Talk:Ode to Joy/Archive 1

"Only one" or "even but one"?
I remember being on this article a few months ago, and the page was much more in-depth. It included the German version alongside the English one (both with Beethoven's alterations in parentheses) and an English translation that was made to preserve rhyme/meter as much as possible. Anyone know what happened to that?

Should the lines "Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele/Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund" be translated: "Yea, whoever calls one soul one's own on Earth" or "Yea, whoever calls even but one soul one's own on Earth"? I think the second option is more accurate if the context be taken into account; one should join the blissful chorus if one can call another human being one's own, not in the manner of actual possession obviously. If we take the first option, is there not the risk to inerpret it after the fashion that everyone can claim their own soul as theirs, at least even if they have no bond to other people? This would be completely off the point. Lucius Domitius 18:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My humble understanding is that the latter translation is correct. What Schiller is essentially saying (to my small brain) is: "let he who has found a wife or a friend join with us in celebration. Even those who have but one soul on earth to call (their own) i.e. those who have a "bond" with their own soul, let them join us. But he who has failed in this (i.e. calling their own soul "their own") must remove himself from our circle. Don't get it? Don't blame me, neither do I. As I said, it's just my humble understanding of the loftly schiller. I stand to be enlightened by anyone with a greater expertise than me in poetry.


 * As in the English, the German would support either interpretation, but I think you're right, he is probably talking about "another" soul, although one could argue for the legitimacy of him meaning just one's own soul on the grounds that he's including even the worm as part of the great cosmic revel. But in any case I think that the current translation --  "Yes, who calls even one soul His own on the earth's sphere! -- is accurate and any ambiguity in it is the same as the amgiguity in the German.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I presumed schiller is referring the bond with one's own soul is that he has already referred to those who have found a wife or friend. So who else could he be referring to in saying "Yes, who calls even one soul His own on the earth's sphere"? But I agree - it's probably deliberate ambiguity.

Tochter aus Elysium
My interpretation of the von Karajan performance (and of the translation, which is plainly genitive) is that this should read "Tochter des Elysium". Of course, I could be just plain nuts :) --Fred 05:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If the genitive was used, the word 'Elysium' would be inflected also, thus 'Tochter des Elysiums', breaking the rhyme. A strict, direct translation should therefore say 'from' instead of 'of'. Sinuhe 09:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I dont know if the english version of "An die Freude" is correct that way it is in here. But it loses a lot of spirit during the translation. Shouldnt we try to do a nicer one?

If the classicism of Schiller be taken into account, allowance should be made as to how to interpret the word "Tochter"; it means "daughter" in English and "kore" in Greek; now the meaning of the Greek "kore" is not only "daughter", but "girl" in general; I believe that Schiller has the Greek word in mind with its second meaning (and the context is Greek with Elysium and all that) and expresses this meaning using the German "Tochter"; Joy is a girl living in Elysium ("aus" signifying "hailing from Elysium"), the genitive would not disrupt the rhythm, it would merely be pointless as a possessive; Elysium is a place, it cannot "have" a daughter. Lucius Domitius 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Translations and rhyming
Besides, IMHO the second translation is quite good; it can even be sung fluently. However, the rhyming of the following strophe seems a bit weird:

''Glad as the sun His will sent plying Through the vast abyss of space. Brothers run your joyous race, Hero-like to conquest flying''


 * plying
 * space
 * race
 * flying

shouldn't it be:
 * plying
 * space
 * flying
 * race

that means:

''Glad as the sun His will sent plying Through the vast abyss of space. Hero-like to conquest flying Brothers run your joyous race,''

also: ''O ye millions, I embrace ye! With a kiss for all the world! Brothers, o'er yon starry sphere Surely dwells a loving Father.''


