THE MOZART REQUIEM: AUTHORSHIP AND AESTHETICS

Kyle VanderburgMusic of the Classical Period - MUSC 5563

November 6, 2010

2

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Requiem is one of the composer’s most

loved works, due both to its musical content and the controversy and legend

surrounding it. The composer’s death at a young age, the possible

conspiracy that may have caused that death, the state of the Requiem—

finished or not—at Mozart’s death, and just how and when the work was

completed (and by whom) are all topics that are still open for debate over

two hundred years later. Only the most basic facts are unquestionably clear:

Mozart was commissioned to write a requiem in mid-1791 and the composer

died in early December of that year, likely leaving the Requiem unfinished.

The majority of the circumstances beyond these facts are open to

speculation.

The Requiem was commissioned anonymously by Count Franz von

Walsegg, who had planned to pass the work off as his own. The story of the

Requiem’s mysterious commissioning and genesis is described in the

January 7th, 1792 edition of the Salzburger Intelligenzblatt:

1. Concerning Mozart. – Some months before his death, he received an unsigned letter with the request that he compose a requiem and set whatever fee he wished. Because the project did not appeal to him at all, he said to himself, I will demand so much the music-lover will surely turn me down. The next day, a servant came to get the reply – Mozart wrote to the unknown person that he could not compose it for less than 60 ducats, and certainly not for another 2 or 3 months. The servant returned, bringing 30 ducats with him, and said he would inquire again in 3 months and if the mass was finished, he would immediately pay off the other half. Now Mozart had no choice but to compose it, something he often did with tears in his eyes, saying: I fear I am writing a requiem for myself; he completed it a few days before his death. When news of his death was announced, the servant came again, bringing the remaining 30 ducats; he did not ask for the requiem and since then there has been no further request. When it

3

has been copied, it is going to be performed at a memorial service for him in St. Michael’s church.1

Already, a month after the composer’s death, it is stated that the Requiem

was finished by Mozart, which is unlikely, and probably a result of

Constanze Mozart’s work in attempting to market her late husband’s work.

Constanze’s management of the work and its completion certainly obscure

the facts of the work, but the first issue when speaking of the Mozart

Requiem is the composer’s early demise.

Mozart’s Death

The exact details surrounding Mozart’s death are unknown, and what

is known is obfuscated by several factors. Masonic conspiracy and murder

by Salieri are two popular ideas, but these are often dismissed as pure

fiction. What can be definitely stated are a handful of facts. Wolfgang

Amadeus Mozart died on December 5, 1791, at the age of thirty-five years.

He had been in poor health throughout the last third of 1791, through the

composing of La clemenza di Tito and Die Zauberflöte and the Clarinet

Concerto in A. He was buried on December 6, 1791, sent off with a simple

funeral and buried in a common grave, to save the family as much money as

possible.2 The rest of the details are not clear, in part to history, and in part

to Constanze’s management of her husband’s estate. Even small details

1 Bruce Cooper Clarke, “From Little Seeds,” The Musical Times 137, no. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13.2 Nicolas Slonimsky, “The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral,” The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12.

4

about the composer’s death and burial are debatable, such as the weather

on the day of his funeral, which is now believed to have been fair.3

While it is clear that Mozart was working on the Requiem at the time

of his death, it is not completely clear as to the work’s completion at that

time. While a few accounts, such as the one stated in the introduction,

indicate Mozart’s completion of the work, the majority of accounts concur

that a decent amount of the Requiem was left unfinished. Because Mozart’s

death and the completion of the Requiem are such intertwined topics,

several prevalent theories about Mozart’s death would have significant

impact on how the Requiem was finished in 1791 and is understood today.

One of the most famous stories regarding Mozart’s death regards

fellow composer Antonio Salieri. Much of the present-day thought regarding

Salieri as Mozart’s rival can be traced to Peter Shaffer’s 1979 stage play

Amadeus, which later prompted the making of a film of the same name in

1984.4 While these productions may have been influenced by David Weiss’s

1970 book The Assassination of Mozart,5 all of these works are predated by

the 1832 play Mocart i Sal’eri (Mozart and Salieri) by Aleksandr Pušhkin.6

Both Shaffer’s and Pušhkin’s plays focus primarily on the character of

Salieri, treating Mozart as a minor character. Specifically, both playwrights

focus on Salieri’s feelings of musical inferiority and righteousness among

3 Ibid., 16.4 Martin Bidney, “Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer,” The Slavic and East European Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986): 183.5 Albert I. Borowitz, “Salieri and the ‘Murder’ of Mozart,” The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263.6 Bidney, 183.

