"To how many shameful deeds must you lend your 
image": Schubert's Pattern of Telescoping and 
Excision in the Texts of His Latin Masses 

By John Gingerich 

I. 

In allen Messen jedoch fehlt-und dies ist die bedeutsamste und wohl auch 
in ihrer Konsequenz kaum als Versehen erkliirbare Auslassung-der die 
Kirche betreffende Glaubensartikel 'et unam sanctam catholicam Ecclesiam. ' 
Die Aenderungen des liturgischen Textes diirfen indessen weder dogma tisch 
noch text-kritisch iiberwertet werden. 

However all the masses are missing-and this is the most important, 
and because of its consistency an omission scarcely susceptible to 
explanation as an oversight-the article of faith concerning the 
church, "et unam sanctam catholicam Ecclesiam." Nevertheless, 
the changes in the liturgical text should not be given undue dog­
matic or text-critical importance. 

Doris Finke-Hecklinger, foreword to Messe in As in Neue Schubert 
Ausgabe (1980, 1/3:XIII)* 

A constant of Schubert reception has been the image of an unintellec­
tual composer. From the early stories of songs gushing from his pen at 
near-performance tempo, to the Biedermeier Liederfiirst, and the shy but 
good-natured tippler of Dreimiiderlhaus, an image of subconscious creativ­
ity became wedded to a popular persona of childlike innocence: tubby, 
chubby, bespectacled Schwammerl, slightly befuddled in a lovably helpless 
way, shielded from the harsh cares and calculations of this world by an 
absent-minded preoccupation with beautiful melody and convivial drink. 

This image of Schubert, long uncontroversial, now seems at best risibly 
quaint. Nevertheless, its grip remains deceptively tenacious. The more re­
cent emphasis on Schubert's darker side-his unruly sexuality, his alien­
ation, his venereal disease, his preoccupation with death-has reinforced 
the ambient image of Schubert as a creature of instinctual drives, and con­
comitantly, of somnambulant, clairvoyant creativity. The deep current of 
Schubert's reception as an instinctive genius sustains the new eddies 
swirling around Schubert the self-indulgent hedonist. Beneath the turbu­
lent surface, Schubert, no longer childlike, remains innocent of sustained 
and serious thought. 

Current Musicology, no. 70 (Fall 2000) 
© 2001 by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York 61 



62 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Nowhere has intellectual condescension to Schubert been more acutely 
and persistently evident than in discussions of excisions from the Latin 
texts he used for his six settings of the Ordinary of the mass. A long line of 
musicologists from Otto Wissig in 1909 to Hans Jaskulsky in 1986 has com­
mented on Schubert's mass texts. Of these, Jaskulsky's is by far the most 
thorough and thoughtful treatment, but Jaskulsky shares with his prede­
cessors a reluctance to draw the relevant conclusions from his evidence. 
Speculations and explanations as to why Schubert set these truncated texts 
have included ignorance of Latin, ignorance of the orthodox version of 
the texts, carelessness, forgetfulness, the existence of a yet-to-be-discovered 
master text that Schubert unwittingly copied, and the existence of local 
oral traditions whose only known trace is Schubert's masses, and whose 
use by Schubert presumably had no bearing on his own beliefs. All of 
these explanations explicitly or implicitly deny Schubert agency, inten­
tion, knowledge, and responsibility, and obviate the asking of further 
questions about why Schubert set the texts he did, and what he may have 
meant by doing so. 

In the Breitkopf and Hartel critical edition of Schubert's complete 
works, published in 1897, now reprinted by Dover, the mass texts appear 
as Schubert set them. The evidence contained in this central source, then, 
is not new; it has merely become harder to ignore. Since Jaskulsky's work, 
all but the most diehard defenders of Schubert's innocent virtue have 
abandoned the arguments that deny him any share in knowingly prepar­
ing his own mass texts. But most of the old explanations live on within 
new hybrid explanations designed to minimize Schubert's share in, or his 
knowledge of, the texts he was using. A popular contemporary explana­
tion concedes that Schubert likely was aware of what he was doing when 
he cut the affirmation of belief in the "catholic Church" from the Credo, 
perhaps even when he cut the words affirming an expectation of resurrec­
tion, but this explanation maintains that carelessness probably accounts 
for the rest of the omissions (Hoorickx 1979:253-54; McKay 1996:237). It 
is frequently followed by an exhortation not to take Schubert's deviations 
from orthodoxy too seriously, as in the quotation at the beginning of this 
article, or in the statement by Kurt von Fischer (1985: 127): "These omis­
sions, in part intentional (leaving out 'Et unam Sanctam Ecclesiam' in all 
the masses, for example), but in part more likely accidental, should not be 
given undue importance."] Still another argument does grant Schubert 
agency, but also asks us not to take Schubert's text too seriously, since he 
sacrificed it to the music. Finally, there is the argument that since in 
Schubert's Vienna almost everyone played fast and loose with mass texts, 
Schubert's particular peccadilloes are merely the reflection of his carefree 
and careless time and place. 



JOHN GINGERICH 63 

A state-of-the-art hybrid of arguments old and new is Manuela Jahr­
marker's summary of the current consensus, written for the Schubert 
Handbuchin 1997: 

The earlier assumption that Schubert simply handled the text care­
lessly or hastily, or that he did not have the complete text at hand, 
has now largely given way to the view that the consistent omission of 
the passage "et in unam sanctam catholicam ecclesiam" reflected 
Schubert's private position, as did his avoidance of setting the affir­
mation of the resurrection, "et expecto resurrectionem_" Also held 
responsible for some text omissions are an insufficient knowledge of 
Latin, and considerations of musical form: when in the Gloria of the 
Mass in G the relative clause "qui sedes ad dexteram Patris," in the 
Mass in B-flat the plea "suscipe deprecationem nostram," and in the 
next Mass in C both phrases are missing, then in each case the for­
mal balance of the respective paragraphs is the cause (Jaskulsky, 124 
ff) _ But beyond all this, attention has been directed most emphati­
cally to the historical fact that very few masses of the time set the text 
without any deviation, and only as a result of the Caecilian reform 
movement did a full text become compulsory (1894 [the year in 
which Pope Leo XIII issued the first edict against text omissions in 
musical settings of the mass]; Hoorickx, 251 ff., Kantner, Schubert­
Studien, 137). (Jahrmarker 1997:353-54)2 

Jahrmarker's diplomatic summary leaves much unsaid. Why is consistency 
the measure of Schubert's "private" positions? Which omissions are due to 
faulty Latin? (Only one omission has ever been associated with faulty 
Latin, and that is "et expecto resurrectionem," which Jahrmarker identi­
fies as Schubert's "private" position.) If the formal balance of musical 
paragraphs "caused" text omissions, then ostensibly in each case the pre­
ceding or following phrase of text (with its musical setting and its "formal 
balance") received priority; did Schubert's "private" positions shape these 
choices? And if some of the omissions are due to Schubert's "private" posi­
tions, what are we to make of the "historical fact" that he was not alone in 
his excisions? Did other Viennese composers also hold private positions? 
How does the "historical fact" that a complete mass text was not yet com­
pulsory affect whether or not Schubert cut text out of conviction, and why 
is our attention directed "emphatically" to precisely this ambiguous point? 
Close scrutiny of the internal logic of Jahrmarker's paragraph reveals 
stresses not easily reconciled. 

The question of whether Schubert intentionally prepared his own mass 
texts needs to be considered first, separately from the question of why he 



64 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

did so. The question of agency is logically prior, in any case; it is also sim­
pler, and more likely to yield a clear and definitive answer. By considering 
agency separately we can also avoid the kind of logical short circuits re­
peatedly encountered in the literature, such as the frequent finding that 
since Schubert was pious he could not have been the author of his un­
orthodox text excisions (for example, Badura-Skoda 1990a, 1990b, pas­
sim), or the argument made by Leopold Kantner (1978:137), who finds 
that the excision of "et exspecto resurrectionem" means that Schubert did 
not believe in life after death, which he finds inconsistent with the reten­
tion of "remissionem peccatorum mortuorum," which Kantner thinks 
requires belief in life after death. He therefore concludes that since 
Schubert either intended all the cuts or none, an "ideological interpreta­
tion" of the text omissions is inappropriate. Almost every step of his rea­
soning seems questionable: "life after death" and resurrection need not 
mean the same thing, and "forgiveness of the sins of the dead" does not 
necessarily have anything to do with life after death. The larger point re­
mains, that to begin by deciding what the omissions mean (generally with­
out due consideration of the meaning of the remaining text Schubert ac­
tually did use, and without taking the setting into account), and then, 
based on those findings, to draw conclusions about whether Schubert 
intended the cuts is a time-tested method of producing all reflection and 
no light. 

II. 
The central evidence concerns the omissions from Schubert's Mass 

texts of words or phrases present in the standard version of the Missale 
Romanum. Examples 1 and 2 demonstrate the pattern of those omissions 
in the Gloria and the Credo. 

The pattern is one of steadily increasing omission, with the Masses in B~ 
and C presenting some anomalies. The one passage omitted in all of 
Schubert's masses is "Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ec­
clesiam" (H); the next most consistently omitted passage, absent in all ex­
cept the first mass, is "Et exspecto resurrectionem" (I). The only passage 
restored to the text of the last two masses after having been omitted in ear­
lier masses is "ex Maria Virgine" (G). This passage, first omitted from the 
Mass in C, and later from the finished 1822 version of the Mass in A~, was 
restored when Schubert revised the A~ Mass once again four years later. In 
the last year of his life, for the Mass in Eb, he set exactly the same text he 
had finally used for the 1826/27 version of the Ab Mass. The last two 
masses are the only two masses to use precisely the same text-a text that 
omits all of the passages excised from any of the previous masses, except 
for (G). 



Example 1: Passages in context. 

Bracketed text is omitted in at least one of the masses. 
Italicized text is telescoped in at least one of the masses. 

Gloria 
Gloria in excelsis Deo. 
Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. 
Laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus tel 
Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam. 
Domine Deus, Rex caelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens. 
Domine Fili unigenite,Jesu Christe. 
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris. 

Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. 
Qui tollis peccata mundi, [suscipe deprecationem nostram.] (A) 
[ Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,] (B) miserere nobis. 

JOHN GINGERICH 65 

Quoniam tu solus sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus altissimus,3 [Jesu Christe.] (C) 
Cum Sancto Spiritu, in gloria Dei Patris. 
Amen. 

Credo 
Credo in unum Deum, [Patrem omnipotentem,] (D) 
factorem caeli4 et terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. 
Et in unum DominumJesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. 
Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. 
Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. 
[Genitum, nonfactum,l (E) [consubstantialemPatri:] (F) 
per quem omnia facta sunt. 
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. 

Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto [ex Maria Virgine:] (G) 
Et homo factus est. 
Crucifixus etiam pro nobis: sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. 

Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. 
Et ascendit in caelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. 
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: 
cujus regni non erit finis. 
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: 
qui ex Patre Filioque5 procedit. 
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoraturet conglorificatur: 
qui locutus est per Prophetas. 
[Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.] (H) 
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. 
[Et exspecto resurrection em] (I) mortuorum. 
Et vitam venturi saeculi. 
Amen. 



66 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Example 2a: Chart of passages omitted. 

