# Mozart's Reputation and Reality



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

'_In answer to a universal request, [Mozart] gave a piano recital at a large concert in 
the Opera House. The theatre had never been so full as on this occasion; never had 
there been such unanimous enthusiasm as that awakened by his heavenly playing. We 
did not, in fact, know what to admire most, whether the extraordinary compositions 
or his extraordinary playing; together they made such an overwhelming impression 
on us that we felt we had been bewitched. When Mozart had finished the concert he 
continued improvising alone on the piano for half-an-hour. We were beside ourselves 
with joy and gave vent to our overwrought feelings in enthusiastic applause. In 
reality his improvisations exceeded anything that can be imagined in the way of 
piano-playing, as the highest degree of the composer's art was combined with 
perfection of playing'_ - FX Niemetschek (1766-1849), 'Life of Mozart' - 1798), translated by
Helen Mautner - with introduction by A. Hyatt King (London: L. Hyman, 1956) p. 36

But, contrary to popular belief and contrary to the above 'eyewitness' report the above writer, FX Niemetscheck, was never in the city of Prague during the time of any of the various visits that Mozart made there ! He did NOT, therefore, witness a public piano performance by Mozart in that city or any other. Such an embarrassing fact from dozens, only reluctantly accepted as true recently by mainstream Mozart research, begs the question of how Niemetscheck, 'first biographer' can write _'we'_ in connection with any part of the above 'eyewitness' report. Nor are we given a date for this supposed event. One problem of hundreds that dog Niemetscheck's early 'biography'. The same Niemetscheck who, in plain fact, deceives us over and over that he knows Mozart well enough to have written the first biography and who is so often (falsely) regarded as having been a friend of the composer.

After Mozart's death in December 1791 Constanze Mozart (aided by her 'mentors') began creating the illusion of a relationship between her late husband and Niemetscheck that never actually existed and which, later, would allow Niemetscheck to adopt one of the Mozart children after Mozart's death with minimal questions from later investigation. This is at best 'bending truth' and at its worst is evidence of the fakery we are growing all too accustomed to in Mozart research. A fakery found first in a biography that would have appeared publicly except that every copy was bought up and destroyed shortly before its public sale by Constanze in 1797, and a fakery that still appears in the edition that finally went on public sale for the first time in 1798. A fakery that would be even more embellished in the so-called Nissen biography of many years later - that being a biography that, in fact, Nissen (second husband of Constanze) never wrote a single word of. And Nissen, also, never met Mozart once. In both cases it was she, Constanze Mozart, who took the leading place in creating the myth of her late husband, biographically speaking.

The Mozart researcher Cliff Eisen describes (accurately) the importance of the 'eyewitness' report of that legendary Prague performance to our 'appreciation' of Mozart generally -

_'The only proper starting point, however, ought to be the perspective of his contemporaries. One of the most-cited eyewitness reports is that of Franz Xaver Niemetschek' _

Yes, often cited. And it's a false report.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Robert, not that I dislike to discuss about the Mozart case (I would like too see you discuss more about Haydn's), but why creating 56 threads about it?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes Handel. Which of the current threads do you suggest ? You know of course that several were locked by moderators - this for various reasons. 

I agree that the fewer threads the better.

Regards

p.s. I'd be happy to discuss in detail Joseph Haydn's career within the next few weeks from London.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

robert tried this same thing last year on another forum. it was equally as 'impressive'  .
be nice, robert.

dj


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

david johnson said:


> robert tried this same thing last year on another forum. it was equally as 'impressive'  .
> be nice, robert.
> 
> dj


Really? Do tell us more. That sounds fascinating. We've all been soaking up this info like it was all true. You mean it isn't?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes, it sounds fascinating. Wonder what he means ? As far as it being true, wow, look forward to the counter argument. Just imagine that - a detailed reply !!! I promise to be very nice. How can I be anything otherwise since you already deserve a medal for showing a willingness to defend the reputation of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I would recommend you for membership of the Order of the Golden Spur but you are far too musical, for sure ! (Just joking).


