The Questionable Authenticity of K. 456

The legitimacy of Mozart’s Thematic Catalogue has long been debated, particularly regarding the inclusion of the Concerto K. 456 for Harpsichord and Orchestra, supposedly composed for the blind harpsichordist Teresa Paradis. The Catalogue indicates that the piece was completed on 30 September, just two days before Paradis’s final performance in Paris on 2 October. This timeline raises serious doubts. It seems highly unlikely that Mozart could have composed the Concerto, prepared all the necessary parts, and sent them to Paris in such a short span. The inclusion of this Concerto in the Catalogue without addressing these logistical challenges suggests a likely error or falsification in the dating.

Inconsistencies Surrounding K. 541

Further inconsistencies arise with the Arietta for Bass, K. 541, titled ‘Un bacio di mano’. The Catalogue lists this work as composed in May, yet it was later included in a Viennese revival of Pasquale Anfossi’s opera that same year. The Catalogue incorrectly attributes the performance to the famous bass Albertarelli, while in reality, it was sung by the tenor-baritone Del Sole. Such a mistake would be improbable if Mozart himself had recorded the information, casting further doubt on the Catalogue’s authenticity.

The Mystery of the Jupiter Symphony (K. 551)

The doubts surrounding Mozart’s Catalogue also extend to the famous Jupiter Symphony (K. 551). Some scholars point to similarities between this Symphony and the Arietta K. 541 to support Mozart’s authorship. However, if K. 541 was wrongly attributed to Mozart, the legitimacy of the Jupiter Symphony’s attribution is also questionable. Moreover, the original manuscript of the Symphony lacks Mozart’s signature or date, leading to speculation that the Catalogue was compiled posthumously to attribute this and other works to Mozart without solid evidence.

Discrepancies in Other Works

Questions also surround the authenticity of the Trio for Harpsichord, Violin, and Cello, K. 564, and the Masonic music, K. 477. Both works are listed in Mozart’s Catalogue, but with suspicious details that suggest someone else may have composed or copied them. The strikingly similar handwriting between the Catalogue and the manuscripts suggests potential forgery. Albert Osborn, a scholar on falsifications, argued that anyone who reproduces handwriting exactly is likely a forger, as it is impossible for a person to replicate the same phrase, musical passage, or signature identically multiple times.

Conclusion: A Catalogue of Errors

Often regarded as a definitive record of Mozart’s works, the Thematic Catalogue is fraught with inaccuracies, questionable attributions, and possible forgeries. These issues indicate that much of what has been traditionally accepted about Mozart’s later works, including some of his most celebrated compositions, may not be as it seems.

The discrepancies found in the Catalogue suggest it was likely created after Mozart’s death, potentially by those with an interest in enhancing his legacy. Given all these contradictions, the authenticity of many works attributed to Mozart must be reconsidered.