Did Lichnowsky Sue Mozart?

[Luke]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:

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


[/B]

You cannot name a journal or a title of an article. There is no publication by Celeda about the repayment of Mozart's debts by Constanze. Your posting is a fabrication.

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

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

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by Luke:
You cannot name a journal or a title of an article. There is no publication by Celeda about the repayment of Mozart's debts by Constanze. Your posting is a fabrication.

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

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

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

Sir,

Please check your data with the Mozarteum.
The research was published in Czech. This happens to be my native tongue.

Before you hurl insults at a correspondent on this forum, please check your details
thoroughly. Insults do not make your statements any more credible than polite talk.

I am not aware of anyone called "Luke" in Mozart scholarship. What are your publications and where?

Agnes Selby.
----------------

[apuleius]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:

Dear Sir,

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

Agnes Selby.

[/B]

It's Celeda, not Ceneda. And that is simply not good enough. Which exact article and page number informs us of these supposed Lichnowsky documents?

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by apuleius:
It's Celeda, not Ceneda. And that is simply not good enough. Which exact article and page number informs us of these supposed Lichnowsky documents?

---------

You are quite right. It is Jaroslav Celeda
and I apoligise for the typo.

I am leaving for Prague at the end of September and will supply the details
on my return. I do not have photo copies
of his research at home in Australia.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I believe Luke and Apuleius are both correct - this supposed Czech article is highly suspect on two grounds -

1. You say the research was published in Czech. I am certainly aware of Czech material on Lichnowsky published some years ago but none of it remotely confirms your assertion that documents exist and have been studied which prove repayment of a gambling debt by the widow Mozart to Lichnowsky. In asking them to 'check your data with the Mozarteum' may I ask if you yourself have done so about this alleged Czech article before you make such a claim? You have previously spoken of a student in Australia who would shortly publish similar material and here we are years later still waiting for his name or any details of the supposed publication. For if this Czech article is really what you claim it would surely have been known to Mozart scholars in Germany, Austria and elsewhere by now on the points you are making. The Lichnowsky affair is one I myself have been looking at for several years as you know.

Now I know you certainly have contacts at the Mozarteum and it may be, of course, that they can confirm the accuracy or otherwise of your claims. They may be its source. But I have noticed of late several examples of the Mozarteum being loose with their statements on Mozart. Not least the recent fiasco about the alleged 'Constanze Photograph'. If the Mozarteum can confirm this Czech article proves your point it will amaze us all - since we know in advance it does no such thing.

I believe that at the very least you owe an enquiry as soon as possible to the Mozarteum on this alleged material. I am sure you are mistaken as to its content and can only assume you have either not read this material and are being purposely misled by someone associated with the Mozarteum. This is the best interpretation I can put on your statements.

I sincerely hope you can give this request some priority since it calls in to question your appreciation of the work of others in this field who do not, as it happens, know what you are actually talking about. Mistakes can be made. This seems to be one of them. You have clearly not read this material and it certainly does not prove as you say.

Regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-27-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I am completely confused by your arguments on this issue of Mozart's wife paying off supposed 'gambling debts' of her late husband to Lichnowsky. Having checked your own statements over the past few years I note the following -

1. On 13th April 2004 you wrote to Mozart Forum saying -

'An article by Jaroslav Celeda, "Mozart, Beethoven and Lichnowsky" published in Prague in 1967 MAY reveal some information regarding this matter. Unfortunately this article has so far not been made available to Western scholars by the Czech Music Foundation' (capitals mine for emphasis).

Thus, you do not claim at that date to have read the Celeda article yourself (despite your own first language being Czech). So if you knowledge now of its contents you must surely have read it after the above date. Yes ?

2. You confirm 6 days later to the same forum that you had not at that time read the article when you wrote -

'Hence the idea that this was a gambling debt seems to be embraced by some writers. Who knows?'

It is clear that you, dear Agnes, did not know on that date either whether there was actually a Mozart 'gambling debt'.

3. On 24th January 2005 you again wrote to the Mozart forum on this same issue asking -

'Why then is there a belief expressed in a number of articles that Mozart's debt to Lichnowsky was in fact a gambling debt? '

And you admit in still another post there is no evidence of a Mozart gambling debt when you write a second post to the same forum on that same date (and I quote) -

'I am as puzzled as you are by the law-suit and wonder what it was all about and if it was not about debt collection, what then was it about?' (January 24th 2005)

Since (by your own admission) the Celeda article is now almost 40 years old is it not strange that its supposed contents have still not been understood or transmitted by anyone including yourself ?

