Reassessment-3
As to Constanze Mozart, two theories, the good wife theory and the bad
wife theory, have been conflicting each other for a long time.
However, it seems that the good wife theory is becoming more and more aggressive
and have obtained the majority at present.
The good wife theory says that Constanze was Mozart's beloved wife, she
helped Mozart fulfill his genius, and they were a wonderful couple. And
it concludes that Mozart was happy to have had such a nice wife.
Reading through 39 letters from Mozart to Constanze after their marriage,
it may be in a sense natural that persons have an illusion that Constanze
was Mozart's beloved, since his tenderness and love to Constanze can be
seen here and there in his letters.
Yet, it is also true that Mozart complained in his letters a lot against
her insensitive attitudes.
In addition, one more thing we can not pass over is her very cold attitudes during their married life and upon/after Mozart's death, details of which are described later.
Taking these two factors into our consideration, the good wife theory seems
to become somewhat doubtful.
Then let me describe the details and review it.
Constanze's favorable attitudes toward Mozart, which enabled her to receive
the reputation for a good wife, can be summarized as follows.
- She often followed Mozart taking a walk to the Prater Park in the morning.
- She had to tell fairy stories to Mozart by his requests on the occasion he worked hard at his composing.
- She tolerantly forgave Mozart's flirtations with lady's maids.
- She protected Mozart from his various stupid deeds and digression.
- Worrying about the condition of Mozart's disease, she took the music
score of the 'Requiem' away from his hands.
- At the time of his last breath, she cast herself on the bed Mozart was lying, hoping that she would like to die that time getting the same fever from him.
It is well known that these mainly came from the three Mozart biographies
( written by Schlichtegroll, Niemetschek and Nissen) and the interview records by Mr.and Mrs.Novello.
But we should pay enough attention that these were all what Constanze told
to the biographers and the interviewers. Any of them has never lived in Vienna while Mozart was leading his life
there. In another words, they had not known the actual Mozart's life in
Vienna.
Reading or hearing this kind of topics, persons after ages might have taken
her for a pleasing and agreeable lady. Many scholars and writers in the
past also believed these topics blindly, and they set Constanze up as a
good wife.
However these topics really were not worthy for mentioning as compared
with her cold attitudes toward Mozart, which are to be described soon later.
She spoke proudly that she followed Mozart taking a walk. But it is quite
an easy job and not worthy for mentioning since even a doggy can follow.
The same thing can be said to the fairy stories since even a nursemaid
can tell. And it was an outrageous story that she had forgiven Mozart's
flirtations with lady's maids. She did not have such right to say so since
she also made merry with males at Baden frequently !
Generally speaking, grounds for a good wife can not necessarily be asked
in such points as Constanze told, but in such points as careful consideration
for her husband, good housekeeping, well education for their children,
etc.. How was she in these aspects ?
Then, let us analyze them referring to the biographies and Alfred Einstein's
opinion, which had contributed much to set her up as a good wife.
It will be our common interests how Constanze explained about herself and
her husband to the biographers. And my particular concerns are whether
or not she spoke justly and objectively without hiding and twisting anything.
Biographers' descriptions on Mrs. Mozart were as follows.
"Mozart got married with Constanze in Vienna. He recognized that she was a good mother for their two children, and at the same time was a noble wife who protected Mozart from his stupid deeds and digressions. He gained a considerable amount of earnings, but on account of his fiery sensitivities and disordered household, he left only a few things behind. They were the honorable reputations and the sincere thoughtfulness by a large audience for Constanze, which was their return favor to Mozart's impressive music works." (Schlichtegroll)
"Mozart was satisfied with married life with Constanza Weber. Constanza
was a lovely wife to Mozart who knew how to fit nicely to Mozart's nature.
Mozart trusted her sincerely. She had the authority to protect him from his thoughtless deeds. Mozart loved her from his heart, and he confessed all his crimes to her. She repaid Mozart by her tenderness and faithful consideration." (Niemetschek)
"........ there had been many Mozart's love affairs though his good-natured
wife tolerated. Moreover, he went from one extreme to another. He could
not have a job salaried. He, like a person called a poet or a great master,
did not know much about money making, management of money and did not know
the worthy of money at all. He could not make a living with his family
while he was out of work." (Nissen)
It is needless to say these descriptions were based on what she explained
to the biographers.
In these biographies, she emphasized again and again how she was a clever
wife, while on the other hand, how her husband was silly.
She praised herself as a good-natured, lovely and wise lady, as a good mother to their children, and as a good manager to her prodigal husband.
However, she did not leave a word for admiring Mozart in these biographies, only speaking ill of him as a dissipated and stupid person.
I got upset and felt an unpleasant feeling to read these descriptions which was based on Constanze's statements, of course.
She must have known well that those biographies would have a strong influence
on posterity. Recognizing so, she dared to tell only Mozart's blemishes
to these biographers.
Generally speaking, a good wife would speak well of her husband in the
biography. But she did not. We can not find any word in these biographies
that she had respected and loved this great composer.
In this regard, I doubt deeply if she was a good-natured and wise lady
as she told in the biographies.
At the same time, these descriptions bring a suspicion into our mind that their marital relationship must have been no good, since we can not feel any good image there that they were taking care of each other.
In other words, if their relationship were good enough, she would have
spoken more attentively about her husband and their relationship. However,
she did not. Making fool of her husband, she only spoke her goodness. This will probably suggest their relationship in fact was not favorable.
Later on, thanks to her eloquent talks, Mozart was laughed at as a fast
liver and a womanizer, and was looked down as a down-and-out suffering
from poverty.
However, as I explained in Mozart's Debts, he was not a fast liver and a down-and-out in poverty. I believe most
of these personal abuse were groundless.
Yet, Constanze's stupid statements have caused such silly rumors among
people in after ages.
As to what written in these biographies, we should pay enough attention
that Constanze twisted the facts or made up colored stories only for her
convenience. Grounds why I think so are written in the following, and also
in the next paragraph 2. Analysis of Real Constanze's Nature.
