Commentary [pdf (full resolution, 27 MB); pdf (compressed)]

The writer and actor Joachim Perinet (1763–1816) was born in Vienna and spent his entire life and career there, apart from a short engagement in Brünn (Brno) in 1807 (see the short biography of Perinet below). As a writer, his specialty was comedy, in a variety of genres, including satirical vignettes, comic verse, witty epigrams, comic singspiel libretti, and (especially in many of his later theatrical works) parody. His early prose works, of which the passage here is a sample, are especially dense in topical allusion, and can be difficult for the modern reader. He wrote or adapted a large number of works for the theater; two of his singspiels for the Theater in der Leopoldstadt in the 1790s were particular hits: Das neue Sonntagskind (1793) and Die Schwestern von Prag (1794), both with music by Wenzel Müller. The song “Ich bin der Schneider Wetz und Wetz” from Die Schwestern von Prag, better known under its sanitized title “Ich bin der Schneider Kakadu,” provided the theme for Beethoven’s variations for piano trio, op. 121a. (On the various indelicate meanings of “Wetz,” “Watz,” and “wetzen” that led to the substitution of “Kakadu,” see Edelmann 1992, 79 and note 11. The verb “wetzen”, literally “to whet” or “to grind”, is a slang term in Viennese dialect meaning “to copulate”; see Wehle 1980, 287.) Perinet was the librettist for Der Fagottist, oder die Zauberzither (premiered 8 Jun 1791), also known as Kaspar der Fagottist, likewise with music by Müller. Mozart, in a letter to Constanze dated 12 Jun 1791, reported having attended this singspiel the previous evening:

— ich gieng dann um mich aufzuheitern zum Kasperl in die neue Oper der Fagottist, die so viel Lärm macht—aber gar nichts daran ist. (Briefe, iv:137)

—Then to cheer myself up, I went to see Kasperl in the new opera Der Fagottist, which is making such a stir—but there’s nothing to it at all.

Perinet came of age during the “Broschürenflut” following the relaxation of censorship by Joseph II in the early 1780s (see Beales 2009, 89–101), and his early prose writings, which became part of that flood, not infrequently contain pointed social critique and sexual innuendo. The extract transcribed here from 29 Annehmlichkeiten is a mild example, with its suggestion of uncharacteristically frisky husbands, awakened by pounding coppersmiths, and maidens in danger of “losing their [little] wreaths” (“Kränzchen”) from the (presumably erotic) dreams caused by the pounding.

The 29 Annehmlichkeiten in Wien (29 Amenities in Vienna), from which the passage above is drawn, appeared early in 1787, near the beginning of Perinet’s career, when he was still only 23. It was the first of three short volumes with similar titles; the other two are 30 Annehmlichkeiten in Wien (1787), and 20 und 4 Annehmlichkeiten in Wien (1788). The “Annehmlichkeiten” are short satirical vignettes on Viennese places, customs, holidays, and events, sometimes (as here) imitating the tone of guidebooks to the imperial capital. All three volumes of the Annehmlichkeiten were published anonymously, “von einem Satyr” (“by a satyr”), as the title page has it (Perinet also uses the spelling “Satyr” to mean “satire”). The original title page of 29 Annehmlichkeiten includes an image of a satyr butting heads with a goat.

Joachim Perinet, 29 Annehmlichkeiten, in Wien (1787), title page

Perinet’s published writings often have French epigraphs. The epigraph here, “Qui promet, s’oblige” (roughly “a promise is an obligation”) is derived from the Latin saying “Promissio parit debitum.”

Naglergasse in Vienna, the subject of this vignette, dates back to the fourteenth century, and still exists today. It follows the line of a medieval city wall, which in turn followed a wall of the ancient Roman compound. Naglergasse is and always has been very narrow. The street was referred to in 1432 as “Unter den Nadlern” (“Among the needle makers”); according to guild regulations of the time, needle makers were obliged to have their shops there. (Several streets in Vienna still retain such “trade” names: Bäckerstraße, Goldschmiedgasse, and the like; for a brief introduction, see this page.) In time, the name “Nadlergasse” became corrupted to “Naglergasse,” suggesting nail makers rather than needle makers.

Naglergasse, Vienna (modern photo, Wikimedia Commons)

Although the restriction on shop locations had long since been relaxed by the eighteenth century, a 1786 guide to Viennese houses suggests that the street’s association with metalworking had not been entirely lost: house no. 178 on Naglergasse was owned at that time by “Ferdinand Obrist bür[gerlicher] Kupferschmidt” (coppersmith) and house no. 211, almost directly across from it, was owned by Franz Bauer, also a coppersmith. Given that houses 178 and 211 were owned by coppersmiths, the trade that Perinet specifically refers to, it seems plausible that Obrist and Bauer may still have been active, and that apprentice and journeymen coppersmiths might have been working with them. In any case, Perinet’s satirical vignette would not have made much sense had metalworkers not still been active in Naglergasse at the time.

 

Houses on Naglergasse in 1786

(Fischer 1786, 10–11)

Joseph Daniel von Huber,

Die Kays. Königl. Haupt und Residenz Stadt Wien. Wie sie im Jahr 1785 unter der Regirung Josephs des Zweyten stehet (1785). 

The red circle shows house 178, belonging to Ferdinand Obrist. House 211, owned by Franz Bauer, was almost directly across from 178, but was too small and awkwardly located for Huber to portray on the map.

H: v Messmer, wo wir am Montage speisten, spielte uns auf der Harmonica, oder dem GlasInstrument der Miss Devis, und recht gut! es hat ihn das Instrument bey 50 duccatten gekostet: dann es ist recht schön gemacht. (Briefe, i:484, 21 Jul 1773)

Herr von Mesmer, where we dined on Monday [19 Jul], played for us on the harmonica, the glass instrument of Miss Davies, and quite well! The instrument cost him around 50 ducats, for it is quite beautifully made.

weist du das der H: v Messmer recht gut die Harmonica der Miß Devis spielt? er ist der einzige der es in Wienn gelernt hat, und hat eine viel schönere Gläser Machine als die Miß Devis hatte. der Wolfg: hat auch schon darauf gespielt, wenn wir nur eine hätten. (Briefe, i:486, 12 Aug 1773)

Did you know that Herr von Mesmer plays Miss Davies’ harmonica quite well? He is the only one in Vienna who has learned it, and he has a much more beautiful glass apparatus than Miss Davies had. Wolfgang has also already played on it; if only we had one.

(The Mozarts had apparently met Marianne Davies in London during their stay there in 1764–1765, and they ran into her again in Milan in 1771; see Briefe, i:438, lines 25–35.)

Little seems to be known, however, about the glass harmonica in Vienna in the 1780s, and it is not immediately obvious why Perinet would have referred to it in 1787. The next documented performances on the instrument in Vienna following those in the early 1770s took place in 1791. On 2 Apr 1791 Carl Leopold Röllig (ca. 1745–1804) played the glass harmonica at a concert given for his own benefit in the Burgtheater (WZ, Sat, 26 Mar 1791; Morrow 1989, 276). In the mid 1780s Röllig had invented a glass harmonica operated by a keyboard mechanism, and it is probably on this instrument that he performed in the Burgtheater. He had also published a pamphlet on the glass harmonica in 1787, Über die Harmonika, the title page of which shows a glass harmonica with a keyboard. (On Röllig’s compositions for the glass harmonica, see the Notes below.)

