Announcement

**untamed_personality** · 01-27-2006, 07:55 PM

Thanks very much for posting that, Joy. As I've said in the WAYLTN thread this is a momentous occasion, and one I intend to honour fully with a full-on Mozart weekend! What would our lives be like without him? He has certainly enriched mine, as I'm sure he did our own beloved Ludwig's.

As I type I'm listening to the wonderful andante cantabile from the String Quartet K.387, and it is simply overwhelming.

Again, Happy Birthday, Wolfgang!

Daz

------------------
Seizing fate by the throat...

**robert newman** · 01-27-2006, 08:48 PM

If we were to list Catholic composers before the time of Mozart we would need to fill many pages to do the subject justice. Arguably the greatest musician of all time, Johann Sebastian Bach, thought it vital that he remained up to date with the compositions of Catholic composers despite his own Lutheran protestantism. The simple fact is that it was the Holy Roman Empire that saw in Rome its centre, and this for many centuries before the Reformation.

But, by the same token, it cannot be denied that there HAD been a Reformation and that it had immense impact on European thought. Nowhere more so than in the lands where German was spoken and where Luther's works were read with great devotion. A Counter-reformation (largely designed as a result of the Council of Trent) brought in to being the Jesuits - a military order whose history and influence was to become enormous. Wasn't the Emperor of the Empire in Vienna ? Up until 1773 (at which time Mozart was almost 17 years old) none would have been suprised to know that Leopold had been Jesuit educated. Nor would anyone be suprised that finance for Mozart's early tours came from Jesuits associated with Salzburg. In fact the Jesuits came to be widely regarded as the premier source of education in Europe. Such claims were to continue. Until of course the Jesuit order was banned - by the papacy itself - in 1773.

It is also not difficult also to see how some 'choreography' was involved in the famous arrival in Rome of Mozart. Here he was, accompanied by his father and, just coincidentally by Europe's most celebrated teachers of music theory, Padre Martini, who just happened to be there on that same day. Would it not be fair to suggest that such a trio was very much part of the tour that was laid down for him to undertake ?

Let us assume Mozart heard the Allegri 'Miserere' (since, in fact, a copy of it was kept at Vienna Cathedral decades before and one was also in the hands of Padre Martini himself - Mozart's teacher in Italy - as has been shown repeatedly). But the same records say Mozart did not write this piece down as is popularly believed. He actually returned some days later to hear the work a second time before he finished writing down his famous version. And in all this time he clearly gave no sign to anyone of doing so - since the whole point of this 'amazing' feat was that such copying was illegal.

Here too is (I respectfully suggest) some bending of the truth. The Mozart family were clearly familiar with the piece before they arrived in Rome. Enough for such a high profile 'feat' to be attempted.

Far from being impossible the actual challenge of doing this is certainly far less than, say, writing down the score of a Beethoven symphony. Or a Bach cantata.

And then of course we have the story that all were 'astounded' by what this Salzburg teenager had done. If true how is it that to this day we have never yet seen the documentary evidence ? How is it that this most celebrated proof of Mozart's phenomenal genius is not given a number in the Koechel catalogue as an arrangement ? The reason we have not seen this document is rather simple (and much more sobering). The young teenager made a fair attempt (twice) but the result wsa still filled with errors. (So say those who have seen what Mozart actually wrote). But Mozart's version has vanished since the 19th century so what we have is not the honest opinions of those who saw it, but only the legendary marvel in Rome - one of a whole series of marvels that perpetuate the childhood reputation of Mozart.

Charles Burney was in Rome at this time and he is known to have been well aware of the news being spread around. He does not claim to have seen this work. And he expressly talks about it. He even knew the Mozart's.

Nevertheless, the famous story persists and it was of course given huge credibility by the fact that the Pope himself made Mozart a chevalier of the Golden Spur. (The same as he had done for Gluck, for von Dittersdorf, and even for the Abbe Vogler 4 years later).

