Constanze Mozart

[Joy]

Heard this news was on the radio: "A print of the only photograph of Constanze, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's widow, has been found in the archives of the southern German town of Altotting. The photo was taken in 1840 at the home of Max Keller, the swiss composer, when Constanze Mozart was 78 years old. She died two years later".

Here's the photo and article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...240538227.html


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

[This message has been edited by Joy (edited 07-11-2006).]

[Nightklavier]

Wow - Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Joy:
Heard this news was on the radio: "A print of the only photograph of Constanze, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's widow, has been found in the archives of the southern German town of Altotting. The photo was taken in 1840 at the home of Max Keller, the swiss composer, when Constanze Mozart was 78 years old. She died two years later".

Here's the photo and article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...240538227.html

You have been hoaxed. Constanze was too sick to visit Altoetting in 1840. And there was no outdoor Daguerrography in Bavaria in 1840.
http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsa...e_mystery.html

[This message has been edited by Cetto von Cronstorff (edited 07-11-2006).]

[Nightklavier]

Wow - Very interesting again... lol thanks for clarifying that.

[robert newman]

I tend to agree with Cetto on this one. The photograph is probably not of Constanze Mozart.

But debate still continues. I understand through several posts by Dan Leeson on Mozart Forum that there has been a case made quite recently that the photograph IS of Constanze Mozart.

Not being aware of the basis behind recent arguments I agree with Cetto only because there simply has never been, till now, convincing evidence to support the view that it is her.

I also agree that in 1840 Daguerrotype (or any other sort) photography was not in use there.

[Joy]

Curses, foiled again!!

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

[robert newman]

I've looked again at this question. Some interesting dates -

1826 First surviving photograph taken by Niepce

1829 Niépce agrees to cooperate with Daguerre and in that year they entered into a partnership agreement for a period of 10 years to develop photography

1833 Niepce suddenly dies (of a stroke).The agreement specified that his son, Isidore, should take over his side of the partnership. From surviving correspondence between Isidore Niépce and Daguerre it's clear that it was Daguerre alone who was responsible for reducing the exposure times needed for photographs from hours to minutes. Certainly by the year of 1837, Daguerre was able to photograph objects in 4 minutes in bright sunlight.

But very interestingly -

In 1989, the French photographic dealer Marc Pagneux bought a small Daguerreotype at the Porte de Vanves market on the edge of Paris for 600 Francs (around a hundred dollars). It was a poor example, the head and shoulders of an unknown man, rather small and not very clear, and he apparently thought little about it until he took it to pieces in order to restore it. He then discovered inside a more primitive casing, suggesting it could be a very early example. On the back in writing which an expert identified as Daguerre's own handwriting was the date of 1837. Analysis of the picture suggested it was taken by a 6 inch lens, possibly the same one known to have been invented by Daguerre in 1832 and used for some of his experiments.

Finally, there is no doubt that Fox Talbot in England was taking photographic portaits of people in the early 1840's. (I have a copy of a Fox Talbot image of 3 men taken outside of London in 1844).

Contrary to popular belife there is no agreement about the actual date when Daguerre first developed his photographic process. For example -

'' Historians argue about the exact date of Daguerre's breakthrough. From the letters between the partners, we know that Niépce had given up with the use of iodine by 1831, but that Daguerre had some more promising results and was to continuing to work with it.''

It is not impossible that photographs were taken of people in 1840 in Bavaria though it remains unlikely. And it remains unlikely that Constanze Mozart is the woman in that picture for all the reasons stated by others. Unlikely but not (I suggest) impossible.

R

[Hollywood]

Thank you Robert for sharing this fascinating information. I guess that we will never know for sure if that is Constanza Mozart or not in that photograph. I myself would love to believe that it really is her but I do have reasonable doubt, your Honor.

I'm sure that this topic will continue to be one of interest to all of us Mozart fans who really want to know, is she Constanza or just someone's maiden aunt?

------------------
"God knows why it is that my pianoforte music always makes the worst impression on me, especially when it is played badly."
- Beethoven 1804.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:


It is not impossible that photographs were taken of people in 1840 in Bavaria though it remains unlikely.

