, said of the Benedictus, in
his correspondence with Goethe, “ The Benedictus is as ex-
cellent as it is possible to be, but the school decides it can-
not be by Mozart. Süssmayer was acquainted with Mozart's
school, but he had not been thoroughly initiated in it, had
not practised it in his youth, and indications of this are
found here and there in the beautiful Benedictus."
Oulibicheff, whose masterly work deserves to share in
the immortality of its hero, speaks strongly, fully, and re-
peatedly, in favour of Mozart's claim to these portions of
the Requiem. He says :-
Süssmayer claims to have composed these; we have no proof in his
favour, nor have we any evidence to the contrary. And if in matters of
art we had to give a judgment as in matters of civil law, we must admit
his claim, as no one comes forward to dispute it with him. But criticism
is not bound down to the forms of law; the true proofs of the authen-
ticity of a master-work lie in the work itself. The traveller who boasted
that he made an extraordinary leap in Rhodes, may be asked by the critics,
'Why do you not also jump as high or as far here?
?' I do not wish to
be thought unjust to Süssmayer, but, among his many works, not one
has outlived him, and he owes all his present notoriety to Weber. If he,
however, as a young man, was capable of composing three movements of
the Requiem which, although they stand, in certain things, below the
former ones, do not contrast unfavourably, either in idea, or style, or
colouring, with a score which is acknowledged to form the highest master-
piece of the greatest musical genius of all time ;-if this is so, we must
necessarily admit one of two things; either Süssmayer has therewith be-
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
85
gun to be Mozart and ceased to be Süssmayer, or the spirit of the master
has come down from heaven to the scholar, for the purpose of inspiring
him with the conclusion of the Requiem ; and in this case we must
admit that this celestial visitor has never paid him more than one visit.
If we must believe in one of these miracles, I prefer the latter.
“We are certain (so far as there can be a moral certainty about any-
thing) that Süssmayer did not compose these things entirely afresh.
Whether he found any written indications for the fundamental ideas in
them, or whether he received them from Mozart at the piano, with verbal
explanations as to the instrumentation, will now never be fully known.
So much, however, is certain, that some indications must have served him
as the guide to his work. I will go further, and assert that the places
are easily to be discovered where the indications have been sufficient,
where they were insufficient, and where they were entirely wanting.
“For example, in the Benedictus and the Agnus, Mozart's ideas were in-
dicated with sufficient clearness to make it possible to carry out these move-
ments to the extent originally designed. In the Sanctus, on the contrary,
this was not the case, as it is only at the commencement that it promises
to surpass every other Sanctus in sublimity. What solemn grandeur ! We
prepare to listen with our whole soul, and we strain every auditory nerve;-
but in a moment all is gone by !* Who would be liberal enough to
make a present of these ten bars to Süssmayer? Nobody; not even
Weber. The Osanna, however, is only the beginning of a fugue, which
reminds one of Handel's finest subjects, and which deserved more de-
velopment, if the writer had been in a position to carry it out.
. Süss-
mayer himself has indicated where the leading-strings failed him. Where
the master stops, the pupil stops also. He says; 'In order to give the
work more uniformity (?) I have taken the liberty of repeating the Kyrie
fugue to the words, Cum sanctis tuis.' A fine way, indeed, to give a work
more unity, to conclude it with the beginning! What sensible man
would be satisfied with such a miserable excuse? If he was able to com-
pose three new movements, he would certainly have composed the fourth
also. We see from all this what extraordinary care Süssmayer took to
avoid doing more of his own than was absolutely necessary. He would
not place himself in the position of the crow in peacock's feathers, and
for this the world owes him eternal gratitude."
Oulibicheff, in another place, lays great stress on the
" scraps of paper," which, he insists, must have been for the
unfinished portions of the Requiem, and which he concludes
* I do not see the force of this remark. Nearly all Handel's grandest
efforts are very short, as, on obvious æsthetical principles, they ought
to be.