 * ye   (e)
 * world (d)
 * (er)
 * (er)

hmm, it would be really difficult to make the strophe better rhyming. Any suggestions?? Cheerz, Critto


 * I took the liberty of moving the section to the bottom of the page, to prevent collision with other posts. Anyway, I'm fairly sure the first (literal, without rhyme or metre) translation is a true wiki translation, with no single author. As for the second one, I don't know.


 * The rhyme in the first of the stanzas that you comment on (Glad as the sun...) makes perfect sense; cf. the original text. The scheme here is ABBA, just like the current translation: fliegen; Plan; Bahn; Siegen.


 * The other one (O ye millions...) has no rhyme at all, though. This, I agree, is not quite as good. EldKatt (Talk) 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I got the rhyming version from http://www.sergioleonardi.com/bandiereinni/paroleinni/europeanunion.htm
 * I don't believe it's copyright. There's no copyright mark in the page.

Redundant
More than 80% of this article deals with the Beethoven setting of the poem, which is discussed at length at the Ninth symphony page. This article should probably deal more with the historical context of the poem, along with an analysis of the text, and a literal translation. I'm probably going to move the "singable" translation to the Beethoven page, as it is not germane to a discussion of the poem itself. All of the facts regarding the Beethoven setting are on the Beethoven page, already, making this article pretty redundant. DYK's of instances that "used Beethoven's music but not Schiller's words" couldn't be more out of place. Schiller's poem did have a life outside of Ludwig van Beethoven's mind, and it's that life that should be reflected here. In addition, the article should probably be retitled "Ode to Joy (Schiller)" to differentiate it from (and dissuade) discussion of the Beethoven symphony. As it stands right now, half of the first paragraph, the paragraphs on the different musical settings, the text itself and its translation are about the only things that should be on this page. I'm going to give it a week to stir up some conversation and maybe convince me that I'm wrong, but I'll probably be doing a major delete after that. -- MusicMaker5376 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I'm moving our wiki translation of the Beethoven libretto here because I think it's too valuable to lose, but I can't make it line up correctly with all the emptiness because Beethoven didn't use all of Schiller's poem. I've (or I'll) post the entire German text on the main page when I go back and edit. But, here's the translation. We should work on a full translation. Joy, beautiful spark of God, Daughter from Elysium, We enter, fire-drunk, Heavenly one, your shrine. Your magic reunites What custom strictly parts. (Original: What custom's sword has parted) All people become brothers (Original: Beggars become princes' brothers) Where your gentle wing alights.

Whoever has succeeded in the great attempt To be a friend to a friend; Whoever has won a lovely woman Mix in your joy! Yes, who calls even one soul His own on the earth's sphere! And let whoever has never achieved this Steal away crying from this group!

All beings drink joy At the breasts of nature; All the good, all the bad Follow her trail of roses. She gave us kisses and vines, A friend, proven in death; Great pleasure was given to the worm, And the cherub stands before God.

Glad, like his suns fly Through heaven's splendid plan, Run, brothers, your race, Joyful, like a hero to the victory.

Be embraced, millions!!! This kiss to all the world! Brothers, over the starry firmament Must live a loving father. Do you bow down, millions? Do you sense the Creator, world? Seek him beyond the starry firmament! He must dwell beyond the stars.

-- MusicMaker5376 06:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

// I wonder who has done that translation; it is certainly not the best one could achieve! At times it is quite a free one; at times it does not sound "poetic" in any way (compared to the original), subtleties and beauty of expression lost.

For one line it is grammatically wrong (intentionally ? - but then misleading, or an unintended slip?) : "...Was die Mode streng geteilt..." is present perfect tense ( "hat" is omitted for poetic bregvity), hence "...has seperated/parted...".

"Alle Menschen..." is "All humans" rather than "people", which everyone would "back-translate" as "Leute". Etc...

(I am native speaker of Schiller's language). 'Not in a mood to do a revision myself...

