From:

Music & Letters 73 ( 1 992): 32-47.

THE TWO VERSIONS OF MOZART'S DIVERTIMENTO K. 1 l 3

MOZARTS DIVERTIMENTO K. 1 13 survives in two autograph sources - a full score for two clarinets, two horns and strings and a wind score for pairs of oboes, English horns and bassoons. The title-page of the full score has Leopold Mozart's annotation 'Concerto b Sia Divertimento P 8 del Sgr: Cavaliere Amadeo Wolfgango Mozart in milano' and the date 'Novemb: 1771'. The wind score carries no date or place of composition. It is not self- sufficient and must therefore be an emendation to the full score.

Giinter Hausswald considered the wind score to be an addition to the original work. l Such a cumulative reading would produce a wind band with pairs of oboes, English horns, clarinets, horns and bassoons. This unusually rich wind scoring, together with Leopold's provocative title-page for the full score suggested to Hausswald that the young Mozart was endeavouring to appeal to a Milanese musical taste. Consequently, he proposed that the divertimentos K.186 (159b) and K.166 (159d)-each scored for the same five wind instruments in pairs, but without strings-are likewise part of this Mozart-Milan nexus.

A cumulative reading of K. 113 produces an abundance of wind couplings, especially between the clarinets and the oboes. This problematic doubling has encouraged two ex- planations. Working from the assumption that clarinets were not available to Mozart in Salzburg, Otto Jahn believed that Mozart refashioned K. 11 3 to exclude them. Jahn therefore considered the wind score to be an addition to the full score, except for the oboes, which were to substitute for the clarinets. Hausswald also presumed that clarinets were not available in Salzburg, but because the added wind score carries no date or place of composition, and because Mozart made use of the same large wind ensemble in K. 186 and K. 166, Hausswald held to his theory of a cumulative reading. The presence of clarinets in the second version of K. 113 was, for him, evidence for a Milanese proven- ance. Concerning the problematic doubling, Hausswald concluded that Mozart was more inclined to resort to such excessive couplings when writing for the English horn and clarinet, instruments he considered to be less familiar to Mozart at that time.

The undated wind score and the assumption that clarinets were not available in Salzburg allowed Hausswald and Jahn to manipulate the circumstantial evidence in dif- ferent ways. I believe, however, that the separate wind score was not intended to be added to the full score but was, rather, a substitution for both the clarinet and the horn parts. Jahn was close to the truth, but, as we shall see, for the wrong reasons.

Recent studies of Mozart's autographs have yielded a wealth of information concerning the chronology and provenance of many of his works. Of the four works relevant to our

I am grateful to Robert Bailey, David Fenton and, especially, Cliff Eisen, who read an earlier version of this paper and offered valuable suggestions for its improvement. ' W. A . M o z a ~ t , Neue A w g i b e siimtliche~ Werke (henceforth NMA), IVi12/2, ed. Giinter Hausswald, Kassel 1961. pp. X-xii.

Wolfgang Amadew Mozart, i (Leipzig, 1856), 576.

discussion, two - K. l86 and the separate wind score to K. 1 13 -are undated. In his in- vestigation of Mozart's handwriting, Wolfgang Plath concluded that the separate wind score to K. 113 was written during the first half of 1773.3 Alan Tyson noted that the work is on a variety of small, oblong paper that Mozart began using in Salzburg just after returning from Italy in March 1773, and thus corroborated Plath's dating.4 The first dated work to appear on this paper-type is the Divertimento K.166 dated 24 March 1773, just eleven days after the Mozarts' return. Therefore, it is likely that Mozart wrote out the separate wind score in Salzburg after the third Italian tour.

