146

Journal of Musicological Research, 28:146–161, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0141-1896 print/1547-7304 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01411890902931794

GMUR0141-18961547-7304Journal of Musicological Research, Vol. 28, No. 2-3, April 2009: pp. 1–18Journal of Musicological Research

Haydn as Musical Borrower: The Origin of the Finale to the Feuer Sinfonia (Hob. I:59)

Haydn as Musical BorrowerD. Blazin

DWIGHT BLAZINWyckoff, New Jersey

The circumstances of the composition of Joseph Haydn’sSymphony, Hob. I:59, have been a matter of conjecture,although to date no documentary evidence satisfactorily settlesthe question of its origin. Nevertheless, tracing the origin of thefinale shows that its musical material is likely to be by Haydn’syounger brother, Johann Michael. Documentary and stylisticevidence establishes a chronology of the two versions andreveals the changes Joseph made to his brother’s original work.The evidence further suggests that Michael could have becomeaware of Joseph’s revision of his original finale by 1772, whichcould have been the catalyst for Michael’s composition of a newfinale.

Composed around 1768, the so-called “Feuer” Symphony (Hob. I:59)stands among Haydn’s significant early works written for the courtorchestra of Prince Nikolaus Esterházy. The circumstances of its compo-sition have been a matter of conjecture, although to date no documen-tary evidence satisfactorily settles the question of its origin. Theinclusion of the nickname “Feuer” (Fire) in an eighteenth-century copyat the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, together with performances of theGrossmann play Der Feuersbrunst (The Firestorm) at Esterháza duringthe 1770s, has led some to make an obvious circumstantial connectionbetween the symphony and the Grossmann play—the approximate five-year gap between Haydn’s completion of the symphony and any knownperformance of the play at Esterháza notwithstanding. Although notentirely convinced of the work’s connection to Der Feuersbrunst, H. C.Robbins Landon considered the work to be “highly original” and none-theless “theatrical.” In particular, Daniel Heartz more recently saw thefinale of the symphony, with its dazzling solo wind writing and strikinguse of a repeating horn fifths, as characteristic of Haydn’s symphonic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 147

EXAMPLE 1a Joseph Haydn, Symphony in A, Hob. I:59, movement IV, Allegro assai,measures 1–27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

148 D. Blazin

style and, as a possible influence on the work of other composers aswell (see Example 1a and 1b).1

Even absent a surviving autograph, the documentary evidence for thesymphony is such that no one has ever questioned its attribution toHaydn—either as a whole or in part. Yet, as we shall see, the finale evi-dently had a life all its own—a life that almost certainly predates Haydn’scomposition of Hob. I:59, perhaps by over a decade.

TWO SYMPHONIES, ONE FINALE

Not long before 1770, Hummel in Amsterdam published three symphoniesas Joseph Haydn’s Op. 10, which included Hob. I:49, I:B2, and I:20.Although widely disseminated as a work by Joseph, Hob. I:B2 is certainlynot his.2 Remarkably, though, it concludes with an alternate version of thefinale to Hob. I:59 (compare Examples 2 and 3).

1 H. C. Robbins Landon, Chronicle and Works: Haydn at Eszterhaza 1766–1790 (Bloomington andLondon: Indiana University Press, 1978), 288; Daniel Heartz, Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School1740–1780 (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995), 623. On the dating of Hob. I:59,see Sonja Gerlach, “Joseph Haydns Sinfonien bis 1774. Studien zur Chronologie,” Haydn-Studien 7(1996), 24–26. Given that the two sets of local performance parts (A-GÖ, A-KR), independently bear thedate 1769, perhaps both refer to the actual date of composition. Further on the Haydn collections at A-GÖ and A-KR, see Dwight Blazin, Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition”: A Study of Attribution,Chronology, and Source Transmission (Ph.D. Diss., New York University, 2004), 133–211.2 Jens Peter Larsen, Die Haydn-Überlieferung (Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1939), 45; andAnthony van Hoboken, Joseph Haydn: Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis, vol. 1 (Mainz: B.Schott, 1957), 269–70.

