[ANPPOM-Lista] "Franz Schubert" no New Grove II

Sáb Ago 3 10:19:17 BRT 2013

Michael Lorenz lê o verbete "Franz Schubert" na segunda edição do *New
Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians* (2001) e descobre que está tudo
errado.

"Franz Schubert" in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2001)
 In Robert Winter*'*s book *Music for our
Time*<http://www.amazon.com/Music-Our-Time-Robert-Winter/dp/images/0534131042>(Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company 1992) the following paragraph
appears on p. 358:

FRANZ SCHUBERT (1797-1828)

 Franz Schubert was the only Viennese Classicist born in Vienna, and except
for an extended summer holiday in the west of Austria in 1825, he never
ventured beyond the suburbs of that city. His father was a schoolmaster who
taught boarding students in the family quarters, an activity that brought
little income or social standing. Franz was the eleventh of twelve
children, only four of whom survived infancy. He and his brothers all
learned to play musical instruments and often came together in the evening
to play chamber music.

 The only part of this quote that does not contain a mistake is the title.
In 1818 and 1824 Schubert was in
Zséliz<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDeliezovce>and in 1819 and
1825 he visited Upper Austria. In 1827 he went to Graz,
Gastein and Salzburg. Schubert's father had no "boarding students". Where
should he have provided housing for them? He was a regular school-teacher.
Not four but five of the Schubert children survived infancy: Ignaz,
Ferdinand, Karl, Franz und Theresia (whom Winter is obviously unaware of).
Karl Schubert did not join the music making but became a painter (see
Ferdinand Schubert's account from 1839). To round up the affair Schober's
caricature <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SchubertAndVogl.jpg> of Vogl
and Schubert is wrongly attributed to Moritz von
Schwind<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_von_Schwind>.
Although by 1992 Robert Winter had not even read Maurice Brown's old
Schubert article<http://books.google.at/books/about/The_New_Grove_Schubert.html?id=Kv9IAIm6J5YC&redir_esc=y>in
*Grove*, the editors of *New Grove* commissioned him to write the new one.
After several years of absence from Schubert research in which he dedicated
himself to the development of computer software, Winter faced the
opportunity to delve into the literature, preparing to write the article on
Schubert that, due to *New Grove*'s worldwide popularity, must be regarded
the most widely read printed publication on Schubert. The result was made
available on the internet on www.grovemusic.com prior to the printed
version of the encyclopedia which was officially presented on 8 January
2001. According to the international press the new owners of
Macmillan<http://www.macmillan.com/>demanded
*The New Grove*'s immediate release, a policy which the editors refused for
the understandable reason that it was far too premature to guarantee a
result that would meet scholarly demands. Stanley
Sadie<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Sadie>was appointed "Editor
emeritus" and replaced by John
Tyrrell<http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/music/contactsandpeople/profiles/tyrrellj.html>,
who in the meantime has passed on his function to Laura Macy. To put the
encyclopedia to print at all costs the last corrections were proofread by a
"teenage army of non-musicological graduates" ("How music got its Grove
Back", *The Independent* <http://www.independent.co.uk/>, 30 December
2000). Given the fact that some of the important entries were commissioned
long before 1996, even more meticulous correction work could not have
provided a less faulty edition. There was ample time to take care of the
major mistakes, but unfortunately this time seems to have been wasted.

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oXxunA1Ml0w/UWgpNzXOEcI/AAAAAAAACAY/bPs9oK7k4YM/s1600/schubert.jpg>

