No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
New Light on Mozart's ‘Linz’ Symphony, K. 425
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Extract
Autographs survive for all of Mozart's symphonies from K.112 to K.551 with one exception: the ‘Linz’ Symphony, K.425, composed in October and November 1783. Alfred Einstein thought it might have been among the autographs sold by Constanze Mozart to the King of Prussia in February 1792; however, it also could have been one of the symphonies cited by her in a letter of 31 May 1800 to Breitkopf und Härtel, according to which the Grand Duke of Tuscany owned autographs of two Mozart symphonies and Capellmeister Stoll of Baden, for whom Mozart had composed the motet Ave verum corpus, K.618, another. In any event, it was not among the autographs and copies sold in 1799 to the Offenbach publisher Johann Anton André.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1988 Royal Musical Association
References
1 Kóchel, Ludwig von, Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichnis samtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts, 3rd edn, ed Alfred Einstein (Leipzig, 1937), p xxviGoogle Scholar
2 Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, ed Wilhelm Bauer, Olto Erich Deutsch and Heinz Joseph Eibl (Kassel, 1962-75), iv, 355 ‘Eine Originalsynfonie von Mozart (ob just diese, weiss ich nicht) soll Hr Stoll, Regens chori Chor-Rector in Baden - unweit Wien, haben Der Grossherzog von Toscana, bey dem Wranizky oft spielt, soll zwey ganz unbekannte Synfonien von Mozart haben’ Probably, then, the ‘Linz’ was not one of the symphonies owned by the Grand Duke of TuscanyGoogle Scholar
3 Noske, Willem argued that another early edition, by Schmitt in Amsterdam, might have preceded André's edition See his ‘De oorspronkelijke uitgave van Mozarts Linzer-Symphonie’, Mens en Melodie, 10 (1955), 412-14 Albert Dunning, however, showed that Schmitt's edition may also have appeared as late as 1794, although the possibility that it might be the first edition is not out of the question. See his Joseph Schmitt Leben und Kompositionen des Eberbacher Zisterziensers und Amsterdamer Musikvertegers (1734-1791) (Amsterdam, 1962), 36-67Google Scholar
4 Schnapp, Friedrich, ‘Neue Mozart-Funde in Donaueschingen’, Neues Mozart-Jahrbuch, 2 (1942), 211-23Google Scholar
5 Conductor's score Bárenreiter BA 4704 (Kassel, 1955), pocket score Barenreiter TP 16 (Kassel, 1957)Google Scholar
6 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, IV/11/8 Sinfonien, ed Friedrich Schnapp (Kassel, 1971), p. viii Critical report not yet publishedGoogle Scholar
7 Letter of [8 August 1786] Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, in, 565-7Google Scholar
8 Letter of [30 September 1786] Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, in, 589-90 Only the symphony copies are extant Donaueschingen, Fursthch Furstenbergische Hofbibliothek, S B 2,9 (K 425), SB 2,10 (K 338), and S B 2,11 (K 319)Google Scholar
9 Deutsch, Otto Erich, Mozart Die Dokumente seines Lebens (Kassel, 1961), 217, Mozart· Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, iii, 590Google Scholar
10 Letter of 20 February [1784] Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, iii, 302 The piano sonata was probably K 333 (315c) See Alan Tyson, ‘The Date of Mozart's Piano Sonata in B flat, KV 333/315c The “Linz” Sonata?‘, Musik, Edition, Interpretation Gedenkschrift Gunter Henle, ed Martin Bente (Munich, 1980), 447-54Google Scholar
11 Letter of 15 May 1784 Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, iii, 313Google Scholar
12 See Leopold's letters to Nannerl Mozart of 14 September, [after 9 October], 12 and 19 November 1784, and 19 January 1785 Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, iii, 331, 336, 342, 345 and 366Google Scholar
13 Mozart, Leopold to Mozart, Nannerl, 17 September 1784 Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, iii, 333 ‘Wir hatten den Tag darauf grosse Musik beym Barisani, wo die neue excellente Synfonie von deinem Bruder produciert habe‘Google Scholar
14 See Senn, Walter, ‘Die Mozart-Ueberheferung im Stift Heilig Kreuz zu Augsburg’, Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins für Schwaben, 62-3 (1962, = Neues Augsburger Mozartbuch), 333-68, where Estlinger is identified as ‘Kopist B’, Manfred Hermann Schmid, Die Musikaliensammlung der Erzabtei St Peter in Salzburg Katalog, i: Leopold und Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph und Michael Haydn (Salzburg, 1970), 27, where Estlinger is identified as ‘Schreiber 1’, Ernst Hintermaier, ‘Die Salzburger Hofkapelle von 1700 bis 1806 Organisation und Personal’ (dissertation, University of Salzburg, 1972), 91-2, Cliff Eisen, ‘The Symphonies of Leopold Mozart and their Relationship to the Early Symphonies of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarf A Bibliographical and Stylistic Study’ (dissertation, Cornell University, 1986), 19-27 The first and second violin and basso parts are in the hand of an unidentified Salzburg copyist His hand is found in other Salzburg copies of the mid-1780s including A Sca, Hs 1694, a violin concerto by the little-known Salzburg composer Joseph Hafeneder, A Ssp, Sign Hay 525 1, a copy of Michael Haydn's Gradual, Klafsky 11a/12; and A.Ssp, Sign Hay 1840 1, a copy of Michael Haydn's Symphony, Perger 22 (violins I and II, last movement only; both basso parts)Google Scholar
