Did Lichnowsky Sue Mozart?

[DavidO]

Did Prince Lichnowsky sue Mozart? I happened across this PDF file this morning, & thought I'd share. It's the Prince Lichnowsky Newsletter, published March 6, 1992 (by whom or what, I don't know).

About halfway through the newsletter, Beethoven is discussed in some depth as regards his relationship with the Lichnowskys (Karl, Christiane, Moritz, &c.) in Vienna.

[DavidO]

Originally posted by DavidO:
Did Prince Lichnowsky sue Mozart? I happened across this PDF file this morning, & thought I'd share. It's the Prince Lichnowsky Newsletter, published March 6, 1992 (by whom or what, I don't know).

About halfway through the newsletter, Beethoven is discussed in some depth as regards his relationship with the Lichnowskys (Karl, Christiane, Moritz, &c.) in Vienna.

Oops. It might help if I provide the link:
http://www.aproposmozart.com/lichnow...0lichnowsky%22

Again, be aware that this is a PDF file.

[Nightklavier]

Cue Newman PI

[robert newman]

Yes, Lichnowsky did sue Mozart. Some (though by no means all) the details are known. It's a big subject kept confidential in Mozart's time and is still shrouded in a lot of mystery.

Mozart was first shunned by the Vienna 'establishment'and then sued for something he did. But it would take a long post here to discuss. I made lots of notes on it for a book I was writing on Mozart. That little known case throws some light on the murkier side of the 'staus quo' at that time.

There is no evidence that it was a 'gambling debt'.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-26-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Yes, Lichnowsky did sue Mozart. Some (though by all means all) the details are known. It's a big subject kept confidential in Mozart's time and still shrouded in a lot of mystery.

Mozart was first shunned by the Vienna 'establishment'and then sued for something he did. But it would take a long post here to discuss. I made lots of notes on it for a book I was writing on Mozart. That little known case throws some light on the murkier side of the 'staus quo' at that time.

There is no evidence that it was a 'gamnling debt'.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-26-2006).]

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

Gambling was considered the "murkier side" of life, Robert. Lichnowsky was a well known gambler. The Freemasons gathered at a cafe run by a fellow Freemason after Masonic meetings. Gambling took place in this cafe. A very good book on the subject is "Mozart and Freemasonry" by Paul Nettl.
Mozart's letters to his wife in Baden reveal that he was desperately looking for
a lender. He travelled with Lichnowsky to Germany and while he earned money performing, he and Lichnowsky stayed at hotels close to gambling casinos.

Gambling was a family secret, kept as a secret like a skeleton in the cupboard. The papers filed by Lichnowsky against Mozart were discovered in Vienna city archives recently. The debt was re-paid by Constanze Mozart according to Lichnowsky's documents found in the city of Prague archives.

Agnes Selby.

[apuleius]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:
---------------

The debt was re-paid by Constanze Mozart according to Lichnowsky\'s documents found in the city of Prague archives.

This is a complete fabrication. No such documents appear in Deutsch\'s Dokumente or its supplements, and no article on these supposed documents has been published anywhere. They simply do not exist.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

The allegation that Mozart was a gambler has never been substantiated. The assumption that this prosecution by Lichnowsky was related to a gambling debt is totally without foundation. It's a red herring designed to take us away from the much bigger issue of why Lichnowsky would ever have sued his long time 'friend' Mozart.

The two men had toured together 2 years before Mozart's death. On that tour it was Mozart who lent money to Lichnowsky, NOT vice-versa. It is Lichnowsky who is recorded as being a serial gambler. Not Mozart. Secondly, it is during this same tour that Mozart correspondence speaks of Mozart being worried for his own life. Thirdly, gambling debts are not an admissable cause for any prosecution in Vienna at that time. Fourthly, Mozart is nowhere recorded as gambling in any serious sense and this is not said of him, even by those who criticised his drinking or his morality. This modern invention deflects us from the real issue - the true reason why Lichnowsky would have sought to destroy Mozart's public reputation. You know my thoughts about that. I will repeat them here if you still dispute this issue. Mozart was prosecuted over a moral issue - one that affected one of Lichnowsky's relatives. That is why he sought to destroy him from around 1790 onwards.




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-26-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
[B]Mozart was prosecuted over a moral issue - one that affected one of Lichnowsky's relatives. That is why he sought to destroy him from around 1790 onwards.

"The correspondence ledger of the Hofkammer in Vienna contains an entry dated 12 November 1791 that reads as follows:
“N: Ö: Court advises under the date of the 9th and recorded on the 12th of November 1791 that Prince Karl Lichnowsky in his case against K.K.Hof Kappelmeister Wolfgang Amade Mozart, owing to indebtedness of 1,435 Gulden 32 Kreuzer along with court costs of 24 Gulden, has shown cause for both attachment and withholding of the half of his salary.”

The prosecution indicates a financial issue.
If it were as you say Robert why didn't Lichnowsky make this personal moral issue public either before or after Mozart's death? A short answer will suffice so please don't take this an an indication to present a thesis on the subject!

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

[Joy]

Originally posted by robert newman:


I made lots of notes on it for a book I was writing on Mozart.

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-26-2006).]

Have you any books published or finished, Robert?


------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:


A short answer will suffice so please don't take this an an indication to present a thesis on the subject!

That's a loaded statement!



------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[DavidO]

Originally posted by robert newman:
The two men had toured together 2 years before Mozart's death. On that tour it was Mozart who lent money to Lichnowsky, NOT vice-versa.

This newsletter states that Beethoven, too, lent money to Lichnowsky at one point. Is this true? I can't picture Beethoven agreeing to lend money to a prince (even though this particular prince loved Beethoven dearly); quite frankly, I can't even picture Beethoven agreeing to repay a debt to a prince!

