Talk:Constanze Mozart

Untitled

The initial entry on Constanze Weber had only a single paragraph. Added information mostly from the German wikipedia entry on her. --Hs282 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Constanze or Konstanze

Mozart's name refers to her with the K spelling, and even quotes her signature as "Konstantia Mozart, née Weber, widow relict of the late Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart." Was the C spelling used in her lifetime? JackofOz 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Until sometime in the 20th century, all European first names were transliterated into the local language. So if you were born in Bavaria and named "Wilhelm", you would introduce yourself as "Guillaume" in Paris, "William" in London, etc. Most Europeans would not consider one of these their real name. (Indeed, if you asked someone in a Catholic country their "real name", they probably wouldn't understand you, but if you pressed them they might volunteer the Latin version of their name, since this appeared on their baptismal certificate.)

So the real question is, not what was her real name, but how does Wikipedia policy handle such things? If the person isn't famous, Wikipedia would choose the name they used the most (in her case, Konstanze). If the person is famous, Wikipedia would choose the well-known version (hence Solomon rather than Shlomo). - Lawrence King 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Very belatedly, thank you, Lawrence. -- JackofOz 04:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Photograph is not authentic

I am so sorry to have to disappoint, but the alleged photo of Constanze has been proven to be a hoax. Details here: http://classicalmusicguide.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=122954#122954. This rumor has apparently been around for years, but it has been debunked by scholars. Its kind of silly really-- at the time the photo was taken, Constanze was extremely ill and hardly able to sit up, nevermind unable to travel aborad to visit people who she had not seen in decades. She was also close to eighty-- the woman in this photo is much younger.

I am deleting the photo and the link for now. Maybe it can be mentioned as a popular hoax, but it is not a photo of Constanze.

More for the curious: The phot was also debunked by photography experts, who estimate that teh photo in question as actually taken sometime in the 1870's.

Link: http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2006/07/and_the_mystery.html

Money Quote:

"The "newly discovered" picture of Constanze Mozart has already been published twice in the 1950s, the last time in an article by E. H. Mueller von Asow in the Österreichische Musikzeitschrift, March 1958, p. 93. For decades it has been known as a hoax among Mozart experts. There are no outdoor photographs of groups of people dating from 1840, because the lenses invented by Joseph Petzval, which were to make such portraits possible, were not available yet. It was simply not possible in 1840 to take sharp outdoor pictures of people as long as the necessary exposure time still amounted to about three minutes. The first outdoor portraits of human beings originate from the 1850s and the picture in question definitely looks like an amateur snapshot from the 1870s. If the BBC (or anyone else) knows a verified group portrait originating from 1840, I would like to see it. But the guys in Altötting wanted to have their share of fun and publicity in the Mozart-year."

It *is* an interesting hoax! Cheers!

Why is the photo still here if it has been proven to be a fake!?

Because people like to be fooled.--141.203.254.65 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If Agnes Selby thinks the picture is a hoax, it might well be authentic. Selby is famous for inventing non-existent sources and for spreading slanderous accusations against members of the Mozart family, for instance that Leopold Mozart "referred to Constanze Weber as slut".[[1]] Needless to say that there is no such statement by Leopold Mozart.--Suessmayr (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Could someone please rewrite the final sentence in this paragraph of the article:

Mozart and Constanze Weber met in 1777 in Mannheim. However, Mozart was at first more interested in her sister, Aloysia. When Mozart met the family again in Vienna in 1781, Aloysia showed no interest in Mozart anymore and married Lange, an actor, though it is rumored that she regretted this decision years later. Mozart lived with the Weber family for a time, though he left due to rumors about their relationship.

I can't figure out who "their" refers to in the final sentence. Mozart and Constanze? Mozart and Aloysia? Mozart and the Weber family? Aloysia and Lange? - Lawrence King 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Birthyear

I did some research on Constanze, and most sources say she was born in 1762, not 1763. 70.101.160.105 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You research was porous. Constanze's birth certificate survives. It was published in 1941 by Erich Valentin.--62.47.130.208 (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to use surname when possible

This article needs to be edited to conform with WP:SURNAME. Kaldari (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kaldari, the surnames-only policy is a good one for WP in general, since it's not good when (for example) fancruft-type editors refer to Ms. Spears as "Britney." But for the present article there are practical difficulties in using surnames. For one thing, Constanze had three of them, and it would be rather distracting to keep changing her name over the course of the article. In addition, the article frequently discusses Constanze in connection with other people who had the same surname, i.e. her sisters and husbands. Again, using the first name helps keep things clear.

