The Manufacture of Mozart

[Musicology]

Yanni,

We may all be confused at different times. But what most confuses me most is why you can't answer a simple question. Perhaps I need to ask it again ? Can you please tell me who Cocchi was working for ? Cocchi, alias etc etc etc. Since you seem unable to tell me plainly. Do tell us please Yanni.

As for the dissolution of the 'Scottish Rite' (in 1782) this roughly corresponds to formation of the Illuminatists. Just a coincidence, right, Yanni ? From that Jesuit University of Inglostadt. Speaking of which, Knigge (who is credited with writing the German text of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was himself in the pay of the King of England (and his father before him) although the same von Knigge, of course was a leading Illuminatist in Germany. In Hanover. From which came the ruling Hanoverian dynasty in England. Indeed, there is a record of payments to Knigge held at the British Library made by the King of England to Knigge's father during the time of George 2nd.

You have suggested various official employers of Cocchi. Whom, you say, was also Saint Germain, Rousseau etc. Fine. But why should an Italian with many aliases also serve France, Russia and be active in the USA and on close terms with England and other countries ? Does this scenario not suggest he was serving an organisation throughout all these roles ? Which organisation ? You see, there is no connecting thread suggested by you. Is there ? And since he supposedly used these multiple aliases you should tell us with which single movement he was associated. Any at all ? Without which he must have confused himself with so many aliases.

Why use aliases throughout one's life (many) if there was no reason to use them ?

Thanks

[yanni]

It seems your insistance to focus exclusively on Mozart has disappeared somehow while my brief description of Saint Germain-Cocchi's "employers" (France and Russia) was not to your satisfaction, your stand implying you really want another answer, ie you really ask if he belonged to Weishaupt's Illuminati all along (contary to my previous assertion that early 1783 Weishaupt defined his enemies to Zwack as Les Philalethes and Rosicrucians-ie defined "Saint Germain" as his enemy).

Well, he did not, is my opinion (Th.Jefferson finally disagreeing with him on "philosophy" matters prior to the french revolution, himself having to leave France afterwards to settle in Russia) but who can really tell?

Here is how http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/...=FinalWarn01-2 describes the Illuminati links to the French Revolution

