Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum Salzburg -

Bibliotheca Mozartiana: Digitale Sammlungen

Mozart-Jahrbuch ... des Zentralinstitutes für

Mozartforschung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum
Salzburg
On the Flute Quartet, K. Anh. 171 (285b)

Lustig, Roger

Kassel [u.a.], 1997

Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Digitalen Mozart-Edition

Nähere Informationen zu diesem Werk im Online-Katalog der Bibliotheca Mozartiana

Nutzungsbedingungen
Die Inhalte dieses Projekts unterliegen einer Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International
License.

urn:nbn:at:at-moz:2-13945
 Roger Lustig

ON THE FLUTE QUARTET , K . Anh . 171 (285b )*

- Mozart and the flute quartet

Mozart first composed flute quartets during his fateful journey to Mannheim

and Paris in 1777 - 1778 . In Mannheim , Mozart met Johann Baptist Wendling , the

principal flautist in the court orchestra . Wendling in turn introduced Mozart to

* Ferdinand Dejean , a surgeon in the Dutch East India Company 1 . Dejean , an ama¬

teur flautist , commissioned some flute quartets and flute concerti from Mozart .
The details of the commission are unknown . Mozart ’s letters to his father , our

only source of information about the transaction , contradict one another on the

number of works of each type commissioned and the amount to be received in re¬

turn . At first , Mozart writes of “3 little , easy and short concerti and a pair of quar¬

3 tets for the flute” 2 ; the letters that follow refer variously to four quartets and a

concerto , two concerti and three quartets , and three quartets and a concerto .

Wolf - Dieter Seiffert has suggested that the conflicting reports to Leopold Mozart

reflect Wolfgang ’s attempt either to extend his stay in Mannheim (where he had

met and fallen in love with Aloysia Weber ) by exaggerating the volume of pay¬

ing work available to him , or to conceal his lack of progress on the commission ^ .

One of Mozart ’s letters has become famous . On February 14 , 1778 , he ex¬

plained why the music for Dejean was taking so long : “I could scribble away all

day , but such a piece will become known , and I don ’ t want to be ashamed of

something with my name on it . And , as you know , I get blocked whenever 1

This article is the serendipitous result of a commission to write a liner note on the flute quartets
for BMG Classics , Inc . Eric Van Tassel , Neal Zaslaw , Robert L . Marshall , Margaret Bent , Dan
Leeson , Robert Levin , and Sarah Adams have all made valuable suggestions and provided material ;
Ulrich Konrad allowed me to see his work on Mozart ’s sketches before its publication and sup¬
plied me with a copy of the sketch leaf in question . Tom Moore advised me on the capabilities of
the flute and the flute repertoire of Mozart ’s day and Daniel Melamed researched the foliation of
K . 543 in the Jagiellonian Library of Cracow . My wife , Juliet Beier , assisted me with the biogra¬
phical portions of the article and with editing .
1 Lrank Lequin , Mozarts “rarer Mann” , in : Mitteilungen der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum
29 ( 1981 ) , pp . 3 - 19 .
1 Letter of December 10 , 1777 : “3 kleine , leichte , und kurze Concertln und ein Paar quattro auf die
flotte” ; Bauer -Deutsch II , no . 388 , p . 178 .
3 Wolf -Dieter Seiffert , Schrieb Mozart drei Llötenquartette für Dejean ? Neuere Quellendatierung
und Bemerkungen zur Lamilienkorrespondenz , in : MJb 1988 , pp . 267 - 276 .
 15H Roger Lustig

have to write tor an instrument / can ’t stand " ^ . ( Emphasis in the original . This is
the primary evidence tor Mozart ’ s legendary hatred ol the ilute ; but it may refer
to nothing more than Mozart ’ s distaste for Dejean ' s playing , or may merely be
an excuse . )
Mozart almost certainly produced the following works for Dejean : the flute
concerto in G , K . 313 ( 285c ) ; the concerto in D , K . 314 ( 285d ; an arrangement of
the oboe concerto composed in Salzburg in 1777 7’ ) ; the concerto Andante in Ci ,
K . 315 ( 285e ) , and the flute quartet in I ) , K . 285 . ’The autograph score of the
quartet is dated December 25 , 1777 .
The flute quartet in A , K . 298 was long thought to be one of the Dejean quar¬
** tets ; Kochel ( K 1: 1862 ) dated it to the Paris sojourn . Although it is in the French
style of the “Quatuor d ' airs dialogues” , it has been firmly dated to 1786 - 1787 .
The handwriting and paper of the autograph point to such a date , and one of its
tunes is taken iront a Paisiello opera composed around that time 6 .

- The flute - quartet problem

Two works not m the first edition of Kochel were also assumed to have been for
Dejean . One of them , the two - movement K . 285a m G , has no manuscript source .
It was published bv Artaria in Vienna in 1792 as a three - movement work that
began with the first movement of K . 285 m D , p . 66 . There has been no
challenge to the authenticity of the work , although Uri Toeplitz considers its
second movement to lack Mozartean character s .
K . 285b ( Anh . 171 ) , the piece under consideration here , is the only flute quartet
published under Mozart ’ s name in his lifetime . 1 lennch Philipp Bossier of Speyer ,
who published several of Mozart ' s works during the composer ’ s Viennese years ,
engraved a set of parts for K . 285b during the summer of 1788 , and advertised
their availability at the end of Julv of that year . Aside from a small passage in
Mozart ' s hand ( see below , “The Autograph Segment” , pp . 16511 .) , this is the
earliest source for the quartet . All other sources derive from it .

4 " hmschmieren könnte ich trevlich den ganzen tag toil ; aber so eine sacli kommt m die welt lim¬
ans , und da will ich hah dais ich mich nicht schämen dark wenn mein Namm draut steht , dann
bin ich auch , wie sie wissen , gleich st eil t wenn ich immer Ihr ein instrument | das ich nicht leiden
kan : | schreiben soll " ; Bauer - Deutsch 11, no . 423 , p . 281 .
^ Bernhard Baumgartner , Zu Mozarts Oboen -( Concert ( C- Dur KY 314 (283d ). in : Mjb 1930 , p . 24 - 40 .
1 Woltgang Plat h , Beiträge zur Mozart - Autograplue 11. Schnttchronologie 1770 - 1780 , in : M ] b
1976 / 77 , S . 131 - 173 , here 1701 . Alan Tyson , Mozart ; Studies ol the Autograph Scores , ( Cam¬
bridge 1987 . See also : Alan ' Tyson , Proposed New Dates tor Manv W orks and Fragments Written
bv Mozart Iront March 1781 to December 17 91 , m : Mozart Studies 1 ( Gill Bisen , editor ) , Oxlord
1991 , pp . 213 - 226 . See also : F . O . Souper , Mozart ' s A Major Flute Quartet , m : Monthly Musical
Record 70 ( 1940 ), p . 197 - 203 .
See K 6 and NMA Vlll / 20 / 2 ( Quartette mit einem Blasinstrument ) , Kritischer Bericht , Kassel etc .
1989 , p . 6 .
s Uri Toeplitz , Die 1 lolzbläser in der Musik Mozarts und ihr Verhältnis zur Tonartwahl , Baden - Ba¬
den 1978 .
 On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 159

The second movement of K . 285b is an arrangement of the sixth movement

( theme and variations ) of Mozart ’s “Gran Partitta” for 13 instruments , K . 361

( 370a ) . Leeson and Whitwell arguing that the Serenade should be dated to 1784 ,

think it unlikely that Mozart created the flute quartet arrangement 9 . They con¬
sider it unlikely that Mozart either created the Gran Partitta movement from ol¬

der material or extracted the inferior quartet version from the Gran Partitta .

Leeson has bolstered this argument with painstaking analysis of the transcription

process , showing (among other things ) that the transcription used the copied parts

of K . 361 and not the score as its source 10 . One might add to this the lack of

evidence for Mozart ’s involvement in the flute - quartet - arrangement business

that burgeoned in Vienna and elsewhere around that time . Several of Mozart ’s

works ( e . g . , the piano sonatas , K . 309 / 284b and K . 311 / 284c , and the four - hand

sonata , K . 497 ) appeared in flute - quartet arrangements during his Viennese years

or shortly after his death , but he does not seem to have been involved with the

reworkings .

