"Glenn Miller" <[log in to unmask]> responds to me:

>>Beethoven complained about the tinnitus, but also complained about plain
>>hearing loss, in the beginning (from about 1796) high-pitched tones in
>>particular, but since as late as 1825 he was able to hear a very young
>>child screaming I often wonder what had happened in the meantime.  These at
>>first sight conflicting facts surely are very intriguing, medically spoken.
>
>To use your math: 29 years is plenty of time to lose most of your hearing.
>To hear a child scream (scream you say) at the end of his life, I would
>not think unusual for Beethoven.

Nobody would doubt that.  But the issue is, of course, why this loss
of high-pitched tones, so often put forward as a proof for this or that
hypothesis, while it's obvious that his ability to hear such tones was
still present after so many years? I don't doubt his experience, of course
not.  I just put some question marks behind some (strong) conclusions, done
by various people who didn't realize this "incompatability."

>How good the quality was is a different matter.  What happened in the
>meantime: gradual deterioration from mild nerve loss to severe loss.
>It happens all the time.  You do not even need to bring lead into it.

I agree.  However, we cannot exclude the lead influence beyond any doubt.
That's the weak side of the hypotheses of those who want to reject the
poisoning-by-lead hypothesis.  If we want to refute this hypothesis we must
focus on other symptoms, like, for instance, the presence/absence of other
symptoms, paralysis of the hands (Beethoven?!?).

>Hearing loss can fluctuate and I know people who tell me they have their
>good days all the while their hearing is slowly getting worse.

Yes and so did Beethoven.

>I believe there are some stories in B's hearing life that may not
>reflect his actual condition.  Let's say a visitor reports that B heard
>his conservation if he "yells" but six months before he had to write in
>his conversation book because B had more difficulty hearing him.  Why?
>Is his hearing getting better? Is he having one of his good periods?

Yes, good question. Intruiging indeed. Or should we doubt the testimony?

>Maybe Beethoven, more often than not, use the conservation books to
>conserve his energy for mental composing?

No, that's not very likely, since he also used those books for very
personal matters, like outcries to his personal God, and very trivial
ones, like shopping lists.

>When B hearing loss worsen in 1816 as you say, was it the lead? Natural
>or not? Well, not unusual anyway.

I have my doubts, very strong doubts indeed, about the lead, but maybe I'm
wrong.  Interesting is the fact that his hearing in such a striking way
worsened in 1816/17 and quite suddenly indeed.  According to those who have
their doubts about natural causes, this doesn't fit at all to such a cause.
The answer of those who are defending the poisoning-by-order hypothesis is,
of course, that in this way an unknown executioner tried to kill Beethoven.
He failed.  The result: increase of the man's deafness.  In about 1824/25
another attempt followed.  This time it didn't afflict the man's ears, but
his liver, already weakened by attacks of considerable amounts of wine and
other alcoholic beverages.  Again the hypothetical executioner failed.
Beethoven didn't die.  The murderer had to wait until 1827.  That's the
hypothesis of those who believe that Beethoven was murdered.  And the
process of his increasing deafness is one of their proofs.  No natural
causes, plain attempts to murder.  Do not get me wrong: I don't defend the
hypothesis.  On the contrary.  I don't believe a word of it.  The crux is,
however, that obviously it's not difficult to explain the start/increase/et
cetera of Beethoven's deafness in various, very conflicting ways indeed.
And nobody knows the correct explanation.  Keeping this in mind I think
it's sensible to realize one's ignorance.

Joyce Maier (mail to: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask])
www.ademu.com/Beethoven