The Manufacture of Mozart

Yanni,

I have already refered to 'Mozart's' Bastien earlier on this thread. In fact, I refered to this work before you did. Maybe you didn't notice it ? If you can't find it just tell me and I will post it again.

The simple fact is Rousseau was part of the same network as Mozart. This was said earlier also. But Rousseau was NOT a music composer. He was a charlatan. Like Mozart.

I agree that other people's reputations have been manufactured. Nobody disputes this. But this thread (in case you have forgotten) is on the manufacture of Mozart. At least, I hope so.

Can you show us some examples of Rousseau and Mozart's music being of the same kind ? It's not much to ask, is it ? But, so far, you have given us no example. I wonder why ? The similarities to which you refer are only text, not music. A big difference, yes ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Need I repeat myself, questioning truth's "quality" once more, to teach you?

If Thomas Jefferson decided to "alter" truth to protect my ancestor-hero and his legacy, if, today, at this absolutely "american literature" site, my revelations on his relations to the first three US presidents remain unchallenged, what makes you think that only "your" Mozart was "manufactured" and other truths of the era that created him were not?

Google for "abbe Raynal+Jefferson" and read (again) my last thread on "abbe Raynal-Rousseau" (it appears as #1 of 28300).

...and do try avoiding quick conclusions: If the foundations of this "house" need "strenghtening", after two centuries and a half, a good, learned, honest, architect must first be found.

(The similarities between Mozart's Bastien and Rousseau's Le Devin du Village have already been discussed elsewhere, see http://www.barenreiter.com/html/vosco/bastien.htm)

Cheers!

---

Since we are discussing what is real and what is not in music here's a short interlude - an example of superhuman harmony and amazing invention from a real miracle of music.

Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)
Cantata 206
Aria 206/3

http://www.mediafire.com/?yzztlhz3j0c

“There is no reply to the ignorant like keeping silence!”

Yes, Yanni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clCZg...eature=related

And here, to complete this short thread (!) some music by one of the many ignored musical contemporaries of Mozart in Vienna, the Bohemian composer Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808). One of various unofficial suppliers of the music in 'Mozart's' 'The Marriage of Figaro'. The remarkable similarities here to various parts of the Figaro overture are just a 'coincidence', of course ! This symphony written 2 years earlier than Figaro. (In later years it was the same Wranitsky who also privately supplied much of the music to 'Mozart's' opera 'The Magic Flute'. Music which had been used a year ealier in his opera 'Oberon'. And 'Oberon' was the most popular opera in Viennese musical history although 'Oberon' has been conveniently unrecorded and is virtually unknown today). What's new ?

Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808)
Symphony in D Major (c.1784/5)
First Movement
London Mozart Players
Paul Bambert, Conductor

http://www.mediafire.com/?yyym3mtzhmm

Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

Mozart first learned to distinguish between opera and singspiel (style) while in Paris by "Grimm" (http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...0_num_9_1_1078), ie Cocchi, (ie "Gluck, Chastellux and Rousseau") who, from then on(as Saint Germain, France's minister of war), had more important things to do(burning his aliases, among others, starting with "Rousseau" while Mozart was there) .

"First comes the word", you see, that was "their" basic "stylistic reform", "secondary" music had to obey, particularly when lyrics had to be translated and the piece be modified to suit the tastes of "lesser" audiences and the voice qualities of the actors (it was still "theater" then, ie tragédie lyrique ).

You now have all the answers and, once you drop your jesuit fixation (and develop other essentials), your book has chances!

Cheers Robert!

(BTW seek out the identity of a "Chevalier de Chaumont" who, together with Charles Nicholas Cochin, had some plans and designs on how the first "opera theater" should look like)!

