When the management of the Regio Ducal Teatro in Milan (the forerunner of the Scala) asked Mozart to compose the first of two operas planned, in accordance with tradition, for the Carnival season of 1772/73, it was a very prestigious commission for the barely 15-year-old composer.
The contract of 4th March 1771 laid down the customary conditions of employment. Mozart was to enjoy a furnished apartment for the duration of his stay in Milan and to receive for his artistic efforts ("virtuose fatiche") which, in addition to composition, were to include rehearsals and the over all musical direction, an honorarium which, though reasonable, was certainly not over generous. In return he was required to deliver the recitatives for the opera by early October 1772 and to present himself in Milan by the beginning of November, in order to set the arias to music (in consultation with the singers) and to assist with the rehearsals. Since the premiere was fixed for 26th December 1772, a bare three months were available for all the preparations including the actual composition. Indeed, there was even less time because Mozart, on whom the main burden fell, did not arrive in Milan with his father Leopold until 4th November, and the principal singers still later, towards the end of November or the beginning of December. Most of the main numbers were not even ready until December, by which time the rehearsals had already begun. Finally, at the beginning of December the title role had to be recast, because the tenor who had been engaged fell ill. Obviously Mozart was very pressed for time; one can only marvel at the professionalism and presence of mind of everyone involved in working at such speed - and this was by no means a unique occasion. A postscript to a letter of Mozart’s of 5th December speaks for itself in its customary refreshing spontaneity: "Now I have got 14 numbers to write [14 (actually 12) numbers out of a total of 23], and then I am finished, although one can count the Trio (No. 18) and the Duet (No. 7) as 4 numbers. It is impossible for me to write much, because I don’t know what to say and secondly I don't know what I am writing, for I cannot think about anything except my opera and am in danger of writing a whole aria to you instead of words."
But these conditions were quite normal in the operatic culture of that time. There was no repertoire to fall back on. In renowned theatres, at least, the public always demanded to see and hear something new. Even reasonably successful operas rarely survived beyond their first production. The only enduring elements in this hectic situation were the opera texts (e.g. Metastasio’s dramas) which were constantly being reset to music, and the conventions which governed the music, the staging and the highly complex interplay of everyone involved in an operatic production. Although the music got the lion’s share in terms of effort, it was valued (perhaps to an exaggerated degree, viewed from our modern standpoint) primarily as a component in the performance as a whole, as part of the production. In this respect it was less the quality of the composition which was decisive for success than the reputation and performance of the singers. Under these conditions it was not economically practicable to rehearse a new opera for longer than a few weeks. Composers and singers who wanted to stay in business and to achieve standing and reputation had to adapt themselves to these conditions. Bearing this in mind one can only be astonished at the standard of text, music and performance which was usually achieved, in spite of the truly murderous state of affairs in the world of opera.
Mozart was able to meet these demands, although at the time he set out to compose "Lucio Silla" he was hardly regarded by his contemporaries as an experienced operatic composer. But he certainly was in no way inferior in terms of reliable, complete and easy mastery of the craft to experienced and famous colleagues such as G. Paisiello, J. C. Bach, G. Galuppi or N. Jommelli. As has already been pointed out, the opera commission (the “scrittura") for Milan was all the more prestigious as Mozart was certainly not an operatic composer with an European reputation, while the Regio Ducal Teatro was at that time one of the leading opera houses.
But Mozart was no longer an unknown quantity in Milan. After all, his first opera for Milan, “Mitridate" (for the Carnival season of 1770/71), was quite successful. Shortly afterwards he was accorded the “immortal honour” (his father’s words) by the Viennese Court of composing a “serenata teatrale" for the marriage of Archduke Ferdinand to Princess Maria Ricciarda Beatrice d’Este in October 1771. This was “Ascanio in Alba", with a text by Giuseppe Parini (1729-1799), one of the leading Italian poets of the 18th century. For some time after that the Archduke (the Imperial Viceroy in Lombardy) seems to have been well disposed toward Mozart. His good connections in noble and politically influential circles may have assisted him in obtaining his latest commission, although they would not have been the decisive factor in Mozart’s career as an operatic composer, which had begun promisingly, if not brilliantly, in the birthplace of opera. He could at that time have had no idea that “Lucio Silla" would be his last operatic commission for Italy. The end of Mozart’s Italian operatic career is really rather a mystery, particularly when one considers how many “oltramontani" before and after him were successful in the field of opera in Italy and gained an European reputation (notably Handel, J. A. Hasse and J. C. Bach), and that “Lucio Silla" was certainly no failure.

