741682

The Chronology of Haydn's String Quartets
Author(s): James Webster

Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 17-46
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/741682 .
Accessed: 18/01/2015 15:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical
Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE CHRONOLOGY OF
HAYDN'S STRING QUARTETS
By JAMES WEBSTER
s faras we know,JosephHaydn wrotesixty-eight

stringquartets.
The traditional collection (of eighty-three)has not withstood
the intensive source-criticalstudy of Haydn's music, pioneered by
Jens Peter Larsen in the 1930s and culminating in the new collected
edition, now half complete.' To that traditional list we may add
Hob. 11:6, known as "Opus 0"; but we must delete the symphony
Hob. I: 107, erroneously included in "Opus 1" (as No. 5), and the
two sextets with horns Hob. 11:21 and 22, erroneously included in
"Opus 2" (as Nos. 3 and 5); and we must also bid farewell to the
spurious "Opus 3," very probably from the dilettantish pen of
Pater Romanus Hoffstetter(1742-1815). Finally, the "eighty-three"
included Haydn's quartet arrangements of the Seven Words; but
since the nine individual movements,all writtenfor orchestra,make
no pretense of belonging to the genre, there is no reason to count
them among the quartets proper.2The sixty-eightauthentic quartets
1 Larsen, Die Haydn-Uberlieferung (Copenhagen, 1939); H. C. Robbins Landon,
The Symphonies of Joseph Haydn (London, 1955); Georg Feder, "Die Oberlieferung
und Verbreitungder handschriftlichenQuellen zu Haydns Werken," Haydn-Studien,I
(1965-67), 3-42 (Eng. trans. in Haydn Yearbook, IV [1968], 102-39); Anthony van
Hoboken, Joseph Haydn: Thematisches-bibliographischesWerkverzeichnis,2 vols.
(Mainz, 1957-72; referencethroughoutthis study is to Vol. I); Joseph Haydn: Werke,
edited by the Joseph Haydn-Institut (Cologne), under the direction of, first,Larsen
and, since 1960, Feder (Munich and Duisberg, 1958-); hereafter abbreviated JHW.
I thank Dr. Feder and his colleagues at the Haydn-Institutfor generous material and
professionalaid in the preparation of this study.
2"Opus 0," ed. Marian M. Scott (Oxford, 1932); on the earliest quartets, now
available in JHW XII/1, see also Landon, "On Haydn's Quartets of Opera 1 and 2,"
The Music Review, XIII (1952), 181-86. On "Opus 3" and Hoffstetter,see LAszl6
Somfai, "Zur Echtheitsfragedes Haydn'schen 'Opus 3,' " Haydn Yearbook, III (1965),
155-63; Alan Tyson and Robbins Landon, "Who Composed Haydn's Opus 3?" Musical
Times, CV (1964), 505-6; Hubert Unverricht,Die beiden Hofstetter (Mainz, 1968),
17

18
The Musical Quarterly
are listed in Table I, togetherwith their traditional opus numbers,

the numbers in Hoboken's catalogue, and, most important, the
authentic sources which prove that Haydn wrote them.3(In Table I
as in the text, the traditional opus numbers are used except where
confusion could arise; but "Opus 0," "Opus 1," and "Opus 2" are
placed in quotation marks to signal that Haydn did not so compose
or distribute his early quartets.) It is highly improbable that Haydn
wrote any other quartets; every remaining work attributed to him
fails both relevant tests,of documentary testimonyand of stylistic
plausibility. With the exception of two works which he just possibly
wrote in 1784, for a Spanish commission (but of which all trace has
disappeared), the sources as we know them very probably register
every quartet he wrote. The search for "lost" quartets is over.4
The dating of Haydn's music has engaged musical scholarship
since the early nineteenth century.5 For the quartets, this task is
considerably eased by Haydn's practice, characteristicof the eighteenth century, of composing and publishing them in coherent
pp. 12-15; Feder, "Aus Roman HoffstettersBriefen," Haydn-Studien, I (1965-67),
von
198-201.On the Seven Words, see Adolf Sandberger,"Zur Entstehungsgeschichte
Haydn's 'Sieben Worten des Erl6sers am Kreuze,'" in AusgewdhlteAufsdtzezur Musikgeschichte,I (Munich, 1921), 266-81; JHW, IV (Unverricht).
3Table I summarizes a documentarystudy of Haydn's string quartets in James
Webster,"The Bass Part in Joseph Haydn's StringQuartets and in Austrian Chamber
Music, 1750-1780" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton, 1973), pp. 209-49. This list of sixty-eight
quartets agrees exactly with the ones developed independentlyby Somfai, "A klasszikus kvartetthangzasmegsiileteseHaydn von6sn6gyeseiben,"Zenetudomdnyi Tanulmdnyok, VIII, titled Haydn-Emlnke're(Budapest, 1960), pp. 295-420; and at the
Haydn-Institut.Cf. JHW, XII/1, foreword;Riemann-Musiklexikon,12th ed., SupplementaryVol. I (Mainz, 1973), p. 500, col. 1. (Hoboken perpetuates the outmoded
"eighty-three,"and many of the sources cited here are unknown to him or not identified as authentic.)
4 On this conservativeapproach to problemsof attribution,see Larsen, Die HaydnUberlieferung,pp. 9-20, 139, 147-51,293-94; and idem, "tber Echtheitsproblemein der
Musik der Klassik," Die Musikforschung,XXV (1972), 4-16. Feder provides an exhaustive discussion of every spurious quartet attributed to Haydn in Haydn-Studien,
111/2 (1974), 125-50. On the hypothetical Spanish quartets of 1784, cf. p. 28 and
note 20, below.
5 See Larsen, Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,chap. 5; Landon, Symphonies,chap. 3;
Feder, "Zur Datierung Haydnscher Werke," in Anthony van Hoboken: Festschrift
zum 75. Geburtstag (Mainz, 1962), pp. 50-54; Larsen, "Probleme der chronologischen
Ordnung von Haydns Sinfonien,"in FestschriftOtto Erich Deutsch zum 80. Geburtstag
(Kassel, 1963), 90-104; Feder, "Probleme einer Neuordnung der Klaviersonaten
Haydns," in FestschriftFriedrich Blume zum 70. Geburtstag (Kassel, 1963), pp. 92103; Sonja Gerlach, "Die chronologischeOrdnung von Haydns Sinfonienzwischen 1774
und 1782," Haydn-Studien,II (1969-70), 34-66.

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets
19
groups of three or six. Because each opus took as long as six months
to compose, it is easy to determine at least its year of composition
and, hence, the relative chronology of the various opera. On the
other hand, since Haydn's autographs normally are dated only with
the year of composition, and his catalogues (unlike Mozart's) do not
date his works at all, and since documentation, when it exists,
normally relates only to the act of publication, it is not always possible to establish precise dates of composition. Furthermore, the
order in which Haydn composed the individual quartets within a
given set nearly always remains hypothetical. Whether for aesthetic
reasons on a composer's part or for commercial reasons on a publisher's, the order of composition may differfrom the order in a
printed edition. For example, of the two differentauthentic orderings of the "Paris" symphonies(Hob. 1:82-87), neither can be shown
to reflecttheir order of composition (about which a good deal is
known). Similarly Mozart placed the third of his six quartets dedicated to Haydn (K. 428) in fourth position within Artaria's authentic edition, the fourth (K. 458) in third position. By the same
token, Haydn completed the "sixth" quartet in Opus 50, presumably No. 6, in D, two months before the "fifth,"presumably
No. 5, in F.6 And although the "correct" order within each opus
is certainly an important aesthetic issue, it cannot affectthe larger
historical account which is our principal subject here. Our primary
task will be to date each set as precisely as possible.
Opera 17, 20, 64, 71/174,and 77 can be dated to the year on the
basis of the autographs. The autograph of Opus 17, a single manuscript of forty-sevenleaves, is dated 1771. The autographs of Opus
20, on the other hand, initiate Haydn's invariable later practice of
writing six separate but uniform manuscripts; all six bear the autograph date 1772. (The consistencyof format,the uniform date, and
the single entry for Opus 20 in the Entwurf Kata-log [henceforth
EK] prove that the six works form an opus.) The five extant autographs to Opus 64 are dated 1790,7 the autographs of Opus 71/74
6 For the "Paris" symphonies,see JHW, 1/12,p. vi, col. 2; for the Mozart quartets,
the Neue Mozart-AusgabeVIII/20/1, Vol. 2, pp. vi-vii; for Haydn's Opus 50, see below.
Haydn's authentic orderingsof Opera 9, 17, 20, 33, 64, and perhaps Opus 54/55 differ
from the traditional ones.
7This lays to rest Larsen's conjecture (Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,p. 129) that
some of the quartets in Opus 64 might date from 1791, when Haydn was in London.

