Luigi Gatti and the Catalogus Musicalis in Ecclesia

Luigi Gatti and the Catalogus Musicalis in Ecclesia Metropolitana of the
Salzburg Cathedral1
(by Lars E. Laubhold and Eva Neumayr)
Summary:
Auf Luigi Gattis 1782 erfolgte Anstellung als Salzburger Hofkapellmeister geht auch die
Erstellung des Catalogus Musicalis in Ecclesia Metropolitana, des ältesten noch
erhaltene Bestandskatalogs der Salzburger Dommusik, zurück. Der Beitrag diskutiert die
Bedeutung dieses Katalogs für die quellenkritische Einordnung erhaltener Musikalien −
Datierungen, Autor- und Provenienzzuweisungen etc. Darüber hinaus gewährt der
Catalogus Einblicke in Repertoiregestaltung und Musizierpraxis am Salzburger Dom
unter sich wandelnden äußeren Bedingungen in den Jahrzehnten um 1800.
When Luigi Gatti was appointed Kapellmeister of the Salzburg court in 1782, archbishop
Hieronymus Colloredo ordered him to register all music manuscripts in an inventory «so
that nothing of the music shall be withdrawn»2, as his decree of appointment says. Gatti
assigned the main copyist at the Salzburg court, Joseph Richard Estlinger (1720−1791)3,
who is an important figure for the transmission of Mozart’s Salzburg works, to the task.
Subsequently Estlinger wrote an inventory of the music archive of the cathedral
(Dommusikarchiv), which he designed as a thematic catalogue in two approximately
equal volumes consisting of 196 respectively 188 pages, both entitled Catalogus
Musicalis in Ecclesia Metropolitana4. Each volume has an additional inscription on the
title tag indicating where or by whom the volume was used: one has the label
«Archivium», the other the label «Gatti». So, apparently, one copy stayed in the archive,
1
An earlier version of this paper, which focused on methodological aspects, was published in 2010: LARS
E. LAUBHOLD − EVA NEUMAYR, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms. Anmerkungen zur
systematischen Erschließung einer problematischen Quelle, in Jahrbuch des RISM-Österreich 2010, ed. by
Michael Jahn and Klaus Petermayr, Der Apfel, Wien 2010 (Veröffentlichungen des rism-österreich, A/14),
pp. 25−48.
2
«[…] auch die Inventarien richtig gefasset und verwahret werden, damit der Musique nichtes entzochen
werde […]», decree of appointment: Salzburger Landesarchiv, Hofkammer, Generaleinnehmer- und
Hofzahlamt (HZA) 1783/1/H., cf. ERNST HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle von 1700 bis 1806.
Organisation und Personal, Salzburg (Phil. Diss) 1972, pp. 134−5.
3
Cf. HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle, pp. 91−3.
1
where the music manuscripts were kept, while the other was permanently at the
Kapellmeister’s disposal.5
In the Catalogus Estlinger arranged the composers alphabetically and reserved different
sections for different genres of works. So, for the long-standing Kapellmeister Johann
Ernst Eberlin he provided sections for «Vesperae», «Litaniae», «Missae», «Requiem»,
«Offertoria», «Regina coeli» and «Miserere». The section containing the works by Gatti
only comprises the rubrics «Lytaniae», «Vesperae», «Offertoria», «Missae» and «Te
Deum Laudamus». Each entry consists of a successive number, the key, remarks on
instrumentation, text incipit, liturgic classification of the feast’s rank and, sometimes, the
name of the feast. On the right hand side of each entry is a musical incipit, occasionally
including a tempo indication [Fig. 1].
4
Archiv der Erzdiözese Salzburg (AES), without shelfmark.
WALTER SENN, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms (1788), in «Mozart-Jahrbuch» 1971/72,
pp. 182−96: 183.
5
2
Figure 1: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 61: Entries No. I to IV show the original
design of the catalogue by J. R. Estlinger. Entries No. V and VI were added later by
L. Gatti and Copyist of Salzburg 140 respectivly. All the following entries were made by
J. J. Fuetsch who was responsible for most of the cataloguing after Gatti’s death. (Photo:
Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
3
However, Estlinger was not the only writer. In fact he created less than half of all entries
in both volumes―in the copy meant for Gatti exactly 38 per cent. After his death in 1791
several copyists continued to keep records in the Catalogus. Two of them are known by
name: the court cellist and later Kapellmeister of the cathedral Joachim Joseph Fuetsch
(1766−1852)6 and Luigi Gatti himself. Their later entries document new aquisitions as
well as supplementing older compositions that, partly, were not performed anymore.
Changes of repertory in the early 19th century as well as constant additions, corrections,
cancellations, commentaries made the two volumes quite confusing. When Luigi Gatti
died in 1817 an inventory was ordered by the authorities, and, successively, Joachim
Joseph Fuetsch finished the new catalogue in 1822, again in two volumes.7
In order to explore it’s full information and to estimate the reliability of entries, it was
necessary to reconstruct the history of the Catalogus in some detail. There are four secure
benchmarks in the chronology of the Catalogus:
1) the instruction given to Luigi Gatti to redesign the music inventories in 1782
2) the death of the first main writer J. R. Estlinger in 1791
3) the order to carry out an inventory in 1817
4) and the new catalog by J. J. Fuetsch, dated 1822
With 55,8 per cent of all entries Joachim Joseph Fuetsch can be considered the real main
copyist of the Catalogus, copy «Gatti». His handwriting was easily identified, since it is
documented in his new Catalogus from 1822, which is signed and dated. Until recently,
the second main writer of the copy labelled «Archivium» was enigmatic. It seemed
especially unusual, that his handwriting was hardly found in the music manuscripts of the
Salzburg Dommusikarchiv, while the amount of entries made by him in the Catalogus
bore witness to the fact that he at some time between 1791 and 1822 belonged to the
inner circle of persons that organized the archive of music manuscripts.