The conditions which Mozart encountered in the Regio Ducal Teatro in Milan could hardly have been more favourable. He had at his disposal an excellent orchestra of some sixty musicians, a large complement for those days, which was widely renowned for the precision of its ensemble playing. First-class singers, the castrato Venanzio Rauzzini (1746-1810) and the soprano Anna de Amicis Buonsolazzi (ca. 1733-1816) had been engaged for the two principal roles, that of the “primo uomo" (first castrato) Cecilio and the “prima donna", the leading female role of Giunia. incidentally, Mozart was on good terms, almost amounting to friendship, with both of them. During the time that Silla was being performed he wrote the motet “Exsultate, jubilate" K. 165 (158a) for Rauzzini. The tenor originally engaged for the title role, Arcangelo Cortini, enjoyed a considerable reputation. But he fell ill and had to be replaced in great haste by Bassano Morgnoni from Lodi, a singer whose field of activity had been in church and who was entirely lacking in stage experience. Leopold, in expressing his concern, wrote on 28th November 1772 that the tenor must be “not only a good singer, but an exceptionally good actor and have an impressive personality [...], in order to give a notable performance as Lucio Siila.” Morgnoni may have been a good singer, but he certainly was not a good actor. This miscasting may have had a detrimental effect on the opera, because Mozart had to reduce Silla’s arias from the four originally planned to two, while the “supporting” couple, Celia and Clnna (the latter sung by a woman instead of a second castrato) were given four and three Arias respectively. One of the consequences was that the musical weight of the opera was brought into conflict with its main theme, namely Silla’s renunciation of power in the cause of humane virtue. Musically the central character was now far less important than the plot implied, thereby highlighting the contradiction present in this and other similar operas in which the eponymous character who enjoys the highest position and is responsible for setting in motion the conflicts and action of the plot, is only a minor character in terms of the music.
Such musical and dramatic defects were probably not regarded as being of great importance in those days. The impressive sets designed by the brothers Fabrizio, Bernardino and Giovanni Antonio Galliari, with their European reputation, would have seen to that. (incidentally their designs are still extant.)
Mozart's “Lucio Silla" is an opera seria, a “serious” or, more accurately, heroic opera, and therefore belongs to a genre which had been established since the 1720s as the principal type of music drama under the influence of the poet Pietro Metastasio (1698-1782) and his countless plays, which had been repeatedly set to music and had revived the international reputation of Italian music. Its usual designation, which also reflected its comprehensive pretensions, was “dramma per musica". (The more colloquial term opera seria only came into use after about 1750, when musical comedy began to compete with “dramma per musica" and a general term was needed to distinguish it from “dramma giocoso [per musica]" on the one hand and “opera buffa" on the other. It is therefore incorrect to set off the supposedly conventional “opera seria” against the supposedly unconventional “dramma per musica".) When Mozart, a mere 16-year-old, composed “Lucio Silla", the heroic opera was already a long established, somewhat old-fashioned genre, and musically was entering its last phase. The lively, cheerful and witty musical comedy had long since begun to under-mine the position of “dramma per musica", and it was no coincidence that the most important Italian composers of Mozart’s generation made their names in “opera buffa". Nevertheless in 1770 the "seria" was by no means an anachronism and still represented the musical theatre of court ceremonial, even though, in its traditional form, it was no longer unchallenged; it disseminated courtly polish and the allegorical heroic world of a glorified antiquity even in those places which lacked a centre of courtly influence, and was the embodiment of the age of aristocracy. Metastasio, the “poeta Cesareo", the Imperial Court Poet in Vienna, still enjoyed tremendous authority.
