Early Music, Vol. xl, No. 4 © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved..
doi: 10.1093/em/cas129, available online at www.em.oup.com
Advance Access publication January 9, 2013
593
Tassilo Erhardt
‘senza che il Maestro di Capella ne sappia cosa
alcuna’—some new light on imperial court repertory
in the collection of Karl von LiechtensteinCastelcorno
at Kroměříž
For scholars of 17th-century music in the
Habsburg lands, Kroměříž Castle and its music
collection hold a variety of connotations; for those
who in the past have unsuccessfully attempted to
obtain mail-order photocopies of material in the
collection, mainly frustration; for those who went
there in person, mainly delight, a walk through
the spectacular castle gardens or a glimpse of the
outstanding art collection providing sufficient
entertainment to pass the time between the music
collection’s opening hours, and where, until a few
years ago, Moravian hospitality made it possible to
enjoy the latest Czech Schlager music on the radio
and a cup of coffee whilst studying Heinrich Biber’s
autographs.1
The importance of the collection of
prince-bishop Karl von Liechtenstein-Castelcorno
can hardly be over-emphasized. With approximately
1,300 items it counts amongst the world’s most extensive
integral music collections that survive from the
17th century.2
What makes it unique is not only the
fact that most of its items are manuscripts rather
than prints, but that the majority of manuscripts
consist of sets of performing parts rather than scores
(in some cases both), granting us a more immediate
and rare insight into matters of performance practice.
Moreover, its large number of unica makes the
collection a most essential source for music of the
17th century. Without it, our knowledge of composers
such as Heinrich Biber, Heinrich Schmelzer or
Alessandro Poglietti would be significantly reduced.
It provides a crucial glimpse at one of Europe’s richest
musical environments, that of the imperial court
in Vienna. Under the reign of the music-loving
emperors Ferdinand II, Ferdinand III and Leopold I,
this court built up an extraordinary court chapel as
well as a large music collection. However, the bulk of
this material is now lost, making the numerous copies
of Viennese repertory preserved at Kroměříž all
the more significant witnesses to the musical life at
the imperial court. This article investigates aspects
of the transmission of works from the Viennese
Hofkapelle to the prince-bishop’s collection, using
the sacred music of imperial chapelmaster Antonio
Bertali (c.1605–69) as a case study.3
A comparison of
surviving sources and an examination of the available
historical information concerning the circumstances
of copying suggest that, despite the fact that
the music was obtained directly from the imperial
court, certain aspects of it (especially the instrumental
parts) may not stem from the composer.
When Karl Liechtenstein-Castelcorno was
appointed to the bishopric of Olomouc, he found
the region in a deplorable condition. His immediate
predecessors, Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (r.1637–
62) and his younger brother, Archduke Karl Joseph
(r.1663–4), had shown next to no interest in the area.
As a result, the ravages of the Thirty Years’ War—
Olomouc and Kroměříž were sacked by the Swedish
army in 1642–3—had remained largely unremedied.
Liechtenstein-Castelcorno, however, devoted himself
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
594  Early Music  November 2012
entirely,andsuccessfully,tothespiritualandeconomic
regeneration of his lands.4
His own beautiful summer
residence at Kroměříž remains lasting evidence of his
efforts.
