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

[robert newman]

Dear WoO,

Yes, yes ! - that's exactly right and you introduce this 'bombshell' at exactly the right time. Not only does Joseph Martin Kraus write here about Mozart composing 'Figaro' half a year before the official version of events but he does so (in this letter to his sister) from Paris - a Kraus letter which testifies either to Kraus having extra-sensory perception, ESP, or to him having the most intimate knowledge of what da Ponte and Mozart were supposedly doing.

Furthermore, at some point this 5 act play underwent its translation in to a 4 act opera and Kraus specifically talks of Mozart composing the music, but not of da Ponte making the libretto. Now, it follows that this remarkable Kraus letter (even taken at face value) has the potential to turn upside down almost everything we think we know about the true genesis of 'Mozart's' Le Nozze di Figaro.

Setting aside more detailed argument for later, let it be conceded that in order for Mozart (or anyone else) to be composing the opera in the autumn of 1785 permission must already have existed from the censorship authorities in Vienna to the text on which 'Mozart' was supposedly working. But if that permission had already been obtained in the autumn of 1785 it follows that da Ponte (if we try to rescue convention) must necessarily have submitted his libretto well before the autumn of that same year. We are therefore forced to consider that this 'Mozart/da Ponte' collaboration began as early as the summer of 1785 (if not earlier).

Let is be asked too how Kraus, writing from Paris could have known what Mozart was doing in Vienna on such a hugely controversial piece if, in fact, Mozart and da Ponte were composing secretly (without publicity) and unknown to the population of Vienna.

The very first thing we must accept here is that a relationship existed between Kraus and Mozart which 'official' scholarship has been so reluctant to ever admit - one in which Kraus and Mozart were in intimate contact and communication with one another - a relationship which has time and time again been argued for but never conceded by convention.

We open here a can of worms. For, here is Joseph Martin Kraus, 'the Swedish Mozart' writing from Paris, the city of Beaumarchais and of the Comedie Francaise - the city of the Revolution to come of 1789, and the city where, of course, the history of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' really began.

I will post further on this soon.

R

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear WoO,

Yes, yes ! - that's exactly right and you introduce this 'bombshell' at exactly the right time. Not only does Joseph Martin Kraus write here about Mozart composing 'Figaro' half a year before the official version of events but he does so (in this letter to his sister) from Paris - a Kraus letter which testifies either to Kraus having extra-sensory perception, ESP, or to him having the most intimate knowledge of what da Ponte and Mozart were supposedly doing.

As far as I am aware the only account of the events surrounding the composition of Figaro come from the highly unreliable memoirs of da Ponte written almost 40 years later. You draw all the wrong conclusions - there is nothing odd about Mozart informing Kraus of his composing Figaro - Mozart must have met him in 1783 and a friendship grew out of mutual respect.

Why if kraus was writing the music did he write to his sister claiming Mozart was writing the music? Here we have clear proof, a written document from Kraus stating quite clearly that Mozart was writing Figaro, yet still you twist it the other way round! If we had a letter to Nannerl from Mozart saying Kraus was writing Figaro you would jump on it immediately as proof!

I would also remind you in an earlier version of your story you claimed "
Productions of Don Giovanni and again of Figaro are known at Bonn years before Mozart became involved in these subjects" - How does Kraus fit in with this?

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-28-2006).]

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Thanks Droell. I respect the fact that you are prepared to think beyond convention because there are so many paradoxes and problems in the traditional version. That's justification enough.

(It reminds me that in studies of ancient Egypt there was until the late 19th century only three accepted sources on the history of that country - two of them partial - the Bible, a version of dynastic history by one 'Manetho' (an Egyptian priest who lived in the Roman Period) and the references found in the Histories of Herodotus. But a huge amount of new evidence in Egyptology has been discovered by those brave enough to have thought the 'unthinkable', though it clashed (and still does) with the 'established' view.

Dear Robert

It shouldn't take up much room on this thread, but Egyptology is a subject with which I have been much involved. So I am interested as to what you think the 'established' view in Egyptology is, and what you think is the brave 'unthinkable' view, which you clearly take to be the truth. Are you a follower of David Roel (not to be confused with David Roell)? Or Immanuel Velikovsky?