86
THE STORY OF
Mozart must have written in bed in the same manner as he
was accustomed to write similar scraps in travelling. At
the end of his book he returns to the subject again. In
the Benedictus, he mentions the admirable and enchanting
variety of the thematic ideas, instancing the passage in
thirds and sixths between soprano and tenor. It is, he
says, only a passage of thirds and sixths, and yet it forces
from one a cry of admiration! All this, he adds, says
indeed much for Süssmayer!
In the Agnus, he agrees with Marx; and, indeed, as to
this movement there are no two opinions. And again he
takes up the former strain :-
“How wonderful! I repeat it again! Süssmayer, who gives himself
out for the author of the ten sublime bars of the Sanctus ;—of the alto-
gether admirable Benedictus ;-and of the angelic, or rather divine Agnus
Dei;--Süssmayer avoids developing the fugue of the Osanna, and, when
he arrives at the Lux eterna he can find nothing better to do than to re-
peat the Requiem and Kyrie! I ask again, is not this the strongest and
most striking of all imaginable moral proofs, that Süssmayer has carefully
avoided introducing, in his work as completer, or rather as intelligent
copyist, a single idea that did not belong to the master? In spite of the
absence of material evidence as to the three last numbers of the Requiem,
the Almighty has not willed that even the least reasonable doubt should
lie over a work which is not only one of the finest monuments of his
worship, but, under its historical teaching, one of the most shining mani-
festations of his Providence ?"
Otto Jahn, in his great Life of Mozart, devotes much
attention to this question, not only as a very competent
critic himself, but taking advantage of all that had been
written on the subject before him. He calls attention, in
the first place, to the much more copious use of the trom-
bones through the whole of this portion of the Requiem,
than in the former parts, as an evidence of a decided
change; for, although these instruments were, at that time,
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
87
much used by church writers in support of the voices, it
was Mozart's custom to use them very sparingly. The
conclusion of the Lacrymosa he praises for its grand solemnity.
The Sanctus and Osanna he scarcely holds to be decisive;
for he does not think that the general character of dignified
magnificence, and the truly majestic point of the C natural,
are sufficient to disprove Süssmayer's claim. He believes
these movements to be not equal to the best of the pre-
ceding; and though there is nothing to show that Mozart
could not have written them, yet it would be difficult to
find certain proof that they might not have been produced
by a talented and well-instructed musician like Süssmayer.
The Benedictus Jahn considers in another category, as he
agrees with Zelter that the school decides against its being
entirely Mozart's composition. He says :-
“ The first motivo, and the idea of the several voices replying to each
other, may well be Mozart's; but the working out certainly cannot be.
The motion is obviously interrupted when the soprano, after the alto,
again enters in the tonic; and the passage into the dominant is very
lame. Still lamer, after the close of the first part, are the laborious con-
tinuance in F major, and (instead of the development naturally expected
here) the immediate return by the chord of the seventh to the first part,
which is then repeated entire. Neither the design nor the execution of
all this is worthy of Mozart. And further, it is hardly credible that, in
the interlude, he would have copied the Er lux perpetua, from the first
movement, in such a strange fashion as it is here done, without any
reason for an allusion to that place."
Then he alludes to the thick and full instrumentation,
which appears more closely connected here with the general
design than in other movements, and which is so unlike
the rest, particularly in the use of two trombones, which
Mozart never used elsewhere, and which here supply the
place of horns. Finally, the character of the whole is not
88
THE STORY OF
only soft and delicate, but in many places somewhat effemi.
nate and luscious, and contrasts remarkably in this respect
with the severe earnestness of the other inovements, even
of the Tuba mirum.
