The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Dear Istvan (aka Babbalanja),

Yes, you have 'pointed out' various things. All we are waiting for now is your evidence. As for 'factoids' the Mozart industry produces these by the kilo. 'Everything you've heard is true', remember ? And this is said in the trailer to the film 'Amadeus'. Must be true, right ? The factoids of Mozart research break new records and prove the power of eulogy, exaggeration and factoid expertise.

Contrary to your view, we are BOTH making claims about Mozart. And it's fair and reasonable that readers should be able to compare our two different points of view. Which, if you accept, will be a 'small step for mankind and a giant leap for all of Mozart research' (so-called). (I think it's called reality-check).

I am not pretending the entirety of Mozart biography and of musical research is a fairy tale. No. I am saying the entirety of Mozart biography and of musical research with respect to W.A. Mozart is really a fairy story. A very different thing. Indeed, a few days ago I was in a major library and I realised that thousands and thousands of composers are listed there (with their works) who are almost completely unknown. Buried under the avalanche of Mozartean 'expertise'. And you will forgive me thinking this is childish. That you are unable to understand the mythology although it stares you in the face.

I don't have a 'ludicrous conspiracy theory'. But what I have is the ability to present a critical case against the nonsense you believe. Which I am keen to compare openly here with your side of the story. So that readers can judge the case for themselves. This is fair. It's radical, right ? But it's standard practice within all academic study. Within science. And within the real world. Though it is unheard of within 'Mozart research'. Your ludicruous belief in the legendary Mozart has the same chance to win as myself. In fact, it should be simple for you to win the case. You have a ton of textbooks to refer to. But you seem to be struggling already on the 'Paris' Symphony.

Let me open my heart and suggest you choose another 'Mozart' work. I leave the choice to you. Place your proofs of 'his' authorship and then readers can judge both sides of this argument. Is that fair enough ?

Can I make this more simple ?

What further concessions do you, dear Mozartean, require ? Shall we forever bow to your icon ?

I have no 'ridiculous assertions'. I have only the hope that you, realising you are swimming out of your depth, can finally put together a few evidences in support of your hero. Which, so far, seems beyond your ability to do.

The good news is your Mozartean colleagues are all just as shocked, horrified, and intimidated whenever they are asked to defend their mythology in a fair and open way. So you are in good company. You and your 'experts'.

I have posted (above) a gentle introduction to 'Mozart's' symphonies for your education and amusement. A small gesture of goodwill and a few of the fruits of much work.

Regards

Robert Newman

I've already pointed out how nonsensical and incoherent your interpretation of this factoid is. And it demonstrates the futility and uselessness of your entire approach to research. You're the one making the claims, and all you have are factoids mined from legitimate Mozart scholarship (and taken out of their proper context) to back up your claims.

You pretend that the entirety of Mozart biography and musical research is "a fairy tale," which allows you to assume that nothing anyone quotes from the major Mozart biographies in support of his authorship of his attributed works is reliable. However, you are allowed to point to isolated footnotes and anecdotes out of these biographies and act like they support your ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Make up your mind. If the entirety of Mozart biography and scholarship is reliable, then we have a way to judge his life and work, including the Paris Symphony. If it's all lies, then you can't quote footnotes out of it to support any of your points.

Similarly, if Mozart's correspondence is reliable, then we should be able to use it to support the assertion that he composed the works currently attributed to him. If his correspondence is a fabrication of the sinister conspiracy, then you have no business pointing to one isolated sentence and using it to support your ridiculous assertions.

Regards,

Istvan

[Babbalanja]

(Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart, Letter of 24th September 1778).

So here is Mozart’s father saying Mozart’s symphonies up until this date were not worth performing. None had been released. None had been published at this time also.

Once again, you're mining the correspondence of Mozart and his family for material to add to your burgeoning list of sinister-sounding factoids. You're implying, I suppose, that these letters contain damning evidence that Mozart was a musical no-talent whose career was completely manufactured, But aren't all these letters part of the cover story fabricated on behalf of Mozart's Freemason-Jesuit overlords? So why would you consider any part of such propaganda even remotely reliable?

As for your list of questions, why are you asking anyone here? Why aren't you talking to credentialed musicologists and getting them to confront the evidence you say you have about this sinister conspiracy? If your case truly were as strong as you claim, why aren't you confronting the musicological establishment with it instead of discussing it with amateurs on message boards?