TABLE I
HAYDN'S STRING QUARTETS: THE AUTHENTIC SOURC

Work
Contentsa
Type of Source
Pu
EarlyQuartets:b
Hob.
EKc
II:6, III:1-4, 10 (p. 3); Hob.
Hob. II:6, 111:1-4,6-8, 10, 12
I111:12(p. 4); Hob. 111:7,8 (p. 5)
("Opus 0"; "Opus 1," Nos. 1-4,
6; "Opus 2," Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6)
MSS
(1) Hob. III:1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12
Buda
Musi
Hob.
6
(2)
Vienn
III:2,
Colle
(3) Hob. III:8
Pragu
Rade
MSS]
Opus 9g
(Hob. 111:19-24)
Opus 17g
(Hob. III:25-30)
Opus 20J
(Hob. III:31-36)
Opus 33J
(Hob. III:37-42)
EKe
MSS
EKe
(1) Hob. 111:19,22 (Nos. 1, 4)

(2)
Vienn
24982
[Prag
Autograph
EKe
Vienn
Autographs (1)
(x) Draftof slow movementto Hob.
111:33 (No. 3)
Vienn
Budap
Ms. M
[Print]
MS
[Arta
Melk
Hob. 111:37,38, 41, 42
Print

fol. 16
Artar
Work
Opus 42n
(Hob. III:43)
Opus 50n
(Hob. III:44-49)
Type of Source
Contentsa
Pu
Autograph
Berli
Stift
Divis
[Print]
MSS
[Hof
Lond
1-54
(1)
(2)
(a) Hob. III:44, 45, 47-49 (Nos. 1, 2, 4-6) Ibid.,

(b) Hob. 111:46 (No. 3)
Buda
132"
Ibid.,
(3) Hob. 111:44,45, 47-49
Prints
Opus 54/55n
(Hob. 111:57-62)
Opus 64t
(Hob. 111:63-68)
(1)
(2)
Arta
Forst
Autograph (1) Hob. III:58 (Opus 54, No. 1)

fragments
(2) Hob. III:59 (Opus 54, No. 3)
Berli
J. Ha
Ibid.,
[Prints]
[Sieb
[Vien
[Long
[And
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Autographs (1) Hob. III:63 (No. 5)

(2) Hob. 111:64 (No. 6)
(3) Hob. III:65 (No. 1)
(4) Hob. III:67 (No. 3)
(5) Hob. III:68 (No. 2)
(x) Draftof Hob. III:63 (No. 5), first
movement,developmentsection

Toky
Wash
Briti
283)
Wint
Stift
Priva
Lost;
(Leip
Work
Opus 71/74t
(Hob. 111:69-74)
Opus 76
(Hob. 111:75-80)
Opus 77
(Hob. 111:81,82)
Type of Source
[Prints]
[1]
[2]
Prints
(1)
(2)
Pu
[Koze
[Blan
Berli
Autographs (1)
Mus.
Berli
(x) Draftof Hob. III:70 (Opus 71, No.
30 [w
2), minuet
Aust
(y) SketchforHob. 111:73 (Opus 74,
No. 2), finale,developmentsection [with
Hob. 111:73,74 (Opus 74, Nos. 2, 3)
MS
Buda
129, 1
Arta
Corr
Autograph (1) Hob. III:77/II (the "Emperor"

fragments
variations)
(x) Draftsof the "Emperor"hymn
MSS
Hob. 111:76,78, 80 (Nos. 2, 4, 6),
in score
Aust
Prints
Arta
Long
(1)
(2)
Priva
Buda
126-
Autograph
Buda
46d
MS
Ibid.,
Prints
Opus 103
(Hob. 111:83)
Contentsa
(1)
(2)
[Autograph](1)
(x) Draftof minuet
Print

Arta
Clem
Prese
Dres
Breit
aWhere not the complete opus or group of works.

bSee JHW, XII/I and KritischerBericht.
eFor EK, the Entwurf-Katalog (i. e., Haydn's thematic catalogue from the years ca. 1765-78)
chapter 6; facsim. in Larsen, Drei Haydn-Katalog in Faksimile (Copenhagen, 1941). Hoboken regis
dSee also Haydn Compositionsin the Music Collection of the National Sz:chenyi Library in Bu
Mus. I. 127, for Hob. III: 78 [Op. 76, No. 4], for "parts" substitute "score.") The MS to the six
"Ftirnberg-MSS";cf. p. 36,.
*Not in Hoboken.
fNot identifiedas authentic in Hoboken.
9See JHW, XII/2.
hNot an authentic MS, but a veryearly, reliable, Viennese one.
JSeeJHW, XII/3.
kSee Somfai, "'Ich war nie ein Geschwindschreiber,'"FestskriftJeiis Peter Larsen (Copenhagen,
mHaydnauthorized this print,but it is not authentic; i. e., it was not engravedfroma reliable M
"See JHW, XII/4 (scheduled for publication in 1975).
PSee Robert Lachmann, "Die Haydn-Autographe der Staatsbibliothckzu Berlin," Zeitschriftffi
but highly plausible (Viennese print from Haydn's lifetime,L
aAuthenticitynot documented,
close to autograph textually,etc.).
rSee Augustus Hughes-Hughes, Catalog of Manuscript Music in the British Museum, Vol. III, I
"Authenticityhighly implausible.
tSee JHW, XII/5 (scheduled for publication in 1975).
uSee Autograph Musical Scores and Autograph Letters in the Whittall Foundation Collection
vSee Hoboken under 111:75-80and XXVIa:43.
wGeiringer'sstatement (Joseph Haydn: A Creative Life in Music, 3rd ed. [Berkeley.Calif., 1968
by the firmBroude Bros. is erroneous (private communication,gratefullyacknowledged,from Mr. R
Cornell University).Nor is the autograph in the possession of Breitkopf& Hlirtel, the owners bef
supplied by Dr. Feder). A photograph is preserved; see the Katalog des Archivs fiir Photogramm
WidmungAnthonyvan Hoboken [housed in Vienna, Austrian National Library] Vienna, 1967), p. 208

24
are all dated 1793, and both autographs to Opus 77 are dated 1799.
As Haydn's autograph numberings prove (correct Hoboken, page
422, accordingly), Opus 71/74 is a single set of six works; the same
is true of Opus 54/55 (see below). The traditional division of these
two opera into two groups of three reflectsmerely the accidental
circumstance that Pleyel's complete edition was based on French
prints which so divide them. But his division is wholly arbitrary:
other prints of Opus 54/55 and Opus 71/74 keep a single opus
number for all six works; and other works, like Opus 64 and Opus
76, which Pleyel gives as single sets of six, appeared elsewhere as
two sets of three with separate opus-numbers. Except for Opus 42
(one quartet), Opera 77 and 103 (see below), and just possibly Opus
76 (see below), all of Haydn's quartets from Opus 9 on originated
as coherent sets of six in single (extended) compositional acts.
The remaining quartets from the 1780s and 1790s can be dated
more or less precisely by letters,documents relating to their publication, and related indications. For the unfinished quartet Opus
103, 1803 is usually given as the date of composition, on the grounds
of the dated autograph.8sBut Haydn may have begun this work, and
perhaps even completed it in substance, in the spring of 1802. His
friend and biographer Griesinger reported as early as 1799, and
again in 1801, that Haydn had promised to compose a set of "quintets" (an error for "quartets"?) for Count Fries, the eventual dedicatee of Opus 103. More telling is Griesinger'sremark of March 20,
1802, to the effectthat Artaria planned to delay an edition of "two
quartets" - Opus 77 - until Haydn could produce a third.9 We
may thereforeconclude that Haydn originally planned Opus 103
as an addition to Opus 77, to complete a "normal" set of three, and
may speculate that Haydn began to compose Opus 103 in the
The publication of Kozeluch's edition in early 1791 (cf. Alexander Weinmann, Verzeichnis der Verlagswerkedes Musikalischen Magazins in Wien, 1784-1802: "Leopold
Kozeluch" [Vienna, 1950], pp. 6, 12) also implies that Haydn sold Opus 64 to Kozeluch before departing for London in December of 1790.
8 Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 37 and 41 (modifyHoboken's description of the
date on the autograph accordingly).
9C. F. Pohl, Joseph Haydn, III, written from Pohl's notes by Hugo Botstiber
(Leipzig, 1927), 139-40,180-81; Giinter Thomas, "GriesingersBriefe fiber Haydn: Aus
seiner Korrespondenz mit Breitkopf & Hirtel," Haydn-Studien, I (1965-67), 76 and
87; Edward Olleson, "Georg August Griesinger's Correspondence with Breitkopf &
Hirtel," Haydn Yearbook, III (1965), 10, 25, 36. These sources note Griesinger'sconfusion in speaking of quintets but do not mention Opus 103 in this connection.

25
spring of 1802. Upon finding that he could not compose it before

having to turn to the Harmoniemesse, on which he worked through
the summer of 1802, Haydn would have abandoned his aim of
completing a set of three quartets and allowed Artaria to publish
Opus 77 as we know it. (The edition duly appeared on September 11, 1802.) Our hypothesis is the more attractive in that it explains the otherwise inexplicable grouping of two quartets in Opus
77. The following year, realizing that he was unable to complete
the work at all, Haydn would have written down the autograph
we now possess and dated it 1803. The connection between Opus 77
and Opus 103 was clear enough to Artaria, at any rate: the firm's
edition of the latter work reads "3me [sic] et Dernier Quatuor"!1"
And the existence of a separate draft for the minuet (cf. Table I),
which could easily date from 1802, is equally compatible with this
hypothesis.The date of Opus 103 must thus read "'[1802-] 1803."
The date 1797 usually given for Opus 76 is also partly hypothetical. That Haydn had completed at least three of the six works
by June 14 of that year follows froma remark by the Swedish composer F. S. Silverstolpe, an acquaintance of Haydn's at this time;
and a quasi-public performanceof Hob. 111:77 (No. 3) in Eisenstadt
the same summer is the subject of an entry in Joseph Carl Rosenbaum's diary. The documented composition of the Kaiserlied in
January, 1797, provides, finally,a secure terminus ante quem non
for the "Emperor" Quartet (No. 3). It thereforeseems safe to place
the composition of three quartets from Opus 76 in the firsthalf of
1797.11 In all probability these were the present Nos. 1-3 (Hob.
111:75-77), because later Haydn referred explicitly to "the fifth
quartet in D major and ... the last in E-flat,"corresponding to the
10oSee Carl Maria Brand, Die Messen von Joseph Haydn (Wiirzburg, 1941), pp.
217-23, 451-53; Friedrich Lippmann's forewordto JHW, XXIII/5, p. vii, note 5. On
the date of Artaria's edition, see Weinmann, VollstiindigesVerlagsverzeichnisArtaria
& Comp. (Vienna, 1952), p. 54 (and refineHoboken accordingly).
11Silverstolpe: Hoboken, p. 434; DWnes Bartha, ed., Gesammelte Briefe und
Aufzeichnungenvon Joseph Haydn (Kassel, 1965), p. 334. Rosenbaum: Else Radant,
"The Diaries of Joseph Carl Rosenbaum (1770-1829)," Haydn-Yearbook,V (1968), 26.
On the Kaiserlied (Hob. XXVIa:43), see Pohl-Botstiber,pp. 115-18; Franz Grasberger,
Die Hymnen Osterreichs (Tutzing, 1968), pp. 9-94. (Hoboken errs in claiming [p. 434]
that Pohl-Botstiberdescribe a performancefrom Opus 76 in 1796; this was the date
of the election of Esterhdzy'svisitor,the Grand Duke Joseph, as Palatin of Hungary,
not his visit to Eisenstadt. Pohl-Botstiber'sdate 1799 for Opus 76 (p. 149), in turn,
confusesits date of composition with that of publication; it was Opus 77 which originated in 1799.)