In Mozart's own short lifetime a new threat emerged, that of the French Revolution and even the imminent collapse of the Holy Roman Empire - the arrival of secular governments etc. But none of these things were to detract from the skillfully prepared image of the composer in his last days slaving on his own Requiem. Given that truth and the bending of rules was not beyond the 'status quo' I am surprised not so much by the myths associated with Mozart (which were carefully cultivated during his lifetime and made to look extremely convincing) but with the persistency of errors which are clearly at odds with historical, verifiable fact. Having no axe to grind against Catholicism I do think that the industry that is 'Mozart' is badly in need of coming to terms with its own inherent contradictions.

(Best regards Joy !)

Robert

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-27-2006).]

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-27-2006).]

**Joy** · 01-28-2006, 02:09 AM

Best Regards to you too, Robert! Interesting theory, thanks for sharing.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

**Droell** · 01-28-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Joy:

Mozart was born on Jan. 26, 1756, and baptized Catholic with the name Johann Chrysostom Wolfgang Theophilus.

"Chrysostom" as a name may have interesting derivations. In alchemical literature there is a distinction made between St. Christopher, and St. Chrystopher. It comes in the story of the young Christ being conveyed across a river by Christopher or Chrystopher. So far as the story goes, Christopher is the accepted party by the Church, whereas Chrystopher is not. The meaning of "Chrystopher" is, "he who carries the gold", or, perhaps, "he who hides the gold", with "gold", "river" & "Christ" understood in their alchemical meanings, not the sacred or profane ones.

I read this decades ago in an old book & tried to find an on-line reference to it just now, but could not. I seem to remember this story associated with Notre Dame in Paris. Both the city & the building itself have long been associated with alchemical work.

Would a name that evokes these kinds of images be bestowed by accident?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY WOLFGANG !!!
A man who changed the world.

**JA Gardiner** · 01-28-2006, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Droell:
"Chrysostom" as a name may have interesting derivations. In alchemical literature there is a distinction made between St. Christopher, and St. Chrystopher. It comes in the story of the young Christ being conveyed across a river by Christopher or Chrystopher. So far as the story goes, Christopher is the accepted party by the Church, whereas Chrystopher is not. The meaning of "Chrystopher" is, "he who carries the gold", or, perhaps, "he who hides the gold", with "gold", "river" & "Christ" understood in their alchemical meanings, not the sacred or profane ones.

I read this decades ago in an old book & tried to find an on-line reference to it just now, but could not. I seem to remember this story associated with Notre Dame in Paris. Both the city & the building itself have long been associated with alchemical work.

Would a name that evokes these kinds of images be bestowed by accident?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY WOLFGANG !!!
A man who changed the world.

John "Chrysostom" was one of the Great Early Church Fathers, a very feisty bishop in Antioch and then Constantinople in the late fourth century who stood up for the poor of the community and lambasted the Byzantine Court and their rich followers for their decadence. There is a mosaic of him on the wall of the Hagia Sophia in Instanbul. The Chrysostom tag meant golden-mouthed - a reference to his preaching and demagogic skills. Much of the Eastern orthodox liturgy is influenced by or based on his work and he is and was revered as a saint throughout the Christian World. As Catholics the Mozart's would take a saint's name as well as a family name for their boy - and in view of Leopold's and his own later turbulent relationship with the mores, politics and culture of the Imperial Court of his own day, and his beautiful vocal music it seems highly appropriate (though whether intentional I wouldn't presume to speculate) that they chose this one! As ever, I think the simple explanation is to be preferred over the more arcane or alchemical !

------------------
Beethoven the Man!

[This message has been edited by JA Gardiner (edited 01-28-2006).]

**robert newman** · 01-29-2006, 02:07 AM

I agree with both JA Gardiner and also with Droell in certain respects. I think it true that the name a person has does, to some extent, have impact on our life. And though I don't subscribe to ideas of alchemy (which I see as a mediaevel misinterpretation of ancient ways of talking about global events) I nevertheless agree that our names matter. In the case of Mozart Mr Gardiner is right that his life seems to bear record of him being a broadcaster, a publicist, of a kind, though an artist. St John Chrystostom was of course this in the Christian sense and is remembered for his very active mission work. In both cases they were men with a message that travelled very far.

Someone pointed out to me recently that the name 'Elvis' is a corruption and has bad meanings. Since all names have meanings I'm entirely open to believing that our names DO have impact on our life experience.

