The Vienna Don Giovanni 9781843835868, 184383586X

Table of contents :
Casts of the First Performances and IntroductionThe Prague Don GiovanniA possible cutPrague musical fingerprintsErrorsThe Vienna Don GiovanniThe Graz scoreThe Court Theatre score (OA361/1)The Court Theatre parts (OA361/Stimmen)Later copies deriving from the Court Theatre scoreThe Lausch and Julliard scoresThe casting of the Vienna Don GiovanniThe full version (Vienna 1)An intermediate version?The final versions Vienna 2a and Vienna 2bDa Ponte's storyThe late eighteenth-century dissemination of Don GiovanniGuardasoni's performances of Don Giovanni in 1788 and 1789The reception of the Vienna Music in 1790s PragueThe 1798 Vienna revivalThe autograph of Don Giovanni after Mozart's deathThe Breitkopf & Hartel full scoreLater manuscripts based on the published scoreConclusion

Citation preview

The Vienna  Don Giovanni In the year following its 1787 Prague première, Don Giovanni was performed in Vienna. Everyone, according to the well-known account by Da Ponte, thought something was wrong with it. In response, Mozart made changes, producing a Vienna ‘version’ of the opera, cutting two of the original arias but inserting three newly-composed pieces. The dilemma faced by musicians and scholars ever since has been whether to preserve the opera in these two ‘authentic’ forms, or whether to fashion a hybrid text incorporating the best of both. This study presents new evidence about the Vienna form of the opera, based on the examination of late eighteenth-century manuscript copies. The Prague Conservatory score is identified as the primary exemplar for the Viennese dissemination of Don Giovanni, which is shown to incorporate two quite distinct versions, represented by the performing materials in Vienna (O.A.361) and the early Lausch commercial copy in Florence. To account for this phenomenon, seen also in early sources of the Prague Don Giovanni and Così fan tutte, a general theory of transmission for the Mozart Da Ponte operas is proposed, which clarifies the relationship between the fluid text produced by re-creation (performing) and the static text generated by replication (copying). Aspects of the compositional history of Don Giovanni are uncovered. Evidence to suggest that Mozart first considered an order in which Donna Elvira’s scena precedes the comic duet ‘Per queste tue manine’ is assessed. The essential truth of Da Ponte’s account – that the revision of the opera in Vienna was an interactive process, involving the views of performers, the reactions of audiences and the composer’s responses – seems to be fully borne out. The final part of the study investigates the late eighteenth-century transmission of Don Giovanni. The idea that hybrid versions gained currency only in the nineteenth century or in the lighter Singspiel tradition is challenged. ian woodfield is Professor and Director of Research at the School of Music and Sonic Arts, Queen’s University Belfast.

The Vienna  Don Giovanni

Ian Woodfield

the boydell press

© Ian Woodfield 2010 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Ian Woodfield to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2010 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge isbn 978 1 84383 586 8 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk ip12 3df, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mount Hope Ave, Rochester, ny 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. This publication is printed on acid-free paper Designed and typeset in Garamond Premier Pro by David Roberts, Pershore, Worcestershire Printed in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents List of Illustrations  vii List of Tables  viii Preface  x A Note on the Use of the Term ‘Score’  xii Glossary  xiv Abbreviations  xv Plot Summary  xvi Casts of the First Performances  xviii Introduction  1

1 The Prague Don Giovanni  13 A possible cut Prague musical fingerprints Errors



2 The Vienna Don Giovanni  31 The Graz score The Court Theatre score (O.A.361/1) The Court Theatre parts (O.A.361/Stimmen) Later copies deriving from the Court Theatre score The Lausch and Juilliard scores The casting of the Vienna Don Giovanni The full version (Vienna 1) An intermediate version? The final versions Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b Da Ponte’s story



3 The late eighteenth-century dissemination of Don Giovanni  115 Guardasoni’s performances of Don Giovanni in 1788 and 1789 The reception of the Vienna Music in 1790s Prague The 1798 Vienna revival The autograph of Don Giovanni after Mozart’s death The Breitkopf & Härtel full score Later manuscripts based on the published score

Conclusion  142 A theory of transmission Summary

appendix 1 Error transmission  151 1.1 A selection of Set A Prague errors 1.2 A selection of Set B Prague errors 1.3 A selection of readings in O.A.361/1 differing from the autograph 1.4 A selection of errors in O.A.361/1 deriving from the Prague Conservatory score 1.5 A selection of errors in O.A.361/1

appendix 2 Page-break analysis  158 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Prague version Vienna 2a version (Lausch score) Vienna 2a version ( Julliard score) Vienna 2b version Graz score

Notes  189 Bibliography  203 Index  209

Illustrations Figures fig. 1 Transmission method (a)  8 fig. 2 Transmission method (b)  8 fig. 3 The potential locations and transmission patterns of autograph revisions  11 fig. 4 The relationship between Mozart’s additions and the copyists  17 fig. 5 Hypothetical transmission scheme for the Prague Don Giovanni  19 fig. 6 Gathering sizes of Act I in the Donaueschingen score  21 fig. 7 The two-bar phrase structure of the G major minuet  26 fig. 8 The transmission of Don Giovanni from Prague to the Vienna Court Theatre  32 fig. 9 The text of ‘Sola, sola in bujo loco’  40 fig. 10 A comparison of the layout and gathering structure in scores of Vienna 2a  59 fig. 11 An outline of the sequence of Vienna versions  81 fig. 12 The transmission of the graveyard scene  93 fig. 13 The decision to use an on-stage Harmonie in the Act II finale  95 fig. 14 Performances of the 1788 Don Giovanni in Vienna  113 fig. 15 A theory of transmission of the Mozart Da Ponte operas  142 fig. 16 The textual relationship between libretto and score  144 fig. 17 A summary of the early versions of Don Giovanni  147

Musical Examples   ex. 1 A comparison between the endings of ‘Ah pietà’, ‘Ah pietà compassion’ and the start of ‘Restati qua’  76   ex. 2 ‘Ribaldo audace’ with accompaniment for trombones alone  89   ex. 3 ‘Ribaldo audace’: the disposition of the parts for bassoons and trombones  89

Tables   1 The sources of Don Giovanni  5   2 Autograph additions in the Prague Conservatory score  16   3 A comparison between the gathering numbers of the Prague and Donaueschingen scores at the start of Act II  18   4 Variant readings in the Prague recitatives not entered in the autograph  23   5 Variant readings of the Prague text originating in uncorrected mistakes or by accident  24   6 Scene numbers in Act II after the sestetto (Prague version)  25   7 The font size of the libretto W1  38   8 Stage instructions in the first part of Act I  44   9 Singers’ names added to the first-desk violin 1 part (O.A.361/Stimmen)  53 10 The personnel of the Italian opera company in Vienna, spring 1787 to Carnival 1788  61 11 The personnel of the Italian opera company in Vienna, spring 1788 to Carnival, as reported in the ITS 1789  62 12 Original numbering system of Act II in O.A.361/1 and the autograph  64 13 The numbering of Act II in O.A.361/Stimmen  66 14 A comparison between the Prague, Vienna 1, 2a and 2b versions  68 15 The hypothetical intermediate version  70 16 Scene numbers in Act II after the sestetto (Vienna version)  71 17 The main differences between Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b  83 18 The scene headings of the graveyard scene in scores  90 19 The scene headings of the graveyard scene in libretti  91 20 The development of Scenes XIV and XV  97 21 A proposed cut in the duet between Don Ottavio and Donna Anna in the scena ultima  105 22 Da Ponte’s account of the Vienna Don Giovanni  111 23 The advertised cast of Don Giovanni for the Leipzig performance on 15 June 1788  116 24 Stage instructions for ‘Ah pietà’ and ‘O statua gentilissima’  119 25 Evidence of Guardasoni’s Warsaw production in the Prague Conservatory score  123 26 The Viennese pieces in the Prague Conservatory score  127 27 Cuts and changes in the Prague Conservatory score  128 28 The original order of the numbers in O.A.361/2  131 29 Sections of the autograph missing  133 30 The Vienna versions of Don Giovanni  148

For Thérèse

Preface This study was undertaken during a period of study leave awarded to me by Queen’s University Belfast in 2007. In support of the project, I have received grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance of John Irving and Mark Everist in obtaining these. I am grateful to staff in the following libraries for their help: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Vienna); Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Bibliothek der Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (Salzburg); Moravské Zemské Museum (Brno); Badische Landesbibliothek (Karlsruhe); Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (Vienna); Staatsund Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietsky (Hamburg); Württembergische Landesbibliothek (Stuttgart); Zentralbibliothek (Zurich); Beethoven Archiv (Bonn); Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv (Graz); Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek (Fulda); Stadtbibliothek (Winterthur); Zentralbibliothek (Lucerne); Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg (Frankfurt am Main); Juilliard School of Music (New York). I have received a most hospitable welcome from Hans Ernst Weidinger, Michael Hüttler, Johannes Schweitzer and other colleagues at the Don Juan Archiv (Vienna), whenever visiting to study this excellent collection of Don Giovanni materials. The philological analysis of the early manuscript copies constitutes a significant lacuna in the existing scholarship of Mozart’s operas. In my study of Così fan tutte I focused on the autograph and its secrets, but also made use of around twenty or so eighteenth-century copies to uncover aspects of its early performance history. Detailed analysis of patterns of error transmission and layout enabled me to propose a sequence of revisions through which the opera went during the composer’s lifetime. Similar techniques are used in the present study which aims to refine our knowledge of the Vienna Don Giovanni, perhaps still the least well understood of any of Mozart’s major operatic revisions. This will lead on to a consideration of how the late-eighteenth century came to terms with the existence of the newly composed music. The picture that will emerge from this wider study is at odds with the received view, which (to exaggerate slightly) continues to see the work in two discrete, precisely definable texts, each sanctioned by the composer alone: an authentic Prague version; and an authentic Vienna version. In reality Don Giovanni won its place at the heart of European culture in a pragmatic world in which hybrid versions flourished to the exclusion of these ‘purer’ originals. In undertaking this project, I have benefited greatly from two classic studies.

Preface

xi

I should like to acknowledge the work of my friend and fellow viol player Yo Tomita, whose monumental commentary on Das Wohltemperierte Clavier II showed how the patient collation of textual minutiae can illuminate important conceptual issues in the composition and reception of a work of art.1 Another magnum opus, Dexter Edge’s PhD thesis ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’ constitutes a major advance in our understanding of the systems used in the transmission of Mozart’s music.2 This erudite and (up to the present at least) rather undervalued work has been indispensable throughout. One of the major findings of this thesis was its demonstration of how unexpectedly tenuous our grasp is on the exact nature of what was performed at a Mozart operatic première. Autograph and libretto may say one thing, but the parts used by the orchestral musicians on the opening night quite another. This insistence on the ‘inescapable fluidity’ of the text of a theatrical work is the message of my study too. The origins of Don Giovanni have recently been re-examined in great detail by Weidinger in his doctoral thesis.3 This challenges the accepted narrative of the Prague commission and demonstrates that the genesis of the opera was a richer and more complex story than has hitherto been acknowledged. Dr Weidinger read a draft of my study and provided a detailed and invaluable commentary on it. References to him without bibliographic citation refer to this reading. Another important recent thesis is Magnus Tessing Schneider’s ‘The Charmer and the Monument’, which examines issues relating to the original performances, insofar as information can be retrieved from the copious reception history pertaining to Luigi Bassi.4 This imaginative and thoughtprovoking work stresses the importance of theatrical considerations and thus provides a valuable corrective to a musicologist whose first instinct is always to study the musical sources. Following the conference ‘Mozart in Prague’, organised by Kathryn Libin on behalf of the Mozart Society of America and the Society for EighteenthCentury Music (Prague, 6–13 June 2009), I embarked on a second Don Giovanni study, which focuses on the opera troupe managed in succession by Pasquale Bondini and Domenico Guardasoni. Friends and colleagues present at this conference, and also at the Mozart Society of America session at the AMS Annual Meeting in Philadelphia (12–15 November 2009), have been very generous in commenting on drafts of this new project. In doing so, they have contributed indirectly but materially to the present study as well. I should like to thank in particular John Rice, Magnus Tessing Schneider, Neal Zaslaw, Paul Corneilson, Pierluigi Petrobelli and Dorothea Link.

A Note on the Use of the Term ‘Score’ To the present-day reader, any reference to the ‘score’ of a Mozart opera will conjure up an image of a fixed entity: a volume in a collected edition, impressively bound, which presents a musical text refined by generations of scholarship. No such thing existed in eighteenth-century theatres. An opera ‘score’ in the 1780s would have consisted of a pile of unbound individual pieces, perhaps kept in paper folders for convenience, or else loosely tied together. When Mozart decided to revise Don Giovanni in Vienna, he did not have to pull his autograph apart; all he had to do was remove from the pile any pieces that were not going to be performed on this occasion, and add in any new music. That was indeed the reason why opera scores were not bound; there was no expectation at all that one production would contain the same music as the next. The converse, if anything, was true; there was a fairly strong probability that each new production would require changes. That was the reality of the operatic culture within which Mozart worked. He provided substitute pieces for his own operas and for the works of colleagues, and there is no reason to assume that he would have been surprised to learn that others did the same for his works. It would be impossible to write a study such as this one without using terms such as ‘autograph’, ‘score’, ‘manuscript’, ‘source’, or ‘exemplar’ which appear to imply a single fixed object, but it is of fundamental importance to keep in mind that these ‘entities’ were not yet in an immutable form. Indeed, throughout the entire period of their active use, opera scores probably remained in these loose piles of gatherings, resembling nothing so much as packs of cards ready to be shuffled, perhaps with a discard pile for abandoned pieces and a pick-up pile of new material. In many cases the component parts of an extant score were not fixed until the mid- or even the late-nineteenth century, and it is therefore most unwise to assume that the order now preserved necessarily represents the way in which the material was originally conceived or used. In this study, I distinguish between the ‘reference’ copy and the ‘conducting’ copy, labels of convenience, chosen to represent the two main functions of opera scores in the late eighteenth century. The former was retained after the first performance run (possibly by the copyist who enjoyed the initial rights of distribution) for use as an exemplar for commercial copies. Its text therefore tended to remain static. The latter consisted of materials used in rehearsing and directing the opera, and its text tended to reflect the fluidity of the evolving work. Without doubt, scores of all kinds were used interchangeably, sometimes fulfilling one function, sometimes the other, yet it is often possible to discern

A Note on the Use of the Term ‘Score’

xiii

what the primary function of a particular copy might have been. In the reference score, for example, mistakes often went undetected but were fully corrected when spotted, while by contrast in the rehearsal room, significant errors would readily come to light but would not necessarily be rectified properly on the spot, other than in the parts. In all three of the Mozart operas that I have so far investigated – Così fan tutte, the Prague Don Giovanni and the Vienna Don Giovanni – philological evidence has pointed unequivocally to the fact that at least two early copies were involved in the first performance run and in the subsequent dissemination of the work, but any certainty ends here, and it is usually far from clear how the extant materials fit into this picture. It has been pointed out to me, for example, that only one ‘theatre’ score of operas performed in Vienna usually survives. On a strict definition, a ‘theatre’ score would be a copy commissioned, paid for and retained by the opera company. In this study, however, I use the term more loosely to incorporate any copy that might be associated with the first production and its aftermath. As yet, there is no firm evidence to suggest who might have owned additional scores, but, especially in the case of copyists like Sukowaty in Vienna and perhaps Anton Grams in Prague who worked for the theatres, a reasonable working hypothesis might be that it was their practice to make an immediate second copy on their own behalf, in the hope of increasing their revenue from the sale of scores of a new opera.

Glossary bifolium bifoliation numbers

a folded sheet containing two leaves (four sides) numbers applied to each bifolium, that is a new number every fifth side nested bifolia a series of sheets folded inside each other, so that, for example, the following leaves are joined: 1–8, 2–7, 3–6, 4–5 gathering a consignment of paper, usually in the form of nested bifolia, the basic copying unit gathering numbers numbers applied by copyists to successive gatherings: 1/1, 2/1, 3/1 … for Act I and 1/2, 2/2, 3/2 … for Act II ‘extra Blatt’ a term used by Mozart to indicate the existence of an additional leaf, containing the wind parts of finales or large ensembles particella a continuity draft (often excluding the ending) containing, in the case of opera, the vocal line(s) and the bass line, but only fragments of the upper strings or wind parts red crayon used by copyists and occasionally by Mozart himself to correct, annotate or otherwise edit a score copied in ink page- and line-break analysis a method of recording the physical layout of a score by means of noting the number of bars copied per page and line Vienna 1 a version of Don Giovanni incorporating the new Vienna pieces in the full Prague version Vienna 2a an abbreviated version of the opera shortly before its final revision, transmitted in commercial copies by Lausch and Sukowaty Vienna 2b the final abbreviated version

Abbreviations P W1 W2 NMA: DG NMA: KB AmZ COJ ITS JRMA MBA MISM MJ M&L MS MT

il / dissoluto / punito. / o sia / il d. giovanni (Prague, 1787) il / dissoluto / punito / o sia / il d. giovanni (Vienna, 1787) il / dissoluto / punito. / o sia / il d. giovanni (Vienna, 1788) Wolfgang Plath & Wolfgang Rehm, Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie II, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17, Don Giovanni (Kassel, 1968) Wolfgang Rehm (& Wolfgang Plath), Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie II, Kritische Berichte, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17: Don Giovanni (Kassel, 2003) Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung Cambridge Opera Journal Indice de’teatrali spettacoli Journal of the Royal Musical Association Wilhelm Bauer, Otto Erich Deutsch, & Joseph Eibl, Mozart: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen: Gesamtausgabe (Kassel, 1962–75) Mitteilungen der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum Mozart-Jahrbuch Music & Letters Mozart Studien Musical Times

Plot Summary The plot of Don Giovanni is very well known, but as this study will focus in detail on the differences between the Prague and Vienna versions, it may be useful here to summarise them. Scene numbers refer to the NMA: DG edition. Prague

Vienna

act i

act i

XIV Recitative: Left alone, after Donna Come mai Anna’s withdrawal, creder deggio Don Ottavio can hardly believe that a nobleman could be guilty of such perfidy. He must get to the truth of the matter.

XIV Recitative: Left alone, after Donna Come mai Anna’s withdrawal, Don creder deggio Ottavio can hardly believe that a nobleman could be guilty of such perfidy. He must get to the truth of the matter. Aria: Dalla sua pace

act ii IX Aria: Unmasked as a Ah pietà, conspirator with his signori miei master Don Giovanni, Leporello asks for mercy and attempts to justify his behaviour, before running off.

Don Ottavio expresses his love for Donna Anna. She sighs, and he sighs; her anger is his own. act ii

IX Aria: omitted Ah pietà, signori miei

IX Recitative: Leporello attempts to Ah pietà … justify his behaviour, but compassion with less coherence; he feigns complete confusion, before running off. X Recitative: Ferma perfido

Donna Elvira attempts but fails to prevent Leporello’s escape. Don Ottavio vows vengeance.

Aria: Don Ottavio believes Il mio tesoro that consolation for Donna Anna’s grief will soon come; her wrongs will be avenged.

X Recitative: Ferma perfido

Donna Elvira attempts but fails to prevent Leporello’s escape. Don Ottavio vows vengeance.

Aria: omitted Il mio tesoro

Plot Summary

Prague

xvii

Vienna Xa Recitative: Restati qua

Zerlina drags Leporello back in by the hair and with the help of a peasant ties him to a chair.

Duetto: Zerlina taunts the terrified Per queste Leporello. tue manine Xb Recitative: Amico, per pietà

Leporello dupes the peasant guarding him into fetching a glass of water, and he is able to make his escape.

Xc Recitative: Andiam, andiam

Zerlina returns with Donna Elvira expecting to find Leporello. Masetto enters with two peasants with news of a further attempted seduction by Don Giovanni. He and Zerlina leave to inform Don Ottavio.

Xd Recitative: In quali eccessi

Donna Elvira, left alone, agonises over her conflicting emotions.

Aria: Mi tradì

A scoundrel he may be, but Donna Elvira cannot ignore her feelings for Don Giovanni.

Casts of the First Performances Character

Prague 1787

Vienna 1788

Don Giovanni Leporello Donna Anna Don Ottavio

Luigi Bassi Felice Ponziani Teresa Saporiti Antonio Baglioni

Francesco Albertarelli Francesco Benucci Aloisia Lange Francesco Morella

Donna Elvira Zerlina Masetto / Commendatore

Caterina Micelli Caterina Bondini Giuseppe Lolli

Caterina Cavalieri Luisa Mombelli Francesco Bussani

Introduction

A

ccording to Da Ponte’s famous account of the Vienna reception of   Don Giovanni, everyone except the composer thought that the work was somehow flawed.1 Responding to the popular verdict, Mozart is supposed to have made alterations, but still his opera failed to please, and only after repeated performances did its true quality win recognition.2 The passage relating to Don Giovanni runs as follows: The Emperor called me in and, showering me with gracious expressions of praise, made me a gift of another hundred ‘zecchini’, and told me that he very much wanted to see Don Giovanni. Mozart returned [and] immediately gave the score to the copyist who hastened to prepare the parts, since Joseph had to leave. It was staged, and – dare I say it? – Don Giovanni did not please. Everyone, except Mozart, believed that something was lacking. Additions were made, some of the airs [arias] were changed, it was staged again, and [still] Don Giovanni did not please. And what did the Emperor say? ‘The opera is divine; it is perhaps more beautiful than Figaro, but it is not food for the teeth of my Viennese.’ I recounted this to Mozart, who replied without becoming upset: ‘Let them have time to chew on it.’ He was not mistaken. I managed, on his advice, to get the opera repeated often: at each performance the applause grew, and, little by little, even the Viennese with bad teeth appreciated its flavour and understood its beauty, and rated Don Giovanni among the most beautiful operas that had been performed in any theatre.3

In the absence of other evidence, this account has naturally had a strong influence on the way that the Vienna reception of Don Giovanni has been perceived in both scholarly and popular literature. That there might have been changes of mind about Don Giovanni both before and after its Vienna première goes without saying. An eighteenth-century opera did not consist of a fixed text; rather it was a fluid, constantly evolving enterprise, subject to a significant (and growing) element of collective responsibility. This is unproblematic as a historical concept, but it causes obvious difficulties when the time comes to define the precise form of a work in a published text. Of necessity a printed edition must consist of a single version, or at best a small number of variants, yet, as knowledge of eighteenth-century operatic practice has improved, the business of turning a fluid work into a fixed text has come to seem more and more like attempting to hammer a scholarly square peg into

2

The Vienna Don Giovanni

the round hole of historical reality. The purpose of this study is therefore to elucidate the compositional history of the Vienna Don Giovanni as a process, by defining the sequence of revisions that led from the Prague score to the opera as it was presented in 1788. What constitutes a revision is of course a moot point, since even the most trivial alteration changes a work. It would not be wrong to think of a Mozart opera as an unending stream of slightly different versions. On pragmatic grounds, however, I limit the use of the term ‘version’ to a state that involves a substantial contraction or expansion of existing material or else a significant reordering or reworking of it. The existence of multiple versions of an opera poses as many difficulties for the critic as it does for the editor. The underlying problem is the question of value, given that revision has the clear potential to improve or diminish rather than merely to change. Faced with the need to evaluate the process of revision, there has been a tendency to seek the greatest degree of perfection in one or other of its end points, either praising the original conception and thus of necessity disparaging any actions taken to revise, or proclaiming the steady improvement of a raw artwork, until the gem is finally polished to perfection. The difficulty with this is that it equates the act of revision with movement towards or away from some kind of abstract, aesthetically ideal version, but one divorced from the practicalities of the theatre. In reality the changes Mozart made to his operas, especially those agreed during the rehearsal period, show him confronting an imperfect world: singers with vocal limitations or poor acting skills; worries about overall length; and restrictions on expenditure. A more open-minded approach to the whole question of appraising operatic revision has been advocated by Parker.4 If well-established critical preconceptions can be set to one side, then even much-maligned second thoughts such as the new arias Mozart provided for the Vienna revival of Figaro, can be judged on their own merits. To take such a neutral starting point in the case of the Vienna Don Giovanni is immediately to confront the decisive verdict of history. Notwithstanding the acknowledged quality of the two new arias, the revised version came to be regarded as wholly inferior in dramatic terms to the Prague original. Einstein was forceful in his condemnation, claiming that Mozart had ‘positively ruined’ Act II.5 Sadie was equally dismissive: ‘The fact is that the opera was conceived and composed without these pieces, and that its shape is the stronger, its characterisation the more consistent, without them.’6 In the light of such a negative response, the Vienna version of the opera might have remained a mere historical curiosity, but for one significant obstacle: the beauty of the new music Mozart created for it. Whatever critics and historians might say, the popular verdict has long since been given: the two arias at least must be found a place.

Introduction

3

The story of how the late eighteenth century came to terms with the additional Vienna music is the other theme of this study. It is a fascinating tale in its own right, encompassing the death of Mozart, the dispersal of the autograph of Don Giovanni, the attempts to reconstitute it at the time of the sale of the Nachlass, the competition between two leading publishers to acquire it, and finally the publication of the first full score. These events conspired to establish a pattern of reception that persists to this day. The literature on Don Giovanni is immense, but that relating specifically to the Vienna musical sources is restricted to a few important contributions. The identification of the Court Theatre score (O.A.361/1) can be credited to Bitter who described his discovery as somewhat fortuitous.7 In his monograph on early productions of the opera, he included a detailed critical commentary for this source.8 The NMA volume of Don Giovanni appeared in 1968, edited by Plath and Rehm.9 In the preface they established the terms of reference for all subsequent discussion of the philology of this opera. Their decision to present the Prague version as the main text and to place the Vienna material in an appendix proved uncontroversial. Clearly less appropriate for this edition would have been any form of mixed version, despite the overwhelming preference for such concoctions during the two centuries of the opera’s performance life. Nor did the idea of a Fassung letzter Hand seem apposite, as this might have implied that only in Vienna was Don Giovanni perfected. What did provoke some adverse reaction, however, was the manner in which the NMA editors sought to justify their choice. They referred, somewhat disparagingly as it seemed to some commentators, to the ‘experimental’ and ‘variable’ character of the Vienna version. In his widely praised Cambridge Handbook of 1981, Rushton, for one, argued that it was going too far to claim that the Prague original was the only authentic version.10 In a symposium published in 1987 Rehm confronted his critics (primarily Kunze) with a robust defence of this key editorial decision.11 Although his discussion ranged widely and included questions of dramaturgy and genre, the central justification for the NMA text remained a pragmatic one: the state of the sources. The Vienna materials embodied far too many uncertainties to allow a definitive view to be taken of the version prepared by Mozart for his home city. There was a lengthy delay before the appearance of the critical commentary (NMA: KB), and in the interim Edge completed his ground-breaking thesis ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’. This contained a wealth of detail on the transmission and reception of Mozart’s music in late eighteenth-century Vienna. Specifically in connection with Don Giovanni, he identified and described some of the original orchestral parts used in the 1788 performances.12 Particularly striking was his conclusion that the Vienna version of the opera had been more variable

4

The Vienna Don Giovanni

in form than even the NMA: DG editors had assumed, and that Mozart had initially incorporated the three newly composed pieces in the uncut Prague version. The critical commentary finally appeared in 2003, long after Plath’s death in 1995.13 In line with the usual practice of the edition, it included a description of the most important secondary sources, but there was little textual analysis of them. Much of the work on the commentary must have been done many years before the date of publication, but it was possible to include reference to Edge’s recent discoveries, although the result was largely a restatement of the views originally published in their edition. Given the length of time that had elapsed since its appearance in 1968, there were naturally some changes of mind, the most notable being on the question of whether Mozart’s hand could be identified in the Court Theatre score (O.A.361/1). In recent years, important work on the Prague sources of Mozart’s operas has been published by Jonášová. Two articles relating to Don Giovanni have appeared: one discusses a newly discovered fragment in the Strahov Monastery, and the other some correspondence between Bernhard Gugler and Smetana, concerning the survival of the original parts and the readings contained in them.14 Gugler was the first person to undertake a detailed philological study of the opera, having been granted access to the autograph in Baden-Baden by its then owner Pauline Viardot-Garcia.15 He compared the original manuscript with the published score, and continued his textual investigations by seeking out early manuscript copies and sets of parts. His edition was published in 1868.16 Throughout all this work, the answer to the question of what was actually performed on the night of 7 May 1788 remained elusive. Probably source study will never be able to provide a definitive response, but in a sense the failure to do so will merely confirm that this is perhaps not the most important question after all. By diverting attention away from the (doubtless unrecoverable) text of the first performance itself, we are acknowledging that ownership of a work, once conceived and performed, passes from creators to executants and audiences, and that it continues to change at their behest. The contribution that I hope to make to this complex subject is based upon a philological analysis of the early sources. Don Giovanni left a spectacularly large footprint in the documentary record, and even a simple compilation of all the early copies and arrangements would fill a small volume. The list in Table 1 therefore consists only of sources that I have made use of in the present study.

Introduction

5

table 1  The sources of Don Giovanni Location (RILM siglum)

Call no.

Comments*

Prague version (early copies) Prague Konservatoř, Archiv a Knihovna 1 C 276/1–4 (CZ‑Pk)

B

Prague Konservatoř, Archiv a Knihovna 6669/1–2 (CZ‑Pk)

B; Kuchař keyboard arrangement

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek (D-Ka)

Mus Ms 1386a–b B; originally in Donaueschingen

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek (D‑Ka)

Mus Ms 1386d

B; originally in Donaueschingen; Kuchař keyboard arrangement

Prague, Strahov Monastery (CZ‑Pst)

XLVII.A.63

B; incomplete

Prague version (later copies) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz (D‑Bsb)

Mus Ms 15 151

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussicher Kulturbesitz (D‑Bsb)

55 MS 10147

Nelahozeves Castle, Lobkowicz Collection (CZ‑Nlobkowicz)

X De 8

Brno, Moravské Zemské Museum (CZ‑Bm)

A 17 032

Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ (I‑Fc)

D. I. 414–17

Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ (I‑Fc)

EV.40–1

Hamburg, Staats‑ und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietzky (D‑Hs)

ND VII 252

London, British Library (GB‑Lbl)

R.M.22.i.1–2

Lucerne, Zentralbibliothek (CH‑Lz)

AML II, 30 (Ms. 1524)

Naples, Conservatorio di Musica S. Pietro a Majella (I‑Nc)

RARI 5.3.28

Naples, Conservatorio di Musica S. Pietro a Majella (I‑Nc)

RARI 29.4.7 [Olim: RARI 5.3.27]

Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek (D‑Sl)

HB XVII 454a–c continues overleaf

6

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 1 continued

Location (RILM siglum)

Call no.

Winterthur, Stadtbibliothek (CH‑W)

Dep. Mk 732 (Ms 7760)

Zurich, Zentralbibliothek (CH‑Zz)

Ms Q 852

Comments*

keyboard score

Vienna 2a version (early copies) Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ (I‑Fc)

F.P.T. 265

V; Lausch copy

Salzburg, Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum (A‑Sm)

Rara 527/99

V; Lausch keyboard arrangement

Vienna 2a version (later copy) Juilliard School of Music, New York (US‑NYj)

Sukowaty copy; Source J in NMA: KB; Prague version from the graveyard scene onwards

Vienna 2b version (early copies) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (A‑Wn)

O.A.361/1

V

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (A‑Wn)

O.A.361/ Stimmen

V; parts, incorrectly listed as O.A.361/5 in NMA: KB, p. 50

Bonn, Beethoven‑Haus, Beethoven Archiv (D‑BNba)

An 313 527, Inv I 54

V; Act I

Vienna 2b version (later copies) Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (A‑Wn)

O.A.361/2

Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ (I‑Fc)

D III 428–31

Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ (I‑Fc)

B II 183–4

Viennese copy of Prague version (early) Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv (D‑Gla)

Joh. – Jos. – V; Act I, with insert of Fux‑Konserv., ‘Dalla sua pace’ k413, Nr. 41.702

Viennese copy of Prague version (later) Fulda, Hochschul‑ und Landesbibliothek (D‑FUl)

Kasten m 11/292–293

sections only

Frankfurt, Stadt‑ und Universitätsbibliothek (D‑F)

Mus Hs.628

the graveyard scene

 * Probable places of origin: B = Bohemian; V = Viennese

Introduction

7

A significant difficulty in compiling a summary of the sources of Don Giovanni is that there is not an exact match between Viennese copies (manuscripts produced in Vienna or at any rate by scribes trained in the Viennese copying system) and scores of the Vienna versions. In several instances, copies with Viennese palaeographical features turn out to transmit, in whole or in part, the Prague version routinely disseminated by Bohemian copyists. In Table 1, scores are therefore categorised primarily according to the version of the opera they transmit: the Prague version, or one of the two Vienna versions 2a and 2b. In the case of the earliest copies, the probable place of origin is given: Bohemian (B) or Viennese (V). Fuller details of watermarks, scribal hands and other palaeo­graphical features, where known, are given in the text or notes. Even the terms ‘early’ and ‘late’ are problematic. For all the advances in understanding the copying systems used to produce an opera score, I doubt whether it is yet possible to date manuscripts on palaeographical grounds more precisely than to a half decade or so. A bigger problem in a philological study, though, is that ‘early’ can mean two quite different things. In an absolute sense, it defines a copy made close in time to the original. In that sense, ‘early’ in Table 1 indicates manu­ scripts probably produced in Mozart’s lifetime. But in a relative sense, ‘early’ is also a term of convenience for copies closely related to the original, that is, with few intervening links in the chain. For the purposes of this study, I have looked at ‘later’ copies (in the absolute sense) up to around 1800. It is important to do so, because in some cases, such as Act II in the Vienna 2b version, there simply are no other extant scores. After the autograph itself, the most significant sources are the theatre scores – copies prepared for practical use in rehearsing, conducting and transmitting the text of the opera. In order to make the best use of these, it is essential to understand the mechanisms that were in place for providing performing ­materials during the hectic weeks leading up to a première. One of the main findings of this study is that on philological grounds it seems certain that at least two copies of the full score were prepared. For clarity I distinguish between the ‘conducting’ score and the ‘reference’ score, although it can hardly be stressed too strongly that the actual pattern of their usage was nothing like as distinct as this would imply. At the end of this study, I will propose a theory of transmission for the Mozart Da Ponte operas, based on the character and purpose of these two types of source. Dorothea Link has pointed out that this conclusion appears to be somewhat at odds with the fact that only one such copy usually survives in the theatre archive. It is possible that the second copy was property of the Court Theatre copyists, but this remains far from clear. There are two possible ways in which a brace of scores could have been

8

The Vienna Don Giovanni

autograph

score 1

score 2

errors a layout x

errors a+b layout x

fig. 1  Transmission method (a)

produced quickly from the autograph. One is that a relay system was adopted, the first copyist handing material on for immediate duplication. This procedure would result in the second copyist reproducing the mistakes of his colleague whilst introducing new ones of his own, but he would replicate the page layout exactly as he received it, as shown in Fig. 1. Alternatively, both copyists could have worked directly and independently from the autograph, in which case separate sets of errors would be produced, and the layout would differ, at least in small ways, as shown in Fig. 2. There is no good reason to assume that the piles of individual movements comprising these two ‘copies’ would have remained discrete in the earliest stages of their use. The exact duplication of the size of the gatherings (often, though not always, a feature of the copying process) would have facilitated the switching of sections of the score from one pile to the other. All this has important implications for the philological analysis of an opera text. If there was even a limited amount of early shuffling between our two notional piles of scores, what was eventually bound as an apparently single unified source might well embody up to four distinct patterns of errors and other minor textual variants: a (copyist 1 working from the autograph); b (copy­ ist 2 working from the autograph); b+a (copyist 1 working from ­copyist  2);

autograph

score 1

score 2

errors a layout x

errors b layout y

fig. 2  Transmission method (b)

Introduction

9

a+b  ­copyist 2 working from copyist 1). A further complexity is that the autograph itself might then re-enter the copying chain. There is good evidence, for ­example, that it was sometimes made available to the copyists employed to produce parts.17 My analysis of the textual variants in the extant Vienna Court ­Theatre score of Così fan tutte (O.A.146) remained bogged down for many years because of a failure to appreciate that the entry of different sets of mistakes into the performing materials was inevitable from the very start of the copying process. It seemed as though it would be impossible to establish the history of this source through its subsequent use as the main transmission exemplar. Yet once I realised that what is now a single score was actually a conflation of two original copies, more specifically, that in the early nineteenth century most of the Act II finale was replaced by material from a second source, many of the difficulties vanished. As the first performance approached, the two piles of individual scores would be put to increasingly distinct practical uses, and this in turn would begin to influence their character. In the reference materials, errors would be carefully corrected whenever they came to light, in order to avoid the dissemination of a corrupt text, although paradoxically their identification (at all) was probably less likely than in the rehearsal room. On the other hand, in the conducting materials, mistakes, although more likely to come to light, were not always rectified adequately. Sometimes all one sees is a red crayon blob where an error was apparently spotted during a rehearsal, but which was not then tidied up. At the first performances Mozart could have conducted from his own autograph, but the failure to mark cuts unambiguously (or even at all) suggests that it would have been risky to direct a live performance this way, the more so since an assistant often took over after the first few nights.18 Next we must consider how the system coped with changes of mind. Significant revisions, amounting to more than just the polishing of surface detail, are of especial significance in the case of Don Giovanni. These would be entered in the autograph, and this in itself had the potential to cause confusion, with different versions of the same piece/passage lying around the copyists’ desks. Smaller-scale changes, made by Mozart during the later stages of rehearsal when his autograph was no longer to hand, were sometimes entered by him in one of the theatre scores and an assistant might (or might not) later transfer them to the other performing materials. A problem for the modern-day analyst of these very complex sources is that the process of making changes usually consisted of two stages, with a new version first being tried out and then, if it was seen to work, being incorporated as an integral part of the text. Provisional changes would be noted in red crayon, leaving the original still visible, but once it had been decided to make them permanent, the passages no longer required would

10

The Vienna Don Giovanni

usually be concealed through the use of pasted paper slips or the stitching up of redundant pages. To add still further to the philological complexity of analysing a process of revision that had to produce a functionally standardised text between the autograph, at least two working scores, the parts, and many other types of material such as vocal role books, a score for the prompter, and a score for the use of the musician undertaking the keyboard arrangement, it is clear that in the days leading up to the première, composing, copying, revising and rehearsing were no longer sequential activities (if indeed they ever were) but started to overlap to an increasing extent. It is only too easy to imagine a copyist hard at work replicating material from one score that the composer, rehearsing with the performers in another room, had in fact just decided to cut or amend in the other. A matter of hours or even minutes might determine whether a copyist received material: (a) with changes not yet marked; or (b) with them visible in the source copy but not yet confirmed; or (c) with them confirmed and perhaps sealed. The intense pressure of time under which last-minute decisions had to be implemented, accounts for the element of organised chaos often seen in the corpus of the performing materials as a whole. By no means all changes were transferred from one copy to the other, and, as we shall see several times during the course of this study, the result was often a dividing of the ways between the opera as performed and the opera as transmitted. In the light of these well-established, workable but complex copying practices, it is very clear that any attempt to define precisely the extent of the composer’s own contribution to the process of revision is doomed to fail. In Fig. 3 an attempt is made to demonstrate schematically the range of locations where authentic revisions might be located. The two fundamental problems in establishing the precise limits of the composer’s contribution are obvious. (a) It is not now possible to compile a comprehensive list of every autograph amendment made by Mozart, since some will have been added to materials now lost. (b) In the corpus of revisions entered by copyists, we cannot distinguish those mandated by the composer in one way or another from those that were not. In such an intensively collaborative artform as opera, we should in any case allow that the composer might wish to delegate responsibility. If Mozart was willing to trust some of his assistants to reach competent musical decisions on minor matters, his silence (the failure to correct) may well represent his de facto acceptance of their judgement. In such a case, a composer’s non-intervention may represent authenticity. Needless to say, the difficulty in defining the exact boundaries of the composer’s input is problematic only in the context of the traditional view of the work as an entity under single authorial control.

Introduction

11

autograph

reference score

conducting score

parts

fig. 3  The potential locations and transmission patterns of autograph revisions

Another philological tool, very useful in the case of Don Giovanni, is the detailed analysis of the text and stage directions. These often exist in divergent forms and thus may have useful chronological information embedded in them. As it happens, this opera makes a particularly appropriate study for this type of investigation: the text survives in three libretti, in autograph scores for the original and the revised Vienna versions, and in early manuscript copies of both.19 Moreover, we have it from Da Ponte himself that he spent eight days in Prague training the singers who were to create the roles, before being recalled to Vienna. This is a rare piece of direct evidence to confirm what is usually assumed: that the role of a modern stage director was sometimes taken by the Court Theatre poet.20 Just as the composer would continue to refine his musical score during rehearsal, so the librettist, directing the action, would continue to adjust the stage directions in the light of his practical experience working with the cast. It is not unusual to find stage directions (including references to the sets) still being changed, well after the text itself had been agreed.21 Especially in action ensembles and finales, Da Ponte included plenty of detailed instructions concerning stage business and manner of performance, but in his autograph score Mozart was typically quite selective. (An interesting contrary case will be discussed later in this study.) Dramatic moments in

12

The Vienna Don Giovanni

the plot – the death of the Commendatore, the destruction of Don Giovanni – were usually noted in the score, but the details of the physical action were often omitted or else heavily abbreviated. Certain categories of information, however, were routinely included, because of their effect on musical performance: 1 entrances and exits: ‘parte’, ‘partono’, ‘entra’, ‘entrano’ It was clearly necessary for the composer to keep track of who was on stage, as there was the obvious danger in complex ensembles of continuing to write for someone who has just left. 2 instructions to one character to address another specifically: ‘à Leporello’, ‘à Donna Anna’ Again, this was necessary information for the musical score and the performers. 3 asides: ‘da parte’ Text spoken as an aside was enclosed in parentheses, but the stage instructions were also usually included in the musical score, as they might influence both composition and manner of performance. 4 quasi musical instructions: ‘forte’, ‘piano’, ‘sotto voce’ If the librettist specified these, Mozart would write them above the staff as stage instructions; if they were musical dynamics, they would go below. 5 descriptions of a character’s state of mind or manner of communicating: ‘ironicamente’ (ironically), ‘con risolutezza’ (with determination), ‘lietissimo’ (very happily) Directions of this kind could materially affect the vocal performance and therefore needed to be communicated to singers early on through their role-books. On rare occasions, Mozart himself contributed musical elements to the stage directions. In the Act I ballroom scene, he added in references to the specific dances being performed. During the course of this study, the various versions of stage instructions will be analysed for chronological information: instances where Mozart appears to have worked from an early draft of the libretto, or where unusually detailed comments were entered in the autograph.

[ 1 ]

The Prague Don Giovanni

T

he parts produced for the première appear now to be lost, but a ­theatre score with additions by Mozart is owned by the Prague Conservatory. The history of this important source is outlined by Jonášová in her article on Gugler’s edition of Don Giovanni.1 A conscientious and reflective scholar, Gugler adopted a thoroughly modern approach in seeking to locate and examine early manuscript copies and sets of parts. During the course of his preparatory work, he wrote to Franz Thomé in Prague, applying for permission to see the parts. He was informed that they had been lent to the Böhmische Landes Theater, and he was advised to contact Smetana, the current director. Thomé also drew Gugler’s attention to the existence of a very early score, believed by some old members of the orchestra to have been used by Mozart when he first conducted the opera. This tradition was by then long established. In the foreword to his Czech edition of 1825, Stiepenek claimed to have based his work on the ‘original Italian score from which Mozart himself directed the first performance’.2 However, by the mid-nineteenth century this manuscript was in Vienna, and Gugler wrote to ask for its return. Apparently hoping for an early response, he delayed replying to Smetana’s initial letter (now lost), but when there were no signs of progress, he decided to send him a detailed list of questions concerning the parts. The response has survived and is the subject of Jonášová’s study. Gugler was aware of the value of different types of source. He knew that parts simply copied from the Breitkopf & Härtel edition of 1801 would be of little interest, whereas old parts stemming directly or indirectly from 1787 might well contain much more significant information. He therefore requested Smetana to identify in his detailed responses whether the part in question was ‘alt’ (old) or ‘neu’ (new). Smetana obliged most of the time, though on a few occasions he forgot, leaving Gugler frustrated. The majority of Gugler’s sixteen questions concerned difficulties with the orchestral score of Don Giovanni, caused by the loss of Mozart’s autographs of the additional scores containing the wind, brass and trumpet parts. But his main concern was whether old trombone parts survived in Prague, since, partly through mischance, he had come up with the erroneous theory that these instruments were added only in Vienna. He had argued this at length in a series of articles in AmZ, and he was reluctant to abandon the theory, even when Smetana’s information appeared to negate it.3 Gugler apparently never got to see the Prague Conservatory score, although he acknowledges

14

The Vienna Don Giovanni

the assistance of the archivist in Vienna Karl Ferdinand Pohl, who examined it for him. Its subsequent history has not been fully established. It ended up in the collection of Fritz Donebauer, and in 1934 the Czech government bought it at an auction in Berlin. Since the nineteenth century, other manuscripts have come to light. The early Prague sources of Don Giovanni are the subject of a second article by Jonášová which reports the discovery of a new fragmentary score in the Strahov Monastery in Prague, and proposes a stemma of early sources.4 This gives a good picture of how the early transmission of the opera worked, although it does not take fully into account the potentially complex philological consequences of the possibility of there having been two initial copies, and thus different sets of errors and variants in the chain of transmission from the start. My analysis of the early Prague copies made use of a technique that I developed in my study of Così fan tutte: page- and line-break analysis. This depends on the fact that professional copyists (except when they were working from an autograph or making a copy in a different language) usually duplicated exactly what was put in front of them.5 There were two benefits in adopting this approach. First, it acted as a fail-safe mechanism, allowing accidental omissions and duplications of bars to be quickly spotted and easily remedied, in effect limiting the consequences of such mishaps. Secondly, commercial firms advertised the prices of individual pieces according to the number of sheets required, and so it was necessary to adhere to an agreed template quite strictly. Another technique of obvious benefit is the analysis of patterns of errors in the transmission process, a traditional tool of philology. The result of applying these methods to Don Giovanni was striking, and it may be of interest to retrace my steps to see how events unfolded. The first scores of the Prague version I examined were the important early copy originally in Donaueschingen now held in the Karlsruhe Badische Landesbibliothek, and two later scores, chosen at random from copies of the Prague version: manuscripts in Brno (A 17 032) and Hamburg (ND VII 252).6 The picture that emerged was exactly as I would have anticipated. The Donaueschingen and Hamburg scores proved to be nearly identical in layout, with at least 99 per cent of pages matching exactly. The Brno copy was prepared for a German language performance, and its very different layout reflects the amount of space required for the new text. On the other hand, all three scores proved to have a set of errors in common, which must derive from a single source close to the top of the chain of transmission. (Naturally, each individual score has unique mistakes as well, but these can be disregarded here.) Already a strong presumption was building up that the physical layout of the copy used to transmit the opera commercially after its Prague première and at least some of its textual inaccuracies

The Prague Don Giovanni

15

had been identified. But a surprise awaited me when I started to read through the Prague Conservatory score, now available to subscribers on-line in a digital repro­duction.7 The early date of this manuscript goes without question, since Act II contains some of the most substantive autograph additions to appear in any theatre copy of a Mozart opera. It soon became clear, however, that the physical layout of Act I bore no relation whatsoever to my template, and also that the errors in this presumed transmission copy were not to be found there either. In Act II the situation changed completely: the physical layout was now identical to that of the template, but still there were few signs of the errors. The probable explanation for the relationship between the Prague Conservatory score and the lost transmission exemplar as defined by my templates is that the process of duplication embraced both the copying paradigms outlined above. Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of how much of the opera was copied in Vienna before Mozart’s departure, it seems clear that in Prague, Act I was copied twice directly from whatever materials were supplied, while Act II was passed from one copyist to a colleague. Very likely the two were working together, perhaps even in the same room. The change from one method to the other might be a consequence of increasing time pressures and the approach of the première. At this point it was obviously necessary to analyse the scribal hands in the Prague Conservatory manuscript in order to determine whether the work-loads of the individual copyists had any bearing on the matter. In fact Act I was done by a single copyist with the exception of two replacement pages. Also in other (probably later) hands are a restitution of a cut in Don Giovanni’s Act I aria (‘Fin ch’han dal vino’) and a replacement bifolium in the Act I finale. In Act II the work was shared, with a second individual copying everything except for the terzetto (‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’), Zerlina’s Act II aria (‘Vedrai carino’), and most of the finale, all of which were done by the Act I copyist. Interestingly, in the Act II finale he took over from his colleague in the middle of a gathering (sides 14–24 of 17/2), which suggests that they worked in close proximity. The additional wind scores were similarly divided. The Act I copyist provided them for both finales, while the second scribe copied the additional parts for the Act II sestetto. The really striking thing about this division is the way that it mirrors the locations of Mozart’s autograph additions. There are three generally agreed examples: all occur in material copied by the first scribe in Act II as shown in Table 2. Other possible autograph additions in the Prague score are different in character and may have been added in by Mozart in the rehearsal room. These supply missing dynamic marks. Examples are: ‘Metà di voi’ (bar 61) and ‘Ah pietà’ (bar 81). It is very hard to be certain about isolated instances like these, especially

16

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 2  Autograph additions in the Prague Conservatory score

Ah taci, ingiusto core

These opening words of the Act II terzetto were omitted by the copyist and supplied by Mozart.a The text is not missing from the second side onwards. The autograph additions here (as elsewhere) were later enclosed in blue crayon brackets.

Di molte faci il lume

The copyist omitted the text of this recitative which was then put in by Mozart.b

Act II finale

Mozart inserted a cello line in bars 799–803 and 824–42.c These additions do not appear in the autograph, but are invariably seen in copies of the Prague version. d It is unclear whether they were incorporated into the Vienna versions. They are missing in O.A.361/1, but all other scores omit the scena ultima.

a Reproduced in NMA: KB, p. 220. b Reproduced in NMA: KB, p. 221. c Reproduced in NMA: DG, p. xxvi. Although Gugler had not seen the Prague Conservatory score, he was aware of the discrepancy between the autograph and other early sources. He thus asked Smetana (questions three and four) to check the cello part. Smetana replied that the added cello lines were there but that the part was a new one. Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, pp. 293–5. d Manfred Schuler, ‘Zeitgenössische Prager Abschriften von Werken Mozarts’, Hudební Vĕda 28 (1991), p. 298, proposed this feature as a reliable way of distinguishing between scores of the Prague and Vienna versions. This may well be true, although the lack of Viennese scores with the scena ultima makes it difficult to confirm.

since the composer’s hand is likely to have varied in such circumstances. Missing dynamics (especially in the bass line) were supplied by many different individuals during the rehearsal period, and Mozart could easily have done so too. The instances highlighted are possible, but the case does not seem particularly strong. The relationship between Mozart’s additions and the work of the two scribes is shown visually in Fig. 4. Mozart’s activities as a reviser (in this source) can therefore be pinpointed to a particular moment in time: when the first copyist was working on what he had to do in Act II. The composer’s contribution was of course by no means necessarily limited to this. He is just as likely to have made similar small-scale adjustments in (now) missing materials. Any such changes would appear as variants from the autograph in later copies (always assuming that the autograph itself was not amended at the same time), but in the absence of the originals it is no longer possible to distinguish the composer’s contribution from that of others. The plain truth of the matter is that the search for the authentic texts of a Mozart opera must extend far beyond the identification of the small number of autograph additions in theatre scores that the chances of

The Prague Don Giovanni act i

17

act ii

copyist 1 copyist 2 Mozart fig. 4  The relationship between Mozart’s additions and the copyists

fate have preserved for us. What appear merely to be changes made by copyists may also carry the composer’s imprimatur. Moreover, given the circumstances in which revisions were made, it is likely that some would have been transferred from one score to another with insufficient clarity and thus have been disseminated in garbled form, hindering any attempt to associate them with the meticulously precise composer. This poses a series of tough challenges to a modern-day editor, yet not to consider these questions merely because the answers cannot be ascertained with certainty, is an abdication of responsibility. It is clear that too hard-line an approach, rejecting, let us say, any reading without autograph support, is unlikely to recover for us a historically accurate text. Yet with one crucial link in the chain missing, we are obliged to confront an uncertain world, pondering the merits of possible revisions, garbled actual revisions, delegated revisions, verbally mandated revisions, and so on. At this point, the editor, no less than the performer, is participating in an act of re-creation. The chronology that emerges from this account of Mozart’s revisions in the Prague Conservatory score fits remarkably well with Tyson’s description of the paper types in the autograph of Don Giovanni.8 He established that the last pieces to be composed were those copied on a batch of ‘Prague’ paper, probably purchased after the composer’s arrival in the city. Not surprisingly, these include the Overture and the Act II Finale. But Mozart also worked at this relatively late stage on the opening sequence of pieces in Act II, including the three numbers in which Don Giovanni sings: ‘Eh via buffone’, ‘Deh vieni’; and ‘Metà di voi’.9 The first part of Act II was also the moment at which the two copyists of the Prague score began to interleave their work. Copyist 1 continued on from the end of Act I with the two pieces already composed in Vienna, ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’ and ‘Vedrai carino’.10 Copyist 2, whose main work started with the sestetto, was responsible for the scores of these three latecomers.11 A sign of the unusual degree of uncertainty surrounding the order of Act II can be seen in Mozart’s foliation numbering system. In both acts of Così fan tutte and in the first act of Don Giovanni, he made use of a single, long numbering sequence that included ensembles and recitatives. Into this were inserted the separately numerated arias. In Act II of Don Giovanni, however, all the pieces are individually numbered, and only the linking recitatives are part of the ‘long’ sequence.

18

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 3  A comparison between the gathering numbers of the Prague and Donaueschingen scores at the start of Act II Eh via buffone    recitative Ah taci, ingiusto core    recitative Deh vieni    recitative Metà di voi    recitative Vedrai carino Sola, sola

Prague

Donaueschingen

1/2 [2/2] 3/2 [4/2] 5/2 [6/2] 7/2 [8/2] 9/2 10/2 etc.

1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 etc.

Analysis of the gathering numbers in the Prague Conservatory score provides further useful evidence that Mozart was still unsure about some aspects of the first part of Act II. The Act I series follows a normal pattern (1/1 … 2/1 … 3/1 …) as does Act II (1/2 … 2/2 … 3/2 …). The uniform sequence of gathering numbers shows that this source probably did not come together as the result of a later shuffling of copies. A curious feature of the numbers at the start of Act II suggests that they were allocated before it had been completely copied. Jonášová, with the assistance of Dr Martina Rebmann, then at the Karlsruhe Badische Landesbibliothek, compared the Act II gatherings in the Prague and Donaueschingen scores.12 Their sizes match exactly, except at the start of Act II. Here the Conservatory score has an unusual sequence, with a new number at the start of each piece, even the short recitatives. The Donaueschingen score proceeds more normally with the recitatives incorporated into the gatherings of the main pieces. The probable explanation for this is the absence until very late on of the three pieces at the start of Act II. An unusually large number of gathering numbers held in reserve would allow the copyist to cope with any eventuality. When the reference score was copied (from which the Donaueschingen manuscript derives), the extra gathering numbers were subsumed into a more regular pattern, as shown in Table 3. As we shall see, the relationship between the lost score and other early Prague sources can be established through the analysis of patterns of errors. A further complication in the transmission process must now be considered, since it is necessary to account for the absence from the Conservatory manuscript of the widely distributed set of ‘Prague’ mistakes which I will classify

The Prague Don Giovanni

19

below as Set B errors. In Vienna, Sukowaty, employed by the Court Theatre from 1778 until at least 1796, had rights to the commercial exploitation of the opera scores that he produced.13 After a brief period of time, though, he would inevitably face competition from Lausch, Traeg and others. In Prague it is less clear what the relationship was between the primary commercial distributor Anton Grams, himself a double bass player in the opera orchestra, and other theatre copyists.14 Given the number and early date of the scores attributed to Grams, it is tempting to suggest that there was a formal agreement, yet alternative transmission routes cannot be ruled out. This implies that a third link in the chain must exist, before general distribution got underway, in the form of a source score held by Grams and by any other theatre copying enterprise. An overall scheme is illustrated in Fig. 5. The model presented here should not be regarded as definitive; rather it represents the minimum possible level of complexity in the transmission of early Don Giovanni scores that is compatible with the evidence so far discovered. The early divergence in the pattern of dissemination of Act I and Act II is confirmed by the layout of the supplementary scores of wind parts: those of Act I in the Prague Conservatory manuscript are found nowhere else: those of Act II broadly match those seen in other copies. The physical layout of the whole opera as disseminated in later copies was probably initiated at the stage of the autograph

act i

act ii

act i

act ii

transmission copy a

transmission copy b

unknown distributor

Anton Grams

fig.5  Hypothetical transmission scheme for the Prague Don Giovanni. The shaded boxes represent extant scores: the autograph and the Prague Conservatory copy

20

The Vienna Don Giovanni

earliest lost score and the error patterns that I first identified in Prague copies doubtless began to emerge at that stage as well. At the moment it is not possible to clarify whether the exemplar used by Anton Grams was derived directly from this lost score or through yet another copy. Alternatively, he may himself have owned the lost copy. In either event, at least two parallel lines of transmission then came into existence, as other distributors began to sell copies. The transmission scheme given in Fig. 5 differs slightly from the linear stemma hitherto favoured. The editors of NMA: KB proposed a scheme, and this was revised by Jonášová in the light of her discovery of the Strahov score.15 More recently, Schmid has proposed a further refinement in which the newly recovered Prague source in Berlin is integrated.16 My scheme differs in one significant respect: it suggests a triangular relationship at the start between the autograph and two initial theatre copies. But despite this difference, Fig. 5 resembles the stemma proposed by Schmid quite closely.17 His line runs: (1) autograph; (2) Prague Conservatory score; (3) mastercopy [my lost score]; and (4) wider distribution. The fourth level represents an exponential increase, as the opera (now a popular success) went into general distribution. At this stage, it becomes very hard to follow precisely what the relationships are, partly because the number of surviving early scores is quite small. Jonášová proposes two parallel streams; I also suggest a Grams branch plus at least one other. A factor to be taken into account is that certain Prague scores give the date on their title page as 1788. This is perhaps indicative of a new exemplar being commissioned as a reference score by a commercial distributor a few months after the première.18

A possible cut Investigating the earliest transmission patterns of a Mozart opera is a matter of greater significance than merely establishing the philological minutiae of various branches of a stemma; it takes us as close as we are likely to get to the identity of the opera at the moment of its first formal public hearings and during the immediate aftermath. Analysis of the early Prague sources of Don Giovanni suggests that significant doubt must remain over the status of one aria: Masetto’s ‘Ho capito’. The long-term intention to place this piece in the opera is clear enough; it appears in the early libretto W1 (although, as pointed out by Heartz, not yet in the bolder typography reserved for arias and ensembles), the final libretto P, and in the autograph.19 Tyson demonstrated in his analysis of the paper types that it was one of the last pieces to be composed.20 Another indication of this is that in the autograph it is headed ‘Atto i.mo’, as is Elvira’s ‘Ah fuggi il traditor’. The unusual mediant relationship between the D major cadence of the linking recitative and the F major tonality of the aria has led to speculation that it was a late transposition from the key of G major.21 This is possible, but it is more

The Prague Don Giovanni

21

likely that Mozart composed the recitative first, anticipating that the following aria would be in G, only to change his mind about this at a late stage.22 The foliation numbers provide some support for this idea. His long series excluded the chorus and its preceding recitative but included the two folios leading into ‘Ho capito’, without as yet incorporating the aria itself. It seems therefore that he had identified G major as a likely key for this buffo aria, but that when the G major chorus was added in as the preceding number – it is written on the same paper type as the Act I finale – changed his mind and composed the aria in F, following his usual principle of avoiding successive pieces in the same key. His failure to rewrite the recitative linking the chorus with ‘Ho capito’ might have been an oversight, caused by the intense pressure of time, or perhaps he regarded this mediant connection as acceptable anyway.23 Whatever its planned key, ‘Ho capito’ is missing from almost all early Prague copies. A useful technique for discovering whether a piece was originally included in a copy or whether it was taken out later is to examine the gathering structure. The early Donaueschingen copy, made from the transmission exemplar held by Grams, shows how this works. Fig. 6 gives the sizes of its gatherings in Act I. If ‘Ho capito’ had been included in the original of this score, the gathering 10/1, which has 24 pages, would have required at least 40 pages, and that is clearly unlikely. Masetto’s aria, therefore, was not in the exemplar used by Grams. But applying this technique to the Prague Conservatory score itself is problematic, because there are so many cuts of original recitatives and insertions of later string accompaniments that it is difficult to construct a meaningful sequence. Another telling sign that ‘Ho capito’ was cut for a time at least comes in the keyboard score of the opera made by Jan Křitel Kuchař. It made excellent commercial sense for a popular opera to be put on sale soon after the opening night in a version for amateur singers and keyboard players, and for this reason such scores have usually been taken as quite reliable indicators as to what was being performed. Mozart’s relationship with Kuchař, who from Figaro onwards made these arrangements, is acknowledged by an accolade in the text of the opera gathering nos. 1/1 no. of pages 24

2/1

3/1

4/1

5/1

6/1 7/1

8/1

9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1

24

20

24

24

20

24

12

20

24

24

gathering nos. 13/1 14/1 15/1 16/1 17/1 18/1 19/1 20/1 21/1 22/1 23/1 no. of pages 24 18 28 24 24 24 24 16 16 24 19 fig. 6  Gathering sizes of Act I in the Donaueschingen score

20

22

The Vienna Don Giovanni

itself, when in the Act II finale Don Giovanni compliments his ‘cook’, a play on the name Kuchař: ‘sì eccellente è il cuoco mio’.24 Kuchař’s version of Don Giovanni must have been taken from the lost score (or a subsequent copy), as it incorporates the Prague fingerprints to be described below. By the time he made his arrangement, the cut of ‘Ho capito’ was a fait accompli, as shown by the fact that he renumbers the following pieces, regaining the correct sequence by means of allocating a separate number to Donna Anna’s accompagnato.25 The possibility that this cut was made very early in the Prague performance traditions of Don Giovanni, perhaps even before the première, raises an important question: did the text of the work that European audiences got to know in 1788 and 1789 through its dissemination in commercial copies reflect accurately the opera as being performed on the Prague stage? In the absence of the original orchestral parts, this is difficult to answer, yet the possibility of a significant divergence is very real. The early transmission process was set in motion at a single moment in time when the source score was without ‘Ho capito’. An early rethink in the Prague theatre, reinstating the piece, would not necessarily have resulted in an immediate change in the transmission score. This means that we cannot safely appeal to the authority of the earliest copies of the Prague text for unequivocal evidence as to how the production itself was developing. Indeed, it is clear from the libretto of Don Giovanni as performed by Guardasoni’s company in Warsaw in 1789 that ‘Ho capito’ was not permanently cut. Moreover, it was routinely added back into copies of the Vienna versions based on the standard Prague text, and it appears in the 1791 Prague Singspiel version. Clearly, the cut of Masetto’s aria belongs to the written tradition but not (in general) to the performing tradition. Ironically, its disappearance from the former was so complete that in the 1801 Breitkopf & Härtel score it had to re-enter in the appendix of ‘pieces composed later’.