With the Agnus Dei we come, says Jahn, into a totally
different region. Here we find the deep inner feeling, the
noble beauty, and the individuality of invention, which we
so much admire in the first portions of the Requiem. The
fine expressive flowing violin figure pervading the whole of
the first period is admirably enhanced by its harmonic
treatment, to which the soft counter phrase in its peaceful
motion gives a most soothing conclusion. The repetition
twice over is effectively varied, and the close is brought out
more prominently by a novel and beautiful turn. Every-
thing is perfect and masterly. He has seen nothing, he
adds, in Süssmayer's works which can warrant the ascrip-
tion of this movement to him, and is convinced that at
lcast the chief ideas must be Mozart's, and that Süssmayer
can scarcely have had a more important hand in this than
ir the earlier movements.
Süssmayer's claim to the whole of this part must, he re-
marks, be considerably shaken if a well-grounded doubt
can be thrown on any single point; but he does not venture
to assert with confidence that in the Sanctus and Benedictus,
Süssmayer must have availed himself of sketches by Mozart
himself.
Mr. Macfarren, one of our most esteemed musical critics,
and an enthusiastic admirer of Mozart, has favoured me
with the following communication :
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
89
April 10th, 1869.
MY DEAR DR. POLE.Since you ask for my views as to the intrinsic
evidence of Mozart's authorship of the pieces in the Requiem claimed by
Süssmayer, I offer you the following :-
Lacrymosa.-From the entry of the voices in the third bar, to their
full close in the key of F, on the word “ Domine,” in the nineteenth, is
one continuous musical idea. It seems to me utterly impossible that any
man can have entered into another's incompleted thought, and carried it
on in unbroken unity of phrasing and of feeling, as Süssmayer pretends to
have done in this instance; and, commencing after the word “ favilla,”
in the fourth bar, as he says, to have self-appropriated the original inten-
tion so as obviously to have fulfilled it. As well might it be assumed
that any stanza of poetry had been finished by another imagination than
his who conceived the first line,—that any sentence of an argument could
be completed by another power of thought than his who indited the initial
words. I am certain that the first seventeen bars for the voices were
comprised in a single progressive thought, and that the mental process of
their composition had no interruption. Whoever conceived the first four
bars, then, included the next thirteen in the self-same action of the mind.
I think that Mozart never wrote anything more identical with his own
peculiar manner than the beautiful phrase to the words, “Huic ergo
parce Deus, pie Jesu, Jesu Domine.” If, as I cannot doubt, this be his,
so, certainly, must be the antecedent. The next bars are a repetition,
for instruments only, of these last. Then follows a resumption of the
opening phrase, and, with a new completion of this, the movement is
rounded to its conclusion. Hence, I believe that the whole was the work
of one mind, if not of one moment, which mind was Mozart's.
Sanctus.—The grandeur of the opening is worthy of any one; but the
stupendous effect of the high C for the basses upon the word, “ pleni,”
with all the string instruments in unison upon the note, and the magni-
ficent rendering of the idea in the text, are evidence of the greatest genius
under happiest inspiration. I cannot believe this really sublime thought
to have emanated from a man of whose many attested works not one
note is remembered.
Osanna.-- This might have been written by any sufficiently practised
contrapuntist; but I know of no evidence that the pretended composer
was a sufficiently practised contrapuntist.