Incidentally I have met David Roel a number of times, and been to one of his conferences. You might be surprised how well he gets on with the 'establishment'. Actually his views, on redating the Third Intermediate Period, are not that different to some 'establishment' egyptologists, merely differing in degree.

I again get the impression that your primary motive is a hatred of 'convention', 'establishment', 'conservatism' etc., rather than a simple desire for the truth.

Regards,

Frank

(Incidentally, I see you are now posting under two names. I assure you that I don't attribute anything sinister or underhand to you in this - this is just another of those puzzling inconsistencies in human affairs - which however a later "scholar" might use, and distort, to raise all sorts of questions about the identity of "Robert Newman" and "RE Newman", and the actual authorship of posts under those names )



[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-28-2006).]

[robert newman]

Yours is a bold theory, Peter, that Mozart was composing 'Figaro' long before tradition (and da Ponte) claim. I have of course considered this and have taken note of the implication that a correspondence and a relationship existed between Mozart and Kraus which forms no part of 'official' history.

I am certain that a relationship did indeed exist between Mozart and Kraus, but I am equally certain that it at no time involved correspondence.

You exaggerate the date at which da Ponte gives his memoirs (in fact he gives them twice - the second time much more embellished than the first) but I can return to this in another post.

I must now ask if you can suggest an approximate date when da Ponte submitted his libretto of Figaro to Vienna authorities for their approval. But that's a predictable question and one that perhaps you as promoter of this theory can suggest (?)

As to earlier versions of Figaro I must deal with them later also.

I am convinced that we crack this puzzle only by approaching it in an entirely different way.

Regards

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

Thanks for your comments on Egyptology. In answer to your question I suggest (and I think the evidence supports it) that the true revolution in those studies is indeed that of the spans of Egytian dynastic chronology - not so much that of the length of Intermediate Periods but of the start and end dates of the Old Kingdom.

Now, as to your bold statement that I am a hater of convention, this is simply not true. In fact I am highly conservative as regards the dates and spans of ancient Egypt in the sense that I agree (as did researchers such as Sir Leonard Woolley and many other early Egyptologists) that the biblical chronology for early Egypt is by far the most reliable source of dates on that country.

Now such an opinion is in stark contrast to the ludicrous number of changes we have witnessed in the start date to the Old Kingdom by authorities such as the British Museum - a situation where we arrive at a crazy start date for the 1st Dynasty of around 3,100 BC (this after a century or so of huge changes in textbooks) - and this despite the fact that all the real evidence indicates that Egypts dynastic history really began not much earlier than 2,000BC and in all proabability as recently as 1930BC.

Such a view is entirely consistent with the biblical chronology, with the known history of, say, Babylonia and China, and it is also far more consistent with the actual evidence.

Best regards

Robert

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Yours is a bold theory, Peter, that Mozart was composing 'Figaro' long before tradition (and da Ponte) claim. I have of course considered this and have taken note of the implication that a correspondence and a relationship existed between Mozart and Kraus which forms no part of 'official' history.

I am certain that a relationship did indeed exist between Mozart and Kraus, but I am equally certain that it at no time involved correspondence.

You exaggerate the date at which da Ponte gives his memoirs (in fact he gives them twice - the second time much more embellished than the first) but I can return to this in another post.

I must now ask if you can suggest an approximate date when da Ponte submitted his libretto of Figaro to Vienna authorities for their approval. But that's a predictable question and one that perhaps you as promoter of this theory can suggest (?)

As to earlier versions of Figaro I must deal with them later also.

I am convinced that we crack this puzzle only by approaching it in an entirely different way.

Regards

Dear Robert;

For four years (1782-1786), Kraus was criss-crossing Europe, keeping an extensive journal and correspondence with his family and music officialdom in Sweden. All this has been preserved. Why doesn't Kraus mention Figaro in his journals? Why do we find but one letter where he mentions Figaro?


