Karl van Beethoven...

[Megan]

This is not a book, but a long article, and as the title shows, it is in English. To sum it up: the IB was Josephine von Brunsvick, the "A" in Beethoven's diary really meant "St" (Stackelberg) and Minona von Stackelberg was Beethoven's daughter.

Thank you Cetto,

Have you read this article?
I am intrigued to a certain degree, but I wouldn't be sufficiently interested to do an indepth study on proving whether Beethoven fathered a child or not, something that can never really be proven.
I am curious to know why the ''A'' in Beethoven's diary really meant ''St.'' as in Stackelberg, as the ''A'' could also so easily have meant 'A' as in Anonim (Anonym), which is Minona spelt backwards.
The only known facts I have read is that Josephine gave birth to Minona in 1813 and the she was only 7 when Josephine died. She never married and died in straitened circumstances in Vienna age 83.

[Beethoven1]

A biography that I enjoyed very much is Barry Cooper's Beethoven.

[AlexOv]

I want to refer the forum to the following recent and highly interesting publication:

Rita Steblin: "Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zu Grunde.
"A New Look at Beethoven's Diary and the "Immortal Beloved"
in: Bonner Beethoven-Studien vol. 6

Cetto, I am unable to access the article to which you refer - the link goes to a page with a "chapter list" of some sort - and was wondering if you were able to tell us a little of the author's intentions and/or a summary of the article. I hasten to add that I cannot speak or read Deutsch so if the article was in that language, I would have a double setback!

[Peter]

Cetto, I am unable to access the article to which you refer - the link goes to a page with a "chapter list" of some sort - and was wondering if you were able to tell us a little of the author's intentions and/or a summary of the article. I hasten to add that I cannot speak or read Deutsch so if the article was in that language, I would have a double setback!

I think for 30 Euros you get the entire chapter list in one publication which includes the article referred to by Cetto - that essay is in English but the others in German if my understanding is correct!

[Megan]

Cetto, I am unable to access the article to which you refer - the link goes to a page with a "chapter list" of some sort - and was wondering if you were able to tell us a little of the author's intentions and/or a summary of the article. I hasten to add that I cannot speak or read Deutsch so if the article was in that language, I would have a double setback!

Alex,
There is plenty of excellent information on the Brunswick's , Beethoven and Minona.

http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Famille/F...nona.html#Midi

[AlexOv]

Thanks Megan.... most interesting. Certainly can see a resemblance there in the photo, but as you or someone else said, Beethoven's paternity cannot be proven and it is a bit of a dead end. Still, nice to think....

Thanks Peter, for your suggestion that I part with 30 Euros; Cetto did, after all, say "I want to refer the forum to the following recent and highly interesting publication" and I assumed from that tip that the publication might have been available for free like so much on the internet. Hence I asked for the summary. But now, and in the future, I have to commit myself to do more reading, rather than quick skimming, of everything I read here because in my haste, I missed the summary -given by Cetto - for which I was asking. Egg on my face and Cetto, my apologies to you!

[Quijote]

Thayer is very detailed and does not attempt the modern psychological approach of Solomon (thank goodness!) - it is an excellent general reference source rather than a cover to cover read. Philip recommends the Schindler but bare in mind that Schindler presents himself as having been on intimate terms with Beethoven for years (1814-27) when in fact their close association was only 1822-24 and the last few months of Beethoven's life.

I was not clear enough. I am not suggesting that Preston should read Schindler as any sort of definitive biography; I mentioned him as an interesting complement to the 'standard' biographies.

[Quijote]

Regarding Solomon, I find him highly dubious. You can make a case for anything and twist the evidence to fit. For example the Immortal beloved - yes you can point to dates and places and come up with Antonie Brentano, providing you ignore Beethoven's character and his own often stated comments on adultery. Beethoven's religious views are well known so is he likely to have described the affair as "truly founded in heaven - and what is more, as strongly cemented as the firmament of heaven" if it were adulterous?
Franz Brentano was a personal friend of Beethoven's and is it likely that he would have written to him in 1817 "I greatly miss your company and that of your wife and your dear children" if he had been having an affair with his wife 5 years earlier? Nor could Beethoven have been discussing the prospect of marriage with her since the Austrian government would not have granted a divorce - her husband had no criminal convictions, and their is no evidence of adultery in either case. Having children made it even more unlikely they would have received a divorce. Solomon chooses to ignore these facts.

I suspect that we are beginning to see the "missing passion" that Peter lamented elsewhere on this forum.

I do not share Peter's dismissal of Solomon. "You can make a case for anything and twist the evidence to fit". No doubt one can; I see it rather more as a question of "interpretation" of so-called facts (itself a highly dubious contention). All rather like music, really.

[Quijote]

I'm highly skeptical of all psychologists! The Sterbas adopted this analytical approach to Beethoven and came up with the most bizarre theories that ranged from Beethoven seeing himself as a mother figure to karl and having sexual desires for his brother Johann - all backed up with so-called evidence selected from the letters and other sources. Thayer stuck to facts as much as was possible at that time.

Peter is skeptical [sic]of all psychologists. It is curious then that he chooses the American spelling (and should we delve, Freud-like, into that dark area of his pysche?). I am much more sceptical [sic] of psychiatrists. This is a diversion. I am, Peter, surprised to read your somewhat intransigent view. There are of course certain "facts" that are irrefutable concerning Beethoven (he was born on such and such a date, died when he died, wrote what he wrote and said [as reported...] what he said). Beyond these bare facts we are free to "interpret" (intelligently, one would hope) as best we can.