Overall, among many persons who lived in the same years and knew Mr.&
Mrs. Mozart well, we do not know anyone who spoke such thoughtless words
against Mozart. While on the other hand, we also do not know anyone who praised Constanze well. Only Constanze did.
Here, many persons mean Sophie Haibel, Aloisia Lange, Joseph Lange, Lorenzo
da Ponte, Michael Kelly and Süssmayr, for example.
They had chances to tell about Mozart after his death, at the opportunity
of receiving interviews or writing their own autographs etc..
Admittedly Sophie and Joseph Lange talked or described about Mozart's strange
habit that he became nervous, restless, and too chatty especially at the
time he was facing to important composing. But any of them, including Sophie
and Lange, never talked that his way of life was disordered and/or dissipated.
If things were really the same as Constanze had told, those persons might
have leaked some of Mozart's defects at the opportunities of interviews
and writing autographs, but they never did . Probably there had been no
such facts there.
On the other hand, there was no person in those days who had left a word
for praising Constanze, except for Michael Kelly who left a simple and complimentary word.
He wrote in his reminiscences only one phrase, "Madame Constance Weber, a German lady, of whom he was passionately fond, and by whom he had three
children."
This apparently was his diplomatic compliment without showing any concrete
example to believe so.
Thus no good comment by anyone will prove that Constanze was not worthy for mentioning as a good wife.
However, as mentioned before, there were a few persons in those days who
spoke or wrote Constanze well.
They were Schlichtegroll, Niemetschek, Nissen and Mr.& Mrs. Novello. Only these five persons admired her much. But, as described before, we
should pay careful attention to the fact that these five had not known
Mozart at all when he was alive.
They lived in Munich (Schlichtegroll), in Prague ( Niemetschek), in Copenhagen
and Regensburg (Nissen ) and in England (Mr. and Mrs. Novello) while Mozart spent his Vienna era.
Then these persons had to believe Constanze's stories without questions. There
was no other way for them to believe since she was the wife of W. A. Mozart,
more than anything else.
But what Constanze told plausibly to them were in fact colored stories aiming only for her convenience.
Though these biographies and the travel diary by Novellos had become the original
sources to prove the good wife theory, we can know from my later descriptions that they can not be trusted at all.
Setting Constanze's boastful talk in the biographies aside, there was a
high-powered view for the good wife theory in the past. That was Einstein's
opinion, whose description became the ground to believe that Constanze
was a good wife.
Then let us check whether it is reliable or not.
In his famous book the ' Mozart. His Character, His Work', he, at the beginning
of his description about Constanze, described her as a bad wife who was
an uneducated and a senseless woman, but had a fascinating sensual appeal
by which Mozart was attracted .
Though Einstein recognized her such a disagreeable lady at first, he somehow
left favorable words for Constanze at the end of his description, as if he suddenly changed his mind. His praising words for Constanze had
great influence on posterity and became the main grounds for the good wife
theory afterward.
What Einstein praised her were as follows.
1) Constanze reconstructed the domestic finance after her husband's death
by selling Mozart's autograph music scores and holding a music concert.
2) She became a good mother for two sons after Mozart's death.
3) She contributed to the publishing of the 'Biographie W.A. Mozarts' written by Nissen.
Einstein wrote like this, but he has not left the grounds to verify them
anywhere in his book. However the persons afterward believed blindly what
this great Mozart scholar had described.
In my view, however, these are all very suspicious when we check the backgrounds
closely.
Then we had better check them whether those descriptions can be reliable
or not.
It is true that Constanze repaid sizable amount of Mozart's debts after
her husband's death.
Moreover, she could live very comfortably to the time of her death, when
she left 27,191 florins as her inheritance.
We wonder why she could become so rich after Mozart's death since it is allegedly said that she had to send her
husband off by the cheapest third-class funeral and bury him into a mass
grave on account of her poverty when Mozart passed away. According to the inheritance records, only 60 florins of cash was left
to the bereaved upon Mozart's death. Yet she could have expanded it to
27,191 florins during the rest of her life !!
If this were entirely based on her own effort and ability, she would welcomely
be invited to any country in the world as an excellent Finance Minister.
However, a very strong question comes in our mind when we think of the fact that
Constanze had actually not worked at all after her husband's death.
The important thing is what sort of efforts she paid after Mozart's death
to reconstruct her home finance. If the money were made by her hard work
in the sweat of her brow, we should appreciate her much. However, the fact is that she was idling away every day without having a work after Mozart's death.
As far as we know, Constanze's efforts for making money were only two,
applying pension to the Vienna court (this was not based on her own initiative
but by a strong suggestion of some Mozart's pupil) and a music travel with
her sister Aloisia in 1795.
Except for these two actions, she was, to our surprise, idling for all her life without having a job.
We know the widow's pension she was given by the Court was only 266 florins a year. Yet she kept on living in the Little Kaiserhaus in Rauhensteingasse whose annual rent
was 275 florins.
Then, how could she live her life with this balance?
At the same time, we wonder why she could repay the sizable amount of Mozart's
debts which was well over 4,000 florins with this pension.
Was she a magician or an alchemist ? No, probably not.
Then, from now on, I will show you the secret how she could have gotten
such a sizable amount of money.
In short, it was not based on her effort but by merely lucky windfalls.
On December 23,1791, Gottfried van Swieten held a charity concert for Constanze
at the Burg Theater. She got 1,500 florins ( including 675 florins of Emperor's
contribution) at the concert.
In parallel with this charity concert, the feudal lord of Cologne (Maximilian
Franz) asked Constanze through his agent to sell the music scores of 'Die
Zauberflöte' (K620) and ' La clemenza di Tito' (K621) in December
1791.
She requested to pay 450 florins to each score and seemed to have gotten
900 florins in hand.
About that time, another big request came to her. Prussian King offered
3,600 florins for eight Mozart's autograph music scores including 'La Betulia
liberata' (K.118=74c). She of course accepted the offer and the contract
was made in March 1792.