Carl Leopold Röllig, Über die Harmonika (1787), title page

The following month, composer Vincenz Maschek and his wife Johanna included a glass harmonica at their concert in the Burgtheater on 21 May 1791 (see Morrow 1989, 278, where the date of the concert is given incorrectly as 21 Mar), and in June the celebrated blind virtuosa Marianne Kirchgessner (1769–1808) gave the first of (at least) three concerts in Vienna on the glass harmonica; her second concert, on 19 Aug, featured Mozart’s newly composed Adagio and Rondo for Glass Harmonica, Flute, Oboe, Viola, and Cello, K. 617 (on Kirchgessner’s concerts in 1791, see Morrow 1989, 278).

Although there are currently no documented performances in Vienna on the glass harmonica between the early 1770s and 1791, the instrument did occasionally turn up in advertisements in the Wiener Zeitung in the 1780s (see, for example, Schmittbauer’s advertisement for his glass harmonica on 26 Jun 1784, and Görner’s advertisements on 12 Apr 1786 and 26 Dec 1787). Given these advertisements and Perinet’s reference to the instrument in 1787, it seems likely that the glass harmonica continued to be cultivated in Vienna during the 1780s, even if no performances are currently known. At any rate, Perinet presumably expected his readers to have sufficient knowledge of the instrument to understand his joke.

Perinet uses the glass harmonica and Mozart’s fortepiano as ironic foils for the “concert” of the coppersmiths in Naglergasse, compared with which (he writes) the glass harmonica and Mozart’s fortepiano sound like a “hölzernes Gelächter.” The term “hölzernes Gelächter” (in a wide variety of spellings) refers to the xylophone, at that time still primarily a folk instrument. It was also known as a “Holzspiel” or “Strohfiedel” (“straw fiddle”), the last because it typically consisted of four rows of wooden bars laid across ropes of twisted straw that lifted the bars and allowed them to resonate. The word “Gelächter” means “laughter,” and “hölzernes Gelächter” would probably have been understood by Perinet’s readers as implying “wooden laughter,” although “Gelächter” in the name of the instrument may ultimately derive from a different root, the dialect word “glächel” or “klachel,” meaning “Klöppel,” the striker used when playing the instrument (Sachs 1920, 20).

“Strohfiedel” (hölzernes Gelächter)

Museum für Musikinstrumente der Universität Leipzig

The instrument with four rows of bars is still sometimes used in folk music today, and is typically played (as it probably was in Perinet’s day) with wooden strikers that create a clattering percussive sound.

Although mainly a folk instrument, the hölzernes Gelächter began occasionally to appear in composed music in the late eighteenth century. In the first-act quintet of Die Zauberflöte (no. 5), the original printed libretto says that the First Lady gives Papageno “eine Maschine wie ein hölzernes Gelächter” (“an apparatus like a hölzernes Gelächter”). Mozart’s autograph, on the other hand, says “giebt ihm ein stählnes Gelächter,” which can be translated as “gives him a steel xylophone”—in other words, what we now call a glockenspiel (on this passage, see Powley 2004, 94ff; see also Orel 1959, 50–51). But the reference in the libretto suggests that the original idea may have been to use a wooden xylophone. The hölzernes Gelächter appears in the first-act finale of Müller and Perinet’s Die Schwestern von Prag, and in Georg Druschetzky’s Parthia auf Bauerninstrumenten (Partita on Farmers’ Instruments), where it is referred to as a “Klachter” (H-Bn, Ms. Mus. 1569; Powley 1996).

Empress Marie Therese, the second wife of Emperor Franz II (I), apparently played the hölzernes Gelächter. In the late 1790s, the Viennese musician Ignaz Schweigl (d. 1803) composed several pieces for Franz and Marie Therese that included parts for Holzspiel (as Schweigl generally called it), and the dedications on some of these make clear that the Holzspiel parts were intended for the empress. Schweigl’s “Pastorale Duetto Concerto” in C Major for Holzspiel and violin from 1798 is dedicated to Marie Therese on her name day, 15 Oct; the two solo parts, however, carry separate dedications: the solo violin to Franz on his name day (4 Oct) and the Holzspiel to Marie Therese on hers (the concerto is in A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11096; a facsimile of the main title page is given as Fig. 6.7 in Rice 2003, 142). Schweigl also dedicated another duet concerto for violin and Holzspiel to the imperial couple, this one in G major, likewise with separate dedications to the emperor and empress on their respective solo parts (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11095). Among Schweigl’s other works for Holzspiel are a Sextet in D (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11408; see Rice 2003, 141) and a Septet in D for violin, Holzspiel, harp, piccolo, shawm, tambourine, and cello (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11396); the septet is a fantasia on the glockenspiel music in the Act I finale of Die Zauberflöte (Powley 1996). Marie Therese’s music collection also includes works for hölzernes Gelächter by other composers: a set of variations by Paul Wranitzky on “Ach du lieber Augustin” for 2 violins, cello, drum, cymbals, and hölzernes Gelächter (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11375, with a facsimile of the parts), and three pieces by Ferdinand Kauer (see Rice 2003, 141).

Paul Wranitzky, Augustin mit Variazionen, title page

A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 11375

[...]                                                  Eine

auswärtige Zeitung enthielt die Nachricht:

daß der Erzherzog sich mit seiner Gemahlinn

durch eine Cammermusik täglich Abends die

Zeit verkürzte, wobey die Erzherzoginn die

große Baßgeige, der Erzherzog aber die so

genannte Holzfidel, oder wie man es zu Wien

benennet: das hölzerne Gelächter spiel=

te. [...]

[Beytrag, 188–89]

[...]                                         A foreign

newspaper reported that the Archduke

whiled away the evenings each day in

chamber music with his spouse, in which

the Archduchess played the great bass fiddle,

and he the so-called “Holzfidel,” or as it is

called in Vienna, “das hölzerne Gelächter.”

[translation by DE]

The anecdote goes on to say that Franz, feeling that the story did not reflect well on him, complained to Count Cobenzl (presumably Vice Chancellor Philipp Count Cobenzl) about the newspaper’s presumption in publishing it, asking Cobenzl to reprimand the editor; the anecdote does not say, however, that Franz denied the story. The Archduchess in the anecdote would have been Franz’s first wife, Elisabeth of Württemberg. Franz and Elisabeth married in 1788, the year after the publication of Perinet’s 29 Annehmlichkeiten, but she had been living in Vienna since 1782, when Joseph brought her to the city to be educated into her future roles as Franz’s wife and presumptive empress (although she did not live to fill this latter role). So it is entirely possible that Franz and Elisabeth sometimes made music together before their marriage. Although the question needs further research, it is conceivable that Franz had a special affection for the hölzernes Gelächter, that he may have played it himself, and that Perinet’s Viennese readers might have been expected to know this.

