Reassessment-1

Mozart's Debts

The immortal genius of music, W.A.Mozart, who was destined to live only 35 years in this world, had left a vast amount of debts behind when he passed away.
The total amount of his debts, which was well over 4,000 florins, was more than eight times of that of the annual salary for a middle-class government employee. These debts had been piled up for three years from mid 1788 to mid 1791.
As to his debts, there have been to date four opinions to explain the reason why Mozart had to pile up such crazy debts.
One is that he became poor due to sharp drop of his income. The second is that he continued to live a dissipated life for all his Vienna era. The third is asked for the medical and hot-spring cure expenses for Constanze. And the last is asked for his gambling.

These opinions seem to have plausible reasons for explaining Mozart's debts in a sense, however, the true reason is not found in such points, I suppose.
The reason why I think so is that these past opinions got their results only from watching Mozart's ordinary life and his character. And at the same time, I found these four opinions contained a number of serious errors and oversights, details of which are described below.
According to my opinion, which is based on far from the traditional viewpoints, Mozart had been involved in some incident and the reason why he needed so big money existed in it.

Contents

1. The Amount of Debts Mozart left behind

(1) A written acknowledgement of debt
(2) IOU ( 21 letters to Michael Puchberg)
(3) The decision by the Austrian Court

2. Objections against Past Theories on Mozart's Debts

(1) Against the Income Drop Theory
(2) Against the Continuous Dissipated Life Theory
(3) Against the Constanze's Medical Expenses Theory
(4) Against the Gambling Debt Theory

3. Keys for solving This Issue

(1) Constanze's Statement and her Letters
(2) Unusual Loan between Puchberg and Mozart
(3) Freemasonry Words in Mozart's Letters to Puchberg

4. Conclusion

5. A postscript on Borrowing from Lichnowsky

1. The Amount of Debts Mozart left behind

On December 11,1791 when it was only six days after Mozart's death, his widow Constanze was given an audience with the Emperor Leopold the second, by help of a noble lady who was an excellent Mozart's piano pupil. 
Her purpose for the audience was to deny certain wicked rumors on Mozart that had been spread in the Vienna court and to be a widow's pensioner as well.
In point of fact, she had no right to receive such pension regularly. Since Mozart had served only four years, while ten years service were necessary to receive the pension.
However she dared to apply and stated to the Emperor like this.

"Our merciful Emperor ! The court people talked wildly about my husband. They exaggerated his debts as being ten times as large as the one he actually left behind. I hereby make an oath that I can clear all the debts made by Mozart with around 3,000 gulden. "(Franz Niemetschek)

By her statement, we see that she recognized the total amount of Mozart's debts was about 3,000 gulden(= florins). However it actually was well over 4,000 florins based on the materials which are to be described soon later in this paragraph.
At that opportunity, she stated only the supposed amount of his debts, but did not mention the reason why her husband had to pile up so much debt. Even after that she never told it to anyone, and then the reason for Mozart's debts became an enigma.

After a while from her statement in the court, Mozart's inheritance records were made duly by the administrators of property (The details are explained in Property left by Mozart).
However, the total debt of Mozart shown on the official records was only 918 florins, of which details were as follows :

296 florins for two tailors
208 florins for an interior decorator
214 florins for two pharmacies
100 florins for two merchants
　59 florins for a retailer
　32 florins for a shoemaker
　 9 florins for a surgeon.

According to this inheritance records, the purposes of Mozart's debts seem to be very clear.
However, the total debt of 918 florins shown in this records is not consistent with what Constanze stated in front of the Emperor.
But this is not necessarily an enigma since we know other Mozart's three big debts by following documentation, though they were not listed on the inheritance records.

(1) A written acknowledgement of debt

This was signed by Mozart on October 1, 1790 and was handed to Heinrich Lackenbacher, a money lender in Vienna, when Mozart borrowed 1,000 florins from him. The term of repayment was October 1, 1792 and the interest was settled at 5 percent annually. All his movables were offered as security that time. (Major part of this written acknowledgement is quoted in Mozart's Death and Burial)
Reading his three letters from Frankfurt to his wife dated on September 28, 30 and October 8,1790, we can know that Mozart was seriously in need of money (at least 1,000 florins) to repay somebody at this time. But we can not know the person's name clearly since Mozart did not make it clear in his letters. This is an enigma of Mozart's debts.

On February 17,1792, the Vienna City Office announced publicly that any person who had financial claim against Mozart had to request it by March 19,1792.
However, curiously enough, Rackenbacher did not request to the City Office though having such a big outstanding credit against Mozart. The reason why he did not request is one of several enigmas on Mozart's debts.

(2) IOU ( 21 letters to Michael Puchberg)

The name of Puchberg is well known as the person who helped poor Mozart with lending money frequently. He was a textile merchant in Vienna and was a Freemason as well as Mozart, though he belonged to a different lodge. Puchberg loved music very much. Mozart composed a number of musical works for him.

Mozart sent 21 letters in all to him between mid 1788 to mid 1791 mainly asking for money. We see, by these letters, Mozart could borrow from him 15 times and the total amount of the money borrowed was 1,415 florins.
Mozart repaid some of them during his lifetime. However, the remainder was still as much as 1,000 florins when Mozart passed away. ( George Nikolaus Nissen)

It has been said for a long time that the reason why Mozart asked money to Puchberg was on account of medical treatments and hot-spring cure expenses for his wife Constanze. That was because Mozart sometimes touched on his wife's illness/treatments in his letters to Puchberg.
However, examining his letters carefully, we find that such kind of letters existed only a few, and most of his letters did not make it clear for what purpose Mozart wanted to borrow so frequently.
On the contrary, it seems that Mozart's letters were written as if he intended to hide the real purpose of such borrowing, utilizing Constanze's disease sometimes as a cover. In support of this, we find curious and incomprehensive sentences here and there in his letters, details of which are described below.

Why did Mozart not make the use of such money clear ?
Mozart's attempts to obscure the use of money is also another enigma on Mozart's debts.
Puchberg also did not request to the City Office by March 19,1792 though having such a big credit against Mozart. This too is surely an enigma on Mozart's debts.


(3) The decision by the Austrian Court

The debts of Mozart were not restricted to above mentioned ones. There was one more debt decided by the Austrian Court in November 9,1791.
This legal decision was brought to light in 1991. However, only the decision by the Court was left, and the principal trial records like petition and testimony have been lost, to our regret.

It turned out by this decision that Mozart had a debt of 1,435 gulden and 32 kreuzers* to Carl Lichnowsky at the time of November 1791, and he was ordered by the trial court to pay it back to Lichnowsky by making sacrifice of half of his salary. This is all the fact that we can currently know by this published decision. (* 60 kreuzers make 1 florin)

As a result, we can not know such important matters as
(1) how much money in total he had borrowed from Lichnowsky at first
(2) when and why he had to borrow such a big amount of money
(3) what the agreed repayment terms were, etc..

These questions are left unknown until now. This is also a big enigma on Mozart's debts.
No one could solve this enigma so far. But I would like to show my own opinion separately at the end of this chapter, as a postscript.

By these three documentation, we can know the total remainder of Mozart's debts were 4,353 florins including the debts on the inheritance records.

As described above, Mozart's debts contained various enigmas, the greatest of which is surely his use of money.
I believe that clues to solve these enigmas exist in Mozart's letters to Puchberg.
However, I suppose that the past four opinions did not necessarily reflect the Mozart's letters to get their results, and did not answer to the enigmas described above.