26
familiar traditional order.12 Whether Haydn wrote Nos. 4-6 (Hob.

111:78-80) in the same period is conjectural, but since every other
six-work opus originated as a coherent set and (with the possible
exception of Opus 9) within a single calendar year, the date "1797"
remains the most plausible one for the entiretyof Opus 76. This
hypothesis finds support in Silverstolpe's furtherremark (loc. cit.)
that the quartets for Erd6dy - to whom all six are dedicated could not be published for "several years" after their composition;
yet all six appeared in 1799.
Opus 54/55 dates from 1788. On August 10, 1788, Haydn writes:
"As I'm short of cash just now, I offerto supply you with three new
quartets or three new piano trios [mit einer Violin, und Violoncello
begleitete Clavier Sonaten] by the end of December." Haydn's implication that neither quartets nor trios were then in existence is
substantiated,for the trios at any rate, by his response (August 17)
to Artaria's selection of them in preference to new quartets: "my
diligence [in composing] these trios will testifyto my desire to remain your friend." But on September 22 (or possibly in October),
Haydn inquired whether Artaria had purchased an entire set of six
quartets - from the violinist Johann Tost: "I heard today that you
have purchased my six verynewest quartets [meine allerlezte 6 neue
quartetten] and two symphonies [Hob. 1:88,89] from Tost."'3 Unless Haydn wrote six quartets in a month, from August 10 to midSeptember (which is unlikely both intrinsicallyand in relation to
his known practice otherwise), or unless Tost could offerquartets
to Artaria before Haydn had composed them, this offerimplies that
Haydn was not candid with Artaria on August 10: the quartets must
have been fully or partially completed by that date.14 A compositional period of three or at most four months seems more plausible
than the customarysix, and not only because of these curious relations among Haydn, Tost, and Artaria; the surviving autograph
fragmentsof Hob. 111:58 and 59, while not mere drafts--every
12 Haydn to Artaria,July 12, 1799; see Briefe, No. 224 (English trans. in Landon,
ed., The Collected Correspondenceand London Notebooks of Joseph Haydn, p. 158;
but all the translationsgiven here are original).
13Briefe, Nos. 107, 108, 110 (Collected Correspondence,pp. 77-78). (Hoboken
does not cite the firsttwo of these letters in connection with Opus 54/55.) On the
mysteriousTost, violinist in the EsterhAzyKapelle 1783-88, see Briefe, pp. 194, 205-6,
212, and the referencesgiven there.
14To be sure, Haydn had writtenonly one and one-half trios by November 16. Cf.
Briefe, No. 112; Collected Correspondence,p. 80.

27
note is stated or clearly implied - show extreme haste, in part by

numerous shorthand indications of the actual contents: "col Basso"
and other abbreviations of this type, wavy lines for rapid scalewise
passages, formulas for repetitions. In any event, since Opus 50 was
not complete until mid-September,1787 (see below), the undertaking of this new set of six before 1788 can reasonably be excluded;
and since Tost had Opus 54/55 with him when he left Vienna for
Paris not later than the beginning of 1789, Haydn must have completed them well before.15Opus 54/55 can therefore be safely, if
hypothetically,dated: summer and autumn, 1788.
No problems of this sortarise with Opus 50 or Opus 33. In letters
Artaria
on February 11 and 14, 1787, Haydn remarks, "I will
to
deliver the quartet a week from tomorrow," and "the quartet will
That these remarks refer to Opus 50, rather than
follow shortly.""16
the quartet arrangementsof the Seven Words (mentioned elsewhere
in both letters), seems plausible in light of Haydn's specificationin
the next relevant letter, dated March 7: "I enclose the firstmovement of the third quartet [of Opus 50]; you'll get the others in a few
days."'7 From then on he made steady progress: the "fourth" quartet
was completed by May 19 (and delivered June 23), and the "sixth"
(sic) was delivered on July 12. On the same day Haydn remarked,
"I haven't been able to write out [setzen; here, literally,'set down']
the fifthquartet, but it is already composed [componirt]"; in the
event, he did not deliver it until much later, in early September."8
(Here Haydn implies a two-stageprocess of composition: a continuous draft of the musical substance, say the outer parts only ["componiren"], followed later by the production of a complete score
["setzen"]. The latter document, which we call "the" autograph,
takes on more or less the status of a fair copy, depending on the
degree of amplification and revision it contains compared to the
15 Tost reached Paris in time for
Haydn to receive a letter from him "some time
ago" ("vor langer Zeit") as Haydn related to Sieber on April 5, 1789 (Briefe,No. 120;
Collected Correspondence,pp. 56-57).
16Briefe, Nos. 77 (note 3) and 78 (note 4); Collected Correspondence,pp. 56-57.
17Briefe,No. 80 (emphasis added; Collected Correspondence,p. 59). Hoboken (pp.
408-9) fully summarizes the historyof Opus 50 from March 7 on. Since the order
of the six quartets in Artaria's authentic edition is the same as the traditional one
in the "eighty-three,"we may identifyHaydn's "third" quartet with Opus 50, No. 3,
in E-flat,and analogously in the followingletters.
18The quotations are from Briefe, No. 91 (Collected Correspondence,p. 66; but
Landon translatesHaydn's "hab ich das 5te noch nicht setzen k6nnen" incorrectlyas
"... preventedmy having the 5th [quartet] copied. .. .).

28
draft.The extant sketchesand drafts[cf. Table I] support this interpretation; but a full study of this subject is still wanting.) Thus the
documented historyof Opus 50 reaches from March (or January) to
July or, depending on one's interpretation,September, 1787 - a
total of approximately six months, or one month per quartet.'9
Hence, the common hypothesisthat Haydn began Opus 50 as early
as 1784 is incompatible with its documented historyand inconsistent
- and is based in
with Haydn's general practice in quartet-writing
the firstplace on an erroneous interpretationof Haydn's letters to
Artaria of April 5 and May 18, 1784.20
Like its counterpart, Opus 103, the single quartet Opus 42 is
dated (1785) on the autograph. But this autograph also may represent only the last stages of composition - reworkings of material
from the "small, three-movement"quartets Haydn claimed to have
been writingfor a Spanish commission in 1784 (cf. page 18 and note
20, above). Even if he abandoned this project, he might have written one or more complete movementsin April or May (the relevant
lettersto Artaria are dated April 5 and May 18). More to the point,
Haydn's nearly invariable practice was to obtain a "little something
extra" from his music - including compositions from this period
written,ostensibly,for exclusive Spanish commissions, such as the
Seven Words - by reselling them to other patrons or publishers.21
Furthermore, the autograph to Opus 42, especially in the Adagio,
contains compositional revisions in differentink (highly unusual in
a Haydn autograph) implying a later reworking of an already completed movement. According to this admittedlyspeculative hypothesis, Opus 42 thus comprises one or more movements written in
1784 and revised in 1785, together with newly composed material
19Cf. Griesinger'sauthentic biography,Biographsiche Notizen iiber Joseph Haydn
(Leipzig, 1810); trans. in Vernon Gotwals, Joseph Haydn: Eighteenth-CenturyGentleman and Genius (Madison, 1963), pp. 61-2: "'I never was a fast writer,. . .' [said
Haydn]. On each of the twelve symphonies that Haydn composed in England, he
spent, of course amidst other occupations, one month, on a mass three months."
20 This misinterpretation
is found throughoutthe literature,e. g., in Pohl, Joseph
Haydn, II (Leipzig, 1882), 223; Hoboken, p. 408 (and for 13 May read 18 May); Collected Correspondence,p. 45; Briefe,commentaryto Nos. 62 (note 1) and 64 (note 1).
As we now know, in 1784 Haydn was referringto the quartets he possibly wrote on a
Spanish commission;cf. Feder, "Uberlieferung"[note 1], pp. 41-42; JHW, XII/1, foreword. (A less common error,confusingOpus 50 with the "Paris" symphonies,is corrected in Hoboken, p. 408; Briefe,p. 164, note 1; etc.)
21Briefe,No. 66: "Kleinen Nutzen" (Collected Correspondence,p. 47); cf. Larsen,
Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,p. 121.