Joachim Perinet

Joachim Perinet was baptized in Vienna on 20 Oct 1763 as “Maria, Joachimus, Joannes Baptista, Petrus Alcantara, Ferdinandus Felicianus”, an imposing phalanx of saintly names, as if his parents were trying to hedge their bets—which they may well have been: only one other sibling is known to have survived to adulthood, a sister Maria.

Joachim Perinet, Baptismal Certificate, 20 Oct 1763

Vienna, Stadt- und Landesarchiv, Mag. ZG, A2, 1446/1786

(Photo Michael Lorenz)

His father, Joachim Benedikt Perinet, whose family came from Savoy, was a businessman, reputedly a successful one. Early biographies depict his son Joachim as poorly educated, but this notion—as with much of the negative gossip about Perinet repeated throughout the secondary literature—seems to derive mainly from a biography of Perinet’s first wife published in the Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode in 1827 by Joseph Sonnleithner, whose extremely negative portrayal of Perinet is clearly driven by personal animosity (see Sonnleithner 1827, and the discussion below). In fact, nothing specific is known about Perinet’s education, although his predilection for French and Latin epigraphs and phrases in his writings (he even published a poem in Latin, Hungariae insurrectioni, in 1809), his (reputed) translations and adaptations from French, his references to Greek and Roman mythology, and the wide range of literary and intellectual targets in his satire and parody suggest a better education than most of his early biographers assumed (on Perinet’s knowledge of French and Latin, see Gugitz 1904, 176). On the other hand, his formal education was not on the level of Sonnleithner’s (on Sonnleithner’s education, see Walther 1836, 109–10).

In the summer of 1781, when Perinet was just 17, he, together with Franz Xaver Gewey (also 17) and Johann Michael Ahlen, led an amateur theater group in a season of plays performed for free at the Theater zum Weißen Fasan (the Fasantheater) in the Viennese suburb of Neustift (Gugitz 1925, 109). According to a retrospective description of the group published in 1794 (possibly also written by Sonnleithner), its emphasis was on serious theater:

Keine niedrig komischen Stücke aufzuführen, hatte sie sich schon damahls zum unverbrüchligen Gesetze gemacht, welches sie auch bis zu ihrer Auflösung immerfort beobachtete. Man gab kein Stück, das nicht schon auf dem Nationaltheater aufgeführt worden war; feinen Conversationsstücken und Trauerspilen gab man den Vorzug. Unter den letzteren waren Hamlet, Emilia Gallotti, und Adelstan. [“Nachricht von Privattheatern,” 44]

At that time they made it an unbreakable rule, which they observed continually until their company dissolved, not to perform any low comic plays. No play was given that had not already been performed in the Nationaltheater; fine “conversation pieces” [social dramas] and tragedies were preferred. Among the latter were Hamlet, [Lessing’s] Emilia Galotti, and Adelstan [perhaps Johann Friedrich Schink’s Adelstan und Röschen, which had not, in fact, been performed by the Nationaltheater].

Joachim Perinet, marriage to Anna Gansch,

St. Stephan, St. Elisabeth Deutscher-Orden,

Tauf-, Trauungs-, Sterbebuch, 01, 2, 3-02, Trauungs-Register, 1

The marriage is often said to have been unhappy: Perinet is said to have been Anna’s second choice, after a previous love affair had been forcibly broken off by the young man’s family, with the help of Count Zinzendorf, Anna’s father’s employer. The young man is even said to have been sent away from Vienna for a time to keep the two separated. Perinet, whose proposal (so the story goes) Anna quickly and rashly accepted in the aftermath, is said to have been a neglectful husband whose spendthrift ways left the pair continually short of money.

This story has been repeated often in the secondary literature. Its original source—although this has apparently not previously been recognized—is Sonnleithner’s 1827 biography of Anna Perinet. Wurzbach, who repeats the story of the broken-off love affair nearly verbatim from Sonnleithner’s biography, worked from a manuscript copy that did not identify its author or source. Gustav Gugitz consulted the same manuscript copy in Wurzbach’s estate (in what is now the Wienbibliothek), and likewise did not know that Sonnleithner was the author. But Gugitz plausibly suggested that the author of the biography might himself have been the young man in the story (Gugitz 1904, 182).

Although the case is still speculative, the circumstantial evidence is consistent with Gugitz’s guess. Joseph Sonnleithner (1766-1835) was a son of the prominent jurist (and amateur composer) Christoph Sonnleithner, who almost certainly would have found Anna Gansch, the daughter of a servant of Count Zinzendorf, an unacceptable match for his son. Joseph Sonnleithner, who was close to Anna in age, certainly knew both Anna and Perinet personally; by his own account Sonnleithner knew her from the amateur theatrical scene in Vienna, in which he also participated. Sonnleithner’s first position in the Habsburg bureaucracy, taken up around 1784, was as an official in the Kreisamt of the Viertel unter dem Wiener Wald in Traiskirchen—not terribly far from Vienna, to be sure, but perhaps just far enough to suggest that his position there might have been chosen to keep him separated from Anna while not overly disturbing the trajectory of his future career (on Sonnleithner’s early years, see primarily Walther 1836, 110; see also Brandtner 2014 and Wurzbach). He returned to Vienna in 1787 (thus not long before Anna’s marriage to Perinet) to take up a position in the emperor’s administration. Sonnleithner also tells us that Anna called him to her deathbed (she died in 1798), in order to entrust to him poems that she had been writing in secret throughout her life; he published six of these poems at the end of his biography. This deathbed scene alone suggests an exceptionally close relationship between the two, and the fervor of Sonnleithner’s prose in his descriptions of Anna gives the impression of a man in love, even at a remove of nearly 40 years. A frustrated romantic relationship between Anna and Joseph would also help explain Joseph’s evident animosity toward Perinet, particularly if he felt (as he clearly did) that Perinet’s treatment of Anna and their (according to Sonnleithner) chronic lack of money had contributed to her ill health and early death. These circumstances also help explain why Sonnleithner waited until 29 years after Anna’s death and 11 years after Perinet’s to publish the biography. (He notes that he is publishing the biography precisely as many years after Anna’s death as she herself had lived, as if he felt the timing in itself was a memorial to her.) One possible caveat is that Anna Gansch would have been quite young: she was only 18 when she married Perinet, and would have been just 14 or 15 in 1784, when Sonnleithner went to Traiskirchen. Even if Sonnleithner’s story refers to a time much closer to that of her marriage with Perinet, she would have been only 17 or 18. On the other hand, her young age does not rule out intense love, on either her part or Sonnleithner's. On balance, then, it seems likely that Sonnleithner was writing about himself in the story of the thwarted love affair. Sonnleithner eventually married Johanna Wilhelmine Mariboe in Copenhagen in 1801 (Walther 1836, 111).

