V . . 1.54.ch .. y..r....:. I: ,:._r; £_r..x_._....m...m, . I:J.~.§; \n .. . as.» , 3. I ‘u . . A . , , . . _ . >~>‘u 1;}... f: s _ ¢ . x :2 u. 3.91. . I.“.‘_..y.: ; 0L1F V ..I . Y: .1. . ”.22 5.7.. . J ‘ , .25.:29w : .7 «av sag .111 .1); . _ 1.3.! :1 ... .4, . , :..:r!t...f. . . , r Y r. E; ant, in. 53,413 14: .r J) 1.. .1,» it}: . 1.. Civil. « z ‘1. (a) . it! v. 3.15.... ‘ 1r . Nimitnrwpr/ir f4. . I . . . r; z; 14.11 .. / Lip»... 9v. .5; a Irv/5’41, av, 54"“!AI u! ‘ y 4 Y l.l / F . . ‘JII. 1. hr .f/b: I“ 1/ yr r gr. (.3611! ‘4 In! ,I fv {Izzy 4 ~ . 1'. 4! .. 1:}. .r .1.) in ‘ ; 2; , .u. .5]! . .9,1r,,1./..5i! 4. . . .31.... r .154: .51., ' {5. r1 4 varirr! A l’l:'u :2 WP”; 554.117 :11. ,1. .1. {tr—F, L I. N» rim! .. :1 «la... fr ., A: a 7 . . ‘11.! fl; . ‘51..»er . 5:11.75 5 , . (11. . . , .../r.!;,. J. 'Ilrflvlrl It. ‘1»: it :A.. .fi! :4. 2w Sta?! 4 1 .1 fl ',~.~s»v.“’-:<;<.'.L"1r~ . (F cut {62.5 UL!” W 3 1293 10330 3115 «£5125 -...- _ j '1. " figus is to certify that the .1. ' " thesis entitled “,5. THE D-MAJOR STRING QUINTET (K. 593) OF WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART: A CRITICAL STUDY OF SOURCES AND EDITIONS presented by Nelson Theodore Cleary has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Music Ger/MM} Major professor "hi"?- I Date". ¥ust 10, 1973 ABSTRACT THE D-MAJOR STRING QUINTET (K. 593) OF WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART: A CRITICAL STUDY OF SOURCES AND EDITIONS BY Nelson Theodore Cleary Statement of the Problem Mozart's string quintets are less widely known than his quartets. Composed between 1773 and 1790, the five authentic quintets and single quintet arrangement are among the greatest achievements in Mozart's chamber music. The Quintet in D major, K. 593, was chosen for this study because of a number of deviations among various editions and the autograph manuscript. The purpose of the study is to determine (1) the authenticity of various editions of K. 593, (2) the causes of the many divergencies among the editions, and (3) the authorship of alterations written into the autograph manu— script in the Trio and final Allegro. The quintet is investigated historically through a collation of editions of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries with the composer's manuscript. Nelson Theodore Cleary Method of Inquiry The genre of the string quintet is examined and its historical development traced. Sources used in the investigation include scores and parts by Breitkopf & Hartel, Peters, Kalmus, Lea, Eulenburg, and Barenreiter. Microfilm and photographic copies of the autograph manuscript and the first edition parts by Artaria (1793) were also procured. Errors in the editions are tabulated in a Critical Study, with accompanying commentary. Differences among the editions and the autograph manuscript are interpreted through reference to performance practice and the changing standards of music editing and publishing. Findings and Conclusions Differences among the several editions of K. 593 are considerable. The publications vary in quality and reflect the musical ideals of the times. The editions of the nineteenth century, in particular, display a great number of liberties in matters of articulation, phrasing, and dynamics. Factors in the many divergencies cited include the following: the nature and principles of music editing; the mechanics of printing music; musical Romanticism and its relationship to older music; and research methods Of musicology and its influence on modern performers. Evidence is cited to show that the revision of Mozart's original chromatic theme in the finale of K. 593 was in all probability not carried out by the composer. THE D-MAJOR STRING QUINTET (K. 593) OF WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART: A CRITICAL STUDY OF SOURCES AND EDITIONS BY Nelson Theodore Cleary A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music 1973 @ Copyright by NELSON THEODORE CLEARY 1973 To Enid, Erica, and Lesley ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his thanks to Dr. Robert Sidnell, Thesis Advisor, for his sustaining interest and encouragement. He is also indebted to Dr. Theodore Johnson and Professor Romeo Tata for their guidance, as well as for their suggestions in violinistic matters. To Dr. Gomer Jones sincere thanks for his guidance and for his course in Classical Music, which was to a great degree the inspiration for this research project. Thanks also to Professor Lyman Bodman for his suggestions. To Enid, the writer's wife, special thanks for copying the musical examples. Appreciation is also expressed to the following for their contributions: Dr. Dénes Bartha and Dr. Donald Beikman, the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Bernard E. Wilson, Newberry Library, Chicago. Mr. William Lichtenwanger, the Library of Congress, Washington. Mr. Don Gillespie, C. F. Peters Corporation, New York. Miss Pamela J. Willetts, the British Museum, London. Mrs. Adolf Busch, Basel. Mrs. Irene Hartogs, Zurich. Mr. Carl Cleary, Vienna. The Usterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. Prof. Dr. Géza Rech, Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum, Salzburg. Dr. Wolfgang Plath, Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, Augsburg. Dr. Rudolf Elvers, Staatsbibliothek, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Breitkopf & Hartel, Wiesbaden. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 1 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 2 List of Abbreviations . . . . 2 The Development of the String Quintet . . 2 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Brief Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 4 Critical Study . . . . . ' 4 Interpretation of the Critical Study . . 6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Translations . . . . . . . . . . 7 Related Literature . . . . 7 The Development of the String Quintet in the Eighteenth Century . . . . . . . . 13 The Serenade and Divertimento . . .- . . 13 Early Examples of the String Quintet . . 15 The Divided Viola Texture in Mozart . . . 19 The String Quintets of Mozart . . . . . 22 The String Quintets of Beethoven . . . . 35 The Sources: String Quintet in D Major, K. 593 . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 II. STRING QUINTET IN D MAJOR, K. 593 . . . . 45 Brief Analysis of the Quintet . . . . . 45 Introduction to the Manuscript . . . . . 47 Introduction to the Editions . . . . . . 48 Artaria, First Edition Parts . . . . . 48 Breitkopf & Hartel . . . . . . . . 50 C. F. Peters . . . . . . . . . . 51 Edition Eulenburg . . . . . . . . . 53 Barenreiter . . . . . . . . . . . 53 v Chapter Page Critical Study to the Quintet, K. 593 . . 54 First Movement: Larghetto-Allegro . . 54 Second Movement: Adagio . . 83 Third Movement: Menuetto/Allegretto. . 105 Fourth Movement: Allegro . . . 120 Summary of Incorrect Pitches in the Editions . . . . . . . . . . 161 III. INTERPRETATION OF THE CRITICAL STUDY . . 164 The Editor's Task . . . . . . . 164 The Editions: A Critique . . . . . . 169 Artaria, First Edition Parts . . . . 169 Breitkopf & Hartel . . . . . . . 171 C. F. Peters . . . . . . . . . 171 Edition Eulenburg . . . . . . . . 172 Barenreiter . . . 173 The Problem of Texttreue—-Rationa1e for Editorial Alterations . . . .. . . 174 The Failure of Editors . . . . . 176 The Mechanics of Music Printing . . . 177 "Progress in the Arts" . . . . . . 180 Romantic Ideals . . . 183 Musicology and Eighteenth- Century Performance . . . 187 Performance Analysis—-Suggestions for Stylistic Interpretation . 194 Stylistic Considerations and Eighteenth- Century Technique . 194 Practical Suggestions in Performing the Quintet K. 593 . . . . . . . . 213 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 216 Authenticity of the Editions . . . . . 216 Divergencies in the Editions . . 220 Alterations in the Autograph Manuscript of the Quintet . . . . 222 Recommendations for Further Study . . . 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 A. FIRST PAGE OF THE FINALE TO K. 593, AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPT . . . . . . . 241 B. LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES . . . . . . 243 vi CHAPTER.I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study This study is an investigation of the String Quintet in D major, K. 593 (WSF 613), of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The purpoSe of the study is (l) to determine the authenticity of the first published edition and available modern editions of the work through a collation of edi— tions and autograph manuscript, and (2) to determine the causes of divergencies in these editions. The editions are discussed in a musical and historical context. Errors in the editions are classified and interpreted through reference to performance practice and standards of music editing and publishing. With the exception of K. 174, Mozart's string quintets were composed during the last five years of his life. Less widely known than his quartets, they are seldom performed. The single early quintet-—composed at age seventeen--is in divertimento style, and modeled on a similar work by Michael Haydn. When he returned to the string quintet years later, Mozart achieved some of his finest creations in all chamber music. The D-major Quintet is a representative mature work of Mozart, composed one year before his death. It has been selected for this study because of a number of discrepancies among the edi- tions. There is a unique problem in this work for both editor and performer: the autograph manuscript contains revisions throughout the final Allegro, and the authorship of these has not been unequivocally determined. Definition of Terms String quintet refers here, unless otherwise noted, to two violins, two Violas, and Violoncello. The Brief Analysis is a short formal analysis of each movement of the quintet; for example, formal sections (exposition, development, recapitulation) are identified by measure number as an aid to following the Critical Study. For the purposes of the study a complete harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic analysis was not undertaken, as such a process would not significantly serve the comparison of editions. The Critical Study is a listing of differences between each edition and the autograph manuscript, and includes internal criticism of the autograph. List of Abbreviations B&H Breitkopf and Hartel GA W. A. Mozart, Kritisch durchgesehene Gesamtausgabe (24 series), Leipzig, 1877—1910 K. Anh. Kochel's Anhang (the enumeration of Mozart works not listed in the first Kochel Verzeichnis) K7 Ludwig Ritter von Kochel, Chronologisch- thematisches Verzeichnis samtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts, 7th ed., rev. by Franz .Giegling, Alexander Weinmann, and Gerd Sievers, Wiesbaden, 1965 Meas. Measure, measures MGG Friedrich Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: allgemeine Enzyklopgdie der Musik, Kassel, 1949— MS Autograph manuscript NMA Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke (10 series), Kassel, 1956- SF G. de Saint-Foix, Wolfgang Amédée Mozart, sa vie musicale et son oeuvre (Vols. III, IV, and V), Paris, 1936, 1939, 1946 WSF Théodore de Wyzewa and G. de Saint-Foix, Wolfgang Amédée Mozart, sa vie musicale et son oeuvre (Vols. I and II), Paris, 1936; also the enumeration of the works of W. A. Mozart by Wyzewa and Saint—Foix Vn. Violin Va. Viola Vc. Violoncello Method of Inquiry The Development of the String Quintet The medium of the string quintet is examined from circa 1750 through Beethoven. Representative composers are cited and their possible influence on Mozart discussed. Historical background is presented for the Mozart quintets. The quintets and quintet arrangements by Beethoven are identified. Sources The sources (photographic copies of the autograph rnanuscript, first and later editions) available in this :investigation of the Quintet K. 593 are identified. Brief Analysis The Analysis outlines the musical form of each Inovement of K. 593, to aid the reader in following the Critical Study. Critical Study Deviations from the composer's autograph score are enumerated in the Critical Study, Chapter II. Since several of the publications prove to be identical, or nearly so, the editions have been placed into five groups as follows: 1. First edition parts by Artaria (Vienna, 1793). 2. Breitkopf & Hartel: Gesamtausgabe, XIII, 7 (Leipzig, 1883) and parts (Leipzig, n.d.); Kalmus score (New York, 1968), and Lea score (New York, 1957). 3. Peters (New York, n.d.) and Kalmus (New York, n.d.) parts. 4. Eulenburg miniature score (London, 1936). 5. Barenreiter: miniature score and parts (Kassel, 1956); Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, VIII, 19/1 (Kassel, 1967). The five groups of editions as well as a commentary on the autograph manuscript are presented for each movement in turn. Measure numbers in parentheses refer to passages in .the recapitulation or coda of a movement to which the (namment also applies. The comments are listed chrono— lxogically as far as possible. Errors investigated in the Critical Study include: (1.) notation of pitch and rhythm, (2) dynamics, (3) articu- liation, (4) tempo markings, (5) composer's errors of onuission and inconsistencies, and (6) alterations in the EEEEE and finale. No commentary is given in the Critical Study (noncerning the following differences between the autograph and.the editions: Archaic notation. Several features of eighteenth- century notation have become modernized. Mozart normally wrote double or triple st0ps with individual stems. The C clef has changed in appearance. Mozart's "f" or "for:" is given as "f" or "forte" (piano is indicated in like manner). Mozart's combined tie and slur is different in appearance from those of modern notation: successive note—heads are linked without the modern "all—encompassing" Slur. Bow directions. Mozart gave no signs for up-bow or down-bow. Editorial suggestions given in parentheses, such as dynamics. Superfluous accidentals in the MS or the editions. Dynamics added by the editor which do not represent a new dynamic level according to the MS. Composer's omission of accidentals in modulatory passages, which are corrected in the editions. Incomplete articulations. Mozart often, through carelessness or haste, indicated articulations only in iflae first of similar passages. (This applies almost enlfenbuttel, Germany). 3Carl Bar, "Zum Begriff des 'Basso' in Mozarts Serxenaden," Mozart—Jahrbuch 1960/61 (Salzburg: Zentral— Lnstitute fur Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung MOzarteum, 1961), p. 136. 4Gibson ("Serenades and Divertimenti of Mozart," Po 163) believes the work was intended for orchestral Performance. 5B'ar, ”Zum Begriff des 'Basso' in Mozarts Serenaden," p. 153. 15 The classical string quartet began to emerge aafter 1750. King writes that the figured bass and harpsi— cfliord dropped out of the trio sonata circa 1740, with the :Elourishing of outdoor music. The two violins and cello, mfluich survived from the trio sonata, were joined shortly kmefore 1750 by the viola. (The later standardization of tlle serenade movements into the traditional order fast— sZLow—fast completes the forming of the classical string quartet.)1 According to Grout, the Viennese serenades unare historically important "because they accustomed cxomposers to the sound of ensemble music without basso cxantinuo, the elimination of which was an essential st:ep in the evolution of the Classical string quartet."2 Eairly Examples of the String Quintet Few examples of the two—viola quintet are known beiflore Mozart's first work in this medium (dating from thee year 1773). King names Holzbauer, J. C. Bach, Sanunartini, and Toeschi as composers whose quintets were Possibly known to Mozart.3 Luigi Boccherini (1743-1805) was both a virtuoso CElQlist and a prolific composer of chamber music. lA[1ec] Hyatt King, Mozart Chamber Music ("BBC Music Guides," No. 4; Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969), p. 8. 2Donald Jay Grout, A History of Western Music (New York; W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1960), p. 426. 3King, Mozart Chamber Music, p. 53. 16 .According to Amsterdam, Joseph Haydn and Boccherini each lcnew of and praised the work of the other. She continues, 'WDne assumes that Boccherini was familiar also with the nuisic of Mozart and, later, Beethoven, but we have no enzidence of his communication with these composers."l Ekinstein felt that Mozart must have known some of EMDCCherini's music as early as 1770.2 Ulrich believes tfliat Mozart knew the Boccherini (two-cello) quintets in tile 1770's.3 Boccherini is known for his string quintets, many cxf which feature very demanding first cello parts and nuake use of a variety of effects unusual for the time, SLICh as sul ponticello and harmonics.4 Not all of these MKDrkS were written for the two—cello combination. Of tile 125 quintets, three are scored for two violins, viola, cxello, and string bass, and twelve are scored for two vdxolins, two Violas, and cello (as are the Mozart quintets). It is interesting that of the many quintets of Boccherini, time two sets of viola quintets (Op. 60 and Op. 62) were IKJt composed until 1801 and 1802, several years after his final two-cello quintets.5 This was also after the death h lAmsterdam, ”String Quintets of Boccherini," p. 12. 2 . . Einstein, Mozart, p. 188. 3Homer Ulrich, Chamber Music (2nd ed.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), p. 205. 4Amsterdam, "String Quintets of Boccherini," p. 63. 5Ibid., p. 71. 17 of bflozart. Perhaps Boccherini knew of the Mozart quintets conuposed a dozen years previously. The Boccherini two- vicfila quintets were published in the past decade for the fir15t time by Doblinger of Vienna.1 Einstein believed the 110 Boccherini two—cello quirrtets to be intended rather for two Violas. He contxended that the first cello parts are technically too denwnnding for the cello, and that they are notated in the violja clef. Janet & Cotelle, early nineteenth—century publrishers, did include an alternate viola part, most likefily for commercial reasons.3 Amsterdam refutes Efiruatein's speculation, believing that Boccherini was expexrt enough a cellist to have played the difficult parts.4 Joseph Haydn (1732—1809) is said to have written n0 stzring quintets simply because none were commissioned of hiJn.5 Michael Haydn (1737-1806), on the other hand, isf an influence on Wolfgang than Michael Haydn. Haydn “Has at the court of Salzburg from 1763 until 1800.1 lyscording to Jahn, Michael Haydn wrote three quintets for 2 si:rings between 1770 and 1780. The first of these, in C, is; often referred to as a notturno. The Denkmaler der TkJnkunst in Osterreich is more explicit: the volume of DLiChael Haydn works includes six string quintets. Three off these can be dated from Salzburg as follows: C major, Fefloruary 17, 1773; G major, December 1, 1773; and F Hmijor, May 27, 1784.3 Mozart refers to two of (Michael) Haydn's quintets ir1 a letter from Munich dated October 6, 1777; Mozart pmxrticipated in the playing of these works. He writes, fivir‘nmchten gleich zu erst die 2 quintetti von Hayden.”4 Gibson comments on the importance of the string quiritet divertimento among Haydn's compositions: The string quintet divertimento belongs, along ‘with the divertimento a quattro, to the first line of Michael Haydn's instrumental compositions. The lGibson, "Serenades and Divertimenti of Mozart," P- 641 2Jahn, Life of Mozart, I, p. 313. 