Mass in F (Summer 1814) 
Mass in G (Mar. 1815) B C 
Mass in B~ (Nov. 1815) A 
Mass in C (July 1816) A B C 
Mass in A~ (1819-22) A B C D 

revised (1826/27) A B C D 
Mass in E~ (June 1828) A B C D 

Example 2b: Passages Omitted.6 

from the Gloria 
A. suscipe deprecation em nos tram. 
B. Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris 
C. Jesu Christe 

from the Credo 
D. Patrem omnipotentem 
E. Genitum, non factum 
F. consubstantialem Patri 
G. ex Maria Virgine 
H. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam 
I. Et exspecto resurrectionem 

H 
H 

F H 
E G H 
E F G H 
E F H 
E F H 

This evidence alone-of the mass texts themselves, and of the pattern 
of omission when they are compared in chronological order-creates a 
strong presumption in favor of one explanation: that Schubert himself 
intentionally made every one of the excisions. The initial excision of (H) 
by the independent-minded seventeen-year-old; additional cuts and some 
back and forth on other passages as the teenager matured, left home, and 
cast his lot with a new circle of intellectuals; and the mature text settled on 
at twenty-nine and kept at thirty-one-the pattern of excisions matches 
what we might expect from a young thinker wrestling with difficult articles 
of faith, and over the years making the mass text his own. 

Consideration of another, related, factor helps to strengthen the pre­
sumption of Schubert's intention. Since the Gloria and particularly the 
Credo are by far the wordiest movements of the mass, one might reason­
ably expect from a composer indifferent to some or all of the text, along 
with omissions, some shortening by presenting successive phrases of the 
text simultaneously. Schubert's use of text telescoping-folding successive 
phrases together, analogous to the overlapping cylindrical sections of a 
telescope-is in fact quite rare, but where it does appear it reinforces the 
pattern of text omissions. And telescoping of text cannot be ascribed to ig­
norance, carelessness, or lack of intention. 



JOHN GINGERICH 67 

Two categories of telescoping should be distinguished from the outset: 
(1) the text appears only once, in the presence of differing text, and is 
thus never presented alone; and (2) the text appears in conjunction with 
another text, but is repeated, and usually appears alone at some point. In 
the first category, the telescoping obscures the text, and we could reason­
ably infer that Schubert considered it unimportant to his expressive aims, 
or possibly even found it problematic. We could expect instances of the 
first category to correlate with text passages retained in the early masses, 
but later omitted. In the second category, the telescoping highlights the 
text by insisting on its relationship to a second text; both texts are re­
peated, together and alone, to be sure they can be understood. We might 
expect instances of the second category to correlate with passages either 
directly preceding or following omissions, where the omitted text was sac­
rificed in order to highlight neighboring passages; we would also expect 
telescopings of the second category to correlate with extensive text repeti­
tion. Schubert's setting of the passage beginning with "Domine Deus, 
Agnus Dei" and leading to the "Quoniam" from the Gloria of the Mass in 
G illustrates both categories of telescoping (see ex. 3). Telescoping occurs 
throughout, with solo outer voices presenting "Domine Deus, Agnus Dei" 
and "Filius Patris, qui tollis peccata mundi" against choral inner voices 
singing first "miserere nobis," and then "suscipe deprecationem nostram." 
"Miserere nobis" is prominent in three choral tuttis in which it has no 
competition from any other text; in addition "miserere nobis" is om­
nipresent, a plea that colors all the appellations against which it is juxta­
posed. These-"Domine Deus, Agnus Dei" and "Filius Patris, qui tollis 
peccata mundi"-gain prominence because they are sung as solos, 
through repetition, and in the case of "Domine Deus," because its begin­
ning coincides each time with rests in the other vocal parts; there is no 
doubt that the appellations and "miserere nobis" are both meant to be 
heard as modifying the other, and no doubt of their classification as tele­
scopings of the second type. "Suscipe deprecationem," on the other hand, 
appears just once, piano, in the chorus, in the middle of the texture, com­
pletely covered by not one but two other texts, and is an instance of tele­
scoping of the first type. 

The chart below (ex. 4) shows all the occurrences of text telescoping of 
the first category in the six masses, underlined and in bold, combined 
with the omissions, not underlined. 

Only the passage labeled C~) does not form part of a pattern between 
masses. In three instances (A, E, F) the telescoped text in an earlier mass 
is a predictor of omitted passages in later masses, and in the case of (F) a 
telescoped text fills a chronological gap between two omissions. The tele­
scoping of the passage labeled (h) in the Mass in B~ is an instance of local 



68 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Example 3: Mass in G, Gloria (from "Domine Deus"): Telescoping . 

) 
ViolinoI 

ViolinoII 

Viola 

Soprano 

Alto 

Tenore 

Basso 

e Organa 
Violone 

) 

fl ~ 

OJ 

1\ 

OJ -d 

" 
II;) 

tens, 

" ~. 

-'1fi 

tens, 

: 

: 

1\ I 

OJ 

J1 ~ 

oj I

J " ~. 

. 
II;) 

ste! 
~. 

II", 

ste! 

: 

: 

. Il.~"~~~;'~;' ~ 

rr11 

... ~ : ~ .~ ~ 

. . . •.. 
Do - mi-ne Fi -

~ .. 

Do - mi-ne Fi -

~~~ ~ 

-
t:'I 

t:'I 

P 
t:'I 

P -
t:'I Solo 

Do - mi ne 
t:'I 

t:'I 

t:'I 

t:'I 

p '----

~ 11. 

1 

'1 .. -.~ 
~~~. 

.. . . .. .- . ... 

Ii u ni ge - ni-1e Je - su Chri 
~. 

Ii u ni ge - ni-te Je - su Chri 

.. 
... 

~ ~ 

P 
~ .r-r-,-.., 

-~ ~ 

T 

~ 

De us, a 
Tutti 

P. 
no - bis, ml se - re re 

Tutti 

p 
mi se - re re no - bis, 

Solo 

Fi Ii us Pa - tris, 
...-

n .---

I 

I

J 

gnus 

qui 



JOHN GINGERICH 69 

Example 3 (cont.) 

fl ~I"- r: ~ ~ ~ ~? l"-

) ~ ""'-
~ :::::::==--

oj -~ ~ ~ :::::::==- ' . . 

~tti ~ :::::::==-1 SOI.'f" 
I ~ I 

II;) " Do mi ne 
De i, mi se - re - re no bis. 

~ 

mi se - re re, mi se - re - re no bis, 

"'" 

mi se - re re, mi se - re - re no bis. 

Thtti J J I I 
: 

mi se re - re no bis. 
tol lis pec-ca ta mun di, 

: 
I ~ ~ 

fl ~, ~~ f"- r: ~ ~, ~~ f"- r: 

) 
oj -fl ~ 

oj ~ 

------
'--!'.. ----

~ ~ ~ 

III;) " 
De De i, us, a gnus 

..-
mi se - re re no bis, mi se re re, 

I"", 

r 
mi se - re re no bis, mi se - re re, 

Solo 
" ~. . . ~. 

: 

Fi Ii us Pa tris, qui tol lis pee - ca ta -- - -- ---- -- -: 



70 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Example 3 (cont.) 

" " e: e e qe~ . 
------

.# 

) 
-.:r -==== ====- -

" u 
- ...., -

oJ -==== ====- . . . " ': .~ .... ~ 
-==== ====- - Pi 

Iii Ul Thtti 
~ 

Soloj 

III;) I 
mi se - re - re no bis, 

~ 

.,,~ mi se - re - re n~- bis, sus ci pe 

J 
se - re - re 10 bis, sus ci pe 

J Solo J I I ~ 
: 

Thlli1 Y1 1 I~I 1 
mun di, Do mi ne De us, 
mi se - re - re no_ bis, 

: 

-==== ===-- ~ ---- . 
,tL ~,tL e: e: e~ P- ~ 

) l 
u -- ......... - -=:::::: ===- -=:::::: -

l ... " ~ ..... -- ••• -=:::::: ===- " < 
~ -=:::::: _c=l -=:::::: 

Pa tris, mi se-re re no bis, no 

d I • I, ~ I I d J J~I I 

III;) Thtti 
mi bis. se-re - re n~ 

de pre-ca Ii 0 nem no - stram, mi-se re reo 
,,~ ~ 

de pre-ca Ii 0 nem no - stram, mi - se re reo 
~~ ~ Thlli 

: 

a gnus De i, mi - se re - re no bis. -: 

~ 

-----
• ~ I l 



JOHN GINGERICH 71 

Example 4a: Chart of passages omitted with first category telescoping shown underlined. 

Mass in F (Summer 1814) A 
Mass in G (Mar. 1815) A B C .f; E 
Mass in B~ (Nov. 1815) A ~ F 
Mass in C (July 1816) A B C E E G 
Mass in A~ (1819-22) A B C D E F G 

revised (1826/27) A B C D E F 
Mass in E~ (June 1828) A B C D E F 

Example 4b: Texts telescoped (italicized). 
A Mass in F, "suscipe deprecationem nostram" simultaneous with "miserere" 

Mass in G, "suscipe deprecationem nostram" simultaneous with 
"Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, miserere nobis" and 
"Filius Patris, miserere nobis" 

.f; Mass in G, "Genitum, non factum" simultaneous with "consubstantialemPatri" 
E Mass in G, "Genitum, non factum" simultaneous with" consubstantialem Patri" 

Mass in C, "consubstantialem Patd' simultaneous with "per quem omnia sunt" 
~ "natum" simultaneous with" ante omnia saecula" 
h "simul adoratur" simultaneous with" conglorificatur" 

H 
H 

h H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

text illustration: Schubert set "simul adoratur et conglorificatur" as liter­
ally simultaneous texts; the Mass in H also has a simultaneous setting of 
these words, but presents them sequentially as well. In the Masses in G, C, 
and A~, in which "adoratur" and "conglorificatur" are not presented simul­
ta,neously, they are presented in parallel clauses: "qui cum patre et filio 
simul adoratur, qui cum patre et filio conglorificatur," achieving through 
the repetition of "qui cum patre et filio" a less literal form of the same 
word painting. 

A similar consistency in the relationship between text, music, and omis­
sions is revealed by the telescoped passages of the second category 
(marked in example 5 with @ to show proximity to the relevant omitted 
passage). 

In all six masses Schubert set as a discrete section within the Gloria the 
portion of text that begins with "Domine Deus, Agnus Dei" and runs until 
a new section starts with "Quoniam" (ex. 3 shows this section of the Mass 
in G); in five of the six masses this section is set with music of minor tonal­
ity, contrasting with the major of the rest of the Gloria. It is within this sec­
tion that the omissions (A) and (B) occur. What all the masses also 
share-the later ones that cut both (A) and (B), the earlier ones that cut 
only one of those passages, and the first mass which cuts neither passage­
is a treatment in which the same text is privileged. That text is "miserere 
nobis," which, as the chart shows, is telescoped with other text in several of 
the masses. Most frequently solo or unison statements of "Domine Deus,:' 
"Agnus Dei," "Filius Patris," either separately or as a unit, are answered 



72 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Example 5: Chart of passages omitted with both categories of telescoping shown. 

Mass in F (Summer 1814) A @A H 
Mass in G (Mar. 1815) A @A B @.!! C E E H 
Mass in B~ (Nov. 1815) A ~ F h H 
Mass in C (July 1816) A @A B @.!! C E E @E G H 
Mass in A~ (1819-22) A B C D E F G H 

revised (1826/27) A B C D E F H 
Mass in E~ (June 1828) A B C D E F H 

responsorially by repeated tutti statements of "miserere nobis," or by the 
full sentence "Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis" in full choral har­
mony. This is the case in the Masses in F, m, A~, and E~, the first two of 
which employ additional telescoped presentations of "miserere." The Mass 
in G differs only in that, instead of beginning the section in minor, 
Schubert begins in major and twice modulates to minor (from A major to 
B minor and then from G major to B minor). The Mass in G uses the most 
complex vocal texture Schubert ever attempted for this passage, by com­
bining, as can be seen in example 3, a responsorial treatment (solo appel­
lations and tutti responses of "misere nobis") with ongoing telescoping of 
three different texts. In the Mass in C, he eliminated the responsorial 
treatment, and relied for the contrasting forces with which he consistently 
associated these texts on a solo soprano telescoped against a choral "mis­
erere nobis" throughout the section. 

