Giuseppe Sarti and Mozart's Q,uartet, K. 421 William J. Mitchell Criticisms addressed to' the MQzart quartets, K. 421 in D minQr and K. 465 in C majQr, have been attributed to' Giuseppe Sarti fQr rQughly a century and a half. CQnceivably, the attribu- tiQn is cQrrect, althQugh the manuscript Qf this unpublished writing, addressed to' a Milanese yQung lady, has never been fQund, to' the best Qf my knQwledge. The available SQurces are twO' references in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (33: 540 [August 1824]; 23: 373-78 [June 1832]). The first states briefly that Sarti had written Osservazioni critiche sopra un quartetto di Mozart which had been read by Karl MQzart and, accQrding to' Karl, by WQlfgang, tQQ. BQth repQrtedly felt that it was written in a bitter spirit. The later nQtice is a much mQre detailed , descriptiQn Qf the CQntents and Qf an anQnymQus Milan CQrre- sPQndent's search fQr the manuscript. He writes: "Da es mir nun gelungen ist, dasselbe zu erhalten, so folgt hier der angekiindigte Auszug, in dem es sich noch eine andere, als die schon erwiihnte Mozart'sche Stelle handelt." The title is nQW given as Esamo acustico fatto sopra due frammenti di Mozart, da Giuseppe Sarti. While the first nQtice in AMZ qUQtes the beginning Qf the C majQr Quartet, the secQnd specifies the criticisms Qf this wQrk and alsO' gQes intO' a similar denunciatiQn Qf the beginning Qf the develQpment sectiQn Qf the first mQvement Qf the D minQr Quartet. The quarrel that fQllQwed, presumably launched by Sarti, has engaged the attentiQn Qf many writers including Fetis, Oubli- cheff, J ahn, and Ernest Newman. It is with misgivings that I, tQQ, jQin the fray, fQr it is apparent that little can Qr shQuld be dQne to' applaud Qr lament the clear victQry Qf time fQr K. 421 and K. 465. I dO' SO', hQwever, simply to' underscQre a curiQus pre- occupatiQn Qf the past and, unfQrtunately, Qf the present tQQ, with minutiae at the expense Qf inclusive meaning. In the case Qf the D minQr Quartet, the Qne Qn which I prQPQse to' dwell exclusively, the Qver-all pathQs and tragic disPQsitiQn Qf the wQrk, Qnly fQur years remQved frQm Don Giovanni, has been IQst in a detailed aCCQunt Qfthe alleged abuses QfPythagQ-' rean apotomes, limmas, and minimos. It is the cQntentiQn Qf this writer that such criticisms shQuld nQt Qf necessity be swept under the rug, but that they take Qn dwindling significance when they 147 are viewed in terms of the infinite adjustability of the sensitive performer, listener (as opposed to the unyielding mathematically calculated edicts of the Herr Gottlob who seems to have provided Sarti with his intonational ammunition), and the structural analyst who is finally in a position to judge detail in relation to broader sense. The analyst need not restate the tragic essence of the work, for Mozart has done it for all time, but he can perhaps suggest the uncanny hearing behind its expressive disposition, without which dark intensity might easily have become bathetic chaos. Perhaps out of such a discussion, if successful, there might emerge a keener sense of the nature of musical criticism. In order to comprehend the broad structure of the develop- ment section, it is necessary to back up to the end of the exposi- tion. When this is done, it becomes apparent that, whatever significance might be accorded the E [, chord of bar 42, the inclusive plan is the connecting of the mediant chord, previously established as F major, and the A minor-major chord of bars 50 (A minor) to 66 (A major) as in Example 1. Ex. 1 Bars: 40 50 66 I- II q-# D- ill V Two prolongations occur in the detailed manifestation of this plan: the technique that leads from the mediant to the dominant harmonies (bars 40-50); the extension whereby the C q of the A chord (bar 50) becomes C# (bar 66) in preparing for the re- turn of the tonic harmony of the recapitulation of bars 70ff. The first of these (bars 40-50) brings to the fore the E [, chord of bar 42. It stands as another token of Mozart's procedure in beginning his development sections-the seeking out of a remote base of operations which seems to break with its immediate past while peering ahead to an uncertain future. Such appar- ently radical departures from an established tonal center, whether they occur in K. 421 or in the G minor (K. 550) or C major (K. 551) symphonies, should be enjoyed for their own value but understood analytically in the light of broader relationships. In the case of K. 421, the passage can be most insightfully heard as a voice-leading or horizontally propelled relationship. The outer voice octave, f-f2, of bar 40 moves to 148 E-e1 of bars 45-46 (e1 of bar 45 is an anticipation of the of bar 46). These structural octaves are circumvented by the introduction of ED, eventually bearing the significance of D#, in bars 42-45 in the' manner of Example 2. Example 2a sketches a generalized background, 2b a more detailed representation of the techniques employed, while 2c graphs the striking connec- tion of the bass's ED and F through a descent of a seventh. Ex. 2 Bars: 40 45 46 8 b7 (#6) 8 I - becomes 42 45 46 47 50 8 10 8 (#6) b. cons .. prep. b. --------------------r It is this passage that reportedly offended Sarti who, accord- ing to the Milan correspondent of AMZ, wrote: "The E following (bar 45) in failing to go to F, creates an arrant apotome monodico J one of the greatest musical faults. In order to make such a detour, must become D#, which might per- haps have happened here if the had not been clearly established by D in the first quarter of the bar and the two preceding bars; hence it is impossible for the listener to believe that he hears D#, thus being spared from a horrible sensation on the entrance of E." It is not necessary to enter into such notational quibbling, for in the end