Beethoven's Early Years In Bonn

[Rutradelusasa]

Originally posted by Peter:
Dear Robert,

It would be possible to construct any number of other theories around this. How about an entire Italian conspiracy for example? That is no less believable than what you are suggesting. Niemetschek wrote immediately after Mozart's death "Mozart's enemies and slanderers became so vehement, particularly towards the end of his life...These stories and lies were so shameless, so scandalous."

Let's look at your theory from Max Franz's point of view - he wants to assert the dominance of Austrian music and he wants the inferior Mozart for this purpose. Unfortunately realising he's stuck with this greater genius (the true author of Haydn's music) who can write music in any style he instructs the willing Luchesi to do this and cuts his salary. All the Bonn musicians (including Beethoven, Neefe and Ries) are aware of this and agree never to speak of it, even decades after. Haydn continues sending folk tunes heard around Esterhazy to Luchesi. Then twice Max Franz agrees to send the young Beethoven to study with both men he knows to be inferior in Vienna, rather than insisiting on him remaining in Bonn with the great Luchesi. He expresses his displeasure in a letter to Haydn that Beethoven has not produced any thing of note since leaving Bonn! (Odd if he knew Haydn to be a fraud and Luchesi to be the source of Beethoven's early works?)
On top of this he instructs that a record of the deceit be made and this damning piece of evidence instead of being destroyed to prevent its falling into enemy hands conveniently ends up in Italian Modena.

Now let's look at it from Luchesi's point of view - if he has the genius to produce the works claimed for him, what on earth is he doing in Bonn? Why is it preferable to remain in Bonn indulging in fraudulent activity at the whim of a German prince who would rather he wasn't there anyway? If he is a Haydn and Mozart combined and can see the fame and glory they achieved through his work, why not go to the Italian dominated court at Vienna and have his masterpieces published in his own name. Why stay silent even 10 years after the death of Mozart? If he is now obscure then he has only himself to blame for being a)stupid and b)deceitful or more likely simply one of the many talented but now forgotten lesser composers.

Beethoven was in close contact for years with all of the men (except Mozart)involved in this theory, and we are supposed to accept that he was either unaware or that he was involved? Neither is feasable.

Damn! Peter for president!

Who's the london private dick who's a sex machine to all the chicks?
Peter! (damn right!) <music of shaft continues>

------------------
"Wer ein holdes weib errungen..."

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I do appreciate all you say. Luchesi is the composer whose achievements and reputation have to be proved rather than that of Mozart or Haydn. In this respect the onus is certainly on the supporters of Luchesi to prove their point, and this 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

But the fact is there are serious problems with a great number of symphonies attributed to Haydn and always have been. We have documentary evidence that 'Haydn' symphonies (of which there were supposedly 256 at one time in early catalogues) are less than half that number today and even these (the vast majority of them) have very serious problems when it comes to considering who actually wrote them. This is not a new problem - it existed even at the time when Haydn was alive . The same is unfortunately true for a great number of 'Haydn' Masses. The disappearance of works by Luchesi and by 'Captain D'Anthoin' (Luchesi's own brother in law at Bonn who is credited with writing in Haydn's style)are two of a hundred angles that suggest major irregularities in the actual achievements and reputation of Joseph Haydn.

If Luchesi wrote masterpieces for Haydn and Mozart few would have known the truth. That is surely obvious. Beethoven may not even have known of this. He may well have known these works but whether he knew them as compositions by these two composers is an open question.

The puzzle is surely why many major works inventoried at Bonn in 1784 during the absence of the Kapellmeister were not credited to a specific composer as they should have been - particularly since they can be traced today to Modena and to works now well known as those of Mozart and Haydn.

I suppose I must conclude by giving my considered verdict on this matter - that Luchesi was indeed author of many of these works but that he (for reasons that lack any logical explanation) allowed the credit for their creation to be afforded to Haydn and to Mozart. For, in the case of Mozart's mature symphonies there is hardly one that escapes criticism on many grounds as being actually composed first by another person. For Luchesi to have done this and to have consented to becoming virtually an anonymous genius seems so improbable and so unlikely - but what is the alternative ?

I agree that until some further discovery is made of works by Luchesi written in the 1780's of a quality equal to that found in the mature works of Haydn and Mozart we cannot regard this Italian Kapellmeister as a musical genius of such stature. And yet, it seems, the manuscripts of Luchesi from this very period have mysteriously disappeared, as have the works of Captain D'Anthoin and many other documents that would have settled this matter one way or the other.