Could it be that this bucket of factoids isn't persuasive to anyone who understands the context of Mozart's life and work: the real political and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe? Could it be that any actual expert in musicology understands details of the creation, performance, and attribution of Mozart's works, and the development of his catalog over the centuries? And such an expert may not be as receptive to some amateur's theory about secret societies engineering a monumental fraud and a two-hundred-year cover-up?

Waste your time as you will, Robert. I'm done.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

And, once again, you are not mining anything. The airy fairy story of Mozart has evaporated once again.

In answer to your point on the contents of the Mozart correspondence, the fairest and most obvious thing to do when we are judging correspondence is to read it. To allow it to speak for itself. Which we have done here by presenting a letter from Mozart's most loyal supporter, Leopold Mozart. He hides away all of Mozart's symphonies since they do him no credit. And he says this at the very time of the 'Paris' Symphony (1778). Not even Babbalanja can escape that fact.

You ask why I am writing on a forum instead of confronting the musicological establishment. Well, that's easy. You are a consumer of their products and have even wanted to defend them. But now you've resigned, just as it promised to get interesting. You and your factoids, exposed to the light of day, do not like bright sunshine.

As for the true background to the giant, domineering, corporate, myth of Mozart, this has no interest for you. Which, again, is typical of 'Mozart studies'. Since the Mozartean knows less of music during Mozart's time than my next door neighour's cat. And it shows. His grinning figure still looms over your education like the icons of Easter Island. A proud member of the pantheon of musical gods who have shaped your education. And even worse. They have convinced you that regardless of evidence your faith is unshaken.

I nominate you, dear Istvan, for canonisation at the next ritual Salzburgfest as a good and loyal servant of the Mozart industry. Together with 10% discounts on Mozart CD's, DVD's and trips made with the Austrian Tourist Board.

Regards

Once again, you're mining the correspondence of Mozart and his family for material to add to your burgeoning list of sinister-sounding factoids. You're implying, I suppose, that these letters contain damning evidence that Mozart was a musical no-talent whose career was completely manufactured, But aren't all these letters part of the cover story fabricated on behalf of Mozart's Freemason-Jesuit overlords? So why would you consider any part of such propaganda even remotely reliable?

As for your list of questions, why are you asking anyone here? Why aren't you talking to credentialed musicologists and getting them to confront the evidence you say you have about this sinister conspiracy? If your case truly were as strong as you claim, why aren't you confronting the musicological establishment with it instead of discussing it with amateurs on message boards?

Could it be that this bucket of factoids isn't persuasive to anyone who understands the context of Mozart's life and work: the real political and artistic milieu of 18th-century Europe? Could it be that any actual expert in musicology understands details of the creation, performance, and attribution of Mozart's works, and the development of his catalog over the centuries? And such an expert may not be as receptive to some amateur's theory about secret societies engineering a monumental fraud and a two-hundred-year cover-up?

Waste your time as you will, Robert. I'm done.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Yanni,

There is one fraternity that matters. The one whose members are united by things done in broad daylight. Not hidden. Not done in a corner. But open and in broad daylight. And since mystery is synonomous with paganism and is opposite to what is freely revealed we can say that what is honest, accountable and open to view is more worthy of our belief and loyalty than what is man-made, hidden, and suppressed.

Why the secrecy ? No answer. As usual.

I am convinced we need daylight. That it is the antidote to night. In these studies of musical history as in everything else.

As for the fraternities of the 18th century, nobody can doubt they, as systems, are corrupt. That we deal with them best by recognising the good individuals who have often associated with them but also the corruptive impact of man-made systems as a whole. But each person, ultimately, is answerable to what he knows. And not to what he does not.

Regards

What "german music" when you yourself admitted previously "it all came from Italy"- even without distinguishing between opera and chamber music-and "Gluck" was a "german from Bohemia" who "only composed on italian libretti", like Myslivecek was... OR NOT?

And what "greater celebration" than Maria Theresa's coronation in Prague, 1743 and "recognition" as Empress by the "other european powers" in 1748 at her birthday, as above. "Who modified Hassse's original muysic for this performance?", I wonder.