6
Cf. HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle, pp. 128−30.
«CATALOGUS / MUSICALIS in ECCLE= / =SIA METROPOLITANA / conscriptus 13 Julij anno /
MDCCCXXII [later added above the date:] ab Joachimo Fuetsch [Manu propria] Chori dirigente [beneath
7
4
Figure 2: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Archivium», p. 177 (detail): Second main writer of
the Catalogus identified as Copyist of Salzburg 67a. (Photo: Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy
of AES)
A first key to unravel the mystery was the shape of the quarter break, which is not at all
typical for Salzburg manuscripts [Fig. 2]. Nevertheless there was one handwriting with
such a break documented in the Salzburg copyist’s catalog8, labeled as Copyist of
Salzburg 679. Another handwriting, that was found during the cataloging for RISM, is, in
some respects, similar but not identical to the before mentioned Copyist of Salzburg 67
and was labeled Copyist of Salzburg 67a. However, within approximately 1500
the title the owner’s mark of the Domcustodie, i.e. the bureau of the cathedral’s curators:] D:C:», AES,
without shelfmark.
8
The identification of writers is based on the Salzburg Copyist’s Catalogue, which was started by Manfred
Hermann Schmid in 1970 and continued by P. Petrus Eder (OSB) at the music library at the abbey St. Peter
and by Ernst Hintermaier at the Archiv der Erzdiözese Salzburg. Cf. MANFRED HERMANN SCHMID, Die
Musikaliensammlung der Erzabtei St. Peter in Salzburg. Katalog. Erster Teil: Leopold und Wolfgang
Amadeus Mozart Joseph und Michael Haydn. Mit einer Einführung in die Geschichte der Sammlung,
[Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum], Salzburg 1970 (Schriftenreihe der Internationalen Stiftung
Mozarteum, 3/4; also: Publikationen des Instituts für Musikwissenschaft der Universität Salzburg, 1) Today
this Catalogue is permanently amended by the RISM Salzburg working group and consists currently of
about 500 samples. Copyists, whose names are unknown, are entered in the RISM data base as «Copyist of
Salzburg [number]».
9
A handwriting documented in the old Copyist’s Catalogue as Nr. 137 is, actually, identical to Copyist of
Salzburg 67.
5
signatures in the Dommusikarchiv only 20 parts within nine manuscripts were written by
one of these copyists [Chart 1].10 In the cataloged part of the music at the music archive
at St. Peter’s Abbey in Salzburg Copyist of Salzburg 67 is found with only one (but at
least complete) set of parts of Michael Haydn’s Notturno MH 187.11
Shelf mark, composer, and short title
Copyist 67
A 560, M. Haydn: «Dixit Dominus» and «Magnificat» in C (MH
vl 1, vl 2
Copyist 67a
321)
A 623, L. Gatti: Mass in Bb
ob 1, ob 2, Coro B
A 626, L. Gatti: Mass in Bb
vl 2
A 650, L. Gatti: Offertory «Inveni David»
vlne, org
A 661, L. Gatti: Offertory «Ave Maris stella» (GehG 221.4)
vl 1, vl 2, vlne
A 704, L. Gatti: «Te deum» in C
vl 1
A 1127, W. A. Mozart: Litany in Bb (KV 125)
T, B
vl 1, vl 2
A 1165, J. Haydn: Die Schöpfung (Hob XXI:2)
Coro B (2x)
A 1349, W. A. Mozart: Requiem (KV 626)
cl (=ob) 1, cl (=ob) 2
Chart 1: Manuscripts written by Copyists of Salzburg 67 and 67a within the holdings of
the Dommusikarchiv.
However, while examining the manuscripts of sacred music of Salzburg provenance in
the stock of Fondo Pitti at the Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica di Firenze12 the
RISM Working Group Salzburg found large quantities of manuscripts by these copyists.
They belong to a group of copies made for Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany
(1769−1824). Due to the Napoleonic wars, he reigned Salzburg from 1803 to 1805. After
that short period he became Grand Duke of Würzburg and finally returned to Florence in
1814. After examining the largest part of all Salzburg music manuscripts in the Fondo
Pitti, 94 materials were identified that were written partly or completely by one of these
10
A-Sd A 661 was recently newly identified. Cf. LAUBHOLD − NEUMAYR, Der Catalogus Musicalis des
Salzburger Doms, p. 33.
11
A-Ssp Hay 1920.1: vl 1, vl 2, vla 1, vla 2, vlc. Cf. SCHMID, Die Musikaliensammlung der Erzabtei St.
Peter in Salzburg, p. 271.
12
Cf. EVA NEUMAYR − LARS E. LAUBHOLD, Luigi Gatti and the Collection of Salzburg Sources in the
Library of the Conservatorio Luigi Cherubini in Florence, in this volume. For an overviev about the
collection see RICCARDO GANDOLFI − CARLO CORDARA − ARNALDO BONAVENTURA, Catalogo Delle
Opere Musicali Teoriche e Pratiche di Autori Vissuti Sino ai Primi Decenni del Secolo XIX. Biblioteca del
Conservatorio di Musica di Firenze, Parma 1929.
6
copyists. This allows us to claim with certainty that Copyist 67a is identical with the
second main writer of the Catalogus, copy «Archivium».
