The puzzle of the socalled "Bach variations".

Really, this is turgid stuff Yanni. It leads nowhere. It's a mess. I strongly recommend you consider the stuff you are posting. It lacks a foundation. It's full of innuendo leading nowhere in particular and with no substance. You need to get a foundation and take it from there. This is, to me, a feature of your posts. Disconnected wires which are never joined up. Dig deeper. You will find

1) Reality
2) Counterfeit elite interests (employing a cast of willing slaves, managers and propagandists).

Cantata 42

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Hu3X...eature=related

Regards

I've just looked at some examples of Bach's handwriting, and the way he wrote his music, and compared it with that of Handel. Bach's writing seems to much more rounded, and applying less pressure. There are few if any similarities that I could see, although I freely admit that I know little of music, only a bit of graphology. Is this relevant?

Actually, it is a collection of quotes on JSBach by well respected authors, all mentioned.

You have still to produce an answer in support of "Vienna-first globalist power" and to provide the dates of the last performances of your Judas Maccabeus, 1747, your "killer" helicopter find that collapsed so easily on your grove-ling pile of rubbish!

Here is something on Telemann to keep you company:

Wikiquote:

Legacy
Telemann was the most prolific composer of his time: his oeuvre comprises more than 3000 pieces. The first accurate estimate of the number of his works were provided by musicologists only during the 1980s and the 1990s, when extensive thematic catalogues were published. During his lifetime and the latter half of the 18th century Telemann was very highly regarded by colleagues and critics alike. Numerous theorists (Marpurg, Mattheson, Quantz, and Scheibe, among others) cited his works as models, and major composers such as J.S. Bach and Handel bought and studied his published works. He was immensely popular not only in Germany but in the rest of Europe as well: orders for editions of Telemann's music came from France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and Spain. It was only in early 19th century that his popularity came to a sudden halt. Most lexicographers started dismissing him as a "polygraph" who composed too many works, a Vielschreiber for whom quantity came before quality. Such views were influenced by an account of Telemann's music by Christoph Daniel Ebeling, a late 18th century critic who in fact praised Telemann's music and only made passing critical remarks of his productivity. After the Bach revival, Telemann's works were judged as inferior to Bach's and lacking in religious fervour. Particularly striking examples of such unfair judgements were produced by noted Bach biographers Philipp Spitta and Albert Schweitzer, who criticized Telemann's cantatas and then praised works they thought were composed by Bach—but which were, in fact, composed by Telemann, as was shown by later research. The last performance of a substantial work by Telemann (Der Tod Jesu) occurred in 1832, and it was not until the 20th century that his music started being performed again. The revival of interest in Telemann began in the first decades of the 20th century and culminated in the Bärenreiter critical edition of the 1950s. Today each of Telemann's works is usually given a TWV number. TWV stands for Telemann-Werke-Verzeichnis (Telemann Work Catalogue).

Telemann's music was one of the driving forces behind the late Baroque and the early Classical styles. Starting in the 1710s he became one of the creators and the foremost exponents of the so-called German mixed style, an amalgam of German, French, Italian and Polish styles. Over the years, his music gradually changed and started incorporating more and more elements of the galant style, but he never completely adopted the ideals of the nascent Classical era: Telemann's style remained contrapuntally and harmonically complex, and already in 1751 he dismissed much contemporary music as too simplistic. Composers he influenced musically included pupils of J.S. Bach in Leipzig, such as Wilhelm Friedmann Bach, Carl Philipp Emmanuel Bach and Johann Friedrich Agricola, as well as those composers who performed under his direction in Leipzig (Christoph Graupner, Johann David Heinichen and Johann Georg Pisendel), composers of the Berlin lieder school, and finally, his numerous pupils, none of whom, however, became major composers.

Equally important for the history of music were Telemann's publishing activities. By pursuing exclusive publication rights for his own works, he set one of the most important early precedents for regarding music as the intellectual property of the composer. The same attitude informed his public concerts, where Telemann would frequently perform music originally composed for ceremonies attended only by a select few members of the upper class.

Hi, Dafydd and wellcome to this forum.

Graphology is not really anymore a science than forgery is and they were expert forgers in the 18th century, some, like Cagliostro, closely linked to my main hero, ie Comte de Saint Germain.

Here is a little something you might care to examine and interpret if Handel/Bach falls in your basket of interests:

TO SIR HORACE MANN. STRAWBERRY HILL, Oct. 24, 1758.: Apropos to them, I will send you an epigram that I made the other day on Mr. Chute's asking why Taylor the oculist called himself Chevalier?[1]
[Footnote 1: Walpole was proud of the epigram, for the week before he had sent it to Lady Hervey. It was—
Why Taylor the quack calls himself Chevalier
'Tis not easy a reason to render,
Unless blinding eyes that he thinks to make clear
Demonstrates he's but a Pretender.

Handel died allegedly less than a year later but because of his rather strange behaviour eversince 1750-went often missing-there were many who did not believe he really died then.

And "Pretender", with a capital P, is highly revealing of Walpole's views on -undercover nomore- agent "Handel"!

Regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dafydd manton

I've just looked at some examples of Bach's handwriting, and the way he wrote his music, and compared it with that of Handel. Bach's writing seems to much more rounded, and applying less pressure. There are few if any similarities that I could see, although I freely admit that I know little of music, only a bit of graphology. Is this relevant?

---

Graphology is, indeed, not an art, but I still can't quite see why so many of the documents, known to be in reputable collections, and which are so radically different even to the untrained eye, should be confused. Perhaps somebody could explain, but obviously bearing in mind the chief axiom for anybody in the field of Intelligence Collection - Never, ever expand upon a hypothesis. Thank you.

Your axiom is contradicted by intelligence people mostly working on multiple hypotheses and what if scenaria.

But Walpole's verse is nothing like such, it reads instead like "time to do something about it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Your axiom is contradicted by intelligence people mostly working on multiple hypotheses and what if scenaria.

But Walpole's verse is nothing like such, it reads instead like "time to do something about it".

