Beethoven 'Pastoral' Symphony - Berlioz Comments

[robert newman]

Some scraps.

1. It's a strange coincidence but in two different cases a non-musical person has great significance in the history of music at this time. Both lived in Vienna and both had the same job title.

Firstly, Alexander Straton - Secretary to the British Legation in Vienna (credited with helping Joseph Haydn to tour in England and with getting the Edinburgh publisher George Thomson to commission Beethoven and others to publish Scottish, Irish and Welsh folk song arrangements - something Haydn was also commissioned to do). Straton was later a diplomat in Turkey and was in correspondence with Lord Nelson in 1804. Many of Straton's letters are in archives here in England. (He was also in regular correspondence with an English resident of Venice,Italy in the late 1780's).

2. Georg Niklaus Nissen - Secretary to the Danish Legation in Vienna. Just happens to be living in the same building as Constanze Mozart when he meets her. Becomes (eventually) her second husband and assistant for the 'Nissen' biography of Mozart. (Constanze in at least one case adds text to Mozart's letters during the making of the 'Nissen' biography claiming that it was written by Mozart himself. The text reads 'I was surprised by .....' That text definitely does not appear in the original. So, unless Nissen wrote those words posing as 'I' (Mozart) they had to have been written (in Denmark) by Constanze.

3. The German text of the letter received yesterday from Bonn (sent by the University Librarian) refers to the short-lived republic that lasted only a few months in Bonn PRIOR to the French taking over. In connection with the entry for Luchesi she writes -

Sehr geehrter Herr Newman,

in dem "Alphabetischen Verzeichnis der in der kurfürstlichen Residenz-Stadt Bonn wohnenden Freiheitsschwaermer ... DER VERUNGLUECKTEN CISRHENAN REPUBLIK' aus dem Jahr 1798 (Original im Stadtarchiv Bonn unter der Signatur: I e 4) findet sich auf S. 9 folgender Eintrag:
"Luchesi - ehem. kurfürstlicher Kappellen-meister, No 580"

Therefore, I think this indicates that in some way Luchesi's address is connected with an area of Bonn where those associated with the short-lived 'Cisrhenan Republic' were living. Whether this is signficant remains to be seen. That republic lasted less than 3 months. Was an area of Bonn specially reserved for Luchesi at the time when that entry was made ? Why would the entry specifically have refered to that short-lived republic in connection with his address ?

4. F. Reis was also one of the members of that discrete 'Illuminatist' organisation at Bonn chapel. And HE was Court Notary in 1784. It was Reis who had overall responsibility (not the organist and deputy Neefe) for attributing each item of music to a particular composer - something that clearly did not happen correctly.

5. Since Luchesi was quite happy to go along with writing works for others this explains why no fuss was made about attributions on his return to Bonn some weeks later. Luchesi therefore (bizzarely) contributed to his own anonymity.


RN

[Droell]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hi Peter and Droell,

It remains a mystery, for sure. I am mystified too that William Shakespeare can have written all he did with hardly anyone refering to him during the time he was in London and no reference to his death.

Another can of worms, but this is not the Shakespeare or Francis Bacon blog. (Don't tempt me.)

[Casey]

Okay, Robert Newman said: "The beliefs of 'Illuminatists' have been a source of great speculation. They certainly at this time involved in Germany (starting in Bavaria) the idea of a transition from the old regime to a society more democratic, even one that was more republican. Only later was it realised that the founders of this strange movement were militants who actually believed in a rigidly enforced Catholic Germany. But the architects of the 'Illuminati' did not emphasise this as the real underlying reason for their existence. They were therefore able to recruit people of sometimes very different beliefs)."


Okay, something needs to be said about this: the "illuminati" was not after a Catholic germany. The members of this group and later groups related to the illuminati were largely secularists or Deists who hated Catholicism. Their ideas for a single world government had (has?) nothing to do with Christianity in general, nor Judaism (as people like Hitler claimed). They want to be the rulers, everyone else slaves.

[robert newman]

Dear Casey,

Thanks for your opinion. There is surely no argument that the 'Illuminati' have generated lots of speculation, some of it on the bizzare side of conspiracy theory. I am talking about facts that can be proved from history. The same as I'm sure you are interested in yourself.

