The Debated Authenticity of Franz Joseph Haydn’s Concertos for Horn: An Historical and Theoretical Approach to Attribution

A document submitted to the

Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

in the Performance Studies Division of the College-Conservatory of Music

2010

by

Anna Marie Leverenz

B.M., Southern Illinois University, 2005 M.M. Illinois State University, 2007

Committee Chair: Professor Randy Gardner

Abstract

Of the three horn concertos attributed to Franz Joseph Haydn only one, the concerto Hob.

VIId: 3, can be proven as an authentic composition. The concertos published as Hob. VIId: 2 and

Hob. VIId: 4 are thought by musicologists to be spurious attributions. Current scholarship suggests that the concerto Hob. VIId: 2 would be better attributed to Antonio Rosetti, and that the concerto Hob. VIId: 4 may be a work of Michael Haydn. This document considers these possible misattributions and compares the concertos to known works of Joseph Haydn, Michael

Haydn, and Antonio Rosetti. A survey of the historical background of these composers and their individual compositional styles is examined and compared with the circumstances of the concertos in question in order to understand the causes of, and correct, the misattributions.

ii

© 2011 Anna Marie Leverenz All rights reserved

iii

Preface

In the spring of 2009, I enrolled in Dr. Mary Sue Morrow‟s eighteenth-century advanced topics course on Joseph Haydn‟s symphonies. In this class we studied all of Haydn‟s symphonies, either as a group or individually, culminating in a final project with a focus of our choice. I chose to study the four-horn symphonies of Haydn and the performers for which they were written. This research paper inspired my lecture-recital, “History and Practical Performance

Aspects of Franz Joseph Haydn's Chamber Music Composed for Hornists Carl Franz and

Thaddäus Steinmüller Between 1763 and 1776.”

The extensive research that I had completed regarding Haydn and his horn soloists inspired further study of his works, ultimately resulting in this document. It is my hope that this document not only clarifies the potential misattributions about which it is concerned, but also presents the information in an enthusiastic yet concise manner.

iv

Acknowledgements

I offer my sincerest thanks to my committee, Professor Randy Gardner, Dr. Jonathan

Kregor, and Dr. Mary Sue Morrow, for their guidance throughout the duration of this project.

Thanks also to Dr. Alan Siebert, who served as interim committee chair during Professor

Gardner‟s sabbatical. I must also acknowledge Dr. Sterling Murray‟s contribution, and thank him for directing me towards two invaluable documents for my research. Special thanks go to my team of proofreaders; Rachel Hands, Rachel Hockenberry, and Carissa Mattison, and to Dr. Scott

Hines for engraving my musical examples. Thanks to my parents and grandparents, who were my first music teachers; I continue learning from your example. My love and deepest thanks go to my husband, Chris, for his continuous love and support while I pursue my musical and educational goals. Thanks also to the command team at the US Army School of Music, CPT

Paroby, SFC Motuapuaka, SFC Whitelaw, and SSG Valenzuela, for facilitating the completion of my doctoral exams, thus assisting the completion of my doctoral degree.

v

Contents

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………….vi

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………….vii

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………1

Theoretical Considerations ……………………………………………………5

1. Historical Background ……………………………………………………………12

Franz Joseph Haydn ……………………………………………………………12

Johann Michael Haydn ……………………………………………………31

Antonio Rosetti ……………………………………………………………36

2. The “Zittau Concerto” ……………………………………………………………52

The “Zittau Concerto” in Catalogs and Records ……………………………54

Stylistic Traits of the “Zittau Concerto ……………………………………56

The Potential Performers of the “Zittau Concerto” ……………………………60

Summarizing the Evidence ……………………………………………………61

3. The “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………62

The Misattribution of the “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………63

Correcting the Attribution through Analysis ……………………………………68

Summarizing the Evidence ……………………………………………………77

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………78

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………81

Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………85

Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………100

vi

List of Figures

Figures

1. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 72 ……………………………………………17

2. Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassation in D, Hob. deest. ……………………………18

3. Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassation in D, Hob. deest. ……………………………18

4. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 31 ……………………………………………18

5. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. I: 51 ……………………………………………20

6. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. X: 2 ……………………………………………20

7. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………27

8. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………27

9. Natural Harmonic Series ……………………………………………………28

10. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………28

11. Franz Joseph Haydn, Hob. VIId: 3 ……………………………………………29

12. Johann Michael Haydn, MH 134 ……………………………………………35

13. Johann Michael Haydn, MH 134 ……………………………………………36

14. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………46

15. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………46

16. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………47

17. Antonio Rosetti, C 57 ……………………………………………………………48

18. Antonio Rosetti, C 52 ……………………………………………………………49

19. Haydn Verzeichnis Incipit ……………………………………………………65

20. “Wallerstein Concerto” Incipit ……………………………………………65

21. It 59 Watermark ……………………………………………………………67

vii

22. “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………73

23. “Wallerstein Concerto” ……………………………………………………77

24. Antonio Rosetti, C60 ……………………………………………………………77

viii

Introduction

The misattribution of compositions and the proper assignment of these inauthentic works is an occasional problem faced by performers and scholars of music composed before the 19th century. The causes of a spurious attribution are numerous and trace back to any number of sources, including previous editors and musicologists, publishers, and even the composers themselves.

The conventional practices of the eighteenth century resulted in frequent similarities among composers: A limited number of forms, the preference of certain keys, and the limitations of instruments early in their developments resulted in a repertoire which, to the modern listener, might sound homogeneous. It is only through careful study and thoughtful listening that one can learn to distinguish the nuances of an individual composer‟s style. These distinctions are often confused by composers‟ mutual influence on one another regarding treatment of form, harmony, or orchestration, as well as the occasional borrowing – whether consciously or not – of a few measures of the others‟ works.1 These similarities are the source of many incorrect attributions and have resulted in decades of research to untangle the mislabeled works.

Publishers can have an even more harmful effect on the proper assignment of compositions. The publishing industry is, like all other industries, motivated by profit. Before the instillation of international copyright laws, there was no legal concept of intellectual property; a composer‟s work was no longer his own after he released the manuscript to a publisher. Charles

Cudworth notes that “Publishers were pirates, in the pre-copyright days, and they did not scruple to issue music under the wrong composersʼ names, if they thought it might prove more

1 Charles L. Cudworth, “Ye Olde Spuriosity Shoppe , or, Put it in the Anhang,” Notes, 12, No. 1 (December 1954): 28. 1

profitable.”2 Not all eighteenth-century publishers were this dishonest, and most modern publishers are very conscientious in their attributions, but a number of works continue to be published under the name of the wrong composer.

Additional confusion has been caused by careless librarians and earlier scholars. In eighteenth-century music libraries, the composer of a work was commonly only written on the jacket which contained the parts; the parts themselves bore no inscriptions. A misattribution can be formed by the simple misplacement of a set of parts into the incorrect jacket and can remain unnoticed for centuries.3 The only way to correct these assignments is through analysis.

However, the means of determining the correct composer can be ambiguous and even under the best circumstances are only speculative without the presence of an autograph manuscript. It is here that musicologists, in their attempts to correct, create misattributions themselves.4

Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) is considered one of the masters of eighteenth-century composition. During his lifetime, he experienced renown uncommon for composers of the age, most of whom spent their careers in obscurity. The success of his published works and their dissemination in both print and manuscript resulted in an international reputation and a resounding influence on his contemporary composers. Many composers were accused of imitating Haydn; most composers did imitate him to some extent. His ingenuity in exploiting the conventions of sonata form, the inventiveness of his thematic ideas, and his mastery of orchestration made Haydn one of the most influential and sought-after composers of the eighteenth century.

2 Cudworth, 35.

3 Bruce C. MacIntyre, “Haydn‟s Doubtful and Spurious Masses: An Attribution Update,” Haydn Studien 5 No. 1 (1982): 42-43.

4 Cudworth, 38. 2

Because Haydn‟s music was so desirable, he was frequently the target of dishonest publishers and composers. Many works published under his name were authored by lesser- known composers, sometimes with their knowledge and consent. “In these various rackets,” writes Cudworth, “certain great names acted like magnets in attracting any anonymous pieces of music which might come within their spheres of influence.”5 Haydn‟s was among those names.

His works were incredibly profitable for both the publishers who printed the works and the composer who received the royalties.

In addition to this intentional misattribution, there was the occasional mistaken assignment to Joseph Haydn the works of his younger brother, Johann Michael (1737-1806).

Generally, when a source bears only the name “Haydn,” with no first name, the elder brother may be assumed as the composer. Occasionally, this is not the case. A number of works previously attributed to Joseph Haydn have been reassigned to the catalog of Michael Haydn.6

Clearly, the task of sorting the authentic works of Joseph Haydn from those that are not is an arduous and ongoing one. This paper will focus on two of these works: The double horn concerto published as Hob. VIId: 2 and the horn concerto in D published as Hob. VIId: 4.

The earliest record of the concerto published as Hob. VIId: 4 occurred in 1781, when it appeared in a supplement to the Breitkopf catalog under the name “Hayden.” The concerto only survives in one manuscript copy in Zittau, and is undated, although a note made by the copyist,

“SplXXI” refers to the 1781 supplement in which the concerto appeared.7 This work appears in

5 Cudworth, 35.

6 Charles H. Sherman and T. Donley Thomas, Johann Michael Haydn (1737-1806), a Chronological Thematic Catalog of his Works, (Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1993). Throughout their catalog, Sherman and Thomas cross-reference the misattributions with their corresponding incipits in Hoboken‟s catalog.

7 Dwight C. Blazin, “Michael Haydn and „The Haydn Tradition:‟ A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission,” (PhD Diss., New York University, 2004): 267.

3

Anthony Hoboken‟s catalog of Joseph Haydn‟s works as Hob. VIId: 4, although the incipit does not appear in any of Haydn‟s personal catalogs of his works. Charles Sherman and T. Donley

Thomas have also included it in their catalog of Michael Haydn‟s works as MH 53. From henceforth, this concerto will be referred to as the “Zittau Concerto,” to avoid the confusion of conflicting catalog numbers.

Hoboken, when compiling his catalog, considered the concerto Hob. VIId: 2 to be lost.

The only indications that the concerto existed was its entry into the Haydn Verzeichnis, a catalog completed in 1805 by Johann Elssler, Haydn‟s copyist and the mention of a double horn concerto in the Johann Traeg‟s 1799 catalog. The concerto was thought to be lost until 1959, when

Belgian musicologist Carl de Nys presented a paper attributing authorship of a double horn concerto from the court of Oettingen-Wallerstein to Joseph Haydn.8 It has since been published as Hob. VIId: 2, composed by Joseph Haydn. Sterling Murray, however, has included it in his catalog of Antonio Rosetti‟s works, as C56Q. To avoid the confusion of the conflicting catalog numbers, this concerto will henceforth be referred to as the “Wallerstein Concerto.”

Of the three concertos published as his, I assert that Joseph Haydn is the composer of only one, Hob. VIId: 3. The “Wallerstein Concerto” bears the stylistic traits of Antonio Rosetti, and evidence suggests that Michael Haydn was the composer of the “Zittau Concerto.” The purpose of this paper is to clarify the authorship of these concertos through a systematic presentation of the current musicological research and thorough analysis of the elements of musical construction utilized by the composers in question.

8 Carl de Nys, “A propos du concerto pour deux cors et orchestre en mi bémol majeur,” in Bericht über die Internationale Konferenz zum Andenken Joseph Haydns, Budapest 17-22 September, 1959, ed. Bence Szabolcsi and Dénis Bartha, 103-108. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1961. 4

Theoretical Considerations

In modern scholarship there are a number of approaches to analyzing the sonata forms of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Each analytic approach highlights different areas of importance and each uses a unique terminology for their methods.9 To the composers of these forms there was no definition of the sonata; it was only set forth as a musical theory in the 1820‟s and 1830‟s. Rather, it would have been viewed by composers as the

“customary design of first movements.”10 Contemporary treatises, most notably Heinrich

Christoph Koch‟s Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition describe the sonata as a movement in two large parts – a binary form – with smaller sections distinguished by the treatment of melodic ideas.11

Understanding the sonata form within the context of the Enlightenment in which it flourished is the main premise of the sonata theory of James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy. They write,

Considered generally, it could be understood as an abstract metaphor for disciplined, balanced action in the world, a generalized action involving differing types of idealized mid- and late-eighteenth century personalities. [. . .] Sonata form emphasized short-range topical flexibility, grace, and forward-driving dynamism combined – in both the short and long range – with balance, symmetry, and closure, and the rational resolution of tensions.12

9 James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006): 3.

10 Ibid., 14.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 15.

5

As early as the middle of the eighteenth century, the sonata form was “obligatory” for the first movement of an instrumental work and was commonly used in the slow and final movements.13

Although the sonata form was not clearly defined or viewed as a theory of musical composition until much later, the “knowledgeable musical community” understood the practice and exercised the conventions of the formal guidelines. Their knowledge of the form was gathered from the advice of theorists such as Koch, but more importantly from the ever-growing body of works which set the precedents for the genre. 14

Through their sonata theory, Hepokoski and Darcy endeavor to establish the normative procedures for the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century sonata form. In their text, the authors describe the standard procedures and introduce alternative compositional choices that may occur within a work. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to describe their theory in full, the following paragraphs will serve as an introduction to the concepts and terminology of

Hepokoski‟s and Darcy‟s sonata theory.

The Action Space

At its simplest, the sonata form articulates a rounded binary structure, A||BA‟. The pieces of this structure in modern terms are the exposition, development, and recapitulation. Each of these spaces consists of “generically appropriate” melodies subjected to thematic and textural development. Hepokoski and Darcy write, “In the hands of most composers, constructing a sonata-form movement was a task of modular assembly: the forging of a succession of short, section-specific musical units (spaces of action) linked together into an ongoing linear chain –

13 Hepokoski, 15. . 14 Ibid., 9. 6

pressing down and connecting one appropriately stylized musical tile after another.”15 Each

“action space” had two roles in the execution of the sonata, harmonic and “thematic-textural

(„rhetorical‟)”.16

The Exposition

The role of the exposition within the progression of a sonata form is two-fold.

Harmonically, the exposition establishes the tonic key for the movement and, over the course of the exposition, modulates to a secondary key. Rhetorically, the exposition must present the themes and textures of the movement. This initial arrangement is the backdrop against which the later action spaces – the development and recapitulation – are compared.17

In a standard, two-part exposition, the action space launches with the statement of the primary theme (P), which establishes both the tonic key and the emotional tone of the movement.

The primary theme is generally followed by an energy-gaining transition (TR), which leads to a mid-expositional break, or medial caesura (MC). The following secondary theme (S) is presented in the new key and drives to a perfect authentic cadence (PAC) in the new key. The first satisfactory PAC reached within the secondary thematic area is considered the essential expositional closure (EEC). Often, this cadence is followed by a closing space (C).18

15 Hepokoski, 15-16.

16 Ibid., 16.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., 18. 7

Continuous expositions, which were favored by Joseph Haydn, do not present a secondary theme. In these kinds of expositions, the momentum of the transition drives towards the EEC; the new key is reached through modulation in the TR space.

The Development

While the purpose of the exposition is to establish the thematic and tonal ideas for the sonata movement, the development‟s purpose is to destabilize the established key. The harmonic structure of the development is more fluid; when a movement is in the major-mode, the development often travels through the submediant or other minor-mode keys. The development typically culminates with the dominant key, a “prolongation of dominant harmony,” which leads to a I:HC for the launch of the recapitulation.19

The development “may or may not be fully or partially rotational;” this is dependent on the action space‟s reliance upon the thematic pattern previously established.20 Often, the developmental space reintroduces musical ideas presented in the exposition, often in the order in which they were originally presented. The absence of previously stated themes and the introduction of new themes was likely not an arbitrary choice. Comparing the modules and textures of the developmental space with the expositional space gives weight to the decisions made by composers when constructing this action space.

19 Hepokoski, 19.

20 Ibid. 8

The Recapitulation

The final action space of a sonata form movement, the recapitulation, “resolves the tonal tension originally generated in the exposition.”21 This rotation restates at least all the non-tonic modules presented in the exposition (S and C, and often P and TR). The purpose of the recapitulatory space is to bring tonal resolution to the movement.

The secondary theme, when presented in the recapitulation, leads to a satisfactory I:PAC.

This is the moment of essential structural closure (ESC), and is often complementary to the EEC from the exposition. The ESC “represents the tonal goal of the entire sonata form, the tonal and cadential point toward which the trajectory of the whole movement had been driving.”22 The

ESC may be followed by a closing module or a coda.

The Sonata Types

In the sonata theory of Hepokoski and Darcy, there are many “types” of sonatas beyond the archetypal form. Rather than a concrete set of rules, the sonata form represents “interrelated families of musical processes that are generically appropriate for similar types of compositional situations.”23 These related types share structural features including an exposition which modulates, a rotational dialogue, and “quasi-symmetrical” tonal resolution. Hepokoski and

Darcy have defined five broad types.

