1

Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

Luca Bianchini

original text in Italian

translation by Robert Newman

italianOpera 2011

2

Chapter I

The Antiphona

A collection of historical documents related to the musical examination taken by Wolfgang Amadeus

Mozart on 9th October 1770 for his admission to the Academy Filarmonic of Bologna.

“Moreover, the judges of the Academy did not give them a

great deal of insight. In their report of that day they stated that

one Francesco Piantanadi was admitted with all white votes

(and also his relative Giovanni Piantanida) while, concerning

Mozart they make only a reserved and cold statement which,

when allowing for the circumstances his exam result was

considered sufficient - ‘As the votes in his case were concerned

it is certain they were not all white: but in any case the jury

found in his favour”.1

George Nikolaus von Nissen (sometimes called Nicolaus Nicolai) b. 1761 d. 1826 was a Danish diplomat and

historian of music who married Mozart’s widow Constanze in 1809. His celebrated biography of W.A.

Mozart is still credited as an important source for study of the composer’s life and was published

posthumously in 1829 (although the book gives the date of 1828). He refers to the three musical tours

undertaken by Mozart with his father (the first between December 1769 and March 1771) and focuses on

the important visit the two made to Bologna between 20th July and 18th October of 1770, saying that after

a pleasant stay out of town at the villa of Count Pallavicini the boy took the membership examination to the

famous Accademia Filarmonica. It was 9th October 1770 when the first of two censors Princeps Accademiae

and members of the Academy gave Mozart the details of their examination, requiring him to write in strict

counterpoint an Antiphon for 4 voices on a Cantus Firmus.

After graduating Mozart was welcomed from 10th October by the Accademia Filarmonica inter Maestri

Compositori2

1 Corrado Ricci, Figure e figuri del Mondo Teatrale, Fratelli Treves Editori, Milano 1920, pp.196 e 197

. The Antiphon submitted to the candidate is refered to by Nissen who on p.227 reproduces

the Cantus Firmus. Nissen then provides the Antiphon itself (fig. 1):

2 “Inter Magistros Compositores”

3

(fig. 1)

written by Mozart for 4 voices above the Cantus Firmus (fig. 2):

(fig. 2)

In this example Nissen provides evidence of the remarkable counterpoint knowledge of Wolfgang who has

applied the rules of counterpoint in a creative intercourse between the parts. The 14 year old boy here is

able to manage voices and the old style textures. He is a musical genius who has grasped at an early age the

rules of strict counterpoint, as has also managed with great skill quarter notes and the different rhythmic

combinations occurring between different parts of soprano, alto and tenor.

4

Commenting on this particular Antifona exam Nissen (p. 226) makes extensive quotes and endorses the

enthusiastic opinion of Leopold Mozart -:

‘’We left Bologna a few days later than planned because the Philharmonic Academy had unanimously

elected Wolfgang a member of their Society and had presented him with a diploma of Accademico

Philarmonico. But this happened only after all necessary preliminaries and after he had been duly

examined. He had been required to appear at the Hall of the Academy at 4 o`clock on the afternoon of 9

October; in the presence of all its members, the Princeps Accademia and 2 Censores who are all old chapel

masters: gave him an Antiphon taken from an Antiphoner, of which he had to write a 4-part setting in an

adjoining room, where he was taken by the Pedellus, who then locked the door after him. Once he had

completed it the paper was examined by the Censores and all chapel masters and composers, and a vote

was taken which was done by means of black and white balls. As all the balls were white he was called in

and everyone applauded his entry and congratulated him. After which the Princeps Accademiae told him in

the name of the Society that he had been accepted as a member. He thanked them, and with that it was all

over.

H.Prinsechi and I were meanwhile locked in the Academy library on the other side of the hall. Everyone was

amazed that he completed the exam so quickly as many people had spent 3 hours on a 3-line Antiphon.

NB: You should know that this is no easy task as this type of composition excludes many things and that he

had been told about this previously. He completed it in a good half hour. The Pedellus then brought the

certificate to our house. It’s in Latin and it includes the following words - testamur Dominum Wolfgangum

Amadeum etc: Sub die 9 Mensis octobris anni 1770 inter Accademianostrae Magistros Compositores

adscriptum fuisse etc: -

This does him all the more credit because the academy is already more than 100 years old and membership

of the Accademia Bonnoniensis includes not only P. Martini and a number of other distinguished Italians

but also the most distinguished men of other nations”.

(Leopold, Milan to his wife, Salzburg, 20 October 1770)

Nissen also provides in Latin the complete text of the licence on p.227 - translated here -3

3 “Princeps caeterique academici philharmonici omnibus et singulis praesentes litteras lecturis felicitatem.

Quamvis ipsa virtus sibi suisque sectatoribus gloriosum comparet nomen, attamen pro maiori eiusdem maiestate

publicam in notitiam decuit propagari. Hinc est quod huiusce nostrae philharmonicae academiae existimationi et

incremento consulere singulorumque academicorum scientiam et profectum patefacere intendentes testamur Domin.

Wolfgangum Amadeum Mozart e Salisburgo sub die 9 Mensis Octobris anni 1770 inter academiae nostrae magistros

compositores adscriptum fuisse. Tanti igitur coacademici virtutem et merita perenni benevolentiae monumento

prosequentes hasce patentes litteras subscriptas nostrique consessus sigillo impresso obsignatas dedimus.

Bononiae ex nostra residentia die 10 mensis Octobris anni 1770. Princeps Petronius Lanzi, Aloysius Xav. Ferri, a

secretis. Camplonerius Cajetanus Croci”

5

‘’The President and other members of the Accademia.

To each and every reader of these presents, greeting. Although virtue wins reward for itself and those who

cultivate it, yet for the greater dignity of the same it is fitting that it should be brought to the public notice.

Hence it is that, in the intention of increasing the reputation of our Philharmonic Academy and of bringing

to light die knowledge and achievements of each of its members, we bear witness that Domin. Wolfgatigus

Amadeus Mozart e Salisburgo on the 9th day of October in the year 1770 was enrolled among the Magistri

Compositores of our Academy. Wherefore we, the undersigned fellow Academicians, in order to honour

virtue and merit with a permanent mark of our esteem, issue these letters patent, signing them with the

seal of our Assembly. Given in our City of Bologna this 10th day of the month of October in the year 1770.

President. Petronius Lattzi

P. Aloysius Xau. Ferri Secretary.

Registrar Cajetanus Croci.’’ (fig. 12)

And he concludes with Padre Martini’s praises for the award –

‘’Bologna, 12 October 1770.

I, the undersigned, attest that, having seen some Musical Compositions in various styles, and having several

times heard [him play] the Harpsichord, the Violin, and sing, Sig. Cav. Giov. Amadeo Wolfgango Mozart of

Salzburg, Master Chamber Musician to His Highness the eminent Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, aged 14

years, to my particular admiration, was found by me most highly versed in all the musical qualities

indicated, he having passed every test whatever, above all in playing on the Harpsichord various subjects

given him to improvise, which with great mastery he carried out according to all the conditions demanded

by Art. In token whereof I have written and subscribed this in my own hand.

F. Giambattista Martini,

minor Conventual”.4

So, according to Nissen, Wolfgang in Bologna produced a wonderful test result confirmed by the Antifona

reproduced in his book, also by the letter of his own father and by the certificate. He finished the exam in

only half an hour while others take as long as three and was approved unanimously with all white balls

despite his young age. And he received the unconditional praise of Padre Martini.

4 Receipt of Don Domenico Zanardi, councillor of the Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna, 4 November 1770: “Received at the hands of Padre Martini forty lire on behalf of Sig. Wolfgang Mozart of Salzburg, knight of the Golden Spur, for his admission into the Academy and his election as a foreign member in the rank of composer, namely L.40”. Padre Martini seems to have paid this fee out of his pocket (Otto Erich Deutsch, Mozart a Documentary Biography, Simon & Schuster, Londra 1990, p.128)

6

EARLY ACCOUNTS OF THE BOLOGNA EXAM

When we compare the accounts published of Mozart’s exam in Bologna which appeared before publication

of Nissen’s biography (1828/9) we obtain the following results –

1. Schichtegroll F. Von (1765-1822)

In the ‘Nekrology’ of Schlichtegroll (1793) we find similar words to the above although he does not quote

the letter of Leopold Mozart. He says -

“In Bologna Mozart was unanimously elected a member and teacher of the Accademia Filarmonica. To this

task, he was left alone in a closed room after giving him to compose an Antiphon for four voices. In the

space of half an hour he had finished, and received his diploma” 5

;

2. F.X. Niemetscheck (1766-1849)

Niemetscheck’s early biography of Mozart (1798) was published in Prague. It ‘clarifies’ that -

“In Bologna Mozart was unanimously appointed Maestro and member of the Accademia Filarmonica. For

his admission he had to compose a fugue (sic) for four voices in the church style, for the purpose he was

left alone in a closed room. In the space of half an hour he finished, and then received his diploma”.6

3. Stendhal (Pseudonym of Marie Henry Beyle) (1783-1842)

Stendhal, without citing sources, repeats on the Bologna exam that -

“in Bologna Mozart was unanimously appointed member and master of 'Accademia Filarmonica. He had

been locked alone in a room, as usual, and in half an hour had composed four-voice antiphon”.7

4. Vanzon

The ‘Universal Dictionary of the Italian Language’ (1826) appeared just before Nissen’s biography. It

contains a section on ‘Mozart’ and we are told the story of Bologna - but this time with numerous highly

romanticised additions and inventions -

5 Friedrich von Schlichtegroll, Nekrolog auf das Jahr 1791, EDT, Torino 1990, p.95 6 Franz Niemetscheck, Leben des k.k. Kappelmeister Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart, nach Originalquellen beschrieben, EDT, Torino 1990, p.35 7 Stendhal, Vies de Haydn, Mozart et Métastase, Didot, Paris 1814, pp.275 e 276

7

“Mozart went then to Bologna and was desirous to visit Padre Martini, celebrated in the science of

counterpoint: Martini having made deep study of harmony. And he was struck by the lightening that

accompanies such rising talent, predicting with confidence that when he rose to his full splendour there will

be not rivals whom he (Mozart) would not eclipse. The Philarmonic Academy of Bologna, eager to recruit

the young artist, submitted to him the exam. He was locked in a room where he found the theme of a

fugue for four voices. In half an hour he composed the music and received his diploma, an honour no-one

had ever obtained at such a precocious age”.8

Nissen, as we have already seen, was first to quote Leopold’s letter of 20th October 1770 as a source.