5

God’s musical servants.7 Both plays present a scenario of Salieri’s jealousy

over Mozart prevailing, resulting in the latter’s death.8

While both Pušhkin’s and Shaffer’s plays are works of fiction, both

have their stories rooted in the legend of Salieri’s rivalry with Mozart. While

Salieri and Mozart did have a professional rivalry, it is highly unlikely that

this rivalry was personal in nature, as Salieri was one of the few mourners

at Mozart’s funeral9 and later taught Mozart’s son Franz Xaver Wolfgang,

helping him to receive his first musical appointment.10 Although there are

reports of Salieri admitting to poisoning Mozart in the early 1820s, it is

unlikely that these stories have any merit, and Salieri’s supporters worked

diligently to campaign for the composer’s innocence.

Supposing for a moment that contrary to the evidence, Salieri did in

fact poison Mozart, what would this mean for the Requiem? Shaffer and

Pušhkin would have us believe that Salieri wished to pass the Requiem off

as his own, but this does not appear to be the historical case. If it were,

Salieri would likely wait until the Requiem was finished before poisoning

the composer. Additionally, it would have made significantly more sense for

the Requiem to be submitted to Salieri after its completion, and it was not.

7 Ibid., 184.8 More information comparing the differences between Shaffer’s and Pušhkin’s portrayal of Salieri can be found in Martin Bidney, “Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer,” The Slavic and East European Journal 30, no. 2 (Summer, 1986).9 Nicolas Slonimsky, “The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral,” The Musical Quarterly 46, no. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12.10 Borowitz, 273.

6

While it is very unlikely that Salieri poisoned Mozart, it likely would make

little difference in the compositional life of the Requiem.11

Another prevalent theory regarding Mozart’s death is related to the

composer’s position in the Masonic organization, and the possibility of a

Masonic conspiracy to silence and/or punish Mozart after Die Zauberflöte.

This theory first emerged in 1861 and was postulated by the researcher

Georg Friedrich Daumer.12 The reasons given related to Die Zauberflöte

include “his excessive attachment to the figure of the Queen of the Night

and by his use of Christian religious music in the chorale of the Men of

Armor” and Mozart’s supposed plan to “establish his own secret lodge, to

be called ‘The Grotto.’”13 Mathilde Ludendorf added to this theory, but put

forth the idea of a secret counterplot in the opera “which depicted Mozart

(Tamino) seeking the release of Marie Antoinette (Pamina) from her

Masonic captors.”14 This conspiracy would have included Salieri, Baron van

Swieten, the messenger who commissioned the Requiem, and Georg

Nikolaus von Nissen, the Mozart biographer who would have needed to

cover up the crime in his biography.15

Like the theory of Salieri murdering Mozart, this theory is likely false

and would only add an air of mysticism and sensationalism to the Requiem,

if the Requiem were in fact completed at all. It can be speculated that the 11 What Salieri’s murder of Mozart would achieve for the Requiem is a type of sensational fame of the work, more than we know now. While this may affect our understanding of the work, it likely would not have changed the compositional process nor the music.12 Albert I. Borowitz, “Salieri and the ‘Murder’ of Mozart,” The Musical Quarterly 59, no. 2 (Apr., 1973): 278.13 Ibid.14 Ibid.15 Ibid., 279.

7

Masons, if they are willing to commit bodily harm upon the composer,

would see it fitting to cause further musical harm by not allowing the

Requiem to be finished. As this was not the case, it may be further

speculated that if the Freemasons had indeed murdered Mozart, they would

likely have had little influence on the completion of the work, as it appeared

to be Constanze’s choice to have the work completed. It is unlikely that the

Freemasons would have any significant impact on the completion of the

Requiem.