Prague musical fingerprints There are a small number of variant readings of recitatives in the Prague version which appear neither in the autograph nor the Conservatory score. These are distributed widely enough to be considered fingerprints of the Prague Don Giovanni, at least in its disseminated form. The changes, listed in Table 4, were probably entered in the lost score, and the composer’s involvement in making them cannot be discounted. In some ways this short list represents a snapshot of typical last-minute changes, focusing on the tidying up of minor infelicities in recitatives. These features entered the Prague lines of transmission and are seen in early copies such as the Donaueschingen score and the Kuchař keyboard arrangement. The Act I revisions were not entered into the Prague Conservatory score at this stage

The Prague Don Giovanni

23

in the now missing recitatives, a fact demonstrated by the appearance of the original readings in the early Viennese copies which derive from this source. A second small category of Prague fingerprints concerns what might be termed mistakes that became substantive variant readings by dint of the failure to correct them. These are listed in Table 5. In a few instances, a distinctive Prague reading emerged by default, the result of an error widely transmitted in Vienna sources. An interesting case occurs in one of the stage instructions during the Act I finale ballroom scene. As the second on-stage band tunes up, Don Giovanni starts to dance with Zerlina: ‘(Si mette a ballar con Zerlina una contradanza)’. In the Prague Conservatory score, the last word was read as ‘contadina’, defining Zerlina’s status rather than the dance. This was transmitted to all Vienna scores, but in Prague (where a different transmission copy of Act I was used) the name of the dance was ­usually correct. Some Prague copies, however, have few stage instructions and simply give Don Giovanni ‘con Zerlina’. In the keyboard score by Kuchař, table 4  Variant readings in the Prague recitatives not entered in the autograph The recitative before ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’ was abbreviated (NMA: DG, p. 63). Bars 35–6 were telescoped by means of setting ‘bella: (e che occhio dico!)’ to eight semiquavers. The uncertainty was perhaps occasioned by a misreading of a change of mind in the autograph, where Mozart originally cadenced Don Giovanni’s following phrase onto the tonic at the word ‘poco’ but then decided to postpone the new chord to the next bar. In the recitative before ‘Fin ch’han dal vino’, the unusual six-beat bar (33) was abbreviated by means of setting ‘par ve’ and ‘che già fosse sfo-’ to semiquavers separated by a semiquaver rest (NMA: DG, p. 154). In the recitative before the sestetto, the text in bar 2 is given in the autograph as: ‘stiamci qui ascosi’ (NMA: DG, p. 308). These words do not appear in W1 which has the seven-syllable line: ‘S’avvicina, o mio bene’. In P, different words were added to make an eleven-syllable line, possible because of the reduction of ‘bene’ to ‘ben’. Thus: ‘S’avvicina, o mio ben; stiemo qui un poco’. In the Prague Conservatory score, Mozart entered this new version ending ‘stiamo qui un poco’, but he did not change the autograph. The copy of the recitative in the Prague score was done as part of the ‘first’ scribe’s contribution to Act II and is thus late in date. In the autograph this recitative was copied on a leaf of the ‘Prague’ paper, which also implies a late date. There was a reason why this recitative was not finalised until late on. In his autograph Mozart first gave Leporello’s final words ‘rimanti anima bella’ to Donna Elvira. He wrote in the notes but ceased putting in the text after ‘bella’, possibly waiting for a chance to ask Da Ponte to clarify. This could represent a simple misunderstanding, yet these words could be sung by either Leporello or Donna Elvira. The poet’s original choice seen in W1 was Leporello, which, as Weidinger points out, makes for an ironic comment and is perhaps more appropriate to the prevailing tone.

24

The Vienna Don Giovanni

which does not usually include stage instructions, the dances were indicated fully thus: ‘D Gio. ballar con Zerlina Contradanze’; ‘Leporello con Masetto Tedescho’. Another Prague characteristic concerns the scene numbers in Act II. In his autograph Mozart diverged from the libretto P by not allocating a new number to ‘Ferma briccone’ in the middle of the sestetto. As a result, subsequent numbers in his score are one behind those in the libretto. A second discrepancy between the autograph and the libretto is that in the former a very short recitative sung by Don Ottavio after the departure of Donna Anna before the Act II finale was given as a new scene. But although the Finale was renumbered as XIII in the segue instruction, the main heading was not changed. This inconsistency was replicated in subsequent Prague copies, as shown in Table 6. table 5  Variant readings of the Prague text originating in uncorrected mistakes or by accident An attempt was made to sharpen up Leporello’s aside ‘e ottocento’ in bar 56 of ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’ by inserting a rest before it (NMA: DG, p. 68). It seems clear from the autograph that this was a misreading of a crotchet, which, unusually for Mozart, could easily be mistaken for a rest. Neither the composer nor anyone else spotted that this was a blunder, and it entered the Prague transmission of the opera as a firm reading, even though the revision does not work because it leaves too few notes for ‘Così ne consolò’. There are signs of this mistake in many later Prague scores, and the variety of interpretation suggests that the original source, almost certainly the lost score, was unclear. There is also disagreement as to whether the later repetition of this phrase in the tonic key (bar 90) should be similarly amended (NMA: DG, p. 71). The final page of the autograph is missing, and at some point a replacement leaf was supplied by a copyist. Its reading has rests in bars 867–9 in the string bass, which only enters with the final V–I cadence (NMA: DG, p. 486). As this is the reading in O.A.361/1 (this section of which must have been recopied from the autograph rather than the Prague Conservatory score) it very likely represents Mozart’s text. One consequence of the absence of the string bass line was that arrangers had to have recourse to the wind score. This resulted in a variety of different interpretations of the harmony. Kuchař in his string quartet arrangement (A: Wgm) allocates to the cello part low Ds in bars 867–9, which produces the closing sequence: II7d I V I, rather than the more plausible II7b Ic V I. Copies of the Kuchař keyboard arrangement sometimes have another variant: II7d Ic V I.a a This was the subject of Gugler’s first question to Smetana. He thought that the reading given in the Breitkopf & Härtel full score of 1801 was unlikely, as it had the string bass line as part of the brass/wind choir. In other scores that he had consulted, such as the Stuttgart manuscript, the bass line simply had rests until the final two-note cadence. Smetana confirmed that there were rests, both in the score and the parts, but that the parts themselves were new ones. Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”Partitur’, pp. 290–2.

The Prague Don Giovanni

25

table 6  Scene numbers in Act II after the sestetto (Prague version) W1 Ferma briccone

Autograph*

VIII

P

Prague score

Donaueschingen score

VIII

Dunque quello

IX

VIIIa

Ferma perfido

IX

IX

X recitative missing

X

Ah, ah, ah

XI

[X] missing

XI recitative missing

X→XI

Calmatevi

XI

XI

XII recitative missing

XI→XII

IX

XIIb

Ah, si segua il suo passa Finale (first scene)

IX recitative missing

Segue XIII XIII

XII

XII

XII Segue XIII

XII Segue XIII

XII

XII

 * Excluding Vienna changes and additions a Based on the musical unity of the sestetto and therefore ignoring the change in the number of characters on stage at ‘Ferma briccone’ b Based on the change in the number of characters on stage

The Prague fingerprints described above are all of early date. They appear in various forms in early copies such as the Donaueschingen score and in the Kuchař keyboard arrangement. It is likely that other revisions were made in the performing materials that did not so quickly enter the lines of transmission. Some such changes are undoubtedly lost for ever, but a few seem to have made their way back into the written tradition at a later date. Gugler was aware of this possibility and discusses an interesting case. In his letter to Smetana, he noted that at the start of the G major dance scene in the Act I finale, the Breitkopf & Härtel printed score included two additional lines sung by Don Giovanni. He wondered whether there was any evidence of this reading in the parts, and Smetana confirmed that indeed these extra lines were there, though, unfortunately, without indicating the age of the materials he had consulted.26 The idea that Don Giovanni should sing two lines to the opening strains of the minuet probably derives from the printed libretto P. Having ordered the musicians to strike up again (‘Ricominciate il Suono’) and Leporello to pair off the dancers (‘Tu accopia i ballerini’), Don Giovanni then immediately offers himself to Zerlina (‘Il tuo Compagno io sono / Zerlina vien pur quà’), while an accompanying stage instruction implies that he begins to dance with the maid (‘si mette a ballar con Zerl.’). This impulsive action is fully in accord with his character, and, as Gugler pointed out, it was after all necessary to pre-empt anyone else inviting her to dance.27 But Mozart decided not to follow the libretto. He began with the aristocratic minuet and postponed Don Giovanni’s words

The Vienna Don Giovanni

26

until bar 433, at which point Zerlina is invited to join in a contradanza, the choice he apparently thought appropriate for this socially mixed pairing. The only place for Don Giovanni’s words, as situated in the libretto P, would have been during the introduction to the minuet. In their later position they appear during the repeat of the second half, as preparations for the contradanza are made, with the instruments tuning up and Don Giovanni’s new instructions to Masetto. This is shown in Fig. 7. As it turned out, the libretto P was inaccurate only in the positioning of Don Giovanni’s lines: they are still needed after ‘Va bene in venità [sic]’. The Vienna libretto W2 does not change their position, even though ‘venità’ is corrected to ‘verità’. In his interpretation of the ballroom scene, Schneider discusses the strong (though late) nineteenth-century tradition that both the chorus and the Don Giovanni/Zerlina couple danced the minuet, as implied by the positioning of his lines and the stage instructions in the libretto.28 Among the charming accretions to the story is the report that the enthusiastic dancer Mozart had to demonstrate to the inept Bassi how to perform a minuet with Catherina Bondini. It also became accepted practice that Don Giovanni should preserve the social niceties by asking Donna Anna and Donna Elvira first to partner him in the minuet, and only then with indifference (feigned or otherwise) Zerlina. ­Citing Allanbrook’s view that it was common practice for dances to begin with a ­minuet before quickly moving on to the contradanze, and also evidence presented by Heartz to the effect that simultaneous dances were not uncommon in the ballroom, Schneider argues that this casts Don Giovanni in the role of expert seducer, exploiting the normal conventions and layout of the enlightenment dance floor, rather than that of a daemonic predator.29 The added text in fact contains one new line and the original second line: ‘Meco tu dei ballare / Zerlina, vien pur quà!’ (You must dance with me; ­Zerlina came here.) Their addition in sources as early as the Schott keyboard score of 1791 demonstrates that even in Mozart’s lifetime there had been a rethink about the implications of this scene and a reversion to an earlier interpretation ­( possibly) intended by Da Ponte. 1

2

3

4

introduction Giovanni addresses Zerlina (P)

1

2

3

4

5

full minuet

6

7

8

5

6

7

8

repeat of 2nd half Giovanni addresses Zerlina (autograph)

fig. 7  The two-bar phrase structure of the G major minuet (Act I finale, bars 406–37)

The Prague Don Giovanni

27

Gugler was keen to establish whether the added couplet of lines, which appeared in the Breitkopf & Härtel score of 1801, was to be found in earlier Prague sources. He knew that the reading was also given in the Stuttgart score, albeit in a Singspiel text and wondered whether it might have been entered in Don Giovanni’s part during a rehearsal, although he was aware that the requirement to sing a low G was a strong counter argument to their having been added for Bassi, whose part otherwise only descends to a Bb. In reality, it is very difficult to date the entry of such readings into the performing tradition. The additional lines are never seen in Vienna sources. Features of the Prague performing traditions of Don Giovanni were thus occasionally incorporated into the work as disseminated in written sources, but it is very likely that many more failed to make this transition. Potentially significant evidence about Mozart’s attitude to the freedom to be allowed to performers on stage survives in a second-hand account of the views of the ageing Bassi, the original Don Giovanni.30 Commenting specifically on the banquet scene in the Act II finale, Bassi offered his view that current performers lacked the liveliness and freedom that Mozart wished for. In Guardasoni’s company, he recalled, this scene was never sung the same twice. While the orchestral foundation was not varied, performers were expected to provide humour, different every time, everything ‘parlando’ and almost improvised in character – so much so, that between the opening section and the entrance of Elvira, the feast was to be characterised by ‘improvisirten Intermezzi’, the funnier and more daring the better. As evidence of the performing style and fluid text of the Prague Don Giovanni in 1787, this needs to be treated with a great deal of caution. Even if essentially true, the story is likely to have been exaggerated in the retelling, and it is also very probable that Bassi was conflating later developments in performing style with the original approach. Nonetheless, some sources representing the early Singspiel traditions of Don Giovanni performance, do demonstrate how spontaneous, improvised humour might have worked. Particularly fascinating in this respect is a keyboard score entitled Don Juan der Schwelger.31 The original was probably the version reportedly given in Passau in 1789 which has the same title. The arrangement has eye-catching examples of humorous variation, sometimes dependent on knowledge of the original, as when Leporello augments his master’s Spanish conquests: ‘tausend und vier!’ In the banquet scene, Don Giovanni identifies the three opera airs in turn: ‘Was von Martin / Sarti / Mozart! Bravi! Bravi!’ In the Act I dance scene – another place ripe for improvised variation – the arranger includes the two initial lines for Don Giovanni: ‘Schaff jedes einem Taenzer! Ich tanze mit der Braut!’ Other alterations show how it was possible to graft a new conversation onto even the most elaborate orchestral canvas.

28

The Vienna Don Giovanni

In addition to substantive variants in the music and text of the opera, the written sources also contain a layer of information, entirely missing from the text of a poem or the canvas of a painting: performance directions. By long convention, the interpretative artist has a right to influence these, sometimes even to decide upon them altogether. Certain aspects of the scores of Mozart operas – the dynamic level of the solo vocal line in arias, to name but one example – were almost invariably left to the discretion of the performer. Other categories of performance indication would be entered more or less systematically and then transferred to the parts and the theatre copies. But as the rehearsal process got underway, assistants, acting independently or under the direction of the composer, would supplement what was already there, sometimes merely clarifying instructions, but on occasion entering genuinely new readings. By their very nature, additional performance marks such as these tend to appear in the score used for conducting and in the parts, and their further transmission in the reference copy was far from guaranteed. This category therefore constitutes a significant example of the dangers of equating too exactly the authentic text of the opera in performance with what was concurrently being circulated on paper. Performance directions also tended to develop differently in each production, sometimes reflecting new values. They therefore provide a further category of evidence with which to distinguish the Prague from the Vienna production. The most interesting cases are where Mozart (or someone else) changed a tempo designation. Possibly the speed and character of performance was one element of the score which could be influenced by singers during the rehearsal pro­cess. In a fundamental sense, the broad choice of tempo would be integral to the act of conception itself. Mozart would surely not decide independently of fixing other elements such as melody and rhythm, whether a piece should be allegro or adagio: it was an inseparable element of its core identity. Yet in the late eighteenth century there was a substantial menu of finer gradations, allowing plenty of room for flexibility. A scattering of additional or modified tempo directions appear in the Prague Conservatory score. It is obviously not possible to date these marks individually, but a few may well go back to the time when the opera was being rehearsed for its première. (Additions made by later generations are often visually distinct through the use of different kinds of writing implements such as pencils or crayons of a more gaudy hue.) There appears to have been a change of mind over the tempo of ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’, given as Andantino at the head of the score (as in the autograph) but as Andante at the foot of the page, the latter choice being subsequently transmitted in Prague scores. An interesting lacuna is the absence of tempo indications for the three wind-band pieces in the Act II finale. Did these tunes perhaps have an already well known

The Prague Don Giovanni

29

‘agreed’ speed of performance? Or was the choice of speed left up to the wind players, presumably all experienced Harmonie performers? Kuchař felt that he had to provide this information in his arrangement and chose (or was instructed to choose) the following sequence: Allegretto; Allegretto; Moderato. Variants in dynamic marks form another important element of the performance reading of any eighteenth-century opera. Naturally these were always liable to be adjusted during rehearsal, and so again they are most likely to be encountered in the parts. Some of the changes produce significantly different readings. In bars 23–6 of the Overture, the mysterious violin scales are marked crescendo through the ascent but piano at the start of the descent – a very distinctive subito piano effect. In the autograph, however, the other parts lack the crescendo markings and are apparently to remain in the background, as in NMA: DG. But in the Prague Conservatory score the crescendo marks were applied to the string bass part as well. An unthinking assumption on the part of a copyist is always possible, but so is the idea that this represents a rehearsal-inspired adjustment from the composer. (The equivalent passages at the climax of the opera do not contain this new reading.) There are many such cases, and much work remains to be done on this important topic, a point highlighted in Edge’s thesis.32 Moreover, any full account of the Prague reading of Don ­Giovanni would also have to include still more problematical notational ­features such as slurs and staccato marks.

Errors The Prague version, at least as it was disseminated as a written text in the late 1780s, can also be defined by a characteristic set of errors. There are two distinct categories to take into consideration. I shall term those found in the Conservatory score as Set A and those found only in the next stage of transmission (via the lost transmission exemplar) as Set B. The dissemination of a text opens the door to a steady accumulation of errors, but it also facilitates a process of detection and remedy, especially during the run up to a performance. The fate of Set A errors can be followed in subsequent copies. Not surprisingly, given that Act I was copied independently from the autograph a second time, there is no sign of their further dissemination in Prague copies, even in very early scores such as the Donaueschingen manuscript. The two initial copies of Act II, however, are linked in the chain by their page-breaks, and, as expected, some Set A mistakes were passed on, still uncorrected. A small selection is given in Appendix 1.1. Set B errors are characteristic of the Prague version as disseminated throughout Europe. They do not appear in the Conservatory score or in Viennese ­copies deriving from it, but must have entered only at the stage of the copying of the lost transmission exemplar.33 A selection is given in Appendix 1.2, which compares

30

The Vienna Don Giovanni

the appearance of these errors in the early Donaueschingen copy and in two, randomly chosen, later manuscripts, in Stuttgart and London. The degree to which correction is evident is broadly related to the date of the subsequent copy. In the early Donaueschingen copy some 90 per cent of these errors had still not been identified at the time of copying, but by the time that the Stuttgart score was made, over 90 per cent of the readings were correct.34 (A great number of new mistakes appear in their stead!) In other scores the percentage of correct readings lies somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. It may seem surprising to have spent time on an analysis of the Prague Don Giovanni in a study devoted to the Vienna version, but in reality the two conceptions of the opera were inextricably entangled throughout their history. Without first arriving at a clear understanding of the Prague text, it would have been impossible to define its relationship with the various versions that were to ensue in Vienna.

[ 2 ]

The Vienna Don Giovanni

T

he source situation of the Vienna Don Giovanni turned out to be a great deal more complicated than might have been anticipated. Before we look in detail at the extant manuscripts, it will be useful to summarise the overall picture. This is given as Fig. 8. The Conservatory score was the prime exemplar for the Viennese transmission of the opera. It is unclear whether this manuscript was itself taken to Vienna, or whether a copy was made and forwarded. But whether directly or indirectly, this source generated three distinct branches. In the first occurs an important exception to the usual manner of transmission. It is evident that the first three movements in Act I were at some point copied directly from the autograph in Vienna, and this version found its way into the Graz score. The main line of transmission into the Court Theatre runs through the conducting score. This represented the expanded version of the opera (Vienna 1) for which the pieces were renumbered. Following further revisions, this time embodying a contraction, the extant Court Theatre score O.A.361/1 was produced. Either it was an entirely new copy or else it incorporated still functional (i.e. unrevised) elements of its exemplar. Both O.A.361/1 and the accompanying parts (O.A.361/Stimmen) show clear signs of having been adapted from the earlier fuller conception of Don Giovanni. A third branch, largely independent of the other two, saw the production of a reference score, evidently for the purpose of commercial transmission. This, too, was taken from the Prague Conservatory manuscript, although especially in the case of some of the early movements, it is possible that the conducting score was also used as well. The reference score presents a slightly different version of the opera, which post-dates the abandonment of the expanded version, as seen by the fact that the reduced numbering system is used, but which pre-dates the final revision as seen in O.A.361/1. It thus provides valuable evidence of the later stages of the compositional process. All told, there were up to four distinct stages in the Viennese conception of Don Giovanni, not counting the unrevised Prague text which was also sometimes transmitted: (1) an expanded version (Vienna 1); (2) a hypothetical revision, placing Elvira’s scena before the comic duet; (3) a revised reduced version (Vienna 2a); and (4) the final version itself (Vienna 2b). Performing materials were copied with all the elements of Vienna 1 present, though it is unclear whether the opera was actually given this way; the hypothetical intermediate version (if it ever existed) can only have been tried

32

The Vienna Don Giovanni Viennese score (Graz)

Viennese score

autograph additions

Viennese score of Nos. 1–3

autograph

Prague Conservatory score

autograph revisions

Vienna Court Theatre conducting score

O.A.361/1 + Stimmen

BeethovenArchiv score

Vienna Court Theatre reference score Florence B II 183–4 Lausch score (Florence F.P.T.265)

Florence D III 428–31 Sukowaty score ( Juilliard)

fig. 8  The transmission of Don Giovanni from Prague to the Vienna Court Theatre = autograph

= extant copies

The Vienna Don Giovanni

33

out in the rehearsal room; but both Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b were transmitted further and performed. This brief overview of the Vienna Don Giovanni is based on the assumption that its history in Mozart’s home city began only in 1788. Several features of the sources, however, hint at the possibility of an earlier Viennese dimension. That Vienna played some part in the genesis of this work should go without saying; it is an uncontested fact that the composer wrote much of the opera before setting out for Prague, and the draft libretto was published there in 1787. But could there have been more to it than that? As an exercise in pure speculation, I began to sketch out a historical case for the idea that Don Giovanni might have been commissioned in Vienna as part of a series of operas intended to celebrate two dynastic Habsburg marriages: those of Joseph II’s nephew and niece. I had spent no more than a few hours thinking about this, when (fortunately) I recalled seeing details of a recent thesis on the subject. I quickly located a reference to Weidinger’s sixteen-volume doctoral dissertation.1 The substantial synopsis of this work given online pointed to its being the most far-reaching, imaginative and rigorous critique of the traditional Prague-centred narrative of the genesis of Don Giovanni yet to have appeared, a supposition fully borne out by closer acquaintance.2 What follows is no more than a very brief outline of this richer, more nuanced account, which I hope to consider in more detail in a second monograph on Don Giovanni.3 In the context of the present investigation into the philology of the early musical sources, this background will provide a context for the discussion of one of the most elusive elements: material possibly copied by Viennese scribes directly from the autograph before Mozart’s departure for Prague. The traditional narrative of Don Giovanni begins with the success of Figaro in Prague, the resulting invitation to the composer to visit the city again, and the commission for a new opera. Niemetschek, the source for this version of events, stated: ‘The opera impresario Bondini reached agreement (contracted?) with Mozart for a new opera for the Prague stage next winter.’4 The report itself does not say that a Don Giovanni libretto was yet under discussion. In the absence of the commission itself or of any reference to it in correspondence between Mozart and the Prague management, the only other direct witness is Da Ponte, whose account needs to be approached with caution. This is particularly the case, as Heartz demonstrated, in An Extract from the Life (1819), in effect the pre-publication of part of what would be a full-scale autobiography. This was rushed into print because of the librettist’s sense of resentment at the failure to credit properly (as he saw it) his contribution to Don Giovanni. In attempting to set the record straight, he wrote: ‘Why did Mozart refuse to set to music the Don Giovanni (of evil memory) by Bertati, and offered to him by

34

The Vienna Don Giovanni

one Guardasoni … manager of the Italian theatre of Prague?’5 This recollection of an offer of a Prague commission carries some conviction, because Da Ponte was highly sensitive to the accusation that his work was derivative, and would have preferred not to mention Bertati, his main source text. (The name of his rival was indeed omitted from the full version of the Memoirs, in which Da Ponte claimed to have selected the subject for Mozart.) Unlike Niemetschek, Da Ponte credits Guardasoni (rather than Bondini) with making the offer of a particular libretto. It is not known exactly when he took over the management of this aspect of the company’s activities, but it implies the possibility of a later date for the contract. In any event, it is unlikely that Bondini could have offered Don Giovanni, o sia Il convitato di Pietro to Mozart on the occasion of his previous visit, as Gazzaniga’s opera only received its première in Venice on 5 February 1787. Moreover, it would have been a curious decision to follow up the great success of the full-length Figaro with a one-act opera.6 If the specific idea for a setting of the Don Juan story came significantly later than the original (general) offer of a contract, that would leave open the possibility that the singer Antonio Baglioni might have played a formative role. Because he sang in the première of both operas, Gazzaniga’s on 5 February 1787 and Mozart’s on 29 October, it has often been suggested that he took Bertati’s libretto with him when he travelled to Prague. This is certainly a very plausible idea, since leading singers, travelling from an engagement in one opera house to another, exerted an important influence on the dissemination of operas and on the choice of repertoire. John Rice has shown that if Baglioni did deliver the libretto in person to Guardasoni in Prague, it could not have been before the late summer of 1787, since the singer performed in part of the summer season that year in Bologna, taking roles in two out of the four operas performed.7 Of Mozart’s work on the opera in Vienna during 1787, the historical record tells us nothing, until Don Giovanni appears on the scene in the form of a draft libretto W1 in the late summer/early autumn of 1787. This is a document of considerable significance, since no other source gives so detailed an insight into Da Ponte’s working methods as a librettist.8 By the time that this was published, the basic outline of the drama had been settled, but much work on the details of the text remained to be done.9 Yet for all its undoubted value, this early Vienna libretto for Don Giovanni contains puzzles that have yet to be fully explained. Hitherto, the favoured explanation for the state of W1 has been that it was prepared for submission to the censor. In support of this idea, reference is sometimes made to the remarkable omission of the last part of Act I. There was some concern, so the argument runs, that the eagle eye of the reviewer would note the populist and potentially subversive line ‘Viva la libertà!’10 The response was supposedly to cut a large segment and deviously pretend that Act I ends during

The Vienna Don Giovanni

35

the quartetto, relying, furthermore, on the censor’s awareness of the fact that Bertati had also ended his first part around here. This all seems very implausible. Why was it not possible simply to remove the one offending line? On the other hand, still with the censor in mind, perhaps the behaviour of the Don in this part of the opera and in particular his attempted seduction in the ballroom was felt to be too risqué? An alternative explanation advanced by Volek was that the draft was some kind of commercial prospectus, aimed at raising financial sponsorship. Heartz wondered whether the different sizes of type face used in W1 were intended to indicate to a prospective patron the extent of the material already composed, but this idea, as he pointed out, does not entirely fit the facts.11 Neither theory fully explains the unfinished state of the libretto. Clearly W1 was a draft libretto in the sense that the text was still undergoing refinement, especially in the first part of Act II. The critical question, though, is whether that status as a ‘draft’ should also be applied to the missing segment of Act I. In other words, was Da Ponte intending that it should end without its current finale, or was the fuller version already envisaged, but perhaps not yet in a sufficiently fixed form to be included?12 All this remains unclear, but if for a moment we set to one side the traditional account of the genesis of Don Giovanni as a commercial venture undertaken by the management of the Italian opera company in Prague, and focus instead on Vienna, an alternative scenario is possible. In seeking to understand the original Vienna interest in Don Giovanni, Weidinger has developed a revisionist argument: what was taken by Heartz and others to be a relatively minor element in its genesis – its intended use for a festive purpose – is instead placed in the foreground as a formative factor in the commission.13 Of course, we are unlikely ever to know for certain the degree to which the Vienna context supplants or merely complements the traditional Prague narrative, and for this reason I have characterised the episode as the ‘Vienna Intervention’. This came some time in the summer of 1787, and it related to Joseph II’s dynastic planning. The circumstances were outlined by Heartz in one of his classic essays on Don Giovanni.14 Weidinger, however, investigated the historical background and its possible influence on the genesis of the opera in greater depth.15 Joseph II, having declined to accept personal responsibility for the production of an heir, followed with keen interest the fortunes of his nephew Franz and his niece, the children of his brother Leopold. When it was decided that Maria Teresa should marry Prince Anthony of Saxony in Florence by proxy, Joseph decided to mark her progress northwards to join her new husband in Dresden with festive opera performances, notably: Martín y Soler’s L’arbore di Diana (on 1 October in Vienna); and Mozart’s Don Giovanni (on 14 October in Prague). On the title page of both L’arbore di Diana and the draft libretto W1 is an

36

The Vienna Don Giovanni

almost identical formulation: ‘per l’arrivo di sua altezza reale / maria ­t eresa / arciduchessa d’austria : sposa del / [ser.] ­p rincipe antonio di sassonia’. As Weidinger points out, it is remarkable that so little attention has been paid to the preparations for these political marriages. Although the idea of a marital alliance for Maria Teresa was first considered in 1783, not until 5 April 1787 did Joseph II write to Leopold to congratulate him on the news that the Elector of Saxony had agreed to marry his brother to her.16 For a time that spring, Prague was under consideration as the location for the marriage itself, a major event with royal families in attendance, but by the early summer, the impracticalities of this plan had led to a rethink. Joseph wrote to Leopold on 6 July: ‘par consequent il faut changer le projet du marriage de votre fille à faire à Prague, car ce ne me pourrais en être’.17 Instead, the idea of a proxy ceremony in Florence gained ground. The fact that as late as the early summer of 1787 Prague was still in line to host the marriage itself, is undoubtedly relevant to the genesis of Don Giovanni, but there is a total lack of documentary evidence concerning the negotiations that must have taken place. It is probable, though, that the main consequence of the late change of plan was that the festive opera commissions were all arranged in tremendous haste, perhaps not before mid August or even early September. There was an urgent requirement for new works that could be made ready in time. The case could be argued, then, either that the Don Giovanni project was not conceived at all until late summer, or else that it superseded an existing contract or understanding with the Prague management, which may or may not have specified that particular subject. The result would have been a sudden and unanticipated foreshortening of a previously agreed timetable. This might account for the extreme haste with which the composer attempted (and failed) to meet the target date. In the light of this, perhaps we should reconsider one of Da Ponte’s most famous anecdotes: the story of his three-card trick with the librettos of Axur, L’arbore di Diana and Don Giovanni. Bottle of Tokay at the ready, snuff and inkstand on his desk, and with a willing housemaid to hand, he set to work on all three at once, assuming the persona of Dante at night for Mozart’s commission, Petrarch in the morning for Martín y Soler’s, and Tasso in the evening for Salieri’s. He claims to have astonished all three composers with the amount he wrote in his first day’s work, including the first two scenes of Don Giovanni, but in the end the completion of the librettos for Mozart and Martín y Soler (and most of the third commission) took two months of uninterrupted work. (Two months was usual for a single commission.) In his autobiography, Da Ponte presents this story in relaxed fashion, as a challenge he was very willing to assume, and he records Joseph II’s scepticism as to whether he would be able to manage it.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

37

(Shortly before this passage, Da Ponte records a conversation with Joseph II in which, in the light of two recent failures, the Emperor directly advised him to write for Mozart, Martìn y Soler and Salieri.) But perhaps underlying this pleasant caprice, was an unprecedented crisis for the librettist: the urgent need to produce three librettos for imminent deadlines relating to the planned dynastic celebrations. The third opera – Axur – was performed on the occasion of the marriage of Franz, Leopold’s son and Joseph II’s heir, and Da Ponte was recalled from Prague to oversee the production, thereby missing the première of Don Giovanni. Under normal circumstances, the librettist would surely have been able to negotiate a more realistic timetable. If we accept for the moment the idea that in some way these circumstances led to the production of the libretto of Don Giovanni in such extreme haste, then some hitherto puzzling features of the draft text W1 are explicable. Working under intense pressure, it would have been natural for Da Ponte to take Bertati’s libretto as a starting point, despite his low opinion of his rival’s work. In many ways, the state of W1 seems to reflect this order of work. The first part of Act I (which broadly follows Bertati up to the exit of Elvira and Zerlina) is largely in its final order, as is the ending, an indispensable part of the traditional story. But the first part of Act II (not in Bertati) is altogether less finished, with numerous changes to the recitatives still to be made in Scenes III and IV, while the end of Act I (also not in Bertati) is missing entirely. The current state of work on the libretto does appear to be reflected in the choice of type size. It seems that aria or ensemble texts already composed (or at least confirmed by Mozart) were entered in the larger font, while pieces that had not yet reached this stage remained in the smaller type-face used for the recitatives. This is illustrated in Table 7. The verbal text of material missing altogether in W1 (column 3 in Table 7) exists in a relatively unified state: that is, there are only minor differences between P, W2 and the autograph. That segment of Don Giovanni thus survives with a more or less agreed text. In marked contrast, there are numerous discrepancies between W1, P, W2 and the autograph in the section of Act II evidently still under active development, beginning around Scene III (‘Deh vieni’) through to Scene IX (‘Ah pietà’). An intermediate state, with a smaller (but still significant) number of variants can be seen in the first part of Act I and in the later stages of Act II (excluding the scena ultima). As a general rule, therefore, the ongoing development of pieces completed early on (or still undergoing further work at the time of W1) can be traced, while late entrants had much less time to evolve and thus appear relatively unchanged. In fact for much of the opera (other than the end of Act I), the chances of fate have preserved for us in W1 fascinating evidence of an earlier stage in the working relationship between Mozart and Da

38

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 7  The font size of the libretto W1 Large font

1 2 3 4 5

Ho capito

Là ci darem Ah fuggi Non ti fidar Or sai Fin ch’han dal vino Batti, batti finale

10

11 12 13 14

E via buffone Ah taci Deh vieni

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Missing

Notte e giorno Fuggi crudele Ah chi mi dice mai Madamina Giovanette

6

7 8 9

Small font

Metà di voi Vedrai carino Sola, sola Ah pietà Il mio tesoro O statua Non mi dir finale Scena ultima (partly MS)

Ponte than we are usually allowed to see. (The importance of this relationship was of course acknowledged by Da Ponte in the preface to Figaro, written before the librettist had any idea how significant this young composer would be to his own reputation.) Analysis of the detailed distribution of textual variants often reflects this hypothetical chronology. It is possible, for example, to discern traces of a distinction between the three pieces at the start of Act II composed late (‘Eh via buffone’, ‘Deh vieni’ & ‘Metà di voi’) and the two presumed to have been composed earlier (‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’ & ‘Vedrai carino’). The former (including their introductory recitatives) contain no stage directions that are not in P, while the latter include several significant instructions missing from the libretto.18 These

The Vienna Don Giovanni

39

may well derive from a manuscript draft of Da Ponte’s libretto, which for some reason failed to make it though to the published print. Naturally, as the text developed, consequential revisions to existing passages were sometimes required, but these were not always entered in all the sources. A case in point can be seen in the stage instructions at the start of Scene IV. W1 has: ‘D. Gio. Mas. con contadini armati di spade e di fucili’. This requirement for an armed posse of peasants was not amended in P or W2, but the autograph has a different version and for a good reason: ‘Masetto armato d’archibus e pistola; contadini e sudetto’. This takes account of the fact that in the next recitative Masetto is duped into surrendering his ‘moschetto’ (musket) and ‘pistola’.19 This process of ongoing textual revision was by no means restricted to the finer details of the recitatives; just as much attention was paid to arias and ensembles. Again, pieces composed early or still under development at the time of W1 provide the best evidence. There is a significant revision to the text of ‘Vedrai carino’. In W1 and P Da Ponte has ‘e certo antidoto’, but in the autograph Mozart set the line as ‘e un certo balsamo’. This more resonant and poetic reading replaces ‘antidote’ with ‘balm’, and W2 was changed accordingly. As Gronda points out, although we are not usually in a position to attribute such changes definitively to the composer in individual cases, Mozart’s contribution to the development of the libretto undoubtedly embraced the process of detailed textual revision.20 The autograph text of the great sestetto furnishes another example; it matches none of the libretto versions. There were two structured expansions of the text of this piece between W1 and P, turning two lines into four. In both cases, the expanded text comes at the point at which Mozart was deploying the distinctive lilting chromatic figure, to express the tense and unsettling character of the situation. A direct request from the composer for the two expansions is quite possible. The manuscript text which Mozart used as he worked on this ensemble was a composite, which included elements of several versions, as shown in Fig. 9. A fuller explanation of this complex set of relationships is in order. (a) A small number of readings survive from W1. (b) Some revisions in P were transferred to the 1788 libretto W2 but must have been available to Mozart in 1787 for them to appear in the autograph. (c) A few changes come from an unknown source such as a manuscript draft, or else constitute Mozart’s own contributions which he entered directly into his score. (d) Several readings are seen in W2 but not in P, even though they too must have been current in 1787. To exemplify this, a single line sung by Leporello’s accusers in the final Eb section, was given much thought. In W1 it reads: ‘Che disordin! Che flagello!’ (What disorder! What a calamity!). This failed to find favour and in P was revised to: ‘che disordin è

40

The Vienna Don Giovanni W1

1787 autograph

P

1787 autograph

?

1787 autograph

W2

1787 autograph

W2

fig. 9  The text of ‘Sola, sola in bujo loco’

mai quello’ (Whatever disorder is that!). But the reading that first appears in a libretto in W2 must also have been current in 1787 as Mozart used a version of it: ‘che giornata, o cielo, è questa!’ (What a day, o heaven, is this!) Still not quite satisfied, Mozart replaced ‘cielo’ with ‘stelle (stars), and in bar 154 of the autograph there is a small hint of this, as Donna Anna’s word was changed (presumably from ‘cielo’) to ‘stelle’. Indeed, this could have been the very moment at which there was a change of mind. In his earlier letters from around the time of Idomeneo, Mozart showed that he was willing to intervene in the fine detail of his libretto. There are many signs that this was still his preferred way of working and that he was able to form a productive partnership with Da Ponte. It is possible to conclude from this analysis that no simple correlation exists between the 1787 printed libretto and the Prague score of Don Giovanni and the 1788 libretto and the Vienna revision. To claim so unproblematic a relationship would be to ignore the complexity of the text of this opera as it evolved. It is clear, for example, that the text in the Prague libretto had reached its published form before work on the text in the autograph had been completed. At the end of this study, I will propose a theoretical model to describe the way that the text was developed. The order of Mozart’s work on Don Giovanni as represented in Table 7 and broadly confirmed in the forgoing analysis of the changes made to the text of W1 is consistent with the idea that Da Ponte’s work was in essence an expansion of Bertati’s libretto, through the construction of a farcical disguise sequence for the first part of Act II and a grand ballroom sequence for the Act I finale. In view of the subsequent uncertainty over the scena ultima, it is interesting to see that it still appears in small font, and indeed shows signs of significant reworking. The reason for this could have been that Mozart and Da Ponte were still

The Vienna Don Giovanni

41

considering what part should be played in the denouement by Donna Anna, given that she does not feature here in Bertati’s libretto. It is not inconceivable that Don Giovanni, however briefly, was itself proposed for a Vienna first performance, during the hectic period between the abandonment of the original Prague wedding plan and the city’s reinstatement as a formal destination on the royal progress. It is not necessary to assume an arrangement fully firmed up, merely a possibility, briefly entertained. Given the extreme haste with which events unfolded, it might have been left open for a short while, which of the two cities should stage L’arbore di Diana and Don Giovanni. In the absence of documentary evidence, we can only speculate. There is one small but possibly significant hint: an offhand remark made by Mozart himself, as he reported his Prague triumph. Of his new opera, he wrote: ‘vieleicht wird Sie doch in Wienn aufgeführt’ (perhaps it will be performed in Vienna after all). If the word ‘doch’ is taken in a relatively neutral sense, as in the English ‘but’ or ‘however’, there is no hidden implication. If, however, the shade of meaning is closer to the English ‘yet’, ‘still’ or ‘nevertheless’, then it raises the distinct possibility that some consideration had already been given to a Vienna performance. Translators of Mozart’s letters have been in little doubt, rendering ‘doch’ as ‘after all’.21 There is also the question of the unusual half-fee that Mozart and Da Ponte received from the Court on the occasion of the Vienna production of the opera in 1788. A new full-length Italian opera would attract a standard payment, occasionally doubled or even tripled, as in the case of Paisiello’s Il re Teodoro. Small amounts were sometimes disbursed to composers who provided substitute arias, and there was a parallel stream of less predictable remuneration, in the form of gifts. But it was unheard of for a composer or librettist to be paid for the revival of a work premièred elsewhere, and the half-fee for Don Giovanni appears to be unique.22 The circumstances of the dramatic last-minute completion of Don ­Giovanni and its première in Prague have entered Mozart folk-lore. There are as many ­stories/myths about these few days as there are about any other period of Mozart’s life, other than the days before his death. The accepted narrative ends, however, with a rather muted coda: the opera’s less successful Vienna debut. This interpretation of events fed into a significant biographical trope: the idea of the late 1780s Mozart as the operatic prophet-without-(much)-honour in his own country; and its converse: Prague’s unqualified appreciation of (what soon came to be acknowledged as) the composer’s genius.23 The plausibility of this account derives from the match it makes with the known historical facts and the general development of Mozart’s career. A report in the Prager Ober­ postamts­zeitung reflects the enthusiasm with which Don Giovanni was received.

42

The Vienna Don Giovanni

It also credits Guardasoni (rather than Bondini) with attending to the unusual costs of the scenery.24 Although the tone of myth-making in Niemetschek’s account of Mozart’s dealings with Prague is hard to ignore, that is not to say that his narrative was based on deliberate falsehood. A myth may easily emerge from truth, and the idea that Mozart received a (general) commission from Bondini early in 1787 and that this was overtaken by events in the summer remains a reasonable interpretation of the scanty evidence.

The Graz score Signs that an independent (possibly early) Viennese copy of the first three numbers was made, are to be found in a score of Act I in the Steierisches Landes­ archiv in Graz. This manuscript has an unusually compact style of layout which fits a much larger number of bars on each page than other copies. It manages the Introduzione on 27 sides, where O.A.361/1 takes 45 and the two main Prague transmission branches 37 and 39 respectively. A comparison between the layout of the Graz score and the autograph reveals a most interesting match with the little ink marks made by copyists in Mozart’s score, as they checked off each page. The section of the score in which there is a correlation includes ‘Ma qual mai s’offre’, the second half of ‘Fuggi crudele’, and all of ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’. In Elvira’s aria the match is in fact an exact one, excluding a few page ends, when copyists often felt no need to insert a check mark. Elsewhere, there are no close correlations although throughout there is a general equivalence in the consumption of space. Through one or more intermediate sources, the Graz score thus derived its layout from a copy, the first section of which was taken directly from the autograph. Analysis of error transmission confirms this. The rest of the Graz score derives from the Prague Conservatory manuscript and thus repeats nearly all the Set A errors, but this is not the case up until about the start of ‘Madamina’, before which there is no sign of them at all. Even the score design of the first two movements differs from that seen in the Conservatory manuscript, as it includes all the vocal lines on the opening brace, rather than postponing the allocation of staves until the moment of their actual entry. The Graz score was dated by Edge at around 1788 following his examination of its watermarks and its copyists, and it was probably produced for use in a Singspiel as all the simple recitatives are missing. He also points out an association between the work of its main scribe, Mozart Viennese-Copyist 4b, and the firm of Lausch.25 Two pieces, ‘Ho capito’ and ‘Dalla sua pace’, are additions in different hands, confirming that its Vorlage contained the Prague text with Masetto’s aria missing. The layout of these insertions matches exactly that of the

The Vienna Don Giovanni

43

Lausch score in Florence. This again is suggestive of an initial copying from one source, followed later by two additions taken from another. It is the often the destiny of philological evidence to pose precise questions rather than establish exact answers. In response to the seemingly unequivocal evidence that scenes I–V of Don Giovanni were at some point copied from the autograph directly in Vienna, it will be necessary to consider three main theories, and at present there seems to be no clear way to evaluate their relative ­merits. 1  The most radical explanation is that this small section of the opera was copied during a very brief period when it was under consideration for a Vienna celebration of Maria Teresa’s progress. Mozart’s normal practice, as in the case of Così fan tutte, was to hand over the early settled scenes of an opera to the Court ­Theatre copyists so that they could make quick progress. This explanation would have a significant bearing on our understanding of the earliest stage in the conception of Don Giovanni. There is of course no reason in principle why Mozart should not have begun composing the work for Vienna and then incorporated this small amount of material unchanged into an opera for Prague. This, after all, is what happened to a much greater extent in reverse, with the Vienna cast (in the main) accepting what had been written for the Prague singers. 2  An alternative explanation is that these scenes were indeed copied early in Vienna, but with a view to having them sent on to Prague ahead of the composer. Although what was copied constitutes a relatively small amount of ­material, this is possible. But it would then be necessary to explain how the copyists of the Graz score (or its Vorlage) were able to access these original copies. Perhaps two copies were made – this was quite normal – with only one being forwarded to Prague. 3  The third explanation relates to the reported shortness of the notice given by Joseph II, when he asked to hear the opera in 1788. If there was indeed an imperial command performance – and this remains far from certain – then the Conservatory score (or a copy of it) could have been recalled hastily from Prague. Pending the arrival of this copy, Mozart might have sent his autograph to the Court Theatre and then switched the two scores once it arrived. There are difficulties with this theory too. Why, for example, did this version not then become the main line in the transmission of the Vienna Don Giovanni? And why was its layout abandoned? To summarise, although there is clear textual evidence to show that the Prague Conservatory score was not the Vorlage for the early pieces in the Graz

44

The Vienna Don Giovanni

score, it remains unclear at present why recourse was had to the autograph in order to copy these movements and when this occurred. There is another possible explanation for the apparent copying of the first section of the opera as a separate unit: that Mozart was required to submit a small section of the opera to the Court Theatre before the final confirmation of a contract. Little is known in detail about how operas were chosen and whether those making the decisions needed to see or hear any material. In my study of Così fan tutte, I uncovered some palaeographical and textual evidence to suggest that the first three ensembles in that opera were composed as a distinct unit, and I speculated that this could have been the reason. In the case of Don Giovanni, too, there is textual evidence to back up the idea that scenes I–V, at least up to the catalogue aria, were composed first, and this is precisely the section of the opera that existed in this independent Viennese copying. An analysis of the stage instructions seems to imply that in this section of Don Giovanni Mozart was working from an earlier draft supplied by Da Ponte. Several quite significant directions are unique to the autograph (and later copies of the score) and were not incorporated in any of the published libretti. Table 8 lists the differences between what is in the autograph and in the libretto P and what they have in common. table 8  Stage instructions in first part of Act I Bar Notte e giorno

Autograph Notte

Both

P Giardino. Notte (W1 has: Notte. Strada e case)

70

s’asconde

75

D. An. tenendo forte pel braccio

75

D. Gio. ed egli cercando sempre di celarsi

134 lascia D. Gio. ed entra in casa

D. An. sentendo il Com. lascia D. Gio. ed entra in casa

156 mezza voce 158 più voce 166 combattono 175 mortalmente ferito (not in W1)

D. Gio. ferisce mortal: il Com

The Vienna Don Giovanni

45

table 8 continued Bar

Autograph

Both

190 more Leporello ove sei?

Ah del Padre in periglio

1

Qui il Com. more sotto voce sempre

11

in atto di batterlo

13

partono

1

con risolutezza

2

con ferro ignado in mano

Ma qual mai s’offre Fuggi crudele

P

vede il cadavere 1 disperatamente (not in W1) 216

Orsù spicciati presto

partono Notte. Strada (In this recitative ‘essendo così tardi’ was changed to ‘essendo l’alba chiara’)

Strada. Alba chiara (no instruction in W1)

15 all’orecchio, ma forte (not in W1) Ah chi mi dice mai

Chi è la?

(W1 has: ‘L’alba incomincia, e a poco a poco giorno’) 26

à Lep

27

ironicam:

37

forte

38

piano

38

forte partendo, senza esser visto

40 in questa fra tempo D. Giov. fugge (not in W1) 43

à Lep

verso D. Gio che non crede partito

46

The Vienna Don Giovanni

This comparison allows us a few glimpses of Da Ponte as the meticulous craftsman, willing to consider in detail the precise location of instructions. An interesting case is the timing of the dawn. In the draft from which Mozart was working, it was still night at the start of Scene IV, following the departure of Donna Anna and Don Ottavio, as is reflected in the phrase ‘essendo così tardi’ (being thus late). But Da Ponte was still considering the issue. In the draft libretto W1, dawn comes at the start of Elvira’s aria: ‘L’alba incomincia, e a poco a poco giorno’ (dawn breaks and little by little [it becomes] day). By the time the Prague libretto was printed, daylight was brought forward to the start of Scene IV with the instruction ‘Alba chiara’ (clear [i.e. bright] dawn). Mozart seems to have composed Scene IV while it was still in the dark, but when the change was made the (sung) words ‘essendo così tardi’ were altered to ‘essendo l’alba chiara’.26 There were other differences. A very minor adjustment was made to the moment when Don Giovanni leaves in Scene V, which increases its dramatic effectiveness. In the original from which Mozart was working, he leaves while Elvira is singing, but in P he makes his escape a few seconds earlier, while singing loudly himself. The earlier version of the Introduzione had different instructions for the killing of the Commendatore (including the moment of the fight), although very similar in overall effect. Gronda points to the effectiveness of Mozart’s successive stage directions (‘mezza voce’ & ‘più voce’) when Don Giovanni, perhaps with ‘a glimmer of compassion’, addresses the Commendatore as ‘misero’ (wretch or poor fellow), shortly before the fatal duel.27 It also had instructions giving Donna Anna’s state of mind at the start of ‘Fuggi crudele’ and a comic moment for Leporello as he addresses his master as though to ­whisper but loudly. There is also a striking variant in the text. In his first reference to the character of his master, Leporello describes him as a ‘scoundrel’ (‘malandrino’). This appears in the libretti, but in his autograph Mozart uses the epithet ‘libertine’ (‘libertino’). The chronology is not clear – Mozart’s term could easily have come from a draft of the early part of the libretto, or it could have been a revision, agreed or not, with the librettist. Yet, as Gronda points out, the alternatives represent different if well established summations of Don Giovanni’s character: is he to be, specifically, a wanton womaniser, or do his defects run deeper and wider?28 Mozart’s use of an apparently earlier draft of the libretto matches the part of Act I that was copied separately in Vienna, and together these two features seem to point to the first compositional layer of Don Giovanni.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

47

The Court Theatre score (O.A.361/1) The main line of transmission of Don Giovanni into the Vienna Court ­Theatre ran through a score (wholly or partly lost) through to the extant score (O.A.361/1) and its associated parts (O.A.361/Stimmen). Wenzel Sukowaty and his team, working in their official capacity as Court Theatre copyists, had the task of producing performing materials for any opera new to Vienna. It is likely, therefore, that he would have been entrusted with the task of copying a full score. Edge, who has made by far the most detailed study to date of the work of Sukowaty and his assistants, points out that there is no single conclusive piece of evidence to link the extant theatre scores to his ‘shop’, because it was not his practice to place his imprimatur on these materials.29 Nonetheless, much circumstantial evidence, notably the Court Theatre payments to Sukowaty (and to no other copyist) over the period 1778 to 1796 and the reasonable match between the dates when his bills were entered in the ledgers and the known dates of operatic premières, allows no other sensible conclusion.30 There is thus no reason to doubt that O.A.361/1 and O.A.361/Stimmen were the work of copyists contracted by Sukowaty. On 7 May, the day of the Vienna première, a large payment to Sukowaty is recorded: 204 gulden, 36 kreutzer. It is likely but not certain that this included work done on Don Giovanni.31 Although the lines of transmission for the various Vienna versions of the opera quickly become clear, the facts concerning the original copying lie in a very murky zone indeed, represented, notionally, in Fig. 8 by the two lost sources. In the normal course of events, an opera which had received its première elsewhere would not necessarily be recopied in house, if a score could be purchased elsewhere commercially. Sukowaty’s contribution would consist in providing the parts and other performing materials, and full scores of any newly composed pieces. Possibly this is what happened at first, with the Vienna Court Theatre purchasing or commissioning a copy of the Conservatory score in Prague. Shortly afterwards, very likely because of the unanticipated scale of the revision, Sukowaty seems to have been ordered to produce a completely new copy. Its text could have been of the Vienna 1 version, the expanded form of the opera, but it is also possible that he started work on this copy, only after the opera had been abbreviated. The consequence of this uncertainty is that we cannot be entirely sure whether O.A.361/1 is an abridgement of his own copy of the full version, or whether he adapted it from the Prague Conservatory score (or copy), which in the meantime had been supplied with the additions, cuts and revisions. It is clear, however, that the text of O.A.361/1 embodies the move from Vienna 1 to Vienna 2b, apparently by-passing the version Vienna 2a, which represents Don Giovanni in the later stages of revision but before the final changes were

48

The Vienna Don Giovanni

made. As if all this were not obscure enough, we shall shortly have to account for the fact that Sukowaty also sold a commercial copy of the intermediate version Vienna 2a. In appearance O.A.361/1 is striking. It is bound in six volumes, but the bindings are so loose that many of the separate gatherings have come almost completely free. It thus gives us a good impression of how an eighteenth-century opera score might have looked during the years of its practical use. The copyists of the score were identified by Edge; they include Sukowaty 1b, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and Viennese Mozart-Copyist 4b, all individuals whose work is defined in his catalogue. His preliminary survey of the watermarks suggested that the paper types could be considered consistent with ‘a Viennese provenance in the late 1780s.’32 Several features of this source suggest that its function was primarily that of a conducting score. It has few of the tiny number series and sets of dashes that evince use by copyists, and equally rare are bar totals, part of the apparatus required to check for missed pages. There is some reason to believe, therefore, that Mozart himself may have used this score when conducting the Vienna première on 7 May 1788. Textual analysis demonstrates that O.A.361/1, except for some sections at the end of Act II, derives ultimately from the Prague Conservatory copy, yet its layout bears no relationship to this source. Nor, interestingly, does it match scores of Vienna 2a. This naturally suggests that the two hypothetical mastercopies were made independently, as indeed happened with Act I in Prague. The derivation of O.A.361/1 from the Prague Conservatory score is a matter of some significance, and it may be of interest to describe the rather tortuous path I had to follow before convincing evidence of this finally emerged. The first task was to look for Set A errors. There were few signs of them in O.A.361/1, whereas in the lost reference score they evidently went largely uncorrected, to judge by their appearance in commercial copies produced by Lausch and Sukowaty. This implies that mistakes were rectified in the performing materials which is hardly surprising, since the period immediately before a first performance was exactly the time when obvious errors tended to be spotted. From the philological point of view, the absence of most of these errors meant that a direct connection between O.A.361/1 and the Prague Conservatory score had still to be established. I next approached the problem from the other end, and by making use of Bitter’s critical commentary identified a series of readings (as opposed to obvious mistakes) where O.A.361/1 diverged from the autograph.33 The idea was to track back and check whether these also appear in the Prague Conservatory score. The great majority of the entries in Bitter’s list concern dynamics, staccato marks and phrase/slur indications which I ignored. A small selection of the more substantive variants is given in Appendix

The Vienna Don Giovanni

49

1.3. The process of cross-checking produced immediate results. In every case the variant identified by Bitter in O.A.361/1 was also to be found in the Prague Conservatory score. Before accepting this as conclusive proof of a connection, however, it was first necessary to check these readings in the facsimile of the autograph, and a potential difficulty did not take long to manifest itself. In most cases the reason for the wrong reading in the first place was a simple lack of clarity in Mozart’s original. It was necessary therefore to find some way of distinguishing erroneous readings taken twice independently from the autograph from those transferred to O.A.361/1 through the Prague Conservatory score. These unclear instances of the composer’s usually precise musical hand spanned the gamut from genuinely confusing notational symbols, which from their look on the page one might indeed expect to generate the same copying mistake repeatedly, to those where the wrong reading did not seem especially likely to recur. What had at first seemed like conclusive evidence now appeared at best somewhat equivocal. On balance, the consistency with which the Prague score and O.A.361/1 shared these corrupt readings certainly pointed to a connection, but the link was hardly yet established beyond reasonable doubt. (In passing, it is worth commenting here that Mozart’s elegant musical hand, rightly held in high regard, is usually evaluated thus by life-long lovers of his music, in whose musical memory every note has long since been etched. It is rather instructive to undertake an exercise like this and to look at the score through the eyes of a copyist who had never heard the piece and perhaps had very limited – if any – musical training. From this perspective a certain level of ambiguity in the composer’s placing of some note-heads cannot be denied.) I next decided to check whether variations in notational practice might assist in establishing a connection. Where, for example, Mozart might write a crotchet triple stop in a violin part with three ascending (individual) note stems, a copyist would usually write it with a single descending stem. Where he might write a 4/4 bar of repeated semiquavers as a semibreve with a double dash, a copyist might realise this as a single crotchet’s worth of semiquavers fully written out, a single crotchet with a double dash and a minim with a double dash. This led nowhere, as similar and divergent scribal habits intermingled without obvious pattern. Still less secure were attempts to establish a relationship between readings of phrasing and articulation. No sooner had a passage been identified in which O.A.361/1 seemed to be following the Prague score rather than the autograph, than in the very next few bars there would be a contradictory finding. It is not impossible that extended study of such matters could produce results of use to the philologist as well as to the student of performance practice, but for the moment it seems hazardous to rely upon such details. At this point, it would have been easy to fall into the trap of assuming that

50

The Vienna Don Giovanni

all these negative findings were in fact building the strength of the opposite case: that the Prague Conservatory score was unrelated to O.A.361/1. Fortunately, in my selection from Bitter’s commentary there remained two unequivocal points of connection between the two sources, neither of which could be explained away. Clearly a search for other such links now had to be undertaken. This entailed quite a feat of document manipulation, as it was necessary to have access to my photocopied lists of errors and variants, the facsimile of the autograph (in multiple parts), O.A.361/1 (in six parts), and the original parts – a typical string part resembling, not the modern slim version, but something akin in weight and physical dimensions to a full score of Parsifal. These were all laid out over five of the capacious desks in the new reading room of the Musiksammlung in Vienna, with a large trolley as a back-up! But the results repaid the effort, and analysis of the early movements began to produce the start of a list of connections, for which there was no possibility of an independent origin in the autograph. These errors, which must have been passed directly or indirectly from the Prague Conservatory score to O.A.361/1, are given in Appendix 1.4. Double-checking these mistakes against the texts of other scores produced the expected results. There was no sign of them in the early movements of the Graz copy, whereas all the errors appear in scores of Vienna 2a. No doubt with laborious effort it would be possible to go through the whole opera in this way, to try to distinguish those parts of O.A.361/1 which stem from the Prague score, from those which were taken directly from the autograph, as the new Vienna pieces and the more significant revisions must have been. From the point of view of the larger historical questions, however, the time-consuming task of trying to ascertain exactly what was used for each section is not really necessary. It is sufficient to demonstrate that both sources were made available. Other palaeographical details in O.A.361/1 shed further light on the question of whether it was a new copy of a much amended original or a mixture of recycled portions of the original manuscript and newly copied passages. Some evidence of the existence of a second score is to be found in passages corrected on redundant pages from another copy of Don Giovanni. It might have been useful to compare the page-breaks of these discarded leaves with those of extant scores in order to determine their ancestry, but this technique will not always work, as one common reason for quickly rejecting a page was when its copyist began at the wrong bar, obviously invalidating any attempt to match pagebreaks. Discarded pages were used to correct a passage in ‘Fuggi crudele’, where the copyist accidentally duplicated a bar. An inserted leaf was pasted over this page, the recto side of which contains some of the violin parts from bars 260–5 of the Act II finale. Then in ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’, the copyist missed out an entire leaf, probably because he absent-mindedly turned over a page without copying

The Vienna Don Giovanni

51

it; a bifolium was inserted which contained on its first side (stuck over the wrong continuation) a version of bars 468–72 of the Act I finale, abandoned because Donna Anna and Zerlina were incorrectly placed on one staff. In this case, the passage begun does indeed match the page layout of the same passage later in O.A.361/1. A constant problem in analysing early manuscript copies of operas is the reality that transmission rarely happened in neat ways: a complete score copied from another complete score. In any large-scale copying enterprise such as the Court Theatre or in thriving commercial copy-shops like that of Lausch, multiple sources were often available. On many grounds, it seems certain that the extant Vienna Court Theatre conducting score (O.A.361/1) and the lost score were copied independently, yet there are a few instances (in early movements) in which the two theatre copies must have had corrections in common but unrelated to anything in the Prague Conservatory score. An eye-catching case is bar 37 of the ‘Introduzione’, accidentally duplicated in O.A.361/1. There is no sign of this mistake in the Prague Conservatory score, although the fact that it occurs at a page turn may help to explain its entry into the transmission process. The same mistake must have been in the reference score, as shown by its appearance in later copies.