But you refuse touching "Semiramide riconosciuta" and my re timetable alltogether, and select instead to keep on serving your "jesuit soup"!

My last posts remain unanswered for all to see!

And you better avoid criticism of "fraternities": Without them- and their struggle against Rome and everything "dogmatic" but science and philosophy-we wouldn't be freely exchanging opinions today across the globe.

Cheers!


Cheers!

[yanni]

I have lost count by now of "Robert's pending answers" in this thread. Time to make a list!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

Since your questions are numerous (and since many need to be answered repeatedly with the same answer) I think the best we can say is that if the subject is Mozart you will get fair answers. Mozart lived within a context. That context (believe it or not) was the Holy Roman Empire. Which we should appreciate and understand. But it's this context which the average Mozartean supporter does not know, and does not care to know about. Nor does he know much about the rise of the British Empire, or the role in occultism of Venice and England. The role in Freemasonry of England and Venice. Or even the musical realities of Mozart's time. But, unless these things are understood/appreciated Mozart remains a subject which 'floats' through the air separated from reality and from the facts of his time. This sort of fairy story is useless and it is of no value to our understanding of musical history. Context is vital. So it's the Holy Roman Empire which is one vital aspect. The British Empire and Venice (a vital second part) is just as important.

Freemasonry has been exploited just like every other human organisation. This is obvious. It was exploited by the Illuminatists, for example. We should be aware of this. It was exploited by the Rosicrucians. And by other vested interests. To deny such facts is useless. And Freemasony came from Venice. Its ideas were transplanted to England. From where it was exported back in to western Europe and beyond. This basic stuff is essential as we get to the facts of Mozart and his legendary career.

If you make your list of questions that will be fine.

Regards

I have lost count by now of "Robert's pending answers" in this thread. Time to make a list!

[yanni]

Correct me if I am wrong but the subject is titled "Mozart's manufacture", not just "Mozart".

And repetition of "empty" answers does not make them "fair".

"Freemasonry came from Venice" you say but present no evidence, therefore you are called to take the "tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof" (check it up!)

Regards to you too.

[Musicology]

Dear Yanni,

I know you will not be happy with sub-standard information so here is an article on the subject -

http://members.tripod.com/~american_...c/venfreem.htm

Regards

Correct me if I am wrong but the subject is titled "Mozart's manufacture", not just "Mozart".

And repetition of "empty" answers does not make them "fair".

"Freemasonry came from Venice" you say but present no evidence, therefore you are called to take the "tryall of ye airt of memorie and science yrof" (check it up!)

Regards to you too.

[yanni]

There is no "evidence" in the suggested site, just unfounded interpretations and conclusions, all intending to "blame it to the dearly departed" (ie Venice).

Wikipedia's version on Freemasonry speaks about their "scottish origins" and the late 16th quotation in my previous links them to the first "guilds" formation.

On the other hand, the pyramidic hierarchical structure of freemasonry, with "truths revealed" increasing according to the member's degree, the "absolute truth" at the pyramid tip, speaks by itself, reminding of Moses speaking to God at the mountain tip.

Debating the issue is a loss of time, that's why, among others already explained, I keep asking you to stop introducing such "diversionary elements" in the discussion: One might think you are doing it on purpose!

[Musicology]

Yanni has briefly skimmed the journal article entitled, 'How the Venetians Took Over England and Created Freemasonry' by G. Rose of the Schiller Institute Conference (Printed in the American Almanac of 1993). But he says it contains 'no evidence' of any Venetian orgins of Freemasonry.

I am now convinced, Yanni, you cannot see the wood for the trees because you do not see any trees and do not want to see any. Why not read a few more articles on this same subject ? If you need some please let me know. I cannot let you go on like this. Do you really learn from single posts on such a subject ? I've given you one article from many. Hoping that it might stimulate you to read more. I might also mention one of the earliest Freemasonic librettists, Goldoni. A Venetian. But that's just another coincidence of course ! He was Venetian wasn't he ? And we must never link the librettos of Lorenzo da Ponte with librettists in Venice, of course. And various others. There are in fact no trees anywhere in the whole forest, right Yanni !

There are, in your universe, no links at all between Venice and the formation of the British Empire. And none between early Freemasonry and Venice. Shall I send you a few more articles of the same kind ? Or will you bother to look for them yourself ?

