Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Symphony No. 41 in C major, K. 551 “Jupiter”

Mozart completed his Symphony No. 41 in C major, known as “Jupiter”, in August 1788. Together with the Symphonies No. 39 in E-flat major and No. 40 in G minor, it was probably intended for a series of three concerts to be held in the hall of the new Casino on Vienna’s Spiegelgasse, founded by Philipp Otto. Earlier that summer, Mozart had retreated to the northwestern suburb of Alsergrund in order to compose “with greater leisure” – with remarkable success: “In the ten days I have lived here, I have done more work than in two months at other lodgings,” he wrote. Indeed, the yield of those weeks was extraordinary: alongside smaller vocal and instrumental works, he produced the Sonata facile in C major, K. 545, the Violin Sonata K. 547, two piano trios, and the three symphonies which have entered music history as the summit of classical symphonic writing.

Much speculation has surrounded the occasion for their composition. It is possible that this trilogy relates to the symphonies Joseph Haydn had written in 1785–86 for the Parisian concert society Le Concert de la Loge Olympique – a series of six works whose first three, Nos. 82 in C major, 83 in G minor, and 84 in E-flat major, correspond exactly to the keys of Mozart’s last three symphonies, though in reverse order. The resemblance extends to instrumentation: like Haydn, Mozart scored for a single flute rather than the customary pair. This might, of course, be coincidence. Yet in 1785, Mozart had dedicated six string quartets to Haydn – works conceived as a conscious artistic response to Haydn’s Op. 33 quartets of 1781 – so it seems entirely possible that he wished once again to pay homage to his admired friend.

This would also help explain the striking diversity of the three symphonies, which differ fundamentally, even in their scoring. Symphony No. 39 in E-flat major, to quote E.T.A. Hoffmann, “leads us into the depths of the spirit world”: for all its radiance, its music is tinged with a demonic element. The popular Symphony No. 40 in G minor stands as a model of architectural balance, while the “Jupiter” Symphony displays a degree of formal and contrapuntal mastery that distils the very essence of instrumental music in Mozart’s time. It was probably for this reason that the work was likened to the ancient king of the gods – though not by Mozart himself. According to a diary entry by the English publisher Vincent Novello, the name originated with the violinist Johann Peter Salomon, famous in London as a concert promoter and as the man who brought Haydn to England: “Mozart’s son said that he regarded the finale of his father’s Symphony in C – which Johann Peter Salomon named “Jupiter” – as the triumph of modern instrumental music, and I agree with him.”

Indeed, in this symphony, the centre of gravity lies not in the opening movement, but in the finale, which culminates in a grand fugue of majestic tone – a model later adopted and perfected by Beethoven. In this unprecedented movement, Mozart combines strictly fugal writing with sonata form, ultimately weaving five themes into a breathtaking contrapuntal climax. Counterpoint here becomes an expression of pure joy, as all the themes merge in resplendent C major. Alongside Salomon’s apt allusion to Jupiter, Mozart himself seems to have provided a musical cross-reference – to the sunlit realm of Sarastro in The Magic Flute. The final bars of the “Jupiter” Symphony correspond almost note for note to the end of the opera’s first act.