The two movements are atypical of Mozart ’s ( and his contemporaries ' ) writ¬

ing for flute quartet . Both movements restrict the range of the flute to g ’ - e ’ ” , at

one point in the first movement rearranging a passage to keep the flute from

playing notes down to d ’ ( see below ) . Mozart ’s other flute quartets give the flute

d ’ or e ’ to play on many occasions , and sometimes extend its range upward to

f ’ ” or g” \ In the second movement , the flute yields the melody to the violin for

only one extended section - where the latter instrument plays down to d ’ on

several occasions . The variation movement is very long , and out of proportion

with the first movement . Performances typically require about ten minutes , far

longer than we associate with most of Mozart ’s chamber music , let alone a final

movement , let alone a light work with a preceding movement barely half as

long . I have not encountered any multi - movement flute quartet from Mozart ’s

time with a movement anywhere near as long as the second movement of K . 285b .

A sketch leaf dating from 1781 - 1782 contains the short autograph passage al¬

ready mentioned : a version of ten measures of the first movement of K . 285b . It

has been used to confirm Mozart ’s authorship of the movement or the whole

* quartet 11 .

This paper seeks to reject the following :

- that Mozart composed the first movement of K . 285b as we know it ;

- that the 10 - measure autograph passage constitutes evidence that Mozart com¬

posed the rest of the movement ;

9 Daniel Leeson and David Whitwell , Concerning Mozart ' s Serenade in Bb lor Thirteen Instru¬
N .
ments , 361 (370a ) , in : MJb 1978 , p . 97 —130 . Alan Tyson (personal communication to Neal
K.
Zaslaw ) dates the paper of K . 361 earlier , to around 1782 .
10 Daniel N . Leeson , A Revisit . Mozart ’s Serenade For Thirteen Instruments , K . 361 / 370a , The
“Gran Partitta” , in : MJb 1997 , pp . 181 fl .
11 Hans Schneider , Der Musikverleger Heinrich Philipp Bossier 1744 - 1812 , Tutzing 1985 . See also
Souper , op . cit .
IGO Roger Lustig

- that the two movements oi K . 285b were composed as part ol the same endeavor ;
- that Bossier received the two movements directly lrom Mozart ;
- that Mozart must have known ot , or profited lrom , the publication of K . 285b .
If these assumptions can be shown to be unwarranted or impossible , K . 285b
should be reclassified as a spurious work m its entirety . The evidence presented
here is of several types :
- the chronology of Mozart ’s works as determined by documents , including dated
autographs and publications , Mozart ' s correspondence , and other references from
the composer ’ s own time ;
- information regarding the paper that Mozart used ;
- accumulated knowledge about publishing practices in Mozart ’ s day , including
information about specific publishers who dealt with Mozart ’ s music ;
- the 1 musical peculiarities of the piece at hand .
Regarding the final point : connoisseurslnp , the analysis ol ' internal evidence '
as a tool tor attribution or deattribution , is rarelv considered trustworthy on its
own . I lowever , the curious ' external ' nature ' ot the only known autograph ma¬
terial tor the work demands close ' examination of the movement and its con¬
struction . The curious relation - or lack of one - between the music est the ten
autograph mestsures anel the ' rest ot the ' movement , along with several passages
th . it be ' tray a lack ot compositional foresight , suggest that two or metre cetm -
posers contribute ' el to a patchwork that had two or more seturces . The striking
incongruities anel inconsistencies in tile ' movement force us to get bevond simple
contrast with what we perceive to be 1 Mozart ' s ' normal ' competsitietnal practice ;
instead , we ask how the pure could have come inte ) being , and hetw cetmpetent
the ' person or persons who create ' el it coule ! have been .
I lie ' accumulateel weight anel combineel force of the various kinds e) l evi¬
dence - problems ol elating , publishing , composing - lead me to reject Mozart ' s
authorship . No single aspect is sufficient for such a conclusion ; taken as a whetle ,
the evielence is very hare ! to reconcile with the claims listed abetve .

- Descriptive analysis ot the first movement 1-

I ' lns section gives an overview ol the ' first movement of K . 285b , with emphasis
on aspects that elivergc from Mozart ' s compositional practice as we knenv it
lrom works composed in 1778 - 1791 , i . e . , lrom the tune he first cetmposed a
finie ' epiartet .
- {exposition ( mm . 1 - 56 )
The 1 general character is light and unremarkable . The sectiem does nett resemble
any ol Mo / art ' s sonata - form expeditions fretin the mid - 1770 ' s or later . Three as¬
pects efeserve note :
a ) use anef distribution ol motives , fetch ol the four clearly demarcated sections
etf the expositietn ( see Table beletw , p . 164 ) uses different mettivic cells . Within sec -

1 The rr .kliT is ,ul \ isc‘7 to lollow tins so / tion with a siorc ol k . 285h to hand .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 161

tions , these cells are repeated with little variation . Only the last motive of the
closing section ( mm . 60 - 62 ) is related to a previous one : the bridge ( mm . 17 - 28 ) .
b ) repetition of phrases . Mm . 1 - 8 are rescored as mm . 9 - 16 ; mm . 39 - 42 are re¬

scored as mm . 43 - 46 ; the extended cadential progression at mm . 47 - 58 consists

of a six - measure phrase and its varied repetition . Smaller sections are immedi¬
ately repeated in the bridge and at the end of the closing section .
c ) harmony . Primary triads ( tonic , subdominant , and dominant ) are used almost

exclusively . Minor triads ( VI and 11 ^,) appear only at mm . 22 - 23 ( the beginning

of the modulation to the dominant ) . Applied dominants appear in two places :
just before the bifocal close at mm . 28 - 29 , where V of V also serves as the domi¬
nant of the new key ; and at m . 48 ( repeated at m . 54 ) where V 7 of IV is used in
passing .
The exposition as a whole is free of voice - leading errors and infelicities of
part - writing , and the tonal scheme of the section , while simple , is beyond re¬
proach .
- Development ( mm . 66 - 110 )
After the close of the exposition in the dominant ( G major , m . 66 ) , the develop¬
ment begins in G minor with a new two - measure motive not directly related to
anything in the rest of the movement . This motive is first presented in canon -
the only strict counterpoint in exposition or development 17 .
A perfect cadence on G minor ( m . 74 ) and a short transition lead to the new
motive appearing twice in D minor , this time as the top voice of a homophonie
eight - measure period ending in a perfect cadence ( m . 83 ) . The last four measures
of this period are then repeated ( mm . 83 - 86 ) . After a transition ( mm . 87 - 90 ) the
motive appears four more times over a pedal of the dominant of A minor
( mm . 91 - 99 ) .
The transition material from mm . 87 - 90 returns to introduce a retransition
in the form of an eight - measure ‘ Satz ’ ( mm . 103 - 110 ) . This eight - measure pass¬
age , which bears some resemblance to the bridge passage around mm . 20 - 23 , is
firmly in the C - major tonic , cadences there at m . 108 , and ends on a half - cadence
at m . 110 , finally allowing the recapitulation of the first theme at m . 111 .
The development is very long by Mozartean standards : 44 measures out of 186
in all , or almost 24 % . Levin has shown that Mozart ’ s sonata - form movements
tended to devote around 14 % of their measures to the development , and that
values above 20 % were very rare indeed 14 .

1 Toeplitz , op . cit ., p . 97 , argues that the new motive is derived from the gruppetto figure in m . 1.
This is unconvincing , as the material of m . 1 is not used except in the opening theme , motivically
or otherwise , nor is it ever presented in the minor mode ; moreover , the rest of the new motive
14 differs drastically from its alleged source .
Robert Levin , Das Konzert für Klavier und Violine D -Dur KV Anh . 56 / 3151 und das Klari -
netten -Quintett B -Dur , KV Anh . 91 / 516c : Ein Ergänzungsversuch , in : MJb 1970 , p . 304 - 326 .
/ 62 Roger Lustig

Taken together , the following elements argue against Mozart ’ s authorship of

the development section :

- the dearth ol material irom the exposition

- the ten - told use ot a motive not iound in the exposition
- its hemiola , unrelated to rhythms before or after the development
- its statement only in the minor - mode , whereas the exposition contained
onlv a few secondary triads
- its ‘development ’ only in its first appearances ( mm . 67 - 73 )
- the many perfect cadences
- the many unvaried or minimally varied repetitions ( mm . 67 - 68 , 69 - 70 ,
mm . 75 - 76 , 77 - 78 ,mm . 79 - 82 , 83 - 86 , mm . 9 1 - 94 , 95 - 98 )
- the absence ot modulatory sequences , and consequently , the prevalence of
tonally stable passages
- the presence ol canon at the introduction to the development , and the absence
of counterpoint thereafter
- the absence of all the development motives from the recapitulation
- the 1 early velum to ( 1 major , several measures before the recapitulation , and the
weak half - cadence at the end