Avoiding any risk Robert Winter could have chosen an easy way out by just
copying everything from Otto Erich
Deutsch<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Erich_Deutsch>,
a method usually applied these days by many Schubert scholars. But this
turned out to be impossible. The zeitgeist and the heated and politically
influenced discussion about Schubert's sexuality that had dominated the
preceding decade demanded a heavily revised image of Schubert which was
likely to meet the expectations of "new musicology". Therefore Winter did
not rely on the *Dokumente*, but wrote his biography of Schubert in the
style of a medley based on the literature. Although this is by no means an
unusual method, the result is a mixture of personal recollection and
scholarly impromptu that makes the reader waver continuously between
astonishment and amusement. As will be shown, Winter sometimes did not even
consult the literature given in his own bibliography. The list of mistakes
will be presented quite prosaically, based exclusively on original quotes
from Winter's text and any claim of completeness may be premature. My
critical point of view is influenced by a statement in a "letter of the
editors" on Macmillan’s web-page: "The primary objective of a reference
work is to give accurate, reliable and up-to-date information." In the
first chapter of Winter's article, titled "Background and childhood" we
learn that "[Schubert’s father] took up the position of schoolteacher, one
that offered little social standing or financial reward; education was an
enterprise supported only meagrely by the imperial government." If we keep
in mind all the various honours the house-owner Franz Theodor received,
together with all the efforts Empress Maria Theresia had put in place to
improve educational standards in Vienna, we cannot accept Winter's
statement (see also Herwig Knaus's excellent book *Franz Schubert: vom
Vorstadtkind zum Compositeur*, Vienna: Löcker 1997). Winter continues to
present a strictly personal state of information: "All of the [Schubert]
children were born in a one-room apartment in a house called 'Zum roten
Krebsen'". This is false. Ignaz and Elisabeth Schubert were not born in
this house (see Heinz Schöny, in *Jahrbuch der Heraldisch-Genealogischen
Gesellschaft Adler *1974/78, III. Folge, vol. 9, Vienna 1978, p. 15, an
important genealogical article that is missing in Winter's bibliography).
Regarding Schubert's studies with Salieri the following information is
given as a fact: "During his first two years [at the *Stadtkonvikt*] he
received permission to take regular lessons with Salieri, who urged him to
find his models in Italian opera, [...]". Wrong again. As far as we know,
Schubert first started studying with Salieri in June 1812. On the occasion
of the premiere of the F major mass in 1814 Winter deals with an old
imaginary problem that actually has been solved a long time ago: "Near the
end of July [1814] he completed his first mass (in F, d105), written for
the centenary of the Lichtental church he had attended since a child.
Although Schubert's spirituality was never in doubt, his freedom with the
text (including the omission of 'Et in unam sanctam catholicam et
apostolicam ecclesiam') suggests that the church as an institution was not
sacrosanct to him. [...] Schubert conducted the first performance himself
in October." We are still waiting for Joseph Haydn being suspected of not
believing in Christ being the Son of God and the significance of the Holy
Spirit, because in his "Missa in
Angustiis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mass>"
he left out the passage "Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei
unigenitum" and in his "Missa sancti Bernardi von
Offida<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missa_sancti_Bernardi_von_Offida>"
he failed to set to music the words "Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". In
Haydn's "Missa in tempore
belli<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missa_in_tempore_belli>"
even the line "Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur" is
missing. And yet this composer is still being considered a devoutly
catholic classic. As Erich Benedikt has shown in 1997, in countless masses
of Schubert's time large parts of the Credo text are missing and not even Anton
Bruckner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Bruckner> dealt with this text
too meticulously, because the celebrant had to say the complete Credo
anyway. But no, the presentation of Schubert as an individual with shaky
religious beliefs must forever be continued. For the sake of his morals and
dubious private life this seems to be very important. Unfortunately Winter