Though at least one manuscript of the collection in the Fondo Pitti came to Florence
definitely after 180813, and this might well have been the case with other manuscripts too,
it is rather likely that the largest part was copied for Ferdinand during his residency in
Salzburg. Therefore at an earlier stage of our research it seemed credible to us that
Copyist 67a worked on the inventory of music manuscripts at the Salzburg
Dommusikarchiv, thus creating an important means for Ferdinand’s collecting. Based on
that assumtion we supposed, that the entries made by Copyist 67a represent (although
incomplete) the music archive of the Salzburg cathedral before Ferdinand’s departure
from Salzburg in 1805. From this hypothetic scenario it was also possible to deduce the
chronological succession of the entries in both volumes: Presumably between 1803 and
1805 Copyist 67a worked in the music archive of the Salzburg cathedral, where he
together with collegues copied music for Ferdinand’s collection. For that purpose he
made―as we thought―an inventory of available manuscripts the results of which he
wrote into the Catalogus, copy «Archivium».14
However, examining the Salzburg music manuscripts of Ferdinand’s collection now held
in the Fondo Pitti collection in Florence provided no evidence whatsoever that there
actually was a connection between Ferdinand’s collection activities and the entries made
by Copyist of Salzburg 67a in the Catalogus, copy «Archivium». Until now, we were not
able to find any clue that would allow a more specific dating of his activities. It is
perfectly possible that he worked on the Catalogus during Ferdinand’s rule in Salzburg,
but equally possible that he did so between the grandduke’s leaving Salzburg in 1805 and
Gatti’s death in 1817. Most probably his entries were not a result of the inventory
following Gatti’s death, but were made after 1800 but before 1817. In any case, given this
copyist’s obvious importance for the reorganisation of the Dommusikarchiv and the
transmission of Salzburg musical sources to Florence it seems especially desirable for
future research to identify the person behind the handwriting.
13
I-Fc F.P.Ch. 183: Luigi Gatti: «Requiem A 4 voci in C prodotta li 14 Giugno 1808 nella Chiesa
dell’Università di Salisburgo». Cf. NEUMAYR − LAUBHOLD, Luigi Gatti and the Collection of Salzburg
Sources, in this volume.
14
LAUBHOLD − NEUMAYR, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, p. 34.
7
Walter Senn already noticed the Catalogus’ volumes’ strong interdependency with each
other, but could not make out any chronological priority of one against the other.15
However, a detailed comparison of both volumes’ corresponding entries reveals, that
Fuetsch has known more about the archive’s holdings than Copyist of Salzburg 67a.16
Fuetsch’s entries contain corrections and amendments which indicate that it is more
likely that he relied largely on the work of Copyist of Salzburg 67a than vice versa.
However, the whole process was much more complicated, as some examples will
illustrate:
Page 47 of the copy «Archivium» shows the entries of three «Te Deum» made by
Estlinger and―added later with a successive number by Copyist of Salzburg 67a―one
collection of responsories. In the copy «Gatti», Estlinger ommited the corresponding
page. That is why Fuetsch at some time inserted the entries for the three «Te Deum» on a
free left page (p. 48), obviously following Estlinger’s example. But he did not―at this
time―make any entry for the responsories. This implies, that Fuetsch had worked on the
Catalogus already at a time, when Copyist of Salzburg 67a had not yet inserted his
addenda. At some point later―as the different appearance of the entry attests to―he also
recorded the responsories. However, compared to the Catalogus, copy «Archivium» he
shortened and rectified the incipit, which Copyist of Salzburg 67a had written down with
the third bar missing.
On page 59 of both copies, originally intended to contain works by Johann Joseph Fux, a
«Tantum ergo» by Johann Stadlmayr17 was recorded by both copyists but missatributed
to Fux only by Copyist of Salzburg 67a, while Fuetsch labeled it «Autore Ignoto»
instead. Since there was no reason to record an anonymous work at this very place,
Fuetsch obviously did so, following the other copy’s example. This pattern occurs
repeatedly: Fuetsch is better informed than other copyists writing into the Catalogus and
his entries are generally better structured18, which leads to the―however vague
15
SENN, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, pp. 183−4.
Cf. LAUBHOLD − NEUMAYR, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, p. 35.
17
A-Sd A 1421.
18
Cf. for example the pages containing entries of works bei Hofmann, Hofer and Hochreiter (copy
«Archivium», p. 105, copy «Gatti», p. 118−9), where Fuetsch established a more consistent order that
Copyist of Salzburg 67a would hardly have ommited if he had taken over the information from Catalogus,
copy «Gatti».
16
8
―assumption that Copyist of Salzburg 67a worked before J. J. Fuetsch made the majority
of his amendments.
Newly found evidence throws more light on the administrative circumstances in which
the Catalogus played an important role: In 1817 J. J. Fuetsch was assigned to keep the
musical manuscripts found at Gatti’s home after the Hofkapellmeister’s death. At this
time a catalogue «of all the cathedral’s music»19 was kept at the bureau of the cathedral’s
curators (Domkustodie), which, in all probability, was the copy «Archivium» and which
was intended to serve for an inventory of the manuscripts in Gatti’s home, as a recently
examined correspondence regarding the administration of the cathedral’s music archive
reveals. Some time later a group of four persons―consisting of the bass singer and
Gatti’s successor as «Musicdirector» Matthias Schittra20 and Joachim J. Fuetsch as well
as the choir singers Joseph Pohl21 and Alois Fuchs22―was assigned to reorganize the
music archive.23 A special role in this procedure played Fuetsch, who «under the
direction of the cathedral’s choir vicars [Domchorvikare] Wergler and Schilling» was
commissioned to write two identical copys of the new cathedral’s music catalogue.24
Presumably during this process―maybe as a kind of a draft for the new catalog
volumes―Fuetsch also added to the Catalogus, copy «Gatti». For this he relied on the
information given by the copy «Archivium», largely taking over sequence and signatures
of its entries, which he eventually altered according to his own revision of the archive.