The Illuminati, the Jacobins and the French Revolution (1787-1791)
The Illuminati had secretly spread to France by 1787 (five years after they had planned), through French orator and revolutionary leader Count Gabriel Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau (1749-1791, Order name 'Leonidas') who had been indoctrinated by Col. Jacob Mauvillon while he was in Berlin on a secret mission for King Louis XVI of France in 1786. Mirabeau introduced Illuminati principles at the Paris Masonic Lodge of the Amis Reunis (later renamed 'Philalethes'), and initiated Abbé Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838, a court cleric in the House of Bourbon).
The most trusted members were brought into the 'Secret Committee of United Friends' (it is interesting to note that a group of the same name originated in 1771 as an occult group). The initiations took place at the Illuminati's Grand Lodge, about 30 miles from Paris, in the Ermenonville mansion owned by the Marquis de Gerardin. The famous impostor Saint Germain (1710-1780, or 1785) presided over the initiation ceremonies.
Germain was believed to be a Portuguese Jew, who was a member of the Philalethes Lodge. He was a Mason, a Rosicrucian, and belonged to several other occult brotherhoods. He spoke Italian, German, English, Spanish, French, Greek, Sanskrit, Arabic, and Chinese. He was said to be the son of Prince Rakoczy of Transylvania; raised by the last Medici, Gian Gastone; and was educated at the University of Siena. He told people that he had lived for centuries and knew King Solomon. He was arrested in London in 1743 for being a Jacobite spy and he took credit for establishing Freemasonry in Germany. As an impostor he posed as Comte Bellamarre, Marquis de Montferrat, and Chevalier Schoening.
During the initiation, new members were sworn to:
"...reveal to thy new chief all thou shalt have heard, learned and discovered, and also to seek after and spy into things that might have otherwise escaped thy notice ... (and to) avoid all temptation to betray what thou has now heard. Lightning does not strike so quickly as the dagger which will reach thee wherever thou mayest be."
Count Alessandro de Cagliostro (also known as Giuseppe Balsamo), a Jew from Sicily, who was said to be one of the greatest occult practitioners of all time, was initiated into the Illuminati at Mitau (near Frankfurt) in 1780, in an underground room. He later said that an iron box filled with papers was opened, and a book taken out. From it, a member read the oath of secrecy, which began: "We, Grand Masters of Templars..." It was written in blood. The book was an outline of their plans which included an attack on Rome. He discovered that they had money at their disposal in banks at Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London, Genoa, and Venice. He found out that the Illuminati had 20,000 lodges throughout Europe and America, and that their members served in every European court. Cagliostro was instructed to go to Strasbourg, France, to make the initial contacts necessary for the instigation of the French Revolution. Identified as a Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion, it is believed that he was the liaison between them and the Illuminati. He was arrested in 1790 in Rome for revolutionary activities.
The French Masons had committed themselves to a plan for overthrowing the government, under the guise of liberty and equality, ending the autocratic regimes in order to have government by and for the people. Jeremy Bentham and William Petty (Earl of Shelburne) planned and directed the French Revolution, then later directed the [Illuminati] plot towards America.
In 1788, at the request of Mirabeau and Talleyrand, Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (1730-1793, 'Amelius'), a lawyer at Weimar and a Mason, was summoned to France. He had been initiated into the Illuminati at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad and later took over the Order in the absence of Weishaupt. Bode and Baron de Busche ('Bayard'), a Dutch military officer in the service of the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, in order to conceal the purpose of their presence in France said they were there to investigate the influence of the Jesuits on the secret societies. However, the real reason for them being there was to further the goals of the Illuminati in France. They operated out of the Lodge of the Amis Reunis, changing its name to 'Philalethes' which means 'searchers after the truth.'
The Marquis de Luchet, a friend of Mirabeau, wrote in his Essay on the Sect of the Illuminati in January, 1789:
"Deluded people. You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism, and against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, of ignorance against light! ... Every species of error which afflicts the earth, every half-baked idea, every invention serves to fit the doctrines of the Illuminati ... The aim is universal domination."
Intellectuals known as 'encyclopedists' were instrumental in spreading Illuminati doctrine. Soon other lodges become aligned with the Philalethes, such as the 'Nine Sisters'; the Lodge of Candor, which included members like Laclos, Sillery, d'Aiguillon, the Lameth Brothers, Dr. Guillotine, and Lafayette; and the 'Propaganda', which was established by Condorcet, Abbé Sieyes, and Rochenfoucault.
[Many] revolutionary leaders in France joined the Illuminati who had eventually infiltrated all 266 Masonic lodges by 1789, even though the Masons weren't aware of it.
• Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-1794), who was made head of the Revolution by Weishaupt
• Marquis Antoine Nicholas Condorcet (1743-1794), philosopher and politician
• Duke de la Rochenfoucault
• George Jacques Danton (1759-1794)
• Marquis Marie Joseph de Lafayette (1757-1834), General and statesman
• Jerome Petion de Villeneuve (1756-1794), politician
• Philippe, Duke of Orleans, Grand Master of French Freemasonry
• de Leutre
• Fauchet
• Cammille Benoit Desmoulins (1760-1794)
• D´Alembert
• Denis Diderot (1713-1784), encyclopedist
• Jean-Francois de la Harpe (1739-1803), critic and playwright
The Illuminati created situations in order to create dissention among the people. For instance, the Duke of Orleans instructed his agents to buy up as much grain as they could, then the people were led to believe that the King intentionally caused the shortage and that the French people were starving. Fellow conspirators in the government helped create runaway inflation. Thus the people were manipulated into turning against a king whose reign had strengthened the middle class. The monarchy was to be destroyed and the middle class oppressed. God was to be replaced by the Illuminati's religion of reason that "man's mind would solve man's problems."
During the first two years of the French Revolution, which started in April, 1789, the Illuminati had infiltrated the Masonic Lodges to such an extent that they had ceased operation and instead rallied under the name "The French Revolutionary Club." When they needed a larger meeting place they used the hall of the Jacobin's Convent. This revolutionary group of 1300 people emerged on July 14, 1789 as the Jacobin Club. The Illuminati controlled the Club, and were directly responsible for fermenting the activities which developed into the French Revolution. Lord Acton wrote:
"The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke, we perceived the evidence of calculating organization. The managers remain studiously concealed and masked; but there is no doubt about their presence from the first."
In the playing out of a plan which called for the population to be cut down by one-third to one-half, over 300,000 people died, including the execution of King Louis and his family. This was done to insure the stability of the new French Republic. In August, 1792, after the overthrow of the government, the tri-colored banner was replaced by the red flag of social revolution, while the cry of "Vive notre roi d´Orleans" gave way to the Masonic watchword "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" Those who responded with the proper Masonic handsigns had their lives spared. By November 1793 as the massacres had spread all over France the churches had been reorganized along the lines of Weishaupt's contention that "reason should be the only code of man."
Talleyrand, who became the bishop of Autin in 1788, because of his radical reorganization of the Church was excommunicated by the Pope. He became a deputy to the National Assembly. The Jacobins controlled the National Assembly and for all intents and purposes Mirabeau became France's leader. In true Democratic spirit he said:
"We must flatter the people by gratuitous justice, promise them a great diminution in taxes and a more equal division, more extension in fortunes, and less humiliation. These fantasies will fanaticize the people, who will flatten all resistance."
The Revolution was considered at an end on July 28, 1794, when Robespierre was guillotined.
Thomas Jefferson, who served as minister to France for three years (1785-89), described the events as "so beautiful a revolution" and said that he hoped it would sweep the world. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton said that Jefferson helped start the French Revolution, and wrote in a letter to a friend dated May 26, 1792 that
"[Jefferson] drank freely of the French philosophy, in religion, in science, in politics. He came from France in the moment of fermentation, which he had a share in inciting."
Jefferson wrote to Brissot de Warville in Philadelphia in a letter dated May 8, 1793 that he was "eternally attached to the principles of the French Revolution."

A lot is missing from above "study" (practicaly all british involvement, including the Regent's -prince of Wales-links to the Hanoverians and the french Jacobin club, Cagliostro's links and ties with Britain etc) but neverthelss, among other "stories", it is not the worst overall description of events, yet failing "dependable sources".