calls the performance of the "Ouverture in Italian
Style<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2hwiEflpM8>"
the "first public performance" of one of Schubert's works. This applies for
the performance of the F major mass D.
105<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0ehtzMY01c>,
because in Lichtental
parish<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtental_Church>holy mass was no
private event. The premiere of this mass did not take
place - as given by Robert Winter - in October 1814, but on 25 September of
the same year. Erich Benedikt's article "Notizen zu Schuberts Messen"
(*Österreichische
Musikzeitschrift* 1-2, 1997, pp. 64-69), where this issue is resolved, is
given in Winter's bibliography. Winter seems never to have read it.
Regarding the topic "Therese Grob<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therese_Grob>"
(Schubert's beloved), Winter quotes the entry on 8 September 1816 in
Schubert's diary ("For a free man marriage is a horrible thought these
days.") and closes the chapter "Finding a career" with the following
statement: "Although not yet 20, Schubert never spoke of marriage again."
"To whom?" is the question that comes to the reader's mind here. In chapter
five, "Independence", Winter writes: "At some time that autumn [1816]
Schubert refused to return to his father's school, left home and moved to
the lodgings of Franz von Schober". But Schubert's note on the autograph of
the song D. 509 is no proof that at that time he was actually living with
Schober. Schubert's move to the house of his father in August 1817 (Winter
writes "In the autumn") was caused - according to Winter - by financial
circumstances. The truth is that Schubert had to clear the room for
Schober's brother Axel who was expected to return from France. Franz von
Schober <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Schober> simply is out of
luck in the recent literature: "Schubert was introduced by Josef von Spaun
to [...] Franz von Schober (1797-1882). Although his father died when
Schober was six, the family remained prosperous enough for him to attend
private schools for the nobility [...] in both Germany and Austria. He
began law studies in Vienna in 1816 but failed to complete the course".
Note Schober's wrong year of birth. (In *New Grove*'s article
"Lithographisches Institut" it is also given incorrectly as 1798).
According to the death certificate issued by the
Torup<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torup>parish priest Olof Borup,
Franz von Schober senior died on 8 February 1802.
The schools in Schnepfenthal<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnepfenthal_Salzmann_School>and
Kremsmünster
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremsm%C3%BCnster_Abbey>were nor exclusively
reserved for the nobility and Schober did not study law in Vienna, but
philosophy. On the occasion of dealing with Schubert's activity as music
teacher in Zséliz it becomes apparent that Winter is unaware of the fact
that from 1811 on the Austrian monarchy had two different currencies.
Schubert's monthly income is given succinctly as "some 75 florin" without
the important information that this is *Conventionsmünze* (Assimilated
Coinage). Regarding Schubert's estimated fee in 1821-22 Winter gives an
amount of "more than 2000 gulden" without mentioning that this is the less
valuable *Wiener Währung* (Viennese Currency, i.e. 800 fl in Assimilated
Coinage). Winter's subsequent claim that "the annual salary of a minor
civil servant - the social layer from which Schubert sprang - was about 400
gulden" only confuses the reader, because this again amounts to a mix-up of
two different currencies which had an exchange rate of 1 to 2,5. This
important detail is also missing in connection with the fee of 100 fl *
Conventionsmünze* that Schubert received in 1826 form the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde. Following a consequent tactic of confusion the concert
revenue in 1828 is again being given in Viennese Currency. Concerning the
year 1818 Winter writes: "During that summer Esterházy introduced him to
Baron Karl Schönstein (1797-1876), a senior official at the Hungarian
ministry of finance who was also a passionate amateur singer". Karl von
Schönstein was not born in 1797, but on 27 June 1796 in Ofen. He also was
not an employee of the Hungarian ministry of finance, but from 1813 on a
practitioner with the county of Pesth and the Hungarian governor. Beginning
on 1 April 1816 he was *Konzeptspraktikant* at the court chamber and
promoted to *Hofkonzipist* on 11 September 1823. He retired an official of
the Austrian ministry of finance.