The paper evidence for K. 186 is somewhat more complicated. The work is complete in onegathering consistingof three bifolios and an insert (see Fig. 1). Mozart used paper- type A for works composed in Salzburg between March and June 1772: the last dated work written on this paper is the six orchestral menuets, K. 164 (130a), composed in June.' Paper-type B is found only in works composed either in or en route to Milan dur- ing the third Italian tour, including the string quartets K. 155-160 and a single leaf in- serted into Lucio Silla. The leaf inserted into K. 186, folio 4, is on a much earlier paper, similar to that used for the Symphony K.22 and the Galimathias mwicum, dating from the Mozarts' six-month stay in The Hague (1765-6).6 This curious arrangement of paper-types allows for a possible dating of K. 186. Because most of the work is on the paper used for the string quartets (paper evidently purchased after the Mozarts' depar- ture from Salzburg on 24 October), and includes an inserted leaf from a much earlier manuscript that Mozart is not likely to have brought to Italy, the work was probably completed in Salzburg just after the Mozarts' return there on 13 March. The Salzburg paper used for Lucio Silla is not found in any subsequent works and therefore was prob- ably used up in Milan. However, there is no indication that paper-type B was used up in Italy, though it is not found after its use in K. 186. Having expended all the Salzburg paper he was consistently using just before the Italian tour, and with but a small amount of type B left, perhaps Mozart was forced to rummage through his old works for scraps of paper serviceable for writing out K. 186; thus, types A and C. In any event, the first works on small-oblong papers begin to appear almost immediately after Mozart's return to Salzburg, and it is on varieties of this paper that virtually ail his works are written until the middle of 1779.'

Fig. 1

folio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

' 'Beitrage zur Mozan-Autographie 11: Schriftchronologie 1770-1780'. Moxart-Jahrbuch 1976-7, p. 150. Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, Cambridge, Mass., 1987, p. 171.

' Cf. Plath. 'Schriftchronologie', p. 152; Tyson, Mozart: Studies, p. 146. Neal Zaslaw, Mozart's Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception, Oxford, 1989. p . 55. Leaf 4

also contains a fragment of what may have been a symphony movement. ' I am indebted to Alan Tyson for information concerning the paper-types of K.186, K.155-160 and K.135.

Plath also found the manuscript structure of K.186 puzzling and even wondered if the work was composed in Salzburg (see 'Schriftchronologie'. p. 150 n. 42). Cliff Eisen cites a letter of 5 December 1772, in which Leopold ask his wife not to give the 'small' paper to their copyist, Maximilian Raab. Eisen suggests that some of the undated work on small-oblong paper, including the separate wind score to K. 113, could have been composed before the third Italian tour. However, the varieties of papers used for K. 186 and its probable close association with the dated K.166 suggest that, if the Mozarts did purchase some small-oblong paper before leaving for Milan, it was used up by the time they returned to Salzburg (see Eisen's review of Tyson. Mozart: Studies. Mwic B Letters, Ixx (1989). l01 4).

This suggests a strong connection between K. 166 and K. 186, one that, considering their unusual scoring, is not surprising. For it seems that K. 186 was written first, just before the first batch of small-oblong paper was purchased, followed immediately by K. 166, the first work to appear on the new paper. Plath's dating of K. 186 to March 1773 therefore seems correct, though the theory that it was composed either in or for Milan is unlikely.

As it turns out, then, the view that Mozart made use of a so-called 'Milanese' wind scoring consisting of pairs of oboes, clarinets, English horns, horns and bassoons in a cumulative reading of K. 113, as well as in the divertimentos K. 166 and K. 186, is decidedly unfounded. Of these works, only one, the first version of K. 113, has anything to do with Milan and it uses only pairs of clarinets and horns. So if this unusually large wind complement is to be associated with a particular musical centre, the sources in- dicate that it was circumstances in Salzburg, not Milan, that compelled these works to be composed.

The widely held view that these four works were composed either in or for Milan is also based on the assumption that clarinets were not available to Mozart in Salzburg. In an often-cited letter to his father, written on 3 December 1778, Mozart lamented Salzburg's lack of the instrument: 'Ach, wenn wir nur auch clarinetti hhten?' ('Ah, if only we too had clarinets!').' This view has received apparent confirmation from court calendar^.^ For instance, clarinets do not appear on the Salzburg court calendars until 1804, some thirteen years after Mozart's death. l 0 However, this type of evidence is clearly suspect when one considers that works of Salzburg origin such as K. 166 and K. 186 used clarinets as early as 1773. In this instance, the court records are clearly at odds with the scoring of the surviving repertory. The 'Nachricht von dem gegenwartigen Zustande . . . des Erzbischoffs zu Salzburg im Jahr 1757', presumably by Leopold Mozart, may in part reconcile this contradiction. It indicates that many of the court musicians who were hired to play one particular instrument played others as well. Franz Schwarzmann, for instance, appears on the calendar as a violinist but, as Leopold informs us, could 'play concertos on the bassoon . . . oboe, flute, and horn'." Further, in 1777, Leopold described the performance of a Mass by Michael Haydn in which six oboists participated, though only two are found on the court calendar for that year.12 And after 1772, the prince-archbishop, Hieronymus Count Colloredo, himself a

