Karl van Beethoven...

[Peter]

I do notice, though, that you have not included your original statement (8 years ago) in quoting me above. It does "take the wind"[*] out of my comment somewhat. Though you are happy to include my references to "ether" (and we all know what I am referring to!). You didn't respond to one of my paragraphs concerning "historical ideology". You are not obliged to, but do you want a good punch up, or not? I mean, you did want some "passion" on the general forum, and I'm always happy to oblige. The ether is talking again [Ed : add the damn "smiley" thing. Oh by the way, you're sacked.]
[*] an opportunity for PDG to take a pop at me here, I fear. Smelly onion [add icon thingie, the one with the tongue poking out...]

I'm trying to stick as near as possible to the argument concerning IB and am not interested in a 'punch up' for the sake of it but rather intelligent debate. I notice you continually try to distract from this which is a sure sign of weakness in your argument (digging up 8 year old comments attempting to imply inconsistency when I readily acknowledge a change of opinion, side tracking with issues about historical ideology etc).

Another point you might like to consider is that Beethoven’s letters to Antonie after she moved away from Vienna in 1812, clearly show a formal and polite respect. For example, he would begin those letters to her with the words "My worthy friend”, “Most honoured friend”and “My honoured friend” . He ended his other letters to her with the same formality, such as in an 1816 letter to her which concluded with the words “With true and sincere regards, your admirer and friend, Ludwig van Beethoven”. In all of them, he addressed her in the formal German “Sie-form”, not the intimate “du-form” that he used in his letter to the Immortal Beloved.

[Peter]

As for the IB, I don't know who it is. I would have to study massive amounts of information and would probably still come to no conclusion. Although it seems to me if Beethoven loved someone so much, and thought that he would be with them forever, than marriage vows would not be important to Beethoven because he would have something far more important on his mind, eternity.

Richard Specht, a distinguished Viennese Beethoven expert and biographer, wrote in 1933 that “marriage meant for Beethoven a divine sacrament against which it would be a sacrilege to offend......he would have torn out his tongue rather than suffer it to utter words in the Immortal Beloved letter of such glowing passion and regret to another’s wife.” This would be especially so given that Beethoven was a close friend to both the husband and wife, and was like an uncle to their children.

[Quijote]

I'm trying to stick as near as possible to the argument concerning IB and am not interested in a 'punch up' for the sake of it but rather intelligent debate. I notice you continually try to distract from this which is a sure sign of weakness in your argument (digging up 8 year old comments attempting to imply inconsistency when I readily acknowledge a change of opinion, side tracking with issues about historical ideology etc).

As to 'punch ups' it was meant as a humerous comment (Cf. your lament about 'missing passion' on the general forum). I hope that my comments in general are not perceived as unintelligent.

I certainly do not wish to distract from the matter in hand (although we are supposed to be on Karl van B), and I will give all comments concerning the IB their due attention. I never implied inconsistency in your position (this is your assumption) as I clearly stated that you changed your mind after taking into consideration the later edition of the Solomon biography. I too may well change my mind. Until then, my reference to "historical ideology" (which continues to this day and indeed on this very forum) is worthy I think of (intelligent) debate, but perhaps should be on another thread. Care to start Peter, by launching it? Perhaps you could open the discussion by quoting me and we'll take it from there.

I never seek to obfuscate issues. You know very well that one can have multiple ideas in play at the same time. You started the ball rolling by talking about 'psychological drivel' (e.g. Sterba, and, I suspect, the pyschological approach sometimes favoured by Solomon). I continued by referring to another sort of 'drivel'.

In your comments quoted above you are in effect accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, which I utterly refute.

[Quijote]

Richard Specht, a distinguished Viennese Beethoven expert and biographer, wrote in 1933 that “marriage meant for Beethoven a divine sacrament against which it would be a sacrilege to offend......he would have torn out his tongue rather than suffer it to utter words in the Immortal Beloved letter of such glowing passion and regret to another’s wife.” This would be especially so given that Beethoven was a close friend to both the husband and wife, and was like an uncle to their children.

Now that Peter has aroused my ire with his ill-considered words, and to furnish the forum (at his -indirect - urging) with the "lacking passion" that he laments (Cf. Tiberia Claudia posts etc), let us consider the Specht reference above. We find then a rather emotionally charged vocabulary that cannot be directly attributed to Beethoven, ergo :
a) "marriage meant for LvB ...",
b) "divine sacrament";
c) "would have torn out his tongue rather than ...".

We must ask, objectively, what Peter is seeking to prove by quoting such a source.

