Announcement

**Agnes Selby** · 03-26-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

Hello everyone !

I thought I'd take a break from scribbling notes in my spare time to share on some fresh controversies regarding the life and supposed career of Mozart.

My colleague/correspondent in Italy (Prof. Giorgio Taboga) has been researching recently on the supposed 27 Mozart Piano Concertos and I focusing (for many weeks now) on both the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (1786) and the 5 'Mozart' Violin Concertos - this with a view to us meeting up in about a month or so from now in Paris (if possible).

Are there more revelations ? Yes, for sure ! I must startle this board by sharing the extraordinary opinion (which I now hold - almost alone, it seems) that the wonderful opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was NOT in fact composed by Mozart and also that he, Mozart, did NOT compose the 5 Violin Concertos which are today attributed to him in the Koechel list.

You will of course think these are extraordinary things to say and will certainly demand (at the very least) the name of the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the same of the true composer of those 5 (or is it 8 ?) violin concertos which have at various times been attributed solely to Mozart.

Very well, I believe the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' claimed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to have been composed by him during the first half of 1786 and attributed to him ever since was, in fact, composed FOR him by the only man able to have done so at that time - none other than than the mercurial Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792). (A man whom Mozart scholarship is slowly realising has some significance in Mozart's 'official' career).

I further believe that 'Mozart's librettist' Lorenzo da Ponte had virtually nothing to do with writing the libretto of 'Figaro' despite having been credited traditionally with having done so and of having collaborated with Mozart in several others. (In fact da Ponte had almost no talent to do so in 1786 or at any other time).

I further believe that the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos which have always been attributed to him since the late 1770's were NOT written by Mozart but almost certainly written FOR him by Joseph Mislivecek (1737-1781)- a tragic composer whose life and career has until recently been almost totally ignored by the wider music-loving public.

To justify such views in detail would require long arguments. But, in short, I now believe the available evidence better supports such opinions than it supports the traditional assumption that Mozart wrote all of these works.

I submit such 'heretical' views here briefly so that it cannot be said that no specific work has yet been identified by me which is falsely attributed to Mozart (though of course there are no less than 9 mature 'Mozart' symphonies which are already worthy of being described as the same and which have been refered to on this board some months ago).

These are my considered views on 'Figaro' and the Violin Concertos and I will of course be willing to say why I hold them in some detail if a traditionalist can tell us here why they believe Mozart was the true composer of both 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and these 5 Violin concertos.

Best regards

Robert Newman

----------------

Mislivechek suffered from syphilis and was confined to hospital for many years before his death.

Please consult Mozart's letter to his father describing his visit to Mislivechek in hospital. (Emily Anderson) The condition of this syphilitic man precluded coherence for years before his death.

If you have evidence please present it to
the world. Otherwise for ever hold your peace.

As for the Marriage of Figaro, I am sure you are welcome at the Mozarteum to examine the original and compare Mozart's handwriting to whoever "composed" the work in your opinion. You will also have to examine the paper water markings with other Mozart compositions of the same period.
This is how Mozart research is conducted.

Agnes Selby.

**RE Newman** · 03-26-2006, 04:36 PM

'This is how Mozart research is conducted' (Agnes Selby)

Dear Agnes,

Is it ? I regret that the truth is so very different from what you suppose.

I entirely agree that in the normal course of events one would expect a musical manuscript to be attributed to a specific composer if the 'original' is in the hand of that composer and if that same person claims credit for having composed it - as Mozart did. Let it further be admitted that if such a work has existed for over 200 years (one as famous as the 'Mozart' opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro') one would tend to believe that the traditional attribution is entirely secure. Such things are only fair and reasonable and they are of course strong arguments in themselves. I do not underestimate the challenge of showing otherwise and even agree that on the grounds you have given it may seem illogical to argue (or try to) in any other way.

But Agnes, in the case of Mozart (and Haydn also) you really must come to terms with certain facts too - not least that there are good grounds for being far more rigorous on this subject than you have been.

Let me first answer your point that if I have no evidence I should say nothing.

Well, I am not given to making such a huge problem for myself so publicly and I can promise you that this particular thread is made first of all for ordinary readers to form their own judgement - rather than to lecture you on 'how' Mozart research (or any other research) should be conducted. But you will grant me (I hope) credit for not having delayed a reply to your post.

You see - there is really a huge problem and it goes far beyond 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and even beyond the Violin Concertos. The problem is, frankly, that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (and indeed Joseph Haydn) were being provided with music written by others and this on a scale so huge that one is entitled to speak of it as being a massive fraud.

