HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America

Volume 2 Article 1
Number 1 Spring 2012

March 2012

Two Composers and a Cellist: Haydn, Hofmann, and Joseph Weigl

Allan Badley

Follow this and additional works at: https://remix.berklee.edu/haydn-journal

Recommended Citation
Badley, Allan (2012) "Two Composers and a Cellist: Haydn, Hofmann, and Joseph Weigl," HAYDN: Online
Journal of the Haydn Society of North America: Vol. 2 : No. 1 , Article 1.
Available at: https://remix.berklee.edu/haydn-journal/vol2/iss1/1

© Haydn Society of North America ; Boston: Berklee Library, 2012. Duplication without the express permission of
the author and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.
Two Composers and a Cellist: Haydn, Hofmann, and
Joseph Weigl
Allan Badley

Abstract

Joseph Haydn and Leopold Hofmann may have had little in common as

artists or men but they did share one special connection: the cellist Joseph

Weigl. At some point after 1769 when Weigl left the Esterházy Kapelle in order

to move to Vienna he joined Hofmann’s orchestra at St. Peter’s where he

remained active until at least 1783.

Although Hofmann had composed a number of works with prominent cello

parts prior to Weigl’s arrival in Vienna, he seems to have taken a much closer

interest in writing for the instrument in the following decade. Over thirty

compositions with cello can be assigned to the years 1770–1782 including

concertos, concertinos, chamber works and a mass with violoncello

concertante. Of these works, a number may have been written expressly for

Weigl, among them two concertos that exploit the high register of the

instrument in a way that Hofmann’s earlier works do not. To perform these

works the cellist must possess the command of thumb technique that Haydn

demanded in his Concerto in C, Hob. VIIb:1, a work believed to have been

composed for Weigl. Thumb technique was a relatively new innovation in the

mid-eighteenth century and many composers, Hofmann among them,

generally avoided exploiting the high register to ensure that their works could

be performed as widely as possible. That Hofmann broke with this practice

1
suggests strongly that he was writing for one particular cellist; the strongest

candidate is Joseph Weigl.

This paper examines several works by Hofmann in which he utilizes the cello

in a new way and proposes that they exist in this form owing to the impact

Weigl made on him as a cellist.

Introduction: Joseph Weigl

In 1784, a census of church musicians was carried out in Vienna in order to

provide the imperial administration with an accurate idea of the annual level

of expenditure for church music.1 The resulting document was by no means

complete in its listing of personnel (it omitted, for administrative reasons, the

musicians of the Hofkapelle and St. Stephen’s Cathedral) but the cost of

maintaining Vienna’s extraordinarily rich church music tradition was

nonetheless laid out with admirable clarity. The document must have given

welcome ammunition to Joseph II who, a year earlier, had extended his

ambitious program of ecclesiastical reforms with the promulgation of a decree

regulating and restricting the inclusion of elaborate figural music in many

services.2 Among the musicians listed in the Verzeichnisz über sämtliches

Musick=Personal is Joseph (Franz) Weigl (1740–1820), the sole cellist at St.

Peter’s where Leopold Hofmann had served as regens chori (later

Kapellmeister) since 1764. Weigl’s presence in Hofmann’s orchestra not only

marks a fascinating intersection with Haydn’s world, since he was a

longstanding professional colleague of his, but it also raises the intriguing

2
possibility that a number of Hofmann’s cello works were composed for the

same man for whom Haydn had composed his brilliant Violoncello Concerto

in C (Hob.VIIb:1) some years earlier.

Weigl was one of a number musicians appointed to the Esterházy Kapelle on 1

June 1761 on the recommendation of Haydn, its newly appointed Vice-

Kapellmeister.3 Virtually nothing is known about Weigl’s life prior to his

appointment beyond the fact that he was born in Bavaria.4 It is possible that

he was one of the musicians Haydn recruited in Vienna but how and where he

was employed prior to joining the Esterházy Kapelle remains a mystery. He

was not a member of the Hofkapelle at this time5 nor does his name appear

among the musicians listed in Philippe Gumpenhueber’s Repertoires, a series

of manuscript volumes written in French that list all of the court

entertainments during the years 1761–1763.6 If he had been working

professionally in Vienna before June 1761 then it may have been on a largely

freelance basis or as a member of an ensemble in a wealthy aristocratic

household. Weigl remained a member of the Esterházy Kapelle until 1769

when he moved to Vienna to take up the position of principal cellist at the

Kärntnertortheater. His wife Josepha (née Scheffstoß), who had served as a

choral and chamber singer at the Esterházy court since 1760, was engaged by

the Burgtheater where her performances of Gluck operas in particular won her

great acclaim.

Weigl, like most of his colleagues, probably held a number of other

appointments and supplemented his income by giving private lessons. He

appears to have kept in contact with some of his former colleagues, including

3
Haydn, who was godfather to his son Joseph. On 12 January 1782 the

Preßburger Zeitung noted:

Vienna, January 9, 1782: … To our recent report of the Archduke

Maximilian’s activities we must add the following: The large concert

which he presented in the Countess van Norden’s quarters, on

December 26th past, consisted of music by Prince Esterházy’s

Kapellmeister, the famous Haydn. The quartet comprised Luigi

Tomasini, Apfelmayr [Aspelmayr], Weigl and Huber. The noble

personages not only honored the musicians with their worthy applause;

they also presented Haydn, as composer, with a magnificent bejewelled

snuffbox in gold enamel, and each of the other four musicians with a

gold tobacco case…7

This is not the only occasion on which Weigl is known to have performed

Haydn’s string quartets in Vienna. Burney heard him in a performance of

several quartets at a soirée he attended on 4 September 1772 at the residence

of the British Ambassador, Lord Stormont:

Between the vocal parts of this delightful concert, we had some

exquisite quartets, by Haydn, executed in the utmost perfection: the

first violin by M. Startzler [Starzer], who played the Adagios with

uncommon feeling and expression; the second violin by M. Ordonetz

[Ordonez]; count Brühl played the tenor [viola], and M. Weigl, an

excellent performer on the violoncello, the base. All … were animated to

[a] true pitch of enthusiasm…8

4
In spite of Weigl’s advocacy of Haydn’s string quartets in the 1770s, there is no

record of him (or indeed anyone else) performing string quartets in the

Esterházy milieu while he was a member of the Kapelle. This period coincided

with a hiatus in Haydn’s composition of string quartets as he fulfilled his

demanding and wide-ranging duties first as Vice-Kapellmeister and, after

1766, as Kapellmeister. One of the new genres he began to cultivate during

these years was the baryton trio and Weigl may well have taken part in

performances of these works.

I. Haydn's use of the Cello in the early 1760s

Although the baryton trios are among the first of Haydn’s chamber works to

specify violoncello as the lowest voice, the parts themselves are rarely

distinguishable from the generic basso parts encountered in Haydn’s early

trios for two violins and basso and his keyboard trios. Only rarely is the cello

part animated by the employment of motivic generated figuration or is

entrusted with any kind of thematic material (and then it typically shadows

one of the other voices in parallel motion) outside the obvious and artificial

opportunities for melodic writing created by contrapuntal textures.9 The

musical reasons for this are many and varied, but Haydn, being the skillful

diplomat that he was, may also have taken into consideration the importance

of allowing the baryton part, written for Prince Esterházy himself, to shine.

Haydn’s interest in the broader musical potential of the violoncello seems

largely to have been restricted to an orchestral context. Ten symphonies

composed between ca. 1760 and 176510 employ a solo violoncello (presumably

intended to be performed by Weigl) in one or more movements and, towering

5
above these works in the technical demands it places upon the soloist, the C

major Concerto.11

Given the uncertain chronology of Haydn’s early symphonies it is not clear

which of these works is the earliest. The three programmatic symphonies, Hob

I:6-8, are the best known of them, but their idiosyncratic concertante style

makes them atypical of Haydn’s symphonies of this time. Symphony No. 36 in

E flat (Hob. I:36), dated ca. 1763,12 follows the example of Symphony No. 6 in

D Le Matin in having concertante parts for violin and violoncello in the slow

movement. The cello writing in this movement is attractive and idiomatic, and

the two solo instruments are deployed with considerable skill and sensitivity.

Outside the brief tutti sections, in which the cello doubles the basso line, the

part lies exclusively in the middle and upper registers (although it avoids the

high tessitura) and makes no use of double-stopping. Many of the same

qualities are to be found in the solos in Symphonies 6-8 although these works

make greater use of the low register. In the remarkable second movement

cadenza of Symphony No. 7 in C "Le Midi" Haydn uses two growling multiple-

stopped chords to underline a structurally important section of dominant

harmony.

In the remaining symphonies he employs the solo cello in a variety of ways

including, in the second movement of Symphony No. 16 in B flat, doubling the

muted violins an octave lower which is less an extension of instrumental

technique than an experiment in orchestral sonority. All of these solos clearly

require a cellist of considerable technical ability and musical sense, but there

6
is little in them to foreshadow the explosion of virtuosity in the first of

Haydn’s two extant concertos for the instrument.

II. The C Major Concerto

Since its sensational discovery and identification by the Czech scholar Oldřich

Pulkert in 1961, Haydn’s C major Cello Concerto has enjoyed a permanent

place in the cello repertory. The dating of the work (ca. 1762-1765)13 is inexact

but it does place it squarely in the period during which Weigl was employed in

the Esterházy Kapelle. The concerto should, therefore, reflect some of the

strengths of his playing as well as revealing in a more general way Haydn’s

treatment of the cello as a solo instrument.

