I've been reading the preceding posts in this lengthy thread trying to determine what is the gist of Robert's argument. Sifting thru the thousands of words by both him and his critics, I find his argument to consist of three points:
1. There is some doubt as to exactly when Mozart and Da Ponte were actually (or allegedly) working on the opera.
2. There was apparently no commission.
3. There was apparently no granting of permission to write the opera.
For point one, the genesis of a work is often in fits and starts, with other works interceding and receding. Mozart could have been thinking about an opera at any time after the play's performances and notoriety in 1784. The lack of a clear chain of evidence as to when the opera was actually created can mean little. It could even be exhibited as proof of the work's legitimacy in Mozart's ouevre by someone familiar with the uneven nature of artistic creation. In other words, this factor really proves nothing.
For point two, it has been answered by several posters who point out that a work can readily be written without a commission.
For point three, several posters have pointed out that since nobody claims the work was not performed, permission had to be given at some point or else was not necessary. Robert has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these replies, and has instead continued to rely, without explicitly stating so, on the assumption that permission from the authorities was necessary BEFORE composition began, instead of AFTER, before the actual performance. Since this assumption is shaky, it is no surprise that he's not actually stated it, but has just continually relied on it in a sort of shadowy way, all the time continuing to insist forthrightly on the more general charge that permission was not granted.
While I consider these arguments of Robert's refuted, I am more interested in this post to inquire why he prepares the ground so long and lovingly before giving his whole argument, whatever it may finally be. He opens the thread a full week ago, with sweeping accusations which anyone must realize will bring intense rejoinders, with as proof nothing more than these three weak points, all the while promising further proof when he finally marshals his whole argument. In the meantime, he lays more charges - about another conspiracy, this time in Egyptology scholarship, to push back the dates of the Old Kingdom; and about yet another conspiracy, to defeat the already-defeated Bach; in each case making grand claims but providing no or very little evidence. The pronouncements and the charges are restated and expanded upon in paragraph after paragraph, yet the proof is always promised for sometime next week. So that after a week and three full very long pages, we have a lot of wordy circling around the target and various other targets, a lot of digression, a lot of unsupported claims but almost nothing else.
Would someone really confident of his proofs not lay them all out in fullness, logical order and clarity FIRST, instead of restating the charges many times and still delaying the evidence?
In short, the WAY in which he argues seems to me quite as indicative of the lack of substance here, as the absence of real evidence itself.
[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 04-04-2006).]
1. There is some doubt as to exactly when Mozart and Da Ponte were actually (or allegedly) working on the opera.
2. There was apparently no commission.
3. There was apparently no granting of permission to write the opera.
For point one, the genesis of a work is often in fits and starts, with other works interceding and receding. Mozart could have been thinking about an opera at any time after the play's performances and notoriety in 1784. The lack of a clear chain of evidence as to when the opera was actually created can mean little. It could even be exhibited as proof of the work's legitimacy in Mozart's ouevre by someone familiar with the uneven nature of artistic creation. In other words, this factor really proves nothing.
For point two, it has been answered by several posters who point out that a work can readily be written without a commission.
For point three, several posters have pointed out that since nobody claims the work was not performed, permission had to be given at some point or else was not necessary. Robert has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these replies, and has instead continued to rely, without explicitly stating so, on the assumption that permission from the authorities was necessary BEFORE composition began, instead of AFTER, before the actual performance. Since this assumption is shaky, it is no surprise that he's not actually stated it, but has just continually relied on it in a sort of shadowy way, all the time continuing to insist forthrightly on the more general charge that permission was not granted.
While I consider these arguments of Robert's refuted, I am more interested in this post to inquire why he prepares the ground so long and lovingly before giving his whole argument, whatever it may finally be. He opens the thread a full week ago, with sweeping accusations which anyone must realize will bring intense rejoinders, with as proof nothing more than these three weak points, all the while promising further proof when he finally marshals his whole argument. In the meantime, he lays more charges - about another conspiracy, this time in Egyptology scholarship, to push back the dates of the Old Kingdom; and about yet another conspiracy, to defeat the already-defeated Bach; in each case making grand claims but providing no or very little evidence. The pronouncements and the charges are restated and expanded upon in paragraph after paragraph, yet the proof is always promised for sometime next week. So that after a week and three full very long pages, we have a lot of wordy circling around the target and various other targets, a lot of digression, a lot of unsupported claims but almost nothing else.
Would someone really confident of his proofs not lay them all out in fullness, logical order and clarity FIRST, instead of restating the charges many times and still delaying the evidence?
In short, the WAY in which he argues seems to me quite as indicative of the lack of substance here, as the absence of real evidence itself.
[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 04-04-2006).]
Comment