But these embellishments contained within Vanzon and written only a few years before Nissen, were to be

expanded and further embellished throughout the 19th century –

“In Bologna the sagacious Padre Martini greets the child with the name of illustrious maestro, and predicts

his future triumphs….. in Bologna he writes the Antiphon in half an hour for an entrance exam to the

Accademia Filarmonica, reminiscent of the best days of Palestrina”.9

Soon publishers in other countries were to show no less enthusiasm as eulogy and hyperbole started to

take the place of reality. The Mozartean bubble expanded, changed colours, and grew to enormous size.

Blown on the wind of human credulity Mozart publications in England, France, Spain and USA began to

flourish as forms of a novel literature -

“And the long-desired day appeared at last. The whole musical world of Bologna was in motion. People in

carriages as well as on foot hurried to the fine building where the Academia Filarmonica held its meetings.

It is true only the judges could assist at the examination, but the result, in case of being favourable, was

immediately heralded. It was at four o'clock in the afternoon when Mozart appeared with his father in the

saloon of that Academy. All the members of the Society who resided at Bologna, Martini and Fannelli, and

the censors, old and celebrated conductors amongst them, were already present, looking with some

curiosity towards the boy of fourteen, who came to be tried before their tribunal. Perhaps not a few

doubted of the success of this daring youth. After this the Princeps Acidemia and the censors rose, and

handed Amadeus an Antiphonia from the ‘Antiphonwrium Romanum’ in order to have him arrange it for

four voices in the course of three hours.

Amadeus received the paper with a respectful bow, and then followed with a quick step and in high spirits

the beadle, who led him into the work-room, and locked the door after him quite noisily. To arrange such

an Antiphona for four voices was not an easy task, as this kind of music excludes the use of many means,

8 Carlo Antonio Vanzon, Dizionario Universale della Lingua Italiana, Vannini, Livorno 1836, vol.IV p.598 9 Filippo de’ Boni, Biografia degli Artisti, Gondoliere, Venezia 1840

8

which are left to the composer in other pieces. Only a master in his art, a master of counterpoint, is able to

solve such problems, and therefore the most efficient men had on the same spot where Amadeus now sat,

fully required three hours to finish their task. For this reason the surprise of the whole company can be

easily imagined, when after a lapse of a small half-hour the beadle announced the fact that the young

maestro had given a sign to be released, as his work was done.

A general commotion occurred. For more than one hundred years the Academy had been in existence, but

such a case had never happened. Was this boy of fourteen a sorcerer! Padre Martini and the censors rose,

evidently excited, and hurried to the work-room. There stood the boy, smiling, the manuscript in his hand.

His open, child-like features beamed with joy and a noble pride; his whole being, showed that he was

conscious of having performed a noble and difficult task. Padre Martini could not help admiring the boy; his

heart longed to embrace him; yet another ceremony had to be attended to first The work had to be

examined by all conductors and composers, and this lasted a full hour. Then the Princept Academia called

for the voting. Amidst deep silence the white and black balls were presented to the members, who at once

threw their choice into the urn. At last the counting took place. Nothing but white balls!” exclaimed the

gray Father Martini, with tears of joy and happiness running down his cheeks.”Amadeus Mozart is

admitted.” And when the boy returned to the midst of the Academicians, these received him standing,

clapping their hands, and exclaiming: ‘’Evviva il maestro! evviva il Cavaliere Filarmonico!” (Cheers for the

master! Cheers for the Philharmonic Cavalier!)”10

By the 20th century the tone of Mozartean writing on this matter of Bologna becomes a little more sedate,

pruned of unnecessary frills, but the letter of Leopold (never mentioned) remaining as the only source. This

speaking of an extremely difficult examination to qualify for membership. Candidates had to be over

twenty-one (sic), but a special exception was made for Mozart. He is locked in a room, having been given a

complicated type of music to compose. He was finished in an hour; the judges then examined the piece and

all of them passed it: Mozart was therefore elected as Honorary member of the Accademia. Many eminent

musicians had failed to become members there, because the test was exacting and usually took hours to

complete, etc.”

11

The above (American) source does not refer to half an hour to complete the test, but to an hour. Its writer

has taken in to account perhaps (without saying so) the protocols of the Academy registering the meetings

held in the Accademia Filarmonica from April 9, 1755 to December 15, 1789 where the register for October

9, 1770 is preserved saying”Within less than one hour Mozart Sr. finished his experiment, which in the

circumstances it was deemed sufficient”.

10 New York Musical Review and Gazette, Mason Brothers, New York, 1859, vol.X p.70 11 Peggy Woodford, Mozart, Omnibus Press, 1990, pp.62 e 63

9

Mozart himself writes on 30th September 1777 –

“.... I was in Italy three times, I wrote three Operas, I am a member of the Academy of Bologna, where I had

to pass an examination, which many Maestri have struggled to overcome in four or five hours, while I have

completed in A HOUR ONLY.”12

.

There is a contradiction between the half-hour of time declared by Leopold and recorded by Nissen, and

the time that Mozart said to have used, and also between the three hours other candidates took to finish

their task, according to the father, and the four or five hours reported by Amadé. From a comparison of the

letters, references to the time needed to complete the task for Mozart and other composers result as

inconsistent. Mozart's father has shortened the time of the child, reducing it by half; Mozart son has

increased the number of times of his competitors.

5. Otto Jahn (1813-1869)

Composer, archaeologist, philologist, art critic and music biographer. (Author of a famous biography of

Mozart (1856) which was revised by Deiters (1905), further updated and revised by Abert (1921) and more

recently by Cliff Eisen. Indeed, Jahn’s work is still considered to be a standard work of German musicology.

Whose author, refering to Bologna says -

‘The Accademia Filaarmonica in Bologan was founded in 1666 and Mozart’s attendance there had been

decided on 13th August’.

He writes -

Leopold describes the process as follows:”Wolfgang was required to appear at the Hall of the Academy at 4

o`clock on the afternoon of 9 Oct.; in the presence of all its members, the Princeps Accademia¦ and 2

Censores (who are all old chapel masters gave him an Antiphon taken from an Antiphoner, of which he had

to write a 4-part setting in an adjoining room, where he was taken by the Pedellus, who locked the door

after him. Once he had finished it, it was examined by the Censores and all the chapel masters and

composers, and a vote was then taken, which was done by means of black and white balls. As all balls were

white, he was called in, and everyone applauded his entrance and congratulated him, after the Princeps

Accademia had told him in the name of the society that he had been accepted as a member. He thanked

them, and with that it was all over. H Prinsechi and I were meanwhile locked in the Academy`s library on

the other side of the hall. Everyone was amazed that he completed it so quickly as many people had spent

3 hours on a 3-line antiphon. NB: You should know that this is no easy task as this type of composition

12 Emily Anderson, The letters of Mozart and his family, MacMillan, London 1988, p.286

10

excludes many things that aren`t permitted and that he had been told about previously. He completed it in

a good half hour. The Pedellus then brought the certificate to our house”.13

So Jahn on p. 660 and p. 661 (1st Ed) gives us a version differing very little from what had been reported by

Nissen decades earlier (fig. 3, fig. 4):

(fig. 3)

13 Otto Jahn, W.A.Mozart, Breitkopf und Härtel, Lipsia, 1856, pp. 206-209: “Die im Jahr 1666 gestiftete accademia filarmonica in Bologna, deren feierliche Aufführung sie am 13. August mit angehört hatten18, beschloß Wolfgang nach abgehaltener Prüfung unter ihre Mitglieder aufzunehmen. Leopold beschreibt uns den Vorgang folgendermaßen. « Wolfgang mußte den 9. October Nachmittags um vier Uhr im akademischen Saale erscheinen. Da gab ihm der Princeps academiae und die zwei Censoren (die alle alte Kapellmeister sind) in Gegenwart aller Mitglieder eine Antiphona aus demAntiphonarium vor, die er in einem Nebenzimmer, wohin ihn der Pedell führte und die Thüre zuschloß, vierstimmig setzen mußte. Nachdem er sie fertig hatte, wurde sie von den Censoren und allen Kapellmeistern und Compositoren untersucht und votirt durch schwarze und weiße Kugeln. Da nun alle Kugeln weiß waren, so wurde er gerufen. Alle klatschten bei seinem Eintritt mit den Händen und wünschten ihm Glück, nachdem ihm vorher der Princeps im Namen der Gesellschaft die Aufnahme angekündigt hatte. Er bedankte sich und damit war es vorbei. Ich war unterdessen mit meinem Begleiter auf einer anderen Seite des Saals eingesperrt in der akademischen Bibliothek. Alle wunderten sich daß er es so geschwind fertig hatte, da Manche drei Stunden mit einer Antiphona von drei Zeilen zugebracht haben. Du mußt aber wissen daß es nichts Leichtes ist, indem diese Art der Composition viele Sachen ausschließt, die man nicht darin machen darf, wie man ihm vorhergesagt hatte. Er hatte es in einer halben Stunde fertig. Das Patent brachte uns der Pedell ins Haus »”

11

(fig. 4)

Nothing in particular has changed in respect to what Nissen had reported.

