The puzzle of the socalled "Bach variations".

[yanni]

Fiddlesticks!

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

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

Try following relevant french poetry:

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

[Musicology]

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

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

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

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

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

Fiddlesticks!

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

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

Try following relevant french poetry:

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

[yanni]

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

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

Separate agreements were signed between England and other nations:

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

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

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

[Musicology]

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

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

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

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

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

Separate agreements were signed between England and other nations:

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

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

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

[yanni]

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

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

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

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

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

[Musicology]

Yanni,

This thread is on your baseless speculation that Bach and Handel were one and the same person. That his musical output was at least twice as large as either of these composers. This is contradicted by generations of documentary evidence of the Bach family, by the plain fact that their music is completely different, by documented birth, marriage and birth certificates and by common sense. Apart from that your theory (so-called) is great !!!!

The British rule of France was centuries old in the 18th century. This is a FACT of history. And who ruled France in the 1720's ? It was only a caretaker post filled during that particular time by a Roman Cardinal. Why not accept the facts as they really are ?

The FACT is the Treaty of Paris (capital city of France) was signed there in 1783 with George 3rd of Britain being (as those before him) 'King of France' - as was George 2nd of Britain before him, and as was also George 1st before him. Get the picture yet ? These ARE documentary/historical facts. They were also all 'Arch Treasurers of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE'. This too is documentary, plain fact. Why not check them out for yourself ? If they are not documentary plain facts give us one single document from Rome over that half century which says the opposite is true. Just one. I guarantee you will never find one because I am stating plain, repeated, documentary fact.

Thus, the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed by the King of Britain who was also King of France, and was also Arch Treasurer of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ! This may startle you. But if you want a dozen more documentary proofs of these documentary facts just ask me. We await a single documentary evidence from the Holy Roman Empire or from the papal records which shows this is untrue ? Or from Rome. Shall we wait long ?

We shall, Yanni, stop going round in circles, don't you think ?

See Coat of Arms of King George 1st of United Kingdom. Clearly showing he WAS an Arch Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire

If he was NOT an Arch Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire show us differently.

But not only him. Also George 2nd and George 3rd ! Is this starting to become, well, obvious ???

George I's arms were: (and I quote directly from the sources) -

Quarterly, I Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England) impaling Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); II Azure three fleurs-de-lys Or (for France); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland); IV tierced per pale and per chevron (for Hanover), I Gules two lions passant guardant Or (for Brunswick), II Or a semy of hearts Gules a lion rampant Azure (for Lüneburg), III Gules a horse courant Argent (for the medieval Duchy of Saxony, which was divided into the three parts of Eastphalia, Angria and Westphalia),[87] overall an escutcheon Gules charged with the crown of Charlemagne Or (for the dignity of Archtreasurer of the Holy Roman Empire).

But don't believe it. Check the thing out for yourself. Here is an image of these arms of King George 1st -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...1714-1801).svg

Would you like the same thing for King George 2nd ? How about those of King George 3rd (who signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1783) ?? And what did Rome think about this ? Can you find a single evidence that George was not as he claimed to be ? Anywhere ??

///

[yanni]

I have already answerd, Robert: A claim is a claim is a claim etc

The Act of Union 1707 declared the joining of the Kingdom of England with the Kingdom of Scotland to a new Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom had four Monarchs until 1801. They also styled themselves Queen/King of France. However none of them actually questioned the rights of Louis XIV and his successors Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVII and Louis XVIII:

Arms of Queen Anne featuring the French fleur-de-lys.Anne of Great Britain (May 1, 1707 - August 1, 1714).
George I of Great Britain (August 1, 1714 - June 11, 1727).
George II of Great Britain (June 11, 1727 - October 25, 1760).
George III of Great Britain (October 25, 1760 - January 1, 1801).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English..._French_throne

And there were the Stuarts, "blessed" by Rome as rightfull owners of the title to the british throne all along.