The basic interpretation of the text, the contrast between the exclama­
tions of direct address to God and the plea "miserere nobis" expressed 
through interaction between spare and full textures, or soli and tutti, re­
mained constant from the first mass in 1814 to the last in 1828. What 
changed were the technical realizations of this idea, both locally and for­
mally, and Schubert's gradual willingness not just to telescope XA) and (B) 
with "miserere nobis" but to sacrifice them completely to the larger idea. 
Far from choosing a formal scheme as a procrustean bed for his text, 
Schubert's formal designs and "formal balance" (see Jahrmarker's com­
ments, above) were chosen as the means to successfully realize his overrid­
ing conception of the text, a conception evident in all six of the masses. 

If the pattern of omissions creates a strong presumption that Schubert 
himself intentionally made the excisions from his mass texts, when com­
bined with the pattern of telescoping, that conclusion is inescapable. The 
telescoping cannot have occurred as a result of absentmindedness, care­
lessness, or oversight, and the fact that the pattern created by telescoping 
of the first type dovetails with the pattern of omissions extends the pal­
pable trace of Schubert's hand to the omissions. 



JOHN GINGERICH 73 

Resistance to ascribing Schubert's own intent to the omissions from his 
mass texts has understandably made much of the seemingly whimsical and 
inconsistent nature of some of the cuts. What could have possibly of­
fended him in those ten words he cut from the Gloria? Why should he 
have objected to "Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris" in the Gloria, and re­
tained "sedet ad dexteram Patris" in the Credo? Why would he cut 
"Patrem omnipotens" in the Credo, and keep "Deus Pater omnipotens" in 
the Gloria? All of these questions assume that the answer lies in the miss­
ing words, and part of it, especially in the Credo, surely does. But just as 
surely the answer also lies in the words-and the music-that remain. 
Asking not only "Which affirmations of faith was Schubert avoiding?" but 
also "What was Schubert trying to say?" allows us to pursue the meaning of 
the text and the music that remain. The clustering of telescoping of the 
second type in areas where Schubert also cut text is a clue, in addition to 
the seeming inconsistencies noted above, that some of his excisions, par­
ticularly (A) and (B) in the Gloria, resulted from privileging portions of 
the remaining text. Further, the telescoping of the second type helps to 
reveal to which text Schubert did assign great importance: in this case, 
"miserere nobis." 

Nevertheless, Schubert's mass texts, even when examined with their 
musical settings, do not provide a blueprint to his religious convictions. 
His masses do not directly represent his beliefs as he would have ex­
pressed them, but rather an intersection of his beliefs with the affirma­
tions that he believed the words of the mass expressed. In setting the mass 
so that it did not violate his conscience, he would have had to struggle for 
clarity in his own convictions, and avoid affirmations that violated those 
convictions; in setting the mass so that it expressed his beliefs he would 
have had to make the most of the affirmations that were most important 
to him; and, most difficult, he had to decide what to do about those affir­
mations to which he was relatively indifferent. This complex process re­
quired time; not until 1826/27 did Schubert settle on his final mass text. 
The pattern of telescoping and omissions, combined with the music, illu­
minates important stations along the path Schubert traveled toward his 
final two masses. 

For a surprising length of time the complete list of omissions remained 
obscure in spite of the ready availability of the 1897 edition; the related 
pattern of telescoped texts is noted here for the first time. Writers on 
Schubert remarked on isolated instances of text omission, most frequently 
the absence of (H) (Wissig 1909:34-35; Stefan-Gruenfeldt 1928:107; both 
cited by Jaskulsky 1986:60-61), while the absence of (A), (C), (G), and (I) 
in at least one mass also did not escape occasional notice (Werle 1941:58; 



74 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Vetter 1953, 1:205-6, both cited by Jaskulsky 1986:61; Einstein 1951:62). 
From this fragmentary picture grew traditions of explanation that might 
never have taken root had the complete pattern been appreciated. The 
first attempt at a comprehensive accounting of Schubert's mass text omis­
sions was Ronald Stringham's dissertation (1964:92-93), still the best 
English language study of Schubert's masses, followed by the more 
accurate listings of Reinhard van Hoorickx (1979:249-58) and Hans 
Jaskulsky, who gives the complete Gloria and Credo texts of all six masses 
(1986:61-66). 

But clarity has not ensued. Stringham accounted for the pattern by re­
placing ignorance and carelessness with forgetfulness as his explanation 
(see below). Hoorickx listed each omission accurately, even noted the un­
usual amount of telescoping in the Mass in G, but since he instantly ex­
plained each separate omission with a short dismissive characterization, it 
is hardly surprising that he failed to appreciate that the many separate 
omissions might add up to a larger pattern. Hoorickx's characterizations 
of each successive excision form a virtual catalogue of complacent conde­
scension: an "evident slip of the pen" (offenbar ein Schreibfehler [1979:249]); 
a "small error" (kleiner Irrtum [249]); an omission that "can hardly have 
been made purposely" (kann kaum absichtlich gemacht worden sein! [250]); 
words Schubert "probably overlooked" (Wahrscheinlich aber ist, daj3 Schubert 
hier diese Worte ubersehen hat [250]); "evident increasing carelessness and 
negligence in the late masses" (Anscheinend behandelt Schubert in seinen 
spateren Messen seine Texte mit fortschreitender Sorglosigkeit und Nachlassigkeit! 
[251]). Hoorickx's conclusions, based on an accumulation of breezy snap 
judgments, found that just possibly Schubert might have intended to omit 
the "catholic church" clause (H) as well as the "virgin Mary" clause (G), 
but that other omissions are due to "a certain carelessness or a temporary 
absentmindedness" (einer bestimmten Sorglosigkeit oder vorubergehender 
Zerstreutheit [253-54]). 

Others, too, have continued to write about Schubert's mass texts as if 
there were omissions but no pattern of omissions (Badura-Skoda 1990a; 
Benedikt 1997; Newbould 1997:128). Likewise, the consensus opinion­
the position taken by those who refer to Schubert's mass texts only in pass­
ing, without wishing to give offense or engage in argument-has shifted, 
not in response to the logic of the evidence that, thanks especially to 
Jaskulsky, is now difficult to ignore, but in response to a shift in the diplo­
matic middle ground: Schubert is now granted agency and intention for 
(H), and more rarely (I), based on the consistency of these two omissions. 
However, these two omissions and their consistency were widely acknowl­
edged well before Stringham's dissertation-and (H) is the one omission 
noted since 1909 by everyone who has written more than a paragraph or 
two on Schubert's masses. 



JOHN GINGERICH 75 

III. 
The chart of text omissions makes use of a bare-bones chronology. A 

brief survey of the circumstances surrounding the composition of the six 
masses will put some flesh on those bones, and give the abstract progres­
sion revealed by the chart some body and depth. This survey should also 
help us gain some insight into the importance of these masses to Schu­
bert, both personally and professionally, and how much or how little time 
and care he took over them. 

The first performance of Schubert's first mass, the Mass in F (D. 105), 
could be seen as a rite of passage, a public display of accomplishment 
marking his transition from apprenticeship to professional independence. 
The occasion was a grand one, Tuesday, September 25, 1814 (Benedikt 
1997), a service to mark the centenary celebration of his local parish 
church in Lichtental, and the church did not stint, employing a number 
of professional musicians to augment its usual forces. Never before had a 
piece by Schubert been heard in public. The composer himself con­
ducted; his brother Ferdinand played the organ; Michael Holzer, his first 
teacher, was the choirmaster; Josef Mayseder, one of Vienna's leading vio­
linists, was the concertmaster; Therese Grob, Schubert's favorite singer 
and long identified as his "first youthful passion" (Deutsch 1958:59), sang 
the soprano solo; and his teacher Salieri was in attendance, honoring the 
occasion with a "piccolo Terzetto" (Benedikt 1997:65) of his own composi­
tion. (For this mass, as for his later masses, Schubert ignored the imperial 
decree of December 19, 1806 that forbad women singers in church, ex­
cepting relatives of the choir director [Wagner 1996:34].) Schubert thus 
began his public career as a composer in the bosom of his home parish, 
surrounded by family, friends, and teachers, the cynosure of all eyes in his 
role as conductor, as yet unknown to the wider world, but chosen by his 
home community to represent them when they wanted to show what they 
could do to mark their hundredth anniversary. 

Schubert soon moved from the place of honor in his home parish to a 
stage before a much wider and more worldly public. According to Ferdi­
nand, Franz again conducted his first mass ten days later, October 4, 1814, 
this time at the prestigious St. Augustine's Court Church "before an audi­
ence that no doubt would have included foreign dignitaries attending 
the Congress of Vienna" (Gibbs 2000:40). Salieri, maestro di capella of the 
Imperial chapel, no doubt secured this performance for his pupil on the 
important occasion of the name-day of emperor Franz (Benedikt 
1997:64). (The name-day was celebrated in preference to the birthday; 
this was also the name-day of Schubert and of his father.) The success of 
these first two public performances of Schubert's music, and the pride felt 
at his son's triumph, may have even won over Schubert's father for a time: 



76 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

he shortly thereafter presented to Franz a new fortepiano, the family's 
first, a five-octave Graf (Gibbs 2000:38, 40; Deutsch 1964:34; 1958:36). 

The next three masses, dating from March 1815 through the summer 
of 1816, were also very likely written for the Lichtental parish church, 
since all of them are designed to accommodate the Lichtental performing 
forces and their particular skills, and since the Mass in C (D. 452) is specif­
ically dedicated to Michael Holzer on the title page of the manuscript of 
1816 (Jaskulsky 1986:116,140-41,176; Durr 1983:63; Scattolin 1982:XIII). 
Particularly noteworthy is that Schubert had the Mass in C published as 
op. 48 by Diabelli, again dedicated to Holzer, and performed in St. 
Ulrich's Church (also known as Maria Trost), both in September 1825; no 
other mass by Schubert was published during his lifetime. 

In addition to the masses for the Lichtental church, Schubert wrote 
small, easy sacred pieces for the use of his brother Ferdinand at the 
Vienna orphanage, where he was a teacher, and at the Alt-Lerchenfelder 
church, where he took up the post of choirmaster in early 1820. The 
pieces for the orphanage included the German Requiem (D. 621), which 
Schubert wrote so Ferdinand could present it as his own work (Deutsch 
1964:63-64) for an exam in music theory in December of 1819, and which 
Ferdinand published under his own name in 1826. To help Ferdinand 
make a good start in his new post at the Alt-Lerchenfelder church, 
Schubert wrote the Six Antiphons for Palm Sunday (D. 696), and possibly 
also the German Mass (D. 872; see below). Schubert also composed short 
liturgical compositions for St. Ulrich's, such as the Tantum ergo (D. 739), 
which was performed at the same concert in 1825 as the Mass in C, along 
with the Graduale (D. 136) and the Offertorium (D. 223). 

Unlike all of these, Schubert's last two masses were not occasional 
works. He began working on the Mass in A~ (D. 678) in November 1819, 
and by November 1820 he had drafted the entire mass in its first version 
and completed scoring of all but the Dona nobis pacem (Denny 1991 :75). 
That December he broke off work on the mass, and did not return to it 
until the fall of 1822, when he finished it in short order. (Beethoven 
worked on his Missa solemnis during the same three years, 1819-22.) At the 
time in late 1820 when Schubert broke off work on the mass he also aban­
doned a number of other large-scale works: three operas, including 
Sakontala, perhaps Lazarus, the Quartettsatz, and the D-Major Symphony 
(D.708A) (Denny 1991:75). The mass was the only one of these projects 
Schubert later returned to. 

