-On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period and other Matters –

[robert newman]

Dear PDG,

Spaghetti is not forgotten ! Ha !!! His works are sometimes more complex than a Bach fugue. More elaborate than a labyrinth !

r

[PDG]

Good man. Keep your chin up.

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

You asked for something to support the view that the G Minor Symphony by ‘Mozart’ (Mozart 40) has its origin in Italy decades before and was not, in fact, a work by Mozart.

This may seem a fairly complicated post for various reasons. First because I think this particular symphony was specially commissioned by Mozart from Luchesi and, as such needs to be treated specially. Secondly, I simply do not have the time now to condense my views (and those of Taboga – who happens to have done a great deal of research on this work and the other two in this trilogy of three ‘Mozart’ symphonies – 39, 40 and 41. Anyway, here is the best I can do at this time.

1. You may recall from previous posts that the Inventory made at Bonn in 1784 by 8th May of that year that on page 260 of that ‘Neefe/Fries’ inventory after entry number 72 we find an entry for ’10 symphonies de differents auteurs’ – these described by Neefe/Fries in that way without attributing them to any single composer – in fact, described as if they were by more than one composer. (On what grounds they were attributed as being by other composers is unknown, but it's certain they lacked any signature). But after May 1784 and prior to 1794 we know from the still surviving Catalogue C53.1 (now at Modena) 4 symphonies were added to the music of the Bonn chapel in Mozart’s name – these distinct from the 10 mentioned above which 'became' Mozart's by the time they arrived in Modena. So we really have, in fact, 10+4 symphonies, and this happens to be the number entered under ‘Mozart’ symphonies on page 37 of the same C53.1 catalogue. Finally, the 4 just mentioned were definitely NOT sent to Modena and their whereabouts today are unknown. (Taboga suggests they are hidden in Vienna) We are able to say, however, that these 4 symphonies were KV250, KV338, KV425 and KV543. In any event, their arrival at Bonn was after May 1784.

2. The G Minor Symphony (KV550) is of course one of a trilogy of symphonies claimed by Mozart to have been composed by him without commission (and without known performance in Vienna during his lifetime) during the summer of 1788. There is no doubt Mozart entered all 3 of these works as his in his thematic catalogue. But the G Minor appears to have been specially ordered from Luchesi. It (unlike 39 and 41) does not appear in the records of Bonn at any time. For example, 39 and 41 can both be traced from the list of 14 ‘Mozart’ symphonies given in catalogue C.53.1. But not 40.

3. (Taboga is certain 39 and 41 were definitely performed at Bonn during Mozart’s lifetime). I do not know on what grounds this is stated.

4. Copies of KV543 and KV551 are now at Augsburg University and came there from the estate of Oettingen/Wallerstein but (again) they are not even refered to by Koechel editors,

5. The likelihood is that the G Minor, KV550, was obtained by Mozart from Luchesi and was written for Mozart around the summer of 1783 – thus able, 5 years later in a form with woodwinds, to be claimed as Mozart’s very own. The same sort of exclusive requests for symphonies were to come from Haydn for his London concerts and these are to be treateed differently from those which were intended for general circulation. In this case the G Minor was ordered specially for Mozart.

6. Tommaso Traetta (1727-79) was a well known composer colleague of Andrea Luchesi in Venice and it’s with him that we must deal next. It was Andrea Luchesi who, in June of 1764, replaced Traetta as director from the keyboard for the performance of Traetta’s ‘Antigona’ at the Padua New Theatre on the occasion of the St Anthony’s Fair that year.

7. R. Zanetti in ‘La Musica Italiana del 700 Busto Arsizio’ (1977) pp.483 following writes that –

‘In 1778 we take note of a new comic work by Traetta, also intended for the San Moise. It is ‘Knight Errant’ and uses a Bertati libretto – a work that is in fact a radical readaption of ‘Stordilano, Grenada’s Prince’, a work born in Parma 18 years before (1760). This work, whose handwritten score is still extant, with the title, ‘The Knight Errant’ has been much discussed, not so much for its musical and dramatic value as for its analogies and similarities to Mozart’s G Minor Symphony KV550, whose composition date is still 10 years in the future’.