Use of first names to avoid confusion is a pretty ordinary expository device in published biographies, including the reference sources for this article, and there is no reason why WP should not make use of it. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A followup: since writing the above I learned about and visited

Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Projects/Surname project

and also

WP:LASTNAME

so now I'm think I know a bit better where you are coming from.

Look, I don't want anyone to think that this article reads like a pile of sexist piggery, so please look at it carefully and advise. In the cases where it says "Constanze" to distinguish among relatives, I think the usage is covered by what it says in WP:LASTNAME--they're quite clear that you need to use first names to distinguish between family members of the same surname. But what of the three different surnames Constanze went by (Weber/Mozart/Nissen) during the various periods of her life? Using "Weber" all the way through would match 21st century usage but would also probably be confusing to readers. Another possibility is to use whatever surname she was going by at the time being discussed, but since there are three surnames involved, this too strikes me as reader-confusing. So using "Constanze" struck me as the best way to cope.

Surely this problem has come up in other articles before, and I wonder what you think is the best solution. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You bring up some excellent points. My understanding is that WP:SURNAME only requires that the surname be used whenever it is possible without ambiguity. I'm not sure of the answer to your other questions and have posted a request for further guidance at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Need guidance on applying WP:LASTNAME to Constanze_Mozart. Kaldari (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article manages admirably to avoid any confusion which could arise from Constanze Weber's various last names, nor does it seem to me in breach of WP:SURNAME. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your replies. Opus33 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: How can this article conform with WP:SURNAME when it doesn't address the subject by her surname a single time in the entire article? Also, "Mrs." is not allowed by WP:SURNAME, so that is an obvious breach. Kaldari (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Constanze and Leopold Mozart do not share a grave

Could we please acknowledge the well-documented fact that Leopold Mozart was not buried in the churchyard, but in the communal crypt of St. Sebastian.--Suessmayr (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the burden of proof

An interesting case of how to apply a Wikipedia "principle":

Two editors disagree as to the date of birth and death of one of the couple's children, Anna Maria. One says it's December 25, the other it's November 16. But they agree on this: She was born and died on the same day of 1789. Neither date is sourced.

Should one eliminate any mention of the date until one of the statements is sourced? or should one leave that part of the statement on which the two editors agree even though both dates are unsourced? If you pick the first choice then what do you do with other dates in the article which are also not sourced? Does it matter that one of the dates "had been there for a long time"? Does that give any special standing to an unsourced statement?

Contact Basemetal here 14:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Basemetal 15:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN stipulates: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (original emphasis) Any disagreement about this principle should be discussed at that policy's talk page.

The original date for Anna Maria, 25 December 1789, was added by Worc63 on 7 October 2008, presumably based on sources, but as was common in those days, not formally cited. The recently proposed date of 16 November is presumably based on http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Person:50083 where it is shown since December 2006. I suggest that page is unreliable because it doesn't mention her full name, Anna Maria, and it gets the date of death for Franz Xaver wrong. On the other hand, 2 independent blogs with the December date can easily be found (http://mozartsmusic.blogspot.com.au/p/mozart-q_10.html and http://saidenough.wordpress.com/2009/06/), but none with the November date. Further, 25 December 1789 is mentioned in Mozart's article here on Wikipedia where it is presumably sufficiently scrutinised. I suggest to restore this article to a version which shows the consistently used date. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Contact Basemetal here 12:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Basemetal 15:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

After consulting Mozart Day by Day at the Mozarteum which gives November 16, I've changed my mind, and the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Marriage to Mozart - speculative and personal opinion