Now, instead of name calling and constant- and bordering ridiculous -attempts to put this thread off track, please concentrate on basics:

What was the full name and title of "Keyserlingk" (originally "Kaiserling-Cesarion*") who, as per myth, persuaded JSBach (and not Brandenburg born Handel) to compose the Brandenburg Concertos, when and why did he do it, when did he die, what was his relation to Frederick of Prussia (see post 5 above you never answered as usually)?

Afterall music, JSBach's in particular, IS your subject, isn't it?

*Un jeune Courlandais, nommé Kaiserling, qui faisait aussi des vers français, tant bien que mal....

[Musicology]

No, Yanni, a fact is a fact. And the fact is King George 1st, King George 2nd, and King George 3rd were Kings of France and Arch Treasurers of the Holy Roman Empire. They were known as such from day 1 when they came to power. They remained Kings of France, and of Ireland, and of Hanover throughout their entire lives. Because these facts are the true context of what was happening in Britain and in large parts of continental Europe you have to accept them, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. The Holy Roman Empire had some opinion about these facts, didn't it ? It never, once, denied them as facts. Did it ? It is not a 'claim' as you suppose. It was an accepted fact by the Holy Roman Empire itself. Why is this fact so difficult for you to accept ?

You have told us that George 3rd was mad. You have told us this is the reason why he claimed to be the King of France and an Arch Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire. But now we see (and the evidence has already been presented) that this was also true of his predecessors. Why not accept this fact and add it to your education of those times ?

You say none of these kings challenged the claims of Louis XIV and his successors, Louis XV, Louis XVI, Louis XVII and Louis XVIII. Yes, indeed, and there is a simple reason for this fact. The reason is that these were token positions. The real King of France during that period was the King of the United Kingdom (unknown even to the British and to most Frenchmen). It is exactly why the Holy Roman Empire approved them being 'Arch Treasurers of the Holy Roman Empire'. Now, either they were arch treasurers of the Holy Roman Empire or these 'Protestant' kings were not. They definitely were.

The 'Stuarts' were NOT recognised as Kings of France by Rome. Nor were they recognised as 'Arch Treasurers of the Holy Roman Empire'. If you can show us otherwise, please do so. We are waiting to see the evidence. You don't have any because it does not exist and has never existed.

And when we consider the implications of this fact we begin to understand the power of the British Empire during the 18th century, with its Plenipotentiaries based widely across Germany during that time. In Bonn, and many other areas of Germany. The hypocrite British were effectively ruling over large parts of protestant Germany although, in fact, they were Roman Catholics (the facts hidden from general knowledge) as we see here in the Treaty of Versailles of 1783 made with the Americans. Prussia was also being financed/controlled through the British Empire.

Here are the British (closet Roman Catholic) representatives to Prussia at the time of J.S. Bach -

1703–1711: Thomas Wentworth, 3rd Baron Raby (Envoy Extraordinary until 1705, then Ambassador)
1704 and 1705: John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough visited Berlin
1708: Maj. Gen. Francis Palmes Envoy Extraordinary
1711: Charles Whitworth Special Mission
1712-1714: Brigadier William Briton
1715: Archibald Douglas, 2nd Earl of Forfar
1716: Alexander, Lord Polwarth, also to Denmark
1716–1717: Charles Whitworth
1719–1722: Charles Whitworth MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY
1720: The Earl Cadogan Special mission
1720: The Earl Stanhope Special mission
1722-1724: James Scott Minister
1724–1730: Charles Du Bourgay Envoy Extraordinary
1726: Richard Sutton
1730: Sir Charles Hotham Special Mission
1730-1741: Col. Guy Melchior Dickens Secretary until 1740, then Minister
1741: Thomas Robinson Special Mission
1741–1744: John Carmichael, 3rd Earl of Hyndford Envoy Extraordinary and PLENIPOTENTIARY
1744--1747: Frederick Lorentz - Secretary, in charge
1746: Hon. Thomas Villiers Minister PLENIPOTENTIARY
1747–1749: Henry Legge
1750–1751: Charles Hanbury Williams