8. Taboga has seen this piece and describes the similarities as being so great in so many respects that 'Mozart 40' can be described as ‘bordering on plagiarism’.

9. There exist, as is well known, two different versions of ‘Mozart’s Symphony No.40’, the original without clarinets and one with clarinets (the second undoubtedly added by Mozart) for a performance planned (it seems) for 1791 but not actually known to have occurred.

10. All of the above help to explain why the handwritten symphonies KV543 and KV551 arrived at Wallerstein and why the G Minor (KV550), finally published by Andre after Mozart’s death, only appeared 5 years later in the 'Mozart' literature. It was clearly not Mozart who sent either KV543 or KV551 to Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein – (the same Prince who in 1784 was a regular buyer of ‘Haydn’ symphonies but not from Haydn. He, it is clear, began to acquire ‘Mozart’ symphonies but not from Mozart, and only after 1784).

In conclusion, I appreciate that the above is a far from coherent picture. Still, I hope it helps to at least give a rough outline of why KV550 (‘Mozart 40’) is not, actually a work by Mozart. It's a symphony Luchesi wrote, based on Traetta’s revival of a still earlier work. One he and Luchesi were both familiar with. A symphony that was in fact only written around mid 1783 and which eventually became a ‘Mozart’ work in the summer of 1788. Whether it was written during the 1 year break that Luchesi took in Italy remains to be established.

Regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-08-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Dear Professor Newman,

So that you didn't think I had succumbed to your wit and logic I thought I might post a note to let you know that I remain unconvinced in regards to Mozart's Requiem. It is an interesting theory. But to go along with your perception of history, true or false, I would like to pose these two questions:

1) Who forged the signature?

2) Who composed the Requiem?

I had posted more earlier but unfortunately (I suppose that's a matter of opinion) the post was deleted when I inadvertently pressed the backspace key and was sent to the previous web page. When I have more time I will respond more fully as to why I remain unconvinced.

In regards to the Haydn, I have had only a little bit of time to look at it, but in respect to what you wrote it appears that Luchesi is every bit the villain that you propose Haydn and Mozart are: "In short, the available evidence indicates that an ‘agreement’ made in private with Luchesi at Bonn was for Haydn to publicly use music in ‘Haydn’s’ name 5 years after it had actually been composed for him, by Luchesi and by others." You damned Mozart for his fraud and deception but Luchesi is nothing less than an accomplice to the whole affair.

--Sorrano the Spaghetti Brain

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Peter,

You asked for something to support the view that the G Minor Symphony by ‘Mozart’ (Mozart 40) has its origin in Italy decades before and was not, in fact, a work by Mozart.

All this 'evidence' is at best circumstantial, and at worst conjectural. I don't know the Traetta works you mention so cannot comment on the similarities but if you know anything about the history of music, you'll know that all composers can be accused of borrowing, Handel is often cited as such an offender! Beethoven's works abound with dozens of such incidents -many examples of similarities with the music of Clementi and Dussek can be found in the sonatas. Take the opening theme of Beethoven's 'Spring' Sonata which is clearly similar to Clementi's Op.25/4 from 1790. Or Beethoven's Op.28 compared to Clementi's Op.40/3 which opens with the same repeated Tonic pedal and even has that striking c natural note implying the subdominant harmony. Let me quote from Harold Truscott "I think it is true that Beethoven absorbed so much of Clementi and Dussek that many times themes crop up in his work which go right back to themes in their work and that it seems probable that he was unconscious of their origin."


There is no evidence to support your claim that "The likelihood is that the G Minor, KV550, was obtained by Mozart from Luchesi and was written for Mozart around the summer of 1783 – thus able, 5 years later in a form with woodwinds, to be claimed as Mozart’s very own." Why would Mozart order a symphony 5 years in advance that you say he didn’t perform anyway?

