The Manufacture of Mozart

Gaetano Guadagni (1729-92) sang the title role in Gluck’s ‘Orfeo’ in Vienna in 1762. And in 1771 he was in London. In fact, that year he was charged at court in Bow Street Magistracy for singing without a licence at Carlisle House ! He had been in London since 1769 at this time and was at the time of his arrival at the height of his fame. The ‘Public Advertiser’ of 5th September records he had been recruited to sing at the King’s Theatre and had been recruited by George Hobart, its new manager. He appeared in Piccini’s ‘Olimpiade’ of that year (from 18th November) and Guglielmi’s ‘Ezio’ from 13th January 1770. But at the end of 1770 he is also credited with having sung in a performance of ‘Orfeo’ (one which is said to have included arias added by J.C. Bach, Guglielmi and Guadagmi himself. 12 performances of this were supposedly given between 7th April and 30th June. Charles Burney speaks of ‘very great applause’ on his performances that year of ‘Orfeo’.

So ‘Orfeo’ was definitely in London as early as 1770. Whether by Gluck or other composers. And the work was being sung by the leading soloist of the Vienna 1762 premiere.

Yanni,

I do recommend that you get some speakers or, at least, some headphones. Because these musical examples are evidence also.

Regards

Earl Cowper is of course massively important in this period for the spread of opera and for arranging soloists, composers and musical fashions across much of Europe. So also Count Durazzo in Italy. In fact, these two men were working together, for years. There were others doing the same in Bohemia including Prince Lobkowitz and Esterhazy, rulers at Donaueschingen, Bonn, Regensburg, Mannheim, etc.

In fact, both Cocchi's visited Canterbury in England to the estate where the Mann family lived. Horatio Mann was an envoy of the English in Italy connected to the prime minister of England. It was there where Leopold Mozart and Wolfgang also came and stayed in the final days before they left for Holland.

The Wikipedia article on A. Cocchi -

In 1722 he had travelled to England as the guest of the 9th Earl of Huntingdon, the father of the 10th Earl. He was a close friend of the British envoy in Florence, Horace Mann. Mann's friend, Horace Walpole, commented to a correspondent in 1740, 'I am very well acquainted with Doctor Cocchi; he is a good sort of man, rather than a great man; he is a plain honest creature with quiet knowledge, but I dare say all the English have told you, he has a very particular understanding.'

I read with interest your last post (and attachment) noticing that Gluck-Myslivecek's "Orfeo ed Euridice" was supposed to be staged on "Cocchi's" earlier Haymarket theater and that at the time of publication, no reference is made of the mysterious November 4th, 1773 peformance of the opera.

No, I was quoting from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Myslive%C4%8Dek earlier who mentions it without defining however place or theater or other details.

Am 4. November 1773 leitete er die Aufführung von Orfeo ed Euridice von Christoph Willibald Gluck.

The list of his "opern" in same article however does not include this performance .....

Romolo ed Ersilia (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 13. August 1773, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);
Antigona (Libretto: G. Roccaforte, UA: 26. Dezember 1773, Turin, Teatro Regio);
La clemenza di Tito (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 26. Dezember 1773, Venedig, Teatro San Benedetto);
Atide (Libretto: T. Stanzani, UA: 1774, Padua);
Artaserse (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 13. August 1774, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);
Il Demofoonte (Libretto: P. Metastasio, UA: 20. Januar 1775, Neapel, Teatro San Carlo);

...while "Myslivecek", as "Grimm", attends the wedding of his unfortunate son, Paul I of Russia (Grimm....1771 erhielt er von Kaiser Joseph II. das Baronat, und so konnte er Prinzessin Wilhelmina Luisa von Hessen-Darmstadt nach Sankt Petersburg begleiten. Die Prinzessin reiste nach Russland, um dort Zar Paul zu heiraten… den sie am 10. Oktober 1773 heiratete).

Hence the discrepancies in his adventurous "Orfeo ed Euridice", not staged immediately on his return to Paris spring 74, (his -Glucks- Iphigenie was selected) but later on in August....

2-24th August 1774 Gluck is in Paris, hosted by Marie Antoinette, staging Orphee and Euridice. He praises Rousseau’s “Devin”. (Letters of Distinguished Musicians: Gluck, Haydn, P. E. Bach, Weber, Mendelssohn By Christoph Willibald Gluck, Ludwig Nohl, Joseph Haydn, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Maria von Weber, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Grace Wallace, Grace Stein Don Wallace)

...and later on in the year in Naples.......