Having told you from the beginning that, following US independence, "Britain was not excluded when they partitioned their world", (and he, as well as the duc d'Orleans, were both in good terms with Britain after 1782-3), I now further disclose another "Saint Germain", ie Gioachino Cocchi, tentative alias: "Mirabeau (+1791)", whose origins and writings fit so well with Cocchi's other aliases and whose limited travel data and actions also fit my mastertimeline.

Thus "Mirabeau", alongside "marquis de Girardin" and "Comte de Saint Germain" in above article, does really implicate "them all" heavily in the French Revolution, the hideous execution of the Royal couple and the future candidacy of the duke d'Orlean line as King of France.

BUT

...my "Saint Germain" escaped to Russia and "his" duke d'Orlean (who supported "Saint Germain" and most of his aliases) was also executed later, was he not?

And most of his french relatives fled France(Caussin) while others were executed or imprisoned(Cochin, Cassini, Caussini), but some stayed and collaborated in printing the first french constitution among others (Causse).

And my "Saint Germain" was immensely rich while in France afterall, but was bankrupt, like France (and England) was, after the american independence war and had to pawn his estate, including his serfs, in Vyborg in 1786:

The first application was made in September 1786, when pomeshchiki of Kivennapa parish in the province of Vyborg General Fieldmarshal Count Ivan Petrovich Saltykov and his wife Dar'ia Petrovna Saltykova (neé Chernysheva) applied for permission to mortgage their peasants. http://www.lib.helsinki.fi/elektra/summary.html

And another equally or more dependable site on Strict Observance Rite http://www.oisot.com/Historique_SOT.php includes my hero (as Alexander Sergeyevich Stroganov-code name "ab Amiantho") but excludes Weishaupt and his Illuminati alltogether. (Includes Mozart too).

And yet another http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/...n-barruel.html absolves Mirabeau and Freemasonry from the French Revolution.

And no Royal House in their world at the time really wanted a democratic France, Britain included imo.

And he disaggreed with Necker

And "Mirabeau", whom I have myself accused early on in my research for complicity, did try to save the King and Queen of France but failed, didn' he?

And he ("G") had to "remove" his son, Paul I Tszar, for "modernising" ie siding with Rome and Napoleon ....

And introduced Capodistria to the Russian Court....

And Napoleon did then, 1812, attack his mentor's Russia....

And "G" is a Freemason symbol today....

So, "who was he working for?"

Winners write History, he never wrote his!

And lastly, do answer this rhetoric question: Who profited immensely from all 1774-1814 events (and from both sides), who was Weishaupt's true mentor in "philosophy" (or employer as you put it)?

Cheers.

(And btw Knigge decided to quit The Illuminati much earlier than the french revolution)

[Musicology]

I focus exclusively on Mozart in the sense that he and the reality surrounding him is best studied by appreciating the social, political, religious, musical and other contexts of his times. Together with the motives and aims of his patrons. Mozart did not float dreamily through the late 18th century as a disembodied musical 'genius' in spite of the fairy story which says the opposite. The absurdities are obvious. Mozart's myth is the dumbing down of cultural/musical history adjusted to obtain control of music publishing and performance. To preside over the 'history of music' dominated by his cult and that of a few others, in the same way that corporations and vested interests preside over almost everything else within our society. And in Mozart's case this done in the name of 'his genius' by the trashing of musical and historical reality and repeated in the name of numerous other icons of our 'civilization'. Mozart's patrons were real people, heavily involved in inventing these reputations and in engineering and eventually controlling the fairy story of 'his' musical genius. As for reality, well, who would dare to question it ? The music is of such a quality that it tends to make such questions seem ridiculous. The Mozart project has certainly been extremely successful. But it succeeds because it seems unquestionable. Ask questions of its origins and start to examine the contexts which supposedly surrounded it and the whole story starts to crumble before you. Which is why 'experts' preside over it. Year after year. Without detailed criticism of the story or appreciation of the true origins of this music.

I haven't stopped talking of Mozart. I've tried to answer the questions you asked about the true context within which that reputation, that icon, was manufactured and propagated. Within which it came to dominate our 'education' in music. Involving as it did fraternities, empires, rulers and, of course, propagandists. So we are richer to have both sides to this story, and not just one. If that is not the case, and if that fact is not welcomed, then, 'Mozart studies' are the strangest variety of musicology that ever existed.

We live in an age where one thing, and only one thing, is unstoppable. Daylight. But nothing else is worth my time and talents or your own.

Regards

[yanni]

To return to your Mozart and my Nissen then:

What year did Admiral Nelson bomb Copenhagen, do you recall?

And how was Danemark's (and later Sweden's) foreign policy affected thereby eversince, can you summarize?

Cheers!

[Dinkleberry2010]

Everyone knows that Mozart was actually a red-haired, one-armed midget with one testicle who lived in the land of Nod. Nonsense, you say. Yes, I agree. It is nonsense.

[Musicology]

I really didn't know that Jermac. And, unless I am mistaken, nobody has taught this for the last 200 years. Until you arrived, that is. It has not been conventionally taught and I am not aware of any evidence in support of it. Perhaps you can provide some and by this can convince us ? Nor do I see that 'everyone' believes it. Perhaps you are exaggerating, just a little ?

