Mystery of Mozart's Skull!

[Joy]

Droell, I think you should write a book about Mozart based on your theories of his 'death' and his afterlife for the fictional section of a bookstore of course!

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[JA Gardiner]

Although a recent article - in the Guardian in the last week or two I think? - was presenting a thesis that his complaint was in fact Trichinosis - an infection picked up from dodgy meat - this would account for many of the symptoms reported and for the course of the disease. It even quoted a letter of his referring to having eaten some pork chops about 44 days before his death which would fit nicely apparently with the incubation, onset and course of the disease. If so, despite all the paranoia it could just have been a messy accidental death like that suffered by so many in the pre penicillin era. This of course would not suit those who, perhaps like the man himself, can't bear to think that a genius like Mozart could have suffered a banal and ordinary death like the rest of humanity...
Incidentally Jane Glover, the great Mozart scholar and conductor, in her book, Mozart's Women, takes a traditional view and draws on the memoirs of Sophie Weber which state that she held him in her arms when he died and that Constanze , completely distraught, climbed into bed beside him as if to try to catch his illness. On the following day she reports that several friends did indeed view the body and that Constanze and her family attended a simple ceremony at the Cathedral and that a rented private hearse was used to convey the coffin through the city to the grave - this, as was the norm, was not accompanied by mourners. Glover also notes that all the obloquy placed on Constanze's reactions thereafter would have astonished Mozart who himself was not that fussed about the graves of his own family!

Whilst not being an expert in this period, as a trained historian myself, I'm always inclined to think that the simplest thesis that makes sense of the bulk of the available evidence without relying on unprovable negatives and implausible and unverifiable chains of assumptions is most likely to be correct, and should be preferred until such time as any substantive evidence is produced to disprove or question it.

In the meantime I'll leave you to it and get back to the music which is what REALLY interests me.

------------------
Beethoven the Man!

[This message has been edited by JA Gardiner (edited 01-17-2006).]

[Joy]

Very good, JA, I agree especially about the music! There are so many theories on the real cause of Mozart's death. Growing up I heard of two the trichinosis theory and that he caught the plague and that is why he was buried in a common grave because of the contagious factor and buried with many others who had died of the same illness. Then came the movie Amadeus which threw me another theory that he was poisoned and specifically that Salieri poisoned him. Interesting and what exactly happened we may never know for sure.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Wolfgang]

By the time Beethoven died, Vienna HAD actually changed a lot. The French Revolution had taken place and perhaps society was now a little more 'open' to the lower classes so to speak. Foe example, in Mozart's day, composers were mere servants but Beethoven may have been the first composer to be recognized as an artist of the highest calibre and swept him among the upper classes. This might be one reason why Beethoven received a marker and Mozart did not. To me, it is perfectly conceivable that Mozart would not have received a marker (in fact, I have read this to be common in the 18th century).[/B]

I agree that Vienna had changed greatly in the time between Mozart's and Beethoven's deaths. Not only had the French Revolution happened but also the Napoleonic Wars with the invasion of Vienna by French troops by a serious financial crisis and a real political entrenchment. The culture of Joseph the Second's reign had long given way to his successors and, of course, the "Romantic" view of the arts and the artist was now established. In Joseph's day there was a real sense of radicalism in the air, one aspect of which was the down-grading of the paraphernalia of death. The attractively unpompous attitude to death of this period radically changed when Vienna was in the throws of political and economic insecurity. They then needed all the reassurance that they could find that they were a major power and home to the greatest culture. Beethoven fitted the bill perfectly of course because, even if no one was really listening to his music, he was still seen as the "greatest living composer." No different to the opinions you hear today when people acknowledge the existance of great artists without actually wanting to listen to their work!

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
In the case of Mozart it was 'phrenologists' associated with Vienna University and Dr Gall.

Can you provide any proof for this? Do you have any personal documents from Dr. Gall to prove that he dug up Mozart's skull?

Originally posted by robert newman:
When asked why the actual site had been lost Constanze's answer was that she 'expected it to be marked'.

This statement is simply false.

Originally posted by robert newman:
There's a Vienna newspaper advertisement from the 1790's posted by a foreigner who, some years later, sought to know the exact gravesite of Mozart.

Could you give us any reference to this supposed advertisement? Title of the source and page number please.

Originally posted by robert newman:
In Haydn's case it was a student of Haydn many years later who finally erected a marker over his gravesite, without which even his would have been lost.

This is wrong. Haydn's tombstone was erected in 1809.

Originally posted by robert newman:
Stories of the procession to the Cathedral, and that of a procession from there to the city gates were invented many years later. The evidence (such as we have) indicates that the body of Mozart was taken from his home the evening after his death to St Marx.