If you are sure the Celeda article contains positive proof of a Mozart gambling debt repayed to Lichnowsky by his widow, please tell us, plainly, when you read the Celeda article to obtain this information. It must surely have been more recently than any of the above posts.

I can only conclude that you have not, yourself actually read the Celeda article despite your ability to read Czech language and/or have misunderstood what it says and what it does not say.

I have one question. Do the Mozarteum in Salzburg agree the Celeda article provides positive proof of your assertions and those of Celeda on this matter ? If not, the least you can do is tell us without delay if you have actually read the Celeda article and, if not, whether you are relying on the views of some other person who claims to have read it.


Regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-27-2006).]

[Peter]

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

Thank you Robert and you are quite right since Davido's posting was the first I knew about this whole saga. Whatever the real reasons for Lichnowsky's lawsuit, it does seem to add a new dimension to the events leading up to Mozart's death. Surely as a close friend of Lichnowsky, Beethoven must have been aware of these events?

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

[Agnes Selby]

Robert,

1)I have read Celeda's article a year ago when I was in Prague.

2) You are misquoting me, selecting bits of sentences to suit your own purpose. You have done this before and it is the reason why I am at great pain not to answer your questions.

I do believe that
this was indeed a gambling debt. I have stated so in my book, "Constanze, Mozart's Beloved". I have also quoted from Mozart's letters pertaining to his difficulties to obtain a loan to satisfy his creditor.
People do not sue other people quoting financial causes, such as the money owing
which cannot be repaid, for any other reason except for financial reasons.

3). Your assertions to this being a law suit
stemming from some immoral doings of Mozart's is utter nonsense which you cannot substantiate. This is just part of your scheme to dirty Mozart's name
for the sake of making Luchesi the greatest composer that ever lived. The poor
old Bonn conductor is eternally grateful to you. The genius denied him by God, you
are gifting him by smearing another's character.

I assure you, it will be you, in the end, who will look ridiculous and not Mozart.
This applies to all your conspiracy theories, Luchesi and so on.

3). Please note that I have also stated on Open Mozart that many of Lichnowsky's papers were burned by the Nazis during World War II when fire was set to Prague
following the Lidice murders.

4). Celeda's research is valid. Apart from that, we know that Constanze settled all of Mozart's debts. I am referring you here to Nissen's Mozart biography and his letters to Mozart's son, Carl.

5). Celeda's research was unavailable to the Mozarteum during the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia. At the time of my writing
on MozartForum, the velvet revolution was over and there were hopes that Celeda's research would become available to the Mozarteum which it has by now become.

6.) Robert, you are asking me to substantiate my readings and findings. How about you doing it JUST ONCE.

Agnes.
--------------

[Agnes Selby]

One more thing, Robert.

I do not wish to write to you or answer any of your questions. Your habit of misquoting me to suit your own purpose is the reason for this.

So this is my last posting to you. Do not bother to reply.

Agnes.
----------

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

1) Celeda's article which you read a year ago when in Prague proved (to you at least - but to nobody else in the Czech Republic or in this universe) that Mozart's widow paid to Lichnowsky her late husband's 'gambling debts'.

If so, what new information did you discover in the Celeda article that convinced you ? It's srange you cannot or will not tell us. Next year the Celeda article will have its 50th anniversary. But Agnes Selby (whose first language is Czech and who has read this important article 1 year ago) will not tell us what proofs it supposedly contains ! This is becoming more fascinating by the day ! I can only hope you will reveal all when you return from Prague. But why the delay if you already know ? It's all very strange.

2. I am 'misquoting' you ? I must have done so 4 times in a row Agnes. Readers can still see for themselves what you wrote and what you did not on the archives of Mozart Forum.

3. Tes, you have stated in your book (researched at the Mozarteum and elsewhere) that the prosecution was over a 'gambling debt. All the more reason to share the supposed evidence contained within the Celeda article, is it not ? An article that completely changed your view since 2005.