3Michael Haydn, Instrumentalwereke: I, Jahrgang XIV/2, Band 29 of Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Osterreich (Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1959), XXVII—XXVIII. M 4Wilhelm A. Bauer and Otto Erich Deutsch, eds., Egiggts Briefe (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1960), IIIII-—___ 19 sequence of movements of the quintet Divertimento in B-flat (undated) in the Denkmaler der Tonkunst in Oesterreich includes, Allegro, Menuetto, Largo, Allegretto con variazioni, Rondeau, and a Marcia which is given last place in the score. . . . The instrumentation islfor the two-viola quintet preferred at Salzburg. The Divided Viola Texture in Mozart Before the individual quintets of Mozart are cited, a possible factor in the development of the medium (Laserves consideration: the divided viola section in (Irchestral works. Prevailing examples of divisi viola “Hiiting in the symphonic and concertante literature of bkazart warrant some attention to this practice and its refilationship to the two—viola quintet. A well-known example of divided violas within the Orrflnestra is found in the opening measures of the G-minor Smiphony K. 550. The use of a double viola part in this SYHHQhony is limited (with the exception of the three meéisures before the recapitulation in the Andante) to the Eggpge Allegro, in which it serves to accompany the violins. In the Sinfonia Concertante K. 364 for solo ViCDlin, viola, and orchestra, a double viola part is used throughout, matching the tone of the solo viola. A tYpical use of the tutti violas is seen in measures fOurteen and fifteen (first movement), where violas in tkhirds are contrasted with the higher oboes in thirds. \ lGibson, "Serenades and Divertimenti of Mozart," E>~ 68. I'll-II-___ 20 Here is a stylistic use of the viola in a superb work of tine; middle period, although a time of no Viola quintets. Wyzewa and Saint-Foix also relate the quintet form tc> the divided viola texture. They mention the division off the viola part in these early works: the symphonies K. 162 (WSF 174) and K. 182 (WSF 175), and the Concertone K. 190 (WSF 173) for two solo violins and small orchestra. TTnese three works all date from late spring 1773, the ynear'of the first quintet. Mozart, the authors maintain, wrryte his first quintet at a time when he was composing synnphonies with two viola parts. Delighted to have 'Riiscovered" the quintet, he then transformed the quartet intt>the quintet: Detail curieux: 1a composition de ce premier quintette coincide, chez Mozart, avec un retour a l'ancienne habitude du dédoublement de la partie des altos dans les symphonies nos. 174 et 175 et 1e Concertone no. 173. Tout amuse d'avoir découvert le genre du quintette, 1e jeune homme transforme 1e quatuor des cordes en un quintette jusque dans son orchestration de la méme période! There exists yet another example of two-viola WIILting in the G major Cassation K. 63, composed in 1769. This work is four years older than the first quintet. Hallsswald includes three movements from the work in his VCXLume The Serenade for Orchestra in the series Anthology Of IWusic. The source is the Collected Works Edition X Wyzewa and Saint—Foix, WSF, II, 28. GUnter Hausswald, The Serenade for Orchestra, trans.byRobert Kolben, No. 34 of AnthologycflfMusic: A ESiigptionchComplete Musical Examples Illustrating the EiiEQEy of Music, ed. K. G. Fellerer (Cologne: Arno Volk Verlag, 1970). ¥ 21 (gaesamtausgabe)flseries 9, no. 1, edited by G. Nottebohm (Ineipzig, 1878). Hausswald comments: "Note the relic ch five—part string writing in the Andante."2 The other nujvements given are scored for "serenade quartet" (two ‘ijolins, viola, and bass) plus oboes and horns, whereas tire Andante is scored for the two-viola quintet. Enghteenth-century entertainment music was, it is to be renmembered, a loose collection of diverse movements wriich often featured a solo violin in concertante style. GiJoson, who considers this work by the thirteen-year old Mc>zart to be a very weak composition, full of immature counterpoint,3 describes the scoring: The instrumentation (coinciding with Haydn's G Major Cassation) is for two oboes, two horns, two violins, two violas, and bass, with a slow movement for solo violin. The inserted movement is an ensemble piece for string quintet [the Andante movement given in Hausswald]. In the trio of the first minuet a string quartet plays alone. The violin solo is accompanied by the string quin— tet, and in the trio of the last minuet the quintet is alone. Thijs is one of the earliest uses of quintet scoring in Mozart. 1 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts Werke: Kritisch durch- flgfighepe Gesamtausgabe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, l877-1910). (Hereinafter referred to as GA.) 2Hausswald, Serenade for Orchestra, p. 127. 3Gibson, "Serenades and Divertimenti of Mozart," PP. 100, 102. 4 Ibid., p. 98. 22 The: String Quintets of Mozart The individual quintets.-—The examples cited above inmfily'that Mozart was perhaps never far from writing in the medjnim of the quintet proper. It was in this spirit of the (eighteenth—century divertimento that Mozart, at age seveuiteen, wrote his first string quintet, the B—flat Hmjcxr, K. 174. This work is the only string quintet refeisred to in Mozart's letters. He writes from Paris on Nkarch 24, 1778: "Before my departure from Mannheim I had -the Quartet c0pied for Herr von Gemmingen which I com- posexi evenings in the inn at Lodi, and then the Quintet, and ITischer's Variations."1 The autograph of the quintet carrties the date "December 1773." The work was begun in SPriJig of the same year, and is generally believed to haVEE been modeled on Michael Haydn's C-major Quintet of Februaary 17. Mozart re—worked the final two movements in EMecember: the Trio was written anew, and the finale alterred. Perhaps the revisions were influenced by the aPPEHarance of Haydn's second quintet, in G major, completed earlqg in December.2 A cheerful work, K. 174 has numerous echg) effects and a lively, quasi—contrapuntal finale. Rosen observes, in relating the genre of the quirrtet to periods in the composer's life, that Mozart X 1Bauer and Deutsch, eds., Mozarts Briefe, p. 65. The Eiuthors identify the quintet as K. 174 (p. 67); Certfiinly K. 174 is the only string quintet to which the lettfir could refer. 2Wyzewa and Saint—Foix, WSF, II, 114. 23 tnxrried to the medium of the quintet three times, in each carsea after having just composed a series of quartets.l For11rteen years follow K. 174, in which Mozart composed rm) sstring quintets whatsoever. (In 1782, Mozart composed EH1 (Dctet for winds-~the Serenade, K. 388, which he later arrianged for string quintet.) Then, in April and May of r7877, the two quintets in C major (K. 515) and G minor (K. 516) were entered in Mozart's Thematic Catalogue. The: C major dates from April 19, the G minor from May 16..2 The two works bring to mind the pair of symphonies in 'the same keys, composed one year later. A. Hyatt King notxes other dualities in pairs of works: the two quartets frcnn 1785 and the piano concertos in D minor and C major frcnn the same year.3 K. 515 (C major) is a grand work, conceived on a lainge scale. The first movement, 368 measures long, is the: longest sonata—allegro to be found in all of Mozart's ixustrumental works. The opening Allegro unfolds in a diaJJogue between the cello and first violin in five-measure Charles Rosen, The Classical Style: Egggrt, Beethoven (New York: P- 264. Haydn, The Viking Press, 1971), (Hereinafter referred to as The Classical Style.) 2Wilhelm A. Bauer and Otto Erich Deutsch, eds., Eglfigang Amadeus Mozart, Briefe und Aufzeichnungen: Eéigmtausgabe (Kassel: Barenreiter, herausgegeben von der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, Salzburg, 1962), IV, 42: 45. (Hereinafter referred to as Briefe und Aufzeich- 92m.) 3King, Mozart Chamber Music, p. 54. 24 phriasses. Following a pause of one measure, the opening is cilfamatically repeated in C minor. The highly ornamental Andante is a superb example of concertante treatment of the firwst: violin and first viola. Disagreement exists con- cxnrruing the placement of the two inner movements. The firsst.edition printed the Menuetto before the Andante. For' a.discussion of this problem, the reader is referred to tihe Introduction to the Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie VII]: (Kammermusik), Werkgruppe l9, Abteilung1.(Streich- quintette).l The autograph manuscript of this work is in “the possession of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. The G—minor Quintet K. 516 was composed in May of 17ET7, the month of Leopold's death.2 It is considered the: greatest of the Mozart quintets. In contrast to the C-nuajor Quintet, the work is concentrated in a compact, higlily organized form. The rising arpeggio of the opening Elgfgiro is balanced by a gradual chromatic descent; chrcnnatic also are the driving eighth-notes of the 1W. A. Mozart, "Quintette fur Streichinstrumente," §32§_§@sgabe samtlicher Werke. SerieYKEE[,Kammermusik, Werk— gruppe l9. Abteilunglg Streichquintette. Ed.kurErnst Hess and Ernst Fritz Schmid (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1967), p. IX. The work is dated May 16; Leopold died on May 28. The last extant letter of Mozart to his father is dated Vienna, April 4, 1787. In this letter Wolfgang expresses his shock in learning that Leopold is (suddenly) quite ill and then professes that he has learned always to expect the worst in life. Wolfgang then describes his feelings towards death, this ”best of friends,” and relates the recent death of his friend Hatzfeld. 25 acxzcnnpaniment. The key of B—flat, the relative major, is delxayed; throughout the movement there is little escape frcnn the tonic minor. The Menuetto continues the tension of? the first movement: it is full of rhythmic upsets and iizregular phrasing. The Trio appears with a masterful ttfiich: the final phrase of the Minuet is repeated, but truansformed into G major. The expressive Adagio ma non tixappo follows, con sordini, in the key of E-flat major: 'Une second subject's first theme, in the dominant minor (txanic minor in the recapitulation), with its ominous firjure in the second viola, recalls the mood of the first Imyvement. The final Allegro is preceded by another Adagio, seniza sordini. Dirge—like, it is marked with the rising (arpeggio from the first movement, played pizzicato by the celjrn The resolution of the work appears in the lively ZKLlegro, in G major. Davenport speaks of the finale thus: The tragic mood of the first four movements, cul- minating in the black sorrow of the last Adagio, is swept away in the supreme bliss of the final Allegro. This is no conventional happy ending, but a moment when Wolfgang opens the door to his spirit, which is clear and radiant and beautiful, and not to be extinguished by any mortal hard— ship.l Or11y the pair of quintets K. 515 and 516 were published do with Mozart;3 Hess, in his preface to the Neue Mozart Efiflfagabe, is of similar opinion.4 The quintet in Volume II \ 1W. A. Mozart, Quintet for Strings in B—flat, K.46, TYUe Pascal String Quartet with Walter Gerhard, Viola; nOtes on jacket by Robert Sherman (Monitor, Collectors SEtries MOS 2114, stereo). 2Eric Blom, Mozart, ed. by Sir Jack Westrup, in 'HThe Master Musicians Series" (Rev. ed., first published 1935; London: J. M. Dent and SonsLtd., 1962), p. 244. 3 Otto Schneider and Anton Algatzy, edS-I Mozart— Handbuch; Chronik, Werk, Bibliographie (Vienna: Verlag Bruder Hollinek, 1962), P. 197. 4Mozart, Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke, VIII, 19/1, p. VIII. 32 of tflne Peters Edition with the number K.S. 179 is also not autlienitic, being a piecemeal arrangement from diverse movrarnents in Mozart's instrumental music. 'Other works sometimes identified as authentic quiritet arrangements are K. 334, the Divertimento in D majc>r for strings and two horns,1 and the two Lodron Divrertimenti, K. 247 and 287. According to Lyons, "an incxreased demand for string quintets resulted in Mozart setrting the entire K. 334 as well as K. 247 and 287 for thixs medium."2 There is in fact no evidence that Mozart ardranged the above-mentioned works for string quintet. Mozart's treatment of the string quintet.--What aIKe the textural differences between the quartet and qELintet medium in regard to range, instrumental color, and doubling? An important element in the quintets of both Michael Haydn and Mozart is the concertante style—-the fiqrst violin and first viola are treated soloistically, arni the remaining instruments accompany. An example of t-1'1is is the opening of Mozart's B—flat Quintet, with its 143mg, spun-out phrase: the melody is begun by the first ‘Fiolin,1flunirepeated one octaVe lowerknrthe first viola. \_ l"Casazion, Musique vom Robinig." 2W. A. Mozart, Divertimento No. 17 in D Major, K. §§4l The Vienna Konzerthaus Quartet with Joseph Hermann, DOuble Bass, and Hans and Othmar Berger, French Horns; notes on jacket by James Lyons (Westminster XWN 18555, monoral). 33 The addition of a second viola to the string qpiartet certainly presents greater opportunities for both ruarmonic and contrapuntal richness. Mozart loved the dark cxalor of the viola, and it is known that he preferred this iJistrument (the "heart of the quartet") in playing chamber ImJSiC. The cello is not scored as brilliantly as in Ikaccherini's quintets. Melodic interest is focused pri— maazily on the first violin and first viola. (A notable enaception is the opening of the C-major Quintet, a dixalogue between violin and cello.) The second viola rulrnmlly strengthens the accompaniment in the quintets, aldihough the two violas are also used in thirds. The possibilities for various groupings within thta quintet are many. King writes: Moreover, the five instruments could be grouped and regrouped in twos and threes more flexibly than in the quartet. The cello had greater free- dom: any instrument could provide extra harmonic support where required. The inner parts could move more freely, provided they did not come too close. To give them the necessary room, Mozart spaced the outer parts more widely. A ‘Ntide range of parts, a sense of expansion, is indeed aIWELarent in the quintets. To refer again to the opening of th‘3 C-major Quintet K. 515: the cello, beginning on a low Op€3r1CL is answered by the cantilena violin, on the E StlTing. The complete statement of this theme covers a rarlg'e in excess of four octaves. Brilliant, high scoring \ 1 King, Mozart Chamber Music, p. 55. 34 for the first violin is seen in the first movement of the final quintet, K. 614, in the scale passages. The first viola is often a pivot in the quintet. An example is the first seventeen measures of the G-minor Quintet K; 516. The first viola is used as the bass of one grrnip, then immediately as the soprano of another. The resufliLis a double trio, or divided sextet texture. Holzer':sees in these two settings the concertato princi- ple: tflie opposition of two groups of instruments. She points (Jut that this is reminiscent of the five—voiced motets <3f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.l An interesting example of grouping is found in the EEEiZ ("in canone a1 roverscio") of the C—minor Quintet K. 406.. Here Mozart reverts to a quartet, marking the secontl‘viola "tacet" throughout the whole Trio of the W- Octave doubling is prevalent; as expected, the qUintets show numerous examples of octave doubling in the Violins; as well as doubling in thirds. Tutti passages, miXing unisons and octaves, are frequent in the B—flat QUintEt K. 174. The two—measure forte statement which opens the development of the Allegro moderato employs the Violins in unison, and all remaining voices in unison one OCtaVe lower. The opening of the C-minor Quintet uses K lHilda Holzer, "Das Streichquintett g—Moll, KV 516, von Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart," Musik im Unterricht, Heft 2/50. Jahrgang (February, 1959), 43-46. 35 ViC):LinS in one octave, violas in the next, and the cello in. 1:he lowest octave. Another doubling used by Mozart hats the violins, playing in thirds, doubled at the cxztiave by the violas; a particularly full sound results (lef. measure 60, C-minor Quintet K. 406, movement I). A Crisirming effect is that of the Trio in the E—flat Quintet K- 614, which shows an especially rich use of octave dcrubling. A musette—like tune is presented at the outset bfif the first violin and joined eight measures later by the fjgrst viola an octave lower. Towards the end of the Trio tile first violin leaps upwards, continuing the idea in a Iligher octave; the viola continues at the same pitch lxevel, with the second violin now joining in the middle Custave. This texture, with a second viola accompaniment, Erroceeds over the pulse of a low E—flat (tonic) pedal in 'the cello. Solo passages abound in the quintets; homophonic ‘textures alternate with imitative passages. In the finale Of K. 516 first—violin writing is seen in the main theme as well as in subordinate themes. The episodes, however, also feature imitation in all instruments. Ihe String Quintets of Beethoven Beethoven, carrying the classical string quartet to lofty heights, had not only the quartets of Mozart as his models, but also the body of Mozart quintets, the final 36 creations of which are true masterpieces. Beethoven graced the string quintet repertoire with only one original full— length work, the C-major Quintet Op. 29. Beethoven, unlike Schubert, retains Mozart's scoring of two violins, two violas, and Violoncello. The known string quintets are: 1. Quintet in E-flat major, Op. 4, after the Wind Octet Op. 103. 2. Quintet in C major, Op. 29. 3. Quintet in C minor, Op. 104, after the Piano ' Trio Op. 1 No. 3. 4. Quintet—Fugue in D major, Op. 137. 5. Quintet Fragment in C major (begun 1826). The Quintet Op. 4 is based on the posthumously published (1834) wind octet, an early work with the mis— leading Opus number 103. Altmann believes that Beethoven knew of Mozart's arrangement of the C—minor Quintet K. 406 from the Wind Serenade K. 388. He adds, however, that the Beethoven quintet is no mere arrangement of the Op. 103, but through thematic and structural changes is really a new work.1 The quintet was probalby completed in 1796. It was announced in the Wiener Zeitung on February 8, 1797 thus: "Grand Quintetto per due Violini, due Viole, e 1Ludwig van Beethoven, Quintet Op. 4, for 2 Violins, 2 Violas, and Violoncello in E—flat Major, for— ward by Wilhelm Altmann (London: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd., No. 214, 1937), p- II. 37 Virzloncello del Sgr. Luigi van Beethoven. Opera IV. In Vienna presso Artaria & Comp."l Op. 29 is the only large-scale original work in the gernre. Dedicated to Count Moritz von Fries, it was com- posed and published in 1801. Burk comments on Beethoven's output in the medium of the quintet: ‘Why he only once conceived a full—length work for string quintetirithe more puzzling because he had the numerous, surpassing examples of Mozart, and because his own sounded so eminently well. The additional viola in Opus 29 gives body to the bass, often doubling the 'cello, solidifies chords and enriches the combined sonority. Bu1fl< sees the quintet as filling the gap between the Op. 18 anti Op. 59 string quartets: "It is far in advance of the 3 foruner and noticeably short of the latter." The graceful Openiing of the C—major Quintet, with its flowing line (Shatred by violin and cello, looks ahead to the cello of 0p. 59 No. l.4 The opening is also reminiscent of the Clcusing section of Mozart's C-major Quintet, K. 515, first movement : 1Ibid., p. I. 2John Burk, The Life and Works of Beethoven (New York: Random House, 1943), p. 403. 3Ibid. 4Ibid., p. 404. 38 Example 2.--Beethoven, meas. 1—4l Example 3.——Mozart, meas. 322-325 (cf. meas. 131-134)2 The Quintet in C minor Op. 104 is Beethoven's scoring of his popular Piano Trio, Op. 1 No. 3. The quintet was published in February, 1819, by Artaria. Transcrip- tlons Of chamber music from one medium to another were quite \ V' 1Ludwig van Beethoven, Quintet for 2 Violins, 2 .;HZEEEL_and Violoncello in C Major, Op. 29 (London: Ernst Eulenburg, Ltd., No. 31, n.d.), p. l. 2Plath and Rehm, NMA, VIII, 19/1, p. 37. 39 common during this period, when private performances and Hausmusik flourished. The quintet was performed at a gathering of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna in December, 1818.1 The Fugue :fin: String Quintet in D major Op. 137 was completed on November 28, 1817. It was composed to promote a projected complete edition of Beethoven's works by the publisher Haslinger. Not until 1827 (after the composer's death) was it first published. The work con- sists of Only eighty-three measures, an Allegretto in three-eight meter. Thayer—Forbes describe a quintet fragment in the key of C major, sketches of which appeared in November 1826. The fragment, twenty-four measures long, was arranged for piano (two and four hands) and published Posthumously by Diabelli under the title "Ludwig van Beethoven's last Musical Thought, after the original manuscript of November, 1826. . . . Sketch of the Quintet Which the publishers, A. Diabelli and Co., commissioned Beethoven to write and purchased from his relics with proprietary rights."2 The two—viola quintet was developed further in the nineteenth century by Mendelssohn and Brahms (two quintets \— lAlexander W. Thayer, Life of Beethoven, ed. and rev. by Elliot Forbes (2 vols.; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni— verSlty Press, 1964), II, 679. 2 Ibid., 11, 1010. 