It's interesting that you choose to focus on Lorenzo da Ponte, rather than on the actual issue of Mozart. But let me deal with that.
I at no time said that Lorenzo da Ponte was a Jesuit. In fact, history tells us he was appointed as poet in Vienna by Joseph 2nd - a man who had banned and who hated the Jesuits. Secondly, nobody has suggested da Ponte knew the full facts at any time. He knew enough to lie about writing the libretto. But that in itself proves nothing beyond his opportunism.
As to 'making up a story' is concerned, well, I leave you to judge whether something so intricate and so plainly controversial, even socially explosive as 'Figaro' could have such an explanation just by mere coincidence of the fact that Vogler, Kraus, Beaumarchais and all the other factors combined as they did, at that particular time. These things, when added to the real and indisputable deficiencies in the traditional story, are surely at least a reasoned argument. And that is what I have tried to sketch here.
It does not matter to me if you regard this as invention. Such evidence as we have is consistent with this interpretation and is certainly not inconsistent. To this extent, I trust you will agree it presents, even in these posts, a different view.
I do not say that the Babylonians had mobile telephones. Or that the inventor of the compact disc player lived in ancient Greece. I say that when we examine the circumstances and contexts relevant to the birth of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' we find (as in so much else of Mozart's 'official' career), grounds for considering this as more consistent with the known facts and with the realities of those times than is the contradictory, exaggerated, admittedly false version/s given to us by da Ponte and by the 'traditionalists'. But that judgement, of course, is for everyone to make for themselves. It's also for us to live permanently with tradition and its contradictions or to share, constructively, in arriving at the truth. We both share in this process and I remain, like you, most influenced by what is most consistent.
Regards
Robert Newman
(P.S. The 'Figaro' theory is not actually one of Mr Taboga's but my own. He has nevertheless reminded me of the playbill from Frankfurt am Main of April 1785. But we have frankly been so busy in our respective areas and looking at literally hundreds of works that we've never discussed 'Figaro' at any length). Is it not the traditionalists who are joking here ?).
R
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-14-2006).]
I at no time said that Lorenzo da Ponte was a Jesuit. In fact, history tells us he was appointed as poet in Vienna by Joseph 2nd - a man who had banned and who hated the Jesuits. Secondly, nobody has suggested da Ponte knew the full facts at any time. He knew enough to lie about writing the libretto. But that in itself proves nothing beyond his opportunism.
As to 'making up a story' is concerned, well, I leave you to judge whether something so intricate and so plainly controversial, even socially explosive as 'Figaro' could have such an explanation just by mere coincidence of the fact that Vogler, Kraus, Beaumarchais and all the other factors combined as they did, at that particular time. These things, when added to the real and indisputable deficiencies in the traditional story, are surely at least a reasoned argument. And that is what I have tried to sketch here.
It does not matter to me if you regard this as invention. Such evidence as we have is consistent with this interpretation and is certainly not inconsistent. To this extent, I trust you will agree it presents, even in these posts, a different view.
I do not say that the Babylonians had mobile telephones. Or that the inventor of the compact disc player lived in ancient Greece. I say that when we examine the circumstances and contexts relevant to the birth of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' we find (as in so much else of Mozart's 'official' career), grounds for considering this as more consistent with the known facts and with the realities of those times than is the contradictory, exaggerated, admittedly false version/s given to us by da Ponte and by the 'traditionalists'. But that judgement, of course, is for everyone to make for themselves. It's also for us to live permanently with tradition and its contradictions or to share, constructively, in arriving at the truth. We both share in this process and I remain, like you, most influenced by what is most consistent.
Regards
Robert Newman
(P.S. The 'Figaro' theory is not actually one of Mr Taboga's but my own. He has nevertheless reminded me of the playbill from Frankfurt am Main of April 1785. But we have frankly been so busy in our respective areas and looking at literally hundreds of works that we've never discussed 'Figaro' at any length). Is it not the traditionalists who are joking here ?).
R
[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-14-2006).]
Comment