The Offertorium belongs again to the service, and requires on that account another and a more conventional character in the music than the Dies iræ. It falls into two sections, of which the first (Domine Jesu Christe) prefers the petition that the soul of the departed may not go down into hell, but OFFERTORIUM. may be carried into light by the Archangel Michael. The earnest and affecting character of the music is tinged with a certain amount of harshness and unrest, arising from the constant recurrence of the mention of hell and its torments, which distinguishes the movement from the otherwise similar one of the Requiem. The vivid contrasts of the words are accentuated by the music, and the result is a succession of short phrases, combining into larger groups, which correspond with each other. The words "ne absorbeat eas Tartarus" are worked out into a short fugue, which has an unusually harsh effect owing to the characteristic sevenths of the theme and the powerful semiquaver passage carried out by the stringed instruments in unison. The gentle melody, supported by the solo voices in canonic imitation, "sed sanctus signifer Michael," has, on the contrary, a soothing effect, and is the only ray of light which is allowed to shine through the surrounding gloom. The whole movement closes with the words "Quam (lucem sanctam) olim Abrahæ promisisti" in an elaborate fugue, the effect of which is heightened by the accompaniment which carries out a motif of its own in close imitation. G. Weber found fault with this fugue, with its aimless elaboration of a subordinate idea and superfluous repetition of the same unimportant words;[ 53 ] and Seyfried defended it on the ground that a fugue was considered indispensable at this point,[ 54 ] and indeed was not unsuited to it. The idea is, in truth, not a subordinate one, it is the ground of the confidence with which the prayer is offered, and so becomes the basis of the whole movement. The fugue is the form best fitted for short, pithy sentences, and the one in question has the same singular mixture of trust in the divine mercy and tortured anxiety at the thought of death which was expressed in the first movement of the Requiem, although it there assumed a milder form. Separate passages are of great, though somewhat rugged beauty, as befitted the movement; more especially the closing passage, "de profundo lacu, in obscurum, et semini eius."
The second part (Hostias et preces) has a much more composed character, as becomes the offering by the spirit of its sacrifice to the Almighty. The idea, therefore, of still lingering disquiet is left to be expressed by the syncopated passage for the violins, the voices going together almost throughout the movement, and declaiming the words with strikingly appropriate expression. The very simplicity of this movement reveals the hand of the master, and gives it an individuality especially noticeable at the words "tu suscipe pro animabus illis, quarum hodie memoriam facimus." Thus far a reference to Mozart's own manuscript suffices to determine how much was left to Süssmayr's carrying out. Although sufficient indications were given even of the more elaborate and independent instrumental parts to serve as a guide to a well-educated musician, yet the example adduced above shows how much freedom in matters of detail was left for the further elaboration; and, not to mention various oversights, it is probable that had Mozart completed the composition many delicate touches would have been added to the accompanying parts which cannot now be even conjectured. Very few indications are given for the wind instruments, and even if Mozart gave verbal instructions concerning them, much must still remain in doubt. It must be allowed, however, that Süssmayr's share in the work has been on the whole successfully performed; it is quite in keeping with the rest, and he has plainly refrained from making any alterations or surreptitious interpolations. With the last three movements we enter the domain of conjecture, if we are to reject the positive testimony of Süssmayr, supported by Mozart's widow, as to the share of the former in the work. Rochlitz, reviewing Süssmayr's letter on the subject, remarks that "the works already known to be by Herr Süssmayr subject his claim to an important share in this great composition to considerable doubt";[ 55 ] and he expressed his suspicions more decidedly at a later time.[ 56 ] G. Weber, who failed to recognise Mozart in many SÜSSMAYR'S SHARE IN THE WORK. parts of the first movements, has, on the contrary, assigned to him a distinct share in the last movements.[ 57 ] Marx emphatically expressed his conviction that the principal subjects throughout showed traces of Mozart's handiwork.[ 58 ] This view is founded on the assumption that the movements are worthy of Mozart, and are such as Süssmayr himself could not have produced; but the critic must be careful not to bring forward on aesthetic grounds alone accusations which involve so much of grave moral delinquency.
Seyfried's assertion that,[ 59 ] according to the generally accepted opinion in Vienna, Süssmayr found note-books containing sketches of these movements, and showing Mozart's intention of elaborating the Osanna fugue after the Benedictus, as well as the new theme for the concluding fugue, Cum sanctis, has scarcely been investigated with the care which it demands. One circumstance has, as far as I know, been left altogether out of account. If the last three movements had been altogether wanting at Mozart's death, it would have appeared, one would think, both easier and simpler to supply them from one of his manuscript Masses, which were entirely unknown, than to commission Süssmayr to write them afresh; and such a proceeding would doubtless have been far more capable of justification to the owner of the work. But the confusion and embarrassment in which Mozart's death threw his widow and her affairs may have occasioned many things to be done which would not otherwise have taken place.
Frz. Xav. Süssmayr, who, as a young man of twenty-seven, enjoyed the friendship of Salieri[ 60 ] and Mozart, became so intimate with the latter[ 61 ] that he was, as Seyfried THE REQUIEM. expresses it, "the inseparable companion of the immortal Amphion." He adopted Mozart's style of writing with such success that, although his ideas often fell far short of his master's, many of his works in the serious style might, Seyfred maintains, be taken for Mozart's, did we not know that they were Süssmayr's;[ 62 ] Hauptmann has informed me of instrumental works by him which show quite Mozart's manner of work, and might pass for lighter compositions by the latter.
Sievers, who warmly espoused Süssmayr's cause, speaks of his "Spiegel von Arkadien," which he ranks with the "Zauberflote,"
and of various pieces which may serve as models of the graceful and characteristic as well as of the tragico-serio styles of composition.[ 63 ] I have carefully examined his operas, "Der Spiegel von Arkadien" (1794) and "Soliman II." (1800), as well as some of his lighter church compositions, and find nothing in them beyond an easy but superficial inventive power, a smooth practised workmanship, and almost throughout an obvious imitation of Mozart's manner.
The Sanctus and Osanna are scarcely of a kind to admit of a decided opinion as to their authorship. The brevity and conciseness of the Sanctus do not by any means prove it not to have been by Mozart, for all the movements of the Requiem, when not lengthened by a fugal treatment, are similarly compressed. Nor must an unpleasing progression for the violins be taken as decisive against his authorship, for the working-out is in any case not his. On the other hand, it must not be concluded that because the movement has a general character of dignified grandeur, and the commencement of the Pleni sunt is truly majestic, that therefore Süssmayr could not have written it. It is not on the whole equal to the best of the preceding movements. The short fugue of the Osanna is animated, vigorous, and faultlessly concise; there is nothing against the supposition that Mozart might have written it; but, on the other hand, it would be difficult to prove with certainty that it might not have been SÜSSMAYR'S SHARE IN THE WORK. the work of a musician with the amount of talent and cultivation unquestionably possessed by Süssmayr.
The case is somewhat different with the Benedictus, where, according to custom, solo voices are introduced in a long and elaborate quartet of pleasing character. Zelter says of it: "The Benedictus is as excellent as it can be, but the school decides against it being by Mozart. Süssmayr knew Mozart's school of music, but had not been trained in it from early youth, and indications of this may be found here and there in the beautiful Benedictus."[ 64 ] He is doubtless right. The first motif for the alto, and the idea of making the several voices reply to each other, might very well be Mozart's; but certainly not the working-out. The motion is obviously interrupted when the soprano, after the alto, again enters in the tonic; and the passage into the dominant is very lame. Still lamer, after the conclusion of the first part, are the laborious continuance in F major, and (instead of the development naturally expected here) the immediate return by the chord of the seventh to the first part, which is then repeated in its entirety. Neither the design nor the execution is worthy of Mozart; nor is it credible that in the interlude he would have copied the "et lux perpetua" from the Requiem in such a strange fashion as it has here been done, without any reason for an allusion to that place.
The abnormally thick and full instrumentation must also be taken into consideration. The instrumentation has, it is true, not been worked out by Mozart in the other movements, but here it can scarcely be separated from the general design, and it is distinguished from that of all the other movements by the use of two trombones, which Mozart never employed elsewhere, and which here supply the place of horns. Finally, the character of the movement is in many passages soft and effeminate, contrasting in this respect with the earnestness of the other movements, even of the Tuba mirum.[ 65 ] The