You say -

'the members of this group were/are largely secularists or deists who hated Catholicism'.

Initially, yes. But please note that I expressly said that the Illuminati attracted ALL sorts of people including (I agree) people of the kind you describe. But (please note also) I said that the real architects of the Illuminati were militant Catholics. That is why they appeared when they did, in Bavaria, around the time (please note) the Jesuit Order had been so recently banned (1773).

Just a few facts. See if you agree with them.

1. The founder of the Illuminati was Adam Weishaupt.

2. Weishaupt was (just coincidence ?) a Professor of Canon Law. Where ? At the Jesuit College of Ingolstadt

3. The Illuminati inflitrated the freemasons over a wide area. At this time freemasony had attracted a very wide sort of membership and in many cases it offered a place where different classes could engage themselves in all sorts of lawful activities. It was no threat to society. On the contrary.

4. The Illuminati were (in the end) very bad news for the Freemasons. The Emperor Joseph finally realised (around 1785) that they were a real threat to society within the Empire.

I think the Jesuit origin of the Freemasons is surely a simple fact. Nor can it be denied that the republic established in places like Bonn (this prior to the takeover of that city by the Revolutionary French) was largely organised by the Catholic church. This was clearly demonstrated in later years.

The Congress of Vienna (held by the nations of Europe after the downfall of Napoleon) was a time when Europe (much of it) was shaped, politically. But the aims of the Catholic rulers were faithfully reflected at this Conference. That too is a matter of history. The collapse of the Holy Roman Empire was, in actual fact, followed by what came out of the Congress of Vienna.

In this historical sense (I mean the time when Mozart and Beethoven were alive) the 'Illuminati' had great and wide appeal to all sorts of people for a few years. I still believe the evidence strongly suggests that it's architects were indeed the Jesuits. It was their plan to first neutralise society through institutes such as the freemasons. But in the beginning its doctrines were not appreciated. That is why Protestants such as Neefe in Bonn were members. I entirely agree that some of its members may have been opponents of the Catholic Church.

The price of all this (towards 1790) was the absurd destruction of freemasonry in Vienna, the repeal of many of the social reforms introduced by the Emperor Joseph (who died that year), the introduction by his successor of severe censorship of newspapers and publishers, new and very harsh laws against nationalist movements in the Austrian/Hungarian empire, and a return to the bad old days.

The Jesuits had lost power. They realised they were living within a few years of the end of the Holy Roman Empire. Something had to be done. And that 'something' was the invention of the 'Illuminati' movement. That was how they (the banned Jesuits) planned to make their comeback.

If you disagree, fine. I think at least I've sketched a rough outline here and that it's consistent with much evidence. If you disagree, fine.

Best regards

Robert Newman


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-19-2006).]

[Casey]

I do have to disagree. Weishaupt/and the others were more influenced by the Enlightenment than anything about the Catholic Church. Weishaupt had many collisions with Church officials when he was a professor as a result of his ideas. Further, freemasonry posed a threat to society: the more extreme groups of masons wanted to eliminate the Church and of course this would have poses a serious threat to a largely Catholic society.

further, the reasons nationalism was suppressed was because it could tear the Austrian Empire (such as it was) apart: imagine if every nation within the borders of the empire was nationalistic and wanted its own country, that would mean disintegration of the empire (and that is what happened after WWI: the Austro-Hungarian Empire finally fell apart for various reasons, including nationalism. Free press/speech posed a threat to the government, so that had little to do with Catholics being in power. Now, I'm not saying I agree with what the govt. did then and there, but merely pointing out their reasons for doing so. It's really far simpler than a big "Jesuit Conspiracy". The idea of a Jesuit conspiracy goes back to radical Protestants--who were far from peaceful themselves. really no different than Hitler's Jewish plot theory. There is certainly a plan for a "New World Order" and a one world government: but it is not limited to Jews or Catholics or Protestants: rather, it is the plans of greedy wealthy people, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc., some of whom happen to fit into certain groups such as being Jews or what have you.

And in addition, I would argue the illuminati/NWO people have been infiltrating the Catholic Church and other Churches; were largely behind Freemasonry, and this is to extend their power. Much like what the communists did to America in the 2oth century, the threat is not from without but from within: infiltration is their weapon.