EXAMPLE 1b Joseph Haydn, Symphony in A, Hob. I:59, movement IV, Allegro assai, measures 1–27 (continued).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 149

Once it was shown not to be a work of Joseph Haydn, there was littlescholarly interest shown in it, despite the obvious and deeply intriguingmusical similarities to be found in these two finales. Certainly no one hasdared suggest that Hob. I:B2 could possibly predate Hob. I:59. Yet, Josephdid not compose it; so the question remains—who did? Moreover, at twokey structural points these movements differ significantly, and an explora-tion of these differences also sheds important light on the question ofauthorship (see Example 4a and 4b).3

3 Larsen, Die Haydn-Überlieferung, 45 and 194. Evidently unaware that Hob. I:B2 had already beenproven spurious, Hans Gàl published an edition in 1938 as a “re-discovered” Haydn symphony, suggest-ing that the finale was Haydn’s own early version of the finale to Hob. I:59.

EXAMPLE 2 Symphony in B , Hob. I:B2 (incipits).`

EXAMPLE 3 Joseph Haydn, Symphony in A, Hob. I:59 (incipits).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

150 D. Blazin

EXAMPLE 4a Symphony in B , Hob. I:B2, movement IV, Presto, measures 1–27.`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 151

The first two movements of Hob. I:B2 are actually by Haydn’s brother,Johann Michael (1737–1806), but the work presented in the modern the-matic catalogue as MH 82 does not include the finale from Hob. I:B2—infact, MH 82 does not have a “finale” at all (see Example 5).4 Is there anyevidence that Michael Haydn composed the B version of the finale and thatJoseph reworked it? If so, then the revisions Joseph made certainly becomeinteresting again. Yet, unless one can establish a clear chronology betweenthe two movements and construct a persuasive case for Michael Haydn’scomposition of Hob. I:B2 in its entirety, a relationship between the two ver-sions is mere conjecture.

Our knowledge of Michael Haydn’s early career is still quite fragmen-tary. Five years younger than Joseph, he likewise attended the choir school

4 Charles Sherman and T. Donley Thomas, Johann Michael Haydn (1737–1806): A ChronologicalThematic Catalogue of His Works (Stuyvesant, N.Y.: Pendragon Press, 1993).

EXAMPLE 4b Symphony in B Hob. I:B2, movement IV, Presto, measures 1–27 (continued).`

EXAMPLE 5 Michael Haydn, Symphony in B , MH 82 (incipits).`

`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

152 D. Blazin

at the Stephansdom and grew up in Vienna. He was at the school untilabout 1753, and whatever his activities there, it is clear that by 1754 he wasactive compositionally.5 Roughly six years later, he was employed by CountAdam Patáchich, Bishop of Grosswardein (now Oradea, Romania). There isalso evidence that he was back in Vienna by late 1762, shortly before offi-cially assuming a new position in Salzburg as Hofkonzertmeister in 1763.6

While in Salzburg, Michael labored in relative obscurity with new worksenjoying a very limited local transmission until the mid 1770s.7 Joseph, bycontrast, remained in the general vicinity of Vienna and by the late 1760sattained an international reputation. By 1770, prints of his works appearedin both Paris and Amsterdam. Still, prior to his arrival in Salzburg, Michael’scompositional activity was vigorous, completing no less than fifteen sym-phonies and fourteen masses. This early symphonic output is particularlynoteworthy because it is comparable in size to Joseph’s by this date, andMichael was significantly younger.8

Michael’s early symphonies enjoyed a rather surprising breadth oftransmission, a breadth very much comparable to Joseph’s.9 Yet, this proba-bly had little to do with any mounting interest in Michael’s early works andmore to do with his last name. Indeed, the vast majority of such widespreadmisattribution occurs chiefly among his early, pre-Salzburg works, and theseare misattributed to Joseph. Thus, Michael’s early works were at significant

