At the tender age of fourteen, Mozart faced a composition exam at the prestigious Accademia Filarmonica in Bologna—a moment that should have marked a significant turning point in his career. The exam, however, was a disaster, but he was passed nonetheless, as if the whole charade was designed to bolster a burgeoning myth.

Musicologist Hermann Abert suggested that Mozart had prepared for this farcical examination under the guidance of Giovanni Battista Martini. The reality, however, appears far less impressive. Abert claimed that Mozart had composed Cibavit eos, a supposed masterpiece that demonstrated his ability to compose in the ancient style.

The Illusion of Originality

Abert and other scholars, blinded by their own biases, asserted that Mozart approached the exam with serious preparation, producing the Cibavit, which, according to these scholars, showcased his emerging talent, impressing none other than Father Martini himself. However, a more rigorous investigation reveals that Cibavit was not an original work but a mere copy, beautifully transcribed. It unmistakably echoes the style of late Renaissance composers, a fact that becomes glaringly obvious even to the casual listener.

A Shattered Illusion

Recent discoveries have unveiled that K. 44 is a copy of an earlier work by Johann Stadlmayr rather than an original composition by Mozart. This revelation serves as a powerful testament to the precarious nature of the alleged genius of Mozart. The admiration he has received is built on a foundation of misconceptions and inaccuracies, such as the case of Cibavit, perpetuated by an uncritical acceptance of earlier biographical accounts.

The Mozart establishment and its so-called experts have confused early Renaissance music with Mozart’s compositions, revealing their ignorance of both. They have painted a misleading portrait of a composer who, at the age of fourteen, supposedly mastered counterpoint and polyphony. In reality, this is far from the truth.

Conclusion

The narrative surrounding Cibavit eos challenges us to rethink the stories we have been told and to question the foundations of the mythic genius that surrounds Mozart. This motet does not demonstrate the brilliance of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; instead, it exposes the superficiality of Mozart studies, highlighting how easily myths can be constructed and perpetuated in the world of classical music.