- the extraordinary length ot the development section

- Recapitulation ( mm . 1 1 1 - 186 )
The first theme and transition are shortened bv the excision of the material of
mm . 13 - 20 , but there are no other changes to this portion . The second theme is
stated m the tome . 1 he cello part is somewhat clumsily adjusted to correct for
notes that , because ot the exact transposition , would otherwise tall below its
range 1"" , and the scoring is simpler than it was in the exposition . The reyisions
here were probably made to keep the flute from playing below g ' or above e” \
its range m the rest of the piece .
The restoring has several effects on the character of the passage . First , the
shape of the theme is obscured . In its original form , the two tour - measure phrases ,
each ot which is structured as question and answer , began with an interval of
three and a half octaves or nutre ; these narrowed , until the ’ answer ’ section had
a range of only one octave . At mm . 133 - 140 , the shape ot the theme is obscured

blothuis notes the * infelicitous alterations m mm . 133 - 14s . hut does not .atribute them to the
exact transposition ol exposition material ; Marius blothuis , Mo / arts Bearbeitungen eigener und
fremder Werke , Salzburg 1969 , p . 40 . Similarly . I .eavis points out the curious viola part in
mm . 139 - 162 , and notes that the section is otherwise a direct transposition ot exposition ma¬
terial , but does not mention the composer / arranger ' s need to adjust the transposed viola part to
make n plavable ; Ralph I ,ravis , Mo / art ’s blute cpuarttu . K . App . 171 , in ; Music and Letters 43
( 1962 ), p . 4S - 32 , here p . 30 .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 163

by the flute ’ s doubling at the upper octave in the ’ answer ’ sections ; the range
there is now two octaves 16 .
Second , the rescoring produces a questionable harmony at mm . 135 - 136 : be¬
cause the cello provides the bottom accompaniment part instead ol resting ( as in
mm . 33 - 34 ) , the tonic harmony is strongly perceived as being in second in¬
version . In mm . 33 - 34 , the analogous notes were played by the viola ; the anti -
phonal , or at least question - answer , effect of the two two - measure pairs allowed
the cello ’ s arpeggiation of the tonic triad to provide an implicit bass for the two
following measures . In mm . 135 - 136 , the cello continues to play , and removes
this effect , thus creating the dissonant ^- sonority .
At mm . 141 - 148 , the theme is repeated in the subdominant . This time , the
four parts are playing an exact transposition of the exposition version of the
theme , one step lower ( with a few more adjustments to the cello part ) . The ex¬
position had no repetition of the second subject . This complete period in the
subdominant , itself most unusual in a Mozartean recapitulation , prepares the most
peculiar passage in the movement .
Mm . 149 - 158 modulate from F major to the dominant of C minor by means
of an unusual sequence ( down a step , then down a fourth ) and its extension . The
passage is chromatic and in four independent parts most of the way . Its harmony
includes an augmented sixth chord at m . 157 and a great deal ol minor - mode in¬
flection ; neither of these traits is encountered elsewhere in the movement . Real
four - part writing is hard to find in any ol the flute quartets , least ol all the rest of
this one . The two - measure motive on which the passage is based bears no rela¬
tion to anything else in the movement , including the two - measure motive that
dominated the development 17 .
Finally , the closing section ol the exposition is repeated without any change
other than the required transposition to the tonic key ol C and some clumsy re¬
writing of the viola part in mm . 159 - 162 , again an adjustment for the range of
the instrument . ( At mm . 39 - 42 , the viola plays a shapely countermelody ; at
mm . 159 - 162 , it fills in the harmony in a comparatively aimless way that sug¬
gests successive composition . Also , the barely evaded parallel fifths with the vi¬
olin at mm . 162 - 163 strongly indicate that only the viola part was considered
for revision . ) The lack of variation in the recapitulation ( see ' Table below ) , aside

16 Although I have refrained from any extensive consideration of the second movement of the flute
quartet , I must point out a similar change of range at a most striking spot : m . 3 of the variation
theme . Mm . 1 - 4 are originally scored for two clarinets and two bassoons , and have a compass of
less than two octaves throughout . They are abrupti }' answered at m . 3 bv the entire 13- in¬
strument ensemble , which enters forte with a sonority that spans almost four octaves . The ar¬
rangement both widens the range of mm . 1 - 4 , and narrows it thereafter , although there is no
particular reason to eliminate this drastic effect .
l / For this reason , I find it hard to accept Toephtz ’s description ol this passage as a " second develop¬
ment” (" / .weite Durchführung” ) ; Toeplitz , op . vit . , p . 98 . Nor is his )ust if icat i on ol such an un¬
usual move - that it compensates for the material elided from the first theme and bridge in the re¬
capitulation - in accordance with Mozart ' s practice .
164 Roger Laste ,

from mm . 149 - 158 , is vet another procedure rarely found in Mozart , and com¬
pletes a curious pattern of literal or transposed repetitions punctuated by transi¬
tions unrelated to the rest ot the thematic material . Mm . 149 - 158 is one such
transition ; the development is another .

Table : Equi valence of passages in K . 2H5h , first movement

Segment Exposition Rec apitulat ion

hirst theme 1 - 12 111 - 122
13 - 2C
Bridge 21 - 30
Second theme 31 - 38 ( in G ) 133 - 140 ( m G , rescored )
141 - 148 ( in F , transposed on 1\ )
Transition 149 - 158 ( h to V / G minor )
( dosing 39 - 66 ( in G ) 159 - 186 ( in G )

- The movement as a whole

dite wealth ol close parallels between exposition and recapitulation is striking ;
so is the absence ol relationships between the material in the parallel portions on
the one hand , and the rest ol the 1 movement , i . e . , the development and the tran¬
sitional passage at mm . 14911 . , on the other . The transitional passage is in tour
real parts , unlike any other part ot the mov ement , and is motiv icallv unconnected
to the rest ol the movement . I he development uses one motive repeatedlv , but
we do not encounter it anvvvhere else . It is hard to reconcile such phenomena
with what we know ol Mozart ' s compositional procedures in other sonata - form
movements .
Onlv one Mozartean sonata movement that 1 know ol has a large - scale plan
similar to the one used here : the Sonata lor Piano and Violin in F . K . 376 ( 374d ) .
There , the exposition and recapitulation differ from one another onlv in the trans¬
position ot the material alter tlu - biloca ! hall - cadence , plus some octave adjust¬
ments and minimal retouchings . 4 he mov ement as a whole uses verv lew second -
arc triads ; aside Iront turns to d minor and g minor toward the end ol the develop¬
ment , the whole movement is m major keys . Also , the development is relatively
long ( almost 2 2 *A> ol the movement ; the 1 violin simatas in the set that R . 376 be¬
longs to have unusuallv long developments bv Mozartean standards ) , and is based
on a new theme ( related to the closing theme ol the exposition ) that does not recur
afterwards . Quite unusually , this theme is stated m the dominant and then re¬
peated in the tonic , although the statement ends bv modulating to d minor . The
retransition uses a motive derived from the end ol this new theme , and reaches
the tonic well betöre the retransitional hall - cadence .
In the piano - and - viohn sonata , there is no textural rewriting of the kind ob¬
served at mm . 133 - 136 and 159 - 162 ol the quartet . Nor is there an unusual
modulation in the recapitulation ot the second subject , nor a substantial passage .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 165

drastically different from anything else in the movement , added in after that

modulation . However , if one were to attempt to date the flute quartet as a work

of Mozart strictly on stylistic grounds , the period around 1781 might suggest it¬
self for the reasons mentioned here .

- The autograph segment of K . 285b

The volume of the NMA containing the flute quartets reproduces a portion of

an autograph sketch page 18 . Tyson has dated the paper of this leaf to 1781 at

earliest , citing its use early that year and again in the summer 19 . One sketch on

this leaf , of the Belmonte - Osmin duet in “Die Entführung aus dem Serail” , a

work begun at the end of July , 1781 , confirms the date . The portion of the leal

that NMA reproduces contains music almost identical to mm . 149 - 158 of the

first movement of the C major quartet . The two passages differ only in that ar¬

ticulation marks , dynamics , ties , and a few accidentals are missing from the sketch

version . The flute quartet material is at the top of one side of the leaf , the “Ent¬

führung” sketch below ; accordingly , it is likely that the quartet passage was
notated after the sketch for the duet .

