Is Mozart's Real Last Symphony Lost?

[Gary Smith]

Tales of Rochlitz #2

Is Mozart’s Real Last Symphony Lost?

We all know that Mozart composed his last three symphonies in 1788 for a still-unknown reason (though many good theories do exist as to why). These works (K.543 in Eb, K.550 in g, K.551 in C) are rightly considered the apex of Mozart’s symphonic career; works that stand as the very definition of the concept of what a “Classical symphony” ought to be. Each as well has (as it should) a spot in Mozart’s work catalogue, wherein nearly all the works he composed from the year 1784 on are recorded. Those works that are not to be found in there are small, short works, mostly of a personal nature. Certainly there are works that were recorded there that have turned up missing, but positively not any symphonies. But…

From the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (AmZ) xxxii 1830, co-edited by Johann Friedrich Rochlitz, we find the following information:

“In the second part of the concert Mozart gave here in Leipzig on 12 May 1789, he had performed, among other items, an entirely new Symphony in C major, the last movement of which is in 6/8. [In this movement] after a pause by the bass-line instruments, the double-basses enter unexpectedly with a new theme in ¾, while the rest of the orchestra continues in 6/8. Herr Wach, the double-bassist, who is still among us, played in the performance of this work. Mozart said to him, ‘When the ¾ begins, be guided only by the movement of my left hand.’ Upon which we, and others as well, have enquired: does no one know anything more concrete about this symphony? Nothing has been seen of it since that time. Has it been completely lost, or is anyone able to say anything at all a bit more detailed about it?”

The next year (xxxiii, 1831) the (AmZ) made a further short mention of this work as:

“…the great Symphony in C major whose finale is in 6/8, in which the double-bass performs completely unexpectedly in a new theme in ¾ against the former [meter].”

So, just what do we have here? When dealing with material touched by Rochlitz, one has to be very careful as to its complete veracity. What other information is there regarding this story?

First of all, we have a surviving copy of the programme of Mozart’s concert for 12 May 1789 in the Leipzig Gewandhaus. Translated out, it shows the following:


Part I

Symphony
Scena. Mme Duscheck
Concerto, on the Pianoforte
Symphony

Part II

Concerto, on the Pianoforte
Scena. Mme Duscheck
Fantasy, on the Pianoforte
Symphony

Now, this looks like a highly ambitious programme, with two piano concerti and three symphonies supplied by Mozart. In fact, there are those commentators that use this programme as “proof” (or at least a strong indication) that Mozart had performed all three of his last symphonies here (which would naturally raise questions about the stamina of both the performers and audience being able to sit through FIVE complete large orchestral works!), but in fact there is a simpler explanation. At many of Mozart’s Vienna concerts (as well as other concerts by different composers), it was a practice to divide a symphony up and play it movement by movement, across the length of the concert. Hence, here at Leipzig, Mozart could well have had only one three-movement symphony performed, or perhaps a four-movement one, with the Minuet and Finale played together at the end. It should be noted though, that (at least in Vienna) it was fairly customary to require multiple symphonies for a concert.

So, just what are our choices from known Mozart works that might fit the above description (a C major work with a 6/8 finale, preferably with three movements). Well, somewhat surprisingly, we DO have some choices to work with. These would be:

K.128 # 16 in three movements, from 1772;
K.162 # 22 in three movements, from 1773;
K.338 # 34 in three movements, from 1780;

First of, it should be noted that by 1789 Mozart would not have been employing either # 16 or # 22 in his repertory, as they were not up to his current standards. He might have used them as “fillers” for some of his early Viennese concerts, but by 1789 they most likely would not have been acceptable. This really leaves only K.338 for consideration. And, in the last movement of this work, we find that its cellos and double-basses occasionally do follow separate musical lines. However, we do NOT find any passages where the double-basses adopted a ¾ theme played against the 6/8 theme the rest of the orchestra follows. To be complete, there is no such passage in K.128 or K.162 either.

If we look a bit further abroad, Mozart composed 3 other symphonies in C after K.162 (other than K.551 and K.338): K.200 #28, K.208/102, K.425 #36 “Linz”. None of these three have any corresponding passages that would come close to fitting the description outlined above. The first two are again older works highly unlikely to be in Mozart’s repertory in 1789, while by 1830 the “Linz” would be known by musicians and publishers. Hence we can drop them from active consideration as well.

If the AmZ somehow got their signals crossed and really meant K.551, could there be something in there that corresponds to the description mentioned above? Unfortunately (or not; that depends on one’s point of view), while there are two passages within the last movement of K.551 where the double-basses have independent lines, neither of them are contrametric in the manner indicated. In fact, even if one tosses out the key and meter as called for by the AmZ, we have NO known Mozart symphony that would fit this bill. The above tale then is in error, and we could then safely relegate the AmZ’s and Herr Wach’s claims to the category of (at least) being anecdotal.

However….

To what purpose is the story reported by the AmZ to serve? They aren’t claiming to own a copy requiring verification, nor are they touting it for sale. Herr Wach, alive at the time of publication, is being quoted and certainly could have objected to such a tale being told, if it were untrue. Rochlitz, be it noted, was in fact on the scene in Leipzig in 1789 and almost certainly DID attend this concert. The AmZ is, for all intents and purposes, asking for help in identifying this work, which was up to this point unknown. Now, while they could be attempting to generate interest and sales by creating a controversy (or just attempting to show that they had “inside” information of a personal type), aside from the two mentions (1830 and 1831), nothing else seems to have come up to further this point.