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

david johnson said:


> robert tried this same thing last year on another forum. it was equally as 'impressive'  .
> be nice, robert.
> 
> dj





robert newman said:


> Yes, it sounds fascinating. Wonder what he means ? As far as it being true, wow, look forward to the counter argument. Just imagine that - a detailed reply !!! I promise to be very nice. How can I be anything otherwise since you already deserve a medal for showing a willingness to defend the reputation of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I would recommend you for membership of the Order of the Golden Spur but you are far too musical, for sure ! (Just joking).


My question was addressed to david johnson, not you so I will ignore the slur.

I am asking what he means by "impressive" in the context of your last "outing" before descending on this place last October. He may be able to enlighten us further about how you impressed the members of the forum to which he refers.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Mango,

David was asking me to be nice. I will be very nice to him and also to you. In fact, I will recommend you too for membership of the Order of the Golden Spur - the first lady member. Can't get much more friendly than that, can I ?

Yes, your comments were addressed to David but they imply that what I have written is not true. You wrote -

_We've all been soaking up this info like it was all true. You mean it isn't?_

So you see the slur was your very own.

Regards


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> David was asking me to be nice. I will be very nice to him and also to you. In fact, I will recommend you too for membership of the Order of the Golden Spur - the first lady member. Can't get much more friendly than that, can I ?


Thankyou for pointing out another key point in David's post.

I wonder why David is asking you to "_be nice_"? Does he know something we don't? Could it be that you weren't nice in the other forum, perhaps?

We thus await further enlightenment from David on two matters: 
(i) how "nice" you were

(ii) how "impressive" were your achievements on the other forum.​This should be worth waiting for. I'm sure you can't wait for the result, but please try to be patient.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Ok ... timeout folks !!!

Can we please return to the thread topic? The current posts are totally non-productive and quite un-professional. 

Is there anything positive people would like to say about Mozart? We have heard quite enough negative rhetoric about him - how about some positive discussion on his life and accomplishments?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Dear Mango, 

David is asking me to be nice because (as is universally agreed) being nice is by far the best way for people to correspond. And since we have a track record here of threads being closed, deleted, amended etc. and one of personalised attacks etc. the wisdom of his advice is already plain. 

Yes, we wait to see how nice (or otherwise) I was on the 'other' (unmentioned) forum.

Again, yes, we wait to see how impressive were my posts to that place (though you will surely agree that others can speak more of that than myself).

But I am happy to wait for the result and have learned to be extremely patient in such matters. Consulting expertise in these matters can be compared to queing up to hear the oracle of Delphi or being among the crowd of the faithful who wait for smoke to rise up the Vatican chimney. I do hope David will meet your expectations. But, if not, remember your kind friend. 

Regards


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Who the hell is David?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Handel said:


> Robert, not that I dislike to discuss about the Mozart case (I would like too see you discuss more about Haydn's), but why creating 56 threads about it?


Robert's posts fulfill another useful function on this forum. They test the structural integrity of our "flame-resistant" material.


david johnson said:


> robert tried this same thing last year on another forum. it was equally as 'impressive


And now, a word from our own general guidelines: "Do not post comments about other members person or >>posting style<< (unless said comments are unmistakably positive)." If people wish to discuss Robert's posting history in other forums, they have the option of starting another thread (as long as it's the TEXT of the material that's made an issue). Better yet, PM one another on that topic.

And now, back to _this_ topic... Robert noted that Niemestscheck was never in the city of Prague during any span when Mozart was there, as well. Presumably, that would mean his whereabouts on those occasions could be accounted for, without exception. It's a contention that calls for further detail. Secondly, if the first premise is demonstrated, the second premise ("it's a false report") is demonstrated only inasmuch as the 'eyewitness' aspect of the report that is conclusively demonstrated to be erroneous, and not the actual performance itself. I recognize that it's not an easy task to "unprove" an event, but simply demonstrating that a person is not present at such an occasion is not logically correlative to the assertion that the event never happened.


----------



## JohnM (Aug 12, 2006)

Krummhorn said:


> Is there anything positive people would like to say about Mozart?


Yep. He was brill.

I couldn't care less if there are aspects of his life which aren't true - this many years after the event it doesn't make any real difference to any of us.

I couldn't care less if some of the wonderful music attributed to him was composed by others - that doesn't detract from the wonderfulness of the music one little bit.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet" seems a very appropriate quote. Especially so, as we all know it may or may not have been written by Shakespeare but is certainly always attributed to him!