4O esuoh);111addition, Bruckner and Reger each composed a stzring quintet.l The Quintet in E—flat Op. 97 by Dvorak, alxong with his Quartet Op. 96, was composed in America irl the summer of 1893.2 Further examples are the works 013 Martinu, Milhaud, and Sessions.3 Two hundred years haive passed since Mozart began his string quintets——music oi? the highest artistic inspiration in this select genre. The Sources: String Quintet in D Major, K. 593 The basic guide to editions, autograph manuscript (cxopies of the autograph), and related literature is the Sesventh edition of the Kochel Verzeichnis. Two complete ediitions have served as the most important secondary Scnarces in the investigation: The Gesamtausgabe (GA) of? Breitkopf and Hartel, and Barenreiter's Neue Ausgabe §§hntlicher Werke (Neue Mozart—Ausgabe). The Gesamtausgabe ("Old Mozart Edition") has long bexen the standard available edition of the complete works Of lfiozart. Published between 1877 and 1910 by Breitkopf anti Hartel of Leipzig, the GA has been the source of most Willi Apel, ed., Harvard Dictionary of Music Kknnbridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 621. 2Antonin Dvorak, Quintet in E—flat Op. 97, The BUdEUOest String Quartet with Walter Trampler; notes on Jackxet by James Lyons (Columbia MS 6952). _ 3Margaret K. Farish, String Music in Print: A gEigfigto Music for Violin; Viola; Cello; Double—Bass (New York;: R. R. Bowker Company, 1965), p. 306. 41 Incuiern Mozart editions. Its many editors included .Icflnannes Brahms, Joseph Joachim, Ludwig von Kochel, Carl Reinecke, Ernst Rudorff, and Philipp Spitta. The sjgx complete string quintets are contained in Volume XIII, alxong with the Clarinet Quintet, Horn Quintet, and the KILeine Nachtmusik; the volume was published in 1883.l Two recent editions based entirely on the GA are tile Lea Pocket Scores (1957) and the Kalmus miniature scxare (1968). Lea claims to be an Urtext edition, tunedited. The designation "Urtext" is unfortunate, for it: misleads the reader into thinking that the edition was nuade from the manuscript. Lea (L.P.S. No. 92) states, 'WPhe present edition is based on the Complete Critical Edi- tjxon of Mozart's works by Breitkopf and Hartel, which is dterived from the first printed editions and from the com— pxaser's autographs."2 The Kalmus and Lea editions are ixientical, and are photographic reductions of the GA. The quintet publications of the New Mozart Edition bexgan in the Mozart bicentennial year 1956. At that time EITISt Fritz Schmid--the first editor of the quintet VOJJame——was able to publish a revision of the four quintets K- 515, K. 406, K. 593, and K. 614; the autographs of thesfls four works being available. The editions appeared x lKochel, K7, p. 930. 2Mozart: The Complete String Quintets in Two YQAEEEes, Vol. II (New York: Lea Pocket Scores, No. 92, 1957'), no pagination. The edition of K. 593 found in the GA 143 in fact not based on the autograph; cf. p. 50.) 42 in 1956, as a pre-publication of the NMA, in the form of miniature scores. Similar scores of the two remaining works (K. 174 and K. (516) had to be delayed at that time, as the autograph manuscripts, previously in the Prussian State Library of Berlin, had been missing since the end of world War II. With the death of Ernst Fritz Schmid in 1960, Ernst Hess of Zurich was declared editor, with the inten— tion of editing all six quintets for the NMA. Other sources were used in place of the two missing autographs. For the G—minor Quintet K. 516, photographs taken by the late violinist Adolf Busch (from the then extant auto— graph) were used. These photographs are in the collection Of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. As no facsimiles of the early Quintet in B—flat K. 174 were in exiStence, the NMA used as its source a nineteenth-century COPY of the score from the collection of Otto Jahn.l This copy, which includes the original version of the Minuet—Trio and finale, dates from about 1860. During this period the NMA began to change its Objectives: the original intention was to reproduce Mozart's script as exactly as possible in print. Later it became clear that it was more feasible to issue an acczurate edition, in modern notation, that would also Serve the performing musician.2 Wolfgang Rehm gives two \ lPlath and Rehm, NMA, VIII, 19/1, p. VIII. 2Ibid. 43 ohxjectives of the NMA: to provide a useful edition for re s earch and performance . 1 Each category in the NMA consists of two publi- catzions: A Notenband (musical score) and a corresponding IQ:i1:ischer Bericht (Critical Report). The score of the cknnp>lete string quintets was published in 1967. The 2Ka3c>nd editor of the quintet volume, Ernst Hess, died in 19623. Since his death, the Critical Report has been 2 delaayed; completion is expected about 1974. The following sources were available in this investigation of K. 593: l. Photographic c0py of the autograph score provided by Mrs. Irene Hartogs, Zurich. 2. Microfilm copy of the autograph score from the AUS1113ian National Library, Vienna (Code: Nat. Bib1.— Mus- Hs. 11470). 3. Microfilm copy of the first edition parts (Artxaria, Vienna, 1793) from the British Museum, London. 4. W. A. Mozart, Streichquintette, Nr. 18 Band I (Nev; York: Edition Peters No. 6687), parts. 5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts Werke: Kritisch QEEEfilgesehene Gesamtausgabe, Serie XIII: Nr. 7 (Leipzig: \ lWolfgang Rehm, "Die neue Mozart—Ausgabe: Ziele und Z¥ufgaben," Fontes Artis Musicae, XV (January, 1968), ll. . 2Letter to this writer from Wolfgang Plath (edi— torléll director of the NMA), Augsburg, July 9, 1971. 44 Breitkopf & Hartel, 1883; Edwards Music Reprints, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956), score. 6. W. A. Mozart, QuintettLNr. 7 fur 2 Violinen, 2 Violen und Violoncell K. V. 593, Kammermusik Bibliothek Nr. 86‘ (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel), parts. 7. W. A. Mozart, Quintet for 2 Violins, 2 Violas and.‘VEioloncello in D major Kr_V. 593, No. 50 (London: Ernsst; Eulenburg, Ltd., 1936), score. 8. W. A. Mozart, Quintets, Vol. I (New York: Edwiaa IF. Kalmus, No. 12, n.d.), parts. 9. W. A. Mozart, Quintett in D fur 2 Violinen, 2'ViIDJJen und Violoncello KV 593 (Kassel: Barenreiter— Verlag, Tp. 11, 1956), score. 10. W. A. Mozart, Quintett in D fur 2 Violinen, ELZ£ELLen und Violoncello KV 593 (Kassel: Barenreiter— VerliaQJ, BA 4706, 1956), parts. 11. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Neue Ausgabe samt- iichEEE werke, Serie VIII, Werkgruppe 19, Abteilung l (KaSEHsl: Barenreiter-Verlag, 1967), score. 12. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The String Quintets SEEEi£§3te in Two Volumes, Vol. II (New York: Edwin F. Kalmus, No. 744, 1968), score. CHAPTER II STRING QUINTET IN D MAJOR, K. 593 Brief Analysis of the Quintet Firrwst Movement: Larghetto-Allegro (Sonata Form) Introduction (Larghetto): meas. 1-21 Exposition (Allegro): meas. 22-101 I (first subject): meas. 22 II (second subject, based on I): meas. 64 Codetta: meas. 89 Development: meas. 102-144 Recapitulation: meas. 145-232 I (first subject): meas. 145 II (second subject, based on I): meas. 189 Codetta: meas. 216 Coda (Larghetto—Primo Tempo): meas. 233—260 Secxand Movement: Adagio (Sonata Form) Exposition: meas. 1-35 I (first subject): meas. 1 11 (second subject): meas. 16 Development: meas. 36-56 Recapitulation: meas. 57—93 I (first subject): meas. 57 11 (second subject): meas. 72 Coda: meas. 94—104 45 Ehird Movement: 46 Menuetto/Allegretto (Episodic Form) Menuetto: meas. 1—47 (Ternary Form) A: meas. 1 B: meas. 9 A2: meas. 24 Codetta: meas. 4O Trio: meas. 48-99 (Ternary Form) A: meas. 48 B: meas. 62 A2: meas. 76 Codetta: meas. 92 Menuetto da capo Fkoiirth Movement: Allegro (Sonata Form) Exposition: meas. 1—100 I (first subject): meas. 1 (Ternary Form) A: meas. l B: meas. 13 A2: meas. 27 Transition: meas. 37 II (second subject): meas. 54 (In fugato style) Codetta: meas. 93 Development: meas. 101-170 Recapitulation: meas. 171-237 I (first subject): meas. 172 (Ternary Form) A: meas. 172 B: meas. 183 A2: meas. 197 (A is rewritten in fugato fashion, and combined with the opening of II, rewritten, plus the counterpoint treated fugally in the development [see meas. 132]. From meas. 214 the reca— pitulation of II is exact, up to the Coda.) Coda: meas. 238—279 47 Introduction to the Manuscript The bulk of Mozart's manuscripts was acquired by AJICiré from Mozart's widow Constanze.l Included was the a111:ograph score to K. 593. The MS passed from the hands ()1? .André to J. A. Stumpff of London circa 1811.2 It (WEISS auctioned in 1847, following Stumpff's death.3 The MES , for many years in the possession of Paul Hirsch of CéaJIfloridge, England, was acquired by him in 1927.4 Follow~ irigg' the death of Mrs. Olga Hirsch (widow of Paul Hirsch), tiles QMS was sold by the heirs to the Fondation Martin luscirner, Cologny, Geneva, 5 Switzerland, where it is now 10 c ated . The MS comprises twenty leaves of paper containing thjgrty—nine pages of writing. It is twelve—stave paper, 5J1 gflaerformat, and with no inscription other than the worri "Quintetto." In the upper—right corner is the handhnriting of Nissen, the second husband of Constanze: 1See p. 30. 2More accurately, 1815; cf. Kochel, K7, footnote t0 £>- XXXI. 3Kochel, K7, p. 679. 4A[1ec] Hyatt King, "A Census of Mozart Musical Autcxgraphs in England," The Musical Quarterly, XXXVIII: NO- 4 (1952), 575. , Letters to this writer from Miss Pamela J. Willietts, Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts, British usENam, London, June 14, 1971, and from Mrs. Irene Hartogs (datkghter of Paul Hirsch), Zurich, December 7, 1972. 48 "\rcxn Mozart und seine Handschrift."l Mozart left no 0331153 numbers in his scores. The marking "N25," crossed 0L112- and replaced by "N26," may be the numbering by Franz g]_ea:isner, who was engagedby Andre in Offenbach to sort anudi classify the manuscripts.2 As is typical of Mozart's scores, the MS shows a xréapid, sure hand, the music having been thoroughly weirlced.out in the composer's mind before being committed to Elaper. Mozart often wrote sketches for some of the corltxrapuntal passages in his works, but the literature merltxions no sketches or fragments which can be unequivo— calfil§7 linked to the quintet. Although written hurriedly, eacfli page of Mozart's score shows a notation of symmetry enui sapatial.balance. The change to a sharper quill point is easisily detected, as Mozart's habit was to sharpen his quilLL only at the top of a new leaf of manuscript. Introduction to the Editions Agggfliga, First Edition Parts The firm of Artaria & Co. was founded in Vienna in 1.7703 and was the leading publisher of Haydn's and le. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,"Eine Kleine Nacht- musiJ€"K;525 in The Facsimile Series of Music Manuscripts, ed. IDyEric Simon (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1968 , p. x. 2See Kochel, K7, pp. XXXVII, LIX. Ver Alexander Weinmann, ed., Vollstandiges Verlags— Kfegfiichnis Artaria & Comp. ("Beltrage zur Geschichte des M t‘VViener Musikverlages,” Reihe 2 Folge 2; Vienna: usiliverlag Ludwig Krenn, 1952), p. 5. 49 D4c>zart's music during their years in Vienna. Beethoven also found a publisher in Artaria.l The first edition of the Quintet K. 593 was E>Lllalished by Artaria in the form of parts, which appeared (:11. May 18, 1793, one and one-half years after the com— Epcasser's death. The announcement of publication was (zeairried in the Wiener Zeitung the same day.2 The plate 1111rnber of this print is 428. In the 1790's, Artaria acquired part of the firm of Franz Anton Hoffmeister. chzczording to Weinmann, Artaria's plate 428 is identical VVi_f:h the Hoffmeister plate 134, included in the acquisi- 1:j_c>n. This indicates that Hoffmeister was responsible for tiles first edition.3 Artaria later published a second eciILtion of the quintet, with the plate number 1944.4 'Tliea title of the Artaria edition included in this study reesads: Grand QUINTETTO per due Violini, due Viole, e Violoncello del SIG. MOZART No. 4 a Vienne chez Artaria 'Thfii work is the fifth string quintet by Mozart (but the follrth of the later quintets, beginning with K. 406). \ 1 . 2 . Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 34. 3Ibid., p. 33. 4Ibid., p. 93. 50 Bre itkopf & Hartel The long-established (founded in 1719) firm of B1:€3:itkopf & Hartel, Leipzig, has provided the foundation fCDJC' Mozart performance and publication for nearly a ce2111:ury, through the Collected Works (Gesamtausgabe). T1153 GA has been the authoritative source for all later emi:irtions until the appearance of the NMA beginning in 1535555. 1 K7 lists two separate B&H editions of parts to the q11fi_rurmn Kammermusikbibliothek Nos. 86/87 and 97/98.1 TTlea original B&H edition of the parts (KMB 86/87)2 was tuseaci by the firm for the score to the complete quintets in. 'the Gesamtausgabe, series XIII, vol. 7. (This volume Of ‘the GA was published in 1883.)3 It is this original edgi‘tion which is available today from Breitkopf & Hartel, arnfl. which is included in the present study. (The Kalmus arufl, Lea study scores are identical with the B&H No. 86/87, although the Kalmus parts are based on the Peters edistion.) Was this B&H edition itself based on the auto— gréfleh manuscript? It dates from sometime before 1865. (Hie 1M8 to K. 593 was in England during this time, and prc>bably unavailable. That the MS was not at the disposal \ lKochel, K7, p. 680. W' Letter to this writer from Breitkopf & Hartel, 1eSbaden, October 3, 1972. 3Kochel, K7, p. 930. 51 of Breitkopf & Hartel during preparation of the GA is substantiated by the firm following a second inquiry.1 The other B&H edition of parts, KMB 97/98, is by thee raineteenth—century violinist Ferdinand David (1810- 1883) , and dates from about 1865. This is in agreement witzlj. Lehmann, who writes that David was the editor of fixrea .Mozart quintets.2 David resided for many years in Leigg>zig, having assumed the duties of professor of violin at 1:11e newly formed Conservatory in 1843.3 C. ZE‘- Peters Franz Anton Hoffmeister (1754-1812) is mentioned abc>\7JgunmJ Measure numbers in parentheses refer to passages iri ‘the recapitulation or coda of a movement to which the ccxnunent also applies. The instrumental part in question arici 'the commentary follow. Figrrst Movement: Larghetto- Allxegro Autograph manuscript Introduction (Larghetto) l (2233) The MS is marked "Larghetto" at the opening of the first movement, as well as at the return of the introduction in meas. 233. In Mozart's own Thematic Catalogue, dated December, 1790, the tempo is given as "Adagio." l Tutti Curiously, Mozart at first indicated common time, then superimposed a three- four time signature Vc. The opening motive is never found with slurs in the MS; most editions have added a slur to the figure: «d 1% TE». LN ‘ Ni INN "N- ? o {f.'p~ Example 4. \___._.i________ IV Bauer and Deutsch, Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, r 122. 55 16——JJ9 'Vc. The three dotted-half notes (pedal—tone A) were first tied together, then the ties were crossed out: \Wm/ ' Example 5. Mies believes that the vertical strokes were made after crossing out the ties and questions whether Mozart did not forget to remove the tie between meas. 18—19 as well. Had he done so, each instrument would then begin meas. 19 with a new bow stroke. Exposition (Allegro) 22-fi213 Vn.l Staccato markings appear in the first presentation of the violin theme but thereafter only sparingly throughout the movement: Example 6. 87 Vn.l Many editions have altgred the second eighth note (e ) to c' : \ l . . Mies, ”Strich und Punkt bei W. A. Mozart," P 4530 56 Example 7. 88-—S)6 Vc. The eight measures of pedal-tone A are slurred in groups of two measures, except meas. 93 and 94, in which the slurs are one measure long. 'An explanation for this might be that meas. 94 appears at the beginning of a new page of manuscript. Mozart probably neglected to carry the slur to the new system. Recapitulation‘ 16'7 The dotted-half note was first written as b, then crossed out and changed to dl.‘ Perhaps Mozart was thinking of a similar passage, the sequence in step—wise motion in the exposition beginning in meas. 46. 173 , 175 Vn. l The dotted half—notes f#2 and g2 were crossed out and changed to d2 and e2 respectively. Mozart took the trouble to write the letter names of the corrected notes over each measure. 216—217 Va. 1 There is a curious notation in this Alberti figure: / \ - Example 8a. 2513 57 Mozart appears to have over-extended the use of the half-measure repetition sign; the following notation is implied: Example 8b. Coda (Primo Tempo) Vn.l, Va. 1 Example 9. An editorial problem is present here, as well as throughout the movement, by the question of the "double trill" in the principal theme. In the Primo Tempo of the coda (meas. 254), Mozart at first wrote the trill in the Viola part, then scratched it out. In meas. 22 and 34 in the exposition, as well as in the restatement of the theme in the recapitu— lation (meas. 145), no trill appears in the (first) viola part. In meas. 106 in the development the l trill seems to have been written over the viola f but then rubbed out. The matter is further complicated by an imitative passage found in meas. 63-67 in the exposition, and in meas. 156-162 and 188-192 in the recapitulation. Meas. 156—162 and 188-192 have no trill in the 257 58 lower part (the trill was written in meas. 192, then crossed out). The similar passage beginning in meas. 192, then crossed out). The similar passage beginning in meas. 63 is another matter. Here, with one exception, each paired entrance contains the trill in both parts. In summation: in only three places (meas. 65, 66, and 67) is the double trill indicated in the MS. It is most probable that the composer intended the trill in the upper part only, but forgot to remove the lower trill as he did in the other three measures cited. King also believes that the composer's intention was a single trill throughout the movement and places the blame for the incorrect modern edi- tions [King is writing in 1941] on the second edition of Artaria. He writes: The first Artaria edition agrees exactly with the MS. save in bar 64, where it has a trill on the first viola. The source of error is the later Artaria edition (plate—no. 1944), for here the above nine— teen bars have a second trill given to the lower instrument in each case, and this has been retained in all subsequent edi— tions, including the BreitkOpf and Hartel Gesamtausgabe. King compares the quintet to the opening of K. 614, the string quintet in E-flat, in which a trill motive is also prominent. Here, he writes, the trill is given only to the first viola and has been correctly printed in all editions. Vn.l An alternative triplet figure for the violin was begun, then scratched out and replaced by the figure used consistently throughout the movement: lKing, "Mozart Manuscripts at Cambridge," p. 31. 2Ibid. 16-17 18-19 19—20 20-21 21, 33 25. 37 59 Example lOa.--Original, crossed out A H Jr . Example 10b.—-Alteration Artaria Introduction (Larghetto) Vn.2, Va.1 All notes in this measure should be slurred Vn.2 Staccato dot missing under final eighth‘ notes Violins, Violas Mozart joined both measures with a slur Vc. Both measures tied together in MS Va.1 Tie over bar-line missing Va.2 These staccato dots are not in the MS Exposition (Allegro) Va.2, Vc. Staccato dot missing under quarter note, end of measure (256) Violas, Vc. Staccato dot missing under final quarter note 60 Vn.l "p" missing at beginning of measure Vn.2 Tie over the bar-line is incorrect Va.1 Tie missing over bar-line Vn.l Slur is incorrect Va.2 "f" missing under c1(:'-1 49 (164, 168) Vc. Staccato dots missing under final two quarter notes Vc. Incorrect rhythmic notation: the dot after the eighth note does not belong: 30 33-34 38-39 40 4:55 45 , 47, 46 46, 48 55, 56, 60 61 62 64 64 (189) Example ll.--Edition Vn.l Staccato dot under first quarter note not in MS 59, 61 Va.1 "mf" not in MS Va.1 Slur missing over dotted-eighth and sixteenth notes Vn.l Slur should include all notes in the measure Va.2, Vc. Staccato dots missing under final two quarter notes Va.1 No trill in MS. Only in this measure does the edition not match the MS in Mozart's (inconsistent) use of the trill figure; cf. p. 57. Va.2 Staccato dot missing under quarter note. 61 69 (194) Vc. Staccato dot missing under quarter note 71—73 Vn.l Incorrect slurring: /\ Example 12a.—-Edition fld Example 12b.--MS 72-73 Va.2 Slur missing over bar—line 74 Vn.2 Slur should include all notes in the measure 85 Va.2, Vc. "p" missing at beginning of measure 87—89 Vn.2 The four half notes plus the following quarter note should be slurred together 89-96 Va.1 Excluding the first eighth note in meas. 89, all notes in meas. 89 and 90 should be slurred together. Meas. 93-96 are each given a slur in the MS. Vc. Slurs in the MS are of two—measure length (pedal-tone A) 90-91 Vn.2 Slur missing over bar-line 91-92 Va.2 Slur includes both measures in MS 93 Vn.2 Staccato dot missing over quarter note 94 (225) 96 (227) 1C)22-104 11.1. 