The Court Theatre parts (O.A.361/Stimmen) The pressmark O.A.361/5 given in NMA: KB for the orchestral parts was an invention.34 They are still catalogued as O.A.361/Stimmen and can be seen in the new reading room of the Musiksammlung of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. They are currently stored in nine large blue boxes, of which four to seven contain the parts with original materials. Edge’s meticulous description of the watermarks, scribal hands and gathering structures demonstrated a strong likelihood that their earliest layer dates back to 1788.35 Embedded in the original materials are later elements, which represent the Viennese performing history of the opera during the nineteenth century. Edge identified a set of firstdesk parts, copied on paper of inferior quality, as well as duplicate strings and parts for bassoons and horns. Analysis of the musical text of the Vienna parts confirms that, like the score O.A.361/1, they were originally produced at the time of the full version Vienna 1, with the revisions necessary to abbreviate the opera being made subsequently. Tracing the source texts for parts is generally much harder than it is for scores. Any process of copying involves the incursion of errors, and parts are no exception. They all have their own distinctive new errors and corrections which, for our present philological purposes, can be ignored. A more important test was to check them against lists of errors and variants in the theatre scores, but when this

52

The Vienna Don Giovanni

comparison was made, very few matches were found. As a rule, obvious errors such as wrong notes are much more likely to have been spotted immediately in parts than in scores, in which some (to our eyes) clearly corrupt passages were replicated many times without correction. If the parts had been copied directly from one of the missing theatre scores, one would expect to see more evidence of the transmission of (as yet uncorrected) errors. In one case, the reverse is true and a mistake was temporarily added in. As mentioned earlier, a bar in the ‘Introduzione’ was accidentally duplicated in the missing theatre score. It is clear that the first-desk violin and viola parts were checked against this source before this error had been spotted, and as a result erroneous repeat marks were inserted around this bar. At the same time the bar total at the end was increased from 175 to 176. This incorrect ‘correction’ did not survive rehearsal and was very quickly rectified. It does not appear in the duplicate string parts. But the idea that the autograph itself was the sole exemplar is also problematic, as there is at least one distinctive reading that seems to derive from an intermediate source. In bars 68, 70 and 72 of the Overture, all scores give the rhythm in the first violin as two semiquavers followed by a quaver, but in the part this consistently appears in a sharper form as two demisemiquavers followed by a dotted quaver.36 While it is conceivable that this could have been an intervention on the part of a scribe, an idiosyncratic ‘reading’, a more likely explanation is that this change was already in the Vorlage. When undertaking detailed work with the sources, the scholar’s aim is to bring clarity and order to what (in opera research) is often a mightily confusing situation. There is no reason to doubt Edge’s view that O.A.361/Stimmen represents in its original layer a set of parts copied for the 1788 Vienna performances, since the palaeographical evidence clearly supports such a conclusion. Yet a close analysis of the text of these parts suggests that they may derive from two distinct if very closely related exemplars. The first-desk violin 1 and cello parts appear to have used a slightly different source from that available to the copyists of the first-desk violin 2 and viola parts. The two horn parts are similarly divided. Individually, the differences are insignificant, but they consistently distinguish the two sets of parts. They include: tempo indications; the manner in which tacet information is supplied; the location of piece numbers, relative to the other preliminary instructions; and the spelling of some words. It is conceivable that all these are simply the result of two different ‘readings’ of the same source by various copyists, each following their own well-established habits in transferring musical information from a score to a set of parts, but I think that this is stretching credibility somewhat. It is more likely that the materials available to the Vienna Court Theatre copyists charged with producing the parts included two (very similar) scores which generated these minor differences.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

53

The original parts take us as close as we are ever likely to get to the rehearsal room with Mozart working on his opera with members of the Vienna Court Theatre orchestra. Parts provide us with a reading of the opera, as authentic as the autograph, even if difficult to define with precision. Because the elements of this reading consist of marks scrawled on by the musicians themselves, it is not usually possible to determine upon whose authority they were made: composer, assistant conductor, section leader, or even individual initiative. This uncertainty is not particularly troubling: a productive rehearsal is likely to involve dialogue between all concerned. More awkward perhaps, since these parts were in use for much of the nineteenth century, is the question of dating.37 There is no choice other than to rely upon perception of the character of the writing implements used, together with general knowledge of changing attitudes to performance issues. One of the pleasures of working with parts is the unexpected glimpses into the rehearsal room they throw up. A curious case in point is to be seen in bar 118 of the Act II finale in the first-desk violin 1 part, in which someone inserted a misidentification of the quoted melody by writing in red crayon the name ‘Salieri’. In his thesis, Edge described the careful system of cues used to determine which members of the orchestra were responsible for starting off a movement, usually ‘noi’ (us) or ‘bassi’ (the basses).38 He also noted that in the first-desk violin 1 part, the name of the original singer is given at the start of each aria, important confirmation that the parts were used in 1788. The names are listed in Table 9. table 9  Singers’ names added to the first-desk violin 1 part (O.A.361/Stimmen) Singer Ah chi mi dice mai Madamina Ho capito Ah fuggi il traditor Dalla sua pace Or sai che l’onore Fin ch’han dal vino Batti, batti Deh vieni Metà di voi Ah pietà Il mio tesoro

Siga Cavalgieri [sic] Sigr Benucci S Busani Siga Cavalgieri [sic] Sg Morella Siga Lang Sig Albertarella Siga Mombelli Sig Albertarelli Sig A Sigr Benucci Morella

54

The Vienna Don Giovanni

The name of Mombelli was added in a red crayon of slightly different colour. Possibly there were still doubts as to whether she would be able to perform the role in view of her pregnancy. These identifications doubtless assisted co-ordination between soloist and leader. Equivalent genre titles (duetto, terzetto and quartetto) were also added in red crayon at the start of the ensembles, probably for a similar reason. By their very nature, additional performance indications were entered very inconsistently: some appear only in the first-desk violin 1 part, others only in the first-desk strings; some were inserted systematically in all the parts. This reflects both different stages of rehearsal and different levels of acceptance. Some suggestions were tried out in preliminary rehearsals and then rejected. The score O.A.361/1 was evidently sometimes in use, and a few marks were entered into it, but more often than not it is the parts which offer glimpses into these performance traditions. None of these marks can be attributed definitively to Mozart himself or indeed to 1788, but nor can any of them be rejected as inauthentic. Edge suggests that Mozart’s hand may appear in ‘Là ci darem la mano’ in the first-desk violin parts in bar 56, where ‘crescendo’ is written in red crayon, followed by ‘pia’ on the last quaver of bar 57.39 Whether or not inserted into the parts by the composer himself, these kinds of rehearsal revisions, changing dynamic levels or bringing out certain types of articulation, are precisely the kinds of adjustment that would come up in almost any modern rehearsal. Some examples are: ‘sfz’ markings added to the first-desk violin 1 part in ‘Fuggi crudele’ (bars 145, 147, 179 & 181); a ‘p’ added to all the string parts in ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’ (bars 36 & 44) which gives an alternative reading of the accompaniment to Donna Elvira’s ‘cavare il cor’; and a ‘p’ added in red crayon to the violin 1 and 2 parts in ‘Sola, sola in bujo loco’ (bars 157 & 202), a typically Mozartean concern with precision at moments of change. Other minor changes enhance a particular dynamic level. In ‘Non mi dir’, for example, the string parts were marked ‘ppp’ at the return of the theme in bar 48. The addition of extreme dynamic markings became more common in the nineteenth century.

Later copies deriving from the Court Theatre score bonn beethoven-archiv (act i) As is well known, Beethoven made a carefully focused study of Don Giovanni, hoping to benefit by copying out passages which display Mozart’s virtuosity in combining different voices and texts. In addition to owning some of these autograph excerpts, the Beethoven Archiv houses an early Viennese copy of Act I of Don Giovanni.40 It is entitled: ‘Il / Dissoluto punito / o sia / Il Don Giovanni / Dramma giocoso in Due Atti / Rappresentato nel Teatro di Corte a

The Vienna Don Giovanni

55

Vienna L’Anno 1788. / La Musica è del Sigre Wolfgango Am: Mozart / Maestro di Capella all’attual Servizio della Corte Imperiale.’ Its layout matches exactly that of O.A.361/1, not only in its page- and line-breaks but also in the structure of its gatherings. It is incomplete and unbound, with some sections loosely connected with string ties. The manuscript appears to be in almost pristine condition with very few subsequent alterations. It is a great pity that Act II is missing, as this would undoubtedly have afforded greater insight into its origins. The early date of this source is suggested by palaeographical features. The scribal hands all display Viennese characteristics and the watermarks are consistent with a date in the late 1780s: three half moons above real with AV; or less frequently, gfa with a crown. The extra wind parts, copied on a separate gathering under the heading ‘gli strumenti da fiato di Don Giovanni’, are on a paper watermarked with a bow-and-arrow with AM. As expected, the Bonn score makes the Vienna cut in ‘Batti, batti’. (The gathering that might have contained the cut in ‘Madamina’ is missing.) Analysis of the errors and variants also points to an early date, with most of the significant errors in O.A.361/1 remaining uncorrected. A selection is given in Appendix 1.5. The possible connection of this copy with Beethoven opens up many areas for speculation as to when, how, by whom and for what purpose it was acquired. Beethoven’s name is written on the title page, but it is not autograph and probably dates from the early nineteenth century. There is thus no direct connection. The relationship between this score and O.A.361/1 is very close indeed.

florence conservatorio ‘luigi cherubini’ Two copies of the Vienna 2b version are extant in Florence: a Basevi source (B II 183–4); and a Picchi source (D III 428–31). I have seen these only in microfilm copies in the Don Juan Archiv in Vienna. They are later in date than the Bonn score and were probably not copied until around 1800, but they contain fascinating insights into the evolution of the Vienna 2b branch of transmission. Edge dates B II 183–4 at around 1800 and D III 428–31 at around 1800 or later, and my analysis of the text of the two scores would also suggest that the Basevi source probably pre-dates the Picchi source.41 The first question to consider is whether these two scores derive from the hypothetical original conducting score or from O.A.361/1 itself. Page-break analysis once again demonstrates the main relationships, but it also shows how complex the ancestry of even a relatively early copy can be. If teams of copyists replicated exactly the gathering structure of their exemplar, then an exact match of page-breaks is likely. If their own division of labour (as represented by the consignments of paper on which gatherings were copied) began to diverge from the original, then there is usually a corresponding mismatch in the page-breaks.

56

The Vienna Don Giovanni

The substance of a gathering may be taken from one exemplar and then the remainder from another. This interleaving of sources often results in a blurring of the larger picture, but it does not usually destroy it altogether, a phenomenon that can be seen in Appendix 2.4, which analyses the relationship between O.A.361/1 and three related copies. Although there is inevitably some imprecision in such a demonstration, this affects only the boundaries; the essential connections remain unambiguous. The Bonn copy of Act I is virtually a duplicate of O.A.361/1. The two Florence scores do not correspond to O.A.361/1 in Act I, but from Donna Anna’s aria they do match each other. It is possible that this section of joint layout goes back to the lost conducting score, but there can be no certainty. It could of course also post-date O.A.361/1. There are simply too few exemplars to establish firm conclusions. In Act II, on the other hand, the two Florence scores resemble closely the layout of O.A.361/1. After a certain amount of interleaving at the start of the Act, there is consistency, and the Basevi score matches from ‘Vedrai carino’ onwards. Although the Picchi score is also close, there are several sections, for example Donna Elvira’s aria, which represent the result of a previous interleaving. For a clear-cut demonstration that at least two exemplars were used in the early production of scores of the Vienna version associated with O.A.361/1, we can examine the history of a misreading in the Act II finale, the moment when Don Giovanni is swallowed up by the ground. The origins of the error go back to the autograph in which Mozart mistakenly entered the horn parts in the bassoon staff in bars 594 and 596. He smudged these out and copied them correctly on the staff below, in the middle of a stage instruction (‘resta inghiottito’). The error was probably caused by the identical-looking notes in the clarinets in Bb and the bassoons (in the tenor clef ) in the bar before the page turn. There is no sign of this mistake in the Act II wind score of the Prague Conservatory manuscript, and O.A.361/1 has the correct text. The Basevi score in Florence, however, shows signs, both of the miscopying of the bassoon and horn lines, and of the subsequent correction. It seems probable, therefore, either that the autograph was brought back to serve as the exemplar for the revisions under consideration in Vienna, or that a new copy of this section of the opera was made, which inadvertently replicated Mozart’s error. But this raises a troubling question. The changes made to the autograph are obvious, but the final reading seems not to be in doubt, and it is unclear why it should have persisted in this lost Viennese exemplar. The error is also seen in O.A.361/Stimmen. It was also erased and corrected in the horn 1 part, but horn 2 (taken from a different source) was always correct. The Florence Picchi score, like O.A.361/1, shows no sign of this mistake. One further indication that the original autograph (or a new copy made from

The Vienna Don Giovanni

57

it) was in use as an exemplar for the end of Act II in Vienna is that O.A.361/1 does not contain the additional cello lines Mozart entered in the Prague Conservatory score and which are routinely seen in Prague copies. Yet there must have been a second exemplar, since one of the original cello parts (not the firstdesk part which lacks this section) does have these lines. A check for errors found in O.A.361/1 and replicated in the Bonn copy identified only a single case in the Florence scores. It is possible that these mistakes entered only during the copying of O.A.361/1 itself and that their absence in the Florence copies indicates the use of the earlier lost exemplar, but given the relatively late date of these scores, the process of correction could just as easily have taken place subsequently. One sign that the Picchi score was preceded by an intermediate copy is that it incorporates the full wind instrumentation at the start of the Act I finale, making use of sixteen-stave manuscript paper. The Basevi copy preserves the older style of layout, using separate pages.

the lausch and juilliard scores The third branch in the transmission of the Vienna Don Giovanni runs through a second hypothetically lost score to the two extant commercial copies produced by Lausch and Sukowaty. The original source in this branch was copied from the Prague Conservatory manuscript after the expansion of the opera into Vienna 1 and after the main abbreviation had been agreed, but before the final phase of revision. The earliest extant source in this branch is probably the Lausch manuscript in the Florence Conservatorio ‘Luigi Cherubini’, long recognised as a significant score.42 It includes the new Vienna pieces with their recitatives and removes the two (now) superfluous arias as well as the scena ultima, but it appears unaware of changes made during the final days of revision, such as the small cuts added into O.A.361/1. The importance of the Lausch copy is that it provides us with a snapshot of the opera taken shortly before the final version Vienna 2b emerged. Its text is sufficiently distinct to warrant designating it as a version in its own right. It is often implied that Lausch must have obtained his copy of Don Giovanni through an illicit act of piracy, but colourful though that hypothesis is, it does not convince. For one thing, there was nothing to stop him purchasing a score from Prague, and indeed once Sukowaty had put copies of the opera on sale in Vienna, he could easily have sent someone to buy one there too. In the absence of effective copyright, there was little to stop the free circulation of an opera score. In establishing the ancestry of the Lausch score, page-break analysis demonstrated its usual value. The results of a comparison with the Prague Conservatory score are intriguing. (See Appendix 2.2) In Act I, it seemed as though there

58

The Vienna Don Giovanni

was going to be no match, until without warning, part way through ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’, the Lausch copyists replicated exactly gatherings 7/1, 8/1 and 9/1 of the Prague score. Although unthinking duplication was the norm in subsidiary scores prepared for the commercial market-place, this did not always apply when an initial reference Vorlage was being prepared. That task would be allocated to the more experienced copyists, and general considerations of commercial policy such as space, clarity and general appearance versus cost could influence the manner of layout. In this instance, copyists responsible for the lost score which Lausch used as his exemplar, nearly all adopted a new layout, but those working on the portion of Act I exactly defined by the Prague gatherings 7/1 to 9/1 chose to replicate what lay in front of them. The layout of the Lausch score at the start of Act II continues to reflect this mixed approach, yet it is somewhat puzzling. For extended passages during the first four pieces, it matches exactly the Prague Conservatory score, but with smaller intervening sequences that seem unrelated. It will be recalled that the dimensions of the gatherings in this part of the opera are unusual in the Prague score itself, since each short recitative was allocated a number in its own right. Subsequently there was a process of rationalisation, with the eight gatherings being subsumed into four. In some way that remains unclear, this process produced the alternating sequences of matching and unmatching pagebreaks. Later in Act II, the copyist of gathering 14/2 of Lausch’s exemplar again reverted briefly to the Prague layout. To revert to our analogy with a deck of cards, a score of this type represents not a skilled riffle shuffle in which almost everything is interleaved, but a looser overhand shuffle in which blocks of material retain their identity. Analysis of the pattern of errors seen in the Lausch copy confirms that the Prague Conservatory score was its ultimate exemplar. Set B errors, defining the generally circulating Prague version, are entirely absent, as are the accompanying Prague fingerprints; but Set A errors are there in large measure, although, naturally enough, a few corrections have started to appear. One of the problems in constructing a philological account of the Vienna Don Giovanni is the paucity of surviving scores, especially of Act II. The reappearance in the public domain of Source J in NMA: KB, at that time described as being in a private collection in Germany, is thus particularly welcome. It is now in the manuscript collection in the Juilliard School of Music. A Sukowaty copy, its title page reads: ‘Il Don Giovanni / ossia / Il dissoluto punito / Dramma giocoso / in due Atti / Del Sig:re Wolfgango Amadeo Mozart’. Unfortunately the bottom of this page has been torn off, but Plath (who examined the score in 1981) gave the missing line as: ‘In Wien zu haben bey Sukowaty am Peters Platz No 614 im Hof im dritten Stock’.43 The address indicates a date (for the title

The Vienna Don Giovanni

59

page at least) of 1795 or later. The Juilliard score (up until the graveyard scene) presents the text of Vienna 2a and allows us to establish on a firmer basis the existence of the lost score. Its page-break analysis, given in Appendix 2.3, is illuminating. From the Introduzione through to the start of Don Giovanni’s Act I aria, its layout matches that of the Lausch copy quite closely, demonstrating the existence of a common source: the lost reference score. In order to determine the order in which the copies were made, I attempted to perform a triangulation on the three sources, but the results of this were inconclusive. The copyists who produced the lost reference score duplicated exactly three gatherings from the Prague Conservatory manuscript, and this is reflected in the layout of the Lausch copy, even though it has different gathering sizes itself. The Juilliard score, however, briefly extends this connection to the Prague manuscript, using its layout for the whole of gathering seven. This is much easier to demonstrate in a diagram (Fig. 10) than it is to explain. It is not possible to infer from this alone which copy was taken first. This is an example of the ‘blurring’ phenomenon which we have already seen in the later Florence copies of the Vienna version. The relationship between the Juilliard score and the Lausch copy comes to an abrupt end at the start of ‘Fin ch’han dal vino’. The juncture is marked by a new copyist and a different ink. With no other score to guide us, it is impossible to tell which of the two different layouts in the last part of Act I is that of the lost exemplar. Nevertheless, the persistence of a small number of uncorrected Set A errors in the Juilliard score demonstrates that one way or another the Prague Conservatory manuscript was still the ultimate source. At the start of Act II there is once again a correlation with the Lausch copy, but without the neat match of gathering sizes. The link is nevertheless a substantial one. The most interesting section of the Juilliard manuscript is the second half of Act II, beginning with the graveyard scene. Here the layout resembles neither the Lausch score, nor that of any other extant score. From this point, moreover, its text diverges from that of the Lausch copy, which hitherto it had matched very closely indeed. For example, it contains the full scena Prague Conservatory

6

7

8

9

10

 Lausch

6

7

8

9

Juilliard

6

7

8

9



fig. 10  A comparison of the layout and gathering structure in scores of Vienna 2a = layout deriving from the Prague Conservatory score via the lost reference score

60

The Vienna Don Giovanni

ultima, and it also has a fascinating version of the recitative ‘Ah, ah, ah, ah’, with a single word having apparently survived from the early Vienna libretto W1. This will be discussed later in an examination of the sources of the graveyard scene. Although the source text for the last section of the Juilliard manuscript cannot be identified with precision, it certainly contained the Prague version. This is clear from the way that it abruptly reverts to the Prague scene numbers from the graveyard scene onwards, rather than continue with the Vienna series. One particular puzzle is why Sukowaty should have had on sale this mixed version of the opera (Vienna 2a up to the graveyard scene and the Prague version thereafter). A possible explanation would be that while regularly employed by the Court Theatre, he had access to its collection of scores, but that after 1797 he was restricted to using his own materials. A sign that the Juilliard manuscript occupies a position several stages down its particular branch is its level of inaccuracy. It positively bristles with major uncorrected errors. Somewhere along the transmission line, there was trouble in distinguishing accidentals, as a result of which the Statue of the Commendatore enters in the Act II finale to the sound of a German 6th chord. The Juilliard score contains one small hint that someone involved with it was aware of one of the cuts associated with the final Vienna version. Bar totals are not usually given, but after ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’ the abbreviated Vienna total of 69 was added in and later corrected to 84. Evidently at some point it was compared with a score containing the cut. As a conflation of two different elements, the Juilliard score provides a good example of the difficulties inherent in any discussion of the philology of an eighteenth-century opera. Henceforth, it will be necessary to assume (and to repeat rather more often than might otherwise be desirable) that references to this score’s place in the transmission of the Vienna Don Giovanni exclude the final section. With this proviso, it is clear that the Juilliard and Lausch scores stemmed from a nearly identical place on the main trunk, represented by the lost reference score.

The Casting of the Vienna Don Giovanni The revised version of Don Giovanni that Mozart developed for Vienna was influenced significantly by the singers. Full details of the company can be ascertained from Link’s indispensible edition of the theatre accounts.44 An additional source of information, very useful in years for which the account books no longer survive, is the periodical Indice de’ teatrali spettacoli, an almanac which published details of theatrical troupes (mainly opera companies) across Europe.45 The submissions sent from Vienna around this period were quite

The Vienna Don Giovanni

61

extensive, and the lists of personnel match those found in the archival sources quite well. The most significant aspect of the institutional context in which Mozart revised Don Giovanni is that the annual performance cycle of the Italian opera company in Vienna began after Easter, which that year fell on 23 March. Only in late March did the new troupe of singers begin work, and their presentation of the première of the first new work of the season was further delayed by the late arrival of one of their number. Thus operatic performances in January and February 1788, up to the end of Carnival, would have been given by the previous year’s personnel. The significance of this in relation to the Vienna Don Giovanni is that if Da Ponte was correct in stating that a performance of the opera was arranged in haste for Joseph II prior to his departure from Vienna (on 29 February), it would have been given by the outgoing troupe, whereas the public performance run that began in May included at least some of the newly arrived singers, along with performers retained from the previous year. The reporting period for the ITS summary from Vienna ran that year from spring 1787 to Carnival 1788, and its roster of personnel therefore matches closely that seen in the archival records. It is given in Table 10. It is interesting to see the name of Kelly still included, perhaps indicative of a late change of plan, as he left Vienna in the Spring of 1787. A common problem in interpreting lists of singers’ names given in the ITS concerns their first names. Opera was an intensely familial business in the eighteenth century, and there are numerous examples of well-known performers appearing in casts with less celebrated siblings or spouses. Yet some singers did not always use the same forename. In the Court records the singer Sardi is reported to have married Francesco Bussani during the 1786–7 season. In the following two years she is simply listed as his wife. There is then a gap in the accounts for several years, after which she reappears in her own right.47 However, the ITS lists leave it unclear as to table 10  The personnel of the Italian opera company in Vienna, spring 1787 to Carnival 1788, as reported in the ITS  46 Francesco Benucci Stefano Mandini Domenico Mombelli Vincenzo Calvesi Francesco Bussani Michele Kelly Nicola Del Sole Luigi Trentanove

Anna Morichelli Busello Luigia Laschi Mombelli Caterina Cavalieri Rosa Marconi Molinelli Maria Piccinei Mandini Teresa Gherardi Calvesi Eleanora Sardi Bussani Giovanna Nani

62

The Vienna Don Giovanni

what her first name was, and indeed even suggest the possibility of two singers with the same (sur)name. For the 1786–7 season, the Vienna company reported a woman singer ‘N. Bussani’ (‘N.’ indicating first name unknown). The following two years, she appears as Eleanora Sardi Bussani (Bussani’s wife), but in 1789–90, the season in which Così fan tutte was given its première, she is listed as Dorotea Bussani.48 Two important members of the company, Stefano Mandini and Vincenzo Calvesi, left at the end of the season in February 1788; their farewell recitals were on the 15th and 16th of that month.49 If Da Ponte’s recollection of an imperial command performance of Don Giovanni was correct, then it certainly cannot be ruled out that these two performed the roles (Don Giovanni and Don Ottavio) eventually taken by their replacements Francesco Albertarelli and Francesco Morella. Similarly, Donna Anna could have been sung by Anna Morichelli as one of her last roles in Vienna. The ITS list for the 1788–9 season is given in Table 11. The first performance of Don Giovanni is noted: ‘il dissoluto punito, ossia don giovanni / per la prima volta / Musica del Sig. Maestro Mozzart’. The two new male singers made their debuts in operas already in the repertoire, Albertarelli performing the role of Biscroma in Axur on 4 April, and Morella replacing Mandini as Almaviva in Il barbiere di Siviglia.51 Morella was listed as a ‘primo mezzocarattere’ in the ITS list for Salzburg in autumn 1787, performing in Fabrizi’s I due castellani burlati. Curiously, he remains in the Salzburg list for the spring of 1788, which may well point to a late decision to recruit him for Vienna. A final and perhaps significant factor in the Vienna casting of Don Giovanni could have been the very late arrival of Celeste Coltellini. She did not make her debut until 23 April in La modista raggiratrice, having finally made it to Vienna a month and a half after she was expected.52 As the highest-paid singer along table 11  The personnel of the Italian opera company in Vienna, spring 1788 to Carnival 1789, as reported in the ITS 50 Francesco Benucci Domenico Mombelli Valentino Adamberger Francesco Bussani Francesco Albertarelli Francesco Morella Ignazio Saal Nicola Del Sole Martino Ruprecht

Celeste Coltellini Luigia Laschi Mombelli Caterina Cavalieri Luigia Weber-Lang Teresa Teiber-Arnold Anna Coltellini Francesca Benucci Eleanora Sardi Bussani

The Vienna Don Giovanni

63

with the Mombelli couple (until her speedy dismissal), she might well have been expected to take a role in Don Giovanni, and her non-appearance might equally have provoked a late recasting of some of the women’s roles.

The full version (Vienna 1) In any discussion of composition, it is necessary to acknowledge that, however coherent the end result, the process of arriving at that conclusion may lack logic. A too easy assumption in the case of the Vienna Don Giovanni is that the revisions were interconnected, part of a single grand plan with the new pieces conceptualised in conjunction with the cuts, expansion balanced by contraction. In reality the process was much less disciplined than that, with Mozart responding to a series of specific problems as they arose. In the light of the late arrival of Celeste Coltellini, it cannot be assumed that there were no late cast changes among the women singers. In such circumstances, making a virtue out of necessity, one of this composer’s most impressive attributes as a craftsman, came strongly to the fore. The striking conclusion reached by Edge as a result of his work on the orchestral parts was that a full version of Don Giovanni came into consideration, which included the newly composed pieces but without as yet cutting anything of substance.53 The first phase of work thus constituted an expansion, as indeed is implied in Da Ponte’s account. New pieces were provided for several members of the cast and these were integrated into the opera with newly composed recitatives. Mozart wrote: an additional aria for Morella (‘Dalla sua pace’); a comic duet for the company’s leading basso buffo Benucci with Mombelli (‘Per queste tue manine’); and a new scena (‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’) for Cavalieri. It seems that he also restored Masetto’s aria (if indeed it had ever been really cut) for Francesco Bussani, who, although not one of the star members of the troupe, had some managerial responsibilities and evidently enough clout (and experience in intrigue) to sustain his modest position as a performer. Many years later, Da Ponte recalled that these changes had been made as a result of dissatisfaction with the opera as it stood, but scholars have naturally discussed the specific reasons for them. In general, practical explanations have been favoured over the idea that they were intended as conceptual improvements, doubtless because of the twentieth-century consensus that they did not constitute any kind of enhancement of the dramatic structure. As it would have been unthinkable to attribute a lack of theatrical judgement to Mozart, recourse was had to the explanation that he sacrificed the integrity of the Prague original to the demands of his new cast. That no longer seems plausible, not because Mozart did not make such compromises in Vienna, but because a balance always had to be found between these competing considerations.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

64

We should not neglect the idea that Mozart might have thought improvements to the Prague score were possible. In enhancing the role of Donna Elvira, the composer was arguably rebalancing the two leading female roles in line with his preference, strongly expressed in the famous letter of 7 May 1783: ‘if possible [an opera must] include 2 equally good female roles; – one would have to be a Seria, the other a Mezzo Carattere – but in quality – both roles would have to be absolutely equal.’54 Mozart’s actual reasons for writing Donna Elvira’s splendid new scena will never be known, but the effect of this addition was entirely in line with his previously expressed ideal. The autograph itself contains evidence that the new pieces were inserted into it without the physical loss of any of the old ones. This is implied by two pencil foliations in Act II. One sequence which covers the whole opera, reflects the state of the autograph as it ended up in André’s possession, as the lost sections are not included. A second sequence, however, added only to Act II, must have been put in when the sections missing today were still there. Twelve missing table 12  Original numbering system of Act II in O.A.361/1 and the autograph O.A.361/1 Eh via 1 buffone Ah taci, 2 ingiusto core Deh vieni alla finestra

3

Metà di voi

4

Vedrai, carino

5

Sola, sola in bujo loco

6

[Ah pietà]

Autograph No: 1 Segue Scena II. Terzetto No: 2 Segue Canzonetta di D. Giovanni No: 3 Segue Aria di D. Giovanni No: 4 Segue Aria di Zerlina No: 5 Segue Sestetto No: 6 [Segue l’aria di Leporello No: 7 in cadenza]

No: 2 No: 3

No: 4 No: 5 No: 6 No: 7

The Vienna Don Giovanni

65

folio numbers (62–73) originally had the comic duet with its associated recitatives, and a further gap (83–6) the graveyard scene. When this sequence was put on, all the Act II music was still there, the Prague original as well as the Vienna additions. Evidence for this full version is embedded in the score O.A.361/1, as its original numbering system for Act II included all thirteen pieces in Act II. When the cuts were subsequently made, the numbers were changed, albeit rather randomly, to produce a reduced sequence of eleven pieces. In developing the full version of the opera, Mozart would have provided a comprehensive numbering scheme for it, but that does not mean that all of the music was yet composed. In order to save time, the copyists would be supplied with what was available (appropriately numbered) with gaps for the pieces not yet ready. The changes made to the numbers in the score are given in Table 12, with those of the autograph for comparison. The full numbering system is also embedded in the parts. Again, the original table 12 continued O.A.361/1 [Il mio tesoro] Per queste tue manine In quali eccessi / Mi tradì O statua

Crudele/ Non mi dir

9 crossed out and replaced with 7 8 later changed to 9 in red ink, as in the parts unclear but 11 probably replaced by 9 (and then a later change); the previous segue is clearer with 11 scratched out and replaced with 9 10

Già la mensa 13 crossed out and replaced with 11

Autograph [Segue l’aria No: 8 di D. Ottavio No:] missing In quali eccessi

No: 8 not in Mozart’s hand No: 9 crossed out and replaced by 11; not in Mozart’s hand

Recitativo No: 10 Istromentato di D. Anna e l’aria No: 10 [changed to 12] Segue scena No: 11 XIII / finale No: 11

in both instances the 0 crossed out and replaced by 2 to make 12; not in Mozart’s hand

66

The Vienna Don Giovanni

copyists of Act II numbered pieces from one to thirteen. Even the duplicate string parts retain signs of the full sequence. Numbers and changes made to them are summarised in Table 13. In some instances the changes are hard to read because of the manner in which the original number was deleted, but the general picture is clear. A significant difference between the score and the parts is that the latter retained the two cut arias when the reduced sequence was agreed. Thus in the string parts after the sestetto the sequence runs 7 8 9 8. The number 9 allocated to the comic duet implies that this piece was actually composed in time to be physically present in the full version. (It was entered by Mozart in his catalogue of works on 24 April.) The two horn parts were copied slightly later, and their sequence 7 8 7 8 has the comic duet as (the second) number 7, again with the two cut pieces still present. In all cases, however, Elvira’s scena always had ‘No.8’ as its original number. At some point, it was renumbered upwards to No.9, both in the parts and the full score. The implication is that, as the last piece to be composed, which was no later than 30 April (the date when Mozart entered it into his catalogue), Elvira’s scena did not receive a number in any physical source (as opposed to the conceptual scheme) until after the reduced version of the opera had been agreed. Thus while the comic duet had to be reduced from 9 to 7, the following scena would only have entered as ‘No.8’. Further evidence of the full version is to be found in the copying sequence of the score O.A.361/1, which suggests that ‘Per queste tue manine’ was indeed written out while ‘Ah pietà’ and ‘Il mio tesoro’ were still in the opera. At the start of Scene X (which would have led into ‘Il mio tesoro’ in the full version), the original gathering number was scraped off altogether. The number 9/2 was added to a single bifolium subsequently attached to the start of this gathering, which contains the recitatives that lead into the abbreviated Vienna version. The next number which happens to fall in the middle of the duet, had table 13  The numbering of Act II in O.A.361/Stimmen vn 1

vn 1 (dup.)

vn 2

vn 2 (dup.)

va

va (dup.)

vc

vc (dup.)

Ah pietà

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

Il mio tesoro

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9→7

9→7

9→7

9→7

9→7

9→7

Mi tradì

8[→9]

8[→9]

8[→9]

8[→9]

8[→9]

O statua

11→9

11

11

9

11→9

11→9

12?→10

12

12→10

10

12

12→10

Per queste

Non mi dir Finale

13?→11

8[→9] 12?→10

The Vienna Don Giovanni

67

its second digit scraped off and was amended to 10/2. Presumably its original number was larger, to allow for the gatherings on which the cut pieces had been copied. Thereafter the gathering numbers are unchanged and must have been copied after the final decision to abbreviate the opera had been taken. (The two gatherings 9/2 and 10/2 were then given a separate pagination to clarify that the sequence was now as intended.) After the two arias were cut, the numbers of the few remaining pieces in Act II yet to be copied would no longer be as in the source score, but the necessary corrections were made rather haphazardly: the number for ‘O statua gentilissima’ was scratched out but not replaced; Donna Anna’s scena was correctly numbered 10; but then the Act II finale was given its original number of 13, and this was only subsequently changed to 11. The copying of the full version in the parts seems to demonstrate a clear intention to perform it. As Edge points out, the red crayon identifications of Morella at the start of both his arias in the first-desk violin 1 part are especially telling.55 If it was actually given this way on the night of the première, we would have to assume the loss without trace of its libretto. It is far from uncommon to see two different text-books with the same date and place of publication, representing either a draft followed by a final version, or a rapid post-première rethink, but we should be very cautious about basing a theory on a missing libretto. In any case, there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that a performance of this full version was at least under consideration. When there was a change of mind, the cut pieces were taken out of the scores, but they were not physically removed from the parts. Instead, they were tied off or marked in some other way for omission, a tacit acknowledgement, perhaps, that a further change of mind was still possible. In the light of all this, Edge reasonably suggests that we might do well to enlarge the traditional conception of what constitutes a ‘version’ of a Mozart opera to include states of the work prepared for performance but never actually given. In support of the idea that this version remained unperformed, we might point to the fact that Elvira’s scena seems never to have been numbered No.10. In other words, the conception of Vienna 1 had been abandoned by the time that ‘Mi tradì’ was actually copied.

An intermediate version? Having tried the opera in this expanded form, Mozart apparently concluded that it needed to be shortened. In considering how to do this, he focused his attention upon the sequence between the end of the sestetto and the graveyard scene. I have come to the conclusion that while working on this abbreviation he briefly considered placing Donna Elvira’s scena before the comic duet, before finally adopting the sequence that we now know. At one time I thought that this hypothetical arrangement merited a number in the general scheme as a ‘version’.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

68

It meets the criterion of being a distinct conception, but I concluded that to formalise what could never have been more than a passing idea as a clear-cut stage in the compositional process would be to create problems. There is a parallel with my theory concerning the difficulties Mozart and Da Ponte experienced with Così fan tutte. I argued for the idea that a plot with lovers unswitched was actively considered, but this was clearly never formalised into a completely coherent alternative version, and it would be wrong to expect that everything necessary was done to make the change. Similarly, in the case of the possible repositioning of Donna Elvira’s scena, Mozart may well have completed some compositional tasks required to effect this significant reordering, but abandoned the idea before other necessary revisions were even begun. table 14  A comparison between the Prague, Vienna 1, 2a and 2b versions Prague 6: Sola in bujo loco

Vienna 1 6: Sola in bujo loco

Dunque quello 7: Ah pietà

Vienna hypothetical version 6: Sola in bujo loco

Dunque quello 7: Ah pietà

Vienna 2a/2b 6: Sola in bujo loco

Dunque quello

Dunque quello

Ferma, perfido

Ferma perfido

Restati qua

Restati qua

7: Ah pietà Ah pietà

Ferma, perfido 8: Il mio tesoro

Ferma, perfido 8: Il mio tesoro

8: In quali eccessi / Mi tradì Restati qua

9: Per queste tue manine

10: In quali eccessi / Mi tradì = Donna Elvira’s scena

9: Per queste tue manine

7: Per queste tue manine

Amico, per pietà

Amico, per pietà

Guarda un po

Andiam, andiam

Andiam, andiam

Andiam, andiam 8: In quali eccessi / Mi tradì

The Vienna Don Giovanni

69

The order of Act II of the Vienna Don Giovanni is confusing at the best of times, so it may help to orientate the reader to see the proposed sequence of revisions in tabular form. These are given in Table 14. There is nothing inherently implausible in the idea that as part of a general reordering of the middle of Act II, Mozart considered having Donna Elvira express her anguish over the shocking revelations of the sestetto immediately, rather than postponing her outburst to the perhaps somewhat flimsier pretext of Masetto’s report of another seduction. This indeed was suggested by Rushton as a reasonable, if inauthentic solution to the general wish to include this scena in the Prague version.56 Donna Elvira’s aria would have led into the comic business of Zerlina and Leporello, which in turn would have been followed by the strongly contrasting graveyard scene. Before embarking upon a quest for signs of this transitional state, it will be useful to present a summary of its plot, as it might then have unfolded. This is given in Table 15. If the extant recitatives relate to this sequence, then the keys would have flowed smoothly with neither of the awkward disjunctions that remain in the final version, the apparent result of a last minute further reordering. In considering Mozart’s attitude to key sequences, a distinction can probably be made between the kinds of initial decisions that he made when composing, and those he took when struggling with the demands of bringing the work towards its actual staging. He doubtless held views on what kinds of progression between keys in the individual movements of an opera would work most effectively, but when shuffling around already composed pieces in response to practical exigencies, idealism would sometimes have to give way to pragmatism, and the key sequence that emerged might then reflect a degree of compromise.57 It must be admitted straightaway that the search for residual signs of this hypothetical intermediate version has not produced very strong corroboration of the theory; rather there are small hints and clues that may (or may not) constitute evidence of it. Perhaps this level of uncertainty is not so surprising, since we are seeking to identify traces of what may have been no more than a very fleeting conception, and one indeed that was probably still itself in a state of flux, with a further major change, the cut of the aria ‘Ah pietà’ imminent, if not actually yet made. There are three kinds of potential clue worth considering: (1) changes made to the numbering of the scenes; (2) the circumstances that caused Mozart to transpose the aria ‘Mi tradì’ and then (apparently) not to use the new version; and (3) a significant number of loose ends in this section of the libretto and score.

70

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 15  The hypothetical intermediate version

Piece

Tonality Plot

Dunque quello

Eb→G

Zerlina and Masetto, Don Ottavio and Donna Elvira, all round on Leporello.

G

Leporello asks for mercy, explains himself and then runs off.

Ah pietà (aria) (replaced by) Ah pietà (recitative)

D→G

Ferma perfido

G→Bb

Donna Elvira attempts unsuccessfully to detain Leporello. Zerlina quickly takes Masetto off-stage. Don Ottavio vows vengeance and suggests that Elvira remain in the house for a while. He leaves, setting the scene for her soliloquy. (Plot sequence as in W2, except that there is no indication that Don Ottavio must leave.)

In quali eccessi / Mi tradì

Bb→D

Elvira struggles with her conflicting emotions. (The aria was perhaps in D major.)

Restati qua

G→C

Zerlina drags Leporello back in and ties him up with the help of a peasant.

C

Zerlina and Leporello sing their comic duet. She goes off to find Masetto and Donna Elvira.

Per queste tue manine Amico! per pietà

C→Bb

Leporello escapes again.

Andiam, andiam

Bb→D

Zerlina returns with Donna Elvira to find Leporello gone again. Don Ottavio must be told. (In this version, Masetto’s story of another seduction could have been omitted, as it is no longer needed to introduce Donna Elvira’s scena.)

changes to scene numbers Some of these could be interpreted as signs of the intermediate Vienna version. Details are given in Table 16. The autograph identifies Elvira’s soliloquy as Scene XIV, its position both in the full version and the final score. The number derives from W2, because if Mozart had simply continued his own sequence it would have been XIII, owing to the fact that he had not incorporated a new Scene VIII in the middle of the sestetto. (A sign of someone’s desire to align the autograph score to the libretto is seen in the scene number for ‘Calmatevi’, changed from the Prague number XI, first to XV and then to XVI.) If the theory of the shortlived intermediate version is correct, Elvira’s scena would briefly have become Scene X. There are hints of just this. In the Lausch and Juilliard scores and in O.A.361/1 (before correction) ‘Restati qua’ the introduction to the comic duet

The Vienna Don Giovanni

71

table 16  Scene numbers in Act II after the sestetto (Vienna version) W1 Ferma briccone

P

Autograph

W2

VIII VIII

Lausch Juilliard O.A.361/1

VIII

Dunque quello

IX

IX

VIII

IX

8

8

8

Ferma perfido

IX

X

IX

X

9

9

9 (Segue Scena 10)

Restati qua

(missing)

X

11

11

11→10

Amico per pietà

(missing)

XII

XII

XII

12

Andiam

(missing)

XIII

XIII

XIII

13

XIV

XIV

XIV

XIV

14

missing

hypothetical location for ‘In quali eccessi’



In quali eccessi Ah, ah, ah

XI

XI

XV

XV

15 changed from ?

15

Calmatevi

XI

XII XI→XV→XVI XVI

11

11→16

11→16

Ah si segua

Finale (first scene)

XII→XVII Segue XIII XIII XII

XII

12 12→17 18→17 (segue 13) (segue 13) Segue 19→18 XVII

XII

12

was numbered XI, as in W2. The absence of the number 10 would have allowed Donna Elvira’s scena to have been placed as Scene X. The missing number could also have been a consequence of the switch from the autograph numbering system (for Prague material) to the W2 numbering (for Vienna material), but the use of the arabic number in the Lausch score is telling, as is the correction (of just this number) in O.A.361/1.

mi tradì Mozart’s decision to transpose ‘Mi tradì’ from Eb to D has never been satisfactorily explained, and the idea that it might have been caused by the hypothetical reordering of Donna Elvira’s scena deserves serious consideration. Mozart indicated the transposition on the first page of his manuscript by adding ‘in D’ at the head, but it was clear that putting the aria down a semitone would require rewriting the string parts, whenever a lowest open string was used. The first point at which changes were required was in bars 3–4 of the violin 2 and viola lines. Mozart wrote the revised text above and below the brace using, rather surprisingly, the transposed pitches. Almost immediately it occurred to him

72

The Vienna Don Giovanni

that this might prove very confusing for copyists, so he crossed out these two additions and instead doctored the original lines in the full score. These and all subsequent changes were made at the Eb pitch, so that in the end the autograph presented the reading required for the version in D but using pitches appropriate for the key of Eb. In the parts, the D major transposition appears as an insert, usually beginning at a convenient point in the accompagnato just before the start of its revised ending. The successive changes of mind are seen most clearly in the first-desk violin 1 part. The original bar of transition (bar 20 of ‘In quali eccessi’) was scraped out and the D version superimposed in black ink. Later a small flap of paper was stuck on restoring the Eb version. A second flap of paper attached to the opposite page has the continuation in D. This could have been a clarification of the original change, or perhaps it represented a further change of mind at a later date. (The horn parts, which did not need to be altered, other than to have the correct key specified, went through several changes, resulting in a palimpsest, albeit apparently with D as the final choice, although this could have been done much later.) Small changes in the parts of the D major version draw attention to the fact that in his haste Mozart omitted to provide two necessary revisions, inadvertently implying a low B for viola (NMA: DG, bar 46) and a low F# for violin 2 (NMA: DG, bar 106). One can easily imagine a humorous moment in a preliminary run through! It is not clear whether Mozart himself was responsible for raising by a third the violin 2 note, but it seems a bit unlikely as the result is a blatant parallel fifth with the bass line. It is almost certain that the Eb version was quickly restored, but this posed a potential question for copyists: should there be a reversion to the original text, or should Mozart’s revision (carried out in Eb in the autograph and still unchanged there) be adopted? A pertinent question is whether copyists could distinguish transposition-related amendments from any ‘ordinary’ revisions and corrections entered by Mozart into his autograph. Without explicit guidance, the answer is probably not. In the parts the copyists supplied the original Eb version, but someone subsequently rechecked the first-desk violin 2 and viola parts and lightly entered the revised readings in red crayon. These potential amendments were all subsequently rejected. Thus an attempt was made to incorporate the revised Eb version, but this was over-ruled. Significantly, the revised Eb version appears in scores of Vienna 2a, stemming from the lost reference score, while the original version is given in Vienna 2b, represented by O.A.361/1. This provides us with useful chronological information, because it shows that the D major version (and its abandonment) came relatively early on in the process. In other words,

The Vienna Don Giovanni

73

by the time that the reference score was produced, the D major version had been and gone. Mozart’s reason for considering the transposition might have been the proximity of the preceding sestetto. Despite growing reservations as to how significant the issue of key sequence was when Mozart ordered the movements of an opera, there is still general agreement that he would if possible avoid having two successive pieces in the same key, especially if both were large in scale. The hypothetical reordering after the loss of ‘Ah pietà’ would have produced two substantial Eb movements, one after the other. Nearly all the D major parts contain the continuity instruction ‘Harmonia tacet’, which indicates the wind accompaniments to the words of the statue. This leads directly into the graveyard scene, which might imply that the D major version was retained in this later position. On the other hand, this instruction could simply have been copied from the parts containing the Eb version and not cancelled because the transposed version itself quickly became redundant. In general, there are hardly any signs that the D major parts were ever in use. An obvious alternative explanation for the double change of mind over the key is the simple desire to accommodate the changing wishes of its singer, or, in the context of cast changes potentially necessitated by the late arrival of Celeste Coltellini, of a replacement. A recent discussion of Mozart’s writing for Cavalieri has demonstrated a slow downwards trend in the keys of her arias.58 This might account for the transposition, but not the retransposition.

loose ends in the libretto and score Probably the opera has yet to be written that has no loose ends. Small dramatic inconsistencies rarely trouble audiences, yet their existence can be very useful to the researcher, as they are often the legacy of the work’s compositional evolution. The awkwardness of the plot in the middle of Act II of the Vienna Don Giovanni has attracted unfavourable attention. As Einstein rather graphically put it: ‘what happens in Act II of the 1788 version, between Leporello’s escape from the clutches of the quintet of his opponents and the churchyard [recte graveyard] scene, becomes the more obscure the more one tries to make it clear to oneself.’59 In the following analysis, an attempt will be made to understand how the revised Vienna plot emerged from a series of decisions about the ordering of the material, leading to the survival of several slightly awkward junctions. In order to clarify how the proposed hypothesis could have contributed to these, it will be useful to summarise the manner in which Elvira’s scena could have achieved its final position in the score. Any decision to insert a major new piece into an existing dramatic structure is always likely to be accompanied by discussion as to its best location.

74

The Vienna Don Giovanni 1 In the full version Vienna 1, ‘Mi tradì’ was to be located as number 10 immediately preceding the graveyard scene. At this stage it was not copied, as this number never appears in the extant materials. 2 Two abbreviations followed, but it is far from clear in which order Mozart made them: (a) Leporello’s ‘Ah pietà’ was cut, and conceivably also the preceding recitative, as Da Ponte did in New York.60 (b) ‘Il mio tesoro’ was also cut. 3 It was decided to replace Don Ottavio’s aria with Elvira’s scena, a piece of equivalent weight, but in view of the proximity of the large-scale sestetto in Eb, Mozart decided that he would have to transpose ‘Mi tradì’ down a semitone. 4 In a final rethink, Mozart decided to preserve the original sequence of comic and serious elements, to achieve which he repositioned Elvira’s scena after the comic duet, its original location, reverting to the key of Eb for ‘Mi tradì’.

Some of the minor difficulties in this section of the opera may be the legacy of this sequence of compositional activity, but it is a very complex matter indeed and many other alternatives or variants of the proposed explanation are possible. Perhaps the most surprising feature of this part of the opera is Leporello’s double attempt at escape. In the original Prague version, he simply runs off after his aria ‘Ah pietà’. The new comic duet, however, required that he should be recaptured before finally getting away. This certainly puzzled Einstein: [it is] ‘superfluous … indeed harmful, since it simply prolongs all this byplay from the opening of Act II to the churchyard [i.e. graveyard] scene’.61 In the full version, his first attempt at escape would have been distant from his recapture, and in the hypothetical sequence with Elvira’s scena as a replacement for ‘Il mio tesoro’, the same would have been true, but in the final versions Vienna 2a/2b the escape and the recapture are much closer together. The elaborate routine envisaged in Vienna 1 also raised the question of how to manage the various attempts to detain Leporello. In the full version, Donna Elvira’s failure comes well before Zerlina’s successful capture. That distance would also be preserved in the hypothetical sequence, but in the final versions Zerlina returns alone, dragging Leporello in by the hair, only seconds after the others (including Masetto) have left the stage. In the full version Vienna 1, Mozart apparently decided to connect Leporello’s first attempt to escape and his recapture by inserting a musical cross-reference. The recitative introducing the comic duet (‘Restati qua’) directly recalls the ‘escape’ music at the end of ‘Ah pietà’. The aria ‘Il mio tesoro’ would have

The Vienna Don Giovanni

75

separated the original from the cross-reference, and in the hypothetical intermediate sequence Elvira’s scena would have done the same. This was how musical recalls usually worked with Mozart – some distance from the original, as seen most notably at the climax of Act II of Così fan tutte. With the loss of ‘Ah pietà’, this cross-reference would have disappeared, but Mozart decided that a substitute recitative should preserve the connection. It is possible that this amounts to a hint that ‘Ah pietà’ was cut while a substantial piece (‘Il mio tesoro’ or ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’) was still to follow. Once both pieces had been removed, however, only the short recitative ‘Ferma perfido’ was left to separate the first hearing of the escape music from its ironic recall by Zerlina, a sequence that has occasioned some scholarly comment. Rushton did not see a particular problem with this order.62 The editors of NMA: DG, however, wondered whether a direct musical link had been envisaged: the flight of Leporello at the end of the recitative ‘Ah pietà’, followed immediately by Zerlina’s recapture of him in ‘Restati qua’. In their view, this would have made a ‘logical and very wittily composed’ connection, although the loss of important themes of the plot (in ‘Ferma perfido’) would surely have been too significant for this ever to have been seriously contemplated.63 Don Ottavio, for instance, still needed the chance to express some reaction to the shocking turn of events and to indicate his intention of seeking out official justice. A possible argument in favour of the idea that this abridgement was considered is that the positioning of ‘Ferma perfido’ between the original and the recall produces a notable harmonic disjunction: its last chord is a Bb triad, while ‘Restati qua’ begins with a first inversion D major chord. That represents a rather more distant tonal relationship than is usual for Mozart, and many feel it to be awkward. It is sometimes suggested that the abrupt gear-change was intended to ‘mirror’ the dramatic turn of events on stage, but this seems out of line with the relative neutrality with which recitative key sequences usually proceed.64 If my theory of the intermediate sequence is correct, however, then ‘Ferma perfido’ would have introduced Elvira’s accompagnato, and its Bb cadence would have led directly into the unison of ‘In quali eccessi’. Having decided to return Elvira’s scena to its original place, Mozart and Da Ponte had to accept an awkward moment in the plot. How could Zerlina’s departure with Masetto and her immediate return (alone) dragging in the protesting Leporello be explained? What was supposed to have happened to her lover? It is this ‘revolving door’ aspect to the escape and the recapture, which turns it into unconvincing farce. Such a complaint could not have been levelled against the full version or the hypothetical rearrangement, in both of which the reappearance of Leporello at the hands of Zerlina would have been delayed sufficiently for the scene to retain its identity as a completely separate episode.