29
(for details, cf. JHW, XII/4). This hypothesis,if correct, explains

what hitherto has remained mysterious: the origins of Opus 42, its
status as a single quartet (not part of a larger opus), and its miniature
dimensions.
The latest possible date for completion of Opus 33 is the end of
November, 1781, for the famous letters to private subscribers, in
which Haydn speaks of 'the entirely new special manner" of these
works, are dated December 3 of that year, and otherwise Artaria
could hardly have received the music in time to advertise preparation of his edition on December 29.2" This estimate agrees with
Haydn's apology, in a letter of October 18, for his delay in reading
proof for a set of lieder (Hob. XXVIa: 1-12) which Artaria was just
then publishing: '"I have been working on six new quartets, and this
has kept me fromthe lieder.... I'm writingnew quartets right now;
in fact four are already done.'"" If Haydn had completed four quartets by October 18, he could easily have writtenthe last two in the
six weeks between that date and the end of November.
When might Haydn have begun Opus 33? A clue lies in three
earlier letters,all of which have to do with the same set of lieder.24
Haydn's original agreement with Artaria had been for two sets of
twelve each, and he submitted the firstset with the letter of July 20.
Yet as early as May 27 he claimed that he had already composed
fourteen, complaining that only a delay in receiving additional
texts had prevented him from composing even more. But by June
23 these fourteenhad grown only to fifteen,to eighteen by October
18. In this five-monthperiod, then, Haydn composed just four
lieder, and on October 18 he admitted that the cause of the delay
had been his work on Opus 33. Thus we may hypothesizethat Haydn
began these works at the beginning of June, 1781, and completed
them by the end of November.25 This period of almost exactly six
months agrees with that we have already noted for Opus 50.
22 Briefe, Nos. 39 and 40 (Collected
Correspondence, pp. 33-35); Feder, "Ein
vergessenerHaydn-Brief,"Haydn-Studien, I (1965-67), 114-16; Hoboken quotes the

advertisement.
23 Briefe,No. 38a (Collected Correspondence,p. 32).
24 Briefe, Nos. 33-35 (Collected Correspondence,pp. 27-32).
25This argument was also developed, independently,by Ludwig Finscher: cf. his
Studien zur Geschichte des Streichquartetts,Vol. I, Die Entstehung des klassischen
Streichquartetts:Von den Vorformenzur Grundlegung durch Joseph Haydn (Kassel,
1974), pp. 240-1. It decisively refutes the erroneous date "1778-1781" found in Hoboken (pp. 393, 401) and elsewhere.The latter conceit derives from a set of forgeries,

30
While Haydn wrote almost all of his music in the main instrumental genres after 1780 directly for publication or sale to private
parties outside Esterhaz, his pre-1780 instrumental music was, as
far as we know, destined primarily for the Esterhazy court. In any
case, the earlier periods do not provide explicit documentation of
the sort we have presented for the later works. We know nothing of
the origin or purpose of the three sets of quartets Opera 9, 17, and
20. Were they Kammermusik for the prince? No authentic manuscripts of these works in the EsterhAzyarchives are extant, and no
documents there refer to them. Were they writtenfor performance
in Vienna during the winter "season"? No direct evidence is at
hand. Were they written on private commission? When or where
were they performed in Haydn's presence? Answers to these and
all similar questions are simply lacking.26Now Opus 17 and Opus
20 are dated 1771 and 1772 on the extant autographs. But to date
Opus 9 only indirect means are at hand: catalogue entries, inauthentic prints,technical scrutinyof watermarks,paper types,scribal
handwriting,and so forth.
We can estimate the date of Opus 9 from Haydn's entry in the
EntwulrfKatalog, on the bottom of page 2, followingan entry,higher
on the same page, of the overture to Lo Speziale (Hob. Ia:10). As
that opera was firstgiven in the fall of 1768, he could not have entered its overture in EK at any earlier time, and might not have
gotten around to it until, say, the following winter. In any case, he
must have entered Opus 9 still later.27Of the two symphonies previously entered on the same page, an authentic manuscript of Hob.
masquerading as lettersfrom"Count Morzin" to Haydn; cf. Collected Correspondence,
pp. vi-vii, and Briefe, pp. 11-12. To the arguments given there could be added the
fact that very few letters to Haydn are preservedat all, save for honorificones from
his last years; a coherent set of twelve from ca. 1780 would have no parallel. Thus
Unverricht'slingering belief that the letters might be genuine (Die Musikforschung,
XVI [1963], 54) is not persuasive.
26Dr. Burney's descriptionof a quartet-partyin Vienna on September4, 1772, at
which Haydn quartets were performedby, among others, his former cellist Joseph
Weigl, awakens interest; but the works are not specified (Opus 17? Opus 20?), and
Haydn appears not to have been present. (The PresentState of Music in Germany...,
2nd ed., Vol. I [London, 1775; facsim,New York, 1969], p. 294.)
27Feder in JHW, XII/2, p. vi; cf. Larsen, Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 224-25.
For the technique of dating Haydn's music by cross referencesbetween entries in EK
and other data, see ibid., pp. 216-23. (This discussion of Opus 9 depends on the
facsimile of EK, published in Larsen, Drei Haydn-Kataloge. I am indebted to Sonja
Gerlach for certain refinementsin the argument.)

31
1:41 bearing a watermarkknown only from 1769, and a manuscript

of Hob. 1:26 dated 1770, hint at 1768 or 1769 as dates of composition. The "Grosse Orgelmesse" (Hob. XXII:4) is probably from
1766, though that date is conjectural.28 (For the dates of the lost
Missa sunt bona mixta malis [Hob. XXII:3] and the "Cantilena pro
Adventu" [Hob. XXIIId:3] there are no clues other than the entries
in EK themselves.) These datings reinforce our rough estimate for
the entryof Opus 9 in EK: late 1768 or 1769.
The only remaining incipit on this page of EK reads "Divertimento a cinq[ue] ["sei" crossed out] stromenti cioe 2 clarinetti 2
corni," with an incipit notated in F major (Hob. 11:5). This lost
wind quartet featuring clarinets is, in fact, a furtherclue to the
dating of Opus 9. As Hoboken noted, the incipit gives the same
melody as that which opens Hob. X: 10, a quintet in D major for
baryton, viola, bass, and two horns. Recently, however, Gerlach
realized that the incipit of our wind quintet Hob. 11:5 "in F major"
representsnot a mere transpositionof the D major baryton-quintet
theme but the beginning of a work in D major, notated for clarinet
in A!29 Thus either the lost wind quintet Hob. 11:5 or the baryton
quintet Hob. X:10 is probably an arrangement of the other.
These data also help to explain why Haydn entered Hob. 11:5 titled "Divertimento" - not on pages 3-5 with the other ensemble
divertimentos,but on page 2.30 The last two staves on page 5 cite
two baryton trios, Hob. XI:62 and 63. These trios were composed
in early 1768, but Haydn did not enter them in EK until later: they
appear as the firsttwo in a large batch of incipits, Hob. XI:62-72,
entered all at once on pages 5-6. Since Hob. XI:66-72 were not composed until the end of 1768, these entries in EK must have been
made in the last days of 1768 at the earliest, more likely early in
1769.31
28 Hob. 1:41: Feder, "tberlieferung,"
p. 20 and note 62. Hob. 1:26: Landon,
Symphonies,p. 271; idem, Supplement to the Symphoniesof Joseph Haydn (London,
1961), p. 13 (correct Hoboken accordingly).Hob. XXII:4: Brand, Messen, pp. 36-37
(correctingPohl, II, 38); Hoboken.
29Hoboken, pp. 300 and 587; Gerlach in JHW, XIII, p. vii and note 17.
30 Larsen seems to have overlooked this entryin his descriptionof the ensemble
divertimentosin EK (Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 223-24),although he did cite Hob.
11:5 correctlyon p. 212. Otherwise,he would not have stated that EK's registration
of divertimentosceases with Hob. 11:4, on p. 5.
31 Ibid., pp. 228 and 233; Unverricht,Geschichtedes Streichtrios (Tutzing, 1969),
p. 144. The (partiallyunstated) basis for these datings is Haydn's postscriptsto letters

32
But if that is so, then the entryof the wind quintet Hob. 11:5 on
page 2 must have come still later. For the only explanation for
Haydn's failure to enter this work on page 5 is that the section originally intended for divertimentos- pages 3-6-had already been
filled up.32 Not only was Hob. 11:5 the firstnonbaryton divertimento to be entered outside the divertimentosection, but when it
was entered on page 2, the latter page contained nothing but symphonies and sacred vocal works. Most telling, the last nonbaryton
divertimentothat Haydn entered in the original section is an almost
exact counterpart to Hob. II:5: "Divertimento a cinq[ue] ["sei"
crossed out] cioe 2 clarinetti 1 ["2" crossed out] fagotto ["o" originally "i"] e 2 corni [originally "oboe"]." This work, Hob. 11:4, is
lost. In its original form,it was a sextet for two clarinets,two oboes,
and two horns, but later Haydn arranged it as a quintet for two
clarinets, two horns, and one bassoon - the precise scoring of
Hob. II:5.33
The entryof Hob. 11:5 in EK thus took place after the entries
of Hob. XI:62-72; that is, after the beginning of 1769, perhaps
several months into that year, possibly even in 1770. But - to arrive
finallyat our result! - Opus 9, in turn, follows Hob. 11:5 on page
2 of EK, and so it was entered later still. Hence the earliest possible
date of the entry of Opus 9 in EK is early 1769, and the "likely"
date falls between mid-1769 and 1770.34
This juxtaposition of Hob. 11:5 and Opus 9 undermines Larsen's
claim that the appearance of Opus 9 on a separate page from the
other divertimentossignals the rise of the string quartet as an independent genre, outside the divertimentoframework.35Hob. II:5
appeared on page 2 only because it had been squeezed out of the
dated March 20, 1768, promisingEsterhtizy
new barytontrios that week; and December
22 of the same year (Briefe,Nos. 7 and 9; Collected Correspondence,pp. 8 and 12-13).
32On the "divertimentosection" in EK, see Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 223-24.
33Neither Larsen (ibid., pp. 212 and 213) nor Hoboken (p. 300) points out these
similarities. (Both works appear together,of course, as Nos. 4 and 5 in the list of
divertimentosin the "Haydn Verzeichnis"of 1805.) The bassoon and bass instrument
in Hob. 11:5 is conjectural, but its suitabilityfor clarinetsand horns and the similarities between this work and Hob. II:4 render it virtually certain. It is tempting to
suppose that Hob. 11:4 also is for A clarinet; in this case it too would represent a
work in D Major, the key of a second, lost baryton quintet, Hob. X:7! But the
incipits do not match.
34Previously,only "1768" had been established.
35Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,p. 225. This misinterpretationis, at least in part, the
consequence of Larsen's overlookingHob. II:5 on p. 2 (cf. note 30, above).

33
divertimento section, and so Opus 9 merely continued the regime

of the divertimento-in-exile,so to speak. And the circle closes as
we note Haydn's title in EK for Opus 9: "Divertimento a quatro."
Nor does the continuity of divertimentos in EK stop at Opus 9;
both Opus 17 and Opus 20 are classifiedas divertimentos.Both were
squeezed in, just as Opus 9 had to be; but instead of turning to a
new page, as he did for Opus 9, Haydn placed Opus 17 and Opus
20 back in the original divertimento section (even page 2 having
been filled in the meantime), Opus 17 in the margin of page 6,
Opus 20 in the margin of page 5. Even terminological continuity is
maintained: the remaining five works in Opus 9 are titled simply
"a quatro" or "a 4tro," that is, abbreviations of the full title "Divertimento a quatro." The two authentic manuscripts (cf. Table I)
bear preciselythe same title. In EK each work in Opus 17 bears the
same short title, "a 4tro"; in view of the title "Divertimento a
quatro" on the autograph, these designations too must be abbreviations of "Divertimento a quatro." In Opus 20, finally, titles are
lacking in EK, but all six autographs are uniformlytitled "Divertimento a quattro." Larsen's furtherremarksabout the status of Opus
17 and Opus 20 as "quartets" rather than "divertimentos" are therefore equally out of place. Just as the ten early quartets had been,
all three of these sets are "Divertimenti a quatro." Neither in EK
nor in any other authentic source is there any hint that Haydn used
the title "Quartet" before Opus 33, and he did not completely
abandon "Divertimento" in the context of "serious" chamber music
until after 1785.
These remarks do not imply that Opera 9, 17, and 20 are not
"true" string quartets; they are. It is only the modern terminology
which lagged behind the rise of the genre. Haydn, in particular, used
the title "Divertimento" for all his nonorchestral instrumental music; for him "Divertimento a quatro" implied neither more nor less
than "Composition for Four Instruments." To a lesser extent, the
same was true of all Austrian chamber music.36
The date of Opus 9 suggested by the entry in EK - 1769 or
1770 - is supported by the approximate dates 1769-73 for the two
authentic manuscripts.37The BreitkopfCatalogue's citation of Opus
9 in 1771 implies an absolute limit of 1771 at the latest, with 1770
36Webster,"Towards a Historyof Viennese Chamber Music in the Early Classical
Period," Journal of the American Musicological Society,XXVII (1974), 212-47.
37From their watermarks;cf. JHW, XII/2, KritischerBericht, Sources (1) and (2).

34
a more realistic limit and 1768-70 as the probable period of composition.38 Hummel's firstedition is also to be dated 1771, as implied by its plate number 208 and its opus number "7."39 Finally,
the terminus ante quem 1770 is to be assumed not only for these
reasons but also because Haydn composed Opus 17 in 1771. Hence
every documentary testimonyimplies that Haydn wrote Opus 9 in
the latter part of 1769 or in 1770.
The earliest reasonable date on stylisticgrounds would be ca.
1766;40 but even here 1769 or 1770 is more plausible. The quartets
in Opus 9 are large, importantworks; theywere writtenas a unified
set of six, as Haydn's entryin EK and the distribution in contemporarysources show; theysignifieda departure fromhis previous compositional interests.All this implies that Haydn entered these quartetsin EK and prepared copies forsale or giftshortlyaftercomposing
them. A furtherargument is the fact that Haydn would hardly have
had time to write six large string quartets - as we have seen, a
reasonable period for such a set was six months - in the years 176668, when he wrote more than twentybaryton trios per year. In the
years 1769-71, however, they average only eight per year. In addition, after writing Italian operas in each of the three years 1766,
1768, and 1769 (or 1769-70), Haydn composed no others until
L'infedelta' delusa of 1773.41 It thus seems logical to posit a complementary turn towards quartet (and symphony?) on Haydn's part
during the years 1770-72. In addition to this general shift of emphasis, there is the more specificcompositional relationship between
Haydn's cultivation of baryton trios in the late 1760s and his production of string quartets in the early 1770s - quite as if, in the
latter new and more ambitious world, he profitedfrom his previous
experience with an informalsoloistic ensemble of low- and middlerange strings.42On all counts, then, Opus 9 can be dated: (the last
half of) 1769 or 1770.
38 Ibid., foreword; cf. Barry S. Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue
(New York, 1966), p. 418. (Contrary to Pohl, II, 43, and Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,
p. 225, Opus 9 did not appear in Breitkopf's1769 catalogue.)
39Otto Erich Deutsch,"Musikverlagsnummern:Ein Nachtrag,"Die Musikforschung,
XV (1962), 155; Feder in JHW, XII/2, p. vi; Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 194-95;
2nd ed. (Berlin, 1961), p. 16. (Hoboken's date "1769"
Deutsch, Musikverlagsnummern,
for this edition is thus erroneous.)
4oFeder in JHW, XII/2, p. vi.
41According to the datings in Unverricht,Streichtrio,p. 144; JHW, XXV/2-5.
42Oliver Strunk,"Haydn's Divertimentifor Baryton,Viola and Bass," The Musical Quarterly,XVIII (1932), 229-43; Finscher, Geschichte des Streichquartetts,I, 163-

35
For all the difficultiesin dating Opus 9 precisely,it is, at least,

a single opus of six works; there is no doubt of its authenticity,its
contents, or its membership in the genre "string quartet"; and it
has always been evident that it must have originated, roughly, in
the late 1760s. But Haydn's early string quartets, Hob. 11:6 ("Opus
0"), III:1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, cannot even be grouped into coherent sets,
and not even an approximate date can be taken for granted; the
estimates range from 1750 to well into the 1760s.43
These quartets were firstwidely disseminated in the early 1760s.
The earliest documented date, 1762, appears on manuscriptsto Hob.
III: 12, 2, 1, 3, 6 at Kremsmiinsterand Hob. II:10 and 12 (the latter
now lost) at Gittweig."4 In 1763, the eight works Hob. 11:6, III: 1-4,
-6, 7 and F4 (spurious) appeared in Breitkopf's nonthematic Verzeichniss musikalischer Biicher; then, in 1765, in the thematic catalogue. The latter catalogue also cites Hob. 11:2, 21, 22 and 111:8,
10, 12; theirabsence in the nonthematiccatalogue indicates that they
became available to Breitkopf between 1763 and 1765.45 This progression from dated manuscripts in 1762 via catalogue entries in
1763 leads smoothly to Chevardibre's firstedition of "Opus 1,"
which appeared in January, 1764 - the firstprint of Haydn's music
anywhere.By the middle 1760s all of these quartets had appeared in
print.46Finally, by the mid-1760s Haydn's quartets were eliciting
frequent appraisals in the journalistic literature, all emphasizing,
with varyingdegrees of approval, their novelty and popularity.47
67 and 186-87. Haydn's output was usually "compartmentalized" in the manner
described; cf. Landon and Larsen, "Haydn," MGG, V, col. 1895.
43Landon, "Opera 1 and 2"; Feder's foreword and KritischerBericht to JHW,
XII/1. Dr. Feder had the great kindness to read an early version of this account of
Haydn's early quartets, and to permit me to read his in typescript;mine has been
materiallyimproved as a result.
44 Landon, op. cit., p. 185; Hoboken, pp. 372-75.
45 Pohl, I, 330; Hoboken, p. 360; Breitkopf,pp. 140 and 153.
46Chevardisre's "Opus 1" (Hob. 111:1-4 and two flute quartets by Toeschi) was
advertised January 30, 1764 (Hoboken, p. 361; Cari Johansson,French Music Publishers'Catalogues, Vol. I [Stockholm,1955], p. 68). As Feder has shown (JHW, XII/1,
KritischerBericht, p. 25), Hoboken's erroneous datings of Chevardibre'stwo editions
of "Opus 1" (1762 and 1764) must be corrected to 1764 and 1770-71, respectively.
Huberty's edition of Hob. 11:6 appeared in the same year; Hummel's "Opus 1" followed in 1765 (Hob. II11:6,11:1-4, 6); his "Opus 2" in 1765 or 1766 (Hob. 111:7-12);
and Chevardi&re's"Opus 2" in 1766 (designated "Opus 3"; Hob. 11:21, 22, F5 [spurious]; III: 7, 8, 10). Cf. Hoboken; JHW, pp. 25-27.
47Collected in Sandberger, "Zur Einbiirgerung der Kunst Joseph Haydns in
Deutschland," Neues Beethoven Jahrbuch, VI (1935), 5-25.

