Mystery of Mozart's Skull!

[robert newman]

This is true. But I am saying there are reasonable grounds for saying that it WAS unearthed. That is my position. Vienna was the centre of such activity for years. The founder of such ideas was there. It happened to Haydn. And (despite still being unable to locate my note on the book) one does exist with such an illustration. (I am still looking for it). The possibility that this occurred is far higher than it may otherwise seem. But still the onus is on me to find the book - I accept.

Regards

RN

[HaydnFan]

Ok, I agree that it is possible considering the circumstances but, as was said earlier, I might doubt that any item believed to be Mozart's skull at the time, was the real thing.

[Droell]

It's time to consider "Acute Military Fever".

On line someplace I found a reference to military fever as scarlet fever. Symptoms of scarlet fever, which I also found on-line, are:

A rash first appears as tiny red bumps on the chest and abdomen. This rash may then spread all over the body. It looks like a sunburn and feels like a rough piece of sandpaper. It is usually redder in the arm pits and groin areas. The rash lasts about 2-5 days. After the rash is gone, often the skin on the tips of the fingers and toes begins to peel. The face is flushed with a pale area around the lips. The throat is very red and sore. It can have white or yellow patches. A fever of 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.3 degrees Celsius) or higher is common. Chills are often seen with the fever. Glands in the neck are often swollen. A whitish coating can appear on the surface of the tongue. The tongue itself looks like a strawberry because the normal bumps on the tongue look bigger.

The color red has been associated with the military since ancient times.

Scarlet fever, which is sometimes fatal if untreated, is a contagious childhood disease. It rarely attacks adults. The worst of it passes in 3-5 days, although skin peeling may take up to 10.

So, if military fever is scarlet fever, then is acute military fever the same as acute scarlet fever?

Acute scarlet fever is known as rheumatic fever. It generally follows scarlet fever by about 3 weeks & is, again, accompanied by red rash. Additionally, there are arthritic pains in the joints and possible heart damage, as well as other symptoms. It is, again, a childhood disease, rarely seen in adults. If what I read is true, there is no cure for rheumatic fever. Anti-imflammatory medicines are given to make the patient feel better. Reoccurrence, up to 3-5 years after the first outbreak, is common.

But is scarlet or rheumatic fever what killed Mozart? Somehow, on balance, I don't think so. While scarlet fever can sometimes attack adults, adults have stronger constitutions. So a disease only sometimes fatal to children should rarely be fatal to adults. Adults most at risk of dying of scarlet fever would be those already seriously weakened, but again, note that scarlet fever rarely attacks adults, weak or not.

So perhaps military fever is not the same as scarlet fever. "Acute" military fever may be something else altogether. But in any case, what the medical examiner is telling us is that we have a very, very red corpse, either all or in part. For those who believe Mozart really did perish on the date in question, theories as to his demise must account for this observation.

Skin reddness is usually the result of a lot of blood just under the skin. Since blood conducts heat, this puts a lot of heat at the body surface, thus producing fever. But as the body cannot maintain this heat production, chills result. So we have the usual cycle of fever, sweats & chills. This should be true regardless of the reason why blood is coming to the skin. So if Mozart died of military fever (acute or not) these should have been his symptoms.

I can go a good deal further if Robert or anyone can give a date when Mozart first took to his bed with his final illness.



[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 01-14-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Droell,

I've still not found the publication I was looking for on Mozart's skull. (It will no doubt turn up eventually). In the meantime I repeat that such a work definitely exists. As soon as it turns up I'll let this forum know of it). In the meantime here's a post (one of two) on the related issue of Mozart's death and truths/errors associated with it.

Firstly, I think you may have confused 'military fever' with supposed 'miliary fever'. The first is a well known illness whose symptoms you correctly described. The second ('miliary fever') is not and is an illness that was invented (or, more correctly, proposed) by the two doctors involved in Mozart's case in a medical publication they printed in Vienna some months before Mozart died).

Both the doctors associated with Mozart's final medical care (Dr Closset and Dr Sallaba) were recognised experts in poisons at the time. But I will move quickly on to the main issues.