The Mass in A~ was the first since the Mass in F explicitly designated as 
a missa solemnis (Fischer 1985: 121), and to the large forces he had used for 
his first mass he now added a flute, the only flute used in his masses. In its 



JOHN GINGERICH 77 

scoring, its length, and above all its difficulty, Schubert's Mass in A~ took 
little account of performance limitations, rendering it unsuitable for 
Lichtental or any other church employing largely amateurs. Yet, as 
Schubert wrote to his friend Josef von Spaun in December of 1822, he was 
planning to have the mass performed, and, since he esteemed it a success, 
he was thinking of dedicating it to the emperor or the empress (Deutsch 
1964: 173); he also spent a considerable sum having the parts and the 
score copied in preparation for a performance (Dun 1983:64). No record 
survives of where and when the mass was given; we have only Ferdinand's 
recollection that during Schubert's lifetime the mass had been done "no 
more than once or twice, and then most unsatisfactorily" (Schubert's first 
biographer, Heinrich Kreissle von Hellborn 1861:117, as quoted by Durr 
1983:64, n. 13). 

In 1826/27 Schubert revised the Mass in A~ (Winter 1982:242). The 
most extensive revision was a new fugue for the "Cum sancto spirito" sec­
tion at the end of the Gloria, but he rewrote numerous other passages to 
make them more singable, and, most important for our purposes, he 
added the text "ex Maria Virgine" under the music of the "Et incarnatus 
est" section of the Credo (Fischer 1985). Schubert's revisions are usually 
thought to have had some connection with his unsuccessful application 
for the post ofVizehofkapellmeister in 1826, an application turned down, 
according to Josef Hauer's recollections of a conversation with Schubert 
(Deutsch 1958:177-78), by the court Kapellmeister Josef Eybler with the 
remark that the mass was good, but not in the style the emperor liked. 
Schubert subsequently tried to persuade Eybler at least to perform the 
mass, again without success. 

In February 1828, as part of an effort to get published abroad, Schubert 
sent a letter to the music publisher Schott of Mainz that included a list 
of works for sale. To this list of works he added a postscript: "This is the 
catalog of my finished compositions except for three operas, a mass, and a 
symphony. These last I mention only to acquaint you with my striving after 
the highest in art" (Deutsch 1964:495). Schubert's "highest in art" com­
prised the operas Alfonso und Estrella (D. 732), Die Verschworenen (D. 787), 
and Fierabras (D. 796), the great C-Major Symphony (D. 944), and the 
Mass in A~. The other works in these genres-numerous operas and 
Singspiele, six completed symphonies, and four masses-were not worth 
mentioning. 

The rejection of Schubert's application for the Vizehofkapellmeister 
post was official by January 24, 1827 (Deutsch 1964:402, 404). It marked 
the last in a series of frustrations and disappointments with the reception 
of his Mass in A~, and yet by Mayor June of the next year he was already 
starting work on another mass, in E~, which he finished in September 



78 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

(Durr 1996:VII). The Mass in E~ (D. 950) is, like the Masses in F and A~, a 
missa solemnis in its scoring and length: it omits the flute and organ of the 
Mass in A~, but otherwise employs identical forces, and in performance it 
surpasses the length of the Mass in Ak 

Schubert had planned to travel to Gmunden and the surrounding 
mountains during what was to be the last summer of his life. But, as a let­
ter of July 4, 1828 from his friend Johann BaptistJenger to Marie Pachler 
in Graz explained, "financial embarrassments" prevented such travel. 
"Thus he is still here, working diligently on a new mass, and awaits only­
come from where it may-the necessary money in order to flyaway to up­
per Austria" (Deutsch 1964:525). "Come from where it may" does not give 
the impression that Schubert was expecting immediate income from his 
mass, nor does it suggest a commission from a particular patron (Durr 
1996:XII). 

Although Schubert seems to have composed his last mass without a 
monetary commission, the mass has always been linked to the Trinity 
church, also called the Minorite (Franciscan) church, in the Alser sub­
urb. It was in the Trinity church that the premiere of the Mass in H took 
place on October 4, 1829, almost a year after Schubert's death, with 
Ferdinand Schubert conducting the Alservorstadt Music Society. The ex­
tensive newspaper review of the concert cites a threefold occasion for the 
performance: "the glorious name-day of His Majesty, our most gracious 
and universally beloved Emperor, then the Feast of the Minorite Friars, 
and finally the anniversary of the local church music society" 
(Theaterzeitung, October 22, 1829; Brusatti 1978:37-40). Not enumerated 
was another occasion: Franz Schubert's own name-day. The review also 
claims that the premiere at the Trinity church on this occasion repre­
sented the wishes of the composer. 

Schubert did have ties with the Trinity church: the Alsergrund borders 
on Lichtental, Schubert's boyhood parish; the choir director of the 
church and founder of the Alservorstadt Music Society was Michael 
Leitermayer, a boyhood friend of Schubert's, and a fellow pupil of 

'Michael Holzer's (Deutsch 1964:535); Schubert had attended the church 
on March 29, 1827 for Beethoven's funeral servi,ce; and for the occasion of 
the consecration of a new church bell on September 2, 1828 Schubert had 
written a short choral piece, "Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe" (D. 954). 

Whatever arrangements Schubert may have made for the perform­
ance of his mass, he did not tailor it or his schedule to the practical re­
quirements of the Trinity church or the Alservorstadt Music Society: he 
missed the only real deadline in the story, the dedication of the bell, and 
the mass was far too difficult for the church choir alone, and too diffi­
cult for the Music Society without lengthy preparation. Walther Durr ar-



JOHN GINGERICH 79 

gues that Schubert would not have spent a penurious summer writing a 
mass for an organization yet to be founded, an organization planning in 
any case to present the work not at its inaugural concert, but rather for 
its first anniversary. A much more plausible scenario is that Schubert 
began work on the mass for his own reasons, that the mass was well­
advanced before he began searching for an opportunity to have it per­
formed, and that the unexpected prospect of performing it may well 
have led Leitermayer to found the Alservorstadt Music Society (Durr 
1996:V). 

Schubert's masses marked some of the high points in his life and ca­
reer. It is hard to imagine a beginning more inspiring of confidence in 
one's choice of vocation than the public debut Schubert made with his 
Mass in F. On this momentous occasion when Schubert stood on the 
threshold of his public life, around him the family, church, teachers, and 
friends who had nurtured and shaped him, before him the larger public 
world of his work to come, on this occasion which represented a summary 
of his past achievement and future promise, his mass text omitted "et in 
unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam." 

The Mass in C was the only work for large performing forces Schubert 
succeeded in having published before he died-no other masses, no sym­
phonies, and no operas. The publication occurred in conjunction with a 
performance in 1825, more than nine years after Schubert had finished 
the composition. For the publication he kept the text with its omissions 
exactly as it had been in 1816, even though it could now become an object 
of systematic public scrutiny. In the meantime, between the composition 
of the Mass in C and its publication, he had spent three years writing his 
Mass in A~, which contained two new text omissions beyond those found 
in the Mass in C. 

Schubert wrote his last two masses for his own reasons, whether per­
sonal or professional or both. Certainly he had professional incentives: he 
consistently had greater success in gaining a public hearing for his masses 
than for his symphonies, and he had some hopes of a Kapellmeister post 
for which the revised Mass in A~ could have proved useful. But the time he 
lavished on the first version of the Mass in A~, the letter to Schott, and the 
priority he gave to writing his Mass in E~ after hopes of the Kapellmeister 
post had vanished-all indicate that the mass meant more to Schubert 
than a career opportunity. When Schubert decided to write these last two 
masses instead of composing more songs, symphonies, or string quartets, 
it was surely because the mass allowed him to say something offered by no 
other genre. And that something could only have concerned his faith and 
his church, expressed through his music and his text. 



80 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Schubert began his life in music as a choirboy, his first great triumph 
was a composition for the church, and a part of him always remained a 
church musician. His six masses and other liturgical compositions kept 
him involved with churches throughout his life: the Lichtental parish 
church, St. Augustine's Court church, St. Ulrich's, Alt-Lerchenfelder, 
Trinity, the Synagogue in Vienna, and possibly others unknown. He main­
tained warm relations all his life with church music directors who in­
cluded his brother Ferdinand, his first teacher and the dedicatee of his 
Mass in C, Michael Holzer, and his boyhood friend Michael Leitermayer. 
Unlike Beethoven's Missa solemnis, which, in spite of its complete, ortho­
dox text, has always found a more comfortable home in the concert hall 
than in the church, Schubert's two late solemn masses, in spite of their 
spacious amplitudes, were conceived for the church and are still appropri­
ate there. In those two masses Schubert needed to express something that 
could only be said in a mass; he needed to speak to the church. 

IV. 
Let us return to the reasons given for claiming that Schubert did not 

know what he was doing with his mass texts, or that we should not take too 
seriously what he did with his texts. 

(1) Was Schubert's Latin sufficient to comprehend and emend the mass 
text? 

Stringham (1964:86) raised this question, and, as we have seen, Jahr­
marker's 1997 summary of the prevailing consensus answers it in the negative. 

From the fall of 1808, when he was eleven, until the fall of 1813, when 
he was sixteen, Schubert was a student at the Akademisches Gymnasium, 
and lived with his fellow students at the k.k. Stadtkonvikt (the Imperial 
and Royal City Seminary). This elite school is generally considered to have 
offered the best schooling available in Vienna (Wagner 1996:13). The ed­
ucation he received there during four years of grammar school and one 
year of humanities studies was "strongly oriented toward the classics, and 
within that tradition emphasized Latin far more strongly than Greek: half 
or more of the students' class time was devoted to Latin" (Gramit 
1987:26). A large amount of time was spent studying elements of style, 
rhetoric, and grammar with excerpts from Latin authors arranged by 
genre and rule rather than chronologically (Gramit 1987:27). On a grad­
ing scale "em(inent), 1, 1-2, 2" (Deutsch 1964:28), Schubert scored a "1" 
for nine semesters and a "2 (1) " for one semester in Latin, and a consistent 
"I" for all ten semesters in religion (Deutsch 1964:11, 14, 17,21,28). A 
grade of "I" was sufficient to maintain academic standing and ensure con­
tinued enjoyment of scholarship stipends. 



JOHN GINGERICH 81 

One more year of humanities studies, and two more years of studies in 
philosophy would have prepared Schubert for university· (Deutsch 
1964:28). Even after his voice changed in the summer of 1812, Schubert 
could have continued his studies at state expense, on the condition of rais­
ing his mathematics grade from a "2" to a "1." Both a week before and two 
days after the great victory over Napoleon at Leipzig (the "V6Ikerschlacht"), 
Emperor Franz found the time personally to approve papers granting a 
continued scholarship to Schubert (Deutsch 1964:27, 29). But Schubert 
felt that his studies were already robbing him of time he wanted to spend 
composing. Instead of a prolonged course of study he elected to equip 
himself quickly with qualifications to practice a trade that would tide him 
over until he could make music pay. The trade he chose was teaching, his 
father's business. 

After a subsequent year of teacher training at the k.k. Normal Haupt­
schule, a much less prestigious school, Schubert took exams in August 
1814 for which he received grades of "m(ittelmaBig)" in "theoretical 
knowledge" of Latin and religion, a "g(ut)" in "practical knowledge" of 
Latin, and a "sch (lecht)" in religion (Deutsch 1964:33-34). What may 
have constituted "practical knowledge" as opposed to "theoretical knowl­
edge" at Schubert's teachers' college is a matter of conjecture, but it 
likely had to do with pedagogy and doctrinal soundness rather than 
knowledge of the subject. What is certain is that less than a month after 
finishing his Mass in F, Schubert's "practical knowledge" of religion was 
found wanting, whereas for the previous five years, in a more prestigious 
school less concerned with "practical knowledge," it had uniformly 
passed muster. 

In conclusion, Schubert was much better educated in Latin, at least for­
mally, than in German. He remained, of course, capable of making mis­
takes; and he was capable, of course, of reading, understanding, and pars­
ing the Latin text of the mass. As a matter of perspective: Schubert's 
knowledge of Latin was undoubtedly far superior to the Latin Beethoven 
learned at the Tirocinium in Bonn (Thayer-Forbes 1967:58-59), and to 
the Latin Beethoven knew when he composed his Missa solemn is. 

