“Mozart and counterpoint“ (excerpt 3).
From: Mozart. His character and works. By Alfred Einstein.
(Translated from „Mozart und der Kontrapunkt“, by Einstein, Alfred: Mozart. Sein Charakter, sein Werk. Zürich, Stuttgart 31953, S. 174-189. Lizenz: verwaist/ License: abandoned. source link: Mozart. Sein Charakter, sein Werk – Mozart und der Kontrapunkt)
By Edward Eggleston
[Section 3 follows Mozart’s development in counterpoint after his time in Italy with Padre Martini.]
… In Salzburg, after returning from his Italian travels, Mozart deepened his “galant” church music style by the study of contrapuntal models. The proof of this has come to us: in a notebook of over 150 pages, Mozart copied out works in strict style from masters of Salzburg. All are from J.E. Eberlin or Michael Haydn. There are masses, mass sections, motets, offertories, and graduals. In the next six or seven years this particular conception of a serious church style became decisive; as such, not an unworthy idea, as it was harmonically rich, with notable reserve and chromatic interest; and showing fugal treatment with earnest and sturdily “provincial” themes.
One of these 19 works, Eberlin’s “Benedixisti Domine”, Mozart chose to imitate and to develop the fugal theme into a contrapuntal display work. This offertory “Misericordias Domini” was written in Munich in January or February of 1775, at the time of the “Finta giardiniera”. Thus signaling strong interests and intentions beyond Salzburg, Mozart wrote the work to demonstrate his skills in the strict church style for the prince-elector of Bavaria. The score was sent also to Padre Martini (March 5, 1777). Martini’s judgment is noteworthy. He replied that he found everything: “all the features required in modern music, good harmony, a wealth of modulation, etc.” (“Er erwidert, daß er in der Motette alles finde”, »che richiede la musica moderna, buona armonia, matura modulazione, moderato movimento de’ Violini, modulazione delli passi naturale, e buona condotta« – “alle die Eigenschaften, die die moderne Musik verlangt, gute Harmonie, reiche Modulation usw.“)
La musica moderna(!) For the fine ear of Padre Martini, schooled in the polyphonic masterworks of the 16th century, Mozart’s score reflected modern music; while Mozart thought of it as displaying the older, genuine, and stricter style. He would certainly have found Martini’s judgment hard to grasp, or at least found it somewhat reserved. This concept of strict composition, of a church style as displayed in the “Misericordias”, and not only there, remained unchanged into the early Vienna years. This is reflected in all of the more “rigorously developed” parts of his masses, litanies, and (separate) mass sections.
Yet his church music conception would change in Vienna. In this period, Mozart joined the circle of Baron van Swieten, the often noted patron and friend of music. Van Swieten was the son of the empress’s personal physician, born in 1734, and since late 1777 prefect of the Emperor’s court library. He played a role in the lives of all three musicians known as the “Vienna Classicists”. [Trans. note: van Swieten is the form most used in the original, and followed here.]
Van Swieten introduced Beethoven to works of Shakespeare and Homer; and made him familiar with Handel’s oratorios. Beethoven dedicated his first symphony to him. Also, without van Swieten’s involvement, we would not have Haydn’s “Creation” or “The Seasons”. But the importance of the connection with this controversial character – known as a miser and extreme pedant – was even greater for Mozart.
Van Swieten established private musical gatherings in his house, which were not intended for listeners. The basic group was a string trio, that with the presence of Haydn or another composer sometimes became a quartet. The court music director Starzer and the court secretary Karl von Kohout were regular members. [Einstein cites here R. Bernhardt, from “Der Bär”, 1930, p. 140.]
The entrance of Mozart provided a score and keyboard player. Thus every Sunday between 12 and 2, a group gathered at the Baron’s house. In this setting Mozart studied scores by Handel, acquired by van Swieten during his 1769 stay in England: “Judas Maccabeus”, “Joseph”, “Samson”, “The Messiah”; “Alexander’s Feast”, “Acis and Galatea”, the “Ode for St. Cecilia’s Day”; “Hercules”, “Athalia”, and the “Funeral Anthem for Queen Caroline”; the Utrecht “Te Deum”, and other smaller works – while it is also possible Mozart already heard much of this music in earlier years.
In any case, Mozart was familiar with the style. He also considered the Salzburg church music noted above as appropriate for the van Swieten gatherings. So he asked for his study notebook of works by Ernst Eberlin and Michael Haydn to be sent to Vienna (Jan. 4, 1783): “… then there are also, on small paper in a blue binding, contrapuntal works by Eberlin and some pieces by Haydn…”; and he even asked his father to send some of his own church music – which Leopold in wise self-knowledge refused.
To which Mozart replied (April 12, 1783): “… when it becomes warmer, please look in the attic and send some your own church music; you have nothing to be embarrassed about – Baron van Swieten and Starzer know, as you and I do, that tastes are always changing, and unfortunately this applies to church music; but it really should not – and so it is that real church music can be found in the attic, despite being nearly eaten by worms.” But Mozart was only showing politeness.
For on April 20, 1782 he had already written his father: “… if you have not had Eberlin’s works copied out this is fine – I have them already, and have seen they are somewhat slight, and really have no place between Bach and Handel, with all respect for Eberlin’s four part works; the keyboard fugues, however, are little more than extended (organ) versets…”
“Bach and Handel” – with this the word is spoken, and the decisive names appear…
(To be continued)