Rough Notes on the Life and Career of Mozart

[Frank H]

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your detailed and interesting reply.

Although at the present I find many of your assertions very hard to believe, I am interested to see whether or not you, and others, can back up these claims.

I admit to having a marked initial resistance to the "conspiracy theory" type rewriting of history. That is because I have been heavily involved in three fields of study - archaeology/history, biology, and theology - which have been especially heavily infested with such theories. Many of these theories originate from people with very defective understanding of the basic principles of scientific research (and history is, or ought to be, a science). They often tend to rail against what they see as the "establishment" in their particular field of study, who they accuse of being overly conservative.

Whatever the case, I believe it is quite right to adopt, as a starting position, an attitude of scepticism to new theories, or revivals of old theories. Otherwise science/history just gets blown all over the place by the latest idea. If students of literature had accepted all the theories as to who, if not Shakespeare, actually wrote "Shakespeare's" plays, we would be in a complete mess. So, until anyone comes up with conclusive evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that indeed these plays were written by William Shakespeare.

However I do believe that most theories, even the most seemingly "heretical", deserve a fair hearing. There are quite a number of cases of theories originally dismissed as cranky which are now generally accepted - continental drift, the KT asteroid impact and the end of dinosaurs (except for birds - the descent of which from dinosaurs, originally a "heretical" theory, is now generally accepted), evolution of species, and so on.

For myself, I have always been open, I hope, to being persuaded to change my mind. In my youth, I was almost an atheist, but I am now a convinced Christian, and thus a theist (but still believing in evolution, as indeed many Christians do). As far as music is concerned, I was formerly much more drawn to music of the late Romantic era, especially Sibelius and Brahms. Now I find myself appreciating more the music of Beethoven, Haydn, and, especially, Mozart, whoever wrote it. Incidentally, I detect a strong stylistic uniformity to the works I think of as by Mozart, and to the works I think of as by Haydn, which is related to, but generally distinct from the Mozart style. Your theories about the origin of these works will have to deal with this in a convincing way.

Robert, would you mind if I mentioned your ideas on the MozartForum site? I am interested as to how members of that forum would view your theories. (Perhaps you've already done so, but I haven't been a member of that forum for very long, so wouldn't know if you had).

Regards,

Frank
(London South Bank University)

[Frank H]

[quote]Originally posted by Droell:

Originally posted by Frank H:



Robert, as I'm new to this forum, can I ask: How much of the music attributed to Mozart do you claim was not written by him?

Regards,

Frank
(London South Bank University)



I'm not Robert Newman, but the subject interests me. Considering Mozart's age when he died, considering his unsettled life, and then comparing him in a general sense to other prolific composers (J.S. Bach, Teleman, Vivaldi, etc.), I would guess that about one third of the 626 are actually Mozart's. I am eager to see scholarship in this area. In this anniversary year, there will probably be several surprises.

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 02-14-2006).]

Droell, if you are suggesting that the historical Mozart couldn't have been as prolific in the time he had on earth, for reasons of physical impossibility, I must beg to disagree.

There are quite a few examples of prodigious production. I'll mention Agatha Christie, the crime novelist, and Enid Blyton, the children's writer. Both produced amazing amounts of stuff during their lifetime - so much that it's difficult to believe they had time to do anything else but write. As music, like mathematics, is a subject which, for a genius, can be relatively easy, I can actually believe better the output of prodigious composers than of writers. Yet I have little doubt that Christie and Blyton did write all the stuff attributed to them.

Having said that, I notice that you don't take Robert Newman's more extreme position. The attribution of many works in the time of Mozart has never been entirely clear cut - and individual works have been re-assigned. For instance, what was known as Mozart Symphony #37 K444, is now accepted to be by Michael Haydn, with Mozart only providing a slow introduction. The "Toy Symphony", formerly attributed to Joseph Haydn, is now accepted as a work by Leopold Mozart. The "Jena Symphony", sometimes attributed to Beethoven, is now known to be by Witt. And so on.

However it is noticeable that these are all relatively minor works, none of which were regarded as good examples of the work of their formerly wrongly assigned composers. For Robert Newman's theories, or even your much more conservative one, to be proved, will need very good evidence, since what is being proposed is a rewriting of history of titanic proportions.

Regards

Frank

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Frank H:
Dear Robert,
Robert, would you mind if I mentioned your ideas on the MozartForum site? I am interested as to how members of that forum would view your theories. (Perhaps you've already done so, but I haven't been a member of that forum for very long, so wouldn't know if you had).

Regards,

Frank
(London South Bank University)

Robert, I've just used the search engine on the MozartForum site, and realise that you have indeed aired your views on that site. So, I'll just continue to read your posts on this site.