There is, in fact, no documentary evidence Mozart was a patient of the Dr Closset prior to his final illness. (Closset worked at the Vienna hospital and Dr Sallaba was his assistant). Both men were famous and had extensive private medical practices in Vienna. That Mozart was registered with both these Doctors has always been assumed. But so far nobody has provided evidence of it. That is, Mozart is NOT recorded as being a patient of either. Nevertheless, such is tradition that we tend to overlook such a basic fact.

Anyway, enter in to this already complex situation a third medical person, one Doctor Eduard Guldener von Lobes. Why mention him ? Well, this Dr Guldener, in 1791, was the City Medical Inspector. It was his job to determine the cause of death for the government. His testimony (such as we have of it) is interesting and I would like to touch on it here.

Neither Dr Closset nor Dr Sallaba provided detailed account of their treatment of Mozart. (Closset died in 1813) and, by that time it seemed, all rumours of Mozart having been poisoned would soon be forgotten.

But it was not to be. Vienna was again rocked by a series of confessions made in the early 1820's by Mozart's rival, Antonio Salieri. Salieri began to confess (to anyone who would listen to him) that he had been involved in the death of Mozart, by poison. These confessions became so persistent and so scandalous that at one point Salieri is recorded in a Vienna newspaper as having lodged in a local church written confession of his part in poisoning Mozart - a confession quickly denied by the church in the very next edition of the same newspaper. But confessions continued. And so Salieri was effectively removed from society, being watched over day and night by 'minders' who swore (in writing) that he, Salieri, had never confessed to such things.

At this time (the early 1820's) Mozart had of course been dead for nearly 30 years. But the story was still news.

It was in this context that an old Italian friend of Antonio Salieri approached the old Dr Guldener by letter (Guldener now retired) asking him to state clearly the cause of Mozart's death since he, Guldener, had actually inspected Mozart's remains. In his delayed reply to Carpani of 10th June 1824 Guldener writes -

'It is with pleasure that I communicate to you, most excellent Sir, all that is known to me of the illness and death of Mozart.

He fell sick in the late autumn of a rheumatic and inflammatory fever, which being fairly general among us at that time, attacked many people. I did not know about it until a few days later, when his condition had already grown much worse. I did not visit him for some reason, but informed myself of his condition through Dr Closset, with whom I came in contact almost every day. The latter considered Mozart's illness to be dangerous, and from the very beginning feared a fatal conclusion, namely a deposit on the brain. One day he met Dr Sallaba and he said positively, " Mozart is lost, it is no longer possible to restrain the deposit ". Sallaba communicated this information to me at once, and in fact Mozart died a few days later with the usual symptoms of a deposit on the brain. His death aroused general interest, but the very slightest suspicion of his having been poisoned entered no one's mind. So many persons saw him during his illness, so many enquired after him his family tended him with so much care, his doctor, highly regarded by all, the industrious and experienced Closset, treated him with all the attention of a scrupulous physician, and with the interest of a friend of many years standing, in such a way that certainly it could not have escaped their notice then if even the slightest trace of poisoning had manifested itself. The illness took its accustomed course and had its usual duration. Closset had observed it and recognized it with such accuracy that he had forecast its outcome almost to the hour. This malady attacked at this time a great many of the inhabitants of Vienna, and for not a few of them it had the same fatal conclusion and the same symptoms as in the case of Mozart. The statutory examination of the corpse did not reveal anything at all unusual.

That is the sum of what I am in position to state concerning the death of Mozart. I shall have the greatest pleasure if this can contribute to giving the lie to the horrible calumny on the excellent Salieri. It remains for me only to beg you, most illustrious Sir, to excuse me for not communicating to you at once these few lines. My preoccupation with new cases, and an extended indisposition which was somewhat allayed only by a bloodletting, have constantly opposed new obstacles to my better intentions.

With the greatest respect,
Dobling, 10 June 1824
Your obdt. Servant,
Guldner

This letter was intended of course to put an end to all the rumours. It was received by Carpani as doing this. Guldener had now retired from his old government job in Vienna and was now a surgeon of great fame. But, in fact, the content of this letter (and several others related to it) did nothing more than show that much of what was popularly believed was false and that a huge number of discrepanices exist on the final days of Mozart's last illness.

I will continue this post soon.

Regards

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-14-2006).]