The solo concerto is a much more suitable medium for exploring instrumental

technique than the symphony in which any number of constraints may

operate depending on the type of movement and its context. Haydn’s

predilection for concertante writing in slow movements and in the trio

sections of minuets, a practice which is common to many composers of the

period, necessarily places restrictions on how he writes for the solo

instrument. Extreme virtuosity in the form of rapid passagework, multiple

stopping, and the dramatic exploitation of extreme shifts of tessitura does not

fit well within the prevailing aesthetic of the mid-century slow movement. It is

even less appropriate in trios, which typically introduce a relaxation of mood

rather than an intensification of it. In the C major Concerto Haydn demands

from the player a level of technical command hitherto unseen in his writing

for the instrument. One aspect of this is his exploitation of the high register of

the cello in extended passages. For these to be executed with any degree of

7
accuracy or fluency, the player must have mastered thumb position

technique,14 an advanced and comparatively new technique in the 1760s but

one that Weigl clearly possessed.

The C major Concerto marks the apogee of Haydn’s cello writing in the 1760s

and it remained unsurpassed until the composition of the Concerto in D, Hob.

VIIb:2 in 1783. His utilization of the upper range of the instrument must have

struck those who first heard the work as extremely daring. The high register is

employed in both lyrical writing and bravura passagework but the former

dominates as the following examples illustrate. In the first of these, Haydn

prepares the ground by approaching cautiously from the tenor register before

reintroducing thematic material heard earlier in the movement; the end of the

phrase is modified to allow the cello to sweep up to a stratospheric a'' before

falling to cadence in the relative minor. Haydn reinforces the solo part by

doubling it with the first violin in bars 81–82, misleading the listener perhaps

into thinking that the strength of the cadence heralds the anticipated return of

the ritornello. However, when this does occur six bars later, the reentry of the

ritornello is preceded by a growling cadence in the low register of the

instrument thus exploiting, for dramatic effect, the extreme outer limits of

range. The brief brush with the dominant (E) in bar 89 acts as counter to the

high a'' in bar 82, the tonic-dominant harmonic polarity mirroring the close

juxtaposition of high and low registers. [Example 1]

8
 Example 1: Haydn Violoncello Concerto in C, Hob. VIIb:1/i, bars 78–89

78 [Moderato]

&
°
Ob I ∑ ∑ ∑

Ob II
¢& ∑ ∑ ∑

¢&
°
Cor I, II ∑ ∑ ∑

œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
° œœœ
Vn I &
pp

& œœœœœ œœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Vn II
[pp]

Va B w w w

˙ œ™
[p]

? œ œœœœœ œœœ œ œ œœ œœœœœ œœœ œ œ

Vc Pr &œ #œ œ #œ œ œ
œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
B
? œ œ œ œ
¢
pp

. œ. ; œ. œ. #œ. œ. œ j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
81
#œ
& œ. œ. #œ. œ. .
œ .
œ œ œ #œ œj œ #œ œ œ™ œ™ œ œ œ™ œ™ œ
° :

Ÿ
& œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ™ œ œ™nœ œ œ œ™ œ œ™ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ
B œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ <n>œ œ œ ‰ œj œ ‰ œj œ

œ #œ œ Ÿ œ œ œ
& œ #œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œÓ<n>œ œ ‰œ œœ œ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œ œœ œœ ‰ Œ
œœœ ™ ™ ™ ™ J
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
? nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ <n>œ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ
¢ J J

9
85

&
° ∑ ∑ ∑

¢&
∑ ∑ ∑

¢&
°
∑ ∑ ∑

° œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œj œ
& œ œ ˙ œ
[pianiss.]

& œ œ œ œ œ œœœ Œ ˙
œ œ œ œ œ œj œ ˙
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
pianiss.

B œ œ œ œ ˙
œ œ œ
pianiss.

œ œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œj œ œœœ œ œœœ œœ

œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ
B≈
& œœ œœ
œ œ œ œ #œ
? œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
¢ œ œ #œ œ œ œ
pianiss.
88
˙
°
& ∑ Ó
[f]

¢& ∑ Ó ˙
[f]

¢&
°
∑ ∑

œ œΩ œ œ œ œ
‰ œΩ œΩ œΩ œ
& J
°
œ œ œ œ
f
j œ œ œ œ
& œ œ œ #œ œ ‰ œ œ œº œ #œº > œ
<º º
f

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
B œ œ œ œ
‰ œ œ œ œ
J
#œ# œ œ œœœœ œ œ œ œ
f

B œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ?œ œ #œ œœ
Œ
œ œ
? œ œ œ œ j œ œ
œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ
¢
f

10
Example 2: Haydn Violoncello Concerto in C, Hob. VIIb:1/iii, bars 223–232

œœ ˙ œ œΩ œΩ Ω ˙ œbœ œ
[Allegro Molto]
° œœœœœœœœ œ
222

Vn I &
œ œ œ œœœœœœœœ œ œ ‰ œr œ œ œ œJ ‰ Œ œ
œœ J
[f] p

˙ œ j‰ Œ b˙ œ
Vn II & œœœœœœœœ œ Œ Ó j‰ r
< œº œº œº> œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œbœ
p

Va B œœœœœœœœ œ Œ Ó œœœœœœœœ œ œ œœ œ œœœ œœœœœ œœ œ

p
Ÿ w w ˙ œbœ œ
? B˙ œ Œ Ó œ
Vc Pr
˙ &

? œœœœ Œ Ó œœœœœœœœ œ œ œœ œ œœœ œœœœœ œœ œ

B
¢ œœœœ œ
[p]

227
°
& œJ ‰ œJ ‰ œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
J
[pp]

& œj ‰ Œ ‰
œ œ œ b[pp]
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

B œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
[pp]

bœ œ œ œJ ‰ Œ œ bœ œ œ
r
œ œ
˙ œ œ ˙ œ
& J ‰

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
? œ œ œ œ
¢
pp

b˙
230
° œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
&

& bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ ˙ œ œ

bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
B

& œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ b˙ œ œ

? bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
¢

11
In the second example [Example 2], taken from the Finale, the introduction of

the high register is more dramatic (there is no elision between the middle and

upper registers) although the line is still underpinned at times by the first

violin. In a movement that abounds with rapid passagework and tricky string

crossings, Haydn once again reserves the highest register for thematically

derived lyrical writing.

Over the course of the next few years Haydn wrote comparatively little for the

instrument. The cello solos in the second and fourth movements of Symphony

No. 31 in D "Hornsignal" (1765) are the most impressive examples from this

period and at times they lie comparatively high for the instrument; in other

respects, they look back to the concertante writing encountered in the three

programmatic symphonies Hob. I: 6-8 of 1761 and in the theme and variations

finale of Symphony No. 72 in D (ca 1763).

III. Weigl's models: Francesco Alborea and Luigi Boccherini

It is possible that Weigl had mastered thumb technique prior to joining the

Esterházy Kapelle in 1761, but so little is known about his early life and

musical training in Bavaria that we cannot be certain even where this took

place. In Vienna, by comparison, he would have had the opportunity to hear

(and possibly study with) two of the most celebrated cellists of the eighteenth

century, Francesco Alborea and Luigi Boccherini, both of whom were great

exponents of thumb technique.

The Italian cellist Francesco Alborea (b.1691), more usually known by his

nickname Francischello (Franciscello, Francisghella etc) has been credited

12
with inventing thumb technique,15 but this view is not universally held and in

their recent monograph Das Violoncello, Winfried Pape and Wolfgang

Boettcher find no evidence to support the assertion.16 Van Der Straeten gives

Francischello’s place and date of death as Genoa, ca. 1771 on the basis of

Gerber’s biographical sketch,17 but Mary Cyr, author of the entry on Alborea in

Grove, follows Köchel in giving it as [Vienna] 20 July 1739.18 In this instance

it appears that Gerber is the more reliable source since Gumpenhueber

includes ‘Francisghella’ (and ‘Abborea’) in the orchestra lists for

entertainments at court in the years 1761–176319 and Pape and Boettcher state

that he played in the Hofkapelle until 1766.20 Köchel gives Francischello’s date

of appointment to the Hofkapelle as 172121 and, assuming this is correct, he

must have been granted leave of absence in the mid-1720s because Quantz

heard him in Naples in 1725 at a concert in honour of Prince Lichtenstein in

which Farinelli sang.22 In 1726, back in Vienna, he was appointed chamber

virtuoso to Count Uhlenfeld and around 1730 he was named kaiserlicher

Kammermusiker, a title reserved for musicians of great distinction. There is

no evidence of a direct connection between Weigl and Francischello, but in the

close-knit musical world of eighteenth-century Vienna it is inconceivable that

their paths did not cross.

The same is true in the case of Boccherini, although the sporadic nature of his

visits to Vienna would have made this more difficult. Boccherini made his first

appearance with his father in Vienna in the spring of 1758 as a soloist in the

Musikalischen Fasten-Accademien in the Burgtheater. As a result of their

successful début, Luigi and his father Leopoldo, a bassist, were engaged as

musici from Easter until autumn, playing in the orchestra at the

13
Kärtnertortheater. The two men returned to Vienna for further engagements

in the same capacity in 1760–1761 and 1763–1764.23 There is documentary

evidence for only two solo concerts given by Luigi during this period,

considerably fewer than for some of the local cellists. Whether this was due to

organized opposition on the part of his professional colleagues or simply a

reflection of his lower status as an artist on a fixed term contract is uncertain.

