The Erfurt portrait: not Johann Sebastian Bach

This is the picture that usually appears when a "young Bach" is wanted: on record sleeves, in programme books, in biographies. It hangs in the Angermuseum in Erfurt, is attributed to the Weimar court painter J. E. Rentsch the Elder (d. 1723), and is said to show Bach as Concertmeister in Weimar, between 1708 and 1717. Besseler (1956) counted it among his five genuine portraits. It is not Bach.

The painting surfaced around 1877, was bought by the museum in 1907, restored, and published in the same year by its director, Alfred Overmann, as possibly a portrait of Bach. Teri Noel Towe compared the photographs taken before and after that restoration and concluded that the face had been adjusted to resemble the Haussmann portrait as it then looked. The core of his argument follows.

DW

Abridged from Mr. Towe's seven web pages of 2001. Omitted are the autobiographical passages, the account of his search for the sources, the discussion of the restorations of the 1746 Haussmann (see that page) and the comparisons for which the images are lost. Omissions are marked […]. His full text is at bach-cantatas.com.

Is this young man really Johann Sebastian Bach?

Two of the most widely reproduced portraits of Bach are widely regarded with suspicion. Those two portraits are, first, the painting now in the Bach Museum in Eisenach, that is attributed to J. J. Ihle and is alleged to depict Johann Sebastian Bach during his tenure as Capellmeister to Prince Leopold von Anhalt-Cöthen, between 1717 and 1723, and, second, the portrait attributed to the Weimar Court Painter, J. E. Rentsch, the Elder (d. 1723), now in the Angermuseum in Erfurt, that is alleged to depict Johann Sebastian Bach during the years that he spent in Weimar, as Court Organist and Concertmeister, between 1708 and 1717 […]

The harsh reality of my discovery sank in slowly, but it sank in bitterly. I had hoped that locating the photograph of the unrestored painting would enable me to remove doubt, but I had hoped for a different result when the doubt was removed. It is a bitter pill, but it is one that must be swallowed. Sadly, the Erfurt Portrait is the product of deception, a carefully considered and carefully calculated deception. Its "discoverers" and its "restorers" sought to capitalize on a fortuitous opportunity, and, after careful assessment of the available knowledge, they capitalized on the opportunity, secure in the belief that they would get away with it. And until now, they have gotten away with it […]

The inscription that was not kept

[…] I turned first to Werner Neumann's commentary in Bilddokumente zur Lebensgeschichten Johann Sebastian Bachs. This is what I found:

"...Oil on canvas 60x44 cm with no artist's signature, but earlier with the following words on the back in a reputedly original rococo handwriting: 'Joh. Sebast. Bach / geb. d. 21 Mar. 1685 / zu Eisenach'. Found in about 1877 in the attic of a house in Erfurt, owned until 1907 by a master tailor who collected pictures and bought from him by the Angermuseum, the City Museum of Erfurt, renovated and declared by the director Alfred Overmann to be possibly a picture of Bach...." (BDL, p. 403)

[…] Besseler clearly took his statement of the provenance directly from Prof. Dr. Overmann's account, but like his source, Besseler begs an important question. If the painting had an inscription on the back in a Rococo hand identifying the subject as Johann Sebastian Bach, and giving the date and the town of birth as well, why was that inscription not preserved or, at the very least, photographed or traced? That the physical evidence of the painting's provenance was not preserved is suspect, particularly since no explanation of why it was not preserved is offered. […]

Before and after the restoration of 1907

Overmann published the painting in Die Musik, 1907, Heft 6, with a photograph of the unrestored canvas and one of the restored canvas. His article (three pages, in German) is here as a pdf.

And now, finally, just the faces, without the distraction of hair (whether real or a perruque) and clothing:

Alas, the verdict is unchanged. The "liberties" taken by the undeniably adept restorer are as apparent as before. […]

The cheekbones

Overmann names his standard of comparison: the Haussmann portrait in the Thomasschule. In 1907 that was the 1746 portrait as Schönfelder had restored it in 1895, before the overpaint was removed in 1913. Mr. Towe sets it between the Erfurt head before and after restoration:

[…] 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 […] for the 1746 Haussmann Portrait as restored by Schönfelder:

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

The nose

[…] 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 […]. 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:

[…] The nose of the Erfurt Portrait did not mature into the nose of the 1748 Haussmann Portrait.

Conclusion

No, alas, and it pains me to write it, the Erfurt Portrait is NOT an accurate depiction of the facial features of Johann Sebastian Bach, at any age, much less during his tenure as Concertmeister at the ducal courts in Weimar. Of course, nothing that I write will stop, or even begin to slow down, the circulation of this understandably well-loved painting and its ongoing misidentification as a portrait of a "young" Johann Sebastian Bach. It has become an icon and a ubiquitous one at that. […]

For most people who suffer from it, the Erfurt Portrait satisfies the gnawing craving for a "believable" portrait of "that Bach", a young Johann Sebastian Bach. The Erfurt Portrait has metamorphosed from a battered portrait of an unidentifed young 18th century gentleman into a popular, accessible, instantly recognizable image of the "Weimar" Johann Sebastian Bach, an image that lives and that will live, worldwide, auf immer, und ewig, von nun an.

Teri Noel Towe
August 10, 2001

The Face of Bach · Bach's sons