' Mozart: Bn'efe und Aufzeichnungen: Gesamtausgabe (henceforth Bnefe), ed. Wilhelm A. Bauer. Otto Erich Deutsch & loseph Heinz Eibl. Kassel. 1962-75. ii. 517; The Letters ofMozart and his Family (henceforth Letters). trans. & ed. Emily Anderson, 3rd edn., London & New York, 1985, p. 638.

The arrival of the clarinet at various musical centres in the late eighteenth century is outlined in Ludwig Kochel, Die kaiserliche Ho f-Musikkapelle tn Wien, Vienna, 1869, pp. 88-91 ; Ottmar Schreiber, Orchester und Orchesterpraxis in Deutschland zwischen 1780 und 1850, Berlin. 1938, pp. 100-1 17, 168-70; Adam Carse, The Orchestra in the X VIIIth Centuy , Cambridge, 1940, pp. 16-27, 35-36; Heinz Becker, 'Orchester', MGG, X, cols. 172-94; and Neal Zaslaw, 'Toward the Revival of the Classical Orchestra', Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association, ciii (1976-7), 171-7.

'' Ernst Hintermaier, 'Die Salzburger Hofkapelle von 1700 bis 1806: Organisation und Personal' (unpublished dissertation), University of Salzburg, 1972, pp. xx, 322, 539.

" 'Nachricht von dem gegenwartigen Zustande der Musik Sr. Hochfiirstl. Gnaden des Erzbischoffs zu Salzburg im Jahr 1757'. printed in Histonjch-kniische Beitrage zur Aufnahme der M u i k , ed. F . W. Marpurg, Berlin. 1757, iii. 183-98. Leopold's report is translated in Zaslaw, Mozart's Symphonies, pp. 550-57. Zaslaw's first chapter ('Salzburg: Origins. 1756-64'. pp. 1-15) summarizes Salzburg's musical establishment. as does Cliff Eisen's chapter 'Salzburg under Church Rule' in The Classical Era from the 1740s to the End of the 18th Century, ed. Neal Zaslaw, Basingjtoke & Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989, pp. 166-87. " Bnefe, ii. 96; Letters, p. 352.

violinist, performed on occasion with the orchestra. '' Consequently, such ancillary evidence can reflect only the general disposition of ~alzburg's musical community but cannot be used to establish its instrumental limitations with any degree of certainty.

While it is true that Salzburg did not provide 'official' positions for clarinets until the early years of the nineteenth century, the instrument was certainly used there earlier. By and large, the difference between 'official' and 'unofficial' performances may have impor- tant implications for the history of the clarinet during the l77Os, the decade immediately precqding its somewhat synchronous arrival in major Austro-German court and opera orchestras. l 4 This distinction seems to be borne out by the disparity between the relatively low number of pre-1780 symphonies with clarinets and the more fre- quent use of the instrument in works usually designated as 'Harmoniemusik', 'Partial or 'Divertimento' (among others)-works that often use less conventional combinations of wind instruments.

In Salzburg as elsewhere in the 1770s, the clarinet was essentially a military instru- ment. Clarinettists, like court trumpeters and drummers, were hired as Feldmwike~; consequently their presence or absence cannot be established by court calendars. '' Kurt Birsak's study of the inventory of the archbishop's militia confirms that clarinets were present there as early as 1769: an 'Aufsatz und Specification deren Spielleithen notbetarf- tigen Instrumenten in franzosischem Thon' lists '2 Clarinetten mit Ganznhals und H Federn auch mit 2 mittern Stiick D: und C' (that is, 2 clarinets in D with mouthpiece and B flat key as well as an extension piece for playing in C).I6 It is noteworthy that these two instruments were capable of playing in both D and C, the commonest keys for trumpets. Perhaps at that time the differences between the trumpet and the clarinet were somehow less apparent than they were to become. This close kinship can be seen in the way the two instruments were generally designated: trumpets were typically called 'clarini' and clarinets 'clarinetti' (a diminutive form of the same word). In etymological terms, they seem to have descended from a common ancestor. Concerning the sound of the early clarinet, Johann Gottfried Walther wrote: 'es klingt dieses Instrument von ferne einer Trompete zimlich ahnlich' ('from a distance this instrument sounds much like a trumpet')." For Johann Ernst Altenburg, a close association may have persisted up to the end of the eighteenth century: in his treatise on trumpeters and kettle- drummers, he considers the clarinet among what he calls 'trumpets of the second class' and even refers to the instrument as a 'Trumpetchen', a German equivalent of the Italian diminutive form of the word.Is