21 Hepokoski, 19.

22 Ibid., 20.

23 Ibid., 343.

9

The simplest of the sonata forms is referred to in Elements of Sonata Theory as Type 1.

These sonatas consist only of an exposition and recapitulation and often lack internal repeats.

The Type 1 sonata most frequently occurs in slow movements.24

The Type 2 sonata is a form in which the recapitulatory rotation is not launched with the primary theme, but instead begins at a later point, often near the secondary theme. Unlike the simpler Type 1, the Type 2 sonata contains a developmental section. This form has many options for variance.25

The prototypical sonata form is the Type 3 sonata with an exposition, development, and a recapitulation that launches with the primary theme in the tonic. It is the most familiar of the sonata types, but as with the Type 2, the form can by realized in many ways.

They Type 4 sonata is a more complex form. It is a hybrid between the sonata and the rondo. It was a frequent choice for finale movements and occasionally used for slow movements.

The Type 4 sonata opens with a traditional exposition, which retransitions into a tonic statement of the rondo theme (P). Generally, the exposition is balanced by a recapitulation. The space between these rotations differs among the pieces which utilize the form, but blends the seven- part rondo scheme with the rhetoric of the sonata form.26

The sonata form most studied for this paper is the Type 5 sonata, the concerto form. The formal structure of the Type 5 sonata blends the ritornello format employed in concertos of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century with the other sonata types. A distinguishing feature of the Type 5 sonata is the use of a double exposition. The initial rotation is sounded by the orchestra (ritornello), and remains in the tonic key. This is followed by a modulatory solo

24 Hepokoski, 344.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 344-45. 10

exposition which typically uses the same thematic materials. The solo exposition is followed by a ritornello passage before the launch of the development by the soloist. The development is followed by another, generally brief, ritornello before the recapitulation is played by the soloist.

The closing material is performed by the ritornello, but is often punctuated by a cadenza.27

The Type 5 sonata is the most complex of the sonata types. “Understanding the Type 5s adequately,” write Hepokoski and Darcy, “presupposes a thorough grasp of the options and alternative (less normative) procedures available in Sonata Types 1-3.”28 The concerto can become a very personalized form, as there are many opportunities for variance and deviation from tradition.

Applying the Theory

Throughout the Elements of Sonata Theory, Hepokoski and Darcy not only define the forms in their normative states, but present nearly every deviation from those norms. In preparation for this document, I have applied their theory to my analyses of concertos by Joseph

Haydn, Michael Haydn, and Antonio Rosetti. My analytical approach was primarily formal; my goal was to develop an understanding of how each composer treated sonata forms. I discovered, particularly in Joseph Haydn‟s and Antonio Rosetti‟s concertos, that when the composers chose lower-level defaults or deformations of the forms, they did so consistently. The composers made consistent choices throughout their respective bodies of work. I have included in the appendix examples of my analyses, including the concertos about which this document is concerned.

27 Hepokoski, 345.

28 Ibid. 11

1. Historical Background

Much of aristocratic life in eighteenth-century Europe revolved around the musical establishments in the courts. The quality of music presented at a court granted prestige to the nobility residing there and resulted in competition amongst the aristocracy to acquire the finest musicians and composers available. Courts with large orchestras were more desirable to composers, who sought positions where a corps of capable musicians could serve as an inspiration for new works.

Court appointments were the largest source of income for composers and musicians. This income could be supplemented by touring and publishing, but making a livelihood without a patron was rare until the nineteenth century. Because so little income could be made from publishing, most compositions were made for use by the musicians at hand. A composer‟s works were custom-made for his employer‟s orchestra, utilizing the available orchestral forces, featuring the strongest players, and catering to his employer‟s taste.

Franz Joseph Haydn

Franz Joseph Haydn was the eldest son of Mathias Haydn and Anna Maria Kohler.

Joseph was baptized on April 1, 1732 in Rohrau, a town in Lower Austria.29 His musical training began when he moved to Hainburg with his cousin, Johann Mathias Franck in 1737 or 1738. In

Hainburg, Haydn was trained in traditional academic disciplines and was given musical

29 H.C. Robbins Landon, Haydn: The Early Years 1732-1765, Vol. 1 of Haydn: Chronicle and Works (1980; repr., London: Thames and Hudson, 1994): 33-34.

12

instruction after classes had finished.30 He left Hainburg in 1740 to join the choir school at

Stephansdom in Vienna. He remained in the choir school until 1749, receiving regular training from various members of the Kappelle.31

Following his dismissal from the choir school, Haydn rented a small attic apartment and made a living teaching lessons and performing in orchestras and evening serenades. Although lacking permanent employment, this time was productive for Haydn; as a result of his musical talent and agreeable personality, he made many important connections that accelerated his career. The acclaimed poet Metastasio lived in the same building where Haydn resided. Through

Metastasio, Haydn became acquainted with Nicola Antonio Porpora, a renowned composer, who hired him as an assistant. During his time spent with Porpora, Haydn learned the Italian style of singing and accompanying and became acquainted with other great composers of the day.32

Although Haydn spent a good deal of time with Porpora, his education from the master was primarily through observation. For his compositional studies, Haydn relied on treatises, including Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach‟s Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu Spielen,

Mattheson‟s Der vollkommene Kapellmeister and Fux‟s Gradus ad Pernassum.33 It was common practice at this time for composers to learn theory and technique through texts and treatises rather than through formal lessons with a teacher.

In the latter part of the 1750‟s, Haydn was occasionally hired by Carl Joseph, Edler von

Fürnberg, a member of the lower nobility who wished to have music in his household. Although

Fürnberg‟s income did not allow him to maintain an orchestra, his connections proved to be

30 Landon, 51-52.

31 Ibid., 56.

32 Ibid., 60-61.

33 Ibid., 65-66.

13

important to Haydn.34 In 1759, on Fürnberg‟s recommendation, he was engaged as the music director to Count Morzin in Vienna. For his services he was paid 200 gulden plus room and board. It was for the Count that Haydn composed his first symphony. Little is known about the orchestral forces at Haydn‟s disposal, but it was for this orchestra that he wrote a number of symphonies, as well as some wind music.35

Paul Anton, Prince Esterházy, came into acquaintance with Joseph Haydn and his works through Count Morzin, who recommended Haydn‟s service to the Esterházys. After Count

Morzin dismissed his orchestra, Haydn was employed as Vice-Kapellmeister for the Prince

Esterházy, who resided in the Hungarian town of Eisenstadt. Haydn became part of the Esterházy musical establishment in April of 1761. Although in a subordinate position to Kapellmeister

Gregor Joseph Werner, Haydn was authorized to reorganize the Musikkapelle and hire a number of new musicians for the orchestra.36

In the Service of the Esterházy Princes

The reorganization of the Musikkapelle gave Haydn control over the instrumental forces at his disposal and the personnel that filled those positions. As a result, he was able to acquire an orchestra that not only had the talent to perform his innovative compositions, but also had flexibility of instrumentation. As a part of the reorganization of the Musikkapelle seven new

34 Landon., 228.

35 Ibid., 235-237.

36 Ibid., 344-346.

14

wind players were engaged, including hornists Johann Knoblauch and Thaddäus Steinmüller.37

In 1763, Haydn was able to engage a second pair of horn players: Carl Franz and Franz Reinert.

Haydn had a section of four horns only for a brief time, as Reinert left after five months and was not replaced. Knoblauch died on January 22, 1765 and was temporarily replaced by Franz

Steinmetz. Joseph Dietzel replaced Steinmetz later that year.38 The section was again raised to four players in 1765, when Franz Stamitz joined the orchestra.39

Haydn‟s Compositions for Horn

Between the years 1761 and 1776, Joseph Haydn wrote a number of works featuring his hornists, either solo or as a section. During this period, he wrote at least four symphonies which include four horns: the symphonies Hob. I:13, Hob. I: 39, Hob. I: 72, and the “Hornsignal” symphony Hob. I: 31. Haydn scholar H.C. Robbins Landon suggests that the three D major symphonies may have been designed to demonstrate the prowess of the newly arrived virtuosi.40

There is a marked change in the style of composition between Hob. I: 13, which is dated

1763, and Hob. I: 72, which lacks a date, but is composed in the style of Haydn‟s works dating from 1763 to 1765. The former is written in a “rather primitive harmonic-rhythmic block style,” compared to the soloistic demands of latter.41 Haydn‟s treatment of the horn had changed in the

37 Roger Hellyer, “The Wind Ensembles of the Esterházy Princes 1761-1813,” The Haydn Yearbook 15 (1984): 5.

38 Ibid., 8-9.

39 Paul R. Bryan, “Haydn‟s Hornists,” Haydn Studien 3, No. 1 (1973): 52.

40 Paul R. Bryan, “The Horn in the Works of Mozart and Haydn: Some Observations and Comparisons,” The Haydn Yearbook 9 No. 9 (1975): 203.

41 Bryan, “The Horn,” 203. 15

interval between Hob. I: 13 and Hob. I: 72. Paul Bryan writes, “His confidence in the abilities of all his players is obvious […] Haydn constantly favors the second part when he requires either lower range or greater agility.”42

In a “response to the Prince‟s (and Haydn‟s) enthusiasm for the hunt,” Haydn revived the four-horn section in the “Hornsignal” symphony, Hob. I: 31.43 This symphony is reminiscent of

Hob. I: 72, particularly considering the specific demands upon the second horn player, Thaddäus

Steinmüller. This symphony also prominently features the principal horn, Carl Franz, indicating

Haydn‟s growing appreciation for his virtuosity.

During the period when Haydn was scoring symphonies for four horns, he likely composed a chamber work, the Cassation in D, Hob. deest., akin to the symphonies Hob. I: 72 and Hob. I: 31 in its use of the horn section. Although no autograph score exists, evidence suggests that this work is authentic and was composed for the same section which performed the symphonies.

The method used by H.C. Robbins Landon and Paul Bryan to determine the authenticity of the Cassation is the same method I will use to when considering the authenticity of the concertos. Although this work can never be definitively proven authentic through an autograph, the implications of the common thread of musical ideas running through the Cassation and the related symphonies is strong enough to support the suggestion that the Cassation is authentic, and was likely composed around the same time.

Several melodic ideas are shared between the Cassation and the symphonies Hob. I: 72 and Hob. I: 31. Among these are the ascending scales, featured in both the first movement of

42 Bryan, “The Horn,” 203.

43 Bryan, “Haydn‟s Hornists,” 53.

16

Hob. I: 72 (Figure 1) and twice in the Cassation (Figure 2), “as if to emphasize that the composer considered it an especially fascinating and exciting effect.”44 The fourth movement of the

Cassation is a minuet. In the second section of the minuet, the third and fourth horns play what

Hoboken determined to be a Hungarian, Croatian, or Romanian horn call (Figure 3).45 Landon writes, “Whatever its nationality, it was obviously the signal known to and used by Prince

Esterházy.”46 This call later serves as primary material in Symphony No. 31 (Figure 4).

Figure 1: Symphony, Hob. I: 72, first movement, mm. 81-91, horns in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Symphony No. 72, ed. H.C. Robbins Landon, vol. 7, bk. 7 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1967).

44 Bryan, “The Horn,” 204.

45Anthony van Hoboken, Joseph Haydn: Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis. Band 1. (Mainz: B. Schott's Sohne, 1957): I: 35.

46 Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassatio in D, Hob. deest., prepared from the autographs by H.C. Robbins Landon, Vol. 66 of Diletto Musicale (Vienna: Verlag Doblinger, 1960): np. 17

Figure 2: Cassation in D, Hob. deest., second movement, mm. 47-51, horns in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassatio in D, Hob. deest., Prepared from the autographs by H.C. Robbins Landon, Vol. 66 of Diletto Musicale. (Vienna: Verlag Doblinger, 1960).

Figure 3: Cassation in D, Hob. deest., fourth movement, mm. 10-15, horns 3 and 4 in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Cassatio in D, Hob. deest., Prepared from the autographs by H.C. Robbins Landon, Vol. 66 of Diletto Musicale (Vienna: Verlag Doblinger, 1960).

Figure 4: Symphony, Hob. I: 31, first movement, mm. 9-15, horn 1 in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Symphony No. 31, ed. H.C. Robbins Landon, vol. 3, bk. 4 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1965).

Although he did not continue to score for four horns after 1765, Haydn wrote extravagant parts for his horn players throughout his employment with the Esterházy family. It appears that the hornist Carl Franz was the inspiration for the principal horn parts. The Divertimento a tre,

18

Hob. IV: 5, exists in an autograph dated 1767. Its intention was to demonstrate a hornist‟s virtuosity: The part is composed mostly in the upper tessitura, reaching a sounding a-flatʹʹʹ. Paul

Bryan advanced the theory that Franz was the intended hornist, which gains credibility when compared to Franz‟s own copy of the Quintet, Hob. X: 10, which has equal technical demands.47

Among the works that feature a pair of horns are the Baryton Octets from 1775, and the symphony Hob. I: 51, from ca. 1773-1774. In the Baryton Octets, the horn parts require a greater than average range from both players, and security and control on both stopped and factitious notes approached by a leap (Figure 5). Haydn is conscious of the scoring for horns against the softer baryton. Soloistic horn passages are more exposed, and mutes are required at times to maintain the balance within the ensemble.48 Similarly, the symphony Hob. I: 51 demonstrates both the ability of Haydn‟s players and his willingness for “exotic excursion.” Elaborate horn solos make this work unique. The second movement reaches a sounding a-flatʹʹʹ, the minuet reaches a b-flatʹʹʹ, and the second hornist must perform stopped and factitious tones (Figure 6). In

Landon‟s estimation, “This is the kind of symphony that […] made Haydn‟s reputation as a revolutionary thinker.”49

47 H.C. Robbins Landon, Haydn at Esterháza, 1766-1790, Vol. 2 of Haydn: Chronicle and Works (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978): 348-349.

48 Bryan, “The Horn,” 204-205.

49 Landon, 301. 19

Figure 5: Octet, Hob. X: 2, third movement, mm. 55-70, horns 1 and 2 in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Octet in D, Hob. X: 2, in Werke mit Baryton, ed. Sonja Gerlach, vol. 13 of Joseph Haydn Werke, ed. Georg Feder (Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1969).

Figure 6: Symphony, Hob. I; 51, first movement, mm. 9-15, horns 1 and 2 in E-flat

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Symphony No. 51, ed. H.C. Robbins Landon, vol. 5, bk. 2 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies, ed. Helmut Schultz (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1963).

Haydn‟s Hornists

Most composers in the eighteenth century had a pragmatic approach to composition and only wrote works which could be of use in their patrons‟ musical establishments. Haydn‟s experimentation was furthered by the abilities of Prince Esterházy‟s orchestra. Were the players not available, or not capable, Haydn‟s output likely would have been drastically different. His horn section from 1762-1765 was briefly mentioned earlier in this document. These next

20

paragraphs will introduce some of the more influential hornists and their reputed abilities. A chart listing all his hornists is included in the appendix on page eighty-three.

Carl Franz was a virtuoso high horn player who performed in the Esterházy orchestra from 1763-1776.50 He was originally hired to replace Johann Knoblauch as principal in the

Esterházy orchestra. Franz received many laudatory comments from his contemporaries. For example, C.F. Pohl expressed the opinion that Franz was better paid than his colleagues because the Prince wanted very much to employ him.51 Franz Ludwig Gerber, in the 1790 edition of his

Lexicon der Tonkünstler spoke of his ability to play over four octaves, his agility and rapidity over the breadth of his range, and his adeptness at hand-stopping. Franz was also noted as a baryton player and violinst.52 In fact, Franz was higher paid and offered some privilege because of his ability as a performer. Members of the Feldmusik, those who played for the hunt, received a per diem for days spent away from court. Carl Franz received no per diem, but a higher salary.

This implies that he was excused from the Feldmusik in order to focus his efforts on orchestral performance.53

Thaddäus Steinmüller performed with the Esterházy orchestra from 1761-1772. He is listed on several payrolls as “anderer” or second hornist. It is likely that Steinmüller was second to Franz, as the other low hornists during the period of the four-horn symphonies were

50 Because the range of the horn is large, spanning the distance between the second and sometimes eighteenth harmonics, players have historically specialized in a specific register. Low hornists were expected to master the notes between the second and twelfth harmonics; the spaces between the partials were larger, therefore the low hornists were more adept at arpeggios. High hornists were masters of the range between the sixth and sixteenth harmonics; these partials are more closely spaced, thus providing the hornist with the ability to perform florid melodic lines. Although the hornists were experts at their respective ranges, they were not necessarily limited to them, as composers would occasionally ask for notes beyond the traditional range of the players.

51 Bryan, “Haydn‟s Hornists,” 55.

52 Ernst Ludwig Gerber, Historische-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünstler 1790-1792 (Leipzig, 1790; repr. ed., Graz: Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1977), s.v. “Franz, Carl.”