Then, I would like to show my opinion from now on.
However, before showing my own opinion, I would like to begin with describing my objections against the past four theories one by one .

2. Objections against the Past Theories on Mozart's Debts

All the past theories have blamed Mozart's debts either on his misfortune or his supposedly dissipated character.
Some said that Mozart became very poor losing his popularity in Vienna during the latter half of his Vienna era. Furthermore, to make things worse, his wife became sick in her legs in 1789 and he therefore had to rely on continuous borrowings.
Others have suggested that Mozart's debts were due to his supposedly dissipated character. By that bad character, he would not stop living in luxury or he had exhausted his money by gambling, and then he had to pile up a vast amount of debts, they said.
Anyway, they insisted that Mozart became very poor due to his income drop, or Constanze's disease, or continuous luxurious life, or gambling, and he therefore had to pile up a vast amount of debts.

However, I can not agree with any of these opinions at all.
If we check his annual earnings and his way of life carefully, and analyze his letters to Puchberg thoroughly, we will be able to know that things were quite different, and the past theories were all merely made-up stories.

Yes, Mozart was never in poverty through all his Vienna years nor a dissipated person basically.
In fact, he had a serious use of money, and for that purpose he had to pile up a vast amount of debts.
The important point to solve this enigma is why he tried to hide the use of money in his letters to Puchberg, or he would not like it to come to light which is to be explained later.

(1) Against the Income Drop Theory

It is allegedly said that the annual salary for a government employee in late 18 century was around 400 to 500 florins.
More in detail, 300 florins for a university professor, 400 florins for a secretary of the trial court, and 400 to 600 florins for a parish priest, for example, were the standard those days.
At the bottom of the scale, full-time servants received 60 florins per year, and a chambermaid 20 or at most 30 florins annually according to Braunbehrens's survey.

It was also said that people could live a simple life with their family by 500 florins annually, and a rather comfortable life by 800 florins a year.
The meal costs for a family were less than 1 florin a day and typical expenses for rent, lighting and fuel have been estimated to be around 50 florins a year respectively. Then people could spend the life together with their family by 500 florins a year.

Under these circumstances, Mozart earned a considerable amount of money, say more than 2,000 florins every year, even after 1788 when the mysterious Mozart's borrowings began, the details of which are shown in the table below.
Mozart's main income resources in the second half of his Vienna era were fees for composing, publishing fees for musical scores and fees for his piano lessons.

In the first half of his Vienna era, undoubtedly he could earn much money from piano concerts. However he lost all these opportunities in the latter half because of a sharp drop of his popularity among Viennese.
Mozart, as a pianist, indeed could neither appear on the stage of the Burg Theater nor be invited to any houses of aristocracy in Vienna after April, 1786 up to his death, the details of which are described in Sudden Drop of Mozart's Popularity.

In place of income from piano concerts, he got a job from the Vienna court as the court musician( a chamber composer, not as the court composer) at the end of 1787.
His duty was only to compose dance music for the court. His annual salary for this position was only 800 florins though the court composer Christoph Willibald Gluck was given 2,000 florins annually.

Speaking frankly, it is difficult to know exact Mozart's annual earnings year by year, since his publishing fees for musical scores and piano lesson fees were not necessarily announced officially.
However, such Mozart scholars as Volkmar Braunbehrens, Joseph Heinz Eibl, Uwe Kraemer, Peter Davies and Maynard Solomon made their own researches on Mozart's income.

After their researches, it becomes more and more common today that Mozart earned in excess of 3,000 florins annually on average through his Vienna era.
For example, Braunbehrens estimated that Mozart's average income between 1782 and 1791 was 3,000 to 4,000 florins, at a very conservative estimate.
Peter Davies described in his book that Mozart's averaged annual income for seven years before his death was more than 3,500 gulden.

Now, let us take a close look at an Mozart's annual income estimated by me during the latter half of his Vienna era.


Estimation of Mozart's annual income (1786 - 1791)

Above table is mainly based on Solomon's research. Exceptions are the star-marked items.
* items are not employed in Solomon's research. Those additions are based on my own
estimation and/or other material.
** items are employed by Solomon too. However, different figures are employed according to
other sources and/or my own estimation.



According to this research, he earned more than 2,000 florins a year at least for each year even after 1788 when his lot of borrowing began.
But these annual incomes were, of course, not poor earnings.
Be sure that the income of 2,000 florins a year compared with those of Gluck's and Antonio Salieri's ( 2,050 florins as the Kapellmeister of Vienna court ) .
If we regard Mozart as a poor person with this high income, then Salieri and Gluck must also be regarded as poor musicians. Of course, that would not be sensible.

Thus, even in the latter half of his Vienna era, he could have kept high level earnings each year though he had lost his popularity in Vienna as a pianist
With these high earnings, Mozart's family, of course, could easily live their life every year. They were never in the midst of poverty, though Constanze told a lie that they were poor those days.
It is very likely that his wife Constanze saved a considerable amount of surplus money those days.

In addition to this income research, the following facts show some grounds that Mozart family was never poor in his late Vienna era..

1) In 1786, Mozart volunteered to take care of Johann Nepomuk Hummel in expectation of his great talent for piano playing. Generous Mozart taught him for two years under the condition that charges like lesson fee, room rent and meal were all free.

＊This fact will prove that Mozart lived his life comfortably without fear for money even after the fading out of his popularity as a pianist.


2) His son Carl Thomas was educated at Häger's educational facilities through the year from his three years old (1787) to his father's death(1791), where 400 florins were necessary in a year for the educational fee.

＊Speaking of 400 florins, this amount was roughly equal to the annual living expenses for an average Vienna family.
The educational fee there was so expensive, but this fact proved well that Mozart was rich enough to pay such a high educational fee during these years.


3) In September 1790, he went out for Frankfurt trip. At that time he brought Franz Hofer and a servant with him by his own carriage. He spent nearly 50 days for this trip. On the other hand, Constanze transferred to an expensive apartment house in Rauhensteingasse at the end of that September.

＊Above facts prove that Mozart's financial statement has recovered so favorably around that time that he could have gotten his own carriage again and let his family transfer to an expensive apartment house.

Although he held his piano concert only once in Frankfurt, he spent as many as 50days for this trip wandering here and there in Mainz, Mannheim and Munich aimlessly.
These facts will let us know that this trip was never the one for resolving his poverty although it has been said so for a long time.

4) After the trip, he got a very favorable letter from Robert May O'Reilly in London, in which 3,000 florins were offered in case Mozart would promise to stay in London and compose a few operas during the half year from the end of 1790. But he did not.(The letter is to be introduced in Mozart's Death and Burial.)

＊We do not know the exact reason why he did not move. However, if he was really in poverty that time, he might have accepted this proposal. In case the timing was inconvenient for him, he would have suggested other timing in his reply. But there seems no sign that he replied to O'Reilly.
This fact probably reveals that Mozart was not in miserable poverty that time.

5) It turned out from his inheritance records that Mozart had 800 florins of credit in total to Anton Stadler and Franz Gilowsky.

＊This fact brings us the suspicion in our mind why he could lend such a big amount of money, if he were so poor as has been suggested.
This evidence again suggests that Mozart was never really in poverty in his Vienna period. Here I merely point out the fact, but the details of which is to be explained in Property left by Mozart.

6) There was no evidence that Constanze began to work to earn money after Mozart's death. She was only idling everyday without having a work.