You are simplifying this too much in my opinion. It is far more complex than most could realize.

[Ateach Asc]

Hmmm... nice and interesting thread here. I used to dislike the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th movements because they seemed so tedious and lame. Then I had the opportunity to hear Arturo Toscanini's take on this music. And the listening experience became a marvellous musical enjoyment.

Sadly, the 6th is therefore one of these works which requires outstanding conducting in order to be fully enjoyed, unlike most of the other symphonies.

Of interest is that LVB presented the 5th and the 6th at that legendary concert of 22 December 1808. According to some notes by expert scholars, LVB wasn't sure whether or not the 5th ought to have been presented as the 6th and vice versa.

In any case, I think that the 5th is a far more engaging work than the 6th and that it is capable of far more interpretive latititude than the 6th.


------------------
Must it be? It must be!

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Frank - I don't idolise Berlioz. Please don't put words in to my mouth either.

I would really appreciate your views on 'romanticism' and also on the cult of personality. So if you get time that would be interesting to hear from you. At the moment I don't understand what you are saying.

Robert, the two situations are not the same.

You claimed that I had said that we should get rid of Romantic ideas, something I have not only never said, but which I have been very careful NOT to say, as I believe that Romanticism has many very positive aspects, which we ignore at out peril.

On the other hand, I wrote that you "idolise" Berlioz, because that is what you seem to me to do, from the sort of language you use about him ("great men..." etc.). It is a description of your attitude to him. It is not in itself a negative criticism. I believe it is sometimes quite alright to idolise other people - it's certainly much much better than self-idolisation! The only question is as to whether Berlioz is a worthy object for idolisation.

Actually, after beginning to read his memoirs properly, I am beginning to warm to him as a man - I've posted in a separate thread on this. That post also deals to some extent with "Romanticism".

Regards,

Frank

[Bobbie]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Casey,

Thanks for your opinion. There is surely no argument that the 'Illuminati' have generated lots of speculation, some of it on the bizzare side of conspiracy theory. I am talking about facts that can be proved from history. The same as I'm sure you are interested in yourself.

You say -

'the members of this group were/are largely secularists or deists who hated Catholicism'.

Initially, yes. But please note that I expressly said that the Illuminati attracted ALL sorts of people including (I agree) people of the kind you describe. But (please note also) I said that the real architects of the Illuminati were militant Catholics. That is why they appeared when they did, in Bavaria, around the time (please note) the Jesuit Order had been so recently banned (1773).

Just a few facts. See if you agree with them.

1. The founder of the Illuminati was Adam Weishaupt.

2. Weishaupt was (just coincidence ?) a Professor of Canon Law. Where ? At the Jesuit College of Ingolstadt

3. The Illuminati inflitrated the freemasons over a wide area. At this time freemasony had attracted a very wide sort of membership and in many cases it offered a place where different classes could engage themselves in all sorts of lawful activities. It was no threat to society. On the contrary.

4. The Illuminati were (in the end) very bad news for the Freemasons. The Emperor Joseph finally realised (around 1785) that they were a real threat to society within the Empire.

I think the Jesuit origin of the Freemasons is surely a simple fact. Nor can it be denied that the republic established in places like Bonn (this prior to the takeover of that city by the Revolutionary French) was largely organised by the Catholic church. This was clearly demonstrated in later years.

The Congress of Vienna (held by the nations of Europe after the downfall of Napoleon) was a time when Europe (much of it) was shaped, politically. But the aims of the Catholic rulers were faithfully reflected at this Conference. That too is a matter of history. The collapse of the Holy Roman Empire was, in actual fact, followed by what came out of the Congress of Vienna.

In this historical sense (I mean the time when Mozart and Beethoven were alive) the 'Illuminati' had great and wide appeal to all sorts of people for a few years. I still believe the evidence strongly suggests that it's architects were indeed the Jesuits. It was their plan to first neutralise society through institutes such as the freemasons. But in the beginning its doctrines were not appreciated. That is why Protestants such as Neefe in Bonn were members. I entirely agree that some of its members may have been opponents of the Catholic Church.