You have no documents or letters, no receipts, no manuscripts in Luchesi's hand. This is typical of all Taboga's arguments - he begins at his conclusion and works backwards to try and make the pieces fit.

Let's discuss your main source of evidence for all your claims - the Modena file. Can you explain more about Neefe's inventory - how is it that when he lists '10 symphonies by various composers' that you definitely know Mozart's symphonies are definitely being referred to? How do you know that those in Luchesi's file are not different works since his file was added to up until 1794?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano.

You make lots of very good points that I entirely agree about.

1. You are right that Mozart NOT writing KV626 is a different matter completely than who actually DID write it. Yes, I entirely agree.
But let us first establish one thing and then, later, we can move on to the other thing.

2. I entirely agree that Luchesi was up to his eyballs in 'dodgy deals'. He not only supplied music of his own composition to Haydn and Mozart but, also, was part of a network in Europe (headed by Abbe Vogler) who deliberately did these things. This particular area (of his motive and his relationship with Vogler etc) is one that I myself have been studying closely for several years. It is not an area that Prof. Taboga and I have discussed. In fact the Vogler theory and also that of Kraus etc. is my own area of study and, again, this is separate from the issue of whether Mozart wrote or did not write many works.

So yes, I agree almost completely with what you say in your last post.

Regards

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments on 'Mozart 40' etc.

Firstly, I received a message from Giorgio Taboga this morning in which he mentions sending me a copy of the playbill for the work staged at Frankfurt am Main in April 1785 - this as per your request. Aa soon as I receive it (which I hope will be in the next few days) I will let Rod know of its arrival and can give a copy of it to him, for you to see. (I will be interested in it myself).

Yes, I did say my post on the G Minor Symphony is less well argued than I would want. Nevertheless, there is no reason to doubt that in Italian works already published there is common agreement that the similarities in this work to the one composed by Traetta of a decade before are truly striking. True also that Taboga has actually seen this score (still extant) and that he describes these similarities as bordering on virtual plagiarism. Since I have good reason to trust these two things I think it reasonable to say there is a strong possibility this G Minor Symphony came to Bonn because Luchesi (a friend and colleague of Traetta and a man who had worked with him) was the source of that material - that Luchesi was the person who created the symphony and who made it commercially available to Mozart via. Bonn. in the summer of 1788.

You can at least understand the general outline of this argument and that, I hope, is as much as is reasonable. It is all I personally have on this work at this time.

I might mention (just in passing) that the role of the publisher Andre (who features so greatly in Mozart's posthumous reputation and who acquired virtually all of Mozart's manuscripts through his widow) is deeply implicated in 'inventing' various works also. But that's another story. We are dealing with a network and that network undoubtedly had in respect of Mozart the Bonn link to Luchesi - Luchesi himself (I personally think) subject only to George Vogler.

So, although the actual network and those involved are a huge subject in themselves (and one I am still actively involved in investigating) it is Bonn where the career of Mozart from 1783 onwards has it first focus, though others not based in Bonn were involved.

These were times, of course, of no real copyright. Within days of Mozart's death Constanze Mozart was already meeting a representative of the Bonn musical establishment (the tenor Simonetti) who acted as a courier for Luchesi in discussing manuscripts then at Bonn. A letter is still extant from Constanze Mozart addressed to Simonetti in Bonn - he having earlier met her in Vienna within days of Mozart's death. The subject of that meeting is refered to in Constanze Mozart's reply letter of a few days later. She was interested in discussing sale of manuscripts.

For a few days, at least, I cannot make any significant addition to these posts.

Best regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-08-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Having earlier in this thread promised to focus on a single example of Haydn being involved in musical fakery during his career I suggested we could examine (of literally dozens of possibilities) ‘The 7 Last Words of our Saviour on the Cross’, a work always traditionally attributed to Joseph Haydn and which was commissioned and first performed in his name for the 1787 Good Friday service of the Grotto Santa Cueva, near Cadiz in southern Spain. It, like ‘Mozart’s Requiem’ shares the fact that it was a church piece for Lent.

In 1802 Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) gave an account of how this piece was (supposedly) written by him –

‘ Some 15 years ago I was requested by a Canon of Cádiz to compose instrumental music on the ‘7 Last words Of Our Saviour On The Cross’. It was customary at the Cathedral of Cádiz to produce an oratorio each year during Lent .... it was no easy task to compose 7 Adagios of 10 minutes each, and to succeed one another without fatiguing the listeners; indeed, I found it quite impossible to confine myself to the appointed limits...’

Bear in mind that Joseph Haydn by 1802 was barely able to write, suffered with eye problems for years before this and had used the services of an amenuesis G.A.Griesinger to record the above. He was almost certainly suffering from cerebrosclerosis which, certainly since 1797, had increasingly affected his ability to write music or, even, to write letters. (This fact has not stopped him being credited, however, with all sorts of works, such as the ‘Harmonienmesse’ of 1802, others such as ‘The Creation’, (1797/8), and ‘The Seasons’(1798-1801). But those works and their true story we must leave for another time). We will focus here on the ‘7 Last Words’.

Note that Haydn claims he wrote this work in response to a commission from Cadiz. Let us assume this commission came not earlier than the year before its premiere. Thus around 1786 at the earliest and with its premiere (as stated) at Cadiz during the Lent season of 1787. Haydn also says in 1802 that it happened (‘some 15 years ago’). And therefore, this provides further support to the view that (at least officially) Haydn wrote the piece in 1786 or 1787 but not before.

But it’s at this point that cracks begin to appear in the official story of this ‘Haydn’ work. Firstly, the Neefe inventory of music made at Bonn in 1784 (during the absence of Luchesi) lists among works by ‘Hayden’ ‘Instrumental music on the 7 words of our Redeemer on the Cross’ (this on p.25 recto of the inventory) and consisting of those movements that are today known as Hob.88, 89,90, 91,92, 56, 64, 48, 68, 45, 50 and 70. (These include an adagio Introduction and a Presto ‘Earthquake’). And this instrumental music is, today, in a copy at Estense Library in Modena.

In short, the available evidence indicates that an ‘agreement’ made in private with Luchesi at Bonn was for Haydn to publicly use music in ‘Haydn’s’ name 5 years after it had actually been composed for him, by Luchesi and by others. That is why the ‘7 Last Words’ publicly appears for the first time in 1787 in Haydn's name, having been actually composed around 1782 by Luchesi for Haydn while at Bonn. He must have paid for it since it is in the inventory there already attributed to him. It is also why the Bonn Inventory of 1784 has this work in its archives fully 3 years before Haydn claims to have composed it. And 3 years before it was first published in Paris and London. Yet this piece is today at Modena existing as orchestral parts under the reference Mus-D-167 – parts that are not even even mentioned by editors of the Haydn (Hoboken) catalogue. Nor are they refered to by Robbins Landon or others such as Vignal. Such an obvious discrepancy should of course be noted by Haydn scholars. A familiar enough story.

We know too that 3 performances of this work were given in ‘Haydn’s’ name in that year –

1. The actual premiere at Cadiz
2. 26th March 1787 at the residence of Prince Auersperg *
3. 30th March 1787 at Bonn Chapel, conducted by Joseph Reicha. (It is this copy of the work which is today still at Modena).

(*Furthermore, the Kapellmeister of Prince Auersperg at this time (1787) was Johann Schenk (1753-1826) a man who was subsequently one of Beethoven’s teachers in Vienna and who all his life accused Haydn of being a fake but without ever revealing the basis for him holding such a low opinion of him. G. Taboga has written on the 7 Last Words in ‘Recerca Musicologica No.13’ Barcelona University, 1998, pp.165-200 and has argued there in detail for a non-Haydn origin of this piece and for the correct attribution to be Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi).

But even this is not the full story. Haydn’s brother, Michael (a frequent source of music that somehow stubbornly remains in the Mozart catalogue till this day) is known to have transformed this same orchestral piece in to the oratorio we know today – not Joseph Haydn (doing so in co-operation with the Kapellmeister of Passau, Karl Friberth. And Joseph Haydn had virtually nothing to do with this piece, either as an orchestral one or as an oratorio. He limited himself, later, to providing a version for string quartet in later years that was riddled with musical errors and omissions – so many, in fact, that Haydn supporters have always argued that this quartet version was not by Haydn ! But it certainly was. In fact, the appearance of that quartet version by an English publisher was grounds for legal action being considered against Haydn for having infringed a copyright agreement made on the earlier version with another English publisher.

Such was the increasingly complicated world of Joseph Haydn with regard to this single piece. A fairly typical example of the way in which Haydn's reputation as a composer was, in fact, heavily dependent on works actually written by various other composers – that reputation under increasing criticism in his last years as anomalies and blatant errors began to reveal the true scale of manipulation in his ‘official’ output. Much more could be said but this is a rough outline of the case on that one 'Haydn' piece.

Regards

Dear Prof. Newman,

Right off the bat I have some very serious issues with what you have posted. Let me get to the point....

You wrote, "...‘The 7 Last Words of our Saviour on the Cross’, a work always traditionally attributed to Joseph Haydn and which was commissioned and first performed in his name for the 1787 Good Friday service of the Grotto Santa Cueva...."

Also, "Note that Haydn claims he wrote this work in response to a commission from Cadiz. Let us assume this commission came not earlier than the year before its premiere. Thus around 1786 at the earliest...."

Also, "In short, the available evidence indicates that an ‘agreement’ made in private with Luchesi at Bonn was for Haydn to publicly use music in ‘Haydn’s’ name 5 years after it had actually been composed for him, by Luchesi and by others. That is why the ‘7 Last Words’ publicly appears for the first time in 1787 in Haydn's name, having been actually composed around 1782 by Luchesi for Haydn while at Bonn."

The work is a highly unusual work and would not have been created without a commission. But the commission occurred 4 years AFTER you claim the work had been composed. The fact that the work is HIGHLY specific to the conditions of the commission leads me to believe that either your dates are wrong or that Haydn did indeed compose this work; if Luchesi had a 5 year waiting period prior to Haydn using his music with his (Haydn's) name then Haydn would have had to have composed the work himself.

--S(paghetti) B(rains) Sorrano

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

Thanks for your criticism. First, I am not a professor. I am a student.

Regarding the 7 Last Words -

1. I completely agree this is a highly unusual work. I also agree that it is highly specific to the conditions of the commission. But, even according to Haydn's own words -

a) It was customary at the Cathedral of Cádiz to produce an oratorio each year during Lent.

So, although the commission was highly specific it was 'customary' that an oratorio was produced 'each year'.

b) An oratorio was therefore produced for Cadiz in years before 1787 - yes ?

c) The fact that the work of 1787 was instrumental, highly specific also, does not rule out that it was just as highly specific in 1786, 1785, or any other year at Cadiz.

d) If, as you claim, Haydn wrote this music, when did he actually write it - in 1787 or in 1784 when it was inventoried at Bonn ?

e) This work was first performed publicly (3 times) in 1787 - twice in Germany/Austria and in Cadiz why ? - if Haydn had already composed it years before ?

f) This work was first published in 1787 (by two separate publishers) - why ? - if Haydn had already composed it years before ?

g) The orchestral parts now at Modena are indisputably those inventoried at Bonn in 1784 - how is that possible if, as you say, the work was highly specific to the year 1787 ? Surely, irrespective of the time when it was composed it was highly suited to Cadiz.
Or are you saying Haydn wrote it in 1784 ? If so, why was it in the archives of Bonn - since we both agree it was specifically commissioned for Cadiz.

