How was Mozart rebellious?!

How was Mozart rebellious?

Hello, how was Mozart rebllious? I need to write a report on him being rebellious and all. I can't find a website on his rebellion. I can only find his biography which my teacher doesn't want. I want a website (or an article) that just focuses on Mozart's rebellion.

1 week ago
I want to know what made him do that, how he felt, how it influenced society. I am not telling you to do my homework, I am just asking for a little help.

Since you explicitly ask what made him do it, some 'sweeping of the sea' may be required but, as many a good housekeeper will tell us, the fattest cobwebs are always found in the most unusual places... :-)

Mozart was a child of his time, and that time being one of upheaval and social ferment, as much as of enlightenment, it did not leave him unaffected, nor uninfluenced by it. When, in 1781, he handed in his resignation to Archbisshop Colloredo, or rather to one of the Archbisshop's intendants, Count Arco -- he of the firm boot in the Mozartean posterior mentioned above -- Mozart was far less concerned wih sticking two fingers up to the Archbishop, as with chosing to act out his own destiny, driven by his own unshakable belief in himself and his value as a musician, but also by the lure of riches and success in Vienna, at that time an incomparably more cosmopolitan city than Salzburg was and ever would be. (The uncharitable mutter in their beards that little seems to have changed since...)

And before we sketch Count Arco too blackly, he evidently cared to afford Mozart enough courtesy and respect in that final interview to address him as 'Sie' throughout -- unusual to a servant in Mozart's position -- but offered this (now very famous) piece of what would turn out to be prophetic advice, which is worth quoting in full (the interview took place while Archbishop Colloredo's household was in Vienna):

"Believe me, you allow yourself to be far too easily dazzled in Vienna. A man's reputation here lasts a very short time. At first, it is true, you are overwhelmed with praise and make a great deal of money into the bargain -- but how long does that last? After a few months the Viennese want something new."

These are Mozart's own words, quoting Count Arco, in a letter to his father, June 2, 1781. It was clearly not in Mozart's interest (he was otherwise trying to convince his father of the rightness of what he had just done) to quote this, yet he does...

Mozart's principal rebellion was always a social one, just like the societies around him were engaged in. His pride as much as his talent would not permit him to be a 'mere' court composer, a servant. (At the time, music services fell under the kitchen department's affairs, hence Count Arco's involvement, with Mozart's departure, as Chamberlain of the Archbishop's household.) Mozart, in effect, was going 'freelance' in a world where the concept had barely been thought of. This pride, however estimable in today's eyes, also fuelled his downfall in a number of ways.

There are no real indications in the records of a history of out-of-control gambling affecting Mozart's affairs, and even less prima facie evidence of a dissolute sexual life. However, he did all too often spend unwisely given his circumstances, and much of this had to do with that pride in his talent and his own innate worth which, eventually, became expressed in a wanting to be seen as a gentleman among gentlemen, above all. At times of distinctly precarious finances, waistcoats of considerable splendour, and thus expense, are procured notwithstanding, the bills for which of course eventually catch up with him. Without those waistcoats, however, from Mozart's perspective, he would no longer be able to be *seen* as a gentleman of quality, and that expression of his social rebellion is too close to the knuckle to be sacrficed for a mere lack of ready cash. Very expensive purchasing choices such as these happen repeatedly.

Not only does he keep a household of some style for the period, but when his wife's health begins to show signs of frailty -- at times of severe liquidity problems indeed! -- she sets off to take the waters in a number of spa resorts some considerable distance travelling from Vienna. Nothing wrong with that as such, except for the fact that Mozart doesn't remotely have the means to support such undertakings. His social rebellion dictates, however, that this must be afforded, not just for his wife's sake, but because this is precisely what a gentleman of means and property would do, and that is what his actions show he feels he needs to be seen to be. Because in reality he does not remotely possess such means, these undertakings occasionally end up in domestic farce, with Mozart, by letter, admonishing Constanze not to spend too much on fripperies at one health resort or another, while anyone else, of course, can see that the heart of the financial problem is not Constanze's knicknacks, but the fact that she is staying at the resort at all! The necessity for *that*, however obviously debatable, Mozart never questions.

Mozart's utterances on politics, religion or other social questions, as recorded, would fill a very small postage stamp indeed. That's not where the heart of his rebellion lay. Which leaves the Freemasonry. Rebellion against the Church? Spurious. Mozart was really not that fussed by the Church: his wife attended a great deal more assiduously than he ever did. What the Masonic Lodge did afford him, however, was something all too familiar by now. You cannot knock on the door of the Lodge and apply to fill in a membership card. You have to be invited. And, then as now, much of lodge memberships were held by the great and the good. In his day, enlightened and/or disaffected members of the aristocracy and the haute bourgeoisie as much as ordinary folk. Gathered there together on explicit terms of equality from the ground up, as 't were. Within the context of Mozart's lifelong struggle during his self-imposed social rebellion, what greater prize could there be? To be invited and be embraced on his own terms as an equal within the company of counts and grandees (and there were a good many in the Viennese lodges, soon to be followed by members of the imperial family itself) was the ultimate social acceptance he sought, demanded, and craved. And as history shows, he did not hesitate to borrow heavily and repeatedly from much more lowly lodge brothers, too. Never from the grandees, though. He may satirise the great and good mercilessly in his work at times, but to behave as a real equal towards them in real life, and show *them* his own vulnerability, that was very much a bridge too far.

(It is instructive to observe how, when the chips are really down, Mozart addresses his principal lodge financial 'sucker' (Puchberg) as 'my beloved friend', asks for 'as much as you can spare', and signs himself off as 'ever your most grateful *servant* -- my emphasis added -- letter 17.7.1789)

Ultimately, Count Arco proved far from wrong in his prediction. And Mozart? His stance laid the foundation for modern independent musicianhood, brought him moments of tremendous fame in his lifetime, as well as utter misery and near penury, and ultimately, a terribly early grave followed by posthumous immortality. Not the easiest of balances to make up as the price of rebellion...

Edit:
My admiration for this man and his overt courage, and intimidating artistry, is simply boundless, but that should never preclude criticism, for which I'm happy to be held to account, but to draw an analogy for his dilemma with contemporary 'celebrity' culture is probably too much of a bridge too far. :-/