Hofrat

[Hofrat]

Dear Robert;

Another point. How do you explain that the violin concerti that Myslevicek supposingly wrote for Mozart bear no resemblance to anything that Myslevicek wrote?


Hofrat

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Yours is a bold theory, Peter, that Mozart was composing 'Figaro' long before tradition (and da Ponte) claim. I have of course considered this and have taken note of the implication that a correspondence and a relationship existed between Mozart and Kraus which forms no part of 'official' history.

I didn't say this! It is possible that Mozart mentioned to kraus that he was thinking of Figaro. Da Ponte states that when the idea of an opera was first suggested Mozart suggested Figaro, so it had obviously been on his mind for a considerable time.


You exaggerate the date at which da Ponte gives his memoirs (in fact he gives them twice - the second time much more embellished than the first) but I can return to this in another post.

The point is that Da Ponte embellished - that doesn't mean he made everything up.


I must now ask if you can suggest an approximate date when da Ponte submitted his libretto of Figaro to Vienna authorities for their approval. But that's a predictable question and one that perhaps you as promoter of this theory can suggest (?)

Well since Louis Vl allowed the played to be performed in Paris in 1784 and since his wife was the sister of Joseph II one would assume that Mozart would have felt quite confident about this, especially with Da Ponte being in a position of influence and in favour at court. As to the exact timing, I do not know, but the same permission would have been needed whoever wrote the opera.


As to earlier versions of Figaro I must deal with them later also.

Please do!

Have you actually heard any of Kraus's operas? - Fine though much of the music is, there is a quantum leap to Idomeneo let alone the Marriage of Figaro!


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

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

Your question is an obvious and good one. I plan to write two or perhaps three articles in the next few weeks which will deal with this and other issues. I entirely agree that on the surface (i.e. at a documentary level) we see nothing that would support Kraus being deeply involved in writing 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

But this curious theory (as I've indicated earlier today) is in my view best put forward by approaching these issues from a completely different angle and so I will try to bring all the issues together in these forthcoming posts. (I hope to have part one of this ready within a week).

Regards

[Frank H]

Dear Robert,

Thanks for your reply about Egypt. It seems to me that the chronology of Ancient Egypt is far from determined, and I certainly wouldn’t entirely rule out your suggestion – drastic as it is.

With regard to “Le Nozze di Figaro”, this work surely cannot be taken in isolation. What about the other two “Mozart/da Ponte” operas – “Don Giovanni” and “Cosi fan Tutte”? As far as I know, no one who knows these three operas well – including of course the singers – has suggested that these three operas seem to be by different authors. Hence, I would suggest that if your suggestions for “Figaro” don’t work as well for the other two, you are faced with a rather severe problem.

Regards,

Frank

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

Thanks for our temporary diversion of matters of ancient Egyptian chronology. May I mention briefly that in my personal view one of the chief reasons for the glaring contradictions in the accepted dynastic span of ancient Eygpt is that Egyptologists have so far failed to appreciate that the Pleistocene (the Ice Age) actually ended well within the span of human recorded history, and not some 7,000 years before the Egyptian first dynasty. (You will be aware that several ancient historians - including Diodorus Siculus and others speak of Egypt first being a land virtually underwater at the time when Menes/Narmer began his rule - this too consistent with a great deal of evidence in Herodotus and other writers). In point of fact I think that flooding and seismic activity had serious impact in fracturing the accepted span of dynastic Egypt at least twice in its history - the first time ending the so-called 'Old Kingdom' and the second time some 700 years later (around 1250 BC).
But I mention this simply in passing. (For sure, the flooding of the site on which the city of Alexandria would later be built indicates such devastation to the city at that time - i.e. contemporary with similar events that ended civilizations such as the Minoans on Crete, etc.

But, as to Figaro and the two 'da Ponte' operas that followed (Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutte) yes, you are right that I am still in the foothills of buiding my case and that its all uphill from now on. But (and I think it right) one must work with the problems in front of one and allow the others to present themselves in due course.