<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-76tq0xWGCvc/UWghCtJsfmI/AAAAAAAACAI/yXJ7x0L_gBM/s1600/schoenstein.jpg>
 Baron Carl von Schönstein's date of birth in his own handwriting

Regarding the arrest of Johann
Senn<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Senn>Winter writes: "In
mid-March [1820] the other side of Schubert's existence
surfaced when he was present at the time his schoolfriend Johann Senn's
room was searched by the police". It remains undecided what the paranoia of
the Austrian police had to do with Schubert's "other side". Winter also
accuses Schubert of dishonesty: "Schubert, who somewhat disingenuously
registered himself as the 'school assistant from the Rossau' [...]". In
chapter seven, titled "The Professional Composer" in connection with
Schubert's residence in 1821 we are again faced with the wrong address "21
Wipplingerstraße" (correct is No. 15), a seemingly ineradicable error that
Rudolf Klein already corrected in his 1972 standard work
*Schubertstätten*(which is listed  - without effect - in Winter's
bibliography).

According to Winter Schubert lost his innocence in 1823. On which occasion?
Of course at a Schubertiad, where else? "A Schubertiad at Schober's in
mid-January of 1823 probably brought down the curtain on Schubert's age of
innocence." In chapter eight, titled "Crisis", Winter addresses the topic
of sexuality which was the reason of a new Schubert article being
commissioned in the first place: "it was only in the late 1980s that
scholars brought the contradictions in the composer's personality into the
open." Once again the well known musings are being presented as facts and
as far as this issue is concerned Winter's article proves to be truly
out-of-date. His former editor Stanley Sadie was obviously not able to make
his influence felt. In the aforementioned article in *The
Independent*Sadie was quoted as follows: "He [Sadie] pours scorn on
the sexual
fellow-travellers who now claim Schubert as gay. 'The evidence is
non-existent, but you can't say that in America without being branded a
homophobe.'" Winter mentions Holzapfel's and Bauernfeld's references to
Schubert being in love with a girl, but then writes: "On the other hand, it
is difficult to explain away Schubert's pronounced preference throughout
his life for the company of men. Not a single letter survives from Schubert
to a woman, or to Schubert from a woman". This utterly nonsensical
statement causes the reader to draw a deep breath while he realizes that
Winter actually meant to write "love-letter", but failed to use this word.
Although a few pages later Winter openly contradicts himself with the
statement "Upon his [Schubert's] return to Vienna he wrote to Frau Pachler
[...]", the editors overlooked this mistake. "However congruent with
contemporary practices in Viennese society, his [Schubert's] most intimate
expressions of sentiment are all directed to men. Even given Josef Kenner's
near-puritanical uprightness, it is hard to imagine 'bathed in slime' as
applying to orthodox heterosexuality." All the shopworn props are being
dragged on the stage again and it becomes obvious that Maynard Solomon knew
very well why he mistranslated Joseph
Kenner<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kenner>'s
"Schlamm" (mud) with "Schleim" (slime). Winter joins a discussion that -
unbeknownst to him - is already over: "Hence we are left to ponder many
ambiguities - for example, whether 'Greek' describes a homosexual or a
devotee of ancient Greek culture, or whether 'young peacocks' refers to
Schubert's need for young boys or for medicinal food". And regarding the
summer of 1826 Winter notes: "When Bauernfeld returned from Gmunden in July
he found 'Schubert ailing (he needs 'young peacocks', like Benvenuto
Cellini), Schwind morose, Schober idle, as usual'". If the 'young peacocks'
refer to adolescent boys rather than a dietetic antidote to syphilis,
Schubert's friends would have been no more explicit." What? Young boys
again? How on earth does Winter see a correlation which according to
Maynard Solomon is totally objectionable? Just like Solomon and Kristina
Muxfeldt <http://info.music.indiana.edu/sb/page/normal/1180.html> before
him, Winter has never actually seen the ominous page 61 of the excerpts of
Bauernfeld <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_von_Bauernfeld>'s diary and
only knows this quote from Carl
Glossy<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Glossy>'s
fragmentary edition.

<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FBqFbecrzos/UWhCBPXA93I/AAAAAAAACBI/fb6GVCamEtA/s1600/Bauernfeld+2.jpg>
  Page 61 of Bauernfeld's diary excerpt. Note that the sentence "(Er bedarf
junger Pfauen, wie Benv. Cellini!)" was added apart from the main text and
obviously refers to the punchline of a lost inside joke.