76

The Vienna Don Giovanni

For signs of uncertainty in the sources over the connection between the escape music and its reprise, we need look no further than scores of Vienna 2a. In these sources, ‘Restati qua’ begins with the instruction ‘In tempo’, but there is no heading at all (other than the scene number 11), and even the first part label (Zerlina) is missing. It is as though Mozart had been experimenting with other ways of making this connection. These features, indeed, suggest a still more radical possibility: that Mozart (or someone else) added the escape music to the start of an existing recitative (‘Per carità, Zerlina’). Gugler, doubting the authenticity of ‘Restati qua’, discussed several unusual features at its start.65 He pointed out that it was rare for a cross-reference to be longer than the original. In the aria there are three I–V statements of the two-bar idea, concluding with four repetitions of the final I. In the replacement recitative (‘Ah pietà’) there are again three repetitions of the I–V theme, but this time with a single concluding I chord. At the start of ‘Restati qua’, however, there are no fewer than six repetitions of the two-bar phrase, now back-to-front as a V–I progression as shown in Example 1. Gugler pointed out a further curious feature. After the crotchet chord at the start of bar 12, there are three bars with rests in the continuo line. It is quite common for a recitative to begin with a half bar, bar, or even a bar and a half without continuo, but the length of silence here is untypical of Mozart’s practice. These features, together with the lack of a part label for Zerlina, certainly leave open ex. 1  A comparison between endings of ‘Ah pietà’, ‘Ah pietà compassion’ and the start of ‘Restati qua’

˙ ?#C œ œ

(a)

˙

˙ ?#C œ œ

(b)

˙

˙ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ ˙

(c)

?#C ˙

˙ ?# œ œ ?# œ Œ Ó ?# ˙

˙ œ œ œ œ

œ œ ˙

˙

œ œ œ œ ˙

˙

˙

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ ˙

œ œ ˙

ì

˙

œ œ ˙

œ œ œ œ ˙

˙

œ œ

˙

œ œ

œ œ œ œ ˙

œ Œ Ó

˙

˙

ì

œ œ œ Ó Œ

The Vienna Don Giovanni

77

the possibility of a revision, even that someone other than the composer fashioned a new start out of the escape music. Certainly, a fortuitous element in the incorporation of this musical allusion cannot be ruled out. (Così fan tutte furnishes a famous example of seeming confusion over a reference; the presumed original of Ferrando’s recall at the climax is no longer in the opera.) The Basevi and Picchi scores in Florence have further hints as to how the connection at the start of ‘Restati qua’ might have been made. Their readings of the join are significant because at this point in Act II both scores are closely linked to O.A.361/1 by their page-breaks. The earlier Basevi score ends with the normal V–I cadence in Bb but with the instruction ‘subito’. This would not be required for a progression from one simple recitative to another, but it would make better sense for a continuation ‘in tempo’ into ‘Restati qua’. In the Picchi manuscript, ‘Ferma perfido’ ends without the final tonic chord with the instruction: ‘subito dovrebbe seguire Aria D. Ottavio’. This implies the restitution of Don Ottavio’s aria in the Vienna version. The instruction ‘subito’ would then indicate an ‘attacca’ continuation, rather than the ‘segue’ of the Prague original. However, in a hand-drawn extension to the final brace, the missing tonic chord was supplied in an additional bar, leaving it unclear as to what exactly was meant. As happens not infrequently, the source teases the philologist, because the end of ‘Ferma perfido’ represents the end of its gathering in the Picchi manuscript. It is also therefore possible that exemplars were switched at this point and that one had the Bb chord on the next page. The significance of these changes in the context of the wider drama is unclear. That the recitative ‘Ferma perfido’ was part of a potential reworking of this part of Act II is clear, because it was considered for revision itself. In W2 it begins as usual with Donna Elvira failing to detain Leporello but then changes the Prague text with an additional line: ‘Masetto, vieni meco’. With these words, Zerlina takes her partner away, and in the following line, Don Ottavio now has to address himself to the one person remaining on stage ‘Donna Elvira’ rather than ‘my friends’ (‘Amici miei’). No explanation for Mozart’s failure to incorporate these changes in his musical score has been forthcoming.66 The editors of NMA: DG point out that an earlier departure of Zerlina and Masetto could have added some credibility to her almost immediate reappearance with Leporello, but in any case only a few seconds are gained, and the new text would, moreover, draw attention to the fact that Zerlina and Masetto leave together.67 The W2 text, however, does make sense in the context of the hypothetical intermediate version. With this plot sequence, it would be necessary to ensure the quick withdrawal of Masetto and Zerlina, but then Don Ottavio’s closing words about vengeance would make an appropriate introduction to Elvira’s soliloquy, in which she forsees Don Giovanni’s approaching fate (and the need

78

The Vienna Don Giovanni

for it), even if she cannot conquer her continuing feelings for the scoundrel. By suggesting that she remains in the house as he withdraws, Don Ottavio would set her up for her solo scene. There is a further variant reading in W2, although it is not clear whether it is related to the migration of Elvira’s scena. It concerns the recitative ‘Amico! per pietà’ which follows the comic duet. There is some uncertainty over its beginning. In the libretto, Leporello dupes the peasant charged with standing guard over him into fetching a glass of water, thereby facilitating his escape for the second time. The scene heading naturally includes reference to the ‘contadino’. Vienna 2a scores contain this musical reading, but Leporello’s request is instead directed to a servant (‘a un servo’), as though it were one of Don Ottavio’s minions who had assisted with Zerlina’s recapture. In O.A.361/1 and in Vienna 2b scores, however, the first three bars of this recitative were omitted, thereby removing the peasant from the scene altogether. In this version the recitative begins ‘Guarda un po’ and the recitative heading correctly reflects the revision using the simple instruction ‘Leporello, solo’. The question, therefore, is whether O.A.361/1 represents in this instance Vienna 1 (the original version) or whether this is a final reading exclusive to Vienna 2b. In many ways the appearance of a servant here would be logical. Don Giovanni has previously split up the group of armed peasants and dispatched them on a quest to continue the search, cleverly separating them from Masetto who remains with him. The action switches to a dark vestibule (entrance hall / lobby) in Donna Anna’s house. The textual changes here are of interest. In W1 the location is given as ‘atrio tereno oscuro in casa di D. An.’. In the autograph, however, there is no mention of Donna Anna’s house, merely a dark vestibule with three doors: ‘atrio oscuro con tre porte’. P follows W1, but in W2 ‘atrio’ is replaced with ‘camera’ (room). Thus, all three libretti situate the action in Donna Anna’s house, while Mozart simply refers to there being three exits. The question is whether the composer’s formulation derives from a draft libretto, and whether the idea of locating the action in Donna Anna’s house was a subsequent change. Masetto and Zerlina enter during the sestetto to block Leporello’s first attempt at escape, but unaccompanied by any ‘contadini’. When in the Vienna versions Zerlina drags Leporello back by the hair, it is still to this room, and the assistant who enters might therefore very plausibly be a servant. Indeed, the moment before, Zerlina actually calls out for assistance from ‘servi’ (servants) and ‘gente’ (people). It is legitimate to wonder whether her recapture of ­Leporello might have been intended for a different location. In W2 there are several curious aspects to the way the ‘contadino’ is used. First, there is no reference to a peasant in the scene heading, which simply lists: ‘zerlina, e leporello’. The internal stage instruction which does note his

The Vienna Don Giovanni

79

entrance (‘entra un Cont’) comes before Zerlina’s attempt to raise help from the servants, to which she responds ‘no-one is coming; no-one has heard’ (‘Nessun vien … nessun sente’). Her later remark, assumed to be directed at the peasant ‘quick, here, that chair’ (‘Presto quà quella sedia’) does not have a stage direction and is in fact answered by Leporello himself ‘here it is’ (‘Eccola’). There are enough clues here to suggest that the peasant could have been an afterthought. A working hypothesis, then, might be that the ‘contadino’ was added to the scene after the reordering, when the comic duet was no longer to take place in Donna Anna’s house. The reversion to the original plan would have reinstated the comic scene indoors, but now with an inappropriate assistant for Zerlina. As Rushton pointed out, Newman made great play with the fact that Zerlina should have used Donna Anna’s house at all for this escapade: ‘Nobody seems to have reflected then on the absurdity of the peasant girl’s making free of the great lady Donna Anna’s house in this fashion.’68 With a ‘servo’ rather than a ‘contadino’, at least a member of the indoor establishment would have been involved. In the Vienna 2a version, Leporello addresses a ‘servant’ whereas Vienna 2b removes the opening lines of ‘Amico, per pietà’ altogether. In fact only in the libretto W2 is a ‘contadino’ named as Zerlina’s assistant. In addition to the peasant who assists Zerlina, two other ‘contadini’ enter in the company of Masetto in the recitative ‘Andiam, andiam’. It is generally agreed that the reason for his reappearance with news of a further attempted seduction is to provide the occasion for Donna Elvira’s impassioned scena. He reports that he has just come to the rescue of a maiden in distress, supposing her attacker to be Don Giovanni, to judge by what he has been told about the man’s appearance and manners. The removal of Elvira’s dramatic soliloquy to an earlier location might have made this entry redundant, since a similar story is shortly told by the miscreant himself in the graveyard scene. There is in fact an early abbreviated version of ‘Andiam, andiam’ from which Masetto and the peasants have been removed. The piece in question is a single recitative, a replacement for both ‘Amico, per pietà’ and ‘Andiam, andiam’. It gained currency in Prague and was published in the full score by Breitkopf & Härtel in 1801. Gugler, who did not know the version of the recitative now presumed to be authentic, identified a number of significant elements in the replacement Prague piece – instances of poor settings of the Italian text and the use of an uncharacteristic ascending sixth leap – as pointing away from Mozart’s authorship.69 He knew what the full text had been from the Vienna libretto W2 and surmised that a passage had been cut in rehearsal because the recitative had been found to be too long. He was strongly of the opinion, though, that some version of the original text should be restored, precisely because the cut section included Masetto’s account of another attempted seduction by Don Giovanni,

80

The Vienna Don Giovanni

without which Elvira’s scena would be left unattached to the drama, as though it had simply fallen out of the skies. Not until 1946 did Einstein discover that the Prague recitative was inauthentic.70 Like Gugler, he cited a striking infelicity in its declamation. Nonetheless, the point remains: it is still possible that such a piece could have stemmed from authentic knowledge: that the composer considered such a recitative.71 A further possibility is that the removal of Masetto from this recitative occurred when it was not followed by ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ for reasons of theatrical necessity. Unamended, this sequence might have required of Bussani a very rapid switch from the role of Masetto to that of the Commendatore. This raises interesting issues. In particular there is the question as to whether five male singers were available to Mozart.72 Schneider argues, on the grounds that the double casting was retained in Vienna with its much larger troupe of singers, that Mozart and Da Ponte wanted to make a significant dramatic point: that the stone statue should be taken for ‘a mortal avenger in disguise’.73 Be that as it may, he goes on to make a further pertinent observation concerning the staging, that in the libretto P as published there would have been no time at all for Lolli to leave the stage and return instantly, clad as the stone statue. Schneider therefore wonders whether in Prague Mozart might not already have been considering a revision of this juncture, along the lines of the Vienna plot.74 At any rate, it is easy to see how this might have influenced the thinking over the positioning of Elvira’s scena. With ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ in its earlier putative position, it might then have been necessary to remove Masetto from the recitative before the graveyard scene (as in the inauthentic recitative) in order to give him time to change, but with the solo scena immediately before the graveyard scene, the problem would have been resolved. All this is predicated on the assumption that the statue in the graveyard scene was intended to be a human singer rather than a stage prop, perhaps with a mechanical mouth! In the latter case, the performer of the role of the Commendatore could have sung off-stage (or in a concealed position) along with the trombones. A sign that both the passages involving the peasants were last-minute additions is seen in the Vienna libretto W2 in the spelling of the name Zerlina. Throughout the opera it is abbreviated zer, zerl or occasionally zerli, but in the recitatives involving the peasants (and only in these recitatives) there is a liberal scattering of a bizarre misreading: ter or even tert. It looks as though passages of substitute text were supplied so late on that there was no opportunity to correct them in a reading of the proofs. Summing up the evidence, residual traces of a short-lived plan to situate Donna Elvira’s scena before the comic duet are perhaps to be seen in: (a) some minor changes in the text of ‘Ferma perfido’ that were in the end not required;

The Vienna Don Giovanni

81

(b) two rather awkward tonal transitions; (c) the transposition of ‘Mi tradì’ and its almost immediate restitution in the original key; (d) signs of uncertainty in the numbering of the pieces and the scenes in both the main transmission branches. In one respect, this hypothetical intermediate version is unusual. It is rarely possible to reconstitute an earlier state of a Mozart opera, a mere staging point in the process of ongoing development, as necessary materials are invariably lost or transformed. But in this case we could do so, as everything required is extant.

The ‘final’ versions Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b The two ‘final’ versions together constitute the Viennese transmission of Don Giovanni. The first branch saw a process of revision leading from Vienna 1 through to Vienna 2b. The performing materials in O.A.361/1 and O.A.361/ Stimmen belong to this branch. At a certain point towards the end of the process of revision, another branch was initiated, seemingly the result of a second copy made from the Prague Conservatory score. This process is illustrated in Fig. 11, in which the two (lost) scores designated as the ‘conducting’ and ‘reference’ copies are shown to initiate separate branches. It should be reiterated that these are loose terms of convenience. The conducting score, for example, could (and did) act as an exemplar itself for further copies. This scheme produces an obvious chronological difficulty in the first branch, in that it is often difficult to say whether a feature in Vienna 2b pre-dates or post-dates the reading in Vienna 2a. The version Vienna 2a matches closely the published libretto W2. The differences between the two versions are by no means confined to textual minutiae, but include significant elements, such as the location of the wind band in the Act II finale. (conducting score)

Vienna 2b

Vienna 1

Prague Conservatory score

(reference score)

Vienna 2a

fig. 11  An outline of the sequence of Vienna versions

82

The Vienna Don Giovanni

It will be helpful at the start of this discussion to list the main differences between the two versions, some of which have already been noted in the foregoing analysis. These are shown in Table 17. The majority of the differences between the two versions come in the second half of Act II, the part of the opera that Mozart revised, yet it is interesting to find some distinct readings earlier in the opera as well. Perhaps the key question concerning Vienna 2a is this: although precisely definable as a written text, what exactly is its status? Two radically different answers are possible: (a) it was an ‘authorised’ text representing the way the opera was performed or going to be performed at a certain point in time; or (b) it was a snapshot taken at a particular but random moment in an ongoing process of revision, the main consideration being the need to supply an exemplar for the commercial exploitation of the opera in a timely fashion. In the latter case, there might well be a fortuitous element to its text; the inclusion or omission of a particular revision might well depend not upon careful consideration by the composer but upon the simple chances of fate: whether the source being used as an exemplar was yet fully revised. However arbitrary the process that led to their formation though, Vienna 2a and 2b were the forms in which the opera was disseminated during Mozart’s lifetime, and in this sense they are undoubtedly ‘versions’ in a very strong sense. The most significant features that distinguish Vienna 2a from Vienna 2b are: (a) the inclusion (or not) of the cuts; (b) the instrumentation of the wind passages in the graveyard scene (with or without trombones); (c) the location of the Harmonie in the Act II banquet scene (on-stage or in the orchestra); (d) and the inclusion (or not) of the scena ultima. Each deserves an extended discussion.

the cuts During the final stages of rehearsal, or conceivably even after the première, Mozart decided upon a series of short cuts. They were entered in O.A.361/1 and in the parts only after they had been copied. It was suggested by Bitter that there are two layers, the earlier consisting of cuts marked first in light brown ink, and the later those marked only in red crayon.75 His (probably mistaken) reasoning was that there are other red crayon markings in the score that appear to relate to the 1798 revival. In connection with the layer in brown ink, he identified Mozart’s hand. The editors of NMA: DG at first regarded this as non-proven.76 In the NMA: KB, however, there was a change of heart, and it was accepted that the composer himself wrote in the characteristic hand-NB signs.77 The starts and the ends of the excised passages are all crossed out in diagonal hatching done with a fine-tipped quill in a light-brown, slightly greyish ink. Because the ink colour and the size of the nib match so well with the hand-NB signs, and

The Vienna Don Giovanni

83

table 17  The main differences between Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b Vienna 2a

Vienna 2b

Prague Conservatory score ↓ reference score (transmission) ↓ Florence FPT 265, Juilliard (up to the graveyard scene)

Prague Conservatory score ↓ conducting score (performance) ↓ O.A.361/1, Bonn, Florence D III 428–31 & B II 183–4

Set A errors are largely uncorrected.

Set A errors are largely corrected.

The reading of the stage instructions for the Act I finale ballroom scene derives from the Prague Conservatory score. Omitted are: Masetto’s ‘ironicamente’ and the direction ‘balla la Teitsch con Masetto’.

A different reading of the stage instructions is given, which includes both these directions. This was not taken directly from the autograph as it includes the striking misreading seen in the Prague score and thus in Viennese copies: ‘Si mette a ballar con Zerlina una contadina’, replacing the name of the dance (‘una contradanza’) with a reference to the maid’s social status (‘una contadina’).

The continuity instruction leading into ‘Deh vieni’ reads as in the autograph and the Prague Conservatory score: ‘Segue Canzonetta di D. Giovanni’.

The instruction reads: ‘Segue Cavatina D. Giovanni’. In the autograph, the piece itself has no genre title, while the word ‘canzonetta’ in the previous continuity instruction was written over another word beginning with ‘C’. In the NMA: KB it is suggested that the original was ‘Canzona’.a

There are signs (notably the lack of a The part label Zerlina is given at the start of part label for Zerlina) that the recitative ‘Restati qua’. ‘Restati qua’ might have been joined to the previous recitative. The duet is entitled ‘Per queste tue The duet is entitled ‘Per questa tua manina’. manine’. Mozart apparently had second thoughts about these first words, as they seem originally to have been in the singular. The libretto W2 has ‘Per queste tue manine / Candide e tenerelle’. The autograph is no longer extant, but in his Verzeichnüß Mozart recorded the title in a variant plural form as ‘Per quelle tue manine’. Continues overleaf

84

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 17 continued Vienna 2a

The recitative ‘Amico! Per pietà’ is unabbreviated.

Vienna 2b The recitative is abbreviated, beginning ‘Guarda un po’.

The recitative is headed ‘Leporello solo’. In the recitative ‘Amico! Per pietà’, Leporello directs his request for water to a servant (‘a un servo’). ‘Mi tradì’ is in the revised Eb form, the D major transposition having been and gone.

‘Mi tradì’ is the original Eb version.

Trombones are included in the graveyard Trombones are omitted in the graveyard scene accompaniments and in the Act II scene accompaniments and in the Act II finale. finale. No cuts are made.

A series of small cuts is made to ‘Madamina’, ‘Batti, batti’, ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’, ‘Sola, sola in bujo loco’, and the Act II finale.

The wind band music in the Act II finale The wind band music in the Act II finale is is played in the orchestra. played on stage. Tempo indications for the wind-band Tempo indications are given as: Allo; opera airs in the Act II finale are given as: Allegretto; Allo modo. Allo; Vivace; Allegro. In bars 470–3 of the Act II finale, Mozart’s original text for the bass line and violas is given, doubling Leporello’s triplets. Gugler had noted the variant readings in the autograph and had requested Smetana to check what was in the parts. He replied that the (old) parts had the original reading. Gugler did not raise the possibility that this could have been a Vienna change.b

In bars 470–3 of the Act II finale, Mozart’s revised reading is given, with the triplet doubling removed and replaced by crotchets on beats 1 & 3.

The scena ultima was cut.

The scena ultima was cut, but the evidence is ambiguous as to whether (and if so how soon) it was reinstated.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

85

table 17 continued Vienna 2a

Vienna 2b

As the scena ultima was cut, the question Mozart’s abbreviation of the scena ultima of the abbreviation of its middle section was inserted into O.A.361/1 (and the parts) with a different version of the flute parts.c did not arise. However, later scores continue to cut the whole scena ultima. The additional cry ‘Ah’ for Donna Anna, The additional cry appears, not always in Don Ottavio, Donna Elvira and Zerlina, the same place. added to the autograph when the scena ultima was cut, does not appear. a  NMA: KB, p. 141. b  Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, pp. 300–2. c  NMA: KB, p. 193.

because this type of diagonal hatching is so typical of Mozart, I believe that the composer entered these crossings-out too. A very firm attribution, however, is not warranted with markings of this type. Another aspect of the two layers of cuts is that only those in red crayon also appear in the autograph, where they were boldly crossed out by Mozart with typical diagonal hatching. It is probable that they go back to the time when he was reviewing his manuscript, whereas the ones that do not appear there date from when he was actively involved in rehearsing the opera. The cuts presumed to be earlier include ‘Batti, batti’ (bars 78–85) and the Act II finale (bars 478–83, 503–6). The later cuts probably added to O.A.361/1 by Mozart himself include ‘Madamina’ (bars 124–35), ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’ (bars 32–4, 63–74) and ‘Sola, sola in bujo loco’ (bars 229–58). There is no sign of any of these cuts in Vienna 2a, but they appear in later copies of Vienna 2b, with the exception of the abbreviation of ‘Madamina’. Most of these cuts are so small in scale that there were probably specific musical or practical reasons for them rather than a general desire to abbreviate. The composer’s exact intentions are beyond reach and study of the physical sources will not enable us to breach the barrier. Yet the effects of the cuts are certainly up for discussion, and an assessment can be made of what he was willing to sacrifice. The loss of twelve bars from ‘Madamina’ removes the darkest quatrain from this catalogue aria, the moment when Leporello confesses that Don Giovanni’s favourite kind of girl is a very young one. The sudden move to bVI tonality has often been noted as an effective representation of the idea. In view of the risqué sentiments expressed, an intervention from a Viennese censor cannot be ruled out, and perhaps this was the reason why this particular cut seems sometimes

86

The Vienna Don Giovanni

to have been restored. Both the Florence scores include the full text, but the copy in Vienna presumed to have been made at the time of the 1798 revival (O.A.361/2) makes the cut. The two cuts in ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’ produce a more succinct ensemble but at some cost. The first one removes a harmonically static but texturally striking passage, characterised orchestrally by sinuous bassoon phrases. This refers back to music first heard at the end of the opening tonic section. Although only three bars are taken out, we lose an admission from Donna Elvira that her heart is starting to betray her resolve and Leporello’s recognition of that fact. The larger cut towards the end again removes this passage with its bassoon figure, but with it goes the entire climax of the ensemble and the highly pictorial moment in bar 72 when the beating heart is depicted with staccato wind chords, much as in ‘Vedrai carino’. Possibly Mozart did not want to pre-empt this effect in Zerlina’s aria. The passage containing the expansion of the bassoon figure (bars 67–71) was described by Goehring as ‘a tapestry of beauty unmatched in the trio (and, arguably, in the opera as a whole)’.78 This decision to cut an exceptionally sonorous passage from an ensemble with a prevailing comic function, has a parallel in Così fan tutte where Mozart removed the celebrated canonic quartet from the finale of Act II. In the case of the trio in Don Giovanni, it would be fascinating to know whether he was simply looking for places where he could shorten the piece, or whether he had come to feel that he had provided (inappropriately) beautiful music for it. The largest cut occurs towards the end of the long final section of the sestetto, when Mozart removed a very characteristic passage in which the soloists sing a short but intense piece of counterpoint, before embarking upon their final drive to the closing cadence. The singers in these bars have little support in the orchestra, and it is possible that they were finding this passage difficult, or that their voices were not blending well. Another option would have been to stiffen the orchestration, but a cut would have been more quickly made. Overall, the nature of some of these minor abbreviations suggests a composer with a niggling suspicion that the persistent critique of his musical style as being at times too difficult had some validity, or at least which needed (in his own interests) to be addressed. Rather less clear is the reason for the two tiny cuts in the Act II finale. The first one comes in bars 478–83, shortly after the passage in which Mozart removed the string instruments doubling Leporello. It seems that he was having reservations about the musical effectiveness of this section since no text is lost. The second tiny cut removes Don Giovanni’s declaration that no-one will ever be able to accuse him of cowardice – an important insight into his character at this moment of crisis. It is not at all clear why it had to go.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

87

These cuts define Vienna 2b. Less certain is whether the largest cut of all – that of the scena ultima – was itself part of this process.

the graveyard scene An important difference between Vienna 2a and Vienna 2b lies in the instrumentation of the wind passages in the graveyard scene. Following their individual escapades in the middle part of Act II, Don Giovanni and Leporello meet up again amongst the memorials and begin to indulge in their usual light-hearted banter. Suddenly, in one of the most memorable moments in all opera, the sound world of the supernatural intrudes in the form of a trio of trombones, at once sombre and menacing, which accompany the words of the Statue. Without doubt, Mozart had in mind a similar moment in ­Idomeneo in which the awesome tones of Neptune were scored for two horns and three trombones. Considering the brevity and simplicity of these two fragments of wind-band writing, the source situation is extraordinarily complex, a consequence of the fact that the passages were rewritten several times. As a prelude to an analysis of the sources, it will be useful to outline the circumstances that led to the proliferation of slightly differing versions. According to the well known story, Mozart first composed the accompaniments for trombones only, but, responding to the difficulties being experienced by one Prague player in rehearsal, enriched the scoring on the spot, by adding in extra wind instruments. There is no contemporary evidence for this legend, yet it should not be dismissed out of hand, as it was published in Nissen’s biography.79 However, when Gugler raised the question of whether trombone parts survived in Prague, Smetana noted in his response that ‘no-one here knows the anecdote’ (‘die Anekdote kennt hier Niemand’).80 It is unlikely that there would have been anyone still alive with direct personal involvement in the 1787 première, yet it is possible that there were still some people who had known actual participants. Such stories could be passed on by word of mouth, and it is worth recalling Thomé’s observation that ‘old members of the orchestra’ (‘die alten Orchester Mitglieder’) believed that Mozart himself had conducted from the Conservatory score.81 In addition to the information about the anecdote, Smetana reported to Gugler that the graveyard scene accompaniments in the parts were, as in the score, for trombones only (‘Wie sie in Partitur steht, nur mit Posaunen’).82 Gugler asked for clarification of this in his follow-up letter to Smetana dated 29 August 1868: ‘Have you really in Prague a copy score in which there are only trombones?’ (‘Also haben Sie in Prag wirklich eine Partitur-Abschrift in welcher nur Posaunen stehen?)83 He pointed out that in the published score there were

88

The Vienna Don Giovanni

also parts for oboes, clarinets and bassoons. Smetana did not reply to this, or if he did the letter is lost. In Vienna, the source situation became more tangled still, as two versions were apparently under consideration: one with the full scoring and the other reduced, this time with trombones omitted. All told, the Prague and Vienna revisions generated a remarkable number of slightly different versions. Interpreting the chronological relationship between the two instrumentations seen in Vienna sources presents us with a dilemma because the text of Vienna 2b (as Vienna 1) might precede that of Vienna 2a. There are two possibilities to consider. The reduced version could have been envisaged from the start in Vienna, with a late decision to allow trombones after all, at least for the three performances that constituted the première.84 In that case, scores of Vienna 2a would represent the decision to enhance the instrumentation. Edge, however, discusses evidence which suggests that trombonists were not employed that season in opera performances.85 Perhaps, then, the full version represents the initial transfer of the Prague instrumentation to Vienna, with the loss of the trombones coming as a result of a failure to obtain agreement to hire players. There is a parallel with the similar passage in Idomeneo, which exists in multiple versions. Mozart tried out three settings of Neptune’s words with brass accompaniment before apparently having to concede the necessity for an arrangement with wind instruments only: two clarinets, two horns, two bassoons. For the Vienna production, the graveyard recitative was itself revised significantly. It had not been made explicit in Prague when Don Giovanni and Leporello return each other’s clothes. A new version was composed to clarify the moment at which the switch takes place. Mozart and Da Ponte perhaps thought there was a need to refocus on the question of the clothing because Don Giovanni remains off-stage much longer in the Vienna version. The copyist of O.A.361/1 was working from an exemplar in which this new version had been inserted without clarity. In bar 17 he started to copy the original text (‘io fui quasi accopato’) before crossing it out and replacing it with the new version (‘io sono in questo stato’). It was also evidently unclear who should sing in bar 27, the point at which the revised passage merges with the original text. The copyist wrote in the part label Don Giovanni but had to change it to Leporello. In attempting to reconstruct the compositional history of the iconic wind fragments that intrude memorably in this recitative, we must face the fact that all the primary sources are lost: there are no autographs; the Prague Conservatory score contains a much later (though very interesting) copy; and the Prague and Vienna reference scores are both missing. There are a number of musical issues to consider. First is the question of how the passages might have been written if the Statue was ever accompanied by

The Vienna Don Giovanni

89

three trombones alone. This is likely to have been as in Example 2, in which the trombones and voice preserve full four-part harmony with a second inversion chord and full diminished seventh. Very probably this was the version that ­Smetana knew. There is also the question of whether the vocal line would have been doubled from the start, since the anecdote focuses only on the problems encountered by the trombone players and Mozart’s solution. The accompanying basso continuo line might also have been introduced with the other instruments to support the bass trombone. The analogous passage in Idomeneo does not have one. If, as the story has it, Mozart added in the wind lines in an act of spontaneous revision, some minor reworking of the existing trombone parts might then have been undertaken. Example 3 shows the distribution of the bassoons and the upper trombones in the Prague full version. The two pairs do not double each other. In the Vienna sources, there are subtle differences. In the reduced version for wind instruments only, seen in scores of Vienna 2b, the lines are distributed as in Example 2, but with two bassoons and the basso continuo replacing the three trombones. Interestingly, this disposition of wind instruments is also seen in the Vienna 2a version, even though it has the full scoring. Its arrangement is therefore slightly different from that transmitted in Prague scores, in that the bassoons directly double the trombones, without the minor reworking. In the absence of any of the original sources, the earliest copy of the Prague version of these passages is probably the Donaueschingen manuscript in ex. 2  ‘Ribaldo audace’ with accompaniment for trombones alone Il Commendatore

? 43 œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ Œ J J Ri - bal - do

Trombone 1

Trombone 2 Trombone 3

œ œ bœ ? 43 J ‰ j œ œ œ ? 43 œ œ œ ‰ J

œ œ J J

au - da - ce

œ œ œ ˙. J J

la - scia a’ mor - ti la pa

œ #œ œ J Œ j œ bœ œ œ nœ œ Œ J

œ -

ce.

nœ

œ nœ

˙.

nœ

nœ bœ

n œ bœ œ #œ

œ˙ #˙ .

œ œ

ex. 3  ‘Ribaldo audace’: the disposition of the parts for bassoons and trombones

Bassoons

? 43

Trombones 1 and 2

? 43

j œœ n œœ b œœ J ‰ j œœ n œœ b œœ J ‰

j œœ J j œœ J

b# œœ œœ b# œœ œœ

Œ Œ

n œœ nœœ bœœ

˙œ. #˙

nœœ

n œœ œœ œœ

˙œ. #˙

nœœ

90

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Karlsruhe, representing the main line of commercial transmission through the lost reference score. Although undoubtedly early in date, there are some signs that this manuscript was not copied directly from the original exemplar. In particular, there are isolated cases (for example the word ‘morrà’ in the sestetto) which point to the existence of an intermediate source with a different (probably German) text. This was a common occurrence. An Italian score would be annotated with a Singspiel text and the vocal line adapted if a different number of syllables was required, often using small notes. Then, when the score was next used as an exemplar for another Italian copy, a scribe could easily include some of the musical readings of the German translation by accident. There are signs of this in the wind fragments in the Donaueschingen score. The word ‘rider’ is set, otherwise inexplicably, to four quavers. Even the earliest secondary source of the Prague version is thus several copying stages removed from the original. A comparison between the Prague version of the graveyard recitative and that found in Viennese scores indicates that different originals were used. This would not be very surprising if the Vienna sources simply transmitted the versions required for the 1788 production, but there are strong hints that their Vorlage was an alternative version current at the time of the 1787 Prague première. The differences begin with the scene heading, as shown in Table 18. For comparison, Table 19 gives the headings as in the three versions of the libretto. Not all musical sources have all the relevant information, but the division of what is present is consistent. In Prague scores (as opposed to the libretto), there is usually no reference to equestrian statues but simply to a ‘Statue of the Commendatore’; Don Giovanni’s entrance laughing is incorporated into the scene heading; and Leporello’s later appearance is indicated by ‘indi’. In the Vienna version, the little wall qualifies the main heading ‘loco chiuso’ (an enclosed space); Leporello’s entrance is indicated with the word ‘poi’; and Don Giovanni’s laughter is given as a stage direction. But the most telling feature of the version in Viennese sources is the formulation ‘diverse statue e queste table 18  The scene headings of the graveyard scene in scores Prague sources

Vienna sources

Loco chiuso Statua di Commendatore D: Gio: entra pel Muretto ridendo, indi, Leporello

Loco chiuso di picciol muro in forma di Sepolcreto diverse statue(a) e queste(o) del Commendatore D: Giovanni poi Leporello D: Giov: ridendo forte [stage instruction]

The Vienna Don Giovanni

91

table 19  The scene headings of the graveyard scene in libretti W1*

P

W2

[loco chiuso] In forma di Sepolcreto etc. diverse Statue equestri; [Statua] del Commendatore. D. Gio entra pel Muretto ridendo, indi Leporello.

Loco chiuso. In forma di Sepolcreto etc. diverse Statue equestri; Statua del Commendatore. D. Gio entra pel Muretto ridendo, in di Leporello.

Loco chiuso. In forma di Sepolcreto etc. diverse Sta-/tue equestri; Statua del Commen-/ datore. d. giovanni entra pel Muretto indi leporello.

* [additions in ink]

del Commendatore’ (‘various statues and one [? these] of the Commendatore’). This seems to stem directly from a misreading of the draft libretto W1. In the only copy of this, the printed heading reads: In forma di Sepolcreto &c diverse Statue equestri del Commendatore The words ‘loco chiuso’ were later added above in ink and the word ‘statua’ similarly before ‘del Commendatore’. The Vienna version thus appears to transpose ‘equestri’ [‘equestrian’ plural] to ‘e queste’ [‘and these’], which was surely a mistake, as multiple statues of the Commendatore can hardly have been intended. Textual divergences between the Prague and Vienna versions of this recitative in the scores are seen from the first words, as there is an apparent disagreement over how many times Don Giovanni should sing the exclamation ‘Ah’. All three libretti have the opening line as ‘Ah, ah, ah questa è buona’, with the usual seven syllables, taking into account the one elision. All the musical sources, however, give a fourth ‘ah’, making an unusual eight-syllable line. Mozart could be punctilious about getting this right, and if he noticed such a discrepancy, he would usually revise his musical score. The autograph is lost, and so it is not clear whether the composer revised this phrase or not. Scores in the Prague branch give the word ‘Ah’ three times, but compensate for the missing syllable by ignoring the elision required by ‘questa-è’. Vienna scores give the word ‘Ah’ four times. The Vorlage of the Prague scores thus seems to have recognised a problem, though its solution was not a good one. To sum up our findings so far, there appear to have been two separate versions of the graveyard scene: one led to the Prague branch of transmission, the other, quite possibly conceived before the Prague version, led (later) to the Vienna branch. Although of itself this does not prove that there was a reorchestration

92

The Vienna Don Giovanni

of the wind fragments in Prague, it at least provides support for the view that there was a distinct act of revision there. Further analysis of the details of the text confirms the separation of the Prague and Vienna branches of transmission and brings to light another piece of evidence to suggest that the Vienna Vorlage perhaps pre-dated that of the Prague version. A number of textual variants / misreadings characterise scores in the Vienna branch, of which the following are a few: ‘accopatà’ (bar 17); ‘qui’ (bar 21); ‘saprei’ (bar 23); and ‘mia’ instead of ‘meco’ (bar 78). Some scores in this branch have a more serious error, rendering ‘Donnesca al certo’ as ‘Donnesca arto’. Not all of these readings necessarily go back to the hypothetical original; some were doubtless acquired during the process of transmission. The most interesting variant reading in this (early) Vienna transmission line comes when Don Giovanni invites Leporello to listen to a recitation of the incidents that have befallen him since they last met: ‘via, via, matto, vien quà de belle cose’. This derives from the draft libretto W1. In the Prague libretto P, the word ‘matto’ (madman) was omitted, making the line two syllables shorter than the draft. This is made up in the NMA by repeating ‘vien quà’ following the Kuchař keyboard score, but in the Donaueschingen copy the repeated word ‘via’ is given two syllables: ‘vi-a, vi-a’. The survival of this word from W1 again suggests that the Vorlage of what became the Vienna line of transmission preceded the Prague libretto. Significantly, these ‘Vienna’ characteristics (including the two stemming from W1) appear in some scores which have the unrevised Prague version of the recitative. Again, this is suggestive of a second Prague version, and indirectly it supports the story of Mozart’s rehearsal-room addition of wind instruments. In Fig. 12 a schematic outline of the transmission patterns of the graveyard scene is given, with scores containing the Vienna revision below the dotted line. A critical juncture is the version represented by the Juilliard score and the copy commissioned by André in Frankfurt. This has the Prague version of the recitative and retains the Prague disposition of the trombones and bassoons, yet it cannot have been copied directly from the main Prague transmission line, as it has the Vienna textual variants including the W1 word ‘matto’. This rather paradoxical state of affairs, with some of the earliest textual readings appearing in later musical versions, is another instance of the phenomenon identified in the text of the sestetto. The requirement to have a libretto printed in time for the first performance resulted in the fixing of its text well before the composer and librettist had finished their detailed work of revision. One intriguing result of this analysis has been to throw some light upon the identity of the very much later copy in the Prague Conservatory manuscript: it

The Vienna Don Giovanni W1

autograph? 3 trombones (wind instruments added in)

Cz-Pk

93

P

autograph? 3 trombones + wind instruments

copy

copy

with Vienna textual variants

with Prague textual variants

D-Ka

copy

Juilliard

with Vienna textual variants + full scoring

D-F

copy revised recitative W2

with Vienna textual variants

Lausch

+ full scoring

copy revised recitative with Vienna textual variants without trombones

fig. 12  The transmission of the graveyard scene

O.A.361/1

94

The Vienna Don Giovanni

matches the Juilliard and Frankfurt scores quite closely, except in its instrumentation, which is three trombones with basso continuo and clarinets doubling the words of the Statue. Of course this could very easily be a later arrangement, but it might represent what the original was assumed to have been. Other minor notational features of the Juilliard score are worth pointing out, as they could indicate a direct relationship with a Mozart autograph. The copyists give note stems in both directions for the pairs of oboes and clarinets, and the number of instruments is specified: ‘2 oboe’ and ‘2 clarinetti’ rather than ‘oboe’ and ‘clarinetti’. These features were part of Mozart’s normal notational practice and are likely to have been in an original autograph. The note on the Frankfurt score, identifying it as an ‘authentic copy of the Mozartean original, provided by Herr v. Nissen and checked by Abbé Stadler’ (‘Authentisch[e] Abschrift des Mozartsch[en] originals, durch Herrn v. Nissen besorgt und Abbe Stadler ­revidiert. André’), adds weight to this idea

the location of the harmonie An important distinction between Vienna 2a and 2b lies in the manner of performance of the wind-band music in the Act II finale. In his first libretto W1, Da Ponte had allowed for the possibility of an on-stage band in the scene heading: ‘suonatori da fiato poi servi …’. This was followed up with the stage direction ‘suonano gli stromenti da fiato’. In the Prague libretto P and then in Vienna W2, these directions were revised slightly: ‘alcuni suonatori’ and ‘I suonatori cominciano a suonare’, a clearer indication that on-stage performance was envisaged. In his autograph, however, Mozart gave no indication that he had taken up the idea of the on-stage band. There are no directions, nor is the music enclosed in free-hand rectangles like the music for the Act I stage dance bands. Later Prague scores retain the wind players in the orchestra, although as these stem from the reference exemplar, they do not necessarily reflect theatrical practice. This leaves open the possibility that the lost Prague parts were changed to allow the performance of the Harmonie opera airs on stage. In O.A.361/1 the wind players are relocated on stage, and indeed the accompanying cello line is removed altogether. The parts seem to reflect this new conception in their earliest layer. In the first-desk cello, for example, the airs are marked ‘sopra il Teatro’, with the instruction ‘in orchester’ for the intervening links, and the on-stage music is copied out in small note values as a cue, including passages where the horns provide the bass line. The duplicate cello part simply has rests for the opera airs, again with the appropriate instructions. Both horn parts have rests, though with their lines later added in. The question therefore is where the new disposition originated. In the absence of the Prague parts, there is simply no way of knowing whether the wind band was transferred

The Vienna Don Giovanni

95

Prague parts O.A.361/ Stimmen an earlier set of Vienna parts

autograph

Court Theatre conducting score

O.A.361/1

Court Theatre reference score

Lausch and Juilliard scores

Prague Conservatory score

fig. 13  The decision to use an on-stage Harmonie in the Act II finale

onto the stage there. Several equally plausible routes for the transmission of this change of plan are illustrated in Fig. 13. As this figure shows, the on-stage wind band arrangement does not appear in the Conservatory score or in the reference score transmission branch containing Vienna 2a. It therefore originated in the conducting score branch, but how far back it dates must remain uncertain.

the scena ultima The status of the scena ultima in the Vienna versions of Don Giovanni is the most significant unresolved question of all. It has long been recognised that the entire scene was cut in W2 and the Lausch score, but this had to be counterbalanced by evidence that it appeared to have been retained (or reinstated) in O.A.361/1. Understanding the physical evidence in the parts is especially problematic because of the probability of multiple changes of mind during the period of their active use. The last scene was regularly omitted in Vienna during the nineteenth century, as it was in Prague. All of this makes it much more difficult to determine what happened in 1788. Before considering the issues that Mozart and Da Ponte might have faced when reaching a decision on whether to include the scena ultima in the Vienna version, it will be useful first to discuss in some detail how they set about

96

The Vienna Don Giovanni

fashioning the climax of the opera in the two preceding scenes. For this segment of Don Giovanni, the early libretto W1 provides some fascinating insights into how the composer interacted with the poet. The details are presented in Table 20. Close analysis of the surviving sources of the climax of Don Giovanni reveals much about the working relationship between Mozart and Da Ponte. It is once again clear that the composer interacted with his written text at different stages of its development. In Scene XIV, Mozart incorporated almost all the stage direction into his score, albeit usually abbreviated, and sometimes with distinct variants, doubtless deriving from an earlier manuscript draft. In Scene XV, however, they are almost all omitted, suggesting that he worked on this segment of the opera at a greater physical or temporal distance from the process of developing the staging. This break can also be observed in the autograph, where a blank page precedes the entry of the Statue in Scene XV. In my study of Così fan tutte I identified the wish to achieve precision at moments of change as one of the most characteristic aspects of the process of final revision: the idea that a change in orchestration, figuration, texture or even harmony should exactly reflect a new element in the drama. In that sense, Da Ponte comes across as a well-matched collaborator. In the process of developing the libretto from W1 to P, with the autograph representing a further stage either before or after P, a similar commitment to precision is evident. The exact placement of stage directions, not a matter of typographical convenience in the printed libretto, was considered carefully. In W1 the use of stage directions towards the climax was at times quite profligate, and a certain element of pruning took place, although there were some significant additions as well. In general, one senses a move away from the slightly more burlesque view of Don Giovanni himself in W1 to a more nuanced characterisation in P. The process of revision removed his cruel laughter at the entry of Donna Elvira and his more obvious affectation, as well as some of the more exaggerated effects, the approaching steps, the repeated knocking – first fortissimo then più forte. Donna Elvira, too, was allowed to couch her final plea in slightly more rational tones. The timing of all the entrances, exits and screams was worked out carefully, as was the use of stage props such as the table. Doubtless, much of this was refined at rehearsal, perhaps supervised by Da Ponte. The composer’s individual contribution to the development of the staging cannot usually be isolated, but Mozart was especially good at spotting where musical repetition would make for effective drama. It is very likely that the final dramatic exchanges (‘Pentiti!’ – ‘No!’ – ‘Si!’ – ‘No!’) were his idea. Da Ponte came up with the hesitant text for Leporello in W1 (‘Ah signor’) but Mozart ­developed it further.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

97

table 20  The development of Scenes XIV and XV W1

P

Autograph

Commentary

SCENA XIV D. Elv. i sudi

I sudi D. Elv. ch’entra disperatamente.

/:entra disperata:/ P incorporates Donna Elvira’s state (bar 206) of mind (despairingly) in the scene heading. Mozart abbreviated it to ‘despairing’, or else he was working from another manuscript copy of the text.

(D. Elv. entra affannosa etc.)

The original characterisation of Donna Elvira as being breathless / frantic was rejected. Più non rammento / Gli inganni tuoi, / pietade io sento

In W1 Donna Elvira ends her opening gambit in histrionic fashion: May these my tears move you! Submit, cruel one! In the replacement lines, she is more collected: she will forget his lies as she still feels pity.

(D. Gio. si alza in (D. Gio. sorge.) piedi, & accoglie D: Elv. ridendo)

/sorgendo:/ (bar 219)

In the original, Don Giovanni rises to his feet to receive Donna Elvira, but laughing. The more succinct version in P omits this cruel gesture. Mozart’s similar instruction was again probably derived from a draft.

(s’inginocchia.)

/s’inginocchia:/ (bars 222–3)

The instruction for Donna Elvira to kneel in W1 comes at the end of her next response to Don Giovanni. In P it is placed with more immediacy after her first line, once Don Giovanni has risen to his feet. Mozart follows this placing.

Ah ti commuovano / Queste mie lagrime, / Piegati barbaro

Più non ramento, / Gli inganni tuoi, / Pietade io sento

(s’insinocchia [sic])

/:s’inginocchia:/ In W1 Don Giovanni in turn kneels (Si mette anch’egli (D. Gio. (bars 241–2) before Donna Elvira with affectation. s’inginocchia in ginocchione This qualification is removed in P. davanti D. Elv. con davanti D. An. Apparently Don Giovanni must play [sic] Elv. dopo affettazione) his part with seeming sincerity. P alcun tratto incorporates an element missing in Sorgon ambidue) W1 by indicating that after a time both rise. Mozart abbreviates this instruction and delays it one further line to the moment when Don Giovanni says he will not remain standing (‘non resto in piè!’). Continues overleaf

98

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 20 continued

W1

P

(come sopra) [i.e. still ‘con affettazione’]

(D. Gio. sempre con affettata tenerezza)

Donna Elvira: Ah non deridere / Gli affanni miei! Leporello: Quasi da piangere / Mi fa costei Don Giovanni: Io te deridere? Cielo! Perche! a3

Don Giovanni Ah non deridere / Gli affanni miei! [the P error in the part label not corrected in W2] Leporello: Quasi da piangere / Mi fa costei Don Giovanni: Io te deridere? Cielo! Perche! a2

Cor barbaro?

Cor perfido!

Autograph

Commentary

/sorgendo fa sorgere D. Elv/ (bars 246–8)

Again probably working from a manuscript draft, Mozart identifies the precise moment when the two get up: rising, he makes Donna Elvira rise. The imprecise ‘after some time’ of P turns out to be six bars of 3/4 in Allegro assai.

/con affettata tenerezza:/ (bars 253–4)

In line with the previous removal of ‘con affettazione’, Don Giovanni feigns tenderness, when asking what reason he could possibly have for deceiving Donna Elvira. As the temperature of the scene begins to rise, Da Ponte provided a characteristic ensemble passage, the three protagonists expressing their own particular point of view, but musically and poetically linked through the use of ear-catching sdrucciolo rhythms (deridere / piangere / deridere). The error in the part label in P (Don Giovanni instead of Donna Elvira) conceivably led to the mistaken instruction ‘a2’. Mozart, however, began by setting Donna Elvira’s words separately, with a duet response from Don Giovanni and Leporello, quickly then uniting all three in a trio section.

Cor Perfido!

In P ‘barbaro’ was replaced by ‘perfido’, and this was balanced by a corresponding switch in the other direction in Donna Elvira’s next line: ‘Restati perfido’ to Restati barbaro’. In both libretti these words are sung a2 by Donna Elvira and Leporello. In his musical setting, Mozart has a threefold repetition (bars 269–78), each time using a dramatic augmented sixth chord. The first two are sung by Donna Elvira alone, the third as a duet. The Prague Conservatory score, however, suggests that alternatives were being tried out. For the second ‘Cor perfido’ notes are added in for Leporello (bb a a a). This would make sense especially if Donna Elvira was silent for this

The Vienna Don Giovanni

99

table 20 continued W1

P

Autograph

Commentary second iteration: each one would then sing the phrase individually and then a2. However, Leporello’s contribution to the third statement is crossed out. This was done early on, because the consequence was that subsequent copies such as the Lausch and Juilliard scores omit Leporello’s part altogether and have three solo utterances from Donna Elvira.

(Torna a sedera a mang. etc.)

P notes the moment at which Don Giovanni resumes sitting at the table.

(Bevendo etc.)

For some reason, this indication that Don Giovanni toasts wine and women was removed in P.

Sostegno e gloria Sostegno, gloria

Sostegno e gloria Mozart used the earlier version rather than the revision in P, or perhaps it was an accidental omission. The word ‘e’ was restored in W2. /sorte/ (bar 348)

The autograph gives the moment of Donna Elvira’s departure.

(D. Elv. sorte poi rientra mettendo un grido orribile, e fugge dall’altra parte)

/:rientra e fugge dall’altra parte:/ [copied in before the horn parts were added] (bars 352–4)

In W1 the idea was that Donna Elvira should leave and immediately scream (outside). In P this was developed with an additional dramatic touch. She re-enters the room, gives a dreadful scream, before rushing out the other side. Mozart omitted reference to the scream, perhaps because it is in the music, but he split the instruction to leave and re-enter, allowing only four bars of Allegro assai (bars 348–51).

(Leporello sorte, e (Lep. sorte, e fa lo stesso) prima di tornare mette un grido ancor più forte.)

/:sorte, e prima di tornare mette un grido/ (bars 362–3)

P clarifies that the second scream is louder and that it occurs before Leporello re-enters. The autograph follows W1 in placing the instruction before Leporello’s ‘Ah!’

(D Elvir. sorte e appena uscita mette un’altro grido di fuori.)

(Entra spaventato (entra spaventato /entra spaventato The re-entry of the terrified Leporello e serra dietro la e chiude L’uscio) e chiude l’uscio:/ and his shutting of the door occur porta.) (bars 367–71) before the new musical section in W1. In P for some reason it comes after Leporello’s first two phrases ‘Ah signor … per carità’. Mozart Continues overleaf

100

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 20 continued

W1

P

Autograph

Commentary places it in the earlier position shortly after Leporello’s offstage scream.

Ah signor – per carità – Non andate fuor di quà; L’uom di sasso, l’uomo bianco Ah padrone – io gelo, io manco! Se vedeste – che figura! Si sentiste come fa!

Ah signor … per l’uom / di / sasso … / l’uo / mo / carità! … Non andate fuordiquà bianco … … L’uom di sasso … l’uomo bianco … Ah padrone! … io gelo … io manco … Se vedeste che figura! … Se sentiste come fa.

Da Ponte provided Mozart with text for Leporello, representing in broken phrases his terror. This idea was developed in P and Mozart went further still, splitting some additional words into syllables.

(Si sente il moto dè piedi etc.)

This reference to footsteps was removed in P and not included in the autograph.

Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta.

Leporello imitates the steps of the Statue. The libretti give seven, but Mozart set them as two sets of four for added effect.

(batton fortissimo (Battono alla alla porta che porta) chiuse Lep)

/si sente battere alla porta:/ (bars 406–7)

The high volume of the knocking in W1 is toned down in P. Mozart incorporates a slightly different version of the instruction. In P, as in the autograph, the direction indicating the knocking is placed one line earlier than in W1, logically preceding Leporello’s ‘Ah sentite’.

(Seguitano a batter più forte.)

The direction that the knocking should continue louder than very loud was removed from P.

(s’allontana impaurito)

This too was cut in P and not noted by Mozart. Leporello’s continuing terror will soon become apparent. /tremando:/ (bar 412)

Apri ti dico!

Apri ti dico!, apri apri dico: apri: matto!

This instruction, appropriate for Leporello’s words ‘Io tremo’ (I tremble), appears only in the autograph. For the last of Don Giovanni’s preremptory demands that Leporello open the door, Mozart substituted the word ‘madman’.

The Vienna Don Giovanni

101

table 20 continued Autograph

W1

P

(Lep si mette sotto la tavola, D. Gio. prende il lume, va ad aprire. Entra il Commendatore.)

(s’asconde sotto /piglia lume e và la tav.) per aprire:/ (D. Gio. piglia il (bars 424–6) lume e va ad aprire /Apre:/ etc.) (bars 431–2)

Commentary In P the stage instruction is split in two. Don Giovanni more dramatically seizes rather than merely picks up the light. Mozart added the word ‘Apre’ to the chord before the Statue’s entry. This was misunderstood in the Prague Conservatory score as ‘a parte’. The next words sung by the Commendatore are indubitably not an aside!

SCENA XV Giovanni

D. Giovanni

Don Giovanni

(con affannosa allegria)

W1 omits Don Giovanni’s title by mistake. P adds it in but curiously abbreviated as though a stage direction. This stage instruction, indicating Don Giovanni’s troubled mirth, was omitted from P.

(Lep. esce tremante)

(mezzo fuori col capo dalla mensa.) (Lep. con molti atti di Paura esce e va per partire.)

Altre cure maggiori

Altre cure più gravi

P gives details of Leporello’s tremulous emergence from the shelter of the table and his attempt to leave. altre cure più gravi P adds to the sense of doom: the Statue wishes to discuss more serious matters.

(Lep. tremando.)

Tu m’invitasti, io Tu m’invitasti a venni; cena,

Mozart had second thoughts about the orchestration of this passage, specifically whether Leporello’s nervous triplets (bars 470–3) should be doubled. The removal of the accompanying stage instruction in P was perhaps related to this. tu m’invitasti à cena

This straightforward change could reflect Da Ponte’s decision (following Bertati) to arrange for Don Giovanni’s demise to take place at his own supper table – hence the invitation to eat in P. The Don Juan tradition itself often had a double invitation sequence, with the Statue Continues overleaf

102

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 20 continued

W1

P

Autograph

Commentary staying only long enough to issue a return invitation. (Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 77.)

(Da lontano tremando)

(grida forte)

/:Da lontano, tremando:/ (bars 501–2)

The instruction in P, also in the autograph, is ‘from a distance’, possibly implying that Leporello has tried to sneak off or that his vocal chords are no longer functioning.

(grida forte)

Mozart did not enter this instruction for a loud scream. It was probably obvious from the musical setting.

(vuol sciogliersi, ma invano.)

Don Giovanni’s attempt to withdraw his hand adds realistic detail to this climactic moment. Don Giovanni Nò vecchio infatuato! Commendatore Pentiti: Don Giovanni No: Commendatore / Leporello a2 Si: Don Giovanni No

This inspired insertion in P has all the signs of a suggestion from Mozart, making a highly effective and dramatic climax, and even the instruction a2 is briefly followed.

(Il Com. parte, da (foco da diverse diverse parti esce parti tremuoto etc.) foco tremuoto etc.)

/parte/ (bar 554)

Having failed in his last attempt to get Don Giovanni to repent, the Statue announces that his time is up and leaves. P removes the reference to his departure, but in his autograph Mozart follows W1 by indicating it. The issue is significant; the Statue releases Don Giovanni’s hand and does not drag him down to hell.

(Coro sotterraneo)

/coro/ (bar 562)

W1 gives the subterranean chorus as a stage direction, while in P it is a part label. P adds the colourful detail of the hollow voices.

Don Giovanni: No vecchio infatuato!

Don Giovanni No vecchio infatuato! Commendatore Pentiti: Don Giovanni No: Commendatore / Leporello a2 Si: Don Giovanni No.

Coro (di sottera con voci cupe.)

The Vienna Don Giovanni

103

table 20 continued W1

P

Autograph

Commentary

Tutto a tue colpe è poco, C’è un foco assai peggior

Tutto a tue colpe è poco Vieni c’è un mal peggior.

Tutto a tue colpe è poco Vieni c’è un mal peggior.

The second line of the chorus couplet differs in W1 on the second occasion on which it is sung. It is the same both times in P.   The last two quatrains sung by Don Giovanni and Leporello in W1 are a2. In P they are given individually. A revision in W1 added in the name of Leporello opposite the start of his text. Mozart went for the concision of the a2 setting.

(D. Giov. resta inghiottito dalla terra.)

(Il foco cresce. D Gin [sic] si sprofonda.)

/resta inghiottito/ (bar 594)

Don Giovanni Ah!

Don Giovanni & Leporello a2 Ah!

In W1 Don Giovanni’s solo scream precedes the stage instruction, whereas the scream performed by Don Giovanni and Leporello in P comes after it.

Note: Bar numbers of stage directions refer to position in the autograph.