A revised version of Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice, with inserted pieces by Johann Christian Bach and others, was performed at the San Carlo Theatre in Naples on 4th November 1774. By collecting and analysing little known, or newly found, archival documents, the article shows the complex evolution of the theatrical season, and points out the role played by Josef Mysliveček in the choice, manipulation, and execution of the score; an ignored judgement by the Bohemian composer on the work is also examined, in connection with the specific features of the Neapolitan performance. A brief discussion is devoted to the payments for two (of the nine) drammi per musica written by Mysliveăek in Naples, which are compared with the rewards of other maestri di cappella, in order to show the degree of professional achievement reached by the musician. The manuscripts of Mysliveček’s operas, preserved in the library of the Conservatorio di Musica “San Pietro a Majella” in Naples, are considered in the last paragraph; one of them (Farnace) is probably a partial autograph, while the other seven belonged to the collection of the Queen of Naples, Maria Carolina; she, the daughter of Empress Maria Teresa, could have favoured the author’s Neapolitan career.
(Josef Mysliveček e l'esecuzione napoletana dell'Orfeo di Gluck by L Tufano - 2006)

Metastasio, working for "Gluck" and "Chastellux" and Cocchi at the time, before and after, would never give any of his libretti to "a Myslivecek"!!

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

In answer to your question, you are of course refering to the 1773 performance of 'Orfeo' which was attributed to Gluck at the King's Theatre in London. An excellent subject !

Indeed, the advertising page for that London production survives for this mysterious work which is described there as -

'Altered as it was originally performed at Vienna. The music composed by Signor Gluch. With new dances adapted to the Opera, intermixed with Grand Choruses'.

This strange production has certainly caused many headaches over the years. First, because it was supposedly premiered in Vienna in 1762. It was advertised in London newspapers and on playbills for prouduction at the King's Theatre during March of 1773. First performed on 9th March there that year. And further performances given there in May. One researcher says it was performed in London as early as 1770.

But how is this linked to Myslivececk who was in Italy at this time. His operas that year were as follows -

'Il Demetrio' – Metastasio – May 1773
'Romolo ed Eruilia' – Metastasio – Naples – August 1773
'Antigona' – Turin – Dec 1773

That Gluck's career was massively falsified is easily proved. But I see no obvious link here between this King's Theatre production and Josef Myslivececk. Except the fact that Gluck's career in Paris is closely associated with the same people who controlled Cocchi, Mozart and Myslivececk.

---

Re Guadagni.

This is how Wikipedia covers his 1771-1773 performances:

Guadagni left the company there, and took part in unlicensed performances of Mattia Vento's Artaserse, sponsored by the former singer Theresa Cornelys at her home, Carlisle House, in Soho Square: for these he was fined £50, and threatened with Bridewell Prison, and maybe another whipping. His performances in London in the season of 1770-71 included a pasticcio version of Gluck's Orfeo, with additional music by Johann Christian Bach, Pietro Antonio Guglielmi, and one aria arranged by Guadagni himself.
By 1773, the singer had fallen in with the blue-stocking Maria Antonia of Bavaria, Dowager Electress of Saxony, and had followed her to Munich. Here Burney encountered him again, and reports fascinatingly on his ability to sing perfectly in tune: so exact was his intonation in duets with his fellow castrato Venanzio Rauzzini that their singing generated "difference tones". He sang further settings of the Orpheus story by Antonio Tozzi (1775) and Ferdinando Bertoni (1776), which by no means continued the reformist tendencies of Gluck.

…and one has to look for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspare_Pacchierotti to exclude San Carlo from the 4 November 1773 performance of "Myslivecek's" Orfeo and wonder why Pacchieroti's apparent Myslivecek 1773 association(contary to Burney's assertions, he was already very old then, ie second tier, ie "Myslivecek" was propably not present even in the 13th August 73 performance -but neither was he in Paris) was terminated (and where-St Petersburg?-Gluck's specific Orfeo was staged, if at all)

Acronte Romolo ed Ersilia dramma per musica Josef Myslivecek Naples, Real Teatro San Carlo 13 August 1773
Adriano in Siria dramma per musica Giacomo Insanguine Naples, Real Teatro San Carlo 4 November 1773
Orfeo ed Euridice azione teatrale per musica Antonio Tozzi Munich, Hoftheater an der Residenz 9 January 1775

Curiously, another site, previously discussed herein, also misses on specifics referring to "a" Myslivecek's 1773 Orfeo as follows:

....was Josef Myslivecek, who himself directed a performance of Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice in the Teatro San Carlo in Naples in 1773.
http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/s...ttext.htms?ID=kozena-arias&DETAIL=2

Same site refers to the next play by same composer

"On 26 December 1773, the overture to the opera Antigona, to a libretto by Roccaforte, opened the carnival season at the Turin Royal Theatre. The second act closes with a da capo aria sung by the raging Creon (originally written for tenor) "Sarò qual è il torrente" with an onomatopoeic glissando on the word "torrente"

Only for premieres or "firsts" can a researcher take the composer's presence for granted-as evidence-not so for repetitions of older plays, on December 26 in particular. Furthermore this last site also misses to mention yet another "Myslivecek" play that was staged on the same date, (Venice, La Clemenza di Tito, 26 December 1773), the two simultaneous performances of two older plays on the particular calendar day highly indicatory of the maestro's absence and upgraded popularity too)


IE

In view of

a) Gluck's letter(wherefrom I wonder!) on the 26th October 1773 to padre Martini re what to stage next in lower, Bourbon controlled, "Italy" and what not
b)"Myslivecek's" relations to "Gluck-Grimm" and
c)"their" presence in Saint Petersburg at the time and
d)the common provenance of the -inadequately supported- "stories" of the particular performance

unless evidence is produced on the venue of this Orfeo to the contrary , the "manufactured" story must be expanded to include all concerned masters with the note "the process still continues".