it is the not the scribe, who must protect us from the horrors of the apotome monodico. The important point is that the critic, presumably Sarti, could not have suggested a continuing motion to F if he had perceived, however dimly, the intent of the entire passage. Curiously enough, the critic describes Mozart as one who "has not concerned himself with counter- point" (shades of Padre Martini and Thomas Attwood!). Yet it is only by reference to contrapuntal procedures, now expressed in a highly mature and unique manner, that the structure of the passage can be comprehended. The ED chord, in this sense, stands as consonant preparation for the dissonance of the F- seventh or augmented-sixth chord of bar 45. As indicated in 149 Example 2b, the guiding outer voice relationships are, 8-10-8 -flat 7 (sharp 6)-8. Sarti was correct in construing the ED as, behaviorally, a D#, but hopelessly wrong in reviving memories of. Pythagoras to stir up a notational fracas. Should the embellishing D of bars 43-45 have been written as and the entire section, bars 42-45, notated as a D# major chord moving eventually to the aug- mented sixth chord of bar 45? Mozart, in all probability, would have answered, NO!, but in his colorful Salzburgian patois. For Sarti's continued good health, it is just as well that he seems to have had no opportunity to examine the third movement, Adagio ma non troppo, of the G minor Quintet, K. 516, bars 62-64. Clearly, Pythagoreanisms are not applicable to intensified chromaticism, which must attempt to resolve notational diffi. culties in a staff system that serves only diatonic and the most modest chromatic ventures. The three remaining criticisms addressed to K. 421 are still related to small details and need not detain us in our attempt to reveal an inclusive frame of reference. Briefly then: the minor second of bar 54 is considered wrong because it lasts approxi- mately two seconds rather than a proper one second as taught by the science of harmony, or a proper half bar as allowed in the study of counterpoint. The 16th note of the viola, G#, also in bar 54 is considered very harsh even though it is fleeting. The upper tone of the trill in the second violin, bar 55, forms a false octave with C# in the first violin, thus by extension creating another apotome and another instance of depraved taste. Missing from these criticisms, and also from all subsequent reviews pro and con of these passages, is any attempt to discover a frame of reference. Certainly the harshness of the dissonances represents the brooding expressiveness of the work rather than a model for textbooks in strict counterpoint or harmony. In this sense they are their own justification, if justification is needed. Yet it is only through the procedures of counterpoint and har- mony, properly extended, that a grasp of these challenging bars . becomes possible. Arrival at and extension of the A chord can be most clearly explicated when presented in three sections with a short adden- dum. They are: affirmation of the A minor chord through its applied dominant, with the posting of the perfect fifth, e2 to at, in the upper parts as a significant interval (bars 46-53); the , 150 reaching of a neighboring-passing chord (upper voices, dLg1, against the bass through a change of octave register (bars 53-56); the downward prolonging of the neighboring-passing chord until its arrival at the A major chord (bars 59-66); the addendum in the form of a return to the tonic D chord (bars 66-70). An inclusive sketch with the sections marked, follows in Example 3. Ex. 3 I. 2. 3. Addend. t # ---------D- a.d. V LL- Ad section 1: the connecting of the upper voice relationship, E down to A, is carried out by a stepwise descent, leading first from E to C in bar 50, and then by a filled-in fifth (bar 50-53) initially interrupted by the gently frustrating of bar 51, and then completed in the succeeding bars. The course of action is sketched in Example 4. Ex. 4 Bars: 46 50 53 Ad section 2: The connection of the A minor chord (bar 53) with the neighboring-passing chord (bar 59) is paralleled by a change of register as represented in Example 5. The first illustra- Ex. 5 Bars: 53 56 59 --] .... _ .... b. thus 151 \ " , 0 -..... +- '" '" I I-- .- If) I '" I II I I I I I I • I I I I + I I I I I '" I I '" I I I I I l , I I I I I I :( • I I I I I , I " . • Z \, I ,. ( " • I- • I .... :> '" .s "'"'- :> If) '" a- If) z '" If) '" If) :> \0 m 6 !XI 152 tion (Example 5a) sketches the direct one-register connection; 5b illustrates the techniques that bring about a change of register. Ad section 3 and the addendum: Example 6 outlines the long descent from the high D of bar 59 to the lower D and C# of bars 65-66. The addendum is included. One final summary sketch remains, the aim of which is to re- present the over-all shape of this, to say the least, remarkable development section. Ex. 7 8 8 4 # D- III I!.- Regardless of whether there might be agreement or disagree- ment on the manner or the matter of sketching the structural elements pf the development of the first movement of K. 421, one thing should be clear: in the light of the sweeping persuasive force of the whole, apotomes, limmas, and minimos must be re- interred in their respective pyramids. But perhaps more than this, one must wish, I suppose in vain, that our critics and historians, if not our theorists and analysts, had a greater sense of the relationship of the detail to the pervasive whole. One can be thankful that Paul Henry Lang, to whom this article is respectfully dedicated, although he has never to my knowledge made a graphic analysis, has nevertheless demonstrated with constancy in his musical views an insight and judgment that often follow from or may be demonstrably present in this kind of structural analytic activity. ) 153