In W1 the scena ultima was still under development, and the little that was printed was in the small type-face used for recitatives and (apparently) for arias and ensembles not yet in their final agreed form. In fact only twelve lines of the scene survive in printed form, but the remainder of the text was copied in by hand on two blank pages. The reason for the delay in finalising the end of the opera was very likely that the participation of Donna Anna was under consideration. In Bertati’s libretto, she plays no further part in the opera after the early scene, directly following the killing of the Commendatore, in which she relates her experiences to Don Ottavio and postpones their marriage plans on account of her raw grief.86 In Da Ponte’s conception of the story, Donna Anna’s role is transformed: through her quest for vengeance, she emerges as a fully rounded, impassioned seria character. It was therefore clearly necessary that she participate in the denouement. The compositional process through which Mozart and Da Ponte went in order to include her, left several interesting traces. The unfinished state of W1 is apparent even in its heading for the scena ultima, which included Donna Anna but omitted Elvira. The opening quatrain is then not attributed to any of the characters. It is certainly possible that the original intention was for the two couples, Donna Anna and Don Ottavio, and Zerlina and Masetto, to sing this, leaving Donna Elvira, who after all has much more up-to-date information, to

104

The Vienna Don Giovanni

respond first. However, it was decided that Donna Anna should sing the first solo passage, and her four lines (‘Solo mirandolo’) were added in by hand. There is a legacy of this uncertainty in the autograph, as Mozart did not include Donna Anna in the opening chorus. The editors of NMA: DG took the decision to add in her line.87 Writing of Donna Anna’s solo, Rushton noted: ‘Anna enters with a grotesque lapse into the buffo genre to which she does not belong.’88 Perhaps a very late decision to switch the solo response to Donna Anna left her singing in this inappropriate style. The confusion was hardly sorted out in P. Donna Elvira is named in the scene heading, but Don Ottavio is now unaccountably absent. There is also some confusion in the initial stage direction ‘everyone save Don Giovanni’ (‘Tutti salvo D.G.’). This is incorrect, as Leporello does not sing in the opening chorus. The most striking sign that Mozart and Da Ponte were actively considering the character and role of Donna Anna comes in the switch of a single letter. In my study of Così fan tutte, I developed a thesis that some thought was given to a plot with unswitched lovers, and that one sign of this was the apparent switch of a pronoun (‘lui’ to ‘me’).89 In the final scene of Don Giovanni a similar switch is seen. In the duet section, a plea from Don Ottavio that Donna Anna fulfil her pledge to marry him is firmly rebuffed: she needs a further year to recover from her grief. The two then join together: Don Ottavio Al desio di chi m’adora Donna Anna Al desio di chi t’adora a2 Ceder deve un fido amor. (True love ought to yield to the desire of the one who loves me / you.) In W1 the pronouns (me/you) are reversed, although it looks as though the person who added in this text by hand started to write the first pronoun as ‘m’. In P, however, the text is as above. In his autograph, Mozart started writing in the pronouns as in W1, but when he reached the fourth occurence, he backtracked to change them to the order given in P. The consequences of this shift are quite significant. As originally written, Don Ottavio would be asserting that if Donna Anna’s love were true, then she would submit to the desire of the one who loves her (i.e. his desire) and she would have meekly agreed to this! If this had been followed through, then in their final individual utterances, the two would have established, rather abruptly, their own lieto fine, to achieve which, Ottavio would be seen to be imposing his will on Anna. This might indeed be a legacy of the plot inherited from Bertati, in which he is not, as Heartz put it, someone who is ‘made to exist solely at the whim of Anna’.90 The decision to change the pronoun is not only more credible in the immediate context – the conclusion to the discussion follows on logically from the previous exchange

The Vienna Don Giovanni

105

between the two – it is also in keeping with Da Ponte’s Anna, a single-minded woman. In working on the opera for its 1788 Vienna première, Mozart evidently still had concerns about how the relationship between Donna Anna and Don Ottavio should end. For a time he considered a short abbreviation of their duet. In O.A.361/1, bars 724–30 are marked for omission with red crayon + signs and the usual ‘Vi-’ and ‘-de’ confirmation. A similar cut is seen in the first-desk ­violin 1 part in which bars 725–31 (in effect the same cut) are lightly crossed out in red crayon. This small cut was not transferred to the other parts, but although it was not made, there was a clear compositional rationale for considering it. In the autograph the cut pair of lines is repeated, but with the order of the voices switched, as shown in Table 21. With the pronouns as originally intended, Don Ottavio would have taken the initiative in resolving the dialogue in his favour. But with the pronouns switched, Donna Anna’s wish prevails. In view of this, Mozart might well have thought it better for her to begin and for Don Ottavio simply to signal his agreement. The question was how to match the formal musical structure of the opening of the duet to the dramatic requirements. Omitting its first half would have achieved the desired result. Seeing that the duet between Donna Anna and Don Ottavio was probably one of the last things Mozart worked on for the Vienna Don Giovanni in the spring of 1788, it is striking to find him making use of exactly the same line the following year in his next work for the Court Theatre: the substitution aria for Susanna in Figaro ‘Al desio, di chi t’adora’ (k577).91 It would probably be going too far to suggest that Da Ponte, objecting to the loss of this line as a result table 21  A proposed cut in the duet between Don Ottavio and Donna Anna in the scena ultima Don Ottavio Al desio di chi m’adora

Donna Anna

a2

Chord

I Al desio di chi t’adora V Ceder deve un fido amor I Ceder deve un fido amor V Ceder deve un fido amor I–V–I Al desio di chi t’adora I Al desio di chi m’adora V Ceder deve un fido amor I Ceder deve un fido amor V Ceder deve un fido amor I–V–I = cut

106

The Vienna Don Giovanni

of the large cut, was making a point, but both composer and poet were surely aware of the connection. Having apparently tried out and rejected this short abbreviation, Mozart then decided to eliminate the whole of the duet. He composed a bridging passage of music to replace bars 689–749, and the effect of this was to remove the final exchanges between these two lovers. This revision survives in the autograph and it was added in to O.A.361/1 on a single bifolium. In the parts there are clear signs that pasted slips were inserted, but these were later removed and now appear to be lost. Typically, the start of the cut is identified with a red crayon mark and the ensuing musical text on that side crossed out. The lost slips would have supplied the new join and the pages containing the longer original would have been stitched up. Curiously, however, there are very few signs indeed of the end of the cut, perhaps suggesting that the music was recopied to the end of the page. In two parts small red crosses identify the place but with no further crossing out and the usual signs clarifying the restart, such as ‘vide’, ‘volti’, + or x or hand-NB, are conspicuous by their absence. It is almost as though the actions necessary to finalise this cut were aborted at a late stage, or that it was tried out but in the end rejected. It is also odd that the parts as they stand could not be used to perform the scena ultima either with or without Mozart’s abbreviation. With their slips removed, the string parts contain the full text, but horn 1 ends with only part of the abbreviated section, visible through crossing out; some bars are missing altogether. Very likely there were several changes of mind between 1788 and the late nineteenth century, and this would appear to be confirmed by the full score O.A.361/1 in which there are three or four distinct sets of pin-holes relating to the sealing process. The explanation usually offered for this attempt to shorten the scena ultima is that it removed from Morella’s part material with which he could not cope or to which his voice was not well suited – the same reason usually given for the loss of the aria ‘Il mio tesoro’. No evidence has been forthcoming to support such a view, though it is not inherently implausible. Weidinger, however, points out that cutting ‘Il mio tesoro’ on these grounds was hardly necessary. If the problem was the amount of coloratura, a simple remedy was available: to remove, abbreviate or simplify these passages. In ‘Per pietà’ in Così fan tutte, Mozart was willing to extend such a passage from two to seven bars, presumably to satisfy Ferrarese del Bene. He is unlikely to have worried unduly about incorporating some abbreviations for Morella, in this case a sacrifice to a relatively ‘inflexible’ throat. Two examples of pagination in the sources are consistent with the idea that the final 1788 form of the opera was without the scena ultima. In the full score O.A.361/1 there is a pencil foliation (presumably of later date) which includes

The Vienna Don Giovanni

107

everything. An earlier red crayon foliation, however, stops at the beginning of the scena ultima. This numbering, moreover, omits pages lost as a result of the cut made in the sestetto. Then there is the unusual reverse pagination noted by Edge in the duplicate first violin part.92 A sequence in red crayon runs backwards from the end of the opera; another runs backwards from the start of the scena ultima, and when this was put in, the earlier numbers were rubbed out. This is hardly conclusive, but it demonstrates a move from the full ending to the abbreviated version. In Vienna 2a scores, the final scene is omitted without comment. The copyist of the Lausch manuscript ended Act II abruptly with no scribal flourishes and without the usual inscription ‘Fine dell’ opera’. Admittedly Act I also ends without ceremony, but this is a more striking feature at the very end of the opera. A clue to Lausch’s attitude towards the scena ultima may be found in his famous advertisement published on 24 May 1788 in the Wiener Zeitung. On offer to the public were the individual pieces in an arrangement with keyboard accompaniment, a complete keyboard version, a full score with libretto, and the chance to subscribe to a quartet arrangement. Lausch’s current rate for copying the full score of an opera was six kreuzer for a bifolium (Bogen). The full score with libretto, on offer at 34 gulden, would thus have constituted a purchase of 340 bifolia. The Lausch score in Florence (without libretto) has 304½ bifolia and it is priced at this rate, the total working out at 30 gulden and 40 kreuzer (1 gulden = 60 kreuzer). Lausch charged a higher rate for the keyboard arrangement (eight kreuzer for a bifolium) probably because of the greater density of copying required. The price of a full keyboard version was 16 gulden (120 bifolia), whereas the total of all the individual pieces amounted to 15 gulden and 56 kreuzer (119½ bifolia). The remaining sheet was perhaps the title page. A Lausch keyboard score in Salzburg (Rara 527/90) allows us to compare the size of an actual copy with that of the advertised product. Its title page runs: ‘Don Giovanni / osia / Il Dissoluto Punito / Opera / per il / Clavicembalo / Atto Imo / L’overtura. / Del Sigre Mozart’ / Lausch 4’. The Salzburg score seems to be early in date, except perhaps for the Act I chorus (No.5). Around seventeen hands are identifiable, all displaying features of the Viennese style of copying, but no individual produced more than two or three gatherings, and most were responsible for only one, which gives a good indication of the scale of Lausch’s workforce. The copyist of the second gathering seems to have been half asleep when he started work. He missed out the text of the first line altogether, and attributed the music to ‘Sigre Martin’. He also doubled the claimed number of bifolia from five to ten, which if it had gone unnoticed would have led to over-charging. Several of the paper types contain watermarks with three moons,

108

The Vienna Don Giovanni

and one is close to Tyson’s Paper Type IV, as used in the ‘Haydn’ Quartets, with a / hf / real and a crowned shield with three stars. The number of bifolia used to copy individual pieces in Rara 527/90 matches exactly what one would expect from the prices charged in the advertisement, with the trivial exception of ‘O statua gentilissima’ which occupies two and a half bifolia instead of three. The one major difference lies in the Act II finale, which in the Salzburg score, as expected, lacks the scena ultima. Its Act II finale occupies seventeen and a half bifolia, whereas the published price implies the addition of at least another eight. The figure quoted in the advertisement seems therefore to have been intended to include the final scene. This suggests one of two things: either Lausch priced the finale while the scena ultima was still in the opera and when the decision was taken to omit it, simply instructed his copyists not to include it, subsequently reducing the charges; or, perhaps rather less plausibly, his price reflects an awareness that the final section was about to be restored by Mozart. A stage instruction immediately before the final scene shows Mozart and Da Ponte considering how to make the new and more abrupt conclusion work. In the original libretto W1, Don Giovanni is swallowed up by the earth (‘D. Giov. resta inghiottito dalla terra’). He is the only character to scream ‘Ah’. In the Prague libretto this was changed. Now the fire increases as Don Giovanni sinks (‘Il foco cresce. D. Gin. [sic] si sprofonda.’). Leporello joins Don Giovanni in the scream ‘a 2’, an instruction that Mozart interpreted as two successive individual shrieks. In the Vienna libretto W2, however, a clear attempt is made to establish how the opera should end without the final scene, through the insertion of a longer, more dramatic stage instruction. By accident or design, the word of the scream (‘Ah’) is omitted altogether from the text itself, with the subterranean chorus having the final word. The stage instruction reads: the fire increases, Don Giovanni sinks; at the same moment all the others come out, look, scream loudly, flee, and the curtain falls (‘il foco crese D. Gio. si sprofonda: nel momento stesso escon tutti gli altri: guardano, metton un alto grido. fuggono, e cala il sipario.’). Behind this much longer rubric lies the idea that it would be unthinkable for the cast of the opera, their lives having been so bound up in his misdeeds, not to witness the fate of Don Giovanni. With the loss of the final scene, this was how Mozart and Da Ponte proposed to achieve closure. John Rice has pointed out that it is unusual to see in the stage instructions at this period a reference to the moment that the curtain falls. Its incorporation here could certainly be linked to the loss of the scena ultima. A significant difference between scores of Vienna 2a and those of Vienna 2b is that only the latter have Mozart’s musical setting of this tutti scream. This small but necessary addition appears in the autograph. It was apparently first placed

The Vienna Don Giovanni

109

in bar 595, rather than in the blank staves above Leporello’s ‘Ah’ in bar 596. Later, the notes were enclosed in a circle with a line pointing them to the following bar.93 The uncertainty over the placing of the scream had consequences in the theatre scores. The copyist of O.A.361/1 was very unclear where it should go. He first entered it in bar 596 above Leporello’s scream, but this was thoroughly scraped out. Next he apparently placed it in the second half of bar 595, where the notional D major triad would have fit less well with the bass line. Finally it was inserted at the start of bar 595. The revision process appears to have gone in opposite directions in the copy and in the autograph. The two ­copies of Vienna 2b in Florence are similarly divided as to the placing of this chord. The Basevi source places the tutti scream in bar 596, apparently the final location in the autograph but the original location in O.A.361/1. This is consistent with the fact that its Vorlage for this section was either the autograph or a new copy. The ­Picchi manuscript, however, places it in bar 595, the original location in the autograph but the final location in O.A.361/1. The divergence in the placing of the tutti scream is again indicative of the use of two exemplars in the spring of 1788, at least for the ending of the opera. There is another intriguing, if very remote possibility to consider: that the idea for cutting the scena ultima had already been tried out by Guardasoni in Prague. One late nineteenth-century account claimed that the final scene was performed only once in Prague. In My Musical Recollections (London, 1896) Wilhelm Kühe, who was born in Prague in 1823, remembered meeting the double bass player Wenzel Swoboda who played in the orchestra at the première on 29 October 1787. Kühe reports this eye-witness testimony thus: The opera as at first written did not terminate with the carrying off of Don Giovanni by the Furies. This episode was followed by four additional numbers, including a quartette by Donna Anna, Elvira, ­Zerlina, and Ottavio. After the first night, however, these pieces remained unheard until the jubilee performance of the opera at Prague in 1837, on which occasion I was present.94 Late in date though it is, this story cannot be discounted completely. Of course there is much evidence to the contrary: the universal transmission of the scena ultima in early Prague copies; its inclusion by Kuchař, a musician likely to have been well informed on the matter; and its appearance (admittedly with a new text) in Guardasoni’s 1789 Warsaw libretto. The argument as to whether or not the scena ultima was cut for the Vienna première remains in the balance. It is frustrating that so much of the evidence retains a Janus-like quality: unerringly even-handed in its support for both possibilities. In general, however, this study has tended to produce findings

110

The Vienna Don Giovanni

in support of the conclusion that the final scene was cut. One possible interpretation of the sequence of events in 1788 is that Mozart, still worried about how the relationship between Donna Anna and Don Ottavio should end, briefly considered the small cut, then worked more systematically on the larger cut, before finally taking drastic action and eliminating the entire scena ultima.95 In any event, the transmission of the Vienna Don Giovanni in both final versions was without the scena ultima. Five extant sources confirm this: W2; the two Lausch copies (a full score and a keyboard score); and the two later scores in Florence. This is not a large number, and the conclusion must remain a provisional one, especially since the numerical weight of copies in a transmission process can be misleading. Yet the Court Theatre score and parts (O.A.361/1 and O.A.361/Stimmen), the only sources to suggest that the scena ultima might have been retained in Vienna, included it originally as part of the full version Vienna 1. The various attempts at abbreviation are unambiguous, but there can be no absolute certainty about the loss of the scene, as multiple (later) changes of mind obscure what decision was taken at the première.

Da Ponte’s story It is now time to draw together the main findings of this complex investigation into a hypothetical chronology of the Vienna revision process and to consider it in the light of the account by the main historical witness, Lorenzo da Ponte himself. The librettist’s recollections of the circumstances in which Mozart revised Don Giovanni for Vienna place the historian in a dilemma: how to evaluate the evidence of a sole witness, whose testimony, suspected sometimes to be unreliable, cannot be properly corroborated. In order to assess how well the sources back up his account, I have constructed a parallel scenario which is given in Table 22. Perhaps the crux of the matter is Da Ponte’s statement that the opera was restaged but that it still failed to please. The identification in this study of the sequence Prague → Vienna 1 → Vienna 2a → Vienna 2b would allow for the possibility that Vienna 2a (closely approximating to the published libretto W2) was the version given at the first public performance, with Vienna 2b incorporating some post-première revisions. That would also explain why commercial ­suppliers of the score such as Lausch and Sukowaty sold the earlier version. Da Ponte claims credit for getting the opera repeated frequently despite an initially indifferent reception, and as a result of this greater exposure, Don ­Giovanni began to win applause. To an extent, the historical evidence supports the general thrust of this account of the gradual acceptance of the opera in

The Vienna Don Giovanni

111

table 22  Da Ponte’s account of the Vienna Don Giovanni Da Ponte’s story

Commentary

The Emperor called me in and, showering me with gracious expressions of praise, made me a gift of another hundred ‘zecchini’, and told me that he very much wanted to see Don Giovanni. Mozart returned [and] immediately gave the score to the copyist who hastened to prepare the parts, since Joseph had to leave. It was staged …

Da Ponte is explicit in recalling that Joseph II attempted to have Don Giovanni performed before he left the city. His claim to have received as a ‘gift’ another one hundred ‘zecchini’ is ambiguous. His usual fee for a libretto was two hundred ‘gulden’, but a payment of only one hundred ‘gulden’ is recorded (Edge, ‘Mozart’s fee for Così fan tutte’, p. 224). The use of the word ‘another’ could simply imply the latest in a long (general) series of gifts, as opposed to a second remuneration for this particular opera.   No source confirms the early performance, but if one had been arranged in extreme haste, there would have been no time to perform anything other than the Prague version. The singers would have been drawn from the 1787–8 opera troupe, which included Mandini, Calvesi and Morichelli. A set of parts containing the Prague version would have been produced directly from a score supplied by Mozart.

… and – dare I say it? – Don Giovanni did not please. Everyone, except Mozart, believed that something was lacking. Additions were made …

Da Ponte’s description of the less than wholly positive reaction is striking. ‘Everyone’ could have included the performers and members of the select private audience. Although Joseph II is credited with having arranged this initial performance, Da Ponte does not state unambiguously that he was able to attend. It is certainly possible that he had to leave before it could take place, or that he heard only a selection of pieces.   As to the import of the critical reaction itself, Da Ponte recalls the sense that something was missing, and that Mozart’s response had been to make ‘additions’. While there is certainly no reason to doubt that Da Ponte himself provided the Continues overleaf

112

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 22 continued

Da Ponte’s story

Commentary new texts – all logic suggests this – the almost uninvolved tone with which he reports the revision process is surprising from one so ready to claim credit from his association with the composer.   The existence of the full version Vienna 1 clearly accords with Da Ponte’s account of an expansion of the opera. A complete set of parts was produced with the first-desk string parts copied on relatively inexpensive paper, while the remaining string and wind parts were allocated better-quality paper (Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1774–9). To the extent that these parts contain the original Prague text with the Vienna pieces as additions, it is even possible that sections of them (especially in the relatively unchanged Act I) go back to the hypothetical early performance.

… some of the airs [arias] were changed, it was staged again, and [still] Don Giovanni did not please.

At this point, Da Ponte’s account appears to telescope the remainder of the revision process. His fleeting reference to the fact that some of the arias were changed (probably meaning substituted rather than revised) is consistent with the process of abbreviation that took place, leading from Vienna 1 to Vienna 2a and 2b. By now the singers employed for the 1788–9 season would have taken over any roles previously sung by a member of the ‘old’ cast, and the work was prepared for its public debut.   Still the opera apparently failed to please, but now the implication is that this was a public reaction to the première.

And what did the Emperor say? ‘The opera is divine; it is perhaps more beautiful than Figaro, but it is not food for the teeth of my Viennese.’ I recounted this to Mozart, who replied without becoming upset: ‘Let them have time

Here Da Ponte’s chronology surely becomes muddled. Joseph II’s reaction cannot have been to the opera after its revision – he had long since left Vienna – but nor does it fit well with the sequence of events after his return. He could only

The Vienna Don Giovanni

113

table 22 continued Da Ponte’s story

Commentary

to chew on it.’ He was not mistaken. I managed, on his advice, to get the opera repeated often: at each performance the applause grew, and, little by little, even the Viennese with bad teeth appreciated its flavour and understood its beauty, and rated Don Giovanni among the most beautiful operas that had been performed in any theatre.

have seen the final performance, but then this would not accord with the gradual change in public perception, orchestrated, if he is to be believed, by Da Ponte during 1788.   After Vienna 2a was copied, Mozart continued to make final adjustments to produce Vienna 2b. In the light of Da Ponte’s report of the opera’s continuing failure to please, some of these could certainly have come after the first performance on 7 May.

Vienna. There were fifteen performances in all, as shown in Fig. 14. The trajectory of this run is probably fairly typical, with regular performances for about three months, followed by isolated later ones. Bitter suggests that the three-month break between the performances on 2 August and 24 October was the result of the relatively poor reception of the opera in its first run and that the decision to recommence performances incorporated a restaging.96 He further suggests that some of the cuts date from this period, and that they were made because Mozart and Da Ponte now regarded the two acts as being out of proportion with each other. The findings of the present study – that there were two ‘final’ versions of Don Giovanni (Vienna 2a and 2b) would certainly allow for the possibility of a reworking as late as this, but do not in any way prove that it happened. It may be quite significant that all the negative comments recorded of the Vienna Don Giovanni come around the time of the première (three performances). Count Zinzendorf, who had himself approved of the music on 7 May as ‘pleasing and very varied’ (‘agréable et très variée’), reported on 12 May the opinion of Madame de la Lippe that it was ‘learned and not well suited to the voice’ (‘savant, peu propre au chant’).97 On 15 May the Archduchess Elisabeth Wilhelmine wrote: ‘In recent days a new opera by Mozart has been given, but

7

9

May 12 16

23

30

Jun 16 23

5

Jul 11

Aug Oct Nov Dec 21 2 24 3 15

fig. 14  Performances of the 1788 Don Giovanni in Vienna = première

114

The Vienna Don Giovanni

I’ve been told it has not had much success.’ (‘On a donné ces jours passés un nouvel opéra de la composition de Mozart, mais on m’a dit qu’il n’avait pas eu beaucoup de succès.’)98 A day later Joseph II made his celebrated comment that Don Giovanni was ‘too difficult for the voice’ (‘bien trop difficile pour le chant’). It is impossible to infer from this remark whether or not he had yet seen the opera. The timing of these comments is certainly consistent with Da Ponte’s recollection that the opera had ‘still’ failed to please after alterations had been made. The fact that performances continued for some months supports the main thrust of his story though, which is that the opera gradually won a degree of acceptance. The extent to which a run of fifteen performances constituted success or failure is hard to judge. As Edge has pointed out, success should be measured by attendance (and thus receipts) as well as the absolute number of performances.99 If a work disappeared without trace after its première, then very probably it was an unqualified flop, but a longer run need not necessarily indicate any great enthusiasm. There might be any number of practical reasons why further performances of a moderately popular work would have to take place. Nonetheless, the length of Don Giovanni’s run certainly seems to indicate at least a modest success, and taken in conjunction with the negative gossip following the première suggests that Da Ponte’s memory was not seriously flawed. Only in his final comment does he seem to be viewing the Viennese reception of the opera through rose-tinted glasses, given the length of time that elapsed before the next major production in 1798. But the essential truth of Da Ponte’s description of the Vienna reception of Don Giovanni lies above all in its account of the way in which the opera had to interact with its performers and audience, before settling upon its final form for that particular staging. The extant sources fully support this interpretation, providing evidence of the Prague version, an expansion, a contraction, and a further period of work to resolve problems caused by the contraction. Whether or not there was an early imperial performance remains uncertain. That aspect of the story could have been a muddled recollection or even a complete fabrication, aimed at enhancing perceptions of the librettist’s standing with Joseph II. It could indeed have been planned, rehearsed but not actually given before the emperor’s departure from Vienna. Joseph could have attended one of the rehearsals, and heard at least part of the opera. At this distance in time, it is well nigh impossible to reconstruct events with any certainty. On balance, however, Da Ponte should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[ 3 ]

The Late-Eighteenth-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

B

y far the most significant element in the reception of Mozart’s operas during the composer’s lifetime was their transfer into the cultural world of the Singspiel. Typically, a number of different translations and adaptations would begin to gain currency in the various regions of the German-speaking world a year or two after the original première. In the case of Don Giovanni, this tradition began to gain momentum in 1789. There is no evidence that Mozart was himself consulted about any of these new German language productions, but his involvement in further stagings of his operas in Italian is demonstrable. He could also have continued to exert influence indirectly on the continuing development of the original production now under the control of Domenico Guardasoni.1 The assimilation of some elements of Mozart’s 1788 Vienna revision into the Prague performing traditions of Don Giovanni occurred no later than 1789. Mozart’s awareness of this rapprochement, let alone his involvement in it, remains uncertain, but the version of the opera that began to emerge in Guardasoni’s company during its seasons in Leipzig (1788) and Warsaw (1789) was to prove influential. In due course Mozart’s Vienna revision itself made its own accommodation with the ‘lost’ Prague pieces.

Guardasoni’s performances of Don Giovanni in 1788 and 1789 So far as is known, the first Italian language performance of Don Giovanni outside Prague and Vienna was given in Leipzig during Guardasoni’s annual summer season. The company was the newly renamed Guardasonisch[en] Gesell­ schaft Italiänischer Opernvirtuosen. The superb collection of theatre posters in the Leipzig Stadtgeschichtliches Museum includes one advertising the première on 15 June 1788 under the title: ‘Il dissoluto punito / o sià / il D. Giovanni / Der gestrafte Ausschweifende / oder D. Jean’. It is described as ‘Ein grossen Singspiel, mit Chören, vielen Decorationen und doppeltem Orchester’. The music had been composed expressly by the ‘famous Kapellmeister Hr. Mozart’. Libretti were available and also copies of the music. The opera was scheduled to start precisely at 5.30 pm and end around 8.00 pm. The cast is given in full, as shown in Table 23. Three of the original cast had been replaced. Luigi Bassi, the first Don Giovanni, did not participate in the Leipzig première, and Teresa Saporiti, the first

116

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 23  The advertised cast of Don Giovanni for the Lepizig performance on 15 June 1788 Don Giovanni Donna Anna Don Ottavio Commendatore Donna Elvira Leporello Zerlina Masetto

Herr Kosta Mad[ame] Prosperi Krespi Herr Baglioni Herr Lolli Dem[oiselle] Miceli die jüngere Herr Ponziani Dem[oiselle] Miceli die ältere Herr Lolli

Donna Anna, had by now left the company.2 Bondini’s wife Caterina had also gone and had been replaced in the role of Zerlina by one of the Micelli sisters. In 1789 Guardasoni’s company moved to Warsaw, where on 14 October they gave a performance of Don Giovanni. Some details of the cast are known and it seems that Luigi Bassi had returned to the role of Don Giovanni.3 In considering Mozart’s writing for his singers, scholars have naturally focused attention on the care he took to ensure that arias were well suited to the vocal strengths of the performer, and this association was reinforced by very long-term occupants of a role like Bassi. Yet for a small itinerant company like Guardasoni’s, other virtues such as flexibility in casting and versatility in taking on roles were also useful. The libretto for the Warsaw performance of Don Giovanni is extant and is a document of considerable significance in the early reception history of the opera.4 The title page runs: ‘il / dissoluto / punito / o sia / il d. giovanni. / dramma giocoso / in due atti. / da rappresentarsi / avanti di sua maesta / il re d. polonia, / nel teatro nazionale / in varsavia / Presse di P. dufour. Consiliere Aulico. / di S. M. e Direttore della Stamperia. / del R Corpo de Cadetti / ­mdcclxxxix’. In my monograph on Così fan tutte, I showed that Guardasoni’s 1791 Prague libretto represented an accurate corrective reading of the 1790 Vienna original, in which nearly all its remaining mistakes were eliminated.5 Tyson had already concluded much the same about the Prague Figaro libretto.6 The 1789 Warsaw libretto of Don Giovanni embodied a tidying up process, with minor misspellings and other small typographical infelicities remedied. The 1788 Vienna libretto was similarly corrected – but independently. The 1789 libretto of Don Giovanni represents a new reading of the opera. An unanswerable (though important) question is whether it was conceived specifically for Warsaw, or whether it represented a codification of changes made gradually over time. Although major revisions dating back as far as the original

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

117

Prague production are on balance unlikely, in the absence of the performing parts even this cannot be ruled out altogether. The incorporation of alterations made for the 1788 Leipzig performances seems much more probable (given the cast changes) but again cannot be established as fact. Yet whenever the changes were made and for whatever reason, they shed considerable light on attitudes to the opera in the company that gave the original performance. It is interesting and perhaps significant that the revisions undertaken by Mozart in 1788 and by Guardasoni in 1789 appear to be addressing similar issues: even though in all cases the modifications were different (in some cases radically so), there is a distinct sense that the two were acting out of a shared perception as to where there were still unresolved problems, or where there had been missed opportunities. In some instances, Guardasoni’s changes represent a response to his own circumstances. It is clear, for example, that the early departure of Teresa Saporiti from the company precipitated changes to the role of Donna Anna. In the ­Warsaw libretto, both ‘Or sai chi l’onore’ and ‘Non mi dir’ were replaced.7 In the case of Donna Elvira, Guardasoni went even further than Mozart in expanding the role. In the Warsaw libretto, she retained ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’, but a new aria (‘Odio, furor, dispetto’) was inserted shortly afterwards in Scene VI as a response to Leporello. The incorporation of this well known text as a substitution aria allows the powerful expression of Armida’s rage at her failure to prevent the departure of Rinaldo to enhance the almost deranged quality of Elvira’s grief: Odio, furor, dispetto, Dolor, rimorso, e sdegno, Vengon nel punto e stremo Tutti à squarciami il petto. Ardo, deliro e fremo Ho cento smanie al cor. The text of Da Ponte’s introductory recitative ‘In questa forma dunque’ was retained, but its ending was revised. A splice occurs after ‘Misera Elvira’ / ‘Povera Armida’. This was the perfect location for such a piece. Having been confronted with written evidence of Don Giovanni’s scandalous life-style, Elvira’s thirst for vengeance is for the moment unalloyed. Only later will the pangs of continuing love face her with a dilemma. Armida’s apocalyptic fury is ­appropriate. The singer of the role of Donna Elvira in Warsaw is reported to have been Antonia Specioli, and, if so, she could have brought the idea of this substitution and perhaps even the music of Haydn’s setting from Eszterháza, where she had been employed between 1782 and 1785.8 The year before her contract there began, Righini’s Don Juan opera Il convitato di pietro o sia Il dissoluto was

118

The Vienna Don Giovanni

performed, and Haydn substituted the original aria in Act I, Scene XI with Jomelli’s ‘Odio, furor, dispetto’ from Armida abbandonata, the first known incursion of this aria into the Don Juan tradition.9 In 1784, Haydn staged his own opera Armida. Antonia Specioli was not in the cast, but her husband took one of the leading roles.10 In Jomelli’s opera, the accompagnato preceding the aria begins ‘Misera Armida’, but in Haydn’s setting the words ‘Povera Armida’ are close to the end of the accompanied recitative, and it is this version which appears in the Warsaw Don Giovanni. It is clear that the purpose was to include one of the most celebrated expressions of rage in opera seria.11 In order not to overload Donna Elvira’s role in this part of the opera, her short outburst ‘Ah fuggi il traditor’ was cut and replaced by recitative. Not content with this expansion of Donna Elvira’s role in Act I, Guardasoni also included Mozart’s scena ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’, the first time, so far as is known, one of Mozart’s additions was performed outside Vienna.12 Whereas Armida’s outburst expresses undiluted anger, Da Ponte’s added scena is characteristically more nuanced. Although also using the words ‘Misera Elvira’, she is now caught between two powerful emotions, love and hate. Mozart’s new scena is integrated in Act II just before the graveyard scene. It follows Don Ottavio’s ‘Il mio tesoro’ without a scene break, to achieve which it was necessary to amend the stage instructions. Masetto follows Leporello out immediately, and then at the end of his aria Don Ottavio leaves with Zerlina. The inclusion of these two major pieces transformed the role of Donna Elvira, and it shows Guardasoni proceding in the same direction as Mozart in Vienna in developing her as a central character. Both Guardasoni and Mozart continued to work on the escape scene in Act II. The original text of Leporello’s aria was revised between W1 and P, and in Mozart’s setting a further word was changed (‘già capite’ instead of ‘Voi capite’). In 1788 the aria was replaced by recitative, ending with four lines in tempo, the text of which is a further revision of the last four lines of the original aria text. By the time of the 1789 Warsaw performance (if not earlier) Guardasoni too had revised this difficult moment. In addition, two further draft suggestions are extant in the hand of Casanova. Weidinger has studied the historiography of this colourful strand of the Don Giovanni legend, concluding that Casanova’s drafts are unlikely to have formed part of the original compositional process. Nonetheless, they are undoubtedly very early in date, and, when taken in conjunction with the various revisions made by Mozart and Guardasoni, contribute to a total of at least six different attempts to arrive at a convincing way for Leporello to make his exit. This can hardly be a coincidence, and it points to the existence of a problem that was proving hard to resolve. The extant versions of the escape scene are discussed fully by Weidinger.13

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

119

Casanova’s first idea was an aria, in which Leporello defends himself. Weidinger regards his way of achieving this as dramatically inferior to Da Ponte’s version, because it is addressed collectively to all present, rather than to successive individuals.14 Casanova then sketched out an ensemble in buffo style, in which Lepo­ rello admits his complicity and asks for mercy. In the 1788 Vienna production, Mozart was intending to retain ‘Ah pietà’ but later substituted it with recitative, while Guardasoni’s revision has Leporello explain himself in a ‘canzonetta’. A curious feature of the autograph appears to suggest the possibility that Mozart was involved in some way in developing the stage action of the escape aria. Usually the full stage directions appear in the libretto, with only a selection in the composer’s own score. In ‘Ah pietà’ (and also in ‘O statua gentilissima’), the reverse is true, as shown in Table 24. As Weidinger notes, the last five stage directions in ‘Ah pietà’ appear to have been added in after the text of the aria was written.15 They were clearly not put in at the stage of the particella, which is unusually clear for this opera. Only the first one was put in at that point. These instructions do not appear in P or W2 or in the Prague Conservatory score. Possibly they were added in the autograph at a rehearsal after the pieces had been copied. In the case of ‘O statua gentilissima’, the addition of the stage directions in the autograph could well have been related to the issue of whether in the graveyard scene the Statue was to be an inert stage prop (with the singer offstage or table 24  Stage instructions for ‘Ah pietà’ and ‘O statua gentilissima’ Autograph Ah pietà

P

/a D: Ottavio e Donna Elvira:/ /piano à Donna Elvira:/ /accenando Donna Elvira / /:à: Ottavio con confusione:/ /:additando la porta dov’erasi chiuso per errore:/ /:s’avvicina con destrezza alla porta e fugge:/ [‘/: fugge:/’ written first and then expanded] (parte) (a D. Giov.)

O Statua /:la statua china la testa:/ /imita la statua/ /la statua china qui la testa/ /vedendo il chino/ /alla statua/

(partono)

120

The Vienna Don Giovanni

otherwise hidden) or whether the performer was supposed to impersonate the Statue onstage, remaining motionless except for the nods of the head. Good comedy would have been possible between Leporello and a dummy or a dummy with a moveable head, but in the final Vienna versions, any such problems associated with the double casting of Masetto/Commendatore were resolved: Elvira’s scena allowed plenty of time for Bussani to switch his identity before the start of the graveyard scene. A further significant change in the Warsaw libretto is the replacement of Don Giovanni’s aria ‘Metà di voi’ with recitative. This could have been a Leipzig revision, required because Costa was a less successful mimic of his servant (one of the features of this aria) than Bassi. Interesting revisions also occur in the Act II finale. In the first of the three operatic airs played by a wind band, six lines of text (from ‘Ah che piato saporito!’) which refer to Don Giovanni’s monstrous appetite, are replaced. Four new couplets allude to some young women apparently present at the banquet, about whom Leporello neatly inverts his opening words in the opera: Don Giovanni Leporello à 2

E di queste Giovanotte Leporello che ti par? Sono buone giorno e notte Così almeno a me mi par. Si vorebbe, ben lo vedo, Il briccone divertir. Ah che almeno mi potessi La mia parte divertir.

It is widely believed that the first of the cut lines (‘Ah che piato saporito!’) was intended as a punning reference to Teresa Saporiti as a ‘tasty dish’. As Gronda pointed out, it is not so much the use of the word ‘tasty’ itself, but Mozart’s musical response; in true buffo style, Don Giovanni sings, without so much as drawing breath: ‘Ah che piato saporito! Ah che piato saporito, saporito, saporito!’16 In the balancing phrase, Leporello does not (immediately) repeat his words ‘Ah che barbaro appetito’. It is certainly possible therefore that the reason for the replacement of this passage was her departure from the company, following which the joke would have lost its point. The switch could have occurred in the autumn of 1789, or it could date back to the summer of 1788, when there was a new singer in the role.17 A striking omission in the Warsaw libretto is the text of the episode in which the wind band strikes up a melody from Figaro. The music could have been retained simply as an instrumental piece, but the join around the cut would work perfectly well as a V–I cadence in Bb. Famously, it was Mozart himself

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

121

who inserted the lines identifying the operas by Martín y Soler and Sarti from which he was quoting: ‘Bravi! “Cosa rara”!’; ‘Evvivano i “Litiganti”!’. He also added in a witty piece of self-promotion with Leporello’s comment on ‘Non più andrai’: ‘This piece I know too well’ (‘Questa poi la conosco pur troppo’). In Prague, audiences would probably have recognised the tunes: Figaro was well known; I due litiganti had been introduced in 1783.18 And Cosa rara was given its première some time in the autumn season of 1787, though whether before or after Don Giovanni is uncertain.19 In Warsaw, however, Figaro was less familiar, and Leporello’s quip would have had less meaning. Guardasoni’s apparent wish to remove references that would not be picked up by a new audience raises a wider question about the early reception of Mozart’s operas. In our museum age, it is naturally the audience which has to adapt, acquiring information about historical puns, in-jokes and musical crossreferences through programme notes, even though the humour itself cannot be recaptured. But the tendency in the late eighteenth century was to revise the text. Mozart retained the textual and musical sequence in Vienna, even though for some reason the additional lines were not added to the libretto W2. Guardasoni, however, perhaps had a different perspective as an impresario. In fact, there was a general tendency to intervene in the score at these moments. The Florence scores alter these topical references in different ways. The Basevi score (B II 183– 4) preserves the reactions of an arranger who evidently thought the allusion to Mozart’s tune would be incomprehensible and replaced it with ‘quest’è buono sì sì quest’è buono’. On the other hand, whoever was responsible for the text of the Picchi score (D III 428–31) focused on the reference to Sarti’s air, replacing ‘Evvivano i litiganti’ with ‘e viva noi tutti quanti’. Later in the Act II finale, Guardasoni’s Warsaw libretto appears on two occasions to remove a line sung by Don Giovanni: ‘Ho fermo il core in petto’ and ‘Che gelo è questo mai’. If implemented, this would have resulted in some kind of abridgement between bars 512–14 and 522–3. The parallel with what Mozart had already done in Vienna is particularly striking. The composer made two different cuts (bars 478–83 and 503–6), neither easy to explain as improvements to the drama or refinements to the musical text. Mozart’s second cut and Guardasoni’s first cut both remove an expression of Don Giovanni’s defiant courage. It is almost as though Guardasoni was recollecting some passing observation by Mozart as to how this passage might be improved. Finally, both Guardasoni and Mozart thought again about the scena ultima. The composer considered abbreviating it and perhaps removing it altogether, but Guardasoni expanded the text of the closing tutti from three lines (as in the Prague libretto) to twelve lines, contrasting the fate of those with an impure or pure spirit. No score survives of Guardasoni’s Warsaw production of Don Giovanni, but

122

The Vienna Don Giovanni

the Prague Conservatory copy was adapted to serve as the exemplar. With one exception, the detailed changes made to the text in the libretto were not entered in the score, but the new substitute pieces were added in and the necessary cuts made. These changes were subsequently revoked, and all that survives today are some replacement pages and redundant instructions, which, however, match the Warsaw sequence very closely, as shown in Table 25. In addition to the changes in the libretto, two other revisions in the Prague Conservatory score can perhaps be linked to the Warsaw production: the possibility of a replacement aria for ‘Batti, batti’; and the removal of the trio in the Act I finale. The libretto of Guardasoni’s 1789 Warsaw revision of Don Giovanni is an important historical document. It demonstrates how quickly the text of an opera could change, even in the company which gave the original performance. It shows, too, that the Prague cast knew of at least one of Mozart’s Vienna additions not much more than a year after it had been composed. Apart from the incorporation of Elvira’s scena, none of Guardasoni’s changes can be considered authentic in the strong sense, that is attributable directly to the composer, yet they cannot be divorced totally from the original creative process. They occupy instead a hard-to-define grey area of authenticity: the possibility that subsequent actions of individuals associated with the original production might reflect the composer’s thinking. The impresario and his cast had in a very real sense participated in the compositional process: they knew the problems that Mozart had faced and his solutions; they would have been aware of many of the choices he had had to make; and very probably they would have known too of features with which the composer was not yet satisfied. The way that the opera evolved in Prague, therefore has potential evidential value as to how Mozart saw his work, or at least how others thought that he saw his work. The fact that some of Guardasoni’s changes mirror those made by the composer himself adds force to the point. Both Mozart and Guardasoni enhanced the role of Donna Elvira, both wrestled with the intractable problem of Leporello’s escape, both thought about the scena ultima, and both apparently introduced two tiny (and not easily explicable) cuts into the Act II finale. All this suggests that we should reconsider the traditional interpretation of Mozart’s Vienna revision, as primarily a response to the needs of his new cast of singers. This is certainly the implication of Da Ponte’s account, but the corollary – that the composer was forced to sacrifice the dramatic coherence of the Prague original – seems unduly simplistic. Perhaps, in the light of Guardasoni’s similar activities as a reviser (with different singers), there were aspects of the drama that Mozart thought capable of improvement.

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

123

table 25  Evidence of Guardasoni’s Warsaw production in the Prague Conservatory score Prague Conservatory score

Warsaw libretto

A replacement page at the end of Leporello’s aria ‘Madamina’ reinstates the text of the recitative ‘In questa forma dunque’.

The end of the recitative was adapted to lead into an aria for Elvira ‘Odio, furor, dispetto’.

In a later production the Sukowaty copy of ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ was inserted here as a replacement for ‘Odio, furor, dispetto’. Its number 8½ refers to its original position in Act II of the Warsaw libretto. A replacement page reinstating the start of ‘Ah fuggi il traditor’ was inserted, copied in the same hand as the earlier example.

Donna Elvira’s ‘Ah fuggi il traditor’ was replaced with four lines of recitative.

At the end of the accompagnato ‘Don Ottavio’, a D minor V–I cadence was added. The words ‘aria messa’ indicate a substitute aria, probably in the key of D minor.

Donna Anna’s aria ‘Or sai chi l’onore’ was replaced by an aria of three stanzas entitled ‘Infelice in tal momento’.

At the end of the recitative before ‘Batti, batti’ is written ‘aria messa’, subsequently crossed out. Perhaps a replacement aria for Zerlina was considered in Warsaw.

There is no sign of a replacement aria.

In the same hand that did the other replacement passages, the trio in the Act I finale between Donna Anna, Donna Elvira and Don Ottavio (‘Protegge il giusto cielo’) was replaced.

There is no sign of this cut.

There are signs that ‘Metà di voi’ was folded off.

Don Giovanni’s aria was replaced with four lines of recitative: ‘Metà di voi vadan da questa parte’.

‘Ah pietà’ was replaced with recitative The first page of Leporello’s aria ‘Ah pietà’ was boldly crossed out. Later it was leading to a ‘canzonetta’. restored with the instruction ‘bleibt’. Continues overleaf

124

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 25 continued

Prague Conservatory score

Warsaw libretto

‘Il mio tesoro’ is followed by the Sukowaty copy of ‘Per queste tue manine’, but this is numbered 8¾ and at one time must have followed Elvira’s scena.

‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ follows directly on from ‘Il mio tesoro’. Donna Elvira is left alone following the instruction (par. [Ottavio] con Zerl.). The number 8½ on the Sukowaty copy refers to its position here – it assumes the loss of ‘Metà di voi’ and the replacement of ‘Ah pietà’ with a canzonetta.

At the end of Donna Anna’s accompagnato the words ‘aria messa’ indicate a substitution. There is no change to the final cadence and so presumably the key was still F major.

Donna Anna’s ‘Non mi dir’ is replaced by a three-stanza aria ‘Ah spirar con te vorrei’. It includes the exit instruction missing in P.

In the Act II finale, six lines of text beginning ‘Ah che piato saporito’ have a replacement Italian text referring to young women (‘Giovanotte’).

The replacement lines are given.

The text of this section is omitted. There are signs that the section containing the wind-band accompaniment to ‘Non più andrai’ were stitched up, but it is not entirely clear in the digital reproduction. The text of the final chorus appears as in the original.

A new chorus text was substituted: Chi nel seno ha un’alma impura Bella pace mai non ha! Presto ha fine e poco dura La di lor felicità, Come il lampo, il tuono, il fulmine Che si sente qua e la, E la polve che per l’aria Raggirando se ne va. Cosi appunto poca dura La di lor felicità! Ma chi in seno ha l’alma pura Sempre lieto se ne stà.

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

125

The reception of the Vienna music in 1790s Prague The main historical questions are: when did Mozart’s newly composed Vienna pieces begin to have an impact in Prague and did the composer himself have any further role in shaping the future of Don Giovanni in the city of its original première? The earliest phase of this rapprochement is poorly documented, although it is easier to trace than its converse: the re-entry of the Prague pieces in the Vienna version. The only evidence that it was Mozart himself who informed the Prague Company about the newly composed Vienna pieces comes in the foreword to J. N. Stiepanek’s Czech version of Don Giovanni. A German translation was included in Nissen’s Biographie of 1828. In order to make his edition as perfect as possible, Stiepanek had not neglected to include in their proper place, the three new Vienna pieces ‘which Mozart composed later for the Italian opera company in Vienna and which he also communicated to the Prague stage’.20 Although there is no corroboration for this, it is likely enough that Mozart would have sent copies of the newly composed material to Guardasoni. The first datable evidence that one of the Vienna additions was known to the Prague Company (if not in the city itself ) comes with the inclusion of Donna Elvira’s scena in the 1789 Warsaw libretto, immediately after ‘Il mio tesoro’. This sequence proved a durable feature of Guardasoni’s production. Early in 1800, Prince Lobkowicz ordered a complete set of scores and parts of Don Giovanni, and the opera was performed by Guardasoni at Raudnitz in September 1804.21 His troupe included Luigi Bassi from the original cast. I have not had an opportunity to study these materials, but they are described in NMA: KB as Source D.22 As did the 1789 Warsaw libretto, the score includes Masetto’s aria. Donna Elvira’s scena is interpolated between the penultimate and last leaves of ‘Il mio tesoro’. This score thus follows the sequence that had already been established by Guardasoni in 1789. It also apparently includes the Vienna recitative ‘Ah pietà’ as well as the aria. Further confirmation that the new music for Donna Elvira, alone of the Vienna additions, had become established in Prague, comes in the libretto of the Singspiel version performed by Mihule’s company at the Vaterländischen Theater in 1791: ‘Arien / aus der Oper / don juan. / oder / Die redende Statue, / in zwey Aufzügen. / Nach dem Italiänischen / des / Abbate da Ponte / ins deutsche frey bearbeitet. / Die Musik ist von Mozart. / Aufgeführt / zu Prag / im Vaterländischen Theater / von der / Mihuleischen Gesellschaft. / prag, / Gedruckt bey Joseph Emmanuel Diesbach. / 1791’.23 Mihule’s version again includes Masetto’s Act I aria, as do other versions of this Singspiel, such as the one in Brno. Donna Elvira’s new aria occupies a

126

The Vienna Don Giovanni

different position, however, before the sestetto in Act II, and seemingly without its accompagnato. That leaves the question very much open as to when the Vienna version in its totality reached Prague. A possible candidate for the source of the transmission is the Conservatory score itself, into which early copies of all three new Vienna pieces were added. (If the new Vienna recitatives were similarly inserted, they have since been lost.) The firm identification of this manuscript as the exemplar for the entire Viennese transmission of Don Giovanni does not of course prove that it bequeathed its readings in person as it were; a copy could have been sent. There are, however, many unequivocal points of connection between the Conservatory score itself and the Vienna parts preserved in O.A.361/1, cuts, for example, that are found nowhere else, and there seems every reason to suppose that the score and parts were in use together. The real problem is that the Conservatory score is known to have been in Vienna in the mid-nineteenth century, the time when it was unavailable to Gugler during his philological investigations. Vienna readings, long established in O.A.361/Stimmen, could have been transferred to the score during this later period of use, or indeed, alterations could have been made during more than one putative sojourn in the city. At least there is no doubt that the copies of the three new Vienna pieces in the Prague Conservatory score are early in date. They are described in Table 26. The copyists and watermarks are consistent with a date around 1790.24 Edge noted that the giving of Sukowaty’s address as No.554 indicates that it was copied before 1795, when the houses were renumbered.25 The appearance of Sukowaty’s imprint on two of these scores shows that they were commercial copies. Their layout matches that of no other known source, which is not surprising, since individual pieces supplied to the market did not need to adhere to the rigid discipline of full-score layout. The editors of NMA: KB considered the question of when these Viennese copies found their way to Prague, giving their opinion, logically indisputable, that the transfer occurred: either (a) before Mozart’s visit to Prague in 1791; or (b) as a result of this visit; or (c) some time afterwards.26 If the Prague score itself was in Vienna during 1788, it surely acquired the additions then. If it remained in Prague, the copies of the new movements could have been taken by the composer himself in 1791, although the incorporation of Elvira’s scena in the 1789 Warsaw production suggests they were sent at an earlier date. In the light of the hypothesis concerning an intermediate Vienna version with Donna Elvira’s scena preceding the comic duet, it is interesting to see this order reflected in the numbers 8½ and 8¾. The main evidence linking the Prague Conservatory score physically to Mozart’s home city is the fact that several cuts were entered into it, which are

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

127

table 26  The Viennese pieces in the Prague Conservatory score (in order of appearance) Atto 2do / Il Don Giovanne [changed from or to Giovanni] Mi tradi quell’alma ingrata Aria con recitativo Del Sigre Amad: Wolfg: [written over something else] Mozart In Vienna presso Wencislao Sukowaty Copista del Teatro di Corte nella Piazza di St Pietro al Nro 554, nel cortile in terzo Piano [The title page is crossed out.]

Donna Elvira’s scena is placed after Leporello’s aria and is a response to it. This was the order chosen for the 1798 Vienna revival, based on Schröder’s fouract version. The number 8½ added to the title page indicates its Act II position in Guardasoni’s 1789 Warsaw production.

Atto 1mo Il Don Giovanni A[ria] Dalla sua pace Del Sigre Mozart

This is placed in its Mozartean position, as indicated by the number 10½.

Atto 2do Il Don Giovanni Duetto Per questa tua manina Del Sigre Wolfgango Ama: Mozart In Vienna presso Wencislao Sukowaty Copista del Teatro di Corte nella Piazza di St Pietro al Nro 554, nel cortile in terzo Piano

The number 8 ¾ shows that at some point the comic duet was intended to follow Elvira’s scena.

seen otherwise only in O.A.361/Stimmen. These include the early Vienna cuts associated with the 1788 production, as well as others of indeterminate date. They are listed in Table 27. It is evident from their diversity that these cuts were made at different times. There is certainly no indication of any attempt to enter the original Vienna cuts in any systematic fashion, though a few were put in. Some, including those sealed with a red wax-like substance, can be associated with the sealing up of the simple recitatives, a few of which exhibit similar features. There is no clear-cut evidence to show an association between the score and the parts in 1788, though one certainly cannot be ruled out. Possibly the earliest indications are the smudged out large + signs, sometimes seen in Mozart’s own autograph scores. It may be that the Act I cuts (marked with a +) represent a distinct layer. According to NMA: KB, the NB sign at the end of the replacement passage for the cut in ‘Fin ch’han dal vino’ is in Mozart’s own hand.27 After comparing it with other autograph examples in Così fan tutte, I am rather doubtful, but it may nonetheless be early in date. The appearance of some

128

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 27  Cuts and changes in the Prague Conservatory score Piece Mi tradì

Bar

Prague Conservatory score

77–118 bold blackish XX; vi- -de 89–131 + greyish with red smudging; vi- -de

Giovinette Fin ch’han

75

Ɵ possible location for cut or repeat

79

# possible location for cut or repeat

85–103 hand-NB sign at end, crossed out; no sign at start, possibly on original bifolium 104–119 + greyish with red smudging at bar 120; possible location of another/alternative cut

Batti, batti

78–85 + greyish with red smudging; vi- -de, perhaps also smudged out

Finale

406–37 repeat signs for G major minuet smudged out

Ah taci

67–78 hand-NB sign and Ɵ; vi- -de, greyish and thick; no sign of first cut

Sola, sola

229–38 red wax like blobs used to seal; vi- -de; 251–6 # in bold black

Il mio tesoro Finale

24–5 65–6

bold black = sign; red wax like blobs to seal

554–93 grey/red repeat barlines drawn through staves; 602 ‘Ende der Oper’ written twice in bold black

of these cuts in O.A.361/Stimmen strongly reinforces the Prague Conservatory score’s link with Vienna, even if many of them were added in the nineteenth century. The repetition of the music to which Don Giovanni goes down in flames (bars 554–93) would have reinforced the Vienna conception of the work without the scena ultima. Further clues to the Prague Conservatory score’s location in the early 1790s might be found in the German text for a Singspiel version, with which it was supplied. The added text is a variant of Don Juan oder die redende Statue – the title itself is not given anywhere in the manuscript. Possibly the work of Christian Heinrich Spiess, this was the version favoured in Bohemia and Moravia, but it was also known in southern Germany as well as in Vienna.28 In addition to its use in the 1791 Mihule Prague production cited above, this version also appears in a score in Brno entitled: ‘Don Juan / oder / Die redende Statue’. The cast lists of these two productions are nearly identical: Don Juan and Franz; Donna Laura; Don Gonsalvo / Gonsaldo and Donna Anna; Klarchen / Clärchen and Peter.29 The earliest recorded Vienna performance of a variant of

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

129

this German adaptation was given a year after Mozart’s death. A poster in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde advertising a performance in the Theater auf der Wieden on 5 November 1792 has the following information: ‘Don Juan oder die redende Statue. Eine Oper in zwei Aufzügen, nach dem Italiänischen Don Giovanni fürs deutsche Theater bearbeitet von Spies. Die Musik ist von Wolfgang Amadè Mozart, weil k.k. Kapellmeister und Kammerkompositeur.’30 The cast list includes further minor variants: Franzesko, Pedro, Klara.31 Unfortunately, it is not possible to link the Prague Conservatory score to any of these imperfectly documented productions of Don Juan. While its basic text is the one performed by Mihule’s company, it diverges in typically free-ranging fashion. Some texts are replacements; others are retained virtually unchanged. One curious feature of its text, however, distinguishes it from other versions; it replaces the German character names with those of the Italian original whenever there is a reference to someone by name. The choice of vernacular names was an important element in the German reception of Mozart’s operatic works, and this decision results in an unusual hybrid. A version retaining the German names, though, seems also to have been current in Vienna. Beethoven copied out a section of the Act I finale with a German text closely related to that in the Prague score, but with the name Clärchen rather than Zerlina. By identifying which parts of Don Juan oder die redende Statue were originally supplied with German text in the Prague Conservatory score, we can at least form a general idea as to what it looked like. When the Singspiel text was first added in, the three Vienna insertions were apparently left blank; their German texts are in different hands. The original translation appears thus to have been based on the Prague version without the additional pieces. (The translation supplied for Elvira’s aria is not that given in the Mihule libretto.) No text was provided for Leporello’s ‘Ah pietà’, perhaps because it was folded off for the Warsaw production. Don Ottavio’s Act II aria, however, was included, albeit with a different text from the one in Mihule’s libretto. This sequence clearly resembles Guardasoni’s performing order. The last time that Mozart himself heard Don Giovanni was during his 1791 visit to Prague. Almost certainly he would have been aware that the opera was to be given as part of the coronation festivities. It is known that he attended the performance on 2 September, but there is no direct evidence that he conducted it. The historical accounts of this occasion are unhelpful: none of them gives any clue as to the musical text performed.32 The range of possibilities is considerable: (a) the version given in Warsaw in 1789; (b) the original Prague version but with some Leipzig or Warsaw accretions; (c) the Prague version but with ‘Mi tradì’ after ‘Il mio tesoro’; (d) one of the Vienna versions supplied by Mozart

130

The Vienna Don Giovanni

himself; (e) a version developed specifically for this occasion. From the incorporation of ‘Mi tradì’ in the Warsaw libretto, we know that this Vienna piece (and probably the other two as well) were at least available if needed. (Unfortunately, Stiepanek did not mention when Mozart had communicated the new Vienna pieces to the Prague Company.)33 The variety of plausible choices so soon after the original première is startling; it shows that the fluidity of the text of the opera was not just because it had been taken into the repertory of numerous companies performing Singspiel versions; even in the troupe that had given the first performance, the opera flourished in a range of guises in its original language. There is no reason at all to assume that Mozart would not himself have been an active participant in the ongoing evolution of Don Giovanni after 1788, if the occasion had demanded it. By the early nineteenth century the Prague Conservatory score was back in the archives of the Estates Theatre. In his foreword Stiepanek noted that he had consulted this important source which survives ‘in the archive of the management of the Estates Theatre’.34

The 1798 Vienna revival In the years that followed Mozart’s death, Don Giovanni swept across German-speaking Europe in a variety of translations. Vienna remained rather cool about the work, and the first significant revival took place only in 1798, when it was conducted by Mozart’s pupil Süssmayer in the Theater auf der Wieden. Whether Süssmayer’s hand appears in O.A.361/1 in connection with the production of materials for the new performance remains uncertain. The editors of NMA: KB requested Erich Duda to consider the question, and his conclusion was that there are two possible cases at most.35 It is almost certain, however, that the German score (O.A.361/2) was copied for this new production. Edge thought that its watermarks and copyists were ‘consistent with a date in the late 1790s or around 1800’.36 To the extent that the musical text of O.A.361/2 was copied from O.A.361/1 and therefore incorporates the small cuts that were among Mozart’s last revisions, Süssmayer’s score derives from the Vienna version, but in all other respects it presents the four-act arrangement made by Schröder for Hamburg in 1789, which in the meantime had been published by Neefe in a keyboard score (1797).37 An influence on the choice of version to be performed at the 1798 revival was very likely Friedrich Lippert, who had taken the part of Don Giovanni in Berlin and who now reprised the role in Vienna to severe criticism.38 Analysis of the gathering numbers of O.A.361/2 shows that the original order of Acts I to III was as in Table 28. (The Act IV materials were replaced at a later date.) The complexity of the various layers of revision hinders analysis, but the

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

131

table 28  The original order of the numbers in O.A.361/2 Schröder’s 4-act order

Neefe’s 1797 keyboard score

Introduzione Ma qual mai s’offre Ah chi mi dice mai Madamina

1 2 3 4 5

Non ti fidar Don Ottavio

6 7

Mi tradì Mi tradì

O.A.361/1*

O.A.361/2

2→2 3→3

1 2 3

4→4 [8]→9→4½ 9→5 10→6

4 4½ 5 6

5→7 6 (‘belibt aus’) (missing) (missing) 11→18 12→10 12→13→11 13→14→12

7

act ii Giovinette Là ci darem la mano Ah fuggi

8 9 10 11

Fin ch’han dal vino Batti, batti Finale

12 13 14

Ho capito

Dalla sua pace

Eh via buffone Ah taci Deh vieni Metà di voi Vedrai carino

act iii 15 16 17 18 19

Sola, sola

act iv 20

Dalla sua pace [Ah pietà] [Il mio Tesoro] wind accompaniments to the statue O statua Crudele / Non mi dir Finale

13 14 15 16 17 18

6→19 9→7 (bleibt aus)

18→19

21 22 23 24

20

25 26 27

?→21 10→22 13→11→23

 * Changes to numbers presumably made at the time of the 1798 revival = insertions in O.A.361/2

10 11 12

1→13 2→14 3→15 4 5→17

Dalla sua pace

Per queste

8 9

132

The Vienna Don Giovanni

underlying shape of the version chosen for the 1798 revival seems clear enough. This is represented by the original numbers in O.A.361/2 prior to the insertions being made, and the sequence equates to Neefe’s order with the numbers rationalised. Doubtless working from a Prague source in which ‘Ho capito’ was missing, Schröder had not included it, but it was reinstated in Neefe’s 1797 keyboard score. This adds credence to the possibility that the comment ‘bleibt aus’ written above this aria in O.A.361/1 was put in as a clarification by Süssmayer in 1798 as he arranged the score.39 Of the new Viennese pieces, there is no sign of the duet ‘Per queste tue manine’. Ottavio’s aria ‘Dalla sua pace’ was placed before the sestetto, causing the latter to be renumbered No.19. Elvira’s scena was added in where it surely should have been placed in the Neefe keyboard score – after (rather than before) ‘Madamina’. The Vienna parts include several signs of the reorderings that took place around 1798. In the first-desk violin 1 part, an early German version of Donna Anna’s Act I scena (’Don Ottavio’) appears in its new earlier position with the appropriate continuity instructions ‘Fine del atto Imo’ and ‘folgt No.7 Coro’. In the same part, a German version of Donna Elvira’s scena is inserted with ‘No.9’ changed to ‘No.4½’, its location in the revised ordering of O.A.361/2. (In the original score O.A.361/1 and in all the parts, this aria was renumbered upwards from 8 to 9, but it has proved impossible so far to date or indeed explain this change.) Later in the same part, there is an insert with an early German score of ‘Vedrai carino’ leading directly into ‘Dalla sua pace’, again its position in the revised version of O.A.361/2. From all this, it seems clear that the Vienna pieces were not included in the initial copying of O.A.361/2, simply because the copyists were following Neefe’s order, even though using O.A.361/1 as their source text. (The last section of O.A.361/2 appears to be a different perhaps later copy.) It is truly striking that even in the city in which they had first been written, the two Vienna arias were still obliged to make their way back into a variant of the Prague version in this ad hoc fashion, having as yet failed to achieve an established position. It is also evident that while around 1790 only Elvira’s scena was normally added in, by the later 1790s, Don Ottavio’s second aria was also regularly included, leaving only the comic duet still out in the cold. Even in the mid-nineteenth century, ‘Per queste tue manine’ still occupied a slightly anomalous position. Gugler always referred to it as ‘Das Intermezzo’, symbolically placing it outside the main drama.40

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

133

The autograph of Don Giovanni after Mozart’s death When the time came to put the score in order for the sale of the composer’s Nachlass, significant parts of it were found to be missing. An analysis of the state of the autograph after 1791 has the potential to add much to our quest for the Vienna Don Giovanni. It will be useful first to compare a list of sections of the opera still missing today, with one containing elements which had gone astray around 1800 but which were recovered soon thereafter. These are given in Table 29. The later of the two pencil foliations added to the autograph of Act II represents its state still today, with no gaps in the numbering sequence for the two major missing sections – the comic duet with its associated recitatives and the graveyard scene. 41 A great deal of information about the state of the autograph of Don Giovanni in Constanze’s possession can be deduced from her letters to André around 1800. The following summary is much indebted to Edge’s extended discussion of Mozart’s Nachlass.42 As part of the agreement reached on 8 November 1799, Constanze undertook to try to locate items missing from Mozart’s estate, as well table 29  Sections of the autograph missing Perhaps temporarily detached from the main autograph until c. 1800 Main score

Missing c. 1800 and still missing today Main score

Supplementary pages

Dalla sua pace wind parts of Act I finale wind parts of sestetto Ah pietà (the recitative) Restati qua Per queste [quelle] tue manine Amico, per pietà Andiam, andiam In quali eccessi / Mi tradì ‘Ah, ah, ah’ wind parts of Act II finale [?Act II finale after Commendatore’s entry] last page of the opera

134

The Vienna Don Giovanni

as the remaining sections of incomplete works. André was evidently expecting proactive detective work on her part, something she felt she had not agreed to do. To a point, however, she was co-operative. Following the dispatch of the main consignment of autographs, Constanze wrote a letter dated 21 February 1800 with suggestions about several of the items still lacking. She noted that Don Giovanni was missing some music for wind instruments.43 This lacuna at least should not surprise us. The wind parts for the finales and some large ensembles written on pages designated by the composer with the title ‘extra Blatt’ frequently became separated from the main autograph and many were thereby lost for ever.44 On 31 May Constanze replied to a letter from André – his side of the correspondence is lost – which evidently contained two lists of specific questions about missing and incomplete scores. In response to an enquiry about the Vienna duet ‘Per queste tue manine’, Constanze, who could not find the piece, directed André to the two singers Mombelli and Benucci.45 The wording of the request has been taken to imply that André did not yet have the two Vienna arias either and would have to seek them in the same way, and in fact Edge’s meticulous reconstruction of André’s missing list of questions has gaps for inquiries about both arias in the appropriate places in the sequence.46 André did eventually receive the autographs of ‘Dalla sua pace’ and ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ but not that of the duet. The reason why Constanze did not have the three Vienna pieces is almost certainly that they had not yet been returned from the Court Theatre. In a close analysis of the markings in Mozart’s Verzeichnüss, Edge noticed that a small number of these substitution arias had been singled out for a marking with three pencil crosses, suggesting that a list of such items was sent to the Court Theatre to see if they could be retrieved.47 Constanze also responded in her letter of 31 May to a question on André’s second list concerning incomplete items. She referred to a small part of Don Giovanni that she could not locate, advising the publisher that the missing material was so small in scale that the easiest course of action would be to obtain a copy from Traeg.48 Very probably this was a reference to the missing final page of the autograph. Another important source of evidence about the missing sections of the autograph is the series of copies made for André around 1800.49 Some were annotated in his hand with the information that they had been obtained by Nissen and checked by Stadler.50 Today these copies are in the Henkel Nachlass in Fulda and Frankfurt, and they include: the wind parts to the sestetto and the Act II finale (including trombones); a copy of the Act II finale from the entry of the Commendatore onwards (including the scena ultima); the graveyard scene;

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

135

and the duet ‘Per queste tue manine’.51 Despite their Viennese origin, these copies are of the Prague version, except of course in the case of the one new Vienna piece supplied. The page-breaks and even the gathering structure of the Fulda scores match exactly those of the Donaueschingen copy. The sections copied are those that are still missing today, with the exception of the extended section of full score of the Act II finale. It is possible that this section of the opera was still detached from the main autograph. On the other hand, André may have commissioned a copy of this part of the opera in order to clarify whether the full or the abbreviated version of the scena ultima was the authentic one. It is not known what role (if any) Constanze herself played in supplying André with his copies of the missing material. The Vienna duet ‘Per queste tue manine’ was supplied to André by a copyist working for a relatively new organisation. The score in Fulda is annotated: ‘Nel Magazino di Musica die Teatri Imper[iali] Real[i]’. According to Edge, this firm was established in 1796.52 The singular form of the title of the piece in this source (’Per questa tua manina’) confirms its origins in the Vienna Court ­Theatre materials. I have reviewed the evidence of Constanze’s correspondence with André and the copies she supplied to him in some detail because of the light it sheds upon the state of the autograph in her possession. Apart from the wind parts written on extra sheets which often got lost, the gaps in the autograph consisted of: (a) the additional Vienna pieces with their accompanying recitatives; (b) all the elements in the Prague score requiring significant revision: the graveyard scene and the entry of the Commendatore in the Act II finale (at least the wind score of the latter) because of the need to remove the trombones. André probably did have the Act II finale, but perhaps sent for a copy from Vienna to establish the status of the abbreviation. It is thus clear that what was missing represents the complete corpus of the Vienna revision. In the first phase of his revision (Vienna 1) Mozart would have supplied the copyists with the newly composed pieces as they became available, doubtless with instructions as to where they should be inserted. But when the decision was taken to make further revisions and abbreviations – the process that led from Vienna 1 to Vienna 2b – Mozart would have had to forward the relevant portions of the existing autograph with the revisions indicated. It seems likely that the separation of these parts from the main body of the autograph ensured their ultimate loss.

