Recordings/Discussions
Background Information
Performer Bios

Poet/Composer Bios

Additional Information


ca. 1733 ca. 1741 1746 1747 1748 1750

The Portrait in Erfurt Alleged to Depict Bach, the Weimar Concertmeister - Is this young man really Johann Sebastian Bach? Pages
at
The Face Of Bach

Page 5


The Face Of Bach


This remarkable photograph is not a computer generated composite; the original of the Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment, all that remains of the portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach that belonged to his pupil Johann Christian Kittel, is resting gently on the surface of the original of the 1748 Elias Gottlob Haussmann Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach.

1092-18A-0635.jpg  Loading 64973 bytes
1748 Elias Gottlob Haussmann Portrait, Courtesy of William H. Scheide, Princeton, New Jersey
Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment, ca. 1733, Artist Unknown, Courtesy of the Weydenhammer Descendants
Photograph by Teri Noel Towe
©Teri Noel Towe, 2001, All Rights Reserved


The Portrait in Erfurt Alleged to Depict Bach, the Weimar Concertmeister

14beyerjsb550.jpg Loading 108350 bytes 14rentschjsb550.jpg  Loading 84328 bytes
Before the 1907 Restoration and As It Looked in 1985

Is this young man really Johann Sebastian Bach?
Page 5


While Prof. Dr. Overmann appears to be quite candid about the damage to the face of the portrait's subject, he is not especially forthcoming with respect to the details of the restoration process. Furthermore, if my reading of the article is correct, he builds his case for the authenticity of the painting referring only to the restored form of the portrait. He does, however, tells us what his absolute standards of comparison are. At the beginning of the last paragraph of the first page of the article, Prof. Dr. Overmann specifically mentions the Haussmann Portrait in the Thomasschule and the skull, which had been exhumed in 1894. The Haussmann Portrait in the Thomasschule, of course, is the 1746 Haussmann Portrait, which, in 1907, still had not been cleansed of all of the overpaint applied to it by the three different restorers who had worked on it during the second half of the 19th century. In 1907, the painting looked like this:

The facial features in Schönfelder's 1895 restoration of the painting were significantly different from those of the 1914 Kuhn restoration, the version with which most of us have been intimately familiar since childhood. Here, on the left, is a close up of the head of the 1746 Haussmann, as restored by Schönfelder in 1895, with the equivalent detail from a 1914 photograph of the portrait after it had been cleaned and restored by Kuhn on the right:

his31t4a-wdheq-0395.jpg  Loading 82647 bytes 1746EGH-1914-rK-0395.jpg  Loading 68314 bytes

Perhaps the most notable difference, at least for our present purposes, is the sharp boundary between light and shadow that outlines Bach's left cheekbone. How Schönfelder and Kuhn could have reached such disparate results becomes much more understandable when one remembers that, during the two decades between the Schönfelder Restoration in 1895 and the Kuhn Restoration in 1914, one portrait of Bach that previously had been accepted as genuine was discredited and discredited completely:

1800JSB74sgkB13WN-0475.jpg  Loading 56955 bytes

Obviously, a detailed discussion of this image, which I call the Breitkopf portrait because it was acquired by that venerable publishing firm in the late 19th century, is peripheral to this examination of the Erfurt Portrait. Suffice it to say that this oil painting came with a verbal provenance that alleged that it had been acquired from the Estate or from the heirs of one of Bach's granddaughters, and, for many years, it was attributed to Elias Gottlob Haussmann and was considered to be the portrait that was known to have belonged to Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (the 1748 Haussmann Portrait). The Breitkopf Portrait is included among the portraits that were used for reference during the examination of Bach's skull by Wilhelm His and his colleagues in 1895, and it clearly influenced Schönfelder when he "restored" the lower left jaw of the 1746 Haussmann Portrait. By 1914, however, when Kurzwelly and Kuhn undertook their restoration of the 1746 Haussmann Portrait, the Breitkopf Portrait had been recognized for what it is, an early 19th century, posthumous portrait that clearly is derived from the S. G. Kütner print of 1774. Like the Kütner print, the Breitkopf Portrait is a "flopped" image, that is the mirror image of the model from which it was derived, because the artist drew "directly" from the reference image, the model, to the plate or to the canvass, as the case may be:

his33t5-0475.jpg  Loading 71629 bytes 1800JSB74sgkB13WN-0475.jpg  Loading 56955 bytes

The comparison of just the heads of the two images makes the point even more clearly:

1774SGKwnb12wdheq0475.jpg  Loading 78277 bytes 1800JSB74sgkB13WNwdheq0475.jpg  Loading 68159 bytes

The comparison also makes it clear that the anonymous painter who created the Breitkopf Portrait did not do all that good a job of copying Bach's facial features as they are depicted in the Kütner print. And, in particular, he misread the contour of Bach's "right" cheekbone.

But, as I so often do, I am getting too far afield, as the saying goes!

Prof. Dr. Overmann specifically mentions Bach's skull as well as the 1746 Haussmann Portrait in his discussion of the Erfurt Portrait. Here, then, are the head of the Schönfelder restoration of the 1746 Haussmann Portrait, the head of the Erfurt Portrait in its unrestored state, and a frontal view of the skull:

his31t4a-wdheq-0300.jpg  Loading 65958 bytes 0300x-DMvii388-heft6-Abb1-wdheq-if.jpg  Loading 68264 bytes his27t2a-300-sklfr.jpg  Loading 46203 bytes

The skull really adds little to the discussion, but, when the restored form of the Erfurt Portrait is added to the equation and the skull is removed

0300x-DMvii388-heft6-Abb1-wdheq-if.jpg  Loading 68264 bytes his31t4a-wdheq-0300.jpg  Loading 65958 bytes ,

the message is clear to all who care to heed it: The outline of the left cheek bone and jaws in the restored form of the Erfurt Portrait has been subtly "adjusted" and carefully and deliberately matched to the outline of the left cheekbone of the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as restored by Schönfelder, a contour that subsequent scholarship and investivation has shown to be an inaccurate and inexact restoration of the original.

No matter how well intentioned it may have been (and, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!), the subtle "realignment" of the outline of the cheekbone was -- and is -- a deception, a deception that becomes all the more obvious when one substitutes the 1748 Haussmann Portrait (significantly, a painting that Besseler rejects categorically as both unreliable and unauthentic when it is precisely the opposite!) for the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as restored by Schõnfelder:

0300x-DMvii388-heft6-Abb1-wdheq-if.jpg  Loading 68264 bytes 1760-08-wdheq-if-300.jpg  Loading 59393 bytes

Bach simply did not have the "high" and prominent cheek bones that the as yet unidentified sitter for the Erfurt Portrait had!

Please click on 0100xABB1link.jpg  Loading 38977 bytes to go on to Page 6.


Please click on 1092-18A-0100v.jpg  Loading 35034 bytes to return to the Index Page at The Face Of Bach.

Please click on abdyjsb2.jpg to visit the Johann Sebastian Bach Index Page at Teri Noel Towe's Homepages.

Please click on the crabby2.jpg to visit the Teri Noel Towe Welcome Page.


TheFaceOfBach@aol.com


Copyright, Teri Noel Towe, 2000 , 2002
Unless otherwise credited, all images of the Weydenhammer Portrait:  Copyright, The Weydenhammer Descendants, 2000
All Rights Reserved

The Face Of Bach
Remains Profoundly Grateful to
The Rainbow Flag Civic Center

For Providing the Cyberspace for The Face Of Bach
For the First Eight Years of Its Existence.
Thank you, Nathan P. Johansen!
The Face Of Bach
Now Is Profoundly Grateful to
The Bach Cantatas Website

For Providing The Face Of Bach
With a New Home.
Thank you, Aryeh Oron!


The Face Of Bach is a PPP Free Early Music website.
192mammuthusimp.jpg  Loading 50906 bytes
The Face Of Bach
has received the HIP Woolly Mammoth Stamp of Approval from
The HIP-ocrisy Home Page.



ca. 1733 ca. 1741 1746 1747 1748 1750



 

Back to the Top


Last update: Sunday, July 02, 2017 03:52