53 Hellyer, 9.

21

intermittent.54 There has been a good deal of misinformation about Steinmüller and his career, due to the erroneous conclusion by Pohl that Steinmüller was a first horn player.55

Although Joseph Knoblauch was originally hired as the first hornist in Haydn‟s orchestra; he was relegated to the third seat following the court‟s acquisition of Carl Franz. Because he was one of Haydn‟s original hornists at the Esterházy court, he is one of the potential recipients of the concerto, Hob. VIId: 3. However, the work does not particularly favor the techniques of a high horn specialist, so it is unlikely that the work was composed for him.

There are three other possibly influential horn players who served the Esterházy family.

Johann May served from 1767-1774. According to existing payroll information, he was a second hornist and seems to have been paired with Carl Franz after his arrival. He is the likely performer of the second horn parts in the symphony Hob. I: 51 and the Baryton Octets. Later members of the Kapelle include first hornist Gabriel Lendway, who served from 1787-1790 and his counterpart Matthias Nickl, who served from 1786-1790. The duo remained together after the disbandment of the Hofkapelle, and performed a double horn concerto for the Wiener

Tonkünstler Societät in 1794.56

The Historical Background of the Horn Concerto in D, Hob. VIId: 3

The only concerto that can be proven to be an authentic work of Joseph Haydn‟s is the concerto Hob. VIId: 3. The concerto is not listed in Haydn‟s Entwurf-Katalog, but a dated

54 Bryan, “Haydn‟s Hornists,” 56.

55 Landon, Haydn at Esterháza, 79.

56 Hellyer, 24.

22

autographed by Haydn is preserved in the Viennese Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde.57 As it was previously mentioned, most music composed in the eighteenth century was written for an intended performance, and Haydn‟s works were no exception. Considering the hornists available to Haydn, for whom was the concerto composed?

In 1762, Haydn had two hornists available for performances at court: Johann Knoblauch and Thaddäus Steinmüller. Humphries suggests that the “extremely imaginative use of the horn‟s lowest register in the Adagio” indicates that Steinmüller was the intended performer.58 However, considering the techniques required in the Cassation and symphonies I: 72 and I: 31, it seems as if Steinmüller‟s strength was his acrobatic technique rather than the lyrical quality of his playing.

Another performer to consider is Joseph Leutgeb, best known as the dedicatee of

Mozart‟s horn concertos. He was briefly engaged at Esterházy in February of 1763. The families were close: Haydn‟s wife was named godmother to Leutgeb‟s daughter and the christening ceremony took place on July 3, 1762 in Vienna.59 Leutgeb was one of the most featured soloists at the Burgtheater in Vienna between 1758 and 1763, appearing at least fourteen times. In

Philipp Gumpenhuber‟s Repertoires for the Burgtheater, concertos are listed by Leopold

Hofmann (June 11, 1762), Michael Haydn (July 2, 1762), and Carl Ditters (November 5, 1762).

The composers of the other concertos remain anonymous.60 It is an unusual coincidence that

57 John Humphries, The Early Horn: A Practical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 82.

58 Ibid., 83.

59 Ibid.

60 Daniel Heartz, “Leutgeb and the 1762 Horn Concertos of Joseph and Johann Michael Haydn,” Mozart Yearbook 15 (1984): 59.

23

Michael Haydn‟s concerto was performed the day before Leutgeb‟s daughter was baptized, but it is unlikely that Gumpenhuber‟s attribution of the concerto to Michael was wrong.61

The concerto Hob. VIId: 3 seems to be “a labor of love and special inspiration.” All three movements are in sonata form, and each has a solo cadenza. The second movement has a “rather hymn-like character.” The theme is played twice by the soloist, once in the higher octave, and then repeated two octaves below, requiring hand-stopping and bending factitious notes into place. The third movement requires advanced technique not to be expected of the average orchestral player. Landon suggests it was composed for Leutgeb on the occasion of his daughter‟s birth.62

Haydn‟s contract with Prince Esterházy stated that all music composed was not to be shared or communicated without the Prince‟s permission. Perhaps the inscription, “im schlaff geschrieben” which appears on the manuscript implies that he was writing after the day‟s work was finished. As Haydn had to be cautious about having his name attached to new music in

Vienna, perhaps this work is one of the unattributed concertos in Gumpenhuber‟s Repertoire.63

Reviews of Leutgeb‟s performances in the Mercure de France in Paris also lend credence to this theory. Writing about Leutgeb‟s cantabile style, the Mercure claims he was able to play “an

Adagio as perfectly as the most mellow, interesting, and accurate voice.”64 The concerto Hob.

VIId: 3, and similarly Mozart‟s concertos for Leutgeb, emphasizes a singing style and centers its thematic ideas in the middle register, allowing for maximum expression while simultaneously

61 Heartz, 60.

62 Ibid., 60-62.

63 Ibid., 62.

64 Ibid. 24

avoiding flamboyant displays of virtuosity present in horn concertos of other contemporary composers.

It is important to determine the intended soloist because the performers and composers worked together in developing concertos which would adequately display the performer‟s unique talents. As evidenced in the earlier paragraphs about Haydn‟s works for his horn section, and as will be demonstrated in the later presentation about Antonio Rosetti‟s orchestral forces, the talents and availability of players greatly influenced the music composed for them.

Theoretical Consideration of the Horn Concerto in D, Hob. VIId: 3

As Hob. VIId: 3 is the only verifiably authentic horn concerto by Joseph Haydn in existence, it must be considered the archetypal example of his style in this particular genre.

Understanding his treatment of form and thematic material will be invaluable when considering the other concertos.

Joseph Haydn tends to opt for lower level defaults, and occasionally deformations when composing his sonata form movements. The frequency of these deviations from the norm should be considered when analyzing both his works and others which are to be compared to his. The techniques Haydn uses can serve as identifying features; the presence or lack of these techniques might be an indication of authorship.

Joseph Haydn has a particular technique of achieving a continuous exposition (that is, an exposition without a secondary theme). Frequently in his symphonies Joseph Haydn proposes a medial caesura, but is “brusquely declining to accept it as such, preferring instead to remain

25

within the pre-MC space.”65 This approach to the medial caesura is a suggestion of Haydn‟s wit and desire to surprise the listener.

According to Hepokoski and Darcy, there are several ways in which a medial caesura can be declined. The first is to return to the primary theme, still in the tonic. The second is to remain in the tonic key although a new theme is being sounded. The third is to modulate to a foreign key which does not reach a satisfying cadence. The final option occurs when a new key is accepted, but the music fails to drop to piano for a satisfactory secondary theme.66 As one will see in the following analysis, Haydn utilizes both the second and fourth methods of declining medial caesuras, thus thwarting the expectations of the listener.

In Haydn‟s concertos, the solo sections are generally longer than the opening ritornello section.67 This is indeed the case with VIId: 3, for which my formal and harmonic analysis can be found in the appendix. The opening ritornello spans the first twenty-six measures, presenting the primary theme in D major (Figure 7). This is followed by a transition, interrupted by a medial caesura in measure fifteen. This caesura is declined: although new, contrasting material is presented in measure sixteen, the music remains in D major. Though this is not abnormal in the opening ritornello of a concerto, the fact that the energy gain that began in measure eight via the repeated eighth notes in the lower strings is maintained following the break implies that a caesura has been declined, and thus the music is still in a transitional space. The material that follows the caesura is a Fortspinnung, or spinning out of the idea up to the cadence in measure

65 Hepokoski, 45.

66 Ibid., 45-46.

67 Shelley Davis, “Regarding the Authenticity of the „Haydn‟ Keyboard Concerto, Hob. XVIII: f3,” in Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larsen, Haward Serwer, and James Webster (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1981): 123. 26

twenty-six. The corresponding passage in the solo exposition does result in the sounding of a secondary thematic area, reinforced by the reduction of the accompanimental forces (Figure 8).

Figure 7: Concerto, Hob. VIId: 3, first movement, mm. 1-4, violin 1

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Concerto in D Major for Horn and Orchestra, Hob. VIId: 3, ed. Christa Landon (New York: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd, 1959).

Figure 8: Concerto, Hob. VIId: 3, first movement, mm. 51-54, horn in D

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Concerto in D Major for Horn and Orchestra, Hob. VIId: 3, ed. Christa Landon (New York: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd, 1959).

In the development, Haydn avoids distant keys. Material is presented in A major, D major, E minor, and E major. In the recapitulation, Haydn deviates from the standard concerto form by presenting the secondary theme once again in A major. This requires a retransition to return to D major for the essential structural cadence in measure 150.

The thematic material in the first movement is designed to suit the natural horn. Any notes outside the natural harmonic series must be manipulated by use of the right hand in the bell in order to sound (Figure 9). This causes a difference in timbre between the open and closed notes. A talented soloist could minimize this difference, but the timbral shifts between open notes and closed notes were considered part of the expressive nature of the instrument. Through his use of arpeggiated chords, Haydn is able to present thematic material relying primarily on the notes available in the natural harmonic series.

27

Figure 9: The Natural Harmonic Series

Source: Catherine Schmidt-Jones, “Tuning Systems,” Early Music Tuning Systems, http://www.early-music.info/octaves_tuning/tuning.htm (Accessed 23 June, 2011).

The second movement is also presented in concerto form. The first ritornello spans twenty-seven measures, presenting the primary theme in A major, transition, and reaching the A major cadence in measure twenty-five (Figure 10). This movement has no secondary theme; instead, the solo section is expanded through a repetition of the primary thematic material, but has a truncated transition to E major.

Figure 10: Concerto, Hob. VIId: 3, second movement, mm. 1-7, violin 1

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Concerto in D Major for Horn and Orchestra, Hob. VIId: 3, ed. Christa Landon (New York: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd, 1959)

This melody, which is repeated by the horn soloist at concert pitch level, incorporates more notes beyond the natural harmonic series because it is in a more distant key from the tonic.

The use of the right hand is more prominent in the repetition of the primary theme in the solo exposition. Because the theme is repeated two octaves below, where the harmonics are much

28

farther apart, many of the notes must be manipulated by the hand or by the embouchure in order to sound.

The third movement of VIId: 3 breaks Haydn‟s norm of having solo expositions bear a greater weight than the ritornello exposition. In this instance, both expositions are the same length. The expositions are continuous, and feature Haydn‟s characteristic declined medial caesura. In the orchestral exposition, the medial caesura is proposed in measure 16, but is followed with material that is neither in the dominant nor satisfactory as a theme. The solo exposition proposes a medial caesura in measure 49, but this is also declined. In this case, Haydn chooses the less frequently used option of the forte theme. In addition to the unexpected forte secondary thematic area, the material used is not strongly thematic nor is there the coinciding energy loss associated with a secondary theme.

The movement features a thirty-six measure development, incorporating mostly primary thematic material in the keys of A major, D major, and e minor. Although the primary thematic material is more conjunct in the third movement than it is in the first, Haydn sets it in a higher tessitura, where the harmonics are closer together. This results in less reliance on hand stopping, resulting in an open, clear sound (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Concerto, Hob. VIId: 3, third movement, mm. 1-6, violin 1

Source: Franz Joseph Haydn, Concerto in D Major for Horn and Orchestra, Hob. VIId: 3, ed. Christa Landon (New York: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd, 1959)

A unique feature of the concerto form is the incorporation of a display episode. Display episodes may occur before or follow the essential expositional cadence and occur within the closing space of the solo exposition. The first and last movements of Hob. VIId: 3 do include

29

display episodes. In the first movement, the display episode occurs before the essential expositional cadence, in measures 55 through 60. The display episode in the third movement is far more elaborate, spanning measures 58 through 74, leading to the cadence in measure 74.

What then can be determined about Joseph Haydn‟s compositional treatment of the concerto form from Hob. VIId: 3? Because the eighteenth-century horn could only perform notes on the natural harmonic series without manipulation by the hand, Haydn was limited to keys related to the tonic. In 1762, the art of hand-stopping was relatively new and not yet widespread.

Distant keys, requiring a greater amount of manipulation, were avoided. Although the thematic material does require some use of the right hand and an ability to precisely bend factitious tones into place, it is not overly demanding in these areas. In comparing this concerto with Haydn‟s other works which feature the horn, it appears that Haydn preferred the open sound of the horn‟s natural harmonics to the closed sound caused by the manipulation of tones with the right hand.

Johann Michael Haydn

Johann Michael Haydn was baptized on September 14, 1737. He is the younger brother of Joseph Haydn and followed a very similar career path. In his youth, he was also educated in

Hainburg. From 1753 to1754, Michael attended the Jesuit Seminary in Vienna and, as a result had a more thorough academic training than did his elder brother.68 In the following paragraphs,

Haydn unqualified refers to Michael, not Joseph.

Following in his brother‟s footsteps, Haydn joined the choir school at the Stephansdom, and occasionally substituted as an organist for the cathedral. During his training at the choir

68 Landon, Haydn: The Early Years, 78.

30

school, he studied Fux, Bach, Handel, Graun, and Hasse. He composed small-scale sacred music that was considered pleasing by contemporary listeners.69

Grosswardein and Salzburg

After the younger Haydn was dismissed from the Stephansdom, it can be presumed that he faced the same economic hardships as did his brother Joseph. Following the death of Charles

VI, the musical environment in Vienna was “disheartening.”70 Most of the prominent musicians in Vienna and the surrounding vicinity were employed by other aristocratic courts, not the

Viennese Hofkapelle. Haydn accepted a position in Grosswardein in southern Hungary, serving the Count Adam Patáchich beginning in 1757.71

The musical forces at Grosswardein were rather small. After Haydn‟s tenure at the court, the Kapelle was augmented to thirty-four members, indicating that Haydn‟s orchestra was smaller.72 According to Romeo Ghircoiasiu‟s research, Haydn‟s orchestra consisted of the organist, three concertmasters (a violinist, a cellist, and a bassoonist), three first violinists, three second violinists, a violist, two oboists, two trumpeters, two trombonists, a tympanist, and singers.73 No hornists are mentioned in this record. Likely, the court hornists were considered part of the hunting party, or livery, and not the court‟s musical establishment. Because of his

69 Blazin, 20.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid., 21-22.

72 Ibid., 23.

73 Romeo Ghircoiasiu, “Das Musikleben in Grosswardein (Oradea) im 18. Jahrhundert,” The Haydn Yearbook 10 (1978): 48.

31

small orchestra, Haydn‟s output during his years at Grosswardein consisted of small-scale compositions with simple orchestration. During his tenure at Grosswardein, he composed fifteen symphonies, fourteen masses, six string divertimenti, wind partitas and concertos, and Latin text- settings for chorus and orchestra.74

Haydn was not well paid at Grosswardein; he left the court in April of 1762 but had not yet secured the patronage of another court. During this time of unemployment, Haydn may have spent some time in Vienna. As previously noted, Joseph Leutgeb performed a horn concerto by

Michael Haydn on July 2, 1762.75 It is around this time that Haydn was recommended for a position in Salzburg by Vinzenz Joseph Graf Schrattenbach, the nephew of Sigismund Christoph,

Archbishop of Salzburg.76 Coincidentally, it was in this same year that Joseph Leutgeb also accepted a position in Salzburg.77

In August of 1763, Haydn assumed the position of concertmaster in Salzburg. Unlike the modern custom, eighteenth-century concertmasters were not necessarily violinists. At Salzburg,

Haydn played the organ.78 He quickly rose to prominence within the Kapelle, and was admired particularly for his sacred compositions, which served as models for contemporary composers.

Haydn established a comfortable life in Salzburg. From 1763-1771, he primarily composed dramatic works for the Theater of the Benedictine University. The university theater was first restricted in 1772 and ultimately closed in 1778 as one of the fiscally conservative measures of the Prince-Archbishop Hieronymous von Colloredo, but Haydn remained in good

74 Blazin, 23.

75 Heartz, 59.

76 Blazin, 24.

77 Humphries, 12.

78 Blazin, 25.

32

standing under the new Archbishop. He was rumored to be a candidate for Kapellmeister and was given the organist position at Dreifaltigkeitkirche in 1777.79

Michael Haydn spent his entire career in Salzburg, and late in his life became a sought- after teacher of counterpoint and the fundamentals of composition. The Allgemeine musikalische

Zeitung reported that he had been offered the position of Kapellmeister at Esterházy after his brother‟s departure. He accepted, but never filled the position. Instead, he remained in Salzburg, with the exception of two trips to Vienna, until his death on August 10, 1806.80

Although Michael Haydn‟s musical efforts were directed primarily towards the court, a number of his symphonies achieved distribution outside of Salzburg. He composed a good deal of chamber music for the Salzburg Kapelle, mostly for mixed ensembles.81 Haydn particularly cultivated the genre of the orchestral serenade. The serenade was typically composed for a special occasion and performed al fresco. Although the original composition was performed only once, the work could be reorganized into a four movement symphony, or concertante movements for obbligato solo instruments could be extracted into a concertino.82

Historical Background of the Concertino in D, MH 134

One such concertino, MH 134, features the horn and exists in an unsigned manuscript in

Michael Haydn‟s handwriting. Haydn typically dated his scores, including the month, day, and

79 Blazin, 26-27.

80 Dwight Blazin. "Haydn, Michael." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com (Accessed 2 September, 2010).

81 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 28.

82 Werner Rainer, “Michael Haydns Orchesterserenaden,” Mozart Yearbook 1987/88: 76.

33

year of composition as well as the location in which it was completed. He did not make a catalog of his works.83 The existing parts for the concertino are unusual in several ways. Although in

Haydn‟s handwriting, they are unsigned and undated. The parts, rather than being written on individual sheets, are written consecutively, thus useless for performance. Dwight Blazin questions the existence of this unusual manuscript, as it would be a pointless exercise to copy already existing parts. “The basic sequence of movements, Slow, Fast, Minuet-Trio – very unusual for a three movement concerto – nonetheless occurs in one other concerto that is unquestionably authentic, the Flute Concerto MH 81, so there are no glaring stylistic grounds for dismissing the work.”84

The concertino is included in Sherman‟s and Thomas‟s catalog of Michael Haydn‟s works, with a tentative dating of c. 1768-1770.85 As Leutgeb remained in Salzburg until 1777,

Haydn had a performer for the work in question. Perhaps this is the reason for the unusual copy: the manuscript at Salzburg was intended to be kept for archival purposes while Leutgeb took the original.

Theoretical Consideration of the Concertino in D, MH 134

Many of Michael Haydn‟s compositions for solo instruments are extracted from larger works. As such, many of them do not possess the overarching form of the classical concerto, although most movements do utilize sonata form. As MH 134 is Michael Haydn‟s only existing

83 Sherman, viii.

84 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 96.

85 Sherman, s.v. 134. 34

work for solo horn, its treatment of the horn will now be examined as an example of Haydn‟s writing for the instrument.

Contrary to contemporary conventions, this D major concertino opens with a slow movement. It follows the conventions of the concerto form. The first movement for the concertino is monothematic; the primary thematic material is presented in a simple antecedent- consequent phrase. Unlike his brother‟s concerto, the thematic material, later sounded by the horn at the same concert pitch level, is not restricted to the natural harmonic series. Instead, the use of a number of tones outside the harmonic series, achieved by closing the hand in the bell, give this movement a softer, darker timbre (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Concertino, MH 134, first movement, mm. 1-8, violin 1

Source: Johann Michael Haydn, Concertino for Horn in D (Mainz: Universal Edition, 1969)

The developmental space within the first movement avoids distant keys, presenting new material in A minor, e minor, A major, and D major. The use of the minor mode, either as a tonic key or as a temporary tonicization, is more frequently used in slow movements for horn, likely because the moderate pace allowed the performer more control over his right-hand technique.

The thematic material in the second movement is more reliant on the natural harmonics of the horn. The only closed note present in the primary theme, which is played by the horn at the same concert pitch level, is the grace-note ornament. The timbral shift between open and closed would serve to emphasize the appoggiatura (Figure 13). Because this movement is at a faster pace than the earlier Larghetto, neither the thematic material nor the developmental space

35

ventures far from the natural harmonics of the D horn. Material is developed in A major, a minor, and D major in a brief development between measure 67 and 84.

Figure 13: Concertino, MH 134, second movement, mm. 1-8, violin 1

Source: Johann Michael Haydn, Concertino for Horn in D (Mainz: Universal Edition, 1969).

The third movement of MH 134 is a minuet. It is not customary to include a dance movement within a concerto of this period. In this movement, the horn lies tacet throughout the minuet portion, performing only in the trio. It is common in symphonic minuets – particularly in

Joseph Haydn‟s symphonies – to feature the winds in the trio. This movement is a reflection of that tradition.

From this analysis, some generalizations can be made about Michael Haydn‟s treatment of the horn as a soloist. His thematic material was particularly suited for the natural horn and did not assume a mastery of hand horn techniques. Considering the concertino MH 134 along with

Haydn‟s entire concerto and concertino output, the composer tends to prefer continuous expositions and is not particularly daring in his modulations in the development.

Antonio Rosetti

Unlike Joseph and Michael Haydn, for whom birth records and biographies are clear, there is some confusion regarding the personal history of Antonio Rosetti (ca. 1750-1792).

Current scholarship asserts that Rosetti was born in the town of Leitmeritz, Bohemia in 1750.

36

This information was gathered from his marriage certificate, which confirms his place of birth, and the registration of his death in Ludwigslust, which noted his age as forty-two.86

As with Michael Haydn, Rosetti received his education from the Jesuits. His original intention was to enter the priesthood, a calling for which he began training at the age of seven.

He entered the seminary at Brünn in 1763, and continued his studies in philosophy at Olmütz in

1767. He received the tonsure in 1769 and served as a seminary reader until 1772, when he left to pursue another year of theology study at Olmütz. Because music was compulsory at the Jesuit schools, Rosetti began his musical training when he began his education there.87

Encouraged by his friend, violinist Joseph Strobach, Rosetti ended his theological studies in 1773 to pursue a career in music. Rosetti received an offer to join the orchestra at the court of

Prince Kraft Ernst von Oettingen-Wallerstein as a double bassist.88

At Oettingen-Wallerstein

Rosetti arrived in Wallerstein in 1773. The court was a small principality whose finances did not warrant an extravagant orchestra. The prince maintained the large ensemble through lower wages. Many of the Wallerstein musicians struggled financially; Rosetti appeared to be a particularly poor manager of his money and faced mounting debt throughout his life.89

86 David Christopher Barford, “The Horn Concertos of Antonio Rosetti,” (DMA diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980): 1.

87 Barford, 2.

88 Ibid., 3-5.

89 Jon Ross Piersol, “The Oettingen-Wallerstein HofKapelle and its Wind Music,” (PhD diss., The University of Iowa, 1972): 84-85.

37

On March 9, Prince Kraft Ernst lost his wife, Maria Theresia, in childbirth. Musical activity at the court came to a halt while the prince was in mourning. Rosetti took this opportunity to expand his reputation as a composer. His wind concertos achieved particular success; a number of them were listed in the Breitkopf catalog.90

Musical activity had resumed by 1780, and although Rosetti did not have an official title during this time, which is considered the court‟s musical Blütezeit, he was included in the leadership of the court music.91 Beginning in 1785, Rosetti began to serve as the Kapellmeister and officially received the title in 1788. This was a lateral promotion; he received no raise in salary.92

Rosetti‟s Hornists

When Prince Kraft Ernst began to reassemble his orchestra following the death of his wife, he sought out musicians of exceptional ability to head the sections, which would be filled by livery servants (members of the hunting party) or lesser musicians.93 In the 1780s the

Wallerstein orchestra consisted of ten to fifteen violinists, two to three violas, one to three cellos, one or two contrabasses, two flutes, two clarinets, two oboes, two bassoons, two to four horns, two trumpets, and a tympanist. This instrumentation remained stable throughout this period in the court‟s history. Departing musicians were replaced as needed.94

90 Piersol, 115-116.

91 Ibid., 177.

92 Ibid., 185-186.

93 Ibid., 57.

94 Ibid., 168. 38

The orchestra was a part of daily life at the court. Wind musicians performed nightly table music, and evening concerts were given frequently. More challenging programs were regularly given, often on a weekly basis, and would sometimes feature guest artists. 95 Among these guest artists were some of Europe‟s premiere horn soloists, including Jan Václav Stich

(also known as Giovanni Punto) and Karl Türrschmidt.96

Visiting virtuosos were not the only inspiration for Rosetti‟s prolific output for the horn.

Excellent hornists had been employed at Wallerstein since the 1740s, of which a complete list can be found in the appendix. Friedrich Domnich founded a tradition of horn playing there during his five-year tenure, including the training of his son, Heinrich, who later became the first professor of horn at the Paris Conservatory.97

When Rosetti arrived at Oettingen-Wallerstein, the court already boasted a pair of virtuoso hornists. Johann Türrschmidt, a high hornist, entered the Wallerstein orchestra in 1752.

He remained until the death of Philipp Karl, Kraft Ernst‟s predecessor. He returned to the court in 1773, and remained there his entire career, taking a position in the string section after he retired from horn in 1781. Türrschmidt had two sons who were also horn players, including Karl

Türrschmidt, the guest artist mentioned previously. Rosetti‟s 1779 concerto Murray C49 dedicated to “Dürrschmied” may have been for Johann or for Karl. Because of the high tessitura,

Johann seems to be the intended recipient.98

95 Piersol, 205-206.

96 Ibid., 237-238.

97 Sterling E. Murray, “The Double Horn Concerto: A Specialty of the Oettingen-Wallerstein Court,” The Journal of Musicology 4 No. 4 (Autumn 1985-Autumn 1986) http://www.jstor.org/stable/763754 (Accessed 18 April 2010): 516.

98 Piersol, 469-475.

39

Johann Georg Nisle was hired in 1773 as a partner for Türrschmidt. He had previously been employed at Württemburg, considered to be one of Europe‟s premiere ensembles. He accepted the position at Wallerstein at a pay cut from his previous post on Kraft Ernst‟s promise to pay his debts. During the orchestra‟s recess, Nisle left the court on concert tours. These performances often featured his sons, who also played the horn. Records indicate that Nisle ceased performing at the court, and was officially released in 1777.99

Due to Türrschmidt‟s age and Nisle‟s departure, two new hornists were employed in

1779: Joseph Nagel and Franz Zwierzina. Nagel and Zwierzina studied horn with Anton Hampel in Dresden. Hampel was influential in codifying and disseminating hand-horn technique, indicating that his students would be adept at this manner of playing. It was the presence of these two players at Wallerstein that made the court a center for concertante horn music. Both remained in Wallerstein for their entire careers, and were succeeded by their sons.100

Joseph Nagel was born in Rossitz, Bohemia in 1751 or 1752. He was trained by Karl

Haudek and Hampel in Dresden. Both he and Zwierzina were hired by the Prince von Palm in

Vienna, and were then hired for the Wallerstein court in 1779. At Wallerstein, he was among the highest paid court musicians. Nagel enjoyed a close relationship with his partner, Zwierzina, and his Kapellmeister, Rosetti; the three men were witnesses at the others‟ weddings. 101

Franz (Heinrich Anton) Zwierzina was born in Krast, Bohemia on February 25, 1751. He was taught alongside Nagel by Haudek and Hampel. Zwierzina also received higher pay at the

Wallerstein court, and he remained there until his death in 1825. In addition to his performing

99 Piersol, 451-457.

100 Murray, 517.

101 Piersol, 445-451.

40

duties, Zwierzina was also partly responsible for the purchase and repair of the court horns. His virtuosic abilities are attested to by the second horn parts composed for him in Wallerstein‟s concerto repertoire. He personally composed several works for the horn and was known as a teacher, training his sons Franz Xaver and Joseph Anton Alois (named after Nagel) on the horn.102

Rosetti‟s Compositions for Horn

In the mid-eighteenth century, Oettingen-Wallerstein was considered to be one of the leading centers of European horn playing. The horn concertos composed for the Wallerstein hornists were often considered too difficult for other courts, as the Hofkapelle at Wallerstein consistently had “a pair of hornists equal to almost any in Europe.”103

Solo horn music is the core of the Wallerstein wind music collection. The presence of capable horn players, particularly Nagel and Zwierzina, inspired the court composers to write a number of solo and concertante works.104 Solo concertos at Wallerstein include those by Rosetti,

Johann Hiebesch, and Friedrich Witt, both for high and low horn soloists. There are over twice as many concertos for two horns as for solo horn. Double horn concertos were composed by

Johann Georg Feldmayr, Rosetti, Paul Wineberger, and Friedrich Witt, as well as by the non-

Wallerstein composers Franz Anton Hofmeister and Leopold Mozart.105

102 Piersol, 501-506.

103 Ibid, 284.

104 Sterling E. Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti? Das Konzert in Es-Dur für Zwei Hörner, Murray C56Q,” Rosetti Forum II (June 2001): 6.

105 Piersol, 292.

41

There is a repertoire of about twenty-six double horn concertos composed by or for members of the Hofkapelle or connected in some way with the court. These works span several decades, c. 1752-1818, following the vogue of the concertante genre.106 The symphonie concertante was a fashionable genre between the years 1770-1830. The vogue was centered in

Paris, and served as a symbol of popular taste overtaking the aristocratic dictation of quality.

These concertos were undemanding on the listener, because the main focus was to entertain through demonstrations of brilliant technique.107

Double horn concertos were more closely associated with the aristocratic court music than were the symphonies concertantes. Generally, the composers of these concertos were

Bohemian or German, perhaps due to the excellent tradition of Bohemian horn playing. Double horn concertos tend to be organized similarly to solo concertos, with two fast movements in one key surrounding a slow movement in a contrasting key. Although technically challenging, double concertos are less oriented towards display than are the contemporary symphonies concertantes.108

The popularity of double horn concertos was encouraged by touring duos of hornists, many of whom were brothers. These duos would tour European musical centers, giving public and private concerts. They would make contact with local composers and expand their repertoire by encouraging new compositions.109

A number of concertos for two horns found outside the Wallerstein collection can still be associated with the court. Two double horn concertos in the Thurn und Taxis collection by

106 Murray, “The Double Horn Concerto,” 519.

107 Ibid., 507-508.

108 Ibid., 509.

109 Ibid., 512-513.

42

Pokorny may have been written for Türrschmidt and Fritz, who worked together first at

Wallerstein and later at Regensburg. The Thurn und Taxis collection also has two more double horn concertos that may be associated with Wallerstein: A concerto by Joseph Fiala who worked at Wallerstein from 1773-1776, and another by Baron Theodor von Schacht.110 This sharing of materials, and quite possibly of musicians was facilitated by the alliance formed by Kraft Ernst‟s marriage to the Princess Maria Theresia of Thurn und Taxis.

Among the concertos in the Wallerstein collection, the double horn concertos “conform to a pattern of construction so consistent as to suggest a local idiom.”111 Sterling Murray writes,

The typical Wallerstein double horn concerto of this period [1780-1794] is a three movement work in either E, E-flat, or F major. The middle movement is normally a “Romance” (Romanza) in a contrasting meter and tonality. This term – also found in symphonies and partitas by Wallerstein house composers – signifies a lyric movement, normally cast in a simple sectional design. The mellow tones of the Waldhorn were perfectly suited for the lyricism of the Romanza, and the slow movements of the Wallerstein double horn concertos include some of the most exquisite moments in the repertory. Concluding movements are fashioned as rondos, which conform to conventional five- or seven-part designs with at least one of the digression sections in the minor mode. Some are cast in 6/8 meter and capitalize on the natural character of the Waldhorn, featuring hunting-call figures with exposed horn fifths or fanfare figures in the instrument‟s middle register. Such movements are often labeled “La Chasse.”112

Rosetti was particularly prolific in the realm of the solo and double horn concerto. At least twenty concertos can be attributed to him, among which five are for two horns.113 Rosetti is acknowledged as one of the most popular composers of his time. Contemporary criticism praised his use of wind instruments, noting that his works demanded expression and feeling. Rosetti‟s

110 Murray, “The Double Horn Concerto,” 520-521.

111 Ibid., 522

112 Ibid.

113 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 6

43

style was, according to Oskar Kaul, similar to Joseph Haydn‟s, but also reminiscent of the

Mannheim school and of W.A. Mozart.114

As previously mentioned, Rosetti‟s compositions met with some success in publication.

Although his solo horn concertos were more widely disseminated, the double horn concerto in E- flat, Murray C57, was also popular. It existed in several copies beyond the Wallerstein court, and is the only double horn concerto that Rosetti published.115

Theoretical Consideration of Rosetti‟s Horn Concertos

Because of the abundance of existing concertos by Rosetti, for both one and two horns, it is possible to gain insight into his compositional procedure and treatment of the horns as soloists.

The following section will consider his typical formal and harmonic practices, citing examples from throughout his repertoire.

Sterling Murray has calculated the length of the orchestral expositions within Rosetti‟s horn concertos, resulting in an average of 25% of the total movement.116 This number is quite large, and is unusual for the standard of the day. Compared to the average orchestral exposition composed by Michael Haydn (16.2%) or by Joseph Haydn (16.3%), Rosetti‟s orchestral expositions bear much of the weight of the entire movement.117 By the mid- to late-eighteenth century, concertos had deviated from the Baroque-style ritornello form, in which the introductory

114 Barford, 130-131.

115 Murray, “The Double Horn Concerto,” 524.

116 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 9.

117 Ibid.

44

ritornello was tonic centered and served to enclose the more modulatory solo passages.118 At the time when Rosetti was composing the introductory ritornello was more substantial. The orchestral ritornello “remains conceptually a subsidiary section, merely a Nebenperiode, [but] it does anticipate at least the „principal melodic sections‟ of the subsequent solo exposition.”119

The weightiness of Rosetti‟s opening ritornellos can be considered an individual characteristic of his compositional style. Because the opening ritornello is centered in the tonic, it must return to the tonic before the launch of the solo exposition. Often, a composer will continue the secondary thematic area in the tonic, although it is not uncommon for the theme to sound in the dominant.120 Rosetti‟s secondary themes are often among the latter category, composed in the dominant. Each composer‟s mechanics for facilitating this transition are different, and can be considered a hallmark of their compositional style. Rosetti, for example, will often present a formal cadence in the dominant, and then begin an extensive retransition to the tonic. Often, this retransition contains a restatement of the entire primary thematic and transitional areas, culminating in a cadence in the tonic and a closing section.

