A solitary existence
A solitary existence
Ludwig II on the “Söller”, balcony of Neuschwanstein. Portrait ” der Einsame ” by Ferdinand Leeke, on 1890
Already attracted by the solitude, Ludwig will devote to it completely after the integration of Bavaria in the German empire in 1870. The world demoralized him and he wanted more than ever to thwart this ugliness by building castles which had to be the answer by the Art to the politicking world. From then on, Ludwig will live as he understands by steering himself far from Munich. It is the state which will have to come to him in his beloved mountains.
It will not be him forgiven this prank to the rules of the power: the legend of ” the crazy king ” will be propagated little by little. All his peculiarities will be interpreted in the wrong direction, its inclination to be lived at night, its taste for the beauty, its spending, its connections with his domestics, its clothing, linguistic habits, its character, etc. …
Throughout his life, the king will never lose his lucidity, on the other hand, he too much relied on people despicable as Holnstein, Mayr, Hesselschwerdt, or Ziegler. They will betray him when the wind will turn. It is corrupt servants who wait for the convenient moment to swamp him. It will be told that all that it is possible to tell, and these rumours persist even today while it is easy to demonstrate the opposite.
The intimate diaries of the king, among nine, will have to bring the proof of its homosexuality, while nothing allows to pull the slightest certainty.
To summarize little of passages which reached us (approximately 33 pages falsified, manipulated, on more than 400 written by Ludwig), and which nevertheless are supposed to condemn the king without appeal, it is question only of masturbation and not only once some intimate relation. It is necessary to give the effort to analyze the text: Ludwig condemns formally the carnal love, and when he speaks for example about ” the love and the friendship ” that he carries to Richard Hornig, you should not understand this “love” as a guilty relation. On the contrary, it is about an upper degree of the friendship, a kind of total spiritual relinquishment which requires the king on behalf of his friend. Ludwig uses a secret language, and behind the charges of “kisses” we can deduct nothing from private individual.
Any kiss which is not applied to a “sacred” object is considered by Ludwig as profane and consequently as “sensual”. So, the simple fact of testifying its affection by an embrace is felt as a curse. Ludwig curses these “kisses” and considers them as impure because they wake in him a need of tenderness which leads him almost always to the autoeroticism.
When king writes in his diary 8: ” a kiss, a pure receptacle of the friendship and Richard’s love “, he puts on the same plan this “kiss” and this “love” as on that of the ” pure receptacle “; it is not thus about carnal love nor even about a sensual touch. Ludwig does not use the same terms to qualify the pure love, in other words a superior friendship, and the sensual love, damned between all, that represents the masturbation.
Plainly terrorized and mortified by his tendency to the autoeroticism, Ludwig was never able to have the slightest claim in a homosexual relation, what prove diaries after an attentive reading. Ludwig condemns the sensual love whatever it is.
Consequently, to ask the question of the homosexuality of the king is a false question.
His nearness to the men people is only the result of its almost exclusively male education, and also probably narcissistic disorders stemming from the childhood which always push him towards people of his sex, as a kind of ideal mirror in the fact that he would like to be. On no account these connections are characterized by the guilty enjoyment. Ludwig was ever either “crazy”, it was neither a paranoiac, nor a schizophrenic, but a man become a depressive, a wounded person in its convictions of ideal, victim of his own sensibility.
His so-called inconsistent notes result from the dictation of such or such corrupt domestic either were purely and simply torn away from their real context. The king did not beat either up to the death his servants: irascible and requiring, he could manage at him at the most to be allowed go to one or two slaps in its worst days. If the faults had been graver, as it was able to claim it without more ample informed, why then to have waited for 1885-86 to speak? Even before this date, the king, of which the situation was already a criticism, would have been able to make nothing against such charges if they had been established. Now, 1885 is well the date which marks the effective beginning of the campaign of belittlement against him.
The big wrong of the king is to have wanted to live as he understood it, by disdaining the political jousts. Become embarrassing, he was eliminated purely and simply
© Copyright 2015 Elisabeth Fontaine-Bachelier