Sources and chronology

Dossier index · consulted 16 September 2026

Dates below describe different kinds of evidence. A catalogue date is not a composition interval; a lending endorsement is not the date of the request; a release date is not a recording session. Square brackets in a scholarly transcript signal editorial supplementation and must not be silently converted into autograph wording.

Source register

D01 — June appeal, BD 1076

Wolfgang Amadé Mozart to Johann Michael Puchberg, Vienna, editorially dated June 1788. Digital Mozart Edition (DME), document record, Bauer/Deutsch IV, p. 65; English transcript and notes, p. 1, opening paragraph, endorsement and notes 1–2.

The letter requests 100 florins and acknowledges eight ducats already owed. The endorsement records 100 florins sent. DME reports the original’s whereabouts as unknown and its text transmitted through Gustav Nottebohm, Mozartiana (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 55–56. This is access to an edited historical text, not inspection of a surviving autograph. It establishes an appeal and prior indebtedness, not an exact day or the beginning of all financial difficulty.

D02 — Appeal before 17 June, BD 1077

Mozart to Puchberg, Vienna, editorially dated before 17 June 1788. DME record; English transcript, p. 1, request and explanation; p. 2, Puchberg’s endorsement.

Mozart asks for substantial longer-term support and explains the difficulty of meeting payments from irregular receipts. Puchberg’s note records 200 florins sent on 17 June. That note supplies the dated transaction; it does not justify dating Mozart’s letter itself exactly 17 June. The appeal also says that relief from worry would improve his ability to work. This is testimony made to a potential lender, with persuasive purposes as well as biographical content.

D03 — Letter of 27 June, BD 1079

Mozart to Puchberg, Vienna, 27 June 1788. DME record, Bauer/Deutsch IV, p. 69; English transcript, p. 1, final substantive paragraph and note 5.

Mozart reports more work in ten days at the new lodgings than in two months at the previous accommodation, while saying persistent worries impede still better progress. Treat this as his reported experience, not measured output or a clinical diagnosis. Note 5 proposes a possible composition interval for nearby catalogue entries; its conditional wording is significant.

Transmission discrepancy: the current record names the Bibliotheca Mozartiana and describes a one-leaf document, while the English PDF’s note 1 reports an unknown original and a copy/printed transmission. Resolve the difference against the German edition and current collection record before describing which physical witness was consulted. Neither source was silently promoted to an autograph inspection here.

K01–K04 — Current Köchel work records

International Mozarteum Foundation, online Köchel catalogue, individual “Dating,” “Instrumentation” and “Sources” sections:

ID	Record	Relevant fields inspected
K01	K. 543, Symphony in E flat	Vienna, 26 June 1788; orchestral scoring; autograph and first-print descriptions
K02	K. 545, Sonata in C for keyboard	Vienna, 26 June 1788; complete sonata first print, Vienna, 1805
K03	K. 546, Adagio and Fugue in C minor	Vienna, 26 June 1788; string scoring; Hoffmeister first print, 1788
K04	K. 426, Fugue in C minor for two keyboards	29 December 1783 date and autograph-title transcription; Hoffmeister print, 1788

These are modern scholarly catalogue records. Their headings and linked sources should not be conflated: an “Autograph” source row does not itself establish that the manuscript is currently available. In particular, see E04 on K. 545’s missing autograph. Original thematic-catalogue handwriting was not examined in this pass.

E01–E03 — Scores directly inspected

All page numbers are printed NMA pages, not browser image indices. Editorial markings belong to the identified edition. Scores are linked, not republished as repository assets.

ID	Edition	Pages visually inspected and used
E01	Mozart, Sinfonien, NMA IV/11/9, ed. H. C. Robbins Landon (Bärenreiter, 1957), K. 543	p. 1, movement I, bars 1–6
E02	Mozart, Klaviersonaten, NMA IX/25/2, eds. Wolfgang Plath and Wolfgang Rehm (Bärenreiter, 1986), K. 545	pp. 122, 124–128; focused locators in the score notes
E03	Mozart, Sinfonien, NMA IV/11/10, ed. Wolfgang Plath (Bärenreiter, 1978), K. 546	pp. 47–49, Adagio and opening of fugue

NMA preface PDF retrieval was attempted, but the returned rendering was unsuitable for substantive reading. Those prefaces and complete critical reports are not claimed as consulted evidence. E04–E05 supply the specific editorial history used here.

