Talk:Mozart and Freemasonry
|WikiProject Freemasonry||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Mozart and Enlightenment
Dear 184.108.40.206, I just read the article by Peter Paul Fuchs, and I must say that I didn't see anything to support your statement. Fuchs does not "strongly dispute both the conflation of Freemasonry with Illuminati elements per se" as far as I understand. He does not suggest that the Illuminati were not Masons nor that their philosophy was in any way at odds with other views within the Masonic movement; on the contrary, he confirms that the Illuminati were Freemasons.
Nor does he suggest that Mozart did not identify with the Illuminati. What his article does say is that Mozart was not a Voltairian, and that, in parallel with his humanist views, he was a devout Catholic; and that the tension between these two somewhat opposing views is reflected in his music. "Masonry gave Mozart the ability to function incredibly well in that tension between Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment modes," is what he writes.
Moreover, your edit suggests that there is a whole boatload of "Masonic scholars ... and non-Masonic scholars who have studied the matter more closely" who somehow disagree with what is written in the article. Fuchs makes a point in his article of pointing out that no one agrees with him. So please tell us who these Masonic scholars are.
The truth is that, in spite of Fuchs's somewhat pugnacious style, he doesn't seem to be saying anything that anyone disagrees with - that Mozart, while identified with the Illuminati, remained a devout Catholic, and that elements of both world views can be seen in his music.
I think there has been quite q bit of casual reading of the Fuchs article, without understanding the basics of Freemasonry itself. If you want to discuss Mozart and Freemasonry, you have to first understand Freemasonry in its basic historical outline. And the comments here on the Illuminati here suggest, that the writer is wobbly on understanding Freemasonry. Fuchs DOES distinguish between the Illuminati and Freemasonry.. As a simple factual matter some Masons were members of the Illuminati order, but most Masons had absolutely nothing to do with the Illuminati movement. So in a sense this whole discussion apropos Mozart is simply factually wayward and fanciful. By the way, the Fuchs article has recently been published ivy the Association of Mason Arts, as part of a larger theory of Masonic aesthetics, and has been well-reviewed in the field of Masonic scholarship. "A wonderful book" ---Scottish Rite Journal. November 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
We must compare our father’s conduct to a fat animal that carries its tail upon its back, but when affrighted it drops it between its legs and runs off. User:InternetHero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Franz von Walsegg was a Freemason
Confusing dates between Mozart becoming a Mason and his Masonic compositions
Every source I've seen lists "O Heiliges Band" as K. 148/125h, and dates it to 1782. However, Mozart wasn't made an Entered Apprentice Mason until the very end of 1784. If Köchel's catalog is accurate, that means that Mozart composed his first piece of Masonic music two years before he became a Mason! I have to wonder if the piece was commissioned by a Lodge or a member of it? Mozart had just left the patronage of Prince-Archbishop Colloredo, and Joseph II had yet to extend his patronage so during that period Mozart was writing for hire, so to speak. Bricology (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- My search of "O Heiliges Band Mozart" on Google Books and Google Scholar yielded the following.
- Melograni's biography says the standard date is 1772 and that this suggests "appreciation" by Mozart of Freemasonry long before he joined up.
- Julius Rushton's biography dates the song to 1784, I guess because it is Masonic, but acknowledges that "handwriting studies" may indicate a date of 1772.
- Zaslaw and Cowdery's compendium of works says that some scholars like the 1784 date, but that this goes against evidence not just from handwriting, but also from musical style and the paper of the ms.
- A recent paper by Gabrielle Pfeiffer, available here, opts for 1774, and cites the opinion of ...
- Wolfgang Plath, who advanced the use of handwriting evidence in Mozart dating. I can't find his 1991 book Mozart Schriften, but he is quoted here as preferring 1774, saying "„1771 ist jedenfalls unmöglich und 1772 extrem unwahrscheinlich“ … „auch die folgenden Jahre (ca. 1775/76) erscheinen noch durchaus denkbar“, more or less, "1771 is in any case impossible and 1772 extremely improbable ... the following years (ca. 1775-1776) also appear entirely plausible."
- As the Neue Mozart Ausgabe editors (available on line) point out, an earliest possible date is 1772, since that is the date of the Regensburg Masonic songbook from which Mozart took the text. This is presumably at least part of the basis of Plath's opinion.