A clear example of Rosetti‟s use of retransitional space occurs in the first movement of the concerto, Murray C43. The primary material, in E-flat major, is presented in the first seven measures, followed by transitional material. The transition culminates in a medial caesura (V:

HC, filled) in measure 16. Secondary thematic material follows in the key of B-flat major, and a strong cadence in B-flat is reached in measure 34. Following the B-flat cadence, there is a period of tonal ambiguity and shift as Rosetti returns from the dominant to the tonic, reaching a satisfying cadence in E-flat major in measure 47. It is in this same measure that the primary

118 Hepokoski, 433.

119 Ibid., 439.

120 Ibid. 45

thematic material returns, leading to a repeat of the transition in measure 53. The essential expositional cadence is reached in measure 68, and is followed by six measures of closing material before the soloist enters.

Also contrary to eighteenth-century practice, Rosetti often uses new thematic material in the solo exposition, not always related to that which was presented in the ritornello. Although this occurs in many of his concertos, Murray C57 is an ideal example. In the orchestral exposition, the primary thematic material is a brief, four measure figure that has a greater harmonic than melodic function (Figure 14). The secondary thematic material is similarly brief, although it has a more melodic line (Figure 15).

Figure 14: Concerto, Murray C57, first movement, mm. 1-6, violin 1

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für2 Hörner: Murray C 57 ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

Figure 15: Concerto, Murray C57, first movement, mm. 37-40, solo horns in E-flat

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für2 Hörner: Murray C 57 ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

The thematic material presented in this orchestral exposition can be considered more motivic than melodic, evidenced by the transitional material which follows. The thematic

46

material presented in the solo exposition, however, is more florid and melodic. The primary theme is twice as long; the eight measure phrase consists of two complete musical ideas with conclusive harmonic movement (Figure 16). The secondary theme is similarly expanded, with more melodic ideas and complicated harmonic structure (Figure 17). Often, the secondary thematic area will be again reworked in the recapitulation, but that is not the case with this concerto.

Figure 16: Concerto, Murray C57, first movement, mm. 70-77, solo horns in E-flat

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für2 Hörner: Murray C 57 ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

47

Figure 17: Concerto, Murray C57, first movement, mm. 85-90, solo horns in E-flat

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für2 Hörner: Murray C 57 ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

Rosetti‟s hornists, especially Nagel and Zwierzina, were particularly well-trained in the discipline of hand stopping. Because of this, Rosetti was able to be more tonally adventurous in the developmental space of his horn concertos than were his contemporaries. Recall that the developmental space in a horn concerto was often limited to the tonic and dominant key areas, with the possible foray into the relative minor. Because of the horn‟s inability to venture into foreign key areas without manipulation with the right hand, composers tended to avoid divergent keys.

Rosetti‟s concerto, Murray C52, dates from approximately 1782. It is a concerto for low horn; it was likely composed for Zwierzina, but there is a possibility that it was intended for

Punto. Pitched in E major, this concerto‟s first movement has a rather extensive development section, beginning in measure 149. The development opens in the key of B minor. The shift of modality from the dominant to its parallel minor is common sonata practice. At this point, the relationship between the tonal space and the key of the soloist (E) is still quite close. The relationship becomes quite distant with the modulation to D major in 154. Rosetti continues to write for the horn as a soloist throughout this passage (Figure 18). The minor mode returns in measure 160, with a return to B minor and then modulatory measures culminating in C-sharp

48

minor in measure 167. The tonic key returns in the following ritornello, thus facilitating the recapitulation.

Figure 18: Concerto, Murray C52, first movement, mm. 153-160, solo horns in E

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert E-Dur fürHorn: Murray C 52, ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2000).

Among the horn concertos, a majority of the second movements are composed in the simple, rounded binary Romanza form. They are composed in a number of related keys to the tonic of the first movement: some are in the dominant, some in the subdominant, and others in the relative or parallel minor. Even the use of the dominant key requires significantly more hand stopping than does the tonic. Keys that are even further from the horn‟s tonic pitch begin not only to need greater manipulation, but to have a distinctly different timbral quality. The concerto in F major, Murray C53, is intended for a low hornist and was composed in 1788 or 1789.

Because of the date of composition, the concerto was likely written for Zwierzina. The outer movements are composed in F major. The inner movement, the Romanza, is composed in F minor. The key signature of four flats is unrelated to the horn‟s tonic, requiring hand stopping in every measure. This dark, covered sound is contrasted in measure nineteen, when the mode shifts to F major and the melody consists only of tones present in the natural harmonic series. The second section of the Romanza is in D-flat major, a yet more distant key. It is evident that Rosetti

49

intended this middle movement to not only contrast tonally but also to have a different quality of sound.

As a general rule, the third movements of Rosetti‟s horn concertos are five- or seven-part rondos. These movements tend to be more expansive than the standard model, particularly because of the digression sections. The digression sections in an archetypal seven-part rondo,

ABACADA, will be in a contrasting key, sometimes minor, but will not be a significantly greater length than the other sections. In Rosetti‟s horn concertos, these sections are almost developmental in their treatment of keys and thematic ideas.

In the concerto “für Corno Principale in Dis,” Murray C48, the final movement is a seven-part rondo with such developmental digression sections that it at times resembles the sonata-rondo hybrid form. The initial theme, A (or Prf, if truly a sonata-rondo), sounds in E-flat major. It is first played by the accompanied soloist, and then repeated by the orchestra. This is followed by the B theme, in B-flat major, in measure 25. The material used in the B theme is closely related to the A material, which returns in measure 52.

The first digression section begins in measure seventy-five. The C thematic area launches in C minor; its character contrasts with the previously stated themes. After the initial statement of the theme, the music transitions back to major for a second C thematic area, measure 107, in E- flat major. This harmonic space is long-lived, and modulates back to C minor for a return of the initial C theme in measure 156. Measure 175 sees the return of the refrain in E-flat major, followed by another digression section in measure 198. The D thematic area sounds in E-flat minor, and is not as discursive as the previous digression. Because of the use of the parallel minor, the timbral quality of the soloist is markedly different than in the previous sections. The movement closes with a return of the refrain and a coda in E-flat major.

50

This movement is typical of Rosetti‟s rondo-finales. The lengthy, developmental digression sections occur frequently throughout his horn concerto repertoire. These movements can be considered as nearing, but not quite reaching, the sonata-rondo form. It appears that

Rosetti‟s intention was to achieve maximum contrast. Frequently, his digression sections would be in a different meter or tempo from the rest of the movement. For example, the D thematic area in Rosetti‟s concerto Murray C52 is noted “Tempo di Menuetto poco Adagio.” This tempo and stylistic indication is accompanied by a metric shift from 2/4 meter to 3/4, but remains in the tonic key. In this way, Rosetti achieves contrast without relying on a harmonic change. This instance is not unique in his repertoire.

Because of Rosetti‟s prolific composition of horn concertos, it is possible to determine his personal stylistic preferences. Through a thorough study of his concertos, as well as those of

Michael and Joseph Haydn, I have come to an understanding of their individual traits, their treatment of the form, their treatment of their instrument, and ways in which each composer subverts contemporary conventions. Although it may not be possible to determine the authenticity of any one concerto through purely stylistic means, an understanding of the composers‟ approaches to the concerto combined with bibliographic evidence may lead to better conclusions about the authenticity of the “Zittau” and “Wallerstein” concertos.

51

2. The “Zittau Concerto”

Because of Joseph Haydn‟s reputation and the wide dissemination of his works, it was less obligatory to include his first name on copies, publications, or in concert programs. In the eighteenth-century publishing industry, there was a tendency to omit the first names from publications. This resulted in the merging of many of Michael Haydn‟s pre-Salzburg works into the Viennese “Haydn” tradition associated with his brother. This is the source of many misattributions to Joseph Haydn of Michael Haydn‟s works.121

Anthony van Hoboken provided entries for twenty-seven of the 136 works in Lothar

Perger‟s catalog of Michael Haydn‟s works, twenty-three of the 355 works from Anton Maria

Klafsky‟s Michael Haydn catalog, and included information about sources that attribute many of these works to Joseph Haydn. He also includes nineteen instrumental works that appear neither in Perger‟s nor Klafsky‟s catalogs with attributions to either Michael Haydn or just Haydn.

Whenever Joseph‟s authorship could not be confirmed, Hoboken suggested Michael Haydn as a possible composer.122

Hoboken‟s catalogue includes a primary category for works that are verifiably Haydn‟s.

A second category exists for questionable attributions. An attribution is considered questionable if it is not transmitted by an authentic source, is not in either of Haydn‟s personal catalogs, and is only transmitted through an alternate source with an attribution to Joseph Haydn. The most reliable sources of Haydn‟s authorship are autograph and non-autograph performance parts. Non- autograph parts may be considered authentic if the copyist can be determined as a colleague from

121 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 232.

122 Ibid., 15.

52

the Esterházy court or one of the Viennese copyists employed by Haydn. For works which require further authentication, one must consult Haydn‟s personal catalogs. These include the

Entwurf-Katalog, which is primarily Haydn‟s own work, the Katalog Kees, and the Haydn

Verzeichnis.123 The last of these was started by Haydn‟s copyist Joseph Elssler, with additional entries by an anonymous Esterházy copyist and Haydn. These catalogs have served as the basis for many subsequent catalogs. Haydn‟s motivation in cataloging his works was to document those which were authentically his, as many other composers‟ works were being published under his name.124

The Entwurf-Katalog was started by Haydn in 1765, and supplemented regularly after new works were composed. It was developed haphazardly, with various groups of works not receiving an equally comprehensive registration. In particular, works composed before ca. 1765, were not entered until much later, causing an incomplete coverage of string trios, divertimenti, symphonies, concertos, keyboard compositions, and vocal church music.125

Contrary to his brother‟s practice, Michael Haydn meticulously signed and dated his manuscripts with the day, month, year, and location of composition. He kept most of his autographs until the final years of his life, when most of them were sold or given away. He made no catalog of his works; the only records of his compositions are the extant manuscripts and copies.126

Both Haydns were prolific and well-known. Although Joseph was a more frequent target, works by other composers have been attributed to Michael as well. Often, works that are

123 Jens Peter Larson, Three Haydn Catalogs: Second Facsimile Edition with a Survey of Haydn’s Oeuvre, (New York: Pendragon Press, 1979): ix.

124Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 4-7.

125 Larson, x-xi.

126 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 12. 53

definitely by a Haydn are attributed to the wrong Haydn. This overlapping of attributions can, at times, make their music difficult to distinguish. In the case of the “Zittau Concerto,” the work is published under the name Joseph Haydn, but included in both Haydns‟ catalogues.

The “Zittau Concerto” in Catalogs and Records

In Hoboken‟s catalog, the “Zittau Concerto” is cataloged in Group VIId, the horn concertos. In his estimation, the work was composed in 1781, the year that it appeared in the

Breitkopf catalog. He acknowledges that the concerto does not appear in Haydn‟s own catalog and that no authentic source exists.127 Nonetheless, it appears in the catalog as Hob. VIId: 4.

The concerto is also included in Michael Haydn‟s catalog, compiled by Charles Sherman and T. Donley Thomas. Cataloged as MH 53, Sherman and Thomas also note the Breitkopf citation, but consider the concerto to be a much earlier work, due to the manner of writing for the horn and the underdeveloped formal structure.128 Their dating of the concerto places it within the years 1760-1762, during Michael Haydn‟s Grosswardein period.129

The causes for this double attribution are numerous, and thus far the concerto has eluded a firm attribution. This portion of the paper concerns itself with the question of authorship.

Although it may not be possible to determine the true composer of the concerto through the existing sources, it will be possible to present the evidence supporting the attributions and draw an elementary conclusion regarding an appropriate assignment.

127 Hoboken, s.v. VIId: 4.

128 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 5.

129 Sherman, s.v. MH 53.

54

The “Zittau Concerto” does not exist as an original manuscript, nor does it appear in the personal catalogs of either composer. The only sources for this concerto are an entry in the

Breitkopf catalog and a handwritten set of parts which has been preserved. These parts are now kept in the Saxon Landsbibliotheck Dresden (MUS-3356-0-503). This work, the “Zittau

Concerto,” bears a title page assigning it to “Signore Hayden,” and comes from the Exner collection in Zittau, a notoriously unreliable source for Joseph Haydn‟s concertos.130 In the

Breitkopf supplement, this concerto appears as a composition by “Hayden.” Although Breitkopf was more ethical than some of his peers in the publishing industry, his catalog is not infallible.

“The astounding comprehensiveness of Breitkopf should not blind us to his limitations,” writes

Jan LaRue. The Breitkopf catalogue has both misattributions of “external origin,” and also contains inconsistencies between various supplements.131

For example, “[…] it took until 1781 for one of Michael Haydn‟s Salzburg works to reach Breitkopf and Härtel (the Symphony MH 188, composed in 1773), and when it did, they wrongly attributed it to Joseph Haydn.”132 This is, coincidentally, the same year that the contested “Zittau Concerto” appeared in Breitkopf‟s catalog. One should also consider the origin of the manuscript part in the Exner collection: H.C. Robbins Landon notes that, “Of the Zittau doubtful concertos, at least two have turned out to be Michael Haydn‟s.”133 However, these incidents do not prove Michael‟s authorship any more than they disprove Joseph‟s. A much

130 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 4-5.

131 Jan LaRue, “Major and Minor Mysteries of Identification in the 18th-Century Symphony,” in “A Birthday Salute to Jan LaRue,” Special Issue, The Journal of Musicology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Spring 2001) http://www.jstor.org/stable/764115 (Accessed 29 July, 2010): 256.

132 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 169.

133 H.C. Robbins Landon, “Haydniana (I) „The Authenticity of the Doubtful Concertos,‟” The Haydn Yearbook 4 (1968): 201. 55

closer inspection of the concerto‟s formal structure and its treatment of themes and harmony might serve as a better means of determining its origin.

Stylistic Traits of the “Zittau Concerto”

Authenticating works through stylistic means is a subjective and, at times, inaccurate process. Thematic style can support other evidence, including the numbers of movements and their organization. Because the evidence surrounding the discovery and compositional circumstances of the “Zittau Concerto” is inconclusive, one must turn to a study of the stylistic details of the composition in hopes of securing a more accurate attribution.

The formal structure of the “Zittau Concerto” is straightforward. The concerto consists of three movements; each is in concerto form. The first movement‟s opening ritornello presents the primary theme, in D major, in measures one through eight, and follows with a transition. The transition leads to the first expositional cadence, in D major, in measure thirteen; this is followed by a brief closing section. The solo exposition repeats the material presented in the ritornello, although the soloist adds a fifth, florid line over the transition, which cadences in A major at measure thirty-nine. The development utilizes the primary thematic material in the keys of A major and E major. The recapitulation is as equally straightforward as the exposition, with the exception of the display episode beginning in measure sixty-six.

The second movement is similarly forthright, with the orchestral ritornello first presenting thematic material in B minor, transitioning in measure eight, and reaching its cadence in measure thirteen. The primary theme, in B minor, is again sounded in the solo exposition, but transitions to D major, cadencing in measure forty-four. The developmental space presents

56

primary thematic material in D major, E major, and B minor. The recapitulation sounds again in

B minor, but bypasses the primary theme, entering instead within the transitional space.

The third movement of the “Zittau Concerto” is clearly delineated, but rather than a continuous exposition, as had been presented in the earlier movements, the finale is composed with a two-part exposition. The thematic materials are shared between the orchestral and solo expositions. The primary theme spans the initial five measures, followed by transitional material.

A medial caesura (I: HC) is proposed in measure seventeen, and is accepted. The secondary material follows in D major, reaching the cadence in measure twenty-five. In the solo exposition, the primary material is presented in D major, beginning in measure thirty. The transition space begins in measure thirty-four. This transition is more extensive than in the orchestral exposition.

The medial caesura is proposed (V: HC) and accepted in measure fifty-three. The secondary thematic material is presented in A major, reaching the cadence measure sixty-one. The developmental space is as unadventurous as the previous movements, presenting primary material in A major, D major, and G major.

In the Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference of 1981, Jan LaRue is reported to have said, “[…] any single thing that you look at seems to be a very poor way to authenticate a work by Haydn or anybody else. […] We must look at melodies, rhythm, harmonies together in order to find anything powerful enough to solve these difficult questions.”134 Purely through the observation of the formal procedures in the “Zittau Concerto,” some comparisons can be made to the known works of Joseph and Michael Haydn. Through my personal analyses of Michael

Haydn‟s concerto (and concertino) practice, I have found the vast majority to have continuous

134 James Webster, facilitator, “Discussion: External Criteria for Determining the Authenticity of Haydn‟s Music,” in Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Serwer, and James Webster (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981): 87.

