The 1749 Venice MS of Scarlatti sonatas is largely a repository of works from his Andalusian period, or those intensely influenced by the folk music of the area. From 1729 to 1733 he was with the Spanish court in Seville. Works in later manuscripts by the court copyist José Alaguero continue to integrate such elements into a polyglot style, but are leavened by the new operas the composer was hearing in Madrid. Here I want to discuss a group of six successive sonatas, four of them of this later type. K 126-31 are found in differing orders in the Venice and Parma archives.
On p. 19 of his landmark 1970 dissertation, Joel Sheveloff wrote in regard to this set, “One wonders whether the scribe [of Venice 1749] could have confounded an intended ordering of pairs”. He apparently overlooked two pairs in Parma:
K 126 C minor Venice 1749 no. 29 / Parma II 26
K 127 A-flat major Venice 1749 no. 30 / Parma II 21
K 128 B-flat minor Venice 1749 no. 31 / Parma II 29
K 129 C minor Venice 1749 no. 32 / Parma I 29
K 130 A-flat major Venice 1749 no. 33 / Parma II 22
K 131 B-flat minor Venice 1749 no. 34 / Parma II 30
The following sonatas also appear in Sheveloff’s ms “Cambridge 13” (Fitzwilliam Museum, pre-1738):
K 127 no. 14
K 128 no. 12
K 130 no. 11
Summarizing, we have:
All six in 1749, shuffled 1A/2A/3A – 1B/2B/3B
2 x C minor: distant from each other in Parma I and II
2 x A-flat: paired in Parma II, not paired in Cambridge 13
2 x B-flat minor: paired in Parma II, 3A single in Cambridge 13
The odd symmetry of the six sonatas in Venice 1749 which gave Sheveloff pause is obvious. The two sonatas in C minor, the ones not paired in Parma, do not make a satisfactory pair, since they are both lively triple-time works. K 126 looks like it is from the Andalusian period, while K 129 is a more standard kind of tarantella, likely from Scarlatti’s years in Portugal. But the other two couples in A-flat and B-flat which are paired in Parma are of the type I referred to in Article 148 on this site as sinfonia manqué: a solid movement in duple time followed by a lively triple-time finale, leaving room for an impromptu slow movement. These four sonatas seem to form an island of pieces from the Madrid middle period in a manuscript which is largely the result of Scarlatti’s study of “the songs of muleteers and the strains of the guitar” (Burney, citing Dr. Laugier).
One of the objects of Venice 1749 was to commence arranging sonatas in pairs, whether they really fit together or not. The later A-flat and B-flat pairs do fit, the earlier C-minor sonatas don’t. The autographs of the six sonatas under discussion could have landed on the copyist’s desk around 1749 in a state of provisional reorganization. When pieces from Venice 1749 were recopied to Parma I and II, the provisional C-minor pair was separated: K 129 went to the tail end of Parma I (undated), K 126 to Parma II (1752). The true pairs K 127-130 and K 128-131 were united in Parma II.
Thus would run conventional Scarlattian wisdom. But what if the undated Parma I, which duplicates Venice I (1752) except for mysteriously calling the pieces by their old name Tocatas, was copied before Venice 1749? That would explain why conservative K 129 is one of the “tocatas” in Parma I, while the (later) K 126 appears in Parma II (1752), alongside other Andalusian sonatas. Venice 1749 would in that case represent a later attempted pairing of one sonata from an earlier Parma I, and the debut of two newer, though shuffled pairs, later restored to their correct order in Parma II.*
Sheveloff is at great pains to reconstruct the chaotic relationship between the earlier Parma and Venice sets. A re-thinking along the lines just suggested might be worthwhile. Has somebody has already attempted it? That is perfectly possible, since I have only scratched the surface of recent Scarlatti scholarship, having departed for other pastures after my 1990 TelDec / Das Alte Werk recording.
***
I think the first 25 pieces in Parma I / Venice I are older teaching repertoire from the Portuguese period, possibly works intended for the publication “in an easier and more varied style”, as intimated in Scarlatti’s preface to the Essercizi.** They are followed by five belonging to his own showy repertoire, making the desired total of 30. Early attempts at pairing are visible in both these parallel sources.
We cannot even be sure what the date 1749 – the year, by the way, when Scarlatti made his will – actually signifies. It could be have been the end of copying 41 sonatas, or the beginning of a labor that lasted until 1752, the date of Venice I.
Expanded keys like A-flat major and B-flat minor were part of Scarlatti’s new focus on harpsichord composition after being relieved of duties involving vocal music. They have implications for tuning practice. Four sharps or flats have only appeared up to this point in two of the Essercizi (K 20, K 28), and K 46 from Venice 1742, all in E major. Three more E major sonatas (K 134-6) follow our group of six – a kind of postscript of orphaned Andalusian sonatas with no successful pairings. Any keyboard player will tell you that A-flat and B-flat minor are harder to play than E major, and hence represent further stages in practical evolution. Unequal tunings of the early 18th century tended to favor sharps over flats, but they would lend a nice edge these pieces in E which fits their flamenco Affekt.
February 21, 2025
* To my untrained eye, the simple “ Libro 1º ” on folio 1r of Parma I looks like a later addition, when compared to the archaic “Libro” in the Yndice at the end of the volume. Beginning with Parma II, the cover pages are more elaborate, and the table of contents is marked Tabla. Add the change from Tocatas to Sonatas, and there might seem to be considerable distance in time between Parma I and II.
** The categorical statement by Burney that there was a second print by Scarlatti, dedicated to María Bárbara “when she was still Princess of Asturias” (i.e., before July 1746) – sidestepped, as far as I know, by the Kommentariat – haunts me.
|