MOZART AND THE PRACTICE OF SACRED MUSIC, 1781-91 a ...

the rhythm of the Cum sanctis. 172 The argument goes that, since the Introit and Kyrie were
the only two movements allegedly complete on 10 December 1791, and since this bifolium
matches that content to some degree and is in the hand of someone who obviously had a
great deal to do with the piece, this manuscript represents some kind of performing material
for the obsequies. Süssmayr’s note at the base of f. 1v – “NB setz’ es in V[iolin].
S[c]hl[üssel]:” – has been taken as an instruction to a copyist preparing instrumental parts. 173
The second manuscript consists of an abandoned and cancelled organ part for the
Dies Irae, covering only the first page of a bifolium; see Figure 5.18. 174 This is not in the
hand of Süssmayr, but is rather the work of an evidently inexperienced musician, perhaps a
student of the composer, who could not even decide on which staff the music should be
notated. The presence of two staves may imply that the page was envisaged as teaching
material, with the blank staff intended for a continuo realisation. Süssmayr himself used the
remaining three pages of this bifolium to notate an undated song, Le petit menage SmWV
344.
Although the staff ruling on these manuscripts differs, they share the same
watermarks. The design, which is unknown from any manuscript written by Mozart, consists
of an arm holding a sword over the letter W, countered by a single man-in-the-moon. 175 The
form is quite rare, but does not appear in datable Viennese manuscripts before the late
1790s. Paper with this design was used in a score of Der Schauspieldirektor, copied no earlier
172 The manuscript opens at b. 21 of the Introit, and lacks a heading, time signature and tempo. This may
suggest that the beginning of the manuscript has gone missing, but it is difficult to see why the first 20 bars
would occupy an entire bifolium on their own.
173 Kecskemeti, “Beiträge zur Geschichte von Mozarts Requiem,” 151.
174 GB-Lbl, Add. 32181, f. 3-4.
175 For illustrations, see Kecskemeti, “Beiträge zur Geschichte von Mozarts Requiem,” 148-9. Duda provides a
slightly more accurate tracing in DudaSmWV, 432. Duda’s assumption that this manuscript can be dated 1791
purely on the basis of a suggested connection with the obsequies leads to evident difficulties of chronology,
since all other manuscripts with this watermark come from a later period; see DudaSmWV, 34, 212, 216-17,
379-80.
400