Don't want to read Casanova's own memoirs ?. No problem. It tells us clearly who his patron was. Doesn't it ?
Here are the details of Rezzonico becoming pope in 1758.
http://timelines.com/1758/7/6/carlo-...i-elected-pope
And here are more details of Cardinal Bernis -
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:G...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Originally Posted by yanni
Last edited by Musicology; 02-14-2010 at 12:09 PM.
Last time you trusted "Casanova" (ie "Chastellux"), if I rightly remember, you had to say farewell to your "West Indies"!
Your reluctance to share is well understood!
Enjoy you Valentine day!
Last edited by yanni; 02-14-2010 at 01:32 PM.
Yanni,
Since you (and not I) were the person who started off today with Waldstein -this in association with Beethoven you will of course agree that Simrock, Waldstein and others were Illuminati members at Bonn. Which makes it difficult for you, I realise. Since there is Casanova living with Waldstein's brother at Dux. LOL !
And when it is pointed out that Casanova (in his own writings) identifies his own patron as a Cardinal at Rome this is too much for you. You cannot see the wood for the trees again !
Can you confirm that these persons at Bonn (closely associated with Beethoven) were members of the Bonn Reading Society and were Illuminati members in Bonn ? Or shall I provide you with evidence for it ? Including Waldstein himself ?
And will you confirm that Casanova did have a patron who became a Cardinal at Rome and who was formerly the Foreign Minister of France under Louis, King of France. Again, if you need more proof I am happy to oblige.
LOL
Cocchi as "Myslivecek" first and as "Casanova" next, created two "Waldsteins", and it's you who select to see the tree but miss the wood:
The main point of my post was the discovery of Doctor Jan Antonin Cassinis "Mugellano" of Karl University in Prague, certainly Antonio Cocchi's father and Gioachino's grandfather, both from Mugello.
His presence there explains and confirms some "open parts" of my research as anybody who has carefully followed it will certainly realize.
You may forever go on linking Cocchi to Rome, Weishaupt, Cagliostro etc but, as France's top agent, it was his duty to infiltrate and control all "fraternities" and also to plant decoys to misguide his enemies.
Some of his aliases were betrayed and had to destroy them but this happened after he secured "the wood" of West Indies as "marquis de Chastellux".
"Casanova" btw not only testifies in his "memoirs" he is closely related to maestro Cocchi and Le comte de Saint Germain, but also wishes to advise us that he was present at "Mozart's" Don Giovanni or Don Juan in Vienna of 1787, the year he had "Gluck" dying.He also advises his readers that Cagliostro (who had gone to the other side in the meantime) was a skilled forgerer.
As for the one and only real Waldstein giving Mozart spirit's blessing to Beethoven, l can but guess it's another part of re "fiction" (with Beethoven participating), his long service in the British army and his bankruptcy on retirement speaking for themselves as to who really owned the Waldstein properties in Prague, till 1797 at least.
Cheers!
Last edited by yanni; 03-02-2010 at 04:21 AM.
Yanni,
It seems you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the Waldstein of Bonn was a member of the Illuminati there - the one associated with Beethoven in 1792. As was the Bonn music publishers. This is the Waldstein whose brother owned the house in Dux where Casanova (whose patron was a Cardinal lived) - even although you have the name of the cardinal, the details of his career, and the reference to him by Casanova. There can be no association between Rome and the 'Englightenment' yes ?
As a plain matter of fact Casanova (and others) were linked to the Venetian intelligence services. For which there is a ton of evidence. The same Venetians who had made England into an empire (as already said).
But, since my subject is music and the legendary career of Mozart I will focus on that subject here. This same place (Dux) where Casanova lived was, in the 19th century, also residence to the biographer Anton Schindler, who spent over 65 years in the service of the same Waldstein family. And whose manufacture of Beethoven diaries etc has been known since at least 1970. The same Anton Schindler whose work on Beethoven is full of inventions. Just another coincidence, of course !
