The Manufacture of Mozart

Hi there,

I'm a British writer/researcher on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) and am 15 years or so in to writing a highly controversial book on the subject. I'm based in London.

I am specially interested in the relationship between writers of Mozart's time with the Jesuit Order, since, it seems to me, 'Enlightenment' philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau (both hugely important to the Mozart story) were themselves strangely allied during their own lifetimes with the controlling aims of Jesuit Order, even beyond 1773. Indeed, the 'Englightenment' as a movement seems to have been a Jesuit-led strategy which flourished after the same Jesuit Order was officially annulled in 1773. So that the rise of what is generally called 'secularism' in the name of the 'Enlightenment' was very much controlled, orchestrated, and even defined by the deliberate rise of adoration for Rousseau and Voltaire (both of whom had close relationships to the Jesuits and to the fraternities which emerged after 1773). Mozart's relationship with the Encyclopaedists, Diderot, Grimm and others, D'Epinay and others are clear evidence of such a relationship. In 1778 Mozart's Paris patron during his stay there was the same Baron Grimm.

I am sure (and have much supporting evidence) that the musical career of Mozart was almost entirely manufactured, falsified, even from the time of his childhood onward by the fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire, this involving the supply to Mozart (even after his death in 1791) of music he never composed but which, being published and performed in his name as 'evidence of his genius', eventually, led to a Mozart-dominated musicology, the hijacking of historical reality, the destruction of musicology itself, and the control of what is taught and believed on music in this important period of musical history. The musical evidence (from manuscripts etc etc) is now very clear. And other researchers are increasingly agreeing with this view.

In my research over the past 15 years or so I have become more and more certain of all the above. Certain too that the secret fraternities of western Europe (such as the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, the Illuminatists) have invented idols of their own, of which Mozart was one, so that they could, by controlling their mythical status in the academic world, shape and even define our 'education' far more than is generally realised.

Best wishes

It is not an easy thing to accept that our cultural education is largely nonsense. But this is truly the case with the history of music as far as Mozart is concerned. The sheer volume of evidence is now overwhelming. Mozart, 'genius of Salzburg' was really a musician of no great talent. His story begins long before his birth and his myth was being manufactured even decades after his death. By the elites who controlled culture during his own time and beyond it. The scale of corruption, the exaggerations and falsehoods that form part of 'Mozart studies' are so many that it took years to appreciate they were part of a cultural Counter-Reformation that was begun long, long before Mozart's time.

In fact, the Jesuit Order, created a few years before the Council of Trent in the 16th century, rose to become the schoolmasters of Catholic Europe, utterly dominating education, censorship, etc. It was within this context that the 'Counter Reformation' began. A Counter Reformation which included control of publishing, even of art and culture itself.

With growing protests against Jesuit domination (coming even from within the Catholic Church itself) it was clear by the early 18th century that the days of their control were numbered. The mass of complaints against the quality of their education, their corruption in politics and in other areas, were so many in Portugal, France, Germany and elsewhere that their explusion from those countries was certain. Starting with Portugal, then France, and finally culminating with their outright ban by the Papacy in 1773. But not before they had set in motion a new strategy of educational control. The 'Enlightenment' (of which their employees, Voltaire and Rousseau were the two foundations). This entirely shifting the emphasis of learning and literature across most of Europe. The life and career of Mozart are to be understood in this context. Mozart's father (himself Jesuit educated) is only one of the dozens of links which lead to the inescapable conclusion that Mozart's career was almost entirely manufactured. He was no musical genius and wrote, at most, half a dozen works of his own. These on no great musical value. The truth hidden, buried under the propaganda.

The truth is dozens of early 'Mozart' works are not his. That's a plain fact. A fact recognised (grudgingly) in textbook after textbook. But the lies and exaggerations continued. Even the operas 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (1786), 'Don Giovanni' and the 'Magic Flute' are not by Mozart. In fact, Figaro is a hastily made arrangement of a work first written to a German text by others the year before as we can see if we actually examine the manuscript today held at the National Library in Vienna. A work arranged by Mozart's colleague Lorenzo da Ponte and staged in Mozart's name in Vienna that year. But not a work by Mozart. Mozart was a musical fantasy created by those who, in the name of 'Vienna, city of music' sought to control musicology, and they did so. Using the talents of composers whose names are today hardly known. Vienna hardly knew this man. It was all invented. He was the creation of fraternities of the late Holy Roman Empire. The Requiem, the Clarinet Concerto, the Piano Concertos, hundreds of symphonies, sonatas, and even operas are not by Mozart. And the lies continued to be told by publishers and propagandists even in to the earliest biographies.