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

rojo said:


> Who the hell is David?


Yeah. I agree with you.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

I think we should edict a law that would forbid Mango and Robert to enter in a thread which was created by the other one. 

Half-seriously yours,

Handel.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I agree with Chi town/Philly on almost everything just written. This thread is already running the risk of being diverted from Niemetscheck to something quite different - i.e. to my (alleged) posts to another forum and the sort of reception they (allegedly) had.

Mango and I are certainly both interested to know what David meant by 'impressive'. And, yes, a separate thread on such things may be best.

Yes, I assert, maintain, believe and repeat that FX Niemetscheck was not even in Prague at any time that Mozart visited the city. I will go even further - FX Niemetscheck gives us a false impression of his (supposed) relationship with Mozart, this knowingly falsified and supported by Constanze Mozart.

I entirely agree with your excellent suggestion that each argument that challenges convention on Mozart and his life should be considered on its merits. In fact, criticism of convention can best be considered alongside 'convention' itself. That's always been my view. How else is a fair-minded reader to form their own considered judgement except they have information on which to make one ? So, yes, your suggestion is excellent.

Since you come close to asking for supporting evidence I would like to touch on the contents of an article that appeared in 1991 in Vienna, whose author was the well known Mozart researcher Walther Brauneis. It's title (translated into English) is surely of significance here -

*FRANZ ZAVER NIEMETSCHECK - 'Is his association with Mozart only legendary' *

From dozens of points raised by this article let me quote only five -

1. 'Mozart's first visit to Prague had come at the beginning of January 1787. In the autumn of the same year he was a guest in the Bohemian capital once again. In 1789 he paused briefly in Prague during his travels to Dresden and Berlin and back to Vienna. And in the late summer of 1791 he saw the city that had become his second home for the last time.

[U*]It is perfectly clear that in the time spanned by these events, Niemetscheck did not live in Prague**. [/U]*

2. 'Following an official decree of 26th August 1787 Niemetscheck was appointed to the Collegium of Professors made up mostly of Dominican priests and non-monastic clergy at the gymansium in Pilsen. It is only in the fall of 1793 (well over a year and a half after Mozart's death) that Niemetscheck came to live in Prague after receiving the position of teacher of grammar and language at the Kreiseitner Gymnasium'. 

3. 'In the obituary of the highly regarded school administrator and pedagogue Franz Xaver Noe - 'after Mozart's death Noe remained a friend and advisor to his widow and older son, the latter being most generously taken in and brought up for several years by Professor Niemetscheck, Mozart's excellent biographer, out of a like enthusiasm for his father's enchanting talent, and also as an accomodation to Noe.  - Source Schlittegrol 'Nekrolog'.

So far as Mozart research is concerned, (Noe) this former Jesuit priest and member of the Masons is an unknown quantity'.

4. Otto Jahn (supporter of the Jesuits and early Mozart writer) is also partly responsible for the false creation of Mozart's biography. As one example of many, in Volume 1 of his biography published in 1856 he describes the Niemetscheck biography as being 'based in part on his (Niemetscheck's) personal acquaintance with Mozart'. 

5. The mythology of Niemetscheck's friendship and acquaintance with Mozart grew bigger and bigger. In 1869 Constant von Wurzbach says that Niemetscheck 'personally knew Mozart very well'. 

Small wonder that such bending of the truth finally resulted in the recent reprint of the Niemetscheck biography (1984) under the spurious title of -

_'I knew Mozart - the only Mozart biography of an eyewitness' _ by F.X. Niemetscheck - ed. Jost Perfahl.

Thus, it is possible to have some understanding of how falsehoods became the foundation for so much that is today regarded as true. The above few examples merely scratch the surface.

Niemetscheck never knew Mozart. Nor was he in Prague during the times Mozart was there. What we have, instead, is the Jesuit creation of the Mozart myth, aided and abetted by Constanze Mozart.