Is it possible that on these grounds alone you may be mistaken ?

As for nonsense, we wait to see your next post.

Regards

Everyone knows that Mozart was actually a red-haired, one-armed midget with one testicle who lived in the land of Nod. Nonsense, you say. Yes, I agree. It is nonsense.

[Musicology]

The year was 1807, yes ? (Not 1801 as posted earlier).

As for policy etc. I do not know.

To return to your Mozart and my Nissen then:

What year did Admiral Nelson bomb Copenhagen, do you recall?

And how was Danemark's (and later Sweden's) foreign policy affected thereby eversince, can you summarize?

Cheers!

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You may be interested to know that among the Illuminatists associated with Mozart’s last years was librettist and poet Karl Ludwig Metzler. Better known to posterity as geologist Gieseke. Who was born in Augsburg in 1761, the town of Leopold Mozart’s education. In fact some people credit Gieseke with writing the libretto for the opera ‘Die Zauberflote’ in 1791 and he had close association with theatre impressario and friend of Mozart in Vienna, Schickaneder before, in his later life, becoming a Professor of Geology at Dublin University in Ireland. He was also closely associated with the Vienna music publisher Hoffmeister. The true origins of Gieseke were unknown until the 20th century.

The reason Gieseke is significant is I’ve studied this person and his life and his almost unknown connection with Mozart‘s career. Part of which involves the following -

He certainly visited Copenhagen. In fact, he lived there in the first years of the 19th century. And was well connected there with leading Illuminatists and Freemasons.

During a visit to Greenland while on a search for commercial quantities of geological deposits came the news that his existing collections, books, records and belongings which had been left at the St. Petri’s Church vicarage in Copenhagen (where he had earlier stayed for some time) had been destroyed during the British bombardment of the Danish capital city (25th September 1807).

All the evidence strongly links Gieseke to fraternity groups across Europe (and in England). Including, of course, links to Born in Vienna in the 1890’s and others in Scotland, England, France and Germany. In fact,

http://www.uibk.ac.at/mineralogie/oe...46_451-479.pdf

So this must be the British bombardment of Copenhagen to which you are referring. Definitely linking us to Mozart, though in a strange way.

The attached painting by C. W. Eckersberg showing the spire of the Cathedral on fire during the British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807. The Round Tower and the Trinitatis church complex to the left - survived the daily attacks on the city.

Rgds

[Musicology]

J.S. Bach
Aria
Cantata 151

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJQt1f_5Nrw

[yanni]

You are quite right: Danemark capitulated to Britain after the second bombardment (first against civilians) of Copenhagen of 1807* and not after Nelson's of 1801.

Which absolves “villain Mozart” (assuming he is Nissen, Danish consul in Tripoli who served until 1807 there) from eventual cooperation with Britain and confirms my previously expressed view that Mozart was “manufactured” , with "Gluck's" consent (and now iniative as well),to “hide” Cocchi's (+"Gluck's") work and identity ("Gluck", ie Gioachino Cocchi, served as French war minister by the title "comte de Saint Germain", 1777-8), and that Mozart (as both "Mozart,+1791" and "Nissen,+1826") cooperated in the process.

The same conclusion is actually reached through a more carefull study of Leroux’s 1910 Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (as I did yesterday, after googling for “Mozart alias" to be then guided again to the phantom: http://www.online-literature.com/leroux/)

Here is how, quoting from XII. Apollo's Lyre:

I am not an Angel, nor a genius, nor a ghost...I am Erik!'"

…a sofa in a simply furnished little bedroom, with an ordinary mahogany bedstead, lit by a lamp standing on the marble top of an old Louis-Philippe chest of drawers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Philippe_of_France strongly linking Louis Philippe, son of Louis d'Orlean (+1793), to “Gluck” and his family's history, and interpret then the symbolism: “lamp” on top of “chest of drawers”)

Erik said that he loved me, but that he would never tell me so except when I allowed him and that the rest of the time would be devoted to music. (Eric declaring he can now only communicate his love through music)

The walls were all hung with black, but, instead of the white trimmings that usually set off that funereal upholstery, there was an enormous stave of music with the notes of the dies irae, many times repeated.
(The symbolism here could not have been more clear: Why would Eric “hang” on the”darkness surrounding him”, ie curtains, his enormous stave of music, covered moreover by the notes of another man’s prayer???: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(Mozart): A much debated "last piece", speaking for itself.Before jumping to conclusions however: France turned "reform Roman Catholic" AFTER Napoleon, ie it's Leroux's prayer for "G", not "G's" own. Very revealing neverthless. )

Then I saw the keyboard of an organ which filled one whole side of the walls. On the desk was a music-book covered with red notes. I asked leave to look at it and read, `Don Juan Triumphant.' `Yes,' he said, `I compose sometimes.' I began that work twenty years ago.
(1761: Christoph Willibald Gluck's and Gasparo Angiolini's ballet Don Juan
1787: Giovanni Bertati's opera Don Giovanni, music by Giuseppe Gazzaniga
1787: Lorenzo da Ponte's opera Don Giovanni, music by Mozart.
Leroux is telling his readers that “G” was forced to go “underground” as a musician because of his involvement in USA as “Chastellux”, 1781-1783 and, afterthat, Mozart "took over" .)