(2) Did Schubert know the orthodox version of the mass texts? 
The nearly complete text of the Mass in F shows that Schubert knew the 

orthodox text of the mass. He had also put in years of service as a choir 
boy singing masses, first for Michael Holzer at Lichtental, and then at the 
Court Chapel. Presumably the pupils of the Konvikt, for whom the friars 
of the Piarist order served in loco parentis, attended mass regularly even 
when they were not singing. According to Otto Biba the numerous surviv­
ing mass books from the archdiocese of Vienna from this period and from 



82 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

the previous century all give the orthodox text from the Missale Romanum 
(Jaskulsky 1986:69, n. 43), so the orthodox text was readily available to 
Schubert throughout his life. 

Besides knowing the words, Schubert almost certainly "knew" the mass 
in a deeper sense. To judge by the pedagogical approach used for Latin, 
the five years of formal religious instruction Schubert received at the 
Konvikt from his religion teacher, Josef Tranz (Deutsch 1964:11, 14, 17, 
21, 28), would have concentrated on dogmatics, including a catechism of 
the creed, with scarcely a mention of church history. In addition to the re­
ligious instruction Schubert received at the Konvikt, at age seventeen he 
had already had ample opportunity to ponder religious matters, because 
they formed a constant source of friction between his free-thinking 
brother Ignaz (12 years older than Franz) and his dogmatically orthodox 
father; Ignaz and Franz formed a furtive alliance in their free-thinking re­
bellion against their father (see the letter from Ignaz to Franz of October 
12, 1818, Deutsch 1964:71-72, and Franz's reply of October 29, Deutsch 
1964:75). 

(3) Can forgetfulness or carelessness account for Schubert's mass text 
omissions? 

Stringham hypothesized that since Schubert's "carelessness" exhibits an 
orderly pattern, perhaps, as he got older, and further removed from his 
Piarist schooling he forgot more and more of the text (1964:96-99). This 
would explain why Schubert's first five Masses, written between the ages of 
seventeen and twenty-five, progressively omit more text. Stringham, to be 
fair, was not entirely satisfied with his theory of juvenile dementia and cast 
about for a more convincing explanation-but could think of none. 

If we had only one or two masses by Schubert we would have to enter­
tain forgetfulness or carelessness as a possible explanation for the text 
omissions. We have six masses, however. The progressive pattern of omis­
sions, combined with the pattern of telescoping, precludes carelessness, 
even in the three masses in G, B~, and C that share characteristics of the 
missa brevis. The cumulative pattern of omissions in the first four masses 
leads to the Mass in A~, whose text omits every passage previously omitted 
in any mass. Schubert spent three years over this first version of the Mass 
in A~. Haste was not a factor. Oversight or sloppiness would hardly have 
led to omission of precisely those passages previously omitted-all of 
them. When he reworked portions of the Mass in A~ four years later he 
took the trouble to add "ex Maria Virgine," but did not restore any of the 
other omitted passages. One cannot suppose that text omissions made 
through haste or error in the first four masses would have been retained 



JOHN GINGERICH 83 

by Schubert through the lengthy process of working on the Mass in A~, a 
process that included a significant textual revision. This revised text, ar­
rived at after seven years of intermittent work on this one mass, was pre­
cisely the same text he used for his last mass. These are the only two of the 
seven texts that do match precisely. This pattern is orderly, not random; it 
is cumulative; it culminates in a mass that Schubert returned to, and re­
worked over a longer period of time than anything else he ever wrote, and 
in which he took pride as "the highest in art." Carelessness or forgetful­
ness cannot account for these facts. The pattern, however, is precisely 
what one would expect from a prolonged process of reflection and refine­
ment culminating in the text retained by the last mass. Jaskulsky's conclu­
sion, "Memory slips can thus be accepted, if at all, for some places in the 
early masses; for the late masses they could probably be eliminated"7 
(1986:68), does not take into account the cumulative pattern of omissions, 
and is thus unduly cautious. 

(4) Was Schubert following an unorthodox master text? 
Otto Wissig (1909:34) first hypothesized that Schubert was working 

from a text that omitted "et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam 
Ecclesiam." Alfred Einstein also entertained that possibility, and his rea­
soning is instructive: 

It would be wrong, however, to interpret this as a deliberate protest 
on Schubert's part. That might be the answer, if the omission oc­
curred only in his later Masses, but it cannot be true of a youth of 
sixteen or seventeen. The simplest and most trivial explanation 
would be that he made a copy of the text of the Mass, in which he in­
advertently omitted these seven words, and that he continued to use 
this copy whenever he sat down to compose a Mass. But it is also pos­
sible that there existed in the Vienna of the Emperor Joseph's time a 
liturgical edition of the text which set no great store by this particu­
lar part ofthe Creed. (1951:61) 

For Einstein, as sympathetic and insightful as he was, it was plainly un­
thinkable that the same Schubert who could compose a mass and who sev­
eral months later set "Gretchen am Spinnrade" could have had the intel­
lectual wherewithal-as well as the independence, principle, and spine 
-to omit the seven words of belief in the catholic church. The same con­
sistency of omission that now makes of (H), and less securely of (I), an 
exception to the rule that Schubert could not have known what he was 
doing with his text, was just as self-evidently for Einstein the reason why 
Schubert could not have known. 



84 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Although Einstein was aware of (C) (1951:62) at least, he chose to ig­
nore all the omissions except (H); understandably so, because his theory 
that Schubert "continued to use that copy whenever he sat down to com­
pose a mass" is incompatible with textual inconsistencies too serious and 
too numerous to quality as scribal errors. The task of keeping Schubert ig­
norant of all the peculiarities of his mass texts has become more difficult 
since Einstein's day. Ignoring most of the omissions is no longer a viable 
explanatory strategy, which means the master text theory needs help, 
since six masses with five different texts cannot all be copies from the 
same original. If the master text theory cannot get the job done alone, 
then ignorance, carelessness, and forgetfulness must help out. The re­
maining difficulty is the inherent incompatibility between the consistency 
of blind copying on the one hand, and the inconsistencies of egregious 
carelessness and writing from memory on the other. Paul Badura-Skoda 
proposed a solution that minimizes this incompatibility. In order to rescue 
Schubert from the "impudence" (Frechheit) of "forcing his private beliefs 
on a congregation," Badura-Skoda embraced the hypothesis that (H) was 
the product of a faulty master text, while, according to Badura-Skoda, the 
gradual accretion of mistakes in the late masses probably followed from 
Schubert's undue reliance on his "phenomenal memory" (1990b:132).8 
The problem with Badura-Skoda's solution is that the master text does 
none of the work; it does not even explain the consistency in the omission 
of (H). Because if Badura-Skoda's theory is to avoid the unlikely scenario 
that Schubert consulted his master text only when copying in the vicinity 
of (H) but consulted his memory the rest of the time, then his theory 
amounts to Schubert copying the text of the Mass in F in 1814 from a 
faulty original, but succumbing to a faulty memory in preparing the texts 
of all subsequent masses, from the spring of 1815 to 1828. The master 
text, then, does not help account for the progressive pattern of omissions, 
and as we have seen, carelessness or forgetfulness cannot. 

Other scenarios employing the faulty master text hypothesis run into 
similar difficulties. Which mass text should we be looking for? No matter 
how that question is answered, the progressive pattern of text omissions 
means that they could not have been arrived at by copying from anyone 
master text, whether written or belonging to a local Viennese oral tradi­
tion. If, for example, we were to find a printed mass text from Vienna in 
the early 1800s that agrees in all particulars with Schubert's final mass 
text, should we conclude that Schubert possessed this text in 1814, and af­
ter thirteen years of ever-weakening resistance finally succumbed to its se­
ductions in 1826/27? Even such an absurd assumption would not absolve 
Schubert from thinking about the text on his own. If, on the other hand, 
we were to find the hypothetical master text for the Mass in C, then we 



JOHN GINGERICH 85 

would still have to explain why there are fewer omissions in the preceding 
masses and more omissions in the masses that follow. Even if we assume 
five or six different master texts, all of which Schubert blindly copied with­
out noticing their differences, the orderly chronological progression of 
omissions still defies explanation. Thus Jaskulsky's conclusion that al­
though Schubert's use of one or more written sources or of oral traditions 
is dubious, they "cannot be ruled out until a written source or other con­
vincing proof is found" (1986:69, 72) misses the larger point: no matter 
what master text the future may bring, Schubert's knowing participation 
in the process of editing his own mass texts cannot be explained away. 

(5) The "catholic Church" exception 
The received image of Schubert's intellectual incapacity exerts a power­

ful force even on those willing to grant him some part in the fashioning of 
his mass texts. The only text excised from Schubert's first mass, when he 
was seventeen, is the statement of belief in the catholic Church, "Et unam 
sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam" (H), and this passage con­
tinued missing right through his sixth mass, the year he died. The consis­
tency of this excision is habitually cited as the reason for making an excep­
tion and granting it as Schubert's own intention.9 Yet the logic of this 
exception is hard to credit. First, the "catholic Church" clause is distin­
guished from all the other omissions by its greater consistency in the first 
four masses-since all omissions are consistent in the last two masses. Why 
should Schubert's consistency between the ages of seventeen and nine­
teen ([H] in the first four masses) count for so much, when his much 
greater consistency between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-one (all the 
cuts in the last two masses) counts for so little? Second, had Schubert 
been equally consistent with all his excisions, had he begun at age seven­
teen to use the text he would always use, then the case for an unorthodox 
master-text would be greatly strengthened. Logically, it is precisely the 
lack of consistency, the general pattern of added cuts in each of the first 
four masses, culminating in the consistency of the last two, that speaks for 
Schubert's intention. 

But logic, I suspect, has nothing to do with the "et unam sanctam et 
apostolicam Ecclesiam" exception. The "catholic Church" clause is not 
only the most consistent excision, it is the only excision whose meaning 
seems relatively plain. Unlike all the other cuts, the possible significance 
of this one can be summarized in one sentence: "Schubert was anti­
clerical," or, with more nuance, "Schubert rejected the claims to exclusive 
authority of the institutional church." It is not impossible to imagine a 
free-thinking seventeen-year-old with enough theological sophistication to 
entertain such sentiments; most musicologists have gradually come to feel 



86 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

that even Schubert might have been capable. But since the other excisions 
are more difficult to explain-they certainly require more than one sentence 
-Schubert could not have been capable of them. 

(6) Was it common in Schubert's Vienna for composers to omit text from 
mass settings? 

Schubert had some precedents among Viennese composers for omis­
sions from the text of the mass, although to my knowledge none of these 
composers omitted as many passages, or were as consistent in omitting the 
same passages. In addition, most of the precedents involve a missa brevis, 
which helps explain them. 

Schubert admired the masses of Michael Haydn who worked in 
Salzburg where the rules were strict; none of his mature masses omit any 
text. Mozart's Missa brevis in C (K. 257) omits "Deum verum de Deo vero." 
In Eisenstadt, where usage was more relaxed than in Sallzburg but suppos­
edly not as easy-going as in Vienna, Michael's brother Josefleft out "Et in 
unum dominumJesum Christum, filium Dei unigenitum" from his Missa 
brevis St. Joannis Deo, from his Missa brevis in F, and from his "Lord Nelson" 
Mass; he omitted "qui cum patre et filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur" 
from his Paukenmesse, and "qui ex patre filioque procedit" from his Heili­
genmesse and his Theresienmesse. In Vienna, the court Kapellmeister Josef 
Eybler, whom we have already met, left out "et incarnatus est" from his 
Mass in B~ (Finke-Hecklinger 1980:XIII). A Mass in Cby a certain Huber, 
given in the Lichtental church shortly after 1800, omits "Et unam sanctam 
catholicam et apostolicam Ecc1esiam," and Joseph Preindl's printed Missa 
in Es omits "et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum" (Benedikt 1997:67). 
These examples (undoubtedly more could be found) show that it was not 
unknown for Viennese composers to take a certain degree of liberty with 
the mass text; these examples also show that it was not usual practice for 
composers to take the degree of liberty taken by Schubert. 