Benedictus.—The beauty of the melody, and its admirable sustainment,
moreover, the peculiar turn of its phrases, all indicate Mozart as the
originator of this piece. The device of changing the modulation into F
for the soprano, for a modulation into E flat for the tenor, when, in the
second part of the movement, the melody needs modification to induce its
close in the original key instead of that of the dominant, is a stroke of
great mastership. The allusion to the passage with brass instruments in
the Introit on the words, “ et lux perpetua,” may have been accidental;
go
THE STORY OF
it
may have been designed to suggest that “ He who cometh is the
perpetual light.” It is a good relief in the general colouring of the
piece; and, whether upon this purely technical ground, whether with
such suggestive design as has been hinted, or whether by mere accident,
its appearance is admirably effective, and may well betoken the work of
a master-hand. Scarcely so does the half close in the key of F that ensues,
with the recommencement with the bass voice in the same key. I
sup
pose that Mozart might have made the instrumental interlude terminate
with a full close, as a confirmation of the foregoing vocal cadence: and
might have made the passage for the voices that brings about the return
to the subject continuous of this, instead of a new beginning. Such is a
supposition only, and must be received as such. I am still more doubt-
ful of Mozart's having touched the instrumentation of this piece, further
than to indicate the employment of the brass in the passage to which
allusion has been made. I think that he could not have sanctioned the
frivolous use of the alto and tenor trombones that stands in the score,
nor the duplication of the bassoons in some passages that seem to demand
the delicacy of a single instrument, nor the want of symmetry which there
is in the treatment of the vocal theme in F, and the recurrence of the
same in B Aat. The same evidence of a stranger's interference, however,
is notable in the inappropriate passage for the trombone in the “ Tuba
mirum;" and I am disposed to think that if, as is alleged, this stands in
Mozart's writing, he can only have set down the notes sketchily, to pre-
serve the idea, intending always to transfer them to the part for some
other instrurnent.
Agnus.--The figure for the violins, the infinite beauty of the first pas-
sage to the words,“ dona eis," and the character of the whole, strongly
indicate the power of Mozart throughout this piece, --strongly protest
against the claim of any one but himself to its authorship.
I think that, there being no complete copy of the work in his writing,
no more disproves Mozart's having written one, than the same fact dis-
proves Shakspere's authorship of Hamlet. Even the questionable orches-
tration in the pieces above noticed, may have been a mask, purposed to
screen the fraud of an impostor, who concealed or destroyed the completed
autograph, in order that he might take to himself the incredible credit
of having had part in the master's masterpiece. I can aver that one
musician has played an unwritten piece to another, who has reminded
him of the entire flow of his own thought when himself has forgotten it;
Mozart may have played to Süssmayer some portions of the Requiem
which he lived not to write, Süssmayer may have recollected the purport
but not all the details of these, and he may have composed when he could
not remember. He may, however, be worse knave than fool, in wilfully
altering what I suppose to be the points of weakness.
Faithfully yours,
G. A. MACFARREN.
MOZART'S REQUIEM.
91
I have spoken with many other eminent musicians on
the subject, and find generally the same opinions held as in
Germany, but with perhaps an inclination to attribute a
larger share to Mozart; Professor Sterndale Bennett, huw-
ever, speaks strongly of the unevenness of the work, and,
in particular, is disinclined to admit Mozart's hand in the
“Lacrymosa."
For my own part, after an earnest endeavour, with the
aid of a tolerable knowledge of Mozart's music, to arrive
at some discrimination between what is and what is not to
be ascribed to him in these parts of the Requiem, I am
content to give up the problem as insoluble.
Such is all the evidence we can bring to throw light on
this interesting question. It amounts to this; that although
no historical proof exists of Mozart having had any part in
these portions of the Requiem, yet the fact of the scraps of
music being given to Süssmayer, and his personal commu-
nications with Mozart, render it possible that the ideas of
the great master may have been used therein ; a supposition
which the testimony of the music itself, as interpreted by
the best critics, renders more than probable, if not abso-
lutely certain.
But be this as it may, there is enough in the work,
taken as a whole, to identify it as the grandeșt effort of the
genius of this immortal composer, and to justify the
emphatic designation of it with which we commenced this
wonderful story, “OPUS SUMMUM, VIRI SUMMI.
THE END.
References to Works on the subject of the Requiem.
Mozart's Requiem. Partitur. Leipsic: Breitkopf and Härtel. 1800.
Ibid. Partitur. Neue nach Mozart's und Süssmayer's Handschriften
berechtigte Ausgabe, nebst einem Vorbericht von Anton André. Offen-
bach: Joh. André. December, 1826.