5 Sherman and Thomas, Johann Michael Haydn: A Chronological Thematic Catalogue, 1. MichaelHaydn’s earliest known work is his Trinity Mass dated 1754 (MH 1).6 Biographische Skizze von Michael Haydn von des verklärten Tonkünstlers Freunden entworfen,und zum Besten seiner Wittwe herausgegeben (Salzburg: Mayr’sche Buchhandlung, 1808); RudolphAngermüller and Johanna Senigl, “Biographie des Salzburgischen Concertmeisters Michael Haydn vonseinen Freunden verfasset,” Mitteilungen der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum 37 (1989), 199–231;Karl Wagner, ed., Abbé Maximilian Stadler: Seine “Materialien zur Geschichte der Musik unter den österre-ichischen Regenten” (Kassel, 1974); Vince Bunyitay, A váradi püspökség története alapításától a jelenkorig(Debrecen, 1936); Franz Martin, “Kleine Beiträge zur Musikgeschichte Salzburg, insbesonders zur BiographieMichael Haydns,” Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 53 (1913), 355–62.7 Blazin, Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 134. Michael and several other Salzburg musi-cians were evidently in Vienna during the fall of 1767. According to a letter of November 29, 1767, fromLeopold Mozart to Lorenz Hagenauer, Michael Haydn was in Vienna with Joseph Leutgeb, Franz Drasil,and Ignaz Küffel, each members of Salzburg’s Hofkapelle. See Mozart: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, vol. 1,ed. Wilhelm Bauer, Otto Erich Deutsch, and Joseph Eibl (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1962), 249. According toMichael’s autographs, he completed a Finalmusik (MH 86) in August 1767, probably for the conclusionof the academic year, and the Oratorio Der Kampf der Buße und Bekehrung (MH 106) in February 1768.The entirety of his stay in Vienna would have taken place between these two works.8 By 1763, Joseph Haydn composed the following 14 symphonies: Hob. I:1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14,15, 37, 40, 107, 108; and six others likely date from before 1763: Hob. I:2, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 16. SeeGerlach, “Joseph Haydns Sinfonien bis 1774,” 8–12. Michael Haydn probably composed at least the fol-lowing symphonies by 1763: MH 23, 25, 35, 37, 50, 51, 62, 63, 64, 65, 82, 108, 132, Hob. I:E1 and I:B2.See Blazin, Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 242–5.9 Of the fifteen known pre-Salzburg symphonies by Michael Haydn (see again note 8), only two ofthem were not disseminated as works of Joseph Haydn (MH 25 and 37). Only four of Michael’s sympho-nies appeared in print during his lifetime, MH 35, 108, Hob. I:E1, I:B2, each composed prior to his arrivalin Salzburg. These prints all attribute the works to Joseph. See Blazin, op. cit., 242–5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 153

risk: It follows that any work bearing an attribution to “Haydn”—even withan original explicit attribution to Michael—would eventually merge into aViennese “Haydn” transmission increasingly associated only with Joseph.10

During his first decade and a half in Salzburg (1764–79), Michael’s com-position of symphonies ground almost to a complete standstill. At first heprovided orchestral music for the local Benedictine University, embeddingsymphonic movements within larger dramatic or dance productions, as wellas into various Finalmusik performed at the conclusion of the university’sacademic year.11 Especially during the 1760s, Michael returned to earlierworks and revised them to meet his needs in Salzburg.12

It is, then, amid this period of scant symphonic output that Michael in1766 completes a “new” three-movement symphony in B (see Example 5for its incipits). He signed and dated his autograph score, as was customaryfor him, and the inscription on the last page bears the date: a Salisburgo 277bris: 766. The autograph transmits the three-movement work presented inthe modern thematic catalogue as MH 82.13 On the last page of the thirdmovement, he also wrote: Segue il Finale, referring now to a fourth move-ment included in sequence in the autograph score. His score continues thenwith a fourth movement, an Allegro molto, and on the last page he thenwrote: S[alisburgo] 15 Juni 772 (see Example 6).

