Talk:Immortal Beloved

Neutrality dispute
As it stands, the article's tone is biased, scornfully dismissing Antonie and Erdödy with rhetorical questions and insufficient evidence for its assumptions. It could use the balancing efforts of someone less preoccupied than myself! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Solomon's hypothesis is put forth, and several scholar's rebuttals of that hypothesis are also listed. This is a simple statement of fact - hardly a NPOV issue. If there are substantial expert supports of Solomon published, by all means add them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

This article now comprehensively reflects the major research results and relevant opinions that were published by scholars up to 2011. John E Klapproth (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Erdödy hypothesis doesn't need to be refuted, because it was presented without "insufficient evidence for its assumptions" in the first place and no serious Beethoven scholar ever took it serious.--Suessmayr (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problems about the Josephine hypothesis are not mentioned as they should, and it has problems too. Barry Cooper in Beethoven (2008) says that Josephine appears to have remained in Vienna during 6-7 July (there is a letter of her to her brother some days after), and that there is no record of her in either Prague or Karlsbad that year. He also defies the burden of proof that she could have travelled from Vienna to Prague, evaded the police register of guests in Karlsbad, and returned to Vienna all incognito. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not the case that "Josephine appears to have remained in Vienna during 6-7 July (there is a letter of her to her brother some days after)": there was a letter by her brother dated 25 July, and if anything, then the matter discussed therein (see all the details in Goldschmidt, since 2013 in English) shows why Josephine had to leave Prague (or possibly Franzensbad), and therefore the Letter could not be posted. That "there is no record of her in either Prague or Karlsbad that year" is not required: in Prague she could have stayed informally at her sister-in-law's house (as she used to do frequently); in Karlsbad there was no need for her to be - only the Letter was to be posted to K (or rather via K to Franzensbad), but these are minor quibbles that are all discussed in Goldschmidt (2013) ad nauseam. In Franzensbad (where she possibly went) there was no requirement at all to be registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSpecialK (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality redux
Thanks to the recent edits of Klapproth (whose own book on the Immortal Beloved is quite well-written, btw), this article certainly does not suffer from a lack of reliable sources. Unfortunately, one can easily get the impression from it that the scholarly consensus is around Josephine, when it should be better summed up as a split consensus. Like it or not, many scholars, including the most recent English-language Beethoven biographies (Lockwood, Cooper), support Antonie's candidacy, so Wikipedia has to reflect that. This page shouldn't be dissecting the whole letter, explaining why Josephine fits it best, and then introducing Solomon's Antonie hypothesis only to spend most of the time explaining why it's wrong (See WP:UNDUE WEIGHT). The header especially should not favor one candidate over the others (See WP:SYNTHESIS).

Sentences such as

The most likely addressee is the only woman about whom significant documentary evidence exists of a long love relationship with Beethoven, Josephine Brunsvik.

(Antonie Brentano) is one of the many less likely candidates put forward as Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved."

and

But (Solomon's) reasoning is marred by major flaws.

cross the line and violate Wikipedia's Neutral point of view guideline.

By all means, all of the relevant research should be accounted for, with the advocacy as well as the criticism of each major candidate being duly discussed. This article already has a lot of great secondary sources cited, but Wikipedia is not the place for the editors themselves to weigh in on which of the secondary sources are better than the others. Merely what has been said and by whom.

I would suggest the following:


 * 1) It needs a more neutral header, simply stating what the term refers to, when the letter was written, and who the likely candidates were, either in alphabetical order or with the two mainstream candidates (Antonie and Josephine) listed first and the others listed after.
 * 2) The body of the article should first print the letter in full English translation without editorial commentary (but historical context is helpful).
 * 3) Each candidate's sub-heading should be structured the same way: first the arguments for and who supports them (again without editorial comment), followed by the arguments against and who makes them, and then perhaps some counter-claims by the advocating scholars if relevant.
 * 4) I would also see good reason for a section on the fringe candidates, as well as a sort of history of the mystery, stated as neutrally as possible. The Immortal Beloved is a topic which many scholars still get in a heated debate over, which makes the controversy an interesting topic on its own. But there's a fine line between writing about the controversy and taking part in the controversy (See WP:SOAPBOX).

Junggai (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for recognizing my recent book (which is not on the "Immortal Beloved" but on "Beethoven's Only Beloved", and that - not at all subtle - difference is already giving away what the "Solution" to this supposed "Riddle" is). My main issue is to correct (or balance) the (still) prevailing bias within the Anglo-American literature mainly based on either incorrect or - worse - no translations of the relevant German research (going back to La Mara in 1920). I know that Solomon's (indeed flawed) "Antonie conjecture" is parroted, among others, by Lockwood and Cooper, but I happen to have received an email by one of them, stating that he is prepared to change his mind once he has read my book (which therefore was new to him - astonishing, given the obvious fact that I do not present any original research but just summarize all the existing one). Likewise I have it (by email) from a recognized Beethoven scholar that a certain publication recently advertised with great fanfare (supporting Antonie) is full of "ridiculous nonsense", or that another person who wrote about this matter is simply "crazy"... The hard work is really to sift facts from fiction. And the simple fact that something is published (esp. if it is lurid) does not make it "quotable" (or "verifiable"). Just recently the respected musicologist M Lorenz has shredded the flawed conjecture by Kopitz that "Für Elise" was dedicated to one Elisabeth Röckel, in such a polemic way that one must wonder how Kopitz could ever get away with other similarly flawed (i.e., not properly backed up by documents) hypotheses like his support of Antonie... And so on.


 * The problem that most people have with Josephine is that her love of Beethoven was always kept secret, no one ever knew about it (apart from a few relatives and friends who kept mum all the time), for more than 150 years the 15 love letters were unknown, even then the Beethoven-Haus disgraced itself by quickly stating the "Immortal Beloved" could not be the same (only because there was no "proof" that she was in Prague - when in fact there could not be a proof, due to the secrecy!), that the existence of Minona (born 9 months later) was always perceived as an embarrassment to be avoided like the plague, and on and on.


 * As a matter of fact, it can be shown, that in recent years the strategy of the "Anti-Josephine" faction, after seeing that the continued support of Antonie was simply untenable, has changed tack to propagate all sorts of extremely unlikely, even impossible "candidates" (like Zandt, Röckel, Erdödy, Bettina, or one Almeria whom Beethoven never met!), in order to create the impression that there are so many of them, that one just cannot pick one with any certainty.


 * The Real Truth (even though there is, cannot be, a proof that Josephine was in Prague - if anything, in order to rule her out we need proof of the contrary!) is very simple: Is it conceivable that the "one and only" woman whom Beethoven wrote 15 passionate love letters from 1804 to 1809, to whom he pledged "eternal faithfulness", whom he addressed as "My Angel", etc. could not be the same as the "Immortal Beloved" of 1812 whom he addressed by the very same terms? Is it conceivable that there could be two different "Only Beloveds"? All we need is some firm (maybe circumstantial) evidence that such a split in Beethoven's love life has occurred. So far, there is none.John E Klapproth (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I'm sympathetic to what you say, about wanting to "correct the bias" of the American and English Beethoven scholarship -- personally, I wish you best of luck in getting your voice heard. But Wikipedia is not the place to do that. The job here is to summarize the scholarship as it now stands, without injecting our own opinions, however well-informed, about the reliability or competence of half the mainstream scholars. All opinions must come from published sources, without synthesis or editorializing on our part.


 * What you've done with your own edits, although citing a whole host of reliable sources, is to synthesize and draw conclusions based on your own opinions of the literature. The sentences I quoted above, and the entire "conclusion" section you added, are an attempt to convince the reader toward one side, rather than summarize what scholars actually say. This is simply not encyclopedic. If you haven't already, you should read up on Wikipedia's policies, which I provided links to above.


 * If I may answer a few specific points in your reply:
 * Lockwood and Cooper, who you accuse of "parroting" Solomon (and in much stronger language in your book), are, like it or not, respected Beethoven scholars who are far from ignorant of the German language or source study. Both, in fact, are experts at reading Beethoven's sketches and his handwriting -- no small feat if you've ever tried deciphering his chicken scratch. Contrary to what you claim, neither are uncritical of Solomon either, since both of them take somewhat strong positivistic stances against speculation (Cooper almost to a fault in my humble opinion). I personally see Lockwood's acceptance of Solomon's Antonie hypothesis in his biography as not wishing to spend too much time on the issue; he's more interested in musical analysis as a means of understanding Beethoven's character, and offers little new in terms of biographical insight (besides some helpful historical perspective about the political events around Beethoven). Cooper is the more critical of the two of Solomon (he can't be easily dismissed as "Solomon's buddy"), and raises some pretty clear issues with the Josephine hypothesis without dismissing it out of hand. You seem to paint all of "Anglo-American" scholarship with the same brush, that they're all rubes who can't read German and don't know the German literature. That's bad faith, and demonstrably untrue. There are many possible reasons for a scholar to take a certain stand which is contrary to your own, and to claim that cronyism or ignorance of the most important literature is the sole reason is to become more polemic than the scholars you're attempting to discredit. At any rate, Wikipedia is not the place for your own opinions of certain scholars' expertise.
 * You mention that a "recognized Beethoven scholar" believes much of the recent musicological work to be flawed. Unfortunately, scholars' personal, off-the-record opinions about other scholars (and believe me, I've heard as many, if not more, than you have) do not belong in an encyclopedia. Once there have been reliable secondary sources that make the same claims, then they can be included in the article, and not before.
 * You speak of an "Anti-Josephine" faction (as if they were one unified clique), and make all kinds of speculations as to their motivations in recent publications. Please consider the point I made above. Controversy can and should have a place in the article, but here is not the place to take a side. This is not my opinion, this is Wikipedia policy about controversial subjects. See Controversial articles for a very clear statement about cases like this.
 * A small point about one of your sources: La Mara is a problematic source, as it is the memoirs of an interested party, therefore rightly classified as a primary source (not "German-language research" as you call it). Wikipedia also has a policy about such cases (see WP:PRIMARY). You've also used her as a source both for Josephine and Therese's candidacy, and you incorrectly claim that she's never been translated -- Forbes included translations of the relevant passages in his edition of Thayer. The bottom line is, the article should proceed with caution at using La Mara as a source, but should rather discuss it in light of the secondary literature.