Yet, the restoration of a flourishing musical life
proved to be a difficult task. Talented musicians
sought their fortune in the cosmopolitan centres
of the time rather than in provincial Moravia. Most
famously, Heinrich Biber deserted Liechtenstein’s
service inelegantly in 1670 in favour of the court of
the Archbishop of Salzburg.5
Correspondence with
Heinrich Schmelzer from the same year illustrates
the problematic recruitment process: among the
handful of musicians that the latter found prepared
to leave Austria for Moravia were a theology student
who, with some more instruction, could have served
as a violinist, and a lutenist who had no knowledge
of music other than playing in the French style.6
Musical personnel was not the bishop’s only
problem; a collection of both sacred and secular
music had to be built up in order to bring his court
up to the standards of contemporary taste. One way
of obtaining recent sheet music was through Bishop
Karl’s contact in Vienna, Johann Kunibert von
Wentzelsberg, who maintained correspondence
with members of the imperial chapel. The bishop
himself was also in direct contact with composers
such as Schmelzer, Biber and Alessandro Poglietti,
who sent him their works. The single most important
figure in the process of building up a music
collection was Pavel Vejvanovský (c.1639–93),
who had grown up in the bishop’s lands and later
entered his service, where he remained until his
death.7
Vejvanovský first served as trumpeter then
as leader of the bishop’s chapel. He was not only
active as a composer—approximately 100 complete
compositions by him have survived at Kroměříž,
making him the most represented composer in the
collection—but he also copied and collected music
avidly: the majority of the scores and about onethird
of the sets of parts in the collection are in his
handwriting. It remains an unanswered question as
to how far Vejvanovský’s sheet music was distinct
from the bishop’s. That Vejvanovský owned a music
collection is evinced by the title-page of its revised
catalogue, which has survived as the wrapper of
his copy of an anonymous Missa Sancti Stephani.8
Its contents might be lost, but could equally have
been absorbed into the bishop’s possessions after
Vejvanovský’s death and therefore still form part of
the present collection.9
Significant elements of Vejvanovský’s collecting
activity were his visits to Vienna during the 1660s
and 70s. The first of these journeys is recorded in
the year 1661, when Nikolaus Reiter von Hornberg
wrote from Vienna to the bishop’s representative
Elias Franz Castelle that ‘Pavel, trumpeter of your
Highness, has learned so much that he is invited
to perform in all of the churches here’.10
This suggests
that Vejvanovský was sent to Vienna to study
trumpet, presumably with one of the trumpeters at
the imperial court. Possibly his next visit to Vienna
took place from 1 April to 10 May 1665 as part of
the entourage of Bishop Karl. Clearly, from this time
onwards, a main focus of these journeys became
the copying of recent Viennese repertory. During
this visit, Vejvanovský managed to copy eight sizeable
works by Viennese composers, some of them in
quick succession, as shown by their dates:
4 May: Wendelin Hueber, Missa pleno, 38+2 ff.
7 May: Wendelin Hueber, Litaniae Lauretanae, 10+2 ff.
8 May: Antonio Bertali, Missa Pacis, 30+2 ff.
10 May: Vinzenz Fux, Mottetum de B.M.V., 17+2 ff.11
Copying music not only served the bishop’s chapel
by increasing its music collection, it also helped
Vejvanovský in developing his own compositional
skills. Scoring up the pieces of great masters was
a common way of studying composition, and the
works of the imperial chapelmaster Antonio Bertali,
for which Vejvanovský appears to have had a certain
predilection, were considered particularly fine
objects of study.12
In his Tractatus compositionis
augmentatus, Christoph Bernhard advises the
novice composer to imitate Bertali’s works as
examplesofthe‘stylusluxurianscommunis’.13
Johann
Mattheson, in his Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte,
quotes a letter about the Nuremberg organist Georg
Caspar Wecker, who purportedly chose Bertali as
his shining example, collected his works, scored
them up, and in doing so became a highly regarded
composer.14
And Samuel Capricornus, in his defence
against Philip Böddecker, admits to admiring
Bertali and to imitating his works.15
It is therefore
hardly surprising that Vejvanovský copied Bertali’s
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Early Music  November 2012  595
works with great regularity, in particular the largescale
Mass settings which appear to have been his
‘signature genre’:16
during the search for Giovanni
Valentini’s successor as chapelmaster, the ability
to write large-scale liturgical music was a specific
requirement of Emperor Ferdinand III.17
In 1719,
Johannes Beer praised Bertali for the gravitas of his
large settings.18
The didactic purpose of Vejvanovský’s copying is
further highlighted by the fact that he also received
instruction in composition during at least one of
his visits to Vienna. In two places in his manuscript
score of Bertali’s Missa Redemptoris, copied
in 1677, Vejvanovský uses empty staves for counterpoint
exercises.19
One of these contains markings
in an unidentified hand, pointing out contrapuntal
errors—curiously, Vejvanovský’s teacher marks consecutive
5ths and octaves even if the parts progress
in contrary motion (see illus.1).