Now, whilst I don't want to divert from the IB theme (on a Karl van B thread), I must say that the Specht quote tempts me to revive the "historico- ideological drivel" that I have alluded to above. All this smacks of the so-called "Beethoven-myth", which I may rephrase as the "hands-off-Beethoven-how-dare-you" faction.

Ah, the passion grows ...

[PDG]

[*] an opportunity for PDG to take a pop at me here, I fear. Smelly onion [add icon thingie, the one with the tongue poking out...]

Consider yourself well and truly 'popped'...

[PDG]

...which I utterly refute.

Tut Tut! The use of a split infinitive...

[Peter]

As to 'punch ups' it was meant as a humerous comment (Cf. your lament about 'missing passion' on the general forum). I hope that my comments in general are not perceived as unintelligent.

I certainly do not wish to distract from the matter in hand (although we are supposed to be on Karl van B), and I will give all comments concerning the IB their due attention. I never implied inconsistency in your position (this is your assumption) as I clearly stated that you changed your mind after taking into consideration the later edition of the Solomon biography. I too may well change my mind. Until then, my reference to "historical ideology" (which continues to this day and indeed on this very forum) is worthy I think of (intelligent) debate, but perhaps should be on another thread. Care to start Peter, by launching it? Perhaps you could open the discussion by quoting me and we'll take it from there.

In your comments quoted above you are in effect accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, which I utterly refute.

It seems that you are the one making assumptions 1) That I've read Solomon's latest biography which I haven't (unless you are referring to the 1978 book which was quite enough for me) - I clearly stated that it was from previous discussions on this forum that I changed my opinion with regard to IB. 2) That I'm accusing you of intellectual dishonesty when you are the one who digs up a quote from 8 years ago and then deny your reasons for doing so! You actually say that I 'took the wind out of your comment' by not quoting it in fall (something I rarely do anyway) - so obviously you were trying to make a point!

I accept the good humour that all your stimulating posts are filled with and welcome your suggesting you may be open to changing your mind as I am aware none of us can know for certain - it may well be that someone else will dig this up in another 8 years as I'm defending Solomon!

As to your historical ideology debate, well you start the thread if you want - it's your idea but let's keep it in relation to Beethoven please!

[Peter]

Now that Peter has aroused my ire with his ill-considered words, and to furnish the forum (at his -indirect - urging) with the "lacking passion" that he laments (Cf. Tiberia Claudia posts etc), let us consider the Specht reference above. We find then a rather emotionally charged vocabulary that cannot be directly attributed to Beethoven, ergo :
a) "marriage meant for LvB ...",
b) "divine sacrament";
c) "would have torn out his tongue rather than ...".

We must ask, objectively, what Peter is seeking to prove by quoting such a source.

Now, whilst I don't want to divert from the IB theme (on a Karl van B thread), I must say that the Specht quote tempts me to revive the "historico- ideological drivel" that I have alluded to above. All this smacks of the so-called "Beethoven-myth", which I may rephrase as the "hands-off-Beethoven-how-dare-you" faction.

Ah, the passion grows ...

My words are never ill-considered! I did not quote the Specht reference in connection with the IB but in response to the suggestion that marriage vows were of little consequence to Beethoven which I utterly refute.
As to the vocabluary not being attributed to Beethoven, well his religious views and his views on adultery are well known. Where is the myth please?

[Quijote]

It seems that you are the one making assumptions 1) That I've read Solomon's latest biography which I haven't (unless you are referring to the 1978 book which was quite enough for me) - I clearly stated that it was from previous discussions on this forum that I changed my opinion with regard to IB. 2) That I'm accusing you of intellectual dishonesty when you are the one who digs up a quote from 8 years ago and then deny your reasons for doing so! You actually say that I 'took the wind out of your comment' by not quoting it in fall (something I rarely do anyway) - so obviously you were trying to make a point!

Regaring intellectual dishonesty : a) you urged me to read the IB archive in the first place, then accuse me of 'digging around' in it; b) I quoted your comments from 8 years ago and clearly stated your position had changed; it allowed me to make humourous allusions to 'ether' at lunch and Pauline Conversions. I see nothing inconsistent in changing one's mind.

[Peter]

Regaring intellectual dishonesty : a) you urged me to read the IB archive in the first place, then accuse me of 'digging around' in it; b) I quoted your comments from 8 years ago and clearly stated your position had changed; it allowed me to make humourous allusions to 'ether' at lunch and Pauline Conversions. I see nothing inconsistent in changing one's mind.