＊This fact proves that Constanze, contrary to popular myth, was not in the necessity of earning money after Mozart's death. In reality, her stable income source was a small widow's pension( 266 florins annually), but she continued to stay at the expensive apartment house in Rauhensteingasse ( rent 275 florins annually) without having a work. Yes, Mozart has never been poor and she had plenty of money upon her husband's death. Details of this item will be explained again in Property left by Mozart.


By these facts, we can conclude that Mozart's income in the latter half of his Vienna years was always in high level and was sufficient enough to spend a comfortable life. He was not in the least poor.
Then, the theory that his income drop had driven him to borrow money has completely lost its ground, I believe.
This theory was irresponsibly proposed by persons who never checked Mozart's income statement and ignored many inconvenient facts which revealed Mozart was never poor.

Thus this theory has shown no persuasive grounds, and then scholars had to seek other reasons why Mozart had made so big debts .
As a result, the following were proposed that;

- he spent dissipated life through all his life.
- he needed a lot of money for the expenses of Constanze's disease and her hot-spring cure.
- he exhausted his money by gambling.

Now let's examine whether they are correct or not.

(2) Against the Continuous Dissipated Life Theory

I myself admit that Mozart spent a luxurious life and his way of life became excessivein the first half of his Vienna era. However, I firmly believe that his way of life drastically changed to a simple life in the latter half of his Vienna years in response to the sudden and sharp drop of his popularity in Vienna.

Here, I would like to show some samples that his way of life has changed to a simple one in the latter half.

1) In April 1787, Mozart left the Figaro House and transferred to a humble apartment house at Landstrasse in response to the decrease of his income. The rent there was only 50 florins in a year which was one ninth of the previous one.

* This proves that Mozart had an ordinary economic sense to cut living expenses in response to income drop.


2) The following sentence can be seen in Mozart's letter to Puchberg (written before June 17,1788).

'' In case I must go to the city, though the opportunities don't occur every day, I can utilize the street coach any of which brings me to the city of Vienna by 10 kreuzers only."

* This sentence teaches us that Mozart had sold off his carriage as well as his riding horse at that time. He utilized a far less expensive street coach for his traffic.
He should be blamed as a fast liver if he was still attached to keep on living at the Figaro House and having a carriage/riding horse for his traffic. But he did not. He changed his life style largely in the second half of his Vienna era.

It is well known that Mozart had kept household accounts by himself from 1784 and he made entry in the ledger like this :
May 1, 1784, 1 kreuzer for two mayflowers,
May 27, 1784, 34 kreuzer for starling bird, etc..

This fact tells us that Mozart was the person who could control even small expenditures of money by himself. Yes, he was originally never a dissipated person.


3) Immanuel Hermann Fichte wrote the following in his book.(Mozarts Reliquien in Salzburg)

"The way of Mozart's life was suitable to his frugal living, and was the simplest. It was not unusual that all his meals were such simple home cooking as rice gruel or half a dozen of steamed dumpling. People often spoke behind Mozart's back that he was fond of champagne very much. But it was not true. He loved the punch at the very most."

* Fichte obtained this information directly from Sophie Haibel (Constanze's younger sister) who had close contact with Mozart in Vienna.
Here we should remember Leopold's letter to her daughter Nannerl ( March 19,1785 from Vienna), describing that " In spite of his high earnings, his eating and drinking are modest to the maximum extent."

Yes, Mozart's eating and drinking were very modest even at his prosperous days.

The way of Mozart's life in the latter half of his Vienna era was really simple just like these topics.
In fact, he himself was obliged to spend a simple life in his boyhood since Leopold's salary was as low as 250 florins annually for a long time. And then he must have originally gotten used to live simply.


4) We can also see from his inheritance records that Mozart's life must have been simple.

So frequently and for a long time, it has been said that Mozart spent a dissipated life and then had to pile up so much debts.
However, when we take a close look at his inheritance records, we can know that such story was quite a made up one. Almost all his property were modest.

Unlike the past common myth, most of his clothes were cotton and/or woolen made although one or two silk or fur goods were contained there. The number of clothes were not many and the evaluation was very low.
As to his household goods, things were quite the same. These details are to be described later in Property left by Mozart.


Examining like these, we can conclude that Mozart was naturally by no means the man who pursued only the pleasure of life and luxurious goods despite the fact that he fell in epicureanism for a while in the first half of his Vienna era.

Here we should be careful that Mozart had been completely driven away from the fashionable society and keeping company with noblemen in Vienna after 1786 up to his death, the details of which are to be explained in Sudden Drop of Mozart's Popularity. (It is needless to say that music concerts those days were the part of the fashionable society in Vienna.)

Remember here that all the subscribers( most of them were noblemen and the number of his subscribers was once as many as 174) turned their cold shoulders to Mozart and none have accepted to sign Mozart's subscription concert except for Swieten.
He was thus completely rejected by Vienna nobility in the latter half of his Vienna era.

Then I wonder why Mozart had to dress well and why he had to pursue gaiety and pleasures under such circumstance.
Persons have been making fuss about Mozart's dissipation as if it continued all his life in Vienna. However it was limited to the first half of his Vienna year, and we can not find the evidence of his dissipation at all in his late Vienna years.

As a result of this consideration, we can not blame his dissipation for his big debts. And again, persons had to seek another reason for his debts.

(3) Against the Constanze's Medical Expenses Theory

This theory seems to be the majority opinion to explain the cause of Mozart's debts at present.
Braunbehrens described in his book that the sole cause of this (Mozart's debt) was his wife's expensive illness, which began in early summer of 1789.
The reason why this theory has been proposed may exist in the point that Mozart wrote miserable letters to Puchberg, where he referred to the condition of Constanze's illness (a varix in her leg).
However, this theory seems quite suspicious to me from the following considerations.

Before entering into my explanation, I would like to make it clear here in advance the number of times and actual amounts borrowed by Mozart from Puchberg.
It was twice, and the amount lent was 300 florins in total in 1788, two times and 450 florins in 1789, nine times and 610 florins in 1790, and two times and 55 florins in 1791.


Borrowings in 1788

It is very clear that Mozart's borrowings from Puchberg in 1788 were by no means for medical expenses for Constanze since the problem in her legs actually occurred in 1789.

This year, he sent four letters to Puchberg in June and July. Among these four, we should pay careful attention to the letter dated on June 17,1788 in which he asked 1,000 to 2,000 florins to borrow with one to two years' repayment term without describing any use of money.

What I want to say is that Mozart at this time has already in need of big money for some use other than Constanze's illness.
In that letter, he showed his poverty faintly. But it must have been a lie considering his financial condition that time.
The payment from the court has already started. In addition, he got money for the premiere of Don Giovanni in Vienna, for the concert at Dolfin's and conducting fees for ' Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu' (C.P.E..Bach), and piano lesson fee as shown above table.
More to say, we should not forget that the residue of two big money, the performance fee for Don Giovanni in Prague ( late October in 1787) and 1,000 florins sent from Nannerl at the end of 1787 as his share for Leopold's inheritance, still remained at his hands.
Analyzing thus, he was never in need of money to spend his ordinary life. Yet he asked money to Puchberg. That was probably because he needed money for some use other than his ordinary life.

After requesting 1,000 to 2,000 florins, he wrote Puchberg to lend several hundred florins by next morning, in case he could not borrow such a big amount of money. For this excuse, he wrote he was involved in the rent trouble with the landlord of Randstrasse. Puchberg sent 200 florins to Mozart to solve the trouble.
But this story is also very suspicious to me. Because the rent of this apartment house was 50 florins annually, and Mozart lived there only for seven months. Then I guess that the necessary amount to solve the trouble might have been less than 50 florins. Yet Mozart asked several hundred florins, and Puchberg sent 200 florins.
So I assume that the rent trouble was only Mozart's pretext to borrow money.