There is, however, a noteworthy mismatch
between Vejvanovský’s copying and Bishop Karl’s
correspondence with court musicians: Vejvanovský
copied and collected numerous works by Bertali—
with 65 manuscripts of his works, only Vejvanovský
and Schmelzer are represented by a greater number
of pieces in the Kroměříž collection, which is also
by far the world’s richest resource of Bertali. Yet,
Bishop Karl, who was regularly in contact with a
number of imperial court musicians, never seems to
have been in touch with chapelmaster Bertali. Is it
1  Detail of a contrapuntal exercise in Vejvanovský’s copy of Bertali’s Missa Redemptoris, with corrections in a second,
unidentified hand, CZ-Kra a162, f.22r
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
596  Early Music  November 2012
not surprising that a dignitary such as the PrinceBishop
of Olomouc corresponded with servants of
lower ranks in order to procure sheet music from
the imperial chapel? And could he not have taken a
more official route, or at least ordered copies from
the administrator responsible for the court’s music
collection, that is, the chapelmaster or his deputy?
The answer is probably ‘no’, as it was amongst the
chapelmaster’s duties to protect the music collection
against illicit copying. Bertali, for all we know
a loyal servant of the emperor, could and would
hardly have obliged. Presumably for the same reason,
Liechtenstein later never corresponded with
other leading figures of the court chapel, such as
chapelmasters Giovanni Felice Sances and Antonio
Draghi. Heinrich Schmelzer is the exception that
proves the rule: he was in direct and indirect contact
with Liechtenstein and sent him his compositions
on a regular basis. However, his contact with
the bishop had been established before he was
appointed deputy chapelmaster and ceased when he
became chapelmaster.
This theory is supported by a letter by Domenico
Marchetti—most likely the singer in the imperial
chapel rather than the renowned physician of the
same name then also resident in Vienna—to Bishop
Karl. In this letter, dated 14 January 1665 and thus
only a few months before Vejvanovský began his
copying in Vienna, Marchetti informs the bishop
that he hopes at the earliest opportunity to send him
a beautiful toccata for harpsichords, without the
chapelmaster (meaning Bertali) noticing anything
(this is the quotation in the title of this article).20
For Vejvanovský, this state of affairs must have
meant that he did not have an immediate right to
use the music collection of the imperial chapel.
Most likely, one of Liechtenstein’s contacts, such
as Poglietti, Schmelzer or Marchetti, would have
facilitated access to its holdings. Modern scholars,
often under pressure to make the most of the
limited time with rare source material and therefore
not infrequently equipped with a little spy camera,
can certainly sympathize with Vejvanovský’s likely
situation in Vienna, copying as many pieces as
possible whilst trying not to get caught or having
to return manuscripts as quickly as possible to a
library. Traces of such a clandestine way of working
may be found in some of his copies: in some cases
at least, Vejvanovský seems to have copied the
material into reduced scores, capturing only the
most essential musical information whilst omitting
doubling vocal and instrumental parts and, in a
few cases, even the text. These elements could be
easily reconstructed or adjusted for performance
conditions in Moravia once a new set of parts
was extracted from the score. It is not clear how
frequently Vejvanovský worked in this way—the
reduced scores would probably not have served
as performance material, would therefore have
been rendered superfluous by a new set of parts,
and might then have been discarded. However,
in the few instances where a score has survived
alongside a set of parts, it is clear that the process
of reducing and expanding has left some traces,
particularly where not Vejvanovský himself, but a
musically less-educated scribe, produced the parts.
See for example illus.2a, a detail of Vejvanovský’s
reduced score of Bertali’s Missa Nec Non, where a
continuo figure is positioned in front of a note, due
to a lack of space between the note head and the
staff above it. Illus.2b shows how an unsuspecting
Kroměříž scribe mistook the continuo figure for an
accidental, producing not only cacophony, but also
impossible voice leading.21
Minor scribal errors were possibly not the only
consequence of this way of copying. Vejvanovský’s
2 Detail of Bertali’s Missa Nec non, CZ-Kra a135
[CLCC 41], (a) two bars at the end of the Gloria, taken
from the score; (b) the corresponding passage in the
Organo part
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Early Music  November 2012  597
Ex.1  Antonio Bertali (a) Missa Minima, ‘descendit de cælis’; (b) Missa Reditus, ‘Amen’ of the Credo
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
598  Early Music  November 2012
copies reveal another interesting fact that can
be traced back either to their dissemination or,
even further, to the composition process itself:
the quality of the instrumental parts is consistently
lower than that of the vocal parts in terms of
both counterpoint and part-writing. From a contrapuntal
perspective, the vocal setting is almost
always flawless, even in six- and eight-part writing.