Leavis proposes that the sketch leaf was originally part of an autograph , and

that the previous 148 measures of the quartet could have lit on a preceding bi -

folium . He suggests that Mozart abandoned the work at that point , and that

someone completed the movement by simple transposition - 0 . Seillert points

out that this is unlikely , as each staff in the sketch begins with a clef - 1 . Mozart

did not begin each new system in a fair - copy score with clefs without a reason

such as change in instrumentation or clef . One might consider the missing acci¬

dentals and ties , and the absence of any dynamic markings , as further evidence

against Leavis ’ view . Konrad has noted that the K . 285b material on the sketch

leaf is in “flüchtiger Gebrauchsschrift” (cursory , normal hand ) and not in Mo¬

zart ’s sketch hand ; i . e . , that it might have been intended as an insertion or cor¬

rection to some piece - - . However , he does not think that the intended piece is

K . 285b , and refers to the ten measures as a “Fremdkörper” ( foreign body ) with¬

in the quartet - 3 . ( For the sake ol convenience , I shall nevertheless use “sketch”

to refer to the ten measures as they appear on the sketch - leal .)

Finscher reports that the sketch leaf also contains “lour untexted sketches in

old clefs , evidently for canons or counterpoint studies [ . . . ] . One can hardly imag¬

ine that Mozart was still sketching four - part obbligato passages with such a gen -

, |S NMA VIII / 20 / 2 ( Quartette mil einem Blasinstrument ) , Kassel etc . 1962 , p . 86 .

19 Cited in Sei fieri , op . cit ., p . 268 ; see also Tyson , op . cil .
Leavis , op . cit ., p . 50 .
- 1 Seiffert , op . cit ., p . 268 .
Ulrich Konrad , Mozarts Schaffensweise . Studien zu den Werkautographen , Skizzen und T.nt -
würfen , Göttingen 1992 , p . 133 .
r ' ibid .
IM
Roger Rostí ;

cral - bass - likc violoncello part in 1781 or 1782 , i . e . , just be lore writing down the

lirst ol the six quartets dedicated to Haydn " - 4 , binscher was not aware ot the

connection ol the sketch to K . 285b ; his volume ol string quartets lor the NMA

also reproduces the sketch page under the assumption that it relates to work on

.m otherwise unknown siring quartet .

I ' he provenance ol the leal should be mentioned here 1. It is not among the

manv sketches contained m the Mozart “Nachlaß " and primarily preserved in

the Salzburg Mozarteum collection . No mention is made ol it bv Mozart ' s early

biographers or others who hail access to the “Nachlaß " . In tact , we have no evi¬
dence as to its whereabouts between 1781 ( or whenever Mozart last wrote on

the leal ) and its acquisition In the Prussian State labran m 1884 -N According -

Iv , it mav well have 1 ledt Mozart ' s possession during Ins hletnne .

- The sketc h and the - minuet , K . 555 ( 57 Ab )

Hie Minuet in 1 ) , K . 555 ( 576b ) , is a well know n kevboard piece , but one with¬

out a secure dating - '’ . I here 1 is no autograph source lor the work ; its earliest

source“ is a breitkopl print ol 1806 . K 1 ( 1862 ) assigned it a date ol 1781 ; KT

( banstem , 1457 ) using Wvzewa and St .- koix ' s connoisseurship as a guide ' , assigned

it to 1760 . Ix ' 1 note ' s similarities with an eight - mcMsnre minuet sketch on paper

dated to the late“ 1780s ( K . 576a / Anh . 54 ) and assigns it to 1784 . I lowever , the
similarities are not sullicient to rule - out other elates tor K . 555 .

Oster note ' s that the piece * mav be ' unlnnshc 'd - . Abbe * Stadien ' added a trio to

the ' pure tor its lirst publication ; ( NtcT suggests that the Imal 12 measure ' s ol the

minuet are also Stadle ' i ' s work . I hese ' 12 measures are a literal transposition , up
.1 pe -r I eel fourth , ol tile end ot the ' lirst sevtion . Oster cl , ums that such a pro¬
cedure ( i . e . , leav ing eveiw thing alter the bilocal cademce unchanged except lor

transposition ) is not louncl in Mozart ' s works , and m this instance ' produces prob¬

lems ol voic 'c'dcadmg at the - seam - N . ( I lis re -marks are - presentc -d m the ' course ol a

'Ys is t Lmm \ i >r / usiellen . dak Mioui n < > li ) ’S I i ulci WHY also unnuttrlhar vorder Nieder -
V in ii ' lies i ’ sien 11er eruo I 1a \ ill ) pew nlmeten Cju .u leiie , . >Mip .u \ lerstinimige Sat / e nut so un¬
os hull ) pel us ,»11oi Isu i.i1sie;i■r \ ior ,iu ell - > 1 111us in p, sk ; / / lerte” ; ! wd v it; 1un seller , IVet are nu W1 \
VIH 00 ! . \ olimu ' ' (St reieli , ]ua i tel le ). Kassel eto l ' Si I . p . XII .
I\ on r .ul , op . ui .. p . I 00 .
\\ oil pane ; IMat 11, I’relaee to \ M A IX 2 ’ 0 , p . X \ III . IMat Ii a i pues lor a late Mate Yen u lent ip spa¬
ns Mi ou t " ) on si \ list u pis auuls .
I■is is i ( Kiis . A nal \ sis S \ ni | >osm m , in : | om nal o I M usu I lioso 10 I IVue ), p . M - SO, here p . 4S ,
Kepimieil as " A Si henkeisan \ lew , m : Matirv Mestoii (editor ), lus .ns m Selienkerian Analysis
a 111i e Mlus Appro .u lies , New I 1a \ en 1 . pp . 10 1 - 140 . Ius e p . I S ’.
kins pomi is espeualK imripuuipm liplit ol the nature ol tile reeapilulation ol l\ . 0K5h (see Tahle ).
K olus ' I e \ in (pei son al i oninii lineal ion ) lias suppest e4 that 1opium up the transposition at the re
prise ol in . z , i| the inuiuet , i . e ., Uuiiinp the seqiusu e in pi opress there into a simple stepwise
one , proiluees a more saitslaelorv result . I’lath , ku . ot „ aiul Konrad (personal ronuminnalioii )
i onsutei mp the texture ol l\ . os , think ( hat Ahhe M ,idler mat have arranped a quartet move
nu sit lor kev la >lid .
 / 67
On the Flute Quartet , K . 285b (Anh . ¡71 )

Schenkenau analysis of the Minuet , especially a discussion ol voice - leading as the

source of the curious dissonances that characterize the little piece . ) Further style
analysis leads Oster to suggest that Kochel ’ s original date ol the early 1780 ' s was
close to the mark .
The autograph sketch under discussion here is closely related to the Minuet .
The example below shows the right - hand part ol mm . 5 - 10 ol the Minuet and
mm . 1 - 7 of the top part ot the sketch ( with the second part added in mm . 5 - 7 ) .
Both passages are sequences ol a two - measure unit ; both have the same unusual
sequential pattern : down a major second , then up a perlect lourth . The example
is spaced to show the similarities between the motives : slow suspensions 1ol¬
io wed by chromatic eighths in both .

Mozart , Menuetto K . . 115 / 5 ~Y)/y , mm . 8 - 12

Mozart , sketch to l :lute quartet , l\ . Anhang Ml ( 288b ) , mm . / - ^

r F LTr ’ rff j rr r T r >

*
/
V J L J
/>

-
9£) : J e *3 2 f ^ -
r * r i, p
r ^ f r
<* >

Pf CL iJ 'Uxi t _JJ J J , Li
/
» /
Jj j -J j " ,
J * J ;r rrm
f
1
f r sJ L-I ?

Sketch :

Y r

Ij 5 LJJD J ]

Given the radical harmonic procedures and more elaborated ideas ol the Minuet ,
it is hard to imagine that it came into existence before the sketch . ' 1' hat is , the
sketch may be a preliminary version ol a sequential procedure that Mozart was
experimenting with and eventually used in an experimental composition . This is
consistent with Pinscher ' s discussion of the sketch and Oster ’ s analysis ol
K . 355 , and with the dating of the work to Mozart ’ s first years in Vienna .