---

What the heck has Walpole got to do with Intelligence Collection? It was a field in which I worked for 15 long years, so can refute your rather strange contentions without fear of contradiction. Well, sensible contradiction, anyway. Thank you, I have learned all I need to know at this point. It has been......interesting.

Walpole, like most diplomats of his time, had a lot to do with all of todays departments or fields of intelligence, planning, collecting, interpreting and evaluating etc and was quite a skilled diplomat as well.

You are confused because you are applying current company structure (reducing the individual and prohibiting initiative, hence your axiom and bitterness) to judge another era.

Your considered thoughts on the subject, as per title, are still wellcome.

Regards.

Nobody is talking about diplomats, politicians or anybody else, We are talking about GATHERING intelligence, the principles of which have not changed in over 2000 years. merely the methodology has altered. Bitterness? Wrong. Confusion? Wrong. Current Company Structure? More than wrong. Other than that, well.......it still doesn't explain the disparity between the two different hands. does it?

Believe it or not, Dafydd, this subject is titled "the puzzle of the socalled Brandenburg concertos" and has to do with Handel/Bach and the people he associated with.

Like all puzzles, unless one expands upon mutliple hypotheses on all elements as they prop up thru research, it cannot be solved.

Furthemore the word itself, hypothesis, defines that any "thesis" (and as it turns out most axioms are but such) includes various underlying angles that must be always examined.

Have a good day.

Funny, that. It says "Bach variations" on my computer. Reliability of evidence, that kind of thing. Oh dear.

Your initiative to expand upon a hypothesis was proven right, Daf, but your skills of intelligence collection so far have not provided any evidence to counter mine in "either" subject.

The subject is "Handel and Bach were one and the same" by now and will consist of at least three entities (many more can be produced if needed, all leading to the same conclusion).

The Bach variations , the Brandenurg Concertos and Handel/Bach's eye problem and Taylor surgery.

A fourth entity, titled "Musicology's helicopter accident", better be avoided, don't you think?

Thanks.

I shouldn't like to get involved. No gentleman would get embroiled in personal mud-slinging, though, it's so common, don't you feel? Almost as bad as abbreviating a chap's name, what? Dash it all, you would refer to Mozart as Wolfie, would you. Ludders? Perishin' impertinence!

With Mozart anything is possible. As we all know. And with that most controversial observation, voila !

Pity your englishcountrygentlemanly idiom was tainted. "Mud slinging"? Couldn't find it in my Concise Oxford, IV Ed, 1959, imagine that!

Are you suggesting perhaps that the well deserved "return to sender" of Sir Robert's latest attempt to "mud slinging with irony" was not documented enough to call his bluff (or blunder) or are you just dressing up this new attempt of -awfully common-slander differently?

Perish in your impertinance as you please, Sir Dafydd.

English? Sir, you do me a disservice. I like the Sir bit though!

"Welshcountrygentlemanly" doesn't have the right ring, Dafydd.

Hugh Grand holds the title for "old english style" champion anyhow!

No, you're right, it doesn't, but the word is long enough to be one of ours!!!!! Cheers!!

Coming back to third entity, Handel/Bach's eye problem and Taylor surgery, here is a short quote on Dr William Bromfield's son (William Bromfield allegedly operated on Handel/Bach's eye in 1752) studies in Florence:

His eldest son, William Heriot Bromfield, was born in Fetherstone Buildings, Holborn, and was baptised at St. Andrew's, Holborn, on December 19, 1736. He was entered at Eton in 1753, leaving two years later;' but his name appears as being apprenticed to his father in 1753, at Surgeons' Hall. He graduated M.D. at Padua, became a member of the Academies of Botany at Cortona and Florence, and of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, and it was he who published a French translation of his father's work on " The English Nightshades" in 1761; and to him was dedicated, by the editor, a Latin edition of his father's " Observations on Lithotomy " (extracted from his lectures on Surgery), published at Florence in the same year. This dedication extols his rare learning in every branch of literature and science, and refers to his studies under the illustrious Florentine Professor, Antonio Cocchi*, the friend of Isaac Newton and Richard Mead.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00927-0107.pdf

We have seen so far that Bach/Handel was in Germany in 1750 to have his first eye operation by Dr Taylor which was succesfull.

He then returns to London, as Handel, and a few months later his left eye troubles him again and consults Samuel Sharp sometime after June 1751 who diagnosed [I]‘gutta serena’ (drop serene) which corresponds to the modern term of amaurosis, and which was then diagnosed in cases of ‘an abolition of the sight without any apparent cause or fault in the eyes’.

(No source is found today supporting an eventual first “couching” by Dr Sharp.)

Soon after.....

November 1752, Handel is ceized with a paralytic disorder in his Head which has deprived him from sight’ [Deutsch, 1955]. On November 4, Händel had been couched again, this time by the Princesses’ of Wales doctor William Bromfield. ‘Yesterday, George-Frederick Handel, Esq; was couch’d by William Bromfield, Esq; Surgeon to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, when it was thought there was all imaginable Hopes of Success by the Operation, which must give the greatest Pleasure to all Lovers of Musick’ (General Advertiser, November 4, 1752) [Deutsch, 1955]. A short time later we find a notice in the Cambridge Chronicle (January 13, 1753): ‘Mr. Handel has so much recovered his sight that he is able to go abroad’, meaning that Händel was able to go out of doors [Deutsch, 1955]. Only 2 weeks later the public was confronted with the following news: ‘Mr. Handel has at length, unhappily, quite lost his sight. Upon his being couch’d some time since, he saw so well, that his friends flattered themselves his sight was restored for a continuance; but a few days have entirely put an end to their hope’ [Deutsch, 1955]. There was even a third eye operation by the ‘Chevalier’ John Taylor in Tunbridge Wells in 1758 (see London Chronicle, August 24, 1758) [Deutsch, 1955]. Taylor was the same man, who twice couched Johann Sebastian Bach without lasting success in 1750, and may actually have induced an iatrogenic wound infection leading to Bach’s death in July 1750.