12

THE BREAKTHROUGH

But change was just about to occur. On 9th May 1858 (less than 2 years after Jahn’s biography) a work

entitled ‘Schizzo di storia musicale’ by Gaetano Gaspari (also published in extract in ‘La musica in Bologana’

in the ‘Gazzetta musicale di Milano) appeared.14

Gaspari (1807-1881) was an important biographer and music historian and a composer of liturgical music.

(He wrote the offertory for the Mass of Rossini, served as choirmaster at the cathedral of Imola, was a

teacher of voice at the Liceo Musicale of Bologna, was author of a book ‘Zibaldone’ containing a

classification of the musical collection of the High School of Bologna and was a well liked and genial

character. His career including work on the catalogue of the assets of the catalogue of the Biliotecca High

School). And this same Gaspari provided remarkable documentary evidence there were had been two

versions made of the Antifona by Mozart during his exam of 9th October 1770. (Otto Jahn, of course, had

published details of only one).

Gaspari showed the two versions held on file at the Academy consisted of only one composed by Mozart

(filled with errors) and the other a version provided to him by Padre Martini. So the version known to

students and readers through biographies by Nissen and Otto Jahn was wrong. What seems to be the work

of Mozart was one made for him by Martini, and not by Mozart. Which Mozart copied out and submitted to

the Academy as his test. Gaspari conclusively showed the exam paper was based upon the Martini version

(copied by Mozart) and was in ‘no doubt’ that it was ‘offered for the scrutiny of the Philarmonic judges for

their necessary approval and acceptance’.

Mozart then leaving the locked room gave the commissioners the Antiphon hint Quaerite by Padre Martini.

Well aware in 1858 of the risk of tarnishing the glory of Mozart’s now international genius Gaspari

remained remarkably silent about the”fraud”15

But the same Gaspari was to demonstrate his freedom of thought a little later, making a handwritten note

at the Bologna library stating plainly that Mozart in 1770 had only copied a version of the Antifona made

for him by P. Martini - his first attempt being completely unacceptable.

that was now manifest by his discovery of this duality in the

exam documents. He speaks in the ‘Gazzetta Musicale di Milano’ of ‘the gap that lies between these two

versions’ which bear witness ‘quite clearly the great influence that Mozart took from the help of P. Martini,

having such confidence in Martini as a friendly and amiable ecclesiastic’.

14 Gazzetta Musicale di Milano, Milano senza data 15 “Der nicht ganz harmlose Betrug” (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Neues Ausgabe, Kritische Berichte, Bärenreiter, Kassel 1964, Serie I Werkgruppe 3, p.41)

13

It was hard to criticise Mozart in 1858 when Milan was still under Austrian administration. The following

year Lombardo Veneto, Lombardy was lost after the War of Independence. Since censorship was still a

factor in controlling the Musical Gazette in Milan.

Corrado Ricci (1858-1934) didn’t care much for Gaspari and criticized him seventy years later in a book on

Theatre:”The fact that the first draft of Mozart's hand was already attached to the Acts academics, destroys

Gaspari's opinion and leads to the conclusion that the second version of Martini expresses a different way,

designed by Martin himself, to resolve the problem.”16

But Gaspari, now filed under”Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart” in the folders of Library of Bologna had correctly

shown the Antifona which had been published by at least three early biographers and which was described

by them as his had explained -

“In folios 2 and 3 of the manuscripts of the Philharmonic there is the autograph Antiphon composed by

young Mozart already being described as a Knight by the academics Philharmonic. Yet there is also a

certificate relating to this case which show P. Martini issued it only on the 12th October 1770. Since the

Antiphon in 4 parts clearly did not conform to the rule of cosiffatto style. Padre Martini provided the

solution in providing Mozart a version which he (Mozart) copies. So that it appeared to come from the pen

of Mozart and might not fail under the scrutiny of the ‘hard’ academics. Nor would Mozart suffer the

consequences. Thus, Mozart made it and it was passed off as a work made by himself. So, without

difficulty, Mozart was awarded the diploma of a Master Composer and member of the Filarm. Academy

though he had also not reached the required age according to its own statutes. The Antinfona published on

p.14 of the book of Lichtental entitled ‘Mozart’s Works’ was really that of Martini. (Milan, Ricordi). A

further discrepancy being that the certificate made by Martini itself differs from the original in comparison

to the autograph itsel” (fig. 5):

16 Corrado Ricci, Figure e figuri del Mondo Teatrale , Fratelli Treves Editori, Milano 192O

14

(fig. 5)

F.J. Fétis (1784-1871) in his‘Universal Biography’ (1860) refers to these momentous discoveries of Gaspari

but chose to downplay them and their signficance. He admits the Antifona exists in two different versions

and compares those of Martini and Mozart. He even notes numerous errors in the latter version. But he

completely ignores the evidence of plagiarism as presented by Gaspari. In his Dictionary Fétis he prefers to

use now familiar mixed comments from the earlier works of Nissen, those of Jahn, and of Peter Lichtenthal:

“Mozart was in Milan in February 1770; he left on March 15, after obtaining a commitment to compose the

music for the first opera in the carnival of the year 1771. He took the road to Bologna, where his presence

caused more emotion. I'm talking about the piece he wrote to get the diploma Academician Philharmonic.

15

According to the statutes, the requirement in such circumstances was to write a chant given as a

composition for four voices in the style called osservato or alla Palestrina. Mozart wrote, according to

advice he had received from P. Martini, the requested anthem, but it was not this version of the anthem

that was published under his name by Councillor Nissen, by Lichtenthal and by Mr. Otto Jahn, because this

version is (actually) by P. Martini. The learned M. Gaspari, choirmaster of the Cathedral of Bologna and the

School Librarian of communal music of this city, found in a manuscript collection of the deposit entrusted

to him, the original composition by Mozart, followed by this Antiphon which Martini wrote on the same

subject for the young artist’s instruction”.17

But if Martini had provided his version of the Antifona as an exercise after the time of the exam (as

suggested by Fetis) why was it ever attached to the exam paper itself ? If it was an exercise done before the

exam why would Mozart have carried it to the Filarmonica ?

The more that fictions are told on Mozart the more confusing become the excuses. Fétis continues –

“This from Mozart is far from the work of an experienced teacher such as Martini; Mozart writes too

quickly perhaps, and with knowledge too brief for a music genre that was unknown to him before he

arrived in Italy; However, this work seems to me interesting. Mr. Gaspari has released the anthem of

Mozart with his excellent speech entitled ‘Musica in Bologna’ which appeared in the Musical Gazzette in

Milan, which was made also in a independent book. I believe that readers of this news will watch with

interest the two pieces on the same subject, to make the comparison”.18

17 François-Joseph Fétis, Biographie Universelle des Musiciens, Didot, Paris, vol.VI pp.226-230: “Mozart était à Milan au mois de février 1770 ; il en partit vers le 15 mars, après avoir obtenu un engagement pour coin poser le premier open du carnaval de l'année 1771 ; il prit la route de Bologne, où sa présence causa la plus vive émotion. Je viens de parler du morceau qu'il t écrivit pour obtenir le diplôme d'académicien philharmonique. Suivant les statuts, preuve à subir en pareille circonstance consistait à écrire sur un plain-chant donné une composition à quatre voix dans le style appelé osservato ou alla Palestrina. Mozart écrivit, d'après les conseils qu'il avait reçus du P. Martini, l'antienne demandée; mais ce n'est pas celle qui a été publiée sous son nom par le conseiller De Nissen, par Lichtenthal, et par M. Otto Jahn, car ce morceau est du P. Martini. Le savant M. Gaspari, maître de chapelle de la cathédrale de Bologne et bibliothécaire du Lycée communal de musique de cette ville, a trouvé, dans un recueil manuscrit du dépôt qui lui est confié, l'original de la composition de Mozart, suivi de celle que Martini écrivit sur le même sujet pour l’instrution du jeune artiste [???]” 18 François-Joseph Fétis, ibid.: “Il y a loin du travail d'un maître expérimenté tel que Martini à celui de Mozart, écrit trop rapidement peut-être, et avec une connaissance trop sommaire d'un genre de musique qui lui était inconnu avant qu'il arrivai en Italie; toutefois ce travail me parait intéressant. M. Gaspari a publié l'antienne de Mozart avec son excellent discours intitule la Musica in Bologna, qui a paru dans la Gazelle musicale de Milan , et dont il a été fait des tirés-à-part ( Milan, Ricordi, sans date, in-8°). Je crois que les lecteurs de la présente notice verront avec intérêt les deux morceaux sur le même sujet, pour en faire la comparaison”