For almost 200 years the science of musicology has been hijacked by those who now control the 'music industry'. An industry which never questions the assumptions on which the Mozart myth is based. The result has been the destruction of the science of musicology itself. A science first founded by the German JN Forkel. A science which warned against commerce taking over from art by its ruthless appeal to mass culture. (It was Forkel who first brought the attention of the musical world to the ignored works of J.S. Bach and which the Viennese were ignorant of, even in the late 18th century). Musicology, the study of music of high quality that is of value for music students, was overwhelmed by the rise of the cult of Mozart. And, today, despite his giant reputation of Mozart (together with that of Haydn and Beethoven - whose own stories are little known) the result is a generation of students who know virtually nothing of music by Mozart's own contemporaries. Dumbed down by the dominant myth of 'Amadeus'. A pack of lies foisted on innocent students of musical history.

We do not know if historical fact and a total revision of musical history by those preside over this, one of the great myths of western civilization. But one thing is sure. From a documentary point of view (i.e. after detailed study of the musical manuscripts themselves and many other areas of research) the Mozart domination of music is a grotesque distortion of reality which deserves to be exposed.

Have you heard of Vanhal ? Myslivececek ? Wranitsky ? These are only three of about 40 unknown composers who wrote the music today attributed to Mozart. The truth of which has been hidden, buried under mountains of half truths and foisted on students who know no better. The rest, as they say, is the mass media. The corporate fraud that is Mozart.

Regards

My only disagreement is on your –and Dan Brown’s- “All roads lead to Rome” convenient focus on the identity of “the manufacturer”:

Compared to “arts and sciences” and relative institutions (coincidentaly all under a Cochin or "Cassini" or "Caussin" or Cocchi(!) at the time) serving the interests of the Royal House of France, church, including Rome, had a secondary role only.
(Following Galileo, even Rome understood and adopted “sciences” and they were themselves into the use of art for their propaganda fide long before.)

When you carefully examine each and every of my “Saint Germain” aliases, you’ll realise that british interests were not neglected when they (Strict Observance) partitioned “their world”, thus you’ll be able at least to explain Gluck’s irish successes at the time of Luis XVI and wife “removal” (and also strengthen your rather weak "transition of power to other societies" post 1773 argument).

I say “at least” because the “cover up” was and remains much broader than just music, so broad in fact as to still tip today the balance between “truth” and “common good” in favour of the latter, as all “too big to fail” lies still do.

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

Having said all that:

I still don’t believe he called all the shots after 1787: He was quite old already and his Russian “personae” had won him over, he had disagreed with Necker, given up France and his conscience propably troubled him. (His "Raynal" identity and itinerary still troubles me nevertheless!)

“Other forces” had the upper hand by then, knew all about him, whereas he still wanted to keep the family’s royal secret intact, was insitutionaly and privately indebted, thus staged his “deaths” (but propably not those of his eternal IOUs).

“Moz-art” (or Dali's obelisk ridden elephants) says it all but so does the silence of another “Collini”, scholar on enlightment, and many others as well, inlcuding many silent descendants

If you want to have your book ever published you might think it over-where Truth ends- again.

Your thoughts.

Cheers.

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.:rolleyes: Shakespeare was an Italian of Jewish descent, Leonardo DaVinci was African, Michelangelo was a lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarf and the music of Mozart (and undoubtedly Haydn and Beethoven as well) was produced by a consortium of composers with the goal of inventing the German/Austrian "genius" to counter the Italian/Catholic domination of music (as if Bach, Handel, Telemann, and Gluck had not already achieved this:nod:). The reality is that disputing such arguments are a waste of time... and most of us here are not that familiar with musicology and the history to counter the proofs presented as "facts"... nor do we have the time nor desire to verify such assertions... yet undoubtedly these same proofs can be easily shredded by the average first year student of musicology. I've seen the same conspiracy theory presented at any number of music discussion boards... and the same rapidly countered with facts to the contrary by those who do know their music history. The OP knows this is true which is why he is pathetically reduced to attempting to sell his wacked-out theories on an internet site devoted to literature rather than attempting to presenting the same in a serious gathering of musicologists.:brickwall