Completion of the Requiem

The legend of the Requiem and Mozart’s demise continues into what

happened to the Requiem after Mozart’s death. Constanze’s first action

upon recovering after her husband’s death16 was to petition Emperor

Leopold II for some possible way to sustain her and the life of the Mozart’s

two children.17 While Constanze was successful, she knew that she must put

her husband’s music to work, and as the Requiem was an unfinished

commission (and one that would result in an additional fee once completed)

it was a logical starting point.

The generally accepted version of the Requiem that was delivered to

Count Walsegg in February 179218 was started by Mozart and completed by

Franz Xaver Süssmayr. Süssmayr was a family friend and casual student of

16 All accounts mention Constanze’s absence from her husband’s funeral.17 Constanze Mozart to Emperor Leopold II, Vienna, December 11, 1791, in in Letters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, ed. Hans Mersmann (New York: Dover, 1972), 268.18 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 4.

8

Mozart, and although his work completed the Requiem, he was not

Constanze’s first choice for the job. Constanze had chosen to ask others to

finish the Requiem, as she had been upset with Süssmayr at the time.19

Exactly what transpired with the Requiem between Mozart’s death in 1791

and the publishing of the work in 1800 is unknown, but the score20 includes

the note “Mozart left the Requiem, K. 626, unfinished at his death in 1791.

It was completed by Franz Xaver Süssmayr (1766-1803). Their respective

contributions are indicated in the score by the initials (M.) and (S.).”21

Süssmayr was a friend of the family rather than a student of Mozart’s

as is normally assumed. Often, Süssmayr is mentioned in Mozart’s letters in

a derogatory way (such as “that idiotic fellow,” “rough companion,” “silly

ass,” etc.)22 and often Constanze is instructed to give Süssmayr “several

boxes to the ear.”23 Moseley suggests that Mozart’s words are not

unaffectionate, and suggests that had Mozart “genuinely despised

Süssmayr, he would hardly have wasted so much writing space on him.”24

Süssmayr’s significant role prior to the completion of the Requiem was to

serve as Mozart’s copyist for most of 1791.

The widely accepted understanding of the state of the Requiem at

Mozart’s death was that it consisted of the fully orchestrated Introit and

19 Ibid., 3.20 The score from which I am working is the 1987 Dover edition, which describes itself as “an unabridged republication of the work originally published by Breitkopf & Härtel, Wiesbaden, n.d., with the title Mozart, Requiem für vier Singstimmen, Orchester und Orgel.21 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Requiem (New York: Dover, 1987), front matter.22 Paul Moseley, “Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, no. 2 (1989), 213.23 Ibid.24 Ibid., 214.

9

Kyrie and the basic musical outline of the Sequence and the Offertory.

Süssmayr’s contributions are understood to be the orchestration of the

Sequence and Offertory, and the complete Sanctus, Benedictus, Agnus dei

and Communion.25 What is further unclear is to what extent Süssmayr was

given instructions regarding the completion of the work before Mozart’s

death. Moseley postulates that it is possible that Süssmayr received “only

cursory instructions concerning the Requiem when Mozart realized he was

dying, i.e. on 3 or 4 December, and that ‘Süssmayr just happened to have

called when Mozart urgently wanted to tell someone.’”26 Furthermore, when

Constanze asked Süssmayr to complete the Requiem, he was given the

autograph score of the first two movements, the fragments of the Sequence

and Offertory, and several slips of paper.27 It is unknown just what those

slips of paper held, or what Süssmayr did with them while composing the

rest of the work.

Before Constanze Mozart handed the score of the Requiem to

Süssmayr for completion, she first submitted it to Joseph Leopold Eybler for

help with orchestration. Eybler had known Mozart since Gottfried van

Swieten’s concerts in 1790, and Mozart held him in high regard, supposedly

much higher than Süssmayr. However, Eybler’s duties were expanded in

early 1792 due to his appointment as choirmaster in the Leopoldstadt.28 Due

to this new position, Eybler was unable to complete anything more

25 Ibid., 203.26 Ibid., 214.27 Ibid.28 Paul Moseley, “Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, no. 2 (1989), 211.