Borrowings in 1789

This year, Mozart sent four letters to Puchberg in which he touched on the condition of Constanze's illness. These letters can be read in a sense as if the borrowing was on account of his wife's illness. However, this can not possibly be the true reason.

1) In his letter in early July 1789 ( exact date unknown), he asked Puchberg to borrow 500 florins assuming an air of his wife's illness.
However he was certainly not poor that time and could have paid her medical expenses by his ordinary income. More to say, he must have brought back a considerable amount of money by the travel to Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin about a month earlier.

In Dresden, he was given 450 florins by Karl August for his piano playing, and 700 florins from Friedrich Wilhelm the second in Berlin as fee for several commissioned works.
In addition, he held two public concerts in Dresden and Leipzig, and a private concert at the house of Russian ambassador in Dresden, though it is not known how much money he got from these.
Thus he earned much money at this time and brought back a lot of money to his home.

Despite being under favorable economic circumstance, he nevertheless asked loans to Puchberg.
There must have been an extraordinary affair other than his wife's illness, because 500 florins he asked to Puchberg was too big for medical expenses from the following reasons.

2) Speaking of 500 florins that Mozart asked, the amount was too big to believe for her medical expenses that time even if it contained a hot-spring cure at Baden in August that year.
Remember here that 500 florins was equal to the annual living expenses for a family.
By the analysis below, we can know he must have not needed such big amount of money for his wife's medical expenses and hot-spring cure.


Fees for doctor visits and medicines

At that time, she had neither operations nor had she been hospitalized. She only had several times of house visits by doctor Closset. Then fee for doctor visits must have not been so expensive.
As to medicines, unlike today, these were not expensive that time since they were mainly made of such natural goods as herbs.
Probably much more money was necessary for her hot-spring cure at Baden in August.
However, the expenses for a hot-spring cure, including the travel expenses and lodging fee for about a month, were not major expenses as we shall see.

Travel expense :

The mileage from Vienna to Baden is as near as 17 miles.
At that time, people could travel anywhere in Vienna by street coach for only 10 kreuzers. And then the travel expense must have been almost insignificant.

Lodging fee for a month :

We can not exactly know where she stayed at Baden.
However, I assume that her lodging on each visit (she went there 4 times in all; one time in 1789, again in 1790, twice more in 1791) was in a private house. That we know because she stayed at a legal adviser Johann Georg Grundgeyer's house at Baden with the help of Anton Stoll at her third visit there.
Of course we can not know the exact lodging fee including meals for a month there, but we can reasonably guess that this must have cost around 30 florins a month in the following letters written by Mozart himself.

Mozart's letter to Constanze ( September 30, 1790)

Mozart traveled to Frankfurt in September 1790 with Franz Hofer (his brother-in-law) to hold his piano concert there. At that time, Mozart wrote to his wife that they stayed at a leader of troupe Johann Heinrich Böhm's house under the promise of 30 florins a month for their lodging.

Mozart's letter to Puchberg (June 25,1791)

In June 1791, Mozart sent the following letter to Puchberg asking some money for Constanze's lodging fee at Baden. In response to this letter, Puchberg lent 25 florins to Mozart. He immediately sent this to Constanze.

"Reading my wife's letter, she is waiting for the remittance from me since she thought that the owner of the house would be pleased if lodging fee including meal costs were paid in advance (though he had not the right to ask). Regarding this, I hoped I could have settled it before her departure, but I could not. So I am now in embarrassment."

Puchberg read this letter and lent 25 florins to Mozart. On the other hand, Mozart was satisfied with that amount of money and sent it directly to Constanze.
This surely indicates that both Puchberg and Mozart agreed that one month lodging at Baden would cost that much.

Though my analysis of such expenses is somewhat rough, we can nevertheless say with certainty Mozart could not have needed as much as 500 florins for her medical expenses and a hot-spring cure that time. These must actually have been far less than 100 florins.

Here, we will be back again to the original issue that Mozart's borrowings in 1789 was not necessarily for Constanze's disease.

3) Mozart's two letters to Puchberg dated on July 12 and 17, 1789 can be and often have been seen as grounds for the Medical Expenses Theory, since Mozart touched on her condition in these letters.
However, examining Mozart's sentences in these letters carefully, we noticed that very curious and incomprehensive expressions were included there, which smelled quite other incident than Constanze's illness.
An analysis of these letters actually suggests that these written requests were not made to Puchberg with Constanze's illness as the main reason.

Mozart's letter on July 12,1789

At the beginning of this letter, Mozart described like this.

"I would like to have opened my heart when I visited you the other day. However I couldn't have had such bravery at that time ! "

This sentence is surely curious if the borrowing request was for medical expenses for his wife.
Is there anyone who hesitates to ask a borrowing to his intimate friend on account of his wife's illness if that was the real cause ?
Then it was sure that Mozart had quite another use of money that time which let him hesitate to discuss openly.

At the same time he concluded the letter like this.

"My only one friend ! It is up to you whether you have the will to lend me more 500 florins or you can lend me more 500 florins."

This sentence further indicates something unusual.
Because, if the money he needed that time was truly urgent one to cure Constanze's disease, he would have never used such an easygoing expression. He must have written like this .

"Be sure to lend me more 500 florins to cure my lovely wife's illness."

However, he did not write like that. That was obviously because his real use of money was other than the expenses for his wife's illness.

Mozart's letter on July 17,1789

Puchberg did not respond to the previous Mozart's letter (July 12,1789) somehow.
Then Mozart wrote a letter dated on July 17 again, where we find very curious expression again at the beginning of this letter.

"Considering that you did not respond to me, you might have become angry with me ! It is natural that you got angry when the proofs of friendship and my desire this time were taken into consideration."

I firmly believe that there is no man who would be angry with his friend who needed to ask money due to his wife's illness, while there of course may be a stingy man who do not want to lend his money despite knowing such circumstance.
According to this letter, Puchberg might have gotten angry at first to read Mozart's previous letter.
This surely proves that borrowing at this time was by no means for medical expenses.

4) In December 1789, Mozart asked again to Puchberg to lend him more 400 florins (Puchberg remitted 300 florins that time).
He wrote that he had to pay to the doctor and pharmacy before the new year, although the necessities for both the doctor and medicines came to an end by that time.

Indeed, her illness was not heavy. It was only a slight illness ( or mere pastime, I doubt) since she could make merry with men soon after her arrival at Baden, of which Mozart complained and reproached in his letter in August 1789 ( date unknown)
It is therefore clear that he utilized his wife's illness as a cover so that someone, who had a chance to read his letter, could not detect his real use.

For all these reasons, I firmly believe that the major reason for Mozart's borrowing from Puchberg in 1789 was not for the sake of Constanze's illness.

Borrowings in 1790

It was only one time, in mid May 1790 that Constanze went to Baden for her hot-spring cure. However Mozart borrowed from Puchberg 9 times this year, every month from January to August except for July. The sum of money borrowed this year reached to 610 florins.

Around those days, as shown in Mozart's letter in December last year, there were no necessities for doctor visits and medicines for Constanze .
And Constanze's visit to Baden was only once in May, while Mozart borrowed again and again every month. This reveals that he had a different use of money other than Constanze's medical expenses.

