In this respect, therefore, Mozart was not behind contemporary composers. With regard to performances on foreign stages, we have no definite information as to whether his permission was asked or paid for,[82] but we may gather something from the ordinary usages of the time. It was the traditional custom in Italy that whoever ordered the opera should pay for it; what became of the score afterwards was generally left to chance. The impresario remained in possession of it, and usually allowed the copyist to make what profit he could out of the sale of it (Vol. I., p. 131); but the composer also kept the score, and seems to have distributed it wherever he thought he might gain honour or profit by it. In Germany the case was altered, since there the composer had generally to do with a court theatre. In Mannheim and Munich he retained undivided possession of the score (Vol. II., p. 141).[83] Mozart rejoiced that Baron Riedesel had asked him for the "Entführung" and not the copyist (Vol. II., p. 213). As a matter of course foreign theatres took the easiest course open to them to obtain possession of the score. When they applied to the composer it was only because they saw no other way of getting it, or for some special reason. Any question of {MARRIED LIFE.} (298) the composer's rights or the theatrical manager's obligations seems never to have occurred to either party. A careful hold of the score and watchful supervision of the copyist were the only means of protection. These did not go far, nor was Mozart the man to make use of them. When, therefore, his operas appeared on foreign boards without any compensation to himself, he only shared the fate of most of his contemporaries, nor does he seem to have complained of it. He is glad to write to his father (December 6, 1783) that his "Entführung" had been well and successfully performed in Prague and Leipzig; and he rejoiced again when "Figaro" was given in Prague and "Don Giovanni" in Vienna; but there is no mention of payment.