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

[robert newman]

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).]

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
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).]

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


Robert, I will certainly not argue with you about Mozart because anyone argueing with you about anything is simply wasting his/hers time. Your imagination about Mozart is so voluminous and preposterous, I would need what is left of my life to argue every point with you. You believe in your own inventions and it is amazing to me that you have so far not once consulted any documents and have so far given absolutely no data, and here we have 7 pages of "research" without documentation.

Can you imagine how this appears to people whose work IS RESEARCH? And I do not mean Mr. Taboga who had seen some paper but does not remember when and where and has not taken much notice of it at the time. Robert, this is not research but gossip and
guesswork.

I have congratulated you six years ago on Open Mozart on your excellent imagination which belongs to fiction writing but not to be presented as fact.

I would also caution you about Da Ponte.
If you have not consulted the vast library
at Columbia University in New York where his
letters, other writings and documents are housed, its best to leave him out of the picture. You see, Da Ponte was first professor of Italian at Columbia University (then Columbia College) and had dedicated his vast library and personal papers to the University. These documents go as far as the reign of Joseph II in Vienna.

I must admit your trying to turn Mozartean history on its head upsets me. Your use of the internet which is more often than not consulted by students all over the world,
upsets me very much. But I cannot do anything about it except not foster your
"fame" such as it is, by replying to your musings and thereby not encouraging your replies. So, as far as I am concerned, Robert, I leave you to your destructive forces.

Agnes.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by ASelby:
I have congratulated you six years ago on Open Mozart on your excellent imagination which belongs to fiction writing but not to be presented as fact.

Hear, hear. This statement is truly amazing coming from someone, who (six years ago) claimed to have *found* Baden police files and Kremsmunster records in the Austrian National Library.

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
Hear, hear. This statement is truly amazing coming from someone, who (six years ago) claimed to have *found* Baden police files and Kremsmunster records in the Austrian National Library.

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

Oh ! Hello Dr. Lorenz!!! I suspected that "Cetto" was in fact you, Michael. Your style of writing cannot be mistaken.

Well, I can see that the "fun" all had on Open Mozart has now been trasferred here.
Please ask Dan Leeson to join in.

Kind regards,

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

I must give real credit here first of all to Cetto von Cronstorff for correctly saying that it was you, Agnes Selby, who some years ago announced you had documentary evidence of files related to Mozart's contemporaries but who (despite being asked dozens and dozens of times) have never at any time provided the least support for your claim. In fact, you know perfectly well I myself have posted time after time on that issue as can easily be confirmed. Was it not the same Agnes Selby (who says that she cares for the education of the young) who claimed repeatedly that she knew of ongoing research being conducted by an Australian who would shortly release information on Prince Carl Lichnowsky related to debts supposedly owed to him by Mozart - a claim that I (again repeatedly) asked you to confirm but which you did not produce. This is the second such example. But let me add a third - so that readers can see who is telling the truth here and who is not. Was it not you also, Agnes Selby, who told Mozart scholarship that you had interviewed a relative of the British royal family concerning them having a copy of a work related to Mozart's Requiem - the details of which I repeatedly asked you to provide but which you did not provide - despite the fact that you knew that I was working singlehandedly in this area of research ?

I could give you dozens of examples. Here on this forum the record shows that when asked a straight question you have postured behind your pseudo-academic reputation, talking of footnotes, archives, and so on but have never been able to do more than condemn me or to smear me.

Let it stand Agnes, that I repeat here that I can provide as many sources for ANYTHING I have written here on Mozart as you may require. I do not use footnotes in what is an informal forum unless they help a reader to more easily appreciate the relative importance of a point - but I remain ready, willing and able to provide them to the best of my ability always.

It is perfectly true that my views, my findings, may be at odds with the truth though I assure you I have read as much as many who would share nothing for their own vested reasons. Regarding the 'fame' of which you speak, let it consist only of advising readers (students and non-students) to think of education as academic goodwill. If it is not that it is nothing at all.

There is much more I could write about the background to 'Figaro' (not least the men Beaumarchais met at the time when his play was ready for being staged - the early 1780's - men who included Vogler himself and members of his circle). But it's enough of course to leave it at this, since I would rather be right in my attitude and wrong in my conclusions than the other way round.