15 Schmid, Manfred Hermann, ‘Nannerl Mozart und ihr musikalischer Nachlaß Zu den Klavierkonzerten im Archiv St. Peter in Salzburg’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1980-83, 140-7.Google Scholar
16 Mbs, D, Mus mss 398 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/10, autograph, dated 16 January 1784, A Sca, Hs 568 – M Haydn, Menuetti, Perger 70, autograph, daled 23 January 1784, D Mbs, Mus mss. 416 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/1, autograph, dated 29 January 1784, H. Bn, Sign. II.10 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIa/45, autograph, dated 5 February 1784, H Bn, Sign II 17 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/31, autograph, dated 27 February 1784, H Bn, Sign II 65 – M Haydn, Symphony, Perger 18, autograph, dated 12 March 1784, H Bn, Sign II 12 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/46, autograph, dated 16 March 1784, H Bn, Sign II 13 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIa/26, autograph, dated 24 March 1784, H Bn, Sign II 14 – M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/20, autograph, dated 16 April 1784, D Mbs, Mus mss 399 -M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/22, autograph, dated 22 April 1784, D Mbs, Mus mss 367 -M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIa/41 + III/10, autograph, dated 3 June 1784, D Mbs, Mus mss 444 – M. Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIb/13, autograph, dated 6June 1784, A Sca, Hs 569/6 – M Haydn, Offertory, Klafsky III/13, autograph, dated 13 November 1787, D Mbs, Mus mss 353 -M Haydn, Gradual, Klafsky IIa/23, autograph, dated 20 February 1788, A Ssp, Moz 240 1 – W A Mozart, Concerto, K 271 (composed 1777), A Gk(h), 40 602 – W A Mozart, Symphony, K 319 (composed 1779), A Ssp, Moz 265 1 – W A Mozart, Concerto, K 449 (composed 1784), A:Ssp, Moz 270 1 – W A Mozart, Concerto, K 451 (composed 1784), A Ssp, Moz 275 1 – W A Mozart, Concerto, K 466 (composed 1785), A Ssp, Moz 50 1 – L Mozart, Veni Sancte, Serffert 4/17 (undated)Google Scholar
17 A.Sm, Rar 425/1 – W. A Mozart, Symphony, K.425 (composed 1783), A Ssp, Moz 265 1 - W A Mozart, Concerto, K 449 (composed 1784), A Ssp, Moz 270 1 - W A Mozart, Concerto, K 451 (composed 1784) Although the incidence of a particular watermark in manuscripts from elsewhere does not necessarily imply that similar paper was available in Salzburg at the same time, it is worth noting that both paper-types described here can be found in Mozart autographs of 1783-85 Similarly, the ‘W’ watermark found in later Salzburg copies is also found in Mozart autographs from 1789 See Alan Tyson, ‘Mozart's “Haydn” Quartets. The Contribution of Paper Studies’, The String Quartets of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven Studies of the Autograph Manuscripts A Conference at Isham Memorial Library March 15-17, 1979, cd. Christoph Wolff (Cambridge, Mass, 1980), 179-90, and ‘Notes on the Composition of Mozart's Così fan tutte‘, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 37 (1984), 359-60Google Scholar
18 Other early sources for the symphony cannot be proven authentic The Bentheim manuscript (D Bfb, Sign Moz 60) is generally accurate, shows evidence of having been copied from a score, and does not include some of the errors in the Salzburg and Donaueschingen copies, but cannot be directly connected with Mozart It is apparently of local origin and the earliest evidence for its copying is the acquisition or performance date September 1793 marked on the wrapper The copy includes parts for two clarinets that appear to be later additions Johann Wenzel's keyboard arrangement probably derives from the Donaueschingen copy (or perhaps other, similar Viennese professional copies) A copy in the Oettingen-Wallerstein collection (D:HR, Sign 2“ 709) is dated 1795 and was copied from André's first edition of 1793. A copy in Regensburg (D Rtt, Sign VV A Mozart 2) is listed in the earliest layer of the Catalogus samtlicher Hochfurstl Thurn und Taxische Sinpfonien and therefore dates from 1786-90 A manuscript in Florence (I Fc, shelf-mark F P S 61 (nr 2) appears to be a Viennese copy of the 1790s All of these copies take over readings from both the Salzburg and Donaueschingen copies, some of them include other, unique readings Hence contaminated versions of the symphony already circulated in the late 1780sGoogle Scholar
