Contradictions in Manuscripts and Dates

The first five violin concertos attributed to Mozart—K.207, K.211, K.216, K.218, and K.219—are said to have been written between April and December 1775. Yet, the manuscripts tell a different story. The date for K.207, for example, appears multiple times on the autograph, suggesting “April 13, 1775,” “April 14, 1775,” or even “April 1780.” The numerous revisions of dates raise suspicion about when—and perhaps by whom—these works were truly composed.

Adding to the confusion is the absence of any commissioner for the concertos. These were not works requested for a particular occasion, which was unusual for Mozart, a composer who rarely wrote without a specific purpose. Moreover, the varying technical difficulty and style within the set of five concertos suggest inconsistencies not typical of a singular composer working on a cohesive project.

The Influence of Josef Mysliveček

It is impossible to ignore the role that Josef Mysliveček may have played in these works. Mozart met the Czech composer during his Italian travels, and their friendship endured until around 1778. Mysliveček’s influence on Mozart is particularly evident in K.207, which bears striking resemblances to his earlier compositions. The syncopated opening of K.207 mirrors Mysliveček’s style, and the structure of its movements closely follows the standard forms found in Mysliveček’s violin concertos.

Notably, Wolfgang Plath, a 20th-century Mozart scholar, suggested that K.207 might have been written as early as 1773, based on an analysis of the paper used for the autograph. However, even if we accept this earlier date, the question remains: how much of Mozart’s first violin concerto is truly his?

Borrowing or Imitation?

The similarities between Mozart’s violin concertos and those of Mysliveček extend beyond K.207. In fact, K.211, known as the “Concerto facile,” and K.218 also exhibit clear influences from Mysliveček’s compositions. Several phrases from these concertos reappear in Mozart’s later works, including his serenade Il Re Pastore.

Mozart himself acknowledged this practice of borrowing, as evidenced by a letter in which he humorously mentioned copying the title page of one of Mysliveček’s concertos. But did the borrowing stop at the title page? The resemblances between the two composers’ works suggest that Mozart, still learning the ropes of concerto composition, leaned heavily on his friend’s established mastery.

The Legacy of Collaboration

While some may argue that Mozart’s borrowings were merely a tribute to Mysliveček’s genius, others suggest a more collaborative relationship between the two. As musicologist Giuseppe Rausa theorizes, the two composers may have exchanged favors, with Mysliveček gifting Mozart some of his works in exchange for assistance with commissions in Salzburg.

If so, what does this say about the authorship of works like K.216, often hailed as a masterpiece? The structure and virtuosic demands of K.216 align more closely with Mysliveček’s style than with Mozart’s early works. Could this celebrated concerto have been more an act of appropriation than of creation?