Photographs may have been taken of people in Bavaria in 1840. But since the necessary time of exposure was still five minutes it's very unlikely that these portraits were not completely blurred. The use of a Voigtlaender lens in 1840 in Altoetting is only possible with the help of aliens.

[robert newman]

Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

You wrote -

'....since the necessary time of exposure was still five minutes it's very unlikely that these portraits were not completely blurred'.

Fine. IF the necessary time was 5 minutes. But in my posting of today I refered to the fact that as early as 1837 Daguerre's photographic method had reduced the required exposure time to not 5 but 4 minutes and this fully 3 years before the alleged photograph was taken.

Secondly, you write -

'The use of a Voigtlaender lens in 1840 in Altoetting is only possible with the help of aliens'.

This photograph of 'Constanze Mozart' is not the original but a copy made decades later, long after Constanze's death. How that copy was made remains to be explained.

I am interested to know what evidence exists that the original photograph from 1840 is definitely taken with a Voigtlaender lens ?

Thirdly, in 1840 there were at least two other lenses in use by early photographers that were not Voigtlaender. One is that developed by Daguerre himself around 1837. The other is that used in the late 1830's by English pioneers (rivals to Daguerre) such as Fox Talbot. For, definitely, by October 1840 Fox Talbot (using a quite different process from that of Daguerre) was taking human portrait photographs.

(My instinct tells me this controversial photograph is a modern fake - the mannerisms and the postures of all in the picture seem just too contrived - but a date of 1840 makes it just possible that it's genuinely from that time. Even so I think it's very unlikely it's a picture of Constanze Mozart.

I will try to see if Englishmen were taking non Daguerre photographs in Germany in the late 1830's and early 1840's.

R

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Fine. IF the necessary time was 5 minutes. But in my posting of today I refered to the fact that as early as 1837 Daguerre's photographic method had reduced the required exposure time to not 5 but 4 minutes and this fully 3 years before the alleged photograph was taken.

Four instead of five minutes - now that of course makes ALL the difference

This photograph of 'Constanze Mozart' is not the original but a copy made decades later,

Supposedly so

I am interested to know what evidence exists that the original photograph from 1840 is definitely taken with a Voigtlaender lens?

Because it can't be taken with a lense that still made an exposure of several minutes necessary. Since the Voigtlaender lense had not been invented yet in 1840, the whole thing is very fishy indeed.

Thirdly, in 1840 there were at least two other lenses in use by early photographers that were not Voigtlaender. One is that developed by Daguerre himself around 1837. The other is that used in the late 1830's by English pioneers (rivals to Daguerre) such as Fox Talbot. For, definitely, by October 1840 Fox Talbot (using a quite different process from that of Daguerre) was taking human portrait photographs.

These lenses needed several minutes of exposure time and the disappointing result looked like this (a picture by Talbot from 1842): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...albot_foto.jpg

[Agnes Selby]

This photograph has surfaced a number of times, twice in the 1950s. It was then rejected as a photograph of Constanze Mozart.

By 1840 Constanze would have been too ill to undertake a journey to Alltoting.
Constanze suffered from severe arthritis,
gout and varicose ulcerations of both her legs. Letters pertaining to this information are housed in the archives of the Mozarteum.

Her diaries, where she copied all her correspondence reveal that she had no contact with Maximilliam Keller after 1826.

Maximilliam Keller was assistant to Constanze's second husband Nikolaus Nissen
during his last years when Keller was helping him collect data for Nissen's Mozart biography. After Nissen's death in 1826,the completion of Nissen's Mozart
Biography was given to Dr. Feuerstein.
In any case, Keller left Salzburg shortly before Nissen's death as attested by his letter to Nissen's other assistant, Anton
Jahndl.

There is no evidence in Constanze's diaries that she visited Keller at any other time
between 1826 and 1840. Constanze entered all her expenses in her diaries, including a tip she gave a waiter.

The woman in the dubious photograph with her
extremely high forehead and black hair
(at age 80?) is probably someone's favourite aunt.

Regards,
Agnes Selby.
(author of "Constanze Mozart's Beloved")

[robert newman]

Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

Thanks for sharing the Fox Talbot photograph from 1842. I'm surprised you describe the results as disappointing.

Is it your view that the man pictured on the left sawing remained motionless with the saw in his hand for 4 or 5 minutes and the man with the axe did the very same ? I honestly believe exposure times by around 1840 (specially with Fox Talbot) must surely have been considerably less than 4 minutes in such pictures.

From a book on Talbot's correspondence diary we read -

'Talbot's continuing researches paid off in a series of brilliant observations in September 1840. He discovered that a very short exposure triggered an invisible effect in his silver paper. By employing a chemical developer, Talbot could build this latent image into a full-strength negative. Exposure times, previously measured in minutes or even hours PLUNGED TO SECONDS'
exposure+times+fox+talbot&fr


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 07-14-2006).]

[Joy]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:

This photograph has surfaced a number of times, twice in the 1950s. It was then rejected as a photograph of Constanze Mozart.

By 1840 Constanze would have been too ill to undertake a journey to Alltoting.
Constanze suffered from severe arthritis,
gout and varicose ulcerations of both her legs. Letters pertaining to this information are housed in the archives of the Mozarteum.

Her diaries, where she copied all her correspondence reveal that she had no contact with Maximilliam Keller after 1826.

Maximilliam Keller was assistant to Constanze's second husband Nikolaus Nissen
during his last years when Keller was helping him collect data for Nissen's Mozart biography. After Nissen's death in 1826,the completion of Nissen's Mozart
Biography was given to Dr. Feuerstein.
In any case, Keller left Salzburg shortly before Nissen's death as attested by his letter to Nissen's other assistant, Anton
Jahndl.

There is no evidence in Constanze's diaries that she visited Keller at any other time
between 1826 and 1840. Constanze entered all her expenses in her diaries, including a tip she gave a waiter.

The woman in the dubious photograph with her
extremely high forehead and black hair
(at age 80?) is probably someone's favourite aunt.

Regards,
Agnes Selby.
(author of "Constanze Mozart's Beloved")

Thanks very much Agnes for this very informative post!


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

[Joy]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I've looked again at this question. Some interesting dates -

1826 First surviving photograph taken by Niepce

1829 Niépce agrees to cooperate with Daguerre and in that year they entered into a partnership agreement for a period of 10 years to develop photography

1833 Niepce suddenly dies (of a stroke).The agreement specified that his son, Isidore, should take over his side of the partnership. From surviving correspondence between Isidore Niépce and Daguerre it's clear that it was Daguerre alone who was responsible for reducing the exposure times needed for photographs from hours to minutes. Certainly by the year of 1837, Daguerre was able to photograph objects in 4 minutes in bright sunlight.

But very interestingly -

In 1989, the French photographic dealer Marc Pagneux bought a small Daguerreotype at the Porte de Vanves market on the edge of Paris for 600 Francs (around a hundred dollars). It was a poor example, the head and shoulders of an unknown man, rather small and not very clear, and he apparently thought little about it until he took it to pieces in order to restore it. He then discovered inside a more primitive casing, suggesting it could be a very early example. On the back in writing which an expert identified as Daguerre's own handwriting was the date of 1837. Analysis of the picture suggested it was taken by a 6 inch lens, possibly the same one known to have been invented by Daguerre in 1832 and used for some of his experiments.

Finally, there is no doubt that Fox Talbot in England was taking photographic portaits of people in the early 1840's. (I have a copy of a Fox Talbot image of 3 men taken outside of London in 1844).

Contrary to popular belife there is no agreement about the actual date when Daguerre first developed his photographic process. For example -

'' Historians argue about the exact date of Daguerre's breakthrough. From the letters between the partners, we know that Niépce had given up with the use of iodine by 1831, but that Daguerre had some more promising results and was to continuing to work with it.''

It is not impossible that photographs were taken of people in 1840 in Bavaria though it remains unlikely. And it remains unlikely that Constanze Mozart is the woman in that picture for all the reasons stated by others. Unlikely but not (I suggest) impossible.

R

Hi Robert and thank you for that informative piece on photography, very interesting indeed. Too bad Beeethoven missed all that by such a small amount of years or we could have an actual photograph of him instead of portraits. Wouldn't that be grand?

Regards, Joy



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