Immortal Beloved - new theory!

[EternaLisa]

*I propose Beethoven was insincere, I believe lying can be necessary at times, and a 'true' moralist isn't a "goody-two-shoes" - quite the opposite, imo.

**How many people want people in their business not many - but so many will do anything, even to extremes - to get in Beethoven's business - I have, I think, and if I did I am disgusted I think. I believe that if someone is meant to know - they will - if they are not meant to know - they won't.

***I remember a poster named Cetto said they knew the IB letters were written in 1812 because of the paper - it was tested through forensics, etc. - I don't know if I believe that - perhaps the test are incorrect, perhaps they should release solid proof of everything about the paper, the tests, etc.?

*Quite the possible, indeed. He was just as free to fib, exaggerate and be as honest as the next person, though I am aware of how people think he was more likely incapable or above reproach. Information is information, and all too easily filtered. It could be considered that a lot of charismatic writers might stand to blame; the other side of that coin is the gullibility of the reader. (Partners in crime?)

**Agreed. The salutation, "My Angel, my all, myself" is perhaps the first clue to how he felt about divulging information in this area. The spoken-to connection in the letter, (which, btw, could have been written as a 'memorial' in regards to the eternally loved one - that goes way beyond what is seen felt and heard in this old world, and why it may not have a name/addy on it) as it reads, is a deeply sacred one; perhaps due to a fear of being ridiculed, should it be possible to whatever degree this collection of intimate thoughts be seen by what he might consider profane eyes in his time, since there were quite a few instances of people sneaking around and reading his papers, journals etc, it is entirely possible that it is for these possible reasons he made certain of why he wrote what he wrote. He used his God-supplied brain very well in his forwardable thinking, even in this instance--wouldn't you (the reader) agree?

***There are only two very clear things that everyone interested in the subject understands about the document: a complete lack of identification of person that B had in mind while composing it, a complete lack of disclosure concerning where written, and a lack of the year-it is partially dated.

6. When and where did Beethoven write his letter to the Immortal Beloved?

In Teplitz (Bohemia) in 1812, though this has not yet been proven beyond any doubt. But the chance for another date and place is very, very, very little indeed. The most important research on this problem has been done by Unger, who published his discoveries in 1909 and 1911, later on confirmed by Sonneck. More and more evidence was found, the newest, as far as I know, in the sixties and the seventies, thanks to the investigations by Plevka and Racek, thoroughly discussed by Goldschmidt in 1977, whose book on the identity of the Immortal Beloved is still a must for every researcher.

http://ademu.home.xs4all.nl/Beethoven/index.htm
(again, perhaps the least assumming position regarding date/location, IMHO)

xoxoxox

E

[Preston]

**Agreed. The salutation, "My Angel, my all, myself" is perhaps the first clue to how he felt about divulging information in this area. The spoken-to connection in the letter, (which, btw, could have been written as a 'memorial' in regards to the eternally loved one - that goes way beyond what is seen felt and heard in this old world, and why it may not have a name/addy on it) as it reads, is a deeply sacred one; perhaps due to a fear of being ridiculed, should it be possible to whatever degree this collection of intimate thoughts be seen by what he might consider profane eyes in his time, since there were quite a few instances of people sneaking around and reading his papers, journals etc, it is entirely possible that it is for these possible reasons he made certain of why he wrote what he wrote. He used his God-supplied brain very well in his forwardable thinking, even in this instance--wouldn't you (the reader) agree?

Well said. The part you wrote, that is now in bold and underlined, is not an invalid point, imo, by any means. I don't think we know what is inside Beethoven's mind/thoughts and don't think we should. A person of Beethoven's genius is so rare, imo, and beyond anything human (in the average and common sense) that - well, who knows what he knew. It is like tampering with the mysteries of great religions - such as the why, when, how, etc. Beethoven's "mind" was a divine mind, imo, and that is a point not many, if only several, have achieved. We, human beings as a whole, look at things as we feel they should - because that is how we perceive life - to think of anything different is considered madness - at least by many. Such as, we imagine the IB letter is a typical letter written to someone living when Beethoven was alive, etc., etc. - because that is usually how it works - though, as you have clearly stated - we do not know how Beethoven works. Trying to figure out Beethoven is similar to trying to figure out if there is an omnipotent being - which neither should be focused on, imo. Questions like that, in truth, are beyond sacred - and are all too often muttered out with utter foolishness, imo.