I think that I will now turn to my ipod, put on the headphones, turn the volume up quite high and listen to the "Jupiter" symphony by ______ while reading The Tempest by ______. All are welcome to treat the blanks in this post like a madlib while I am busy enjoying good music and good poetry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.:rolleyes: Shakespeare was an Italian of Jewish descent, Leonardo DaVinci was African, Michelangelo was a lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarf and the music of Mozart (and undoubtedly Haydn and Beethoven as well) was produced by a consortium of composers with the goal of inventing the German/Austrian "genius" to counter the Italian/Catholic domination of music (as if Bach, Handel, Telemann, and Gluck had not already achieved this:nod:). The reality is that disputing such arguments are a waste of time... and most of us here are not that familiar with musicology and the history to counter the proofs presented as "facts"... nor do we have the time nor desire to verify such assertions... yet undoubtedly these same proofs can be easily shredded by the average first year student of musicology. I've seen the same conspiracy theory presented at any number of music discussion boards... and the same rapidly countered with facts to the contrary by those who do know their music history. The OP known this is true which is why he is pathetically reduced to attempting to sell his wacked-out theories on an internet site devoted to literature rather than attempting to presenting the same in a serious gathering of musicologists.:brickwall

---

So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Musicology,

I too had heard something of this, but I believe some of your facts need to be tidied up.
To begin, it was not the Jesuits who controlled the Mozart marionette from behind the curtains, it was the Knights Templar. Yes; I am aware of the fact that history informs us that the order was formally disbanded in 1312 by Pope Clement V.

However, it is believed that Pope Clements’s sister carried out a lustful tryst with the Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Through their indulgence, the Beethoven lineage was established. It was Johann van Beethoven, a devout follower of the Templar principles and father of the famous composer, who had developed an odd penchant for manufacturing composers of the time. Johann soon took notice of the young Austrian upstart.

Johann utilized Diderot, Grimm and their ilk to serve as the “strings”; parlaying contemporary compositions to Mozart in an effort to fabricate the sham. In time, Mozart took an interest in the bootlegged music that lay before him and soon learned to compose his own original pieces. Though Mozart’s musical endeavors never really panned out, it provided much fodder for discussion at the local beer gardens.
The American band known as the “Monkey’s” chronicled a similar road to success.

Gilliatt

So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Exactly!:banana::banana::banana:

I mean, simply, that politics, banking, business and the mass media are not the only areas that have been corrupted in European history but, of course 'culture' itself. We like to pretend that we understand classical music, that it has escaped forgery, hoaxes and fairy stories. But it has not. In fact, the elites who controlled music seem to suffer from 'amnesia'. They forget convenient facts. If you ask the average music lover to name a composer who was contemporary with Mozart in Vienna they look at their watch and have an urgent appointment ! The amazing ignorance has been caused by the control of musicology by the entertainment industry, the 'music industry', and the takeover of musicology itself. A fledgling science in the early 19th century which has been wrecked by the titanic myths of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

The truth is (and I've spent many years studying the documents and the literature) is that Mozart was manufactured. He did not write most of the works attributed to him. This fact is even acknowledged in dozens of publications, though buried away in footnotes and in eulogistic biographies. I do not expect people to believe this. It's amazing. But the fact is that truth has the habit to getting the final say. And on this issue, Mozart, the film 'Amadeus' is fiction. You should make yourself aware of the composers whose names have been erased from music history, who contributed towards the manufacture of Mozart's iconic status. It's a remarkable story. Dozens of them. What does that tell us about the myths we believe in.

Fortunately, reality is open to cross-examination. It's not the Mozart industry. Try musical reality !

Here's a 2 hour interview given a few months ago to the Swedish radio station Red Ice - hope you find it interesting as a general introduction to this subject of Mozart and his myth -

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/...zart-myth.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

So what you're really saying is that you're in fact Mozart sent here to the future with the help of time machine that Michelangelo invented so that he could party with other lesbian, albino, Inuit dwarves?

Exactly!:banana::banana::banana:

---

No, that's not what I'm really saying. What I'm really saying is that there is a side of the Mozart story you may never have heard. The one of musical reality and of history.

Civilizations need myths. One of our myths if the 'genius' of Mozart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I think that I will now turn to my ipod, put on the headphones, turn the volume up quite high and listen to the "Jupiter" symphony by ______ while reading The Tempest by ______. All are welcome to treat the blanks in this post like a madlib while I am busy enjoying good music and good poetry.

