Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Postmortem Daguerreotype of Chopin??

Elene,

Thanks for your reply. Re the death mask, I'm familiar with the book you mention, which contains many factual errors and is not a book I would recommend. I was actually looking for a more factual and verifiable source. I didn't mention in my original message but another factor that weighs heavily against the story of Clesinger re-modelling the death mask is the collection of deathbed drawings of Chopin by Kwiatkowski (also mentioned by Frycek earlier in this thread). Kwiatkowski was drawing the real person on October 18th, and not Clesinger's death mask. Clesinger would have had to 'rearrange' the face of the real Chopin, not just his death mask, if these sketches are accurate and the 'Clesinger death mask remodelling' story is true. Since clearly BOTH can't be true I'm inclined to stick with my belief that the 'distorted' death mask of Chopin is either NOT Chopin or simply a very bad (i.e. inaccurate) first attempt at the death mask (for example it's clear the nose got unnaturally bent in the modelling).

Does anyone have a side view photograph of the supposed 'first' Clesinger Chopin death mask? That could certainly help clear up any question about it's authenticity and I will be very happy (even excited) to eat my own words!

As to the highly questionable daguerreotype purported to be of Chopin on his death bed, I was initially responding to Frycek's comment "It looks quite a bit like him" because in my view it looked nothing like Chopin (based on authenticated images of the composer). However Frycek did later say "It looks a lot like some of the very idealized liknesses of him around" with which I would agree, but since those 'idealized likenesses' also don't look anything like Chopin that immediately made me suspicious of it's authenticity (together with the fact that the owner refused to name his source!).

I'm sure we all wish there were more authentic images of Chopin. After all, there are some very clear photographs of both Liszt and George Sand taken during Chopin's lifetime. The trouble is Chopin was not interested in preserving his image for posterity and were're lucky to have what we have! Given the photographic methods of the time it would be impossible to have a photograph of Chopin smiling for example, but just imagine it (after all, people who don't know Chopin so well don't realise he had a tremendous sense of fun too!).

Those death mask pictures are HUGE!

Got a little jump when they popped up!

Thanks, Frycek, for the information. As I mentioned in my reply to Elene's comment I was already aware of this book, which I find has too many factual errors to be a trustworthy source. Do you by any chance have a photograph of the side view of this supposed 'first attempt' death mask? That could certainly make things clearer, though it still wouldn't authenticate the story concerning Ludwika's reaction to the death mask. Like I said to Elene, I'd be so happy (excited even!) to eat my words if my current view can be corrected.

I concede. Fresh from the humiliation of the William Cullen mask fiasco, I have neither the heart nor credibility to argue the matter, especially has you have already dismissed my source, a work that I have neither the resources to verify nor any particular desire to defend.

As for myself, I've discovered time and again that one can trust almost nothing of what one reads about Chopin. And having also discovered with great bitterness that I lack the critical faculty, scholarly background or perhaps clairvoyance necessary to detect the lies, whatever small part I've played here is done.

Side view photographs of the first version of the Clesinger Chopin death mask may be found in Ernst Burger, Frederic Chopin: Eine Lebenschronik in Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: Hirmer, 1990), p. 340 (the side views are compared with the retouched versions on p. 341). I've also seen somewhere in the Polish literature a discussion of the various versions of the death mask, but I don't have time at the moment to track this down. The early version posted above is generally accepted as authentic by Chopin scholars - subject to correction, as always!

Jeff Kallberg

Again, Dr. Jeff saves the day! I was hoping you might have some information to clarify this mask business. The source you cited is not one that most of us would have access to, it seems. I had certainly never come across a side-view picture of the distorted "first" mask, and was about to tell Jack that there didn't seem to be any around.

(Jack, I don't understand why you would berate Frycek for failing to have information that she couldn't possibly have had. She has been careful and scholarly over the years, and is not given to making unsupported or wild statements about historical matters. None of us who are not professional musicologists had access to any more information about that mask than was given in Eisler's book-- questionable as it is-- as far as I know. )

I've started to wonder why that failed mask was kept at all. Why didn't they just destroy it? Hmm.