Yanni,

Thank you for quoting what I wrote several years ago on a different website about 'Mozart's' operatic career, namely -

Well, the evidence suggests that in 1780/1 Mozart was already being ‘groomed’ for a role he was soon to play in Vienna – thus beginning an apprenticeship of a kind that would involve him receiving and transforming works written by selected other composers in to arrangements in his ‘own Mozartean style’...... For the distinctive hallmark ‘style’ of Mozart was the one thing he did not yet have in opera despite having access through Vogler to musical works by other composers. Was it not Baron Grimm (Mozart’s patron in Paris) who had suggested ‘Idomeneo’ ?

‘Figaro’ in this new ‘Mozart style’ is the result of perfecting such a style over several years through exercises such as ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ and ‘L’Oca del Cairo’.....

In conclusion, the ‘stylistic argument’ is far, far less secure that it may at first seem to be. Especially once we appreciate that from around 1783 onwards these two works, ‘L’Oca del Cairo’ and ‘Lo Sposo Deluso’ were never intended to be completed but were elements in Mozart’s stylistic education leading up to him being credited (with Da Ponte) for the great ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

.........for me is the true fact, that Mozart, a supremely gifted arranger, was not their composer and was also not the composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’. In conclusion, we must make a distinction between style and substance.

You might also be aware that in 1778 Mozart's artistic and financially disastrous visit to Paris (which included the premiere there at the Concert Spirituel of a symphony he never actually wrote, 'Pariser', K297) was followed by his period in Munich when he was falsely credited with writing the opera 'Idomeneo'. But Idomeneo was not by Mozart also. In fact, surviving documents show Mozart had written virtually nothing of that work at the time when he arrived in Munich from Salzburg and there is no record of any payment to Mozart there as being its composer. And there are instead several reports of the time that this Idomeneo music was plagiarised from other composers. Add to this the fact that the March in Idomeneo was composed not by Mozart but instead by Josef Martin Kraus, who used it in Sweden a few years later in a work commissioned by the Swedish king. As far as the two unfinished works, 'L'Oca del Cairo' and 'Lo Sposo Deluso' are concerned, these are totally different in style from anything Mozart had written so far. They are far, far superior, in fact, to anything attributed to him up until that time. The change in style and quality here is amazing. The real Mozart was still writing operatic rubbish as late as 1786. If you have a chance to listen to 'Die Schauspieldirektor' premiered in Vienna in the very year of Figaro, in fact, premiered there only a few months before Le Nozze di Figaro !. Take away its overture and a single interesting aria (neither of which were by him) and we have an ugly work of very crude musical content. So poor, in fact, we are hard pressed to believe this is a work by the same composer responsible only a few months later for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ! A contemporary diarist who attended the premiere of 'Die Schauspieldirektor' in Vienna(Count Zinzendorf) noted 'the entire piece bored me'. Easy to see why he said so. And, judging by the documentary record of that time the 'famous' Mozart was already begging money from his fraternity friends in Vienna as early as that date of 1786. For instance, a letter survives from Vienna publisher Hoffmeister dated that year saying 'Sent Mozart 2 Ducats' - this in response to a begging letter from the same Mozart. This after he, Mozart, had (according to legend) 'earned a fortune' from playing piano concertos in Vienna over the two years before this. But this piano playing reputation proves on closer examination to be fiction also. Those capable of actually writing the music for 'Lo Sposo Deluso' and 'L'Oca del Cairo' included Paisiello, Sarti, Salieri and numerous others. Parts of the same network of composers (with various others) who were to continue to supply 'Mozart's' music for another decade and even beyond it. Stylistically we have been educated to believe this music is 'Mozartean', but, of course, this trick is achieved only by suppressing numerous works by Sarti, Paisiello, Myslivececk, Vanhal, Righini, Rossler, and others of his circle. Perfectly consistent with the disembodied myth of Mozart, the only composer of that time whose music is performed widely and known to modern audiences.