What does 'Ludwig' mean, by the way ??

Regards

RN

**Bobbie** · 01-29-2006, 02:08 AM

Mozart came from a very Catholic background and that shows in his chosen names including also Theophilus, possibly after St. Theophilus = Lover of God.
St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch and Early Church Father. In the late second century, lived during the age when it was a capital crime in the Roman Empire to be a Christian.
One of his many reported writings, only his three-book 'Apology' or Defense of Christianity, addressed to Autolycus, has survived. The general purpose of his work was to explain to the pagan world the Christian understanding of God and make clear the superiority of the biblical doctrine of creation over the absurd religious myths of the Greco-Roman world.

.

[This message has been edited by Bobbie (edited 01-28-2006).]

**Bobbie** · 01-29-2006, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by robert newman:

I agree with both JA Gardiner and also with Droell in certain respects. I think it true that the name a person has does, to some extent, have impact on our life. And though I don't subscribe to ideas of alchemy (which I see as a mediaevel misinterpretation of ancient ways of talking about global events) I nevertheless agree that our names matter. In the case of Mozart Mr Gardiner is right that his life seems to bear record of him being a broadcaster, a publicist, of a kind, though an artist. St John Chrystostom was of course this in the Christian sense and is remembered for his very active mission work. In both cases they were men with a message that travelled very far.

What does 'Ludwig' mean, by the way ??

Regards

RN

Robert,
I have found that 'Ludwig' is a venerable and ancient male Germanic name , beginning it its Frankish form ' Chlodwig'.
The name Ludwig spread across the German lands. Like most names is has a meaning. Its two old High German root words are 'hlut', meaning 'Loud' ( and by inference meaning 'famous'). Wig, means 'war' or 'struggle'.
So an appropriate translation of Ludwig would be ' Famous Warrior'. !

.

[This message has been edited by Bobbie (edited 01-28-2006).]

**Droell** · 01-29-2006, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by robert newman:

And though I don't subscribe to ideas of alchemy (which I see as a mediaevel misinterpretation of ancient ways of talking about global events) I nevertheless agree that our names matter.

RN

A fascinating discussion about names. My thanks to all of you.

Alchemy has to do with a super-heavy element with an atomic weight of approximately 135 (uranium = 92). It is not radioactive. (The radioactive elements are a series, and like the various other series in the Periodic Table, have both a beginning & an ending point. Heavier than that point, elements become stable again.) It has as one of its chemical properties the ability to catalytically transform base metals into gold. Ie, it works like a vitamin, where a small amount is put in contact with a larger amount of very hot or molten metal. It is far heavier than lead (which is one way you'll know that you've got it) & is sometimes stored in a lump of glass. It is said to have significant medicinal properties, which is the true reason why it is prized. The alchemist transforms metals primarily to prove to himself that he's got the right stuff, at long last.

This element is believed to occur naturally, but, as it is very, very heavy, is consequently rare at the surface of the planet. The usual method of manufacture involves the manipulation of certain forms of clay at very high temperatures, with other trace elements (gunpower among them), carried out in total darkness over a very long period of time. This is, of course, extremely dangerous. I'd say not to try this at home, but that's pretty much where all the experiments tend to take place.

The last reputed alchemist disappeared around 1920, but tales about the man are so fabulous they can hardly be believed. He did actually exist, he left behind two books, which I have in my library.

I have heard there is, in a museum in Vienna, a large plate or disk, one solid piece of cast metal. The edge is copper. As you move towards the center, there is a silver band, and finally a solid gold center. It is said this original copper disk had two alchemical treatments: Once to turn most of it to silver, the second to turn the very center to gold. There are many strange things on display in museums, if you look for them.

In modern parlance, "alchemy" has come to signify new age psychological mumbo-jumbo. Mr. Newman's view would seem to derive from the Rosicrucian transmission, about four centuries ago. (Christian Rosenkrantz, himself.) The art itself is far older.

Such is what I've gleaned here & there.

