From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: mozart's ignominious deposit
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:04:26 GMT

In article <18779@fed.FRB.GOV> m1wrp99@milo.uucp (William R. Palenske) writes:
>Roger Lustig writes:
>>William R. Palenske writes:
>>>i've wondered why mozart was buried in a common grave.

>>He wasn't, actually.  He was buried in a *sanitary* grave, one
>>mandated by Imperial decree during an epidemic.

>[ were sanitary graves gratis ? were they common ? ]

At that time, they were very common.  No box, just a bag.

>could we say then, fairly, that his wife was not all that destitute and
>could have afforded a private, unsanitary, grave had not the 
>authorities mandated otherwise ?  

Probably not.  Mozart had several setbacks in 1791 -- not least a 
judgment against him, and in Prince Lichnowsky's favor, for 1,000 
Gulden, or about half of what he earned that year.  We do not know 
why the judgment was entered -- in fact, the document was only 
discovered a few years ago in Viennese archives.

>from curiosity, what was the epidemic and does it seem 
>reasonable ( or possible ) to conclude that mozart died
>from it and not from something else given what is known
>about the circumstances of his death ( if anything is
>known ? )

Much is known, and he didn't die of typhoid fever.  He seems to
have died from some kidney ailment -- he was retaining water,
and had other symptoms relating to kdiney failure.  There has
been much written about Mozart's death; for good coverage of
all these matters, see H. C. Robbins Landon, _1791: Mozart's
Last Year_, which is out in paperback.  

>>>yes, i've heard his widow was left in straightened 
>>>....

>>Actually, the musical market had dried up badly in the previous 
>>year.  Mozart had taken several steps toward improving his condition,
>>incl. getting in line for a big church job that would have been his if 
>>he'd lasted another year and a half.  Mozart had done well for four years 
>>in the 1780's as a free-lance, but it was somewhat downhill after that.
>>Not having a court job of real substance meant that he didn't get all
>>the payments in kind (firewood, candles, etc.) that court employees got;
>>also, he had to maintain a fairly expensive lifestyle in order to move
>>in society.

>let's see.  as i understand it, he left the service of the archbishop 
>in 1781.  he died in 91.  that's ten years.  if he'd done well for four,
>then he did _not_ well for six.  how were the _not_ and not _not_ years
>portioned ? for example,  assume the four good years were contiguous.  
>since the market dried-up ( did the public develop tin-ears suddenly 
>or was it the plague ? ) the previous year, that means the first five
>years were _not_ years.  it seems to me, any way you look at it, he
>should have been trying for those church jobs a bit sooner. especially,
>if you have to wait a year and a half to assume the post.  maybe he was 
>just a bad businessman afterall ?

Look, there are whole *books* about this, and I've mentioned at least 
two so far.  Mozart's really good years were 1783-86.  In those years
he made a lot of money on public concerts.  But tastes changed, and 
the economy started to deteriorate, too.

Mozart turned to publishing chamber music in around 1785, with mixed
success over the next two or three years.  (The works were judged 
excellent but too hard for most people to play, which is true.)  He also
moved seriously into opera, with Figaro (1786), DOn Giovanni (1787)
and Cosi fan Tutte (1790).  Cosi would have been more of a success,
but the emperor died, and they closed the theatres.  Mozart kept 
trying to get new ventures going, and was considering a trip to 
England at the end of his life.  

1791 was an interesting year.  He executed a commission for a court
opera for the coronation of the new emperor, invented a new type of
German opera (MAgic Flute), and set himself up for the church job
at St. Stephen's by taking the unpaid assistant's job.  To do so 
earlier would have been impossible, because the Emperor Joseph, who
had died in 1790, had banned fancy church music in most settings, 
and Mozart wasn't interested in writing the simple stuff that 
was allowed.  When Leopold followed Joseph to the throne, he 
liberalized the policy -- Mozart masses were performed at the 
Frankfurt coronation and in Vienna.  Corpus Christi processions 
were allowed for the first time in a decade, and Mozart responded
with his sublime _Ave verum corpus,_ his first new church work
in almost ten years.  Finally, there was the commission for the
Requiem, of course.

Mozart was probably a pretty fair businessman, especially when 
you consider that he was doing what hardly anyone had ever even attmpted:
to be a first-rate musician and basically a free-lance.  I can
sympathize with Mozart, being self-employed; the number of things 
one has to spend money on when one works for oneself is simply 
staggering.  

>>>but i understand he had acquaintances who professed to admire him ....
>>>e.g., haydn.  

>>Haydn didn't have all that much money; nobody was doing really well
>>at that time.  

>>>surely, a modest plot / monument would not have been that costly.  
>>>or did he expire when haydn was abroad or something ?   