Regards, Sophophilos.147.142.186.54 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Has anyone else noticed the spelling in the german version that's on the page is horrible at certain points?Could someoine have a look at that? I'd do it myself, but I'm not very confident I'd get all the errors out. 213.51.44.108 08:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish translation
Why do we have a Polish translation of a German peom on the English Wikipedia? I'm sure the poem has been translated into many languages, but this isn't the right place to list all of them. (As with any translation, copyright is a potential issue). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation
Whoever is peddling their translation as authentic Schiller needs to gain the courage to explain and recognize themselves. Think Again! Written in 1785 and published in Schiller's review Thalia in 1786, as “An die Freude”. (literally, "To the Happiness" Not Joy! Note also, Schiller's use of 3 separate words, Not 2 words!) In 1803, after the French Revolution Terror, when the German states became even more Brahmin and "Princely"-aristocratic and reactionary with their censorship, Schiller published a new edition of his poetry which is the same toned-down version as what Beethoven used. Also, to illustrate how this Ode's meaning has changed with time, Alexander Wheelock Thayer's, earlier-1921 edition, Life of Beethoven, reads as follows;

"The thought lies near that it was the early form of the poem, when it was still an "Ode to Freedom" (not "to Joy"), which first aroused enthusiastic admiration for it in Beethoven's mind. In a Conversation Book of 1824 Bernard says to Beethoven: "Instead of Beggars become brothers of princes' it reads in your text, 'All men become brothers,' followed by the observation, "All this is due here to the direction of the aristocracy"---which may or may not have connection with a conversation in which politics was playing a part."

Note that this poem's 1st version was written just months after Schiller's anti Hessian-British play, Cabal and Love, 1784, (SEE Act 2, Scene 2 where pro-American, young, Germans, in the flower of youth, are executed by firing squad).

In the following lines from the "Declaration", only the hardened anglophile or popular-opinion-sophist, could not recognize the similarity to "the pursuit of Happiness" and "all men are created equal", that were very popular in that time period and published in the international press, in many languages, just before a struggling, infant, nation became a reality, in 1782, as the United States of America; (Note "Happiness" is one of only a few words used twice in this document.)

["When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ...

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."] July 4, 1776.

Regarding, the difficulty Schiller had in translating his source material from English, if you were a German poet looking for the right German word for Happiness, would you choose "Freude" or "Glück"-(which can also be confusingly translated as luck), which would you choose?

Not to mention that there was an engraving version of John Trumbull's "Battle of Bunker Hill" hanging in Schiller's living room.

Similarly, during this same period there is a letter from Schiller to J.W. Archenholz, strongly urging him to undertake a History of the American Revolution. (this same Archenholz, in his strongly republican, quarterly periodical Minerva, from the heart of Germany, has 100s of pro-American articles including one written by Beethoven's favorite, Klopstock, which was instrumental in helping Lafayette's brave and saintly wife (Fidelio?). This article helped her find and eventually free Lafayette from his British subsidized dungeon in Austrian Empire, then under Francis II, who was much more aristocratic and opposite to the former emperor Joseph II (known as "The Poor Man's Emperor"). Some of the engravings in Minerva, as cover pages, include George Washington, Lafayette, Thomas Paine and many other republicans including Schiller.  Tell me again how this information is inappropriate to Schiller's original Ode Wiki page? A correct translation must mirror precisely Schiller's original historical intent or it will not endure or be taken seriously! ---STARK-"LIVE FREE OR DIE"-4.156.117.175 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The main reason I reverted your contribution was because, like this talk post, it was completely unintelligible. You have a lot of information, but your writing is mind-numbingly bad.  If I had any idea of what you were trying to say, I might have edited it, but I don't even understand what point it is that you're trying to make.
 * You're opinion as to what constitutes a better translation constitutes original research. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of English (and non-English) speakers recognize this poem and Beethoven's subsequent treatment as "The Ode to Joy".
 * The parallels to the USDOI are, again, original research and entirely unencyclopedic.
 * Thank you for your contributions. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PS  --- From Mickey's string above "Friede" does not mean "Freedom" but more like "Peace". Also, the text for "this poem", if MusicMaker (28 Oct.,#2,above) means the original 1785 version, is nowhere to be found on this main page. Why? Also, even for the 1803 revision, the text was ALL Schiller's toned-down revision, not Beethoven's, who only changed the order of presentation. Both the 1785 and 1803 versions should be fully presented on this main page with historically accurate translations and explanations with References!