16

Here is the Antifona by Martini, according to Fétis (fig. 6):

17

(fig. 6)

And here is the Antiphon of Mozart, according to Fétis (fig. 7):

18

19

(fig. 7)

In comparing the two compositions Fétis states that Martini has written a well-made piece, with only one

inaccuracy:”Here, all conditions of the genre are respected; harmony is that of the sixteenth century, and

the tone of the first tone is always played. The parts sing well, everything is worthy of a master. One

inadvertence to point to occurs at the place marked (a) in the tenor part where there is a delay of a ninth to

the distance of a second, which is a capital offence, because the resolution of dissonance is not felt in

unison”.19

“Mozart, who was only fourteen, and recently arrived in Italy, did not know and could not know the rules

and traditions of the old style osservato in where he had to write: we see that at first in the third and fourth

The version of Mozart draws from him only two comments. Mozart’s young age and inexperience. As to its

specific content there is virtually no discussion. Fétis writes -

19 François-Joseph Fétis, ibid.: “Ici, toutes les conditions du genre sont respectées; l'harmonie est celle du seizième siècle, et la tonalité du premier ton y est toujours sentie. Les parties chantent bien; tout enfin est digne d'un maître. Une seule inadvertance s'y fait remarquer à l'endroit marqué (a); la partie du ténor y fait un retard de neuvième à la distance de seconde, ce qui est une faute capitale, parce que la résolution de la dissonance n'est pas sentie sur l'unisson”

20

measures of the soprano, purely instrumental, not vocal, where he arrived on a portion of fifths, by direct

movement, which is forbidden in the counterpoint”.20

He identifies a few passages that fail to obey to basic rules, including some highlights of melodic

movements, modern tonalities, alterations. And he is right when he describes Mozart’s version as not even

vocal at all. (In modern recordings of the Mozart version the players often opt for instruments only, leaving

a single voice for the Cantus Firmus itself. The plain fact is the other parts are virtually unable to be sung

with huge and ugly intervals.

From the time of Gaspari and Fétis onwards everything changes. Students then rarely see what Mozart

wrote. The story of Fétis and not that of Gaspari becomes the canvas. In publications of the twentieth

century it is convention to say Mozart wrote the antiphon in a much more modern way respect to Martini,

that Martini wrote one in old fashioned style, and that the genius of Mozart was not able to be harnessed

by the rules of counterpoint, that the Philharmonic were no more qualified as”erudite, skilful etc.” and

were only ungrateful people. Thus we read:

“Of all the musicians in Bologna ,it seems only Burney and Martini hade true and absolute admiration for

him. On the other hand it is sweet to see the respect and affection that Countess Pallavicini showed to him,

to which the child Mozart responded by the playing Minuets of Joseph Haydn and his first things. But it is

not uncommon for women, who posses an exquisite sensitivity to discover and admire the genius of an

artist before that of men, who are slow to recognise it because of their scepticism or envy”.

Again -

“... After all, the censors of the Academy did not give an essay in such a circumstance of great perspicacity.

In their report it is stated to have been Francesco Piantanida admitted with all the white votes (and thus

also to Giovanni Piantanida his relative), while the Mozart makes a dignified and cold statement that, in

calculating the circumstances, his experiment ‘has been judged sufficient’. As the votes then, is certain that

they were all white: in any case the result obtained was found to be favourable”.

“... The land of the tombs has also covered the reputation of the censors, and the music of the Corsini,

d'Antonio Montroni, Gaetano Poggi and company, all wet with holy water, gorges were deservedly ignored

on some library shelf. The glory of Mozart rose on their graves like a goddess and a superb light. Modern

academics have therefore been correct with the vote of their former colleagues, and in the room where

perhaps had been read the report calling the essay by Wolfgang sufficient enough, today we read carved in

marble an inscription solemnly inaugurated in 1884: MOZART IN THIS ROOM ON THE 9TH OCTOBER 1770

20 François-Joseph Fétis, ibid.: “Mozart, âgé seulement de quatorze ans, et récemment arrivé en Italie, ne connaissait pas et ne pouvait connaître les règles et les traditions de l'ancien style osservato dans lequel on le faisait écrire: cela se voit au premier abord dans les troisième et quatrième mesures du soprano, purement instrumentales et non vocales, dans lesquelles il fait arriver une partie sur des quintes, par mouvement direct; ce qui est interdit dans le contrepoint”

21

GAVE HIS ESSAY OF GENIUS AT FILARMORNIC ACADEMY APPLYING TO BE A MEMBER AND RECOGNIZED AS

A MAESTRO”.21

this text despite the claims to the Philharmonic shows the record as it is and gives the Italian word

"sufficiente" its right meaning, ie, referring to the quality of the work of Mozart, a negative meaning. It

explains that the admission of Amade had occurred in the majority.

Still later, a Mozart book by Koechel editor Alfred Einstein, examines theseevents with more critical eye.

Mozart, during his visit to Bologna with Padre Martini had devoted himself to the more severe old

polyphony . The exercises imposed by Padre Martini had been intended to facilitate the admission of

Mozart's into the famous Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna, October 10 (sic) 1770. And it was very difficult

to be admitted. Given to the candidate was a piece of Gregorian chant (in.. (in the case of Mozart a melody

from the antiphonaries) for which, locked in a small room, he had to compose three voices noted above in

strict style. Mozart failed completely. But all the bragging about the wonderful Wolfgang were only lies. The

archives in Bologna retain the three documents including the work Mozart made in the solitude of that

room. It also retains the corections of Martini and the later copy made by Mozart that was presented to the

jury. And, even then, the verdict was hardly enthusiastic:”In a period of less than an hour Sig. Mozart

completed his test, which, taking account of the circumstances, was deemed to be judged sufficient

enough”.

Musicology, musical history, biography and other related studies come to a crucial point on this issue.

The observations did by Gaspari, Fetis, Ricci, an expert on the environment of Bologna, and Einstein, do

little credit to the the Bolognese musicians nor to the judges.

The observations did by Gaspari, Fetis, Ricci, an expert on the environment of Bologna, and Einstein condemn the little favor that the musicians had reserved for Mozart in Bologna, and updated the version of the exam in the academy, which Mozart would have passed as a composer and not as a performer and as a majority vote, not all white, having obtained white and black balls. In addition, it is the first time that they speak of three tasks clearly found among the papers of the examination.

Einstein has at least cleared the field of the unconditional exalation of genius. Others, educated by a

hundred other examples of the Mozart story continue to repeat the version given by Leopold Mozart.

Hermann Abert (1871-1927 in Stuttgart) is today remembered for his writings on Beethoven, Schumann

and Meyerbeer, but especially for the monumental biography of Mozart, his two volumes published

between 1919-1924 that have served as a reference point for the musicologists in the second half of the

twentieth century. Abert merely repeats the version of Leopold saying the Mozart exam ‘agreed with the

protocol’, saying that the candidate did not come unprepared and that he probably did some practice

21 Corrado Ricci, Figure e figuri del Mondo Teatrale , Fratelli Treves Editori, Milano 1920, pp.196, 197

22

before with Padre Martini composing another Antiphon on the Cantus Firmus ‘Cibavit Eos in Adipe’ K.44”

(the fact that this Antiphon is not by Mozart, will be the topic of the next Chapter).

Abert, after the comment to k.44, announces the discovery made by Gaspari "of the autograph of Mozart Academy in the archive, but he doesn’t explaining anything. Only in a footnote, after he sopied part of the text of Jahn about the most difficult tests imposed by Martini three years after the test of Mozart, that is, starting from 177322

, he informs the reader that there is also a second version of the Antiphon in Bologna, and also a copy of this at the Mozarteum in Salzburg on wich Leopold Mozart has written the false date 10 October 1770 (but he does not give any explanation) that the piece of Martini was published in place of that of Mozart because of thei Leopold wrong date, that the exercice of the boy was not free of defects (but does not say which), that Martini had proposed to Wolfgang a correction (He did’nt say that this corrections is in the official files of the exams), that Wolfgang has brought a copy of this exercice with him (after he had signed it) only to study (???), that is "likely" (he does not say “desirable”, “necessary”) that in the critical edition of Mozart's operas you have to read "Martini's composition"instead of "Mozart's composition" (an error of syllables). The true author of the beautiful Antifona was Martini. Abert can not remain silent at all.