I can give you very many examples of the careers of both Haydn and Mozart being 'manufactured'/'manipulated' by their true patrons - even consisting of many works being credited to them which they never wrote. There are 9 symphonies from Bonn at Modena which, today, are part of Koechel but which (in 1784) were not even linked to Mozart - and of which this board has heard some of the details at some length. I can show you 'original' signed symphonies by Joseph Haydn which are accepted as being indisputable evidence that he was their composer - though they are written on paper decades younger than copies elsewhere - symphonies that were in fact bought to grossly distort Haydn's supposed achievements in that form. I can give you example after example of works in Koechel which are today NOT by Mozart despite them stubbornly remaining part of the main Koechel list. I can provide you (in the case of Mozart) with a list of virtually 100 symphonies having been credited to Mozart during the 200 years or so in which this composers music has been studied and evidence of there having been claims that he wrote hundreds more. I could even point out that works by 'Mozart' from his childhood and youth (supposedly) lack any of the sorts of evidence we would reasonably expect to confirm that he was their true composer. In short, I submit that with Joseph Haydn and with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart it's the actual track record and the actual evidence that forces us to be far more cautious with those two men than you seem willing to be. Uniquely so.

Now, if you will accept my concessions to your argument (given already above) I expect you to accept the same from me for all these reasons just stated. I tell you again that we are here dealing with a clever and a massive trick - the manufacture of the so-called '1st Viennese School' of which first Gluck, then Haydn and lastly Mozart were the principal heroes.

But let me move on to the issue of 'Figaro' first and let me answer you as I would answer any traditionalist on this subject. You believe (since tradition tells you in the form of the librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte) that Mozart and Da Ponte worked together on 'Figaro' in Vienna for some 6 weeks before the first performance of this opera in 1786. You further believe that this same Lorenzo da Ponte somehow obtained from Rosenberg and from the Emperor Joseph 2nd permission to have this work staged in Vienna - this completely overturning the ban that existed on the piece everywhere else. In fact, this astonishing 'negotiation' occurred some months before this composer and this librettist presented this amazing work to Vienna.

Well, I don't believe it. I don't believe it for a thousand reasons. But here are just a few more. Firstly, neither Mozart nor Da Ponte had ever written anything remotely like this work before they suddenly presented 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. In fact (as you know very well) Da Ponte had actually done nothing of significance for the stage by 1786 and was in fact far from being a skilled librettist as is popularly supposed. It would be difficult to find anyone less suited for this opera than he.

Yet you believe the tradition. Such a thing is merely incidental to you. You further believe that Mozart (who had a track record only of the German 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' from 4 years before) was nevertheless the composer in these same 6 weeks of an Italian 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

And (assuming you wish to hold the conservative viewpoint) you will be telling us next that da Ponte and Mozart were secretly working on the piece before any permission was ever obtained for the piece to be staged. Is THIS your view ? And if this is your view we now have the even more unlikely situation of 'Figaro' being written without any commission whatsoever ! Is THIS your view ?

Please believe that I am not trying to trick you or to force you to surrender your opinions. On the contrary. I am saying that even in these preliminary outlines I think it fair to say that the genesis of this 'Mozart/da Ponte' collaboration is already dubious. And I have a hundred more arguments beyond this.

But let me stop here since this is just a preliminary exchange. I say the evidence strongly indicates that the true composer of this opera was not Mozart but was in fact Joseph Martin Kraus and will of course be pleased to develop this further if we can first agree on these preliminaries.

As regards Myslivececk, yes, he suffered from some sort of venereal disease. In fact, in the Mozart family correspondence he is perhaps the most frequently mentioned composer of them all. (The relationship between the Mozart family and he began in Italy and it was to continue up until the late 1770's). Furthermore, Myslivecek was himself the writer of some 45 symphonies,
30 Operas, at least 12 concertos and much other music. In fact, it was in the area of the violin concerto that he (even according to today's 'Grove's' Dictionary is described as being perhaps the finest composer of violin concertos at this time (the 1770's).

I hope you will agree this has been a quite gentle beginning to this thread and will of course be willing to expand on it if you wish.

Robert

**Peter** · 03-26-2006, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

In fact (as you know very well) Da Ponte had actually done nothing of significance for the stage by 1786 and was in fact far from being a skilled librettist as is popularly supposed. It would be difficult to find anyone less suited for this opera than he.