If Mozart had applied the sketch to the composition of K . 355 , is it likely that
he would have returned to the sketch itself , rather than to the ( probably un¬
finished and almost certainly uncopied ) Minuet when searching lor material to
168 Roger Lustig

use in another piece ? Unless Mozart wrote the first movement of K . 285b after
the sketch and before K . 355 , his reuse of obviously experimental and already
superseded material in an otherwise quintessentially non - experimental move¬
ment is unparalleled Moreover , some of Mozart ’ s works make use of contra¬
puntal writing , and others do not ; only K . 285b breaks into complicated part -
writing for ten oddly - prepared measures late in the movement , reverting to simple
galanterie thereafter .

- The music of the sketch and its ’ context ’ in the quartet

The preparation for the ten contrapuntal measures in K . 285b may itself clarify
the relationship ol sketch to composition . The subdominant restatement of the
second theme in the recapitulation ( mm . 141 - 148 ) immediately after its struc¬
turally critical statement in the tonic ( the ’ sine qua non ’ of a recapitulation !) is
highly unusual , jarring , and unmotivated - except as a transition to prepare the
equally unmotivated contrapuntal transition that follows . After all , mm . 149 - 158
are modulatory and sequential ; even if they appeared several times within the
piece , one would expect there to be some relationship to material presented as a
theme , whether in first subject , second subject , or development . And as this is
the only truly modulatory passage of any length in the entire movement , the de¬
velopment being a series of non - modulating phrases connected to one another
by abrupt ( and often unison ) transitions , the ' foreign body ' nature of the sketch
is highlighted all the more .
In fact , the recapitulation would be more or less unremarkable if mm . 141 - 158
were omitted . Perhaps these 18 measures were in fact added to an already finished
movement . This would remove the need to imagine a composer either introduc¬
ing entirely new material at m . 149 or writing a movement around the sketch
without making reference to its harmonic , melodic , or contrapuntal procedures - 9 .
In that case , the composer or arranger probably inserted the sketch material
in the wrong place . The 10 - measure sketch has no key signature , and closes on V
of C minor , having set out from F major . If the key signature of the piece for
which the sketch was intended is in fact null , the most likely place for the pass¬
age would be in the recapitulation , but before the second theme ; there , the struc¬
tural consequences of a modulation to IV would not be as drastic as the ones we

Konrad , op . cit ., p . 466 , suggests an elision ot nun . 149 - 158 and a short interpolation that would
sound more ‘Mozartean ' . There are several problems with his version , which he presents as an
alternative solution to the problem the composer laced , not a suggestion tor modern
performance . First , the modulation to C is not strong enough : to be ‘Mozartean ' , it would
almost certamlv need an f-sharp somewhere . Also , a sudden one -measure transition in a sea ot 4 -
and 8 -measure phrases would be utterly un -Mozartean . The viola part as Konrad gives it
continues with a transposition ol the music ot the exposition , not the altered version found in
the recapitulation (see above , p . 163 ) . Finally , the solution ignores that it was not at all necessarv
to create the modulation problem m the first place bv composing nun . 141 - 148 .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 169

observe here 30 . Of course , this would rarely occur unless there had been a simi¬

lar , if not parallel passage earlier in the movement , either at an analogous point

in the exposition or in the development 31 . If the sketch passage was actually in¬

serted , then such further recompositions would have required far more effort on

the arranger ’s part .

The changing compositional character of the rest of the movement suggests a

multiplicity of sources . Whatever one ’s opinion of the quality of the exposition ,

it is straightforward and competently written . The development is already very

curious ; its repetitive , unvarying , yet indecisive use of its new motive , the sud¬

den introduction and equally abrupt disappearance of canon , and the blurred re¬

turn of the tonic at the recapitulation all clash with the confident simplicity of

the exposition . In the recapitulation ( mm . 133 - 145 and 159 - 162 ) the necessary

adjustments for the transposition of exposition material are not carried off very

well . Had a recapitulation by transposition been planned by the composer of the

exposition , the part - writing in the exposition might well look different in places .

The recapitulation we have may not be the one that the composer of the exposi¬

tion intended . And , finally , there is the riddle of the sketch material .

The piece looks more and more like the work of several hands : Mozart (sketch¬

ing string quartet material ) for the ten measures ; an unknown , competent com¬

poser for the exposition and perhaps the development ( could this be material left

over from Mozart ’s struggle to provide “short , easy” flute quartets for Dejean in

1778 ?) ; and a composer or composers unknown for the recapitulation and the as¬

sembly of the movement as we have it . Such a composer might also have pro¬

duced the arrangement that is the second movement .

- The publication of the quartet

If it seems strange that an argument against Mozart ’s authorship of a work is

based in part on the existence of a portion of that work in his own hand , how

much stranger , then , to argue that the publication of that work , under his name

and during his lifetime , is entirely consistent with , and even supportive of , this

deattribution ? But the publication - our only evidence for the existence of the

,0 James Webster (personal communication ) points out that the passage could also come toward the
end of a development in a C major movement , leading from a deceptive cadence in A minor to¬
ward the recapitulation .
? 1 An example of a modulatory passage before the second theme may be found in the third move¬
ment of the String Quartet , K . 387 , mm . 59 ff . Robert Levin (personal communication ) has pointed
out interesting features of the first movement of the piano sonata in D , K . 576 . After the first
theme begins the recapitulation , a new transitional passage , based primarily on imitative pro¬
cedures worked out in the development , replaces the original bridge . This new transition includes a
tonicization of G , the subdominant . Likewise , the recapitulation of the first movement of the so¬
nata in C , K . 545 , begins in the subdominant key of F . But in both of these cases , the sub¬
dominant appears before , not after , the articulating half -cadence ; and in both cases , the thematic ma¬
terial was originally presented in the tonic .
170 Roger Lustig

work in the first place - of fers a new view of the piece and the circumstances
around its creation .
hirst , we have no evidence of direct contact between Mozart and I launch
Philipp Bossier . Schneider described Bossier ’ s numerous relationships with Vien¬
nese publishers , but could not establish any direct connection to Mozart .
Bossier cut a silhouette ol Mozart , and advertised it as one of a set of twelve in
early 1784 33 . l ’hi s implies a meeting between the two before 1784 ; but there is
no surviving correspondence or other evidence of a meeting m or before 1788 .
It is unlikely that Bossier would have received the flute quartet in 1784 , kept it
for over lour years during which Mozart ' s lame was at its peak , and then adver¬
tised it as a “new work by Mozart " m his musical magazine just before publica¬
tion m 1788 . We may also rule out Bossier as the composer or arranger of K . 285b ;
not only would lit ' have * had to have extraordinary access to music not widely
circulated yet , but Schneider notes that among publishers of the time , Bossier
and Breitkopf und 1 lärtel were practically alone in not publishing pirated or
knowingly misattnbuted editions ' '1 . In fact , Bossier ' s catalogue 1 contains no other
works that we consider to be misattnbuted .
K . 285b is the only chamber work bv Mozart of which Bossier was either the
sole or the 1 first publisher m the composer ’ s lifetime . ( 1 le was the sole publisher
of a tew other works , e . g . , parts for the piano concerto , K . 453 anel a score ol the
serenarle , “Deli , viem alia luiestra” from “Don Giovanni” . ) Also in 1788 , Bossier
proeluceel the first eehtion of the Rondo for piano , K . 494 . bran /. Anton Hoff¬
meister , one ol Mozart ’ s most important Viennese publishers , published the
Rondo as the last movement ol a sonata for piano m b major K . 533 / 494 later
that year .
Bossier also pubhsheel editions of some ' chamber works also published shortly
thereafter bv Anana in Vienna : K . 359 ( 374a ) anel K . 360 ( 374b ) 1,) . But his close
relationship with I lollmeisier , f loflmeister ’ s preeminence m the enormous flute -
music industry of the time ( for which Anana proeluceel comparatively little ) ,
and the several parallel or almost simultaneous publications by Bossier and I loti -
meister m the years around 1788 leael me to suggest I loffmeister ’ s involvement in
the puzzle of K . 285b .
It is quite possible that Bossier obtaineel all or most of the Mozartean music
he published from Hoffmeister . Mozart ' s association with Hoffmeister is well -
documenteel ; anel Bossier and I lolfmeister not only served as eme another ' s

Schneider , op . eil .
ibid . , pp . I Os I. , vouches lor i ho .un lient int v ol tlu“ silhouette ; lie notes that previous writers had
eonsulered it mautheiitie beeause the date hail nustakenlv been read as 179S .
' ( Sc hneider reasonable - assumes that thee met at the Imperial eoronation in branklurt m I 700 , and
in Vienna m 170 I while bossier veas touring w ith the blind glass harmonica virtuoso Marianne
K irchgüièner . Mo / nrt ee rote music lor kirchgalsner at that time ; Schneider , op . cit ., p . 3 17 .
Schneider , op . on ., p . 7 .
w’ ibid ., pp . 144 I .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 171

agents in Speyer and Vienna , respectively , but seem to have had a cordial re¬

lationship 37 . Schneider describes the two as friends ; later , he writes of their fre¬

quent and close collaboration , and suggests that Bossier ’s musical subscription

series inspired Hoffmeister ’s similar publications . He also notes parallel publica¬

tions by the two houses : K . 478 and K . 481 38 .