The same for the convenient "Myslivecek"- twin brother/composer or not- story (which fails as above to confirm any re presence in Italy from late August 1773 to late 1774 ie "Myslivecek-Gluck's" ie Cocchi's next Orfeo in Naples, Nov 4th 1774- IF he was there, as his revised "french" Orfeo was already premiered in August-Paris.His October-November Paris presence is not at all evident however as well*.).

*In fact, one of the "more trustworthy" sources to be found on our hero's further 1774 movements reads as follows:

....M. Björnstahl writes in his book of travels:--
"We were guests at the court of the Prince-Hereditary Wilhelm von Hessen-Cassel (brother of Karl von Hessen) at Hanau, near Frankfort.
p. 148
"As we returned on the 21st of May 1774 to the Castle of Hanau, we found there Lord Cavendish (William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, then married to Lady Georgiana Spencer) and the Comte de St. Germain; they had come from Lausanne, and were travelling to Cassel and Berlin.

Yet, even this "trustworthy source", fails to mention that shortly before, March 30 1774, the wife of their host, one of the most learned women of her time, had died: Henriette Caroline Christiane Louise of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken, wife of the Landgrave of Hessen-Darmstadt.

The couple were Saint Germain's inlaws, their daughter Wilhelmina-Louisa married the previous year to Saint Germain's son, Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich of Russia, later emperor.
Another of their children, Louisa's brother, Pince Karl of Hesse, a top leader later of the Strict Observance, assisted in the creation of "Saint Germain's" secret, now finally and definitely unveiled!

A minor part of his secret was his music and its fate, thus the creation of the Mozart myth, with his initiative and consent!


Cheers! :santasmil

Musicology, I have no idea whether Mozard was the real composer of all his works or not, but I feel it will be very difficult for one to create works for another artist. Mozard's music is different from Beethoven's music, and they could not compose works for each other. You can feel how they are different by listening to their music. I guess it will be more difficult to have so many people create music in the same style, one that fits into Mozard's music.

By the way, was it written in a book that Cartellieri created operas for Mozard? How did people get to know this?

I think you really know a great deal in this field.

Thank you Virginiawang,

You are right that it's very difficult to create works for another artist. At least, those of a mature artist. The childhood works, and those of Mozart's youth are actually similar to many composers of the time. So, in that case, the modern audience hears 'Mozart's style' only in the sense of not having heard the works of his own contemporaries at the time. 'Mozart's' style is really that of various composers of those years, of which Myslivececk is only one.

You are right too that this gets harder and harder as time passes. For the last decade of Mozart's life (1781-1791) the manufacture of 'his' style succeeds only with great difficulty. With a system in place to do different things.

1. To hide from general appreciation the works of his own contemporaries (as before)

2. To secure from general appreciation the true composers of this music and their active participation in 'his' success.

3. To allow the publication and performance in his name of their own music, this after it had been revised, edited, and manipulated. So that the impression is given that these works are products of a single genius. None other than W.A. Mozart. This impression given further credibility by a vast mass of documents, letters, anecdotes, testimonies and early biographies. Followed, of course, by the posthumous publication of a vast mass of music in his name. And the rise of a musicology which would defend, uphold and propagate his reputation. So that, as time passed, and as the legend grew, the myth was consolidated. And Mozart became (with a handful of others) icons of western musical culture. Whose legend and whose reputation came within decades to control and even to define the 'history of music'. By reference to these group of elite composers.