Here is what Taylor himself wrote on the matter, partially covering the truth ( (his "Pretender" preferences already blown 1758, shortly before Handel's death):

But to proceed, I have seen a vast variety of singular animals, such as dromedaries, camels,&c and particularly at Leipsick, where a celebrated master of music, who had already arrived to his 88th year, received his sight by my hands; it is with this very man that the famous Handel was first educated, and with whom I once thought to have had the same success, having all circumstances in his favour, motions of the pupil, light, &L but upon drawing the curtain, we found the bottom defective, from a paralytic disorder.l

IE

Many years later, Taylor accepts to follow in step to the tune of "Handel and another music master he operated upon in Leipsig" (he avoids mentioning "Bach") and his descendants accept his discrediting by a later commentator who writes:

THIS much-quoted paragraph from the autobiography of the peripatetic English oculist John Taylor is the basis for the tradition that he operated on both J. S. Bach, who was certainly the celebrated master of music at Leipzig, and his even more famous contemporary Handel. But, besides its off-hand linking of human geniuses with camels,the passage is so full of inaccuracies that many authorities, including Coats, who wrote an excellent biography of Taylor, have discounted his claim. Thus Bach died at the age of 65, he did not regain his sight after operation, and, far from educating Handel, he never met him.

But scholars have collected some external evidence that Taylor did operate on Bach and perhaps on Handel, though unhappily without success:the inaccuracies may merely reflect his general unreliability about details.

Lies upon lies, yet Taylor confirms he first operated on Handel alone, believing his first operation had been successful: ...and with whom I once thought to have had the same success, having all circumstances in his favour, motions of the pupil, light, &L only to discover later, in consultation with other doctors, the root cause of the problem which was not cataract but deeper in the eye nerve ...but upon drawing the curtain, we found the bottom defective, from a paralytic disorder.

* By Antonio Cocchi: De lente crystalina oculi humani vera suffisionis sede epistola ad celeberrimum virum Jo. Baptistam Morgagnum Patavini lycei decus - Roma - Jo. Mariam Salvioni

(to be continued)

Yanni,

Your learned discourse reminds me of the newspaper journalist who once reported on a great political speech given over several hours by a leading politician. His report was spread over 2 pages of the 'Times' Newspaper.

(But the journalist forgot to tell readers what that speech was actually about !)

In the case of 'Handel was Bach' the simple solution is best. The occultist world of Cocchi and his fraternal associates of the 18th century included patrons who wished to write musical 'history'. (Their ancestors still do !). Such as Cocchi and others. So G.F. Handel rapidly became a 'great' composer. And so did others. Including, later, Mozart.

On the subject of Handel/Bach's eye problems, your reference to William Heriot Bromfield (occulist), who supposedly operated on Handel's eyes in 1752- he too was part of the occultist network that included Cocchi and many others. His classic education at Padua, for a start is very typical of the Aristotelian education of British Empire managers and managing elites of the East India Company - at that time subsidising northern Germany and even Vienna. His links with Florence are typical also (a centre of British Empire imperalism and Freemasonry). And Bach's sons were lured in to this stuff also.

Bach's blinding was real and probably deliberate. (A man does not die from complications involved with eye operations alone). Both occulists named in connection with the 'Bach/Handel' affair were definitely associated with occult fraternities in England and Italy/Venice. Both were employed by the British royal family. Both were linked to elites of the Holy Roman Empire and the British Empire. Neither gave a damn about J.S. Bach and his music. Such are the facts of history. A century later the British themselves finally 'discover' Bach. But, as for Handel, that's a different story. Feted in Rome and recruited from an early age by the East India Company enclave at Hamburg. Destined soon after for close association and patronage by those usual elites of Rome. I think it was called the musical 'counter-reformation'.

Concerto in C
BWV 1055/1
Jean-Pierre Rampal - Soloist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO9uWg3Wujo

If only you would accompany your by now famous conclusions with facts and credible sources Robert.

Bach? Alas his biographers cannot be considered "credible" anymore:

Two biographies have been written by persons who knew Bach, or who interviewed people who had known him personally. 1,2 Bach’s biographies are Nekrolog auf Johann Sebastian Bach (1754), by Bach’s eldest son, Carl Philipp Emanuel, in collaboration with a former pupil of Bach’s, Friedrich Agricola1; and Ueber Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802), by Johann Nikolaus Forkel.2 The writers of the Nekrolog did not themselves witness much of the last years of Bach’s life. They no longer lived in Bach’s home; both had worked since 1747 as musicians in Potsdam. Forkel relied heavily on the Nekrolog in writing his biography but also interviewed many persons who had known Bach, including Bach’s sons Carl Philipp Emanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann*. All later biographies of Bach are based on these work

*....and of course Johann Christian, aka the London Bach! All "recollet" romancatholics btw eversince Frederick took over Silesia if not before.

Glad you have recovered from your helicopter accident, please advise on Judas Maccabeus last 1747 perfomances, will you?
Handel was in Germany later on in 1747, visiting Frederick, and so was Johann Sebastian Bach, "composer for the royal court of Poland and the Electoral court of Saxony, Kapellmeister and Director of Choral Music in Leipzig" (1741) only to be buried anonymously in 1750 in a backyard somewhere.

Everything is amiss in this scenario of yours!

And your speculation that 'Handel was Bach' still lacks any evidence of the role of GF Handel in Leipzig during the many years J.S. Bach was Kapellmeister there ! You simply have no answer. Do you ? At this point I resign from this silly game. Sorry, but I've better things to do.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

If only you would accompany your by now famous conclusions with facts and credible sources Robert.

Bach? Alas his biographers cannot be considered "credible" anymore:

Two biographies have been written by persons who knew Bach, or who interviewed people who had known him personally. 1,2 Bach’s biographies are Nekrolog auf Johann Sebastian Bach (1754), by Bach’s eldest son, Carl Philipp Emanuel, in collaboration with a former pupil of Bach’s, Friedrich Agricola1; and Ueber Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (1802), by Johann Nikolaus Forkel.2 The writers of the Nekrolog did not themselves witness much of the last years of Bach’s life. They no longer lived in Bach’s home; both had worked since 1747 as musicians in Potsdam. Forkel relied heavily on the Nekrolog in writing his biography but also interviewed many persons who had known Bach, including Bach’s sons Carl Philipp Emanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann*. All later biographies of Bach are based on these work

*....and of course Johann Christian, aka the London Bach! All counter reformists btw eversince Frederick took over Silesia.