36
In spite of the appearance of Haydn's firstquartets in the early

sixties, and not before, there is universal agreement that he composed them in the fifties.This hypothesisrests principally on Griesinger's authentic biography:
. the following quite accidental circumstance led [Haydn] to try his luck
writing quartets. A certain Baron Fiirnberg invited his pastor, his steward, Haydn,
and Albrechtsberger (a cello-playing brother of the famous learned composer) to
his country seat in Weinzirl, some distance from Vienna, to provide a little
musical entertainment. Fiirnberg encouraged Haydn to compose something for
these quartet-parties; Haydn, then eighteen years of age, accepted, and in this
way his firstquartet came into being. [Incipit: Hob. III:l/I, 1-3] This quartet
had a great success as soon as it appeared, and so Haydn was encouraged to
continue working in the genre.48
Griesinger's identificationof Haydn's patron as "Baron" [Freiherr

Karl Joseph Weber Edler von] Fiirnberg receives strong if indirect
support from two authentic testimonies. The firstis Haydn's own
recollection (in an autobiographical sketch of 1776) of having been
recommended to Count Morzin, his firstlegitimate employer, by
Fiirnberg himself:
... At last, on the recommendation of the late [Baron] v. Fiirnberg (who was
especially generous to me), I was appointed conductor with Count Morzin, and
from there I joined His Highness Prince Esterhaizyas kapellmeister. .. .49
The second "testimony" is the existence of authentic parts to six

early quartets (and other early works), bearing Haydn's autograph
corrections, now in the Esterhaizyarchives but once --as the ex
libris "Fiirnberg Obrest [sic] Lieut." proves- in the possession of
Baron Joseph Fiirnberg's son.50
Haydn must have written the early quartets between his departure from Saint Stephens around 1750 and his employment by Esterhaizyin 1761. (Since Fiirnberg came into possession of Weinzirl
in 1748 and died in 1767, no narrowingof these limits is possible on
that basis.) The appointments to Morzin and especially to Esterhazy
marked a decided change in Haydn's professional status and compositional activity: he was now in charge of an orchestra; many of
his earliest symphonies were written for Morzin, and many more,
48Griesinger(see note 19, above), p. 16; quoted throughoutthe literature.
49Briefe, No. 21, p. 77 (Collected Correspondence,p. 19).
50On Fiirnberg,see Pohl, I, 180-84; on the "Fiirnberg-MSS,"cf. Table I; Feder,
"Oberlieferung,"pp. 16-17; JHW, XII/1, KritischerBericht, pp. 10-11. (Pohl, I, 182,
identifies "Lieutenant Colonel" Fiirnberg as the son of Haydn's patron, putting
Feder's doubts on this score to rest.)

The Chronology of Haydn's String Quartets
37
of course, for Esterhazy.In view of Haydn's general tendency,noted

above, to cultivate differentgenres at differentstages of his career,
it is tempting to take the documented relationship between Fuirnberg and Haydn's quartets as typical of the 1750s, and to conclude
that the majority of the early "Divertimentos" (keyboard sonatas
both accompanied and unaccompanied, string trios, string quartets,
ensemble divertimentos,wind-band pieces) originated in the fifties
or, at any rate, before Haydn's appointment to Esterhazy."5Another
consequence of this view is that "delayed" distribution of the quartets- not before the sixties - is no barrier to the hypothesisthat
Haydn wrote them in the fifties;his new "legitimate" positions,
from ca. 1759 on, brought him not only freedom from want but
also, for the firsttime, the opportunity, the reputation, and the
access to copyistsnecessaryto create and satisfybroad interestin his
music.52
But the date of Haydn's entryinto Morzin's service is not secure!
Haydn himself gives no date. The traditional date, 1759, derives
(once again) fromGriesinger; the other authentic biographer, Dies,
agrees; and most later biographers repeat this date. Yet Pohl, normally so certain of his "facts," puts in a caveat; and Carpani and,
apparently following him, Geiringer place this event in 1758, which
is in itselfentirelyplausible.53The wider acceptance of 1759 derives
probably not so much fromthe general belief in Griesinger's greater
reliability as from his far better known assertion--in the same
sentence! - that Haydn's "first"symphony(Hob. I: 1) originated the
same year. Here Griesinger errs, however: the symphonyHob. 1:37
exists in a manuscript dated 1758, and Haydn himself suggested,in
old age, 1757 as a logical date for his firstsymphonies.54
51 Fiirnberg's connection with Haydn necessarily preceded his recommendation
of the young composer to Morzin. On Haydn's career before 1761, see Pohl I, 117-99
(the most detailed account), and Landon and Larsen, "Haydn," MGG, V, cols. 1862-65
(the most reliable).
52This argument I have adapted from Finscher, Geschichte des Streichquartetts,
I, 159-60.
53Griesinger,p. 20; Albert ChristophDies, Biographische Nachrichten von Joseph
Haydn (Vienna, 1810; modern ed. by Horst Seeger [Berlin, 1962]), p. 45; Gotwals, pp.
15, 98-99; Landon, Symphonies,p. 174; MGG, V, col. 1864. Pohl, I, 190; Giuseppe
Carpani, Le Haydine, 2nd ed. (Milan, 1823), p. 92; Karl Geiringer,Haydn: A Creative
Life in Music, 3rd ed. (Berkeley,Calif., 1968), p. 38.
54Griesinger,pp. 20-21 (Gotwals, pp. 15-16). On the relative merits of Haydn's
early biographers,see Gotwals, "The Earliest Biographies of Haydn," The Musical
Quarterly,XLV (1959), 439-59. On the early symphonies,see Feder, "Oberlieferung,"
p. 25; Landon, Symphonies,p. 174.

38
We become truly suspicious of the early biographers, however,

when they turn to Haydn's departure from Morzin and his entry
into Esterhazy'sservice. The date of Haydn's formal employmentis
fixed by the extant "Convention und Verhaltungs-Norma" dated
Vienna, May 1, 1761.55It is thereforedisturbing to read in Griesinger that Haydn entered Esterhaizy'semploy on March 19, 1760,
in Dies that Haydn joined Esterhaizyshortlyafterleaving Morzin in
1760, and in Carpani that Haydn's strongdesire for the transferwas
satisfied"at last [finalmente]" in 1760.56Perhaps Haydn did leave
Morzin in 1760, and the early biographers simply "elided" this event
with his entry into Esterhaizy'sservice in 1761. If this be so, then
Haydn spent the year 1760-61 either as a free artistagain in Vienna
or perhaps with Esterhizy on an "unofficial"or trial basis. The latter
hypothesis gains a certain credibility from Haydn's marriage on
November 26, 1760: if Haydn did leave Morzin in the same year, his
marriage implies that he had other secure prospects.57But fromthese
indications the only safe conclusion regarding the early quartets is
that they originated before May, 1761.
Now Griesinger says explicitly that Haydn wrote the quartets
when he was eighteen; Dies, the same ("im neunzehnten Jahre");
Carpani, that he was a little over twenty. These assertions place
them early in the 1750s; indeed Griesinger's and Dies's place them
in the year 1750. It was Pohl who firstsuggested that 1750 was too
early, proposing instead that Haydn wrote the quartets over a period
of several years beginning about 1755.58 These two possibilities ca. 1750 and ca. 1755 - have dominated all subsequent discussion.
At issue is the trustworthinessof Griesinger's account. His sequence of the main events in Haydn's life during the 1750s not only
seems reliable but is corroborated by Haydn himself: choirboy at
Saint Stephen's, then the "lean years," then increasing confidence
and independence, then Fiirnberg, then Morzin, then Esterhizy. In
particular, there seems no reason to doubt Fiirnberg's patronage for
early Haydn quartets, perhaps his "first" quartet, perhaps even all
ten early quartets. (Griesinger probably cited Hob. III: 1 as Haydn's
"first" quartet merely because it occupied that position in Pleyel's
55 Briefe, No. 1; fascim. in Somfai,Joseph Haydn: Sein Leben in zeitgen6ssischen
Bildern (Kassel, 1966), Plates 36ff.;trans. in Geiringer,Haydn, pp. 45-47.
56Griesinger,p. 16; Dies, pp. 46-7; Gotwals, Haydn, pp. 16 and 100; Carpani,
p. 92.
57MGG, V, col. 1865.
58Griesinger,p. 13; Dies, p. 40; Gotwals, pp. 13, 95; Carpani, p. 90; Pohl, I, 185.

39
complete edition. There is no reason to believe that Hob. III:1 was

actually the first;on stylisticgrounds, Hob. 11:6 and 111:6 are most
plausible, and Hob. 111:2-4, 10, and 12 are very closely related to
Hob. III: 1; on documentarygrounds, Hob. 11:6, III: 1-4,6, and possibly 10, 12 are all plausible.59And we have just noted that the symphony Hob. I:1, which Greisinger cites in the same way, is almost
certainly not Haydn's first.)But all three early biographers date
Haydn's departure from Saint Stephen's and his firstquartet not by
calendar years,but in termsof Haydn's age.60The latter method not
only is inherentlysusceptible to error but suggests that Griesinger
obtained the informationfrom Haydn himself in informal conversation: "I left school when I was sixteen; I wrote my firstquartet at
eighteen." Accounts of this sort even froma man of perfectmemory
and in the prime of life are suspicious; when Griesinger and Dies
came on the scene, Haydn was neither. The date 1750, then, based
essentiallyon Griesinger's "achtzehn Jahre alt," is to be doubted not for the frivolous reasons Pohl adduces (page 185), but simply
because it is not convincing testimony.
Furthermore, the circumstantial evidence of Griesinger's account stronglysuggeststhat Haydn's quartets originated after 1755.
Fiirnberg is introduced after descriptions of Haydn's pilgrimage to
Mariazell, his quarters in the Michaelerhaus, his contact with C. P.
E. Bach's works, and his intercourse with Metastasio and Porpora.
Immediately following the quartet episode, moreover, Griesinger
describes the robbery of Haydn's possessions from his new quarters
on the Seilerstatte;he occupied these quarters, the fruitof improved
financialcircumstances,in the mid-fifties
at the earliest. And among
the compensations for his losses from the robbery was a two-month
stay with Fiirnberg himself.61Indeed, one authority tells us that
Haydn's original connection with Fiirnberg was as music master to
the latter's family and that Fiirnberg's Vienna residence was near
- circumstances which presuppose the Haydn of
the Seilerstaitte62
1755 and after.
59Cf. JHW, XII/1, p. ix, col. 2.
60 The traditional date "1750" (some accounts have it "1749') for Haydn's departure from Saint Stephen's is even less secure than "1759" for his employmentby
Morzin! This topic cannot be pursued here; cf. MGG, V, col. 1862.
61Griesinger,p. 17 (Gotwals, p. 14); cf. Pohl, I, 187-88.
62Fritz Dworschak, "Joseph Haydn und Karl Joseph Weber von Fiirnberg,"
Unsere Heimat (1932, Nos. 6 and 7), pp. 190ff.;as cited in Rosemary Hughes, Haydn
(London, 1962), p. 27, and in Feder, JHW, XII/1, p. ix.