I take your point on the Jesuit involvement in Mozart's career. But, in fact, one can only say Jesuit involvement in the 'Englightenment' certainly was a major factor and had been so since virtually Mozart's childhood. Jesuit involvement in promoting the sciences and the arts was enormous ever since the first decades when Ignatius Loyola had been supported by the Venetian oligarchs during the early years of that Order. The period between the end of Jesuit control of education and musical publication across most of continental Europe (which began in 1762 with their ban from France and culminated in 1773 with the dissolution of their order in Rome) and the artistic appearance of what is today called the 'Englightenment' coincides perfectly with the description of Mozart as a 'composer of the Englightenment'.

Certainly, Grimm played a major part in Mozart's career. It was Grimm who arranged for a commission to be given for 'Idomeneo' as said - despite his disastrous Paris visit.

From the time of Idomeneo onwards up to and including 'Die Zauberflote' and 'La Clemenza di Tito' the supply to Mozart of 'his' operas was a complex affair involving this music being sent to him in Vienna via Bonn, Florence, London and other places such as Prague. These operas of Mozart's last decade (almost without exception) were not composed in Vienna. And are not by Mozart. He (Mozart) was simply the arranger of music written for him.

Cocchi is a very interesting character in the Mozart story. So is the story of Italian opera in England as a whole, especially during the period when Gallini was at the King's Threatre and at Covent Garden Theatre. The riddle of 'Mozart's' operas is close to being solved, for sure.

The 1990 article at http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...0_num_9_1_1078 ,limited as it may be in "sources", fully answers your agonising questions of 2006, as quoted in my previous post, with regard to the provenance of Mozart's "new style" and his grooming* for his new role prior to January 1780, ie during his stay in Paris, by "Grimm"* (ie Cocchi, "Rousseau, Gluck, Chastellux etc", the aliases unknown to author Martin Fontius of the Berlin(DDR) Academy of Sciences**).

Your world theories-commitments do not allow you presently to admit it, you thus once more twist my words around to "misinterpret" my "points" accordingly (a predictable stand, hence my previous recomendation to develop the required "essentials") so that, hard to find, harder to digest, truth, may remain the property of the elit few.

Gallini (Collini?), who had so much in common with Cocchi (but was not the same person), certainly must be investigated too but your answer on Cocchi is still "pending"!

Try harder!

*Mozart's 1778 questionable relations to "Grimm", who did not really approve of "flawed" Mozart as his(as "Gluck"-musicmaster) successor(hence Koch's later ommission of Mozart), are important in deciphering "Grimm" himself and his role in diplomacy and world affairs.

**Mr Fontius, possibly still maintaining his deep interest in Enlightment, Voltaire and Rousseau in particular, may also look up "L.H. Nikolay, President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (April 15, 1798 – June 2, 1803)" who "was granted the title of baron by Joseph II in 1782, on the same day with Goethe", and further continue his research with "Cocceji" next!

Yanni,

For the benefit of those who may be reading (or trying to read) these exchanges we can summarise this subject as follows -

We both agree the musical life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart were massively falsified and credited to him. And this required a vast network of patrons, composers, propagandists, and supporters. Over decades. Of loyalities which existed well before the time of Mozart. Since the manufacture of reputations is not a new thing in music, art or culture but many centuries old. The reputations of Shakespeare and of others such as Isaac Newton are only two examples. From a musical point of view (in terms of documents and musical analysis etc) this process in the life and career of Mozart is already very clear. It was cleverly done. Most of the time. Great efforts were made to conceal reality. In fact, many of 'Mozart's' manuscripts arrived at their modern form long after his death in 1791 and most of 'his' music was published long, long after his death. The ultimate objective of all this industry included the control of musical culture and of music history itself by the very people who were the musical patrons and managers of those times. So that musicology and studies of musical history would become (and has become) the adulation of a relatively small number of 'great' composers whose status and reputation dominates the musical landscape. The construction of a pantheon, in fact, of 'great' composers. By the emerging music industry. Whose most prominent members include the Viennese trio of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. And the truth of whose lives and careers would be largely concealed by sympathetic biographers and writers.