**robert newman** · 01-29-2006, 11:46 AM

Dear Droell,

Thanks, but I think that in the Renaissance (which began much earlier than the 17th century) there was a revival of Greek and Roman thought, this largely due to the fact that ancient manuscripts came in to Europe through trade routes, travellers returning from the Crusades etc. etc. In these texts are many references to what we would call 'alchemy', the idea that base metals can be transmuted. In this Mozart forum it's not possible to explain how this is an unfortunate misunderstanding of what was actually being spoken about by the ancients (since I believe they were simply trying to explain how the ancient world had changed its form as the result of glaciation and floods etc) but it's true that 'alchemy' was believed in by some truly great scientists, even (for a very long time) Isaac Newton and others. Such ideas are harmless enough but I think that the time spent on them did not yield any verifiable confirmation of such ideas.

But the idea of magical transformations persists, even in Mozart's time. The opera 'The Philosopher's Stone' (several numbers of which were actually composed by Mozart in 1791 for the Freihaus Theatre in Vienna - the group which Emanuel Schickaneder later worked for in the 'Magic Flute') is another example of its popularity. But it was little more than science fiction of its time and the fact that Droell refers to a single alchemist having lived in the early 20th century is surely evidence that it was really not based on verifiable evidence of the sort that can be called science.

The same can be said of various ideas. Ideas of bloodletting in surgery etc.

But I respect the right of others to disagree. In my view these things had appeal as elements of pantomine/fantasy and that is how they were used at the time of Mozart's last operas.

Regards

Robert

**robert newman** · 01-29-2006, 11:52 AM

Many thanks to Bobbie for giving us these remarkable meanings contained within the name 'Ludwig'. Extraordinary !

Robert

**sjwenger** · 01-29-2006, 06:21 PM

I'm sure you're correct about the meaning of the name Ludwig, but it's more fun to think of it as "loud wig" : }

------------------
To learn about "The Port-Wine Sea," my parody of Patrick O'Brian's wonderful Aubrey-Maturin series, please contact me at
susanwenger@yahoo.com

To learn about "The Better Baby" book, ways to increase a baby's intelligence, health, and potentials, please use the same address.

**Joy** · 01-29-2006, 09:29 PM

Very interesting about the meaning of all these names. Thanks for the information.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

**Droell** · 01-29-2006, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by robert newman:

Thanks, but I think that in the Renaissance (which began much earlier than the 17th century) there was a revival of Greek and Roman thought, this largely due to the fact that ancient manuscripts came in to Europe through trade routes, travellers returning from the Crusades etc. etc. In these texts are many references to what we would call 'alchemy',

Robert,

A disappointing response. I cannot say that astrology was the principle subject revived in the early Renaissance, but I can say the revived study of astrology stablized crop production & enabled trans-oceanic voyages, through its ability to forecast weather, along with everything else. (How do you think the Old Farmers do it, year after year?) As foolhardy as I think he was, Columbus would never have set sail if he hadn't the astrology to avoid mid-Atlantic hurricanes. By contrast, alchemy has no such immediate use. If we strip it of its practical side, it would appeal only to academics.

I have heard it said that Newton wrote one million words on alchemy, most or all of it in Latin, which implies he intended to publish it, or perhaps actually did. He wrote more on alchemy than on any other single subject. Modern biographies of Newton, and Galileo, Kepler, Tycho Brahe and all the other early scientists (almost without exception) are carefully edited to keep us in ignorance of who these people really were. What's a million words here or there? Suppose that all we knew of Beethoven were his bagatelles, and violin & cello sonatas?

Due to a combination of factors, a modern revival of what is known as "practical alchemy" started in France around 1970. Significant secondary processes have been recovered. There is much still to relearn. The nature of the study tends to force its students into secrecy, but in any case, imagine if, for most of a century, all music were lost. How long would it take, do you imagine, to go from Row, Row, Row Your Boat, to the Ninth?

The study of Mozart's strange life is only one area where radical revision may produce interesting results. In my field, we are now eagerly resetting & republishing the early English texts, and translating the old Latin treatises. As a result, astrology has been revolutionized in just the last 15 years - a fact completely unknown outside the community & almost unknown inside it. The same attention to Newton's unknown work would doubtless produce many astonishing discoveries.

Dave

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 01-29-2006).]

Announcement

Mozart and the Pope!

Mozart and the Pope!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment