I own those books, of course, as well as just about everything I can find on Mozart, at least in English and German. I am happy to debate any substantive claim you might make.
You have not pointed out any cite to substantiate your position, as yet, have you? How are we to know which passage you find most persuasive? I am psychic, but not that good. :-0
You surely also realize that historians take a point of view and attempt to persuade others to it by their weighing and evaluating of documentation. They were not there. And besides, imo, they tend to fall short, as they miss key elements of what made Mozart different. To that extent, for starters, they tend to disappoint.
I do stand corrected, however, in that AMADEUS managed to leave out gambling specifically. I have yet to find any primary documentation to support the theory that he did have a problem. In fact, the closest thing I can find is the fact of common knowledge that Puchberg fed Mozart only smallish sums of money. Was gambling the reason why?
It is not my intent to whitewash Mozart, but to define who he really was, flaws and all, without the lavish doses of libel that tend to color many accounts of his life. Wolf is, of course, the main character of my current project.
The homework I suggested, to take a look at Wolf’s last major opera and ask whether there is any possible connection between “Monostatos” and the MO, was presented in hopes that you would start to think outside-of-the-box in regards to Wolf. Or not. Your choice.
Le Chant du Rossignol...(song of the nightingale) 