It is Lichnowsky who is recorded as being a serial gambler.

Do Beethoven, either of his brothers or any of his friends (e.g., Count Moritz) mention Lichnowsky's gambling in any correspondence or interaction? Seems like the sort of thing that B. or others would have mentioned, even in passing, at some point were it true.

[This message has been edited by DavidO (edited 08-26-2006).]

[robert newman]

That Lichnowsky lost large amounts of money from gambling is an established historical fact. If anyone cares to post to the Mozart Forum on this issue they will confirm this as true. (I do not personally have the references but no doubt others do).

Peter has quoted the text -

' N: Ö: Court advises under the date of the 9th and recorded on the 12th of November 1791 that Prince Karl Lichnowsky in his case against K.K.Hof Kappelmeister Wolfgang Amade Mozart, owing to indebtedness of 1,435 Gulden 32 Kreuzer along with court costs of 24 Gulden, has shown cause for both attachment and withholding of the half of his salary'.

Fine. I will come back to this is in a minute. First I must quote what Peter also says -

'The prosecution indicates a financial issue.
If it were as you say Robert why didn't Lichnowsky make this personal moral issue public either before or after Mozart's death? A short answer will suffice so please don't take this an an indication to present a thesis on the subject!'

Well now Peter, it isn't your fault but there is some basic information that you clearly have not seen on this affair.

1. This ledger note made in Vienna on 12th November 1791 (literally weeks before Mozart's death) is NOT the record of prosecution case. Let me repeat this. It's NOT the record of a prosecution case. It is instead a record made by a clerk of action that the court in Vienna is taking long after the actual case was heard. Therefore -

2. The actual prosecution of Mozart had occurred long before.

3. This note is the court in Vienna deciding to follow up an earlier judgement made against Mozart.

4. The prosecution of Mozart need not have actually happened in Vienna. It could have occurred elsewhere - and we have no other information to judge this as being Vienna.

5. In effect, this short entry is the record of the court in Vienna acting on a judgement that was made some time BEFORE.

6. Peter is incorrect in saying that this 'indicates a financial issue'.

It does nothing of the kind. It states that the prosecution had found Mozart liable to pay the amount of 1,435 Gulden 32 Kreuzer along with court costs of 24 Gulden at the time when that judgement was first made and it suggests this amount was still unpaid at the time when that note was made on 12th November 1791. Indeed, this amount being upaid was the reason why, in November of 1791 the court decided to reduce Mozart's salary by one half - this not having been done before November 1791. But to suggest that this fine proves that the case itself was a financial one is completely wrong.

Let me give you a scenario. Lichnowsky, let us say, is a wealthy man. He earns more than, say, Mozart. He wants to prosecute Mozart on some unspecified grounds and spends time and money doing so. Let us say that he has to stop doing some normal work that would have made him money. The loss of earnings is justified by Lichnowsky showing that the loss to him personally was 1,435 Gulden 32 Kreuzer. In such a case, these expenses, deemed to be payable by Mozart to Lichnowsky because Lichnowsky had won the case (but not otherwise) may be the explanation for this bill. So too the court costs of 24 Gulden.

THUS, THE ACTUAL COURT CASE MAY HAVE HAD NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A FINANCIAL MATTER.

And that was really so.

Lichnowsky was prosecuting Mozart because of a scandal that he, Mozart, was involved in. A scandal that had cost Lichnowsky (or, rather, his relatives) that amount of money. But the actual prosecution was not for that amount - it was one brought against Mozart to redress the moral wrong that Mozart had done towards a person related to Lichnowsky. A scandal in which Mozart, morally, was found guilty.

Such a scandal is refered to only once in Mozart literature. That of Mozart having fathered a child (a daughter) to a woman who was already betrothed. This same infant later (at the time of Mozart's death) being adopted by Countess Thun - a relative of the same Lichnowsky. It is THIS moral error that, I believe, was the cause of Lichnowsky bringing the court case. The money/fine relating, perhaps, to verifiable expenses related to it.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-26-2006).]

[Michael Lorenz]

Originally posted by Peter:
"The correspondence ledger of the Hofkammer in Vienna contains an entry dated 12 November 1791 that reads as follows:
“N: Ö: Court advises under the date of the 9th and recorded on the 12th of November 1791 that Prince Karl Lichnowsky in his case against K.K.Hof Kappelmeister Wolfgang Amade Mozart, owing to indebtedness of 1,435 Gulden 32 Kreuzer along with court costs of 24 Gulden, has shown cause for both attachment and withholding of the half of his salary.”

This translation by Bruce Cooper Clarke is slightly inaccurate and so is Brauneis's transcription from the protocol (the term "correspondence ledger" is wrong). The Court did not "advise", it reminded. The advice was not "recorded" on 12 November, but presented to the council of the Court Chamber on this day. And the entry is not dated 12 November, but 14 November. Too many people rely on sloppy work these days

[robert newman]

Dear Joy,

No I've not finished the book that I started writing years ago 'Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire'. In the past few years certain parts of it have been the cause of discussion here and elsewhere because they are controversial. In more recent times I've been working on different areas of research (on which I am now actively focused) so the contents of my manuscript on Mozart are only discussed if I feel they might help to clarify a certain issue on Mozart, his life and career - in this case the question of whether Lichnowsky sued Mozart - which he most certainly did.

There are a great number of other issues that one could discuss on Mozart and his career but this forum (rightly) is mainly devoted to Beethoven. And this I respect.

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by apuleius:
This is a complete fabrication. No such documents appear in Deutsch\'s Dokumente or its supplements, and no article on these supposed documents has been published anywhere. They simply do not exist.

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

Dear Sir,

I refer you to the research and articles
of Jaroslav Ceneda of the Czech Republic.

Agnes Selby.