Symphony No.39 in E flat major, K.543

When, for whatever reason, Mozart wrote three symphonies in just over six weeks in the summer of 1788 he could not have known that they would be his last. Only 32 at the time, he was surely looking forward to living at least as long as Haydn, who was then in his late fifties, and he might even have cherished an ambition to surpass him as a composer of symphonies. And yet, if he had known that he would not have another chance in this particular area, he could scarcely have produced a more coherent and more conclusive set of scores as the ultimate demonstration of his mastery.

Apart from the fact that the three works are so varied in character and so well ordered as a sequence - with the uneasy No.40 in G minor so effectively placed between the comparatively relaxed No.39 in E flat and the supremely positive “Jupiter” in C major - the series begins with the most dramatic introduction to any symphony up to that time and ends with the most sublime finale. It is overstating the case, on the other hand, to argue that the slow introduction to No.39 is disproportionate to the rest of the work and that it is balanced only by the finale of the “Jupiter.” While it is true that Mozart raises some worrying issues at the beginning of the Symphony in E flat, it is not true that he ducks them in the rest of the work or fails to offset them before the end. It is a challenging start even so - not so much in the E flat major fanfares, impressive though they are, or in the descending and rising scales, very evident though they are, as in an exposed and uncertainly syncopated violin line, widely fluctuating harmonic tensions, a nagging bass ostinato, sudden dynamic contrasts, and the grinding dissonances that leave violins and woodwind wandering as though lost at the end.

The main Allegro, which begins in such serenity as the harmonies alight as if by chance on E flat major, is not much concerned with the issues raised in the slow introduction. The descending scales reappear in the sustained exercise of dynamic energy between the entry of the two main themes but the second subject is just as happy as the first. There are no serious worries in the short development and, although woodwind instruments recall their earlier loss of direction after a one-bar silence at the end of that section, the recapitulation is even more cheerful than the exposition.

From its innocently tuneful beginning, the Andante is apparently not the place to take up the issues left over from the Adagio introduction to the first movement. So when, after the formal presentation of the main theme in A flat major, wind and strings plunge without warning into an emphatically inimical F minor, the intervention is all the more surprising, just as the nagging bass line, the syncopated rhythms on second violins and violas and the dramatic gestures on first violins are all the more disturbing. Although the second subject, introduced in canon by woodwind, is reassuring, the next minor-key intrusion is even more disconcerting for being so alien to its harmonic surroundings.

The stability secured just before the end of the Andante is confirmed by the unaffectedly vigorous Menuetto and the delightful Trio section featuring the two clarinets which, in the absence of oboes, have already contributed so much to the distinctive colouring of the work. So what Mozart has to do now, having reviewed and settled the concerns raised at the beginning of the symphony, is to devise a last movement to balance the proportions of the first. While the final Allegro might be less impressive than the corresponding movement of the “Jupiter,” as a sustained structure based on just one main theme it is as brilliantly resourceful as any of Haydn’s and just as entertaining in its virtuoso scoring and its recklessly spontaneous harmonies.