57

expositions. The exceptions to this generalization can be found in the first movement of the violin concerto MH 36, the second movement of the concertino for clarinet, MH 68, the concertino for bassoon, MH 133, and the first and third movements of the concerto for violin

MH 207, which all have two-part expositions. My analyses of Joseph Haydn‟s concertos, by comparison, indicate that he favors the two-part exposition for opening and final movements.

Those that present continuous expositions have the same kind of declined medial caesura that was presented in the analysis of Hob. VIId: 3. The formal and harmonic analyses of these concertos can be found in the appendix.

The “Zittau Concerto” contains a first movement with a continuous exposition and a finale with a two-part exposition. As neither composer is exclusively linked with a single type of exposition, a judgment of authorship cannot be made by formal considerations alone.

The “Zittau Concerto” is composed for solo horn and four-part string orchestra. There are no winds included in the original set of parts. Sonja Gerlach writes,

Whenever [Joseph] Haydn wrote a work with unusual scoring, he had in mind the musicians who were to perform the work. In order to date a composition, we can work in reverse and try to determine when the musicians who played the instruments needed in that composition were available in the Esterházy ensemble.135

Joseph Haydn‟s orchestration in his concertos for single-line instrument (Hoboken‟s group VII) most often featured four-part strings with a pair of oboes, horns, or both. Of these concertos, only two – VIIa: 1 and VIIa: 4 for violin – have the same instrumentation as the

“Zittau Concerto.” Michael Haydn‟s works can be more easily divided by location: Those which were composed in Grosswardein have a different instrumentation from those composed in

Salzburg. The concertos Michael Haydn composed before 1762 are only orchestrated for four-

135 Sonja Gerlach, “On the Chronological Correlation of Haydn‟s Scoring and the Esterházy Musicians,” in Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Serwer, and James Webster (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981): 93. 58

part strings. Those composed after his move to Salzburg, as well as those arranged from serenades have a more varied instrumentation that includes pairs of winds.

The orchestration of the “Zittau Concerto” may be indicative of its origin. Neither Joseph nor Michael Haydn used this orchestration after 1769, when Joseph Haydn composed his violin concerto Hob. VIIa: 4. The greater orchestral forces available to Michael Haydn upon his arrival at Salzburg resulted in an abandonment of the four-part string orchestration that he had preferred in Grosswardein. Although the initial record of this concerto occurs in 1781, its orchestration alone places it at least a decade earlier in Joseph Haydn‟s oeuvre, and two decades earlier for

Michael‟s. If chronological inaccuracy remains in the date of a composition, it blurs the conception of a composer‟s stylistic changes and aims.136 The concerto was obviously composed no later than 1781, but considering its orchestration alone, it appears to have originated at an earlier date.

Joseph Haydn‟s inventive writing for wind instruments is a distinguishing feature of his compositions. Very few of his orchestral compositions have no wind parts; most utilize pairs of horns and oboes at a minimum. When compared to his output of symphonies, Joseph Haydn did not compose many concertos before, during, or after his employment with the Esterházy family.

However, within his symphonies, the inventive use of winds was inspired by his colleagues in the orchestra and an integral part of his originality as a composer. Joseph Haydn‟s wind parts are an identifying feature of his compositions. For example, the Symphony Hob. I: 59 has the same finale material as Michael Haydn‟s symphony MH 82. The works are distinguishable through

136 Alan Tyson, “Remarks on the Importance of Accurate Dating,” in Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Serwer, and James Webster (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981): 87.

59

Joseph‟s soloistic writing for the winds. Michael‟s wind parts were simpler and less individualistic.137

The Potential Performers of the “Zittau Concerto”

As I have previously mentioned, it is important to consider the likely performers of a work when considering its origins and attributions. The “Zittau Concerto” was composed no later than 1781 and quite likely was composed years before. Since both composers typically composed for the hornists available to them at their respective courts, there are a limited number of hornists that can be considered.

In my opinion, there is one hornist who seems the most likely recipient of this concerto:

Joseph Leutgeb. As in Mozart‟s concertos for Leutgeb, the “Zittau Concerto” emphasizes a singing style rather than technical displays and avoids excessive use of the upper register of the instrument. Both composers were well acquainted with Leutgeb as a musician and as a friend.

Considering that this concerto is composed in a style known to suit Leutgeb as a hornist, it is possible that he may have performed it. Both composers had the opportunity to work with

Leutgeb in their respective courts, thus it cannot be determined through this hypothesis alone which composer wrote the work.

Recall that Joseph Leutgeb was a frequently featured soloist at Vienna‟s Burgtheater between 1758 and 1763, with fourteen documented solo performances. Included in Leutgeb‟s repertoire was a concerto by Michael Haydn, performed on July 2, 1762.138 Sherman and

137 Blazin, “The Haydn Tradition,” 174-175.

138 Heartz, 59.

60

Thomas have estimated that the concertino, MH 134, was composed between 1768 and 1770.139

If Sherman is correct in his dating, the work was composed far too late to have been used for a

1762 performance. Therefore, Michael Haydn must have composed another horn concerto several years earlier. I propose that the “Zittau Concerto,” which is composed in a manner suiting Leutgeb and is stylistically compatible with Michael Haydn‟s contemporary compositions, be considered as a possible candidate for this missing concerto.

Summarizing the Evidence

Comparing a volume of Joseph Haydn‟s known works against an unknown work may not necessarily prove authorship, but can provide evidence both in favor of and against the attribution.140 The manner of writing for the soloist in the “Zittau Concerto,” parts of its formal structure, and its orchestration are all contrary to Joseph Haydn‟s known works. If it is indeed a concerto by “Hayden,” it seems unlikely that Joseph is the brother to whom the copyist was referring. The evidence, instead, points more strongly towards the younger Haydn, Michael.

Without having the ultimate proof of an autograph manuscript or an authorized copy by a known colleague of either Haydn, the mystery of the “Zittau Concerto” will never be definitively answered. Nevertheless, considering all the evidence presented in the previous section, I feel confident in my assertion that Joseph Haydn is not the composer of the “Zittau Concerto.” I am in agreement with Charles Sherman and T. Donley Thomas, who feel the work belongs in

Michael Haydn‟s oeuvre.

139 Sherman, s.v. 134.

140 Webster, 80-81. 61

3. The “Wallerstein Concerto”

The only existing source for the “Wallerstein Concerto” lies in the library of the former principality of Oettingen-Wallerstein, catalogued as O2/III 4 1/2 2° 427. This concerto exists as a set of parts whose title reads, “Concerto per due Corni Principale/in Dis/Due violini/Due oboe due viola/Cor[n]I di Rinfo[rzo]/Basso.” At some point, another hand wrote a presumed author,

“Heiden,” and yet another added the first name “Michael.”141 Originally, the work was owned by

Franz Zwierzina. It passed, with the rest of his music collection, to his son Franz Xaver. In 1858,

Franz Xaver sold this collection to the court library. His inventory of the collection lists twenty- three horn concertos, of which nineteen are for two solo horns. All of these concertos remain in the Wallerstein collection.142 It is thought that the attribution to Michael Haydn was added by

Franz Xaver when he was cataloging the collection.143

The parts were copied on fine paper with lined with twelve staves. The title page was written by the same copyist who made the solo horn parts, the violin parts, and the bass part. The viola parts were made by a second copyist and the oboe parts by a third. None of these handwritings match any Wallerstein court copyist.144 The paper was manufactured between 1788 and 1793, and can be found in other collections of music by Joseph and Michael Haydn dating from that period.”145 The watermarks on the concerti indicate a paper of Italian origin from

141 de Nys, 104.

142 Murray, “The Double Horn Concerto,” 518.

143 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 3-5.

144 Ibid., 5.

145 Ibid., 6.

62

Toscolano, Lombardy, or Venice. In the Wallerstein collection, eighteen manuscripts by fourteen composers use paper with this same watermark.146

The concerto was first attributed to Joseph Haydn in Gertraut Haberkamp‟s Thematischer

Katalog der Musikhandschriften der Fürstlich Oettingen-Wallerstein’schen Bibliothek Schloss

Harburg. It was Haberkamp who assigned its catalog number (O2/III 4 1/2 2° 427), and originally cited that this concerto matched the incipit for Hob. VIId: 2.147 The Wallerstein court did have a large collection of Joseph Haydn‟s compositions.148

Because of the number of Joseph Haydn‟s compositions at the Wallerstein court, and because of the presence of Michael Haydn‟s name, both composers have been considered the author of the “Wallerstein Concerto.” Modern scholarship seems to have a different opinion.

Sterling Murray writes,

For years, H.C. Robbins Landon has speculated that Rosetti could have composed the “Wallerstein Concerto.” [Carl] de Nys retorted that it would be unlikely for a court composer to allow a work of his to be issued as the work of another (even a Haydn) while he lead the ensemble playing from manuscript parts. This sounds plausible, but de Nys has forgotten two important facts: 1) The manuscript of the “Wallerstein Concerto” belonged to either Nagel or Zwierzina before it came to the court library, and 2) Although Rosetti left the Wallerstein court orchestra in 1789, his music was naturally still programmed.149

The Misattribution of the “Wallerstein Concerto”

Why, then, is there so much confusion over the origins of this concerto? It is published in two editions, one citing Joseph Haydn as the author (KaWe), and another citing Rosetti

146 Jacqueline Faissal Shannon, “Establishing Paper-Types for Manuscript Dating Purposes: Filigranology, Rastrology, and their Application to HR III 4 1/2 2° 427 and other Manuscripts from the Oettingen-Wallerstein Music Collection,” (DMA diss., University of Washington, 2000): 68.

147 Ibid., 62.

148 de Nys, 103-104.

149 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 14, translation mine. 63

(Ostermeyer). In most performances, the work is attributed to Joseph Haydn as the concerto Hob.

VIId: 2. The following paragraphs will introduce the source of the controversy, attempting to present firm evidence through scholarship and stylistic analysis.

The logic behind the attribution to Michael Haydn is clear. His name is on the jacket; it seems reasonable to assume that he is the composer. However, there is no tradition of his music at the Wallerstein court and his existing solo horn music (with, possibly, the exception of the

“Zittau Concerto”) is excerpted from a serenade. His compositional style does not match that of the “Wallerstein Concerto” in its tonal scheme, proportions, or formal considerations.150 This attribution is generally considered to be incorrect, and Michael Haydn is not seriously considered as a potential composer of the concerto.

The attribution to Joseph Haydn is curious, and requires some explanation. In the 1959

Internaztionale Konferenz zum Andenken Joseph Haydns, Belgian musicologist and abbot Carl de Nys proposed the “Wallerstein Concerto” as the lost Hob. VIId: 2 based on its similarity to the incipit in the Haydn Verzeichnis. According to de Nys, “The theme of the 1805 Haydn catalog is not rigorously identical to the incipit of our concerto, one is, however, obliged to recognize that there is a strange resemblance.”151 Observe the incipit included in the Haydn

Verzeichnis: This incipit served as the foundation for Hoboken‟s cataloging of the work and is the only notated record of this concerto‟s existence (Figure 19). One can note several differences between this incipit and the opening measures of the “Wallerstein Concerto” (Figure 20).

150 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 14.

151 de Nys, 106, translation mine. 64

Figure 19: Haydn Verzeichnis Incipit

Source: Jens Peter Larson, Three Haydn Catalogs: Second Facsimile Edition with a Survey of Haydn’s Oeuvre, (New York: Pendragon Press, 1979): HV 22

Figure 20: “Wallerstein Concerto” Incipit

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für 2 Hörner: Murray C56Q, ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

De Nys justifies these differences through Haydn‟s old age at the time the concerto was cataloged, because, in his opinion, it was “not impossible” that the “old master” wrote the theme as he remembered it, resulting in a less than accurate rendition of the incipit.152 The similarity of the opening themes is probably coincidental. According to Jan LaRue, resemblances between music of different composers often occur because “[…] the greater homogeneity of thematic material in the Classical repertory produces a host of general family resemblances.”153 A

“conspicuous opening contour” can seem to relate themes, but oftentimes these figures are ubiquitous and occur throughout the repertoire.154

152 de Nys, 106.

153 Jan LaRue, “Significant and Coincidental Resemblance between Classical Themes,” in “A Birthday Salute to Jan LaRue,” special issue, The Journal of Musicology, 18 no. 2 (Spring, 2001) http://www.jstor.org/stable/764116 (Accessed 5 August, 2010): 268.

154 Ibid., 274. 65

In order to establish a relationship between two similar themes, in this case the

“Wallerstein Concerto” and the incipit for the concerto Hob. VIId: 2, they must serve the same function in the phrase. LaRue advised the consideration of three things. The melodic contour of the phrase is the first and most obvious aspect to consider. “If the similarity concerns only a part of the tonal contour, the effect of relationship may be reduced or obliterated.”155 A comparison of the melodic contours of the incipits immediately calls their similarity into question. The passages should also have the same rhythmic properties. The passages in question do not. The opening measures do indeed present the same declamatory rhythm; but these are subsequently followed by different rhythms that grow continually more divergent as the passage continues.

The tonality and harmony also affect the similarity of passages. 156 In this case, it is difficult to tell the harmony from a single melodic line, but the tonality of both passages is E-flat major.

Clearly, the incipits are not the same. There are a great number of differences to be reconciled within these few measures of music; surely the “old master” did not have that poor of memory. De Nys‟s attribution to Joseph Haydn is supposedly based on stylistic considerations, but the “Wallerstein Concerto” was never referenced by Joseph Haydn. This concerto is not in the catalog compiled under his supervision. Although de Nys believes the Elssler incipit to be the same as the “Wallerstein Concerto,” Jens Peter Larsen disagrees. The concerto, Hob. VIId: 2, is considered authentic, but is by all accounts lost.157

Many of de Nys‟s arguments, upon closer inspection, do not support his thesis. For example, de Nys notes some similarities between Joseph Haydn‟s 1796 trumpet concerto, Hob.

VIIe: 1, and the “Wallerstein Concerto,” particularly the modulations to minor. Because of this

155 LaRue, “Classical Themes,” 270.

156 Ibid., 270-271.

157 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 3-4. 66

purported similarity, de Nys assumes a date of composition between the completion of the trumpet concerto in 1796 and the death of Prince Kraft Ernst in 1802. This late of a date for composition is impossible; the manuscript itself refutes de Nys‟s argument. Jaqueline Faissal

Shannon, in her 2000 dissertation, “Establishing Paper-Types for Manuscript Dating Purposes,” disproves this timeline by comparing the watermark present on the paper upon which some of the “Wallerstein Concerto” was copied (Figure 21).158 The paper, referred to by Shannon as “It

59,” has three distinct watermarks which can provide a general date of manufacture. The paper used for the “Wallerstein Concerto” bears the watermark used between 1780 and 1793. It is probable that the concerto was composed within those dates.159

Figure 21: It 59 Watermark

Source: Jacqueline Faissal Shannon, “Establishing Paper Types for Manuscript Dating Purposes,” (DMA diss., University of Washington, 2000): 101.

158 Shannon, 101.

159 Ibid., 78. 67

Correcting the Attribution through Analysis

Documentary Evidence

The argument for Joseph Haydn‟s authorship of the “Wallerstein Concerto” does not withstand the evidence against it. Joseph Haydn did compose a double horn concerto,

Hob. VIId: 2. This concerto is notated in the 1805 Elssler catalog with a two-measure incipit, and is mentioned in Johann Traeg‟s 1799 catalog without an incipit. According to the Traeg catalog, the concerto was orchestrated for two solo horns, two oboes, two violins, viola, and bass. This offers further proof that the concerto Hob. VIId: 2 is not the “Wallerstein Concerto.” The latter is orchestrated for two solo horns, two oboes, two tutti horns, two violins, two violas, and bass.160

This final bit of evidence should end the argument for Joseph Haydn‟s authorship. With Joseph

Haydn eliminated from the discussion and Michael Haydn never truly considered, one must examine the evidence further to determine the actual composer.

Regarding this concerto, H.C. Robbins Landon writes that “it is distinctly of the Rosetti school and might be by Rosetti, Friedrich Witt, or some such figure of the Oettingen-Wallerstein circle. It is not possibly by Haydn.”161 The Wallerstein court was a center of eighteenth-century horn playing and was particularly important in the cultivation of the double horn concerto. The amount of double horn compositions composed at Wallerstein for the Wallerstein hornists results in a great likelihood that the “Wallerstein Concerto” was composed for their use. The dating provided by the watermark indicates that Nagel and Zwierzina were the intended duo. The

160 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 4.