Borrowings in 1791

Mozart borrowed small amount of money twice this year, in April and in June.
Borrowing in June was certainly the one for Constanze's lodging fee at Baden as described above.
As to the borrowing in April (30 florins), we can not get any clue to know the use of money from his short letter.

By analyzing like these, I can deny that the main purpose of Mozart's borrowings from Puchberg during mid 1788 to mid 1791 was by no means for the sake of medical expenses. Yet, I can admit that only a small portion for that sake was included in his debts.

Now, we should remember here what Constanze stated in front of the emperor. She said that the court persons talked wildly this and that about Mozart, and they exaggerated his debts as being as ten times as large as the one he actually left behind.
If the real cause of his debts were for the medical expenses for his wife's illness, who could talk wildly about him ? And the exaggerated amount of debts ( that is 30,000 gulden) were too big to believe that it was medical expenses.
Thus Constanze's statement also reveals that it was not medical expenses.
In fact, he had a different reason other than his wife's illness, which he would not like to come to the surface. Then was it gambling ? Now, let's check it.

(4) Against the Gambling Debt Theory

This theory was proposed by Uwe Kraemer in Hamburg in 1976.
Kraemer had a question why Mozart became poor in his late Vienna era, although he undoubtedly earned much larger amounts of money than his living expenses.
As a result of his research into both Mozart's annual income and living expenses, he noticed that there must have been a large surplus in Mozart's account every year. And his question was where the surplus has gone. He could not find out the reasonable account of money spent.
Then he put forward the idea that the surplus must have been spent for gambling since Mozart was crazy about billiards all the time.

This theory does not seem to obtain a majority at present, however there are persons like Peter Davies who are in favor of this theory.
However, this theory also has its weakness to persuade us to believe.
I shall be able to deny this theory by the following descriptions.

1). Lack of sufficient evidences

It is true that Mozart loved billiards much and there existed some observations, by Michael O'Kelly for example, that Mozart played billiards for money sometime. However, this alone is insufficient evidence.

Who were the supposed gambling circle ?
Peter Davies suggested that they were Puchberg, Lorenzo da Ponte, Anton Stadler, Emanuel Schikaneder and Giacomo Casanova.
But there were in fact no clear evidences that all of them were gamblers.

2). No remark about gambling is found in any of Mozart's letters to Puchberg

Reading all Mozart's letters to Puchberg carefully, we can not find any signs in his letters that the borrowings were caused by his gambling.
If the borrowings were caused by gambling, we ought to be able to find some supporting evidence for it in his letters - a person's name of the gambling circle, the place name where they met to gamble, and the date when the gambling was held, for example. But we can not find such words at all in Mozart's letters.

3). No remark is found anywhere about Mozart's supposed gambling in the biographies

Constanze talked about Mozart's supposedly dissipated life style to such biographers as Friedrich Schlichtegroll, Franz Niemetschek and Georg Nikolaus Nissen.
She told them he was keen on liquors and on flirting with lady's maids. She said various negative things about Mozart. However she never spoke a word about his gambling. She never said that she was distressed by his gambling. This seems to be a clear evidence that Mozart did not spend a lot of money for gambling.

4). Constanze's statement at the Court

As mentioned before, with help of a noble lady who was Mozart's piano pupil, she was given an audience by the Emperor and was granted later to get 266 florins of widow's pension.
As Constanze stated, the rumor about Mozart's debts were spread widely among the court people.
Therefore, if the reason for his debts was on account of his gambling and as a result he became poor, there may not have been a lady who suggested Constanze to apply the pension, nor the Emperor granted to provide it to her.

3. Keys for solving This Issue

From all of the above, I believe I could deny all the past theories on Mozart's debts.
It has bee said for a long time that it was because Mozart was in poverty ;
-that he often asked to borrow from Puchberg,
-that he had to travel to Berlin in 1789 and to Frankfurt in1790 to earn money,
-that he unsuccessfully applied the post of deputy Kapellmeister in 1790 which the court did not recruit.

The poor Mozart theory was like a convenient hiding place in a sense where many scholars sought shelter in when they faced to incomprehensible Mozart's debts, travels, and asking for the post not recruited. But I believe that they were wide of the mark.

My opinion is that we will not be able to solve this issue, if we regard Mozart as a person in poverty. We must question this issue away from poor Mozart since he really was not poor with his high earnings every year. Then what was his borrowings for ?

(1) Constanze's Statement and her Letters

As described at the beginning of this chapter, Constanze was given an audience by the Emperor.
At that time she said some curious things.
That was the court people talked wildly about Mozart this and that, and they greatly exaggerated his debts to ten times the actual amounts.
So far nobody has paid any attention and has not written about this.
However, her statement tells us that he was involved in some incident which was talked wildly about by people in Vienna court, and that this incident cost a lot of money.

Then what was the incident in which he was involved ?
The following Constanze's letters give us the hints what it was. Those were her letters sent to Breitkopf und Härtel in Leipzig dated on November 27,1799 and July 21,1800.

"You know that Mozart was a Freemason ........... He was going to establish a new lodge named "Cavern". I found a fragment of his paper on the new lodge, however I gave it to a person who joined the establishment. I hereby lend you the paper on the lodge " Cavern" most of which were written by Mozart, being enclosed now with this letter, so that you can utilize it when describing the biography of Mozart. I can not explain about it any further, but the elder brother Stadler who is the court clarinetist may explain the rest of the paper. However, he has a suspicion to confess it since he knows that such association or the secret party is hated by the people."(Paul Nettl)

The paper written by Mozart has been lost and the new lodge was after all not founded.
Therefore, we can not get any clue as to his purpose, the names of those who were involved in this project, the scheduled timing of the new Masonic lodge establishment, etc. .
However, these Constanze's letters remind that the thing the court people talked about wickedly this and that must have been his secret activities for establishing a new lodge.
We should remember here that Freemasonry in Vienna that time became hated as an improper party by the court and church.
As a result, it was also probable that his debts were exaggerated by them to ten times larger than it really was.
We therefore find a solution in this secret project of Mozart, to establish this new Masonic lodge.

It is well known that he joined Freemasonry on December 14, 1784, became a Master Mason soon afterward and remained a devoted Freemason all the time up to his death.
Even after the time when the party became hated by Viennese, he had a passionate desire to establish a new lodge. Indeed, his enthusiasm to this party was greater than we have supposed.

Of course, only by Constanze's statement and her letters, I shall not be able to conclude that Mozart's use of money was for establishing a new Masonic lodge.
I have other two grounds to think so in addition to this viewpoint.

(2) Unusual Loan between Puchberg and Mozart

Many scholars, Solomon for example, regarded Puchberg as only a money lender.
However, their relationship was not such one but was more intimate and friendly.
In some occasion, Mozart invited Puchberg and his wife to his home concert where some of his quartets were played. On the other time, Puchberg was invited to Mozart's house together with Joseph Haydn when the trial of the "Cosi fan tutte"(K588) was performed.
As described before, Mozart composed and presented his works, Divertimento(K563) and Piano Trio(K542), to Puchberg.
Mozart himself often visited Puchberg's house having a long talk or a meal with him. In some occasion Mozart borrowed a barrel of beer from him.
Other unforgettable thing is that, after Mozart's death, Puchberg became the guardian of two sons left behind. Thus it can not possibly be denied that they were very intimate friends.
Lastly we can not forget that both Mozart and Puchberg were Freemason brothers, which had an important meaning on Mozart's debts.