Regards,

Frank
(London South Bank University)

[robert newman]

No doubt the popular version of Mozart and his life has become something of a cultural icon of western civilization and even perhaps, a sort of 'secular religion'. But in both cases the actual facts come second with the Mozarteum occupying that place where we would otherwise have theologians or potentates. There are the faithful, the 'illuminated' and there are heretics. There are crusades, pilgrimages, relics, authorities, censures, bans, potentates and anniversaries. One looks next for canonisation.

Now, all this is very well if you want 300 lumps of sugar in your tea. But 200 years later, with so many cracks and contradictions in the 'official' version of this man's life and career (particularly with an entire year being given to idolising this man in virtually all forms of the global art media) I think one can surely tolerate the fact that there is integrity in contrary efforts to get to the real truth.

As for Mozartforum - they believe I am guilty of 'dimishing Mozart's legacy' and am a heretic of some kind. (Rather like Professor Taboga). How unfortunate that a section of this prize-winning site was not created that would at least allow modern criticism to be its main feature.

Thus, with all the trappings of a secular religion, Mozart lurches in to yet another festival despite the remarkable discovery of much evidence that contradicts its underlying assumptions.

It must be, of course, that civilizations cannot exist without myths, secular miracles, heroes and villains and, in this respect, one cannot be and is hardly surprised. But the 'Mozart effect'has even been said to raise the intellect of babies, to produce greater yields for tomato farmers, and to more than justify what others cruelly call such idolatry.

If it was not that such nonsense had real cost on the careers and achievements of other far less celebrated composers I would not be sure as I now am of the justice of what is now being done.

Mozart and Haydn were cultivated and sustained as 'brand names' as is clearly shown in the massive number of misattributions of their works and in the huge discrepancies that exist in their lives and 'official' works. They were the 18th century musical equivalent of 'Nike' or 'Adidas' and their existence was not simply created behind the scenes but also sustained by those who profited from the glory that it brought to them. I will go even further - Mozart and Haydn were a Jesuit 'thank you' to the Habsburgs for allowing their Order to continue in German speaking lands despite their official ban from Rome in 1773. This, I believe, is an entirely sustainable viewpoint that finds the increasing support of documentary and other evidence.

Regards

Robert

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

It must be, of course, that civilizations cannot exist without myths, secular miracles, heroes and villains and, in this respect, one cannot be and is hardly surprised. But the 'Mozart effect'has even been said to raise the intellect of babies, to produce greater yields for tomato farmers, and to more than justify what others cruelly call such idolatry.

If it was not that such nonsense had real cost on the careers and achievements of other far less celebrated composers I would not be sure as I now am of the justice of what is now being done.

Mozart and Haydn were cultivated and sustained as 'brand names' as is clearly shown in the massive number of misattributions of their works and in the huge discrepancies that exist in their lives and 'official' works. They were the 18th century musical equivalent of 'Nike' or 'Adidas' and their existence was not simply created behind the scenes but also sustained by those who profited from the glory that it brought to them. I will go even further - Mozart and Haydn were a Jesuit 'thank you' to the Habsburgs for allowing their Order to continue in German speaking lands despite their official ban from Rome in 1773. This, I believe, is an entirely sustainable viewpoint that finds the increasing support of documentary and other evidence.

Regards

Robert

Robert, all you say about "the popular version of Mozart and his life" becoming a "cultural icon of western life" may well be at least partly true, and I'm even prepared to take on board your assertion of Mozart and Haydn as "brand names". But that is a very long way from proving your thesis, or indeed that of Professor Taboga.

Misattributions of works were commonplace at the time, as I pointed out in my reply to another poster.

As I said, in my involvement with archaeology, history, biology etc. I have come across numerous such "conspiracy theories". Now, I have to say that nearly all of them prove to be nonsense, at least in the way their protagonists present them. This doesn't lead to me to dismiss any further such out of hand, as there is always the possibility that the next theory might be one of the very small proportion which turn out to be true.

In the end, what is needed is evidence which is not only both credible and irrefutable, but of a type which can be tested scientifically. I find that nearly all conspiracy theorists fall down on the latter. Many of their arguments tend to be of the sort that make assertions, and then challenge their "opponents" to prove them wrong. Of course, in most cases their assertion is of a sort which cannot be so "proved" wrong, so the conspiracy theorists then claim that their theory is proven as correct.

A good example is the assertion by certain "Afrocentric scholars" that Beethoven was of partly black ancestry. Of course nobody can prove with certainty that he wasn't - so the Afrocentrists then claim that this shows that he must have been black, and that only a conspiracy of white musicologists and other academics have hidden this "fact" from common knowledge! Anyone with knowledge of the principles of scientific reasoning will realise the futility of this sort of argument - and yet it is so common among conspiracy theorists.