In answer to your questions on the remarkable life and career of Cartellieri, it's only in the past few decades that much research has been done on his life and career. His very first works show evidence of his links with the court composer Antonio Salieri. That is, with him somehow being close to the 'status quo' within the musical scene of that time. His arrival in Vienna coincided with that of the giant figure of Ludwig van Beethoven. And, since a concert was arranged where his music and that of Beethoven would both be performed it was there, at the Palace of Lobkowitz in Vienna, where these two men had their first concert. The reports of this extraordinary event are full of praise for Cartellieri's works played there. But music history, of course, simply records the success of Beethoven at that same event. Who would bother to examine the virtually unknown Cartellieri. We know, for sure, that he was recruited by the same Prince Lobkowitz of Bohemia as a result of his extraordinary works performed there. (A short biography of him was made by his son which is still unpublished but is today found in a music library of Vienna. I've read it). And this source (plus other publications of the time) show that Cartellieri worked for Lobkowitz in Vienna. Together with Ludwig van Beethoven. In fact, the two men became friends. But Cartellieri goes virtually without any reference in Beethoven biography. From Vienna we know too that he entered into the service of Lobkowitz in Bohemia and he was to remain there for the rest of his short life. We know too that Lobkowitz's father was a major patron of W.A. Mozart. And close study of the music archives of Lobkowitz in Bohemia (which is one of the major Mozart sources) shows his close involvement with music-making there. The younger Lobkowitz continued with their family association with Mozart's career in building a theatre there. And we know that in Bohemia Cartellieri worked alongside another famous composer of the time, Anton Wranitsky, brother of Paul Wranitsky, who was celebrated as a composer back in Vienna. So that these two men worked on operas and other productions made in Bohemia at the estate of Lobkowitz. This years before 'Mozart' operas were ever published. Since, as said, no 'Mozart' opera was published in the whole of Mozart's lifetime. (The only exception being an edited version of 'Die Entfuhrung aus Dem Serail' which appeared in Vienna in 1785 - 3 years after its premiere. This consisting only of excerpts. This German Singspiel, better known as 'The Abduction from the Seraglio', had been condemned by a local music writer at the time of its premiere). So, with this exception, no operas of Mozart were printed during his lifetime. It took many more years before they finally appeared, in some cases more than a decade after his death.

But Cartellieri was not the only person working on 'Mozart' operas. The whole story is quite involved. So too were people in London. And in Italy and France. And in Prague. It is only with much difficulty that we are able, slowly, to piece together how these operas were written and how they came to be associated with their beneficiary, W.A. Mozart.

A year ago a detailed analysis of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was made in Italy by Professors L. Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta of the music from the score used at the Vienna premiere of that opera in 1786. They concluded that this music is really a hastily made arrangement of already existing music which had been newly translated from German into Italian. And not 'Mozart's' work at all. Reaction to this major work was muted within the 'Mozart industry' and it remains so today.

The other operas all have their own story. But they all bring us back to the same facts. That a network of composers, arrangers, patrons, and publishers were complicit in the manufacture of 'his' musical reputation and this was achieved with every effort being made to conceal reality at the time. The publication of the first biographies further helped to conceal the truth. So that, within a few decades it seemed that nothing could possibly challenge the view we have of his life, career and achievements.

But, slowly, it was possible to work with what we have. To compare it with other facts (less well known) and to piece together, with much difficulty, the real story. A story hardly told. And one which, at least, people can read and compare for themselves with what is found in textbooks and standard works of reference.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virginiawang

Musicology, I have no idea whether Mozard was the real composer of all his works or not, but I feel it will be very difficult for one to create works for another artist. Mozard's music is different from Beethoven's music, and they could not compose works for each other. You can feel how they are different by listening to their music. I guess it will be more difficult to have so many people create music in the same style, one that fits into Mozard's music.

By the way, was it written in a book that Cartellieri created operas for Mozard? How did people get to know this?

I think you really know a great deal in this field.

---

Yanni,

Yes, this is all fascinating stuff which you've given here on 'Gluck's' opera 'Orfeo'. For the benefit of readers I think we can say that here, with Gluck (and indeed with so much else) things are never quite what they seem to be in 18th century music. Mozart was by no means the first composer to be manufactured and this process was actually quite advanced by the time of his life and career. It is simply that with Mozart the 'system' and the vast networks which sustained it had developed to the point where they allowed the control and export of their own versions far beyond what was ever possible before. The careers of Pergolesi, Handel and others before that time may also be mentioned. So too the career of Josef Haydn. And even those beyond Mozart, including Beethoven, and Mendelssohn.

None of which changes the fact that this music which we know is often wonderful.

The subject of Gluck is very fascinating. And, yes, I am aware of his career. Various researchers have examined the details of his life and career in critical detail in recent years. It certainly followed many similar tracks we find years later with Mozart. For example, Gluck's links with Bohemia and with the same patrons we find in Mozart and even Beethoven.

Beyond reasonable doubt the rise of the music industry from the early 19th century onwards began to take control of what was taught and believed on musical accomplishment. Involving, often, the suppression of facts and the invention of others. The creation of icons, in fact. But its interests were contradicted (and still are) by those of musicology itself. In fact, the founder of musicology, J.N. Forkel, spent decades warning students of music in the late 18th and early 19th century that the interests of music managers and of publishers and propagandists were sure to clash with those of music itself. His writings on this subject are fascinating. And Forkel was so right. He, Forkel, often laughed that the Viennese were still ignorant of J.S. Bach and other works of the late baroque. Works which, he said, were of higher value, musically, to students, than the icons of his own time.

My previous post has just been edited Robert, "Mozart's music" included.

Our cooperation has been productive, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

My previous post has just been edited Robert, "Mozart's music" included.

Our cooperation has been productive, thanks!

---

Yes, Yanni, anything that throws light on this period of cultural history is good. The cultural immortalisation of a handful of particular composers corresponds with the strange beliefs of those occultists who, themselves, believe their heroes are 'immortal'. Cagliostro is only one example of this doctrine. A person becomes an 'immortal', culturally, in the sense that he inherits the achievements of others before him or/and represents what his predecesors worked for. So that he never dies. etc. Thus Mozart and a handful of other composers become 'immortal' or, as Franz Schubert put it -

''Mozart, immortal Mozart, how many, how infinitely many inspiring suggestions of a finer, better life have you left in our souls! - Diary

The sense in which 'great' composers are immortalised corresponds not so much with their real achievements (which can be and are grossly exaggerated and may even have been manufactured on a wholesale scale, as in the case of Mozart) but is derived from the status within society of those who first patronised them. In this case monarchists and elite families whose deeds and whose own prestige are carried on as a sacred duty from one generation to the next. A virtual dynasty. And so one 'great' composer joins the pantheon of what become known as 'great' composers to students and he is immortalised, by the very industry and by the very bloodlines who first created them. The conservatism of this thinking and academic/cultural control of what is eulogised and published on these individuals is plain enough, whether we are talking of Cagliostro or St Germain, or Casanova, Mozart, Rousseau, Voltaire or any of the other 'heroes' of cultural history. Since the writers of biographies, of encyclopaedias, of journal articles, etc. are patronised by the very people whose primary interest is to maintain the 'status quo' which they and their ancestors have invented.

Thus, in answer to the question of 'Can 200 years of Shakespeare scholarship, or Mozart scholarship, or Rousseau scholarship, or Voltaire scholarship be wrong' ? we must answer that such 'scholarship' consists of little, if any, appreciation of the society in which these men lived, or of the lives and careers of their own contemporaries. Since hero worship is idol worship and has the effect of suppressing and marginalising inconvenient truths. So that flaws we may find and show beyond reasonable doubt as true in the lives of any person and which may bring us in to the real world are considered inappropriate and such evidence is routinely suppressed or offset by the steady stream of eulogy which takes the place of historical reality.

In the musical sense this was all anticipated long ago by the German writer on music, J.N. Forkel. Who, when asked what he considered to be 'great' music and 'great' composers argued (at length) that what is great in music is that which is useful for students and that 'great' composers are those rare individuals who have served mankind despite the industry which ignores and even suppresses them.

You may, to eternity, refuse acknowledging who the true composer of "Mozart music" was, you may continue, as above, mixing up "non musical charlattans"(your definition of Rousseau, so revealing of your intentions) with Mozart to confuse the issue...

BUT

....Forkel had "Rousseau" and "Saint Germain" (and "Gluck" and Cocchi, you do tend to ommit them) in mind when defining "great music" and "great composers" as per "their" little secret "we" just unveiled.

Scripta manent!

(For those who "cant get no satisfaction": Elementary musicology courses of Orfeo in "novella musica" at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Cour...43/orfeopg.htm)

Yanni,

How much time have you spent examining music of the late 18th century ? Do you know the musical careers of Vanhal, Sarti, Luchesi, Cocchi, Paul Wranitsky and dozens of others who were definitely involved in this subject ? I have said from the start that Rousseau was involved in this network. But so were many others. This seems to escape you. Now, your interest in Rousseau, Cocchi and countless aliases is interesting. But your scattergun approach tends to confuse everyone and you really should link up your ideas into a more coherent post on this thread. People do not wish to have five or six aliases for a person they know virtually nothing about. You have not told us who Rousseau's employer was. Nor have you told us his motives and objectives. And, of course, the main subject here is Mozart, not Gluck. With these small improvements I am sure your posts would be far more interesting and coherent. No-one is refusing to accept any facts. It's simply that discussing facts is always better when we have a rough outline of the subject under discussion.

I can only describe your contributions here as erratic but interesting. Why not take the time to give us one simple overview of the situation as you see it. Gluck is already agreed by many researchers to have been 'manufactured' and his career really ended before that of Mozart's final years.

So, who was managing Rousseau (alias Cocchi etc) ? This will at least be a good starting point.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

You may, to eternity, refuse acknowledging who the true composer of "Mozart music" was, you may continue, as above, mixing up "non musical charlattans"(your definition of Rousseau, so revealing of your intentions) with Mozart to confuse the issue...

BUT

....Forkel had "Rousseau" and "Saint Germain" (and "Gluck" and Cocchi, you do tend to ommit them) in mind when defining "great music" and "great composers" as per "their" little secret "we" just unveiled.

Scripta manent!

(For those who "cant get no satisfaction": Elementary musicology courses of Orfeo in "novella musica" at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Blair/Cour...43/orfeopg.htm)

---

"Free thinkers", like ideas and other mental processes, are never "managed" but occasionaly (very rarely if they are "great" as well) converted trough dialogue and negotiations. .

"Comte de Saint Germain" was "very high" on the "Scottish Orthodox Rite of the Strict Observance" (how many times do I have to repeat it?). A small part of his library (that was left behind when he left Paris) belongs today to the or "a" Scottish Lodge in Edinborough (via a gemtleman by the name of "Thory" if I remember rightly).

How high?

By all means contact and ask them about him, I did, a year or more ago, they never replied, thus persuading me complete my research.

Quoting from my post #2 in this thread:

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.

You see, I don't believe in "persuading" others, feeding them with ready made garbage conclusions, it's either "their own conclusions" or none at all!

Cheers!

Yanni,

I have no doubt that your research in these areas is of real value. That you have accumulated material of real importance to understanding the realities of aspects of the 18th and other centuries which relate to culture and music, and, particularly, on that era known generally today as the 'Enlightenment'.

But, since you wish to make no contribution to simplifying this complex subject let me try to be constructive myself (for the benefit of readers). Since nobody doubts we are both dealing here with complexity in a situation which really calls for simplicity. I therefore offer the following sketch as an attempt to express, at least from my perspective, the broad outlines of what interests both of us.

Let me start by describing how, a few years ago, here in London, I passed a mechanic who was working for the telephone company at one of its junction boxes. On a street in central London. Now, these junction boxes here are mostly dark green in colour. With two small doors. A box, in fact, of metal. Which, from time to time is serviced by the telephone company. And, on that day, I passed such a box in the street on my way to another place. As I passed I glanced at the mechanic and noticed that he was working with a row of wires and connections. All of these (and there must have been several thousand of them) having small wires, of different colours. A picture of such complexity that I marvelled how anyone could possibly work on it. Wires everywhere. And all compressed within that junction box. Now, I know that each of those wires is connected in some way to a telephone line within the area. And that the mechanic was involved in servicing this box.

Our posts are rather similar. We are dealing with specifics in a field which can be highly complex. Your observations and mine are of value, though their relationship to mine are from a slightly different perspective. Your interests are closely allied to mine, and mine yours. Although our specific priorities and goals are not the same.

The way I see it is this. From the time of late Imperial Rome the opportunistic leaders of that empire in Rome oversaw the merger, by decree, of the dying Roman Empire with that of the newly emerging papacy. So that a 'marriage of church and state' was created. This, most famously, expressed in the decrees of Theodosius (381-382 AD). And which attempted to impose on Roman territories across Western Europe this 'marriage of church and state'. Later followed by the fraud we know as the 'Donation of Constantine'. Which laid the foundations for the rise of a new Empire. That of papal Rome. And which had the effect of beginning the rise of kingdoms and elite families who would rule over these territories as vassals of the papacy. This scramble for power in Western Europe culminated, in 800 AD with the crowning in Rome by the pope of that time of Charlemagne, Emperor of the so-called 'Holy Roman Empire'. A vast empire which would last in European history up until 1814. Punctuated by such events as the Reformation. But this, at least, is the rough outline of events during those long centuries in continental Europe. But a major element not yet described is the break in the Roman Empire which occurred before 800. The division of Imperial Roman rule in to two different parts, that of the West and that of the East. Byzantium. So that the Holy Roman Empire was already divided at the time of Charlemagne coming to rule over most of Europe.

And Europe, nominally Roman Catholic, maintained, preserved, in fact, much of its paganism, even after it was part of the 'Holy Roman Empire'. It was from these pagan influences (often inflitrating the Roman Church itself) that the earliest fraternities of Western Europe came. Such as Rosicrucianism, and, much later, Freemasonry etc. These things finally culminating in the movement known as the Illuminati.

Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization. In fact Venice became a seat of occultism. An oligarchy and one which was in close contact with Byzantium. A Venice which was a slave trading nation. With its banking system and usury etc. A Venice which, eventually, helped to found the British Empire from the time of Henry 8th onwards. So that occultism in England was the channel by which Venetian influence grew there.

The Reformation in Germany and in Bohemia were powerful facts of European history. So powerful, in fact, that an attempt was made to counter its effects on Europe. This by the Council of Trent, which sat for years, to decide on what to do about its spread. A 'counter-reformation' was decided on. One which would re-evangalise Europe in the name of Rome. And, to help in this process a new (military) order would be created. That of the Jesuit Order, the 'Society of Jesus'. This 'counter-reformation' that came out of the Council of Trent gave the new Jesuit Order its prominent place in the education and cultural life of much of continental Europe. A Jesuit Order which (in fact) was supported from the start by the occultists of Venice. So that this idea of Protestant versus Catholic is not completely correct. A third element also had a massive role. That of occultism, of fraternities, and, in fact, of anti-Christian influences.

The development of Freemasonry out of England was done with Venetian influence. So too the mercantile empire and banking system of England and the financing of the emerging British Empire. So that England became a mercantile, slave trading, usury banker, opium trading empire in the same way as the model itself, Venice.

The Jesuit teachers (employed across much of continental Europe until 1773 -though banned from France, Portugal etc from 1762 onwards) were massively important teachers of art and music before that date. This is very clear if one studies, say, the composers in Vienna of the early to middle 18th century.

There was, therefore, an internal battle being waged within the Roman Catholic Church itself. Between occultism and Roman Catholicism. And this, of course, accounts for rivalry between Venice and Rome. Just as much as Protestant/Roman Catholic rivalry accounts for the battles between Britain and Roman Catholic Europe. The Jesuit strategy after 1773 (now covert) was nothing less than to spearhead the 'Enlightenment'. So that when you say 'Rome has nothing to do with it', you may be avoiding the fact that, at the highest levels of the Holy Roman Empire were occultists in the arts and sciences.

The manufacture of Mozart involved occultists and church people. Of course it did. Since empires have their hierarchies. As do churches. To suggest that Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Illuminatists etc. were not closely associated with the careers of Rousseau, Voltaire, Mozart and countless 'heroes' of the Englightenment would be absurd. We know they were.

This is the great value of your contributions here on Rousseau and on Cocchi etc.

So, you are not wrong. And nor am I. We are examining these issues from different perspectives. Doing so honestly and sincerely. And I am glad we can exchange our findings, our opinions, so that we might both profit (and others) from our conversation. As I have done. And as I hope you have too.

Regards

"Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization. In fact Venice became a seat of occultism. An oligarchy and one which was in close contact with Byzantium. A Venice which was a slave trading nation. With its banking system and usury etc. A Venice which, eventually, helped to found the British Empire from the time of Henry 8th onwards. So that occultism in England was the channel by which Venetian influence grew there. "

Your selection of terms,as above, really confuses me:

Where would "western civilization be without Rome, Venice, Florence and their eastern contacts that brought "pagan Europe" its two basic foundations:
-freethinking, liberal,enterpriisng Classical Greece, with its arts, sciences and philosophy and
-remorse inducing, stricter Christianity(allegedly judeogreek but jews still misinterpret "allelujah" originating from αλληλουχία, ie interrelations ie supporting oneanother) also based on eastern philosophies (for tribal societies application)?

What remains, in fact, of "Western civilization" without these two and only cornerstones, contradictory as they may be?

Re the rest of your post, the period 1740-1815 in particular, has allready being covered in my previous posts and needs no further refining, thank you:

Rome would be history today had it not been revived, post Napoleon, by winner takes all Britain!

Your grudge against "today"-which I share btw-has nothing to do with the specific period and neither are the founding fathers to blame for what their children have made of their vision.

Which brings us all back to square 1: "Paradise and how to get there in a jiffy" or "now that the end is lost, we better justify the means"!

Yanni,

You are puzzled by me saying 'Venice was never, in fact, a part of western civilization'. Although you end your reference to Venice by saying of Venice and Rome (and here I quote) -

What remains, in fact, of "Western civilization" without these two and only cornerstones, contradictory as they may be?

Well, if you agree there are ''contradictions'' let's see what these contradictions are. And whether, in the case of Venice, this might be justified.

Venice, from an early date, was a seat of ancient paganism. A pocket of paganism, in fact, even in Roman Catholic dominated Europe. Its doges formed strong links with areas of the Eastern Roman Empire of late Imperial Rome. Of Byzantium. And with Turkey. It prospered by these links for centuries and because of this it developed amongst other things a huge slave trade, this at a time when Christian Europe was coming out of slavery. Or, at least, where the ethos of Christian Europe tended to make men free, and not slaves. And this at a time when the Golden Rule was really the basis of law and legal systems elsewhere. Is that not so ? The leaders of Venice, who were really a small dynasty of elitist bandits, were also masterminds behind development of what we call today modern banking, usury, and the origins of the modern banking system. Is that not so ? The mammon aspect, that is ? This transplanted, gradually, across Europe. And usury, (must I remind you ?) is the making of money, out of nothing. Since a loan of money should not be justification for printing banknotes on the extra (and notional value) which is the main feature of what became the banking industry. In short, the system of usury, later copied, of course, by Rome, and most famously by England, was the very system which made Venice (and later London) a financial and banking centre and did not have its origins in Christian Europe nor in a society where Christian values were first, but in pagan Europe. There in Venice. And the government of Venice, with its doges became, rapidly, a different place from Europe. This further accelerated by import there of pagan philosophy. And even the continuation there of pagan religion itself. Which any study of Venetian history will confirm. It is from this latent paganism of Venice where we see early formation of 'secret societies', of 'mystery religion', of the beginnings, in fact, of secret agents, and of intelligence services. Indeed, the early English secret service was created on the model of Venice after the time when Venetian advisers and agents helped King Henry 8th and his government to become independent of Rome. Encouraged and assisted by Venice. This tendency towards secrecy and 'degrees of knowledge' was further developed within the ruling elites of Europe in to movements such as Rosicrucianism and, eventually (after its export to England and this at a time when there was an emerging middle class) culminating in the secular cult of Freemasonry, from around 1717 onwards. Since Freemasonry, also, has its real roots in Venetian occultism. As any study of that subject would also confirm. For these and many other reasons (confirmed by any study of that subject) we may see example after example of how Venice was not Western civilization but was, instead, at best, a countefeit of it. The further rise of legal systems based upon commerce (admiralty law etc) owe a great deal to Venetian influence also. Which, over time, overthrew Common Law and replaced it with commercial law and the laws of corporations, revenue courts, and big business. Hence the 'English Common Law', a hybird system which is really a mixture of commercial law, common law, canon law, and admiralty law. This replacing Common Law at the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. And developed further over the centuries which followed. So that Common Law was, because of the rise of the British Empire, replaced by 'English Common Law' (so-called) and its effects were to corporatise the legal industry. And the rise of occultism at the time of the Jesuit Order (since the Jesuit order were also supported by Venice in their earliest days after they were formed). We also see, in the actions of Venetian academics (most of whom were occultists themselves) the development of bogus reputations such as those of William Shakespeare. And, later, that of Isaac Newton. This too done with the direct assistance of Venetian sources. Again, without Venetian propaganda Newton would not have become an icon of English science but would have been exposed as the occultist he really was. It was Venetian propaganda which glossed over the discoveries of scientists such as Leibnitz for the 'glory of England' and who credited them to this alchemist, Isaac Newton. This as a plain fact of scientific history. And it was from Venice, of course, where so much of 'Englightenment' philosophy was developed. With its hostility towards Christianity (though, of course, these critics such as Voltaire and Rousseau sheltered within the church as their protection). Countless other examples could be offered. Another simple example - the librettos of Lorenzo da Ponte, librettist, were to a massive extent borrowed, plagiarised from the Venetian writer Carlo Gozzi, his very own mentor - a fact only relatively recently recognised by those who write on Mozart/da Ponte.

I am not defending Rome and its contribution to western Civilization. I am saying there are really three, and not just two major factors in any account of western culture. Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Occultism. With the last of these three much hidden, obscured, and so often edited out of our standard textbooks and encyclopaedias. Since the patronage of art and culture, through the last millenium or so, has, of course, to a great extent, been a reflection of those who patronised it, and it remains paradoxical, unnecessarily so, unless we identify these three different and contrasting streams of influence in western civilization (so-called).

You never answered my basic question, rhetoric as it may have been!

"Occultism" for the few, "obedience though strict observance of the book" for the rest, has already been adressed, thank you.

"Contradictory" is nature, our relation to it, our relations to each other, our relations with self, hence "hallelujah" meaning "togetherness", unfit for loners but sinequanon for "society" as per the ancient definition!

BTW Whatever means your "occult orientals" used to conquer "civilised west" one thing is for sure: They were peacefull!

Yanni,

I think I have answered your question on Venice. Well, at least, sketched an answer.

We may describe as 'occultist' that system of beliefs which is hidden. This in direct contrast to what is celebrated in broad daylight, fully revealed and not done in a corner. And so we see the difference. Since mystery has been replaced by that which is revealed. Though what is revealed so freely and is recognised to be the chief context of all history may yet remain hidden from the minds of the wise and prudent and be revealed to mere babes, such as are able to learn from it.

A society consists of those who, being freely born, are not attracted to its counterfeits.

Which brings to mind a famous conversation between members of two different societies -

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum of money I obtained myself my freedom. And Paul said, “Yes, but I was free born”.

(Acts Chapter 22).

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

You never answered my basic question, rhetoric as it may have been!

"Occultism" for the few, "obedience though strict observance of the book" for the rest, has already been adressed, thank you.

"Contradictory" is nature, our relation to it, our relations to each other, our relations with self, hence "hallelujah" meaning "togetherness", unfit for loners but sinequanon for "society" as per the ancient definition!

BTW Whatever means your "occult orientals" used to conquer "civilised west" one thing is for sure: They were peacefull!

---

Never asked you on-your version of-Venice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

I think I have answered your question on Venice. Well, at least, sketched an answer.

We may describe as 'occultist' that system of beliefs which is hidden. This in direct contrast to what is celebrated in broad daylight, fully revealed and not done in a corner. And so we see the difference. Since mystery has been replaced by that which is revealed. Though what is revealed so freely and is recognised to be the chief context of all history may yet remain hidden from the minds of the wise and prudent and be revealed to mere babes, such as are able to learn from it.

A society consists of those who, being freely born, are not attracted to its counterfeits.

Which brings to mind a famous conversation between members of two different societies -

And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum of money I obtained myself my freedom. And Paul said, “Yes, but I was free born”.

(Acts Chapter 22).

Regards

---