You wish to define the careers of Cocchi and others as those of the French government ! What 'government' of France are you refering to ? Did one exist at this time ? It was an aristocracy serving nobody but themselves. Yanni, the Illuminatists were larger than the government of France. They were active in Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Holland, England, France and elsewhere. But you have Cocchi merely as an agent of the French government ! Really, this is contradicted by all we know. The Illuminatists did not care for any nation. Cocchi was involved in much bigger things. As were all empires. What did he achieve for the 'French government' as an agent ? Writing operas ? Really, this makes no sense.
No, Cocchi (and the libertine agents of the Englightenment, such as Casanova and Cagliostro) were agents of an occultist network. The secularisation of Europe after the collapse of all credibility for the Holy Roman Empire. As were Voltaire, Rousseau and others. This had nothing to do with the 'French government' and everything to do, as writers of the time knew, with the overthrow of national governments. A part of which was the cultural side. As we see here with Waldstein etc. And that's precisely why here with Waldstein/Beethoven/Dux etc. we find Casanova at Dux. It's why we find Schindler at Dux. It's why Waldstein, the Bonn music publisher Simrock and many others (including Hoffmeister and major German music publishers and managers were Illuminatists). Because the control they sought was far greater than that of the music of France. It was the control of the music industry and what was taught and believed of it. Not the only subject in which they sought control, but the one which I am focused on.
Therefore, whether there were several Waldsteins, several Schindlers, or several Cocchi's the aim is the very same. To secure the control of art and culture internationally and to eventually take control of its dissemination and propagation, in the same way that banking, commerce and all other areas of influence were also the targets of control. The mass media, in fact. And control of what is believed as 'history'. It is in the musical sense that I am interested and where, I think, you really should acknowledge this fact. Since G. Cocchi was part of that aspect. As were so many others.
As for your other posts on Cocchi ancestry etc, yes, this is interesting and thanks for this. And, yes, again, Casanova's proven links with 'Don Giovanni' in Prague (1787) are still another proof of that aspect of the Illuminatist movement.
Regards
Bonn's Waldstein was propably associated with Weishaupt's (Rothchild's) Illuminati (they were against Cocchi as shown in previous) and certainly served the British army soon after to fight Napoleon unsuccessfully, serve in India, to then retire and die broke in Vienna as per Wikipedia.
However, as there is no other reference or source online concerning the other two "Waldsteins" but Cocchi's (his aliases, "Myslivecek" and "Casanova"), you will allow me I am sure to draw the conclusion that Dux castle (Schloss Duchcov), owned by these "fake" Waldsteins (and not by Bonn's broke Waldstein) is somehow connected with Mozart's and "Casanova's" mysterious bohemian music associates and hosts, the "Duschecs" of Duchcov castle (owners propably of Niemtcheck's Bertramka too, as assumed earlier), ie Cocchi as Duschek -harpischord player, composer-and wife Josefa Dushkova, singer (one of his countless "wives"-assistants in his clandestine operations, possibly the same as "russian princess Dashkova"*, often mentioned in his correspondence with Tsarina Catherine-as "Grimm"-ie Dashkova, Ben Franklin's friend, resident of Scotland some years later (1796-7), donated some russian imperial medals there through a Morisson).
Beethoven, Schindler and the later efforts of Hanover or post 1814, congress of Vienna, "Germany", to create their "ethnic" music is of no real interest to me (having found particularly amusing previously the words of Bonn's Waldstein to Beethoven, hence the re quote in post titled "Singspiel..." ) and neither are your unfounded "conclusions" on history and music, already and repeatedly labelled, among others, a "soup" (the label also fitting the former).
While you continue it -not forgetting to stir it, every now and then btw- you will allow me to enjoy my "Casanova" in peace:
His manuscript in fact ends in 1774 http://www.hot.ee/memoirs/casanova/casanova_at_dux.htm (the rest of the text of his "Memoirs" is a "creative piece" by Brockhaus's "scholars"**) yet the many interesting manuscripts later discovered at Dux, along with Casanova's other data already in my mastertimeline now fully confirm my own views and revelations on "G", his aliases and his unique character.