Thus, the hypocrite British ambassadorial elites (posing as 'Protestants' in a protestant area of Europe and in a Britain which believed the monarchy were not Roman Catholic), were effectively controlling large areas of Germany and beyond. With full papal approval ! Financing those governments and providing PLENIPOTENTIARY rule over those same places. You do know what 'plenipotentiaries' do, don't you ? They have no need to consult anyone. They rule according to their own wills. They have 'full power' to do so. Loyal to their papal masters. Hence the 7 Years War, the recruitment of Hessian and other troops to fight in the war of independence in America - all funded by the British elites. On both sides.

And if you agree about this we can discuss the state of Poland and those areas where J.S. Bach lived and worked. It provides us with an accurate picture of those times. A situation Bach faced as repeated opposition throughout his entire musical career. We may even agree on the above ? I think it's an accurate picture of reality.

Cantata 129

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


Regards

[yanni]

Cheap trycks will get you nowhere, Robert, other than these nonsensical "conclusions" you are desperately trying to support...

After 1751 and until 1756-1760, Britain had no representatives in Prussia, thus confirming my reading of the period's history:

1751--1756: Apparently no representation[1]

1756–1771: Andrew Mitchell Minister 1756-1760; Minister Plenipotentiary 1760-1764; Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 1766-1771[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dom_to_Prussia

Have the descency to remove yourself from this thread.

[Musicology]

Yes, and I happily rest my case on this thread with yet another fact. J.S. Bach died in 1750.

Not forgetting -

British Empire Envoys and Plenipotentiaries to Poland (equally important during Bach's lifetime) -

1709-1710: John Dalrymple, 2nd Earl of Stair
1724-1727: Edward Finch
1747-1755: Charles Hanbury Williams

And, in Prussia (as said) -

1719–1722: Charles Whitworth (Minister Plenipotentiary)

However - Concerto for 2 Violins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIOh5...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaUY8...eature=related

And here, from from 3' 41'', when the orchestra bursts in, you may agree that is rather special -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vEA...eature=related

Regards

Cheap trycks will get you nowhere, Robert, other than these nonsensical "conclusions" you are desperately trying to support...

After 1751 and until 1756-1760, Britain had no representatives in Prussia, thus confirming my reading of the period's history:

1751--1756: Apparently no representation[1]

1756–1771: Andrew Mitchell Minister 1756-1760; Minister Plenipotentiary 1760-1764; Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 1766-1771[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...dom_to_Prussia

Have the descency to remove yourself from this thread.

[yanni]

And where were the music archives of the Bonn Principality destined in 1797 ? The answer is - Prague. Records show they came to Prague in January and stayed there for some 4 ½ months. After this point they were removed (again briefly) to Vienna. After this point they were removed (again briefly) to Vienna. Four years later (and roughly coinciding with the beginning of that great flood of Andre ‘Mozart’ publications) Prague also sees the arrival in the city of one Abbe Georg Vogler, a man who ( as can be shown separately) was the senior administrator of music in the Holy Roman Empire, a fellow member of the Order of the Golden Spur with Mozart himself, and a man granted by the papacy just prior to the annullment of the Jesuit Order in 1773 the office of papal prenotary - a rank second only to that of a Cardinal. Vogler, the hidden agent of the creation of the Mozart myth. And Vogler (himself at the time grossly over-rated as an expert in organ repair and design, teacher of theory, and Kapellmeister extraordinaire) lived in Prague between 1801 and 1803, at the very time when Prague and a circle of musicians in Prague (these mostly attached to the Premonstratensians there) busied themselves with the task of manufacturing for eventual publication Mozart’s posthumous reputation as a composer. The ‘project’, of creating the vast reputations of both Joseph Haydn and Mozart was finally to be realised. In the case of Mozart, largely posthumously.

Mozart was alive at the time ofcourse.

Musicologists , theatrologists and historians will certainly be pleased to learn otherwise that "Prague" was headed by Carl Ludwig Cocceji-Koch till late 1807 at least!