[JohnSpecialK]

Beethoven's Only Beloved

Beethoven's Only Beloved was Josephine (see for details the Preview on www.createspace.com), there was indeed Only One (as he himself said). It seems that the last, desperate resort of those who do not want to accept what is most likely, is to repeat endlessly that "there can be no absolute 100% certainty" etc.; well we do know THIS, for sure! What is required is proper archival research (as done by scholars like Rita Steblin), and knowledge of history (and also, most importantly, the GERMAN language!) to come up with reasonable and logical conclusions (not speculations). As for the many "candidates", these can be sifted easily: All but Josephine and Antonie were NOT in Prague at the time, but elsewhere (according to evidence). Antonie can be ruled out for many reasons: For a start she arrived in P after an arduous journey and left again at dawn the next morning - who can imagine there was time for a tryst with LvB? The Letter casually refers to "Esterházy" (wellknown to the Brunsviks, unlikely to the Brentanos), likewise it mentions "never hide yourself from me" (as J did in 1807 due to the pressure by her family - all documented). And he addressed her as "MY ANGEL" (as so often before). And so on.

[Peter]

Beethoven's Only Beloved was Josephine (see for details the Preview on www.createspace.com), there was indeed Only One (as he himself said). It seems that the last, desperate resort of those who do not want to accept what is most likely, is to repeat endlessly that "there can be no absolute 100% certainty" etc.; well we do know THIS, for sure! What is required is proper archival research (as done by scholars like Rita Steblin), and knowledge of history (and also, most importantly, the GERMAN language!) to come up with reasonable and logical conclusions (not speculations). As for the many "candidates", these can be sifted easily: All but Josephine and Antonie were NOT in Prague at the time, but elsewhere (according to evidence). Antonie can be ruled out for many reasons: For a start she arrived in P after an arduous journey and left again at dawn the next morning - who can imagine there was time for a tryst with LvB? The Letter casually refers to "Esterházy" (wellknown to the Brunsviks, unlikely to the Brentanos), likewise it mentions "never hide yourself from me" (as J did in 1807 due to the pressure by her family - all documented). And he addressed her as "MY ANGEL" (as so often before). And so on.

Whilst agreeing that Josephine is the most likely IB, there are several points - firstly you say he addressed her as 'my angel' as before, yet in the the previous letters didn't he use the formal Sie rather than Du that is used in the 1812 letters? The other point is that later (around 1816) Beethoven referred to someone he met 5 years previously who was the love of his life (obviously the IB), yet he had known J since 1799 - just wondered your thoughts on these ponts?

[EternaLisa]

A person of Beethoven's genius is so rare, imo, and beyond anything human (in the average and common sense) that - well, who knows what he knew. We, human beings as a whole, look at things as we feel they should - because that is how we perceive life - to think of anything different is considered madness - at least by many. Such as, we imagine the IB letter is a typical letter written to someone living when Beethoven was alive, etc., etc. - because that is usually how it works - though, as you have clearly stated - we do not know how Beethoven works.

Yep......

It seems that the last, desperate resort of those who do not want to accept what is most likely, is to repeat endlessly that "there can be no absolute 100% certainty" etc.; well we do know THIS, for sure!

The only desperados that comes to mind here, are those who have proposed, then written, then have had to stand behind their position of the subject. As well, why resign oneself to accepting something that is only "most likely"?

