{"id":3110,"date":"2015-10-26T08:00:10","date_gmt":"2015-10-26T07:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.henle.de\/blog\/en\/?p=3110"},"modified":"2021-02-09T10:40:23","modified_gmt":"2021-02-09T09:40:23","slug":"3110","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/2015\/10\/26\/3110\/","title":{"rendered":"Further new findings on the autograph of Mozart\u2019s Piano Sonata in A major K. 331"},"content":{"rendered":"

Regular readers of the Henle blog will recollect: My last post<\/a> covered the sensational Budapest find of the autograph double leaf of Mozart\u2019s famous A-major Piano Sonata K. 331 as well as the announcement of my new Urtext edition<\/a> of it, published meanwhile. The following post again deals with this sonata, principally the \u201calla turca\u201d rondo, as virtually a by-product of my intensive study of its autograph heritage.<\/p>\n

Odd (?) repeats in the \u201calla turca\u201d part-autograph in Salzburg<\/strong><\/p>\n

Aside from the mentioned, recently discovered Budapest double leaf, only a single page in Mozart\u2019s handwriting has been extant for this sonata \u2013 the leaf located at the Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum in Salzburg (shelfmark \u201cKV 300i\u201d):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

\u00a9 Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (ISM), Bibliotheca Mozartiana, shelfmark: KV 300i<\/p><\/div>\n

Notated at just about the top centre, beneath the very legible word \u201cCoda.\u201d, can be found several of Mozart\u2019s repeat directives that are probably addressed to a copyist who was to copy out in full this rondo movement evidently jotted down in abbreviated form:<\/p>\n

1. On the left side of the page is a repeat sign (with 1ma<\/sup>– and 2da<\/sup>-volta), marked for you in the illustration in blue<\/p>\n

2. Marked alongside is a dal-segno<\/em> sign \"\"<\/a>\u00a0in red.<\/p>\n

3. The directive \u201cda capo #\u201d is identified in green.<\/p>\n

The two editors, whom I highly esteem, of the Mozart sonatas within the context of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe<\/em> (NMA<\/em>, B\u00e4renreiter publishers) first raised the question of what exactly these three directives are supposed to mean, just what is repeated and where. Not a banal question, since its answer is not obvious. Lacking, that is to say, are all \u201calla turca\u201d measures preceding this final page, and only herein are the respective \u201ccountersigns\u201d that would resolve the question. Of the three repeats notated at one and the same spot, one at least, if not two, seems superfluous (NMA<\/em>: \u201cpleonasm\u201d). The NMA<\/em> editors even suggest hypothetically in an attempt to solve the ostensible problem that our leaf could have been retroactively written down. The real problem is, though, by no means clarified by this bold thesis (which the editors also openly acknowledge).[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet the situation is basically very straightforward if we do not let ourselves be deceived by first impressions. All three references make sense and with good reason. Its appearance suggests that in the topmost line of the Salzburg autograph we are dealing with a continuous music text, thus the closing measures of the \u201calla turca\u201d = measures 90-127. If so, then Mozart\u2019s various repeats would be for measure 96a. To some extent then the NMA<\/em> editors were also taken in by these appearances. For, in my opinion, the first seven measures of the Salzburg autograph music page don\u2019t have anything to do with measures 90-96a\/b, but with measures 58-64. Only with the Da capo directive do we then see measures 96b ff. Intervening are the various repeat directives that the copyist must keep very much in mind: In Mozart\u2019s composition as we know it, the repeat of the movement\u2019s opening, of the a-minor section, thus measures 1-24, comes, as is indeed well known, at measure 64 (= attached to the final measure of the A-major section). And Mozart indicates just that with his directive \u201cda capo #\u201d. This \u201c#\u201d Mozart will presumably have notated as a precaution at the start of the \u201calla turca\u201d movement. Of course, the A-major section (measures 25-32) is seamlessly attached. The \u201cda capo #\u201d in measure 64 thus very simply demands the repeat of the two main sections of the piece in a-minor and A-major in conjunction with measure 64 (= mm. 1-32 \"\"<\/a> mm. 65-96a). In measure 32 Mozart must then only notate the jump-to-dal-segno symbol (that is the inevitable and plausible hypothesis), for it is not, as at the first time around, the f-sharp-minor section that now follows, but the move is directly to the coda (= mm. 96b ff.). The two respectively corresponding \"\"<\/a> \u2019s marked at the top in red express nothing else. And hence also plainly explained at last is the simple repeat sign in measure 64 on the left side of the page: it does not at all represent a \u201cpleonasm\u201d, but merely calls for the repeat of measures 56-64 before jumping to the \u201cda capo\u201d repeat of measures 1 ff. Graphically presented in summary is:<\/p>\n

Sections notated by Mozart, but only extant from m. 58:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

#<\/strong> A (a-minor)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 B (A-major)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 C (f-sharp-minor)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 B (A-major)<\/p>\n