>>Yes, as a matter of fact.  The 98th Symphony will tell you all about it.

>>There probably was a wooden marker, but at the time this was not considered
>>crucial.  You can read about it in Braunbehrens' or Robbins Landon's 
>>books.

>i'm sorry.  i can't keep track of all those symphonies.  i guess all ( ? )
>haydn symphonies have cute little labels to them.  ( another question:
>are any just called symphony number _number ?_ )  apparently, the 98th is 
>not called the _vienna_ symphony.  it's the _surprise_ symphony !  because
>you're _surprise_'d he ( haydn ) didn't cough up some money to help bury
>mozart because he didn't have to because mozart was buried in a *sanitary*
>grave because the music scene had dried-up because there was an epidemic 
>because .... 

No, it's just called Number 98.  The slow movement, however, is full of
surprises, though they're of a different kind than those in the Surprise
Symphony, No. 94.  Listen closely to both themes, and think about 
where you've heard them before.

>>>what about van sweitan (sp?) was he still about ? 

>>van Swieten was most certainly around; he had yet to commission the two
>>great oratorios from Haydn.

>okay.

>>>couldn't he have stuck him in a family vault ?  i think that had been done before.

>>But Mozart wasn't family, or even that close, and besides, there was the 
>>matter of sanitary burial.

>>>sounds worth it to memorialize yourself even if only potentially.

>>Keep in mind that unitl then, composers had not, for the most part,
>>been outlived by their works in any "timeless" fashion.  Nor was there
>>a concept of musical classics such as we have today.

>i know mozart wasn't _family;_ and i, obviously, didn't know about the
>epidemic / sanitary burial having instead subscribed to what i think
>is the common notion that he died dissipated.  even so, is it fair to
>say van swieten did / didn't think of mozart in _ornament of the age_ 
>terms ?  for instance, did he have a mass said or offer any other
>postumous sign of ( high or otherwise ) regard or respect. 
>how 'bout haydn ?

Haydn was, as I said, much distressed.  So was the young beethoven, 
who had hoped to take lessons with Mozart.  But the forms of memorial
you suggest are not always recorded for posterity (i.e., Masses), and
besides, some people preferred to be more private about their mourning.
Many people did take note of Mozart's death, and wrote about him; 
posterity was thus served.

>with regard to timelessness / musical classics, what about the
>handel [ centennial ? ] concerts ?  didn't pepusch organize
>an _academy of antient ( antick ) musick_ to play _classics_  
>or at least early(er) music.  i presume they wouldn't have been
>playing what they thought early bad music.  so they played early 
>good music.  something worth studying / playing / enjoying.  

England is something of an exception there.  The Academy of Ancient
Musick had existed since the 20's, I believe -- their definition 
of "ancient" was anything 20 years old or earlier.  Purcell was 
often revived, and Handel became a hero, his oratorios performed 
in all eras since his death.    

An attempt was even made at a complete edition of Handel, but it
folded partway through.  Not until 1850 would the Bach Edition,
which was brought to completion, be founded.

Anyway, the English approach found scant favor on the continent.  
Some individual pieces had legs, as it were -- Messiah, Graun's
_Der Tod Jesu_, etc.  But the idea of musical greats really got its
start when Mozart's music became more and more popular after his death.

>were they exhibiting a sense of the `classic ?'  what about van
>swieten having mozart redo "messiah" etc ?  was he ( van swieten ) 
>regarding them as contemporaneous compositions or was he implying 
>something akin to classic status ? 

Swieten was a connoisseur, with historical tastes.  (He had turned
Mozart on to B and H in 1782.)  He did these things for private
performance at home.  Historical awareness of music *was* growing,
though, as evidenced by...

>doesn't haydn quote handel in,
>say, "the creation ?" or am i viewing these things in the wrong 
>light ?

No, not really -- but the big picture is different.  The amount of
effort devoted to dead composers in 1800 was fairly small -- onlyMozart plus 
one or two pieces by Handel and scattered favorites.

(Church is a different matter entirely...)

>>>i've also heard / read this story variously about
>>>mozart or haydn which relates that a phrenologist
>>>decapitated the corpse of haydn / mozart and that
>>>the skull is floating about etc.  any truth to this ?

>>Even worse: there are *two* skulls.  On the other hand, phrenology
>>wasn't in vogue yet, so it wasn't a phrenologist who did it.  The 
>>source of one of them seems to be the keeper of that particular
>>cemetery.

>okay.  so any chance they could be the actual skulls ?

Well, they're both supposed to be *Mozart* skulls, so, no, not 
both of them.  (I mean, all that and Tourette's as well...8-)  )
The Haydn skull was returned to the grave.  

Yes, there's a chance that one of the skulls is Mozart's.  But there's
a far bigger chance that it's not.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical