News, Reactions and Responses

Some of my blog posts have lead to responses and reactions that are too interesting not to be published. The many cases where my posts have already been referred to in print compensate the fact that some journalists (and musicologists) think that digital publications "do not really count" and can either be ignored or copied at will. Some comments added greatly to my amusement, because some readers seem to think that on this blog – like on countless others – material is being rehashed that can be found somewhere else on the internet. They soon realize that this is not a blog like any other and my research can rarely backed up by information that has already appeared elsewhere.

The Mysterious Grassi Document

Shortly after the opening of the exhibition Mozart-Bilder Bilder Mozarts in January 2013 the Mozarteum Foundation launched an article in The New York Times to drum up public interest in the exhibition and a "newly identified Mozart portrait". The article, titled "Wolfgang, Is That You?", presented a miniature on a snuffbox as the work of "Joseph Maria Grassi" that the Salzburg researchers had supposedly been able to identify as Mozart after the surprising discovery of a hitherto unknown document:

A rummage through the archives found a document showing the object's provenance. The document said Mozart had owned the snuffbox for 10 years and gave it as a gift to Anton Grassi, a sculptor friend in Vienna. Letters from Mozart indicate that Grassi's brother Joseph, also an artist, painted a miniature of Mozart. Joseph acquired the snuffbox from his brother and attached the miniature.

That the important newly discovered document was not mentioned in the exhibition catalog came as a slight surprise. On 6 February 2013 in my blogpost "'The Newly Discovered Mozart Portrait': Back to Reality" I referred to this disappointing fact as follows:

What we read here, quickly takes us down from the spheres of "sensationally new discoveries" to the low grounds of only too well-known dull speculation. The "certainty" that the press release has been bragging about is gone and the shadow of "we don't really know anything for sure" is lying heavily on the the portrait's supposed authenticity. [...] This mysterious "document" (which could not be located by the Mozarteum experts in the course of the yearslong preparation of their current exhibition) is still unpublished. Since (as stated by Dr. Großpietsch) "Mozart owned several tobacco boxes", its provable[!] connection to the box in question remains doubtful. There is no proof at all that Anton Mathias Grassi (b. 26 June 1755 Vienna, d. 31 December 1807 Vienna) was a "sculptor friend" of Mozart's (as a matter of fact he was a model sculptor at the Imperial Vienna Porcelain Manufactory). To establish a close connection between Anton Grassi and Mozart is an even bigger stretch than the inflation of Joseph Grassi's dancing activities in 1783 into an intimate friendship with the composer.

It seemed that the new document that proved that Mozart had owned the snuffbox for ten years and gave it as a gift to Anton Grassi had simply been found too late to be included in the exhibition catalog. It was to be expected that the Mozarteum would publish this important source as soon as possible to make it available to scholars interested in Mozart portraiture. But nothing happened. The mysterious document remained secret. Thus in January 2014 I added the following postscript to my blogpost:

The document that according to the 2013 article in the New York Times, "said Mozart had owned the snuffbox for ten years and gave it as a gift to Anton Grassi, a sculptor friend in Vienna" has still not been published by the Mozarteum.

One year later the situation remains unchanged. The document that according to the New York Times was found during "a rummage through the archives" has still not been published. It has by now acquired the taint of a canard.

The Reaction of the Haydn-Institut

On 26 September 2014 my articles "Three Unknown Godchildren of Joseph Haydn" and "Joseph Haydn's Real Wife" led to the following reaction from the Haydn-Institut in Cologne:

Congratulations, that's a minor sensation! On one hand we are thrilled by your new research results, on the other hand ashamed, because Haydn research for so many decades has simply copied what had been carelessly published. I think it would be wonderful - and an honor for us – if you would be willing to publish this research in our Haydn-Studien, in whatever form. Would it be possible to just do a German version of the blog? We would be delighted to hear from you in this regard!

On 22 November 2014 I asked the Haydn-Institut what fee they could imagine to pay for a German article covering my recent Haydn research. I have not heard back from them since and therefore I assume that the Haydn-Institut expects me to provide unpaid work. Given the financial resources of its sponsors, the Haydn-Institut can only be congratulated for being blessed with a staff that can afford to work for free. I am not in such a lucky position.

A Letter From Elbie Lebrecht

In my article on the notoriously misattributed portrait of the "young Schubert" I referred to the fact that the CD producer's decision to use this picture was based on a misattribution in the database of the Lebrecht Music & Arts picture library. My pointing out this mistake in the picture database lead to the following response from Elbie Lebrecht:

Dear Michael Lorenz,

My husband has forwarded your letter to me.  I am really grateful to you for pointing out the error about incorrectly identifying an image as being of Franz Schubert. I have amended our website accordingly. And you are absolutely correct about our source of information. It is very beneficial to have someone who is so knowledgeable pick up on these slips. We obviously do our best to try and have two sources confirming information but there will, inevitably, be errors.

I set up the photo library in 1992 with just a few images. We now have over 300,000 -  many of which are from other photo libraries. Obviously the higher the number the greater the chance of errors creeping in. Please do keep in contact with me as your input is very much appreciated.

Kind regards,
Elbie Lebrecht
Director Lebrecht Music & Arts

This response, which is a model of true professionalism, makes one wish that all institutions would react this way when made aware of an error. The falsely attributed portrait of "young Schubert" has been removed from the Lebrecht database.

Concerning "Beethoven's Elise"

Following my letter to the editor of The Musical Times, I was invited to explain my hypothesis concerning the identity of "Beethoven's Elise" in an article for the Winter 2014 issue of this journal which would be published together with letters to the editor from Barry Cooper and Rita Steblin. I decided not to make use of this invitation, because I think my hypothesis is of minor importance and, for the time being, the "Elise" issue has reached a dead end. As I have stated repeatedly, as long as the autograph of the Albumblatt WoO 59 remains lost, the dedicatee of the piece cannot be identified. My explicit criticism of Kopitz and Steblin was not primarily motivated by my rejection of their "Elise" theories. The identity of this lady is in my opinion far too unimportant. What prompted me to criticise Kopitz were his dubious methods, namely the publication of an untenable, not sufficiently researched theory in the press and the following shameless propaganda with sockpuppets on Wikipedia. In Steblin's case it was the irrepressible urge to get her name into the press, followed by a belated publication with a yawning gap in the chain of evidence. In his article "Eine Bagatelle und andere Kleinigkeiten", which in 2014 he published in volume 11 of the Bonner Beethoven Studien, Jürgen May, an employee of the Richard Strauss Institut in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, brought research on "Beethoven's Elise" to a temporary standstill. He showed that Elise Schachner, the daughter and heiress of the owner of the autograph of WoO 59 Rudolph Schachner, died childless in February 1951. He suggested that the autograph of the Albumblatt may have been put into Schachner's coffin in 1896, together with Therese von Droßdik's letters. Beethoven's manuscript obviously did not end up with Elise Schachner's friend, the painter and collector of Beethoveniana Gustav Lörincz de Baranyai who, for some time, was in possession of material from Therese von Droßdik's estate. In the conclusion of his article, May, in my opinion, makes an important point: the owner of the autograph Babette Bredl (Rudolph Schachner's mother) had every reason to keep her relation to Elise Schachner a secret. Therefore, in return for her permission to publish the Albumblatt, she may have requested unconditional discretion from Nohl who may have had no permission to publish completely correct information concerning the inscription on the autograph and the identity of the mysterious "Elise". More entertaining "new solutions" concerning the Elise mystery will surely be presented in the future. After all, each Elisabeth who ever knew Beethoven deserves to have her turn.

A page of Therese von Droßdik's will which I first published in 2001. The last sentence in the next to last paragraph reads: "[...] ferners mein Nußbaum Magohani Flügel nebst allen Musikalien vermache ich Freund Rudolph Schachner Tonkünstler, aus München". (A-Wsa, Landesgericht f. Zivilrechtssachen, 1121/1844)

Mozart According to Baur

Eva Gesine Baur, who after the publication of her Mozart biography in 2014, apparently craved a little more media attention, commissioned the German graphic designer Daniela Gattinger to draw a portrait of "Mozart as he really looked like" which was published by several newspapers.

This amusing portrait confronts the public with the sensationally new and shocking fact that Mozart was not handsome. Who would have thought that he did not look like the guy on the Mozart ball? Even the Swiss free daily Blick am Abend (which is really not known for its high standards) filed this portrait under "Neues aus Absurdistan":

One can only hope that in the future Baur will put her money into the production of other, equally priceless Mozart curiosities.

© Dr. Michael Lorenz 2015.

Eva Gesine Baur Does Archival Research

In May 2014, the German publishing house C.H. Beck published Eva Gesine Baur's new Mozart biography Mozart Genius und Eros. Although I have recently been commissioned to review this book for a German music journal, I have to address this publication already on my blog, because it is endlessly fascinating as far as the problems in current Mozart literature are concerned.

Baur has learned a lesson from her flawed Schikaneder book and has delved deeply into the Mozart literature. And yet again, it is not enough. In many cases Baur's accumulated knowledge turns out to be almost worthless, because she is not in a position to evaluate the significance and quality of her secondary sources. She has sucked up huge amounts of information and throws good and bad material together. Her book is proof that knowledge cannot be acquired through reading alone, and the topic of Mozart's life is a field where the validity of this paradigm becomes especially apparent. Baur's problem is the problem of most recent publications dealing with Mozart's biography: to write a really good book about the composer, one would have to devote at least ten years into research, and these studies should of course not be limited to Mozart. Since such a long preparation is financially not viable, this book is not being written. And the Mozart scholars who do research in the archives – because they are only interested in exploring the unknown – have no interest (and often no means) to write such a book.

I will not deal with the whole smorgasbord of mistakes, misunderstandings, and misinformation that is presented in this book, because this would really go beyond the limits of a blogpost. Some of the flaws can be attributed to the secondary literature which was mostly copied uncritically, some of them were caused by the author's continuous overestimation of her own knowledge and the incessant urge to display a peagantry of knowledge that only too often turns out to be hollow cardboard decoration. We learn from this book that between literature and scholarship, there is an endless desert landscape where an author has a lot of roving room, without ever coming into contact with the surrounding area. Since Baur provides a 127 page footnote apparatus, the book cannot be considered a piece of fiction (or what German journalists call "musikhistorischer Roman"). On the other hand, Baur's prose, which uses the historical present tense throughout, is so awkward and wooden that any possible claim to literary value can be ruled out completely. The book is rife with such loveless iciness that the reader wonders whether the author actually liked her topic. The most essential qualities that make a book – even a biography of a historical figure – entertaining and readable are completely missing: humor, humility, and a certain relaxed distance from the topic. Baur makes us realize what great writers Wolfgang Hildesheimer and Alfred Einstein really were. In the blurb she is referred to as musicologist, but nowhere does this show in the book. Mozart's music is dealt with on a disappointingly low, almost journalistic level, and the reader is left with the impression that this book was only written, because the author wanted to show off with her new "genius and eros" concept, and to finally get rid of her acquired knowledge. One can see the author pondering about her approach before she began writing: "Yet another book about Mozart? I need to present the composer in a completely new light, like nobody has ever done it before. How about »Mozart the trickster and liar«? Let's give it a go!" One of the absolutely best examples of Baur's merciless smarty-pants style of writing is the following passage from p. 77 where she describes Leopold Mozart's and his son's visit to the Sistine Chapel in 1770. We are faced with a truly stunning mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

Exhausted from the strains of a trip in bad weather, with miserable food and disgusting lodgings, right after their arrival on Holy Thursday, Wolfgang is being dragged[sic!] to the Sistine Chapel by his father. There he must[sic!] listen to Gregorio Allegri's Miserere. An a capella setting of the 50th Psalm which is allowed to be performed only by the Papal Chapel. The singers are strictly forbidden to take the music outside the chapel and copy it. It is said that any violation of this rule is punished by excommunication. This is what makes this insignificant[sic!] piece interesting and provokes Leopold to stage a coup. After having listened to the Miserere twice, his son presents a full score of the piece, a proof of his learnedness. People in the Vatican are impressed.

It is, of course, very funny to visualize Leopold Mozart, dragging his son against his will to the Sistine Chapel (with Mozart exclaiming: "Herr Papa, bitte nicht in die Kapelle!"). But what kind of strange mindset could make an author of a Mozart book come up with such a scenario? Instead of passing embarrassing judgement ("belangloses Stück") on Allegri's famous masterpiece, an author, who actually loves her topic and has delved deeply enough into the matter, could address the fact that by 1770, three unembellished versions of Allegri's Miserere had already become accessible to the public. Following the footsteps of Neal Zaslaw ("Noble Heart", The American Journal of Medicine, 2001), this author could raise the question as to how extraordinary Mozart's musical feat actually was (owing to long plainsong passages it is overrated). She could avoid the mistake of claiming that the Mozarts' first visit to the Sistine Chapel took place on Holy Thursday, because it already took place one day earlier, on Wednesday, April 11, 1770. She could refer to the memoirs of the poet (and accomplished musician) Franz Grillparzer, who on 8 April 1819, also visited the Sistine Chapel, attended a performance of the Miserere, and described this heavenly experience as follows: "The wonderful Miserere by Allegri, performed by the most glorious voices, where with theatrical artistry everybody waits for the moment when the Sistine Chapel with Michelangelo's masterpieces is plunged into darkness, and now, from the solely lighted choir, the music begins, as if sent from heaven." Grillparzer considered Allegri's Miserere more beautiful than Beethoven's symphonies. And finally, Baur could avoid the nonsensical claim that Leopold Mozart showed the score around to impress people inside the Vatican ("Im Vatikan ist man beeindruckt."). This, for obvious reasons, is exactly what Leopold Mozart did not do!