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair. But amongst the talented composers are those whose names are today hardly known. The music industry has cultivated these 'heroes' of musical history to the virtual exclusion of all others. Robbing us of any appreciation of context, of Mozart's contemporaries and of the musical realities of those times.

The music of Giuseppe Sarti is especially fine. It's just one example of a name hardly known today.

Really, it's a struggle between musicology and the music industry. But I would not have imagined such things when I first started to study Mozart in detail. It's perhaps enough to point out that the history of music is as prone to corruption as banking, commerce, politics or any other field of human activity.

These things were indisputably controlled by the aristocracy of Europe and beyond.

....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Mozart's myth creation, or perhaps Moz-art, began after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to distance himself and never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

....in the detail, huh?

There is no doubt that Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart arrived in England with a long, long list of contacts ready and able to continue the myth of his 'genius'. These supplied to them. In fact the same was true in Italy, France and Germany.

I am unaware of the extent of their 1764 list of contacts (other than it included J.C.Bach) and very much doubt of any intention or need(excluding very particular "ethnic" grounds) at the time to make eight year old Wolfang what he is today

To give credit to the true composers of this music is not so easy since they were to a great extent complicit in this affair.

"This affair", as you have certainly realised by now, is much larger than Mozart's manufacture or even "music" but, if you insist, concentrate your relative research on the assumption that Moz-art's myth creation started after 1815 (and is still going strong.)

Having myself in the past highlighted and criticized Cocchi's heavy "complicity" , I find comfort of his choice to never look back, chosing to live his last years and die, as he did, in his beautiful garden at Vyborg, with the statue of harpsichord artist Vainamoinen at his side, his youthfull conviction of the benevolance of natural man having, just before, been shattered.

Can we, must we, will we, live on without it?

---

Yanni,

At the end of the day what matters is what is real, what is true, and what is worthy of our service. Now, in the present. And what is present is the fulfillment of the ages.

Thanks for these exchanges -

J.S. Bach
Orchestral Transcription
BWV 508
Bist du bei mir

http://www.mediafire.com/?jzddn0iznmm

My pleasure Robert!

http://greek-music.eu/video-clips/dimitra-galani/

Yanni,

Amongst various notes on J.J. Rousseau I have found the following two published references to his activities during his time in England - both related to music and to plays -

'Various autographs are found at Holland House in London also, and there are various manuscripts of famous characters - among them are those of Catherine, Empress of Russia; Napoleon I., Voltaire, Addison, Petrarch, letters of Philip II., III., and IV. of Spain; and also, interestingly, some music by Pergolesi which was copied here in London by J.J. Rousseau'

(Source - 'Old and New London' Volume 5 (1878) - 'Holland House and its History' by Edward Walford p. 161)

A second reference (from the same source, Volume 1) -

"Dick's Coffee House" in London (No. 8, south) was managed during the reign of King George II by a Mrs. Yarrow and her daughter, who were much admired by the young Templars who patronised the place. The Rev. James Miller, reviving there an old French comedy by J.J. Rousseau, called "The Coffee House," and introducing malicious allusions to the landlady and her daughter, so exasperated the young barristers who frequented "Dick's," that they went in a body and forced the performance of that work to be abandoned. The author then wrote an apology, and instead published the play; but unluckily the artist who illustrated that publication took the bar at "Dick's" as the background of his new sketch. The Templars were even more angry by this event and the Rev. Miller, who had earlier translated Voltaire's, "Mahomet" for the playwright David Garrick, never appeared again. It was at "Dick's" that Cowper the poet showed the first symptoms of his derangement''

//

If Wiki "sources" are correct, "The coffee House" is by Jean-Baptiste Rousseau (6 April 1671 – 17 March 1741), a French poet.