E04 — K. 545 editorial preface

Ernst Herttrich, preface to Henle HN 164 (Berlin, spring 2012), PDF, printed pp. III–IV, English section. Reports the catalogue designation for beginners, the lost autograph, the 1805 first edition, and an altered/transposed Rondo printed in 1799. Also corroborates Theresia’s 29 June death date. Its inference about a teacher supplying dynamics and its celebration of creative energy are editorial interpretations, not additional contemporary testimony.

E05 — Earlier fugue and later adaptation

Wolf-Dieter Seiffert, preface to Henle HN 471 (Munich, spring 1992), PDF, printed pp. IV–V, English section. Describes the 1788 string version with the added Adagio. Notes an alteration of K. 426’s autograph year from 1782 to 1783, leaving exact genesis open. Preserve the distinction between the final written date and the beginning of composition. The preface’s proposed connection between contrapuntal publication and Mozart’s court appointment is an argument; this dossier does not adopt it as a demonstrated motive.

D04 — Theresia’s death record, mediated through archival research

Michael Lorenz, “Wolfgang von Mozart”, 9 June 2013, updated 26 April 2025, section “The sources concerning Theresia Mozart’s death and burial in 1788.” Reproduces and transcribes the municipal record: A-Wsa, Totenbeschreibamt 90, M, fol. 30r. His discussion gives death on 29 June 1788, with burial the following day.

The English parish-record translation inconsistently inserts August, although his section identifies June. Record the inconsistency; use the municipal-record discussion with E04’s corroboration for the present chronology. Direct comparison with the full archival month heading remains open. This is consultation of published archival research, not a visit to the archive or independent authentication of its images. No illness trajectory or retrospective medical diagnosis is inferred.

Chronology with date types

Date	Type and precision	Event or record	Source	Consequence for the argument
29 December 1783	Final date reported from autograph; genesis qualified	K. 426 two-keyboard fugue	K04, E05	K. 546 includes material with an earlier history.
June 1788	Editorial month only	BD 1076 request and existing debt	D01	An exact first-appeal day is not established.
Before 17 June 1788	Editorial upper bound	BD 1077 longer-term loan appeal	D02	Request precedes the dated remittance note.
17 June 1788	Dated lender endorsement	200 florins recorded as sent	D02	Attach this day to the payment record.
26 June 1788	Shared catalogue dating; not a start/end interval	K. 543, K. 545 and K. 546; E03 specifically dates the Adagio	K01–K03, E02–E04	Compare registered works without asserting simultaneous invention.
27 June 1788	Date in transmitted letter text	Work, repayment difficulty and worry reported	D03	First-person testimony complicates a claim that pressure improves creativity.
29 June 1788	Historical event date; cross-check noted	Theresia dies	D04, E04	The catalogue cluster precedes the death by three days.
1788	Publication year	Hoffmeister’s string Fugue publication	K03, E05	Unlike K. 545’s complete edition, this has a lifetime print history. No earnings amount follows.
1794 / 1797	Distinct publication formats	K. 543 piano reduction / orchestral parts	K01, Sources	“First published” requires a format: reduction by Johann Wenzel in 1794; André orchestral parts in 1797.
1799 / 1805	Derivative movement / complete work	Altered K. 545 Rondo in F / complete C-major sonata	E04, K02	“Nothing from K. 545 printed before 1805” would be too strong.

The June-only entry is not placed before every precisely dated June event as a fact. No premiere date, commission, pupil identity, payment for these works or full composition interval is established by this dossier.

Remaining source work

Inspect and cite the original thematic-catalogue leaf, distinguishing date headings from work descriptions, especially the Adagio entry.
Resolve D03’s physical-witness discrepancy and D04’s translation/month discrepancy; preserve a correction note rather than silently replacing citations.
Consult the relevant NMA critical reports before making source-sensitive claims about articulation, dynamics or string-ensemble size.
Verify release-specific booklets and complete the listening worksheet.
For the wider monograph, separately establish authorship, editions and claim locators. K. 595, court/patronage questions and the whole 1787–1791 chronology remain outside this pilot.