When I have finished, I shall take it away with me in that coffin and never wake up again.' `You must work at it as seldom as you can,' I said. He replied, `I sometimes work at it for fourteen days and nights together, during which I live on music only, and then I rest for years at a time.' `Will you play me something out of your Don Juan Triumphant?' I asked, thinking to please him. `You must never ask me that,' he said, in a gloomy voice. `I will play you Mozart, if you like, which will only make you weep; but my Don Juan, Christine, burns; and yet he is not struck by fire from Heaven.' Thereupon we returned to the drawing-room. I noticed that there was no mirror in the whole apartment. I was going to remark upon this, but Erik had already sat down to the piano. He said, `You see, Christine, there is some music that is so terrible that it consumes all those who approach it. Fortunately, you have not come to that music yet, for you would lose all your pretty coloring and nobody would know you when you returned to Paris. Let us sing something from the Opera, Christine Daae.' He spoke these last words as though he were flinging an insult at me."
We at once began the duet in Othello and already the catastrophe was upon us. I sang Desdemona with a despair, a terror which I had never displayed before. As for him, his voice thundered forth his revengeful soul at every note. Love, jealousy, hatred, burst out around us in harrowing cries. Erik's black mask made me think of the natural mask of the Moor of Venice. He was Othello himself. Suddenly, I felt a need to see beneath the mask. I wanted to know the face of the voice, and, with a movement which I was utterly unable to control, swiftly my fingers tore away the mask. Oh, horror, horror, horror!"

Notice the organ changing to piano, as above, and link the inflammatory power of Don Juan to opera in general and the Paris Opera in particular (the “barrels-barrels” of gunpowder in another part of Leroux’s work). There are more symbolisms allover (and have not even bothered studying the Othello-Desdemona story yet).

Gaston Leroux in fact confirms by his work another alias used by "G", ie "Bricaire de La Dixmerie" (ie "bricklayer of the tenth part"), orator of the Lodge Les Philalethes, already revealed by yourstruly elsewhere herein, as follows: Erik, tired of his nomadic life and wanting "live like everybody else", says that "for a time" he worked as a contractor, building "ordinary houses with ordinary bricks" to participate then in constructing the Palais Garnier, ie the Paris Opéra. LaDixmerie actually build with ordinary bricks but the "houses" he designed and constructed were not "ordinary" by nomeans, ie Leroux tactfully is not telling us the whole truth (and I follow in agreement).

Mozart first, and then Leroux and others, undertook to "immortalize" "Gluck's" music AND keep his identity secret (the phantom "remaining alive", ie "G's" secret hidden, as long as "Don Juan triumphant" is "unfinished" ie "not signed" by his creator)

There is more to follow on “Nissen”-Mozart, the task seeming superfluous however.

*The bombardment of Copenhagen came immediately after the treaty of Tilsit where Russia (Tszar Alexander I) promised eternal alliance with France and war against England.

The year was 1807, yes ? (Not 1801 as posted earlier).

As for policy etc. I do not know.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

This theory of George Nissen (the second husband of W.A. Mozart) being Mozart himself in later life has a number of very interesting points in its favour. I've said so before and I encourage someone to research and write on this subject in more detail if they find conclusive evidence. But it remains my view that it does lack hard evidence. I first became aware of it around 5 years ago. The first I heard of it was from an American researcher, David R. Roell, who wrote to me on the subject.

http://www.astroamerica.com/mozart.html

That the entire career of Mozart involved diplomats, elite patrons, fraternal organisations, corrupt publishers and propagandists prepared to invent a fabulous story is itself a huge challenge so I have had no time to arrive at any detailed conclusion on this subject. It might be an idea for you to write to Mr Roell on it. As for myself, there are definitely some highly unusual aspects of the theory which strongly indicate that Nissen was part of the elaborate web of deceipt that surrounds the early biographies (so-called). Equally strange is the bogus biography by F.X. Niemetscheck of Prague (1797/8) a man who is proved to have lied about being acquainted with Mozart but who acted as a foster-father to one of Mozart's children after his death ! Niemetscheck's role in inventing the Mozart story is clear. As was the role of Prague as a whole. (The first edition of that 'biography' being bought up and destroyed by Constanze Mozart for some reason). The later collaboration between Nissen and Constanze on the second early biography (published just after Nissen's death) is another example of the same. In fact, in the early introduction to the 1st edition (which appeared in the early 1820's Constanze writes (and I paraphrase from memory) -

'To tell all the truth might do harm to his fame, to the success of his music'.

One of the great understatements of musical biography, for sure !

I can tell you for certain that of the nearly 800 works attributed to W.A. Mozart less than 144 were published in his lifetime. The vast majority of these being works credited to his childhood and youth, over which there is considerable evidence that he did not write them. And only around 40 works from the period (1782-1791) during the time of 'his' most creative period. Of the concertos published in his name only 4 of the 27 appeared. Of which we can see that none are by Mozart. Of the 50 or so symphonies only 4. And so on. Of the literally hundreds of other works, the vast majority appearing only after 1798. And so on. Not a single operatic score. etc. Despite the fact that, of course, the excellence of much of this music begs an explanation. So that was my priority, rather than further research on the identity of Nissen etc. After all, my own field is complex enough.