Glad you have recovered from your helicopter accident, please advise on Judas Maccabeus last 1747 perfomances, will you?
Handel was in Germany later on in 1747, visiting Frederick, and so was Johann Sebastian Bach, "composer for the royal court of Poland and the Electoral court of Saxony, Kapellmeister and Director of Choral Music in Leipzig" (1741) only to be buried anonymously in 1750 in a backyard somewhere.

Everything is amiss in this scenario of yours!

---

Is that another killer argument or what?

Show me first what evidence leads you to conclude that JSBach stayed continuously in Leipzig during the "many years".

There is none for the simple reason he was often "abroad" in London as Handel or, as he himself admits (my previous post), running after the Elector of Saxony to secure his Kappelmeister appointment there (in Sachsen-Gotha). That's when- not just his sons but -he himself as well turned roman catholic like Augustus III did, upon becoming King of Poland (1733 if I rightly remember). He wouldn't have gotten the post otherwise.

Resignation accepted (for the nth time).

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

And your speculation that 'Handel was Bach' still lacks any evidence of the role of GF Handel in Leipzig during the many years J.S. Bach was Kapellmeister there ! You simply have no answer. Do you ? At this point I resign from this silly game. Sorry, but I've better things to do.

Regards

---

Yanni,

Let us all resign ourselves to the fact that reality is greater than fiction. If Bach was G.F. Handel we must also explain the following -

"1707 - Herr Johann Sebastian Bach, duly appointed organist at the Church of St. Blasius in the Imperial Free City of Muhlhausen, still single at the time, youngest surviving son and lawful issue of the late Mr. Johann Ambrosius Bach, Musician to the Prince of Saxe-Eisenach, and Mistress Maria Barbara, youngest daughter and lawful issue of the late Master Johann Michael Bach, organist in Gehren. Were united in marriage in Dornheim on October 17. The fees were remitted." [quoted in David, p. 56]


//

And what about this -

The widow Anna Magdalena Bach's resources were pitifully augmented by the payment to her of 21 thaler. 21 gr., due to her late husband Bach for salary at the time of his death in 1750, and an equal amount for the surrender of her claim to occupy the Cantor's quarters in the Thomasschule for six months thereafter. Her own children at this time were still unable to maintain her, while her step sons do not appear to have admitted an obligation to do so. Yet, her poverty was notorious: Two years later, on 19th May 1752, the civic Council of Leipzig paid her 40 thaler. "in view of her poverty", and as the sum covered purchase of "certain pieces of music", was seemingly reduced to selling her husband's manuscripts. [Terry, pp. 276-7]

/..


"Bach did not make what is called a brilliant success in the world. He had, on the one hand, a lucrative office, but he had, on the other, a great number of children to maintain and to educate from the income of it. He neither had nor sought other resources. He was too much occupied with his business and his art to think of pursuing those ways which, perhaps, for a man like him, especially in his times, would have led to a gold mine. If he had thought fit to travel, he would (as even one of his enemies said) have drawn upon himself the admiration of the whole world. But he loved instead a quiet domestic life, constant and uninterrupted occupation with his art, and he was, as we have said of his ancestors, a man of few wants." (JN Forkel)

Some things are said, others heard.

Regards

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=4zXA...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Is that another killer argument or what?

Show me first what evidence leads you to conclude that JSBach stayed continuously in Leipzig during the "many years".

There is none for the simple reason he was often "abroad" in London as Handel or, as he himself admits (my previous post), running after the Elector of Saxony to secure his Kappelmeister appointment there (in Sachsen-Gotha). That's when- not just his sons but -he himself as well turned roman catholic like Augustus III did, upon becoming King of Poland (1733 if I rightly remember). He wouldn't have gotten the post otherwise.

Resignation accepted (for the nth time).

Regards

---

"We" have already covered -the credibility of- what's considered "original Bach sources" and their creators, Robert, Forkel included, but I will go as far as commenting on one of your two new "solid" sources:

Hans T.David's(1902-1967) work on Bach can be traced back to the "Bach Gesellschaft" and their founders, Moritz Hauptmann, cantor of St. Thomas' in Leipzig (as from 1842), Otto Jahn, author of a noted biography of Mozart, Carl Ferdinand Becker, teacher at the Leipzig Conservatory and the composer Robert Schumann.

Hauptmann also was a professor of music theory at the conservatoire founded by Felix Mendelssohn (who had every interest to promote "Bach", as already discussed too)!

So I decided not to bother checking also your "Terry" source next, leaving the task of unravelling your "grove-ling pile" to yourgoodself!

Alternatively- having refused already my invitation to provide concrete evidence on Bach's continuous uninterupted stay in Leipzig for his last twenty years- why don't you try persuading our readers on Handel's permanent stay in London for the same re period?

Here is the best, imo, web source for that, ("best" but for the fact 1745, 1746 events re "Gluck-Saint Germain-spying" are left mostly "uncovered")":

http://ichriss.ccarh.org/HRD/1730.htm (By Elias Chrysochoidis!)

:lurk5:

PS "Reality greater than fiction" is a loose statement, propably wrong too if you measure "greatness" in $s as per custom.....

....and it's this same "greater reality" that hides "Handel/Bach" and every other 18th century music master, a "Koch-Mendelsohn", little grocer-big lie, "reality" that also created "Rousseau, Grimm, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Casanova" and countless others, and myths like "Opera phantom" and "Comte de Saint Germain".