Re Rousseau copying Pergolesi:

Missing other data (year etc), I cannot tell whether this took place before, during or even after Rousseau's "official" London presence (with David Hume* early 1764, allegedly staying there for over a year) and can only guess it concerns perhaps Pergolesi's "La Serva Padrona" that started the "Querelle de bouffons" in Paris, 1752.

You see, "Rousseau" as "Saint Germain", "Gluck" and Cocchi, has a long earlier London presence on record (1745,46, 53,58,60,61,62), Cocchi in the role of Haymarket theater manager 1757-1762 reverting to "opere serie" (simultaneously with "Gluck") to be replaced by J.C.Bach and then allegedly remaining somehow(??) in London directing private concerts at the Carlisle House in Soho at Mrs Cornellys (an italian lady acc to Donald Burrows) where he meets the Mozarts(they arrive April 1764 and stay for fifteen months), January 1765. (BTW "Helvetius" also visits London 1764)
Myslivecek then appears shortly on stage 1766 and 1767 (January, San Carlo, Naples, Bellerefonte), Cocchi is provided eternal biographical "cover" thereafter (returning, settling and dying "somewhere, somehow" near Naples) Grove dictionary included (and 'Holland House and its History' quotation "by J.J.Rousseau" doublechecks the "cover" theory) but later on, as "Gluck"(and not only), he returns and is cheered in London again!


Otherwise, yes, your Pergolesi find confirms my research on "Rossini-Rousseau"!

*Wikipedia: From 1763 to 1765, Hume was Secretary to Lord Hertford in Paris. He met and later fell out with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote of his Paris life, "I really wish often for the plain roughness of The Poker Club of Edinburgh . . . to correct and qualify so much lusciousness."[21] For a year from 1767, Hume held the appointment of Under Secretary of State for the Northern Department. In 1768, he settled in Edinburgh.
(Lord Hertford was HM's embassador to Paris)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

Amongst various notes on J.J. Rousseau I have found the following two published references to his activities during his time in England - both related to music and to plays -

'Various autographs are found at Holland House in London also, and there are various manuscripts of famous characters - among them are those of Catherine, Empress of Russia; Napoleon I., Voltaire, Addison, Petrarch, letters of Philip II., III., and IV. of Spain; and also, interestingly, some music by Pergolesi which was copied here in London by J.J. Rousseau'

(Source - 'Old and New London' Volume 5 (1878) - 'Holland House and its History' by Edward Walford p. 161)

A second reference (from the same source, Volume 1) -

"Dick's Coffee House" in London (No. 8, south) was managed during the reign of King George II by a Mrs. Yarrow and her daughter, who were much admired by the young Templars who patronised the place. The Rev. James Miller, reviving there an old French comedy by J.J. Rousseau, called "The Coffee House," and introducing malicious allusions to the landlady and her daughter, so exasperated the young barristers who frequented "Dick's," that they went in a body and forced the performance of that work to be abandoned. The author then wrote an apology, and instead published the play; but unluckily the artist who illustrated that publication took the bar at "Dick's" as the background of his new sketch. The Templars were even more angry by this event and the Rev. Miller, who had earlier translated Voltaire's, "Mahomet" for the playwright David Garrick, never appeared again. It was at "Dick's" that Cowper the poet showed the first symptoms of his derangement''

//

---

Yes, I'm sure the Wiki source is right about JB Rousseau and 'The Coffee House'.

The subject of Rousseau copying Pergolesi's 'La Serva Padrona' is far more interesting. And important. According to various sources this work of Pergolesi had already been performed in almost 60 places across Europe over the decades after its first premiere in 1733. And -

Rousseau used 'La serva padrona' as a model for 'his' own French intermezzo, Le devin du village (1752). Its text was by Gennaro Antonio Federico after Jacopo Angello Nelli's play - first premiered in Naples, Teatro S Bartolomeo, 5th September 1733.

http://arts.jrank.org/pages/9424/Ser...E2%80%99).html

And, out of this work, via Rousseau, and others comes, eventually, of course, 'Mozart's' Bastien. Which idea was given to Mozart, according to several sources, from their family connection with Anton Mesmer. It was (according to popular belief) premiered in Mesmer's own garden in Vienna. Recent research suggests this work of 'Mozart' was actually begun in Salzburg and not in Vienna.

