Constanze Mozart

[robert newman]

Hello Joy !

Just wish we could solve the mystery of that photograph of 'Constanze Mozart'. Seems the pro's and the con's swing from side to side in this debate.

If this was really Constanze Mozart one might expect her to have a central place, seeing that she would have been a guest of honour.

There may be some more twists and turns in this story before this matter is finally resolved.

Regards

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Hello Joy !

Just wish we could solve the mystery of that photograph of 'Constanze Mozart'. Seems the pro's and the con's swing from side to side in this debate.

If this was really Constanze Mozart one might expect her to have a central place, seeing that she would have been a guest of honour.

There may be some more twists and turns in this story before this matter is finally resolved.

Regards

Dear Robert;

Let us remember that photography was in its infancy when this snapshot was taken, so there was no tradition for sitting guests in family pictures.

Constanze Mozart was an avid diary writer as Agnes wrote. One would think that she would write about this trip and about this contraption that makes pictures. So, I am inclined to believe that she is not the woman in the picture.


Hofrat

[PDG]

Originally posted by Hofrat:


Let us remember that photography was in its infancy when this snapshot was taken, so there was no tradition for sitting guests in family pictures.

Hofrat

Dear Hofrat, if this were a "snapshot" then I think we could be sure it is a fake. I wonder if Boots had a two-for-one offer back then!!

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:


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.

I'm confused. In 1839 Constanze was not too sick to travel to Bad Gastein (see the draft of her letter to Rittmeister von Hunoltstein dated 16 September 1839) and in her letter to Friedrich Schwaan in Rostock (dated 3 March 1840) she even describes a trip to Munich where she was received by the Bavarian King Ludwig I.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:

I honestly believe exposure times by around 1840 (specially with Fox Talbot) must surely have been considerably less than 4 minutes in such pictures.

Unfortunately what believe will not change the history of photography. Even with a modern lense and an aperture of 1:4,5 you need about 30 seconds exposure in sunlight to produce a usable picture on a Talbotype film. And Talbot didn't even have such a lense. The guy in the middle of the Constanze picture didn't hold still for 30 seconds, the exposure must have been much shorter.

[robert newman]

For the 'Constanze' picture to have been taken during her lifetime the photographer would have to have used the new fast exposure technique discovered only around that same time (1840/1) by Talbot. (Using silver). A long exposure of some 4-5 minutes cannot have been used to make this image for reasons already discussed. I agree with Cetto that identifying the lens used is a major problem. (So too knowing who the photographer was).

Hofrat is right that there was no tradition of people posing for group photographs in 1840. But the early photographers had to instruct their subjects not to move. That must have been quite an elaborate business. In such a case 'Constanze' must surely have been the centre of attention for the taking of such an elaborate group photograph. But she was not. This surely indicates this image is a modern attempt to 'create' an image that appears like it is from around 1840 but its supporters have not dealt with numerous contradictions.

Constanze could have been there. Were photographers active in taking group photographs at this early time in Germany/Austria ? Haven't seen evidence of this so far. If none is produced it's still another reason to be suspicious of this image.

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
I'm confused. In 1839 Constanze was not too sick to travel to Bad Gastein (see the draft of her letter to Rittmeister von Hunoltstein dated 16 September 1839) and in her letter to Friedrich Schwaan in Rostock (dated 3 March 1840) she even describes a trip to Munich where she was received by the Bavarian King Ludwig I.

-------

Dear Dr. Lorenz,

The journey to Bavaria, was a journey to
collect money for the Mozart statue.The
concert organised by the King of Bavaria was a benefit concert for the erection of the statue and Constanze was very satisfied
with the amount of money she received.
She acknowledged the generosity of the King
and his people by publishing her thanks
in the newspaper.

She wrote to Schwaan on March 3, 1840:
"Perhaps, my dear friend, you have read in the papers, what great honour the King of Bavaria bestowed on me.." etc. It is a lengthy letter and the handwriting is shaky
and in many places difficult to decypher.
She attributes this to her severe arthritis.
Copy of the letter is right here on my desk.