Best regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-08-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments on 'Mozart 40' etc.

Robert thanks for taking the trouble re. the playbill. Concerning symphony 40 you are right that the evidence presented is not good enough to justify the claims being made. Firstly I have addressed your plagiarised claims but you have not ackowledged my argument concerning this point. However I accept that neither you nor I know the Traetta work so it is impossible at this stage to address the issue fairly - I'm afraid that Taboga simply says something is not good enough for me. Now supposing symphony 40 is indeed a plagiarisation, what evidence do you have that Luchesi rather than Mozart composed the work? Are you also saying that a composer of the stature you claim for Luchesi would have to resort to such methods?



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[robert newman]

Peter, as I mentioned to Sorrano earlier today, there are two sorts of evidence required here - first, to show beyond reasonable doubt that Mozart was not the composer of these specific works and, second, to show (if possible) who did compose them.

I do think that if circumstantial evidence is presented on issue after issue, and if that evidence suggests another explanation, then, it seems, circumstantial evidence has its own weight.

We can say, of course, that it's just pure coincidence that Traetta and Luchesi were friends, that it's just coincidence that a work of Traetta is recognised by Italian journals (whose writer was not Taboga) to have remarkable simularities to Mozart 40, that it's just coincidence that some 5 years before Mozart claims KV550 as his, Luchesi was in Italy, that it's a further coincidence etc etc etc. And I agree that more work needs to be done about comparing the score of the Traetta work to that of Mozart 40.

All these things are true - they just happen to be fairly typical of results whenever we subject works from Mozart to scrutiny, even at this level.

Yes, Taboga said today that he was sending a copy of the playbill, together with some information newly discovered on Figaro from the 'premiere' in 1786.

There are now another 8 Mozart works under severe scrutiny - 4 of them never discussed.

I guess that circumstantial evidence tends to have its own weight in terms of it accumulating to a point where it becomes hard to deny. And yet, of course, not every work has such obvious evidence of fraud as, say, KV626.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


I do think that if circumstantial evidence is presented on issue after issue, and if that evidence suggests another explanation, then, it seems, circumstantial evidence has its own weight.

No I don't agree and it is just this kind of evidence I was referring to when describing Taboga's methods. He begins with
the conclusion that Mozart or Haydn are frauds and cannot have written their works. Then he links together a series of events and persons to back his case. We have demonstrated these flaws in his thinking very well in the case of early Beethoven.

It seems to me that the only written evidence that is being presented is the Modena file, so I think it is that we should examine in more detail.
Can you explain what evidence there is
that the 10 symphonies Neefe referred to are
actually those described now as by Mozart? What evidence is there that Luchesi's and Neefe's inventory were referring to the same works given that Luchesi's records begin when Neefe left off in 1784 and continued for another 10 years after that?


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Sorrano,

Thanks for your criticism. First, I am not a professor. I am a student.

Regarding the 7 Last Words -

1. I completely agree this is a highly unusual work. I also agree that it is highly specific to the conditions of the commission. But, even according to Haydn's own words -

a) It was customary at the Cathedral of Cádiz to produce an oratorio each year during Lent.

So, although the commission was highly specific it was 'customary' that an oratorio was produced 'each year'.

b) An oratorio was therefore produced for Cadiz in years before 1787 - yes ?

c) The fact that the work of 1787 was instrumental, highly specific also, does not rule out that it was just as highly specific in 1786, 1785, or any other year at Cadiz.

d) If, as you claim, Haydn wrote this music, when did he actually write it - in 1787 or in 1784 when it was inventoried at Bonn ?

e) This work was first performed publicly (3 times) in 1787 - twice in Germany/Austria and in Cadiz why ? - if Haydn had already composed it years before ?

f) This work was first published in 1787 (by two separate publishers) - why ? - if Haydn had already composed it years before ?

g) The orchestral parts now at Modena are indisputably those inventoried at Bonn in 1784 - how is that possible if, as you say, the work was highly specific to the year 1787 ? Surely, irrespective of the time when it was composed it was highly suited to Cadiz.
Or are you saying Haydn wrote it in 1784 ? If so, why was it in the archives of Bonn - since we both agree it was specifically commissioned for Cadiz.