In fact he received - and decorated- Napoleon after Tilsit in his Glogau residence 16th July 1807:

po podpisaniu pokoju w Tylży, w trakcie powrotu do Paryża, zatrzymał się w Głogowie Napoleon Bonaparte, cesarz Francuzów. Wjechał do twierdzy w samo południe. W otoczeniu generalicji i oficerów sztabowych dotarł do ustawionej przed mostem od strony Serbów, bramy triumfalnej. Z marszałkami Duroc i Murat odebrał mowy powitalne burmistrza i komendanta. Przygotowanych na srebrnej tacy pozłacanych kluczy do miasta nie przyjął. Wśród huku dział na wałach i bicia kościelnych dzwonów skierował się do zamku, gdzie przyszykowano cesarską kwaterę. Tu cesarz się posilił w otoczeniu najbliższych, potem załatwił bieżącą pocztę i wyszedł do antykamery gdzie czekali miejscowi notable. Wśród nich zwrócił monarszą uwagę przez zawieszony na fraku Order Orła Czerwonego, wiekowy prezydent regencji Carl Ludwig von Cocceji. Zesłany do Głogowa młody urzędnik królewski wraz ze swoją wybranką Barberiną Campanini pozostał w mieście do końca swoich dni. I choć związek dla którego musiał opuścić Berlin nie przetrwał długo to von Cocceji spędził nad Odrą ponad 50 lat.

...and, identitywise, "abbe Vogler" has already been covered !

Cheers.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

You have the most amazing ability not to see the wood for the trees. Whether Cocchi's were involved in the manufacture of Mozart's giant (even iconic) status is not disputed. It never has been. As repeatedly said. By me. And your posts only confirm it. They (Cocchis) were involved even during the childhood visit to London. And this too is plain fact. So were many others involved about whom you know far less.

So a reader of this thread will see, very clearly, during Mozart's lifetime and for years afterwards there WAS a network involved in making 'his' musical career. Which, as far as I am concerned, is now a plain, indisputable fact. Though your posts are nothing but confirmation of it in their own small way. Since you are concerned only with 'proving' to your own satisfaction (at least) that Cocchi wrote the music of Bach (amongst other things) and also that Handel was Bach, and that virtually anything was Cocchi. No, the Cocchi clan were simply part of a feudal network who worked to produce control. Control of what, exactly ? The control of music history as we know it. And they are a part of it. As we seem to agree. In fact the Cocchis were part of the same fraternal control which was emerging in the early music industry. It's no longer a matter of argument.

As for Abbe Vogler, he remained a major manager of 'Mozart's' music until the end of his life. But that is far beyond this thread.

p.s. Mozart died in 1791 and the events above (as anyone can see) are occurring years afterwards.

You would do well to tell us exactly what Cocchi did, musically, with some evidence.

And where were the music archives of the Bonn Principality destined in 1797 ? The answer is - Prague. Records show they came to Prague in January and stayed there for some 4 ½ months. After this point they were removed (again briefly) to Vienna. After this point they were removed (again briefly) to Vienna. Four years later (and roughly coinciding with the beginning of that great flood of Andre ‘Mozart’ publications) Prague also sees the arrival in the city of one Abbe Georg Vogler, a man who ( as can be shown separately) was the senior administrator of music in the Holy Roman Empire, a fellow member of the Order of the Golden Spur with Mozart himself, and a man granted by the papacy just prior to the annullment of the Jesuit Order in 1773 the office of papal prenotary - a rank second only to that of a Cardinal. Vogler, the hidden agent of the creation of the Mozart myth. And Vogler (himself at the time grossly over-rated as an expert in organ repair and design, teacher of theory, and Kapellmeister extraordinaire) lived in Prague between 1801 and 1803, at the very time when Prague and a circle of musicians in Prague (these mostly attached to the Premonstratensians there) busied themselves with the task of manufacturing for eventual publication Mozart’s posthumous reputation as a composer. The ‘project’, of creating the vast reputations of both Joseph Haydn and Mozart was finally to be realised. In the case of Mozart, largely posthumously.