Mozart borrowed 15 times from him during the three years from mid 1788 to mid 1791, and the total amount was 1,415 florins.
When we think about this loan carefully, we notice that it included many curiosities as described below.
I guess that the reason why the loan included so many curiosities was because Mozart's use of money must have been for Freemasonry.
Yes, during the term, he was in charge of the establishing a new lodge named "Cavern", and he was in need of a lot of money to realize this project.
Now, let me point out the curiosities about the loan.


1) Mozart did not often write the reasons for borrowings in his letter. However he could borrow from Puchberg many times without specially giving any reason.

It was only 3 times that Mozart made the use of money clear to Puchberg in his letters.
Those were the rent trouble with the landlord of Landstrasse( before June 17,1788. Date unknown), money collection by the shop in Stock im Eisen (early May 1790) and the remittance to his wife at Baden (June 25,1791).
Other uses were quite obscure even though he wrote this and that plausibly in his letters.

Yet Puchberg kept on lending his money to Mozart.
This must surely be because Puchberg had already known the real use of money in advance by verbal talks with Mozart.
The social/political and religious situation of those days required great discretion to be used in such a project.
This is why the letters are written in this way.

As it is well known, Freemasonry became under the control of the government after the imperial ordinance published on December 11,1785.
Existing eight lodges in Vienna that time had to be summarized into three or less.
These new lodges were obliged to submit their member names and meeting minutes periodically to the police. The police were sniffing at their activities. And the people in Vienna began to have disgusting feelings to Freemasonry as an improper party.
In addition, censorship were still in effect at that time despite they were eased by the policy of the Emperor Joseph the second.

Under these circumstances, Mozart was very careful in writing his letters to Puchberg so that other persons could not detect the real use of money when the letters were obliged to be opened.
Thus, no writings on actual use of money in his letters suggest us a secret purpose, that was for his new Masonic lodge establishment.


2) Mozart had wide acquaintance with rich aristocracy, merchants and musicians. However, he virtually depended only on Puchberg with few exceptions as described next.

Generally speaking, the excuse for the use of money would be necessary when a person ask someone for loan.
However, his use was related to Masonic activities, and then he would not like to talk it to any other person than Masons. Then he largely depended on a Masonic brother Puchberg who was in favor of Mozart's idea.


3) There were further two exceptions when Mozart borrowed from persons other than Puchberg.
These were Franz Hofdemel (the secretary of the Vienna trial court ) and Heinrich Rackenbacher( a merchant in Vienna).

In March 1789, he borrowed 100 florins from Hofdemel before the departure of his trip to Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin. This probably was the borrowing for his travel expenses. (Hofdemel became the member of " New Crowned Hope" a little later guided by Mozart. But he was not the member when Mozart borrowed money from him.)
And in September 1790, he asked his wife to borrow 1,000 florins from Rackenbacher during his trip to Frankfurt. The purpose of this debt is still an enigma now, however people can not find any sign at all in this agreement that this was the borrowing for his Masonic activity.
Thus he borrowed from outsiders of Freemasonry when the cause seemed nothing to do with his Masonic activities.

There was however one more person other than Puchberg, on whom Mozart depended a lot of money for his Freemasonry activities. It was marquis Lichnowsky.
As to Lichnowsky's case, I would like to describe it later separately as a postscript.


4) It was a further surprising fact that Mozart could borrow15 times and 1,415 florins from Puchberg only by writing letters, without descriptions of annual interest, due date, and collateral for the loan.
Moreover, it was also a surprising fact that there existed no evidence that Puchberg asked Mozart to repay.

Things were very different with Hofdemel's and Rackenbacher's cases.
He drew a four-month promissory note on Hofdemel for 100 florins.
He provided Rackenbacher with a written acknowledgement of debt, in which 5 % annual interest, two years loan term, and collateral for the loan were clearly described, calling two persons as to witnesses.( The major part of this written acknowledgement is quoted in Mozart's Death and Burial.)
However, we can not find such rigid repayment terms anywhere in Mozart's letters to Puchberg.
There must have been some particular reason there.

I suppose that the loan must have been a kind of monetary support by Puchberg who was in favor of establishment of the new lodge.
Why I think so is that there existed common stories here and there in the world that a wealthy merchant gave monetary support to someone who promoted innovative political activities and/or some specific religions.
Puchberg was in just such a situation. He therefore loaned to Mozart without any rigid repayment terms or pressures.


5) Having such a big amount of credit, Puchberg did not request it to the Vienna City Office by March 19,1792 although he had entitlement to do so .

It was sure that the background of the loan was related to Freemasonry. Puchberg did not want to publicize this fact. This is why he did not apply to the City Office.

(3) Freemasonry Words in Mozart's Letters to Puchberg

My next viewpoint is that we can find words or sentences related to Freemasonry frequently in Mozart's letters to Puchberg.


1) Greeting in Mozart's letter

In the first place, I would like to keep my eyes on his greeting in the letters to Puchberg.
At the beginning of his letters, he often used to begin with such words as " Dear respectful brother of the Order, and most beloved friend ! " for his greeting.
Not only the word 'respectful brother', but also the word 'real friend', and 'fraternal love' can be seen frequently in his letters here and there.
Those were the words Freemasonry valued above everything else in their association.
Mozart aimed to borrow from Puchberg appealing as a Freemason brother and did so by appealing to him as a Freemason brother. The fact is consistent with the view that the purpose of these loans was for Freemasonry itself.
Considering from our commonsense, it may be somewhat curious for Mozart to use such kind of words so frequently in his letters, if his loans were such private use as his living expenses.


2) Mozart's letter on June 17,1788

We find a number of curious and incomprehensible expressions in this letter also, in which there are also clues of Freemason activities.

In the first half of this letter, he stated like this.

"If you have the love and friendship that you are willing to lend me 1,000 or 2,000 gulden for one to two years with a reasonable interest, it would be a great support for my daily work ..........
Recently I often faced to the opportunities that I had to ask to extend the repayment date, and after all I had to repay all my incomes at my worst time."

It would surely be very strange for a man to borrow so heavily over such a period as part of living expenses.
Common borrowings for living expenses are surely much smaller amount of money and much shorter time. Then the long term debt like that must have been for a different use other than his living expenses.

Now, was he in the necessity of money for his living in the middle of 1788 ?
The answer is decidedly 'No'. As explained before he at that time was benefitted from the salary from the coat, the premier of the "Don Giovanni " in Vienna, the performance fee at Dolfin's and his usual incomes( lesson and publishing fees) together with 1,000 florins sent from his sister Nannerl as his share of property left by Leopold Mozart.

Now, as to his share of Leopold's inheritance, he asked Nannerl to send it to Puchberg, not to remit to his bank account. What was the reason for ?
I guess that Mozart would like to keep it from Constanze since he needed money for his Masonic activities getting rid of her interference ( Remember here he did the same thing during his trip to Sachsen. At that time, he mentioned to Constanze nothing about 450 florins given from Karl August, only describing that he was given a very beautiful box).
As to this, I can accept another possibility too that Mozart repaid this 1,000 florins to Puchberg which he had borrowed till then.

The sentence "I had to repay all my income at my worst time." is also strange. What expenditures did he actually mean ?
This must not have been his living expenses since he lived simply in a humble apartment house only with Constanze.
Then was it the expenditure related to his job ?
Probably it might not. At that time he could not appear on the stage in Vienna as a pianist.
Therefore he did not need to pay such expenses as orchestra fee, the rent and the lightning of the theater, printing for the poster and ticket, etc..
He was only composing in his house that time. Then music papers, pens and ink were the only real expenditure that he needed, if the expenditures were really related to his job.
As a result, 1,000 to 2,000 florins that he asked was far too big to be explained as working expenses.