---

Why do we believe as we do ? In the case of Mozart it's because nobody has ever examined and cross-examined the whole story. Till now.

As a cultural myth Mozart is 'cute'. It virtually dominates our musical 'education'. It exists in the mist of mythology. But our stupendous ignorance is the result. We can hardly name anyone around at his time. It's almost ridiculous. No, the musical works of 'Mozart' were the product of many composers of the late Holy Roman Empire. So says the evidence beyond fair and reasonable doubt.

But it's good that you are prepared to listen to both sides, rather than just one. The 'Jupiter' is a fine symphony. But it's not by Mozart.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

My only disagreement is on your –and Dan Brown’s- “All roads lead to Rome” convenient focus on the identity of “the manufacturer”:

Compared to “arts and sciences” and relative institutions (coincidentaly all under a Cochin or "Cassini" or "Caussin" or Cocchi(!) at the time) serving the interests of the Royal House of France, church, including Rome, had a secondary role only.
(Following Galileo, even Rome understood and adopted “sciences” and they were themselves into the use of art for their propaganda fide long before.)

When you carefully examine each and every of my “Saint Germain” aliases, you’ll realise that british interests were not neglected when they (Strict Observance) partitioned “their world”, thus you’ll be able at least to explain Gluck’s irish successes at the time of Luis XVI and wife “removal” (and also strengthen your rather weak "transition of power to other societies" post 1773 argument).

I say “at least” because the “cover up” was and remains much broader than just music, so broad in fact as to still tip today the balance between “truth” and “common good” in favour of the latter, as all “too big to fail” lies still do.

Read my research thru, starting with “Poe decoded.Announcement!” thread to trace :

a)Rome’s minor, if any, participation inthe creation of a new religion suitable for their-agreed upon- rebelious "New World"

as well as

b)“Rousseau’s” (and not only) claim to the role of “protector” to the throne of France (eversince 1601), bearing also in mind his “Pierre Michel Hennin",head of Secret du Roi and royal treasurer, persona.

Consider “Collini” and “Hennin” also to at least absolve Voltaire: He, like most other luminaries, was just another tool in "Rousseau's" hands.

Having said all that:

I still don’t believe he called all the shots after 1787: He was quite old at the time and his Russian “personae” had won him over, he had disagreed with Necker, given up France and his conscience propably troubled him. (His "Raynal" identity and itinerary still troubles me nevertheless!)

“Other forces” had the upper hand already then, knew all about him, whereas he still wanted to keep the family’s royal secret intact, was insitutionaly and privately indebted, thus staged his “deaths” (but propably not those of his eternal IOUs).

“Moz-art” (or Dali's obelisk ridden elephants) says it all but so does the silence of another “Collini”, scholar on enlightment, and many others as well, inlcuding many silent descendants

If you want to have your book ever published you might think it over-where Truth ends- again.

Your thoughts.

Cheers.

---

Hi there Yanni,

I claim no expertise on the life of Rousseau and Grimm although I have a great deal of musical and historical information to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the icon of Mozart was manufactured by fraternities of the 18th century. So too his giant (and fictititous) musical talents. In point of fact the merger of the Jesuit Order with the occultist fraternities is a fact of history. We see the opera 'Magic Flute' is really a Rosicrucian opera. We see example after example of Freemasonic influence in the career of W.A. Mozart. The truth is that virtually all of his early music was written by others. The truth is that nobody in Vienna knew of Mozart the 'great' virtuoso, not even the writers on music of the time. The stories are almost ridiculous.

Take a simple example. In Vienna in 1793 a 2 volume work was published by musicologist Heinrich Koch dealing with concertos. Mozart is nowhere mentioned. Not once. And there is plenty of evidence for the massive fraud that was his 'reputation'. Even his own librettist (Lorenzo da Ponte) says that Mozart was 'unknown' to the Viennese. A city where he spent the last 10 years of his life. And there are a thousand other facts you may be aware of. The posthumous creation of the Mozart myth was a cynical manipulation of musical reality. It buried the lives and careers of dozens of composers. 'They' took over music publishing, performance management, etc. so that we end up with the idols of Easter Island. The pantheon of 'great' composers and a million miles away from historical and musical reality.

The Vienna of 'Mozart' was an ignorant place. Why, they never even knew the music of J.S. Bach and cared nothing for J.N. Forkel, the founder of the science of musicology. Within 20 years there was a new idea - the 'music industry'. The rest, as they say, is history.