[robert newman]

The 'Little Masonic Cantata' KV623 was written by Mozart for the dedication ceremony of the Vienna Masonic Lodge 'Zur neugekronten Hoffnung'and was dated by the composer 15th November 1791. 3 days later Mozart himself conducted its first performance (i.e. on 18th Movember 1791). He was apparently in good health as was noted by the memorial address given a few days after his death by the head of the same Lodge who noted that 'a few weeks ago Mozart stood in our midst here - and who could have imagined that he would be taken from us ?..'

Most biographers agree he fell seriously ill within 2-3 days of this, his last public appearance, and have therefore suggested he took to his bed around 20th November. So, it seems he was bedridden for his last two weeks or so.

Guldener's Report from 1824 (and a few other letters related to it) give us a curious version of Mozart's condition in these last days. Perhaps Guldener was interested in simply ending rumours ?

He was probably correct in saying Mozart had fallen ill around August/September of that last year of 1791. (That's consistent with other sources). But many areas of this 'official' version are either wrong or very inconsistent.

1. He twice says the illness from which Mozart died had been well identified. In the first sentence he says it was 'fairly general amongst the population'.

2. Later he says 'The illness took its accustomed course and had its usual duration'
and he also says that Dr Closset had -

3. 'considered Mozart's illness to be dangerous and, from the very beginning, feared a fatal conclusion, namely, a growth on the brain'.

He also tell us Dr Closset had -

4. 'Observed it and recognised it with such accuracy that he had forecast its outcome almost to the hour'.

And finally, that -

5. 'This malady had attacked a great number of people at this time in Vienna'.

Notice Guldener's attempt to sanitise the facts. In truth, he is saying Mozart died of a growth on his brain, this associated with an illness which swept Vienna in 1791 - one of 'severe miliary fever'. In point of fact there is not a shred of evidence that the doctors treating Mozart (nor even members of his family) were ever concerned during Mozart's last days about any 'growth on Mozart's brain'. Such a thing is nowhere refered to in any document except this, Guldener's Report. There was no autotopsy ever made of Mozart. No brain operation made on Mozart. Guldener says this supposed growth on Mozart's brain had been confirmed as being surely fatal. But this is simply not true. Dr Closset did not examine the brain of Mozart. Nor did Dr Sallaba. And nor did Dr Guldener. In fact Dr Guldener made nothing more than a cursory inspection. We know that Mozart's remains were prepared for burial within a few hours at most of his death.

Furthermore, Guldener is completely incorrect in saying there was an epidemic of this strange illness in 1791 Vienna. The medical records of that year are now well known. The only epidemic in Vienna during Mozart's last years was influenza which had ended well over 15 months before. Flu does not have any association with supposed 'growths' on the brains of its victims. Again, reports from Mozart's own family say nothing of any required treatment to Mozart's head nor any concern of this until literally the last minutes of his life, when a cold compress was ordered by Dr Closset (who arrived after midnight) to be applied to Mozart's head, this just before he gasped for breath.

So where has come this idea of a growth in Mozart's brain come from - a growth which Guldener says Closset had predicted days before would be fatal ? And all of this without any operation and no way (in those days) of having an X-ray ?

It is also said (twice) that Guldener had predicted almost to the very hour, the time of Mozart's death. How is that possible also if, in fact, no examination of Mozart's brain ever occurred ?

Was it not Mozart himself who is on record as saying weeks before his death - 'They know the very day of my death, even the very hour' - when he spoke to his wife of him being convinced that he was being poisoned ?

Thus Guldener, in his attempt to end all rumours, merely illustrates that the authorities in the 1820's were keen to deny that doctors had botched Mozart's final treatment or to accept failure in their diagnosis of his true medical condition.

Guldener says Dr Closset was a long time friend of the Mozart family. There is not a single reference to this in any Mozart family papers.

And finally, if Dr Guldener really had knowledge of the certainty of Mozart's death and had been able to predict it accurately days before it occurred, why was it necessary to drag him from the Vienna theatre on the evening when he died ?

I believe (as did several members of the Mozart family) that Mozart did NOT die of the illness 'officially' claimed by Dr Sallaba and Dr Closset. Nor does this letter by Dr Guldener solve any problem. Mozart died of an illness consistent with him having been poisoned - this something he had spoken of weeks before the evening of 4th December 1791.