111-— 116 113— 114 118—119 119 62 Vn.2 Sixteenth notes should be slurred to tied note from previous measure Vn.1 Sixteenth notes should be slurred to tied note from previous measure Development Vn.2, Violas, Vc. All quarter notes should have staccato dots Va.2 The "f" is incorrect; the dynamic level should remain piano until the end of the following measure Vc. None of the staccato dots over the eighth notes are in the MS Va.2 Dynamics transposed-—meas. 113 should read "p” under the last eighth note, meas. 114 "f" under the last eighth note Vn.2 Slur over bar-line not authentic Va.1 Sharp missing before e2 ff! Example l3.——MS 120-122 126—127 13 0—131 144—145 148 153 156 157 166 168 , 170 169 63 Va.2 gfi's should be tied in the forte—piano figure: JJ‘7 ab ac P Example l4.--MS Va.1 Slur missing over bar—line Vn.1, Va.2 Slur missing over bar—line Recapitulation Vn.2 Tie over bar-line not authentic Vn.2, Violas, Vc. Staccato dots under the quarter notes are missing Va.2 "p" missing Va.2 Staccato dot missing under final quarter note Vn.1, Va.1 Staccato dot missing under quarter note Va.2 Staccato dot missing over quarter note Vn.2, Va.2 Staccato dot missing under final quarter note Va.1 Mozart wrote, in this measure only, two slurs (rather than one) over this dotted— rhythm pattern: 64 1.837 1. 9 3-194 15965 20 0—203 2C)O 22013 207—208 212—213 Va.2 Vn.1 Vn.1 Vc. Vc. Vc. Vn.2, Example lS.——MS All notes in this measure should be slurred No slur in MS Staccato dot missing under final two quarter notes Slur missing over bar-line All notes in this measure should be slurred Mozart's slurring is irregular here——it does not match the corresponding passage in the cello part (meas. 75—79). Mozart at first gave each of the four measures a slur, then lengthened the slur over meas. 203 to include the notes of the previous measure. Slurs are one measure long in the edition. Staccato dots missing over first two quarter notes Slur missing over the (two) eighth notes There is an interesting use of the custos here, indicating the first pitch of meas. 208 Violas Staccato dots are in order here and should be added; MS shows dots in Vn.1 65 216—217 Va.1 There is a notational problem in this Alberti figure: “ //‘_ F- l," —.1 .T , a, Example l6a.-—Edition A Example l6b.--MS Mozart in haste over—usedtflmahalf—measure repetition sign. It appears from the context that the composer's intention was this: Example 16c. Mozart was careful to notate this in full in meas. 89, the corresponding passage 2l6~219 Vc. MS——Mozart joined the four measures of pedal-tone d with one slur Slurring in the edition does not follow the 218-219 Va.2 2222]. ‘Va.2 222-223 Va.2 223 Va.1 2222(5 Vn.1 Coda 223»€S Vn.2 238 Vn.2 239 Vn.1 239 Va.2 243 , 245 Va.2 244 , 246 Vn.1 247~249 Vn.1 66 Slurring irregular—~Mozart joined these two measures and the first quarter note of the folloWing measure with a slur Staccato dot missing over first quarter note Slur in MS is two measures long, minus the first eighth note in meas. 222 Sixteenth notes should be slurred to tied note from previous measure Staccato dot missing over quarter note (Larghetto) Staccato dot missing over the eighth notes 1 . g and fill slurred in MS Correct Slurring is: /*\///’——\\\\ Example l7.--MS Staccato dot missing under final eighth note Tie not in MS All notes in this measure should be slurred The slurs and ties here are incorrect: 67 2 4 9-251 255]. 2552 2556 Va.1 Violins, Example 18.—-MS Articulation: Mozart joined the entire passage, including the first eighth note in meas. 251, with slurs and ties similar to the first violin part two measures earlier Vc. Staccato dots missing (Primo Tempo) Violas Vn.2 Staccato dot missing Staccato dots missing under eighth notes b; the composer was inconsistent in marking this passage throughout the movement BreitkOpf & Hartel Introduction (Larghetto) "dolce” ll, 13, Vc. S s Vn.2 Vn.2 Vn.2 missing 15 (233, 237, 241, 243, 245, 247) lurs are not authentic; dynamic markings hould read "sf p" Slur should include d2 Staccato dot missing over second eighth note (Kalmus score only) Slur should include e2 68 6 (238) Va.1 Slur should include bl Vn.1 Slur should include e2 165 Vn.2 Slur should include dl Va.1 Slur should include fl 2(3 , 21 Vn.2, Violas, Vc. Staccato dot added 2J1. Tutti Quarter rest added before following _ double bar Exposition (Allegro) 2:1 , 33 (252) Tutti Staccato dot missing on last quarter note 222, 34, 64—67, 106 (145, 157-162, 189—192, 252, 253) Violas Lower trill not in MS. The edition con- sistently gives the "double trill" in these passages; cf. p. 57. 25 , 37 Violins, Violas Staccato dots added Inrzorrect rhythmic notation in trill figure: the edition ha}; a dotted—eighth and two thirty-second notes; Mozart erDte an eighth note followed by two sixteenth notes 44, 55, 57 (171, 173, 175, 180, 182) Vn.1 32 (155, 177) Vn.2 59, 61 (184, 186) Va.1 46, 48, 50, 52 (165, 167, 169) Vc. 46, 48, 50, 52 Vn.1 Staccato dot added to first quarter note of measure 61‘62 Vn.2 MS shows staccato dots under the two quarter notes before the forte 71‘72 Vn.1 Lengthcfifslurs here should be one measure 75—80 Vc. Slurring in eighth—note passage: Mozart wrote two slurs two measures long, a slur one measure long, and indicated meas. 80 to be played without slurs, staccato IiIIIIIIlII-.___________________________________________11 78-79 87 89 89—92 89-96 91-92 118-119 148 69 Vn.1 There is no tie across the bar—line in the MS, giving two staccato quarter notes Vn.1 Incorrect pitch: the second eighth note should read e2, not cfi Vn.2 The previous two—measure slur should include the quarter note a Va.1 Mozart's slurs here are two measures long, with the exception of the first eighth note in meas. 89, which is separate and marked staccato Vc. Slurring: Mozart wrote slurs of two— measure length except in meas. 93 and 94 (in which the slurs are one measure long). His inconsistency may have been caused by the final two measures appearing on a different page of manuscript. Va.2 The edition gives slurs one measure long; Mozart slurred the four half notes together Development Violins No slur over bar—line in MS Recapitulation Violins, Violas Staccato dots missing under eighth notes 156, 157, 188, 189 158—160 Violins, Violas MS has staccato marking over anacrusis quarter note (Mozart's notation of this articulation is very inconsistent) Vn.2, Va.2 Mozart was very inconsistent in applying staccato dots to the eighth notes in the principal theme of the Allegro; the staccato notation appears in the MS only in meas. 22 and 23 166, 168, 170 169—170 169. 178 200 203-204 203-204 216-219 216-219 218—219 220 220—221 224—225 226 Va.2 Vn.1 Va.1 Violas Vc. Vn.1 Violas Va.2 Va.1 Vc. Va.1 Va.1 7O Mozart (inconsistently) wrote a staccato dot over the quarter note in this and similar passages in other voices. This marking does not appear in the exposition. Slur over bar-line not inMS MS shows two slurs, each one—half measure long No slur in MS Staccato dots missing over d Slur includes both measures in MS Slur over bar-line not in MS Two-measure slur in MS MS: four measures slurred except D Two measures and a quarter note slurred in MS MS: ffil staccato and not included in slur Two measures slurred except d MS: slur includes both measures with the exception of ffil First eighth note not under slur in MS 71 Coda (Larghetto) 241, 242 Va.2 Slur over bar-line not in MS 243, 245 Violas No ties in MS 246 Vn.1 Ornamentation should read: m ’ ‘ C Q (J :=: = Example 19.——MS 248 Vn.1 Each slur should include four sixteenth notes 250 Va.1 Each slur should include four sixteenth notes (Primo Tempo) 253, 254 Vn.1, Va.1 No staccato dots here in MS; cf. meas. 158-160 Peters and Kalmus parts Introduction (Larghetto) l "dolce" missing 1: 5, 9, ll, 13, 15 (233, 237, 241, 243, 245, 247) Vc. Slurs are not authentic; dynamic markings should read "sf p" 2-3 (234-235) Va.1 Tie missing “‘mh — 72 3 (235) Vn.1 Ornamentation should read: A ffifir Example 20.-—MS 4 Va.1 Staccato dot missing 4 (236) Va.2 Slur added 9 (241) Violins, Violas "mf" added 13 (245) Violins, Violas "p" added 16 Vn.2 Slur missing between e1 and d1; all notes in this measure should be slurred Va.1 Slur missing between a1 and fl 16-17 Vn.1 Tie missing between b1 and b1 18 Violins, Violas "pp" added 20, 21 Vn.2, Violas, Vc. Staccato dots with slurs added Exposition (Allegro) 22, 23 (145, 146) Vn.1, Va.1 Slurs added to the staccato eighth notes; only in this initial presenta— tion of the principal theme (meas. 22, Vn. 1) did Mozart write staccato markings over all eighth notes 22: 34, 64-67, 106 (145, 157-162, 189—192, 252, 253) Violas Lower trill not in MS. Similar to Breitkopf & Hartel, the edition consis— tently gives the "double trill"; Cf.EL 57. 73 25, 37 (148, 256) Violins, Violas Slurs added over staccato eighth notes 26 , 27, 38, 39 (149, 150, 257, 258) Vn.1 Slur and staccato dots added 28 , 29, 40, 41 (151, 152, 259, 260) Tutti Staccato dots added to quarter notes 34 , 35 (253, 254) Vn.1, Va.1 Slurs and staccato dots added to eighth notes Ir1<:x3rrect rhythmic notation in trill figure: the edition haiss a dotted-eighth and two thirty—second notes; Mozart w1:<:rte an eighth note followed by two sixteenth notes 441 , 55, 57 (171, 173, 175, 180, 182) Vn. 1 322 (155, 177) Vn. 2 5S) . 61 (184, 186) Va. 1 465 . 48, 5o, 52 (165, 167, 169) Vc. 465 I 48, 50, 52 (165, 167, 169, 177) Vn.1 Staccato dot added to first quarter note A(Eczents added to dotted-half notes: 555 , 57 (171, 173, 175, 180, 182) Vn. 1 (177) Vm 2 ‘59, 61 (184, 186) Va. 1 4(5,, 48, 5o, 52 (165, 167, 169) Vc. €34—-71 (157—163, 189-196) Tutti None of the staccato dots under the eighth notes or the slurs appear in the MS (an exception is the slur over the n f—p") 71— Vn.1 Crescendo added '72"7'3 Va.2 Slur missing between d1 and c3"1 .NS‘"79 Vc. Correct Slurring is: a slur joins meas. 75 and 76, meas. 77 and 78, and all notes in meas. 79 are slurred in the MS 74 7 8-79 Vn.1 Tie added £3llx-84 'Vn.l Staccato dots not in MS 2355 , 86 Vn.2, Violas Dashes added under quarter notes 53'7' Vn.1 Incorr ct pitch: second eighth note should read e , not cfi E3'7', 88 Va.2 Staccato dots added €3'7',88 (214, 215) Vn.2, Va.1 ‘ Slurs in MS are two measures long £383 Vn.2 Slur shou1d extend to quarter note of following measure 89 (220) Va.1 a1 should be marked staccato and not included in the slur in meas. 89; ffi; the same, meas. 220 8 9 ~92 (216—219 , 224—227) Va.1 Slurs in MS are two measures long 859-—96 Vc. Slurs (pedal-tone A) are two measures long in MS 90 (217) Vn.2 flflmasixteenthlmates should not be tied to e2 in meas. 90, to a2 in meas. 217 92 (219) Vn.1 The sixteenth notes should not be tied to b2 in meas. 92, to e in meas. 219 92--93 Va.2 Slur in MS is two measures long Development 106, 107 Vn.1, Va.1 Slurs and staccato dots not in MS JI39 Violins, Va.1 Staccato dots and slur over final two eighth notes are not by Mozart 75 111-117 Tutti Staccato dots added ,1 1 '7-118 Tutti Dashes added over quarter notes :1. IL 8—119 Violins Slur over bar—line added 1 1 9—122 Tutti Slurred notes should read "f—p"; stadcato dots not authentic 3.22:3 Va.1 Staccato dot added AL1.J_ slurs and staccato dots in the triplet passages are no t authentic: 123, 124, 127, 128, 137—139 Vn.1 L25, 126,131, 132, 136—140 Vn.2 L29, 130, 134—136, 139, 140 Va.1 L33—136 Va.2 L34, 135 Vc. L25—14o Tutti Staccato dots under the eighth notes and quarter notes are not authentic LI3Z3 Vn.1 d1 not authentic—-correct is double stop ffiQ—a 141—143 Vn.1 Slurs added over staccato eighth notes Recapitulation 1635 Vc. Incorrect pitch: cfil should read a 171 , 173, 175 Va.1 Staccato dot added to first quarter note 17 8 Violas Slur added 1963 Va.1 Crescendo added 197 200 203—204 206-211 212, 216-219 218-220, 220-221 222—227 225~226 238 213 76 Va.1 Diminuendo added Vc. Staccato dots missing Va.1, Vc. Slur should not extend across bar—line Va.2 No slur in MS Vc. Staccato dots not in MS Violins, Violas Quarter notes should have staccato dots, not dashes Vc. Mozart's slur includes these entire four measures, with the exception of D in meas. 216 222-223 Va.2 Correct slurring: Mozart's slur in meas. 218—220 includes four half notes and the first quarter note; in meas. 222 and 223 all eighth notes are slurred except the first note of meas. 222, which is slurred from the previous measure Vc. Mozart joined both measures with a slur, with the exception of d Vc. Slurs in MS are two measures long Va.2 No slur over bar-line in MS Coda (Larghetto) Vn.2 Mozart'ssihntincludes only the last two quarter notes 77 241—242 Va.2 No slur over bar—line in MS 243, 245 Violas No tie in MS 247, 248 Vn.1, Va.2 Crescendo and diminuendo added 248 Vn.1 Each slur in the MS includes four sixteenth notes 249 Vn.1, Va.2 "p” added Vn.1 Mozart's slur includes all thirty—second notes Vn.2 Incorrect pitch: a1 should read el 249-250 Va.1 Crescendo and diminuendo added 250 Va.1 Each slur in the MS includes four sixteenth notes 251 Violins, Va.2, Vc. No slurs in MS Va.1 Slur in MS includes first eighth note (a1); "p" added Eulenburg Introduction (Larghetto) 1, 5, 9, ll, 13, 15 (233, 237, 241, 243, 245, 247) Vc. Dynamics should read "sf p" 3 (235) Vn.1 Ornamentation should read: A [$1. Example 21.—-MS 'Ww 78 16 Vn.2 Slur should include dl 16-17 Vn.1 bl tied across bar-line In MS Exposition (Allegro) 21 Vn.1 Staccato dot missing under quarter note 25 Violins, Violas Staccato dots added under eighth notes; Mozart's notation is inconsistent--dots appear in a similar passage later (meas.l48) 30 Vn.1 "p" missing 34, 35 Vn.1, Va.1 No staccato dots in MS; Mozart (incon- sistently) marked the eighth notes of the principal theme staccato only in meas. 22 and 23 Incorrect rhythmic notation in trill figure: the edition has a dotted—eighth and two thirty—second notes; Mozart wrote an eighth note followed by two sixteenth notes 44, 55, 57 (171, 173, 175, 180, 182) Vn.1 32 (155, 177) Vn.2 59, 61 (184, 186) Va.1 46, 48, 50, 52 (165, 167, 169) Vc. 45 Vn.2 No staccato marking appears here in the MS (final quarter note). Mozart at times wrote a staccato stroke in similar passages, such as the viola parts in meas. 166. 48, 50, 52 (165, 167, 169, 177) Vn.1 MS shows no staccato dot over first quarter note 63 Vn.1, Vc. MS has staccato dot 65, 67 Va.2 Trill missing over a 66 Va.1 Trill missing over a1 The edition does not favor the "double trill," yet gives the lower trill in meas. 106 and 145, first viola. Editor Rudolf Gerber writes, in the preface to the Eulenburg score, p. III, the following: 69 72- 74 75- 78— 87 89 79 Page 2, bars 22, 34: In A and E [autograph manuscript and 1793 edi- tion by André] the lst viola has no shake. Also on pages 10, ll, 13, 17 only the upper part is provided with a shake at the beginning of this theme. Originally Mozart had noted the shake, in these instances, also in the lower parts which accom- pany in thirds, but had subsequently crossed them out; a clear indication of the fact that he wanted the shake in this motif executed only in the upper part. A contradiction to this, however, is the notation of the shake in the similar motif of the second theme on page 4, bars 64— 67, where the accompanying lower parts (violas) also perform the shake on the dotted first crotchet. The new edition has been consequent in omitting these shakes in the assumption that Mozart accidentally forgot to carry out the later cor— rections (as on pages 10, 11, and especially at the return of the 2nd theme in the reprise, page 13). Mozart in fact wrote the lower trill in six places at first and them removed it in three of these; cf. p. 57. Vc. Staccato dot missing 73 Va.2 cfil should be slurred to dl Va.2 The quarter note and the two eighth notes should be slurred together 78 Vc. MS has two slurs-—each is two measures long 79 Vn.1 Tie across bar-line not in MS——rather, staccato quarters Vn.1 Incorrect pitch: cfi? should read e2 (220) Vn.2, Va.2 First quarter note should be slurred to all notes in the previous two measures; no staccato dot in MS 717. im -._ *mh*_-‘fl‘_ . ¢H—_~;-=-- - "'-‘ ~‘ *5; it """ ‘< 115 93-94 Vn.1 Ties over the bar—lines are not by Mozart; the first eighth note in meas. 94 is separated from the following notes, and is marked staccato Peters and Kalmus parts Menuetto 1-6 Vn.1 Correct slurring is: A 7’ 2‘? Example 63.-—MS 4—6 Vn.2 Incorrect slurring: , )0 f ,. I- M: P" Example 64a.——Edition Example 64b.-—MS Va.1 Ties over bar—lines not in MS Va.2 Quarter notes d1 and cfll should be included in the first and second slur, respectively 12 Vn.2 a1 should be slurred to d2 l7-22 Vn.2 The quarter-note passage beginning with 981 and ending with the first quarter note of meas. 22 is under one slur in the MS; staccato dot missing under a1 in meas. 22 116 18—23 Vn.1 Mozart's slur includes the entire six measures of eighth notes 22 Vc. "f" missing 23-27 Vn.1 Slurs should correspond to meas. 1-4 in the MS 24-27 Va.1 Slurring in MS is similar, but not iden— tical with that of the first violin one beat earlier: A Example 65.-—MS 26-29 Vn.1, Va.1 "f" not by Mozart 33-34 Va.1 No tie across bar-line in MS; this seems to be an emission by the composer (cf. Vn.1, same measures) Trio .Articulation of eighth notes: with the exception of the lave eighth notes in meas. 28, Vn. l, and the first in Ineas. 47 of the same part, Mozart wrote none of the eighth Inotes in the Trio with staccato dots. The staccato dots over the quarter notes at the close of each ascending arpeggio (in the edition) are also not by Mozart. 55-58 Vn.1 Slurs in MS are two measures long 60—61 Vc. Staccato dots not in MS 63-65 Vn.1 Entire phrase slurred in MS 69-72 Tutti The slurs under the initial two eighth notes in the arpeggios are not by Mozart 73-74 Violas Slurs do not extend across bar—line in MS 117 78 Violas, Vc. Mozart wrote staccato dots over the pizzicato quarter notes in this measure only 85-86 Vn.1 Final two quarter notes of meas. 85 should be slurred to the notes of the following measure 90-91 Va.1 Slur across bar-line not in MS 90—91, 98-99 Vn.2 Slur across bar-line not in MS 93—94 Vn.1 Ties over bar—line not in MS; first eighth note of meas. 94 should be separated from the following slur and marked with a staccato dot or stroke 97-98 Vn.1 Tie over bar—line not in MS Eulenburg Menuetto 4—6 Vn.2 Slurs differ here from MS (Mozart did not phrase this passage similar to the cello part, as would be expected): J . ..7'/ fffff f‘P'f'P-f= Example 66a.-—Edition Example 66b.-—MS Va.1 As in the second violin part above, the ties over the bar—line do not appear in the MS Va.2 Slurs are three beats long in MS: 118 f= P‘ f: P‘ 3c: Example 67.--MS. 8 Vc. Staccato dots missing 12 Vn.2 First quarter note is slurred to d2 in MS 14-15 Va.1 No slur over bar—line in MS; this appears to be an omission by the composer, as all other parts have a slur or tie 17 Vn.1 Quarter note d3 is tied in MS to following eighth notes; six measures of eighth notes are slurred together in the MS 17-18 Vn.2 Quarter notes gfil and al are slurred with the notes of the following four measures in the MS 22 Vn.2 A staccato stroke appears under the first quarter note al, at the end of the slur 25-27 Vn.1 Slurring: Example 68a.——Edition Example 68b.—-MS 30 33-34 37 38 46-47 50 60 67-68 73-74 75 78 90-91 94 97-99 119 Va.1 Staccato dot missing under first quarter note Va.1 No tie over bar-line in MS; this appears to be an omission, as there are ties in the first violin and second viola parts Vc. Quarter note should be marked staccato Tutti MS has staccato stroke under the quarter notes Violins Staccato markings appear in the lower three parts, but are omitted in both violin parts (multiple stops should be played short) Trio Violas, Vc. "p" does not appear in MS (it is clearly an omission by the composer) Vc. No staccato markings in MS Vn.1 No slur over bar-line in MS Violas Slurs do not extend over bar-line in MS Vn.1 MS has staccato markings under the two eighth notes, but nowhere else in the arpeggio figure of the Trio Violas, Vc. Mozart wrote staccato dots over the pizzicato quarter notes in this measure only Vn.2, Va.1 No slur over bar—line in MS Vn.1 MS has staccato stroke over first eighth note Vn.1 Articulation: Am Example 69a.——Edition 120 d Example 69b.—-MS Barenreiter Menuetto 18—23 Vn.1 Two measures of eighth notes and four measures of eighth notes are slurred (Barenreiter miniature score only); a slur over the entire six measures appears in the MS Trio The Barenreiter miniature score and the NMA present both versions of the Trio (Mozart changed the cello part in meas. 61—75 as well as the remaining parts in meas. 75) 74 Va.2 Dynamic level missing (Barenreiter part only): p should appear under the second quarter note Fourth Movement: Allegro Autograph manuscript The traditional version of the finale contains nineteen alterations from the original, written into the autograph manuscript. The changes occur in meas. l, 13, 27, 37, 39, 93, 97, 99, 101, 171, 183, 197, 203, 209, 268, 272, 274, 276, and 278. The alterations are textual as well as nOtational. In Examples 70 through 99 the first measure Contains the original notation and the second measure, f01lowing the double bar, shows the alteration. Textual GXplanation is included with the respective alterations. 