Plain nonsense. To bury a body of a Catholic without consecration on sacred ground by a priest would have been against the law and against the rules of Catholic faith.

Originally posted by robert newman:
(Laws in place at that time demanded that burials could only occur after sunset).

This is false. Laws demanded that corpses were only transported after 6 pm.

Originally posted by robert newman:
But on the pretext that Mozart had died of a communicable epidemic illness (something claimed by the doctors who were in charge of his case in later years)

Simply false. 'Hitziges Frieselfieber' was not a communicable epidemic.

Originally posted by robert newman:
he actually received no public funeral of the kind that is so often assumed.

The ceremony of the consecration was public. The actual burial was not because unlike today it was not the most important part of the ceremony.

Originally posted by robert newman:
As a contrast, tens of thousands attended a memorial to Mozart days later in Prague.

False. We don't know anything about the number of attendants in Prague. You should become a writer of historical fiction. But - you are one already!

Originally posted by robert newman:
It was on 10th December 1791 in Vienna, some days after his unescorted burial, that a small group of friends (none of them family members)

Simply wrong. There's no source that precludes Constanze's attendance at St. Michael church.

Originally posted by robert newman:
(A work very different than that which has always been assumed was sung that day without orchestra - an a capella work - the Requiem that Mozart DID finish - and the work we have today (KV626)

So you were there that Saturday? Empty speculation is all you can come up with.

Originally posted by robert newman:
This a capella work (now lost but for a time in the possession of Schickaneder)

You have no proof for this nonsense. And by the way, the actor signed his name 'Schikaneder'.

Originally posted by robert newman:
Walsegg being wrongly credited with having commissioned Mozart for KV626.

Poor fool this Walsegg. He paid for a Requiem he had not commissioned.

Originally posted by robert newman:
The a cappella work (still highly controversial in Mozart studies today)

Plain balderdash.

Originally posted by robert newman:
before disappearing completely along with many other manuscripts once in the possession of Count Walsegg.

You really should make yourself accquainted with the 'Walsegg Archiv' in the Heimatmuseum Neunkirchen.

Originally posted by robert newman:
Whether the skull of Mozart held for years at the Mozarteum is actually his has been hotly disputed for decades.

It has been known for over 70 years that the skull is a fake. All these silly rumors were kept alive just to entertain people like you, who have absolutely no contact with the sources or the plain historical facts and enjoy passing silly fantasies.

[robert newman]

(Being comfortably on schedule with my proposed post here on ‘Figaro’ I’ve allowed myself the luxury of posting here some brief responses to comments made against me by Cetto von Cronstorff).

________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
In the case of Mozart it was 'phrenologists' associated with Vienna University and Dr Gall.
________________________________________
Can you provide any proof for this? Do you have any personal documents from Dr. Gall to prove that he dug up Mozart's skull?
//
Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,
Yes, I can provide proof of this – proof sufficient to persuade any who know paperwork rarely precedes each and every event of human history – except of course in the paper approved life of a certain Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Dr Gall of Vienna University was the leader/pioneer of a craze (one hugely popular in Vienna) known as ‘phrenology’ , the idea that human skull shapes (and he collected several hundred human skulls himself) reflected the innate characteristics/abilities of the person to which it belonged. The skull of Haydn was stolen days after Hadyn’s burial – by phrenologists - though the truth of that was finally exposed only years later. Gall was a frequent visitor to the Narreturm, a tower built by Joseph 2nd in 1784 where lunatic and insane were housed in the grounds of the Vienna University and where systematic study was made of human remains. (That site still houses a collection and is used for medical research). I suggest you read a little of the history of that pseudo-science that is called phrenology and perhaps something of the controversial career of Gall in Vienna (a city from where he was eventually banned by the Emperor). I think you will see the reasonableness of my suggestion.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
When asked why the actual site had been lost Constanze's answer was that she 'expected it to be marked'.
________________________________________
This statement is simply false.
A. It is not false. It is a fact. But may I suggest you make a post to the Mozartforum site as follows (knowing as I do that they are able to settle this question quite easily). How about the following text ? -

'Dear Members of Mozartforum,
Is it true or false that a notice appeared in a Vienna newspaper within a few years of Mozart's death written by a visiting foreigner asking if anyone could show him the exact site of Mozart's burial place'