Thus she easily could get more than 6,000 florins soon after Mozart's death
without paying any effort.
Even after that, many other charity concerts and requirements of music
scores followed.
A charity concert for Constanze was held in the Prague National Theater
in April 1792.
On January 2, 1793, Swieten promoted a concert in memory of Mozart at Jahn's
Room in Vienna. It is well known that the Requiem (K.626) was given its
first performance that time. According to the newspaper 'Magyar Hírmondó',
Constanze received more than 300 golden ducats(O.E.Deutsch) ,which were
equal to more than 1,350 florins.
This kind of charity concerts were held also in Vienna in December 29,1794
and March 31,1795. But we do not know how much money she could get at these
charity concerts.
Except for these charity concerts, there were several contribution for
Mozart family.
For example, Maximilian, the Elector of Cologne, gave 24 ducats to her
in December 1791 and Mozart's lodge" Crowned Hope" held a memorial service for
Mozart in April 1792, and they made a contribution to the bereaved family,
though the amount was not known.
As to the requirements of music scores, Johann Anton Andre offered her
3,150 florins in exchange of 260 Mozart's music scores in 1800. Similar
business talk was done with Breitkopf und Härtel about that time.
But we do not know how much money she got from Breitkopf und Härtel
(It is said that Breitkopf bought only a few Mozart's music since they
have already collected a large volume of Mozart's printed music.)
As far as her money after Mozart's death concerns, they were all not made
by her effort but by mere windfalls.
But, to do justice, I must add that Constanze and her sister Aloisia went
to Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden by their own initiatives for having music
concerts there from September 1795, where Constanze sang some parts of
the 'La clemenza di Tito' and the ' Requiem '. But it was only one time
that she hold such concert by her effort.
We do not know the exact purpose of this trip. Was it really made for the
memory of Mozart ?
( I myself think that this music travel must have been for the help of Aloisia to get her job. That was because she was divorced from Joseph Lange this year and was out of job in Vienna. The fact she could successfully have gotten job at Hamburg during this trip may prove this.)
By these lucky windfalls, she could increase her property year by year.
She invested some of her money to the government bonds and real estate.
And in 1797, she could loan 3,500 florins to Franz Xaver Duschek in Prague
at 6 % annual interest taking Villa Bertramka as security.
As above facts proved, it was not Constanze but Mozart himself that repaid
the huge debts, by leaving valuable music scores behind.
She only received benefits from Mozart's immortal works and good-will by
the people. Thanks to these benefits, she could live comfortably and make
a considerable amount of assets.
With regard to making her big fortune, we can not overlook the fact that
Constanze had hidden almost all Mozart's valuables before the inspection
of his inheritance started. The details about that are to be explained
in Property left by Mozart.
Then, unlike Einstein's groundless opinion, the story that Constanze reconstructed
the home finance was quite a fake and no worthy for bending an ear.
The second point that Einstein praised was that she became a good mother
for her two sons after her husband's death.
But we can not know why Einstein considered like that. He also did not
leave any grounds to think so.
Then let me check whether it was true or not.
As to her elder son Karl Thomas, he was educated for nearly four years
at Häger's educational facilities when Mozart was alive.
After Mozart's death he was sent by his mother to Prague to receive Niemetschek's
care.
Since she had been only idling away everyday after her husband's death,
this was not because she was busy for working, but she had no passion for
educating him at her side in Vienna. Then Karl had to spend more five years
from 1792 apart from his parent.
After receiving Niemetschek's care, he returned to Vienna again. However
he could not receive higher education there. He had to serve his apprenticeship
with a merchant by Constanze's instruction.
After that he became a bookkeeper in Milan and ended his life without getting
married.
Things were nearly the same with younger son Franz Xaver.
He was also sent to Prague in his childhood to receive Niemetschek's care
from 1795.
He seemed to have inherited music talent from his father. In 1805, he made his debut in Vienna as a pianist.
By the instruction of Constanze, he was named as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart the second．However, his talent was not so remarkable as his father's. He was not successful as a professional pianist in Vienna.
Then he left Vienna in 1808, and became a piano teacher of some count in
Poland. He also ended his life without getting married.
Like this, Constanze sent her two children in Niemetschek's care after
Mozart's death, and she cut corners for giving education to children at
her side.
If she had a strong will to cherish Mozart's sons and give them higher
education at her side in Vienna, she could have done so since she did not
need to worry about money by the abundant windfalls. But she did not.
Neglecting the duty for giving education to her own children, she was only
idling in Vienna. Then the story she became a good mother was a kind of
cheated story.
When it comes to her contribution to the publishing of the 'Biographie
W.A. Mozarts', we must admit it a bit.
However, the primary contribution should be asked for her second husband Georg Nikolaus Nissen who wrote the book by shrinking his life.
Nissen died before the completion of the book. But he had written almost
all, and the unfinished portion was very small.
Constanze asked a help for a doctor named Feuerstein to complete it, and
she published it from Breitkopf und Härtel in Leipzig in 1829. Then
we must admit her contribution only in the publication of Mozart's biography.
However, her contribution was limited only to that point. What I mean is
that Constanze had not contributed at all for Nissen's effort in writing
Mozart's biography, although she knew well about Mozart in Vienna.
It was true that Constanze helped Nissen describe the biography by teaching
him this and that on Mozart life, which Nissen could not know only by Mozart's
family letters given from Nannerl.
However, Constanze's information might have not been fresh, valuable and
enough to Nissen. The reason why is the following.
According to Viggo Sjøqvist, "Nissen completely made a copy
of Niemetschek's biography for his book from page 31 to page 121, where
was the portion Nissen should describe Mozart's Vienna era from spring
in 1781 up to1791."
This tells us that Constanze did not speak any particularly fresh and valuable
topics of Mozart's Vienna life to her second husband fully. Then he had
to copy Niemetschek's biography completely in writing Mozart's Vienna era.