As far as I am aware prior to Figaro, Da Ponte wrote the libretto for the popular Spanish composer, Vincenzo Martin y Soler. Il Burbero premiered on January 4, 1786 and was a great success that restored DaPonte's reputation. Then immediately after figaro he wrote the libretto for Soler’s Una cosa rara (1786). Contemporary opinion was that it was a masterpiece; it was much more popular than any of the Mozart operas.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-26-2006).]

**RE Newman** · 03-27-2006, 12:40 AM

What we have here in the way of 'official' history is already truly extraordinary.

1. On 4th January 1786 at the Burgtheater in Vienna was premiered the opera 'Il Burbero di buon cuore' ('The Good Hearted Grumbler'), a comedy with its music by Martin Y Soler (1754-1806) and libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte (1748-1838)

and then -

2. On 1st May of the same year (1786) at the same Burgtheater in Vienna was premiered 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ('The Marriage of Figaro') a comic opera with music by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) and libretto by the same Lorenzo da Ponte.

and then, in this very same year of 1786 at the very same Vienna Burgtheater -

3. 17th November premiere of, 'Una cosa rara, o sia Bellaza ed onesta', ('A Rare Thing' or 'Beauty and Honesty') a comic opera with music by Martin Y Soler and libretto by the very same Lorenzo da Ponte.

(Mozart himself wrote 2 extra arias for the revival of Martin Y Soler's 'Il Burbero which were inserted into its revival at Vienna on 9th November of that same year and we know too that Joseph Haydn (suprise, surprise !) provided an additional duet for its first production in London in 1794. We also know, of course, that Mozart quotes from 'Una cosa rara' in his Finale to Act 2 of 'Don Giovanni' the following year - another opera where crude attempts were made to 'prove' that Da Ponte was its librettist).

I want to avoid jumping straight in to matters that are quite complex by staying for a while with some simple facts about (first) Lorenzo da Ponte.

Da Ponte had been ordained a priest in 1773 (at the age of 25) but had been bannned from Venice in 1778, living the life of an adventurer from then on (if we are to believe his own memoirs) up until the time when he arrived in Vienna in 1784. It's in Vienna that this same Lorenzo da Ponte somehow (since he had virtually nothing to support his case) is amazingly appointed poet to the Court of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. But as far as his literary achievements are concerned these, at this time, are (to be fair) extremely modest. He writes moderately in Latin and has composed some highly flattering verses for a few patrons - but his knowledge of opera is almost zero and his experience of working with composers or performers for stageworks is virtually nil.

Yet, we see, that in this year of 1786 Da Ponte is credited with having provided the libretto for no less than 3 great operas that year - all of them in Vienna.

To say the very least, this is a plot worthy of a comic opera in itself, is it not ? This fugitive priest now goes on to collaborate with Mozart for 'Don Giovanni' and 'Cosi Fan Tutte' before leaving Vienna quickly after Mozart's death, then coming to London (from which he narrowly escapes prison for debt in 1792) and finally arrives in the United States of America.

I submit that there is far more to this story of Lorenzo da Ponte and the truth of these 3 operas than has ever been realised. I further submit that da Ponte was a pawn in a game (in the same way that Mozart was). For Da Ponte simply did not have the skill or the experience to have collaborated with any of any opera - let alone that of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' despite us being forced by tradition to accept his version (and that of Mozart) of these events.

I further suggest that the explosive nature of this opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was well known to the authorities of that time and that its premiere in Vienna that May of 1786 was not the result of a '6 week fusion of genius between da Ponte and Mozart' but, instead, the end result of an intrigue that had really begun many years before. 'Figaro' would be premiered in Vienna and credit would be given to further enhancing the reputation of both Mozart and da Ponte for its production though, in fact, its true genesis came through a different librettist and a quite different composer.

Why hide the identity of the composer and the librettist ? Why obscure the true history of this opera ? I believe that it is not until we appreciate the politics and the intrigues of those times (i.e. the 1780's) that we can appreciate why 'Le Nozze di Figaro' came to be officially called a Mozart/da Ponte collaboration. To do this we must (I believe) first appreciate the role of Abbe Vogler in the career of Mozart - he at this time organising Mozart's official career in the same way that it had been 'organised' by Leopold Mozart and by Abbe Bullinger in Mozart's childhood and youth. In a few short years this ongoing 'stage-management' of Mozart's meteoric career (i.e. from the time of Leopold Mozart's death onwards in 1787) would involve one last 'ecclesiastical minder' in the form of the Abbe Maximilian Stadler. And so it can be seen that the automatic attribution of this most marvellous opera to Mozart and to Lorenzo da Ponte is already dubious before we turn to consider Beaumarchais, Kraus and others who were involved in this affair.