Another writer of the Catalogus was Luigi Gatti [Fig. 1 and 3]. Walter Senn claimed in
1973 that Gatti wrote 16 % of his own copy himself.25 Senn was the first to discover, that
Gatti was not the author of the Catalogus Musicalis, as some other scholars have claimed
before, and pointed out that, therefore, the Catalogus should not be called the «Gatti19
«Da sich über sammentliche Dommusikalien ein eigener Katalog bey der Domkustodie befindet, so wird
man nächstens eine Inventur veranstalten […].» Letter to the «K. K. Hochlöbliche Finanz-Direction»,
Salzburg, 12.3.1817, AES, Dommusikverein u. Mozarteum Nr. 522, (transcribed by Eva Neumayr).
20
Cf. HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle, pp. 375−6.
21
Cf. HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle, p. 526.
22
Cf. HINTERMAIER, Die Salzburger Hofkapelle, p. 522.
23
Cf. written communication from the «Domkustodie» to the «Hofmusikus u. Dommusik Dirigenten Herrn
Mathias Schitra», Salzburg, 2.3.1822, AES, Dommusikverein u. Mozarteum Nr. 522, (transcribed by Eva
Neumayr).
24
Written communication from the «Domkustodie» to Joachim Fuetsch, Salzburg, 2.3.1822, ibid.
25
Cf. SENN, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, p. 183.
9
Katalog», as has repeatedly been.26 However, Senn still hugely overestimated the portion
of Gatti’s writing within the Catalogus. In his own copy Luigi Gatti wrote only 18 entries
himself, which is, in relation to a total of 1102 entries, only 1.6 per cent. There are six
records of his own compositions27 and two of works by Anton Cajetan Adlgasser28. The
few remaining entries are meaningful insofar as they show Gatti’s special interest in
Mozart―four masses of whom he recorded29―and in non-Salzburg musicians like
Johann Baptist Lasser30, Joseph Haydn31, Joseph Willibald Michl32, (Franz Anton?)
Pfeiffer33, Georg Joseph Vogler34, and Joseph Preindl35. There are also two records of
anonymous works, a «Missa Anonyma Bohemia»36 and a «Missa Miscellanea in C quia
ex pluribus aucto[ri]bus»37.
Obviously in close relationship to Gatti, another writer inserted 27 entries in Gatti’s copy,
which is 2.5 per cent. This copyist is also known from 31 manuscripts in the Salzburg
Dommusikarchiv and is labeled Copyist of Salzburg 140 [Fig. 1 and 3]. He mainly copied
works by Gatti and wrote several single parts within autograph materials of the
Hofkapellmeister. He also finished parts, as well as entries in the Catalogus, that Gatti
26
Cf. SENN, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, p. 182 referring to: CONSTANTIN SCHNEIDER,
Die Geschichte der Musik in Salzburg, Kiesel, Salzburg 1935, p. 142; HEINZ JOSEF HERBORT, Die Messen
des Johann Ernst Eberlin, Universität Münster (Phil. Diss.) 1961, passim; WERNER RAINER, Verzeichnis
der Werke A. C. Adlgassers, in: «Mozart-Jahrbuch» 1962/63, pp. 280−91: 291 and passim.
27
Litany in Bb, A-Sd A 692 (Catalogus musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 61), Offertory «Reges Tharsis», A-Sd
A 651 (copy «Gatti», p. 73), Mass in Bb, A-Sd A 623 (copy «Gatti», p. 77), Mass in F, A-Sd A 630 (copy
«Gatti», p 78), Litany in Bb, A-Sd A 694 (copy «Archivium», p. 61), Mass in A, A-Sd A 632 (copy
«Archivium», p. 71).
28
Requiem «solenne» in C, A-Sd A 4 (copy «Gatti», p. 1), Litanie de Venerabili in D, A-Sd deest, Ch-E
377,4 (copy «Gatti», p. 3).
29
Masses KV 140, 257, 258, 275 (copy «Archivium», p. 125, copy «Gatti», p. 143).
30
Two Missae solemnis, A-Sd A 1207 and A 1208 (copy «Gatti», p. 129).
31
Two masses composed by Joseph Haydn: Hob. XXII:9, which is not transmitted in the Dommusikarchiv,
and a «Missa in B: brevis con clarini» (copy «Archivium», p. 103), that, according to the signature given
by Fuetsch (copy «Gatti», p. 115), was the Kleine Orgelmesse Hob. XXII:7, A-Sd A 1158, but was by both
Gatti and Fuetsch recorded with an one-bar baseline incipit which does not exactly match the actual
composition.
32
Two «Dixit Dominus» and «Magnificat», A-Sd A 1199 and A 1200 (copy «Gatti», p. 147, copy
«Archivium», p. 129).
33
Mass in Eb, A-Sd A 1206 (copy «Gatti», p. 155, copy «Archivium», p. 135).
34
Missa Solemnis A-Sd A 1297 (copy «Gatti», p. 173, copy «Archivium», p. 147).
35
Mass in Eb, A-Sd A 1461 (copy «Gatti», p. 173, copy «Archivium», p. 147).