This thread has now received one side of the argument, even though it has been briefly made. Let critics present their evidence to support convention regarding Niemetscheck. We await it with great interest. 200 years of myth are more than enough.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Hi John M, 

Well, I entirely agree with you. If music alone is the issue we are in total agreement. But we are here showing, clearly, openly, and from evidence, that these works were not actually written by Mozart. Nor is his reputation an honest one. It has been artificially created. To say this does not matter is up to you. History matters. It matters a great deal that what is fake/false does not rob us of what is true/correct. In that sense truth matters. And since lies, fakes, forgeries, exaggerations and downright dogmatism have been features of 'Mozart research' over the past 200 years or so, it's today our privilege to establish facts and to expose falsehood. The two things go hand in hand.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

rojo said:


> Who the hell is David?


Oh my goodness! I must sincerely apologize to david johnson for this comment; I completely misread Mr. Newman`s earlier post- I thought he was refering to Krummhorn, and I couldn`t see why he was calling him David, lol! Oh well, misunderstandings happen, unfortunately. Please excuse my error, david; I was obviously experiencing a moment of confusion there...

Back to the topic at hand...


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

I don’t believe what Mr Newman is saying about the Jesuits and their plots, because Mozart was a Freemason, and Freemasonry is absolutely not compatible with Christianity, and the jesuits.

Freemasons have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by 8 Popes: In 1738 by Clement XII "In Eminenti", the first of 20 bulls against Freemasonry. Pius IX issued 6 bulls attacking Masonry. Leo XIII, in 1884, in "Humanum Genus", and endorsed the view that the Freemasons' "real supreme aim" is "to persecute Christianity with untamed hatred, and they will never rest until they see cast to the ground all religious institutions established by the Pope"... and the last one, John Paul II in 1983... you can not be a Catholic and a Mason!


----------



## JohnM (Aug 12, 2006)

robert newman said:


> To say this does not matter is up to you. History matters. It matters a great deal that what is fake/false does not rob us of what is true/correct. In that sense truth matters.


Hi Robert!

Here is what I think - history matters when the lessons from history can enrich our lives, or prevent us from repeating the errors and false starts of our forefathers.
History matters when it teaches us what is good and right, and true.

Mozart's reputation has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever (unlike the music attributed to him) and so, to me, I'm afraid the truth of his personal reputation does not matter one way or another.

One other thought - I'm sure Mozart is not the only great composer who had a carefully stage-managed reputation!


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

Alnitak said:


> I don't believe what Mr Newman is saying about the Jesuits and their plots, because Mozart was a Freemason, and Freemasonry is absolutely not compatible with Christianity, and the jesuits.
> 
> Freemasons have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by 8 Popes: In 1738 by Clement XII "In Eminenti", the first of 20 bulls against Freemasonry. Pius IX issued 6 bulls attacking Masonry. Leo XIII, in 1884, in "Humanum Genus", and endorsed the view that the Freemasons' "real supreme aim" is "to persecute Christianity with untamed hatred, and they will never rest until they see cast to the ground all religious institutions established by the Pope"... and the last one, John Paul II in 1983... you can not be a Catholic and a Mason!


Another point is that the Jesuit Order was banned in 1773 under Papal orders. It was already losing influence before that date. From 1773 it certainly lost all influence in Germany, Austria, France. The Order spent the next 30 odd years trying to regain its former position, but over the relevant period of Mozart's career it had virtually no clout worth talking about. How therefore were the Jesuits so influential in stage-managing Mozart's career, as alleged?


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

And for sure, Jesuits were non influential in Joseph II's Vienna.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

JohnM said:


> Hi Robert!
> 
> Here is what I think - history matters when the lessons from history can enrich our lives, or prevent us from repeating the errors and false starts of our forefathers.
> History matters when it teaches us what is good and right, and true.
> ...


Taken to its logical conclusion, you presumably wouldn't care if all composers' works were discredited as to ownership? For example, would you still like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (assuming you do like it) even though no one had a clue who really composed it, and it was simply known as, say, Symphony No 4535?

What you say I'm afraid I find fantastic. The whole basis of the value of works of historical significance is the authenticity of ownership. Mozart works are valuable primarily because they are thought to be written by Mozart, not because they sound nice.


----------



## JohnM (Aug 12, 2006)

Mango said:


> Taken to its logical conclusion, you presumably wouldn't care if all composers' works were discredited as to ownership?


Not particularly, no. I'm listening because I like them, not because of who composed them!
Why should that matter in the slightest?



> For example, would you still like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (assuming you do like it) even though no one had a clue who really composed it, and it was simply known as, say, Symphony No 4535?


