Reassessment- 7
As to Mozart's cause of death,
there have been so many disputes in the past.
To our surprise, it is allegedly said that the number of his causes of death comes up to 151 by now. Among 151 names of the diseases, the names by natural malady command overwhelming majority, of course.
However, death by poisoning, mercury poisoning and acqua toffana poisoning for example, are also listed there, though they take a minority. That was because some symptoms and signs, which could also be seen by poisoning, appeared on Mozart body when he passed away.
Even today we can not know exactly which his real cause of death was, since
both theories fall short of definitive evidences due to no medical records
left.
However, after careful observations for both theories, I happened to notice
that there existed important ignored viewpoints in both theories, which
all scholars in the past have overlooked and have not argued.
And then I would like to propose my thought on Mozart's death by introducing
my new viewpoints here, the thought of which belongs to the poisoning theory.
Though I described so, the real murderer I argue in this chapter is neither
Salieri, the member of Freemason nor Hofdemel.
1) About the Rightness of Guldener's Letter to Carpani
2) Karl Bärr's Sophistry on the Body Examination by Guldener
3. Fatal Errors in the Past Poisoning Theories
1) Constanze's Absence from the Funeral
2) Constanze's No visiting for Mozart's Grave
3) Concealment of all Mozart's Valuables by Constanze
4) Existence of Sophie's Letter to Nissen
(3) The Motives and the Means of Murder
1) The Motives of Murder
2) The Means of Murder
The laws on death and burial effective in the eighteenth century in the
Holy Roman Empire regulated the medical records as follows.
"As far as circumstances permit, the doctor who treated the patient
should leave the paper in the residence of the dead in which the period
and the nature of the disease are written together with the name of the
dead."(Karl Bärr)
It was Dr.Closset who diagnosed Mozart at his last time. Later he was highly praised by Dr.Guldener as a fair and careful doctor, however he had left no medical records about Mozart's disease and his death certificate as well. As a result, there existed no written document by his doctor in which the disease name of the cause of death were written.
This fact became the cause of great confusion among the persons after ages when they discuss the cause of Mozart's death.
However, according to Guldener's letter to Carpani, Closset thought that
Mozart was robbed of his life by 'Un Deposito Alla Testa' (.'deposit on the brain').
(2) The Document of Body Examination
According to the laws concerning medical matters and sanitation those days,
the body examination was mandatory at one's death.
"To check the death by violence or not, all the dead bodies should be inspected before the burial by the surgeon, simple surgeon concurrently barber, or army surgeon at the concerned place. If they were absence, the delegated person should take their places."(Bärr)
As to Mozart's case, it is quite ambiguous who did this body examination.
It is said that there exist three opinions by now. One is that Dr.Guldener
and Dr.Closset did. The other is that some official examiner did. And the
last is that none did.
I think that this is a very important issue when we talk about Mozart's
death whether it was natural death or not. So I would like to argue again
it separately at 2 - (2) "Untrustworthy Guldener's Letters".
(3) The Register of Deaths of St. Stephen's Parish
Mozart's death is recorded in the Register of Deaths of St. Stephen's Parish
as follows.
" The 6th Xber
Mozart Herr Wolfgang Amadeus
3rd class Mozart, I.& R. Kapellmeister and
Parish Kammer Compositeur, in the Rauchen-
St:Stephen steingasse, in the small Keiserhaus Nr.
970, of severe miliary fever, examined,
36 years old
In the burial ground outside St. Marx
8fl.56 kr.Paid .................................... 4.36. 4.20.
Hearse f 3- " (Deutsch)
The cause of Mozart's death is written by severe military fever here. This
probably came from the document of Mozart's body examination. However it
is not clear who decided this disease as Mozart's cause of death (Dr.Closset
thought the deposit on the brain and Dr.Guldener thought Rheumatic Inflammatory
Fever for the cause of Mozart's death).
In addition, this 'severe miliary fever' had been a subject of discussion
for a long time since the word 'severe miliary fever' was not accepted
as an exact disease name even in the eighteenth century. It was recognized
that 'severe miliary fever' was the words to show the symptoms of fever and
rash appeared on a patient body.
Nearly the same descriptions can also be found in the Register of Deaths
of St. Stephen Cathedral.
There were other materials concerning with Mozart's death than above, which
are shown as follows.
The testimonies of eyewitnesses by the persons at Mozart's death bed (they
were Constanze, Sophie, Closset and Deiner) were written in these materials,.
- The life of Wolfgang Gottlieb
Mozart (Franz Niemetschek, 1798)
- The letter to Giuseppe Carpani (Dr. Edward Vincent Guldener von Lobes,
1824)
- The letter to Nissen (Sophie Haibel,
1825)
- Biographie W.A. Mozarts (Georg Nikolaus Nissen, 1829)
- The memoirs (Anonymous,1856)
- The Mozart Pilgrimage (Vincent and Mary
Novello, 1956)
From now on, I will quote many passages from these materials, and then
I will skip here the explanation about what was written in each material.
However, we can say that these were not medical records, but merely observation
reports written by persons unrelated to medical science except for Dr.
Guldener's letter.
As long as I know, above are all the documents related to Mozart's death.
We have to decide by these materials which Mozart's real cause of death
was, by natural death or poisoning?
As mentioned earlier, no medical document to decide the cause of Mozart's death was left to posterity.
However, there was only one witness by a doctor, Guldener von Lobes. (The
summary of his letter is to be shown in next 2-(2) Untrustworthy Dr.Guldener's Letters.)
Scholars after ages placed full confidence in his witness (written in two
letters), and the letters became the sound authority for the natural death
theories. And then we should begin with the analysis of these letters.
However, before entering into the subject, I would like to check Closset's
final diagnosis before if there were anything we have overlooked or misunderstood,
or not.
(1) Suspicions on the Final Diagnosis by Dr. Closset
As written before, the fact that the real cause of Mozart's death became
an enigma largely depended on the absence of written documents such as
medical records and the death certificate by Dr.Closset. In this regard,
Closset was of course responsible for that.
However, he should also be accused of another responsibility as to the
careful examination of the marks of poisoning on Mozart's dead body at
his final diagnosis.
Guldener denied poisoning by describing simply that the well experienced
doctor Closset must have not overlooked it.
However, in my view, he was standing in the situation that night which
made him overlook the marks of poisoning. Now, I will explain it one by
one.
In the evening of December 4, 1791, Mozart was facing to a life-or-death
crisis.
Then Sophie who was taking care of Mozart together with Constanze went
out of his home and desperately ran around the city of Vienna to look for
Closset. But she could not easily find him out.
After all, she could find him in a theater. He was in the midst of watching
some performance there. To her frantic solicit "Visit and examine
Mozart immediately !", he answered coldly " I will come after
the end of this play."
At that moment, he valued his pleasure more than his patient who was facing
to a life-or-death crisis. Although Guldener spoke highly of him with many
respectful words, this was the real attitude of this ' honest, intelligent
and well experienced' doctor.
Now, after the end of the play, did he rush into Mozart's house soon?
No scholar and writer in the past have mentioned about this. However,to
our surprise, it was sure that he did not do so. In my view, he was enjoying
another pleasure after the end of performance with his theater mates. Of
course, I have the ground to think so.
We can not exactly know in what theater he was that day. However, he could
probably have left the theater at around 9:30 p.m. at the latest in what
theater he might be.
Usual starting time of theaters in Vienna was around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m.
those days. Therefore, the ending time would have been at around 9:00 to
9:30 p.m..
Then, if Closset rushed into Mozart's house as soon as the end of play,
he could have arrived there before or at latest by 10:00 p.m..
Why I can say like that is by the fact that the city of Vienna those days
was not so wide. It is said that the circle by a 800 meter radius could
cover the whole Vienna city in those days. Then he could easily get to
Mozart's house at latest by10:00 p.m. by his carriage, wherever the theater
existed.
However, the time Closset made his final diagnosis to Mozart was supposedly
just a short time before his death
Yes, it has passed well over three hours after the end of the play. During
the time, he must have spent three hours somewhere for another pleasure
regardless of Sophie's eager solicit.
Of course, I can explain the ground to think so by the following Sophie's
statement to Mr.and Mrs.Novello.
"When the doctor arrived at Mozart's house, he asked Sophie to cool
Mozart's forehead and temple with a wet towel containing cool water and
vinegar. She replied to the doctor that the treatment by rapid cooling
would be no good for Mozart since his hands and legs have swollen due to
inflammation. However, the doctor insisted to do so forcibly, and then
she had to obey to doctor's order. Just at the moment he received the wet
towel on his head, Mozart suddenly trembled and breathed his last breath
in Sophie's arms. Only three, Constanze, the doctor and she, were in the
room that time."(Mozart Pilgrimage)
The important point what this statement tells us is that the time of treatment
by Closset was very short.