The price of all this (towards 1790) was the absurd destruction of freemasonry in Vienna, the repeal of many of the social reforms introduced by the Emperor Joseph (who died that year), the introduction by his successor of severe censorship of newspapers and publishers, new and very harsh laws against nationalist movements in the Austrian/Hungarian empire, and a return to the bad old days.

The Jesuits had lost power. They realised they were living within a few years of the end of the Holy Roman Empire. Something had to be done. And that 'something' was the invention of the 'Illuminati' movement. That was how they (the banned Jesuits) planned to make their comeback.

If you disagree, fine. I think at least I've sketched a rough outline here and that it's consistent with much evidence. If you disagree, fine.

Best regards

Robert Newman


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-19-2006).]

Dear Robert,
An intersting post recycling a lot of fairly tired anti-Catholic myths I am afriad.
The Jesuits were the shock troops of the counter reformation who were vowed to the most absolute loyalty to the Pope, I therefore find it inconsistent and barely credible to say the very least that they were the founders or took part in any way in the formation of the Illuminati or Freemasons. It is true that the Jesuits were banned in a few European countries in the 18th Century, but this was largely to do with enlightenment anti clericalism and nothing whatever to do with some supposed sininster Jesuit/Catholic plot.
The Simple truth is that the Vatican and the religious orders including the Jesuits have been almost unremittingly hostile to Freemasonry and it is the case as the Catholic Catechism tells us that membership of the Freemasons brings the terrible anathema of excommunication down on any Catholic who joins the Freemasons or any other secret order.
The trouble with a lot of standard history text books on the 18th century is that they simply have not researched the Vatican Archives and other important public collections of documents in Europe, otherwise they would realize very quickly what utter hogwash they talk on this subject.

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

In describing Hector Berlioz as a great man I am somehow seen as idolising him. Well, if I described William Wilberforce, Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Schubert, Bach, Beethoven as great men too am I idolising these men too ? I do not think so. It seems to me quite simple for us to give these outstanding men the credit they and their works deserve. But I do not idolise them and nor do I believe they should be idolised.

Is Berlioz worthy of idolatry. No - a thousand times, no. But I still believe that he was a great man.

Thanks for the news that you've posted on things which touch on Romanticism. I'll read these with real interest.

Regards

Robert

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Dear Frank,

In describing Hector Berlioz as a great man I am somehow seen as idolising him. Well, if I described William Wilberforce, Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Schubert, Bach, Beethoven as great men too am I idolising these men too ? I do not think so. It seems to me quite simple for us to give these outstanding men the credit they and their works deserve. But I do not idolise them and nor do I believe they should be idolised.

Is Berlioz worthy of idolatry. No - a thousand times, no. But I still believe that he was a great man.

Thanks for the news that you've posted on things which touch on Romanticism. I'll read these with real interest.

Regards

Robert

Dear Robert,

I realise that I have been rather "puritanical" in my judgment of you concerning Berlioz. But, as I said, I don't actually object to idolising, which I don't equate with idolatry (all idolatry is idolising, but you can idolise without falling into idolatry). It is the worthiness of the person idolised which is the issue.

And I realise that I have been over-pedantic over your use of the term "great man". I am sure that I have sometimes used that term casually to describe a great artist (using the term in its wide sense). But that was "casually" - I suppose what I am mainly concerned about here is the over-glorification of talent over simple "humanity". To use my stock example, Wagner was a very great composer, but I don't think I could stand for his being described as a "great man", except in a very casual way.

Regards

Frank

[robert newman]

Frank, no problem - thanks for your last post.

I must take issue with Bobby on this. He describes my views on the rise of the Bavarian Illuminati as 'recycling a lot of fairly tired anti-Catholic myths'. This I find so amazing that I cannot let it go without some response. Here are a few indisputable facts.

1. The founder of the Illuminati was a Jesuit
2. Jesuits are Catholics
3. Jesuits (by 1773) were NOT doing what the Pope wanted - in fact they were committing so many outrages against governments (even within the 'Holy Roman Empire' that after almost a century of complaints they were (please note this) banned utterly and totally by none other than the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope himself.

Which part of the above do you not agree with ? None of this is false. It's all historical fact.

Next, a few more facts.

4. The Jesuits were (indeed they still are) a MILITARY Order.

5. You agree yourself that they were the 'shock troops' of the Counter-Reformation.

6. They had huge status in education during the time we are here discussing - i.e. up to the time they were banned in 1773.