Erich Benedikt says of the different rates of text omission in the 
Archbishopric Salzburg, Eisenstadt, and Vienna, "That is how greatly us­
ages differed for quite a while yet, but not faith" (1997:68).10 He is almost 
certainly correct, statistically speaking. But his argument concerning 
Schubert's beliefs amounts to the syllogism "All Austrians (no matter how 
freely they treated their mass texts) were orthodox Catholics. Schubert 
was Austrian. Therefore ... " This we know, as a matter of historical fact, to 
be untrue. 

The examples of text lacunae in Viennese masses of the early nine­
teenth century are not irrelevant to Schubert's own text omissions. While 
they can tell us nothing of Schubert's intentions and knowledge, they con­
firm that he had no need to fear legal or professional reprisals, or even so-



JOHN GINGERICH 87 

cial opprobrium for his omissions. This was not because the Viennese 
were uniformly orthodox yet easy-going, but rather because Habsburg offi­
cialdom and the Austrian ecclesiastical hierarchy itself retained many 
adherents to two streams of thought inimical to orthodox Catholicism as 
defined by Rome: the Josephinian Enlightenment, and pantheism. 

J osephinian Enlightenment 
The so-called Josephinian Enlightenment sought to make the church a 

rational, enlightened servant of the state, promoting policies conducive to 
happiness and welfare in this world, guided by enlightenment notions of 
the perfectibility of individuals and of society through the application 
of reason. Theological controversy, and the pomp and mystery of the 
Austrian Baroque liturgy were considered wasteful at best, at worst a prey­
ing on the superstitions of those who knew no better (Bunnell 1990:35-
41). Under Joseph the regulation of the church was enforced by an army 
of bureaucrats, and even though many of Joseph's reforms were subse­
quently reversed by his brother Leopold and Leopold's son Franz, the 
"bureaucracy of the church-the governmental agencies that dealt with 
church affairs and the church hierarchy that was appointed by the em­
peror and his government-was J osephinist throughout the period [until 
1848], loyal to the concept of the church as servant to the state" (Bunnell 
1990:42; Okey 2001:43-44,58,66,100). Many Josephinist "liberal church­
men" remained in positions of power, and although they were often 
obliged to fight rear-guard skirmishes against both the church hierarchy 
in Rome and some of Metternich's more recent appointees, they were suf­
ficiently entrenched to hold their own. 

Pantheism 
Pantheism stresses the all-embracing inclusiveness of God, conceived as 

divine immanence (i.e., the indwelling presence of God), as compared 
with the emphasis in traditional theism on God's transcendence, or sepa­
rateness from the world. In practice it emphasized the revelation of God 
in nature. Pantheism had been popular among intellectuals ever sin~e 
Spinoza (1632-1677) formulated a thorough system of rationalistic pan­
theism, and· pantheism gained a much more extensive diffusion in the 
early nineteenth century through the Idealisms of Fichte, Schelling, and 
Hegel. Goethe, for example, claimed to be a follower of Spinoza, but in 
fact his beliefs owed much to later developments since he "championed 
human individuality, opposed mechanical necessity, and held a vitalistic 
position, in which nature was organic, a living unity" (Cross and Living­
ston 1985). Pantheism was especially congenial to early romanticism, since 
it could be interpreted as more critical and rational than traditional 



88 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Christianity, while at the same time allowing the infinite mystery of God to 
infuse the concrete mundane reality of the natural world. Because of its 
rational intellectual pedigree, pantheism also appealed widely to the 
Josephinian church bureaucracy; the mystical and rational strains did not 
necessarily clash, since they tended to play out in different spheres of ac­
tivity, the mystical in poetry and the rational in metaphysics. Predictably, 
ultramontanist Austrian Catholics established as one of their chief goals 
the defeat of the pantheist heresy, which they detected all around them­
pantheism was the "secular humanism" of the early nineteenth century. 

The most important churchmen in Schubert's life were all either 
Josephinians, or pantheists, or both. Schubert had probably known 
Johann Philip Neumann since 1816 (when Schubert lived briefly with 
Professor Watteroth, who was Neumann's cousin), and their long friend­
ship was punctuated by two collaborations: Neumann wrote the libretto 
for Schubert's unfinished opera Sakontala (1820), and he also wrote the 
text of the "German Mass" which Schubert set in 1827. Neumann, a the­
ologian and professor of physics, was a champion of the Josephinian re­
forms, and a believer in eighteenth-century rational deism (Deutsch 
1964:459). A comparison of the Gloria and Credo from Neumann's 
"German Mass" (ex. 6) with the traditional versions is informative. 

Neumann's Gloria is a hymn of praise to God, the creator of nature. 
His Credo begins with the same sentiment; the first strophe presents God 
the creator, in his archetypal Enlightenment guise as bringer of light and 
order. The second strophe treats the theme of Christ, the bringer of light. 
The third strophe argues against salvation by faith alone (Luther's doc­
trine), and stresses the necessity of acting according to the command­
ments and Christian duty. The fourth strophe enlarges on this statement 
by adding discipleship, according to Christ's model, to the prescriptions 
of duty (without, however, specifying which elements of Christ's life 
should be imitated). Neumann's Credo completely omits the central con­
cern of the traditional Credo, the explication of the trinity, and it omits as 
well any mention of the Holy Ghost, of Christ's birth, crucifixion, and res­
urrection, of sins and judgment, of the catholic church, and of the resur­
rection of the dead. 

Josef Spendou was another Josephinist churchman and a special patron 
of the Schubert family. He was the founder and governor of the orphanage 
at which Ferdinand Schubert taught from about 1809 onward. Spendou 
was until 1816 "Oberaufseher der Deutschen (Elementar-) Schulen" and 
took a special interest in musical education. For the twentieth anniversary 
celebration of the orphanage, Schubert wrote a cantata (D. 472) in honor 
of this long-time family friend (Deutsch 1964:40, 73-74). 



JOHN GINGERICH 89 

Example 6: Neumann, "For the Gospel and the Credo." 

I. The creation still lay formless, according to holy writ. 
Then spoke the Lord: Let there be light! He spoke and it was light! 
And life stirs, and order emerges. 
And everywhere, praise and thanks rise up. 

2. Man too, lay in spiritual night, numbed by dark delusion. 
The Savior came and it was light! And bright day dawns. 
And his teaching's holy ray wakens life near and far. 
And all hearts beat thanks, and praise God the Lord. 

3. But the holy voice speaks a warning: faith alone avails not, 
only the performance of your duty can lend it life. 
Give us, therefore, a believing nature! And give us too, oh God, 
a loving heart, which devoutly and faithfully obeys the commandment. 

4. Lend us strength and courage, not only to see the ways 
that our Savior trod, but also to strive to follow. 
Thus let your gospel be our good news 
and lead us, Lord, by your grace into the realm ofjoy,!l 

Johann Ladislaus Pyrker von Felso-Eor was aJosephinian and a panthe­
ist. He became Patriarch (Archbishop) of Venice in 1820 and first met 
Schubert that year at the home of the poet Matthaus von Collin (Deutsch 
1964:128). They spent time together again in August of 1825 at Gastein, 
and Schubert "treasured the memory of this meeting as one of the great 
experiences of his life" according to his brother Ferdinand and Anton 
Schindler (Deutsch 1958:37, 318). Schubert set Pyrker's poem "Die AlI­
macht" (D. 852) and later chose to include it on the program of the only 
concert he ever gave dedicated exclusively to his own music, which took 
place on March 26, 1827, the anniversary of Beethoven's death; either 
Schubert felt that Pyrker's name on the program would add the right sort 
of prestige, or the poem itself was of great personal importance to 
Schubert, or both. The poem expresses Pyrker's theology of Nature as the 
immanent Spirit of God. 

The Almighty 
Great isJehovah, the Lord! For Heaven 
And earth proclaim his might. 
You hear it in the roaring storm, 
in the loud, rushing call of the forest stream, 
You hear it in the green wood's whisper, 
You see it in the golden, waving grain, 
In loveliest flowers' glowing bloom, 



90 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

In the sparkle of star-strewn heavens. 
It booms territyingly in the rolling thunder 
AJid blazes in the lightning's swift jagged flash. 
But your throbbing heart reveals still more palpably 
The might of Jehovah, ofthe Eternal God, 
If you look up pleadingly, hoping for grace and mercy.12 

Schubert had great respect for Pyrker and chose "Die Allmacht" for the 
most important concert of his life. Pyrker's God of Nature obviously held 
great appeal for Schubert, and "Die Allmacht" expresses sentiments 
Schubert could embrace without qualification or reservation. The Credo 
in the cut version begins, like "Die Allmacht," with a statement of belief in 
God, the creator of nature; by omitting an affirmation of God's omnipo­
tence (D), Schubert made belief in the God of Nature the starting point 
for the Credo. 

In addition to Josephinist and pantheist father figures in the church hi­
erarchy with whom Schubert discussed theology, we know that some of his 
closest friends argued about theological issues. In June 1828 Eduard von 
Bauernfeld noted in his diary: "Outings with Schober and Mayerhofer 
(who lives with me). Quarrels between M[ayerhoferJ and Sch[ober], the 
latter denies immortality and personal continuation. Which embitters the 
other. I mediate as best I can" (Litschauer 1986:69).13 Franz von Schober, 
the circle's most notorious libertine, was Schubert's closest friend after 
1816. This worldly young man cared enough about religion to argue 
about doctrine, and his only published work" Palingenesien, was a book of 
sonnets on Old Testament themes (Jean Paul had written a book in 1798 
with the same title). Eduard von Bauernfeld had undertaken a study of 
the New Testament in the original Greek with his two roommates in 1823-
24, but confessed, "I don't possess the talent for faith" and preferred, after 
as before, Goethe, Lessing, and Kant (Bauernfeld 1873:30). He became 
fast friends with Schubert in 1825, (Deutsch 1958:227). The greatest rift 
within the Schubert circle was caused by Franz von Bruchmann's opposi­
tion in 1824 to his sister's secret engagement to Schober, which can be 
seen as the first visible sign of Bruchmann's eventual religious conversion. 
Mter serving as the circle's philosopher-in-chief, much drawn to the ideas 
of the Schlegel brothers, and after studying with Schelling in Erlangen in 
1821 and 1823, Bruchmann found religion in 1826, married a bluestock­
ing in 1827, joined the Redemptorist order in 1830, and eventually be­
came the head of its upper German province. So far as is known, Schubert 
and Schober never again spoke to Bruchmann after his betrayal, as they 
saw it, of Schober in 1824. 

Faith, then, was far from monolithic in the Vienna of Schubert's time, , 
and far from monolithic within his circle of closest friends. Schubert was 



JOHN GINGERICH 91 

exposed to every contemporary variety of belief and practice, from atheism, 
to pantheism, to enlightenment rationalism, to ultramontane Catholicism 
(the Redemptorists and Friedrich Schlegel), and very likely to every vari­
ety of debate. The oft-quoted letter from Ferdinand Walcher (Deutsch 
1964:403) shows at the very least that Schubert discussed religious matters 
with his friends, and that his peculiarities of belief were part of their com­
mon coin. The argument that as a child of his time and place Schubert 
was perforce a pious and uncritical orthodox Catholic has no merit. The 
historical fact that Caecilian reforms had not yet taken hold merely means 
that Schubert had more latitude for liberty. 