There is no "evidence" in the suggested site, just unfounded interpretations and conclusions, all intending to "blame it to the dearly departed" (ie Venice). On the other hand, Wikipedia's version on Freemasonry speaks about their "scottish origins" and the late 16th quotation in my previous links them to the first "guilds" formation.

On the other hand, the pyramidic hierarchical structure of freemasonry, with "truths revealed" increasing according to the member's degree, the "absolute truth" at the pyramid tip, speaks by itself, reminding of Moses speaking to God at the mountain tip.

Debating the issue is a loss of time, that's why, among others already explained, I keep asking you to stop introducing such "diversionary elements" in the discussion: One might think you are doing it on purpose!

Here are some more articles for Yanni -

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30038765

http://www.archive.org/stream/cu3192...75570_djvu.txt

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid...52_venice.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@lis.../msg17357.html

etc etc etc

[yanni]

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archivio...20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

[Musicology]

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ?

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did not spend time in their tour of Venice being shown around that city by the occultist priest Abbe Giammaria Ortes (1713-90) ? (Ortes being the first man to publish a book about eugenics. Human control of global populations. In late 18th century Venice. Of course. And Ortes' later followers and admirers including Malthus of the 19th century, friend of that well known occultist and madman Charles Darwin). The Merchant of Venice and creation of 'Shakespeare's' plays. This too is sheer Venetian coincidence. Of course. The fact that Venetian architecture was a main feature of London's housing. This too is sheer coincidence. There were, in fact, no Venetian links with the creation of the British Empire. Right, Yanni ?

Nobody can teach you anything, right ? If the facts of history are inconvenient they can always be ignored, yes ? So the Doge of Venice and the oligarchs of England are sheer coincidence. They, like the Jesuit Order, can be ignored in any work which deals with the culture of the 18th century or any other century.

Venice did NOT help to create the British Empire. It did not have a hand in the creation of the Bank of England. Venice and Venetian models did NOT have massive influence in England from the time of Henry 8th onwards. Venetian intelligence agents did NOT have massive influence in England from the time of Henry 8th onwards. The Royal Society in London was NOT packed with occultists from the time of its formation. And Venice did NOT help to create the merchant empires and banking systems of both Holland and England. Through the East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. It's all in our imaginations isn't it Yanni ? Although these things are well documented. England did NOT start trading in slaves, the same as her protoge, Venice. England did NOT develop Admiralty Law (the same as Venice) by the use of 'English Common Law' (in the place of the Common Law). Any relationship between Venice and creation of the later British Empire and the banking City of London is purely coincidental.

How many trees do you need to see before you recognise a forest ?

I mentioned Goldoni because he is directly associated with Mozart's career. But if he was not associated with Mozart you would complain about that too !

'Heads you win, tails I lose', right Yanni ?

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archivio...20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ? Cardinal Contarini of Venice was the first major patron of the Jesuit Order. There survive letters from Loyola thanking him for his patronage. Just a coincidence, of course. And Contarini's family supplied no less than 5 Doges of Venice. Just a coincidence, of course !

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did NOT spend time in their tour of this same Venice being shown around the city by occultist priest Abbe Giammaria Ortes ? (Ortes being the first man to publish a book about eugenics. The reduction of human populations. And Ortes' later followers included Malthus of the 19th century, close friend of occultist Charles Darwin).

Nobody can teach you anything, right Yanni ? If the facts of history are inconvenient they can always be ignored, yes ?

So, according to you, Venice did NOT help to create the British Empire. Venice and Venetian models did NOT have massive influence in England during the time of Henry 8th onwards. Venice did NOT help to create the merchant empires and banking systems of Holland and England. It's all in our imaginations isn't it Yanni ? Although these things are well documented. The merchants of England did NOT start trading in slaves, the same as their financial and philosophical mentor, occultist Venice ? Any relationship between Venice and creation of the British Empire and the banking City of London over centuries is purely coincidental, right, Yanni ?

How many trees do you need to see before you recognise a forest ?

I mentioned the librettist Goldoni of Venice because his work is directly associated with Mozart's career. Indeed, the opera commission for 1768 'La Finta Semplice' came from Goldoni. But if he was not associated with Mozart you would complain about that also.

'Heads you win, tails I lose', right Yanni ?