These years also coincide with the composition of his first significant works,

the Trios of Op. 1, the quartets of Op. 2, and the Op. 3 duets, works which all

exploit the cello in a remarkable fashion. To a young cellist like Weigl,

Boccherini must surely have been an irresistible figure, one to be sought out

and, if possible, persuaded to give lessons.

Whether it was from Francischello, Boccherini or some other great master of

the cello that Weigl acquired the rudiments of thumb technique, it was his

command of it that made it possible for Haydn to write his concerto in the

manner he did. It may even be a suggestion worth thinking about that Weigl

only perfected the technique after he joined the Esterházy Kapelle and it was

this which stimulated Haydn’s interest in writing a cello concerto for him.

IV. Leopold Hofmann

By the time Weigl arrived in Vienna in 1769 Leopold Hofmann’s reputation as

a composer was well established. Since completing his studies with Georg

Christoph Wagenseil in the late 1750s, Hofmann had distinguished himself as

one of the most prolific and popular composers in Vienna. In 1764 his

reputation as a composer of sacred music had helped to secure him the

position of regens chori at St. Peter’s, one of the city’s most important

14
churches, and five years later, he succeeded Wagenseil as Hofklaviermeister:

keyboard teacher to the imperial family. In spite of the near impossibility of

establishing a reliable chronological framework for his compositions, it is

clear from the number of extant sources and references to them in

contemporary catalogues that Hofmann had already composed a large

number of works before 1770. 24

As one might expect from a Wagenseil pupil, Hofmann was a fine keyboard

player whose organ playing in particular impressed Empress Maria

Theresia.25 Nonetheless, the composition of solo keyboard music does not

appear to have engaged his interest much even after his appointment as

Hofklaviermeister in 1769. Comparatively few solo works are known and

these are of only slight musical interest,26 but he did compose a significant

number of keyboard concertos, several of which possibly served as teaching

material for his imperial pupils. Two volumes of keyboard music bearing the

ex libris of Archduchess Maria Elisabeth which are preserved in the Austrian

National Library27 contain a total of eleven Hofmann works including

concertos and chamber works with keyboard.28

If Hofmann’s attitude towards composing solo keyboard works was

unaccountably lukewarm, it was a very different matter when it came to

writing for stringed instruments. He was an excellent violinist who in his

youth may have studied with Giuseppe Trani, Dittersdorf’s teacher.29 During

the 1760s Hofmann composed a significant body of chamber music for strings

in addition to concertinos with multiple solo instruments and concertos for

violin and violoncello.

15
One of the surprising aspects of Hofmann’s output is his evident fascination

with writing for the cello. With the caveat that all composition dates for

Hofmann’s works should be treated with caution, he is known to have written

at least twelve works before 1769 in which a solo violoncello part is specified:

these include a symphony, seven concertinos, a solo concerto and three

chamber works [Table 1]. Many of the works dated post 1769, and especially

those in the years up to and including 1771, may also have been composed

during this period.30 Against the twelve works tentatively dated 1760–1768

there are thirty from the period 1769–1782 and a further ten works for which

no dates are known. If it is an exaggeration to describe this as an explosion of

interest on Hofmann’s part, it is nonetheless important to look for a reason

why Hofmann, a church musician by profession, wrote so much for the cello

during this phase of his career. Weigl’s presence in Vienna and his

membership of at least one of Hofmann’s orchestras is a good place to start.31

16
 Table 1: Solo Violoncello Writing in the Works of Leopold Hofmann

Genre !"#$%& '%&( Comment

Symphony F2 2ob 2vn va vc/b 1760 iii [Trio] va vc b
Concertino G1 cemb vn vc; b 1763 Breitkopf Part IV 1763
Concertino C3 vn va vc; 2vn b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concertino D1 2vn va vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concertino E1 vn vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn va b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concertino F2 vn va vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concertino G2 2vn va vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concertino Bb1 vn va vc; 2vn va b 1767 Breitkopf II 1767
Concerto C4 vc; 2vn b 1768 Breitkopf III 1768
Duo II: C1 vn vc 1768 Breitkopf III 1768
Duo II: D2 vn vc 1768 Breitkopf III 1768 (Hob. VI D:1)
Trio IV: C1 vn vc b 1768 Breitkopf III 1768
Concertino A2 cemb fl vn vc; b 1769 Breitkopf IV 1769
Concerto C3 vc; 2vn b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770
Concerto D4 vc; 2vn va b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770 - not located
Trio IV: D1 vn vc b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770
Trio IV: D2 vn vc b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770 - not located
Trio IV: F1 vn vc b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770: Op.1 No.6 [Hummel]
Trio IV: G1 vn vc b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770 - not located
Trio VII: A2 va vc b 1770 Breitkopf V 1770: Op.1 No.1 [Hummel]
Concerto C2 vc; 2cor 2vn b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concerto D1 vc; 2vn va b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concerto D2 vc; 2cor 2vn va b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concertino C2 vc; 2ob obl. 2cor obl. 2vn va b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concertino C5 va vc; 2ob 2cor timp 2vn b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concertino D5 va vc; 2vn b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Concertino D6 vn vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn va b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Concertino Eb 2 2va vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Concertino A1 vn va vc; 2vn b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Solo C1 vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Solo D1 vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Solo F1 vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771
Solo A1 vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Solo Bb1 vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Trio VIII: D1 2vc b 1771 Breitkopf VI 1771 - not located
Trio IV: D3 vn vc b 1774 Op.1 No.5 [Hummel]: Hob. V D5
Trio IV: Eb 1 vn vc b 1774 Op.1 No.4 [Hummel]
Trio VII: A1 va vc b 1774 Op.1 No.3 [Hummel]
Trio VII: Bb1 va vc b 1774 Op.1 No.2 [Hummel]
Concerto D3 vc; 2cor 2vn va b 1775 Breitkopf X 1775 - 'Weigl' Concerto?
Concertino C4 2vc; 2ob 2cor 2vn va b 1775? Quartbuch'
Symphony Bb5 va vc; 2vn va b 1765? va vc in ii and iii [Trio] only
Concerto G1 vn vc; 2vn va b 1782? Weigl' Concerto?
Concerto C1 vc; 2cor 2vn va b n.d Weigl' Concerto?
Concertino Eb1 vn va vc; 2vn b n.d. Prov. Clam Gallas
Concertino F1 2vn va vc;b n.d. A KR H39/69
Duo II: D1 vn vc n.d. A M V 852: '6 Menuetti'
Duo II: G1 vn vc n.d. A M V 853: 'Due Variazioni'
Trio IX: Eb1 vn va vc n.d. A HE VI b 1: 'Terzetto'
Symphony Deest 2fl 2ob 2clno timp va conc vc obl. 2vn va b n.d. Adaptation of 'Orat. Sti Joanne Nepomuceni' overture
Litany D3 SATB conc. 2fl conc 2fag conc 2clno 2trbni (1. conc) timp 2vn 2va 2 vc conc b org n.d. 2vc in Sancta Maria only
Oratorio SA solo vn vc conc. 2vn va b n.d. Aria III: 'An morti ultro trades'
Mass Proh.25 SATB 2clni 2 trbe timp 2vn vc conc vlne org n.d. Adaption of AWn F 24 St Peter A149 (C, Org Conc.)

17
V. Hofmann's cello works.

No documentation has survived that establishes the year in which Weigl

joined Hofmann’s orchestra at St. Peter’s. The flurry of works for cello that

appeared in the early 1770s suggests that this may have occurred soon after he

arrived in Vienna, but in reality, Weigl might have been appointed at any time

between 1769 and the compilation of the Verzeichnisz in 1783. Not all of the

works putatively composed after 1769 are virtuosic in style. Many of them

employ the same kind of techniques encountered in Hofmann’s earlier works

and do not noticeably exploit the high tessitura of the instrument. Perhaps the

most interesting aspect of them is that they exist at all.

Like most composers of his time, Hofmann is unlikely to have composed these

works without a commissioning fee or some other prospect of financial

reward. Some of the works advertised in the Breitkopf Catalogue are of types

that were popular with amateur performers such as duos for violin and cello

and solos for cello and basso, but the concertinos, with their two, three and

four solo instruments, surely do not fall into this category since they require

musical forces that were rarely at the command of amateurs.

The majority of Hofmann’s concertinos, including the most elaborately scored

works, were advertised in the Breitkopf Catalogue but they appear to have

circulated in relatively small numbers. Although works styled "concertino"

were advertised sporadically between 1763 and 1771, the two groups of six

works advertised in Supplement II 1767 and Supplement VI 1771 represent the

most stylistically coherent of Hofmann’s compositions of this type. Four of the

concertinos (C2, C4, Eb2, and F2)32 are also listed along with six other works

18
by Hofmann in the Quartbuch catalogue, evidence that they were known

outside Vienna.33 Copies of several works reached as far afield as Dresden and

Regensburg while several concertinos formed part of the music collection at

the beautiful Festetics castle Helikon at Keszthely in Hungary. Most of the

extant concertinos, however, are preserved in the Narodní Muzeum in Prague

as part of the important music collection of Count Christian Clam Gallas

(1749–1805).34

Clam Gallas’s wife, Countess Caroline, was the daughter of Count Wenzel

Spork, Hof-und Kammermusik Direktor at the Habsburg court in Vienna

from 1765 to 1774, a great connoisseur of music and a supporter of

Hofmann.35 According to Schönfeld, Spork held weekly quartet parties in

which he played the cello parts himself with great taste; on occasion, large

vocal works were also performed.36 Too complex in their instrumentation for

amateur performances and unsuitable for performance in church, Hofmann’s

concertinos may well have been written for gatherings such as these, and the

relationship between the Clam Gallas and Spork families might explain the

presence of these works in Clam Gallas’s music collection.