The commissioning theatre was normally responsible for the choice of subject, libretto and librettist and also for the engagement of the singers, and in the case of the Regio Ducal Teatro this meant the impresario. No one knows why the choice fell on the subject of Lucio Silla, which is not exactly favourable towards rulers. Certainly Mozart was not a party to the decision. He had to set to music the libretto with which he was provided. Nor was there any particular co-operation with the librettist, on this occasion the relatively inexperienced Giovanni de Gamerra (1743-1803), who took up a literary career after serving as an officer in the Austrian army and was employed from 1771 to 1775 as a dramatist at the Regio Ducal Teatro. Although he had only written a single libretto for a “dramma per musica” ("Armida", Milan 1771), in doing so he had developed some ideas, not precisely for the “reform” of the seria, but certainly under the influence of the varied approaches and trends towards reform, which were at that time in the air. (These were certainly not on the lines of Gluck’s “Reform", which actually achieved as little “reforming” of the seria as did the efforts of other composers such T. Traetta und N. Jommelli.) Gamerra was in favour of greater involvement of choruses, ballets and stage magic and of the meraviglioso (the miraculous), had an inclination to conjure up a ghostly, sombre atmosphere and liked situations involving death and tombs. (He was reputed to have a personal taste for necrophilia.) He also favoured music which gave more opportunities for chiaroscuro (light and dark). Gamerra, whom contemporaries dubbed the poeta lagrimoso as the author of middle-class weepies ("pièces larmoyantes"), followed some of his precepts in the libretto of Lucio Silla. One instance is the darkened stage in the burial vault, treated as the site of a heroic cult of the dead in Act I (“Luogo sepolcrale molto oscuio co' monumenti degli eroi di Roma"), in which the chorus also plays an unusually important role. There were also frequent invocations of the dead and the spirits, and tearful, sentimental situations, the equally unusual scene for chorus and soloists at (hc end, and the occasional choice of strange metres which sometimes change in the course of a vocal number. Otherwise Gamerra adhered to the tradition of “dramma per musica” after the manner of Metastasio, which allowed rather more scope for manoeuvre than is generally thought. Gamerra had actually presented his drama for approval to Metastasio - still the highest authority where heroic opera was concerned - and had made great play with his approbation in the prologue to the libretto. (We know from Leopold Mozart’s letters that Metastasio made some changes, but unfortunately these can no longer be identified.) In fact tradition was largely observed, both with regard to the subject matter and its treatment.
The basis of the opera is a glorified episode from Roman history, that is to say, a historical subject which, as is always the case in opera seria, serves to present in allegorical form common human behaviour and conflicts. A typical element is the interweaving of affairs of state (in this case a conspiracy to overthrow the dictator) with an amorous conflict, which provides the actual plot and is entirely fictional. It is concerned with the presentation in symbolic form of the upholding of exalted virtues of constancy, fidelity, readiness for sacrifice and death for the sake of love (on the part of Cecilio and Giunia) and self-mastery (on the part of Lucio Silla). Silla, who is a tyrant and an example of the unlawful exercise of power, conquers himself and his impure passion for Giunia; he is “vincitor di se stesso” (victor over himself), according to the formula which is repeated countless times in various ways in heroic opera. It is remarkable, albeit a matter of chance, that the seria dramas which Mozart set to music, from “Mitridate" (1770) to "La clemenza di Tito" (1791), all boil down to a ruler`s exemplary exercise of will-power. The “dramma per musica" always fulfilled a didactic role; it was, to quote Schiller, "a moral institution", intended to speak with the true language of the heart (the emotions) when in conflict with political power groupihgs and intrigues, to remind the mighty of their shortcomings and to hold up to them the mirror of virtue. It was also necessary, therefore, to have a “lieto fine" (happy ending) to match the function of the music in the promotion of harmony. This was the culmination of the symbolic, totally unrealistic, artificial and ceremonially stylised theatre which the seria represented and which, after the experiences of the 19th century, it was difficult to appreciate fully.
The very fact that a ruler like Silla should not only stand aside for the lovers, but also voluntarily give up power and restore freedom and the republican constitution, was probably only tolerable in the age of absolutism because Gamerra was able to refer to historical facts and because Lucio Silla as a dictator did not exercise legitimate authority.