Another common tactic is to misquote evidence, or to take it out of context - I've come across superb examples of this in my time - or to quote evidence which is highly dubious (to put it mildly), and even I'm afraid, made up. The commonest tactic of all is to concentrate on the evidence which might support the theory, while ignoring much stronger evidence which would oppose it. This is because most conspiracy theorists don't have the instincts of truly scientific scholars and detectives - which is what they often claim to be. They are much more similar to lawyers who are defence advocates in court, who of course argue to get their clients acquitted, even if they are probably guilty.

The theory you support may indeed be the honourable exception to this, but I hope you understand why I am initially rather cautious about accepting yet another claim to so immensely change a part of history, without much further evidence.

Incidentally, the claims that the "Mozart effect" raises the intelligence of babies etc. refer to the effect of the music, and thus have no bearing as to the authorship of the music, either way.

Regards,

Frank
(London South Bank University)

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

If, perhaps a decade or so ago, you were somehow involved in ideas that involved a conspiracy you would have regarded this as some sort of insult to your intellect. Conspiracy theories were for those who (as you suggest) were interested only in evidence supportive of their presumptions, rather than the whole body of evidence. But times have changed.

They have changed things because it now becomes abundantly clear that conspiracy is (and always was) the means by which powers and authorities operated to sustain and even to increase their own status within society. It is no exaggeration to say that in war time decisions are made to which the average citizen is not party, and that conspiracies have existed in the 18th century as they have existed throughout human history.

I am therefore not afraid of saying that in many areas of academic study we have suffered from conspiracy theorists, just as we have also profited from their insights. A person who notes that an organisation has existed which has had immense impact on European society (such as, for example, the Jesuit Order), and which has, in this same time, been virtually the definition of education in Europe (supposedly), yet which has, at the same time, been banned by the Papacy yet which has maintained its status to the present time despite the dismantling of its external power (as did the Jesuits) can hardly be denied to have continued its activities in this area - music - during the period we call that of the 'Wiener Klassik'.

May I suggest (for your own benefit as much as my own) that you skim through some of the quite bulky threads on these issues which already exist on this forum, so as to become more aware of how much ground has been covered on this issue of Mozart, his career, and evidence suggestive of other views of late ?

For, as things stand, we have not exchanged views to date and it may be that you and I would profit from having had some understanding of each others respective views.

I appreciate that to overturn deeply entrenched views (based as they are on certain assumptions)- particularly those which show every evidence of having been cultured, protected and even presented as 'fact' are the sort most difficult to overthrow. But in this case, the issues are quite simple. They are, simply, whether the available evidence supports the version of Haydn and Mozart's career that we find in textbooks or whether, in fact, it better supports the view that the careers and the reputations of those two musicians were nurtured, manipulated, altered and made to conform to a predetermined plan - one which (despite it being popular and even repeated a million times) is no more sustainable now than it ever was.

That Haydn and Mozart were talented musicians is not in doubt. What is being said here is that behind the scenes their ouput was being manipulated and that the 'official' record is plain wrong in so many areas that it has robbed us of reality and of giving credit where it properly belongs.

If you can tell me you have read this material and would still like to discuss specific issues, please feel free to say so and I will always be, as ever, willing to share my findings with your very own.

Yours sincerely

Robert Newman

[Droell]

[quote]Originally posted by Frank H:

As music, like mathematics, is a subject which, for a genius, can be relatively easy, I can actually believe better the output of prodigious composers than of writers. Yet I have little doubt that Christie and Blyton did write all the stuff attributed to them....

Having said that, I notice that you don't take Robert Newman's more extreme position.
However it is noticeable that these are all relatively minor works, none of which were regarded as good examples of the work of their formerly wrongly assigned composers. For Robert Newman's theories, or even your much more conservative one, to be proved, will need very good evidence, since what is being proposed is a rewriting of history of titanic proportions....

Regards

Frank

Hello Frank,

Prodigious people tend to be sedentary. They live to work. Here in the US, a single man has been producing a two hour, weekly radio show, writing the entire thing himself, since 1975. He once "retired" to live in Denmark but came back a year or two later because he didn't know what to do with himself. His name is Garrison Keillor.

Schubert is credited with nearly a thousand compositions, the bulk of them songs, yet died age 29. Of his various symphonies, the Unfinished is a serious, complex work. The others - including the 9th - are comparatively simple. Schubert lived, worked & died in Vienna.

Aside from Mr. Newman pointing out what should be obvious, I really gave up on the Mozart myth when I heard he wrote a five hour opera at age 14. Mozart fans will know which one. (Presumably Mitriadate.) At fourteen the brain simply isn't mature enough to withstand that kind of pressure, even if the soul behind it is capable. (Apologies for the metaphysics.)