The concertinos are not ideal vehicles for virtuosic display since like most

ensemble works the solo parts reflect the need to accommodate other parts.

Nonetheless, Hofmann’s use of the cello is interesting from a textural point of

view since he uses it predominantly as a melodic instrument (the orchestral

basso provides the harmonic underpinning). It is frequently paired with

another solo instrument and Hofmann scrupulously avoids crossing the viola

part in both tutti and solo sections. Weigl may have played these works but

19
there is little in their musical fabric to suggest that they were composed with

his particular strengths in mind. Indeed, the second (1771) set of concertinos

largely continues the stylistic approach taken by Hofmann in the concertinos

of 1767.

VI. Weigl and Hofmann

Several compositions from the post 1769 period display sufficiently unusual

characteristics to indicate that they may have been influenced by or written

primarily for Joseph Weigl: these include three solo concertos and the

Concerto for Violin and Violoncello. Two further works, the Oratorium Sancti

Joanne Nepomuceni and a Mass D, are undated but also contain important

obbligato parts for cello.

In the oratorio, the duetto An morti ultro trades has solo parts for violin and

cello, the two instruments functioning as analogues of the soprano and alto

soloists who sing the allegorical roles respectively of Mundus and Pietas.

There is nothing in the style of the cello writing to signal that the duetto was

written specifically for Weigl, but the very existence of the cello part warrants

our attention given the rarity of obbligato cello writing in Hofmann’s sacred

music. The oratorio may have been written for the Carmelite Church in the

Leopoldstadt for whom Hofmann composed a similar work on the martyrdom

of St. Johann Nepomuk in 1765.37 This work has not survived, but its success

(Dittersdorf praised it in his "anonymous" article "Auf dem wienerischen

Geschmack in der Musik" published in the Wienerisches Diarium in 176638)

may have led to the commissioning of a second oratorio. If the Oratorium

Sancti Joanne Nepomuceni is indeed the later work, the obbligato cello part

20
may have been included in the score because Hofmann knew that Weigl would

be available for the performance.

The case for Weigl’s association with the Mass in D is stronger, but as always

it relies to an extent on conjecture. Like a number of his contemporaries,

including Haydn, Hofmann wrote masses with concertato organ. Typically the

solo parts in these works are confined to the Benedictus, but there are masses,

and among them several by Hofmann, in which the organ solo is employed

throughout. One of these masses, however, is preserved in a parallel version

with violoncello concertante in place of the more conventional organ solo. On

the basis of stylistic evidence there seems little doubt that both versions of the

work are authentic, but there is nothing to point to either the sequence or date

of their composition. While there is circumstantial evidence to believe that

Hofmann wrote or arranged the mass with violoncello concertante to take

advantage of Weigl’s presence in the St. Peter’s Kapelle, it is the C major

organ version of the work that is preserved in that collection. The cello

version comes down to us in a single set of manuscript parts which formerly

belonged to the Oettingen-Wallerstein collection at Schloß Harburg: "Missa /

a / 4 Voci / 2 Clarini / 2 Trombe / Tympani / Violoncello Concertante. / e /

Organo / Del Sig Leopoldo de Hoffmann / M:D:Cla di Santo Steffano."39 The

description of Hofmann as Maestro di Capella at St. Stephen’s provides a

convenient terminus ante quem of 1772 for the copy, not too far removed from

RISM’s tentative dating of ca. 1780.40 The form of the composer’s name—

Leopoldo de Hoffmann—is unusual, but it is seen on a number of Viennese

copies of Hofmann’s sacred works in the St. Peter’s collection.

21
The solo cello in this work is employed primarily to link blocks of choral

writing, but its central role in the overall conception of the mass is signaled

from the outset by its presentation of the opening theme of the Kyrie. The

lower staff in the example below shows the basso line or, as in the first bar, the

lowest sounding voice in the orchestra [Example 3].

Example 3: Hofmann Mass in D, Kyrie. D HR III 4 ½ 2˚152

22
VII. Hofmann's cello concertos and Weigl's influence.

Fascinating though the mass undoubtedly is, it is the concertos that argue

most strongly for Weigl’s influence on Hofmann. Of the eight cello concertos

attributed to Hofmann that have reasonable claims to authenticity, seven are

extant. Only one of these works can be confidently dated before 1770 although

it is likely that a number of the other concertos were composed around the

mid-1760s. Three concertos, however, stand out on account of their size,

exploitation of the high register of the instrument or unusual treatment of

musical texture, and it is these works, it might be argued, that were inspired

by Hofmann’s knowledge of Weigl’s playing. Two of them were advertised in

the Breitkopf Catalogue, the third was not, although ironically it is the only

one of the three to be preserved in multiple sources.

The earlier of the two dated works is Concerto C2, advertised in Breitkopf

Supplement VI in 1771. It is without question the most unusual of Hofmann’s

cello concertos, its most striking quality being the highly original manner in

which it exploits the solo-tutti polarity fundamental to the concerto genre.

Although the orchestration of the work is relatively small (2 horns, 2 violins

and basso), Hofmann only utilizes his full resources in the tutti sections. In

the solos, the cello is accompanied by two violins only, creating a fascinating

web of middle register sound, utterly different in quality to the fuller string

texture of the ritornello sections reinforced by the horns. In the absence of a

conventional bass line, the root of the harmony migrates between voices with

the cello playing both above and below the two violins. This technique is

extended further in the Adagio middle movement whose scoring for solo cello

23
and two violins necessitates the omission of the customary ritornello structure

[Example 4]. Hofmann’s exploitation of polar opposites extends to the cello

writing itself, which makes use of both high and low registers as if to

compensate for the limited compass of the violin accompaniment. The use of

gruff, octave Cs in the bars leading up to the final tutti in the third movement

are particularly effective in this respect.

The second of the dated concertos, Concerto D3, was advertised by Breitkopf

in Supplement X, 1775. It is the longest and most ambitious of Hofmann’s

cello concertos and as the last of the works to be advertised by Breitkopf it

may have been the last to be composed. The authenticity of the brief,

interpolated cadenza that prefaces the first solo section [Example 5] is by no

means certain, but its appearance in situ in the solo part should not be

dismissed out of hand as a copyist’s invention on the basis that such things

happen elsewhere in the works of other composers. It is a very unusual touch

to be sure, but it is one of a number of things that marks this concerto as being

different from most of his others.

The most important point of stylistic difference, however, is the emphasis

Hofmann placed on the high register of the instrument in this concerto. The

work was clearly conceived for a first-rate cellist and one for whom high-

register playing held few terrors. Like Haydn, Hofmann largely reserved this

register for melodic playing rather than bravura passagework [Example 6].

24
 Example 4: Hofmann Violoncello Concerto C2/ii, bars 1-9  

j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œΩ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ÿœ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ
‰ œ œœœ œœ
j
Adagio
°B
Vc Pr
¢ # c œ

° #
Solo
Vn I & c‰ ‰ œœ œ ‰ œœ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œœ ‰ œœ œ ‰ œ œ œ
p

# ‰ ‰ Solo

¢& c ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰
œœ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ
Vn II
p

°B œΩ œ œ œ œ œ Ÿœ œ ‰ œ Ÿ 3 3 3 BŸ 3 3
#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ: œ; œ œ œ 3 j ‰ #œ
r
4
œ
¢ # J œ œ œ J œ œ œœœœ œ
J
3
3

° # œ
& œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ

#
¢& œ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰
œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ

°B œ œΩ œ œΩ œ œ œ œΩ œ œΩ œ œΩ œ œ œ œΩ B Ÿœ œ œ œ ® œ œ œ œœ ® œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœŸ
‰ œ œ ® œ#œ œ œœ ® œ œ
7

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Ω Ω
¢ # J œœ œ
œ
œ #œ 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

° # #œ œ œ œ BŸ œœ œ
‰ œ #œ œ œœ œ œ#œ
& # œ œ œ œ œ# œ œ
# ‰œ
¢& œœ œœ #œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œœ

25
 Example  5:  Hofmann  Violoncello  Concerto  D3/i,  bars  23–27  

23 [Allegro moderato]

Cor I &
° œ Œ Ó ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

Cor II
¢& œ Œ Ó ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

° ## œ Œ Ó ‰ œJ œ ™ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œj
Vn I & œœ S ∑ ∑ T Ó Œ
p

# œ
& # œœ Œ Ó S T Ó Œ ‰ œj ‰ œj
œ œ œ
Vn II ∑ ∑
p

Va B ## œ Œ Ó S ∑ ∑ T Ó Œ ‰ œj œ œ œ ‰ œ
J
œ™ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œU Ÿ
œ œ œfijB ™ œ œ; œ œ œr œ œ œ œ
Solo p

? ## Œ B œ™ œ œ œ Œ
:
œ œ
Firma
Vc Pr œ
J J œ œœ

? ## œ Œ Ó ‰ œ œ œ
B
¢ S ∑ ∑ T Ó Œ
J
œ ‰ œ
J
p

26
 Example  6:  Hofmann  Violoncello  Concerto  D3/i,  bars  48–53  

48 [Allegro moderato]