(7) Did Schubert amend his mass texts for musical reasons? 
The answer to this question is twofold: Of course! By no means! These 

responses are contradictory because the question is false. It presupposes 
that a musical setting can be neatly deconstructed into two separate utter­
ances, with two separable meanings, one for the music, and one for the 
text. In this case it presupposes a mass text that is routine, banal, utterly 
known, and therefore utterly unproblematic, and it presupposes a task as­
signed to the music of adding some interest, some feeling, some piety. 
Given these presuppositions the question is justified, and the composer is 
fully justified in taking liberties with the text, and in allowing the music to 
shape the text. But these presuppositions are not very flattering-either 
to religion, piety, music, or to the composer who would let himself in for 
such ajob. 

Quite a few writers do not shrink from just such unflattering assump­
tions of Schubert's relationship to his mass text. Here are two of the more 
explicit examples: 
Kurt von Fischer: 

For him this text functions as a model bound by tradition, whose es­
tablished wording relieves the composer to a great extent from tex­
tual problems. That is why Schubert can proceed relatively freely 
with this text, i.e. allow himself to be merely stimulated by the text as 
a whole; which means that the text repetitions too, for example, 
have almost no specific semantic meaning, as opposed to the case in 
some songs, especially late ones. (1985:127)14 

Brian Newbould: 

Schubert composed fast, often without care for less essential details 
(such as dynamic indications, slurs and ties, or consistency of nota­
tion as between an exposition and a recapitulation). Could it be that 
for him the text of a mass was among the less essential details? The 



92 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

mass text was, unlike the poems Schubert set as Lieder, always 
'there'; it had been a part of his daily furniture since youth, and he 
thought he knew it by heart. But it was in an alien tongue, and de­
spite what was presumably a good education in the classics he may 
well have had an imperfect grasp of its vocabulary and syntax. 
Knowing that he could always check details later, if he remembered 
or had time to do so, he could well have made assumptions at cer­
tain points in mid-composition where the Muse was favouring him 
and the musical invention was 'taking over'. (1997:129) 

Jahrmarker too, gives us a Schubert concerned exclusively with the for­
mal properties of the text, especially with the formal problems imposed by 
traditional treatments, rather than the meaning of the words. In the quo­
tation cited above (p. 63), and throughout her essay, she has much to say 
about Schubert's novel modifications of traditional sectional divisions of 
the text, and an increasing employment in his later masses of strategies for 
unitying not only sections and movements, but the work as a whole. In her 
essay these novel modifications take place in an expressive and ideological 
vacuum, presenting a Schubert seemingly inspired to compose masses 
through a concern with innovation and unity as ends in themselves. 

Walther Durr (1983) has demonstrated a different way to conceive of 
Schubert's relationship to his mass text and his music for the masses. He 
traces Schubert's use in his last two masses of a time-honored musical sym­
bol for the cross: in the E~ Mass, for example, the G-F#-G-M-G in the 
trombones at the start of the "Dominus dei, Agnus Dei" section, and 
G-A~-F#-G to start the "dona nobis pacem" at the close of the mass. The 
connection between the plea for mercy ("miserere nobis") at the center of 
the Gloria, and the plea for peace ("dona nobis pacem") is strengthened 
by the pared-down text Schubert had arrived at for the "Dominus Dei, 
Agnus Dei" section of his last two masses, creating a parallel wording and 
structure to the last movement's text (compare ex. 7 with the text in ex. 1). 

Example 7: Schubert, Mass in Eb, central section of the Gloria . 

. . . unigenite,Jesu Christe. 

l Andante can mota, G minor 1 
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. 
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. 
Filius Patris, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. 
Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis! 

l Tempo I, Bb Major 1 
Quoniam ... 



JOHN GINGERICH 93 

The cross figure also appears in the "Cum sancto spiritu" fugue at the 
end of that Gloria (H-D-F-Eq) in the E~ Mass, and in the "Crucifixus" of 
the Mass in A~. Durr links all these appearances of the musical cross figure 
to a letter Schubert wrote in 1825 after viewing the site of a massacre of 
Bavarians by Tyroleans in the Lueg Pass, a letter that comes as close to any 
testimony we have in Schubert's own words to describing his theology, as 
well as his attitude toward what he considered hypocritical conventions of 
piety. 

This ... they sought, with a chapel on the Bavarian side and a rough 
cross in the rock on the Tyrolean side, partly to commemorate, and 
partly, through the use of such holy signs, to expiate. You, glorious 
Christ, to how many shameful deeds must you lend your image. You 
yourself, the most gruesome memorial of human abomination, there 
they set up your image, as if to say: Behold! the consummate cre­
ation of the great God we have trampled with impudent feet, would 
it trouble us to destroy with a light heart the remaining vermin, 
known as humans? (Deutsch 1964:320)15 

Durr endeavors to show not only how Schubert formally unified his two 
late masses, but how the themes of Christ's suffering, the suffering of hu­
manity, the futile plea for peace, and the hope of expiation permeate and 
unify especially the Mass in E~. 

Durr's conclusions, because hermeneutic, are not empirically provable. 
He gives us a Schubert consistent with all the known facts, based on an in­
cisive analysis informed by passion. He also gives us a Schubert who wrote 
music not as decoration for a text of untouchable sanctity, but to 
reawaken the meaning of its dead letters. 

Durr's interpretation of Schubert's last two masses is not only more at­
tractive and aesthetically compelling than the views of Fischer, Newbould, 
and Jahrmarker presented above; it also has a much greater explanatory 
power. Durr's Schubert cut text, not merely to avoid affirmations he did 
not want to own, but in order to help him express what he had to say. 
Beginning with his first mass he employed an unusual division of the 
Gloria text, combining "Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris" with the 
text that follows instead of with the preceding text. Then, as mentioned 
above, a golden thread runs through Schubert's settings of the "Dominus 
Dei, agnus Dei" section in all six of his masses-the conspicuous treatment 
he gives to "miserere nobis." From this idea he gradually moved toward 
giving the section as a whole an ever more dominant and central place in 
the Gloria, and toward making its connection with the Agnus Dei move­
ment ever more explicit. Part of that process involved telescoping some of 



94 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

the text that did not contribute to his conception of the section and, even­
tually, cutting it. The pattern of telescoping and omissions does more 
than establish Schubert's agency and knowledge in the shaping of his text; 
it also helps reveal the maturation process of ideas not fully realized until 
the final mass. 

v. 
The story of Schubert's mass texts is also the story of Schubert's recep­

tion. For a long time now we have been willing or unwilling dupes of ex­
pert opinion, advising us that Schubert did not know what he was doing. 
An unprejudiced presumption must always have favored Schubert's 
agency, intention, knowledge, and responsibility; is there another com­
poser in all of music history presumed ignorant of the text he or she was 
setting? But what would seem a common sense assumption was unthink­
able to those who thought they knew Schubert best, and what would seem 
a logical starting point for investigation, the mass texts themselves, was not 
pursued systematically until 1964. Instead every possible hypothesis has 
been tried to circumvent or explain away the obvious. These efforts to pre­
serve Schubert from thought continue: I have cited as examples, some­
times at length, the two most recent full-length biographies of Schubert as 
well as the Schubert Handbuch, which was published to provide a state-of-the­
art summary of Schubert research on the occasion of his two-hundredth 
birthday. Every argument in my list of seven has a contemporary following. 
The first two arguments against Schubert's knowledge of his own mass 
texts, concerning his knowledge of Latin and of the orthodox text, re­
quire us to embrace a Schubert unobservant, uninformed, and incapable 
of profiting from his own background, schooling, and daily exposure to 
Latin and the church-they require us to imagine Schubert stupid. The 
explanations three through five-carelessness, forgetfulness, the missing 
master text, the "catholic Church" exception-are all disproved by the 
pattern of text telescoping and omissions. This pattern, of the telescoping 
as well as the omissions, has been sitting on the shelf since 1897, readily 
available to anyone actually seeking to investigate the omissions rather 
than explain them away; the list of omissions, without noting the pattern 
they form, has been available since 1964 to anyone who reads the musico­
logical literature, apparently a somewhat larger group. The explanation 
with the widest contemporary currency, the "catholic Church" exception, 
forfeits its logical foundation once the larger pattern of omissions is exam­
ined; it owes its continued favor to its facile explanatory utility rather than 
to its solidity. The argument that Schubert was merely a careless and care­
free member of a careless and carefree society is not really an argument 
at all; the only portion that actually addresses the issue of Schubert's role 



JOHN GINGERICH 95 

in his mass texts is the statement that implies that all Austrians were easy­
going yet orthodox. Some of these arguments are outlandish, some of 
them are silly, and none of them can bear any but the most casual 
scrutiny. Their persistence can only be attributed to the dogged persist­
ence of the image of Schubert from which they spring. 

The final argument, that Schubert sacrificed his text to his music, is 
much more insidious. Insidious, because much analysis shares uncritically 
the impoverished understanding of music attributed to Schubert; our habit 
of talking about music, even texted music, as if it were autonomous, and 
our propensity for talking only about music's structural or formal proper­
ties without going on to discuss how or what it communicates, lend a super­
ficial plausibility to the assumption that Schubert could compose music for 
his masses without caring about what the text actually said. I have focused 
on the "Dominus Deus, Agnus Dei" section of the Gloria to show that 
Schubert's local treatment of the text, including telescoping and excisions, 
precedes and is more consistent than the formal solutions he found in his 
late masses. Schubert cared about both the meaning of his text and its 
form, but form, textual and musical, quite literally followed meaning. 

Schubert has always been known first and foremost as a composer of 
lieder. We have grown used to living quite comfortably with the, jrony that 
Schubert, the most literary composer of his time, the one most inextrica­
bly associated with his skill at putting music to words, is presumed to have 
composed six masses with an ignorant and careless disregard for his text. 
The lied is a short form, rooted in popular culture and the Yolk, and not 
overly taxing to the listener; the lied lends itself to patronizing Schubert in 
the guise of affection. With the mass the patronizing is more obvious, the 
affection less so. What have we missed in Schubert's music by investing so 
heavily for so long in a Schubert incapable of intellectual thought? 

Notes 
*All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. 
1. "Diese teilweise zwar absichtlichen (z.B. Weglassung des 'Et unam Sanctam 

Ecclesiam' in samtlichen Messen), teilweise aber wohl eher zufilligen Auslassungen 
sollten nicht iiberwertet werden." 

2. "Die friihere Annahme, Schubert sei einfach sorglos oder fliichtig mit dem 
Text umgegangen oder der Text habe ihm nicht vollstindig vorgelegen, ist heute 
iiberwiegend der Ansicht gewichen, die konsequente Auslassung der Passage 'et in 
unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam' bezeugte Schuberts private 
Position, ebenso wie die Scheu, stets das Bekenntnis der Auferstehung 'et expecto 
resurrectionem' zu vertonen. Auch werden fUr das Fehlen mancher Textteile un­
zureichende Lateinkentnisse oder kompositorische Form-Ideen verantwortlich 
gemacht: Wenn im Gloria der G-Dur-Messe der Relativsatz 'qui sedes ad dexteram 
Patris', in der B-Dur Messe die Bitte 'suscipe deprecation em nostram' und in der 



96 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

folgenden C-Dur-Messe beide Textteile fehlen, dann jeweils um der formalen 
Balance der entsprechenden Abschnitte willen (Jask. 124£). Mit Nachdruck hat 
man dariiber hinaus auf den historischen Sachverhalt hingewiesen, daB in den 
wenigsten Messen der Zeit der liturgische Text ohne jede Abweichung vertont 
wurde und erst infolge der Reformbestrebung des Cacilianismus die Textvoll­
standigkeit verbindlich wurde (1894; Hoorickx, S 251 f., Kantner, Schubert­
Studien, S. 137)." 