There is no doubt that Luchesi consented to these works being credited to Haydn and Mozart. In his own catalogue of the Bonn chapel which he kept up to date up until around 1794 (reference C.53.1 held in Modena) we find him crediting these works himself to Haydn and Mozart. In the same Luchesi catalogue he also records several early works of Beethoven, proving that he kept up to date with this private catalogue up until around 1794.

And if, of course, Luchesi wrote these mature 'Mozart' symphonies before 1784 then Mozart consciously lied when he entered them as his own works in the late 1780's.

I agree with Peter that much more evidence needs to be presented before Luchesi can be credited with overturning our traditional understanding of Haydn and Mozart's achievements. He (Luchesi) is at least now a person worthy of being studied. Perhaps it will not be long before there will be major new developments in this area of research.

Regards

Robert Newman

[Peter]

Dear Robert,

Your views are certainly more balanced on this than those of Taboga and there are several areas I can agree with you. I think merely from the Beethovian perspective it would be useful for a great deal more research into the kappelmeister from Bonn - he clearly must have been a more significant person in Beethoven's early years than we are aware of.

Many works were wrongly attributed to Haydn and Mozart, but musicologists have identified many of them and that is why hundreds were disregarded. Now amongst the remaining accepted canon it is still possible that there are some there that shouldn't be and maybe some of these are by Luchesi.

You state "The Modena archives (I suggest) hold certain works which needed to be 'buried' since they called in question the provenance of these works (already circulating at that time in the name of Mozart and of Haydn)." Well as I said previously why make such a record of deceit in the first place and if it needed to be buried, why not do that properly by destroying it, rather than risk it ending up in the hands of Napoleon?

The fact that there is no logic to Luchesi consenting to anonymity if he had produced the crowning achievements of 18th century symphonic music does indeed lay the burden of proof at the feet of those who subscribe to that view. Taboga uses this argument for Beethoven "Conscious that he (Beethoven) could gain fame through HIS OWN MEANS ... Beethoven refused to accept the role of 'a figurehead' of Luchesi's productions" one wonders why Taboga doesn't apply his own reasoning to Luchesi and wonder why he was so UNCONSCIOUS of HIS own means?

Thank you for raising these issues and drawing my attention to Luchesi and the Modena inventory - something I had no knowledge of before. There are many unanswered questions which must be dealt with, but I'm confident the conclusions if ever revealed would not be as drastic as Taboga advocates.


------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-24-2005).]

[waldstein]

at this time (18 th century) and even before , musicians use to copy partitions because it was a useful excercise, Luchesi was probably one of them, that's why we have found some haydn and mozart compositions in Luchesi paper's, but to say that he was the author of all these master pieces is an awful accusation that i can't accept, look only at haydn string quartets and mozart's chamber music and operas! no one can deny the athenticity of there symphonies and oratorios!
all this stuff seems to me like an italian conspiracy , why didn't they say that Bach was an idiot too ,that he takes all his concertoes and cantatas from an aknown composer, why didn't they say that Haendal have stolen all his italian operas from someone else?

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:

The fact that there is no logic to Luchesi consenting to anonymity if he had produced the crowning achievements of 18th century symphonic music does indeed lay the burden of proof at the feet of those who subscribe to that view.

There are lots of loose ends & lots of possibilities.

Luchesi may have preferred obscurity. He might have been a bit like Bruckner: timid. He might have been a bit like Berlioz or Rossini in their later days: Unwilling or medically unable to face the adoring masses. He may have despised the hoi poli of the public & their concerts. He may have had no idea how to bring his own works to market. (Only those artists who know how to market their stuff, or who are found by someone who does, ever see the light of day. Sad but true.) As I understand things, he was part of a school that believed there was exact correspondence between music & absolute number. If so, he may not have thought his works could be played to his satisfaction. In this regard, I once heard a story that Schubert broke off writing his 8th symphony as it was thought to be "too personal" to ever be performed. It may well be Luchesi had no idea how advanced his stuff really was. Hard to know when you're part of it. The world is full of strange stories. Luchesi will doubtless be found to have a unique one.

I'm still intrigued by the idea that Beethoven was lured to Vienna to be remade as a "Viennese" composer. Why not take the best student from the best school of music & bring him to the big city? Before Paris did. (Bonn owed allegiance to the French court. Beethoven at one point considered moving to Paris.) This brings up his well-known personality. Was Beethoven as much a social jerk in his native Bonn as he was in Vienna? Somehow that's a bit hard to believe. Did Beethoven's rough edges become rougher in Vienna in order to reject that fate?

