Immortal Beloved - Antonie Brentano and Other Alternatives (1955 To 2011)

Antonie Brentano and Other Alternatives (1955 To 2011)

In 1955 the French scholars Jean and Brigitte Massin noticed the fact that Antonie Brentano was present in Prague and Franzensbad at the time and discussed her as a possible candidate for the “Immortal Beloved”:

"The assumption that it could have been Antonie Brentano, is both tantalizing and absurd." They then argue:
Tantalizing is the assumption, because

• Beethoven and Antonia since her return to Vienna were "on friendly terms",
• In the summer of 1812 he lived in the same hotel in Franzensbad as the Brentanos, and
• He had dedicated in the same year to her daughter Maxe a one-movement trio.

Absurd, they argue, is the assumption because of

• Beethoven's lasting friendship with Antonie's husband, Franz,
• He borrowed money from him, and
• "The many letters he wrote Antonie prove that a true and deep but - due to mutual restraint - nevertheless only formal friendship existed between them and Beethoven always seems to perceive Franz, Antonia and their children as an inseparable unity."

There was four years later also a claim by a Japanese author (Aoki 1959, 1968) who had "discovered" Antonie. However, this had not been noticed outside Japan. She also published her findings in a recent book in German (Aoki 2008).

Once again and more detailed Solomon (1972, 1998) suggested Antonie Brentano to have been the “Immortal Beloved”. His hypothesis was founded on two major assumptions (or prerequisites):

• 1. the woman must have been in Prague and Karlsbad around the time in question (like Beethoven);
• 2. she must have been closely acquainted (at least on very friendly terms) with Beethoven, at the time immediately before this event.

ad 1: Antonie arrived in Prague on 3 July 1812 after an arduous journey with husband, child and servant (and was registered there); she left at dawn the following morning: “Where did she have time that night for a tryst with Beethoven?” (Steblin 2007, p. 148) Solomon (1972, p. 577) admits: “There is no proof that Beethoven and Antonie met in Prague.” And regarding Karlsbad: “It is possible that the letter arose from a ... meeting with a woman who informed Beethoven that she was going to Karlsbad and then failed to carry out her declared intention.” (Solomon 1998, p. 219 f.) Goldschmidt showed that "for short stays, residents were exempt from reporting requirements".

ad 2: There are no love letters from or to Antonie, and no other documents supporting the possibility of a love relationship with Beethoven, there is only a letter by Antonie to her brother-in-law Clemens, where she expressed her “admiration” of Beethoven: “At what point this worship was transformed into love is not yet known. My estimate is ... in the fall of 1811. … The love affair was under way by late 1811.” Solomon (1998, p. 229) quotes as supporting his case the Song "An die Geliebte" WoO 140, an autograph of which contains in Antonie’s handwriting the remark: "Requested by me from the author on 2 March 1812." The background to this: “In November 1811, we see Beethoven writing a newly composed song with the heading ‘An die Geliebte’ into the album of the Bavarian Court singer Regina Lang. … Dilettante verses … by a clumsy author, a real dilettante, a coffeehouse poet.” Solomon (1972, p. 572) declares that Beethoven’s separation from his “Only Beloved” Josephine two years before (due to her second marriage) does not rule out that she could have been the “Immortal Beloved”: “There is no certainty that the affair was not momentarily rekindled a half-decade later. ... There is still room for a reasonable doubt." (Solomon 1998, p. 461, n. 48.)

Solomon’s hypothesis was contested by Goldschmidt (1977), Tellenbach (1983, 1987, 1988, 1993/1994, 1998), Beahrs (1972, 1986, 1988, 1993), Dahlhaus (1991), Pichler (1994), Altman (1996), Meredith (2000), Steblin (2007), and Walden (2011).

Goldschmidt (1977) summarizes: "The Antonia hypothesis … is not so fully convincing that it excludes all others." and: "In order to possibly verify the Antonia-Hypothesis with its inherent factual contradictions once and forever, it is necessary to falsify the other hypotheses that have been offered."

Altman (1996) "demonstrates, as indeed Tellenbach has done, that much of the basis for the claims of Antonie's supporters consists of distortions, suppositions, opinions, and even plain inaccuracies." (Cooper 1996, p. 18)

However, Altman's suggestion that the “Immortal Beloved” was Marie Erdödy was shown to be “impossible” by Cooper (1996).

Lund (1988) made a claim that Antonie’s son Karl, born exactly eight months after the alleged encounter with Beethoven, should have been his son; even Solomon did not endorse this, as he thought "it was 'sensationalistic'." (Meredith 2011, p. x)

Beahrs (1993, p. 183 f.) supported Josephine: "Was there for him in fact … one deep and lasting passion for a certain dear one, marriage to whom was precluded, not by psychological inhibitions of the inner man, but by prohibitive heart-breaking externals? … Where is any evidence whatsoever of true romantic love for even such dear ones as Marie Erdödy or Dorothea von Ertmann, Therese Malfatti or Antonie Brentano? Although all have been advanced as Beethoven's unknown Immortal Beloved, the assessment is unsupported by the record or by any known correspondence. Intimate friends of Beethoven, true, one and all; but loves? There is one, however, and only one, to whom Beethoven did pour his heart out in impassioned declarations of undying love remarkably similar to the phraseology of the anguished letter to his Immortal Beloved… That one is his 'BELOVED AND ONLY J' – Josephine."

Pulkert’s (2000) claim about one Almerie Esterházy, whom Beethoven did not even know, was refuted by Steblin (2001). Meredith (2000, p. 47) summarily comments: “… we lack evidence of a connection between Almerie and Beethoven... I must reiterate that we have no such evidence of a passionate love relationship between Antonie and Beethoven either, just of a close friendship; for Josephine, … we know he was indeed passionately in love with her in 1805-1807 at least."

Finally, Kopitz’ (2001) “valiant effort … show that Antonie cannot have been the ‘Immortal Beloved’. She was a happily married wife and mother … her candidacy, which includes the improbable scenario of a ‘ménage à trois’ in Karlsbad, makes no psychological sense.” (Steblin 2007, p. 148)
Walden (2011, p. 5) suggests that Bettina Brentano was Beethoven’s "Immortal Beloved", based on the assumption that one of the two spurious letters by Beethoven to her is true: "If that letter to Bettina was genuine, it would prove conclusively that Bettina was the Immortal Beloved, but the original has not survived, and the authenticity is strongly doubted today. ... her reliability and truthfulness are today under a cloud." Meredith (2011, p. xxii), in his Introduction, has reviewed the debate over the major candidates and he believes that "Walden’s proposal merits unbiased consideration".
Meredith (2011), reviewing the history of the debate so far, deplores the fact that French and German authors (like Massin and Goldschmidt) were never translated into English, thus depriving especially the US-based Beethoven scholarship of the most valuable resources in this field of study: "Unfortunately, several of the most important and controversial studies about the Immortal Beloved have never appeared in English translation, which has substantially restricted their impact." (p. xv) "Tellenbach ... too has unfortunately never appeared in English translation." (p. xvii)