Klarinet Archive - Posting 000078.txt from 2006/06
From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: RE: [kl] K361 again - pp. 53 & 54
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:02:20 -0400
Adding something which might relate to some subscribers' experience - this way
of using paper is the explanation of why, by and large, you only need a
paperknife for the *top* edges of book pages.
Roger S.
In message <FJEKIMDEOJFJPBKBMDOPCEKJEFAA.dnleeson@-----.net>
klarinet@-----.org writes:
> Laurence Beckhardt asks about two issues related to the
> physicality of the manuscript of K. 361. First he inquires about
> "a dozen drops of liquid" (meaning ink) on both pages,
> specifically surfaces 53 and 54.
>
> Those ink drops are easy to explain. Quill pens were notoriously
> unstable and they could fling ink with little effort. A quill pen
> with too much ink on the tip could make droplets on the page with
> no effort at all. I come from a time when children learned to
> write with a straight pen. It had a metal nib, which was inserted
> in to a wooden holder. They were a bitch to use and kids my age
> without ink blotches on their hands were shown to be lazy
> students. In fact, this explanation is made more difficult by the
> fact that the majority of people reading it never used a straight
> pen and don't know that, like quill pens, they flung ink in all
> directions.
>
> All of those ink spots were originally ink drops of varying
> sizes. Had they been allowed to dry by leaving the music sheets
> open at that point, they would appear as dried ink blotches
> today. But they were not allowed to dry. Instead, Mozart
> himself blotted each of the larger drops with blotting paper,
> making circles of dried ink of varying width with some about 1/4
> inch wide. (Do you know what I mean by blotting paper, or
> blotters?) And he left the pages open at that point for the
> blotted but still wet ink to dry. That is easily discerned by
> the fact that if the pages were closed while the ink was still
> wet, those blotches would have been placed in mirror image form
> on each of the two facing pages. That did not happen, and the
> only conclusion that one can reach from the fact that it did not
> happen, is that the pages were allowed to dry before being put
> together.
>
> Now take a look at pages 59 and 60. On the bottom of page 59 by
> the final measure, Mozart wrote a measure count of "63." AND THEN
> WHILE THE INK WAS WET, HE CLOSED THE PAGES. Notice how the "63"
> has been placed on page 60 in reverse image form in precisely the
> same mirror location as the "63" on page 59. I think that Mozart
> put the "63" on the bottom of page 59, AFTER page 60 and the
> verso on page 61 were written and then allowed to dry, because
> nothing else got transferred from p. 59 to p. 60 when the leaves
> were put together.
>
> Beckhardt's question, as well as his inquiry about blank pages,
> are both related to the matter of how Mozart bought paper. What
> was the physical form that he bought?
>
> A book of 8 surfaces constituted the minimum purchase quantity.
> Here is a little image of what that folded up book look like:
> "<<". This form of two < symbols inside of one another is called
> a bifolium or a sheet. That is how Mozart bought it. "I'll need 5
> bifolia today please," is what he would have said to a clerk at
> the paper store.
>
> I ask you to make a bifolium yoursef: take a full, uncut sheet of
> newspaper and put it out on the table. It should be about 36"
> wide and 24" high. That is the way mold made paper looked like
> when it came out of the mold in which it was made.
>
> Now fold that paper in half TOP TO BOTTOM. You will have
> something that is 36" wide and 12" high.
>
> With a scissors, cut off 1/4 inch at the top (or folded part) of
> the paper. That gives you two separated and individual pieces of
> paper, each 36" long and 11-3/4" high (because you cut off 1/4"
> at the fold -- the piece you cut off was 1/2" high, or 1/4" from
> each of the two pieces).
>
> Now fold those two pieces of paper together in half, LEFT TO
> RIGHT. You will have produced a bifolium of 8 surfaces,
> consisting of an inner folium of 4 surfaces and an outer folium
> of 4 surfaces. If you number the surfaces 1 through 8, surfaces
> 1, 2, 7, and 8 will be on the outer folium, and surface 3, 4, 5,
> and 6 will be on the inner folium.
>
> That's is how Mozart bought paper. So, no more talk of page
> numbers. We need to talk about the bifolium and which surface
> within the bifolium. And that leads me directly to Beckhardt's
> question about blank pages. There are a total of 11 bifolia, 2
> folia, and one leaf that make up the manuscript of K. 361. There
> is a picture of the distribution on p. 89 of the the 1976/77
> Mozart Jahrbuch.
>
> They are arranged the following way:
>
> Movement 1 of K. 361 consists of exactly three bofolia (of 8
> surfaces each) for a total of 24 surfaces.
>
> Movement 2 is the fourth full bifolium and the first surface of
> the fifth.
>
> Movement 3 begins on the second surface of the fifth bifolium,
> uses the next 7 surfaces of it, and then adds a 4-surfaced
> folium, the last surface of which is blank. (Remember: bifolium =
> 8 surfaces; folium = 4 surfaces; << is a bifolium; < is a folium.
> OK? So far 5 bifolia have been used up and 1 folium, the last
> surface of which is blank.)
>
> Movement 4 uses the entire 6th bifolium.
>
> Movement 5 uses the entire 7th bifolium plus one 2-sided leaf ON
> WHICH THE CODA IS WRITTEN.
>
> Movement 6 uses 2 entire bifolia (the 8-th and 9th) plus the
> first 4 surfaces of the next (or 10th) bifolium, leaving the last
> four surfaces blank.
>
> Movement 7 uses an entire bifolium (the 11th) plus one folium
> (the 2nd one used in the entire composition) the last surface of
> which is blank.
>
> What Beckhardt wants to know is why are there four consecutive
> surfaces blank? And the most probable reason is that he sent out
> movements 1-6 to be copied out into parts as he composed the 7th
> movement. The other two blank surfaces are not really an issue.
> He tried to use paper economically by going from one bifolium to
> another, even across movements of the composition. But he tried,
> where possible, to start each movement on a fresh bifolium (or
> folium).
>
> Paper was expensive and he did not like to waste it.
>
> Now it took longer to explain this situation than for Beckhardt
> to ask his question. If you don't read this response carefully
> enough (including making your own bifolium from a sheet of
> newspaper), the sublties of this answer will be not clear.
>
> Dan Leeson
> DNLeeson@-----.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurence Beckhardt [mailto:lbeckhardt@-----.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:06 AM
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: [kl] K361 again - pp. 53 & 54
>
>
> I'm looking at pages 53 and 54 of the Library of
> Congress Facsimile of the "Gran Partita, K.361." The
> famous measure 111 with its almost certainly ambiguous
> and smudged prima volta marking appears on p. 54.
>
> I notice that there are over a dozen drops of liquid
> on these two pages, and similar drops do not appear
> anywhere else in the autograph, as far as I can tell.
>
> Does anyone know what caused these drops? Are they
> ink? Are they water? Are they tears? Saliva? And
> why here and not anywhere else?
>
> And one more: why are there so many blank pages (4)
> before the Finale? Is it possible that Mozart planned
> another variation, or perhaps another movement
> altogether?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc.
> http://www.woodwind.org
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
>
>
--
The truth that survives is the lie that is pleasantest
to believe.
--------- H.L. Mencken
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