(Sophie mentions in her handwritten account that moments before his death Mozart had been chatting gaily to them. It is plain that in spite of 'official' versions Mozart's end is clearly at odds with them). His remains were bloated. There was a stench. There was no rigor mortis. And all these things (including others) are entirely consistent with the view that he, Mozart, died in highly suspicious circumstances which 'official' records and 'experts' have tended to ignore or downplay ever since.

RN

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-15-2006).]

[Bobbie]

What Killed Mozart ?

http://snow.sierranevada.edu/~csci/WhatKilledMozart.htm


.

[robert newman]

Dear Bobbie,

The article you posted says that -

'The identification of Mozart’s mysterious patron (for Mozart to compose the Requiem) substantially undermines many of the conspiracy theories'

The facts are very different. A story was invented within days of Mozart's death that he had been commissioned to write a Requiem by a 'grey messenger' who represented the commissioner of the piece. This story was soon printed in many newspapers across large parts of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, there is no record at all that Mozart was commissioned to write such a piece. It's a story which Constanze Mozart gave repeatedly. She gave it to Rochlitz (who trusting published it years later also) but, again, there is not a shred of evidence that Count Walsegg or anyone else asked Mozart to write a Requiem Mass. A commission is a written document. No such commission ever existed. No receipt is known for such a commission. But the piece (KV626) and its true history have of course been used ever since as propaganda.

It took nearly 10 years to actually publish this work. Why such a long time ? It was said to have been finished by Easter of 1792 and is said to have been performed that same year for the first time. But we have no evidence of that either. The 'Mozart' signature on the score is actually a forgery. And even the date is given as '1792' - Mozart himself dying as we know in early December 1791.

In addition, there is no evidence of any 'rehearsal' of the piece at Mozart's home - though this too is part of popular folklore.

This whole story is long and very complicated. But let me say that convention points to the seemingly irrefutable fact that several movements of the work are definitely in Mozart's own hand. How is that possible if, in fact, the work is a clever forgery ?
Well, if one studies the names of the various people who are said to have 'completed' this work they include no less than 5 different composers, some of who in later years deny any involvement and others who claim to have written substantial parts. (Sussmayer, and also Maximilian Stadler, for example).

There is clear evidence that even in Mozart's lifetime there was someone able to forge his musical handwriting and his signature. Take for example the curious story of Mozart's KV452, whose final bars appear to be in Mozart's own hand, but are actually in the hand of someone else - that piece having strangely disappeared for years. It is no coincidence that a leading musicologist Gottfried Weber (editor of the leading musical journal 'Caelicia') published an article in 1825 denouncing this work as a clever forgery. Nor is it coincidence that a man who was definitely involved in overseeing its creation (Maximilian Stadler) replied the following year insisting that the work was definitely by Mozart. One hears only one side of this debate today. (We even have parts of the Requiem sketched in Maximilian Stadler's hand in a German university library).

How is this connected to Mozart's death ? Well, if we bear in mind that a memorial occured in Vienna 6 days after Mozart's death (10th December) arranged by a few friends including Emanuel Schickaneder and opera friends of the Freihaus Theatre, this at St Michael's Church, at which a vocal Requiem of Mozart's real composition was sung, it becomes clear that Mozart had died in virtual obscurity, for reasons that must be established. Since no single famuly member or person in close contact with the composer was present other than Schickaneder, such a fact was suppressed. KV626 was therefore presented as 'Mozart's Requiem' and excuses were made why his death was such a small scale event.

The weather on the day of the funeral procession was 'very bad'. Or it was 'snowing'. Or, 'it was too cold' etc etc. In fact the weather during these days was quite mild and these stories are total fabrications. So too the fabrication that Constanze Mozart was too unwell. Or that there was a service at the main Cathedral. Again, there is no witness or evidence of this actually occurring. Those who claim otherwise wrote literally decades later.

There are no easy answers because, at present, our version of Mozart's Vienna career is far too often based on false assumptions.

The stories of Mozart having been poisoned are just too persistent and too consistent to be easily dismissed. Having studied his life and career for many years (though I am far from being an expert) the very fact that his recent prosecution was completely censored from early biographies is clear indication that the 'official' life and works of Mozart are subjects that cannot forever be accepted without recognising their many contradictions.

