Mozart's nationality

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The (opposite) case could be raised for Mahler. He was born in a place which was at the time part of the Austrian Empire but which physically exists in the Czech Republic today. But Mahler is listed under Austria in the index.

Listen to what the man himself said: "I am three times an outsider...as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew all over the world."

Here's a fun case - Ligeti. A Hungarian-speaking Jew from Romania (Transylvania), who lived in Hungary for a while but then settled in Vienna and became an Austrian citizen. What slot do you put him in?

Or Xenakis. Born to a Greek family in Romania, lived in Greece for a while, moved to France and became a French citizen.

[Christo]

Listen to what the man himself said: "I am three times an outsider...as a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew all over the world."

We don't know if he said so. We only know Alma tells us that he had said it.  We do know that a similar statement had been made by Anton Rubinstein about his position as a Jew in Russia. So what we know for certain is that it is a literary topos - maybe applied by Mahler on himself, maybe not. 

Good examples of the complexity of "nationality" BTW ! 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

We don't know if he said so. We only know Alma tells us that he had said it.  We do know that a similar statement had been made by Anton Rubinstein about his position as a Jew in Russia. So what we know for certain is that it is a literary topos - maybe applied by Mahler on himself, maybe not. 

That's interesting. I am almost certain that a similar statement has been attributed to Kafka as well, which would argue further in favor of its being a literary topos.

So maybe they said it - maybe they didn't!

[Florestan]

IMO, what he considered himself, that is his nationality. Valid also for all other composers mentioned here.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

IMO, what he considered himself, that is his nationality. Valid also for all other composers mentioned here.

That about sums it up. And why should anyone be restricted to one nationality anyway?

[Renfield]

Or Xenakis. Born to a Greek family in Romania, lived in Greece for a while, moved to France and became a French citizen.

Xenakis, however, personally chose to fight with Greece in the (Second World) war, and then the Greek civil war (getting half his face blown off in the process). So it could be argued that his personal interest in Greece was great enough for him to be a Greek-French composer, vs. French, as he would've been if you argued using the artistic association criterion alone.

In general, I think a heuristic solution is the only viable one, for that sort of predicate (Greek, French, German, Austrian, etc.)...

[Lethevich]

That about sums it up. And why should anyone be restricted to one nationality anyway?

I should point out that I have no real concern about what people consider themselves in general - simply where to put him in the composer list, and trying to avoid just a gigantic list in alphabetical order of surname... Duplicate entries under different sections might work, but then I suppose people might object to not including no longer extant nations, and the neurosis will continue...

[Opus106]

simply where to put him in the composer list

Austria will do just fine.

[DavidRoss]

Nationality is not a function of political boundaries, but of tribal membership, determined primarily by language (which shapes one's world view and values more powerfully than any other influence) and other elements of culture, such as history, religion, mores, customs, and so on.

For the purposes of classification, as others have suggested, just call him Austrian and don't get your dress over your head trying to needlessly complicate things!

[ChamberNut]

I've never thought of Mozart as anything but Austrian.

[karlhenning]

Well, that and the marzipan.

[Christo]

Nationality is not a function of political boundaries, but of tribal membership, determined primarily by language (which shapes one's world view and values more powerfully than any other influence) and other elements of culture, such as history, religion, mores, customs, and so on.

I beg to disagree (well, partially  ) The specific form of tribal identity that we call "nationality", is first and for all determined by the political order, in this case the modern nation state. It is the state that determines most of the cultural elements you mention. First of all language, but also religion (traditionally the base of a "nation" in the classical meaning), a shared historical mythology, aso.

One problem is, that in some languages the words for "nationality" and "citizenship" are equivalents, in other languages (= political systems, traditions) "nationality" can indeed also refer to a more tribal identity, for example based on religion, as you suggest. This applies especially to Eastern European traditions, and especially to Russia.

But in case a "nationality" is almost identical to the citizenship of a specific state, I would suggest it is indeed the state that is the determining factor.

Which would make Mozart a "Salzburgian" before anything else.  

[DavidRoss]

You are welcome to disagree, but you are wrong.  If it's any comfort, you have plenty of company.

[Christo]

You are welcome to disagree, but you are wrong.  If it's any comfort, you have plenty of company.

I'm happy with the comfort - but a little explanation would be even more welcome! 

[DavidRoss]

I'm happy with the comfort - but a little explanation would be even more welcome! 

The "explanation" is what you disagreed with.

Rather than the political order determining nationality (except in the very narrow sense perpetrated by the ruling powers of modern nation-states), it is nationality that usually gives birth to the political order--except when such order is forced on nations, artificially dividing or uniting them into political entities, as practiced, for instance, by the great colonial powers of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

[Christo]

except when such order is forced on nations, artificially dividing or uniting them into political entities, as practiced, for instance, by the great colonial powers of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Agreed. But this is exactly what happened in most of Europe (to continue my Eurocentric argument  ) as well as in the rest of the world. The creation of nation states by the common will of a "nation" is mostly a historical myth, I would say. 

[DavidRoss]

Agreed. But this is exactly what happened in most of Europe (to continue my Eurocentric argument  ) as well as in the rest of the world. The creation of nation states by the common will of a "nation" is mostly a historical myth, I would say. 

I never would have guessed it was even a belief, let alone one so commonly held as to constitute a myth.

[karlhenning]

Far from getting anywhere nearer clarity and light, we have the suggestion that Salzburgisch is a . . . nationality?

Someone recapitulate for me the "problems" in considering Mozart an Austrian?  TIA.

[Christo]

The question is: is nationality prior to the state, or is the state (political order of any kind) the determining factor in shared identities like nationality, but also language, religion, aso.

Generally speaking, I would opt for the second. Most of the world's present languages and religions are the result of some form of political order, now or in the past. The same applies to nationality, taken, as you do, as a tribal identity, a national identity.

To give just one other example: France. Untill probably the 20th, but certainly the 19th century, the majority of the "French" spoke another language than French. Yet in the end of a long historical process that created a French state, the majority not only spoke French, but were Catholics as well and shared a strong "national" identity, even a nationality. Had al those minorities (who together formed the majority of the "French" through the ages) become subjects of other, neighbouring states, the same process would have happened, with different nationalities as an outcome.

And, well, exactly the same applies to myself. I am from the East of the Netherlands, as were all of my relatives in the past. Had the region, at some point in history, been added to the German empire, I would have accepted German nationality, without even changing my mother tongue (Lox Saxonian) or much else. So I would say my accidental Dutch nationality is the outcome of a political process, more so than of self-identication. And I would think that the same applies to most people, worldwide.

What about the USA? Didn't you all, as immigrants I mean, accept American nationality as the result of the prior existance of a British political order and later on an American state? And start to speak English for that reason, and become Protestants, etc.?  

Therefore I conclude that it makes little sense to call Mozart an "Austrian".  

[Florestan]

I don't quite get your point, Christo. Do you imply that, apart from a political, quasi-fictitious construction, there is no such thing a Dutch nation?