Such a notice apppeared as they will surely confirm. They will also confirm that Constanze Mozart is recorded as saying she expected the site to have been marked of her husband's burial place.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
In Haydn's case it was a student of Haydn many years later who finally erected a marker over his gravesite, without which even his would have been lost.
________________________________________
This is wrong. Haydn's tombstone was erected in 1809.
A. You might care to read what I write more carefully. I specifically said the student erected a ‘MARKER’ over Haydn’s gravesite. I did NOT say that he erected a tombstone. The tombstone was erected in 1808 as you say. (Such corrections become tedious).
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
Stories of the procession to the Cathedral, and that of a procession from there to the city gates were invented many years later. The evidence (such as we have) indicates that the body of Mozart was taken from his home the evening after his death to St Marx.
________________________________________
Plain nonsense. To bury a body of a Catholic without consecration on sacred ground by a priest would have been against the law and against the rules of Catholic faith.
A. You call it ‘plain nonsense’ that burying a body of a Catholic in such a way would have been against the law and again the rules of the Catholic faith. Your view is total nonsense. In the account provided by the former city inspector Dr Guldener reference is specifically made to the fact that (in his view) a virtual epidemic had swept Vienna at the time of Mozart’s death and that he (Mozart) had succumbed to it. Now, such an epidemic never occurred. But if the belief existed at the time of Mozart’s death that he had died of an illness which took the lives of many others in the city at that time (as Guldener expressly states) then, under such a situation, we are not stretching credibility to say that Mozart’s body was not taken to the Cathedral but was (as in a plague situation) buried without the body entering in to the church. If the traditional cortege to the cathedral really occurred, and if the burial service in the cathedral really occurred (escorted as it would have been by friends, relatives and other mourners) why is it, Mr Cetto von Cronstorff that you have not yet provided us a single witness of such a funeral procession, nor of any reference to such a church service, nor even, in fact, evidence of a procession to the city gate – except that fabricated decades later. Please present your evidence that such things really occurred. Is this asking too much ? Surely you can produce a diary report, a newspaper report, or some contemporary witness (Constanze, some family member, some friend) ???? Let us see what you provide for us in your reply.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
(Laws in place at that time demanded that burials could only occur after sunset).
________________________________________
This is false. Laws demanded that corpses were only transported after 6 pm.
A. This is hair splitting. The movement of corpses was not allowed in daylight hours. It was dark in Vienna by around 6pm in December. That is all that was intended to be said.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
But on the pretext that Mozart had died of a communicable epidemic illness (something claimed by the doctors who were in charge of his case in later years)
________________________________________
Simply false. 'Hitziges Frieselfieber' was not a communicable epidemic.
A. Yes, indeed, it was not. I never said that it IS a communicable epidemic. Indeed, I argue the very opposite. The cause of Mozart’s death, shrouded in pseudo-science, was explained by this bogus title – one that people at the time could hardly question. We today question it and find it rubbish.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
he actually received no public funeral of the kind that is so often assumed.
________________________________________
The ceremony of the consecration was public. The actual burial was not because unlike today it was not the most important part of the ceremony.
A. Certainly
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
As a contrast, tens of thousands attended a memorial to Mozart days later in Prague.
________________________________________
False. We don't know anything about the number of attendants in Prague. You should become a writer of historical fiction. But - you are one already!
A. You have not read any material on this. It is a documented fact that in Prague the city was greatly moved by Mozart’s death and countless thousands attended the memorial service there which was organised at short notice. Newspaper and other reports of the time clearly state this.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
It was on 10th December 1791 in Vienna, some days after his unescorted burial, that a small group of friends (none of them family members)
________________________________________
Simply wrong. There's no source that precludes Constanze's attendance at St. Michael church.
A. Simply wrong ? How is it wrong ? There is no source that precludes George Washington being at St Michael’s church on that day also. But you, who love documentary evidence – let me ask what documentary evidence you have that Constanze Mozart, widow of Mozart, attended that memorial ? Or, if that is not available to you, produce for us please a recorded witness from the immediate family/friends of Mozart for their own attendance. We await your reply with interest. In the meantime the facts speak for themselves – that this memorial was made with the assistance of Schickaneder and the Freihaus group. It is refered to by no biographer or family member. Nor by any in his immediate circle yet it indisputably occurred.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
(A work very different than that which has always been assumed was sung that day without orchestra - an a capella work - the Requiem that Mozart DID finish - and the work we have today (KV626)
________________________________________
So you were there that Saturday? Empty speculation is all you can come up with.
A. I was not there. But sufficient evidence exists that a Requiem by Mozart was performed at that Memorial Service on that day. First, in the form of church records for that day and second in the form of a newspaper report to the same effect. In response you have nothing. And K626 was not (by anybody’s view, nearly in a state ready to be performed 5 days after Mozart’s death). Thus, by any fair reckoning the piece performed that day was not K626.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
This a capella work (now lost but for a time in the possession of Schickaneder)
________________________________________
You have no proof for this nonsense. And by the way, the actor signed his name 'Schikaneder'.
A. I have proof that you have again read nothing of this subject. Please do some reading before you write in this way. Better still, think also.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
Walsegg being wrongly credited with having commissioned Mozart for KV626.
________________________________________
Poor fool this Walsegg. He paid for a Requiem he had not commissioned. – In reply – yes.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
The a cappella work (still highly controversial in Mozart studies today)
________________________________________
Plain balderdash
A. Is it ?
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
before disappearing completely along with many other manuscripts once in the possession of Count Walsegg.
________________________________________
You really should make yourself accquainted with the 'Walsegg Archiv' in the Heimatmuseum Neunkirchen
A. I have. And you should make yourself acquainted with the bogus manufacture of K626.
________________________________________
Originally posted by robert newman:
Whether the skull of Mozart held for years at the Mozarteum is actually his has been hotly disputed for decades.
________________________________________
It has been known for over 70 years that the skull is a fake. All these silly rumors were kept alive just to entertain people like you, who have absolutely no contact with the sources or the plain historical facts and enjoy passing silly fantasies.
A. To suggest that the authenticity or otherwise of the skull has not been hotly disputed for decades is to ignore plain fact. The subject has been the cause of intense debate.

Thank You

Robert Newman



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-09-2006).]

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Thanks for all the ridiculous explanations, lies (the staff in Neunkirchen doesn't know you), weak excuses and off-the-topic ramblings.

-------------------------------------------

YOUR MESSAGE WAS EDITED AS THE PERSONAL INSULTS CONTRAVENE THE RULES OF THIS FORUM

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-09-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

I was hoping that you would not have written as you did - since it's really off the topic, isn't it ? Looking forward to your evidence in due course.

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

I was hoping that you would not have written as you did - since it's really off the topic, isn't it ? Looking forward to your evidence in due course.

You don't get this kind of trouble at my Handel site Robert! I'm amazed this mundane topic has aroused such emotion. Hope you like the Passion music!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[robert newman]

Hi Rod - after this I'm going to need some 'cool, cool' Handel. Any suggestions ?

(I'm really happy with progress on the other thing)

Robert

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hi Rod - after this I'm going to need some 'cool, cool' Handel. Any suggestions ?

(I'm really happy with progress on the other thing)

Robert

Well for starters just download any of the stuff I upload at my site, it's ALL cool cool. But I've seen nothing here that compares to the all out war that used to go on while I was moderator at Edepot's Beethoven site, I loved it.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[robert newman]

Talking of wars on Beethoven, I've seen and heard a few. But also some that became ridiculous from the most harmless starting point.

A few years ago I met a woman here in England who knew that Beethoven counted coffee beans before grinding them and asked whether I was aware of this. I said 'Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I have read this somewhere - perhaps in one of the great biographies, Thayer or another'. She then said, 'But did you know that Beethoven, the great Beethoven, was actually the true inventor of the tea bag ?' I confessed ignorance to this fact so she explained that he, contrary to the traditional view, liked tea as much if not more than coffee, and said she had got this information from an old woman friend in Vienna.

Well, this was enough to set off a dispute, since others who heard this conversation began arguing about how many coffee beans Beethoven actually used when making coffee - 16 or some other figure.

Such things can lead to the most amazing conversations. Speaking of which I must make a cup of tea myself.

Robert


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-09-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Well, this was enough to set off a dispute, since others who heard this conversation began arguing about how many coffee beans Beethoven actually used when making coffee - 16 or some other figure.

Such things can lead to the most amazing conversations. Speaking of which I must make a cup of tea myself.

Robert

I believe the horrendous figure to be 60 - I've just made a cup of instant! I suspect something stronger than coffee will be needed after your post on Tuesday!


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

YOUR MESSAGE WAS EDITED AS THE PERSONAL INSULTS CONTRAVENE THE RULES OF THIS FORUM

The objective diagnosis of a simple disillusionary obsession is not an insult. The times are over when people suffering from a medical problem were seen as being 'crazy'.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:

The objective diagnosis of a simple disillusionary obsession is not an insult. The times are over when people suffering from a medical problem were seen as being 'crazy'.

I'm sorry Cetto but as administrator of this forum I'll decide if I think your remarks constituted a personal insult. I, like many here share your frustrations at Robert Newman's arguments, but there is no need for personal abuse. Please do not post such inflammatory comments again.


------------------
'Man know thyself'