36
A-Sd A 1459 (copy «Gatti», p. 9). Different sources recorded in the RISM database imply attributions of
this composition to Kajetán Vogel (c. 1750−1794) as well as to Franz Xaver Süßmayr (1766−1803) and W.
A. Mozart.
37
A-Sd A 1464 (copy «Gatti», p. 149).
10
had begun. On page 73 of his own copy Gatti had begun to record his offertories but
handed the job over to Copyist 140 after the first entry [Fig. 3].
Figure 3: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 73: Handwriting of L. Gatti (No. 21) and
Copyist of Salzburg 140. (Photo: Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
From the manuscripts of the Dommusikarchiv and also from the Catalogus it becomes
clear that this copyist was more closely associated with Gatti than any other copyist. The
shape of his quarter break suggests that Copyist 140 cultivated his handwriting in an
Italian tradition. This break essentially resembles Gatti’s quarter break, but apart from
that it is unusual in Salzburg [Fig. 4]. There are also about 30 manuscripts of works by
Gatti in the Fondo Pitti in Florence, written at least partly by this copyist. Furthermore,
his handwriting appears in manuscripts in the Biblioteca Musicale Greggiati in Ostiglia,
which is the more important, since Gatti’s musical estate consists for the largest part of
autograph manuscripts. These facts indicate that Copyist 140 may already have been
associated with Gatti before his appointment in Salzburg. In any case they attest to a
rather close relationship between Copyist 140 and the composer, because of which this
11
writer’s manuscripts are to be regarded as first class sources for the transmission of
Gatti’s works.
Figure 4: Quarter rest by L. Gatti (left) and Copyist of Salzburg 140 (right). (Photos:
Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
Through our research in the Collection Fondo Pitti in Florence it was possible to identify
another copyist, who made 20 entries in Catalogus, copy «Archivium», namely Copyist
of Salzburg 245. There are only few parts written by this copyist in the holdings of the
Dommusikarchiv. However, his hand is found among the materials to Joseph Haydn’s
Die Schöpfung (A-Sd A 1165, 7 parts) and W. A. Mozart’s Requiem (A-Sd A 1349,
4 parts).38 The fact, that he took part in copying these manuscripts make it very likely that
he was in Salzburg between 1800, when the first performance of the Schöpfung took
place, and 1806, when the Hofmusik performed Mozart’s Requiem in honor of Johann
Michael Haydn for the second time and used the set of parts from the Dommusikarchiv.
In the Gatti sources of church music in Florence, he appears on four occasions (I-Fc
F.P.Ch. 183, 210/3, 192, 195/2), all works by Luigi Gatti. He is the main copyist of the
parts to Gatti’s Requiem in C (I-Fc F.P.Ch. 183), which―as we know from an entry on
the cover of the autograph score: «prodotta li 14 Giugno 1808 nella Chiesa
dell’Università di Salisburgo»―was not tranferred to Florence before the second half of
1808. Interestingly, his hand can also be found in another part material for this work in
Kremsmünster (A-KR E 6/121). It may be significant for the history of the collection
Dommusikarchiv, that there is a certain―if not entirely consistent―pairing of entries
related to Gatti’s offertories recorded by Copyist of Salzburg 140 in the Catalogus, copy
38
In addition there are also two works by Luigi Gatti, a «Missa in B: A 4o Voci e stromenti Titulo Stae
Mariae col Oboe solo» (A-Sd A 623, 3 parts) and the offertory «Nimis honorati sunt» (A-Sd A 666, 1 part).
12
«Gatti» and Copyist of Salzburg 245 in the Catalogus, copy «Archivium».39 Similar
interdependencies
can
be
found
between
the
addenda
to
Gatti’s
masses40
made―again―predominantly by Copyist of Salzburg 140 in the Catalogus, copy «Gatti»
and Copyist of Salzburg 20 in the Catalogus, copy «Archivium», who is very well
documented in Salzburg sources. These entries by writers, who only occasonally worked
on the Catalogus, show that the catalogization of Luigi Gatti’s works was implemented in
a way different from that of others.
All the hitherto mentioned writers, who are responsible for the largest part of all entries
of the Catalogus (98 per cent in Gatti’s copy), knew the music making at the Salzburg
cathedral before the dissolution of the court first hand. Additionally, some later writers
made addenda and commentaries, which resulted in today’s, at times, confusing
appearance of the Catalogus.
The following chart [Fig. 5] shows the amount of catalog entries of the most important
composers of the collection compared with the number of music manuscripts that were
actually handed down to us within the Dommusikarchiv. It demonstrates that, seen from a
quantitative angle, the history of Salzburg church music in the 18th century was
dominated by personalities that are, today, hardly known to a wider public. It also shows
clearly, that only part of the collection was registered in the Catalogus. Almost all
composers are represented in the collection with notedly more works than were entered
into the Catalogus. However, there is one important exception to this rule: The amount of
registered works by Luigi Gatti exceeds the figure of works surviving in the
Dommusikarchiv. So far, only few missing manuscripts could be identified in other
archives.41 Since Gatti was responsible for the inventory it seems credible that he cared
39
Copyist of Salzburg 245 entered 20 works by L. Gatti into Catalogus, copy «Archivium», pp. 61, 64,
68−70. They appear in the same order, with the same signatures and even with incipits that have the same
line breaks as the corresponding entries in Catalogus, copy «Gatti», pp. 61, 66, 72−4, which―except for
three entries by Gatti himself―were made by Copyist of Salzburg 140. Cf. Fig. 1 and 2 in NEUMAYR −
LAUBHOLD, Luigi Gatti and the Collection of Salzburg Sources, in this volume.