And they did not limit themselves to music, alas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yanni,

Let us all resign ourselves to the fact that reality is greater than fiction. If Bach was G.F. Handel we must also explain the following -

"1707 - Herr Johann Sebastian Bach, duly appointed organist at the Church of St. Blasius in the Imperial Free City of Muhlhausen, still single at the time, youngest surviving son and lawful issue of the late Mr. Johann Ambrosius Bach, Musician to the Prince of Saxe-Eisenach, and Mistress Maria Barbara, youngest daughter and lawful issue of the late Master Johann Michael Bach, organist in Gehren. Were united in marriage in Dornheim on October 17. The fees were remitted." [quoted in David, p. 56]


//

And what about this -

The widow Anna Magdalena Bach's resources were pitifully augmented by the payment to her of 21 thaler. 21 gr., due to her late husband Bach for salary at the time of his death in 1750, and an equal amount for the surrender of her claim to occupy the Cantor's quarters in the Thomasschule for six months thereafter. Her own children at this time were still unable to maintain her, while her step sons do not appear to have admitted an obligation to do so. Yet, her poverty was notorious: Two years later, on 19th May 1752, the civic Council of Leipzig paid her 40 thaler. "in view of her poverty", and as the sum covered purchase of "certain pieces of music", was seemingly reduced to selling her husband's manuscripts. [Terry, pp. 276-7]

/..


"Bach did not make what is called a brilliant success in the world. He had, on the one hand, a lucrative office, but he had, on the other, a great number of children to maintain and to educate from the income of it. He neither had nor sought other resources. He was too much occupied with his business and his art to think of pursuing those ways which, perhaps, for a man like him, especially in his times, would have led to a gold mine. If he had thought fit to travel, he would (as even one of his enemies said) have drawn upon himself the admiration of the whole world. But he loved instead a quiet domestic life, constant and uninterrupted occupation with his art, and he was, as we have said of his ancestors, a man of few wants." (JN Forkel)

Some things are said, others heard.

Regards

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=4zXA...eature=related

---

Thank you Yanni.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=WsT3...eature=related

In the other thread, you were saying something of "a man dying in Prague" related to Bach's eye operation. Care to elaborate?

Yanni,

Of the life of ‘John Taylor' (supposed eye-surgeon) after 1761 (when his official 'autobiography' first appeared), little is known with certainty. There are numerous published proofs in German newspapers that he was kicked out of various cities there as a fraud, a charlatan, and died either in Paris or in a monastery near Prague in 1772. According to various accounts he was blind himself at the time.

(For the Prague monastery story of 'Taylor's' death see SNYDER, 'C., Archs. Ophthalmic'., 1963, Vol. 69, p. 831'. Also refered to in. WOODS, S., 'British. Journal of Ophthal'., 1930, Vol. 14, p. 193).

'Taylor' was from the very first closely associated with leading ecclesiastical authorities in Rome. Fraternity members themselves. As he was in England, Poland, France and elsewhere. That is where his name of ‘Chevalier’ Taylor first came from. Rome. He was also in close association with the King of Poland. And Paris (France) was (unknown to many people) under the rule of the British monarchy during all of the 18th century as it had been for centuries before. British kings finally stopped ruling France in 1801. For example, see the text of the Treaty of Versailles (1783) made after the end of the American War of Independence which shows clearly in its text (the very first paragraph) that the King of Britain (George 3rd) is (amongst other things), ‘Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’ , 'King of France', and also ‘Arch Treasurer’ of the Holy Roman Empire !!

As for the role of France in the British Empire and its close association with the Holy Roman Empire (usually through the bankers of Hamburg and Paris) this is an area that shows right from the start the idea of a ‘Protestant’ king of Britain (or one from Hanover) was really a fiction invented for the public. All British kings and queens were well known to be bound by an agreement made with the papacy back in Norman times which committed them to be loyal supporters of the papacy. Henry 8th did not change this. That too was staged managed. It merely surrendered England to Venetian occultism. But that too is ignored in history books.

J.S. Bach was almost certainly a victim of the cultural counter-reformation, at the hands of evil men, just as surely as G.F. Handel rapidly became one of its created musical icons. That is gone now. But what remains is greater.

The fact Bach's sons became closely associated with England and with the British Empire (often through Hamburg, Rome and London) is clear evidence of the role of the British in German affairs and the role of occult fraternities long before the end of the Holy Roman Empire. It was from the hostility to JS Bach (coming from virtually everywhere and especially from Leipzig University and elsewhere) that they, his sons, turned to the British. A big mistake.

The British Empire was a Venetian/Roman construction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UkA99c9C-A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

In the other thread, you were saying something of "a man dying in Prague" related to Bach's eye operation. Care to elaborate?

---

June 1749 - Leipzig - Church authorities in the city had already interviewed one * Gottlob Harrer for the 'future filling of the post of the Kapellmeister upon the eventual decease of Herr Bach' !!!!!

How extraordinary is that ????

27th March 1750 - 'Taylor' arrives in Leipzig

28th March 1750 - 'Taylor' gives public lecture in Leipzig on eye surgery

April 1750 - J.S. Bach is repeatedly operated on by 'Taylor'

8th April 1750 - 'Taylor' leaves Leipzig

14th April - 'Taylor' arrives in Berlin

Late April 1750 - Taylor is deported from Germany for being a medical charlatan.

7th July 1750 - J.S. Bach dies.

* (The same Harrer was in fact installed as Kapellmeister at Michaelmas in 1750, shortly after Bach's death).

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=qmSG...eature=related

///

Like our previous heroes, Taylor's biography as well raises more questions than answers supplied.

He was King George's II personal eye physician yet he was attacked , as a Pretender, by Horace Walpole in 1758 (when he operated with others on Handel, as he claims).

Sometime later he operated on Edward Gibbon, was closely related to the equally mysterious father* of "our" van Swieten (personal physician** of Maria Theresa of Austria), died blind in Praque, our "Myslivecek, Rossler, Casanova etc" Praque.

Everyone associated with "Bach's" biography was furthermore a "mystery", their own identities and biographies quite unsourced and "limited" in detail: Marpurg, the one who wrote the forword on Bach's "Art of Fugue" (1751,2) and Telemann, who certainly knew both Bach and Handel well and with whom Handel allegedly corresponded December 1750 on his return from Europe after his alleged accident.

Add them to "Bach's" alleged sons, Wieland, Forkel, Koch etc etc, ie Bach's only "original sources" .

The whole 18th cent "history" concerning all our heroes was "manufactured", Bach and Handel included.

Samuel von Cocceji was in control of "Prussia" long before becoming chief chancellor in 1747.