Such as for instance "Casanova's" reference and correspondence to Bernardin de Saint Pierre, a long time associate and correspondent of "Pierre Michel Hennin", his correspondence and friendship with Prince de Ligne-Hainault, Carlo Angiolini's curious (to anyone but me and perhaps you) possession of the Casanova manuscripts in 1820, ie following G's death in Vyborg, his huge collection of "eastern pottery" etc etc.
Cheers!
* For her relations to some of "G"'s russian aliases and her memoirs see http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=35779&page=2
**As Arthur Symmons writes:
This manuscript, in its original state, has never been printed. Herr
Brockhaus, on obtaining possession of the manuscript, had it
translated into German by Wilhelm Schutz, but with many omissions and
alterations, and published this translation, volume by volume, from
1822 to 1828, under the title, 'Aus den Memoiren des Venetianers
Jacob Casanova de Seingalt.' While the German edition was in course
of publication, Herr Brockhaus employed a certain Jean Laforgue, a
professor of the French language at Dresden, to revise the original
manuscript, correcting Casanova's vigorous, but at times incorrect,
and often somewhat Italian, French according to his own notions of
elegant writing, suppressing passages which seemed too free-spoken
from the point of view of morals and of politics, and altering the
names of some of the persons referred to, or replacing those names by
initials. This revised text was published in twelve volumes, the
first two in 1826, the third and fourth in 1828, the fifth to the
eighth in 1832, and the ninth to the twelfth in 1837 ; the first four
bearing the imprint of Brockhaus at Leipzig and Ponthieu et Cie at
Paris; the next four the imprint of Heideloff et Campe at Paris; and
the last four nothing but 'A Bruxelles.' The volumes are all
uniform, and were all really printed for the firm of Brockhaus.
This, however far from representing the real text, is the only
authoritative edition, and my references throughout this article will
always be to this edition.
"Carl Ludwig Cocceji" must have left quite a soar to post 1814 german "national" scholars apparently.
Last edited by yanni; 02-15-2010 at 07:39 AM.
Yanni,
I want to simplify this (for the sake of those who may be reading). You say the llluminati were 'against Cocchi'. And you refer to the fact that Waldstein, patron of Beethoven, served in the British army and died broke in Vienna.
Let me start by saying that none of this changes the fact that Casanova was living with his brother in Dux. That the career of Casanova (together with other libertine figures of the Englightenment) were working for a movement that spanned entire countries. This is a plain fact and we might begin with this.
Now, here are the Illuminatists of Bonn (in the figure of Waldstein) patronising Beethoven, 'successor to Mozart'. And you agree that he was a member of the huge illuminatist movement which, at that time, was virtually controlling the publishing and performance industry of music. Across Germany. And here they are with Beethoven.
But now you are saying Casanova (who was involved in Mozart's career) has nothing to do with these occultist illuminatists. Despite living in the same place as Waldstein's brother. Despite the fact that Casanova provides countless proofs of being an occultist himself. You are so determined to separate Cocchi from this movement that you describe them as being 'against Cocchi'.
So, as things stand, you have Illuminatists patronising Beethoven and those involved with Casanova patronising Mozart. Isn't that the picture you are presenting to us ? With one against the other (in your thinking). I think this is unsustainable.
Firstly, the simple fact the patrons of Mozart were virtually the same people as the patrons of Beethoven. Take, for example, Prince Lichnowsky. Who supported Mozart and who was an early employer to Beethoven in Vienna. The same Lichnowsky who was a patron of the Illuminatist, Goethe. The same Lichnowsky whose musical archives of 'Mozart' is, to this day, one of the most extensive of them all and whose father was the same. The same Lichnowsky from whose estates in Bohemia came Gluck. And who toured with Mozart late in his life.
And Beethoven came, of course, from Bonn. This Bonn (with its strong links with England). In fact, the earliest patron of Beethoven was the British state. Through the British envoy to Bonn, George Cressner. An agent of Britain in Bonn. In fact, the very first work attempted by the young Beethoven was a cantata (now lost) dedicated to the same George Cressner (as we read in Thayer's 'Life of Beethoven'). Assisted in this by the Kapellmeister of Bonn, Andrea Luchesi. Furthermore, the entire regime at Bonn was, for decades, being financially supported by the British government. It was through Cressner that Beethoven's own family were being financially supported during his earliest years.