40
In this connection Larsen's and Landon's surmise that Haydn

probably had no access to noble patronage until 1755 or later takes
on added significance.6'Indeed, it is not easy to see how Haydn, an
adolescent just out of school, without reputation or instrumental
compositions to his credit, could have come to Fiirnberg's attention
in 1750. Around 1755 or 1757, however, he could have had recommendations fromPorpora, Metastasio, and the authoritiesat churches
where he had performedon Sundays; he probably had composed at
least a few keyboard pieces, divertimentos,and stringtrios; he could
have had experience teaching. Indeed Haydn apparently had made
modest contacts with other minor nobility by ca. 1755, including a
Sunday job as organist in the chapel of one Count Haugwitz;
chamber-musicevenings at the castle of Count Harrach, the lord of
Rohrau (his birthplace); and an embarrassing encounter with the
Countess Thun's decolletage."6 All these arguments support the
hypothesis that Haydn's relationship with Fiirnberg developed
around 1755 at the earliest, possibly not until ca. 1757.
One furtherremark of Griesinger's invites closer consideration:
the referenceto a cellist in the quartet-partiesas "Albrechtsberger's
brother." Pohl was the firstto sense that all was not well: he showed
that Albrechtsbergerhad no brothers. He also noted that various
relations who had settled in the area included a branch of the
family at Weiteneck, a possession of Fiirnberg's. There the matter
rested until Fritz Dworschak suggested what, no doubt, others had
conjectured, that Griesinger's cellist was, in fact, the composer and
theoristJohann Georg Albrechtsberger."5Nor is circumstantial evidence lacking: from 1757 to 1759 Albrechtsbergerwas organist at
Maria-Taferl, only twelve kilometers from Weinzirl; and both
Gerber and Abb6 Stadler claim, on undetermined authority, that
he was a good cellist in his youth.66
63MGG, V, col. 1863.
64 Griesinger,p. 17 (Gotwals, p. 14); Pohl I, 186-89; MGG, V, col. 1863; Geiringer,

Haydn, pp. 36-37; Leopold Nowak, Joseph Haydn: Leben, Bedeutung, Werk, 2nd ed.
(Vienna, 1959), p. 82. For all the reasons given above, Finscher's recent attempt
(Geschichte des Streichquartetts,I, 137-39) to rehabilitate the date 1750-51, based almost exclusivelyon Griesinger,is not persuasive.
see Oskar Kapp
65 As in note 62, above; Pohl, I, 184, note 7. On Albrechtsberger,
in Denkmiiler der Tonkunst in Osterreich XVI/2 (33); Andreas Weissenbaick, "Johann
Georg Albrechtsberger als Kirchenkomponist," Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, XIV
(1927), 143-48; Herta Goos, "Albrechtsberger,"MGG, I, cols. 303ff.

66 Gerber,Neues Lexikon, I, 55; Stadler in a manuscript-biography
in the Austrian
National Library (cited by Feder in JHW, XII/1, p. ix). But both may have taken

41
Furthermore,Albrechtsbergerwas in Vienna from 1753 to 1755,

where, as a colleague of Michael Haydn's, he doubtless met and perhaps befriended Joseph. It is even possible that he was Joseph's
student.67(That the two were good friendsafter 1780 is well documented.)"s And upon his return to Melk (as organist) in 1759, Aland rebrechtsbergerwrote numerous string-quartet/divertimentos
lated works. Indeed one of these quartets is the very work, Hob.
III:D3, which until recently seemed the best "candidate" for a
"lost" Haydn quartet.69Albrechtsberger'spresence in Maria-Taferl
from 1757 to 1759, and in Melk thereafter,will have made him available for the quartet-partiesat Weinzirl. Moreover, his early secular
chamber music, an implausible repertoryfor a Benedictine monastery,could easily representmusic for Fiirnberg,supplying the latter's
needs after Haydn's departure for Morzin in 1758 or 1759. At a
single stroke, Griesinger's cellist, the existence of Albrechtsberger's
early chamber music, and its similarityto Haydn's like production
would be explained. We thereforemust emphasize that this pretty
storyremains hypothetical.70
the idea from Griesinger! Gerber, writing for publication in 1812, refers to "the
recent account(s)
of Haydn's
life .
." ("In
den spateren Nachrichtcn
zu Haydnis
Leben"), a clear referenceto Griesinger'sand perhaps also to Dies's biography,both

published 1810; nor does Stadler's account go beyond what he would have read in
Griesinger.In this case the anecdotes would have no independent documentaryvalue.
67Kapp, p. ix; Weissenbick, p. 154; Goos, col. 303. Nobody mentions the possibility that Albrechtsbergermight have been Haydn's student, but it seems plausible
enough: Albrechtsbergerwas the youngerman by four years,the same age as Haydn's
pupil Robert Kimmerling;and in any case, whatever formal training Albrechtsberger
enjoyed took place in Vienna between 1753 and 1755 (Kapp, p. ix). Cf. Pohl, I,
178-80.
68E. g., Haydn's postscriptin a letter to Eybler, March 27, 1789 (Briefe, No. 117;
Collected Correspondence,p. 82); Albrechtsberger'sdcdication of a canon to Haydn
in 1806 with the words ". .. vetus et sincerus Amicus" ("old and dear friend":
Briefe,No. 373; Collected Correspondence,p. 242).
69 Albrechtsbergercomposed at least a dozen chamber works during the Melk
in der Nationalbibliothek
years, 1759-66; see Somfai, "Albrechtsberger-Eigenschriften
Szechenyi,Budapest," Studia Musicologica, I (1961), 175-202,Nos. 19, 24-27, 39; IV
(1963), Nos. 40-44, [58]. Since the autographs Nos. 43-44 are dated Melk, 1759, the
date 1760 usually given for his return there must be correctedaccordingly.On Hob.
III:D3 (Somfai,I, No. 39), cf. Landon, "Doubtful and Spurious Quartets and Quintets
attributed to Joseph Haydn," The Music Review, XVIII (1957), 218, No. IX.D-1;
Feder, "Apokryphe 'Haydn' Quartette," Haydn-Studien, III/2 (1974), 135-36.
70Dworschak, p. 198 (cited by Feder, JHW, XII/1 p. ix), and Landon (Collected
Correspondence,p. 82, note 5) accept this hypothesis.Bartha objects (Briefe, p. 202,
note 7); but his reasons - Albrechtsberger'sstay in Gy6r (Raab; Hungary) from

42
At all events, the biography unequivocally points to the late

1750s as the date of Haydn's early quartets. If Albrechtsbergerwas
involved, the dates 1757-59 are secure (he was in Hungary from 1755
to 1757). In any case, Fiirnberg's association with Haydn falls between 1755 and 1759. Even though one account places the quintet
Hob. 11:2 in the year 1753, for the quartets the date 1750 (or so)
implied by the early biographers seems wholly untenable. Here we
may also note two stylisticfeatures. All ten works are remarkably
similar: all have fivemovements,and all but two have the identical
F-M-S-M-F sequence (and the exceptions Hob. 111:3 and 12 are
closely related); they share such featuresas trios in the tonic minor
(a common midcenturyViennese trait), "arioso" slow movements,
and outer movements of severely restricted limits of space and
ostensible "development.'"71 These very strong similarities suggest
that Haydn composed all ten workswithin a veryfew years; this conclusion dovetails nicely with the two-to-three-year
period, ca. 175659, suggested by the external evidence. The other feature,too broad
to discuss here, is Haydn's compositional masteryin these quartets,
"in spite of" their modest outward dimensions72- a masterywhich
seems incompatible with an earlier date than 1755.
Furthermore,the usual argument for a longer period of composition depends on a belief in the existence of "Opus 1" and "Opus
2" as separate entities; the latter can then be praised as an "improvement" on or an "advance" beyond "Opus 1." But neither the external nor the internal evidence supports such a division. On page
3 of EK, Elssler grouped Hob. III:10 (from "Opus 2") and Hob.
II:6 (from neither opus) with Hob. 111:1-4 (from "Opus 1"); and
EK also includes Hob. 111:12 in the same general group of works
(on page 4). (Hob. 111:7 and 8, it is true, were added a little later, on
page 5.) The authentic Fiirnberg manuscript transmitsHob. 111:7
1755 to 1757 (ignoring his stay in Maria-Taferl, 1757-59), and his belief that "Opus
1" must have been writtenby 1755 - are insufficient.
71 Cf. Geiringer, Haydn, pp. 232-33; Finscher, Geschichte des Streichquartetts, I,
142-44.
72This is emphasized convincingly (in a differentcontext) by Finscher, pp. 14254, and, equally persuasively but with more attention to the significantindividual
event, by Donald Francis Tovey, "Haydn's Chamber Music" (1930), reprintedin The
Main
Stream of Music
and Other Essays
(New York, 1949), pp. 4, 9-10, 13-20. A
sensitive discussion of one aspect of one movement is Thrasybulos Georgiades, "Zur

Musiksprache der Wiener Klassiker," Mozart-Jahrbuch,1951, pp. 50-59.