I believe that beyond reasonable doubt Mozart was poisoned. I also believe that beyond reasonable doubt a fair minded student of the actual evidence (such as it is) would conclude the same. His death in Vienna was virtually a non-event. But elsewhere it was the cause of real mourning and respect for this great musician.

The story of Mozart's life and works suffers badly from accepting any version however 'official' it might be. Sometimes it's enough simply to appreciate the wonderful music with which his name is associated.

There is much one could say on these things, but none of it in itself is conclusive. So, the answer to your question is simply not able to be answered. You must simply see for yourself whether the evidence supports it or not. Besides, we are most fair when we allow others to judge for themselves from a fair examination of the evidence. This I think is the most important thing.

RN

[Droell]

Well, Robert, you won't like it.

Miliary: 1. Having the appearance of millet seeds. 2. Pathology: Characterized by the presence of small skin lesions that have the size and appearance of millet seeds. (American Heritage Dictionary, from Bartleby.com)

Miliary fever: tuberculosis.

While this sort of thing can go on anywhere in the body, the preponderance of occurence in the lungs means that to put it elsewhere requires a stronger modifier than "acute".

As we've seen this now as "miliary" and "military", I think we need to see the original German. A scan of the actual entry?

The doctor angle.

Mozart went to the doctors. The doctors did not come to him. Their diagnosis of "deposit on the brain" were a deduction of the symptoms Mozart gave them.

If we presume "deposit" to be a brain tumor (for example), here are some of the symptoms:

Headache usually just after waking and lessening as the day goes on. Vomiting usually just after waking, with or without nausea. Mental changes, often sluggishness or drowsiness. Uncoordinated, clumsy movements. Seizures. (From Massachusetts General Hospital Neurological Services web site.)

"Oh, doctor, I have headaches & nightmares, what can I do?"

Mozart had been in Vienna for a number of years at this point. Were these his customary doctors? Were these the doctors in attendance with Constanza when she was with child?

If these two should be new to Mozart, it gives another indication as to his motives at the time. (Find the biggest fools in town?)

[robert newman]

There are real problems with arguing in this way.

1. Medicine today is far more advanced than it was in the late 18th century. If 'miliary fever' is Tuberculosis which hospital or tuberculosis centre in the modern world can predict without X-rays the certain death of a Tuberculosis patient long before it occurs ?

2. How many specialists today in Tuberculosis can predict 'almost to the hour' the death of a Tuberculosis patient days in advance ?

3. What form of Tuberculosis has the effect of giving to its victims a growth on the brain ?

4. The report of Dr Guldener says that this illness had the same fatal effects on many people in Vienna at this time. But of course Tuberculosis does NOT have this effect on people. Nor is there evidence that there was any such epidemic in Vienna that year. So the same question remains - which modern hospital associates a growth on the brain with Tuberculosis ? Or vice-versa ?

5. No - Dr Sallaba and Dr Closset were not the doctors that the Mozart family used earlier in their lifetimes.

6. Guldener says these doctors knew the symptoms of Mozart's final illness and were able to predict its fatal outcome with precision. I strongly suggest that no doctor alive today (even with the best resources of modern medicine) can predict the death of a Tuberculosis patient to almost the very hour. I further suggest that a growth in the brain of a Tuberculosis patient is virtually unknown to modern medicine and that there is in fact no such connection between these two very different things. Yet these two things are expressly said to have been well known to these two doctors.

Can you provide any evidence from modern hospitals in support of the diagnosis given by these two doctors ? No known form of tuberculosis causes a growth in people's brains. Nor can the death by reason of such a brain growth be predicted for sufferers of tuberculosis with precision days in advance. Nor is there on record any such epidemic of tuberculosis with such predictable and fatal effects on the brains of its victims in the entire history of medicine.

But please, if possible, can you show otherwise ?

RN





[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 01-15-2006).]

[Droell]

Hello Robert,

Your points are excellent.

They all argue fraud.

Did Mozart die on 5 December 1791, or did he flee the town?

If, at bottom, it was the Jesuits who were after him, London becomes attractive for another reason: The English hate popery.