 * I'm interested in having this article be as good as possible, especially given the heightened interest that this letter will likely receive in 2012. You know all of the relevant literature, so you're an ideal person to edit the article -- it also means that you have to be more careful here to avoid conflict of interest (See WP:Conflict of interest). Although you're convinced of the answer, the article should not take a side. Incidentally, you should consider toning down the article on Josephine Brunsvik -- the very polemical first sentence seems to be lifted from your own book.


 * Respectfully, Junggai (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Junggai, I'm glad that you read my book ("Beethoven's Only Beloved"), unfortunately, being self-published, it does not qualify as a "verifiable source" according to Wikipedia rules (for good reason); however, there is quite a lot of unscholarly literature out there, no matter how ridiculous nonsense they propagate, they count as "serious", quotable literature. Whereas my book has undergone scientific scrutiny (reviewed and edited by a Beethoven scholar, thus worthy to be on the shelves of any university library), I know of at least two recent cranks who managed to get their speculative treatises published and advertised with the help of a small "donation" (being without significant financial means, you can guess how likely it is for me to get published this way). And of course, my book is, for some, too "controversial" (it ought to be - the Truth must out!) - Some remarks to above:


 * "Cooper, who you accuse of "parroting" Solomon (and in much stronger language in your book)": Admittedly, this is simplifying, but (1) I say nothing at all about Cooper in my book, (2) what you then say about Lockowood is just the point: "Lockwood's acceptance of Solomon's Antonie hypothesis in his biography as not wishing to spend too much time on the issue; he's more interested in musical analysis", this is representing the reluctance among many musicologists to recognize biographical influences in Beethoven's (or any composer's) works - and my hunch is that the importance of Josephine can just not be ignored (once you go that path), and thus makes many of them uncomfortable (because Josephine is to be found in his music, as Goldschmidt, Tellenbach, Massin, Steblin and many others found - but Antonie is not).


 * "respected Beethoven scholars who are far from ignorant of the German language": It is one thing to analyze sketches of musical notes (important and admirable as it is), it is another to really understand (and decipher) German handwriting and use of language 200 years ago. And I'm aware that there are indeed many scholars in America who know German well. The point is that too many Americans don't, and more importantly, even existing translations are often questionable - like Anderson's Letters by Beethoven (1961) or even Albrecht's Letters to Beethoven (1996); both have significant flaws (also in regard to dating - not at all unimportant in a biographical context!). As for Solomon, his mistranslations and misrepresentations are so numerous (see a few in Tellenbach (1983), pp. 23, 37, 47, 53, 248, 283–285; p. 296, n. 57; p. 299, n. 29; p. 311, n. 13, etc. - but alas, you need to read this in German!) and - as shown in my book - even outright slanderous, that he certainly must be ruled out as one who can be counted as a "respected" scholar in this regard.


 * That I supposedly "paint all of "Anglo-American" scholarship with the same brush, that they're all rubes who can't read German and don't know the German literature", is below-the-belt polemics; I prefer to ignore this kind of thing (also elsewhere). However, I must apologize, if I don't quote half my book (without mentioning it) everytime; admittedly, it is not easy to sqeeze a lot of data into half an ecyclopaedic sentence.


 * The ""Anti-Josephine" faction (as if they were one unified clique)" is of course not "unified", except in their opposition to Josephine, and all I said was their attempt to cloud the issue by presenting ever more (and more unlikely) "candidates", so that a non-expert (like the average Wikipedia-reader) is more confused than enlightened. In fact, their main arguement is the (cheeky) demand to "present all theories objectively"...


 * Why is La Mara "a problematic source"? What is the evidence for this? Was I misled thinking she was (in her time) a pioneering music scholar, who looked into archives to find, decipher and interpret evidence (she first published Therese's memoirs in 1909), and was not too proud to change her mind (in favor of Josephine - in 1920 already!) when new evidence was found? And of course, her books are not translated (certain translated quotes notwthstanding).


 * "ignorance of the most important literature": Even if knowledge of, say, German (or French) were reasonably widespread among US scholars, wouldn't a translation of (at the very least) Goldschmidt (1977) and/or Tellenbach (1983) have helped? Certainly Bill Meredith (in his Introduction to Walden 2011, p. xvii) thinks so: He deplores explicitly that "it [Tellenbach (1983)] too [like Goldschmidt (1977) and Massin (1970)] has unfortunately never appeared in English translation". That's all I said (or wanted to say) - not to put blame on anyone.

In particular, the (so far) prevailing "ignorance" is often something those who suffer from it are innocent of: certain facts (or documents - or their interpretation in a new light) are simply not yet known. Thus, the main thrust of the current (overdue) revision of the theories about the "Immortal Beloved" must now be to reassess old and new opinions given the latest discoveries: those made and published (for the very first time) by Steblin (2007). These demonstrate (proof, corroberate) at least 2 important facts that were so far usually dismissed as pure conjecture, but are clearly what must now be called the "clincher" to settle the dispute once and for all in favor of Josephine (who by the way also hugely deserves it):

- Josephine's husband Stackelberg was away at the time the meeting took place (which already was for more than 50 years very suspicious for the very reason that Minona was born exactly 9 months later - and who else could have been the father? [A very serious question all those in favor of somebody else must answer!]), documented by Josephine's diary notes and Stackelberg's "Table of Rules";

- In June 1812, Josephine wrote: "Ich will Liebert in Prag sprechen." [I want to see Liebert in Prague.] A very clearly expressed intention which was most likely followed by a journey there (but incognito!). [This by the way now also resolves Cooper's doubts.]

In summary, the - supposed - "Riddle of the Immortal Beloved" boils down to a fairly simple solution:


 * 1. Given the content of the Letter (plus another one by Beethoven to Varnhagen on 14 July), it is clear that Beethoven must have met this woman in Prague on 3 July 1812.


 * 2. With the exception of Josephine and Antonie, all other "candidates", no matter how likely or convincing, were demonstrably elsewhere at the time (and most of them can be refuted for many other reasons as well - also as emphasized by Cooper).


 * 3. There are many reasons implicating Josephine as the "Only Beloved" (see Goldschmidt 1977, p. 296) to be also the "Immortal" one, but very few in favor of Antonie. There are many reasons throwing doubt on the assumption that Antonie could have been the addressee of this Letter, but (to my knowledge) not a single convincing reason that excludes Josephine, or at least makes her less likely. John E Klapproth (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood the issues I've expressed with the way the page now stands. You don't have to convince me that some American (and German) musicological literature has flaws. I know that, and personally share many of the concerns you do. But this is not the issue at hand. The issue is with how the page is written, as well as what kind of writing belongs in a wikipedia page and what does not. This article MUST be a neutrally-worded summary of the relevant secondary literature about the Immortal Beloved mystery, represented with due weight and fidelity to every major argument advanced by scholars who have weighed in on the issue, despite what you or I think about some of those sources. Period. That's all. One may say, "Solomon says X, Y, and Z and gives reasons A, B, and C. His hypothesis has been criticized by scholars D, E, and F, for G, H, and J reasons. Solomon and scholar K have replied to these concerns with points P, Q, etc." One should not write in Wikipedia "Solomon claims X, Y, and Z, but his reasons A, B, and C are spurious. Even though he asserts that critics D, E, and F are mistaken, the evidence doesn't back him up." Can you see the difference? Even if the second version is backed up by citations of the same scholars that the first version names directly, this second passage has crossed the line into advocacy of one position over another.


 * It is also not acceptable in a Wikipedia to provide your own analysis of Beethoven's letter, carefully explaining why such-and-such phrase points to your favored candidate. Wikipedia calls that original research, even though you cite secondary sources. The problem is that it's you who's decided what the letter means, and the page reflects your own decision of which secondary sources are reliable rather than reporting what the literature says. As I implied above, if secondary sources indeed make the same claims you do -- and in many cases I agree that they do -- then it's simply a matter of rewording and restructuring their appearance in the article for a more neutral emphasis. But to be fair you also have to report the other side's claims without arguing against them in the same breath. I'd suggest eliminating the commentary on the letter altogether, and then summarizing what the scholars say about the letter's wording under the section about the candidate they favor.


 * I brought this issue up on the talk page not to start a debate with you about the merits of the various scholarly authorities, but because what you've written has added both a lot of good sources and several neutrality issues; I could have "fixed" these issues myself without engaging you in discussion about it, but chose to do it this way out of respect for your contributions: many of the areas in which this page now violates Wikipedia's guidelines in spirit as well as letter are things which you would be the most qualified to fix, if you're willing to abide by those guidelines. Every comment I've made has been in the interest of having an ideologically-neutral article, not a fight against the arguments you've made. Notice that I've never told you who I believe to be the strongest candidate for the IB, what I believe to be the strongest and weakest arguments for it, and which musicologists I respect and which ones I think are full of hot air.* Because my opinions are irrelevant to the article. Please, once again, read up on Wikipedia policies in the links I provided above. I would like this thread to be a collaboration in the interests of making the article better, not a debate.