According to Alessandro Bonnelli - and it's mere coincidence again. Honest !

As early as 1271, the Venetian congregations agreed to devote part of their income to relieve the poor and the sick. Later on they provided pensions to widows and guardianship to orphans, founding special hospitals for sick companions. As well as trade or craft guilds, devotional and religious confraternities flourished, open to all. They were wholly independent and had full freedom to elect their own leaders and to draw up their own statutes as long as no state laws were broken and the honour of the Doge was upheld.

Some of these brotherhoods, such as that of the ‘San Giovanni Evangelista’ (S.John Evangelist), were in the habit of enrolling, as brothers, illustrious people and even foreigners, including some Englishmen such as one Baron Odoardo Vindefor (sic) who died aged 41 in 1574 and who was buried within the complex of ‘San Giovanni e Paolo [Paul]’.

By now, many and obvious points of contact can be perceived between these Venetian brotherhoods and the first speculative Freemasons’ lodges, although the peculiar characteristic of secrecy is missing, and we know nothing of rituals. Had the Venetian brotherhoods secrets to protect, they succeeded perfectly.

Source - ''Masonic Symbology and Activities in Venice'' - Alessandro Bonelli.

Fortunately, common sense and broad daylight are superior to 200 years of mystery and evasion. As honest people everywhere can see. Including yourself. I hope.

//

Why "Goldoni" when I have already mentioned his senior, "the first ever italian mason, Antonio Cocchi" and his relations to Britain, an early focus of my research?

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massoneria

http://biblio.unipi.it:8081/archivio...20italiano.htm

Ben Disraeli started the "Hang it on Venice" thing in the mid 19th and is, as such, irrelevant to the subject*.

Please stop therefore going around in circles and do try remaining within 18th music and "Mozart's manufacture", if you can afford it.

Cheers.

*Unless we start our story with Shakespeare's "Shylock" character, born at times when Britain's "public debt to GDP ratio" was less than zero (as compared to the 260% of the early 19th, the time when Niemcheck, Nissen etc began "Mozart's manufacture"....and then came Disraeli).

J.S. Bach
'Out of Sheba shall they all come'

Contrapuntal Chorus

BWV 65/1

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

[yanni]

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ?

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did not spend time in their tour of Venice....

Against my repeated advise that Venice (+1797) and Florence (+1730's) were never in the best of terms with Rome's Jesuits (and that both were, in any case, irrelevant at the time of Mozart's manufacture, as from 1814, "Rule Britannia" era), you have indeed been "hanging it" on Venice and the Jesuits both, while carefully avoiding Florence, seat of the first italian "english freemasonry lodge" around 1730's.

Funny thing about truth, how "personnal", how subjective, it always is, how people's fixations or private interests affect it.

"Everybody has his individual truth" sort-of and, wrongly assuming you are seeking a "common british truth" or, even better, a "global people's truth unchanged thru the ages", I did my best to provide you with food for thought in my previous, re "public debt vs gdp" at the time of Shakespeare's Shylock and his "Merchant of Venice" to compare with same, two centuries later, when Mozart's manufacture started by his early "biographers" (including, as some say, Mozart himself, ie Georg Nic. Nissen, Mozart's first biographer, lookalike and next husband of his widow).

Because, you see, a very much "universal people's truth unchanged thru the ages" is "hunger" and what "common people"-like Mozart-do to avoid it!

You chose to ignore all that to put forward instead a Mr Bonelli's "truth", "a "fraternising occulist" as per your previous definition, cut furthermore to size to fit your contoversial fixations/intentions!
(http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/10/p08.php)

No, you are not "getting close to it", in fact you are testing the limits of your "readers to be" doing your best to avoid it, everything possible to get away from your own subject, ie "The manufacture of Mozart".

What you should be really answering at this stage is :How trustworthy are the already disputed "Nissen & Constanze" data concerning in particular Mozart performing privately for "Gluck", 1782 in Vienna?

My opera was performed again yesterday, this time at the request of Gluck. Gluck paid me many compliments on it. I am to dine with him tomorrow. (Vienna, August 7, 1782, to his father. [How Mozart and Gluck differed in principle on the relation between text and music the reader has already had an opportunity to learn. H.E.K.]) "Mozart: The man and the artist as revealed in his own words by Friedrich Kerst , translated by Henry Edward Krehbiel".