(I entirely agree that much more needs to be argued before it can be shown that this version of events is more consistent with the facts than the 'traditional' Mozart/Da Ponte one but I think this can be done in further posts here).

Robert

**Peter** · 03-27-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

I submit that there is far more to this story of Lorenzo da Ponte and the truth of these 3 operas than has ever been realised. I further submit that da Ponte was a pawn in a game (in the same way that Mozart was). For Da Ponte simply did not have the skill or the experience to have collaborated with any of any opera - let alone that of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' despite us being forced by tradition to accept his version (and that of Mozart) of these events.

You 'submit' a lot and question much, but all again without a shred of evidence. Da Ponte cannot have been as hopeless as you claim as for one thing Joseph II would never have appointed him as poet of the Imperial theatres (a post he held for 9 years), nor would Salieri have collaborated with him. As for Don Giovani, Da Ponte is known to have studied Dante (indeed claimed to be able to recite the Inferno from memory) and coincidence or what, much of Don Giovani uses lines from Dante.

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

**Agnes Selby** · 03-27-2006, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

What we have here in the way of 'official' history is already truly extraordinary.

1. On 4th January 1786 at the Burgtheater in Vienna was premiered the opera 'Il Burbero di buon cuore' ('The Good Hearted Grumbler'), a comedy with its music by Martin Y Soler (1754-1806) and libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte (1748-1838)

and then -

2. On 1st May of the same year (1786) at the same Burgtheater in Vienna was premiered 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ('The Marriage of Figaro') a comic opera with music by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-91) and libretto by the same Lorenzo da Ponte.

and then, in this very same year of 1786 at the very same Vienna Burgtheater -

3. 17th November premiere of, 'Una cosa rara, o sia Bellaza ed onesta', ('A Rare Thing' or 'Beauty and Honesty') a comic opera with music by Martin Y Soler and libretto by the very same Lorenzo da Ponte.

(Mozart himself wrote 2 extra arias for the revival of Martin Y Soler's 'Il Burbero which were inserted into its revival at Vienna on 9th November of that same year and we know too that Joseph Haydn (suprise, surprise !) provided an additional duet for its first production in London in 1794. We also know, of course, that Mozart quotes from 'Una cosa rara' in his Finale to Act 2 of 'Don Giovanni' the following year - another opera where crude attempts were made to 'prove' that Da Ponte was its librettist).

I want to avoid jumping straight in to matters that are quite complex by staying for a while with some simple facts about (first) Lorenzo da Ponte.

Da Ponte had been ordained a priest in 1773 (at the age of 25) but had been bannned from Venice in 1778, living the life of an adventurer from then on (if we are to believe his own memoirs) up until the time when he arrived in Vienna in 1784. It's in Vienna that this same Lorenzo da Ponte somehow (since he had virtually nothing to support his case) is amazingly appointed poet to the Court of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. But as far as his literary achievements are concerned these, at this time, are (to be fair) extremely modest. He writes moderately in Latin and has composed some highly flattering verses for a few patrons - but his knowledge of opera is almost zero and his experience of working with composers or performers for stageworks is virtually nil.

Yet, we see, that in this year of 1786 Da Ponte is credited with having provided the libretto for no less than 3 great operas that year - all of them in Vienna.

To say the very least, this is a plot worthy of a comic opera in itself, is it not ? This fugitive priest now goes on to collaborate with Mozart for 'Don Giovanni' and 'Cosi Fan Tutte' before leaving Vienna quickly after Mozart's death, then coming to London (from which he narrowly escapes prison for debt in 1792) and finally arrives in the United States of America.

I submit that there is far more to this story of Lorenzo da Ponte and the truth of these 3 operas than has ever been realised. I further submit that da Ponte was a pawn in a game (in the same way that Mozart was). For Da Ponte simply did not have the skill or the experience to have collaborated with any of any opera - let alone that of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' despite us being forced by tradition to accept his version (and that of Mozart) of these events.

I further suggest that the explosive nature of this opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was well known to the authorities of that time and that its premiere in Vienna that May of 1786 was not the result of a '6 week fusion of genius between da Ponte and Mozart' but, instead, the end result of an intrigue that had really begun many years before. 'Figaro' would be premiered in Vienna and credit would be given to further enhancing the reputation of both Mozart and da Ponte for its production though, in fact, its true genesis came through a different librettist and a quite different composer.