 * *[As an aside, you missed the point of my defense of Cooper and Lockwood, and why I chose to point out that they're sketch experts. You may not realize it, but Beethoven's sketches contain as much writing as they do musical notation. Therefore anyone who calls himself/herself an expert must not only be able to decipher the notes (and know their significance of course), but be able to read 18th-century Kurrentschrift (particularly Beethoven's notorische Klaue), and to know enough about 18th-century German (particularly Viennese) usage to tease out the abbreviations and often cryptic allusions. Most of the sketch studies go much further, and tie remarks in the sketchbooks with contemporary mentions in the letters and conversation books in order to more precisely date sketches (Kinderman and Drabkin are especially good at this). Beyond that, both of the recent biographies quote occasionally from unpublished manuscript sources (reminiscences, etc.) by Beethoven's acquaintances and contemporaries. Anyway, this digression was originally meant to say, you can argue all you want with the reasons for their support of Solomon's hypothesis, but you have no grounds to claim or imply that it's because of imperfect grasp of Beethoven's German. If there was some defensiveness in my rhetoric (and if I unjustly mischaracterized what you said in doing so), it's because I sensed that you've deeply underestimated the general level of German understanding among English-speaking Beethoven scholars.]


 * Junggai (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the "aside": "you missed the point of my defense of Cooper and Lockwood" etc.: My point was that being able to decipher sketches (and esp. Cooper & Lockwood are very capable in this regard - and I do know this, and I never ever "underestimated" it!) does not imply that those who did so bothered to do the same with (all) Beethoven's handwritten letters and notes. And if they ever went to the trouble of reading original letters in German is at best doubtful. Most likely, they quoted the English translations by Anderson (1961), many of which are incorrect and/or incorrectly dated (see Tellenbach 1983, Brandenburg 1996). Be that as it may, I did not claim certain scholars' "support of Solomon's hypothesis ... because of imperfect grasp of Beethoven's German": if anything, it is because they did not read (quote?) the relevant research literature published in German, and to some degree that is not their fault as both Goldschmidt (1977) and Tellenbach (1983) are long out of print. More importantly, apart from a select few (and I am aware there are indeed many Americans who understand German very well), the vast majority of the US population is not all too familiar with this language, let alone scholarly research - and there is also the (in fact disastrous) effect of "quoting from authority": just yesterday I received an email from a US scholar who has to conduct a lecture about Beethoven, and was almost desperate because Solomon's view is generally thought to be "authoritative" and no alternative ones are apparent (apart from a lonely voice like Beahrs 1988). That is also why I (simplifying, I admit) say Lockwood "parrots" Solomon: mainly because he just couldn't be bothered to do any additional original research. One who did (in fact quite a lot, and most recently) was Rita Steblin (2002, 2007, 2009), and the sensational new documents she discovered (and transcribed and translated into English) are so clearly supporting the "Josephine Hypothesis", that one cannot but concede that the "Immortal Beloved" controversy (if there ever was one) must now be considered to be settled: These latest documents are clearly the clincher.

I understand the "Neutral Point Of View" (NPOV) rules very well, but I also assume that most who look up Wikpedia are not so much interested in the various pros & cons of (mainly ancient) scholarly disputes (most of which are now "history), rather they want to know - who the hell the "Immortal Beloved" actually was! I.e., most likely at least, yes of course, there is no 100% "proof", OK we know this by now, and no serious scholar has ever said otherwise - or to be precise, no serious supporter of the "Josephine Hypothesis" (there are - mostly - only serious ones, as far as I can see); compare this to Solomon's (apparently widely undisputed) statement "that Frau Brentano has been proved [!] to have been the Immortal Beloved". Or his humble assertion "the Immortal Beloved ... is Antonie Brentano. ... The weight of the evidence in her favor is so powerful that it is not [!] presumptuous to assert that the riddle of Beethoven's Immortal Beloved has now [!] been solved."

And, even worse, as one of the principles of Scientific Research (as opposed to Belief in Speculations etc.) is to be prepared and able to revoke or change one's hypothesis if evidence to the contrary (or discrepancies) turn up (and from La Mara to Beahrs there are some examples that this had indeed occurred, ironically always turning towards Josephine), Solomon has most stubbornly rejected any "realignment" of his views (as he called it in the 2nd edition of his Beethoven book). This is most clearly (and indeed appallingly) demonstrated by his refusal to alter a completely incorrect (and in fact highly slanderous) translation from Beethoven's conversation book in 1820 (which therefore has not much to do with the "Immortal Beloved", but it illustrates Solomon's "style"):

"Would you like to sleep with my wife?" asked Karl Peters in a Conversation Book of January 1820. … Peters was about to leave on a trip and generously offered his wife … to Beethoven for a night. Beethoven’s reply … was apparently affirmative, for Peters wrote that he would go and "fetch his wife." (Solomon 1998, p. 340.)

You ought to be able to read up on this (in German), in order to find out what looks more like the "real Truth":

Hofrat Peters: "Ich muß mit meiner Frau um 5 nach Gumpendorf. Wollen Sie bey meiner Frau schlafen? Es ist so kalt." (in Tellenbach 1983, p. 285)

- translated:

Court Councilor Peters: "I have to go to Gumpendorf with my wife at 5 o’clock. Do you want to sleep at my wife’s [place]? It is very cold."

Why this is not just a "minor" error in translation (by someone who is apparently obsessed with "sex"), and thus excusable, is a fact which Solomon himself quotes (and it shows how he can afford to be audacious):

One authority implausibly [!] suggests the entry could be read, "Would you like to sleep over at my wife’s place?" (Solomon 1998, p. 475, n. 37) John E Klapproth (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * At the moment, we appear to be talking at cross-purposes. Part of the fault is my own for engaging in debates that have nothing to do with the page content. Part of the fault is also yours for clearly not reading up on Wikipedia guidelines before editing, or being unwilling to understand them. Why do I allege this? You say that the Immortal Beloved controversy is settled. That is simply not true as it pertains to the scholarly community. And as long as Beethoven scholarship contains members who advance contrary viewpoints, the Wikipedia page cannot take sides.


 * As I've said many times, your opinion of this case is just that, your opinion, one that some of the experts share, and some experts disagree with. For the page to reflect only one side would be what Wikipedia calls "Point of View Pushing." You can denigrate the basic skills (and yes, knowledge of 18th-century German and a familiarity with German-language publications are basic skills among Beethoven scholars) of the Anglo-American wing of Beethoven scholarship all you like, but your opinion of their scholarly fitness does not make their publications and points of view go away. It is not the place of a single Wikipedia editor to make their own arguments in the article. The article, as I have pointed out numerous times, is for summarizing the current state of scholarship. Calling the matter "settled" would be inaccurate and even dishonest in a Wikipedia article so long as many experts hold opposing viewpoints.


 * You seem to have consistently misread my intentions in posting on the talk page. I didn't come here to debate with you about the merits of the Josephine hypothesis (this is by the way something I'd love to do in another, more appropriate forum; you can shoot me an e-mail if you like by using the "e-mail this user" function on my user page). I came here because the page, due to your edits, is pushing a point of view which does not reflect the full range of current scholarship, and I wanted to engage you toward the goal of making it fit with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you're uninterested in revising your own additions to the article, then that's fine. But I wanted to engage you first before making wholesale changes, which I will now do. As is usual in cases like this, if I remove a large amount of content that seems to me in contravention of Wikipedia's guidelines, I'll post it here on the talk page so that others at some point can decide if some of it belongs back in. You're also free to weigh in yourself, but please do so only with reference to Wikipedia's guidelines, not what in your opinion is the "right" answer.

Cheers, Junggai (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations and insinuations based on misrepresentations and misquoting "demonstrates, as indeed Tellenbach has done, that much of the basis for the claims of Antonie's supporters consists of distortions, suppositions, opinions, and even plain inaccuracies." (Cooper 1996, p. 18) I was hoping you are not joining this lot: "You say that the Immortal Beloved controversy is settled." Which I did not, I only expressed my humble opinion, based on most recent research: "one cannot but concede that the 'Immortal Beloved' controversy (if there ever was one) must now be considered to be settled: These latest documents are clearly the clincher." Which admittedly is a bit euphoric (and I am under no illusion, that those who are determined to believe otherwise, won't be convinced by this.) But then I said so on this "Talk Page" (not in the - increasingly - "NPOV-worthy" Main Article.)

And to keep accusing me of any kind of Anti-Americanism is not exactly helpful; why, I wonder, have the groundbreaking German books by La Mara, Kaznelson, Goldschmidt, Tellenbach (and French like Massin) not found their way into American Musicology?: "Unfortunately, several of the most important and controversial studies about the Immortal Beloved have never appeared in English translation, which has substantially restricted their impact. ... Tellenbach ... too has unfortunately never appeared in English translation." (Meredith 2011, p. xv; xvii.)

The article, as I have pointed out numerous times, is for summarizing the current state of scholarship. Your word in God's ear: The current state of scholarship is dominated by the recent works (in the last 10 years) by Rita Steblin (I hope you agree that it can be said Walden's advocacy of Bettina is not taken seriously by most scholars; not only because Walden is not a scholar - and it shows. He was certainly successful in finding a publisher for his book; as I hear with the help of a "donation").