It would be only several minutes while the doctor appeared, ordered Sophie
to cool Mozart's head, and then Mozart trembled to die.
The death time of Mozart was 0:55 a.m. on December 5.
Therefore the doctor must have arrived at Mozart's house just a short time
before Mozart's death, probably at around 0:30 a.m.on December 5,1791.
Indeed, the treatment by the doctor was very curt and cold.
In case the treatment by the doctor was careful and long time, Sophie would
have stated more details to Mr.& Mrs. Novello. However, she did not.
That was because Closset's treatment that time was only a short one.
Remember here Sophie's long letter to Nissen, in which she described the
details of Mozart's last time.
In that letter, she wrote every detail about Mozart in death bed. However, when it came to the final diagnosis by Closset, she described very shortly and bluntly; the doctor came, he ordered her to cool Mozart's head, and shortly after Mozart got shock and died - that's all !! This letter also teaches us that Closset's treatment was curt and short time.
Then these two( Sophie's statement and her letter ) will reveal that Closset
has arrived at Mozart's house just before Mozart breathed his last breath.
Now, we can also guess from the next ground that Closset arrived at Mozart's
house so late that day.
It is said that Mozart had his clear consciousness two hours before his
death, which was approximately eleven p.m. on December 4.
Then, if Closset had arrived at Mozart's house before eleven p.m., he could have talked a few words with Mozart. However, there seems no sing at all in Sophie's letter to Nissen and her talk with Novellos.
This will prove that Closset had not appeared at Mozart's house before
eleven p.m. on December 4.
Considering like these, we notice that there was about three hours availability
for him from the end of the play to the time he arrived at Mozart's house.
What did he do during the time ?
I guess that he must have dined together with his theater
mates.
As described above, he idled away for three hours. These three hours were
enough to dine with his theater mates.
If not, what else could he do in the dark and severe cold winter in Vienna
night after the theater play ?
When it comes to dining, wine always goes together. He might have drunken
that time. And then, there was a great possibility that he had passed over
the marks of poisoning appeared on Mozart's body at his final diagnosis.
By the way, taking acqua toffana for the poisoning case, what symptoms
and marks were found on the body?
We can know by the book " Mozart in person"(Dr. Peter Davies)
that they were vomiting and swelling, blue lines on the teeth stalk, a
peculiar skin color and a peripheral nerve disorder.
It is widely known that vomiting and abnormal body swelling were seen to
Mozart in bed.
Then, if the rest three marks were found in Mozart's case, a great possibility
will come to the surface that Mozart was poisoned by acqua toffana.
The question is whether on not Closset had checked such marks that night.
Almost all doctors after ages believed Closset's careful check blindly by reading Guldener's letter to Carpani,
But we should notice that there was no clear evidence of his careful check
for the marks of poisoning at all. On the contrary, his real final diagnosis
was so rough and curt as above Sophie's talk suggested. Did he examined
the marks precisely in such a short time?
He came to Mozart's house so late. It was severely cold and late at midnight. Even if he had not drunken, did the doctor, who took priority of his pleasure over examination of his patient, really examine such marks of poisoning as blue lines on the teeth stalk and a peculiar skin color carefully under dim lamp light and severe coldness?
I strongly doubt if Closset examined Mozart carefully.
As to one more symptom by acqua toffana poisoning, there is a peripheral
nerve disorder. Did that symptom appear with Mozart's case too ?
As to this, we know by another Sophie's statement to Nissen that Mozart
was suffering from the nerve disorder upon his death. Her statement was
that his pet canary was taken away from his sickroom since he could not
put up with the twittering. This would correspond with his peripheral nerve
disorder
Therefore there was a great possibility that all these signs and symptoms
by acqua toffana poisoning had appeared on Mozart's body. But they were
completely overlooked by Closset, I believe.
Well, as to Closset's final diagnosis, there is one more important thing
we can not pass over.
That was his strong prejudice. He could not think of poisoning at all on
account of his strong prejudice.
As Guldener described, he had a strong
conviction that Mozart was badly affected by a 'deposit on the brain' and that
he could predict exactly the last time of Mozart's life.
A possible reason, why he did not hasten to Mozart's house when Sophie
asked him to come soon, might have been in his convinced prejudice that
the last time had finally come when the 'deposit on the brain' would rob
Mozart of his life.
Then his strong prejudice must have prevented him from doing check of poisoning
all the more.
Dr. Closset's consideration and treatment were like that, and then we can
have enough rooms to believe that he had overlooked the marks of poisoning.
Yes, we still can not deny the possibility of Mozart's death by poisoning.
This was the matter not to have been discussed by now since no one has
ever noticed about these points.
When the wicked rumor that Salieri poisoned Mozart spread among Viennese,
an Italian journalist Giuseppe Carpani wanted to clear dishonor of Salieri,
and asked Dr.Guldener to provide him with a written statement of an expert
opinion on Mozart's death.
At that time Dr. Closset had already been dead, and then Carpani asked
to Guldener who had had close connection with Dr. Closset. The document
was his reply letter to Carpani. It was written as follows.
"It was late autumn when Mozart had succumbed a rheumatic fever. The disease spread widely in Vienna those days and many people were infected with the disease. It was two to three days after Mozart had really gotten worse that I heard his disease. Considering a certain thing, I did not visit him but I have heard his state of disease from Dr. Closset with whom I met almost everyday. He diagnosed his disease as a dangerous one, and, from his first examination, he had been afraid of a bad result, the occurrence of a 'deposit on the brain'. One day he met Dr.Sallaba, and decisively told that there was no prospect of Mozart's recovery due to irresistible occurrence of a 'deposit on the brain'. .............
Intelligent and well experienced Dr. Closset would not have passed over the marks of poisoning since he had treated Mozart with the possible care that honest doctor had and with deep concerns as a longtime friend. The disease had shown usual progress and kept usual length of time. Doctor Closset had properly recognized and watched Mozart's disease, and then he could perfectly predict the time of Mozart's last breath..........
No abnormality was found as a result of the precise examination of the
dead body"
In addition to this letter, Guldener happened to write another reply to
Sigismund Neukomm who coincidentally asked the same written statement of
an expert opinion on Mozart's death. The context was nearly the same with
above letter. However, in this letter Guldener clearly described that "
I myself had taken a look at dead Mozart's body after his death.",
although it was quite ambiguous in his letter to Carpani if he himself
had examined Mozart's dead body, or not.
Many doctors, scholars and writers who protest the natural death theory
took notice of these letters and put their faith largely in them, since
these were the only one document written by a doctor.
However, there were many drawbacks in these letters.
I would like to discuss this from the following two points.
1) About the Rightness of Guldener's Letter to Carpani
2) Karl Bärr's Sophistry on the Body Examination by Guldener
1) About the Rightness of Guldener's Letter to Carpni
According to his letter to Carpani, it was clear that Guldener had not
actually done his medical examination for Mozart before his death as he
confessed in this letter. It was Dr.Sallaba who took care of Mozart together with Closset. In addition,
it is very ambiguous in this letter if he himself had done the body examination
of Mozart after his death, although he wrote that no abnormality was found as a result of the precise examination of the dead body.
Then, I doubt if this can be a written statement of an expert opinion.
I myself think this merely a letter in which he described his own presumptive
diagnosis based on the epidemic rheumatic fever in Vienna those days.
When deciding the name of patient's disease, a doctor would commonly describe the symptoms and signs appeared on the body of the patient. However, there was no such description at all in Guldener's letter that the symptoms and signs of 'rheumatic fever' appeared on the body of Mozart. That was probably because he had not seen Mozart's body before he was alive.
Without direct diagnosis, from what ground could he decide that Mozart was dead on account of a 'rheumatic fever' although Dr. Closset's diagnosis was the 'deposit on the brain' ?
Someone may refute that Guldener could judge so at the body examination
after Mozart death because he, on the other hand, wrote in his letter to
Neukomm that he himself had taken a look at dead Mozart's body.
But, I myself firmly believe that this would have been a transparent lie
and Guldener had not actually done the body examination. The grounds to think so come from the next.
1. Guldener himself had not written in his letter, when, where, how and
with whom he had examined Mozart's dead body. He only described ambiguously
in his letter that he had taken a look at Mozart after his death.
2. Guldener had not explained any state of his examination, especially
his observation about Mozart's dead body. He simply wrote that there was
no abnormality on Mozart's body.
3. There existed no record or witness that Guldener visited Mozart's house
in the morning of December 5, 1791.
4. He himself was a physician who had no qualification or duty under the
laws those days in which surgeons were regulated to do the body examination.
As a result, I myself think that Guldener's judgement remains as one of
possible cause of Mozart's death, and this letter is by no means an evidence
to verify natural death of Mozart.