In light of your comments above, I am led to wonder what you would term "a musical fact". Is a "musical fact" solely the note on the ledger line and its [highly contextual-interpretative] duration? Or is there something that exists "beyond the page", so to speak?

To return to Solomon : do you really consider that a scholar of his stature (not that his stature should render him immune to criticism) seeks to bend or ignore facts to suit his argument? I am reminded of Solomon's paper on Schubert and sexuality, ... but that is another topic for another thread; one that van Cetto and Preston shudder to call "the new musicology". Ah, to have such open minds ....

[Preston]

Ah, to have such open minds ....

I don't consider that an open minded individual would call Beethoven a homosexual child molester, quite the opposite. No I don't know to much about the new musicology, but it sounds like rubbish to me.

[Quijote]

Apologies, typing error and poor IT skills ... I have deleted the posting that was originally here (repetition).

[Quijote]

I don't consider that an open minded individual would call Beethoven a homosexual child molester, quite the opposite. No I don't know to much about the new musicology, but it sounds like rubbish to me.

I would indeed be most astonished to read that some musicologist posited that Beethoven was as you describe above. Perhaps you could furnish me with his/her name? And / or the relevant (offending) article?

I must have misunderstood what the "new musicology" is about. As far as I am concerned, musicology (of the "new" type) as practiced in most Anglo-Saxon faculties concerns considering music in its widest possible contexts : social, philosophical, aesthethetic, political and so on, including of course feminist and gender-related approaches (fascinating, but really only the tip of an enormous iceberg [with no Freudian-reated phallic symbolism intended]), as well of course as the more traditional formalist aspects (notes on pages, as only Schenker et al would appreciate).

I am curious as to why, Preston, you seek to conflate "homosexual" with "child molester"? Whilst I am utterly comfortable with the notion of homosexuality, I am not so with child abuse. What are you driving at with such a loaded juxtaposition of nouns?

[Preston]

I don't associate homosexual, which I do not have a problem with, with child molester, which I too do have a problem with. It seems I have read somewhere, concerning the New Musicology, that, in short, by Beethoven adopting Karl showed his extreme homosexual tendencies for a young boy.

What I have read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_musicology, on New Musicology, is that it does primarily focus on sexuality, whether they admit to it or not. It is like gossip it seems to me?

I looked up and found an article concerning Solomon's theories about Schubert and Sexuality. What I read in the article was about Schubert writing music to Goethe and Schiller, and that the text was based about a child molestation. I don't know what Solomon wrote though.

Preston

[Quijote]

I don't associate homosexual, which I do not have a problem with, with child molester, which I too do have a problem with. It seems I have read somewhere, concerning the New Musicology, that, in short, by Beethoven adopting Karl showed his extreme homosexual tendencies for a young boy.

What I have read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_musicology, on New Musicology, is that it does primarily focus on sexuality, whether they admit to it or not. It is like gossip it seems to me?

I looked up and found an article concerning Solomon's theories about Schubert and Sexuality. What I read in the article was about Schubert writing music to Goethe and Schiller, and that the text was based about a child molestation. I don't know what Solomon wrote though.

Preston

I would have liked to say "I'll get back to you" at this juncture, Preston, but I won't. Before I leave this forum (for good, as I mentioned elsewhere recently), and before I get dragged into a dialogue that I am reluctant to continue, may I ask in all humility that you read what Solomon actually wrote, and to treat Wikipedia with caution (useful though it may sometimes appear to be), as it is not a peer-approved source.

[Peter]

Peter is skeptical [sic]of all psychologists. It is curious then that he chooses the American spelling (and should we delve, Freud-like, into that dark area of his pysche?). I am much more sceptical [sic] of psychiatrists. This is a diversion. I am, Peter, surprised to read your somewhat intransigent view. There are of course certain "facts" that are irrefutable concerning Beethoven (he was born on such and such a date, died when he died, wrote what he wrote and said [as reported...] what he said). Beyond these bare facts we are free to "interpret" (intelligently, one would hope) as best we can.

In light of your comments above, I am led to wonder what you would term "a musical fact". Is a "musical fact" solely the note on the ledger line and its [highly contextual-interpretative] duration? Or is there something that exists "beyond the page", so to speak?

To return to Solomon : do you really consider that a scholar of his stature (not that his stature should render him immune to criticism) seeks to bend or ignore facts to suit his argument? I am reminded of Solomon's paper on Schubert and sexuality, ... but that is another topic for another thread; one that van Cetto and Preston shudder to call "the new musicology". Ah, to have such open minds ....

Well I'd question some of your irrefutable facts! The date of Beethoven's birth is hardly certain being either 16th or 17th Dec 1770 and there are certain works which are definitely spurious. Yes I do suggest Solomon has ignored certain facts such as Beethoven's friendship with Franz Brentano, his attitude to adultery and the impossibility of his marrying Antonie - or perhaps you can point to where he deals with those 3 major stumbling blocks to his case?

Why is my view intransigent simply because it questions the status quo? As to your request from Preston concerning scholars who have implied homosexual incestuous desires in Beethoven, look no further than the Sterba's psychoanalytical drivel. Now I have no problem with Beethoven being homosexual (I think no less of Tchaikovsky and indeed feel for his mental torment) provided there is sufficient evidence to prove it - otherwise it belongs in the junk bin of our sexually obsessed age.