Yes, simply because it's brilliant. Beethoven was a genius and an iconic figure in history - by your logic I should love the Triple Concerto and Wellington's Victory because they were composed by him. I have to tell you, you are very wrong indeed.



> What you say I'm afraid I find fantastic. The whole basis of the value of works of historical significance is the authenticity of ownership.


Frankly I don't believe a word you're saying either. Who is listening to music because of historical significance? I listen to music because it is good. Because it means something to me, not to some historian. I have not the time nor the inclination to listen to crap because it is historically significant, likewise I find joy in the most simple, insignificant compositions. Hey, I'm happy with that.

No, actually - I'm delighted with that.



> Mozart works are valuable primarily because they are thought to be written by Mozart, not because they sound nice.


Oh really? Suppose they all sounded awful, would they still be valuable?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

rojo said:


> Oh my goodness! I must sincerely apologize to david johnson for this comment; I completely misread Mr. Newman`s earlier post- I thought he was refering to Krummhorn, and I couldn`t see why he was calling him David, lol! Oh well, misunderstandings happen, unfortunately. Please excuse my error, david; I was obviously experiencing a moment of confusion there...
> 
> Back to the topic at hand...


everything's ok. enjoy the thread. i've 'fought' w/robt. before and won. i'll just surf the rest of the site and have fun.

dj


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2007)

JohnM said:


> Mango said:
> 
> 
> > Taken to its logical conclusion, you presumably wouldn't care if all composers' works were discredited as to ownership?
> ...


Because most people like to associate a composer's name with the music they are listening to. The composer's name itself provides a measure of quality. If all names were to be removed on the basis of widespread genuine lack of certainty over authorship, interest in classical music would decline even further.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Ok. Great. Nice you actually have nothing to say about the Niemetscheck issue. LOL. Case closed. 

I must get used to this - if something is shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt and if it happens to be Mozart mythology being debunked, this does not matter. LOL. Crazy world, yes ?

So the progression is this - 

1. It can't be true. 

followed by - 

2. Yes, it may well be true, but it doesn't really matter 

followed by - 

3. Yes, we always knew it was true but it still doesn't matter. 


(David, so glad you've 'fought' with me before and 'won'. News to me, but anything's possible. Since we're still waiting for requested details of what you wrote first on this thread I guess we'll just have to wait another 200 years before you share it with us, right ?). 

LOL !


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

Folks, no more off-topic stories, please!


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Dear Alnitack,

I think it's fair that I should reply to your comments on Freemasonry. Mozart and the Roman Catholic Church, since these are clearly relevant to the issue of the falsehood and fakery that features in making Mozart's reputation. I promise to confine these remarks solely to issues related to Mozart. But let me first quote what you wrote. I will number your statements so that they can each be answered in turn -

Freemasons have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church by 8 Popes

Yes, you are correct. And the Jesuits have been '_eternally'_ banned by the same Catholic Church. This ETERNAL ban began in 1773 and it ended in 1814. Thus (and here is the chance for us to find the unfiied field theory of Einstein) eternity lasts no more than 41 years. E euqals Mc2, right ? Time standing still, and all that ?

Joan of Arc, patron saint of France, was excommunicated before being burned at the stake. Decades later it was a agreed that a terrible mistake had been made and her posthumous repuation ended with her becoming a canonised saint of the same Church.

In such a strange universe anything is possible.

The scientific discoveries of Galileo were condemend publicly by the papally approved office of the Inquisition in Rome and his writings remained on the list of papally banned literature for another century and more. Is this not another example of the circular world of such things.

That Mozart, a Roman Catholic, became a member of the Freemasons is a plain, indisputable fact of musical history. Credited to him are (as you know) numerous musical works of Freemasonry and, of course, the opera, 'The Magic Flute'. And tens of thousands of Roman Catholics were/are Freemasons is, also, a plain fact.

In point of fact, a great many Roman Catholics in German speaking lands were Freemasons during Mozart's lifetime. Depending on what time of history we are talking about it was legal or illlegal to be a Freemason. Among there number were of course the composer JM Kraus, Joseph Haydn and even the Emperor Joseph 2nd.