Consecutive 5ths and octaves are exceedingly
rare, mostly occurring in inner parts and carefully
obscured (ex.1). Regarding the instrumental parts,
a distinction must be made between sections in
which the instruments are doubling the voices (and
are therefore of the same quality) and passages
with independent instrumental parts that abound
with contrapuntal weaknesses. Occasionally, these
are minor issues in lavishly scored passages, resembling
intermittent doubling rather than true consecutives
(ex.2). However, even in thinly scored
sections, for example, when accompanying solos,
contrapuntal errors can be found in the instrumental
parts with some frequency (ex.3).
Because in most cases the sources of Bertali’s
Mass settings at Kroměříž are unica, it is difficult
to determine whether such flaws are part
of the original composition or the result of the
Ex.2  Antonio Bertali (a) Missa Minima, ‘et conglorificatur’; (b) Missa Archiducalis, ‘et invisibilium’
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Early Music  November 2012  599
copying process described above, during which
simple string accompaniments might have been
omitted and later reconstructed. In the first case,
it still seems unlikely that vocal and instrumental
parts were both part of the original design and
came from the same hand, the differences in their
musical quality being too great. Yet it is possible
that Bertali himself wrote only the core of the composition—the
vocal parts, basso continuo and perhaps
instrumental sinfonias, leaving the completion
of the instrumental parts (colla parte sections and
simple chordal accompaniments) to students or
assistants. One must not forget that in order to
satisfy the huge demand for music at the imperial
court, the chapel had to be a large well-run organization
with a tight schedule of composition, copying,
rehearsal and performance.22
In this situation
it would seem plausible for the chapelmaster to
delegate minor tasks, especially because the works
were not intended for wider circulation or print.
And finally, collaboration between composers was
not unknown at the imperial court: Bertali wrote
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
600  Early Music  November 2012
Ex.3  Antonio Bertali (a) Missa Reditus, ‘et apostolicam ecclesiam’; (b) Missa Post partum, ‘in remissionem peccatorum’;
(c) Missa Vivorum, ‘et incarnatus est’
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Early Music  November 2012  601
the string accompaniment for a Regina coeli by
Leopold I,23
Leopold himself often wrote individual
numbers for the operas by court composers,24
and Bertali and Sances together composed a cycle
of introits, where an attribution of the individual
works to one composer or the other on formal or
stylistic grounds is virtually impossible.25
In such a
climate, where musical co-productions were part of
the daily routine, it would not have been out of the
ordinary if others had completed works that were
written by the chapelmaster in all their essential
parts. More research on a larger body of Viennese
court repertory would be needed in order to verify
this theory.
It is also possible that in some cases Vejvanovský
only copied the vocal parts, the continuo and the
instrumental sinfonias, whether due to time pressure
or because only these parts were written by
Bertali. In this case, he or another musician of
Liechtenstein’s court would have needed to add the
missing instrumental parts later. Bertali’s Missa
Vivorum is a particularly interesting example in
support of this theory, because the work has survived
not only in Kroměříž, but also in the Düben
collection in Uppsala.26
It is striking that the vocal
parts and the continuo are identical in both copies;
however, in some of the instrumental introductions
as well as sections with independent string accompaniment,
the two sources differ significantly from
one another. It is also noteworthy that no version
can be seen as an improvement of the other, both
having their individual weaknesses. This scenario
suggests that whatever the original source may have
looked like, it must either have come with incomplete
string parts or with some that were not worth
copying.
Pavel Vejvanovský’s achievement in building up
the music collection at Kroměříž and thereby preserving
important repertory from the Viennese
court, can hardly be over-emphasized. At first sight,
his copies appear to be trustworthy witnesses, as in
many cases he copied directly from the material of
the court chapel, often during the composer’s own
lifetime. However, this case study of Bertali’s Mass
Ex.3 Continued
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
602  Early Music  November 2012
Ex.3 Continued
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
Early Music  November 2012  603
settings has demonstrated that even these early
sources ought to be treated with due caution. The
condition and the genesis of the source material as
well as Vejvanovský’s situation and objectives at the
time of copying throw some doubt on just how much
Bertali is present in his Mass settings preserved at
Kroměříž. Naturally, similar questions may be asked
about the works of composers other than Bertali
and repertory other than that of the imperial court.