Best regards

Robert Newman

[robert newman]

INTRODUCTION

I’ve promised to submit a short series of articles on this thread over the next few weeks (perhaps 4 in total) in support of the view that, contrary to general belief, neither Mozart nor Lorenzo da Ponte were responsible for creation of the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ premiered at the Vienna Burgtheater in 1786. I’ve also suggested that the real composer of that opera was the less well known Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792). References or footnotes will be avoided here or kept to a minimum to allow me to write in a more informal style than would be the case if I was trying to write, say, a journal article on the same subject. (I will of course be happy to provide source details on any point if these are specifically asked for).

I want to begin this ‘Introduction’ by explaining what I mean by ‘approaching this subject from an unusual angle’. I mean that this subject is itself unusual and that certain sorts of evidence must be introduced to make my case whose relevance may not immediately be obvious to some readers or which may even be disputed as relevant at all by others. In my view presentation of such evidence (since it rarely features in discussions on Mozart, Kraus or music in general) is of crucial importance to my case. My aim remains to show beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Martin Kraus wrote the music to the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.

I wish to identify what are for me two crucially important themes that I intend to use repeatedly in arguing for Kraus. These unlikely themes provide a context within which my case can be presented. Frankly, I doubt whether this issue can be resolved if the evidence they provide is not presented. I name them as follows -

1. The Jesuits and their Place in Art and Music c.1720-1814
2. Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)

Now a brief description of the relevance of these two themes to my argument –

1. We all agree that composition of and the first performance of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ occurred in Europe during the late 18th century and within the span of time during which the so-called ‘Holy Roman Empire’ enjoyed a position of political and religious dominance in Austria. Even greater dominance in Europe as a whole existed within educational fields controlled by the Catholic Order known as the Society of Jesus (better known to us today as Jesuits). Jesuits had immense and real power in many areas of academic study and their influence (even in the fields of Art and Music) was huge up to and even after the time when they were finally dissolved by the Pope in Rome in 1773.

2. With the exception of territories where the Protestant Reformation had prevailed (large parts of Germany, for example) it would be fair to say that 18th century Europe was a Catholic continent. The astounding life and career of Johann Sebastian Bach (a man who only became well known around the 1720’s) was, I will argue, judged to have serious implications amongst Jesuit centres of musical study not least because the same Bach, a Lutheran was devoted to providing a comprehensive school of music for students in his exquisite publications but also because this German man had proved his ability to sustain his teachings in areas where Catholic education (and therefore Jesuit influence) was already shown to be of far less significance. Bach was bad news for the Jesuits. They wished to limit his impact.

Just as Luther centuries before had spearheaded the Reformation and been responded to by a ‘Counter Reformation’ from Rome (one that included the founding of the Jesuit Order as shock troops of actively pursue such a counter reformation), so too in the musical sense the prodigious talents of Bach and the immense significance of his musical teachings eventually made it necessary for Jesuits in the music sphere to provide a musical counter-reformation.

It’s these unlikely themes that I wish to develop and build on so that it might be appreciated how networks of composers could (and did) exist by which reputations could be made and even enhanced if it was deemed to sustain and consolidate Catholic musical interests in lands where they were still dominant.

To argue that the history of music c.1729-1814 is really one of ‘a reaction to Bach’ would of course be a gross oversimplification. It nevertheless has more substance than has often been appreciated. That view of things (provided that we avoid dogmatism) certainly provides a context within which a number of curious relationships between composers can be explained, of which one is that between Haydn and Mozart and another that of Mozart and Kraus themselves. The religious conversion of one of Bach’s sons to Catholicism also had implications for musical history. So did that of Hasse and various others. To ignore these issues is to rob us of the reality of those times.

Add to this the fact that late 18th century Europe saw an increasingly divided Catholic church split over the policies of reformers such as Joseph 2nd, this on the eve of Revolution in France. This too must be factored in to the equation. For ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ was a hugely controversial and potentially explosive play that presented some tough things to those who saw it. The play first saw the light of day after huge controversy. And Figaro, of course, became arguably the most controversial opera of all time. Small wonder that its genesis (both as a play and also as an opera) is shrouded in mystery in many respects.