"Original research" and my "opinion" (as MusicMaker 28 Oct. above, says) have nothing to do with it and not applicable! Which demonstrates more interest in censorship via slander than substantially countering at least 5 primary sources including 4 directly from the hand of Schiller and one from the known entries in Beethoven's Conversation Book. The problem is, the once better known (as recently as 1919), true meaning of this Ode has been lost and replaced with bad scholarship, fraud and popular-opinion-sophistry.

I respect the scholarly work of noted 19th century Beethoven biographer Alexander Wheelock Thayer (cited above) who started studying Beethoven's life less than 25 years after his death, NOT the popular-opinion-mediocrity MusicMaker uses as a single inferior reference. Note, the latest edition of Thayer has the above "aristocracy" line from Beethoven's Conversation Book censored out. Also, Thayer, NOT me, has the quote "it was the early form of the poem, when it was still an "Ode to Freedom" (not "to Joy"), which first aroused enthusiastic admiration for it in Beethoven's mind." This, in particular, answers Mickey's request. SEE above.

It is never easy placing a lot of relevant primary source references in one small place, especially since "someone" has barred us here from the main page, deliberately. But I am very confident that any non-prejudiced editor with an attention span longer than 10 seconds will find these references useful and in turn will add even more supporting detailed references. One glance at J.W. Archenholz's,Minerva, (edited by Schiller's close friend''' and pen pal) and especially Klopstock's article, should convince even the most hardened anglophile historian. Sorry for typos, loss of punctuation and paragraph spacing. Thanks for the feedback.

The truth will eventually surface (reconfirming Thayer's biography) as many more editors check and verify these many solid primary sources (cited above) directly from the hands of Schiller, Beethoven, Archenholz, and Klopstock.

STARK-"LIVE FREE OR DIE"  --4.156.117.3 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These accusations of censorship and slander are completely unfounded. I'm not trying to hide anything.  I'm not even entirely certain what it is that you think I'm trying to subsume.  I'm trying to keep the article encyclopedic.
 * Please take a moment to read WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE use primary sources.  Wikipedia uses secondary sources.  Only.  Please do not attempt to create your own version of historical analysis using primary sources, as you've stated is your intent.  Thayer would be acceptable.
 * If you'd like to write a section detailing the historical application of Schiller's Ode, please, PLEASE do so. This article needs it.  Please write about the fact that Schiller wrote two versions.  Please.  Feel free to post it here.  Please write about alternate translations.  Source your contributions using secondary sources.  Please make it readable.
 * However, don't expect the Wikipedia article to state that it's wrong to call this poem "Ode to Joy". It's not.  We're not going to embrace some small, radical, 18th Century reading as gospel.
 * Don't expect both of Schiller's versions to be on this page. There's no need for that, and it will ultimately confuse the reader.  Really, I don't think there should be any version on this page: that's something better covered in Wikisource.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

MusicMaker's comment; "Wikipedia DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE use primary sources." is false and misleading and nothing of the kind was found at that link. WP:SOURCES does have restrictions on questionable self-authored Web sites as well as self-authored paper versions, primary sources but in no way bans primary sources. (No Web sites are cited at all in my case, except "primary source" link to Minerva-online in this entry) Primary sources enable researchers to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. On the contrary, primary sources (such as Schiller's letters) are encouraged by WP:SOURCES in "Self-published Sources" as long as A) "it is relevant to their notability;" and B) "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;"  Common sense tells us that Shiller's and Beethoven's published works, letters and Conversation Books would all be banned if primary sources were banned.