Have patience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS

Re King George 3rd, ‘Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’ , 'King of France' and ‘Arch Treasurer’ of the Holy Roman Empire: You still have to provide a palatable explanation of Prince of Wales's noticeable bow on first receiving Haydn in London, January 1791 (promoted by Salomon), his father offering lodgings to Haydn in Windsor Palace later on in 1794. http://www.haydnfestival.at/haydn_en...doc_id=1034865


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_van_Swieten

** Just like "Rousseau-Hennin-Helvetius's" father who was the doctor of Maria Lecszynska, queen of France. See post 6 of http://www.online-literature.com/for...threadid=43550

"Helvetius" small timeline abstract:

Francis I dies August 18, 1765: Holy Roman Emperor and Grand Duke of Tuscany, also known as Francis III Stephen, Duke of Lorraine, the second son of Leopold Joseph, duke of Lorraine, and his wife Elizabeth Charlotte, daughter of Philippe I, duc d’Orléans and Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine. (Parents of Marie Antoinette)

Rousseau:His house in Motiers was stoned on the night of September 6, 1765 – he took refuge with the philosopher David Hume in Great Britain.

Helvetius visits England Sept 1765. p241, Correspondance générale d'Helvétius by Claude-Adrien Helvétius,Anne-Catherine Helvétius,Alan Dainard,Jean Orsoni,David Smith

LETTRE DE P. M. HENNIN A VOLTAIRE. A Paris» le 9 octobre 1765.

....new envoy at Geneva, M. Hennin, who arrived on December 16, 1765, whose mediation did not prosper...THE LIFE OF VOLTAIRE

Yanni,

Certainly we with patience possess our souls. And with recognition of the divine we rejoice.

Regards

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

Between possessions and rejoicing, do remember if you can the rules of carrying out a conversation, let alone providing answers concerning your alleged musicology interest.

Amen.

Yanni,

In a world stuffed with endless inventions, exaggerations and manufactured reputations we are glad musical appreciation and documenting its history are not the same as the subject of sausage production.


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

When you visit the Wartburg Castle, located on a high and narrow Rock Cliff, 220 meter above Eisenach and part of the UNESCO World Heritage, you will be reminded of Martin Luther, who translated the New Testament from Greek into German in only eleven weeks, during his not quite voluntary stay from 1521 – 1522. He was taken into a protective custody for about 2 years. Like no other castle in Germany, Wartburg is connected with the history of Germany. Not only Luther and Bach contributed to this, but also the later canonized Elisabeth from Thuringia, who lived here from 1211 – 1227 and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who visited Wartburg a couple of times. In the 19th Century huge restorations began and new buildings were added and the Castle became the shape you can still see today. Many activities and exhibitions are featured throughout the year on the Wartburg and it’s always worth a visit.

Another highlight of a very different kind is the visit to the Lutherstuben Erlebnisrestaurant.You will enter a Restaurant that sends you back to the days when Martin Luther was still around. Authentic ambience, costumes and even the speech from the Middle Ages are cultivated here and will make your stay a great experience. The food and drinks and the service are also authentic and of high quality. Where else would you get a meter of very delicious Thuringian Sausage and drink your wine from a clay jug, while watching the chefs cooking more culinary delights? No better place to end your day in Eisenach and Wartburg Castle

Is it wrong to assume that Bache was raised on "wurst" too?

Speaking of Bache, this belongs in this thread really:

As JSBACH's fan and musiclogist, do you know if, after his alleged July 1750 death, his sons took part in the theatrical-musical festivities that followed immediately after in Prussia, lasting practicaly to the end of the year?

Agricola, his alleged pupil and "creator", another "mystery" just like Marpurg(aka...), certainly did (take part) along with most of our other heroes such as Algarotti, Voltaire, Collini, CLCocceji, La Barberina, Gluck's "Lobkowitz" etc etc.

There were even onstage fireworks performed, much like they used to do in Handel's London*.

Not to forget Marpurg's patron(!), count Rothenburg(aka....!), Frederick's liebling advisor in foreign affairs ("the two" having just succeeded in bringing Prussia closer to France).


*Wiki: 'The Music for the Royal Fireworks (HWV 351) is an orchestral suite composed by George Frideric Handel in 1749 under contract of George II of Great Britain for the fireworks in London's Green Park on 27 April 1749. It was to celebrate the end of the War of the Austrian Succession and the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748.'

Jemima Grey was present:

"…the Number, the Sizes & various Forms of the Rockets were quite surprising, one Explosion particularly which they say was of Six Thousand was beyond all Imagination, & excepting to poor Mrs. Talbot who was frightened out of all her Wits (for it was not indeed a very Quiet Amusement) they were no less Beautiful."

Add "Keyserlingk" to the guest list btw and "Condillac" too.

Yanni,

When posts lead in a definite direction they are more valuable. But others read like the formal announcement of the arrival of an emperor - described as Emperor 'F', King of 'X', 'Prince of 'Y', Grand Duke of 'B', son of 'D', Lord of 'A', and great uncle of Count 'J'. In some kinds of society such protocol says everything but in others it's a frightful bore because it leads nowhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqp2_LaYoSU

This thread definitely proceeds towards proving the common identity of JSBach and Handel, Robert. Like it or not, they were serving the Kings or Emperors of their time (in more fields than just music).

