Talk:Haydn's skull

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Austria

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Death

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skull versus head

How this tale has escaped my notice for all these years I will never know! However, unlike the case of Jeremy Bentham, the head per se does not seem to have been preserved. So it seems to me that this article should really be called "Haydn's skull", since that's what is actually discussed throughout the article. Any thoughts? Cgingold (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in picking a title I believe I was more or less followed my reference sources. It's useful to remember that at the moment it was stolen, the object in question was indeed a (decomposing, smelly) head and not yet a skull, which adds to the luridness of the tale. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous

Apart from presenting misinformation this article is basically superfluous. Haydn's burial was not simple, "because of the occupation by Napoleon's troops", but due to the regulations that Haydn had put down in his will. The "Hundsthurmer Friedhof" was neither a churchyard nor was is situated in Gumpendorf. Not surprisingly it was located in the suburb of Hundsthurm. Haydn was not buried in Gumpendorf, as a matter of fact he had never even lived in Gumpendorf, only his body was consecrated there. Rosenbaum's first name was not just "Karl". He always signed his name "Joseph Carl Rosenbaum" and that's how his name is written on his tombstone. Haydn had nothing to do with Rosenbaum's marriage to Therese Gassmann (Pohl and Botstiber 1878[!] are completely out-of-date). This marriage was was made possible by Gassmann's former guardian and teacher Antonio Salieri.--Suessmayr (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I'll recheck these points in reference sources and if they verify what you say I'll make suitable changes.

Re. whether the topic is worthy of inclusion in WP: a reader asked for it (so it seems people are curious about it), and it's covered in Geiringer and Gotwals. I don't really see any problem here. Opus33 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at the BBC even made a half-hour radio programme about it (see refs; I actually heard it): seems worthy of inclusion to me! Pfistermeister (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl Rosenbaum" came from Geiringer (1989). Checking in Jones (2009) The Life of Haydn and also Jones (2001) Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn I see "Joseph Carl Rosenbaum", and it seems sensible to go with the more recent source so I have changed it accordingly. The other items are still in progress. Thanks again for the hints. Opus33 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the cemetery being in Gumpendorf, I have Jones (2009, Oxford Composer Companions, 142 also Else Radant Landon, "Haydn's skull", p. 152 in the same book, with "Gumpendorf" and "churchyard")). I've not insisted on this point, and worked around it by not saying what village the cemetery was in.

For the funeral being simple due to the French occupation, I have Webster (2002, 43). None of the sources I have on hand indicate that Haydn's funeral was simple at his own request and I would need to see a source before changing the text. Perhaps Suessmayr might suggest one (I have seen the will and it doesn't do it). Opus33 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Haydn's efforts to assist Rosenbaum's marriage to Gassmann, I'm currently citing Rice's contribution to Jones's Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn. It appears to be correct that Haydn's efforts were not successful, but to say "Haydn had nothing to do with Rosenbaum's marriage to Therese Gassmann" strikes me as disingenuous. The point at hand is that Rosenbaum was robbing the grave of someone who had treated him as a friend. Opus33 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Haydn not living in Gumpendorf: this one is really quite baffling: do multiple Haydn biographers and scholars really get this one wrong? Jones (2009, 140): "in 1793 Haydn had bought a house in the Viennese suburb of Gumpendorf". H. C. Robbins Landon (in Jones's compendium): "[Elssler] and his wife lived with Haydn in his house in Gumpendorf." Griesinger (1810): "he bought in Gumpendorf, a suburb of Vienna, ... the house at No. 73". Dies (1810): "his wife [asked that he buy] a pretty little one-story house .. in the suburb Gumpendorf." Dies (p. 192, Gotwals translation) has "Haydn's dwelling lay near the outer limits of the suburb Gumpendorf"; conceivably the original German (which I don't have with me) would indicate something that would match what Suessmayr might be suggesting--just barely over the village line? But with what I currently have to work with, it would seem quite wrong to change the text on this point. Opus33 (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Haydn biographers and scholars get this one wrong, because they have absolutely no knowledge of Viennese geography and the history of Vienna's suburbs and simply copy this false information from each other. And yet today it's very easy to figure all this out with the historical Häuserverzeichnisse on Google books. Haydn's house Steingasse 73 was located in the suburb Windmühle which was part of the parish St. Ägidius in Gumpendorf. The Windmühle was a completely separate suburb. See: Verzeichniß aller in der k.k. Residenz-Stadt Wien und ihren Vorstädten befindlichen Straßen etc. 1798 (with the wrong name "Katharina Haiden" as the house's owner).--Suessmayr (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"after Rosenbaum had left Esterházy employment"

This information, allegedly based on Rice 2009, is false. Of course, at the time of his marriage in 1800, Rosenbaum was still employed with Count Esterházy. The Count even served as Rosenbaum's best man. John Rice is certainly not an expert on the life of Joseph Carl Rosenbaum. As to my knowledge he has never done any research on Rosenbaum, even less read Rosenbaum's diary.--Suessmayr~enwiki (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geiringer

For when Karl Geiringer showed the skull to visitors, I've restored "who worked at the Society before the advent of Hitler,". I think some sort of indication of the time frame is useful, because sensitivity to treatment of human remains has arguably gone up since the 1930's. I could have just added "in the 1930's", but I think it's a little nicer to Geiringer's memory to indicate why he had to leave his job in Vienna. Opus33 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final location of head.

The third sentence of the article says that the locatiom pf Haydn's head is still unknown; but the end of the article details how it was finally returned to the tomb where the rest of Haydn lies. I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to tamper with the article itself, but I feel this statement in the third sentence ought to be corrected. Perhaps just delete the words "the location of which remains unknown"? Should it be replaced with a brief description of where it is now, or would that simply needlessly duplicate the information at the end of the article on the return of the head? M.J.E. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]