Mozart was alive at the time ofcourse.

Musicologists , theatrologists and historians will certainly be pleased to learn otherwise that "Prague" was headed by Carl Ludwig Cocceji-Koch till late 1807 at least!

In fact he received - and decorated- Napoleon after Tilsit in his Glogau residence 16th July 1807:

po podpisaniu pokoju w Tylży, w trakcie powrotu do Paryża, zatrzymał się w Głogowie Napoleon Bonaparte, cesarz Francuzów. Wjechał do twierdzy w samo południe. W otoczeniu generalicji i oficerów sztabowych dotarł do ustawionej przed mostem od strony Serbów, bramy triumfalnej. Z marszałkami Duroc i Murat odebrał mowy powitalne burmistrza i komendanta. Przygotowanych na srebrnej tacy pozłacanych kluczy do miasta nie przyjął. Wśród huku dział na wałach i bicia kościelnych dzwonów skierował się do zamku, gdzie przyszykowano cesarską kwaterę. Tu cesarz się posilił w otoczeniu najbliższych, potem załatwił bieżącą pocztę i wyszedł do antykamery gdzie czekali miejscowi notable. Wśród nich zwrócił monarszą uwagę przez zawieszony na fraku Order Orła Czerwonego, wiekowy prezydent regencji Carl Ludwig von Cocceji. Zesłany do Głogowa młody urzędnik królewski wraz ze swoją wybranką Barberiną Campanini pozostał w mieście do końca swoich dni. I choć związek dla którego musiał opuścić Berlin nie przetrwał długo to von Cocceji spędził nad Odrą ponad 50 lat.

...and, identitywise, "abbe Vogler" has already been covered !

Cheers.

[yanni]

Your "reluctance" to examine music (mainly church and theater-opera) as just one of the carnivore trees of the elite's "jungle" (to gain and maintain control of the masses) is what prevents you from seeing things clearly, distorting their significance and your priorities.

Evidently "Cocchis", already active in England early 1700's, church included, were strongly influencing the British Monarchy as well (they already controlled the Bourbon world, France, Prussia, Saxony, Rome etc) eversince the Regent (later George III) bowed to Haydn, 1791, the very same Haydn who was visited by Emma, Nelson and Lord Keith(an old aquaintance of Cocceji) late 1800 in Prague, CLCocceji's "Prague".

Napoleon did not even bother to discuss Tilsit treaty himself with the Prussians and Russians*, he let others do it and selected instead to visit and councel Bohemia's president, CLCocceji, in his Glogau residence 16th July 1807while the treaty was still not ratified(Ratification on the 19th July see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty...t,_9_July_1807).

This highly important info is only to be found in polish on the web, let alone its non existent interpretation from history's viwpoint.

Inbetween (1791-1807) "Bonn's music archive" (Beethoven-Belderbusch-Waldstein-Koch's-Bach/Handel's-Casanova's-Haydn's etc archive) was moved about, as you say, and I provided you with the explanation which is however, for me, of minor interest.

Early 1801 Tszar Paul, with his "Roman" upbringing and diplomatic contacts, was murdered, you see....

PS Vogler and Mozart (alive 1807) have already been covered in previous.

*A practically unknown "prussian" envoy-plenipotentiary representing Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustu...Count_of_Goltz.

After Tilsit Goltz became Prussias first minister of foreign affairs. Try finding who or where was Russia's minister of foreign affairs then (Tilsit)!

Yanni,

You have the most amazing ability not to see the wood for the trees. Whether Cocchi's were involved in the manufacture of Mozart's giant (even iconic) status is not disputed. It never has been. As repeatedly said. By me. And your posts only confirm it. They (Cocchis) were involved even during the childhood visit to London. And this too is plain fact. So were many others involved about whom you know far less.