Thus we can deny the borrowing was neither for his shortage of living expenses nor his music job. Then what was for ?
There is a sign in his letter that the use of money was for his Masonic activities.
The word 'work' written by Mozart must be a kind of trap to the general public. In those days, the 'work ' meant 'the meeting of Freemason', and 'the work records' was used in place of "the minutes of the proceedings" in Freemasonry. (Deutsch)
My understanding is that Mozart used "the (daily) work " in that sense.
Yes, he held the meetings for establishing a new lodge every day that time, and needed to pay frequently such meeting expenses as room rent, lightning, transportation, printing, correspondence and meal, etc..

3) Mozart's letter on July 12,1789

In the middle of this letter, we can find very curious and incomprehensive sentences.

"And yet, a misfortune came in sight in another aspect ! My best and beloved sworn friend, you know well about my current situation. But you know my future prospect as well. That thing we talked over before is kept unchanged. I am sure I do not need to mention now about it this and that since you have already known it well"

This sentence suddenly appears in his letter and surprises us, as if it was a modulations of his musical works.
I would say this sentence means that he was involved in a problem different than his wife's illness at that time. Because I interpret that above italic words have close relations to Freemasonry those days.

Taking a look at the history of Freemasonry in Vienna, we discover that the lodge named "Truth" (to which Puchberg belonged) submitted their dissolution to the government in April 1789.
As a result, the lodge "New Crowned Hope" ( to which Mozart belonged ) became only one Freemasonry lodge in Vienna. (* In 1788, the name of "New Crowned Hope" was changed to former name "Crowned Hope" again. However I still use the name "New Crowned Hope" hereinafter to avoid confusion).
There must therefore have been a big upheaval in Vienna Freemasonry. And at the same time, the Vienna Freemasonry seemed to become more and more shrunken. Moreover, people began to turn away from Freemasonry.

Mozart was afraid that this dissolution (= a misfortune ) would have a bad effect on the establishing of his new lodge(= my future prospect).
However, in spite of being placed under such unfavorable circumstances, he would never change his mind to establish a new lodge(=That thing we talked over before is kept unchanged).
There must have been such a background behind Mozart's letter, I suppose.

In other Mozart's letters to Puchberg, we can find similar sentences which suggested his use of money was related to Freemasonry. However, I believe above two examples are sufficient.

4. Conclusion

By reading Constanze's statement and her letters, analyzing of curious loan between Puchberg and Mozart, and interpreting Mozart's letters, I concluded that the main use of Mozart's debt from Puchberg was for a project to establish a new Masonic lodge.
Of course I accept that expenses for Constanze's hot-spring cure and at the same time for unexpected shortage of his living expenses were involved in his loans. However, these portions in total must have been far smaller amount of money than was actually borrowed. The main use was indeed for his Freemasonry project.

Mozart had earned much money enough for his living, to be sure. However, he had to depend on borrowing from someone for this extraordinary expenses.
Here a troublesome question will arise in our mind why Mozart had to depend on borrowing without spending his surplus money between his big income and his modest living.

In my view, that was probably because Constanze,who apparently disliked Freemasonry, would not have allowed him to use the home finance for his Masonic project for one thing.
And tenderhearted Mozart also would have considered not to disturb his family life by spending most of his incomes on these secret activities for the other.
In addition, Mozart would have thought that he would like to avoid her interference on his Masonic project by spending his income. Yes, he wanted to behave as he liked without any interference by Constanze.
He therefore determined to rely on the money from his Freemason brothers.

Although the following is my personal opinion and is not based on a certain evidence, I myself think that Mozart might have thought about his borrowings as follows.
That is Mozart might have consider in his mind that these borrowings were not for his own, but for the corporative ( new lodge 'Cavern' ) purpose.
He was the chairman for establishing the new lodge and then he had to borrow under his name. But after establishing the new lodge, the money borrowed should be repaid by the fund of 'Cavern' (entrance fee, membership fees etc..)
This was Mozart's consideration, I suppose. So he boldly and frequently borrowed a lot of money. But unfortunately, the new lodge could not be established. Therefore Mozart alone had to repay the vast amount of debts.

It is well known that Mozart showed his enthusiastic attitudes toward Freemasonry from December 1784 to the end of 1785, attending many meetings, composing often for them, arranging concerts and even inviting his father and Haydn to join.
However, we could find few signs for his devotion to his lodge "New Crowned Hope" from the beginning of 1786 to mid 1791. During these five years, his composition for this lodge was none and his attendance to the meeting became less and less frequent.

Does this mean that he had lost his enthusiasm to Freemasonry ?
My answer is decidedly "No". He actually kept his devotion to this association in his mind all the time up to his death.
However, during the term, he was so busy for trying to establish a new lodge named "Cavern", and then he could not show his devotion to the lodge "New Crowned Hope".

And yet, despite all of this enthusiasm, the new lodge"Cavern" was never founded.
Probably Mozart faced to practical difficulties in the project from around the end of 1789 or by the beginning of 1790.
After this date he was busy winding up the affairs of unrealized new lodge. This winding up would have been settled at around early 1791. Then, in turn, he began to work for the existing Freemasonry lodge again from mid 1791 up to the time of his death.
During this last period, he composed 'Die ihr des unemesslichen Weltalls Schöpfer ehrt'(K.619) for the Regensburg lodge, the' Laut verkünde unsre Freude'(K.623) for his lodge" New Crowned Hope",
and the great Freemason opera ' Die Zauberflöte'(K.620) for all mankind.


To ensure my conclusion, the following should be answered with relation to Mozart's project.

- What made him plan to establish a new Masonic lodge ?
- From when to when did he actually work for this project?
- Why wasn't the new lodge after all established ?
- Why was he so enthusiastic to Freemasonry ?

As to these, I will describe separately in the next chapter " Mozart, an enthusiastic Freemason " since they need a considerable amount of space in writing .

5. A Postscript on Borrowing from Lichnowsky

Ending this chapter, it may be best to touch on briefly the mysterious Mozart's debt to Karl Lichnowsky so as not to be accused of making an important oversight.
As mentioned before, this debt was the largest of all his remaining debts. But, as to its cause, there exists only an implausible opinion that it was gambling debt since Lichnowsky himself was really a tough gambler. However this opinion can not show any evidence at all that Mozart was a member of Lichnowsky's gambling circle.
The fact that Lichnowsky brought Mozart to the Austrian court will also deny this opinion. As we all know that gambling can not be the cause of a legal action, in any country and at any time in the world since gambling itself is illegal.

However, when analyzing Mozart's letters, a solution becomes available.
Let us suppose that Mozart's borrowing from Lichnowsky was also associated with this project to establish a new Masonic lodge in Vienna. For there are some reasons to suppose that this is so.

In 1788, he sent four letters to Puchberg.
By the first letter in June that year (date unknown), he could borrow 100 florins from Puchberg. By the second letter also in June 1788 (date unknown, but supposed to be before June 17), he asked to borrow between 1,000 to 2,000 florins as mentioned before, but could in the end borrow only 200 florins.
Then he sent the third letter on June 27,1788 to Puchberg asking again for a sizable sum of money with a long term repayment. But Puchberg did not respond it at all. And so, Mozart sent the fourth letter in July 1788( date unknown, but supposed to be at the beginning of July) to press Puchberg by appealing his miserable poverty. However, Puchberg did not respond it again.