" Bnefe, ii. 485; Letters, p. 620. " An obvious exception, the Mannheim court orchestra, employed clarinets as early as the mid 1750s. See again

the literature cited in n. 9; also J. P. Newhill. 'The Contribution of the Mannheim School to Clarinet Literature', The Mwic Review, xl (1979), 90-120; and Helmut Boese, Die Klannette aLs Soloimtmment in der Mwik der Mannheimer Schule. Dresden, 1940. Also see, for the general context, Eugene K. Wolf. 'The Mannheim Court', The Classical Era, ed. Zaslaw, pp. 213-59; and idem, 'On the Origins of the Mannheim Symphonic Style'. Studies in Mwicology in Honor of Otto E. Albrecht, ed. John Walter Hill, Kassel, 1980, pp. 197-259.

" See Heinz Becker, 'Zur Gexhichte der Klarinette im 18. Jahrhundert'. Die Mwikforschung. viii (1955). 271 ff.; and Colin Lawson, The Chalumeau in Eighteenth-Century Mwic , Ann Arbor, 1981. Also see Roger Hellyer, 'The Wind Ensembles of the Esterhdzy Princes, 1761-1815', Haydn Yearbook, xv (1584), 5-92.

l 6 Salzburg, Landesarchiv, Akte Landschaft XI I I / l l , cited in Kurt Birsak, 'Salzburg, Mozart und die Klarinette', Mitteilungen der Intemtionalen Stzjtung Mozarteum, xxxiii (1985), 40. Also see idem & Manfred Konig, Dar Grosse Salzburger Blasmwikbuch, Vienna. 1985, pp. 41-85. That the Salzburg-Clarinet myth is still thriving can be seen in several recent studies, including Roger Hellyer, 'Mozart's Harmoniemusik'. The Mwic Review, xxxiv (1973). 146; Franz Giegling, NMA, VII/I7/I (Kassel, 1984), xi; and Erik Smith, Mozarti Serenades, Divertimenti and Dances, London, 1978, p. 51.

" Mwikalisches Lexicon, Leipzig. 1752, p. 168. " Versuch einer Anleitung zur heroisch-mwikalischen Trompeter- und Pauker-Kumt, Halle, 1795, p. 14.

This raises a most interesting question: what sort of instrument did Mozart have in mind when he wrote these early divertimentos with clarinets? In all probability, the mellifluous quality of the instrument, which he would enthusiastically embrace in the 1780s, was unknown to him in 1771. This is possibly reflected in the way he used the in- strument in these divertimentos. The fanfare-like clarinet passage from the opening of K. 113, for instance, creates a motivic link between the clarinets and horns which places them on an equal sonic level (Ex. 1). Mozart's earliest use of the clarinet may suggest, then, that he had a fundamentally different perception of the instrument.

Ex. l* Mozart, Divertimento in E flat, K. 1 13 (first versionj; first movement (.Nlegro), bars 1-1 1

Rolino II

I Kola

Bars

f P

Ex. l (cont.) l

* This and E=. 3-5 are reproduced by permission o f the publisher, Barenreiter-Verlag