In this regard, her contribution therefore in making the great musician's
biography was little.
On the contrary, she suppressed or would not speak to Nissen important
facts on Mozart life.
They were the state of their actual life in Vienna, the cause of Mozart's debts, Mozart as a Freemason, the state of Mozart's death, and Mozart's funeral and burial etc..
In addition, we would be pleased if we could know his intimate friends
and their friendship, topics on his opera performance, pleasant stories
in his married life during his Vienna era in that biography.
These were the matters to be described in the ordinary biographies.
However, thanks to her rigid silence, we can not know at all about these
attractive topics.
Fortunately we can know such topics in his Salzburg era thanks to Nannerl's
and Johann Andreas Schachtner's statements. However, when it comes to his
Vienna years, Nissen's biography completely fell short of such statements
and then the biography itself became an incomplete one.
As mentioned before, she praised herself much in the biographies, while
on the other hand she only spoke Mozart's blemishes there.
Thereby I would like to say that Constanze had utilized this biography
for her propaganda not for giving a real picture of Mozart's human life.
As a result, we can say there were no substantial Constanze's contribution
to Mozart biography, except for the fact that Constanze only took part
in publishing.
Examining like above, we come to know that all stories described by Einstein
were groundless. Consequently I believe that the good wife theory has lost
its ground unless we find any other Constanze's goodness than these three.
However, have anyone pointed out such goodness as to Constanze in the past
?
It was likely that we have been deceived for a long time by Einstein and
musicologists who supported his opinion.
As mentioned so far, many persons in the past took Constanze for a good
wife being deceived by the three biographies and Einstein's opinion.
However, Constanze's talk in the three biographies and groundless Einstein's
opinion can not be reliable at all according to my analysis.
Then let's us take closer observation about her and find out what her real nature
was.
In his letter on December 15,1781, Mozart introduced Constanze for the
first time to his father Leopold as an ideal wife for him.
He wrote that Constanze was a woman who;
-had enough common sense as a wife as well as a mother,
-did not have wasteful habits at all,
-got used to simple, neat and clean dressing
-could make by herself almost all necessary things for a lady
-did her hair by herself everyday
-understood well about household accounts
-had a tender heart.
Watching these sky-high praising words by Mozart, she looked as if she
were a representative of good wives in the world. But, was it really true
?
What Mozart wrote in this letter was also a ground for the good wife theory
as well as what Constanze talked about herself in the three biographies.
However, the fact was quite different from what he wrote in this letter.
This was nothing but the letter to get Leopold's acceptance as to his marriage
with Constanze.
After their marriage(1782), Mozart continued to send many letters to Leopold
up to his father's death (1787). We can now read about 50 letters from
him to Leopold, although not a few letters were lost.
Watching these letters carefully, we can notice that Mozart did not touch
on Constanze at all except for her enthusiasm for Kegelstadt ( like a bowling
game) and dancing. Yes, he did not write in his letters to Leopold how nicely and cleverly Constanze behaved in their married life in any degree.
He should have written about her brisk work in their home, and her lovely
behaviors toward Mozart, and her modest attitudes toward the household
if she had actually shown them in their married life, since Mozart declared her proudly to Leopold as an ideal wife before he got married.
However, strangely enough, we can not find such words at all in his 50
letters to Leopold.
So far no one have written about this. But this is a very important viewpoint
when examining their marital relationship.
I am sure that this fact revealed well that Constanze was by no means such
a good wife as Mozart declared proudly to Leopold.
Then let us take more closer look at Constanze after their marriage.
Constanze was a blessed wife for all her life. She was given housemaids
and a cook from the beginning to the end of her married life.
As a proof of that, we can find such Mozart's housemaids' names as Lisle, Leonore, Sabine in his letters, and Elise in Joseph Deiner's memoirs. Probably Constanze would have insisted to have such right to Mozart all
the time.
Mozart wrote to Leopold on May 26,1784 that Lisle's duties were wiping
the dining table, carrying foods to the table, taking away them from the
table, sewing, help of Constanze's dressing and undressing.
This letter proves that Constanze was a happy wife who did not need to
do almost all the household tasks by herself, letting the maid and the
cook do those works.
Thus she was a free woman from house chores. Then was she really a wise
lady who could manage household accounts well ?
To our regret, she probably was not such a clever lady. Remember that she
was a woman who stopped book keeping at her own discretion although Mozart
asked to do in place of him. Following are the grounds to believe that
she had no concern about money management.
1. She was quite unconcerned about Karl's very expensive educational fee
at Häger's, whose cost was nearly the same as commoner's annual living
expenses (400 florins per year).
2. She was an amusement loving woman by nature. Even in Baden where she went for hot spring cure, she
was mad about pastimes by going to the casino and holding merry party there.
We can know such facts by Mozart's letters cited below.
3. After Mozart's death, she should transfer to a smaller and humble apartment
house. However, she kept on living in the rich apartment house in Rauhensteingasse
with her baby, whose rent was as high as 275 florins annually and the width
of the house was allegedly said to be as wide as 145 square meters.
We can say that above are the evidences to prove that Constanze was quite
unconcerned about money management.
As a result, it is a laughing matter that she proudly stated in Niemetschek's
biography that Mozart did not know much about management of money, and that she had the authority to protect him from his thoughtless deeds.
She herself had no right to talk big against Mozart
Thus she was a woman who showed no interest in household tasks and accounts
at all.
Then how was her eagerness for discipline and educating her children ?
As described earlier, she sent her two sons to Prague in Niemetschek's
care after Mozart's death, and she cut corners for that duty. However,
not restricted to after Mozart's death, thing was quite the same when Mozart
was alive
She did not at all have an eagerness to discipline and educate her sons
at her side. She disliked such troublesome job as taking care of their
children. Then elder son Karl Thomas was sent to Häger's educational
facilities to receive education there from the age of his three years old.
The fee of the educational facilities was tremendously expensive as described
before.