But let's take this a step further. There at Bonn, from where Beethoven emerged, was Salomon, who was the impresario for Josef Haydn's tours of England. The same Salomon who, just by coincidence, happens to be living in the very same house as one Ludwig van Beethoven at Bonn.
And there's more. A few days ago you refered to the 'autograph' of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. (Since we didn't discuss its contents I will refer only briefly to them here). This document, being sold as his 'autograph'. If you examine it closely you find many strange things. One is that its text (Italian) also has a German text. And who wrote that ? Well, if you check the publications you find it is credited to Knigge, head of the Illuminatists in Germany at that time. And living, safely, at Hanover. The house of Hanover taking us back again to the British. Thus, indisputably, (and there are hundreds of other such lines of evidence) the Illuminatists were directly involved in the career of Mozart. As we see once again with the librettist for 'The Magic Flute', who ended up becoming a professor of geology at Dublin University (then part of the British rule).
You have, however, the idea that Cocchi, Casanova etc. were working 'against' this movement. When, in fact, Casanova's involvement in the libretto of 'Don Giovanni' (1787) is again clear proof of the opposite. Then we have the long career of British patron Cowper in Italy. Whose assistance to the career of Mozart is indisputable. Who was elevated to become a Baron of the Holy Roman Empire.
It is not acceptable for you to accept that Cocchi (a man on Leopold Mozart's list of persons to see in England) was himself involved in this occultist movement. Although, again, the evidence is extremely strong that Cocchi was part of the same movement. As, for example, the concerts of Cornelys in London. Where the Mozarts went. Located right next door to the ambassador of Venice residence. And the same Mme. Cornelys who had come to England from Holland. A long time friend of....... Casanova. The same Casanova now living at the same place as Waldstein's brother in Dux.
What you find difficult to accept is that the occultist movement which emerged from Venice, then England, and which finally became the 'Englightenment' was one and the same movement to which Cocchi, Casanova, and the Illuminatists were a part. So that the 'Englightenment' involved all of them and you cannot reasonably deny that they were supported by major dignitaries in Rome. Including, as we see here with Casanova, a cardinal.
I could provide a hundred pages of the same. But surely the point is this - Betramka, Dux, etc. were estates whose history is clear. Betramka being (before 1773) closely associated with the Jesuit Order. A Jesuit Order whose control of the arts, culture, music, publishing etc. was massively important from the time of their creation (just before the Council of Trent).
To me, the Englightenment is the secularisation of the Counter-Reformation, achieved through occultist means. That is, through fraternities who could and did inflitrate Britain as they also infiltrated Germany and other nations. Achieving control not by theology (as in former times) but by their increasing control of the culture. Cocchi was part of this process. As his family had been for generations.
Regards
Last edited by Musicology; 02-15-2010 at 08:06 AM.
There we go again:
I want to simplify this (for the sake of those who may be reading). (I thank you on their behalf, noting in parallel that whoever has followed us thus far, is not interested in "simple" explanations) You say the llluminati were 'against Cocchi'. (Weishaupt himself said so, a few posts back but you forgot) And you refer to the fact that Waldstein, patron of Beethoven, served in the British army and died broke in Vienna.(Wikipedia says)
Let me start by saying that none of this changes the fact that Casanova was living with his brother in Dux. (If you refer to a Waldstein's brother, you have to document his existence first. Symmons refers to him as "Casanova's Waldheim" and so do I)
That the career of Casanova (together with other libertine figures of the Englightenment) were working for a movement that spanned entire countries. This is a plain fact and we might begin with this. (OK but please add some vegetables to your broth first.)