Although Gugitz did not know that Sonnleither was the author of the biography of Anna Perinet, he realized that the author was strongly biased, and thus probably not a reliable witness (although this did not stop him from plagiarizing much of Sonnleithner’s article; on this point, see below). He also suggested that the history of Perinet’s relationship with Anna might have been more complicated than it was portrayed in the biography. Gugitz pointed to three early poems by Perinet, the earliest from 1784 (perhaps not coincidentally the year that Sonnleithner seems to have gone to Traiskirchen), in which the writer refers lovingly to his “Nannetchen,” quite possibly (Gugitz suggested) meaning Anna, and thus perhaps indicating a longer romantic history than Sonnleithner’s story would suggest (Gugitz 1904, 184). For his part, Perinet remembered Anna fondly enough to have her appear as a character in his Der Altenweibersommer im Tartarus (1806) and Der Jahrmarkt in der Unterwelt (1806), the fifth and sixth installments of his Gespräche im Reiche der Todten (edited in Gugitz 1920, 201–237)—and one suspects that this, too, would have irritated Sonnleithner.

Perinet’s first known dramatic work, Drei Weiber um einen Mann (apparently lost), premiered at the Theater in der Leopoldstadt on 12 Oct 1789. In 1790 the theater engaged him as a writer; in 1791 he had a substantial hit there with his libretto for Wenzel Müller, Der Fagottist, oder die Zauberzither (which Mozart attended but apparently thought little of). Perinet was engaged as an actor at the theater in 1791, and Anna was also engaged there as an actress, making her debut on 3 Nov 1791, although she seems thereafter to have appeared only rarely (Gugitz 1904, 188). Perinet continued to appear on stage throughout his career, but his reputation as an actor was never better than mixed. As a writer for the Theater in der Leopoldstadt, however, Perinet had considerable success in the mid 1790s, with such notable hits as Das neue Sonntagskind (adapted from Hafner’s Der Furchtsame, 1793) and Die Schwestern von Prag (adapted from Hafner’s Die reisenden Komödianten, 1794), both with music by Müller; in all, Perinet wrote or adapted 37 known works for the Theater in der Leopoldstadt during his first engagement there. In 1797, Perinet had a serious falling out with the theater’s director Karl Marinelli, who fired him. The following year, Perinet was engaged as a writer and actor by Emanuel Schikaneder at the Theater auf der Wieden; his debut work there was Orion oder der Fürst und sein Hofnarr, which premiered on 8 Jan 1798; Perinet appeared in a part he had written for himself. Perinet’s wife Anna died on 20 Sep 1798, at the age of just 29 (WZ, 29 Sep 1798, 2949). His father died on 25 Jun 1801 in Landstrasse at age 85 (WZ, 1 Jul 1801, 2380); the date of the father’s death seems not to have been previously noted in the literature on Perinet.

Perinet remained with Schikaneder until 1803; after Marinelli’s death that year, the Theater in der Leopoldstadt was taken over by Karl Friedrich Hensler (1759–1825; on Hensler, see also the entry for 5 Oct 1791). Perinet soon began a renewed engagement there, making his first appearance as a writer with Ariadne auf Naxos. Travestiert on 27 Oct 1803, and his first as an actor on 8 Nov in his own Orions Rückkehr zur friedlichen Insel, with music by Wenzel Müller. Just a few months earlier, on 17 May 1803, Perinet had married his second wife, the Paris-born actress Victoire Vamy (also Victoria, Viktorie, Wammy, Wamy, Wami, b. 1781), whose stage name was Sommer. As Michael Lorenz has shown, in 1801 Vamy bore an illegitimate daughter, Eleonora, to whom Schikaneder’s wife Eleonore stood as godmother (Lorenz 2008, 29–30, and Tabelle 1 on 25); the father is unknown, but as Lorenz points out, Schikaneder and Perinet are both plausible candidates. Vamy made her debut in the Theater in der Leopoldstadt on 21 Oct 1803, although she seems not to have remained with that theater for long; she later appeared at the Theater an der Wien in 1806, 1809–1810, and 1812–1815 (Gugitz 1904, 200–201). She apparently stopped living with Perinet at some point, and she notoriously became the mistress of the Russian general Aleksey Petrovich Yermolov (Gugitz 1904, 201, n. 2, and Lorenz 2008, 29).

Perinet remained associated with the Theater in der Leopoldstadt for the rest of his life, apart from a relatively short stint in Brünn in 1807 with Schikaneder, and perhaps also (as Gugitz has suggested) in 1806 in the same theater under its previous director (Gugitz 1904, 211). Perinet’s later theatrical works tended increasingly to parody and travesty, in such works as Ariadne auf Naxos. Travestirt (1803), Der travestierte Telemach (1804), Die neue Alzeste (1806), Hamlet. Eine Karrikatur in drey Aufzügen mit Gesang in Knittelreimen (1807), and Der Baum der Diana, a parody of L’arbore di Diana (1813). Perinet’s local reputation as a writer may have declined in his later years; his caricature opera Pumphia und Kulikan (8 Oct 1808) was literally hissed off the stage (Gugitz 1904, 213–14). However, Perinet enjoyed a late flowering of recognition as both writer and actor during the Congress of Vienna in 1815, from his appearance as Baumschnabel in a revival at the Theater in der Leopoldstadt of his Die Belagerung von Ypsilon, oder Evakathel und Schnudi (premiered 1804), which was said to have been attended repeatedly by such visiting heads of state at the king of Prussia and the Russian czar (Gugitz 1904, 217–18).

Perinet died in the Viennese suburb of Leopoldstadt on 4 Feb 1816, at the age of 52, on the twenty-eighth anniversary of his marriage to Anna Gansch, and the day after the premiere of his final completed work, Dragon, der Hund des Aubri, oder: der Wienerwald. He is not known to have had any children, and no images of him are known to survive. However, he left a humorously self-deprecating portrait of himself as a young man in the final “Annehmlichkeit” of the third volume of that series (20 und 4 Annehmlichkeiten in Wien, 60–61):

[60]

 Vier u. zwanzigste Annehmlichkeit.

                        Ich.

    “Amor incipit ab Ego” und man

wird es mir daher nicht verargen, wenn

ich mich aus Egoismus am Ende selbst

als eine Annehmlichkeit seze, da mich mei=

ne Feinde zur Aergerniß ausgeschrien

haben.

    Uiberhaupt bin ich ein wahrer Nar=

siß, und will Ihnen meine Schönheiten

deutlich schildern, also hören Sie.

      “Ich bin ein Mensch von 25 Jah=

,, ren, mein Obertheil ist länger als der

,, untere, mein Nase ist lang und dik NB.

,, Haar und Bart schwarz, meine Stim=

,, me lallend, und meine Augen — — ?

,, ja die hat noch niemand gesehen, weil

,, ich mich niemanden ins Gesicht zu se=

,, hen unterstehe. Aus meiner Phisiogno=

,, mie stralt Dummheit und Tüke, und

,, ich bin mit einem Wort ein rechter

,, s. v. Knüppel. Uibrigens bin ich ein Pri=

,, vatkommödiant, der alles zusammen=

,, spielt, und ein Broschürenschmidt, des=

,, sen Werke (Gott sey den Annehmlich=

,, keiten gnädig!) die Käsestecher verle=

,, gen*) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . . . . . . . . . . . .

…………………………………… &c. &c.

*) Meine Kritiker haben (was ich fast nicht

glauben kann) vermuthlich mit ihrem Mit=

tagmahl ein Blatt davon erhalten, und um

diese Zeit war es eben, wo Sie mich als Bet=

telstudent um die Pastete beneideten.

A. d. V.

[Anmerkung des Verfassers]

    Twenty-Fourth Amenity.

                  Me.

   “Amor incipit ab Ego” [Love starts with oneself]

and it will therefore not be taken amiss if

from egotism I place myself at the end

as an amenity, since my enemies have

lambasted me as a nuisance.

    In general, I am a real Narcissus,

and want to portray my beauties

clearly, so listen:

    “I am a man of 25 years, my

upper part is longer than my lower,

my nose is long and fat NB.

Hair and beard black, my voice

babbling, and my eyes — — ?

Well no one has seen these yet,

because I dare look no one in

the face. Stupidity and deceit radiate

from my physiognomy, and I am

in a word, quite a s. v. cudgel.

In addition, I am a self-employed

actor, who plays everything together,

and a brochure-smith, whose work

(God bless the Amenities!) the

cheese merchants publish *) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !”

……………………………………..&c. &c.

*) My critics (I can scarcely believe it)

probably received a page of it with their

midday meal, and it was just at this time

that you begrudged me, a starving student,

a pastry.

Note by the Author

Kaum verheiratet [the reference is to Anna], fing Perinet auch schon an, seine Frau zu vernachlässigen. Um diese Zeit starb sein Vater, und hinterließ ihm und seiner Schwester ein kleines Haus in der Stadt. Perinet machte sogleich Anstalten, es zu veräußern, und er konnte kaum erwarten, seinen Antheil in den Händen zu haben, der in sechstausend Gulden in Gold bestand. Der erste Tag des Besitzes war auch der Anfang der zügellosesten Verschwendung. Als Augenzeuge kann ich berichten, daß er täglich des Morgens ein Sümmchen Ducaten, das für den Tag ausreichen mochte, in die Tasche steckte, und nicht eher nach Hause kam, bis die Summe verschwendet war. Es war ein so wilder Drang, das Geld los zu werden, in ihm, daß er, wenn Magen und Gurgel ihren Dienst versagen wollten, noch spät des Abends ein große Düten mit Zuckerwerk kaufte, und es unter die Gassenjungen vertheilte. Er schaffte sich eine schöne Garderobe, eine Bibliothek ohne Wahl, aber keine Wäsche an. Nach ungefähr sechs Wochen war sein Geld bis auf den letzten Groschen versplittert, die Bücher wurden verschleudert, die Kleider verkauft, und in der siebenten Woche ersuchte er schon einen Freund schriftlich um ein Hemd. Er war zu blöde, um je ein mündliches Ansuchen zu stellen. Er brachte Stunden mit manchem Bekannten im sorglosesten Muthwillen zu, und kaum hatte ihn dieser verlassen, so schrieb er ihm schon einen kläglichen Bettelbrief, sehr oft in Versen. Solche Briefe hielt er für unwiderstehlich, und sie thaten auch größten Theils gut Wirkung. [Sonnleithner 1827, 1180–81]

Just barely married, Perinet already began to neglect his wife. Around this time his father died, leaving him and his sister a small house in the city. Perinet immediately got ready to sell it, and he could scarcely wait to get his hands on his portion, which amounted to six thousand gulden in gold. [This implies payment in gold ducats.] The first day he had them was the beginning of the most extravagant wastefulness. As an eyewitness I can report that every day in the morning he would put a tidy sum of ducats in his pocket that might last for the day, and did not come home again until the sum was squandered. There was in him such a savage drive to be rid of money, that when his stomach and gullet were not up the task, even late in the evening he would buy a large bag of sweetmeats and distribute them amongst the street urchins. He got himself a pretty wardrobe and an indiscriminate library, but no linens. After approximately six weeks his money was frittered away to the last groschen, the books gone for a song, the clothing sold, and in the seventh week he wrote to a friend requesting a shirt. He was too foolish ever to make a verbal request. He would spend hours with some acquaintance in the most heedless wantonness, and scarcely had he left the person, he would write him a plaintive begging letter, very often in verse. He considered such letters to be irresistible, and for the most part they had the desired effect.

Perinet’s Works  

The most complete bibliography of Perinet’s writings is apparently still the chronological list given by Gugitz at the end of his 1905 article on the author’s poetry and prose (Gugitz 1905, 164–69).

How one counts Perinet’s theatrical works depends on how theatrical works are defined; Perinet published several works in a theatrical format (such as Mozart und Schikaneder and Der Weyland Casperl) that were probably not intended for the stage. Gugitz sensibly places these among Perinet’s poetical works, not his theatrical ones. Using that definition, Gugitz lists 111 works by Perinet that are known to have been staged. Großauer-Zöbinger (7, note 52) adds two more to the list, and subtracts one, thus leaving a total of 112. This figure represents an average of more than four works per year across the span of Perinet’s theatrical career, 1789–1816; his most productive years were 1798, 1804, and 1812, in each of which he produced nine new works for the theater.

Not all of these works were entirely original: many are singspiel libretti adapted from comic plays by Philipp Hafner (1735–1764) or other authors, and others are said to be adaptations from French originals and the like. Even so, Perinet by any estimation produced a formidable body of theatrical work, and one that has not yet been adequately evaluated in the published literature. Taking Großauer-Zöbinger’s updates into account, 37 of Perinet’s works were staged at the Theater in der Leopoldstadt during his first engagement there (1790–1797), 20 during his engagement at Schikaneder’s Theater auf der Wieden and its successor the Theater an der Wien (1798–1803), and 55 during Perinet’s second engagement at the Theater in der Leopoldstadt (1803–1816). His first known theatrical work, Drei Weiber um einen Mann, oder Nichts weniger als una cosa rara, premiered in the Theater in der Leopoldstadt on 12 Oct 1789; it is apparently lost, but its title certainly refers to Martín y Soler’s opera Una cosa rara, which premiered in the Burgtheater in 1786; in 1789 the opera was at the beginning of a successful revival that eventually lasted until 1791. Perinet’s second theatrical work, and the first to be published, was the farce Der lizitierte Bräutigam, oder Die Großmama wider ihren Willen, “nach dem Französisch,” which premiered in the Theater in der Leopoldstadt on 23 Oct 1789. His last completed work was Dragon, der Hund des Aubri, oder: der Wienerwald. Histerisch[sic]-romantisch-komisches Drama mit Musik in 2 Aufzügen, und einem Prologe als Parodie, in Knittelreimen, with music by Wenzel Müller, which premiered in the same theater on 3 Feb 1816, the day before Perinet died. Not all of Perinet’s theatrical works are known to survive, but a large proportion of them do. The Wienbibliothek possesses what may be the largest collection of Perinet’s published works for the theater, but these are unfortunately not yet available online in digital copies. The ÖNB also has a large collection of Perinet’s published writings; many of the items from that collection are available on Google Books, as well as through the library’s website. (The library often offers a color facsimile where Google Books has only black and white.)