And it's not that it's "easy". On the level of Beethoven & Mozart & Schubert, of course writing music is easy. That's exactly the problem. Easy is not a challenge. Schubert wrote hundreds of easy pieces, but many of them were songs dashed off in a single evening. The 8th symphony was a challenge. Undertaking it was an act of maturity. It was a promise for the future. It is evidence that he saw Beethoven as a peer to be challenged, not as a god to be worshipped.

Beethoven, for his part, scorned his early works precisely because they sounded sweet (the septet, op. 20) but posed no challenge to him as a composer. He then spent 15 years writing descriptive music, then found himself in a trap and almost gave up music altogether.

All the more the paradox of Mozart. If writing music for him was simple, what was the challenge? Why should he have bothered? But if Mozart did find a way to make it challenging, how did he manage the volume?

I'm not saying that what Mozart did was impossible, but that it is hard to credit. Many of us on this board can go down the list of Beethoven's opus numbers, calling each movement of each one to mind. (Far too many can do that with his Wo.O.'s!) Who can truthfully do that with each of Mozart's 626? There is a lot of stuff attributed to Mozart that remains virtually unknown. Re-evaluation, piece by piece, is a massive project. I, for one, want Mozart as a man, not as a god. Just as I want Beethoven as a man, not a god.

As for being more conservative than Mr. Newman, you might have spoken too soon. Robert got me to thinking & as a result, I can no longer believe that Mozart died (of tuberculosis, so said the examiner) on 5 December 1791, as is commonly believed. I am convinced he faked his death & escaped, perhaps to live in London, perhaps still alive as late as 1820. I am convinced that should investigation be made, evidence of his continued existence will be found. But that was another thread. It ended, if memory serves, with pork chops. Delicious!

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Frank,

If, perhaps a decade or so ago, you were somehow involved in ideas that involved a conspiracy you would have regarded this as some sort of insult to your intellect. Conspiracy theories were for those who (as you suggest) were interested only in evidence supportive of their presumptions, rather than the whole body of evidence. But times have changed.

They have changed things because it now becomes abundantly clear that conspiracy is (and always was) the means by which powers and authorities operated to sustain and even to increase their own status within society. It is no exaggeration to say that in war time decisions are made to which the average citizen is not party, and that conspiracies have existed in the 18th century as they have existed throughout human history.

May I suggest (for your own benefit as much as my own) that you skim through some of the quite bulky threads on these issues which already exist on this forum, so as to become more aware of how much ground has been covered on this issue of Mozart, his career, and evidence suggestive of other views of late ?

For, as things stand, we have not exchanged views to date and it may be that you and I would profit from having had some understanding of each others respective views.

If you can tell me you have read this material and would still like to discuss specific issues, please feel free to say so and I will always be, as ever, willing to share my findings with your very own.

Dear Robert,

Many thanks for your courteous reply.

However, I don't think things have changed in the last decade or so in the way you describe, at least not as radically as you think, and not always for the reason you suggest.

The fact is that conspiracy theories, as well as "heretical" theories (not exactly the same category, but many theories which belong to one of these categories also belong to the other) have been very popular with many in the general public for a long time. Hence the widespread popularity of the books of such as Graham Hancock, Erich von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, Michael Baigent, and many, many more. I would add Dan Brown to the list. Although his book “the Da Vinci Code” was published as a novel, i.e. a work of fiction, many people seem to think that it is a factual enquiry into truths hidden by a powerful conspiracy, with the Opus Dei playing the part which, for example, the Vatican, freemasonry, the oil business, the pharmaceutical industry, international communism, the Jews, international Islam, white racists, black power, China, Israel, the USA, the political correctness movement, left wingers, right wingers, etc.etc.etc., and yes even the Jesuits, play in various other conspiracy theories. Of course, since the Da Vinci Code business took off, Dan Brown has been less than open about what he really thinks about the “truth” of the book. To admit that it is only a book of fiction would take a lot off the future sales of the book and other Da Vinci Code related items.

However I don’t accuse all, or even most, of the conspiracy and “heretical” theorists of being money-grabbers. I certainly don’t accuse you of this, as I’m not aware that you’ve made money out of your views. No, I do believe that most such theorists do believe their theories quite honestly. However in many cases it may be more of a case of wish fulfilment – some Italians for example might wish to believe that Mozart’s music was actually composed by Italians, just as some blacks wish to believe that Beethoven was black. Needless to say, I am not attributing any such motive to yourself, as I have no reason to believe that you are Italian.