Why hide the identity of the composer and the librettist ? Why obscure the true history of this opera ? I believe that it is not until we appreciate the politics and the intrigues of those times (i.e. the 1780's) that we can appreciate why 'Le Nozze di Figaro' came to be officially called a Mozart/da Ponte collaboration. To do this we must (I believe) first appreciate the role of Abbe Vogler in the career of Mozart - he at this time organising Mozart's official career in the same way that it had been 'organised' by Leopold Mozart and by Abbe Bullinger in Mozart's childhood and youth. In a few short years this ongoing 'stage-management' of Mozart's meteoric career (i.e. from the time of Leopold Mozart's death onwards in 1787) would involve one last 'ecclesiastical minder' in the form of the Abbe Maximilian Stadler. And so it can be seen that the automatic attribution of this most marvellous opera to Mozart and to Lorenzo da Ponte is already dubious before we turn to consider Beaumarchais, Kraus and others who were involved in this affair.

(I entirely agree that much more needs to be argued before it can be shown that this version of events is more consistent with the facts than the 'traditional' Mozart/Da Ponte one but I think this can be done in further posts here).

Robert

---------------

Robert,

No ammount of speculation will prove anything. You are yet to supply
evidence to support your arguments.

It is rather curious that you follow
Mr. Droell's arguments about Mozart morphing
into Nissen.

Is this for the benefit of students who visit this site to learn about Beethoven?
You may as well argue that the earth is flat.

Unfortunatelly, Robert, I see your arguments as a personal obssession for which there is no cure.

Agnes Selby.

**Hofrat** · 03-27-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

Very well, I believe the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' claimed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to have been composed by him during the first half of 1786 and attributed to him ever since was, in fact, composed FOR him by the only man able to have done so at that time - none other than than the mercurial Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792). (A man whom Mozart scholarship is slowly realising has some significance in Mozart's 'official' career).

Dear Mr. Newman;

I have sent your original posting to my mentor, Professor Bertil van Boer. He is a leading expert on the Swedish composer Joseph Martin Kraus. Hopefully, the good professor will find the time to correspond.

Hofrat

**RE Newman** · 03-27-2006, 04:17 AM

Dear Agnes,

I've little time for silly personal exchanges. If you wish to represent traditional thinking on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' you have my immediate and real respect - though I must disagree with you for reasons I'm happy to explain in detail. But if your postings contain not a word of credit but only personal slurs about me being 'obsessed' I quickly tire (as would ordinary readers) and will have to ignore them altogether.

I think you owe ordinary readers some constructive posts in defence of your views if you wish to represent Mozart scholarship. In the meantime I trust readers already see which side of this 'debate' is trying to present a case and which is not.

You can present your views in any way you wish and I reserve the right to do the same. If you need me to justify a point I promise to do so to the best of my ability.

But let's move on. I've much to say and it's certainly not easy to attempt such a thing by means of internet postings.

In my last post I indicated that the career of Mozart had been largely stage managed from the time of his childhood by a series of 'ecclesiatical minders', these beginning with Bullinger in Salzburg, continuing later with Abbe Vogler, and ending in Mozart's last years with others such as Abbe Maximilian Stadler. This 'Holy Roman Empire' outline will sound strange to you but I think it's important and I suggest you examine its significance in some detail. In fact, (rather than in mere opinion) Abbe Georg Vogler is regarded in music history as a very enigmatic figure. His life and career makes sense in understanding that he was actually a hugely influential musical agent of the papacy within the Holy Roman Empire and had been appointed such in Rome by the papacy at the same time as he was admitted as a Knight of the Golden Spur (this several years after Mozart himself). Thus, Mozart and Vogler were to play a part in the creation of the so-called 'Wiener Klassik' though their true roles would not become apparent until several years later. A virtual network of sponsors included Count Durrazo, the Elector Max Franz, Esterhazy and others. It's a simple fact that neither Mozart nor Vogler were accomplished composers at the time when they were papally awarded in this way. Mozart's career was about to be 'groomed' in the same way that Haydn's had been. And in the case of Vogler he was first to be involved with a group of Italian theorists that included some of the finest pro-Catholic musical minds of that time - this including the young Andrea Luchesi and many others. To counteract the decline of status of the Jesuits within German terrories would come a new breed of musicians who would promote the superiority of the Italians.