P.S. "you can shoot me an e-mail if you like by using the 'e-mail this user' function on my user page": I couldn't find such a function. John E Klapproth (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute resolved
The article has now been rewritten to comply with NPOV criteria. John E Klapproth (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency
In the article Antonie Brentano, the birth/death date is given as May, not April. I don't know which is correct. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Material removed from article
Per the discussion above, I've removed the lengthy analysis of certain phrases in the letter, which were all intended by their author to prove that they all point to Josephine as the intended recipient. In case anyone disagrees with me that they fit Wikipedia's description of original research, or think that there's worthy material that's been discarded, here's the text I've removed:

-


 * “My angel, my everything”: It is significant that Beethoven addressed her like this (without giving away her name), as he repeatedly used these terms in his most passionate earlier love letters to Josephine: "You, you, my everything, my happiness ... only you - forever you - to my grave only you - my solace - my everything." ; "you, you, my everything, my happiness ... My solace - my everything, oh Lord watch over you ... would you not exist who binds me to life again, even without this you would be my everything." ; "Farewell, Angel – of my heart – of my life." ; - "Farewell Angel of my heart.".
 * “with a pencil (with yours)”: At about that time, Josephine had started to write her diary with pencil.
 * “love demands everything and completely”: a strong indication that their love had finally been consummated (Josephine gave birth to a daughter exactly nine months later).
 * “Esterhazi”: The Hungarian Prince was well-known to the Brunsviks (but probably not to any other of the “candidates”).
 * “language is nothing”: Again an allusion to a well-known theme, as referred to in letters to Josephine in 1805: "I am not too proud when I believe that notes are more willing to me than words ... not even in my musical notes can I express it, even though nature gifted me with some talents in this respect, it is still too little for you." ; “what else I would like to tell you - how I am thinking of you - what I am feeling for you - but how weak, how paltry is this language - mine at least.”.
 * “my faithful only darling”, “your faithful ludwig”, “you know my faithfulness to you, never can another own my heart, never – never”, “never misjudge the most faithful heart of your Beloved”: repeated reminders of his (and her) eternal faithfulness, as previously stressed, especially in the later love letters by Beethoven (which he wrote when Josephine began to withdraw from him, due to the pressure of her family): “Beloved, only J. ... farewell, beloved, dear J. ... your faithful Beethowen.” ; ”farewell beloved I love you so much as you do not love me. Your faithful L.” ; “I am still hopeful ... do not forget – do not condemn – your eternally faithful devoted Beethowen.” . Even in 1809, after Josephine returned from a long journey and was pregnant with Stackelberg’s child, she contacted Beethoven assuring him of her “intimate sympathy that I have for everything that concerns you, and will have as long as I live”; his reply letter closed with: “farewell beloved J. as always, eternally devoted to you.”
 * “You are suffering”: According to Diary entries by her as well as her sister Therese, Josephine had been in a desperate mood for most of the year 1812. The financial ruin caused by her husband’s failed purchase of a Moravian estate and the constant bickering which culminated in Stackelberg’s leaving her (probably in early June 1812) had caused her more grief than she could bear . Things seemed to have come to a head definitely on 8 June 1812, when Josephine noted: “Today has been a difficult day for me. - The hand of fate is resting ominously on me – I saw besides my own deep sorrows also the degeneration of my children, and – almost – all courage deserted me -!!! ... Stackelberg wants to leave me on my own. He is callous to supplicants in need. ... I want to see Liebert in Prague [!]. I will never let the children be taken from me. ... On account of Stackelberg I have ruined myself physically, in that I have incurred so much distress and illness through him.” Josephine's clearly expressed intention to go to Prague is the closest to a proof that she was indeed there at the time of this letter.
 * ”never hide yourself from me”: A strong reminder that Beethoven had not forgiven Josephine that she was not at home when he tried to visit her in 1807.
 * "the realm of the Spirits": a reference to the (ultimately) “platonic” (but eternal) character of their love relationship: ”O beloved J., it is not the drive to the opposite sex that attracts me to you, no, only you, your whole being with all your characteristics - has my respect - all my feelings - my whole sensibility enthralled by you ... Long - long - may our love last - it is so noble - so much founded on mutual respect and friendship - even great similarity in so many things, in thoughts and feelings. Oh you, let me hope that your heart will continue to beat for me for a long time - mine can only - stop - to beat for you - if - it beats no more - beloved J.” ; “My love of you is unspeakable - like a pious mind loves another one.” . There are also some remarks in a draft Josephine wrote on 8 April 1818 (Minona's fifth birthday) that seems to have been addressed to Beethoven (she calls him "deaf"): "Spirits are silent ... Happy you are not - - - - - but deaf ... Melting into one can happen only when first we have been melted with Eternity ... this alone is union – forever ... If the Spirit could reveal itself to you completely...".

Upon Beethoven's death in 1827, the letter was discovered by Schindler among his private papers, strongly suggesting that it was never sent. Schindler (1840) went on to write the first biography of Beethoven, full of errors, omissions and obvious attempts at self-aggrandizement. Probably prompted by Franz Brunsvik, Schindler speculated that the "Immortal Beloved" might have been Julie (Giulietta) Guicciardi, Josephine's cousin. Although it is true that Beethoven fell briefly in love with Julie in 1801/2, he was aware that he would not be able to marry her, as he confessed in a letter to his friend Wegeler: "After two years, I am again enjoying some moments of bliss, and for the first time I feel that – marriage might bring me happiness. Unfortunately, she is not of my class." More important here is his reference to the "two years" that had passed since he first fell in love with Josephine Brunsvik, a love he had to suppress because she was married. Julie Guicciardi was also a piano pupil of Beethoven, whom he taught for free. When her mother gave him a precious gift, he felt so insulted that he dedicated his Piano Sonata Op. 27#2 ("Moonlight") to Julie, as a "retaliatory" measure. Julie married Count Gallenberg in 1803 and moved with him to Italy.

Therese Brunsvik, who was close to Josephine for most of her life, upon reading Schindler's conjecture, immediately wrote this into her diary: "Three letters by Beethoven, allegedly to Giulietta. Could they be hoaxes?" , and then: "3 letters by Beethoven ... they must have been to Josephine whom he loved passionately." Therese had herself been the subject of speculations, but the difficulties with dating the letter and her whereabouts ruled her out. La Mara then corrected her previous view and became "convinced ... that Josephine widowed Countess Deym was Beethoven's 'Immortal Beloved'", based on documents discovered in the Brunsvik estate after the First World War.

More material removed
The following "conclusion" was meant to clinch the case for Josephine. With it included, I felt the article crossed the line to advocating one side over the other. If anyone disagrees, feel free to incorporate material back into the article.

Of all the many "candidates" (besides Josephine) for the enigmatic "Immortal Beloved" all but one can be eliminated for the simple reason that none of them was in Prague, but rather - according to existing evidence - elsewhere. The only exception is Antonie; but: “There is no proof that Beethoven and Antonie met in Prague.” The compelling reasons for identifying Josephine (of whom it is at least known that she intended to go to Prague, and most likely did so - incognito) can be summarized thus :


 * 1. Josephine is the only woman whom Beethoven had provably loved, persistently and passionately. (No love letters exist to any other woman.)
 * 2. In the earlier love letters he mentions her four times as his “Only Beloved”. Doesn’t this rule out even to ask whether the “Immortal Beloved” of 1812 could possibly be a different one?
 * 3. Beethoven’s repeated assurances of his proven faithfulness.
 * 4. The strikingly matching, sometimes identical vocabulary of the earlier love letters and the later letter.
 * 5. The phrase in the 1812 letter "but never hide yourself from me" which fits exactly the humiliating situation of the love affair when it was interrupted five years before.
 * 6. Josephine was at this time (1812) suffering (and Beethoven did not know this until he met her in Prague). No other woman was known to be suffering that much (and at that time); in particular, Antonie – even though often sad due to her homesickness – was living happily together with her husband (and on 3 July 1812, she was pregnant again since four weeks).
 * 7. As a result of the breakdown of her second marriage Josephine had become an abandoned wife.
 * 8. Given the circumstances, she was now for Beethoven “allowed mine”.

Points 2 & 3 are the most important ones: Such a deep rooted and enduring passionate love relationship, even though interrupted due to external forces, cannot be considered to be forgotten after a few years. It was indeed for ever. It was "immortal".