Also the comment, "We're not going to embrace some small, radical, 18th Century reading as gospel." is also false and misleading. If A.W. Thayer is inferred, since Thayer was a frequent contributor to the highly regarded Dwight's Journal of Music, as a Beethoven and Schiller scholar, that certainly rules out "small" and "radical". If either J.W.Archenholz, or Klopstock are inferred, no reputable scholar of German Literature would ever refer to the extremely popular publications of Archenholz and Klopstock as "small" and "radical" since they were both chronicling the events, injustices and politics of those times and thereby leaving us a window to see into the past. I will leave it to the many other, more knowledgeable readers to decide if we should censor out Schiller's original 1785 version (censorship which is now the case in this current main page) of Schiller's Ode, or if we should include both with complete, scholarly references.

Tell me again, why and how? Schiller was not pro-American, not pro-Declaration of Independence and not pro-Happiness and how these sources are "small", "radical" and how "primary sources" are "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES" to be used? Thankyou for opening this forum and page and sorry for my errors.

STARK-"LIVE FREE OR DIE"  4.156.117.86 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's taken me almost two months to respond to this. It slipped my mind.
 * My point is that the article should reflect MODERN scholarship of the poem, which it currently does. In fact, NEITHER version of the poem should be on this page -- that's something for Wikisource.  If there were changes made from the original version to that which would commonly be found in a book of poetry today, then those changes can be noted with explanations as to why they were changed.
 * You are trying to push a point of view: the point of view that the version currently on the page is in some way inferior to the poem that Schiller originally wrote. That is unacceptable.  Wikipedia is written from a NPOV -- a Neutral Point Of View.  We have to remain fair and balanced.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for unlocking the main "Ode" page that you locked down for several months from other "points of view" that don't match your own sophistry i.e. "point of view". (which from your comments (above) sound like that of a; "if it feels good, do it" or, like that of a hippie, "there is no truth or natural law" anarchist-artist) Please forgive me if this observation of your writings is not correct. The current translation, on the main "Ode" page, has little or no agreement to what is well known about Schiller's intent from his own letters to close friends and these same friend's publications on Schiller. If you didn't notice, look over again on this Talk Page. Many others loathe this same, currently shown, inferior, translation-into-English of Schiller/Beethoven's great, revised poem "Ode to the Happiness". Also, to not include the history and circumstances that inspired these original Schiller and Beethoven versions, is misleading and shameful to the memory of these great artists! Write your own poetry if you must but don't connect it to Schiller's or Beethoven's good names! Sign your own name to your own poetry! As the comments (above) already prove, (SEE 28,Oct.2007, MusicMaker said; "Wikipedia DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE use primary sources." and, calling the writings of Klopstock and Archenholtz as "some small, radical, 18th Century reading as gospel" ) we already know well about MusicMaker's forcing of a "point of view".

After a hiatus of over 200 years, the authenticated, original letters of Schiller written to close literary friends and those same friend's writings honoring Schiller and Beethoven are now available to all of us in seconds. (SEE, for a small start, Original Letters and published writings in the 7 References-below and the many direct hyperlinks above) Therefore, "points of view" and "pleasing to the crown (or aristocracy)" sophistry are no longer needed to quickly determine Schiller's and Beethoven's, much more beautiful and powerful, original intent!

STARK-"LIVE FREE OR DIE"  -4.156.117.223 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that what you have to say isn't valid.  I'm saying that Wikipedia can't support your view as being the one correct view.  If there are competing interpretations of this poem, the article needs to reflect them all.
 * I have no point of view about this poem. I'm not trying to supress anything.  The only reason I'm even here having this conversation is because I think I'm the only person actively watching this article, and, really, I only do that to keep information germane to Beethoven's treatment from creeping into the article.
 * The title of the poem and the title of the article, by Wikipedia's policies, need to reflect that which most English speakers would recognize. Anyone who is familiar with this poem knows it as the Ode to Joy.  Because the translation is somewhat faulty has no bearing on that.  The title of the article needs to remain "Ode to Joy".  The article can, and, as I've said before, should reflect that the commonly accepted translation is not necessarily correct.
 * The fact that there are two versions of the poem is a fantastic addition to the article. However, WP cannot support one as being more right or more beautiful than the other.  THAT is a POV.  The version currently on the page is the one that is, again, commonly accepted.  A section detailing the differences between the original and this current version, why they were made, etc., would be more than welcome.  However, we can't have BOTH versions on the article -- we shouldn't even have this one.  It should be over at WikiSource.
 * I've asked you to do this. I set up a temporary page where you can write it up here.  This is the third time I've said this.  You just keep attacking me for no reason. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely more civility is needed here, and remember to assume good faith on both sides of the table. I'd like to help out a bit here, if possible. I'm trying to determine if the contention is over interpretation of the work, or over translation. Could someone enlighten me (with brief prose, if possible. Part of the difficulty in this situation is just how much text there is to sort through!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I'm not even sure. I think they're sort of intertwined.  What I believe the other poster is trying to say is that Schiller wrote an earlier version of the poem and that somewhere along the line it was "watered-down" to the version that is on this article.  I think that some of the contention is also with how the poem has historically been translated.  That's how I understand things.  Like I've said, I'd love for the article to reflect both of those points.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look in the history around October 18 and 19, you can see the edits. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation of First Verse
I am the one who was responsible for posting the translation for "Ode to Joy" on the page and it was my conflicts with another user that lead to the page being locked as it is now. So, I am posting here what I believe is a more accurate translation of the first verse of the piece (the translation currently given ignores certain words or uses completely different ones and then jumbles some lines together). Please consider them. Thank you Ode2joy (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this should be at Wikisource. &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree. See WP:NPS. Wikisource has plenty of room for as many translations (free of copyright) as you'd like. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Greetings, Schiller and Beethoven fans. I've worked on the English translation up until "Aus der Wahrheit Feuerspiegel". Forgive my edit summaries if they are snippy. Will be glad to see further tweaks of the translation, and to discuss the same. As you'll see, I've added a sense that Schiller published one poem in 1785, and another version in 1803. (Beethoven used the latter as a basis for the text he ended up with.) I see no reason not to note Schiller's two variations. If someone has a better way to format these, I'd be glad to see it. Best, Anthony Krupp (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
WHERE DID THE LYRICS GO???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.152.180 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ode to Joy as EU Anthem - by Adri K.
Where is the past informations about Ode to Joy as EU anthem? This article contained it several months ago. I feel necessary to add the lost information.

The Ode to Joy was adopted as Europe's anthem by the Council of Europe in 1972, with an official arrangement for orchestra written by Herbert von Karajan. In 2003, the European Union chose Beethoven's music for the poem as the EU anthem, without German lyrics, because of the many different languages used within the European Union. Therefore, the EU anthem is in effect the Beethoven theme (or melody) rather than Schiller's poem, although its connection with the ideal of human brotherhood in the text is understood. This ideal is stated in much more universal terms in Beethoven's adaptation ("All men become brothers") than in Schiller's original, which states that "beggars become the brothers of princes." Beethoven's music for the Ode to Joy was also adopted as a national anthem by the UDI regime of Rhodesia. In 1974 it was put to words. (See Rise O Voices of Rhodesia.) Beethoven's theme is also the setting for the Christian hymn, Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee (or Hymn to Joy), a poem written in 1908 by Henry van Dyke (1852–1933). Ode to Joy, with its German lyrics, was featured prominently in the 1971 film and 1962 book A Clockwork Orange. This scene has been parodied in television shows, most notably in The Simpsons episode Dog of Death. Ode to Joy was also featured in Episode 24 of the popular anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. Ode to Joy was also used at the Olympics, for victory ceremonies, as national anthem of the United Team of East and West Germany, at the 1956, 1960 and 1964 Summer Olympics. Less famous musical settings of the poem were written by Franz Schubert (for voice and piano, 1815) and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (for solo singers, choir and orchestra in a Russian translation, 1865). Bright Eyes used the music from Ode to Joy on his song Road to Joy from the album I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning. Ritchie Blackmore's band Rainbow recorded the Ode to Joy for their 1980 album Difficult to Cure, renaming it so to become the title track, although the words were not sung. During the final tour of Japan in 1984 the track was performed with a full orchestra. Ode to Joy is also a common Christmas Carol in Japan. •	Beethoven's Ode to Joy (file info) o	A simplified version of Beethoven's setting of part of the poem, from his ninth symphony o	Problems listening to the file? See media help. [edit]


 * BEETHOVEN'S version of the Ode to Joy is the EU anthem, and, as such, this information would be germane to the article on the Ninth symphony. &mdash;  Music Maker  19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See European anthem. - S. Solberg J. 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The EU does not have an anthem, so this obviously isn't it. The music was proposed as the EU anthem in the scrapped constitutional treaty, and has not made it into the Reform Treaty, so there is no sign that this will ever be made the EU anthem. The text as shown is wrong, but I dont know how to change it with the protection in place. Could someone else do this? 81.105.60.251 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

---

It's generally considered the unofficial European Union anthem and I think it should be mentioned in the article. -David 12/06/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.230.104 (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the official European Union anthem. In 1972, the musical backing (without the words) was adopted as the "Anthem of Europe" by the Council of Europe and subsequently by the EC (now the EU). In 1985, the now European Union chose Beethoven's music as the offical EU anthem, See link ThinkingTwice (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ode to Joy
Ode to Joy seems to be the best song and most famouse song ever written by Wolfgag Amuedus Mozart. he has written thausands of songs. he has never written a bad song. Hayden Mumm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.112.42 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I will not tell you my name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.112.42 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. 69.137.130.101 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

london underground
In the summer of 2010 "Ode to Joy by Gillian Clarke, National Poet of Wales. The poster includes the main theme of the choral movement of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, from the Philharmonic Society copy in the British Library." fourth image further down the page shows the poem. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Beethoven's version belong here?
The version of the poem currently on the page is Beethoven's version, with the initial recitative and all, albeit with sidenotes where Schiller did things differently. I reckon this article should be about Schiller's poem, though: Nevermind that Beethoven's setting is the most well-known one, we should stick to the subject of the article. Shouldn't, then, the Beethoven version be on Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) only, and Schiller's original here? EldKatt 19:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. Go for it. -Willmcw 21:28, July 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. EldKatt 11:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the English translations on this page and the Beethoven's 9th page are rather different, even for the passages that are identical in German. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

--Rogernz1 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC) - [User:rogernz1|Roger] 19:30 December 26 2006

I've scoured the articles under Schiller and Beethoven's Ninth, but can find no reference to a memory at the back of my mind that the Ode was originally to Freedom (Friede), and that Freude was substituted later - because of ripples from the French Revolution? or because of the disapproval of a monarch?? Any "enlightenment" on this?

Mikey--86.20.159.202 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm recalling correctly, when Bernstein conducted the 9th after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he substituted "Friede" for "Freude". To my knowledge, there was no precedent for this.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  02:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The original Schiller (1785) reads Freiheit. Not Friede, nor Freude. I am not able to find a quotation now, though, so I will return. Neither Wikipedia nor Google has a "Freiheit" version except that Leonard Bernstein in 1989 should have used Freiheit (not Friede, according to http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2786). I am a bit shocked that the original meaning can be so easily forgotten.