A clip from Grillparzer's letter to Caroline Pichler, written in Rome on 9 April 1819: "Ich war in der Sixtinischen Kapelle und habe die Lamentazion sammt dem Miserere gehört, welchem Letztern nichts beikommt, was ich gehört habe bis jetzt, selbst Beethovens Symphonien nicht, mein Fräulein Lottchen!" (Wienbibliothek, H.I.N. 1201)

Baur has read all my published work on Mozart and she refers to my publications many times. One particular case is especially symptomatic (knowledge cannot be acquired through reading!), because she was unable to understand what I wrote and turned the meaning of a passage in one of my articles into the exact opposite. In a footnote on p. 455 of her book, she writes: "Michael Lorenz vermutet, dass Mozart bei diesem Salzburg-Aufenthalt den bedrängten Freund Franz Jakob Freystädtler ermuntert hat, nach Wien umzuziehen (»Franz Jakob Freystädtler Neue Forschungsergebnisse«, S. 89 Fußnote 28)." This is completely wrong. I never suggested anything like that. Baur failed to actually read what I wrote in the main text of my 1997 article in Acta Mozartiana where I expressedly pointed out that Freystädtler left Salzburg already in 1782, and that he did not meet Mozart in 1783 in Salzburg:

[Freystädtlers] "unbestimmter Urlaub" von Salzburg muß schon 1782 begonnen, und sein Aufenthalt in München vier Jahre gedauert haben. Das Gespräch zwischen Freystädtler und Mozart anläßlich der Salzburger Aufführung der c-moll-Messe 1783, das sich Hamann ausmalt, hat ebensowenig stattgefunden wie Freystädtlers Mitwirkung als Organist bei der Aufführung dieser Messe.

Freystädtler's "unspecified vacation" from Salzburg must already have begun in 1782 and his stay in Munich must have lasted four years. The conversation between Freystädtler and Mozart, on the occasion of the performance of the c minor mass in 1783 in Salzburg that Hamann imagines, never took place and neither did Freystädtler take part as organist in the performance of this mass.

What Baur mistook for my text in footnote 28 of my article, is actually a quotation (in quotation marks!) from a mistaken presumption that in 1962 Heinz Wolfgang Hamann put foward in an article. This is only one of several examples of Baur misunderstanding the literature. But the best of all her efforts to acquire knowledge (which basically are quite laudable) is the one instance where she actually decided to do some archival research of her own and look at a document from a Vienna archive.

In a review of Günther G. Bauer's book Mozart. Geld, Ruhm und Ehre, which I published on the Internet in 2012, I addressed the fact that Bauer could only estimate the annual income of Mozart's fellow Freemason and one-time creditor Franz Hofdemel, because Bauer's prominent collaborators had obviously been unwilling to advance into this area of archival research. Hofdemel has by now acquired a certain notoriety, because in 1789 he lent Mozart money and his wife allegedly took piano lessons from Mozart. On 6 December 1791, in a fit of insanity, Hofdemel attacked his pregnant wife with a razor blade and then committed suicide, an incident which lead to all kinds of completely unfounded speculations concerning a possible love affair between Mozart and Hofdemel's wife. In my review of Bauer's book I wrote: "Das Einkommen Franz Hofdemels als Kanzlist der Obersten Justizstelle, das Bauer nur schätzen kann, ist natürlich Hofdemels Sperrs-Relation (WStLA, Mag. ZG, A2, 3730/1791) zu entnehmen, doch Bauers »wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter« wollten offensichtlich in diese archivalischen Gründe nicht vordringen." Eva Gesine Baur jumped at the shelfmark of Hofdemel's probate file that I had published (quite superfluously) in my review, because she obviously hoped to shed some light on the question whether Hofdemel's wife had really been Mozart's piano pupil. Baur decided to do archival research herself. She ordered scans of Hofdemel's Sperrs-Relation from the Vienna Municipal and Provincial Archives and used the document for her book which is proved by her proudly referring three times to its shelfmark in her footnotes. What was designed to greatly impress her readers, however, led to an amusingly embarrassing episode which could serve as a valuable lesson for future amateur researchers.

Baur was unable to settle for one correct shelfmark of this document and provides the reader with three different readings. The most original is the following garbled version on p. 521 of her book which was obviously caused by a misreading of a handwritten note (the letters "ZG" [Zivilgericht] having been turned into "26", followed by a wrong number):

Baur could barely read anything in Franz Hofdemel's probate records. A major part of this document was written by the Sperrskommissär Johann Florian Lovin (1727–1797) whose handwriting in the past has eluded quite a number of hopeful amateur researchers, a fact that I already pointed out in my review of a failed research project conducted by the Vienna Mozart Society. In her quest to find a piano in Hofdemel's probate file, Baur had to rely on the work of Gustav Gugitz, who in 1956, in the Österreichische Musikzeitschrift, published an article entitled "Von W. A. Mozarts kuriosen Schülerinnen" (republished in 1963 in a compilation titled Mozartiana), in which he also dealt with the Hofdemel case and Hofdemel's Sperrs-Relation. Gugitz's Mozart articles are notoriously flawed and unreliable. For instance, Gugitz was not even able to correctly identify Baroness Martha Elisabeth von Waldstätten, née Schäffer and her husband Hugo Joseph von Waldstätten, and mixed them up with Maria Barbara, née von Rossi, and her husband Joseph Carl von Waldstätten, thus attributing the so-called "Grechtler affair" to the completely wrong couple (an error that Baur duly copied, because she did not even read Maynard Solomon's Mozart biography). How was Baur to know that Gugitz is not to be trusted? Concerning Franz Hofdemel, Gugitz writes:

Auch musikalisch scheint er gewesen zu sein, denn in seinem Nachlaß fanden sich zwei Geigen, ein Bassethorn[sic!] und Musikalien im Werte von 92 fl. 42 kr. Verheiratet war er überdies mit der Tochter eines Brünner Kapellmeisters, mit Magdalena, geb. Pokorny. Ihr erteilte nun Mozart Musikunterricht. Vielleicht sollte damit ein Teil der Schulden abgezahlt werden. Nach der Verlassenschaftsabhandlung ist aber kein Klavier vorhanden gewesen, in was soll also Mozart der Hofdemel Musikunterricht gegeben haben? Geige ist wohl für eine Frau ungewöhnlich, bliebe also nur der Gesang.

He [Hofdemel] seems to have been musical as well, for in his estate, two violins, a basset horn and music, estimated ​​at 92 gulden 42 kreuzer were found. He was married to the daughter of a capellmeister from Brno, Magdalena, née Pokorny. It was her who received music lessons from Mozart which were probably supposed to pay off part of the debt. But no piano is listed in the probate records, in what should Mozart therefore have given music lessons to Mrs. Hofdemel? Violin is probably unusual for a woman, that would only leave singing lessons.

Accordingly, Baur in her book (p. 499) repeats Gugitz's information (even including the fictitious basset horn and the violin lessons):

On p. 500 of her book, Baur repeats her claim: "Laut Sperrs-Relation befand sich in Franz Hofdemels Nachlass kein Klavier. (WStLA, Mag. ZG, A2, 3730/1791)." ("According to the probate file, there was no piano in Franz Hofdemel's estate."). In the main text, Baur even goes one better – and her arrogant "I know it all better than generations before me" style of writing in the following passage is symptomatic for the whole book. To grandiosely "eradicate" old errors in Mozart research (which actually have been dispelled ages ago by the likes of Otto Erich Deutsch and Alfred Einstein) is one of the most tiresome attitudes of recent Mozart biographers. On p. 384 this method culminates in the following passage:

This paragraph might as well be translated as follows:

Generations will fall into the trap [which I was clever enough to avoid!] and make themselves believe that Hofdemel wanted to kill his wife, because she was Mozart's lover and the child in her womb was Mozart's. They will see the fact that Magdalena's son, who is born in May of the following year in Brno and is baptized Johann, as reference to Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. And they will overlook the fact [attention, this is a fact!] that the godfather bore all the forenames under which Magdalena's child was entered into the baptismal register. They will also fail to read [which I was clever enough not to do!] what a neighbor told a newspaper immediately after the crime: that Hofdemel was regularly vomitting blood, knew that he was terminally ill and that after a bad spitting of blood he drew the consequences. And because they fall into the trap [which I again was clever enough to avoid!], they will turn Magdalena Hofdemel into a piano pupil of Mozart's, in spite of the fact that her husband's estate did not contain a piano. [and, by the way, I'm so much smarter than generations of authors before me!]

Let us begin with Baur's argument that Franz Hofdemel's posthumous son got all his forenames from his godfather, a *fact* that (according to Baur) has been overlooked "by generations" which led to their "falling into a trap". Hofdemel's Sperrs-Relation contains a baptismal certificate of this child which in June 1792 was issued by the parish priest of the Cathedral of St. Peter and Paul in Brno as proof that this boy was really his father's legitimate heir. This document, which is part of the file that Baur had scanned and repeatedly refers to in her book, shows that Baur's argument regarding the child's names is not based on facts, but on fantasy.

I the undersigned testify that in the parish of the Royal Cathedral of the Prince Apostles St. Peter and Paul at No. 27 on the Petersberg in the year one-thousand, seven-hundred and ninety-two on the tenth day of May by the honorable reverend Johann Nepomuck Slowack, first vicar, a child was baptized Johann von Nepomuck, Alexander, Franziskus, a baby boy, legitimately born after the death of his father Franz Hofdemel, clerk at the I. & R. Supreme Department of Justice, of Catholic faith, and the mother Mrs. Magdalena, née Pokorni. Whereby as godparents officiated Alexander Fidel Holderer, clerk with the I. & R. Moravian-Silesian Appellation Court, and Mrs. Viktoria Kofler, widow of a merchant. The midwife was Barbara Hilbert, living at Grosse Bäckengasse No. 28. With the sign of the Royal Capital, Brno 12 June 1792. [L. S.] Karl Freÿherr von Tauber Parish priest at the Cathedral

This certificate, of course, corresponds with the original entry in the baptismal records of the parish of the Brno Cathedral (Moravský zemský archiv Brno, Brno sv. Petr a Pavel [na dómě] 16942, fol. 414).

The child's paron saint Johann Nepomuk is quite a different Johann than Mozart's Johann Chrysostomus. Contrary to Baur's claim, the godfather did not "bear all the forenames under which Magdalena's child was entered into the baptismal register". The names of the godfather were not "Johann Nepomuk Alexander Franz", but "Alexander Fidelis". And the existence of the godmother completely escaped the attention of Dr. Baur whose inflated expertise suddenly collapses when measured with the primary sources. The child Johann Nepumuk Hofdemel already died on 13 May 1794, of "Kartharfieber" (Moravský zemský archiv Brno, Brno sv. Petr a Pavel [na dómě] 16959, p. 163). After the boy's death, his share of the modest paternal inheritance of 1350 gulden 4 1/2 kreuzer was divided between his mother and sister (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A2 3294/1794).

What about the piano that "is not listed in Hofdemel's probate records"? Hofdemel's Sperrs-Relation contains five different lists of assets: 1) The "Inventur und Schätzung" of all of Hofdemel's belongings, 2) the Catalogus Librorum Hofdemlianorum (the catalog of Hofdemel's books) in two parts, because of 171 books only 73 were sold at an auction, 3) the "Schätzungs und Lizitationsausweisung" (the results of the auction of Hofdemel's belongings), 4) the "Ausweisung uiber die eingehandelten 6 öffentlichen Fonds Obligationen" (the result of the sale of Hofdemel's public bonds), and 6) the so-called "Theillibell", the exact distribution of Hofdemel's net assets among his two children (a balance that proves that the value of Hofdemel's estate given by Gugitz is completely false). The first list, drawn up by the municipal Sperrskommissär Lovin on 11 January 1792, contains an item that proves Baur's reasoning utterly wrong.

schnallen und Kleinigkeiten                                    1  30
1 Passetl 2 Geigen und Musi=
kallien und Musikanten Stellen                              20.    ––
das wenig=eisen, erden und
höltzerne Kuchelgeschirr                                        2.    ––          
folgende 3 Posten sollen der
Fr: Witwe zugehörig seyn
die sammentl[iche] Hauswäsch        30 f ––
1 harter Schubladkasten 2 Reis
Kouffer                                              10 f ––
1 Fortepiano                                      30:      
                                                          70 f: ––