161 Landon, “Haydniana,” 201.

68

Wallerstein court composers who wrote double horn concertos for Nagel and Zwierzina were

Joseph Reicha, Georg Feldmayr, Paul Wineberger, Johann Nepomuk Hiebesch, Frederich Witt, and Antonio Rosetti. Murray writes, “One of these composers is probably the originator of the

„Wallerstein Concerto;‟ most evidence speaks for Rosetti. At least twenty horn concertos can be attributed to him, among them five double horn concertos.”162

Contemporary criticism noted the reflection of Joseph Haydn‟s influence on the compositions of Antonio Rosetti. In 1782, Carl Ludwig Junker “claimed that some of Rosetti‟s music resembled Haydn‟s „up to the danger of plagiarism.‟”163 Fifty years later, Wilhelm

Heinrich Riehl noted the similarity, but also Rosetti‟s divergence. He noted the intentional imitation that was more expressive and better crafted than other Haydn contemporaries. Oskar

Kaul notes Rosetti‟s originality, which incorporates the Haydn influence with the Bohemian style, the Mannheim school, and the influence of Mozart.164

It is possibly this similarity in style between Joseph Haydn and Antonio Rosetti that inspired de Nys‟s attribution in the first place. The following inspection of Rosetti‟s style will acknowledge these similarities, but also consider the elements that lie beyond Haydn‟s influence.

It is these elements that will assist in the identification of the “Wallerstein Concerto.”

162 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 6, translation mine.

163 Piersol, 223.

164 Ibid., 223-224.

69

Stylistic Evidence

Joseph Haydn‟s means of subverting conventions influenced Rosetti. Among the similarities include the use of different formal structures within a single movement to weaken the overall formal outline, avoiding internal points of arrival, and introducing formal implications that are not later realized.165 Both Haydn and Rosetti blurred formal conventions, inhibiting the clear delineation of a form. The use of the opposing mode seems to enhance this ambiguity, particularly in Rosetti‟s compositions. Whereas Haydn composes these contrasting passages as

“structural centerpieces,” Rosetti‟s modulations are not integral to the formal architecture.166

This deception of the listener and subversion of formal conventions is a trademark of both composers: “The objective of such formal coalescence seems less to be combination for the sake of innovation or variety than to bring about a collision of conflicting plans that often leaves the listener caught unawares, surprised, bewildered – but always delighted at having been deceived.”167

In addition to the stylistic influence from the Haydn tradition, one can find other influences in Rosetti‟s music. The stylistic mannerisms of the Mannheim school can be found within Rosetti‟s compositions, including rocketing scales and orchestral crescendos and decrescendos.168 Rosetti‟s melodies are frequently composed in a style more associated with

C.P.E. Bach and the Prussian school than with the Haydn tradition.169

165 Lawrence F. Bernstein, “Joseph Haydn‟s Influence on the Symphonies of Antonio Rosetti,” in Historical Musicology: Sources, Methods, Interpretations, ed. Stephen A. Crist and Roberta Montemorra Marvin (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004): 175.

166 Ibid., 161.

167 Ibid., 176.

168 Barford, 129. 70

Formal Analysis

The following paragraphs will analyze the “Wallerstein Concerto,” comparing it against

Rosetti‟s common practice as well as Joseph Haydn‟s. An understanding of the formal conventions used, the orchestration, and the construction of the thematic material will be important when making the comparison between the composers and when attempting to correct the attribution.

The primary thematic material utilized in the first movement is a bit unorthodox. The declamatory nature of the thematic material is what Hepokoski and Darcy refer to when they define the “strong launch option” for primary thematic material. “Strong launch” themes feature

“chordal or fanfare-like gestures, flashy coups d’archet, dotted rhythms, octave drops or leaps

[…] or something similar.” An important feature of the strong launch primary theme is a forte dynamic. In this case, the theme sounds at a piano dynamic. Although the dynamic corresponds to the “weak launch option,” the thematic material better aligns with the “strong launch.”170 This unconventional launch to a does not support the authorship of one composer over the other, as both were known for their creativity and originality.

The primary theme is followed by an energetic transition that features some of the

Mannheim mannerisms, e.g. the “Mannheim Rocket” and “Mannheim Birds.” Graduated orchestral crescendos from measures 8 through 10 are also reminiscent of the Mannheim tradition. The affectation of these Mannheimer traits is more reflective of Rosetti‟s style than of

Haydn‟s.

169 Barford, 170.

170 Hepokoski, 66.

71

The “Wallerstein Concerto” possesses a two-part exposition but lacks a strong medial caesura. Instead, beginning on the half cadence in measure 28, there are eight measures of caesura-fill leading to the launch of a secondary theme. Generally, caesura-fill briefly fills in the gap between the transition and the secondary theme, and is part of neither. In this case, the gap is

“pulled apart,” creating a static period between the energetic transition and the more reflective secondary thematic area.171 Following the vigorous transition, the caesura-fill provides “a larger space of energy loss,” and prepares the listener for a new theme.172 This particular caesura-fill also serves in a modulatory capacity, returning to the tonic key for the launch of a new theme.

The secondary theme spans eight measures and contrasts with the primary thematic material and transition through a reduction of texture and a cantabile melody.

The use of caesura-fill, particularly one as extensive as that in the “Wallerstein

Concerto,” is not unheard of in Haydn‟s practice, but it is not common. More typical of his symphonic practice is the declined medial caesura, which also occurs in several of his concertos.

If anything can be referred to as a convention within Haydn‟s oeuvre, it is the continual thwarting of expectations through the use of caesura effects. Haydn‟s works tend to be monothematic; his expositions tend to be continuous, regardless of the interjection of caesura- effects. Rosetti, on the other hand, typically fulfills the expectation of the medial caesura through the launch of a secondary thematic area.

The solo exposition is initiated by the return of the primary thematic material. The opening declamation is sounded at a forte dynamic, but is followed by an abrupt shift to piano.

Although the structure of the theme is identical to that presented in the orchestral exposition, the

171 Hepokoski, 65-66.

172 Ibid., 66.

72

solo presentation of the primary theme is highly ornamented with notated grace notes, appoggiaturas, and turns (Figure 22). Dynamic contrasts within a melody are common in

Rosetti‟s compositions; the notation of ornaments is also a feature of his compositions.173

Figure 22: “Wallerstein Concerto,” first movement, mm. 62-69, solo horns in E-flat

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für 2 Hörner: Murray C56Q, ed. R. Ostermeyer (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

A secondary thematic area is launched in measure 101 that presents new material in B- flat major. This situation has already been shown to be a technique of Antonio Rosetti, who frequently included newly composed thematic materials that were not related to the material presented in the solo exposition. Once again, the “Wallerstein Concerto” does not follow Joseph

Haydn‟s practice: His sonata form movements rarely present secondary thematic areas.

The developmental space within the “Wallerstein Concerto” ventures into foreign keys atypical of many horn concertos. Beginning in measure 157, material is developed first in B-flat major, then B-flat minor. In measure 173, the music cadences in G-flat major, a key unrelated to the original tonic. Haydn‟s writing for horns tends to remain in the closely related tonic, dominant, and relative minor. The hornists did not play in the measures which diverged from those keys. Rosetti‟s works for horn are more harmonically adventurous, owing to his soloists‟ thorough training in hand stopping.

173 Barford, 170. 73

An extensive display episode features the soloists in a gratuitous display of virtuosity spanning the measures 237 through 257. This kind of display is not uncommon in Rosetti‟s works. He knew his soloists well and composed works tailored to their specialization. Most of

Rosetti‟s sonata-form movements contain an extensive display episode with which to feature his soloists. Haydn‟s display episodes are shorter in duration than are Rosetti‟s, and favor a more restrained approach to virtuosity.

The second movement of the “Wallerstein Concerto” is a Romanza. The Romanza became a common form in the 1780‟s. Joseph Haydn only composed two movements in this form: The symphony Hob. I: 85 and the 1786 concerto for Lyra Organizzata, Hob. VIIh: 3.174

However, the Romanza was cultivated at Wallerstein, with most of the composers of the

Wallerstein school writing instrumental Romanza in all genres.175 Sterling Murray writes,

The three part form (ABA) in Romances by Rosetti, and the habit of opening phrases played by the soloist followed by the tutti of the orchestra can be found in the “Wallerstein Concerto.” Such a beginning of a movement would be very unusual for either Haydn: They prefer the reverse order.176

Also uncommon to Joseph Haydn‟s practice is the use of the minor mode in the internal movement of a concerto. The thematic material is first sounded by the horn soloists in E-flat minor. The entirety of the first section is presented in a quasi-exposition form: The E-flat minor theme is followed in measure five by material which seems transitional, which cadences and launches new thematic material in E-flat major. The second section sounds in B-flat major, employing octave leaps to heighten the dramatic nature of the movement.

174 The Lyra Organizzata is an instrument similar to the hurdy gurdy.

175 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 8.

176 Ibid, translation mine. 74

The “Wallerstein Concerto” ends with an E-flat major La Chasse rondo in 6/8 meter.

About half of Rosetti‟s concertos feature such a finale; the remainders are rondos in duple meter.

Joseph Haydn did compose La Chasse finales in the cello concerto Hob. VIIb: 2 and the concerto for Lira Organizzata Hob. VIIh: 2. The combination of a Romanza slow movement and a La

Chasse finale never happened in any of Haydn‟s compositions, but is a frequent occurance

Rosetti‟s concertos.177

There are several stylistic features of the finale of the “Wallerstein Concerto” that are particular to Rosetti‟s compositional approach, primarily the expanse of the digression sections.

These passages do not truly function within the formal structure of the rondo. Composed in the contrasting and unrelated mode of A-flat minor, the first digression section launches in measure

58. The initial theme concludes in measure 65, and transitions to C-flat major, where a second theme is sounded. The conclusion of the theme in measure 78 leads to a transition to E-flat major for a return of the refrain in measure 95. The second digression section begins in the more closely-related key of C-minor. Beginning in measure 111, the soloists perform an eight-measure theme which then launches transitional material leading to E-flat major. The soloists perform yet another eight-measure theme, first performed by the first hornist in measure 122 and then echoed by the second in measure 130. The C-minor theme returns after an extensive display episode and leads to the final return of the refrain. The weight of these two digression sections greatly distorts the form of the movement. This means of inhibiting the form is often found in Rosetti‟s horn concertos and can be considered a sign of his authorship.

The orchestration of the “Wallerstein Concerto” provides further evidence in supporting

Rosetti‟s authorship. The concerto in question has two viola parts. Joseph Haydn used two violas infrequently; his nocturnes and concertos for Lira Organizzata employ two separate viola parts.

177 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 8. 75

The remainders of his orchestral compositions are composed with only one viola part. Those compositions with two violas make up only a small proportion of Haydn‟s vast orchestral output.

Rosetti, by comparison, composed a number of works with two viola parts; it was a typical orchestration used by composers of the Wallerstein school. All of his horn concertos were composed for this orchestration. The use of tutti horns is also particular to Rosetti and the

Wallerstein school. The scoring for two horn soloists and two orchestral horns is not consistent with Haydn‟s practice nor the instrumentation listed for the concerto in the Traeg catalog.178

There is one further piece of evidence to consider in this matter before it can be considered thoroughly closed. David Barford writes, “Consciously or subconsciously, Rosetti employed certain melodic formulas in more than one horn concerto, as if they were stored n the back of his mind and suddenly fell into place when he arrived at a particular episode or cadential formula.”179 This is obvious in the D minor concertos Murray C38 and Murray C39, where the primary thematic material is exactly the same. A more subtle similarity can be found between the rondo refrains of the “Wallerstein Concerto” and Rosetti‟s Grand Concerto Murray C60 (Figures

23 and 24). The churning accompaniment in the second horn is very similar between one concerto and the other, both visually and audibly, and is a difficult technique to execute. If Franz

Zwierzina‟s reputed virtuosity is accurate, he certainly would have been capable of performing these passages. Technique this impressive must have been recognized by Rosetti and recycled in the later composition.

178 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 8-9.

179 Barford, 151-152. 76

Figure 23: “Wallerstein Concerto,” third movement, mm. 1-8, solo horn 2 in E-flat

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Konzert Es-Dur für 2 Hörner: Murray C56Q, ed. R. Ostermeyer, (Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001).

Figure 24: “Grand Concerto,” Murray C60, third movement, mm. 1-8, solo horn 2 in F

Source: Antonio Rosetti, Grand Concerto in F-dur für 2 Hörner, ed. R. Ostermeyer, (Leipzig: Roberto Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2000)

Summarizing the Evidence

It appears that the “Wallerstein Concerto” originates from the Wallerstein school of composition. The use of the Romanza form in the slow movement, rather than a sonata form, and the La Chasse rondo are both more characteristic of the Wallerstein composers and do not correspond with Joseph Haydn‟s practice. Further inspection of the concerto reveals compositional practices closely associated with Antonio Rosetti‟s personal style. Since all evidence points to Rosetti, why then has it been misattributed not once, but twice?

77

Sterling Murray conceives a scenario in which the concerto was composed by Rosetti between 1785 and 1789 for Nagel and Zwierzina. Rosetti took the original set of parts with him to Ludwigslust when he departed in 1790. Either Nagel or Zwierzina obtained a copy from an outside copyist. This copyist did not include the name on the parts, because the performers knew the composer.180 The attribution to “Michael Heiden” was added much later, likely by

Zwierzina‟s son, who was uninformed of the work‟s origin. The attribution to Joseph Haydn is the result of Carl de Nys‟s narrow observation of the composition and his desire to locate the lost

Haydn concerto.

Conclusion

For decades, the “Zittau Concerto” and the “Wallerstein Concerto” have been published, performed, and recorded as works of Joseph Haydn. Scholarly opinions doubt the authenticity of the “Zittau Concerto” and have thoroughly eliminated Joseph Haydn as a potential author of the

“Wallerstein Concerto.” My formal and stylistic analyses of these concertos and the comparison to known works of Michael Haydn, Joseph Haydn, and Antonio Rosetti support the musicologists‟ claims regarding the likely misattribution of both concertos.

The evidence against Joseph Haydn‟s authorship of the “Wallerstein Concerto” is quite definitive. Not only does Sterling Murray count it among Antonio Rosetti‟s works in his thematic catalog of the composer‟s works as C56Q, but his article for the Rosetti Forum clearly outlines the reasoning for his attribution of the “Wallerstein Concerto” to Rosetti. In his opinion, the formal structure, the orchestration, and the greater likelihood that a double horn concerto would have been composed at the Wallerstein court are all factors in favor of Rosetti‟s authorship. My analyses have not only supported the thesis that the concerto originated from the

180 Murray, “Haydn oder Rosetti?” 15. 78

Wallerstein court, but also lend credence to the authorship of Antonio Rosetti by identifying particular elements of his compositional style. The attribution to Joseph Haydn evolved as a result of Carl de Nys‟s retrofitting of the evidence in order to produce one of Haydn‟s lost works.

A thorough study of the evidence with consideration not only of the opinions of prominent musicologists but also of the formal and stylistic factors proves de Nys‟s theory false. The concerto is definitely not Joseph Haydn‟s work; it is the work of Antonio Rosetti.

The evidence against Joseph Haydn‟s authorship of the “Zittau Concerto” is less conclusive, but scholars are inclined to attribute the concerto to Michael Haydn. The original sources of the concerto – the reference in the Breitkopf catalog and it‟s the copy in the Exner collection in Zittau – do not assign authorship to either Haydn. Because of the assumption that an ascription of a work to Haydn that is unqualified by a given name implies Joseph Haydn, this work has been considered a part of his oeuvre regardless of the fact that there are no authentic sources supporting the attribution. Charles Sherman and T. Donley Thomas include this work in their thematic catalog of Michael Haydn‟s works as MH 53. Following a thorough analysis of the form, a consideration of the manner of writing for the horn, and a comparison with the known works of Michael Haydn and Joseph Haydn, I am inclined to agree with the assignment to

Michael Haydn.

After a careful consideration of the existing musicological research and an analysis of both the concertos in question and other concertos in the composers‟ repertoires, I have concluded that both attributions to Joseph Haydn are likely erroneous. The “Wallerstein

Concerto” is correctly catalogued by Sterling Murray as Rosetti‟s Concerto for Two Horns in E- flat Major, Murray C56Q, and the “Zittau Concerto” is in its proper place as MH 53 in the

Sherman and Thomas catalog of Michael Haydn‟s works.

79

80

Bibliography

Barford, David Christopher. “The Horn Concertos of Antonio Rosetti.” DMA diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980.

Bernstein, Lawrence F. “Joseph Haydn‟s Influence on the Symphonies of Antonio Rosetti.” In Historical Musicology: Sources, Methods, Interpretations, ed. Stephen A. Crist and Roberta Montemorra Marvin, 143-187. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004.

Blazin, Dwight C. “Michael Haydn and „The Haydn Tradition:‟ A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission.” PhD diss., New York University, 2004.

Bryan, Paul R. “Haydn's Hornists.” Haydn Studien 3, no 1 (1973): 52-57.

− “The Horn in the Works of Mozart and Haydn: Some Observations and Comparisons.” The Haydn Yearbook 9, no. 9 (1975): 189-255.

Cudworth, Charles L. “Ye Olde Spuriosity Shoppe, or Put it in the Anhang.” Notes 12, No. 1 (December 1954): 25-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/892236 (Accessed 8 May, 2010):

Davis, Shelley. “Regarding the Authenticity of the „Haydn‟ Keyboard Concerto, Hob. XVIII: F3.” In Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larson, Howard Serwer, and James Webster, 121-126. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981.