Carli Ballola and Parenti in 905 pages on the composer of Salzburg write laconically that

“Giovanni Battista Martini favored the appointment of Wolfgang as a member of the famous Accademia

Filarmonica, after a written test for admission”. (p.28)

In the brief history of music ‘UTET’ has recently published the date of the exam is given wrongly -

“January 5, 1771 [Mozart] was appointed Maestro di Cappella at the Magnificent Accademia Filarmonica in

Verona, while 9 October 1771 [???], exceeded the required proof (the composition of the antifona Quaerite

primum regnum Dei for 4 voices K86/K673v) was elected to Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna” (II, 908)

“In Bologna ... Wolfgang brilliantly passed the difficult entrance examination at the Accademia

Filarmonica”23

And the usual eulogy -

;

“... He was locked in a room alone ... but he completed the task, which is to compose an antiphon in four

parts in half an hour. On October 9, 1770 he was considered and accepted as a member of the Academy,

and the day afterwards they gave him the diploma”.24

22 He doesn’t say that since 1726 Academia Filarmonica stated some rules that made easier to access to Academy for the noblemen, or wealthy people. It was enough to produce a declaration, by attach a compostion in poliphony written as you whish, to submit to the judjment of the Censores to become Filarmonici Composers (see Nestore Morini, L’Accademia Filarmonica di Bologna, Tamari, Bologna 1967, pp. 73 e 74)

23 Paola Pandiani, I luoghi della musica, Touring Club Italiano, Milano, 2003, p.12 24 Maynard Solomon, Mozart, Mondadori, Milano 1996, p.83

23

With these and other texts the reader is finally convinced Mozart passed his exam with flying colours after

am all positive test, that at most there was only a little help by Martini, who was a reactionary character

and who was anchored to the past, and that counterpoint close to Palestrina was not of interest for Mozart

...

According to Piero Melograni everything went this way:

“On 9 October 1770 Wolfgang underwent the examination required for entry into the ancient (over one

hundred years old) and highly prestigious Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna. At four in the afternoon the

academicians gathered in one of the halls of the academy and their princeps gave Mozart a work of

Gregorian chant (in Wolfgangs case, an antiphon) and set him the task of composing a four-part

composition on it, respecting the many rules of the polyphonic style laid out by Giovanni Pierluigi da

Palestrina [sic]. They closeted him in a room set aside for the purpose and waited”

Piero recalls there are two versions, one that refers to the letter of Leopold on 20 October, with the test

conducted in”less Than Half an hour” when Wolfgang had said in a conversation in 1777 with Maximilian III

of Bavaria”that it took him an hour”.

Melograni continues recalling the text of Alfred Einstein described as”one of the Most Serious of Mozart's

biographers” who stated that”Mozart Completely failed in this task. In which case Leopold's account was

totally fallacious.”

This affirmation, says Melograni, is proved by the presence of three documents at the Archives of the

Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna and of the Liceo Musicale:

“The draft Mozart wrote in the closed room, The vorrections Padre Martini secretly made to it, and the fair

Copy That Wolfgang presented to the jury”.

Melograni, following Einstein, concluded that -

“Each member of the jury had available a white ball and a black ball. Wolfgang obtained only white balls.

Thus, as was the custom in such cases, the academicians rose to their feet and proclaimed him now

enrolled in the academy as a master”.

The author goes back to Einstein but the stories as reported above still do not correspond with plain facts.

The documents plainly state that an instrumental player was also to be examined on that day. Not Mozat

but the cellist Francesco Piantanida (who was asking to be admitted as a player). Piantanida performed his

piece and when the vote came he got all white balls, Then was the time of Mozart, who presented himself

24

as a composer to compose the Antifona and was closeted in a room, was handed the test and he got his

admission to maggiornaza, after counting some black and some white balls, whose outcome fell in his

fabour. All those who write of a unanimous white ball vertict are reporting fictions. Here is the full text in

the official file:

“Minutes of mozart's examination for admittance to the accademia filarmonica of Bologna (in Italian)

This day, 9 Octobcr 1770

At the electoral Assembly of the Gentlemen Academicians, under the Presidency of Sig. Petronio Lanzi, the

following were present, viz.:

1. Sig. Conte Baldassare Carati Ereditario.

2. Sig. Petronio Lanzi Principe.

3. Sig. Dr. Luigi Ferri, Segretario.

4. Sig. Angelo Antonio Caroli.

5. Sig. Lorenzo Gibelli.

6. Sig. D. Giuseppe Corsini.

7. Sig. Antonio Montroni.

8. Sig. Melchiore Prosperi.

9. Sig. Pietro Gionima.

10. Sig. Antonio Mazzoni.

11. Sig. Bernardino Ottani.

12. Sig. Angelo Galassi.

13. Sig. Barone Nesselrode.

14. Sig. Giovanni Piantanida.

15. Sig. Gerolamo Bernia.

16. Sig. Gaetano Poggi.

17. Sig. Petronio Vecchi.

First of all, memorials were read presented by Francesco Piantanida, Professor of the Violoncello, who

petitioned for admission to the Academy in the capacity of Player : and after a secret ballot it was revealed

that he had been favourably received with all white votes, and was admitted : Afterwards was read another

memorial presented on behalf of Sig. Wolfgang Amadco Mozart of Salzburg, aged fourteen years, who

petitioned for admission to the Academy in the capacity of composer, submitting himself to every trial

according to the Statutory form ; the Antiphonary being then opened by the President, where was found

the Antiphon in the first mode, Quaerite primum Regnum Dei etc., which was given him to make his trial

upon ; whereupon he, retiring alone to the customary room, set himself to the task.

25

At the end of less than an hour, the said Sig. Mozart completed his trial, which, considering the

circumstances, was judged to be sufficient, whereupon it was put to the vote whether he should be

enrolled in the Academy in the capacity of Master, which, when counted was found to be in his favour ; the

Assembly resolved that the usual Patent should be sent to him”.

Melograni states that without doubt this diploma, however it was obtained, signalled a meaningful and

symbolic moment in Mozart's maturing process. After 1770 Mozart could no longer be accused of

inexperience in technical matters. Thanks to Padre Martini's lessons he now had complete command of the

composers craft and the difficulties he encountered in the Bologna examination were irrelevant.

Ldifficulties were relevant, for Mozart gave the examiners an exercice that he didn’t write, but this by Padre

Martini.

26

ON FURTHER REFLECTION

Even before 1770 many people, starting with the singers (for example in La Finta Semplice), on up to the

greater nobility (for example Maria Tersa d’Austria), had doubted that Mozart could write good music:

“They (the people here in Vienna) avoid most carefully every occasion of seeing us and of admitting to

Wolfgang's skill, so that on the many occasions on which they might be asked whether they have heard this

boy and what they thought of him, they could always say that they had not heard him and that it could not

possibly be true - that it was all humbug and foolishness - that it was all pre-arranged - that Wolfgang was

given music which he already knew - that it was ridiculous ....”25

This was true of his own home town. According to the testimonial evidence of Daines Barrington (produced

on 28th November 1769 for the Royal Society in London) Mozart had composed while a child magnificent

Oratorios in perfect polyphony, but”the Prince of Salzburg, not believing those masterful compositions

were actually those of a child, closeted him for a week. He was locked in a room, not allowed to see

anyone, left alone with music paper and the words of an oratorio. But in this short time he composed a

masterpiece of sacred music that was especially approved of, having provided proof that he was a

genius”26

.

This same text was later used by a host of sacred writers to show how Mozart was supernaturally gifted.

The esoteric Amadeus Voldben (1908 - 1999) in his book on reincarnation quoted it as providing a shining

and prime proof of his doctrines -

“The most famous case is certainly that of W.A. Mozart, who deserves to be treated separately. A little boy

was introduced one day to the Bishop of Salzburg. He was just four years, son of a modest organist [???],

that at his age already was composing minuets and playing in a very beautiful way the cello beautifully

without ever have received music lessons. The suspicion that it was actually was the father who composed,

entered into the mind of the Bishop, however he remained stunned while he saw him play. Just believing

his eyes, he resorted to a decisive test: he ordered to lock the child into a room, monitoring him for eight

days, and to him he gave only some sheet music and the lyrics of an Oratorio. After a week, when the child

left the room, he had composed an operetta [not an oratorio?], which was judged to be remarkable. This is

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a child prodigy who in 700 excited the wonder of all nations”.27

On the Internet this tale is today taken for granted and is even offered as a research school for use by

school students of all grades and levels. The anonymous writer of this research, introduced this text in that

25 Leopold Mozart, Vienna, 30 gennaio 1768 – Letter to Lorenz Hagenauer, Salizburg, writing on the reaction to the Viennese musicians about Amedé 26 Deutch, op. cit., p.99 27 Amadeus Voldben, La Reicarnazione, Edizioni Mediterranee, pp. 117 e 118

27

way:”Another priority that worried Leopold was to introduce his son into the musical life of the town, in

reality it was a unjustified hassle, because the same archbishop wanted to employ the young artist. To the

prelate he was not a virtuoso concert pianist, but a composer. Uncertain about the ability of the child he

wanted to undergo him thorough an examination. Then gave the order to conduct him to the archbishop's

castle, locked him in a room with the explicit command to compose a music, forbidding anyone to approach

him so that there will be no whatsoever doubt about his work. Wolfgang took eight days to complete the

task and at the end he gave the archbishop the complete music score. This was so successful, that he

immediately received a invite to compose music for the anniversary of the coronation of the archbishop

himself. Demands of music, composed for the entertainment of guests during the important lunch at the

court, began almost immediately. The confidence of the archbishop against the young composer was

consolidated, with consequent increase in the degree of difficulty in the songs required. The first test of a

certain relevance was the realization of an act of the Oratory”The obligation of first commandment”.28

According to these and a thousand other stories, Mozart reached Bologna in 1770, already prepared for the

examination, even before Martini taught to him with counterpoint.