10

significant than precursory orchestration work on the Lacrimosa. When

Süssmayr received the score, he was required to determine the difference

between Mozart’s and Eybler’s handwriting. While it is important to note

Eybler’s work on the Requiem, his contributions seem insignificant in the

grand scheme of the piece. Additionally, it is speculated that Maximilian

Stadler completed orchestration work on the Domine Jesu, but this work

seems to be rather insignificant.29

Creating an aesthetically coherent work

One of the first questions that emerge when postulating the

beginnings and endings of the creative process that produced Mozart’s

Requiem is the question of how Süssmayr was able to create a coherent

work that was not obviously written by two composers. Süssmayr said

regarding the Requiem: “I can only wish that I have succeeded well enough

at least for connoisseurs to be able to find in it, here and there, some signs

of his unforgettable teaching.”30 As Süssmayr had worked for Mozart as

copyist, it is safe to say that he was familiar with Mozart’s compositional

process.

Mozart’s compositional process, though similar to the compositional

process of other composers, is slightly different and must be understood

before the issue of Süssmayr’s copyist duties is explained. Mozart was

known for his fluency in music composition, and there are an abundance of

29 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008): 3.30 Ibid., 10.

11

stories about his memory and inventiveness in music. His manuscripts,

which fall into three categories: sketches, unfinished fragments, and final

drafts, show this process.31 Unlike the notebooks of Beethoven that show

the gamut of the compositional process, from inspiration through

refinement to the final draft, the unfinished fragments of Mozart’s

manuscripts show very little revision, which appears to show that Mozart

worked out most of the musical work in his mind, and then wrote it down

upon finishing it. However, Constanze Mozart wrote in a letter that she

destroyed the unusable autographs of her husband, which indicates there

were many more unfinished fragments or working drafts.32

However, of the drafts that survive, there are a puzzling number of

unfinished fragments which show Mozart’s inventiveness, and yet these are

puzzling as it makes one wonder why Mozart did not finish these fragments.

In many instances, the unfinished fragments show modifications of other

works, works that did not necessarily need much improvement.33

Mozart’s fragments tend to be written in the same way, starting out

with the melody and a bass line; these two parts continue until they trail off.

They may have other instrumental accompaniment, but generally the score

is empty except for these two lines. The exception to this rule appears to be

complicated cases that Mozart was required to write out by hand, such as

fugues, canons, and extensive polyphony. In many cases this music is

31 Erich Hertzmann, “Mozart’s Creative Process,” The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 190.32 Erich Hertzmann, “Mozart’s Creative Process,” The Musical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (April 1957): 191.33 Ibid., 192.

12

written out in a hurried Mozartean shorthand, which supports the fact

Mozart often was composing faster than he could write.34 Additionally, the

mistakes that are corrected in the final drafts are often editorial and minor

details rather than corrections that would change the entire shape or layout

of the work.

As his style progressed and matured it became more complex, which

required more time and energy for the larger compositions. While his basic

compositional process had not changed, this new, more complex style

slowed the creative process for larger works and caused his later period to

be less prolific. To quicken the process, Mozart often wrote out melodies

and sketches in shorthand and had his copyist, the aforementioned

Süssmayr, write out the final copies.35

As Süssmayr had worked with Mozart for most of 1791, he had likely

helped with the copying work with La clemenza di Tito and Die Zauberflöte

and was quite used to Mozart’s compositional technique and style, which

makes his work in orchestrating the Sequence and Offertory from Mozart’s

sketches a logical progression of his normal talents and duties. With this

extension of his normal work, Süssmayr was more than capable of

orchestrating these two movements and composing several more in the

style of Mozart, creating a work with overall coherent unity.

Aesthetic Ownership

34 Ibid., 190.35 Ibid., 198.

13

If this work is written by multiple composers, as it appears to be, the

two questions that must be answered are “does the creative ownership of

the Requiem belong to Mozart or Süssmayr?” and “is there such a thing as

‘aesthetic ownership’?” These questions are not easily answerable.

However, perhaps it is best to attempt to explain the Mozart/Süssmayr

Requiem situation in terms of a contemporary legal construct, which in this

case is contemporary American copyright law.