Mozart's colleague in Salzburg, Michael Haydn, had scored for the clarinet seven years earlier. His serenade P.58/38/deest, composed in 1764, is apparently the earliest surviving Salzburg work to use the clarinet, and, like Mozart, Haydn imbues the instruments with a trumpet-like character (Ex. 2).19 In addition, the scoring of the individual movements offers still further clues concerning the association of trumpets and clarinets (see Table I). The trumpets play in the March (P.58) and in the first, third, sixth and eighth movements; the clarinet plays only in the fourth, fifth and eighth movements. In other words, the trumpets are conspicuously silent when the clarinet plays and vice versa, the only exception being in the last move- ment. The scoring of the individual movements demonstrates a clear pattern that permits three observations: (1) the two oboists doubled on the flutes in movements 2-5, explaining why the flutes are the only instruments that do not play in the finale; (2) the four solo instruments play in different pairs of adjacent movements; and (3) the finale represents a coming together, so to speak, in which the four solo instruments form a concertante group pitted against all the obbligato instruments that were capable of playing at once. Moreover, the trumpets play in at least one of the pairs of movements for solo bassoon(s) and solo trombone, but fall silent during both the solo clarinet movements. One suspects that Haydn was aware of the similar nature of the clarinet and trumpet and thus avoided having them play together ex- cept for the finale, but even there he keeps them rigidly separate through clearly defined solo and ripieno sections.

Mozart's and Michael Haydn's 'clarino image' of the clarinet helps to explain an ap- parent contradiction between the existence of Salzburg works with clarinets composed

See Michael Haydn, Imtrumentalwerke, i , ed. Lothar Herbert Perger ('Denkmalerder Tonkunst in Osterreich', xxix), Vienna. 1907; James Murray Barbour, 'Pokorny und der "Schacht-Katalog"', Thurn-und-Taxic Studien, i i i (1963); and Werner Rainer, 'Michael Haydns Orchesterserenaden', Mozart-jahrbuch 1987-8, pp. 73-79. Modem edition by L i d 6 Kalmar in Musica nnata, vii (Budapest. 1965).

Ex. 2 Michael Haydn, [Serenade] in D, P.58/38/deest; Allegro spiritoso, bars 36-45

Fl.

Basso

L

Ex. 2 (c0nt.j

TABLE I

Wind scoring in Michael Haydn's [Serenade] P.58/38/deest

Movement Obbligato Solo

2 F1 2 Ob 2 Hn 2 Tpt C1 Tbn

March [P.58] 1 Allegro molto [P.38, l ] 2 Andante [P.38, 21 * 3 Menuet [P.38, 31 1;

4 Andante [deest] * 5 Allegro spiritoso [deest] * 6 Menuet [deest] 7 Andantino [deest] 8 Finale: Presto [P.38, 41

2 Bsn

(*)

(*) = Obbligato

during the first half of the 1770s (and earlier) and Mozart's letter of 1778. How could he have composed two Salzburg works with clarinets and then write that he wished there were clarinets in Salzburg? Considering these Salzburg works, Mozart's later statement can be viewed in a different light. What he is really longing for only emerges in his subse- quent sentence: 'Ach, wenn wir nur auch clarinetti hatten! Sie glauben nicht was eine sinfonie mit flauten, oboen und clarinetten einen herrlichen Effect rna~ht'~O ('Ah, if only we too had clarinets! You cannot imagine the glorious effect of a symphony with flutes, oboes and clarinets'). In its proper context, Mozart's remark makes perfectly good sense:

Beefen i i . 517

after hearing a symphony (or symphonies) performed by the Mannheim orchestra with clarinets, perhaps he realized an expressive dimension of the instrument that had not oc- curred to him before-one made plain by its association with flutes and oboes, not trumpets and horns - and he wished that positions might be provided for two clarinettists in the Salzburg orchestra.

The limited availability of such military instruments offers still further clues con- cerning the circumstances which led to the composition of these works. Of the six (possibly seven2') symphonies that Mozart wrote between 30 March and 5 October 1773, three (possibly four) include trumpets (see Table 11). On the other hand, of the eight symphonies written during the year preceding the third Italian tour, only one (K.132) in- cludes trumpets and drums. Clearly, a high concentration of symphonies with trumpets and drums occurs just after the Mozarts' return from Milan (between March and May).