If ever he did so, given the results.

On the events of Bologna, Bologna director Pupi Avati has made an original and romantic (though not

historically accurate film in 1984. Whose plot describes the 80 carefree days spent by Mozart in Bologna.

Where he stayed at Villa Pallavicini. Portrayed as being less formal than the courts of princes Wolfgang

meets Giuseppe Pallavicini and eventually falls in love with 15 years old Antonia Leda daughter of a

nobleman living near to the villa. Love blossoms between the two, soft and pure in which the woods and

meadows which once surrounded that magnificent villa serve as a background. The boy’s wishes to extend

his stay are the possible cause of him making so many blunders in his exam on 9th October that year.

Thanks however to Padre Martini everything is resolved and he gains approval at the Academy. On 10th

October will have to leave his beautiful Antonia, keeping alive the sweet memory.

Einstein, reported by Melograni, believes Mozart learned nothing from Martini. He adds that

“Mozart Quickly forgot this experience in Bologna. Nothing connected with sixteenth-century style,

whether authentic or anachronistic, had any interest for him who was able to imitate all styles and

composers and who never felt the need of imitating Palestrina, at least not directly”.

Vernon Lee, pseudonym of British writer Violet Paget (1856-1935), added more:

28 Ricerche Gratutire On Line http://www.7doc.it/ricerche/31252-mozart.html

28

“Padre Martini was even capable of scolding Because he had the Pergolesi Stabat Mater. Not written in the

more scientific fugued style of the sixteenth century. Nor is it to be wondered that he corrected Mozart's

composition test after judging it to be too modern”.29

In fact, training in counterpoint is not as anachronistic, as many wish us to believe. Having to use many

different forms, the study of the polyphony is obviously based on rules that have been handed down for

centuries, but which are still valid.

Finding irrefutable evidence that the Mozart exam was a disaster, despite it being said by Daines Barrington

only a year earlier that he was already a perfectly formed maestro, the modern approach is to discredit the

Director and board of the Bologna Academy, portraying it to be lacking in theoretical knowledge or simply

unable to judge.

29 citata da Piero Melograni

29

ANALYSIS

Now we are able to closely analyse the exam paper of Mozart. Comparing it with that of Martini. Be advised however that composition in strict style obeys rules similar to those of modern harmony and counterpoint, which in the eighteenth century were in some aspects already more free. The main difference is that the pieces of that school used only a relatively few chords. The harmonic structure is really very simple. All the attention focuses on the counterpoint of the various voices, on the textures that should be respected:” counterpoint of Renaissance art is purely horizontal supporting structure, namely the vertical relationships are secondary and very simple ...”30

The analysis cannot be done using the ear, or just by listening to the Antiphon This following example is the

initial part of the Antifona made by Mozart and repeated four times, but only one of them corresponds to

the original (Music exemple 1)

.

31

All 4 look the same, but only one is actually correct, the other three having gross errors in their parts.

Antiphon is NOT analyzed only for its harmonic look (which is very simple). But you must consider the

counterpoint of the individual parts, the voices of soprano, alto, tenor and the Cantus Firmus.:

.

“You must know the needs of a particular voice and its realization in the melodic line”32

. In this particular antiphon the Cantus Firmus is in the most simple position. It is located in the lower part. Other tasks of musicians who took part in exams at Bologna developed well sung lyrical syllables and had the Cantus Firmus in the middle position.

The Cantus Firmus here is necessarily correct, for it has not been written not by the musician. The musician

has to compose above (or below) it parts in counterpoint. As the harmony here is very poor, so the

composer had to tries his hand with polyphony. The rules of moving parts, if you were to examine those of

other candidates made in the second half of the 18th century (and still valid in to the 19th century):

today the study of the polyphony of the sixteenth century "is intended to provide a basis for the pupil to

give him an appropriate and solid craft that allows him to bend to his will his idea as Verdi said, in relation

to the needs of his current work that does not exist and can not exist without the past music from which it

derives”.33

30 R.Dionisi e B.Zanolini, La tecnica del contrappunto vocale nel cinquecento, Suvini-Zerboni, Milano 1979, p.1

If an author knows how to make fugues, the parts of asacred music in polyphonic style, it is obvious that he

should be able to manage the movement of those parts over the already fixed parts, that are mandatory,

that he should use the quick notes in all voices, thus avoiding focus on just one part, that he should

alternate, such as in a succession of questions and answers, so that he must comply with intervals not to

make the effect too rough, and should check that the higher notes for each part will not be repeated too

31 Gli esempi musicali sono disponibili sul sito www.italianopera.org 32 R.Dionisi e B.Zanolini, idid. p.1 33 R.Dionisi e B.Zanolini, idid. p.XII (questa pratica è valida tutt’oggi)

30

often. He must ensure to avoid dissonances are not prepared, that he ensures not to repeat formulas so

that listeners become bored (because harmony itself is simple). Also that he absolutely must avoid

repeated rhythms by the same, and that the voices proceed parallel with the Cantus Firmus - otherwise

what polyphony it would be?

“The technique of counterpoint is "a mental and manual discipline, which is not finished in itself, but

compares the present with the past, two concepts that are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. It is

true that art knows no progress, but, as a stellar system, it turns on itself with alternating courses and

resorts. ... In the same way some Picasso ceramics are based more or less consciously to those of ancient

Iran, the statues of ancient Greece are renewed in the profiles of the sculptures by Michelangelo, ...

Byzantine forms flourish in some attitudes of sacred music by Stravinsky, processes and structural modal

medieval organa are in the parallel proceedings of Debussy and Ravel, the world of the enigmistic Flemish

parts resurrect in the canonical structures of the Viennese school viennese”34

These are notions that are the natural part of the cultural background of each musician, and are the basic

tools of any chapel master.

.

The Antiphon of Martini obeys these principles, Here it is divided into its parts (musical example 2).

While that by Mozart does not meet any of the rules of the school (here divided in to its parts (musical

example 3).

According to Alfred Mann,”A comparison between these two versions shows that Martini, instead of

correcting the details, carefully choose the best ideas of Mozart and uses them as thematic material for a

new complete sample. The version of Martini is related to Mozart for almost every bar, and stands as a

finished masterpiece, compared with the task of Mozart, much less clean, but amazing for a boy of 14

years” 35

“By Martini it was not only made a correction, you may consider it, in a broader sense, as a complete

revision. Martini has kept only the head of the subject of Mozart, projecting more effective planning of

imitations”.

. So says Mann. But if you examine these two different versions as we have done, one has nothing

to do with the other.. Only the Cantus Firmus is the same. And in the Critical Edition of Mozart we read -

36

So Mann is flatly contradicted by the NMA! of the Mozart critical edition NMA.

The idea that Martini maintained the head of the thema is true, if you mean the head are only the first four

notes of the Soprano, (a little series of descending notes that did not even look like a theme). Martini has

34 R.Dionisi e B.Zanolini, idid. p.XII 35 Alfred Mann, The study of fugue, Dover Pubblications, 1987 (capitolo: Giambattista Martini as Mentor of a New Age) p.265 36 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Neues Ausgabe, Kritische Berichte, Bärenreiter, Kassel 1964, Serie I Werkgruppe 3

31

changed virtually everything, in fact. He has corrected all parts, except this introductory four notes. He has

produced neww ideas and has used them as thematic material for a new, complete example (fig. 8):

(fig. 8)

Martini then has everything changed, has corrected all parts, except this line up of four notes, he wrote

new ideas and used them as thematic material for a new complete example. The version of Martini is

simply not related to that of Mozart, except from the soprano and alto in the opening line. It stands as a

finished work. Compare it to the version of Mozart, filled as it is with errors and not in any way remarkable

for a boy of that time.37

So what does Mann say? -

37 What, then, about Camille Saint-Saëns? He began his piano lessons whrn he was two, he was three when already composed a short piece for piano (on the 22 March 1839), he performed in public at five, held his first concert at ten playing, inter alia, the k.450 by Mozart, offering as bis, one of the thirty-one Beethoven’s piano sonatas from memory?

32

“The impression of Padre Martini was a deep and lasting His lectures were a revelation of counterpoint

Now Mozart began to understand the power of polyphony [???]. A series of contrapuntal compositions

were followed by this discovery”.38

Lot of people have expressed doubt that Mozart took any music lessons from Padre Martini:

“It is generally supposed that while he was in Bologna Mozart studied with Martini, but there is no

reference in the correspondence or elsewhere to any lessons”39

.

And if Mozart only realized the power of polyphony since the time of Bologna, we have to ask who wrote

the polyphonic pieces, or ensembles today attributed to Amadeus, numerous of which are said to be his

before that date, since each of them presupposes his knowledge of the movements of their parts. ?