Gamerra adhered strictly to the hierarchical dramatis personae of heroic opera, consisting of 6 or 7 characters: the heroic pair of lovers, the prima donna (Giunia) and the primo uomo (Cecilio) are opposed by the figure of authority (primo tenore). A second couple of less importance are Celia (seconda donna) and Lucio Cinna (secondo uomo, in Milan a travesty part), close friends of the more senior couple, but with more complicated relationships to the leading figures and to one another. The character of the lowest standing (ultima parte or secondo tenore) is represented by Silla’s confidant Aufidio, whose part is deleted in this recording. The strongly stereotyped basic construction of the seria which, after all, was still the theatre for ceremonial occasions, assumed an audience sufficiently familiar with the rules governing the genre to be able to appreciate any variation in the relations between the characters, sind ideally also the nuances in the stylised diction. Also probability was accorded loss importance, compared with symbolism, than was the case in later opera. This is not the least important of the obstacles in the way of a proper understanding at the present time of the “dramma per musica". Even more difficult, perhaps, is a comprelionsion of the heroic ideal which was in those days associated with moral teaching rlorived from subjects drawn from antiquity and with the almost invariably high and “unnatural” tessitura of the castrati.

How then did Mozart react to this genre and to Gamerra’s drama in particular? Initially just like any other opera composer of his time, that is to say he tried, without any aspiration towards reform, which incidentally never concerned him even in later years, to comply with the requirements of the genre and the demands of the singers. This involved taking account in the music of the hierarchy of roles and working the emotional and temperamental situation and the "chiaroscuro" appropriately into the arias,  in a word, composing absorbing and varied music. Neither is there any indication that he was doubtful, let alone critical of the seria tradition, although Gluck’s effortes were certainly not unknown to him. He had never been able to come to terms with the ideas of Gluck and Calzabigi, which involved reducing the autonomy of the music in relation to the developement of the plot. (He was never further away from Gluck than in “Idomeneo", where they appeared to be closest). It was not within his powers or his intentions to remedy the undoubted defects in the drama of Lucio Silla, particularly the excessive length of Acts II and III, and a certain uniformity in the situations. But to compensate for this the music, particularly in the arias and the scenes between the protagonists Cecilio and Giunia, acquired a new and unexpected tone, far removed from the conventions, and an obvious diversity exuding original thought and direct emotion. Even the conventional elements, which are certainly not lacking, appear in their context to have been seized by a new, youthful and overwhelming spirit and transformed from within. The antiquated genre of “dramma per musica" seems to have been given a new lease of life. Nothing goes beyond the prescribed framework, except that the arias are much more lengthy than was usual. The situation is both mysterious and fascinating: Mozart’s music for “Lucio Silla" in no way turns its back on traditional forms, but viewed sub specie aeternitatis it contains the seeds of a new beginning. A novel flexibility in its construction and new plasticity in the concepts allow the character of the events to emerge, even where Mozart is following the conventional forms. This is matched by an unusually intricate and varied orchestration, which may have irritated many of the audience at the time, who at best would have excused it on the ground of youthful impetuosity derived from lack of experience. If Metastasio, who had always worked on the principle of not allowing the music to get the better of the drama, had ever heard “Lucio Silla", he would have sharply condemned it.
Even the sweeping concerto-like coloratura passages which Mozart, according to the custom of the period, tailor-made for the protagonists, seem to be filled with emotional content, whether it be tender, joyful, ecstatic or desperate. The extent to which Mozart tried, within the limits permitted by Gamerra's drama, to bring out the focal points of the immanent plot entirely in the music is shown, on the one hand, by an unusually extensive use of recitatives accompanied by the orchestra (recitativo  accompagnato), and on the other hand by a tendency to link, whenever possible, groups of scenes together musically. In Act I, after Cinna’s sparkling exit aria (No. 1 “Vieni ov’amor t’invita"), Cecilio’s solo scene begins, without any intervening recitativo secco with an accompagnato. The great aria which follows, “Il tenero momento” (No. 2), Cecilio’s first in the opera, sweeps aside the fearful questions of the recitative and is sustained by overflowing joy of life and exultant anticipation of the meeting with his beloved. From the end of Scene Five onwards (Act I), after Giunia’s passionate argument with the tyrant Silla and the declaration of her determination always to despise the dictator and remain true to her lover, there is a great arch, broken only by a short secco, from Giunia`s aria "Dalla sponda tenebrosa" (No. 4), spanning Silla's only important aria (No. 5) with its preceding accompagnato, to the impressive scene with the Chorus (No. 6) and the effusive encounter of the lovers in the duet finale of the Act "D’Eliso in sen m'attendi” (No. 7). As early as Giunia’s aria "Dalla sponda tenebrosa" (No. 4) a new serious, exalted tone is perceptible, which establishes Giunia’s impassioned, ecstatic rapport with the spirits of her heroic forefathers. The aura of the other world, her devotion to the beloved whom she believes to be dead, and burning indignation with the dictator stamp the aria with genuine emotion fed by the proximity of death, which does not draw upon customary feelings but upon truth. Here and in the following series of scenes Mozart already associates the key of E flat with the dramatic Ombra (shades) scene customary in opera seria (dialogue with imagined spirits of beloved or honoured individuals who usually are not dead at all). But the appropriate atmosphere is not evoked until after the change of scene: Magnificence, gloom, the proximity of death are the elements of the scene. It was to this scene in particular that Mozart managed to impart an incomparable sublimity, intensity and variety of emotion: originally in Cecilio’s wide-ranging accompagnato "Morte, morte fatal", then returning to the ombra key of E flat in the great invocation Chorus (No. 6), the central feature of which (Molto Adagio) is provided by Giunia’s elegiac arioso "Del padre ombra diletta”. The unexpected appearance of Cecilio gives rise to the duet in A, (No. 7), rising to a climax of blissful joy, which brings Act I to an end. There is thus a moving progression from tempestuous grief, through solemn lamentation in homage to the heroic dead (E flat) to the more exalted “joyfulness" (A major) of the final duet. It shows what could have been made of the seria if Mozart had continued in this way.