Given that six years separate the two dates Michael Haydn provided onthe last pages of the third and fourth movements, we must conclude that heconsidered MH 82 to be a completed work in 1766. Performance parts ofSalzburg origin survive for both the three-movement version of 1766 andthe four-movement version of 1772, thus corroborating the composer’sautograph notations.14

10 Further on the widespread misattribution of Michael Haydn’s pre-Salzburg works, see Blazin,Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 133–81.11 Further on Salzburg’s Finalmusik tradition, see Werner Rainer, “Michael Haydns Orchester-serenaden,” in Mozart-Jahrbuch 1987/88 (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1988), 73–79; Günter Hausswald, MozartSerenaden: Ein Beitrag zur Stilkritik des 18. Jahrhunderts (Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen, 1975); andCarl Bär, “Zum Begriff des ‘Basso’ in Mozarts Serenaden,” in Mozart-Jahrbuch 1961/62 (Salzburg:Salzburg Drückerei, 1961), 133–55.12 On Haydn’s reuse and revision of earlier works, especially during the 1760s, see Charles Sherman,The Masses of Johann Michael Haydn: A Critical Survey of Sources (Ph.D. Diss., University of Michigan,1967), 35–36; and Blazin, Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 161–84. Further on Salzburg’sUniversity Theater, see Heiner Boberski, Das Theater der Benediktiner an der alten Universität Salzburg(1617–1778) (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1978).13 Sherman and Thomas, Johann Michael Haydn: A Chronological Thematic Catalogue, 30.14 Sometime after 1768, Lambach abbey obtained parts for the 1766 version: The copyists were possiblyactive at St. Peter’s abbey in Salzburg. A-LA Sign. 317 (vlne) Sinfonia in B/a/2 Violini/2 Oboe/2 Corni/AltoViola/Basso/del Signore Michaele Haydn/added later A[bt] A[mandus] [von] L[ambach]. Parts: v1 (Schmid copyist66), vla (Schmid copyist 73), v2 (unidentified Salzburg copyist), hn1 hn2 (second unidentified Salzburg copy-ist). See Manfred Hermann Schmid, Die Musikaliensammlung der Erzabtei St. Peter in Salzburg. Katalog ErsterTeil: Leopold und Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph und Michael Haydn (Salzburg: Mozarteum, 1970). ASalzburg copy for the 1772 version at Schlierbach abbey contains several corrections by the composer himself.

`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

154 D. Blazin

Michael’s autograph, then, certainly confirms that it was he who com-posed (at least) the first and second movements of Hob. I:B2, but we lackdirect documentary evidence that he also is the composer of the finale. Ifwe can establish that Hob. I:B2 circulated in eastern Austria prior to his1763 arrival at Salzburg, the case for Michael as original composer of allthree actually becomes quite convincing.

EVIDENCE FROM THE QUARTBUCH

The inclusion of Hob. I:B2 in the so-called Quartbuch suggests thatHob. I:B2 may well be a very early work by Michael.15 Destroyed in the1940s during the war, this important catalogue will remain incompletelystudied, but its connection to the Danube valley, just west of Vienna, isquite certain.16 The identification of Johann Nepomuk Weigl, the ownerof a music shop in St. Pölten, as the Quartbuch copyist accounts forthe substantial overlap between the repertory that it contains and themusic collections at Melk and Göttweig. At some point, perhaps late inlife, Joseph Haydn himself acquired the catalogue and made severalnotations in it, including one on the first page: “Hierin sind 61 Sinfonien