So a reader of this thread will see, very clearly, during Mozart's lifetime and for years afterwards there WAS a network involved in making 'his' musical career. Which, as far as I am concerned, is now a plain, indisputable fact. Though your posts are nothing but confirmation of it in their own small way. Since you are concerned only with 'proving' to your own satisfaction (at least) that Cocchi wrote the music of Bach (amongst other things) and also that Handel was Bach, and that virtually anything was Cocchi. No, the Cocchi clan were simply part of a feudal network who worked to produce control. Control of what, exactly ? The control of music history as we know it. And they are a part of it. As we seem to agree. In fact the Cocchis were part of the same fraternal control which was emerging in the early music industry. It's no longer a matter of argument.

As for Abbe Vogler, he remained a major manager of 'Mozart's' music until the end of his life. But that is far beyond this thread.

p.s. Mozart died in 1791 and the events above (as anyone can see) are occurring years afterwards.

You would do well to tell us exactly what Cocchi did, musically, with some evidence.

[Musicology]

Yanni,

My (alleged) 'reluctance to examine music, mainly church and theatre/opera' is an amazing answer to the request (given in my most recent post) to provide us with evidence of Cocchi's musical activities during these years. You are so reluctant to tell us let me repeat my exact request -

What Cocchi (one or several of that name) did, musically, (with some evidence) during these years. ?

The reluctance to tell us is entirely yours. Will you do so ?

As for the only music related part of your last post, you seem to have the dates wrong. You wrote -

In between (1791-1807) "Bonn's music archive" (Beethoven-Belderbusch-Waldstein-Koch's-Bach/Handel's-Casanova's-Haydn's etc archive) was moved about, as you say, and I provided you with the explanation which is however, for me, of minor interest.

Well, no. In fact (since facts are the important things) the Bonn music archive was in Bonn until 1794 and went nowhere. It was moved at the time when Bonn Hofkapelle was closed - at the time of the Napoleonic invasion and occupation of the Rhine of that year. Then that music archive was transported to the castle of Bad Mergentheim where it stayed for some time (the residence of the Elector of Cologne, Max Franz). It remained there before going to various places including a stay in Prague, then in Vienna etc. Finally arriving (most of it) years later at Modena in Italy. Which, as you say, is a subject of minor (if any) interest to you.

Regards

[yanni]

In your quoted post on "Bonn's archive" 1797 onwards movements and whereabouts you were propably referring to Church music whereas I qualified "my" archive as Beethoven-Belderbusch-Waldstein-Koch's-Bach/Handel's-Casanova's-Haydn's etc ie a much bigger archive including theater music as well (starting with Caccini's Orpheo).

It had to be kept in relative safe storage, ie Prague eversince late 1795 (Oct 24, Russia, Austria and Prussia convention in Petersburg finalizes the 3rd division of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic).

As already written the Cocchis were "unwanted" in the Holy Roman Empire eversince 1787 ( Palazzo Cocchi, Terrarossa: con la morte senza eredi di Manfredi, il feudo tornς alla corona granducale. ), increasingly so after 1791 (Van Swieten falls out of favour) and more so after 1807, Tilsit (their tombs in Florence-basilica of Santa Crocce-confiscated by la d’Albany fece rimuovere le antiche tombe dei Cocchi e dei Nardini con l’intervento della nuova granduchessa Elisa Baciocchi. I lavori per l’installazione iniziarono nel 1809).

What did Cocchi do musically in the period?

Since you insist on ignoring or forgetting or whatever my revelations on his aliases including Bagge, Hennin, Haydn, Van Swieten, CLCocceji, Belderbusch senior, Waldstein , Koch etc (all relevant to Bonn, Prague and Vienna for the specific period) I suggest you follow my repeated advice to address it to your italian friends, Mme Trombetta in particular, for more details on his biography.

The fact that years later- parts of- the Bonn archive landed in Modena, Italy is propably to be attributed to Michel Hennin, serving under Eugene de Beauharnais, Napoleon's Italy at the time (1811-1814).

My regards.