Two additional works that have come to be known as divertimentos also bear con- sideration. K.188 (240b) and K.187 (Anh.Cl7.12) are both scored for the same wind and percussion instruments (two flutes, three trumpets in C, two trumpets in D and timpani). Although neither is dated, they too were probably written during the spring of 1773. 2 2

K. 187 (Anh.Cl7.12) is not an original composition, but rather a transcription of other composers' works. Of the ten movements, five are by Starzer, four by Cluck, and one (No. 6) is lost. While Plath believed the work to be entirely in Leopold's hand, Marius Flothuis maintained that Wolfgang's hand makes appearances at the beginning of No. 8

TABLE I1

Wind scoring of symphonies by Mozart composed in Salzburg between 30 December 1771 and 5 October 1773

Date

30 December 21 February

May May May July July August

Key Tpt

A G C G F E D * A

Third Italian tour (24 October 1772 to 13 March 1773)

184 161a 30 March 1773 E * * + * * 199 161b April 1773 G * * 162 162 April 1773 C * * * 181 162b 19 May 1773 D * * * 182 173dA 3 October 1773 B 183 173dB 5 October 1773

* (*) * g * *

161 +l63 141a 1773-4 D * * * *

'' On the dating of K.161 + 163 ( = 141a), see Plath. 'Schriftchronologie', p. 153. Also see Zaslaw, Mozart's Symphonies. pp. 245-8.

'l Plath was quite certain that Mozart's handwriting in K.188 was much earlier than the date 1777 in the sixth edition of Kochel, and he suggested that the work was composed during the first half of 1773. It is therefore not sur- prising that both K.188 and K.187 (Anh.Cl7.12) were written out on the first generation of small.oblong paper, the same paper that Mozart began using in March 1773. See Plath, 'Schriftchronologie', p. 167. and Tyson, Mozart: Studies. p. 170.

and on the last page of No. 10.23 The handwriting, in fact, makes little difference: the first five pieces, presumably by Starzer, were copied from a ready-made suite scored for the same instruments. A set of parts for this suite survives at the Benediktinerstift, G t t - weig, with the title-page 'Musica da Cammera moltb particulare fatta e presentata alla Regina di Moscovia &c P voc: 2: Schalmaux o: Flaut: trav: Clarino l rnO, 2*0, 3 ~ ~ 0 ex C: Clarino lmo, 2do ex D: Con Tyrnpano Del Sgre Starzer'. The remaining pieces are ar- rangements in the style of Starzer's 'Musica da Cammera' of an aria, a procession piece, a ballet, and a canzonetta from Gluck's Opera Paride ed E l e n ~ . ~ ~

Nat only were the Gluck arrangements modelled on the Starzer suite but K.188 was as well. Indeed, there are several similarities between K.188 and K.187 (Anh .Cl7.12): each includes two menuets without trios, a gavotte, slower move- ments separating the two menuets, and slow movements in 2/2 time. One can easily imagine father and son working side by side on this small project.

The reworking of other composers' works in K.188, especially Starzer's, points to an even stronger connection between K.187 and K.188, and K.186 and K.166. Walter Senn was the first to discover that Mozart based his ballet sketches Le gelosie delsenaglio, K. 135a, written during the third Italian tour, 2' on a pre-existing ballet, Le czizque soltane by Starzer. Senn described K. 135a not as sketches for an original composition - that is, a reworking of Starzer's material -but as a possible series of direct quotations of S t a r ~ e r . ~ ~ When Flothuis reviewed Senn's findings, he found that Mozart had reworked two additional movements from K. 135a, one in K. 186 and another in K.166. No. 30 from the Gelosie del serraglio sketches appears transposed from D to E flat as the Adagio of K. 166, and Mozart used No. 31 from K.135a in the finale of K.186.27 Clearly, the early ballet sketches represented a kind of thematic repository, one that Mozart did, in fact, make use of on several occasions. In addition, A. M. Stoneham has recently discovered the Andante from K. 166 to be a wind arrangement of an Andante from a symphony by Paisiello composed in 1772.*$

It seems, then, that Mozart composed a select group of works shortly after return- ing to Salzburg in March 1773. Each demonstrates a reliance on previously composed music: K.186 and K.166 use movements from the Gelosie del senaglio sketches; K.166 borrows a movement from a Paisiello symphony; K. 187 uses five movements from Starzer's 'Musica da Cammera'; K.188 is, in every respect, modelled on K. 187; and K.113 was re-orchestrated. Apparently there was a demand to produce a sudden torrent of 'informal' works, and because Mozart would never again bring together these combinations of wind instruments, one wonders if the concentration of symphonies with trumpets and drums during these spring months is related to the

