Was King Ludwig II of Bavaria Misdiagnosed by Gudden and His Colleagues?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-020-01161-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Was King Ludwig II of Bavaria misdiagnosed by Gudden and his colleagues? Reinhard Steinberg1 · Peter Falkai1 Received: 14 April 2020 / Accepted: 29 May 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract In 1886, Bernhard von Gudden and three other expert psychiatrists diagnosed the Bavarian King Ludwig II with “paranoia (madness),” a diagnosis that the Bavarian government used to justify removing Ludwig from power. Although Ludwig was not evaluated in detail by the psychiatrists, in their opinion, sworn eyewitness accounts and general knowledge about Ludwig’s behavior provided sufcient grounds for the diagnosis. Ludwig was a great admirer of the musician, Richard Wagner, and shared some of his ideas of an idealistic society. At frst, he identifed with Wagner’s opera heroes, and he became Wagner’s patron sponsor for life. However, he grew increasingly interested in an absolutist state, envisioning himself as a monarch with a role similar to that of Louis XIV. His multiple building projects, for which he incurred much debt, his conviction that he was descended from the Bourbons through baptism, his increasingly abnormal behavior, and his hallucinations together formed the basis for the psychiatrists’ diagnosis. Although not mentioned in the expert opinion, Ludwig’s homophilic behav- ior—a scandal at the time—was probably also an important reason for his removal from ofce. A review of the psychiatric knowledge and societal philosophy of the time indicates that the psychiatrists were correct with their diagnosis in their time. Keywords Bernhard von Gudden · Ludwig II · Diagnosis · Paranoia (madness) · Expert opinion Introduction worse, was psychiatry, acting on behalf of the government, responsible for the King’s death? [1–3]. For more than 150 years, people have questioned whether Most of those who study Ludwig think he was mentally Ludwig II, the King of Bavaria (1845–1886), was actually ill [4–6]. However, not even experts fully agree on which ill. An alternative explanation for his behavior is that he was illness he might have actually had. In 2011, on the occa- a young man who was certainly eccentric but also highly sion of the 125th anniversary of the death of Ludwig II and gifted, not only a patron of the arts but also fond of them, his psychiatrist Bernhard von Gudden (1824–1886), histo- and who was driven into extreme, ultimately fatal isola- rians presented sound publications of the extensive material tion by his contemporaries’ lack of understanding. Or, even [7–12]. They emphasized somewhat apodictically, however, that Gudden had misdiagnosed Ludwig [7, 8, 10], probably supported by psychiatric advice from others [2, 4]. The Dedicated to Hanns Hippius on his 95th birthday with thanks question remains: did Bernhard von Gudden, who was well and afection. respected in his time [13], and the other renowned experts, This paper is a greatly expanded version of the German paper Friedrich Wilhelm Hagen, Hubert von Grashey, and Max published in: Nervenarzt (2019) 90:62–68, doi: https ://doi. Hubrich, really misdiagnose the King on the basis of the org/10.1007/s0011 5-018-0563-8 knowledge of their time? When attempting to answer this question, one enters * Peter Falkai [email protected] the “minefeld of retrospective diagnosis” [14]. Imposing today’s knowledge on the possible medical knowledge of Reinhard Steinberg [email protected] that time often results in a false picture, like the drawing of a caricature. A psychiatric report exists that was prepared by 1 Klinik für Psychiatrie Und Psychotherapie, Ludwig- leading experts of the time [15] and that, because the subject Maximilians-Universität, Nussbaumstr. 7, 80336 Munich, of the report was such a prominent fgure, has always opened Germany Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience up diferent lines of argument, including vehemently oppos- Wagner, royal saxon court music director at the time, ing points of view. A focus on the psychiatric knowledge and was a revolutionary from the barricades in Dresden who societal philosophy of the time should allow the question to had been sought by warrant since 1849. His concept of a be answered more clearly. state thus clearly difered from that of the young Ludwig II, but his infuence on his younger friend made the scandal predictable. When Wagner demanded the dismissal of the The young king ministers Pfstermeister and von der Pfordten (“Pf and Pfo” [17]), it was the straw that broke the very powerful minis- After the death of Maximilian II in 1864, 18-year-old Lud- ters’ back. Wagner had to leave Munich at the end of 1865 wig became king, even though he was largely unprepared for and went to Switzerland. Ludwig gave up, felt the limits of the role [10]. The monarch was welcomed with high hopes, his power and increasingly withdrew into the loneliness of and he cut a dazzling fgure; however, he soon disappointed his artistic interests [16–18]. the expectations [10, 16]. He was not much of a soldier and Were Ludwig’s points of view already unsound early in became increasingly reluctant to fulfl his political and social his monarchy? Probably not. But they were generally con- obligations and also became increasingly unhappy. He real- sidered to be anachronistic and dangerous. Ludwig enabled ized his potential mainly in the arts, as a patron of the stage, the premiere of “Tristan und Isolde” in 1865, fnanced the and as a building contractor. “Ring” and the Bayreuth company and supported Wagner His frst governmental action was to have someone fnd as one of the greatest patrons in the history of music. Any Richard Wagner (1813–1883) and invite him to Munich. attempt to reduce the relationship between Ludwig and Wag- Ludwig had become an early “Wagnerian” and had read his ner, which was very close only until 1869, to a giver and Kunstwerk der Zukunft (The Artwork of the Future). He taker role or even to a homoerotic relationship would con- internalized especially “Tannhäuser” and “Lohengrin,” with siderably reduce Wagner’s ongoing role in Ludwig’s ideas whom he almost identifed, much to the amazement of the and artistic desires [17, 18]. people around him. Early on, in Wagner and his view of art and the state Ludwig saw a person of his own art-oriented nature who also had similar thoughts about the concept of The art world of Ludwig II an absolutist state [17, 18]. Wagner was a revolutionary, not only in his musical language but also in his sociopo- Ludwig started with his fantastic castles, which are mar- litical thoughts and actions, and he read Marx and Engels, veled at today, his self-presentations, the “scenery” of his for example. As contradictory as it may seem, this is where life. His “identifcation with Lohengrin,” which annoyed and the ideas and ideals of both the 18-year-old Ludwig and ultimately led to the loss of his bride ‘Sophie in Bavaria’ the 51-year-old Richard Wagner could be found, and they because he demanded that she play the role of “Elsa,” formed the basis for Ludwig’s friendship with Wagner, his Lohengrin’s bride, became tangible with the building of only close, deep friendship [17]. Neuschwanstein (1869), together with the “Tannhäuser Ludwig had in mind an absolutist monarchy like that of world.” Schloss Linderhof (1870), the purest French Rococo, Louis XIV, in which the king shines over everything like the represented Ludwig’s second major theme, the world of the sun as a provider of energy and a role model. Thus, in his Bourbons, which he acted out in lonely nocturnal sleigh imaginings, there would have been no need for either a gov- rides dressed up as Louis XIV, even with a scepter and ernment or a parliament but only for idealistic co-helpers. crown. The Schloss Herrenchiemsee (1873) houses a repre- This anachronistic idea was opposed by the constitutional sentation of Ludwig’s godfather genealogy, which became monarchical state order imposed by the Bavarian Constitu- increasingly important to him but which he tried to hide tion of 1818 [9]. Under Wagner’s mentorship, Ludwig’s idea from the public [19]. He felt that through his baptism, he of a state became the “art religion,” which should promote a was descended from the Bourbons (godfathers in reverse change in the state and its people towards the ideal system of order: King Ludwig II; godfather: grandfather Ludwig I; government through moral/musical/artistic education (e.g., godfather of the Bourbon Louis XVI; back to Louis IX, the they planned to construct a representative Semper/Wagner “saint”). Herrenchiemsee is an unfnished but faithful copy opera house on the high banks of Munich’s Isar river next of the Palace of Versailles, although it is ~10% larger in to the Maximilianeum, the Bavarian parliament) [17, 18]. almost all dimensions. In contrast to the expected purpose, Proof that he was quite serious about his ideas is provided by the furnishings do not serve the “Gloire” (“glory”) of the the secret society “Coalition,” the inefectiveness of which Wittelsbachers but rather that of the Bourbons from Louis ultimately led to Ludwig’s premature weariness of ofce XIV to XVI, Marie-Antoinette, Madame Pompadour, etc. and his desire to exchange Bavaria for a kingdom with more Was this art world already outside the norm? Did it bor- submissive subjects (Table 1) [9]. der on the paranoid? It probably did! For example, Wagner 1 3 European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience Table 1 Medical history of Ludwig II Age (years) Medical history of Ludwig II Page [23] August 25, 1845 Difcult birth lasting > 10 h – Family history of psychoses: Alexandra (aunt), Otto (brother) GA 306 1846 (7 months) Meningitis, long failure to thrive – From 1851 6 Anxious, agitated, shy GA 307 1864 Joint pain, headaches – Becomes King of Bavaria.