Cor I &
°
∑ ∑ ∑

Cor II
¢& ∑ ∑ ∑

° ## Ó œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ<œΩ œΩ Ω Ω >
Vn I & ‰ œJ ‰ J ‰ J ‰ J œœ j j œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ
[f] pp

# j œ #œ œ œ<œΩ œΩ Ω Ω >
&#Ó ‰ œ ‰ œ
J
‰ œ ‰ œ œ
J J
œœ
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Vn II

< œΩ Ω #œ
œ œΩ > [pp]
B ## œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
f

Va
œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ Œ Ó
[f] [pp]
œ # œ œ™ œ œ™ Ÿ #œ ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
B # œ œœœœœœ œ œ Œ œ™
Vc Pr # œ & ≈
6 <œΩ Ω
œ Ω>
? ## œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ Œ Ó
œ œ œ
B
¢
[f] [pp]

51

&
°
∑ ∑ ∑

¢& ∑ ∑ ∑

° ## œ j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
& J œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ J œ œ œ œ œ

#
&# œ œ œ œ
‰
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
#œ œ œ œ

B ## ∑ ∑ ∑

# œ™ #œ ™ œ œ œ œ œœœœœ œ ˙ #Ÿœ ™ œœ œ #œ œ ™ œ œ ™ œ œœœœœ

œ
&# ≈œ
6

? ## ∑ ∑ ∑
¢

27
The second and third movements of Concerto D3 reveal other congruencies

that point to Weigl’s possible influence on Hofmann. It is tempting to

attribute these to Hofmann’s knowledge of Haydn’s C major Concerto, which

cannot of course be verified, but Concertos C1 and D3 are far more closely

related structurally, stylistically, and syntactically to his other concertos (or

indeed to those of Boccherini) than they are to Haydn’s work. Nonetheless,

there are at times intriguing gestural similarities especially in Concerto C1.

While the finale of Hofmann’s Concerto C1, fine though it is, does not begin to

approach the fiery exuberance of its counterpart in Haydn’s work, the other

two movements are a different matter, and Hofmann’s experience and

imagination as a composer of concertos is well matched with Haydn’s.

Indeed, it might be a fairer assessment to observe that it is Haydn who is well

matched with Hofmann since it was the younger man who was the more

prolific and well-known composer of concertos. Once again in this work we

see Hofmann, like Haydn, cultivating the upper range of the instrument and

making highly effective use of multiple-stopped chords and two-part writing;

the vigorous passagework in the outer movements is also reminiscent of

Haydn’s concerto. It is in the slow movements, however, that the two works

perhaps share the closest kinship with one another and with the frequently (if

sometimes unjustly) maligned mid-century concerto style.

Like the Adagio in Haydn’s concerto, the Adagio ma non molto in Hofmann’s

Concerto C1 is cast in the subdominant, the most frequently used tonality in

slow movements during the middle decades of the century. After the rather

angular first movement, with its frequent use of spiky, dotted rhythms and

28
short-breathed phrases, the triple meter (3/4) slow movement exudes a sense

of relaxed expansiveness; it functions both as a foil to the preceding

movement and as an extended expressive transition to the finale. Haydn’s

middle movement achieves much the same effect through broadly similar

means: a change to a lighter meter (2/4) and the employment of thematic

material that is more obviously lyrical in style to that heard in the first

movement [Example 7].

One very striking similarity between the slow movements of C1 and Haydn’s

concerto concerns the entry of the soloist. In both cases the cello begins messa

di voce holding a long note (on the dominant) that dissolves into the melody

before gently expanding the material in longer phrases [Example 8]. In

keeping with the more relaxed style of the movement, Hofmann avoids the

high register while exploiting the instrument’s great lyrical qualities in its

upper range.

The Adagio ma non molto of Concerto C1 naturally shares a strong stylistic

kinship with the slow movement of D3. This is only to be expected given their

common authorship and cyclic position; but it is the stylistic quality of the

solo writing in the two movements and the overall character of the works that

make them stand apart from Hofmann’s other solo concertos (with the

notable exception of C2). It is difficult to conceive of a simpler explanation for

this than that they were written for one and the same performer.41

29
 Example  7:  Haydn  Violoncello  Concerto  in  C  Hob.I  VIIb:1/ii,  bars  16–27  

° œ™ œ œ œ j
16 [Adagio]

Vn I & b œ œ
r
œ œr œ œ œ œ œ œj œ Œ ‰ œ‰ œ ‰ œ‰ œ
J ‰ œJ ‰ œ
J J J
[p]

&b œ ‰ œj œj ‰ ‰ œ œ œj œ Œ ‰ j ‰ œj ‰ j
œ‰ œ
j ‰ œj ‰ œ
j
Vn II
œ
pp

Bb ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œ‰
J œ
j ‰ œj ‰ œ
J J
Va ∑ ∑ ∑
pp

Bb ˙ ˙: œ; ™ œ œ œ œ œr œ œr œ œ œ œ œr œ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ
Solo
Vc Pr œ œ œ œ

?b œ ‰ œJ œΩ > ‰ œj ‰ œ j
‰ œJ œJ ‰ œ ‰ œΩ ‰ œj ‰ j j
œº ‰ œº ‰
<Ω <Ω> Ω
B
¢ œ J <º> œ º J
pp
º

° b ‰ j‰ j œ™ œ œ œ œ
22

& œ œ
J ‰ œJ ‰ œ œ ‰ Œ œ
r
œ œr œ œ œ œ œ œj œ Œ
J

j j ‰ œj ‰ j ‰ œj j ‰ ‰
&b ‰ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ
j Œ
œ œ œ œ

‰ œj ‰
j œ
B b ‰ œJ ‰ j ‰ ‰ œJ J ‰ œ ‰ œ Œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ J

Bb œ œ œ ≈ œœœ œ œ œ œœœœœ œ œœœœœ Œ ˙ ˙ œ™ œ œ œ œ

™
œ œ œ

? œΩ ‰ j ‰ j
œº ‰ œJ ‰ œΩ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œJ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œJ
¢ bJ œº J J
Ω
œ œ

30
 Example  8:  Hofmann  Violoncello  Concerto  C1/ii,  bars  18–29  

18 3 Ÿ
Vn I & b ˙ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ
3
œ œ œ:. œ. œ.; œ œ œ œ
°
p œ. œ. œ. œ œ
poco f

&b j ‰ Œ Œ ˙ œ œ
˙ œ œ œ:. œ. œ.; œ œ
Vn II

p
poco f
Va Bb ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
:. . .; œ Ω Ÿ
Bb ˙™ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ™ œ œ
Solo
Vc Pr
œ œ
j
œ Œ Œ
3

? œ œ j ‰ Œ Œ œ œ Œ Œ
B
¢ bœ œ œ œ
p

œ Ÿ
° b‰ œ œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ: œ; œ œ
22

& ‰ œ ‰ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ nœ
p
[f]
œ œ: œ; œ œ
&b ‰ œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ Œ J nœ
p
œ œ œ™ [f]

Bb ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Ÿ
Bb œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œœ œ
‰ J
œœœœ
œ œœ
œ
œ œ™ œ œ œ Œ

? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ
¢ b
[f]

‰ bœ œ œ œ œnœ
26
° bœ
& œœ j ‰ Œ Œ Œ
˙ œ
∑
[p]

&b œ œ œ j ‰ Œ Œ Œ ‰ bœ œ œ œ œnœ
˙ œ
∑
[p]

Bb ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑

œ œ œ œ œ œ œΩ œ Ω œ ™ B Ÿ ™ œ œ r
œ œœœ Ÿ œ ˙
œ #œ
œ
Bb œ œ ? œœ œœ œ B nœ
œ

?b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b˙ ™
¢ œ œ
[p]

31
VIII. Hofmann's Concerto in G for Violin and Violoncello

The Concerto in G for Violin and Violoncello (G2) is another work that possibly

owes its existence to Weigl. Unusually for Hofmann, it was not advertised in

the Breitkopf Catalogue nor is it to be found in any other contemporary

catalogue. The concerto is preserved in a single set of manuscript parts in the

archive of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien under the signature IX

21568. The wrapper reads: "Concerto / a / Violino Violoncello Conc. / Violino

primo / Violino Secondo / Viola /con / Basso / del Sigre Leopoldo Hoffmann /

1782". The date on wrapper is hardly an infallible guide to its date of

composition, but in the absence of any other information it is of some help.

Daniel Heartz’s belief that this may be the work referred to by Gumpenhueber

in his record of an academy that took place at court on 12 February 1762 is

based on a number of unsupportable assumptions.42 First, Gumpenhueber

does not specify the composer: he writes "Concert ont joué les deux frères

Hoffmann sur le Violon et Violoncelle concertés." In other instances in which

Hofmann’s works were performed, the composer is identified in the entry. On

30 March 1762, for example, Gumpenhueber notes: "Le 1re Symphonie été de la

composition du Sr Hoffmann." Second, the assumption that the violinist

"Hoffmann" is the composer of the work is undermined by the presence of a

cello-playing brother: neither of Leopold Hofmann’s brothers was a

professional musician.43 Since Leopold was not the only musician in Vienna

surnamed Hofmann (Hoffmann) it is possible that Gumpenhueber assumed a

relationship where none existed. Whether this strengthens the case for the

work in question being G2 is another matter, and all things considered, the

date 1762 cannot be considered as reliable as the date written on the wrapper

of the one extant copy. Given the proximity of this date to 1783, the one year

32
when Weigl’s professional association with Hofmann is unequivocal, a

composition date of ca. 1782 has considerably more to recommend it.