Ibid. Partitur. So wie solches Mozart eigenhändig geschrieben und
Abbé Stadler copirt hat. Mit Vorbericht u Anhang von A. André.
Offenbach: André. May, 1829.
Cæcilia, eine Zeitschrift für die Musikalische Welt. Mainz. 1824
to 1839.
Ergebnisse der bisherigen Forschungen über die Echtheit des Mozart'.
schen Requiem's. Mainz. 1826.
Weitere Ergebnisse. Mainz. 1827.
Vertheidigung der Echtheit des Mozart'schen Requiem's, von Abbé
Stadler. Wien : Tendler. 1826.
Nachtrag zurselben. Wien. 1827.
Mozart und Süssmayer. Von G. L. P. Sievers. Mainz. 1829.
Biographie W. A. Mozart's. Von G W. von Nissen. Herausgegeben
von Constanze, Wittwe von Nissen, früher Wittwe Mozart. Leipsic.
1828.
Ueber die Original Partitur des Requiem's von W. A. Mozart. Von
I. F. Edlen von Mosel. Wien: Strauss. 1839.
Gerber. Lexicon der Tonkünstler.
Fétis. Biographie desMusiciens.
Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung. Leipsic.
Oulibicheff. Nouvelle biographie de Mozart. Moscow. 1843.
The Life of Mozart. By Edward Holmes. London : Chapman and
Hall. 1845.
W. A. Mozart. Von Otto Jahn. 4. Volumes. Leipsic. 1856.
Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichniss sämmtlicher Tonwerke W.
A. Mozart's. Von Dr. Ludwig Ritter von Köchel. Leipsic. 1862.
Recensichen und Mittheilungen über Theater und Musik. No. 48.
Wien 26 November, 1864.
Musical World. London. 'No. 42. December 3, 1864.
Price is.
THE
STORY OF MOZART'S REQUIEM.
:
Carefully compiled from the best and most authentic sources,
By WM. POLE, F.R.S., Mus. Doc.
This immortal work, independently of its value as a musical com-
position, has great interest on account of its very remarkable history.
The mysterious commission given for it, the supernatural impression
made by this on Mozart, his composition of the work under such
pathetic circumstances, partly on his deathbed, the difficulties as to
its publication, the fierce controversy as to its authorship, which for
fourteen years engaged the attention of some of the most learned men
and profound musicians of Europe, the extraordinary disappearance
and long concealment of the manuscripts, their ultimate discovery,
the difficult and perplexing questions as to their genuineness, the
strange reyelations gradually made as to the secret history of the
various transactions, and the doubts which, after all possible informa-
tion has been obtained, still hang over the authorship of some parts of
the work; all these things, spread over seventy or eighty years, form a
story of unparalleled interest in the annals of music.
The object of the present essay is to tell this story, which is hitherto
but little known in England; and it will form, it is hoped, an appro-
priate companion to the various editions of the "Requiem” published
by Messrs. Novello and Co.
"Dr. Pole's little book is the result of much careful and painstaking
investigation, the conclusions from which are given in the most
flogical and clear manner, and embody perhaps the most extraordinary
story ever heard of in connection with a musical composition, and one
THE
LIFE OF MOZART
Including his Correspondence.
BY
EDWARD HOLMES.
A New EDITION, WITH Notes, BY
EBENEZER PROUT.
CLOTH, Five SHILLINGS.
LONDON: NOVELLO, EWER AND CO.
DATE DUE
INTERLIBRARY LOAN
Kreather
DEC
2 1985
MAY '1
&
NOV ¿ I RECO
APR 6 1982
MAY 1 3 86
MAY 20 RECO
MAY
3 1982
;
APR 271 RENT
IDEC 17 1982
NOK 1 5 1986
NOV_1 6 RECDI
AN
NOV
MAR 14 1985
APR
3 1983
MAR 25
FEB 28 1985
MAR 3 1 1985 PP
APR
1 RECT
APR 216 RECE
C