136

The Vienna Don Giovanni

The Breitkopf & Härtel full score The critical moment of intersection between the Prague and Vienna versions of Don Giovanni came in 1801 with the publication by Breitkopf & Härtel of the first full score, an important milestone in the reception history of the opera. This episode came on the cusp of a significant development in the perception of what constituted a musical work: the dawning realisation, evident in Constanze’s negotiations with publishers and in the publicity materials for the editions they proposed to bring out, of the value of the modern concept of the ‘authentic’ version of an opera, one faithful to, and largely determined by the composer’s intentions as represented by what he wrote down in his own hand. As is well known, Breitkopf & Härtel badly mishandled their dealings with Constanze over the purchase of her husband’s musical scores, as a result of which she sold them to André. The autograph of Don Giovanni thus came close to re-entering the picture as a significant arbiter of the form in which the opera would be presented in the early nineteenth-century, but events conspired against this outcome. The publisher who acquired the autograph did not live up to his promise to bring out an edition, while the firm that did publish one was denied access to the autograph. Breitkopf & Härtel therefore had to obtain their materials elsewhere. The story of how the sources were obtained and evaluated is of great interest. Breitkopf & Härtel were well aware that their failure to obtain the autograph might reflect badly on the forthcoming publication of the full score. In March and April 1800, the firm sought to reassure readers that the publication would be neither delayed nor impaired in any way.53 On the other hand, it could not be denied that the autograph was in an incomplete state. In their AmZ announcement of the forthcoming edition in December 1800, Breitkopf & Härtel acknowledged that the original score was now only incompletely preserved, information supplied to them some time previously by Constanze herself in a catalogue of all her husband’s major works. But now she was irked that the firm had gone public with it, even though she freely admitted the truth: ‘that Don Giovanni now exists only in an incomplete original manuscript’.54 Important evidence concerning Breitkopf & Härtel’s efforts to establish the basic facts about Don Giovanni was lost in World War II, when a collection of letters from Niemetschek to Härtel was destroyed in an air-raid on Leipzig. Some details of this correspondence had already been published by Hitzig, and a crucial extract from a letter of 20 February 1801 was given in English translation by Einstein in his article on the recitatives in Act II of Don Giovanni. He had been supplied with a copy of the letter by the keeper of the archives for the firm, and should this document ever be found in Einstein’s own Nachlass, it

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

137

might prove to be a significant discovery. Hitzig summarised in succinct fashion the main themes of the correspondence, occasionally quoting passages verbatim, but to judge by the level of detail in Einstein’s extract, much priceless information has perished.55 Nevertheless, it is possible to reconstruct the main phases of the investigation that Härtel had to undertake before he could think about bringing out a complete edition. Relations with Constanze were by now distinctly frosty, and he therefore turned to Niemetschek to obtain the necessary materials. The first reference to Don Giovanni in Hitzig’s brief account comes in a letter dated 26 July 1800. Evidently in response to a request, Niemetschek agreed to obtain a score of the clarinet concerto … and a score of ‘Don Juan’. He had access to Kuchař, former director of the (Italian opera) theatre and author of the keyboard and string quartet arrangements of the opera, who has been ‘well in with Mozart’.56 A brief summary of a follow-up letter of 1 November reports problems. The opinion of Praupner (probably Václav rather than his younger brother Jan) is noted, that the score of Don Giovanni is not correct and must be ‘put in order’.57 A further letter of 10 November gives some insights into the by now fierce competition to publish Mozart. Niemetschek offered his opinion that André did not have the whole of the original score of Don Giovanni, a fact he surmised from having ‘accidentally’ seen a letter from the publisher to someone else in which he had asked about some pieces (‘einige Stücke’) not in the score. For information about the subject matter of the next letter which concerned the difficulties in establishing the correct text of Don Giovanni, we are fortunate to have Einstein’s published translation of an extract. Hitzig’s précis has no verbatim quotes but is more than a little tantalising, referring colourfully to the ‘monstrous difficulties’ that must have been being encountered in the preparation of the printed score, stemming from the failure to establish unequivocally the correct order and content of the opera.58 The passage published by Einstein is as follows: Here follows a supplement of recitatives to the two new extra pieces in the second act of ‘Don Juan’. My copyist tried to mislead me by assuring me that everything was now complete. But as fortunately this opera was given last week, I went to it in order to convince myself, and found that some recitatives were still missing, which I now send you herewith. I obtained them through a good friend of Guardasoni’s. They cost however 1 thaler. So dear is Guardasoni. The 1st, i.e. the 8th scene, follows immediately upon the great sextet. Scene 9 follows on at once. Next comes Ottavio’s aria in G. To that succeeds the 10th scene, which you

138

The Vienna Don Giovanni

have already received in an earlier supplement, namely where Zerlina brings back Leporello and ties him up during the duet in C. After the duet Zerlina goes to fetch the other victims, such as Elvira &c., to show the captured rogue to them. And now follows the 11th scene, in which Leporello tears himself away; and where as Zerlina returns with Elvira, they find the place empty. Where, too, Zerlina departs and Elvira sings the 12th scene, i.e. the orchestral recitative with the rondo in E flat, which I sent you the other day. On this follows the scene in front of the statue. And now you may be sure of having everything as complete as it is produced here. André probably referred to the old original, and thus not to these altered scenes …59 From this account it is evident that Niemetschek commissioned a copy of the score, that he conscientiously checked it against one of Guardasoni’s performances and that, upon discovering some omissions, he took steps to obtain the missing material. Einstein suggested that Niemetschek was then swindled by the copyist, who concocted material simply ‘to satisfy the agreeable and highly esteemed professor’, but this seems much less likely than that these really were the recitatives being performed by Guardasoni. Niemetschek’s letter is of great interest for the many insights it gives into how Don Giovanni had evolved in Guardasoni’s company during the 1790s, but it also leaves us with a series of puzzles to contend with. It refers to the two new pieces in Act II, but then proceeds to list all three Vienna additions, assuming that the reference to the key of Don Ottavio’s aria is not a simple mistake. (In the Neefe keyboard arrangement of Schröder’s four act version, ‘Dalla sua pace’ is also moved to this part of the opera: after the sestetto but before ‘Ah pietà’.) Weidinger makes the interesting suggestion that some of the alternative orders espoused by Guardasoni during the 1790s could represent versions ­tailored to the current tenor: a ‘heroic’ Don Ottavio for Baglioni (escape scene → ‘Il mio tesoro’ → ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’) and a more lyric / comic ­version for a replacement singer (escape scene → ‘Dalla sua pace’ → ‘Per queste tue manine’). Niemetschek supplied Härtel with enough information to reconstruct what Guardasoni was currently performing (verified by his personal attendance), but the question that then arises is whether this version entailed the loss of two pieces from the Prague original. His account has some ambiguity. He is using the scene numbers found in the autograph and scores rather than those of the libretto W2. He does not list Leporello’s aria ‘Ah pietà’ by name, referring only to Scene VIII, although the implication may be that this was only a recitative. If he was right about the key of Don Ottavio’s aria, ‘Dalla sua pace’ was by now a

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

139

replacement for ‘Il mio tesoro’. Scene X is the comic duet, but Scene XI merges the next two recitatives. There is no doubt that this refers to the inauthentic replacement recitative (discussed by Einstein), since in Niemetschek’s plot description there is no mention of Masetto. This is confirmed by its subsequent publication in the Breitkopf & Härtel edition. It seems that Guardasoni was performing the Vienna Act II order, but with Don Ottavio still singing an aria after the sestetto. Thus, in an ironic twist of fate, the music that Mozart provided for Vienna enjoyed its best success in the city of Prague. Elsewhere, the 1788 version, as originally conceived, was not so widely disseminated, although there are later copies such as the two in Florence. Breitkopf & Härtel’s editor had to make a fateful choice: whether to go with the widely available Prague score or the Vienna version as Guardasoni was performing it. With no access to the autograph, and seemingly not having thought to commission a copy of the Vienna score, presumably still available, he took what probably seemed the only sensible decision: to publish the Prague version and to include the Vienna materials in an appendix. The ‘very careful copy’ (‘sehr sorgfälltigen Copie’) from which the Breitkopf & Härtel edition was prepared under the supervision of August Müller, can readily be confirmed as a commercial Prague copy: it incorporates versions of all the Prague fingerprints. The editor produced a good standard of work, and there are only a few errors and incorrect readings. The information about the order of Act II supplied by Niemetschek was not acted upon. The additional Vienna material (including ‘Ho capito’) was relegated to an appendix of ‘pieces added in later’ (‘später eingelegten Stücke’) in the following order: (1) ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’; (2) ‘Ho capito’; (3) ‘Dalla sua pace’; (4) ‘Per queste tue manine’. No clue is given as to where they are to be inserted. The incorporation of Masetto’s Act I aria as a ‘later’ piece gives a striking insight into how thoroughly this piece had disappeared from the text of the opera as disseminated in Prague, while the placing of Elvira’s scena as the first of the extra pieces possibly reflects its common insertion after ‘Madamina’. At the risk of indulging in a little hypothetical history, it may be of interest to consider what might have happened if André had succeeded in publishing the first complete score. Like his rivals, he was well aware that Don Giovanni had up until now been circulating in faulty and mutually inconsistent copies.60 The initial announcement remained cautiously neutral about ‘some arias that up until now have remained unknown in this opera’.61 His correspondence on this subject does not survive, and so we cannot know how he phrased the request for copies of the missing material. He was supplied with Viennese copies taken from a commercial Prague version, and, from a separate source in the Court Theatre, his one missing Vienna piece. It is not unlikely that, with the autograph

140

The Vienna Don Giovanni

to guide him, supplemented by these materials, André would have produced something akin to Vienna 1.

Later manuscripts based on the Breitkopf & Härtel score With no guidance as to where the pieces in the appendix were supposed to go, early nineteenth-century copyists who used the Breitkopf & Härtel edition as their exemplar had to make their own decisions. Typical of the ‘à la carte’ approach is a score in Berlin (Mus Ms 15151), the copying of which was completed on 20 November 1803.62 As in the Breitkopf & Härtel score, four pieces are given in an appendix of ‘später eingelegten Stücken’. Acting upon his own authority or upon instructions, the copyist noted the insertion points as follows: ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ as No.22½ (an earlier number 7½ is heavily crossed out); ‘Ho capito’ as No.12½; ‘Dalla sua pace’ as No.19½; and ‘Per queste tue manine’ as No.20½ The result would have been a sequence of arias and duets in Act II of exceptional length. The additional arias in the Berlin manuscript gain greatly in interest because in a contemporary (though not identical) hand, the dates of composition as given in Mozart’s Verzeichnüß were added in: ‘1788 d.24ten Aprill, für Mr Morella’; ‘1788 d.28ten Aprill, für Mme Mombelli, et Mr Benucci’; ‘1788. d 30 Aprill, für Mlle Cavallieri’. Given the date of its copying, it seems highly likely that this information was added in after André’s publication, two years later, of the first edition of Mozart’s own catalogue of works: Thematisches Verzeichniss / Sämmtlicher Kompositionen / von / W. A. Mozart, 1805.63 In a culture in which insertion arias were still commonplace, this desire to confirm the authenticity of the extra pieces is not surprising. Another early nineteenth-century score in Lucern (AML II, 30, Ms 1524) retains the additional pieces in the appendix, using the exact wording of the Breitkopf & Härtel edition: ‘nebst sämtlichen von den Komponisten später / eingelegten Stücken’. The same is true of the early nineteenth-century score in Winterthur.64 In one important respect, Source G in NMA: KB also resembles the typical layout of scores copied after the appearance of the Breitkopf & Härtel edition.65 It presents the additional pieces in an appendix in the same order: ‘In qual eccessi / Mi tradì’; ‘Ho capito’; ‘Dalla sua pace (with preceding recitative); and ‘Per queste tue manine’ (with accompanying recitatives). This score, however, relates to a production in which Donna Elvira’s scena began an Act III, and, as a result, the Prague replacement recitative for ‘Amico! per pietà’ and ‘Andiam, andiam’, of which this score presents a variant cadencing in F, is followed by the instruction ‘fine’. This seems somewhat at odds with the fact that the main score divides the opera into the usual two acts, admittedly with the designation ‘Atto 2o’ copied over something else scratched out. This source presented the editors

The Late-18th-Century Dissemination of Don Giovanni

141

of NMA: KB with something of a conundrum. In 2002 it was still lost, known only through a reel of microfilm. In the absence of any detailed description of the so-called ‘Luigi Bassi’ source, it was not possible to make any firm connection with the microfilm copy. The opinion of Haberkamp was cited, suggesting a resemblance between the copyist’s hand and a scribe active in Rome in the early nineteenth century. To judge by the page-breaks in the facsimiles, there is no connection with the late eighteenth-century Prague and Vienna copying traditions discussed in this study.66 The musical text, moreover, is suggestive of a version incorporating copying-related changes: ‘ff ’ then ‘p’ in bar 468 of the Act I finale (also flute 1 with Bb rather than D); and ‘sf ’ in bar 433 of the Act II finale.

Conclusion A theory of transmission In the later stages of work on this study of Don Giovanni, it became increasingly apparent that the methods of transmission used to distribute scores of the Prague and Vienna productions resembled quite closely those seen in the dissemination of Così fan tutte. What seems to have been usual practice in both cities is represented in Fig. 15, a theoretical model of how the process worked. Despite the multiplicity of materials generated by any stage production and the sometimes chaotic interaction between them, an underlying process can be observed, based around two types of copy: the conducting score and the reference score. The former tends to embody the fluidity of the text as it leads towards performance; the latter the static nature of replication. A curious result of this process is that Mozart’s operas sometimes appear to exist in two ‘final’ versions. A case in point is Così fan tutte. There are a large number of copies which stem from the reference score, and these sources fluid re-creation

autograph

conducting score

performance

reference score

static replication

copy

fig. 15  A theory of transmission of the Mozart Da Ponte operas

Conclusion

143

­represent a relatively settled text, the starting point for productions across Europe. Yet a smaller number of copies present a different form of the opera, incorporating Mozart’s continuing work, for example, his replacement of the Act II finale canonic quartet. It is evident that to reach an understanding of what happened at the première of a work and during the first performance run, it is necessary to identify and study the original performing materials, but that leaves the status of the reference score rather uncertain. In theory, it could represent the result of a careful review by the composer himself, before he allowed his opera to be distributed across Europe, but that seems a somewhat anachronistic interpretation. More plausible is the idea that the text disseminated in these scores represents an arbitrary moment in the process of revision, perhaps capturing a reading of the opera shortly before its final development. The value of written texts pertaining to theatrical performance is thus sometimes more limited than we would care to admit, and yet, with careful analysis, these materials always have their own story to tell. I have not yet studied the early sources of Figaro, but an analysis of them would undoubtedly help to clarify similar problems: material which appears to be cut in some sources but not in others. A particular difficulty to be confronted with this opera is that there were two productions, close in time to each other, but in the same theatre. This study has also drawn attention to the complexity of the relationship between the libretto and the score: two works of art, independent yet intimately connected, developing in parallel. This process is illustrated in Fig. 16. The text in the autograph will probably contain elements from all the successive versions of the libretto, but not all these readings will survive in the libretto itself. Moreover, further textual changes occur in the autograph after the libretto has been sent to the printer, the result of which is that the text set in the autograph may differ quite significantly from what is in the libretto. In several of Mozart’s operas, the process of standardisation occurs only in the revision of the libretto, produced for the first revival – the 1788 libretto in the case of Don Giovanni and the 1791 Prague libretto in the case of Così fan tutte. Numerous other variants (of the verbal text) appear in the musical copies, often the result of misreading rather than deliberate revision. However, it is certainly possible for a substantive variant reading to transfer from an early version of the libretto, through an early autograph draft, through to one or other of the early copies. The reading might then disappear from the final versions of both the libretto and autograph, yet still be preserved in the early copies of the score. In Così fan tutte that seems to have happened with the port of departure for the two officers: ‘da Venezia partiti’ appears only in the early copies.

144

The Vienna Don Giovanni

libretto manuscript draft

libretto manuscript revision

autograph

autograph

copy a

libretto published draft

autograph

copy b published libretto

autograph

autograph

libretto for new production fig. 16  The textual relationship between libretto and score

Conclusion

145

Summary Don Giovanni was performed in numerous different versions during the nineteenth century, and it was against this background that the scholarly quest to establish its authentic form began to gather pace. An enlightened approach was taken by Gugler in preparing for his edition. He not only consulted the autograph but evaluated its readings against those of early manuscript scores, printed editions and sets of parts. His intention was to produce a carefully edited text, something of which Smetana approved, noting that Gugler’s project would allow the ‘rich treasures of our art to remain pure and unmutilated’ (‘damit uns die reichen Schütze unserer Kunst rein und unverstümmelt erhalten bleiben’.)1 In time, these early editorial endeavours fed into larger projects resulting in complete editions, and a text-based conception of the identity of Don Giovanni, supported by the twin pillars of the autograph and the première, gained currency, even though it did not noticeably yet affect the performance tradition. What Mozart wrote in his own hand was taken to represent the ‘work’, and the autograph thus remained almost inviolate as the begetter of the text, while the theatre copies, representing actual performances, had yet to emerge fully from the shadows, despite Gugler’s pioneering and enlightened attitude. At the same time, great emphasis was placed on the first performances in the two cities, seen as defining the structure of the work at its metaphorical birth and rebirth, with any post-première revisions relegated to obscurity. In retrospect, we can see this as an altogether unreal picture of the manner in which the composer’s creation interacted with the world in which he lived. In time, cracks began to appear in this edifice. Tyson’s work demonstrated conclusively that it was necessary to look beyond the autograph to the theatre scores, and in doing so, he began to broaden the hitherto rather narrow account of Mozart’s compositional processes. Edge’s seminal thesis announced the discovery of an important new category of sources – the original performing parts – and he raised an altogether sharper question for discussion: what constitutes a ‘version’ of a Mozart opera? He also brought into focus the extent to which the theatre copies themselves contain authentic readings of Mozart’s operas, especially in their treatment of performance instructions such as dynamics and articulation. In time the Neue Mozart Ausgabe itself began to recognise the changing consensus, although naturally very constrained in the degree to which it could respond, because of the requirement to adhere to the long-established parameters of the edition. In this study I have sought to present the birth and early development of Don Giovanni as an ongoing and thoroughly interactive compositional process, restricted neither to the moment of initial creation nor to the first public

146

The Vienna Don Giovanni

performance. In Fig. 17 an attempt is made to encapsulate the main versions of the opera as they developed during the period of Mozart’s engagement with it. Throughout the period of Mozart’s involvement with the opera, the process of composition was ongoing. Both in Prague and Vienna the composer revised repeatedly and piecemeal, usually in response to practical exigencies: singers who could not cope with their music; financiers who wanted to curtail the number of players hired; managers who wanted to ensure a timely finish. As Fig. 17 clearly shows, the autograph does not stand in splendid isolation at the head of the process; it interacted at all stages with the early copies as they were produced. The dual character of the text of the opera in both cities is illustrated by the parallel streams representing transmission and performance. In presenting this view of the sources of the Vienna Don Giovanni, my intention is not to dispute the basic approach taken by the editors of the NMA text. If only on pragmatic grounds, a choice had to be made, and the decision to present a specific Vienna version as an appendix had both logic and clarity. Moreover, it is undeniable that in our culture (and law) the acts of writing down a piece of music and then creating it in sound are generally accepted as the key conceptual moments in the creative process. What this study does seek to dispute, however, is whether it is appropriate to reserve the term ‘authentic’ for these particular points in the evolving production. On these grounds, I cannot go along with the sharp distinction between the character of the Prague and Vienna versions of Don Giovanni, first articulated in NMA: DG, and reiterated by Wolfgang Rehm in the recently published facsimile edition of the opera: ‘Thus the conclusion drawn as long ago as 1968 by Wolfgang Plath and Wolfgang Rehm continues to apply mutatis mutadandis today: the Vienna Don Giovanni … “smacks of the variable, experimental, and non-definitive”, whereas the Prague version of 1787, both in its musical and dramatic structure, seems to be cut from whole cloth.’2 Our modern perception of the dual identity of this opera – two cities; two casts of performers; two versions – would simply not have been recognised by an eighteenth-century observer. The construct of Don Giovanni as an opera embodied in a pair of discrete, composer-sanctioned versions belongs firmly to the age of the Gesamtausgabe. The new music certainly had an impact on the existing version, even in Mozart’s lifetime, but it did so in an entirely ad hoc ­fashion, producing a multiplicity of different arrangements. Table 30 lists in sequence only the versions Don Giovanni with one or more of the Vienna pieces that originated in Mozart’s lifetime. It is very clear that what was performed in Vienna on the night of the première enjoyed no special status. As understood at the time, the challenge of performing Don Giovanni was how to make the best use of the newly composed arias. Different locations were

Conclusion

147

Prague autograph

Prague conducting score autograph revisions

Prague conducting score autograph revisions

Prague reference score autograph revisions

Prague transmission version

Vienna reference score autograph revisions

Vienna conducting score autograph revisions

Prague performance version

Vienna 1

Vienna 2a transmission version Vienna 2b performance version Breitkopf & Härtel (main score)

Breitkopf & Härtel (appendix)

fig. 17  A summary of the early versions of Don Giovanni = autograph

= version

148

The Vienna Don Giovanni table 30  The Vienna versions of Don Giovanni A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Overture Introduzione Duetto Aria Aria Coro Aria Duettino Aria Quartetto Aria Aria Aria Aria finale Duetto Terzetto Canzonetta Aria Aria 21b

19 Sestetto 20 Aria 21 Aria 21a Duetto 21b Aria 22 Duetto 23 Rondò 24 finale scena ultima A B C D E F G

? 10a ? 21a 21b

21b 21a

?

the Prague version in Vienna (Viennese copies reinstate No. 6) the full version (Vienna 1) with the three new pieces the hypothetical abbreviated version with Elvira’s scena before the duet the version (Vienna 2a) without the scena ultima the final version (Vienna 2b) perhaps without the scena ultima Guardasoni’s 1789 Warsaw version (excluding changes unrelated to the Vienna pieces) Mihule’s 1791 Singspiel version

Conclusion

149

tried out on pragmatic grounds, as it did not seem so important to establish where they had been originally situated. In 1800 a more systematic attempt was finally made to ascertain all the available facts, yet the editor of the Breitkopf & Härtel score decided not to attempt an integrated version. Instead, he drew together two well-established strands. His basic text was the Prague transmission version – a static conception, unaware of any further developments in the theatre. Into a separate appendix went the three Vienna pieces (divorced from any specific location) together with the one significant element missing from the Prague transmission version: Masetto’s Act I aria. Users of the edition were obliged to make their own minds up as to where these additional pieces should go. This decision reflected the fact that hybrid versions were already flourishing during the 1790s. In the modern world, the Vienna Don Giovanni occupies a slightly uneasy position. The prevailing critical consensus until recently has been that Mozart weakened the dramatic structure of the Prague original in order to accommodate the wishes of a new cast. Writing of the much-maligned aria substitutions provided by Mozart for the 1789 revival of Figaro, Parker questions the unthinking and anachronistic assumptions that underlie this negative view of the ­process of revision: This mighty chorus of disapproval is unlikely to be stilled, supported as it is by such an orchestra of easy assumptions, of attitudes that would hardly be tolerated if stated baldly, but that are none the less handy when a ‘work’ needs protection. Let me list a few of the more obvious: that first versions are likely to be better than revisions when the latter are known to have been stimulated by practical necessity rather than ‘artistic’ reasons (as if one can ever neatly distinguish between the two); that when performers are suspected of having influence over composers, it is likely to be unwelcome and can be assumed to have taken place under duress; that elaborate vocal virtuosity is to be regarded with suspicion, perhaps especially when the purveyor of such heady delights is female; that long arias in which the stage action is frozen are less ‘operatic’ or less ‘dramatic’ than those that feature dialogue and/or plenty of stage movement. And so on and on.3 The first two points at least are directly applicable to the grudging reception accorded to the Vienna Don Giovanni. In the light of the conclusion that the revised version would not do, it was then easy enough to develop a critique of ‘Mi tradì’ as a static aria, which simply adds to the dramatic hiatus in the middle of Act II, and at the same time of ‘Per queste tue manine’ as an action ensemble which unnecessarily pandered to the supposed taste of the Viennese

150

The Vienna Don Giovanni

for low farce. But this too-easy dismissal of the Vienna Don Giovanni as a singer-inspired dilution of the daemonic force of the Prague original does not stand up to close scrutiny. This study, for example, has identified several signs in the original sources, of Mozart’s continuing engagement with the question of how the opera should end, while close parallels between the Vienna revision of 1788 and Guardasoni’s Warsaw version of 1789, hint at shared perceptions as to where changes could still be made with benefit. The popular consensus, largely unaffected by these considerations, continues to demand the inclusion of the newly composed Vienna arias, because they are self-evidently works of the highest musical calibre, and also because they are perceived as enriching in the characterisation of two of the principal protagonists. Not to hear their additional pieces in the context of a dramatic performance seems as unsatisfying as having to sacrifice equally good material to ensure their inclusion. If this study has demonstrated anything, it is that this was no nineteenth-century aberration. It was the attitude of Mozart’s contemporaries too. In the light of all this, there is a certain irony in the fact that recorded performances of Don Giovanni are now beginning to eschew the long-established traditions of the hybrid version in favour of presenting the opera in one or other (or both) of the two forms traditionally regarded by scholarship as authentic. This belated expression of allegiance to values long ignored in theatrical tradition has come at the very time when the academy has begun to question the fundamental validity of so text-based a conception of a stage work. Evidence presented in this study certainly supports the idea that the much-maligned composite versions, already current during the composer’s lifetime, should be regarded as fully authentic. That approach to the additional music is characteristic of the late eighteenth-century, a flexible world whose values Mozart understood very well. There need be no qualms at all about arranging a version of the opera with both ‘Il mio tesoro’ and ‘Mi tradì’: given appropriate circumstances, it is much more likely than not that Mozart would have done the same.

Appendix 1  Error transmission A complete list of all kinds of errors and variants that distinguish one opera score from another would fill a sizable tome. What follows are short selections of indicative variants, which will be useful in future when other scores turn up requiring evaluation. Whenever such an exercise is undertaken, it is vital to remember that an opera score (as now constituted) may well represent a collation of materials from different sources, producing a rather random picture.

Appendix 1.1  A selection of Set A Prague errors Set A Prague errors are found in the Prague Conservatory score. Those in Act I were not transmitted to later Prague copies, since a second copy was made directly from the autograph which acted as a reference score. Mistakes in Act II, however, could survive uncorrected into the Prague transmission of the opera, because the second copy was made from the Conservatory score itself. Errors from both acts passed into the Vienna line of transmission, which used the Prague Conservatory score as its main exemplar. Scores of Vienna 2a like the Lausch and Juilliard copies tend to repeat these mistakes. On the other hand, scores of Vienna 2b, such as the Vienna Court Theatre materials (O.A.361/1 and O.A.361/Stimmen, and later copies) are mainly correct. The errors were probably identified during the preparations for performance. + = correct × = incorrect or corrected

Prague scores

Vienna scores

Donaueschingen (Karlsruhe) +

×

Graz (Act I)

+

×

Stuttgart

++

××

Lausch

++

××

London

+++

×××

Juilliard

+++

×××

152

The Vienna Don Giovanni Transmission in

Item

Bar Part

Error

Introduzione

185

violin 1

act i two C minor triads on beats 1 & 2

Non ti fidar

27

violin 1

begins crotchet / two quavers

86

violin 1

begins crotchet / two quavers

72

oboe 1 & omitted bassoon 1

85

viola

89

violin 1

84

violin 1 & Eb violin 2

Don Ottavio

Finale

218–19 viola

Eh via

33–5 horns

bar missed out; three and a half bars are early begins with three semiquavers on D

lacking low Cs in double stopped notes act ii copied as 32–34

Vedrai

54

viola

double stop Bb/G

Sola, sola

85

violin 1

crotchet 2 A§

116

violin 2

crotchet Eb

Prague scores

Vienna scores

+ ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++

+ ×× ××× × ×× ××× × ×× ××× × ×× ××× × ++ ××× × ×× ××× × ×× ××× × ×× ×××

+ ++ +++ × ×× ××× + ++ +++ + ++ ×××

++ +++ ×× ××× ++ +++ ++ +++

Appendix 1

153

Transmission in Item

Bar Part

Error

Prague scores

Vienna scores

Finale

97

oboe 1 & crotchet 2 E/C# oboe 2

×× ×××

117

violin 1

× ×× ××× × ++ ×××

F

++ +++

Appendix 1.2  A selection of Set B Prague errors Set B errors entered the Prague chain of transmission only after the copying of the Conservatory score. They are therefore entirely absent from Vienna scores. In the Prague chain, they entered either at the stage of the copying of the lost reference score or during the next phase, which saw Anton Grams (and others) prepare their own copies with which to supply the commercial market. Very likely the selection given here includes both categories. Distinguishing them would require analysis of a much larger number of scores. + = correct × = incorrect or corrected

Prague scores

Vienna scores

Donaueschingen(Karlsruhe) +

×

Graz (Act I)

+

×

Stuttgart

++

××

Lausch

++

××

London

+++

×××

Juilliard

+++

×××

Transmission in Item

Bar Part

Error

Overture

287

violin 2

act i last four quavers BCBC

Introduzione

108

viola

last quaver F

180

violin 2

dotted minim A

Prague scores × ++ +++ × ×× ××× × ++ ×××

Vienna scores + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ Continues overleaf

154

The Vienna Don Giovanni Transmission in

Item Ma qual mai

Fuggi crudele

Bar Part 15

violin 2

43

oboe 1

Error first crotchet F

× ++ ××× F# × ++ ××× first crotchet G × ×× ××× crotchet F × ++ ××× quaver 2 E missing × ++ ××× first crotchet B × ×× +++ C/E double stop × ++ ××× GG × ++ ×××

2

viola

17

viola

Batti, batti

38

viola

Finale

569

Donna Elvira

614

violin 1

614

bassi

Deh vieni

28

viola

act ii second quaver B

Metà di voi

31

flute 1

crotchet 3 G

57

viola

semibreve D

70

violin 1

quaver 3 A

28

Don crotchet 2 E Giovanni

O statua gentilissima

Prague scores

× ++ ××× × ×× +++ × ++ +++ × ++ +++ × ++ +++

Vienna scores + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ + ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++

Appendix 1

155

Appendix 1.3  A selection of readings in O.A.361/1 differing from the autograph This small selection is taken from Bitter’s critical commentary on O.A.361/1. The aim here is to track backwards rather than forwards, testing the extent to which these mistakes are to be found in earlier Viennese copies. The results are striking: all these errors (except one) appear in scores of Vienna 2a (Lausch and Juilliard), and they do indeed go back to the Prague Conservatory manuscript. In the Graz score is there a divergence. Here the errors in ‘Ma qual mai’ are not to be found, while those in the Act I finale are. This (along with other features) suggests the possibility that the first part of this copy may not derive (even indirectly) from the Conservatory score. The reason why these errors survived into the Vienna Court Theatre score (while others in Appendix 1.1 did not) is that the variant readings/errors tend to concern matters of (verbal) text and minor discrepancies in rhythmic values – misreadings of a kind less likely to be ­corrected. In the parts (O.A.361/Stimmen) the substantive musical errors are correct. Item

Bar

Part

Ma qual mai

7 149 434 436

act i violin 1 & violin 2 violin 2 Leporello Don Giovanni

456

Don Giovanni

1 449

act ii violin 2 & viola FCAC & GCBbC Don Giovanni parti

Finale

Non mi dir Finale

523 536/7 615 & 617 632/3 636/7

Leporello Commendatore Don Giovanni all Leporello Leporello

Variant/error in O.A.361/1 double stopping GG and EG F# Eb Vien qui rhythm: two quavers and three crotchets (first) Vieni a dotted rhythm

Oh padron lacks a minim rest in farlucato sò sperato Cerlato

156

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Appendix 1.4  A selection of errors in O.A.361/1 deriving from the Prague Conservatory score In order to double-check that the Prague Conservatory score (and not the autograph) was the main exemplar for the transmission of Don Giovanni in Vienna, I compiled a short list of errors from the first part of the opera in O.A.361/1 that could not have stemmed from the autograph. These soon provided the necessary confirmation. The mistakes all appear in scores of Vienna 2a (the Lausch and Juilliard copies) and they go back to the Prague Conservatory score. Again, the independence of the Graz copy in the first part of Act I was confirmed, as it has none of these errors. Item

Bar

Part

Overture Introduzione Ma qual mai

14 24–5 8–9

trumpets horns bassoons

Variant/error in O.A.361/1 act i additional notes last three notes of phrase omitted misread as a unison C until bar 12

Appendix 1

157

Appendix 1.5  A selection of errors in O.A.361/1 This sample of errors in O.A.361/1 was taken in order to establish its relationship with later copies. All these errors appear in the Act I score in the BeethovenArchiv. On the other hand, hardly any of them appear in the two later Florence scores. Either these scores benefited from a process of correction some time along their branch, or else they derive from the original score (the lost conducting copy). Either explanation is plausible. Item

Bar

Part

Overture

214 287 289

oboes violin 1 viola

Introduzione Ma qual mai Madamina Non ti fidar

Error

written as in bar 215 2nd minim written D written as two minims; 2nd minim not tied to note in next bar 171 violin 1 high Bb crotchet accidentally beamed in 185 violin 1 2 C minor triads on beats 1 and 2 76 Don Ottavio dotted minim D 104 violin 1 crotchet 3 D 54 violin 2 E and C# 68 bassi unclear error on first beat crotchet 37 & 39 Donna Elvira high Bb and G quavers 46 Don Giovanni dotted quaver & semiquaver C on beat 2 69 violin 1 Fb on beat 1 80 Don Ottavio 2 quavers written as C

Appendix 2  Page-break analysis / = line-break   // = page break   * = new section

Appendix 2.1  Prague Version

[P] = Prague Conservatory [D] = Donaueschingen [H] = Hamburg [S] = Stuttgart [F] = Fulda Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

Overture

[P] 6//6.5//3.5//5//4//3//2 * 5//8//6//6//7//7//5//8//8// 6//6//6//6//7//6//8//6//7//8//7//7//6//6//6//7//7//6// 6//6.5//7.5//6//7//7//7//5//6//5.5//5.5//6.5//5.5//3//

Total bars

act i 292

[D] 1/1 [title page + 23] 6//6//4//5//4//3//2 * 4//7//6//6// 6//7//6//7//7//7//6//6//6//5//7//6//6// 2/1 [24] 6//7//7// 7//7//6//6//6//8//7//6//6//6//7//6//6//6//7//7//7//7// 7//7//5// [H] as [D] [S] begins: 7//6//3 [thereafter as D] 1 Introduzione

[P] 1/1 [16] half bar + 3//5.5//5.5//5//4.5//6.5//7// 6//5.5//6.5//5.5//5//6.5//5.5//5.5//5// 2/1[16] 6//7//4.5//4// 4.5//6//5//3.5//3.5//5//6//7//7//8//5//5// 3/1 [16] *4//3.5//3.5//3.5//4

175 + 18

[D]3/1 [21] half bar + 3//5//5//4//5//6//6//6//6//5//6//6// 6//5//5//5//5//6//6//5//4// 4/1 [27] 6//5//4//4//4//5//5// 5//6//6//6//4//5// * 4//4//4//4//2 * 1 [H] ends * 3//4//4//4//2 * 1 [previously as D] [S] pages 12–13 5//7; ends //6, with extra four-bar ending] R

[P] 2.5/2/2/2/2/2// [insert accompagnato] [D] 2.5/2.5/2/2/2//1 * [H] as [D]

R

[P] 1.5/2/0.5// [D] 0.75/1.75/1.5// [H] as [D]

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item 2 Acc

Source + Page and line-breaks

159 Total bars 62

[P] 5.5//5.5//4//7//6//6.5//6.5//4.5//3.5 [4/1] [14?] //4//3//4//4//2* [D]5//6//4//7//6//6//5// 5/1 [24] 5//4//4//3//3//4// [H & S] as [D]

Duetto

upbeat [P] upbeat + 2//6//6//6//7//8//6.5//7.5//7//6 * 0.5//4// [5/1] 14 ?] 3.5 * 2//7//7//8//7//7//8//6//6//6//7//7//6//5// + 62 + 8 + 89 [insert accompagnato] [6/1] [24 ?] [D] upbeat + 4//5//5//6//6//7//6//7//6//6//4 * 1//4//3 * 2//6//6//6//6//7// 6/1 [20] 6//6//6//5//6//6//6//6//5//4 [H & S] as [D]

R

[P] missing [4 pages ?] [D] 2/2/2/2/2//2/3/2/2/2.5/2.0//2/2.25/2.25/2/2.5/2.5// [H] as [D]

3 Aria

[P] 4.5//4.5//5//4.5//5.5//6//7//6// [7/1] [12 ?] 7//5//6//4// 6//6//6//6//5//7//7//

108

[D] 3//4//5//5//5//5//6// 7/1 [20] 6//6//6//5//5//4//5//6// 6//5//4//5//6//5//1 * [H] as [D] [S] as [D] ends 6//6//5// R

[P] 2.5/3/3/2.5/2.5// remainder missing [insert accompagnato] [D]2//2.75/2.25/2.5/2/2/2.5//2/2.5/2.5/2/2.5/2.5//2.5/2/2/1.5/2.5 /2//2/2/2/1.5/1.5/2//2.5/1.5/2/1// [H] as [D]

4 Aria

[P] [8/1] [12 ?] 4.5//5//5.5//6//5//6//6//4//3.5//5.5//6// 7// [9/1] [12 ?] 6.5//3//3.5//4//3 * 4//7//7//5//6//5//4//7// [10/1] [16 ?] 5//5//6//8//7//7// [insert last five bars]

84 + 88

[D] 8/1 [24] 4//5//6//5//5//6//6//4//4//5//5//5//6//5//3// 3//4//3 * 3//7//6//5//5//4//4// 9/1 [12] 4//5//5//5//5//5// 6//5//5//5//4// [H & S] as [D]

Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

160

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[P] missing [1 page ?]

Total bars

[D] 2/2/2/2/1 [missing final bar and V–I cadence] [H] as [D] 5 Coro

[P] upbeat + 5//7//6//4//5//5.5//5.5//5// [11/1 of previous 16; 12/1 if 2 x 8] 5//5//6//5//5//5//5.5//6.5//

upbeat + 86

[D] 10/1 [24] upbeat + 4//6//6//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//6 [bar missed out – added at end] //5//5//4//5//5//6// [H & S] as [D] R

[P] missing [D] 2/2/2/1.75/1.25//2/2/1.5/1.5/2/2//2.25/2.25/ 1.5/2/2.5/2//2.5/2/1.75/1.75 [bass line first note minim instead of crotchet] /2.5/2//1.5/2/1.5/3// [seg.Aria di Masetto No.6] [H] page 3, staves 1–2, 2/2.5, otherwise as [D]

6 Aria R

[P, D, H & S] missing

96

[P] missing [D] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2/2/2.5//2/2/1.5/1.5/2/2// 11/1 [24] 2/2.5/2.5/2.5/1.5// [H] as [D]

7 Duettino

[P] [13/1] [12 ?] 4//6//6//6//4.5//5.5//6//4//5//2 * 4//6//6// 49 + 33 [14/1] [12 ?] 6//5.5//5.5// [insert accompagnato] [D] 5//6//6//6//5//6//6//5//4 * 2//5//6//6//5//5//4// [H & S] as [D]

R

[P] missing [3 pages?] [D] 2/2/2.25/1.75/2//1.75/1.75/1.5/1// [H] missing

8 Aria

[P] [insert] continuing: 6/7//6/5//5/5//

45

[D] 4/5//5/5//5/5//5/5//6 * [H] missing [S] page3, staves 1–2, 6//4

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[P] 1.25/1.75/2.5/2/2//1.5/2.25/1.75/2.25/1.75//2.25/1.5/0.25/1// [insert accompagnato]

161 Total bars

[D] 2/2.5/2.5//2.5/2/2.5/3/3.25/3.75// [H] missing] 9 Quartetto

88

[P][15/1] [16] upbeat + 5//5//5.5//4.25//4.2 5//4.5//3.5//3.5//2.5//3.5//3.5//2.5//2.5//4//4//4// [16/1] [16] 4//3//2//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.75//1.75//3.5// [D] 12/1 [20] upbeat + 5//5//5//4//4//5//4//4//4//4//3//4// 4//4//4//4//2//3//3//3// 13/1 [24] 4//3//3// [H & S] as [D]

R

[P] 2/1.75/2.75/0.5// [D] 2/2/2.5/0.5// [H] as [D]

10 Acc

69

[P] 4.5//4.5//5//2.5//2// [17/1] [16] 2.5//3//2//2.5// 3//3.5//4.5//3//3//3//3.5//5.5//3//3.5//2.5//2.5// [D] 4//4//5//4//2.5//2.5//3//2//2//3//3//4//3//4//3//4//5// 4//4//3 * [H] as [D] [S] begins 2//3//3//5//4, then as [D]

Aria

[P] [18/1] [24] 3//4//4.5//3//4//3//3.5//5.5//3.5//5//3.5// 4//3.5//3//4.5//4.5//3//6//

71

[D] 14/1 [18] 2//3//4//3//4//5//5//5//3//5//4//4//3//4//4// 4//4//5// [H] as [D] [S] as [D] ending 4//1 R

[P] missing [D] 15/1 [28] 1/3/2.5/2.5/1 * [H] as [D]

Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

162

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[P] missing

Total bars

[D] 1/2//2/2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2// [H] as [D] 11 Aria

[P] [insert accompagnato] [19/1] 7//9//8//8//8//8//9//9//9//9//insert 5//4//5//5//9//8// 8//7//7//8//10//

160

[D] 6//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7//7// 6//7//7//7//7//8// [H & S] as [D] R

[P] 1.75/2.5/2.5/2/2.5/2.75// [insert] [D] 16/1 [24] 2/2.5/2.5/2//2.5/2.5/2/2/1.5//2/2/1.75// [H] incomplete, ends as [D]

12 Aria

[P] upbeat + 4//6//6.5//5.5//5//7//6//6//5.5//3.5//3.5//5//5// 4//4.5//5//4//4//4//5.5// [insert accompagnato]

upbeat + 99

[D] upbeat + 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4// 5//5//5//4//4//4// [H & S] as [D] R

[P] missing [D] 17/1 [24] 2/2/2/2/1.5//2.5/2/2// [H] as [D]

Finale

[P] 4//7.5//6.5//6//6//5.5///5.5//6//6//6//4//4//6//6//5.5// 6//0.5 *

91

[D] 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4//5//5//3//5//5//5//5// 6// * [H & S] as [D] [P] 5//4//6//6//5//5//6//4//5//1 *

47

[D] 4//4//5//18/1 [24]5//5//4//5//5//4//5//1 * [H & S] as [D]

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

163 Total bars

[P] 6//6//6//7//5*

30

[D] 5//6//5//5//5//4 * [H & S] as [D] [P] 1.5//6.5//6//6//6.5//6.5//6//6//4*

49

[D] 1//6//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//4//2 * [H & S] as [D] [P] 2//5//6//6//5//5//4*

33

[D] 3//4//19/1 [24] 5//5//5//5//5//1 * [H & S] as [D] [P] 1// insert 3.5//5*

22

[D] 3//3//3//3//3//3//4// H & S] as [D] [P] 0.5//7.5//6//5//7//7//7//6//6//5.5//5.5//6//5//5.5//6.5//1*

87

[D] 4//5//4//4//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//5//20/1 [16] 5//5//5//4//4//6// [H & S] as [D] [P] 6//7//6//7//6//6//4.5//3.5*

46

[D] 5//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//3// [H] as [D] [S] starts 4//4//5// then as [D] [P] 6//6//6//5//5//5//6//4//4//4//3.33//3.66//4//

62

[D] 21/1 [10] 5//7//7//7//7//6//6//6//5//6// [H] as [D] [S] 5//6//5//5//5//4//3//3//3//3//3//3//3//3//3//5// [P] 5//6//5//6//6//3*

31

[D] 22/1 [24] 4//5//5//5//5//5//2 * [H & S] as [D] Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

164

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks [P] 2//4.5//3.5//3.5//3.5//3.5//4//4.5//5*

Total bars 34

[D] 3//4//3//3//3//4//4//4//4//2 * [H & S] as [D] [P] 6//5//4//5//5.5//4//6.5//4//4//4//5.5//4.5//6//5//4// 4//4.5//4.5//5//6//6//7//6//5//

121

[D] 4//5//5//5//5//4//4//5//3//23/1 [19] 4//4//5//4//4//5// 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//5//4//4//5//5// [H & S] as [D] act ii 1 Duetto R

[P, D, H & S] 4//6//7//6//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//3//

70

[P] missing [D & H] 2.5/1.75/2/2.25//2.5/2.5/2/2.25//2.5/2.25/2.5/2.5//2.5/2 /2.5/2//2.5/1.75/2.25/3//

2 Terzetto

[P, D & H] 4.5//4.5//4//3.5//4.5//5//4//3//6//5//3// 3//2.5//4.5//4.5//2.5//4//3//3.5//3.5//3.5//2.5// [P insert accompagnato]

84

[S] ends 4//2// R

[P] missing [D & H] 2.5/2/2/2.5//2/2.5/0.5 *

R

[P] missing [D & H]] 1/2.5//2.5/2.5/2/2.25//1.25/1.75/2.25/2//2/2/2/2//2/ 2//

3 Canzonetta

[P, D & H] 3//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//6// [P insert accompagnato]

44

[S] ends 4//2// R

[P] missing [D & H] 2/

R

[P] missing [D & H] 2/2/2//2.5/2.5/2/2.5//2.5/2//2.5/2.5//

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item 4 Aria

Source + Page and line-breaks

165 Total bars

[P, D & H] 3//4//4//3//4//4//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//4//2// 4//4//4//4//3//4//4//2// [P insert accompagnato]

84

[S] ends 4//5//4// R

[P] missing] [D & H] 2/3/3/3//2.5/2.5/3/1 *

R

[P] missing [D & H] 1//3//2//2.25/2.5//2.25/2/2.5/2.25//2.25/2/3//

5 Aria

[P D] 8//7//8//8//8//8//8//7//7//7//7//10//11//

104

[H] ends 6//5//5//5// [S] ends 8//6//7// R 6 Sestetto

R

[P, D & H] 1.5/2.5/2/2.25/0.75// [P insert accompagnato] [P, D, H & S] 5//4//4//3.5//4.5//4.5//1.5 * 3//5//5//5// 27 + 103 4//4//5//4//3.5//3.5//3//3//3.5//3.5//3//3//3.5//4.5// + 147 5//6//6//5//4//3//4//1 * 4//5//6//3.5//4.5//5//3.5//5.5//6// 5//6//5//4//4//5//4//5//6//5//5//6//6//5//6//6//5//5//7// 4// [P insert accompagnato] [P] missing [D & H] 2/2.5/2/2.5//2

7 Aria R

[P, D, H & S] 4.5//4.5//6//4//5//6//6//5//5//4// 4//4.5//4.5//5//6//6//4//5//5//5//5//2//

106

[P] missing [D] 2/2/2/2//1.75/2.25/2// [H] ends 1.75/2.5//

8 Aria R

[P, D, H & S] 3//4//5//4//5//5//4.5//4.5//3//3//4//4//5//5// 5//5//4//3//4//4//5//4//4//4// [P insert accompagnato]

101

[P] missing [D & H] 3/2/2.5/2.5//2/2/2.25/2.25/3//2.5/2/2.5/2/2//2.5/2/2.5 /2/2.25//2/1.5/2.25/1// * upbeat + 4 * 2//2 * upbeat + 5 * // 2/2.5 /2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2/2.75//1.75/2//

9 Duetto

[P, D, H & S] 3//5//4//4//5//4//4//5//4//4//5//4//4//4// 7//5//5//6//6//5//4//4//3//4//

108

Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

166

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[P] missing

Total bars

[D & H] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2 * 10 Acc.

[P, D, H & S] 3/2.5//3.5/2//3/1//

Rondò

[P, D, H & S] 5//5//5//4//5//5//5//5//4//5// * 5//6//6//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//3

R

[P, D & H] 1.5/2.5//

11 Finale

[P, D & H] [D] 5//4//5//6//6//5//5//5//5 *

15 48 + 53

46

[S] ends 5//4//5//3//4//5// [P,D & H] 1//6//6//5//5//6//6//6.5//6.5//6//6//6//5 *

71

[S] 4//4//5//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5 * [P, D & H] 1//6//7//7// 9//8//6//

44

[S] 1//5//6//5//5//6//5//5//6// [P, D & H] 5//6//5//6//5//5//5.5//0.5 *

38

[S] 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//1* [P, D & H] 6//8//8//8//8//8//8//7//7//7// 8//7//7//7//7// 7//7//8//7//7//7//5//6//7//7//

179

[S] 4//6//6//6//6//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//8//7//7//7// 7//7//7// ends as [D] [P, D, H & S] 5//6//5.5//6.5//5// 6//6//6//6//2 *

54

[P] 5//6//4//4//7//6.5//5.5//2.75//4.75//3//5.5//6//6//5// 6//4.5//6.5//

88

[D] 5//6//4//4//7//6//6//3//4.5//3//5.5//6//6//5//6//4.5// [D] 17/2 [20] [F] [20] 6.5// [H] pages 5–8, 9//5//4//4// [S] pages 5–8, 5//3//5.5//3//5.5// [F] [16] pages 6–7, 6.5//5.5 [P, D, H & S] 5//5//5//5//4//5//4 *

33

[P, D, H & S] 2//3.5//4.5//5.5//4.5//5//6//6//5//5//2 *

49

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

167 Total bars

[P, D, H & S] 4//7//8// [D] 18/2 [20] [F] [20] 8//7//7//7// 5//8//7//7//7//7//8//8//4 *

109

[P, D, H & S] upbeat + 2//4//4//4//3//4//3//4// [D] 19/2 [22] [F] [22] 3//3//3.5//3//2.5//1 *

upbeat + 44

[P, D & H] 5//8//7//7//7//6//7//8//7//7//8//7//7// 7//6.5//6.5//5//

116

[S] ends 6//6//6//  A note on the additional wind scores. In the Act I finale, the Prague Conservatory manuscript has a completely different layout from copies like the Karlsruhe and London manuscripts, which probably derive from the lost reference score. The Act II scores of the sestetto and the finale match those of later copies, a small exception being the Karlsruhe score, which includes the wind parts of ‘L’ultima prova’ and ‘Ah signor’ in the full score, but otherwise matches the Prague layout.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

The Vienna Don Giovanni

168

Appendix 2.2  Vienna 2a version (Lausch score) = match with Prague Conservatory score = match with O.A.361/1 score Item

Page and line-breaks

Total bars act i

Overture

[1/1] [24] title page //6//6.5//3.25//4.75//4//

cont.

3//2.5 * 3//7//7//6//6.5//7.5//5//6.5//6.5//7//6//6//6//6// 7//7//7//

cont.

[2/1] [24] 7//7//7.5//7.5//7//6.5//7//7.5//6//7//6//6.5//7.5// 6//7//7//7//6//6//5.5//5.5//6//5.5//3.5//

292

1 Introduzione [3/1] [24] half + 3//4//4//5//4//4//4//5//4 [last bar 175 + 18 accidentally duplicated and crossed out] //5//4//4//5//5//5// 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4// [4/1] [24] 4//5//4//4//3//4// 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//4 *//4//3.5//3//3//3//2.5// R 2 Acc

2.5/2/2/2/2//1.5 * 2/2// 4// [5/1] [24] 4//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//3//4//4//3//4//

62

Aria

upbeat + 4// 5//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//6// [6/1] [24] 5//3 upbeat * 2//5//2 * 2//4//4//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//5//5// + 62 + 8 4//3.5//3.5//3//4//1// [7/1] [28] + 89

R

2.25/2.25/2/2//2.25/2.25/2.75/2.25/2//2.5/2.5/2/2/2//2/1.75/1. 75/2.5//

3 Aria

4//5//5//5//6//6//7//6//

cont.