Removing all of this is of course only the beginning of improving the article. These were just the most obvious places where the article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH The article needs to be thoroughly restructured by clearly summarizing the scholarly debate over the evidence (i.o.w. who says what and why). I've outlined my position above at the beginning of the "Neutrality Redux" section. Also, the footnotes, which now take up more bulk than the actual article, will need to be streamlined. It seems that much of the argumentation in the footnotes needs to be either incorporated into the main text or cleaned up. Junggai (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "The article needs to be thoroughly restructured by clearly summarizing the scholarly debate". May I suggest to replace it? John E Klapproth (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the enigma concerning the identity of the 'Immortal beloved"
Dear 24.48.88.115 in Boisbriand (Québec): 1. If Beethoven had fathered a child with either Antonie or Josephine, how come there is never a single mention of that fact in his conversation books nor his diary, considering the fact that he wanted so much to be a father (real or imaginary) that he claimed to be his nephew's "biological father" at one point? I will argue that Beethoven never had any sexual relationship with either of them. Not true: there is a remark by Oliva in a Conversation Book of late 1819, when Stackelberg was in Vienna with Minona, Beethoven talked continually about a woman whose husband might become suspicious that one of his children, the one with musical talent, might be Beethoven's. Needless to say, Beethoven never mentioned anything about his love of Josephine, not in 1799, not in 1821, not anytime in between. John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Considering that Beethoven was in Vienna and Prague in the first days of July 1812, that Josephine was also in Vienna or in Prague at the same time, and that she was left completely by herself (with her children), her husband having left her in May or June, why would he have gone to Teplitz and she (incognito it seems) to Karlsbad, to see each other when they could have done so very easily in Prague or Vienna? ''Beethoven was not "in Vienna and Prague in the first days of July 1812", nor "was" Josephine. She was not "completely by herself (with her children)" because the children were with her sister Therese. Beethoven went to Teplitz being ordered by his physician, it had nothing to do with Josephine's travel plans (she wanted to travel to Prague for other reasons). She did not go to Karlsbad (she might have planned, though). They could not see each other "easily" as they both did not plan it.'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Josephine's husband came back home in September, maybe after having learned that his wife was pregnant: would he have done so if he were not sure that he was the father and knowing the kind of relationship that Beethoven had with his wife (and himself for that matter)? ''Stackelberg came back in August, and may or may not have "learned that his wife was pregnant". Beethoven did not have any "kind of relationship with his wife" (at the time).'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

4. The name of Josephine and her surname of Pepi are inconsistent with the initials A. and T. used occasionally by Beethoven, in referring most probably to the "Immortal beloved"? ''Her surname was not "Pepi". Beethoven never referred to his "Immortal beloved" by any name nor initial, to Josephine (his "Only Beloved") he usually referred to as "J".'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

4. As for Beethoven's morality invoked by Rolland and the Massins against an affair with Antonie, remember that Beethoven was also very imprudent in taking Marie Bigot for a ride in the country, even with the children, in the absence of her husband? ''(You cannot even number correctly, mate! About as good as your education about Beethoven, in general, it seems...) - Beethoven was not very imprudent regarding Marie Bigot, just extremely naïve (read his letter to her & her husband, preferably in German!). In fact, this very letter proves the point (as "invoked" by Massin), as this is about the only place where LvB makes his stance towards the respect of marriage explicit!'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

5.This time, maybe that Beethoven was more careful by not sending the letter to Antonie by post, for fear that it might fall into the wrong hands (her husband's or even her children's), or that he kept the letter to himself and locked it in his secret drawer, or that he kept it to give it to her personally when they would meet a few days later in Karlsbad and that she gave it back to him, (for fear again it would fall into the wrong hands), after reading it or not which would explain that he was still in possession at his death. ''What "This time"? "Maybe"? yes, all this is fruitless speculation.'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

6. Antonie's husband was determined to go back to Frankfurt, after three years in Vienna, and Antonie loathed to go back there, despite her devotion (not to be to her husband, giving Beethoven hope to be united with her sometime in the future; but, realizing that she was pregnant again and knowing that the father could not be the composer, she decided to follow her husband home. Any evidenve, for this, please??? John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

7. As for any unknown woman to be the "immortal beloved", it is a fantasy to hypothesize, given the the numerous writings and the high profile of all Beethoven's relationships at that time, especially with women. These thoughts bring me, in final analysis, to endorse Maynard Solomon's conclusion, being as sure as possible that Antonie Brentano, and only her, can be the "Immortal beloved". It fits her and Beethoven perfectly, for they were both exceptional persons. ''I'm afraid, these "thoughts" are anything but coherent - may I suggest to first write down anything that is supposed to be made public for all the world to know (in Wikipedia), then have it preferably reviewed and/or edited by someone who knows a little about the subject matter, and only after checking it at least twice again? It might be very valuable and help a lot in this regard to read "Beethoven's Only Beloved: Josephine!" to find out all about it.'' John E Klapproth (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Walden: not a Scholar
It is suggested to remove most of what User:John Dunlop altered/added, mainly due to NPOV considerations: It is factually incorrect that Walden makes "the assumption that one of the three published letters from Beethoven to her is true": In fact he claims two are true, and they are - for good reason - not published in the Complete Letters edited by Brandenburg (1996); they were only published by herself. And for this and many other reasons they are considered self-serving forgeries by all scholars. (In fact there is not one serious scholar, to my knowledge, who assumes any of these two letters that Bettina claimed Beethoven wrote her are genuine.) Walden's arguments in this regard are at best tautological. But how much space should we give in an encyclopedic Main Article of Wikipedia to the discussion of minor details of a certain (disputed) publication? How many of the other authors (true scholars in particular, i.e., those who do not fantasize in an armchair, but conduct real archival research) had forewords, reviews, comments and evaluations all over the place that could be mentioned here, only to inflate this article beyond recognition? (Also the review in the Beethoven Journal is of little importance, given that Meredith is its editor, and he had already allowed Walden in 2002 to publish his ideas.) John E Klapproth (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That "the Introduction to Walden's book written by William Meredith, who has reviewed the debate over the major candidates and takes the position that Walden's theory be given unbiased consideration" is not exactly an endorsement (in fact if one reads the few comments Meredith makes about Walden's hypothesis, his support is rather lukewarm and, if anything, based on his obvious desire to counter Solomon's theory and its long overdue refutation within American scholarship - witness his many remarks in the main part of his Introduction (very readable indeed, accessible via Amazon's "Search Inside"):
 * Meredith (2011, p. xix f.) mentions a “Beethoven mafia”, asking "whether the world of American Beethoven scholarship was indeed controlled by a relatively self–contained circle of scholars who were the go–to choices for vetting Beethoven articles and books ... arranged Beethoven conferences for each other … and supported each other's work in very significant ways such as writing supportive letters for grants and promotions…
 * One possible example of the control of the field in journals intended primarily for musicologists is the absence of a single article about the Immortal Beloved in the ... prestigious journal Beethoven Forum ... from 1992 to 2006 ... [as] if there was ... an informal agreement in place to 'embargo' any Immortal Beloved article…
 * It may also be true that something parallel to the 'informational cascade effect' ... played a role in the belief that Maynard Solomon had solved the Immortal Beloved question once and for all." (Meredith 2011, p. xx.)
 * This very interesting "informational cascade effect" means that "it is optimal for an individual, having observed the actions of those ahead of him, to follow the behavior of the preceding individual without regard to his own information… Four primary mechanisms have been suggested for uniformsocial behavior: (1) sanctions of deviants, (2) positive payoff externalities, (3) conformity preference, and (4) communication… These effects tend to bring about a rigid conformity that cannot be broken with small shocks. Indeed, the longer the bandwagon continues, the more robust it becomes (Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer & Welch 1992, p. 992 f.; quoted in Meredith 2011, p. xx f.).
 * Now we may be able to comprehend more fully: "The endorsement of Solomon's solution in the Beethoven entry by Joseph Kerman and Alan Tyson in the 20th edition of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians in 1980 did much to solidify support: 'Of recent conjectures as to her identity the most plausible (by Maynard Solomon) is that she was Antonie Brentano... Whether the psychological requirements are fulfilled depends on one's reading of her personality and of the letter's intended meaning.' ...
 * Solomon's theory as the 'most plausible' became a point of fact in the ... Grove Music Online ...: 'Solomon showed ... that she was Antonie Brentano... (As there are no explicit letters from Antonie Brentano to Beethoven, some do not accept that the case is closed; but no plausible alternative has been presented.)'
 * With the transformation of Solomon’s 'conjecture' … into statement of fact and the denial of the existence of at least one if not two plausible alternatives, Solomon’s theory might seem confirmed.
 * Recently, a major American Beethoven scholar commented to me privately that those who refuse to accept the Antonie theory are 'impervious' to the facts of the case." (Meredith 2011, p. xxi.)
 * No wonder that Bill's "ears pricked up at the assertion that Solomon’s case was indeed built of facts, even though the argument is masterfully constructed."(Meredith 2011, p. xxi.)
 * It is most assuredly not NPOV to delete reference to a recent argument which has been put forth, one whose author has been published by the only specialist Beethoven publication in North America and whose book was introduced by that center's director, merely because in one editor's estimation he is "not a scholar." Definition of WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources is determined by publication in a peer-reviewed format, period. Junggai (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Junggai, why so upset? Fact is that Walden is an amateur (i.e., no scholar - like myself), more importantly, he based his fantasies (to imagine that Bettina Brentano of all people) could have been the Immortal Beloved on forgeries (which no serious scholar supports), and lastly - according to some insider information (but in this respect contrary to myself0 -, he managed to get his book published and positively reviewed (and otherwise "advertised") with the help of some "donations"... I read Walden's whole book (utterly boring, a real torture), including the extremely interesting intro by Meredith - who by the way expresses at best a very lukewarm support for W's hypothesis, by saying it should be "be given unbiased consideration". Something anyone could say about any new book, this is no endorsement, not at all! If Walden's speculation (based on a hoax) is "the only specialist Beethoven publication in North America": in what a sad and sorry state this continent must be. Assuming that Rita Steblin's (a Canadian's) recent publications (all based on original, archival research!) are to be ignored (as well as my humble contribution, pulished in South Carolina), this might also be a consequence of the "embargo" that the "Beethoven Mafia" imposed (see more in Meredith 2011, p. xix f.). You will be pleased to learn that my book about "Beethoven's Only Beloved: Josephine!" will soon be published in a second revised and enhanced edition, with a special new intro chapter about the "Trials & Tribulations" - meaning "The Trout in the Milk"!. (Stay tuned.) John E Klapproth (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not upset, simply stating the facts. Despite your opinions of Walden's work, an earlier version of his research was published in the Beethoven Journal (i.e. a scholarly, peer-reviewed periodical), therefore your frequent claims of his amateurishness do not count as far as Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is concerned. And whether or not one reads Meredith's introduction to the book as lukewarm (I personally do not), the fact that he wrote an introduction at all gives Walden's book the imprimatur of real scholarship--your allegations as to the circumstances surrounding the book's publication notwithstanding.
 * My last notice, by the way, was not directed at you, rather at the passerby who stumbles upon your voluminously asserted but ultimately unsupported judgments and pontifications. Junggai (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved. Solving the Mystery, by Edward Walden.
Retired lawyer Edward Walden presents his "case that Bettina [Brentano] is Beethoven’s Immortal Beloved ... as would a lawyer attempting to prove that case in court" (p. xxxvi). He then asks the reader "to keep in mind two basic principles of Anglo-American common law.