A-SB Sign. 319. (bs: Kliemstein) Symphonia in B/Violine Primo/Violino Secondo/Oboa/1ma/Oboa 2da/Cornu1mo/Cornu 2do/Viola/con/Basso/Del Sige Michaele Haydn/ad me Josephum/Kliemstein. Parts: v1 v2 vla bs ob1ob2 hn1 hn2 (Kliemstein). Paper: commonly used in Salzburg ca. 1771–85. Further on Kliemstein, see Blazin,Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 115–8.15 The term “Quartbuch” was coined by Carl Pohl. See Hugo Botstiber, Joseph Haydn: Unter Benut-zung der von D. F. Pohl hinterlassenen Materialien (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1927), 278.16 See H. C. Robbins Landon, The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn, vol. 1 (London: Universal & Rockliff,1955), 12–13; and Haydn Chronicle and Works: The Early Years, 1732–1765 (London and Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1980), 589; Robert Freeman, The Practice of Music at Melk Abbey Based uponthe Documents, 1681–1826 (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989), 33.

EXAMPLE 6 Michael Haydn, Symphony in B , MH 184 (incipits).`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 155

und 2 Divertimenti von Jos. Haydn” (“61 symphonies and 2 Divertimentiby Jos. Haydn”). Throughout, Haydn crossed out incipits to worksthat he did not compose. Nevertheless, because he failed to purge allspurious works attributed to him, it is presumed that either his memoryfailed him or that his editing of the catalogue was casual: perhaps a littleof both.

Organized by key under each composers’ name, the catalogue appar-ently had one practical shortcoming—works could not be added accord-ing to the established pattern. This apparent flaw, however, allows us toidentify two distinct chronological layers, with the earliest works enteredup to 1772, and the latest no later than 1775.17 In all, Weigl lists fifteensymphonies by Michael Haydn, and eight are in the early layer. We canalso identify actual sources or references to six of them among the musiccollections in the Danube valley, where the Quartbuch originated (seeTable 1).

Only one of the eight appears to date from Michael’s Salzburg years—MH 23, dated 1764—but a closer inspection of the composer’s autographscore for the work brings the 1764 date into question. Most oddly, Haydn’sscore contains a collection of six instrumental works, including two concer-tos and four symphonies, but he added the dates at a later time. This couldexplain two anomalies resulting from Haydn’s dates on the autograph: Thesix works are Michael’s only “Salzburg” works that circulated in easternAustria prior to ca. 1775; and generically they do not fit well with Haydn’sotherwise sparse output of instrumental music in Salzburg up until the late1770s.18

It is, therefore, of some significance that an incipit for the first move-ment of Hob. I:B2 is included in the early layer of the Quartbuch because itserves to connect it to a group of works circulating in eastern Austria by nolater than 1772 and composed before 1763. Nevertheless, each knownversion of the symphony shares the same first movement, and because thecatalogue only contains incipits to first movements, we cannot link the entryto a specific version. The work’s inclusion in the early layer is, however,

17 Joseph Haydn’s dated autographs survive for a number of works listed in the early layer and thelatest date for any work is 1772: Symphonies nos. 34, 42, 45, and 46; and the Quartets op. 20, nos. 1 and3. Among the added works we find a number of symphonies from 1774: nos. 54, 55, 56, and 57. See JensPeter Larsen, “Haydn und das ‘kleine Quartbuch,’” Acta musicologica 7 (1935), 176; Gerlach, “JosephHaydns Sinfonien,” 8–12; and Blazin, Michael Haydn and “The Haydn Tradition,” 146–7.18 Michael’s autograph score (A-GÖ Sign. 276) includes the following works: Concerto for Trumpet,MH 60; Concerto for Trombone, MH 34; Symphony, MH 62 (1763); Symphony MH 63 (1764); SymphonyMH 64 (1764); and the Symphony Hob. I:E1 (1764). The concerto movements MH 60 and MH 34 are notdated. It appears that Haydn prepared this score within a very short period of time as the ink colorremains consistent, the dates provided by the composer being the exception. The Concerto for Trumpet(MH 60) is really an adaptation of the second movement of a Violin Concerto MH 52, a work in circula-tion in the Viennese region during the 1760s and misattributed to Joseph. See Blazin, Michael Haydnand “The Haydn Tradition,” 161–73.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

156 D. Blazin

very suggestive that there was indeed a pre-Salzburg version for the workand we can only assume that it did have a finale. In sum, the Quartbuchentry may only provide a smoking gun, so to speak, but it also suggests thatthe gun is very much in Michael’s hand.