7. Loss of Jesuit power (they having controlled many centres of learning right across Catholic Europe prior to 1773, (including even the University of Vienna).

Now, which of the above is untrue ?

It's easy for anyone to dismiss plain facts as rubbish. The simple fact is that there had been a Reformation across large areas of Europe. Particularly in Germany. The Jesuits were officially outlawed. That is why a Jesuit spearheaded the Illuminati movement.

These are not tired myths. They are plain facts of history.

Having read many, many books on this particular subject the issues themselves are quite simple. The Jesuits wanted their power and prestige back. It took them 41 years to achieve it. But they finally succeeded. They who had been 'forever banned' by the Pope were reinstated. That too is a fact of history.

I am not a Jesuit. In fact, I deplore everything they represent. I respect the freedom of all men to believe as they wish according to their own conscience - something that has always been denied by Jesuits and which is still denied by Jesuits.

If you would like a list of works which I have read on this subject please ask.

In saying that the Illuminati had nothing to do with the Catholic Church and had everything to do with the Englightenment, this is to ignore the plain fact that Jesuit centres of study (such as Liege) focused entirely on Enlightenment teaching of art and music, for example. Many, many Jesuit educated musicians were composers of the Enlightenment. Would you like me to give you a list of some 30 in Vienna alone - these working AFTER 1773 ?

So you see that again the facts of history contradict your claim that these issues did not involve the Jesuits. That banned order stayed in power in very influential places despite having been officially dissolved. So says every study ever made of this subject (both Catholic and non-Catholic). In fact, the evidence strongly shows that the Jesuits were as responsible for the creation of the 1st Vienna Classic Period (Haydn and Mozart) as any other body or organisation). This proof is the stuff with which I am now working on a book 'Music in the Late Holy Roman Empire'.

The only tired rehash I see on these subjects is that which we have been reading over and over about Haydn and Mozart - this carefully constructed myth now some 200 years old and perhaps past its 'sell by' date.

The Jesuits are masters of deceipt but not of history.

RN


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-20-2006).]

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-22-2006).]

[Bobbie]

Dear Robert,
You are surely not suggesting that a renagade Jesuit priest , the so called founder of the Illuminati remained a practicing Jesuit and a communicating member of the Catholic church after having joined this proscribed organization ?
With great respect , I think you have been reading too many old fashioned protestant text books.

.

[robert newman]

posted 02-21-2006 05:07 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Bobbie Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Dear Robert,
Bobby,

You write -

'You are surely not suggesting that a renagade Jesuit priest , the so called founder of the Illuminati remained a practicing Jesuit and a communicating member of the Catholic church after having joined this proscribed organization ?
With great respect , I think you have been reading too many old fashioned protestant text books'.

In reply, the renegade Jesuit priest of whom you speak did not 'join' the Illuminati. He was actually its founder.

Secondly, it was the Pope himself who banned the Jesuits - not the Protestants or anyone else. They were illegal. Nobody wanted them. And if you read the list of countries from which they were banned plus the list of charges made against them by the heads of those countries, you will see that their ban and their dissolution had nothing to do with Protestants and everything to do with the fact that they were a bunch of bad people.

Power corrupts. They had great power. It corrupted them. That is why the entire Christian world agreed, starting with Rome, to banish them. Such a view comes not from any old books either for or against the Catholic Church but from pages of ANY history (Catholic, non-Catholic and those not at lal interested in religion) on the subject. If you wish to deny such things you may as well deny that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. That's your privilege.
But at the time and in the period under examination (the lifetime of Beethoven) such facts are hardly disputed by anyone. And I see no fact in your letter that makes me think differently.

Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

I posted earlier but it did not appear.

This Jesuit priest (like all others at the time) was out of a job in 1773. The Pope fired him.

He did not join the Illuminati. He actually FOUNDED the Illuminati.

Finally, I read every sort of source material, new and old.

Regards

Robert

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

He did not join the Illuminati. He actually FOUNDED the Illuminati.

Finally, I read every sort of source material, new and old.

Regards

Robert

I'm struggling to find a connection with the Pastoral symphony! If a post doesn't appear at first, try the refresh button.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 02-22-2006).]