A broader analytical survey of the source material
may shed some more light on the issue, however, due
to the uniqueness of the collection at Kroměříž and
thus the lack of material for comparison, a definitive
answer to that probably lies out of reach.
Tassilo Erhardt, musicologist and Baroque violinist, received his doctorate from Utrecht University
for his thesis on the theological contexts of Handel’s Messiah in 2005. For eight years he taught at
the Early Music Department of the Royal Conservatoire in The Hague and at Utrecht University’s
Roosevelt Academy, where his research on the music of the imperial court in Vienna was initially
funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). He is now Professor of Music and Head of the Music
Department at Liverpool Hope University. erhardt@hope.ac.uk
Earlier versions of this article were
presented at the 14th Biennial
Conference on Baroque Music (Belfast,
2010) and at the Schola Cantorum
Basiliensis (Basel, 2011).
1  For a succinct history of the
collection up to the 19th century, see
J. Kocůrková, ‘Music collection’, in
Archbishop´s chateau & gardens in
Kroměříž, ed. L. Daniel, M. Perůtka
and M. Togner (Kroměříž, 2009),
pp.211–20.
2  J. Sehnal and J. Pešková, Caroli de
Liechtenstein-Castelcorno episcopi
Olomucensis operum artis musicae
collectio Cremsirii reservata [hereafter
CLCC], 2 vols. (Prague, 1998).
3  For a biographical study of Bertali,
see T. Erhardt, ‘Der ehrsam und
kuhnstreich Antonius Bertalli’,
Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, lviii
(forthcoming).
4  J. Sehnal, Pavel Vejvanovský
a biskupska kapela v Kromerízi
(Kroměříž, 1993), pp.23–8; J. Sehnal,
Pavel Vejvanovský and the Kroměříž
music collection: perspectives on
seventeenth-century music in Moravia
(Olomouc, 2008), pp.12–16.
5  E. Chafe, The church music of
Heinrich Biber (Ann Arbor, 1987),
pp.9ff.
6  Schmelzer’s letter to Liechtenstein
from 2 November 1670 and the
bishop’s reply from 9 November
1670; Státní okresní archiv Olomouc,
inventory no.596, shelfmark 124,
carton 175. See also P. Nettl, ‘Die
Wiener Tanzkomposition in der
2. Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Studien
zur Musikwissenschaft, viii (1921),
pp.45–175, at pp.168–70; Sehnal, Pavel
Vejvanovský and the Kroměříž music
collection, pp.170–1.
7  For biographical information, see
A. Breitenbacher, Hudební inventar
kolegiátního kostela Sv. Monee v
Kroméfízi (Olomouc, 1928); Sehnal,
Pavel Vejvanovský and the Kroměříž
music collection, pp.25–66.
8  Cathalogus novus rerum
Musicalium spectantium ad Paulum
Weywanowski Tubicinem Campestrem
Kremsirii in Anno 1671. in Majo:
CZ-Kra, a146 [CLCC 1022]; see CLCC,
i, p.33.
9 Sehnal, Pavel Vejvanovský and the
Kroměříž music collection, p.78.
10  Quoted in Sehnal, Pavel
Vejvanovský and the Kroměříž music
collection, p.30.
11 CZ-Kra a 56 [CLCC 261], a 671
[CLCC 256], a 9 [CLCC 47], a 297
[CLCC 214]. For a complete list, see
Sehnal, Pavel Vejvanovský and the
Kroměříž music collection, p.32.
12  In this context it is worth noting
that the ascription of the counterpoint
treatise Instructio musicalis to Bertali
is most likely spurious. Two copies
of the work carrying this attribution
have survived in Kremsmünster Abbey
(A-Kr l 67) and the Wienbibliothek
(A-Wst lqh0256412). See
H. Federhofer, ‘Zur handschriftlichen
Überlieferung der Musiktheorie in
Österreich in der zweiten Hälfte des 17.
Jahrhunderts’, Die Musikforschung, xi
(1958), pp.264–79.
13  Christoph Bernhard‚’Tractatus
compositionis augmentatus’, in Die
Kompositionslehre Heinrich Schützens
in der Fassung seines Schülers
Christoph Bernhard, ed. J. MüllerBlattau
(Kassel, 1999), p.90.