40
Cf. Catalogus, copy «Gatti», pp. 77 f. and Catalogus, copy «Archivium», p. 72.
41
Only three parts to a «Magnificat» by Gatti, recorded as No. XIV (copy «Gatti», p. 66), survived in the
Dommusikarchiv’s holdings (A-Sd A 1586). The remaining parts are now kept within the holdings of the
Fondo Pitti in Florence (I-Fc F.P.Ch. 201/2). Also the original set of parts of Gatti’s Missa Sancti Ruperti,
of which only the cardboard cover is kept in the Dommusikarchiv (A-Sd A 677), now is in the collection in
Florence (I-Fc F.P.Ch. 184). In addition to this, in the Catalogus, copy «Gatti» there are two litanies (No. II
and III, p. 61), one vesper (No. IV, p. 65), five offertories («Hodie beata virgo», No. V, p. 71; «Reges
tharsis», No. IX, p. 71; «In conspectu Angelorum», No. XV, p. 72; No. 24, p. 73 without text incipit but
13
more vigorously for the catalogization of his own works than he did for the works of
other composers. This theory is supported by the fact that major portions of his own
works were registered by himself or by the before mentioned Copyist of Salzburg 140.
Measured by the number of catalogue entries, Luigi Gatti would be the third most
important composer for the Salzburg cathedral in the 18th century behind the long time
chapel master Johann Ernst Eberlin (1702−1762) and Gattis contemporary Johann
Michael Haydn (1737−1806). Regarding the number of transmitted works he is surpassed
by three other musicians: Johann Stadlmayr (ca 1575−1648), Matthias Sigmund
Biechteler (ca 1668−1743) and Karl Heinrich Biber (1681−1749). Stadlmayr’s introits
originate from the early 17th century when they were inscribed in large choir books. In
mid-18th century sets of parts were copied and supplemented by parts for basso continuo,
(organ, violone and bassoon). These manuscripts were recorded in the Catalogus.
Biechteler and Biber, who, consecutively, filled the posts of vice-chapelmaster and
chapelmaster at the Salzburg court, both worked at a time, when, under the reign of
prince archbishop Leopold Anton Freiherr von Firmian (reg. 1727−1744), the Salzburg
church music―following the example of the Viennese court―was adapted to the so
called «imperial style» («Imperialstil») which caused a large-scale renovation of the
musical repertory used in the cathedral’s liturgy42, to which Johann Ernst Eberlin also
contributed a large number of works. However, Gatti still was one of the most productive
composers for the Salzburg cathedral.
identified as «Nimis honorati sunt» in Florence; «Ascendit» or «Surrexit Pastor», No. 28, p. 73) and one
«Te Deum» (No. II, p. 81) recorded but missing in the Dommusikarchiv. Some of these works survive in
Salzburg copies in Florence that, however, were most probably not taken from the Dommusikarchiv (I-Fc
F.P.Ch. 197/2, 208/3, 214/2). The missing offertories «Hodie beata», «Reges tharsis» and «In conspectu»
are, according to the incipits, different compositions than those transmitted in Fondo Pitti with the same
texts. Cf. NEUMAYR − LAUBHOLD, Luigi Gatti and the Collection of Salzburg Sources, in this volume.
42
THOMAS HOCHRADNER, Zwischen Höhepunkten. Die erste Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, in Salzburger
Musikgeschichte. Von den Anfängen bis ins 21. Jahrhundert, ed. by Jürg Stenzl, Ernst Hintermaier and
Gerhard Walterskirchen, Salzburg − München 2005, pp. 228−254: 242.
14
Figure 5: Number of works of the most relevant composers in the Catalogus (grey bar)
and in the Dommusikarchiv (black bar).
There are eye-catching discrepancies between entered works and transmitted materials
for Michael Haydn and, even more striking, for Karl Heinrich Biber. For Estlinger, who
designed the Catalogus, Biber’s oeuvre seems to have been of no interest at all. All the
entries concerning Biber’s works were inserted later in both copies by Copyist of
Salzburg 67a and Joachim Joseph Fuetsch respectivly. Since in the Catalogus Biber was
ignored from the outset, it is safe to assume that none of his music was performed
anymore while some compositions of the slightly older Matthias Siegmund Biechteler
were still in use.43 But even for the later writers of the Catalogus, who obviously
registered portions of the collection out of archival interest44, apparently half of the music
by Biber did not exist. The discrepancies in the figures concerning works by Michael
Haydn may, for the better part, be caused by the high approval, which his compositions
43
As contemporary inscriptions made by musicians and documented during the recently finished
catalogization of the 18th century’s music manuscripts at the Dommusikarchiv attest to, works by Biechteler
were actually used between Estlinger’s death in 1791 and the rewriting of the Catalogus in 1822. Cf.
LAUBHOLD − NEUMAYR, Der Catalogus Musicalis des Salzburger Doms, p. 30.
44
Cf. ibid.
15
received in 19th century’s Salzburg. Many of these manuscripts may not yet have existed
when the catalogues were made.
Some compositions originally recorded as anonymous can now be identified due to
parallel transmission in other archives. More important are those cases in which with the
help of the inventories anonymously transmitted materials in the archive can be
identified. In combination with research in watermarks and writer’s hands the Catalogus
makes it also possible to prove the Salzburg origin of some manuscripts in other archives
like in Florence45 or in Einsiedeln46.