Sherlock Holmes drew insight from a dog that did not bark in the night . Simi¬

larly , let us consider the non - existent Viennese edition of the flute quartet . Why

would Hoffmeister ( or any other Viennese publisher ) give a work to an associate

on the other side of the German - speaking world without publishing it himself ?

Why would he miss the chance to issue a flute quartet by one of the most cel¬

ebrated composers in Europe ? Why , for that matter , would Mozart publish a

piece only in a distant town , and not where he himself might promote it ? No

other work by Mozart was offered to the public in such a manner in the com¬

poser ’s lifetime . All the chamber music of his Viennese years , insofar as it was

published , was published in Vienna .

There are other , similarly silent dogs . Mozart had at least one , and possibly

two other flute quartets available for publication in 1788 ; why did he not offer

K . 285 or K . 298 if there was a demand lor such music 39 ? K . 285 may have been

too difficult for amateurs ( the principal market for flute quartets and similar

pieces ) ; but K . 298 is shorter and simpler , and was almost certainly composed
around 1786 . K . 298 shares a somewhat unusual distinction with K . 285b if the

latter piece is by Mozart : neither one is entered in the composer ’s catalogue of

works . If K . 285b is authentic , then either it was composed before the catalogue

was begun ( i . e . , before sometime in 1784 ) , or it is the only work that Mozart

composed after that date , published , and failed to enter in the catalogue 40 .

Why were there no parallel publications of this piece ? Bossier could easily

have arranged for other German publishers to distribute or republish it . He did

not do so , nor did he advertise it after its initial publication .

For I Ioffmeister ’s list ol agents , including Bossier , see Chit Fisen , New Mozart Documents : A
Supplement to O . F . Deutsch ’s Documentary Biography , London and Basingstoke 1991 , p . 601 .
I lollmeister ’s catalogue , which included a great many original and arranged works tor time quar¬
tet , and many other works with time , is reproduced and analyzed in : Alexander Weinmann , Die
Wiener Verlagswerke von Franz Anton I lottmeister , Vienna 1964 . Weinmann , Vollständiges
Verlags - Verzeichnis Artaria & Comp ., Vienna 1952 , lists Artaria ' s catalogue .
's Schneider , op . cm , p . 93 and 146 .
39 Mozart may not have had the score ot K . 285 available to him . Returning Iront Faris , he wrote to
his lather on October 3 , 1778 that dejean had accidentali }’ lett “the 3 quartets and the time con¬
certo” in Mannheim , but would torward them . We do not know whether he did so ; the auto¬
graphs of the flute concern have not survived , but that ot K . 285 - and no other flute quartet
trom that time - has . The piece was published in Vienna in 1792 , which suggests that the auto¬
graph was there at that time ; but I ) e | ean , who had moved to Vienna in the 1780 ’s , could have re¬
turned it after 1788 .

4j In contrast , Mozart entered the ‘short Adagio ' introduction to his string quartet transcription
(K . 546 ) ot the tugue in C minor tor two pianos (K . 426 ) , which I lottmeister published in 1788 .
172 Roger Lustig

Finally , there is the matter of the second movement of K . 285b . No other

work published by Mozart consists ol one original movement and one arranged
from a previous composition 41 . Composing a variation movement would prob¬
ably not have been much more difficult for Mozart than arranging a 13 - part
piece into four parts .

- When could Mozart have composed the Ilute quartet ?

It is almost impossible to devise a plausible scenario lor the process of Mozart ’ s

composing , arranging , and publishing ol K . 285b . 11 we limit ourselves to the
years 1778 - 1788 , i . e . , the time between Mozart ’ s encounter with Dejean and the
publication ol K . 285b in Speyer , we must take into account the lollowing dates :
- Late 1777 - early 1778 : Mozart composes a Ilute concerto and a substitute
movement , arranges an oboe concerto lor Ilute , and composes the Quartet in D ,
K . 285 . Perhaps he also writes other Ilute music ; K . 285a mav come from this time .

- 1781 : Mozart sketches 10 measures ol counterpoint lor quartet and the beginn¬
ings ol Osmin ' s ana .
- 1783 - 1784 : Mozart composes the Cran Partitta , K . 361 .
- 1784 : Mozart begins Ins thematic catalogue .
- ca . 1786 : Mozart composes the " quatuor d ' airs dialogues” , K . 298 .
- ca . Mav - June 1788 : Mozart composes the lirst movement ol the svmphonv ,
K . 543 .

- July 1788 : 1 leinrich Philipp Bossier publishes the Mute Quartet , K . 285b .

With this in mind , let us consider the 1 implications ol the possible dates ol
compositum ol the lirst movement :
a ) Betöre 1781 : Mozart either sketched the 10 - measure passage tor insertion into
an alreadv finished movement , or took up an uniunshed movement , sketched a
continuation , and finished the movement bv transposition . 1 le then put it aside ,
arranged the second movement some vears later , and then submitted it tor pub¬
lication alter that .
b ) 1781 : Mozart sketched ten measures while composing the quartet . 11 so , he
had alreadv composée ! nun . 141 - 148 ( the t ranspi »sition o ! the second theme to F
major ) when he took up the sketch , because ' the beginning ol m . 149 is voiced
unusuallv . but appropriated tor a continuation Iront m . 148 . The rest ol the
scenario is as in 1 .
c) 1782 - 1784 : Mozart composed the ' piece well alter sketching the 10 - measure
passage . II so , he placed the moelulatorv passage m a lughlv unusual place , and
prepared it with an equally improbable repetition and modulation alter the hall -
cadence , even while composing the rest ol the recapitulation bv simple trans -

Tlte Adagio ol K . (sir previous footnote ) wnslitiitrs ,1 p .irtul exception to tins rule ; but the
Adagio cannot be placed alone as a separate mo \ ement .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 173

position and elision ( and some careless rescoring ) . All of these procedures are

drastically at variance with all of Mozart ’s Viennese music , and with his earlier

style as well .

d ) 1784 - 1786 : As in c ) , and Mozart failed to enter the piece in his thematic

catalogue .

e ) 1786 - 1788 : As in d ) , and Mozart offered the quartet for publication in lieu of

the already - composed K . 298 , which ( as far as we know ) does not include any

movements arranged from other works .

All these dates are problematic , and add to our list of peculiarities : the struc¬

ture of the first movement ; the arrangement of the second movement ; the pub¬

lication ( and non - publication ) of the quartet . The alert reader will have noticed

that the list of critical dates includes mention of yet another piece by Mozart :

the Symphony in E flat , K . 543 . Toeplitz points out a baffling correspondence

between this piece and K . 285b : in the first movements of both pieces , the end¬

ings of the exposition and the movement as a whole share an almost identical

measure 42 . In the symphony , these are - mm . 141 and 306 ; in the quartet , mm . 64

and 185 . Not only do the four measures all present almost exactly the same mo¬

tive (allowing for transposition ) , but the accompaniment of the two exposition

measures is in repeated notes , while the accompaniment of both closing measures

consists of eighth notes alternating between tonic and dominant .

The most obvious difference between the two pieces with regard to the one -

measure motive is that this motive appears nowhere else in the quartet , and in

many other places in the symphony . The matching measures in the symphony

are in fact the fifth appearances of the motive in exposition and recapitulation ,

respectively ; in between , it appears ten times in the development .

For the sake of argument , let us assume that Mozart composed the first move¬

ment of K . 285b , and that this relationship is not purely coincidental . Under

these assumptions , Mozart either used a evidential motive from an old piece as a

substantial constructive element in the symphony , yet retained the particulars of

its accompaniment in the closing measures of each half of the movement ; or he

composed the two pieces at around the same time , making use of sketch material

from seven years before , while taking extraordinary measures to allow the sketch

material to be included in the piece .