These, then, are the rough outlines of what I propose to build on in my four submissions over the next few weeks with a view to arguing that Kraus and not Mozart was the true composer of ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’.


Robert Newman


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-29-2006).]

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-29-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]INTRODUCTION


2. With the exception of territories where the Protestant Reformation had prevailed (large parts of Germany, for example) it would be fair to say that 18th century Europe was a Catholic continent. The astounding life and career of Johann Sebastian Bach (a man who only became well known around the 1720’s) was, I will argue, judged to have serious implications amongst Jesuit centres of musical study not least because the same Bach, a Lutheran was devoted to providing a comprehensive school of music for students in his exquisite publications but also because this German man had proved his ability to sustain his teachings in areas where Catholic education (and therefore Jesuit influence) was already shown to be of far less significance. Bach was bad news for the Jesuits. They wished to limit his impact.

Why just Bach, what about Handel? Interestingly for a 'musical counter-reformation' Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were all heavily influenced in a positive way by Bach and Handel!

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

[robert newman]

Peter,

Yes, Handel was a high profile composer. A far more public figure than Bach. But eventually the talents and the productions of Bach (this plus the fact that nobody could accuse him of being ignorant of trends amongst the leading composers) gave him a formidable reputation. His legacy was growing and he was not lured in to a wholly secular existence. We know what he thought of other composers. But what did they think of him ?

The greatest contemporary influence on Bach (from a musical point of view)was surely the renegade priest, Antonio Vivaldi. But all we generally hear is how Bach made special note of the Italians and never, if at all, of how they made special note of him.

I note too that Bach's name first appears in print in the 1720's with several attacks on his whole style of composition. But, again, it's Bach as a teacher, as the creator of the 48 Preludes and Fugues, of the cantatas, the Partitas, the Art of Fugue, etc. etc. that eventually make his critics realise that his contribution is not to be short-lived. What did the Jesuits (those agents of counter-reformation) think of that ? I believe history shows that schools of theory and networks of Jesuit-approved teachers were their response.

Whilst it's perfectly true that the 48 Preludes and Fugues were in circulation and were being played by, say, Mozart, there is no evidence that these led to a demand for Bach's works and Bach's teachings to be followed. Indeed, its well in to the 1780's when Mozart is startled by hearing works that we today take for granted -'Singet dem Herrn' etc. Bach could not be ignored. He could only be portrayed as an interesting relic of former times. I believe it was this version of Bach that found approval in Vienna.

But the important thing here is that we have much evidence (e.g.Padre Martini and the Padua school) that Catholic authorities were actively developing huge networks of composers and teachers to counteract any possibility that Bach would transcend the official view of him a parochial irrelevance.

That is how (I think) we finally have a situation where Padre Martini is in touch with virtually all the great composers of Catholic Europe and why we have special care being taken in theoretical treatises on harmony from schools in Italy.

Music could be high profile propaganda and the Jesuits knew this very well.

It's this context that I would like to describe and illustrate in my next posts before beginning discussion of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

Rgds


Bach's relative obscurity

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Peter,

Yes, Handel was a high profile composer. A far more public figure than Bach. But eventually the talents and the productions of Bach (this plus the fact that nobody could accuse him of being ignorant of trends amongst the leading composers) gave him a formidable reputation. His legacy was growing and he was not lured in to a wholly secular existence. We know what he thought of other composers. But what did they think of him ?

The greatest contemporary influence on Bach (from a musical point of view)was surely the renegade priest, Antonio Vivaldi. But all we generally hear is how Bach made special note of the Italians and never, if at all, of how they made special note of him.

Firstly I don't think you can single out any one particular composer as being the greatest influence on Bach. Bach was familiar with an enormous amount of contemporary music, Italian, French and German - yet he was incredibly original, no mere imitator.

Now as to the conspiracy theory, composers such as Hasse and Telemann enjoyed a far greater European reputation than Bach. Hasse was especially popular in Italy. Even in Germany, Telemann was considered the finer musician and this was reflected in a salary three times that of Bach's.

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