As to why Beethoven, Ferdinand Ries, Franz Anton Ries & all the other old Bonn hands, never made comment. One does not comment on old scandals. For the most part, as the years pass one tends to forget, in the hopes the embarrassment will go away & eventually be forgotten. A bit like skeletons in the family closet. There is also the possibility that documentary material from these men, refering to matters not understood, was mistakenly tossed as having no value. Or is known, but misunderstood.

[robert newman]

These are really interesting ideas from Droell.

Honestly, I don't know Beethoven the man well enough to comment. It is very curious that Luchesi in later life was apparently in some poverty. Curious too that the same occurred to the once affluent Vienna merchant Michael Puchberg and also to Mozart's friend Emanuel Schickaneder. In Luchesi's case (and I have few details) specially strange since he married in to the wealthy D'Anthoin family soon after his arrival in Bonn in the 1770's.

RN

[Peter]

Dear Robert

Just wondering about those initials A.F and A.R who assisted with the inventory. Would I be right in assuming Anton Reicha who was Luchesi's assistant and who was A.F ?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Droell]

Originally posted by robert newman:


These are really interesting ideas from Droell.

Honestly, I don't know Beethoven the man well enough to comment. It is very curious that Luchesi in later life was apparently in some poverty. Curious too that the same occurred to the once affluent Vienna merchant Michael Puchberg and also to Mozart's friend Emanuel Schickaneder. In Luchesi's case (and I have few details) specially strange since he married in to the wealthy D'Anthoin family soon after his arrival in Bonn in the 1770's.

RN

Hello Robert,

My compliments to yourself. I am a Dave, if it's of interest.

I am fascinated by your remark that Mozart's death was possibly faked. There is certainly enough controversy around it for outright deception to be a possibility.

I know a bit about secret societies. Among very secret societies, the traditional fate of members who spill the beans was death, which was nothing but the fulfilment of the oath they swore to become members.

Mozart insulted the Masons with the Magic Flute, but they would have been far more offended if they thought he was pawning off someone else's work.

Presuming he knew what he was doing (Mozart was said to have been a Mason), the Magic Flute would have been seen as a Church plot against the them. (I have no idea what the original bone of contention between the two may have been. I just know they take things seriously.) If he put his name on someone else's work, then the anti-Masonic plot would presumably be a lot bigger than Wolfgang's sour grapes - or urge to make a quick buck, whatever.

It may have been expedient to get him out of town, regardless of consequences. In this light, the story that he had a deathbed "repentance" while working on a Requiem sounds awfully convenient. Burial in an unmarked pauper's grave the very next day gets rid of evidence to the contrary but would seem to be flatly contradicted by Mozart's standing in Austrian society & the existence of numerous friends. If he was diseased, burial may well have been immediate, but this does not explain the lack of a grave marker.

Presuming this blew up in the aftermath of the September 1791 premiere of the Magic Flute, one looks around for what to do with the guy. Haydn is in London, Salomon has connections. We haven't established an alternative to Mozart's death until we can find where he went to. We're looking for a German composer/impressario. Did he initially go to London, and, once there, did Haydn/Salomon conspire to send him somewhere else? I'm thinking Dublin, as it's remote & there's no way out of there without going through London & Salomon.

Max Franz was the brother of Marie Antoinette. Over at a Bonn website, it says revolutionary French troops drove him out in 1794. Exit Max, but were French troops the reason the court orchestra was dissolved as well? And if so, why did it stay dissolved?

Many, many questions remain about the Magic Flute. It's just plain stupid to have put that on stage, and whatever else Mozart was, he wasn't stupid. Was he put up to it, was he blackmailed, and what editorial changes, I wonder, were later made to the score?

[Droell]

I am astonished to learn that Johann Peter Salomon (1745-1815) was himself born & raised in Bonn !

[robert newman]

Dear Dave,

Compliments to you. Yes, I do suggest that Mozart's K626 'Requiem' (so-called) was not written by Mozart though it's not easy to develop such an argument and the subject is as controversial today as it has always been.

Having studied this in quite a lot of detail (and having also been loudly criticised on various Mozart websites by experts when these issues were discussed) I feel it only right to say that my views are certainly not acceptable to most academic writers on Mozart.

You ask about the 'Magic Flute', the Freemasons and the French. I think it important to first say that the Vienna life and career of Mozart on which early biographies were based is to a very great extent sanitised so as to gloss over certain crucial facts.

I believe Mozart was poisoned. That in itself is a big subject but the whole of Mozart's Vienna career needs to be seen in the light of the real situation of those times. This is why I'm trying to finish a highly controversial book on 'Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire' since I believe that this entity (The Holy Roman Empire) is the correct angle of approach on this subject.

In my view Mozart was a marked man from the time he arrived in Vienna. If you make detailed study of his break with Archbishop Colloredo you find all kinds of evidence that attempts were made to disrupt and thwart the composer's career virtually from the beginning of his Vienna life. It is little appreciated that the administrator appointed by the Emperor Joseph to oversee the staging of Mozart's first opera in Vienna, 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, dined with Mozart the evening before his arrest as a supposed 'Prussian spy' and was jailed for months on trumped up charges. The person who arranged this was one Gundaker, Master of the Hounds for none other than Prince Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg. You will be aware that in Mozart's letters he records hissing throughout early performances of the opera, this continuing throughout its run in Vienna.

Colloredo was Mozart's nemesis. Not the Freemasons or the Italians (though the latter were certainly opposed to Mozart being involved in the German opera plans of the Emperor - a plan that Joseph had to abandon because of the hostility to 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'.

If you look at Mozart's Vienna career you find that in the years up to around 1784 he was greatly in demand amongst the nobility and was continually invited to their homes as a performer/composer. These early Vienna years too were greatly helped by many Freemasons (who were very numerous subscribers to his public concerts).

But I believe that the Marriage of Figaro changed Mozart's fate. This opera was further proof to Mozart's enemies that he was a danger to the 'status quo'. Again, the Emperor Joseph showed remarkable tolerance in allowing Beaumarchais play to be set in this way. It was Figaro which provoked further hostility against Mozart.

Then, of course, there was the fact that Mozart (now virtually divorced from the Catholicism he had been brought up on) decided to become a Freemason himself - this (Mozart reasoned) was his guarantee that he would continue much as before. (Mozart was certainly aware of Republican politics but was not outspoken on political issues).

Slowly, the aristocracy cools to Mozart. He now writes 'Don Giovanni', but not for Vienna. At court he is now hindered by a whole group of enemies who would ensure that his career prospects would never be realised. These enemies were religious conservatives who saw in Mozart a threat to the very society they were sworn to uphold. And Mozart, a virtual 'broadcaster' of a kind was well able to speak of them in satire. He did so.

I think that a great personal crisis comes for Mozart around the time when he goes on tour with Lichnowsky. For, (I think) it can be argued that the composer did have a relationship with another woman. This scandal (hushed up at the time and hardly discussed today) was to have serious implications.

In the Vienna of Mozart there was a 'journalist' of a kind named Franz Staudinger who produced a handwritten newspaper - much of its content dismissed today by Mozart experts as sheer gossip. It was Franz Staudinger (also sometimes spelled Staudlinger) who in December 1791, just after Mozart's untimely death, published an edition of his paper with the curious news that Mozart's daughter had been adopted by the Countess Thun.

Now, Mozart (according to convention) never had a daughter. And yet (I think) this child, this daughter, was the result of that affair that Mozart had - with a woman of the nobility - a relative of the Thun family.
Hushed up and not generally known, and yet there it is in Staudinger's newsaper report.

It was this (I think) that finally turned the leaders of Vienna society against Mozart to the point where he was a social leper. And now, in to this situation came Lichnowsky, a relative of the Thuns by marriage - the man who is recorded as having sued the composer (some details of which were found only a few years ago in Vienna). Lichnowsky wanted to ruin Mozart for his infidelity and this is the real reason for the prosecution - though the pretext may have been a 'gambling dept' or some other excuse. (In fact Lichnowsky was the gambler and lost heavily - he needed money - and Mozart was his chance).

(The court case was heard in secret at the court of the nobility and its details were never any part of early Mozart biography).

And so, weeks before Mozart's death and unknown to almost everyone, was ruin facing Mozart.

It's often said that he offended the Freemasons with 'Die Zauberflote'. In fact I think this is untrue. His 'Little Masonic Cantata' was presented to the Freemasons of Vienna weeks after the court hearing and he was greatly applauded by them when it was conducted. (The Freemasons also held a memorial service in his honour and at no time was it suggested that he had brought dishonour to their movement).

It is a remarkable fact that Mozart's supposed funeral procession is a myth. The available evidence suggests that his body was taken directly from his home to St Marx cemetery the evening after his death and was never taken to the cathedral. There is not a single reliable witness who claims to have been at his funeral despite the fact that bells were certainly rung for him at the cathedral and a hearse was hired to take his body to the cemetery. But (as said) Mozart's remains were not taken to St Stephen's.