Even a cursory comparison of the two finales strongly suggests that theB version was composed first. The orchestration of Hob. I:B2 is sturdy yetquite unimaginative, as the strings and winds play more or less continuouslythroughout the entire movement. While both versions make use of a “horn-fifths” motive at the opening, the B version separates them with rests and, incombination with strong, articulated string chords, conceals this thematic fea-ture. By contrast, the finale of Hob. I:59 opens with the wind parts alone, asthe oboes answer each of the horn-fifth motifs. When the strings finally maketheir entrance (measure 13) they do so in fugato style (see again, Examples 1and 4). Indeed, one might be inclined to consider Haydn’s clever orchestra-tion as the work’s most striking and ingenious attribute.

Beyond the more refined orchestral treatment of the material in Hob.I:59, at two points Joseph alters the structure of the earlier work. The firsttakes place eight measures into the second half within a short developmen-tal section (see Example 7). At measure 64, Hob. I:B2 begins an imitativerestatement of the initial motif, but in the bass line (played first by the firstviolins at measure 58). Above it, a melodic sequence begins in fourths.Repeating this pattern only twice, it turns out to be rather inconclusive. Theimitative passage in the bass likewise ends abruptly at measure 65. In Hob.I:59, Joseph incorporates each thematic idea from measure 64, but in turn(see Example 8). First, he completes the imitative gesture in the bass begin-ning at measure 65, repeated in rising sequence three times. The transfer ofthe primary theme to the bass line is not subtle, as he accompanies it with aseries of non-thematic, harmonic suspensions (see Example 9). At measure70, the second thematic idea emerges out of the harmonic suspensions asthe rhythmic pattern shifts (see Example 10). This series of imitative sequen-tial fourths extends for six measures. Thus, the rudimentary and undevelopedmaterial found in measure 64 from the early version flourishes into an exquis-ite 12–measure passage in Joseph Haydn’s revision (see again Example 8).

TABLE 1 Michael Haydn symphonies in the early layer of the Quartbuch.

MH Hob I: Earliest east Austria source Basis for dating

23 C22 A-GÖ lost parts dated 1761 A-GÖ lost parts dated 176164 C31 – M. Haydn autograph dated 1764132 D:26 A-GÖ parts dated 1770 A-GÖ parts dated 177050 D:21 A-GÖ lost parts dated 1747 [sic] A-KR local parts dated 1765 (A-GÖ = 1757?)– E:1 A-GÖ lost parts dated 1770 A-GÖ lost parts dated 177051 F:9 – Early layer of Quartbuch (–1772)26 G:2 A-GÖ lost parts dated 1763 A-GÖ lost parts dated 1763– B2 A-H parts dated 1772 Sieber print (1770)

`

`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 157

At measure 67 (Example 7), Hob. I:B2 introduces a tightly constructedimitative passage between the first and second violins. It is at this point(measure 76 in Hob. I:59) that Joseph’s revision picks up again (see againExample 8). This imitative section is actually quite characteristic of MichaelHaydn’s early orchestral style. We encounter similar passages, for instance,in the symphonies MH 63 and 65 (compare Examples 11–13).

The last major difference between the two versions takes place at theend. Joseph adds a coda, which reintroduces the material heard at the out-set of the movement. This recapitulation, beginning at measure 131, is madeeffective primarily due to the orchestral contrast of the solo winds and fullorchestra. In this instance, Joseph’s recasting of the orchestration quite pos-sibly could have led to this structural addition (see Examples 14–15).