Sincerely

Robert

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Dear Agnes Selby,

I must give real credit here first of all to Cetto von Cronstorff for correctly saying that it was you, Agnes Selby, who some years ago announced you had documentary evidence of files related to Mozart's contemporaries but who (despite being asked dozens and dozens of times) have never at any time provided the least support for your claim. In fact, you know perfectly well I myself have posted time after time on that issue as can easily be confirmed. Was it not the same Agnes Selby (who says that she cares for the education of the young) who claimed repeatedly that she knew of ongoing research being conducted by an Australian who would shortly release information on Prince Carl Lichnowsky related to debts supposedly owed to him by Mozart - a claim that I (again repeatedly) asked you to confirm but which you did not produce. This is the second such example. But let me add a third - so that readers can see who is telling the truth here and who is not. Was it not you also, Agnes Selby, who told Mozart scholarship that you had interviewed a relative of the British royal family concerning them having a copy of a work related to Mozart's Requiem - the details of which I repeatedly asked you to provide but which you did not provide - despite the fact that you knew that I was working singlehandedly in this area of research ?

I could give you dozens of examples. Here on this forum the record shows that when asked a straight question you have postured behind your pseudo-academic reputation, talking of footnotes, archives, and so on but have never been able to do more than condemn me or to smear me.

Let it stand Agnes, that I repeat here that I can provide as many sources for ANYTHING I have written here on Mozart as you may require. I do not use footnotes in what is an informal forum unless they help a reader to more easily appreciate the relative importance of a point - but I remain ready, willing and able to provide them to the best of my ability always.

It is perfectly true that my views, my findings, may be at odds with the truth though I assure you I have read as much as many who would share nothing for their own vested reasons. Regarding the 'fame' of which you speak, let it consist only of advising readers (students and non-students) to think of education as academic goodwill. If it is not that it is nothing at all.

There is much more I could write about the background to 'Figaro' (not least the men Beaumarchais met at the time when his play was ready for being staged - the early 1780's - men who included Vogler himself and members of his circle). But it's enough of course to leave it at this, since I would rather be right in my attitude and wrong in my conclusions than the other way round.

Sincerely

Robert

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

Robert,

Oh, dear me, here we go again.

Please check your Royal family in Debret and you will find there a German lady married to the cousin of the Queen whose mother migrated with her to Australia after World War II and who I have interviewed for the Sydney Morning Herald 35 years ago. This cannot be denied by you as it is all in black and white.

Prince Lichnowsky's papers in Prague were destroyed the same way as was the village of Lidice by courtesy of the German Army. Burnt to the ground. The Australian scholar is trying to piece together evidence
of the Lichnowsky lawsuit against Mozart, following the lead of Jaroslav Celeda whose article, "Mozart, Beethoven & Lichnowsky" was published in Prague in 1967.

As for Michael Lorenz's claim regarding
the papers attesting to Sussmayr's presence
at Kremsmunster during the Christmas period of 1791, he must simply visit the Mozarteum for real this time, and find out for himself. The last time he claimed to me that he had a long discussion with Ms. Geffray, Ms. Geffray could not remember ever talking to him. For your information,
Ms. Geffray of the Mozarteum is a friend of mine who was of great help to me during the writing of my book and is gratefully acknowledged in the preface to my book.

You too must do your own "real" research. I am not here to dispute everything you write about. You too must consult documents before you assure your readers that all you say is the absolute truth.

My dear chap. As I said before, I do not wish to spend my life arguing every point in your imaginative stories. If people believe you, so be it. However,I worry about the students, one of whom was my own grandson who happened to come across your stories when researching Beethoven for
his music project. As a result, his music teacher has instructed his students to keep away from this site. This is a great pity, for it was a great site not so long ago and I too have used some of the information, with proper accreditations, for my forthcoming article on Beethoven's DNA in "Quadrant".

I leave you to your pleasant dreams and
further discussions with Dr. Michael
Lorenz who will no doubt, under the name of "Ceto", continue to post in his most pleasant manner.