The other point is that later (around 1816) Beethoven referred to someone he met 5 years previously who was the love of his life (obviously the IB), yet he had known J since 1799

If I am referring to the same that you would be, I have seen numerous references here and there that paint the woman who wrote about this in her diary to be "a little dreamer with a couple of screws loose". Of course, the way I look at her position on the matter is simply: that her diary entries challenge their position on the matter. The way I also look at it: she was there. The biographers weren't. Now, there is some historical significance, SpecialK

[EternaLisa]

in considering this subject as well as all other 'significant' ones regarding lively discussion about LVB, may I propose it would be keen of mind to keep in forefront of one's thoughts even over this subject that Ludwig was apparently a man in possession/possessed by many an idea that did not fit into everyone else's neat little boxes, in his time and even ours, whereas a certain percentage of us are concerned-or just as well to say that many would not be accepting (or ready for accepting (as did Preston seem to also put forward)...just a suggestion

xoxox

E

[JohnSpecialK]

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") - all quoted in my book on https://www.CreateSpace.com/3561406).
The conclusion is that on 3 July 1812, LvB & J's love was - finally - consummated (and 9 months later, Minona was born...). Therefore they were noe per "Du". -
Fanny's remark about what LvB said is a different story (see next Post).

[JohnSpecialK]

Fanny Giannatasio del Rio was the daughter of Cajetan G who looked after LvB's nephew. F was hopelessly in love with LvB (therefore her memoirs are to be taken with a grain of salt). She instructed her father to "test" LvB's availability by asking him on a walk whether he ever was in love... LvB's answer was obviously evasive (as he certainly sensed the intention). The quoted "5 [15?] years since" (even assuming Fanny walking at some distance behind understood it correctly; note also that in German, "5" and "15" sound very similar) does neither proof nor disproof anything. Like the (apparently sudden) use of "Du" in the Letter - it is, as such, unfortunately not corroborating evidence for or against ANY "candidate". It just remains that Josephine is MOST LIKELY to addressed the way the "Immortal Beloved" was, simply because she is the ONLY one who was ever addressed by LvB as his ("Only"!) Beloved. Also when Fanny listened (in autumn of 1816), LvB was pining as he had just met Josephine again (in Baden).

[JohnSpecialK]

You can find all the answers in https://www.createspace.com/3561406, and the "brickwall" that needs to be cracked, the veil that needs to be lifted (after 200 years of stony silence) is the fact that NOT ONLY Beethoven "knew" who the "Immrtal Beloved" was (is THAT news?), but the Brunsviks knew all along - and there is a good chance that Christoph von Stackelberg knew very well that Minona was not his child (even Stackelberg's descendent today are of this belief). What needs to be EXPLAINED is not so much this or that detail (esp. cryptic remarks) but the FACT that Beethoven's love of Josephine was from the beginning, all the time, kept absolutely SECRET - like this Letter's addressee. And if J had not kept (some of) his love letters (and surely not because she did not love him any more!) then we would still be speculating. -
"MOST LIKELY": We have to evaluate "Evidence" vs. "Hearsay". In the same way, Antonie was MOST LIKELY not LvB's "Immortal Beloved" because there is no supporting evidence that makes it likely (or rather conceivable).

[EternaLisa]

Fanny Giannatasio del Rio was the daughter of Cajetan G who looked after LvB's nephew. F was hopelessly in love with LvB (therefore her memoirs are to be taken with a grain of salt). She instructed her father to "test" LvB's availability by asking him on a walk whether he ever was in love... LvB's answer was obviously evasive (as he certainly sensed the intention). The quoted "5 [15?] years since" (even assuming Fanny walking at some distance behind understood it correctly; note also that in German, "5" and "15" sound very similar) does neither proof nor disproof anything. Like the (apparently sudden) use of "Du" in the Letter - it is, as such, unfortunately not corroborating evidence for or against ANY "candidate". It just remains that Josephine is MOST LIKELY to addressed the way the "Immortal Beloved" was, simply because she is the ONLY one who was ever addressed by LvB as his ("Only"!) Beloved. Also when Fanny listened (in autumn of 1816), LvB was pining as he had just met Josephine again (in Baden).

We have to evaluate "Evidence" vs. "Hearsay".