By the way, Eisler uses only a photo of that mask in her book Chopin's Funeral, not a photo of the more successful one. I think it's in keeping with the way she accents the negative throughout the book, showing everyone in the worst possible light much of the time. (At least that was how the book struck me.)

If I remember correctly, and I may not, Eisler also implied that the "good" mask was more a sculpture than an accurate cast of Chopin's face, that after the first attempt came out so badly, Clesinger sculpted a better mask. I'll have to look that up-- I'm also not sure if I've seen the same idea somewhere else. However, I definitely accept the second mask, the one that so many of us own copies of, as the real thing. Some aspects of it may possibly have been tweaked, but I can clearly feel the landmarks in the skull that I would use to find acupuncture points. My physical therapist friend who does more cranial work than I do was not only convinced but was thoroughly freaked out when she saw and felt those details in the bone structure. It was just too much like touching an actual corpse for her taste.

And there is still a degree of distortion in that mask, too, especially in the slightly squished nose. I guess the weight of plaster will do that. I haven't gotten around to asking my friend who used to make life masks about how one deals with this.

I would like to suggest that, since this has become a fairly substantial discussion, we meet back at the "Just for those totally devoted to Chopin" thread, where other people are more likely to find this stuff.

Elene

I would love to see the side-view photographs in Ernst Burger's book. Thank you, Dr. Jeff, for referring us to it. I have a new book on my wish list.

Thanks for that information. I look forward to seeing those pictures. I must say I still find it hard to see a physical likeness to Chopin in this 'first' mask, (i.e. as compared with the photographs) so am hoping these additional pictures will resolve my query.

I wish I could share your confidence in 'Chopin scholars' but alas I've read so much nonsense about Chopin from so-called scholars over the years I'm afraid the very mention of the phrase "Chopin scholars' makes me see red! However the beneficial effect of my pessimism is that when good scholarship turns up something wonderful I am usually elated!

Thanks again for the information and best wishes,

Jack

Dear Frycek,

If, as Elene suggests, you felt under attack from my queries I profusely apologise. Like you I am just always keenly looking for the truth when it comes to Chopin, a subject I am as passionate about as everyone else here! And as you speak here with great knowledge I was turning to you earnestly for an answer to my conundrum - apologies again if I came on too strong! Though Jeff Kalberg has kindly supplied a reference which I am eager to follow up, once again it is only a recent publication and not a factual source, so may still not prove conclusive. So I hope you will continue your search for the truth. When so much that is written about Chopin is untrustworthy, as you so rightly say, the instincts of all of us, 'scholars' or not (and I have a particular aversion to that much abused word!) become even more valid. Best wishes, Jack

Elene,

Perhaps I came on too strong - like everybody here I am so passionate at finding the truth that I may forget myself. Incidentally Jeff Kallberg's kind intervention may still not resolve this conundrum, as it's merely another recent publication as opposed to a factual source but I am looking forward to seeing the side-view photographs which should make everything very clear. Unless someone else here has access to this work and can reproduce the pictures I will try to upload the images to this forum as soon as I have them.

I agree with your implication that Eisler is barking up the wrong tree by suggesting that the 'second' mask was more a sculpture. For a start Clesinger was not that good a sculptor (!), and when you compare this commonly known death mask of Chopin with his photographs the resemblance is blatant (which cannot be said of the 'first' mask, judging from the one photograph reproduced in Eisler). But I have seen variations in the various reproductions of the well-known death mask (e.g. where the surface has been over polished etc.) so it is true that some reproductions are more 'sculpted' than others. It seems odd to me that the 'first' death mask has not been reproduced more widely if (as Jeff Kallberg suggests) it is generally seen as authentic. It was a similar situation with the 1846 photograph (or daguerreotype) of Chopin, that no one seemed interested in until recently, despite it's occasional publication over the years (it's not as though there is an abundance of photographs of Chopin after all!).

Best wishes, Jack

Gee, this sure sounds familiar. Let me say something similar, however, and there will be those waiting to lambaste me.

Can we say with a certainty that the daguerreotype in question is, indeed, of Chopin? I don't believe so, nor do I believe at all that it is Fred, himself.

I would speculate that we don't see that "failed" death mask pictured in books very often because it is ugly and disturbing and we don't want to think of Chopin that way-- as well as because it didn't give an accurate portrayal of his face. It was interesting to note that Eisler uses only that one and not the "good" one in her book; again, she seems to want to bring out the worst in everything and everyone.

The 1846 image is so unclear that I don't think we can definitively say whether it is Chopin-- which we probably couldn't do without knowing its exact provenance anyway, since it could possibly just be someone who looked an awful lot like him. (I don't know anything about where it's supposed to have come from, and if anyone has information, I hope you'll share it.) However, that daguerrotype seems evocative of the fuzziness and uncertainty that seems to affect the greater part of what we know about Chopin, or think we know. It's like looking at the subject through a veil. I'm so accustomed to so much about Chopin existing in a sort of quantum uncertainty state, a smear of possibilities rather than pinned-down facts, that I hardly notice it anymore. But I'd sure rather have hard facts when I can get them.

I saw something in a comment (author unknown, so I can't credit him) to an article on a controversial issue in astronomy yesterday that applies to this situation fairly well, though it was completely unrelated to our subject:

"In my experience as an astronomer (and an ignorant schoolboy before that), it takes an educated scientist to fully appreciate the scientific method. A layman has no idea of how often mistakes are made, miscalculations are overlooked, datasets are filtered to support a popular hypothesis and how many conclusions are jumped to out of mere enthusiasm. This skeptical attitude tends to frustrate those who do not seek the actual truth, but the truth they would like to find. Our present day science would however be a mishmash of complete nonsense if scientists did not demand absolute proof for any claim. And since nothing is ever completely proven, science will always retain its skeptical outlook on all claims and theories, if only to get closer to the unknowable truth."

I guess that's the best we can do, to try to "get closer to the unknowable truth." I'm still not sure why we care so much about knowing the truth about this particular man, but we do, and we keep trying.

Our remoteness from most primary sources is a constant frustration.

Elene

I like your quote (re astronomy), and share your frustration of our remoteness from primary sources too. And yes, information on the 2nd photograph/daguerreotype of Chopin seems hard to come by. I see 'stores' (and many others) still doubt the authenticity of this 2nd Chopin photographic image, and it's true my own reaction, when I first saw this 2nd photograph back in 1990, was that I thought it didn't look like Chopin (as I imagined him to look). But over the years, looking more carefully at this image and comparing it with other images, I have come to realise just how closely the face fits with the more authenticated images (e.g. the 1847 Winterhalter drawings which Chopin himself thought were good likenesses, as opposed to the famous 1838 Delacroix portrait, a wonderful painting but inaccurate physically). There's also a nervous tension in this 1846/47 daguerreotype which you rarely see in people, which for me gives the picture some authenticity (and of course there's the unique curled hair style, identical to the more famous Chopin photograph and to the Winterhalter drawings etc., and the nose, mouth, and eyelids are also very close to other reliable images and descriptions). All the above, put together in a single image, makes a striking case for this image's authenticity. Having said all that it would be nice, like you say, if the Chopin Museum, or whoever owns the earliest copy of this photograph, could supply more information on it's history/provenance. At least when we come to his music we know more about the man than many people who actually knew him in person might have known! We should be so thankful and fortunate that music is so capable of conveying, over a century later, the most intimate thoughts and emotions of such a profound person!

I've placed these three profiles alongside each other. Do they look similar?
left: the purported Clesinger first attempt death mask side view;
centre: the 1846 daguerreotype;
right: the more well known Clesinger death mask.

Curious to get people's reactions.