Hope you enjoy the following radio interview I gave a few months ago on this subject. It will at least introduce you to the sheer volume of evidence -

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/...zart-myth.html

All I am saying is that your "manufactured Mozart" will benefit if you study carefully my research on the "manufacturer", still at the center of "our universe", music included.

All I am saying is that Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Chastellux were the few- music related- aliases used by Gioachino Cocchi aka comte Saint Germain and that he was a descendant of the Florence "Caccini"-among- the founders of opera.

He died 1820 as "Baron Carl Ludwig Nikolay" in Finnland (Monrepos, Vyborg)

"Koch"* was possibly another of his aliases (mother family name of "Grimm" and "Cocceji") whereas "Gioachino Rossini" was first used by Cocchi in Rome (1746, Bajazette)

*Note: Koch's biography at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Christoph_Koch is quite unsourced and still in a state of "bearbeiten"(under revision), whereas his concept of "music following lyrics" is identical to "Gluck's". Another very propable alias of Cocchi!

Thank you Yanni,

There are two parts to this thing.

1. W.A. Mozart was a 'manufactured' genius of music. That is, the story we read of him is almost completely false.

2. Other people deliberately manufactured Mozart's musical reputation, 'his' works and his giant cultural reputation. Starting with the full complicity of his own father, Leopold Mozart, himself a Jesuit educated member of these same fraternities. In fact the first 25 symphonies of 'Mozart' lack any evidence of being attributable to W.A. Mozart. A fact already recognised by Mozart researchers in footnotes to their own publications. The same is true of the first 7 of the 27 'Mozart' piano concertos, which are actually works by J.C. Bach and others. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Yet they and hundreds of other works were attributed to Mozart until the 20th century. This fakery and exaggeration continued all the way through his official career.

Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing. I do not say it is right or wrong. But I am simply saying the documentary and historical evidence shows Mozart was not a musical genius and am providing evidence 'his' music was composed by a network of fraternity members from the time of his childhood up to and even beyond the time of his death in December 1791. The invention of the musical 'superman' Mozart was used to gain control of music publishing, performance, and, eventually of musicology itself. Across Europe and beyond. And it remains true today.

Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing.

Saint Germain's "puzzle", artfully built and carefully maintained till now, was hard to crack indeed. Afterall, apart for his sidekicks in philosophy and art ( including music) he was France's chief "agent" and "royal treasurer" for quite a while.

There is no doubt that the creation of Vienna, as the 'city of music', was engineered by the suppression of MANY composers whose names are today hardly known. Names such as Vanhal, Myslivececk, Cartellieri, to name only 3. In fact, the fakery extends even in to the career of Josef Haydn and Ludwig van Beethoven. Involving composers such as Hasse and others. So that the Italian origins of much of this 'classical' music has been greatly suppressed. And that of numerous Bohemian composers.

In the case of Beethoven textbooks routinely ignore Beethoven's own music teacher at Bonn (Andrea Luchesi) who was Kapellmeister there. Entire textbooks have been written on Beethoven's early years which omit to mention his name ! And this is typical. Yet Luchesi was the principle teacher of the chapel there for over 20 years ! It's truly amazing.

There is definitely a link between these celebrated composers and St. Germain/Cagliostro and other occultists. Through patrons such as Lobkowitz, the princes of Oettingen/Wallerstein, Donaueschingen and others in Bohemia (Prague). And this overseen by others such as Abbe Georg Vogler. This was a cultural network and it controlled the music publishing business. Up until 1773 these industries had been directly Jesuit controlled. After that date by the Illuminatists and other fraternities. And involving the Mannheim musical establishment. The 'history' of music (so-called) of the 18th century in particular is as corrupted as that of banking, politics, business and anything else. In the case of Mozart his earliest admirers were, almost without exception, members of fraternities. Later, Goethe, a well known Illuminatist. And many others. It was a general rule that fakery, exaggeration and downright fiction went in to the earliest Mozart biographies on a huge scale. The music business, by 1783, was completely in the hands of the Illuminati. Especially in Vienna. And the same was true across much of Germany and beyond. It's this context which is routinely airbrushed out of books on Mozart in Vienna. The truth is that Mozart was an idol manufactured so that control could be obtained of publication, performance, and even of textbooks. So that our 'education' would be controlled. And so that pure fiction would take the place of fact. This at the cost of literally dozens of composers whose names (and whose music) has been deleted from the record.