18th January 1783: Gluck writes allegedly from Vienna he will be unable to travel to Paris for illhealth and reduces the fee for his French Danaides (Calzabiggi Ipermestra, the libretto translated in French by Gluck’s librettists, Du Roullet and Tschudi) suggesting Salieri cooperated with him, a fact he later-on the premiere of Les Danaides in 1784-refused, leaving all glory to Salieri! (Antonio Salieri and Viennese Opera, John A. Rice).
(In same January: Weishaupt writes to Zwack how he would control The Scottish Orthodox Rite defining his enemies, the Rosicrucians and Les Philalethes.
Dec 1782-April 1783: Mozart changes house three times-last address "Judenplatz"-and then leaves for Salzburg with Constanze, leaving their newlyborn fist child, a son, behind in Vienna.
April 1783: Pietro Metastasio dies in Vienna.)

With a remarkable fondness for everything english at the time*, Mozart, you see, somehow inherited "Gluck's" immense music archive, there is now no doubt about it, and had every reason to cover the fact. For me only to answer: "What else he did to secure it, what hold he had on "Gluck", who was not in Vienna throughout 1782 and early 1783, that forced perhaps "Gluck" kill his alias "comte de Saint Germain" in 1784"?

(And what else did "Gluck" lose due to his association with the Mozarts?)

Cheers!

*Eversince count Arco kicked him in the butt, June 1781!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

We know perfectly well Rome was not on good official terms with Venice. It's a basic fact. Because Venice did not belong to the Holy Roman Empire. It, Venice, was a concession made to the Eastern Empire. Venice was an independent area. And had been since 814 A.D. And its culture was never that of Western Europe. Its culture came from Byzantium, from pagan Greece and from Babylonia. The Jesuits were not on the best official terms with Rome also. And there is indisputable evidence the creation of the Jesuit Order was achieved with the patronage of Venice. So let's stop going round and round in circles. That's a fact. If you wish to have copies of correspondence between Ignatius Loyola and Cardinal Contarini of Venice during the time of the formation of the Jesuit Order, just ask. The facts are the facts.

You are right Florence was a seat of early Freemasonry in Italy. During the 1730's. But that is because early Florentine Freemasonry was vitally important to the British presence there. Florence was the place where the occultists of Britain in Italy were based at this time. England, officially, 'exported' Freemasonry to Italy, Germany and everywhere else. Including Florence. But the reality is that it was developed first in Venice. In 1717 its modern form was arrived at in London. And from there in its modern form it arrived later in Florence and elsewhere. That is exactly why the links exist between the English patrons of Mozart in Florence, such as Earl Cowper, who was the virtual agent for opera in Italy during the time of the King's Theatre in London. It is why, today, in Florence, there are a complete set of 'Mozart' opera scores in the Cherubini Institute library which hardly get a mention in the textbooks. Florence was an early Italian base of Freemasonry because the English brought it there from that early date. Florence was also a base for Jacobism in Italy. So was Padua. (Padua being the centre of the Aristotelian education of the Venetian elites for centuries). The ambassdors of England were all private supporters of the Jacobins. And they were all occultists.

I have no problem with truth. We either have it or we don't. And if we don't others do. So that our job is to see its relevance. And, if we disagree, fine. At least we can share on these things and leave it there. And in this area the evidence is plain. The modern form of Freemasonry was arrived at in England around 1717. Having earlier existed in the occultist fraternities of Venice. The same occultist fraternties which were hugely influential in the aristocracy by helping to develop the British Empire and its merchant fleet and banking. And that is why Venice and Venetian opera/librettists (such as Goldoni, da Ponte and many others) are vitally important elements in the Mozart story. Again, commercial law, Admiralty Law, this too shared between Venice and England. The empire of Venice transfered to the City of London. And from there across the world by means of the 'British Empire'. Indeed, that Empire was privately funding the reign of Maria Theresa in Austria. For decades.

You refer to Mozart's enthusiasm for English things. Yes, and the same is true of Voltaire and Rousseau. The entire system of western Europe was under the strong influence of the British Empire by this time. Complete with the East India Company, its merchant elites etc. These employees of the British Empire. And the career of Mozart was no exception.