I believe there is evidence beyond fair and reasonable doubt that the operas of Mozart we know today were made by a series of talented composers who acted in tandem to make them what we know today. That without this network of 'patrons' and propagandists we would not have this music. And so, from this perspective there is no argument as to its extraordinary musical content. But plenty of argument on its origins and on how this was all achieved. And I think that when people see the evidence they will be able to arrive at the same conclusion.

It is the individualism of western culture which tends to create these icons of musical history. Removing (deliberately and also accidentally) the vital contexts of the times in which they lived. And giving the benefit of fair and reasonable doubts over and over again to the icons they have created. So that the rise of Mozart as a musical icon and the pantheon of 'great' composers is the result of a controlling hand within our culture. A sort of paganism, in fact, which poses as being 'scientific' but which, in fact, lacks any toleration for criticism.

To have studied this subject now for so many years (starting out as a firm believer in 'Mozart's genius' myself) and to have slowly arrived at these conclusions after detailed study of the 'source' documents was not easy. But you see for yourself the extent of academic 'control' on a whole series of Mozart questions. The Mozart industry is seen as virtually synonomous with 'musical expertise' although, in fact, it flounders whenever facts are pointed out. So we might say the rise of the modern music industry (from around 1800 onwards) was really the takeover of musicology itself, in the sense that from around that time rich elites and patrons virtually defined what was true and what was not. With minimal criticism. Writing and publishing fiction on a handful of their icons. And making us all ignorant of the social, political, religious, fraternal contexts of those times, the achievements of countless composers and all to control and preside over what appears in countless textbooks and publications. The clearest proof of this fact is found (as the founder of musicology, Forkel, said) in the ignorance, the amazing ignorance of the legacy of Bach, Vivaldi, and other composers by Vienna and Vienna music managers even as late as the time of Mozart.

But what is achieved to know this ? I suppose it achieves some understanding of the fact that great music is the product of a society, or of a group of people, rather than our pagan idea of individualistic idols and individual achievement. And it may be, that in some future time, this truth will become acceptable to those who study and write on music history. So that individualism and the cult of personality (which is subject to control, deception and exaggeration and which tends to dominate western culture more than anywhere else) will be laughed at and abandoned as we appreciate musical history with more honesty.

The input of others in the work of 'Mozart' (though flatly denied and concealed by a fairy story) may also be true of Bach himself. Since I for one would not rule out the possibility that his students (of which there were many) had a role in contributing to his own works. And why not ?

So that what is needed here is a fresh approach. And an end to mumbo jumbo, to mythology, and a return of integrity on this fascinating subject of music and its history.

Icons can be controlled. And have been. That is the Mozart story.

[Musicology]

J.S. Bach
Cantata 177
Opening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3VtZB-c3g

[Musicology]

For sure, the alleged 'Mozart skull' is not that of Mozart. As is even agreed by the Mozarteum in Salzburg. So much for all the hyperbole !

An epitaph was published in 2 newspapers (The 'Wiener Zeitung', of Dec 31, 1791and the 'Grazer Burgerzeitung', Jan 3, 1792), translated from the original Latin which says -

TO MOZART
AN INSCRIPTION FOR HIS GRAVE
To Mozart, who rests here,
As a child, swelled the world's wonders
with the strings of his lyre;
As a man, he surpassed Orpheus himself.
Go hence! And pray earnestly for his soul!
[Signed] K.

But the mountain of evidence shows even the funeral story is a much later invention. There is no contemporary account of a funeral procession. There is only the documentary fact of a service held at the Vienna Cathedral on the day of the funeral, the tolling of bells, and the hire of a carriage. Not a single contemporary source speaks of the burial itself or of visiting the grave site. Indeed, many years later Constanze Mozart had still not visited the alleged site of her husband's grave at St Marx and was embarrased when this fact was pointed out to her. (She said she had no idea of its location). Which is strange, for sure. There were 10 funerals on that same day but the service at the Cathedral was not attended by her. The idea of the cortege turning back from the gates of the city because of inclement weather is itself an invention. That day (we know from weather records) was fine. As for the 'rehearsal' of the Requiem during the final days, that too is a 19th century fiction. As is the legend of the 'grey messenger'. It's all rather typical of the ability of people to believe in fiction. Had Mozart died suddenly of a 'fever' (which the official records show) his remains would not have been allowed into the cathedral in the first place. Since epidemics of the kind said to have killed him ruled out any such burial or burial service.

But there are many other lines of evidence showing that nothing is ever quite what it seems, even here. The cause of death is and has always been contradictory. But many people have said the same.

You are quite right: Danemark capitulated to Britain after the second bombardment (first against civilians) of Copenhagen of 1807* and not after Nelson's of 1801.

Which absolves “villain Mozart” (assuming he is Nissen, Danish consul in Tripoli who served until 1807 there) from eventual cooperation with Britain and confirms my previously expressed view that Mozart was “manufactured” , with "Gluck's" consent (and now iniative as well),to “hide” Cocchi's (+"Gluck's") work and identity ("Gluck", ie Gioachino Cocchi, served as French war minister by the title "comte de Saint Germain", 1777-8), and that Mozart (as both "Mozart,+1791" and "Nissen,+1826") cooperated in the process.