3. In each of his masses Schubert's text reversed the order of the second and 
third phrases of this line, placing "tu solus altissimus" before "tu solus Dominus." 

4. "Caeli" is the version of the Missale Romanum; Schubert's text always used 
"coeli," and used the "oe" in all forms of the word. 

5. In his masses in G and in B~, Schubert's text reads "et Filio" instead of 
"Filioque." 

6. Other text changes: 
In the Sanctus, "Deus" was omitted from the Mass in C, and a final "Deo" was 

added to the Sanctus in the Masses in B~, A~, and Ek 
In the Agnus Dei, the third "qui toUis peccata mundi" was omitted from the 

Mass in F and the Mass in Ak 
7. "Gedachtnisfehler konnen also fUr einige Stellen der friihen Messen ange­

nommen werden, wenn iiberhaupt-fUr die beiden spaten Messen diirften sie 
ausscheiden." 

8. "Es ware doch einfach eine Frechheit, den yom Auftraggeber gewiinschten 
Text absichtlich so zu verstiimmeln, daB zum Teil Un sinn herauskommt. Nein, 
selbst wenn ein nichtglaubiger Komponist fUr eine fromme Gemeinde schreibt, 
nimmt er auf deren GefUhle Riicksicht. Wer mochte Schubert zumuten, er habe 
der Kirchengemeinde seine privaten Glaubensmeinungen aufoktroyieren 
wollen?" 

9. See, in addition to Finke-Hecklinger (1980), Fischer (1985), andJahrmarker 
(1997), all cited above, McKay (1996:237). 

10. "So verschieden waren eben die :grauche noch eine ganze Weile lang, aber 
nicht der Glaube." 

11. "Zum Evangelium und Credo" 
l. Noch lag die Schopfung formlos da, nach heiligem Bericht; 
da sprach der Herr: Es werde Licht! Er sprach's, und es ward Licht! 
Und Leben regt, und reget sich, und Ordnung tritt hervor. 
Und Uberall all iiberall tont Preis und Dank empor. 

2. Der Mensch auch lag in Geistesnacht, erstarrt von dunklem Wahn; 
der Heiland kam und es ward Licht! Und heller Tag bricht an. 
Und seiner Lehre heil'ger Strahl weckt Leben nah und fern; 
und alle Herzen po chen Dank, und preisen Gott, den Herrn. 

3. Doch warnend spricht der heil'ge Mund: Nicht frommt der Glaub' allein, 
nur die Erfiillung eurer Pflicht kann Leben ihm verleih'n. 
Drum gibt ein glaubiges Gemiith! Und gib uns auch, 0 Gott, 
ein lie bend Herz, das fromm und treu stets folget dem Gebot! 



JOHN GINGERICH 97 

4. Verleih' uns Kraft und Muth, dass wir nicht nur die Wege sehn' 
die der Erloser ging, dass wir auch streben nachzugeh'n. 
Lass so dein Evangelium uns Himmels Botschaft sein, 
und fiihr uns, Herr, durch deine Huld ins' Reich der Wonnen ein. 

12. "Die Allmacht" 
Gross istJehova, der Herr! Denn Himmel 
Und Erde verkiinden seine Macht. 
Du horst sie im brausenden Sturm, 
In des Waldstroms laut aufrauschendem Ruf; 
Du horst sie in des griinen Waldes Gesiusel, 
Siehst sie in wogender Saaten Gold, 
In lieblicher Blumen gliihendem Schmelz, 
1m Glanz des sternebesiten Himmels, 
Furchtbar tont sie im Donnergeroll 
Und flammt in des Blitzes schnell hinzuckendem Flug. 
Doch kiindet das pochende Herz dir fiihlbarer noch 
Jehovas Macht, des ewigen Gottes, 
Blickst du flehend empor und hoffst auf Huld und Erbarmen. 

13. "Ausfliige mit Schober und Mayerhofer (der bei mir wohnt). Streit zwi­
schen M[ayerhoferJ und Sch[oberJ, letzterer leugnet die Unsterblichkeit und per­
sohnliche Fortdauer. Das erbittert den Andern. Ich vermittle nach Kriften." 

14. "Dieser Text fungiert bei ihm als traditiongebundenes Modell, dessen fest­
gelegter Wortlaut den Komponisten weitgehend von Textproblemen entlastet. 
Deshalb kann Schubert auch relativ frei mit diesem Text umgehen, d.h. sich yom 
Text bloB allgemein anregen lassen, wobei z.B. auch Textwiederholungen, im 
Gegensatz zu manchen Liedern besonders der Spitzeit, kaum spezifisch semanti­
sche Bedeutung zukommt." 

15. "Dieses ... suchte man durch eine Capelle auf der Baiern Seite und durch 
ein rohes Kreuz in dem Felsen auf der Tyroler Seite zum Teil zu bezeichnen, und 
zum Teil durch solehe heilige Zeichen zu siihnen. Du herrlicher Christus, zu wie 
viel Schandthaten muBt du dein Bild herleihen. Du selbst das griBlichste Denkmal 
der menschlichen Verworfenheit, da stell ten sie dein Bild auf, als wollten sie 
sagen: Seht! die vollendetste Schopfung des groBen Gottes haben wir mit frechen 
FiiBen zertreten, sollte es uns etwa Miihe kosten, das iibrige Ungeziefer, genannt 
Menschen, mit leichtem Herzen zu vernichten?" 

References 
Badura-Skoda, Paul. 1990a. On Schubert's Mass Texts. American Choral Review 32: 5-7. 
---. 1990b. Schuberts korrumpierte MeBtexte-Absicht oder Versehen? 

Gedanken zum Buch von Hans Jaskulsky Die Lateinischen Messen Franz 
Schuberts. Das Orchester 38: 131-34. 

Bauernfeld, Eduard von. 1873. Gesammelte Schriften von Bauernfeld. Vol. 12, Aus Alt­
und Neu Wien. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumiiller. 

Benedikt, Erich. 1997. Notizen zu Schubert Messen-mit neuem Urauffiihrungs­
datum der Messe in F-Dur. Oesterreichische Musikzeitschrift-Schubert Special 52: 
64-69. 



98 CURRENT MUSICOLOGY 

Berio, TaIia Peeker. 1990. Foreword to Messen 1. Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, ser. I, vol. 
la, IX-XV. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

Biba, Otto. 1978. Besetzungsverhaltnisse in der Wiener Kirchenmusik. In Zur 
Auffiihrungspraxis der Werke Franz Schuberts, edited by Vera Schwarz, 180-87. 
Munich: Katzbichler. 

---. 1985. KirchenmusikaIische Praxis zu Schuberts Zeit. In Franz Schubert:Jahre 
der Krise, 1818-1823, edited by Werner Aderhold, Walther Durr, and 
Walburga Litschauer, 113-21. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

Brusatti, Otto. 1978. Schubert im Wiener Vormarz: Dokumente 1829-1848. Graz: 
Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. 

Bunnell, Adam. 1990. Before Infallibility: Liberal Catholicism in Biedermeier Vienna. 
Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 

Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingston, eds. 1985. S.w. "Panentheism" and "Pantheism." 
In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1027-28. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

Denny, Thomas. 1991. The Years of Schubert's A-fiat-Major Mass, First Version: 
Chronological and Biographical Issues, 1819-1822. Acta musicologica 63: 
73-97. 

Deutsch, Otto Erich, ed. 1958. Schubert: Memoirs by his Friends. Translated by 
Rosamond Ley andJohn Nowell. London: Adam & Charles Black. 

---, ed. 1964. Schubert: Die Dokumente seines Lebens. Kassel: Barenreiter. 
Durr, Walther. 1983. Dona nobis pacem: Gedanken zu Schuberts spaten Messen. 

In Bachiana et Alia Musicologica: Festschrift Alfred Diirr zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. 
Marz 1983, edited by Wolfgang Rehm, 62-73. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

---. 1996. Introduction to Franz Schubert, Messe Nr. 6 Es-Dur, Faksimile der auto­
graphen Partitur und der iiberlieferten Entwiirfe. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

Einstein, Alfred. 1951. Schubert. Translated by David AscoIi. London: Cassel. 
Finke-Hecklinger, Doris. 1980. Foreword to Messe in As: Erste Fassung. Neue Schubert­

Ausgabe, ser. I, vol. 3a, VIII-XIV. Kassel: Barenreiter. 
Fischer, Kurt von. 1985. Bemerkungen zu Schuberts As-dur-Messe. In Franz 

Schubert: Jahre der Krise, 1818-1823, edited by Werner Aderhold, Walther Durr, 
and Walburga Litschauer, 121-29. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

Gibbs, Christopher H. 2000. The Life of Schubert. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. 

Gramit, David. 1987. The Intellectual and Aesthetic Tenets of Franz Schubert's Circle: 
Their Development and Their Influence. Ph.D. diss., Duke University. 

Hoorickx, Reinhard van. 1979. Textanderungen in Schuberts Messen. In Schubert­
KongreJ3: Wien 1978: Bericht, edited by Otto Brusatti, 249-54. Graz: Akade­
mische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. 

Jahrmarker, Manuela. 1997. Von der liturgischen Funktion zum personlichen 
Bekenntnis: Die Kirchenmusik. In Schubert Handbuch, edited by Walther DUrr 
and Andreas Krause, 345-78. Kassel, Stuttgart, and Weimar: Barenreiter and 
Metzler. 

Jaskulsky, Hans. 1986. Die lateinischen Messen Franz Schuberts. Mainz: Schott. 
Kantner, Leopold. 1978. Franz Schuberts Kirchenmusik auf dem Hintergrund 

stilistischer Zusammenhange und personlicher Einstellung. In Schubert-



JOHN GINGERICH 99 

Studien: Festgabe der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zum Schubertfahr 
1978, edited by Franz Grasberger and Othmar Wessely, 131-41. Vienna: 
Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 

Kreissle von Hellborn, Heinrich. 1861. Franz Schubert. Vienna: Druck und Verlag 
der Typographisch-literarisch-artistischen Anstalt. 

Litschauer, Walburga, ed. 1986. Neue Dokumente zum Schubert Kreis, Aus Briefen und 
Tagebiichern seiner Freunde. Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag. 

McKay, Elizabeth Norman. 1996. Franz Schubert: A Biography. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press. 

Newbould, Brian. 1997. Schubert: The Music and the Man. Berkeley: University of 
California Press. 

Okey, Robin. 2001. The Habsburg Monarchy: From Enlightenment to Eclipse. New York: 
St. Martin's Press. 

Scattolin, Pier Paolo. 1982. Forward (Messe in C) to Messen II. Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, 
ser. I, vol. 2, XIII-XIV. Kassel: Barenreiter. 

Stanley, Glenn. 1997. Schubert's Religious and Choral Music: Toward a Statement 
of Faith. In The Cambridge Companion to Schubert, edited by Christopher Gibbs, 
207-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Stefan-Gruenfeldt, Paul. 1928. Schubert. Berlin: Volksverband der Biicherfreunde, 
Wegweiser-Verlag. 

Stringham, Ronald. 1964. The Masses of Franz Schubert. Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. 
Thayer-Forbes. 1967. Thayer's Life of Beethoven. Edited by Elliot Forbes. Princeton: 

Princeton University Press. 
Vetter, Walther. 1953. Der klassiker Schubert. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters. 
Wagner, Manfred. 1996. Franz Schubert: Sein Werk, Sein Leben. Vienna: Holzhausen. 
Werle, Heinrich. 1941. Franz Schubert, der Mensch und sein Werk. Bayreuth: Gauver-

lag Bayreuth. 
Winter, Robert. 1982. Paper Studies and the Future of Schubert Studies. In 

Schubert Studies: Problems of Style and Chronology, edited by Eva Badura-Skoda 
and Peter Branscome, 209-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Wissig, Otto. 1909. Franz Schuberts Messen. Leipzig: Poeschel & Trepte.