Neither of the above possibilities seems at all likely . Accordingly , it we are to

continue to assume that Mozart was the author of the movement , we must con¬

sider the relationship , striking as it is , to be coincidental . Ii we assume that

someone else constructed the first movement of K . 285b , then we merely need

to assume that this person copied those two measures , with their accompaniment

figures , from K . 543 .

4- Toeplitz , op . cit ., p . 98 .
174 Roger Lustig

- If not Mozart , then who ?

Who might have composed and / or arranged K . 285b ? Above , I suggested a pro¬
cedure wherebv a person or persons unknown might have inserted the music of
the 10 - measure sketch and an 8 - measure preparation for it into a previously
composed movement having one or more authors .
This would imply that someone ( or several people working together ) had ac¬
cess to the sketch , K . 361 ( for the arrangement oi the second movement ) , and
possibly K . 543 . Such people existed : the copyists active in Vienna in the 1780 ’ s .
The Gran Partitta and the Symphony in E flat would have had to be copied be¬
töre a iirst periormance ; Mozart was very busy both in the winter of 1783 - 1784
and the summer of 1788 , and could not have been expected to do his own copy¬
ing . Why might a copyist not produce an extra copy of this or that piece or
movement tor himself , whether m score or m parts ? Such a person might have
produced the flute - quartet transcription / arrangement ot the variations from
K . 361 . Leeson notes that the flute quartet version was made from the parts rather

than from the score ; accordinglv , whoever held the parts ( which are lost to us )
could have had the arrangement made 4 ' .
11 the copyist ( for simplicity ' s sake , let us assume that it was one person ) work¬

ing on the first movement of K . 543 ( which Mozart could even have delivered
betöre the other movements ) alreadv had the cobbled - together first movement of
K . 285b readv , or was then preparing it , he might well have added a further Mo -
zartean touch : two measures iront the svmphonv 44 . This would not have re¬
quired an extra copv ot the svmphonv , as the quartet was published sufficiently
soon after the svmphonv - was completed tor the score still to have been in the
copvist ' s shop at the crucial time .
That the first movement resembles the Sonata for Piano and Violin , K . 376 ,
now leads tes the possibilité that the composer est the first movement used that
piece as a model . But completing the recapitulation bv transposition proved more
difficult here than it would have seemed m the sonata ; the ranges of the viola and
cello , and the art i t ici al 1v narrowed range of the flute led to infelicitous rewriting
ot a few passages . And what would be more natural to someone seeking a model
tor a sonata movement in the style ot a particular composer than to choose the
first ot a set ot sonatas that the composer had published some time before ?

1' I atm >n , A I\ c \ isi t , op . oi . On Ma \ 1 , 084 , a little oxer t luce months attar ihn t um part orina nnn
ot K . OU , Mo / art wrote to his lather that a aop \ ist he knew was ilheitlv making extra aopias ot
I lavdn ' s symphonies . and that Mo / art was iherelore taking the precaution ot having copyists
work onlv at Ins residence ; lkuier - 1 lent sell 111. no , 7l )C, p . 313 . Such a copyist might well hare
made a o >p \ ot all or part ot l\ . Oat , or kept a sketch - leal .
■*! Daniel Melamed ( personal communicat ion ) reports that t lu - autograph consists ot individual hi -
lolios . Mo / art could have given the cop \ ist the turn movement am time attar composing the Iirst
lew measures ot the seonid movement , and perhaps cep \ mg those measures dow n tor his own
relercnec .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 175

This copyist might well have come into possession of the sketch - leaf , too . As
noted above , it is likely that Mozart did not have the sketch with him when he
died in 1791 ; it could easily have fallen into other hands by any number of other
means , e . g . :
- Mozart inadvertently included a sketch for the Belmonte / Osmin duet in the
materials for Act I of “Die Entführung” that he gave to the copyist , who kept
the leaf , perhaps as a souvenir ;
- the leaf was retrieved from the trash ;
- the leaf was given to a pupil sometime before 1788 for reasons unknown ;
- the leaf was taken from Mozart ’ s desk , perhaps by a copyist working in Mo¬
zart ’ s residence in or after 1784 .
By 1788 , Franz Anton Hoffmeister employed several copyists and engravers ;
the volume of music produced by his publishing house demanded them . Hoff¬
meister might have been fooled by one of them into thinking , temporarily at least ,
that the cobbled - together quartet was Mozart ’s work , and might have sent it to Boss¬
ier . For that matter , someone deputized by FToffmeister might have sent the piece
to Speyer , perhaps along with K . 494 or some other authentic work . ( Bossier would
have expected to receive Mozart ’ s works in a copyist ’ s hand , not the autograph . )
Eventually , Hoffmeister would have realized his mistake , perhaps after read¬
ing the advertisement for the piece in Bossier ’ s magazine , or upon receiving a
copy from his friend and colleague . If so , he would have refrained from publish¬
ing the work under its purported composer ’ s nose , and from any further pub¬
lication elsewhere ; Bossier would have done the same as soon as he was alerted
to the error . In this scenario , we can explain the absence of reviews , further pub¬
lications , and further advertisement of what normally would have been a reason¬
ably hot property : a new chamber work by Mozart . ( Such a debacle might even
explain Bossier ’ s ending the subscription series of which K . 285b was the first
number ; after 12 monthly issues , it ceased publication . ) Alternately , Hoffmeister
himself could have exploited his friend and profited from the Speyer publication .
One might protest that the odds of one copyist having worked on “Die Ent¬
führung” , K . 361 , and K . 543 and possessing the sketch - leaf are slim ; but that
would be backward reasoning . After all , if our scenario is correct , the copyist
merely worked with the materials at hand ; and these , of the dozens and dozens
of pieces that Mozart had had copied or engraved in Vienna by 1788 , happened
to be among those available for plundering .
How could a Viennese musician of the 1780 ’ s believe that he could pass off
something as authentic Mozart ? Why were the problematic aspects of the piece
not spotted by its publisher and the subscribers who bought it from him ? I lere
we must remember the luxurious conditions under which we work today .
We can reach to our library shelves and pull down hundreds of pieces by Mo¬
zart or Haydn , all contained in comprehensive editions of the composer ’ s work .
These editions have enabled the practice of stylistic analysis , not least the inven -
/ 76
Roger Lustig

tion and refinement of concepts such as ' sonata form ’ . Recordings and broad¬
casts , along with a repertory that includes ever more of Mozart ’ s music , ensure
that many of us will hear a number of his pieces far more often than he or any¬
one else did in his lifetime . With hundreds of a major composer ’ s works readily
available , we can ( if so moved ) easily compare the relative lengths of Mozart ’ s
and Haydn ’ s development sections . We can note that first - theme and closing -
theme material appears in developments much more often than second - theme
material does , and that completely new material is rarely found there . We can
see what modulations generally occur in Mozart ’ s recapitulations , and that the
idea of modulating to IV alter the hall - cadence that introduces the second theme
is almost unthinkable ; in fact , it violates many descriptions of 18th - century ’ so¬
nata form ' or ' sonata principle ’ . We can see that textures in the recapitulation
are generally related to textures from the exposition , sometimes to those of the
development . We note that Mozart places the root - position tonic at ( or occa¬
sionally alter ) the recapitulation , but not a lew measures before in the retransition .
Mozart , of course , knew Mozart ' s style better than any ot us could hope to .
But his contemporaries onlv knew the works available to them as publications
or copies , or Iront a tew hearings . Listeners lar from Vienna would have known
Mozart ’ s published works and a lew others . ' They would not have been able to
deduce particulars ol Mozartean stvle as readilv as we , with editions , recordings ,
and two centuries ot accumulated scholarship , can . General principles of torm ,
stvle , etc . would mitre likely have been distilled intuitively Iront knowlege ol
works bv main ' contemporain composers . Accordmglv , the long development
of K . 285b might not have raised the evebrows ot anv but the most enthusiastic
and insightful ol Mozart ’s Ians ( few ot whom would be found in the general audi¬
ence tor Hute quartets !) ; nor . in the absence ot language with which to discuss the
particulars ot sonata forms or their tonal processes , would the curious recapitu¬
lation have attracted as much attention .
Consider the known Mozartean sources tor K . 285b . One is a sketch - leaf tor a
piece otherwise unknown to us ( insolar as it ever existed ) ; the other , a move¬
ment from a piece that was rarely performed . Moreover , the one performance ot
K . 3 (51 that we know to have taken place did not include the variation move¬
ment . In other words , it niav be that onlv Mozart himself would have been able
to recognize the sources ot the piece - something unhkelv to happen if it were
e > be published tar awav .