"The first principle is the fundamental distinction between the proof required in a criminal as opposed to a civil case. In the former, the law requires the case to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the burden can be satisfied if the trier of fact (judge or jury) is satisfied that the case has been proven on the balance of probabilities.

"The second principle is the law of 'similar fact' evidence. If evidence is admitted proving that a person has engaged in a certain unique and unusual behavior in past instances, it can be used to assist in reaching a conclusion that the person acted in the same or a similar fashion in the case at hand." (p. 13)

Walden (being attorney, judge and jury all in one) elects to follow the second option, even though after two centuries of fantasies, speculations and guesswork the discerned reader might be eager to finally see some evidence to settle the matter "beyond a reasonable doubt"! And what with the book's subtitle "Solving the Mystery"?

"The case’s theory is based on two crucial letters completely overlooked in previous scholarly analyses." (p. xxxvi).

But far from being "overlooked", these supposedly "crucial" letters are well-known since 1839 and were (still are) generally considered forgeries (or not authentic, to put it more mildly) – and this for good reason. In fact, no one (before Walden) has ever seriously considered Bettina even as a candidate for Beethoven’s "Immortal Beloved".

Let's start with a survey of what researchers so far thought of Bettina Brentano, starting with a contemporary's judgment – Varnhagen's diary note of 15 February 1856:

"Bettina is talking about Beethoven, and she says he had been in love with her, and he wanted to marry her! … Nothing but reveries and dreams! Beethoven had no intention to marry when he was acquainted with Bettina; and the song had already been published before 1808, before he knew anything of Bettina."

Comments Goldschmidt: "Maybe, the apodictic statement form was to be understood in such a way that Beethoven did not think of marriage with regard to Bettina." "… there remains only one conclusion to be drawn [regarding to Beethoven]: that despite a profound sympathy, there was no passion involved."

"Her rather hysterical nature led her to romance about her life and even to distort the truth; and some letters she is supposed to have received from Goethe were certainly her own invention."

"Judging by the extent that Bettina rewrote the Goethe correspondence, it is possible that Beethoven never put these communications to paper at all."

"… Bettina's fiction concerning the meeting between Beethoven and Goethe…"

"But Bettina has forged the [other two] Beethoven letters to her, that she published."

"(Bettina) Brentano … was … slightly unbalanced and given to exaggeration."

"Brilliant, well educated and beautiful, but slightly hysterical."

Not surprisingly, Walden accuses these "Bettina detractors" (pp. 32, 64, 126) that they "were wrongly attacking her credibility" (p. 126). Among the few "Bettina supporters", he enlists the great Alexander Thayer, who had – among others – interviewed Bettina, but (as is well-known) was for a while believing that Therese Brunsvik might have been the "Immortal Beloved" – certainly not Bettina (a fact conveniently omitted by Walden).

Before dealing with some of the many incorrect and misleading details within the (mainly boring) 128 pages of this recent treatise:

The main reason why Walden's book is simply unacceptable as a scholarly contribution to Beethoven biography is that he does not know (nor even quote) any of the fundamental research literature; being mostly in German, this might be an explanation – but it is no excuse.

Even so, Walden's tedious presentation of his "case" is often tiringly repetitive in its arguments, and he consistently quotes out of context or fails to take the "whole picture" into consideration. – In more detail:

Walden opens his plea: "Although … Beethoven poured out his emotions countless times in his music, he did so in a significant way only twice through the medium of written words. The first time was in 1802, in the form of a will now known as the Heiligenstadt Testament… The second time was in 1812." (p. 1)

Obviously, this ("only twice") can only be true if one completely ignores the many passionate love letters Beethoven wrote to Josephine Brunsvik (there were no others), as well as various letters to friends like Wegeler and Amenda, or some notes (like that of 1807) and various remarks in his "Diary" between 1812 and 1818.

The reader who expects a lawyer to know the difference between a proof (of presence) and an alibi (and the lack thereof) will be disappointed: "Antonie was the only one … who actually was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 2) And again: "Of the three front-runners … she was the only woman who was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 2) And once more, for good measure: "Antonie Brentano, Bettina’s sister-in-law … was the only woman closely connected to Beethoven in 1812 who was [!] in Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter." (p. 102)

However, all this is not really relevant as none of the "front-runners" (Josephine, Antonie and Bettina – in Walden's view) is validated or ruled out, regardless, whether she did or did not go to Karlsbad, or intended to go there but then changed her mind.

Walden first presents his "Case against Josephine" – with various misleading statements:

"Josephine Brunsvik was the only one … whose marriage was disintegrating when the letter was written, but she was nowhere near Karlsbad that summer and appears not to have had any plans [!] to go there." As stated before, there is (as yet) no proof that Josephine was (or was not) "near Karlsbad that summer"; however, had Walden read Goldschmidt (1977, p. 228), he would have known that the Brunsvik sisters had made plans to travel to Karlsbad in 1812 (as the year before), and Josephine did indeed do so a few weeks later after her husband returned. And: "For short stays, residents were exempt from the requirement to register" (as opposed to foreigners – like Stackelberg who also went to Karlsbad in 1811).

"The marriage [to Deym] was an unhappy one." Wrong: even though not really relevant to the questions concerning the identity of Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved" in 1812, this is one of the many incorrect myths that are perpetuated again and again: Quite the contrary is true.

Walden's repeated claim that "all [!] surviving signed letters from Beethoven to her [Josephine] use the formal 'Sie'" (p. 4; also pp. 14, 59 f., 103) is incorrect: Beethoven's letter to Josephine in April 1805 ends with "leb wohl Engel – meines Herzens – meines Lebens" (Farewell, Angel – of my heart – of my life), where "leb wohl" in the original (short for "leb du wohl") is clearly using the intimate "Du" form of addressing, as opposed to the usual "Sie" as in "Leben Sie wohl". And it is an all too obvious "Freudian slip", indicating that the two lovers must have been on very intimate terms!

"From unanswered or disregarded letters from Beethoven to Josephine in 1807, it appears that she rejected him in that year… The proponents of her candidacy contend that she and Beethoven continued their relationship after 1807 …, then revived it when her marriage to her second husband began to disintegrate. There appears to be no evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise, so it must remain purely speculative." (p. 4) First, there is no indication whatsoever, that any letters were "unanswered or disregarded" or not (they are difficult to date, anyway). Then, it can be discerned from Josephine's letters that she was forced to withdraw from him, and after her return from Switzerland in 1809/10, she did indeed "revive" their relationship by writing to Beethoven.

"Josephine and her second husband separated in 1813 or perhaps in the summer before, when the letter to the Immortal Beloved was written. Therefore, only she of the three leading candidates appears to have been separated or had a disintegrating marriage when Beethoven wrote his letter to the Immortal Beloved, and it is mainly for that reason that Josephine’s candidacy remains alive… There appears to be no evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise." (p. 4) Walden can say this only if he carefully avoids reading any of the "evidence of that by correspondence or otherwise" provided by Goldschmidt (1977), Tellenbach (1983) and in particular, most plentiful, Steblin (2007) (the latter in English), evidence that is too numerous to quote here!

"Another problem with Josephine’s candidacy is that there is no evidence that she was in, near, or even planned [!] to go to Karlsbad when Beethoven wrote his letter. To the contrary, all evidence [?] indicates that she remained in Vienna throughout the summer of 1812. She had gone to Karlsbad the previous summer, and her visit was routinely [?] reported in the police travel registrations required in those days, but there is no record of her traveling there in the summer of 1812." (p. 4) Not only is there no evidence at all that she remained in Vienna, there is clear evidence that she planned to go to Karlsbad and that she could have been there without being registered.

"The strongest argument against her candidacy is that Beethoven had known her since 1799, so she could not be the woman Beethoven said in 1816 he had met five years earlier and whom he could not get out of his mind." (p. 4) This is rather the strongest argument in her favor (who else had Beethoven been pining for over a period of nearly two decades?): Had Walden read it, he would have found in Steblin (2007) more details of a plausble explanation for this remark in 1816, clearly indicating that Beethoven was thinking of "only one" woman all the time (i.e., from 1799 until 1816 at least).

"There is no question that Beethoven fell deeply in love with Josephine sometime between 1804 and 1807, and there even exists an unsigned copy made by her of a letter from him written in 1804 or 1805 that resembles some of the language and ideas contained in the letter to the Immortal Beloved." (p. 3) It is curious how Walden effectively argues against his own case: Indeed, this one letter in Josephine's hand is undoubtedly a copy of a love letter by Beethoven (whereas no one believes the 1812 letter by Beethoven in Bettina's handwriting to be authentic), however, not only this one, but also most of the other (at least 14) surviving letters by Beethoven to Josephine show striking similarities to the letter to the "Immortal Beloved" (as opposed to the Bettina letters).

Having thus dismissed Josephine, Walden goes on to put the case for Bettina:

"Beethoven wrote to her in 1811, … a surviving letter in which he acknowledged her marriage with sadness, …, and used in one part the intimate German 'du', which, so far as is known, he never used in any letter to any woman." (p. 4)

Contrary to Walden's wishful thinking, Beethoven did not express "sadness" about Bettina's marriage – on the contrary, he congratuled her unequivocally, honestly and sincerely, and without any sign of "sadness" (or jealousy, for that matter).

"In the very last sentence, he addresses Bettina in the intimate German 'du'. So far as is now known, it is the only time Beethoven used this form in any letter to a woman with whom he was romantically connected other than the Immortal Beloved. He did not use that form in any of his surviving letters to Josephine." (p. 13)

As for the use of "du" in an intimate way, see above (the 1805 love letter to Josephine, which Walden did not – could not – read). However, this (indeed authentic) letter (not at all a love letter!) to Bettina, Beethoven finishes with these words:

"… dear, good B., I returned this morning at 4 clock from a Bacchanal, where I had to laugh a lot … – and now farewell, dear dear B., I kiss you on your forehead, and thus I impress on it, as with a seal, all my thoughts for you."

As can be seen (provided one understands the subtleties of the German language), Beethoven playfully fell into a jocular mood, and – after preparing his audacious change of tone by referring to a "bacchanal" as an excuse – he used the "du" form in a funny way, which he could be sure Bettina would understand likewise. (Or, by any stretch of the imagination, not at all an expression of true love.)

"Beethoven, depressed, continued to stay in Teplitz, writing to an acquaintance [Varnhagen] on July 14, 'There is not much to tell you about T[eplitz], for there are few people here and no distinguished ones among the small number. Hence I am living – alone – alone! alone! alone!'” (p. 10)

Walden omitted the following sentence: "Dear Varnhagen, I am sorry that I could not spend the last evening in Prague with you, and I myself found it impolite, but a circumstance that I could not foresee prevented me."

Here "the last night in Prague" does not refer to the preceding day (13 July), but to the period when Beethoven and Varnhagen were both in Prague (up to 3/4 July). And everyone agrees, given the Letter of 6/7 July 1812 and all the surrounding circumstances, that on 3 July 1812 Beethoven must have met – most unexpectedly! – his "Immortal Beloved" (and spent the night with her).

And as Harry Goldschmidt painstakingly determined, of all the possible candidates that were ever considered as addressees of this Letter, only Antonie Brentano was actually in Prague on that day, and Josephine's whereabouts were unknown (meaning she had "no alibi").

The in parts of America still popular candidacy of Antonie has raised many doubts ever since it was first considered – and immediately dismissed as "absurd" – by Jean & Brigitte Massin:<ref?Massin (1955), p. 250.


 * Antonie, with husband, child and servant arrived during the day of 3 July 1812 in Prague, after an arduous two-day journey (in bad weather) by horse-drawn coach, had just enough time to get settled in a hotel, and they all departed the following morning at dawn. To contemplate even hypothetically the possibility that she and Beethoven had the time and opportunity, not to mention the physical and, more importantly, psychological, prerequisites to engage in any kind of tryst, is hard to imagine!
 * Beethoven certainly knew that the Brentanos had planned a stopover in Prague, on their journey to Karlsbad: he was close to them during the time before and must have discussed their travel plans (as Beethoven was to meet them in Karlsbad after his stay in Teplitz). It is therefore much more likely that he met someone on 3 July whom he did not expect (as expressed in his letter to Varnhagen)!
 * In the Letter, Beethoven discusses his intention to post it to "K" which is generally believed to mean Karlsbad. However, if it had been intended to be sent to Antonie, why did he want to send it at all, when he knew he would definitely meet her soon after and could have handed her the letter in person? (Not to mention the – unthinkable? – possibility that her husband could have intercepted such a letter if it had arrived in the mail!)
 * In the case of Josephine, it was known long ago that she planned to go to Karlsbad (but she had to change her plans, therefore Beethoven did not send the Letter after all, but kept it), and more importantly, Steblin (2007) published new documents showing that Josephine definitely planned (in June 2012) to go to Prague, and – more importantly – that her husband was away in July 2012 (therefore he could not have been the father of Minona, born exactly 9 months after the Letter).

All this is not mentioned by Walden (because he did not read it), instead he provides us with a special chapter “Why Antonie Brentano could not have been the Immortal Beloved” (pp. 102-119). Here he rightly criticizes “Solomon’s Methodology in Support of Antonie” with general observations like "Maynard Solomon developed a skilful but specious methodology to lend his theory an aura of factual certainty… The flaw in this methodology was that he established requirements that he knew only his candidate could meet. They were therefore not independent objective requirements at all." (p. 104) However, his only disagreement with Solomon seems to be that Walden believes Beethoven might have known (or even met) Antonie well before 1809 – but this does not really contradict the (otherwise unfounded) possibility that she could have been the "Immortal Beloved" in 1812 (as Solomon conjectures).

Walden then speculates about what used to be interpreted as the letter "A" in the first entry of Beethoven's "Diary", where he manages to interpret it as being short for "Arnim" (Bettina's surname after her marriage). His justification: "One commentator has speculated that whatever the letter was, it might possibly refer to the woman’s husband." (p. 106) In a footnote, he mentions as his source for this "commentator" – Steblin (2007)!

Had he really read this fundamental article (it is in English!), instead of picking up some unqualified hearsay, he would have learned that Beethoven scholar Rita Steblin (being able not only to speak and read German, but also to decipher the old German "Kurrentschrift" handwriting – some truly detective work, as any lawyer will attest!) had identified this letter as probably meaning "St", for Stackelberg, Josephine's husband. In any case, what Beethoven originally wrote was most definitely not an "A" (thus neither Antonie nor Arnim).

Here is, in a nutshell, this whole story, condensed, as it percolates out of Walden's phantastic speculations: "Bettina never claimed to be the Immortal Beloved, and she may not have even known about the Immortal Beloved letter." (p. 37)
 * Bettina published her (invented) letters by Beethoven in 1839, when the term "Immortal Beloved" was not yet publicly known.
 * In 1840, Schindler followed with his Beethoven biography, publishing the Letter of 6/7 July for the first time (and claiming, falsely, that Julie "Giulietta" Guicciardi was the "Immortal Beloved").
 * Bettina must have been greatly embarrassed by Schindler's revelation: after all, now she knew for sure that there was some other woman (and only one!) whom Beethoven had indeed loved passionately, thus invalidating her claim.
 * And, not surprisingly, when Schindler then visited her for an interview about this very topic, she was – to his astonishment – very tight-lipped!

One of the most blatant examples how Walden is carried away by his obsession, inventing statements like this: "Beethoven noted the place of writing and exact date of virtually all [!] of his letters at the head of the first page of the letter." (p. 74) "… his usual style of writing letters, which were for the most part fully dated." (p. 13) The truth: "More than 60 percent of Beethoven's letters are not dated or incompletely dated."

"Because the Teplitz Letter was not found in Bettina’s possessions after her death, and because of the liberties that Bettina took with the letters between her and Goethe in her Goethe Correspondence book, most scholars today believe that it was concocted by her… I have attempted to show … that the reason it has not been found is that Bettina destroyed it." (p. 36) What if "most scholars" are right and the reason this "Teplitz Letter" was not found (und thus also not destroyed) was simply that it never existed?

A minor, but typical example is this letter by Franz Brentano to his brother Clemens where he complains about Bettina's obvious misconduct: "You are going to Berlin, greet everyone from me as warmly as I always felt towards them, but do tell Bettine occasionally and privately, that in Teplitz, in front of some friends, she could have talked about me and Toni much more lovingly – our whole life has been full of love and benevolence towards her, and it will remain thus – but I ask you, only in private."

Apparently, it was Bettina – not Beethoven – who disobeyed a few rules of courteousness…

Walden cunningly deals with his opponents by pinning them firmly in the "politically" wrong (namely, the anti-feminist) "camp": "The anti-Bettina camp … disbelieved Bettina and everything she wrote about Beethoven, possibly because of her politics, possibly because of her gender." (p. 51 f.) "Bettina came to acquire a reputation among a number of scholars as being at best a concocter of fiction about Beethoven in the guise of made-up letters from and about him, and at worst, a forger of handwritten communications from him to her. The negative views about Bettina of Riemann, Deiters, and Unger, possibly arrived at because of her political views or gender, and perhaps correct or not, came to be cited more and more frequently." (p. 67) "After Bettina’s death, her detractors began to gain the upper hand… A whole new generation of academics who did not know her, but possibly were biased because of her politics or gender… She was sometimes called 'hysterical'." (p. 126)

Again and again, Walden hammers his theses into his readers' minds by endless repetitions: Surely, all these "Bettina detractors" were biased by their anti-feminist stance – they were all against her because of her "gender". And who dares to call a woman "hysterical" these days? Perhaps we should have saved us all the effort of reading this rather sorry effort to invent the mystery's "solution" out of thin air, by sticking to this introductory observation, as Walden himself admits (p. 5): "Max Unger, a leading German researcher on the question of the Immortal Beloved, concluded in 1910, after careful consideration of Bettina’s relationship with Beethoven, that the main reason she could not be the Immortal Beloved was that she loved her husband." And not Beethoven. Simple as that. End of story.