If researching for this truth bores some societies, as you say, it's because such societies serve the big lie and have no interest on "truth" or clue on Handel/Bach's* main message on education of Kings: "RICERCAR".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Musical_Offering

Wish you luck manufacturing the "Mozart wurst" or whatever, hanging it on Rome to cure**



*Humphrey F. Sassoon has compared the theme issued by Frederick II to the theme of an A minor fugue by G.F. Handel published in Six fugues or voluntarys for organ or harpsichord. Sassoon notes that "Handels theme is much shorter than the Kings, but its musical architecture is uncannily similar: jumps followed by a descending chromatic scale." He also elaborates on their additional similarities, leading Sassoon to suggest that Bach used Handels Fuga V as a structural model or guide for the Musical Offerings Ricercar a 6, and that Fuga Vs musical concepts may also have influenced Bachs development of the Ricercar a 3.Humphrey F. Sassoon (2003). JS Bachs Musical Offering and the Source of Its Theme: Royal Peculiar. The Musical Times, Vol. 144, No. 1885, pp. 38-39

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sassoon



:lurk5:

Yanni,

The theme issued by Frederic 2nd to Bach was barren, awkward, and seemed to offer no potential for great development. In fact it had been calculated in advance to defeat and criticise Bach and his music. Publicly. Since Bach's reputation amongst musicians was that of a man who could improvise on virtually any theme. Bach's immediate reply when these notes were presented to him was to say that it could be done only on a certain level immediately because of its content deserved to be worked on by him later. (This challenge had been pre-arranged by his various musical critics). But it did not succeed. As for Handel, Frederic 2nd's court was already a base of British imperialism at the time of Bach's arrival there. This is a plain fact. (There in Prussia was British Ambassador Extraordinaire and Plenipotentiary Sir Andrew Mitchell. You do know what a 'Plenipotentiary' is, don't you - 'one who acts with full power'). Britain (through it's Empire) was virtually funding Prussia at this time. Complete with the hugely famous music of 'Handel'. It was really a trap and Bach was well aware of it. Designed to rubbish Bach and all he musically represented. To which Bach eventually replied. In one of the most remarkable musical works ever conceived of.

http://www.harpercollins.com/author/...e=readingGuide

Bach's musical answer to that 'impossible' commission is musically in another universe than the 'Handel' work to which you refer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2gTOrKl43I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

This thread definitely proceeds towards proving the common identity of JSBach and Handel, Robert. Like it or not, they were serving the Kings or Emperors of their time (in more fields than just music).

If researching for this truth bores some societies, as you say, it's because such societies serve the big lie and have no interest on "truth" or clue on Handel/Bach's* main message on education of Kings: "RICERCAR".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Musical_Offering

Wish you luck manufacturing the "Mozart wurst" or whatever, hanging it on Rome to cure**



*Humphrey F. Sassoon has compared the theme issued by Frederick II to the theme of an A minor fugue by G.F. Handel published in Six fugues or voluntarys for organ or harpsichord. Sassoon notes that "Handels theme is much shorter than the Kings, but its musical architecture is uncannily similar: jumps followed by a descending chromatic scale." He also elaborates on their additional similarities, leading Sassoon to suggest that Bach used Handels Fuga V as a structural model or guide for the Musical Offerings Ricercar a 6, and that Fuga Vs musical concepts may also have influenced Bachs development of the Ricercar a 3.Humphrey F. Sassoon (2003). JS Bachs Musical Offering and the Source of Its Theme: Royal Peculiar. The Musical Times, Vol. 144, No. 1885, pp. 38-39

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sassoon



:lurk5:

---

Fiddlesticks!

1739: War of the Austrian Succession broke out. France was allied with Spain and Prussia, all of whom were against Maria Theresa.

Maria Theresa was supported by Great Britain, ruled by George II, and the Kingdom of Sardinia, which was then ruled by Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia

Try following relevant french poetry:

ÉPITRE SUR LA FERMETÉ ET SUR LA PATIENCE. Cette poésie, encore inédite, fut envoyée à Voltaire le 27 février 1738 et le 18 mars 1740, au colonel de Camas le 28 mars, et à Algarotti le 15 avril 1740.
Frédéric envoya cette Épître, inconnue jusqu'à présent, au colonel de Camas le 28 mars, et au comte Algarotti le 15 avril 1740. L'autographe se trouve aux archives royales du Cabinet (Caisse 149, F).
ÉPITRE SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ DE REMPLIR LE VIDE DE L'AME PAR L'ÉTUDE.
L'autographe de cette Épître, qui fut envoyée à Voltaire le 26 avril, et à Algarotti le 19 mai 1740,

What is 'fiddlesticks' ? You didn't tell us. And I'm not surprised.

I think it's called 'supporting both sides'. Which is exactly what George 1st, George 2nd, and George 3rd of Britain and its mercantile elites did all the time. Because they (these Hanoverian kings) were all Arch Treasurers of - the Holy Roman Empire. Not bad for a 'Protestant' King, you may agree ?

Says so right on the Treaty of Paris (1783), signed by King George 3rd of Britain and others such as Benjamin Franklin. Read the opening paragraphs. The 'Protestant' kings of England were hypocrites. And they were also called 'The King of France' amongst other titles. I happen to have a copy of its text right next to me. Here it is -

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=431

'France' lent lots of silver to the American revolutionary army during the American War of Independence. At great rates of interest. But, in reality, the 'King of France' involved in these loans were not French. They were Kings of Britain. Who claimed rule over France right up until 1801. Such are the facts of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Fiddlesticks!

1739: War of the Austrian Succession broke out. France was allied with Spain and Prussia, all of whom were against Maria Theresa.

Maria Theresa was supported by Great Britain, ruled by George II, and the Kingdom of Sardinia, which was then ruled by Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia

Try following relevant french poetry:

ÉPITRE SUR LA FERMETÉ ET SUR LA PATIENCE. Cette poésie, encore inédite, fut envoyée à Voltaire le 27 février 1738 et le 18 mars 1740, au colonel de Camas le 28 mars, et à Algarotti le 15 avril 1740.
Frédéric envoya cette Épître, inconnue jusqu'à présent, au colonel de Camas le 28 mars, et au comte Algarotti le 15 avril 1740. L'autographe se trouve aux archives royales du Cabinet (Caisse 149, F).
ÉPITRE SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ DE REMPLIR LE VIDE DE L'AME PAR L'ÉTUDE.
L'autographe de cette Épître, qui fut envoyée à Voltaire le 26 avril, et à Algarotti le 19 mai 1740,

---

Indeed King George III chose to call himself "King of France" among others (he was suffering from porfyria afterall) and, as you say, did sign the 1783 Paris Treaty as King of France.

This treaty however was between England and USA only (the latter not really interested to dispute his titles at the time).

Separate agreements were signed between England and other nations:

Treaty with France
Preliminary articles[6] had been signed 20 January 1783, at Versailles
.................................................. .................................................. ....