The Bavarian journey and the visit to Bad Gastein are the last she undertook. In her diary, as you know, she complained that she could no longer take the walks she so loved to take in Bad Gastein. This journey to the spa took place in September 1839. Her invitation to the King of Bavaria awaited her on her return from Bad Gastein.

Constanze's life is easy to trace due to
her dairies and correspondence. The entire
history of this woman's life is right there before our eyes.

There is no mention in her diary of another journey nor the expense such a journey would entail. Entering her expenses in her diary were paramount to her very existence.
(In a modern world, she would have no doubt been an accountant).

There is no letter attesting to Keller's
invitation nor her reply to such an invitation. As you are aware, her replies to all her correspondents are noted in her diaries.

The people in the photograph are celebrating Keller's birthday, or so his
grandson claims. This celebration took place in October 1840.

Constanze's condition deterriorated since the time of her visit to the spa a year earlier and she died 18 months after the "Keller photograph" was taken, unless as I suspect, it was taken later, by which time Constanze was, well and truly dead.

You yourself have stated that this dubious
picture was rejected on a number of occasions, twice in the 1950s. I cannot imagine why it has surfaced once again but
Ms. Geffray wrote to me earlier this year
that they are extremely busy at the Mozarteum and everyone is very tired.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by Joy:
Thanks very much Agnes for this very informative post!

------Its my pleasure, Joy, I always
enjoy your postings.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Rod]

Forgive me but I find this topic banale and utterly irrelevant.

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

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:
-------

Dear Dr. Lorenz,

I told you already that you overestimate your own abilities in guessing the identity of other posters. If you continue mistaking me for somebody else, people might think that you suffer from chronic hallucinations.

Constanze was able to travel to Munich and Bad Gastein, but she was too sick to go to Altötting. I call that a shaky argument if there ever was one.

[Agnes Selby]

My apologies.

I truly thought you were the distinguished Mozartean scholar,Dr. Lorenz. Please accept my sincere apologies. It was your style of writing that made me mistake you for Dr. Lorenz as well as your attacks on me.

I am awfully sorry, it will not happen again.

As for Constanze, there is no evidence to
point to her ever travelling to visit Keller nor is there evidence that they corresponded between the years 1826 - 1840.
If you have such evidence I would be most grateful to hear about it.

Agnes Selby.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I note you say there is no hard evidence of Constanze Mozart meeting Keller between 1826 and 1840. May I suggest, however, there is every reason to believe they DID meet in those years. I base this assertion on the following facts -

1.Constanze Mozart was (as you well know) very active in furthering the posthumous reputation of her late husband. (Both before the death of Nissen in 1826 and afterwards).

2. This same Maximilian Keller was with the full approval of none other than Constanze Mozart herself an assistant to her second husband Nikolaus Nissen prior to Nissen's death in 1826 in collecting data for a Mozart biography.

3. That the 'Nissen' biography of Mozart finally appeared only in 1828 with the above mentioned assistance of men such as Maximilian Keller himself.

Is it not reasonable to assume, therefore, that Constanze Mozart was in close contact with Keller both in the years prior to 1826 and also, for sure, in the years that followed 1826 ? To suggest they did not meet seems to me illogical given the fact that for more than a decade they had every reason to do so ?

It is true all correspondence between the two(as is so typical) has vanished. So too any hard evidence of them meeting, anywhere.
(One only needs to read the preface of the Nissen biography to ask 'Who actually wrote it'?). Therefore, they did meet and were beyond reasonable doubt in active correspondence with each other. How could it have been otherwise ?

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 07-15-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Robert,

Normally you would be on the right track
but this time there is no evidence that
Keller co-operated on Nissen's biography
after Nissen's death.

In fact, Robert, it would have been a much better idea had Constanze employed Keller and Jahndl to complete the biography but instead, she appointed Dr. Feuerstein to the job. As her letters show, she often regretted this decision.

The history of Feuerstein and his completion
of the Nissen Mozart biography is described
by Prof. E. Offenbacher in "Linkage to Mozart. The Life of J.H. Feuerstein",
(In English)Mozart Jahrbuch 1993 and 1994.

You can read this fascinating story at the
British Library where a friend of mine also read it.

Not only did Keller have nothing more to do with the Mozart biography but as it turned out, neither did Constanze. Dr. Feuerstein
put the biography together with scissors and paste and then pocketed all the proceeds
from the sale of the book. He disappeared
for a while with his baby son's body immersed in a bottle of alcohol. The proceeds from the sale of the book were spent on drugs and drink.

When he was finally found, Constanze sued him but as she wrote herself to the Royal
Bavarian Assessor, Sattler at the Provincial Court of Justice at Altdorf on April 30, 1835:
"You were entirely correct. Dr. Feuerstein is no longer in Pirna but in Dresden. I located him through our local police".
...But as the local magistrate wrote to me,
he lives in poor circumstances, and where there is nothing, even the emperor has lost his power". (Feuerstein died at the age of 50 from drugs and alcoholism).

I have devoted an entire chapter in my book, "Constanze Mozart's Beloved" to the
Nissen's biography and to Feuerstein. My book is still available on Amazon but it is also available at the British Library.

In order for a biographer to accept the idea that a sick 80 year old woman travelled to Alltoting in order to have
afternoon tea with Keller without referring such a long journey to her diary or making a note of the expense involved,(as was her want) and moreover
had NOT noted a receipt of a letter from Keller at least once during the intervening years between 1826 and 1840, there would have to be some good evidence to accept the fact that the old woman standing in an
old photo is Constanze Mozart.

As such evidence does not exist, I will have to conclude that the woman in the photograph is not Constanze despite the claims of Keller's grandson.

Kind regards,
Agnes.





T

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

I agree with you and Cetto von Cronsdorff that there is little to support the view that this woman in the picture is Constanze Mozart.

Having said this I must comment on a number of things you've said about Nissen and others associated with the biography of Mozart.

1. According to the accepted story (the one that Constanze herself gives us) it was she herself who first employed Keller and Jahndl to assist her second husband Nissen.

Question - Why did she employ them ??? Why them in particular ?

2. You say that Keller did not work on the book after the death of Nissen in 1826 (basing this on statements made by Constanze).

Question - At the time of Nissen's death at Salzburg in 1826 what was the state of completion of the book ?

3. You say (again based on Constanze) that neither she nor Keller worked on the book after the death of Nissen.

Question - Why ?

4. The official story is that Dr Feuerstein was appointed to finish the book.

Question - Why ?

and similarly -

5. For what reason would the widow Mozart have selected a man to finish this biography, already many years in to the making in 1826, without the help of Keller etc. - a man who, in a very short time, proved to be incompetent and a total liability ?

6. Given that Feuerstein pocketed the proceeds of the book how could he have received such proceeds in the first place ?

Q. Did Constanze Mozart herself surrender the rights of the book to Feuerstein ?

You see Agnes, there is something deeply suspicious in all of this. You will be first to admit that if, for years prior to publication Keller and Jandhal were working on it (with Nissen) there must have existed a voluminous correspondence between them and Constanze Mozart/Nissen. Where IS this correspondence ? Furthermore, correspondence is, by its very nature, reciprocal. Where is the correspondence written by Constanze/Nissen on this biography prior to the year of Nissen's death in 1826 ? Is it reasonable to believe that it has just vanished ?

If Constanze Mozart fired both Keller and Jandhl what was the reason for it ? And, again, why would she have chosen Feuerstein ?

Such a decision makes little sense, and even less if the reasons for that decision are not known.

Constanze is recorded as deeply regretting her decision. But the fact remains that she herself had, for almost 20 years, been personally involved in the making of this book. How incredible that she should have surrendered its completion to a man so incompetent as Feuerstein.