- C lonnoisseurslnp ?
lawan 4 ’’ following Spitzer demonstrated that stvle criticism ot the Sintonía Con¬
certante , K . 297b ( Anh . C 14 . 01 ) takes on different characters in accordance with

*' Robert I .e \ in . W ir > W rote the Mo / art 1 <>ur - \\ m2 ( ' oneertannè . New York 10 S 8 , top . p . (>7 - S 1.
John Spn / er . Musk .i 1 .uinhution ami entieal judgment : the rise and lall ol the Smlonia
( loneertanie Co W inds , k . / WR , m : | ournal o ! Musieologv 5 ( Mpy , pp . 3 1 —3Xo .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 177

the analyst ’s opinion of the work ’s authenticity . Those who call it Mozart , praise

it ; those who deny its authenticity , denigrate it . In making a strong case that the

Sinfonia Concertante was an arrangement of authentic Mozart ( and showing

what the arrangement consisted of ) , Levin laid bare the shortcomings of pre¬

judiced analyses . I concur with his conclusions and his caveats to future re¬
searchers .

We may observe the same process here . Toeplitz and Wyzewa - St .- Foix praised

the quirks of the first movement of K . 285b as inventive and experimental 46 ;

Toeplitz and the Kassel Anonymous 47 are among those who believed the ( auth¬

entic ) second movement to have preceded the Gran Partitta , although we now
know that this cannot have been the case 48 .

But the problem of K . 297b was quite different from the one we have here .
Mozart had mentioned a “Sinfonia Concertante” for four winds to his father .

The piece in question had oboe and clarinet solos instead of flute and oboe , but

was otherwise a piece for four wind instruments and orchestra . There were no

problems of chronology (aside from general lack of knowledge about the date of

the arrangement ) , no movements arranged from known Mozart works , no auto¬

graph material . Nor was the work published in Mozart ’s time ; nor was the

disputed version written down by Mozart or under his supervision , to the best

of our knowledge .

With K . 285b , any proposed date of composition is problematic . The evi¬

dence for the existence of the piece consists of an anomalous publication and a

short autograph passage that calls attention to itself by being unlike anything

else in the work , by creating structural problems through its inclusion , by re¬

solving them if it is excised along with its equally strange preparatory passage ,

and by bearing close thematic resemblances to a piano piece ( K . 355 ) . There is

evidence that the arrangement of the second movement was not by Mozart ; if

this is so , then the quartet as we know it was certainly transmitted to its only

publisher in a form that Mozart had not approved of .

K . 285b is known to us through four pieces of evidence : its published version ,

a pre - publication advertisement , the source of the second movement ( K . 361 / vi ) ,

and the 10 - measure sketch . To these we may tentatively add the two correspond¬

ing measures of K . 543 / i) . If we begin with these , and only these , and make no

assumptions about authenticity ; and if we then compare these items to all other

works by Mozart , to all other publications ol his works in his lifetime , and to
the known dates of these and other relevant items , we find anomalies , incon¬

sistencies , and paradoxes .

4h Théodore de Wyzewa and Georges de Saint - hoix , Wolfgang Amedée Mozart . Sa vie niusieale et
son œuvre . Parts 1912 - 1946 (Reprint : New York 1980 ) , volume 2 , pp . 29 - 31 . Toeplitz , op . at .,
pp . 97 - 99 .
4 Introduction to the NMA study score to K . 361 (anonymous ) , Kassel etc . 1996 .
4S I .eeson , A Revisit , op . cit .
178
Roger Lustig

It we then observe the internal features of the work , we find strong evidence
against Mozart ’ s authorship , and again of a most paradoxical type : it features far
more repetition , and far less variation , between sections than we are accustomed
to ( see ' Table above , p . 164 , and the many repetitions of the opening motive , de¬
velopment theme , etc .) ; but it also contains many strong , unique divergences
from Moxartean practice , in tonal patterns , texture , motive , and the introduc¬
tion and reuse of new material . In short , it is bland everywhere that Mozart was
normally inventive , and inventive onlv m ways that Mozart otherwise avoided .
Its form diverges substantially from that of any piece we know Mozart to have
written in the decade 1778 - 1788 . And several of its unique features can be frank¬
ly described as compositional mistakes . All these observations are made at the
grossest levels , and not on the basis of subtleties or minute differences .
The autograph fragment ( the 10 - measure sketch ) provides a bridge between
external and internal analysis . The fragment itself constitutes exactly the portion
of the movement least like the rest , and is quite unlike anv other passage in Mo¬
zart ' s flute quartets . At the same time , it causes and completes the strangest ,
most ’ mistaken ' tonal passage m the movement : the very late modulation to ,
and return from , the subdominant .
If we admit the possibilité that another member ol the Viennese musical com¬
munite might not onlv have had aecess to certain of Mozart ' s works but was
also capable of copving them out and arranging them , with other material , into
the piece that Bossier published , then we can imagine how , when , and for what
reason the flute quartet was created - and need not concern ourselves further
with the fact that there are so many unique , strange features in its musical struc¬
ture and content , and m its provenance .

- The simpler explanation

When examining any document from the past , we should begin bv asking our¬
selves how it could have come to exist . With the typical piece attributed to Mo¬
zart , the question is so trivial that we do not spend much time on it . If there is a
holograph or similarlv substantial document , or Mozart ' s own testimonv as to
its composition , or evidence ol a performance“ or publication that Mozart took
part in , we mav move on .
In tact , there 1 are“ so manv une ] uestionable attributions to Mozart that we have
hern able to elenve pictures of Ins composa lonal practice and his relationships
with performers , publishers , etc . Fach picture is continually under revision , but
we ' can make“ quite“ a tewv geiUTal statements on such subjects .
k . 785b proves an exception to manv of those general statements . We are con¬
fronted with issues regarding the type and source ol movements ; place and cir¬
cumstances of publication ; unusual compositional practice as it relates to anv
hypothetical chronology ; and then the internal anomalies of the first movement
on top of all that .
On the Flute Quartet , K. 285b (Anh . 171) 179

If we assume Mozart to be the sole author of the piece , we must construct a

complicated story to account for all of these issues . If we imagine another author

who created a crazy quilt from Mozartean and non - Mozartean material , most of

these questions disappear . But evidence suggestive of a second author is already

present in the arrangement of the second movement ; accordingly , the single¬

composer hypothesis is not necessarily the simpler one .

For these reasons - and only these - I propose that the piece known to us as

the Flute Quartet in C Major , K . 285b , was assembled by a Viennese musician

employed in copying and transcription . This person used material from two or

three movements or sketches by Mozart , and part or all of a flute quartet move¬

ment of at most 168 measures by another composer who may , but need not ,

have been identical with this copyist . Fie may have used a published work by

Mozart as a compositional model as well . Probably via the publishing house of

Floffmeister , the piece was presented to Heinrich Philipp Bossier of Speyer as a

new work by Mozart , but not ( as far as we know ) to anyone else .

Who was this Viennese musician ? Only a coincidental discovery yet to be

made could even provide us with a candidate . Most of the copies that Mozart

ordered in his Viennese years are lost to us , as well as most of the records that

could identify the copyists . In all likelihood , this hypothetical person will re¬

main unidentifiable - even mysterious . But there is good reason to assume his

existence : if we do not do so , we must assume a great many things about Mo¬

zart , not least that he undertook a very strange compositional procedure on

only one occasion that we know about , and was sufficiently desperate ( or other¬

wise motivated ) in the summer of 1788 to publish a work that , in the estimation

of more than a few who have heard it since , would have gone against his prin¬

ciples : “I could scribble away all day , but such a piece will become known , and I

don ’t want to be ashamed of something with my name on it” .

In the spring and summer of 1788 , Mozart composed his three last sym¬

phonies . At the same time , he completed two or three sonatas , two piano trios ,

some arrangements and transcriptions , and several other highly interesting pieces .

Moreover , he had a recently completed flute quartet ( K . 298 ) available , and per¬

haps K . 285 as well . All of the the internal and external problems with any at¬

tribution of K . 285b pale beside the task of imagining how and why Mozart

would have released the C Major flute quartet to any publisher around that

time . Perhaps he did no such thing .