You refer to J.C.Bach and the famous private concerts at the Carlisle House in Soho owned by Mrs Cornellys (an italian lady acc to Donald Burrows) where they met the Mozarts (they arrive April 1764 and stay for fifteen months), January 1765. Yes indeed ! In fact Casanova was closely associated with this very same Mrs Cornellys. And the careers of Gallini, JC Bach and Abel are all linked to theatrical productions in London at this time and in attempts to buy theatres and even to be rivals to the Cornelys Carlisle House productions. (It was not really 'rivalry' but the development of a cartel in the London music scene).

According to Casanova he admits he had a daughter by 'Mrs Cornelys' in Holland before her first arrival in England. (It's refered to in his own memoirs and they definitely met again in London). Casanova visited her at Carlisle House soon after his own arrival in London from Paris. The Carlisle House in Soho was of course for years a centre of musical activity and was as you say visited by Mozart and his father. In fact, it was a virtual centre of musical intrigue during the whole 'Enlightenment' period.

One source says -

On the east side of the square, at the southeastern corner of Hanover Street, the large building now known as the Hanover Club, or Cercle des Etrangers, had for many years, down to the beginning of 1875, borne the name of the Queen's Concert Rooms, more popularly known as the 'Hanover Square Rooms' The site of the building was anciently called the Mill Field (from a mill which adjoined it, and which Mill Street, hard by, still commemorates), or Kirkham Close. It was originally in the parish of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, though in 1778 it was joined on to that of St. George's, Hanover Square. It appears to have formed part of the premises in the occupation of Matthew, Lord Dillon, the ground landlord being the Earl of Plymouth, who sold it to Lord Denman, who re-sold it to Sir John Gallini, by whom the house and the original concert-room were erected, in the first half of the reign of George III. Gallini, an Italian by extraction, but a Swiss by birth, who, coming to England, was engaged to teach dancing to the then youthful royal family, realised a fortune at the West-end, received the honour of knighthood, and married Lady Betty Bertie, daughter of Lord Abingdon. In 1774 Gallini, joining with John Christian Bach and Charles F. Abel, converted the premises into an "Assembly Room," no doubt, in order to act as a counter attraction to the fashionable gatherings in Soho Square, under the auspices of Mrs. Cornelys, and other places where music went hand-in-glove with masked balls and other frivolous dissipations.

'Hanover Square and Neighbourhood',pp. 314-326.

I will check to see if this Rousseau copy of Pergolesi's work is still existing in England.

Yanni,

Curiously -

In the book - ‘Holland House’ by Princess Marie Leichtenstein is reference to -

Metastasio’s ‘Olimpiade’ with Pergolesi’s music. Copy made by JJ Rousseau in London.

http://www.archive.org/stream/hollan...seau+pergolesi

(I know Josef Myslivececk made a version of 'Olympiade' on the Metastasio text in 1777/8 which was premiered in Naples, Italy that year). But Pergolesi's is far older, of course.

(L'Olimpiade is an opera libretto in three acts by Metastasio, that was originally written for Antonio Caldara's 1733 opera. Following Caldara's success, more than 60 baroque and classical composers used the libretto for their own renditions)

Pergolesi's musical setting dates from two years later (1735).

"Yes, I'm sure the Wiki source is right about JB Rousseau and 'The Coffee House'. "

I am not at all sure on the existence of a JB Rousseau, due to the 1766 efforts by "Grimm" to justify Hume's relations to "Rousseau", ie himself....

Paris, 15 Octobre, 1766. Il y a environ trois mois qu’on reçut à Paris les premières nouvelles de la brouillerie de J.-J. Rousseau avec M. Hume. Excellente pâture pour les oisifs ! Aussi une déclaration de guerre entre deux grandes puissances de l’Europe n’aurait pu faire plus de bruit que cette querelle. Je dis à Paris; car à Londres, où il y a des acteurs plus importans à siffler, on sut à peine la rupture survenue entre l’ex-citoyen de Genève et le philosophe d’Écosse; et les Anglais furent assez sots pour s‘occuper moins de cette grande affaire que de la formation du nouveau ministère et du changement du grand nom de Pitt en celui de Comte de Chatam (sic).’ Correspondance Littéraire de Grimm et de Diderot, ed. 1829, http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27

....and Hume's subsequent (1768) withdrawal from public service.

Re "Olympiade"

Of interest that out of all opera works staged by Cocchi-Rousseau only this Olympiade by Pergolesi (was it really Pergolesi's? It is signed as "by several Eminent Masters’ executed under the direction of Guglielmi". Also see Demofonte, by Metastasio and Cocchi,below) exists today in London*

Metastasio's Olympiade was perhaps first staged in London 1755, while Cocchi was NOT there ie he possibly signed as "Rousseau" his 1754, Venice, Metastasio version and had it sent to London

(LADIES IN THE WHEATSTONE LEDGERS: ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:3153fb16-2775-488a.../ATTACHMENT14:

Comment
While Demofoonte was going on with good Success, Vanneschi came to propose to me Metastasio’s Olimpiade, telling me, that he would show it to me as it was shortened and altered after his own theatrical Notions, that is, mangled and spoiled as usual; but instead of keeping a Promise that Nobody had forced him to make, he sent one Day his Cop[y]ist to bring me my Part written out, with a Message full of his usual Politeness, that he did not think fit to let me see the Opera-book, and that I had nothing to do, but to learn my Part against the Time that this new Opera was to be exhibited.
I had in Mind to look out in my Collection for some other Musick, to put to this new Opera of Olimpiade, as I did to Demofoonte; but on this scandalous Behaviour, after my late Kindness to him, I resolved to do nothing more for his Advantage but what my Contract bound me to...372 footnote 372 :Regina Mingotti, An Appeal to the Public London, [1755]), 11–12.)...


...and we thus have possibly another Demofonte in London, 1755, NOT mentioned by Wikipedia's Demofonte article, an opera of the "common" repertorio of Myslivecec, Gluck, Rousseau and Cocchi...

OR , most propably...

...."Mattia Vento" and "Rousseau" are one and the same (Cocchi) and we speak of early 1765 ( Mattia Vento, Demofoonte March 2, 1765 London)while Cocchi/"Rousseau"-leaving in a hurry?- and the Mozarts were there,

but the music of both operas is by Cocchi in any and either case!


Cheers.

*actually thre are another 9 manuscripts of various works by Cocchi at the British Library.

Yanni,

Both of the items you've just posted here are interesting. Certainly Pergolesi is one of the most massively misattributed composers in music history. Almost 200 works credited to him and today there are less than 30 which can really be associated with him ! A sort of rehearsal for the 'official' career of Mozart.

Also, Josef Myslivecek wrote a version of both 'L'Olimpiade' and also 'Demofoonte' (both in Italy).

According to all the biographies, Rousseau was employed as a part-time music copyist during different times of his life. He was indisputably involved in the propagation of 'Englightenment' music in England and elsewhere and was actively involved in the promotion of Mozart's career at different times. Acting as a catalyst. One of a network of libertines which included Casanova. Without a doubt Mozart and his father must have seen this Rousseau copy of 'L'Olimpiade' at Holland House when they came to London. Supporting your view that Rousseau, to the young Mozart, was an accomplished composer of the time. His influence in Mozart's career with Le devin du Village (Bastien) is further proof of this. I will look more closely at the history of this musical arrangement of 'L'Olimpiade' made by Rousseau at Holland House in London.