If it is true that a great series of Mozart contrapuntal compositions followed this discovery, it must be said

that the few polyphonic pieces Mozart wrote that year are incompatible with the knowledge that the boy

supposedly possessed of counterpoint and harmony (as supposedly demonstrated in the exam under

analysis). And if Mozart did not learn counterpoint between the age of 9 and 14 how could he reasonably

be said to have learned it in a single day simply by copying the examination made for him by Martini ?

To be a composer is a matter of academic achievement as well as practice. Do not underestimate that fact.

Since Mozart was busy as a virtuoso performer and nor had ever had had a school education.

“Can the father of any other great man have had a more powerful influence on his education than Leopold

Mozart had on his son's? There is no record of Wolfgang's having attended any school. As far can be

ascertained, Leopold taught him not only keyboard instruments, violin, harmony, counterpoint, and

orchestration, but also the fundamentals of a non-musical education, including languages (Italian, Latin…)”

Here next is a translation from the German part of the critical edition of Mozart's operas (NMA) which deals

with this particular Antifona. It has analyzed the main sources classified by the letters A and B, and has

analyzed partially also the music of Martini (fig. 9) and of Mozart (fig. 10):

38 Alfred Mann, The study of fugue, Dover Pubblications, 1987 (capitolo: Giambattista Martini as Mentor of a New Age) p.268 39 Stanley Sadie, Mozart: the early years 1756-1781, Oxford University Press, New York 2006, p.211

33

(fig. 9)

(fig. 10)

“The first source, namely ‘A‘, is an autograph manuscript in the Library of the Conservatorio di Musica

Giovanni Battista Martini in Bologna, with the signature UU / ll. The paper is in portrait cm. 29.7: 22.0. The

staves are 10 per sheet; The paper is handmade, slightly brownish in colour, the shape is longitudinal

without a watermark. The paper is written on both sides, the recto staves 1 and 5 are left empty, the music

staves to 5 to 10 are missing. The signs of the keys, time, and the bass line (cantus firmus) are written in

34

brown ink by another hand, presumably by a member of the Philharmonic who has arranged the test for

the exam of Mozart. Everything else is Mozart's autograph, written in sepia color now more faded. On the

second page is the signature Wolfgang Amadeo Mozart mp in brown ink. Both pages show the oval stamp

Municipal Library High School G. B. Martini, Bologna.”

The manuscript was originally isolated, but it belonged to a bound anthology entitled experiments of many

authors to be aggregated in the Academy of Be 'Bologna Philharmonic Orchestra, with the signature DD/56,

which was the second paper:”To the third sheet another version of that Antiphon followed, also in four

parts, with the cantus firmus on Bass, hand written by Father Martini. In 1891 both sheets were removed

from the anthology and placed on the shelves of the autographs, where they are joined today with the

signature UU / ll”.

“The second source is B and it is the first printed edition of G. Gaspari sketch of musical history in Bologna

(Gazzetta Musicale di Milano XVI, No. 19, May 9, 1858, p. 145 et seq.) of which we have mentioned, also

published as a compound with the title. G.Gaspari, Music in Bologna, extracted from the Musical Gazzette

of Milan, Milan, but no date. The format of the paper is in the score, with dimensions of about 26.7: 20.8

cm, written on both sides. Missing the writings on the top”. In the version of P. Martini, the same Martini

erroneously reported the overwritten by Mr. Knight. Gio. Wolfgang Amadeo Mozart made for the entry

into the Academy of Philharmonic. So this work has often been mistaken for the examination of Mozart.”

And -

“Of the version written by Martini there are two copies, both written by Mozart. A sheet is the Accademia

Filarmonica of Bologna, the other is owned by the Salzburg Mozarteum Foundation. The first sheet is signed

AMADEO Mozart Wolfgang Mozart mp. The copy in Salzburg is identical and with the same signature. It was

Leopold Mozart wrote above the false title from Sgr Knight Wolfgang Amadeo Mozart in Salzburg. / Written

in the hall of the Accademia Filarmonica in Bologna / 10. October / 1770. On the manuscript at the top right

Nissen described it also as”Mozart's autograph.” In AMA revisions (Series 1-3 and Series 14, Leipzig, 1846,

p. 45) this was also mistaken as a copy of an original composition by Mozart.”

NMA confirm that in Bologna there are three versions : one with errors made by Mozart, one written by

Padre Martini, with a few deletions from Mozart, copied without erasures and given by Mozart as his test

for the exam.. The version of Martini in Allegato I, p. 267 (with a facsimile of the original, p. 265). Padre

Martini, Wolfgang and Leopold Mozart do not give more details of the two different versions.

“The hypothesis that the version written by Mozart's at 'Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna is an original

composition and that that of Padre Martini's autograph is a copy of the same Mozart Antifona does not

35

hold, because the autograph of Martini cannot be a copy, but is the original, as evidenced by the numerous

corrections and deletions (to beat. 4 in the part of Tenor; beating. 5 in the Soprano, batt. 8 for Soprano and

Tenor; beating. 9 for the Tenor, a batt . 9 and 10 for the Soprano; beating. 16 for Soprano, a batt. 17 for the

Tenor; beating. 17 and 18 for the Soprano, a batt. 19 for Soprano), while the copy written by Wolfgang at

the Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna (as well as that stored in Salzburg) is without error as if it were his

own exact copy.

The explanation, which reflects the true state of things, lies in the card catalogue, written by Ms Gasperi in

DD/56 (see above):”A car. 2:03 starts the Antiphon in ms. Autograph already composed by young Mozart

Knight to enter among the Accad. Filarm. of Bologna ... but since that Antiphon in four parts was not done

in accordance with the rules of this style, so the P. Martini, providing that the result as it came from the pen

of Mozart would not be accepted by this' rigid academic, or would at least have caused difficulties for the

admission, he remade it himself from the beginning to the end, passing and submitted it as the work of

Mozart, so that Mozart without hindrance was honoured with the diploma of master composer and Filarm

Acc. although he was not of the age required by the statutes.”

This Fraud, not quite innocent, was caused by the paternal affection of Padre Martini, who feared that the

examiners would reject Mozart in considering his exercise unsuitable for acceptance into the Academy. This

view is also followed by Alfred Einstein, while Hermann Abert suggests Padre Martini only wanted to show

the boy”how the problem could be solved.”

Therefore, they are still not clear why Padre Martin has written such an arrangement for Mozart. The

obvious has been obscured. And in the report sent by Leopold Mozart on October 20, 1770 from Milan to

Salzburg, we do not read anything more on this subject. Curious is the fact that Leopold has also added to

the copy now in Salzburg with a date of composition October 10, 1770 (see above), whereas the

examination was actually held on October 9.

The statement of the 'Academy the cantus firmus treatment must conform to the rules of strict

counterpoint:

Mozart development of KV 86 (73v) is without any doubt not so, as evidenced by the following steps:

measures 3-4, after the Sopranos third intervals are repeated. Measures 13-14 and 18-19 in the Soprano,

the part jumps with a descendant interval of a sixth; Meaures 7:13; a diminished fifth unprepared appears

in the top part of the Soprano at measure 8, 14; Measures 10:11 there is a rather poor resolution of the

dissonance between Tenor and Bass; Measure 18 Soprano delays the resolution of the dissonance by

36

moving upwards (F, G, I) in the style luxurians, that is”free” according to Christoph Bernhard who had

called”mora”. At measure 2, the Soprano has a whole note and a pause that is repeated the same at

measure 5, the Tenor also has a rhythm too repetitive. All of these deficiencies are not found in the

counterpoint of Martini. The widespread use of quarter notes, which are evenly distributed in all parts,

make this version of Martini by far the best one. The quality of music is entirely against the attribution of

this work to Mozart. Martini has not only made a correction, as said, but you can talk in a broader sense of

a complete revision. Martini has kept only the head of the subject of Mozart, projecting a more effective

planning of imitations“.

But the Mozart errors reported on this Antiphona by NMA are certainly not a complete list. There are many

more. If we seriously wish to analyse this work we are compelled to realise forced to realise that Mozart

cannot write in polyphony.

Mozart parts for voices can not be sung, as NMA also recognizes, in the sense that it is all a mix of

dissonance that are the result of compounds intervals. Music is so strange to compel modern performers to

use the song for the bass part, the one already given, and early instruments for those at the top, masking

the emptiness of the passages with slow speedy, organ sounds, unusual instrumental combinations. We

have seen that this easy harmony usually hides mistakes40

“Syllabus of the Conservatory of Music ...: ... Composition” program of the fulfillment of the examinations

lower grade: 4-voice harmonization with imitation of a Bass ...”

, and yet here in Mozart one feels that there are

passages of the fifth and eighth parallel, and even unprepared dissonances and also unresolved, diminished

intervals into parts, parallel mouvments between tenor and bass that have nothing to do with polyphony.

This is not old-fashioned rules, still applied even in the early nineteenth century, useful to write some songs

even if lightweight such as Mazurkas, Viennese Waltzes, rules still of value in the examinations of Music

Schools for completion of the lower grade in harmony, and that here, in the Mozart Antifona are ignored:

(Syllabus of the Conservatory of Music, Edizioni Curci, Milan 1994 ).

The melodic lines trudging without a precise point of reference, especially in the context of

Tenor (Musical example 4).