The Concerto for Violin and Violoncello is one of Hofmann’s finest

instrumental works. Its impressive structural control and sensitivity to string

color are testimony to Hofmann’s experience and imagination as a composer.

As one might expect, the violin and cello share equally in the presentation of

thematic material throughout the work and each displays a similar level of

virtuosity. Neither solo part reaches the level of technical difficulty

encountered in Hofmann’s larger solo concertos (principally on account of the

frequent need for one instrument to accommodate the other), but the

consistently impressive cello writing argues in favor of the work having been

composed for Weigl. The identity of the violinist cannot be hazarded, but it is

probable that Hofmann composed the part to suit his own style of playing

whether he intended to perform the work or not.

Hofmann wrote cadenzas to all three movements and their incorporation into

the parts by the copyist implies that they should be viewed as an integral part

of his overall conception of the work. The cadenzas are not thematically

derived, and in the second and third movements they employ a different

meter to their parent movement and incorporate changes of tempo. They are

fascinating examples of two-part string writing in a semi-improvisational style

and demand from the players a combination of fine technique and an intuitive

sense of ensemble. It is precisely the sort of music one might imagine a

composer writing when he knew he was working with exceptional musicians

[Example 9].

33
 Example  9:    Hofmann  Concerto  for  Violin  &  Violoncello  G2/iii,  bars  208–221.  

U
œœœœœœœœœœœœ œ œœœœœ œœœ œ œ
Andante
° # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ™ œ Cadenza
208

Vn Pr &

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ™ U
œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œn œ
B œ
Vc Pr
¢ #

° # U
‰ œœœ
& ∑ ∑ œ œ œ œ# œ œ œ œ ‰
Vn I ∑
f
# U
& ‰ œœœ ‰
œ œ œ œ# œ œ œ œ
Vn II ∑ ∑ ∑
f
U
Va B# ∑ ∑ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ ‰ ∑
f
U
Vc &B
?# ∑ ∑ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ ‰ ∑
¢
f

˙ ˙ œ œ Ÿœ ˙ œ œ Ÿœ
° # œ œ œ™œœ™œ#œ ™˙
Allegro

& ˙ œ#œ œ ™ œ œ œ™

œ
B ‰ nœj œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ‰ œœ#œœœœœœnœœ Œ
3

¢ #
6

Ÿ
° #˙ œ œœŸ ˙ œ œœŸ ˙ œ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ #˙˙
& œœœ™ œ#œ œ™ œ# œ œ ™
œ #œ œ
B ‰ 3 œœœœœ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ ‰ œ#œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
6 3

¢ # œœœ œœ Œ ? Œ Œ œ Œ j œ œJ
œ
3 6 6

° # œ #œœ œœ œœ ˙ œœœ
œ œ
œ̇ œ œ̇ œ œ̇ œ œ̇ #œ œ œœœ
& œ ˙ ≈

œœœœœ œœœ œ œœ œœœ œœ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ

? # # œœ
nœ œ œ œ
Œ j œ œJ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
¢ œ œ
≈ œ œ œ œ œ

° # œœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œ œœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œ œ œœœœ

Andante

& œ œ œ
œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ
œ œ œ œ œ œ
œ
œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ
?# œ Œ
¢

34
 œœœ œ œ œ œ œ Ÿœ ™ œ œ œ Ÿ Ÿœ ˙ œ œ #œ œ œ nœ œ œ Allegro
° # J J œ œ œœœœœœ
œœ
3
& œ
œœ
?# ‰ œ œœœ Bœ œ™ œ œ œ œœœœœœ
#˙ œ
œ œœ Œ ≈ Œ
¢ œ

° #
œœœœ œ œ œ
œœœ œ œœœœœœ œœœœœœ œœœœœœœ
œ œ œœ œœ œœj
& ‰ J 38

œœœœœ
B# Œ
œ œ Œ Œ œ œ Œ ? ≈œ œ#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ 38
¢
Uj
Ÿ
° # 3 œœJ B œ œ Ÿ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Ÿ
213 Tutti

& 8 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ
j
3 3 3 3 3
œ
f 3 p
Ÿœ
? # 38 U
œB
œ
œ
j ? œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
¢ J œ œ œ œ œ œ
f [p]

° #3 Ÿ œœœœ œœ Ÿ
∑ T œœœœœœœœœ œœœœ ≈ œ œœœœ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj
Tutti3

& 8S œ
3 3 p
f
œœœœ
3
Ÿ Ÿ
3 3 3 3

#3
∑ T œœœœœœœœœ œœœœ ≈ œ œœœ œœ
‰ œ œ œœœ
3

& 8S j
[f] 3 œ œ œ
3 3
3 œ œ œ œ 3 3
3 [p]

B # 38 S ∑ T œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ ‰
J
f

œ
? # 38 ∑ T œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ ‰ ‰ œ
œ œ œ œ [p]
œ œ
¢ S
f

BŸ Ÿ BŸ œœ BŸ œ œ Ÿ
° # œœœ œ
221
œ #œ j œ œ œœœœ œ œ œ œœœœ œ
&
3 3
œ œ œ œ ‰
œœœœ œ œ œœœœ œ j
œ f
3
p
œ f
3 3

?# j ‰ œj œ œ j ‰
œ
J œ œ œ œ œ
œ œ ‰
¢ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œœ
f [p] f

° # BŸ Ÿ
œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œj BŸ œœ
œ œœœœ B œ
Ÿ Ÿ
œ œ œœœœ œ œ ‰
œ
3 3
& œ œ œ œ œ œ œj
œœœœ œ œ 3 3 3
Ÿ
f p f

# B Ÿ B Ÿ œœ BŸ œœ Ÿ
œ #œ œ j œ œ œ œ œ œœœ
œœ œ œœ œ ‰
3 3
& œœ œ j œ œ
œœœœ œ œ œ œœœœ œ œ 3 3
f p f

B# ‰ ‰ J œ œ j
œœ œ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ J œ œ œœ œ ‰ œJ œ œœ œ ‰
∑ ∑ J
[f] [f]

?# j‰ j œ j ‰ œJ œœ œ œ œ ‰
¢ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ [p]
œœ œ œœ œ œ œ œ
œ œ
f f

35
IX. Conclusion

The evidence offered in this paper for Hofmann having written works for

Joseph Weigl is circumstantial. Nonetheless, the presence of such an

exceptional cellist in Vienna may have stimulated Hofmann’s interest in

writing for the instrument in the 1770s and it is possible that the most

advanced of these works, works that surpassed their predecessors in both

scale and virtuosity, were composed for him. Weigl’s membership of the

Kapelle at St. Peter’s also offers a plausible explanation for the existence of a

mass with concertante violoncello, although its preservation in a collection far

removed from Vienna is not the most helpful material evidence that one could

wish for. Less readily explicable is the number of chamber works with cello

that were advertised by Breitkopf in the 1770s. It is highly unlikely that these

works were written for Weigl or even played by him, but their composition

during a period when Hofmann was writing more substantial works for the

instrument may be significant.

Hofmann’s Concertos C1 and D3 are among the finest cello concertos of the

mid-eighteenth century and they are arguably the most important works of

their kind composed in Vienna after Haydn’s C major Concerto. It would be

fitting if they had been composed for the same cellist, but even though this

fact cannot be established with certainty, the professional links that existed

between Haydn, Hofmann, and Weigl serve as a reminder of the extent to

which nearly all of Vienna’s sizeable community of professional musicians was

interconnected.

36
Works Cited

Angermüller, Rudolph and Hrdlicka-Reichenberger, Teresa. “Joseph [Franz]

Weigl.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online.

Badley, Allan. “Issues of Authenticity and Chronology in the Sacred Music of

Leopold Hofmann.” Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of
the Society for Eighteenth-Century Music, Brooklyn, NY 2010. Ann
Arbor: Steglein, in press.

Badley, Allan. “Two Martyrdoms of St Johann Nepomuk: Recovering Leopold

Hofmann’s Musikalisches Oratorio.” In Warren Drake (ed.). Liber
Amicorum John Steele – A Musicological Tribute. Stuyvestant:
Pendragon Press, 1997. 415–432.

Badley, Allan and Prohaszka, Hermine. “Leopold Hofmann.” Grove Music

Online. Oxford Music Online.

Biba, Otto. “Die Wiener Kirchenmusik um 1783.” Jahrbuch für

Österreichische Kulturgeschichte 1 / 2 (1971), 7-79.

Brook, Barry S. The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue: The Six Parts and Sixteen
Supplements. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.

Brown, A. Peter. Haydn’s Keyboard Music: Sources and Style. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1986.

Burney, Charles. The Present State of Music in Germany, the Netherlands,

and the United Provinces, 2nd ed., I (London: 1775; facs. ed., New
York, 1969).

Cyr, Mary. “Francesco Alborea”. Grove Music Online.

Freeman, Robert N. "The Practice of Music at Melk Monastery in the

Eighteenth Century." PhD dissertation, University of California at Los
Angeles, 1971.

Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler

(1790–1792) und Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der
Tonkünstler (1812-1814) hrsg. von Othmar Wessely. Graz:
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1966.

Gerlach, Sonja. “Konzerte für Violoncello und Orchester.” Joseph Haydn

Werke Reihe III. Band 2. München: G. Henle Verlag, 1981.

Gerlach, Sonja. “Neues zur Chronologie von Haydns Symphonien.” In

Gerhard Winkler (ed.) Das symphonische Werk Joseph Haydns.
Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, No.103, 2000. 15–26.

37
Haberkamp, Gertraut. "Thematischer Katalog der Musikhandschriften der
Fürstlich Oettingen-Wallerstein’schen Bibliothek Schloß Harburg."
Kataloge Bayerische Musiksammlungen Bd.3. München, G. Henle
Verlag, 1976.

Heartz, Daniel. Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School 1740–1780. New
York: Norton, 1995.

Köchel, Ludwig Ritter von. Die Kaiserliche Hof-Musikkapelle in Wien von

1543 bis 1867. Wien: Beck’sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung (Alfred
Hölder), 1869

Landon, H. C. R. Haydn Chronicle and Works Vol. 1: The Early Years 1732–
1765. London: Thames & Hudson, 1980.

Landon, H. C. R. Haydn Chronicle and Works Vol.2: Haydn at Eszterháza

1766–1790. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978.

Larsen, Jens Peter. “Evidence or Guesswork? – the Quartbuch Revisited.”

Acta Musicologica, Vol. 49 No.1 (1977).

MacIntyre, Bruce C. The Viennese Concerted Mass of the Early Classic

Period. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1986.

Meusel, J. G. Neue Miscellaneen artistischen Inhalts für Künstler und

Kunstliebhaber. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer d.J., 1799.

Pandi, Marianne and Schmidt, Franz. “Musik zur Zeit Haydns und Beethovens
in der Pressburger Zeitung.” Haydn Yearbook VIII (1971), 182.

Pape, Winfried and Boettcher, Wolfgang. Das Violoncello. Geschichte, Bau,

Technik, Repertoire. Revised second edition. Mainz: Schott, 2005.

Pass, Walter. “Josephinism and the Josephinian Reforms Concerning Haydn.”

In Jens Peter Larsen, Howard Serwer, James Webster (eds). Haydn
Studies – Proceedings of the International Haydn Conference,
Washington, D.C., 1975. New York, London: Norton, 1981. 168–171.

Prohaszka, Hermine. Leopold Hofmann als Messenkomponist. PhD Diss.

Universität Wien, 1953.

Schönfeld, J. F. von. Jahrbuch der Tonkunst in Wien und Prag. Facsimile

Nachdruck der Ausgabe Wien 1796 mit Nachwort und Register von
Otto Biba. München, Salzburg: 1972.

Speck, Christian and Sadie, Stanley. “Luigi Boccherini.” Grove Music Online.
Oxford Music Online.

38
Taylor, Marie-Claire. Music for an Archduchess: A Study of two Volumes of
18th-century Viennese Keyboard Music. MMus thesis, University of
Auckland, 2010.

Van Der Straeten, Edmund S. J. History of the Violoncello, The Viola da

Gamba, Their Precursors and Collateral Instruments. London:
William Reeves, 1971.

Webster, James. “The Bass Parts in Haydn’s Early String Quartets.” The
Music Quarterly, Vol. 63, No.3 (July 1977).

Wyn Jones, David (ed.) Oxford Composer Companion: Haydn. Oxford:

Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002

Manuscript Documents

Das Verzeichnisz über sämmtliches Musik=Personal. Niederösterreichisches

Landesarchiv, Fasc. C, Norm 477, Statthaltereiakten 1784.

Repertoire de tous les Spectacles qui ont été donné au Theatre près de la
Cour depuis de 1r Janvier jusqu’ au dernier Decembre de l’An 1761
recueille par Philippe Gumpenhueber; Repertoire de tous les
Spectacles qui ont été donné au Theatre près de la Cour Comedies
Allemandes, Comedies Françoises, Opera italiennes, de Musique
depuis de 1r Janvier jusqu’ au 31 Decembre 1762 recueille par Philippe
Gumpenhueber; Repertoire de l’Année 1763 du Premier Janvier Jusqu’
au dernier Decembre Compinant tous le Spectacles, les Acteurs,
Dançeurs, Musiciens et autre gens du Thetre, Recueilli par Philippe
Gumpenhueber. Wn Mus. Hs. 34580/a-c
 

                                                                                                               
1 “Das Verzeichnisz über sämmtliches Musik=Personal.
Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv, Fasc. C, Norm 477, Statthaltereiakten
1784”. See Otto Biba, “Die Wiener Kirchenmusik um 1783,” in Jahrbuch für

2Decree promulgated on 25 February 1783 and effective from Easter Sunday.

For a brief summary of the main points see: Walter Pass. “Josephinism and
the Josephinian Reforms Concerning Haydn,” Jens Peter Larsen, Howard
Serwer, James Webster (eds), Haydn Studies – Proceedings of the
International Haydn Conference, Washington, D.C., 1975 (New York,
London: Norton, 1981), 168–171.

3H. C. R. Landon, Haydn Chronicle and Works Vol. 1: The Early Years 1732–
1765 (London: Thames & Hudson, 1980), 352ff.

39
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
4 Rudolph Angermüller and Teresa Hrdlicka-Reichenberger, “Joseph [Franz]

Weigl”. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. (London:

Macmillan, 2001).

5Ludwig Ritter von Köchel. Die Kaiserliche Hof-Musikkapelle in Wien von

1543 bis 1867. Wien: Beck’sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung (Alfred Hölder,
1869).

6Philippe Gumpenhueber, Repertoire de tous les Spectacles qui ont été donné
au Theatre près de la Cour depuis de 1r Janvier jusqu’ au dernier Decembre
de l’An 1761 recueille par Philippe Gumpenhueber; Repertoire de tous les
Spectacles qui ont été donné au Theatre près de la Cour Comedies
Allemandes, Comedies Françoises, Opera italiennes, de Musique depuis de 1r
Janvier jusqu’ au 31 Decembre 1762 recueille par Philippe Gumpenhueber;
Repertoire de l’Année 1763 du Premier Janvier Jusqu’ au dernier Decembre
Compinant tous le Spectacles, les Acteurs, Dançeurs, Musiciens et autre gens
du Thetre, Recueilli par Philippe Gumpenhueber. Wn Mus. Hs. 34580/a-c.

7Pressburger Zeitung, 1782 No.4 (January 12). See Marianne Pandi and Fritz
Schmidt. “Musik zur Zeit Haydns und Beethovens in der Pressburger
Zeitung,” Haydn Yearbook VIII (1971), 182. The works performed came from
Haydn’s newly completed Opus 33 quartets. See James Webster. “The Bass
Parts in Haydn’s Early String Quartets”, The Music Quarterly, Vol. 63, No.3
(July 1977), 392.

8Charles Burney, The Present State of Music in Germany, the Netherlands,

and the United Provinces, 2nd ed., I (London, 1775; facs. ed., New York,
1969), 269.

9 For example in the Trio [in canone] of Hob. XI: 5.

10 Symphonies 6–8, 13–16, 31, 36 & 72.

11The Divertimenti Hob.II:1, Hob.II:11 and Hob.II:24 are also of interest

although the first two works probably predate the Esterházy period. Hob.II:24
is a fragment of uncertain date. In each of the works the cello features in one
of a set of variations.

12The dating of this symphony is unusually problematic. Landon assigned the

work to the period ca. 1761-1765 based on the earliest extant performing
material but the first verifiable date attached to the work is 1769. The Works
List in the Oxford Composer Companion: Haydn (ed. David Wyn Jones,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) dates the work ca. 1763. See also
Sonja Gerlach. “Neues zur Chronologie von Haydns Symphonien” in Gerhard
Winkler (ed.) Das symphonische Werk Joseph Haydns, Wissenschaftliche
Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, No. 103, 2000. 15–26.

13The identification and dating of the work is discussed in the foreword to

Sonja Gerlach’s edition of Joseph Haydn Werke Reihe III. Band 2: “Konzerte
für Violoncello und Orchester” (München: G. Henle Verlag, 1981), VII.

40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
14This is a technique in cello and bass playing utilized to assist in the
execution of notes in the high register. The player shifts his hand out from
behind the neck and flattens it out, using the side of the thumb to depress the
string; in effect, the side of the thumb functions as a movable nut.

Edmund S. J. Van Der Straeten, History of the Violoncello, The Viola da

15

Gamba, Their Precursors and Collateral Instruments (London: William

Reeves, 1971), 156.

16Winfried Pape and Wolfgang Boettcher, Das Violoncello. Geschichte, Bau,

Technik, Repertoire, revised second edition (Mainz: Schott, 2005), 109.
17Ernst Ludwig Gerber. Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler
(1790–1792) und Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler
(1812-1814) hrsg. Von Othmar Wessely. Graz: Akademische Druck- u.
Verlagsanstalt, 1966. The principal entry is in the original edition of the
Lexikon. The Neues Lexikon adds only some information concerning a
portrait of Francischello.

18 Mary Cyr, “Francesco Alborea,” Grove Music Online (Oxford Music Online).

19Gumpenhueber names the following cellists in the Repertoires: 1761 –

Galeoni, Francisghella, Baccher, Ossber; 1762 – Abborea, Baccher,
Cammermäyer Tobias; 1763 – Francisghella, Vallotti. He also notes that in the
orchestra “pour le Comedie Allemande” Camermar (=
Cammermäyr/Kammermäyer), Boccherini fils (Luigi), and Harbourg
comprised the violoncello section. In the second orchestra in a performance of
Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice given on 14 July 1763, one Himmelbauer is listed
among the members as is le Noble, who played, together with Francisghella, in
a Spectacle which took place at Laxenburg on Friday 9 September that same
year. The only cellists identified by Gumpenhueber in his list of musicians
who performed frequently in the Academies de Musique are Vallotti and
Boccherini.

20 Ibid.

21 Köchel. Op. cit., 78.

22 Cyr. Ibid.

23Christian Speck and Stanley Sadie, “Luigi Boccherini,” Grove Music Online
(Oxford Music Online).

24Allan Badley, “Issues of Authenticity and Chronology in the Sacred Music of

Leopold Hofmann,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the
Society for Eighteenth-Century Music, Brooklyn, NY 2010 (Ann Arbor:
Steglein, in press).

41
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
25 J. G. Meusel, Neue Miscellaneen artistischen Inhalts für Künstler und

Kunstliebhaber (Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer d.J., 1799), 47.

26
There is a brief discussion of a number of these works in: A. Peter Brown,
Haydn’s Keyboard Music: Sources and Style (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1986), 190–195.

27 A Wn Mus. Hs. 11084/11085.

28These two volumes are examined in: Marie-Claire Taylor, "Music for an
Archduchess: A Study of two Volumes of 18th-century Viennese Keyboard
Music" (MMus thesis, University of Auckland, 2010).

29From ca. 1745 to 1750 Hofmann was a chorister in the Kapelle of the
Dowager Empress Elisabeth Christine. It was here that he first encountered
Wagenseil, the Kapelle’s organist, and Trani who was also a member of the
Kapelle. See Allan Badley and Hermine Prohaszka, “Leopold Hofmann,”
Grove Music Online (Oxford Music Online).

30 Although the dates in the Breitkopf Catalogue are generally the earliest we
possess (and often the only evidence there is) there is no reason to suppose
that Hofmann’s works found their way into the catalogue any faster than those
of any other composer of the period. Where dates can be verified as, for
example, in the case of some of Haydn’s works, it appears that by ca. 1770 the
delay between the composition of a work and its appearance in Breitkopf was
probably around two years on average. See Barry S. Brook, The Breitkopf
Thematic Catalogue: The Six Parts and Sixteen Supplements (New York:
Dover Publications, 1966), xiv.

31From April 1772 Hofmann held the positions of Essential- und

Gnadenbildkapellmeister at St. Stephen’s Cathedral simultaneously with his
post at St. Peter’s.

32The numbering of these works derives from the writer’s draft thematic
catalogue of Hofmann’s works currently in preparation.

33This well-known catalogue of a collection or collections unknown was

compiled by Johann Nepomuk Weigl around 1775 and has been the subject of
much controversy over the years. Although it was in Haydn’s possession at the
time of his death, it was certainly not a catalogue of an Esterházy collection in
spite of its impressively complete list of Haydn’s symphonies up to ca. 1775.
Robert Freeman (op. cit. 19–23) believes that the catalogue might have
represented an important collection in the neighborhood of Melk and that this
collection was sold or dispersed some time after the catalogue was drawn up.
He postulates that the Quartbuch may have belonged to Haydn’s early patron,
Oberst-Leutnant von Fürnberg, whose summer residence at Weinzierl was
located nearby. See also Jens Peter Larsen, "Evidence or Guesswork? – the
Quartbuch Revisited," Acta Musicologica Vol. 49 No.1 (1977). 86.

42
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
34 Specifically: CZ Pnm Clam Gallas XLII A 326 – “Concertino ex G / Violino

Primo Concto / Violino 2do Concto / Alto Viola Concto / Violoncello Concto / 2
Violini rip: oblig: / 2 Oboe obligl: / 2 Corni / con / Basso / del Sigl: Leopoldo
Hoffmann”; XLII A 361 – “No.8 / Clam Gallas / Concertino / 2 Violini / Viola
/ Violoncello } obl. / Violino Primo / Violino Secondo / Violone / Del Sigl.
Leopold Hoffmann”; XLII B 165 – “No.7 / In C / Concertino / a 2 Violini / 2
Oboe Obl. / 2 Corni / Violoncello obl. / Viola e Basso / Del Sig. Leopold
Hoffmann”; XLII B 180 – “In B / Clam Gallas / Concertino / a / Violino Concto
/ Violoncello Concto / Viola Concto / Violino Primo / Violino 2do / e / Basso /
del Sigre Leopoldo Hoffmann”; XLII B 181 – “Clam Gallas / In A / Concertino
/ a/ Violino Conc. / Viola Conc. / Violoncello Conc: / Violino Primo / Violino
Secondo / e / Basso / del Sigl: Leopoldo Hoffmann”; XLII B 182 – “No.6 /
Clam Gallas / In C / Concertino / Violino Concto / Viola Concta / Violoncello
Concto / Violino Primo / Violino 2do / Violone / Del Sig. Leopoldo Hoffmann”;
XLII B 209 – “Clam Gallas / In F / Concertino / a / Violino Conc. /
Violoncello Conc. Viola Conc. / 2 Violini / 2 Oboe 2 Corni / Basso / del Sigl.
Leopoldo Hoffmann”; XLII B 252 – “No.4 / Concertino / a / 2 Violini / 2
Violoncelli obl. / 2 Oboe / 2 Corni / Viola è Basso / Del Sigl: Leopoldo
Hoffmann / Clam Gallas”; XLII C 19 – “No.9 / Clam Gallas / Concertino in E#
/ a / Violino obl / Violoncello obl: / Violino Primo / Violino 2do / Viola / 2
Oboe / 2 Corni / Basso / Del Sigl: Leopold Hoffmann”; XLII C 104 – “No.ii /
Concertino / a / Violino Concertato / Violoncello Concertato / Basso Viola
Concertato / Oboe 1mo Oboe 2do / Corno 1mo Corno 2do / del Sigl: Leopoldo
Hoffmann”; XLII C 234 – “No.10 / Clam Gallas /Concertino / Violino Concto /
Viola Concto / Violoncello Concto / Violino Primo / Violino Secondo / e / Basso
/ del Sig: Leop: Hoffmann.”

35Spork strongly supported Hofmann’s application for the position of

Hofkapellmeister in 1774 following the untimely death of Gassmann. In the
event, the elderly Bonno was appointed in part to avoid creating a vacancy at
St. Stephen’s where Hofmann had served as Kapellmeister since 1772. See
Bruce C. MacIntyre, The Viennese Concerted Mass of the Early Classic
Period. (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1986), 34 and 687, n.38.

36J. F. von Schönfeld, Jahrbuch der Tonkunst in Wien und Prag. Facsimile
Nachdruck der Ausgabe Wien 1796 mit Nachwort und Register von Otto Biba
(München, Salzburg: 1972), 141.

37Hofmann composed two oratorios on the martyrdom of St. Johann

Nepomuk only one of which is extant. The lost work ironically is one of the
very few Hofmann works that can be confidently dated. The relationship
between the two works is discussed in: Allan Badley, “Two Martyrdoms of St
Johann Nepomuk: Recovering Leopold Hofmann’s Musikalisches Oratorio,”
in Warren Drake (ed.), Liber Amicorum John Steele – A Musicological
Tribute (Stuyvestant: Pendragon Press, 1997), 415–432.

38Issue 84. “His musical oratorio, which was performed last year by the
Carmelites in the Leopoldstadt and was composed in honour of St Johann
Nepomuk, shows us a genius who was born for lyric poetry. Who does not feel
everything that one can feel about a bloodthirsty tyrant, when the horrid

43
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
words of the Hoffmann movement sound: ‘ut irrita consilia in vanum abeant
etc’? The menacing pride which lurks in these words flashes from every note,
every bar awakes terror in the breast, as the listener hears of the innocent’s
death.” The translation is taken from: H. C. R. Landon, Haydn Chronicle and
Works Vol.2: Haydn at Eszterháza 1766–1790 (London: Thames & Hudson,
1978), 129.

39 D HR III 4 ½ 2˚152.

40 Gertraut Haberkamp, "Thematischer Katalog der Musikhandschriften der

Fürstlich Oettingen-Wallerstein’schen Bibliothek Schloß Harburg," in
Kataloge Bayerische Musiksammlungen Bd.3. (München, G. Henle Verlag,
1976), 110. The paper used for the parts is of Austrian manufacture and dates
from the period ca. 1770– ca. 1790 [See D HR WZ169]. Haberkamp draws
attention to the existence of second mass with obbligato cello in this collection
which is written on the same paper - D HR III 4 ½ 2˚150: “Missa in C. / a / 4
Voci / 2 Violini / 2 Oboe / 2 Clarini / e / Timpano / Viola e Violonzelo ob: /
Col / organo, / Del Sig. Flor: Gasmann / Maestro di Cap: di Sac: Ces: M:”.
Haberkamp believes that these two masses may have formerly been in the
possession of Count Franz Ludwig von Oettingen-Wallerstein (1749–17191)
who played the cello.

41The link between this concerto and Weigl is unproven but it can be
associated with another of Haydn’s cellists, Anton Kraft. The wrapper of the
copy of C1 preserved in the archive of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in
Wien (IX 2349) is initialled AK; the style of the writing is consistent with that
found on a number of manuscripts owned by Anton Kraft.

42Daniel Heartz, Haydn, Mozart and the Viennese School 1740–1780 (New
York: Norton, 1995), 466.

43Our knowledge of Hofmann’s family is based exclusively on Hermine

Prohaszka’s PhD dissertation Leopold Hofmann als Messenkomponist.
Universität Wien 1953.

44