Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu/737

MOZART. in the 'Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung' (xiv. p. 829) to be spurious, which opinion is shared by O. Jahn (ed. 1, i. 673), who states that there were no clarinets in the Salzburg orchestra when Mozart was there; to which Köchel adds that we know enough of Mozart's subsequent life at Mannheim, Munich, and Vienna before 1784, from his own letters, to be sure that he then wrote no Mass except that in C minor. To which must be added that Mozart's widow stated that this Mass was composed by F. X. Süssmayer. Two short Masses (Novello's nos. 8 and 9) in C and G were published by M. Falter at Munich as Mozart's, but are said to be by Gleissner of Munich. A short Requiem in D minor was published by Simrock at Bonn (Novello's no. 18) as Mozart's; but Köchel says it is certain that Mozart never wrote any Requiem except his celebrated last composition.

The most important of these spurious Masses is that which was published in score by N. Simrock at Bonn in 1821, and by Novello for organ and voices as no. 12. This Mass commences in G, but is chiefly in C and its related keys, and ends in C. The reviewer in the 'Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung' xxiii. p. 648, for Oct. 1821 declares that he had possessed it for thirty years, and argues for its genuineness (notwithstanding that the style is rather showy, more calculated to please the Archbishop of Salzburg than to satisfy Mozart himself). But in July 1826 Ritter Ign. von Seyfried opened a controversy on the subject in the 'Cæcilia ' (vol. v. Heft 17, p. 77) with 'Scruples concerning the Mass in G published by Simrock in the name of Mozart,' in which he enumerated especially weaknesses in part-writing and tonality, and other faults, and pronounced it spurious. In Heft 22 of the same journal the publisher of the Mass declared that he had received it from Carl Zulehner, who would doubtless explain how he had come into possession of the MS., the handwriting of which was similar to Mozart's, but probably not his. But Zulehner made no answer to the challenge. Jahn (i. 672) agrees with Seyfried, and adds that 'the treatment of the instruments, especially the bassoons, is quite different from Mozart's manner in his Salzburg masses.' And Köchel adds, 'This Mass is declared by all connoisseurs to be decidedly spurious.' To this another testimony can now be added. The violinist Leopold recognised it as a Mass in which he used to sing as a boy in a musical school in his native country of Bohemia, where it was known as 'Müller's Mass.' This would take us back to about 1812, long before its first publication by Simrock in 1821. If Müller was really the composer's name, it ought to be possible to discover him. As regards his age, he might be August Eberhardt. And he is named in Köchel's Catalogue (App. no. 286) on the authority of a Catalogue of Breitkopf's, as the real composer of some variations published as Mozart's own; besides which, two songs, also published as Mozart's, are attributed to 'Müller' by Köchel (nos. 248, 249) on the authority of a writer in the 'Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung' (i. 745). But as a musician of North Germany he was perhaps hardly likely to be known in manuscript copies in Bohemia. Wenzel Müller, music composer at the various theatres in Vienna from 1786 is more likely in the latter respect, but his serious music is extremely unimportant. If the name Müller be discarded, it might be asked whether Zulehner may not have palmed off a work of his own on Simrock as Mozart's. Zulehner was well acquainted with Mozart, and worked for Simrock, who published two choruses from 'Thamos,' arranged for four voices with pianoforte accompaniment by Zulehner, which are quite different from those in Mozart's 'Thamos' to the same words, and are therefore placed by Köchel in the list of spurious works (no. 243). This seems a parallel case to that of the Mass, of which Simrock published both the score and an arrangement for four voices and pianoforte by Zulehner. The same publisher published also an arrangement for Mozart's (genuine) symphonies as trios for PF., violin and violoncello, by Zulehner. Moreover Zulehner was the possessor of a Mass in C bearing Mozart's name, and called the 'Coronation Mass.' This was a mere pasticcio of pieces taken from 'Così fan tutte,' transposed, altered, and joined together by intervening chords. Zulehner is said to have maintained that the mass was the original work, and that Mozart 'plundered' his own work (as Jahn says) to produce the opera. This is perhaps the most damaging fact yet ascertained to Zulehner's reputation. Jahn says: 'That the mass is pieced together from the opera by some church-musician is proved by the existence of passages not belonging to the opera, and by the mode in which the borrowed treasure is employed; and no musician to whom I have shown the mass doubted this' (Jahn, iv. Beilage 5). Two other remarks may be made. It rather seems as if the mass were put together from two distinct sources. The Kyrie is in G, the Gloria is in C; the Mass ends in C, and the middle movements are in keys related to C, but not for the most part to G: F, A minor, G, and C minor. It seems, therefore, as if we had a mass in C minus the Kyrie, and as if a Kyrie from some other source had been prefixed to complete it. It is finally interesting to note that the only really strong movement in the Mass, the great fugue 'Cum sancto spiritu,' which is well worthy of Mozart, is expressly stated by Simrock in his answer to Seyfried to have been performed, long before the publication of this Mass, in the chapel of the Elector of Cologne in a Mass of Mozart's; and he gives no such testimony of any other part of this Mass. It may therefore be possible to cling to the belief that this single movement is genuine.

The other spurious works are less important. Most have never been published, or published only once or twice by obscure publishers in Germany. There are, however, 39 spurious songs in vogue, published chiefly by Rellstab at Berlin and André at Offenbach, of some of which