[robert newman]

Dear Droell,

Had Mozart faked his death in December 1791 we must assume he had prepared to do so weeks in advance. He must have been prepared, in fact, to become an actor for the weeks during which time he was seen by his family members as succumbing to a fatal illness. He must also have invented the story of being poisoned and even gone to the length of having himself briefly displayed as if he was dead to visitors on the morning after his supposed death.

Such a thing is not impossible but it must surely be highly improbable. But even if Mozart (who admittedly was in big trouble at this time and may even have had incentive to do such a thing) wanted to carry out such an improbable plan, he must have had this detailed plan in mind of what he would do and where he would go, since his home would have been locked by the Vienna authorities who, by law, made an inventory of his possessions after his coffin had been removed from the house. To have travelled far from Vienna (even if he had managed to escape from the city) would have presented him with formidable problems. He could not present himself at any of the normal customs places (of which there were a great many) unless he had already another identity. Or an accomplice who was willing to help him in his plan to start a new life elsewhere.

The options available to the Mozarts of this world cannot have been many. We can rule out him starting a new life in, say, America, in any other field than the one he already knew - Music. I still think that one would need to discover handwriting of his post-1791 before this became even a rational possibility.

It is perfectly true that people by the name of Mozart are recorded in the early USA around 1800 or so (which is strange given the fact that they as a family were extinct in Europe before 1870). But your extraordinary idea (though it solves a great number of problems associated with his last days) is in need of support. It would at present make a fine novel. But whether it could ever be more is something you must decide.

You must also consider that in such a story Constanze Mozart was an accomplice, and that she said nothing.

We could rank this for originality with the famous story of Casanova's escape from prison of the Inquisition perhaps ? It would rate as highly as that - if only it could be sustained.

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Droell.

England, Austria, Russia and Prussia were all allies against the French (Napoleonic) forces after the French Revolution. I think you can rule out Herr Mozart escaping from Vienna to start a new life in any of those countries.
No, it seems the USA is the logical destination for your hero. One of the immigrants who somehow used that name in later life. (Da Ponte, Mozart's librettist, went to New York as you may already know).

Not a bad story if it remains such !

RN

[Droell]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Had Mozart faked his death in December 1791 we must assume he had prepared to do so weeks in advance. He must have been prepared, in fact, to become an actor for the weeks during which time he was seen by his family members as succumbing to a fatal illness. He must also have invented the story of being poisoned and even gone to the length of having himself briefly displayed as if he was dead to visitors on the morning after his supposed death.

Except for the last, displaying himseslf as if dead, it does seem as if Mozart could act exactly this way. From a very young age, he had been pushed in front of strangers & strange crowds & forced to smile & make nice. Practically all his actions in 1791 can be made to fit my theory. Almost none of them fit with "Mozart knows he is dying & is therefore putting his affairs in order & preparing his last will & testament."


But even if Mozart (who admittedly was in big trouble at this time and may even have had incentive to do such a thing) wanted to carry out such an improbable plan, he must have had this detailed plan in mind of what he would do and where he would go...

Certainly seems as if he did. See above.



To have travelled far from Vienna (even if he had managed to escape from the city) would have presented him with formidable problems.


Agreed. All of which could be solved with money. Lots of money. There are always shady characters who can supply fake papers, for a fee. I myself found some when I was in London in 1981. For a fake UK passport, no questions asked, their fee, if memory serves, was 25,000 quid. I found them because, as a traveler, I knew who to ask & where to go. (I didn't have the cash.) Mozart, as a traveler, already knows these things, he already knows about the shady characters on the fringes of the travel world. So what did Mozart do with all the money he made the last year of his life? Why was he driven to work so very hard to make all that money? It was only in the fall of 1791 that death seemed to be approaching.


He could not present himself at any of the normal customs places (of which there were a great many) unless he had already another identity.

Fake identities which can be had, for a price. Moreover, I know from my own experience that various persons, even though present at customs & physically seen by the officials, are, in fact, never actually processed (I escaped notice myself once), and proceed safely from one country to another.
Also, cargo gets different handling from people. There are means, known to me, to get from the UK to France, and vice-versa, without notice, to name a particularly sticky border crossing. These means are not available to Africans who sit in Calais, they are not available to Mexicans in Nuevo Laredo. They are available to those who have the proper contacts & know how to use them. In this regard, Mozart cannot be dumber than I am.