 

buckles and trifles
one small bass, 2 violins, music
and music stands
the few pieces of iron, earthen and
wooden kitchenware
the following three items are said
to belong to the widow
the entire linen
one hardwood chest with drawers two travel
cases
one fortepiano

There it is: Magdalena Hofdemel's piano which (according to Baur) "is not listed in her husband's probate records" which (according to Baur) proves that "generations fell into a trap by erroneously believing that she was Mozart's piano pupil". The existence of the piano, of course, does not prove that Hofdemel's wife was Mozart's pupil. Some authors (like Baur who erroneously claims that Magdalena von Kurzböck was a pupil of Mozart) seem unable to accept that there were actually female pianists in Mozart's time who were acquainted with the composer without taking lessons from him. Especially amusing is the fact that Baur (like Gugitz) still thinks that a "Passetl" is a basset horn, although I have explained the meaning of this word in a review that is listed in Baur's bibliography. But as I said above: knowledge cannot be acquired by reading. To round off her fantasies, Baur offers yet another explanation for Hofdemel's suicide (p. 521): "Möglicherweise war Hofdemels Problem Folge von Alkoholmissbrauch. In seinem Nachlass finden sich beachtliche Vorräte." ("Hofdemel's problem may have been the result of alcohol abuse. Considerable supplies can be found in his estate.") It comes as no surprise that these supposed huge amounts of wine do not appear in Hofdemel's Sperrs-Relation. It would surely be fascinating to figure out the origin of Baur's error, but in this case I shall follow Goethe's advice that inscrutable mysteries should rather be revered than explained.

There are of course still some unanswered questions concerning Franz Hofdemel, but who his wife's piano teacher was is really not the most pressing among them. Where was Hofdemel born? Where and when did he and Magdalena Pokorny (b. 27 June 1766 in Brno) get married? Although his wedding is not registered in the records of the Brno Cathedral, this issue could easily be cleared up with an internet access and the necessary amount of diligence. Baur's musings concerning the possible date of birth of Hofdemel's daughter Theresia (p. 499) are moot, because in the age of digitized church records it takes less than five minutes to figure out that this child was born on 6 January 1791.

The entry concerning the baptism of Theresia Cäcilia Hofdemel on 6 January 1791 (A-Wd, Tom. 100, fol. 61)

Up-to-date research methods seem difficult to master for an author who – as far as basic research is concerned – let herself become too distracted by the protagonists of Socrates's speech at Platon's Symposium.

How are the two different dates of Hofdemel's death in the records to be explained? The Totenbeschauprotokoll has 6 December, and yet, 10 December 1791 is given on his Sperrs-Relation and in the Wiener Zeitung.

6 December 1791, given as Hofdemel's date of death in the Totenbeschauprotokoll: "Xbris 791 Den 6ten Hofdemel Franz Kanzellist bey der Obrister Justitzstelle, welcher sich selbst, in seiner Wohnung, im Rolleterischen H:[aus] N° 1360 in der Grünangergaße ermordet, und in allg: Krankenhaus gerichtlich b[e]s[chau]t worden, alt 36 Jr: Sartori Chyrurg.[us] Prim.[us". (A-Wsa, Totenbeschreibamt 95, lit. H, fol. 80r)

"10 Xb: 791" given as Hofdemel's date of death in his Sperrs-Relation. This date is referred to as factual in the whole file.

The announcement of Hofdemel's death "Den 10 December" in the Wiener Zeitung (Wiener Zeitung, 17 December1791, p. 3225)

The autopsy, which was conducted at the Allgemeines Krankenhaus, took some time, but this does not explain a discrepancy of four days. The entry in the death records was copied from the surgeon's note which proves that the autopsy had already been done. The confusion is not reduced by the entry in the records of Vienna's General Hospital concerning Hofdemel's burial which gives December 7th as his date of death and December 9th as the date of his burial. In this entry, Hofdemel is referred to as "Hofdümel N. gew. Kanzelist bey der Oberst Justitz Stelle" with the cause of death given as "sich selbst ermordet".

The entry concerning Franz Hofdemel's burial on 9 December 1791 (Alservorstadtkrankenhaus, Tom. 4, fol. 48)

Hofdemel was buried in the "Gottesacker ausser der Währinger Linie" (i.e. the Währinger Allgemeiner Friedhof).

The "Rohlederisches Haus", Stadt 1360 (built in 1784, today Grünangergasse 10), where in 1791, Franz Hofdemel committed suicide. The owner of the house, Friedrich Wilhelm Rohleder, was the retired manager of the Theresianum and a close friend of the writer Maria Anna Sager and her husband. In this house Grillparzer's father died in 1809.

Especially annoying is the fact that Baur seems to think that by repeatedly referring to my work in her book, she has gained the right to present some results of my research as her own wisdom. She also seems to assume that by acknowledging the existence of my publications she has inoculated herself against my criticism. What follows are a few examples of Baur presenting information that she has taken right out of one of my articles without giving her source:

• The information concerning the size of the concert hall in the Trattnerhof on p. 218 was copied from my 2013 blogpost Mozart in the Trattnerhof without providing a source.
• The information concerning the Trattnerhof on p. 395 was also copied from my 2013 blogpost Mozart in the Trattnerhof which is not referred to in the bibliography on p. 394 or in a footnote.
• The shelfmark of the 1788 tax register as source for Mozart's rent in the Camesina-Haus is taken from my 2009 article Mozart's Apartment on the Alsergrund. By giving a shelfmark in parentheses in the text Baur is dishonestly pretending to have personally consulted this archival source.
• The information as to how the chapel in the Trattnerhof was converted into a hall (p. 456, fn 5) is lifted unsourced from my 2013 blogpost Mozart in the Trattnerhof.
• The explanation of Barbara Ployer's family relation to Gottfried Ignaz von Ployer (p. 460, fn 17) is taken from my article "Gottfried Ignaz von Ployers Haus in Döbling. Eine vergessene Mozartstätte", Acta Mozartiana 47, vol. 1-2, (June 2000), which is not given as source.
• The smart-aleck comment on Helmut Kretschmer's wrong date of Cavalieri's date of birth with the reference to Pisarowitz (p. 468, fn 7) is lifted from my review of Melanie Unseld's book Mozarts Frauen. Begegnungen in Musik und Liebe which was published in the Mozart-Jahrbuch 2007/08. The embarrassing fact of course being that Baur does not know that Kretschmer copied the wrong date from the commentary in Gugitz's 1924 edition of Da Ponte's memoirs (a book that is listed in Baur's bibliography).
• The explanatory comment on the Deiner issue (p. 475, fn 3) with the information on the "former fruit dealer" Josef Preisinger is lifted from my 2012 review of Günther Bauer's book.
• The information concerning the different value of the Gulden currency in Salzburg and Vienna (p. 481, fn 33) is also taken without reference from my review of Günther Bauer's book. That my name appears in the following sentence in connection with another issue cannot hide the fact that Baur is presenting my knowledge as her own.
• The source for Mozart's lowest possible rental expense of 300 gulden in the house Stadt 245 in  1789 (p. 493, fn 4) is not Brauneis's 2013 article "Mozart: In und vor der Stadt", but my 2009 article Mozart's Apartment on the Alsergrund from which Brauneis plagiarized this information.
• The explanatory note concerning the two Closset brothers (p. 500, fn 45) is based on research that was published in my review Das Forschungsprojekt "W. A. Mozart und sein Wiener Umfeld". Again Baur is proudly waving a lamp that I have lighted a long time ago.
• Ignaz von Seyfried's five forenames (p. 508, fn 5) are copied from my review of Günther Bauer's book. Baur does not feel embarrassed by showing off with the results of my research in the 1776 baptismal records of St. Stephen's Cathedral.
• Baur's knowledge that "there is no proof that on 4 March 1791 Mozart performed the concerto K. 595" (p. 508, fn 6) is lifted from the same review.
• The information concerning "the notes of Aloys Fuchs" which give an amount of 100 ducats as Mozart's fee for Die Zauberflöte (p. 511, fn 14) is also lifted from my review. Baur could never name the exact source for "the notes of Aloys Fuchs".
• The information that beginning in November 1790 Franz Xaver Süßmayr was working as substitute at the Burgtheater and was paid 26 fl for "extra service", a job that he probably got with the help of Salieri (p. 513, fn 29), is taken from my article "Süßmayr und die Lichterputzer: von gefundenen und erfundenen Quellen", in the Mozart-Jahrbuch 2006, (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2008), pp. 425-38. Baur does not provide a source and thus dishonestly presents my research as her own.
• That Joseph Bonno (whom Baur mistakenly calls "Giuseppe"), like Mozart, was buried for 8 fl 56 x, although he had died without debts (p. 523, fn 66), is lifted from my review of Günther Bauer's book. The information that in the late eighteenth century 99% of the Vienna populace received third-class burials is also copied from this review without providing a source.

Seal and signature of Joseph Bonno whom ignoramuses will forever call "Giuseppe" (A-Wsa, Haydn-Verein A1/2d)

Baur's book never underwent a thorough proofreading process which gives rise to the assumption that her publisher already laid off the entire editorial staff some time ago. A simple spell check could have avoided gross mistakes such as "Portät", "Solo-Sopran-Partieen" and "Hauseinsegung". According to Baur, Mozart's Der Schauspieldirektor was premiered on "7 February 1886", the clarinetist Anton Stadler was born "in 1793", and Babette von Natorp's biographical dates are "1769-1744“. We encounter flawed German phrases such as "um den 25. September 1764 herum", "Zu der Frau von Mesmers Stiefsohn", "Mozart schreckt auf". And three musicologists with botched names make an amusing appearance: "Karl Pfannhaus", "Daniel Ende", and "Hermann Albert". These are just the bloopers caused by sloppiness and lack of decent editing. Keep in mind that I have not even touched the vast number of factual mistakes that appear on almost every page of this abysmally weak book.

Ernst Hilmar, a musicologist of dubious reputation, but undeniable scholarly merits, once said to me (responding to my critical remarks about his shallow printed output): "Kritisieren ist leicht. Wann werden Sie einmal etwas vorlegen?" ("Criticizing is easy. When will you present something?" – the term "something" of course referring to a book). This points right at the core of my point of view: I do not want to "present something". As a matter of fact, I also do not want to see others "present something". I am strictly against the continuous publication of thick but flawed books that sycophant journalists describe as "meticulously researched", and admirers of the author call "One of the best books about Mozart ever written".

© Dr. Michael Lorenz 2014. All rights reserved.

Updated: 8 September 2025

Mozart and the Myth of Reusable Coffins

The ineradicably popular conception that Mozart's body was sewn into a linen bag, put into a reusable coffin with flaps on the bottom, and buried in a mass grave, is based on two memorable visual impressions. First, there is is the following scene from the motion picture Amadeus.

Second, there is the following wooden exhibit in the "Vienna Funeral Museum".

Of course, the iconic scene from the movie is already the result of a grave misunderstanding, created by poorly informed historians and authors such as Volkmar Braunbehrens, who in his book Mozart in Vienna, mixed together all kinds of second-hand information and turned it into a deeply flawed description of Mozart's burial "in a mass grave". The most fundamental misconceptions regarding this topic can be traced back to the Josephinische Begräbnisordnung of 1784 (the burial regulations of Joseph II). Joseph II (possibly motivated by severe mother-son-relationship issues) abhorred all kinds of religious pageantry and superfluous irrational customs, and, for the plain reason of sanitariness, wanted to shorten the decomposition time of buried bodies. Therefore, on 23 August 1784, he issued the following court decree.

1. From now on, all crypts, cemeteries and graveyards which are located within the limits of villages shall be closed and instead only those should be used that are located outside the villages within reasonable distance.
2. Following the last will of the deceased or the the wishes of the relatives all bodies should be carried to the churches by day or in the evening according to the regulation of burial fees and funeral cortege, be consecrated and laid to rest with the usual church prayers and then be brought by the parish priests to the chosen cemeteries outside the villages to be buried without ostentation.
3. For these cemeteries a place of appropriate size is to be chosen which is not exposed to water and whose soil is not of a type that prevents decomposition. After the area has been selected it should be surrounded with a wall and adorned with a cross.
4. Since the burial can serve no other pupose than to further the quickest possible decomposition, which is prevented by nothing more than the burial of bodies in coffins: thus it is commanded that the bodies should be sewn into a linen bag, completely naked and without clothes, then put into a coffin and be transported to the graveyard.
5. In these cemeteries there should always be made a pit with a depth of six Schuh [one Austrian Schuh was 12,6 inches] and a width of four Schuh, the body should always be taken out of the coffin and put into the pit, as it is sewn in the bag, be covered with quicklime and immediately be covered with soil. In case several bodies arrive at the same time, they can be put into the same pit, but at anytime it is to be observed that every pit into which the bodies have been put be immediately filled and covered with soil, which must be continued in such a way that there is always a space of four Schuh between the graves.
6. To cut expenses it has to be arranged that every parish acquires an appropriate number of well-made coffins of various sizes which must be provided to everybody for free; if somebody should provide his own coffin for his deceased relatives, he remains free to do this; but the bodies must never be put into the ground with coffins, but have to be taken out again to use the coffin for other bodies.
7. Relatives and friends, who want to establish a special monument of love, admiration and gratefulness for the deceased, should be allowed to follow their desires; but these can only be erected at the walls not in the graveyards, to avoid taking up space there. (Joseph Kropatschek: Handbuch aller unter der Regierung des Kaisers Joseph des II. für die k.k. Erbländer ergangenen Verordnungen und Gesetze in einer sistematischen Verbindung, Johann Georg Moeßle, Vienna 1786, vol. VI, 565-70) 

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 1784 Josephinische Begräbnisordnung in Kropatschek's collection of laws of Joseph II.