I further agree with you that actual conspiracies of the powerful do exist, and always have – we can actually observe the rudiments of this at work in the societies of some of our primate relatives (chimps, baboons etc.). But the fact that conspiracies exist does not mean that all theories about them are thereby proven right. I can accept that, for example, freemasonry has often acted as a power conspiracy – indeed I can quote an example known to myself (I’m not a freemason, by the way), while not believing, or at least reserving judgment, on many of the theories about freemasonry’s supposed influence in various parts of the world at various times. Similarly with regard to the Jesuits, Opus Dei, the Vatican etc.etc.

In regard to the “heretical” side of this alternative theory business, I note that the word “heretical” is these days actually a term of praise. It represents the romantic free-thinker opposing the stuffy hidebound thinking of whatever particular “establishment” he/she is rebelling against.

However the fact that conspiracy theorists and “heretics” may have many points in their favour, does not mean that they are thereby right in their major conclusions. Indeed my conclusion in the fields in which I have had detailed knowledge and experience is that the vast majority are grossly mistaken. However the very small proportion (probably of the order of considerably less than one in a thousand) which prove to be right are VERY important, since it is so often they who change the course of thinking in a particular discipline. Which is why I am usually prepared to at least consider any “new” theory, however heretical it might be. (I only put in “usually” rather than "always" because I would not be prepared to consider a totally absurd theory – such as that the earth really is flat, and only illusionists, working of course with the power establishment, have persuaded us that it isn’t).

As regards the issue of Mozart and his music, I have never subscribed to the entirety of the “Mozart myth”, as you and Droell might put it, and would indeed be surprised if it took in any intelligent and educated people, apart from those occupied with promoting a Mozart industry. While I am sure he was an infant prodigy, I don’t automatically believe all the stories about what he was doing at the age of five, for example. I suspect that quite a few of his juvenile compositions were, at the very least, “tidied up” by his father. I am sure that there have over the years been many works attributed to him which are by others – as is the case with many other composers. Many of these have been shown to be spurious by musicologists working in a methodical and scientific manner.

Myths and legends have grown up around Mozart, as around most great historical personages. But the vast majority of scholarly musicologists and music historians still believe that he wrote most of the works attributed to him, including all the really great works. As I am not a musicologist, I do have of course to take this partly on trust. But as I believe that musicologists and music historians are, as a group, no more, or less, gullible or dishonest, than are, say, biologists, archaeologists, physicists etc., I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt – unless I am given very good reason to do otherwise.

The fact that you refer to “quite bulky threads” fills me with some unease – and not just because I have little time to wade through a lot of material. I’m afraid it has been my experience that many conspiracy and heretical theorists like to build up large amounts of material – the internet has made this much easier – so that they can then accuse their opponents of not being bothered with their arguments. But in those cases where heretical views have proved themselves as right, and been accepted as such, this has always come about as a result of a very few pieces of compelling evidence. Of course, much more “evidence” can often be presented, but it is of a sort which is either unnecessary, or, more importantly, require that the few bits of core, compelling, evidence be valid to have any value themselves. So, as regards the authorship of Mozart’s works, could you point me to the core, compelling evidence? Many thanks for your help if you can do so. If I find that this at least doesn’t disintegrate on closer investigation, I would be much more prepared to spend time on the bulk of the material.

Robert, I have absolutely no vested interest in maintaining the accepted viewpoint on Mozart. As a matter of fact, for reasons I won’t go into here, Austria is one of my least favourite European countries, and Salzburg one of my least favourite cities. It wouldn’t bother me personally if Mozart’s works did prove to be written by Luchesi, any more than it would bother me if Beethoven were proven to be partly black. But, as I see at present no credible evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe that Beethoven was a “white” German, of partly Flemish, and perhaps Spanish, ancestry, and that most of the works attributed to W.A. Mozart were actually his work, until I see compelling evidence to the contrary.

Regards and Best Wishes,

Frank

(looking briefly at a different thread, it doesn’t surprise me at all that so many letters from or to Mozart are missing – I find it rather more surprising that so many survive)

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
Hello Frank,

Prodigious people tend to be sedentary.

Not always true. Of the two ladies I mentioned, Agatha Christie spent a lot of time travelling in the Middle East, as she was married to the archaeologist Sir Max Mallowan. I know little about Enid Blyton’s travels, but I do know she was a very busy person in her private life.

Aside from Mr. Newman pointing out what should be obvious, I really gave up on the Mozart myth when I heard he wrote a five hour opera at age 14. Mozart fans will know which one. (Presumably Mitriadate.) At fourteen the brain simply isn't mature enough to withstand that kind of pressure, even if the soul behind it is capable. (Apologies for the metaphysics.)

