excerpt from my paper on 'al desio di chi t'adora'

[pianistimo]

this topic is in response to the question about what topics i've written on - this is one.  it's fairly harmless and to the point.  it kind of shows what you can get sidetracked on when you study.  i was first intruiged by the finding of the sketch at the library of congress, and then how musicologists determine if it is authentic, the things written on the autograph, the paper (what region it comes from), how mozart wrote the notes.  very many things that one can study in musicology.

ok.  this aria is from the marriage of figaro (K 577) and for many years it was thought that there was no autograph for this second aria.  only a copyists vocal score with cadenza entry by mozart was known.  most recently, this autograph sketch by mozart has 'come to light' in the library of congress in washington, dc.  "in the course of revising Le Nozze di Figaro  for it's first viennese revival in late august 1798...it is a sketch of the vocal line and connecting wind passages for the larghetto of the soprano rondo, 'al desio di chi t'adora' K 577." you can see (pretend you can see) in the upper-right corner the words 'mozart's handschrift' (mozart's handwriting) in the hand of georg nikolaus nissen (constanze mozart's second husband).  "the sketch was probably among the items in mozart's musical estate that were purchased from constanze by the german publisher johann anton andre in 1799.  a note in the lower-right quadrant of the sketch reads: "the writer of 'mozart's handwriting' is, according to the testimony of heinrich henkel, state counsellor niessen the second husband of constanze mozart (signed) adolf andre."  andre was the owner of the sketch and henkel was a student of his.  henkel later assisted him in organizing his collection of mozart manuscripts and himself inherited a portion of andre's collection.  it seems that it was in andre's hands until early in the 20th century.  "the sketch was not among the mozart materials belonging to the andre family that were sold by auction in 1929 and 1932."  when the sketch was discovered, it bore a small label reading:  gabriel wells (address) from whom john davis batchelder (an avid collector of books, manuscripts, and other cultural artifacts) bought it.  it was found in the music division in an uncatalogued portion of the john davis batchelder collection in the library of congress by william c. parsons (music division).  john batchelder had donated this to the library in 1936.

"the sketch is written on a single leaf of rather course-grained but flimsy brownish paper...the sketch occupies the top four and a half staves of one side of the leaf.  the opposite side is ruled, but otherwise blank.  the leaf is ruled with ten staves on each side .  these staves were probably ruled by hand, with five passes of a double-headed (two-stave) rastrum... the paper shows a fragmentary watermark resembling a battle-ax...we suspect that mozart aquired the paper for the sketch during his trip to dresden, leipzig, and berlin in 1789, and that the paper is probably of german or bohemian origin."

now take a look at the score with accompaniment.  you can compare the transcription (below the autograph) with the score provided, and see that it is the same melody only much higher.  the melody fits the text 'quite exactly.' this helps musicologists determine if a sketch was originally written for a certain opera (or just moved around).  you can see that it is syllabic.  the form is definately a rondo with more and more embellishment as it goes on.  mozart's sketches were written in a 'private' handwriting:  noteheads small and indistinct, and some markings are lacking (clefs, key, time signature, indication of instruments).  because it is not complete, it is distinct from a 'fragment.'

(gleaned the info about the sketch from: The Musical Times No. 1786, Orpheus Publications, Dec. 1991, pp. 601-6 article entitled; "A Newly Uncovered Autograph Sketch for Mozart's 'Al Desio Di Chi T'Adora' by JK Page and D. Edge)

[abell88]

because it is not complete, it is distinct from a 'fragment.'

And I would have thought its incompleteness made it a fragment!