Once again - how can anybody come up with these ideas? - a scholar has
completely misunderstood Solomon's statements from 1989: "the prospect of
sexual relations between a man and a youth, with its connotations of child
molestation and its glimpse of a taboo realm of experience". Anybody who is
aware of Solomon's harsh letter to the *Österreichische
Musikzeitschrift*in September 1999 ("I do not believe that the
evidence warrants drawing
such connotations and I do not associate myself with Kenner's attitude
which I describe as 'intolerant and condemnatory'.") can expect Solomon to
soon direct his protest towards the editors of *New Grove* as well. With
the statement: "Moreover, the rigid distinction between 'straight' and
'gay', which solidified only at the end of the 19th century, would have
been unknown to Schubert." Robert Winter releases us from his world of
yesterday. Schubert was certainly unaware of the terms "straight" and
"gay", but he surely knew what the word "fornication" meant in common
everyday language of Biedermeier Vienna.

In connection with the topic of Schubert's illness a certain "Dr Joseph
Bernhardt" enters the encyclopedic stage. A person by that name does not
exist in Schubert's life and the first name "Joseph" in this context is a
fabrication by George
Marek<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Richard_Marek>which was
copied by Brian
Newbould <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Newbould>. As I have shown in
2002, Schubert's mysterious physician was the Jewish polymath Dr. Jacob
Bernhard (1790 - 1846). Winter's description of a diet, supposedly
prescribed by Dr. Bernhard, "which in Schubert's time simply meant a new
(and medically benign) diet. This one consisted of alternating days of pork
cutlets and a dish called panada that combined flour, water, breadcrumbs
and milk", is Winter's completely incorrect interpretation of
Schwind<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_von_Schwind>'s
letter to Schober <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Schober> from 6
March 1824. No connection can be inferred from this document between
Schubert's nutrition at that time and a medical treatment. Winter
refers to Joseph
von Spaun <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_von_Spaun> having been
absent from Vienna in 1824. This is not correct, because Spaun left Vienna
but on 25 May 1825 to accede his post in
Lemberg<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv>.
It is not possible to uncover the origin of every false bit of information
presented by Winter. About Franz von
Bruchmann<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Bruchmann>he writes:
"Bruchmann was also educated at a Piarist school and was
associated with the unfortunate Johann Senn. Free of financial worries, he
never trained for a profession, becoming a Redemptorist in 1826." When
Bruchmann married Juliana von Weyrother on 25 June 1827(!), he had acquired
a doctorate in law and was employed as *Konzeptspraktikant* at the office
of the court- and chamber-procurator (the *Hof- und Kammerprokuratur*). He
only became a Redemptorist after his wife's death in 1830. It is not
necessary to check the marriage records of St. Stephen's (Tom. 86a, fol.
128) to figure this out; a quick look into O.E. Deutsch's *Dokumente* will
do as well (p. 438 and 605). Winter considers Schubert's "abrupt" departure
from Zséliz to be in contradiction to the posthumous reports about the
composer's love for Caroline von Esterházy. Not a word is said about the
fact that Schubert left because he thought that he had been poisoned. Now
follows one of those dictums that we already know too well: "On his return
to Vienna Schubert moved briefly - probably for financial reasons - for one
last time into the Schubert family home in the Rossau. To be sure, it was
the only place he ever lived in that contained a piano; Schubert never
bought, leased or borrowed[!] a piano of his own." Winter is obviously
unaware of Schwind's 1821 drawing of Schubert's room with a piano. Several
works listed in Winter's bibliography contain this illustration.

<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1YzrbqESgno/UWhaKujkF6I/AAAAAAAACBY/aB9JV76-9x8/s1600/schubertspiano.jpg>

In one of the following chapters Winter contradicts his own statement
regarding Schubert's access to a piano: "In March [1827] Schubert moved in
with Schober for the last time, remaining, except for a two-month holiday,
at the new house on the Tuchlauben (where he had his own music room) [...]"
and in the chapter "Piano music" Winter follows this up with another
contradiction: "Although he [Schubert] made little use of the extra low
notes available on larger Viennese pianos from 1816 (his borrowed[!]
instruments evidently did not include these notes)".