And it's not that it's "easy". On the level of Beethoven & Mozart & Schubert, of course writing music is easy. That's exactly the problem. Easy is not a challenge. Schubert wrote hundreds of easy pieces, but many of them were songs dashed off in a single evening. The 8th symphony was a challenge. Undertaking it was an act of maturity. It was a promise for the future. It is evidence that he saw Beethoven as a peer to be challenged, not as a god to be worshipped.

Beethoven, for his part, scorned his early works precisely because they sounded sweet (the septet, op. 20) but posed no challenge to him as a composer. He then spent 15 years writing descriptive music, then found himself in a trap and almost gave up music altogether.

All the more the paradox of Mozart. If writing music for him was simple, what was the challenge? Why should he have bothered? But if Mozart did find a way to make it challenging, how did he manage the volume?

As for being more conservative than Mr. Newman, you might have spoken too soon. Robert got me to thinking & as a result, I can no longer believe that Mozart died (of tuberculosis, so said the examiner) on 5 December 1791, as is commonly believed. I am convinced he faked his death & escaped, perhaps to live in London, perhaps still alive as late as 1820. I am convinced that should investigation be made, evidence of his continued existence will be found. But that was another thread. It ended, if memory serves, with pork chops. Delicious!

As regards the “Mozart myth”, does anyone who is intelligent and educated buy into it entirely? But because I have great doubts about, for example, what he was supposed to have done when he was five, doesn’t thereby cause me to conclude that he didn’t write the opera “The Marriage of Figaro”. This is one way of "argument" in which I must part company, in this and other matters of historical/scientific/theological interest with a great many of the proposers and supporters of various alternative theories of a “heretical” nature (as I pointed out in my reply to Robert, “heretical” is usually a favourable epithet these days).

Writing a five hour opera at the age of 14 seems certainly a part of the myth which is just that – myth. Here again, it has no bearing on the subject of the authorship of Symphony #40 in g minor K550, or any other work.

Incidentally I wouldn’t be prepared to dismiss all the stories about Mozart’s childhood achievements out of hand, although I am sure they have been exaggerated. Music and mathematics are the prime two fields in which infant prodigies definitely do exist, and there is no doubt that Mozart was an infant prodigy – I think even Robert would concede that. Incidentally the two talents are often linked. It’s no surprise that Mozart is reported to have been good at mathematics.

As for “challenge”, I’m afraid I don’t get your point. In any field there are some who are always looking for a challenge. There are others who are not always so concerned. And even the avid challenge-seekers may sometimes be forced to swallow their pride and produce easy hackwork, because they need the cash.

Sibelius, one of my favourite composers, is a case in point. His best work (the symphonies, and some of the tone poems) is marvellous – almost “supernaturally” so, in my opinion. But most Sibelians would accept that he also churned out a lot of inferior stuff. He did it for the money, which he actually required rather less than he might otherwise have done, as he received a generous stipend from the Finnish government so that he didn’t have to divert himself from composing.

As regards Mozart, neither I nor you can really know what he found challenging or not. There are things which I find relatively easy, lecturing on some aspects of biology and archaeology, and preaching sermons, for instance. I could churn these out quite fast if required, and have done so. But I still regard them as a challenge, and well worth doing. So I don’t accept your supposed “paradox”, although I’m more prepared to accept it as a “paradox” than as a “contradiction”.

I describe you as more “conservative” than Mr. Newman, because you seem to accept that Mozart did at least write a substantial proportion of the works attributed to him – whereas Robert seems to believe that it was virtually all the work of others. That’s all that really interests me here. As to his death or otherwise, I’m afraid I have to put your ideas in the same category as those which have Elvis still alive, or Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and dying in Kashmir.

Best Wishes,

Frank

Addendum. I mentioned the connection between music, mathematics, and infant prodigies. Here is an interesting case, which also involves mythmaking about an important historical figure. I had heard a remarkable story about the German mathematician Gauss, who was an infant prodigy.

Carl Friedrich Gauss (Gauß) (April 30, 1777 – February 23, 1855) was a German mathematician and scientist of profound genius who contributed significantly to many fields, including number theory, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, magnetism, astronomy and optics. (from Wikipedia)

The story I had been told goes as follows:

According to legend, his gifts became apparent at the age of three when he corrected, in his head, an error his father had made on paper while calculating finances. Another story has it that in elementary school his teacher tried to occupy pupils by making them add up the integers from 1 to 100. The young Gauss produced the correct answer within seconds by a flash of mathematical insight, to the astonishment of all. Gauss had realized that pairwise addition of terms from opposite ends of the list yielded identical intermediate sums: 1 + 100 = 101, 2 + 99 = 101, 3 + 98 = 101, and so on, for a total sum of 50 × 101 = 5050. (Wikipedia)

However it appears that “While the story is mostly true, the problem assigned by Gauss's teacher was actually a more difficult one.”