The same conclusion is actually reached through a more carefull study of Leroux’s 1910 Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (as I did yesterday, after googling for “Mozart alias" to be then guided again to the phantom: http://www.online-literature.com/leroux/)

Here is how, quoting from XII. Apollo's Lyre:

I am not an Angel, nor a genius, nor a ghost...I am Erik!'"

…a sofa in a simply furnished little bedroom, with an ordinary mahogany bedstead, lit by a lamp standing on the marble top of an old Louis-Philippe chest of drawers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Philippe_of_France strongly linking Louis Philippe, son of Louis d'Orlean (+1793), to “Gluck” and his family's history, and interpret then the symbolism: “lamp” on top of “chest of drawers”)

Erik said that he loved me, but that he would never tell me so except when I allowed him and that the rest of the time would be devoted to music. (Eric declaring he can now only communicate his love through music)

The walls were all hung with black, but, instead of the white trimmings that usually set off that funereal upholstery, there was an enormous stave of music with the notes of the dies irae, many times repeated.
(The symbolism here could not have been more clear: Why would Eric “hang” on the”darkness surrounding him”, ie curtains, his enormous stave of music, covered moreover by the notes of another man’s prayer???: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(Mozart): A much debated "last piece", speaking for itself.Before jumping to conclusions however: France turned "reform Roman Catholic" AFTER Napoleon, ie it's Leroux's prayer for "G", not "G's" own. Very revealing neverthless. )

Then I saw the keyboard of an organ which filled one whole side of the walls. On the desk was a music-book covered with red notes. I asked leave to look at it and read, `Don Juan Triumphant.' `Yes,' he said, `I compose sometimes.' I began that work twenty years ago.
(1761: Christoph Willibald Gluck's and Gasparo Angiolini's ballet Don Juan
1787: Giovanni Bertati's opera Don Giovanni, music by Giuseppe Gazzaniga
1787: Lorenzo da Ponte's opera Don Giovanni, music by Mozart.
Leroux is telling his readers that “G” was forced to go “underground” as a musician because of his involvement in USA as “Chastellux”, 1781-1783 and, afterthat, Mozart "took over" .)

When I have finished, I shall take it away with me in that coffin and never wake up again.' `You must work at it as seldom as you can,' I said. He replied, `I sometimes work at it for fourteen days and nights together, during which I live on music only, and then I rest for years at a time.' `Will you play me something out of your Don Juan Triumphant?' I asked, thinking to please him. `You must never ask me that,' he said, in a gloomy voice. `I will play you Mozart, if you like, which will only make you weep; but my Don Juan, Christine, burns; and yet he is not struck by fire from Heaven.' Thereupon we returned to the drawing-room. I noticed that there was no mirror in the whole apartment. I was going to remark upon this, but Erik had already sat down to the piano. He said, `You see, Christine, there is some music that is so terrible that it consumes all those who approach it. Fortunately, you have not come to that music yet, for you would lose all your pretty coloring and nobody would know you when you returned to Paris. Let us sing something from the Opera, Christine Daae.' He spoke these last words as though he were flinging an insult at me."
We at once began the duet in Othello and already the catastrophe was upon us. I sang Desdemona with a despair, a terror which I had never displayed before. As for him, his voice thundered forth his revengeful soul at every note. Love, jealousy, hatred, burst out around us in harrowing cries. Erik's black mask made me think of the natural mask of the Moor of Venice. He was Othello himself. Suddenly, I felt a need to see beneath the mask. I wanted to know the face of the voice, and, with a movement which I was utterly unable to control, swiftly my fingers tore away the mask. Oh, horror, horror, horror!"

Notice the organ changing to piano, as above, and link the inflammatory power of Don Juan to opera in general and the Paris Opera in particular (the “barrels-barrels” of gunpowder in another part of Leroux’s work). There are more symbolisms allover (and have not even bothered studying the Othello-Desdemona story yet).

Gaston Leroux in fact confirms by his work another alias used by "G", ie "Bricaire de La Dixmerie" (ie "bricklayer of the tenth part"), orator of the Lodge Les Philalethes, already revealed by yourstruly elsewhere herein, as follows: Erik, tired of his nomadic life and wanting "live like everybody else", says that "for a time" he worked as a contractor, building "ordinary houses with ordinary bricks" to participate then in constructing the Palais Garnier, ie the Paris Opéra. LaDixmerie actually build with ordinary bricks but the "houses" he designed and constructed were not "ordinary" by nomeans, ie Leroux tactfully is not telling us the whole truth (and I follow in agreement).

Mozart first, and then Leroux and others, undertook to "immortalize" "Gluck's" music AND keep his identity secret (the phantom "remaining alive", ie "G's" secret hidden, as long as "Don Juan triumphant" is "unfinished" ie "not signed" by his creator)

There is more to follow on “Nissen”-Mozart, the task seeming superfluous however.

*The bombardment of Copenhagen came immediately after the treaty of Tilsit where Russia (Tszar Alexander I) promised eternal alliance with France and war against England.