To our surprise, Mozart had to pay 400 florins a year to have his son educated
there, by which a family could live their life simply for one year. Constanze
must have been generous in spending money for the things she could cut
corners.
As to the educational facilities, Mozart wrote amazingly in his letter
on October 14,1791 that this school might be the best educational facilities
for children's health to be sure, but what they could do at most would
be to bring the children up as good farmers.
She let her son live in such school for four years.
It was in a sense natural that she did not have eagerness for discipline and education, since she herself was also not disciplined and was an uneducated woman who could not write letters properly.
On top of it, she was so lazy that she did not pay any effort to master
how to write letters. We know that the necessary documents were all made
by other persons, and she only did her signature on the documents.
Thus she was quite disqualified for a good mother in the point of educating
her own children.
Although she was very poor at household affairs and arts, thing became
quite different when it comes to pastimes.
She was fond of Kegelstadt and dancing as well as Mozart.
It is a famous story that they were dancing all night from six in the evening
to seven in the next morning at their house inviting a few couples of their
friends.
She sometime strongly pestered Mozart for going to dancing, and Mozart got restless by her pestering requests.
When we take a look at Mozart's letters, we can know that they seemed to
have often been to the casino in Vienna together.
On the contrary, Constanze went to a casino alone when she was staying
at Baden for her hot- spring cure.
Beside these pleasures, she was shrewd in frolic with males.
Her sensual fascination by nature contributed much to attract males. Following are Mozart's letters to Constanze, in which he complained of her such bad habit.
" Only one thing I hope to you is not to take over-familiar attitude to other males. You were excessively familiar to Mr. So-and-so. ......... It was quite the same with another male when he stayed at Baden.
Consider thoroughly that they surely do not show such rudeness to other
ladies to whom they are much more intimate than you."( Before mid
August 1789. Date unknown)
"The other day you confessed to me that I fell an easy prey to the
temptation, didn't you ?" (Ditto)
" I am afraid that hot spring at Baden may give you excessive feeling
of freedom. But I don't want to get such evidence since it always make
me feel miserable."(July 2,1791)
"So-and- so is here with me. ........ I feel that he is sure to be
attracted by you. And it seems that he firmly convinced that you have already
read his mind."(July 5,1791)
"I solicit you not to go to the casino."( June 1791? )
"You have over-hastily lighted illumination at Baden "( July
7,1791)
Like these, she always made him worry about her pleasure-loving nature
and frolic with males.
This pleasure-loving character probably depends on her nature from birth.
Though Mozart described in his letter to Leopold that she had enough common sense as a wife as well as a mother, it was completely not true. From her real activities described below, we can judge her as a woman who
completely lacked common sense.
- It is well known that she let some male measure her calves at some party
in which Mozart had not taken part. Surprisingly it was during their engagement period, just three months before their wedding, when this party was held. Yet she accepted such an indecent deed, This evidently means she had not common sense as a modest lady.
- It was true their marriage story got into trouble by Leopold's opposition. Leopold was obstinately against for their marriage
at first, however he finally gave his consent to their marriage somehow.
Then Constanze should send her letter showing her best regards to Leopold soon after their wedding since she had not yet met him by then.
But she never did.
Even after that time, there was no sign that she wrote her greeting to
Leopold.
- Leopold's many letters to Nannerl during his stay in Vienna let us know that Constanze did little for Leopold during his two months stay in his son's home. He described nothing about her
care in his letters.
On February 17,1785, he visited Caecilla's house. At that time it was Sophie
who brought him to Caecilla's. Constanze did not attend him somehow that
time.
On February 21, he felt rheumatic pain in his leg and had to be in bed
till midday. At that time Sophie kindly took care of Leopold up to dinner at eight o'clock at night. Constanze was out for all the day.
Thus she dodged her responsibility, letting her sister Sophie do.
- Upon and after Mozart's death, she showed many thoughtless deeds which
were far beyond our comprehension..
First, she did neither attend the funeral nor visit Mozart's grave for 17 years.
Second, she changed the funeral executor against Mozart's last will from
Albrechtsberger to Swieten at her discretion.
Third, she did not inform Mozart's death to his sister Nannerl.
Fourth, she let Eybler complete the unfinished Requiem in place of Süssmayr at her discretion though she knew Mozart had ordered it to Süssmayr.
- Long after Mozart's death, she thoughtlessly gave some of Mozart's autograph scores to others. Some of them, Minuet (K168a ) for example, were cut by her into two pieces and were given to two persons
separately. We also know that some of Mozart'sautograph scores, the Rondo for Piano Concerto (K386) for example, were scattered and found later from different places. These must have been
done by thoughtless Constanze's action.
She sold most of Mozart's autograph scores for making money and scattered thus the rest of scores because she had no intention
at all to reserve precious Mozart's music.
Examining her personality, we soon notice that she was an unlovely and
cold-hearted woman by the following facts.
In July 1783, Mozart visited his old home Salzburg with Constanze for the
first time after his marriage.
At that time, Constanze could take a look at young Mozart's booties in
Leopold's house. They were golden finger rings, earrings, necklaces and
so on, which were given to Mozart by many kings and aristocracy in Europe
during his travels in his childhood.
Constanze was allowed to take a look at them by Leopold, but none of them
were given to her.
It is sure that she could have gotten at least one or two of them, if she
were a lovely lady to Mozart family. But she could not.
Nannerl has kept her diary and it was left to posterity. In that diary,
we can see the topics during the term Mozart and Constanze stayed in Salzburg.
To our surprise, Nannel who had become the sister-in-law did not use such
her popular name as ' Stanzi', 'Stanzel' nor her formal name ' Constanze'
in the diary. She only wrote ' My brother's wife' or ' My daughter-in-law'.
The same thing can be seen in Leopold's letters to Nannel. When he visited
Mozart in Vienna and stayed there more than two months, he often wrote
to Nannerl in St. Gilgen. He also did not use the name of Constanze, Stanzi
and Stanzel in his letters to Nannerl. He only used ' my son's wife' in
stead of 'Constanze' in his letters
These evidently prove that Constanze was a woman who did not have any loveliness
and familiarity in her personality.