Peter Ross (Professor of Mathematics) writes: “Are mathematicians justified in bending historical truth in order to serve laudable aims, such as illustrating that mathematicians are real people or interesting students in mathematics? Another example of this tendency concerns the famous story of Gauss's discovery as a ten- year old boy of a simple method for summing an arithmetic series. (Multiply the number of terms by the average of the smallest and largest terms.) Most mathematicians who teach will assert that the problem given to Gauss by his tyrannical school teacher was to sum the integers from 1 to 100. In fact, Gauss was given a more difficult problem "of the following sort, 81297 + 81495 + 81693 +... + l00899, where the step from one number to the next is the same all along (here 198), and a given number of terms (here 100) are to be added." (p. 221 of E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, 1937). With this particular example it's easy to maintain historical truth by telling students that Gauss was given a problem like summing the integers from 1 to 100.”

So the story I heard about Gauss was untrue – a myth. I am sure that someone who wished to “prove” that Gauss was actually a fraud, who filched his ideas from others, would use the fact that this story is a myth to support their case. In fact, as Peter Ross points out, the myth actually understates Gauss’s achievement as a ten year old. It does so of course in order to make the story more understandable to the general public.

[robert newman]

Frank,

Thank you for your letter. I'd like to begin where you ended. You say it isn't unusual that many letters of the Mozart family are missing. Yes, I did say this myself. But what is very unusual is that they are missing for entire sections of Mozart's life. (I did give examples of this).

On the bigger issue of conspiracy, yes, I entirely agree with what you say. I even agree that what is generally believed about an issue should be taught unless we have grounds for teaching otherwise. In this sense I am no more of a 'conspiracy theorist' than you are. But if we look more closely at chapters in human history we would be wise to appreciate that plots and hidden agendas have featured very greatly in human affairs. I could point to the 'Gunpowder Plot' during the time of Guy Fawkes, to the circumstances surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbour in the Second World War, or to the long history of intelligence gathering and spying, of surveillance and 'big government' in general. There are those who believe that the official report on 9/11 is itself the product of a conspiracy, just as there are those who believe that tragedy was caused by an irrate Arab with a mobile phone hiding in some Middle Eastern cave. In short, we cannot be conditioned to rule out the plain fact that rulers and authorities have acted and still do act largely without the knowledge of the electorate or without explaining of justifying why they do as they do. The same is true of international bankers, of elitist groups etc. And it will no doubt be so for as long as humans exist.

The history of the Jesuits is of course a long one. Nobody denies that they were/are a 'military order' - i.e. that they were founded as virtual shock troops of a 'Counter Reformation' to counteract the huge impact that the Reformation had. Nowhere more so than in German speaking lands. Nor would anyone deny their huge loss when, in 1773 (even earlier in France and Spain) they were dissolved by no less a person than the Pope himself. The results of this dissolution were catastrophic to the Jesuit Order and had immense impact on the area in which the Jesuits had gained enormous status - that of academic study. It is also appreciated that in a conservative country like Austria the biggest critics to the reform programme then underway were the Jesuits themselves. But, from around 1773 onwards it was tacitly agreed that the Jesuits would not be harrassed. In fact, they largely remained within society, taking up roles close to (and even sometimes the very same) as they always had.

But there was still great friction within Austria. Partly because the Emperor was head of a secular empire but also because he, Joseph 2nd, was also emperor of the 'Holy Roman Empire'. (Salzburg was no part of the first empire at this time, but it was certainly part of the second). The Jesuits quickly realised that despite being allowed to go without arrest they were losing status. And Joseph's 'enlightened despotism' was more and more resisted by conservative elements in Austria. By 1783 Joseph believed the solution was to form a national church - disagreeing, if necessary, with the pope himself. Again, this made tensions between the government and the Catholic church. For the Jesuits things had gone too far.

But right across Europe things were changing and Joseph knew that reform was vital if there was to be no revolution in Austria. Add to this the gradual emergence of a middle class society, republicanism, the emergence of the USA, Freemasonry, secularisation, etc etc. - it's not difficult to see that the Jesuits feared the complete collapse of the Holy Roman Empire was close at hand. (As it was).

So (in this area of art and music) they made a deal. They would remain hugely influential in developing Austrian supremacy in things musical. That is why Vienna was filled with composers whose education had been Jesuit- based. I believe too that is the true context within which we can appreciate the emergence of the so-called 1st Vienna school, represented by Joseph Haydn and, slightly later, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It did not really matter if dozens of symphonies had actually been written for Haydn by Sammartini, or if Luchesi in Bonn was supplying Mozart. Such things were fine, provided, of course, that they did not become general knowledge. As a public relations exercise the tours of the Mozarts and of Haydn were hugely successful. They brought badly needed prestige to an Austria who had repeatedly failed militarily. If the Jesuits infiltrated Freemasonry to create the 'Illuminati', this too was fine. And, up until the death of Joseph 2nd in 1790 the prospects of revolution were surely lessened by the fame and honour that came from Vienna being the 'city of music'.