The Soprano features more times the same cadenza and play in octaves and parallel fifths with the lower

part (Musical example 5).

40 R.Dionisi e B.Zanolini, La tecnica del contrappunto vocale nel cinquecento, Suvini-Zerboni, Milano 1979, p.165: “From a technical point of view the four-part counterpoint continue without substantial novelty the three part counterpoint discourse: but you can also see how this four-part counterpoint is actually composed by two two-part counterpoints in which a voice is always the lower part, the other being above. These two two-part counterponts are linked together and have to compare their processes”

37

The Alto strives in dissonant movements without alternation with Soprano, as it would have to do, but

merely limiting itself here to parallel movements, pretending to repeat small notes to fill the gaps

(Musical example 6).

Mozart wrote three entries from scratch, because the fourth voice, which is the Cantus Firmus, was already

given, but in practice, wrote a piece for only two voices, having dealt with the bass as a support for the

Tenor, moving the Alto and Soprano just enough to make mistakes with eighths and fifths. The Cantus

Firmus is in the lower part, as in an examination of harmony that many young people can achieve without

being considered geniuses. In 1791 Josef Myslivececk (born March 9, 1737 in Prague, died Feb. 4, 1781 in

Rome) had made an antiphon for 4 voices to be admitted to the Accademia Filarmonica of Bologna also,

but the CF was in the Tenor part. In his role, which sounds very good, there are no such mistakes in

harmony similar to those Mozart did (fig. 11):

(fig. 11)

Those who argue Mozart was a genius who could write as he wanted, cannot ignore the fact that at the end

of the eighteenth century Mozart was celebrated for his ability to perform improvised fugue on themes

given in real time according to those rules:

“Fuga musicale, composta ed eseguita dal Sign. Amadeo sul Cembalo, e condotta a compiuto termino

secondo le leggi del Contrappunto, sopra un semplice tema per la medesima, presentatogli all'

improvviso”41

.

41 Decimo pezzo del programma di concerto del 16 gennaio 1770 al Teatro scientifico di Mantova

38

If this were really true, one would expect a basic compliance with the rules of conducting parts, those that are applied for voices and instruments. Who is able to improvise according to the rules, it is well capable of composing according to the rules.

That Mozart had adopted a revolutionary language, out of any scheme which is unperformable vocally,

instrumentally inaccurate is lacking any credibility. It would contradict the fact that all that production that

is attributed to him (since he was 5 years old until to 1792, the date that appears on his final autograph

Requiem) and would be irreconcilable with the choice of the occasion in Bologna, an exam for which he

was specifically to provide a result in a regular and predetermined style.

Comparing vocal music of Palestrina to late eighteenth century music would not make sense, except that

this Quaerite of Palestrina has nothing to do with Palestrina, Mozart is no Palestrina, everything here is

riddled with mistakes. The examiners would have been right to have rejected this. Martini would therefore

have to help him, driven by who knows what motive if he was to be admitted on merit.

The authors report data sometimes wrongly, sometimes successfully, but adding details that seem

unnecessary at first, which as they grow, change, and are magnified as in a Rossini crescendo, until they

become, as inventions and conventions, the absolute truth.

All patterns, if repeated often get a real power of truth and a patina of convnetion : so that it is possible

that the black balls in the basket of the Academy of Bologna literally become white if people count them

often enough.

“As all the balls were white...” (Hermann Abert);”Wolfgang obtained only white balls...” (Paolo

Melograni);”As all the balls were white...” (Franz Eduard Gehring);”As the balls were all white...” (Museum

of foreign literature and science); ‘’the examiners all produced their white balls ...” (Stanley Sadie);”The

balls being all white, he was called in ...” (Edward Holmes);”Then a ballot-box was passed, and each

member was asked to cast either a white or a black ball ... every ball cast was white” (Rupert S. Holland); ...

Amadeus in a letter in”Italian” written to the very Rev.do Maestro Giovanni Battista Martini by Leopold, but

signed by his son, sent from Salzburg to Bologna on September 4, 1776, was submitting a religious work,

confirming his admiration:

“Very Revd Pade Master,

Master of my esteemed, reverence, esteem and respect…

I have from a worthy person been driven to this inconvenience to send a weak piece of my music which I

was to submit for your opinion. I wrote last year's Carnival an opera buffa (“La Finta Giardiniera”) in

Monaco in Bavaria. A few days before my leave from there S. A. Elletorale wanted to listen to some of my

music in counterpoint: it was a Motet. Therefore I was obligated to write this quickly to give the music

score to be copied in time for his highness and to tear out the parts in order to produce for next Sunday

39

Mass in the Offerthorium. Dear and esteemed Sigr. P. Maestro! You are earnestly requested to tell me

frankly your unqualified opinion on it ....”

And Padre Martini so replied Dec. 18, 1776

Combined with its very kind letter, I received from Trent I also receivd the Motto [Offertory and

Misericordia Domini, sent in 1776, written 1775]. With pleasure I've seen it from beginning to end, and I say

with all sincerity that I like in it all, in finding in it all is requested by Modern music: good harmony, mature

ripple, moderate movement of Violins, modulation with natural effects, and a good mouvment, I welcome

and enjoy that since that time I had the pleasure of hearing you in Bologna playing the harpsichord now

you did so many improvments in composition .. .

...

Padre Martini in Bologna also says he has heard with pleasure Mozart”at the harpsichord and that now

sees considerable progress in his composition. As a composer, at the time of the examination, Mozart must

have done not so much to leave such an impression.

Leaving aside for now the critical analysis (which I will do in another chapter) of the Motet that Mozart sent

him and which was redesigned by anonymous hands after 1800, this reply from Martini is in line with the

license that the Franciscan released to Mozart , which states that the boy was very well versed in the sound

of the harpsichord, and in singing. Nothing is said of the composition.

There is no evidence Martin has been his teacher in counterpoint, too little has been his during his stay in

Bologna, since the results of any such lessons Martini had not seen.

Not even the admiration of P. Martini was so frank as some believe. To prove it just consider the few lines

of the diploma. Also Ricci had already noticed that the”in the bad copy of the declaration stated, written in

favour of Wolfgang” by Padre Martini, there are many fixes, according to Ricci for the”desire to increase

the praise,” according to others to”diminish the praise” under the veil of diplomatic words, as when”my

great admiration” was replaced”with my singular admiration” (in Italian ‘singolare’ means nothing)”42

“Martini put forth his thought on the October 12, 1770 on a paper written with a fine writing, not beautiful

and full of corrections. The outward expression of a calm soul troubled with thoughts and feelings (which

graphology experts might find it quite interesting) ... Martin reveals his innermost thoughts where he

writes: particularly in the sound of the harpsichord. He must have asked himself: How to reconcile the

:

42 Corrado Ricci, Figure E Figuri Del Mondo Teatrale, Fratelli Treves, Milano, 1920

40

official anachronistic nature of the examination with the contingent limits of the candidate without causing

complaints from the Philharmonic?”43

.

Martini, despite the fraternal friendship heralded by Leopold, and sustained for two centuries by uncritical

plagiarists44

“Martini did’nt nothing to promote his interests”

, will do nothing to help Mozart in Paris, where his father asked him for help: 45

.

Are we sure that Padre Martini, renowned contrapuntist, musicologist, theorist, collector of books, would have ignored the fact that the Treaty of Leopold in many ways resembled that of Tartini?: ”Giuseppe Tartini's precepts were finally published in the Traité des agreements de la musique (Paris, 1771) shortly before his death though it is generally assumed at least some of it must have been written before 1756. Since Leopold Mozart directly refers in his ‘Violinschule’ of 1756 to Tartini’s own remarks on the augmented-2nd trill, this plagiarized virtually whole from Tartini’s own notes on vibrato” (we will deal with that issue in a later chapter)

Leopold Mozart's letter to his wife, written to celebrate the examination of Bologna, was of course using

only propaganda, as noted by Avanzi -

“he expressed very well what you had to believe in order to further magnify the public image of his brilliant

son”

(P . Avanzi, Anthem Martini-Mozart, p.12)

(fig. 12: diploma dell’Accademia Filarmonica)

43 Pietro Avanzi, L’Antifona Martini-Mozart, Musicaa, Mantova, Anno VIII - Numero 24 Settembre-Dicembre 2002 44 Gli scrittori commettono plagio quando riportano acriticamente cose scritte da altri senza citare le fonti, facendole passare per proprie: Stendhal scrisse ad esempio la biografia di Mozart plagiando il necrologio mozartiano di Friedrich von Schlichtegroll 45 Edwaerd Holmes, The Life of Mozart, p. 163

41

Paraphrasing this letter, therefore, as Nissen had stated, I conclude this chapter. I propose the necessary

additions in CAPS, to match the content to the reality of the documents:

“We started in Bologna a few days' delay after the Philharmonic Academy did accept with NOT unanimous

vote Wolfg. among its members ... Once he concluded his task, it was examined by Censoribus and by all

the masters of the chapel and Compositoribus, who on CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES expressed their

vote by means of white balls and black’

PIANTANIDA, ANOTHER MUSICIAN, APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP and obtained a unanimous verdict.

Piantanida was therefore a genius.