Signed at Versailles, 3 September 1783, by George Montagu, 4th Duke of Manchester and Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes.

Necker, who supported the American Revolution thru a policy of taking out large international loans was dismissed and …. November 2, 1783 Louis XVI appoints Charles de Calonne controller general of finance.

No, King George 3rd was not the only British monarch to be called 'King of France'. It was also a title used by King George 1st. And then by King George 2 after him. Then it was used by King George 3rd. You are simply wrong. It had been claimed by British monarchs for many centuries at that time. The House of Hanover was just the same papal globalism using the British Empire.

So your 'porfyria' argument is wrong. The British (acting as hypocrites and in the service of Rome) had been funding BOTH sides of major conflicts across Europe for centuries. King George 3rd was only another example who, in 1783, signed the Treaty of Paris with the American 'ministers' - whom George (and his shareholders) had earlier secretly loaned huge amounts of silver to during the American War of Independence. Thus, with massive interest now payable by the Americans, the USA became a corporation of the British Empire soon after its independence. The beneficiaries were and still are the same feudal elites.

I have documents showing British royal payments to numerous areas of Germany they were controlling during the 18th century. And letters saying they (these British plenipotentiary diplomats who were permanently based in Germany) had the power to have stopped any French invasion of Bonn by payment of £500,000 to them by the Elector of Bonn during the 7 Years War (1756-63). These are indisputable facts. And there are thousands of them. The British Empire was a massive, hypocritical Romanist deception. Sheer greed and elitism by papally loyal families who were feudal lords of England since Norman times. All loyal slaves to the Holy Roman Empire. In secret. Through the slave running British oligarchy of companies such as the East India Company. And using non-Catholics such as Hessian troops in their globalist game of exploitation as cannon-fodder. As they later did in Napoleon's time and again in World Wars 1 and 2. This is not an opinion but plain fact. Hypocrisy and the usual Roman slavery. The bombing of Dresden and other places were other examples. We really must stop feeding the golden thrones of the Vatican. Or else the CIA and western 'democracies' will be managed by Knights of Malta and Knights of the papally loyal central banks. Oops, too late !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yanni

Indeed King George III chose to call himself "King of France" among others (he was suffering from porfyria afterall) and, as you say, did sign the 1783 Paris Treaty as King of France.

This treaty however was between England and USA only (the latter not really interested to dispute his titles at the time).

Separate agreements were signed between England and other nations:

Treaty with France
Preliminary articles[6] had been signed 20 January 1783, at Versailles
.................................................. .................................................. ....

Signed at Versailles, 3 September 1783, by George Montagu, 4th Duke of Manchester and Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes.

Necker, who supported the American Revolution thru a policy of taking out large international loans was dismissed and …. November 2, 1783 Louis XVI appoints Charles de Calonne controller general of finance.

---

What each 18th century monarch claimed thru his title was not readily accepted by others monarchs. In fact Prussia and Austria both were claiming the Holy Roman Emperor title eversince 1750- if not before-and Britain was on the side of Austria, whereas poor "old Fritz" on the side of France and, because of France and Augustus III who turned Roman Catholic to be crowned, Fritz and August "swallowed" Poland and aided USA to rid themselves of George III and his manias.

Just because England sided with Vienna however doe not justify your unfounded argument "hanging it all" on Rome.

You are right on bankers playing on both sides of many wars (but you are wrong to tranfer their conduct to "The British" in general. Afterall they, "british bankers", were anything but british in origin) and I have detected and revealed such "behaviour" to members of my own "ancestors" post 1800 (Two Works by Poe decoded).

Later research has shown that such "behaviour" was practiced by them during the second half of the 18th century as well and I can but assume they had developed it much earlier, while serving the Medicis as spiritual guides (Nicolas Caussin), ministers and propably bankers(Mirabeau-Riquetti*) as well.

But this thread is on Bach and Handel being one and the same and philosophies on who and why first coined "win-win" development and promotion are off course (other than the fact music and musicians played to the tune of the highest bidder, some, like Handel/Bach, on both sides of a conflict).

Regards.

*Conclusive evidence of Mirabeau junior's "comte de Saint Germain" identity is already on the web but has to be linked to my own research to then be presented properly. Key words: "Starot de Saint Germain", Gibert (or Guibert).
Crillon, Crillonade, Louis XV of France, Napoleon, 1783.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

No, King George 3rd was not the only British monarch to be called 'King of France'. It was also a title used by King George 1st. And then by King George 2 after him. Then it was used by King George 3rd. You are simply wrong. It had been claimed by British monarchs for many centuries at that time. The House of Hanover was just the same papal globalism using the British Empire.

So your 'porfyria' argument is wrong. The British (acting as hypocrites and in the service of Rome) had been funding BOTH sides of major conflicts across Europe for centuries. King George 3rd was only another example who, in 1783, signed the Treaty of Paris with the American 'ministers' - whom George (and his shareholders) had earlier secretly loaned huge amounts of silver to during the American War of Independence. Thus, with massive interest now payable by the Americans, the USA became a corporation of the British Empire soon after its independence. The beneficiaries were and still are the same feudal elites.

I have documents showing British royal payments to numerous areas of Germany they were controlling during the 18th century. And letters saying they (these British plenipotentiary diplomats who were permanently based in Germany) had the power to have stopped any French invasion of Bonn by payment of £500,000 to them by the Elector of Bonn during the 7 Years War (1756-63). These are indisputable facts. And there are thousands of them. The British Empire was a massive, hypocritical Romanist deception. Sheer greed and elitism by papally loyal families who were feudal lords of England since Norman times. All loyal slaves to the Holy Roman Empire. In secret. Through the slave running British oligarchy of companies such as the East India Company. And using non-Catholics such as Hessian troops in their globalist game of exploitation as cannon-fodder. As they later did in Napoleon's time and again in World Wars 1 and 2. This is not an opinion but plain fact. Hypocrisy and the usual Roman slavery. The bombing of Dresden and other places were other examples. We really must stop feeding the golden thrones of the Vatican. Or else the CIA and western 'democracies' will be managed by Knights of Malta and Knights of the papally loyal central banks. Oops, too late !

---