Vogler returned to Mannheim from Rome and some years later his working relationship with Mozart began. That relationship is not revealed in the Mozart correspondence. In fact, every effort was made to deny that any such relationship existed. We read Mozart's contemptuous letters about Vogler and would hardly imagine that, in fact, the two men were closely allied. But Vogler in particular was to be of huge importance in Mozart's career - a career that would involve him being provided musical works by other composers (in much the same way as was already occurring for Joseph Haydn).

I'll post in the next few days on Beamarchais, Grimm, the French encyclopaedists, Kraus and on the background to the writing of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

Robert

**RE Newman** · 03-27-2006, 04:23 AM

Dear Hofrat,

Thanks for your posting.

Yes, I entirely agree that Professor van Boer is in a good position to form a view on whether or not JM Kraus was the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

I also agree that so far I have merely sketched a very brief email outline on this thread and that much more has to be said before the good Professor can make any judgement one way or the other.

The things take a little time to put together and I think that in a few posts from now the picture will become bit more clear as far as Kraus's involvement is concerned.

Best regards

Robert Newman

**RE Newman** · 03-27-2006, 05:32 AM

Dear Peter,

I appreciate your criticism (as ever) but it's important that my position is clarified on the points you make.

Firstly, it would be a serious error to 'prove' or to try to prove that someone did NOT do something in cases where the thing in question has been done. Much better to show that Kraus wrote 'Le Nozze di Figaro' than to spend time arguing that Mozart did not.

I trust you will agree that this approach is far more logical.

Now, in the first few posts I simply wished to show that neither Da Ponte nor Mozart had a track record of doing what is commonly assumed of them and I think it right to point out that there must surely be a question about Da Ponte's ability to have done as we generally believe of him. He is credited with having been the librettist to 3 great Vienna operas in 1786 having previously been involved in writing none at all. To say the least, this is strange and I think ordinary readers will agree that such a view is not extreme.

As regards the actual 'collaboration' between da Ponte and Mozart on 'Figaro' I have been unable to get an answer from Agnes Selby as to whether this opera was commissioned or not - seeing that the immense work involved in staging an opera is not undertaken by a composer or a librettist without some assurance of their work being paid for. But there was no response to this point. May I call this 'Anomaly Number 2' regardless of Da Ponte's sudden brilliance in writing new operatic texts ?

But a third point also remains unanswered. At what point in time was official approval given by Rosenberg and by the Emperor's censors of the text which da Ponte and Mozart wished to use for 'Figaro' ? To avoid such a question seems to me to be deliberately fudging the issue.

Here, with 'Figaro' is a play already banned across Europe which (according to convention - da Ponte's own claims) is made in to a musical comedy by Mozart in only 6 weeks during early 1786. Are we to believe that this was done without permission ? Are we seriously suggesting that 6 weeks before the premiere the censor and the Court Chamberlain had still not approved the writing of this opera ?

It is easy to see that in her failure to address these important preliminary issues Agnes Selby is actually glossing over the clear weaknesses of the traditional view.

'Le Nozze di Figaro' was not merely an opera - it was the hottest and most controversial play of the entire 18th century - a work considered so dangerous that it had been bannned for years even as a stage play.

Regards

Robert

**Agnes Selby** · 03-27-2006, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by RE Newman:

Dear Agnes,

I've little time for silly personal exchanges. If you wish to represent traditional thinking on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' you have my immediate and real respect - though I must disagree with you for reasons I'm happy to explain in detail. But if your postings contain not a word of credit but only personal slurs about me being 'obsessed' I quickly tire (as would ordinary readers) and will have to ignore them altogether.

I think you owe ordinary readers some constructive posts in defence of your views if you wish to represent Mozart scholarship. In the meantime I trust readers already see which side of this 'debate' is trying to present a case and which is not.

You can present your views in any way you wish and I reserve the right to do the same. If you need me to justify a point I promise to do so to the best of my ability.

But let's move on. I've much to say and it's certainly not easy to attempt such a thing by means of internet postings.