Of course it's not strictly speaking a conspiracy that large parts of Mozart's story are really manufactured. Nor is it a conspiracy that much of Haydn's story is just as contrived. That great music was obtained and the world first heard it in the name of 'Mozart' and in the name of 'Haydn'. Even a Requiem scene was invented in which Mozart was rehearsing the piece on the day before his untimely death. Great propaganda. And hugely successful too, right across German speaking lands.

You ask for specific facts. Well, can you name a composer (other than Haydn and Mozart) who have been credited with double the number of symphonies which are today attributed to them ? Do you know of any example in music history where dozens of symphonies are attributed to a composer on the word of another person ? Can you imagine a situation where Mozart, travelling thousands of miles by stagecoach across Europe as a child, meeting with dignitaries, fighting bouts of illness, performing tricks at the keyboard, writing letters, going about such a whirlwind existence, can find the time to write in those same years the hundreds of works credited to him (many of them on no other credible grounds than those given by his father) ? Or can you imagine a situation where, as a young man, this 'wunderkind' has still not yet, somehow, managed to write for himself concertos for the very instrument that brought him and his sister such fame across Europe ?

In all this travel did he sell his works ? Which symphony of his was in demand ? And which was snapped up by enterprising music publishers ? In the 'scientific' reports from observers such as Daines Barrington in London or in Switzerland, we have accounts of Mozart performing what are really musical circus tricks. He can play works with a cloth over the keyboard. He can build himself up to a rage on demand. He can improvise and sight read with great skill. Yes, but can he, does he, justify the claim that he was an amazing composer ? I submit that he provides virtually no evidence of such a capacity. This fact is surely indisputable. And yet, carefully protected by his father, the story becomes fact that Mozart virtually wrote symphonies for breakfast, a mass for lunch, or an opera for dinner.

It is sobering to reflect that this bandwaggon ground to a halt at Vienna in 1768 Vienna when, after months in Salzburg, singers and managers for an opera commission 'by Mozart' were convinced the piece he sumbitted them had actually been ghost-written for him. But Leopold, stung in to action, wrote directly to the Emperor in complaint with a huge list of Wolfgang's supposed compositions till then. (This occurred when Mozart was 12).

The Mozart story is so charming that it can sometimes seem churlish to criticise it. But it has only just begun by the time he becomes a teenager. A detailed study of his letters shows us a quite different sort of person. He claims no close relationship to the Abbe Vogler - a man who was as decorated as he by the Pope in Rome. In fact, Mozart goes out of his way to dismiss him repeatedly as a charlatan. The fact that Vogler was a pianist compared only with the great Beethoven is marginalised. We must believe now that Mozart is right - that this older man whose music theory was accepted right across Europe is 'incompetent' in composition and also in his playing. Dozens of absurd claims of this sort pepper the correspondence. But one of the functions of the surviving letters is surely to divert our attention away from the very people who supposedly hated him, or those whom he, Mozart, is said to have hated. Peter de Winter, a man who had by 1781 written no less than 30 operas, was 'jealous' of Mozart. (And how many times do we see this word in the Mozart correspondence ?). In actual fact, the first few years of Mozart's Vienna career are heavily focused on the piano concertos - these, strangely, edited and even written down for him in Salzburg.

In the period from 1784 onwards (i.e. up until the time of his death in December 1791) the thematic catalogue presents us with what seems like a categorical statement of his own compositions. The 9 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena suggest something quite different. They suggest that, as with his infancy and his youth, so in his maturity the fame and prestige of Mozart was as much due to shady deals as ever.

It would not suprise me in the least if the 'Marriage of Figaro' was not, in fact, written by Mozart. It does not surprise me too that the score of the 'Magic Flute' is recorded as having been sent to Bonn by Mozart himself before its first performance in order that orchestration could be completed by 'someone' there. Nor that Haydn took great interest in rehearsals to 'Cosi fan Tutte'.

These things take time. But so great is the status of Mozart that the very act of questioning basic assumptions can sometimes bring offence.

I think this is an ongoing an wholly responsible task and I'm pleased to be a part of it. To me, the focus is now on the works of his mature, Vienna, years.

I respect the fact that you remain with the majority view in attributing these works to their traditional composer. You are absolutely right that nothing but firm evidence can change our views. Of course that's completely correct.

Regards

Robert