Immortal Beloved - new theory!

[EternaLisa]

*The (often subtle) distinction between "Du" and "Sie" (200 years ago - mind you) is even for Germans today difficult to explain.

In J's case, there was one letter by LvB to her in 1805, where he "slipped" - he closed his letter with "Leb wohl Engel" [Farewell Angel] (which is "Du" as opposed to "Sie"). The custom then was that even engaged couples would never address each other by "Du" until after marriage - and then not always (Antonie Brentano, of all people, could not bring herself for years to call her husband "Du") .

*Ah language tis not-SLANGuage tis is!
I do vaguely recall Gail Altman attempting to make a case solid for Erdody by using the same "evidence' of Beethoven referring to her in the "Du" expression in support of her claim ... maybe Beethoven preferred using this "du" towards his female relations for his own reasons - certainly not thinkable that he would use it towards his own gender - unless jokingly so...perhaps B enjoyed amusing himself with actions that constituted custom-breaking not in his consideration to be criminal/harmful (I know I do at times)

Who knows?

xoxo

E

[JohnSpecialK]

Josephine was Beethoven's Only Beloved - Forever

Even if we exclude the events leading to the "Letter to his Immortal Beloved" (and the letter itself), the documentary evidence clearly establishes that LvB was in love with Josephine from May 1799 to 1809/10 (when she was forced to marry again, a not exactly happy event for all concerned), and also in contact several times after (in 1816, and via intermediary - usually Therese - in 1811 and a few times more). What is truly remarkable is not only that LvB was unusually happy during this earlier ("heroic") period (not as grumpy as later - after 1812), but that he produced more than 2/3 of his major musical works during the decade of 1799-1809! What is - still - little known (though analyzed by German musicologist) is that Jopsephine was not just a pupil of his and his beloved, but also the inspiration behind his compositional acievements. In any case, I see no point in dwelling ad nauseam on the doubtful memories of a peripheral figure like Fanny (who at best might be briefly mentioned in a footnote, like in my book, p. 121 n. 8).

[Peter]

Even if we exclude the events leading to the "Letter to his Immortal Beloved" (and the letter itself), the documentary evidence clearly establishes that LvB was in love with Josephine from May 1799 to 1809/10 (when she was forced to marry again, a not exactly happy event for all concerned), and also in contact several times after (in 1816, and via intermediary - usually Therese - in 1811 and a few times more). What is truly remarkable is not only that LvB was unusually happy during this earlier ("heroic") period (not as grumpy as later - after 1812), but that he produced more than 2/3 of his major musical works during the decade of 1799-1809! What is - still - little known (though analyzed by German musicologist) is that Jopsephine was not just a pupil of his and his beloved, but also the inspiration behind his compositional acievements. In any case, I see no point in dwelling ad nauseam on the doubtful memories of a peripheral figure like Fanny (who at best might be briefly mentioned in a footnote, like in my book, p. 121 n. 8).

Whilst convinced myself that Josephine is the most likely candidate, I also accept that there are problems here as well. Concerning your own points regarding Beethoven's happiness in the period 1799-1809 and the apparent positive effect on his composing there are big problems. Beethoven was rejected twice by Josephine in favour of other men and Josephine herself made it quite clear she wished for a platonic relationship, so Beethoven was in a position of unrequited love which I can tell you is not one condusive for happiness, but torment - the wonder is that if his feelings were so strong for her he was able to carry on at all, so I cannot accept that argument.

[EternaLisa]

* What is - still - little known (though analyzed by German musicologist) is that Jopsephine was not just a pupil of his and his beloved, *but also the inspiration behind his compositional acievements.
**In any case, I see no point in dwelling ad nauseam on the doubtful memories of a peripheral figure like Fanny (who at best might be briefly mentioned in a footnote, like in my book, p. 121 n. 8).