Perinet was by all accounts a gifted improviser of verse, and in addition to the verse incorporated into his libretti, he published poetry throughout his career. The only serious study  of Perinet’s poetry is still Gugitz (1905). Many (although not all) of Perinet’s published collections of poetry and some longer individual poems are now available online in digitized copies, waiting to serve as the foundation of a comprehensive reassessment. Early in his career Perinet also published individual poems in the Wienerblättchen and other periodicals, and many of these volumes are also now available online.

In 1801, Perinet published an imaginary conversation in verse between Mozart and Schikaneder regarding the new production of Die Zauberflöte in the “Stadttheater” in Vienna (the Kärntnertortheater): Mozart und Schikaneder. Ein theatralisches Gespräch über die Aufführung der Zauberflöte im Stadttheater (1801). This work has recently been published in transcription with an English translation and a somewhat error-prone introduction (Mueller 2012). A number of sequels followed, at least two of which are attributed to Perinet. Gugitz and the library catalogs of the ÖNB and the Wienbibliothek all attribute to Perinet the anonymous Jupiter, Mozart und Schikaneder. Nach der ersten Vorstellung der Zauberflöte im neuen Theater an der Wien (1802), and he is certainly also the author of the Theatralisches Gespräch zwischen Mozart und Schikaneder über den Verkauf des Theaters (1802; not yet available digitally; see the catalog record for the exemplar in the the ÖNB; see also Wienbibliothek,

A-17880). Gugitz also attributes to Perinet two new texts written to be sung to the melody of “Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja”: Neues Lied auf die bekannte Melodie: Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja: zum 12 März 1801 and Neues Lied auf die bekannte Melodie: Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja: zum 13. Juni 1802. Gugitz lists both as lost, but these titles seem to match items published in facsimile in Wunderlich, Ueberschlag & Müller (2007, 179–85), based on exemplars in the Wienbibliothek. Both are attributed unequivocally on their title pages to Schikaneder, and there seems to be no reason to think that Perinet had anything to do with them.

Perinet’s published prose works, including the three books of Annehmlichkeiten, almost exclusively stem from the earliest years of his career, before he began writing for the theater (on Perinet’s prose works, see Gugitz 1905; for a detailed and complimentary assessment, see Bodi 1977, 375–91). His prose is pervasively ironic, full of wordplay, puns, topical allusions, and quotations. He sometimes plays with typography somewhat in the manner of Laurence Sterne.

Joachim Perinet, 30 Annehmlichkeiten (1788)

Examples of playful typography. The examples show the complete content of the chapters

His favorite prose form was the satirical vignette, of which the examples published here are characteristic examples. His prose writings contain much explicit and implicit social critique, of religious institutions, bureaucracy, social hypocrisy, and sexual mores, and his work is sometimes sexually suggestive. His prose work is reminiscent of a nineteenth- or early twentieth century feuilletonist; Leslie Bodi, who has made the most thorough critical evaluation of Perinet’s prose writings, considers him a precursor of Karl Kraus, Peter Altenberg, and Adalbert Stifter (Bodi 1977, 380). There is something unmistakably Viennese about Perinet’s humor.

Perinet’s first publication was Kleine Schriften oder moralisches Verdrußspiel (1784; Wienbibliothek,

A-11132), a mix of poetry and prose in 22 chapters called “Anklagen” (accusations; Gugitz 1905, 157), thus inaugurating Perinet’s series of small books made up of numbered vignettes, such as the Ärgernisse and the Annehmlickkeiten. He published at least six  “Broschüren” in 1786. The Kleiner Katechismus der Liebe für Mädchen (1786) and Kleiner Katechismus der Liebe für Junggesellen (1786) are satirical treatments of Viennese sexual mores cast as parodies of the Catholic catechism, in question and answer form. The opening of the Katechismus...für Mädchen gives the flavor:

Fr. Was heißt Katechismus der Liebe?

A.  Katechismus der Liebe heißt der Un=

terricht in Wollust und Kokettrie, so

heißt auch insgemein das Buch, in dem

dieser Unterricht enthalten ist. [...]

[Katechismus...für Mädchen, 3]

Q. What is the catechism of love?

A. The catechism of love is instruction

in lust and coquetry, and also

in general the book in which

this instruction is contained. [...]

Ich glaube an dich, du reicher

Verschwender! und liebe deine

Börse über alles! Ich glaube

alles, was du mir geoffenbaret

hast, an deine Stärke, deinen

Reichthum und dein Verspre=

chen, und daß du groß bist und

edel! — Ich glaube, daß jeder=

mann mein Nächster sey, und

ich meinen Nächsten lieben müs=

se! Ich glaube, ihr Männer!

an eure Herablassung, die her=

absteigt zu mir, mich zu ver=

gnügen, und euch zu begraben.

Ich glaube an alte Narren, und

auf meine eigene Kunst, Nach=

laß der Liebe, und eine allge=

meine Freundin die Abwechs=

lung, den Stand einer Maitres=

se, oder einer ruhigen Liebhabe=

rin, und einen ewigen Gnaden=

gehalt. Amen.

[Katechismus...für Mädchen, 13]

I believe in thee, thou rich

spendthrift! and love thy

purse above all! I believe

everything that thou hast

revealed to me: in thy

strength, thy riches, and

thy promises, and that

thou art great and noble! —

I believe that everyone is

my neighbor, and I must

love my neighbor! I believe,

you men, in your condescension

which descends to me, to

enjoy myself and to bury you.

I believe in old fools, and in

my own wiles, the inheritance

of love, and as a general friend of

change, in the status of

mistress or tranquil lover,

and in an eternal stipend.

Amen.

Volume (Heft) 1 (Google Books; ÖNB):

29 / Annehmlichkeiten, / in / Wien. / Qui promet, s’oblige. / Von / einem Satyr. / [vignette of a satyr and a goat butting heads] / 1787.

Volume 2 (Google Books; ÖNB):

30 / Annehmlichkeiten / in / Wien. / Il faut faire bonne mine à mauvais jeu. / Von / einem Satyr. / [vignette with wreath] / Zweites Heft. / 1787.

Volume 3 (Google Books, missing last page of text; ÖNB, complete):

20 und 4 / Annehmlichkeiten / in / Wien. / Cequi est différé, n’est pas perdu. / Drittes und leztes Heft. / Wien, 1788. [no vignette, no author]

[Unified title page (Google Books); this page is not included with any of the ÖNB scans]

Annehmlichkeiten / in / Wien. Von / Joachim Perinet / La liberalité consiste moins à donner / beaucoup, qu’a donner à propos. / Drei Hefte. / [vignette] / WIEN, / zu finden bei Lukas Hochenleitter, / Kunst= und Buchhändler am Kohlmarkte Nro. / 1180. dem grünen Fassel gegenüber. / 1788.

