changes that Mozart himself was induced to make in it, can come from a care-
ful study and comparison of the many Abschriften.” These are the copyists’
full scores, in which changes by Mozart (and others?) were made as needed
after the autograph was done. Tyson describes 13 of them.- Levarie, Siegmund. Mozart’s “Le nozze di Figaro”: A Critical Analysis.
Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1952. 268p. Reprint, New York: Da Capo, - ISBN 0-306-70897-3. MT100 .M78 L4.
The starting point for technical studies of Figaro,this is an outstanding exam-
ple of structural analysis. Tonal design is central—the opera is a binary struc-
ture in D major—but all dramatic and musical elements are brought into a
convincing unity. Nevertheless, the author concludes that “a complete analysis
is neither possible nor desirable. Even if all the virtues could be verbalized,
their finite sum would ever fall short of the totality of the work.” - Heartz, Daniel. “Constructing Le nozze di Figaro.” In Mozart’s Operas
(#1276), 77–98.
Genesis, drawn largely from Da Ponte’s memoirs. As they wrote, both com-
poser and librettist had to bear in mind the extant competition, Paisiello’s pop-
ular Il barbiere di Siviglia (which had the same characters and even a love aria
by Rosina, comparable to “Porgi amor”). Comparisons are made in detail,
including tonal schemes. Heartz presents a tonal plan for Figarothat is much
like Levarie’s (who is not mentioned) but without the macrostructural descrip-
tion. - Abbate, Carolyn, and Roger Parker. “Dismembering Mozart.” COJ2 (1990):
187–195.
A study of the opening duettino, usually regarded as a perfect example of
words, action, and music in higher unity. But the words resolve the tension
first, before the tonal resolution (D to G) occurs. Other examples are given of
closure in music but not in text and vice versa. The authors question whether
the classical analysis, which assumes a correspondence between words and
music, is appropriate. (However, it may be noted that musical resolution is not
limited to tonal cadence; indeed, Levarie’s explication of this scene relies more
on changes in melodic character.) - Moberly, Robert, and Christopher Raeburn. “Mozart’s Figaro: The Plan of
Act III.” M&L46 (1965): 134–136.
Concerns the question of number ordering. “Dove sono” was originally
intended to come between the count’s aria and the sextet; so the order was
number 17–19a–19b (“Dove sono”)-18-20. But there was one singer for two
roles, Bartolo and Antonio, and time was needed for a costume change, so the
shift in order was made. The result is not satisfactory, since it does not leave
time enough for the offstage trial during the count’s aria. Other plot distur-
bances are cited. The same ideas are taken up in #1287.
254 Opera