Best regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-08-2006).]

Professor Newman,

First, it is not my intent to be critical of you or your research except only in a positive sense. Second, most good professors were once students and are still students. I intend the appellation only as a compliment for your dogged researcher.

a) If it was customary to perform an oratorio at the Cathedral of Cádiz each year then it is even more unusual for a request of a purely instrumental work. If it had been commissioned and performed prior to the one in question there should be some record of it and some mention as an aberration, particularly in relationship to the one in question; i.e. there should be two or more instances. The yearly oratorio would have expectant choral resources in reserve but this work is very exceptional and noteworthy in the commission alone.

d) I would like you to indulge me in the foundation for the claim that Haydn did not compose the work. The foundational idea is that the instrumental parts were catalogued in 1784. How do we know that it was in 1784? In my work I deal with handwritten numbers by the thousands and 4's and 9's are often written as such to be confusing--a 9 could be seen as a 4 and vice versa. So with that in mind I entertain the idea that the inventory occurred in 1789 instead of 1784 and there are some answers to some questions. It still does not destroy the Luchesi connection. But so much is riding upon that date that I feel it is imperative to ensure that it is absolutely correct. I may be an idiot for asking this (spaghetti brains, no less?) but it is a foundational point and if the foundation is not secure you do not have a solid building. Can you indulge me on this?

S. B. Sorrano

[Sorrano]

Professor Newman,

One other thing I would like to add in respect to the Haydn "Seven Last Words of Christ" is that when you referred to the commission of the work you relied on the memory of an old, disabled man, who if, according to you, did not write the work, is attempting to remember something that he did not have a lot of attachment to. I have a hard time remembering (and I am not that old!) when I've written some of my own music that ages 15 to 20 years, imagine how much harder it would be to remember if I hadn't written it? Perhaps the commission was much earlier? I do not think it likely, but again, a foundational point should not be based on something as whimsical as the memory of an old man. Is there any record existing of the commission? Perhaps there was no commission?

S. B. Sorrano

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

You raise some very interesting points. I think there is no doubt the work was definitely first performed in Cadiz in 1787. Not before. In Rosemary Hughes's 'Haydn' she writes -

'In 1786 the Cadiz cathedral chapter commissioned from him (Haydn) 'The Seven Words of the Saviour on the Cross' ' (p.49)

(The oratorio version first appeared in 1796 and it was first performed in that same year).

By the way, Haydn got into real trouble over his attempt to get two publishers for this same (orchestral) work. He sold the sole publishing rights to both Artaria in Vienna and also to the Forster company in England ! (including rights to make copies or arrangements of it). But when the Forster company learned what Haydn had done with Artaria in Vienna they were disgusted and immediately broke of relations with Haydn. Things got even worse when Haydn finally came up with a crude quartet version of the piece which he sold to another English publisher Longman and Broderip - and this news got back to Forster (yet again) who now threatened Haydn with a court case on twice conducting unethical business towards them and with breaking their original contract.

In answer to your question whether these parts were definitely inventoried in 1784 at Bonn, the answer is yes, they were. That inventory (made in the absence of the Kapellmeister Luchesi) was, as it happened, the last the Bonn chapel had before its closure at the time of the French invasion of the Rhineland. The date of May 1784 for the inventory is absolutely certain, as is the fact the orchestral parts are in Modena from Bonn. This complete inventory at Bonn was made because the old elector had just died and the new one, Max Franz, had just come to take over. So there is no doubt about the dates. I do not think there is any doubt about the dates in this case.

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-09-2006).]