Gerber, Ernst Ludwig, Historisches-biographische Lexicon der Tonkünstler 1790-92. Leipzig: 1790; reprint ed., Graz: Akademische Druck –u. Verlagsanstalt, 1977.

Gerlach, Sonja. “On the Chronological Correlation of Haydn‟s Scoring and the Esterházy Musicians.” In Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larson, Howard Serwer, and James Webster, 93-95. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981.

Ghircoiasiu, Romeo. “Das Musikleben in Grosswardein (Oradea) im 18. Jarhhundert.” The Haydn Yearbook 10 (1978): 45-55.

Haydn, Franz Joseph. Concerto in D Major for Horn and Orchestra, Hob. VIId: 3. Edited by Christa Landon. New York: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd, 1959.

−. Concerto in D, Hob. VIIe: 1. Edited by Edward H. Tarr and H.C. Robbins Landon. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1982.

−. Concerto No. 2 in D Major for Horn and Orchestra. Edited by Heinz Herbert Steves. London: Boosey and Hawkes, 1954.

81

−.Cassatio in D, Hob. deest. Prepared from the autographs by H.C. Robbins Landon, Vol. 66 of Diletto Musicale. Vienna: Verlag Doblinger, 1960.

−. Octet in D, Hob. X: 2. In Werke mit Baryton. Edited by Sonja Gerlach. Volume 13 of Joseph Haydn Werke. Edited by Georg Feder Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1969.

−. Symphony No. 31, Edited by H.C. Robbins Landon. Volume 3, book 4 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1965.

−.Symphony No. 51. Edited by H.C. Robbins Landon. Volume 5, book 2 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies. Edited by Helmut Schultz Vienna: Universal Edition, 1963.

−. Symphony No. 72. Edited by H.C. Robbins Landon. Volume 7, book 7 of Critical Edition of the Complete Symphonies. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1967.

Haydn, Johann Michael. Concertino for Horn in D. Mainz: Universal Edition, 1969.

Heartz, Daniel. “Leutgeb and the 1762 Horn Concertos of Joseph and Johann Michael Haydn.” Mozart Yearbook 1987/88: 59-64.

Hellyer, Roger. “The Wind Ensembles of the Esterházy Princes, 1761-1813.” The Haydn Yearbook 15 (1984): 5-92.

Hepokoski, James and Warren Darcy. Elements of Sonata Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hoboken, Anthony van. Joseph Haydn: Thematisch-bibliographisches Werkverzeichnis. Band 1. Mainz: B. Schott's Sohne, 1957.

Humphries, John. The Early Horn: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Landon, H.C. Robbins. Haydn: The Early Years 1732-1765. Vol 1 of Haydn: Chronicle and Works. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980.

−. Haydn at Esterháza, 1766-1790. Vol. 2 of Haydn: Chronicle and Works. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.

−. “Haydniana (I): The Authenticity of the doubtful Concertos.” The Haydn Yearbook 4 (1968): 200-202.

Larson, Jens Peter. Three Haydn Catalogues: Second Facsimile Edition with a Survey of Haydn’s Oeuvre. New York: Pendragon Press, 1979.

82

LaRue, Jan. “Major and Minor Mysteries of Identification in the 18th Century Symphony.” In “A Birthday Salute to Jan LaRue.” Special issue, The Journal of Musicology, 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 249-267. http://www.jstor.org/stable/764115 (Accessed 29 July, 2010).

−. “Significant and Coincidental Resemblance between Classical Themes.” In “A Birthday Salute to Jan LaRue.” Special issue, The Journal of Musicology, 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 268-282. http://www.jstor.org/stable/764116 (Accessed 5 August, 2010).

MacIntyre, Bruce C. “Haydn‟s Doubtful and Spurious Masses: An Attribution Update.” Haydn- Studien 5, no. 1 (1982): 42-52.

Murray, Sterling E. “The Double Horn Concerto: A Specialty of the Oettingen-Wallerstein Court.” The Journal of Musicology 4 No. 4 (Autumn 1985 – Autumn 1986). http://www.jstor.org/stable/763754 (Accessed 18 April, 2010).

−. “Haydn oder Rosetti? Das Konzert in Es-Dur für Zwei Hörner, Murray C56Q.” Rosetti- Forum II (June 2001): 2-17.

−. The Music of Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rösler) ca. 1750-92: a Thematic Catalog. Warren, MI: Harmonie Park Press, 1996. de Nys, Carl. “A propos du concerto pour deux cors et orchestra en mi bémol majeur.” In Bericht über die Internationale Konferenz zum Andenken Joseph Haydns, Budapest 17-22 September, 1959. Edited by Bence Szabolcsi and Dénes Bartha, 103-108. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1961.

Piersol, Jon Ross. “The Oettingen-Wallerstein Hofkapelle and its Wind Music.” PhD diss., The University of Iowa, 1972.

Rainer, Werner. “Michael Haydns Orchesterserenaden.” Mozart Yearbook 1987/88: 73-80.

Rosetti, Antonio. Konzert E-Dur fürHorn: Murray C 52. Edited by R. Ostermeyer Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2000.

−. Konzert Es-Dur für 2 Hörner: Murray C56Q. Edited by R. Ostermeyer. Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001.

−. Konzert Es-Dur für2 Hörner: Murray C 57. Edited by R. Ostermeyer. Leipzig: Robert Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2001.

−. Grand Concerto in F-dur für 2 Hörner. Edited by R. Ostermeyer. Leipzig: Roberto Ostermeyer Musikedition, 2000.

Schmidt-Jones, Catherine. “Tuning Systems.” Early Music Tuning Systems. http://www.early- music.info/octaves_tuning/tuning.htm (Accessed 23 June, 2011).

83

Shannon, Jacqueline Faissal Shannon. “Establishing Paper-Types for Manuscript Dating Purposes: Filigranology, Rastrology, and their Application to HR III 4 1/2 2 427 and other Manuscripts from the Oettingen-Wallerstein Music Collection.” DMA diss., University of Washington, 2000.

Sherman, Charles H. and T. Donley Thomas. Johann Michael Haydn (1737-1806), a Chronological Thematic Catalogue of his Works. Stuvesant, NY: Pendragon Press, 1993.

Tyson, Alan. “Remarks on the Importance of Accurate Datings.” In Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larson, Howard Serwer, and James Webster, 87-88. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981.

Webster, James, facilitator. “Discussion: External Criteria for Determining the Authenticity of Haydn‟s Music.” In Haydn Studies: Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference, edited by Jens Peter Larson, Howard Serwer, and James Webster, 78-81. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1981.

84

Appendix A

Joseph Haydn: Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 3

Movement 1

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 5 15 16 26 26 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (declined) R1:/TR EEC C Key D D I:HC D D D

Solo 1 Measure 31 35 50 51 60 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S EEC Key D D I:HC A A

Ritornello 2 Measure 60 Space C Key A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 78 82 93 102 108 Space R1:/P R1:/P R1:/TR Key A D e E A

Ritornello 3 Measure 115 Space Key A

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 118 122 139 140 150 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S ESC Key D D I:IAC A D

Ritornello 4 Measure 151 154 155 Space C Cadenza C Key D C6/4 D

85

Joseph Haydn: Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 3

Movement 2

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 8 25 25 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC C Key A A A A

Solo 1 Measure 28 36 45 54 Space R1:/P R1:/P1 R1:/TR EEC Key A A A E

Ritornello 2 Measure 54 Space C Key E

Development

Solo 2 Measure 69 Space Key E

Ritornello 3 Measure 73 Space Key E7

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 74 82 91 95 95 Space R1:/P R1:/P1 R1:/TR ESC C Key A A A A A

Ritornello 4 Measure 99 104 106 Space C Cadenza C Key A C6/4 A

86

Joseph Haydn: Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 3

Movement 3

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 7 16 17 32 32 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC S1:/S EEC C Key D D I:HC A D D

Solo 1 Measure 34 40 49 50 74 74 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC S1:/S EEC C Key D D I:HC A A A

Ritornello 2 Measure 75 82 Space R1:/TR Key A A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 94 102 113 124 Space R1:/P R1:/P R1:/TR Key A D e D

Ritornello 3 Measure 133 Space R1:/P Key D

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 142 148 157 158 173 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S ESC Key D D I:HC A D

Ritornello 4 Measure 173 179 181 Space C Cadenza C Key D C6/4 D

87

Michael Haydn: Concertino for Horn (MH 134)

Movement 1

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 7 18 18 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC C Key D D D D

Solo 1 Measure 21 27 36 36 41 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC C Coda Key D D A A A

Ritornello 2 Measure 48 Space R1:/P Key A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 57 61 65 68 Space Key a e A D

Ritornello 3 Measure 73 76 Space R1:/TR Key A A7 Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 77 83 94 94 Space R1:/P R1:/TR ESC C Key D D D D

Ritornello 4 Measure 109 113 114 Space R1:/TR Cadenza R1:/TR Key D C6/4 D

88

Michael Haydn: Concertino for Horn (MH 134)

Movement 2

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 5 9 18 18 Space R1:/P R1:/P1 R1:/TR EEC C Key D D D D D

Solo 1 Measure 26 30 35 51 51 Space R1:/P R1:/P1 R1:/TR EEC C Key D D D A A

Ritornello 2 Measure 58 Space R1:/TR Key A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 67 70 77 80 Space Key A a A7 D

Ritornello 3 Measure 85 Space R1:/P Key D

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 89 94 112 112 Space R1:/P1 R1:/TR ESC C Key D D D D

Ritornello 4 Measure 118 120 121 131 131 Space R1:/P Cadenza R1:/TR ESC2 C2 Key D C6/4 D D D

89

Michael Haydn: Concertino for Horn (MH 134)

Movement 3

Minuet and Trio

Minuet Measure 1 5 13 21 Space A A‟ B A Key D D A D

Trio Measure 33 41 49 Space C D C Key A E A

90

Joseph Haydn (Michael Haydn): Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 4 (MH 53)

Movement 1

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 8 13 14 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC C Key D D D D

Solo 1 Measure 18 25 39 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC Key D D A

Ritornello 2 Measure 39 Space R1:/P Key A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 45 53 Space R1:/P Key A E

Ritornello 3 Measure 56 Space Key D

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 56 62 79 Space R1:/P R1:/TR ESC Key D D D

Ritornello 4 Measure 80 81 82 Space C Cadenza R1:/P Key D C6/4 D

91

Joseph Haydn (Michael Haydn): Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 4 (MH 53)

Movement 2

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 8 13 13 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC C Key b b b b

Solo 1 Measure 16 22 44 Space R1:/P R1:/TR EEC Key b D D

Ritornello 2 Measure 44 Space C Key D

Development

Solo 2 Measure 48 59 62 Space R1:/P Key D E b

Ritornello 3 Measure 63 Space Key b

Recapitulation Solo 3 Measure 65 86 86 Space R1:/TR ESC C Key b b b

Ritornello 4 Measure 80 81 82 Space C Cadenza R1:/P Key D C6/4 D

92

Joseph Haydn (Michael Haydn): Concerto for Horn Hob. VIId: 4 (MH 53)

Movement 3

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 6 17 18 25 25 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (Declined) R1:/TR EEC C Key D D I:HC D D D

Solo 1 Measure 30 34 53 54 61 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (Declined) R1:/TR EEC Key D D V:HC A A

Ritornello 2 Measure 61 Space C Key A

Development

Solo 2 Measure 82 88 95 Space R1:/P R1:/P Key A D G

Ritornello 3 Measure 106 Space Key A

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 115 128 129 140 Space R1:/TR MC (Declined) R1:/TR ESC Key D I:HC D D

Ritornello 4 Measure 140 144 145 Space C Cadenza C Key D C6/4 D

93

Joseph Haydn (Antonio Rosetti): Concerto for Two Horns Hob. VIId: 2 (C56Q)

Movement 1

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 6 28 37 43 43 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) R1:/S EEC C Key Eb Eb I:HC Eb Eb Eb

Solo 1 Measure 62 69 97 101 111 111 Space R1:/P S1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S EEC C Key Eb Eb gb V:HC Bb Bb Bb

Ritornello 2 Measure 129 Space Key Bb

Development

Solo 2 Measure 157 168 173 178 Space R1:/P Key Bb bb Gb Eb

Ritornello 3 Measure 192 Space Key Bb

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 196 203 221 225 235 235 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S ESC C Key Eb Eb I:HC Eb Eb Eb

Ritornello 4 Measure 257 Space R1:/P Key Eb

94

Joseph Haydn (Antonio Rosetti): Concerto for Two Horns Hob. VIId: 2 (C56Q)

Movement 2

Romanza

Exposition (A)

Measure 1 5 16 16 24 24 Space P TR MC S S EEC Key gb gb III:IAC Bb Bb Bb

Development (B)

Measure 25 Space Key Cb

Recapitulation (A)

Measure 48 52 55 55 56 Space P TR ESC C Coda Key gb gb Eb Eb Eb

95

Joseph Haydn (Antonio Rosetti): Concerto for Two Horns Hob. VIId: 2 (C56Q)

Movement 3

Rondo

Measure 1 9 13 21 25 Space A A A A B Key Eb Eb Eb Eb Bb

Measure 42 50 59 68 82 Space A A C Key Eb Eb cb Eb cb

Measure 95 103 11 122 159 Space A A D Key Eb Eb c Eb c

Measure 169 177 185 Space A A Coda Key Eb Eb Eb

96

Antonio Rosetti: Double Horn Concerto in E C 58

Movement 1

Exposition

Ritornello 1 Measure 1 13 33 34 56 56 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC R1:/S EEC C Key E E V:PAC B E E

Solo 1 Measure 61 80 95 97 113 113 Space R1:/P S1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S EEC C Key E E V:HC B B B

Ritornello 2 Measure 129 Space C Key B

Development

Solo 2 Measure 149 164 171 177 Space Key B b G e

Ritornello 3 Measure 192 Space Key e

Recapitulation

Solo 3 Measure 203 219 238 238 247 247 Space R1:/P R1:/TR MC (fill) S1:/S ESC C Key E E I:IAC E E E

Ritornello 4 Measure 272 280 281 Space C Cadenza Coda Key E C 6/4 E

97

Antonio Rosetti: Double Horn Concerto in E C 58

Movement 2

Romanza

Exposition (A) Measure 1 9 16 16 Space P TR EEC C Key e e e e

Development (B) Measure 22 47 Space Key G E

Recapitulation (A) Measure 63 68 74 74 Space P TR ESC C Key e e e e

98

Antonio Rosetti: Double Horn Concerto in E C 58

Movement 3

Rondo

Measure 1 9 17 28 36 63 Space A A TR A B A Key E E E E B E

Measure 71 79 85 91 98 142 Space A TR A A C A Key E E E E A E

Measure 150 158 170 177 200 208 Space A TR A D Key E E E e G e

Measure 226 234 242 254 263 Space A A TR A Coda Key E E E E E

99

Appendix B

The Hornists of the Princes Esterházy

Name Dates Position Johann Knoblauch June, 1761 – 1764, d. 1765 First Thaddäus Steinmüller June, 1761 – April, 1772 Second Carl Franz April 9, 1763 – November, 1776 First Franz Reiner August 1 – December 12, 1763 Second Franz Stamitz April 25, 1765 – February 1766 Second Joseph Dietzl May 15, 1765 – September, 1790 First Johann May March 1, 1767 – July, 1774 Second Joseph Oliva June 1, 1769 – September, 1790 First Franz Pauer June 1, 1769 – September, 1790 Second Johann Hollereider February 1, 1776 – September, 1780 Second Martin Rupp February 1, 1777 – September, 1781 First Anton Eckhar(d)t October 1, 1780 – July, 1781 Second Johann Mackovecz September, 1781 – July, 1782 Second Johann Hörmann (Hermann) September, 1782 – June, 1786 Second Natale Chiesa August, 1782 – September, 1790 First Matthias Nickl July, 1786 – September, 1790 Second Gabriel Lendvay March 1, 1787 – August, 1790 First

Source: Data from Paul R. Bryan, “Haydn's Hornists,” Haydn Studien 3, no. 1 (1973): 52-57.

The Hornists at Oettingen-Wallerstein

Name Dates Position Christoph Frisch ca. 1730 – unknown Livery Friedrich Domnich 1746/47 – 1751 First Andreas Eder 1748 – 1751 Second Joseph Joseph 1754 – unknown Livery Bernard Raab unknown – 1773 Livery Carl Türrschmidt 1751 – 1766, 1773 – 1781 First Joseph Fritsch 1752 – 1766 Second Johann Georg Nisle 1773 – 1777 Second Joseph Nagel 1780 – 1802 First Franz Zwierzina 1780 – 1802 Second Anton Hammer unknown – ca. 1796 Livery Johann Hiebesch 1789 – 1805 Livery Joseph Hiebesch 1800 – 1805 Livery

Source: Data from Jon Ross Piersol, “The Oettingen-Wallerstein Hofkapelle and its Wind Music,” (PhD diss., The University of Iowa, 1972): Appendix A.

100