Mozart was manufactured in the same way that Shakespeare was manufactured. In the same way the 'discoveries' of Isaac Newton were manufactured (plagiarised from Leibnitz in Germany), in the same way that Hadyn was manufactured, and in the same way that Darwin and others were manufactured heroes which have been a vital part of all pagan cultures at all times.

I have in my notes the names of Venetians whose early writings and teachings anticipate early modern Freemasonry and will post them when I have time.

As for your other points we can surely deal with these when these issues are resolved.

Regards

Well Yanni, I'm accused one minute of 'Hang it on Venice' and the next minute I am accused of 'Hang it on the Jesuits' ! I must be getting close to the truth, right ?

Since we are discussing Venice and Mozart's career you will tell us next that Mozart and his father did not spend time in their tour of Venice....

Against my repeated advise that Venice (+1797) and Florence (+1730's) were never in the best of terms with Rome's Jesuits (and that both were, in any case, irrelevant at the time of Mozart's manufacture, as from 1814, "Rule Britannia" era), you have indeed been "hanging it" on Venice and the Jesuits both, while carefully avoiding Florence, seat of the first italian "english freemasonry lodge" around 1730's.

Funny thing about truth, how "personnal", how subjective, it always is, how people's fixations or private interests affect it.

"Everybody has his individual truth" sort-of and, wrongly assuming you are seeking a "common british truth" or, even better, a "global people's truth unchanged thru the ages", I did my best to provide you with food for thought in my previous, re "public debt vs gdp" at the time of Shakespeare's Shylock and his "Merchant of Venice" to compare with same, two centuries later, when Mozart's manufacture started by his early "biographers" (including, as some say, Mozart himself, ie Georg Nic. Nissen, Mozart's first biographer, lookalike and next husband of his widow).

Because, you see, a very much "universal people's truth unchanged thru the ages" is "hunger" and what "common people"-like Mozart-do to avoid it!

You chose to ignore all that to put forward instead a Mr Bonelli's "truth", "a "fraternising occulist" as per your previous definition, cut furthermore to size to fit your contoversial fixations/intentions!
(http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/10/p08.php)

No, you are not "getting close to it", in fact you are doing your best to avoid it, everything possible to get away from your own subject, ie "The manufacture of Mozart".

What you should be really answering at this stage is :How trustworthy are the already disputed "Nissen & Constance" data concerning in particular Mozart performing privately for "Gluck", 1782 in Vienna?

My opera was performed again yesterday, this time at the request of Gluck. Gluck paid me many compliments on it. I am to dine with him tomorrow. (Vienna, August 7, 1782, to his father. [How Mozart and Gluck differed in principle on the relation between text and music the reader has already had an opportunity to learn. H.E.K.]) "Mozart: The man and the artist as revealed in his own words by Friedrich Kerst , translated by Henry Edward Krehbiel".

18th January 1783: Gluck writes allegedly from Vienna he will be unable to travel to Paris for illhealth and reduces the fee for his French Danaides (Calzabiggi Ipermestra, the libretto translated in French by Gluck’s librettists, Du Roullet and Tscudi) suggesting Salieri cooperated with him, a fact he later-on the premiere of Les Danaides in 1784-refused, leaving all glory to Salieri! (Antonio Salieri and Viennese Opera, John A. Rice).
(In same January: Weishaupt writes to Zwack how he would control The Scottish Orthodox Rite defining his enemies, the Rosicrucians and Les Philalethes.
Dec 1782-April 1783: Mozart changes house three times and then moves to Salzburg)

With a remarkable fondness for everything english at the time, Mozart, you see, somehow "inherited" Gluck's immense music archive, there is now no doubt about it, and had every reason to cover the fact. My question, ie for me only to answer, is "what else he did to secure it, what hold he had on "Gluck", who was not in Vienna throughout 1782 and early 1783, that forced perhaps "Gluck" kill his alias "comte de Saint Germain" in 1784"?

(And what else did "Gluck" lose due to his association with the Mozarts?)

Cheers!

[yanni]

You almost saved "it" but the subject is far from closed!

And when you do provide serious evidence of pre 1730's Freemasonry presence in Florence, I'll reconsider it, even if it is still irrelevant to this thread. People adjust with time, you see, often changing sides or even dogmas.

Cheers.