A pretext was found. It was then argued that Mozart had succumbed to a specially virulent fever which had taken many victims. And (since plague victims and those who died from communicable diseases) need not even be taken in to the church - so an excuse could be given why his body was not actually escorted anywhere. The accounts of those who claim to have been at Mozart's funeral procession come from decades later. There was no funeral procession. Nor was there a snowstorm or inclement weather on the days when it supposedly took place.

Mozart was ostracised and died as a virtual heretic. His enemies sanitised the facts. And the manufacture of the 'Requiem' was given (complete with the myth of the 'grey messenger' who commissioned the piece) to give the false impression that Mozart had died as a loyal/faithful son of the church.

Enter again Herr Staudinger. In a remarkable report for 10th December 1791 he writes that a memorial occurred for Mozart (this 5 days after his death) organised not by the family or the nobility, but by Schickaneder, the man who, of course, had collaborated with him on Die Zauberflote. Not a single member of Mozart's family was present nor more than a few admirers from the theatre.

And yet, Staudinger says, Mozart's Requiem was performed - this (amazingly) 5 days after Mozart's death.

This is why Mozart's K626 is not that piece. For Mozart's Requiem (I believe) was an a capella work (now lost) which, for a time, existed as a quintet version (this recorded by Anton Herzog as having been owned by him for some years).

K626 was an elaborate forgery.

There are a great number of things that could be said but this, roughly, is an outline of my position.

Out of respect for the fact that this is of course a Beethoven forum I think this will suffice.

Best wishes

Robert Newman

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Droell:
I'm still intrigued by the idea that Beethoven was lured to Vienna to be remade as a "Viennese" composer. Why not take the best student from the best school of music & bring him to the big city? Before Paris did. (Bonn owed allegiance to the French court. Beethoven at one point considered moving to Paris.)


Bonn was not invaded by the French until 1794 (2 years after Beethoven left) when Max Franz was forced to flee - it remained under French dominance until 1815 when after Napoleon's defeat it came under Prussian rule. Revolutionary 1792 Paris would not have been an attractive option!




------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:


I believe Mozart was poisoned. That in itself is a big subject but the whole of Mozart's Vienna career needs to be seen in the light of the real situation of those times. This is why I'm trying to finish a highly controversial book on 'Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire' since I believe that this entity (The Holy Roman Empire) is the correct angle of approach on this subject.

That is most interesting. Gail Altman wrote a book entitled *Fatal Links* in which she claims that Beethoven may have been poisoned.


Hofrat

[robert newman]

I'm aware of there having been tests conducted on the famous lock of Beethoven's hair which showed abnormally high levels of lead. I haven't heard though of any theory that he was deliberately poisoned.

In the case of Mozart there were rumours from the very outset that he had died as the result of poisoning, this supported by the well known statement that he was convinced of it himself some months before his death. Then too are the various confessions of involvement by Salieri, the remarkable report by Dr Guldener in the 1820's (which attempted to downplay these confessions) and the fact that Mozart's son left a written article saying that Mozart's body showed signs of the composer succumbing to poison (no rigor mortis setting in etc.etc.)

Frankly, I see no medical reason that contradicts the view that he (Mozart) did succumb to poison though I appreciate that various medical people have argued against this. Viewed as a whole I think the evidence certainly supports the poisoning theory. There are at least 5 different threads of evidence which point in that direction.

Dr Guldener (who was employed by the city of Vienna as an inspector in the case of death) saw Mozart's remains and denies poisoning. But he never actually inspected Mozart and no proper examination was ever made. In the 1820's he claimed that Mozart's doctor (Dr Sallaba) was convinced that Mozart died of an epidemic that hit Vienna that year. (In fact no such epidemic occurred). And his version of Mozart's death (given because Salieri's friends wished to put an end to the poisoning rumours that were circulating in Vienna - refered to even in Beethoven conversation books) raises as many questions as it answers.

Regards

RN

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:


I'm aware of there having been tests conducted on the famous lock of Beethoven's hair which showed abnormally high levels of lead. I haven't heard though of any theory that he was deliberately poisoned.

I guess you will have to read Ms. Altman's book.

Hofrat

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

Thanks for your suggestion. I honestly thought this was only a novel idea rather than a serious theory (Beethoven's poisoning). Yes, I would very much like to read the book you refer to and will look for it. It will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, supports the authors theory.

Robert Newman