'' Wolfgang Plath, 'Beitrage zur Mozart-Autographie I : Die Handschrift Leopold Mozarts', Mozartjahrbuch 1960-61, pp. 104-5 (facsimile of the first page of No. 9 =Plate XII): Marius Flothuis, Mozarts &arbeitungen eigener und fremder Werke, Salzburg, 1969, pp. 74-75. " See Ernst Fritz Schmid, 'Cluck-Starzer-Mozart. Neue Zusammenhange', Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik, civ

(1937). 1198-1209; Ludwig Ritter von Kochel. Chronologische-thematisches Verzeichniss, 6th edn., Wiesbaden, 1964, pp. 739. 879; and Lawson, The Chalumeau, pp. 63-64. '' On the dating of K.135a. see Tyson, Mozart: Studzes, p. 147. '' 'Mozarts Skizze der Ballettmusik zu "Le gelosie del serraglio" (KV Anh.109/135')', Acta muricologica, xxxiii

(1961). 169-92. '' Flothuis, Mozarts Bearbeitungen, pp. 88-89. " See Rudolf Angenniiller, Mozarts murikaluche Umwelt in Parir (1778): ezne Dokumentation, Munich, 1982,

pp. 59-60, and A. M. Stoneham, letter, The Musical Times, cxxv (1984), 75. This is discussed in Zaslaw, Mozarti Symphonies, p. 164.

sudden inclusion of military instruments. It is as if there was (temporarily) complete access to the Salzburg Feldinstrumenten and a need for suitable music.

Much of the argument supporting a cumulative reading of K. 11 3 rests on the similar scoring of K. l86 and K. 166. However, the problematic coupling of the clarinets from the first version with the oboes from the wind score suggests that these two in- struments, at least, were not intended to play together. In the first three movements,, the clarinets and oboes differ in only two bars (first movement, bars 15-16). In the fourth movement the oboes are at last divorced from the clarinets during each of the opening statements (Ex. 3), but otherwise the association of clarinets and oboes persists.

Arguments in favour of combining the wind instruments include passages in which a note-for-note doubling between these two instruments breaks down. In such passages it is thought that Mozart was somehow aware that he was writing for this large group of wind instruments and therefore varied his scoring. Certainly this is what happened in the finale, where the opening phrase, originally scored for

Ex. 3 Mozart, Divertimento in E flat, K. 113 (,45V/IA second version); fourth move- ment, bars 1-10 - b

Allegro R W 1

1 1 . I

Oboe I, N - . ; R - l I C I 1 1 1 I

I t -4 l l

Clannelto I, II in Sib

Corno inzkse I, I1

Fagotto I. II

Corno I, II in Mi b

Vwlino I

Kolino II

14ola

Bars

Ex. 3 (cont.)

clarinets and horns alone, supposedly couples the clarinets with the English horns rather than with the oboes, as has always been the case in the three previous movements (see again Ex. 3). Yet if Mozart did intend the separate wind score to substitute for the clarinets and horns, why must the coupled wind instruments duplicate each other without exception from beginning to end? This assumes Mozart's revision of K. 113 to be mere transcription and transposition and does not allow for compositional revisions. Perhaps in the finale Mozart just changed his mind-rather than beginning with the oboes, he thought English horns would sound better.

Mozart's handling of these same wind instruments in K.186 and K.166 is con- sistent, and contrasts dramatically with a cumulative reading of K . 113. In K. 186, for instance, the clarinets double the oboes for only about seven per cent of the time and in K. 166 about nine per cent; in a cumulative reading of K . 113, however, they are identical for about 62 per cent of the work.29 The clear majority of differences

2 9 The percentages were calculated by counting the beats in which any two instruments were coupled and dividing that number by the total number of beats in the piece. In the case of K.113 only the number of beats in which the wind instruments play were considered in the total (disregarding sections for strings only).

between the oboes and clarinets in K.113 occur in the fourth movement, where, as mentioned above, the clarinets, when not duplicating the oboes, are supposedly coupled with the English horns. In fact, the clarinet-oboe percentage rises to 94 when only the first three movements are considered. On the other hand, Mozart's treatment of oboes and English horns (both from the separate wind score) remains more or less the same. The oboes duplicate the English horns (at the octave) for about 28 per cent of the time in the second version of K. 113, which is not terribly far from 32 per cent and 31 per cent, the rates at which this occurs in K.186 and K.166 respectively.' This suggests that inconsistencies in Mozart's doubling procedures occur only when the wind instruments from the two autograph scores to K. 113 are combined.