I am amazed that such a large inclusion has gone unnoticed without comment to the section Marriage to Mozart - a section prior was basically a historical account of the actual marriage, its dates and locations, and heritage. The contribution of letters and assumption of the nature of their marriage should either be a separate section or a completely new article all its own; specifically analyzing the letters and their meaning. The opening sentence to the newly included material: It is impossible to determine from the historical record if Constanze's marriage to Mozart was a happy one sets up a direct line of personal opinion and based solely on research confirming such. Extractions of the Mozart letters in this fashion, especially here with a condensed summary without proper citations to source the statements, open a means of inclusion that does not really belong in this section (perhaps not on this page at all). Furthermore, I do not remember seeing the question or debate that the marriage was a happy one to begin with -- and certainly, this new inclusion does not confirm or deny such claim. In fact, it confuses the matter. I strongly suggest that this newly, non-sourced material, drawn heavily on summary from personal opinion be discussed at length to remain. I personally see no reason to speculate a question or idea that is not even reasonable or necessary: It is impossible to determine from the historical record if Constanze's marriage to Mozart was a happy one. Presently, nearly every statement needs a citation-needed tag to remain. Statements that are not even brought up on the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart page. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC

You're right, it needs sourcing to go in, so I took it out. On the other hand, this is an item in Mozart biographies, so something ought to be done about it in the long run. Opus33 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Opus33. Yes, I agree, this may be an item in the Mozart biographies; but if it does not even show up on the Mozart WP, then it far should be brought up here first. It is an assumption based on his letters to Constanze that the marriage was happy, or even more so, that she herself was happy in the marriage (based on his letters to her). Her letters addressing the issue would be more pertinent to support such a claim in this article. If the original contributor wishes to address such issues, I suggest an article all its own on the letters and their implications; or finding better sources to back his/her claims. Creating a new section would help, too; if such a claim is even necessary. Perhaps even moving it to the Mozart page since the original inclusions here were directed toward facts regarding such matters as The Magic Flute and not Constanze. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Wolff (2012:8), citing Bauer"

Wolff writes, "Constanze, who survived the composer by more than a half-century and upon her death in 1842 still left her two sons a major fortune of some 30,000 florins in cash, bonds, and savings accounts – all based on earnings from Mozart's music". The problem is that Bauer's claim is simply false. Like most things Bauer wrote in his book. That misinformation has been published in print, does not mean it should be cited on Wikipedia.--77.80.49.86 (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anon,

Thank you for your observation. However, assuming you are the same Vienna-based editor I've communicated with in the past, I would say that this is the same problem we have encountered over and over. By its own laws, WP cannot rely on the input of individual editors as a scholarly source (see WP:VER and WP:NOR). So, if you tell me that Bauer (or any other source material) is unreliable without giving the scholarly sources that tell us this, there is really nothing I can do to address your complaint, much as I would like to.

Incidentally, Wolf also cites a scholarly article by Erich Valentin in Neues Mozart Jahrbuch (1942). Would this work any better? Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

In regards to the constant removal of the section Treatment by biographers by The Great Corrector. Inviting editors involved: Michael Bednarek and Sparafucil and editors of this article here on this Talk Page; in additional to the original editor for initial discussion to reach a consensus rather than in-article reversions with opposing summary views. Regardless of outcome, hopefully this will put an end to the reversions. Thanks to all. Maineartists (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Sparafucil. I saw that you reverted the edit once again. Any chance you can bring your reasons here to better gain consensus so that the original editor does not simply revert your edit? Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Influences on Mozart's music