19 Oddly enough, in the 1955 NMA pre-print, the slurring of these figures is given correctly.Google Scholar
20 See Die Bedeutung der Zeichen Keil, Strich und Punkt bei Mozart, ed Hans Albrecht (Kassel, 1957)Google Scholar
21 ‘Haffner’ second movement, bars 31-2, oboes and bassoons, and the parallel passage in the recapitulation, bars 80-1, oboes, bassoons and horns, ‘Jupiter’ second movement, bar 29, flute and horn, bar 31, flute, oboe and horn, and the parallel passage in the recapitulation, bars 77 and 79Google Scholar
22 See also first movement, bar 18, oboes, bassoons, horns, trumpets, fourth movement, bar 116, violin I and the repetition, bar 120, violin II (also the parallel bars in the recapitulation, 351 and 355).Google Scholar
23 ‘Haffner’: bar 191, flute I (compare bar 85), K.543 bars 272-6, flute (compare bars 115-19).Google Scholar
21 If Mozart did have second thoughts concerning the ‘Linz’, second thoughts transmitted by the later Donaueschingen copy, when might the changes have been made' During 1784, Mozart had several opportunities to perform the work he gave three subscription concerts with orchestra in the private hall of the Trattnerhof on 17, 24 and 31 March, and an Akademie at the Burgtheater on 1 April The programmes for the subscription concerts do not survive, the Burgtheater Akademie included ‘a grand symphony with trumpets and drums’, a ‘quite new grand symphony’ and, ‘to conclude, a symphony’ All of these concerts, however, took place before Mozart's score was sent to Salzburg and copied there, so the work cannot have been revised at this time It is not known whether Mozart's autograph was returned to him But what if Leopold Mozart brought the score to Vienna when he visited Wolfgang there in February 1785? And what if Mozart, who had composed no symphonies in the interim, decided to give the ‘Linz’ at his Burgtheater academy of 10 March 1785? Although the programme for this concert also does not survive, like all of Mozart's other grand, public academies, it probably included one or more symphonies This may have been the occasion for which he revised the ‘Linz’ The appearance of Traeg's advertisement in April 1785, within weeks of Mozart's concert, then takes on a special significance, for Traeg's copies would represent the reworked version of the symphony Hence, if Mozart sold Donaueschingen a copy that derived from Traeg, it would of course transmit the revised textGoogle Scholar
25 The autograph of this timpani part, now lost, was auctioned by Liepmannssohn on 12 October 1929 Unlike the autograph of K 200 (189k), which is on ten-stave paper typical of Mozart's Salzburg autographs, the timpani part is on 12-stave paper which Mozart regularly used in Vienna In general, see Alan Tyson, ‘Mozart's Use of 10-Stave and 12-Stave Paper’, Festschrift Albi Rosenthal, ed Rudolf Elvers (Tutzing, 1984), 277-90Google Scholar
26 Tyson, Alan, ‘New Dating Methods Watermarks and Paper-Studies’, Neue Mozart-Ausgabe Bericht über die Mitarbeitertagung in Kassel 29-30 Mai 1981, ed Dorothee Hanemann (n p, 1984), 56Google Scholar
27 For a facsimile of this part, see Sotheby's (London), Catalogue of Valuable Manuscript and Printed Music and Autograph Letters of Composers, 21 November 1978, Lot 456, and the accompanying plateGoogle Scholar
28 Bar 48 Presumably this was done to bring the part in line with the corresponding bar in the recapitulation, 154 See the published facsimile of Mozart's autograph, ed Sydney Beck (New York and Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar
29 The changes are bar 118, pitch g' (d' in original), bar 284, first note d' (octave higher in original), bars 290-5 (octave lower in original)Google Scholar
30 See Oldman, Cecil B, ‘J A André on Mozart's Manuscripts’, Music and Letters, 5 (1924), 169-76; Wolfgang Plath, ‘Chronologie als Problem der Mozartforschung’, in Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Bayreuth 1981, ed Christoph-Hellmut Mahling and Sigrid Wiesmann (Kassel, 1984), 371-8Google Scholar
31 For K 427 (417a), see NMA I/1/1/5. Messen, ed Monika Holl (Kassel, 1983), p xv, for K. 449 and 451, see NMA V/15/4: Konzerte, ed Marius Flothuis (Kassel, 1975), pp x-xiGoogle Scholar
32 NMA, V/15/6 Konzerte, ed Hans Engel and Horst Heussner (Kassel, 1961), p. ixGoogle Scholar
33 Elvers, Rudolf, ‘Bemerkungen zum Autograph der Menuette KV 103 (61d) und seiner Abschriften’, Mozart-Jahrbuch 1958, 68-9, and foreword to NMA, IV/13/1/1. Tänze (Kassel, 1961)Google Scholar
34 See NMA, IX/27/1: Die Notenbücher, ed Wolfgang Plath (Kassel, 1982), p xiii, where Esthnger is identified as ‘Anonymous I’ and ‘Anonymous III‘Google Scholar