Thanks for your further posts. I am afraid that I am still unclear about the different types (in terms of authorship) of music identified in the 1784 inventory, and how they were labelled at that time. You skate rather too quickly over all this. In particular, I am struggling to understand how Haydn’s and Mozart’s names ever got to appear on these works.
Keeping things very simple, as I understand it, the main history and allegations are as follows:
(i) Luchesi (1741 – 1801) was an Italian composer who was appointed official court Kapellmeister at Bonn in 1774, upon the death of the previous holder who was Beethoven’s grandfather. Luchesi actually started there in 1771 on a three-year contract. Before 1771, Luchesi had already established a good name for himself in Italy. Prince Elector Archbishop of Cologne, Max Friedrich, made the appointment in 1774. Luchesi remained in that position until 1794 when the Bonn Chapel was closed down resulting from Napoleon’s invasion.
(ii) As Kapellmeister at Bonn, Luchesi's job was to teach students and to run the music-making machine.
(iii) From 1774 to 1783, Luchesi's music making activities operated under a deal he had struck with the Elector that he could produce three types of work (using my symbols for simplicity):
• Type A: material to be sold exclusively to Joseph Haydn. The practice by Luchesi of supplying Haydn may have started well before Luchesi's arrival at Bonn (Taboga suggests from as early as 1763).
• Type B: material to be sold to unspecified third parties under the pen-name of Luchesi's brother-in-law, Captain D’Anthoin. It is not known whether any of these works also found their way to Joseph Haydn, in addition to the Type A works above.
• Type C: this is traditional material of a Kapellmeister that, by convention, would remain anonymous until his death or resignation. It was used purely for local purposes. Presumably, such works were labelled as “works by Kapellmeister”, or such like terminology.
(iv) I understand that all or most of Type A material had the name “Haydn” (or some such descriptor) clearly labelled on the front cover, or near the front cover, of each piece. A copy was supplied to Joseph Haydn and another copy was normally retained in the Bonn Chapel.
(v) I understand that none or very little of Type B material has survived as such.
(vi) As regards Type C, several such works have survived which we know of today as Luchesi’s works.
Works: 1784 – 1791
(vii) From April 1783 to May 1784, Luchesi was absent from Bonn in Venice with his family. He left Neefe (his deputy) in charge of the Chapel. In early 1784, Elector Max Friedrich died and was succeeded by Max Franz, the latter being the brother of the Emperor in Vienna. Max Franz was also a friend of W A Mozart. Upon succeeding to Elector, Max Franz wanted to get rid of Luchesi and replace him by Mozart as Kapellmeister at Bonn. It is conjectured that this is because the Elector and the Emperor together were involved in a grand scheme – aided and abetted by the locally defunct Jesuits since 1773 - to promote the musical supremacy of Austria/Hapsburg composers, Haydn and Mozart, while downplaying Italians like Luchesi.
(viii) The first thing that Max Franz did upon taking up his post as Elector was to order an inventory of all musical works in the Chapel in early 1784. In Luchesi's absence, Neefe organised the task. This inventory was completed in May 1784, just before Luchesi returned from Italy. Presumably, this stocktaking showed:
• Works of Type A, B, C above.
• Works of other Bonn Court composers (including possibly works of previous Kapellmeisters); call this class of works Type D.
• All other works, call it Type E: i.e. works written by sundry external composers to the Bonn Chapel, which were bought-in or deposited there for one reason or other.
(ix) From this inventory of Types A - E material, Max Franz was embarrassed to find out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn (i.e. Type A). However, he found that he could not get rid of Luchesi – with a view to replacing him by Mozart - because of his job-for-life status, and that it might have caused a scandal exposing the fact that the Elector's family, including the Emperor, had been involved in a long-standing deal to supply a flow works to Haydn.
(x) As a compromise, the Elector did a deal with Luchesi whereby it was agreed that Luchesi's pay/remuneration would be reduced, and Luchesi would henceforth supply (mainly or solely?) Mozart rather than Haydn, on the same basis as he had previously supplied Haydn. Luchesi would cease to write under the D’Anthoin name, and would write only under the name of Mozart (call it Type F material).
(xi) I am not clear as to whether, during this period, Type F works were clearly labelled “W A Mozart” at the time they were finished and handed over to Mozart. Or is the view that the name of "Mozart", as the paying customer, was somehow concealed originally; and if so, is it considered that Mozart’s name was added later (perhaps 10-50 years later, or whenever)? If the latter, exactly how would these works have been labelled in terms of authorship at the time of their first completion in Bonn?
Works: 1792 - 1794
(xii) Mozart died in December 1791. Luchesi stopped producing Type F works and resumed the D’Anthoin name (i.e. Type B works), until the latter’s death at the end of 1793. In 1794, the Bonn Court folded and all the Bonn Court records and documents were transferred to Bad Mergentheim castle to save them from approaching French troops. Most of these documents eventually ended up by 1836 at the Estense Library (Biblioteca Estense) in Modena, Italy. After 1794, Luchesi's name largely fell into oblivion, as this was probably deliberately part of the grand scheme to bury his name and his previous involvement in these shenanigans.
See next …