We want to believe that Mozart's music is stylistically very recognisable. But how many have heard Vanhal, Righini, and dozens of others ? These must be 'airbrushed' out of the record. So that the 'industry' will continue to preach the 'genius' of Mozart. It's an amazing story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Your scheme of having so many aliases for Rousseau, Gluck, etc. is, I must say, slightly confusing.

Saint Germain's "puzzle", artfully built and carefully maintained till now, was hard to crack indeed. Afterall, apart for his sidekicks in philosophy and art ( including music) he was France's chief "agent" and "royal treasurer" for quite a while.

---

I am very interested in this. And I think it may very well be true. My instinct tells me that it is true. And I speak having examined the life/career and reputation of Mozart for almost 15 years. In the Mozart case the fakery, exaggeration and suppression of musical fact is amazing in quantity.

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

I am very interested in this. And I think it may very well be true. My instinct tells me that it is true. And I speak having examined the life/career and reputation of Mozart for almost 15 years. In the Mozart case the fakery, exaggeration and suppression of musical fact is amazing in quantity.

I would be specially interested in knowing about your views on Grimm, because Grimm has close association (as you know) with the Encyclopaedists. And there is no doubt that the Jesuit links to the Encyclopaedists are real. In fact, Robespierre was a great supporter of Rousseau's 'Social Contract' (1762). And Robespierre was a Jesuit educated tyrant. As we all know. The links between the 'Enlightenment' and a Jesuit Order operating through fraternities are too huge to be dismissed.

You have but to read suggested thread "Poe decoded" herein and then continue to "Melchior Grimm (revisited)", "Jean Jacques Rousseau, an alias", "Abbe Raynal, another alias of Rousseau-Saint Germain" and finally my brief commentary on Gaston Leroux re his "Opera phantom" being my multifaced hero.

(Check dates of burning of Paris Opera while a Gluck play was staged, add in a few of Leroux's "barrels", translate his name to "The Red= Rosso, Rossini, Cocchini, Kokkini", compare it to "Mozart" Nozze's history and then judge for yourself.)

It's a long and complicated reading, agreed, but it will not be improved anytime soon, no sweetened summary for the average reader wil be prepared: My own goals (as laid out in above recommended threads) have been fully reached, my curiosity satisfied, all missing dots were explained and connected, the story "closed" succesfully.

Your "Jesuits" fixation(?) has already been addressed above but I'll give it another try:

Religion, like philosophy and art, has always, from beginning of time, been a tool in the hands governing any and all societies, "revelations, visions, commandments", "social theories, right and wrong, morals" and relative prommotion and glorification by "the arts" (always in need of more earthy necessities) being manipulated accordingly, old theories replacing new, documents falsified, older art "treasures" often confiscated, hidden, burned banned, redrawn etc.
Past and present "Joint ventures" (between state and church) excluded, the Church never had a clear "will" of its own. Even "allmighty" Rome had to succumb and adjust policies to more or less accomodate the religious split, a problem deeply affecting Bourbon France and their strong links to Florence and lower "Italy". Eversince Concino's intrusion!!

Why would Rome be any different, especially after 1773???

("Rome" was thoroughly investigated, including "american" links: A secondary and accommodating role only!)

The fact that the Holy Roman emperor(Mary Antoinette's brother) promoted the Church in Rome while his sister's France promoted "Gluck, Rousseau, Grimm etc" is by itself proof enough!

Cagliostro's choice to last "preach" in Rome can only be labelled "incredible" today because, up until now, "Saint Germain" remained a carefully maintained "mystery" and "Myth", his strong "Rome" connections" and "influence" being reduced to the "unknown stranger" who "managed", diplomaticaly, to save him from execution and have him thrown to jail for life.

Even that (him dying in jail) must now be questioned!

Cheers.

PS 1. My "Gioachino Rossini" (first used by Gioachino Cocchi in Rome, 1746, Bajazette) comment failed to reach its target I fear.
PS2. My invitation to all concerned, music scholars included, to prove me wrong still stands. "Insticts" may well serve as their motive to beginne doing so, preferably using "hard evidence" whatever this may today signify. "Deeply musical" comments and observations cannot be answered by the undersigned who is "not qualified" in Music matters

Thank you Yanni for these comments. They are certainly very interesting.

In reply to your two points on a 'Jesuit fixation' and on why Rome would be any different after 1773 I can say this.