One could try to avoid the narrow point of view that Constanze had a direct influence of Mozart's compositions, or that an aria was intended for her (this is purely professional) and therefor reveals something about her influence. In my opinion the relation they had, and foremost the love they had together is the main source of inspiration for some of Mozart's best composition, for example the second duo for violin and alto KV 424. 2A02:A03F:615C:9C00:7DEF:351:A1BB:5F5A (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@Maineartists: Do you have a rationale for this edit other than personal animosity? You reference ONUS, but that indicates that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, which in this case is yourself. Please also have a read through WP:NPA - telling other editors that they "contribute nothing to WP" is uncivil and inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Disputed content"? You have been at WP long enough to know that what you just wrote is completely incorrect. ONUS is only applied when an editor has introduced new content; which has been challenged - and / or removed - by another editor. I didn't dispute the content - you did. Thus placing the ONUS on you. As for civil, "contributing" and "constantly deleting / removing" is not uncivil or inappropriate - but simply stating a fact. Your long history of deleting / removing based on "find-a-grave" and other "across-the-board" removals have - I'm sorry to say - placed a label on your contributions at WP. Last I checked, 1st Amendment allows me freedom of speech. Maineartists (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, particularly not for speech which attacks other editors. And disagreeing with my approach to reliable sourcing is irrelevant to the content under dispute here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, WP:NOTFREESPEECH is not applicable to what you are trying to enforce here. Absolutely nothing within WP:NOTFREESPEECH states that I cannot say that you constantly delete and remove at WP rather than contribute. My opinion is not governed by any WP policy whether you like it or not. As for: reliable sourcing??? Are you kidding? The article page for Joseph Lange actually displays the portrait of Constanze Mozart! What are you contesting here? You originally just placed [ce] for your history summary. Instead of constantly linking WP shortcuts, why don't you back up your edits with actual cohesive sentences that editors can contend. The caption as it stands is encyclopedic and justifiable. Care to actually converse as to why it is not??? Maineartists (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You can have whatever opinions you please, but you are not free to express them as you please - you are required to be civil and refrain from personal attacks, and saying that someone else contributes nothing is neither of those things. Please focus on the content and not the contributor.

As for reliable sourcing, if you read my comment, it explicitly states that that is not relevant to the content under dispute here.

What is relevant is our style guidelines, which indicate that the purpose of the infobox is to summarize the key facts that appear in the article, and that such captions are to be avoided in this context. I haven't seen any explanation of why the version you prefer is "justifiable" - could you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, stop it. You linked an entire policy and wrote in: "such captions are to be avoided in this context" to try and support your edit. When in reality the painting is supported by: "If the image to be captioned is a painting, an editor can give context with the painter's wikilinked name, the title, and a date.". The painting is a portrait of Constance Mozart by Joseph Lange c. 1782. Once again you pontificate "our" as if you are a member of an exclusive group at "WE"kipedia and everyone else has "something to learn". You hide behind endless WP policy linkage without actually using your own words to defend your edits. Where, in all of WP:CAP, does it say to remove the artist's name and simply caption "Portrait" as good article writing at WP???? Every infobox photo has a caption beneath that elaborates who, what, where and when. Without tagging a "shortcut" title, find where it precisely backs your reasoning for removal with exact wording. By the way, I have seen that you already "contributed" to the Mozart article: [2] and you are completely misreading how to administer the MOS/CAP. You are confusing credit and Creative Common licenses with encyclopedic information. As can be seen with the example captioning the image: "The midnight visit of "The Raven" as illustrated by Édouard Manet (1875)". BTW, it is amazing what I discovered by simply searching for historical figures that have portrait paintings in their infoboxes and glean the history summary: [3], [4], [5]. It's simply ridiculous to read Portrait when other articles read: Ludwig van Beethoven, Napoleon, Pablo Picasso, Dora Carrington, Julius Caesar, etc, etc, etc ... Did you ever stop and think for one second that if all these other editors and articles captioned images in infoboxes, that perhaps it was correct? Did you ever stop to think WHY WP even has a "caption" option underneath an image in their infoboxes??? Obviously not just for "Portrait". You may want to re-think why you are going around "reverting" so many already long-standing content. Do you really believe you are the only one correct, and every article and editor is wrong? Maineartists (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

While in general I hugely appreciate the editorial contributions of Nikkimaria, in this particular case I would like to suggest that it is good to provide a lot of information about any historical portrait. Why? Because the greats of the classical period are often represented in totally bogus portraits, often provided by cynical 19th century publishers. There are horrible, stupid portraits of (for example) Mozart and Haydn that look nothing like the historically authenticated portraits. If we provide the artist information in our infoboxes, then we give some support that the portrait really is authentic. Even better, I think, to say where the portrait currently resides (e.g. in some particular museum) -- because museums employ art history scholars to check the authenticity of the works they contain. When I read published scholarly books about composers, I often see that they authenticate their portraits by providing the artist and current location. I hope this is helpful. Opus33 (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)