EXAMPLE 7 Symphony in B , Hob. I:B2, movement III, Presto, measures 58–71.`

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

158 D. Blazin

EXAMPLE 8 Joseph Haydn, Symphony in A, Hob. I:59, movement IV, Allegro assai,measures 64–77.

EXAMPLE 9 Hob. I:B2, measures 58–59 (violin I) and Hob. I:59, measures 64–65 (basso).

EXAMPLE 10 Hob. I:B2, measures 63–65 (violin I) and Hob. I:59, measures 69–71 (violin I).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 159

A TALE OF THREE COMPOSERS?

Here, in summary, is the likely chronology of the works considered thus far(see Table 2).

So apparently the complex tale of Hob. I:B2 concludes in Salzburg in1772, when Michael returned to the work for the last time. In light of theorigin of Hob. I:B2, Michael Haydn’s two revisions of the work also take onnew meaning. Could it be that he became aware of his brother’s masterfultransformation of his earlier finale and consequently came to view hisyouthful effort as wanting? Although mere conjecture, there could be somehint that this was actually what happened. Yet, Daniel Heartz makes a sug-gestive observation that implies perhaps a third composer ought to be partof this story, too. It is found in his analysis of Mozart’s Violin Concerto, K.207, composed ca. 1773. Focusing on Mozart’s motivic use of horn fifths inthe finale, he notes a strong similarity to the finale of Haydn’s SymphonyHob. I:59 (see Example 16).

EXAMPLE 11 Symphony in B , Hob. I:B2, movement III, Finale, measures 67–70.`

EXAMPLE 12 Michael Haydn, Symphony in A, MH 63, movement III, Finale, measures 79–85.

EXAMPLE 13 Michael Haydn, Symphony in E, MH 65, movement I, Allegro, measures 57–61.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

160 D. Blazin

The characteristic horn trill too, so prominent in Hob. I:59, is also fea-tured in the concerto, athough Mozart renders it with the violins. If a con-nection between the finale of Hob. I:59 and Mozart’s Violin Concerto K. 207is real and not merely perceived, then this could suggest that Hob. I:59 was

EXAMPLE 14 Symphony in B , Hob. I:B2, Finale, measures 110–23.`

TABLE 2 Proposed chronology of Hob. I:B2, I:59, MH 82, and MH 84.

Date Work Composer Comment

Before 1763 Hob I:B2 Michael Haydn Pre-Salzburg symphony circulates as work of J. Haydn1766 MH 82 Michael Haydn M. Haydn revision of above with added menuet/trioca.1768 Hob I:59 Joseph Haydn J. Haydn substantially revises finale from Hob I:B21772 MH I:182 Michael Haydn M. Haydn composes a “new” finale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014

Haydn as Musical Borrower 161

indeed known in Salzburg and that perhaps its arrival motivated Michael’scomposition of a new finale.19

19 Heartz, “Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School,” 623. Further on the dating of Mozart’s ViolinConcerto, K. 207, see Wolfgang Plath, Mozart-Schriften. Ausgewählte Aufsätze, ed. Marianne Danckwardt(Bärenreiter: Kassel, 1991), 253–4. Although I am unaware of a source for Hob. I:59 located in Salzburg, asnoted earlier, one of the two early dated sources for the work is a local copy at Kremsmünster abbey, aninstitution with long-standing ties to Salzburg. See Altmann Kellner, Musikgeschichte des StiftesKremsmünster nach den Quellen dargestellt (Kassel and Basel: Bärenreiter, 1956).

EXAMPLE 15 Joseph Haydn, Symphony in A, Hob. I:59, Finale, measures 125–33.

EXAMPLE 16 Mozart, Violin Concerto in B , K. 207, movement III, Finale, measures 17–27.`Dow

nloa

ded

by [D

wig

ht B

lazi

n] a

t 09:

19 1

8 Ju

ne 2

014