13 27 121 Exposition Vn.1 Example 70a. b.--"Violin 1m0" Vn.1 Example 71a. b.-—"Violino lmo" The natural was omitted by the writer before the second a2, and the final 9 in the alteration Vn.1 Example 72a. b.—-”Violin lmo" 122 37 Tutti Example 73a. b.--"unten mit Violinen" "unis. tutti" All parts were crossed out in the original; the alteration appears under the cello part and is to be played in unison (or octaves) in the respective parts 39 Violas, Vc. Example 74a. b.-—"mit Bass" "unis tutti" The alterations appear under the cello part; the violas are to play "with the bass line." A natural is missing before the second e. 93 97 99 123 Example 75a. b. Natural missing before second d2 in the alteration Example 76a. b. A» II n /\ 1 Example 77a. b. »‘-l'~m__.:"":~ ...._‘__ . “" -'. . - . . 4 ..- — .——. - . W1.M_iai_uiua;l_m- _. . . 101 171 124 Development Tutti Example 78a. b.——"unis tutti." The alteration includes all parts in unison or octaves, reSpectively Recapitulation Vn.1 Example 79a. b.--"Violino lmo" 125 183 Vn.1 Example 80a. b.--"Violin 1m0" Natural missing before final g2 in the alteration 197 Vn.1 Example 81a. b. This example of the principal theme shows the alteration written directly into the original measure. A ledger line was drawn through g2 to make a2 (this explains the unnecessary natural); the note head was enlarged to change f2 to g2; the flat before the final eighth note, e2, was scratched out and the note head extended to make ffiz. The letter names "g" and "f," standing above these notes, are part of the alteration. Note the missing slur in the altered version. 203 Vn.2 Example 82a. b. 209 268 272 126 This change was also written into the original measure and, similar to the first Violin part in meas. 197, uses crossed-out accidentals and extended note heads to effect the alteration Vc. Example 83a. b. Coda Vn.1 Example 84a. b. Altered as in meas. 197 Example 85a. b.——"Violin 1m0" The writer at first attempted to alter the part in the original measure, then crossed out the entire measure and wrote the alteration below the cello part 127 274 Vn.1 Example 86a. b. The alteration first appears thus: mo :1 c.—-"Violin 1 The writer intended a repetition of meas. 272 in the lower octave. When it became apparent that the gfl2 conflicts with the a in the viola, he rubbed out the new measure and made a second alteration. Note that the measure rubbed out (Example 86c) has remained legible in the MS 276 Vn.1 mo n Example 87a. b.——"Violin 1 128 278 Violas, Vc. Example 88a. b.--"unis tutti 3" The parts were altered in their respective octaves Beginning with the first edition in 1793 by Artaria, eleven further alterations took place. These do not appear in the autograph but have become part of the traditional Allegro as found in most modern editions. With three exceptions, these further changes are found in Mozart's original ascending chromatic scales. The measures in question are 95, 99, 105, 109, 117, 121, 238, 242, 270, 274, and 276. Exposition 95 Vn.1 Example 89a. b. 99 105 109 117 129 Example 90a. b. Development Example 91a. b. Vn.1 ()1 . MMHF'FF p. .‘s 1.18%.; U H Example 92a. b. Example 93a. b. 130 121 Va.1 Example 94a. b. Coda 238 Vn.1 Example 95a. b. 242 Vn.1 Example 96a. b. 270 Vn.1 Example 97a. b. 131 274 Vn.1 Example 98a. b. 276 Vn.1 Example 99a. b. Three of the above changes (in meas. 99, 274, and 276) occur in passages subjected to the first set of alterations. Because these three measures coincide, only the second altered form (i.e., the third version) of these passages is known through most recent editions. All three measures are based on the first altered form of the first violin part in meas. 272: Example 100.--Vn.l, meas. 272 The writer of the first set of alterations planned to use this figure in the lower octave. He did not do so because a semitone clash with a lower part results in each case: 132 99 Vn.1, Va.1 Example 101. 274 Vn.1, Va.1 A . Example 102. 276 Violins Example 103. Note that we are left with precisely this very harmonic conflict in many of today's editions, because Examples 90b, 98b, and 99b (the second set of alterations first appearing in the Artaria edition but not written into the MS) are identical with Examples 101, 102, and 103. Cf. Example 86c. It has been known since 1919 that Mozart originally wrote a theme in descending chromatics for the opening of his finale to K. 593. That year marked the appearance of 133 Ludwig Schiedemair's W. A, Mozarts Handschrift: in zeitlich geordneten Nachbildungen.¢ The work contained photographs of four pages from the finale. G. de Saint-Foix wrote of this theme in 1936: "Le premier jet de ce theme ne formait qfi une simple gamme chromatique descendante." No discussion of alterations in the MS appears in this famous Mozart biography. Ernst Hess studied a photographic copy of the autograph manuscript provided by Mrs. Hartogs of Zurich. His research was published in the 1960/61 Mozart—Jahrbuch. Hess con- cluded that the writer and author of the changes were the same person but could not have been Mozart, and that the changes probably took place in the publishing house Artaria, preceding the publication of the first edition (one and one-half years after Mozart's death). Hess's conclusion is based on three factors: (1) notational characteristics, (2) linguistic mistakes in textual explana— tion, (3) musical grounds—-the general character of the work and the relationship of the Chromaticism to the rhythmic and harmonic structure. The script does not appear to be that of Mozart. The note heads are large, often unattractive, and stems frequently protrude beyond the beams. There are several careless mistakes in the use of accidentals. Mozart often took the trouble to indicate precautionary accidentals in this MS. He was negligent in the notation of accidentals only in passages in a new key. An example is the section in C major beginning in meas. 104 (development), in which he did not always take the trouble to cancel the sharps in the key signature. Wrong or missing accidentals appearing in four of the altered measures (13, 39, 93, and 183) could hardly be Mozart's. The textual additions to the MS are not Mozartean. "Violin lmO" occurs six times, "Violino lmo" twice, "unis tutti” three times, and "unis tutti 3,” "unten mit Violinen," and "mit Bass" once each. Mozart knew his languages—-he spoke Italian as a child, and his letters are noted for his use of Latin, Italian, French, and Salzburg dialect. According to Hess, Mozart never wrote German "mit Bass," rather lHess, "Die 'Varianten,'" p. 69. 2G. de Saint-Foix, Wolfgang Amédée Mozart, sa vie musicale et son oeuvre (Paris: 1946), V, 126. 134 always, in Latin script, "col Basso" or "col B." He also never use%o"mit Violinen"--rather, "unis." Further, "Violin 1 "is incorrect. The chromatic character of the finale as well as that of the entire work must be considered. Chromaticism is an important musical device in the dramatic works of Mozart's final period.2 Hess saw a forethought of the opening chromatic theme of the finale in meas. 9-14 of the first movement (Larghetto).3 Chromatic passages also occur in movements two and three, particularly in the endings. Hess points to the organic importance of the chromatics to the entire movement. In the first set of alterations, only the descending chromatics were tampered with. The ascending chromatics were left unaltered (until the later set of changes), although in principle it is the same material, in inversion. The few ascending chromatics left unchanged appear all the more isolated and out of context (cf. meas. 256-261, meas. 263-264). Rosen speaks of the passage in the coda beginning at meas. 255: The famous correction of the main theme of the finale is not by Mozart at all, but probably the emendation of a fiddle player who found the original and more characteristic chromatic form too difficult to play. The recent discovery that the change in the manuscript is not in Mozart's hand is particularly gratifying as there are several passages-—above all one start- ing twenty-five measures before the end [meas. 225]——which are only odd in the 'corrected' ver— sion, but directly and intimately derived from the main theme in the original. Hess refers to the effect of the alterations on the formal structure of the movement: Because the ascending form appears for the first time in the development of the altered version, its effect is that of a new element. But when lHess, "Die 'Varianten,'" p. 69. 2Cf. the Quintet K. 516 and the Symphony K. 550, both in G minor. Hess, "Die 'Varianten,'” p. 76. 4 . Ibid., p. 71. 5Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 281. L“:- 23:1” .m. 135 the chromatic form appears already at the begin- ning of the work, the inversion in meas. 105 is a real development, a real reworking of the material presented in the exposition. Rhythm also plays a part in the alteration of the original theme. Hess points out that Mozart, in the original, contrasted the repeated eighth—note figure with a variety of bowings, mixing slurs and separate notes. These various bowing patterns occur throughout the movement. The slurring of two eighth notes by Mozart as a variation is weakened by adding slurs to the first measure, in the diatonic alteration of the theme.2 The added slur in meas. 1 also creates an accent on the first eighth note and weakens the anacrusic effect of meas. 1 in its original form, which drives chromatically to meas. 2, the entrance of the remain- ing instruments. The further alterations appearing in Artaria's first edi— tion are also commented on by Hess, but it is strange that he fails to mention three of the measures involved: 99, 274, and 276. Einstein believed that Mozart himself carried out the alterations in the MS. He writes, in his Mozart, p. 137, of the opening theme. Originally a scale of descending chromatic notes, it became a graceful and charming melody through a slight change. Hess agrees that the new theme is quite charming, but that "perhaps Mozart was concerned about something other than grace and charm."4 The seventh edition of Kéchel's Verzeichnis (p. 680) con- curs with the research of Hess. Paumgartner also agrees with Hess, stating that the origin of the alterations in Mozart's manuscript is yet to be explained.5 Alec Hyatt King, writing in The Music Review, in 1941, offers this explanation for the two versions of the finale: In the finale the first phrase of the opening subject originally took the form of a straight chromatic scale all through the movement, Ex. 7. lHess, "Die 'Varianten,'" p. 72. 2Ibid., p. 74. 31bid., p. 73 4Ibid. 5 Paumgartner, Mozart, p. 517. 136 It was surely one of Mozart's happiest inspira— tions to change it at every occurrence to Ex. 8, so giving it a vigour and snap which it lacked in its original form. It is probable that his impulse to make this alteration came from noticing in the course of his revision the last bars of the trio, Ex. 9, where he had deliber— ately avoided a chromatic scale.1 In 1969, in his Mozart Chamber Music, p. 60, King makes a dramatic about-face: The only correct text of this finale, based on the autograph, is found in the Barenreiter minia- ture score (No. 11, 1956, ed. by E. F. Schmid) and in the Neue Mozart Ausgabe, series VIII (1967). All other editions give the 'zig—zag' alteration made by another hand throughout the autograph, probably in Artaria's publishing house before pub- lication in May 1793. The alteration simplifies performance, but perverts the character of the music. All gramophone recordings of the finale are incorrect. The recent performance issued by Seraphim featuring the Heutling Quartet appears to be the only available recording of the original chromatic finale. Although three pages of notes are included, no mention is made of the two conflict- ing versions of this movement. Further comments on the autograph manuscript follow: The eighth notes of Mozart's original chromatic theme (first subject) are not given staccato dots or strokes except in meas. 92-93, Vn.1: lKing, "Mozart Manuscripts at Cambridge,” p. 32. 2W. A. Mozart, The Complete String Quintets, The Heutling Quartet and Heinz-Otto Graf; notes by Jurgen Dohm (Seraphim SIC—6028, stereo). 137 Example lO4.--Meas. 92-93, Vn. l Exposition 7 Vn.1 The following pattern of slurred and separate notes is consistently articulated as follows: "7\ I /'\\ ' _ Example 105. A variant in bowing: Example lO6.—-Meas. 41-42, Vn.2, Va.1 on i _ In.\ IL .6. 941%”. 3P: .I 8 ,- 4; , .3! 6(‘__”// Example 107.--Meas. 43—44, Va.2, Vc. 138 54 Vn.1 Staccato strokes over the first three eighth notes in this fugato subject appear in the first violin part. Successive entrances in the other parts are not marked; the same articulation is assumed. Example 108. 74-75 Va.1, Vc. There is a bowing variant here: Example 109. DevelOpment 106-107 Vn.2 Natural missing before cl 118-119 Va.2 Natural missing before f 120 Violins "p" missing 129 Vn.1 Natural missing before first eighth note c3 129-130 Va.2 Natural missing before cl 139 134 Vc. Natural missing before c 145 Va.1 Sharp missing before first eighth note d1 146 Vn.2 Sharp missing before first eighth note 91 159 Vn.1 Natural missing before fourth eighth note 170 Vn.1 Sharp missing before g2 Recapitulation 197-202 Va.1 Mozart at first wrote this part for the second violin, scratched it out and put the passage in the first viola part. The second violin was then given an accompani- ment to this fugato section. Coda 238—240 Va.2 Natural missing before f, and flat before b 242 Vn.1 Natural missing before f2 242—244 Vn.2 Natural missing before cl 243—244 Vn.2 Flat missing before e1, natural before f1 246, 248 Vn.2 Natural missing before f1 247 Vc. Flat missing before B 248 Va 2 Flat missing before b 255 Vc. "p" was written here, then scratched out 140 Artaria This edition includes: 19- l. Alterations written into the MS (cf. p. 120) 2 Further alterations not found in the MS (cf. p. 128) 3. Deviations from the MS in the following passages cited: Exposition Vn.1 Tie missing between dotted—quarter note and eighth note d2 27 (189-197) Va.2 Number of measures rest (nine) omitted \ 25—26 (195—196) 36 39 43- 43- 45- Va.l Slur should extend over bar—line (first ending) Vn.1 Staccato dot missing over first a2 (second ending) Tutti Repeat sign missing Violas, Vc. Sharp missing before d, d1 (altered version) 44 Va.2 Slur missing under trill figure and follow— ing eighth note 48 Vc. Slurs should extend over bar—line 46, 47—48 Va.1 Tie missing over bar—line; b in meas. 48 should be an eighth note, not a quarter note Va.2 Slur should extend over bar—line Va.1 Trill should belong with following slur Vn.1 Staccato dots missing 55-62 57—58 60-61 63-64 65 66-67 69-70 76-78 77 78 80 80-85 83 88 90 107-108 134 141 Va.2 Number of measures rest (eight) omitted Vn.2 Staccato dots missing Va.1 Staccato dots missing Va.2 Staccato dots missing Va.2 Trill sign missing; in its place appears the marking "tenuz" Vc. Staccato dots missing Va.1 The eighth notes should be marked staccato here, as well as those in the cello part one measure later. Mozart marked the first violin staccato in meas. 54—55: a similar articulation is intended for the lower parts. Vn.1 A new slur should begin with the notes of meas. 76 and should include the eighth notes in meas. 78 Vc. This measure is included in the previous slur in the MS Vn.2, Violas All notes in this measure should be slurred Va.1 Sharp missing before dl Vc. Number of measures rest (six) missing Va.2 (11 should be included in the previous slur Va.2 All notes in this measure should be slurred Va.1 Incorrect pitEh: second eighth note ffil should read e Development Va.2 No slur over bar—line in MS Va.2 ”f" missing 142 143—147 Va.2 Staccato dot missing under first eighth note 146-147 Vc. Tie missing over bar—line 159 Vn.1 Natural missing before fourth eighth note f 159-160 Va.2 cfil should be slurred with the notes of the preceding two measures 162 Va.1 Natural missing before fl 165-166 Va.2 Slur missing over bar—line 169 Vn.1 First two eighth notes should be slurred 169—171 Vc. Number of measures rest (three) omitted Recapitulation 181—183 Vc. Number of measures rest (three) omitted 189—198 Vc. Number of measures rest (nine) omitted 197 Vn.1 Forte should occur on final eighth note of meas. 196 197-198 Va.1 Mozart neglected to mark these eighth notes with staccato dots 203—204 Va.2 Number of measures rest (two) omitted 143 212 Vc. Tie missing between dotted-quarter and eighth note d 219-222 Va.1 All notes in these four measures are slurred togehter in the MS 222 Vc. Slur should include dl 222-223 Va.2 No slur over bar—line in MS 223 Vn.1 All eighth notes slurred together in MS Va.2 el and b are slurred in MS 225-228 Va.2 Number of measures rest (four) omitted 225-230 Vc. Number of measures rest (six) omitted Coda 256—260 Va.1 Incorrect slurring: Example llOa.—-Edition, meas. 256—258 144 Example 110b.——MS, meas. 256-258 256-261 Vc. The length of Mozart's slurs are inconsistent in this passage. In the third occurrence, the slur includes the following quarter note: Example 111a.—-Edition, meas. 260—261 ,Eflafl ! H '1' Example lllb.--MS, meas. 260-261 260 Vn.2 The slur is printed too short——it should include all notes in the measure 261—262 Vn.2 Incorrect slurring: 145 j erase: halo ‘7‘ Example 112a.—-Edition .— ckcsceh a/o f Example 112b.~—MS 266 Vn.1, Va.1 Nachschlag should be slurred to trill 266—267 Va.2 No tie over bar—line in MS Breitkopf & Hartel This edition includes: 1. Alterations written into the MS (cf. p. 120) 2. Further alterations not found in the MS (cf. p. 128) 3. Deviations from the MS in the following passages cited: B&H parts give ”G.P." over the measures rest in meas. 19, 103, 189; these are never found in the MS Trill figure: the short trill figure found between meas. 41 and 48 shows two bowings in the MS. In meas. 41, Vn. 2 and Va. 1, the edition's bowing in parentheses follows the MS: 146 Example ll3a.--Edition, Vn.2 Example 113b.——MS, Vn. 2 In the remaining examples through meas. 48, the following eighth or quarter note is included within Mozart's slur: 43, 45, 47 Va.2, Vc. 48 Violas Between meas. 56 and the end of the movement, the trill figure appears as part of a fugato motive. Neither bowing given in the edition follows the MS, which is without slurs: 56, 205, 207 Vn.1 59, 156, 211, 213 Vn.2 62, 199, 201 Va.1 65 Va.2 68 Vc. Exposition 39 Violas, Vc. Sharp missing before the first d1 (d), altered version Staccato dots are missing over the first three eighth notes in the fugato subject beginning in meas. 54: 54-55 (203-204) Vn.1 57—58 (209—210) Vn.2 60-61 (197—198) Va.1 66—67 Vc. 69-70 Vn.1 These eighth notes are clearly marked staccato in the MS 73-78 Vn.1 Mozart joined meas. 73—75 with a slur, and meas. 76—78 74-77 Va.1 Mozart joined meas. 74—75 with a slur, and meas. 76-77 78 Vn.2, Violas All notes in this measure should be slurred 88-89 112 114 128-130 158 159 159-160 170 199, 201 205, 207 147 Va.2 Slur should include f1 in meas. 89; Mozart slurred this figure differently two measures earlier Development Vn.2 MS has staccato stroke under el Vn.2 Incorrect pitch: final eighth note should read fl, not ffil Vn.1, Va.1 No staccato dots over the quarter notes in the MS Vn.2 Articulation missing on final three eighth notes; cf. meas. 159, Vn.1 Vn.1 Articulation missing: /\ /’\ Example ll4a.—-Edition Example 114b.--MS Va.2 Slur extends over bar—line in MS Vn.1 Final three eighth notes marked staccato in MS Recapitulation Vc. MS shows no slurs or staccato markings Va.2 MS shows no slurs or staccato markings 211, 213 222 222-223 233-234 245 257, 259 258, 260 262 263-264 265 266-267 274-277 148 Va.1 MS shows no slurs or staccato markings Vn.1 All notes in this measure should be slurred Va.2, Vc. Final dotted—quarter note belongs with previous slur Va.2 No slur over bar-line in MS Va.2 Slur appears to include quarter note of meas. 234 in MS Coda Vn.2 fl should be a quarter, not a dotted— quarter note , 261 Vc. Quarter note belongs with previous slur Va.1 Quarter note belongs with previous slur Vn.2, Va.1 First eighth note should be slurred with the notes of the previous measure Vn.1 "p" missing; slur is not by Mozart Vn.2, Violas, Vc. "p" missing Va.2 No tie over bar—line in MS Tutti Crescendo is not authentic 149 Peters and Kalmus parts This edition includes: 1. Alterations written into the MS (cf. p. 120) 2 Further alterations not found in the MS (cf. p. 128) 3. Deviations from the MS in the following passages cited: Alberti bass: there are no staccato dots in these paSsages in the MS ' 1-2, 14-15, 92—93, 104-105, 172-173, 241-242, 265-268 Vn.2 116, 275-276 Va.2 None of these crescendo or diminuendo markings appear in the MS: 11-13, 169-171, 181-183 Vn.1 There are incorrect slurs in the second subject (fugato section): 59, 205, 207 Vn.1 59, 156, 211, 213 Vn.2 62, 199, 201 Va.1 65 Va.2 68 Vc. Example 115a.