Let me conclude with a few minor inaccuracies that are simply out of place
in the Schubert article of "the world's definitive music reference
resource" (as The Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com/> described NG
on 13 December 2000). Schober did not go to Breslau in August, but in late
July 1823. He returned from there not in July 1825, but in June of the same
year. Therese Grob's father was not a teacher, but a silk maker. The center
of Schubert's Vienna should not be called "the Ring district" and "the
inner Ring". The name "Franz Xaver Schlechta" is incomplete and therefore
wrong. Winter also denies Anton von
Doblhoff<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Anton_von_Doblhoff-Dier>the
predicate of nobility which instead is given to members of the
Sonnleithner family, although only Ignaz and his son Leopold received it in
1828. The instrument Arpeggione <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpeggione>was
not invented in 1814, but in 1823 (a piece of information to be found in
the old edition of *Grove*). The performance of the A minor quartet D. 804 on
14 March 1824 is not proven because the written program of this particular
concert is not preserved. Johann von
Dankesreither<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Nepomuk_Dankesreither>was
not a relative of Schober. None of Schober's
forebears <http://members.aon.at/michaelorenz/schober> bears this name. The
Schubert bibliography presented by Winter is selective and very
fragmentary. In the chapter "Catalogues" the youngest entry is Walburga
Litschauer's book *Neue Dokumente zum Schubert-Kreis* from 1986. The
periodical *Schubert durch die Brille* appears only with a few and less
significant contributions (obviously Winter does not know any other). The
existence of Ernst Hilmar's und Margret Jestremski's 1997
*Schubert-Lexikon*is kept secret. To find this book in
*New Grove* one has to read the article about Hüttenbrenner(!), revised by
Ewan West. The list of Schubert's works was copied from the old edition
almost without change. Thus newly discovered compositions are absent, such
as the "Ombre amene" and a *Canon à tre*, both dating from 1816. The
"Grazer Fantasie" (D. 605A) however, whose authenticity is being doubted in
the standard literature, has been included without any comment.

In the age of the computer it has become possible to accumulate endless
amounts of text which easily turn out to be too much for editors to deal
with. Some publishers are not willing to pay the necessarily qualified
staff who can handle the mistakes that are likely to be amassed in 29
volumes. Robert Winter's article does not stand out that negatively. In his
article about Beethoven Scott
Burnham<http://www.princeton.edu/music/people/display_person.xml?netid=sburnham>shows
that he still considers the English sentence "I will arrange it with
you and me that I can live with you" to be an acceptable translation of
Beethoven's statement "mit mir und dir rede ich mache daß ich mit dir leben
kann". Accidents like this have almost become a rule in today's monstrous
encyclopedias. According to *New Grove* the great-grandfather of Johann
Strauß II moved to Vienna "around 1850" and since the editors consulted an
"expert", Joseph Lanner is now presented with a wrong date of birth and a
wrong date of marriage. A correction of the mistakes is projected only for *New
Grove*'s web-based edition. On 5 January 2001 Macmillan's then chief
executive Richard Charkin was quoted in The
Guardian<http://www.guardian.co.uk/>as follows: "I very much doubt
that the hard copy will ever become
obsolete, but I would anticipate a gradual movement in scholarly circles
from usage of the book to usage of the online version." The scholarly
damage that was done by the Schubert entry of the printed edition will
remain irreparable for a long time to come.

<http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0lvZBgDCZ8/UWlKVIKSp-I/AAAAAAAACCI/xtfprzKLelk/s1600/schubert+%282%29.JPG>

This review was first published in *Schubert durch die Brille* 26 (Tutzing:
Hans Schneider, January 2001). The online version of the Schubert article
in *New Grove* has still not been overhauled. © Dr. Michael Lorenz 2001.

http://michaelorenz.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/franz-schubert-in-new-grove-dictionary.html

-- 
carlos palombini
ufmg.academia.edu/CarlosPalombini
proibidao.org
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20130803/c3532fd7/attachment.html>