Though the persons who insist the good wife theory would not touch on this
subject, I firmly believe that Constanze was cold-hearted in her nature.
Her cold attitudes toward Mozart can be seen especially upon and after
Mozart's death, which are summarized below.
1) She sent this great musician off by the cheapest third-class funeral
and buried him into a mass grave although she had enough money in hand to send him by the first- class ceremony.
2) Before the funeral service, she escaped from her house and went to Bauernfeld's
house. As a result, she did not appeared at the funeral . She was so cold-hearted
that she did after all neither say last good-bye to her husband nor send
his coffin off.
3) It has already passed 17 years when she visited Mozart's graveyard for the first time. This proves that she was not such a tender hearted woman who visited Mozart's grave often, but she was the woman who forgot
her own husband immediately as soon as he died. We should here recall that her first visiting
Mozart's graveyard was not by her initiative. She reluctantly accepted
the suggestion to do so by some person, the details will be described soon
later.
4) Mozart's memorial monument was not installed for 50 years after his
death due to Constanze's stupid opposition.
5) She disregarded Mozart's last will coolly.
6) She despised Mozart's portrait and plaster figure as litter.
As to the shameless funeral and burial of Mozart, we know that there have
been defensive opinions trying to protect Constanze. But, I have a strong
objection to them.
At first, I thought to describe all my opinion here at a stretch. But I
had better mention the details about 1) to 4) in Mozart's Death and Burial, since they have close relations to my analyses on mysterious Mozart's
death.
And then, I will only explain above 5) and 6) here.
As to above 5), it is well known that Mozart told his concepts of the '
Requiem' to Süssmayr and asked him to complete it after his death.
Constanze was there that time and knew well their conversation.
And yet, after her husband's death, she did not let Süssmayr do the
work, but asked Eybler to complete it by her preference.
Eybler, who did not know Mozart's concepts at all, could not complete it
and gave up on the way. After all, Süssmayr had to complete it.
Thus she was an unfaithful wife who disregarded her husband's last will
unconcernedly.
It is also well known that Mozart in death bed solicited Constanze for
asking his respected friend Johann Albrechtsberger to execute his funeral.
This fact was written clearly in Sophie's letter to Nissen.
Hearing this Mozart's last words, she completely disregarded it. She asked
it to Van Sweeten at her discretion, and then Sweeten had carried out Mozart's
funeral without knowing Mozart's last will.
Thus, she was an ill-natured woman who had not obeyed to Mozart's last
words at all.
Now, as to his last words, we should notice here that Mozart did not express
his thanking words at all to Constanze before his death.
If he had such feeling in his mind, he must have expressed it to her. But
he never did. That was probably because he could not have such thankful
feeling to her at all.
Assuming if Mozart expressed such words to her in his death bed, Constanze
would have proudly talked it to the biographers, or Sophie who were taking
care of Mozart as well would have written it to Nissen. However no mention
by both ladies proves that Mozart had not expressed such words to Constanze.
Thus she in reality was not a beloved wife, I believe.
As to above 6), the most famous Mozart's portrait would be the unfinished
one painted by Joseph Lange.
Constanze was given it from Lange long after Mozart's death, and kept it
in her home in Salzburg for a long time. However, she did not hang the
picture on the wall. She left the portrait aside in the wooden box without
opening it. This fact was what Mr.and Mrs. Novello described in their travel
diaries. Probably she would not like to have a glance at it
Upon Mozart's death, Müller who had his art gallery in Vienna made
the death mask of Mozart and Constanze was given the plaster figure.
One day Constanze dropped the plaster figure and it came to pieces. It
is allegedly said that she cried with joy that time like this. "How
I feel refreshed by crushing the old ugly-looking plaster to pieces ! "
We regret that Constanze's affection to Mozart were to such scanty extent.
It seems that she had a bad habit to tell lies coolly in her nature.
Once she could detect that the person would have never known the state
of things, she told lies coolly to those person.
Let me show many samples here which are based mainly on her letters and talks.
As to the repayment of Mozart's debts, she let Niemetschek describe in his book as follows.
"The charity concert was held. The widow could repay Mozart's debts with the profit by the concert which the immortal emperor granted generously."
The profit by the concert was 1,500 florins including 650 florins of emperor's contribution. The profit could not meet the total Mozart's debts since they were nearly three times as large as
the profit .
Although Constanze stated like above, it really was thanks to the hidden
valuables (autographs, silvers, jewelry and cash) that she could pay all his debts, which will be explained later in Property left by Mozart.
I guess that Constanze told such a lie because she did not want persons to poke around the funds for the repayment of such big debts.
In the same biography, she let Niemetschek describe the following lie as to the score of the Requiem. But at present everybody knows well that her talk was quite a lie.
"The messenger came just after Mozart's death and asked to give the score of the Requiem. He found it unfinished, but he took it away."
Nissen was writing the biography in Salzburg, when he had to cite Mozart's letter on their wedding ceremony. At that time Constanze interjected and let Nissen add one phrase by her invention to the Mozart's letter.
It was his letter to Leopold dated August 7,1782, in which he was in vain to the utmost describing that the wedding feast was more princely than baronial.
To pretend the feast more gorgeous, Constanze let Nissen describe the following phrase next to Mozart's sentence;
"I was very surprised by the unexpected performance of my 16 Wind Ensemble at the dinner."
But of course it was not true.
If such an honorable thing had happened, Mozart must have been sure to
write it by himself. In addition, Mozart had never composed 16 Wind Ensemble, and so he could not have written such a ridiculous sentence. Constanze after all disclosed her ignorance about her husband's work by
adding her silly invention.
Long after Mozart's death, she wrote to Father Maximilian Stadler a letter dated on May 31, 1837 regarding the completion of the unfinished 'Requiem' score .
In that letter she described that she asked to Joseph Eybler in place of
Süssmayr to complete the music score. However, as if Eybler had not
shown any interest, she wrote at the end of the letter like this,
"But he would not touch the score at all."
The last portion she wrote in the letter was completely a shameless lie.
The fact was that Eybler was deprived of a note of confirmation with his
signature on December 21, 1791 by Constanze, in which he promised to complete
the score, not to copy the score and not to hand it to other person than
Constanze.
Constanze was such a woman who could tell a lie shamelessly.
In 1829, enthusiastic Mozarteans Mr.and Mrs. Novello visited Salzburg from England and had an interview with Constanze there. At that time she stated the following unashamedly.
" Mozart died in the midst of poverty and left debts behind. When
our younger son was at his 13 years old, he held a piano concert. But all
his profit had to change to the repayment to the money lenders. There have
been no other earnings than the small widow's pension from the court. All
the opera scores were either given to someone or stolen by someone. Other
music scores were sold by chicken feed."
I have never heard or read such wicked lies in my life.
Only one correct phrase in this sentence is that 'he left debts behind'.
To our surprise the rest were all falseness.
She told about her son's piano concert in this interview. The time of the
concert she said was 1804 since she said it took place at her son's 13
years old. But I guess it was in 1805 when Franz made his debut in Vienna.
Such trivial matter aside, she had by this time already become very rich by many lucky windfalls as described before. We know that she had become rich enough to loan 3,500 florins to F.X. Duschek
in Prague in 1797. Of course, all Mozart's debts were completely repaid by then.
Then her son had no need to have a concert for the repayment of his father's debts in early 1800's. However, Constanze tried to pass her son off as a victim of Mozart's debts
in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Novello.
We also know the fact that Mozart's precious autograph music scores brought
her at least 7,650 florins after his death, even if they were restricted
only to the requests from Maximilian Franz, Prussian King and Anton Andre.
Thanks to these favorable offers, she could have easily repaid her husband's
debts. Moreover, the surplus of the money benefited her very much. And
yet she called them as chicken feed !!
Moreover she spoke as if she only got a small widow's pension after Mozart's
death. But it was also a shameless lie.
She received large amount of contributions from the Emperor, the Elector of Cologne and the Freemason lodge "Crowned Hope", and profits from various charity concerts, in line with big profit from selling Mozart's music scores..
By these lucky windfalls, Constanze could keep on living in the gorgeous ' Little Kaiserhaus' comfortably for
more years and could have a lodging house in Vienna later, where she could get another windfall, her second husband Georg Nikolaus Nissen.
The most wicked and unpardonable lie was her statement on precious music
scores Mozart left behind.
She told that all the opera scores were given to or stolen by someone.
But we have never heard such strange story except for "Die Entführung
aus dem Serail" ( This opera score was given to Josepha Hofer - Constanze's
elder sister).
We would like to hear from her when and to whom other opera scores were
presented. We also would like to hear from her the name of opera scores
stolen.
Has she completely forgotten that she could live her life very easily
thanks to these precious music scores ?
She also told a shameless lie as to Mozart's family letters given from
Nannerl.
Constanze wrote to Benedict Schack on February 16, 1825 that they (Mr.and
Mrs. Nissen) were given approximately 400 letters from Nannerl, where the
family letters up to 1781 were contained.
In this letter, she pretended that they had not received the family letters
after 1781. But the fact was that they received from Nannerl all Mozart's
letters up to 1788.
The details of which will be explained in Lost Mozart's Letters, but I will simply point out here that Nissen could not have quoted the
following letters in his book if they had not received all the letters
up to 1788 from Nannerl.
Those were the letter from Mozart to Leopold on April 4,1787 and Mozart's letter to Nannerl
on August 2, 1788.
The criminal of letter destruction was no doubt Constanze as explained
later in Lost Mozart's Letters.
Constanze had destroyed many letters which were unfavorable to her. And by disposing many letters, she hid the truth inconvenient to
her and spoke eloquently only for her convenience.
Yes, she had made wicked information control on Mozart issue. By her wicked
information control, posterity has been obliged to misunderstand many matters
as to Mozart.
Shortly before Mozart's 50th anniversary after his death, Johan von Lucam in Vienna, who could not put up with the insensitivity that no Mozart's monument was yet installed at the St. Marx cemetery,sent unbearably a letter toConstanze, asking to let him know about Mozart's funeral.
In response to this letter, she replied on October 14, 1841 as follows.
"Because of unusually severe weather, I, who loved Mozart inexpressively, could not follow my
dearest husband's remain on the funeral day. However, without missing opportunity, I could visit the St. Marx cemetery together with my friends."
To escape from the blame toward her, she wrote like that. But all sentences
written here were transparent lies.
She wrote the weather was 'unusually severe'. But the the record of Vienna Meteorological Observatory let us know that it neither rained nor snowed that day. It was windless and the temperature at three p.m. when Mozart's funeral ceremony
started was four centigrade on December 6,1791.
Unlike Constanze's shameless expression, the weather was a calm winter day that day.
Next, she brazenly wrote 'without missing opportunity' in her letter, but it actually was 17 years later after Mozart's death when she visited the graveyard for the first time.
At that time, she did not visit there together with her friends. It was Griesinger, the legation staff of Sachsen, who strongly pressed Constanze to visit Mozart's grave, G.Nissen, her second husband and her son Franz
Xaver.
After all she completely deceived Lucam by writing such barefaced lies.
Upon Mozart's death, she declared the inheritance to the authority. To our surprise, Mozart's total assets evaluated by the authority was incredibly small, less than 600 florins.
As to cash, only 60 florins ( !! ) were left to the bereaved family according to the inheritance records.
Though the details are to be explained later in Property left by Mozart, it was sure that Constanze declared falsely.
She must haven hidden almost all Mozart's valuables in advance before the declaration, not only cash but such valuables as silver goods, jewelry given from the kings and lords, and
his autographs . Here I describe onlyone important point why I can say definitely that she had hidden all Mozart's valuables.
It depends the fact that she had left as much as 27,191 florins behind upon her death.
Remember that she never worked after Mozart's death, and her expected income was 266 florins of annual widow's pension only. Then she could not have accumulated such vast amount of property if she had hidden Mozart's valuables in advance. The other grounds are to be explained later.
Constanze sent a letter to her son Karl on December 29, 1810 in which the following sentence can be read.
"..... All the money which I, your mother, have with toil and tenacity acquired, and which my present
husband has helped to augment, has, after payment of the debts which your father left, been
invested in Vienna."
What a brilliant lie she showed to her son ! We would like to know what
kind of toil and tenacity she had experienced. Wasn't she only idling away
without having a work after Mozart's death ?
The unpardonable thing in this letter is that she regarded Mozart only
as a debtor, though the sales of his autograph not only paid all his debts
but also contributed to her wealth accumulation.
Lastly, I take this opportunity to touch on the following shameless story
written in Sjøqvist's book.
In 1786, Mozart volunteered to take care of Johann Nepomuk Hummel in expectation
of his great talent for piano playing.
Generous Mozart taught him for two years, of course, under the condition that charges like lesson fee, room rent and meal were all free.
However, after 50 years from this time, when Nepomuk Hummel passed away, Constanze's real nature thoroughly appeared in her letter to Hummel's
son.
She asked to this son, by her letter on January 23,1838, if Hummel had
left his will for the foster mother Constanze, writing as follows.
"Your father had always promised to me thus. At the time when he settled
down in rich and happy circumstances, he was sure to pay entirely to my
effort, affection, consideration, the fees for lodging and meal as well
as the fees for lesson which my blessed husband Mozart gave to him."
Naturally Hummel's son did neither respond nor paid to her.
However, this sly lady brought an action against it to the Weimar authorities
in December 1839. But it ended in failure.
The story was like above. However, if Hummel himself had made such promise
to Constanze, Hummel might have paid to her when he was alive since he
had settled down in rich and happy circumstances in early 1800's, being
as a famous pianist and Kapellmeister of Stuttgart and Weimar. Therefore
I guess such promise had not existed and then Hummel had not paid her.
In case such promise had surely existed, Constanze should have asked it fairly and squarely to Hummel himself while
he was alive, not to his son after Hummel's death who naturally knew nothing
about such promise.
Weimar authorities ought not to have accepted such waste issue without
evidence as a cause of legal action.
She was so shrewd that she coolly told such lie to Hummel's son, I guess.
After the long analyses on Constanze described above, we shall be able to conclude that she was not in the least a good wife,
but a typical bad wife as the proverb says,"A bad wife is the ruin of
her husband".
Yet many scholars have believed and strongly insisted that Constanze was a good wife to Mozart.
However, examining what the good wife theorists said, there was no concrete
ground or sample in the least there that Constanze was a good wife.
They blindly believed and followed the next three.
1. Constanze's boastful talk only for her convenience, which was apparently
not based on the facts.
2. Mozart's sky-high praising words for her written in his letter to Leopold dated on December15, 1781, all of which turned out downright lies later.
3. Einstein's opinion which was groundless.
As explained above, these three have not contained any ground at all that
Constanze was a good wife.
It seems that the nasty smell of rotten onions has been referred to as the perfume of
roses by the good wife theorists so far.
Now, persons who read through this chapter may feel something unpleasant.
Yes, I went into this issue so obstinately and thoroughly. That was because
this issue contains very important views to argue about Mozart.
By above analyses, we came to know that Constanze was a terrible liar who
frequently and coolly told many lies. Then we should now recognize that
Constanze has largely twisted the facts regarding Mozart in many aspects.
Then, in my view, we should review the past descriptions about Mozart from
the bottom, forgetting what Constanze had told.
Particular items, for example, to be discussed afresh are;
- if he was really in poverty in his late Vienna years, or not.
- if he was such a dissipated person or not as Constanze told.
- what the real cause of his debts was.
- if their real marital relationship was good, or not.
- if his cause of death was natural malady, or not.
- whether the inheritance records reflected the truth of his assets, or
not.
So far I have already mentioned about some of these issue. However,
I would like to go on my study to make clear the problems still outstanding
in next chapters.
Bibliography
1. Einstein, Alfred
Mozart, His Character, His Work( translated by Masao Asai, Hakusui-sha, 1961)
2. Nissen, Georg Nikolaus
Biographie W.A.Mozarts (Georg Olms Verlag,1991)
3. Friedrich Schlichtegroll
Nekrolog aus das Jahr 1791(translated by Noriko Takano, Ongakunotomo-sha,1992)
4. Sjøqvist, Viggo
To gange fuldkommen lykkelig( translated by Naoki Takafuji, Ongakunotomo-sha,1993)
5. Nerina Medici di Marignano(transcribed and compiled) and Rosemary Hughes(edited)
A Mozart Pilgrimage: Being the Travel Diaries of Vincent & Mary Novello in the year 1829(translated by Shigeru Koike, Shubun International Co.,Ltd. 1986)
6. Otto Erich Deutsch
Mozart A Documentary Biography (Stanford University Press -translated by E.Blom, P.Branscombe and J.Noble,
1983)
7. Johannes Dalhow, Gunther Duda and Diter Kerner
Mozarts Tod 1791-1971( translated by Bin Ebizawa and Tomoko IIjima, Ongakunotomo-sha,
1980)
8. Bin Ebizawa and Taisuke Yoshida
Das Mozart Lexikon(Tokyo Shoseki , 1991)
9. op.cit
Lebensbeschreibung des k.k.Kapellmeisters Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, nach Originalquellen
10. op.cit
Briefe und Aufzeichnungen Gesamtausgabe, Weiterer Nachtrag
11. op.cit
1791 Mozart's last year
Author : Shuji Fujisawa
e-mail : ssfuji@mbj.nifty.com
First published : July 27, 2004
Updated : December 1, 2008
All rights reserved