Measures 1-24\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a025-32\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 33-56\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 57-64, followed by: \u201cda capo #\u201d<\/p>\n

Sections not written out by Mozart, requiring repeat signs: <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

#<\/strong> A (a-minor)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 B (A-major)\u00a0\"\"<\/a> <\/strong><\/p>\n

65-88\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 89-96a<\/p>\n

Closing section written out by Mozart:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>Coda (A-major)<\/p>\n

96b \u2013 127.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s still not all: Only in conjunction with the close did Mozart notate\/sketch, readily recognizably, the broken octaves so tricky to play for the third and final entrance of the B section in A major (mm. 89 ff.) \u2013 marked above in yellow. Mozart could indeed, as we now know, not notate this octave variant in the main text, because just this third repeat of the B section is an integral part of the not written-out execution of the \u201cda capo #\u201d directive. Therefore, it is more than reasonable to recognise in Mozart\u2019s little octave sketch (surprisingly notated, incidentally, in the treble clef, whereas the right hand is otherwise written here in the soprano clef) also a directive for the copyist: All earlier copies and prints, all editions to the present day, correctly reproduce here Mozart\u2019s intentions. The broken octaves seem, though, to have been an afterthought of Mozart\u2019s, already referred to by Ulrich Leisinger:[2]<\/a> the brief notation is jotted down, that is, in another ink colour and in another characteristic style (its treble clef even seems added later?). In any case, a fascinating glimpse into Mozart\u2019s workshop.<\/p>\n

Reconstruction of the entire original manuscript <\/strong><\/p>\n

Now in closing: an extra bonus for the narrower circle of (Mozart) editorial colleagues.<\/p>\n

The original scope of the autograph, including its layout order before dispersal, can be reconstructed as of the recent Budapest discovery of the double leaf in the fall of 2014, together with the above rectification of the Salzburg text findings. So, that also needs to be done at this point because the pertinent or rather, hypothetical description in the esteemed NMA<\/em> is also incorrect in this respect. Existing today\u00a0 (status, fall 2015) of the initially complete original K. 331 manuscript (= A<\/em><\/strong>) are only the two following sections:<\/p>\n

A1<\/strong> = the Budapest double leaf<\/a>, containing the first movement from measure 55 (i.e., from variation III), the complete Menuetto<\/em> and the first section of the trio up to and including its measure 10.<\/p>\n

A2<\/strong> = the Salzburg single leaf, containing measures 58-64, as well as immediately subsequent, measures 96b-127; see here what is illustrated and discussed above.<\/p>\n

Lost accordingly are to date: The opening of the 1st<\/sup> movement (mm. 1-54); the close of the trio (2nd<\/sup> movement, from m. 11 of the trio); essential sections of the 3rd<\/sup> movement (mm. 1-57).<\/p>\n

Several secondary features of the extant autograph sections permit an unambiguous reconstruction of the entire autograph (differing from NMA<\/em>), substantiated as follows:<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pagination:<\/p>\n

A1 <\/strong>is paginated from \u201c3\u201d to \u201c6\u201d in very small figures throughout, probably not in autograph, respectively in the top right corner for odd-numbered pages or in the top left corner for even-numbered pages. Thus, two pages (\u201c1\u201d and \u201c2\u201d) precede page \u201c3\u201d (= start of A1<\/strong>). Located on these first two (missing) pages must logically have been measures 1-54 of the first movement.<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tally of Measures<\/p>\n

This inference can also be convincingly accounted for by the actual and presumptive extent (tally of measures): A1\/2<\/strong> are rastral-drawn with 10 lines, thus available per page are five accolades. The extant measures of the first movement in A1<\/strong> show an average count of 6-7 measures per accolade. Thus, a maximum of about 35 measures (5 x 7) fit on a music page, even if Mozart were to have squeezed them in. The missing first 54 measures must therefore have been notated on two (but not more than two) pages. That is to say, on pages 1 and 2 (= one leaf), constituting together with another leaf almost certainly a double leaf (bifolium). The continuation of the missing trio measures (11ff.) and the beginning of the \u201calla turca\u201d must be on this second leaf. This obvious hypothesis can be substantiated as follows:<\/p>\n

Thanks to A1,<\/strong> the extant opening measures of the trio show some 10 measures per accolade, so that the trio\u2019s 42 missing measures fit on four to maximally five accolades. This corresponds to approximately one page. If we accept my interpretation at the outset of this blog post, then 57 autograph measures precede the start of A2<\/strong> (= m. 58). Thanks to the few extant measures in A2<\/strong> (the verso is blank), a space of about 11 measures per accolade required for the 3rd<\/sup> movement can be calculated, which is why for the 57 missing previous measures somewhat more than a page is necessary (5 accolades \u00e0 11 measures = 55 measures per page); hence for the start of the \u201calla turca\u201d Mozart either needed for a rather squeezed-in notation the verso of the missing double leaf or he still made use of the last line of the previous page with the close of the trio. In any case, the missing sections of the 2nd<\/sup> and 3rd<\/sup> movements did not take more than one music leaf or 2 pages.<\/p>\n