The banning of the Jesuit Order in 1773 was the very same time as we see the beginnings in Bavaria of the Illuminati movement. A movement which (many sources show) first inflitrated the Freemasonic movement, then caused it (Freemasonry) to be persecuted and closed. Most notably in 1790 - a year before Mozart's death - this occurring after the death of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. The Illuminati/Jesuit connection is plain and obvious. Freemasonry was no threat to society. The Illuminati most definitely were.

The suppression and persecution of Freemasonry by secret supporters of the Illuminati is found repatedly in writings of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In fact, the illuminati used/adopted Freemasonic symbolism (as it still does) and composers such as Mayr and Mozart (to say nothing of writers such as Goethe) were involved in this movement.

Regards


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2007)

robert newman said:


> The banning of the Jesuit Order in 1773 ..............


Why didn't you address my post asking how the Jesuits were allegedly such a major force behind the fabrication of Mozart's career despite the fact that they were banned from 1773? In other words, how could they be so unimportant and important at the same time?


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Mango said:


> Why didn't you address my post asking how the Jesuits were allegedly such a major force behind the fabrication of Mozart's career despite the fact that they were banned from 1773? In other words, how could they be so unimportant and important at the same time?


Maybe they were a force during the sixties.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2007)

Handel said:


> Maybe they were a force during the sixties.


You mean like the Hippies?

I like your choice of smilie. That's about all.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Mango said:


> You mean like the Hippies?
> 
> I like your choice of smilie. That's about all.


1760's 

Yeah, I miss here some good smilies I can use on my other main message board.

Some examples I like:


























(meaning OMG, argh!!)


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Mango writes -

_Why didn't you address my post asking how the Jesuits were allegedly such a major force behind the fabrication of Mozart's career despite the fact that they were banned from 1773? In other words, how could they be so unimportant and important at the same time?_

Well, Mango, I had half a dozen replies to my previous post and your question (which has been discussed before) was among them. At the risk of repetition here goes -

That the Jesuit Order had immense power in the European academic world prior to 1773 (and specially within lands of the so-called 'Holy Roman Empire') is a fact so well established that nobody will deny it. They controlled many, many universities and colleges as you must surely be aware. A person could not even attend Vienna University unless he/she was an approved Roman Catholic. And so on. The religious bigotry of the Holy Roman Empire is a plain fact of human history.

Now, regarding the part that the Jesuit Order played in the creation of Mozart's myth, you already must be aware of how greatly the Jesuits in Salzburg and elsewhere backed Mozart's early career - i.e. prior to the year of 1773 when their Order was forced to go underground or to move to Russia for temporary relief from the ban placed on them by the Papacy. The idea that the Jesuits went out of existence is, of course, untrue. Abbe Bullinger is one of many cases of support for Mozart and his family - a support that continued and which can again be seen in the case of the Constanze Mozart/Niemetsheck relationship. Add to this the huge number of Jesuit educated musicians who played roles in Vienna musical life.

Even the creation of the Mozarteum in Salzburg (which occurred decades after Mozart's death) was financially helped by the Archbishop of Salzburg, himself in that office having previously been a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire.

That ecclesiastical 'minders' were involved in Mozart's Vienna career (most obviously in Mozart's final years and in the creation of Mozart's posthumous reputation) is also a plain and indisputable fact.

And so, Mango, the difficulty here is not so much to sketch the outline but to have time and opprtunity to show these things in the detail they deserve.

That we are talking here of creating myth is, beyond reasonable doubt, the truth.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

robert newman said:


> That ecclesiastical 'minders' were involved in Mozart's Vienna career (most obviously in Mozart's final years and in the creation of Mozart's posthumous reputation) is also a plain and indisputable fact.


But the ecclesiastical powers were undermined during Joseph II's reign. It would have been difficult to have that influence after 1780 in Vienna.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Well, I see we have digressed back to 2006 where the same items that were posted then are now being re-hashed over again. It is apparent that this thread is no longer serving any useful purpose. After discussing this matter with admins, we have decided collectively to close this thread. 

Now, here's the caveat ... ANY further Mozart discussion threads of this particular nature will be deleted and not allowed to perpetuate endlessly. There are now 2 very intense threads with ALL the subject matter available for perusing, and there is no need for another. 

This thread is closed.


----------