--Edition, meas. 54—57, Vn.1 l) ( Example 115b.—-MS, meas. 54—57, Vn.1 150. Accent marks in the following measures are not by Mozart: 80, 82 Vn.1, Violas 86, 88, 231, 233 Violas, Vc. 225, 227 Violins 267 Vc. Exposition 2—6 (172-176) Vc. The five measures of pedal-tone D are tied together in the MS 8-9, 34-35, 41 (178-179) Vn.1 First three eighth notes in measure do not have staccato dots in MS 8—9, 34—35 (178-179) Violas, Vc. None of these eighth notes are marked staccato in the MS 14-18 (184-188) Vc. The four measures of pedal-tone E are tied together in the MS 28-33 Vc. All notes in these measures are slurred together in the MS 39 Violas, Vc. First d1 (d) has a sharp in the MS (altered version) Example ll6.—-Edition, Violas 41—42 Vn.1 No slur over bar—line in MS 42—43, 50, 60—61, 64-65, 71, 73 (198, 200, 216, 218) Vn.2 No staccato dots over the eighth notes in MS 151 43-44, 45-46, 47-48 Va.2, Vc. - Slur should extend over bar—line 48-49 Vn.2, Va.1 Slur should extend over bar—line 50 Violas, Vc. MS shows no staccato dots 53 Va.2 First eighth note should read e, not el 57-58, 61-62, (206, 208) Vn.1 No staccato dots over eighth notes in MS 63-64, 67-68 (204, 206) Va.1 Staccato dots not in MS 66-67, 70, 72 (202) Va.2 Eighth notes not marked staccato in MS 69, 71 Va.2 These slurs are not authentic 71-74 Tutti Crescendo and "mf" are not by Mozart 70, 72 (215, 217) Vn.2 Slurs are not authentic 73-78 Vn.1 Mozart joined meas. 73-75 and meas. 76-78 with a slur 74—76 Vn.2, Va.2 These three measures are joined with a slur in the MS 74—77 Vc. These four measures are joined with a slur in the MS 76-77 Va.1 These measures are joined with a slur in the MS 78 Vn.2, Violas All notes in this measure should be slurred 78-79 (223-224) Vc. No slur over bar-line in MS; no staccato dots over eighth notes in MS 152 79 (224) Va.2 No staccato dots in MS There are no staccato markings over these eighth notes in the MS: 84—85 (229—230) Vn.2, Violas 90-91 (235—236) Vn.2, Va.2, Vc. 85-89 (230—234) Violas, Vc. "mf" is not authentic 88—89 Va.2 Slur should include f1 in meas. 89 93-99 Violas No staccato dots in MS Development 128-132 Violins, Violas The crescendo and forte are not authentic 128—130 Vn.1, Va.1 Staccato dots over the quarter notes are not in the MS 131, 134-135 Vc. No staccato dots in MS 136, 138 Va.2 No staccato dots in MS 141—142 Vc. No slur over bar—line in MS 153—160 Vc. Mozart's slur joins seven measures of pedal—tone A 154—163 Vn.2, Violas, Vc. Crescendo, "mf," and diminuendo are not by Mozart 158 Vn.1 153 "mf" should read "p" 159-160 Va.2 Slur should extend over bar-line 166, 167 Vn.1 Final eighth notes of each measures should not be included within the slur and are marked staccato in the MS 166-168 Vn.2, Va.2, Vc. No staccato markings over eighth notes in MS 167-168 Va.1 First eighth note should not be included within the previous slur; it is marked staccato in the MS Recapitulation 190—195 Vn.2 The six measures of pedal-tone d2 are joined with a slur in the MS 192-196 Tutti The crescendo is not by Mozart 199, 201 Vc. No slurs or staccato dots in MS 205-217 Va.2 No slurs or staccato dots in MS 206 Vn.2 No slur in MS 210, 212 Vc. Slurs are not authentic 211, 213 Va.1 No slurs or staccato dots in MS 216-219 218-223 219-222 233—234 249 253-254 258, 260 259-262 260 262 263 263-264 154 Tutti The crescendo and "mf" are not by Mozart Vn.1 Mozart joined these measures with one slur (not possible as a bowing) Vn.2, Violas, Vc. Mozart joined these four measures with a slur Va.2 Slur should include quarter note in meas. 234 Coda Va.1 The crescendo should not begin until meas. 251 Violins, Va.2 The two dotted-half notes are slurred in the MS Va.1 The quarter note a1 belongs with the previous slur Violins, Va.1 The crescendo should not begin until meas. 261 Vc. No crescendo in MS Vn.1 A11 notes in this measure should be slurred Va.1 dl belongs within the previous slur Vn.1 Piano missing at the beginning of the chromatic scale Vn.1 The slur is not by Mozart 265 266- 268- 274- 275- 267 276 277 276 155 Vn.2, Violas, Vc. "p" missing Va.2 No tie over bar-line in MS Violas Staccato dots not in MS Tutti The crescendo is not by Mozart Vn.2 Staccato dots not in MS Eulenburg This edition includes: 1. Alterations written into the MS (cf. p. 120) 2. Of the further alterations found in most edi— tions (but not in the MS), only that in meas. 274 appears in the Eulenburg score; the autograph manuscript was available to the editor, who in consequence rejected the second set of traditional alterations. Cf. comment below (meas. 274), as well as p. 128 3. Deviations from the MS in the following passages cited: trill figure in the second subject (fugato section) no slurs in the MS: 205, 156, 199, 207 Vn.1 211, 213 Vn.2 201 Va.1 Va.2 Vc. Example 117a.?—Edition, Example ll7b.—-MS, meas. 56-57, Vn. 1 meas. 56-57, Vn.1 39 48-49 74-77 77 78 78-79 80-83 86-89 156 Exposition Violas, Vc. Sharp missing before the third eighth note (d, d1), altered version Vn.2, Va.1 Slur should extend over bar-line Va.1 Slurs in the MS are two measures long Va.2 All notes in this measure should be slurred Vc- Mozart joined this measure and the previous three measures with a slur Vn.1 Mozart's slur includes meas. 76, 77, and 78 Vn.2, Violas All notes in this measure should be slurred Vc. No slur over bar-line in MS Va.1 Incorrect slurring: b Example 118a.-—Edition Example 118b.--MS (231-234) Va.2 There is a variant in the MS here: meas. 86-87 (231-232) should be slurred as in the first viola part in meas. 80-82. In meas. 88-89 (233—234), the notes of meas. 88 (233) should be slurred to the f1 (bbl) in meas. 89 (234). 99 104-107 112_ 114 141-142 150 154 159—160 166 168-169 181, 196 157 Vn.1 Slur missing over first two eighth notes (altered version) Va.2 Incorrect pitch: first eighth note should read e , not cfi DevelOpment Va.2, Vc. The four measures of pedal—tone C (c) are slurred together in the MS Vn.2 There is a staccato stroke under the first eighth note in the MS Vn.2 Incorrect pitch: the accidental before the last eighth note (fl) in the MS is clearly a natural, not a sharp Vc No slur over bar-line in MS Vn.2 Staccato dot missing over third eighth note Va.2 Staccato dot missing over third eighth note Va.2 cfil should be slurred to b Vn.1 First eighth note has a staccato stroke in the MS Vn.1 No staccato marking in MS Recapitulation Vn.1 The MS shows a variant in articulation: in meas. 181 the final three eighth notes (a2) have no dots, in meas. 196 staccato dots are present 158 198, 200 Vn.2 No staccato dots in MS 200, 202 Violas No staccato dots over eighth notes in MS No staccato dots or slurs in the MS in these measures: 204, 206, 211, 213 Va.1 205, 207, 210, 212 Va.2 199, 201 Vc. 222 Vn.1, Va.2 All notes in this measure should be slurred Vc. Mozart's slur includes meas. 219—222 222-223 Va.2 No slur over bar-line in MS 223-224 Vc. No slur over bar—line in MS The MS shows no staccato dots over these eighth notes: 229-230 Vn.2, Violas 235-236 Vn.2, Va.2, Vc. (Exception-—final eighth note in meas. 230, Va.1) Coda 257, 259, 261 Vc. Quarter note should be included in previous slur 258, 260 Va.1 Quarter note should be included in previous slur 262 Vn.2, Va.1 First eighth note should be slurred to the notes of meas. 261 159 266—267 Va.2 No tie over bar—line in MS 274 Vn.1 It is strange that Gerber, the editor of this edition, allowed this version of the measure to be printed, as it is not the measure finally penned into.the MS by the writer of the first set of alterations (which Gerber accepted as authentic) 276 Vn.1 Incorrect articulation: a slur is missing over the first two eighth notes (altered version) Barenreiter This edition includes: 1. Barenreiter miniature score and parts (1956): original finale and altered version of the finale (the latter includes the first and later alterations) . 2. Neue Mozart-Ausgabe: original finale only Original finale: Exposition 23 Vn.1 First two eighth notes (e2—f2) should be slurred (Barenreiter miniature score and part only) 49 Vn.1 Incorrect pitch: first eighth note should read cfiQ, not al (Barenreiter part only) Coda 256-261 Va.1, Vc. The Barenreiter score and parts differ from the NMA in the articulation of this chromatic passage. In the Viola part, the quarter note a1 is clearly slurred to the eighth notes in the MS. The NMA includes this quarter note in the slur, the score and part do not. The cello part is not clear in the MS: 272-273 276 Altered 48—49 112 160 Mozart's slur appears too short in meas. 256-257 and 258-259; in the final occurrence of the scale (meas. 260-261) Mozart extended the slur to include the d1. (The NMA includes the quarter note in the slur; Barenreiter score and part do not.) Vn.2 Incorrect pitches (Barenreiter score only): Example ll9a.--Edition /\ /1i (1’ 1 Example ll9b.-—MS Vn.1 MS has a staccato stroke under the final eighth note but none in meas. 274 (Baren- reiter score and part only) finale: Exposition Vn.2 Slur missing over trill figure and following eighth note (Barenreiter part only) Development Vn.2 Slur missing over second and third eighth parts (Barenreiter part only) 161 Summary of Incorrect Pitches in the Editions First movement: Larghetto-Allegro 87 Vn.1 The second eighth note should read e2, not CFZ (B&H, Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score) 100 Vn.1 c8; should read e3 (Barenreiter miniature score) 2 -2 . 119 Va.1 e should read e8 (Artaria) 133 Vn.1 d1 is not in the MS (Peters and Kalmus parts) 160 Vn.1 e2 should read ebz (auxiliary of trill) (Barenreiter part) 165 Vc. cfil should read a (Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score): tr bf Example 120a.--Edition Example 120b.--MS 210 Vc. Final eighth note ffiishould read d (NMA) 249 Vn.2 a1 should read el (Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score) Second movement: Adagio 57 Va.1 Appoggiatura b should read dl (Artaria, B&H, Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score, NMA) 64 Vn.1 Turn should read bl—al—gl—al, not al—gl-fafi'l gl (Artaria) 162 103-104 Vc. Double stops missing (Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score): \/ \__/ Example 121a.——Edition Example 121b.--MS Fourth movement: Allegro 39 Violas, Vc. Sharp missing before third eighth note (d, d1), altered version (Peters and Kalmus parts, Eulenburg score) 49 Vn.1 First eighth note should read cflz, not al (Barenreiter part) 53 Va.2 First eighth note should read e, not el (Peters and Kalmus parts) 80 Va.1 Sharp missing before dl (Artaria) 90 Va.1 Second eighth note ffli should read el (Artaria) . . l 1 99 Va.2 First eighth note should read e , not cfi (Eulenburg) 114 Vn.2 Final eighth note should read, fl, not f8; (B&H, Eulenburg) 272—273 Vn.2 Incorrect pitches (Barenreiter miniature score): Example 122a.--Edition 163 Example 122b.——MS CHAPTER III INTERPRETATION OF THE CRITICAL STUDY The Editor's Task In his article on the mistakes which have crept into some passages of certain masterworks, Robert Schumann wrote: "The original manuscript remains the authority to which we must first refer."l Although the autograph manuscript is the original written conception of the composer, and gives much insight into the creative process, it is normally impractical as a performing edi— tion. Schumann, in the article cited, recognizes that the composer himself is often responsible for inconsistencies or errors. With the growth of musicology, an interest has developed in the Urtext, or unedited edition. Emery comments: Those who recommend 'unedited texts' would probably be among the first to complain if they had to use a text that really was unedited—— l"Immerhin bleibt die Originalhandschrift die Autoritat, die am ersten gefragt werden muss." Robert Schumann, "Ueber einige muthmasslich corrumpirte Stellen in Bach'schen, Mozart'schen und Beethoven'schen Werken," in.Gesammelte. Schriften fiber Musik und Musiker, 1841 (Zweite Auflage; Leipzig: Georg Wigand's Verlag, 1871), II, 228. 164 165 say a photograph of an early edition, or a type- facsimile of a composer's MS. No practiial musician would bother with such a thing. All printed musical texts are edited; even when the composer's intentions are known, print can never fully reproduce the subtleties of musical script. Szigeti cautions the performing musician against accepting an Urtext without reservation: Anyone who has handled the Mozart Ten Cele— brated Quartets in Dr [sic] Alfred Einstein's magnificent edition (NovEIlo, 1954) and looked at some of his 'Critical Reports' (resulting from his comparison of the autographs, the original edition and the 'Collected Works' version) will have been cured of any tendency he may have had to consider any Urtext edition whatsoever as sacrosanct. And anyone who has studied the prob— lem of realizing in performance what was meant by the composer at the time when he wrote a staccato or dash and dot, or wedge—shaped, or tear-drop— shaped sign, will be wary of using the word Texttreue, as applied to performances today of masterpieces of the past. What is editing? According to Emery, much "editing" is done by well—known performers, who achieve nothing more than adding their personal prejudices to a work. "True editing is concerned with discovering what the composer meant to be played—-what a composer actually writes is not always what he means to be played."3 Good editing means lWalter Emery, Editions and Musicians: A Survey of the Duties of Practical Musicians & Editors towards the Classics (London, Novello and Company Limited, 1957), p. 9. (Hereinafter referred to as Editions and Musicians.) 2Joseph Szigeti, Szigeti on the Violin (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1970), p. 135. 3Emery, Editions and Musicians, p. 7. 166 attaining a practical, working text, in which the musician finds the evidence he needs for a stylistic interpretation. Scholars agree on the central responsibility of the editor: to distinguish editorial markings from the original text of the composer. Dart defines the problem thus: But it is regrettably difficult to find modern editions of old music in which any distinction is made between the composer's own markings and those that the editor, for one reason or another, has seen fit to add. As a result of this combination of editorial highhandness and irresponsible pub- lishing most twentieth-century music students are deceived into seeing early music through the eyes of someone quite other than the composer. Editorial suggestions can be distinguished from the original text through various kinds of type. Dart discusses fully the alternate systems used today in the printing of dynamics, accidentals, slurs, ties, and the correction of wrong notes and omissions. Footnotes, brackets, and other symbols are needed to edit a text in this manner. In cases where wrong notes or omissions in the original are obvious, a statement in the preface can cover such neces— sary changes: In practical editions the editor can cover many of his alterations by saying that 'Obvious errors have been corrected without notice'; but lThurston Dart, The Interpretation of Music (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1964), p. 18. 167 he must record, in footnotes or by other means, every passage in which he has the slightest doubt about the composer's intentions. The Badura—Skodas caution editors in the correcting of composers' mistakes, stating that the contemporaries of Mozart often mistook "bold harmonic strokes" for wrong notes. In cases of apparent mistakes, they suggest printing the original text, with the correction added in a footnote.2 Emery agrees with Dart and others that editorial suggestions must never be confused with an original text and gives further duties of the editor. A11 sources consulted should be listed and their locations given. Further, the relationship of all sources must be stated (i.e., whether a particular source is original or deriva— tive). This distinction is especially important in situations where copies of a work exist, for example when several extant copies are in a composer's hand but were written at different times. Ornamentation is another problem in music editing. The late eighteenth century was a period of transition in the notation of ornaments. Written music in the Baroque lThurston Dart, Walter Emery, and Christopher Morris, Editing Early Music: Notes on the Preparation of Printer's Copy (London: Novello and Co., Ltd., Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 8. 2Eva Badura-Skoda and Paul Badura—Skoda, Inter- preting Mozart on the Keyboard, trans. by Leo Black (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1962), p. 143. 168 was the basis for very florid embellishment; the graces were later represented by small notes and a number of special signs. By the late classical period most of the ornaments had been absorbed into the regular notation with the exception of turns, appoggiaturas, and cadential trills. According to Gates, who studied editions of the Mozart violin concertos, ornamentation should not be written out in standard notation. Doing so robs the student of an historical knowledge of ornamentation and of an under- standing of the implied function of ornaments--embellishment, which ought not to be stereotyped by being written out in full.1 Responsibility in music publishing does not lie with the editor and publisher alone. The composer should proofread his manuscript before putting it into the hands of the publisher. Mendelssohn, in his many letters to Breitkopf & Hartel and other publishers, carefully detailed the proofing of his music through instructions and musical examples.2 Proofreading in this way not only points out mistakes by the publisher but is also a way of discovering those mistakes by the composer which were sent undetected to the publisher. Gates, "'Editions' and the Mozart Violin Concer— tos," p. 10. 2Felix Mendelssohn—Bartholdy, Briefe an Deutsche Verleger: Veréffentlichungen der historischen Kommission zu Berlin, gesammelt und herausgegeben von Rudolf Elvers, mit einer Einffihrung von Hans Herzfeld (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1968). 169 Roth implies a curiously detached attitude on the part of earlier composers when he mentions that no record exists of either Haydn or Mozart having complained to a publisher about mistakes in a printed work.l Einstein relates the problem of authenticity to the autograph and the first printed edition. "For works of the 19th and 20th centuries it is a general rule that it is not the autograph ,but the text passed for printing that is authoritative for determining the final version."2 The Editions: A Critique Of the editions included in the present study, only Eulenburg and Barenreiter fulfill, in whole or part, the editing requirements as cited above. A description of each edition follows. Artaria, First Edition Parts The most frequent errors in this edition, as tabu— lated in the Critical Study, are: 1. Missing staccato dots. 2. Missing or incorrect slurs. 3. Incorrect printing of slurs (slurs often engraved too short, rendering it impossi- ble to determine which notes are to be included). lRoth, The Business of Music, p. 72. 2Einstein, "Mozart's Ten Celebrated String Quartets," p. 162. 170 4. Number of measures rest often not printed at all. 5. Some incorrect pitches. 6. Some incorrect appoggiatura notation. 7. A few missing dynamics. Certain features of older printing are evident from this edition. Trills are often indicated by a lower case "t"; repeat marks include a dot in each space following the double bar. Another peculiarity is the frequent use of descending stems on the right side of note heads. The above—mentioned ambiguous slurs are a very distracting feature of the edition. Each page contains the Artaria plate number of the edition, 428. The most significant characteristic is the printing of the altered (more diatonic) principal theme of the finale. The (original) autograph manuscript is the only extant version of the quintet in the composer's hand. It is assumed that Artaria made use of Mozart's autograph for this printing. (See Chapter IV for a discussion of the possible circumstances under which Artaria obtained the MS.) Ernst Hess has suggested that the alteration of the finale as contained in the MS and first appearing in this edition was undertaken by the Artaria editor(s). If Hess is correct, the original chromatic theme should be given full restoration. 