Especially interesting are insights into the musical practice at the Salzburg cathedral
given by the Catalogus. The pronouncedly conservative character of music making
within the cathedral’s liturgy is reflected in the entries of introits for the whole
ecclesiastical year, the majority composed by Johann Stadlmayr. Joachim Joseph Fuetsch
registered them at the end of the Catalogus, copy «Gatti», complete with signature, short
title and incipit in the same order as in the choir book. While in the 17th century the
singers only had to turn the pages as the ecclesiastical year progressed, from the mid-18th
century onwards they just had to take the next manuscript from the shelf for each feast. If
the same introit was used twice during the year it was not only noted twice in the choir
book, it also was written in two sets of parts each destined for the respective feast.
Consequently it was recorded in the Catalogus twice, too. For example: Stadlmayrs
introit «Cibavit eos» was used as «[No.] 26 De Venerabili pro Octava Corporis Christi»
and as «[No.] 41 De Venerabili Sacramento Tempore Paschali». It still exists in these two
sets of parts, which show the respective signatures on their cover titles. Since Fuetsch
registered the introits by Stadlmayr in such detail, it seems that they were still in use at
the time when Luigi Gatti was Hofkapellmeister in Salzburg. However, in his new
Catalogus from 1822 Fuetsch recorded these works as one cumulative entry, writing
only: «Introiti pro quibuscunque Festis in anno. Conscripti in libro corali 1626».
Another interesting aspect concerns the specific instrumentation and performance
conventions at certain feasts. The type of the «Missa brevis et solemnis», especially, has
45
Cf. NEUMAYR − LAUBHOLD, Luigi Gatti and the Collection of Salzburg Sources, in this volume.
Cf. EVA NEUMAYR − LARS E. LAUBHOLD, Die Quellen der Salzburger Dommusik in der Musikbibliothek
des Benediktinerklosters Maria Einsiedeln (Schweiz), in «Schweizer Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft»,
xxx, 2011 (in print).
46
16
been discussed by Walter Senn, largely based on his insights into the Catalogus.47
According to an order concerning the church music at the Salzburg cathedral that was
written in 1746 by the Salzburg chapel master Karl Heinrich Biber, the different rank of
the feasts celebrated at the cathedral were reflected by the instrumentation used. On feasts
of the highest rank, during which the archbishop himself held the church service and
which were consequently called Festa pallii (refering to the religious garment worn by
metropolitans and called the «pallium»), the full court chapel including «2 choires of
trumpets and timpanies»48 were used. On feasts of lower ranks―Festa praepositi, Festa
decani, Festa canonici―the music was carried out without trumpets and timpanies.
Although in the Catalogus the feasts’ ranks are mentioned infrequently, most works that
are scored with trumpets are labeled as «solenn». The close connection of the use of
trumpets and the labelling as a composition of the «solenn» type is most apparent in the
compositions for the mass ordinary registered in the Catalogus, copy «Gatti». There are
only five entries of masses scored with trumpets that lack the label «solenn». Four of
them were composed outside Salzburg.49 The fifth, Michael Haydn’s Missa in honorem
Sancti Ruperti (MH 322, A-Sd A 441), was written for the celebration of the 1200-yearanniversary of the archdiocese of Salzburg. This is reflected in the entry’s wording:
«Jubileum M.» which made the additional indication of the «solenn» destination of the
mass unnecessary.
Since the Catalogus was meant as a means to organize the music at the cathedral, it often
provides specific informations on liturgical circumstances. The exclusive use of trumpets
at the Salzburg cathedral only on the occasion of Festa pallii seems to have been
cultivated during the larger part of the 18th century. Surprisingly, the Catalogus gives
hints that the obligatory use of trumpets in music composed for «solenn» purposes was
abandoned during the reign of Salzburg’s last prince archbishop Hieronymus Colloredo.
Colloredo, who had taken Gatti into his service, was a most influential figure within the
47
Cf. WALTER SENN, Das angebliche Fugenverbot des Fürsterzbischofs von Salzburg Hieronimus [!] Graf
Coloredo [!]. Chorordnung für den Dom zu Salzburg im 18. Jahrhundert. Zur Missa longa KV 262 (246a)
von W. A. Mozart, «Acta Musicologica», ILVIII, 1976, pp. 205−27: 210−9.
48
«2 Chor mit Trompeten und Pauken», SLA, Geheimes Archiv XXIII/30, cf. HINTERMAIER, Die
Salzburger Hofkapelle, p. XIII.
49
«Missa anonima / Bohema» A-Sd A 1459; Missa in Bb, possibly the «Kleine Orgelsolomesse» by Joseph
Haydn, Hob. XXII/7, A-Sd A 1158; Missa in C probably by Christoph Sonnleithner, A-Sd A 1458; Missa
in G by Georg Joseph Vogler, A-Sd A 1297.
17
late South German Enlightenment. He initiated a reform of liturgy that had also
fundamental implications for the church music of his time. Perhaps the most prominent
musical consequence of his innovations was the composition of Michael Haydn’s cycle
of Graduals to replace the previously used church sonatas, which were perceived as
«nuisance of devotional souls»50, as Haydn’s first biographers reported.
However, changes did not only occur in the repertoire but also in conventions of
instrumentation. There are eleven works―ten by Michael Haydn and one by Luigi
Gatti―that are labelled as «solenn» in the Catalogus but do not, as one would expect, use
trumpets. For example: Michael Haydns’s Lytanie de Venerabili Sacramento MH 228
was registered by Estlinger as music of the «solenn» type. However, the parts of this
composition in the Dommusikarchiv51 give no clue to the «solenn» type of feast, nor is
there any hint of that kind documented in the Thematic Catalogue of Michael Haydn’s
Works52. The scoring with pairs of flutes (missing in the set of parts kept in the
Dommusikarchiv), oboes and horns is splendid but does not include trumpets and
timpanies as would have been obligatory for «solenn» compositions some years before.