In his third and fourth letters, he blamed such big borrowing on his poverty despite the fact that this is almost certainly a false reason. .
However, as described before, Mozart had benefited in the first half of 1788 and there was nothing particular which required a lot of money. It was clear that he was not in poverty that time. Therefore a lot of money Mozart needed was never for his living expenses, but for a particular project - the new lodge establishment.
Anyway, Puchberg did not respond to Mozart's third and fourth letters at all.

After Puchberg's refusal in July 1788, he, strangely enough, did not write another letter to Puchberg for a year. The next is dated on July 12,1789.
This must surely raise the question of whether he had given up borrowing from Puchberg or had abandoned his secret project.

It may well be that he simply stopped borrowing from Puchberg.
To continue his scheme, he would have needed another lending source. And that person, I suggest, was Lichnowsky.

Lichnowsky was a Freemason brother who had once belonged to the very same lodge "Beneficence" as Mozart himself.
He was a rich aristocracy titled a marquis and was a patron of Mozart's music.
And then it is likely that Mozart thought that he could confess the use of money frankly to Lichnowsky since Lichnowsky was also a Freemason.
Thus, after Puchberg's refusal, Mozart talked with Lichnowsky and borrowed a considerable amount of money from him, with the condition of long term repayment and reasonable interest.
Probably Lichnowsky lent more than 2,000 florins that time in response to Mozart's requirement.
Then, Mozart could continue his project without asking Puchberg's help for a year.

However, this loan worried him badly afterward.
In April 1789, Mozart suddenly traveled to Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin together with Lichnowsky.
It has been said for a long time that the purpose of this travel was that Lichnowsky, who felt pity for Mozart's poverty, had arranged Mozart to meet Prussian King and get his job there.
However this must have been a made-up story.
Because they were refused to meet the King on April 26,1789 when they asked to have an audience for the first time in Potsdam.
Such refusal would not have occurred if Lichnowsky had made an arrangement in advance.

The real cause of this trip probably consists in the following.
The probable first repayment to Lichnowsky was near in mid 1789. However, Mozart did not have a sizable amount of money to repay that time. He therefore would have talked with Lichnowsky over the repayment arrangements. At that time Lichnowsky would have suggested Mozart to travel with him to his home Sachsen at his opportunity back home and hold concerts there to get money.

Mozart accepted his proposal and traveled to Sachsen with him.
He could hold piano concerts in Dresden and Leipzig as Lichnowsky suggested. And more, he could perform his piano playing in front of Carl August and his princess. Mozart got 450 florin by this performance, though he did not tell the fact to Constanze, only describing he was given a very beautiful box. This money must have been repaid to Lichnowsky.

In the same year in December, Mozart again asked Puchberg to lend him more 400 florins, as described before.
Though he wrote plausibly in his letter that he had to pay to the doctor and pharmacy before the new year, it would have been a transparent lie. He did not need to pay such a big amount of money that time.
Probable cause of Mozart's request to Puchberg this time was a demand from Lichnowsky.
Lichnowsky were not satisfied with the small amount of Mozart's repayment after his travel to Sachsen. Then he again pressed Mozart to repay some amount of money around that time.

In September next year (1790) , again he had to travel to Frankfurt to hold a piano concert there.
For a long time, the background of this particular trip was thought to an attempt to solve his poverty.
However, it also was not. He himself knew well from the beginning that he could not have such an optimistic expectation for the trip. However, he had to travel there. So why the trip?

At that time, two years were passing by since Mozart borrowed a lot of money from Lichnowsky.
But his actual repayments were far behind than his promise.
Probably Lichnowsky often requested the repayment to Mozart. But he could not have met to Lichnowsky's expectation.
Then he had to go out for a concert trip to show his good faith to repay.
Thus, the background of Frankfurt travel was as similar as the trip to Sachsen; that is to say, Mozart made a trip to make money for repayment to Lichnowsky.
However, Mozart himself knew well that he would not be able to earn a lot of money easily in Frankfurt. Then remembering strong pressure from Lichnowsky, Mozart sent a letter dated on September 28 to his wife in Vienna in which he suggested to borrow 1,000 florins from Lackenbacher by the help of Anton Stadler.
Thus I guess that the debt to Lackenbacher was the fund for repayment to Lichnowsky.

Mozart was always worrying about the repayment in his mind.
However his repayment showed a very slow progress since he could not get any commissioned work from anyone after the performance of 'Cosi fan tutte'.
Then, in March 1790, he dared to request the post of deputy Kapellmeister of the Vienna court which was not recruited. His purpose was to get more salary to repay to Lichnowsky.
However, he failed in getting the post probably by the objection of Kapellmeister Salieri.

A similar explanation may be founded for his application for the post of deputy Kapellmeister of St. Stephen Cathedral made in April 1791, which was not also recruited.
This time, he was successful for getting the post on the surface. But it was meaningless for him since it was a nominal and unpaid position until the existing Kapellmeister leaves from that position.

In spite of his struggles, the remainder of Mozart's borrowing from Lichnowsky was still more than 1,400 florins. Lichnowsky could not put up with Mozart's nonfulfillment.
There was a rule in the ' Charter of Freemasonry' that a Mason shall not appear in court unless it is inevitable to the Masonic lodge. Therefore Lichnowsky did not appear in court, as long as he was the member of Freemasonry.
However, he was no more a Freemason after the dissolution of his lodge "Truth" and then he brought Mozart to trial finally.
There must have been such backgrounds behind the decision by the Austrian trial court.

TOP
HOME

Bibliography

The following are the bibliographies and other sources to which I have referred in this chapter.
In writing this and other chapters, I have not referred to the original texts but have instead used versions translated into Japanese by translators listed in parenthesis.
I am however responsible for the translation from Japanese into English.

1. Niemetschek, Franz Xaver
Lebensbeschreibung des k.k.Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, nach Originalquellen(translated by Noriko Takano, Ongakunotomo-sha, 1992)
2. Bauer, Wilhelm und Deutsch, Otto Erich
MOZART, Briefe und Aufzeichnungen Gesamtausgabe, Weiterer Nachtrag ( edited and translated by Bin Ebizawa and Hideo Takahashi, Hakusui-sha, 2001)
3. Deutsch, Otto Erich und Eibl, Joseph Heinz
Mozart. Documente seines Lebens. (translated by Koji Imoto, Symphonia, 1989)
4. Volkmar Braunbehrens
Mozart in Vienna 1781 - 1791 (translated by Timothy Bell, Grove Weidenfeld,1990)
5. Solomon, Maynard
Mozart : A life ( translated by Hiroshi Ishii, Shinshokan, 1992)
6. Davies, Peter J
Mozart in person: His Character and Health ( translated by Hiroshi Kawabata, JCC, 1992)
7. Landon, H.C. Robbins
1791 Mozart's last year( translated by Bin Ebizawa, Chuoukouron Shinsha, 2001)
8. Nettl, Paul
Musik und Freimaurerei, Mozart und die königliche Kunst (translated by Bin Ebizawa and Yukiyo Kurihara, Ongakunotomo-sha,1981)
9. Fichte, Immanuel Hermann
Mozart Reliquien in Salzburg (translated by Nobuyo Tsuchida, Ongakunotomo-sha,1991)
10. Kretschmer, Helmut
Mozarts spuren in Wien (translated by Takao Shiraishi, Ongakunotomo-sha,1991)
11. Bin, Ebizawa
Mozart's profile ( Ongakunotomo-sha, 1988)

Author : Shuji Fujisawa
e-mail : ssfuji@mbj.nifty.com
First published : July 27, 2004
Updated : August 3, 2008

All rights reserved