I don't recall that in this thread but certainly have no objection otherwise I would have deleted all my old posts long ago! I do recall that it is you who accused me of intransigence on this issue and hopefully you'll acknowledge that your research into the archives disproves this.

I'm glad you allow change of mind and hope we can now concentrate on the issues. It does appear from some of your other comments that you are now less intransigent yourself concerning Solomon so perhaps we have achieved something!

[Quijote]

I don't recall that in this thread but certainly have no objection otherwise I would have deleted all my old posts long ago! I do recall that it is you who accused me of intransigence on this issue and hopefully you'll acknowledge that your research into the archives disproves this.

I'm glad you allow change of mind and hope we can now concentrate on the issues. It does appear from some of your other comments that you are now less intransigent yourself concerning Solomon so perhaps we have achieved something!

You did urge me to read the IB thread (which I found in the archive). You said (several posts before this one) : "That evidence is well known to me if you look at the Immortal beloved page of this site."

My research shows me you are not intransigent (at least as far as the IB is concerned, and not the more notorious "TE" - she whose name we no longer dare mention). I withdraw the charge, m'lud. I maintain my confidence in Solomon (in general), though I may well change my mind about the IB.

[Quijote]

Tut Tut! The use of a split infinitive...

Not sure it is, actually. "To boldly go..." would be an example of a split infinitive. Now then, PDG, let us consider instead your "dangling participles", shall we? On second thoughts, let's not as it will put me off my dinner (which tonight is veal's head in vinegar served with an old bottle of turps that I found in my loft).

[Peter]

You did urge me to read the IB thread (which I found in the archive). You said (several posts before this one) : "That evidence is well known to me if you look at the Immortal beloved page of this site."

My research shows me you are not intransigent (at least as far as the IB is concerned, and not the more notorious "TE" - she whose name we no longer dare mention). I withdraw the charge, m'lud. I maintain my confidence in Solomon (in general), though I may well change my mind about the IB.

I was referring to the Immortal beloved page on this website that I hope presents a balanced approach to this issue (unless anyone happens to be a supporter of the Johanna hypothesis!) www.kingsbarn.freeserve.co.uk/immortal.html

[Quijote]

I was referring to the Immortal beloved page on this website that I hope presents a balanced approach to this issue (unless anyone happens to be a supporter of the Johanna hypothesis!) www.kingsbarn.freeserve.co.uk/immortal.html

So, this is the "page" you meant. You can hardly blame me for thinking the "page" was elsewhere. You remind me of a little anecdote concerning Stockhausen's early essays in electroacoustic composition in the early years of the GRM in Paris (sometime in the 50s). He spent many, many hours in the studio labouring on the treatment (transformation, synthesis and so on) of one particular sound. When a composer spends many hours on a particular sound he may well begin to hear such nuanced things that for him (or her) seem evident, and even important. Anyway, after all the hours spent he played his then tutor the result : schsszzz..t (about half a second of sound).

"That's it ?" asked the tutor. "That's it", replied Stockhausen, "don't you hear what I mean?"

[Quijote]

So, to continue, I will read this page with interest, and thank Peter for alerting this to me.

Before I do so, I must again say something. Read very carefully Peter's terminology : " (...] that I hope presents a balanced approach [...] (unless anyone happens to be a supporter of the Johanna hypothesis!)"

What is Peter's implication here? Will I be labelled "unbalanced" if I opt to consider the possibility? Am I to be allowed to think freely without any imposed a posteriori conditions?

Beethoven (it is reported) detested Johanna. I believe, as far as I am able to determine, that this is true. But - for the sake of polemic and passion, and at the risk of being called a heretic - detesting someone does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a sexual liaison (however brief or otherwise). Read carefully what I have just said. I am not suggesting that Johanna was the addressee of the letters to the IB. Far from it. What I am asking, objectively and disinterestedly, is the possibility of a liaison between Beethoven and Johanna.

Peter professes greater faith in Beethoven than I. That strikes me as a little sanctimonious. All I am saying is that in the long history of (wo)mankind what one says and what one does are not necessarily concomitant. In so saying, I am not trying to sully his name. I am simply trying to appoach the history of Beethoven in an objective way. All angles need to be considered, and then rejected or accepted. It does not help to pre-empt others by using emotionally charged language (which is, inter alia, a curious facet of the historical ideology I have referred to above).

To finish on a lighter note (I opt to play pp [with sustain pedal] the A just above the treble clef) : I am sure my comments will provoke the missing passion that Peter has lamented elsewhere.