1. No organisation has had a more massive domination of European education, culture and publication than the Jesuit Order. An order which was newly founded in the late 16th century and which managed the Counter Reformation which emerged from the Council of Trent. They became, by around 1700 the indisputable 'school masters of Europe'. At least, of the Holy Roman Empire. They were also the confessors of kings, the controllers of what literature and what music was published (and what was not). They were also managers of a vast building programme of churches and statues, art and culture across a vast area of Europe. They controlled sites of religious pilgrimage and presided over a massive programme of reviving Catholic devotion. They were in total control of music and the arts across the Holy Roman Empire. It's this plain fact which makes them unique. But, at the same time, the links with occultism (e.g. Rosicrucianism) were very real and they stretch back almost to the time when the Holy Roman Empire was first formed.

Huge complaints poured in from across Europe against the Jesuit educational system. They knew they were deeply unpopular. They taught in Latin, for a start. And they refused to teach history. Their standards were poor. And all of Europe knew it. It was Germany whose standards of education were far superior. A fact recognised by the French at the time of the French revolution. A France which had kicked out the Jesuits in 1762 and Portugal 3 years earlier. The final banning of the Jesuit Order in 1773 was predictable. In fact, the Jesuits went underground from 1773 onwards. Shortly afterwards emerged the Illuminati. Which, by 1783 were in total control of the same publishing interests as the Jesuits themselves. No coincidence, since, of course the Jesuits began at a Jesuit university. With Weishaupt. There is indisputable proof that the aims of the Illuminati were one and the same as the Jesuit Order, in taking control of what is taught, believed and performed. This influence, now hidden behind the move towards 'secularism' is known today as the 'Englightenment'. But it was, of course, funded and supported by the same elites of Europe. As we see in the Encyclopaedists and in the 'Enlightenment' generally. Voltaire was Jesuit educated, for a start. His links with the Jesuit establishment are plain. Rousseau also. These are not coincidences. The two main philosophical pillars of the 'Englightenment' (so-called). They are a deliberate plan to control secularisation in the same way that the Jesuit Order controlled academic society before 1773. Mozart's career emerges out of this transition. In fact, it was one of its products.

The Jesuits went underground with a continuation of their 'Counter-Reformation'. Beyond 1773. Such, I believe, is very plain. And the same Order (as you know) were revived in 1814, at the time when Europe was carved up on the map at the Congress of Vienna. Napoleon came from Jesuit Corsica, where they had been banished from Portugal and France. Again, a clear proof of a transition from overt control of western Europe to covert control.

So, in answer to your question of whether Rome would be different beyond 1773, the answer is surely yes. From 1773 Jesuit interests and those of the papacy were very different. After all the Papacy banned them that year. And Napoleon DID invade Rome. And DID keep the pope captive unless he agreed to restore them again. These are not imaginings but historical realities.

Baron Grimm, Voltaire, Rousseau, Baron van Sweiten and others, these are names all closely associated with Mozart's career. And the list of Jesuit educated supporters of his career (and of Illuminati colleagues and associates) is trully massive.

I am very interested in what you write. Again, your research is complementary to my own. But it seems to me that the Counter Reformation never ended. It continued. It is, in fact, the entire reason for the rise of occultism with Freemasony, with the Illuminati, and with these strange characters of 18th century history such as Rousseau and Mozart, Casanova and Cagliostro.

It is not simply Protestant versus Catholic. It also involves occultism. A factor which existed from the very earliest days of the Holy Roman Empire and which, through Venice, led to the founding of the British Empire, the British banking system. The 'New World Order' is a union of elitist interests (including monarchies, elites, rich privileged bloodlines, corporate interests etc. etc) all headed up, inevitably, by the papacy. Of this I am completely sure. And including corrupt churches and entire governments and their contractors. Such is the lesson from the 18th century and I believe it remains true today in the scale of control of the media, and even of the textbooks we read. A classic example is the fairytale story of W.A. Mozart.

Thank you for very interesting comments on Rossini.

It's not my aim to defend the indefensible. The bigotry of Catholics and of Protestants is dead. Let's just get to the truth of these things. Which seems to me our duty, whatever our culture and our education may be.

Looking forward to reading your posts.

Regards

If you are indeed aiming at getting "to the truth of things" and avoid any "bigotry" –and not use this site and my research as a platform to serve your interests, always motive #1 btw- you'll do well to go a little deeper than that to prove your point 1.
As I did, before I even dreamed of “expressing opinions”.

What was your point 2?

Cheers