This is the theoretical legal situation on which all flawed descriptions in the Mozart literature about the composer's supposed burial in a bag and a mass grave are based. But the emperor's puritanical concept met with stark opposition, especially in Vienna where the local population had not forgotten the mass graves of the plague epidemic of 1713/14. To become effective in the k.k. Hof- und Residenzstadt, a law had to be approved by the Vienna City Council. And because the citizens of Vienna filed massive protests against sack burials in mass graves, the Vienna Magistrate decided to remove the paragraphs 4-6 of the regulation from the Currende (i.e. the official publication of the law). Therefore, reusable coffins only came into use in the k.k. Erblande but never in Vienna. The general opinion of the Austrian people was nicely described by Joseph Richter who, in his 1787 pamphlet Warum wird Kaiser Joseph von seinem Volke nicht geliebt? ("Why is Emperor Joseph not being loved by his people?"), wrote the following.

Die Edlen im Volke wünschen, Kaiser Joseph möge überhaupt mit minder schädlichen Fehlern und Schwachheiten der Menschen etwas mehr Nachsicht haben. Unter diese Schwachheiten gehört die Abneigung, sich in Säcke einnähen, und dann durcheinander in eine Kalkgrube hinschleudern zu lassen.

The noble of the nation wish that Emperor Joseph would show a little more leniency towards the less harmful flaws and weaknesses of the people. Among those weaknesses is the reluctance against being sewn into a bag and then being tossed into the muddle of a lime pit.

Owing to the protest of the people, on 20 January 1785, obligatory burials in linen bags had to be revoked in the k.k. Erblande. Joseph II issued the following court decree which amounts to a veiled rant against the stubbornness of his own subjects.

Everybody is allowed to be buried in coffins.
Because His Majesty has noticed that, owing to the salutary order to bury dead bodies without coffins in linen bags, sewed in completely naked and without clothes, many minds have been troubled and – out of prejudice – burials of bodies together with coffins are being preferred; and His Majesty is not inclined however to bend the will of his subjects in this less significant matter which is irrelevant for the general welfare: therefore His Majesty has declared that he does not think of forcing somebody to this kind of burial, who is not convinced of its advantage, but is willing, as far as the coffins are concerned, to allow everybody to freely do what in advance he considers agreeable for his body. Apart from that the content of the regulations of 23 August of last year remains valid. (Kropatschek, Handbuch 1787, vol. VIII, p. 675f.)

The Emperor's withdrawal of obligatory burials without coffins in vol. 8 of Kropatschek's collection of laws.

The documents concerning the expenses for Mozart's coffin are lost. But there are, of course, archival sources from Mozart's time that show as to how the procurement of a coffin for a common citizen was handled and how much it cost.

When Mozart, in June 1788, moved into the house Alsergrund No. 135, he made the acquaintance of Christoph Dopler who lived there in a small apartment on the first floor, together with his wife Magdalena, née Neu, and their youngest two children Maria Anna, and Karl.

Christoph Dopler in the 1788 tax register of the house Alsergrund 135. His neighbor, the shoemaker Peter Dußel, signed as witness in Dopler's probate documents (A-Wsa, Steueramt B34/27, fol. 218).

Dopler was born on 25 December 1737, in Loosdorf in Lower Austria (Loosdorf 2, 255). At the time of his wedding in 1764 (St. Ulrich 25, fol. 188v), he was referred to as "soon-to-be innkeeper". In 1769, he was described as "former innkeeper in the cemetery of the Benedictine friars of Montserrat" on the Alsergrund, (which was closed in 1783). In 1771, in the baptismal entry of his daughter Regina (Schotten 37, fol. 223v), he is documented as working as Goldpolier (gold polisher) at the porcelain factory, and in 1773, on the occasion of the baptism of his daughter Theresia (Schotten 38, fol. 64v), he is already given as "Mahler in der Porcellain Fabrique" (painter at the porcelain factory in the suburb of Roßau). Dopler's speciality was painting the so-called Türkenbecher (turkish cups) most of which were exported to the Levant (F. A. Schrämbl, Merkwürdigkeiten der Welt oder vorzügliche Erscheinungen der Natur und Kunst, Vienna 1811, 82).

Christoph Dopler's seal and signature in the marriage records of his friend Andreas Kuhrmayr who ran an inn in the house Alsergrund 135 (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A3, 217/1787). Dopler was best man at Kuhrmayr's wedding on 9 May 1787 (Lichtental 6, fol. 78).

Dopler died on 5 May 1789 (Wiener Zeitung, 13 May 1789, 1213), in the house Alsergrund 135. His probate records are of great interest, not only because they contain a document related to the cost of Dopler's coffin (directly proving the use of coffins in Mozart's Vienna), but they also contain a list of expenses of Dopler's widow which document Constanze Mozart's private funeral expenses two years later, which are not extant in Mozart's Sperrs=Relation. Dopler's body was blessed at the Servite parish church in the Rossau and buried third class for six Gulden and forty-five Kreuzer in the Währinger Allgemeiner Friedhof. The carpenter who made the coffin wrote the following receipt (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A2, 1770/1789).

Quittung

P[er] Ein Gulden dreisig Kreitzer welcher ich / Endes under schribener vor eine thotten / druchen vor den herrn Cristof Doppel Seliger / Richtig und bar empfangen habe bescheine / hie mit wienn d[en] 12 Meÿ 789
                                     Joseph Haiss bürgl: / Dischler meister
Ites[t] 1 f 30 x

Receipt

For one Gulden thirty Kreuzer which I the undersigned have received exactly and in cash for a coffin for the deceased Mr. Christoph Dopler, I certify herewith. Vienna 12 May 1789

                                                   Joseph Haiss civil master carpenter
That is 1 f 30 x

It must be noted that Dopler was not a wealthy individual. His modest estate was estimated at a value of about 34 Gulden. The cost of Dopler's coffin equalled the estimated value of his wall clock. The coffin cost six Kreuzer less than the cowl in which Dopler's corpse was dressed. The following list of Magdalena Dopler's private burial-related expenses provides a fascinating look at the burial customs in late eighteenth-century Vienna. In December 1791, Constanze Mozart – except for the orderly's wage – was certainly faced with having to pay for exactly those items. The list of her expenses, which survives in Mozart's probate records ("bezahlte Konti"), only concerns the composer's most recent debts.

