Did Leipzig really uncover a new autograph of Mozart? Not quite. What they found was a copy, and even its dating is questionable. The discussions I’ve come across seem more like speculation, but repeating them doesn’t make them true.

At first glance, the title page might make you think it’s by Mozart, but the piece was actually written by an anonymous copyist about twenty years later—assuming that theory is even accurate. Looking at the title page, the supposed author is a certain “Wofgang” (without the L!).

How can we trust an attribution when the name itself is misspelled? For all we know, the music could have been written by his sister, his aunt, or perhaps even a close friend of Leopold. Essentially, anyone.

Without an autograph, a date, a place, or even the correct name, it was almost predictable that this would be quickly absorbed into the Köchel catalogue of Mozart’s works as another “authentic” piece. It’s fascinating to see how eagerly such attributions are made, especially for a figure as iconic as Mozart.

There’s never this kind of urgency when a work, once attributed to Mozart, turns out to have been written by someone else. In those cases, the opposite happens. Once a piece enters the catalogue, it rarely gets removed, even when the evidence clearly shows it’s a forgery.