Having said all this, I have not read the book you refer to in the British Library and will make a point of doing so.

It is the latest example of just how perverse the 'official' history of Mozart became. I do hope you will agree that all these issues are highly suggestive of manipulation of the truth.

A final question.

Q. Do you believe Constanze Mozart was the person who wrote the foreward/preface to the 'Nissen' biography and had a hand in writing/editing a considerable part of the books content ?

Thanks

Robert

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Robert,

You have asked pertinent questions and here are the answers. I will answer your questions in the order in which the come.

1. According to the accepted story (the one that Constanze herself gives us) it was she herself who first employed Keller and Jahndl to assist her second husband Nissen.

Reply: Again, Robert, Constanze was under no cross examination so the answers are not what SHE GIVES US. Constanze did not employ Keller and Jahndl. Nissen and Constanze were a couple
and the decision was made by them both.
Nowhere does Constanze state that the two men were in their employ. The two men were helping Nissen with the data for the Mozart Biography. Jahndl was director of the choir
of the Noble Ladies' Convent on the Nonberg in Salzburg and Keller was organist in the town of Alltoting. Constanze and Nissen moved to Salzburg where Nannerl presented them with the collected letters of Mozart and his family.
-------------

Question - Why did she employ them ??? Why them in particular ?

Reply: First of all they were not employees and neither did Constanze employ them. Both were musicians and this was a of great help to Nissen who was not a musician and could neither read music nor play an instrument. I suppose they were keen to help Nissen with the biography, there is no explanation why particularly it was these two men. I suppose both were on hand.If you wish to make a conspiracy theory out of this you best not do it. As I am replying to your questions
with courtesy, I would expect you to respect this courtesy and do not plan to twist my words.
----------------------
2. You say that Keller did not work on the book after the death of Nissen in 1826 (basing this on statements made by Constanze).

Reply: Not based on Constanze's words. She had nothing to answer or make statements about. Keller left Salzburg shortly before Nissen's death. In his letter to Jahndl he
writes that seeing that Nissen was planning to return for a visit to Denmark, he would travel with him as far as their journey would part them. Nissen never again travelled to Denmark but died shortly thereafter. This is according to Keller's letter and not according to Constanze.
She is dead and I had no opportunity to ask her.

After Nissen's death, as I said in a previous posting, Constanze gave the book for completion to Dr. Feuerstein.
-----------------

Question - At the time of Nissen's death at Salzburg in 1826 what was the state of completion of the book ?

Reply: All the material that Nissen could gather was there for him to begin writing the book. He wrote the preface and that is all.
----------------

3. You say (again based on Constanze) that neither she nor Keller worked on the book after the death of Nissen.

Reply: Not according to Constanze, I never said that. According to what actually happened, Robert, based on letters between Feuerstein and Constanze. Also based on diary entries.
-----------------

Question - Why ?

Reply: No one knows why. Perhaps the two men were unable to commit themselves to the completion of the book or Constanze decided to use Feuerstein. There is no explanation given why she decided to give the completion of the book to Feuerstein. I cannot manufacture the reason why. It happened.
-----------------

4. The official story is that Dr Feuerstein was appointed to finish the book.

Question - Why ?

and similarly -

Reply: The above answers this question as well.
-------------

5. For what reason would the widow Mozart have selected a man to finish this biography, already many years in to the making in 1826, without the help of Keller etc. - a man who, in a very short time, proved to be incompetent and a total liability ?

Reply: There is no documentation why Keller stopped working on the book. As I said earlier, he returned to his home town. Perhaps he missed his family, perhaps his leave of absence was up, I cannot fabricate an answer. Suffice it to say, he left prior to Nissen's death and Constanze decided to
give the book for completion to Feuerstein.
--------------

6. Given that Feuerstein pocketed the proceeds of the book how could he have received such proceeds in the first place ?

Reply: Good question. He asked for power of attorney to represent the widow and received it. This is documented in his letters to Breitkopf& Hartel the publishers of the book for which publication Constanze
paid a lot of money.
----------------

Q. Did Constanze Mozart herself surrender the rights of the book to Feuerstein ?

Reply: No she did not surrender her rights of the book. She trusted him to act on her behalf and Feuerstein betrayed her. As simple as that. It happens every day.
As a lawyer, I can vouch for that last sentence.
--------------

You see Agnes, there is something deeply suspicious in all of this. You will be first to admit that if, for years prior to publication Keller and Jandhal were working on it (with Nissen) there must have existed a voluminous correspondence between them and Constanze Mozart/Nissen. Where IS this correspondence ? Furthermore, correspondence is, by its very nature, reciprocal. Where is the correspondence written by Constanze/Nissen on this biography prior to the year of Nissen's death in 1826 ? Is it reasonable to believe that it has just vanished ?

Reply: Robert, do not go fishing for what never existed. Why should there have been correspondence between Jahndle, Keller and Nissen when they worked side by side. No conspiracy theory here. Please do not put words in my mouth. I find nothing suspicious in this only bad thinking.
----------------------

If Constanze Mozart fired both Keller and Jandhl what was the reason for it ? And, again, why would she have chosen Feuerstein ?

Reply: There is no question here of FIRING ANYONE. Neither Keller nor Jahndl were Constanze or Nissen's servants. Keller went home to his wife and children even before Nissen's death and Jahndl returned to conducting his choir which I presume he continued doing while helping Nissen.

Why did Constanze chose Feuerstein? Another good question. Nissen and Constanze met Feuerstein through Nannerl. Feuerstein was a collector of Mozartean memorabillia. He was a charming fellow and Nannerl liked him enough to present him with two of her father's letters. (These were later purchased by Constanze's agent when Feuerstein's property went to auction).

I suppose Feuerstein "oozed charm from every pore" and convinced Constanze that he was the man to complete the biography. I cannot give you any more details as there is no record of their conversations.
---------------

Such a decision makes little sense, and even less if the reasons for that decision are not known.

Reply: You are right, it was not a good decision but I do not know why the decision was made in Feuerstein's favour.

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

Constanze is recorded as deeply regretting her decision. But the fact remains that she herself had, for almost 20 years, been personally involved in the making of this book. How incredible that she should have surrendered its completion to a man so incompetent as Feuerstein.

Reply: Heaven's Robert, where do you get
the 20 years?
----------------

Having said all this, I have not read the book you refer to in the British Library and will make a point of doing so.

It is the latest example of just how perverse the 'official' history of Mozart became. I do hope you will agree that all these issues are highly suggestive of manipulation of the truth.


Reply: No, I CERTAINLY do not agree and I hope you will not use my replies to propagate this crazy idea.
You must read Nissen's biography first before you jump into such stupid conclusions. There is absolutely no suggestion of foul play. And why should there be? The letters of Mozart and his family were writen by Mozart and his family and are still available. Do you think that
Mozart and his father wrote these private and personal letters to fool people of the 21st century. Robert, this is absolute nonsense and I wish you would stop making a fool of yourself because you are not a fool.
--------------

A final question.

Q. Do you believe Constanze Mozart was the person who wrote the foreward/preface to the 'Nissen' biography and had a hand in writing/editing a considerable part of the books content ?

Reply: No, Robert. The preface was written by Nissen. Constanze did not have a hand in the editing of the manuscript. It was sent
to Breitkopf & Hartel by Dr. Feuerstein.
The first time she saw the publication when she received the published copy.
---------

Robert, you will have to do your own homework. You must read the articles I mentioned earlier before you make your usual startling assumptions. It is not fair to history or to historians who actually do their "homework", spending time working on research. To just come out with statements that enter your head is very wrong. I hope that you will not play some mischief and misquote me. I will be very angry with you if you twist or turn my words to suit your continuous conspiracy theories. Its a friendly warning but do not even think of it...!

Regards,
Agnes.