There are other cases of altogether seven graduals, one sequence and two litanies by
Haydn, scored without trumpets but specified as «solenn» in the Catalogus. There is also
one offertory by Luigi Gatti, «Inveni David»53, registered by Copyist of Salzburg 140 as
work of the solemn type, which only has horns as a festive colouring in the
instrumentation [Fig. 6].
50
«Aergerniß andächtiger Seelen», [GEORG JOHANN SCHINN − FRANZ JOSEPH OTTER − WERIGAND
RETTENSTEINER,] Biographische Skizze von Michael Haydn. Von des verklärten Tonkünstlers Freunden
entworfen, und zum Beßten seiner Wittwe herausgegeben, May’rsche Buchhandlung, Salzburg 1808, p. 18.
51
A-Sd A 555.
52
CHARLES H. CHERMAN − T. DONLEY THOMAS, Johann Michael Haydn (1737−1806). A Chronological
Thematic Catalogue of his Works, Pendragon Press, Stuyvesant NY, 1993 (Thematic Catalogues, 17),
p. 90.
53
A-Sd A 650.
18
Figure 6: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 72 (detail): Luigi Gatti’s offertory
«Inveni David», registered by Copyist of Salzburg 140 as composition for «solen»
purposes. (Photo: Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
Information from the Catalogus can also help determine dates of compositions. Joseph
Richard Estlinger, the copyist who designed the Catalogus, is responsible for the majority
of entries of works by Johann Ernst Eberlin, but also by Michael Haydn, Antonio
Caldara, Anton Cajetan Adlgasser, Leopold Mozart, Johann Joseph Fux and Domenico
Fischietti. He also recorded considerable portions of the works by Wolfgang Amadé
Mozart and Luigi Gatti. Estlinger’s death in 1791, therefore, marks the terminus ante
quem for the composition of these works. Most of the works by Gatti, that were
registered in the Catalogus by Estlinger, are also written in parts by this same copyist,
some of them even dated. That’s why in these cases no additional information is provided
by the Catalogus. Nevertheless, there are ten works by Luigi Gatti, that could be dated
before 1791 by means of the Catalogus: one «Magnificat»54, seven offertories55, one
mass for 5 voices56, and one «Te Deum». However, three of the offertories and the «Te
Deum» do not exist in the Salzburg archive any more.
While most entries in the Catalogus help to answer questions, some of them raise new
ones, as is the case with the Offertory «Veni sponsa Christi» pro Festo Virginum et
Martyrum. Entries are made by Estlinger in both volumes of the Catalogus that possibly
correspond with the music manuscript A-Sd A 636 in the Salzburg Dommusikarchiv
[Fig. 7]. The genre, the key and the tempo marking are identical―but the incipit is not.
Obviously Estlinger made some mistake, since he filled the first bar with only three beats,
while the music is written in four. Some later writer added a quarter rest with pencil to
make the bar complete.
54
A-Sd A 675.
In the Dommusikarchiv A 634: «Veritas mea», A 635: «O quam metuendus», A 637: «Justorum
amnimae», A 644: «Assumpta est Maria» are stored.
56
A-Sd A 618.
55
19
Figure 7: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 71 (detail): Estlinger’s entry of the
Offertory No. III by L. Gatti, later identified by J. J. Fuetsch as «Veni Sponsa Christi».
(Photo: Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
Figure 8: Catalogus Musicalis, copy «Gatti», p. 75 (detail): J. J. Fuetsch’s entry of
supposedly the same «Veni Sponsa» with later added cross-reference to the original
entry, p. 71 [Fig. 7]. (Photo: Peter Rohrmoser, courtesy of AES)
Estlingers incipit resembles the first bar of the first violin of the manuscript in the
Dommusikarchiv (A-Sd A 636), the second bar is identical with the soprano part. In the
Catalogus, Fuetsch added the right incipit with new signature on page 75 but later
crossed out the entry and somebody (maybe Fuetsch himself) made a cross-reference to
Estlinger’s entry [Fig. 8], also adding the text of the composition there [Fig. 7]. In
addition to that, he wrote a new cover title to the corresponding material, which shows
Estlinger’s original signature, the specification of the feast, and the text. Strangely, the
instrumentation given by Estlinger in the Catalogus differs from the one of the music
manuscript: While Estlinger mentions «2 oboe, 2 Trombe [et] timpani» the music
manuscript only has «2 Corni ó Clarini» while no parts for oboe exist. Do the catalogue
entries reflect a series of mistakes? Or, do they correspond to two different works by
Gatti, one of which has not been preserved in the Dommusikarchiv? Or, do we have
indications here that Gatti adapted an earlier work, which came down to us only in a later
version? A similar case is the «Confitebuntur coeli» registered by Estlinger as No. VI of
Gatti’s offertories, which, does approximately but not entirely match a music manuscript
(A-Sd A 638), that bears the corresponding signatur on its cover title. In any case, there is
reason to suspect that Gatti in his later years adapted some of his earlier compositions.
20
Examples like these illustrate that the Catalogus Musicalis in Ecclesia Metropolitana is
not just a complement to known sources, a substitute of lost sources or a control body to
identify dislocated sources. It also raises questions that, without its information, never
would have been posed. Finally it forms a link from the sources to the actual music
making of the time. Hence it helps to get a better knowledge of music itself within its
cultural contexts.
21