The other things in strong question are that Guldener declared that Closset
would not have passed over the marks of poisoning at his final diagnosis,
and that no abnormality was found as a result of the precise examination
of dead body.
Though Guldener insisted so, these were his own presumptive consideration
without any firm ground to believe so.
As I have already described above, there was a great possibility that
Closset had overlooked the marks of poisoning that night.
Here Guldener wrote the words 'possible care', 'honest doctor' and 'deep
concerns as a longtime friend' in his letter. However these are all very
suspicious to me.
In the first place, it is allegedly said that the name of Mozart could
not be found in Closset's patients list, though Guldener described they
were a longtime friend.
We know well that Dr. Sigmund Barisani was Mozart's intimate friend and
his home doctor in his Vienna year. But we can find no Closset's name as
his doctor in his chronological table ( His name appeared as Constanze's
doctor in 1788)
While on the other hand, considering the fact that Mozart was a member
of the court musicians and he had owed 139 florins of debt to the court pharmacy upon his death, there was a great possibility that some doctor ( Dr. Sallaba without doubt ) of the court hospital (the Vienna Polyclinic) was his doctor.
Then I strongly have a question if Closset was a real Mozart's doctor.
As to the words 'possible care', 'honest doctor' and ' deep concerns',
I can not believe them at all as I have already explained before.
Where in the world can we find such an indifferent doctor who valued his
own pleasure more than his patient in a life-or-death crisis?
Anyway, Guldener had to use such respectful words in his letter since Closset
was his senior doctor of the Vienna Polyclinic once upon a time.
The most serious problem in this letter is the sentence" No abnormality
was found as a result of the precise examination of the dead body"
.
We can not exactly know by this sentence who was the real examiner. Guldener
or an official examiner ?
But this issue is soon to be discussed in the next paragraph below .
Considering like this, the rightness of Guldener's letter is quite doubtful.
Then we can conclude that this document by Dr.Guldener can not be a written
statement of an expert opinion at all which verified that Mozart's death
was by a natural malady.
2) Karl Bärr's Sophistry on the Body Examination by Guldener
This is the largest point at issue when we discuss about the rightness
of Guldener's letters.
As he described so in his letter, it is evident that Guldener had not taken
care of Mozart before he was alive. Then my question is whether he really
had taken a look at Mozart's dead body or not after Mozart's death.
Guldener clearly described in his reply to Neukomm that he himself had taken a look at dead Mozart's body after his death.
But in his reply to Carpani, who did precise examination is not necessarily
clear. These two are contradictory.
As to Guldener's body examination, Karl Bärr described in his book in different two ways.
"Soon after (when Müller, who transcribed Mozart's death mask, had left), home doctor Closset
apparently revisited Mozart's house together with Dr. Guldener who testified
later that he had taken a look at Mozart's dead body. We should take the
possibility into our consideration that Dr.Guldener had carried out the
roll of the body examiner since he said in his written statement that no abnormality was found as a result of the precise examination."
In this explanation, Bärr insisted the possibility that Dr.Guldener had carried out the roll of
the body examiner.
However, this may be his selfish thinking or his sophistry.
As explained before, it was regulated by the law those days that the body
examination is to be done by a surgeon. However, Dr.Guldener was a physician. How could he be a body examiner
though he was not a surgeon?
And if he had carried out the roll of Mozart's body examination, why can't
we find his name in the document of body examination which now exists in Stadtarchiv Wien?
In this document, we can find the descriptions of Mozart's full name, title,
married person, hometown, address, death by severe miliary fever and his age.
However, there is no description of the name of body examiner there.
With regard to this, Dalchow, Duda and Kerner described as follows in their book " Mozarts Tod 1791-1971",.
" In the record of Mozart's body examination which the city secretary
M.Pruckmann or F. Buchholz had made out, there was no entry of the name
of body examiner who had done or was going to do the examination."
These three authors also stated that even the possibility of no body examination
for Mozart can not be denied. That was because this archive did not necessarily
prove that the body examination was surely done by the examiner, but it
only meant that a certain person was allocated to the examination.
Then there was a possibility that someone was allocated to Mozart's body
examination, but it actually was not executed.
Considering from above, there was no possibility that Guldener had carried
out the roll of Mozart's body examination though Bärr wrote for his own advantage as if Guldener were the body examiner.
Now next, Bärr oddly enough described the following in another page in his book.
"Probably Guldener was informed by Closset that Mozart was about to die. And he must have visited Mozart's house at Rauhensteingasse together with this home doctor on Mozart's death date. Guldener would have observed Mozart's dead body at the same time when the official body examination was done."
I myself got upset to read this. He evidently denied Guldener's roll of
body examiner here.
In my view, there are three strong suspicions in this sentence.
1. One thing is that Bärr described at his own whim that " probably Guldener was informed by Closset that Mozart was about
to die".
This was evidently the event during the night on December 4, if Bärr's guess was right. However, considering Closset's behavior during the night
as described above, when and where could he inform to Guldener that Mozart
was about to die?
By cellular phone from the theater? No joking ! It was more than two hundred
years ago. And then Bärr's opinion is entirely nonsense unless he had shown the evidence how Closset
could inform it to Guldener. But he described nothing about that.
Therefore I myself guess that this opinion is quite a lie.
2. The second question is why Closset had informed it to Guldener and brought
him to Mozart's house.
In another words, I wonder why Closset had not informed it to Dr.Sallaba
of the Vienna Polyclinic.
We know that Dr.Sallaba was also the very person who took care of Mozart in death bed together with Closset. Sallaba and Closset were frequently exchanging
their thought on Mozart's disease.
Therefore, if Closset had such chance to inform the crisis of Mozart, he
would have informed it to Sallaba, not to Guldener, I believe.
However, Bärr described like above for his convenience.
This may also be his sophistry.
3.Lastly, I strongly doubt if Closset really brought Guldener to Mozart's
house on December 5,1791.
Needless to say, both physicians, Closset and Guldener, had no obligation
to do body examination as described before. Therefore, they had no need
to visit Mozart's house immediately after his death. And yet, why did they
trouble to visit Mozart's house?
Remember that Closset himself had shown very cold attitude to Sophie and
very curt treatment to Mozart just a short time ago. Then, why could such
cold and curt doctor suddenly have changed his mind and have troubled to
bring Guldener to Mozart's house, though he had no obligation to do so?
More to say, we can find no record to verify that Closset and Guldener
appeared at Mozart's house on December 5,1791.
From above, it was sure that Guldener had not visited Mozart's house together
with Closset on December 5,1791.
Therefore I strongly believe that Bärr had written deceitful sentences here and there in his book by his wishful
thinking.
In my opinion, Bärr's sophistries at his discretion were probably produced from Guldener's false letters in which Guldener wrote a lie although
he had never visited Mozart's house.
Then we should consider next why Guldener had to tell a lie here. Probably
the reason would be quite simple..
At that time he was located in the situation that he was requested to deny the wicked and groundless poisoning gossip by Salieri. Without doubt, he thought that describing of no abnormality by his body examination was the most effective way to drive away such gossip and let people after ages believe that Mozart's death was caused by natural malady.
And it was thirty three years later after Mozart's death when Guldener
was asked such requests. Almost all persons who knew the real state of
affairs on Mozart's death had disappeared from the earth.
This long lapse of time would have make him very bold. Then he dared to
write a lie in the letters as if he had visited Mozart's house.
Karl Bärr jumped at these letters and blindly followed since they were very convenient
to him ( He was fighting with the poisoning theorists such as Dalchow,
Duda and Kerner when he wrote this book).
Then, he not only followed this letter blindly, but also exaggerated the
context of the letter too much as he desired.
As a result of my above analyses, we come to know the following suspicions as to the past natural death theories..
1. No medical records and death certificate by the doctor have existed
as to Mozart's death.
2. Even if the document of Mozart's body examination still exists at present,
who did the examination is quite ambiguous. A possibility of no examination also can not be denied.
3. Who decided sever miliary fever as Mozart's cause of death is also not
clear.
4. There was a great possibility that Guldener described important lies
in his letters to deny the poisoning gossip by Salieri.
5. Karl Bärr's opinion which was in favor of Guldener consisted of too many exaggerations
and sophistries to believe.
So far, all the natural death theorists have put their entire faith on Guldener's letters and supported Bärr's thought on Guldener's body examination.
However, my close analyses show that these two are standing on too suspicious
grounds to believe. Then the past natural death theories are all unbelievable,
I think.
3. Fatal Errors in the past Poisoning Theories
During the past long years, many poisoning theories ( from Puschkin to
Carr) have been proposed and made a big noise in the world.
While on the other hand, many refutations to deny these poisoning theories have been proposed, of course.
Reading such books related to the poisoning theory as listed below, I also
can not help feeling the weakness of their grounds.