In my last post I indicated that the career of Mozart had been largely stage managed from the time of his childhood by a series of 'ecclesiatical minders', these beginning with Bullinger in Salzburg, continuing later with Abbe Vogler, and ending in Mozart's last years with others such as Abbe Maximilian Stadler. This 'Holy Roman Empire' outline will sound strange to you but I think it's important and I suggest you examine its significance in some detail. In fact, (rather than in mere opinion) Abbe Georg Vogler is regarded in music history as a very enigmatic figure. His life and career makes sense in understanding that he was actually a hugely influential musical agent of the papacy within the Holy Roman Empire and had been appointed such in Rome by the papacy at the same time as he was admitted as a Knight of the Golden Spur (this several years after Mozart himself). Thus, Mozart and Vogler were to play a part in the creation of the so-called 'Wiener Klassik' though their true roles would not become apparent until several years later. A virtual network of sponsors included Count Durrazo, the Elector Max Franz, Esterhazy and others. It's a simple fact that neither Mozart nor Vogler were accomplished composers at the time when they were papally awarded in this way. Mozart's career was about to be 'groomed' in the same way that Haydn's had been. And in the case of Vogler he was first to be involved with a group of Italian theorists that included some of the finest pro-Catholic musical minds of that time - this including the young Andrea Luchesi and many others. To counteract the decline of status of the Jesuits within German terrories would come a new breed of musicians who would promote the superiority of the Italians.

Vogler returned to Mannheim from Rome and some years later his working relationship with Mozart began. That relationship is not revealed in the Mozart correspondence. In fact, every effort was made to deny that any such relationship existed. We read Mozart's contemptuous letters about Vogler and would hardly imagine that, in fact, the two men were closely allied. But Vogler in particular was to be of huge importance in Mozart's career - a career that would involve him being provided musical works by other composers (in much the same way as was already occurring for Joseph Haydn).

I'll post in the next few days on Beamarchais, Grimm, the French encyclopaedists, Kraus and on the background to the writing of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

Robert

------------------

There is nothing silly in my request to you
to please supply appropriate evidence to your long arguments. There is no substantiation in any of it no matter how many words you use.

I would also like to remind you that it is not I who owes the readers on this forum an
explanation. It is you, Robert who have so far presented not a single documentation to
support the fantasy which you propose as Mozartean history.

Until such time that you find it fit to
present references and documentations,
this discussion, as far as I am concerned, is closed.

Agnes Selby.

**robert newman** · 03-27-2006, 11:31 AM

Dear Agnes Selby,

The fantasy is entirely your own. If you would read this thread impartially with an open mind on these issues you will see I've already submitted a whole series of facts so generally known to music lovers as to require no footnotes or references. Please say which of these you disagree with, if any.

The 'Mozartean history' to which you refer exists only in your head. History is history. The problem is that you (despite assuming that footnotes and references are some sort of academic vindication are only so in cases where an issue is under dispute). Please do not obscure the issue since it only highlights the fact that you have really nothing to say in defence of the very version you believe in and nothing to say either of the contradictions in the 'Mozartean history' to which you refer.

Do you really want a contest to see which of us is able to provide more footnotes ? Really, that would be absurd since the object is not so much to quote what has been quoted a million times before but is (instead) to see if a different viewpoint is sustainable in respect of 'Mozart's' Le Nozze di Figaro.

You are like a swimmer who feels secure only so long as you keep hold of an inflated rubber ring. But, as to considering that your textbooks and your sources may actually be wrong on this issue - well, that's is altogether unthinkable for you and can be compared to asking you to let go of your rubber ring so that you can swim with your own faculties.

I am building my case on this particular opera but am no more impressed by masses of footnotes or quotes of quotes than I am by dry academic treatises. The simple issue is whether the corporate mythology on Mozart with regard to Figaro is able to come to terms with its own inherent contradictions.

The facts are not really in dispute. What IS in dispute is the interpretation we place on them and (often) whether evidence from other sources can be introduced that may determine these issues one way or the other.

I have rearranged the pieces of this particular 'Figaro' puzzle and others can judge whether its final form is more or less consistent than your 'traditional' one.

Would you really be impressed Agnes if I justify all I write with footnotes, these rubber stamped in advance by the Mozarteum ? That's not for me. And it's not for you to say I am wrong if, in fact, you cannot show where I have made a mistake.

The issue will always be simple. It's whether the available evidence better supports Joseph Martin Kraus having written 'Le Nozze di Figaro' than it does Mozart. I will continue to build my case in support of Kraus in further posts here. So, in the meantime, perhaps you can provide answers to the many unanswered points asked of you so far (which you seem to avoid each time you write).

We can already say that Mozart was never commissioned to write 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. For, if he WAS commissioned to do so, please (dear Agnes) let us have supporting evidence in support of such a commission in your next post. Nor was the maverick priest Lorenzo da Ponte commissioned to provide a libretto for 'Figaro'either. If he WAS commissioned to provide one please let us have from you in your next post supporting evidence. Let me add that there is no record either of 'Da Ponte's' text ever having been submitted to or approved in advance by the Vienna censors (an obligation placed on every single librettist who wished to produce a play or opera in that city in advance of it ever being staged or performed). Again, if you have contrary evidence kindly submit it in your next post. And if, as tradition says, Da Ponte (a man who never had written a single libretto up until this time) was able to persuade these Viennese authorities to stage 'Figaro' (this despite the work being banned) please provide us with evidence of it in your next post. Again, I think you have nothing to offer that would further the traditional view that you claim to believe in.