Or an accomplice who was willing to help him in his plan to start a new life elsewhere.


Look no further than J.P. Salomon, in London. At the time, Haydn was with him, which makes him another useful accomplice.


We can rule out him starting a new life in, say, America, in any other field than the one he already knew - Music.


Music is the only trade he knew, but jobs in music are many, and not all of them in the public eye. Moreover, printing was limited. There simply were not that many images of the man's face around. Not as if his face appeared on coins or stamps.


I still think that one would need to discover handwriting of his post-1791 before this became even a rational possibility.

An excellent suggestion. Has anyone looked at the letters in Constanza's possession at the time of her death? Has anyone looked at the letters in Salomon's possession at his death?


You must also consider that in such a story Constanze Mozart was an accomplice, and that she said nothing.


Constanza could expect to be punished heavily should the plot unravel. On the other hand, what choice did she have? If Mozart were to be imprisoned or disgraced, her life would be ruined as well, and also that of her son. So she has her own motives. So what does she do in the days after Mozart's demise? Follow the corpse wherever it went? Longingly look after the grave? In any way act the grieved widow? No. Instead, she paces the floor. As if she is wondering, where is he, is he safe, when will I hear from him? What a bastard he was!, etc. Certainly, she writes some trivial note, Mozart how I miss you now that you are dead, but no other action supports a belief that her husband was actually dead. Gone forever, yes. Dead, no.


We could rank this for originality with the famous story of Casanova's escape from prison of the Inquisition perhaps ? It would rate as highly as that - if only it could be sustained.

Au contraire, mon ami. We could rank the story of Mozart's death as a tragic event in history, if only there was any evidence to support it. Researchers spin round & round, like a dog chasing its tail. After 215 years, enough. Try a different idea. A really different idea. Prove that wrong, then go back to tail-chasing.

Both Mozart & Casanova had highly developed senses of instinct. Instinct is what got Casanova all the girls, instinct is what freed him from the allegedly escape-proof Venetian prison. Instinct is how travelers survive. (By the way, see Benvenuto Cellini's autobiography for an example of a poisoned traveler - Cellini himself.) For much of his life, Casanova was a roving ambassador.

As Gide said (in Lafcadio), there are the slim and there are the crusted. Mozart is among the slim. They slip amongst us, the crusted, like shadows.

Dave

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 01-15-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 01-15-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Dear Droell.

England, Austria, Russia and Prussia were all allies against the French (Napoleonic) forces after the French Revolution. I think you can rule out Herr Mozart escaping from Vienna to start a new life in any of those countries.
RN

Well, yes, but then how did Haydn get to London? He was physically in London at the time of Mozart's demise. One could presumably argue he was in London as an official representative of the Austrian court. Haydn knew little about travel himself. He had sat in Vienna & environs his entire life. All the arrangements were made for him.

I would otherwise agree that America seems logical, except for that strange note in Ries, and the fact that if it's the Jesuits you're trying to escape, London is a better hideout.



[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 01-15-2006).]

[robert newman]

Well, this is 18th century intrigue, for sure !

It is true that Dr Closset and also Dr Sallaba are not recorded as having said or written anything about the case during their lifetimes.
But are you including them in your list of accomplices ?

You would not really go to London in such a situation since (I think) Haydn and Mozart were part of the same racket that he, Mozart, is presumably trying to escape from, according to your theory.

I personally don't mind entertaining speculative ideas such as this. Particularly, as you say, since the list is very long of anomalies in the accepted version of his last days.

So Mozart escapes from Vienna having already made his final farewell in the last scene of the Magic Flute, having written a short requiem for himself, and having ensured that his wife and children would be reasonably secure ?

The Jesuit involvement in Mozart's life and career is something I am working on. Frankly, I think it more likely that in your scenario he went to the USA, to Denmark or Sweden etc.
Besides, there is the curious clue of Mozarts being in the States, this begging the question of how they first got there.

Anyway, I don't want to exhaust your imagination, mine, or the patience of readers of these notes.

Best regards

Robert