The list of Magdalena Dopler's immediate expenses concerning her husband's burial (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A2, 1770/1789).

What follows are two other documents from Mozart's time that prove the use of coffins in Vienna. On 8 May 1790, Christina Ponschab, first wife of the court singer Leopold Ponschab (1742–1795), died at Spittelberg 135 (today Burggasse 2). Her probate file contains a list of medical and burial expenses that her widower had to cover. Listed among these objects is a "Todten Trugen" (coffin) for four gulden.

The list of Leopold Ponschab's expenses concerning his wife's medical treatment and burial (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A2, 1613/1790)

On April 28 April 1787, the theater director Felix Berner was given a funeral blessing in the Augustinian Church (St. Augustin 2, fol. 48) and was buried in the cemetery outside Matzleinsdorf. Since Berner had died a very wealthy man, no expense was spared for his funeral. In total, Berner's principal heir, his sister Maria Eva von Kanel, paid 176 gulden and 44 kreuzer for the ceremony. Berner's coffin alone cost six gulden.

The list of expenses for Felix Berner's expensive burial. The coffin appears as number 7 (A-Wsa, Mag. ZG, A2, 1007/1787).

The historical facts can be summarized as follows:

1. Mozart was not buried in a linen bag without a coffin, because such burials were never mandatory in Vienna.
2. Mozart was not buried in a mass grave, but in a customary "allgemeines Grab" (the usual common grave).

Of course, countless books on Mozart – and even the most recent ones – are rife with stories about Mozart's body having been sewn into a bag and mercilessly hurled into a mass grave. Most of this nonsense is based on Braunbehrens, who in his 1986 book, not only fantasized about "the music that was performed at Mozart's consecration inside[sic!] the Kreuzkapelle of St. Stephen's" (there was no music and the consecration took place outside the church), but also referred to "rental coffins having been the normal equipment of all parishes" (a claim that he of course corroberated with the notorious Klappsarg in Vienna's Bestattungsmuseum). Let us look at some of the most typical examples from the recent literature. To nobody's surprise, Maynard Solomon picked up Braunbehrens's error and described the idea of "being buried without a coffin" for Mozart to have been "a metaphor of the brotherhood of souls". In volume 2 of his biography of Joseph II, Derek Beales (as of 2013) erroneously claims that between 1784 and 1785, people in Vienna were "buried without coffins in mass graves". In her book A History of Opera, Carolyn Abbate states (among many other falsehoods about the composer) that "Mozart was buried in a mass grave". Mozart biographers do not fare any better. Martin Geck firmly believes that "Joseph II spartan burial regulations were still valid in 1791", and so does Piero Melograni. In his 2009 book on Mozart's finances, Günther G. Bauer describes Mozart as having been buried "in the dead of night[sic!] in the usual mass grave". In 2009, Annette Kreutziger-Herr promised to answer the important question whether "Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave", only to claim again that Mozart's burial was not an exception and that "he was sewn into a linen bag". In her 2012 book about Constanze Mozart, Gesa Finke described Mozart as "laying out in a simple reusable coffin" and being buried "wrapped a linen sheet in a mass grave". And yet, in her 2012 biography of Emanuel Schikaneder, Eva Gesine Baur definitely takes the cake. After having allegedly spent "a year and a half of research", she not only has Mozart buried with a reusable coffin (with flaps on the bottom), but also chooses to honor Schikaneder with the exact same funerary procedure in the year 1812. Baur's text sparkles with stunning ignorance.

For Mozart, his friend van Swieten had ordered a third-class burial with the smallest cortege[sic!], certainly not impious, but common with the majority of the populace and also sensible, considering the financial situation of the widow. Schikaneder is also buried in the third class, like Mozart in a coffin that is opened at the bottom, emptied into a shaft grave and used again, just as Emperor Joseph II, the enemy of la pompe funèbre would have liked it. Swieten[sic!] or Constanze had however rented a carriage with two horses to avoid a mass transport.

Only a few remarks concerning this paragraph will suffice. A burial "mit dem kleinsten Geleit" is a misnomer caused by a misunderstanding. The term "kleinstes Geleit" did not exist in 1791. The correct term was "dritte Class". The Viennese dialect term "Geleit" did not refer to a Geleit (cortege), but to the Geläut (peal of bells). Baur's claim that "Schikaneder received a third-class burial" is not based on any documentary evidence. At the time of Schikaneder's death in 1812, the burial classes of Mozart's days did not exist anymore and had long been replaced by a new Stolordnung (regulation of burial fees). Since the parishes of the suburbs had always lower burial fees than the parishes in the City, a comparison in this case is not possible anyway. There is no source that documents the costs of Schikaneder's burial on 23 September 1812 (Pfarre Alservorstadt, Tom. 6, fol. 53). He was probably buried "5. Rubrik 3. Klasse", but this category allowed for various extra expenses that were paid apart from the parish fee, such as the cortege and expenses for an own grave. The fact that on 29 September 1812, at 10 a.m., Mozart's Requiem was performed for Schikaneder at St. Joseph ob der Laimgrube, which was the parish church of the Theater an der Wien, should make us reconsider the idea of Schikaneder having been buried without any effort and completely neglected by his former colleagues. 

The announcement of the performance of Mozart's Requiem for Schikaneder at St. Joseph ob der Laimgrube in the Wiener Theater-Zeitung of 28 September 1812

It is true that in 1791, for three gulden, a carriage was rented for the transport of Mozart's body to St. Marx, but there is no documentation concerning the number of horses that pulled this carriage. That there were two of them is a figment of Baur's blooming imagination. Similarly untenable is Baur's claim that without this carriage Mozart's body "would have become part of a mass transport". Since on 6 December 1791, Mozart was the only person to receive obsequies at St. Stephen's, to be buried in St. Marx, there was no possibility of several corpses being transported to this cemetery on one carriage. All the other deceased persons that were registered in the Cathedral's Bahrleihbuch on this day were either blessed in other parish churches or buried in other cemeteries, such as Währing or Matzleinsdorf (A-Wd, Bahrleihbuch 1791, fol. 337r-338v).

---

© Dr. Michael Lorenz 2013. All rights reserved.

Updated: 5 September 2026