--d-axel (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fried" (no E, at least in modern German -- may have been different in Schiller's time; cf. dropping of "-e" in dative case) = "peace." I, too, visited here to ask about the often-circulated theory/rumor/urban legend that Schiller originally wrote "An die Freiheit" and "Freiheit, schoener Goetterfunken," etc.  The sources I've encountered (included in my Internet search results along with the more relevant ones I was looking for) say that Bernstein used "Freiheit," not "Friede"; I haven't seen any mention of his using the latter.  (The YouTube video linked to in the relevant comment on the webpage mentioned by Donald j axel is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4635W4roY.)


 * I'm creating a new section of this (talk) page for the "Freude"/"Freiheit" debate.


 * 68.10.1.154 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Die Hard?
This really can't be called the most famous reference to this is popular culture? To me this seems sort of wrong and not to relevant? It may have been more relevant when the movies were released but otherwise its not timely? 211.29.227.101 (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation: "stehle" to "steal"
I can't figure out how to make this change on the actual page, so I'll just report it in form of a comment here.

In the second verse it says: "Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!"

In this case, "sich aus diesem Bund stehlen" doesn't translate to "Let him steal away crying from this gathering!" but rather, let him "creep away from". This translation can also be found on the referenced page: http://www.raptusassociation.org/ode1785.html

Hence I suggest the change:

"Steal" in the sense of "steal away" does mean something like "creep"; it's an intransitive verb for which a better paraphrase would be "move furtively," such that "steal away" means "move furtively away." Hence "stealth": the ability to move furtively or the state of moving furtively at the time under discussion. No act of theft is implicit in the definition, although one who moves stealthily will of course be better at "stealing" in the transitive sense.
 * 68.10.1.154 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "sich stehlen" (reflexive) or "sich davon stehlen" == to abscond. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the language needs to be 'dumbed down' like that? Just because the meaning of steal has changed a little doesn't mean that saying your stealing away yourself from someone is still not correct or accurate? That's just my opinion though. 203.164.130.29 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture References
The article needs to be more balanced; this is a general criticism that could be made for many Wikipedia articles, but the "cultural references" section should be shortened (or the main section expanded)--as a serious, professional encyclopedia article, there should be more information about the actual subject and fewer trivia about contemporary culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.211.245 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Text
Why do we have to go to a link to find the text? Due mainly to Beethoven's use, the Ode has become very well known throughout the world, and it would make sense to include the full text and a translation here.

Also, most people will be familiar with at most the 44 lines used by Beethoven. Mention should be made that this is less than half of Schiller's composition, comprising 108 lines.

Sca (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2003
Would it be acceptable if I were to post the actual poem in the article, in German and English? Or, more accurately, the libretto from Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. In so asking, I'm obviously being lazy - I haven't bothered researching Wikipedia policy on quoting entire (but short) poems in articles! Harris7 00:02, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that in most German editions of Schiller's work and in biographies and other material about him, the poem is not "Ode to Joy" but rather "To Joy" ("An die Freude"). In other words, it is AN ode to joy whose title is "To Joy". <-- clarify please. Why the use of "whose" in reference to a lower-case joy?--tuesday 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC). (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC) ' I have corrected this in the relevant Wikipedia articles. (LINKS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_to_Joy <-- not corrected tuesday 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)) I haven't, however, gone to a research library to see if there is a Schiller version of it in which he actually called it "Ode to Joy", although this would be a rather unlikely German construction. In German it's sometimes also referred to as a hymn rather than an ode. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:35, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)    <--Elaborate? What effect does this have on the meaning; are you saying they refer to the poem as "Hymn to Joy," sometimes, instead of "To Joy?" You said there was no "ode" in there in the first place, yet you say they refer to it "sometimes" as a hymn, rather than an ode. Please clarify.--tuesday 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Whose the English translations of Ode to Joy are? I think it would be good to publish the names of translators, or state their anonymity/pseudonimity, if that is the case. -idli samba

The formatting on this article is terrible. Somebody mind lining the verses up so we know what's being translated into what?