Regards,
Agnes.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I want to be constructive. I also want you to understand you cannot continue to argue in this way. Here are some simple facts.

1. Nobody in Germany or in Austria has the least idea of which 'police archive discoveries from 1790-1' you claim to have made. Having myself made independent enquiries at institutions such as the Mozarteum and the Austrian national library is it just coincidence that nobody there has heard of your supposed discoveries ?

2. I have many times asked you to provide the specific details of these supposed archive discoveries but you have not provided me with anything.

3. Dr Michael Lorenz has asked the very same of you without success.

4. Reference your famous claim to supposed research by an 'Australian' on surviving papers from the estate of Prince Karl Lichnowsky (which you claimed several years ago was ongoing) may we, please, finally, have from you the name of this Australian researcher to which you are refering ?

5. You wrote some years ago that this 'Australian' researcher would shortly be publishing his findings. Did publication ever occur ?

6. Can you sympathise with those who think that in both cases you have provided fair minded enquirers with not a shred of supporting evidence for such matters despite being asked so often by Mozart researchers ?

7. Nobody disputes you wrote an article for an Australian newspaper. Please break with tradition and tell us here the name of the person you interviewed - or is this also to remain a secret forever ?

Merely repeating the background to these issues (which myself and Dr Michael Lorenz know as well as you) does not help us. Straight answers are required here - you provide none and have provided none for years.

Finally, the issue of you interviewing a lady related to the British royal family in Australia is not disputed by me or anyone else. Will you provide a straight answer in confirming the name of the lady here on this forum ? It's a simple question now asked of you more than 20 times.

Students will see these questions to Agnes Selby. Let them also see your answers.

Robert

[ASSelby]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Agnes,

I want to be constructive. I also want you to understand you cannot continue to argue in this way. Here are some simple facts.

1. Nobody in Germany or in Austria has the least idea of which 'police archive discoveries from 1790-1' you claim to have made. Having myself made independent enquiries at institutions such as the Mozarteum and the Austrian national library is it just coincidence that nobody there has heard of your supposed discoveries ?

2. I have many times asked you to provide the specific details of these supposed archive discoveries but you have not provided me with anything.

3. Dr Michael Lorenz has asked the very same of you without success.

4. Reference your famous claim to supposed research by an 'Australian' on surviving papers from the estate of Prince Karl Lichnowsky (which you claimed several years ago was ongoing) may we, please, finally, have from you the name of this Australian researcher to which you are refering ?

5. You wrote some years ago that this 'Australian' researcher would shortly be publishing his findings. Did publication ever occur ?

6. Can you sympathise with those who think that in both cases you have provided fair minded enquirers with not a shred of supporting evidence for such matters despite being asked so often by Mozart researchers ?

7. Nobody disputes you wrote an article for an Australian newspaper. Please break with tradition and tell us here the name of the person you interviewed - or is this also to remain a secret forever ?

Merely repeating the background to these issues (which myself and Dr Michael Lorenz know as well as you) does not help us. Straight answers are required here - you provide none and have provided none for years.

Finally, the issue of you interviewing a lady related to the British royal family in Australia is not disputed by me or anyone else. Will you provide a straight answer in confirming the name of the lady here on this forum ? It's a simple question now asked of you more than 20 times.

Students will see these questions to Agnes Selby. Let them also see your answers.

Robert

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

Robert, I will most definitely respond
to your questions but you go first and supply the data for the 7 pages you have posted here without a single reference.

Also be so kind to give me the date of your visit to the Mozarteum. I have it on good authority that you have had no response from the Mozarteum nor have you ever been there.

So how about some references and then I will respond to your questions.
There is a challenge for you. Only valid
references please none referring to your own imagination nor to Mr. Taboga's "findings".

Agnes.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by ASSelby:
Oh ! Hello Dr. Lorenz!!! I suspected that "Cetto" was in fact you, Michael. Your style of writing cannot be mistaken.

Wonderful. You are so easy to fool. It reminds me of how many times you mistook innocent posters for your friend Ms. Mikulska.

[Peter]

I think this topic has gone on long enough - aside from exceeding our 5 page limit, it is getting personal and it is dominating this forum which should focus on Beethoven!

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