Mozart
and Salieri (Alexander Puschkin) ,
The Assassination of Mozart (David
Weiss),
W.A. Mozart. Die Dokumentation seines Todes (Johannes Dalchow-Gunther Duda-Dieter
Kerner)
Mozarts Tod 1791-1971(ditto)
Mozart and Constanze (
Francis Carr),
.
My impression after reading these books in short is that they are the very
things in the fiction world and/or having a wicked intention against Freemasonry.
These poisoning theories fell short of the realities of the murder and
the clear evidences for the motives and means of the murder.
Since many persons have talked about the groundlessness of these poisoning
theories, I myself do not want to describe my detailed objections against
them any more. However, I would like to touch on the next without fail.
Overall, they lacked the detailed search for the original documents on
Mozart's death except for Dalchow,Duda and Kerner's books.
In case we want to develop a poisoning theory, we should find out the contradictions
of the natural death by analyzing the original documents first, and then
move to each poisoning opinion.
However, regardless of such manner, they started with unreliable rumors
or gossips ( poisoning by Salieri), various ill will against Freemasonry
( poisoning by a member of Freemasonry) and a mere plausible guess (poisoning
by Hofdemel).
And after displaying plausible but unbelievable matters here and there
in their books, they reach to their own conclusions. This is quite nonsense.
But all the past poisoning theories were such kind of nonsense.
Now I would like to describe here that all the past poisoning theories
have involved the following fatal errors commonly in themselves.
That was the inconsistency between the time of giving medication of the
poison and the happening of Mozart's death.
It is well known that the last day Mozart appeared in public was November
18, 1791.
He attended the ceremonial party of his lodge "New Crowned Hope" that day, and conducted his newly composed cantata 'Laut verkünde unsre Freude' (K.623) there.
Two days later, he was ill in bed getting a bad cold probably at the party.
He could not get out of his bed for two weeks, when he was robbed of his
life.
Then, in case Mozart was poisoned, the date he was given secretly a
dose of deadly poison by someone should be before November 18, 1791.
In that
case, why didn't Mozart's death take place before or around November 18
?
The fact was that, after November 18, he kept being in his home and met
nobody except for doctors until his death day, December 5,1791.
During the
term, Dr. Closset and Dr. Matthias Elder von Sallaba visited and examined
Mozart, but there had been no report by them that Mozart struggled with severe
pains and that the symptoms by poisoning appeared on his body.
According
to the past poisoning theories, the poison given by the murderer before November
18 suddenly had an effect on December 5, without showing any effect before the
two weeks.
What a miraculous poison they had !
That sort of poison may be
very convenient to poisoning theorists or daydreamers, but they in reality could
not have gotten such convenient poison at hand.
Thus the past poisoning
theories have involved a serious contradiction in themselves.
Then, if we
assume that Mozart was killed by poisoning, the poison should have been a very
slow-acting one like acqua toffana which needed giving medication repeatedly for
a long time to realize death, not by a dose of deadly poison by only once giving
medication.
Poisoning theory will come to more real, if we consider that Mozart were
given such kind of slow-acting poison by someone secretly, by a very small
quantity, again and again, and for a long time.
However, no perpetrator of
the past poisoning theories could have such chances to give Mozart the poison
secretly, again and again, for a long time.
Thus the past poisoning theories
have broken down in the means of murder.
Beside this point, all the past poisoning theories could not have shown
any persuasive evidence as to the motives of the murder and the realistic
criminal acts as well.
Therefore those theories can not be believable. They only made fun of
Mozart's death.
Now, let me touch on acqua toffana here by introducing some commentaries
below.
"Acqua toffana is a mixture of white arsenic,
antimony and lead oxide. The effect of acqua toffana is a gradual increase, and
it takes several months to cause death. Acqua toffana has the similar function
as some of poisons which bring severe swelling of the patient's body. Doctors
can not easily detect acqua toffana since it does not bring uremia unlike
mercury"( Francis Carr)
"Acqua toffana, which was originally formulated
by a Neapolitan woman named Toffana, was colorless,tasteless liquid containing
arsenic. It was sold as a cosmetic to Italian women in the 17th century as
'miraculous substance oozing from the tomb of St.Nicholas di Baird'; however,
many young women bought it for the purpose of hastening widowhood."( BBC
Homepage)
As described before, vomiting and abnormal swelling of the body could be
seen to Mozart's in death bed. Other symptoms and marks by acqua toffana
poisoning were possibly overlooked by the doctor.
Then there were a great possibility that Mozart was poisoned by acqua toffana.
As described above, we can not put our entire faith in both theories in
the past. And we come to know as well that we can not decide which was
the real cause of Mozart's death, natural death or poisoning, only by the
original documents because they were too defective.
Then we should turn our eyes to other points to decide it.
In my view, if a death were brought by hidden murder, we'll be able to
find out strangeness and/or keeping something back in its funeral and burial.
But if there were not such strangeness at all, we have to admit that it
was a natural death.
From now on I would like to check one by one the curiousness about Mozart's
funeral ceremony and burial since I myself strongly suspect Mozart's death.
(1) Contrived Funeral and Burial
1) So early Van Swieten's Appearance
According to Nissen's biography, the
first person who visited Mozart's house immediately after his death was Van
Swieten. We can not know the exact time when he appeared, but probably it was
around two to three o'clock in midnight.
However, time issue aside, it is a very strange thing that the first comer
was Van Swieten. How could he know Mozart's death so early?
No matter how we cudgel our brains, we'll not be able to think of any due
reason that Swieten himself had visited spontaneously Mozart's house in
midnight
Then the most probable way is that Constanze had informed him first.
However, we should carefully check the reason why Constanze had informed
him first.
Why I think so comes from the Sophie's letter to Nissen.
"Furthermore, Mozart asked his wife that his
death should be kept secretly until it is reported to Albrechtsberger in the
next morning. Because Mozart put the religious services both to the god and the
public into Albrechtsberger hands."
It is widely known that Mozart had his consciousness before two hours of
his death, and he was aware that he would die that night. Then, as his
last will, he told Constanze to inform his death first to his respected
friend Albrechtsberger in the next morning. Yes, Albrechtsberger should
be the person to know Mozart's death first. But she did not do so. Instead
she told it to Swieten first. Why?
We should admit that there was a possibility that Constanze had gotten
upset by Mozart's death and unconsciously told it to other person than
Albrechtsberger.
However, even so, the next question comes in my mind why it was not such
intimate friends as Puchberg, Von Jacquin, Schikaneder, or his relative
Joseph Lange.
At the end of 1791, Swieten had become an entirely estranged person to
Mozart.
Their last contact was one and a half years ago (July 1790 ) when Mozart
arranged Händel's work ' Ode for St. Cecilia's Day' ( HM 76) by the request of Swieten.
After that they seemed to become estranged. We can find no material where
the contact between Mozart and Swieten in 1791 was written.
Then, my question is why such an estranged person appeared suddenly after
Mozart's death in midnight.
I am sure that Constanze disregarded Mozart's last words on purpose and
let her lady's maid call for Swieten at her discretion to ask him two shrewd thoughts in Constanze's mind.
Her aims in her mind would have been letting Swieten order the third- class
funeral ceremony for one thing, and letting him say that Constanze should
go somewhere on the funeral day, for the other. Why I guess so will be explained soon
later.
2) Secret and hurried Funeral
Next, I must point out that the funeral and burial of Mozart was done so
secretly and in haste, which smelled something suspicious.
Joseph Deiner was called for so early in the morning at 5:00 a.m. on December
5 to change Mozart's clothes to shroud.
Surprisingly, it was only four hours later after the death of Mozart. That
time in Vienna in winter was very dark and severely cold. They did not
need to worry about the decomposition of the dead body since it was mid
winter. Yet the clothes change was done so early before dawn. Why did they
so hasten ?
We can accept it if Mozart's funeral ceremony were grand. In that case,
they had to skillfully proceed everything related to the grand ceremony
one by one. However, his funeral ceremony was the simplest.
Yes, the funeral and burial for Mozart was indeed very simple and secret.
Constanze had no idea at all to hold gorgeous Mozart's final service for
his friends and Viennese. This was not because Constanze had no money upon
his death, the details of which is to be explained soon later. But it was,
in my opinion, to proceed the funeral in secret.
As a result, Vienna people who loved his music could not have a chance
to offer a flower to the altar. There was also no sign that such intimate
friends as Jacquin, Puchberg, Stadler and Schikaneder were called for the
funeral.
We must also remember that the funeral ceremony was held at the small chancel
called Capistran pulpit in the St.Stephen Church, not in the main hall
of the church. This also was probably to avoid a lot of attention.
Those heartless acts were done by the reason because Constanze wanted to
finish the funeral in secret and in haste so that people would not notice
the swollen body of Mozart and the smell of abominable reek.
Therefore so early clothes change before dawn was for the purpose to hide
swollen Mozart's body by the shroud for a camouflage in correspondence
with the body examination and his friends' visits for condolence, I believe.
It is well known that the widow Constanze neither attended the funeral
service nor burial without saying the last good-by to her husband. As to
this, Nissen took her sides by describing as follows in his biography .
"Baron Swieten worried that Constanze might have
fallen in the depths of despair, and then she was sent to Bauernfeld's house
first and moved to Goldhann's next by his arrangement."
A good wife would politely refuse to accept such kind of offer since she should say the last good-by to her dear husband and send him off remaining there.
However, she
cheerfully accepted it and ran away from her house.
Later on Constanze
told a barefaced lie that she could not attend the funeral and burial because
she was getting a serious illness at that time ( But she had never spoken the
exact name of her disease).
However it must have been a transparent lie
because she really was vivid during that December.
Her following activities during the December tell us that she was extremely
vigorous
She went back to her house by December 9, 1791 because she had to wait
the comptroller as the witness for making the inheritance records on December
9 at her house. In addition, she had to be at home on December 16,19 and
20 for the same purpose.
On December 11, she went to the Vienna court because she was given an audience
by the Emperor. Her purpose was to appeal to receive the widow's pension.
Beside these events, she was also very busy for businesses. One thing was
to ask Eybler to complete the unfinished part of the 'Requiem' ( the confirmation
document on December 21,1791 is the evidence for their meeting). The other
was the business talk of Mozart's two opera scores with Luigi Simonetti,
an agent of the feudal lord of Cologne (her reply letter to Luigi Simonetti
on December 28 is the evidence for their meeting).
One more activity was that she attended the charity concert held by Swieten
on December 23.
Thus she was very busy during that December. Then it is quite clear that
she had told a shameless lie
Now, Constanze's shameless lie aside, how did the scholars and writers
after ages think about her disgraceful attitude?
To my surprise, many scholars (especially most of the natural death theorists
and the good wife theorists) have been defending her damned attitude somehow
by emphasizing the social custom those days.
"It was by no means a surprising matter that
Constanze did not attend the funeral. There could be seen many cases those days
that the widow and female relatives remained at home."(Francis Carr)
I myself do not deny the existence of such social custom those days. However,
this custom might have admitted widow's no attendance to the funeral, but
by no means prohibited widow's attendance to the funeral ceremony.
In spite of the existence of such social custom those days, widows could
have attend the funeral, to be sure, if they had the willingness to do
so. But Constanze herself hated to do so.
As to Mozart's case, we should not overlook the fact that such female relatives
as Caecilla, Aloisia, and Sophie attended both funeral and burial. They
were Constanze's mother and sisters, to say nothing of. Those female relatives
had attended the funeral, but only Constanze had not. On the contrary,
she did not remain at home but ran away from home ! Consequently all females
had not remained at home.
So above social custom theory can not be applied to her case.
Then we should find out the reason all the more.
My view is that she was in the situation not to be able to attend the funeral
that time for fearing her own sinful deed. Yes, she had her hand in the
poisoning of Mozart, I guess. And then she had to escape from her house.
The reasons are to be explained soon later.
The fourth suspicious matter is that the funeral executor was somehow changed intentionally. As far as I know, there have been no scholars who noticed and wrote about this.
As explained before, Albrechtsberger should execute Mozart's funeral in
accordance with his last will.
However, strangely enough, Nissen described in his book without any explanation
that Van Swieten suddenly appeared soon after Mozart's death, and executed
the funeral.
We can not know the reason why Swieten suddenly took Albrechtsberger's
place.
As to this, my guess is that it would have been for the purpose of burying
Mozart into mass grave by the third class funeral. Albrechtsberger was
inadequate person for the purpose, while on the other hand Swieten was
convenient for it.
Just before the death, Mozart could have earned a lot of money being commissioned to compose three big works, ' Die Zauberflöte', 'La clemenza di Tito' and the ' Requiem '.
His intimate friends including Albrechtsberger and his relatives would
have known it well, which was very inconvenient for the conspirators to
bury him into mass grave by the third-class funeral with an excuse of poverty.
Even if Constanze asked someone from among Mozart's intimate friends to
hold funeral by the cheapest third-class ceremony and burial into mass
grave with the excuse of poverty, it was sure that none of them would have
accepted it since they knew that the bereaved family profited sufficiently.
However, the burial into mass grave was the essential to the poisoners.
That is, even if performance of autopsy is declared after his death, burial
into mass grave makes it unclear which Mozart's remains was.
On the other hand, Swieten would have not known much of Mozart's good financial condition just before his death.
Swieten knew well that he himself was once the only one person who signed
for Mozart's subscriber concert. Yes he was the man who still had poor
Mozart image that time.
Then he was a convenient person for the conspirators to ask the poor mass
grave burial with the excuse of poverty. Without any doubt, Swieten easily
accepted Constanze's offer, the cheapest third-class funeral ceremony and
mass grave burial, considering not to disturb their economic condition
any further.
Thus he was nicely taken in by the contrived plots and became the funeral
executor of Mozart.
There was more suspicious behavior as to the
funeral on the day of Mozart's burial.
The funeral service began at 3:00 p.m.
on December 6 at the St. Stephen Cathedral. After that only a few people went
for the St. Marx Cemetery together with Mozart's coffin..
But, strangely
enough, all the people who went for the graveyard suddenly turned back at the
Stubenn Gate. And only the funeral coach went to St. Marx Cemetery.
Some
persons in the past blamed it for the stormy weather that day. However, it
turned out that it was completely false. According to the weather data recorded
by the Vienna Meteorological Agency, the weather was fine that day. The
temperature at 3:00 p.m., when the funeral service began, showed four centigrade
and it was neither raining nor snowing.
After the breakdown of the false
stormy weather theory, there appeared again the social custom theory that people
did not dare to go to the graveyard in response to the social custom those
days.
However, I myself can not agree with such opinion at all.
Can we believe there existed such social custom in the world, which opposed
to send one's beloved family ? It seems that scholars tend to cling to
the social custom when they face to difficulties to justify.
But here, let us assume that such social custom had existed
those days.
In such case, the persons gathering there must have broken up at the church
as soon as the ceremony finished since there was no need to attend the
funeral coach according to the social custom.
However, in Mozart's case,
some of them dared to followed the funeral coach regardless of the social
custom. But they turned back on the way to the graveyard.
Such behavior can not be at all explained from the standpoint of the existence
of social custom.
The question is why they turned back on the way though they started regardless
of the social custom.
I know there are other plausible opinions to explain this by the darkness
in the evening or bad road after Stubenn Gate. But these factors themselves
were self-evident. They naturally knew the neighbor was already dark. They
must have known in advance that the road after Stubenn Gate was bad. Yet,
they dared to start and came back on the way.
Thus
these theories did not have the ground to justify the turn back on the
way.
Then I consider that, in case of poisoning, it would be more convenient for the criminal that the exact burial place become obscure. To do so, the best way is that any of the attendees does not approach to the burial place. That was the case with Mozart's burial, I am sure.
On the very day of Mozart's burial, an old
woman, Constanze's mother Caecilla, shrewdly got into the funeral coach.
It was a fine day, but very cold that day. At the time of transferring
of the dead body, the temperature became much colder than four centigrade
naturally.
She might have thanked to this cold weather since she could suddenly propose
to return back at the Gate with an excuse of severe coldness.
As Swieten was
told by an old woman that the coldness had told upon her, he could not disregard
what she said. And then he decided all members riding on the same coach to go
back.
Thus, turning back halfway was also one of the plots contrived by the poisoner.
Swieten was nicely taken in again.
My next doubt is the inevitability of Mozart's
third-class funeral and burial into the mass grave due to economic distress of
Mozart's bereaved family.
As to the third-class funeral given to Mozart, I myself have two questions.
Those are the inevitability of the class selection and the appropriateness
for it.
I would like to begin with my question on the
inevitability of the third -class funeral and then move to the appropriateness
in next paragraph.
For a long time, many scholars have put their trust in Nissen's following
description, and they also insisted that the third-class funeral ( this
inevitably meant mass grave burial at the same time) was inevitable for
Mozart's case.
"Just after Mozart's death,
Baron Van Swieten appeared and executed Mozart's funeral. He selected the
third-class funeral to keep the expenses, thinking about the economic distress
of the bereaved family."
Though Nissen wrote like this, the real financial state of
Mozart's family that time was quite different.
Upon her husband's death, Constanze in reality had a lot of money secretly
which enabled her to send her husband off by the first- class funeral ceremony.
Of course she had plenty of money to bury him into an independent grave.
But
the past poor Mozart theory had an great effect on admitting the execution of
the cheapest third-class funeral due to poverty of the bereaved family. However,
I do not think so at all.
Though I showed his high annual income including
1791 in Mozart's Debts, let us here focus on Mozart's
earnings just five months before his death.
In July 1791, Mozart was commissioned to compose the 'Requiem' by a weird
man who did not tell his name. At that time Mozart received 225 florins
as an advance.
In September, he got 200 and 50 docaten respectively, which was 1,125florins in total, as the fee for composing the 'La clemenza di Tito' and the travel expenses to Prague.
Moreover in September, he supposedly got 900 florins for the fee of composing
'Die Zauberflöte', which showed a record-braking success in Vienna.
In addition, he had 360 florins in hand as the second half salary that
year from the court.
Calculating the total amount of those earnings, it came up to as much as
2,610 florins.
Be sure that 2,610 florins exceeded five years annual salary for a middle-class
government employee those days. Yes, his earning that time was tremendously
high .
But his income actually did not remain to this extent since he surely had
other income from publishing of many music scores and piano lessons.
Although these two were omitted here due to no existence of materials to
show definite amount of his earnings, above 2,610 florins is enough for
us to aware that he had gotten such a remarkably high income within only
five months, from July to November 1791.
During the term, Mozart was too busy for composing three
big music works to idle away.
There was nothing in need of money in particular other than the short time
travel to Prague in September, Constanze's trip to Baden in October and
maternity expense for Franz Xaver in July. Of course, those travel expenses
and the maternity expense in total were not so big as giving severe damage
to his earnings.
Then, the remainder of money, after deduction of these expenses and estimated
living costs for five months, would have been considerably large.
I myself guess that the balance of money Constanze had at the time of his
death would have been well over 1,000 florins, though it is restricted
to only the surplus during these five months.
Considering from Mozart's high level income through his Vienna era, Constanze
could have accumulated sizable amount of money apart from this 1,000 florins.
Yes, widow Constanze surely had a lot of money secretly upon
Mozart's death.
With this big surplus money, she could send her husband by the first-class
funeral, to say nothing of the second-class, in stead of the cheapest (8
florins 56 kreuzers) third-class funeral, if she had the will.
However, someone may contradict to my opinion, pointing the fact that the
cash left behind in the inheritance records was only 60 florins, and then
she must have had few money upon Mozart's death.
Yes, I know the fact, too. But it is evident that Constanze declared false
figure to the officer. She must have hidden the rest of cash before the
declaration. I can guess so from many grounds. The details are to be explained
in next chapter, Property
left by Mozart
However, I would like simply to explain the summary here that she must
have had enough money upon Mozart's death.
1. Her reliable income after her husband's death was annually 225 florins of the widow's pension. However she kept staying at the expensive apartment house at Rauhensteingasse for a long time whose annual rent 275 florins.This surely proves that she had enough money other than the widow's pension.
2. A poor widow usually puts the article left by the deceased to auction
to make money. However, Constanze did not do because she really was never
in need of money upon Mozart's death.
3.Furthermore, we should take notice that she was only idling away without
having a job after Mozart's death. That was because she had enough money.
Above facts clearly prove that she surely had enough money secretly upon
Mozart's death.
Therefore, the story that she had to do with the third-class funeral due to her poverty, was no worthy for bending an ear. This was really a shameless lie. 'Good wife' Constanze had such brute character in the bottom of her heart.
On the other hand, this shameless and disgusted Mozart's funeral has been
justified by many scholars throughout the ages by their following specious
logic.
They said it was no wonder that Mozart was sent by the third-class funeral
ceremony and was buried into a mass grave. Yes, they blamed it for the
funeral law those days.
According to their opinion, the
first-class funeral was restricted only to the aristocracy by the law regulation
those days.
"Based on the funeral laws those days, the selection of Mozart's funeral
was restricted to either the second-class or the third-class. 36 years
later, even with the case of Beethoven who was far more famous than Mozart,
the second-class funeral was unwillingly chosen, not of the first-class,"(Bärr)
"Considering the status of musician Mozart (his
outstanding greatness was not recognized fully by the people those days), it was
very natural that Swieten, who gave his advice to Constanze, selected the
third-class funeral which cost 8 guldens 56 kreuzers."( Kretschmer)
They
wrote like these and insisted the appropriateness of Mozart's third-class
funeral ( which meant the mass grave burial at the same time).
They, at their discretion, did not at all regard Mozart as a famous or
recognized musician when he was alive.
However, didn't they know the frantic popularity among Viennese to the performance of ' Die Zauberflöte' just one to two months before his death ?
The fact tells us that the opera was performed 24 times during October 1791
being full to the door everyday, and the frantic popularity continued even after
that.
Though Bärr and Kretschmer regarded Mozart as a shabby street musician, he did not end his life as a musician down on his luck. He completely regained his former fame and popularity among Viennese by 'Die Zauberflöte'.
Now, apart from such waste issue, I must go back to the main subject, the
regulation of the law.
We must admit that such regulation was surely existed that time.
However, the important thing is whether or not it reflected the truth
those days. Wasn't there an exception at all ?
To tell the truth, we can easily find out many exceptions though the scholars
after ages strongly insisted that the first-class funeral was restricted
only to the aristocracy and not applicable to common people .
Glück's and Haydn's funerals and burials were the cases.
Both composers were of course not aristocracy, but were merely common
people.
When both composers passed away (Glück died in 1787 and Haydn in 1809), each of them was sent by the first-class funeral ceremony and buried into an independent grave, not into a mass grave !
The fact that their funeral
services were the first- class was clearly written in the St. Stephen
Cathedral's register of deaths.
Yet, all scholars, who insisted the
appropriateness of Mozart's third-class funeral, did not mention it at all !
They only mention about the justice with Mozart's case in accordance with the
law .
Didn't they know Glück's and Haydn's cases, or did they keep silence
though they knew the fact ?
Reading the ' Mozarts Tod 1791-1971', we can find in the St. Stephen Cathedral's register of deaths many samples that commoner could also be sent by the first-class funeral ceremony.
Here I would like to show below a very suitable sample from the register
of deaths. The dead was only a wholesaler's wife, but her gorgeous funeral
was quite the same with that of aristocracy.
"von Scheidlin, Jacobine the wife of Johann Kaspar. Died in
August 7,1791. The first class. The tomb surrounded by fences. A monument
installed. St.Marx. 31fl 10kr. Six priests, a carriage and four"(Mozart
Tod 1791-1971)
As this proves clearly, common people could actually be sent by the first-class
funeral and buried into an independent grave regardless of the existence
of the funeral law. Probably Vienna people, who lived in the Age of Enlightenment,
had not paid any attention to the stale funeral regulation.
Thus we can know there was no inevitability for the dead commoner to creep
into mass grave even those days, if the bereaved family were ready to pay
the due money.
Therefore, as to the appropriateness of Mozart's third-class funeral, we
must consider that it was the sophistry by the natural death theorist to
defend their opinions.
It was Constanze's strong will that the cheapest funeral and mass grave burial were selected to Mozart. Her aim in her mind probably was to make Mozart's dead body missing in the mass grave.
Now next, I would like to touch on Constanze's rigid silence about Mozart's
death.
As long as I
investigated, I could not find any document that Constanze herself had stated
Mozart's death plainly. On the contrary, it seems to me that she took care not
to commit herself or avoid to speak about it.
Constanze's second husband
Nissen began to write Mozart's biography from the autumn in 1824 with the help
of Constanze. Probably in March 1825, his description was coming very near the
death of Mozart.
Naturally Nissen asked her wife to tell the state of
Mozart's death. However, strangely enough, when it came to Mozart's death,
Constanze suddenly did not speak about it and kept silence though she was there
near Mozart's death bed on the day.
Nissen could not go on writing the biography because her wife had rigidly
kept silence. Nissen was completely bewildered then but had to give up
getting information from his wife.
As a result, he had to send a letter to Sophie asking the state of Mozart's
death, who at the same time was there with Constanze on Mozart's last day.
Now
we should pay enough attention to this happening.
If Constanze could have
told the state of Mozart's death plainly to Nissen that time, there was no need
for him to send the letter to Sophie. However, he had to ask it to
Sophie.
Why did Constanze
suddenly keep silence when it came to Mozart's death?
In case Mozart's death was caused by natural disease, Constanze could have
easily spoken it to Nissen without hesitation. That is because there exists
no obstacle for any one to speak about the natural death.
However, if it were not a natural death, the bereaved may hesitate to speak
about to other persons.Then I myself strongly suspect that Constanze could
not have spoken it to Nissen because she had had a hand in Mozart's death.
Is there any other reason than this to explain her rigid silence?
The other thing I take notice of is about the disease name given to Mozart's
death.
In the register of
deaths of St. Stephen's Cathedral, there is the description of severe miliary
fever as Mozart's sickness and manner of death.
This was the formal disease
name of Mozart's death those days, and Constanze ought to have known it.
Then
she had only to tell that Mozart was dead by severe miliary fever when she was
asked by someone. However she had never spoken this disease name to anyone. Why
was that ?
I guess that Constanze herself did not think so in her
mind.
Her thus silence about Mozart's last day and his disease name would suggest that she surely had a hand in Mozart's death.
No matter what she excused herself, she should before everything else visit
Mozart's grave as soon as she was available. Because she was the very widow
who had not attended the funeral ceremony and burial as well, and had not
told the last good bye to her dear husband at that time. .
But, to our surprise, she never visited Mozart's grave within the year,
nor during next year, nor the year after the next, nor..........
Thus it has passed seventeen years when Constanze visited St. Marx Graveyard
in 1808 for the first time. But, to say nothing of, it was not based on
her own initiative that she visited Mozart's grave. She reluctantly accepted the strong suggestion by Griesinger, the legation staff of Sachsen who brought her to Mozart's grave.
This story seems quite curious to me.
If Mozart's death were caused by natural malady, why didn't Constanze plainly
visit Mozart's grave on her own initiative as soon as she was available
?
She was the woman who boastfully told after her husband's death that she
was Mozart's beloved. Then she should visit the grave sooner all the more.
But she hated to do so. Why ?
No scholars have ever defend her about this disrespectful attitude. Was
it because they could not find oust such social custom?
Joking aside, there was, in my view, a possibility that her disrespectful attitude might have suggested that Constanze had her hand in Mozart's death. Yes, her strong repentance and terror in her mind prevented her from visiting Mozart's grave.
Thus, there were so many incomprehensive things happened upon Mozart's
death.
In case Mozart's death were natural death, such unnatural things would
not have happened simultaneously..
In my view, carefully and shrewdly planned scenario in advance must have
enabled them to happen at the same time. Yes, I guess that Mozart's death
was brought by foul play.
To say definitely that it was a
foul play, I must describe many things about
the criminal, accomplice if any, the motives of the murder, the poison used for the murder,etc..
Then let me move to explain about them next.
Analyzing Mozart's funeral and burial thus, we see a great possibility
that Mozart's death was caused by a foul play.
Then I must identify the name of real criminal of the murder next together
with the grounds to think so.
By above explanation, there will be no need to say that Constanze herself
had a hand in this foul play.
But I myself do not think that this was done only by Constanze. There must
have been an accomplice in this crime who played an important roll. Why
I think so is that stupid Constanze alone could not have planed such skillful
plots in advance. My guess is that the accomplice must have been her shrewd
mother Caecilla.
Since I have already explained the major portions, let me explain here
very briefly the grounds why I think that Constanze was the real criminal.
1) Constanze's Absence from the Funeral
We can not find any justifiable reason why she had to escape from the apartment
house on the day of Mozart's funeral.
As to her absence from the funeral, one of the real reason must have been
that her existence there was the very obstacle to promote the third-class
funeral and mass grave burial.
In the morning of Mozart's death day, in case she was there, his intimate
friends calling to express their condolence would have surely asked Constanze
what kind of funeral she was going to hold.
In that case, she could not have answered by herself that she was going
to send him by the third-class funeral ceremony and bury him into a mass
grave by insisting her poverty.
Thus, Constanze's staying at her house was a very obstacle to realize
mass grave burial, and then she had to quit.
This might have been the true reason that she had to escape from her house
before persons visit for condolence.
One more probable reason was that she could not remain there because she
herself was fearing and trembling for her awful deed just a short time
ago.
The accomplice feared that she might cry something crazy on account of
her madness if she remained the scene. Then she could not remain there..
From these reasons, she had to leave her house. Then her absence suggests
that she was the criminal of this murder.
2) Constanze's No visiting Mozart's Grave
As explained before, in case Mozart's death were natural death, Constanze
could have visited his grave as soon as she was available. However she
never could. That was because she was suffering from the guilty conscience for a long time and could not approach to Mozart's grave.
3) Concealment of all Mozart's Valuables by Constanze
Though the detailed explanation is to be described in the next chapterProperty left by Mozart, there is no doubt that Constanze had hidden such Mozart's valuables as
cash, silver goods, jewelry and his autographs completely before the inheritance
inspection.
In case Mozart's death were natural death, she could not have predicted
the timing of his death beforehand . As a result, she could not have hidden
his valuables so completely before the inspection. However, all Mozart's
valuables were completely hidden before the inheritance examination except
for 60 florins of cash, three small spoons and one autograph as explained
later.
This complete concealment of his valuables including vast volume of his
autographs suggests that Constanze could hidden them in advance because
she surely knew Mozart would die that time by the effect of poison she
had secretly given to him..
We should aware at the same time that no other person than Constanze could
move Mozart's valuable to somewhere which were located in his apartment
house.
4) Existing of Sophie's Letter to Nissen
As mentioned earlier, in case of death by natural malady, there will be no reason for anyone to refuse mentioning about it. Even a child can tell without hesitation.
However, Constanze could not tell it to Nissen, which suggests that the
foul play was done by Constanze.
Therefore Nissen had to ask it to Sophie. Then the existence of Sophie's
letter to Nissen can be the evidence of this foul play.
In another words, if Mozart's death were natural death, there was no need
for Nissen to ask the letter to Sophie.
Assuming Constanze as the real murderer of Mozart, I shall be responsible
to make clear of the motives of the murder.
I think that the direct trigger was the imminent repayment of his debts.
At the same time, her hatred against Mozart's secret love with Aloisia
would have promoted the murder in her mind, though I do not think this
as a direct motive.
As I described in Mozart's Debts , Mozart had piled up a vast amount of debts. At the beginning of 1791,
the amount would have reached to nearly 4,000 florins.
Constanze was worrying about her husband's huge debts and the imminent
repayment all the time. But she could do nothing by herself. Mozart has
not been commissioned to compose opera for one year since the "Cosign
fan tutu" performed in early 1790. There was no hope for him to appear
on the stage as a pianist since he had not been invited to the Burg theater
for five years since the spring in 1786. He seemed to have no future.
Probably, one day in the first half of 1791, she must have opened her heart
to Caecilla when she happened to visit her mother. Caecilla would have
been astonished by her daughter's talk that time.
It was obvious that her mother thought that the total debts largely exceeded
the limit of Mozart's repayment ability, since she also knew that he could
not get commissioned work at all for a year.
Among his many debts, the repayment terms of borrowing from Puchberg were
generous, having no rigid due date. However, severe repayment terms were
specified in the written acknowledgement of debt between Mozart and Lackenbacher.
Probably, there must have been similar settlements between Mozart and Lichnowsky.
Following is the major part of the written acknowledgement of debt which
was submitted to Lackenbacher and signed by Mozart on October 1,1790.
"...... I therefore not only acknowledge herewith due receipt of this loan, but also bind myself and my heirs and assigns to repay this capital to the above-named lender or his heirs and assigns at the end of two years a data, without preliminary notice and in the same coinage described above, without exception of any kind, and in the mean time to pay interest at five percent in the same currency, which interest to be punctually paid here in Vienna in half-yearly instalments, failing which I am to forfeit the term of repayment of the capital and the lender may at once redemand the same with full interest and costs.
As security for both the capital and the interest I pledge the lender
all my goods and chattels.
In witness whereof my and the invited witnesses' own hands. Enacted in
Vienna on 1 October 1790.
Mathias Brünner Anton Heindl W.A. Mozart
as witness witness ” ( Deutsch)
Caecilla was frightened to hear from her daughter the content of the written
acknowledgement of debt. She seriously worried about the future of her
daughter and son that time.
She must have thought that, in case Mozart could not repay the debt on the due date, his family would lose their means of livelihood in accordance with this contract, since all their household effects are to be deprived of by the lender by this settlement.
She also must have thought that, in case Mozart died before the due date,
her daughter and son, who do not have repayment ability at all, were responsible
for the unpaid debt. She at the same time must have feared that the money
lender would ask the repayment to Constanze's relative, Caecilla in that
case.
Caecilla only worried that time thinking this and that. However her uneasiness
suddenly turned to rage when she heard her daughter's next talk.
It was about an invitation letter to London by Robert May O'Reilly, who
was the chief of the Italian Theater in London. The letter was dated on
October 26,1790 and reached to Mozart's house during his travel to Frankfurt.
"Sir,
Through a person attached to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales I learn of your
design to undertake a journey to England, and as I desire to know people
of talent personally and am at present in a position to contribute to their
advantage, I offer you , Sir, such a position as [? few] Composers have
had in England. If you are thus able to be in London towards the end of
the month of December next,1790, and to stay until the end of June 1791,
and within that space of time to compose at least two Operas, serious or
comic, according to the choice of the Directorate, I offer you three hundred
pounds Sterling, with the advantage to write for the professional concerts
or any other concert-hall with the exception only of other Theaters. If
this proposal seems agreeable to you and you are in a position to accept
it, do me the favour of letting me have a reply by return, and this letter
shall serve you in place of a Contract.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your very humble Servant
Rob. May O'Reilly
Kindly address your reply to
the Pantheon in London"( Deutsch)
Proposed condition in this letter was favorable to Mozart. 300 sterling
pounds that time meant 3,000 florins. He could completely repay his debts
at least to Lackenbacher and Lichnowsky with this earning, if he had accepted
this proposal.
According to this letter, in addition to this composing fee, Mozart could
have earned a considerable amount of money by his piano performances there.
Then, adding these additional earnings to 300 sterling pounds, he could
have earned a considerable amount of money there which could clear all
the debts he had owed.
However, Mozart did not accept this offer somehow.
Hearing this story from her daughter, Caecilla thought seriously that all
the misfortune of her daughter and son should be blamed on Mozart's loose
thinking and irresponsible behavior.
Also she thought that such a down-and-out composer would not be able to
repay these huge debts, even if he could have a more long life.
And then she finally reached to the conclusion that there would be no other
way than repaying the debts by selling his autograph music scores, after
poisoning Mozart secretly.
The shrewd mother knew well that a down-and-out composer's music scores
were of little value as long as he was alive, but they suddenly turned
to valuables after his death since no more production could be expected.
Then Caecilla made every effort to persuade her daughter to poison Mozart.
However, Constanze made a strong resistance against her mother at first.
But she could not think of any realistic way to repay the debt by herself,
and then she finally nodded in agreement.
There were a few supposed reasons in the back of her mind to accept this
sinful proposal finally.
One is that she could no more expect Mozart's future at all as the things
that time was so hopeless as described before. She feared that sooner or
later Mozart's default would come.
She became desperate considering this and that about the miserable life after Mozart's default to Lackenbacher. But she herself could not find out any effective way to repay such a vast amount of money other than her mother's idea.
The second is that she also could not forgive Mozart's irresponsible attitude
toward the chance to get sizable earning that O'Reilly had brought, with
which most of his debts could be repaid.
Mozart had somehow not accepted this favorable offer, but she thought in
despair that such big chance to repay his debts would never come again.
The third may be their empty marital relationship those days.
As described in the previous chapter, Constanze has been holding her strong
grudge against Mozart after she had known Mozart's illicit love affair
with her sister Aloisia.
Mozart tried to get her reconciliation many times but it was vain. Constanze
never allowed him and their relationship had become so distant. This grudge
would have helped her admit Caecilla's wicked proposal finally.
Well, there was one more possible factor which forced her to accept Cecilia's
plot. That was the lawsuit by Lichnowsky.
We do not know when Lichnowsky raised the lawsuit against Mozart for the
first time. But there was a well possibility that it has already started
in the first half of 1791.
Constanze became desperate when Mozart was brought to the court, thinking
that the destruction of Mozart's family would come sooner or later. And
then she had to bend her ear to Caecilla.
Under such various feelings, she finally had to obey her mother's idea
since there was no effective way to solve the imminent ruin.
Thus, Mozart's written acknowledgement of debt to Rackenbacher and the
invitation letter from May O'Reilly are thought to be the evidences which
prove the motives of poisoning by Constanze.
After getting her daughter's acceptance, Caecilla secretly worked out the
plot in details with care.
The first problem was the timing of the poisoning.
It was sure that the due date of repayment to Rackenbacher came on October
1, 1792.
She estimated that it would be necessary about ten months to make several
thousands florins by selling Mozart's autograph music scores after Mozart's
death.
Then Mozart's death had to take place at around year end of 1791 or at
the beginning of 1792.
Probably this was the reason why Mozart's life came to an end at that time,
at his 35 years old .
Here, we should remember that all his family enjoyed more than 50 years
lives.
His father Leopold lived to 68 years old, his mother Maria Anna 58 years
old and his sister Nannel could live up to 78 years old. As to his sons,
Karl Thomas lived up to 74 years old, while Franz Xaver ended his life
at 53 years old.
Only Mozart's life ended far before 50 years old among his family. Mozart
could probably have enjoyed more longer life if his cause of death were
natural malady.
Secondly Caecilla had to think about the poison to kill Mozart.
No long time was necessary for her to select acqua toffana. She knew that
it was easy to get it, and it was difficult to detect the poisoning by
acqua toffana. Moreover she shrewdly knew that it took several months for
acqua toffana to show its effectiveness.
She guessed that half a year would be necessary to kill Mozart by that
poison.
Thus, the start-up timing of giving the poison to Mozart was settled at
a day in mid 1791.
By the advice of her mother, Constanze secretly put a very small quantity
of acqua toffana into his favorite drinks, punch and coffee.
Since the quantity of acqua toffana was very small, Mozart did not perceive
it at all. Constanze secretly continued to put the poison into coffee and/or
punch now and then. By and by, the poison began to show its effectiveness
gradually.
It is allegedly said Mozart fell unconscious often when he was composing
' Die Zauberflöte'. And, as described in Niemetschek's biography,
Mozart looked pale suffering from depression, and took medicine all the
time while he was visiting Prague in September 1791.
In late November, he finally was confined to bed. His body had swollen
abnormally. Sophie had to make a pajama jacket for swollen Mozart, which
he could wear from his front side.
And at last, the poison accumulated in Mozart's body robbed Mozart of his life at 0:55 a.m. on December 5,1791.
There were the symptoms and signs of poisoning on Mozart's dead body. But
Dr. Closset had overlooked them as described before.
While her daughter continued to give the poison secretly to Mozart, Caecilla was planning the funeral scenario carefully.
She feared someone to detect the poisoning. Then the funeral had to be
done very secretly and quickly without teaching Mozart's death publicly
and even to his intimate friends.
All the things, the selection of the third-class funeral and mass grave
burial, Constanze's escape from her house, intentional change of the funeral
executor, turning back of the funeral coach half way and the declaration
of 60 florins cash inheritance, were skillfully planned by this wicked
mother.
Unfortunately the story proceeded just as Caecilla designed. As a result,
Constanze could have successfully repaid all Mozart's debts by selling
his autographs after his death. She could avoid to ruin the future of her
life though she had ruined Mozart. After that she could enjoy her rich
life up to 80 years old thanks to the windfalls and hidden Mozart's valuables.
She had never worked after Mozart's death, but could have accumulated her
property up to 27,191 florins upon her death, which was 45 times as much
as that of Mozart.
Considering like this, we are likely to have had a clue to solve the question
why Constanze had thrown away many Mozart's letters and all her own letters.
In the torn down letters, there might have existed the letters in which
their quarrels on his debts, on the love affair with Aloisia, and Mozart's
appealing for his bad physical conditions were described.
However, by the destruction of these letters, she pretended that their
marital relationship were good enough and such an awful deed ought not
to have happened between them.
Constanze, together with her mother Caecilla, should suffer disgrace forever
for the real murderer of poisoning Mozart unless someone can logically
deny the series of incomprehensible occurrences written here with proofs
to the contrary.
TOP
HOME
Bibliography
1. Bär, Carl
Krankheit-Tod-Begräbnis (translated by Bin Ebizawa and Kazuo Kobayashi,
Ongakunotomo-sha, 1975)
2. Johannes Dalhow, Gunther Duda and Diter Kerner
W.A.Mozart, Die Dokumentation seines Todes ( translated by Bin Ebizawa
and Kazuo Kobayashi, Ongakunotomo-sha, 1979)
3. ditto
Mozarts Tod 1791-1971 (translated by Bin Ebizawa and Tomoko IIjima, Ongakunotomo-sha,
1980)
4. Weiss, David
The Assassination of Mozart (translated by Yozo Nishijima, Rippu-shobo,
1985)
5. Carr, Francis
Mozart and Constanze (translated by Kazuo Yokoyama, Ongakunotomo-sha,1985)
6. BBC Homepage, December 2003
Mozart's death - Murder, Accident or Disease ?
7. Otto Erich Deutsche
Mozart A Documentary Biography (translated by E.Blom, P.Branscombe and
J. Noble,
Stanford University Press, 1983)
8. op.cit.
MOZART: A LIFE
9. op.cit.
Lebensbeschreibung des k.k. Kapellmeister Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, nach
Originalquellen
10. op.cit.
Mozart Dokumente seines Lebens
11. op.cit.
Mozart, His Character, His Work
12. op.cit.
Mozart Pilgrimage: Being the Travel Diaries of Vincent & Mary Novello in the year 1829
13. op.cit
Brief und Aufzeichnungen Gesamtausgabe
14. op.cit.
Brief und Aufzeichnungen Gesamtausgabe,Weiter Nachtrag
15. op.cit.
MOZARTS SPUREN IN WIEN