7//5//6//4//6//6//6//6//5//7//7//

R

2.5/3/3/2.5/2.5//3/2.25/2.75/2.5/2.5//2.75/2.75/2.25/2.5/2//2.25 /2/3/2.75/2//2.5/2.75/2/2.25//

4 Aria

[8/1] [ 24 + 2 blank pages ] 4.5//5//5.5//6//5// [2 blank pages] 6//6//4//3.5//5.5//6//7//6.5//3//3.5//4//3 * 4//7//7//5//6//5//4//7//

cont.

[9/1] [32] 5//4//4//4//5//4//5//4//4//4//

R

1.75/2.25/2.5/2/1.5//

5 Coro

upbeat + 3//5//5//4//4//4//4.5//4.5//4//5//4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//4//4//3//

108

84 + 88

upbeat + 86

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Page and line-breaks

R

[10/1] [16] 2.75/2.25/2.5/2//2/2/2/2.25/2.25//2.5/2.5/2/3 /2.5//2.5/2.5/1.75/2.5/2.75//2/2.25/2.25/2//

6 Aria R 7 Duettino R 8 Aria R 9 Quartetto

R

169 Total bars

4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// [11/1] [16] 4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//

96

2/2.75/3/2.25/2.75//2.25/2/2/2/2.5//2/2.5/3/2.75/1.25// [12/1] [20] 4//5//5//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//4//1 * 4//4.5//4.5//4//4//4//4//4//

49 + 33

2/3/2.25/2.25/1.5// [13/1] [20] 2/1.75/1.25// 3/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/2//

45

1.5/1.5/2.5/2/2//1.5/2.5/2/2.5/2.5//1.75 / 1.5// upbeat + 3//4//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//4//3//3// [14/1] [22] 3//3//2.5//2//2.5//3//3.5//3.5//3//3//2// 2//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2//3.5//

upbeat + 88

2/1.75/2.25/1//

10 Acc.

4//3// [15/1] [20] 5//4//3.5//2.5//3//2//2.5//3//3.5//4.5//3// 3//3//3.5//3//3//2//3//3//2//

69

Aria

[16/1] [20] 3//4//4//3//4//3//3//4//3//4//4//3//3//3//3// 3//4//4//3//4//3//3// [17/1] [24] 3//

71

R

2/2.5/2.5/3//

Dalla sua pace 4//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// R 11 Aria R [12] Aria

74

1.5/2.5/2.5/2/2//2/2/2/2.25/2.25//2/2.75/2.25/2.25/2.5//2.75/2 /2.5/2.5/3// [18/1] [28] 4//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6// 6//7//6//6//6//6//5//6//6//6//6//6//6//

160

1.75/2.5/2.75/2/2/3// [19/1] [24] 2/2.5/2.5/3/1.25// upeat + 3// 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4.5//3.5//3//1 * 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//

upbeat + 99

R

[20/1] [24] 2/2/2/2/2//2.5/2/1.5//

Finale

3//5//5//5//4.5//4.5//5//5//4//5//4.5//4.5//4//3.5//2.5//4// 4//4//4//4//4.5//1.5 *

91

3// [21/1] 5//5//5//5//4//4//5//5//4//3 *

47 Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

The Vienna Don Giovanni

170 Item

Page and line-breaks

Total bars

1//5//4//5//4//5//5//1 *

30

4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//6//4 *

49

2//5//6//6//5//5//4 *

33

0.5//4//3.5//3.5//3//3.5//4 *

22

1//5//5//5//6// [23/1] 5//5//5//5//4.5//4.5//5//5// 5//4.5//4.5//5//6//2 *

87

4//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//6//

46

[24/1] [16] 6//6//6//6//5//5//5//6//4//4//4//4//4//3//

62

5//4//4// [25/1] [20] 4//4//4//4//2 *

31

2//4//4//3.5//2.5//3//4//3//4//4//

34

4//4//4//4//4//4// [26/1] [ 20] 4//4//4.5//3.5//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 2//

121

act ii 1 Duetto

[1/1] title page//4//6//6//6//5//5//5//

Cont.

5//5//5//5//5//5//3//

R

2.5/1.75/2/2.25//2.5/2.5/2/2.25//2.5/2.25/2.5/2.5//2.5/2/2.5/ 2//2.5/1.75/2.25/3//

2 Terzetto

[2/2] [24] 3//4//3//4//3//4//4//3//4//3//4//

cont.

5//3//3//2.5//4.5//4.5//2.5//4//3//3.5//3.5//3.5//2.5//

R

[3/2] [20] 2.5/2/2/2.5//2/2.5/0.5 * 1/2.5//2.5/2.5/2/2.25//1.25/1. 75/2.25/2//2/2/2/2//2/2//

3 Canzonetta

3//5//5//5//5//5//5//

cont.

4//4//3//

R

2/2/2/2//2.5/2.5/2/2//2.5/2/2.5/2.5//

4 Aria

upbeat + 3// [4/2] [24] 4//4//3//4//4//4//4//4//3//4//4// 4//4//2//4//4//4//4//3//4//4//2//

R

2/3/3/3//2.5/2.5/3/1 * 1// [5/2] [24] 3/2/2.5/2.25//2.25//2/2.5/ 2.25//2.25/2/3/2//

70

84

44

84

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item 5 Aria R 6 Sestetto

Page and line-breaks

3//4//4//4//4//4//4// * 4//4//4//4//4//3.5//3.5//4// 27 + 103 4//3.5//3.5//3//3//3.5//3.5//3// [7/2] [24] 3//3.5//4//3.5//4// + 147 4//4//4//4//3//3//4//1 * 3//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//3//4// 4//4// [8/2] [16] 4//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//4//3// [9/2] [16] 4//4//4//5//5//5//4//4//5//

R

2/2/2/2//1.75/1.75/2.5//

R

3/4/4/3//2.5/2.5/2/2.5/2.5//2/2/2/2/2//2/2/1//

[8] Acc.

[10/2] [26] 3//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//3//4//3.5//3.5//4// 3//3.5//3.5//4//4//4//4//3.5//3.5//3.5//3.5//4//3//4//5//

3/3.5/2.5/3.5//3.5/3//4/4//3/4//2//

36

upbeat + 3//4//5//5//5//5//6//5//6//6// [12/2] [26] 6//5// 5//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//3//

R

2.5/2.5/2.25/1.75/2//2.5/2.5/2.125/1.875/2//2/2.5/2/2/2.5//2/2 /2.5/2/2.5//2/2.5/2/2/1.5// upbeat + 3.5/2.5//1.75/upbeat + 5// 2/2/2/2.5/2.5//2/2/1.5/2.5//2/2//

R 10 Acc.

96

[11/2] [20] 2.5/2.5/2.5/2.5/2//2/2/2 * /2/2//2/2/2.5/2/2//2.5 /2.5/2.5/2.5/0.5// *

Aria

9 Duetto

104

[6/2] [24] 1.5/2/2/2/1.5//

2/2.5/2/2.5//3/3/2.5/0.5/2//3/3/4/4/3//

R

Total bars

5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//4//

R

7 Duetto

171

upbeat + 129

[13/2] [32] 3//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 3//3.5//3.5//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//3//3//3//3//3//3//2// [14/2] [28] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2// 3/2.5//3.5/2//3/1//

15

Rondò

5//5//5//4//5//5//5//5//4//5 * //5//6//6//4//4//5//

48 + 53

Cont.

4//4//4//4//4//3//

R

1.5/2.5//

Finale

[15/2] [24] 3//4//4//5//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//2 *

46

2//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// [16/2] [ 26] 4//4//4//5//4//

71

5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//

44 Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

The Vienna Don Giovanni

172 Item

Page and line-breaks

Total bars

4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//2 *

38

[17/2] [24] 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//4//5//5//5// 5//5//4//5//5//5//5//5//5// [18/2] [24] 6//5//5//4//5//5// 4//5//4//5//5//5//2 *

179

2//4//4//4//4// [roll] 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// [19/2] [24] 4//

54

4//5//4//4//3//4//5//5//3//4//3//4//3//3//4//4//4//4// 4//3//4//4//3//

88

[20/2] [ 22] 4 * 1//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//2 *

33

2//3//4//3//3.5//3.5//6//6//4//4//4//4//2//

49

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2

173

Appendix 2.3  Vienna 2a version (Juilliard score) = match with the Lausch score = match with the Prague Conservatory score Item

Page and line-breaks

Total bars act i

Overture

1 Introduzione

R 2 Acc.

5//5//4//3//5//3//3//2 * 3//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4 3/1 [24] half + 3//4//4//5//4//4//4//5//4 [deleted] + 1//5//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4// 4/1 [24] 4//5//4//4//3//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//4// * 4//3.5//3//3//3//2.5

175 + 18

2.5/2/2/2/2//2 [1.5 ??] /2/2// 4// 5/1 [24] 4//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//3//4//4//3//4//

62

Duetto

upbeat + 4//5//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//6// 6/1 [24] 5//3 * 1.5//4.5//2 * 2//4//4//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//5//5// 4//3.5//3.5//3//5// blank

R

7/1 [28] 2.25/2.25/2/2//2.5/2.5/2.5/2/2//2.5/2.5/2/2/2//2/2/2/ 2//

3 Aria

4.5//4.5//5//4.5//5.5//6//7//6//7//5//6//4//6//6//6//6//5// 7//7//

R

2.5/3/3/2.5/2.5//3/2.5/2.5/2.5/2.5//3/2.5/2/2.5/2//2.25/2/3/2.75/ 2//2.5/2.75/2/2.25//

4 Aria

R

8/1 [24] 4.5//5//5.5//6//5//6//6//4//3.5//5.5//6// 7//6.5//3.5//3//4//3 * 4//7//7//5//6//5//4//7// 9/1 [32] 5//4//4//4//5//4//5//4//4//4//

upbeat + 3//5//5//4//4//4//5//4//4//5//4//4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//4//3//

R

10/1 [16] 2.75/2.25/2.5/2//1.75/2.25/2/2.25/2.25//2.5/2.5/2/3 /2.5//2.5/2.5/1.75/2.5/2.75//2/2.25/2.75/2//

R

upbeat + 62 + 8 + 89

108

84 + 88

1.75/2.25/2.5/2/1.5//

5 Coro

6 Aria

292

4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 11/1 [16] 4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//

upbeat + 86

96

1.5/3.25/3/2.25/2.75//2.5/2/2/2/2.5//2/2.5/3/3/1// Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

174

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item 7 Duettino R 8 Aria R 9 Quartetto

R

Page and line-breaks 12/1 [20] 4//5//5//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//4//1 * 4//4.5//4.5//4//4//4//4//4//

Total bars 49 + 33

2/3/2.25/2.25/1.5// 13/1 [20] 2/1.75/1.25// 3/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/2//

45

1.5/1.5/2.5/2/2.5//2/2/2/2.5/2.5//1.75/1.75// upbeat + 3//4//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//4//3//3// 14/1 [22] 3//3//2.5//2//2.5//3//3.5//3.5//3//3//2// 2//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2//3.5//

upbeat + 88

2/1.75/2.25/1//

10 Acc.

4//3// 15/1 [20] 5//4//3.5//2.5//3//2//2.5//3//3.5//4.5//3//3// 3//3.5//3//3//2//3//3//2//

69

Aria

16/1 [20] 3//4//4//3//4//3//3//4//3//4//4//3//3//3//3//3// 4//4//3//3// 17/1 [22] 3//

71

R

2/2.5/2.5/3//

Dalla sua pace 4//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// R

1.5/2.5/2.5/2/2//2/2/2/2.5/2//2/2.75/2.25/2.25/2.5//2.75/2/2.5 /2.5/3//

11 Aria

18/1 [24] 5//6//7//7//7//6//7//7//7//7//6//6//6//6//7// 7//8//7//7//7//6//9 [added bar]//7//5//

R 12 Aria

74

160

19/1 [32] 1.5/1.5/2/2//2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2.25// upbeat + 3//5//5//5//4//3//4//5//5//5//5//4//3//3//1 * 2// 4//4//4//4//4//3//3//3//3//3//2//

upbeat + 99

R

1/1.5/1.5/1.5//1.5/1.5/1/1.5//2/3//

Finale

20/1 [24] 3//5//6//5//5//4//4//5//4//4//5//4//4//4//3//5// 5//5//5//5//1 *

91

4//4//3//5// 21/1 [24] 4//4//3//4//5//4//4//3 *

47

1//8//5//5//6//5//

30

6//5//5//5//4//5//4//4//4//4//3 *

49

2// 22/1 [24] 4//5//5//5//5//5//2 *

33

1//4//3//3//3//3//4// *

22

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Page and line-breaks

175 Total bars

5//5//4//4//6//5//5//5//5//5//5// 23/1 [16] 4//5//5//4//5//4//6// *

87

6//6//5//6//4//5//5//5//4// *

46

24/1 [16] 4//6//6//5//4//4//4// * [?] 6//4//4//4//4//4//3// *

60

4//3 [ + xd bar]// 25/1 [24] 4//4//4//5//5//2 *

31

2//3//4//4//2//3//4//3//4//4//1 *

34

4//4//4//4//4//4//3//3//5// 26/1 [24] 4//3//4//4//4//3// 4//4//3//3//4//3//4//3//3//3//4//4//4//4//4//4//6// blank

121

act ii 1 duetto R 2 terzetto R 3 canzonetta

1/2 [20] title page // 4//6//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 3// 2.5/1.75/2/2.25//2.5/2.5/2/2.25//2.5/2.25/2.5/2.5//2.5/2/2.5/ 2//2.5/1.75/2.25/3// 2/2 [ 24] 3//4//3//4//3//4//4//3//4//3//4//5//3// 3//2.5//4.5//4.5//2.5//4//3//3.5//3.5//3.5//2.5//

84

3/2 [24] 1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5/1//2/1.5/1.5/2/1//1.5/1.5/2/2/1//1.5/2/1.5 /1.5/1.5//1.5/2/1.5/2/2//2/2/2// 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//

R

1/1/1/1.5//1.5/2/2/2//1.5/1.5/2/2//1.5/1.5/2/3//

4 aria

2//3//4// 4/2 [24] 3//3//3//3//3//4//3//3//

44

cont.

3//4//4//4//4//2//4//4//4//4//3//4//4//2//

R

1/2/2/2//1.5/1.5/2/2// 5/2 [24] 2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2//1/2/1.5 /1.5//1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5//1.5/1.5/2//

5 aria R 6 sestetto cont.

70

84

5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 6/2 [24] 5//4

104

1.5/2/2/2/1.5// 3//4//4//4//4//4//4// * 4//4//4//4//4// 3//3//3//3//3//3//2//2//3// 7/2 [24] 3//3//3//3//4//4//3// 4//4//4//4//4//4//3//3//4//1 * 3//4//4//4//3//4//4//4// 8/2 [24] 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//3//4//4//4//5// 9/2 [16] 5//5//4//5//4//

27 + 103 + 147

Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

176

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Page and line-breaks

R

1.5/1.5/2/1.5//1.5/1.5/2 * 1/2/1//2/2/2/2//2/3/5/6//

R

1/1.5/1.5/1.5//1.5/2/1/1//2/1 * 2/4/4//2/1.5/1.5/2//2/1.5/1.5/2/ 2//1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5/1//1.5/1.5/2/1/2//

7 duetto

R 8 Acc.

10/2 [16] 3//4//4//4//3.5//3.5//3//4//3.5//3.5//4// 3//3.5//3.5//4//4// 11/2 [32] 4//4//3.5//3.5//3.5//3.5//4//3// 4//5//

3/3.5//2.5/3.5//3.5/3//4/4//3/4//2 * upbeat + 3//4//5//5//5//5//6//5//6//6// 12/2 [16] 6//5//5// 6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//3//

R

13/2 [24] 2/2/1//2/1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5//1.5/1.5/1.5/2/1.5//2/1.5/1.5 /2/1.5//1.5/1.5/1.5/2/2//1.5/1.5/2/1.5/1.5//1/2/2 * upbeat + 4//1.5/1.5/0.75// * upbeat + 5// 1.75/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2/2//1.5 /2.5//

R 10 Acc.

96

2/2/2/1//2/2/2/2//1.5/2.5 * 1//1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5//1.5/2/2/2.5//2/2.2 5/1.25/1.5/1

Aria

9 duetto

Total bars

3//4//4//3//3//3//4//3//3//4//4//4//4//4//3//4//4//5//5// 5//5//5//4//3//3//3//3//3//3//

36 upbeat + 129

108

1.5/2/2.5/2//2/2.5/2/1.75 2/3//3/2//3/2// *

15

Rondò

4//4//4//3//4//4// 14/2 [18] 4//4//4//4//3//4//2 * 2//4// 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//4//4//4//2//

48 + 53

R

15/2 [32] 1.5/2.5//

Finale

16/2 [24] 4//4//4//5//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//1 *

46

3//4//5//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 17/2 [24] 5//5//1 *

71

4//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//4 *

44

1//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//1

38

4//6//6//5// 18/2 [24] 6//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 19/2 [24] 5//5//5//5//5//5//4 *

179

1//4//4//4//4//5//5//5//4//5//5//5//3 *

54

2//6//4//4//4//5// 20/2 [24] 5//3//3//3//4//3//3//5//5//5// 5//4//4//4//4//3 *

88

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Page and line-breaks

177 Total bars

2//5//4//5//4//4//5//4 *

33

1//4// 21/2 [24] 4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4/ *

49

5//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//6//5// 22/2 [24] 6//5//5//5//6//6//6//2 *

109

upbeat + 2//4//4//4//3//4//3//4//3//3//3//3//2//2 * 1//5//5//5// 23/2 [20] 5//5//5//5//5//5//6//6//5//5//6//6// 6//5//5//5//5//5//5//

upbeat + 44 116

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

178

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Appendix 2.4  Vienna 2b version Act I of the Bonn copy is a virtual duplicate of O.A.361/1. The two later Florence copies match O.A.361/1 closely for long stretches in Act II, but not in Act I.

[V] = Vienna (O.A.361/1) [B] = Bonn Beethovenhaus [F1] = Florence B II 183–4 (Basevi) [F2] = Florence D III 428–31 (Picchi) In Act I

= places where [F1] matches [F2]

In Act II

= places where [F1] matches [F2] = places where [F1] matches [V]

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

Overture

[V & B ] 1/1 [24] title page//6//6//4//5//3.5//3//2,5 * 3//7// 7//6//6.5//7.5//5//6.5//6.5//7//6//6//6//6//7//7//6// 2/1 [24] 6//6//7/6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6// 6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6// 3/1 [24]6//5//

Total bars

act i

1 Introduzione [V] half bar + 3//5//5//4//4//5//6//5//4// 5//5//5//5// 5//5//5//5//4//4//5//5//4// 4/1 [24] [B] [4/1 missing] 4//3//4//5//4//3//3//3// 4//5//5//5//6//6//5//4//3 * 1//3//3//3//3//3//2 *

292

175 + 18

[B] pages 9–11 run 5//4.5//4.5// otherwise as [V] until 4/1 [F1] half bar + 5//6//5//5.5//6.5//7//6//6//6//6//6//4// 6//4//5//6//6//7//6//5//5//6//5//4//3.5//5.5//7//7//8//8. 5//5.5//2 * 3//4//3//3//4.5//1.5 [F2] half bar + 4//6//6//5//6//8//7//6//7//6//6//5//5// 5//5//7//7//5//4//6//5//5//4//4//6//6//6//8//8//5//2 * 4//4//3//3//3.5//2.5 R

[V] 1//2.5/2/2/2/2// [& B] 5/1 [24] 1.5 * [F1] 2/2.5/2/2/2.5// [F2] 2/2/2/2/2//

R

[V & B] 2/2// [F1 & F2] 1/2/1

2 Acc

[V & B] 4//4//5//4//5//4//5//5//5//4//3//4//3.5//3.5//3 *

62

[F1] 3//4//5//4//8//7//8//6//4//4//3//6// [F2] 4//4//5//4//7//6//7//7//4//5//3//6 *

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2

179

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

Total bars

Duetto

[V & B] upbeat + 1//5//5//5//5//5//6//6//6// 6/1 [24] 6//6//5//1 * 3//4//1 * 3//5//5//5//5//5//6//5//5//4//5//4// 4//4//5//5//5//5//4//

upbeat + 62 + 8 + 89

[F1] upbeat + 5//7//7//7//9//8//9//8//2 * 3//5 * //7//8//8// 9//7//8//7//6//6//8//7//8// [F2] upbeat + 5//7//7//8//8//8//9//9//1 * 4//4 * 1//7//7//8// 9//8//8//8//6//6//7//6//8// R

[V] 7/1 [18 originally 16] [B] [7/1 missing] 2.25/1.75/2/2//2/2.5/3/2.5/2/ /2.5/2.5/2/2/2//2/1.75/1.75/2.5// [F1 & F2] 2/2/2/2//2/2.5/3/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2/2/2.5//

3 Aria

[V] 4//4//5//4.5//4.5//5//5//6//5//5//5//4.5//4.5//4// 8/1 [14] [B] [8/1 missing] 5//5//5//5//4//5//5//5//3//

108

[F1 & F2] 5//5//5//5//6//6//7//7//7//[F2: 6//8//] 5//5//6// 6//7//6//4//5//5//4//2// R

[V] 2/2.5/2/2/2//2/2/2.5/2/2//2.5/2.5/3/2.5/2.5//3/2.75/2.25/3/ 3//2.5/2.5/2.75/2/2.25// [F1] 1.5//2.5/2/2/2//2/1.5/2/2//1.5/1.5/2/2//1.5/2/2/2//1.5/1.5/1.5 /1//1.5/2/1.5/2//2/2.5/1.5/2//3/2/3// [F2]

4 Aria

[V & B] 9/1 [20] 4//5//5//4//4//4//5//5//4//4//4//5//5// 5//6//3.5//2.5//3.5//3.5//2 * 3 10/1 [16 originally 18] [B] [10/1 missing] 4//5//5//5//5//5//3//4 [last bar crossed out] // [page cut out] // [first bar crossed out] 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//3// [12 bar cut first copied then cut]

84 + 76 [88]

[F1] 5//5//7//5//5//8//5//4.5//4.5//7//6//8//3//3//5//3 * 4// 8//6.5//6.5//7//3//6//7//5//5//9//7//4//4//4//2// [F2] 5//7//7//7//8//6//4.5//4.5//7//6//8//3//4//4//3 * 4// 8//7//6//7//3//6//7//5//5//8//8//6//5//3 [no cut] R

[V & B] 11/1 [24] 1.5/1.5/2.5/2/2.5// [F1] 2/2/2.5/3.5// [F2] 2.5/2.5/2.5/2.5//

Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

180

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item 5 Coro

Source + Page and line-breaks [V & B] upbeat + 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4//5//4// 4//4//5//4//4//4//

Total bars upbeat + 86

[F1] upbeat + 6//7//5//4//4//5.5//4.5//5.5//5.5//5//7//5//5// 6//6//5// [F2] upbeat + 6//8//6//5//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//7// R

[V] 2.5/2/2/1.5//2/1.5/2/1.5/1//2/2/2/2/2//2/2.5/2/1.5/2// 12/1 [24] 2/1.5/2/2.5/2// 1.5/1.75/1.75/2// [B] ends 2/1.5/2/1.5// [F1] 3/3/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/3/3/3//2.5/3.5/3/3/2.5//3.5/2.5/2.5/2/ 3// [F2] 3.5/3/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2.5/3/3//2.5/3.5/3/3/2.5//3.5/3/3/4//

6 Aria

[V & B] 4//5//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//5//

96

[F1] 3//4//7//6//8//7//6//7//7//7//7//7//5//5//5//5// [F2] 6//7//8//8//8//7//7//8//8//8//8//7//6// R

[V & B] 2/2/2/2//1.75/1.75/2/2/1.5//2/1.5/2/1.5/1.5// [V] [13/1 missing] [B] 13/1 1.5/2/2.5/2.5/1// [F1] 2.5/2.5/3/2.5//2.5/2.5/2/2//2.5/2.5/2/2.5//3/3// [F2] 3/3/3/3//3/2.5/2.5/2.5/3/2//2/2.5/3/2//

7 Duettino

[B] 4//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4//4//3 * 3//5//5//5//5//5//5//

49 + 33

[F1] 3//4//4//6//6//6//7//5//5//3 * 5//6//7//4//4//4//3// [F2] 4//6//6//6//6//7//6//6//2 * 6//7//6//6//6//2// R

[B] 1.5/2/2.5/2/2//1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5// [F1] 2.5/3/2.5/3//2/2/1/2 [F2] 2.5/3/2/2.5//2/2/1.5//

8 Aria

[B] 3/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/4//4/2//

45

[F1 & F2] 6/6//7/6//5/6//5/4//

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[V & B] 14/1 [28] 1.5/2/2.5/2/2//2.5/2.5/2.75/2.75/2.5/1//

181 Total bars

[F1] 2.5/3/3/2//2.5/2.5/2.5/3/3// [F2] 2.5/3/3/2.5//3.5/3.5/3/3// 9 Quartetto

[V & B] upbeat + 3//5//5//4.5//3.5//5//4//4//3//3//3//2//2// upbeat + 88 4//4//4//4//3.5//2.5//3//3//3//3//3//3// [F1] upbeat + 3//3//4//6//4//6//4//4//3//3//3//3//3//4// 5//4//5//2//3//2.5//2.5//3//3//5// [F2] upbeat + 4//5.5//5.5//4.5//5.5//4.5//4.5//4//5//3//5//5// 5//5//3//4//4//4//4//2//

R

[V] 2/2/3// [B] 2/1.5/2/1.5// [F1] 2/2/3// [F2] 2.25/2.75/2//

10 Acc

[V] 15/1 [24] [B] [15/1 missing] 4//4// 5//3.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//2.5//3//4//4//3//3.5//2.5//4// 5//2.5//3.5//3//2//

69

[F1 & F2] 5//4//5//4//2.5//2.5// [F1: 6//3//2//3//] 3//2//3// 3//5//3//4//4//5//5//4//3//2// Aria

[V] 3//4//4// [V & B]16/1 [24]4//5//4//5//4//4//4//4//4// 3//4//3.5//3.5//4//4//

71

[F1 & F2] 3//5//5//5//5//6//4//6//4//5//4//5//5//4//5// R

[V & B] 2/3/3/2// [F1] 2.5/3/2.5/2// [F2] 3/2.75/3.25/1//

11 Aria

[V & B] 5//6//6//5//5//6//6//6// 17/1 [20] 6//5//5//5//5//3//

74

[F1 & F2] 7//9//5//5//8//8//10//5//6//6//5// [F1: 5//5//5//5//2//]

Continues overleaf Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

182

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[V & B] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2/2.5//2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/2/3//2.5/2/3/2.5 /2.5/1

Total bars

[F1] 3/3/3/2.5//2.5/2.5/2.5/2.5/3//2.5/2/3/3/2//3/2.5/3// [F2] miscopied: 12.5 bars; then Don Giovanni ‘Povera sventurata … addio (Parte); then resumes correct recitative 12 Aria

[V & B] 5//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6// 18/1 [16] 6//7//6// 6//6//7//6//7//6//7//6//6//7//7//7//4//

160

[F1 & F2] 9//12// [F1 10//11] 10//9//9//10//11//10//10//11//1 1//11//9//9//10//9// R

[V & B] 19/1 [25 originally 26] 1.75/2.25/2.5/2/2//1.5/2.5/1.5/2/ 2//2.5/2/1.5// [F1] 2/2/2.5/2.5//2/2/2/2/2//2/2/3// [F2]

13 Aria

[V] upbeat + 4//6//6.5//5.5//5//6//4//5//5//5//4//5//4// 4//4// [leaf cut] 4.5//4.5//4.5 [these two leaves crossed out and sealed] //4.5// [8 bar cut first copied then cut]

upbeat + 91 [99]

[B] pages 3–4, 6//6//, ends 4//5//4//5// [F1 & F2] upbeat + 5//7//7//6//6//6//6//6//6//4// [F1: 5.5//4.5//] 1 * 4//5//5//5//5//7// R

[V & B] 2/2/2/2/1//2/2.5/2.5// [F1] 3/3/3/3.5/3.5// [F2]

Finale

[V & B] 20/1 [24] 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//5//5//5//5// 5//4//5//5//5//5//5//1 *

91

[F1 & F2] 5//7//6//6//6//6//5//5//6//6//5//5//6//6//6//5// [V & B] 4//5//5//5// 21/1 [24] 5//4//5//5//4//4//1 *

47

[F1 & F2] * 2//5//4//6//5//5//6//6//4//4 * [V & B] 5//5//5//5//5//5// *

30

[F1 & F2] 3//8//6//8//8//7// [F1: 9//6//] 7//7//7//7//7//4 * [V & B] 6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//3 *

49

[F1 & F2] given above

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

183 Total bars

[V & B] 3//5//5// 22/1 [18 originally 20] 5//5//5//4//1 *

33

[F1 & F2] 4//6//6//6//6//5// [V & B] 3//4//4//4//4//3 *

22

[F1 & F2] 4//4//4//3//3//4// [V] 1//6//5//5//5//5//5// [page cut out] 8//7// [V] 23/1 [14 originally 16] [B] 23/1 missing] 5//4//5//5//5//5//5//5// [page cut out] 1 *

87

[B] 1//6//5//5//5//5//6//7//7// [F1] 4//4//3//3//5//7//6//7//6//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//6// [F2] 4//5//5//6//7//7//8//7//6//6//8//6//6//6// 46

[V] 5//5//5//5//5//6// [V] 24/1 [16] [B] 24/1 missing] 5//5//5// * [F1] 6//8//7//6//6//4//5//4// [F2] 7//8//8.5//6.5//7//5//4// [V] 6//6//6//5//5//5//6//4//4//4//4//4//3//

62

[F1 & F2] 2//4//4//4//4//3//3//4//5//6//4//4//4//4// 4//3// [V] 25/1 [20] [B] [25/1 missing] 5//6//5//6//6//3 *

31

[F1 & F2] 5//6//6//7//7// [V] 2//5//3//4//3//4//4//5//4 *

34

[F1 & F2] 5//4//4//3//4//5//5//4 * [V] 1//6//5//5//5//5//5// [V] 26/1 [17] [B] [26/1 missing] 6//4//5//4//6//5//5//4//5//4//5//4.5//5.5//6//6//6//8//

121

[F1 & F2] 1//6//5//5//5//5//5//5.5//4.5//5//4// [F1: 4.5//4.5] 5.5//5.5//5//4//5//4//5//4.5//5.5//6//6//6//8// act ii 1 Duetto R

[V, F1 & F2] 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//4//5//5//4//5//4

70

[V, F1 & F2] 2.5/1.75/1.75/2//2.5/ [F1: 2/2/2/2/1.5//] 2/ [F2: 1.75/1.75] 1.5/2/2//2/2/2/2.5/2.5//2/2/2/2/2//2/2/2/1// (in F1 & F2 different numbers of lines per page and hereafter in recitatives) Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

184

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Item 2 Terzetto

Source + Page and line-breaks [V] 3//5//4//4//4//5//4//4 [last two bars crossed out] // 3.5 [first bar crossed out] //4.5//4//3//3//3//4//4 [recopied with 5 bars]//3.5//3.5//3 [all crossed out] //3 [first two bars crossed out] //3//3//3// [the recopied sheet enabled the pages of the longer cut to be tied off ]

Total bars 69 [84]

[F1 & F2] 2//3//3//4//4//4//5//3//3//3//4//4//3//3//3//4// 5//3//3//3// R

[V, F1 & F2] 2/2/2/2/2//2/2/

R

[V, F1 & F2] 1/2.5/2.5//2.5/2/2.5/1.5/2//2/2/2/2/2//2.5/2.5 [F1: 3/2] *

3 Canzonetta

[V, F1 & F2] 3//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//4//3 [F1 & F2: 5/5//5/1]

R

[V, F1 & F2] 1.75/

R

[V] 1.25/2/2/2//2.5/2/2.5/2.5/2//2.5/2/2//

44

[F1 & F2] 0.75/1.5/1.5/1.5/2//2.25/2/2.5/2.25/2.25/2.25//2/2// [F1: 2/2.5/2.5/2/2.5/2//] 4 Aria

[V] upbeat + 3//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//3.5//3.5//4//5//4//4//5//4//

upbeat + 84

[F1 & F2] upbeat + 4//6//5//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//5//4//4//5//4// R

[V, F1 & F2] 1/2/2.5/2.5/2.5//2.5/2.5/2.5/2/

R

[V, F1 & F2] 2//2.5/2/2/2.5/2//2/2.5/2/2//2/2/1.5// [F2: 2.5/1//]

5 Aria R

[V, F1 & F2] 4//6//6//5//6 [F2: 3//3//4//6//5//6//] //5//5// 5//6//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// [F1: 3//2//]

104

[V] 1/2/2/2/2// [F1] 1/2/1.5/1.5//1.5/1.5// [F2] 1.75/1.75/1.5//1.5/1//

6 Sestetto

27 + 103 [V, F1 & F2] 4//5//5//5//5//3 * 1//5//4//4//4//4//4//4// + 117 4//4//3//3//3.5//3.5// [F2 4//3//3//3//] 4//4//4//4//4// [147] 5//5//5//4//4//4//5// * 5//5//5.5//3.5//4//5//4//5//5//5// 5//5//4.5//3.5//5//5//4//5 [sheet attached to] //5// [cut leaf ] //5//5 [last bar crossed out] 1 [cut leaf conjoined to previous leaf containing single bar, pasted down until 1957] [two bifolia added in later including German text: 4 (with first bar crossed out) //4//4//4//4//4//5//5// (with last two bars crossed out)] 5//4//5//4// [F2: 5//4//4//5//4//5//5//5//6//5//6//6//]

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2 Item

Source + Page and line-breaks

R

[V & F2] 1.5/2/2/2/2//1 *

185 Total bars

[F1] 1.75/2.25/2/2/1.5//0.5 * R

[V, F1 & F2] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2.5/2//3/1 * 2/6/5 *

R

[V, F1 & F2] 1.5//1.5/2.5/2.5/2/2/2// [F1: 4] [F2: 3 changed to 4]

R

[V, F1 & F2] 4/5/3 * 1/2/2//2/2/2.5/2.5/1.5//2/2/1.75/1.75/ [F1 & F2: 1.5/2] 2//1.5/2.5//

7 Duetto

R

[V, F1 & F2] 3//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//3//4//3//4//4//3.5//3.5// 3.5//3.5//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//3//3.5//3.5//2.5//3.5//4//3// [F1: 3//3//1; F2: 3//4]

96

[V] 2/2/2/2.5/2.5//2.75/2.25/1 * [F1 & F2] 1/2/2/2.5/2.5//2.75/2.25/1 *

R 8 Acc

[V, F1 & F2] 2/2//2/2/2.5/2/2.5//2/2.5/2/1.5// [V & F1] 3/3.5//2.5/3// [F1: 2/2//2/2//2/2] 3/3//2.5/3.5//3/4//4/1//

36

[F2] 2.5/2.5//3/3.5//3/2.5//2.5/4//3.5/4//4// Aria

[V & F1 [in E flat] upbeat + 3//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// upbeat + 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4//5//5//5//5//3// 129 [F2] upbeat + 3.5//6//5.5//5.5//6//5.5//6//6//6//5//4//5// 4//4.5//4.5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5//5//4//5//5//5//5//3//

R

[V & F1] 1.5/2.5/2/2//2/2/2/2/2//1.25/1.75/1.5/2/1.5//2/1.5/ 2/2/1.75//2.25/2/2/2/2//2/1.5/1.5/2.25/0.75 * // upbeat + 3.5 * 0.25/1.75/2// * upbeat + 4.33 * 0.25/2.5/3//3/2.5/2.5/2.5/2//2.25/ 2.25/1// [F1: 2.5/3//] [F2] 1.5/2.5/2/2//2/2/2/2/2//2/1.5/1.5/2/1.5//2/1.5/2/2/1.75//2.2 5/2/2/2/2//2/1.5/1.5/2/0.5 upbeat + 3.5 * 0.25/1.75/2// * upbeat + 4.33 * 0.25/2.5/3//3/2.5/2.5/2.5/2//2.25/2.25/1

9 Duetto

[V & F1] 3//5//4//3.5//3.5//4//4//4//4//4//4//5//4//4//4// 5//5//5//4//5//5//4//4//3.5//3.5//4//

108

[F2] 3//5//4//3.5//3.5//5//3.5//4//4//3.5//4//5//4//4//4//5// 5//5//4//5//5//4//4//3.5//3.5//4// R

[V & F1] 1.5/2.5/2.5/2.5//3/2.5/1.5// [F2] 1.5/2/2.25/2.25/2.25//2.25/2/2// Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

186 Item 10 Acc

The Vienna Don Giovanni Source + Page and line-breaks [V, F1 & F2] 3/3//3/2// [cut leaf ] 4// [F1 & F2: 3/1//]

Total bars 15

Rondò

[V, F1 & F2] 4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//4//5 * //5//5//5//4//4// 48 + 53 4//4//5//4//5//4//4//

R

[V, F1 & F2] 1.5/2.5//

Finale

[V, F1 & F2] 4//5//5//5//5//4//4//5//4//5//

46

[V, F1 & F2] * 5//6//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//2 *

71

[V, F1 & F2] 3//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//5 *

44

[V, F1 & F2] 1//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//1 *

38

[V, F1 & F2] 3//5//5//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6// 6//6//6//6//6//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//3 *

179

[V, F1 & F2] 2//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//2 *

54

[V] 3//5//4.5//3.5//4//5//4.5//3.5//3//3//4//4 [first three bars crossed out]//5//5//5//4//4 [crossed out] //5//4//5//

88

[F1] 3//5//5//3//4//5//5//3//3//3//2//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//3//4//3// [F2] 3//5//5//3//4//5//5//3//3//3//4//2//5//5//5//5//5//5//4 [V, F1 & F2] 5//5//5//5//4//5//4 *

33

[V & F1] 1//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4 * [F2: 5//5//6//]

49

[F2] 1//4//6//5//4//4//5//5//7//8// [V] 2 [crossed out] //5//5//6//6//6//6//6//6//5//6//6//6// 6//6//6 [red crayon mark after bar 3] // 6//6//6//2 *

109

[V] upbeat + 2 //4//4//4 [last 2 bars crossed out] // 4 [crossed upbeat + out] // 4 [first bar crossed out] // 4//3//3//3.5//3.5// [red 44 [92] crayon mark before last bar] [bifolium inserted slightly out of order containing a copy of Mozart’s abbreviation; the two red crayon marks identify the position] // 2.5//2.5// * [V] 5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5// 5//5//5//6//

116

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Appendix 2

187

Appendix 2.5  Graz score Item

Page and line-breaks

Total bars

Overture

7//7//4//5//5//8//7//6//7//6//7//7//7//8//7//7//6//6// 7//7//6//7//6//6//8//7//6//6//5//6//6//6//6//5//5//6//5// 6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//6//5//

act i 292

1 Introduzione

half bar + 5//7//7//8//8//8//8//8//7//8//8//8//8//8//5//8// 175 + 18 7//5//8//8//8//8//10//2 * 4//5//5//5//

2 Acc

6//6//4//8//6//8//7//4//4//3//5//1 *

Duetto

62

upbeat + 4//9//9//9//9//9//10//3 * 3//5// * 7//7//9//9//7// upbeat 8//7//6//6//8//7//8// + 62 + 8 + 89

3 Aria

5//5//5//5//6//6//7//6//7//5//6//6//6//7//6//7//8//5//

4 Aria

5//6//7//6//7//7//4//4//5//6//7//6.5//3//3.5//4//3 * 4//7// 84 + 76 7//5//6//5//4//7//5//5//6//8//7//6//6// [no cut] [88]

5 Coro

upbeat + 7//8//6//5//6//6//5//5//5//6//5//5//5//5.5//6.5//

6 Aria

4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4//4// 4//4//4//4//4//4//

7 Duettino

5//6//6//6//5//6//6//4//5 * 2//6.5//7.5//5//6//6//

8 Aria

5/5//6/5//6/6//7/5//

9 Quartetto

upbeat + 5//8//7//7//5//5//5//4//4//5//6//6//4//4//5//4// 3//

10 Acc

108

upbeat + 86 96 49 + 33 45 upbeat + 88

6//6//5//4//4//3//4//4//5//4//4//6//5//4//5//

69

4//6//5//5//6//6//6//6//5//6//5//6//5//

71

11 Aria

4//5//5//4//4//4//4//4//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//5//

74

12 Aria

5//4//8//7//8//8//8//8//10//9//9//10//9//9//8//10//10//1 1//9//

160

13 Aria

upbeat + 5//7//7//6//7//8//7//6//5//5//6//7//7//7//6//3// upbeat + 91 [99]

Aria

Finale

4//8//6//6//6//6//5//7//8//6//5//6//8//8//2 *

91

5//6//8//7//7//8//6

47 Continues overleaf

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

188 Item

The Vienna Don Giovanni Page and line-breaks

Total bars

9//8//8//5 *

30

4//8//8//8//8//9//4 *

49

3//7//8//8//7//

33

6//5//5//6//

22

8//6//5//7//6//8//6//8//7//8//5//7//6//

87

8//8//9//7//7//7//

46

6//6//8//8//5//6//4//4//4//4//4//3//

62

7//7//8//9//

31

7//6//5//6//6//4 *

34

4//12//7//6//8//5//7//7//8//6//6//7//7//5//6//6//6//8//

121

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Stockholm University Library, on 27 Oct 2019 at 17:05:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/F06B03D39941A96C4715D7EBCEF112A2

Notes Preface   1  Yo Tomita, J. S. Bach’s ‘Das Wohltemperierte Clavier II: A Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Leeds, 1995).   2  Dexter Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’ (PhD diss.: University of Southern California, 2001).   3  Hans Ernst Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito. Untersuchungen zur äuβeren und inneren Entstehungsgeschichte von Lorenzo da Pontes & Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts Don Giovanni’ (PhD diss., University of Vienna, 2002).   4  Magnus Tessing Schneider, ‘The Charmer and the Monument: Mozart’s Don Giovanni in the Light of its Original Production’ (PhD diss., University of Aarhus, 2009).

Introduction   1  Lorenzo Da Ponte, Memorie di Lorenzo da Ponte da Ceneda (1823), pp. 131–2. For full bibliographic details of the editions of Da Ponte’s work, see Johannes Schweitzer, ‘Lorenzo da Ponte’s Struggle against Oblivion’, in Maske und Kothurn, Internationale Beiträge zur Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft 52/4, ed. Michael Hüttler (Vienna, 2007), pp. 131–56.   2  The idea that Don Giovanni had a relatively cool reception in Vienna is not a modern invention. There were negative comments even in 1788, and by 1791 the opera was starting to feature in the Prague-inspired narrative of Mozart as an operatic prophet-without-honour in his own country. A report from Prague dated 12 December, published in Musikalisches Wochenblatt (Berlin, December 1791) noted Mozart’s death and ended: ‘Neither his Figaro nor his Don Juan was successful in Vienna: but by so much the more in Prague. Peace to his ashes!’ Otto Erich Deutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, 2nd edn (London, 1968), p. 432. This idea was later embellished further by Rochlitz, who rather implausibly cast Haydn as the work’s defender in Viennese society, during a supposed visit to the city. Maynard Solomon, ‘The Rochlitz Anecdotes: Issues of Authenticity in Early Mozart Biography’, in Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford, 1991), pp. 13–14.   3  The Italian text, Da Ponte, Memorie, pp. 131–2, is as follows: ‘L’imperadore mi fece chiamare e, caricandomi di graziose espressioni di lode, mi fece dono d’altri cento zecchini, e mi disse che bramava molto di vedere il Don Giovanni. Mozzart tornò, diede subito lo spartito al copista, che si affrettò a cavare le parti, perché Giuseppe doveva partire. Andò in scena, e … deggio dirlo? il Don Giovanni non piacque! Tutti, salvo Mozzart, credettero che vi mancasse qualche cosa. Vi si fecero delle aggiunte, vi si cangiarono delle arie, si espose di nuovo sulle scene; e il Don Giovanni non piacque. E che ne disse l’imperadore? – L’opera è divina: è forse più bella del Figaro, ma non è cibo pei denti de’ miei viennesi. – Raccontai la cosa

190

Notes to pp. 2–11

a Mozzart, il quale rispose senza turbarsi: – Lasciam loro tempo da masticarlo. Non s’ingannò. Procurai, per suo avviso, che l’opera si ripetesse sovente: ad ogni rappresentazione l’applauso cresceva, e a poco a poco anche i signori viennesi da’ mali denti ne gustaron il sapore e ne intesero la bellezza, e posero il Don Giovanni tra le più belle opere che su alcun teatro drammatico si rappresentassero.’   4  Roger Parker, Remaking the Song: Operatic Visions and Revisions from Handel to Berio (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 2006).   5  Alfred Einstein, ‘Concerning Some Recitatives in Don Giovanni’, M&L 19 (1938), p. 417.   6  Stanley Sadie, ‘New Giovanni’, MT 111 (1970), pp. 532–3.   7  Christof Bitter, ‘Don Giovanni in Wien’, MJ 1959 (Salzburg, 1960), pp. 146–64.   8  Christof Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’ von 1787 bis 1928. Zur Problematik des musikalischen Theaters in Deutschland, Forschungsbeiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 10 (Regensburg, 1961), pp. 148–61.   9  Wolfgang Plath and Wolfgang Rehm, NMA, Serie II, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17, Don Giovanni (Kassel, 1968). 10  Julian Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, Cambridge Opera Handbooks (Cambridge, 1981), p. 57. 11  Wolfgang Rehm, ‘“Don Giovanni”: Nochmals “Prager Original” – “Überarbeitung Wien” – “Mischfassung” ’, MJ 1987–8 (Kassel, 1988), pp. 195–203. 12  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1742–1823. 13  Wolfgang Rehm (and Wolfgang Plath), NMA Serie II, Kritische Berichte, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17: Don Giovanni (Kassel, 2003). 14  Milada Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur in der Musikaliensammlung des Strahover Prämonstratenser-Klosters’, MS 15, ed. Manfred Hermann Schmid (Tutzing, 2006), pp. 277–312; ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur und seine Korrespondenz mit Smetana’, MS 17, ed. Manfred Hermann Schmid (Tutzing, 2008), pp. 279–329. 15  Johann Bernhard Gugler, ‘Zweifelhafte Stellen im Manuscript der Don JuanPartitur’, AmZ 1 (1866), pp. 61–2. On the remarkable role of Viardot in the history of the autograph, see Mark Everist, ‘Enshrining Mozart: Don Giovanni and the Viardot Circle’, Nineteenth-Century Music, 25 (2002), pp. 165–89. 16  Johann Bernhard Gugler, Mozart’s Don Giovanni, Partitur erstmals nach dem Autograph herausgegeben unter Beifügung einer neuen Textverdeutschung von Bernhard Gugler (Leipzig, [1868]). 17  Dexter Edge, ‘Attributing Mozart (i): Three Accompanied Recitatives’, COJ 13 (2001), p. 209. 18  Dorothea Link, ‘The Fandango Scene in Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro’, JRMA (2008), pp. 69–92, shows convincingly that an operatic première in Vienna consisted of three performances. 19  An indispensible resource for the study of the libretto is Giovanna Gronda’s Il Don Giovanni, dramma giocoso in due atti, poesia di Lorenzo da Ponte, musica di Mozart (Turin, 1995), which provides a detailed critical commentary. Gronda’s elegant

Notes to pp. 11–17

191

interpretation of the details of Mozart’s techniques of word-setting includes examples of the use of rests, cutting across Da Ponte’s regular seven- and elevensyllable lines, in order to enliven the drama (p. xv). Repetition is shown to be an effective tool, as, for example, when Mozart turns a single word in what had been planned as a recitative text, into ottonario lines, to be incorporated into Donna Elvira’s aria ‘Ah chi mi dice mai’ as an aside. Don Giovanni first sings ‘Poverina, poverina’ and then ‘Signorina, signorina’ (p. xiv). On occasion, Mozart even cuts across the logic of Da Ponte’s punctuation in order to make a larger point. Lines 3–4 of ‘Ho capito’ are linked musically, despite the full-stop in the libretto after line three, in order to make an effective response to Don Giovanni’s final comment in the preceding recitative. 20  Da Ponte, Memorie, p. 130. On this aspect of the staging of an opera, see John Rice, Mozart on the Stage (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 135–7. 21  Mozart’s personal involvement in matters of staging is somewhat apocryphal. Stiepanek records that the first Zerlina was unable to scream with sufficient conviction. Mozart is supposed to have elicited an appropriately terrified reaction by seizing her roughly at the appropriate moment. Georg Nikolaus von Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts (Leipzig, 1828), pp. 519–20.

1  The Prague Don Giovanni   1  Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, pp. 279–329.   2  Stiepanek’s preface was translated into German in Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts, p. 521: ‘… nach der italienischen Original-Partitur, aus welcher Mozart selbst das erste Mal dirigirt hatte, und welche in dem Archive der Directions des Prager ständischen Theaters aufbewahrt wird …’   3  Johann Bernhard Gugler, ‘Sind in zweiten Finale des Don Juan die Posaunen von Mozart’, AmZ 2 (1867), pp. 2–4, 13–15, 21–4. Gugler concluded (p. 23) that the trombone parts were not part of the original score in Prague. He considered that they could have been added in Vienna by someone like Süssmayr with Mozart’s knowledge, perhaps in recompense for the loss of the scena ultima, or perhaps that they were not conceived until after Mozart’s death.   4  Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, pp. 277–312.   5  This feature has not been systematically studied before, although it has long been recognised. Manfred Schuler, ‘Mozarts Don Giovanni in Donaueschingen’, MISM 35 (1987), p. 64.   6  The Donaueschingen manuscript in Karlsruhe is described by Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, p. 280. One copyist was responsible for Act I and a further four copyists for Act II. The paper used is Bohemian, watermarked with a crowned ‘B’. See also NMA: KB, pp. 38–40, in which the Donaueschingen score is Source C.   7  http://www.manuscriptorium.com; access by subscription.   8  Alan Tyson, ‘Some Features of the Autograph Score of Don Giovanni’, Israel Studies in Musicology 5 (1990), pp. 7–26. For a comprehensive analysis of the paper types of Don Giovanni, see Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’.

192

Notes to pp. 17–21

  9  A sign of a possible change of plan at the start of Act II is that the recitative following ‘Eh via buffone’ is also headed ‘Atto II, Scena I’. Weidinger points out that it was usual for the second act of an opera buffa to begin with a recitative, as happens in Così fan tutte. 10  Tyson, ‘Some Features of the Autograph Score of Don Giovanni’, p. 11, identified the last eleven bars of ‘Vedrai carino’ as a late addition to the autograph, copied on a leaf of Prague paper, the intention apparently being to allow Zerlina more time to make her exit. 11  A study of the stage instructions adds further weight to this chronological division. The texts of the three late-comers with their preceding recitatives include few variants, there being little time for any to appear. The two earlier pieces and their introductory recitatives reflect the ongoing process of revision, with several significant changes of mind. 12  Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, p. 292. 13  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1319. 14  On Grams, see Schuler, ‘Mozarts Don Giovanni in Donaueschingen’, p. 64. See also Milada Jonášová, ‘Mozarts Prager Copisten I: Anton Grams Kopistenwerkstatt’, paper given at ‘Mozart in Prague’ (9–13 June 2009), Hudební věda (forthcoming 2010). 15  NMA: KB, p. 56; Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, p. 297. A clear sign of the fact that at least one intermediate source must precede the early Donaueschingen score lies in its distinctive musical setting of the twicerepeated word ‘morrà’ in the sestetto. 16  Manfred Hermann Schmid, ‘Eine neue Quelle zur Prager Fassung von Mozarts Don Giovanni: Die Handschrift “Rosenthal” ’, MS 17 (2008), pp. 267–77. A facsimile of the title page is given in Otto Haas, Catalogue 42 (London, 2007), p. 41. The new score in Berlin is Source I in NMA: KB. 17  Schmid, ‘Eine neue Quelle zur Prager Fassung von Mozarts Don Giovanni’, p. 271. His scheme also allows for elements of transmission that by-pass the Prague Conservatory score – in effect resulting in a triangular relationship. 18  The Berlin score comes into this category. It is unusual in that its watermarks suggest a high-quality Swiss paper rather than the usual rough Bohemian papers. See Schmid, ‘Eine neue Quelle zur Prager Fassung von Mozarts Don Giovanni’, p. 272. I am grateful to Ulrich Leisinger for up-to-date information about the current locations of this source and Source J in NMA: KB. Response to email enquiry 15 April 2008. The 1788 date is also seen on the Hamburg score (ND VII 252) and on the Kuchař keyboard score in Karlsruhe. According to Weidinger, there is also a full score dated 1788 in a private collection in Rovigo. 19  Daniel Heartz, Mozart’s Operas (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1990), p. 167. 20  Tyson, ‘Some Features of the Autograph Score of Don Giovanni’, pp. 11–12. 21  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, pp. 176–7. 22  Something similar seems to have happened in Così fan tutte, where there is a very implausible tritone link into Dorabella’s Act II aria.

Notes to pp. 21–27

193

23  Weidinger points out that Giuseppe Lolli may have been known to Mozart, as a singer of this name had performed in Vienna in 1786–7. Moreover, an aria in G (with a high tone D) would clearly have been appropriate for this performer, whoever he was, as the singer doubled as the Commendatore, who revels in this pitch in the Act II finale. Johann Bernhard Gugler, ‘Aus dem Manuscript der Don Juan-Partitur’, AmZ 1 (1866), p. 303, noted that the original foliation in the autograph indicated that ‘Ho capito’ (as well as ‘Giovinette’ and ‘Ah fuggi’) was added after the main numbering sequence had been put in. He argued that Mozart thought it not worth the trouble to change the ending of the recitative, the unexpected F major orchestral introduction being ‘breit und kräftig’. 24  Kuchař features in a rather charming legend, reported by Niemetshek, in which, during the course of a walk, he reassures a doubting Mozart about the likely success of Don Giovanni in Prague. Franz Xaver Niemetschek, Lebensbeschreibung des K.K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Prague, 1808); see http:// mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Niemetschek-1808. On the allusions in the Act II finale, see Tomislav Volek, ‘Prague Operatic Traditions and Mozart’s Don Giovanni’, in Mozart’s Don Giovanni in Prague (Mozartův Don Giovanni v Praze), ed. J. Kristek (Prague, 1987), pp. 21–91. 25  The possible connection of Kuchař with the newly discovered Strahov score is discussed in Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, p. 290. 26  Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, pp. 308–10. 27  Gugler, ‘Zweifelhafte Stellen im Manuscript der Don Juan-Partitur’, p. 62. 28  Schneider, ‘The Charmer and the Monument’, pp. 223–7. 29  Wye Jamison Allanbrook, Rythmic Gesture in Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni (Chicago & London, 1983), p. 61; Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, pp. 191–3. 30  Till Gerrit Waidelich, ‘ “Don Juan von Mozart, (fur mich componirt.)”: Luigi Bassi – Eine Legende zu Lebzeiten, sein Nekrolog und zeitgenossische Don GiovanniInterpretationen’, MS 10 (2001), pp. 192–3. ‘… aber die Tafelscene sah und hörte er [Bassi] nie ohne unmuthiges Kopfschütteln an, und als ich ihn einmal deßhalb bei der Darstellung der Oper durch italiener befragte, sagte er mir in seiner eigenthumlichen Sprachweise: “Dieses ist Alles nichts, es fehlen die Lebendigkeit, die Freiheit, wie es haben wollte der große Meister in dieser Scene. Wir haben bei Guardasoni in dieser Nummer nicht in zwei Vorstellungen gesungen dasselbe, wir haben nicht so strenge gehalten Takt, sondern haben gemacht Witz, jedesmal neue, und nur auf das Orchester gehalten Acht; alles parlando und beinahe improvisirt, so hat es gewollt Mozart.” Damit wäre denn freilich sehr, sehr vieles erklärt … Mozart betrachtete, vom Schluß der Fanfare “Gua [Gia] la mensa è preparata” bis zum Eintritt der Elvira an, alles dazwischen Liegende als ergötliches Intermezzo, die Hauptideen hat er für Don Juan und Leporello nach dem Muster der improvisirten Intermezzi vorgeschrieben. Das Orchester bildet den sichern Anhaltspunkt, den Grund! D’rauf und d’rüber mögen nun Don Juan und Leporello parliren, was ihnen eben in den Sinn kommt, je lustiger und kecker, je besser.’ 31  E. A. Cherbuliez, ‘Zwei handschriftliche Klavierauszüge aus Passau’, in Bericht über die musikwissenschaftliche Tagung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, ed. E. Schenk (Leipzig, 1932), p. 150.

194

Notes to pp. 29–39

32  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1839–54. 33  One of these Set B errors – the missing horn parts in bars 25–7 of ‘Batti, batti’ is discussed in Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, p. 303. This mistake entered the chain when the reference score was copied. 34  For details of the Stuttgart copy, see ibid., pp. 281–2. Its papers are watermarked with a crowned fleur-de-lis and C & I Honig.

2  The Vienna Don Giovanni   1  Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’.   2  A summary of the thesis is given on http://www.donjuanarchiv.at/home.html.   3  Ian Woodfield, The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe: Mozart’s Operas in Prague and Leipzig, 1780–1800 (working title, forthcoming).   4  Niemetschek, Leben des K.K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart: ‘Der Opernunternehmer Bondini schloβ zugleich mit Mozart den Akkord zu einer neuen Oper für die Prager Bühne auf nächsten Winter …’.   5  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, p. 158.   6  Gary Smith, ‘k527 Don Giovanni’, http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article. php?id=073.   7  Rice, Mozart on the Stage, pp. 132, 251; see also John Rice, ‘Antonio Baglioni, Mozart’s First Ottavio and Tito, in Italy and Prague’ http://home.rconnect. com~lydiar/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Baglioni.pdf.   8  Good use has been made of this unusual but valuable source by such scholars as Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, pp. 157–7.   9  A list of variants is given in NMA: KB, but a more rigorous analysis of the Don Giovanni texts appears in Gronda, Il Don Giovanni. 10  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, p. 163. 11  Volek, ‘Prague Operatic Traditions and Mozart’s Don Giovanni’, p. 55; Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, p. 162. 12  Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’, chapter 6. 13  Ibid., pp. 798–812. 14  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, pp. 162–3. 15  Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’, pp. 798–812. 16  Ibid., p. 798. 17  Ibid., p. 800. 18  The stage instructions apparently deriving from an earlier draft include: in ‘Ah taci, ingiusto core’: ‘con trasporto e quasi piangendo’ (which in W1 and P was: ‘con affettado dolore’); in the recitative ‘Ahi, ahi!’: ‘gridando forte’ (not given in W1 or P); and in ‘Vedrai carino’: ‘facendogli toccar il core’ (not given in W1 or P). 19  On the weaponry in Don Giovanni, see Felicity Baker, ‘The Figures of Hell in the Don Giovanni libretto’, in Words about Mozart, ed. Dorothea Link with Judith Nagley (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2005), p.  103. 20  Gronda, Il Don Giovanni, pp. xii–xxi.