Is there, in fact, anything you can provide to support your view on the Mozart/da Ponte genesis of this opera ? I seem to keep asking you such things and you seem wholly unable to answer. Yet you believe Mozart and Da Ponte, without official permission wrote this opera and did so without patronage. You believe, in fact, that this banned play was brought to virtual completion as a comic opera without a shred of evidence existing that it was officially approved or commissioned by anyone. And that Da Ponte (a man who had never written anything for any stage at the time) performed this miracle and proceeded to do the same twice more in providing operatic librettos during this same year of 1786. Such is the scenario you believe in and it seems never to dawn on you that such a version is total nonsense.

Pointing out these discrepancies (and there are dozens of others) only provokes you to point out that I have not provided footnotes. Really, this is laughable and cannot distract me from pointing out the deficiencies in your 'traditional' understanding. You believe things that are lacking any documentary support of the kind you claim to believe in and have not a shred of evidence in support of them.

I say more than Mozart/Da Ponte did not produce 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. I've promised to build on this by submitting over the next 4 posts or so a case that, in fact, JM Kraus wrote this music and that Da Ponte had nothing to do with tbe libretto despite posing in Vienna as its librettist (as Mozart posed as its composer).

All of this may baffle you. But simple things so often do when all we have are popular myths.

If you need specific sources for anything I say on this thread please ask and I will be happy to oblige. (In such cases I will provide them at the foot of my posts). But if you don't ask for them I will provide none.

I estimate that it will take perhaps a further 4 posts or so before I've sketched the rough outline of my case.

My next 3 posts on this thread will deal with the years leading up to Kraus becoming involved in 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and will include a brief summary of Beaumarchais's play and other issues that preceded composition of this opera.

Robert

**Peter** · 03-27-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by robert newman:

The fantasy is entirely your own. If you would read this thread impartially with an open mind on these issues you will see I've already submitted a whole series of facts so generally known to music lovers as to require no footnotes or references. Please say which of these you disagree with, if any.

Your case rests entirely on what you regard as improbables. Putting aside Idomeneo and Die Entführung aus dem Serail, both of which I know you will dispute, why is it so astonishing for an opera like the Marriage of figaro to have been written? Well lets look at Beethoven's Leonore - what had he done before in this field or subsequently? Look at his librettist, Joseph Sonnleithner - a man whose profession was a lawyer. It was only from 1804-1814 in his role as secretary to the court theatres that he produced libretti to French plays. So prior to Leonore, he had virtually no background in this field. Yet, who would conclude from this that Beethoven and Sonnleithner could not possibly be the authors?

Regarding the censorship issue, this is an irrelevance as we know permission was granted as the opera was performed regardless of who you think wrote it. Incidentally, the German version of Figaro was not banned as a book - Mozart owned a copy.

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

**robert newman** · 03-27-2006, 03:07 PM

Peter,

My case does not rest on 'improbables'. It highlights the improbability of the traditional view - a view that has Mozart and Da Ponte working without any commission or any approval on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and in a situation where the 'librettist' was no more qualified or experienced than you or I. It focuses on these and other things such as the plain fact that a text for an opera (let alone that of Figaro) must by law be first submitted to the censors in Vienna before any such play or opera can be performed in Vienna.

Please do not set aside these issues since they are plainly important in this case.

You refer to Beethoven's 'Leonore'. Fine, but in that single case Beethoven worked for years and Da Ponte/Mozart claim they worked for a mere 6 weeks - this around the time when the said da Ponte was already up to his eyeballs with two other operas.

Yes, there was a German text of 'Figaro' but there was not even a text in Italian until 1785. And it was not the German text of Figaro that was the basis of the work performed in Vienna in 1786.

The simple facts remain. Nobody commissioned da Ponte or Mozart to write this opera. The play/opera required the approval of the Viennese authorities. But there is again no evidence that this was sought by either Mozart or da Ponte.

The fact that this opera was performed in Vienna with Mozart/da Ponte posing as its creators is not disputed. But, as said before, I believe that by the time this thread is finished it will become plainer and plainer that neither of them were associated with its genesis.

Robert

Announcement

'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos

'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment