PREFACE

Keyboard music and keyboard instruments were of primary concern to Haydn throughout his life. He was an effective performer who used keyboard instruments for personal, social, commercial, professional, and compositional pursuits. Indeed, during the 1760s Haydn almost single-handedly changed the Viennese keyboard sonata from a work of little consequence to one that forms a core of the keyboard repertoire. His decisive contributions to the history of the symphony and the string quartet have long been acknowledged; it is fitting that we recognize his preeminence in cyclic works and individual pieces for keyboard instruments.

The present study is organized topically rather than chronologically and is divided into two parts: sources and style. The word “sources” is used in its most expansive sense, including philological and bibliographic matters, the documentary/historical background, and Haydn’s stylistic heritage. Although each essay was envisioned as a discrete entity, the unifying thesis that underlies the entire volume is Haydn’s consuming interest in keyboard music. All the extant documents concerning this repertoire are presented in Essay II—sketches and drafts, revisions, anecdotes, correspondence, contracts, dedications, announcements, and reviews. This essay buttresses the revisionist view of the opening chapter and provides the necessary documentation upon which much of the remainder of the book rests.

Questions of authenticity and chronology for Haydn’s keyboard works are far from settled. A comparison of any two editions and/or musicological studies will immediately reveal that even the best informed and most astute editors and commentators cannot agree on even a canon of works, much less their chronological order. In part this situation is due to the nature of the evidence: for the early works the lack of reliable data forces one to base conclusions on internal clues rather than on hard evidence. In Essays III and IV my goal is to give a sense of the directions that current Haydn research is taking in order to bring these problems under better control, as well as to offer my own conclusions as far as the present state of knowledge permits.

Essay V is devoted to the central issue for eighteenth-century keyboard music—which instrument is most appropriate for a given work. Since Haydn is known to have played the organ, clavichord, harpsichord, and fortepiano, all of which were at his disposal throughout most of his creative life, it is my view that he did not always compose exclusively for any one instrument. Thus, rather than trying to view the change from the harpsichord to fortepiano as a Rubicon crossing, I see it as a more fluid and gradual metamorphosis from a style for touch-insensitive instruments to a style for touch-sensitive ones. This chapter concludes with specific recommendations as to which instruments are best suited to the realization of each keyboard work. The care with which Haydn wrote for the various idioms further attests to the central place of keyboard music within his oeuvre.

The musical environment for Haydn’s keyboard music is the concern of the next pair of studies. Essay VI pursues Viennese repertoire and style during the mid-eighteenth century in the realms of solo, accompanied, and concerted keyboard music; while Essay VII looks at Haydn’s most frequently mentioned stylistic model, C. P. E. Bach. In all instances Haydn maintained his individuality. As a young composer, even in some of his smallest and technically easiest works, Haydn made a decisive break with the tradition of Wagenseil and his circle. Haydn did not necessarily take as his model the sonatas of C. P. E. Bach but the principles of the Versuch, which he adapted to his own inclinations. From an early date Haydn absorbed and transformed everything to which he was exposed.

The second part of this volume consists of three essays on the development of Haydn’s musical language. Essay VIII seeks to show the interrelationships among the various genres and settings, while Essays IX and X discuss structure and style in each category. The final two chapters have a chronological presentation, although the various units of the ritornello structure are stressed in the essay on the concertos, and the development of the sonata, variation, and part forms is pursued in the final essay on the solo and accompanied works. My intent is both to elucidate some of the individual characteristics of the keyboard works and to examine them within the context of Haydn’s own developing style.

Space constraints do not permit a side-by-side presentation of all documents in their original language and in English; although most of the documents are therefore given only in translation, the original keyboard terminology is retained. I use the italicized term fortepiano to refer to the instrument of Haydn’s time but not for dynamics or for today’s product. For quotations from the Haydn correspondence, Denes Bartha’s transcriptions were translated. Most of the other English translations are based on the original documents, with those from the German by Paul Borg, from the French and Italian by Austin B. Caswell.

The abbreviations for the bibliographic references are based on the system used by W. S. Newman in his History of the Sonata Idea. The bibliography lists only the works cited in the text. For a comprehensive bibliography of literature, the reader should consult Brown and Berkenstock, Joseph Haydn in Literature: A Bibliography for entries through 1972, and Horst Walter’s supplement in Haydn-Studien (III/3–4, V/4).

One cannot prepare a work of this nature without the assistance of a number of people and institutions. For financial aid I am first of all indebted to my wife, as it would have been impossible to pursue my research program of the last decade without her sustaining full-time employment; second, to the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for a fellowship during 1978–79 that allowed me to devote a full academic year to research and writing; and third, to the Office of Research and Graduate Development at Indiana University for grants-in-aid and two summer fellowships. For the loan, use, and/or duplication of materials in their collections, I thank the following persons and institutions: Otto Biba (Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna), Rudolf Elvers (Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin), Ernst Hilmar (Stadtbibliothek, Vienna), István Kecskeméti (National Széchényi Library, Budapest), Karl Heinz Köhler (Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin), Ortrun Landmann (Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden), the late Christa Landon (Vienna), H. C. Robbins Landon (Vienna), François Lesure (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), the late Albert Vander Linden (Conservatoire Royal de Musique, Brussels), Salvatore Pintacuda (Instituto Musicale, Genova), Peter Riethus (Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna), Mlada Rutova (Narodni Muzeum, Prague), and Jiří Sehnal (Moravské Múzeum, Brno).

For answering inquiries and providing information, I am indebted to Georg Feder, Michele Fillion, Karl Heinz Füssl, A. Hyatt King, H. C. Robbins Landon, Jan LaRue, Peter Lindenbaum, Sheila Lindenbaum, Nicholas McGegan, Darina Múdra, William S. Newman, Carla Pollack, Robert Schwarz, László Somfai, Alan Tyson, and Rachel Wade.

For research assistance including cataloguing, typing, constructing scores and tables, and other numerous services I am indebted to my past and present research assistants at the Indiana University School of Music: Peter Alexander, Richard Griscom, Beverly Heinlein, Suzanne LaPlante, Therese Lutz, Adrienne Meconi, Mary Sue Morrow, René Ramos, and Julie Schnepel. Among these a special acknowledgment is due Mr. Alexander, who accompanied me during the autumn of 1978 to Vienna, Brno, and Kroměříž and rechecked some Haydn sources in Berlin; and Ms. Morrow, who checked and rechecked the entire manuscript. I especially thank Constance Cook Glen, Mara Parker, and Julie Schnepel, who prepared the indexes. My wife, Carol, skillfully gave the book its most critical reading.

Many of the ideas and hypotheses stated herein find their origin in the work of other scholars, who are acknowledged in the footnotes. In particular, the work of Karl Päsler, Hermann Abert, H. C. Robbins Landon, László Somfai, William S. Newman, Christa Landon, and Georg Feder has proved to be the most stimulating. That issue is taken with some of their conclusions and doubts are expressed concerning others, should not be misconstrued. Most importantly, the influence of Jan LaRue, who during the last fifteen years has shared with me his bibliographic expertise and analytical acumen for eighteenth-century music, should be self-evident.