*oh my.....one can write a whole new thick publication in defense of that one claim (ie:amendment to the modification of the first 100% Specification to the Design/Build Variation on a IBL Theory.
Wouldn’t it “B” all the wiser then, prior to publishing another new theory on LVB’s IB, to run it through a gamut such as this forum, instead of having it picked apart after the fact? Hmmmm. I thoink I would

**”Your eyes are slanted”, the American quipped to his Chinese fellow college student. “Oh no my friend, yours are”

Ah, neither do I see no need to remark further, not to dwell, mind you (the reader) but to handily pick something apart that has been begging confrontation for centuries now. The invite for a rebuttal in place, I did so for make the point stick (in the right place) anyway. Reason being for one thing, I recognize the trouble with just “counting the big sensational major events” in a scenario, that is sensational only because people ‘make it so’ which, btw, if one can examine something so close to home as the meticulous little details in the big event of one’s own reality (ie: one’s life), does tend to rest heavily on the seemingly small insignificant stuff. Does a person discount these and then wonder why “I had this twisted dream two nights ago - but its too wierd to revisit in recollection”?

Yes, big fish evolve from little fish, or so I “hear”….

"blblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblb", yes, admittedly…(just don’t miss the message, here)…

for another thing, anyone who ventures to write on a subject that one does not have first hand knowledge/experience/wisdom resulting from being within the same spatial landscape as Beethoven, which Fanny girl was, and witness to a series of events, and one that the theory of which has been built upon down the ages, through speculative argumentation, one can naturally find oneself in the hotseat at one’s own efforts (desperados….) So rather than merely blowing off a seeming insignificant step in a progression of events in a day in the life of Beethoven’s life so recorded by said subject girl-associate of his with a statement such as: “I see no point in dwelling ad nauseam on the doubtful memories of a peripheral figure like Fanny (who at best might be briefly mentioned in a footnote, like in my book, p. 121 n. 8)”, (????? Who is any biographical writer to doubt anything about an annotated day in the life of a 19the century character they only read/heard about and had no dealings with?), one is going to be expected to defend one’s position on something thoroughly (to the end) by standing squarely behind in support of what it is that they write (and present for public scrutiny, if any credibility is going to be merited them (even if on the basis of a valiant stance of defending one’s position). It’s a trickier situation than to go squarely on the hard evidence of a centuries old document provided by someone who shared the same event as did F to B. That is why I wrote earlier that no one should be accepting of something merely in the stages of “most likey”. And no one ought ever ask or expect someone else to do so, either. (Maybe “too much ad nauseum information” whereas some is concerned but with reason: I feel a “seeming” exploitation (exploding out) of a few points here and there is necessary and comes with the package for better understanding of a spoken to situation-such as a highly debated subject as this one so merrily warrants….

alright, ladies and gents, no more "blblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblblb" on Fanny the Insignificant One, now that I have exploited my point - I promiss

onward....

xoxox

E

[EternaLisa]

Beethoven was rejected twice by Josephine in favour of other men and Josephine herself made it quite clear she wished for a platonic relationship.

I think she put that in writing ,herself, didn't she?

xoxo

E

[Quijote]

Fascinating posts by JohnSpecialK and EternaLisa. I am a Solomon "fan", but I am prepared to revise my opinion if the arguments are convincing enough. I am still digesting JohnSpecialK's tome. I do hope I am not the only one on this forum taking the time to read it. That said, I find something a bit desperate or "pleading" in its tone, which does not attract me.

[JohnSpecialK]

Beethoven was rejected twice by Josephine in favour of other men and Josephine herself made it quite clear she wished for a platonic relationship, so Beethoven was in a position of unrequited love which I can tell you is not one condusive for happiness, but torment - the wonder is that if his feelings were so strong for her he was able to carry on at all, so I cannot accept that argument.

Josephine never "rejected" Beethoven (evidence, please!), not twice, not once. She was forced in 1799 to marry Count Deym (just after having met LvB for the first time, and to some degree, both fell in love with each other). In 1810, she was again forced to marry, this time Baron Stackelberg who had seduced her on their journey in Geneva when she was sick and weak (witness his letter in 1815); he also threatened to discontinue the education of Josephine's children.

Beethoven's love of Josephine was indeed mainly (and almost constantly) languishing & yearning, but he was (until 1810) always full of "Hope" (the underlying theme of much of his music). He was able to sublimate his frustration during this decade into creativity. From 1810 on, Thayer already noted a significant drop in LvB's productivity (even more so, after 1812).

[Peter]

Josephine never "rejected" Beethoven (evidence, please!), not twice, not once. She was forced in 1799 to marry Count Deym (just after having met LvB for the first time, and to some degree, both fell in love with each other). In 1810, she was again forced to marry, this time Baron Stackelberg who had seduced her on their journey in Geneva when she was sick and weak (witness his letter in 1815); he also threatened to discontinue the education of Josephine's children.

Beethoven's love of Josephine was indeed mainly (and almost constantly) languishing & yearning, but he was (until 1810) always full of "Hope" (the underlying theme of much of his music). He was able to sublimate his frustration during this decade into creativity. From 1810 on, Thayer already noted a significant drop in LvB's productivity (even more so, after 1812).

Whilst not attempting to deny that his emotional life must have played a part, there are other factors involved which you don't mention - the increase in deafness, greater financial security and recognition that resulted from his 1814 triumphs, from 1815 his responsibility for his nephew, but also a change to the 3rd period which to many represents his finest achievements. So whilst there is a decline in quantity there is no such thing regarding quality.

[Peter]

Fascinating posts by JohnSpecialK and EternaLisa. I am a Solomon "fan", but I am prepared to revise my opinion if the arguments are convincing enough. I am still digesting JohnSpecialK's tome. I do hope I am not the only one on this forum taking the time to read it. That said, I find something a bit desperate or "pleading" in its tone, which does not attract me.

Antonie and Beethoven's respect for her husband Franz is the reason Solomon is wrong. How could Beethoven possibly have been contemplating marriage with her?

[Roehre]

Whilst not attempting to deny that his emotional life must have played a part, there are other factors involved which you don't mention - the increase in deafness, greater financial security and recognition that resulted from his 1814 triumphs, from 1815 his responsibility for his nephew, but also a change to the 3rd period which to many represents his finest achievements.

To name but a few.

So whilst there is a decline in quantity there is no such thing regarding quality.

I am not so sure whether B was actually composing much less than he did before (or after). He actually did eventually complete less music than he was used to. In that sense there undoubtedly was a drop in productivity. But -as the sketchbooks reveal- he was composing at approximately the same rate as he did previously.

He left quite a couple of projects unfinished (6th piano concerto, piano trio, BACH-overture, symphony in b, e.g.) which IMO was caused by the change of his style from "heroic" to "late" as well as his performing career being ended.

But if we take into account the work on Fidelio as well as all the folksongsarrangements, plus the sketches which were made in those years, and compare this to previous years, the picture is different.
There was still a slight drop in productivity -certainly caused by the first quote of Peter's here-, but not by far as dramatic as the lack of opus numbers produced in this period suggests.

[Peter]

To name but a few.



I am not so sure whether B was actually composing much less than he did before (or after). He actually did eventually complete less music than he was used to. In that sense there undoubtedly was a drop in productivity. But -as the sketchbooks reveal- he was composing at approximately the same rate as he did previously.

He left quite a couple of projects unfinished (6th piano concerto, piano trio, BACH-overture, symphony in b, e.g.) which IMO was caused by the change of his style from "heroic" to "late" as well as his performing career being ended.

But if we take into account the work on Fidelio as well as all the folksongsarrangements, plus the sketches which were made in those years, and compare this to previous years, the picture is different.
There was still a slight drop in productivity -certainly caused by the first quote of Peter's here-, but not by far as dramatic as the lack of opus numbers produced in this period suggests.

Yes I think this is true - if you look at the music written by date, the sparsest period is actually 1819-21, but even there you have Op.109 and Op.110.

[JohnSpecialK]

Whilst not attempting to deny that his emotional life must have played a part, there are other factors involved which you don't mention - the increase in deafness, greater financial security and recognition that resulted from his 1814 triumphs, from 1815 his responsibility for his nephew, but also a change to the 3rd period which to many represents his finest achievements. So whilst there is a decline in quantity there is no such thing regarding quality.

All points taken - except that they are all mentioned in my book (all 265 pages of which I can never quote here).
"Financial security": This was a Pyrrhus victory insofar as only Archduke Rudolph paid up - Kinsky died in 1812 (good timing...) and LvB had to implore his heirs for years until they resumed payments; Lobkowitz didn't pay for quite some time and then went bankrupt. The problems with the nephew were more distracting than helpful... The period of "decline" was ended in around 1818 (complete deafness and resignation); and no one doubts that the 9th, the Missa and the late String Quartets are in a class of their own. (All after Josephine's death.)
"Quality"? Either I am a completely biased Beethoven fan, or there was NEVEr a significant drop on quality of his compositions. (My humble opinion.)

[JohnSpecialK]

Fascinating posts by JohnSpecialK ... I find something a bit desperate or "pleading" in its tone...

The reason for this is my personal experience: When living in Germany (where I grew up), Goldschmidt's "Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte" was the first I ever read about LvB, and shortly after Tellenbach's "Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte Josephine Brunsvik" (in the 80s, both in German, never translated). After that I thought, the matter was settled. It was only later in New Zealand when attending a pre-concert talk by a music professor that I heard him mentioning Antonie being the "Immortal Beloved"; I tried to argue with him but soon learned that this belief (in Solomon) was apparently widespread. The movie by that title I watched with great expectations as I naïvely thought it would deal with the TRUTH; it was then the final upshot. Later I bought or read all of Solomon's publications on this matter - and was HORRIFIED. This man is not only PROFOUNDLY DISTURBED (to put it mildly), his speculations (obsession with SEX) and glaring misrepresentations (often based on awful translations) are outrageous. Therefore an entire chapter in my book is dedicated to this man who undeservedly won some fame in this regard...

And "pleading"?: Yes I think it is necessary to emphasize a bit the more than tragic fate and (underserved) lack of recognition Josephine had in Beethoven's life, i.e., to compensate in this way the prevailing bias. It's about time to put this matter right (2012 coming up).

[Peter]

All points taken - except that they are all mentioned in my book (all 265 pages of which I can never quote here).
"Financial security": This was a Pyrrhus victory insofar as only Archduke Rudolph paid up - Kinsky died in 1812 (good timing...) and LvB had to implore his heirs for years until they resumed payments; Lobkowitz didn't pay for quite some time and then went bankrupt. The problems with the nephew were more distracting than helpful... The period of "decline" was ended in around 1818 (complete deafness and resignation); and no one doubts that the 9th, the Missa and the late String Quartets are in a class of their own. (All after Josephine's death.)
"Quality"? Either I am a completely biased Beethoven fan, or there was NEVEr a significant drop on quality of his compositions. (My humble opinion.)

The financial security I was referring to was from 1814 which really was the high point in Beethoven's career regards recognition - he was able to purchase 8 bank shares. You link those last works with Josephine's death, which is rather strange, especially since the 3rd period works began when she was very much alive with the cello sonatas Op.102. The period of 'decline' you refer to (I presume 1812-18) produced amongst many other smaller works:
Symphony no.8 in F (Op.93)
Violin sonata in G (Op.96)
"Elegischer Gesang" (voc quartet & orch) (Op.118)
Piano sonata in Eminor (Op.90)
'Cello sonatas (Op.102)
"Meeresstille und gluckliche fahrt" (chor & orch) (Op.112)
Song-cycle "An die ferne Geliebte" (Op.98)
Piano sonata in A (Op.101)

[Quijote]

The reason for this is my personal experience: When living in Germany (where I grew up), Goldschmidt's "Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte" was the first I ever read about LvB, and shortly after Tellenbach's "Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte Josephine Brunsvik" (in the 80s, both in German, never translated). After that I thought, the matter was settled. It was only later in New Zealand when attending a pre-concert talk by a music professor that I heard him mentioning Antonie being the "Immortal Beloved"; I tried to argue with him but soon learned that this belief (in Solomon) was apparently widespread. The movie by that title I watched with great expectations as I naïvely thought it would deal with the TRUTH; it was then the final upshot. Later I bought or read all of Solomon's publications on this matter - and was HORRIFIED. This man is not only PROFOUNDLY DISTURBED (to put it mildly), his speculations (obsession with SEX) and glaring misrepresentations (often based on awful translations) are outrageous. Therefore an entire chapter in my book is dedicated to this man who undeservedly won some fame in this regard...

And "pleading"?: Yes I think it is necessary to emphasize a bit the more than tragic fate and (underserved) lack of recognition Josephine had in Beethoven's life, i.e., to compensate in this way the prevailing bias. It's about time to put this matter right (2012 coming up).

Gosh, that's a very strong condemnation of Solomon! Still, Beethoven in general and perhaps the immortal Belovèd in particular bring out the worst in all of us, n'est ce pas? In any case, I do appreciate that you have made available your investigations into the question, and I can assure you that I am still reading your "book" and am thoroughly enjoying it.