I agree. So, lets whip out the fine-toothed comb: At this point I feel justification to bring down a magnifying glass, as I’ve been wanting to for some time now (and I do realize this may recieve a "wide ignorning"-but I wanted to present it anyway). I need to understand something about opinions concerning Fanny at this point, and her involvement with the whole subject matter. And I'm not trying to be ridiculous in making this query. Aside from her obvious fascination/obsession with B (what’s love got to do with it?), whom many biographers parrot and rehash the same statement that she "was hopelessly in love with LvB (therefore her memoirs are to be taken with a grain of salt)" so you are not the first to declare this, what else would serve to warrant proper discredit to her, all opinions aside?

In an upright and just court of law, discredit to person comes NOT to them just because they are notoriously head over heels in fascination to the point of appearing fanatical with a person, but because of “facts” presented-and the appparent 'truth of historical documentation' (again I caution, in general always, that truth not to be confused/lumped together with fact) is that her written notes unearthed and presented within this subject is that, well, there they are-now, what to do about them, huh? find some feasible manner of trying to discredit her with her own intellectual property, that's what...). It’s a fact, yes, that she was infatuated outrightly, but what is the TRUTH behind the historical documentation to an event that she made in her diary? Here is where the hard bargaining is going to get difficult for many to handle it, and it appears that a fancy sidestep dance show goes on in order to avoid stepping right onto that little cowpattie and dealing with it.

So, there appears to be great evidence that there is no evidence to warrant real discredit to Fanny just on the account that she was head over heels in a spin with herself over her “Luscious Louis”, and that perhaps Ludwig took notice (and so what-he didn't make a real issue of it, did he?). As far as I know, from what I have been able to find, there is nowhere that I know of that it is documented, to any degree,that Fanny was reputed to be a known liar (compulsive or irregular), or a known deceiver, which to my own mind would bring all the dominos down for her case. Just curious, since it keeps coming up…can you (or anyone else for that matter) supply an accurate, reliable documentation to support any such claims against this young gal, other than the appearance that scholars and biographers and “experts” (a drip under pressure, LOL) have chosen to jab at her on that account alone-and this is the basis on which discredit goes to Fanny G? Or can you (or anyone else) provide a reliable source who would have that kind of information.

Otherwise, I view the common statement as simply an opinion that one person uttered/penned, (then a robotic response took over-as society does tend towards roboticism in general), which, like other archived information, as all should well know, has been validated (without tangible hard evidence-to-the-truth) simply through the passing down of it over time.

Alibis, rebuttals?

xoxox

E

[Preston]

It just remains that Josephine is MOST LIKELY to addressed the way the "Immortal Beloved" was, simply because she is the ONLY one who was ever addressed by LvB as his ("Only"!) Beloved.

Perhaps I am confused, well yes I am, . Perhaps Josephine is the most likely candidate.

As for the only thing - we don't know that she was the only one addressed only beloved. That is just what the letters, I am guessing, tell us. Also, to my mind, if you start pinning down words like only, then you should pin down immortal - forever. Beethoven knew what this meant - he was not a fool and the letters to the IB were well written. So, it seems that we need to question also 1) Was Beethoven referring in the letter to someone he felt he would live forever with (like Josephine)? 2) Was he referring to something else than someone alive based on things he knew.

Though, we can't pin the word immortal down either, so I am wrong to say it as I did. Perhaps, he meant it more generally?

Anyway, I do not think any human-being could ever know based on accounts etc. - we can just assume to the best we can and perhaps in the most humanly perspective sense it is Josephine - seems to be to my mind, though it is still just a theory and perhaps a good one.

Even if it was proven through DNA testing, etc. that Beethoven had a child with the most likely candidate for the IB - that is still not solid proof to prove who or what the IB was.

[EternaLisa]

-----

[EternaLisa]

Even if it was proven through DNA testing, etc. that Beethoven had a child with the most likely candidate for the IB - that is still not solid proof to prove who or what the IB was.

Excellent point, Preston. There's no mention whatsoever of the birth of any children by any of the women associated with Beethoven in regards to the content of his IB documentary).

xoxo

E

[Preston]

thanks. i think you have made quite a few excellent points yourself. all the best.

[EternaLisa]

you have made quite a few excellent points yourself.

as did you, several points (I get in a 'multitasking mode' and forget-sorry...)