The lack of solo wind passages speaks decisively in favour of a substitute reading. A cumulative reading of K. 113 offers only two bars in which at least two of the wind instruments are not identical (first movement, bars 30-31). This totals only about one per cent of the entire work, while wind instruments participate without coupling for about 39 per cent of K.186 and about 37 per cent of K.166. This lack of un- coupled wind scoring is severely missed in passages such as those which conclude the short development section in the first movement (Ex. 4). Most uncharacteristically,

Ex. 4 Mozart, Divertimento in E flat, K. 1 13 6 M . I A second version]; first movement (Alle~rol. bars 35-4 1

Ob.

Cl.

E.h.

Bnr

Hns

L h r \ vn II

Ha

Bars

Ex. 4 (cont.)

the horns are doubled by the bassoons and English horns. This sort of coupling does not occur in either K.186 or K.166, where, when the horns are called upon to punc- tuate a structural section, they are invariably uncoupled (Ex. 5 ) . If a cumulative reading was Mozart's intention, then integrally important elements of the work- like one of these characteristic horn gestures - would be missing. But they are all quite cleverly accounted for within the substitute wind score.

A substitution of the separate wind score for the clarinet and horn parts, then, offers a reading of K.113 that is more consistent with Mozart's wind scoring of the early 1770s. Although rescorec! around the same time as the divertimentos K. 186, 166, 187 and 188, Mozart's revision of K.113 seems to be an entirely different pheno- menon. Besides its use of strings, it is the only one of them that does not use Feldinstrumenten. Although such instruments were probably available to Mozart at that time, the work was refashioned to exclude them.

This leads to a fundamental generic distinction between K.113 and both K.186 and K.166, one which weakens its possible connections to the latter two works. As Reimund Hess and even Hausswald himself have pointed out, the presence or

Ex. 5 Mozart, Divertimento in E flat, K. 166; fourth movement (Allegro), bars 26-35

0 6 . II

Cl. I

Cl. I1

A . . l m - l I - . . , -

l . .

P !

absence of strings is integrally related to generic identity." This relationship is most clearly borne out by the number and type of movements. Of Mozart's ten (possibly eleven) divertimentos composed in Salzburg for wind instruments without strings, only K. 188 (240b) and K. 187 (Anh.Cl7.12) include more than five movements, and, as I have noted above, these works are unique among the wind divertimentos not only for their shared reliance on a pre-existing composition by Starzer but also for their unusual scoring (flutes, trumpets and drums). However, of the divertimentos for strings and wind instruments, all but one include six or more movements. And even the exception, K.205 (167A), which contains only five movements, is presumed to incorporate the March K.290 (167AB). For works with strings which include fewer than six movements, Mozart provides a generic title or description other than, or in addition to, 'divertiment0'-Serenata notturna (K.239), Notturno (K.286) and Concerto 6 Sia Divertimento (K.113). Therefore, to use the scoring of K.186 and K.166 to argue in favour of a cumulative reading of K. 113 is to cross a generic boundary to which Mozart consistently adhered.

A misunderstanding of Salzburg's instrumental possibilities, an alleged lack of clarinets, undoubtedly lies at the heart of our misreading of K.113 and has diverted attempts to review the evidence surrounding not only this work but those associated with it. The best assumption is that all the instruments used in the two versions of K.113 were available to Mozart both in Milan and Salzburg; the instruments that he chose most probably represented compositional selections.

'O Reimund Hess, Serenade, Carsation, Not tumo und Diuertimento bei Michael Haydn (unpublished disserta- tion). Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 1963. pp. 44-55; Giinter Hausswald, Mozarts Serenaden: ein Beitrag zur Stzlkntik des 18. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1951 , pp. 47-51.