171 Breitkopf & Hartel The most frequent errors in this edition, as tabulated in the Critical Study, are: l. Slur consistently added to the opening cello motive in the first movement. 2. "Double trill" given throughout the first movement. 3. Incorrect slur and staccato markings. 4. Some incorrect appoggiatura notation. 5. A few incorrect dynamics. 6. A few incorrect pitches. The B&H and the editions derived from it are con— siderably more faithful to the autograph than some other available editions, yet the headings Urtext in the Lea score (a photographic reproduction of the Breitkopf & Hartel) and kritisch durchgesehen (critically revised) for the GA do not seem warranted in light of the plentiful deviations from the autograph. The finale contains the altered diatonic version of the principal theme. C. F. Peters The most frequent errors in this edition, as tabu— lated in the Critical Study, are: l. Slur consistently added to the opening cello motive in the first movement. 2. Staccato dots added in many places to eighth notes and triplets. 3. Slurs indiscriminately added. 172 4. Ornamental figures frequently notated with incorrect rhythm. 5. Incorrect printing of many slurs. 6. Some incorrect pitches. 7. Some incorrect dynamic markings. 8. Accent marks not authentic. 9. Some ties across the bar—line not authentic. . This edition shows the greatest number of editorial liberties of any available today. Slurs, staccato dots, and crescendo and decrescendo markings which are not in the original manuscript abound, and are therefore mislead- ing, even if the suggestions themselves represent sound musical judgment (cf. the section dealing with stylistic interpretation later in this chapter). The finale con- tains the altered diatontic version of the principal theme. Unlike all other scores or parts included in this study, the two short repeated sections in the first part of the finale are written out completely in this edition. Edition Eulenburg The Eulenburg score identifies sources used: the autograph manuscript, loaned from the owner Paul Hirsch (then of Frankfurt am Main); the 1793 edition by André of Offenbach, plate number 609 (cepy from the Prussian State Library, Berlin); the Breitkopf & Hartel Gesamtausgabe, Series XIII, No. 7.1 \— lMozart,"Quintet“in D Major K—V. 593, p. II. 173 The most frequent errors in this edition, as tabulated in the Critical Study, are: l. Incorrect printing of slurs. 2. Some incorrect pitches. 3. Some incorrect staccato notation. Rudolf Gerber, editor, cites a number of divergent passages between the sources consulted and the practical editions available at the time (1936). Two problems in particular are discussed: the inconsistent use of the trill in the principal theme of the first movement, and alterations in the finale. (For his explanation of the "double trill" problem, cf. pp. 78—9.) The edition does not include the second group of alterations in the finale, which are found in most editions. Because these changes do not appear in the autograph, Gerber rejected them. His treatment of the problem is cursory. He writes: "Lack of space forbids a detailed comparison of the respective bars.“l Gerber is incorrect in identifying the Andre edition as the first printing of the work——it followed the Artaria print by several months. Barenreiter The most frequent errors in this edition, as tabu— lated in the Critical Study, are: 1Ibid., p. III. Gerber did accept the first alterations of the principal theme, which were written into the MS in nineteen measures. 174 1. Inconsistencies in the trill notation in the first movement. 2. Inconsistencies in the printing of slurs. 3. A few incorrect pitches. The symbols used to distinguish editorial markings from the composer's original are meticulously explained. King describes the Neue Mozart—Ausgabe: The NMA offers uniformly high quality of scholar- ship, founded on editorial principles which have been generally accepted as part of the growth of musicology during the last forty years. Compara- tive study of sources (the autograph, early MS copies, first and early editions) is now recog— nized as fundamental . . . . The aim is to establish as exactly as possible the musical text which he [Mozart] wrote. (This may sound obvious, but it has been all too often ignored in 'popular' editions.) The Problem of Texttreue—-Rationale for Editorial Alterations Anna Amalie Abert defined two methods of Mozart research: the kunstlerisch (esthetic) and the gelehrtwissen— schaftlich (philological). The early twentieth century stressed the esthetic or artistic method, but recently the philological method, that of Jahn and Ko'chel,2 has returned to favor: the studying of texts and sources to determine authenticity. Musicology has given rise to a new standard lAlec Hyatt King, Mozart: A Biography, with a Survey of Books, Editions, & Recordings (London: Clive Bingley, 1970), p. 73. 2Anna Amalie Abert, "Methoden der Mozartforschung," Mozart-Jahrbuch 1964 (Salzburg: Zentralinstitute fur Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, 1965), p. 23. 175 of Texttreue, or Werktreue (faithfulness to the original source). Roth dramatically describes the present demand for authentic editions: The insistence on unadulterated texts is a sign of the new dignity music has assumed in our time. The apparent carelessness of former days is now regarded as scandalous, not to say crimi— nal. I have never heard of new editions of old literary works causing such heated controversies as have been raging around musical texts, with demands that the sanctity of the original should be guaranteed by law, and a body like UNESCO pressing for legislation which would oblige every owner of a musical manuscript to make it available for research. The responsibilities of a music editor are dis— cussed in the opening of this chapter. The Critique of the editions to the quintet and the citings of several authors have shown the lack of uniform standards in music editing, indeed the poor quality of some editions still available. Musicological research into music of the past has produced the recent demand for higher standards of editing. That a poor quality of editing has been the rule rather than the exception is apparent. According to Roth, there is hardly a correct measure in the Breitkopf & Hartel Oeuvres Complettes of Haydn (1804). An example from our time is the revision of Stravinsky's Rite of §E£i§g, in which hundreds of mistakes were found.2 Szigeti laments the editorial distortions found in so many editions of Baroque music: lRoth, The Business of Music, p. 74. 2Ibid., p. 72. 176 I have no doubt that our neglect [of certain Baroque compositons] is in large part due to the the inconsistency and inadequacy of the versions available, whose editors, most of them viewing these works through late nineteenth-century spectacles, give no clue to the approximately correct style of presentation. Why do the editions differ? The following points must be examined in seeking the causes of the many divergen- cies tabulated in the Critical Study: 1. The failure of editors, through a lack of knowledge in the basic principles of editing. 2. The mechanics of music printing. 3. "Progress in the arts"-—an evolutionary theory. 4. The subjecting of older music to the per- forming ideals of the Romantic musicians and musician—editors. 5. The failure of musicology to re—establish the mood of times past. The Failure of Editors Emery offers an explanation for the differences between editions: Every musician knows that editions of the classics differ, but few have any clear idea of why they differ. The reason almost always is that some editors have done their job properly, but some (often through no fault of their own) have not.2 Reference is made earlier in this chapter to Emery's definition of proper editing-—discovering the intentions lSzigeti, Szigeti on the Violin, p. 137. 2Emery, Editions and Musicians, no pagination. 177 of the composer. Recording the composer's intentions in print requires a scrupulous editor with a thorough knowledge of the conventions of musical notation. In transforming the composer's script into the standardization of print, many decisions must be made. A knowledge of the com— poser's notation, his habits and peculiarities, is indispensable. Suggestions of the editor must be distin— guished from the composer's actual notation. Emery believes that the traditional music curriculum offers students little in these requisite skills.1 The Mechanics of Music Printing The mechanical difficulty of music printing is an important factor in the quality of published music. Roth describes the slow process of music engraving, in which every dot and every slur must be hammered into a zinc plate with a sharp stylo.2 New editions are an expensive undertaking; there is financial pressure on the publisher to retain old editions. Many dated editions of violin music are in use today which show fingerings and expression markings of another era. Roth also compares musical script with written language. That the graphic notation of music is less precise than that of the written word is known all too lIbid. 2Roth, The Business of Music, p. 71. 178 well, and has been a growing concern among composers. Musical script "is only a poor relation of ordinary script."l He continues: Not only are composers generally less conversant with the correct spelling of music than writers with the spelling of words, but a difficult hand- writing sets greater problems in music than in any literary manuscripts . . . .2 Printed music is very unimaginative; no print can retain the character, the flavor of the composer's hand. Great effort is required to reproduce the many symbols used in musical script. Certain things printed music cannot achieve. Included are the various subtleties in staccato dots or dashes as the composer wrote them; the spatial balance of the notes within a measure or the measures within a page of score; the relative size of the notes, slurs, dynamics; etc. The composer may even notate his score at different speeds, corresponding to the tempos of the movements. Certain freedoms in performance have been restricted during the past two hundred years. Roth recalls composers' increasing mistrust of performers and the effect this has had on musical notation. In pre—Baroque music the inter- changing of instruments on a part, or the mixing of voice and instrument on a single part was common. In Bach's cantatas, the final section is often a Chorale in four- part setting, with voices and appropriate instruments on a 1 2 Ibid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 71. 179 part. During the classical period, and particularly in the nineteenth century, instrumentation became far more specialized. The Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz was completed in 1830 and is an early example of a programmatic work for orchestra full of sound effects and special direc- tions to the conductor and players. J. S. Bach and Handel were still able to rely on the self—evidence of notes in their context; Mozart could do with few additional markings; but for Beethoven the mere musical graphs were no longer sufficient, and from his time onwards com- posers grew increasingly mistrustful. The scores of Gustav Mahler are full of exhortations, explanations, warnings and commands inserted to make the meaning of the music clear. That a composer does not always write what he wants to be played has been mentioned. Szigeti comments on a passage in the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto which, in his mind, illustrates a characteristic violin technique: the distribution of a theme to different strings of the violin, for the contrast in tone color. In a passage of this kind the choice of string may be conscious or subconscious in the mind of the composer. He may more often than not omit to specify his wishes; he may take for granted what later editors and performers will fail to see.2 Szigeti's statement is of the greatest import to the problem of Werktreue. The musical text is a guide, but not an infallible one, to the performance. To make sense of the printed score, the performer must be thoroughly trained in 1Ibid., p. 70. 2Szigeti, Szigeti on the Violin, p. 87. 180 musical style, including composition. The importance of musical style and taste is stressed throughout the writings of Leopold Mozart and his contemporaries. This comment by George Szell is fitting: "The composers want us to be imaginative in the direction of their thinking——not just robots who execute an order."1 Szell implies that the composer turns over his creation to the performing artist, who must then re—create, executing the performance with a sense of responsibility to authentic style and good taste. Because the mechanical problems in music printing so severely limit the expressive power of musical script, Roth is led to the conclusion that, knowing these limita— tions, the publishers have felt little responsibility to preserve the character of a work-—they have been freed from a sense of esthetic obligation. :Erogress in the Arts" An historical perspective of the entire Romantic era is necessary to understand the seeming negligence on the part of past editors in music. Prevailing during the period of musical Romanticism was the attitude that music improves until the present day——the evolutionary theory. Even Charles Burney held this view in the 1770's. Einstein writes of Burney and John Hawkins: "To these scholars it Was unthinkable that there could have been periods of . 1Ibid., p. 144. 2Roth, The Business of Music, p. 71. 181 development in which music had already achieved a much higher degree of mastery and honor than in their own day."l According to Dr. Donald Beikman, many felt that music improved through the ages "until the development section of the [first movement of the] Eroica Symphony," after 2 which a decline began! We are so used to the music of Bach and Mozart today, that is is difficult to comprehend the true distance between eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century music. Hans Engel describes an 1829 performance of the St. Matthew Passion in Berlin. The philOSOpher Friedrich Hegel criti— cized the performance, and probably felt as many of the musicians did, that the work was outmoded, worthless tripe.3 This spirit of the present provided the environment for a freer approach to the classical works than we uhink proper today. A manifestation of the era was the virtuoso performer, who often composed much of his own music, full of the brilliant technical accomplishments of his time. Certainly composers learned from the older masters, and lAlfred Einstein, Music in the Romantic Era (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1947). p. 352. 2The writer thanks Dr. Theodore Johnson of Michigan State University and Dr. Donald Beikman of the University of Pittsburgh for discussions concerning the theory of "progress in the arts." 3Hans Engel, "Probleme der Auffuhrungspraxis," Mozart—Jahrbuch 1955 (Salzburg: Zentralinstitute fur Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, 1956), p. 61. 182 some paid tribute in their music and in their writings. Still, however great an inspiration the older music was, or however important were the classical models, the Romantic musicians were consumed in their own fire--the passions of the individual. Roth refers to the importance of new music in the nineteenth century: In fact, 'old' music never had a message for either the composers or the audience of the new mus1c. Every generation created the muSic that suited it and regularly took it to its grave, as the pharaohs did their retinue, and the next gen- eration saw it disappear without regret. There was no inducement to historical research.1 Dart also refers to the theory of progress in music, citing the consequences of this theory in the treatment of instrumental music. According to his explanation, new instruments replaced the older "poorer" instruments, and this justified, for example, playing harpsichord music on the piano. It was assumed that Bach or Handel would have preferred this.2 The preference of the musical public for older music over modern music is associated with the present century, yet Landon points out a curious offshoot of the Romantic movement, which existed in spite of the Roman- ticists' detachment from the classical composers. There was present, in the Romantic subjectivity, a love of nature, an interest in the Hmsical, and a yearning or lRoth, The Business of Music, p. 74. 2Dart, The Interpretation of Music, p. 29. 183 longing for the unattainable. This in turn was directed toward the past, but a more remote past: the Middle Ages, and led to a growing interest in Renaissance and finally Baroque music.1 The result is somewhat of a paradox: from the resurrection of the older works (and with it an interest in older instruments) came the science of musi- cology and the strictness of its philological approach to the score. Romantic Ideals The above discussion of ”old" and "new" music in the Romantic period provides a response to the central query of this chapter: the Romantic musicians and musician- editors brought the ideals of their own time to the music they performed. Dart quotes T. S. Eliot: ". . . the past is altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past."2 The Romantics saw in the late classical composers their own (Romantic) ideals. E. T. A. Hoffman (1776-1822) considered Haydn and Mozart to be Romantic composers.3 Mozart, especially through his Don Giovanni, was seen by many musicians as the first Romantic 1H. C. Robbins Landon, Essays on the Viennese Classical Style: Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1970), p. 178. 2 Dart, The Interpretation of Music, p. 163. 3Rey M. Longyear, Nineteenth-Century Romanticism in Music, in PrenticemHall History of Music Series, ed. by H. Wiley Hitchcock (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 3. 184 composer. "Mozart's chromatic harmonies were Romantic, as were the changing colors of light and shadow that were intensified by Chopin and Debussy. Romantic likewise was his sense of the tragic meaning of life."1 It is reasonable to suppose, too, that Mozart was perceived by many Beethoven worshippers as a "pre-Beethoven" composer, a stepping stone to the perfection of Beethoven. Einstein speaks of the Romantics as being intoxi- cated with music, which to them was a substitute for life. "This conception of music affected also the interpretation of the art of earlier periods. The music of the past appeared in a Romantic light."2 He comments on the division of musicians in the early nineteenth century into "Classi— cists" and "Romanticists." "Mendelssohn, Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, and Wagner consummated completely their separation from pre—Beethoven music, in spite of all honor for Mozart-—and with Berlioz, not even sincere honor."3 Einstein continues: Although the Romantic era in music did not empha— size its opposition to Haydn and Mozart, and instead held both these names in high honor, it yet set Beethoven on a pedestal as its patron saint and emphasized his "Romantic" traits. lMax Graf, Composer and Critic: Two Hundred Years 9£_Mpsical Criticism (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, Inc., 1969), p. 140. 2Einstein, Music in the Romantic Era, p. 44. 3 4 Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 79. 185 In the instrumental composer Mozart, the Romantics saw little more than the master, the polisher of formal elements . . . .1 Rosen also comments on the nineteenth—century view of Mozart, pointing out that whereas Haydn was ignored, Mozart was admired but misunderstood.2 Dorian's explanation for the Romantic interpreta- tions of the classics is this: But the romantic interpreter preferred to View the classical work, in its totality, from a freer aspect, reflecting the artistic creeds of the time in which he lived. The task of showing any mas- ter's work in extravagant disguise, behind a veil of fantastic make-up, appealed immensely to the romantic interpretative fantasy. Its aim was to serve the exploration of the new and fanciful, rather than the lawfulness of the old.3 Both Dorian and Einstein make a distinction between the nineteenth-century virtuoso and interpreter. The concert hall was at first home to the virtuoso performer, who, it must be remembered, provided much of his music himself. According to Einstein, the virtuoso did not die out in the later nineteenth century, but a new phenomenon kxegan to appear: the "interpreter." Liszt and his pupil \K>n Bulow were among the first of these, showing how masterworks for the piano should be played. Joachim 1Ibid., p. 81. 2Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 454. 3Frederick Dorian, The History of Music in Perform- .apce: The Art of Musical Interpretation from the .Benaissance to Our Day (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1942), p. 261. (Hereinafter referred to as The ‘fiistory of Music in Performance.) 186 provided the same for the Violin literature.1 The inter- preter, says Dorian, does not just "perform," he reproduces the art work: . . a process of recreation is implied. With the Romanticist, the aim of the interpreter has ceased to be abstract, as in a fugue or a sym- metrical sonata form. As the nineteenth century progresses, the romantic performance becomes more and more an appeal to the listener's imagi— nation, to his subconscious, which is more exciting than the plea of a baroque interpreter for conscious intellectual understanding. Roth gives the example of Mozart's arrangement of the Messiah to stress the freedom with which older music was treated. Breitkopf & Hartel published the arrangement in 1802, and considered it more effective than Handel's . . 3 original. All this seems quite absurd to us. But it was not done out of ignorance. There was a sincere attempt to prevent music from getting 'old,‘ historical, a knowledge—-perhaps unconscious—— that music must live in order to exist, that a new generation must either appropriate it or abandon it. And appropriate it they did. A further distinction between the nature of editors, past and present, gives a clue to the "why" of the differ— ences between editions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: lEinstein, Music in the Romantic Era, p. 359. 2Dorian, The History of Music in Performance, p. 219. 3 Roth, The Business of Music, p. 75. 4Ibid. 187 The immediate application of historically orientated musicology is the editing of old music and unadulterated texts: the new musical phi— ‘ lology. The editors of the nineteenth century were musicians to a man, and very often eminent ones, such as Liszt, Bfilow, Tausig, Wilhelmj and even Brahms. The new editors, in contrast, are men of letters. The musician—editor transplanted the music he edited into his own time. The piano for which Mozart wrote was not suitable for legato playing, but Moscheles's piano was and he eliminated Mozart's 'non—legato' and drew long slurs above whole staves which not only look strange to us but make the music sound different.1 Musicology and Eighteenth— Century Performance The attempt to recapture the conditions of eighteenth—century performance is, in great part, futile. Authentic sound is a fundamental problem. An understanding of eighteenth~century sound requires an investigation of the instruments themselves: their construction, tuning, and sound properties; how the instruments were played; in addition, how the instruments were heard; i.e., the (experiences the listeners brought to the music--the rela- tionship of the music to contemporary life. Mozart wrote his music for the old violin and its technique. Gut strings were the rule, with only an occa— sional G string being wound. The fingerboard was shorter and placed at a different angle to the instrument; the bridge was lower, the bass—bar thinner. The modern (Tourte) ibow is a product of the late eighteenth century which developed too late to have influenced Mozart's music. " lIbid. 188 Both Sol Babitzl and David Boyden2 discuss the instruments used in MoZart's time. Boyden gives practical suggestions for today's performers, hoping that they will experiment with gut strings, a lOwer tuning and other features of eighteenth—century technique. Babitz stresses the natural articulation of the old bow and the great differences between the sound ideals of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. The technical and esthetic problems encountered in achieving the older sound are enormous. Modern instruments, with their tonal adjustments and - improvements, produce a far more brilliant, but a less articulate sound than those of Mozart's time. Today's performance standards are based on the ideal of a brilliant, and for the most part legato, tone. Even if an authentic old sound were acceptable to most performers and listeners, there are almost no original eighteenth-century instruments available. The violin family, it must be remembered, underwent changes in construction in the early nineteenth century. Old instruments were rebuilt to new specifica— tions, to conform to a changing sound ideal. In light of this, Boyden's suggestions seem only a partial solution in the quest for authentic Mozart sound. lBabitz, "Modern Errors in Mozart Performance." 2David Boyden, The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761 and Its Relationship to the Violin and Violin Music (London: Oxford University Press, 1965). (Hereinafter referred to as The History of Violin Playing.) 189 Zh1 describing nmsical practices of the past, one must use the term "authenticity" with care. An authentic performance is not necessarily synonymous with the contem- porary ideal. There is evidence that in Mozart's late period a large orchestra was desired, even if it was rarely available. Mozart's letter of April 11, 1781, describes an orchestral performance of one of his symphonies in which forty violins, ten violas, and eighteen lower strings took part, with the winds all doubled.l Rosen believes: Of course Mozart did not often get an orches- tra of such size, but there is no reason today to perpetuate those conditions of eighteenth—century performance which obtained only when there was not enough money to do the thing properly.2 According to Rosen, small orchestras were merely a make— shift after about 1780.3 Hans Engel addresses himself to the difficulties faced by twentieth—century musicians in interpreting the music of the Viennese classicists.4 He lends great importance to the traditional freedoms which have long been the right, perhaps even the duty, of the performing artist. In Renaissance and Baroque times, cepying and reworking of lBadura-Skoda and Badura—Skoda, Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard, p. 19. 2Rosen, The Classical Style, p. 143. 3Ibid., p. 144. 4Engel, "Probleme der AuffuhrungSpraxis,' pp. 56— 65. 190 material was considered a matter of course. Building onto a Gothic or Romanesque church in a later style was common. The moralistic respect and awe in which we hold a work of art today was unknown in earlier times; it was considered less the personal belonging or achievement of the creator than the common property of the artistic circle.l One need only think of the many arrangements by the masters: the keyboard works of Vivaldi transcribed by Bach; Mozart's arrangement of Handel's Messiah, and his concerto for both flute and oboe. Engel describes the Messiah arrangement by Mozart. "The arias received a new, unsur- passable accompaniment from Mozart, completely in the spirit of Handel, yet making use of the improved instru— ments and the contemporary musical style."2 Instruments were often interchangeable on a part, and as late as the nineteenth century there were many examples of ad libitum settings. A frequent practice in the early classical period was to compose a sonata for keyboard, with an optional accompaniment by another instrument, such as a flute or violin. (Many of the sonatas for violin and piano by Mozart were conceived in this way.) Improvisation had long been an important element in performance. Engel remarks that the embellish— ment of a written score in Mozart's time was only allowed those who had a thorough training in music. lIbid., p. 56. 2Ibid., p. 57. 3Ibid.,p. 59. 191 Certain facets of performance had been taken for granted by composers in earlier times. Sets of variations were improvised, or a Baroque slow movement embellished with graces. In the twentieth century, composers such as Schoenberg and Stravinsky brought more explicit directions to the player through the written score and scarcely allowed for "interpretation." The music score represents a growing objectivity, which seems to parallel that of musicology and its products. The warning that an Urtext edition alone is insuf- ficient to achieve an authentic eighteenth-century performance has been shown by a statement of Szigeti, violinist and musician of the first rank. Engel pleads that an Urtext itself does not at all indicate how older music was played—-to think so is a deception. Musicology has missed the opportunity of offering its knowledge to the practicing musicians.l According to Engel, the musico— logical method is correct, but musicology has not gone far enough in setting performance standards for older music. It is the task of musicology to promote stylistically correct Mozart performance. This can be partially achieved through the use and study of old instruments, as well as the elimination of nineteenth-century mannerisms. "Histori— cal authenticity is not a goal for the fostering of older 'music, but a prerequisite."2 1Ibid., p. 60. 2Ibid., p. 65. 192 Fischer takes a strong stand on the common denounce- ment of the Romantic editors of classical music. He cites the intentions of early musicology in its efforts to present practical editions of older music. A need was felt to "fill the gaps" in the older scores, and even if some of the editing was too subjective, the "defamation of the Romantics as distorters of the older music is a l conscious or unconscious crime." Ernst Roth, writing in The Business of Music, views the problems of editing music from the vantage point of the publisher. He is unequivocal in his views on the freedom which a performer can and ought to bring to a work of art. The modern men of letters who carefully copy old manuscripts and first editions must have the idea that music possesses the same objectivity, the same invariable validity, as the other arts. They require the performer of an Urtext to be as much a historian as they are themselves. Unfor— tunately for them, but fortunately for the art, every performance will deviate individually from the text and will be in some peculiar way 'modern,’ the first and original performance having been lost forever. Roth comments further on the objectives of musicology and on the nature of the irrevocable past: lWilhelm Fischer, "Selbstzeugnisse Mozarts fur die Auffuhrungsweise seiner Werke," Mozart—Jahrbuch 1955 (Salzburg: Zentralinstitute fur Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, 1956), p. 8. 2 Roth, The Business of Music, p. 75. 193 Musical life today is full of contradictions, and the historical approach is one of the most characteristic. We are searching and fighting with ever-increasing desperation for an adequate musical expression of ourselves in_our new world. So can it help to hark back to a time which, despite every.effort, remains irretrievably lost? There is no wisdom, no lasting perception in music, only the mood of a single period, a single generation, which cannot be recaptured by a dif- ferent generation in different circumstances. Musicology, whether devoted to the re—establishment of the pure texts of old music or to the exhuma- tion of music long forgotten, achieves the opposite of what it intends by carefully exposing every wrinkle and every grey hair. It has been the most endearing charm of music that it is young and remains young; it is a melancholy undertaking to prove that this goddess, too, can age. At issue here is not simply freedom or restriction in performance. The liberties of the nineteenth—century musician must not cloud our vision of the true, historical freedoms which belonged to a performer of the eighteenth century: The subjective re-creations [by the Romantics] have been replaced by an objective approach, to the advantage of the work where an arbitrary, capricious performance had been the case, but to the disadvantage of the work where not only the false liberties of the nineteenth and twentieth— century interpreter are abandoned, but where the historical freedom of the eighteenth-century performer is no longer recognized! Whether we can return to the eighteenth century in spirit is doubtful. Our choice is twofold: recognizing that musicology has taken only the first step in bringing an authentic Mozart style to the understanding of modern 1Ibid., p. 83. 2Engel, "Probleme der Aufffihrungspraxis," p. 60. 194 performers, we may either strive for greater Werktreue, or, like the nineteenth century, bring our own ideals to the music, renewing it and shaping it to our own lives with each performance. Music, unlike painting, depends on performance and interpretation. A performance of a work is not necessarily identical to the work itself but an embodiment of the composer's idea, perhaps even better than that which was possible in the composer's lifetime.l One need only remember that Brahms called his performances of the older Viennese composers "historical concerts" to realize the gulf which separates our day from that of Mozart.2 Performance Analysis-—Suggestions for Stylistic Interpretation Stylistic Considerations and Eighteenth—Century Technique I had the pleasure of hearing Herr Franzl play a concerto on the violin. I like him very much. You know that I am no great admirer of difficul— ties. He plays very difficult things, but you don't notice that it is difficult; you would think that you could imitate him right away. And that is the truth. He also has a beautiful, round tone. He doesn't miss a note, and one hears every- thing; it's all clear. He has a beautiful staccato, in one bow, up as well as down, and I've never heard a double trill played as he does it. In a word: he is in my opinion no magician, but a very solid violinist. 1ibid., p. 63. 2Ibid., p. 57. 3Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, quoted in Andreas Moser, Geschichte des Violinspiels (Berlin: Max Hesses Verlag, 1923), P. 348. 195 With these words Mozart wrote home to Salzburg after being impressed with the Mannheim concertmaster Ignaz Franzl. The letters of Mozart are and will always remain a treasure for musicians. The many references in the letters to contemporary performances of singers, pianists, string players, and orchestras provide important clues to authentic Mozart style. What is a stylistic interpretation? The following are the words of C. P. E. Bach, of whom Mozart became an ardent admirer: "Interpretation is nothing else but the capacity to make musical thoughts clear—-according to their true content and affection—-whether one sings or plays."1 The Badura-Skodas define style thus: ". . . the totality of the psychological phenomena to which a creative artist is subject, by which he is formed, and which, for his part, he influences."2 A knowledge of eighteenth-century performance practice, however limited, is necessary for authentic Mozart performance, and yet accompanying an intellectual under— standing is the danger of losing the freedom and creativity --the breath of life——with which musical performance must be endowed. In allowing the individual performer some freedom, Boyden, for all his awareness of the historical, Dorian, The History of Music in Performance, p. 139. 2Badura-Skoda and Badura—Skoda, Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard, p. 5. 196 would rather hear the convincing performance of an artist than "an archeologist or historian."l An examination of authentic Mozart style must begin with Leopold Mozart, author of the leading violin method in the eighteenth century. The Versuch einer griindlichen Violinschule2 was published in Augsburg in the year of Wolfgang's birth, 1756. This unique work not only 'offers a comprehensive treatment of all aspects of violin playing, from basic principles to the most advanced tech- niques, but also includes historical information on musical instruments and fundamentals of notation. According to Eduard Melkus, the Versuch applies directly to the violin playing and compositional style of Wolfgang, at least until his move to Vienna. Although there were many excel- lent violinists in Vienna in the 1780's, none was of such a world reputation as to have introduced Wolfgang to techniques more advanced than those of this father's school:3 Wolfgang died too soon to have known of Paganini's playing. Stylistic considerations are given much attention in LeOpold's treatise. The violinist must play with a lBoyden, The History of Violin Playing, p. 496. 2L. Mozart, Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing. 3Eduard Melkus, "Uber die Ausffihrung der Stricharten in Mozarts Werken," Mozart-Jahrbuch 1967 (Salzburg: Zen— tralinstitute fur Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, 1968), p. 249. 4Nicolé Paganini, 1782—1840. 197 manly but pure tone. "One must make the violin sing so as to approach the human voice as closely as possible."1 Central to musical expression in the classical period was the Affektenlehre (doctrine of the affections). Through the Affekte, particular emotions are expressed in music. Edith Knocker, in her translation of the Versuch, attempts to explain the "doctrine of the affections": The notion underlying the doctrine of the 'Affecte' was that each piece of music expressed, and could only express, one 'passion,‘ one move- ment of the soul'--tenderness, grief, rage, despair, contentment, &c.-—and Leopold Mozart is at pains to insist that before a player can per- form a piece of music in accordance with the composer's intention he must understand the 'Affect' from which the music originated. In spite of the wealth of information left us by Leopold Mozart, our knowledge of eighteenth—century string playing is far from complete. Boyden remarks that we are not told in the Versuch of the solutions to some technical difficulties in violin music of the time, such as advanced shifting, or double stopping. All methods lag somewhat behind the practice of the most advanced players. The statements of Leopold "imply that the detailed mechanics of a 'good style' were often left to the individual player."3 lLeopold Mozart, quoted in M. M8ller, "On the Interpretation of Mozart's Music,” Violins and Violinists, XVII (July/August, 1956), 154. 2L. Mozart, Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing, p. 232. 3Boyden, The History of Violin Playing, p. 362. 198 Tempo.--Because Mozart left us no metronome mark— ings, as did Beethoven (however debatable some of Beethoven's are), the music itself must serve as a guide in establising proper tempo. . . . Furthermore, it is also much easier to play something fast than it is to play it slow. In passage work, you can actually drOp some notes without anyone noticing; but is it beautiful?l Dorian comments on Mozart's tempi: History proves that Mozart was neither a presto nor a moderato performer, and shows that, as a true disciple of his father, he was educa— ted and orientated in the precepts of tempo as embodied in the Affektenlehre, and performed accordingly. The modern interpreter of Mozart must seek his true tempo individually in every score.2 Many performers today believe that the older the tempo, the slower it was. Viewed today, Beethoven's tempo markings are actually extremely quick.3 Mozart, on the other hand, often complained that his works were performed too fast. Tempo rubato is practically a lost art today. According to Dorian, Mozart's use of rubato is rooted in the Italian bel canto.4 In espressivo playing, the right hand is free, but the left hand is steady ". . . das die lMozart in a letter to his father, Mannheim, January 17, 1778. Dorian, The History of Music in Performance, p. 185. 3Paul Badura-Skoda, ”Uber Mozart—Tempi," Osterreichische Musikzeitschrift, IX, No. 11 (1954), p. 347. 4Dorian, The History of Music in Performance, p. 191. 199 linke Hand nichts darum weiss."l The Baroque convention of slightly lengthening and stressing the first of two or more slurred notes was still in use in the late eighteenth century. This is apparent from the writings of Leopold Mozart and others, but this stylistic effect is considered in poor taste today, because it recalls the exaggerated phrasing of the Romantics.2 The Badura-Skodas point out the effect of tone quality on tempo. The more transparent, lighter tone of the old violin gave the effect of a quicker tempo, because there was less inertia to overcome. The fuller but slower response of the modern violin actually requires a faster tempo to produce a similar effect in an allegro.3 The Badura-Skodas refer here to an important character- istic of the old violin and bow. All articulations with the modern bow begin, to a greater or lesser extent, with an attack. With the old bow, each tone began "from nothing," i.e., a small crescendo was part of each articu— lation. (This is the "small. softness" , 31293103303115