The extent of the presently missing autograph sections calculated from pagination and space determination can thus be summarily represented as follows:<\/p>\n

1st<\/sup> mvt, mm. 1-54:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 corresponds to the size of one music leaf or 2 music pages
\n2nd<\/sup> mvt, trio, from m. 11: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 corresponds to about one music page
\n3rd<\/sup> mvt, mm. 1-57:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 corresponds to about one music page<\/p>\n

The reconstruction of the layout order of the whole K. 331 autograph suggests most likely two double leaves (2 bifolia) laid one within the other such as are frequently encountered in Mozart autographs: The two missing music leaves would probably thus constitute (or have constituted) a connected double leaf (bifolium), laid within which was the double leaf A1<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Budapest Bifolium A1<\/span><\/p>\n

Missing Bifolium <\/span> \"\" Salzburg Single Leaf A2<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This reconstructed layout order of two interlaid bifolia supplemented by a closing single leaf exactly corresponds, incidentally, to the layout order of the two \u201csister\u201d piano sonatas K. 330 and 332.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

(c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Foliation<\/p>\n

Foliated in A1,<\/strong> besides the pagination, were the two \u201cright-hand pages\u201d (= leaves 2r and 3r) as \u201c10\u201d and \u201c11\u201d in ink at the outer top in very small script not likely autograph. The Salzburg leaf A2<\/strong> is in turn identified at the top right with a noticeably large \u201c13\u201d (and beyond that in the top outer margin, another, extremely small \u201c13\u201d). The editor of the NMA<\/em> conjectures[4]<\/a> that the \u201c13\u201d must be a page number, because a space requirement of \u201chardly more than three double leaves (= pp. 1-12) and the recto (= p. 13) of a single leaf\u201d would have to be assumed. As could already be established above, this is an erroneous assumption, too generously dimensioned by at least one bifolium. The \u201c13\u201d on A2<\/strong> is much more likely the continuation \u2013 written in another hand \u2013 of the foliation of A1<\/strong>, for missing after leaf \u201c11\u201d, see above (layout order), is leaf \u201c12\u201d, A2 <\/strong>= leaf \u201c13\u201d then following. The first missing leaf of K. 331 would therefore probably be foliated as \u201c9\u201d. It would be interesting to learn, incidentally, which work (or works) the preceding leaves \u201c1-8\u201d identify; a relationship with the autographs of K. 330 and 332 does not seem to exist, for there is not any kind of corresponding foliation to be found here.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> \u201cThe point of the comment Da capo<\/em> with the reference sign \u2026 cannot be unambiguously clarified without knowledge of the preceding page of the autograph; it could refer to the repeat of the major episode, measures 25-32I<\/sup>, however Mozart put not only the comment, but also a repeat sign in addition, amounting to a pleonasm. The following hypothesis may get us further here: Perhaps the movement was initially supposed to have been concluded with a (not written out) \u201aDa capo\u2018 of measures 25 ff. = measures 89-96. A later conceived expansion of the close of the movement could then no longer be accommodated in the available space at the end of the sonata autograph, which is why Mozart had to make use of a separate leaf. There is some evidence that the extant autograph fragment is to be understood not as an accidentally separated part of the whole autograph, but in fact as a subsequently notated completion. Nevertheless, the odd pleonasm of the da-capo comment and repeat sign would remain, but would certainly be better understood from our hypothesis.\u201d Neue Mozart-Ausgabe<\/em>, Series IX, Klaviermusik, Werkgruppe 25: Klaviersonaten, Vol. 2, edited by W. Plath and W. Rehm. Kassel 1986, p. XI (Preface). One can also read the critical report Neue Mozart-Ausgabe<\/em>, Series IX, Werkgruppe 25. Kassel 1986, pp. 87, 95, 198.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Wiener urtext edition, Mozart Klaviersonaten, Vol. 2, edited by U. Leisinger. Erroneously explained in NMA<\/em>, owing to the wrong identification of the opening measures of the Salzburg autograph as measures 90ff.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> NMA<\/em>\/KB, pp. 77 and 96.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> NMA<\/em>\/KB, p. 87 and footnote 36.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> Finally, still to be found in A1<\/strong>, 4th<\/sup> page, by another hand in the outer left margin at just about the height of the lowermost accolade where the trio begins, is in turn \u201c7.\u201d. The significance of this number is not clear, were one not to view it as more than a pure coincidence matching the first edition whose 7th<\/sup> page of K. 331 (= p. 20) begins just with the trio.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Regular readers of the Henle blog will recollect: My last … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[86,1,3,275,24,322,340],"tags":[653,490,28],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3110"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3110"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6196,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3110\/revisions\/6196"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.henle.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}