One other note of interest regarding mentions of this work. In the spurious “Letter to Baron von P---“ discussed in an earlier paper, “Mozart” mentions that he had “…composed three weeks ago an orchestral symphony…” This point is a factor in proving this letter to be a fraud, but the internal evidence contained in this letter would show that it was purported to have been written in the 1789-90 timeframe, the same time as this purported Symphony in C. Rochlitz’s fingerprints are on both of these reports, so again we have to exercise extreme care in any “facts” either would contain. It is of interest to note that the letter mentioning a further last symphony surfaced in 1815, while the article mentioning such a work more specifically appeared some fifteen years later, with no backward reference to the “Mozart” letter previously published.

To play Devil’s advocate, just how could such a work come into being? Since we have no copy of any sort, as well as no reference in any letter or any listing in Mozart’s work catalogues, what could have been the path trod to produce this work? First of all, Mozart would most likely have had to compose such a symphony away from Vienna. If he had done so in Vienna, it would have gotten logged into his catalogue. Composed on this tour, the odds would go up that it could slip getting recorded. Next point; why compose one on tour with several symphonies available for concert use? First off, we know that he gave concerts in Dresden, just before he went to Leipzig. The orchestra there had 52 members, no doubt capable of executing any work Mozart might have with him. Leipzig, on the other hand, without a court on hand to provide funding, had a less than half the members of the Dresden orchestra; about 20 to be more accurate. Could Mozart have hoped to perform any of the last three symphonies adequately with such forces at his command? Could he have then produced a lesser work on short notice to accommodate this smaller orchestra, since he would have had no earlier, simpler works at hand? After all, the “Linz” required only 4-5 days to put down on paper. Might he have been stimulated to compose again in such fashion?

Perhaps, though, we are getting a bit too ambitious. We have indications via Alan Tyson that Mozart may have been making efforts to revamp the “Paris” symphony K.297 for Prague in 1787 by composing a new closing movement to substitute for the original. As well, Piano Concerto # 5 K.175 from 1773 originally had a contrapuntal closing movement, which Mozart replaced with a more “popular tuned” one in 1783 for Vienna (K.382 Rondo in D). Further, Mozart probably replaced the middle movements of Violin Concertos #1 and #5 (K.207 and K.219) with substitute movements as well. Could Mozart have composed a replacement movement here for the Leipzig orchestra for one of the symphonies that he was carrying with him? Something originally conceived to be simpler, but, knowing that nothing is “simple” for Mozart, including a few passages requiring above average technical skill? If the quote from the AmZ is somehow correct, then could we in fact be looking at a replacement for the last movement of the “Jupiter”? A work that ended up either left and forgotten at Leipzig, or buried in the luggage and misplaced at home on the return from the tour? The main problem with a replacement movement is, in the end, that the AmZ states that this Symphony in C is missing, not that a movement is missing. All the “late” Mozart symphonies were accounted for by 1830, which puts us back to square one in regards to a missing work.

In the end, we can never know 100% for sure. However, we can with high confidence bury this tale of a missing late symphony fairly easily. No work known fits the specifications. No listing occurs in any genuine Mozart writings. No lost symphony appears in the catalogue. Only Johann Friedrich Rochlitz mentions it, and that’s simply not good enough to hang a hat, let alone a symphony, on.




But curiously…..

Professor Neal Zaslaw, in his book Mozart’s Symphonies: Context, Performance Practise, Reception mentions in a footnote on page 426 regarding the tale of this “lost” Symphony:

“Can this anecdote have something to do with the symphonic fragment K. Anhang C 11.16? When it was sold at Leo Liepmannsohn’s Auction No. 55 (item 36) on 12 October 1929, it was described as follows: ‘Autograph music manuscript: fragment of an orchestral score with the page numbers 85-88. Four twelve stave sides, oblong format. The important music fragment is apparently a score fragment from the development section of a 6/8 finale to an unknown symphony (in G major) with the following score: 2 each flutes, oboes, bassoon, horns, trumpets and kettledrums, and string quintet. Its layout is reminiscent of the finale of the C major Salzburg symphony K.338 of August 1780, also in 6/8. The present autograph, however, is from a later time, the second half of the 1780’s…The handwriting exhibits great similarity to the Berlin autograph of the brilliant D-major symphony K.504, composed at the end of 1786; also the scoring is identical in both works.” Further though, it is noted: “K6 rejects this description, claiming that the manuscript is not a Mozart autograph and comes from the early nineteenth century.”

Sources:

Holmes, Edward The Life of Mozart The Folio Society, London 1991 pgs. 266-270 (Reprint of the original book from 1845).

Köchel, Dr. Ludwig Ritter von Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichnis sämtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts (K6) Breitkopf & Härtel Weisbaden, Leipzig, Paris 1983

Zaslaw, Neal Mozart’s Symphonies: Context, Performance Practise, Reception Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989

Zaslaw, Neal The Compleat Mozart W.W. Norton & Company New York/London 1990