[yanni]

This theory of George Nissen (the second husband of W.A. Mozart) being Mozart himself in later life has a number of very interesting points in its favour. I've said so before and I encourage someone to research and write on this subject in more detail if they find conclusive evidence. But it remains my view that it does lack hard evidence. I first became aware of it around 5 years ago. The first I heard of it was from an American researcher, David R. Roell, who wrote to me on the subject.

http://www.astroamerica.com/mozart.html

You are referring to “The Life, Death and Life of Wolfgang Mozart”, David R. Roell (July 24, 2009,Minor edits, August 25, 2009)" aren't you?

I can but take your word for Mr Roell's "five year ago discovery", while noting in parallel his article came online some seven months after my first post on Leroux's phantom identity herein (January 2009).

It seems to me furthermore, Mr Roell did not exhaust himself (or all available "Nissen" online info) while writing it, concluding early on in his research...

Were there two Nicholas Nissens? Both Danish diplomats? Both serving in the first decade of the nineteenth century? One in Tripoli? One in Vienna?

…to then proceed on the "two Nissen" approach and compare Mozart and Nissen portraits for similarity (chosing however not the best of Mozart's portraits to compare with Nissen's) and to finally leave the matter "open" but for the title.

How did he anage to discover a second Nissen and mislead himself, his article and his readers?

Hard evidence is available proving that: The one and only Nissen actually served in Tripoli 1801 to first half of 1807 (and then returned to Vienna and his (Mozart's) wife, in 1809, as Mozart's story goes, ie indicating strongly that Mozart is Nissen!.

Let us so bypass Mr Roell and his worthy article:

"Hard evidence is needed" you write, to then let ago another burst of complaints on available "Mozart data" and their value as sources....

BUT

....not a word, not a comment , not a question (you tactic by now familiar to readers) on Leroux's view of Mozart, fully confirming my early views on the provenance of Mozart's music since the beginning of this thread as well as "Nissen's" true identity.

Well, I have news for you:

All along during my "Two works by Poe decoded" online research published herein, I have been "honouring" sources for their "trustworthiness" accordingly, coming to the conclusion, and publishing it too, that as concerns 18th-19th century, literature is a much more dependable source for today's research, provided the right interpretation of a work is done through parallel study of history.

You have not or could not follow it thru? Pitty, because my next "hard evidence presentation" on Mozart-Nissen strongly relates to this study and I have no intention to repeat the whole thing again, for your or Mozart's sake.
(A timeline is needed comparing the parallel diplomatic appointments of Nissen and Cocchi's "greek" and russian relatives-Caussin de Perceval and Stroganov- serving as Russia's consuls or Embassadors in Hydra and Constantinople- a long work proving hierarchy and comparing rank, covering the time of french-russian alliance, 1801-1807, including almost simultaneous decommisioning of all concerned post Tilsit. "Nissen" remained a francophile all along.While Nissen was in Tripoli, a hydrian boat belonging to "Anastasy Cocchini" was taken captive by Barbary's corsairs and was held for some six months, sailors included, in parallel to the similar capture of an american ship. Nissen tried his best for the americans and Decatur , then very friendly with Hydra as "Poe decoded" readers know. He surely did the same or more for the hydrians).

As such:

Leroux for me is more than enough and should be for you too, so do try blessing your readers with your own views on his "phantom" AND your manufactured Mozart.

Don't you ask yourself already " how silly of Yanni to leave out of his interpretation the phantom's mask covering "four eyes" and what they mean?"

I am sure you know already or can easily find the answer!

This is basicaly a literature site, perhaps not the right place for a parade of Mr Bins spilling their beans to the wrong customer, as "scholarly practice" demands.

Cheers.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

I have given you my view and it's not based simply on what you have written, interesting though that is. In point of fact there are various books and publications of the early 19th century which say similar things. At least in respect of saying Mozart's career was one giant falsification. But neither you nor I would consider them, interesting as they are, as proof of anything. They are, at best, views which happen to have some merit. But the proof of it remains for you and others to provide. It is not my view that this theory is convincing.

If your view was to be judged by a fair and reasonable audience on the grounds you have so far argued would that jury find 'beyond reasonable doubt' that G. Nissen was the same person as W.A. Mozart ? I think not. In fact I am sure they would not. Which is all I am saying. I believe this issue deserves to be studied in more detail and have said so. The most recent time was earlier today. And I've posted an article (yesterday) connecting Gieseke with Denmark. On which you have so far said nothing.

I am open to being convinced on most things. This is no exception. But please do not assume you have proved anything merely by quoting lines from a publication intended for stage performance. In such a case one can 'prove' anything.

I have somewhere in my papers MANY better proofs (made around 2 years ago) in support of your own thesis on Nissen (and that of David Roell) although, even with them it would be necessary to secure samples of Nissen's handwriting and carefully examine the career of Nissen prior to 1807 before one can reasonably claim to have found convincing evidence. But these I will not produce or discuss here. Not because I am being unsociable but because my focus is on the musical career of Mozart before 1791 and not on the fascinating question of whether Nissen was one and the same person as Mozart.

It would be possible to share these notes with you in due course if you were interested in researching that subject in more detail. It's a fascinating theory. But my own work is controversial enough and is very time consuming and I doubt that what I have is conclusive. As already said.

Regards