David Cozy wrote:

>And I'm afraid I have to agree with Richard on this one.  Just because
>the letter cannot be published does not mean that scholars who have read
>it--Joyce Maier's insider acquaintance, for example--couldn't paraphrase,
>summarize and analyze it.

I haven't read it.  My spokeswoman has.  And I consider myself not entitled
to give more information.  We'll have to wait.  Frankly, I have good hopes
that the letters will be published within a few years.

>And I have a question about the Solomon biography.  I haven't read it, but
>I gather that the theory underpinning Solomon's biography is psychological.
>Now, that fact alone, that Solomon uses psychology, does not, for me
>anyway, automatically make his book a bad biography.

No, of course not.  But read it before judging it, please.  The problem
is not his use of psychology, the problem is his misuse.  Solomon, a
dedicated Freud follower, writes about Beethoven's unconscious feelings
as if he himself has had the man, a dead person, on the couch, as if he
has succeeded in discussing it all with the man's Superego and Id as well.
That's what I calll psychobabble.  An example:  in his famous love letter
Beethoven writes about his fearful journey over a muddy road.  Actually,
Solomon says, the muddy road means "fearful marriage", forbidden to poor
Beethoven who had to cope with the frustrations from his youth and
"therefore" was "unable" to settle down with his mysterious beloved.  Hm...

>So, in the estimate of Solomon's critics, is his biography bad *because*
>it's psychological, or is it a bad psychological biography?

Well, my opinion is clear, I hope.

Joyce Maier
www.ademu.com/Beethoven