MOZART AND THE PRACTICE OF SACRED MUSIC, 1781-91 a ...

minor. 186 It may be doubted, however, whether Freystädtler envisaged this passage as an
actual piece of music: more likely he employed the Crucifixus text because of its traditional
association with chromatic writing. With its unusual progressions and false relation of f to
f 1 in the alto and soprano, the sketch is certainly suggestive of the “passus” written under the
final B-flat major chord.
From his study under Mozart and evident good relations with the composer,
Freystädtler is as good a potential candidate as any for participation in the “Requiem
Project.” Unfortunately, as Lorenz has shown, Nowak’s case for Freystädtler’s authorship of
the upper string and woodwind parts is seriously flawed, and the nearly universal acceptance
of Nowak’s theory in the scholarly literature provides a salutary example of a “consensus”
founded more on uncritical acceptance than independent confirmation. 187 The problems
begin at the outset with Nowak’s list of “Wiener Kirchenkomponisten” who could have
contributed to the Requiem – a selection that is entirely arbitrary and often implausible.
Among other candidates, Nowak lists Sigismund Neukomm, who did not arrive in Vienna
until 1797, and Franz de Paula Roser, who was twelve years old in December 1791. 188
Conversely, Nowak fails to list many figures active in Viennese church music who would
seem to be equally plausible candidates for the orchestration of the Kyrie, including many of
the musicians documented in this chapter.
Nowak’s case hinges on the supposed similarity between the natural signs in the
Requiem score and those in two Freystädtler autographs from 1790 and about 1823. A pair
of autographs is not an ideal number for a detailed comparison of handwriting, especially
186 The second figure is presumably to be interpreted as .
187 Michael Lorenz, “Freystädtler’s Supposed Copying in the Autograph of K. 626: A Case of Mistaken
Identity,” in Mozart’s Choral Music: Composition, Contexts, Performance (Bloomington, IN: 12 February 2006).
A skeptical attitude to Nowak’s attribution is taken in Maunder, Mozart's Requiem: On Preparing a New
Edition, 125-26, Moseley, “Mozart's Requiem,” 209.
188 Nowak, “Instrumentalstimmen,” 192.
406