Notes to pp. 41–58

195

21  My thanks to my colleague Dr Franziska Schroeder for discussing this point with me. Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’, p. 125, had already come to a similar conclusion. Further evidence on this question, that in the 1788 entry for Vienna in the Indice de’ teatrali spettacoli both the festive commissions have different titles (‘Il dissoluto corretto’ and ‘L’albero di Diana’), will be discussed in Woodfield, The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe (forthcoming). 22  Dexter Edge, ‘Mozart’s Fee for Così fan tutte’, JRMA 116 (1991), pp. 211–35. Da Ponte’s fee for Don Giovanni was 50 ducats (100 gulden), exactly half the usual rate (p. 223). In his autobiography, Da Ponte claims to have received a hundred sequins directly from the Emperor. From Guardasoni, he had apparently received fifty sequins, which was stolen (but recovered) during the journey back to Vienna. 23  This was Niemetschek’s settled view, appearing also in the 1808 edition of his biography, see Franz Xaver Niemetschek, Lebenbeschreibung des K.K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Prague, 1808); see http:// mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Niemetschek-1808; p. 87. 24  Deutsch, Mozart: A Documentary Biography, pp. 303–4. 25  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1799–1800, 2256. 26  Gronda, Il Don Giovanni, p. xvii; Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 143. 27  Gronda, Il Don Giovanni, p. xviii. 28  Ibid., p. 27. Felicity Baker, however, in ‘The Figures of Hell’, p. 95, argues cogently that the use of the term ‘libertino’ may not represent the seventeenth-century idea of a licentious person ‘whose immorality is ideologically grounded in his atheism’ so much as a looser, more secular Enlightenment figure of simple promiscuity. 29  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1365. 30  Ibid., pp. 1362–70. 31  Ibid., p. 1346. 32  Ibid., p. 1757. 33  Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’, pp. 148–61. 34  NMA: KB, p. 50. 35  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1761–96. 36  Ibid., p. 1842. 37  Ibid., p. 1815. 38  Ibid., pp. 1836–7. 39  Ibid., p. 1788. 40  Martin Staehelin, ‘Übersehenes zur Mozart-Überlieferung’, Quaestiones in Musica. Festschrift für Franz Krautwurst zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Friedhelm Brusniak and Horst Leuchtmann (Tutzing, 1989), pp. 591–607; Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1799. 41  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1799. 42  It is described in ibid., pp. 1797–9. Edge comments that its copyists are associated with Lausch’s shop and the paper types are consistent with a date in the late 1780s. 43  NMA: KB, pp. 66–7.

196

Notes to pp. 60–79

44  Dorothea Link, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna: Sources and Documents, 1783–1792 (Oxford, 1988). 45  Un almanacco dramattico: Indice de’ teatrali spettacoli, facsimile, ed. Roberto Verti (Pesaro, 1996). Page references to the ITS are to this facsimile edition. 46  ITS, p. 707. 47  Link, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna, pp. 421, 426, 435. 48  ITS, pp. 645–6, 707, 776, 854. 49  Link, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna, p. 121. 50  ITS, p. 776. 51  Link, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna, p. 314. 52  Ibid., p. 315. 53  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1803. 54  Robert Spaethling, Mozart’s Letters, Mozart’s Life (London, 2000), p. 351; MBA 2, p. 268: ‘und wenn es dann möglich wäre 2 gleich gute frauenzimmer Rollen hinein zu bringen. – die eine müsste Seria, die andere aber Mezzo Carattere seyn – aber an güte – müssten beide Rollen ganz gleich seyn.’ 55  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1788–9. 56  Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 55. 57  John Platoff, ‘Tonal Organization in the opera buffa of Mozart’s Time’, in Mozart Studies 2, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford, 1997), pp. 139–74, summarises the debate about whether key sequence in an opera was a significant influence on Mozart’s choice of key. 58  Christiane Schumann, ‘Mozart und seine Sänger; am Beispiel der “Entführung aus dem Serail” ’, Europäische Hochschulschriften, series 36, band 241 (Frankfurt, 2005), pp. 113–20. 59  Einstein, ‘Concerning some recitatives in Don Giovanni’, p. 417. 60  Hans Ernst Weidinger, ‘The “Dux Drafts”, Casanova’s Contribution to Da Ponte’s and Mozart’s Don Giovanni’, in Maske und Kothurn, Internationale Beiträge zur Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft 52/4, ed. Michael Hüttler (Vienna, 2007), p. 116. 61  Einstein, ‘Concerning some recitatives in Don Giovanni’, p. 418. 62  Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 56. 63  NMA: DG, p. xiv. 64  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1811–12. 65  Johann Bernhard Gugler, ‘Die nachkomponierten Scenen zu Don Juan’, AmZ 4 (1869), p. 26. 66  Rehm, ‘“Don Giovanni”: Nochmals “Prager Original” – “Überarbeitung Wien” – “Mischfassung” ’, uses this as a prime example of the experimental and variable nature of the Vienna Don Giovanni. 67  NMA: DG, p. xiii. 68  Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 56. 69  Gugler, ‘Die nachkomponierten Scenen zu Don Juan’, p. 26.

Notes to pp. 80–103

197

70  Einstein, ‘Concerning some recitatives in Don Giovanni’, p. 424. 71  Ibid., p. 420. An alternative version of the end of this variant recitative is to be found in the so-called Luigi Bassi score (Source G in NMA: KB, facsimile p. 236). It was copied towards the end of an appendix at the head of a sheet containing the trombone parts for the Act II finale. At Zerlina’s words [‘Stelle in qual’] ‘modo si salvò quell briccone’, the original line is crossed out and a new version inserted. This takes a different tonal direction, and the newly composed section also changes the rhythmic declamation. The recitative cadences with a V–I in F, although someone later changed this into a V–I in Bb. But there is no sign in this source that the recitative was intended to lead directly into ‘In quali eccessi’; to the contrary, Donna Elvira’s accompagnato is at the start of the appendix and is headed ‘Atto 3o’, while the recitative (which ends the act) is followed by ‘Fine’. 72  The casting of the Prague Don Giovanni and the failure to attribute a role to Gioacchino Costa will be considered in Woodfield, The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe (forthcoming). 73  Schneider, ‘The Charmer and the Monument’, p. 231. 74  Ibid., p. 232. 75  Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’, p. 154. 76  NMA: DG, p. xv. 77  NMA: KB, pp. 44, 46–7. 78  Edmund Goehring, ‘The opere buffe’, in The Cambridge Companion to Mozart, ed. Simon Keefe (Cambridge, 2003), p. 144. 79  Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts, p. 559: ‘Als Mozart 1787 die erste Probe von seiner Oper Don Juan hielt, liess er bei den Stellen des Comendatore: Di rider finirai etc. und Ribaldo audace etc., welche bloss mit drey Posaunen begleitet waren, inne halten, weil einer von den Posaunisten seine Stimme nicht richtig vortrug. Da es nach wiederholtem Versuche noch nicht besser ging, verfügte sich Mozart zu dessen Pulte und erklärte ihm, wie er es ausgeführt zu haben wünschte, worauf dieser ganz trocken antwortete: “Das kann man nicht so blasen, und von Ihnen werd’ ich es auch nicht erst lernen.” Mozart erwiederte lächelnd: Gott bewahre mich, Sie Posaune lehren zu wollen; geben Sie nur die Stimme her, ich werde sie gleich abändern. Er that diess und setzte auf der Stelle noch zwey Hoboen, zwey Clarinetten und zwey Fagotten dazu.’ 80  Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, p. 324. 81  Ibid., p. 320. 82  Ibid., p. 324. 83  Ibid., p. 326. 84  Link, ‘The Fandango Scene in Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro’, pp. 69–92, makes a persuasive case that the Fandango in Act III of Figaro was similarly permitted for the first three performances, but then cut for the remainder of the run on account of the expense of the dancers. 85  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1823–8. 86  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, pp. 202–3.

198

Notes to pp. 104–116

87  NMA: DG, p. 455. 88  Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 64. 89  Ian Woodfield, Mozart’s Così fan tutte: A Compositional History (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 99–151. 90  Heartz, Mozart’s Operas, p. 203. 91  I owe this information to John Rice. 92  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1816–17. 93  NMA: DG, p. xiii. It is difficult to interpret the sequence of events here. Possibly the chord was added in bar 595, then crossed out, and finally reinstated by means of the circle and line. Whether Mozart himself was responsible is hard to say, though it is more likely than not. 94  Rushton, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, p. 126. They did not re-enter the Prague performance tradition quickly. In Smetana’s letter to Gugler dated 21 August 1868, he reported that the final scene was only given exceptionally at ‘Mozartsfeste’. Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, p. 324. 95  One sign that the intermediate cut was fully worked out is that the copyist of the imported bifolium in O.A.361/1 had to add in a new part label for the clarinets, as these instruments enter during the cut passage. 96  Bitter, ‘Don Giovanni in Wien’, p. 155. 97  Otto Erich Deutsch, Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie X, Werkgruppe 34: Mozart: Die Dokumente seines Lebens (Kassel, 1961), p. 276. 98  Ibid., p. 276. 99  Dexter Edge, ‘Mozart’s Reception in Vienna, 1787–1791’, in Wolfgang Amadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and Music, ed. Stanley Sadie (Oxford, 1996), pp. 66–120.

3  The late eighteenth-century dissemination of the Vienna Don Giovanni   1  I plan to discuss Domenico Guardasoni’s role in staging Mozart’s Italian operas more fully in Woodfield, The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe: Mozart’s Operas in Prague and Leipzig, 1780–1800 (working title).   2  Bassi’s absence was only temporary. In 1793, he was reported to be a favourite in Prague, Leipzig and Warsaw: ‘In Italien, seinen Vaterlande, sowohl als in Warschau, Leipzig und Prag war er der Liebling des Publikums.’ Waidelich, ‘ “Don Juan von Mozart, (fur mich componirt.)” ’, p. 182.   3  Jolanta Bilińska, ‘Die Rezeption von Mozarts Opernschaffen in Polen von 1783–1830’, MJ 1992 (Salzburg, 1993), p. 12.   4  Copy in Warsaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, 9889 (neu); 142. 622 (alt); Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’, pp. 1012–14; Weidinger, ‘The “Dux Drafts” ’, p. 129.   5  Woodfield, Mozart’s Così fan tutte, pp. 183–8.   6  Alan Tyson, ‘The 1786 Prague Version of Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro” ’, M&L 69 (1988), pp. 321–33.

Notes to pp. 117–128

199

  7  Further on these substitutions, see Woodfield, The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe (forthcoming).   8  H. C. Robbins Landon, Haydn at Eszterháza, 1766–1790 (London, 1978), p. 52.   9  Ibid., p. 438. 10  Ibid., p. 480. 11  Mozart had heard Armida in 1770. He wrote that it was ‘beautiful but too learned and old-fashioned for the theatre’ (‘schön, aber viel zu gescheid und zu altvätterisch furs theatro’). Spaethling, Mozart’s Letters, Mozart’s Life, pp. 14–15. 12  The scena ‘In quali eccessi / Mi tradì’ was also the first of the Vienna pieces to be published. It appeared in Bossler’s Bibliothek der Grazien early in 1789. Cliff Eisen, New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch’s Documentary Biography (Stanford, 1991), p. 108. 13  Weidinger, ‘The “Dux Drafts” ’, pp. 95–130. 14  Ibid., pp. 122–5. 15  Ibid., p. 119. Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, pp. 308–9, lists these omissions, together with a small number of others in Act II locations. 16  Gronda, Il Don Giovanni, p. xv. 17  In his contribution to the symposium ‘“Don Giovanni”: Nochmals “Prager Original” – “Überarbeitung Wien” – “Mischfassung” ’, MJ 1987–8 (Kassel, 1988), p. 219, Volek noted the appearance of this text in the Prague Conservatory score. The presence of young women at Don Giovanni’s final banquet, seen for the first time in the Warsaw libretto, was reinforced in the public imagination in E. T. A. Hoffmann’s celebrated story ‘Don Juan’, in which the narrator describes Don Giovanni as seated ‘zwischen zwei Mädchen’. E. T. A. Hoffmann, Fantasiestücke in Collots Manier (1814), p. 138. 18  Weidinger, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito’, p. 85. 19  Ibid., p. 89. 20  Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts, pp. 521–2. 21  Kathryn Libin, ‘Public Works, Private Spaces: Mozart Opera in the Lobkowitz Theatres in Bohemia’, Mozart in Context, Israel Studies in Musicology Online 6/II (2006), pp. 57–66; www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad/06–2/5_Public-Works. 22  NMA: KB, pp. 40–2, describes the watermarks used in the Bohemian paper. See also Jonášová, ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur’, pp. 280–1. 23  Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg, Bibliothek, Signatur 8 m 157 rgb. 24  NMA: KB, p. 35. 25  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1926. 26  NMA: KB, p. 33. 27  NMA: KB, p. 115. 28  NMA: KB, p. 45. The first Munich performance of Don Juan oder die redende Statue was on 7 August 1791. See http://www.oper-um-1800.uni-koeln.de/; however, Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’, p. 145, implies that a different arrangement was given.

200

Notes to pp. 128–133

29  O.A.361/1 includes a Singspiel text for Masetto’s aria with the character name ‘Peter’. 30  Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’, p. 79. 31  NMA: KB, p. 45. 32  H. C. Robbins Landon, Mozart’s Last Year (New York, 1988), pp. 107–21. At least the probable cast can be established. On 14 June 1791 the Prager Oberpostamtszeitung listed among the company the following performers who had participated in the 1787 Prague première: ‘Hr. Guardasoni, Direkteur der italienischen Operngesellschaft, Hr. Bassi, Hr Balleoni [sic] … Mad. Katherina Mitschelli … Hr. Bonziani [sic], Hr. Campi, Hr. Lolli, Opernvirtuosen’. See Tomislav Volek, ‘Über den ursprung von Mozarts Oper “La clemenza di Tito” ’, MJ (1959), pp. 280, 283. 33  Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts, pp. 521–2. 34  Ibid., p. 521: ‘In dieser böhmischen Uebersetzung (in welcher ich mich streng nach der italienischen Original-Partitur, aus welcher Mozart selbst das erste Mal dirigirt hatte, und welche in dem Archiv der Direction des Prager ständischen Theaters aufbewahrt wird, gehatten habe) … ’ By the mid-nineteenth century, the Prague Conservatory score was once again in Vienna. See Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur’, p. 320. 35  NMA: KB, p. 44. 36  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1754. 37  Kurt Helmut Oehl, ‘Die Don Giovanni Übersetzung von Christian Gottlieb Neefe’, MJ 1962 (Kassel, 1962), p. 252, cites a letter from Neefe written in November 1791 in which he discusses the difference between his (earlier) translation and that of Schröder and their respective espousal of poetic and musical values. His subsequent publication of a keyboard arrangement of the latter certainly suggests that he saw merit in Schröder’s work. 38  Bitter, Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’, pp. 79–80. 39  NMA: KB, pp. 44, 46. 40  Gugler, ‘Die nachkomponierten Scenen zu Don Juan’, p. 26. 41  The loss of the autograph of the wind parts of the Act II finale deprives us of the opportunity of assessing one of the many legends that grew up concerning the days before the première. Nissen, Biographie W. A. Mozarts, p. 560, reports the story as an example of Mozart’s prodigious memory. It claims that he wrote the trumpet and timpani parts of the Act II finale without having the score to hand, and at the rehearsal warned the players to be careful as their parts might contain four bars too many or four bars too few. Mozart was not in the habit of writing orchestral parts himself, although it is conceivable that he might have done so in the last-minute rush. However, in the score these parts were usually written on separate sheets, and it is to these that the story might have referred, crediting him with having produced the supplementary score from memory, before it was copied in the usual way. For most of the Act II finale the supplementary score would have included other wind instruments, but the first section would have been for trumpets and drums alone and could therefore have been the location of this supposed memory

Notes to pp. 133–138

201

feat. There is no sign in the Prague Conservatory score of an added or deleted fourbar passage. 42  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 998–1291. 43  MBA 4, p. 322: ‘Don Juan fehlt einige Musik für blasinstrument’. 44  As late as 26 November 1800 Constanze was still asking whether André had the missing wind parts. MBA 4, p. 388: ‘haben Sie denn auch die Instrumentalmusik schon, die in meinem Don Juan fehlte?’ 45  MBA 4, p. 355: ‘Wegen des Duetts für Mombelli und Benucci, der in Toscani ist, gleichfalls an diese 2. Sänger.’ 46  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1052–3. 47  Ibid., p. 1062. 48  MBA 4, p. 357: ‘Das wenige was im Don Juan fehlt, kann ich nicht auffinden. Da es so wenig ist, so thuts auch nichts. In Copie können Sie es von Traeg, der es hat erhalten.’ 49  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, pp. 1239–42. 50  Ibid., p. 1239: ‘Authentisch(e) Abschrift des Mozartsch(en) Originals, durch Herrn v. Nissen veranstaltet & durch Herrn Abbe M. Stadler revidirt.’ 51  The duet has an additional comment in Nissen’s hand, suggesting that André check whether or not it was yet to be found in printed or engraved editions and recommending its publication if not. Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1233: ‘Es muß noch ein Mal nachgesehen werden, ob diese Duett in den gedruckten oder gestochenen Ausgaben befindlich ist. Wenn das nicht ist, so ist es für sich herauszugeben.’ 52  Ibid., p. 1248. 53  AmZ 2, pp. 417, 419. 54  MBA 4, p. 395: Constanze to André: ‘… daß Don Juan nur noch in einem mangelhaften Originalmanuscript besteht. Als ich vor langer Zeit Breitkopf & Härtel ein Verzeichniß aller grossen werke gab, hatte ich diese Anmerkung bey Don Juan gemacht. Es ist dieses mir eine neue Warnung, Niemanden mehr zu sagen, als er just zu wissen braucht.’). 55  Wilhelm Hitzig, ‘Die Briefe Franz Niemetscheks und der Marianne Mozart an Breitkopf & Härtel’, Der Bär 30 (1928), pp. 101–16. 56  Ibid., p. 111: ‘das Konzert für die Klarinett werde ich gewiß erhalten … und die Partitur von Don Juan; und zwar von H. Rucharz [sic], ehemal. Theater=Direktor, der diese Oper sowohl ins Klavier, als auch Quartett arrangiert hat und mit Mozart sehr gut war.’ 57  Ibid., p. 111: ‘kollationiert’ is not necessarily the original word. 58  Ibid., p. 112: ‘Die nächsten Briefe behandeln durchweg die Angelegenheit Don Juan, die für den ersten Druck ganz ungeheuere Schwierigkeiten gehabt haben muß, da man offenbar die Reihenfolge gewisser Teile sich nicht zu erklären vermochte und Zugehöriges nicht von Fremden zu trennen vermochte.’ 59  Alfred Einstein, ‘Concerning some recitatives in Don Giovanni’, M&L 19 (1938), pp. 417–25.

202

Notes to pp. 139–149

60  Edge, ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’, p. 1237: ‘da bis jetzt nur sehr fehlerhafte, selbst untereinander abweichende, Abschriften davon zirkuliert haben.’ 61  Ibid., p. 1237: ‘einiger Arien, die bisher bei dieser Oper nicht bekannt gewesen.’ 62  The score was purchased by Aloys Fuchs from the collection of Otto Hatvig in 1834. Its watermarks include: three half moons / AHF; a man-in-the-moon / FGA in a large shield; a crown above a large shield with three six-pointed stars / AG; a bow-and-arrow / AM; a star formed from a double circle with seven points / EGA. 63  British Library: Hirsch IV.1062. 64  Other early nineteenth-century scores include: I-Fc, e.v.40–1, a copy of the Prague version with the ‘Anhang von später eingelegten Stücken’; I-Fc, d i 414–17, which includes ‘Dalla sua pace’ both in situ and at the end; I-Nc, rari 5.3.28, the Prague version, but without the scena ultima; and I-Nc rari 29.4.7 (olim rari 5.3.27), the Prague version, again without the scena ultima, although perhaps it once had it, as on the last page is written ‘segue il restante’. 65  NMA: KB, pp. 62–4. 66  NMA: KB, pp. 229–36.

Conclusion   1  Jonášová, ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur und seine Korrespondenz mit Smetana’, p. 324.   2  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Il dissoluto punito ossia il Don Giovanni, k.527, 540a, 540c: Facsimile of the Autograph Score, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Département de la Musique (Ms.1548), introductory essay by Hans Joachim Kreutzer, musicological introduction by Wolfgang Rehm (The Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California, 2009), p. 16.   3  Parker, Remaking the Song, p. 61.

Bibliography Facsimiles Edition princeps: W. A. Mozart, Don Giovanni, opera en deux actes, Fac-simile in extenso du manuscrit autographe conservé à la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris, n.d. [1967] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Il dissoluto punito ossia il Don Giovanni, k.527, 540a, 540c: Facsimile of the Autograph Score, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Département de la Musique (Ms.1548), introductory essay by Hans Joachim Kreutzer, musicological introduction by Wolfgang Rehm (The Packard Humanities Institute, Los Altos, California, 2009)

Books, articles, websites Allanbrook, Wye Jamison, Rythmic Gesture in Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni (Chicago & London, 1983) Baker, Felicity, ‘The Figures of Hell in the Don Giovanni libretto’, in Words about Mozart, ed. Dorothea Link with Judith Nagley (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 77–106 Bauer, Wilhelm, Otto Erich Deutsch, and Joseph Eibl, Mozart: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen: Gesamtausgabe (Kassel, 1962–75) Bilińska, Jolanta, ‘Die Rezeption von Mozarts Opernschaffen in Polen von 1783–1830’, MJ 1992 (Salzburg, 1993), pp. 11–25 Bitter, Christof, ‘Don Giovanni in Wien’, MJ 1959 (Salzburg, 1960), pp. 146–64 —   — Wandlungen in den Inszenierungsformen des ‘Don Giovanni’ von 1787 bis 1928. Zur Problematik des musikalischen Theaters in Deutschland, Forschungsbeiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 10 (Regensburg, 1961) Brauneis, Walter, ‘Sein Umgang mit Mozart – Eine Legende?’, in Internationaler Musikwissenschaftlicher Kongress zum Mozart-Jahr 1991 Baden-Wien, vol. 2, ed. Ingrid Fuchs (Tutzing, 1993), pp. 491–504 Buch, David J., ‘Eighteenth-Century Manuscript Scores of Mozart’s Comic Italian Operas in Prague’s Conservatory of Music and National Library’, unpublished Buschler, David, ‘The Two Versions of the Statue’s Music in “Don Giovanni” ’, MJ 1991 (Kassel, 1992), pp. 871–8 Cherbuliez, E. A., ‘Zwei handschriftliche Klavierauszüge aus Passau’, in Bericht über die musikwissenschaftliche Tagung der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, ed. E. Schenk (Leipzig, 1932) Da Ponte, Lorenzo, Memorie di Lorenzo da Ponte da Ceneda (1823) —   — An Extract from the Life of Lorenzo da Ponte (New York, 1819) Deutsch, Otto Erich, Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie X, Werkgruppe 34: Mozart: Die Dokumente seines Lebens (Kassel, 1961) —   — Mozart: A Documentary Biography, 2nd edn (London, 1966)

204

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Edge, Dexter, ‘Mozart’s Fee for Così fan tutte’, JRMA 116 (1991), pp. 211–35 —   — ‘Mozart’s Reception in Vienna, 1787–1791’, in Wolfgang Amadè Mozart: Essays on his Life and Music, ed. Stanley Sadie (Oxford, 1996), pp. 66–120 —   — ‘Mozart’s Viennese Copyists’ (PhD diss.: University of Southern California, 2001) —   — ‘Attributing Mozart (i): Three Accompanied Recitatives’, COJ 13 (2001), pp. 197– 237 Einstein, Alfred, ‘Das erste Libretto des Don Giovanni’, Acta Musicologica 9 (1937), pp. 149–50 —   — ‘Concerning Some Recitatives in Don Giovanni’, M&L 19 (1938), pp. 417–25 Eisen, Cliff, New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch’s Documentary Biography (Stanford, CA, 1991) Everist, Mark, ‘Enshrining Mozart: Don Giovanni and the Viardot Circle’, NineteenthCentury Music 25 (2002), pp. 165–89 Goehring, Edmund, ‘The opere buffe’, in The Cambridge Companion to Mozart, ed. Simon Keefe (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 131–46 Gronda, Giovanna, Il Don Giovanni dramma giocoso in due atti, poesia di Lorenzo da Ponte, musica di Mozart (Turin, 1995) Gugler, Johann Bernhard, ‘Zweifelhafte Stellen im Manuscript der Don Juan-Partitur’, AmZ 1 (1866), pp. 61–2 —   — ‘Aus dem Manuscript der Don Juan-Partitur’, AmZ 1 (1866), pp. 301–3 —   — ‘Sind in zweiten Finale des Don Juan die Posaunen von Mozart’, AmZ 2 (1867), pp. 2–4, 13–15, 21–4 —   — ‘Ueber die Wiedergabe der Secco-Recitative in Mozarts italienischen Opern’, AmZ 3 (1868), pp. 283–5 —   — Mozart’s Don Giovanni, Partitur erstmals nach dem Autograph herausgegeben unter Beifügung einer neuen Textverdeutschung von Bernhard Gugler (Leipzig, [1868]) —   — ‘Die nachkomponierten Scenen zu Don Juan’, AmZ 4 (1869), pp. 25–7 —   — ‘Don Juan von Gazzaniga’, AmZ 5 (1870), pp. 126–7, 132–3 —   — ‘Zur Partitur des Don Giovanni’, AmZ 11 (1876), cols. 529–37 —   — ‘Ueber einige in den neuesten Ausgaben der Don Giovanni-Partitur verschieden interpretierte Stellen’, AmZ 11 (1876), cols. 769–74, 785–91 Heartz, Daniel, Mozart’s Operas (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1990) Hitzig, Wilhelm, ‘Die Briefe Franz Niemetscheks und der Marianne Mozart an Breitkopf & Härtel’, Der Bär 30 (1928), pp. 101–16 Hoffmann, E. T. A., Fantasiestücke in Collots Manier, 4: Don Juan (1814) Jahn, Otto, The Life of Mozart, trans. P. Townsend from W. A.Mozart (Leipzig, 1867) (London, 1882, 1891)

Bibliography

205

Jonášová, Milada, ‘ “Ihre Versicherung beruhigt mich, sie kommt von einem Kennar” K biografii Jana Křitele Kuchař’, Hudební věda 40 (2003), pp. 329–60 —   — ‘Eine unbekannte Prager Don-Giovanni-Partitur in der Musikaliensammlung des Strahover Prämonstratenser-Klosters’, in MS 15, ed. Manfred Hermann Schmid (Tutzing, 2006), pp. 277–312 —   — ‘Guglers Edition der “Don-Giovanni”-Partitur und seine Korrespondenz mit Smetana’, in MS 17, ed. Manfred Hermann Schmid (Tutzing, 2008), pp. 279–329 —   — ‘Mozarts Prager Copisten I: Anton Grams Kopistenwerkstatt’, paper given at ‘Mozart in Prague’ (9–13 June 2009), Hudební věda (forthcoming 2010). Krones, Hartmut, ‘Il dissoluto punito o sia il D: Giovanni: Quartetti del Signore Gio: Kucharz: Bearbeitung oder Mitschrift des Mozartschen Don Giovanni?’, in Festschrift Christoph-Hellmut Mahling zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Axel Beer, Kristina Pfarr and Wolfgang Ruf (Tutzing, 1997), pp. 721–35 Kunze, Stefan, Mozarts Opern (Stuttgart, 1984) Landon, H. C. Robbins, Haydn at Eszterháza, 1766–1790 (London, 1978) —   — Mozart’s Last Year (New York, 1988) Libin, Kathryn, ‘Public Works, Private Spaces: Mozart Opera in the Lobkowitz Theatres in Bohemia’, Mozart in Context, Israel Studies in Musicology Online 6/II (2006), pp. 57–66; www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad/06–2/5_Public-Works Link, Dorothea, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna: Sources and Documents, 1783–1792 (Oxford, 1988) —   — ‘The Fandango Scene in Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro’, JRMA (2008), pp. 69–92 Nägele, Reiner, ‘Die wiederentdeckte “Stuttgarter Kopie (Prager Provenienz)” von Mozarts “Don Giovanni” ’, Musik in Baden-Wurttemberg 2 (1995), pp. 159–66 Nettl, Paul, Mozart in Böhmen (Prague, 1938) Niemetschek, Franz Xaver, Leben des K.K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Gottlieb Mozart (Prague, 1798); see http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Niemetschek-1798 —   — Lebensbeschreibung des K.K. Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Prague, 1808); see http://mozartsocietyofamerica.org/embp/Niemetschek-1808 Nissen, Georg Nikolaus von, Biographie W. A.Mozarts (Leipzig, 1828) Oehl, Kurt Helmut, ‘Die Don Giovanni Übersetzung von Christian Gottlieb Neefe’, MJ 1962 (Kassel, 1962), pp. 248–55 Page, Janet, and Dexter Edge, ‘A Newly Uncovered Autograph Sketch for Mozart’s “Al desio di chi t’adora” k577’, MT 132 (1991), pp. 601–6 Parker, Roger, Remaking the Song: Operatic Visions and Revisions from Handel to Berio (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 2006) Plath, Wolfgang, and Wolfgang Rehm, Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie II, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17: Don Giovanni (Kassel, 1968) —   — ‘Mozartiana in Fulda und Frankfurt’, MJ 1968–1970 (Salzburg, 1970), pp. 333–86 Platoff, John, ‘Tonal Organization in the opera buffa of Mozart’s Time’, in Mozart Studies 2, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford, 1997), pp. 139–74

206

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Rehm, Wolfgang, ‘“Don Giovanni”: Nochmals “Prager Original” – “Überarbeitung Wien” – “Mischfassung” ’, MJ 1987–8 (Kassel, 1988), pp. 195–203 —   — and Wolfgang Plath, Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie II, Kritische Berichte, Werkgruppe 5, Band 17: Don Giovanni (Kassel, 2003) Reininghaus, Till, ‘Mozarts Dom Juan in Hamburg: Untersuchung zur frühen Don Giovanni Rezeption’ (MA diss.: Hamburg, 2006) Rice, John, Mozart on the Stage (Cambridge, 2009) —   — ‘Antonio Baglioni, Mozart’s First Ottavio and Tito, in Italy and Prague’, http:// home.rconnect.com~lydiar/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Baglioni.pdf Rushton, Julian, W. A. Mozart: Don Giovanni, Cambridge Opera Handbooks (Cambridge, 1981) Sadie, Stanley, ‘New Giovanni’, MT 111 (1970), pp. 532–3 Schmid, Manfred Hermann, ‘Eine neue Quelle zur Prager Fassung von Mozarts Don Giovanni: Die Handschrift “Rosenthal” ’, MS 17 (2008), pp. 267–77 Schneider, Magnus Tessing, ‘The Charmer and the Monument: Mozart’s Don Giovanni in the Light of its Original Production’ (PhD diss., University of Aarhus, 2009) Schuler, Manfred, ‘Mozarts Don Giovanni in Donaueschingen’, MISM 35 (1987), pp. 63–72 —   — ‘Zeitgenössische Prager Abschriften von Werken Mozarts’, Hudební vĕda 28 (1991), pp. 291–8 Schumann, Christiane, ‘Mozart und Seine Sänger; am Beispiel der Entführung aus dem Serail’, Europäische Hochschulschriften, series 36, band 241 (Frankfurt, 2005), pp. 113–20 Schweitzer, Johannes, ‘Lorenzo da Ponte’s Struggle against Oblivion’, in Maske und Kothurn: Internationale Beiträge zur Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft 52/4, ed. Michael Hüttler (Vienna, 2007), pp. 131–56 Sisman, Elaine, ‘The Marriages of Don Giovanni: Persuasion, Impersonation and Personal Responsibility’, in Mozart Studies, ed. Simon Keefe (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 163–92 Smith, Gary, ‘k527 Don Giovanni’, http://www.mozartforum.com/Lore/article. php?id=073 Solomon, Maynard, ‘The Rochlitz Anecdotes: Issues of Authenticity in Early Mozart Biography’, in Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (Oxford, 1991), pp. 1–59 Spaethling, Robert, Mozart’s Letters, Mozart’s Life (London, 2000) Staehelin, Martin, ‘Übersehenes zur Mozart-Überlieferung’, in Quaestiones in Musica. Festschrift für Franz Krautwurst zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Friedhelm Brusniak and Horst Leuchtmann (Tutzing, 1989), pp. 591–607 Tomita, Yo, J. S. Bach’s ‘Das Wohltemperierte Clavier II: A Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Leeds, 1995)

Bibliography

207

Tyson, Alan, Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores (Cambridge, MA, & London, 1987) —   — ‘The 1786 Prague Version of Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro” ’, M&L 69 (1988), pp. 321–33 —   — ‘A Feature of the Structure of Mozart’s Autograph Scores’, in Festschrift Wolfgang Rehm zum 60. Geburtstag am 3 September 1989, ed. Dietrich Berke and Harald Heckmann (Kassel, 1989), pp. 95–105 —   — ‘Some Features of the Autograph Score of Don Giovanni’, Israel Studies in Musicology 5 (1990), pp. 7–26 —   — Neue Mozart Ausgabe, Serie X, Werkgruppe 33, Band 2: Wasserzeichen-Katalog (Kassel, 1992) Verti, Roberto, ed., Un almanacco dramattico: Indice de’ teatrali spettacoli, facsimile edn (Pesaro, 1996) Volek, Tomislav, ‘Über den ursprung von Mozarts Oper “La clemenza di Tito” ’, MJ (1959), pp. 274–86 —   — ‘Prague Operatic Traditions and Mozart’s Don Giovanni’, in Mozart’s Don Giovanni in Prague (Mozartův Don Giovanni v Praze), ed. J. Kristek (Prague, 1987) —   — ‘“Don Giovanni”: Nochmals “Prager Original” – “Überarbeitung Wien” – “Mischfassung” ’, MJ 1987–8 (Kassel, 1988) —   — and Ivan Bittner, The Mozartiana of Czech and Moravian Archives (Prague, 1991) Waidelich, Till Gerrit, ‘ “Don Juan von Mozart, (fur mich componirt.)”: Luigi Bassi – Eine Legende zu Lebzeiten, sein Nekrolog und zeitgenossische Don GiovanniInterpretationen’, MS 10 (2001), pp. 181–211 Waldoff, Jessica, Recognition in Mozart’s Operas (Oxford, 2006) Weidinger, Hans Ernst, ‘Il Dissoluto Punito. Untersuchungen zur äuβeren und inneren Entstehungsgeschichte von Lorenzo da Pontes and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozarts Don Giovanni’ (PhD diss., University of Vienna, 2002) —   — ‘The “Dux Drafts”, Casanova’s Contribution to Da Ponte’s and Mozart’s Don Giovanni’, in Maske und Kothurn, Internationale Beiträge zur Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft 52/4, ed. Michael Hüttler (Vienna, 2007), pp. 95–130 Woodfield, Ian, Mozart’s Cosi fan tutte: A Compositional History (Woodbridge, 2008) —   — The Bondini-Guardasoni Troupe: Mozart’s Operas in Prague and Leipzig, 1780– 1800 (working title, forthcoming)

Index Allanbrook, Wye Jamison, 26 Anthony, Prince of Saxony, 35–6 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 54–5, 129 Bertati, Giovanni, 33–5, 37, 40–1, 103–4 Bitter, Christof, 3, 48–50, 82, 113, 155 Bondini, Pasquale, 33, 42 Casanova, Giacomo, 118–19 Da Ponte, Lorenzo Al desio di chi t’adora, 106 L’arbore di Diana, 36 Axur, 36–7 conversation with Joseph II, 37 Don Giovanni ballroom scene, 26 commission, 33–4 Donna Anna, 103–4 escape scene, 75, 119 expansion, 63 imperial performance, 61–2 New York performance, 73 rehearsing the singers, 11, 96 revisions to text, 23, 46 scena ultima, 95–6, 108 Vienna casting, 80 Vienna reception, 1, 110–14 wind band, 94 Memoirs, 34 Le nozze di Figaro, preface, 38 working relationship with Mozart, 96–110 Dante Alighieri, 36 Diesbach, Joseph Emmanuel, 125 Don Giovanni • autograph: history amount copied in Vienna, 15 location in Baden-Baden, 4 missing sections, 133–5 sale, 136–7 use as exemplar, 8–9, 11, 19, 52, 56–7 use in conducting, 9 wind scores, 133–4 • autograph: structure extra leaves, xiv, 134 missing last page, 24 paper types, 17, 21, 23

• autograph: paleography act indications, 21 asides, 12 continuity instructions, 64, 83 copyists additions, xiv, 42 corrections, 56 crayon, xiv cross signs, 127–8 cuts, 86 dynamic marks, 28 entrances, 12 exits, 12 foliation numbers, 17, 21, 64, 133 musical revisions, 84 NB signs, 127–8 on-stage music, 94 particella, xiv, 119 piece numbers, 64–5 repeated semiquavers, 49 scene numbers, 24–5, 70–1 stage directions, 11–12, 23, 96–103, 108–9, 119 textual revisions, 9, 23 transposition, 71 triple stops, 49 unclear readings, 24, 49 • characterisation of roles Commendatore / statue, 46, 88–91, 94 contadino, 78–9 Don Giovanni, 25–6, 46, 86, 96–103 Don Ottavio, 75, 103–5 Donna Anna, 26, 40–1, 46, 103–5 Donna Elvira, 26, 64, 69, 79, 96–103, 122 Leporello, 23, 46, 78–9, 97–103 Masetto, 39, 78 servo, 78–9 Zerlina, 23–6, 78 • composition: dramatic issues Act II scene locations, 78 Leporello’s escape, 73–81 plot changes, xvi scena ultima, 16, 37, 40, 57, 60, 84–5, 87, 95–110, 121–2, 128, 134–5 swap of clothing, 88 timing of dawn, 46

210

The Vienna Don Giovanni

(Don Giovanni continued ) • composition: musical issues authenticity of revisions, 10, 16 cut of Ho capito, 21–2 double casting, 80, 106, 120 Elvira’s scena, 66, 69, 71–3 escape scene, 118–19 graveyard scene, 13, 73, 80, 84, 87–94, 119–20 key relationships, 21–2, 69, 73, 75 sequence, 17, 21–2 wind band music, 28–9, 84, 94–5, 120, 134 • copies conducting score, xii, 7, 11, 28, 31–2, 48, 56, 81, 83, 95, 142, 147 dating, 7 double copying, 15 error detection, xiii, 9, 14, 51–2 error transmission, 8, 14–15, 18–19, 29–30, 42, 51–2, 60, 151–7 inauthentic recitative, 79–80 keyboard arrangements, 5, 21–6, 107, 137 parts, 3, 9–11, 13, 22, 28, 31, 63, 65–6, 71–3, 85, 94–5, 106, 111, 117, 125–6, 132 pricing, 14 prompter’s score, 10 reference (transmission) score, xii, 7, 9, 11, 22, 31–2, 48, 59–60, 81, 83, 88, 95, 142–3, 147 role in transmission, xiii, 14, 19–20, 22, 31, 47–52, 90, 92, 151–88 string quartet arrangement, 24, 107, 137 theatre score, xiii, 7, 9, 31 vocal role books, 10 wind scores, 15, 19, 24, 55–6, 167 • copies: palaeography autograph additions, 4, 11, 15–17, 57, 82, 85, 127 bar totals, 48, 60 bifoliation numbers, xiv, 106–7 bifolium, xiv continuity directions, 77, 83 crayon, 9, 16, 28, 53–4, 67, 72, 82, 85, 105–7 cross signs, 127 dashes, 48 dynamic marks, 15–16, 28–9, 54 gathering numbers, xiv, 18, 58–9, 66–7 gathering structure, xiv, 8, 15, 21, 48, 55–6, 58–9, 66–7 layout, 8, 15 line breaks, xiv, 14, 158–88 NB signs, 127 nested bifolia, xiv

numbering sequence, 22, 31, 64, 66, 81, 123, 126–7, 131–2, 140 page breaks, xiv, 14, 50, 57–9, 77, 135, 158–88 pasted slips, 10, 72, 106 pinholes, 106 revisions, 9–10 scene numbers, 60, 70–1, 76, 81, 138 slurs, 29 small number series, 48 staccato marks, 29 stage directions, 90–1, 108–9 stitching, 10, 106 string ties, 55 tacet indications, 52 tempo marks, 28–9, 52, 84 variant readings, 22 watermarks, 7, 48, 55, 107, 126, 130 • copyists, 8–10, 14–15, 17, 23–4, 29, 42–3, 49–50, 52, 55, 58, 65, 72, 94, 151–4 Bohemian, 7 Court Theatre, 7, 19, 43, 47, 51–2 Grams, Anton, xiii, 18–21, 153 Lausch, Laurent, 18, 42–3, 48, 51, 57–60, 70, 93, 95, 107–8, 110, 168–72, 173–7 Sukowaty, Wenzel, xiii, 6, 19, 47–8, 57–60, 110, 123–4, 126–7 Traeg, Johann, 18, 134 Viennese, 7, 48 • early manuscript copies, 4–6 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, 5, 20, 140 Bonn, Beethovenhaus, 6, 32, 54–7, 83, 157, 178–86 Brno, Moravské Zemské Museum, 5, 14, 125, 128 Donaueschingen, 5, 14, 18, 21–2, 25, 30, 89–90, 92, 135, 151–4, 158–67 Florence, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica ‘Luigi Cherubini’ B.II.183–4, 6, 32, 55–7, 77, 83, 86, 109–10, 121, 139, 157 D.I.414–17, 5 D.III.428–31, 6, 32, 55–7, 77, 83, 86, 109–10, 121, 139, 157 E.V.40–1, 5 F.P.T.265, 6, 32, 42–3, 57–60, 70–1, 83, 93, 95, 107, 110, 151–4, 168–86 Frankfurt, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek, 6, 94, 134 Fulda, Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek, 6, 134–5, 158–67 Graz, Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, 6, 31–2, 42–3, 50, 151–4, 187–8 Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietsky, 5, 14, 158–67

Index (Don Giovanni continued ) Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek (see Donaueschingen) London, British Library, 5, 30, 151–4, 167 Lucerne, Zentralbibliothek, 5, 140 Naples, Conservatorio di Musica S. Pietro a Majella, 5 Nelahozeves Castle, Lobkowicz Collection, 5 New York, Juilliard School of Music, 6, 32, 57–60, 70–1, 92–5, 151–4, 173–7 Prague Konservatoř, 5, 13, 15, 17–19, 22–5, 28–9, 31, 42, 47–51, 55, 57–60, 83, 88, 121–2, 125–30, 151–77 Salzburg, Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum, 6, 107–8 Strahov Monastery, 4–5, 14, 20 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, 5, 24, 27, 30, 151–4, 158–67 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek O.A.361/1, 3–4, 6, 16, 24, 31–2, 42, 47–51, 54–7, 65, 70–2, 78, 81–2, 85, 88, 93–5, 105–6, 109–10, 126, 130–2, 151, 155–7, 168–72, 178–86 O.A.361/Stimmen, 3, 6, 31–2, 47, 50–4, 56, 81, 85, 94–5, 105–6, 110, 126–8, 132, 151, 155 O.A.361/2, 6, 86, 130–2 Winterthur, Stadtbibliothek, 6, 140 Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, 6 • editors, translators & arrangers André, Johann, 64, 92, 133–6, 139–40 Breitkopf & Härtel, 13, 22, 24–5, 27, 79, 136–41, 149 Gugler, Johann Bernhard, 4, 13, 16, 24–5, 27, 76, 79–80, 84, 87, 126, 132, 145 Kuchař, Jan Křitel, 5, 21–5, 92, 109, 137 Mihule, Wenzel, 125, 128–9, 148 Neefe, Christian Gottlieb, 130–2, 138 Plath, Wolfgang & Wolfgang Rehm (Neue Mozart Ausgabe), xvi, 3–4, 16, 20, 23–4, 29, 51, 58, 72, 75, 77, 82–3, 85, 92, 104, 125–7, 130, 140–1, 145–6 Schott, Bernhard, 26 Schröder, Friedrich, 127, 130–2, 138 Speiss, Christian Heinrich, 128–9 Stiepanek, Jan Nepomuk, 13, 125, 130 Süssmayer, Franz, Xaver, 130, 132 • history commission, 33–6 composition of Vienna pieces, 33, 35–46 fee, 41 late eighteenth-century dissemination, 115–41

211

payments to copyists, 47 problems with trombone players, 87, 89, 92 rehearsals, 9–10, 16, 28, 53–4, 72 role of censor, 34–5, 85 Vienna casting, 60–3, 80 • libretto: versions, 143–4 Prague 1787 (P), xv, 21, 23–6, 37, 39–40, 44–6, 71, 78, 80, 91–4, 97–104, 118–19 Vienna 1787 (W1), xv, 21, 23, 25, 34–5, 37, 39–40, 44–6, 60, 71, 77–8, 91–4, 96–104, 108, 118 Vienna 1788 (W2), xv, 26, 37, 39–40, 70–2, 77–81, 83, 91, 93–5, 98–9, 108, 110, 119, 121, 138 Warsaw, 1789, 22, 109, 115–27, 130 • libretto: dramatic issues stage directions, 11, 38–9, 44–6, 56, 83, 96–104, 124 loose ends, 73–81 graveyard scene, 90–1 • performance style, 27 • performances Berlin, 130 Leipzig, 115–17 New York, 74 Prague, 4, 9–10, 13, 41, 125, 129 Raudnitz, 125 Vienna, 35, 41, 48, 88, 113–14, 129–30 Warsaw, 115–26 • separate numbers: Act I (Prague version) Overture, 17, 29, 52, 59, 153, 156–8, 168, 173, 178, 187 Notte e giorno faticar [Introduzione] (No. 1), 31, 38, 42, 46, 51–2, 131, 152–3, 156–8, 168, 173, 178, 187 Leporello, ove sei?, 158, 168, 173, 178 Ah del padre in periglio, 158, 168, 173, 178 Ma qual mai s’offre, 31, 42, 131, 154–7, 159, 168, 173, 178, 187 Fuggi, crudele, fuggi! (No. 2), 31, 38, 42, 46, 50, 54, 154, 159, 168, 173, 179, 187 Orsù, spicciati presto, 23, 159, 168, 173, 179 Ah chi mi dice mai (No. 3), 23–4, 31, 38, 42, 46, 50, 53–4, 56, 58, 117, 131, 159, 168, 173, 179, 187 Chi è la? Stelle! Che vedo!, 159, 168, 173, 179 Madamina, il catalogo è questo (No. 4), 38, 42, 44, 53, 55, 84–5, 123, 131–2, 139, 157, 159, 168, 173, 179, 187 In questa forma dunque, 117, 160, 168, 173, 179 Giovinette che fate all’amore (No. 5), 21, 38, 107, 128, 131, 160, 168, 173, 180, 187 Manco male è partita, 160, 169, 173, 180

212

The Vienna Don Giovanni

(Don Giovanni continued ) Ho capito, signor si (No. 6), 20–2, 38, 42, 53, 63, 125, 132, 139–40, 149, 160, 169, 173, 180, 187 Alfin siam liberati, 160, 169, 173, 180 Là ci darem la mano (No. 7), 38, 54, 131, 160, 169, 174, 180, 187 Fermati scellerato, 160, 169, 174, 180 Ah fuggi il traditor (No. 8), 21, 38, 53, 118, 123, 131, 160, 169, 174, 180, 187 Mi par ch’oggi il demonio si diverta, 161, 169, 174, 181 Non ti fidar, o misera (No. 9), 35, 38, 131, 152, 157, 161, 169, 174, 181, 187 Povera sventurata!, 161, 169, 174, 181 Don Ottavio, son morta!, 22, 123, 131–2, 152, 161, 169, 174, 181, 187 Or sai chi l’onore (No. 10), 38, 53, 56, 117, 161, 169, 174, 181, 187 Come mai creder deggio, xvi, 23, 161, 169, 174, 181 Fin ch’han dal vino (No. 11), 15, 23, 38, 53, 59, 127–8, 131, 162, 169, 174, 182, 187 Masetto: senti un po’!, 123, 162, 169, 174, 182 Batti, batti, o bel Masetto (No. 12), 38, 53, 55, 84–5, 122–3, 128, 131, 154, 162, 169, 174, 182, 187 Guarda un po’ come seppe, 162, 169, 174, 182 Act I finale, 15, 21, 34, 38, 51, 122–3, 131, 133, 141, 152, 154–5, 162–4, 169–70, 174–5, 182–3, 187–8 ballroom scene, 12, 23, 25–7, 40, 83, 128 • separate numbers: Act II (Prague version) Eh via buffone (No. 14), 17–18, 38, 64, 131, 152, 164, 170, 175, 183 Leporello. Signore. Vien qui, 18, 164, 170, 175, 183 Ah taci, ingiusto core (No. 15), 15–18, 28, 38, 60, 64, 84–6, 128, 131, 164, 170, 175, 184 Amico, che ti par?, 18, 164, 170, 175, 184 Eccomi a voi, 18, 164, 170, 175, 184 Deh vieni alla finestra (No. 16), 17–18, 37–8, 53, 64, 83, 131, 154, 164, 170, 175, 184 V’è gente alla finestra!, 18, 164, 170, 175, 184 Non ci stanchiamo, 18, 164, 170, 175, 184 Metà di voi qua vadano (No. 17), 15, 17–18, 38, 53, 64, 120, 123–4, 131, 154, 165, 170, 175, 184 Zitto! lascia ch’io senta, 18, 165, 170, 175, 184 Ahi, ahi! la testa mia!, 18, 165, 170, 175, 184 Vedrai carino (No. 18), 15, 17–18, 38–9, 56, 64, 86, 131–2, 152, 165, 171, 175, 184

Di molte faci il lume, 16, 23, 165, 171, 175, 184 Sola, sola in buio loco [sestetto] (No. 19), 18, 23–4, 38–40, 54, 64, 67–9, 72, 84–6, 90, 106, 126, 128, 131, 133, 152, 165, 171, 175, 184 Dunque quello sei tu, 25, 68, 70–1, 165, 170, 176, 185 Ah pietà, signori miei, xvi, 15, 37–8, 53, 64, 66, 68–70, 73–5, 119, 123, 129, 131, 138, 165 Ferma, perfido, ferma, xvi, 25, 68, 70–1, 75, 77, 80, 165 Il mio tesoro intanto (No. 21), xvi, 38, 53, 66, 68, 74–5, 106, 118, 124–5, 128–9, 131, 138–9, 150, 165 Ah, ah, ah, ah, questa è buona [graveyard scene], 25, 59–60, 71, 84, 88, 91–3, 133, 165, 171, 176, 185 Oh statua gentilissima (No. 22), 38, 65–7, 108, 119, 131, 154, 165, 171, 176, 185 Calmatevi, idol mio, 25, 70–1, 166, 171, 176, 185 Crudele! Ah no, mio bene [Donna Anna’s Act II scena], 65, 67, 124, 131, 166, 171, 176, 186 Non mi dir, bell’idol mio (No. 23), 38, 54, 65–7, 117, 124, 131, 155, 166, 171, 176, 186 Ah si segua il suo passo, 24, 71, 166, 171, 176, 186 Act II finale, 15, 17, 24–5, 38, 50, 56, 60, 65–6, 71, 81, 84, 120–2, 124, 128, 131, 133–5, 141, 153, 155, 166–7, 171–2, 176–7, 186 added cello lines, 16 banquet scene [with wind band], 22, 27–8, 81, 120–1, 124 scena ultima, 85–6, 103–10 scenes XIV & XV, 97–103 • separate numbers: Act I (Vienna version) Dalla sua pace (No. 10a), xvi, 42, 63, 127, 131–4, 138–40, 174, 181, 187 • separate numbers: Act II (Vienna version) Ah pietà … compassion, xvi, 68, 70, 75–6, 133, 171, 176, 185 Restati qua, xvii, 68, 70–1, 74–7, 83, 133, 171, 176, 185 Per queste tue manine [comic duet] (No. 21a), xvii, 63, 65–6, 68, 70, 74, 83, 124, 127, 131–5, 138–40, 148–9, 171, 176, 185 Amico, per pietà, xvii, 68, 70–1, 78–9, 84, 133, 171, 176, 185 Andiam, andiam, signora, xvii, 68, 70–1, 79, 133, 171, 176, 185

Index (Don Giovanni continued ) In quali eccessi, o Numi [Donna Elvira’s Act II scena], xvii, 31, 63–5, 67–8, 70–2, 75, 78–80, 118, 120, 122–7, 132–4, 138–40, 171, 176, 185 Mi tradì, quell’alma ingrata (No. 21b), xvii, 31, 63–5, 67–75, 78–81, 84, 118, 120, 122–9, 131–4, 138–40, 148–50, 171, 176, 185 • separate numbers: insertion arias Infelice in tal momento, 123 Odio, furor, dispetto, 117, 123 • singers Adamberger, Valentino, 62 Albertarelli, Francesco, 53, 62 Baglioni, Antonio, 34, 116, 138 Bassi, Luigi, 26–7, 115, 120, 125, 141 Benucci, Francesca, 62 Benucci, Francesco, 53, 61–3, 120, 134, 140 Bondini, Caterina, 26, 116 Bussani, Dorotea [Eleanora Sardi], 61–2 Bussani, Francesco, 53, 61–3, 80 Calvesi, Vincenzo, 61–2, 111 Cavalieri, Caterina, 53, 61, 73, 140 Coltellini, Anna, 62 Coltellini, Celeste, 62–3, 73 Costa [Kosta], Gioacchino, 116, 120 Del Sole, Nicola, 61–2 Ferrarese del Bene, Adriana, 106 Gherardi Calvesi, Teresa, 61 Kelly, Michael, 61 Lange, Aloisia, 53 Lolli, Giuseppe, 80, 116 Mandini, Stefano, 61–2, 111 Marconi Molinelli, Rosa, 61 Micelli, Caterina, 116 Micelli, Chiara, 116 Mombelli, Domenico, 61–3 Mombelli, Luisa, 53–4, 61–3, 134, 140 Morella, Francesco, 53, 62–3, 67, 106, 140 Morichelli Busello, Anna, 61–2, 111 Nani, Giovanna, 61 Picchinei Mandini, Maria, 61 Ponziani, Felice, 116 Prosperi Crespi, Luigia, 116 Ruprecht, Martino, 62 Saal, Ignazio, 62 Saporiti, Teresa, 115, 117, 120 Specioli, Antonia, 117–18 Teiber Arnold, Teresa, 62 Trentanove, Luigi, 61 Weber Lang, Luigia, 62

213

• versions, 1–3, 145–7 fluid text (performance), 1, 142–3 German, 14, 22, 27, 42, 90, 115, 125, 128–30 mixed, 3, 60 static text (replication), 1, 142–3 • versions: Leipzig, 115–17, 120 • versions: Prague, 7, 13–30, 68 set A errors, 29, 42, 48, 58, 83, 151–3 set B errors, 29, 58, 83, 153–4 Prague cut, 20–2 Prague fingerprints, 22–8, 58, 139 • Versions: Vienna, 4, 7, 31–114, 148 Vienna 1, xiv, 31, 47, 51, 57, 63–8, 74, 78, 80, 88, 110, 112, 135, 140, 148 Vienna, intermediate, 31, 67–81 Vienna 2a, xiv, 7, 31, 33, 47–8, 50, 59, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78, 81–110, 112–13, 148, 155, 173–7 Vienna 2b, xiv, 7, 31, 33, 47, 57, 68, 72, 74, 78, 81–110, 112–13, 135, 148, 178–86 Vienna cuts, 55, 82–7, 105–10, 112, 121–2, 126–7, 130 • Versions: Warsaw, 115–26, 129–30, 148, 150 Donebauer, Fritz, 14 Duda, Erich, 130 Edge, Dexter, 3–4, 29, 42, 47–8, 51–2, 54–5, 63, 67, 88, 107, 111–12, 114, 126, 130, 133–5, 145 Einstein, Alfred, 2, 73–4, 80, 136–9 Elisabeth Wilhelmine, Archduchess, 113 Fabrizi, Vincenzo, 62 I due castellani burlati, 62 Franz, Archduke (Francis II), 37 Gazzaniga, Giuseppe, 34 Goehring, Edmund, 86 Gronda, Giovanna, 39, 46, 120 Guardasoni, Domenico, 22, 27, 34, 42, 109, 115–19, 121–5, 129, 137–9, 148, 150 Haberkamp, Gertraut, 141 Härtel, Gottfried Christoph, 136–8 Haydn, Joseph, 117–18 Armida, 118 Heartz, Daniel, 21, 26, 33, 35, 104 Hitzig, Wilhelm, 136 Jomelli, Niccolò, 118 Armida abbandonata, 118 Jonášová, Milada, 4, 13–14, 16, 20, 24, 85 Joseph II, Emperor, 1, 33, 35–7, 43, 61, 111–12, 114

214

The Vienna Don Giovanni

Kuhe, Wilhelm, 109 Kunze, Stefan, 3 Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany (Leopold II), 35–7 Link, Dorothea, 7, 60 Lippe, Madame de la, 113 Lippert, Friedrich, 130 Lobkowicz, Prince, 125

Parker, Roger, 2, 149 Petrarch, Francesco, 36 Pohl, Karl Ferdinand, 14 Praupner, Jan, 137 Praupner, Václac, 137

Rebmann, Martina, 18 Rice, John, 34, 108 Righini, Vincenzo, 117 Il convitato di pietro, 117 Maria Teresa, Archduchess of Austria, 35–6, 43 Rushton, Julian, 3, 69, 75, 79, 102, 104 Martín y Soler, Vicente, 35–7, 107, 120 L’arbore di Diana, 35, 41 Sadie, Stanley, 2 Una cosa rara, 121 Salieri, Antonio, 36–7, 53 Mozart, Constanze, 133–7 Axur, 36–7, 62 Mozart, Wolfgang Sarti, Giuseppe, 120 death, 3 Fra i due litiganti, 121 sale of estate, 3, 133 Saxony, Elector of, 36 works Schmid, Manfred, 20 Al desio di chi t’adora, 105 Schneider, Magnus Tessing, 26, 80 Così fan tutte, xiii, 9, 14, 17, 43–4, 62, 68, 75, 77, 86, 96, 104, 106, 111, 116, 127, Schuler, Manfred, 16 142–3 Smetana, Bedrich, 4, 13, 16, 24–5, 84, 87, 89, clarinet concerto, 137 145 ‘Haydn’ quartets, 108 Stadler, Abbé, 94, 134 Idomeneo, 40, 87–9 Swoboda, Wenzel, 109 Le nozze di Figaro, 3, 21, 33–4, 38, 105, 112, 116, 120–1, 143 Tasso, Torquato, 36 Müller, August, 139 Thomé, Franz, 13, 87 Tyson, Alan, 17, 21, 108, 116, 145 Newman, Ernest, 79 Niemetschek, Franz, Xaver, 33–4, 42, 136–9 Viardot-Garcia, Pauline, 4 Nissen, Georg, Nikolaus von, 87, 94, 125, 134 Volek, Tomislav, 35 Paisiello, Giovanni, 41 Il barbiere, 62 La modista raggiratrice, 62 Il re Teodoro, 41

Weidinger, Hans Ernst, 33, 35–6, 106, 118–19, 138 Zinzendorf, Count Karl, 113