At the heart of Act II are Cecilio’s scena (accompagnato and Aria No. 9), Giunia’s (acc. and Aria No. 11), a further aria for Cecilio “Ah se a morir mi chiama (No. 14 in E flat major), which reverts to the ombra style, Giunia’s important solo scena (acc. and Aria No. 16 “Parto, m’affretto"), which expresses agony of spirit and despair with such lack of restraint that all the conventions of the seria appear to be swept away. The passionate trio which concludes Act II (No. 18) brings the star-crossed lovers Giunia and Cecilio face to face with their furious antagonist Silla.
In Act III the lovers’ (supposed) last farewell goes straight to the heart with the simple but touching magic of Cecilio’s consolatory aria “Pupille amate" (No. 21), expressed with dancelike grace (Tempo di Menuetto), and in the tragic pathos of Giunia`s solo scena which immediately follows, the C minor aria of which “Fra i pensier più funesti di morte" (No. 22) again resembles the ombra style. The final Chorus, which is exceptionally lengthy for a normal seria, celebrates in ceremonial rejoicing the tyrant’s change  of heart and the happy ending. Its structure, with solo verses and a choral refrain, suggests a performance in dance form, which may have also been Gamerra's original conception. It is still an open question whether the final number was actually danced or whether the dance was performed subsequently to the music of the Chaconne, referred to in the libretto as a Giaconna which, like the other two ballet interludes between the Acts, was not composed by Mozart. (In one of the original sources the final Chorus is designated as Giaconna.)
The ballet interludes between the Acts were an important element in the performance of a seria, with the final ballet giving special emphasis to the ceremonial and celebratory character of the occasion (as was later the case with “Idomeneo”). Mozart’s powers of imagination were, however, particularly challenged by the dramatic, emotional and uplifting scenes, although he was by no means indifferent to the music for the less prominent roles (particularly Celia and Cinna). The unmistakeably novel element is the intrinsic importance of Mozart’s music in crucial moments, which makes individual musical numbers so interesting that the nicely calculated balance brween drama and music in the dramma per musica is destroyed. On the one hand the concept of the seria was well suited to the inherent spirit of Mozart`s music and its requirements, because it allowed emphasis to be placed on particular scenes and/or particular musical numbers (e.g. arias); on the other hand it resulted in an insurmountable defect which called the whole genre in question, whenever the sections which carried the plot of the drama (the recitatives) sank into insignificance compared with the musical numbers.
These things have to be borne in mind when one seeks to explain why nothing came of the performance of “Lucio Silla". This is all the more curious since the Milan production, which was performed 26 times (26.12.1772 - 25.1.1773) was, in spite of certain adverse circumstances (replacement of the tenor and some incidents at the premiere), not a failure. Nor was any objection taken to the six-hour duration of the opera with its ballet interludes. Indeed, Gamerra’s libretto was later set to music on several occasions, among others by J. C. Bach in 1774. But Mozart’s “Lucio Silla" disappeared from the scene like the majority of average operas of the period. The work did not make operatic history. We shall never know whether any of the public of the time had any idea what an event this music was.