Now, here are the Illuminatists of Bonn (in the figure of Waldstein) patronising Beethoven, 'successor to Mozart'. And you agree that he was a member of the huge illuminatist movement which, at that time, was virtually controlling the publishing and performance industry of music. Across Germany. And here they are with Beethoven. (I have already covered the subject of the "german illuminati" many posts ago. The same for "german" music, including my previous post).
But now you are saying Casanova (who was involved in Mozart's career) has nothing to do with these occultist illuminatists. Despite living in the same place as Waldstein's brother. Despite the fact that Casanova provides countless proofs of being an occultist himself. You are so determined to separate Cocchi from this movement that you describe them as being 'against Cocchi'. (Weishaupt says, you forget. As for me, I have already mentioned that "G" was involved on his professional capacity, with all fraternities (...of idiots, remember?))
So, as things stand, you have Illuminatists patronising Beethoven and those involved with Casanova patronising Mozart. Isn't that the picture you are presenting to us ? With one against the other (in your thinking). I think this is unsustainable.
What you think is unimportant: All tragic heroes did mumble some mumbo-jumbo or other on their way to meet their destiny as prescribed by the muses.(It's not my fault you are unwilling to interpret and apply to your theories the political changes between 1774-1814).
Last edited by yanni; 02-15-2010 at 11:55 AM.
That Casanova somehow interferred in the libretto of "Mozart's" Don Giovanni, a fact noticed eversince 1927 yet still remaining among those "eternal mysteries", falls apparently outside the scope of your mission as a "musicologist", Robert!
http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/VIII/4/470
There's nothing 'mysterious' about it. Since it's already public knowledge. What is mysterious is what has not been revealed and not what has.
But why let simplicity get in the way of obscurantism ?
That Casanova somehow interferred in the libretto of "Mozart's" Don Giovanni, a fact noticed eversince 1927 yet still remaining among those "eternal mysteries", falls apparently outside the scope of your mission as a "musicologist", Robert!
http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/VIII/4/470
The brain-dead spooks of the fraternities. LOL !
Yanni writes -
'What you think is unimportant. All tragic heroes did mumble some mumbo-jumbo or other on their way to meet their destiny as prescribed by the muses. It's not my fault you are unwilling to interpret and apply to your theories the political changes between 1774-1814'
What we think is very important. And there are no 'tragic heroes' except in your mythology. Their 'mumbo jumbo' consists of nothing but lies and more lies. The 'muses' to which you refer are hustlers, fraudsters and exploiters of other men.
The political engineering of 1774-1814 was of course carried out by stooges of the same elite interests as usual. And their offspring. The only difference being they are laughed at by all honest men who know better.
Try reality and stop kidding yourself.
//
Well, Casanova's identity may still remain a mystery, if you try a little harder, and so may also "Mozart's" Don Giovanni.
I have the greatest respect for men of strong convictions and stronger words, however correct they may be. Afterall it's their problem, not mine!
Yanni,
Fortunately I am not tied up in complications and false trails. I don't chase mysterious phantoms. I don't need to. The foundations of what I have studied are solid. There is no need for me to speculate. The obfuscation and misinformation that surrounds and has always surrounded this period of history and its music is well known to me. I avoid taking dead ends.
I cannot say who actually wrote 'Don Giovanni'. But I can tell you for certain W.A. Mozart did not. Since the evidence from the rest of his career proves it beyond fair and reasonable doubt. It is a fact this music was composed by talented musicians acting together, over years, to put this opera together into the form we know today. Hidden from view, of course, by the people who managed all the rest. And that this opera (which was first published years after 1791) involved the talents of more than one composer.
I can also tell you Benjamin Franklin did not win the 200 metres at the last Olympic Games. So if anyone believes he did, the evidence shows differently.
Regards
Well, Casanova's identity may still remain a mystery, if you try a little harder, and so may also "Mozart's" Don Giovanni.
Yanni,
I will shortly have my own special website on 'The Manufacture of Mozart' which I hope to have ready online in the next few weeks. With much more space to post material and diagrams, pictures, etc. etc. I will post the details here soon. It's for the general information of those interested in this subject of musical reality and musical fiction.
Regards
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