References

Sources
 * Theodore Albrecht (1996, ed.): Letters to Beethoven & other Correspondence. 3 vols. University of Nebraska Press.
 * Gail S Altman (1996): Beethoven: A Man of His Word – Undisclosed Evidence for his Immortal Beloved. Tallahassee: Anubian Press.
 * Emily Anderson (1961, ed.): The Letters of Beethoven. 3 vols. London: Macmillan.
 * Virginia Beahrs (1993): "Beethoven's Only Beloved? New Perspectives on the Love Story of the Great Composer." Music Review 54, no. 3/4, pp. 183–197.
 * Sieghard Brandenburg (1996, ed.): Ludwig van Beethoven: Briefwechsel. Gesamtausgabe. [Ludwig van Beethoven: Letters & Correspondence. Complete Edition.] 8 vols. Munich: Henle.
 * Barry Cooper (1991, ed.): The Beethoven Compendium. A Guide to Beethoven’s Life and Music. London: Thames & Hudson.
 * Elliot Forbes (1967, ed.): Thayer’s Life of Beethoven. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Princeton: University Press.
 * Harry Goldschmidt (1977): Um die Unsterbliche Geliebte. Ein Beethoven–Buch. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag für Musik. In English: "All About the Beethoven's Immortal Beloved. A Stocktaking." CreateSpace 2013.
 * Siegmund Kaznelson (1954): Beethovens Ferne und Unsterbliche Geliebte. [Beethoven's Distant and Immortal Beloved.] Zürich: Standard.
 * Klaus Martin Kopitz (2001): "Antonie Brentano in Wien (1809–1812). Neue Quellen zur Problematik 'Unsterbliche Geliebte'." [Antonie Brentano in Vienna (1809–1812). New Sources to the Difficulties with the "Immortal Beloved".] Bonner Beethoven–Studien 2, pp. 115–146.
 * La Mara (1909): Beethovens Unsterbliche Geliebte. Das Geheimnis der Gräfin Brunsvik und ihre Memoiren. [Beethoven's Immortal Beloved. Countess Brunsvik's Secret and her Memoirs.] Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
 * La Mara (1920): Beethoven und die Brunsviks. Nach Familienpapieren aus Therese Brunsviks Nachlaß. [Beethoven and the Brunsviks. According to Family Documents from Therese Brunsvik's Estate.] Leipzig: Siegel.
 * Jean & Brigitte Massin (1955): Ludwig van Beethoven. Paris: Fayard. (2nd ed. 1967.)
 * Jean & Brigitte Massin (1970): Recherche de Beethoven. Paris: Fayard.
 * Anton Schindler (1840): Biographie von Ludwig van Beethoven. Münster.
 * Maynard Solomon (1972): "New Light on Beethoven's Letter to an Unknown Woman." The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 58/4, pp. 572–587.
 * Maynard Solomon (2005, ed.): Beethovens Tagebuch 1812–1818. [Beethoven's Diary 1812–1818.] 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1990.) Bonn: Beethoven–Haus.
 * Rita Steblin (2007): "'Auf diese Art mit A geht alles zugrunde'. A New Look at Beethoven's Diary Entry and the 'Immortal Beloved'." Bonner Beethoven–Studien 6, pp. 147–180.
 * Rita Steblin (2009): "Beethovens 'Unsterbliche Geliebte': des Rätsels Lösung." [Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved": the Riddle Solved.] Österreichische Musikzeitschrift 64/2, pp. 4–17.
 * Marie–Elisabeth Tellenbach (1983): Beethoven und seine 'Unsterbliche Geliebte' Josephine Brunswick. Ihr Schicksal und der Einfluß auf Beethovens Werk. Zürich: Atlantis. in English: "Beethoven and his 'Immortal Beloved' Josephine Brunsvik. Her Fate and the Influence on Beethoven's Œuvre. CreateSpace 2014.
 * Max Unger (1910): Auf Spuren von Beethovens Unsterblicher Geliebten. [Traces of Beethoven's Immortal Beloved.] Langensalza.

John E Klapproth (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of the paper's watermark
I have a question: when exacly the researches with the paper's watermark of the letter were made and by whom? In German Wikipedia it is said that it was made by Joseph Schmidt-Görg when he was director of Bonn Beethoven House, but I didn't find a precise reference, not even in his bibliography. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The research on watermarks of Beethoven's letters was undertaken in the early 1960s by Schmidt-Görg. As explained in more detail by Goldschmidt (now available in English), these findings, in combination with other circumstancial evidence establish without doubt that the Letter was written in 1812. John E Klapproth (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Page Title to Undyingly Beloved
I have a question for the German scholars here. I realize that there are years of traditional translation to deal with here, but it seems to me that a vastly superior translation of Unsterbliche Geliebte would be "undyingly beloved," or, if one insists on using over-the-top latinisms instead of transliterations, "eternally beloved." I cannot believe that Beethoven felt that his beloved was immortal, and I have never read any other lover of either sex or any nationality use a similar phrase, although countless artists have described their love (though not the object of the love) as eternal. The letter itself is simply a loveletter, not a paean to a goddess. So, is either of my alternate translations a correct interpretation of "unsterbliche"? Can we rename the page and do a small bit to eradicate this distortion? Treethinker (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Immortal" was of course Beethoven's Love, not his Beloved (she died only too soon). The reason why "immortal" (literally "unsterblich") is all too appropriate here is the fact (explained in Tellenbach's book, now available in English) that Beethoven had already experienced the "Death" of this Love - when Josephine was forced to withdraw from him in 1807. Now, unexpectedly, he had met her again (on 3 July 1812 in Prague), and his love was - resurrected, and in addition (enforced by its consummation) became thus finally and irrevocably IMMORTAL. John E Klapproth (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

History of the Mystery -- or just NPOV?
After wading through the article (with almost no familiarity with the scholarship beforehand), I was left with the following conclusion. Please comment -- because either the article takes verbose effort to obscure this conclusion, or else I'm resurrecting the NPOV issue:

My understanding from this article is that much of the interest in the "IB" letter was historically (150, 100, and even 50 years ago) caused by the fact that: anyone else [even more mystery], apart from some that were suspected to be forgeries.
 * 1) there was no apparent date and/or location associated with it [a hint of mystery];
 * 2) it made no mention of the beloved's name and contained only slight clues, suggesting that the name needed to be kept secret [more mystery]; and
 * 3) Beethoven was not known to have written any other love letters to Josephine or

Now that #1 has been resolved (150 or so years after his death), and #3 has been overturned with the publication of several other letters, my conclusion from this article is that much of the previous interest was simply caused by the mystery itself surrounding this artifact: Mystery piques interest. But if his other love letters (and Josephine's) had been known, scholars would long ago have regarded this as a slightly interesting footnote to either the continuation of his relationship with her or a break from it into another lover's arms.

The key word there is slightly: My conclusion from this article is that what put most of the heat into the argument among scholars was the mystery, especially of his love life -- much of which has been resolved.

So am I correct in concluding that the long interest in this letter was caused mostly by the mystery that originally surrounded it? In more detail:
 * Did I understand the current state of knowledge about Beethoven's love life?
 * Did I understand how much mystery surrounded the letter in the beginning, and why it involved much more about his life than just the single letter itself?
 * Did I understand that most of that mystery (excluding a very short list of candidate names) has now been resolved?
 * And did I reach the correct conclusion about WHY this letter was worth so much effort (and so much heat) for so long?

If I didn't, then (regardless of the identity of the person the letter was addressed to), I believe the article has an NPOV problem.

Conversely, if I did understand correctly, then we have a needlessly convoluted article that obscures the boldfaced point by reporting exhaustively on the history of the controversy, instead of the few remaining uncertainties. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you care to read the extensive elaborations by Goldschmidt (2014, pp. 242-337) about "Music as a Biographical Document" and Tellenbach (2014, pp. 206-276) about "Traces in the Music", then you may begin to understand that this is not only about "Mystery" or even "History" (= Biography), but about the profound influence that this One (Only One!) woman and Beethoven's "immortal" love for her had on his music - the most lyrical and expressive ever written.

There is a new book coming out in 2016, "The Immortal Beloved Compendium. Everything About The Only Woman Beethoven Ever Loved – And Many He Didn't" by John E Klapproth, which informs about the complete "History of the Mystery", including its many obfuscations - and the solution of the riddle. John E Klapproth (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Antonie: refuted by Beethoven himself
This section looks very much like advocacy. The reference to Klapproth 2016 is given at the beginning; a couple of sentences are in quote marks, and then the rest looks very much like Original Research. So, what is the reference? An article on a self-publish internet site. Not a reassuringly reliable secondary source. Is the editor of this section in fact Klapproth himself? 115.64.142.162 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Content of the letter
Is it just me and nobody else is bothered that the whole article doesn’t say WHAT the letter was about? Ten pages of small handwriting must had some content, didn’t it? Ceplm (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A facsimile of the ten pages is at Commons:Category:Unsterbliche Geliebte, a transcribed annotated German version at https://web.archive.org/web/20171201182127/https://www.beethoven.de/hallo-beethoven/extern/ug-orginaltext.pdf . A web search gives https://ludwig0van0beethoven.tripod.com/beetwritings2.html where an English translation is given. There are probably more such sites. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)