[New separate title page for the “Dritte Auflage” of the first volume: Google Books; ÖNB]

29 / Annehmlichkeiten, / in / Wien. / Qui promet, s’oblige. / Von einem Satyr. / Dritte Auflage. / 1788. [no vignette]

The online catalog of the Wienbibliothek includes four records for the Annehmlichkeiten, but these are insufficiently detailed to clarify the bibliographic situation. However, the Wienbibliothek does provide a complete color scan of an exemplar that includes (apparently) all three volumes bound together as one (shelfmark A-11897). This scan includes the unified title page transcribed above, but not the separate title page of 29 Annehmlichkeiten that refers to the “Dritte Auflage” (although the rest of the first volume is present and matches the “Dritte Auflage” in the ÖNB).

In the “Dritte Auflage” of 29 Annehmlichkeiten, the reference to Mozart is on page 24, just as in the first edition. But the “Dritte Auflage” of 29 Annehmlichkeiten is a completely new typesetting, albeit obviously made using the first edition as a guide. Page breaks, layout, and page and signature numbers are the same, but the type differs in many details, the line breaks within pages occasionally differ, and there are numerous other small differences showing that the volume was actually reset from scratch. Thus the “Dritte Auflage” of 29 Annehmlichkeiten seems to be a second edition (but a third printing), whereas the “2te Auflage” of the 29 Annehmlichkeiten referred to in Hochleitner’s advertisement on 28 Mar 1787 may have been a second printing using the original formes.

      

Joachim Perinet, 29 Annehmlichkeiten, page 24

Comparison of the 1787 and 1788 editions

In contrast, all available scans of the second and third volumes are identical across all exemplars, suggesting that they only ever appeared in one edition. It may be, then, that the so-called “third edition” of the Annehmlichkeiten in 1788 actually consisted merely of a resetting of the first volume bound together with copies of the first printings of the second and third, with an added unified title page. Since the preface of the third volume is dated Jul 1788, it may be that its publication was the motivation for resetting the first volume and releasing it as a set together with leftover copies of the second volume and the newly printed third, all with a unified title page. This, at any rate, is a more parsimonious explanation of the available evidence than Gugitz’s implied three separate editions of the set.

Although it is usually omitted in published references to the volume, the title of the 29 Annehmlichkeiten in both editions includes a comma after the word Annehmlichkeiten. There is no comma in this position in the titles of the other two volumes.

Several secondary references give 27 Jun 1769 as the date of the performance of Hasse’s cantata L’armonica by the Davies sisters in Vienna; see, for example, the article on the sisters in the 1904 edition of Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians (vol. 1, 671). Although the references we have seen cite no primary source for this claim, 27 Jun 1769 was the date of Archduchess Maria Amalia’s proxy marriage in Vienna to the Duke of Parma. The ceremony and festivities are described at some length in a report in the Wienerisches Diarium on 28 Jun 1769, which mentions a “vortreffiche Instrumental= und Vocal=music” at the meal following the ceremony on 27 Jun, and another at the midday meal the following day; however, neither Hasse nor the Davies sisters are mentioned in the report. Pohl (1862, 7) gives a transcription of the title page of a copy of the cantata said to be among the papers of Benjamin Franklin; the transcribed title specifies that it was written for the wedding. L’armonica is transcribed in Appendix C of Hansell (1966), 602–46, and has been recorded several times. For additional background on the cantata, see Hansell (1966), 129–35.

On Carl Leopold Röllig (ca. 1745–1804) see Wurzbach, and William Zeitler’s page on Röllig at his site The Glass Armonica. The online RISM catalog lists (under “Karl Leopold Röllig”) several of Röllig’s compositions for glass harmonica in D-B, and there are also several in the collection of the ÖNB. From 1797, Röllig (who settled in Vienna around 1791) was librarian in the Hofbibliothek, and the ÖNB today possesses a number of scores and other items from his estate. (For items cataloged under Röllig’s name in the library’s collections, see here and here.) The music collection of the ÖNB includes four concertos for glass harmonica attributed to Röllig, in C Major (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 18564), A Major (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 18557), E-flat (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 18562), and another in E-flat (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. 18566) that is related to the first, and may be a different version of it. Mus. Hs. 18562 is available on the ÖNB site in a color facsimile (also at IMSLP).

A report from Vienna dated 11 May 1791, published in the Bayreuther Zeitung on 17 May, shows that Marianne Kirchgessner had arrived in the imperial capital by early May and was planning to perform for the court. On 11 May 1791, the Pressburger Zeitung reported on a concert that Kirchgessner had given in Linz on 24 Apr.

Variant spellings of “hölzernes Gelächter” include “hůltze glechter” and “hülzernes glachter”, among others; equivalent terms include “Holzspiel,” “Holz-Spill”, and “Holzfidel,” as well as “Strohfiedel” and its variants. Perhaps the earliest known reference in any spelling to the term hölzernes Gelächter is Arnolt Schlick’s description, in his Spiegel der Orgelmacher und Organisten (1511), of an organ stop apparently meant to imitate the sound of one. Schlick describes the “hůltze glechter” thus:

das ist seltzam vnd wůnderlich zü hörn. [...] meim vrteill gleich dem haffen dar vff die freyen gesellen

mit löffel spiln.

This is strange and wondrous to hear. [...] In my opinion, it is like the pots that free journeymen play

upon with spoons.

Ammerer, Gerhard. 1997. “Der letzte österreichische Türkenkrieg (1788–1791) und die öffentliche Meinung in Wien.” Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 45: 59–[88].

Bäuerle, Adolf. “Joachim Perinet.” [obituary] 1816. Wiener Theater-Zeitung, vol. 9, no. 11 (7 Feb 1816), 43–44; no. 12 (10 Feb 1816), 47–48.

Bauman, Thomas. 2016. “Perinet, Joachim.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Accessed 15 Sep 2016.

Beales, Derek. 2009. Joseph II: Against the World, 1780–1790. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Black, David. 2015. “Mozart’s Association with the Tonkünstler-Societät.” Chpt. 3 in: Mozart Studies 2, ed. Simon P. Keefe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bodi, Leslie. 1977. Tauwetter in Wien. Zur Prosa der österreichischen Aufklärung 1781–1795. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

Brandtner, Andreas. 2014. “Sonnleithner, Joseph Ferdinand.” Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815-1950 Online-Edition. Accessed 16 Sep 2016.

Branscombe, Peter. 2016. “Perinet, Joachim.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Accessed 15 Sep 2016.

Castelli, Ignaz Franz. 1861. Memoiren meines Lebens. Gefundenes und Empfundenens, Erlebtes und Erstrebetes. Vol. 1. Vienna and Prague: Kober & Markgraf.

Czeike, Felix. 1992–1997. Historisches Lexikon Wien. 6 vols. Vienna: Kremayr & Scheriau.  

“Naglergasse,” vol. 4, 345

“Perinet, Joachim,” vol. 4, 521–22

“Perinetgasse,” vol. 4, 522

Dolan, Emily I. 2013. The Orchestral Revolution: Haydn and the Technologies of Timbre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edelmann, Bernd. 1992. “Wenzel Müllers Lied vom ‘Schneider Wetz’ und Beethovens Trio-Variationen Op. 121a.” In: Beethovens Klaviertrios. Symposion München 1990. Edited by Rudolf Bockholdt and Petra Weber-Bockholdt, 76–102. Veröffentlichungen des Beethoven-Hauses in Bonn. Neue Folge. Vierte Reihe, xi. Munich: G. Henle Verlag.