While the Copyright Act of 1976 was certainly not in effect in the Austrian

empire in 1791, it serves as a logical framework for the discussion of

aesthetic ownership. The Copyright Act of 1976 modifies Title 17 of the

United States Code, and defines the idea of a work for hire, which is a term

that can be attributed to Süssmayr’s work on Mozart’s Requiem. The

relevant text, USC 17 § 201(b) states “Works Made for Hire.—In the case of

a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was

prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the

parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by

them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.”36 Under this

construct, Süssmayr’s work was completed as part of his normal job duties

for which he was paid. Additionally, the ensuing cover-up orchestrated by

Constanze Mozart regarding her husband’s completion of the work likely

resulted in a large payment for Süssmayr to keep his involvement in writing

the Requiem a secret.37

36 Copyright Act of 1976, codified at U.S. Code 17 § 201 (b)37 Simon P. Keefe, “’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, no. 1 (2008):

14

While the question of Süssmayr’s work on the Requiem may fit into

contemporary American copyright law, no such copyright laws were in

effect in Austria in 1791.The first modern copyright law in Austria was the

Austrian Copyright Act of 1846. While a work for hire is not explicitly stated

in this act, section one states: “Literary products and works of art constitute

a property of their originator (author), i.e. of the person who originally

wrote or composed them. As long as no specific contracts stand in the way

of this, the following will be treated as equivalent to authors with regard to

the protection given by this law: a) the commissioner of a work who at his

own expense has entrusted someone else with its elaboration and execution

according to a given plan.”38 Furthermore, section two of the act states “The

author of a literary or artistic work is, according to the stipulations laid

down in the present law, entitled to the exclusive right of disposing of his

work as he wishes, of reproducing and publishing it in any form he may

please. He can also transfer this right to others wholly or partly.”39 As

stated earlier, if one were to apply contemporary American copyright law or

the closest Austrian copyright law equivalent, it is assumed that Süssmayr

gave up any claim to the creative authorship of the Requiem.

As the Requiem was a commission in the Classical period of music, it

is unlikely that Mozart was solely operating as artist in the creation of the

piece. Though Mozart does blur the lines between the Classical and

11.38 Austrian Copyright Act (1846), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org section 1.39 Ibid., section 2.

15

Romantic periods of music, and the lines between the composer as an artist

and the composer as an artisan, the Requiem represented a piece of craft

rather than a piece of art. Because of this, it would not have mattered

whether Süssmayr had completed the work instead of Mozart. The fact that

Mozart started the work and his copyist Süssmayr finished the work, would

not have made a significant difference in 1790s Austria.

Despite the myriad confusion surrounding the Mozart Requiem, the

authorship of the work, and the circumstances surrounding its completion,

the work remains a perennial favorite, consistently in the repertoire. There

is little doubt that it is a finely crafted piece of music that holds an aesthetic

consistency despite the fact it has multiple authors. The creation is Mozart’s

work, realized through his pen and the pens of others, but there is no doubt

that Mozart is the Requiem’s creator.

16

Bibliography

Bauman, Thomas. "Requiem, but No Piece." 19th-Century Music 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1991): 151-161.

Bidney, Martin. "Thinking about God and Mozart: The Salieris of Puškin and Peter Shaffer." The Slavic and East European Journal 30, No. 2 (Summer, 1986): 183-195.

Borowitz, Albert I. "Salieri and the “Murder” of Mozart." The Musical Quarterly 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1973): 263-284.

Brown, Marshall. "Mozart and After: The Revolution in Musical Consciousness." Critical Inquiry 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1981): 689-706.

Clarke, Bruce Cooper. "From Little Seeds." The Musical Times 137, No. 1846 (Dec., 1996): 13-17.

Hertzmann, Erich. "Mozart’s Creative Process." The Musical Quarterly 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1957): 187-200.

Keefe, Simon P. "’Die Ochsen am Berge’: Franz Xaver Süssmayr and the Orchestration of Mozart’s Requiem, K. 626." Journal of the American Musicological Society 61, No. 1 (2008): 1-65.

Kivy, Peter. "Child Mozart as an Aesthetic Symbol." Journal of the History of Ideas 28, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1967): 249-258.

Moseley, Paul. "Mozart’s Requiem: A Revaluation of the Evidence." Journal of the Royal Musical Association 114, No. 2 (1989): 203-237.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Requiem. New York: Dover, 1987.

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Letters of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Edited by Hans Mersmann. New York: Dover, 1972.

Slonimsky, Nicolas. "The Weather at Mozart’s Funeral." The Musical Quarterly 46, No. 1 (Jan., 1960): 12-21.