This photograph of Chopin is very different from 1849
photograph even compeletly different like 2 distinct person in 1849 photo Chopin look more handsome and more charismatic and his nose more properly.

I agree that the 1849 photograph is extraordinary, and as I said, I myself was sceptical at first of this 2nd photographic image. But there are many superficial physical likenesses not only between the 1846 and 1849 pictures but also with the 1847 Winterhalter drawings. And after all, who else could look like this (not as silly a thought as you might think: it's a fairly distinctive look - and hair cut! - though I know it's hard to see his expression in such a deteriorated image)? I'm just suggesting that people keep an open mind. I am busy trying to open my own mind right now into accepting that the first death mask of Clesinger could be authentic, having for years denied it. Sometimes we have a fixed idea in our heads that can be hard to dislodge when something different to our expectations comes along.

Also the 3 pictures at the above you indicated like 3 different person first one look like an death mask of an old at least 70 years old man second one indeed not look like Chopin in 1849 and the third one i think the third one very close to his 1849 photo and probably the most right one.

Fascinating to see the side view of that first mask! Thanks, Jack-- how did you find the image to post? It still looks to me like it's the same bone structure as the better mask, but with the jaw pushed back and the mouth badly squished. Rather the way that poor Cullen's mouth got messed up, but fortunately less grotesque.

The more I look at that 1846 daguerreotype, the more I think it must be Really Him. Especially the small, thin body and the overall delicacy.

When I tried to find out something more about that image, I ended up with what's been previously posted at PW, and at Jack's blog. A circular path that led to no more than what's already been said here. I am hoping that I can find more at Polish sites, perhaps at the museum where the daguerreotype lives, but I don't have time to try to dig into that just now. (I can read just enough Polish to be dangerous, and otherwise can get translations.)

I noticed that one of the comments on Jack's blog post from The Birthday last year was a guy who's helped to edit the Wikipedia entry on Chopin. I always wondered who those people were! And I feel guilty for not contributing to the effort-- and not knowing how. I checked the Wiki page, and unless I am misremembering what it used to be like (very possible), it seemed to me that it has improved since the last time I looked, and I learned a few new facts. There are still some errors, though. What does one do about that, I wonder?

BTW, someone said that Clesinger wasn't a very good sculptor-- I disagree. Have you seen his bust of George Sand, or his self-portrait bust? They're both at the Musee de la Vie Romantique in Paris, and they are formidable. Then there is the gorgeous head of Chopin based on the death mask-- my favorite of all Chopin portraits. I think most likely he could have done quite well in his career if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility, substance abuse, general meanness, etc.

Elene

Elene, I'm afraid it was me that said that Clesinger wasn't a great sculptor - sorry! To be fair I have seen some great things he did, but I hate to say it, I never liked the bust he did of Chopin, though presumably that's the one that is your favourite so I'm already beginning to look at it with kinder eyes! (I've added it below). In the past every time I compared it with the death mask it only emphasized the death mask's authenticity and told me that Clesinger couldn't have been able to carve such an accurate death mask from imagination (as Eisler has suggested). Of course I'm busy eating humble pie today as I try to grapple with the idea that the 'first' death mask may be authentic so I better watch what I say! I'm still not 100% convinced yet about the first mask and would love to learn more about the evidence supporting it's claim. Even if it is authentic it might still simply be a botched first attempt, as opposed to an accurate depiction of Chopin's suffering. Interestingly, Clesinger's bust does look quite like the 1846 daguerreotype. It's like a jigsaw, when one piece fits it seems to open up other pieces that didn't seem to fit before. I wonder if I have been as guilty as others in having a certain 'image' of Chopin's appearance in my head that may not be as accurate as I thought. You asked earlier why do we care so much? But I remember the excitement when I first saw moving images of Gershwin and could see the person as a living and vital human being. I would give anything to go back in time and meet, see, hear Chopin! Seeing good still images is amazing, but seeing someone move - you can tell a lot about a person from the way they move, walk, laugh, don't you think? Oh well - time to talk to my psychiatrist!

Jack