Fischer, Joseph Maximilian. 1786. Verzeichniß der in der Kaiserl. Königl. Haupt= und Residenzstadt Wien, sammt dazu gehörigen Vorstädten und Gründen, befindlichen numerirten Häusern, derselben wahrhafte Eigenthümer, und deren Konditionen, nebst Schildern und Plätzen. Auf das genaueste nach denen Grund= und Konscriptions=Büchern entworfen. Vienna: Joseph Gerold.

Gräffer, Franz. 1845a. “Burgthor und Basteyrunde vor 40 Jahren.” Bluttriefende Ankundigung.” Kleine Wiener Memoiren: Historische Novellen, Genrescenen, Fresken, Skizzen, Persönlichkeiten und Sächlickeiten, Anecdoten und Curiosa, Visionen und Notizen zur Geschichte und Characteristik Wien’s und der Wiener, in älterer und neuerer Zeit. Vol. 1, 112–20 [the description of “Parinet” is on 115–16]. Vienna: Fr. Beck’s Universitäts-Buchhandlung.

————. 1845b. “Bluttriefende Ankundigung.” Kleine Wiener Memoiren: Historische Novellen, Genrescenen, Fresken, Skizzen, Persönlichkeiten und Sächlickeiten, Anecdoten und Curiosa, Visionen und Notizen zur Geschichte und Characteristik Wien’s und der Wiener, in älterer und neuerer Zeit. Vol. 2, 162–66. Vienna: Fr. Beck’s Universitäts-Buchhandlung.

————. 1846. “Postbüchel.” Wiener-Dosenstücke; nähmlich: Physiognomien, Concersatsionsbildchen, Auftritte, Genrescenen, Caricaturen und Dieses und Jenes, Wien und die Wiener betreffend; thatsächlich und novellistisch. Vol. 2, 131–32. Vienna: Mörschner’s Witwe und W. Bianchi.

————. 1848. “Abenteuer auf dem Apollosaale.” In: Franz Gräffer, Neue Wiener-Tabletten und heitere Novellchen. 271–75. Vienna: Matthäus Kuppitsch.

Großauer-Zöbinger, Jennyfer. n.d.  “Joachim Perinet (1763–1816)” on the site Mäzene des Kasperls.  Accessed 4 Sep 2016.

Gugitz, Gustav. 1904. “Joachim Perinet.” In: Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, vol. 14, 170–223.

————. 1905. “Joachim Perinets Broschüren und Gedichte. Nebst dem Versuche einer ersten vollständigen Bibiographie und Chronologie seiner sämtlichen Werke.” Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde, vol. 9 (1905–1906), 154–69.

————. 1920. Der Weiland Kasperl (Johann La Roche). Ein Beitrag zur Theater- und Sittengeschichte Alt-Wiens. Vienna: Strache.

————. 1925. “Das Theater zum weißen Fasan auf dem Neustift.” Chapter 3 in: Emil Karl Blümml and Gustav Gugitz, Alt-Wiener Thespiskarren. Die Frühzeit der Wiener Vorstadtbühnen, 103–34. Vienna: Anton Schroll.

Hadlock, Heather. 2000. “Sonorous Bodies: Women and the Glass Harmonica.” Journal of the American Musicological Society, 53/3:507–42.

Hansell, Sven Hastrup. 1966. “The Solo Cantatas, Motets, and Antiphons of Johann Adolf Hasse.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois.

Lorenz, Michael. 2008. “Neue Forschungsergebnisse zum Theater auf der Wieden und Emanuel Schikaneder.” Wiener Geschichtsblätter, 2008/4:15–36. [author’s typescript]

Morrow, Mary Sue. 1989. Concert Life in Haydn’s Vienna: Aspects of a Developing Musical and Social Institution. New York: Pendragon Press.

Mueller, Adeline. 2012. “An Introduction to Joachim Perinet’s ‘Mozart and Schikaneder: A Theatrical Dialogue.” The Opera Quarterly, 28 (1–2):104–107. Transcription and translation, 108–21.

“Nachricht von Privattheatern.” 1794. In: Wiener Theater Almanach für das Jahr 1794, 43–68. Vienna: Kurzbeck.

Orel, Alfred. 1959. “Die Bühneninstrumente der ‘Zauberflöte’,” Acta Mozartiana, 6(3): 45–52.

“Perinet, Joachim.” 1836. Oesterreichische National-Encyclopädie. Ed. Johann Jakob Heinrich Czikann and Franz Gräffer. Vol. 4, 181.

“Perinet, Joachim.” 2013. Österreichisches Musiklexikon Online. Ed. Rudolf Flotzinger. Accessed 13 Sep 2016.

Pohl, C. F. 1862. Cursory Notices on the Origin and History of the Glass Harmonica. International Exhibition of 1862. London: Petter and Galpin.

————. 1871. Denkschrift aus Anlass des hundertjährigen Bestehens der Tonkünstler-Societät, im Jahr 1862 reorganisirt als “Haydn” Witwen- und Waisen-Versorgung-Verein der Tonkünstler in Wien. Vienna: Selbstverlag des “Haydn”, in Commission bei Carl Gerold’s Sohn.

Powley, Harrison. 1996. “Eighteenth-Century Xylophone Music: Ignaz Schweigl’s Hausmusik for Kaiser Franz I.” Unpublished paper presented at the conference “Austria, 996-1996: Music in a Changing Society,” Ottawa, Canada, 3–7 Jan 1996.

————. 2004. “Die Zauberflöte: What’s in a Title?” BYU Studies, 43/3:189–204.

Rice, John A. 2003. Empress Marie Therese and Music at the Viennese Court, 1792–1807.

Sachs, Curt. 1920. Handbuch der Musikinstrumentenkunde. Kleine Handbücher der Musikgeschichte nach Gattungen, vol. 12, ed. Hermann Kretschmarr. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Sonnleithner, Joseph. 1827. “Anna Perinet.” Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode, no. 143, 29 Nov 1827, 1179–83.

Walther, Paul Friedrich. 1836. “Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner.” Oesterreichisch Zeitschrift für Geschichts- und Staatskunde, 28 (6 Apr 1836), 109–12, and 29 (9 Apr 1836), 113–16.

Wehle, Peter. 1980. Sprechen Sie Wienerisch? von Adaxl bis Zwutschkerl. Vienna and Heidelberg: Ueberreuter.

Wunderlich, Werner, Doris Ueberschlag, and Ulrich Müller, eds. 2007. Mozarts Zauberflöte und ihre Dichter. Schikaneder, Vulpius, Goethe, Zuccalmaglio. Faksimiles und Editionen von Textbuch, Bearbeitungen und Fortsetzungen der Mozart-Oper. Anif/Salzburg: Müller-Speiser.