14  ‘erwählte sich den ehemaligen
Kaiserlichen Capellmeister Antonio
Bertali, zum Muster, samlete von
dessen musikalischer Arbeit einen
guten Vorrath, und setzte nicht
wenig Stücke daraus in Partitur:
wodurch er es in der musikalischen
Composition so weit brachte, daß
so wohl die bey hohen Festen in den
Kirchen, vermittelst seiner eigenen
Arbeit, von ihm aufgeführte starcke
Musiken, als auch, bey angestellten
Concerten und Collegiis musicis,
seine Sachen großen Beifall erhielten.’
Johann Mattheson, Grundlage einer
Ehrenpforte (Hamburg, 1740), facs.
edn by M. Schneider (Graz, 1969),
pp.391–2.
15  ‘die beiden vortrefflichen
Componisten [Valentini and Bertali],
die ich selbsten in theils Sachen
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
604  Early Music  November 2012
imitiere und sehr hoch halte.’ J. Sittard,
‘Samuel Capricornus contra Philipp
Friedrich Böddecker’, Sammelbände
der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft,
iii/1 (November 1901), p.98.
16  Of Bertali’s c.50 Mass settings,
27 have survived, 26 of which are in
Kroměříž.
17  Letter from Ferdinand III to Count
Johann Ferdinand von Portia. The
Emperor enquires about Giovanni
Rovetta ‘… ob Er Discret und von
gueter Composition: In sonderheit aber
von den grossen und vornehmberen
Compositionen für die Kirchen, alß
Mess Ämbter, Muetteten, Noneten, und
dergleichen, wie auch nelle cose della
Camera beschaffen seye, und ob er
nach beschaffenheit meiner Capellen,
die Euch bewusst, alhero tauglich sein
möchte’. A-Whh, Familienkorrespondenz
A 11-1, Korrespondenz Kaiser Ferdinand
III. (1627–1653), Konvolut iii, ff.19–20,
quoted in E. Urbanek, ‘Giovanni
Valentini als Messenkomponist’ (PhD
diss., University of Vienna, 1974),
Appendix III.
18  Johann Beer, Musicalische Discurse
durch die Principia der Philosophie
deducirt (Nuremberg, 1719), pp.65–6:
‘Der eintzige barthali hat eine
ungemeine gravität in seiner Arbeit/
deme es berande in Dreßden/ was
pompose musiken antrifft/ in diesem
Stücke ziemlich nachgethan’.
19 CZ-Kra a162 [CLCC 49; 904], ff.13v
and 22r; Sehnal overlooks the former
and identifies the latter erroneously as
a fragment of a vocal work attributed
to ‘BG’.
20  ‘Spero con la prima occasione che
trouerei mandar a Vostra Signoria
Illustrissima qualche bella toccata
musicale per li clavicembali senza che il
Maestro di Capella ne sappia cosa alcuna.’
Státní okresní archiv Olomouc, inventory
no.522, shelfmark 50, carton 69.
21  In this example the mistake in the
parts clearly derives from the score,
calling into doubt Sehnal’s dating of the
sources (score: c.1680; parts: pre-1680),
based on his assumption that a set of
parts would normally pre-date a score.
See CZ-Kra a135 [CLCC 41]; Sehnal,
Pavel Vejvanovský and the Kroměříž
music collection, p.77.
22  An impressive overview of the
performances of liturgical music during
the reign of Charles VI can be found
in W. F. Riedel, Kirchenmusik am Hof
Karls VI. (1711–1740). Untersuchungen
zum Verhältnis von Zeremoniell und
musikalischem Stil im Barockzeitalter,
Studien zur Landes- und
Sozialgeschichte der Musik i (Munich
and Salzburg, 1977), pp.222–309.
23  A-Wn Mus.Hs.18831 Mus A/Leopold
I./3, ff.18v–28v.
24  For example, for Antonio Draghi’s
Chilonida, A-Wn Mus. Hs.18859
Leopoldina, vol.i; see H. Seifert, Die
Oper am Wiener Kaiserhof im 17.
Jahrhundert (Tutzing, 1985), pp.338–40.
25  See T. Erhardt, ‘A longevous cycle
of introits from the Viennese court’,
in Sakralmusik im Habsburgerreich
1570–1770, ed. T. Erhardt (Vienna,
2012), pp.147–68.
26 CZ-Kra a14 [CLCC 57]; S-Uu vmhs
080:094, ff.94v–103r.
atSLUBDresdenonMarch25,2013http://em.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom