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 6


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 6


Those who are familiar with the Queens College Lecture know that the moment of reckoning now truly is at hand. They know that the 1748 Haussmann Portrait, no matter how vehement and forceful Heinrich Besseler's rejection of it may have been, is the reference image against which any and all aspirants to authentication as portraits from life of Johann Sebastian Bach must be compared.

And so, let me put the Erfurt Portrait, in its unrestored state, through the same sequence of comparisons through which I have put the Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment and the Volbach Portrait, and let's see how it fares. In the following series of comparisons, the unrestored form of the Erfurt Portrait is on top or to the viewer's left, and the 1748 Haussmann Portrait is on the bottom or to the viewer's right, as the case may be.

Starting from the top and working down:

0390x-DMvii338-h6-Abb1-brow-if.jpg  Loading  22065 bytes
1760-13-if-brow-0390.jpg  Loading 19657 bytes

There is a superficial similarity between the shape of the eyebrows, but, because there appears to be no sign of incipient ptosis or blepharochalasis, it is dangerous to draw any conclusions from the apparent difference in the shape of the upper eyelids.

Next, the eyes themselves:


Even after making allowances for an age diference of more than thirty years and the effects of ptosis and blepharochalasis, it is clear that these are not the same pair of eyes. The distinctive curve of the lower lid of Bach's right eye, as it meets the bridge of the nose that is so plainly visible in the 1748 Haussmann Portrait (and in the Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment, the Berlin Portrait, and the Volbach Portrait, too, for that matter!) is not at all in evidence in the Erfurt Portrait. Similarly, the upper right eyelid meets the bridge of the nose in a manner that is distinctly different from the upper right lid in the 1748 Haussmann Portrait. Finally, please note that the distinctive downward curve that outlines the bag beneath the right eye begins where Bach's right eye meets the nose in the 1748 Haussmann Portrait is not to be found in the Erfurt Portrait, in which the beginnings of the downward curve start at a point beneath the junction of the eye and the nose. The subject of the Erfurt Portrait also does not appear to have been "wall eyed" in the right eye, as Bach appears to be in both the 1748 Haussmann Portrait and the Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment.

Next, the nose itself. As we have seen, the nose of the Erfurt Portrait is one of the places where the restorer's "legerdemain" is most egregious. For that reason, for this first comparison, which is designed to show how configuration of the restored nose was determined, I have lined up in a row, the nose of the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as it looked after Schönfelder restored it, the nose of the Bretikopf portrait, the Erfurt Portrait after the 1907 restoration, and finally the nose of the Kütner print. (Both the nose of the Breitkopf Portrait and the nose of the Kütner print have been "flopped" to compensate for the "mirror image" aspects of the originals, which themselves "flop" the 1748 Haussmann Portrait from which they are both ultimately derived. Clearly, in addition to the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as it looked after Schönfelder restored it, which is the only portrait he specifically mentions in his article, Dr. Overmann and his colleagues studied the Breitkopf portrait and the Kütner print very carefully when making the decisions about how the abraded spots on the surface of the canvass would be in-painted. The shape of the left side of the nose and the resulting profile of the nose, particularly the bulge or ridge that begins about one-third of the way down in the restored nose of the Erfurt Portrait clearly owe a great deal to the Breitkopf portrait and the Kütner print and next to nothing to the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as it looked after Schönfelder restored it.

his31t4a-nose-0250.jpg  Loading 38790 bytes1800JSB74sgkB13WNnoseFL0250.jpg  Loading 38091 bytes02050x-DMvii388-h6-Abb2-nose-if.jpg  Loading 36295 bytes

But does the unrestored nose of the Erfurt Portrait support such a restoration? It is not "open and shut", but, in all likelihood, the decision of the 1907 restoration team owed much to wishful thinking:

0250xDMvii388-h6-Abb1-nose-if.jpg  Loading 40925 bytes02050x-DMvii388-h6-Abb2-nose-if.jpg  Loading 36295 bytes0300x-DMvii388-heft6-Abb1-wdheq-if.jpg  Loading 68264 bytes

It certainly is possible to argue that the shape of the nose as originally painted had that depression after the bulge, but when the heads in their entirety are compared, that possibility seems much less of a probability. It is much more likely that the as yet unidentified sitter for the Erfurt Portrait had a nose with a profile that was much more aquiline. In this context I cannot help but recall the words of yet another treasured friend and mentor, Rosalyn Tureck, the "High Priestess of Bach" as one knoweldgeable and admiring music critic dubbed her. When I told her the exciting news about the Weydenhammer Portrait Fragment, a discussion of the various portraits ensued. Rosalyn forthrightly told me that she had never believed that the Erfurt Portrait was, in fact, a portrait of Bach and then she gave her reason as she dismissed it completely. "Bach with an aquiline nose?"

And, now, finally the nose of the Erfurt Portrait, as it looked before it was restored in 1907, compared to the nose of the 1748 Haussmann Portrait:

0250xDMvii388-h6-Abb1-nose-if.jpg  Loading 40925 bytes1760-13-if-nose-0250.jpg  Loading 44162 bytes0300x-DMvii388-heft6-Abb1-wdheq-if.jpg  Loading 68264 bytes1760-08-wdheq-if-300.jpg  Loading 59393 bytes

Again, it certainly is possible to argue that the shape of the nose as originally painted had that depression after the bulge, but even if it did so, when the heads in their entirety are compared, that possibility seems much less of a probability. The nose of the Erfurt Portrait did not mature into the nose of the 1748 Haussmann Portrait.

Last comes a comparison of the jaws.

0200x-DMvii388-h6-Abb1-m&j-if.jpg  Loading 46135 bytes

Were it not for that clear and marked difference in the shape of the left cheek bone and jaws, one could argue that there is a strong possibility. But, even then, one still must take into consideration the distinctly different shadows that are cast by their chins. Those differences, it seems to me cannot be accounted for by either weight gain or the aging process.

Please click on 0100xABB1link.jpg  Loading 38977 bytes to go on to Page 7.


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