4. You say my assertions to this being a law suit stemming from some immoral doings of Mozart is utter nonsense which cannot be substantiated'

Im reply, my sources come from Vienna in the year of Mozart's death - 1791. A report was written days after Mozart's death in which a 'daughter' of Mozart is taken in to the care of Countess Thun. And since you and I know that, 'officially', Mozart had no daughter (certainly not by Constanze), this begs an explanation. So too the indisputable fact that Countess Thun was related to Lichnowsky by a marriage that had occurred some years prior. If any of these things are not true Agnes let me remind you of the name of the source - Franz Staudlinger. You may not like this source. You may disagree with him. But please do not say I have invented it. It fits entirely with what we know about Mozart's life, his relations with Lichnowsky, and what little we know of the prosecution.

'Dirtying the name of Mozart' ? I am simply providing a contemporary report published within days of Mozart's death. Its existence is indisputable. Unlike the 200 year old loss of any evidence that Mozart was prosecuted for a gambling debt (a thing never once refered to by Mozart's biographers) and this report has never been hidden. You are dirtying the name of the reporter, are you not ? You do not like the message, therefore the messenger must be dirty.

(It was the same source, Agnes, who tells us a memnorial for Mozart was held in Vienna days after Mozart's death on 10th December 1791 - one arranged by the Freihaus group including Shickaneder - a report that has been shown accurate in the 20th century by detailed search of the church records).

Please therefore, resist the temptation to condemn me for refering to an existing, contemporary report.

We do not know if Celeda's report shows any proof. Only you claim to have read it. Only you claim its contents have proved the case. Why not provide us with a synopsis of their contents ?

We are all aware that many of the Lichnowsky papers were destroyed in WW2. All the more reason why we wait with baited breath for the next installment of the Celeda Report !

Here is a case where you are in a unique position to share with us. But you cannot. It is strange beyond words Agnes.

You say 'Constanze settled all of Mozart's debts'. But Constanze Mozart is officially on record within days of her husband's death (i.e. at the time when she pleaded for a pension from the Emperor) saying that her late husband's debts were NOT significant. You cannot possibly be ignorant of this. Which of these two things is actually true ??

So the Mozarteum now have the results of the Celeda research. Great. We will all see shortly if, indeed, this article has proved what you say. Strange you still cannot tell us anything about its content.

Yes, I am asking you to substantiate (and this for the forty second time) your readings and findings. You say only you will not answer any questions !

Finally, despite you saying I refuse to provide sources when asked for them I remain, as always, willing to provide whatever sources I may be asked for by you on any Mozart issue. This has been so in the past and it will continue in the future.

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-27-2006).]

[Luke]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Agnes,

1. On 13th April 2004 you wrote to Mozart Forum saying ...

This is not correct. Mrs. Selby's posting was written on 13 August 1004: http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/...?p=739#post739

Quote: 'Most of the "Lichnowsky Archives" had been destroyed during the Second World War but an article by Jaroslav Celeda, "Mozart, Beethoven and Lichnowsky" published in Prague in 1967 may (!) reveal some information regarding this matter. Unfortunately this article has so far not been made available to Western scholars by the Czech Music Foundation.'

[robert newman]

Dear Luke,

Have I (with the exception of the date) misquoted Agnes Selby on this issue ? I have not. She claims to have read an article proving that Mozart's widow repaid gambling debts of her late husband. She has constantly fudged on this issue as these 4 posts to Mozart forum show.

Now, if her view has been changed by the Celeda Report let her share its content fairly and openly - since nobody in the Czech Republic nor anywhere else claims that it proves as she asserts.

That is quite enough evidence to show just how absurd such attitudes are.

[Luke]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Have I (with the exception of the date) misquoted Agnes Selby on this issue?

You have not misquoted her. An article by Celeda that contains proof that Constanze paid back Mozart's debts to Lichnowsky doesn't exist. I'm sure that Lichnowsky dropped his claims against Mozart's estate as soon as he learned about Mozart's death. To bother a poor widow with such demands would have been considered simply impossible among members of his social class.

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

YOU ARE CONTRAVENING THE RULES OF THIS FORUM BY POSTING UNDER SEVERAL DIFFERENT NAMES - YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO POST UNDER YOUR ORIGINAL REGISTRATION NAME OF cetto von cronstorff.

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-27-2006).]

[robert newman]

I am sure you are quite right. Any claim that Lichnowsky had against Mozart would have been nullified as a consequence of Mozart's death.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Luke is my son. We therefore share one IP-address in our network. All he gets from me is a little advice.

[This message has been edited by Cetto von Cronstorff (edited 08-27-2006).]

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

AND WHO IS MICHAEL LORENZ - YOUR NEPHEW?




[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-27-2006).]