43
and 12 (from "Opus 2") with Hob. III: 1, 2, 4, 6 (from "Opus 1");
BreitkopftransmitsHob. 11:6 and 111:7 with fiveworks from "Opus
1" (Hob. III: 1-4,6). Although the four-to-sixworks Hob. II:6, III: 1,
2, (3), 4, (6) constitutea main branch of the tradition,around which
Hob. III: 7, 8, 10, 12 are grouped more loosely,73no evidence shows
that Haydn either composed or distributed the formergroup of six
together.
The designations "Opus 1" and "Opus 2" derive from Pleyel's
numberings of Chevardibre's and Hummel's prints of these works.
Of course, these designations are not authentic, as follows also from
the inclusion of the spurious arrangementsHob. I: 107 and 11:21, 22.
More important, "Opus 1" and "Opus 2" are not opus numbers at
all, but mere order numbers;74as such, theycan hardly bear the historical weight which has traditionally been attached to them. But
the best argument against "Opus 1" and "Opus 2" is simply the
lack of twelve early string quartets in the firstplace, which the
spurious invention of "Opus 1," No. 5, and "Opus 2," Nos. 3 and 5,
were of course contrived to gloss over. The designations "Opus 1"
and "Opus 2" and all that they imply about Haydn's development
must thereforesimply be abandoned. (That the spurious "Opus 3"
played an important role in those implications makes this necessity
all the more pressing.) The only evidence justifyinga possible division among these works is Haydn's later entryof Hob. 111:7 and 8
in EK. If the other eight quartets originated between 1755 and
1757, Hob. 111:7 and 8 might date from 1759; if the others originated closer to 1759, these two might date from 1760-61 (supposing
Haydn left Morzin in 1760) or even, just possibly,from the earliest
Esterha'zyyears. In any case, this grouping would produce merely an
earlier group of eight works and a later one of two.75
73See Feder's independent arrival at the same result (JHW, XII/1, p. ix, and
KritischerBericht), on a broader basis of comparison.
74From Opus 9 on, Pleyel's thematic catalogue of the quartets reads: "Ouevre 4e
Connu 9. Ouevre 5e Connu 17. Ouevre 6e Connu 20 . . ."; each entry thus consists first
of an order number, then an opus number. It is the latter which correspond to our
familiardesignations.But the entries for the earlier quartets read merely"Ouevre l"r
. 2 ..
3e"; i. e., they give only the order numbers. Indeed Bailleux's print of
the quartets we call "Opus 3" reads "Opus 26"; Chevardibre'sof those we call "Opus
2" reads "Opus 3"; etc. Cf. Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,p. 147, citing an analogous
usage in Pleyel's catalogue of a collection of piano music; Hoboken, pp. 359, 378.
75 Cf. Die Haydn-Uberlieferung,pp. 223-24. (But Hob. 111:7 is included in the
FiirnbergMS and in the earlier group of quartets cited by Breitkopf.)

44
We can now survey the chronology of Haydn's sixty-eightauthenticstringquartets (Table II). Contraryto the prevalent assumption of his linear "development" in quartet-writing,Haydn composed quartets in isolated periods of intense activity,separated by
long pauses. (This pattern recurs in every other genre save the
symphonies and, to a lesser extent, the piano sonatas.) The ten
early works fall in the late 1750s, before Haydn's entry into Esterhazy's service. The gap which separates them from Opera 9, 17, and
20 (1770 (?) -72) is at least ten years, probably twelve, possibly even
fifteen- in any case longer than the more highly publicized pause
of "ten" (actually nine) years between Opus 20 and Opus 33. Perhaps even less appreciated is the substantial break of six years folTABLE
II
THE DATES OF HAYDN'S
QUARTETS
Work
Date
Hob. 11:6, III:1-4, 6-8, 10, 12 Range of plausible dates: 1755-59 (-61?) (Fiirnberg
connection)
Likely periods: 1755-58 or -59 (between-Porporaand-Morzin hypothesis);
1757-59 (Albrechtsbergerhypothesis)
In either case, Hob. 111:7 and 8 may be slightly
later than the others.
Opus 9
[LaIte] 1769-1770 [1766-1770]
Opus 17
1771
Opus 20
1772
Opus 33
1781
Opus 42
.June-November,
[178,1-] 1785
Opus 50
[January] February-June [September], 1787
Opus 514/55
Summer [July]-Autumni[September], 1788
Opus 64
1790
Opus 71/74
1793
Opus 76
1797 (Nos. 1-3,possibly all six: January-June)
Opus 77
1799
Opus 103
[Spring, 1802-] 1803
N.B. Indications in bracketsare hypotheticalextensions or refinementsof the known

datings theyaccompany.

The Chronologyof Haydn's StringQuartets
45
lowing Opus 33.76 Not until Opus 50 (1787), but then continuing
through Opus 77 (1799), did Haydn write quartets as a regular
occupation: six opera, or (discounting Opus 77) an average of three
quartets per year.
In the largest sense, then, Haydn's quartet production falls into
two distinct periods: three widely separated groups through Opus
33, and regular production from 1787 until the end of his career.
Within the firstof these periods, each of the three groups presents
a differentsolution to the stylisticand technical problems which
Haydn faced: the miniature, yet masterly five-movementworks of
the late 1750s; the four-movementcycle, larger scale, and higher
aesthetic pretensions- all of which were to characterize the genre
from then on - of Opera 9, 17, and 20; and the frankly"popular"
elements, ostensibly "lighter" tone, and smaller scale of Opus 33.77
In Opus 50 we see all the essential featuresof Classical quartet style
(as we conceive it) united for the firsttime: the synthesis of the
"serious" tone and large scale of Opus 20 with the popular style
and lightlyworn learning of Opus 33, togetherwith the irrevocable
placement of the minuet in third position and the new, and henceforthstandard, "songful" slow movement and weightier (but usually
not "serious") finale. It thereforehardly seems accidental that Opus
50 also initiated Haydn's long second period of continuous production (1787-99).
Yet it would be as mistaken to erect Opus 50 as the newest
"watershed" for the arrival of Classical quartet style as it was to
single out Opus 33 in the firstplace. More accurate would be to
think of the years 1781-87 as a kind of transition between earlyClassical and mid-Classical chamber music. Many of the relevant
stylisticfeatureswere present by 1781 (many, of course, made their
appearance much earlier); many did not arise until the late 1780s.
In a social and cultural sense too, the early eighties were transitional
76 Also noted
independentlyby Finscher (MGG, XII, cols 1565-67). (The single
quartet Opus 42 hardly qualifies as an "event" in this context. But if it were ever
proved that the "lost" quartets for Spain had actually been written, this period
would take on a (liflerentaspect: 1781, 1784-85, 1787.)
77It is worth recalling here that, according to Pohl's quotation of August Artaria's recollectionof his father'salleged conversationwith Haydn, the latter wished
the canon of his quartets to begin with Opus 9. But at least as far as the exclusion
of the early quartets is concerned,the aged Haydn seems to have been a severercritic
of his youthfulworks than we care to be today. (Pohl, I, 332; cf. Larsen, Die HaydnUberlieferung,pp. 147-48 and 151).

46
The NlItsical()uavterly
years: between the restrictedcultivation of chamber music entirely

at court and among connoisseurs,and distributed almost entirelyin
manuscript; and the newer chamber music disseminated primarily
by printed editions and available to the general bourgeois public.
Haydn's Opus 33 and Mozart's "Haydn" quartets, with their unprecedented dedication to the composer's friend and colleague and
hence, by implication, to the public itself,are the two central events
of this transition.7SAfterwards,that is to say from Haydn's Opus 50
on, the Classical quartet was free to develop in its own way without
needing to force this issue.
The essential point is that the search for "the" quartets which
attained "the" Classical style has blinded us in the past (and no
doubt would continue to blind us) to the independent virtues of
each individual opuis. My remarks here, of course, constitute the
briefest possible sketch of Haydn's stylistic development; an adequate survey must await many detailed studies as yet unwritten.
But even before these are begun, we can specify the essential first
step: let each opuisspeak for itself.
78The notion that Opus 33 represents"the" attainmentof Classical quartet style

derives not from any contemporary testimony but from Sandberger's essay "Zur
Geschichte des Haydnschen Streichquartetts"(1900), reprinted in Ausgewahlte Aufof this view, see Finscher,Geschichte
siitze,I, 224-65.For a stronglyargued reaffimation
des Streichquartetts,Vol. I. On the social changes in Viennese chamber music in the
early 1780s and their historical significance,see Webster, "Viennese Chamber Music,"
pp. 229-31.


741682

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

741682

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Chronology of Haydn's String Quartets

Author(s): James Webster

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

s faras we know,JosephHaydn wrotesixty-eight

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

are listed in Table I, togetherwith their traditional opus numbers,

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

HAYDN'S STRING QUARTETS: THE AUTHENTIC SOURC

(1) Hob. 111:19,22 (Nos. 1, 4)

Hob. 111:37,38, 41, 42

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

(a) Hob. III:44, 45, 47-49 (Nos. 1, 2, 4-6) Ibid.,

Autograph (1) Hob. III:58 (Opus 54, No. 1)

Autographs (1) Hob. III:63 (No. 5)

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

Autograph (1) Hob. III:77/II (the "Emperor"

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

aWhere not the complete opus or group of works.

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

spring of 1802. Upon finding that he could not compose it before

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

familiar traditional order.12 Whether Haydn wrote Nos. 4-6 (Hob.

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

note is stated or clearly implied - show extreme haste, in part by

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

(for details, cf. JHW, XII/4). This hypothesis,if correct, explains

vergessenerHaydn-Brief,"Haydn-Studien, I (1965-67), 114-16; Hoboken quotes the

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

1:41 bearing a watermarkknown only from 1769, and a manuscript

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

divertimento section, and so Opus 9 merely continued the regime

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's StringQuartets

For all the difficultiesin dating Opus 9 precisely,it is, at least,

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

In spite of the appearance of Haydn's firstquartets in the early

Griesinger's identificationof Haydn's patron as "Baron" [Freiherr

The second "testimony" is the existence of authentic parts to six

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Chronology of Haydn's String Quartets

of course, for Esterhazy.In view of Haydn's general tendency,noted

This content downloaded from 69.88.161.32 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:41:51 PM

The Musical Quarterly

We become truly suspicious of the early biographers, however,